U.S. food additives banned in Europe
cbsnews.com
cbsnews.com
There's some evidence that something is unsafe, so CBS found a professor to interview then asked them leading questions to get an explosive headline. Next they asked a random person if they're scared about this. Finally they asked the FDA and seemingly only published part of their reply.
Like I said, potassium bromate may be bad for you. But I don't feel like I've learned anything from this story about it. It only seems like fear mongering.
What's the risk/benefit?
You can see how crazy it is when you compare it with drugs that we eat in doses smaller by orders of magnitude.
Food manufacturers are a powerful lobbying group and additives make a significant difference to profitability.
People and language are not math.
Freedom, baby!
Within a few years we'll have that same freedom to consume whatever toxins we desire in post-Brexit Britain too.
Also, we don't have the much-anticipated US trade deal yet and the public appears to slightly prefer safe food to Freedom so the political pressure to rush anything through isn't there.
Any sort of spices, ferment, baking powder, food coloring (even traditional coloring like beet juice or squid ink) could be considered additive. A lot of these things have been traditionally used for centuries. And otoh just because something has been used traditionally does guarantee its safety.
Anyway, for benefits, in the EU Allulose and Monk Fruit (non-nutritive sweeteners) are still not permitted after several years (for monk fruit, not sure about the state of allulose), afaik there is no sign of danger, but they are also not proven safe enough.
Absolutely NOT. Chemicals don't have human rights, obviously. Treating something as untrusted/dangerous unless proven otherwise is safety 101.
Even this story doesn't say that were doing that.
>(FDA) said all food additives require "pre-market evaluation" and "regulations require evidence that each substance is safe at its intended level of use before it may be added to foods."
You can argue the evaluations aren't strict enough, but saying we're doing "innocent until proven guilty" isn't true.
edit: Oops, I typed that backwards, I meant to say "guilty until proven innocent".
They also say it's crazy to do innocent until proven guilty.
The last 50 years have bought really fast change in the food industry, but it's also reduced the number of starving people by billions in the world. You are definitely going to have collateral damage in that, and some technologies will be harmful over the long run, but you still might save many more years of people's lives by just making the food available.
People seriously underestimate just how much disinflation there's been in food prices when compared to the rest of the market. And that actually means there's more food. For everyone.
Definitely. In 1900, the typical American family spend 43% of its income on food. In 1950, it was 30%. By 2003, it had dropped to 13%.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-ame...
Without additives, your bread is hard and stale 24 hours from now. Are you willing and able to go buy bread every single day?
The base problem is, as with so many bad modern things, monopoly. There is no alternative I can choose. Without external forces, the system will converge to a single, optimized, industrial scale supplier who will converge to lots of additives.
If you don't want that, you have to break monopolies. And you probably have to be very aggressive doing so.
If there is robust competition, I can vote with my wallet. At that point, compromising quality for a fraction of a penny isn't worthwhile to a smaller manufacturer.
I would very much like to buy France-level bread every day in the US. I, however, cannot because that tiny producer cannot compete with the monopolies--they can't get volume discounts; they can't automate with industrial processes to the same degree; they have to have retail space; they can't get into supermarkets (which are also monopolies), etc.
The US used to have very nice, local bakeries. They have been all wiped out by consolidation.
Doesn't that mostly happen when bread is exposed to air?
For example supermarkets here in Australia used to perforate the plastic bags they sold bread in, to make sure people kept buying more bread each day.
That seems to have stopped (a few years ago?), and now bread can last several days without becoming bad.
If you're in a warm + humid climate though, mould can make quick work of bread anyway so "several days" can be just 2-3 in that case.
I have a bakery and 3 stores within 5 min walking distance. But I'm in Europe so I don't need to worry about those additives anyway.
Tbh the rule of thumb for bread is you should be suspicious if it doesn't go bad in a few days :)
obviously this is a rule of thumb and quite a generalisation. I’m sure a fair few counter-examples can be given, but is it better to generally follow this rule, or not? I say better
And a whole lot of fruit is genotypically modified as well through various means!!
Humans ARE nature. What we build IS nature. Or do you think beavers look at their dams and buildings and go "that shit is unnatural".
additives is still a bit vague, but at least that generally fits what I'm aiming for. if it wouldn't be in the food if you made it at home, then that's an additive. no need for "natural" to come into it
(Not being snarky, just genuinely curious as to where to draw the line.)
There are exceptions to everything, of course. Celery can be used as a source of nitrates.
According to the WHO [1], food additives are
> Substances that are added to food to maintain or improve the safety, freshness, taste, texture, or appearance of food are known as food additives. Some food additives have been in use for centuries for preservation – such as salt (in meats such as bacon or dried fish), sugar (in marmalade), or sulfur dioxide (in wine).
I guess you could limit it to "food additives that are added only to maintain or improve the safety, freshness, taste, texture, or appearance of food are bad", but even then I'd argue that's not true in any real sense. The ability to keep food in a good state for longer is a boon to society as a whole. We just need to be careful about the side effects.
[1] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-additi...
That being said, I do disagree with your opinion that "they're all bad" even limited to the definition you gave. Being able to make food last longer is good. And recognizing that, it's a matter of tradeoffs for the additive in question.
I suspect anything that would prompt a "yes" from a food company is an additive the parent would ban.
my position is a hedged rule of thumb. of course additives are not all bad, but taking this attitude is a simple policy that I trust for my general health, and a low-noise signal to send to food producers and other consumers.
>it's a matter of tradeoffs for the additive in question
this is true. and when the tradeoffs are health vs hunger that's fine, but when they're health vs profit/share price, it becomes an issue. obviously there's a situation where lack of profit motive can lead to hunger, but that's not a situation currently likely to arise in the developed world
Asked if it can be said with certainty that differences in regulations mean people in the U.S. have developed cancers that they would not have developed if they'd been eating exclusively in Europe, Millstone said that was "almost certainly the conclusion that we could reach."
...almost certainly the conclusion that we could reach.
What is being said, actually? It’s really just “No.”, right?
Of course, when given a choice, I'd rather not eat Potassium bromate.
What he said was yes, it’s extremely likely that’s the case, but he’s not gonna give an unqualified yes because it’s still a very high percentage. They can’t point to any individual case and say that this person wouldn’t have cancer if he has been eating in Europe.
The scientist is specifically trying to avoid the trap of a "gotcha question" while answering accurately that the most likely outcome of lots of people consuming a carcinogen is that someone got cancer from it.
Dear me, I shouldn't have brought it up before lunch... I hope there is something vegetarian on the menu today...
Amputations are legal and not that rare, so there are some means.. Hhere's a relevant example of a part of a leg begin eaten - https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8p5xlj/hi_all_i_am_a_...
technically when hansel and gretel checked into their airbnb in the forest, they consented to being shoved into an oven if they spilled breadcrumbs. It was all in the contract.
I don’t know, seems like that leaves some loopholes, you just have to get pre-death approval ;)
> (1) Whoever unauthorizedly takes away from the custody of the entitled person the body or parts of the body of a deceased person, a dead corporeal fruit, parts of such or the ashes of a deceased person, or whoever commits insulting mischief thereon, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
translated from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__168.html
I was thinking more of the situation of a person who’ll soon die (but is mentally capable) gives permission to be eaten after their death. Sittenwidrig would be another issue, I agree.
Thus the statement of these experts may be true to some extent.
But given a noncarcinogenic grain supply, there's this other issue of adding magical chemicals to everyday bread or packaged foods. That's what this is about, and trying to make sweeping statements about half a dozen other things that are harmful actually helps make the case that this is less important to regulate.
Expert: "Almost certainly making them sick"
US food additives banned in EU. Expert says "almost certainly" making US sickIn any case, it might be related to histamines. If your wife has any troubles with an MTHFR mutation, this can cause issues with histamine buildup [1]. I don't endorse this site generally, just a quick reference for the histamine bits.
One possible cause of this is taking folic acid (synthetic) rather than folate. This is commonly found in 'enriched' products like breads and cereals, even rice. Europe doesn't enrich products like the US does.
This is to say nothing about different pesticides and additives the Europeans use vs the US.
Anyway, try avoiding wheat and enriched foods and see if that makes any difference. My wife had a lot of these issues and others, and we've got her sorted out now.
1: https://joannekennedy.com.au/2020/01/03/mthfr-histamine-into...
Considering that regulators are generally scientifically minded it's funny that there are so many discrepancies when it comes to what is safe and what is not. Perhaps we should look into where we disagree and try to figure out who is right and who is wrong.
If anything, it appears to validate the EU’s process which appears to be based on actual research, as opposed to the political whims of the people running the FDA.
It is likely that both sides of the aisle have banned substances that are actually safe. It is likely that both sides allow substances that are harmful and should be banned. We should further review the areas in which we disagree as it is unlikely that the science changes across an ocean. It is much more likely that hidden incentives or bad methodology has lead to someone being incorrect. Whether you think the US or Europe is better or worse at food regulation is likely a biased opinion.
Wow, pretty big assumption it will always be used properly, for something in wide use.
you guys are being lied to, constantly, by any industry that can get away with it.
vinylchloride on the floor? just burn it off.. itll become a harmless gas that you can mix with water (HAHA phat chance thats gonna happen in the air... am i right?) to get harmless hydrochloric acid
potassium bromATE in your flour? just bake it off.. itll become a harmless sedative...
I don't know if potassium bromate should be used as a food additive but your comment in its safety is not even wrong, it just shows a lack of understanding of food chemistry.
Easy enough to hit in a frying pan, which as a sidenote is the major problem with non-stick pans as well because their Teflon coating disintegrates when heating them too high
have you ever been to a kitchen?
Internet says highest you can go on induction (which is higher than gas and older electrical ones) is around the low 300C, so not really "easy".
Potassium bromate is used in baking, I want to see you baking bread in a 370c frying pan
The UK spends far less per head on healthcare than almost any other western country, as an absolute amount and as a portion of GDP.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_...
AU - 10.23
NL -10.14
DK - 10.121
UK - 9.875
FI - 9.172
NZ - 9.049
(Also France, Germany, US, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, Austria etc all higher)
this is false, but i keep seeing it repeated everywhere.
as a portion of GDP the UK is the 4th from the top:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268826/health-expenditur...
per capita the UK spends more than NZ, Spain, Italy, Portugal, etc:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/154e8143-en/index.html?i...
"The healthcare system of New Zealand has undergone significant changes throughout the past several decades. From an essentially fully public system based on the Social Security Act 1938, reforms have introduced market and health insurance elements primarily since the 1980s, creating a mixed public-private system for delivering healthcare."
In any case, usually when you start making it private it gets better for a little while, to convince people to move over, and the government to defund the public one.
Then when the competition from the state is over they can start reaping the profits (like in USA).
All the published comparisons disagree with this.
Do you have a non-youtube source? The only place I found which said UK had a better healthcare was "investopedia"… and their criteria didn't seem to have anything to do with the health of the patients.
it's not. the current issues are due to the covid backlogs and are present all over europe, including france, germany etc
https://www.statista.com/statistics/888735/quality-of-access...
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA
Germany, Switzerland, France, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Austria, Netherlands, Denmark all spend more (as well as the US, Canada, Japan, Austrailia)
Eastern and Southern European countries have very different demographics, income levels, and from personal experience expectations -- certainly Greek healthcare is very different to what you get in countries like France, UK and US.
this is cherry picking a bit as the UK has been consistently in the top 20 countries in the world for health as a portion of GDP.
and this percentage of gdp spent on health has been going up for 40 years now:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/317708/healthcare-expend...
There is literally a bill about to be passed by the government whose only purpose is to destroy all laws aligning the UK with the EU that would prevent trade with the EU for the purported purpose of being able to trade with non-EU countries.
Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffee-cancer-warning-science-a...
https://www.foodprocessing.com/business-of-food-beverage/int...
It was a relatively new addition to the list, only ruled as too dangerous in 2019.
As for the other chemicals: if something is banned in China and India you might want to take note. Both countries have ample experience with companies attempting to put questionable additives.
If it turns out to be bad we fucked millions of people for... having something slightly whiter
If it turns out not to be bad we just get things slightly whiter
Just saying “it’s banned in these countries” isn’t evidence.
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa...
The question isn't whether the chemical can cause cancer at any dose, it is whether there is evidence that its use in food in the US causes health problems in humans, i.e., the primary claim in the article linked to.
Would you want to ban something producing renal tubular tumours and thyroid follicular tumours in rodents, for use in human food? I guess this is the crux of the article.
Let’s discuss it over cocktails at the K Street Lobby Bar.
There is some evidence that (at least some of) the chemicals in the banned additives can cause health problems at some dosage. There is an expert who is almost certain that those chemicals in food has caused health problems. Neither of those equates to evidence that their use in food does cause health problems. And the opposing experts (the FDA) has said that food additives require evidence of their safety before approval for use in foods.
If you found an expert willing to claim it and ran a fearmongering story "Covid vaccines 'almost certainly' making people sick" despite safety requirements from the FDA, I think it would get a very different response here. At the very least calls for actual evidence of the claims would not be down voted.
I would be interested in the evidence too. For example presumably there would be a signal in cancer detection rates when potassium bromate was banned in Europe in 1990 if the ban had a significant reduction in its use and if its use caused cancer.
If his opinion on said vaccine was also accompanied by trade ban in Europe, India and China, he would also see a different response than if it was his claim alone. It's not juste an expert, it's multiple foreign agencies.
In any case OP's question about evidence for the claims in the article is still reasonable IMO.
The food additives in questions are not saving anyone’s lives even in the best case scenario. They’re only making bread last longer by a day or so.
The only winner is the food industry that can sell you subpar products that look better
It doesn't even look like it's a game changer: https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/b57beb64-e8a9...
Also, no-one much except possibly the FDA has much incentive to spend money on research here. The EU regulator is presumably happy to leave it banned, the companies who use it in the US probably don't want to open Pandora's box, and it's not like they're unable to bake bread in the EU due to the lack of it.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/14/uk/sprinkles-bakery-banne...
The other is by trying to grow a bacterium on a growth medium with an antibacterial agent and the substance in question. The clue: The bacterium has a gene for resistance against that antibiotic, but it is disabled by exactly one point mutation. The rate at which there are colonies on the petri dish tells you how mutagenic the substance is. Problem: The substance isn't metabolized like in a body.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm5jFxe9jJ0 [video][7 mins]
It's there to protect industry against consumers and any defeat of profit.
The wild wild west of the food and supplement industry where anything goes, what's on the label is not only self-reported, it is virtually never verified and even if "caught" the penalties are trivial.
Goes right along with the EPA etc. which have all been "kneecapped" by congress and the political agenda of "deregulation = profit"
This use of “no longer safe” sums up the problem with US regulators’ mindsets. It’s not like food additives are a condemned house. Presumably “safe” is being used as a term of art meaning “not yet proven unsafe”
Yeah, that's not food.
Also I see bleomycin, which is used to treat cancer.
Lesson: labeling something as a potential carcinogenic is nuanced.
My only takeaway are the specific names of some chemicals I can now go read about.
It says it was last updated in 2012 though, so might be outdated.
According to their table, the food colouring “Quinoline yellow FCF” aka “D+C Yellow No 10” (E104) is allowed in food in EU, but banned in food and beverages by the FDA. (Although, I read elsewhere the FDA does allow it in cosmetics and medicines, and that it is also disallowed in food in Canada)
Per the table, other food/beverage additives allowed in EU but banned in US include vegetable carbon (E153) and cyclamate (E952).
Furthermore, E122 (Azorubine/Carmoisine), E124 (Ponceau 4R), E142 (Green S), E151 (Brilliant black BN) and E155 (Brown HT) are all food colourings which are not explicitly banned by the FDA, but no manufacturer has ever applied for FDA approval to use them in food, but they are approved in the EU.
Everything in the table is allowed in Australia/New Zealand - the two countries have common food standards.
Also Berlin is in Europe which already has stricter rules than the US
And its used in ppm levels.
Were not eating grams of it.
bread should just include water, flour, and yeast IMO. anything else is an abonimation.
Now do you trust the over worked min wage worker who most likely doesn't give a shit to bake your bread until it's safe to eat ? Do you trust the food lobbies to tell you the truth ? The US is one of the most corrupt place for these things ("fat makes you fat", ddt, tobacco, &c.)
Also, sugar and fructose increases appetite levels.
HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup or isomerised sugar) is corn starch which is turned into glucose/dextrose by enzymes, after which about half is further turned into fructose giving it a sweetness like sucrose (table sugar) or honey so it can be used as a replacement for the already cheap sucrose or more expensive honey. Consumption of glucose containing sweeteners has no benefit for a typical sedentary person but does mess with your blood sugar because it goes directly into your blood once free.
Fructose, also known as fruit sugar because the sugars in fruits are mostly fructose, does not spike your blood sugar because it first has to be converted to glucose by your liver. Glucose is only half as sweet as fructose for humans, but since sucrose (table sugar) and HFCS are a little cheaper to produce and get consumed at a massive scale, in practice a consumer will have to pay at least 3 times as much for pure fructose.
For the typical HN user without medical issues and the disposable income you could aim for no sweeteners > sugar substitutes > fructose.
What I have noticed is that buying from my local farmers market has helped a ton in the U.S. I still get some staples from the supermarket, but stuff like meat only comes from the farmers market now, and even if it might be significantly more expensive, it’s absolutely worth it because my health is doing so much better (even if I couldn’t objectively link it to this change, I wouldn’t be surprised that eating chicken that was raised running in an open farm and eating wild food, that I have seen with my own eyes is better for me than chicken living in their and thousands of other chicken’s feces).
Even just between US cities, there are different foods at the grocery store at different price points that would make it unreasonable to stick to an identical diet, so it's hard for me to believe that everyone in these anecdotes has identical intercontinental diets.
Yet these anecdotes are never about obvious differences that could explain large calories swings. They always focus on cocksure yet vague claims about chemicals and additives.
It reminds me of people claiming that switching from corn syrup to cane sugar Coca-Cola, a magical elixir, when they traveled to Mexico must obviously be the responsible for some bodily change they allegedly experienced with no further interest in any competing explanation.
We did not evolve to tolerate quite literally hundreds of thousands of chemicals in regular commercial use. The incidence of several different disease types is increasing at far higher rates than "increased diagnosis". The number of people with GI symptoms related to food is something absurd like 1 in 3 now.
If you did not EVOLVE to tolerate a chemical, you're gambling with how it will be interpreted by the body's biology. Even with medicine we cause issues ALL the time when we're TRYING not to make drugs that actively harm you. The majority of these chemicals are NOT subject to that kind of scrutiny, even though many of them STILL get into people's systems. Yes, the dose makes the poison, but we DON'T EVEN KNOW the dose-response curve for the vast majority of commercially used chemicals, nor do we know their interactions. The likelihood of some of them causing physiologic or epigenetic harm in humans is basically 100%.
We do need WAY more scrutiny than we have and to withdraw way more things from commercial use BY force if we want to turn things around.
If you say "where's the evidence they cause damage" you're an armchair devil's advocate redditor moron. The onus should be on them to rigorously show they DO NOT cause harm before they're ever introduced into use that could lead to exopsure.