Just another WordPress.com weblog

By JOE SCHWARCZ, FreelanceMarch 21, 2010

Can anyone tell me where I can find a non-chemical food ingredient? I ask because a recent newspaper report about salmonella contamination in hydrolyzed vegetable protein, a common flavouring agent, began thus: “It sounds more like a chemical than a food ingredient.” Well, if a food ingredient isn’t a chemical, pray tell, what is it? Of course it’s a chemical. Everything in the world is made up of chemicals, which are nothing other than the building blocks of all matter. The oxygen we breathe, the water we drink, the sugar we eat are all chemicals, as are the medications we swallow, the cosmetics we apply and the pesticides we spray. But somehow “chemical” has become a dirty word, synonymous with “toxin,” and “chemical-free” is now a popular, albeit ridiculous, advertising slogan. Chemicals are not good or bad, dangerous or safe. They don’t make decisions. We do. And those decisions should be based on science, not emotion. A chemical’s properties are determined by its molecular composition and structure, not its ancestry. Whether the molecule was made by nature in a plant or a chemist in a lab is irrelevant. It is what research has revealed about its properties that matters. And there is a stunning amount of such research. In September, the American Chemical Society’s Chemical Abstracts Service registered the 50 millionth known compound! These 50 million include natural and synthetic substances that have been described in scientific literature or in patents. The landmark compound has a Canadian connection, as it was developed by Montreal’s Chlorion Pharma as a potential treatment for neuropathic pain. Chemical Abstracts lists it as (5Z)-5-[(5-Fluoro-2-hydroxyphenyl)methylene]-2-(4-methyl-1-piperazinyl)-4(5H)-thiazolone! Who would want to inflict a chemical with such an unpronounceable name on their body? Well, the number of letters in a name has no more to do with a substance’s properties than does its “natural” or “synthetic” origin. Obviously, when dealing with more than 50 million known compounds, each requiring a unique name, complex terminology has to enter the picture. Chemists are thankful for the systematic nomenclature that has been worked out, but to the public, complex chemical names are frightening and tend to conjure up images of doom. Some marketers try to capitalize on this fear by advertising “chemical-free” products. So we have “chemical-free” cosmetics, cleaning agents and, believe it or not, books about “chemical-free kids.” The message is that chemical-free means safer, healthier, greener. Given that it is a nonsensical term, what are these products all about? Mostly, “chemical-free” refers to being free of synthetic chemicals. This insinuates that synthetic chemicals are more problematic than natural ones, an inference that is not valid. Take, for example, the case of “chemical-free” sunblocks. These are often based on titanium dioxide, a naturally occurring mineral. Certain formulations of titanium dioxide have raised safety concerns, and the chemical has even been classified as a carcinogen when inhaled. It seems safe enough in sunblocks, but the designation of such products as “chemical-free” is sheer nonsense. Mainstream food producers are also trying to capitalize on the anti-chemical fervour. McCain Foods, for example, has announced a campaign to use only “real ingredients” in its pizzas. What does that mean? Were they using imaginary ingredients before? Or perhaps fake ones? Plaster of Paris instead of flour? Play-Doh instead of cheese? Here’s what McCain’s says: “It’s all about the ingredients. And good food, frozen or not, starts with real ingredients. We know that when you look at an ingredient list, you want to see familiar ingredients, not ingredients you can’t pronounce.” It makes me want to scream some words that can be pronounced easily. According to the ads, McCain’s aims to remove “unfamiliar ingredients.” Specifically mentioned are sodium steroyl lactylate and sodium ascorbate. Why remove these? There is absolutely no scientific reason; it is all a question of marketing. Both are approved food additives and have undergone rigorous testing. Sodium steroyl lactylate is an emulsifier used in baked goods, like pizza dough. It disperses the fats in the dough, allowing less fat to be used while softening the dough’s texture. Since it is made from lactic acid, found in milk, and stearic acid, found in beef tallow, you could even call it “natural.” Sodium ascorbate is just the sodium salt of vitamin C, and is used as an antioxidant to prevent fat from going rancid. These additives actually make for a better dough. Removing them just caters to the wave of chemophobia. McCain’s also makes a big deal out of using only vine-ripened tomatoes. A noble endeavour. Vine-ripened tomatoes certainly do taste better. And the riper the tomato, the more natural ascorbate it contains. So while the company sings the praises of taking out ascorbate on one hand, it actually increases the amount of the same chemical with the other. Of course, it’s all silliness, because there is no problem with sodium ascorbate or steroyl lactylate in the first place. And curiously, while McCain’s is heralding the elimination of ascorbate from its pizza dough, it happily promotes the presence of Vitamin C, a less daunting term for ascorbate, in its potatoes! We live in a chemical world with a novel substance being isolated or synthesized roughly every 2.6 seconds. Rather than representing a cause for worry, this just shows the amazing progress of science. Most of these new chemicals will never become anything other than listings in Chemical Abstracts, but some will become key ingredients in new drugs, fabrics, plastics, electronics and a myriad of other items that certainly won’t be “chemical-free.” But if you insist on buying a truly chemical-free product, remember that you won’t be getting a good deal. You’ll be buying something that contains nothing.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Thanks TO: www.digg.com