Are e-numbers harmful | The debate between 2 camps!

On meaning, function and the eternal debate over which e-numbers on the list are harmful or not.

What are e-numbers?

E-numbers are additives controlled by the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA. The law states the maximum amount of the e-number in question you can add to products and in which products you can use it.

What are the functions of e-numbers?

You can often tell from the e-number what function it has in a food.

• Between 100 and 200 you will find the colouring agents.
• 200 to 300 the preservatives.
• 300 to 400 the antioxidants and dietary acids.
• 400 to 500 emulsifiers and thickeners.
• 500 to 600 acidity regulators, anti-caking agents and raising agents.
• 600 to 700 the flavour enhancers.
• 700 to 1000 many other excipients including sweeteners.

Preservatives such as nitrite and benzoic acid, are very important in some meals to ensure acute safety. However, long-term safety is under expert discussion from "both camps".

Fortunately, more and more technologies are being developed that make these preservatives unnecessary. My hope is that this will only become more so in the future. Two reasons for this may be:

• If companies want to pursue a healthy image.
• Under consumer coercion.

However, most of the e-numbers are used as "fun dust" or masking of a poor quality raw material or process. So many of these e-numbers can be taken out.

The eternal e-number debate!

When it comes to views on e-numbers in the media, it seems you can divide people into two camps. One camp says you get the most horrible diseases from e-numbers and the other says they are well researched and 100% safe.

This is apparently the only way media works and can get people's attention; people go to watch if there is an argument somewhere, or pay attention if there is something they might be afraid of. As a result, there are two books about e-numbers that get a lot of attention and therefore sell a lot.

• The first is the little e-numbers booklet (and e-numbers app) written by a French lady in which very many e-numbers are linked to a disease or a complaint and given a colour in the traffic light system (red, orange, green) (booklet: 'What's in your food', including e-numbers list).
• Second, another book has recently come out ('Ode to E-numbers', Hertzbergen) stating that e-numbers deserve all the praise and heavily processed ready meals full of additives are great.

Thus, as usual, the consumer is left confused, while there are many experts who have a much more nuanced view and that the camp formation is less than is being portrayed. Furthermore, the discussion only becomes interesting when one does not lump everything together. Which e-numbers are we talking about and in the context of which product?

How does one investigate the safety of e-numbers?

The safety of e-numbers is studied in laboratory animals. There, they check how high the intake of this substance can be before a poisoning phenomenon is observed. The permissible dose in food is naturally set very much lower, so that there can be no acute health hazards, even in people who eat a lot of a particular food. So the study is only toxicological and in laboratory animals.

This means not investigating other side effects, not doing toxicity studies in humans, not investigating long-term effects and we know nothing about the cocktail effect of different e-numbers and other substances in a product. In addition, it appears that some e-numbers have negative effects on our intestinal flora, so perhaps these testing procedures are in need of renewal. However, discussions on this are slow in coming, even though new studies on this are appearing all the time that are raising foreheads.

Are e-numbers harmful?

Products high in e-numbers are often "ultraprocessed foods" full of sugar, fat and salt. These are products with a high eat-through factor and which many people reach for in a moment of "emotional eating" or "comfort food".

In the food industry, this irresistibility is also called "blisspoint" or delight point. This means that these foods make you feel good, but also that they allow you to eat away negative feelings. After all, you won't do this with a salad. Moreover, due to the high eat-through factor, you are more likely to empty the pack or bag. All in all, then, these products increase the risk of developing obesity and hence chronic diseases.

All experts agree: eat mostly minimally processed food and vary a lot. Foods with lots of e-numbers in them are usually heavily processed and contain little nutritional value. So these products should be eaten very moderately. The e-numbers that are so debated are then actually a side issue.

In addition, all experts recognise that the addition of nitrite may be a necessary evil in processed meats to address traces of the dangerous Clostridium Botulinum bacteria. Nevertheless, there are nice developments underway that will make nitrite unnecessary in the future to ensure the acute safety of meat products.

The difference of natural and chemical e-numbers

No chemical e-numbers are used in the organic industry. However, nitrite and sulphite are still used for safety reasons. In addition, yeast extract is used as a flavour enhancer, which is also not consumed by many people because it is actually the same as the flavour enhancer E621.

However, this flavour enhancer is highly debated. In practice, some people report getting complaints from this such as intestinal problems (Chinese restaurant syndrome?) or migraines. Many analytical substance-thinking scientists do not believe this, because the same substance (glutamate) also occurs naturally in proteins as, for example, richly in the protein of tomato. Because of this reason, it would be impossible not to get symptoms from a tomato, but to get them from E621.

This immediately exposes an assumption, namely that glutamate added in free form to another food is the same as in the context of a tomato. This immediately reveals a weakness of science that thinks from single substances. Who says that the other substances in the tomato and glutamate do not interact? For instance, glutamate as part of a tomato may not cause an adverse reaction, while the isolated substance E621 does. Could someone not react to rapid rise of glutamates in the blood, while if glutamate is released slowly this problem is not there?

So you see, a lot is based on assumptions and there is a lot we don't know yet. Actually, "natural" e-numbers are often not that natural at all, because the context of the food they are extracted from is gone. Thus, a substance that occurs in natural food sources can be replicated in a factory, or the extract from a natural source, can theoretically still give unexpected side effects.

What do we know for sure about the safety of e-numbers?

1. Actually, two e-numbers are suspect in the long term: nitrite (E250) and benzoic acid (E210), where it is possible that they contribute to the development of certain cancers (obviously in combination with many more lifestyle factors) (1), (2).
2. In addition, some people with the condition 'phenylketonuria'(PKU) should avoid aspartame (E951). People with a hypersensitivity to sulphur should watch out for sulphur dioxide (E220) and potassium bisulphite (E228).
3. AZO dyes are also up for debate when it comes to hyperactivity in children (3). EFSA considers the risk to be negligible. Nevertheless, the European Union has decided that there should be a warning on labels if these dyes are in the product. What is also troublesome is that often only the substance is examined and not the food itself. For example, perhaps the combination of sugar and AZO dyes could be the trigger, but this has not been properly investigated. The method of investigation can create a gap between practical experience and scientific results.
4. There are also e-numbers with which we already have very long-term experience. For example, vitamin C (E300) and citric acid (E330) will be harmless.
5. Of the other e-numbers, we know that there will be no acute toxic effect.

What do we not know for sure about the safety of e-numbers?

But there is also a lot we don't know. This applies to both chemical e-numbers and natural e-numbers outside the context of a food source. What:

1. Are the long-term effects?
2. Is the effect of a cocktail of several e-numbers at once?
3. Do e-numbers interact with other substances in the food?
4. Do e-numbers do to our gut flora (there is already evidence from sweeteners and preservatives that this can be a negative effect? (4)

My vision

Many effects have not yet been studied when it comes to e-numbers.

In addition, I doubt the independence of the monitoring bodies and performers, as much of the research is funded by industry itself and the stakes are incredibly high (5).

I also think that toxicological studies of individual substances in laboratory animals alone are not enough. Many e-numbers remain "experiment numbers" for me. If these "experiment numbers" can be removed, then remove them, is my motto. We do not need these substances for our health, because they do not contribute to it.

I believe incredibly in food technology 2.0. This way, you can also make a lot of food safe and sustainable without being lazy and reaching for preservatives like benzoic acid (E210) and nitrite (E250). There are great methods like pascalling, working with electropulses, gas packaging and many more methods that will allow us to do without such additives in the future. And besides safety and shelf life, let it be clear that most e-numbers are mainly meant to disguise poor quality or process and as fun substances to make products irresistible. As a result, these highly processed foods encourage the development of obesity and chronic disease.