EU to review all food additives

Could the E-number be up?


The European Food Safety
Authority’s review of additive safety could have a bigger effect on the
ingredients industry than the ejection of certain colours and flavours
with a suspect safety record. It could give the natural ingredients
trend an extra push, and possibly prove the death-knell for the ne’er
loved E number system.

The European Commission is to redraw legislation on additives,
weaving together eight different regulations conceived over the last
decades into one shiny new one. But the process is only in its early
stages and it will likely be years before any new regulation comes into

In the meantime, the EC has recognized that the current
state of science means it cannot sit on its laurels and wait for it.
Some of the additives being used in food today have, since they were
first given the green light, been the subject of safety studies that
have caused consternation.

(the European Food Safety Authority) has been given the task of wading
through the data on all 45 or so additives currently allowed in foods
in Europe, starting with the oldest, to see if they have the impeccable
safety record one would expect.

So far it has delivered a
verdict on just one, the colour Red 2G (E128) that is used in sausages
and burgers in some member states. And it’s not good news.

published since 1999 have led the safety authority to deem it a
potential carcinogen, and withdrawn the ADI (accepted daily intake)
established in 1981. An EC standing committee meeting took place on
Friday to discuss its legality at a European level, with the decision
taken that it should be banned.

In essence, the re-evaluation
is a good thing. But if studies raised questions in 1999, why has it
taken almost eight years for any regulator to look at this?

have a bad rap with consumers anyway. The system has baffled many
consumers since it was first introduced. After all, who really knows
their E128 from their E110 (sunset yellow) when glancing quickly at a

It’s no real wonder that consumers are suspicious when
legislators have been slow to act on the evidence. A rolling science
assessment should have been in place years ago. The fact that it
wasn’t, and some long-held fears now proving to have legs, only adds to
the legitimacy of such suspicions. 

We will have to wait until
EFSA’s review is over and done with in late 2008 before we know the
true fall out from the outmoded system. But even so, a question mark
over a previously available food ingredient undermines trust in the
checks and balances of our regulatory system.

What does this
diminishment of trust mean for the innocent E-number, one just minding
its own business, not causing anyone any harm?

If EFSA is the
doorman guarding entry to the glamorous party of food ingredients, its
role is to keep out those malicious ingredients concealing weapons
beneath their cloaks. But in the current climate, what of the innocents
that are let in only to find themselves ostracized by the other guests
because they come from the wrong side of the tracks that separate
natural from synthetic?

No-one can really blame them from
slinking off from the party early – nor ingredients companies removing
from sale ingredients that carry a stigma so that no-one wants in their

Or else, in order to be accepted, the ingredient
formerly known as E will need to be re-branded. Given a make-over, if
you will, to carry favour with the in-crowd.

The whole system of E numbers, for those additives that survive EFSA’s science cull, may need to be redrawn.

if not, the industry will have to power up a huge PR machine to assure
consumers one and all that not all additives are evil – and synthetic
is not always a synonym for sinister. 

Consumers are already
seeking out goods made with all natural ingredients, retailers are
promising to cater to them and are ordering clean-label products from
their manufacturers.

For instance, UK supermarket ASDA has
said it is removing all artificial colours and flavourings from its
own-label foods and beverages.

The ingredients industry is
stepping up to the mark with natural ingredients offerings. This is a
fertile market sector, and the tale of Red 2G is like a liberal
spreading of dung across the top of it – foul-smelling, but encouraging
more growth.   

The anti-additives movement is already active
at market level. It makes little sense for the industry to wait on
legislation. It needs to start second-guessing the ramifications now if
it wants its ingredients to be invited to the party again.

Halliday is editor of award-winning website Over the
past decade she has worked in print, broadcast and online media in both
Europe and the United States. 
If you would like to comment on this article, please email