Influencer suggests Easter candy treats are dangerous. Here's what you need to know.
A recent social media post claimed that swapping out popular Easter candies will “instantly” improve children’s behaviour and health. The post highlights four candies, labelled as “dangerous Easter candies” – Lindt chocolate bunnies, Nerds Gummy Clusters, M&Ms, and Sour Patch Kids jelly beans – saying they contain soy lecithin, Red 40, Blue 1, and corn syrup, which are said to be linked to serious issues like cancer, DNA damage, ADHD, diabetes, or metabolic problems. Here we fact-check each claim using scientific evidence and emphasise an important missing question: “In what context (amount and frequency) do these ingredients cause harm?”
Full Claim: “Stores sell sickness, inflammation, obesity, ADHD and advertise it as a celebration. It’s time to put your foot down and choose better alternatives. Your kid’s health and mood will change! Instantly.”
While some studies suggest links to health concerns in specific contexts (e.g., excessive consumption or sensitivities), there is no evidence that swapping these treats for healthier alternatives will instantly change a child’s behaviour. On the other hand, research shows that children associate food with feelings of guilt, pleasure, and health morality, and these associations can lead to restrictive or conflicted eating patterns.
Misinformation about food ingredients can create unnecessary fear among parents and lead to unrealistic expectations about dietary changes. More importantly, they distract from the real issues within our food system that impact public health.
Remember that while shocking statements are very effective at creating engagement, they lack the nuance needed to fully grasp a topic. If you are worried about the overconsumption of sweet treats over the holidays, seek advice from a dietician or registered nutritionist.
The 5 separate claims contained in this post all lack context, in a way that could contribute to a distorted view of nutrition and generate unnecessary fear. Let’s address the overall missing context before breaking down each claim and its implications for overall health.
The missing context: Dose, frequency, and overall diet
Crucially, the social media post fails to ask “in what context do these ingredients cause harm?” Each ingredient it demonises can sound scary without context. But doses make the poison. Regulators like the FDA and EFSA set strict limits and review safety data to ensure that, when these additives are used in normal amounts, they pose no significant risk to human health. There’s a world of difference between laboratory conditions or chronic heavy consumption and a child eating a few candies on Easter weekend.
Overall Nutrition: It’s true that many foods containing artificial dyes or lots of corn syrup are nutrient-poor ultra-processed foods. So, if a child is regularly eating candies, sodas, and neon-colored snacks at the expense of balanced meals, that’s more likely to cause health problems – not because of one molecule like Blue 1, but because the child is missing out on healthier foods (source).
For example, this review looked at 39 meta-analyses on the associations between consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and health outcomes. The studies analysed consistently showed associations between a higher consumption of UPFs and an increased risk of various chronic diseases. The researchers concluded that emphasising dietary patterns with a low consumption of UPFs could lead to public health benefits. Further, recent research found that higher consumption of ultra-processed snacks may negatively affect metabolic health markers (source). This supports the idea that improving a child’s daily diet (more fruits, veggies, whole grains, etc.) can positively impact overall health and behaviour (source), but it does not suggest that occasional treats are inherently dangerous and need to be banned. In other words, it’s the pattern of eating that mostly matters. Occasional treats can fit into a healthy lifestyle.
While social media may tempt parents with ‘quick fixes’ for their children's health and behaviour, unfortunately it’s not that simple.
Yes, excessive or regular intake of additives and sugars can lead to poor health outcomes, but the ingredients in question are generally safe when consumed in standard portions. In fact, vilifying and restricting these may actually be more damaging to a child's relationship with food long-term.
Speculative claims based on anecdotal observations undermine evidence-based nutrition guidance. The notion that eliminating or replacing Easter candy will instantly improve a child's health or behaviour is not only completely unsubstantiated- it’s oversimplified, ignoring the overall quality of their diet.
Instead, parents should focus on the bigger picture. Building a diet rich in a variety of nutrient-dense foods as a foundation, with room to enjoy candy from time to time, is a more balanced and sustainable approach to promoting healthy eating habits. While following dietary guidelines and reducing UPFs is recommended, no foods should be completely off limits, and it’s unrealistic (and no fun) to expect children to skip their Easter treats.
Remember, you don't need 'clean candy' swaps for Easter if you're feeding your kids nutritious foods year-round. Balance and perspective are key to finding that ‘sweet spot’ between health and fostering a positive food environment for your children.
.jpg)
Claim 1: Lindt Easter chocolate bunnies contain “soy lecithin that is linked to metabolic issues.”
The post implies that soy lecithin – an additive in chocolate – can lead to metabolic issues. Metabolic issues refer to problems with how your body turns food into energy. These can include high blood sugar, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and extra belly fat—all of which can increase your risk of serious health conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and stroke (source).
Fact-Check: Soy lecithin is a common food emulsifier derived from soybeans. It helps blend ingredients (for example, keeping chocolate creamy and smooth). Concerns around potential metabolic issues stem from studies on mice, in the context of high-fat diets (source). However, soy lecithin is present in minimal amounts in chocolate, and there is currently no direct evidence linking it to metabolic disorders at these levels.
The general safety of soy lecithin was recently re-evaluated by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) which concluded that there are no safety concerns with the use of lecithins as a food additive, for the general population from more than 1 year of age (source).
Context Matters: Excessive intake of sugary foods overall could contribute to metabolic issues over time, but soy lecithin itself is not the primary concern.
Claim 2: Nerds gummy clusters contain “Red 40 that is linked to cancer and hyperactivity.”
Fact-Check: Red 40 (Allura Red AC) is one of the most commonly used synthetic food dyes and has been investigated for links to hyperactivity in children. The evidence points to potential behavioral effects, particularly in children with ADHD or food sensitivities (source). Effects include increased hyperactivity, restlessness, and reduced attention span. However, it is worth noting that not all children are affected and studies consistently highlight individual variation.
There is no conclusive evidence that Red 40 causes cancer in humans. This review found no new evidence to change the safety recommendations for Allura Red AC, but suggests monitoring high intake in young children (in the context of repeated, excessive intake as opposed to single events like Easter celebrations). No regulatory agencies currently classify it as a carcinogen.
Context Matters: It is important to note that the evidence does not support that food dyes like Red 40, in the quantities present in candy products, cause disorders such as ADHD, which can have many causes (genetics, environment, etc.) (source).
Claim 3: M&Ms contain “Blue 1 Lake linked to chromosomal damage and skin rashes.”
Fact-Check: Blue 1 Lake (Brilliant Blue) has been associated with rare allergic reactions such as hives or flushing in sensitive individuals. Regulator agencies have set Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) levels that include large safety margins for food dyes. For Blue 1 Lake, it is around 6–12 mg/kg/day (EFSA and FDA, respectively). For context, a whole bag of colorful candy might contain 30 mg of mixed dyes, well below these limits for a child on a single day.
The post’s mention of “chromosomal damage” likely refers to some lab experiments: high concentrations of Blue 1 in cell cultures or isolated systems have caused chromosomal aberrations (DNA changes) in those in vitro tests
(source). But in humans, such effects haven’t been observed at dietary levels.
Artificial dyes, and when they may cause health issues, boil down to dose and individual sensitivity. Regulators deem small amounts in foods (such as the occasional Easter egg) safe.
Claim 4: Sour Patch Kids’ jelly beans contain “corn syrup which increases risk of diabetes and fatty liver disease.”
Fact-Check: Corn Syrup is primarily composed of glucose, and is commonly used in baking and candy-making to prevent crystallization and add moisture. Nerds and jelly beans, for example, contain corn syrup or sugar as main ingredients (not surprising – they’re candy!). High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and insulin resistance in observational studies (source). However, corn syrup is different from HFCS, as it is mostly glucose, not fructose. The two are regularly conflated on social media.
Health experts agree that excess sugar consumption over time can contribute to weight gain, which increases the risk of several types of chronic disease, such as type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or heart disease. However, it’s not about one specific source like corn syrup being uniquely poisonous – it’s about quantity and frequency.
Context Matters: The key issue here lies in chronic overconsumption rather than occasional indulgence. Children in Western countries eat a lot of added sugars in general, and that chronic overconsumption is linked to metabolic diseases. Large epidemiological studies show diets heavy in sugary drinks and sweets are associated with higher incidence of type 2 diabetes and obesity (source). Importantly, sugar itself isn’t a direct toxin that immediately causes disease – rather, consistently eating more calories (from sugar or other sources) than you burn leads to weight and metabolic issues.
Claim 5: “Your kid’s health and mood will change! Instantly.”
Fact-Check: While some parents report anecdotal behavioural changes after removing certain additives or high-sugar foods from their child’s diet, scientific evidence does not support instant improvements in mood or behaviour from single dietary swaps. For example, a recent systematic review found that while some dietary interventions might have small effects on ADHD symptoms in children, the evidence is not strong enough to recommend dietary changes as a standard treatment for ADHD - and the effects reported were not instantaneous (source).
Context Matters: Behavioural changes are complex and influenced by multiple factors beyond diet alone. Holidays like Easter often involve temporary deviations from regular eating patterns. Long-term dietary habits have a greater impact on health and behaviour than occasional indulgences (source).
Final Thoughts
We often say that ‘context matters’. It might be more fitting to say the lack of context matters even more, because it is what ultimately leads to poorly-informed decisions. Handling lots of sugary treats over the holidays can be challenging, but the ‘answer’ does not necessarily lie with a complete ban; on the other hand, just because a product is considered safe does not mean we should consume it every day with no moderation. It’s about making a distinction between habitual and occasional intake; between overall diet quality and treats.
This type of language, promoting instant changes following simple dietary swaps, is typical of social media content, driving engagement and emotional responses. But it does little to enhance nutritional understanding, and it distracts from real, pressing issues which are impacting public health. The fact that most people do not consume enough fibre or follow dietary guidelines is what needs to be addressed - and demonising food dyes won’t solve that problem.
Concerns about the heavy marketing of ultra-processed, nutrient-poor products to young children, combined with the lack of easy access to fresh products like fruits and vegetables are legitimate, and crucially need to be addressed to improve public health. However, social media trends promoting ‘toxic food thinking’ that distort scientific evidence distract from the real issues within our food system and can do more harm than good, particularly in the long run.
We have contacted Jen Smiley and are awaiting a response.
Trusted Experts Worth Following
For balanced, expert perspectives on issues such as food dyes and their impact on individual and public health, we recommend you to follow experts’ accounts, such as:
Dr Andrea Love’s Instagram account and newsletter, Immunologic;
Dr Jessica Knurick’s Instagram account and substack newsletter;
“Foodsciencebabe” on Instagram
Also check out this guide to better understand how to interpret results from animal studies in the context of nutrition guidelines.
Disclaimer
This fact-check is intended to provide information based on available scientific evidence. It should not be considered as medical advice. For personalised health guidance, consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Sources And Further Reading 📚
Jackson, A.M. et al. (2023). “I enjoy the good foods, all of which are not good for me.” The categorization and moralization of food.”
Da Costa Louzada, M.L. et al. (2015). “Consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Brazilian adolescents and adults.”
Dai, S. et al. (2024). “Ultra-processed foods and human health: An umbrella review and updated meta-analyses of observational evidence.”
Bermingham, K. et al. (2023). “Snack quality and snack timing are associated with cardiometabolic blood markers: the ZOE PREDICT study.”
The British Dietetic Association. “Diet, behaviour and learning in children.”
Swarup, S. et al. (2024). “Metabolic Syndrome.”
Robert, C. et al. (2021). “Rapeseed and Soy Lecithin As Food Additives Vectors of α-Linolenic Acid: Impacts on High-Fat Induced Adiposity, Inflammation and Gut Microbiota in Mice.”
EFSA (2017). “Re-evaluation of lecithins (E 322) as a food additive.”
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (2021). “Potential Neurobehavioral Effects of Synthetic Food Dyes in Children.”
EFSA (2009). “Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of Allura Red AC (E 129) as a food additive.”
NHS (2023). “Food colours and hyperactivity.”
EFSA (2024). “Food colours”
U.S. FDA. “Color Additives Questions and Answers for Consumers.”
Olas, B. et al. (2021). “The Effects of Natural and Synthetic Blue Dyes on Human Health: A Review of Current Knowledge and Therapeutic Perspectives.”
Chung, M. et al. (2014). “Fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or indexes of liver health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.”
Malik, V.S. et al. (2010). “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Obesity, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk.”
Foodfacts.org is an independent non-profit fact-checking platform dedicated to exposing misinformation in the food industry. We provide transparent, science-based insights on nutrition, health, and environmental impacts, empowering consumers to make informed choices for a healthier society and planet.
🛡️ Stand Against Nutrition Misinformation
Misinformation is a growing threat to our health and planet. At FoodFacts.org, we're dedicated to exposing the truth behind misleading food narratives. But we can't do it without your support.
Your monthly donation can:
✅ Combat viral diet myths and corporate spin
✅ Support our team of dedicated fact-checkers and educators
✅ Keep our myth-busting platforms running
.svg)
.svg){kind=icon}
