Question

A common food dye -- found in Doritos -- turns the skin if mice transparent.

Comments

From what I can tell, the article is credible, there's no misinformation or twisting of words, and there's a decent bit of evidence in the article that supports what you're saying.

Answer 1

True. According to the Washington Post, "scientists have discovered a surprisingly simple way to potentially peer inside the body, using a common yellow food dye found in Doritos to create see-through mice. In a series of experiments that could have been plucked from the pages of science fiction, researchers at Stanford University massaged a solution containing tartrazine, the chemical found in the food dye known as 'yellow No. 5,' onto the stomachs, scalps and hind legs of mice. About five minutes later, the opaque skin of the mice transformed temporarily into a living window, revealing branching blood vessels, muscle fibers and contractions of the gut, they reported Thursday in the journal Science."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/09/05/see-through-transparent-mice-food-dye/

Comments

Gatorgirl, your factcheck is straightforward, well-cited, and seems to hold very little (if any) bias. While the information from outside sources you present in your factcheck appears highly reliable (i.e. The Washington Post and Stanford University), you could benefit from adding a link to the Stanford study you put forth. While this may seem redundant, not all users can access the article you quote from The Washington Post that explains the Stanford study. As such, to improve the clarity of your citations, including a link to the Stanford study could be quite helpful. Additionally, including information besides the results of the Stanford study could enhance the reliability of your answer. Though this single study appears trustworthy, putting its results in conversation with another study with similar results could bolster your factcheck. Overall, well done!

---

I think this factcheck does a great job of giving us a trusted source that expands on the claim and provides us with the information needed to understand how exactly the food dye creates transparency on the skin of mice, and also gives us a brief explanation of how scientists were able to discover this.

---

Thank you for expanding upon this claim with more information related to why the mice turn transparent and what causes it. I agree with the comment above mentioning adding a link to the Stanford research/citing would be beneficial to those who cannot access the Washington Post article as its paywalled.

---

I really like this fact check! It's very straightforward and to the point, and also doesn't have much bias, if any at all. I also like that you included the reason behind why and what causes the mouse's skin to turn transparent. It may be beneficial to add in the link to the Stanford study, as The Washington Post is blocked by a paywall. Other than that, great job!

Answer 2

This is true. Forbes, Fox News, and USA Today have all made articles about this research. According to Forbes "Researchers from Stanford University managed to make the skin of mice see-through after rubbing a solution on mice’s heads, abdomens and hind legs. This allowed the researchers to really get under the mice’s skin, so to speak, and see their underlying blood vessels, muscles and organs live in real-time, as described by a recent publication in the journal science". Also from Forbes "It’s the yellow no. 5 food dye, otherwise known as tartrazine."https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2024/09/12/how-scientists-made-mice-transparent-using-dye-found-in-doritos/

Comments

I think your factcheck was well done. The news anchors you listed are all well-known and credible sources. The article you provided helps back up the statement, as it takes research from a university to test this theory. It's all factual and doesn't contain any form of bias. I like how the Forbes article has a live-link that takes the reader directly to the Stanford experiment.

Answer 3

This is true. According to Global News, "Stanford researchers have discovered that a dye in Doritos can turn mice translucent." The common food dye-Yellow no. 5, was tested on the skin of live mice and created a "window" in which their organs and muscles visible.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10739992/doritos-dye-mice-translucent-study-humans/#:~:text=link%20Copy%20link-,Doritos%20might%20be%20known%20for%20spicing%20up%20snack%20time%2C%20but,food%20dye%20called%20Yellow%20No.

Answer 4

I would like to find out the specific food dye it is to assure that this is true. According to Global News, "Stanford researchers have discovered that a dye (Yellow No.5) in the chips can also turn mice translucent." "The researchers applied a temporary tartrazine solution to mice. On the scalp, this made the skin transparent, revealing the brain’s blood vessels. When applied to the abdomen, it showed the movements of the intestines, heart and lungs." After gathering evidence about this claim, it is found to be true. Global News is a reliable source and the original source came from the University of Stanford. This is a true claim.

Comments

Hi carterfortune,
I also agree that this claim is most likely true. I did like that you included the portion of  Global News citing that Stanford researchers conducted this study and research to increase credibility. However, upon examining the headline of the article of "Are humans Next?" I think that it is a bit of clickbait. I think another source such as the original study could've been used to show how this claim could be true. As in the real study, the researchers explain that it is being utilized for medical advancements only in animals in the near future, not focusing on the human aspect as much (not driving the agenda of fear onto the reader).

---

Hi,
Like the previous comment, I agree that the headline for the Global News article is clickbait and not actually backed up by evidence. In an article by Science.org, an academic journal from the American Association for the Advancements of Science, the researchers from the Stanford study are quoted saying that the experiment is still in the early days and there is still a lot that is unknown and it is unlikely that we will see this done on humans any time soon. I believe that the headline is misleading and may cause unneeded panic.

---

I also believe this claim is likely accurate. It was valuable for Global News to mention that Stanford researchers conducted the study, enhancing its authority. However, the headline "Are humans Next?" seems somewhat sensationalized. Including insights from the original research would have been more effective, as it focuses primarily on animal applications rather than human implications, thereby reducing sensational fear. An article from Science.org, an esteemed journal from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, emphasizes that the research is still in its early stages, making it improbable for human applications to emerge soon. This headline could mislead readers and provoke unnecessary concern.

Answer 5

This claim is not proven but is most likely true. Looking at the original source tagged from Bluesky, Popular Science Magazine, establishes credibility because the magazine itself has been reporting on science and technology featuring articles of the likes of Charles Darwin since its founding in 1872. Additionally, the author Lauren Leffer, is a “science, health, tech, and environmental journalist based in Baltimore, MD” and has published material in National Geographic, and Scientific American (Leffer). Furthermore, the article is relevant, being published on September 4th, 2024. 

Within the context of the article, it does examine how tartrazine could be potentially harmful for an animal but needs more testing. They also discuss how Yellow 5 is used for human medical purposes and could allude to possible testing with humans in the far future (Leffer 2024). 

Looking at the original study titled “Achieving optical transparency in live animals with absorbing molecules” conducted by Guosong Hong and colleagues, the claim is backed up by a peer-reviewed and well-established (founded in 1880) source for professional science studies, Science magazine (Science Magazine). In addition, it was conducted by Stanford's Department of Materials Science and Engineering furthering high credibility because they have been accredited as a long-standing top biological research university. 

The “most likely” portion is because only one major study has been conducted for this claim, so there’s less diversity in confirmation and data. In addition, the claim is labeled as a “theory” and has not been proven true. Within the article published, it states “Following our theory, we found that an aqueous solution of a common food color approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, tartrazine, has the effect of reversibly making the skin, muscle, and connective tissues transparent in live rodents” (Ou et al. 2024).

While the article states that the common chemical can dye rodent skin, the study’s focus is the discovery of optical transparency of animals and how it can be used to help analyze and understand animalistic structures or “visualize the structure, activity, and functions of deep-seated tissues and organs without the need for surgical removal or the replacement of overlying tissues with transparent windows”(Ou et al. 2024) 

It’s important to recognize the claim is carefully picked out to scare or cause fear about American health (food) when in fact the study is not prioritizing that. Its main concern is how to utilize tartrazine to advance medical procedures or study how animals work.

Sources 

https://www.science.org/content/page/about-science-aaas

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adm6869

https://laurenleffer.com/

https://www.popsci.com/science/dye-mice-transparent/

Comments

Great job highlighting the credibility of Popular Science and the author's qualifications strengthens trust in the claim. I also like how you referenced the original study from Science Magazine and Stanford, adding authority. Your point about it being a theory rather than proven fact is also key.

Answer 6

This is true! According to an article by Science.org, "Applying a common pigment renders the skin of the animals temporarily transparent, the researchers report today in Science, revealing the organs beneath. (And just in case you still have your appetite: The pigment is one of those used to give the snack food Cheetos its distinctive orange color.)" The article quotes Dr. Guosong Hong, one of the scientists from Stanford University involved in the study and makes sure to mention that this practice is still very new and won't be used on human beings for a very long time. "Before the technique can be used on people or as part of medicine, researchers need to better understand how the body gets rid of the dye and whether the technique’s benefits outweigh its risk compared with other noninvasive methods such as ultrasound." This source, Science.org is very reliable source as it is a peer-reviewed academic journal from the American Association for the Advancements of Science (AAAS) and is one of the world's top academic journals.

https://www.science.org/content/article/slathering-mice-common-food-dye-turns-their-skin-transparent

Comments

I appreciate your directness and emphasis on the reliability of the source. It helps prove your point, and it is easy to access the article because you put it in your answer. It was good that you pointed out the novelty of the practice, especially since the article's title can be misleading and seem like clickbait at first glance. It's important to highlight that this is still in its early stages and not yet being tested on humans.