U.S. food additives banned in Europe

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-food-additives-banned-europe-making-americans-sick-expert-says/

by nabla9 • 3 years ago

228 205 3 years ago

GrayShade• 3 years ago

The original title is "U.S. food additives banned in Europe: Expert says what Americans eat is "almost certainly" making them sick", which makes a lot more sense than the submission title.

etiennebausson2• 3 years ago

I did wonder how the expert was making people sick.

throwawaylinux5• 3 years ago

That said it's probably still inadvisable to season your food with expert.

Silverback_VII• 3 years ago

Well one possible reason why Americans report better health and energy levels after switching to a lowcarb, no seed oil, paleo or whatever diet is that seed products in the US are contaminated with various chemicals.

Thus the statement of these experts may be true to some extent.

input_sh• 3 years ago

That's >80 characters title limit, so some editorializing was necessary.

sh4rks• 3 years ago

An extra colon would have done the job

Expert: "Almost certainly making them sick"

easygenes• 3 years ago

A clearer suggestion:

  US food additives banned in EU. Expert says "almost certainly" making US sick

DougN7• 3 years ago

My wife has chronic migraines, and we live in the US. We visited Europe last year for 3 weeks and she was migraine free. We figured it had to be the food, and talk about maybe moving…

linuxftw2• 3 years ago

It could be the food, it could be indoor air quality, it could be a beauty product, it could be pollen, any number of things.

In any case, it might be related to histamines. If your wife has any troubles with an MTHFR mutation, this can cause issues with histamine buildup [1]. I don't endorse this site generally, just a quick reference for the histamine bits.

One possible cause of this is taking folic acid (synthetic) rather than folate. This is commonly found in 'enriched' products like breads and cereals, even rice. Europe doesn't enrich products like the US does.

This is to say nothing about different pesticides and additives the Europeans use vs the US.

Anyway, try avoiding wheat and enriched foods and see if that makes any difference. My wife had a lot of these issues and others, and we've got her sorted out now.

1: https://joannekennedy.com.au/2020/01/03/mthfr-histamine-into...

sschueller• 3 years ago

It's not only food. Things like fire retardants and off the shelve pesticides are also problematic.

LtWorf• 3 years ago

But you don't eat those.

thfuran3• 3 years ago

You don't see how someone might end up eating pesticide?

stuaxo2• 3 years ago

These will all almost certainly be making their way into food post-Brexit in the UK.

nly• 3 years ago

Don't worry, our highly efficient, world class, over-provisioned National Health Service will deal with the consequences in short order.

wongarsu• 3 years ago

The NHS that totally received the £350 million per week that the UK no longer has to pay to the EU

rsynnott5• 3 years ago

As I understand it the reasons for potassium bromate being legal in the US are more to do with the idiosyncratic way the FDA treated things already in common use when it became responsible for regulating food carcinogens. So even a freewheeling Brexit means Brexit UK regulator is unlikely to approve this _today_; if potassium bromate were a novel ingredient today the FDA probably wouldn’t approve it either.

mlatu3• 3 years ago

oh yeah grandfather knew BESSSST

swores• 3 years ago

But the reason to be worried about UK standards is because the government may want food regulations to be as similar to US regulations as possible, to make it easier/cheaper for American food to be imported here. So the fact that the FDA wouldn't approve it if it were novel today doesn't necessarily mean the UK won't approve it purely because it's already approved in the US.

rspoerri• 3 years ago

Nothing to worry, they are not in the EU anymore...

stuaxo2• 3 years ago

"when used properly, potassium bromate converts into a harmless substance during food production"

Wow, pretty big assumption it will always be used properly, for something in wide use.

checkyoursudo• 3 years ago

Humans are famous for never ever using anything improperly.

goodpoint3• 3 years ago

Especially in the US food industry, known for its extremely skilled workforce and exacting quality standards...

mlatu3• 3 years ago

.... potassium bromATE KBrO3 needs temperatures of 370° Celsius before it splits off its oxygen atoms... and then you have KBr, potassium bromIDE, in earlier centuries used as a sedative. and usualy back then they gave too much, which resulted in Bromism (im not saying you will get this from eating bread, but "harmless substance"? my ass is a harmless substance.): restlessness, irritability, ataxia, confusion, hallucinations, psychosis, weakness, stupor and in severe cases, coma..... also nausea and vomiting, and anorexia, constipation with chronic use...also also rashes and such.

you guys are being lied to, constantly, by any industry that can get away with it.

vinylchloride on the floor? just burn it off.. itll become a harmless gas that you can mix with water (HAHA phat chance thats gonna happen in the air... am i right?) to get harmless hydrochloric acid

potassium bromATE in your flour? just bake it off.. itll become a harmless sedative...

cedilla• 3 years ago

You misunderstand what's supposed to happen. Potassium bromate is a strong oxidizing agent. Pyrolysis is completely irrelevant here.

I don't know if potassium bromate should be used as a food additive but your comment in its safety is not even wrong, it just shows a lack of understanding of food chemistry.

mschuster91• 3 years ago

potassium bromATE KBrO3 needs temperatures of 370° Celsius before it splits off its oxygen atoms

Easy enough to hit in a frying pan, which as a sidenote is the major problem with non-stick pans as well because their Teflon coating disintegrates when heating them too high

lame-robot-hoax• 3 years ago

Is there any evidence these things are actually making people sick?

Just saying “it’s banned in these countries” isn’t evidence.

kristopolous• 3 years ago

look up "potassium bromate carcinogen" in your favorite search engine.

pella• 3 years ago

"Titanium dioxide (also known as E171);"

https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa...

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=E171

Deukhoofd• 3 years ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1567851/

throwawaylinux5• 3 years ago

"adverse effects are not evident in animals fed bread-based diets made from flour treated with KBrO3"

The question isn't whether the chemical can cause cancer at any dose, it is whether there is evidence that its use in food in the US causes health problems in humans, i.e., the primary claim in the article linked to.

danuker• 3 years ago

About potassium bromate, IARC based its evaluation on studies of rats, mice and hamsters. https://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol73/73-17.html

Would you want to ban something producing renal tubular tumours and thyroid follicular tumours in rodents, for use in human food? I guess this is the crux of the article.

Manjuuu• 3 years ago

If it has been banned, there are enough evidences. Then anyone is free to re-evaluate, but hey, you already have a big red flag.

frankfrankfrank• 3 years ago

I know, right. It’s like how can we know things like that the cancer clusters that will show up in that population inside the government created toxic mushroom cloud fallout region around East Palestine, OH has anything to do with setting thousands of barrels of toxic chemicals on fire and letting them seep into the waterways that supply 20 million people.

Let’s discuss it over cocktails at the K Street Lobby Bar.

mardifoufs2• 3 years ago

So, no proof? Your argument could be used for every single chemical.

throwawaylinux5• 3 years ago

This isn't an unreasonable question to ask.

There is some evidence that (at least some of) the chemicals in the banned additives can cause health problems at some dosage. There is an expert who is almost certain that those chemicals in food has caused health problems. Neither of those equates to evidence that their use in food does cause health problems. And the opposing experts (the FDA) has said that food additives require evidence of their safety before approval for use in foods.

If you found an expert willing to claim it and ran a fearmongering story "Covid vaccines 'almost certainly' making people sick" despite safety requirements from the FDA, I think it would get a very different response here. At the very least calls for actual evidence of the claims would not be down voted.

I would be interested in the evidence too. For example presumably there would be a signal in cancer detection rates when potassium bromate was banned in Europe in 1990 if the ban had a significant reduction in its use and if its use caused cancer.

etiennebausson2• 3 years ago

> If you found an expert willing to claim it and ran a fearmongering story "Covid vaccines 'almost certainly' making people sick" despite safety requirements from the FDA, I think it would get a very different response here. At the very least calls for actual evidence of claims would not be down voted.

If his opinion on said vaccine was also accompanied by trade ban in Europe, India and China, he would also see a different response than if it was his claim alone. It's not juste an expert, it's multiple foreign agencies.

brnt• 3 years ago

You'd not say that if you knew EU require far more rigorous tests/documentation than the US for things that are ingested.

mardifoufs2• 3 years ago

This is obviously false, but in any case that would still mean we would have actual proof. Where is it?

lm284695• 3 years ago

Even if it's not do you really need it ? Looks like it's mostly used to make shit products (bread) slightly less shitty

The only winner is the food industry that can sell you subpar products that look better

It doesn't even look like it's a game changer: https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/b57beb64-e8a9...

rsynnott5• 3 years ago

In practice, it would be very difficult to prove. It's IARC group 2B; possibly carcinogenic in humans, but insufficient evidence to say definitely. And it would be very difficult, probably impossible, to do an ethical trial. You can't say to people "Take this stuff; it's vaguely useful to bakers. Let us know if it gives you cancer; it did in lab animals!"

Also, no-one much except possibly the FDA has much incentive to spend money on research here. The EU regulator is presumably happy to leave it banned, the companies who use it in the US probably don't want to open Pandora's box, and it's not like they're unable to bake bread in the EU due to the lack of it.

eutectic2• 3 years ago

Bromate should decompose to bromide during baking. I wouldn't worry too much.

refurb2• 3 years ago

Exactly. Potassium bromate is an oxidant (like chloramine used to purify drinking water). And when baking its surrounded by reducing agents.

And its used in ppm levels.

Were not eating grams of it.

Lacerda69• 3 years ago

better err on the side of caution with this stuff. you can manage just fine without potassium bromate.

bread should just include water, flour, and yeast IMO. anything else is an abonimation.

marl0• 3 years ago

Extrapolate this to over 10 years. You're eating a lot more than gram of it.

lm284695• 3 years ago

And nuclear power plants shouldn't explode, trains carrying hazardous chemicals shouldn't derail.

Now do you trust the over worked min wage worker who most likely doesn't give a shit to bake your bread until it's safe to eat ? Do you trust the food lobbies to tell you the truth ? The US is one of the most corrupt place for these things ("fat makes you fat", ddt, tobacco, &c.)

m00dy• 3 years ago

I wonder what will happen to doner in Berlin. It is so delicious because they add additives..

junon• 3 years ago

Not sure about that. The döner I eat is just a bunch of chicken on a massive skewer that they pack down and shave. The weird spongy döner, maybe yeah.

tormeh• 3 years ago

Most döner is a mix of filets beaten flat and odd slaughter goo, generally in layers. Nothing wrong with that - sausages are generally _only_ the slaughter goo...

hef198984• 3 years ago

Don't worry, there are enough additives still legal in the EU.

permo-w6• 3 years ago

yeah, salt and msg aren’t going anywhere

lm284695• 3 years ago

It's called grilled veggies and goat cheese crumble, the meat is shady though, but given how it looks it's no surprise to anyone, good thing you can do without

Also Berlin is in Europe which already has stricter rules than the US

bernardlunn• 3 years ago

This thread shows HN humor - who knew?

boomboomsubban4• 3 years ago

While it's very possible potassium bromate is dangerous, I really hate this type of news story.

There's some evidence that something is unsafe, so CBS found a professor to interview then asked them leading questions to get an explosive headline. Next they asked a random person if they're scared about this. Finally they asked the FDA and seemingly only published part of their reply.

Like I said, potassium bromate may be bad for you. But I don't feel like I've learned anything from this story about it. It only seems like fear mongering.

ajuc• 3 years ago

It's crazy that we're doing "innocent until proven guilty" with food additives. Should be the other way around.

What's the risk/benefit?

You can see how crazy it is when you compare it with drugs that we eat in doses smaller by orders of magnitude.

threeseed• 3 years ago

It's not crazy. It's economics and politics.

Food manufacturers are a powerful lobbying group and additives make a significant difference to profitability.

sanitycheck2• 3 years ago

What's the risk/benefit?

Freedom, baby!

Within a few years we'll have that same freedom to consume whatever toxins we desire in post-Brexit Britain too.

a2800276• 3 years ago

I believe part of the problem is that it's difficult to draw the line defining what an "additive" is.

Any sort of spices, ferment, baking powder, food coloring (even traditional coloring like beet juice or squid ink) could be considered additive. A lot of these things have been traditionally used for centuries. And otoh just because something has been used traditionally does guarantee its safety.

Semaphor3• 3 years ago

But it’s not as if the US just allows everything, I guess there are still some hurdles to clear?

Anyway, for benefits, in the EU Allulose and Monk Fruit (non-nutritive sweeteners) are still not permitted after several years (for monk fruit, not sure about the state of allulose), afaik there is no sign of danger, but they are also not proven safe enough.

goodpoint3• 3 years ago

It's crazy that we're doing "innocent until proven guilty" with food additives. Should be the other way around.

Absolutely NOT. Chemicals don't have human rights, obviously. Treating something as untrusted/dangerous unless proven otherwise is safety 101.

boomboomsubban4• 3 years ago

It's crazy that we're doing "innocent until proven guilty" with food additives. Should be the other way around

Even this story doesn't say that were doing that.

(FDA) said all food additives require "pre-market evaluation" and "regulations require evidence that each substance is safe at its intended level of use before it may be added to foods."

You can argue the evaluations aren't strict enough, but saying we're doing "innocent until proven guilty" isn't true.

zpeti• 3 years ago

It's just not that simple. While I don't want to eat bad food, and I'm thankfully rich enough to be able to choose, food additives and technologies have had an insane impact on the cost of food, and have probably bought quality foods to many many more people.

The last 50 years have bought really fast change in the food industry, but it's also reduced the number of starving people by billions in the world. You are definitely going to have collateral damage in that, and some technologies will be harmful over the long run, but you still might save many more years of people's lives by just making the food available.

People seriously underestimate just how much disinflation there's been in food prices when compared to the rest of the market. And that actually means there's more food. For everyone.

bsder2• 3 years ago

Is beet juice magically safer in cured meat just because the nitrate comes from beets instead of from chemistry?

Without additives, your bread is hard and stale 24 hours from now. Are you willing and able to go buy bread every single day?

The base problem is, as with so many bad modern things, monopoly. There is no alternative I can choose. Without external forces, the system will converge to a single, optimized, industrial scale supplier who will converge to lots of additives.

If you don't want that, you have to break monopolies. And you probably have to be very aggressive doing so.

permo-w6• 3 years ago

it may well be fear mongering, but food additives in general are just not a good thing. it barely matters what they are. barring a few well-studied exceptions, in the first place, we shouldn’t be synthesising chemicals and adding them en masse to food which you otherwise wouldn’t expect to contain them

obviously this is a rule of thumb and quite a generalisation. I’m sure a fair few counter-examples can be given, but is it better to generally follow this rule, or not? I say better

robertlagrant2• 3 years ago

This is tricky, though. Where does it stop? If I really thought about what's natural, I wouldn't expect to find food at all.

Hackbraten• 3 years ago

In general, would you consider spices to be food additives, too?

(Not being snarky, just genuinely curious as to where to draw the line.)

RHSeeger2• 3 years ago

It sounds like you are defining "food additives" as the ones that you consider bad, and then saying they are bad in general.

According to the WHO [1], food additives are

Substances that are added to food to maintain or improve the safety, freshness, taste, texture, or appearance of food are known as food additives. Some food additives have been in use for centuries for preservation – such as salt (in meats such as bacon or dried fish), sugar (in marmalade), or sulfur dioxide (in wine).

I guess you could limit it to "food additives that are added only to maintain or improve the safety, freshness, taste, texture, or appearance of food are bad", but even then I'd argue that's not true in any real sense. The ability to keep food in a good state for longer is a boon to society as a whole. We just need to be careful about the side effects.

[1] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-additi...

teekert2• 3 years ago

Yeah, I love sentences like this:

Asked if it can be said with certainty that differences in regulations mean people in the U.S. have developed cancers that they would not have developed if they'd been eating exclusively in Europe, Millstone said that was "almost certainly the conclusion that we could reach."

...almost certainly the conclusion that we could reach.

What is being said, actually? It’s really just “No.”, right?

Of course, when given a choice, I'd rather not eat Potassium bromate.

rhaway847735• 3 years ago

Only a complete mangling of the English language would translate that into No.

What he said was yes, it’s extremely likely that’s the case, but he’s not gonna give an unqualified yes because it’s still a very high percentage. They can’t point to any individual case and say that this person wouldn’t have cancer if he has been eating in Europe.

BenGosub2• 3 years ago

Very true, but with food you want to be overly cautious with these substances, instead of experimenting on real people.

thfuran3• 3 years ago

How would you ever demonstrate safety without experimenting on real people?

hedora• 3 years ago

"Post-approval, our scientists continue to review relevant new information to determine whether there are safety questions and whether the use of such substance is no longer safe," the agency added.

This use of “no longer safe” sums up the problem with US regulators’ mindsets. It’s not like food additives are a condemned house. Presumably “safe” is being used as a term of art meaning “not yet proven unsafe”

nchohan• 3 years ago

The same ban should be done for food coloring and bleached flour like it is in Europe.

petesergeant• 3 years ago

"UK bakery banned from using sprinkles which are legal in the US"

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/14/uk/sprinkles-bakery-banne...

Pete-Codes• 3 years ago

I know Americans who have the same diet in the US and Europe and they always lose weight as soon as they come to Europe

orwin• 3 years ago

Probably due to the freaking fructose in everything they eat, including their bread.

Also, sugar and fructose increases appetite levels.

machiaweliczny• 3 years ago

And fructose is transformed into fat immediately instead used as glucose to power body. If I was dictator I would ban fructose syrup.

chronogram• 3 years ago

HFCS != fructose.

HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup or isomerised sugar) is corn starch which is turned into glucose/dextrose by enzymes, after which about half is further turned into fructose giving it a sweetness like sucrose (table sugar) or honey so it can be used as a replacement for the already cheap sucrose or more expensive honey. Consumption of glucose containing sweeteners has no benefit for a typical sedentary person but does mess with your blood sugar because it goes directly into your blood once free.

Fructose, also known as fruit sugar because the sugars in fruits are mostly fructose, does not spike your blood sugar because it first has to be converted to glucose by your liver. Glucose is only half as sweet as fructose for humans, but since sucrose (table sugar) and HFCS are a little cheaper to produce and get consumed at a massive scale, in practice a consumer will have to pay at least 3 times as much for pure fructose.

For the typical HN user without medical issues and the disposable income you could aim for no sweeteners > sugar substitutes > fructose.

LinuxBender2• 3 years ago

Adding to this, fructose is a signalling molecule used by our genetic survival trait to tell our liver to store more glucose as fat. The extreme example of this is bears eating loads of berries before they hibernate to store up fat. It works in humans too, just not to the same extreme as bears.

epistasis• 3 years ago

Do they walk more in Europe? It's fairly unusual for the standard US suburban lifestyle to enable daily activity unless it's in a gym.

hombre_fatal3• 3 years ago

People say this but don’t actually track it. They just eyeball it which, looking at how bad people are at estimating calorie intake without a food journal, means they eat far more in the US, probably just because portion sizes are so much bigger.

rhaway847735• 3 years ago

I lose weight when traveling to Europe even though I cook all my food both in the US and Europe.

What I have noticed is that buying from my local farmers market has helped a ton in the U.S. I still get some staples from the supermarket, but stuff like meat only comes from the farmers market now, and even if it might be significantly more expensive, it’s absolutely worth it because my health is doing so much better (even if I couldn’t objectively link it to this change, I wouldn’t be surprised that eating chicken that was raised running in an open farm and eating wild food, that I have seen with my own eyes is better for me than chicken living in their and thousands of other chicken’s feces).

rsynnott5• 3 years ago

It's possible they end up walking more. Most of the US is shockingly unwalkable; unless they were in one of a handful of walkable cities they very likely ended up walking more in Europe.

dagw• 3 years ago

They may think they have the same diet, but I bet they're eating less, simply due to different portion sizes. If they're going to the same type of restaurants and ordering the same thing as in the US, they're almost certainly consuming fewer calories simply because they're getting less food pr. order. Even when buying food at the supermarket, portion sizes can differ dramatically. "1 pork chop" or "1 chicken breast" is much smaller on average in Sweden for example than in the US.

lapama• 3 years ago

Coffee was on the global cancer-related list, then vanished from it. How much should we trust these lists on late additions/deletions?

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coffee-cancer-warning-science-a...

Havoc• 3 years ago

Additions/deletions are not necessarily bad - shows evolving understanding

permo-w6• 3 years ago

hopefully it shows that. the concern, whether well-founded or not, is that it shows the influence of lobbying

littlestymaar• 3 years ago

IIRC Coffee and tee were removed, because it was later realized that the culprit was hot water not tea or coffee by themselves. So drinking coffee, tea is considered harmful if you drink it boiling hot, but not if you wait until it cools down before drinking. Conversely, drinking rooibos or mate won't save you if you drink them too hot ;)

Tade0• 3 years ago

Out of the mentioned titanium dioxide might make a comeback in the EU:

https://www.foodprocessing.com/business-of-food-beverage/int...

It was a relatively new addition to the list, only ruled as too dangerous in 2019.

As for the other chemicals: if something is banned in China and India you might want to take note. Both countries have ample experience with companies attempting to put questionable additives.

lm284695• 3 years ago

I really don't get it with titanium dioxide. It only has a cosmetic role, why take the gamble...

If it turns out to be bad we fucked millions of people for... having something slightly whiter

If it turns out not to be bad we just get things slightly whiter

nextstep• 3 years ago

Because in the current system of production that’s swallowing the globe, the only thing that matters is driving sales growth.

HPsquared• 3 years ago

Professor Millstone studying flour additives. A nice example of nominative determinism!

silveira• 3 years ago

I came to the comments expecting users defending carcinogen additives and I'm not disappointed.

femboy• 3 years ago

Came here for this. Yet another thing that makes me glad that the EU exists.

pastacacioepepe2• 3 years ago

Won't someone think of the profits those carcinogen additives provide to the share holders?

kolanos• 3 years ago

Tried to find a list of additives banned in the U.S. but not in other countries. Instead the search results were full of articles like this one.

skissane• 3 years ago

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has what you are looking for: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/pages/ta...

It says it was last updated in 2012 though, so might be outdated.

According to their table, the food colouring “Quinoline yellow FCF” aka “D+C Yellow No 10” (E104) is allowed in food in EU, but banned in food and beverages by the FDA. (Although, I read elsewhere the FDA does allow it in cosmetics and medicines, and that it is also disallowed in food in Canada)

Per the table, other food/beverage additives allowed in EU but banned in US include vegetable carbon (E153) and cyclamate (E952).

Furthermore, E122 (Azorubine/Carmoisine), E124 (Ponceau 4R), E142 (Green S), E151 (Brilliant black BN) and E155 (Brown HT) are all food colourings which are not explicitly banned by the FDA, but no manufacturer has ever applied for FDA approval to use them in food, but they are approved in the EU.

Everything in the table is allowed in Australia/New Zealand - the two countries have common food standards.

bayesian_horse• 3 years ago

There are basically two ways to find out if something is carcinogenic (that I know) quicker than with a retrospective study in Humans: One is to use lab animals, mostly rodents, administer them that substance in a high enough dose and see if they develop tumors. Problem: They aren't Humans and they don't get very old.

The other is by trying to grow a bacterium on a growth medium with an antibacterial agent and the substance in question. The clue: The bacterium has a gene for resistance against that antibiotic, but it is disabled by exactly one point mutation. The rate at which there are colonies on the petri dish tells you how mutagenic the substance is. Problem: The substance isn't metabolized like in a body.

LinuxBender2• 3 years ago

This is not popular news yet but most of the tests with lab mice may be invalid. [1] I suppose now we need a movement to get natural mice used in lab tests or something along that line.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm5jFxe9jJ0 [video][7 mins]

seanhandley• 3 years ago

Potassium bromate is classified as a category 2B carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

Yeah, that's not food.

sseagull• 3 years ago

Looking at the list of group 2B carcinogen, I see things like caffeic acid (common in food like, uh, coffee, but other things as well).

Also I see bleomycin, which is used to treat cancer.

Lesson: labeling something as a potential carcinogenic is nuanced.

Madmallard2• 3 years ago

When people defend chemicals saying what's the evidence, they're only doing harm to themselves and everyone.

We did not evolve to tolerate quite literally hundreds of thousands of chemicals in regular commercial use. The incidence of several different disease types is increasing at far higher rates than "increased diagnosis". The number of people with GI symptoms related to food is something absurd like 1 in 3 now.

If you did not EVOLVE to tolerate a chemical, you're gambling with how it will be interpreted by the body's biology. Even with medicine we cause issues ALL the time when we're TRYING not to make drugs that actively harm you. The majority of these chemicals are NOT subject to that kind of scrutiny, even though many of them STILL get into people's systems. Yes, the dose makes the poison, but we DON'T EVEN KNOW the dose-response curve for the vast majority of commercially used chemicals, nor do we know their interactions. The likelihood of some of them causing physiologic or epigenetic harm in humans is basically 100%.

We do need WAY more scrutiny than we have and to withdraw way more things from commercial use BY force if we want to turn things around.

If you say "where's the evidence they cause damage" you're an armchair devil's advocate redditor moron. The onus should be on them to rigorously show they DO NOT cause harm before they're ever introduced into use that could lead to exopsure.

pg_bot2• 3 years ago

This article falls flat when it comes to providing actual evidence of harm being done. Both the EU and the US have products on store shelves which would not be deemed acceptable for human consumption in either respective region. I could write a scare mongering article about sodium cyclamate, a common sweetener that is considered a carcinogen in the US but is available for consumption all over Europe.

Considering that regulators are generally scientifically minded it's funny that there are so many discrepancies when it comes to what is safe and what is not. Perhaps we should look into where we disagree and try to figure out who is right and who is wrong.

rhaway847735• 3 years ago

Looking up the Wikipedia page for sodium cyclamate does not acquit the U.S. any better. It was banned in the U.S. because of the decision of individual FDA commissioners, and not because it failed any FDA processes.

If anything, it appears to validate the EU’s process which appears to be based on actual research, as opposed to the political whims of the people running the FDA.

pg_bot2• 3 years ago

While it is my personal belief that sodium cyclamate is safe for human consumption, (The US ban was due to a research study that linked consumption to an increase in bladder cancer of mice) you missed the point that I was making.

It is likely that both sides of the aisle have banned substances that are actually safe. It is likely that both sides allow substances that are harmful and should be banned. We should further review the areas in which we disagree as it is unlikely that the science changes across an ocean. It is much more likely that hidden incentives or bad methodology has lead to someone being incorrect. Whether you think the US or Europe is better or worse at food regulation is likely a biased opinion.

aperson_hello5• 3 years ago

Another (notorious) example: kinder eggs!

Turing_Machine2• 3 years ago

Also, several European countries approved thalidomide, while the US did not.

aklemm• 3 years ago

I’m of the opinion that there is something massively wrong with our food and that the Europeans do far better, yet this article is a stinker.

My only takeaway are the specific names of some chemicals I can now go read about.

ck2• 3 years ago

FDA no longer functions to protect consumers.

It's there to protect industry against consumers and any defeat of profit.

The wild wild west of the food and supplement industry where anything goes, what's on the label is not only self-reported, it is virtually never verified and even if "caught" the penalties are trivial.

Goes right along with the EPA etc. which have all been "kneecapped" by congress and the political agenda of "deregulation = profit"

AD_PhD• 3 years ago

While any US new station (possibly with the exception of NPR) will be sensationalized and alarmist, as someone who studies primate (and we are primates) nutrition, I am completely behind banning substances until we find that they are harmless. Additionally, some of the comments below are simply stupid: (1) "Innocent until proven guilty" is a great right for humans, but it should not apply to products. I am quite sure you'd be complaining if radio-active substances had been considered "innocent until proven guilty" and released to the public for their use pending testing. This did happen with arsenic laced green dyes (not radioactive, but same story), and in the case of the Radium Girls/Women. (2) If we were to assume "innocent until proven guilty" then these chemicals could still be "banned" until found not guilty (just as humans can be retained/jailed until trial if they are deemed potentially harmful).

cypherg• 3 years ago

scaremongering

U.S. food additives banned in Europe

Related Stories