Question

Food coloring causes cancer

Comments

The claim used here is a little misleading as certain kinds of food dye may cause cancer for humans but not for animals and vice versa. While the source seems to be credible taking their information 'directly' from the FDA, the claim is a little too broad.

Answer 1

This claim is very exaggerated. Your source seems very legitimate but your interpretation isn't correct. The article specifically focuses on the color additive Red 3. Since you didn't quote the specific evidence you're pulling this claim from I'm guessing it's coming from the testings done on animals. The FDA has only proven the effects of Red 3 on animals. "There have not been studies showing that it causes thyroid cancer in humans, but the FDA now lists red dye 3 as an animal carcinogen." 

https://www.houstonmethodist.org/blog/articles/2024/may/is-red-dye-no-3-in-food-bad-for-you-a-dieticians-take/#:~:text=%22Studies%20now%20show%20that%20red,3%20as%20an%20animal%20carcinogen.%22

So not only is it not all food coloring but one singular type, it also hasn't been proven to effect humans. This claim could cause major panic if it was broadcasted as you stated it. 

Comments

Thanks for the clarification, as a food color user these claims are very important to me. The website you provided I thought did a great job explaining why and how red 3 is detrimental to humans and animals

---

Your fact check is very good at explaining the actual content in the source and that the claim itself isn't factual. Thank you for directly separating the misleading information from the facts; your explanation helped me better understand this topic.

Answer 2

The claim you put as your title is a bit misleading, since the article itself is only talking about Red 3, one food dye used for coloring. Not all food coloring necessarily causes cancer, but Red 3 might. 

The article claims that "when a substance is shown to cause cancer in animals, it is presumed to cause cancer in humans." According to the FDA website on Red 3, "the way that Red No. 3 causes cancer in animals, specifically rats, does not occur in humans so these animal results have limited relevance to humans." This is fairly vague wording, but presumably means that Red 3 may not be carcinogenic for humans. The FDA page also explains how the use of Red 3 for foods and ingested drugs was already authorized before Red 3 was "associated with animal carcinogenicity." We may be able to infer that removing authorization for use of a chemical is difficult which is why the use of Red 3 for cosmetics and topical drugs was denied, but it can still be used in food.

The source is Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit organization that advocates for safer and healthier foods, so it most likely does not have alternative intentions that would drive it to provide false information.

Consumer Reports claims that Red 3 has actually been proven to have negative behavioral effects on children and that the reason the FDA hasn't taken action to remove Red 3 from the accepted list is because of complicated internal processes. This information is probably true.

Comments

Your factcheck is done well but the fact the claim is incorrect is very clear. The claim is too broad and generalizes all food coloring instead of just red 3 like the article focused on. We can not assume the effects of Red 3 on humans when they have not yet been proven. So it isn't good to say it is "probably true". The claim is exaggerated and misleading.

---

I like how this factcheck really prefaced that the claim was misleading and almost generalized food colors as a whole. FDA is a nationally trusted source in which you included to support your fact check. You went into detail that Red 3 may not be a carcinogenic for humans, but for animals it might. The claim did say that food coloring causes cancer, and in a sense, it does (but it is extremely generalized). You included clear and logical reasoning and backed it up with valid sources which makes this factcheck true. However, I wonder what you meant in your last paragraph about consumer reports. You state that Red 3 has "actually proven to have negative behavioral effects on children...the FDA hasn't taken action to remove Red 3 because of complicated internal processes". You state this information is "probably true" which makes me question if that has anything to do with FDA's research on this chemical that is not cancer related.

Answer 3

This article states that the FDA claims that Red 40 causes cancer. The argument refers to the fact that Red 40 is banned in cosmetics but not in things like food, which is something we ingest every day. The article, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is a non-profit consumer group that advocates for eating cleaner foods. They draw information from credible sources such as The Enviornmental Working Group (https://www.ewg.org/foodscores/ingredients/19151-RED3/search/) and California's Office of Enviornmental Health Hazard Assessment (https://oehha.ca.gov/risk-assessment/synthetic-food-dye-risk-assessment). Similar information and claims can also be found in a report published by the National Institutes of Health, meaning other credible organizations are confident reporting on this claim.

Answer 4

This kind of makes it seem like you are referring to all food dyes in general but the main focus is Red 3 or Erythosine that causes cancer in animals. It is presumed that it would also have the same effect on humans as well. The FDA states that in can be injected in small portions without harming people and that the testing done on animals causing the reaction is different from taking it by mouth in small portions for humans. In the CSPINET they do state that they have negative effects in children such as inattentiveness, hyperactivity, and restlessness but on a consistent diet of 1mg of it a day.

Comments

This fact check went over the main issue with the original claim but your support is a little lacking. I would add another link to show where you're getting your supporting evidence. Also you don't seem to completely disagree or agree with the claim. The claim is false as it is exaggerative and misleading. As you stated it is presumed to have the same effect on humans but it has yet been proven.

Answer 5

According ton this article https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/food-dyes#TOC_TITLE_HDR_4 food coloring may cause hyperactivity in children but necessarily cancer. It gives more energy but not cancer.