I thought this was another pseudo-science overreaction too, until I read about what azodicarbonamide actually is....
I understand that it probably is safe at low concentrations, but I also feel like it's a logical fallacy to say that because it's probably not poisonous in low levels that I want to eat it.
Rather, it seems to me the question should be- do I want to have this ingredient in my bread. And I although I suppose that in some ways it makes the food cheaper, because it lasts longer, mostly the answer would be no.
We clearly understand the reasons why this ingredient is in the bread, but to me qualitative differences in the product don't seem sufficient to warrant it's being there.
(Contrast this with some other synthesized additives like carrageenan or something that has a bigger effect on the qualities of the food)
My problem with the "you can't pronounce it" argument is that it seems to have more to do with ignorance of chemistry [0] than with health. The idea that having industrial applications makes a chemical compound less likely to be healthy, or that chemical nomenclature has any impact on health at all, is just wrong - and while I'm not opposed to people making their own choices as to what to eat, I'm equally not going to ignore the effects of those choices (and of activism) on the wider food industry [1] (and by extension, on other people).
It probably doesn't help that I keep some of these ingredients in my pantry. What qualifies as an easily recognizable substance is very much a matter of background.
I agree that it is fear mongering to say that you'll get cancer or schizophrenia (!?) from a certain additive... but on the other hand I think to simply dismiss any warnings is to throw the baby out with the bath water....
Maybe the argument is too subtle and people feel like they need to ratchet up the intensity of their argument to make a point, but I think the basic premise holds true: why are these things in our food?
The real reason is almost always either marketing (it needs to look as it does on the box, i.e. dyes, stabilizers and such) or supply chain issues (shelf life, total outputs, i.e. preservatives/growth hormones) all dressed up with it's own pseudo-science of GRAS (generally regarded as safe)... which does not mean some multi-year double-blind longitudinal study, it simply means lack of evidence that something is harmful. In the parent's link [1] #6 he goes as far as to say that overall cancer rates dropped during the introduction of bha/bht- how is that scientific to say that an ingredient must be safe because everyone in the US has less cancer than before this ingredient was put in food?
I don't object to the use of additives per se, but most of these chemical additives are in there to either make the food a couple of cents cheaper or to make them one percentage point more profitable.
And in fact perhaps these supply chain issues may be solved in the near future if people order/buy their food online/get it delivered, eliminating the need for a product to last 6 weeks on a shelf; You could say that the use of preservatives is just an inefficiency of the market.
I understand that it probably is safe at low concentrations, but I also feel like it's a logical fallacy to say that because it's probably not poisonous in low levels that I want to eat it.
Rather, it seems to me the question should be- do I want to have this ingredient in my bread. And I although I suppose that in some ways it makes the food cheaper, because it lasts longer, mostly the answer would be no.
We clearly understand the reasons why this ingredient is in the bread, but to me qualitative differences in the product don't seem sufficient to warrant it's being there.
(Contrast this with some other synthesized additives like carrageenan or something that has a bigger effect on the qualities of the food)