As I move the news or social media positions, I see a very public fear of the “abnormal” or “synthetic” ingredients.
Did you know that the colors found in nature consist of chemicals?
Often the chemicals that produce the color themselves also have the health benefits. It is part of a group of chemicals we call phytochemicals (“phyto” meaning “plant”).
Think of the range of colors between all fruits and vegetables: chlorophyll (green vegetables such as leafy green, celery, parsley, basil and other green herbs), carotenoids (orange fruits and vegetables, (blues and reds – salmon, berries, berries)
What do these associations have in common? They have antioxidant properties. You may already know that vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is antioxidant. Why should you consume foods with antioxidants?
Think of antioxidants as guardians. Protect your body cells from “free radicals”. At high levels, these unstable “Free radical” molecules They cause oxidative stress within the body, which can damage your cells at a genetic level. Eating antioxidants can help keep free radicals under control.
Food is chemistry
You see, food is chemistry. All foods consist of chemicals. Actually, you They consist of chemicals!
There is this public perception that “natural” is better. You can listen to people in social media or printing articles that suggest that you “avoid any food or ingredients you cannot pronounce” (in fact our US government recently took this attitude).
Just because chemical names are difficult to pronounce, it does not make them harmful.
Take, for example, vitamin C. Vitamin C is found in many fruits (citrus, melon, kiwi) and vegetables (white potatoes, peppers, broccoli). Whether it is in nature or composed in a laboratory, vitamin C has the same chemical structure. Once swallowed, your body cannot say the difference and break it in the same way.
Synthetic food dyes
Natural sounds better. No one likes the word “synthetic”. In fact, if two identical compounds occur naturally or are manufactured in the laboratory, if they are chemically the same, they are the same compound and are metabolized as such in the body.
This brings me to food dyes. I think many consumers have hung the idea that these ingredients are “synthetic” and may not know how they have been studied for security.
Science for Red Dye No.3 shows this:
- Is not genotoxic (do not hurt DNA, human genetic material)
- Is carcinogenic Only in the male thyroid rat, Only in the highest dose tested and produces only benign (not malignant/cancer) tumors
- Operates clearly through a secondary carcinogenesis mechanism associated with thyroid toxicity
- It has a level of exposure -level threshold under which the risk of human cancer is negligible, as male rat tumors are not relevant to humans
FDA does not prohibit additives or ingredients based solely on a potential Risk in laboratory rats. Or at least, Did not get used to. How was Red Dye No 3 recognized, which was previously recognized as safe, took prohibited;
- Pressure from CSPI reference and Californiaban.
- The Delaney clause: This clause forbids FDA to approve the use of any additional food found to cause cancer to animals or people. Food scientists criticize the clause as overly restrictive by setting a zero level of risk (keep reading to find out more about the risk).
EU Halo
I often hear people who make statements about food being “healthier” in Europe than the United States because Europe “does not put this trash there” food. In some cases, they really use the ingredient, but with a different name. Event of fun: There’s really a lot of dyes and additives approved in Europe prohibited in the US.
The EU approaches food policy differently. The EU is using a Prophylaxis To make decisions about food ingredients while FDA uses a For example, a disgusting risk. In other words, the EU allows regulators to act even when scientific evidence is not decisive. Type of an approach ‘better safe than apologies’.
The American example favors an approach based at risk, taking into account the real risk. This is an important distinction between these two approaches.
If you enjoy swimming in the ocean, you run the risk that sharks (or other risk) could be close. However, the fact that sharks live in the ocean does not mean that you will see one every time you swim (or always throughout your life). Or that they will bite you. However, the risk is always there. You can also evaluate the risk on any given day. (Btw, shark bites are still rare, 1 in 4,332,817, and you are more likely to suffer from dog attack)
Danger to risk
The concepts of danger and danger are It is important to understand. A risk is something that has the potential be harmful or dangerous. A risk is the probability by this risk that is happening.
EU approach to assess the safety of prosthetic foods is evaluated How much damage can be avoided instead of asking How much risk is acceptable.
In the US, human security evidence is not considered decisive on the basis of data from a rat study. We are not rats. In addition, laboratory rats often come from tumors and give large doses of that substance. Rodent studies serve to start research or specify potential Damage mechanisms. US approach to assess the safety of prosthetic foods focuses on real risk, not the Ability to cause damage to the body based on high doses given to laboratory rats. However, red dye No. 3 will be removed from food by January 2027, according to the new decision.
The FDA approach is rooted in a 1958 legislation introduced by the “generally recognized” regime (Gras) for food additives.
‘For a substance to be GrasScientific data and information on the use of a substance must be widely known and there must be consensus between experts that data and information establish that the substance is safe under the conditions of its intended use. “
You will hear much more about it in the near future. What started as a productive way of managing the food system may need an update.
Can anything in life be completely without danger?
A large part of the toxicology study frame is that The result (risk) depends on the amount of Report (risk) and the actual use of one component. Or as we often say: “Dose makes the poison.”
Life is full of dangers. Certainly some people are more dangerous. It is absolutely good to make your own judgments about the dangers you want to take. The question is that policy should be defined based on dynamic something that happensor to discreet proof that it is likely to occur in real -life practices or scenarios? I tend to live with the “dose makes the poison” and modify my choices around this principle.
We live in a society extremely dependent on science and technology, in which almost no one knows anything about science and technology. ~ Carl sagan
