essay about food additives

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Food Additives Essay

Ielts food additives essay.

This food additives essay is basically an  advantages and disadvantages  essay. You need to be careful with the word ‘ outweigh ’ as this often confuses students.

The word ‘outweigh’ can be placed in different ways in the sentence so rather than work it out, it is better to think of it simply as ‘ are there more advantages or disadvantages

This is the question:

Do the dangers derived from the use of chemicals in food production and preservation outweigh the advantages?

'Outweigh' Confusion

Decide what you think there are more of and then state this in the thesis statement without mentioning the word ‘outweigh’ as candidates commonly get mixed up when using this word. 

For example, look at the thesis statement from the food additives essay model answer:

• In my opinion, the potential dangers from this are greater than the benefits we receive.

‘Outweigh’ questions do suggest, though, that there are definitely both advantages AND disadvantages, so you should discuss both.

However, make sure your essay supports your opinion. For example, if you have said there are more disadvantages, it would not make sense to then write mostly about advantages.

As you can see from the model answer, advantages are discussed, but the focus is on the disadvantages as this is what it is stated are greater in the thesis statement.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Food Additives Essay Model Answer

Most foods that are purchased these days in small stores and supermarkets have chemicals in them as these are used to improve production and ensure the food lasts for longer. However, there are concerns that these have harmful effects.  In my opinion, the potential dangers from this are greater than the benefits we receive.

There are several reasons why chemicals are placed in food. Firstly, it is to improve the product to the eye, and this is achieved via the use of colourings which encourage people to purchase food that may otherwise not look tempting to eat. Another reason is to preserve the food. Much of the food we eat would not actually last that long if it were not for chemicals they contain, so again this is an advantage to the companies that sell food as their products have a longer shelf life.

From this evidence, it is clear to me that the main benefits are, therefore, to the companies and not to the customer. Although companies claim these food additives are safe and they have research to support this, the research is quite possibly biased as it comes from their own companies or people with connections to these companies. It is common to read reports these days in the press about possible links to various health issues such as cancer. Food additives have also been linked to problems such as hyperactivity in children.

To conclude, despite the fact that there are benefits to placing chemicals in food, I believe that these principally help the companies but could be a danger to the public. It is unlikely that this practice can be stopped, so food must be clearly labeled and it is my hope that organic products will become more readily available at reasonable prices to all.

(Words 298)

Improve your Health Vocabulary

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Advantages & Disadvantages Essays:

Model IELTS Essay: Are tablets and computers good for children?

This IELTS essay question is about whether tablets and computers are good for children. It is an essay question where you have to assess whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. You should make sure you discuss both sides of the issue.

Peer Pressure and Young People Essay

This peer pressure and young people essay for IELTS is an advantage disadvantage type question, focusing on whether peer pressure is negative or positive.

Internet & Cell Phone Essay: Do the pros outweigh the cons?

In this Internet and Cell Phone Essay you have to discuss the pros and cons of the ways in which people relate to each other socially using phones & internet.

Online Fraud Essay: The Pros and Cons of Personal Information Online

This online fraud essay is about the way in which people place their personal information on the internet and whether this is a positive or negative development.

Age Discrimination at Work Essay: Are new laws needed?

This IELTS Age Discrimination at Work Essay is a real question from the test that appeared in August 2018. View a model answer and get tips and strategies on how to answer the question.

Model Traffic Problems Essay for the IELTS Teset

Traffic problems essay: This is a traffic problems essay and the specific topic is the taxing of car drivers in order to reduce these problems. You are asked to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of introducing such a policy to tackle the issue.

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

In this decreasing house sizes essay for IELTS you have to discuss the pros and cons of smaller house sizes and gardens.

Working From Home Essay: Are there more benefits or drawbacks?

This Working From Home Essay For IELTS was a recent question in the test. Hear you are provided with the question and a model answer to help you prepare for the test.

Playing Computer Games Essay: What are the pros and cons for children?

Computer games essay: This page analyzes a computer games essay and also notes how you can make good use of the question to plan and organize your essay. You have to be careful with this essay as there is a second part to the question that is not about the pros and cons.

Oil and Gas Essay: Should we drill for new sources in remote places?

This IELTS oil and gas essay discusses how demand for these fuels is increasing and thus whether we should find new sources in remote and untouched areas.

Essay Locally Grown Produce: Should people buy from local farms?

IELTS sample essay locally grown produce. A recent question in the exam asked candidates to discuss whether only locally produced food should be consumed.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

IELTS Essay: English as a Global Language

Apr 03, 24 03:49 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The impact of food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products on the human gut microbiome and its fibre fermentation capacity

Konstantinos gerasimidis.

1 Human Nutrition, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, New Lister Building, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, G31 2ER UK

Katie Bryden

Xiufen chen, eleftheria papachristou, anais verney, marine roig, richard hansen.

2 Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Royal Hospital for Children, 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, G51 4TF UK

Ben Nichols

Rodanthi papadopoulou, alison parrett, associated data.

This study investigated the effect of food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products on the gut microbiome and fibre fermentation capacity.

Faecal samples from 13 healthy volunteers were fermented in batch cultures with food additives (maltodextrin, carboxymethyl cellulose, polysorbate-80, carrageenan-kappa, cinnamaldehyde, sodium benzoate, sodium sulphite, titanium dioxide), sweeteners (aspartame-based sweetener, sucralose, stevia) and domestic hygiene products (toothpaste and dishwashing detergent). Short-chain fatty acid production was measured with gas chromatography. Microbiome composition was characterised with 16S rRNA sequencing and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).

Acetic acid increased in the presence of maltodextrin and the aspartame-based sweetener and decreased with dishwashing detergent or sodium sulphite. Propionic acid increased with maltodextrin, aspartame-based sweetener, sodium sulphite and polysorbate-80 and butyrate decreased dramatically with cinnamaldehyde and dishwashing detergent. Branched-chain fatty acids decreased with maltodextrin, aspartame-based sweetener, cinnamaldehyde, sodium benzoate and dishwashing detergent. Microbiome Shannon α-diversity increased with stevia and decreased with dishwashing detergent and cinnamaldehyde. Sucralose, cinnamaldehyde, titanium dioxide, polysorbate-80 and dishwashing detergent shifted microbiome community structure; the effects were most profound with dishwashing detergent ( R 2  = 43.9%, p  = 0.008) followed by cinnamaldehyde ( R 2  = 12.8%, p  = 0.016). Addition of dishwashing detergent and cinnamaldehyde increased the abundance of operational taxonomic unit (OTUs) belonging to Escherichia / Shigella and Klebsiella and decreased members of Firmicutes, including OTUs of Faecalibacterium and Subdoligranulum . Addition of sucralose and carrageenan-kappa also increased the abundance of Escherichia / Shigella and sucralose, sodium sulphite and polysorbate-80 did likewise to Bilophila . Polysorbate-80 decreased the abundance of OTUs of Faecalibacterium and Subdoligranulum . Similar effects were observed with the concentration of major bacterial groups using qPCR. In addition, maltodextrin, aspartame-based sweetener and sodium benzoate promoted the growth of Bifidobacterium whereas sodium sulphite, carrageenan-kappa, polysorbate-80 and dishwashing detergent had an inhibitory effect.

Conclusions

This study improves understanding of how additives might affect the gut microbiota composition and its fibre metabolic activity with many possible implications for human health.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00394-019-02161-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction

A great amount of research has investigated the role of dietary nutrients, or dietary patterns in general, on the gut microbiome. Dietary fibre has attracted the most interest, mainly due to the inability of the human body to utilise it, and the capability of the gut microbiome to ferment it using a broad spectrum of enzymes not encoded in the human genome cannot encode [ 1 ]. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) are the end-product of fibre fermentation and the SCFA produced are dependent on the host’s diet and microbiome composition. Species within Bacteroides produce primarily acetic acid and propionic acid [ 2 , 3 ]; members of Clostridium leptum cluster produce butyric acid from fibre fermentation and Bifidobacterium produces lactate and acetic acid from carbohydrate fermentation [ 4 ]. The branch chain fatty acids (BCFA) iso-butyric acid and iso-valeric acid are produced from protein breakdown, particularly in the absence of fermentable carbohydrate. Yet, the human gut microenvironment dynamics are more complex and characterised by an extensive degree of inter-species synergy and cross-feeding. It is, therefore, important to study the interactions between diet and the gut microbiome in the context of the entire microbial community and not as microbes in isolation. SCFA are critical bacterial products involved, not only locally in gut health, but in whole-body homeostasis. Along with an increased microbial diversity, high butyric acid concentration in the gut has been used as an indicator of healthy status of the microbiome. In contrast, reduced diversity, low luminal production of SCFA and dysbiosis have been proposed as primary events of inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes and obesity [ 5 – 8 ].

Our diet has evolved enormously and rapidly over the last century, in parallel with food preservation and processing and increased use of industrialised and domestic hygiene products. While food industrialisation has protected humanity from infectious diseases, the secondary effect this may have on gut microbiome-dependent host health, and the net impact on the incidence of non-communicable diseases has only relatively recently been considered. A Mediterranean diet with increased consumption of legumes, cereals, fruit and vegetables, and its health-promoting effects, influences the gut microbiome [ 9 ]. The Western diet, which includes food additives and preservatives, has contrastingly been associated with non-communicable diseases [ 10 ]. Food additives and artificial sweeteners have become increasingly prevalent within our diet, with more than 50% of available food in UK households being ultra-processed [ 11 ]. While food additives are evaluated rigorously for their effects on the host, health testing of food additives fails to include their effect on the human gut microbiome and by proxy long-term host health [ 12 ]. Recent studies in animals have indicated that food additives can have adverse effects on colonic and cardiovascular health, mediated by the gut microbiome and changes in the gut mucus layer. It has been shown that food emulsifiers, such as polysorbates and carboxymethyl cellulose can increase intestinal permeability, alter microbiota composition, promote Escherichia coli translocation across the epithelium and in M cells in-vitro causing gut inflammation [ 10 , 13 ]. Likewise, the body of evidence on artificial sweeteners indicates that there are adverse metabolic outcomes in rodents owing to the onset of microbial dysbiosis [ 14 – 16 ]. Cumulative ingestion of residual products from regular use of domestic hygiene products may influence the human gut microbiome and, by extension, the health of the host. In epidemiological research, increased use of dishwashers, which reduce residual domestic detergent on dishware and consequent accidental ingestion, was associated with a decrease in cardiovascular disease [ 17 ]. Although for some food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products a large amount will be digested or degraded in the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract, residual amounts can still reach the colon. Others, like carrageenans and carboxylmethyl cellulose will reach the colon in similar amounts to those ingested.

It is, therefore, important to study the effect of food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products may have on gut microbiota composition and its fibre fermentation capacity, the most important bacterial function for host health. There is currently limited knowledge on the effect of additives on the human gut microbiota, and research to date has predominantly occurred in animal models with a paucity of evidence in humans. This preclinical study investigated the effect that commonly consumed food additives, including emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products might have on the healthy human microbiota composition and its fibre fermentation capacity using in-vitro batch faecal fermentations.

Subjects and methods

Participants.

Thirteen young healthy adults (females, n  = 7; mean, (SD); age: 24.8, (2.2) years; body mass index (BMI) 21.9, (2.8) kg/m 2 ) donated a single faecal sample. Participants who had used antibiotics within the three months prior were not eligible to participate. Participants provided informed consent. The study received ethical approval by the Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee, at the University of Glasgow.

In-vitro batch faecal fermentation studies

Faecal samples were collected in disposable containers and processed within one hour of defecation. From each donor, a faecal slurry (16% w/v) was prepared using 16 g of faecal matter homogenised in 100 ml Sorensen’s buffer pH 7, boiled and degassed under oxygen-free nitrogen stream. The faecal slurry was strained through 30-denier nylon stockings to remove coarse material and remained in suspension by continuous agitation using a magnetic stirrer. In a 150 ml flask, 5 ml of 16% faecal slurry were added along with 42 ml of in-house prepared fermentation medium, 2 ml of reducing solution, 400 mg of fibre substrate (see below) and one of the additives in testing. Assuming that an average person has a faecal output of 120 g/day [ 18 ] and a recommended intake of the fibre of 30 g/day, this would be equivalent to roughly double the amount of fibre available for fermentation per g of faeces.

The fermentation medium was prepared in-house (1 litre). It consisted of 225 ml of macromineral solution (0.04 M Na 2 HPO 4 , 0.046 M KH 2 PO 4 , 0.002 M MgSO 4 ·7H 2 O), 225 ml buffer solution (0.051 M NH 4 HCO 3 and 0.417 M NaHCO 3 ), 112.5 μl of micromineral solution (0.898 M CaCl 2 ·2H 2 O, 0.505 M MnCl 2 ·4H 2 O, 0.042 M CoCl 2 ·6H 2 O, and 0.296 M FeCl 3 ·6H 2 O), 1.125 ml of 0.1% resazurin solution, 450 ml of 5 mg/mL Tryptone, 100 mg of mucin from porcine stomach, and 76 mg of mixed bile extract from porcine. Once the solution was made, it was boiled, degassed under oxygen-free nitrogen, and adjusted to pH 7 to mimic the distal intestinal environment. Reducing solution (50 ml) was made up of 2 ml of 1 M NaOH, 312.5 mg of cysteine hydrochloride and 312.5 mg of Na 2 S·9H 2 O.

The fibre substrate was made up of 100 mg of apple pectin (SIGMA, Pectin, from apple), 100 mg of raftilose (Beneo™, Orafti P95), 100 mg of α-cellulose (SIGMA™, α-CELLULOSE), and 100 mg of high resistant maize starch (National StarchTM, HI-MAIZE[TM] 260). We chose these fibres as indicative of food consumed in the UK diet [ 19 ].

Eight food additives [maltodextrin, carboxymethyl cellulose, polysorbate-80, carrageenan-kappa, sodium benzoate, sodium sulphite, titanium dioxide, cinnamaldehyde], three artificial sweeteners [aspartame-based sweetener, sucralose, stevia], and two domestic hygiene products [toothpaste, dishwashing detergent] were used. Test amounts were based on the acceptable daily intake or estimated daily consumption, assuming an average male adult weighing 75 kg (Online Resource 1). Where the estimated daily consumption was relatively large (maltodextrin, carboxymethyl cellulose, polysorbate-80, carrageenan-kappa, aspartame-based sweetener), the amount tested was standardised to 500 mg. Likewise, where estimated daily consumption was relatively small (stevia, cinnamaldehyde, sodium benzoate, sodium sulphite, sucralose), the amount tested was 50% of the acceptable daily intake. For the toothpaste and the dishwashing detergent, the amount tested was 100% of estimated accidental intake (Online Resource 1). Selection of additives was based on previous research which implicated them in the onset of non-communicable diseases including inflammatory bowel disease and metabolic syndrome [ 10 , 20 , 21 ].

Thirteen fermentation flasks, one for each of the additives above, and a non-additive blank (hereafter referred to as control) were degassed under oxygen-free nitrogen stream and incubated in a shaking water bath at 37 °C at 60 strokes/min for 24 h. A baseline sample was collected from the control prior to incubation start and from all other additives and the control after 24 h of incubation. Aliquots of fermentation slurry for SCFA analysis were collected and stored in 3:1 ratio with 1 M NaOH at − 20 °C until analysis. Fermentation slurry aliquots were stored at -80 °C and total DNA was extracted within a month of collection.

Measurement of net SCFA production

The SCFA (acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, valeric acid, caproic acid, heptanoic acid, and caprylic acid) and BCFA (iso-butyric acid and iso-valeric acid) were extracted from acidified slurries three times in total using diethyl ether. Extracts were analysed using Gas Chromatography (Agilent 7890A) with flame ionisation detector, as described previously [ 22 , 23 ]. Each of the SCFA was quantified against calibration curves plotted using authentic external standards [acetic acid (185.8 mM), propionic acid (144.5 mM), butyric acid (114.2 mM), valeric acid (83.4 mM), caproic acid (52.6 mM), heptanoic acid (65.8 mM), caprylic acid (53.2 mM), isobutyric acid (97.3 mM), and isovaleric acid (87.0 mM) all stored in 2 M NaOH and using 2-ethylbutyric acid (74.0 mM) as internal standard. All samples from the same participant were analysed in the same run to minimise inter-assay variation. Each sample was measured twice, and in all cases the average concentration was calculated unless the % co-efficient of variation was greater than 10% in which case a third replicate was analysed. Concentration of SCFA (μmol) is reported per volume (ml) of fermentation slurry.

Extraction of genomic DNA from fermentation slurries

In a subset of 8 participants, 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing of the human gut microbiome and quantification of total and 5 dominant bacterial groups were performed. Samples were thawed at room temperature and after centrifugation at 12,000  g for 5 min, genomic DNA from the resultant pellet was extracted using the DNeasy Powersoil Kit. The purity and concentration of extracted DNA was quantified using the NanoDrop™ 1000 and Qubit.

Quantification of dominant bacterial groups of the human gut microbiome

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) was performed using TaqMan™ chemistry and quantified against serial dilution of standards prepared from pure bacterial cultures as described previously [ 22 ]. Total bacteria and 5 different bacterial groups were targeted (Bacteroides/Prevotella, Bifidobacterium , Blautia coccoides , Clostridium leptum and E. coli ) (Online Resource 2). The PCR reaction consisted of 7.5 µl Taqman™ gene expression master mix, 2.25 µl nuclease-free water, 0.5 µl bovine serum albumin, 1.5 µl forward primer (9 µM), 1.5 µl reverse primer (9 µM) and 0.75 µl probe (2.5 µM). qPCR was performed in triplicates and averages calculated for replicates where Ct difference was less than 0.2 Ct.

Characterisation of global microbiome with 16S rRNA sequencing

Sequencing of the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was performed on the MiSeq (Illumina, Essex, UK) platform using 2 × 250 bp paired-end reads [ 23 , 24 ].

Bioinformatics

To enable analysis of the gut microbiome, 97% operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were generated from the 16S rRNA sequences using an adaptation of the VSEARCH pipeline ( https://github.com/torognes/vsearch/wiki/VSEARCH-pipeline ) [ 25 ]. Quality filtering was performed on the combined paired reads with a maximum allowed expected error rate of 0.5 base pairs per read. Sequences longer than 275 bp and shorter than 225 bp were also filtered out. The next steps involved dereplication, removal of singleton sequences and preclustering at 98%. Chimeras were removed using the VSEARCH implementation of the UCHIME de-novo algorithm followed by the UCHIME reference-based method in conjunction with the 'Gold' ChimeraSlayer reference dataset [ 26 , 27 ]. Finally, OTUs were assigned by clustering the remaining sequences at 97% and taxonomically classified using a naive Bayesian classifier method implemented in the dada2 R package [ 28 ].

Statistical analysis

Data are presented as medians and interquartile (Q1–Q3) range. One-sample Wilcoxon (non-normally distributed data) or paired t test (normally distributed data) was used to calculate the difference between each additive and the control. Microbiome analysis using the 16S rRNA gene sequences was carried out in R version 3.5.3. The alpha diversity measures (i.e. rarefied richness, Chao1 richness estimate, Shannon diversity index, and Pielou's evenness) were all calculated using the vegan package [ 29 ]. Permutation ANOVA results were also generated using vegan on both Bray–Curtis and UniFrac distance matrices. In the case of UniFrac the phylogenetic tree was generated using FastTree 2 [ 30 ]. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) was performed with the phyloseq package [ 31 ] and was used to visualise overall community structure in the form of ordination plots. Differentially abundant taxa were found using paired t-tests on log-relative abundances. Only significant differences greater than 0.5 logs are reported. Significance was set at 0.05.

Effect of additives on net SCFA production

Figure  1 displays the net production of SCFA and Table ​ Table1 1 the median of the difference in their concentration with respect to the 24 h control, for each additive. Fermentation of the control for 24 h increased the production of total SCFA (0 h vs 24 h; 1.73 vs 45.36, µmol/ml; p  < 0.0001) (Fig.  1 ). Addition of maltodextrin and aspartame-based sweetener produced the highest median concentration of total SCFA whereas the dishwashing detergent the lowest (Fig.  1 ). Considering the individual SCFA, maltodextrin ( p  < 0.001) and aspartame-based sweetener ( p  < 0.001) increased the production of acetic acid whilst in contrast, dishwashing detergent ( p  < 0.001) and sodium sulphite ( p  = 0.036) caused a significant decrease in acetic acid production compared with the control (Fig.  1 ). Production of propionic acid was increased when maltodextrin ( p  = 0.014), polysorbate-80 ( p  = 0.044), sodium sulphite ( p  = 0.011) or the aspartame-based sweetener ( p  = 0.034) were present (Fig.  1 ). Addition of cinnamaldehyde ( p  = 0.006) or dishwashing detergent ( p  = 0.012) significantly decreased the production of butyric acid when compared with the control; a similar non-significant effect ( p  = 0.052) was also observed for sodium sulphite (Fig.  1 ). Compared with the control, sucralose ( p  = 0.025) and polysorbate-80 ( p  = 0.003) significantly increased production of valeric acid whereas when maltodextrin ( p  = 0.002), cinnamaldehyde (0.014), aspartame-based sweetener ( p  = 0.002) and the dishwashing detergent ( p  = 0.002) were added a significant decrease was observed (Fig.  1 ). There was a significant decrease in the production of caproic acid when maltodextrin ( p  = 0.012), cinnamaldehyde ( p  = 0.021), sodium sulphite ( p  = 0.014), aspartame-based sweetener ( p  = 0.002) or dishwashing detergent ( p  = 0.010) were added (Fig.  1 ). Caprylic acid significantly increased in the presence of maltodextrin ( p  = 0.006), polysorbate-80 ( p  = 0.002), aspartame-based sweetener ( p  = 0.009) and dishwashing detergent (0.035) (Fig.  1 ). With regard to the BCFA, there was a significant decrease in the production of isobutyric acid when maltodextrin ( p  = 0.002), cinnamaldehyde ( p  = 0.025), sodium butyrate ( p  = 0.014), aspartame-based sweetener ( p  < 0.001) or dishwashing detergent ( p  = 0.002) were added (Fig.  1 ). Similar effects were also seen for isovaleric acid [maltodextrin ( p  = 0.002), cinnamaldehyde ( p  = 0.041), sodium benzoate ( p  = 0.004), aspartame-based sweetener ( p  < 0.001) and dishwashing detergent ( p  = 0.002)] (Fig.  1 ). Carboxymethyl cellulose, toothpaste, carrageenan-kappa, titanium dioxide, sodium benzoate and stevia had no effect on the production of any SCFA or BCFA. The effect of each of the substrates on the proportional ratio or SCFA are displayed in Online Resource 3.

Baseline and net production of total and individual short chain fatty acids (μmol/ml) following 24 h batch faecal fermentation of fibre with food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products. Red filling boxplot indicates significant difference ( p  < 0.05) compared with the CTRL (displayed with grey filling boxplot); 0H baseline, CTRL control, SUCR sucralose, STEV stevia, ASP aspartame based sweetener, MDX maltodextrin, CNMD cinnamaldehyde, SS sodium sulphite, SB sodium benzoate, TIO titanium dioxide, CGN carrageenan-kappa, P80 polysorbate-80, CMC carboxymethyl cellulose, TP toothpaste, DET detergent

Difference (from non-additive control), in the net production of total and individual short chain fatty acids (μmol/ml) following 24 h batch faecal fermentation of fibre with food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products

Data are presented as in µmol/ml of faecal slurry; 1-sample Wilcoxon test was used for non-parametric data and a paired t- test for parametric data (indicated with asterisk); with bold fonts are displayed statistically significant differences ( p  < 0.05)

SUCR sucralose, MDX maltodextrin, STEV stevia, CNMD cinnamaldehyde, CMC carboxymethyl cellulose, P80 polysorbate 80, CGN carrageenan, SB sodium benzoate, SS sodium sulphite, TIO titanium dioxide, ASP aspartame- based sweetener, TP toothpaste, DET detergent

Effect of additives on microbiome diversity indices

Compared to the control group, the addition of dishwashing detergent significantly decreased all metrics of microbiome α-diversity, including OTU richness, evenness and the Shannon diversity index (Fig.  2 ). Incubation of faecal microbiota with cinnamaldehyde decreased the Shannon diversity index whereas an effect in the opposite direction was provoked by stevia. The effects of stevia and cinnamaldehyde on Shannon diversity index were due to an effect on microbiome community evenness rather than an impact on OTU richness (Fig.  2 ). There were no other significant effects on α-diversity indices for the rest of the substrates.

Microbiome α-diversity indices before and following 24 h batch faecal fermentation of fibre with food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products. 0H baseline, CTRL control, SUCR sucralose, STEV stevia, ASP aspartame based sweetener, MDX maltodextrin, CNMD cinnamaldehyde, SS sodium sulphite, SB sodium benzoate, TIO titanium dioxide, CGN carrageenan-kappa, P80 polysorbate-80, CMC carboxymethyl cellulose, TP toothpaste, DET detergent

Effect of additives on microbiome community structure

Addition of sucralose, cinnamaldehyde, titanium dioxide, polysorbate-80 and dishwashing detergent induced significant shifts in microbiome community structure (β-diversity) using the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity index (Fig.  3 ). The most pronounced effects were from dishwashing detergent followed by cinnamaldehyde, which explained 43.9% ( p  = 0.008) and 12.8% ( p  = 0.016) of the variance in microbiome community structure, respectively. The effects of sucralose ( R 2  = 5.6%, p  = 0.023), polysorbate-80 ( R 2  = 3.6%, p  = 0.023) and titanium dioxide ( R 2  = 4.5%, p  = 0.023) were significant but less pronounced. When we looked at the effects of food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products on their microbiome community structure using UniFrac distances, which consider OTU phylogenetic relatedness, a significant effect was observed for cinnamaldehyde ( R 2  = 20.6%, p  = 0.016) and dishwashing detergent ( R 2  = 63.4%, p  = 0.008) (Fig.  4 ). The effect of dishwashing liquid and cinnamaldehyde on microbiome community structure dominated that of inter-subject variation (Figs.  3 , ​ ,4 4 ).

Microbiome community structure (β diversity) using the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity index before and following 24 h batch faecal fermentation of fibre with food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products. 0H baseline, CTRL control, SUCR sucralose, STEV stevia, ASP aspartame based sweetener, MDX maltodextrin, CNMD cinnamaldehyde, SS sodium sulphite, SB sodium benzoate, TIO titanium dioxide, CGN carrageenan-kappa, P80 polysorbate-80, CMC carboxymethyl cellulose, TP toothpaste, DET detergent

Microbiome community structure (β diversity) using the UniFrac unweighted distances before and following 24 h batch faecal fermentation of fibre with food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products. 0H baseline, CTRL control, SUCR sucralose, STEV stevia, ASP aspartame based sweetener, MDX maltodextrin, CNMD cinnamaldehyde, SS sodium sulphite, SB sodium benzoate, TIO titanium dioxide, CGN carrageenan-kappa, P80 polysorbate-80, CMC carboxymethyl cellulose, TP toothpaste, DET detergent

Effect of additives on taxon relative abundance

In accordance with the significant shifts observed on α and β diversity, major effects in taxon relative abundance were observed with the fermentation of fibre in the presence of cinnamaldehyde and dishwashing detergent (Fig.  5 ). Addition of dishwashing detergent increased the relative abundance of OTU belonging to Escherichia / Shigella and Klebsiella and in parallel decreased the relative abundance of 33 other OTUs, the majority of which belonged to Firmicutes. A similar increase of an OTU of Escherichia / Shigella was observed for cinnamaldehyde whereas 9 other OTUs, including three of Faecalibacterium and four of Subdoligranulum , all important butyrate producers, significantly decreased (Fig.  5 ). The relative abundance of Escherichia / Shigella also increased in the presence of sucralose and carrageenan-kappa. Similarly, a species of Bilophila increased with the addition of sucralose, sodium sulphite and polysorbate-80. Except for dishwashing detergent and cinnamaldehyde, major declines in the abundance of OTUs of Faecalibacterium and Subdoligranulum were observed using polysorbate-80 as substrate. There was no effect on the addition of maltodextrin, stevia, titanium dioxide and toothpaste on OTU relative abundance (Fig.  5 ). Similar effects were observed at genus and at the family level (Online Resource 4).

The effect of food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products on bacterial OTU relative abundance. 0H baseline, CTRL control, SUCR sucralose, STEV stevia, ASP aspartame based sweetener, MDX maltodextrin, CNMD cinnamaldehyde, SS sodium sulphite, SB sodium benzoate, TIO titanium dioxide, CGN carrageenan-kappa, P80 polysorbate-80, CMC carboxymethyl cellulose, TP toothpaste, DET detergent, log2(FC) log2 fold change

Effect of additives on the growth of major bacterial groups

Figure  6 shows the absolute concentration and Table ​ Table2 2 the median difference of 16S rRNA gene copy number, between the various additives and the control, for each bacterial group tested. Regardless of the type of additive tested, the concentration of total bacteria significantly increased after 24 h fermentation and Bacteroides/Prevotella and C. leptum cluster typically represented the two most dominant groups (Fig.  6 ). Among the additives, the addition of carrageenan-kappa ( p  = 0.034) and dishwashing detergent ( p  = 0.002), significantly decreased the concentration of total bacteria in comparison with the control group (Fig.  6 ). Similarly, maltodextrin ( p  = 0.021) and sodium benzoate ( p  < 0.001) significantly decreased the concentration of E. coli whereas addition of cinnamaldehyde ( p  = 0.014), sodium sulphite ( p  = 0.038) or dishwashing detergent ( p  < 0.001) promoted their growth (Fig.  6 ). The growth of species belonging to C. leptum significantly decreased in the presence of cinnamaldehyde ( p  = 0.003), polysorbate-80 ( p  = 0.001), titanium dioxide ( p  = 0.029) and dishwashing detergent ( p  < 0.001) and it was also the case for Bacteroides/Prevotella, when aspartame-based sweetener ( p  = 0.048) or dishwashing detergent were added ( p  = 0.001) (Fig.  6 ). Bifidobacterium growth increased from the control with the addition of maltodextrin ( p  = 0.002), sodium benzoate ( p  = 0.008) and aspartame-based sweetener ( p  = 0.005) (Fig.  6 ). In contrast, a significant inhibitory effect on Bifidobacterium was observed with polysorbate-80 ( p  = 0.036), carrageenan-kappa ( p  = 0.003), sodium sulphite ( p  = 0.013) or dishwashing detergent ( p  < 0.001) (Fig.  6 ). When compared with the control group, cinnamaldehyde ( p  = 0.003), carrageenan-kappa ( p  = 0.014), sodium sulphite ( p  = 0.001) and dishwashing detergent ( p  = 0.014) significantly inhibited the growth of the B. coccoides group whereas maltodextrin ( p  = 0.002) and aspartame-based sweetener ( p  = 0.009) significantly promoted this (Fig.  6 ). Stevia, sucralose, carboxymethyl cellulose and toothpaste had no significant effects on the growth of these broad bacterial populations (Fig.  6 ).

Concentration of total and major bacterial groups (number of 16S rRNA gene copies/ml) before and following 24 h batch faecal fermentation of fibre with food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products. Red filling boxplot indicates significant difference ( p  < 0.05) compared with the CTRL (displayed with grey filling boxplot); 0H baseline, CTRL control, SUCR sucralose, STEV stevia, ASP aspartame based sweetener, MDX maltodextrin, CNMD cinnamaldehyde, SS sodium sulphite, SB sodium benzoate, TIO titanium dioxide, CGN carrageenan-kappa, P80 polysorbate-80, CMC carboxymethyl cellulose, TP toothpaste, DET detergent

Difference (from control) in the concentration of total and major bacterial groups (number of 16S rRNA gene copies/ml) following 24 h batch faecal fermentation of fibre with food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products

Data are presented in log 10 of 16S rRNA gene copy number/ml of faecal slurry; 1-sample Wilcoxon test was used for non-parametric data and a paired t-test for parametric data (indicated with asterisk); with bold fonts are displayed statistically significant differences ( p  < 0.05)

SUCR sucralose, MDX maltodextrin, STEV stevia, CNMD cinnamaldehyde, CMC carboxymethyl cellulose, P80 polysorbate 80, CGN carrageenan, SB sodium benzoate, SS sodium sulphite, TIO titanium dioxide, ASP aspartame-based sweetener, TP toothpaste, DET detergent

It has become increasingly accepted that a diverse gut microbiome with high production of SCFA, particularly butyric acid, is an independent biomarker of host health. It is also known that diet influences the gut microbiome structure and function, including its fibre fermentation capacity [ 32 ]. However, relatively little is known about what effect that food additives, artificial sweeteners and accidental exposure to domestic hygiene products might have on the gut microbiome. As our diet has become more industrialised and is expected to become even more so to sustain food availability, it is important to understand the beneficial or detrimental effect food additives may have on the gut microbiome, and by extension to host health, to guide current and future use.

This study measured the effect of thirteen commonly used food additives, artificial sweeteners, and domestic hygiene products on the healthy gut microbiome composition and its fermentation capacity using in-vitro human microbiome batch fermentations. Changes in the ability of the gut microbiome to ferment fibre and produce SCFA and quantitative changes in major bacterial groups were measured and the summary results of this study are presented in Fig.  7 . In addition to these analyses, the global microbiome composition and community structure were characterised using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing as displayed in Fig.  8 . Six of the additives affected the production of SCFA, five influenced the global microbiome community structure and nine altered the concentration of dominant microbial groups. Only toothpaste, stevia and carboxymethyl cellulose showed no or minimal effects on the broad composition and fermentation capacity of the faecal microbiome. However, for the additives for which an effect was observed, changes in microbiome composition and SCFA concentrations varied considerably among them; in terms of both the microorganisms or SCFA affected as well as the direction of this effect. Thus, this study highlights that the gut microbiome is modifiable in different ways by different additives. These variable effects of various food additives also suggest that their impact on the gut microbiome needs to be studied separately for each, in combination with each other, and in addition to other macronutrients, micronutrients and fibre in our diet.

Heatmap illustrating the summary effects of food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products on net production of total and individual short chain fatty acids and concentration of total and major bacterial groups. 0H baseline, CTRL control, SUCR sucralose, STEV stevia, ASP aspartame based sweetener, MDX maltodextrin, CNMD cinnamaldehyde, SS sodium sulphite, SB sodium benzoate, TIO titanium dioxide, CGN carrageenan-kappa, P80 polysorbate-80, CMC carboxymethyl cellulose, TP toothpaste, DET detergent . Red indicates a decrease and green an increase in the concentration of short chain fatty acids or bacterial groups

Heatmap illustrating the effects of food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products on mean relative abundance of the top 50 dominant bacterial OTUs across all samples. 0H baseline, CTRL control, SUCR sucralose, STEV stevia, ASP aspartame based sweetener, MDX maltodextrin, CNMD cinnamaldehyde, SS sodium sulphite, SB sodium benzoate, TIO titanium dioxide, CGN carrageenan-kappa, P80 polysorbate-80, CMC carboxymethyl cellulose, TP toothpaste, DET detergent, OTU Operational Taxonomic Unit

There is increasing interest in the effect of the food industrialisation on human health and particularly on non-communicable disease, such as inflammatory bowel disease and diabetes [ 10 , 20 ]. In previous studies, these effects were associated directly or indirectly with the microbiome of the large bowel. A food additive can affect gut homeostasis by influencing either the gut microbiome, the mucus layer or both. Carrageenan-kappa, upon consumption, has been associated with an increased prevalence of intestinal lesions in animal models [ 33 ], highlighting a detrimental effect on the mucosal barrier. Recent evidence from experiments in mice shows that this effect may be mediated by changes in the abundance of Akkermansia muciniphila , a potent anti-inflammatory bacterium. The results of the current study show that similar effects were observed with inhibition in the growth of Bifidobacterium and B. coccoides cluster, members of which have beneficial effects for the host [ 34 ]. Similarly, the dietary emulsifiers carboxymethyl cellulose and polysorbate-80 have been proposed to directly alter human microbiome composition and ex-vivo gene expression, potentiating intestinal inflammation [ 21 ]. Although in our current study no effect of carboxymethyl cellulose was seen on the fermentation capacity or on shifts in major bacterial groups, polysorbate-80 decreased the growth of Bifidobacterium and C. leptum and the relative abundance of other Firmicutes as confirmed by the results of both qPCR and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Inorganic sulphite salts are frequently used to stop fermentation in wine and beer as well as antioxidants in food. This bacteriostatic effect of sodium sulphite was observed for members of the genus Bifidobacterium and the cluster B. coccoides and this effect may give a growth advantage to E. coli and Bilophila wadsworthia which gain energy through sulphite respiration [ 35 ]. Irwin et al. have previously described the bactericidal effects of sodium sulphite on probiotic-type bacteria, common members of the human gut microbiome [ 36 ]. The exact opposite effects were observed for the growth of Bifidobacterium , the cluster B. coccoides and E. coli when either maltodextrin or the aspartame-based sweetener was present. This is likely to be because maltodextrin is an artificially produced glucose polymer which, if not absorbed in the small intestine, has prebiotic properties in the colon [ 37 ]. Therefore, the increase in the probiotic genus Bifidobacterium and B. coccoides and the corresponding decrease in E. coli is most likely due to the fact that the former two use maltodextrin for growth [ 38 , 39 ] instigating fermentation, production of acetic acid and creating an acidic environment in which E. coli growth is suppressed. Interestingly, changes in the absolute concentration of these three dominant bacterial groups, quantified with qPCR, were not in parallel the absence of effects observed using next generation sequencing. Sodium benzoate has been shown to decrease plasma ammonium levels by reducing glycine metabolism to treat patients with urea-cycle-disorder and acute hyperammonaemia [ 40 , 41 ]. Use of sodium benzoate in this study increased the beneficial Bifidobacterium but reduced E. coli and the concentration of BCFA, suggesting that protein fermentation and potentially production of ammonia from bacterial metabolism in the gut is diminished. Similar to maltodextrin, these effects were not observed with in-depth characterisation of the microbiome using 16S rRNA sequencing. However, discordant results are to be expected as qPCR provides an absolute quantification of broader groups of bacteria and 16S rRNA sequencing offers proportional representation of the overall microbial community. The aspartame-based sweetener we used in this study was rich in maltodextrin in addition to, aspartame and acesulflame potassium. This, therefore, prevented the study of aspartame in isolation. However, the absence of major differences between the maltodextrin and the aspartame-based sweetener suggests that most of the effect seen on the gut microbiome comes from maltodextrin with no major contributions of aspartame and acesulfame potassium; at least in the amount we tested in this experiment which equals 8% of the estimated daily intake which might carry-over to the gut.

Crohn’s disease has been characterised by a gut microbiome with a reduced number of Firmicutes, such as species belonging to C. leptum, Bifidobacterium and Bacteroidetes and an increase in Proteobacteria, particularly E. coli strains with adherent and invasive properties [ 22 , 24 ]. Interestingly, the addition of cinnamaldehyde, a cinnamon ingredient, or dishwashing detergent increased the E. coli and decreased the C. leptum and B. coccoides growth. A similar effect was also observed for polysorbate-80 with a diminished abundance of butyrate-producing species and increase in a species of Bilophila , a hydrogen sulphide producer implicated in colitis in IL-10 knockout mice [ 42 ]. Assuming that the gut microbial dysbiosis seen in patients with Crohn’s disease is a primary defect of the disease, and such species are implicated in disease pathogenesis, these findings suggest that consumption of cinnamon-containing food, polysorbate-80 and accidental ingestion of residual detergent on crockery and utensils may exacerbate dysbiosis and influence disease outcomes. Dishwashing detergent contains surfactants, which lower the surface tension, potentially causing degradation of mucus layer and the mucosal barrier to break-down thus potentially affecting microbial composition [ 43 ] particularly microbes which are adjacent to epithelial cells. Many Firmicutes like Faecalibacterium and Subdoligranulum are butyric acid-producing bacteria; hence the diminishing production of butyric acid here coincides with the decline in the concentration and abundance of these taxa with the addition of cinnamaldehyde, and dishwashing detergent. Firmicutes constitute a large proportion of the bacteria in the human gut microbiome, therefore, a significant change to the composition and functionality found within this phylum could, in theory, have detrimental consequences to the host. Butyric acid, for example, is the preferable energy substrate for the colonocytes and regulates regulatory T cells which play an important role in cell-mediated immunity [ 44 ]. A similar effect on C. leptum was seen for polysorbate-80 and a modest one for titanium dioxide. Collectively this evidence proposes that these additives could exacerbate the microbial dysbiosis seen in inflammatory bowel disease.

This study looked at the effect of food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products on the gut microbiome composition and fibre fermentation capacity in healthy human individuals, using batch fermentations with human faecal inoculum; thus, complementing previous research in animals. Although in the current study the SCFA and microbiome composition profile of the control, following 24 h fermentation, are in accordance to those that occur in the human gut, batch fermentation is a snapshot and not an exact simulant of human gut physiology and its complex dynamics [ 45 , 46 ]. This may explain some of the discrepancies between the findings of this study and previous research [ 10 ]. Batch faecal fermentations do, however, provide crucial preclinical data, under well-controlled experimental conditions. They enable exploration of various additives at the same time and the direct effect on the gut microbiome in isolation of the host effect; hence bridging the gap between animal research and human trials. The data generated from this study offer important insights on where future research on additives should be directed, using animal experiments and human randomised controlled trials. In our case, this may be relevant for cinnamaldehyde, polysorbate-80, sodium sulphite, sodium benzoate, sucralose and dishwashing detergent but not for carboxymethyl cellulose, and stevia. While maltodextrin and the aspartame-based sweetener influenced the gut microbiome composition and production of SCFA, they did not induce dysbiosis and their effect might be considered favourable by inhibiting the growth of E. coli , thus promoting Bifidobacterium and correspondingly increasing the production of acetic acid and propionic acid. This bifidogenic effect of maltodextrin, an artificial glucose polymer has been observed previously too [ 47 ]. These findings are in contrast to evidence suggesting that maltodextrin induces dysbiosis promoting gut inflammation [ 10 ]. Such discrepancies might be explained by broad differences in the methodology applied among studies and the fact that in the current study we explored the effect of maltodextrin on the gut microbiome in isolation of the host and gut physiology. However, maltodextrin is the main source of carbohydrate in proprietary feeds used for the amelioration of gut inflammation with exclusive enteral nutrition in active Crohn’s disease [ 48 , 49 ]. This reproducible clinical evidence challenges our current perceptions on the role of maltodextrin on gut inflammation.

This study contributes to the limited knowledge on the effect of food additives, artificial sweeteners and domestic hygiene products on the human gut microbiome composition and fibre fermentation capacity. We have shown that the presence of certain additives changed the microbial composition, and this became similar to the gut microbiome seen in individuals with either inflammatory bowel disease or obesity. For other additives, their effects were counterintuitive and opposite to animal research, implicating them in gut inflammation, and by proxy to human inflammatory bowel disease [ 10 , 50 ]. This study underpins the importance of evaluating each additive separately and not grouped by their functional class. Here, we lay the groundwork for future research into individual additives on the gut microbiome composition and its fermentation capacity measured over a longer time period both in public health research and in the context of therapeutic interventions in patients with established dysbiosis, including patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Dr Ben Nichols was funded by a grant from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/R006539/1).

Compliance with ethical standards

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Food Additives

Food additives such as salt, sugar and vinegar have been traditionally used for the preservation of foods. A majority of food additives that are used to preserve foods are believed to be safe but the possibility of carcinogenic and toxic qualities of food additives cannot be ruled out or ignored. Certain food additives are believed to have side-effects in adults and most importantly in children, such as increased hyperactivity, allergies, asthma problems, and migraines.

A food additive is any substance that is used in or added to food in order to preserve its quality, taste, color or any other feature which may be destroyed over a period of time due to preservation (The Food Labeling Regulations, 1980). Food additives may or may not be foods and are sometimes chemical in nature which aid the prevention of the disintegration of the food and improve its shelf life (The Food Labeling Regulations, 1980).

There are three types of food additives, cosmetic food additives, preservatives and the processing aids of foods (The London Food Commission, 1988). Sugar and salt are the two most commonly used additives in foods and the excess use of the two must be avoided. Other commonly used additives are baking soda, yeast and vanilla. Food additives may be natural or artificial depending upon the sources from which they are obtained.

If the additives are obtained from natural sources such as corn or soybean to provide consistency to foods such as soups, then the additives are natural. Even coloring additives may be naturally obtained from vegetables such as beetroots. However, whether an additive has been naturally or synthetically obtained does not validate the safety of the additive.

Additives may be added to foods for several reasons. Not only do they help in increasing the shelf life of foods, they also improve the color, texture and consistency of several foods, for instance soups not only look better but also taste better with the addition of starches, to enhance the thickness and consistency.

In some cases, the additives also improve the nutritional value of the foods, for example, milk is enriched with vitamins and minerals to increase the nutritional content. It is crucial to preserve the foods for later use, if they are not consumed immediately. The use of additives prevents spoilage of foods due to bacterial contaminations, thereby preventing several food-borne diseases.

Although food additives are of crucial importance in today’s world, when there is a reduction in farming related activities and increased emphasis on storage of foods for later use, the several harmful effects of additives in food cannot be ignored.

There are certain additives that do augment the quality of food, but the presence of some chemical additives and colors to food, not only reduces the nutritional content, and in some cases causes several side-effects which to the human body.

There is a long list of food preservatives used currently. These may or may not be safe to use and are listed below.

Acesulfame-K, Alginate propylene glycol alginate, alpha tocopherol commonly termed as Vitamin E.

Artificial colorings blue 1, blue 2, citrus red 2, red 3, red 40, green 3, yellow 5, and yellow 6.

Artificial and natural flavorings, ascorbic acid or vitamin C, sodium ascorbate, aspartame, benzoic acid, beta carotene, brominated vegetable oil (BVO), butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), caffeine, calcium propionate, carmine, carrageenan, casein, sodium caseinate, citric acid, sodium citrate, cochineal extract, corn syrup, cyclamate, dextrose, diacetyl, diacylglycerol, EDTA, Erythorbic acid, Ferrous Gluconate, Food Starch, Modified, Fructose, Fumaric acid, Gelatin, Glycerin, Gums, Heptyl Paraben, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolysate (HSH), Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein (HVP), Invert sugar, lecithin, Lactic acid, Lactitol Lactose, Maltitol, Mannitol, Mono and Diglycerides, Monosodium glutamate (MSG), Mycoprotein, Neotame, Olestra, Olegofructose, Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (trans fat), Phosphoric acid, Plant sterols and stenols, Polydextrose, Polysorbate 60, Potassium bromate, Propyl galate, Quinine, Quorn, Saccharin, Salatrim, Salt, Sodium Benzoate, Benzoic acid, Sodium Carboxymethyl- Cellulose (CMC), Sodium Nitrite, Sodium Nitrate, Sorbic acid, Sorbitan Monostearate, Sorbitol, Starch, starch modified, Sucralose, Sugar, Sulfites, Tagatose, Thiamine mononitrate, Triacetin, Trans fat, Vanillin, Vegetable oil sterols (www.cspinet.org).

Tartrazine is a colorant that is commonly used in the manufacture of soft drinks and has been a constant cause of debate for its intolerance in several cases (Miller M, 1985; Levy F, Dumbrell S, Hobbes G, Ryan M, et al, 1978; Smith JM, 1991; Weiss B, 1984). The exposure to Tartrazine is likely to cause severe asthmatic reactions (Freedman BJ, 1977), rhinitis (Vendanthan PK, Menon MM, Bell TD, et al), urticaria (Juhlin L, 1981) and hyperactivity among children (Feingold BF, 1981).

The additive commonly used in flour, curcumin, has been known to cause severe problems related to thyroid, in a study conducted on pigs (Miller M, 1985).

The commonly used sunset yellow color in biscuits, showed damaging effects on a study conducted on rats (Miller M and Millstone E, 1987) and showed carcinogenic effects in animals (Miller M, 1985). The preservatives used in jams, carmoisine, were also found to be carcinogen in nature (Miller M and Millstone E, 1987).

Several other colors such as amaranth, ponceau erythrosine, caramel color and brown FK, used commonly to preserve foods have been found to be carcinogen in nature and studies have highlighted the several side effects that they could have on humans especially younger children (Miller M and Millstone E, 1987).

Similar results have been found in preservatives such as benzoates, commonly used in fish preparations, jam fillings, aerated drinks and beer (Miller M and Millstone E, 1987).

Even the preservatives, sulphites, used in syrups, dairy-based deserts, biscuits and beer has yielded similar results when tested (Miller M and Millstone E, 1987). Nitrates and nitrites in common foods such as bacon, ham and cheese are known to cause headaches and several side effects in humans (Miller M and Millstone E, 1987; Taylor G, 1983).

The widespread use of BHA in mixtures of soups and cheese spreads has found to be having tumor producing qualities in rats in addition to the numerous side effects it produces in humans (Miller M and Millstone E, 1987).

The use of monosodium glutamate or MSG is widespread for enhancing the flavor of foods and snacks, especially those popularly consumed by children.

The most popular use is in the preparation of Chinese foods and delicacies, which are gaining popularity world-wide. It has been found that MSG destroys the brain cells of children and also causes several side-effects such as asthma, serious head-aches, heart-burn and many others (Weiss B, 1984; Allen DH and Baker GJ, 1981).

Research has indicated that the artificial sweeteners such as saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame, which are both commonly used as sugar substitutes by diabetic patients as well as the beverage industry, are found to be highly carcinogen in nature (Wynn M and Wynn A, 1981).

These artificial sweeteners are very commonly found in the so called “diet” products including the soft-drinks and beverages. The use of saccharin is known to cause several cancers including those of the urinary bladder, ovaries, skin, blood vessel and many other organs of the human body (National Cancer Institute).

The use of artificial sugars was banned in the year 1977 by an initiative of the FDA, but later removed after the congress proposed that there be a warning notice on products where it is used.

A primary concern relating to food additives is the reduction in the nutrition content of the food. Since it has been found that the most commonly used additives are salt, fat and sucrose, all of which are practically devoid of any nutrition, the nutritional value of preserved foods remains a primary concern.

Although there may be the addition of certain nutrients such as minerals and vitamins to processed foods, these foods which have a high consumption rate among children, are generally low on nutritional value but high on calorie intake, posing a serious threat to the health of the children and all this who consume them.

Whereas all the individuals who consume foods with preservatives are at considerable health risks, the situation is particularly grave for children as they are at crucial stages of mental and physical growth. The intake of additives could then have severe consequences on their present and future health, mental and physical.

The use and consumption of additives to preserve foods and enhance their flavors has dramatically increased in the past few years. Since the Western countries are rank high in the consumption of processed foods, they are at a considerably greater risk to the side-effects resulting from these foods as compared to their other counter parts. Smith JM (1991) notes the severe side-effects following the consumption of these foods, rich in additives.

These include eczema, urticaria, angioedema, exfoliative dermatitis, irritable bowel syndrome, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, rhinitis, bronchospasm, migraine, anaphylaxis, hyperactivity and other behavioural disorders.

The deterioration in the health of the Western nations has been confirmed by a study conducted by Dr Michael Wadsworth, where it was found that there was a considerable increase in the occurrences of “asthma, eczema, juvenile diabetes and a double increase in the obesity” of adults, especially children (Wadsworth M, 1985).

The report also highlights that a greater number are now hospitalized fro several problems, and that the prime reason of this, according to this study is the reduced levels of nutrition and ‘sub-clinical mal-nutrition’ among children as well as adults.

The study attributes these two factors to the elevated use of the “wide use of non essential food additives” (Wadsworth M, 1985). The research does acknowledge that there is a necessity of additives for the preservation of certain foods, and notes that out of four thousand food additives used currently, three thousand six-hundred and forty are only used to enhance the look and the color of the foods.

Thus, the actual preservatives required for food preservation only amount to two percent of the total preservatives (The London Food Commission, 1988). The others are merely used for cosmetic reasons (The London Food Commission, 1988).

Food additives have been used since times immemorial to preserve the color, flavor and texture of foods, and it is the responsibility of the food and beverage industry to stop using the substances that cause harm in any way to human life.

Allen DH and Baker GJ: Chinese restaurant asthma. New Engl J Med, 305:1154-1155, 1981

Feingold BF: Hyperkinesis and learning disabilities linked to the ingestion of artificial food colors and flavors. J Learn Disabilities, 9:19-27, 1976

Feingold BF: Dietary Management of Behavior and Learning Disabilities. In: Nutrition & Behavior, Ed: SA Miller, p 37 Franklin Institute Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 1981

Food additives list from The Center for Science in the Public Interest. Web.

Food Intolerance and Food Aversion: A Joinf Report of the Royal College of Physicians and the British Nutrition Foundation. J Royal Colle~e of Physicians of London, Vol:l8, No:2, 1984.

Freedman BJ: Asthma induced by sulphur dioxide, benzoate and tartazine contained in orange drinks. Clin Allergy, 7:407-415, 1977.

Juhlin L: Recurrent urticaria: clinical investigation of 330 patients. Br J Dermatology, 104:369-381, 1981.

Levy F, Dumbrell S, Hobbes G, Ryan M, et al: Hyperkinesis and diet: A double-blind crossover trial with a tartrazine challenge. Med J Austr, 1:61-64, 1978

Miller M: Danger! Additives at Work, London Food Commission , London 1985

Miller M and Millstone E: Food Additives Campaign Team: Report on Colour Additives. FACT, 25 Horsell Road, London N5 lXL, 1987

Smith JM: Adverse reactions to food and drug additives. European J Clin Nutr, 45,(Suppl.l):17-21, 1991

Taylor G: Nitrates, nitrites, nitrosamines and cancer. Nutrition and Health, 2:1, 1983.

The Food Labelling Regulations (S.I. 1980, No:1849),1980

The London Food Commission: Food Adulteration and how to beat it. Unwin Paperbacks, 1988

Vendanthan PK, Menon MM, Bell TD, et al: Aspirin and tartrazine oral challenge: incidence of adverse response in chronic childhood asthma. J Allergy and Clin Immunol, 60:8-13, 1977

Wadsworth M: Intergenerational differences in child health; Report to British Society for Population Studies Conference, August, 1985

Weiss B: Food Additive Safety and Evaluation: The Link to Behavioral Disorders in Children pp 221-250, Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1984

Wynn M and Wynn A: The prevention of handicap of early pregnancy origin: Some evidence for the value of good health before conception. Foundation for Education and Research in Childbearing. 9 View Road, London N6 4DJ, 1981

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 14). Food Additives. https://studycorgi.com/food-additives/

"Food Additives." StudyCorgi , 14 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/food-additives/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Food Additives'. 14 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Food Additives." January 14, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/food-additives/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Food Additives." January 14, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/food-additives/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Food Additives." January 14, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/food-additives/.

This paper, “Food Additives”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: October 9, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Food additives: Artificial sweeteners Essay

Introduction, aspartame. sources of aspartame, toxicodynamics, pathways and receptors of aspartame, controls that aid in the mitigation of aspartame exposure, reference list.

Food is considered one of the basic needs that a human being can not do without. The foods that are eaten all over the world are known to be made up of different chemicals, some of which are harmful and others are not. According to Birch (1999), it is these chemicals which occur naturally in the food substances and also artificially as additives, that give the food its color, flavor and also the texture among others.

Some of these chemicals have been found to pose a major health risk to those consuming foods with the chemicals. As a result, every country has a department to look into the safety measures of the food being consumed by its citizens.

This paper will explore the different areas of food additives and specifically the artificial sweeteners. The sources, pathways, receptors and control of artificial sweeteners in the human food chain and human disease manifestation shall be tackled in details.

This is a name used to refer to the many artificial sweeteners that have been in existence since 1965. Aspartame is therefore classified as a synthetic chemical. These artificial sweeteners are referred to using different names for example: NutraSweet and Spoonful, among other common names. Aspartame was discovered by James Schlatter and this happened accidentally as he was in the process of doing tests on an anti-ulcer drug.

In the year 1983, aspartame was accepted as an artificial sweetener in carbonated drinks. Although most food additives have side effects on their consumers, aspartame has been proved to cause over 75% of the adverse reactions to its consumers.

The reactions are sometimes very serious and they include: severe headaches, nausea, and dizziness. Aspartame has also been known to cause numbness, increase in weight, appearance of rashes in different parts of the body and mental disturbances such as depression, insomnia and memory loss (Bolton, 1994).

Some patients have also reported cases of muscle spasms, problems in hearing, palpitations in the heart, interference with one’s speech, loss of taste and pain in the joints.

Aspartame has also been found to aggravate the conditions of people suffering from brain tumors, mental illnesses, diabetes and chronic fatigue syndrome. People suffering from epilepsy, lymphoma and birth defects have also been affected by consumption of aspartame.

Aspartic acid, methanol and phenylalanine are the three chemicals that make up the artificial sweeteners or aspartame. An in depth analysis of the three chemicals reveals that the three chemicals are harmful when consumed by human beings (Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the European Association for the study of diabetes, 2000).

Ingestion of aspartic acid into the body of a person is known to cause serious neurological diseases. This happens because the function of aspartate is that of neurotransmitter in the brain. This is done through making easy the passing on of information from one neuron to another.

The presence of excess aspartate in the brain destroys some of the neurons as a result of allowing a lot of calcium to enter the cells. Since the entry of calcium into the cells is not properly regulated, the end result is that of the presence of too much unneeded free radicals.

It is these radicals that destroy the useful cells. They kill the cells through stimulating them to the point of causing their death and this is the reason they are commonly known as ‘exitotoxins’. Another effect of the aspartic acid is that of raising the level of blood plasma (Nutrition Sub-Committee, British Diabetic Association, 1991). This alters how the brain functions due to the increase of neurotransmitters.

The effects are especially adverse in young children whose blood brain barrier has not yet developed to maturity. This allows some harmful chemicals such as aspartate to enter regions in the brain that they should not enter and end up destroying the young child’s neurons found in the brain area.

Some of the diseases arising from ingestion of the artificial sweeteners can be detected early, although other are detected at an advanced stage after staying in the body for a long period of time due to over exposure to this chemical. These diseases arising from overexposure include; loss of memory, problems with hormones, hearing impairment, tumors in the brain, epilepsy, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease among many others.

The health risks associated with these natural sweeteners are greatest in young children, expectant women and the elderly people and especially if they are suffering from other conditions. Memory loss has been singled out by most researchers as the greatest problem arising from overexposure to aspartic acid, a component of aspartate (Navia, 1994).

Phenylalanine is classified as an amino acid. This amino acid is usually found in the brain. Metabolism of phenylalanine is deteriorated by the presence of pheneylketonuria, a condition which interferes with the breaking down of phenylalanine. Accumulation of phenylalanine in the brain is detrimental to a person’s health.

Aspartame has been found out to increase the levels of phenylalanine in the brain not only patients suffering from phenylketonuria but also to healthy people who ingest this chemical. Most of the consumers of aspartame who have not yet developed phenylketonuria have been found to contain large amounts of phenylalanine in their blood.

These high levels of phenylalanine have the effect of lowering the amounts of serotonin in the brain, which in turn causes mental disturbances for example depression. Ingestion of even small amounts of aspartame has been proved to have effects on human beings.

The consumption of even small amounts of aspartame has been found to increase the level phenylalanine in the blood, something that poses a health risk to the consumer, according to Hollenbeck, (1993). This risk is greatest to infants.

Methanol, the third component of aspartame has been identified as a poison that is deadly. It is this same chemical, which when ingested by alcoholics, leads to loss of sight or death. The methanol found in aspartame is slowly discharged into the small intestine. Methanol is taken into the body faster when the methanol ingested is free.

This free methanol can be ingested when foods containing aspartame are heated to a temperature of over 30 degrees centigrade. Once ingested in the body, methanol is converted to formic acid and formaldehyde. The latter is a dangerous chemical which attacks the neurons in the body.

Methanol is especially dangerous to the body because it takes a long time for it to be excreted out of the body, once it has been ingested (World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, 2001). Formic acid is also known to be a neurotoxin. 7.8mg/day of methanol is advisable amount that one should consume.

However, an average one liter of drinks sweetened by aspartame contains around 56mg of methanol, which is very dangerous and harmful to the consumers. Those who consume these drinks frequently end up consuming an average of 250mg per day which is about 32 times the recommended amount.

The following have been identified as the major symptoms of poisoning after ingestion of methanol: disturbances in the intestines, headaches, feeling dizzy, nausea or vomiting, general body weakness, numbness, lapse in memory and sharp pains from different parts of the person’s body.

Methanol poisoning has also been known to cause severe effects of loss of vision and other problems associated with vision such as blurred vision and retinal damage. Formaldehyde on the other hand harms the retina, contributes towards defects at birth because it impedes the activity of DNA and also causes cancer (Tordoff and Alleva, 1990).

Lack of enough information about the dangers of aspartame has led many people to believe that it is safe to continue using products containing this chemical. People have been in the dark concerning the harm that aspartame causes in the body because people suffering fro aspartame related complications are not publicly exposed as suffering as a result of this chemical as it would have been if people died on a plane crash.

The consequences of using products with aspartame are not taken with the weight they deserve despite the fact that many people are suffering and others dying from this chemical. The other reason that the dangers of aspartame have been ignored is because most people fail to relate the disease they are suffering from to over exposure to aspartame.

There have also been controversies surrounding the safety of aspartame, with some people arguing that there is nothing wrong with its use while others condemning its use with the strongest terms possible. The debate still continues, with the companies which manufacture soft drinks and others still using this chemical in their products.

The authenticity of the claims that aspartame poses health risks has not yet been confirmed even by the U.S government, which has never banned the use of this chemical.

The government accountability office has nothing against the manufacturers of products who use aspartame because they claim that this chemical meets all the standards required for it to be accepted as a safe food additive. Most countries also approve the use of aspartame in the products manufactured within these countries because they consider it a safe sweetener for human consumption.

However, this should not be a reason to discard all the evidence that researchers have presented to show that this chemical is harmful when ingested by human beings. The best method that one can use to avoid the numerous side effects which arise from consumption of foods containing this chemical is to avoid eating of drinking foods and drinks whish contain aspartame.

Drewnowski, (1999) suggests that one should use the natural sugar or honey, which is less harmful, when in need of the sweet taste. In addition, one should be careful when buying products and should always check on their ingredients to confirm that they do not contain harmful chemicals such as aspartame.

Some governments have also taken safety measure to ensure that her citizens are aware of the foods which contain some of the harmful food additives. The UK, for example, requires that manufacturers put a warning on all products containing phenylalanine, among the ingredients of the product. Foods which contain aspartame as part of its ingredients are supposed to indicate so.

In Canada, the same rule is followed. The amount of aspartame used in a particular product is supposed to be indicated in the list of the ingredients. The companies should also label whether the products contain phenylalanine or other harmful chemicals.

Expectant mothers are also advised to keep away from foods containing aspartame because of the dangers it poses to the unborn child, including the risk of being born with birth defects (Ludwig and Peterson, 2001).

Diketopiperazine is produced as a result of metabolism process on aspartame. This end product has been associated with the development of brain tumors (Roberts, 1989). It has also been associated with other health conditions such as changes in the cholesterol level in blood

Most of the processed foods or foods that have been packaged contain additives that are harmful to one’s health. It is therefore important to avoid buying such foods because some are even stale and the additives help to prolong their shelf life at the expense of people’s health (Willett, 1998).

It is sad that despite the overwhelming evidence, glaring at people concerning the numerous side effects of these food additives, people still continue to buy foods containing this chemical.

One’s health should be the number one priority and therefore, one should try as much as possible to avoid any foods that may be harmful to their health. Governments should put in place measures to ensure that companies label all products containing harmful preservatives or additives for people to know. This should be done explicitly without disguising these chemicals using other names.

Birch, L. L., 1999. Development of food preferences. Annu Rev Nutr, 1999; 19: 41- 62. [CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Bolton, S. C., 1994. Woodward, M., Dietary composition and fat to sugar ratios in Relation to obesity. Int J Obes, 1994;18: 820-8. [ISI]

Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the European Association for the study Of diabetes. 2000. Recommendations for the nutritional management of patients with diabetes mellitus. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2000; 54: 353-5.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Drewnowski, A., 1999. Review: intense sweeteners and energy density of foods: Implications for weight control. Eur J Clin Nutr, 1999; 53: 757-63. [CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Hollenbeck, C. B., 1993. Dietary fructose effects on lipoprotein metabolism and risk for Coronary artery disease. Am J Clin Nutr, 1993; 58: 800s-809s.[Medline]

Ludwig, D. S., Peterson, G., 2001 Relation between consumption of sugar sweetened Drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis. Lancet, 2001; 357: 505-[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Navia, J.M., 1994. Carbohydrates and dental health. Amer J Clin Nutr, 1994; 59: 719- 27.

Nutrition Sub-Committee, British Diabetic Association., 1991. Dietary recommendations For people with diabetes. An update for the 1990’s. J Hum Nutr Diet, 1991; 4: 393-412.[ISI]

Roberts, J., 1989. Aspartame (NutraSweet): Is it Safe?. Philadelphia: Charles Press.

Tordoff, M. G, Alleva, A. M., 1990. Effect of drinking soda sweetened with aspartame or High fructose corn syrup on food intake and body weight. Amer J Clin Nutr, 1990; 51: 963-9. [Abstract]

Willett, C., 1998. Nutritional epidemiology . 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

World Health Organization Classification of Tumours., 2001. Pathology and Genetics of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues . Lyon (France): IARC Press.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, December 16). Food additives: Artificial sweeteners. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-additives-artificial-sweeteners-essay/

"Food additives: Artificial sweeteners." IvyPanda , 16 Dec. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/food-additives-artificial-sweeteners-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Food additives: Artificial sweeteners'. 16 December.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Food additives: Artificial sweeteners." December 16, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-additives-artificial-sweeteners-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Food additives: Artificial sweeteners." December 16, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-additives-artificial-sweeteners-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Food additives: Artificial sweeteners." December 16, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-additives-artificial-sweeteners-essay/.

• Artificial Sweeteners as a Sugar Substitute
• The Role of Sweeteners in Weight Gain
• Monk Fruit Sweetener: Safety, Properties, and Usage
• Current Market Situation: Truvia
• Regular and Artificial Sugar: Negative Health Effects
• Artificial Sweeteners: Impact on the Quality of Human Life
• Debunk the Junk: Flavored Yogurt
• Sugar Substitutes in Keto Dieting
• Business Ownership: Choosing Relevant Option
• Corn is Our Every Day Food
• Vegetarian Diet as a Health-Conscious Lifestyle
• Risk Cluster Linked to Child Obesity
• Food Ethics
• Correlation Between Poverty and Obesity
• The Sentinel Site for Obesity Prevention

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time

Food Additives in Food Products: A Case Study

Submitted: 05 September 2018 Reviewed: 08 March 2019 Published: 09 April 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.85723

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Nutrition in Health and Disease - Our Challenges Now and Forthcoming Time

Edited by Gyula Mózsik and Mária Figler

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

2,504 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

Socioeconomic progress, diseases, and the constantly changing pace of life and lifestyles of consumers worldwide require food to be improved and tailored to meet the needs of purchasers. The produced food is functional, convenient, and enriched. This is achieved, i.e. with food additives. Nowadays, food additives are very widespread in the human diet, but not all of them are synthetic and invasive on human health. All food additives, and their application and dosage, are subject to strict regulations. The purpose of this work was to investigate which food additives are the most common in our everyday diet and how they affect our health.

• food additives
• preservatives

Author Information

Aleksandra badora *.

• Department of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry, The University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland

Karolina Bawolska

Jolanta kozłowska-strawska, jolanta domańska.

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

The history of food additives goes back to ancient times. As great civilisations developed, populations grew and so did the demand for food. In ancient Egypt, where the climate was not conducive to food storage, especially due to the heat, people started looking for ways to extend the usability life of products. Common practices included the addition of salt, drying in the sun, curing/corning, meat and fish smoking, pickling, and burning sulphur during vegetable preservation. The earliest preservatives included sulphur dioxide (E220), acetic acid (E260), and sodium nitrite (E250), while turmeric (E100) and carmine (E120) were among the first colours. Food preservation was also of immense importance during numerous armed conflicts. Both during the Napoleonic wars in Europe and during the American Civil War, seafarers and soldiers needed food. Limited access to fresh food at the front motivated the armed forces to transport their food with them. This is when cans were introduced for food preservation purposes. In the subsequent centuries, ammonium bicarbonate (E503ii), also known as salt of hartshorn, used as a rising agent for baked goods, and sodium hydroxide solution (E524), used in the production of salty sticks, rose to prominence [ 1 , 2 ].

The nineteenth century saw considerable advancements in the fields of chemistry, biology, and medicine. A name that needs to be mentioned here is Louis Pasteur, a French scientist, who studied microbiology, among other things. He was the first to prove that microorganisms were responsible for food spoilage. At the same time, new chemical compounds were discovered that were able to inhibit the growth of microbes. Some substances, such as picric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and their salts, often had disastrous consequences when added to food. Insufficient knowledge of toxicology resulted in consumer poisonings and even deaths [ 1 , 3 ]. At that time, food preservation was the number one priority, which was achieved, for instance, by using salicylic acid, formic acid (E236), benzoic acid (E210), boric acid (E284), propionic acid (E280), sorbic acid (E200) and its potassium salt (E202), and esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid. Later, food concerns also focused on improving the organoleptic properties of their products and started to enhance food with colours, flavours, and sweeteners, without first researching their effects on human health. For example, such practices involved the use of synthetic colours used in fabric dyeing. This desire to make money on beautiful-looking products led to adulterating food with copper and iron salts, which have a negative impact on the human body. It was as late as in 1907 that the United States studied 90 of the synthetic colours used at that time for food dyeing and found only 7 to be acceptable for further use. Detailed studies and strict regulations on the use of food additives were created almost a century later [ 1 , 4 ].

Globally, food safety is ensured by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In 1962, these organisations established a special agenda—the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Commission has prepared and updated the Codex Alimentarius, which is not a legal Act per se, but provides a reference for standards on raw materials and food products, acceptable contamination levels, hygienic processing, research methods, and food additives for almost all countries worldwide [ 5 ]. In the European Union, the body responsible for improving human health protection and food safety risk mitigation, as well as for taking care of purchaser interests, is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It is a scientific agency established in 2002 pursuant to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002. European legislation is based on the Codex Alimentarius but conducts its own complementary research. Therefore, the list of food additives permitted by the European Union is different from the American one [ 5 ].

The primary legal Act governing food in Poland is the Food and Nutrition Safety Act of 25 August 2006 (as amended). It specifies the requirements applicable to food and nutrition, concerning product labelling, hygienic conditions throughout the production process, and product replacement rules, as well as requirements concerning the use of food additives. The key document that pertains specifically to food additives is the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives. The EU-approved list of food additives is presented in the Commission Regulation (EU) of 11 November 2011 [ 4 , 5 ].

A food additive (additional substance) is any substance that is not a food in itself or an ingredient in food, but when added to a product for processing purposes, it becomes part of the food [ 5 ]. The following are not considered to be food additives: ingredients in food or chemicals to be used in other products, i.e. in particular sweeteners, such as monosaccharides, disaccharides, and oligosaccharides; substances with flavouring, dyeing, and sapid properties (such as dried fruit); glazing and coating substances, which are not intended to be consumed; and chewing gum bases, dextrin, modified starch, ammonium chloride, edible gelatine, milk protein and gluten, blood plasma, casein, and inulin. The law forbids the use of food additives in unprocessed food, honey, non-emulsified oils and fats of an animal or vegetable origin, butter, milk, fermented milk products (unflavoured, with living bacteria cultures), natural mineral and spring water, unflavoured leaf tea, coffee, sugar, dry pasta, and unflavoured buttermilk [ 5 ]. Any marketed additive must comply with the requirements of the European Food Safety Authority, i.e. it has to be technologically justified. It must not put consumers’ life or health at risk; its use should not mislead the purchaser; its acceptable daily intake (ADI), or quantum satis , the smallest amount which is needed to achieve a specific processing objective for the substance, must be calculable; and, last but not least, such an additive must not adulterate the product it is to be added to. Producers are also required to include information on any food additives on product labelling [ 6 , 7 ].

EU legislation has approved approximately 330 food additives for use. The primary objectives behind the use of additives are to extend the shelf life and freshness of products, prevent product quality impairment, make the product more attractive to customers, achieve the desired texture, ensure specific product functionality, facilitate production processes, reduce production costs, and enrich the nutritional value of products. In order to harmonise, effectively identify any additives, and ensure smooth exchange of goods, each food additive has its own, standardised, code. This code is consistent with the International Numbering System (INS) and comprises the letter “E” and three or four digits. There are several food additive classifications. One is based on the regulation and differentiates between colours (approx. 40), sweeteners (approx. 16), and other additives (approx. 277) [ 8 , 9 ].

Colours—E100–E199

Preservatives and acidity regulators—E200–E299

Antioxidants and synergists—E300–E399

Stabilising, thickening, emulsifying, coating, and bulking substances—E400–E499

Other substances—E500 and above

Food additives can also be divided into four major groups, based on their processing purpose. These are substances that prevent food spoilage, those which improve sensory features, firming additives and excipients. The most numerous group among additives that slow down food spoilage are preservatives . These are either natural or synthetic chemical compounds added to food to restrict as much as possible the biological processes that take place in the product, e.g. the development of microflora and pathogenic microbes, and the effects of enzymes that affect food freshness and quality. In food products, preservatives change the permeability of cytoplasmic membranes or cell walls, damage the genetic system, and deactivate some enzymes. Food is preserved using antiseptics or antibiotics. The former are synthetically produced simple compounds that often have natural correlates, and they make up no more than 0.2% of the product. Antibiotics, or substances produced by microorganisms, are used in very small, yet effective, doses. The effectiveness of preservatives depends primarily on their effect on a specific type of microorganism, which is why it is vital to select the appropriate preservative based on the microbes found in the product (bacteria, mould, or yeast). Other factors that determine the effectiveness of preservatives include the pH value (a low pH is desirable), temperature, the addition of other substances, and the chemical composition of the product. Preservatives constitute an alternative to physical and biological product freshness stabilisation methods, such as drying, pickling, sterilising, freezing, cooling, and thickening. Consumer objections concerning the widespread use of chemical preservatives and their effects on human health have motivated producers to develop new food preservation procedures. These include radiation, packaging, and storing products in a modified atmosphere, using aseptic technology. Products that are most commonly preserved include ready-made dishes and sauces, meat and fish products, fizzy drinks, and ready-made deserts [ 9 , 10 ].

Other substances used as preservatives are acids and acidity regulators . These substances lower the pH level and slow down the growth of enzymes, which hampers the development of microbes. They are used mainly in the production of marinades. For a specific acid or acidity regulator to fulfil its role as a preservative, it needs to be added in highly concentrated form, but acetic acid, for instance, can irritate mucous membranes when its concentration exceeds 3%. Acids and acidity regulators are also used to enhance flavour (usually in fruit or vegetable products, or beverages, to bring out their sour taste) or to facilitate gelatinisation and frothing during food processing [ 11 , 12 ].

Not only microorganisms but also oxygen is responsible for food spoilage. Products such as oils, fats, and dry goods (flour, semolina) oxidise when they come into contact with atmospheric oxygen. Fat oxidisation (rancidification) occurs in oils, lard, flour, and milk powder. The browning of fruit, vegetables, and meat, on the other hand, is the result of non-fat substance oxidisation. These oxidisation processes can be slowed down or eliminated completely using antioxidants . There are natural and synthetic antioxidants and synergists. Synthetic antioxidants are primarily esters (BHA, BHT, propyl gallate). These are used to stabilise fats used to fry, e.g. crisps and chips. The most common natural antioxidants are tocopherols, i.e. vitamin E. Other antioxidants include phenolic compounds, such as flavonoids and phenolic acids. Synthetic antioxidants are more potent and resistant to processing. Synergists are substances that support and extend the functioning of antioxidants. They can form complexes with heavy metal ions, which retard the oxidisation process. The most frequently used synergists are EDTA, citric acid, and ascorbic acid. Antioxidants do not pose a risk to human health. In fact, they can be beneficial. Antioxidants prevent unfavourable interactions between free radicals and tissue and slow down ageing processes and the development of some diseases [ 12 , 13 ].

In order to extend the freshness of consumer goods, products are also packaged in a modified atmosphere. As part of this process, the oxygen content inside the packaging is reduced and replaced with other gases , such as nitrogen, argon, helium, and hydrogen. Furthermore, products in the form of aerosol sprays, such as whipped cream, have nitrous oxide, butane, or propane added to them. All these gases are also food additives with their own E codes [ 5 , 11 ].

The organoleptic properties of consumer goods are very important to consumers. Visual appeal is considered to be as important as taste or smell. This is where food colours come into play. These are used to add colour to transparent products (e.g. some beverages), intensify or bring out product colour (beverages, sweets), preserve or reproduce colours that have faded as a result of processing, ensure that all product batches have a specific colour, and provide the products that are diluted after purchase with strong colour. In order to add colour to a product, manufacturers use natural, nature-identical, synthetic, and inorganic colours. Natural colours are produced from edible plant parts (fruits, flowers, roots, leaves) and from animal raw materials, such as blood, chitinous exoskeletons of insects, and muscle tissue. New technologies have also made it possible to obtain colours from algae, fungi, and mould. Natural colouring substances include carotenoids that provide a spectrum of yellow and orange colours (carrot, citrus fruit skin), flavonoids that give products blue and navy-blue colours (grapes, currants, chokeberry, elder), betalains that give products a red colour (beetroot, capsicum), and chlorophyll that lends green colours (salad, parsley), as well as riboflavin (vitamin B 2 ), curcumin, and caramel. Natural colours are desirable for consumers, as they do not show any negative effects on health. However, a significant drawback to using natural colours is that they are very sensitive to environmental factors, such as pH, ambient temperature, oxygen content, or sun exposure, which is why they are not durable when it comes to processing and storage. Moreover, the cost of obtaining such colouring substances is rather high. The list of additives contains 17 natural colours, and their market share in 2012 was approx. 31% and was subject to an upward trend [ 6 , 8 ].

Synthetic food colours are very competitive compared to natural ones. They offer a wide spectrum of colours, including those that are not available in nature, provide strong colouring, and are resistant to environmental factors, so they do not fade during processing. Furthermore, they are not expensive to produce, which contributes to low end-product prices. Synthetic colours can be divided into organic and inorganic, with organic constituting the considerable majority in terms of food colouring. In the past, chemical colours were made of coal, while now crude oil is used for this purpose. EU law approves 15 synthetic colours, including the so-called Southampton colours. A study conducted in 2007 in the United Kingdom (in Southampton, hence the name) showed the particularly negative effects of six colours on children’s health [ 10 ]. Specifically, tartrazine (E102), quinoline yellow (E104), sunset yellow (E110), azorubine (E122), cochineal red (E124), and Allura red AC (E129) were found to cause hyperactivity. As a result, since 2010, manufacturers which add at least one of their products have been required to provide label information about their negative effects on concentration and brain functioning in children. Acceptable daily doses of these colours have also been reassessed and updated. Moreover, research conducted on lab animals has shown that the long-term use of synthetic colours, and especially the three that account for 90% of the use of all synthetic colours (Allura red, tartrazine, and sunset yellow), can cause cancer, allergies, and chromosome mutations. Products that are most often synthetically coloured include candy, wine gums, ready-made desserts, and refreshing beverages [ 8 , 10 ].

During consumption, one can experience product taste, smell, and consistency. These three sensations are referred to as palatability and are caused by flavours . Taste is experienced by taste buds located in the tongue. Adult individuals have approximately 10,000 such receptors. There are four primary tastes, namely, salty, sweet, bitter, and sour. There is also an additional type, referred to as umami , which is Japanese for “savoury, meaty”. This taste experience is provided by monosodium glutamate. Smell is experienced through volatile compounds that go directly through the nasal or oral cavity and throat to smell receptors. Taste and smell provide a ready source of information on whether the product is fresh, whether it has specific characteristics, and whether it has been adulterated. Flavours are mixtures of many compounds, in which the specific characteristic smell is produced by a single compound or several indispensable compounds. These are added to enhance the taste or smell of the product or to give something the flavour or aroma that has been lost during product processing [ 6 , 7 , 11 ]. There are natural, nature-identical, and synthetic flavours. Natural flavours are obtained from parts of fruits and vegetables, spices, and their flavouring compounds, such as lactones (found in fruits and nuts), terpenes (in essential oils, found in almost every plant), and carbonyl compounds (fermented dairy products). Nature-identical flavours are compounds originally found in a given raw material that can be recreated in the lab. Synthetic flavours are compounds that have been chemically created and produced and do not have their equivalent in nature. Similarly to natural colours, natural flavours are easily degraded during processing, and their extraction is costly, which is why the food industry generally uses synthetic substances to provide products with specific taste and odour. Moreover, synthetic compounds are capable of giving products much stronger flavours than natural ones [ 6 , 7 , 13 ].

A separate group that enhances the sensory properties of food are sweeteners . Formerly, in order to make products sweet, manufacturers used sucrose, commonly known just as sugar, obtained from sugar beet or sugarcane. Now large-scale methods are commonly used, such as chemical production and the extraction of intensively sweetening substances, known as sweeteners, from specific plants. What is characteristic about such substances is that they are much more potent as sweeteners compared to sucrose, and, at the same time, their calorific value is close to zero. Natural sweeteners include glucose-fructose syrup (or syrup based on one of those sugars), thaumatin, neohesperidin DC, stevia, and xylitol. Synthetic sweeteners include acesulfame K, aspartame (and the salts of these two compounds), sucralose, cyclamates, saccharin, and neotame. Sweeteners are used in the production of beverages, juices, dairy products, spirits, sweets, marmalade, and chewing gum [ 14 , 15 ]. In contrast to sucrose, the majority of synthetic sweeteners do not increase blood sugar level and do not cause tooth decay. These substances are attractive for producers because the cost of their production is low, and even small amounts of such compounds are able to ensure the desired sweetness of the product, so these are economical to use. In addition, most sweetener additives remain functional during processing, although some compounds are not resistant to high temperatures. A study conducted in 2010 on lab animals raises some concerns when it comes to sweetener safety in relation to human health [ 20 ]. Its findings showed that regular consumption of sweeteners in large quantities caused obesity and neoplasms in animals. Sweetener additives in consumer goods have been considered safe for humans [ 10 ]. Each such additive has a specific ADI value and amount (in milligrammes) that can be added to 1 kg (or 1 dm 3 ) of product [ 13 , 14 , 15 ].

The additives that are vital in terms of processing are firming additives . They create or stabilise the desirable product structure and consistency. Firming agents include gelling, thickening, emulsifying, bulking, binding, and rising agents, humectants, and modified starches. The highest status among these substances is enjoyed by hydrocolloids. Hydrocolloids , known as gums, are polysaccharides of plant, animal, or microbiological origin. There are natural (guar gum, agar, curdlan), chemically and physically modified (modified starches), and synthetic gums. With their macromolecular structure, they are able to bind water, improve solution viscosity, and create gels and spongiform masses. Hydrocolloids are used as gelling (e.g. in the production of jelly, desserts, pudding, and fruit-flavoured starch jelly), thickening (ready-made sauces, vegetable products), water-binding (powdered products to be consumed with water, frozen food), and emulsifying agents (to create oil-in-water-type emulsions). They also act as emulsion stabilisers. Hydrocolloids are considered safe for human health, although some of them can cause allergies. Consumed in large quantities, they can have laxative effects [ 12 ].

What is also important in creating product structure are emulsifiers and the emulsification method. Emulsifiers are compounds which facilitate emulsification. There are water-in-oil (margarine) and oil-in-water (mayonnaise) type of emulsions. Emulsifiers position themselves at the interface between two different phases to stabilise the emulsion. There are natural emulgents, with lecithin as the most common, and synthetic emulgents (glycerol and its esters) [ 1 ]. Product consistency and texture are also adjusted using modified starches . Such starches are usually obtained from potatoes or corn (also genetically modified one) with chemically altered composition. Similarly to hydrocolloids, such substances can bind water and produce gels and are also resistant to high temperatures [ 11 , 12 ]. Modified starches are added to ready-made sauces and dishes (such as frozen pizza), frozen goods, bread, and desserts (also powdered) to thicken and maintain product consistency after thermal processing. In order to enhance starch properties, phosphates are often added during starch modification. The human body needs phosphorus, but its excess can negatively affect the bones, kidneys, and the circulatory system [ 7 , 11 , 12 ].

Nowadays, consumer goods are widely available, and consumers are provided with a broad range of products to choose from. The continuously growing number of world population (approximately 7 billion in 2011) has made supply on the food market exceed demand. This situation is characteristic of countries with a high GDP. Food producers examine consumer behaviour patterns to see what encourages them to make a purchase, and also the purchase itself and its consequences, and then analyse these processes to launch a new product or a substitute for an already existing one. To sum up, the market has provided more food products than consumers are able to purchase, which results in unimaginable food wastage. Each year, approximately 100 million tonnes of food goes to waste in Europe. This quantity does not include agricultural and food waste or fish discards [ 13 ].

2. Materials and methods

The methodology of this study was based on the information contained on the labels. The chemical composition of the investigated food products was presented. Interview with the store’s seller concerned the popularity and frequency of sales listed in the product tables. It should be noted that the examined store is representative when it comes to this type of stores in the majority of small towns in south-eastern Poland.

This study was based on data on the most frequently chosen consumer goods in a store in a small town in Poland. The town is located in a commune that has 5300 residents. Data were obtained by monitoring the sales over the course of 12 months. These products are presented in Tables 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 and classified into the following categories: (i) meat and fish; (ii) beverages; (iii) condiments; (iv) ready-made sauces, soups, and dishes; and (v) sweets and desserts. The main classification criterion was segregation into primary food groups. The chemical composition of each product, as listed on the packaging, was included in a table and then assessed against the presence of any food additives. Sixteen most common additives were selected in all the investigated products; only chemical compounds that were found in at least four food products were taken into consideration. The most common food additives were highlighted in Holt in the “product composition” column and presented in Table 1 , together with their E codes. Then, based on the literature, the study described the most common additional substances.

The most common food additives and ingredients.

3. Results and discussion

Table 1 shows 16 of the most popular substances found in food. The majority of these substances are food additives; four other substances are not considered in the European Union as food additives. The additives that are the most frequently found in the food products examined in this study are citric acid (E330), monosodium glutamate (E621), and guar gum (E412). In Ref. [ 16 ] it is reported that the most popular preservatives found in food are the mixture of sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate, or potassium sorbate (E202) and sodium benzoate (E211) used separately, and also ulphur dioxide (E220). Data presented in Table 1 shows that, compared to citric acid, another preservative, sodium benzoate, is used rarer. No potassium sorbate was found in any of the products examined in this study. In Ref. [ 13 ] it can be concluded that the most commonly used preservatives and antioxidants are sorbic acid and its salts (E200-203), benzoic acid and its salts (E210-213), sulfur dioxide (E220), sodium nitrite (E250), lactic acid (E270), citric acid (E330) and tocopherols (E306). The majority of the additives listed in Ref. [ 13 ] can be found in Table 1 .

Table 2 shows 10 meat and fish products and their composition, as specified on the label. Each of the investigated items contained at least 1 of the 16 most common food additives ( Table 1 ). As much as 50% of meat and fish products contained four or more of such additives. The highest number of additives (seven) was found in “Z doliny Karol” mortadella. “Masarnia u Józefa” crispy ham and “Lipsko” Śląska sausage contained six different food additives. Seventy percent of the examined products had had sodium nitrite (E250) added. This means that this preservative is frequently added to meat products, as confirmed in Ref. [ 9 ]. Other widespread preservatives mentioned in Ref. [ 9 ] include lactic acid (E270), sodium benzoate (E211), sorbic acid (E200), and sulphur dioxide (E220). In Ref. [ 9 ] it also mentions other additives frequently added to meat and fish products; these include carrageenan, gum arabic, and xanthan gum. In this study, 50% of the examined items contain one or two gums, and carrageenan is present in only three in ten products. A study in Ref. [ 17 ] demonstrates that fish products are the second leading food (after edible fats) in terms of preservative content.

Food additives and ingredients in the studied meat and fish products.

Table 3 shows ten non-alcoholic beverages, six of which contain at least one common food additive ( Table 1 ). Foreign substances that are most frequently found in this food group are citric acid (E330), sodium benzoate (E211), and glucose-fructose syrup. A study in Refs. [ 18 , 19 ] shows that the most popular sweeteners in non-alcoholic beverages are glucose, fructose, and glucose-fructose syrups. As shown on product label, 100% juice by brands such as “Hortex” and “Tymbark”, as well as “Cisowianka” and “Kubuś” mineral waters, is additive free. Pursuant to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) of 16 December 2008, no food additives may be used in mineral and spring bottled water. The beverage to contain the largest number of additive substances was white orangeade by “Hellena”.

Food ingredients in the studied non-alcoholic beverages.

Table 4 shows 12 food items, such as ketchup, mustard, herbs and spices, and tomato concentrates, together with their composition. Only four products in this group contain a food additive, of which three are preserved using citric acid (E330). In this group of products, the products to contain the most common additive substances were the ketchup and the Kucharek seasoning by “Prymat”. Pursuant to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) of 16 December 2008, tomato products (such as concentrates) must not contain food colours. They may, however, contain other additives. The ketchup has no colours, but contains other food additives. Studies in Ref. [ 17 ] demonstrate that mayonnaises and mustards are the fourth most often preserved product group, with ready-made concentrates ranking seventh. One of the two mustards examined in this paper contained a preservative, and two of the presented tomato concentrates had not had any food additives added to them.

Food ingredients in the studied condiments.

Table 5 shows 12 products categorised into ready-made dishes, soups and sauces, and their chemical composition. Each of these products contains at least one common additive. Citric acid (E330) was added to nearly 67% of the products in this category. Only five in twelve items (including four instant soups and stock cubes) contain the three most popular food additive substances ( Table 1 ). A study in Ref. [ 13 ] shows that the most common additives in ready-made dishes are citric acid (E330), sunset yellow (E110), guar gum (E412), disodium guanylate (E627), disodium inosinate (E631), and monosodium glutamate (E621).

Food ingredients and additives in the studied ready-made dishes, soups, and sauces.

Table 6 shows 10 food items classified as sweets and desserts. As many as nine products in this group contained at least one of the most common food additives ( Table 1 ). Glucose-fructose or glucose syrups were found in six of the examined items. A study in Ref. [ 19 ] shows that sweets often include the so-called Southampton colours, such as quinoline yellow and tartrazine. However, the study reports that the amounts of these substances added to sweets are much lower than the maximum values allowed by the applicable law.

Food additives and ingredients in the studied sweets.

Citric acid (E330) is a natural compound found in citrus fruits. It is also the by-product of digestive processes in the human body. However, on the industrial scale, the substance is produced using the Aspergillus niger mould. Citric acid is used in food as an acidity regulator, preservative, and flavour enhancer. Outside the food industry, the acid is added to cleaning agents and acts as a decalcifying agent. Citric acid in food is a safe additive and is added to food on the quantum satis basis; nevertheless its widespread use constitutes a risk. This substance is found in many food products, such as beverages, juices, lemonades, sweets, ice creams, canned goods, and even bread, so customers consume it in large quantities everyday [ 20 ]. When consumed frequently in excess, citric acid can lead to enamel degradation and teeth deterioration. This additive also supports the absorption of heavy metals, which, in turn, might lead to brain impairment. It can also affect the kidneys and liver [ 13 , 15 ].

Monosodium glutamate (E621) is the most widespread flavour enhancer. It is even considered to be one of the five basic tastes ( umami ). Glutamic acid and its (magnesium, potassium, and calcium) salts lend a meaty flavour to products. The substance was first extracted from algae by a Japanese scientist, but now it is generally produced by biotechnological means using microorganisms that can be genetically modified [ 6 ]. Another commonly used flavour enhancer is chemically produced disodium 5′-ribonucleotides (E635) . These additives can be found in ready-made dishes, sauces, meat and fish products, instant soups, crisps, and cakes. These flavour enhancers are the not inert in relation to the neurological system [ 16 ]. This can affect brain cells and lead to headaches, heart palpitations, excessive sweating, listlessness, nausea, and skin lesions. Such anomalies, which could have been caused by the excessive consumption of products rich in glutamates, are referred to as the Chinese restaurant syndrome [ 20 ]. Flavour enhancers can also serve a positive function by increasing appetite in the sick or the elderly [ 20 ]. Other additional substances commonly found in foodstuffs are polysaccharides:

Guar gum (E412) and xanthan gum (E415) . These are referred to as hydrocolloids, i.e. substances that bind water, are easily soluble in both cold and warm water, and improve mixture viscosity. Guar gum is a polysaccharide obtained from guar, a leguminous plant grown in India and Pakistan [ 14 ]. Xanthan gum is a polysaccharide of microbiological origin. On the industrial scale, it is obtained as a result of Xanthomonas campestris bacteria fermenting the sugar contained in corn (often genetically modified). Both these additives are approved for use in all food products as thickening, firming, and stabilising agents, on the quantum satis basis. Guar gum and xanthan gum can be found mainly in bread, cakes, ready-made sauces and dishes, and powdered food, where they ensure the appropriate consistency. Moreover, they prevent the crystallisation of water in ice cream and frozen food and the separation of fluids in dairy products and juices. The human body is not capable of digesting, breaking down, or absorbing these gums. These substances swell in the intestines, which can cause flatulence and stomach ache. In addition, guar gum can cause allergies [ 13 , 14 , 15 ].

A commonly found preservative is sodium nitrite (E250) . It is a salty and white or yellowish crystalline powder, obtained by the chemical processing of nitric acid or some lyes and gases [ 9 ]. This additive is generally used in the meat industry to inhibit botulinum toxin and Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, slow down fat rancidification, maintain the pink red colour of meat, and provide meat with a specific flavour. It does not, however, prevent the growth of yeast or mould. Sodium nitrite is toxic, oxidising, and dangerous to the environment, so it must not be added to food in its pure form. This additive is used in very small doses (0.5–0.6%) in the form of a mixture with domestic salt [ 9 ] in amounts up to 150 mL per L or mg kg −1 . When consumed in large quantities, nitrites can cause cyanosis, whose symptoms include blue coloration of the skin, lips, and mucous membranes. During digestion, nitrites are transformed into carcinogenic nitrosamines. Moreover, they are particularly dangerous for children, since they stop erythrocytes from binding oxygen, which can lead to death by suffocation [ 11 ].

A common ingredient in food is maltodextrin , which in the European Union is not considered as a food additive, but as an ingredient. Therefore, within the community, maltodextrin has no E code, while in Sweden it is considered an additive and identified as E1400 [ 18 ]. Maltodextrin is a disaccharide obtained from corn starch, but it is not sweet in taste. Nevertheless, it provides greater sweetness than normal sugar or grape sugar (the glycaemic index of maltodextrin is 120, that of normal sugar is 70, and that of grape sugar is 100). It is used as a thickening agent, stabiliser, bulking agent, and even as a fat substitute in low-calorie products. It is added to products for athletes and children, to instant soups, sweets, and meat products [ 10 ]. Maltodextrin does not affect the natural product taste or flavour, while it provides human body with carbohydrates and energy. Due to the fact that glucose particles in maltodextrin are broken down only in the intestines, it can also support metabolism. A negative aspect of its use is tooth decay [ 10 , 18 ].

What frequently occurs in consumer goods is glucose-fructose syrup . Similarly to maltodextrin, it is not considered to be a food additive, but, due to its widespread application, it is important to mention it here. Glucose-fructose syrup, also known as high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), replaces traditional sugar in many products, such as beverages, sweets, jams, fruit products, and liqueurs, and in the United States and Canada is the dominant sweetener [ 19 ]. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose, which are joined with alpha-1,4-glycosidic bond, and HFCS contains free fructose and free glucose in specific proportions. The name of this substance depends on the proportion of its ingredients. When the syrup contains more fructose, it is referred to as fructose-glucose syrup [ 12 ]. It is obtained mainly from corn starch as a result of acid or enzymatic hydrolysis. Glucose-fructose syrup is much sweeter and cheaper than traditional sugar, it does not crystallise, and it has a liquid form, which makes it functional during processing. Nevertheless, there are some disturbing aspects of using this substance. During the consumption of products with glucose-fructose syrup, the body receives unnatural amounts of fructose, which is broken down in the liver in a manner similar to alcohol. Therefore, its excessive amounts can cause fatty liver and overburden this organ. This has even been named “non-alcoholic fatty liver disease”. In addition, heavy consumption of monosaccharides has been found to contribute to obesity, which, in turn, can cause high blood pressure and diabetes. Fructose affects the lipid metabolism and disrupts the perception of hunger and satiety. Labels do not provide the exact HFCS content, but it is estimated that the consumption of a single product with this substance satisfies the acceptable daily monosaccharide intake [ 5 , 6 , 11 , 13 ].

Another frequently added substance is sodium erythorbate (E316) . This synthetic compound is used as an antioxidant and stabiliser in meat and fish products and is useful for ham and sausage pickling [ 13 ]. It has similar properties to ascorbic acid, but it is not effective as vitamin C. Sodium erythorbate is considered to be noninvasive in the human body [ 12 , 13 ].

The most widespread natural emulsifier is soy lecithin . Etymologically, the word “lecithin” can be traced back to lekythos , Greek for egg yolk, but this compound is actually found in any plant or animal cell. Lecithin is produced from eggs, sunflower and rapeseed oils, and soybeans [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. This additive is identified as E322 and is used for the production of mayonnaise, ice creams, margarine, ready-made desserts, sauces, and instant soups. Products with added lecithin dissolve in water more easily. EU law does not impose any limits on the use of E322. Only in products for children, lecithin content must not exceed 1 g per L.

Triphosphates (E451) , as well as diphosphates and polyphosphates, are used as preservatives, flavour enhancers, stabilisers, and rising and water-binding agents. Triphosphates are produced chemically and have a broad application. They are added to sauces, meats and meat products, desserts, bread, pâtés, fish products, ice creams, and non-alcoholic beverages [ 21 ]. The human body needs phosphorus in specific amounts, but the widespread use of phosphoric acids and phosphates in food makes people likely to consume this element in excess. When consumed regularly, increased doses of phosphates can lead to osteoporosis or contribute to kidney dysfunction and affect the circulatory system [ 13 , 21 ]. A popular hydrocolloid found in food is carrageenan (E407) . This substance is extracted from Eucheuma , a tribe of red algae. Carrageenan is highly soluble in water and is used as a bulking agent in dietary products, and it is also added to beverages, ice creams, sauces, marmalades, and powdered milk [ 6 , 7 ]. Carrageenan can be used on the quantum satis basis. Usually, it is combined with other hydrocolloids. This additive is not digestible by the human body. There are certain objections concerning the consumption of carrageenan, e.g. it can cause intestinal cancer and stomach ulcers [ 11 , 12 , 13 ].

Tocopherols (E306) are commonly known as vitamin E, insoluble in water and soluble in fats. It is used as a preservative, stabiliser, and potent antioxidant in such products as oils, margarines, desserts, meat products, and alcoholic beverages. Tocopherols are produced synthetically or obtained from plant oils, but natural vitamin E is twice as easily absorbed by the human body [ 21 ].

Common preservatives include benzoic acid and its salts, of which the most frequently used is sodium benzoate (E211) . Negligible amounts of these substances are naturally found in berries, mushrooms, and fermented milk-based drinks. On an industrial scale, it is produced synthetically from toluene obtained from crude oil [ 3 , 12 ]. What is characteristic of sodium benzoate is that it slows down the growth of mould and yeast, but does not prevent the growth of bacteria, which is why it is often used with other preservatives, such as sulphur dioxide (E220). It is commonly used in products with acidic pH, such as marinades, fruit juices, and products with mayonnaise, such as vegetable salads. Sodium benzoate can cause allergies [ 6 , 13 ]. Our own study (see “Results and discussion”) showed that ammonia caramel (E150c) and sulphite ammonia caramel (E150d) are fairly common colours. It adds brown to black colours to products. Under natural conditions, this substance is created when sugar is heated. As a food additive, it is produced chemically using ammonia, as well as phosphates, sulphates, and sulphites (sulphite ammonia caramel is produced) [ 19 ]. This substance is approved for use under EU law [ 5 ]; however, there are studies that have confirmed that it negatively affects human health. It has been proven that this colour can cause hyperactivity and liver, thyroid, and lung neoplasms and also impair immunity. Ammonia caramel is used to dye non-alcoholic beverages, such as cola and marmalades [ 10 , 11 ].

The external aspect that is most crucial for buyers when it comes to food selection is its freshness. Buyers assess the best before date against the possibility of consuming the food quickly or storing it for future use. Another determinant is the value of the item. Any consumer will pay attention to the price of the product they buy. Another factor is the product ingredients specified on the packaging. Buyers have been observed to have developed a habit of reading labels before buying anything. Some customers also pay attention to the country of origin or brand [ 22 ]. Men and women who are determined to stay fit will also consider nutritional value. The factors that are not considered that are relevant include net product weight, information about any genetically modified raw material content, and notices about any implemented quality management systems. Moreover, consumers are likely to be affected by marketing devices, such as advertisements or special offers, used by producers. A temporary reduction in price, or the opportunity to buy two items for the price of one, encourages customers to make a purchase [ 3 , 4 ]. What is also vital is whether the food is functional. Many people live at a fast pace, work a lot, or get stuck in traffic jams, and the lack of free time pushes them to buy ready-made dishes to be heated up at home or food that can be prepared in an instant [ 4 , 13 , 22 ].

Nowadays, food additives are very widespread in the everyday human diet, but not all of them are synthetic and invasive to human health. Products which must not contain foreign substances do not contain food additives. The explorations undertaken by this and other studies confirm the widespread use of the investigated additives, except for citric acid, which is less popular an additive than sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate. This study shows that when adopting a healthy lifestyle, consumers can choose from a range of food and pharmaceutical products that either contain a limited amount of unconventional substances or do not contain such substances at all.

• 1. Toussaint-Samat MA. History of Food. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. ISBN: 978 1-405-18119-8
• 2. Couture L. The history of canned food. Johnson and Wales University School of Arts and Science. Academic Symposium of Underground Scholarship; 2010
• 3. Gram L, Ravn L, Rasch M, Bruhn JB, Christensen AB, Givskov M. Food spoilage—Interactions between food spoilage bacteria. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2002; 78 (1-2):79-97. PMID: 12222639
• 4. Publikacja Komisji Europejskiej. Zrozumieć politykę UE—Bezpieczeństwo Żywności (Understanding EU policy—Food Safety). Urząd Publikacji Unii Europejskiej; 2014 (in Polish)
• 5. Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (WE) z dnia 16 grudnia 2008 r. w sprawie dodatków do żywności [The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) of 16 December 2008 on food additives]. Dz. Urz. L 354 (in Polish)
• 6. Sharma S. Food preservatives and their harmful effects. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2015; 4 (5):1-2. ISSN 2250-3153
• 7. Abdulmumeen HA. Food: Its preservatives, additives and applications. International Journal of Chemical and Biochemical Sciences. 2012; 1 :36-45. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1623.5208
• 8. Kobylewski S, Jacobson MF. Food Dyes, A Rainbow of Risks. Washington: Centre for Science in the Public Interest; 2010. Available from: https://cspinet.org/resource/food-dyes-rainbow-risks
• 9. Uchman W. Substancje dodatkowe w przetwórstwie mięsa [Additives in Meat Processing]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego w Poznaniu; 2008 (in Polish)
• 10. McCam D, Barrett A, Cooper A, Crumpler D, Dalen L, Grinshaw K, et al. Food additives and hyperactive behavior in 3-years-old and 8/9-years-old children in the community, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet. 2007; 370 :1560-1567. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61306-3
• 11. Belitz H. Food Chemistry. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelbeg; 2009. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-69934-7
• 12. Wüstenberg T. General overview of food hydrocolloids in cellulose and cellulose derivatives in the food industry. Fundamentals and Applications. 2014; 16 :986-994. DOI: 10.1002/9783527682935.ch01
• 13. Report of European Food Safety Authority. Scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of citric acid when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator). EFSA Journal. 2015; 13 (2):4010. Available from: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajourna
• 14. Tripathy S, Das MK. Guar gum: Present status and applications. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Scientific Innovation. 2013; 7 (2):24-28. DOI: 10.7897/2277-4572.02447
• 15. Sengar GI, Sharma HK. Food caramels: A review. Journal on Food Science and Technology. 2014; 51 (9):1686-1696. DOI: 10.1007/s13197-012-0633-z
• 16. Husarova V, Ostatnikowa D. Monosodium glutamate toxic effects and their implications for human intake. JMED Research. 2013: 2013 :1-12. DOI: 10.5171/2013.608765
• 17. Ratusz K, Maszewska M. Ocena występowania konserwantów w żywności na rynku warszawskim [The Assessment of Preservative Occurrence in Food in Warsaw]. Bromatologia i Chemia Toksykologiczna. 2013; 3 (45):917-922 (in Polish). Available from: https://docplayer.pl/13226410-Ocena-wystepowania-konserwantow-w-zywnosci-na-rynku-warszawskim.html
• 18. Chronakis J. On the molecular characteristics, compositional properties and structural—Functional mechanism of maltodextrins. Critical Review in Food Science and Nutrition. 2010; 38 (7):599-637. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
• 19. Jacobson MF. Carcinogenicity and regulation of caramel colorings. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2011; 18 (3):254-259. DOI: 10.1179/1077352512Z.00000000034
• 20. Gahalawat S, Singh M, Farswan A. Chinese restaurant syndrome by MSG: A Myth or Reality. Guru Dron. Journal of Pharmacy Research. 2014; 2 (2):38-41. Available from: http://www.sbspgi.edu.in/downloads/SSR_NAAC.pdf
• 21. Zielińska A, Nowak I. Tokoferole i tokotrienole jako witamina E [Tocopherols and tocotrienols as vitamin E]. Chemik. 2014; 7 (68):585-591 (in Polish)
• 22. Rudawska E, Perenc J. Tendencje zachowań konsumenckich na regionalnym rynku [Consumer behaviour trends on the regional market]. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego; 2010 (in Polish). ISSN 1640-6818

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Nutrition in health and disease.

Edited by Gyula Mozsik

Published: 09 October 2019

By Valente Velázquez-Ordoñez, Benjamín Valladares-Car...

5621 downloads

By Lingwen Zeng, Lei Peng, Dazhi Wu and Baoguo Yang

1697 downloads

By Chung-Hsing Chao

1004 downloads

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Food Additives — Food Additives: An In-Depth Analysis

Food Additives: an In-depth Analysis

• Categories: Food Additives Nutrition Organic Food

About this sample

Words: 2912 |

15 min read

Published: Apr 11, 2019

Words: 2912 | Pages: 6 | 15 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1716 words

1 pages / 552 words

1 pages / 1847 words

4 pages / 2008 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Food Additives

Meatless Mondays is a phenomenon that has been gaining popularity all over the world over the past few years. The concept of Meatless Mondays has been implemented at various institutions, from workplaces to college cafeterias, [...]

  Food coloring is a pigment or any substance that can color the food we eat or the drinks we drink, it can be in many forms like liquid, powder, paste and even gel. They're used to make the orange color of oranges [...]

D-Aspartic is a form of amino acid used to boost hormones levels and libido in men. Although the product may give you some health benefits, it also has its drawbacks. It is advisable to consider the D-Aspartic acid (DAA) pros [...]

The NS3 Pro(sports drink) drink is a part of functional drinks and also driven by the emerging trend for health & wellness, along with balanced diet among the physically fit and fitness conscious people. Moreover, this [...]

While food has conventionally been recognized as a source to produce energy and construction element to the body, its capacity to deter and guard against infections is beginning to be accepted. In specific, investigation over [...]

Professor. Manandhar Glycolysis and Beriberi One of the important cofactors necessary for the activity of the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex is thiamine pyrophosphate (TPP). TPP is derived from the vitamin thiamine, also called [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Food Food Additives

Negative Effects Of Food Additives On Our Health

Works cited:.

• “Benzene and Cancer Risk: What is benzene?” American Cancer Society. Web. 5 January 2016. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/benzene.html#written_byAccessed October 2018.
• Pletcher, Peggy. “Experts Agree: Sugar Might Be as Addictive as Cocaine” 10 October 2016. https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-sugar-addictive-drugAccessed October 2018.
• Link, Rachel. “12 Common Food Additives- Should You Avoid Them?” 23 April 2018. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/common-food-additivesAccessed October 2018.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Fast Food Nation
• Western Diet
• Food Security

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Link between plastic and heart attacks shows it's time to reduce packaging and its chemicals

Cranes lift waste, mostly plastic and paper at a recycling plant. Credit: AP/Oded Balilty

This guest essay reflects the views of former EPA regional administrator Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and a professor at Bennington College.

Plastic has now been linked to increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and premature death in humans. At what point will policymakers realize this material — which lingers for centuries and is made with chemicals known to be toxic to humans — is as much a threat to human health as it is to the planet?

Plastic pollution entered our daily lives in the 1950s as single-use plastic like grocery bags, bottles, utensils, and food packaging began sullying our streets, parks, streams, beaches, and eventually the ocean. Recently, it’s become much more than just an environmental issue. Plastic has infiltrated our food, water, air, soil, and yes, even our bodies. It’s been found in human blood, lungs, breast milk, placentas, and more.

A March study in the New England Journal of Medicine found tiny plastic particles in human arteries — specifically the carotid arteries, which supply blood to the brain. That’s not the worst of it: Patients with plastic-tainted arteries were nearly five times more likely to suffer from a cardiovascular event like heart attack or stroke.

Still, the chemical additives in plastic are arguably more concerning. They have been associated with cancer, nervous system damage, hormone disruption, and fertility issues, just to name a few.

Over 16,000 chemicals are used in plastic to give it color, pliability, durability, fire resistance, and more. Of those, at least 4,200 are considered “highly hazardous” to human health and the environment. Thousands more haven’t even been tested for toxicity. Because these additives aren’t tightly bound to plastic, they can leach into our food and beverages from their plastic packages, especially when heated.

From our Editorial Board, get inside the local, city and state political scenes.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy .

We don’t need another 50 years of research to confirm that ingesting a nonbiodegradable, inorganic material made with toxic chemicals is a risk to human health. Our plastic exposure will only expand in the future — plastic production is expected to triple by 2060.

Inaction is no longer an option. Fortunately, New York state lawmakers are considering a transformational piece of public policy. If adopted, the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act would be the most sweeping packaging reduction law in the world, cutting plastic packaging in half over the next 12 years. After reduction, the remaining packaging must be reusable or recyclable.

This part alone is monumental, but the bill also requires some of the most toxic chemicals used in packaging to be eliminated. It would prohibit the use of PFAS (known as “forever chemicals”), lead, mercury, bisphenols, formaldehyde, vinyl chloride, and other chemicals in packaging — chemicals you probably didn’t know were in the plastic covering your food and drinks.

The legislation also would make a sizable dent in the nation’s plastic production and use, given New York’s ranking as the fourth-largest state in the country. If enacted, this bill would set a blueprint for other states to adopt.

New York legislators should remember this is an election year, and voters want to see effective policies to reduce plastic pollution. A 2022 poll found that 88% of people registered to vote in New York are concerned about single-use plastic products and support local and state policies to reduce single-use plastic.

We need Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins to bring the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act to the floor for a vote. Our health, and the planet’s health, are at stake. We have no more time to waste on waste.

THIS GUEST ESSAY reflects the views of former EPA regional administrator Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and a professor at Bennington College.

Advertisement

Supported by

‘Cabaret’ Review: What Good Is Screaming Alone in Your Room?

Eddie Redmayne and Gayle Rankin star in a buzzy Broadway revival that rips the skin off the 1966 musical.

• Share full article

By Jesse Green

Just east of its marquee, the August Wilson Theater abuts an alley you probably didn’t notice when last you were there, perhaps to see “Funny Girl,” its previous tenant. Why would you? Where the trash goes is not usually part of the Broadway experience.

But it is for the latest revival of “Cabaret,” which opened at the Wilson on Sunday. Audience members are herded into that alley, past the garbage, down some halls, up some stairs and through a fringed curtain to a dimly lit lounge. (There’s a separate entrance for those with mobility issues.) Along the way, greeters offer free shots of cherry schnapps that taste, I’m reliably told, like cough syrup cut with paint thinner.

Too often I thought the same of the show itself.

But the show comes later. First, starting 75 minutes beforehand, you can experience the ambience of the various bars that constitute the so-called Kit Kat Club, branded in honor of the fictional Berlin cabaret where much of the musical takes place. Also meant to get you in the mood for a story set mostly in 1930, on the edge of economic and spiritual disaster, are some moody George Grosz-like paintings commissioned from Jonathan Lyndon Chase . (One is called “Dancing, Holiday Before Doom.”) The $9 thimbleful of potato chips is presumably a nod to the period’s hyperinflation.

This all seemed like throat clearing to me, as did the complete reconfiguration of the auditorium itself, which is now arranged like a large supper club or a small stadium. (The scenic, costume and theater design are the jaw-dropping work of Tom Scutt.) The only relevant purpose I can see for this conceptual doodling, however well carried out, is to give the fifth Broadway incarnation of the 1966 show a distinctive profile. It certainly does that.

The problem for me is that “Cabaret” has a distinctive profile already. The extreme one offered here frequently defaces it.

Let me quickly add that Rebecca Frecknall’s production , first seen in London , has many fine and entertaining moments. Some feature its West End star Eddie Redmayne, as the macabre emcee of the Kit Kat Club (and quite likely your nightmares). Some come from its new New York cast, including Gayle Rankin (as the decadent would-be chanteuse Sally Bowles) and Bebe Neuwirth and Steven Skybell (dignified and wrenching as an older couple). Others arise from Frecknall’s staging itself, which is spectacular when in additive mode, illuminating the classic score by John Kander and Fred Ebb, and the amazingly sturdy book by Joe Masteroff.

But too often a misguided attempt to resuscitate the show breaks its ribs.

The conception of Sally is especially alarming. As written — and as introduced in the play and stories the musical is based on — she is a creature of blithe insouciance if not talent, an English good-time gal flitting from brute to brute in Berlin while hoping to become a star. Her first number, “Don’t Tell Mama,” is a lively Charleston with winking lyrics (“You can tell my brother, that ain’t grim/Cause if he squeals on me I’ll squeal on him”) that make the Kit Kat Club audience, and the Broadway one too, complicit in her naughtiness.

Instead, Frecknall gives us a Sally made up to look like she’s recently been assaulted or released from an asylum, who dances like a wounded bird, stretches each syllable to the breaking point and shrieks the song instead of singing it. (Goodbye, Charleston; hello, dirge.) If Rankin doesn’t sound good in the number, nor later in “Mein Herr,” interpolated from the 1972 film, she’s not trying to. Like the cough syrup-paint thinner concoction, she’s meant to be taken medicinally and poisonously in this production, projecting instead of concealing Sally’s turmoil.

That’s inside-out. The point of Sally, and of “Cabaret” more generally, is to dramatize the danger of disengagement from reality, not to fetishize it.

The guts-first problem also distorts Redmayne’s Emcee, but at least that character was always intended as allegorical. He is the host to anything, the amoral shape-shifter, becoming whatever he must to get by. Here, he begins as a kind of marionette in a leather skirt and tiny party hat, hiccupping his way through “Willkommen.” Later he effectively incarnates himself as a creepy clown, an undead skeleton, Sally’s twin and a glossy Nazi.

Having seen Frecknall’s riveting production of “Sanctuary City,” a play about undocumented immigrants by Martyna Majok , I’m not surprised that her “Cabaret” finds a surer footing in the “book” scenes. These are the ones that take place in the real Berlin, not the metaphorical one of the Kit Kat Club. She is extraordinarily good when she starts with the naturalistic surface of behavior, letting the mise en scène and the lighting (excellent, by Isabella Byrd) suggest the rest.

And naturalism is what you find at the boardinghouse run by Fräulein Schneider (Neuwirth), a woman who has learned to keep her nose down to keep safe. Her tenants include a Jewish fruiterer, Herr Schultz (Skybell); a prostitute, Fräulein Kost (Natascia Diaz); and Clifford Bradshaw (Ato Blankson-Wood), an American writer come to Berlin in search of inspiration. Soon Sally shows up to provide it, having talked her way into Cliff’s life and bed despite being little more than a stranger. Also, despite Cliff’s romantic ambivalence; over the years, the character has had his sexuality revamped more times than a clownfish.

The Schneider-Shultz romance is sweet and sad; neither character is called upon to shriek. And Rankin excels in Sally’s scenes with Cliff, her wry, frank and hopeful personality back in place. The songs that emerge from the boardinghouse dramas are not ransacked as psychiatric case studies but are rather given room to let comment proceed naturally from real entertainment. Rankin’s “Maybe This Time,” with no slathered-on histrionics, is riveting. It turns out she can properly sing.

The interface between the naturalism and the expressionism does make for some weird moments: Herr Schultz, courtly in a topcoat, must hug Sally goodbye in her bra. But letting the styles mix also brings out the production’s most haunting imagery. The intrusion of the Nazi threat into the story is especially well handled: first a gorgeously sung and thus chilling version of “Tomorrow Belongs to Me,” then the swastika and then — well, I don’t want to give away how Frecknall stages the scene in which Schultz’s fruit shop is vandalized.

That so many of these moments arise from faithful attention to the original material should be no surprise. “Cabaret” hasn’t lasted this long for nothing. Created at the tail end of Broadway’s Golden Age, it benefited from the tradition of meticulous craftsmanship that preceded it while anticipating the era of conceptual stagings that followed.

All this is baked into the book, and especially the score, which I trust I admire not merely because I worked on a Kander and Ebb show 40 years ago. That the lyrics rhyme perfectly is a given with Ebb; more important, they are always the right words to rhyme. (Listen, in the title song, for the widely spaced triplet of “room,” “broom” and, uh-oh, “tomb.”) And Kander’s music, remixing period jazz, Kurt Weill and Broadway exuberance, never oversteps the milieu or outpaces the characters even as it pushes them toward their full and sometimes manic expression.

When this new “Cabaret” follows that template, it achieves more than the buzz of chic architecture and louche dancing. (The choreography is by Julia Cheng.) Seducing us and then repelling us — in that order — it dramatizes why we flock to such things in the first place, whether at the Kit Kat Club or the August Wilson Theater. We hope, at our risk, to forget that, outside, “life is disappointing,” as the Emcee tells us. We want to unsee the trash.

Cabaret At the August Wilson Theater, Manhattan; kitkat.club . Running time: 2 hours 45 minutes, with an optional preshow.

Jesse Green is the chief theater critic for The Times. He writes reviews of Broadway, Off Broadway, Off Off Broadway, regional and sometimes international productions. More about Jesse Green