Currently browsing posts about: Food-colors

I first read about this in a daily newsletter I subscribe to, Bakery and Snacks:   The Doritos effect: How tartrazine turns tissues temporarily transparent. When a study draws parallels with H.G. Wells’ The Invisible Man, you know it’s bound to be captivating. Could this scientific leap bring us closer to achieving a real-life version of Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak?… Read more

An ingredient in Doritos — tartrazine or Yellow 5 — is helping scientists see through the skin of mice. While they can’t see through human skin (it’s thicker and less permeable), this could be helpful in the future for early skin cancer detection. Imagine if it could replace a mammogram? On the other hand, Doritos food coloring is a chemical that the scientists said might not be totally harmless. (And to think so many people are eating it?) Read the Popular Science article about it. It’s fantastic.

Popular Science: The dye in Doritos can make mice transparent.  ‘It’s not magic, but it’s still very powerful.’

Because of a counterintuitive fundamental physics principle [selective absorption and scattering of light], Tartrazine, also known as Yellow 5, can temporarily turn biological tissue transparent to the naked eye, as described in a study published September 5 in the journal Science. 

The Science study: Achieving optical transparency in live animals with absorbing molecules.  Science.  Vol 385, Issue 6713.  DOI: 10.1126/science.adm6869

We next sought to demonstrate the ability of absorbing molecules to achieve tissue transparency in the mouse abdomen. Specifically, when a tartrazine solution was topically applied to the abdominal skin of a live mouse under anesthesia and gently massaged on the skin (Fig. 1, G and H), the abdominal skin not only darkened in color but also became more transparent in the red window (fig. S8). This transparency effect can be readily visualized with the naked eye and does not require any specialized imaging equipment…The transparent abdomen allowed us to directly observe internal organs, including the liver, small intestine, cecum, and bladder (Fig. 1, I and J). Moreover, we could also discern their movements, such as peristalsis, as well as motions synchronized with the heartbeat and breathing (Movies 1 and 2). The achieved abdominal transparency can be reversed by rinsing and massaging the skin with water (fig. S8).

 

Tartrazine is FD&C  Yellow #5

Tartrazine is a synthetic food colorant classified as an azo dye. It is lemon yellow in color and water soluble. Tartrazine is approved for use as a food colorant in the EU, USA, Canada, and other parts of the world for use in food, cosmetics, and medications. Its use in foods includes dairy products, beverages, desserts, confectionary, spices, dressings, jellies and sauces…It is one of the most commonly used and best known food additives…Of the synthetic food dyes, tartrazine has been implicated most often as a cause of adverse reactions.

Here’s what CSPI says about it.

Yellow 5 can be found in many foods, including beverages, gelatin desserts, candy, and baked goods. It’s the second-most widely used coloring and sometimes causes allergy-like hypersensitivity reactions, primarily in aspirin-sensitive persons, and triggers hyperactivity in some children. It may be contaminated with such cancer-causing substances as benzidine and 4-aminobiphenyl (or chemicals that the body converts to those substances).

CSPI has filed a petition to

Ban the Use of Yellow 5 and Other Food Dyes, in the Interim to Require a Warning on Foods Containing These Dyes, to Correct the Information the Food and Drug Administration Gives to Consumers On the Impact of These Dyes on the Behavior of Some Children, and to Require Neurotoxicity Testing of New Food Additives and Food Colors.

And now here’s another reason not to use it, even though it doesn’t do this in people, apparently.  Our skin is too thick.

Addition

A reader points out that tartrazine is on the list of food dyes now banned in California.  Good idea.

Here is my latest collection of accounts of unusual or unexpected food items.  Ice creams are high on the list.

• NPD Trend Tracker: From ice cream made with baby milk to energy boosting powders: In this week’s new product development gallery, we spotlight a new ice cream targeting adults but made from infant formula and energy boosting powders for endurance athletes and others seeking an energy lift…. See more
• Lithuania tempting tourists – with smoked mackerel ice cream?  Lithuania Travel, the national tourism development agency, is hoping in a post-Covid world tourists will be attracted to the Baltic country to experience some of its, shall we say, more unusual cuisine, which includes some ice cream flavors many might find a little strange…. Read more
• Nine new bizarre ice cream flavors from Lithuanian chefs:  They’re at it again. It wasn’t that long ago we revealed some more ‘interesting’ ice cream flavors from Lithuanian chefs who were experimenting with some new and unusual flavors…. Read more
• The critical role of the humble PB&J:  With the world still in various states of lockdown thanks to COVID-19, bread’s rise in popularity continues to thrive as people seek out comfort and nostalgia. The demand for the classic all-American peanut butter and jelly (PB&J) sandwich – while harking on a retro trend that spiked last year – also proved to be a life saver for many…. Read more
• Leftovers: Jelly Belly chews its way into a new category; Campbell brews up a pretzel-infused beer: The colorful candy brings some of its flavors to a gum, while Reese’s sweetens up International Delight’s ready-to-drink iced coffee.
• ‘A major milestone for the food industry …’ FDA approves Sensient’s ‘exceptionally heat-stable’ natural blue food color from butterfly pea flower:  The FDA has approved an aqueous extract of the blue petals of butterfly pea flower (Clitoria ternatea) – a plant native to Southeast Asia – as a color additive exempt from certification following a petition from Sensient Technologies, which described the approval as “a major milestone for the food industry” that “closes an important gap in the natural color palette.”.. Read

You are wondering what Clitoria ternatea looks like?  Good enough to eat, I guess.

Brian Lehrer asked me a question this morning that is well worth pondering.

The gist: Are the recent actions taken by food companies an indication that consumers are having an effect at the expense of science—and at the expense of focusing on more important food issues such as too much sugar, obesity, and diabetes?

He cited these recent events:

• Tyson’s says it will phase out human antibiotics in broiler production.
• McDonald’s says it will source chicken that has not been treated with antibiotics.
• PepsiCo says it is taking aspartame out of its diet sodas (it’s the #1 reason given for not drinking diet cola).
• Chipotle says it will source GMO-free ingredients.
• Nestlé says it is removing artificial colors from its chocolate candy.
• Kraft says it is taking the yellow dyes out of its Mac n’ Cheese.

To all of them, I say it’s about time.

None of these is necessary in the food supply.

There are plenty of scientific questions about all of them, although some—antibiotics, for example—are more troubling than others.

If voting with your fork can achieve these results, they pave the way for taking on the much more difficult issues.

These are big steps forward.  They matter.

They should inspire other companies to do the same.

My once-a-month, first Sunday Food Matters column in the San Francisco Chronicle is about the difficulty of figuring out the health effects of food chemicals consumed in low doses.

_____

Taking steps on food chemicals

Editor’s note: Nutrition and public policy expert Marion Nestle answers readers’ questions in this monthly column written exclusively for The Chronicle. E-mail your questions to food@sfchronicle.com, with “Marion Nestle” in the subject line.

Q: I don’t understand why the FDA does not ban aspartame, food colors, BPA, pesticides and all those other nasty chemicals in food. I can’t believe they are good for us.

A: I can’t, either. But the Food and Drug Administration is required to make decisions on the basis of science, not beliefs.

You eat these chemicals in tiny amounts – parts per billion or trillion. Whether doses this low cause harm is hard to assess for two reasons: science and politics. Scientists cannot easily measure the health effects of exposure to low-dose chemicals. And the industries that make and use these chemicals don’t want to give them up.

Food chemicals elicit plenty of public dread and outrage. But are they harmful?

Controlled clinical trials at normal levels of intake would require vast numbers of subjects over decades. Nobody would fund them.

Instead, researchers use animals consuming much higher doses. I can remember how the diet soda industry ridiculed studies suggesting that saccharine caused bladder cancer in rats: the doses were equivalent to drinking 1,250 12-ounce diet sodas a day.

The difficulties of doing research on low-dose chemicals – and the food industry’s insistence that such doses are safe – explains the FDA’s reluctance to act.

Some examples illustrate the problem.

Aspartame

Some studies suggest that aspartame might cause cancer in rats when consumed at levels typical of diet soft drinks, as well as other problems. But researchers performing better controlled studies have given aspartame a clean bill of health.

Despite public concerns, the FDA’s assessment of the evidence “finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food.”

Food dyes

These have been considered a possible cause of hyperactivity in children since the 1970s. Some studies show improved behavior among children placed on additive-free diets. But behavior is difficult to judge objectively, and even controlled studies gave mixed results.

A recent study funded by the British Food Standards Agency is typical. It found most children to be unaffected by removing additives. But a small percentage seemed to get better.

The FDA can only conclude that there is not enough science to decide whether food dyes cause hyperactivity.

BPA (Bisphenol A)

BPA is a component of hard plastic used to make baby bottles and food and beverage cans. It is also an endocrine disrupter. Last year, the FDA concluded that BPA is safe at current exposure levels.

At the same time, the FDA advised children and pregnant women to reduce exposure to BPA. It advised the infant formula and soda industries to find ways to replace it.

The California Legislature has passed AB1319 banning BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups; it’s awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.

Recent studies raise concerns about BPA’s effects on the brain and behavior of fetuses, infants and young children, and on cancer, obesity and infertility in adults. Some studies suggest that exposure to BPA is higher than previously estimated. Just last week, the Breast Cancer Fund released a study finding BPA in canned foods designed for children.

Studies by university scientists tend to find harm from BPA at low doses, whereas those by government regulatory agencies and the food industry do not. In the absence of compelling science, regulators have two choices: exercise the “precautionary principle” and ban the chemical until it can be proven safe, or approve it until it can be shown to be harmful.

The United States and European safety agencies – and the food industry, of course – prefer the latter approach.

Pesticides

Research clearly demonstrates that pesticides harm farmworkers exposed to high doses. But recent studies report slightly lower IQ levels in children born to urban women with higher blood levels of pesticides. Although these studies did not control for socioeconomic and other variables that might influence IQ, they raise the possibility that even low levels might be harmful.

What to do?

While waiting for the science to evolve, you can take both personal and political action.

You don’t want potentially harmful chemicals in your foods? Read labels and don’t buy foods with artificial sweeteners or food colors. Kids don’t need them anyway.

Consumer action has already induced baby bottle makers to get rid of BPA. This strategy can work for food colors, too.

Don’t stop eating fruits and vegetables. Their known health benefits greatly outweigh the potential harm of pesticides. Don’t stop eating them.

Buy organic. Pesticides, invisible and unlabeled as they are, constitute a good reason to do so.

Get political. Let your congressional representatives know that more research is needed, but you don’t want to wait for it. You want industry to find healthier alternatives.

_____

Marion Nestle is the author of “Food Politics” and “What to Eat,” among other books, and is a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University. E-mail comments to food@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page G – 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle

 

Wild salmon are a gorgeous salmon pink because the fish eat marine krill, tiny crustaceans loaded with pigments – mainly one called astaxanthin but also another called canthaxanthin. These get incorporated into the salmon’s flesh and can be identified by testing laboratories….

Farmed salmon, alas, are not fed krill. Instead they are fed pellets like the ones fed to cats or dogs. As a result, their flesh is an unattractive gray color. Research on the industry-important question of what best sells salmon demonstrates two things: the darker its pink color, the more likely you are to choose it over more lightly colored salmon; and if the salmon is gray, you will not buy it at all.

So salmon farmers resort to cosmetics.