The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
6 Common Food Additives Used in the U.S. That Are Banned in Other Countries
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the use of food additives like preservatives, colors, sweeteners, fat replacers, emulsifiers and other ingredients added to food to maintain or improve safety, freshness, nutritional value, taste, texture and appearance. Food additives can be direct (those added for a specific purpose) or indirect (those added in trace amounts due to packaging, storage or handling) and are determined safe for market use only after stringent FDA review.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
Due to the FDA's regulation of food additives, most people assume that if food is on grocery store shelves, it must be 100 percent safe for human consumption. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. As the FDA states: "Because of inherent limitations of science, FDA can never be absolutely certain of the absence of any risk from the use of any substance." In fact, several food additives approved for use in the U.S. by the FDA are banned in other parts of the world.
So if you think everything in your pantry is safe to eat, think again. Here are 6 common food additives found in the U.S. that are banned in other countries.
- Use: whitening or bleaching agent for cereal flour and as a dough conditioner in baking; also used to make rubber products like yoga mats and shoe soles
- Concerns: During baking ADA breaks down to form new chemicals, one of which, semicarbizide (SEM), is known to increase the incidence of tumors in lab rats.
- Banned: European Union
- Use: improves gluten content in baked goods to strengthen dough and promote rising
- Concerns: Studies dating back to 1982 have found that potassium bromate used in bromated flour causes cancer in lab rats and is "possibly carcinogenic to humans"
- Banned: European Union, Canada, Brazil, Peru, China
- Use: added to citrus drinks like Mountain Dew to keep flavor evenly distributed; also used as a flame retardant
- Concerns: nervous system depressant, endocrine disruptor, causes reproductive and behavioral problems
- Banned: Europe and Japan
- Use: fat-free fat replacer in foods like potato chips
- Concerns: gastrointestinal distress and diarrhea; interferes with absorption of fat-soluble vitamins
- Banned: U.K. and Canada
- Use: feed additive given to livestock to reduce fat content in meat
- Concerns: known to affect the human cardiovascular system, increase hyperactivity, and cause chromosomal abnormalities and behavioral changes
- Banned: 160 countries (including Russia, China, Taiwan)
- Use: artificial growth hormone given to cows to increase milk production
- Concerns: increased risk of breast and prostate cancer
- Banned: European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
georgeclerk / E+ / Getty Images
By Jennifer Molidor
One million species are at risk of extinction from human activity, warns a recent study by scientists with the United Nations. We need to cut greenhouse gas pollution across all sectors to avoid catastrophic climate change — and we need to do it fast, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This research should serve as a rallying cry for polluting industries to make major changes now. Yet the agriculture industry continues to lag behind.
"The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism wishes to inform the public that following extensive consultations with all stakeholders, the Government of Botswana has taken a decision to lift the hunting suspension," the government announced in a press release shared on social media.
Company Safety Data Sheets on New Chemicals Frequently Lack the Worker Protections EPA Claims They Include
By Richard Denison
Readers of this blog know how concerned EDF is over the Trump EPA's approval of many dozens of new chemicals based on its mere "expectation" that workers across supply chains will always employ personal protective equipment (PPE) just because it is recommended in the manufacturer's non-binding safety data sheet (SDS).
By Grant Smith
From 2009 to 2012, Gregory Jaczko was chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which approves nuclear power plant designs and sets safety standards for plants. But he now says that nuclear power is too dangerous and expensive — and not part of the answer to the climate crisis.
By Brett Walton
When Greg Wetherbee sat in front of the microscope recently, he was looking for fragments of metals or coal, particles that might indicate the source of airborne nitrogen pollution in Rocky Mountain National Park. What caught his eye, though, were the plastics.
In a big victory for animals, Prada has announced that it's ending its use of fur! It joins Coach, Jean Paul Gaultier, Giorgio Armani, Versace, Ralph Lauren, Vivienne Westwood, Michael Kors, Donna Karan and many others PETA has pushed toward a ban.
This is a victory more than a decade in the making. PETA and our international affiliates have crashed Prada's catwalks with anti-fur signs, held eye-catching demonstrations all around the world, and sent the company loads of information about the fur industry. In 2018, actor and animal rights advocate Pamela Anderson sent a letter on PETA's behalf urging Miuccia Prada to commit to leaving fur out of all future collections, and the iconic designer has finally listened.
If people in three European countries want to fight the climate crisis, they need to chill out more.
"The rapid pace of labour-saving technology brings into focus the possibility of a shorter working week for all, if deployed properly," Autonomy Director Will Stronge said, The Guardian reported. "However, while automation shows that less work is technically possible, the urgent pressures on the environment and on our available carbon budget show that reducing the working week is in fact necessary."
The report found that if the economies of Germany, Sweden and the UK maintain their current levels of carbon intensity and productivity, they would need to switch to a six, 12 and nine hour work week respectively if they wanted keep the rise in global temperatures to the below two degrees Celsius promised by the Paris agreement, The Independent reported.
The study based its conclusions on data from the UN and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) on greenhouse gas emissions per industry in all three countries.
The report comes as the group Momentum called on the UK's Labour Party to endorse a four-day work week.
"We welcome this attempt by Autonomy to grapple with the very real changes society will need to make in order to live within the limits of the planet," Emma Williams of the Four Day Week campaign said in a statement reported by The Independent. "In addition to improved well-being, enhanced gender equality and increased productivity, addressing climate change is another compelling reason we should all be working less."
Supporters of the idea linked it to calls in the U.S. and Europe for a Green New Deal that would decarbonize the economy while promoting equality and well-being.
"This new paper from Autonomy is a thought experiment that should give policymakers, activists and campaigners more ballast to make the case that a Green New Deal is absolutely necessary," Common Wealth think tank Director Mat Lawrence told The Independent. "The link between working time and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions has been proved by a number of studies. Using OECD data and relating it to our carbon budget, Autonomy have taken the step to show what that link means in terms of our working weeks."
Stronge also linked his report to calls for a Green New Deal.
"Becoming a green, sustainable society will require a number of strategies – a shorter working week being just one of them," he said, according to The Guardian. "This paper and the other nascent research in the field should give us plenty of food for thought when we consider how urgent a Green New Deal is and what it should look like."
- Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change ›
- How working less could solve all our problems. Really. | ›
- Needed: A shorter work week – People's World ›