Chemicals in Food: Let’s Talk the Facts

The presence of chemicals in foods has become an increasingly contentious issue, with states setting their own regulations for chemicals and additives, consumers and advocacy groups continually pushing for tolerance levels as low as zero and FDA generally lagging behind with studies, regulatory proposals and guidance.

While I do feel that FDA should be leading the charge rather than lagging, I also see some of the state and consumer efforts as trying to lead the science rather than follow it.

“The dose makes the poison” is an age-old principle of toxicology, meaning that the amount and frequency of consumption of anything determines its risk. This principle can be applied to seemingly innocuous substances such as water and salt, as well as the more contentious chemicals advocated against today, such as BPA, red dye 3, heavy metals and other additives. While it is known that high levels of certain additives over a short period of time constitute unhealthy or toxic intake, that simply serves to validate the point that it is the dose that makes something harmful.

There has been some dissension through the years among toxicologists on the application of the phrase to condone the use of high-dose tests to extrapolate low-dose effects, rather than conducting low-dose testing specifically. Given that, I do see that FDA’s statement that assessing the safety of additives and other chemicals in food needs to include scientific study of how much of a chemical is in a food and how much we’re likely to eat as accurate and should be the basis of the specific tolerance level for each.

It is critical that the industry not only understand and control the amount of chemicals in products, but also know the facts around the actual hazard and risk of each.

It also is important to understand (and communicate as an industry) that the fact that a food ingredient is complex or unpronounceable does not make it dangerous or unhealthy. Take, for example, the common banana, which is composed of compounds such as isoamyl acetate and the heteropolysaccharide pectin. While reading these on a food’s ingredient list would cause some consumers to determine the product to be filled with harmful chemicals, both are naturally occurring compounds that give the banana its scent and starch.

All foods are made up of chemicals, with some very healthy chemicals having been given very complex names. Conversely, some simply named chemicals (e.g., arsenic and mercury) are regulated to a higher degree, with lower tolerance levels, due to their higher toxicity; and others, while toxic at high levels, are essential nutrients for our bodies, such as iron. Thus, the determination of the safety and healthfulness of a food needs to be balanced and based on scientific fact, always keeping in mind that any food or drink (or medicine) that is consumed in excess will be unhealthy.

But as shown by the media and social media pick-up of a recent consumer reporting magazine article on lead and sodium in a lunch snack kit (with 738 million Google hits!), both consumers and retailers are primed to react to anything posted about chemical risks.

I realize I am essentially preaching to the choir with this column — as many of you readers are food safety- and quality-focused yourselves — but food companies, and the industry as a whole, are regularly questioned on the use of chemicals and additives. It is critical that the industry not only understand and control the amount of these in products, but also know the facts around the actual hazard and risk of each. When we thoroughly understand the facts ourselves, we can educate consumers as well as state and federal legislators on the use of, need for and safety of particular additives and chemicals in food.