Article Text
Abstract
Many additives, some of which have no nutritional value, can be legally used in processed foods. They intensify colour, thicken, increase shelf life and enhance flavour. Regulatory authorities issue approvals as safe within acceptable quantitative limits. Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) contain combinations of all these additives and are particularly attractive to children.
Many publications suggest that artificial colourants, benzoate preservatives, non-caloric sweeteners, emulsifiers and their degradation derivatives have adverse effects by increasing risks of mental health disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome and potential carcinogenic effects.
A systematic review has established that artificial azo dye food colourants (AFCs) and sodium benzoate preservative cause disturbed behaviour in children. AFCs and benzoates in animal models have neurotoxic properties through gut microbial generation of toxic metabolites. Observational studies show associations between high emulsifier intake and cardiovascular disease. Animal models and in vitro studies have highlighted neurotoxic, cytotoxic, genotoxic and carcinogenic effects. High intake of non-caloric sweeteners has been linked to cardiovascular disease and depression in adults and is linked to childhood obesity.
Little research has focused on children who are the largest consumers of UPFs. Potentially, they are a ticking time bomb for adult obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular diseases, mental health disorders and cancers. Based on risk/benefit analysis, azo dye AFCs should be banned. Benzoates, emulsifiers and sweeteners require assessment of quantitative limits and cumulative effects of combinations. Consumers purchasing UPFs require information through ingredient health warnings and recommendations to use natural unprocessed foods which have well-described health-promoting properties.
- Obesity
- Child Health
- Mental health
- Toxicology
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Key messages
Azo dye colourants which have no nutritional value but pose significant health hazards should no longer be approved food additives.
Re-evaluation is required for the safe quantitative limits of benzoate preservatives, non-caloric sweeteners and emulsifiers both individually and in ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
Adverse long-term effects of high intake of UPFs on child and adult health are a major concern
Introduction
Foods can be legally adulterated with a wide range of additives, many of which have no nutritional value. They intensify colour, thicken, increase shelf life and enhance flavour of processed foods. Regulatory authorities scrutinise data provided by manufacturers prior to issuing approval as safe within maximum quantitative limits for some but not all additives. While some additives have no nutritional value, others are useful in, for instance, preventing bacterial and fungal contamination. The European Economic Community, now European Union, established an E-number notation (adopted worldwide) for those additives, other than flavourings, deemed to be safe and approved by regulators. Not all additives are artificial and even vitamin C (ascorbic acid) has a number (E-300) when used as an antioxidant. However, the focus of concern about potential health hazards is on artificial colourants, benzoate preservatives, sweeteners and emulsifiers. There are many publications suggesting that these additives and their degradation derivatives have adverse effects on health by aggravating allergies, conduct disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), mental ill-health, metabolic disorders and cardiovascular disease, and have potential teratogenic and carcinogenic effects.1–3 Regulators have been slow to respond to evolving postmarketing evidence after the initial approval. The new evidence which has accumulated over the last two decades mandates review and where appropriate, revision of approvals and/or quantitative limits.
Food colourants and ultra-processed foods
Consumers associate colour with quality and children are particularly attracted to highly coloured products often with poor nutritional value such as sweets and soft drinks. While some food dyes are extracted from natural sources, the most commonly employed are synthetic organic compounds, known as artificial food colourants (AFCs). Azo dyes are produced in the largest quantities, constituting over 60% used in foods and drinks, but also pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paper and textiles. The most frequently added to foods are tartrazine (E-102), sunset yellow (E-110), carmosine (E-122), amaranth (E-123), ponceau 4R (E-124), allura red AC (E-129), brilliant blue (E-133) and HT brown (E-155). As they have no nutritional value or preservation properties, the improvement in appearance of food products must be balanced against increasing concerns about hazards to health. Given the attractiveness of highly coloured processed confectionery, soft drinks, etc, it is not surprising that in children, estimates of the average cumulative intake in the diet have exceeded WHO-acceptable daily intake levels in a number of countries.4 5
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and drinks commonly contain combinations of AFCs, benzoate preservatives, non-caloric sweeteners and emulsifiers. Recent publications have highlighted adverse effects of non-caloric sweeteners and emulsifiers in adults.6 7 No studies have established the long-term health consequences of cocktails of additives, but consistent evidence points to individual additives in highly processed foods being hazardous to health, and experimental models have identified potential mechanisms.8 Of greatest concern is high intake in children who have the potential to have even greater long-term adverse effects than have been observed in adult studies. A literature review revealed high intake of UPFs in children not only in high but also middle and low-income countries. In the USA, Canada and the UK, UPFs constitute over 50% of childhood daily energy intake.9
AFCs/benzoate preservatives and behaviour
Feingold published an uncontrolled study suggesting that 68% of children with learning difficulties and behaviour problems improved on a diet excluding AFCs, preservatives and supposed salicylate-containing fruits and vegetables.10 Subsequent conflicting outcomes from studies of dietary restriction in children with behaviour disorders have been compromised by poor study design and the variability of definitions of ADHD and conduct disorders. It is, therefore, tempting to dismiss the concept of an association between AFCs and behaviour disturbance; indeed, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), in 2008, reviewed past and more recent data on the association, and despite evidence to the contrary, rejected the relevance of a link.11 However, the repeated assertions from parents warrant further investigations.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of published double-blind placebo-controlled trials showed a significant effect of AFCs and other additives on the behaviour of children with ADHD. A secondary analysis in non-hyperactive children showed a significant adverse effect on behaviour when exposed to additives compared with placebo.12 Following the systematic review, my team conducted two large studies investigating the effects of a mixture of commonly used azo dye AFCs and sodium benzoate (E-211) in whole population samples of children.13 14 They were challenged in double-blind form with the mixture of additives or placebo in a drink administered daily for 1 week while on an otherwise additive-free diet. There were consistently higher levels of hyperactive behaviour when on artificial additives rather than placebo. There were no differences in response between children with or without pre-existing allergy, conduct disorder or ADHD. The effect size was similar to that calculated in the meta-analysis (0.28 (0.08–0.49)).12 The accumulated evidence indicates that mixtures of AFCs and benzoate preservatives have a significant effect on children’s behaviour. While the effect size is relatively small, in children with pre-existing conduct disorders, this can be ‘the last straw to break the camel’s back’, and impacts on long-term educational achievement and career attainment are unknown.
Potential mechanisms for adverse responses to AFCs and benzoates
While past concerns have focused on additives inducing allergies, the only confirmed IgE antibody-mediated responses have been to colourants from natural sources such as carmine (E-120) and annatto (E-160). They are likely to contain sufficient protein to act as conventional allergens and are the most common food colourants to cause urticaria/angio-oedema.15 In vitro and human challenge studies have indicated that tartrazine induces non-IgE-mediated histamine release.16 17 We genotyped the children from our double-blind AFC and sodium benzoate challenge study.14 There was a gene/environment interaction in that children who had an adverse behavioural response to additive challenge were significantly more likely to have a polymorphism in the histamine-N-methyl-transferase gene.18 The polymorphism is associated with impaired histamine degradation so that AFC triggering of histamine release would be more likely to have the adverse effects on behaviour. Histamine is released from cells in the third ventricle and posterior hypothalamus, and it is likely that AFC small molecules or their metabolites will cross the blood–brain barrier inducing non-IgE-mediated histamine release. Histamine 1, 2 and 3 receptors are present on central nervous system neurons and influence sleep/wake cycles and behaviour. This provides additional credibility to a causal association between AFC exposure and disturbed behaviour.19 20
The concerns expressed in publications about the EFSA dismissive response to evidence in relation to child behavioural effects21 eventually resulted in the European parliament adopting a legislative package mandating that products containing azo dye AFCs should be labelled with a health warning, ‘may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children’. This has impacted on food manufacturers moving to natural alternatively sourced colourants, but regulators will need to be mindful of allergenicity before granting approval. We do not need one problem to be replaced by another. However, some of the natural colourants have additional nutraceutical properties such as beta-carotene (160e) from carrots, betanin (E-162) from beetroot and curcumin (E-100) from turmeric.22
Sweeteners: depression and cardiovascular disease
A recent large US cohort study followed depression-free middle-aged women with food frequency questionnaires administered every 4 years. Those with a high UPF consumption were more likely to have developed new-onset depression even allowing for confounders (cigarette smoking, less exercise and comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia). Discriminating individual additive components highlighted that artificially sweeteners had the greatest effect on depression risk.23 Non-caloric artificial sweeteners (sucralose E-955, acesulfame E-950 and saccharin E-944) differ from natural sugars in stimulating purinergic, rather than glutamatergic neurotransmission from the gut.24 Purinergic activity has been long been known to be linked to depression.25
A very large French cohort study followed adults for a median of 9 years with regular 24-hour diet diaries. New-onset cardiovascular disease occurred more frequently in those with a high artificial sweetener intake. Aspartame (E-951) was specifically associated with cerebrovascular disease, while acesulfame potassium (E-950) or sucralose (E-955) increased coronary artery disease risk.6 Statistical modelling accounted for potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary and lifestyle confounders, but the co-intake of other additives including colourants and emulsifiers could have amplified the effect. As discussed in the paper, the observations are in line with other studies and there are potential mechanisms focused on glucose homeostasis and dyslipidaemia.6
The literature review discussing UPF intake in children focused on non-caloric sweetened foods and drinks and linked their intake to childhood obesity. The intake of attractive and palatable foods and drinks potentially induces hyperphagia through ‘brain reward systems’.9 In vitro and animal model studies have clearly shown effects on behaviour likely through changes in neural circuitry.
Emulsifiers (most between E-400 and E-495) and cardiovascular disease
Recent epidemiological studies have linked high intake of highly processed foods to increased risks of obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancers and type 2 diabetes.1 Based on mechanistic considerations, attention has focused on the extensive use of emulsifiers which thicken and prolong shelf life of foods.7 Most approved additive emulsifiers do not have a legal upper quantitative limit being classed as ‘quantum satis’. The large French study followed over 95 000 adults with no prior diagnosis of cardiovascular disease for a median of 7 years with at least three 24-hour food diary records. Emulsifiers were most frequently present in processed fruits and vegetables, cakes, biscuits and dairy products. Analysis accounting for a wide range of confounders showed significantly more cardiovascular disease among those consuming high amounts of five individual and two groups of commonly used food additive emulsifiers.7 As with the sweetener study cause cannot yet be ascribed to an association as there may be additional confounding by other lifestyle differences and co-intake of many other additives. However, this is yet another clarion call for more research to investigate which if any food additives, individually or in combinations, have adverse effects on health. As with AFCs and sweeteners, there is mechanistic credibility to the indirect adverse effects of emulsifiers.
High intake of emulsifiers has been associated with altered gut microbiota (dysbiosis) which, based on predictions, would lead to differences on faecal short-chain fatty acids. Reduced butyrate and increased propionate were associated with increased markers of gut inflammation.26 A review of published data from human and animal model studies connects gut dysbiosis with metabolic syndrome through the microbial production of bioactive metabolites.27 This suggests a causal link between emulsifiers, dysbiosis and adverse metabolic consequences.
Polysorbates (E-432–E-436) and polyethylene glycol (PEG—E-1521) are included as permitted emulsifier additives and are subject to a quantitative limit. Polysorbate 80 (E-433) and PEG are used in several medicinal products including AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines. There is concern that rare cases of acute allergic reactions to drugs and these vaccines are due to either PEG or polysorbate.28 The question of sensitisation occurring through ingestion of these emulsifiers in foods must be investigated and should be possible from further analysis of the French cohort study.7
Conclusions
All the evidence from animal models, in vitro and human in vivo studies points to toxic effects of AFCs, benzoate preservatives, non-caloric sweeteners and emulsifiers. The gut microbiome plays a role in generating toxic additive metabolites. Far from being inert, safe products for human consumption, they have been associated with adverse neuropsychiatric, metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes. Given that ultra-processed drinks and confectionery contain combinations of colourants, sweeteners and emulsifiers, there is an urgent need to evaluate the consequences of consuming combinations of additives. While most studies have focused on health hazards for adults, the effects on children require much greater attention given the increasing understanding of the early-life origins of health and disease. Obesity, metabolic syndrome, susceptibility to cardiovascular disease and mental health disorders all have their origins in early life. Until further evidence is generated, regulatory authorities have a responsibility to protect the public. While they conduct rigorous assessment of novel foods, additives and processes, postmarketing re-evaluation is less clearly established. Given the constellation of evidence about the health hazards, the Hippocratic principle of non-maleficence must prevail. The azo dye AFCs which have no nutritional or health-promoting value should be banned forthwith. Further studies of the degradation products are urgently required and quantitative limits for benzoate preservatives, sweeteners and emulsifiers must be redefined in the interests of public and particularly child safety. Consumers must also have access to all the evidence to make sensible choices by focusing public health messages on the consumption of naturally sourced unprocessed foods, emphasising the health-promoting benefits of high intake of fish, fresh fruits and vegetables as exemplified by the Mediterranean diet.29
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
While I had no funding to produce this manuscript, the challenge studies performed by my group and reported in the paper were funded by grants from the Food Standards Agency (UK).
References
Footnotes
Funding The author has not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.