E numbers hidden in foods

Dfens

Apologies if this subject has come up as a thread already.
I know that we're always heard of E numbers being bad for kids etc etc. but it only really hit home for me at the weekend when I actually looked into some of these additives myself (link).

As regards sweets, dd only gets a few types anyway, usual ones I pick are jellies that have natural fruit juices, extra vitamins etc.
But I was shocked to discover that my food press had some nasty surprises - fruit cocktail (listed as Erythrosine and not as E127 on tin - manufacturers so sneaky sometimes...grr..) and also a G**dalls food colouring (Allura red, E129) that I used for some icing on my dd birthday cake (feel so guilty over that now...:().
Note that not all of the E numbers on the list are banned or currently considered dangerous at the moment.

What I cannot understand however, is if a lot of these artifical additives are banned in the US or other EU countries why are they not banned here (a lot are not banned in UK also) ?

Susannahmia

I have a young cousin who had constant severe migraines and vomiting for years. My aunt cut out all e numbers (beginning with 1 I think) from his diet and now he is fine. The poor kid can only have popcorn, a particular kind of mint and cidona as treats or he is in bed sick for 24 hours. He is an extreme example but it really is amazing what an effect these things can have.

MzFusspot

Not all e-numbers are bad for you, the second one down on the list you've linked to OP is vitamin b. I also spotted lycopene on there and that's the antioxidant that's in tomatoes and people go mad over the health benefits of.

I do remember during science class yonks back reading a chapter on e-numbers and it said that if all the bits that made up an apple were listed with their e-numbers people would be afraid to give it to their kids. I know not all e-numbers are harmless and there's a lot to be said about cutting artificial cr*p from kids diets but it's probably best to check out the individual e-number you're worried about in something, you might see E300 in the ingredients of something you've bought and worry about giving it to your kids, but it's vitamin c

littlebitdull

An E Number is a food additive that has been tested to a set standard. All food ingredients have e numbers.

Its foolish to simply tar all e numbers as being bad for you, and bad for kids.

As for those jellies you speak about - I know that weight watchers warn their members off eating them as they are loaded full of sugar. So ok you may not have any tested additives in them, but do you want your child filled to the brim with sugar?

Dfens

Mzfusspot & Littlebitdull if you had read my original post carefully you would have seen the below extracted quote -

Dfens wrote: »

Note that not all of the E numbers on the list are banned or currently considered dangerous at the moment.

Yes I am well aware of the facts in the comments you both made but it still does not detract from the fact that there are some E number additives (artifical ones predominately & not the natural ones like chlorophylls, carotenes, lycophene, anthocyanins etc.) that are very bad for you.

Littlebitdull, don't worry I ration what my child gets of these sweets, she gets 4-5 little jellies as a treat some evenings & certainly would never get a whole packet of anything....we as a family try to eat a well balanced & as healthy a diet as we can.

lostinnappies

it really enranges me when manufacturers say no this and no that letting you to believe that the product doesnt have any harmful stuff in it. Tell me are there any sweets etc for kids out there that have 1 no additive, 2 no flavourings, 3 no presevitives, 4 no salt, 5 no added sugar, 6 no colourings? Gone are the days when you knew what you were getting in a packet ..... no more then the recent scandals in china regarding baby food, how bad is that.

http://www.newser.com/story/37244/made-in-china-toxic-baby-formula.html

Dfens

Yes, the China milk situation is disgraceful, some news reports are saying that the company bosses knew about the chemical's presence in the formula since last March but the recall didn't happen until this week. It makes my blood boil....:mad:

littlebitdull

lostinnappies wrote: »

Gone are the days when you knew what you were getting in a packet .....

I doubt any of us - unless we are food scientest/trained nutritionists ever really knew what we were getting in a packet.

At lot of the additives in food have always been there, its just that now they have number or names.

Also the obligation on manufactures to list the full ingredients on food packets is a relativly new one.

We are getting much better educated now as to the content of food, the value of it.

(sorry for all the spelling mistakes ...could be something i ate!)

Clytus

lostinnappies wrote: »

it really enranges me when manufacturers say no this and no that letting you to believe that the product doesnt have any harmful stuff in it. Tell me are there any sweets etc for kids out there that have 1 no additive, 2 no flavourings, 3 no presevitives, 4 no salt, 5 no added sugar, 6 no colourings? Gone are the days when you knew what you were getting in a packet ..... no more then the recent scandals in china regarding baby food, how bad is that.

http://www.newser.com/story/37244/made-in-china-toxic-baby-formula.html

Wow...your making comments about something you really know very little about.
Can I ask you...the last time you bought a sliced Pan...did you throw it out the day after you bought it?...or did you expect it to last a day or 2?...well if you did that was down to the Calcium propionate (E282)...did you expect a nice even ,soft textured crumb?...well that was helped along by E471 Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids and E300 Ascorbic acid aka Vitamin C.

Labelling laws require food additives to be described in either their E number OR their correct title...so NO food manufacturers are not being sneaky.
Dont forget..in complex food where labelling requires a QUID ingredient declaration its easier to just put down the Enumbers to save space on the label.

Food production is probably only second to Pharma as the most strictly regulated industry.

I have the 2002 guidlines to food industry labelling and there is more than 300 pages in it...goes to show how regulated the law is.

nesf

That site is very sensationalist, it's going on about brain tumours and aspartamine as if there was a definite link, it's still hotly debated and from the studies I've read it's only been shown in animal models at dosage levels that would be the equivalent of an average person consuming over 10 or 14 litres of Diet Coke in a day regularly! What is important is not whether or not these substances are dangerous at very unusual dosages (seriously, an awful lot of good normal healthy stuff can be "bad" for you if you ingest enough of it), it's whether it's safe at normal dosages that we get in our food and sites like that don't inform you of this!

Really, take everything on there with a healthy pinch of salt. It can be very hard to differentiate the truth from the conjecture from the untruth on such websites and some of them will get you very worried and stressed about an E number (for example) that is only dangerous in extremely large quantities far in excess of what any of us would get through even a binge diet.

taram

nesf wrote: »

]
Really, take everything on there with a healthy pinch of salt.

Woah, be careful with your salt dosage there! :pac:


Perhaps make a list of the "worst" of the food colourings to keep in your wallet? I did that when I became vegetarian to watch out for hidden animal ingrediants. I agree that some may cause problems in children (my sister used to nearly act drunk her behaviour was so strange when given sunset yellow as a child) it's usually only seen as a link. Maybe see if you can get the reason it was banned in other countries? Like E120, Cochineal is banned in some countries due to the fact an insect based colouring is either in contrast to the religion of the country or seen as disgusting by the food regulators though has been used in Europe since the 16th century. In the case of the fruit cocktail you had, you could most likely removed the E127 by getting rid of the cherries.

lostinnappies

Clytus wrote: »

Wow...your making comments about something you really know very little about.
Can I ask you...the last time you bought a sliced Pan...did you throw it out the day after you bought it?...or did you expect it to last a day or 2?...well if you did that was down to the Calcium propionate (E282)...did you expect a nice even ,soft textured crumb?...well that was helped along by E471 Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids and E300 Ascorbic acid aka Vitamin C.

Labelling laws require food additives to be described in either their E number OR their correct title...so NO food manufacturers are not being sneaky.
Dont forget..in complex food where labelling requires a QUID ingredient declaration its easier to just put down the Enumbers to save space on the label.

Food production is probably only second to Pharma as the most strictly regulated industry.

I have the 2002 guidlines to food industry labelling and there is more than 300 pages in it...goes to show how regulated the law is.

Actually i make my own bread, my policy is if i cant make it from scratch, i dont eat it. I know that there are perservitives in everythig (including the butter i use to make it) What im going on about is when manufacturers advertise something as having NO FLAVOURINGS and how much better it is for your children then the "other" products out there, when infact it is probably worse due to the amount of colourings and other additives.