Most people are easily convinced to believe that a chemical with a polysyllabic name is ominous, something one shouldn’t eat. Some of the time, that’s correct. A few chemicals have been found in food that really shouldn’t be there. They were usually added to improve some cosmetic or otherwise superficial aspect of the food. But the campaign against chemical additives – the usual phrase is “artificial” additives – can go too far.
Consider preservatives. Most preservatives, by which I mean ingredients intended to preserve edibility and freshness, are safe to eat. Tests have indicated that when consumed in the quantities permitted in food, they cause no measurable harm. That doesn’t guarantee that fifty or so years of eating such foods will have no adverse consequences, of course. But the tests, though they were bounded by our ability to measure and the time allotted for them, were the best that could be devised.
There are two important questions to be stressed in every discussion of food additives:
- What’s the dose at which we begin to observe adverse effects?
- How long, and at what quantities of consumption, does it take for those effects to manifest?
Sometimes, there’s another question to emphasize: what would banning this additive do to the accessibility and affordability of food? But that’s for economists and social analysts. Today we’ll focus solely on health effects.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made “get the poisons out of our food” his battle cry. And if there are poisons in our food, I too would like to see them removed… but only after the questions above have been answered with good rigor.
You see, it’s a lot easier to whip up anger and fear than to answer questions of that sort. And politicians are always looking for a way to stir people up and enlist them in some Cause. Do you need help completing the syllogism? I didn’t think so.
I’m no fan of the Food and Drug Administration. It, like every other agency of the federal government, has committed massive sins of overreach. But the function it purports to serve – testing foods and drugs for efficacy and harmfulness – is an important one. People concerned over food safety should be thinking about how to privatize that function, and to introduce competitive pressures into it, so that there will be a strong incentive to get the answers and get them right. Allowing a politician – a Kennedy, at that – to incite widespread fear does more harm than good. Now excuse me please while I finish my Skippy Super Chunk and Fluff® breakfast sandwich.
5 comments
Skip to comment form
But the cyclamates and Heart-Friendly Margarines!
Good points about politicians and fear, I think we could use a bit less of each, thanks.
The word for preserved foods is “tack.” Salted meats, hard nuts and dried fruits share the category with canned stews and vegetables and jarred jams. Canned soda’s, too. None of these are really ‘good’ for you when you consume them daily.
Which begs the question, with all the fresh meat and vegetables and grains at our disposal today, why are we eating tack?
Slim jims, dry jerky, Pepsi products, Doritos and canned green beans are OK in a pinch, but when they become daily staples in the modern diet then the mal-effects of the salts and syrups and glutamates and EDTA’s begin to express. Unless one is under the duress of long oceanic travel, extended lock-downs, a long hike, or some other privation, in America in 2024, there is no reason to eat tack.
MAHA!
It has long been observed that, “Dosis sola facit venenum”; the dose makes the poison. As with all generalizations, this holds true “in general,” but breaks down when things get more granular. A little bit of arsenic isn’t going to kill you, but the question is in defining “a little bit.” Paradoxically, arsenic has legitimate therapeutic uses, but again, the issue is the proper amount. Likewise with food “preservatives.” An examination of the question must include at least some historical perspective, including how many people have died as a result of consuming spoiled food. Salmonellosis usually is nothing more than a bad bout of stomach cramps and diarrhea, but it can be fatal. Efforts to opreserve food by “canning/jarring” presents a risk of botulism, albeit a small one, but even a littel BT can kill you quickly. Perhaps better to preserve chemically in that instance, I don’t know. Anyway, in general, I think that “less is more” in regard to all additives, including things like colorizing agents (Yello #5, et al.) and even “vitamin fortification.” Remember when we used to think that adding flouride to our water supply was a good thing? Maybe not, according to recent studies. Of course, as remarked by Keynes in a very different context, “In the long run we’re all dead.” Thus, it might be a good thing to pay some attention to our eternal destinies while we are worrying about whether to use chemical preservatives in our food.
IMHO the worst food to consume is salad. It kills more people and makes more people sick than any other food. It often contains bio-contaminates it picks up in the entire process of farm to plate and since unlike most foods it isn’t cooked the harmful germs and pests are alive and well. And yet, ironically, almost everyone who would tell you not to eat “highly processed foods” would eagerly tell you to eat fresh greens. Most of what we hear about food as it relates to health and longevity is pure BS. (Another irony since BS can be found in “fresh” greens and it is one of the most prevalent bio-contaminates)
Author
I have to relay this to the C.S.O. She won’t like it, I promise you.