The part i caught was Gupta saying there was no known negative side effects in humans, its was cheaper, and created the brighter colors people “wanted” in their food.
Food additives have a really weird regulatory framework that effectively seems to operate under the presumption of safety, so if there's chatter that studies are starting to show something might be amiss with a given additive, manufacturers can proactively swap in new things that have no record of causing issues (because they have no record at all). This, along with cost savings, is why our favorite processed snacks don't hit like they used too: they've all got a treadmill of shifting ingredients and aren't same as we remember. The Twinkie of Theseus, if you will.
He does do a "correlation not causation" bit and implies that, since the dyes are usually found in ultra-processed foods, it could be the ultra-processed aspect of the foods that are the source of harm. But I wouldn't have described it as "shilling" after seeing that video.
Right here he advises to not eat so many of those ultra-processed foods
enter text
Reddit's favorite mid-wit retort, so unsurprising CNN plays to it.
Multiple correlations lead to a proper hypothesis and leads to some actual science. But they just hand-wave it away, if they don't like what they think the hypothesis might be, to support whatever the NPC flagbearer shouts today.
and created the brighter colors people “wanted” in their food.
Meanwhile he'll tell you cigarette companies are super bad because they're modified to make them more appealing and addictive.
Which, from someone who completely removed processed foods from their diet, everything on that table looks exceptionally gross to me precisely because it's so unnaturally colored. That table is a dystopian masterpiece of our fucked up food system.
The part i caught was Gupta saying there was no known negative side effects in humans, its was cheaper, and created the brighter colors people “wanted” in their food.
Food additives have a really weird regulatory framework that effectively seems to operate under the presumption of safety, so if there's chatter that studies are starting to show something might be amiss with a given additive, manufacturers can proactively swap in new things that have no record of causing issues (because they have no record at all). This, along with cost savings, is why our favorite processed snacks don't hit like they used too: they've all got a treadmill of shifting ingredients and aren't same as we remember. The Twinkie of Theseus, if you will.
He does do a "correlation not causation" bit and implies that, since the dyes are usually found in ultra-processed foods, it could be the ultra-processed aspect of the foods that are the source of harm. But I wouldn't have described it as "shilling" after seeing that video.
Right here he advises to not eat so many of those ultra-processed foods enter text
Reddit's favorite mid-wit retort, so unsurprising CNN plays to it.
Multiple correlations lead to a proper hypothesis and leads to some actual science. But they just hand-wave it away, if they don't like what they think the hypothesis might be, to support whatever the NPC flagbearer shouts today.
Meanwhile he'll tell you cigarette companies are super bad because they're modified to make them more appealing and addictive.
Which, from someone who completely removed processed foods from their diet, everything on that table looks exceptionally gross to me precisely because it's so unnaturally colored. That table is a dystopian masterpiece of our fucked up food system.
There's nothing like turning your toilet green after eating too much Blue No. 1.