Food Dyes Under Fire

Food dyes derived from petroleum offer zero health benefits while potentially causing serious health problems and driving poor food choices. The government is finally taking action against these substances, but true change requires both regulatory efforts and educated consumers.

• RFK Jr. is targeting eight petroleum-based food dyes to be removed from foods by next year
• Food dyes like Red 40 and Yellow 5 serve no nutritional purpose and exist purely for visual appeal
• Double-blind studies have linked Red 40 to increased hyperactivity in children with ADHD
• Yellow 40 has been connected to a 2-3% increase in asthmatic events
• Animal studies show high concentrations of dyes may increase tumor development tenfold
• Natural alternatives like beet and carrot colorings offer some nutritional benefits with none of the risks
• The regulatory process to remove harmful ingredients can take 5-10 years due to industry pushback
• Trans fats were banned six years ago but still appear in many foods through labeling loopholes
• European food standards are significantly higher than American standards
• Companies often market unhealthy, artificially colored products specifically to children
• Many common food additives banned in the EU remain legal in the US

Don't forget, hit subscribe, share. It's the only way this grows. Let's start some topics. Let's make America simple again when it comes to food.

Chapters

• 0:00 Episode Introduction and New Studio Launch
• 0:49 Predictions Come True About Food Dyes
• 1:33 What Are Food Dyes and Their Purpose
• 4:04 Health Effects and Studies on Dyes
• 6:26 Natural Alternatives vs. Artificial Colors
• 10:30 The Slow Process of Banning Ingredients
• 15:22 Marketing to Kids and Government Role
• 18:14 Call to Action and Closing Thoughts

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:08

Hello and welcome to Health and Fitness Redefined. I'm your host, anthony Amen. It's another great episode for all of you today. Yes, another solo episode. I know you're all super excited for this. No guests? No, I'm just kidding. The guests have been absolutely amazing. Thank you, guys. I look a little run down and tired. We just launched our brand new location over in Mount Sinai Premium personal training studio. Everything is top of the line. We had over 200 people attend a grand opening event and it was a lot of planning. It was a lot of fun. So thank you all those that attended and super excited to see where the where the future takes us down this route.

Speaker 1: 0:49

So this is going to be a little bit of a bragging episode and then it's going to turn into a little bit of the science, like you guys all love. So first let's start with the bragging side of it. You're going to go all the way back. First week of january, I did a five predictions episode and my my number one prediction was that RFK is going to come up and put a stab into the food industry specifically related to dyes, and that has officially happened. I'm sure all of you have seen the news stating that he's trying to really specifically target eight separate dyes those are petroleum-based dyes and to get them out of the foods by the end of next year. So very interesting. This is all finally standing around. First prediction has come true boom, super excited about that as well.

Speaker 1: 1:32

So let's talk a little more about dyes, what they are. Should we care? And this is a bunch of just heebie-jeebie, etc. Etc. Right, we came for the facts, not just to hear specific things. So first let's talk about dyes. What are we talking about? We're talking about specific ones like Red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6, or Punto U4R those specific dyes.

Speaker 1: 1:58

If you look at food labels, on the back it usually says other ingredients and it's one of the last two ingredients. For those that don't know an ingredients label on a food package, the last thing listed it's by weight. So the things that are the heaviest are going to be further up, like usually water is a big one. That's the first one and then all the way down the line. So a dye is not going to have a lot of weight in it, so it's usually going to be the last or second to last thing inside ingredients. What does this offer us? What would it dies? Are the benefits on none, there's zero, there's. There's no like positive health benefits whatsoever.

Speaker 1: 2:37

They're just derived from petroleum or crude oil. It's a byproduct of it and they're specifically designed to make colors appear more vibrant, right? So when you're looking at specific foods, you're like oh, how does that get so red? It says cherry. It's not because it's cherry in the food, it's because it's a petroleum-based food dye that makes it look so cool, right? Marketers use this all the time, because if I take a naturally occurring cherry flavor, throw it in there and then I give you the red food dye, the natural one's going to look really dull and the dye is going to look really sharp, and you're always going to be drawn to that sharp, glossy look, so you're more likely to buy it. Therefore, that's why it's in specific foods that need to target dye-based things.

Speaker 1: 3:23

Or if you look at sugar products, like specifically like candies, like, are all white? Right, they're sugar. They're white or brown. That's how sugar comes. So, in order to make them appear different from each other, they're all dyed. So this is how I can say one candy is different, rather.

Speaker 1: 3:38

Otherwise you're going to take a packet like Skittles. Or I don't want the M&MsM's Because the M&M's have chocolate in it, but you know what I mean. Like the coating of an M&M Ignoring the chocolate on the inside. They're both going to be white. They're both just sugar in a circle. And why are you going to care about one over the other If they're both the same color? So that's the idea behind them, that's why they're a thing Anyway. So should we care about? So that's the idea behind them, that's why they're a thing Anyway. So should we care about the cancellation? Should we care about eating food dyes? And this is kind of where it plays a tricky role, right? So there's been a couple of studies that have been done on this, specifically with RED40.

Speaker 1: 4:23

Red40 has been studied a lot for hyperactivity, those that do have ADD ADHD. There was a double-blind study done back in 2007 that has shown upticks in hyperactivity. So specifically those with that subset are going to have higher amounts of hyperactivity. And then you add that into kids being on iPads, not getting their energy out, all these other fun things that are happening, and it's just going to. This is why ADHD levels have skyrocketed, not that they might be true ADHD levels, but those kids that are experiencing and having way more hyperactivity, and red 40 is definitely one of the ones that have been shown out. The other one that's been specifically targeted is yellow 40. Yellow 40 had a double blind study for asthma and it has been shown to have a two to three percent reaction towards having higher asthmatic events, which, which is very interesting, I didn't know that prior to that. So specific that one food dye I said.

Speaker 1: 5:28

Besides that there has been some studies done on rodents, like there are not many on humans, but a lot on rats, and there was a rat study that found there was a 10 times greater chance of having tumors, but only at super high concentrations. And this is specifically with those dyes I mentioned before. If you have too many of them, you do have a higher chance of getting tumors. But this was a rat study, this wasn't a human study. And they say like super high, like you got to have candy all day, every day, and then you can increase your odds. My point on this if you're having things that are filled with dyes all day anyway, your health choices probably aren't the best. So is it really the dye or is it really your food choices, right? So who? I don't really know. There needs to be more study, research done on this in general. Now what's going to happen? Right, so we have an understanding of what the science shows us. We have an understanding for the bandits. In fact, you see it's a long ways out now.

Speaker 1: 6:35

First my take and then how the process is going to happen, because what you're hearing, the news, isn't necessarily true. So let's talk about my take. I want to have the same take on this as I do with a lot of other things, for example, like microplastics or vaccines. I don't think we can specifically show, and which is why it's hard to prove these things in a lab a plus B equals C. So so if I have this red 40 and I give it a high doses, it causes hyperactivity and ADD or nothing. Maybe it costs nothing.

Speaker 1: 7:11

And then I test another dye, this dye on its own. Give it to this person, these people. Positive reaction, no. But what if I took all of them and put it together and I exposed someone over a lifetime 40, 50 years Is it going to have an adverse effect? Take microplastics Is microplastics, small amount, going to affect your body? No, if you have it over your entire lifetime and that incrementally increases, is that going to cause issues? Yes, different story.

Speaker 1: 7:46

Take vaccines, which is always my argument for it. I don't think, specifically related to vaccines, that one vaccine is going to show something negative. As an example, mmr it causes autism. I don't believe that from a whole lot of all. But if I give someone, from what a normal kid gets at, like eight to 10 vaccines and then I bump it down to 35 vaccines, is it the amount that they're getting that's causing issues? Maybe? Right, I'm gonna do another episode on this because I think it's so intriguing.

Speaker 1: 8:20

But going back to dyes, if there's one specific dye in a controlled study cause something specific, probably not. Does all the dyes in all different types of foods at all, different concentrations with an overexposure of it to us, cause issues? Yes, even on the flip side of that. Let's go back to the marketing example I gave. If I have two dye, two colored things that are red, one's 40, one's like a beet flavored like beet covered juice, the red 40, even if it may not have any specific adverse effects, and we're going to go buy this over, going at the one that's coated in beets, the one that's coated in beets actually has traces of antioxidants on it and traces of the vitamins that are found in beets and doesn't have all these adverse effects, but because that are found in beets and doesn't have all these adverse effects. But because that red 41 looks prettier, and especially to kids, I'm going to reach for that one. I'm going to go grab that one. So we should stop something before it becomes a bigger problem.

Speaker 1: 9:23

Why take a gamble when we have alternatives? Right? The only reason is because it looks pretty. It doesn't offer anything extra benefit besides that, and we have alternatives such as beet flavored or carrot colored. They look slightly less prettier. This is what we're talking about and this is why I don't get to send people getting upset. It's slightly less prettier, it offers way more benefits and it definitely doesn't have maybe these big negative side effects that maybe we don't know about because we really haven't studied it. So why go for the thing that's questionable and definitely has no positive side effects and instead of going for the thing that might have some positive side effects, no negative side effects, and just looks slightly more dull?

Speaker 1: 10:07

And maybe kids will eat less sugar, maybe they'll eat less candies or all these processed foods, that those stuff that has all the dyes. There's all the heavily processed foods they shouldn't be eating, and a lot greater some anyway. So maybe if we make those foods duller, people would eat less of them. Therefore, they go for naturally current, vibrant things, like I always think of bell peppers. Like bell peppers are super vibrant when they first Eat less of them. Therefore, they go for naturally current, vibrant things, like I always think of bell peppers. Like bell peppers are super vibrant when they first come out, like you have yellows, you have greens, you have reds, you got some purples now, right, so they shine and like, if you get kids attracted to that, as opposed to getting kids attracted to Twizzlers Skittles, they're going to create different habits, right.

Speaker 1: 10:50

And then maybe through this, this could be a workaround to go after the childhood obesity epidemic that we're currently experiencing, which, when we did a podcast episode on that about four years ago, has now doubled. So absolutely mind-blowing. I'm all in for it. Now, what's going to happen, right? What's going to be the process? It's a lot. So first they have to submit for an NPRM, which is just basically submit to a manager and budget review. It takes about three to six months. Then there's public comment for 60 days, then there's review and then there's a final rule that takes anywhere from three to nine months, and then there's review and then there's a final rule that takes anywhere from three to nine months, and then there's industry compliance, giving the places enough time to get rid of it and maybe they go away by 2027, 2028. Well, here's the issue Things people aren't going to talk about.

Speaker 1: 11:45

Let's still go to trans fat, which you've heard me talk about many, many times for those that watch the show, but if you don't, let's give a little history lesson. Trans fat was banned six years ago. It's still in foods. Why? Because companies keep saying I need more time. I can't get complying to get it out. It keeps my food more shelf stable and I can't get out. We know that's bad for you. Trans fats horrible. Processed trans partial hydrogenated oils atrocious. And they're still mislabeling things.

Speaker 1: 12:16

You look at peanut butter. As I always say, you buy your skippy, you buy your peter pan. You know it says zero grams of trans fat. Look, there's anything that's not in it, yeah. You look at the serving size they make it, so it's not in it. Yeah, you look at the serving size they make it, so it's 0.4 grams of trans fat, right. And then they could say zero because under 0.5, just by changing the serving size. But you don't know unless you look in the ingredients and then you see partially hydrogenated oils in the ingredients. So you really have to know that in order to figure out if I'm eating. This thing is bad, it's.

Speaker 1: 12:49

It's crazy like in the us, which I understand like you want to give companies free will, let them with the market demand, but I think it's different when it comes to our food and our water, because these are things that we heavily rely on and 99 of people can't benefit themselves on it, so therefore they have to go out and buy it and we're not taught properly through our education systems on it. So most people just don't know, like what they're looking at, what they're reading. And I explain these things to people and they're always like wait, really, really like, yeah, people just don't know. And you take something like this that's been pushed out five years. So this diving might be pushed out of the five years and I think the government, if anything, should play a bigger role in banning foods, like I always say, like acid, you don't want acid foods. Like right, you don't want cocaine in your coca-cola, like it used to be. For those that don't know that. So little things like that the government does have to play a role to knock out of foods, and the EU has way higher standards of food ratings than we do. Like you always.

Speaker 1: 13:59

Look at Heinz ketchup. Heinz ketchup is 90 different of what's listed in the EU and what's here. So the company is already making the healthier product that has less ingredients, but they're still marketing to Americans the worst one because it's cheaper to make. It relies more on artificially processed things that are way cheaper than a naturally occurring, like tomatoes, for example, tomato paste. And then, as a consumer, you just need to know what to look for and you need to know how to read a label just to find your ketchup and it's annoying. How are you supposed to know that? It's so tough? There's red diet and ketchup. There's high fructose corn syrup and ketchup. Like you need to go and look and read a label to know what the different type of ketchup you're getting.

Speaker 1: 14:42

I just want to go to the store and go buy ketchup. I just like get so overwhelmed because I know so much. I'm going to the store and I'm looking at every single freaking label and I'm reading it. So I spend an hour just reading labels, everything I pick up and I'm just getting frustrated because I'm like, screw it, I'm not buying anything that has a process at all. I just buy meat, I know we're good, I don't worry about anything injected into it, just raw meat. Bum, dum, go home bye.

Speaker 1: 15:11

And I would like to enjoy different foods, but I just don't want to sit there and read labels every single freaking time I go in because I'm worried about what's in it and I have to keep my own health and standards. Like maybe, maybe I want sorbet. Right, I love sorbet's great. I said people like oh sure, yeah, it's good once in a while, just a little tiny couple spoonfuls. But I don't want to eat sorbet that has yellow 40 in it. I don't want to eat it to be that it's high fructose corn syrup in it. I don't want to eat sorbet that there's so many ingredients I can't even pronounce that I I just want sorbet that's water, fruit and ice.

Speaker 1: 15:47

Is that too hard to ask? Is that too hard to ask? That's the question. Can our food supply just get simpler? Can we make everything simple again? I think that's the real answer. Make America healthy, make it simple again. Make food simple. Make it easy to understand. Make it easy for the average consumer to know what they're going to look like to understand. Make it easy for the average consumer to know what they're going to look like and not to worry that, hey, dives might be better for you, but now we have to convince everyone to stop buying it because if you do the digital process effort to get it out of the out of the food, it's going to take at least two years, if not seven, eight, nine, ten years to get out of foods. The only way to truly get out of the food is to educate everyone on it, which is what we're doing now. And people stop buying it. Then companies go. I guess there's no demand for it and they slowly start switching over. But it's still going to be marketed. Kids don't know.

Speaker 1: 16:39

You see all these cereal commercials and you look at the cereal. It's vibrant. There's so much shit in cereal. Cereal is one of the worst things you can eat and it's marketed to kids that it's healthy and convinced a whole generation that's my parents' generation that it's one of the healthiest things to eat. Have some cereal and milk, got milk? Add it to your cereal in the morning. Right, remember those commercials Over and over and over again. And it's horrible. We shouldn't have been doing that Like at all. And we were just taught eggs were bad. Meanwhile eggs are one of the healthiest things you can eat. I don't. And we were just taught eggs were bad. Meanwhile eggs are one of the healthiest things you can eat. I eat eight eggs every single morning. It's super healthy.

Speaker 1: 17:23

We got to start thinking eat real foods, eat things that aren't processed and stop marketing to kids unhealthy shit, because that's how they know they make the money, and I think there's a line there which it's something we can definitely talk about. I would love to hear your opinions on this, if you guys have any comments about what you think the way marketing should be done to kids. Should we allow diets and food? Should we allow diets? How much of a role should government play? How much more should we rely on free market? This is a tough topic, right, because it's really a line there somewhere, but it's really gray area and all mixed between.

Speaker 1: 17:57

So what's next? I think RFK is going to come out and he's going to talk about banning some other things like thank God, like sodium benzenate, which is a known carcinogen, is still in foods. It's banned in the entirety of the EU, but it's a known carcinogen because they say only when it's in heat, so great you lived in 40 of the 50 states where it's warm, or it's in a truck that doesn't have AC, it's a big stomach carcinogen then I don't know, good luck. Or potassium bromide, which has been linked to cancer and rodents, yet again banned in the EU. Or BHA, bht, which are possible endocrine distributors and the FDA is currently reviewing them, which is good to hear. And then propoparaben, which also has endocrine consoles, and yet again banned in the EU.

Speaker 1: 18:49

So anyway, guys, that's all I have for you today, but please let me know what do you think? Do you think that DAI should be banned? How big of a role do you think the government should play when it comes to food? How much research should be put into the kind of foods we're eating? How much should the role of the government play in the marketing side of the food industry? Right, because that's another whole topic. Like what does that look like each way? But thank you, guys for joining us in this week's episode of Health and Fitness Redefined. Great job doing a solo episode. Really appreciate you all listening to this today. Don't forget, hit, subscribe, share. It's only the way this grows. Give other people's opinions. Let's start some topics. Let's make america simple again when it comes to food. Don't forget fitness and medicine. Until next time, thank you. Outro Music.