That doesn’t sound like something we should be putting in our bodies then does it?
No, the article, or I should I say ads with writing in between, says"potentially non-toxic". Which I find to be a highly troublesome qualifier.
perhaps it’s worded that way for legal reasons? maybe if they flat out said it was non-toxic, and then it turned out that they were wrong, someone could sue them.
i am sure it’s the same sort of idea behind posting a video of someone committing a crime on camera, they use the word “allegedly”
dunno; not a lawyer
Yellow 5 is super common (in the US) for things that go inside our bodies. Doritos, Mt Dew, probably Red Bull. When we were kids there was a rumor that it would shrink your dick haha.
Read the ingredients on stuff the next few days and take note of how often you see it. It’s probably why they chose it as one of the test substances. It’s relatively safe to eat.
What is unknown is how dangerous it is to absorb large amounts into someone’s skin.
It’s like the illegal weed vape pen issue years ago. People would cut the product with vitamin e to thicken it and also make more money. Vitamin E is safe for human consumption. Turns out its vapor is terrible for lungs. It’s quite unsafe for that kind of consumption.
Highly recommend anyone reading check out an app called Yuka. You scan barcodes and it’ll give you a score of the ingredients and why things are rated the way they are. Not always 100%, but better than trying to just figure out if carboxymethylcellulose is safe, (it is) let alone pronouncable.
