When you wake up in the morning and are getting ready for your work, the first thing you do after you freshen yourself is to grab a quick breakfast. The key to breakfast is that it has to be quick, and to make that happen we often compromise on its health benefits. As Indians, some of the common things we eat the first thing in the morning may look like they are healthy, but in reality they are not.

Nutritionist and health coach Nidhi Nigam, who goes by @nutrify.with.nidhi on Instagram with 10.5k followers posted a reel about the top 5 breakfast that we think are healthy but can actually do a lot worse to our health than we think.

Let's delve deeper into it!

Poha

It is easy to make and with the instant Poha packets, it takes even less time to prepare. But the real question is, should you really have poha for breakfast? Nidhi says not. It is high in carbs and low in protein, moreover, it lacks fiber. It is not healthy at all. In fact experts have also revealed that it is just pure rice and could spike in blood sugar levels.

While we might think it is healthy, turns out it is not. Since it is made with rice flakes, it is pure carbohydrates and when it breaks down in your body, it turns into pure sugar.

Upma

Nidhi mentions that Upma is actually mostly refined semolina or suji with very little nutrition. Dr Siddhant Bhargava, who also shares health advice on his Instagram account also believes that Upma is not a great way to suffice your breakfast need. He says that after 8 hours of sleep, your cells degenerate and they require protein to repair them. However, when you eat Poha, all you are giving your body is pure carbs.

Some of the side effects of semolina also includes abdominal pain, constipation, and bloating.

Sabudana

This is our grandma's favorite. We all grew up eating or at least seeing our grandparents eat sabudana the first thing in the morning. But is it really healthy? Nidhi says no. She notes that it contains pure starch with almost zero protein or fiber.

Experts say that it is like a bomb that can spike your blood sugar. If you are fasting it may make sense to eat a carbohydrate bomb like that. However, on a day-to-day basis, it is a no go. Furthermore, it is also a highly ultra-processed starch.

It is a highly refined form of starch which is obtained from the roots of Cassava or Sago plant. Due to its refinement it gets absorbed in blood rapidly and spikes the blood sugar significantly. It also has a high glycemic index, and can cause issues for people with diabetes, or metabolic health issues.

Smoothie Bowl

Nidhi notes that a smoothie bowl is nothing but a meal packed with sugar, which can cause instant sugar spikes. While fruits are great for you, what you need is whole food and not smoothies. Smoothies are already broken down, which means when you consume it, you consume way too many carbohydrates at one time. This can raise blood sugar levels all at once. It can also lead to an excess in overall calorie intake and promote weight gain.

Bread And Butter

While this is a classic, go-to breakfast option, it is better if you start to reconsider this too. Nidhi mentions that it is an ultra-processed carbs with unhealthy fats. Furthermore, butter can also add excessive sodium and fat to your diet.

Robert F Kennedy Jr has been a longtime critic of synthetic additives. He has, from time and again emphasized that Americans are consuming artificial chemicals without their knowledge or consent. "Four years from now, we are going to have most of these products off the market - or clearly labeled so you know what you are buying," he stated during a press briefing.

Now, a major announcement was made on Tuesday by the Trump administration on its plan to phase out petroleum-based artificial food dyes from the US food supply. The Trump administration and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), headed by Robert F Kennedy Jr., described this as a "significant milestone". The initiative is part of the broader health campaign which is branded "Make America Healthy Again".

The move is set to initiate a nationwide transition toward natural color alternatives in food production.

The National Standard

The HHS, in collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that they will establish a national standard to help the food industry move away from synthetic petrochemical dyes. This also is said to include a timeline, which will be set to replace these dyes with safer, plant-based or naturally derived alternatives.

The Dyes That Could Be Affected

The first major regulatory action under this plan involves revoking authorization of two dyes, namely Citrus Red No.2 and Orange B. The officials have also selected six more synthetic dyes to be eliminated by the end of 2026. These include FD&C Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, and Green No. 3.

The FDA is also planning to approve four new natural color additives shortly after a review of the additional alternatives.

FDA Commissioner Martin Makary said that for decades, American children have been "living in a toxic soup of synthetic chemicals." The administration's latest steps, he noted, are a strong move towards the elimination of petroleum-based food dyes.

Are Food Dyes Safe For Us?

As of now, the FDA defines food dyes or color additives as any substance that imparts color to food, drugs, cosmetics, or the human body. These dyes are commonly used to enhance visual appeal and to help consumers identify flavors.

While FDA guidelines state that color additives are generally safe when used correctly, there is growing concern. Some studies have linked artificial dyes to behavioral issues in children, including hyperactivity. Kennedy remarked that there are “shockingly few studies” on many of the ingredients in widespread use, calling for more thorough research.

To that end, the administration announced a partnership with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to investigate the impact of food dyes and additives on children's development and health.

What Has Been The Response?

The plan, as of now, does not impose immediate legal restrictions. The government, however, is working closely with food manufacturers to implement the changes. Kennedy reported a positive response from industry leaders and said there is a general "understanding" of the need for reform, even if no formal agreements are in place.

Consumer and advocacy groups have praised the announcement. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) called the move “long overdue,” citing decades of evidence linking synthetic dyes to health issues. States like California and West Virginia have already passed laws restricting the use of artificial dyes in school meals and packaged foods.

However, not everyone is on board. The Consumer Brands Association, representing food and beverage companies, warned against removing what they consider safe, FDA-approved ingredients. While expressing appreciation for federal leadership, the group insisted that science and product safety must not be compromised.

The Trump administration is set to impose a ban on the synthetic dye industry by working to eliminate artificial food coloring from the American food supply but this isn't about politics—this is about your plate, your family's health, and a system that has let petroleum-based chemicals dictate what our food looks like for decades. Though these artificial colors enhance the appearance of foods, there is increasing concern about what they might be doing to our bodies. From lunchboxes to dessert shelves, artificial food dyes are ubiquitous—and now, they're at the center of a heated national debate.

The plan, as laid out in a media advisory by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), will be officially rolled out by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary. This marks a major federal move in an emerging national dialogue regarding food safety and public health.

Artificial food coloring has been the target of suspicion for decades. In January, during the Biden administration, the FDA acted decisively by prohibiting Red Dye No. 3 in food, drinks, and ingestible medications based on animal studies that found the additive caused cancer. But that was just one of numerous synthetic coloring agents still widely used in the U.S. food supply—often in brightly colored processed foods, cereals, candies, and even medication.

Now, the Trump administration seems to be focusing on a wider category of petroleum-based synthetic dyes, such as Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, and Blue No. 1. They are intended to add visual attractiveness but have become more and more linked to health hazards, especially among children. With a bipartisan group of legislators demanding reform, including a recent historic food dye ban signed into law in West Virginia, the push for stronger regulation is picking up speed.

What are Artificial Food Dyes?

Artificial food dyes are man-made chemicals created to duplicate the natural color. Made mostly from petroleum, they are more inexpensive to manufacture and less likely to spoil in grocery stores than natural dyes. Yet, their chemical composition is a cause for concern. Chemicals such as benzidine and 4-aminobiphenyl—both of which are found in common dyes—are known carcinogens under World Health Organization classification.

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Americans are consuming five times more synthetic food dye today than in 1955. Their pervasiveness in low-nutrient, ultra-processed foods means that even consumers trying to make healthier choices may be unknowingly ingesting these chemicals.

Research shows that Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Blue No. 2, and Green No. 3 have all been linked to cancer in animal studies. Other dyes, such as Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6, have been reported to induce hypersensitivity reactions and behavioral disturbances in children. U.S. and UK studies have established a high correlation between food dye intake and hyperactivity, irritability, and impaired memory performance in children—even those without a diagnosis of ADHD.

The effort to restrict food dyes is not limited to a single political party. Indeed, Republican and Democratic legislators in over 25 states are proposing or co-sponsoring bills that restrict the use of artificial food coloring. This movement has established a patchwork of state-by-state regulations that industry executives now claim need federal harmonization.

Organizations such as the National Confectioners Association and the Consumer Brands Association have recognized increasing consumer anxiety, but assert that the FDA is best suited to spearhead national food safety efforts. Yet, public confidence in these agencies has been undermined over time, especially as food dye prohibitions in nations throughout Europe are juxtaposed with more sluggish action in the U.S.

In the EU, for instance, foods with artificial dyes are required to have a warning label. Most large U.S. food companies have already reformulated products sold in European markets with natural colorants—but still sell the artificial versions in the United States.

What Are Dyes Made Of?

Food dyes are categorized into two main types—natural and artificial. Although both are used to add color to foods and beverages, their sources and health effects are quite different.

Natural Dyes

These are sourced from natural food origins and plant-derived products. They are deemed safer and commonly exist in organic or low-processing foods.

Examples of natural colorings include:

• Turmeric – Imparts a yellow color; applied to mustards, curries, and snack foods.
• Beet juice or beet powder – Provides a red or pink color.
• Annatto – Vegetable dye derived from achiote seed, a traditional source for orange coloration of cheese and butter.
• Paprika extract (Capsanthin) – Produces intense red or orange shade.
• Carotenes – Derived from carrot, sweet potatoes, or similar root vegetables; imparts an orange hue.

Artificial Dyes

Synthetic or artificial food coloring is produced from petroleum-derived chemical substances. They are commonly used in processed foods because they have a strong color, are inexpensive, and are shelf-stable.

Some common artificial dyes are:

• Red No. 3 (Erythrosine) – Used in candies, popsicles, toaster pastries, and gummy vitamins.
• Red No. 40 – Used in cereals, snack foods, and drinks.
• Yellow No. 5 and No. 6 – Used in chips, cheeses, and candies.
• Blue No. 1 and No. 2 – Common in baked goods and sports drinks.
• Green No. 3 – Used in mint-flavored or pistachio-flavored products.

These artificial dyes are not only used for their appearance, but to cover up processing inconsistencies or to enhance foods to appear more appealing—particularly in foods with little nutritional value such as sodas, candies, and snack foods.

Health Risks of Food Dyes

While hyperactivity and behavioral problems in children tend to grab most of the headlines, artificial dyes may have broader implications. A number of dyes have been associated with immune suppression, gut irritation, and cellular toxicity. Low doses—in as little as one milligram—have been shown to cause symptoms of restlessness and insomnia in hypersensitive people.

The issue isn't just with colored candies, either. Artificially colored dyes are present in cough medicines, gummy multivitamins, sports beverages, toaster tarts, and even processed deli meats—foods where coloring may not even be readily visible to consumers.

Erythrosine, the chemical used in Red No. 3, is most controversial. Frequently found in foods such as red popsicles, toaster pastries, and some fruit drinks, it is a proven carcinogen in laboratory rats. Critics believe that ongoing use of such additives in children's foods is immoral and preventable.

Potential Cancer Risks

Red Dye No. 3 was also implicated in causing thyroid tumors in animal tests, and it is banned in the U.S. in cosmetics—though not yet in foods until recent action by the FDA.

Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 contain minute amounts of benzidine and 4-aminobiphenyl, both identified human carcinogens.

Behavioral and Neurological Concerns in Children

Several studies have identified connections between artificial dyes and children's behavioral problems:

A U.S. study in Science reported that children performed less well on memory tests after eating a combination of food dyes.

A 2007 study in The Lancet showed that children became hyperactive within an hour of eating synthetic dye combinations—even if they didn't have ADHD.

Hyperactivity and restlessness – Particularly in children who are sensitive to dyes such as Yellow No. 5.

Sleep disturbances and irritability – Even minimal doses (as little as 1 mg) can cause reactions in sensitive people.

Allergic reactions – Certain dyes have been linked with allergy-like reactions such as skin rashes and asthma worsening.

Gastrointestinal disturbances – Anecdotal evidence has connected synthetic dyes with bloating, nausea, and stomach pain in sensitive people.

Long-Term Exposure and Cumulative Impact

Americans today consume five times more synthetic food dyes than they did in the 1950s. This cumulative exposure, particularly in children, has raised questions about long-term health effects that are still not well-studied.

Although no one responds uniformly to artificial food coloring, and in moderation is still the rule, the mounting scientific evidence—and consumer worry—have led government agencies and researchers to reassess the safety of these additives.

Natural Substitutes for Food Color Dyes

Fortunately, safer and natural substitutes do exist. Dyes created using beet juice, turmeric, annatto extracts, and paprika are now readily available and applied to organic and whole-food products. USDA-certified organic is a sound signifier that the product contains no artificial dyes.

However, transparency in the food industry continues to be a problem. Such labeling as "color added" or "artificial color added" usually hides the use of synthetic dyes. Consumers with an education level need to closely read ingredient panels and become familiar with dye numbers and names to make intelligent decisions.

The Trump administration's push to ban artificial food colorings is a turning point in the changing dialogue regarding food safety. As more information comes out and public awareness increases, pressure will build on regulators and manufacturers to respond.

While some scientists advise caution that further research is required to create definitive cause-and-effect relationships in humans, the evidence is piling up—and becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

If your morning doesn't start without a hot cup of coffee or soothing sip of tea, you may be getting something more than just a morning boost. New research shows that your daily cup might actually lower your risk of head and neck cancers—a category of diseases that includes mouth, throat, and voice box cancers. But how much should you consume to gain these possible benefits? And is there ever too much? Let's deconstruct.

Head and neck cancers (HNC) include malignancies of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx, nasal cavity, and sinuses. Although improvements in early diagnosis and treatment have enhanced survival, the rate of some types—particularly oropharyngeal cancer—has climbed steadily. The burden is especially onerous in low-income nations, where prevention and access are still limited.

This increasing interest has led researchers to look into preventive measures, particularly those that are related to daily habits. Among them, drink preferences such as coffee and tea are now being investigated not only for their antioxidant activity, but also for their ability to reduce cancer risk.

A study using 14 international studies, completed by researchers at the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium, determined that heavy coffee drinkers could lower their risk of head and neck cancers substantially. In Cancer, a publication of the American Cancer Society, the research presented strong figures:

Consuming over 4 cups of caffeinated coffee daily was linked with a

• 17% decrease in overall risk of head and neck cancers
• 30% decrease in risk of oral cavity cancer
• 22% decrease in risk of oropharyngeal cancer

And even more remarkably, those who drank 3–4 cups every day had a 41% lower chance of getting hypopharyngeal cancer, a rare and dangerous cancer located close to the voice box.

Notably, decaffeinated coffee also produced some protective results. People with up to a daily 1 cup of decaf intake were 25% less likely to develop oral cavity cancer. It indicates that this potential protective value may not come from caffeine itself, but could be in another plant component or polyphenolic compound contained within coffee.

The results with tea also indicated some encouraging associations for lower risk for cancer, albeit the results were not as unidirectional and consistent as the case of coffee.

The research indicated that tea drinking had a complex relationship with head and neck cancer risk. Those who consumed up to one cup of tea daily experienced significant protective effects, such as having a 9% lower overall risk of head and neck cancers and a 27% decreased risk of hypopharyngeal cancer. These observations imply that moderate consumption of tea may play a positive role in preventing cancer. Yet the data also presented a fatal qualifier: having more than a single cup of tea per day was linked with a 38% higher risk of laryngeal cancer. This is the message that when tea is involved, more does not always equate to better. It reiterates the need for caution and points towards the idea that tea's role in preventing cancer could lose efficacy or even backfire—when taken excessively.

Dr. Yuan-Chin Amy Lee, lead author of the study, highlighted this nuance:

"Coffee and tea habits are pretty complicated. While we do see some protective effects, especially with certain kinds of cancer, how it works depends on the amount of coffee or tea consumed and the specific cancer subtype."

Why Coffee and Tea May Help?

Both tea and coffee are good sources of antioxidants, polyphenols, and other bioactive molecules that will aid in battling inflammation and oxidative stress—conditions known to advance cancer development.

Coffee consists of chlorogenic acids and diterpenes such as cafestol and kahweol, which were found in experiments to suppress the growth of tumors. Tea, especially green tea, consists of catechins like EGCG (epigallocatechin gallate), which also possesses anti-cancer potential.

It's probably a synergy of these compounds acting together, not caffeine alone, that provides a protective effect.

When is it Too Much?

Though promising, experts caution against excessive intake. Consuming 3–4 cups a day seems to be the optimum for cancer protection. But going beyond this interval may not have added benefits—and may even produce side effects such as insomnia, stomach upset, or elevated heart rate in some people.

For tea, moderation is particularly necessary. Although as much as 1 cup a day appears to be good for you, more than that—especially with some varieties such as very strong black tea or sweet milk teas—can be dangerous.

How to Drink Coffee and Tea Without Damaging Your Health?

To get the most benefit and least risk, follow these guidelines when adding coffee and tea to your daily routine:

1. Stay within the Safe Zone

Shoot for no more than 3–4 cups of coffee daily.

Restrict tea consumption to 1–2 cups, particularly if you drink black or strong teas.

2. Watch the Additives

Steer clear of adding lots of sugar, syrups, or full-fat creamers, which will negate the health benefits.

Stick to plant-based milk or a dash of low-fat milk if necessary.

3. Time It Right

Steer clear of consuming coffee late in the day to avoid disrupting sleep.

For coffee, herbal teas in the evening (such as peppermint or chamomile) can be a suitable substitute.

4. Balance is Key

Don't get stuck on beverages alone for preventing disease.

Eat a nutrient-dense, antioxidant-rich diet packed with vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and lean proteins.

5. Listen to Your Body

If you feel jittery, have heartburn, or get anxious, reconsider your caffeine use. Decaffeinated coffee can still provide benefits with fewer side effects.

Although additional research is necessary to fully clarify the intricacy of the relationship between these ubiquitous drinks and cancer risk, this new information adds a welcome twist to the tale. Your morning coffee or thoughtfully selected tea may be doing more than merely getting you on your feet. It may be working quietly, on a regular basis, to reduce your cancer risk, especially for some of the most aggressive types of head and neck cancers.