Preservatives & the Truth About Choice
By Ana Alba
Preservatives have been used throughout history and have become an invisible staple of our diets, so why do consumers fear them and how can this fear be reconciled with scientific data?
When your stomach growls after a long day of work, your first bite is not consumed with the thoughts of “What did I just eat?” You scarf down your meal, and you move on with your day. Rinse, recycle, repeat. However, as consumers, the responsibility to research and comprehend the items we choose to ingest is usually left to us, amidst much conflicting and misleading information.
Although consumers are aware that preservatives are in their food, the science behind them is still misunderstood. A notable example is a preservative called nitrite, a chemically reduced form of nitrate, which is responsible for the flavor and pink color of cured meats. Nitrite is also effective in preventing the growth of pathogens like Clostridium botulinum. However, when combined with certain amines or amides, nitrite has the potential to form nitrosamines, which have been found to be carcinogenic for animals. In the 1960s, scientists realized that these nitrosamines formed when bacon — which contains nitrite — was fried at high temperatures. Despite this alarming discovery, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) never banned the usage of nitrite because USDA scientists demonstrated that adding ascorbate or erythorbate during the curing process prevented the formation of nitrosamines when overall levels of nitrite were reduced. Instead, the USDA changed its regulatory policy to minimize the levels of nitrite permitted and to require the addition of ascorbate or erythorbate during the curing process. Even though scientists proved it was safe to use nitrite under these new standards, instances like this one have led consumers to fear nitrite and other preservatives.
Perhaps the biggest scandal associated with nitrites today comes from food companies taking advantage of the consumer’s desire to eat healthy food. “[Food companies] are finding natural sources for ingredients consumers worry about, and they are identifying how they can use that source to create the same product,” Andy Milkowski says, an adjunct professor in the department of animal sciences at UW-Madison. Most hot dogs, for example, contain synthetic nitrite to preserve the quality of the meat. Some hot dogs, however, are cured with cultured celery powder, which naturally contains nitrite. Both types of hot dogs have similar levels of nitrite, but hot dogs made with cultured celery powder are labeled as uncured. This leads consumers to believe they are eating nitrite-free hot dogs. Even though the consumer believes this to be a healthier alternative, all companies have not switched to this “uncured” hotdog as there may be a slight difference in taste between the two, according to Milkowski. “You don’t achieve the same level of accuracy when using the natural source because there may be some contaminants that can cause an odd flavor, for example. Meanwhile, the synthetically-made chemical allows you to dial in what you want to do better which will bring about better results,” Milkowski says.
“This is troubling because many may think that by choosing the uncured product they are making a healthier choice. Marketing schemes like this one prey off the susceptibility of consumers and create the illusion of choice while taking it away.”
Conflict arises, however, when businesses market these products to consumers as alternatives when at a chemical level they are not. This is troubling because many may think that by choosing the uncured product they are making a healthier choice. Marketing schemes like this one prey off the susceptibility of consumers and create the illusion of choice while taking it away. This is especially dangerous in low-income neighborhoods where choices for healthier alternatives are already very limited. The reality is that without preservatives, like nitrite, food items like cured meats would not be safe for consumption by the time they are bought from the shelves of a grocery store. In a time where very little of our food comes from local sources, preservatives appear to be necessary. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the USDA to use unambiguous language and to close any regulatory loopholes that may provide companies with the opportunity to deceive consumers.
Yet, the real question remains if consumers will ever change the way they choose their food. “It’s important that consumers think about what they’re putting in their mouths and weigh the consequences. You can try to talk to consumers and point out the science, but it doesn’t do much. There’s a lot of emotional context with food,” says Wendy Bedale, a science writer at the Food Research Institute at the UW-Madison. For example, a hot dog at a baseball game is iconic, and when ordering, consumers usually do not think about whether it may contain nitrite. This is due to the consumer’s emotional connection to what may be categorized as the traditional baseball experience. As Bedale mentions, scientific data becomes ineffective when compared to the emotions associated with food because emotions are more easily understood and accepted by everyone. Therefore, in the case of food, it becomes more difficult to reconcile our emotions with scientific data, which may lead to an everlasting battle between the fear the consumer experiences and the types of foods they desire. Ultimately, consumers can refuse or accept these types of foods, but their choices often follow patterns created by emotional contexts.
Consumers should be wary of marketing schemes that take advantage of food trends since consumers are influenced by their emotional connections to food. If the government does not close regulatory loopholes that may lead to misinformed decisions, it becomes the responsibility of the consumers to spread accurate information. As a community of consumers, providers, scientists, and businesspeople, we must all sit at the dinner table and have these sorts of conversations about food to ensure a future of informed decisions.
