Comment by gonzobonzo
3 days ago
I looked into it, and from what I can tell the only link to cancer they've found so far is in male rats exposed to high levels of it, but they haven't found evidence that it causes cancer in humans or other animals.
What's odd to me is that it's still fine to sell food like bacon, where the link to cancer in humans appears to be much, much stronger.
…or cigarettes, which are available for sale everywhere.
If unhealthy foods are to be banned, we must also ban cigarettes and alcohol. If we are to let people be bodybuilders, or body destroyers, then all of these things should be available for purchase.
Ultimately it is a special kind of arrogance to tell people what they are or are not allowed to do to the one thing they unambiguously own and control: their own body.
the difference is that you are aware and are told about tobaco (which I would ban) and alcohol, food you are not told.
Keep in mind that the negative effects (beyond the coughing and diminished lung capacity) of cigarettes have only been publicly admitted to and explicitly taught only very recently in the history of tobacco.
The tobacco industry fought tooth and nail against any suggestion that tobacco products are linked to cancer and even advertised cigarettes as healthy.
I agree with you in principle. I would caution against taking for granted what we know today to be very clearly unhealthy and cancer-causing. It is often an up-hill decades long battle against incredibly wealthy interests to get to the truth.
Ok, well then, I’m sure no Americans are eating high levels of foods that contain dyes. So, surely there are long term 20 year plus studies on cumulative effects, right?
The only rats that developed cancer more than baseline in the study had a diet that was 4% red #3. Pretty sure no Americans are approaching that lol
Depends on the definition of high level. Was the amount given to the rats equivalent of 5x fruit loop bowls, or 5,000,000x?