The Science of Food Additives

1. The Science of Food Additives:
Does It Really Matter Anymore?
James R. Coughlin, Ph.D. CFS
President, Coughlin & Associates
Aliso Viejo, California
jrcoughlin@cox.net
www.linkedin.com/in/jamescoughlin
“Food Additive Safety: Updates on
Science, Regulation and
Consumer Perceptions”
IFT Annual Meeting, New Orleans
June 5, 2019

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. GMA Science Forum, Washington, DC, March 2018
“Strategic Issues Session - When Science is Not Enough:
Communication Strategies to Turn Crisis into Success”
This session highlighted the challenges and opportunities
arising from global trends in food policy and the role of strategic
communications to build political and public support for desired
policy outcomes.
Karl Brophy, CEO, Red Flag
Bill Murray, CEO, National Coffee Association of USA
Jack Bobo, Chief Communications Officer, Intrexon
Kate Loatman, Executive Director, International Council of
Beverage Associations.
~ I concluded that “The Science is Never Enough!” ~
11

12. o A perception of conflict with faith beliefs.
o It can be hard.
o If I do not understand it, dispute it.
o Our own relevance and self-preservation.
12

13. 13

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17

18. Some Food Additives of Concern
18

19. BHA and BHT Synthetic Antioxidants’ Battles (in the 1980’s)
 BHA – Butylatedhydroxyanisole
 Japanese rat bioassay, increased incidence of forestomach tumors
 Humans don’t have forestomachs, so huge debate over the relevance to humans
 Updated review: BHA & BHT Chronic Studies, Williams et al. (1990)
 BHT – Butylatedhydroxytoluene
 Danish chronic bioassay in Wistar rats, both sexes, fed 3 doses of BHT (Wurtzen
& Olsen, 1986) (Wurtzen, 1990, review on Shortcomings)
 Study not terminated at 104 weeks, went out to 141-144 weeks
 BHT-treated rats lived so much longer than controls, got liver tumors because
BHT so prolonged the life of treated rats
 Updated review: Cosmetic Ingredient Review (2002).
19

20. HIGH Priorities for IARC Monographs [2014-2019]
 Beta-carotene - chemoprevention trials provide data on cancer incidence in high-
risk groups (cigarette smokers and asbestos exposed workers) who were exposed
to high doses
 Bisphenol A (BPA) - widely used in epoxy resins and plastics; ongoing cancer
bioassays of perinatal exposure
 Iron (in food and as supplements) - daily iron intake exceeds recommended levels
in many women; epidemiological studies of heme iron intake and colon and other
cancers are available
HIGH Priorities for IARC Monographs [2020-2024]
 Aspartame - kept as High Priority from 2014 report
 Sucralose - dropped to Low Priority from 2014 report
 BPA - kept as High Priority from 2014 report
 Dietary salt intake – stomach cancer risk?
20

21. Processed Meats and
Sodium Nitrite
21

22. 22

23. International Agency for Research on Cancer:
Red & Processed Meat Decisions (October 2015)
 22 invited scientists on Working Group; 8 global meat industry Observers were
silenced; 8 days of deliberations; conclusions published two weeks later in Lancet
Oncology; Final Monograph Vol.114 published in 2018
 RED MEAT:
 Group 2A, “Probable Human Carcinogen”
 “Limited Evidence” in humans, colorectal cancer only
 “Inadequate Evidence” in animals
 Mechanistic considerations made classification go from Group 3 to Group 2A
 PROCESSED MEAT:
 Group 1, “Human Carcinogen”
 “Sufficient Evidence” in humans for colorectal cancer only; Relative Risk =1.18;
barely statistically significant, translates to 18% increase in risk; fuller published
meta-analysis showed no increased risk; IARC excluded some epi studies
 “Inadequate Evidence” in animals
 Mechanistic considerations made classification go from Group 2B to Group 1.
23

24. 24

25. 25

26. 26

27. 27

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30

31. 31

32. U.S. Congress and FDA Concerns over
Caffeine and Energy Drinks
(began in 2013)
32

33. U.S. Senate Report Released April 2013
 Report by Offices of Rep.
Markey (D-MA), Sen. Durbin
(D-IL) and Sen. Blumenthal
(D-CT), April 10, 2013:
 Inconsistent
representation and
claims
 Inadequate labeling
 Unsubstantiated claims
of benefits
 Targeting children
 Effects of other
constituents unknown

34. U.S. Senate Report Released January 2015
34

35. 35

36. U.S. Senate Committee Hearing (July 31, 2013)
 Testimony by 3 public health professionals urging action against energy
drinks, 3 energy drink company top executives…and myself.
 My oral testimony summarized here:
 The caffeine content in energy drinks is equivalent to that of an equal
amount of coffee, and less than that of coffeehouse coffees.
 The health outcomes of caffeine consumption have been thoroughly
studied for decades, and the best available scientific & clinical
evidence does not support the idea that caffeine should be prohibited
(and certainly not from a single source of caffeine).
 Coffee, tea and soft drinks are the primary sources of caffeine in U.S.
diets, including for children and teens. Current exposure assessments
conducted by the U.S. FDA indicate that caffeine consumption by
children and youth is not a safety concern.
36

37. 37

38. 38

39. 39

40. 40

41. A Call to ACTION…
…an IFT Expert Panel effort is badly
needed to explain and defend the
science of food additives &
processed foods!
41

42. 42

43. Thank You!
~
Questions?
James R. Coughlin, PhD CFS
jrcoughlin@cox.net
949-916-6217