Food for Thought: What Does the Data Say About Food Dye Safety?

Summary

Harvard Data Science Review Podcast: "Food for Thought: What Does the Data Say About Food Dye Safety?"

Release Date: July 29, 2025

---

In the July 29, 2025 episode of the Harvard Data Science Review Podcast titled "Food for Thought: What Does the Data Say About Food Dye Safety?", hosts Liberty Vitter Capito and Shalie Meng delve into the pervasive presence of synthetic food dyes and preservatives in everyday foods. They aim to uncover the safety, necessity, and potential harm of these additives by engaging with leading experts in food science and public health. The episode features insightful discussions with Lisa Lefferts, an environmental health consultant and former senior scientist at the Independent Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Professor Marion Nestle, a renowned molecular biologist, nutritionist, and public health advocate from New York University.

---

1. Introduction to Food Dyes and Preservatives

Liberty Vitter Capito opens the discussion by highlighting the omnipresence of synthetic food dyes and preservatives in modern diets—from brightly colored cereals to shelf-stable snacks. She poses critical questions about their safety and necessity, setting the stage for an in-depth exploration of the topic.

Marion Nestle provides a foundational understanding of synthetic food dyes, listing common types such as Blue 1, Blue 2, Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, and Green 3. She explains their historical origins, noting that substances like Red 3 were first approved in 1907 and were originally derived from coal tar. Nestle emphasizes that these dyes serve purely cosmetic purposes, enhancing the visual appeal of foods without contributing to their flavor or nutritional value.

“They’re just cosmetic additions to the food supply. They don’t add flavor or anything like that, just color.”
(Marion Nestle, [02:18])

---

2. Scientific Evidence Linking Food Dyes to Health Issues

Shalie Meng drives the conversation toward the scientific studies underpinning recent legislative bans on certain food dyes. She references a controversial 1980s study where 20% of rats developed benign thyroid tumors after consuming Red Dye 3 at 4% of their diet. Meng questions the real-world applicability of such studies, citing the impracticality of humans consuming such high amounts of dyed products.

An Unnamed Expert responds by tracing the origins of concerns about food dyes back to the early 1980s, highlighting Benjamin Feingold's hypothesis that synthetic dyes contribute to hyperactivity and behavioral problems in children. He underscores the challenges in conducting definitive studies on children and the subtle effects of low-dose additives, emphasizing that while not all children are affected, a subset shows sensitivity to these dyes.

“The other studies are all animal studies and those tend to show that some of the dyes are potentially parsed in the jack. The research in my view, is iffy, very, very difficult to pin down.”
(Unnamed Expert, [04:00])

Marion Nestle elaborates on the most comprehensive assessment conducted by the state of California, which reviewed 27 clinical trials across human, animal, and mechanistic evidence. The California study concluded that synthetic food dyes can cause neurobehavioral effects in some children, leading to regulatory actions such as banning Red 3 in cosmetics and internally applied drugs in 1990. Despite initial resistance from the food industry, persistent advocacy by organizations like the Center for Science in the Public Interest led to the eventual ban of Red 3 in consumable products, slated to take effect in 2027.

“All three lines of evidence, the human, the animal and the mechanistic, all converge to the same conclusion, that, yes, synthetic food dyes can cause neurobehavioral impacts in some children.”
(Marion Nestle, [07:00])

---

3. Legislative Actions and Public Policy

The episode discusses the patchwork of state-level bans in the United States, with West Virginia being the first to implement a statewide ban on synthetic dyes starting in 2027. Marion Nestle points out that similar regulatory measures in Europe have led to widespread reformulation of products to eliminate these dyes, often without consumers noticing significant changes in product appearance or taste.

“In Europe, there are warning labels on foods that contain certain synthetic food dyes, including Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6... as a result of that warning label, most manufacturers reformulated their products just to eliminate the dyes.”
(Marion Nestle, [18:30])

This contrast illustrates the potential for regulatory frameworks to drive industry changes that prioritize public health without imposing financial burdens on consumers.

---

4. The Debate Over Ultra-Processed Foods

Shalie Meng shifts the focus to ultra-processed foods, a term that has gained traction in public discourse. Marion Nestle clarifies that the concept, originating from Brazil in 2009, categorizes foods based on their industrial processing and the presence of additives. She explains that ultra-processed foods are designed to be irresistibly delicious and often incorporate numerous additives that make them hard to classify as healthy.

“The definition covers things like commercially produced chips and bars and all those kinds of things... and there are now thousands, literally thousands of studies that have associated ultra processed foods were of poor health outcome.”
(Marion Nestle, [14:10])

Lisa Lefferts and Marion Nestle discuss the challenges in defining and regulating ultra-processed foods, noting that while the concept is robust in linking processing to negative health outcomes, it also faces criticisms for potentially excluding some naturally healthy options.

---

5. Industry Responses and Reformulations

The conversation highlights how the food industry responds to regulatory pressures by reformulating products rather than withdrawing them from the market. Marion Nestle provides examples such as Kraft's macaroni and cheese, which was reformulated to eliminate harmful dyes without altering the product's iconic appearance.

“They just reformulated. But they sell the exact same products in the United States, which they may have reformulated for the United States also, or they may not have.”
(Marion Nestle, [20:09])

This strategy ensures that products remain profitable while aligning with new safety standards, mitigating concerns about food affordability and accessibility.

---

6. Public Perception and Marketing Influence

Shalie Meng brings up the role of marketing and public fear in shaping policy and consumer behavior. The hosts discuss how marketing strategies can exploit psychological factors to increase the appeal of synthetic dyes, making products more attractive to consumers, especially children.

“You can do studies that show that kids think that foods with bright colors taste better, even if there's no difference between them. So from a psychological standpoint, these dyes are really, really important.”
(Unnamed Expert, [05:41])

This manipulation underscores the importance of informed policy-making to counteract industry-driven marketing tactics that prioritize profit over public health.

---

7. Global Perspectives and Cultural Differences

The episode contrasts U.S. regulations with those in Europe, where warning labels on synthetic dyes have effectively prompted manufacturers to eliminate harmful additives from their products. Marion Nestle notes that this regulatory approach has been gradually adopted in the U.S., leading to broader changes in the food supply.

“Now they sell the same products in Europe... Gradually, companies have been reformulating also for the United States.”
(Marion Nestle, [18:30])

This global perspective highlights the potential for international standards to drive meaningful changes in food safety practices.

---

8. Concerns for Vulnerable Populations

The discussion addresses concerns about how bans on synthetic dyes might disproportionately affect lower-income populations who rely on affordable, shelf-stable foods. Marion Nestle reassures listeners that the cost of reformulating products is minimal and that the industry is unlikely to remove profitable items from the market. Instead, products will be adapted to meet new safety standards without escalating prices.

“The dyes are just such a teeny, teeny, teeny fraction of the cost of making a food... It doesn’t make any cost difference to take out the dyes altogether or to substitute something else.”
(Marion Nestle, [21:41])

This assurance aims to alleviate fears about food accessibility and affordability post-regulation.

---

9. Magic Wand Question: Ideal Public Health Intervention

Towards the episode's conclusion, the hosts present a magic wand question to their guests, asking what single change they would implement to improve public health.

Unnamed Expert advocates for two significant changes:

1. Removing money from politics to reduce industry influence on public health policies.
2. Banning marketing targeting children, thereby protecting vulnerable populations from manipulative advertising.

“Get money out of politics and stop marketing. And ban marketing and drunk from children.”
(Unnamed Expert, [23:43])

Marion Nestle emphasizes the importance of accessible, healthy foods, suggesting that half of everyone's plate should consist of fruits and vegetables, with the other half comprising whole grains, nuts, dairy, and lean proteins.

“Help make those more accessible, easier to find, to purchase, more available.”
(Marion Nestle, [23:56])

---

10. Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The episode wraps up with reflections on the necessity of eliminating synthetic additives for better public health outcomes. Lisa Lefferts expresses surprise at the lack of benefits from these additives and advocates for natural alternatives. The hosts acknowledge the psychological aspects of flavor perception influenced by food dyes, reinforcing the need for informed and evidence-based dietary choices.

“Thanks for the work you do to ensure that we're all healthier, particularly for our children.”
(Lisa Lefferts, [25:05])

---

Key Takeaways:

• Synthetic Food Dyes: Primarily cosmetic, with some evidence linking them to neurobehavioral effects in sensitive children.
• Regulatory Actions: States like West Virginia and regions in Europe have taken proactive steps to ban or reduce harmful dyes, prompting industry reformulations.
• Ultra-Processed Foods: Defined by their industrial processing and additives, these foods are associated with negative health outcomes, though their classification can be complex.
• Public Health Advocacy: Experts advocate for removing synthetic additives, promoting accessible healthy foods, and reducing industry influence on public policy.
• Global Differences: While Europe has been more proactive in regulating synthetic dyes, similar changes are gradually occurring in the U.S., ensuring continued access to affordable, safer food options.

This episode underscores the intricate interplay between data science, public health policies, and the food industry, highlighting the ongoing efforts to create a healthier food environment for all.

Transcript

[Liberty Vitter Capito]

Hello and welcome to the Harvard Data Science Review Podcast. I'm Liberty Vitter Capito and along with my co host and editor in chief, Shalie Meng. Today we're digging into your dinner plate. From bright blue cereal to shelf stable snacks, food dyes, preservatives, and ultra processed foods, they are everywhere.

[Shalie Meng]

They.

[Liberty Vitter Capito]

But are they safe? Are they necessary? Or are they maybe even harmful? In this episode, we talk with leading experts in food science and public health to separate the facts from the fear. Lisa Lefferts is an environmental health consultant and former senior scientist at the independent center for Science in the Public Interest. She is the primary author of the successful petition to ban Red 3 and also served on FDA's Food Advisory Committee when it considered synthetic food dyes in 2011. And Professor Marion Nestle, an American molecular biologist, nutritionist and public health advocate. She is the Paulette Goddard professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University. What does the data actually say about these controversial ingredients? And are recent legislative bans driven by science or perhaps something else? Stay with us as we break down the science, the politics, and the public perception behind what we eat.

[Lisa Lefferts]

Thank you, Mary and Lisa, for joining us. And let's just get started. What are food diets and the preservatives chemically, and why were they introduced in the first place?

[Marion Nestle]

Well, the synthetic food dyes include blue 1, blue 2, red 3, red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6, and green 3. And red 3 first was approved, I think it was 1907. So they've been around a long time. They were originally derived from coal tar. And the bright colors, you know, attract people, especially children, to consume the food. So they're just cosmetic additions to the food supply. They don't add flavor or anything like that, just color.

[Shalie Meng]

So, Marianne, because we're a data science podcast, you know, a lot of this is about the studies that lead to these bans that have been happening across the United States. So, you know, I mean, as we know, several US States have proposed or have passed bans on specific food dyes and additives. And I think what I want to know is what is the actual scientific evidence that these substances are truly harmful to human health? Because, you know, we hear in the news that the, I think it was Red Dye 3, that the ban was off of a snap study from 30 years ago on some rats. And, you know, 20% of them had these, you know, if they made red dye 3, I think it was 5% or 4% of their diet, that 20% of them got benign thyroid tumors. But you Know, for me to ingest to have 4 red dye 3B 4% of my diet, I'd need to have, you know, 100 cups of candy corn a day or whatever, you know, some crazy amount. So could you just, could you illuminate what these studies are that have shown us that this is actually really bad for us?

[Unnamed Expert]

Yeah, this goes back to the early 1980s when a physician named Benjamin Feingold was very concerned about hyperactivity and behavioral problems in children and attributed them to the fruit dyes. And so there was research that started then linked to hyperactivity. And parents would say that when their kids are eight foods that contain food dyes, their kids would be bouncing off the walls. So at the time in the 1980s, there was a controlled clinical trial that was done on a very small group of children who were given two drinks, one with a lot of food dyes and one with no food dyes, so that the drinks looked the same, they tasted the same, but one had a lot of dyes in it and one that didn't. There were six children in the study and there was one child in the study who reacted to the drink every single time it was given. And the parents could tell which drink had the dyes because of this child's behavior. That was not true of the other five. So that in a nutshell is the problem. Not all children react, but some do. And in general, so it's very, very difficult to do studies on children and it's even more difficult to do studies on substances that are consumed in very, very small amounts. So the other studies are all animal studies and those tend to show that some of the dyes are potentially parsed in the jack. The research in my view, is iffy, very, very difficult to pin down. It's very hard to do. But these things are completely unnecessary. They have no health function. They have nothing except the cosmetic function and a sales function that has been well documented. You can do studies that show that kids think that foods with bright colors taste better, even if there's no difference between them. So from a psychological standpoint, these dyes are really, really important, important. And when the companies have tried to get rid of them, sales go down. That's the problem.

[Lisa Lefferts]

I see. That's really quite interesting. But a follow up question on this is, as you mentioned, right? These are all based on even clinical trials, which is obviously golden standard for doing this type of studies. They're still in a way to just find out this as a phenomena. But what are the scientific kind of understanding why these diets could have caused the problem. Is there any scientific understanding chemically or biologically?

[Marion Nestle]

So the very best assessment that's ever been done on this issue was done by the state of California. And it was a state of the art, really top notch systematic review of all of the evidence, the human evidence, the animal evidence, and the mechanistic evidence with synthetic food dyes. There are 27 clinical trials that met California's strict criteria, which is really unprecedented and unheard of for additives. You never have that kind of data. Now, each of the trials you could pick apart, they're often small, they have weaknesses. But combining them together, California discovered that the best conducted studies were the ones that were most likely to find an effect between synthetic food dyes and neurobehavioral effects. And that assessment concluded that synthetic food dyes cause neurobehavioral effects in some children. Now, cause is not a word that scientists use lightly, as you well know, but they felt confident using the word cause. And I feel confident using that word cause for several reasons. One is we do have these clinical trials in children that show that some children, not all children, are sensitive to synthetic food dyes. We don't really know exactly why some children are affected and others aren't. But the best study we have indicates that it may be due to some polymorphisms or shall I say different variations of a neurotransmitter enzyme and how the neurotransmitter is broken down. So that seems to be the reason. But there's only one study and it hasn't been replicated. The other reason that we are confident in the data on the neurobehavioral effects is that all three lines of evidence, the human, the animal and the mechanistic, all converge to the same conclusion, that, yes, synthetic food dyes can cause neurobehavioral impacts in some children. From the animal studies, we can see microscopic changes in the brain structure. We can measure effects on neurotransmitters. So we're pretty confident in those results. Now, you mentioned Red3 at the outset. Yeah. The study in Red3 was done in the early 80s, and FDA gave the industry 36 extensions of the deadline to make its case that Red3 was not a concern for people. Industry had argued that it was really due to these high doses they were using that caused a hormonal imbalance. And the hormonal imbalance led to the cancers, and a lower dose that people were exposed to would not cause cancer. But after 36 extensions, the industry failed to convince FDA that that was the case. And so FDA banned Red 3 from cosmetics and externally applied drugs in 1990. And at that time it said it would take steps to also ban Red 3 in food, but it never did. And so the center for Science and the Public Interest filed a petition urging FDA to ban Red 3 in food and ingested drugs. And they finally did just recently. And that ban goes into effect In I think 2027, although this administration has said they might try to speed that up. So some people have said, well, the mechanism wouldn't operate in people, but I'm just not buying it. FDA scientists back in 1990 talked about the kinds of studies they would need to see to be convinced that even though it caused cancer in rats, that it would be safe for people. And those studies were never done. And I know that because I have looked at every single study that that's ever been done on this topic. We had to include those in the petition on Red 3 to FDA.

[Shalie Meng]

You know, I have to ask a follow up to this because I, you know, I have no sort of dog in this fight except that I like Froot Loops and I am having a baby in a couple weeks. So I've been looking into this stuff recently and I, you know, I looked at the California studies and I gotta say, and I said this is a statistician, nothing else. Um, it felt really subjective to me and that it was parent and teacher evaluations. The parents saw some difference. The teachers saw absolutely no statistically significant difference. And I didn't buy it. It didn't, it didn't do it for me. Now, Marian, your thing that it's just not necessary, so why would you do it? Is is a better argument than I've really seen anywhere else. But is there, am I missing something? Like, what have I missed here, Marian?

[Unnamed Expert]

The data from the 1980s have shown exactly the same thing, that there seem to be some children who by parental or other kinds of evaluations and some biological measures seem to react to this. And that there's no evidence at all that these things are healthy. That's another way of putting it. So if you're looking at the precautionary principle, which is what they use in Europe, these things have no value for health, nutrition or safety. They're totally cosmetic. Their only value is to the food industry. They have no value for human health. And there are strong suggestions over a 50 year period that they may be harmful to at least some, some segment of the childhood population. Why are they still in the food supply? It doesn't make Any sense, they're not necessary, get rid of them.

[Marion Nestle]

And it's true that trying to measure changes in behavior, it's not like measuring body weight, right. It's tricky, especially in kids and the setting can matter, et cetera. But I thought what was interesting in the California analysis is that they looked at some of the better studies that had validated measures of behavior, not just what a parent reported, for example, and the better studies, the larger studies were more likely to find an effect than those that didn't use those kinds of objective, computer validated measures of behavior. So, yeah, it has been hard to tease out. But besides the California assessment, there have been eight or nine independent scientific evaluations of the evidence that also conclude that eliminating synthetic food dyes can help with behavior problems for some children. But I also completely agree that it's not like these are life saving drugs where you're willing to tolerate maybe some side effect or adverse effect to get the benefit you want. These are completely unnecessary chemicals. You can use real colorful fruit and vegetables to color the food. You don't need to have these synthetic food dyes at all.

[Shalie Meng]

As someone who has taste tested them, I will, I'll say I do like the synthetic dyes more. But I mean, as we know that, as Marianne, you said that psychology, they're teaching you to like those, do that.

[Unnamed Expert]

Double blind where you can't smoke.

[Shalie Meng]

Exactly. So I think that brings me to these other things that have been getting a really bad rap lately, which is the term ultra processed foods. And that term gets thrown around all the time. So is there sort of a scientific consensus on what that even means? And are all ultra processed foods inherently bad? Because like, when I think of ultra processed foods, I think of the worst of the worst. But there's a lot of these things that are, you know, they're actually super clean, super healthy bars and stuff.

[Unnamed Expert]

I disagree. Not a lot. The concept comes from Brazil and it's a relatively new concept from 2009 where ultra processed foods are defined as a specific category of foods that are industrially produced, refined with industrial additives. You can't make them in your home kitchen because you only have those additives. You, you can't get them. They're designed to be irresistibly delicious, if not addictive, and they're designed for profit and they're very effective at that. The definition covers things like commercially produced chips and bars and all those kinds of things. And the concept has been heavily criticized as excluding healthy foods. But if you push on what they mean by healthy food Foods, it turns out to be commercially produced whole wheat bread, commercially produced yogurt, plant based milks, plant based meats, and infant formula, which I think goes into a separate category of its own. So there aren't a lot of exceptions, but the food industry has focused on the exceptions because the concept is really easy to understand. And there are now thousands, literally thousands of studies that have associated ultra processed foods were of poor health outcome. And there are now two extremely well controlled clinical trials, very short term, but done in metabolic wards where people were locked up and couldn't lie or cheat about what they were eating that show that these foods induce people to eat a lot more calories without realizing. So I think it's a powerful concept. If you want to lose weight, don't eat ultra processed food. And it's not very hard to figure out what it is.

[Lisa Lefferts]

I see. So from. Because this is a more a data science podcast. So thinking a little bit more quantitatively, when you mentioned, you know, when Liberty mentioned ultra processed food, you mentioned the minimum processed food. Before we talk about these additives, are they all any of those things have any kind of a quantitative definition? Like if you're adding this much, then concepts or the concept is kind of very fluid. Depends on who interpret.

[Unnamed Expert]

No, you have to read the ingredient list. It's based on the ingredients.

[Lisa Lefferts]

I see. But is there some national standards sets there to consider something?

[Unnamed Expert]

Not that I'm aware of. I mean, are you asking if there's one bad ingredient, does that make it ultra processed? I think the answer is yes, but usually there are lots.

[Shalie Meng]

I mean, I gotta ask this though. You know, I mean, critics of these laws would say that there isn't real empirical data and evidence behind this stuff, but they're really precautionary. And so, you know, I mean, are there other instances? And I feel like there's a lot of public fear around these food dyes, preservatives, ultra processed food, it's all over social media. I mean, it's really come to a forefront. You know, kudos to the, to the movement because they've done a great job of really bringing this conversation to the forefront. But I mean, are there other times where sort of fear has driven policy like this?

[Unnamed Expert]

I don't think we've ever had anybody in government who was concerned about all of our additives. I mean, it's hard to get my head around it. You know, when President Trump introduced RFK Jr. As his candidate, he talked about the industrial food complex. I nearly fell off my chair. You know, where did that come from. And here is RFK Jr talking about how the food industry is poisoning America. I mean, this is astonishing. Although his idea of poisoning America and mine may be somewhat different. As I said, I don't think color additives are the most important issue in child health. I think calories are the most important issue in Toronto's health and marketing. It's your children.

[Lisa Lefferts]

I assume this issue is not a US Issue. So what are the studies in other countries? Do other countries have these issues, or do other countries using these diets preserves and is there any kind of a cultural difference? What do we know beyond the United States?

[Unnamed Expert]

Yeah.

[Marion Nestle]

So in Europe, there are warning labels on foods that contain certain synthetic food dyes, including Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6, which are the top three synthetic food dyes in the United States. And in Europe, the foods say that the dye may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children. And as a result of that warning label, most manufacturers reformulated their products just to eliminate the dyes. Because if you're a food company, the last thing you want to do is put a warning label on your product. So they just reformulated. But they sell the exact same products in the United States, which they may have reformulated for the United States also, or they may not have. Gradually, companies have been reformulating also for the United States. But, you know, it used to be that you could go to a McDonald's in the UK, get a strawberry sundae, no synthetic dyes, but buy one here. And there was. Now McDonald's has reformulated. Some companies when they reformulated, nobody noticed. For example, Kraft reformulated its iconic macaroni and cheese to eliminate yellow five and yellow six. And they ran an ad campaign that said, we changed the formula and nobody noticed, and it's still that bright neon orange. So, you know, there have been instances, I think, where consumers have noticed a difference, but it depends on the product. For many products, you can reformulate and not even see any difference.

[Shalie Meng]

You know, in West Virginia, which is where I live, it was the first state, you know, sort of pass legislation to ban synthetic dyes statewide. And it gave people a lot of questions about. I mean, there's a lot of data that shows that this is really gonna disproportionately affect lower income populations who really rely on shelf, stable, affordable foods. A lot of these food companies have said that they're gonna just have to pull their products off the shelf. What's gonna happen next year when these are banned and people can't afford food?

[Unnamed Expert]

They're not going to Pull the products because the products make too much money. They're going to reformulate the product just like they do in Europe. They're selling the same products in Europe.

[Marion Nestle]

And you know, the dyes are just such a teeny, teeny, teeny fraction of the cost of making a food. It doesn't make any cost difference to take out the dyes altogether or to substitute something else. They like to use dyes because it's easy. You know, you always get the same color. It's just easy to do. Might be slightly trickier to use some of the naturally derived colorings. But again, it's not going to affect the cost of the product, which is mainly marketing and a lot of other things, the primary ingredients. It's such a tiny amount of dye that you really can't plausibly argue that taking the dye out is going to increase the price of the product. I just don't buy that.

[Lisa Lefferts]

No, I think probably exactly for the reason it costs almost nothing to use it, but it has benefited on a cell. That is a stronger incentive for the industry to use this. Well, at least for those profit oriented people, right?

[Marion Nestle]

Yes, you're absolutely right to simply use those formulations, recipes that they have developed for other countries and just start using them here. So it's not rocket science and we can do it and we can provide those products. Plus, remember, the ban doesn't go into effect in West Virginia immediately. I believe it's not until 2027 that that ban takes effect. So there is a little bit of time to make the adjustments for schools.

[Shalie Meng]

It happens sooner for schools right away.

[Marion Nestle]

That's right. But now the foods that are subsidized by the government, very few of those contain any synthetic food dyes. I mean, barely none. There's plenty to choose from that don't contain synthetic food dyes. So this has been like really looked at in other states like California. And you know, it was concluded that this really is not going to be a problem for schools to make that switch.

[Shalie Meng]

I think that brings us to our magic wand question. And we ask everyone a magic wand question at the end of every episode. So our magic wand question is, if there was one thing you could either make people do or you could ban, what would it be? So, for example, my belief is that one of the biggest issues is weight in the United States. You know, if you gain. What is it? If you gain a pound of excess body weight annually over 15 years, you, I think you increase your cancer risk by 40% or something. So for me it would be that everyone had to be a certain weight, you know, weight limit for everybody if they could. If they could do that magically for public health concerns. So what would be a magic wand for you? Either something you make everyone do or that you ban? Magic wand for public health.

[Unnamed Expert]

Two things. Get money out of politics and stop marketing. And ban marketing and drunk from children.

[Marion Nestle]

I love that.

[Lisa Lefferts]

All right, Lisa, what's yours?

[Marion Nestle]

I mean, I'll go with Marion's. The only thing I'd add is that, you know, it's really not that complicated. We should all be eating, like, half of our plate should be fruits and vegetables, and the other half can be a combination of whole grains, nuts, dairy products, lean meats, et cetera. So if we could somehow help people to make that happen, that's what we all need to be eating, rather than putting all this effort into these packaged foods, ultra processed foods that are really no good for us. So help make those more accessible, easier to find, to purchase, more available. That would be my magic wand.

[Lisa Lefferts]

Well, thank you to both of you for this very informative sessions. And we learned quite a bit. And I did not realize all these things really has no benefit whatsoever. And so which I thought it would make things taste better, but it doesn't seem to be the case. And. But I hope they have something natural Fruit Loops.

[Shalie Meng]

Shall they psychologically taste better?

[Lisa Lefferts]

All right, I have to run a real double blind experiment on you to figure out whether you really like the. Oh, it's just the psychological fact, which is important. I'm not saying that's not important, but it's thanks to both of you and thanks for the work you do to ensure that we're all healthier, particularly for our children. Thank you very much.

[Shalie Meng]

I'm Liberty Vittert.

[Liberty Vitter Capito]

Capito. And on behalf of Shao Li Meng and our guests, thank you for joining us. And a special thanks to our producers, Rebecca McLeod and Tina, Toby Mack, and assistant producers Arianwyn Frank, Gavin Yang and Belle Riley. This was the Harvard Data Science Review.

[Shalie Meng]

Everything.

[Liberty Vitter Capito]

Data science and data science for everyone.