Emulsifiers are the newest battleground in the ultra-processed food debate, widely cited as ingredients of concern by the sort of joyless campaigners who want to tax baked beans.
The health puritans at Zoe (or ‘Tim Spector’s Zoe’ to give its full media title), who probably have some sort of food additive spotting technology to flog, have suggested that emulsifiers are a “red flag” on any ingredient label and probably have a “negative impact on our health overall”. Hard to argue with that sort of scientific rigour.
At least here campaigners are highlighting a specific group of ingredients, rather than vague feelings about the harms of capitalism. With emulsifiers, there are potential mechanisms and genuine research suggesting certain ingredients might be bad for some people’s guts.
In high doses, carboxymethlycellulose (CMC), carrageenan and polysorbate-80 (P-80) appear to disrupt the gut lining in mouse models. As a result, a low-emulsifier diet was developed by researchers at King’s College London for human Crohn’s disease patients, a group who suffer terribly from gut inflammation. A control group was fed the same low-emulsifier diet, but with CMC, carrageenan and P80 covertly added to some of the snacks. This work showed that, for Crohn’s disease sufferers, these emulsifiers are potentially harmful.
Unfortunately, reporting of the work has spread way beyond what was intended. Emulsifiers are now frequently damned as a whole, including those that have never been linked to harm.
Any food technologists reading will be curious that CMC and carrageenan are even categorised as emulsifiers, as that is rarely their main use in a formulation. In functionality terms, they are a million miles from lecithin, more commonly used to stabilise emulsions. Although the disparate group of substances currently categorised as emulsifiers could have a common metabolic impact in humans, that seems extremely unlikely and is not something that evidence supports.
Natural emulsifiers
If all emulsifiers are harmful, then surely naturally occurring ones would be implicated. It is estimated that average consumption of lecithin from processed products is around 50mg per day, yet a standard egg yolk contains around 150mg, with nuts, seeds and legumes adding even more into people’s diets.
It is also worth noting that many manufacturers are now developing formulations that do not have named emulsifiers on the ingredients list but still form stable emulsions. Pulse flours and protein concentrates with strong emulsifying properties are often used, as are more traditional approaches such as mustard seeds and egg yolks.
Anything that forms a stable emulsion will contain an emulsifier. It seems unlikely that the human gut cares about the wording of an ingredients label or can distinguish between added and intrinsic ingredients.
Evidence does suggest that CMC, carrageenan and P80 should be avoided by patients with Crohn’s disease, a nasty condition affecting 200,000 people in the UK. But it is not clear that any other types of emulsifiers are harmful, and for the vast majority, no currently approved emulsifying ingredients should be seen as “red flags”.
Making healthy consumers afraid of commonly-eaten foods is not a no-harm intervention and it is almost certainly not something that the excellent researchers at King’s would embrace. Nuance is hard in food and science communication, but with emulsifiers, a nuanced approach is the only way. If not, there is a danger of making everyone scared of eggs because a high dose of carrageenan is bad for Crohn’s sufferers.
It is time for industry, academia and those that speak about food to start talking some sense.
Anthony Warner is a development chef at New Food Innovation
No comments yet