E for Additives

The difficulty for the EPA, which is a government agency, is that if it bans a chemical as being harmful to the consumer then it has to pay the manufacturer the cost of all the unused chemical plus the anticipated margin of profit.

It has frequently been suggested that we write a book as informative about pesticides as we hope this is about additives. The difficulty is clear. You cannot tell if a product contains an excessive quantity of pesticides without a clear labelling obligation. Until this comes about all that can be done is to give general guidance.

The Americans came to the conclusion that, if the fruits and vegetables are sprayed with the worst possible selection of permitted pesticides, the rating list of danger from contracting cancer was:

Tomatoes, beef, potatoes, oranges, lettuce, apples, peaches, pork, soya beans, wheat, beans, carrots, chicken, grapes and corn.

As to risk, the committee thought that 5.8 cases of cancer per thousand people consuming this list of foods when treated with the pesticides specified was a realistic forecast. There can be no better argument for selecting organically grown fruit and vegetables with some seal of approval—the most reliable being that of the Soil Association—and also dairy products and meat with similar quality controls. Fortunately, this branch of farming which was pioneered by the health food suppliers has now spread into a wider market and you should look out for ‘organic’ signs on foods which will not only have very low levels of pesticides but also very superior flavour.

Foods, herbs and spices, imported from overseas are rarely checked for pesticide residues. Those tests that have been undertaken show very grave cause for concern.

For example, lettuces from certain Mediterranean growers are produced in polythene tunnels under a continual mist of insecticides, fungicides and water until the moment of picking. The laboratory equipment at our ports is so out-dated that 10–14 days are required for analyses by which time the food would be bad. Finland has achieved the highest standards for import quality control, possibly the best in the world, with the result that growers produce special low pesticide residue produce for that country. We must demand equal standards throughout the EEC.

7. Is It Kosher?

Certain religious disciplines, such as those of the Jews, the Muslims and the Sikhs, as well as those who have an ethical objection to certain foods or additives, have written us many letters asking distinctions to be made between additives that are animal, dairy, vegetable and synthetic. In addition, synthetic additives can be made from natural materials. Wherever possible this information is included in this edition, but there are a number of cases where the additive can be derived in different ways, some of which would be acceptable to particular groups and some of which would not.

This gives rise to the apparent paradox that some foods are approved by the Rabbinical authorities but contain additives which are on the banned list. In all cases this means that the food has been checked back to source, additives and all, and it has been prepared in accordance with Jewish principles.

List of non-kosher food additives:

Additives, or ingredients, which have not been allocated EEC

numbers, and may also be derived from non-kosher sources, are:

Edible fat or oil; gelatin, enzymes of catalase, lipase, pepsin, trypsin and rennin (or rennet); modified starch with glycerol; glyceryl tribenzoate, glyceryl tributyrate and glyceryl tripropionate; glycine; oxystearin; stearic acid and stearates; monoacetin, diacetin and triacetin; spermacetti; sperm oil; casein and caseinates; wine vinegar; wine or brandy as flavouring agents; proteins.

Note that whey and lactose are milk derivatives. Please note also that the additives and processing aids used in wine making, and therefore also in the preparation of fortified wines such as sherry and in brandies, are frequently of animal or dairy origin. These would normally be removed before the wines are bottled. In both this case and for the additives listed above, where there is any doubt it would be a simple matter for the regulations to be changed so that, for example, an (A) was used as a suffix for additives which were derived from animal material and the suffix (D) for those from dairy material.

It would unquestionably be fruitful for there to be a coming together of the leaders of the many groups involved, including vegetarians, vegans, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Seventh Day Adventists, who would certainly together form a sufficiently persuasive and numerically strong grouping to convince both the British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and also the EEC Commission in Brussels that such additive identification is both necessary and possible. As things stand, the problem is hardly recognized as existing.

8. Do Additives Affect Ability?

New York City State schools have some of the highest paid and best qualified teachers in the USA yet in the late 1970s they had some of the worst records of academic success and criticism of both pupils and teachers was reaching a desperately high level. What could be done?

Dr Elizabeth Cagan, a distinguished and charismatic educationalist, was routed out from her academic environment and given the challenge of reforming the school catering service, because it was felt instinctively that this could be part of the problem.

Liz Cagan looked at the food served to the children and said to herself that this was far removed from the plain, sensible, nourishing food which she had served to her own family. Aircraft-type meals were warmed up and most of them finished up in the rubbish bin. She called the cooks together and told them that, if they were to stay in work, they had to become real cooks and not just re-heaters.

Not long after, through one of her assistants, she heard of the pioneering experiments of Alexander G. Schauss, a brilliant penologist, who had turned to biosocial research and nutrition. He had experimented with prison populations by giving them food low in additives and sugar. There had been substantial improvements in work records and less aggression. In Alabama, for example, after a control period of 18 months without diet modifications, a revised diet was introduced. Within 41/2 months of changing the diet policy behaviour problems fell and then levelled off for the next 14 months of the trial at a figure 61 per cent lower than before.

These results were validated by a number of other controlled trials where the data confirmed that diet and behavioural problems have many cause-and-effect links, and these included problems with sugar, food colours and, indeed, flavours.

The Feingold Diet, which was on the same basic lines with also the removal of the antioxidants BHA and BHT (E320 and E321), had produced successful results with both hyperactivity and juvenile delinquency.

So, Dr Cagan’s colleague went to see Alexander Schauss and between them they decided to set up a food system for the New York City schools which, incidentally, have the second biggest buying power for food products after the US Army, in a first-phase Feingold Diet. This involved a gradual elimination of artificial colours, artificial flavours and the preservatives BHA and BHT while, simultaneously, foods high in sugar were either eliminated or the sugar reduced to a maximum figure of around 11 per cent.

It was ensured that, when each revision was implemented, changes took place simultaneously in all the schools, but the revisions were carried out over three academic years: 1979–80, 1980–81 and 1982–83, with no changes being made in the 1981–82 academic year so that there was a basis for evaluating the effects of change.

All the selected schools gave their children the California Achievement Test (CAT), which is given to many schools across the United States and from which the percentage ranking of the school was calculated.

They had already checked back for the four years preceding the changes so that they knew the average figures involved: these did not fluctuate by more than a mere percentage point. The mean academic CAT score for each school was calculated and then it was converted to a national ranking by comparing this mean with that of the other schools who used the same test in the same year. Then the previous year’s ranking was subtracted from the current year’s to show the gain or loss in national terms. The figures for all 803 schools averaged together show a mean gain or decline in the years between 1977 and 1983.

This exceptionally complex trial on almost a million children who ate both breakfast and lunch at school was undertaken by three doctors, Stephen J. Schoenthaler, Walter E. Doraz and James A. Wakefield Jr. It was published in the International Journal of Biosocial Research, Volume 8, Number 2, 1986, pp.138–148.

The results were astounding. There was a 15.7 per cent increase in mean academic ranking over and above the rest of the nation’s schools who used the same standardized tests. (Before the changes the variations had been less than 1 per cent.) Prior to dietary changes, the school children who ate the most school meals had the worst results. After the changes, the children who ate the most school meals had the best results. Never before had there been a trial of such a size and with such scientific support on so many children to determine the effect of diet upon ability.

The schools formed committees including pupils to set up their own menus, along Dr Cagan’s guidelines, with their cooks and dieticians. There were supportive posters everywhere such as ‘Have you hugged your dietician today?’ (which in some areas was altered by changing the h to m!). When Dr Cagan went to a school in the roughest part of New York City and was introduced at meal time by the head teacher as being the lady who had changed the food, she received a standing ovation from the pupils. Only a few years before, visitors would have required a police escort.

So, do certain additives damage the brain? We do not know. What does look certain from this gigantic and extraordinary trial is that there has to be a reconsideration of those additives which deny children the nutrients normally present in real food.

What is the purpose of excessive quantities of sugar, colours, flavours and preservatives? They are there to disguise nutritionally unimportant food substances, including highly calorific fats, as real, wholesome, satisfying food. Just go round your supermarket and look at the foods still being sold that appeal to the senses of the young. Without checking the labels carefully you can easily buy non-nutritive rubbish. But it tastes and looks just like real food. So additives can dilute nutrition. The test of ‘need’ is applied without a true understanding of the consequences to our children, upon whom all our future hopes must be founded.

Remember, many additives help to provide us with good and safe food, but beware—additives that in themselves might be harmless deceive us and, worse still, our children, into consuming empty calories.

A centre for severely disturbed children—the state-run Aycliffe School in Co. Durham—is undertaking a trial to find whether the Schauss/Schoenthaler Diet, which they will be adapting, can help these children.

The diet being used observes the following guidelines:

(a) sweetened breakfast cereals to be replaced with non-sweetened varieties;

(b) canned fruits, if packed in syrup, to be rinsed with cold water before serving;

(c) soft drinks to be replaced with a wide selection of fruit and vegetable juices;

(d) table sugar to be replaced with honey;

(e) wholemeal bread to be substituted for white bread;

(f) brown rice to replace white rice;

(g) processed foods to be replaced with fresh, when available at similar prices;

(h) snack foods high in sugar, fat or refined carbohydrates to be replaced by fresh fruit and vegetables, plus a variety of nuts, cheeses and wholegrain biscuits;

(i) preservatives, especially BHA (E320) and BHT (E321), and artificially coloured or flavoured foods to be avoided where possible.

In this special group of children the results may not necessarily be generally applicable but they will be of great importance. Further studies need to be done.

9. Hyperactivity in Children

A lot of cynicism has been generated about the whole idea of hyperactivity in children. ‘There are no hyperactive children, only hyperactive parents’ is a frequent retort. The evidence is mounting, although with some reservations, that a good deal of so called hyperactivity is, in fact, due to an unstable environment, but that a good deal is due to food. Dr Egger at Great Ormond Street Hospital showed in his series of cases that there were no children who had an adverse effect from additives only. They were always affected by a food as well.

Dr Ben Feingold MD began his work and observations in 1965 on the link between certain foods and additives and the effect on some individuals’ behaviour and their ability to learn. He proposed a diet which cut down on certain additives and eliminated certain foods. Scientific workers are still uncertain as to the validity of the whole of Dr Feingold’s ideas, but there is no doubt that a vast number of hyperactive children, and also asthmatics and those suffering from eczema, have benefitted immeasurably from a sensible and careful adaptation of this diet.

Hyperactive children bring much strain and exhaustion to parents who have to manage offspring who only sleep a few hours; are excitable and impulsive; are very fidgety; have a short attention span; are compulsively aggressive; can hurt themselves and are sometimes very anti-social. All these traits are beyond the control of the children, who may well also suffer from a lack of co-ordination of the muscles. They collide with objects when trying such simple sports as cycling and swimming. Their finer senses, such as their eyes and hands, do not seem to operate together. They have difficulty with buttoning and tieing, writing, drawing and speaking—sometimes they are dyslexic.

As they grow older they become even more active and can easily hurt. Difficulties are experienced with speech, balance and learning, even if the IQ is high. They suffer from excessive thirst and are often prone to respiratory difficulties.

It was to help such parents and children that the Hyperactive Children’s Support Group was formed in 1977. It is now a registered charity. The Secretary is Mrs Sally Bunday, 71 Whyke Lane, Chichester, West Sussex P019 2LD (please enclose an SAE if you would like details of membership). The Group recommends that parents try a diet based on the work of Ben Feingold. First, this means cutting out all food and drink containing synthetic colours or flavours, avoiding glutamates, nitrites, nitrates, BHA, BHT and benzoic acid. Second, for the first four to six weeks, foods containing natural salicylates (like aspirin chemically) should be avoided and then re-introduced one at a time to see if they cause problems. Such foods include almonds, apples, apricots, peaches, plums, prunes, oranges, tomatoes, tangerines, cucumbers, most soft fruits, cherries, grapes and raisins.

The additives that the HACSG recommends should be avoided are:

E102 Tartrazine E104 Quinoline Yellow 107 Yellow 2G E110 Sunset Yellow FCF E120 Cochineal E122 Carmoisine E123 Amaranth E124 Ponceau 4R E127 Erythrosine 128 Red 2G E132 Indigo Carmine 133 Brilliant blue FCF E150 Caramel E151 Black PN 154 Brown FK 155 Brown HT El60(b) Annatto E210 Benzoic acid E211 Sodium benzoate E220 Sulphur dioxide E250 Sodium nitrite E251 Sodium nitrate E320 Butylated hydroxyanisole E321 Butylated hydroxytoluene

Plus another antioxidant preservative not used in the UK

TBHQ (Monotertiary butylhydroxylquinone)

Additives which are either dangerous to asthmatics or aspirin-sensitive people, and could reasonably be added to the HACSG listing, or should not be used in food intended for babies or young children are:

E212 Potassium benzoate E213 Calcium benzoate E214 Ethyl 4-hydroxybenzoate E215 Ethyl 4-hydroxybenzoate, sodium salt E216 Propyl 4-hydroxybenzoate E217 Propyl 4-hydroxybenzoate, sodium salt E218 Methyl 4-hydroxybenzoate E219 Methyl 4-hydroxybenzoate, sodium salt E310 Propyl gallate E311 Octyl gallate E312 Dodecyl gallate 621 Sodium hydrogen L-glutamate (monoSodium glutamate) 622 Potassium hydrogen L-glutamate (monoPotassium glutamate) 623 Calcium dihydrogen di-L-glutamate (calcium glutamate) 627 Guanosine 5’-(diSodium phosphate) 631 Inosine 5’-(diSodium phosphate) 635 Sodium 5’-ribonucleotide

The medical profession still believes that more work is needed with larger trials, but in the meantime such diets are very valuable if you, having adopted them, then reduce the number of forbidden substances and foods so that the child concerned is left with as large a variety as possible, is not kept out of the main stream of childhood fun, and does not suffer from unnecessarily restrictive rules.

10. The Avoidable 57 Additives

Additives can hide the true nature of food. You can use polyphosphates (E450) to emulsify fat and to incorporate water, some 128 (Red 2G) to colour the fat so that it looks like meat, enhance the flavour with 621 (monosodium glutamate), so that the food has an addictive and chicken-like flavour. Add some BHA and BHT, E320 and E321, to make sure that the excessive quantities of fat do not go rancid, mix in some lean meat and salt, and surround the mixture with a pastry of white flour and lard, then you have a meat pie which contains very little lean fleshed meat and lots of the sort of saturated fat that our government advises us to eat only in moderation. The additives make sure that our senses do not detect the fat.

What are the most unnecessary or potentially worrying additives? That list only contains some 1 in 5 of those with numbers. These 57 different substances, with rather more chemical names, are:

E102 Tartrazine E104 Quinoline yellow 107 Yellow 2G E110 Sunset yellow FCF E120 Carmine of CochinealCarminic acidCochineal E122 AzorubineCarmoisine E123 Amaranth E124 Ponceau 4R E127 Erythrosine 128 Red 2G E131 Patent blue V E132 Indigo carmine 133 Brilliant blue FCF E142 Acid Brilliant GreenGreen SLissamine Green E150 Caramel E151 Black PN E153 Carbon blackVegetable carbon 154 Brown FKFood BrownKipper brown 155 Brown HTChocolate brown HT E173 Aluminium E180 Lithol Rubine BK E210 Benzoic acid E211 Sodium benzoate E212 Potassium benzoate E213 Calcium benzoate E214 Ethyl-4-hydroxybenzoateEthyl para-hydroxybenzoate E215 Ethyl-4-hydroxy-benzoate, sodium salt E216 Propyl 4-hydroxybenzoate E217 Propyl 4-hydroxybenzoate, sodium salt E218 Methyl 4-hydroxybenzoate, sodium saltMethyl para-hydroxybenzoate E219 Methyl 4-hydroxybenzoate, sodium salt E220 Sulphur dioxide E221 Sodium sulphite E222 Sodium bisulphiteSodium hydrogen sulphite E223 Sodium metabisulphite E224 Potassium metabisulphite E226 Calcium sulphite E227 Calcium bisulphite E250 Sodium nitrite E251 Sodium nitrate E310 Propyl gallate E311 Octyl gallate E312 Dodecyl gallate E320 BHAButylated hydroxyanisole E321 BHTButylated hydroxytoluene 385 Calcium diSodium EDTA Calcium diSodium ethylenediamine-NNN’N’ tetra-acetate E407 Carrageenan E450 Polyphosphates 621 monoSodium glutamate MSG Sodium hydrogen L-glutamate 622 monoPotassium glutamate Potassium hydrogen L-glutamate 623 Calcium dihydrogen di-L-glutamate Calcium glutamate 627 Guanosine 5’ (disodium phosphate)Sodium guanylate 631 Inosine 5’ (disodium phosphate)Sodium 5’ inosinate 635 Sodium 5’-ribonucleotide 924 Potassium bromate 925 Chlorine 926 Chlorine dioxide

Sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite, E250 and E251, are in this list because there is evidence that links them with producing carcinogenic nitrosamines. But the use of nitrates and nitrites in the preservation of cured meats is long established and prevents, among other things, the growth of the lethal botulinum.