U.S. food additives banned in Europe: Expert says what Americans eat is "almost certainly" making them sick

Paco Dennis

SF VIP
Location
Mid-Missouri
We are what we eat? Misa and I are very careful about what we eat. We have almost completely cut out sugar and processed foods with additives.

"London — From baguettes to focaccia, Europe is famous for its bread. But there's one ingredient conspicuously missing: Potassium bromate. It's a suspected carcinogen that's banned for human consumption in Europe, China and India, but not in the United States.

In the U.S., the chemical compound is used by some food makers, usually in the form of fine crystals or powder, to strengthen dough. It is estimated to be present in more than 100 products.

"There is evidence that it may be toxic to human consumers, that it may even either initiate or promote the development of tumors," professor Erik Millstone, an expert on food additives at England's University of Sussex, told CBS News. He said European regulators take a much more cautious approach to food safety than their U.S. counterparts.

Asked if it can be said with certainty that differences in regulations mean people in the U.S. have developed cancers that they would not have developed if they'd been eating exclusively in Europe, Millstone said that was "almost certainly the conclusion that we could reach."

It's not just potassium bromate. A range of other chemicals and substances banned in Europe over health concerns are also permitted in the U.S., including Titanium dioxide (also known as E171); Brominated vegetable oil (BVO) (E443); Potassium bromate (E924); Azodicarbonamide (E927a) and Propylparaben (E217).

Millstone, who's spent almost half a century researching food and agriculture science, said most Americans were likely completely unaware that they were being exposed on a daily basis to substances in their food viewed as dangerous in Europe.

"They probably just think, 'Well, if it's available or it's in the store, it's probably fine,'" he said.

In a statement to CBS News, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said all food additives require "pre-market evaluation" and "regulations require evidence that each substance is safe at its intended level of use before it may be added to foods."

"Post-approval, our scientists continue to review relevant new information to determine whether there are safety questions and whether the use of such substance is no longer safe," the agency added.

Stacy McNamara is from upstate New York, but she has lived in London for a decade. She said raising children in the U.K. had opened her eyes to what's allowed in foods in the U.S.

McNamara has no plans to ever move back home, and she told CBS News that food safety was "for sure" a part of that decision.

In a statement to CBS News, the FDA said that when used properly, potassium bromate converts into a harmless substance during food production.

The FDA acknowledged, however, that not all of the compound used in any given recipe may convert during the production process, but that control measures were utilized to minimize the amount in final products."


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-food-additives-banned-europe-making-americans-sick-expert-says/
 

On the BBC news to day, there was an article about the number of brain-damaged children there are. It seems the special schools are over-flowing. I presume there is research being done to determine why there is such an increase in these children. Is it poor maternity care or poor diet, too much alcohol, or our polluted environment?
 

On the BBC news to day, there was an article about the number of brain-damaged children there are. It seems the special schools are over-flowing. I presume there is research being done to determine why there is such an increase in these children. Is it poor maternity care or poor diet, too much alcohol, or our polluted environment?
Given the amount of alcohol that the average UK woman ( of child bearing age ) consumes each week, I put it down to Alcohol fetal syndrome, during pregnancy. We see the same thing here in Canada in the Aboriginal population. JimB.
 
Proof, please. Cite at least one scientific study......To back up your claim. I'll put the tea on while you try to find it. JimB.
According to ChatGPT...

Reverse osmosis (RO) water can remove minerals and other impurities from drinking water, but it does not leach minerals from the body.

Our bodies obtain minerals from the foods and beverages we consume, not from the water we drink. While water does contain some minerals, they typically make only a small contribution to our overall mineral intake. In fact, the mineral content of water varies widely depending on the source and treatment methods used.

Drinking reverse osmosis water that has been treated to remove minerals will not lead to a mineral deficiency or mineral imbalances in the body, as long as you are obtaining these nutrients from other dietary sources. In fact, for people with certain health conditions, such as kidney disease, removing minerals from drinking water may be beneficial.

However, it is important to note that some minerals, such as calcium and magnesium, play important roles in maintaining bone health, among other functions. Therefore, if you are drinking reverse osmosis water that has had all minerals removed, it may be beneficial to obtain these minerals from other dietary sources or consider adding mineral supplements to your diet.
 
if you drink reverse osmosis water...or anything using that water in it's process...it depletes all the minerals out of your body...to the bone
I've been hearing that [bogus] claim for almost 30 years, almost as long as I've been using reverse osmosis water.
You get all the minerals your body needs from every day food.

Minerals include calcium and iron amongst many others and are found in:
meat
cereals
fish
milk and dairy foods
fruit and vegetables
nuts

Trace elements

Trace elements are also essential nutrients that your body needs to work properly, but in much smaller amounts than vitamins and minerals. They include iodine and fluorine.
Trace elements are found in small amounts in a variety of foods such as meat, fish, cereals, milk and dairy foods, vegetables and nuts.
https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/food-and-nutrition/eating-well/vitamins-and-minerals
 
I've been hearing that [bogus] claim for almost 30 years, almost as long as I've been using reverse osmosis water.
You get all the minerals your body needs from every day food.

Minerals include calcium and iron amongst many others and are found in:
meat
cereals
fish
milk and dairy foods
fruit and vegetables
nuts

Trace elements

Trace elements are also essential nutrients that your body needs to work properly, but in much smaller amounts than vitamins and minerals. They include iodine and fluorine.
Trace elements are found in small amounts in a variety of foods such as meat, fish, cereals, milk and dairy foods, vegetables and nuts.
https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/food-and-nutrition/eating-well/vitamins-and-minerals
February 8 2023...report by World Health Organization
 
February 8 2023...report by World Health Organization
While it's true that reverse osmosis removes some beneficial minerals from drinking water, a normal dietary intake easily compensates for the negligible loss. Several water treatment companies are using the WHO report as a means to pitch their various water purification products, such as:
atlawater.com/blogs/discover/reverse-osmosis-water-filter-health
drsozone.com/ozone-therapy/ozone-water
daviswaterconditioning.com/innovation-ozone
 
After all the horror stories it seems they are still putting aspartame in our food. I seem to remember that it has been banned in some other countries.
 
All those claims warning about the dangers of reverse osmosis water seem to come from Alta Water System — a company that profits from scaring people into buying their products. Nowhere in their articles citing WHO studies do they link to any of the studies, and the WHO website doesn't seem to have any of those studies.

My conclusion...
depositphotos_54225809_s-2015.jpg
 
if you drink reverse osmosis water...or anything using that water in it's process...it depletes all the minerals out of your body...to the bone
Proof, please. Cite at least one scientific study......To back up your claim. I'll put the tea on while you try to find it. JimB.
all over the worldwide web jimb....for anyone to research themselves...we did that...up to you..
Jimmy, you could have easily confirmed the studies on reverse osmosis water for yourself instead of demanding that others provide them. But because I'm a nice girl, I did the work for you. It doesn't hurt to be nice. I hope you enjoyed your tea. :)

National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information - Demineralization of drinking water: Is it prudent? > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4223198/

Excerpt from the above article:

Minerals in water and health: the debate

"The potential for adverse health effects from long-term consumption of demineralized water is of interest not only in countries lacking adequate fresh water but also in countries where some type of home water treatment system are used or where some type of bottled water are consumed.

For health calcium and magnesium are both essential elements. Although drinking water is not the major source of our calcium and magnesium intake, the health significance of supplemental intake of these elements from drinking water may outweigh its nutritional contribution expressed as the proportion of the total daily intake of these elements. Even in industrialized countries, diet that is not deficient in terms of the quantity of calcium and magnesium may not be able to fully compensate for the absence of calcium and in particular, magnesium in drinking water.6

Demineralized soft water, when used for cooking is known to cause substantial losses of all essential elements from food (vegetables, meat, cereals). Such losses may reach up to 60% for magnesium and calcium or even more for some other microelements (e.g., copper 66%, manganese 70%, cobalt 86%). In contrast, when hard water is used for cooking, the loss of these elements is much lower, and in some cases, even higher calcium content was reported in food as a result of cooking.6–9 Since most nutrients are ingested with food, the use of low-mineral water for cooking and processing food may cause a marked deficiency in total intake of some essential elements that was much higher than expected with the use of such water for drinking only. The current diet of many persons usually does not provide all necessary elements in sufficient quantities, and therefore, any factor that results in the loss of essential elements and nutrients during the processing and preparation of food could be detrimental for them.

Recent studies also suggest that the intake of soft water, i.e. water low in calcium, may be associated with higher risk of fracture in children, certain neurodegenerative diseases, pre-term birth and low weight at birth and some types of cancer. In addition to an increased risk of sudden death, the intake of water low in magnesium seems to be associated with a higher risk of motor neuronal disease, pregnancy disorders (so-called preeclampsia) and some types of cancer.10

Drinking water soft or hard has been a subject of debate and discussion and controversies. Extremes of both are neither good for health nor acceptable by peoples primarily on grounds of taste. The amount of TDS and hardness has effect on taste of water. Water with low TDS is flat and insipid while with high TDS (>2000 mg/L) become objectionable and unpalatable. The palatability with TDS level up to 600 mg/L is considered good.6 Aggressive advertisement driven marketing strategy has lured more and more people to use bottled water instead to use it as an alternative when access to safe water is not feasible in situations like traveling, camping, tracking or during mil operations. Expert Consensus Meeting Group Report on potential health consequences of long-term consumption of demineralized, remineralized and altered mineral content drinking water has concluded that the hypothesis that consumption of hard water is associated with a somewhat lowered risk of cardiovascular disease was probably valid, and that magnesium was the more likely contributor of that benefits.11"

Download the PDF - World Health Organization PDF - Nutients In Drinking Water > https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241593989

Excerpt from above - Page17, Section 3:

"3. Discussion
Hard water is a dietary source of calcium and sometimes magnesium, although the absolute
and relative concentrations will vary greatly by source and the water consumption levels.
Consumption of moderately hard water containing typical amounts of calcium and magnesium
may provide an important incremental percentage of the daily dietary requirement. Inadequate
total dietary intakes of calcium and magnesium are common worldwide, therefore, an
incremental contribution from drinking water can be an important supplement to approach more
ideal total daily intakes. It has also been suggested that hard water can reduce the losses of
calcium, magnesium and other essential minerals from food during cooking. If low mineralized
water were used for food and beverage production, reduced levels of Ca, Mg, and other essential
elements would also occur in those products. Low intakes would occur not only because of the
lower contribution of these minerals from water used in beverages, but also possibly because of
higher losses of the minerals from food products (e.g., vegetables, cereals, potatoes or meat) into
water during cooking.

Most of the reported epidemiology studies are of the less precise ecological type, but there
are also several cohort and case control studies. Based upon the studies that have been reviewed,
the meeting concluded that on balance there is sufficient epidemiological and other biological
evidence to support the hypothesis of an inverse relationship between magnesium and possibly
calcium concentrations in drinking water and (ischemic) cardiovascular disease mortality.

There are no known harmful human health effects in the general public associated with the
consumption of calcium and magnesium within a large range, and the nutritional essentiality of
calcium and magnesium is well known In addition, limited but suggestive evidence exists for
benefits associated with other diseases (stroke, renal stone formation, cognitive impairment in
elderly, very low birth weight, bone fractures among children, pregnancy complications,
hypertension, and possibly some cancers). The suggestion is that reintroduction of magnesium
and calcium into demineralized water in the remineralization process would likely provide health
benefits in consumer populations. Adding calcium and magnesium carbonates (as lime or
limestone) to the demineralized water is a common water stabilization practice and is relatively
inexpensive. The increased daily intake of those elements from that source does not require
individual behavioural change, and it is already done as part of many water treatment processes.

Epidemiological studies in the United Kingdom, United States, Sweden, Russia, and
France and research on changes in calcium/phosphorus metabolism and bone decalcification
provide information about drinking water levels of calcium and magnesium (and water hardness)
that may provide beneficial health effects. Several authors have suggested that
reduced cardiovascular mortality and other health benefits would be associated with minimum
levels of approximately 20 to 30 mg/l calcium and 10 mg/l magnesium in drinking water. The
percentage of the recommended daily allowance of calcium and magnesium provided by
drinking water at these minimum levels will vary among and within countries. Thus, lower
concentrations in water may be sufficient to provide health benefits in some areas, but higher
levels may be beneficial in others. Overall health benefits would be dependent upon total dietary
intakes and other factors in addition to water concentrations. Because the exposure-response
information is limited, further analyses, and possibly additional studies, are needed to determine
the levels of calcium and magnesium that may provide most favorable population benefits in
each location."

Bella ✌️
 
This is from World Health Organization PDF - Nutrients In Drinking Water:

V. CONCLUSIONS
Although all of the minerals from drinking water evaluated in this report (chromium, copper, fluoride, iron, manganese, selenium, sodium, and zinc) can make significant contributions to dietary intake for some segments of the population, the affected population is generally small, and the contributions of potable water are most significant as the concentrations approach the MCL or HRL. This situation is fairly uncommon except in areas that are geologically rich in the mineral in question or, more importantly, when there is a source of the mineral from drinking water treatment chemicals (fluoride, iron, zinc) or as a result of leaching from drinking water contact materials (copper, zinc).​
Individuals who would receive the greatest benefit from the presence of minerals in drinking water are those individuals with marginal intakes from food sources. In the United States, the 50th percentile dietary intakes from food appear to be adequate in most cases, with the exception of iron intakes by women. Accordingly, the intake from drinking water does not have a great impact on total exposure or physiological response.
The situation may well be very different in areas of the world where food is scarce or for those who do not benefit from the nutrient fortification programs that have been established in the United States. In cases where average intakes of mineral nutrients are below recommended levels, the minerals contributed by drinking water would become proportionally more important than indicated by U.S. data. From a toxicological perspective, the comparisons of the upper intakes from water plus food did not exceed the dietary UL recommendation for adults. This might partially be a reflection of the nature of the available data. For example, in a few cases where data from the upper extremes of exposure are available (copper and manganese), some individuals could be exposed above the UL.​

There may be a need to replace the minerals lost during reverse osmosis. Desalinization is undoubtedly going to be more common as the climate changes and freshwater becomes more scarce, and the desalinated water used for irrigation may need to be treated to replace the lost minerals.
 
Around age 12, I was found to have a long list of allergies to certain foods. Over the years I've become so used to not consuming certain things, it's force of habit.

However, moving around during our working years, some areas forced me to goble allergy pills daily. Now that I'm back in Scotland, no allergy pills required. Tada!

One important problem I remember from back in the days. Saccharine was the replacement sugar for diabetics and TAB Soda was popular and full of it. During a family company picnic, someone serving gave me what I'd wanted that they'd offered. A cold glass of milk with ice cubes and two sugars. Lol!

It wasn't sugar but Saccharine. I ended up being sick as it gave milk a sour taste. Nowadays and after the Saccharine controversy, Aspartame came on the market. An article on about 5 people who reported going blind after a fortnight testing of Diet Sodas.

Unfortunately, the testing was abused by these people which drank an average of 10 litres a day (equivalent of 5 bottles of 2 litres). The changes to formulation and added amounts made a huge difference. Aspartame is now much safer.

Palm oils have been disappearing and one item both hubby and I gave up in late 80s early 90s was Margarine. It was hailed as reducingbad cholesterol. However, once we switched to spreadable butter with vegetable/sunflower oils and our cholesterol results went back to normal. Go figure!

My son, who passed away at just 26 years old, had allergies to certain dyes and a red one in particular. It meant that I had to check labels on nonbrand ketchups just in case or just buy Heinz's own.

Daughter inherited both our skin conditions (eczema and psoriasis). I've got a combo plus Folliculitis (similar to acne pustules very small and at base of body hair) Sinuses problems and allergic asthma from myself, but very mild reactions now . Thankfully!

I knew a person who travelled around almost every states in the USA. In some states, she could drink the tap water without any health problems, in certain ones, she would suffer diarrhea and vomiting. Apparently, the water filtering process contains various chemicals that aren't normalised across the board. I don't know which chemicals caused these strange problems.

Some store made BBQ roasted chickens were cleaned in a solution containing bleach. It's a weird world out there and obviously things have improved in the UK and for me and daughter just now, it was the lack of selenium but that's been fixed now.
 


Back
Top