Part 5: Food Chemicals: Based on the book “Metabolical”
Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) and Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT). These are standard preservatives for chips and meats. However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer categorizes BHA as a possible human carcinogen, and it’s listed as a known carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65. These designations are based on consistent evidence that BHA and BHT causes tumors in animals—but data in humans are hard to come by. Propyl Gallate. Propyl gallate is a preservative in products that contain fats, such as sausage, vegetable oil, soup bases, and even chewing gum. There’s some evidence that suggests it may also have estrogenic activity. It’s been implicated in a rat model of Parkinson’s disease, but not with any human disease at this point. Nitrates and Nitrites. Nitrates and nitrites are the preservatives in cured meats, such as bacon, salami, sausages, and hot dogs. Although they can prolong a food’s shelf life and give it an attractive hue, they’re directly implicated in human disease. Nitrates turn into nitrites, which react with amino acids to form nitrosamines, which then react with nitrogen to form nitrosoureas. These are among the most potent carcinogens around and are associated with virtually every cancer of the alimentary tract: stomach, intestine, and colon. In 2010, the WHO declared nitrates as probable human carcinogens, and there are now regulations as to how many can be added to your cured meats, though we still don’t know what a safe amount actually is. Trans fats. Trans-fats were probably the single most important reason for the advent and success of processed food. Invented in 1911, the first trans-fat, called Crisco, hit the market, and by 1920 virtually every bakery product sold in America was laced with it, since it acts as a preservative and a hardening agent. Trans-fats can’t go rancid, because the trans-double bond can’t be oxidized by bacteria, as they don’t possess the enzyme to cleave it. The problem is that our mitochondria are refurbished and repurposed bacteria—they even have their own DNA—meaning they don’t produce the enzyme either, so trans-fats line our arteries and generate oxygen radicals, leading to metabolic syndrome. The first glimpse of the danger of trans-fats came in 1957, when an immigrant German biochemist at the University of Illinois named Fred Kummerow demonstrated their presence in arterial plaques of rats. This finding was ignored for thirty years, until corroboration in 1988. It was then that Kummerow launched a scientific campaign against trans-fats, and he was laughed at until 2006, when the FDA agreed that the science was strong enough to warrant a warning label on foods. Kummerow filed a petition with the FDA to ban trans-fats, while Big Food was kicking and screaming. He was ninety-nine years old when he sued the FDA in 2013, and finally trans-fats were taken off the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) list. The processed food industry vociferously argues that sugar is a required and necessary ingredient in their recipes. And that’s true, because if it weren’t for the sugar, you wouldn’t eat it, and their profits would dwindle. Here are five of the industry’s pro-sugar arguments, and why it’s good for them and bad for you. Sugar adds bulk. Kellogg’s Honey Smacks are 56 percent sugar. Sugar makes food brown. Indeed, we love the brown color and caramel taste from the Maillard reaction, glycation, browning, or aging reaction. Every time this reaction occurs, it throws off an oxygen radical that can damage the cell. Sugar raises the boiling point. This allows for caramelization to occur, which like we said is very tasty, but again this is just the Maillard reaction, which, over time, can cause your cells to age. There’s also data to suggest that fructose could “caramelize” your hippocampus, which might contribute to memory decline. Sugar is a humectant (attracts and maintains moisture). How soon does fresh bakery bread become stale? Maybe two days? How about grocery store commercial bread? More like three weeks. Ever wonder why? In commercial bread, the baker adds sugar to take the place of water, known as water activity. Sugar doesn’t evaporate, but instead takes up space in the bread while holding onto water during baking so the loaf stays moist. Sugar is a preservative. Have you ever left a soda at room temperature? Of course, after the carbonation escapes, it goes flat. But do bacteria or yeast ever grow in it? Never. That being said, if insulin and leptin were the only problems, then we would overeat all types of foods—but we don’t usually over consume fruits, vegetables, or beans/legumes/lentils. The foods we overeat are all found as components of fast food. Often we’re not consuming food just because we’re hungry. It’s become an easy “reward” and a balm for chronic stress. Which begs the question: is fast food addictive, and if so, what about it is addictive? Recent revelations in popular literature have alluded to this signature aspect of the Western diet, driving excessive consumption. Addiction is one of those bandied-about terms that changes meaning based on context. There is a phenomenon called reward eating drive (RED), which induces people to consume “tasty” foods unrelated to hunger or caloric needs. In a series of clinical research experiments, they showed that some people experience a loss of control with certain foods, and those that do tend to binge on high sugar/high-fat foods (think chocolate cake). This aberrant behavior is driven by dysfunction of the reward system. Fast food contains four specific chemicals that have been examined for addictive qualities: salt, fat, caffeine, and sugar.
