thurcdoy, octcber 23, 1970
They're used to niclsim, emulsify, preserve, inhibit mcIJ, cliiizr.es flavor,
proves eclcr. Food additives mist be herder to fcna&s in Utkrzat where
we drive by farm fields end livestock grazing ri.t cutrUe cf town. Cut
r-di thrsa zre in dmost everything we cat teday-fcr co&d cr evX Third
Dintsndcn writer Rich TCscn researched this ccr.trcvenU fcne in detail.
Third Dimension
nuVif ffvmwQ nrf Off n Ofxf)
i v- v . v in u v y y u u v s -
L.
.'.JX.4MIHl.i..li4,JtL.,,.i,,i.,J,.,)..... I'W-
r --- - 1 i - :mK
,ETS SAY YOU ARE THE TYPICAL STUDENT
staying up all cicht to study fcr midterms. About 2 :30
tjn. you feel a familiar growling sensation in your
stomach-the munchies. You nead down to your frirndly
rcighbc hood vending machine for something to appcaas
your innards. Peering into the little windows in the im
posing reaching, you see ... ah, some Heistess "Hallas."
The machine takes your quarter, and you pry open the
door with a handy chair kg. Holding onto your edle
treasure, you search fcr a way to quench your thirst.
Another quarter, and a can cf cola is purchased.
bitting mere
with your banquet,
mouth rull of
spongy goodness,
you start reading
the wrapper cf
your gustatory de
limit. 'Made with
su, shortening,
enriched flour
sounds good
"water, eggs, cocoa,
corn sweetener,
skim milk, salt. . .
Hmmhmm, what's
this?. . ."mono
and digrycerides,
sorbitan mono-
sieszaie, poiysor- FfcotobySccstSvc&oda
bate 60 ugh Fred Gapcraso, assistant prefessor
rZir -1 n cf feed and natation: Yea can't
- tiers), artificial fia- j
-vor.sorbicacid...' bslasced viewport..
In desperation, you turn to your cola can.'. Jevu
lose, phosphoric acid,cafTein, gum arabic. . . Gaahhhhh!
Your paranoia from lack of sleep overcomes you, and
such ominous-sounding chemicals hound you all the way
back home. Don't worry. . .the feeling that it's healthier
to starve to death than to eat will be gone in the morning.
- " -r-mr- www WUltI W AW VIA UULOfc
read like an organic chemMry final? Whyxare they in the
things we eat? .-.::y . "
"Food zdditbfcs are a very controversial issue, said
Fred Caporaso, professor in the Food and Nutrition Dept.
"Most of the literature on the subject is biased on one side
or the other. It's been made into a black cr white issue,
rather than a grey one.
"There have been some legitimate Questions about
additives, and the concern is good. But there have been
some unsubstantiated accusations as well. One thing we
have to keep in mind is that food is chemicals (naturally).
If we were to list all the individual constituents of a
potato by their chemical names, it would be a long and
incomprehensible list to most consumers.
The federal Food and Drug Administration ultimately
is responsible for regulating kinds and amounts of
additives in foods. In 1906 the first Pure Food and Drug
Act was passed by Congress. But testing products proved
hard. Poison control squads roamed around and ate
products, and if they got sick, they published the name of
. the manufacturer.
HE 1938 FOOD, DRUG AND COSMETICS ACT RE-
quired the FDA to insure the quality of these products.
The act has been amended several times.
The 1954 amendment set up tolerable pesticide levels
in food. The 1958 food additives amendment required the
FDA to prove the safety of all chemical additives before .
their use in food. This amendment included the "Delaney
Clause that flatly forbid the use of any chemical in food
found to induce cancer in animals or man. This was
amended in 1962 to allow a cancer-causing drug to be
fed animals as long as there were no detectable residues in
the edible portions of the animal. In 1960 color additives
were added to the list under regulation.
According to John McAidiaffe, branch chief of the Di
vision of Food and Color Additives of the FDA in
Washington, most substances are pretested before market
ing, but some are exempted because they are already on
an "accepted' list.
A potential user of a new additive must submit a pe
tition to the FDA, which in turn sets up a format for
testing.
"The burden of proof is on the fetitioner, McAuliaf fe
said. "They have to prove safety of the product at the
proposed level of use. If the data they provide is not suf
ficient, the FDA directs them to do more testing.
When enough data are presented the FDA publishes the
nport and proceeds with the evaluation. Thirty days are
allowed for objections to be raised to the product or its
proposed use.
Testing is done on animals, usually laboratory rats.
Companies developing a new additive must do testing
thtmsalves cr contract with an independent laboratory.
Either way, it's an expensive process, mostly because of
the larje numbers cf anhr;s!s used.
Accuiiticns Lars t tin cada that the testing proce-
companies with a vested interest ia getting a new additive
on the market test incompletely or may ignore or delete
data in their reports to the government.
The case of the proposed artificial sweetener "arpar
tane seems to bolster some of these worries. Aspartame
seemed to be what industry had been looking for since the
1969 ban on cycla
mates. Cyclatnates,
a once-widespread
type of artificial
sweetener, were
shown to be carcin
ogenic (cancer
. causing) and were
pulled off the
market. The main
. ingredient of as
partane, aspartic
acid, was tested by
the developing
company, the re
sults were ap
proved by the FDA,
and the company
began developing
a market for it.
The market would
-m snJ0 if',,
r.
v- ;
r: Vr i
Photo by Rvi H'&t
Roy Amdd, chairman cf the Food
prove to be tremen- Scsesa and Tcclmd
uous. canay, son
drinks, cereals, sugar coatings on piUs, etc.
But two independent researchers, James Turner and
John OIney, then presented evidence the FDA had not
considered. Aspartic acid, in combination with monosod
iura gutam2te (MSG), could cause brain atrophy in test
animals, particularly baby rats, MSG is a flavor enhancer
presejt in a wide variety of foods, including baby foods.
It se- rns fortunate this combined chemical effect was
disc jvered, as both chemicals would be present in food
consumed by children.
fhe status of aspartane, for the time being, is un-
ra rketable."
This example illustrates the major objection to the
present form of testing new additrses that there is no
provision for testing synergistic effects, that is, chemicals
reacting with other chemicals. Who can tell what a new '
additive wiO do with any of the thousands of chemical '
substances now present in food and drugs?
Another objection is that the test animals used are not
close to humans, either physically or physiologically. This
means a chemical that is harmless to a rat could harm a .
human, or vice versa. As a result, some hare said new pro
ducts are tested twice once on laboratory rats and once
on the whole American population when the product is
marketed.
J"
X;-
. Asked if he believes the testing on new additives is
adequate, UcAtdiaffe replied:
"Until recently, the FDA has taken the data received
from private sources at face value. There is a good possi
bility that some companies have manufactured data, but
most are reliable.' Senator Kennedy (D-lIaa.) recently
tpo.-'l a bill to give the FDA approximately $16
minion to strengthen the program ca mctcrEg data and
setting quality laboratory standardj.,
Roy Arnold, chairman of the UNL Department of
Food Science and Techndcy, said he believes more re
sponsibility for food safety is being placed on industry.
"The FDA is getting away from the inspector and en
forcer role to helping industry develop contanuaeticn
prevention programs and testing procedures,' he said.
Tte FDA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA and
other agencies are in the process of screening and testing
some of the older additives for hazards to health.
' You VONT FIND A FOOD PROCESSOR WHO
wants to put out a dangerous product," Arnold added.
Additives used by the food industry include moisten
ers, emalaifiers, preservatives, mold inhibiters, anti
bacterial agents, flavor enhancers, ecler additives, nu- '
tritional additives like protein concentrates or vitamins
and many others It is hard to find a processed food
product without least two cr three additives listed on the
label. More may be present but not listed. Industry claims
that additives improve the products in nutritional value,
convenience, shelf life, or by adding protection against
contamination.
A bock by Ralph Nader's Student Study Group (pro
ject director James S. Turner) Tks Gizzdcd Fessr, pub
lished in 1970, shows the opposite end of the opinion
spectrum.
' "The conviction of the FDA, that the benefits of
proposed new food products must be weighed agsinst
their possible hazards, has misled the FDA into allowing
many products on the market in spite of their known po
tential danger, the book reads. "Out the law does not ask
for a balance: The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
imequivocsHy states that no food adilse can be intro-;
dueed into the food supply unless its proposed use is
shown to be safe. . .
"The possible hazards cf a new chsnsal are most
often balanced agrnst benefits to cdaatry, not benefits
to the consumer. Most food addi&rss are u?d to enhance
the profits of industry, cot benefits to the consumer. -
"The United States could get along perfectly well
without the use of the 2jCC0 to 3,003 additives cow rou
tinely added to food. In fact, it could probably gst along,
as do many other cations, using fewer than one percent
Ccatedcacaxtp:
fl
,
f
!' .
i"
I
v
"S.
i
Feed prceead
ig ia lialn: wcnan at rralrlj Mali Maats, Ire.,
tcl-ia a madi v;ii teaf, pcii and siees, a rpahss:
sperrs sana-rlrg raaahlsaa to rae nrg
nan taJ. No artlCcU sitaneea ere tidaJ ta tils
p. wdact.
