This is a study from 2004. The compounds used in flavorings are highly organic. They react easily with human body chemistry. The 'components' that make up these compounds break down and are distributed throughout the body as if a nutrient.
EFSA Journal(2004) 166, 1-44
...According to the default MSDI approach, the six flavouring substances in this group have intakes in Europe from 0.0012 to 3.1 microgram/capita/day which are below the threshold of concern value for both structural class I (1800 microgram/person/day) and structural class II (540 microgram/person/day) substances....
The reason I bring this up is because 'additives' to foods have been under fire for a long time. They are known to create carcinogens within the body chemistry. Perhaps one might recall the outrage over saccharine some time ago. It was proven to cause brain tumors. At one point in the USA there was an epidemic spoken of in the circles of neurosurgeons, but, that understanding never made it into the public conscience. I know these conversations were taking place because I witnessed one at the Cleveland Clinic.
Is there an association between artificial sweeteners and cancer? (click here)
Questions about artificial sweeteners and cancer arose when early studies showed that cyclamate in combination with saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory animals. However, results from subsequent carcinogenicity studies (studies that examine whether a substance can cause cancer) of these sweeteners have not provided clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans. Similarly, studies of other FDA-approved sweeteners have not demonstrated clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans.
In the day of saccharine popularity there were so many tumors the neurosurgeons had a 'population' of patients that enabled a better understanding of the best treatment of these monstrosities and treatment regimes were refined and reclassified in many instances. Some of the rarest form of tumors showed up in larger numbers and then better understood.
It is my opinion this understanding of caramel color is an opportunity to view the entire idea of chemical manipulation of food.
This is the entire title of the study I referred to above.
Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in contact with Food (AFC) on a request from the Commission related to Flavouring Group Evaluation 11 (FGE.11):
Aliphatic dialcohols, diketones, and hydroxyketones from chemical group 10
(Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 of 18 July 2000)
(Adopted on 9 December 2004)
4-methylimidazole or 4-MeI is the compound being regulated in the article in the LA Times, however, it is not found in nature. It is a synthesized final product that results from a manufacturing process.
There are many 'specific' organic reactions known within the understanding of ORGANIC CHEMISTRY. They are reactions known as laws of chemical reactions. They are consistent and result in the same reaction time and time again. They are somewhat vital in the 'creation' of pharmaceuticals. But, in this case they are also used in the production of food products.
4-Methylimidazole is synthesized by using two methods. Either Debus-Radziszewski synthesis (reactions of methylglyoxal with ammonia and formaldehyde) or by reacting hydroxyacetone and formamide in ammonia.
In this particular reaction the "imidazole" is the parent compound that makes caramel coloring possible.
Imidazole is an organic compound with the formula (CH)2NCH. It is a colourless solid that dissolves in water to give mildly alkaline solution. In chemistry, it is an aromatic heterocycle, classified as a diazole and as an alkaloid.
Now I can go on and on with this description, but, at some point a working knowledge of organic chemistry is necessary to understand why these 'ingredient compounds' are so dangerous.
The point it this. Anytime a reaction results in a food additive there is always the possibility it is toxic over time to the body resulting in carcinogens. Why take additives into your food unless it is found in nature such as iodine in table salt?
EFSA Journal(2004) 166, 1-44
...According to the default MSDI approach, the six flavouring substances in this group have intakes in Europe from 0.0012 to 3.1 microgram/capita/day which are below the threshold of concern value for both structural class I (1800 microgram/person/day) and structural class II (540 microgram/person/day) substances....
The reason I bring this up is because 'additives' to foods have been under fire for a long time. They are known to create carcinogens within the body chemistry. Perhaps one might recall the outrage over saccharine some time ago. It was proven to cause brain tumors. At one point in the USA there was an epidemic spoken of in the circles of neurosurgeons, but, that understanding never made it into the public conscience. I know these conversations were taking place because I witnessed one at the Cleveland Clinic.
Is there an association between artificial sweeteners and cancer? (click here)
Questions about artificial sweeteners and cancer arose when early studies showed that cyclamate in combination with saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory animals. However, results from subsequent carcinogenicity studies (studies that examine whether a substance can cause cancer) of these sweeteners have not provided clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans. Similarly, studies of other FDA-approved sweeteners have not demonstrated clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans.
In the day of saccharine popularity there were so many tumors the neurosurgeons had a 'population' of patients that enabled a better understanding of the best treatment of these monstrosities and treatment regimes were refined and reclassified in many instances. Some of the rarest form of tumors showed up in larger numbers and then better understood.
It is my opinion this understanding of caramel color is an opportunity to view the entire idea of chemical manipulation of food.
This is the entire title of the study I referred to above.
Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in contact with Food (AFC) on a request from the Commission related to Flavouring Group Evaluation 11 (FGE.11):
Aliphatic dialcohols, diketones, and hydroxyketones from chemical group 10
(Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 of 18 July 2000)
(Adopted on 9 December 2004)
4-methylimidazole or 4-MeI is the compound being regulated in the article in the LA Times, however, it is not found in nature. It is a synthesized final product that results from a manufacturing process.
There are many 'specific' organic reactions known within the understanding of ORGANIC CHEMISTRY. They are reactions known as laws of chemical reactions. They are consistent and result in the same reaction time and time again. They are somewhat vital in the 'creation' of pharmaceuticals. But, in this case they are also used in the production of food products.
4-Methylimidazole is synthesized by using two methods. Either Debus-Radziszewski synthesis (reactions of methylglyoxal with ammonia and formaldehyde) or by reacting hydroxyacetone and formamide in ammonia.
In this particular reaction the "imidazole" is the parent compound that makes caramel coloring possible.
Imidazole is an organic compound with the formula (CH)2NCH. It is a colourless solid that dissolves in water to give mildly alkaline solution. In chemistry, it is an aromatic heterocycle, classified as a diazole and as an alkaloid.
Now I can go on and on with this description, but, at some point a working knowledge of organic chemistry is necessary to understand why these 'ingredient compounds' are so dangerous.
The point it this. Anytime a reaction results in a food additive there is always the possibility it is toxic over time to the body resulting in carcinogens. Why take additives into your food unless it is found in nature such as iodine in table salt?
