Latest news with #NationalInstituteofHealthandMedicalResearch
Miami Herald
21-05-2025
- Health
- Miami Herald
This news about ice cream might ruin your appetite — and summer
It's a marvel of food technology: ice cream that resists melting. In a video explaining the science behind it, a seller of food chemicals shows scoops of ice cream holding their shape under hot lights. The super ingredient? Polysorbate 80. Polysorbate 80 is an emulsifier, a chemical used to control the consistency of thousands of supermarket products. Other widely used emulsifiers or stabilizers include carboxymethyl cellulose, carrageenan, and maltodextrin. Recently, such ingredients have been showing up in scientific studies for another reason: Researchers say they may cause a variety of health problems. Studies have found that emulsifiers can alter the mix of bacteria in the gut, known as the microbiome or microbiota; damage the lining of the gastrointestinal tract; and trigger inflammation, potentially contributing to problems elsewhere in the body. Emulsifiers and stabilizers are among the most common ingredients in ultraprocessed foods, a prime target of the 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. They are on the department's radar: Their potentially harmful effects were flagged in a document HHS recently produced to support Kennedy's drive to eliminate petroleum-based food dyes. But they illustrate the complexity of the war on food additives. They show how, when it comes to food science, regulators are chronically playing catch-up. In the meantime, for many ingredients, regulators and consumers alike are left in a gray zone between suspicion and proof of harm in humans. Emulsifiers' assault on the microbiome could help explain inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, metabolic disorders, and even cancer, the studies suggest. 'There is a lot of data showing that those compounds are really detrimental for the microbiota and that we should stop using them,' said Benoit Chassaing, a research director at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research and a co-author of several related studies. Yet much larger and more ambitious clinical trials in humans are needed, Chassaing added. For Lewis Rands, who has suffered from gastrointestinal illness, the research fits his own experience as a consumer. Changing his diet to avoid emulsifiers has made a shocking difference, easing symptoms that were debilitating, Rands said. 'Clinically, many patients have reported an improvement in symptoms with such changes,' said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, a gastroenterologist and researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital. The scientific findings come with caveats. For instance, much of the research has been done in mice, or by mimicking the human gut in a tube. There are many unknowns. Not all emulsifiers have bad effects, or the same effects, and some people are thought to be much more vulnerable than others. Even some researchers who have co-authored papers say that the substances have not been proven harmful to humans and that it's too soon to say regulators should ban them. Still, the research poses a challenge for the FDA. When emulsifiers began spreading through the food supply, the agency wasn't focusing on the gut microbiome, a relatively recent scientific frontier, researchers said. Martin Makary, appointed by President Donald Trump to head the FDA, mentioned the microbiome at his Senate confirmation hearing in March. Though he didn't cite emulsifiers specifically or identify chemicals by name, he said substances that affect the microbiome deserve the FDA's attention. 'There's a body of research now that suggests concern with some of these ingredients,' he said. 'We have to look at those ingredients, and you have my commitment to do so if confirmed as FDA commissioner.' 'These chemicals are creating an inflammatory response in the gastrointestinal tract, and with an altered microbiome lining that GI tract, kids feel sick,' he added. The FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions about Makary's testimony. However, when journalist Emily Kopp asked HHS for the science behind its recent announcement that it is phasing out petroleum-based food dyes, the agency provided a compilation of information on potentially harmful compounds commonly found in ultraprocessed foods. The document, which appeared to be a draft, included a section on emulsifiers, such as xanthan gum and carrageenan. It noted that the section needed more work. HHS subsequently provided the document to KFF Health News. As far back as 2020, an international organization for the study of inflammatory bowel diseases advised that, for people with those conditions, it 'may be prudent to limit intake' of maltodextrin, carrageenan, carboxymethyl cellulose, and polysorbate 80. Emulsifiers are developed from a variety of sources, including plants and bacteria. Some ingredients that might affect the microbiome show up in foods because they were deemed 'generally recognized as safe,' or GRAS. 'New information may at any time require reconsideration of the GRAS status of a food ingredient,' the Code of Federal Regulations says. 'More of a difference than any drug' Rands, a genetic scientist, took matters into his own hands to battle severe inflammatory bowel disease. The illness caused bloating, stomach pain, cramps, frequent bowel movements, and bleeding, he said. It left him in a constant state of anxiety and stress, he added, wondering where the nearest bathroom was and whether he'd reach it in time. Even taking a walk around the block with his wife and baby near their home in Australia was problematic. Then, on the advice of a dietitian, Rands began avoiding foods with emulsifiers: chemicals such as carboxymethyl cellulose, carrageenan, guar gum, xanthan gum, and maltodextrin — plus other additives. For instance, instead of eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream, he switched to Häagen-Dazs ice cream that is free of the substances at issue. The relief was dramatic. 'It's a huge difference,' Rands said. 'To me, it's made more of a difference than any drug.' He has been able to scale back or stop taking several drugs, which is an added relief — not least because some can have harmful side effects, and, he said, one was taking its toll. Rands said he used a scientific approach, isolating variables in his diet and logging the results. Avoiding artificial sweeteners helps, he said, but most of the benefit relates to avoiding the emulsifiers. Ben & Jerry's did not respond to a request for comment. 'Science that hasn't been done yet' The Consumer Brands Association, which represents makers of processed foods, stands behind use of the chemicals. 'Food safety and protecting the integrity of the food supply is priority number one for the makers of America's food and beverage products,' Sarah Gallo, the group's senior vice president of product policy, said in a statement. 'Emulsifiers and thickening agents play an important role in improving food texture and consistency, and have been studied by the FDA through a rigorous scientific and risk-based process,' Gallo said. Asked for specifics on how the FDA had analyzed potential effects on the microbiome, the group did not respond. Chassaing said the chemicals were 'never considered for the potential effect on the microbiota.' Robert Califf, who led the FDA under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, said in an interview that scientists are just beginning to understand the microbiome. He compared it to where the field of genomics was 20 years ago, only much more complicated — 'multiplied by a thousand dimensions.' He said the substances 'fell within the standards' when they were greenlighted. 'But hopefully most people agree that the standards need to be upgraded,' he added. 'This is different than traditional food safety thinking about, 'Does it cause an immediate problem?'' Califf said. 'We're talking about long-term health outcomes here.' And has the FDA evaluated those? 'How could it? There was no way to do it,' Califf said. The answers will vary depending on the emulsifier, and 'proving whether it's bad or good is going to require rigorous science that hasn't been done yet.' More recent scientific capabilities expand the possibilities, he said. 'A lot of confusion in the field' For a consumer, trying to steer clear of emulsifiers can be difficult. Without realizing it, people can consume a variety of emulsifiers from a variety of foods — and the same chemicals from multiple sources. Polysorbate 80 was listed as an ingredient on the labels of 2,311 products as of May 12, according to an online database posted by the Environmental Working Group using information from NielsenIQ. Carrageenan was listed on 8,100 product labels; maltodextrin, 12,769; and xanthan gum, 17,153. Some emulsifiers have multiple names, making them harder to recognize. Some names can apply to more than one emulsifier. And some chemical names that appear on product labels don't appear in the FDA's 'Substances Added to Food' inventory. Carboxymethyl cellulose — not to be confused with methyl cellulose — is also known as carboxymethylcellulose and cellulose gum. Maltodextrin can be derived from substances such as cornstarch, rice starch, and wheat starch — but the FDA doesn't consider it synonymous with the term 'modified food starch.' The naming practices can frustrate efforts to track the chemicals in food, to measure how much of the stuff people are taking in, and even to figure out precisely which chemicals a scientific study evaluated, researchers said. 'There's a lot of confusion in the field,' said Christine McDonald, a researcher at the Cleveland Clinic who has studied maltodextrin. She called for more consistent naming of additives in the United States. The very term 'emulsifier' is problematic. By strict definition, emulsifiers create an emulsion — a stable blend of liquids that would not otherwise mix, such as oil and water. However, the term is used broadly, encompassing chemicals such as maltodextrin that thicken, stabilize, or alter texture. Gummed up Emulsifiers can be found in foods marketed as natural or healthy as well as ones that look artificial. Some products contain multiple emulsifiers. Products sold at Whole Foods, for instance, list a variety of emulsifiers on their labels. 365 brand Organic Vegan Ranch Dressing & Dip contained organic tapioca maltodextrin and xanthan gum. Pacific Seafood Starfish brand Cornmeal Crusted Fishsticks — marked as wild-caught and MSC-certified (sustainably sourced) — contain guar gum. Flour tortillas by 365 included monoglycerides of fatty acids and 'stabilizer (guar gum, xanthan gum, carrageenan).' At a Safeway supermarket, Healthy Choice Grilled Chicken Pesto With Vegetables listed modified potato starch, modified corn starch, carrageenan, xanthan gum, and guar gum. The label on Newman's Own Caesar salad dressing said the product contained no artificial preservatives or flavors, no colors from an artificial source, and was gluten-free. The ingredient label listed, 'as a thickener,' xanthan gum. In response to questions for this article, Whole Foods Market said it prohibits more than 300 ingredients commonly found in food. 'Our experts evaluate ingredients for acceptability in all food products we sell based on the best available scientific research,' the company said in a statement provided by spokesperson Rachel Malish. Safeway's parent company, Albertsons Companies, did not respond to inquiries. Nor did Pacific Seafood, Newman's Own, or Conagra Brands, which makes Healthy Choice. A growing body of research Research on emulsifiers has been building in recent years. For example, a study published in January by the Journal of Crohn's and Colitis concluded that a diet low in emulsifiers is an effective treatment for mild or moderate Crohn's disease. The eight-week clinical trial, which tracked 154 patients in the United Kingdom, focused on carrageenan, carboxymethyl cellulose, and polysorbate 80. A study published in February 2024 in the journal PLOS Medicine found that higher intakes of carrageenan and mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids were associated with higher risks of cancer. The study observed 92,000 French adults for an average of 6.7 years. A study published in September 2023 in The BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal, found that intake of several types of emulsifiers was associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease. The study observed more than 95,000 French adults for a median of 7.4 years. A series of earlier studies found that emulsifiers 'can promote chronic intestinal inflammation in mice'; that two in particular, carboxymethyl cellulose and polysorbate 80, 'profoundly impact intestinal microbiota in a manner that promotes gut inflammation and associated disease states'; and that, based on a laboratory study of human samples, 'numerous, but not all, commonly used emulsifiers can directly alter gut microbiota in a manner expected to promote intestinal inflammation,' as recounted in a 2021 paper in the journal Microbiome. Other findings diverge. A study from Australia, published in February in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, followed 24 Crohn's patients over four weeks and concluded that, in the context of a healthy diet, the emulsifier content had 'no influence over disease activity.' Authors declared conflicts of interest, including payments from PepsiCo, drug companies, and Mindset Health Pty, which promotes hypnosis-based therapy. One of the authors, gastroenterology professor Peter Gibson of Monash University in Australia, said the conflicts of interest 'have nothing whatsoever to do with the study.' 'It is important not to overinterpret results of studies,' he said, adding that his team's report 'does not mean that emulsifiers are good for you or that there are no health benefits in avoiding emulsifiers.' 'Keeping it real' (or not) Häagen-Dazs touts the absence of such chemicals as a virtue. 'Keeping it real, the way it should be,' it said in an online plug for its vanilla ice cream. 'No emulsifiers. No stabilizers.' However, at the company that makes Häagen-Dazs in the United States, Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, there are limits to that approach. Under other brand names — such as Edy's, Dreyer's, and Drumstick — it markets products that contain emulsifiers or stabilizers. The company did not respond to questions. In addition, a spokesperson for Nestlé, which markets Drumstick and Häagen-Dazs brands internationally, did not respond. Drumstick Vanilla Caramel Sundae Cones have no artificial flavors or colors, the package says — but they feature an array of other ingredients, including soy lecithin, guar gum, monogylcerides, and carob bean gum. The cones, the company's website says, offer 'one incredibly creamy experience.' And the creamy filling doesn't melt. Instead, over 24 hours on a KFF Health News reporter's kitchen counter, it bled a caramel-tinged fluid and shrank into a sticky white foam that could be cut with a knife. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
BBC News
28-03-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Is it healthier to use household cleaning products – or not?
Our use of cleaning products has increased significantly since Covid-19. But some of the products we're using to clean our homes come with their own health risks. Humans have been cleaning with chemical agents for around 5,000 years. Ancient Romans' version of the professional cleaner was the "urine scrubber", after it was discovered that urine could be used to clean fabrics. Thankfully, we've come a long way since then. More recently, the Covid-19 pandemic has changed our everyday hygiene habits, with many people becoming more conscious of potential pathogens in the home. Our use of cleaning products increased substantially during the pandemic, according to a Finnish study. Scientists found that, during this period, people cleaned 70% more often, and the amount of cleaning products they used increased by 75%. Household cleaning products, including antibacterial spays, promise to kill most of the harmful bacteria in our toilets, on our kitchen surfaces and elsewhere around our homes. But there's a growing body of scientific evidence showing that they can also increase our exposure to various harmful chemical air contaminants and particulate matter. What are the risks involved with cleaning our homes regularly – and should we be worried about the products we're using? Using household cleaning products is one of the "modifiable risk factors" of asthma, says Emilie Pacheco Da Silva, postdoctoral researcher at Inserm, the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, where she specialises in the asthma effects of disinfectants and cleaning products. This means it's a behaviour that can be changed to lower the risk of developing the condition and experiencing symptoms. Scientists, who in 2024 analysed 77 studies looking into the health effects of household cleaning products, concluded that they can have a harmful effect on respiratory health. In particular, cleaning products applied in spray form are suggested to have more harmful effects on the respiratory system than liquids and wipes. The scientists found that regular use of cleaning sprays increases the risk of developing asthma, triggering current asthma, and poorly controlled asthma in adults, and wheezing in children. Specifically, using sprays between four and seven times a week has been associated with an increased risk of asthma in young adults, and there is some evidence that symptoms worsen with increased use. Researchers say sprays are worse than other types of cleaning products because the chemicals become airborne and therefore it is easier for us to inhale larger amounts. Some studies the researchers looked at also found a link between exposure to cleaning products during pregnancy and persistent wheezing in early childhood. These products can pose an even greater risk to children, they add, who breathe faster than adults. One reason for this is because using cleaning products produces volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can cause ear, nose and throat irritation. "There's enough evidence to know that cleaning products are harmful to some people, particularly if they use them a lot. What's harder is which specific chemicals cause damage," says Nicola Carslaw, professor of indoor air chemistry at the University of York in the UK. However, there's some evidence suggesting that there's more risk associated with certain chemicals, including chlorine, ammonia, hydrochloric acid, chloramine and sodium hydroxide, as these are corrosive and reactive irritants that, when inhaled, may damage tissues at a cellular level. What about natural and 'green' cleaning products? In recent years, there has been a rise in demand for 'natural' household cleaning products, which don't include any synthetic chemicals, and those that purport to be better for the environment. Researchers concluded in their 2024 review that "green products", which contain only biodegradable ingredients, seem to be less harmful than conventional ones, though they say further research is needed to examine their impact on respiratory health. When Pacheco Da Silva realised there were no population studies looking at the impact of "green" and homemade products on respiratory health, she analysed data from more than 40,000 people, and asked them about their respiratory health and use of household cleaning products over the previous 12 months. She expected the data to show that using household wipes containing disinfectant on a weekly basis would have a harmful effect on asthma, and the use of green and homemade sprays and wipes would be less harmful. She initially saw that weekly use of products in all three categories were associated with asthma. However, when Pacheco Da Silva studied the weekly use of individual product categories while also taking into account people's weekly use of irritants or sprays, the association with asthma disappeared for products branded as "green" and homemade products, whereas the use of wipes remained significantly linked with asthma. The study indicates that "the household use of green and homemade products could be less harmful to asthma, but that the use of wipes could be deleterious," says Pacheco Da Silva. However, she says, there's no standard definition for "green" cleaning products, which may skew the study's findings. Indeed, it is a term commonly misused in marketing slogans (read Isabelle Gerretsen's story on why terms like "green" don't always mean what you think). Carslaw adds that "green" cleaning sprays aren't necessarily any better for us, though, because our bodies don't know the difference between natural and manmade ingredients. Sprays are worse than other types of cleaning products because the chemicals become airborne In one study, Carslaw looked at the chemical reactions that happen when using cleaning products containing natural ingredients. She found that they often contain as many aroma chemicals as regular cleaning products. "With a lemon-scented cleaning product, for example, it doesn't matter if the scent is lemon or factory-made, it's the same compound when it's released into the air," she says. This compound in lemon is limonene, and when it undergoes chemical reactions, it can produce formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. Some people choose to use homemade cleaning products on the assumption that they're healthier. But while there's some general ideas around what these ingredients can be – water, citric acid, salt, baking soda – there's no official recipe, and there's a lack of information around how active ingredients should safely be used, scientists say. There are also concerns among scientists that extensive use of antibacterial cleaning products is contributing to antibiotic resistance, the process whereby bacteria develop defences against antibiotics, which lessens their effectiveness against some infections. Some studies show that using certain antibacterial products can cause a cross reaction with certain antibiotics, which means you might get a resistance to those antibiotics, which hinders their effectiveness, says Elaine Larson, professor of epidemiology at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in the US. "Eventually we may theoretically reduce the ability of the immune function to respond to an encounter with organisms," Larson says. This can be explained by the hygiene hypothesis, Larson adds, which argues that the more bacteria, viruses and other microbes children are exposed to at an early age, the better their immune system develops. However, in recent years, there has been some disagreement from scientists about the accuracy of this theory. Larson has spent her career dedicated to studying antibacterial resistance, and, in 2007, she carried out a study to address her growing concerns regarding humans' exposure to antimicrobial soaps and household cleaning products. Larson wanted to see if there was any health benefit when it came to using products labelled as antibacterial. She gave 238 families living in Manhattan products like a kitchen spray and hard-surface cleaner (either antibacterial, or that didn't contain antibacterial ingredients) at random – all commercially available, but with the labels removed. Larson then monitored the participants every week for almost a year and took note of any respiratory viral symptoms they reported (flus, colds, coughs and runny noses). At the end of the study, Larson found no difference in respiratory symptoms between the two groups of participants. Ultimately, it didn't seem to matter whether their laundry, bathing and hard-surface cleaners contained antibacterial ingredients or not. "This was pretty good evidence that the most important thing is the friction [between the surface and cloth, caused by the action of cleaning], and it doesn't matter so much whether a product [contains something] labelled anti-bacterial," she says. Other studies have found that showering and bathing with nonantibacterial soap increases how much skin bacteria is dispersed into the air around us – and Larson is suggesting a similar mechanism may happen when we clean our homes. Our own 'elbow grease' is at least as effective as the cleaning product we choose And the US Food and Drug Administration advises that it's the motion of handwashing that's most effective, and that there is no conclusive body of research showing that antibacterial soap is any more effective that soap and water. However, Larson concludes in the study that the types of infections most likely to be influenced by household cleaning, such as gastrointestinal disease, may be bacterial in origin – and the products selected in the study didn't claim to have anti-viral properties. The reason for this, Larson says, is that antibacterial products don't always deter viruses, which can be airborne and are often the cause of respiratory infections. "Things on the outside of our bodies are much less likely to cause contamination than breathing in the flu, so antibacterial products aren't affecting the transmission dynamic," she says. However, Larson adds, antibacterial products may help with gastrointestinal or bacterial infections, like salmonella, by killing or inhibiting the growth of harmful bacteria. She writes in her paper, though, that any potential benefit of using antibacterial cleaning products must be weighed against a theoretical risk for antibiotic resistance. A University of Sheffield study found that "gentle" cleansers – those without antibacterial ingredients – can kill "enveloped" viruses (viruses with an outer layer) including coronavirus. So how should we clean our homes? Scientists don't know the exact mechanisms behind the links between household cleaning products and our health, but the general advice is to minimise our exposure to them, Carslaw says, and only use them as often as we need to. The American Lung Association, for example, advises keeping the area well ventilated, and to avoid using irritant ingredients. "No one would suggest you stop cleaning, because it's had a massive impact on reducing the amount of diseases we used to get 50 years ago," Carslaw says. However, we should always ensure there's good ventilation in the room we're cleaning, such as an open window, Carslaw adds. Another way to lower the risk to our health, she says, is to use liquid cleaners rather than sprays. "Sprays are effective at converting chemicals in a product into aerosols, which are easier to breathe," she says. "With liquid products, you don't get the same dose." Carslaw also advises cutting down on cleaners that have lots of added fragrances, as this generally increases the likelihood of them containing products that will irritate our airways. The consensus is that it's definitely safer to clean our homes than it is to not clean them at all. And with the research indicating that "green" or "natural" products may also pose certain risks, perhaps we should bear in mind that our own "elbow grease" is at least as effective as the cleaning products we choose – since the friction caused when we wipe surfaces helps to lift the bacteria off. -- If you liked this story, sign up for The Essential List newsletter – a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week. For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
