ReportWire

Tag: Food additives

  • Is it toxic? Another look at scary ingredient warning videos

    [ad_1]

    “Too much of anything is bad for you.”

    That’s what my mom would say when I asked to eat an entire watermelon for dinner. “But fruit is healthy,” I would beg. 

    At that moment, my mom was passing on age-old wisdom — that it doesn’t just matter if something is “good for you” or “bad for you,” the amount you consume matters, too. 

    A candy bar with lunch can be OK. Eating all my Halloween candy in one night: a haunting tummyache. A glass of wine with dinner? Fun! A whole bottle? Head-splitting. 

    The same principle often applies to the kinds of food additives that appear on product labels with tongue-twisting names that sound like they were pulled from chemistry textbooks or sci-fi movies. They can be perfectly safe to consume — in certain quantities. 

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Take trisodium phosphate. Google it, and you’ll get ads for heavy-duty cleaning products used to prep walls before painting. Warning labels say that direct contact with trisodium phosphate powder can be irritating to eyes and skin and even poisonous if exposed in large amounts.

    But it is also an ingredient in cereals and many other processed foods including cheeses, soda and baked goods. In small amounts, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority say it’s fine in food. It controls pH levels and acts as a leavening agent to make food fluffier. 

    Initially, I was skeptical, too — could something that works as a heavy-duty cleaner really be OK in food, even in small amounts? But it turns out my mom was right: How much you consume makes a big difference.

    “Many food-grade additives share names with industrial products, but concentration makes all the difference,” said Jessica Steier, a public health expert, podcaster and CEO of the science communication organization Unbiased Science. “The food-grade versions are highly purified, used in tiny amounts, and serve specific functions like pH regulation or preservation.”

    As I reported on trisodium phosphate and other chemicals used in food, experts consistently said, “the dose makes the poison.” In other words, the toxicity of a substance in large amounts doesn’t necessarily translate to it being dangerous in small amounts. 

    Here’s another example: sodium bicarbonate. It can be used to clean ovens, unclog drains and extinguish fires. When consumed in large amounts, it can be poisonous. 

    Sounds like it might be bad to ingest, right? Well, sodium bicarbonate goes by another name: baking soda. Perfectly safe in chocolate chip cookies! 

    This applies to so many ingredients in our pantries. Table salt, or sodium chloride, is essential for the human body, but too much sodium can lead to health problems like cardiovascular issues and hypertension. Even too much water can be bad for you. 

    “The same chemical at different concentrations can be either beneficial or harmful (that’s toxicology in a nutshell)” Steier wrote in an email to PolitiFact. 

    The way you are exposed also makes a difference – something might be safe to put on your skin, but not good to eat. Or, something may be safe to eat, but not safe to inhale. “The route of exposure is very important when considering toxicity,” said Norbert Kaminski, toxicologist and director of the Center for Research on Ingredient Safety at Michigan State University.

    But with so many ingredients to parse through, online influencers often point to scary warning labels that apply to chemicals in high doses. And they don’t mention that those warnings don’t apply to the way they usually appear in food: in very small quantities.

    A few examples:   

    The FDA regulates safe levels of food additives. What is considered a “safe level” for a given ingredient is often “several magnitudes lower than what is typically found in animal studies,” to be safe, said Kaminski.

    Sometimes online influencers raise concerns about other environmental contaminants that can end up in food, even if they’re not on the ingredients list. 

    Trace amounts of heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury can be detected in some foods — even Girl Scout cookies — because they are in the soil, water or air where foods are grown, raised or processed. This is true for organic food as well.

    “Total elimination isn’t possible; these elements are part of the earth’s crust, and attempting zero tolerance could eliminate nutritious foods from our diet without meaningful health benefit,” Steier said. That’s where the FDA’s regulations come in. 

    So, Thin Mints are safe to eat despite small traces of these metals (but the whole box might give you a tummy ache).

    Trace amounts of the herbicide glyphosate can sometimes be detected in food because it is used so widely in agriculture. The Environmental Protection Agency and the FDA monitor these levels and consider small amounts safe to consume. 

    In many cases, simply running water over fruits and vegetables will help reduce pesticide residues.

    So, wash your produce. Eat the things you love as part of a balanced eating plan. And don’t believe every scary ingredient video you see in your social media feed. First ask: How much is there?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Are Raw Mushrooms Safe to Eat?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Microwaving is probably the most efficient way to reduce agaritine levels in fresh mushrooms.

    There is a toxin in plain white button mushrooms called agaritine, which may be carcinogenic. Plain white button mushrooms grow to be cremini (brown) mushrooms, and cremini mushrooms grow to be portobello mushrooms. They’re all the very same mushroom, similar to how green bell peppers are just unripe red bell peppers. The amount of agaritine in these mushrooms can be reduced through cooking: Frying, microwaving, boiling, and even just freezing and thawing lower the levels. “It is therefore recommended to process/cook Button Mushroom before consumption,” something I noted in a video that’s now more than a decade old.

    However, as shown below and at 0:51 in my video Is It Safe to Eat Raw Mushrooms?, if you look at the various cooking methods, the agaritine in these mushrooms isn’t completely destroyed. Take dry baking, for example: Baking for ten minutes at about 400° Fahrenheit (“a process similar to pizza baking”) only cuts the agaritine levels by about a quarter, so 77 percent still remains.

    Boiling looks better, appearing to wipe out more than half the toxin after just five minutes, but the agaritine isn’t actually eliminated. Instead, it’s just transferred to the cooking water. So, levels within the mushrooms drop by about half at five minutes and by 90 percent after an hour, but that’s mostly because the agartine is leaching into the broth. So, if you’re making soup, for instance, five minutes of boiling is no more effective than dry baking for ten minutes, and, even after an hour, about half still remains.

    Frying for five to ten minutes eliminates a lot of agartine, but microwaving is not only a more healthful way to cook, but it works even better, as you can see here and at 1:39 in my video. Researchers found that just one minute in the microwave “reduced the agaritine content of the mushrooms by 65%,” and only 30 seconds of microwaving eliminated more than 50 percent. So, microwaving is probably the easiest way to reduce agaritine levels in fresh mushrooms. 
    My technique is to add dried mushrooms into the pasta water when I’m making spaghetti. Between the reductions of 20 percent or so from the drying and 60 percent or so from boiling for ten minutes and straining, more than 90 percent of agaritine is eliminated.

    Should we be concerned about the residual agaritine? According to a review funded by the mushroom industry, not at all. “The available evidence to date suggests that agaritine from consumption of…mushrooms poses no known toxicological risk to healthy humans.” The researchers acknowledge agartine is considered a potential carcinogen in mice, but then that data needs to be extrapolated to human health outcomes.

    The Swiss Institute of Technology, for example, estimated that the average mushroom consumption in the country would be expected to cause about two cases of cancer per one hundred thousand people. That is similar to consumption in the United States, as seen below and at 3:00 in my video, so “one could theoretically expect about 20 cancer deaths per 1 x 106 [one million] lives from mushroom consumption.” In comparison, typically, with a new chemical, pesticide, or food additive, we’d like to see the cancer risk lower than one in a million. “By this approach, the average mushroom consumption of Switzerland is 20-fold too high to be acceptable. To remain under the limit”—and keep risk down to one in a million—“‘mushroom lovers’ would have to restrict their consumption of mushrooms to one 50-g serving every 250 days!” That’s about a half-cup serving once in just over eight months. To put that into perspective, even if you were eating a single serving every single day, the resulting additional cancer risk would only be about one in ten thousand. “Put another way, if 10,000 people consumed a mushroom meal daily for 70 years, then in addition to the 3000 cancer cases arising from other factors, one more case could be attributed to consuming mushrooms.” 
    But, again, this is all based “on the presumption that results in such mouse models are equally valid in humans.” Indeed, this is all just extrapolating from mice data. What we need is a huge prospective study to examine the association between mushroom consumption and cancer risk in humans, but there weren’t any such studies—until now.

    Researchers titled their paper: “Mushroom Consumption and Risk of Total and Site-Specific Cancer in Two Large U.S. [Harvard] Prospective Cohorts” and found “no association between mushroom consumption and total and site-specific cancers in U.S. women and men.”

    Eating raw or undercooked shiitake mushrooms can cause something else, though: shiitake mushroom flagellate dermatitis. Flagellate as in flagellation, whipping, flogging. Below and at 4:48 in my video, you can see a rash that makes it look as if you’ve been whipped.

    Here and at 4:58 in my video is another photo of the rash. It’s thought to be caused by a compound in shiitake mushrooms called lentinan, but because heat denatures it, it only seems to be a problem with raw or undercooked mushrooms.

    Now, it is rare. Only about 1 in 50 people are even susceptible, and it goes away on its own in a week or two. Interestingly, it can strike as many as ten days after eating shiitake mushrooms, which is why people may not make the connection. One unfortunate man suffered on and off for 16 years before a diagnosis. Hopefully, a lot of doctors will watch this video, and if they ever see a rash like this, they’ll tell their patients to cook their shiitakes.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Are Carboxymethylcellulose, Polysorbate 80, and Other Emulsifiers Safe?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Emulsifiers are the most widely used food additives. What are they doing to our gut microbiome?

    When grocery shopping these days, unless you’re sticking to the produce aisle, “it is nearly impossible to avoid processed foods, particularly in the consumption of a typical Western diet,” which is characterized by insufficient plant foods, too much meat, dairy, and eggs, and a lot of processed junk, “along with increased exposure to additives due to their use in processed foods.”

    The artificial sweetener sucralose, for example, which is sold as Splenda, “irrefutably disrupts the gut microbiome at doses relevant to human use” and “induces glucose intolerance.” In other words, it can make our blood sugars worse instead of better. It’s relatively easy to avoid artificial sweeteners, but “it may be much more difficult to avoid ingestion of emulsifiers…because they are commonly added to a wide variety of foods within the modern Western diet.” In fact, “emulsifiers are the most widely used additives,” and “most processed foods contain one or more emulsifiers that allow such foods to maintain desired textures and avoid separation into distinct parts (e.g, oil and water layers).” We now consume emulsifiers by the megaton every year, thanks to a multibillion-dollar industry, as you can see below and at 1:03 in my video Are Emulsifiers Like Carboxymethylcellulose and Polysorbate 80 Safe?.

    Emulsifiers are commonly found in fatty dressings, breads and other baked goods, mayonnaise and other fatty spreads, candy, and beverages. “Like all authorized food additives, emulsifiers have been evaluated by risk assessors, who consider them safe. However, there are growing concerns among scientists about their possible harmful effects on our intestinal barriers and microbiota,” in terms of causing a leaky gut. As well, they could possibly “increase the absorption of several environmental toxins, including endocrine disruptors and carcinogens” present in the food.

    We know that the consumption of ultra-processed foods may contribute to weight gain. Healthier, longer-lived populations not only have low meat intake and high plant intake, but they also eat minimally processed foods and “have far less chronic diseases, obesity rates, and live longer disease-free.” Based on a number of preclinical studies, it may be that the emulsifiers found in processed foods are playing a role, but who cares if “emulsifiers make rats gain weight”? When we read that “emulsifiers can cause striking changes in the microbiota,” they aren’t talking about the microbiota of humans.

    Often, mice are used to study the impact on the microbiome, but “only a few percent of the bacterial genes are shared between mice and humans.” Even the gut flora of different strains of mice can be considerably different from each other, so if we can’t even extrapolate from one type of mouse to another, how are we supposed to translate results from mice to humans? “Remarkably, there has been little study of the potential harmful effects of ingested…emulsifiers in humans.”

    Take lecithin, for example, which is “perhaps best known as a key component of egg yolks.” Lecithin was found to be worse than polysorbate 80 in terms of allowing bacteria to leak through the gut wall into the bloodstream. However, it’s yet to be determined whether lecithin consumption in humans causes the same problem. “There is certainly a paucity in the data of human trials with the effects of emulsifiers in processed foods,” but we at least have data on human tissue, cells, and gut flora.

    A study was titled: “Dietary emulsifiers directly alter the human microbiota composition and gene expression ex vivo potentiating intestinal inflammation.” Ex vivo means outside the body. Researchers inoculated an artificial gut with fresh human feces until a stable culture was established, then added carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) or polysorbate 80 (P80), resulting in boosts in proinflammatory potential starting within one day with the carboxymethylcellulose and within the first week with polysorbate 80, as you can see below and at 3:39 in my video.

    “This approach revealed that both P80 and CMC acted directly upon human microbiota to increase its proinflammatory potential…” When researchers then tested the effect of these emulsifiers on the protective mucus layer in petri dish cultures of human gut lining cells, they found that they can partially disrupt the protective layer. As you can see below and at 4:00 in my video, the green staining is the mucus. Both emulsifiers cut down the levels.

    However, this study and the last both used emulsifier concentrations that were far in excess of what people might typically get day-to-day. 

    “Translocation of Crohn’s disease Escherichia coli across M-cells: contrasting effects of soluble plant fibres and emulsifiers” is probably the study that raised the greatest potential concern. The researchers surgically obtained cells, as well as actual intestinal wall tissue, and found that polysorbate 80 could double the invasion of E. coli through the intestinal lining tissue, as shown here and at 4:27 in my video.

    In contrast, adding fiber—in this case, fiber from plantains—could seal up the gut wall tissue twice as tightly, as seen below and at 4:33.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Are Fortified Children’s Breakfast Cereals Just Candy?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Are Fortified Children’s Breakfast Cereals Just Candy?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    The industry responds to the charge that breakfast cereals are too sugary.

    In 1941, the American Medical Association’s Council on Foods and Nutrition was presented with a new product, Vi-Chocolin, a vitamin-fortified chocolate bar, “offered ostensibly as a specialty product of high nutritive value and of some use in medicine, but in reality intended for promotion to the public as a general purpose confection, a vitaminized candy.” Surely, something like that couldn’t happen today, right? Unfortunately, that’s the sugary cereal industry’s business model.

    As I discuss in my video Are Fortified Kids’ Breakfast Cereals Healthy or Just Candy?, nutrients are added to breakfast cereals “as a marketing gimmick to “create an aura of healthfulness…If those nutrients were added to soft drinks or candy, would we encourage kids to consume them more often?” Would we feed our kids Coke and Snickers for breakfast? We might as well spray cotton candy with vitamins, too. As one medical journal editorial read, “Adding vitamins and minerals to sugary cereals…is worse than useless. The subtle message accompanying such products is that it is safe to eat more.”

    General Mills’ “Grow up strong with Big G kids’ cereals” ad campaign featured products like Lucky Charms, Trix, and Cocoa Puffs. That’s like the dairy industry promoting ice cream as a way to get your calcium. Kids who eat presweetened breakfast cereals may get more than 20 percent of their daily calories from added sugar, as you can see below and at 1:28 in my video

    Most sugar in the American diet comes from beverages like soda, but breakfast cereals represent the third largest food source of added sugars in the diets of children and adolescents, wedged between candy and ice cream. On a per-serving basis, there is more added sugar in a cereal like Frosted Flakes than there is in frosted chocolate cake, a brownie, or even a frosted donut, as you can see below and at 1:48 in my video

    Kellogg’s and General Mills argue that breakfast cereals only contribute a “relatively small amount” of sugar to the diets of children, less than soda, for example. “This is a perfect example of the social psychology phenomenon of ‘diffusion of responsibility.’ This behavior is analogous to each restaurant in the country arguing that it should not be required to ban smoking because it alone contributes only a tiny fraction to Americans’ exposure to secondhand smoke.” In fact, “each source of added sugar…should be reduced.”

    The industry argues that most of their cereals have less than 10 grams of sugar per serving, but when Consumer Reports measured how much cereal youngsters actually poured for themselves, they were found to serve themselves about 50 percent more than the suggested serving size for most of the tested cereals. The average portion of Frosted Flakes they poured for themselves contained 18 grams of sugar, which is 4½ teaspoons or 6 sugar packets’ worth. It’s been estimated that a “child eating one serving per day of a children’s cereal containing the average amount of sugar would consume nearly 1,000 teaspoons of sugar in a year.”

    General Mills offers the “Mary Poppins defense,” arguing that those spoonsful of sugar can “help the medicine go down” and explaining that “if sugar is removed from bran cereal, it would have the consistency of sawdust.” As you can see below and at 3:17 in my video, a General Mills representative wrote that the company is presented “with an untenable choice between making our healthful foods unpalatable or refraining from advertising them.” If it can’t add sugar to its cereals, they would be unpalatable? If one has to add sugar to a product to make it edible, that should tell us something. That’s a characteristic of so-called ultra-processed foods, where you have to pack them full of things like sugar, salt, and flavorings “to give flavor to foods that have had their [natural] intrinsic flavors processed out of them and to mask any unpleasant flavors in the final product.” 

    The president of the Cereal Institute argued that without sugary cereals, kids might not eat breakfast at all. (This is similar to dairy industry arguments that removing chocolate milk from school cafeterias may lead to students “no longer purchasing school lunch.”) He also stressed we must consider the alternatives. As Kellogg’s director of nutrition once put it: “I would suggest that Fruit [sic] Loops as a snack are much better than potato chips or a sweet roll.” You know there’s a problem when the only way to make your product look good is to compare it to Pringles and Cinnabon.

    Want a healthier option? Check out my video Which Is a Better Breakfast: Cereal or Oatmeal?.

    For more on the effects of sugar on the body and if you like these more politically charged videos see the related posts below.

    Finally, for some additional videos on cereal, see Kids’ Breakfast Cereals as Nutritional Façade and Ochratoxin in Breakfast Cereals.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Madison Square Garden CEO doubles down on use of facial recognition tech | CNN Business

    Madison Square Garden CEO doubles down on use of facial recognition tech | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The chief executive of the Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corporation has doubled down on using facial recognition at its venues to bar lawyers suing the group from attending events.

    Speaking to Fox 5 on Thursday, MSG Executive Chairman and CEO James Dolan said Madison Square Garden is a private company and therefore entitled to determine who is allowed to enter its venues for events.

    “At Madison Square Garden, if you’re suing us, we’re just asking of you – please don’t come until you’re done with your argument with us,” he said. “And yes, we’re using facial recognition to enforce that.”

    His comments come after New York Attorney General Letitia James on Wednesday sent a letter to MSG Entertainment requesting information regarding its use of facial recognition technology to prohibit legitimate ticketholders from entering venues. The letter said the attorney general’s office has reviewed reports MSG Entertainment has used facial recognition to identify and deny entry to multiple lawyers affiliated with law firms involved in ongoing litigation with the company. The letter indicates thousands of attorneys from around 90 law firms may have been impacted by the policy, and said the ban includes those holding season tickets.

    The attorney general’s letter raised the concern that banning individuals from accessing venues over ongoing litigation may violate local, state, and federal human rights laws, including laws prohibiting retaliation. The letter also questions whether the facial recognition software used by MSG Entertainment is reliable and what safeguards are in place to avoid bias and discrimination.

    In a press release, James said, “MSG Entertainment cannot fight their legal battles in their own arenas. Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall are world-renowned venues and should treat all patrons who purchased tickets with fairness and respect. Anyone with a ticket to an event should not be concerned that they may be wrongfully denied entry based on their appearance, and we’re urging MSG Entertainment to reverse this policy.”

    MSG Entertainment owns and operates several venues in New York, including Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, the Hulu Theater, and the Beacon Theatre. Madison Square Garden is the home of the New York Knicks, Rangers, professional boxing, and college basketball teams.

    In a statement Thursday, an MSG spokesperson told CNN, “To be clear, our policy does not unlawfully prohibit anyone from entering our venues and it is not our intent to dissuade attorneys from representing plaintiffs in litigation against us. We are merely excluding a small percentage of lawyers only during active litigation.”

    “Most importantly,” the spokesperson added, “to even suggest anyone is being excluded based on the protected classes identified in state and federal civil rights laws is ludicrous. Our policy has never applied to attorneys representing plaintiffs who allege sexual harassment or employment discrimination.”

    In the Fox 5 interview Thursday, Dolan said when the attorneys suing MSG finish their litigation, they will be welcome back to the venues. “If your next door neighbor sues you, if somebody sues you, right, that’s confrontational. It’s adversarial and it’s fine, people are allowed to sue,” he said. “But at the same time, if you’re being sued, right, you don’t have to welcome the person into your home, right?”

    Dolan defended the use of facial recognition technology, saying it’s useful for security and noting that he believes Madison Square Garden to be one of the safest venues in the country. “Basically, anytime that you go out in public, you’re on camera,” he said. “Believe me, you walk down the street, you’re on camera, you’re on 10 cameras. What facial recognition does is looks at, you know, recognizes your face, and says you know, are you someone who’s on this list.”

    Dolan claimed the State Liquor Authority has threatened MSG’s license over its use of facial recognition technology. The New York State Liquor Authority told CNN it issued a “letter of advice” to MSG, after receiving a complaint in mid-November over attorneys engaged in litigation against the company not being allowed to enter its premises.

    “After receiving a complaint, the State Liquor Authority followed standard procedure and issued a Letter of Advice explaining this business’ obligation to keep their premises open to the public, as required by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law,” Joshua Heller, a State Liquor Authority spokesperson, told CNN.

    The SLA told CNN an investigation into the matter is “ongoing”.

    During the Fox interview, Dolan apparently threatened to shut down sales of liquor during an unspecified upcoming New York Rangers game, and said he would direct any upset patrons to the liquor authority to complain.

    Dolan also pushed back at the suggestion that he’s being “too sensitive.”

    “The Garden has to defend itself,” Dolan said. “If you sue us, right, you know we’re going to tell you not to come.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Novozymes and Chr. Hansen agree deal to merge

    Novozymes and Chr. Hansen agree deal to merge

    [ad_1]

    Danish biotechnology companies Novozymes AS
    NZYM.B,
    -10.74%

    and Chr. Hansen Holding AS
    CHR,
    +25.98%

    said Monday they have agreed to merge, creating a biological solutions provider with combined annual revenue of around 3.5 billion euros ($3.69 billion).

    The companies, which produce products such as enzymes, probiotics and biopharmaceutical ingredients, said the combination between two strategically complementary businesses will drive efficiencies while unlocking potential within biosolutions and providing additional growth opportunities.

    “Novozymes and Chr. Hansen share the strong conviction that our combined scale, know-how, commercial strengths, and innovation excellence will drive value for our shareholders, customers and society at large,” said Novozymes Chief Executive Ester Baiget.

    The deal will see Chr. Hansen shareholders receive 1.5326 new B-shares in Novozymes for each Chr. Hansen share, reflecting an implied premium of 49% to Chr. Hansen’s closing share price on Friday and valuing each Chr. Hansen share at 660.55 Danish kroner ($93.53) a share.

    Novo Holdings AS, the largest shareholder in both Novozymes and Chr. Hansen, will support the proposed merger and exchange its 22% stake in Chr. Hansen at an exchange ratio of 1.0227 new B-shares in Novozymes.

    The companies said they see annual revenue synergies of EUR200 million within four years after completion of the deal.

    Write to Dominic Chopping at dominic.chopping@wsj.com

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Foreign Candy Puts American Candy to Shame

    Foreign Candy Puts American Candy to Shame

    [ad_1]

    This article was featured in One Story to Read Today, a newsletter in which our editors recommend a single must-read from The Atlantic, Monday through Friday. Sign up for it here.      

    At Sunrise Mart, a small Japanese grocery with a branch in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park, you can’t miss the mountain of KitKats. The shop sells all kinds of fresh foods and imported snacks, but as soon as you step inside, you’re toe-to-toe with an enormous heap of colorful bags of the chocolate bars, rising up from the floor in the store’s most prominent real estate. The bags offer flavors such as lychee, chocolate orange, and cheesecake. At $10 each, they’re a little expensive. That doesn’t seem to matter. When I visited the store this spring in search of soup ingredients, multiple shoppers buzzed around me on an otherwise slow weekday afternoon, snapping up bag after bag.

    I’d never had anything but a standard American KitKat before, but I’d heard so many people rave about the Japanese versions that stumbling on the opportunity to try them myself seemed like money I couldn’t afford not to spend. I stuffed two bags of the pistachio and matcha flavors in my tote and headed for the subway, feeling like I’d just unearthed some kind of treasure. When I got home, I pulled out both, plus a few other packages of impulse-purchased Asian candy that I’d scooped up (you know, while I was there), and staged my own little taste test on my kitchen counter. Their flavors and textures differed from the candy I’d been eating for my entire life. They were all great. Matcha won.

    Without realizing it, I’d repeated a ritual that’s become pretty common, both online and in real life. YouTube and TikTok videos of Americans taste-testing candies from Europe, Asia, and Latin America rack up millions of views. At Economy Candy, a Manhattan confectioner that stocks a huge variety of sweets, new customers come in every day, brandishing their phones, fiending to try candies from far-flung locales that they heard about on the internet or that their roommate tried on vacation. Skye Greenfield Cohen, who runs the store with her husband, told me that as recently as five years ago, Economy Candy had only a few racks of imports. “That meant halvah from the Middle East, Turkish delight, those kinds of grandmalike candy that were more nostalgic for a homeland, rather than fun,” she said. Now imports from around the world make up about a third of the store’s inventory.

    On one level, it’s not difficult to understand why any type of candy, foreign or domestic, becomes popular. Candy is engineered to entice and delight, and it’s mostly pretty cheap. But American shoppers don’t exactly lack domestic candy options; any average grocery store’s checkout line is bursting with Snickers, Twizzlers, M&Ms, and Skittles. The hunger for foreign treats can’t be entirely explained by the vagaries of social-media virality, either. According to one estimate, since 2009, the annual value of America’s non-chocolate candy imports has grown by hundreds of millions of dollars; in 2019, it crossed the $2 billion threshold for the first time. Some logistical and cultural factors help explain the United States’ imported-candy boom. But first and foremost, Americans seem to love foreign sweets because they’re having the same revelation I had in my kitchen with my green KitKats: The international stuff puts most domestic candy to shame.


    In the early 2010s, executives at the American division of the Japanese confectioner Morinaga & Company noticed something strange happening in Utah. The company’s Hi-Chew brand of fruit-flavored candies, which was then difficult to find in much of the United States, was selling extraordinarily well in Salt Lake City. The success was welcome—Morinaga wanted to expand its market in the U.S.—but it didn’t immediately make sense. At the time, the majority of the company’s American sales came from West Coast cities with large Asian populations, where the candies were stocked by grocers who catered to people who already knew and liked them. Salt Lake City, which is almost three-quarters white, was anomalously enamored of the intensely chewy little fruit nuggets.

    The company eventually figured out what was going on: According to Teruhiro Kawabe, Morinaga America’s president, missionaries from the Church of Latter-Day Saints were coming home from stints in Japan, where Hi-Chew has been omnipresent for decades, and buying up as much of the candy as they could find. “They got to know the candy in the Japanese grocery stores, and they got addicted,” Kawabe told me. Soon their friends and families were, too. The Salt Lake City scenario wasn’t exactly replicable, but Kawabe said that it served as proof of concept: Americans would love the candy, if the company could get it in front of them.

    Getting a particular product in front of shoppers, though, is much easier said than done, especially when it comes to things that are largely unknown or thought to have a niche audience. Candy purchases tend to be spur-of-the-moment decisions made at checkout counters, and that real estate is limited and has long been spoken for by conglomerates such as Hershey and Mars, which make much of the candy that Americans have been eating for their entire life. To take a shot at mainstream American success, Hi-Chew’s makers did the usual stuff that consumer-products businesses do: They hired retail consultants, switched distributors, that kind of thing. But they also set their sights on a very important group: Major League Baseball players, the only people who routinely spend time chewing snacks in extreme close-up on TV. Morinaga supplied Japanese players in the league with Hi-Chew, Kawabe told me, focusing first on teams in markets where major retailers were headquartered. The gambit worked; ESPN reported on just how obsessed the 2015 Yankees squad was with the little fruit candies. Walgreens and CVS picked up the brand after it became popular with the Chicago Cubs and Boston Red Sox. Regular people tried the newly plentiful and suddenly trendy candy, and then insisted that their brother or spouse or co-workers try it. Hi-Chew’s U.S. sales grew from $8 million in 2012 to more than $100 million in 2021, according to Kawabe.

    This success story might feel a little bit too convenient, but baseball players’ mid-2010s Hi-Chew mania was well documented—and, apparently, ongoing. Moreover, explosive American growth in the past decade has been common among foreign candy brands. Sales of gummy candies from the German confectioner Haribo more than doubled from 2011 to 2017. Ferrero, the Italian parent company of Kinder chocolates, says that the line’s U.S. sales are growing by double digits annually. The European chocolate brands Milka and Cadbury are now owned by the American Oreo-maker Mondelez—an advantage over other confectioners when navigating import and retail red tape.

    None of these companies pulled off the same tactic with baseball players, but their rise seems to have followed similar patterns. Greenfield Cohen, from Economy Candy, said sales growth largely happens by word of mouth. This is helped along by the increasing popularity of international travel and the internet’s ability to serve niche products to a potentially large pool of previously untapped buyers. European candy in particular benefits from these dynamics—millions of American tourists visit the continent every year, and destination-specific candies are a common gift for returning travelers to bring home to loved ones. (That’s how I first tried Hi-Chew way back in 2002, although my high-school best friend had gone on a family trip to the exotic land of Tampa, not Japan.) Now the barrier between trying one piece of interesting candy—or even just hearing someone rave about it—and keeping a stockpile in your pantry or desk drawer is as low as it’s ever been.


    Of course, candy also needs to taste good for people to like it. All the word of mouth in the world won’t permanently increase sales of a bad product. Once people try candy from other parts of the world, they return to it because it is, in some very real ways, better than its domestic competitors.

    Have you ever had a matcha KitKat? Its physical form is identical to that of a regular KitKat, except instead of chocolate, it’s blanketed in bright green. Where many Americans would expect the familiar, slightly bland flavor of milk chocolate, there’s an earthy, creamy sweetness—perfect for people who, like me, get a little queasy after a few pieces of sickly sweet Halloween candy. With Hi-Chews, each wrapped in tiny squares of plain-white waxed paper, the flavors are important—and far more varied than in popular American fruit candies—but the primary feature is the texture. Chewing one feels like you’ve encountered a Starburst that fights back. It’s delicious.

    The reasons for foreign candy’s superiority are varied—and more surprising than you might expect. In some cases, yes, a candy is better because it is fundamentally different, on a chemical level, than what’s available in America. Europe’s strict regulations on chocolate quality mean that it offers something that’s not really comparable to a Hershey bar (and that Europeans are generally enthusiastic to tell you how much American chocolate sucks). The European Union also bans certain food additives that the FDA allows, which can yield slightly different results in all kinds of finished products, including candy.

    These cases seem to be the exception, not the rule, however. Ali Bouzari, a culinary scientist and co-founder of the product-development firm Pilot R&D, doesn’t buy the idea that inherently superior quality is the reason that so many people are charmed by imported sweets. “The basic tools of commercial candy manufacture are pretty universal, and the ingredients that people work with are fully globalized,” Bouzari told me. German brands, Japanese brands, and American brands likely all source their grape flavorings, for example, from the same vendors. What’s different—and what makes foreign candies so enticing—instead mostly seems to be in the implementation. Imported candies tend to embrace flavors and textures that American candies don’t. “I will always first go for the melon stuff” when shopping in an East Asian grocery store, Bouzari said. “This is candy inspired by a culture that thinks about melons more than we do.” Every part of the world has some kind of confection that it does particularly well: Scandinavians produce more flavors and textures of licorice than most Americans could dream of. Mexican candy frequently includes savory or spicy flavors. Candies from a number of East and South Asian countries tend to feature a far wider array of fruit flavors than are available in the West.

    The flavorings and ingredients that go into these candies are likely available to American manufacturers from the vendors they’re already using, according to Bouzari. Foreign producers develop products primarily for their domestic markets, so they make different choices and end up with results that can feel idiosyncratic—sometimes thrillingly so—to the American palate. As food culture has globalized, those palates have become more adventurous, especially in larger metropolitan areas, where more types of food have become more widely available in restaurants and grocery stores than ever before. Meanwhile, Bouzari told me, major U.S. manufacturers haven’t really kept up. They depend on appealing to as broad a swath of the country’s atypically diverse population as possible—not just across racial and ethnic lines, but across the country’s many local and regional food cultures. The results are candies that tend to be highly sweet and pretty bland, forgoing flavors and textures that brands believe might alienate white Americans in particular.

    All that being said, American tastes have a way of bending the world to their will. Once a foreign confectioner achieves a certain level of American success, it usually ends up adjusting its products for the American market, even if only a little. Kawabe, Morinaga America’s president, told me that some of the Hi-Chew flavors sold in mainstream U.S. retailers vary slightly from what’s available in Japan. When Americans buy grape candy, for example, their flavor expectations are just different from when the Japanese buy the same thing. Candy companies that want huge U.S. sales growth, for better or worse, need to meet people where they are.

    The most salient difference between foreign and domestic candy might not be chemical or methodological, but rather philosophical. New American products could theoretically embrace the lessons of imported candy and snatch up some of its growing domestic market share. But in Bouzari’s experience, much of the candy being developed domestically, such as low-carb candy from brands like Smart Sweets and Highkey, isn’t trying to delight consumers, but to placate their health fears by engineering it into diet food. “Candy is meant to be edible, ephemeral entertainment,” he said. “If you try to turn it into food, you get caught in a weird no-man’s-land where it’s neither the complete entertainment that it should be, and it’s not as nourishing as it should be.”

    For Americans who want something fun and novel and sweet, overseas might just be the most logical place to look right now. “In most other places I’ve been in the world, there is a more well-adjusted relationship to hedonism in food than we have here,” Bouzari said. “Other people spend less time trying to figure out how to eat gummy bears with no sugar.”

    [ad_2]

    Amanda Mull

    Source link

  • Should I drink sugar-free fizzy drinks every day? – Catherine Saxelby’s Foodwatch

    Should I drink sugar-free fizzy drinks every day? – Catherine Saxelby’s Foodwatch

    [ad_1]

    Sugar-free soft drinks, which have been around in various forms for almost 40 years, still have their problems. Remember Tab? Remember Coke Zero? Yes, they tasted sweet and saved you drinking some 40 teaspoons of sugar from each 375 ml can, but are they really healthier than regular soft drinks?

    Brownie points

    When you choose a diet drink, you may end up indulging in other sweet, kilojoule-dense options because you’ve been ‘good’. So, you’ll often see someone sipping a sugar-free drink while eating a chocolate bar, croissant or brownie. It confuses our brains.

    Weight loss … or weight gain?

    Sugar substitutes do little in the way of weight loss. In fact, the opposite may be true: some diet-beverage drinkers gain weight and have an increased risk of chronic diseases.

    A 2010 study published in Physiology & Behavior concluded that regularly consuming sugar-sweetened drinks could lead to weight gain and an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

    In 2013, however, researchers had 200 people replace their sugary drinks with diet varieties or water for 6 months. Their conclusion? The sugar-free-beverage drinkers actually ate fewer desserts than the water drinkers. So there’s that.

    A too-sweet taste?

    When you drink them regularly, no-sugar soft drinks get you used to a sweet taste. This is a long-term problem for weight loss, as well as for people with type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. If your body is used to getting a super-sweet hit from diet soft drinks, it makes managing appetite much more difficult.

    The sweetness signal tells our bodies to prepare for kilojoules (or calories) and our appetite is generated in readiness, but no kilojoules arrive. So we’re likely go out and consume other foods. In other words, sweeteners prep our bodies for a sugar fix but then don’t deliver. So sweeteners interfere with the learned responses that normally contribute to glucose and energy homeostasis.

    Bubbles on a glass of sugarfree cola

    How safe are they?

    We know these sweeteners are safe, but what we don’t know are their long-term effects on appetite. So let’s just say, the scientific jury is still out on their long-term effects.

    The bottom line

    The key is only having sugar-free soft drinks as an occasional treat, not every day or when you feel thirsty. Long term, we don’t really know what these sweeteners are doing to our bodies. One or two is fine (say, if you’re going out to a club), but regularly consuming these zero-sugar drinks may lead to long-term overconsumption of other foods.

    [ad_2]

    Foodwatch

    Source link