Food Additives Banned in Europe but not in the USA.

[ERD50]

Ah, the old "moderation in everything" argument (and everything will be fine). Maybe moderate consumption of toxic compunds is okay with you, but personally, I really don't want to consume any amount of this stuff. Maybe I won't be able to avoid it completely, but sticking mostly to whole/real foods certainly should help. Consuming a lot of processed foods anywhere is not a good idea, but at least Europe is making an effort to eliminate some of the worst food additives, and I applaud them for it.

Well, everything is toxic, it all depends on the dose.

Sure, I'm not saying play with fire, but we do not eat a lot of processed food, we make our meals mostly from scratch. So I'm not gonna get all worked up about 1,000 different things that might harm me if consume them in high amounts, when I only consume them occasionally. There are more important things to worry about. I'm actually more worried about the things organic farmers are allowed to use, simply because they are 'natural'.

"Natural" food contains all sorts of known toxins in far greater doses than this stuff of unknown toxicity. But you don't eat thousands of apple seeds either. Or drink 5 gallons of water a day. So yes, moderation does matter.

Water is considered one of the least toxic chemical compounds, with an LD50 of over 90 ml/kg in rats.[3]

So an 80 kg / ~ 175 # man could die from ~ 7 liters ( ~ 2 gallons) of water. I bet I drink 1/3rd that amount many days. Dosage matters.

Heck a man can drink a couple 5% alc 12 oz beers a day, and some studies show that to be a positive. But drink 50 of those and you are probably dead. 50x and dead, not the thousands that are talked about with some of these additives in theses studies, that are still inconclusive.

-ERD50

 

[Bir48die]

Both, pulled from MacDonald's websites, UK and the USA.

Ingredients in MacDonald's fries sold in the UK:

Ingrediants in MacDonalds fries sold in the USA:



Edited to add: They are just data points. Though I admit that I am curious why the USA fries (err... chips) need beef flavor and something to protect the color. Perhaps a difference in the type of potatoes used?

Because they used beef tallow for their fries (look it up) and they want a similar taste I’m guessing.

Many people are concerned about what they eat and some to a crazy extent. We all want food fresh but if it’s clean it won’t last long. Pick your poison. Can’t have it all.

On the other hand it’s nice to challenge the things food companies did years ago. It’s a good trend. I am knowledgeable about the industry and preservation so there are points on either side.

On the other hand it’s the NYT. Enough said

 

[OldShooter]

Ah, the old "moderation in everything" argument (and everything will be fine). Maybe moderate consumption of toxic compunds is okay with you, but personally, I really don't want to consume any amount of this stuff. Maybe I won't be able to avoid it completely, but sticking mostly to whole/real foods certainly should help. Consuming a lot of processed foods anywhere is not a good idea, but at least Europe is making an effort to eliminate some of the worst food additives, and I applaud them for it.

Sorry, but to someone trained as a scientist and engineer this is not much above believing in astrology.

For example, " ... sticking mostly to whole/real foods should help." Really? And what human-based statistical data support this theory?

"Consuming a lot of processed foods anywhere is not a good idea ... " And you have actual human-based statistical data (not mouse experiments) to support this theory?

The way bureaucracies work is that they strive to justify their existence. Once the low-hanging fruits have been dealt with, do they say "We're done here. We think that investigating things that occur at a rate of one part per billion is not cost effective and a waste of time. Further, we think that whatever happens in high-dose mouse experiments cannot be extrapolated to vanishingly small doses in humans. So we think the department should abandon this class of wasteful and misleading studies." I don't think they say that. They want to keep their jobs and he only way to do it is to conduct increasingly irrelevant studies and to keep the taxpayers alarmed enough to keep them providing the funds. So we get alarmist nonsense.

 

[HFWR]

https://www.google.com/search?q=chemical composition of a banana&tbm=isch

 

[mpeirce]

Because they used beef tallow for their fries (look it up) and they want a similar taste I’m guessing.

That what I was thinking too. Their fries moved down a notch on the flavor scale when they stopped using beef tallow.

It's ironic that they used trans fats as a substitute for a number of years. I'd much rather eat beef tallow than partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.

 

[CRLLS]

And what about "di-hydrogen monoxide" (DHMO)? That stuff is lethal. According to the CDC, it kills over 3,500 people a year in the US alone, yet the USA (including California) , the EU and virtually all countries on Earth allow it in the food we eat.

P.S. HFWR, I like the Banana list of chemicals. I may have to use that one too.

 

[Red Badger]

Well, as a recently minted retiree with a modest portfolio, I hope cat food is safe for long term consumption. The dry stuff. Canned is way too expensive. But we're careful. Soy milk only as DW is lactose sensitive.

 

[tmm99]

That what I was thinking too. Their fries moved down a notch on the flavor scale when they stopped using beef tallow.

It's ironic that they used trans fats as a substitute for a number of years. I'd much rather eat beef tallow than partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.

I couldn't believe how good fish and chips tasted when I visited England... And I later realized it was cooked in lard. NO WONDER!!

 

[mpeirce]

I couldn't believe how good fish and chips tasted when I visited England... And I later realized it was cooked in lard. NO WONDER!!

Cooking with lard can really improve food flavor.

My DWs pies were noticeably better than I was used too. It turns out she made the crusts with lard. Such a difference!

 

[RAE]

For example, " ... sticking mostly to whole/real foods should help." Really? And what human-based statistical data support this theory?

"Consuming a lot of processed foods anywhere is not a good idea ... " And you have actual human-based statistical data (not mouse experiments) to support this theory?

Well, OldShooter, feel free to consume all of the ultra-processed foods that you like, if you think there is no evidence that they contribute to human health issues. Personally, I will continue to eat minimally-processed, whole foods whenever I can, and avoid most of the ultra-processed stuff. As for studies that support the negative health impacts from consuming ultra-processed foods, a 2-minute Google search turned up a couple shown below, and I know there are lots more.

By the way, I am a trained scientist as well, and worked as a scientist for 31 years. So your inference that you understand (and can interpret) science, and scientific studies, better than the rest of us doesn't really carry a lot of weight with me.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986467/

https://www.heartandstroke.ca/-/med...centre/hs-report-upp-moubarac-dec-5-2017.ashx

 

[Chuckanut]

I couldn't believe how good fish and chips tasted when I visited England... And I later realized it was cooked in lard. NO WONDER!!

A local pub owned by British Ex-pats and their family members states proudly on their menu that their chips are fired in nothing but beef and pork fat. They are very good chips. Same with the fish in the fish and chips.

 

[Chuckanut]

Cooking with lard can really improve food flavor.

My DWs pies were noticeably better than I was used too. It turns out she made the crusts with lard. Such a difference!

IIRC, Juilia child said one of the worst things to happen to cooking was the demonetization of lard. Of course, the lard she used was this wonderful white, almost fluffy stuff. Not the nasty, brownish, lard pictured in anti-fat propaganda.

I use real butter in my biscuits and such. Oils are either olive oil or avocado oil (when high heat is used).

For years I ate hydrogenated margarine in place of real butter because it had less saturated fat. How did that turn out? Thankfully, it doesn't seem to have hurt me very muchy.

 

[ERD50]

Well, OldShooter, feel free to consume all of the ultra-processed foods that you like, if you think there is no evidence that they contribute to human health issues. Personally, I will continue to eat minimally-processed, whole foods whenever I can, and avoid most of the ultra-processed stuff. As for studies that support the negative health impacts from consuming ultra-processed foods, a 2-minute Google search turned up a couple shown below, and I know there are lots more.

....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986467/

https://www.heartandstroke.ca/-/med...centre/hs-report-upp-moubarac-dec-5-2017.ashx

I looked through those studies, I only saw references to obesity and getting too much sugar, salt, and not enough fiber from too much ultra-processed foods. OK, but we were talking about the 'fear' of 'chemical' additives (see post #3). Those are very different things.

... Personally, I will continue to eat minimally-processed, whole foods whenever I can, and avoid most of the ultra-processed stuff. ...

As do I, mostly because I don't like how the ultra-processed stuff tastes. I don't like overly-sweet things, and I add salt as I desire, usually none to very little, except for certain foods that really seem to shine with some salt. We cook most meals from scratch. Because we like it that way. I can't remember the last time I had a 'soda' (other than sparkling water).

-ERD50

 

[Christine]

Not a chemist so cannot comment on the additives listed.


But I remember reading about Europe not wanting to import food from the US since you guys used additives we don't allow. And this slowing down some trade agreements a few years back.


Your current President said some months ago that he would change this since it was not fair of Europe to stop US food export. But I havent heard any recent news on this.


And I do use Splenda. And Stevia, Erythrol, isomalt and other sweeteners. Don't like sugar much. The link between sugar and diabetes is well proven.

 

[OldShooter]

... But I remember reading about Europe not wanting to import food from the US since you guys used additives we don't allow. And this slowing down some trade agreements a few years back. ...

Drawing inferences from this kind of thing is risky. Import restrictions based on various criteria are popular non-tariff barriers and the EU farmers are particularly effective at feathering their own nests through subsidies, tariffs, and non-tariff barriers. These tactics are also very popular in Japan.

In the US we have our own, too. Feathering the sugar producers' nests is probably the most economically damaging for the US consumer. I'm sure there are many other foods and commodities that are similarly restricted to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

 

[OldShooter]

Speaking of "processed" foods, I buy my coffee beans at Trader Joe's and when I'm there I usually stop by the meat case for a laugh. It features a wide range of bacon, sausage, and other meats all prominently marked "uncured." Obviously the clientele sees "cured" as "processed" and hence evil.

The joke is that all that meat is in fact cured. Curing uses sodium nitrite, a simple inorganic chemical. Yes. Evil. Chemical. Well, it turns out that many vegetables, including celery, contain fairly large amounts of sodium nitrite. So turn over all those "uncured" meat packages and see the ingredients: "celery juice" in most cases.

The reason they can be (fraudulently, IMO) marked "uncured" is due to an FDA regulation that requires the marking when the amount of sodium nitrite is somewhat uncertain. Of course the manufacturers of that "uncured" product know exactly how much sodium nitrite there is -- they don't want the product to rot on the shelves. But somehow they have developed this regulatory wrinkle into a marketing tool by which to ensnare the gullible.

More: https://news.psu.edu/story/510148/2.../no-such-thing-uncured-corned-beef-penn-state

 

[Rianne]

Well, everything is toxic, it all depends on the dose.

Sure, I'm not saying play with fire, but we do not eat a lot of processed food, we make our meals mostly from scratch. So I'm not gonna get all worked up about 1,000 different things that might harm me if consume them in high amounts, when I only consume them occasionally. There are more important things to worry about. I'm actually more worried about the things organic farmers are allowed to use, simply because they are 'natural'.

"Natural" food contains all sorts of known toxins in far greater doses than this stuff of unknown toxicity. But you don't eat thousands of apple seeds either. Or drink 5 gallons of water a day. So yes, moderation does matter.

So an 80 kg / ~ 175 # man could die from ~ 7 liters ( ~ 2 gallons) of water. I bet I drink 1/3rd that amount many days. Dosage matters.

Heck a man can drink a couple 5% alc 12 oz beers a day, and some studies show that to be a positive. But drink 50 of those and you are probably dead. 50x and dead, not the thousands that are talked about with some of these additives in theses studies, that are still inconclusive.

-ERD50

DH is a food scientist (Phd). You are 100% correct, ERD. A friend of ours worked for a flavors company in Chicago. She shared this tidbit with me, 1 cup of blueberry flavoring will kill an elephant.

The amount of these chemicals are so small, but if you consider how it accumulates in the body over time can be problematic. Hence, all the hype about certain chemicals causing cancer and various diseases. I do not eat processed food, although it helped us FIRE cuz DH helped create the stuff.
Pick up a processed foods magazine (we get many) and read the ads, the articles, the smiling faces of the food scientists, engineers. It's kind of creepy.
Many things in nature are deadly and we don't even realize it.

Hemlock is a very pretty plant. Recently, a master naturalist, a lady I know, worked on the trails in the forest preserves weeding back invasive species without gloves. She became very ill and it lasted several months. The hemlock absorbed into her skin overtime and she almost died.

Too much of anything, natural or chemical is unhealthy.

 

[OldShooter]

... Too much of anything, natural or chemical is unhealthy. ...

Not to pick on you or to be impolite, but when I see a statement like this I always wonder what there could be that is "natural" but not "chemical."

 

[Rianne]

Not to pick on you or to be impolite, but when I see a statement like this I always wonder what there could be that is "natural" but not "chemical."

Marketing. Would you buy a product that said 100% Chemical? I was just referring to the packaging and marketing of the product. Although, have you ever seen a bee drink a diet coke? Highly unlikely.

 

[Red Badger]

Marketing. Would you buy a product that said 100% Chemical? I was just referring to the packaging and marketing of the product. Although, have you ever seen a bee drink a diet coke? Highly unlikely.

But the little suckers just love my wine! I have to use a coaster to cover my glass when outside.

 

[OldShooter]

But the little suckers just love my wine! I have to use a coaster to cover my glass when outside.

No one has explained to them that yeast excrement, ethyl hydroxide (C2H5OH), is not "natural." They probably have not read the MSDS either: https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/91467.htm

 

[braumeister]

These sorts of discussions always make me think of that dreaded chemical associated with Chinese restaurants, monosodium glutamate.

Back in the 1950s when MSG first came to mass attention, marketed under the brand name Ac'cent, I thought it was the coolest thing because not only did it enhance other flavors, but it also had a pretty good flavor of its own.

As a little kid, I used to pour a teaspoon of it into my hand and lick it up. I've eaten copious amounts of it all my life, and still enjoy using it in my cooking. Strangely, it doesn't seem to have damaged me very much.

But the popular concept that it's one step short of poison is still around.

 

[Sconie]

In Europe, most folks go "nuts" over food additives and the inclusion of GMO-type items in their food, yet they live right next to numerous nuclear power generation plants, with almost 200 such plants being located in the EU.

In the United States, most people go "nuts" over the idea of living next to a nuclear power generation facility, yet consume without concern additives in their foods, the same often made using GMO ingredients.

Go figure.....

 

[Jollyquick]

https://www.google.com/search?q=chemical composition of a banana&tbm=ischView attachment 30416

And the Cavendish Banana (the one most familiar to people under 70 years old) is itself a genetic freak, and can only be cloned...

Big Mike, the “original” edible and popular banana was effectively wiped out due to its selective genetic tinkering by humans. Think potato famine of Ireland.

 

[Chuckanut]

Cultural differences are interesting. I remember my first visit to France. I found out that the French smoked a lot more and in public, drank more wine than anybody, ate cheese made from un-pasturized milk , and on Bastille Day set off personal fireworks in the public parks. All of this is apparently quite legal. And they lived a bit longer than we Americans did.

But, GMOs?? Je ne aurais jamais!!

FWIW, they see no need for separate, adult-only seating areas for people drinking alcohol at the street side cafes. GASP!!! Surely all their children must turn into drunks by the time they are 14.

How any of them live past 50 is beyond me.