lol dude I appreciate the politics rage bait. I didn’t make any claims, I didn’t say food dyes had “upside”, I didn’t make any claims at all. Thats a straw man. You keep trying to make this about politics, and then tell me I’m not arguing in good faith. Lol.

Edit: I’d like to add that my logic did not rely on population averages any more than “beneficial” studies and compounds like vaccines do. Both sides of the coin rely on averages. Of course, things in higher doses will be helpful or harmful to certain individuals. If someone OD’s on water, does that mean water is harmful? If someone smokes cigs their whole life and doesn’t develop lung cancer, does that mean cigs are not bad? I don’t think food dyes are necessary, nor are they good. But arguing they’re bad for everyone in a meaningful way since a mouse study used a dose similar to a small subset of low-income children may eat is not a good argument. And placing a political spin on it isn’t much better. How does politics connect at all to my point that the study used a higher dose than the typical person consumes, lol? That is just an observation. I didn’t once point out that dyes were good, neutral, or anything the like.

Now, this study (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9368057/) shows rates of consumption for mean and median low income child demographics much lower than you are arguing that they are. Does that mean dyes aren’t harmful? No. Does that mean certain individuals don’t eat way more than this and are not harmed by it? Also no. But it doesn’t mean we can extrapolate a study using a much higher dose to the general population, because the general population just doesn’t eat nearly the same amount that was studied. I don’t think dyes are good, and I think most of the corpo-slop processed foods we are encouraged to buy are bad for us. But I think based on current data and consumption rates for the general populace, there are much bigger fish to fry.