Foods Additives Exposed

What's Really in Our Food?

A Deep Dive with Professor Marian Nestle

Have you ever stopped to wonder what’s truly in the everyday foods we consume, especially those heavily processed items that line supermarket shelves? While we might assume that everything we eat has undergone rigorous safety testing, the reality is often far more complex and, frankly, startling. We had the privilege of delving into this topic with Professor Marian Nestle, a leading nutrition expert, New York University professor, and prolific author whose best-selling book Food Politics exposes the profound influence food companies wield over regulators and government policy. Her insights reveal a food system where convenience and profit often take precedence over public health.

The Shocking Reality of Food Additive Regulation

According to Professor Nestle, there are probably 10,000 food additives in the food supply, yet the vast majority of them have not undergone any kind of rigorous evaluation. This fundamental lack of testing is a major concern. "Are the health effects of all new food additives tested before approval?" she was asked. Her blunt answer: "Of course not."

A prime example of this regulatory gap lies in the system of "Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS). This designation, established in the late 1950s, essentially allows additives that had been in the food supply for a long time to be considered safe until proven otherwise. Even for new additives introduced since 1958, companies are often responsible for determining their own safety. They can appoint a committee, which then sends a voluntary letter to the FDA stating the additive is "fine" after reviewing internal research. Professor Nestle likens this to a child grading their own homework, highlighting the inherent conflict of interest. While the FDA can revoke GRAS status, as it did for trans fats when sufficient evidence of their unsafety emerged, this process is reactive and not proactive.

This approach stands in stark contrast to the European precautionary principle, where the attitude is: "if you don't know it's safe, you don't use it." In the US, the attitude is "we'll use it and if it causes problems we'll get rid of it". This fundamental difference in philosophy underpins many of the discrepancies in food ingredients between continents.

Consider a common loaf of commercial bread, like Wonder Bread. While we might expect just flour, yeast, water, salt, and sugar, a closer look at the ingredients label reveals a "very long list of ingredients," possibly around 50 in total. These often include unidentifiable names like calcium sterile lacellate, monoglycerides, calcium iodite, and enzymes – all referred to as "dough conditioners.". Their primary purpose is not nutrition, but to make the bread incredibly soft, easily swallowable, and to extend its shelf life by keeping it fresh and preventing mold and bacteria growth. This convenience, Nestle points out, is a commercial objective, not a public health one.

The Alarming Case of Color Additives

Among the most concerning additives are food colorings, particularly those marketed to children. Red 40, Blue 1 and 2, Green, and Yellow 5 and 6 are ubiquitous in candies, frostings, and cereals. What's truly shocking is their origin: these are petroleum dyes, derived from oil.. As Professor Nestle bluntly puts it, "they're basically putting bits of oil in the candy from my kids" – or rather, "chemicals that are extracted from oil.".

Why are these artificial colors so prevalent? Cost is a factor, but the main consideration is their vividness and longevity. They produce "very very vivid colors," and research demonstrates that people perceive brightly colored foods as tasting better.. Natural colorants, often derived from vegetables or spices as seen in Europe, simply cannot achieve the same intense, eye-catching hues.

While the FDA maintains that color additives are safe at commonly consumed levels, others disagree. The link between these additives and children's health has been a subject of debate for decades. As early as the 1980s, physician Benjamin Finegold developed a diet aimed at children with hyperactivity, proposing that removing color additives could resolve behavioral problems. While difficult to study rigorously due to ethical considerations with children, one 1980s study on six children observed a profound effect in one child who consistently exhibited behavioral issues after consuming drinks with color additives. This suggests that "some children are sensitive" to these additives. Furthermore, animal studies indicate that some of these additives are carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic.

Professor Nestle strongly argues that these color additives serve "no purpose in the foods other than to make people want to eat them." They are strictly cosmetic, offering no safety or nutritional function. Given that vegetable-based replacements exist and are used in Europe, she believes they "should have been gone a long time ago.". Encouragingly, there is recent political pressure and voluntary pledges from many companies to remove these color additives by 2027, a shift driven surprisingly by some Republican-led states. However, the primary challenge for companies has been finding natural alternatives that match the "bright shiny colors that people expect," as demonstrated by Mars and General Mills' past struggles.

Beyond the Label: Hidden Additives in Our Food System

The problem of undisclosed or indirect additives extends beyond the ingredient list on our food packaging. Our food supply is also impacted by practices in animal agriculture that are not always visible to the consumer.

One major concern is the routine use of antibiotics in animal feed. In industrial animal farming (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations or CAFOs), large numbers of animals are raised in close confinement. Antibiotics are added to their feed not just to prevent bacterial diseases in crowded conditions, but also because, for reasons not fully understood, they "encourage the animals to grow more rapidly." This efficiency saves costs, allowing meat to be produced at the lowest possible price.

The critical downside for human health is that if these are antibiotics used to treat human diseases, their widespread use in animals contributes to antibiotic resistance. Bacteria in the animals and even farm workers can develop resistance, rendering these vital medications less effective for treating human illnesses.

Another example of highly industrialized practices is chlorinated chicken, a common practice in the US that is banned in the UK and EU. While the US Department of Agriculture has long argued that Salmonella is "normal" in chickens, a significant percentage of supermarket chickens in the US are contaminated with it. The European Commission's concern about chlorine rinses is that they can be used to "sidestep animal welfare standards earlier in the process," essentially masking poor hygiene rather than preventing it. These examples highlight a core tension: what is optimal for manufacturers' efficiency is often not optimal for consumer health.

The Driving Forces: Profit, Lobbying, and Externalized Costs

At the heart of these issues lies the fundamental nature of food companies. "Food companies are not public health agencies; they're businesses," Professor Nestle emphasizes. Their primary objective is to please stockholders and sell more products to as many people as possible.

This profit motive is heavily supported by powerful lobbying efforts. Food industry lobbyists are "very good at what they do" – ensuring that no federal agency passes regulations that would raise their costs or make their lives more difficult. Consumer advocacy groups, in contrast, face a much harder battle due to fewer resources for lobbying.

A particularly insidious aspect of this business model is the deliberate marketing of highly processed foods to children. Companies aim to get children to like certain foods early on, hoping they will consume them throughout their lives. Even if children don't have their own money, they possess the "pester factor"—the ability to nag their parents to buy certain foods. Companies leverage this through advertising on social media that often remains "invisible to most parental authority," leading to situations where children demand foods they've never even tried, like McDonald's, due to effective marketing.

Professor Nestle introduces a crucial economic concept: externalized costs. These are the true, hidden costs of producing food cheaply that are borne by society, not the companies themselves.. For example, the massive health care costs associated with diet-related diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, which are linked to highly processed foods, are not paid by the food manufacturers. Similarly, environmental damage from agricultural practices, such as chemical runoff contaminating water supplies, represents another externalized cost. When these "unexpected health costs" are factored in, cheap, highly processed food is "not cheaper at all," but actually "more expensive".

The Path Forward: Regulation and Personal Choices

Given the complexities, Professor Nestle advocates strongly for government regulation. She believes it is essential to ensure consumers aren't "eating something that's going to make you really really sick or kill you". Furthermore, regulation creates a "level playing field" for companies, preventing competitors from gaining an unfair advantage by cutting corners on safety or quality. Without regulation, companies are "given permission to behave badly".

Globally, while some countries may have more controls than the US, the underlying pressures from "corporate capture of government" and the pushback from big food companies against restrictions are worldwide phenomena.

For individuals, navigating this landscape requires conscious effort. Professor Nestle offers a simple yet profound mantra from journalist Michael Pollan: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.". This advice translates to:

• Minimize processed foods: Choose "minimally processed" options, which naturally excludes many of the most profitable processed foods.

• Read food labels: As Nestle herself does, "if it's got all that stuff in it I leave it on the shelf.". Understanding ingredients empowers better choices.

• Prioritize "real food": This means food cooked with expectation and appreciation, like the traditional French approach to school meals, rather than packaged foods.

This approach not only supports overall health, combating issues like obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, but also nurtures a healthy gut microbiome. It opens "infinite ways of putting foods together," offering pleasure without being overly restrictive. Professor Nestle, herself in her late 80s and remarkably sharp, credits her lifelong preference for "eating healthfully" and avoiding "junk food" that dates back to her childhood discovery of fresh vegetables.

Ultimately, while the challenges posed by the food industry are immense, understanding the true nature of food additives, the drivers behind their use, and the need for robust regulation can empower us to make more informed choices for ourselves and our families.