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
Eleven peaceful activists from the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise have taken to the water in inflatable boats with handheld banners to oppose the Statoil Songa Enabler oil rig, 275 km North off the Norwegian coast, in the Arctic Barents sea.
The banners say: "People Vs. Arctic Oil" and are directed at Statoil and the Norwegian government, which has opened a new, aggressive search for oil in the waters of the Barents Sea.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) paved the way Friday for the 600-mile, 42-inch fracked gas Atlantic Coast Pipeline to proceed when it issued the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). A joint project of utility giants Duke Energy and Dominion Energy, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would move fracked gas from West Virginia into Virginia and North Carolina.
In April, the Sierra Club submitted more than 500 pages of legal and technical comments on FERC's draft EIS, which were joined by more than 18,000 individual comments detailing opposition to the project. The pipeline has been met with widespread opposition, with more than 1,000 people participating in public hearings across the three affected states. The Sierra Club recently requested that FERC issue a new environmental review document analyzing information that came in after or late in, the public comment process.
By Jessica Corbett
"It's time Rex Tillerson step down or be removed," said Gigi Kellett of Corporate Accountability International, following an announcement on Thursday that ExxonMobil will pay $2 million for violating U.S. sanctions against Russian officials while the now-secretary of state was the company's CEO.
"ExxonMobil demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanction requirements," according to enforcement filing released by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which issued the penalty. Though the fine is reportedly the maximum penalty allowed, it's pittance to one of the world's most profitable and powerful corporations, which last year reported a profit of $7.8 billion.
New analysis from Amory B. Lovins debunks the notion that highly unprofitable, economically distressed nuclear plants should be further subsidized to meet financial, security, reliability and climate goals. The analysis, which will appear shortly in The Electricity Journal, shows that closing costly-to-run nuclear plants and reinvesting their saved operating costs in energy efficiency provides cheaper electricity, increases grid reliability and security, reduces more carbon, and preserves (not distorts) market integrity—all without subsidies.
By Christian Detisch and Seth Gladstone
In the wake of Senate Republicans' ever-deepening debacle over their flailing attempts to strip health insurance from 22 million people, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is desperate to do something—anything—to show that he can get legislation passed. To this end, he's bypassing the standard committee review process to push a complex 850+ page energy bill straight to the full Senate floor. Perhaps not surprisingly, this legislation, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, would be a disaster for public health and our climate.
A new law passed this week in South Miami will require all new homes built in the city to install solar panels. The measure, which was inspired by a proposal from a teenage climate activist, will go into effect in September.
The text of the ordinance details the climate impacts facing South Miami.
By Ben Jervey
Just last week, we fact-checked and debunked every line of The Dirty Secrets of Electric Cars, a video produced by Fueling U.S. Forward, a Koch-funded campaign to push fossil fuels. That video represents the group's first public pivot from fossil fuel boosterism to electric vehicle (EV) attacks. More electric vehicle experts are also picking the video apart.
One effort is this video highlighting many of the same falsehoods we wrote about, and which adds key context about some of the video footage. Like, for instance, the fact that the photo that Fueling U.S. Forward claims is a lithium, cobalt or cerium mining operation is actually a copper mine.
By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
A recent series of articles by a Washington Post reporter could have some consumers questioning the value of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) organic seal. But are a few bad eggs representative of an entire industry?
Consumers are all for cracking down on the fraudulent few who, with the help of Big Food, big retail chains and questionable certifiers give organics a bad name. But they also want stronger standards, and better enforcement—not a plan to weaken standards to accommodate "Factory Farm Organic."