I feel I can explain this discrepancy with a bit of history.
TL;DR in the last paragraph.
The EU has a numbering system for additives, preservatives, colourings etc that have been tested and approved for human consumption, so instead of putting Sodium Sulphite, you can put E221. They used to be very very commonly listed in ingredients in the UK. The difference between Sodium Sulphite (E221) and Sodium Hydrogen Sulphite (E222) is unclear and unimportant to most consumers, so manufacturers just listed the “E numbers” instead.
In the UK, when it was discovered that certain food additives can trigger conditions such as ADHD, instead of naming the specific chemicals that were causing the problem, the British media just called them E numbers.
Cue a fair bit of hysteria about how E numbers are harmful and some legitimate concerns, and suddenly the public start checking their food to see if it has any of those nasty E numbers, and they find to their horror that a lot of processed food contains a lot of E numbers, because preservatives, flavour enhancers, food colourings, sweeteners make food more appealing, and people re-buy appealing food. Suddenly it’s very much in the manufacturers’ interests to name the chemicals instead of the shorter E number so even today in the UK it’s more common to name the chemical than the E number, which was never required anyway. To prevent hysteria over “chemicals” in food and to inform, it’s become common to label then with their purposes - flavour enhancers, colours, preservatives etc.
There’s still some really quite noxious chemicals that are perfectly legal to put in food. My son’s A-level chemistry teacher saw him drinking the same brand of squash every day and commented “You drink a lot of that. Are you sure there’s no aspartame in it? There’s no way I would deliberately put aspartame inside my body.” Make of that what you will.
Anyway, the media storm around E numbers dies down because the manufacturers largely just avoid naming them that way, and carry on pretty much as before. Some kids have had reactions and occasionally news stories come out, but the media persist in avoiding using chemical names.
There’s some perfectly sensible advice that says that it you eat less processed food, and especially less “hyper-processed” food, and instead eat more food made from more natural ingredients, you get a more balanced diet with better vitamin and mineral intake, thus feeling feeling fuller for longer. (If the food is designed, with proper experimental testing, to get you to buy it more, it is inevitably also designed to get you to eat it more than you need to.)
But how can you tell if the food is processed or not? What’s the difference between me spending half an hour mixing the ingredients and then mixing them for me and precooking it so I just bung it in the pan? Well, a random member of the public almost certainly has salt and pepper, maybe even a few herbs and spices, but probably not any L-alanine. Look out for ingredients that you wouldn’t use at home, they’re probably a sign that it’s highly processed.
Hence the nearly good information that there aren’t any artificial flavours or colours. Nearly good, because it doesn’t mention preservatives and nearly good because it is definitely and certainly processed food designed to maximise profits rather than health.
So the UK food processing industries continue to aim naturally for maximising re-buying which includes reassuring the consumers that this is the healthiest (pre-prepared, highly processed, addictively tasty) low-priced convenience food they can, whilst being attractive to supermarket profits with longer shelf lives. If the bacteria and mold-killing preservatives aren’t as kind to human biology as just making it yourself and eating it sooner, and a few people have had reactions, it’s just not obviously bad enough for it to be something people will do anything about.
**TL;DR ** So, my understanding is that the hysteria about artifical flavours and colours was highest in the UK and the folks from the other countries aren’t looking for technicalities to reassure them about the ingredients because they were never trained by their media to hunt for nasties in the small print - those that care can see straight away this is very firmly in the processed food category, and those that don’t, don’t.
My son’s A-level chemistry teacher saw him drinking the same brand of squash every day and commented “You drink a lot of that. Are you sure there’s no aspartame in it? There’s no way I would deliberately put aspartame inside my body.” Make of that what you will.
Kinda funny that this person correctly explains the silly hysteria people had over E-numbers and then in the same comment spreads some silly hysteria over aspartame.
The science teacher’s comment is far removed from the evidence presented in that link:
with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake
For example, with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake, assuming no other intake from other food sources.
You’d be running to the bathroom every 5 minutes too
That was a fairly abusive way of disagreeing. If you think I’m so stupid for repeating what a chemistry teacher said about a chemical, perhaps a politer way of pointing this out would be to point to some of the overwhelming evidence you feel I should have noticed sometime in the last forty years, and maybe you could find it in your heart to do so without calling me a bad, stupid, parroting, moronic moron, which I personally feel was a little over the top.
Edit: also, telling someone they should feel bad and stupid (along with the other language you used) is a bit rough for a discussion on artificial sweeteners. Especially as OP cited the source, made it clear they had no direct knowledge of the situation, and–it turns out–a major health body has cited potential dangers.
This is a good opportunity for us to be a little more civil.
Have you thought to see what other things are in the same category (IARC 2B) before contributing to the misinformation? It includes such “noxious” things as aloe vera and working as a carpenter or dry cleaner. It’s basically meaningless other than “there is a small body of weak evidence suggesting it may have some effect on cancer and we think there should be more research”.
also, telling someone they should feel bad and stupid (along with the other language you used) is a bit rough for a discussion on artificial sweeteners
Nope, sorry. If you’re a moron contributing to health misinformation you deserve the abuse you get. Too many good people died because of them - I don’t even care if you’re stupid or malicious anymore, I have no patience for either.
I have particular contempt for OP jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs with their “Make of that what you will”. It’s cowardly, slimy and shameful - if you’re going to be an idiot at least have the conviction to stand by it.
I think the WHO has slightly more credibility than any random Lenny user.
And no, your attitude is not called for. There’s a legitimate body that had called the safety of aspartame into question. Whether it meets your standards is personal. But it’s poor form to attack others for citing credible sources (a chemistry teacher is worth following up on for chem matters, which, in this case–again–led directly to a statement by the WHO).
You have simultaneously said it’s both been studied excessively and acknowledged the WHO has said it needs more study.
Rando vs WHO. WHO wins. Aspartame may be dangerous. And, incidentally, so may working as a dry cleaner. Which seems like a good warning to put out there. Thank you angry, rude person trolling this thread.
Edit: just googled “cancer rates among dry cleaners” and wow… it seems a number of studies have demonstrated elevated cancer rates among dry cleaners. Here are a couple:
Finland definitely had the E code craze. And more recently about natrium glutamate, when many products advertised getting rid of it. That was basically fueled by FUD.
But processed meat basically requires nitrates (E249-250) to avoid bacteria growth and the recommended intake for those is rather low especially for children. That’s one I would worry about if processed meat is common in diet.
I feel I can explain this discrepancy with a bit of history.
TL;DR in the last paragraph.
The EU has a numbering system for additives, preservatives, colourings etc that have been tested and approved for human consumption, so instead of putting Sodium Sulphite, you can put E221. They used to be very very commonly listed in ingredients in the UK. The difference between Sodium Sulphite (E221) and Sodium Hydrogen Sulphite (E222) is unclear and unimportant to most consumers, so manufacturers just listed the “E numbers” instead.
In the UK, when it was discovered that certain food additives can trigger conditions such as ADHD, instead of naming the specific chemicals that were causing the problem, the British media just called them E numbers.
Cue a fair bit of hysteria about how E numbers are harmful and some legitimate concerns, and suddenly the public start checking their food to see if it has any of those nasty E numbers, and they find to their horror that a lot of processed food contains a lot of E numbers, because preservatives, flavour enhancers, food colourings, sweeteners make food more appealing, and people re-buy appealing food. Suddenly it’s very much in the manufacturers’ interests to name the chemicals instead of the shorter E number so even today in the UK it’s more common to name the chemical than the E number, which was never required anyway. To prevent hysteria over “chemicals” in food and to inform, it’s become common to label then with their purposes - flavour enhancers, colours, preservatives etc.
There’s still some really quite noxious chemicals that are perfectly legal to put in food. My son’s A-level chemistry teacher saw him drinking the same brand of squash every day and commented “You drink a lot of that. Are you sure there’s no aspartame in it? There’s no way I would deliberately put aspartame inside my body.” Make of that what you will.
Anyway, the media storm around E numbers dies down because the manufacturers largely just avoid naming them that way, and carry on pretty much as before. Some kids have had reactions and occasionally news stories come out, but the media persist in avoiding using chemical names.
There’s some perfectly sensible advice that says that it you eat less processed food, and especially less “hyper-processed” food, and instead eat more food made from more natural ingredients, you get a more balanced diet with better vitamin and mineral intake, thus feeling feeling fuller for longer. (If the food is designed, with proper experimental testing, to get you to buy it more, it is inevitably also designed to get you to eat it more than you need to.)
But how can you tell if the food is processed or not? What’s the difference between me spending half an hour mixing the ingredients and then mixing them for me and precooking it so I just bung it in the pan? Well, a random member of the public almost certainly has salt and pepper, maybe even a few herbs and spices, but probably not any L-alanine. Look out for ingredients that you wouldn’t use at home, they’re probably a sign that it’s highly processed.
Hence the nearly good information that there aren’t any artificial flavours or colours. Nearly good, because it doesn’t mention preservatives and nearly good because it is definitely and certainly processed food designed to maximise profits rather than health.
So the UK food processing industries continue to aim naturally for maximising re-buying which includes reassuring the consumers that this is the healthiest (pre-prepared, highly processed, addictively tasty) low-priced convenience food they can, whilst being attractive to supermarket profits with longer shelf lives. If the bacteria and mold-killing preservatives aren’t as kind to human biology as just making it yourself and eating it sooner, and a few people have had reactions, it’s just not obviously bad enough for it to be something people will do anything about.
**TL;DR ** So, my understanding is that the hysteria about artifical flavours and colours was highest in the UK and the folks from the other countries aren’t looking for technicalities to reassure them about the ingredients because they were never trained by their media to hunt for nasties in the small print - those that care can see straight away this is very firmly in the processed food category, and those that don’t, don’t.
There’s no way I will deliberately put aspartame inside my body but only because it just simply does not taste sweet to me but instead it tastes bitter. I’m not the only one either https://www.futurity.org/why-fake-sweeteners-can-taste-funky/
Here’s what I make of that children’s science teacher comment about aspartame: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
Kinda funny that this person correctly explains the silly hysteria people had over E-numbers and then in the same comment spreads some silly hysteria over aspartame.
Aspartame is E951, by the way.
deleted by creator
The science teacher’s comment is far removed from the evidence presented in that link:
That was good information, thank you.
You’d be running to the bathroom every 5 minutes too
Removed by mod
That was a fairly abusive way of disagreeing. If you think I’m so stupid for repeating what a chemistry teacher said about a chemical, perhaps a politer way of pointing this out would be to point to some of the overwhelming evidence you feel I should have noticed sometime in the last forty years, and maybe you could find it in your heart to do so without calling me a bad, stupid, parroting, moronic moron, which I personally feel was a little over the top.
The WHO is declaring it a possible carcinogen. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/whos-cancer-research-agency-say-aspartame-sweetener-possible-carcinogen-sources-2023-06-29/
Edit: also, telling someone they should feel bad and stupid (along with the other language you used) is a bit rough for a discussion on artificial sweeteners. Especially as OP cited the source, made it clear they had no direct knowledge of the situation, and–it turns out–a major health body has cited potential dangers.
This is a good opportunity for us to be a little more civil.
Have you thought to see what other things are in the same category (IARC 2B) before contributing to the misinformation? It includes such “noxious” things as aloe vera and working as a carpenter or dry cleaner. It’s basically meaningless other than “there is a small body of weak evidence suggesting it may have some effect on cancer and we think there should be more research”.
Nope, sorry. If you’re a moron contributing to health misinformation you deserve the abuse you get. Too many good people died because of them - I don’t even care if you’re stupid or malicious anymore, I have no patience for either.
I have particular contempt for OP jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs with their “Make of that what you will”. It’s cowardly, slimy and shameful - if you’re going to be an idiot at least have the conviction to stand by it.
I think the WHO has slightly more credibility than any random Lenny user.
And no, your attitude is not called for. There’s a legitimate body that had called the safety of aspartame into question. Whether it meets your standards is personal. But it’s poor form to attack others for citing credible sources (a chemistry teacher is worth following up on for chem matters, which, in this case–again–led directly to a statement by the WHO).
You have simultaneously said it’s both been studied excessively and acknowledged the WHO has said it needs more study.
Rando vs WHO. WHO wins. Aspartame may be dangerous. And, incidentally, so may working as a dry cleaner. Which seems like a good warning to put out there. Thank you angry, rude person trolling this thread.
Edit: just googled “cancer rates among dry cleaners” and wow… it seems a number of studies have demonstrated elevated cancer rates among dry cleaners. Here are a couple:
Sweden study
St Louis study
How would anyone die of avoiding aspartame? Perhaps you might consider the possibility that you may be overreacting just a little.
This was a wild ride, thanks for this hellava read. I appreciate you
Finland definitely had the E code craze. And more recently about natrium glutamate, when many products advertised getting rid of it. That was basically fueled by FUD.
But processed meat basically requires nitrates (E249-250) to avoid bacteria growth and the recommended intake for those is rather low especially for children. That’s one I would worry about if processed meat is common in diet.
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/170615
Perhaps. But without diving in, I’d bet it’s the other way around: there is something fishy about the claim, and it’s illegal to make there.
Great info, here. Thanks so much for helping to demystify.