Fishy lobster? Some food additives that help to keep lobster and other shellfish looking fresh might be changing human hormones.
Image: FLICKR/IAW KEVEN
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
A discovery that two commonly used food additives are estrogenic has led scientists to suspect that many ingredients added to the food supply may be capable of altering hormones.
More than 3,000 preservatives, flavorings, colors and other ingredients are added to food in the United States, and none of them are required to undergo testing for estrogenic activity, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
“We need to be mindful of these food additives because they could be adding to the total effect of other estrogen mimicking compounds we're coming into contact with,” said Clair Hicks, a professor of food science at the University of Kentucky and spokesperson for the Institute of Food Technologists, a nonprofit scientific group.
“The benefits of using these additives in food need to be weighed against the risks they present,” Hicks said.
In a study published in December, Italian researchers screened 1,500 food additives using computer-modeling software, a much faster and cheaper approach than testing lab rats.
The researchers first used modeling to identify 13 molecules that could hypothetically bind with an estrogen receptor, a group of molecules activated by the hormone. Like a clenched fist that fits into the palm of a hand, potentially estrogenic molecules will “fit” inside the receptor, indicating they could interact and alter hormones.
Then, the researchers exposed cells to the 13 food additives, which confirmed that two have estrogen-mimicking properties. Known as “xenoestrogens,” these substances have been linked to reproductive problems in animals and perhaps humans.
The first food additive, propyl gallate, is a preservative used to prevent fats and oils from spoiling that can be found in a range of foods including baked goods, shortening, dried meats, candy, fresh pork sausage, mayonnaise and dried milk.
The second additive, 4-hexyl resorcinol, is used to prevent shrimp, lobsters, and other shellfish from discoloring.
“Some caution should be issued for the use of these two additives,” said Pietro Cozzini, one of the researchers who conducted the study and a chemistry professor at the University of Parma in Italy.
He added that further tests on rats are necessary to determine whether these additives could harm humans.
Paul Foster, whose research focuses on the potential human health effects of endocrine disruptors, agreed. He said there is a big difference between adding estrogenic molecules to cells in a culture dish and actually seeing what happens when that dose is administered to an animal.
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentBe an informed consumer and read the "F"ing label, there are worse things in prepared foods then endocrine disruptors and mimics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who consume large amounts of bottled water and soft drinks are doing the rest of us a favor by removing themselves from the breeding population.
If anyone's to blame in this potential mess, it's not the victims but the producers and politicians. As far as labels go, not even huge warnings of death and cancer have much effect on nicotine addicts. We're all "addicted" to food. In addition we all know the efforts made by producers and most politicians to stop such labels being used on their favourite profit generators. "Dangerous fats" will never appear on labels on dairy products. And booze has finally grudgingly permitted "Enjoy responsibly" in certain jurisdictions, instead of "addictive, destructive, can kill you". Booze kills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoliticians and producers should be labelled. With a big red K branded on their foreheads - K for Killer.
3000 additives? that's really crazy... and for what? improving collor...? I'd rather eat in black and white then dying of cancer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that there is nothing safe to be available for human health, this article reminds me about the toxic milk issue in China, which caused a great number of infants' and children's death. I think it is the time to restrict the additives or make thorough tests on these stuff that do not originally belong to foods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Perhaps humans"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much is the average sperm count down in American men, again? I forgot the number but it is huge. Over 30% IIRC. And the age of menarche keeps going down too.
Just don't eat/drink any of that artificial stuff. If it comes from a factory (unless it's something traditional like a bakery) don't eat it.
Oh and don't forget soy - it has some of the most powerful phytoestrogens of all foods. Unless you're a grown woman you do *not* want that.
What a poorly researched article! I'd suggest looking at the DATA, rather than the hype. For instance, anyone can clearly see that the conclusions drawn by the authors of the PET study are illogical, if you look at their data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis does not belong at Scientific American. It is a witch hunt, not science.