Gluten-Free Labeling Rule Takes Effect

Gluten-Free Labeling Rule Takes Effect

Judie Bizzozero

August 06, 2014 - Blog

Print

• E-Mail
• in

• 

Beginning Aug. 5, all packaged foods labeled “gluten-free" must meet all requirements of the gluten-free labeling final rule published last year by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The new rule applies to packaged foods that sold in retail and foodservice establishments, such as carry-out restaurants.

The rule was issued pursuant to the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (FALCPA), and food manufacturers had one year to make the necessary changes in the formulation or labeling of their foods that voluntarily bear a gluten-free claim in the United States.

The final rule provides a uniform standard definition to help the nearly 3 million U.S. consumers with celiac disease manage a gluten-free diet. Gluten-free claims must adhere to all aspects of FDA’s definition, including the requirement that the food contains less than 20 parts per million of gluten. Foods may be labeled “gluten-free" if they are inherently gluten free or do not contain an ingredient that is a gluten-containing grain; derived from a gluten-containing grain that has not been processed to remove gluten; or derived from a gluten-containing grain that has been processed to remove gluten if the use of that ingredient results in the presence of 20 ppm or moregluten in the food. The rule also requires foods with the claims “no gluten," “free of gluten," and “without gluten" to meet the definition for “gluten-free."

FDA said it will use its existing compliance and enforcement tools, such as inspection, laboratory analysis, warning letters, seizure and injunction, to ensure that the use of the claim on food packages complies with the definition.
Commenting on the rule, Felicia Billingslea, director of FDA's division of food labeling and standards, said: “This standard ‘gluten-free’ definition eliminates uncertainty about how food producers label their products. People with celiac disease can rest assured that foods labeled ‘gluten-free’ meet a clear standard established and enforced by FDA."

So why is the labeling of gluten-free food and beverages such a big issue? Gluten-free foods have become increasingly popular in recent years for those with celiac disease and gluten intolerances, but there's also rising interest from consumers who choose gluten-free foods for weight management. In fact, the market for gluten-free foods and beverages is forecast to reach an estimated $15.6 billion by 2016, according to a recent report from the NPD Group.

Organic Food May Contain More Antioxidants Versus Conventional

Organic Food May Contain More Antioxidants Versus Conventional

Rachel Adams

August 01, 2014 - Blog

Print

• E-Mail
• in

• 

Organic foods and crops—including fruits, vegetable and grains—may have more antioxidants and fewer, less frequent pesticide residues than their conventional counterparts.

A recent study looked at 343 peer-reviewed publications comparing the nutritional quality and safety of organic and conventional plant-based foods, and found that overall, organic crops had 18 to 69 percent higher concentrations of antioxidant compounds. Specifically, the organic crops had 19 percent more phenolic acids, 69 percent more flavanones, 28 percent more stilbenes, 26 percent more flavones, 50 percent more flavonols, and 51 percent more anthocyanins.

An organic label on food and beverage products can translate to a healthy bottom line for manufacturers. In fact, according to this FoodTech Toolbox infographic, sales of products labeled as “organic" reached $8.9 billion in 2013. However, labeling foods as “organic" can open manufacturers up to unwanted legal hassle if not implemented correctly.  (For a closer look at the legal implications of food product labeling, check out the FoodTech Toolbox slide show, “Legal Pitfalls in Marketing and Labeling Food Products.")

Since organic farmers are not allowed to apply synthetic pesticides, the research also unveiled that pesticide residues were three to four times more likely in conventional foods than organic ones.

While crops harvested from organically-managed fields sometimes contain pesticide residues, the levels are usually 10-fold to 100-fold lower in organic food, compared to the corresponding, conventionally grown food. Specifically, researchers found that conventional crops had about twice as much cadmium, a toxic heavy metal contaminant, as organic crops. They hypothesized that certain fertilizers approved for use only on conventional farms somehow make cadmium more available to plant roots.

Preserving Foods the Natural Way

Preserving Foods the Natural Way

Lynn Kuntz

July 24, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• in

Replacing synthetic preservatives with effective natural ingredients is not a new concept, but interest is currently at an all time high as consumer sentiment shifts to a “natural is better" mindset. One of the trickier areas is antimicrobials that work against spoilage organisms and provide pathogen protection. Two recent studies have added to the body of knowledge on the topic. One discusses the use of cinnamon as a as a natural antibacterial agent, and the other analyzed the use and safety of commonly used preservatives and other additives, both synthetic and naturally derived.

In the first study,“Inhibitory effect of Cinnamomum cassia oil on non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli," (Food Control, Vol. 46, Dec. 2014, pp 374–381), researchers tested the antibacterial efficacy  of oil from C. cassia, a widely used spice, on CDC’s “top six" non-O157 STECs ( O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145 serotypes). "The oil can be incorporated into films and coatings for packaging both meat and fresh produce," said co-author Lina Sheng, a graduate student in the School of Food Science, Washington State University. Pullman. "It can also be added into the washing step of meat, fruits or vegetables to eliminate microorganisms." The study found that cassia oil is effective in low concentrations; rates as low as 0.025% (v/v) in water killed the bacteria within 24 hours.

Cinnamaldehyde provides the characteristic flavor and aroma to cinnamon and is also known for antimicrobial properties. Analysis by GC/MS found that the cinnamaldehyde content of the C. cassia oil used in this study was 59.96%. Cassia cinnamon comes mainly from Indonesia and has a stronger, harsher odor than Ceylon cinnamon (C. zeylanicum), which is often considered “true cinnamon."

The second paper, “Adding Molecules to Food, Pros and Cons: A Review on Synthetic and Natural Food Additives," Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Vol. 13, No.4, pp 377–399, July 2014, DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12065) looked at a number of food-additive categories, including antimicrobials. The authors discussed synthetic antimicrobials commonly used in food including organic acids and their salts (such as benzoic, acetic, sorbic and propionic), nitrates, etc. They identified studies that brought their safety under scrutiny, as well as those that refuted claims of harm or toxicity. The paper also identified a number of natural antimicrobials that can be added to food, which typically are terpenes (e.g. thymol, carvacrol), peptides (e.g. nisin), polysaccharides (e.g. chitosan) and phenolic compounds (e.g. eugenol). Antimicrobial technologies, such as preservative films and modified atmosphere packaging, and processes such as pulsed-light, high pressure, pulsed-electric, and magnetic fields, high-pressure processing, ionizing radiation and ultraviolet radiation, are other methods discussed as solutions.

Some of these have gone beyond the experimental phase and are commercially available, some have yet to prove effective. There are a number of barriers. For example, like cinnamaldehyde, many naturally occurring compounds can impart flavors. While the flavor of cinnamon might hold appeal in a Moroccan tagine or Cincinnati-style chili that uses cinnamaldehyde, it’s probably not going to be quite as well-received in orange chicken or Southern fried chicken.

Another issue, is that while many of these natural compounds seem innocuous and may even deliver health benefits—cinnamaldehyde looks to be an anti-diabetic compound, for example—their safety is not assured just because they are “natural." And increased use could invoke that cautionary phrase “The poison is in the dose." And even a high level of use doesn’t guarantee that their efficacy against bacteria, yeast or molds with be as good as the synthetics. This could be a potential safety issue when looking at improving pathogen protection in foods.

Natural product protection is becoming a priority in the food industry. However, while the additive paper authors were referring to benzoates, they made a claim that likely holds true for many synthetic antimicrobials"… the only way they will be removed as additives is when a substitute with the same effect and no toxicity is found. Without these compounds, food spoilage and poisoning would have a much higher incidence."
   -Lynn A. Kuntz

THE NATURAL FOOD DEBATE CONTINUES - What are your views?

The ‘Natural’ Debate

Rachel Adams

July 03, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• inShare

Amid a maelstrom of class-action lawsuits, use of the seemingly simple word “natural" is one of the most risky
decisions today’s beverage innovators can make. Whether a product claims to be free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or gluten, or identifies itself as a beverage or dietary supplement, marketing and labeling issues have hit a whole new level of complexity.

In the free report, “The ‘Natural’ Debate and Other Regulatory Obscurities," a panel of experts shared an update on the controversial nature of natural, along with practical insight for the future.

Justin J. Prochnow, attorney and shareholder at Greenberg Traurig LLP, detailed some of the key regulatory and legal issues facing beverage and liquid dietary supplement companies. He also explained the threat of a class-action lawsuit has become one of the biggest concerns for brand holders. The lawsuits, frequently positioned as false or deceptive advertising actions, have covered a wide range of issues, with “all-natural" or “100-percent natural" claims leading the way.

Despite the shaky ground, Mark Rampolla, founder and former CEO of ZICO® Beverages, acknowledged the stakes are more lucrative than ever. Not only does “natural" represent a fundamental shift in what consumers are looking to drink, it also constitutes one of the fastest-growing segments of the beverage industry—one that’s birthed a number of mega brands.

In fact, according to Peter Leighton, founder of Abunda, more products on store shelves are using the term “natural" in some manner to help ingratiate the brands to consumers. As such, it’s important for marketers to provide clear information about a brand’s environmental and nutritional advantages.

The silver lining of the litigious environment, as pointed out by Eric Skae, CEO of The Bricktown Group, is that brands must reconsider what’s in their products. Additionally, it’s made the USDA organic and verified non-GMO seals much more relevant for beverages.

To read the full report, visit SupplySide Beverage Insights.

US FOOD REGULATIONS: Lawmakers Move to Expand USDA’s Authority to Recall Contaminated Food

Lawmakers Move to Expand USDA’s Authority to Recall Contaminated Food

Josh Long

June 27, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• inShare

Two Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives this week introduced legislation that would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to recall egg products, meat or poultry that are contaminated with bacteria linked to “serious illness or death."

The Pathogens Reduction and Testing Reform Act of 2014 also would require a recall if the food products contained a pathogen such as Salmonella or Campylobacter that was resistant to at least two antibiotics that are considered “critically important" for “human medicine" based on the World Health Organization’s list of Critically Important Antimicrobials.

According to USDA’s interpretation of the law, the agency only has authority to issue a recall if the food is considered “adulterated." Salmonella, a common cause of foodborne illness, is not considered an adulterant, prompting the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) to petition USDA to classify it as such and even sue the agency for failing to respond to the request in a timely manner.

"We appreciate the Congresswomen's ongoing efforts on our shared goal of ensuring food-safety standards continue to be stringent, effective, and constantly improving," said a spokesperson for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), an agency within USDA. "FSIS will continue to work aggressively in preventing foodborne illness, including implementing the first ever performance standards for Salmonella in chicken parts and ground poultry later this year."

Commenting on the legislation in a blog, food-safety lawyer Bill Marler said several strains of E. coli have been declared adulterants, as well as Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat products; however, USDA hasn’t declared Salmonella an adulterant in such cases as raw poultry, he pointed out.

USDA would be required under the legislation to establish protocols and procedures to test for contaminants.
“The USDA has failed to recall meat contaminated with antibiotic-resistant pathogens because they do not believe they have the legal authority to do so. This bill would ensure there is no confusion," said Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Louise Slaughter of New York, who introduced the legislation on June 25. “We urge Congress to pass this legislation before more Americans are sickened by contaminated meat, poultry, or egg products. We need federal agencies that will protect public health, not bend to the threats of deep-pocketed food producers seeking to escape regulation."

A number of consumer advocacy groups expressed support for the bill, including CSPI, Food & Water Watch, and the Consumer Federation of America.

“When E. coli O157:H7 sickened hundreds of consumers in the 1990s, USDA decided that we cannot tolerate E. coli in ground beef. Yet we are still allowing Salmonella in chicken, even after an outbreak that has sickened over 600 people," said Chris Waldrop, director of the Food Policy Institute at Consumer Federation of America. “This legislation would change that and provide USDA with clear authority to protect consumers from contaminated food."
At least one trade organization representing the poultry industry disagrees. The National Chicken Council argued the legislation would not help FSIS in its investigation of foodborne illness.

"Rather, the bill would redefine long-agreed upon standards for determining whether product is adulterated to include ambiguous and scientifically unsound criteria," said Ashley Peterson, National Chicken Council vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs. "Under the bill, certain microorganisms sometimes would or sometimes would not be considered adulterants, depending on whether they fit vague, undefined criteria that have nothing to do with actual public health risks. The bill would waste valuable public resources chasing constantly changing microorganism strains, and processors would never know what standards they are supposed to meet."
Peterson added "the industry cooperates closely with FSIS before and during a recall situation, and more often than not, a company will initiate a recall prior to any involvement by FSIS."

But food-safety advocates like CSPI argue FSIS should do more to protect the public from foodborne illness. Last month, CSPI alleged in a lawsuit that the agency has been unlawfully sitting on a petition that requests it classify certain strains of Salmonella as an adulterant. FSIS has declined to comment. In the wake of the May 25, 2011 petition, two separate outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella from 2012 to 2014 were linked to Foster Farms chicken, leaving more than 650 individuals sick, CSPI noted.

Soybeans Slide Most This Month as Crop Conditions Improve

By Fareeha Ali  Jun 17, 2014 3:27 PM ET 

0 Comments Email Print

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google+
• LinkedIn

Save

Soybeans fell on signs of improving conditions for crops in the U.S., the world’s biggest grower. Corn fell to the lowest since February.

About 73 percent of soybeans were in good or excellent condition as of June 15, up from 64 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported yesterday. Eighty-three percent of the plants had emerged from the ground, compared with a five-year average of 77 percent, the USDA reported.

“There are excellent crop conditions,” Greg Grow, the director of agribusiness at Archer Financial Services in Chicago, said in a telephone interview. “There is a bit of excessive moisture in the Midwest, but overall the weather is favorable for crop growing in June.”

Soybean futures for delivery in November fell 0.4 percent to settle at $12.12 a bushel at 1:15 p.m. on the Chicago Board of Trade. Earlier, prices touched $12.025, the lowest since June 5.

Corn futures for December delivery slid 0.6 percent to $4.395 a bushel, after reaching $4.3625, the lowest since Feb. 4.

About 76 percent of the crop in good or excellent condition, up from 75 percent a week earlier, the USDA reported. Domestic corn production is set to reach a record 13.935 billion bushels from 13.925 billion last year, the agency said on June 11.

“For the corn and soybean crops, both are clearly off to great starts,” economist Dennis Gartmanwrote in his newsletter today. “The corn rating is the fifth-best in history, while the bean crop’s rating is the best ever.”

A pattern of showers in the Midwest will continue to limit the risk of “more extreme heat” in the next two weeks, while favorable moisture supplies will aid growth, Commodity Weather Group Inc. wrote in a report today.

Wheat futures for September delivery fell 0.1 percent to $5.9075 a bushel in Chicago.

To contact the reporter on this story: Fareeha Ali in Chicago at fali32@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Millie Munshi at mmunshi@bloomberg.net Joe Richter

Food Myths: Antibiotics in Meat - Are we safe?

Food Myths: Antibiotics in Meat

Lynn Kuntz

May 08, 2014 - Blogs

Print

• E-Mail
• ins

As food scientists, we should be at the front line in dispelling myths about foods. But science isn’t sexy, and boring facts generally make poor headlines. What’s worse, is how often the industry shoots itself in the foot by using marketing campaigns that play on stereotypical food myths and fears. One of those current campaigns is the use of antibiotic-free labeling on meat and poultry.

While it’s likely that overuse of antibiotics in meat production is a contributing factor in the very real and serious antibiotic-resistance problem, unlikely that raising animals completely without antibiotics is the solution to the problem. Not to mention cruel and wasteful if an animal is ill. And it’s also likely that many who seek an antibiotic-free label are not well-versed in the issues of antibiotic use and the laws govern antibiotic residues. (Any animal treated with antibiotics must go through a withdrawal period, so antibiotics are effectively eliminated from its system. USDA has a residue monitoring program to ensure that meat and poultry on the market is safe and that residues are not a public health issue.) Others might just be afraid of ingesting some unnatural substance—because as headlines have taught us, if it’s not natural, it must be toxic or akin to eating yoga mats or whatever.

But back to antibiotics in meat… The American Meat Institute (AMI) and Harris Poll conducted a survey in March 2014 that found 39% of adults in this country think that “unsafe levels of antibiotics are commonly present in the meat and poultry products found at the grocery store." This is despite a USDA monitoring program and government data that show violative antibiotic residues in meat and poultry are rare—and if found are pulled from the market.  An interesting perspective and more information can be found on a blog by Dr. William James former chief veterinarian at USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS), “Are residues residing in your meat?"(Spoiler alert: Due to testing and accumulated data from the National Residue Program, the “problem with residues [antibiotic as well as pesticide] in our meat is negligible at the national level."

To fight misconceptions about antibiotics in the food system AMI released a referenced and reviewed brochure called Antibiotics in Livestock & Poultry Production: Sort Fact From Fiction. If you’re a food scientist—whether you’re working on organic baby food or artificially flavored fried snacks—you might want to read it. You never know when there might be a pop quiz—or a chance to educate your neighbors, your local journalist or perhaps even your marketing department.
   -Lynn A. Kuntz

FOOD ADDITIVES: How Safe are the Ingredients?

The Truth About 7 Common Food Additives

How safe are the ingredients in your food?

Reviewed by Kathleen M. Zelman, MPH, RD, LDBy Martin Downs, MPH
WebMD Feature

If, like many Americans, you stock your pantry with processed foods, you may worry about how safe food additives really are.

Over the years, the safety of many food additives, from food dyes to trans fats, has come into question. A scare over a food additive may linger in our minds long after researchers find that there's actually no cause for alarm. It can take years, or even decades, to find out the truth, and sometimes the case is never really closed.

To help you figure out what’s safe, WebMD took a look at the latest research on seven of the most controversial food additives. Here’s what we found:

1. Artificial coloring

What it is

Artificial food colors are chemical dyes used to color food and drinks.

Foods that have it

Many types of processed foods, beverages, and condiments have artificial coloring in them.

Why it's controversial

Artificial food color is suspected of causing increased hyperactivity in children. Also, the dye Yellow No. 5 has been thought to worsen asthma symptoms. (In the 1970s, the FDA famously banned Red Dye No. 2 after some studies found that large doses could cause cancer in rats.)

What the research shows

In 2007, a British study published in The Lancet concluded that consuming artificial coloring and preservatives in food can increase hyperactivity in kids. Scientists have been studying the link between food additives and hyperactivity in children for more than 30 years, with mixed results. But the results of the 2007 study compelled the European Food Standards Agency to urge companies to voluntarily remove artificial coloring from food products. The FDA, however, hasn't changed its opinion on the use of FDA-approved artificial food colors, which it considers safe when used properly.

Reports suggesting that the food color Yellow No. 5 might aggravate some people's asthma symptoms date back to the 1950s. But in most controlled studies, Yellow No. 5 has not been shown to have a significant impact on asthma, according to a review of all known studies, which is updated every year.

How you find it on the label

The following artificial colors are approved for use in food products and must be listed as ingredients on labels:

• FD&C Blue No. 1 (brilliant blue FCF)       
• FD&C Blue No. 2 (indigotine)
• FD&C Green No. 3 (fast green FCF)       
• FD&C Red No. 40 (allura red AC)           
• FD&C Red No. 3 (erythrosine)
• FD&C Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine)
• FD&C Yellow No. 6 (sunset yellow)
• Orange B (restricted to use in hot dog and sausage casings)

2. High fructose corn syrup continued...

Foods that have it

High fructose corn syrup is a common additive in many kinds of processed foods, not just sweets. Most non-diet soft drinks are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup.

Why it's controversial

Some experts have proposed that people metabolize high fructose corn syrup in a way that raises the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes more than sugar made from sugar cane. Much of the controversy stems from the observation that obesity in the United States and consumption of high fructose corn syrup increased at the same time.

What the research shows

"It's just sugar," says Marion Nestle, PhD, a professor of nutrition and public health at New York University. "Biochemically, there's no difference."

The high fructose corn syrups commonly used to sweeten foods and drinks are 55-58% fructose and 42-45% glucose. Sucrose (cane sugar) is a double sugar made of fructose and  glucose. Digestion quickly breaks down cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup into fructose and glucose.

"There's a little bit more fructose in high fructose corn syrup, but not a lot," Nestle says. "It doesn't really make any difference. The body can't tell them apart."  The American Medical Association recently stated that there is scant evidence to support the idea that high fructose corn syrup is any worse than cane sugar and that consuming too much sugar of either kind is unhealthy.

How you find it on the label

High fructose corn syrup can be found in the list of ingredients on a food label.

3. Aspartame

What it is

Aspartame is an artificial sweetener known by various brand names, including Equal and NutraSweet.

Foods that have it

Aspartame is a commonly used additive for sweetening diet soft drinks.

Why it's controversial

Various health concerns have been raised about aspartame since it was introduced in 1981. Most recently, it has been suspected of causing cancer. There have been reports of aspartame causing seizures, headaches, mood disturbances, and reduced mental performance. A study published in 2005 suggested that aspartame could cause leukemia and lymphoma in rats. Another study, published in 1996, argued that an increase in the rate of brain tumors in the United States could be related to consumption of aspartame.

What the research shows

Dozens of studies in people and animals have tested for effects possibly related to aspartame. The majority of these studies show that things such as headaches, seizures, and mental and emotional problems didn't occur with aspartame more often than with placebo, even at doses many times higher than anyone would likely ever consume. Large epidemiological studies haven't found a link between aspartame and cancer. A study of about 500,000 people, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, compared those who drank beverages containing aspartame with those who didn't. It found that people who drank increasing amounts of beverages containing aspartame did not have a greater risk for lymphomas, leukemias, or brain cancer. Another study looked at data from a large survey done by the National Institutes of Health. The survey included detailed information on 1,888 cases of leukemia or lymphomas and 315 cases of brain cancer. The researchers found no link between aspartame consumption and those cancers.

"For more than three decades, research has found aspartame to be safe, and today it is approved for use in more than 100 countries," says Robert E. Brackett, PhD, spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a lobbying organization in Washington, D.C. "In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has confirmed the safety of aspartame 26 times over a period of 23 years, with the most recent confirmation in April 2007."

How to find it on the label

Look for aspartame in the list of ingredients.

4. Monosodium glutamate (MSG)

MSG by itself looks like salt or sugar crystals. It is a form of the naturally occurring chemical glutamate. Glutamate doesn't have a flavor of its own, but it enhances other flavors and imparts a savory taste. Tomatoes, soybeans, and seaweed are examples of foods that have a lot of glutamate naturally. Some scientists say that glutamate, also known as "umami," is the fifth essential flavor that the human palate can detect, in addition to sweet, salty, bitter, and sour.

Foods that have it

MSG is an additive used in many foods.

Why it's controversial

Many people claim to have bad reactions when they eat food seasoned with MSG. In the late 1960s, people started talking about "Chinese restaurant syndrome," alleging that food prepared with MSG at Chinese restaurants made them sick.

What the research shows

Many studies over the past four decades have tested the idea that some people may be sensitive to MSG. Most scientists today agree that if there is such a thing as a sensitivity or allergy to MSG, it's extremely rare. Studies haven't found any regular pattern of symptoms that could be typical of a reaction to MSG. Also, people are more likely to have symptoms if they're given MSG crystals than if they eat the same amount of MSG mixed with food.

"It's very hard for me to believe that there's a problem with it," Nestle says. Nevertheless, some still swear that they have bad reactions to MSG. "People who think they have problems with it should avoid it," she says.

How you find it on the label

Some food labels come right out and say that a product contains added MSG. But there are other ingredients that may contain MSG such as "hydrolyzed soy protein" and "autolyzed yeast."

5. Sodium benzoate

What it is

Sodium benzoate is a food additive used as a preservative.

Foods that have it

Sodium benzoate is used in a variety of processed food products and drinks.

Why it's controversial

It's suspected that sodium benzoate, in addition to artificial food color, may increase hyperactivity in some children. Sodium benzoate in soft drinks may also react with added vitamin C to make benzene, a cancer-causing substance.

What the research shows

The 2007 Lancet study that linked additives with increased hyperactivity included the preservative sodium benzoate.

In 2006 and 2007, the FDA tested a sample of almost 200 beverages from stores in different states that contained sodium benzoate and vitamin C. Four of the beverages had benzene levels that were above federal safety standards. The drinks were then reformulated by manufacturers and later deemed safe by the FDA. The agency points out, however, that the tests were limited and that it's still not known how much benzene consumers could be exposed to from beverages.

How you find it on the label

Sodium benzoate is listed among the ingredients on a product label.

6. Sodium nitrite

Sodium nitrite is an additive used for curing meat.

Foods that have it

Sodium nitrite is usually found in preserved meat products, like sausages and canned meats.

Why it's controversial

There is a theory that eating a lot of sodium nitrite might cause gastric cancer.

What the research shows

There is evidence that sodium nitrite could have been to blame for a lot of the gastric cancers that people had in the past. Until the early 1930s, gastric cancer caused the most deaths of all cancers in the United States. After that, more Americans began to use modern refrigeration and ate less cured meat. Also, producers started to use much less sodium nitrite in the curing process around that time. As these changes took place, deaths from gastric cancer also dropped dramatically.

This theory has been debated for decades, and it is still an open question.

How you find it on the label

Sodium nitrite will be listed as an ingredient on the labels of food products.

7. Trans fat

What it is

Trans fats are created when manufacturers add hydrogen to vegetable oil. Trans fats are food additives in the sense that they're mainly added to the food supply by manufacturing processes, although small amounts of trans fats are present naturally in animal fat.

Foods that have it

These "partially hydrogenated oils" are used most often for deep-frying food, and in baked goods. Margarine and vegetable shortening may also be made with partially hydrogenated oil.

Why it's controversial

Trans fats are believed to increase the risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

What the research shows

Most scientists now agree that eating trans fats can be very harmful to health. Trans fats have been found to lower people's HDL (good) cholesterol and raise LDL (bad) cholesterol. The American Heart Association recommends getting less than 1% of your daily calories from trans fats.

How you find it on the label

Product labels are now required to list the amount of trans fat in a serving. Partially hydrogenated oil may also be listed as an ingredient.

But many fried foods and baked goods that are laden with trans fats are served in restaurants, and they don't come with nutrition labels. To avoid trans fats, it's best to limit your overall daily fat intake.

"Usually, when you increase the total amount of fat you consume, you increase the amount of trans fat as well," says Benjamin Caballero, MD, a professor at the Center for Human Nutrition at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. If you reduce your total fat intake from 13% of your daily calories (which he says is typical for Americans) to less than 10% (which is recommended), you probably won't exceed the limit on trans fat.

"There are so many controversial studies about ingredients that are a little more emotionally mediated by one study showing it harmful and another study showing it not harmful, and then people say, ‘What am I to do?’”

"You're going to get more nutrient bang for your buck to eat less refined foods when you can," says Christine Gerbstadt, MD, RD, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association.