Artificial Ingredients: Really all that harmful?
October 28, 2014 10:29 AM Subscribe
Does the average American's diet have large enough amounts of artificial ingredients to actually cause harm? I know a glass of Red 40 every day would obviously do some damage, but are the amounts we actually consume significant? Or are they merely trace amounts? Is most of this kind of thing fear-mongering?
Assuming that you're talking about food additives in the United States, you might want to look at the history of the FDA's "Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS) standards.
There is historical precedent for the FDA allowing various food additives in food for quite a while after the first concerns about the safety of those products, trans fats come immediately to mind, but for every one of those there are a bunch that people have been screaming about for decades but there's never been a large enough measured effect to show negative impacts.
Personal opinion? I'm pretty organic whole grain hippy, but I suspect most of the concern over this is fear-mongering in order to sell diet books and supplements. And to be fair, health is so impacted by belief that many people peddling such things may very well truly believe their spiel, and legitimately feel better when they eat in the way they proscribe.
posted by straw at 10:43 AM on October 28, 2014 [9 favorites]
There is historical precedent for the FDA allowing various food additives in food for quite a while after the first concerns about the safety of those products, trans fats come immediately to mind, but for every one of those there are a bunch that people have been screaming about for decades but there's never been a large enough measured effect to show negative impacts.
Personal opinion? I'm pretty organic whole grain hippy, but I suspect most of the concern over this is fear-mongering in order to sell diet books and supplements. And to be fair, health is so impacted by belief that many people peddling such things may very well truly believe their spiel, and legitimately feel better when they eat in the way they proscribe.
posted by straw at 10:43 AM on October 28, 2014 [9 favorites]
Unfortunately, it's not really possible to separate the influence of "artificial" ingredients themselves from the harm caused by industrially processed foods. Whatever specific, measurable harm is caused by the additives themselves, it's statistically unimportant compared to the metabolic effects of the foods that contain the additives.
It's like worrying about the health effect of the bleach they use to whiten the paper on cigarettes.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 11:06 AM on October 28, 2014 [9 favorites]
It's like worrying about the health effect of the bleach they use to whiten the paper on cigarettes.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 11:06 AM on October 28, 2014 [9 favorites]
It would be less of a concern if there were thorough testing before such ingredients were added to food, if there were less motivation to keep them in even if they did turn out to be harmful, if the amounts were more clearly specified, and if they were more clearly described in ingredients lists ("artificial flavor" is much less helpful than knowing the specific chemical names).
posted by amtho at 11:13 AM on October 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by amtho at 11:13 AM on October 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
In the past, I participated a lot on some health lists and in some of the circles where I hung out, this was a big thing where people with certain problems were going to real extremes to clean up their diets and it was doing them a lot of good. In fact, it's a thing I have done and benefited from. I also was an environmental studies major for a time. So, for various reasons, I can say that I think there is evidence that the amount of toxic stuff to which we are currently exposed (which is not simply about food additives) can and does have serious negative health impacts for some portion of the population.
However, I once had a discussion with someone more knowledgeable than I was about regulation of the food industry. I was trying to be all purist and say "Why not just forbid this, that and the other?" and the answer I got was basically "because if you forbid these known not-so-great but not actually evil incarnate things, then food manufacturers do worse things in order to get the result they want in terms of appearance, flavor, or whatever." So, basically, we put up with it because it's the lesser evil. (Which means it is largely on the individual consumer to decide "I will not eat foods made with X." -- As someone who has gone that route, I can tell you from experience that the average consumer is practically guaranteed to protest the appearance, form, flavor and so on of some of the things I choose to eat to support my health to a high standard. So, no, it wouldn't go over well to legislate the purity standard I ascribe to.)
Also, in part because of being an environmental studies major, I will add that humans are generally living longer than they used to, so whatever evils we think are going on currently, they are probably less of an issue that whatever used to go on since it apparently is killing us slower. And since I was not personally alive, say, 200 years ago, I try to keep in mind that it is really hard to be objective or to know what worse things might be happening if we took out X preservative or what have you. In short, it can be incredibly hard to have perspective and be clear that while X has this specific downside, it is also The Reason for (thing we take totally for granted as spoiled modern Americans with first world problems).
I will give you a historical example that I do know about: During WWII, there were two different kinds of bugs that would get into flour. This was too common of an occurrence to simply throw the flour out. Our soldiers would have starved if you had thrown out the flour. It was common enough for them to go ahead and make biscuits with the infested flour that soldiers could tell you which bug they preferred their flour infested with (one of them was apparently very bitter, so the other bug was the better bug to have in your flour).
Whatever we do these days that pretty consistently prevents bugs from getting in our flour might also be kind of poisoning us. However, many modern Americans who might protest being "poisoned" are going to be very much taking it for granted that, of course, flour should not have bugs in it and will probably not stop to think "but if we take x thing out, maybe the bugs will come back" because within their lifetime, there haven't been bugs in the flour so they don't even wonder how we achieve that. So if you took some ingredient out that people are protesting as a bad thing, you might find that a) you get bugs in the flour b) that happens often enough that throwing all of the infested flour out would lead to starvation and c) people will soon be up in arms about making damn sure they neither starve nor have to eat bug-infested flour, and then the minor issue of potentially being slowly poisoned if you live enough decades and eat enough flour will be less upsetting. (I don't actually know what we do these days that we don't have this problem on the scale they had it during WWII, so "poisonous flour" is a hypothetical scenario here.)
So I will suggest that if you personally have some kind of significant health issue, it might benefit you personally to start a food journal and see if you can determine by observation that some things just might well be associated with some of your problems. And if you have reason to believe you have a problem with a particular ingredient, you don't need a doctor's permission to choose to stop eating it and see if you actually feel/function better without it. But, in the aggregate, details such as increased life expectancy for humans generally suggests that the crap we do currently is less bad than the crap we used to do.
I will further add that what bothers you may be in part genetically determined. So just because you have a problem with it does not mean it is bad for humans generally.
posted by Michele in California at 11:16 AM on October 28, 2014 [25 favorites]
However, I once had a discussion with someone more knowledgeable than I was about regulation of the food industry. I was trying to be all purist and say "Why not just forbid this, that and the other?" and the answer I got was basically "because if you forbid these known not-so-great but not actually evil incarnate things, then food manufacturers do worse things in order to get the result they want in terms of appearance, flavor, or whatever." So, basically, we put up with it because it's the lesser evil. (Which means it is largely on the individual consumer to decide "I will not eat foods made with X." -- As someone who has gone that route, I can tell you from experience that the average consumer is practically guaranteed to protest the appearance, form, flavor and so on of some of the things I choose to eat to support my health to a high standard. So, no, it wouldn't go over well to legislate the purity standard I ascribe to.)
Also, in part because of being an environmental studies major, I will add that humans are generally living longer than they used to, so whatever evils we think are going on currently, they are probably less of an issue that whatever used to go on since it apparently is killing us slower. And since I was not personally alive, say, 200 years ago, I try to keep in mind that it is really hard to be objective or to know what worse things might be happening if we took out X preservative or what have you. In short, it can be incredibly hard to have perspective and be clear that while X has this specific downside, it is also The Reason for (thing we take totally for granted as spoiled modern Americans with first world problems).
I will give you a historical example that I do know about: During WWII, there were two different kinds of bugs that would get into flour. This was too common of an occurrence to simply throw the flour out. Our soldiers would have starved if you had thrown out the flour. It was common enough for them to go ahead and make biscuits with the infested flour that soldiers could tell you which bug they preferred their flour infested with (one of them was apparently very bitter, so the other bug was the better bug to have in your flour).
Whatever we do these days that pretty consistently prevents bugs from getting in our flour might also be kind of poisoning us. However, many modern Americans who might protest being "poisoned" are going to be very much taking it for granted that, of course, flour should not have bugs in it and will probably not stop to think "but if we take x thing out, maybe the bugs will come back" because within their lifetime, there haven't been bugs in the flour so they don't even wonder how we achieve that. So if you took some ingredient out that people are protesting as a bad thing, you might find that a) you get bugs in the flour b) that happens often enough that throwing all of the infested flour out would lead to starvation and c) people will soon be up in arms about making damn sure they neither starve nor have to eat bug-infested flour, and then the minor issue of potentially being slowly poisoned if you live enough decades and eat enough flour will be less upsetting. (I don't actually know what we do these days that we don't have this problem on the scale they had it during WWII, so "poisonous flour" is a hypothetical scenario here.)
So I will suggest that if you personally have some kind of significant health issue, it might benefit you personally to start a food journal and see if you can determine by observation that some things just might well be associated with some of your problems. And if you have reason to believe you have a problem with a particular ingredient, you don't need a doctor's permission to choose to stop eating it and see if you actually feel/function better without it. But, in the aggregate, details such as increased life expectancy for humans generally suggests that the crap we do currently is less bad than the crap we used to do.
I will further add that what bothers you may be in part genetically determined. So just because you have a problem with it does not mean it is bad for humans generally.
posted by Michele in California at 11:16 AM on October 28, 2014 [25 favorites]
Here's the thing - in order to calculate risk we need to know 1) what the chemical is, 2) how toxic that chemical is at different doses, 3) how much people are consuming (or breathing, or getting on their skin), and 4) over how much time.
In the case you mention, we know very little about many of these things, especially toxicity. There are so many chemicals, including additives, where the toxicity is not well understood, that categorically stating "these concerns are scaremongering" (or not) doesn't mean much.
However. We all live in the world and make eating choices every day, and it's impossible to live a "pure" life unless you're spear-fishing from your tree in a sustainable paradise. Thus the solution that many people have found is following something like Pollan's "Eat food, mostly plants" to largely avoid processed foods that are linked to metabolic and possible toxicity issues.
posted by ldthomps at 11:49 AM on October 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
In the case you mention, we know very little about many of these things, especially toxicity. There are so many chemicals, including additives, where the toxicity is not well understood, that categorically stating "these concerns are scaremongering" (or not) doesn't mean much.
However. We all live in the world and make eating choices every day, and it's impossible to live a "pure" life unless you're spear-fishing from your tree in a sustainable paradise. Thus the solution that many people have found is following something like Pollan's "Eat food, mostly plants" to largely avoid processed foods that are linked to metabolic and possible toxicity issues.
posted by ldthomps at 11:49 AM on October 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
There seems to be a bit of fuzzy thinking going on here. "Artificial ingredients" does not equal "toxins." The assumption that "artificial ingredients" are, by default, harmful--but especially in large doses--is unfounded.
"I know a glass of Red 40 every day would obviously do some damage..."
I'm curious. How do you know that?
posted by General Tonic at 11:56 AM on October 28, 2014 [12 favorites]
"I know a glass of Red 40 every day would obviously do some damage..."
I'm curious. How do you know that?
posted by General Tonic at 11:56 AM on October 28, 2014 [12 favorites]
The assumption that "artificial ingredients" are, by default, harmful--but especially in large doses--is unfounded.
Right. As AndrewInDC alludes to in the first answer, "artificial" flavorings and colors as defined by the FDA are those made synthetically without having been purified from certain natural sources*, but that does not mean they cannot be found in nature. It's not a distinction of kinds of molecules, but of the provenance of the particular molecules in whatever food item you are considering. This article discusses why artificial vs natural isn't a particularly useful way of determining whether you want something in your food.
*And keep in mind that the extraction and purification processes to get those "natural" flavors concentrated from their sources are often every bit as laden with noxious chemicals as the synthetic processes to make them from scratch.
posted by solotoro at 12:13 PM on October 28, 2014 [4 favorites]
Right. As AndrewInDC alludes to in the first answer, "artificial" flavorings and colors as defined by the FDA are those made synthetically without having been purified from certain natural sources*, but that does not mean they cannot be found in nature. It's not a distinction of kinds of molecules, but of the provenance of the particular molecules in whatever food item you are considering. This article discusses why artificial vs natural isn't a particularly useful way of determining whether you want something in your food.
*And keep in mind that the extraction and purification processes to get those "natural" flavors concentrated from their sources are often every bit as laden with noxious chemicals as the synthetic processes to make them from scratch.
posted by solotoro at 12:13 PM on October 28, 2014 [4 favorites]
Personally, I believe it is best to know what affects you. There is science and research, debates and anecdotes. GRAS and FDA and all that great stuff too. However, I consider it the same as knowing your limits regarding the effects of alcohol on your body. Personally, I know when I eat something that is laden with MSG or Red 40 or Yellow 5, I get an intense headache and I feel all around miserable. It might be other items on the labels, it might be all in my head (literally and figuratively) or who knows what.
But I know that I prefer not to consume certain things. Same as alcohol, I know I am miserable when I'm drunk and hungover and it's not something I care to spend my time doing. Boils down to personal preference and how you live, aka lifestyle.
posted by lunastellasol at 12:16 PM on October 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
But I know that I prefer not to consume certain things. Same as alcohol, I know I am miserable when I'm drunk and hungover and it's not something I care to spend my time doing. Boils down to personal preference and how you live, aka lifestyle.
posted by lunastellasol at 12:16 PM on October 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
Also: danger is hardly specific to artificial ingredients! Loads of natural flavorings are toxic in high doses - nutmeg, bitter almond, cinnamon, licorice root all come to mind. Stevia was traditionally used as an abortificacient/birth control but as far as I know there's no evidence that it actually worked. Garlic can thin your blood.
posted by mskyle at 12:44 PM on October 28, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by mskyle at 12:44 PM on October 28, 2014 [6 favorites]
Lots of great comments above.
A problem is that there's so much that hasn't been "thoroughly tested" about the so-called natural foods we eat everyday: the molecular composition of any natural crop (which is itself the product of a long line of artificial selection for taste and size) is absurdly complex and variable. Who knows how Food X interacts with Food Y, and how is each affected by your genetics and epigenetics and microbiome and yesterday's meal? Human diets are extremely variable, and it's impossible to come up with only one objective measure of the effect of a food, and how would you measure any of that anyway?
What seems pretty clear is that the "artificial" / "natural" divide of food is an informationally useless one, and as far as I can tell mostly exists nowadays as a marketing term. GMO is another informationally useless term, since whether something has been genetically modified tells you absolutely nothing at all about whether it's healthy or not (or its relative healthiness in relation to the unmodified organism).
posted by switchsonic at 12:45 PM on October 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
A problem is that there's so much that hasn't been "thoroughly tested" about the so-called natural foods we eat everyday: the molecular composition of any natural crop (which is itself the product of a long line of artificial selection for taste and size) is absurdly complex and variable. Who knows how Food X interacts with Food Y, and how is each affected by your genetics and epigenetics and microbiome and yesterday's meal? Human diets are extremely variable, and it's impossible to come up with only one objective measure of the effect of a food, and how would you measure any of that anyway?
What seems pretty clear is that the "artificial" / "natural" divide of food is an informationally useless one, and as far as I can tell mostly exists nowadays as a marketing term. GMO is another informationally useless term, since whether something has been genetically modified tells you absolutely nothing at all about whether it's healthy or not (or its relative healthiness in relation to the unmodified organism).
posted by switchsonic at 12:45 PM on October 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
Is most of this kind of thing fear-mongering?
All of it is. Something artificial is not necessarily harmful. Something natural is not necessarily healthful or even safe. Botulinum toxin is natural, but it is not something we can safely add to our food. On the other hand, almost all cancer treatment is artificial pharmaceuticals. I have a standing offer to all "natural" types that I will ingest, gram for gram, as much USP aspartame (artificial) as they will USP caffeine (natural). (inspired by Bernard Cohen)
Food is not medicine or poison. Beware of those who monger fear about "chemicals". Water and oxygen are chemicals - should we avoid them?
posted by Tanizaki at 12:51 PM on October 28, 2014 [9 favorites]
All of it is. Something artificial is not necessarily harmful. Something natural is not necessarily healthful or even safe. Botulinum toxin is natural, but it is not something we can safely add to our food. On the other hand, almost all cancer treatment is artificial pharmaceuticals. I have a standing offer to all "natural" types that I will ingest, gram for gram, as much USP aspartame (artificial) as they will USP caffeine (natural). (inspired by Bernard Cohen)
Food is not medicine or poison. Beware of those who monger fear about "chemicals". Water and oxygen are chemicals - should we avoid them?
posted by Tanizaki at 12:51 PM on October 28, 2014 [9 favorites]
Some scientific, repeatable ways to find an answer include reading a synthetic food additive's MSDS or material safety report. These can have a toxicity section which indicate if the compound is carcinogenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, etc. as well as data for its LD50, or median lethal dose — this is the amount of the substance in question that a group of organisms would need to consume to kill off half of the group.
You'd compare this data with a listing and quantification of ingredients (including additives) in the average American's diet.
It is important to note that safety measurements — and safety determinations — can differ between regulatory bodies.
As an example, the EU finds various popular synthetic food dyes to be carcinogenic or have other deleterious effects and either does not allow them in food production or issues consumer warnings, dyes which are still allowed in small amounts in American diets by the FDA, without much further regulation.
The FDA is historically pro-business and anti-regulation where food and food safety is concerned, moving very slowly — or even doing nothing — when hazards are found. I'd suggest comparing safety reports from multiple regulatory agencies and seeing where the scientific processes agree and disagree.
I suspect you'll probably get closer to answering your question correctly by doing research in this direction, rather than listening to opinions on the Internet or this site (including mine).
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:12 PM on October 28, 2014 [3 favorites]
You'd compare this data with a listing and quantification of ingredients (including additives) in the average American's diet.
It is important to note that safety measurements — and safety determinations — can differ between regulatory bodies.
As an example, the EU finds various popular synthetic food dyes to be carcinogenic or have other deleterious effects and either does not allow them in food production or issues consumer warnings, dyes which are still allowed in small amounts in American diets by the FDA, without much further regulation.
The FDA is historically pro-business and anti-regulation where food and food safety is concerned, moving very slowly — or even doing nothing — when hazards are found. I'd suggest comparing safety reports from multiple regulatory agencies and seeing where the scientific processes agree and disagree.
I suspect you'll probably get closer to answering your question correctly by doing research in this direction, rather than listening to opinions on the Internet or this site (including mine).
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:12 PM on October 28, 2014 [3 favorites]
Also many all natural ingredients come into contact with super extra toxic compounds and then separated to be within safe levels. Unprocessed foods are generally healthiest. I try to eat a lot of minimally processes things but I sure love some highly processed artifical treats!
posted by Kalmya at 1:13 PM on October 28, 2014
posted by Kalmya at 1:13 PM on October 28, 2014
And keep in mind that the extraction and purification processes to get those "natural" flavors concentrated from their sources are often every bit as laden with noxious chemicals as the synthetic processes to make them from scratch.I have a nutrition book that tells the reader "most of the items in your kitchen should be ingredients, not contain ingredients." I like that aphorism. A lot of the harm of typical crappy processed foods lies in its complexity, not necessarily in its ingredients.
posted by deathpanels at 3:15 PM on October 28, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'd also point out that for every "The FDA is historically pro-business and anti-regulation where food and food safety is concerned" I read, there's a libertarian or three complaining about FDA meddling in food production processes.
There are a ton of factors that are demonstrably bigger hazards in your life than what may or may not be going on with most mainstream food additives. Yeah, these things are cumulative, but if you're looking to cut something out of your life, a shorter commute may do more for your health and longevity than cutting out your favorite sausage.
I was going to make some assertions about various risk factors (like more veggies via salads vs increased risks of food poisoning), and started digging through literature, and came across Increased intake of fruit and vegetables: estimation of impact in terms of life expectancy and healthcare costs., which suggests that if Danes tripled their vegetable intake, they'd add 1.3 years to their collective lifespans by reducing the cancer incidence, but then noted that:
tl;dr: Eat what makes you happy. The health effects are so tied up and confounded with other factors that it's gonna be impossible to give you a definitive.
posted by straw at 4:54 PM on October 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
There are a ton of factors that are demonstrably bigger hazards in your life than what may or may not be going on with most mainstream food additives. Yeah, these things are cumulative, but if you're looking to cut something out of your life, a shorter commute may do more for your health and longevity than cutting out your favorite sausage.
I was going to make some assertions about various risk factors (like more veggies via salads vs increased risks of food poisoning), and started digging through literature, and came across Increased intake of fruit and vegetables: estimation of impact in terms of life expectancy and healthcare costs., which suggests that if Danes tripled their vegetable intake, they'd add 1.3 years to their collective lifespans by reducing the cancer incidence, but then noted that:
... The aggregate healthcare costs remained stable, as the resources saved due to a lower cancer incidence were offset by healthcare costs imposed by the fact that healthy people live longer and require more healthcare. ...So, do you wanna die of cancer? Or senility?
tl;dr: Eat what makes you happy. The health effects are so tied up and confounded with other factors that it's gonna be impossible to give you a definitive.
posted by straw at 4:54 PM on October 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's not so much a divide between "natural" and "artificial", as one between simple processes and highly processed. If there are 40 ingredients in your food and it is not a spicy North African dish, you should probably consider what those 40 ingredients are doing.
A lot of food is per definition "artificial" - think of the shark thread the other day, where we read about people digging down poisonous sharks into the beach. When we cure meats with salts or pickle cucumbers, we are processing food. Unless I know I'm going to eat them within a week, I add chemicals to my vegetable and fruit preserves.
But - there seems to be something going on within the food industry where the level of manipulation becomes unhealthy. I cannot find research documenting exactly where the boundary between good food and bad food lies.
Personally, I am one of the 1/1000 people who have a real documented intolerance of MSG (long story, but my symptoms are very different from the so-called Chinese restaurant syndrome). However, after I have learnt to manage it, I can eat mild soy sauce and sun-dried tomatoes - both of which contain natural MSG. To me, and my doctor, this indicates that there is something complex and as yet unexplored going on between food and chemistry.
Pollan's doctrine: eat food, seems to me to be a good guide. It's not judgmental and there are many ways to get there. Something with 40+ ingredients is not food. But a simple burger is, given the bun is made of real bread. Actually, my children claim that my pickled onions make my burgers taste like MacDonalds, in a bad way. They are spoilt and foodist. I'll keep on pickling onions, for my self. Just to say that homemade food can be many things.
posted by mumimor at 5:09 PM on October 28, 2014 [5 favorites]
A lot of food is per definition "artificial" - think of the shark thread the other day, where we read about people digging down poisonous sharks into the beach. When we cure meats with salts or pickle cucumbers, we are processing food. Unless I know I'm going to eat them within a week, I add chemicals to my vegetable and fruit preserves.
But - there seems to be something going on within the food industry where the level of manipulation becomes unhealthy. I cannot find research documenting exactly where the boundary between good food and bad food lies.
Personally, I am one of the 1/1000 people who have a real documented intolerance of MSG (long story, but my symptoms are very different from the so-called Chinese restaurant syndrome). However, after I have learnt to manage it, I can eat mild soy sauce and sun-dried tomatoes - both of which contain natural MSG. To me, and my doctor, this indicates that there is something complex and as yet unexplored going on between food and chemistry.
Pollan's doctrine: eat food, seems to me to be a good guide. It's not judgmental and there are many ways to get there. Something with 40+ ingredients is not food. But a simple burger is, given the bun is made of real bread. Actually, my children claim that my pickled onions make my burgers taste like MacDonalds, in a bad way. They are spoilt and foodist. I'll keep on pickling onions, for my self. Just to say that homemade food can be many things.
posted by mumimor at 5:09 PM on October 28, 2014 [5 favorites]
Artificial Food Dyes Paper
Basically Red 40 is thought to be safe in small amounts but may be carcinogenic in larger quantities. I think this is what OP meant by drinking a glass a day.
posted by Aliera at 10:28 AM on October 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
Basically Red 40 is thought to be safe in small amounts but may be carcinogenic in larger quantities. I think this is what OP meant by drinking a glass a day.
posted by Aliera at 10:28 AM on October 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
When approving food additives, the FDA applies the standard of "reasonable certainty of no harm," and prescribes the maximum amount it can be used, which is normally designed to be much lower than what would be expected to have any adverse effect.
posted by AndrewInDC at 10:39 AM on October 28, 2014 [2 favorites]