Well that sucks.
this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
102 points (97.2% liked)
science
27139 readers
317 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
And they won't do anything about it because adding it helps them make $1.27 more on every sale.
Or something along those lines.
What a fun time to be alive when it seems like everything we've been doing the past like 70 years is wrong, we've been just throwing caution to the wind to make money on so much garbage from useless to completely dangerous, we've been poisoning ourselves and the world with this endless capitalistic nightmare in the name of progress when it's all been just a bunch of bullshit. There's some good stuff too don't get me wrong, but every day I realize more and more how useless 99.9% of the stuff in the stores is. A washcloth is just as good an exfoliator as that bottle of plastic beads they sell for $10 and you can use it over and over and over. We've really fucked up bad.
The Enlightenment came when we realized everything we’ve been doing the past like 10,000 years is wrong, we’ve been just throwing caution to the wind to appease the church and get into heaven. It brought about the scientific method, the Industrial Revolution, and the age of computers.
It’s what taught us to measure the material world, proportion belief to evidence, … but it’s also what put the onus on us to do that. When we do it poorly, politically, to deceive, or not at all — we break the integrity of the system from which we mold our entire way of life; our “enlightened” way of life.
I am not sure what’s more likely, that we failed the initiative of the Enlightenment or that we were arrogant enough to believe it could cure our arrogance.
It's curious, I'm not sure if this is the last throes of those forces that were fighting against The Enlightenment or just another in the endless battles of good vs. evil, I suppose it's ridiculous to think it will ever be won or things will ever be perfect but they could certainly be much better for more people. I mean, I'm just as guilty, I was taught and thought that we had solved a lot of these problems already, or were on our way to, and I believed it.
So vitamin C is bad for you now?
“Naturally occurring ascorbic acid and added ascorbic acid — which may be chemically manufactured — may have different impacts on health,” said Touvier, who is also director of research at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris.
“Thus, the results observed here for these food additives are not true for natural substances found in fruits and vegetables,” she added.
I know this might just be the reporting, but this feels kinda wishy washy. Why? What's different about it
Gonna have to read the paper when I'm more awake
What they are saying is supplements are bad for you, get vitamins from food, not pills. It has to do with dose and time, too much VitC too quickly triggers the opposite effect of what you want.
Linus Pauling started the whole supplements craze with hyper dosing vitamin C. Both he and his wife died of cancer. Classic example of Nobel disease where an award causes people to start believing their own bullshit because everyone calls them a genius.
Ascorbic acid has two enantiomers. Only one of them is "vitamin C". I'm not sure if this is what she's referring to, though.
In another interview (in French, sorry), when talking about beta-carotene, she says that a substance isolated from its natural environment (other molecules, cells, etc.) and replaced with a pure, synthetic version could have very different biological properties.
Honestly, I think we still know very little about this. This research is about strong statistical associations. A lot more research is needed to understand the exact biological processes.
Something to consider is differences in absorption and context. One angle is coabsorbtion, where two molecules can be absorbed better together than apart. Another is binding, such as with lectins which can bind to some micro nutrients and prevent absorption. So if you add lots of something which is not bound like it naturally would be with foods that contain it then absorption may be disregulated and you may have wildly different levels absorbed than the nutritional label would suggest.
Adding lots of vitamin C to foods because of a cosmetic or preservative function may not be the best idea given how active it is in the body. Maybe it has a similar effect in the gut to what it does in the food in the packet, killing a bunch of microbes, and therefore could impact our gut microbiome. We don't have the data yet on the mechanisms, so we should withhold judgement for now.
What about supplements? Those aren't any more natural than additives. You'd think if vitamin C were dangerous it would have been found out decades ago.
It was. High dose vitamin C is a bad idea. Americans are obsessed with any quick fixes in pill forms.
That's interesting, and what does it have to do with preservatives, colourants, and OPs article?
Eh. Conforms to my worldview about evil capitalism, so I'm just going to accept it.
Gotta respect your honesty
When I hear "chemically manufactured" I immediately doubt. Everything is chemically manufactured.
Yeah same, I'll also definitly read the paper later and whatnot.
Here's the press release from INSERM, which is likely a better source: https://presse.inserm.fr/en/colorants-conservateurs-trois-nouvelles-etudes-pointent-des-liens-entre-additifs-alimentaires-et-risque-accru-de-cancer-de-maladies-cardiovasculaires-et-dhypertension/72881/