U.S. food additives banned in Europe(cbsnews.com)
cbsnews.com
U.S. food additives banned in Europe
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-food-additives-banned-europe-making-americans-sick-expert-says/
221 comments
It's crazy that we're doing "innocent until proven guilty" with food additives. Should be the other way around.
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.
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.
>It's crazy that we're doing "innocent until proven guilty" with food additives. Should be the other way around
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.
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.
My impression is that "innocent until proven guilty" is what Europe does, and that's what many want the US to switch to.
edit: Oops, I typed that backwards, I meant to say "guilty until proven innocent".
edit: Oops, I typed that backwards, I meant to say "guilty until proven innocent".
I think you mean "guilty until proven innocent" which the EU calls "principle of precaution"
How do you reach that impression? "Innocent until proven guilty" would mean the additive should be presumed safe, or innocent, until proven unsafe, or guilty.
They also say it's crazy to do innocent until proven guilty.
They also say it's crazy to do innocent until proven guilty.
Europeans don't really trust the FDA to make their best interest. We have our own regulations and we want those to be respected.
How was I implying that the FDA should apply to Europe?
mlatu(1)
I believe part of the problem is that it's difficult to draw the line defining what an "additive" is.
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.
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.
Who cares what the line is? That's just semantics. Every food ingredient should be baseline safe for normal consumption "additive" or not.
But guilty until proven innocent is what being suggested here, so you would need to check thousands of different compounds in say coffee and run trials on them all
individually?
Unless you are making your coffee out of an chemical soup instead of coffee beans it would be sufficient to run trials on the beans.
And to pile on, many of those thousands of compounds are already known to be toxic and/or carcinogenic at high levels.
This Starbucks is known to the state of California to cause cancer.
To be fair, that specific warning is (probably) due to a different carcinogenic food additive: heat
The burden of proof would be in the company that wants to sell it. So “you” wouldn’t have to (nor your tax dollars). The company who’s investing resources to bring the product to market would have to. (And it should go without saying that they should also have to fund an impartial third party in order to do that)
So have a carve out in the law for additives in customary continuous use
It's not crazy. It's economics and politics.
Food manufacturers are a powerful lobbying group and additives make a significant difference to profitability.
Food manufacturers are a powerful lobbying group and additives make a significant difference to profitability.
If, in this context, we're defining crazy as disturbing and unpalatable, then I struggle to see how "Food manufacturers are a powerful lobbying group and additives make a significant difference to profitability" _isn't_ crazy. The statement is factually accurate, but wow-oh-how messed up is it that by means of lobbying, they have the power to harm consumers to increase profits. (And no, I know this phenomenon is not limited to the food lobby)
they are both right and wrong at the same time and also in the same camp on untested food adjectives
People and language are not math.
People and language are not math.
But it’s not as if the US just allows everything, I guess there are still some hurdles to clear?
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.
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.
There was no hurdle other than not killing people in an overt way. It was grandfathered in.
Is beet juice magically safer in cured meat just because the nitrate comes from beets instead of from chemistry?
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.
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.
> Without additives, your bread is hard and stale 24 hours from now.
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.
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 don't see how a monopoly or not changes this much if the additive makes the product more profitable and people aren't generally aware of its existence or potential harm. Why is manipulating a rube goldberg machine of market economics - that will, by definition, still lead to a significant number of people consuming a harmful substance if it even 'works' at all - better than simply banning additives outright?
> I don't see how a monopoly or not changes this much if the additive makes the product more profitable
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.
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.
OK, but why should harmful additives be allowed whether the market is monopolized or has competition?
> Without additives, your bread is hard and stale 24 hours from now. Are you willing and able to go buy bread every single day?
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 :)
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 :)
Two day old (proper) bread isn't bad, it's just become "toasting bread"
> What's the risk/benefit?
Freedom, baby!
Within a few years we'll have that same freedom to consume whatever toxins we desire in post-Brexit Britain too.
Freedom, baby!
Within a few years we'll have that same freedom to consume whatever toxins we desire in post-Brexit Britain too.
I look forward to _not_ having that freedom unsuspectingly foisted on me.
How many more years? Taking their time given all they'd have to do is remove legislation; not develop new ones.
The relevant Bill is in The Lords, nobody ever said government is nimble.
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.
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.
It's just not that simple. While I don't want to eat bad food, and I'm thankfully rich enough to be able to choose, food additives and technologies have had an insane impact on the cost of food, and have probably bought quality foods to many many more people.
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.
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.
> 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...
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...
rhaway84773(1)
> It's crazy that we're doing "innocent until proven guilty" with food additives. Should be the other way around.
Absolutely NOT. Chemicals don't have human rights, obviously. Treating something as untrusted/dangerous unless proven otherwise is safety 101.
Absolutely NOT. Chemicals don't have human rights, obviously. Treating something as untrusted/dangerous unless proven otherwise is safety 101.
Yeah, I love sentences like this:
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.
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.
Only a complete mangling of the English language would translate that into No.
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.
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.
I agree with the gist of your remark but the question was "can be said with certainty...", which is, indeed very difficult for a scientist to ever do. The "could reach" is also weird right?
It's passive voice, not particularly weird.
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.
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.
It sounds like it's an open question whether or not it is in fact carcinogenic when consumed in the quantities allowed by the FDA.
it may well be fear mongering, but food additives in general are just not a good thing. it barely matters what they are. barring a few well-studied exceptions, in the first place, we shouldn’t be synthesising chemicals and adding them en masse to food which you otherwise wouldn’t expect to contain them
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
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
It sounds like you are defining "food additives" as the ones that you consider bad, and then saying they are bad in general.
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...
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...
it sounds like you’re reading more into my words than there is to read. additives are ingredients in mass-produced food that wouldn’t be there if you made the same thing at home. it’s as simple as that
But... that's _not_ what they are according to the definitions found in obvious places. Which is fine; it's a vague enough term that having your own definition is reasonable.
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.
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 completely agree that there's a place for preservatives in the world. it would be silly to suggest otherwise
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
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
Would you trade longer life expectancy for longer shelf life?
I suspect anything that would prompt a "yes" from a food company is an additive the parent would ban.
I suspect anything that would prompt a "yes" from a food company is an additive the parent would ban.
In general, would you consider spices to be food additives, too?
(Not being snarky, just genuinely curious as to where to draw the line.)
(Not being snarky, just genuinely curious as to where to draw the line.)
If it comes from an edible plant or animal source with minimal (eg, mechanical) processing, likely not an additive.
There are exceptions to everything, of course. Celery can be used as a source of nitrates.
There are exceptions to everything, of course. Celery can be used as a source of nitrates.
This is tricky, though. Where does it stop? If I really thought about what's natural, I wouldn't expect to find food at all.
Do you one better: what is "natural"? Are beaver dams natural? If so, are human buildings similarly natural? If so, are chemicals made by humans natural? Wasps and bees make a sort of paper, is that natural? How about human paper?
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".
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".
That's my point.
sorry for the late reply, but I didn't mention naturality. that would be far too vague. deadly nightshade is natural. bull sharks are natural. ebola is natural. et cetera.
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
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 even fruit?
Humans have modified most fruits to be nearly unrecognizable compared to their original forms!
There's a difference between phenotypic and genotypic modifications.
Neither is "natural"
And a whole lot of fruit is genotypically modified as well through various means!!
And a whole lot of fruit is genotypically modified as well through various means!!
Well, phenotypic selection is natural in the inevitable, Darwinian sense. Genotypic selection is not because "nature" can't observe genes directly, only their expressions.
The original title is "U.S. food additives banned in Europe: Expert says what Americans eat is "almost certainly" making them sick", which makes a lot more sense than the submission title.
I did wonder how the expert was making people sick.
Well one possible reason why Americans report better health and energy levels after switching to a lowcarb, no seed oil, paleo or whatever diet is that seed products in the US are contaminated with various chemicals.
Thus the statement of these experts may be true to some extent.
Thus the statement of these experts may be true to some extent.
This is an unhelpful conflation between several different health issues, and a wide range of fashionable paranoias. The article isn't to do with pesticide sprayed on grain crops, nor with seed products, nor with the value of "paleo" diets. It's simply about additives in bread. It's irresponsible to mash all those issues together, because glyphosate is a likely carcinogen and needs to be dealt with separately; hydrogenated seed oils are likely carcinogens and need to be dealt with separately too.
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.
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.
Unregulated chemicals that humans did not evolve to tolerate are nigh certainly causing loss of physiologic integrity.
Or they’re just switching away from worse, non deliberate diets and then misunderstanding which changes were the ones that mattered while buying into the popular social media trend of blaming “seed oils” for everything.
That said it's probably still inadvisable to season your food with expert.
Fun fact: Cannibalism in itself isn't illegal in Germany... Just don't ask
Suddenly this joke from the IT Crowd makes more sense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOE-q20RcDM
No, that was based on a real cannibal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
France an EU country (just next to germany) where cannilabism happened and then the cannibal was literally walking free in another country for decades until he died naturally.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei_Sagawa
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei_Sagawa
But isn't the point that you absolutely must ask, since you can only eat somebody if you have their consent?
Well, apparently all the means of obtaining, they, ugh, ingredients, are more or less illegal and covered by various laws. Voluntary donations so....
Dear me, I shouldn't have brought it up before lunch... I hope there is something vegetarian on the menu today...
Dear me, I shouldn't have brought it up before lunch... I hope there is something vegetarian on the menu today...
> Apparently all the means of obtaining, they, ugh, ingredients, are more or less illegal and covered by various laws.
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_...
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_...
consent has been defined different ways at different times in Germany.
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.
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.
always makes me think of this
https://www.metroweekly.com/2016/02/german-cannibal-eating-a...
There is no explicit legal norm, but that doesn't mean it's legal...there is § 168 StGB.
> § 168 StGB.
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 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
It's extremly unlikely that a judge will accept this approval and as far as I know, it has never happened. The approval could be ruled 'sittenwidrig'. Otherwise the person that approves has to be 'approvable'. There are high barriers to prove that the approval is legaly valid.
The most famous case is the 'Kannibale von Rotenburg'. Even though the victim aggreed he was sentenced to life for murder. You may find a theoretical loophole but in reality I don't think you would get away with this.
I think murder is different, and also orthogonal.
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.
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.
PSA: I am sorry to have started this thread. If it helps, I skipped lunch over it.
That's >80 characters title limit, so some editorializing was necessary.
An extra colon would have done the job
Expert: "Almost certainly making them sick"
Expert: "Almost certainly making them sick"
That extra colon could have prevented people from getting sick as well.
My wife has chronic migraines, and we live in the US. We visited Europe last year for 3 weeks and she was migraine free. We figured it had to be the food, and talk about maybe moving…
It could be the food, it could be indoor air quality, it could be a beauty product, it could be pollen, any number of things.
In 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...
In 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...
This article falls flat when it comes to providing actual evidence of harm being done. Both the EU and the US have products on store shelves which would not be deemed acceptable for human consumption in either respective region. I could write a scare mongering article about sodium cyclamate, a common sweetener that is considered a carcinogen in the US but is available for consumption all over Europe.
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.
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.
Looking up the Wikipedia page for sodium cyclamate does not acquit the U.S. any better. It was banned in the U.S. because of the decision of individual FDA commissioners, and not because it failed any FDA processes.
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.
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.
While it is my personal belief that sodium cyclamate is safe for human consumption, (The US ban was due to a research study that linked consumption to an increase in bladder cancer of mice) you missed the point that I was making.
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.
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.
Potassium bromate is a bit of an oddity, in that the FDA discourages its use, and likely wouldn't approve it if it came up today. The EU regulator is, I think it's fair to say, considerably more aggressive in purging the lists of already-approved things.
Potassium Bromate is in 100s of US commonly consumer products. Are you suggesting that the FDA is purposefully poisoning the public? That would suggest extreme regulatory capture (which is not tough to believe)
Another (notorious) example: kinder eggs!
Also, several European countries approved thalidomide, while the US did not.
"when used properly, potassium bromate converts into a harmless substance during food production"
Wow, pretty big assumption it will always be used properly, for something in wide use.
Wow, pretty big assumption it will always be used properly, for something in wide use.
.... potassium bromATE KBrO3 needs temperatures of 370° Celsius before it splits off its oxygen atoms... and then you have KBr, potassium bromIDE, in earlier centuries used as a sedative. and usualy back then they gave too much, which resulted in Bromism (im not saying you will get this from eating bread, but "harmless substance"? my ass is a harmless substance.): restlessness, irritability, ataxia, confusion, hallucinations, psychosis, weakness, stupor and in severe cases, coma..... also nausea and vomiting, and anorexia, constipation with chronic use...also also rashes and such.
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...
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...
You misunderstand what's supposed to happen. Potassium bromate is a strong oxidizing agent. Pyrolysis is completely irrelevant here.
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.
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.
> potassium bromATE KBrO3 needs temperatures of 370° Celsius before it splits off its oxygen atoms
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
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
> Easy enough to hit in a frying pan
Potassium bromate is used in baking, I want to see you baking bread in a 370c frying pan
Potassium bromate is used in baking, I want to see you baking bread in a 370c frying pan
> Easy enough to hit in a frying pan
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".
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".
ok and who bakes their bread in a frying pan? at 370° CELSIUS?
have you ever been to a kitchen?
have you ever been to a kitchen?
No. At 370 Celsius, your oil is already burning.
Humans are famous for never ever using anything improperly.
Especially in the US food industry, known for its extremely skilled workforce and exacting quality standards...
[deleted]
These will all almost certainly be making their way into food post-Brexit in the UK.
As I understand it the reasons for potassium bromate being legal in the US are more to do with the idiosyncratic way the FDA treated things already in common use when it became responsible for regulating food carcinogens. So even a freewheeling Brexit means Brexit UK regulator is unlikely to approve this _today_; if potassium bromate were a novel ingredient today the FDA probably wouldn’t approve it either.
But the reason to be worried about UK standards is because the government may want food regulations to be as similar to US regulations as possible, to make it easier/cheaper for American food to be imported here. So the fact that the FDA wouldn't approve it if it were novel today doesn't necessarily mean the UK won't approve it purely because it's already approved in the US.
Aligning UK food standards with US ones would be extremely difficult, expensive, and unpopular, and would shut down most of the UK's remaining food trade with the EU and other places which align to EU standards. And potassium bromate would be the least of their worries...
In 2017, the UK had 5 times more trade with the EU than the US. I don‘t think they will jeopardize that in favor of a much smaller trading partner.
That’s literally what successive UK governments have been saying for the past 6+ years.
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.
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.
Is this the Retained EU Law Bill? Looks like there's still a few more steps before its given royal ascent https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3340
oh yeah grandfather knew BESSSST
Don't worry, our highly efficient, world class, over-provisioned National Health Service will deal with the consequences in short order.
The NHS that totally received the £350 million per week that the UK no longer has to pay to the EU
Well it did, as part of normal health inflation requirements.
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.
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.
> 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.
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...
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...
looking at 2019 - the year before covid blew everything out of the water and it's unclear how care has been apportioned, other western European countries spending more as a portion of GDP
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.
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.
> looking at 2019
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...
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...
How does it then manage to be lower in the quality of care than all of those then?
> How does it then manage to be lower in the quality of care than all of those then?
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...
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...
It doesn't, although there's a large number of high income people repeating this youtube nonsense
> It doesn't
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.
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.
Because it's run by the government?
Those other countries' healthcare is also ran by the government… so cut it out with your invisible hand dreams.
Literally the first one I checked:
"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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_New_Zealand
"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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_New_Zealand
I don't see what this has to do here, since the other comment was comparing to Portugal, Spain, France and the likes.
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).
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).
citation needed, United Kingdom seems middling at most and NL, DK, AU, NZ and FI all spend less. [1]
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_...
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_...
OECD stats. In 2019 (so before covid costs), as % of GDP.
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)
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)
Nothing to worry, they are not in the EU anymore...
Coffee was on the global cancer-related list, then vanished from it. How much should we trust these lists on late additions/deletions?
Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffee-cancer-warning-science-a...
Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffee-cancer-warning-science-a...
IIRC Coffee and tee were removed, because it was later realized that the culprit was hot water not tea or coffee by themselves. So drinking coffee, tea is considered harmful if you drink it boiling hot, but not if you wait until it cools down before drinking. Conversely, drinking rooibos or mate won't save you if you drink them too hot ;)
It's not only food. Things like fire retardants and off the shelve pesticides are also problematic.
I came to the comments expecting users defending carcinogen additives and I'm not disappointed.
Came here for this. Yet another thing that makes me glad that the EU exists.
Won't someone think of the profits those carcinogen additives provide to the share holders?
Professor Millstone studying flour additives. A nice example of nominative determinism!
Out of the mentioned titanium dioxide might make a comeback in the EU:
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.
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.
I really don't get it with titanium dioxide. It only has a cosmetic role, why take the gamble...
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
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
Because in the current system of production that’s swallowing the globe, the only thing that matters is driving sales growth.
Is there any evidence these things are actually making people sick?
Just saying “it’s banned in these countries” isn’t evidence.
Just saying “it’s banned in these countries” isn’t evidence.
About potassium bromate, IARC based its evaluation on studies of rats, mice and hamsters. https://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol73/73-17.html
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.
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.
I know, right. It’s like how can we know things like that the cancer clusters that will show up in that population inside the government created toxic mushroom cloud fallout region around East Palestine, OH has anything to do with setting thousands of barrels of toxic chemicals on fire and letting them seep into the waterways that supply 20 million people.
Let’s discuss it over cocktails at the K Street Lobby Bar.
Let’s discuss it over cocktails at the K Street Lobby Bar.
So, no proof? Your argument could be used for every single chemical.
You'd not say that if you knew EU require far more rigorous tests/documentation than the US for things that are ingested.
This is obviously false, but in any case that would still mean we would have actual proof. Where is it?
Even if it's not do you really need it ? Looks like it's mostly used to make shit products (bread) slightly less shitty
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...
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...
look up "potassium bromate carcinogen" in your favorite search engine.
In practice, it would be very difficult to prove. It's IARC group 2B; possibly carcinogenic in humans, but insufficient evidence to say definitely. And it would be very difficult, probably impossible, to do an ethical trial. You can't say to people "Take this stuff; it's vaguely useful to bakers. Let us know if it gives you cancer; it did in lab animals!"
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.
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.
This isn't an unreasonable question to ask.
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.
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 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 claims would not be down voted.
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.
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.
Not if the evidence used for the bans was admittedly not based on actual evidence of harm in humans in its use as a food additive but in acute toxicity tests in animals. How do vaccines perform in accute overdose safety in mice, I wonder?
In any case OP's question about evidence for the claims in the article is still reasonable IMO.
In any case OP's question about evidence for the claims in the article is still reasonable IMO.
COVID vaccines have a specific use that nothing else provides. When there was the slightest bit of concern about the J&J vaccines (which turned out to be unfounded), the FDA did ban its usage.
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 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.
There is non-zero risk for any and all the vaccines and they don't ban them. It's a measured and scientific approach that is taken. And cost and availability of food is absolutely of critical importance for peoples' lives.
> "Titanium dioxide (also known as E171);"
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=E171
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=E171
If it has been banned, there are enough evidences. Then anyone is free to re-evaluate, but hey, you already have a big red flag.
"adverse effects are not evident in animals fed bread-based diets made from flour treated with KBrO3"
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.
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.
[deleted]
While any US new station (possibly with the exception of NPR) will be sensationalized and alarmist, as someone who studies primate (and we are primates) nutrition, I am completely behind banning substances until we find that they are harmless. Additionally, some of the comments below are simply stupid: (1) "Innocent until proven guilty" is a great right for humans, but it should not apply to products. I am quite sure you'd be complaining if radio-active substances had been considered "innocent until proven guilty" and released to the public for their use pending testing. This did happen with arsenic laced green dyes (not radioactive, but same story), and in the case of the Radium Girls/Women. (2) If we were to assume "innocent until proven guilty" then these chemicals could still be "banned" until found not guilty (just as humans can be retained/jailed until trial if they are deemed potentially harmful).
"UK bakery banned from using sprinkles which are legal in the US"
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/14/uk/sprinkles-bakery-banne...
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/14/uk/sprinkles-bakery-banne...
There are basically two ways to find out if something is carcinogenic (that I know) quicker than with a retrospective study in Humans: One is to use lab animals, mostly rodents, administer them that substance in a high enough dose and see if they develop tumors. Problem: They aren't Humans and they don't get very old.
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.
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.
This is not popular news yet but most of the tests with lab mice may be invalid. [1] I suppose now we need a movement to get natural mice used in lab tests or something along that line.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm5jFxe9jJ0 [video][7 mins]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm5jFxe9jJ0 [video][7 mins]
The same ban should be done for food coloring and bleached flour like it is in Europe.
FDA no longer functions to protect consumers.
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"
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"
> "Post-approval, our scientists continue to review relevant new information to determine whether there are safety questions and whether the use of such substance is no longer safe," the agency added.
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”
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”
> Potassium bromate is classified as a category 2B carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
Yeah, that's not food.
Yeah, that's not food.
Looking at the list of group 2B carcinogen, I see things like caffeic acid (common in food like, uh, coffee, but other things as well).
Also I see bleomycin, which is used to treat cancer.
Lesson: labeling something as a potential carcinogenic is nuanced.
Also I see bleomycin, which is used to treat cancer.
Lesson: labeling something as a potential carcinogenic is nuanced.
I’m of the opinion that there is something massively wrong with our food and that the Europeans do far better, yet this article is a stinker.
My only takeaway are the specific names of some chemicals I can now go read about.
My only takeaway are the specific names of some chemicals I can now go read about.
Tried to find a list of additives banned in the U.S. but not in other countries. Instead the search results were full of articles like this one.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has what you are looking for: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/pages/ta...
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.
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.
This thread shows HN humor - who knew?
I wonder what will happen to doner in Berlin. It is so delicious because they add additives..
Not sure about that. The döner I eat is just a bunch of chicken on a massive skewer that they pack down and shave. The weird spongy döner, maybe yeah.
Most döner is a mix of filets beaten flat and odd slaughter goo, generally in layers. Nothing wrong with that - sausages are generally _only_ the slaughter goo...
It's called grilled veggies and goat cheese crumble, the meat is shady though, but given how it looks it's no surprise to anyone, good thing you can do without
Also Berlin is in Europe which already has stricter rules than the US
Also Berlin is in Europe which already has stricter rules than the US
Bromate should decompose to bromide during baking. I wouldn't worry too much.
And nuclear power plants shouldn't explode, trains carrying hazardous chemicals shouldn't derail.
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.)
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.)
Exactly. Potassium bromate is an oxidant (like chloramine used to purify drinking water). And when baking its surrounded by reducing agents.
And its used in ppm levels.
Were not eating grams of it.
And its used in ppm levels.
Were not eating grams of it.
I know Americans who have the same diet in the US and Europe and they always lose weight as soon as they come to Europe
People say this but don’t actually track it. They just eyeball it which, looking at how bad people are at estimating calorie intake without a food journal, means they eat far more in the US, probably just because portion sizes are so much bigger.
I lose weight when traveling to Europe even though I cook all my food both in the US and Europe.
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).
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).
I travel a lot and find it hard to maintain the same exact diet even though I cook 95% of my meals at home.
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.
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.
They may think they have the same diet, but I bet they're eating less, simply due to different portion sizes. If they're going to the same type of restaurants and ordering the same thing as in the US, they're almost certainly consuming fewer calories simply because they're getting less food pr. order. Even when buying food at the supermarket, portion sizes can differ dramatically. "1 pork chop" or "1 chicken breast" is much smaller on average in Sweden for example than in the US.
It's possible they end up walking more. Most of the US is shockingly unwalkable; unless they were in one of a handful of walkable cities they very likely ended up walking more in Europe.
Do they walk more in Europe? It's fairly unusual for the standard US suburban lifestyle to enable daily activity unless it's in a gym.
Probably due to the freaking fructose in everything they eat, including their bread.
Also, sugar and fructose increases appetite levels.
Also, sugar and fructose increases appetite levels.
HFCS != fructose.
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.
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.
Adding to this, fructose is a signalling molecule used by our genetic survival trait to tell our liver to store more glucose as fat. The extreme example of this is bears eating loads of berries before they hibernate to store up fat. It works in humans too, just not to the same extreme as bears.
And fructose is transformed into fat immediately instead used as glucose to power body. If I was dictator I would ban fructose syrup.
scaremongering
When people defend chemicals saying what's the evidence, they're only doing harm to themselves and everyone.
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.
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.
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.