Food additives and contaminants. An update.

as 'GRAS' (Generally RecognizedAs Safe) under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [5] ,

A 2009 American Heart Association scientific statement titled “Dietary Sugars Intake and Cardiovascular Health”1 concluded that current intake of added sugars among Americans greatly exceeds discretionary calorie allowances based on the 2005 US Dietary Guidelines.2 For this reason, the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee recommended population-wide reductions in added sugars intake. The present statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association addresses the potential role of nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) in helping Americans to adhere to this recommendation in the context of current usage and health perspectives. By definition, NNS, otherwise referred to as very low-calorie sweeteners, artificial sweeteners, noncaloric sweeteners, and intense sweeteners, have a higher intensity of sweetness per gram than caloric sweeteners such as sucrose, corn syrups, and fruit juice concentrates. As a caloric sweetener replacement, they are added in smaller quantities; hence, they provide no or few calories. In our current food supply, NNS are widely used in thousands of beverages and other food products such as diet soft drinks, yogurts, desserts, and gum. Food manufacturers often use a blend of NNS or use a blend of sugar and NNS to improve the flavor acceptability of NNS. In developing this scientific statement, the writing group reviewed issues pertaining to NNS in the context of data on consumer attitudes, consumption patterns, appetite, hunger and energy intake, body weight, and components of cardiometabolic syndrome. The objective was to review the literature to determine whether there were adequate data to provide guidance for the use of NNS. The focus of the statement is on the 6 NNS that are described in Table 1. Aspartame, acesulfame-K, neotame, saccharin, and sucralose are regulated as food additives by the US Food and Drug Administration and therefore had to be approved as safe before being marketed. Regarding stevia, …

A 2009 American Heart Association scientific statement titled “Dietary Sugars Intake and Cardiovascular Health” (1) concluded that current intake of added sugars among Americans greatly exceeds discretionary calorie allowances based on the 2005 U.S. Dietary Guidelines (2). For this reason, the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee recommended population-wide reductions in added sugars intake. The present statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association addresses the potential role of nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) in helping Americans to adhere to this recommendation in the context of current usage and health perspectives. By definition, NNS, otherwise referred to as very low-calorie sweeteners, artificial sweeteners, noncaloric sweeteners, and intense sweeteners, have a higher intensity of sweetness per gram than caloric sweeteners such as sucrose, corn syrups, and fruit juice concentrates. As a caloric sweetener replacement, they are added in smaller quantities; hence, they provide no or few calories. In our current food supply, NNS are widely used in thousands of beverages and other food products such as diet soft drinks, yogurts, desserts, and gum. Food manufacturers often use a blend of NNS or use a blend of sugar and NNS to improve the flavor acceptability of NNS. In developing this scientific statement, the writing group reviewed issues pertaining to NNS in the context of data on consumer attitudes, consumption patterns, appetite, hunger and energy intake, body weight, and components of cardiometabolic syndrome. The objective was to review the literature to determine whether there were adequate data to provide guidance for the use of NNS. The focus of the statement is on the 6 NNS that are described in Table 1. Aspartame, acesulfame-K, neotame, saccharin, and sucralose are regulated as food additives by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and therefore had to be approved as safe before being marketed. Regarding stevia, …

High intake of added sugars increases the risk for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) are widely used in many beverages and food products to reduce calories and sugar content. NNS have higher intensity of sweetness per gram than caloric sweeteners such as sucrose, corn syrup, and fruit juice concentrates. NNS approved for use have been tested and determined to be safe at levels that are within acceptable daily intake by the Joint Food Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives. The eight items of sweeteners are regulated as food additives in Korea. Dietary intake of the sweeteners was suggested as safety level by the ministry of Food and Drug Safety in 2012. If substituted for caloric sweeteners without intake of additional calories from other food sources, NNS may help consumers limit carbohydrate and energy intake as a strategy to manage blood glucose and weight. Dietitians can provide guidance on the use of NNS that give the desired results in food preparation and use at the table.

Food Additives in Ultra-Processed Packaged Foods: An Examination of US Household Grocery Store Purchases.

Food is a very common source of toxicant exposure to humans. An unknown number of naturally occurring contaminants find their way into food. The most ominous are products of mold growth called mycotoxins, which include the carcinogenic aflatoxins. On the other hand, more than 2500 chemical substances are added to foods to modify or impart flavor, color, stability, and texture, to fortify or enrich nutritive value, or to reduce cost. In addition, an estimated 12,000 substances are used in such a way that they may unintentionally enter the food supply. The term “food additive” is a regulatory term that encompasses any functional substance that is normally neither consumed as a food itself, but is intentionally added to food (usually in small quantities) to augment its processing or to improve aroma, color, consistency, taste, texture, or shelf life. Additives are not considered “nutritional” even if they possess nutritive value. The purpose of the present review is to give an overview of the approaches to, and procedures involved in ensuring the safety of the US food supply in the context of food additives, with particular reference to the existing and emerging scientific and regulatory landscape and consumer perceptions.

Plant natural products (PNPs) possess important pharmacological activities and are widely used in cosmetics, health care products, and as food additives. Currently, most PNPs are mainly extracted from cultivated plants, and the yield is limited by the long growth cycle, climate change and complex processing steps, which makes the process unsustainable. However, the complex structure of PNPs significantly reduces the efficiency of chemical synthesis. With the development of metabolic engineering and synthetic biology, heterologous biosynthesis of PNPs in microbial cell factories offers an attractive alternative. Based on the in-depth mining and analysis of genome and transcriptome data, the biosynthetic pathways of a number of natural products have been successfully elucidated, which lays the crucial foundation for heterologous production. However, there are several problems in the microbial synthesis of PNPs, including toxicity of intermediates, low enzyme activity, multiple auxotrophic dependence, and uncontrollable metabolic network. Although various metabolic engineering strategies have been developed to solve these problems, optimizing the location and adaptation of pathways on the whole-genome scale is an important strategy in microorganisms. From this perspective, this review introduces the application of CRISPR/Cas9 in editing PNPs biosynthesis pathways in model microorganisms, the influences of pathway location, and the approaches for optimizing the adaptation between metabolic pathways and chassis hosts for facilitating PNPs biosynthesis.

Our Foods Are Safe!

Metabolic disease is rising along with both global industrialization and the use of new commercial, agricultural, and industrial chemicals and food additives. Exposure to these compounds may contribute to aspects of metabolic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and fatty liver disease. Ingesting compounds in the food supply is a key route of human exposure, resulting in the interaction between toxicants or additives and the intestinal microbiota. Toxicants can influence the composition and function of the gut microbiota, and these microbes can metabolize and transform toxicants and food additives. Microbe-toxicant interactions in the intestine can alter host mucosal barrier function, immunity, and metabolism, which may contribute to the risk or severity of metabolic disease development. Targeting the connection between toxicants, food, and immunity in the gut using strategies such as fermentable fiber (i.e., inulin) may mitigate some of the effects of these compounds on host metabolism. Understanding causative factors in the microbe-host relationship that promote toxicant-induced dysmetabolism is an important goal. This review highlights the role of common toxicants (i.e., persistent organic pollutants, pesticides, and fungicides) and food additives (emulsifiers and artificial sweeteners) found in our food supply that alter the gut microbiota and promote metabolic disease development.

Background: Food additives and preservatives are integral components of the modern food industry, serving essential functions such as enhancing organoleptic properties, extending the shelf life of products, and facilitating food processing. However, as these substances play a crucial role in food production, concerns have emerged regarding their potential toxicity and effects on human health. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted exploring the sources, including scientific journals on PubMed, Scopus, government publications, and websites. The article reviews existing literature and explores the latest findings in the field, shedding light on the multifaceted aspects of food additives and preservatives. It outlines the various functions these substances serve and their significance in contemporary food production, emphasizing their role in optimizing the consumer experience and food supply chain efficiency. Discussion: Numerous studies have explored the potential adverse effects of food preservatives and additives, shedding light on their impact. Striking a balance between reaping the benefits of these substances and mitigating their potential risks remains an ongoing challenge, necessitating ongoing research and oversight. This research article provides an in-depth analysis of the toxicology of food additives and food preservatives, examining their safety, regulations, and potential health impacts. It highlights the need for a comprehensive evaluation of these substances to ensure the safety of the food supply. Natural food preservatives and food additives would be better options rather than opting for synthetic and chemical forms. Conclusion: The use of natural preservatives offers a safer and more sustainable approach to food preservation, addressing consumer concerns about synthetic preservatives and promoting the production of healthier and more environmentally friendly food products.

The types of artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence integration to the food value and supply chain, other technologies embedded with artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence adoption barriers in the food value and supply chain, and solutions to overcome these barriers were analyzed by the authors. It was demonstrated by the analysis that artificial intelligence can be integrated vertically into the entire food supply and value chain, owing to its wide range of functions. Different phases of the chain are affected by developed technologies such as robotics, drones, and smart machines. Different capabilities are provided for different phases by the interaction of artificial intelligence with other technologies such as big data mining, machine learning, the Internet of services, agribots, industrial robots, sensors and drones, digital platforms, driverless vehicles and machinery, and nanotechnology, as revealed by a systematic literature analysis. However, the application of artificial intelligence is hindered by social, technological, and economic barriers. These barriers can be overcome by developing the financial and digital literacy of farmers and by disseminating good practices among the participants of the food supply and value chain.

Limiting the intake of added sugars in the diet remains a key focus of global dietary recommendations. To date there has been no systematic monitoring of the major types of added sugars used in the Australian food supply. The present study aimed to identify the most common added sugars and non-nutritive sweeteners in the Australian packaged food supply. Secondary analysis of data from the Australian FoodSwitch database was undertaken. Forty-six added sugars and eight non-nutritive sweetener types were extracted from the ingredient lists of 5744 foods across seventeen food categories. Australia. Not applicable. Added sugar ingredients were found in 61 % of the sample of foods examined and non-nutritive sweetener ingredients were found in 69 %. Only 31 % of foods contained no added sugar or non-nutritive sweetener. Sugar (as an ingredient), glucose syrup, maple syrup, maltodextrin and glucose/dextrose were the most common sugar ingredient types identified. Most Australian packaged food products had at least one added sugar ingredient, the most common being 'sugar'. The study provides insight into the most common types of added sugars and non-nutritive sweeteners used in the Australian food supply and is a useful baseline to monitor changes in how added sugars are used in Australian packaged foods over time.

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Clinical & Research NewsFull AccessHyperactivity in Children Linked to Food ColoringJun YanJun YanPublished Online:2 Nov 2007https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.42.21.0019© Randy Faris/CorbisBritish researchers have found evidence that suggests artificial food colors and additives may exacerbate hyperactivity in children, according to a study published online in The Lancet on September 6.Donna McCann, Ph.D., and others from the University of Southampton in England, tested the effects of commonly used food coloring agents and the preservative sodium benzoate on hyperactivity levels in two groups of children: one group consisted of 153 3-year-olds and the other of 144 8- and 9-year-olds. During the six-week study with a within-subject cross-over design, the children consumed a set amount of drink mix every day. The drink mixes used in the study were three mixed fruit juices (two active mixes and one placebo) that looked and tasted the same; the only difference was that the two active drinks contained a mixture of artificial food colors and sodium benzoate (see box for ingredients in the active mixes).Each week, one of the three drink mixes (active mix A, active mix B, or placebo) was delivered to the children's homes for their consumption during that week. On weeks 2, 4, and 6, mix A, mix B, and placebo were delivered in a random sequence. The actual drink delivered to each home at any given week was blinded to the child, the parents, the teachers, and the researchers. Weeks 1, 3, and 5 were washout periods when the children received the placebo drink.Researchers tested the effects of commonly used food-coloring agents and the preservative sodium benzoate on hyperactivity levels in two groups of children. The drink mixes used in the study were three mixed fruit juices-two active mixes, designated A and B, and one placebo. Mix A was linked to significantly increased hyperactivity compared with placebo in both 3-year-old children and 8/9-year-olds. Mix B was linked to significantly increased hyperactivity in 8/9-year-olds, but not in 3-year-olds.The children's behavior was measured throughout the study period using a global hyperactivity aggregate (GHA) score. The scores were compiled based on observation and ratings by parents and teachers. The children, parents, teachers, and researchers were unaware of the actual drink (active or placebo) given to the children at any given time. The study was commissioned by the U.K. Food Standards Agency (FSA), which regulates food safety.The children had statistically significant increases in GHA scores associated with the active drink mixes in most but not all analyses. Among the 73 3-year-olds who did drink more than 85 percent of the assigned mixes in all six weeks and had all the GHA scores, and after controlling for several potentially confounding factors, mix A had a significant effect on GHA scores compared with placebo. Mix B, however, did not have a significant effect compared with placebo. Among the 91 8- and 9-year-olds who drank more than 85 percent of the assigned drinks, both mix A and mix B had a significant effect on their GHA scores compared with placebo."This is a very important study, rigorously designed by outstanding investigators, and represents an important cautionary note on the need for more studies of the impact of various food additives on children's behavior," psychiatrist Peter Jensen, M.D., the director of the REACH (Resource for Advancing Children's Health) Institute, commented to Psychiatric News. "While it could not be determined from this study alone that such additives have a causative role in ADHD, the findings do suggest that additional, similarly carefully designed studies are needed in children generally and in children at risk for ADHD specifically."Previous studies had implicated artificial food colors and additives in increased hyperactivity in children with ADHD. In contrast, this study recruited a representative sample of children in the community with and without ADHD and showed increased hyperactivity within the overall study population.Because of the composition of the active drink mixes, the authors acknowledged that it was not possible to parse out an individual additive's effect on hyperactivity. They pointed out that sodium benzoate has an important preservative function, and the implication of these findings could be substantial for the food industry.If these findings are replicated by other investigators and in other populations, said Jensen, regulatory agencies should scrutinize the risks of the widespread use on such additives in foods. Based on this study, the FSA recently updated its advice to consumers, BBC News reported."If [children show] signs of ADHD, then eliminating the colors used in the Southamptom study from their diet might have some beneficial effects," said Andrew Wadge, director of food safety policy and chief scientist at the FSA.Both Wadge and Jim Stevenson, Ph.D., senior author of the study and a professor at Southampton University, both acknowledged that many other factors contribute to ADHD and simply eliminating artificial food colors and sodium benzoate will not necessarily prevent hyperactivitiy disorders.An abstract of "Food Additives and Hyperactive Behaviour in 3-Year-Old and 8/9-Year-Old Children in the Community: A Randomised, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial" is posted at<www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607613063/abstract>.▪ ISSUES NewArchived

Five non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) are currently approved for use in the United States as food additives by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA): acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin, and sucralose; stevia glycosides (principally rebaudioside A) are also permitted for use based on a GRAS (generally recognized as safe) petition submitted to the FDA. The daily intake of each NNS by children and adults in the United States is well below the acceptable daily intake (ADI) set by the FDA. The ADI is the amount that can be consumed daily for life without health or safety concern. The FDA approval process for new food additives (including GRAS) includes the generation and submission of extensive safety databases in animals and humans. Nutritive and NNS initiate sweet taste in the mouth by binding to the same sweet-taste receptor, located on the cell membrane of taste bud cells. The oral sweet-taste receptor consists of two membrane-associated proteins coupled to an intracellular G-protein. The variety of molecules that taste sweet (nutritive and non-nutritive) bind to different parts of these membrane proteins. The same sweet-taste receptor is also found on enteroendocrine cells of the small intestine. Both nutritive and NNS bind to these receptors and can cause the release of hormones involved in glucose homeostasis. The sweet-taste receptor is also found on pancreatic, insulin-secreting beta cells, and while not mediating glucose-induced insulin secretion, can promote insulin secretion in vitro in the presence of high (non-physiologic) concentrations of NNS. Unlike nutritive sweeteners (NS), the ingestion of NNS by fasting humans does not elevate plasma concentrations of the hormones secreted by enteroendocrine or pancreatic beta cells. NNS ingestion may enhance some of these responses to NS when both are ingested together, but the effects thus far reported are not consistent among studies. The body of epidemiologic evidence exploring for associations between NNS use and body weight gain is not convincing; moreover, epidemiologic studies cannot prove causality. Active intervention studies in which NNS are covertly substituted for NS in the diet for extended periods of time (e.g., up to 18 months in children) show that NNS do not cause weight gain or obesity.

British chef and food activist Jamie Oliver ignited a firestorm in January 2011 when he mentioned on the Late Show with David Letterman that castoreum, a substance used to augment some strawberry and vanilla flavorings, comes from what he described as “rendered beaver anal gland.”1 The next year, vegans were outraged to learn that Starbucks used cochineal extract, a color additive derived from insect shells, to dye their strawberry Frappuccino® drinks2 (eventually, the company decided to transition to lycopene, a pigment found in tomatoes3). Although substances like castoreum and cochineal extract may be long on the “yuck factor,”4 research has shown them to be perfectly safe for most people; strident opposition arose not from safety issues but from the ingredients’ origins. But these examples demonstrate that the public often lacks significant knowledge about the ingredients in foods and where they come from. This is not a new development; the public relationship to food additives has a long history of trust lost, regained, and in some cases lost again. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act of 19385 was passed shortly after the deaths of 100 people who took an untested new form of a popular drug, which contained what turned out to be a deadly additive.6 The new law was consumer oriented and intended to ensure that people knew what was in the products they bought, and that those products were safe. The law has been amended over the years in attempts to streamline and bring order to the sprawling task of assessing and categorizing the thousands of substances used in foods, drugs, and cosmetics. One result of this streamlining is that under current U.S. law, companies can add certain types of ingredients to foods without premarket approval from the thin-stretched Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In other words, there are substances in the food supply that are unknown to the FDA. In 2010 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that a “growing number of substances … may effectively be excluded from federal oversight.”7 Is this a problem? The answer depends on whom you ask.