And recent studies show HFCS alters the folds in your gut, lengthening them. This increased surface area significantly increases the amount of calories your intestines can extract from the same volume of food.

In case anyone else is curious about this:

>The research, published August 18 in Nature, focused on the effect of a high-fructose diet on villi, the thin, hairlike structures that line the inside of the small intestine. Villi expand the surface area of the gut and help the body to absorb nutrients, including dietary fats, from food as it passes through the digestive tract. The study found that mice that were fed diets that included fructose had villi that were 25 percent to 40 percent longer than those of mice that were not fed fructose. Additionally, the increase in villus length was associated with increased nutrient absorption, weight gain and fat accumulation in the animals.[0]

[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210818135218.h...

Worth noting that the "in mice" qualifier might be particularly apropos here.

>According to Taylor, the observations in mice make sense from an evolutionary perspective. "In mammals, especially hibernating mammals in temperate climates, you have fructose being very available in the fall months when the fruit is ripe," he said. "Eating a lot of fructose may help these animals to absorb and convert more nutrients to fat, which they need to get through the winter."

Humans generally don't hibernate.

That just means they get fat for no reason.

Mice also don't hibernate.

Our evolution had a lot of steps, so well possible that we too have this feature as in the past it might have been adaptive.

> 25 percent to 40 percent longer than those of mice that were not fed fructose.

Did they compare against sucrose? I see they did have it but can't see if that result was in comparison to the control or to it.

Thanks for the tip. I'll be adding more Coke products to my survival shelter.

Unlike the USA, Mexico has warnings on their Coke and Pepsi, about excess calories and how it is not meant for children.

Those warnings sure worked considering childhood obesity of mexico

How many people actually read those warnings? See logo, buy product, consume product. Much like those mandated warnings on tobacco. Guy looks at pack 1 with a warning "May cause cancer", puts it back. Guy looks at pack 2 with a warning "May cause birth defects". Guy decides that's now his brand. (appologies to Bill Hicks)

In the UK we get 'candy' imports that are saturated with azo-dyes, they are not banned, they just have a warning on the packet, yup, a warning on the packet that says 'may cause hyperactivity', when I've drawn other parents attention, either they have never noticed it, or dismiss it as a sugar high, https://hacsg.org.uk/artificial-food-colourings-and-adhd-hyp...

Got anything that mentions amounts? This page is failing to properly quote or link to the things it talks about.

"Azo dyes are used widely as color additives in food, drugs, and cosmetics; hence, there is an increasing concern about their safety and possible health hazards. In the present study, we chose 4 azo dyes tartrazine, Sunset Yellow, amaranth, and Allura red and evaluated their developmental toxicity on zebrafish embryos. At concentration levels of 5 to 50 mM, we found that azo dyes can induce hatching difficulty and developmental abnormalities such as cardiac edema, decreased heart rate, yolk sac edema, and spinal defects including spinal curvature and tail distortion. Exposure to 100 mM of each azo dye was completely embryolethal. The median lethal concentration (LC50), median effective concentration (EC50), and teratogenic index (TI) were calculated for each azo dye at 72 hours postfertilization. For tartrazine, the LC50 was 47.10 mM and EC50 value was at 42.66 mM with TI ratio of 1.10. For Sunset Yellow, the LC50 was 38.93 mM and EC50 value was at 29.81 mM with TI ratio of 1.31. For amaranth, the LC50 was 39.86 mM and EC50 value was at 31.94 mM with TI ratio of 1.25. For Allura red, the LC50 was 47.42 mM and EC50 value was 40.05 mM with TI ratio of 1.18. This study reports the developmental toxicity of azo dyes in zebrafish embryos at concentrations higher than the expected human exposures from consuming food and drugs containing azo dyes."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31933405/

"Synthetic azo dyes are widely used in industries. Gerhardt Domagk discovered that the antimicrobial effect of red azo dye Prontosil was caused by the reductively cleaved (azo reduction) product sulfanilamide. The significance of azo reduction is thus revealed. Azo reduction can be accomplished by human intestinal microflora, skin microflora, environmental microorganisms, to a lesser extent by human liver azoreductase, and by nonbiological means. Some azo dyes can be carcinogenic without being cleaved into aromatic amines. However, the carcinogenicity of many azo dyes is due to their cleaved product such as benzidine. Benzidine induces various human and animal tumors. Another azo dye component, p-phenylenediamine, is a contact allergen. Many azo dyes and their reductively cleaved products as well as chemically related aromatic amines are reported to affect human health, causing allergies and other human maladies."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27635691/

"Approximately 0.7 million tons of azo dyes are synthesized each year. Azo dyes are composed of one or more R₁-N=N-R₂ linkages. Studies have shown that both mammalian and microbial azoreductases cleave the azo bonds of the dyes to form compounds that are potentially genotoxic. The human gastrointestinal tract harbors a diverse microbiota comprised of at least several thousand species. Both water-soluble and water-insoluble azo dyes can be reduced by intestinal bacteria. Some of the metabolites produced by intestinal microbiota have been shown to be carcinogenic to humans although the parent azo dyes may not be classified as being carcinogenic. Azoreductase activity is commonly found in intestinal bacteria. Three types of azoreductases have been characterized in bacteria. They are flavin dependent NADH preferred azoreductase, flavin dependent NADPH preferred azoreductase, and flavin free NADPH preferred azoreductase. This review highlights how azo dyes are metabolized by intestinal bacteria, mechanisms of azo reduction, and the potential contribution in the carcinogenesis/mutagenesis of the reduction of the azo dyes by intestinal microbiota."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22201895/

Okay, so the first study is 5-50 millimolar. And these dyes weigh about 500 grams per mol, so those are about 2.5 to 5 grams per liter. That seems like a very large amount and I'm not sure how relevant this is to normal food use.

The second one talks about allergens, noted though not particularly relevant, and does this have amounts anywhere?

And the third one seems to be mentioning other mechanisms to get the same effects, but is not classifying the actual danger levels based on dose? Interesting but it's not helping me figure out if the additives are safe in small amounts.

no me neither, it's very unclear and has been disputed for a long time,

Jan 1978 Hyperkinesis and diet: a double-blind crossover trial with a tartrazine challenge https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/349320/

Jan-Feb 1982; 'Sulfanilic acid: behavioral change related to azo food dyes in developing rats' 'While our work suggests a significant effect of azo food dyes on the developing rat central nervous system, species differences in parameters such as absorption, metabolism, and blood-brain barrier properties do not permit any extrapolation of these observations to proposed effects in children.'

But now we know the blood-brain barrier imagined in 1982 was not accurate so...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6803178/ From 1998 'Synthetic food colourings and 'hyperactivity': a double-blind crossover study' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3395307/

From 6 September 2007 'Major study indicates a link between hyperactivity in children and certain food additives'

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2007/09/hyperactivity-in-...

From 10 April 2008 'Food Standards Agency cites Southampton study in new recommendation on food additives'

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2008/04/food-standards-ag...

21 August 2014 'Effects of a textile azo dye on mortality, regeneration, and reproductive performance of the planarian, Girardia tigrina' https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-0...

Then from Aug 18, 2021 'The FDA says they’re safe in moderation. But some experts say their guidelines are outdated and need changes to account for the possibility that dyes affect children's brains and behaviour'

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/is-it-time-to-rethin...

The jury is still out, hopefully continuous array's together with fast and high resolution non-invasive brain scans will be able to revisit all this stuff I'd imagine?

With regards the quantity and effect quandary 'Threshold effects can be felt with as little as 25 micrograms of LSD' so who knows.

Finally it's a petrochemical derivative, just mentioning that, here, at the bottom.

"Similar term(s): genotoxicity. Definition: Toxic (damaging) to DNA. Substances that are genotoxic may bind directly to DNA or act indirectly leading to DNA damage by affecting enzymes involved in DNA replication, thereby causing mutations which may or may not lead to cancer or birth defects (inheritable damage)."

Simply because a car is moving you cannot conclude that it’s brakes do not work.

If the rate of childhood obesity would have been higher without the warnings, then they do indeed work.

Canada has no such requirements but even so we still get stuck with pop sweetened with HFCS.

because many corps look at Canada as a just another smaller less profitable part of the US market and simply swap Spanish print for French.

Everyone argues about sugar, but the true original is in Peru :)