A Food Additive Rant

[wolffyluna]

I have a pet peeve. Well, I have many pet peeves, but this one is specifically about the way people think about food additives, and E numbers.

E numbers are (usually) 3 digit numbers, that get used on food labels to represent food additives. They are, in theory, useful things: it means that instead of having to deal with the inconsistent mess that is organic chemistry and natural product nomenclature, you just have nice, consistent numbers. (Good for people with allergies and sensitivities!) And the numbers tell you things, like whether the additive is an acid, or a colouring agent, or an antibiotic.

...except that's not how people use them. A lot of people go 'oh, E number-- that must mean it's a Scary Chemical.' And it frustrates the organic chemist (and slapdash biologist) in me. Because a lot of E numbers are for additives that are naturally occuring, or dare I say, good for you? I have literally seen people complain that a loaf of bread was fortified with vitamin B. Well, they thought they were complaining about Scary Chemicals. Look, the bread had E101 and E375! (Which are vitamin B2 and B3, respectively.)

Heck, whole spices have E numbers (E164 is saffron). Things that occur naturally, all the time, like citric acid or lactic acid, have E numbers. If you want to be concerned about the scourge of tartaric acid in food, like, be my guest? But I'd rather if people were aware that's what they were complaining about.

[grumblegrumble]

Comments

[yvannairie]

I still boggle that this isn't common knowledge. This was taught to me in middle school and we went through the list of E codes and found common allergens so we could find them on the packages if necessary.

[wolffyluna]

Huh! Round here, we don't get much (sensible) nutrition education, so this never came up.

[zenolalia]

Tbh, given that I have a cinnamon allergy and it's very common in the US to just label food as "spices" or "natural flavors" and let me gamble with my trachea, I could definitely go for a more aggressive labeling schema.

But, people will find a way to turn anything into a problem in a prevailing culture of fat phobia and orthorexia.

[wolffyluna]

Yeah, labels are good. It would be nice to have more thorough ones (especially because even though common allergens have to be listed, that kinda leaves people with rarer allergies high and dry.)

I'm overall pro E numbers, because they do work great for their intended purpose (and also some fun unintended purposes, like 'can I use this drink to dye wool?') I'm just frustrated that people tend to assume that anything with an E number must Somehow Be Bad.

[contrarianarchon]

I was not aware of this (but, uh, not sure if they actually use that system here)! Thank you for sharing. (A culturally useful universal and thorough labeling system would be excellent though)

[wolffyluna]

I think they're mostly an EU thing? Some other countries, like Australia have them as well.

They're so useful! Even if the way people use them is frustrating.

[lb_lee]

I'm not sure I've ever encountered this coding schema, but it sounds interesting and useful! (And today I learned something new!)

[wolffyluna]

I'm not sure it's used much in America, but it is pretty useful.

(I'll admit I don't use it as intended; I use to work out whether a foodstuff could be used to dye wool.)

[lb_lee]

Hey, if it works! And it definitely sounds like an improvement over here, where there isn't that level of specificity in what's in food. (And I've had a couple OH NOOOOO with "gluten-free" food that turned out to... have gluten. Not a problem for me, but my gluten-free friends. THE WORST.)

--Rogan

[wolffyluna]

Gahh! Fake gluten free sounds terrible!