tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/food-additives-1338/articlesFood additives – The Conversation2022-07-21T12:26:41Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1866222022-07-21T12:26:41Z2022-07-21T12:26:41ZFood expiration dates don’t have much science behind them – a food safety researcher explains another way to know what’s too old to eat<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473429/original/file-20220711-26-xctoxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C0%2C5925%2C3974&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Without obvious signs of contamination like the mold in this jam, consumers use expiration dates to decide whether to keep or throw away food. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/mold-on-the-breakfast-jam-for-a-bad-start-to-the-royalty-free-image/1067343156">Ralf Geithe via iStock/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Humans get sick with listeria infections, or listeriosis, from eating soil-contaminated food, undercooked meat or dairy products that are raw, or unpasteurized. Listeria can cause convulsions, coma, miscarriage and birth defects. And it’s the <a href="https://doi.org/10.3201%2Feid1701.P11101">third leading cause</a> of food poisoning deaths in the U.S. </p>
<p>Avoiding unseen food hazards is the reason people often check the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12086">dates on food packaging</a>. And printed with the month and year is often one of a dizzying array of phrases: “best by,” “use by,” “best if used before,” “best if used by,” “guaranteed fresh until,” “freeze by” and even a “born on” label applied to some beer.</p>
<p>People think of them as expiration dates, or the date at which a food should go in the trash. But the dates have little to do with when food expires, or becomes less safe to eat. I am <a href="https://health.usf.edu/publichealth/overviewcoph/faculty/jill-roberts">a microbiologist and public health researcher</a>, and I have used molecular epidemiology <a href="https://doi.org/10.1128%2FJCM.44.1.225-226.2006">to study the spread of bacteria</a> in food. A more science-based product dating system could make it easier for people to differentiate foods they can safely eat from those that could be hazardous.</p>
<h2>Costly confusion</h2>
<p>The United States Department of Agriculture reports that in 2020 the average American household spent <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings">12% of its income on food</a>. But a lot of food is simply thrown away, despite being perfectly safe to eat. The USDA Economic Research Center reports that <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43833/43680_eib121.pdf?v=9125.7">nearly 31% of all available food</a> is never consumed. <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf">Historically high food prices</a> make the problem of waste seem all the more alarming.</p>
<p>The current food labeling system may be to blame for much of the waste. The FDA reports <a href="https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/confused-date-labels-packaged-foods">consumer confusion around product dating labels</a> is likely responsible for around 20% of the food wasted in the home, costing an estimated US$161 billion per year.</p>
<p>It’s logical to believe that date labels are there for safety reasons, since the federal government enforces rules for including <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2012-N-1210-0875">nutrition and ingredient information</a> on food labels. Passed in 1938 and continuously modified since, the <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2008-title21-vol2/xml/CFR-2008-title21-vol2-part101.xml">Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act</a> requires food labels to inform consumers of nutrition and ingredients in packaged foods, including the amount of salt, sugar and fat it contains. </p>
<p>The dates on those food packages, however, are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Rather, they come from food producers. And they may not be based on food safety science.</p>
<p>For example, a food producer may <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/dating-game-IB.pdf">survey consumers</a> in a focus group to pick a “use by” date that is six months after the product was produced because 60% of the focus group no longer liked the taste. Smaller manufacturers of a similar food might play copycat and put the <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/food-product-dating">same date on their product.</a></p>
<h2>More interpretations</h2>
<p>One industry group, the Food Marketing Institute and Grocery Manufacturers Association, suggests that its members <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2017/170215">mark food “best if used by”</a> to indicate how long the food is safe to eat, and “use by” to indicate when food becomes unsafe. But using these more nuanced marks is voluntary. And although the recommendation is motivated by a desire to cut down on food waste, it is not yet clear if this recommended change has had any impact.</p>
<p>A joint study by the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/dating-game-report.pdf">Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic and the National Resources Defense Council</a> recommends the elimination of dates aimed at consumers, citing potential confusion and waste. Instead, the research suggests manufacturers and distributors use “production” or “pack” dates, along with “sell-by” dates, aimed at supermarkets and other retailers. The dates would indicate to retailers the amount of time a product will remain at high quality. </p>
<p>The FDA considers some products “potentially hazardous foods” if they have characteristics that <a href="https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Evaluation-and-Definition-of-Potentially-Hazardous-Foods.pdf">allow microbes to flourish</a>, like moisture and an abundance of nutrients that feed microbes. These foods include chicken, milk and sliced tomatoes, all of which have been <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffmicb.2019.02667">linked to serious foodborne outbreaks</a>. But there is currently no difference between the date labeling used on these foods and that used on more stable food items.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A plastic bag of precooked, stuffed pasta lies with its label face up, reading 'Use by 22 November' and 'keep refrigerated.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/474680/original/file-20220718-76959-j3zo6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Expiration dates could be more meaningful if they were based on scientific studies of a food’s rate of nutrient loss or microbial growth.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/packet-of-pasta-royalty-free-image/496770672">Thomas Faull/iStock via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Scientific formula</h2>
<p>Infant formula is the only food product with a “use by” date that is both government regulated and scientifically determined. It is routinely lab tested for contamination. But infant formula also undergoes nutrition tests to determine how long it take the nutrients - particularly protein – to break down. To prevent malnutrition in babies, the “use by” date on baby formula indicates when it’s no longer nutritious.</p>
<p>Nutrients in foods are relatively easy to measure. The <a href="https://www.fda.gov/science-research/field-science-and-laboratories/southeast-food-and-feed-laboratory-sffl">FDA already does this regularly</a>. The agency issues warnings to food producers when the nutrient contents listed on their labels don’t match what FDA’s lab finds.</p>
<p>Microbial studies, like the ones we food safety researchers work on, are also a scientific approach to meaningful date labeling on foods. In our lab, a microbial study might involve leaving a perishable food out to spoil and measuring how much bacteria grows in it over time. Scientists also do another kind of microbial study by watching how long it takes microbes like listeria <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(03)00305-2">to grow to dangerous levels</a> after intentionally adding the microbes to food to watch what they do, noting such details as growth in the amount of bacteria over time and when there’s enough to cause illness. </p>
<h2>Consumers on their own</h2>
<p>Determining the shelf life of food with scientific data on both its nutrition and its safety could drastically decrease waste and save money as food gets more expensive.</p>
<p>But in the absence of a uniform food dating system, consumers could <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-avoid-food-borne-illness-a-nutritionist-explains-153185">rely on their eyes and noses</a>, deciding to discard the fuzzy bread, green cheese or off-smelling bag of salad. People also might pay close attention to the dates for more perishable foods, like cold cuts, in which microbes grow easily. They can also find <a href="https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts">guidance at FoodSafety.gov</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/186622/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jill Roberts does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Current expiration date system leads to confused consumers and wasted food.Jill Roberts, Associate Professor of Global Health, University of South FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1346292020-03-27T12:31:31Z2020-03-27T12:31:31ZRunny honey, furry spinach and shiny apples – some super surprising facts about your food<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323321/original/file-20200326-133016-1yo2aj3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C998%2C666&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Wax....</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-portrait-lovely-pretty-girl-biting-766032436">Dean Drobot/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Spending a lot more time in your house doesn’t have to make you any less curious about the world around you. Just look inside your kitchen cupboards and there’s a wealth of chemistry just bursting to get out. Here are some surprising facts about the food you eat: including how bees used M&Ms to create some very interesting honey, what links spinach and kidney stones, and how a wax from a beetle native to Asia makes you want to eat your apple more. </p>
<h2>What makes honey solid or runny</h2>
<p>Worker bees collect nectar, which is predominately made up of sucrose – the same chemical you might sweeten your tea or coffee with. They convert this “double sugar” disaccharide via enzymes they produce in their salivary glands into smaller units like glucose and fructose, which are single sugars called monosaccharides. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323298/original/file-20200326-132969-28g2t6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323298/original/file-20200326-132969-28g2t6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323298/original/file-20200326-132969-28g2t6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=113&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323298/original/file-20200326-132969-28g2t6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=113&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323298/original/file-20200326-132969-28g2t6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=113&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323298/original/file-20200326-132969-28g2t6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=142&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323298/original/file-20200326-132969-28g2t6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=142&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323298/original/file-20200326-132969-28g2t6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=142&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The chemistry of it all.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The colour of honey is one of the most important quality criteria for consumers, ranging from almost colourless to a really dark brown, and flavours varying from incredibly subtle to distinctly bold. The colour depends mainly on the content of plant pigments from the huge array of flowers the bees have been collecting their nectar from. But the exact amounts of proteins, carbohydrates, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and water along with the shape and size of the sugar crystals can also influence colour too. Generally, paler honeys are milder in taste and this also depends on where the bees buzzed.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323329/original/file-20200326-132995-16jtg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323329/original/file-20200326-132995-16jtg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323329/original/file-20200326-132995-16jtg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323329/original/file-20200326-132995-16jtg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323329/original/file-20200326-132995-16jtg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323329/original/file-20200326-132995-16jtg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323329/original/file-20200326-132995-16jtg8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">M&Ms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/colorful-chocolate-mms-out-focus-1053244946">Amy_Michelle/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bees could technically produce any colour honey you wanted. A few years ago, bees foraging by a Mars processing plant started <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/bees-make-blue-honey-after-eating-mams">to produce thick blue/green honey</a>. Their food source was traced back to a sugary solution used to make M&Ms, which was being processed at the plant. Sadly, the new colour never caught on.</p>
<p>Your jar of honey will have a best before date, but in reality honey never really goes off. The low water content means bacteria find honey too hostile to grow in and they’ll soon become dehydrated – the honey literally sucks the water out of the bacteria.</p>
<p>Have you noticed if you leave a slice of bread for a few minutes dolloped with a generous topping of honey, it starts to become concave? Bread contains about 40% water and it’s drawn out and into the honey by <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zs63tv4/revision/4">osmosis</a> – whereby water molecules move from where they are in higher concentration to where it is lower via a partially permeable membrane. Removing the water makes the bread shrink, but only on the side in contact with the honey so your bread will bend. It doesn’t work if you apply butter to your bread first, though, as that acts as a barrier. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Honey has a pH between 3.5 and 5.5 because acids such as formic acid, citric acid and gluconic acid are present. An enzyme called glucose oxidase catalyses the conversion of glucose to gluconolactone, which yields gluconic acid and hydrogen peroxide – and all these compounds aren’t favoured by bacteria. </p>
<p>The overabundance of sugar makes honey unstable and this leads to glucose, with its lower solubility, forming crystals over time. Honey naturally higher in glucose will crystallise more rapidly and generate set honey. Nectar collected from sunflowers, dandelions, lavender and oilseed rape will crystallise quicker as they contain higher levels of glucose. Fructose is more soluble in water so will remain as a liquid. So honey higher in fructose collected from plants such as cranberry, sage and acacia can stay as a liquid for years. Seeing how readily sugar crystalises can be easily demonstrated.</p>
<p>Experiment: if you make some caramel at home, add a small amount of lemon juice to your sugar solution. This will break down the sucrose into the smaller sugars and will prevent crystallisation and your caramel won’t be grainy.</p>
<h2>Why spinach makes your teeth feel furry</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323322/original/file-20200326-133027-1e1zjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323322/original/file-20200326-133027-1e1zjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323322/original/file-20200326-133027-1e1zjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323322/original/file-20200326-133027-1e1zjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323322/original/file-20200326-133027-1e1zjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323322/original/file-20200326-133027-1e1zjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323322/original/file-20200326-133027-1e1zjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Popeye must’ve had some seriously furry teeth.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fresh-baby-spinach-wooden-bowl-on-762960073">Julia Mikhaylova/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Oxalic acid is a naturally-occurring acid which when eaten, passes through your body unabsorbed. Vitamin C can transform into it, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6054332/">we create it in our liver </a> and our red blood cells synthesise it from glyoxylate – an intermediate species of the glyoxylate cycle which allows organisms to convert fatty acids into carbohydrates. We can also eat it, as it’s found in a variety of different foods including green leafy vegetables, nuts, seeds, most berries and soy products. </p>
<p>Spinach contains a particularly high level of oxalic acid; about several hundred milligrams per 100g serving. Oxalic acid is usually contained within little pockets in the cell walls of the spinach but when these are ruptured by either being boiled or chewed, the cell walls break and the contents leak out. </p>
<p>A healthy gut contains <em>Oxalobacter formigenes</em>, an anaerobic bacterium found in the large intestine <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2396938">that breaks down oxalic acid</a>, but there is a limit to how much the body can excrete. If too much is absorbed, some will be stored and if there is an excess, our kidneys produce urine with a higher than usual concentration of oxalic acid. When combined with high levels of calcium in the urine, this increases the risk of <a href="https://www.bupa.co.uk/health-information/urinary-bladder-problems/kidney-stones">kidney stones</a>, made up of calcium oxalate crystals.</p>
<p>There are some <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1808706">chemicals in urine</a> which inhibit calcium oxalate crystals from forming. But if these inhibitors are depleted, or they’re overwhelmed by calcium oxalate and can’t cope, a “seed” is formed within the kidney tissue and this acts as a binding site onto which more calcium oxalate is deposited. Once large enough, they can detach themselves from the kidney walls, forming a kidney stone.</p>
<p>The furry mouth you experience when you chew spinach is related to this. Spinach contains calcium, as does your saliva. This combines with the oxalic acid crystals in spinach’s cell walls and deposits calcium oxalate-rich plaque on your teeth. As this is insoluble, you feel this as a chalky deposit in your mouth.</p>
<p>The presence of oxalic acid <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3681480">decreases the ability</a> to absorb vital minerals from foods – despite containing almost the same amount of calcium by weight, you absorb five times more calcium from milk than you do from spinach because in spinach, much of the calcium forms insoluble substances. </p>
<p>Some people are more predisposed to having excess oxalic acid in their bodies than others. Genetic variations, people who don’t consume enough water, those who are deficient in vitamin B6 or have an excess of glycine <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/kidney-stones/causes/">increase their risk</a> of developing kidney stones. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Simply rotating or mixing spinach with lower-level oxalate-containing foods will cut the risk of kidney stones. Most people can consume about <a href="https://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/18/7/2198">200mg of calcium oxalate per day</a> safely. And if you want to avoid eating large amounts of oxalic acid, boil spinach and discard the water, rather than steaming, <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf048128d">which only reduces the oxalic acid by half that much</a>. But it’s definitely a trade off because by doing this, you discard lots of important nutrients too. </p>
<h2>How fruit gets its shine</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323325/original/file-20200326-132974-q2b4gq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323325/original/file-20200326-132974-q2b4gq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323325/original/file-20200326-132974-q2b4gq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323325/original/file-20200326-132974-q2b4gq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323325/original/file-20200326-132974-q2b4gq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323325/original/file-20200326-132974-q2b4gq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323325/original/file-20200326-132974-q2b4gq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323325/original/file-20200326-132974-q2b4gq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Shellac – read on …</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/shellac-flakes-resin-secreted-by-female-1635415930">Takopa/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fruit and vegetables produce their own natural waxy coating, called the cuticle. It’s their barrier to the outside world, keeping moisture in and water out. But some of the fruit and vegetables we buy in the supermarket have this wax removed, simply because it doesn’t look “perfect”. </p>
<p>When the produce is washed, it’s not just the dirt that’s eliminated. Its protective envelope is stripped off too and another one has to be applied. This new wax minimises moisture loss and prolongs shelf life. It’s also purely for cosmetic reasons because a shiny apple looks more appealing than a dull one. The composition of these coatings is usually a closely guarded secret but they’re chemically very similar to the coatings on some common sweets. </p>
<p>One such product that’s applied to give a high shine is carnauba wax. It originates from the leaves of the <em>Copernica prunifera</em>, a palm tree grown only in Brazil. The wax is beaten off the dried palm fronds, refined and bleached. It is a <a href="https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2880">complex mixture of chemicals</a> and is also common in many cleaning products. It’s found in shoe polish, car wax, surfboard wax and furniture polish, giving a high gloss shine to surfaces.</p>
<p>It’s also found in mascara, lip gloss, eyeliner, lipstick, foundation, eye shadow, moisturisers and sun creams. Open up a bag of Skittles and it provides their shiny coating too.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Another common wax is shellac. No, it’s not a plastic – it’s another naturally occurring resin but comes from an unlikely source. A bug native to Asia <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/kerria-lacca">called <em>Kerria lacca</em></a>, or the lac beetle, holds the answer. The female lac beetle sucks the sap of the host tree and secretes a wax which forms protective tunnels. The wax is purified by soaking in sodium carbonate and dried to produce shellac. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323324/original/file-20200326-132965-z38ny8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/323324/original/file-20200326-132965-z38ny8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323324/original/file-20200326-132965-z38ny8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323324/original/file-20200326-132965-z38ny8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323324/original/file-20200326-132965-z38ny8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323324/original/file-20200326-132965-z38ny8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/323324/original/file-20200326-132965-z38ny8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">These aren’t actually plastic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/beautiful-shellac-manicure-on-female-hands-1605156277">Moplexan/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The exact chemical composition of shellac is unknown (it’s a polyester-type of resin, formed from certain acids called hydroxy acids and sesquiterpene acids) and it’s the primary ingredient of the “french polish” that’s used to give wood a high shine.</p>
<p>It’s also commonly found in paint primers to give an even and professional finish. Due to its durability, shine and water-repellent properties, shellac is now the chief component in many fake nails. But this same beetle secretion is also what gives Jelly Beans their glossy coating. Don’t be appalled – these waxes are perfectly safe for us to eat.</p>
<p>The next time you eat a piece of fruit, take a moment to examine the surface and decide whether you think it still has its cuticle intact or has had its natural coating stripped and another one applied.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/134629/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joanna Buckley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Three foods and some cool stuff you should know about them.Joanna Buckley, Materials Chemist and Science Communicator, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1213252019-08-07T10:09:50Z2019-08-07T10:09:50ZAre emulsifiers bad? Not enough evidence to say we should stop eating them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286764/original/file-20190802-117887-17elwbq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/1054163075?src=MK02Ui4VsNayaxMbf0MkXg-1-16&studio=1&size=huge_jpg">sasha2109/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Food additives do a lot of good: they prolong shelf life, improve taste and texture, and add colour to otherwise unappealing products. They are also highly controversial and garner a lot of media attention. But are additives really bad for your health, or are headlines like “<a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2132554/additives-in-ice-cream-bread-and-margarine-could-increase-your-risk-of-bowel-cancer/">E-numbers in ice cream ‘could increase YOUR risk of bowel cancer’</a>” just fear-mongering?</p>
<p>Food additives go through careful testing before they are allowed in food and drink, and many countries have regulatory bodies to assess their safety. But <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25731162">recent work</a> in cell cultures and animals suggests that eating a common type of food additive, called emulsifiers, can harm the gut microbiome, increasing gut permeability – commonly known as “leaky gut”. </p>
<p>A leaky gut lets bacteria move through the gut wall into the bloodstream. When this happens, the body responds with an inflammatory response to beat the invading bacteria. This inflammatory response can disrupt the body’s ability to handle glucose and may be a small contributing factor in the development of diabetes and obesity. But so far this has only been in mice and cell models.</p>
<p>If you are reading this, chances are you are not a mouse. Humans have probably eaten emulsifiers for thousands of years – mainly from eggs – while mice haven’t. So studies that give mice emulsifiers to eat or drink aren’t all that relevant to us – although they provide a great starting point for future study – for formulating new theories, and answering initial questions.</p>
<p>So far, there haven’t been many studies of the potentially harmful effects of ingested emulsifiers in humans. The most commonly consumed emulsifier is lecithin, which is present in all plant and animal cell walls. Lecithin is perhaps best known as a major component of egg yolks and its role in making mayonnaise, though it is often sourced from soybeans for use as an additive. </p>
<h2>Hard to avoid</h2>
<p>It’s easy to avoid some additives, such as artificial sweeteners, as they’re usually advertised on the product. But it’s a lot more difficult to avoid eating emulsifiers. Daily intake of lecithin from food sources can be up to 6g in a Western diet, with a single egg yolk containing around 1.5g of lecithin. </p>
<p>Emulsifiers are also added to a wide range of processed foods, including ice creams, chocolate, and baked foods to create a smooth texture, prevent separation, and extend shelf life. This makes it all the more important to figure out if lecithin or other emulsifiers are bad for our health. </p>
<p>Interestingly, scientists aren’t just investigating the potential negative effects of lecithin. Research in humans suggests that it might <a href="https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cholesterol/2010/824813/">lower blood cholesterol</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5757297/">lower diastolic blood pressure</a> and increase the availability of <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/np1007262">bioactive compounds</a>. Health food shops even sell it as a dietary supplement.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286950/original/file-20190805-36390-xhrfim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286950/original/file-20190805-36390-xhrfim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286950/original/file-20190805-36390-xhrfim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286950/original/file-20190805-36390-xhrfim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286950/original/file-20190805-36390-xhrfim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286950/original/file-20190805-36390-xhrfim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286950/original/file-20190805-36390-xhrfim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Emulsifiers are in nearly all processed foods.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/378396850?src=ZUk1c3o05bfp2oQ2I6EYWQ-1-1&studio=1&size=huge_jpg">Altagracia Art/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Here at the University of Aberdeen, we are conducting a study (called <a href="https://www.abdn.ac.uk/rowett/volunteer/fad_diets_study.php">FADiets</a>) in humans to determine the effects of lecithin consumption on health. We are testing a diet low in emulsifiers against a high emulsifier diet, with our kitchen providing all the foods in a controlled manner.</p>
<p>We take blood and stool samples from our volunteers and then look at the amount of bacterial DNA in the blood, the volunteers’ ability to cope with glucose, the amount of cholesterol in the blood, and the composition of the bacteria in the gut. These outcomes will help us to understand what impact – if any – lecithin has on human health. </p>
<p>In the meantime, although there is evidence suggesting that processed foods and emulsifier-rich foods are bad for you, it still far too early to say we should stop eating them. Particularly as processed foods can play a vital role in our enjoyment of eating – and what is life without that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121325/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dominic Partridge has previously been funded by the BBSRC, and his current position is funded by the MRC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Johnstone receives funding from the Medical Research Council, The University of Aberdeen, The Scottish Government, Biological Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Health Service Endowments award, Tennovus Charity, Chief Scientist Office and European Community.</span></em></p>Emulsifiers are in everything from ice cream to mayonnaise.Dominic Partridge, Research Fellow, Diet and Nutrition, University of AberdeenAlex Johnstone, Personal Chair in Nutrition, The Rowett Institute, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/828832017-08-28T03:00:52Z2017-08-28T03:00:52ZBusting the myth that all food additives are bad: a quick guide for label readers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183228/original/file-20170824-6579-7qrzgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are you a food label reader too? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/woman-checking-food-exp-date-supermarket-505056901?src=mCHuDrjDJmnBAgW6XjvueQ-1-88">allensima/shutterstock </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There’s nothing like the concern of a grandmother to bring attention to food safety. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hey Coles - can you PLEASE tell me just what is in your Coles Icecream Sandwiches </p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/coles/posts/1547714875292522">wrote Mary Salter</a> on the Coles Facebook page, July 31 2017. </p>
<p>The incredible stability of her thawed ice cream sandwich led people to ask just what awful chemicals must be in the product to have this effect. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Read more:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-taste-or-why-you-choose-fries-over-broccoli-68168">The science of taste, or why you choose fries over broccoli</a></em> </p>
<hr>
<p>But most of the food additives that are added to ice cream and other edible items to sustain physical shape are derived from natural materials with no known health risks. And other selected additives – for example, some that increase the palatability and stability of food – are also naturally-occuring plant and mineral substances. </p>
<p>Here’s a quick guide to the science behind some of the food additives with a nature-based history you can look for on product labels. </p>
<p><iframe id="8eWVO" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/8eWVO/7/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Bringing together oil and water</h2>
<p>Emulsifiers are compounds that allow oil and water droplets to interact in suspension: the resulting product is called an emulsion. </p>
<p>Everyday food and beverage emulsions include homogenised milk, mayonnaise and salad dressings. The presence of emulsifiers prevents the fat from separating from the rest of the product: in milk, for example, this means the cream does not rise to the top, but instead stays incorporated in the liquid. </p>
<p>Emulsifiers work similarly to detergents, which might make them sound a little bit off putting, but many of the emulsifiers commonly used in foods are sourced from ingredients already occurring in natural products. Examples include lecithin from <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ie50310a034">egg yolks</a> or <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02605737?LI=true">soy</a>, mucilage from <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268005X15000363">mustard</a>, and components of fatty acids (<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02605731?LI=true">made from glycerol and natural fatty acids</a>). </p>
<p>Even manufactured emulsifiers such as DATEM (<a href="http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v48je02.htm">diacetyl tartaric acid ester of mono- and diglycerides</a>), and <a href="https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/23671849">sodium stearoyl lactylate</a> are <a href="https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=184.1101">generally recognised as safe</a>. </p>
<h2>Smooth yogurt and spreadable jam</h2>
<p><a href="http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405132671.html">Stabilisers and thickeners</a> are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551143/">added to foods</a> to increase viscosity (thickness), smooth the texture, give body and help preserve their structure. Food stabilisers, thickeners, and firming agents are added in a relatively small amount and <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-7222-0_6">enhance the effect of emulsifiers</a>. </p>
<p>They give a uniform consistency to the product and hold the flavouring <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/foodadditivesingredients/ucm094211.htm">compounds in the dispersion</a>. This is used in products like jams, yogurts and jellies to stop the fruit from settling. </p>
<p>They also prevent emulsions from separating. Without stabilisers, your salad dressing and mayonnaise would split – separate into their oil and water-based components – in the fridge. Stabilisers also prevent ice crystals from forming in frozen foods, such as ice cream.</p>
<p>Thickeners and stabilisers are mostly <a href="https://www.chem.wisc.edu/deptfiles/genchem/netorial/modules/biomolecules/modules/carbs/carb6.htm">polysaccharides</a> (complex sugars) isolated from plant sources, including starches (e.g. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.12438/full">corn starch</a>), vegetable gums (e.g. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13197-011-0522-x">guar gum</a>), and <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408399709527767">pectin </a>(e.g. from citrus fruits). Some gums are also obtained from microbial fermentation, where bacteria are fed sugars and produce gums (e.g. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734975000000501">xanthan gum</a>). </p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Read more:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/kitchen-science-the-chemistry-behind-amazing-meringue-and-perfect-cappuccino-64670">The chemistry behind amazing meringue and perfect cappucino</a></em> </p>
<hr>
<p>Stabilisers from other natural sources include <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4765e/y4765e06.htm">agar</a> (from algae), <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4765e/y4765e0a.htm">carrageenan</a> (from seaweed) and <a href="http://apps.who.int/food-additives-contaminants-jecfa-database/chemical.aspx?chemID=1462">gelatin </a>(from animal collagen). Use of stabilisers and thickeners is <a href="http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=3300261">not confined to recent food history</a>, and many have been used in food preparation <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/food-additive">for centuries</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3551143/">Firming agents</a> are often mineral salts such as calcium sulphate, calcium chloride and magnesium sulphate. These <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agns/pdf/jecfa/cta/68/Magnesium_Sulfate.pdf">bind water and enhance the activity of the stabilisers</a>. Although the names of the mineral salts sound very “chemical”, they are really no weirder than table salt (otherwise known by its chemical name, sodium chloride). </p>
<p>The mineral salts used for firming agents often contain mineral components needed by the body, such as calcium, and the same salts may be used in supplements. Again, these agents have been used throughout history: calcium sulphate, for example, has been used to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02582376?LI=true">make tofu for thousands of years</a>. </p>
<h2>Keeping food safe and stable</h2>
<p>Acids, bases or neutralising agents are added to foods to regulate acidity: this is important for taste and to prevent the growth of microbes such as bacteria. <a href="http://www.eufic.org/en/whats-in-food/article/acidity-regulators-the-multi-task-players">Common acid regulators</a> are sorbic acid, acetic acid and propionic acid. </p>
<p>These may sound frightening (and in concentrated solutions, they might be!) but in small amounts, they are less acidic than our stomach acid and so are nothing to worry about. The human body has its own buffering systems to <a href="http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/%7Eedudev/LabTutorials/Buffer/Buffer.html">keep our overall pH balance stable</a>. </p>
<p>Antioxidants are a common component in foods touted as “superfoods”. Antioxidants are also important preservatives in the food industry, where they help foods last longer by preventing reactions with oxygen. </p>
<p>Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and tocopherols (vitamin E) are natural antioxidants which can be added to processed foods. They sound much less nutritious when referred to as 300 and 306, which are their additive numbers. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/kitchen-science-gastrophysics-brings-the-universe-into-your-kitchen-58147">Kitchen Science: gastrophysics brings the universe into your kitchen</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Even synthetic antioxidants such propyl gallate and butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) are generally regarded as safe (they are listed on the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/foodadditivesingredients/ucm091048.htm">USA Food and Drug Administration website</a>). There have been some concerns about adverse results of BHA at high doses in <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/gras/scogs/ucm260874.htm">animal tests</a>, but at levels ingested by humans, it appears safe. </p>
<h2>Additive is not always a dirty word</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/5_population_nutrient/en/index4.html">Processed foods are often energy dense and light on nutrients</a>. They also often contain additives with intimidating chemical names, or referred to just by their standardised additive numbers. </p>
<p>But, the additives themselves are not necessarily the problem. Natural additives can make foods act in unexpected ways, which enhance the consumer experience and often prolong shelf life.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82883/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Beckett receives funding from the NHMRC and the AMP Foundation. She is a member of the Nutrition Society of Australia. </span></em></p>Processed foods often contain additives with intimidating chemical names or numbers. But many of these are derived from or based on chemicals that are found in nature.Emma Beckett, Postdoctoral Fellow (Human Molecular Nutrition), School of Medicine and Public Health, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/791712017-06-09T04:28:41Z2017-06-09T04:28:41ZBusting the myth that roll-your-own tobacco has fewer additives<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173041/original/file-20170609-11599-d4wzeh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Roll-your-own tobacco contains more additives than factory made cigarettes. So let's not kid ourselves it's safer.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/592203698?src=w7AYefTDNi0emVVuKbRspw-1-19&size=medium_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>My <a href="https://theconversation.com/cheaper-cigarettes-roll-your-own-tobacco-slows-smokings-downward-spiral-78745">last column</a>, reported on the huge growth of Australians using roll-your-own tobacco in the past few years. Because of a tobacco tax anomaly, which will end in <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/rollies-tax-hike?utm_term=.kqnW6Z1k#.hjL7O9AD">September</a> this year, many smokers have migrated to roll-your-own as a less expensive alternative to factory made cigarettes. </p>
<p>The shift to roll-your-own tobacco is certainly <a href="https://theconversation.com/cheaper-cigarettes-roll-your-own-tobacco-slows-smokings-downward-spiral-78745">one factor</a> that has slowed the decline in smoking in Australia in the past three years. </p>
<p>There is unanimous agreement in public health that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/">price</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2446442/">high public acceptance</a> of the harms of smoking are the two single most important factors that reduce tobacco use. This is why all industries, including Big Tobacco, engage in price discounting and lobbying to keep sales taxes low.</p>
<p>While the relative cheapness of roll-your-own tobacco is a major explanation of its rising popularity, several other factors are also relevant. Many people who use it like the ritual of rolling their cigarettes, feeling it is a creative and relaxing ritual.</p>
<p>One 25-year-old man, Sam, <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2016/10/19/tobaccocontrol-2016-053168">told</a> an Otago University research group:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There’s something nice and relaxing about rolling your own as opposed to just pulling one out of the packet, … the sort’ve process of it is quite enjoyable … and also the whole sort’ve ritual just around smoking in general, like sit down and have a coffee, have a cigarette sorta thing … so it’s ritualistic in that sense.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Many smokers believe roll-your-own tobacco is somehow less harmful than factory made cigarettes. The latter are seen as being pickled in artificial chemical additives that make the tobacco “unnatural” and to be avoided. Twenty-year-old woman Brenda told the same researchers:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I just imagine that um, tailor made has more chemicals in it. But I don’t know if that’s true but it kind’ve tastes that way … I dunno, it’s hard to explain it’s just not as, like, clean … tasting.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Why use additives at all?</h2>
<p>Tobacco products contain <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm192053.pdf">additives</a> to:</p>
<ul>
<li>make the smoking sensation “taste” or feel better (known as “mouth feel”)</li>
<li>make the smoke less irritating to smokers’ mouths and throats, particularly to novice smokers</li>
<li>increase the efficiency with which nicotine and artificial <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15847628">nicotine analogues</a> reach the brain to <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article-abstract/6/2/199/1048021/Ammonia-and-other-chemical-base-tobacco-additives?redirectedFrom=PDF">maximise addiction</a></li>
<li>regulate the burn temperature</li>
<li>prevent the cigarette from going out when not being inhaled and to prevent the tobacco “sparking” and sending cinders onto smokers’ clothing</li>
<li>reduce the smell of tobacco smoke</li>
<li>retain optimum moisture in the tobacco (using compounds known as humectants) to stop tobacco drying out when stored or exposed to air.</li>
</ul>
<p>This last category of additives, humectants, are particularly important with roll-your-own tobacco. That’s because it’s exposed to air every time a smoker opens the tobacco pouch or does not seal it properly, making it more likely to dry out.</p>
<p>In 1990, the New Zealand government became the <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=lqbx0120">first</a> to require the tobacco industry submit data on the volume of additives used in tobacco products. Most tobacco products sold in New Zealand at that time were imported from Australia. </p>
<p>The extract below from tobacco company WD & HO Wills’ first report to the NZ government in 1991 makes interesting reading. The report, obtained under Freedom of Information, shows factory made cigarettes had just 0.2% of additives (by weight) out of total tobacco; roll-your-own cigarette tobacco had 22.5%; and pipe tobacco had a third by total weight in additives.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173036/original/file-20170609-32348-oc124f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173036/original/file-20170609-32348-oc124f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173036/original/file-20170609-32348-oc124f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173036/original/file-20170609-32348-oc124f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173036/original/file-20170609-32348-oc124f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173036/original/file-20170609-32348-oc124f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173036/original/file-20170609-32348-oc124f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173036/original/file-20170609-32348-oc124f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This document, obtained under Freedom of Information, shows levels of additives for different types of tobacco.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So much for the enduring myth that roll-your-own tobacco has less additives than cigarettes. Nearly a quarter of every lungful of smoke inhaled from a roll-your-own cigarette contains particles and gases from the thermal partial decomposition of chemical additives in the tobacco mix.</p>
<h2>Why don’t we know more about these additives?</h2>
<p>Unlike every other product (food, drinks, medicines) intended to be taken into the body, cigarettes are immune from government quality and safety standards. Manufacturers can use any legal, natural or artificial ingredient they wish from a long list of approved additives. </p>
<p>These additives have been approved for <a href="http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-12-tobacco-products/12-7-additives-in-australian-cigarettes">use in foods</a>, but the Australian government has not signed off on their safety when each smoker burns and inhales them many thousands of times a year.</p>
<p>Each year the three main tobacco companies operating in Australia <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/health-pubhlth-strateg-drugs-tobacco-ingredients.htm">voluntarily disclose</a> the additives used in each brand of cigarettes. However, they do not disclose which “processing aids” they use in each brand, nor do they describe what “processing aids” are.</p>
<p>Instead, the industry <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/health-pubhlth-strateg-drugs-tobacco-ingredients.htm">reassures us</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Processing aids and preservatives that are not significantly present in, and do not functionally affect, the finished product are grouped as “processing aids” and/or “preservatives” [my emphasis].</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What “functionally affect” means here is also anyone’s guess. Significantly, manufacturers do not disclose the same information for roll-your-own tobacco.</p>
<h2>‘Extremely high’ pesticide residues</h2>
<p>In 1981, the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals Committee tabled <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/09595239200185011/full">information</a> stating that average levels of the now banned <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status">organochlorine DDT</a> in Australian samples of cigarettes were 43 times higher than found in US and UK cigarettes. </p>
<p>When <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/09595239200185011/full">I questioned</a> in 1986 why this monitoring had been stopped, I was advised government policy was that all cigarette smoking was very dangerous, regardless of the levels of additives and pesticide residue they contained. </p>
<p>One official told me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our view is that smoking in like being in health hell and the extra impact of additives is like turning the temperature up just another degree.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this paper <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/12/suppl_3/iii45.full.pdf">I published</a> in 2003, internal industry documents made available after litigation in the USA, showed that tobacco used in Australian cigarettes contained alarming levels of pesticide residue, including organochlorines like DDT and <a href="https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/dieldrin#section=Top">dieldrin</a>.</p>
<p>A 1978 Philip Morris <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/12/suppl_3/iii45.full.pdf">report</a> noted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Extremely high pesticide residue levels have been found in all samples submitted by PM-Australia, eg. DDT group, 300 ppm; HCH-group up to 100 ppm; dieldrin, up to 22 ppm.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>PM-Australia refers to Philip Morris Australia, the HCH-group to <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=138">hexachlorocyclohexane</a> residues and ppm to parts per million.</p>
<p>These levels are astronomical compared with the 7.5 ppm maximum standard for DDT that had been recommended in a <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/12/suppl_3/iii45.full.pdf">1976 report</a> of the Commission of the European Communities and adopted by the German government.</p>
<p>We have no more recent public data on pesticide residue in cigarettes sold in Australia. But all cigarette and hand-rolling tobacco sold in Australia is grown overseas, often in less developed nations where agricultural practices can be poorly regulated. It is possible, even likely, pesticide contamination continues today.</p>
<p>So as actor Yul Brynner famously advised as he was dying from lung cancer at just 65 years “whatever you do .. don’t smoke”. And don’t kid yourself that it’s only the additives that are the problem.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nxgaAn6IR9E?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Actor Yul Brynner’s advice as he was dying from lung cancer: “Whatever you do … don’t smoke”.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79171/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Roll-your-own tobacco contains additives to stop it from drying out. So, it’s hardly a “natural” or “healthier” alternative to factory made cigarettes.Simon Chapman, Emeritus Professor in Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595162016-07-25T04:07:09Z2016-07-25T04:07:09ZHealth Check: what your pee and poo colour says about your health<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131703/original/image-20160725-31162-khhpsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Normal pee should be the colour of straw.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-232121512/stock-photo-white-toilet-bowl-in-a-bathroom.html?src=7Tc2rMTwXGHUu24B9g6akA-2-78">Devin_Pavel/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Out of the blue I passed bright red pee. I freaked, thinking it was a sign of terminal disease. Then I remembered the roasted beetroot tarts served at the party the night before – so delicious I’d eaten three! </p>
<p>Beetroot, artificial colours, vitamin supplements and medications can change the colour of your urine or bowel motions. Knowing which colour changes are due to food or medicines can save you worry, or provide an early alert to get to the doctor. </p>
<h2>Beeturia</h2>
<p>Beeturia is the term for passing red urine after eating beetroot. The red colour comes from a pigment called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betalain">betalain</a>, also in some flower petals, fruit, leaves, stems and roots. Concentrated beetroot extract, called Beet Red or additive number 162 on food labels, can be added to “pink” foods, such as ice-cream. </p>
<p>Whether betalain turns your pee red or not <a href="http://dmd.aspetjournals.org/content/29/4/539.full">depends on</a> the type of beetroot, amount eaten and how it’s prepared, because betalain is destroyed by heat, light and acid. </p>
<p>How much betalain enters your digestive tract depends on stomach acid and stomach emptying rate (people taking medications to reduce stomach acid may be prone to beeturia). Once in the blood stream, <a href="https://examine.com/supplements/betalains/">betalain pigments are filtered out by the kidneys</a>. Most is eliminated two to eight hours after eating. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/urine-color/basics/symptoms/con-20032831">Persistent red urine can be due to</a> blood loss, infection, enlarged prostate, cancer, cysts, kidney stones or after a <a href="http://www.livestrong.com/article/383806-what-causes-blood-to-be-in-urine-after-exercising/">long-distance run</a>. If you see red and have not been eating beetroot, see your doctor.</p>
<h2>What should your pee look like?</h2>
<p>Normal pee should be the colour of straw. If your pee is so colourless that it looks like water, you probably drank more than you needed. </p>
<p>Very dark yellow pee usually means you are a bit dehydrated and need to drink more water. </p>
<p>Compare your pee colour to the <a href="https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2013/10/what-the-color-of-your-urine-says-about-you-infographic/">Cleveland Clinic’s</a> scale below.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131697/original/image-20160725-26820-2hmmq2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131697/original/image-20160725-26820-2hmmq2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1125&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131697/original/image-20160725-26820-2hmmq2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1125&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131697/original/image-20160725-26820-2hmmq2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1125&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131697/original/image-20160725-26820-2hmmq2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1414&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131697/original/image-20160725-26820-2hmmq2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131697/original/image-20160725-26820-2hmmq2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1414&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Courtesy Cleveland Clinic</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Strange pee colours due to food, drugs or disease</h2>
<p>Pee the colour of syrup or molasses <a href="https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003139.htm">needs medical investigation</a>. While it could be due to extreme dehydration, it can be a sign of liver diseases such as hepatitis and cirrhosis, where a build up of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilirubin">bilirubin</a> spills into your pee. Bilirubin is a breakdown product of red blood cells; it’s also responsible for poo’s normal brown colour. </p>
<p>Pee can turn <a href="https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003139.htm">bright orange or yellow</a> when taking beta-carotene or vitamin B supplements, especially <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riboflavin#Toxicity">large doses of riboflavin</a> (vitamin B2). These supplements are water soluble. What your body can’t use or store gets filtered out via your kidneys and into pee. </p>
<p>Medications including phenazopyridine (for urinary tract infections), rifampin (antibiotic for treating tuberculosis and Legionnaire’s disease), warfarin (blood thinner) and some laxatives can also change pee colour.</p>
<p>If you pass blue or green pee, it’s most likely due to food colouring or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylene_blue">methylene blue</a> used in some diagnostic test procedures and some drugs. </p>
<p>But a range of medications can also trigger blue or green urine. These include <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2005.00997.x">antihistamines, anti-inflammatories, antibacterials, antidepressants</a>, some nausea drugs or those for reducing stomach acid. </p>
<p>Rare genetic conditions <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartnup_disease">Hartnup disease</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_diaper_syndrome">Blue diaper syndrome</a> cause blue-green urine. So see your doctor if it persists or it happens in an infant. </p>
<p>You should never see purple pee, but hospital staff might. “<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894016/">Purple urine bag” syndrome</a> happens in patients with catheters and infections or complications. The catheter or bag turns purple due to a chemical reaction between protein breakdown products in urine and the plastic.</p>
<p>Occasionally, <a href="http://www.md-health.com/Foamy-Urine.html">pee can be frothy</a>. It’s a normal reaction if protein intake is high and pee comes out fast. It is more likely if you consume protein powders or protein supplements. Excess protein can’t be stored in the body so the nitrogen component (responsible for the froth) gets removed and the kidneys excrete it as urea. </p>
<p>See your doctor if the frothiness doesn’t go away or gets worse, as protein can leak into pee if you have kidney disease. </p>
<h2>Poo colours of the rainbow</h2>
<p>Normal <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/stool-color/expert-answers/faq-20058080">poo colour ranges</a> from light yellow to brown to black. The colour is due to a mix of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bile">bile</a>, which starts off green in the gall bladder, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilirubin">bilirubin</a> a yellow breakdown product from red blood cells. </p>
<p>Poo can <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/stool-color/expert-answers/faq-20058080">turn green</a> after consuming food and drink containing blue or green food colouring, or if food travels too fast through the gut and some bile is still present. </p>
<p>Poo that is yellow, greasy and smells really bad signals food malabsorption. If this colour is associated with weight loss in an adult or poor growth in a child, see a doctor to rule out gut infections such as <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/giardia-infection/basics/definition/con-20024686">giardia</a> or medical conditions like <a href="http://www.coeliac.org.au/coeliac-disease/">coeliac disease</a>. </p>
<p>Very <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/stool-color/expert-answers/faq-20058080">pale or clay-coloured poo</a> can happen when taking some anti-diarrhoeal medications, or when digestive problems affect the liver, gut, pancreas or gall bladder. </p>
<p>At the other extreme of the colour spectrum, black poo could be a serious medical issue due to <a href="https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/bowel-motions">bleeding in the stomach</a> or upper gut. Or it could be a harmless side-effect from <a href="https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007478.htm">taking iron supplements</a>, or eating lots of licorice. </p>
<p>Red poo can also be a serious medical issue due to bleeding in the lower gut, or from haemorrhoids, or harmless after having large amounts of red food colouring.</p>
<p>If you don’t know what colour your pee or poo is, take a look. If you see a colour that’s out of the ordinary and you haven’t eaten anything unusual, take a picture and make an appointment to show your GP.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59516/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clare Collins is affiliated with the Priority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, the University of Newcastle, NSW. She is an NHMRC Senior Research fellow. She created the online Healthy Eating Quiz and the Australian Eating Survey. She has received funding from a range of research grants including NHMRC, ARC, Hunter Medical Research Institute, Meat and Livestock Australia. She has consulted to SHINE Australia and Novo Nordisk. Clare Collins is a spokesperson for the Dietitians Association of Australia on specific nutrition issues, including Australia's Healthy Weight Week. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kristine Pezdirc is affiliated with the Priority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, the University of Newcastle, NSW. She has received funding from Hunter Medical Research Institute. She is a member of the Nutrition Society of Australia, </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Megan Rollo has received research funding from a number of bodies including the Hunter Medical Research Institute, the New South Wales Government (TechVoucher) and Novo Nordisk. She is affiliated with the Priority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition at the University of Newcastle and a member of professional organisations including the Dietitians Association of Australia. </span></em></p>Beetroot, artificial colours, vitamin supplements, medications and illnesses can change the colour of your urine or bowel motions.Clare Collins, Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of NewcastleKristine Pezdirc, Research Associate | Post-doctoral Researcher, University of NewcastleMegan Rollo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Nutrition & Dietetics, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/592462016-05-17T10:04:47Z2016-05-17T10:04:47ZNanoparticles in baby formula: should parents be worried?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122746/original/image-20160516-15906-1ymu3xg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What's in the bottle is good for me, right?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/21524179@N08/3669555322">nerissa's ring</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There’s a lot of stuff you’d expect to find in baby formula: proteins, carbs, vitamins, essential minerals. But parents probably wouldn’t anticipate finding extremely small, needle-like particles. Yet this is exactly what a team of scientists here at Arizona State University <a href="http://www.foe.org/projects/food-and-technology/nanotechnology/baby-formula">recently discovered</a>.</p>
<p>The research, commissioned and published by Friends of the Earth (<a href="http://www.foe.org/">FoE</a>) – an environmental advocacy group – analyzed six commonly available off-the-shelf baby formulas (liquid and powder) and found nanometer-scale needle-like particles in three of them. The particles were made of hydroxyapatite – a poorly soluble calcium-rich mineral. Manufacturers use it to regulate acidity in some foods, and it’s also available as a dietary supplement.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122339/original/image-20160512-5088-12g9emr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122339/original/image-20160512-5088-12g9emr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122339/original/image-20160512-5088-12g9emr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122339/original/image-20160512-5088-12g9emr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122339/original/image-20160512-5088-12g9emr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122339/original/image-20160512-5088-12g9emr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=748&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122339/original/image-20160512-5088-12g9emr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=748&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122339/original/image-20160512-5088-12g9emr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=748&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Needle-like particles of hydroxyapatite found in infant formula by ASU researchers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Westerhoff and Schoepf/ASU</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Looking at these particles at super-high magnification, it’s hard not to feel a little anxious about feeding them to a baby. They appear sharp and dangerous – not the sort of thing that has any place around infants. And they are “nanoparticles” – a family of ultra-small particles that have been <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/444267a">raising safety concerns within the scientific community</a> and elsewhere for some years.</p>
<p>For all these reasons, questions like “should infants be ingesting them?” make a lot of sense. However, as is so often the case, the answers are not quite so straightforward.</p>
<h2>What are these tiny needles?</h2>
<p>Calcium is an essential part of a growing infant’s diet, and is a <a href="http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=107.100">legally required component</a> in formula. But not necessarily in the form of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles.</p>
<p>Hydroxyapatite is a tough, durable mineral. It’s naturally made in our bodies as an essential part of bones and teeth – <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxylapatite">it’s what makes them so strong</a>. So it’s tempting to assume the substance is safe to eat. But just because our bones and teeth are made of the mineral doesn’t automatically make it safe to ingest outright.</p>
<p>The issue here is what the hydroxyapatite in formula might do before it’s digested, dissolved and reconstituted inside babies’ bodies. The size and shape of the particles ingested has a lot to do with how they behave within a living system.</p>
<p>Size and shape can make a difference between <a href="http://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/food-additives/20150723/nanoparticles-food-additives">safe and unsafe</a> when it comes to particles in our food. Small particles aren’t necessarily bad. But they can potentially get to parts of our body that larger ones can’t reach. Think through the gut wall, into the bloodstream, and into organs and cells. Ingested nanoscale particles may be able to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02652030701744538">interfere with cells</a> – even beneficial gut microbes – in ways that larger particles don’t.</p>
<p>These possibilities don’t necessarily make nanoparticles harmful. Our bodies are pretty well adapted to handling naturally occurring nanoscale particles – you probably ate some last time you had burnt toast (carbon nanoparticles), or poorly washed vegetables (clay nanoparticles from the soil). And of course, how much of a material we’re exposed to is at least as important as how potentially hazardous it is. </p>
<p>Yet there’s a lot we still don’t know about the safety of intentionally engineered nanoparticles in food. Toxicologists have <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1289%2Fehp.7339">started paying close attention to such particles</a>, just in case their tiny size makes them more harmful than otherwise expected.</p>
<p>So where does this leave us with nanoscale hydroxyapatite needles in infant formula?</p>
<h2>What do regulators know about nano-safety?</h2>
<p>Putting particle size to one side for a moment, hydroxyapatite is classified by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as “Generally Regarded As Safe.” That means it considers the material safe for use in food products – at least in a non-nano form. However, <a href="http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm300661.htm">the agency has raised concerns</a> that nanoscale versions of food ingredients may not be as safe as their larger counterparts. </p>
<p>Some manufacturers may be interested in the potential benefits of “nanosizing” – such as increasing the uptake of vitamins and minerals, or altering the physical, textural and sensory properties of foods. But because decreasing particle size may also affect product safety, the FDA indicates that intentionally nanosizing already regulated food ingredients could require regulatory reevaluation.</p>
<p>In other words, even though non-nanoscale hydroxyapatite is “Generally Regarded As Safe,” according to the FDA, the safety of any nanoscale form of the substance would need to be reevaluated before being added to food products.</p>
<p>Despite this size-safety relationship, the FDA confirmed to me that the agency is unaware of <em>any</em> food substance intentionally engineered at the nanoscale that has enough generally available safety data to determine it should be “Generally Regarded As Safe.”</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122057/original/image-20160511-18165-nr0qig.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122057/original/image-20160511-18165-nr0qig.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122057/original/image-20160511-18165-nr0qig.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122057/original/image-20160511-18165-nr0qig.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122057/original/image-20160511-18165-nr0qig.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122057/original/image-20160511-18165-nr0qig.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122057/original/image-20160511-18165-nr0qig.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122057/original/image-20160511-18165-nr0qig.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hydroxyapatite nanoparticles may have different health effects from larger versions of the mineral.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Westerhoff and Schoepf/ASU</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Casting further uncertainty on the use of nanoscale hydroxyapatite in food, a 2015 report from the European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) suggests there <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_191.pdf">may be some cause for concern</a> when it comes to this particular nanomaterial. </p>
<p>Prompted by the use of nanoscale hydroxyapatite in dental products to strengthen teeth (which they consider “cosmetic products”), the SCCS reviewed published research on the material’s potential to cause harm. Their conclusion?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The available information indicates that nano-hydroxyapatite in needle-shaped form is of concern in relation to potential toxicity. Therefore, needle-shaped nano-hydroxyapatite should not be used in cosmetic products.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This recommendation was based on a handful of studies, none of which involved exposing people to the substance. Researchers injected hydroxyapatite needles directly into the bloodstream of rats. Others exposed cells outside the body to the material and observed the effects. In each case, there were tantalizing hints that the small particles interfered in some way with normal biological functions. But the results were insufficient to indicate whether the effects were meaningful in people.</p>
<p>Importantly, these studies didn’t consider what happens when particles like this end up in the digestive system, including the stomach.</p>
<h2>So what happens when a baby eats them?</h2>
<p>The good news is that, according to preliminary studies from ASU researchers, hydroxyapatite needles don’t last long in the digestive system.</p>
<p>This research is still being reviewed for publication. But early indications are that as soon as the needle-like nanoparticles hit the highly acidic fluid in the stomach, they begin to dissolve. So fast in fact, that by the time they leave the stomach – an exceedingly hostile environment – they are no longer the nanoparticles they started out as.</p>
<p>These findings make sense since we know hydroxyapatite dissolves in acids, and small particles typically dissolve faster than larger ones. So maybe nanoscale hydroxyapatite needles in food are safer than they sound.</p>
<p>This doesn’t mean that the nano-needles are completely off the hook, as some of them may get past the stomach intact and reach more vulnerable parts of the gut. But the findings do suggest these ultra-small needle-like particles could be an effective source of dietary calcium – possibly more so than larger or less needle-like particles that may not dissolve as quickly.</p>
<p>Intriguingly, recent research has indicated that calcium phosphate nanoparticles form naturally in our stomachs and go on to be <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.19">an important part of our immune system</a>. It’s possible that rapidly dissolving hydroxyapatite nano-needles are actually a boon, providing raw material for these natural and essential nanoparticles.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122747/original/image-20160516-15926-1q2xeo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122747/original/image-20160516-15926-1q2xeo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122747/original/image-20160516-15926-1q2xeo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122747/original/image-20160516-15926-1q2xeo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122747/original/image-20160516-15926-1q2xeo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122747/original/image-20160516-15926-1q2xeo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122747/original/image-20160516-15926-1q2xeo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122747/original/image-20160516-15926-1q2xeo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The formula’s safe, but begs other questions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andrew Maynard</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Tempest in a baby bottle</h2>
<p>And yet, even if these needle-like hydroxyapatite nanoparticles in infant formula are ultimately a good thing, the FoE report raises a number of unresolved questions. Did the manufacturers knowingly add the nanoparticles to their products? How are they and the FDA ensuring the products’ safety? Do consumers have a right to know when they’re feeding their babies nanoparticles?</p>
<p>Whether the manufacturers knowingly added these particles to their formula is not clear. At this point, it’s not even clear why they might have been added, as hydroxyapatite does not appear to be a substantial source of calcium in most formula. (Calcium in formula can come from a number of sources, including milk solids, calcium carbonate and calcium chloride.) If the nanoparticles’ inclusion was intentional, though, current FDA guidelines suggest that the regulator wouldn’t consider the material safe by default, and should be subject to further evaluation.</p>
<p>Certainly, from the data presented, these particles – so uniform in size and shape – look like they were intentionally manufactured to be nanoscale and needle-like. It’s possible they were supplied to the various manufacturers without any indication of their “nano-ness.” This doesn’t absolve the manufacturers of responsibility. But it does suggest that greater scrutiny and accountability is needed in the supply chain for food ingredients.</p>
<p>And regardless of the benefits and risks of nanoparticles in infant formula, parents have a right to know what’s in the products they’re feeding their children. In Europe, food ingredients must be <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/docs/labelling_legislation_infographic_food_labelling_rules_2014_en.pdf">legally labeled if they are nanoscale</a>. In the U.S., there is no such requirement, leaving American parents to feel somewhat left in the dark by producers, the FDA and policy makers.</p>
<p>Given the state of science on nanoscale hydroxyapatite in foods, this is as much an issue of trust as it is safety. The FoE report may exaggerate the possible risks, and raise concerns where few are justified. Yet it’s hard to avoid the reality that, if manufacturers are adding nanoparticles to what we feed our children, we need to know more about how to ensure their safety and benefits. How else can we enable informed decisions? </p>
<p>Luckily, current research suggests hydroxyapatite nanoparticles in formula are most likely safe, and arguably, even beneficial. But given how high the stakes are, safety here should not, and indeed cannot, be taken for granted.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59246/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Maynard receives funding support from the Center for Research on Ingredients Risk (CRIS) at Michigan State University. He is also on the Board of Trustees of the International Life Sciences Association North America. He was an independent reviewer on the Friends of the Earth report on nanoparticles in infant formula</span></em></p>Microscopic needle-like particles don’t seem like something you’d want to feed a baby. Whether safe or not, the way we deal with nanoscale food additives leaves plenty of other questions.Andrew Maynard, Director, Risk Innovation Lab, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/439082015-11-20T01:20:56Z2015-11-20T01:20:56ZExplainer: what are E numbers and should you avoid them in your diet?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102125/original/image-20151117-4936-178y5ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some people are sensitive to the effects of food additives</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/aenigmates/21696459986/">Mary and Andrew/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The “E numbers” in the ingredients list of your packaged foods replace the chemical or common name of particular food additives. These are <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.6715/abstract">used to enhance</a> the colour, flavour, texture or prevent food from spoiling. </p>
<p>Food additives have been used for centuries. The ancient Romans would use spices such as saffron to give foods a rich yellow colour. Salt and vinegar were used to preserve meats and vegetables for long voyages.</p>
<p>In the 1960s, regulators decided to make a standardised list of these additives. In Europe, these are referred to as E numbers (the E stands for Europe). In Australia, we just use their code number. </p>
<p>So, vitamin C would be called E300 in Europe. In Australia, it can be found on labels with the code number 300, such as “food acid 300”, “ascorbic acid (300)” or “vitamin C (300)”. </p>
<h2>What do the numbers mean?</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102414/original/image-20151118-14207-ra230i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102414/original/image-20151118-14207-ra230i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102414/original/image-20151118-14207-ra230i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102414/original/image-20151118-14207-ra230i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102414/original/image-20151118-14207-ra230i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102414/original/image-20151118-14207-ra230i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102414/original/image-20151118-14207-ra230i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102414/original/image-20151118-14207-ra230i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>100 to 199</strong>: Food colouring. Saffron is “food colour 164” in Australia (or E164 in Europe). Other spices commonly used to add colour to foods include turmeric (E100) and paprika (E160c). </p>
<p><strong>200 to 299</strong>: Preservatives. These prevent the growth of microbes in food that might make us sick. E220, for example, is sulphur dioxide, a preservative commonly used in wine to stop acetic acid bacteria from turning the wine into vinegar.</p>
<p><strong>300 to 399</strong>: Antioxidants. Vitamin C (E300) falls into this category. </p>
<p><strong>400 to 499</strong>: Thickeners, emulsifiers and stabilisers. Thickeners are commonly used in soups or sauces. <a href="https://theconversation.com/food-additives-and-chronic-disease-risk-what-role-do-emulsifiers-play-38492">Emulsifiers</a> help keep oily substances and watery substances mixed, such as mayonnaise. Without emulsifiers, the oily and watery part can separate, as seen with vinaigrettes. </p>
<p><strong>500 to 599</strong>: Acidity regulators and anti-caking agents. Sodium bicarbonate (E500), commonly known as baking soda or bicarb soda, regulates acidity. </p>
<p><strong>600 to 699</strong>: Flavour enhancers, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-msg-is-a-dangerous-toxin-4560">monosodium glutamate</a> (E621) or MSG. </p>
<p><strong>700 to 999</strong>: Sweeteners, foaming agents and the gases used to package foods, such as nitrogen gas (E941). This is used in most potato chip packaging, as it stops them from oxidising. </p>
<p>Many E numbers are naturally occurring substances, such as vitamin B1 (E101) and even oxygen (E948).</p>
<h2>Regulation of E numbers</h2>
<p>E number restrictions vary between countries, depending on how the local regulatory authorities interpret the product’s toxicity results. Toxicity is the ability for a substance to cause damage, which is often related to how much of the substance is eaten. </p>
<p>Everything is toxic in a high enough dose. Even caffeine is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15935584">toxic</a> if you have enough of it. But most people don’t consume anywhere near a toxic dose, which would be more than 100 cups of <a href="http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/07/27/lethaldoses/">coffee</a>. </p>
<p>Some E number additives are banned elsewhere in the world but not in Australia. Let’s look at what the science says about the key culprits. </p>
<h2>Amaranth (E123)</h2>
<p>Amaranth (E123) is used to give a dark-red colour to foods. It is permitted for use in foods at concentrations of up to 30mg/kg in <a href="http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/applications/documents/A470%20Formulated%20bevs%20DAR%20Part%201-DAR%20to%20Attach%204_1.pdf">Australia</a> and the <a href="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1649.pdf">European Union</a> but is <a href="http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/pages/tableoffoodadditivep5753.aspx">banned</a> in the United States due to concerns it causes cancer.</p>
<p>In 1971, a Russian study linked the dye to <a href="http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19711405724.html;jsessionid=B92CADF26AC85CF5F4582A41B01F90D5">cancer</a> in rats. There was considerable criticism of the methodology of the study and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) undertook several subsequent studies.</p>
<p>The FDA found <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20071213090057/http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Edms/col-221.html">little evidence</a> amaranth was harmful. In one study, female rats given high doses <em>did</em> have an increase in malignant tumours. However, the dose was so high a human would have to drink <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/101241308">7,500 cans</a> of soft drink a day to reach it. </p>
<p>However, following significant public outcry, in 1976 the FDA <a href="http://www.livescience.com/33017-why-were-red-mms-discontinued-for-a-decade.html">banned</a> this food colouring.</p>
<p>Food manufacturers in the United States could apply to have it <a href="http://www.livescience.com/35905-red-dye-no-2-truth.html">retested</a>, but that’s an expensive process. E123 has been replaced by another red colouring agent, E129, one of the “Southampton six”. </p>
<h2>The ‘Southampton six’</h2>
<p>In 2007, a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17825405">UK study</a> found a link between mixtures of food colouring and increased hyperactivity in children. Two colouring mixtures were used: Mix A (containing E102, E110, E122 and E124) and Mix B (containing E104, E110, E122, E129). </p>
<p>The study measured hyperactivity by parent-teacher questionnaires, computer tests and having psychology students directly observe children in a classroom. </p>
<p>Both mixes appeared to be associated with hyperactivity in children aged eight to nine years, but only Mix A was linked to hyperactivity in three-year-olds. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102127/original/image-20151117-4964-6xwcjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102127/original/image-20151117-4964-6xwcjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102127/original/image-20151117-4964-6xwcjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102127/original/image-20151117-4964-6xwcjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102127/original/image-20151117-4964-6xwcjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102127/original/image-20151117-4964-6xwcjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102127/original/image-20151117-4964-6xwcjr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The evidence behind the Southampton six is mixed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/48325072@N07/5729882790/">Peer/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Following public outrage, a <a href="http://www.foodnavigator.com/Policy/Ministers-on-board-with-Southampton-six-phase-out">“voluntary ban”</a> was implemented in 2009. This means the colours <a href="http://www.food.gov.uk/science/additives/enumberlist">can be added to foods</a> in the United Kingdom and European Union, but they must carry a <a href="http://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/guidance/food-additives-legislation-guidance-to-compliance.pdf">warning</a> that they “may have adverse effect on activity and attention in children”. </p>
<p>While food manufacturers can continue to use them, the <a href="http://www.beveragedaily.com/Regulation-Safety/Coca-Cola-reintroduces-Southampton-Six-colours-linked-to-child-hyperactivity">bad publicity</a> following their continued use prompted many to find alternatives. </p>
<p>No warnings are required for these additives in Australia, following investigation by the food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). </p>
<h2>Tartrazine (E102)</h2>
<p>FSANZ reviewed tartrazine (E102) – one of the Southampton six – in 2014 and confirmed it was <a href="https://www.tga.gov.au/toxicity-tartrazine">non-toxic</a> and safe for consumption. FSANZ did admit uncertainty, though, about its effects on hypersensitivity. </p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/coloradditives/coloradditiveinventories/ucm115641.htm">US</a> and EU, products containing tartrazine must carry a warning that they may cause allergic-type reactions in susceptible people. </p>
<p>One <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/627044?dopt=Abstract">study</a> found that tartrazine led to an allergic reaction in about a quarter of people with allergies. </p>
<p>A more recent <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11687081">review</a> found that avoiding tartrazine can help control asthma – but only for people who are sensitive to it. </p>
<p>It has been suggested tartrazine might contribute to hyperactivity, but only in those children who are sensitive to it. </p>
<p>There is also some <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20551163">evidence</a> to suggest that certain children with ADHD may be genetically sensitive to food colours. Consuming excessive food colours may therefore make their symptoms worse.</p>
<h2>Conflicting results</h2>
<p>The Southhampton study used a mixture of food colours and the preservative sodium benzoate (E211). However, it wasn’t clear which individual food colour or preservative had an effect. </p>
<p>The group’s earlier (2004) <a href="http://adc.bmj.com/content/89/6/506.short">study</a> tested a mixture of food colours with sodium benzoate and found an increase in parent-reported hyperactivity. </p>
<p>However, a recent <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24217026">study</a> of Chinese children found no effect from either food colouring or sodium benzoate when given separately. </p>
<p>A follow up to the 2007 Southhampton study has suggested <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20551163">genetic differences</a> may make some people sensitive to the effects of food additives. This may explain the inconsistent results seen among studies. </p>
<p>Some people may have sensitivities, which means they would benefit from carefully reading food labels to avoid certain E numbers, but most people will be able to consume these additives without any side effects.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43908/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melinda Coughlan receives funding from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Snelson receives an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA), funded by the Australian Government Department of Education and Training. </span></em></p>The numbers listed on your packaged foods replace the chemical or common name of food additives. These are used to enhance the colour, flavour, texture or prevent them from spoiling.Melinda Coughlan, Associate Professor, Head: Glycation, Nutrition & Metabolism, Monash UniversityMatthew Snelson, PhD candidate, Baker Heart and Diabetes InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/384922015-04-22T19:46:09Z2015-04-22T19:46:09ZFood additives and chronic disease risk: what role do emulsifiers play?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78870/original/image-20150422-23624-slhkbc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Research in mice shows emulsifiers damage the gastrointestinal barrier, allowing bugs to enter the body.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-148983113/stock-photo-man-buys-products-at-the-supermarket.html?src=dmvZzFtWIt1a6B3tyAxT4w-2-11">nata-lunata/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Have you ever wondered what those food additive numbers in the ingredients list on your food packaging meant and what they were really doing to your body? </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ni.3103.html">recent study</a> suggests emulsifiers – detergent-like food additives found in a variety of processed foods – have the potential to damage the intestinal barrier, leading to inflammation and increasing our risk of chronic disease. </p>
<p>The research was done on mice, so it’s too early to say humans should stop eating emulsifiers, but let’s examine the mechanisms involved. </p>
<h2>The gut’s bacterial flora</h2>
<p>The lining of our gastrointestinal tract has one of the toughest jobs around. It must allow fluid and nutrients to be absorbed from our diet, while also acting as a barrier to prevent the invasion of toxins and harmful bacteria into our bodies. </p>
<p>The cells that make up the intestinal lining secrete a gel-like mucus and a variety of antimicrobial substances, which normally protect them from bacterial infection. But changes in the types of microorganisms living in the gut – from drinking too much alcohol, viral infections, certain drugs and exposure to radiation – can all reduce the integrity of the gastrointestinal barrier. </p>
<p>The hundreds of species of microscopic bugs living in the human gastrointestinal tract (collectively called the “gut microbiota”) play an important role in assisting us to digest food, educating our immune system during its development and increasing the absorption of important minerals from our diet. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78708/original/image-20150421-9032-r19wbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78708/original/image-20150421-9032-r19wbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78708/original/image-20150421-9032-r19wbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78708/original/image-20150421-9032-r19wbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78708/original/image-20150421-9032-r19wbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78708/original/image-20150421-9032-r19wbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78708/original/image-20150421-9032-r19wbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Emulsifiers make ice-cream smoother and more resistant to melting.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/giovannijl-s_photohut/846212196/in/photolist-2hM4ps-a2LEvv-6ErqQo-qsBc5k-6hda4Q-8a3FCc-4bjXxJ-d4d2w-dUmW46-46mtd-fQXGeC-hcmWX5-88LmaD-4X3rr6-MSnTf-2HFwFT-6VgZfZ-6pcNeB-n2Dccf-fJTiBD-ibVAX9-9UbytN-fNdBcG-5HNgoZ-89vKpH-jcYyeb-pEhFUZ-fxnVmh-mfhQ93-aAE279-x41Sc-fwhk2n-aF7s5M-eJuC6-3oPV8-6Evyfb-3MXAY-gDm8v-nGByZZ-HXL16-rWkir-mpe4RZ-9xmzQu-E8ky-hi7gH7-59fry9-54a75s-7V3VZH-swVYv-nrwjZj">Sebastian Mary/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some beneficial species of bacteria can even break down the food that reaches our bowel to produce special types of fats, called <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735932/">short-chain fatty acids</a>. Once absorbed into our bloodstream, these fatty acids can positively influence health by reducing our appetite and lowering our blood sugar levels. </p>
<p>Under normal circumstances, the gut microbiota are unable to grow on the thick mucus layer attached to the intestinal cells. However, if our intestinal lining becomes damaged, specific harmful bacteria are able to move from our gut across the lining and into our bloodstream. </p>
<p>Immune cells in the blood then recognise and try to attack the foreign invaders by producing inflammatory compounds. Over time, this can result in a chronic low level of inflammation in the gut and throughout the body.</p>
<h2>Inflaming the gut</h2>
<p>The word inflammation comes from the Latin “inflammatio”, meaning set alight or ignite. It’s the body’s attempt to protect itself by removing harmful stimuli, including damaged cells, irritants or pathogens, and begin the healing process. </p>
<p>Inflammation is part of the body’s immune response. Initially, it is beneficial when, for example, you scratch your hand and the body mounts an innate immune response to send immune cells to the area to attack foreign microbes and repair the damage. Without inflammation, infections and wounds would never heal.</p>
<p>However, sometimes inflammation can become self-perpetuating; more inflammation is created in response to the existing inflammation. This is known as chronic inflammation. It may be caused by overactive immune system reactions, non-degradable pathogens and infections with some viruses. It
also occurs with autoimmune diseases such as Crohn’s Disease, rheumatoid arthritis and in heart disease, diabetes or stroke. </p>
<p>Uncontrolled chronic inflammation is harmful and leads to tissue damage. This results in side-effects such as fatigue and pain and, in some instances, organ failure. The cause of chronic inflammation in these types of diseases is still unknown.</p>
<h2>So, what do emulsifiers do to the gut?</h2>
<p>Emulsifiers are natural or chemical substances that consist of a “water-loving” end and an “oil-loving” end. They’re commonly used to combine ingredients that normally don’t mix together, such as oil and water. </p>
<p>It would be impossible, for instance, to make mayonnaise without using lecithin (found in egg yolk) as an emulsifier to evenly mix the oil and lemon juice together.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78705/original/image-20150421-9012-lgxkfe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78705/original/image-20150421-9012-lgxkfe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78705/original/image-20150421-9012-lgxkfe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78705/original/image-20150421-9012-lgxkfe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78705/original/image-20150421-9012-lgxkfe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78705/original/image-20150421-9012-lgxkfe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78705/original/image-20150421-9012-lgxkfe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Without emulsifiers,the ingredients in mayonnaise wouldn’t bind together.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeepersmedia/15058048097/in/photolist-oWCr5V-21QpwN-84158i-cw1qNf-bbbB1X-8415bn-7iGMSQ-KgWFv-5Mebc-9y5qgY-bBXeVa-w9q41-pe7AyF-aaLYVf-pe5DGq-pc5GW7-oWBrt4-oWBq8P-pe5BVu-oWBPWG-pdQNsD-pe7CqX-oWBP2f-pe7C82-oWBNPS-pe5CvC-oWBMg1-4fV4Jz-aSSvRn-9rYtD-ahPHxL-48uoKH-6Dc931-fntP7n-pe5Br3-pc5JCy-pdQPfR-oWBNzd-oWBQT1-oWCrcQ-oWBN3b-oWBqHB-oWBqpF-pc5JWE-pdQPB2-pe5Ees-oWCrBg-oWCr43-6ZrYM2-ay4oV8">Mike Mozart/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Emulsifiers are added to bread, salad dressings, sauces, puddings, margarine and ice-cream, to makes it smoother and more resistant to melting.</p>
<p>The authors of the <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7541/full/nature14232.html">recent Nature article</a> added two common emulsifiers, food additive E466-carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and polysorbate-80 (P80) to the drinking water and food of lab mice. </p>
<p>The mice showed a change in the species of bacteria growing in their gut when compared to controls, with reduced numbers of bacteria considered beneficial to health, and increased levels of inflammation-promoting microbes. </p>
<p>The mucus layer that usually shields intestinal cells from invading pathogens had become colonised with mucus-eating bacteria in the emulsifier-fed mice, resulting in a thinner mucus barrier. </p>
<p>In comparison to control mice, previously healthy mice that were fed emulsifiers had low-level gastrointestinal inflammation, ate more food and gained more weight (especially body fat), had higher blood sugar levels and were resistant to the action of insulin. </p>
<h2>Increased risk of chronic disease</h2>
<p>The condition of the mice resembles a human condition that is increasing in prevalence called the <a href="http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Metabolic_syndrome">metabolic syndrome</a>. </p>
<p>People with the metabolic syndrome have excessive fat around their abdomen, high blood pressure, increased levels of “bad” LDL-cholesterol and reduced levels of “good” HDL-cholesterol, and poor control of blood sugar. It also increases the risk of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke.</p>
<p>To demonstrate that the altered gut microbiota were responsible for the inflammatory disorders seen in the emulsifier-fed mice, the researchers transferred gut bacteria from the emulsifier-fed mice into germ-free mice (mice raised in sterile conditions so they have no gut bacteria). </p>
<p>The germ-free mice subsequently developed mild inflammation and symptoms of the metabolic syndrome. When emulsifiers were fed to mice that were genetically prone to develop colitis (inflammation of the colon), these mice developed severe colitis. This may have future implications for sufferers of inflammatory bowel disease.</p>
<p>The authors point out that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the last half-century has witnessed a steady increase in the consumption of food additives, many of which have not been carefully tested as they were given “generally regarded as safe” status at the time that government entities charged with regulating food safety were created and/or expanded. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Don’t throw out the mayonnaise just yet…</h2>
<p>The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved polysorbate-80 for use in select foods up to 1%, while E466 has not been extensively studied but is deemed “generally regarded as safe” and is used in various foods at up to 2.0%. </p>
<p>Food Standards Australia New Zealand has <a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014C01335/Download">approved</a> polysorbate-80 (code number 433 in Australia) and E466 for use in foods with “good manufacturing practice” with no maximum levels. </p>
<p>The study findings highlight the need for regulatory bodies to ensure that food additives are initially tested for safety and continue to undergo long-term monitoring for their effects on chronic health conditions. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78702/original/image-20150421-9034-byff2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78702/original/image-20150421-9034-byff2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78702/original/image-20150421-9034-byff2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78702/original/image-20150421-9034-byff2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78702/original/image-20150421-9034-byff2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78702/original/image-20150421-9034-byff2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78702/original/image-20150421-9034-byff2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The over-consumption of kilojoules from highly processed diets and insufficient physical activity remain the primary culprits of metabolic disease.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dhammza/259625281/in/photolist-oWDxX-hMeFN-4WjNeb-3ZhXT-hHp42q-9j2kU1-e84UBi-ptSJab-pokFU8-3iyouD-gcDHjZ-5D6qCT-oPVtqD-4Y3PeY-aNJ9qX-uisG1-a3oouQ-racp32-7hZcqR-rNwpEN-odDY9Q-8xA3Q9-BwbFg-6RFrVE-p7QPSG-rpjxbA-5RLim-gHPTbR-6BJrWo-kLno1j-qDUp3w-4fV4Jz-4NNVVU-azydS9-nvQdDH-rDhBvx-ckRwLm-oehPbT-dj2Jkz-jMEu5H-hJqDeW-9mD6Hr-vSk4L-bEXQN1-6fSNKq-iP1PWj-hadiRv-ppgoEX-ovZZqH-qBkYeC">Daniel Horacio Agostini/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But it’s too early to remove all emulsifiers from our diets in order to prevent developing the metabolic syndrome. </p>
<p>Dietary emulsifiers clearly affect the metabolic health of mice, but it’s unknown whether emulsifiers impact human health. Humans have been consuming natural emulsifiers for thousands of years, while mice don’t eat emulsifiers in their normal diet. </p>
<p>We also need to determine the quantities that humans are likely to consume over long time periods and their possible metabolic consequences. For the main experiments in the study, the mice were fed concentrations of emulsifiers greater than the average daily human intake. </p>
<p>Multiple factors contribute to the development of the metabolic syndrome. The over-consumption of kilojoules from highly processed diets and insufficient physical activity remain the primary culprits and should be addressed in the first instance. </p>
<p>However, these studies drive home the importance of cooking using fresh ingredients and avoiding or minimising the use of processed foods. Everyone should start reading food ingredient labels and become more aware of what they are really feeding their family.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38492/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melinda Coughlan receives funding from the NHMRC and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Kellow receives funding from the NHMRC. </span></em></p>Have you ever wondered what those food additive numbers included in the ingredients list on your food packing were really doing to your body?Melinda Coughlan, Associate Professor; Head, Glycation, Nutrition & Metabolism, Baker Heart and Diabetes InstituteNicole Kellow, Dietitian; Diabetes Educator; PhD candidate at Monash University and, Baker Heart and Diabetes InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/335922015-01-14T19:31:51Z2015-01-14T19:31:51ZMilking the market: are you pouring additives on your cereal?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68918/original/image-20150113-28437-jhd9hg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some alternative 'milk' products are startlingly low on nutrition and many are packed with additives despite their 'natural' tag. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mandarina94/6773907310/in/photolist-bjA3Dm-4uZAC1-9zNQa-ak9ERG-bQyEN-8N4A9G-5TCoh7-bQwU8-bQCzf-ndLbPA-djoZ1X-7tCymc-bK33di-hxKF2v-zpT4J-aEBZ6w-bQw45-5nuLSV-4xKdXD-dCq9CK-9mwf6w-dDC1p-qhttGS-7TNGN-fiBSuL-pnNcV-7tYURL-9jpRT9-6pvyN3-is2MRk-98rSJC-5bjYvq-hKhhan-bzkAr-8soT4S-djX6wT-55f1eo-3CKue9-e3XgH1-h7pRrG-noKNFP-dd5t-g1BatW-fEhdH6-4mqbD4-9FFQjk-7yuMD6-5sae7-9ZxUDH-5HyQEn">Iryna Yeroshko/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There’s a milk revolution going on in supermarkets and it’s showing no sign of retreat. Where formerly we might have had a simple choice between cow milk and soy milk, with a few other niche products available in the bigger supermarkets, suddenly we’re facing a bewildering range: almond or macadamia milk? Cow, sheep, or goat? Coconut? Rice, oat or quinoa? </p>
<h2>But why?</h2>
<p>First, let’s take a moment to reflect on the possible reasons for this phenomenon. The current interest in the Palaeolithic diet may certainly have something to do with it. Adherents seek alternatives to dairy and soy foods under the misconception that humans had entirely completed their evolutionary process before any use of these foods. They argue that this somehow means we are not “meant” to consume them. </p>
<p>People with lactose intolerance have long avoided animal milks, which all contain lactose as their natural (but sometimes poorly absorbed) sugar. <a href="https://theconversation.com/soy-versus-dairy-whats-the-footprint-of-milk-8498">Environmental concerns</a> are another possible reason people want to reduce their consumption of animal milks. </p>
<p>Distrust of soy foods has also grown in recent years because of concerns about their hormonal effects, although there’s <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11880595">little evidence to support the idea</a> they’re harmful. Nonetheless, people are looking further afield to find a suitable swap for cow’s milk if they have a dairy protein allergy or if they’re avoiding casein to help manage neurological conditions such as autism or dementia (as part of a diet that has been popular but <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685183">controversial</a>). </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68923/original/image-20150113-28449-94hr59.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68923/original/image-20150113-28449-94hr59.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68923/original/image-20150113-28449-94hr59.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68923/original/image-20150113-28449-94hr59.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68923/original/image-20150113-28449-94hr59.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68923/original/image-20150113-28449-94hr59.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68923/original/image-20150113-28449-94hr59.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Distrust of soy foods has grown in recent years because of concerns about their hormonal effects.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/87807550@N00/126164015/in/photolist-7eEqpt-nWLv7B-8sGrwk-c9CaD-an27Sp-5nQH8f-bBqp5e-akP4yK-akRSCf-arjEc9-n6QhBt-6hre2Y-9XAMpi-4JgJdy-arh1oM-7n77CR-9XDCbs-9XDyxE-9ts4YJ-n6Scby">mc559/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Soy allergy is another reason people search for milk alternatives. The ranks of these searchers are boosted by the fact that plant-based and raw diets are on the increase.</p>
<h2>Not so good</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, unless they’re reading the packaging carefully, many consumers are probably being misled by the labelling of these alternative products as milk. What’s more, some are startlingly low on nutrition and, ironically, many are packed with additives despite their “natural” tag. </p>
<p>Indeed, compared to animal milks, which usually contain only milk, a typical ingredients list for one of these alternative products might contain between ten and 18 different added substances. These include oils, thickening agents (starches, carrageenan, or vegetable gums), flavourings and syrup sweeteners, emulsifiers and added vitamins and minerals. And their main ingredient is water.</p>
<p>The large amount of added water means that many of these products are quite dilute. Other than soy milk, none of the others have even a tenth of the protein in animal milks. </p>
<p>If you adjust for the amount of added water by looking at their nutrition relative to calorie content (instead of just per 100 millilitres as most labels show), then some of the nut products look a bit better. They’re still very high in fat. </p>
<p>And really, you’re mainly paying for some very expensive water. Then, there’s added salt, which surprisingly seems to be a supplement to every nut milk product on the market. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68920/original/image-20150113-28455-1awljx5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68920/original/image-20150113-28455-1awljx5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68920/original/image-20150113-28455-1awljx5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68920/original/image-20150113-28455-1awljx5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68920/original/image-20150113-28455-1awljx5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68920/original/image-20150113-28455-1awljx5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68920/original/image-20150113-28455-1awljx5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=554&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nut milks are a mixture of ground nuts and water, usually with a sweetener and salt.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/vrangtantebrun/3773798630/in/photolist-6KtGRC-aJz9GZ-8xQjVF-is1jtM-8HceUT-6Z8MJo-9qcY5K-8t3Hke-aWWPji-5kfqD8-4xVxfT-4xVwS6-ipKvf-dDMshu-8E4cB4-6KtGJ9-zDxBm-7yRdw8-Je8yh-5VLRJg-2M65Xs-aFbte6-5V13AC-jFV2KK-5UVEnK-3cj6wk-7mCBN-6v3Vsv-9weQcA-7t749R-7qrHyk-45hxfA-7gGRrr-5C9WG6-dmv5mo-2jaXpz-nTn2j1-4gVrtb">Vrangtante Brun/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Calcium content is not comparable either, unless it has been added. Unfortunately, the form of calcium commonly used is not easily absorbed by the human body compared to what’s present in animal milks.</p>
<h2>The low-down</h2>
<p>Nut milks are a mixture of ground nuts and water, usually with a sweetener and salt. They provide the beneficial fats that are found in nuts, as well as protein and calcium in very small amounts. </p>
<p>Cereal milks, such as oat, rice or quinoa, are a starchy mixture of grain flours or brans – or both. They usually have added oil and, again, salt. Generally, these cereal milks provide little protein but the added oil usually has beneficial mono-unsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids. </p>
<p>Coconut milk sold as a beverage usually has added water and salt. It is also very low in protein. Coconut oil is mostly saturated fat. While many advocates will argue for the specific benefits of the medium-chain triglycerides present in this fat, these form only part of the fat content of coconut. And it still doesn’t stack up as a healthier fat than the mono- and poly-unsaturated fats.</p>
<h2>Unsustainable?</h2>
<p>The environmental implications of Palaeolithic-style eating are rarely mentioned. Eating like a cave-dweller sounds so natural, how could it be bad for the environment, right? But the world’s population is more than 6,000 times the size it was in the Palaeolithic era, so sustainability is now a much bigger issue! </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68919/original/image-20150113-28443-44ghlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68919/original/image-20150113-28443-44ghlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68919/original/image-20150113-28443-44ghlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68919/original/image-20150113-28443-44ghlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68919/original/image-20150113-28443-44ghlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68919/original/image-20150113-28443-44ghlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68919/original/image-20150113-28443-44ghlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Coconut milk sold as a beverage usually has added water and salt.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bionicteaching/2166640369/in/photolist-4isAGr-oxFxRs-6b9xBe-4APyxk-4muZ12-bpkg5L-7z8dfr-75fcxb-jhkfbU-9kJ1Fq-72ra5B-7zJ2Xu-9nX1Ph-98YhsP-cNpuCG-79fwBN-4ps8i9-7CT5Tb-EpL1t-8E4cB4-a1JEvx-k3fk9z-5DEat-a6GF41-eMPHpy-5RwKrW-2tZyPL-dKtAAd-4SxSj5-jcRoha-2tZnWS-4drgub-9frE7m-7G49uj-ohuEei-68Lhq3-DM9ab-annZWH-4WCvgD-hE2zSp-dVX5Xb-7vaL4i-htX54-2tV2FV-aVJE5V-H5uCK-6b9xCX-dCq9CK-622DPQ-dQ4eG9">Tom Woodward/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There would be huge <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2008.00251.x/abstract">environmental implications</a> if six billion people tried to follow a diet high in meat, but the type of milk we choose may be very important too. The <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-californias-water-going">amount of water</a> used to grow almonds is very large, for instance, and coconut milk will be high in food miles for most of us. So there isn’t a clear front-runner amongst these milks in the environmental stakes.</p>
<p>Given the strict rules about what products can be called juice, it’s curious that manufacturers are allowed to call these products milk at all, since they really aren’t. Other than in the sense of being a white liquid you can put on cereal and in tea, and use in cooking, that is. </p>
<p>If that’s all you’re looking for, then it’s up to you to choose which one you like most - but do read the label to see what else you’re getting!</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33592/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzie Ferrie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There’s a milk revolution going on in supermarkets and it’s showing no sign of retreat. Where formerly we might have had a simple choice between cow milk and soy milk, with a few other niche products available…Suzie Ferrie, Clinical Affiliate, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/30112011-09-11T20:09:15Z2011-09-11T20:09:15ZCocktail of chemicals: the health impact of additives in processed foods<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3185/original/5027161428_f762af4ce5_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Colouring makes food eye-catching but such chemicals could be affecting attention and activity.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">wwarby/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A growing body of evidence is focusing attention on the dangers posed by the myriad chemicals in our food. Although certainty around the precise impact of these chemicals is some way off, what we do know indicates a chemical cocktail of colourings, preservatives, and flavour enhancers, among other things, may be having a negative impact on our minds and bodies.</p>
<p>When we bite into a luscious piece of chocolate cake, sip on a vanilla latte or send the kids off to school with a salami sandwich, we don’t tend to look too far past the taste of the food we’re consuming. </p>
<p>Sure the cake has heaps of sugar – but it wouldn’t taste good otherwise; the latte always tastes better with full-cream milk; and well, the kids just love salami. </p>
<p>But when we eat these foods, or provide them to children, we’re also exposing ourselves to a range of chemicals that have come to pervade our food supply. </p>
<p>The chocolate cake may well contain artificial colourings, along with the cocoa to give it that beautiful brown colour, and perhaps a preservative in the icing or cream, or even the cake itself. </p>
<p>The vanilla latte will more than likely have a benzoate preservative in the syrup, as well as colourings, not to mention artificial flavourings. </p>
<p>Salami generally won’t have colourings, but the kids will be tucking into nitrate and nitrite preservatives (not to mention the high percentage of fat). </p>
<p>Now these chemicals do serve a purpose of sorts – they’re there to make the food more attractive to us (and to our kids). They’re designed to be eye-catching (colours), long-lasting (preservatives), taste great (flavours and flavour enhancers), or have few to no calories (artificial sweeteners). </p>
<p>But research is beginning to raise questions about the long-term effects of these chemicals, particularly on children.</p>
<h2>The Southampton study</h2>
<p>Public interest in artificial food additives was brought to the forefront in 2007 with the release of the so-called <a href="http://www.purefun.ca/content/Stevenson2007-ReportedInLancetJournal.pdf">Southampton study</a>. </p>
<p>The results of this study showed the adverse effects of a mix of artificial colours and one preservative (all of which are permitted in Australia) for a group of children aged three to four and eight to nine years. </p>
<p>These children were specifically selected because they represented the “normal” population. They were not children who had an ADHD diagnosis – they were simply kids you’d find in an everyday classroom. </p>
<p>The results of the Southampton study indicated effects on attention and activity in these children after the consumption of the additive mixes. </p>
<p>While there’s <a href="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/ans080314.htm">criticism levelled at the Southampton study on a number of grounds</a>, it remains one of very few studies to have examined the effects of mixtures of additives on attention and behaviour in children without a psychological diagnosis. </p>
<p>While cited as a flaw, the lead author of the study, Professor Jim Stevenson noted that looking at the mixture of additives was important as it <a href="http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa080404a.pdf">mimicked the consumption of these chemicals by children in real life</a>.</p>
<p>Few children would consume only one colouring, or only a preservative. Rather, because of the prevalence of these chemicals within our food supply, and particularly within foods aimed at children, consumption of a “cocktail of chemicals” is actually the norm. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food-dyes-rainbow-of-risks.pdf">review of permitted artificial colourings in the United States</a> recently concluded that because of toxicological considerations food dyes should not be considered safe.</p>
<p>These considerations included the carcinogenity of the dyes, hypersensitive reactions and behavioural effects. The review concluded by recommending that manufacturers should voluntarily replace the artificial dyes with natural alternatives. </p>
<h2>The aftermath</h2>
<p>On the back of the Southampton study, the <a href="http://www.food.gov.uk/aboutus/agencyandeurope/">European Food Standards Agency (EFSA)</a> instituted a new labelling law, with a phase-in period of two years. </p>
<p>From July 2010, any food containing any one of the food colourings examined in the Southampton study sold within the European Union must contain a label stating “may have an adverse effect on attention and activity in children”.</p>
<p>This includes goods imported from other countries.</p>
<p>While much of the public’s attention has been focussed on artificial colourings, other studies are beginning to look at other chemicals that we add to our food. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800048m">2009 study by Italian researchers</a>, for instance, concluded that two food chemicals – the widely used preservative propyl gallate and an additive used to prevent shellfish from discolouring - both had estrogren-mimicking properties. </p>
<p>Their conclusion was these chemicals could in fact interact with, and alter, human hormones. </p>
<p>While further research is yet to be conducted within an animal model, the compositions of these chemicals suggests the potential to cause reproductive problems in animals, and potentially, in humans.</p>
<p>To be fair to the food industry, and indeed to the modern consumer, the jury is still out on the effects these chemicals are having on our biological make-up.</p>
<p>There’s much research that still needs to completed about the effects of additives in terms of their carcinogenity, hypersensitivity and behavioural effects, especially with respect to their long-term consumption. </p>
<p>But there’s a growing body of research that suggests these chemicals can be detrimental to our health and well-being.</p>
<p>While widely approved for use in our food supply, little current research exists to support the safety of their long-term use on “human indicators” such as attention, mood or behaviour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3011/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karena Burke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A growing body of evidence is focusing attention on the dangers posed by the myriad chemicals in our food. Although certainty around the precise impact of these chemicals is some way off, what we do know…Karena Burke, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.