Are Natural Foods Dangerous? Or Are Preserved Foods a Greater Risk?

A 1975 Readers Digest article on food that prompted this series posed the question whether 'natural foods' - those with no additives - were safer than those with additives. Its answer was a clear 'No'. It pointed out that eating deteriorated natural food was dangerous, mentioning moulds and other growths in spoiled foods being linked with cancers.

If you want to look it up, the article is in the April 1975 UK edition of RD and was by Elizabeth Whelan, condensed from the June 1974 Glamor (Conde Nast).

The article went on to extol the benefits of vitamin reinforcement and to approve of preservatives, mentioning nitrates and nitrites to avoid botulism and BHT & BHA as protection against stomach cancer. Essentially, then, it was suggesting that people who ate untreated food would be exposing themselves to unnecessary risk.

Were the expert reports mentioned in the article correct?

Food additives, then as now, were seen as being in several categories by most people, so I'll deal with them that way. First, let's look at the natural mineral preservatives.

Salt and Nitrates

Nitrite and nitrate preservatives go with salt - sea salt and rock salt. These are all well-proven to give people high blood pressure when more than a little is eaten, leading to arterial damage and heart stress. Some people are naturally more prone to this hypertension - maybe one in five -- but you won't know if it's you till it happens. On the other hand, as a preservative, they diminish the risk of food poisoning and disease from poorly stored foods. So maybe heart trouble in later life is the lesser risk if you're prone to let your food spoil then eat it! That's the issue the 1975 article majored on. If we avoid the dangers of high salt intake, I see no problem using salts for preserving foods like bacon and fish, and eating them in moderation - especially if a lot of the salt is soaked and washed out before cooking.

Vitamins

Vitamins, both natural extracts like C and artificial analogues, are a healthy additive to foods if used in safe quantities. They are preservatives and antioxidants as well as good for health. No disagreement with 1975 here.

Artificial Antioxidants

Finally, the article extols the virtues of BHA and BHT antioxidants, only in use for a couple of decades in 1975, and just coming into widespread use. For me, this is the main point in the article that I take issue with. The author mentions recent (1970s) research showing that they could reduce the rate of stomach cancer. Probably, yes - compared with the food spoiling from having no antioxidants. 

But the issue here is not that; it's between using BHT/BHA or leaving the natural antioxidants in the food. In the 70s, the 'natural' movement was regarded as a bunch of foodie cranks; 'hi-tech' and 'modern' were the keywords, and that meant processed foods with a long shelf life and bursting with flavor - from plenty of added salt, sugar, flavour-enhancers and hydrogenated fat. Oh, and highly colored with modern azo and coal tar dyes. 

My other articles tell you why that is a very bad idea. Today, food-conscious people are concerned to keep food more natural and, by choice, to leave nature to do the preserving. UK bread, for example, has used natural antioxidant Vitamin A instead of BHA for over two decades. I see this trend as only beneficial to the public health - and I hope to see it become the major public attitude.

Is Natural Best?

But there's more! BHT, Butylhydroxytoluene (E321), has been shown to lessen some cancer risk - but encourage others. It may cause metabolic problems and pose other risks, so five countries have banned it and it has been voluntarily removed from foods in many others. 

It has been replaced by BHA, Butylhydroxyanisole (E320), which is regarded as rather safer. Many reputable authorities deprecate even this, though, and the organic/wholefood movement hates it as representing the principle of making food unsafe to improve storage, then adding a chemical to make it safe again. I agree - natural antioxidants are best. But BHA is better than eating spoilt foods.

And Your Opinion?

What do you think?  Would you rather get your food fresh and do your own food safety work, or have it dosed with preservatives so that if you leave it a few weeks in the fridge, it'll still be safe to eat?

Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Are-Natural-Foods-Dangerous?-Or-Are-Preserved-Foods-a-Greater-Risk?&id=2743399
diet hylpropion news