Maurice Hanssen – E for Additives (страница 2)
But since 1984, research has provided a mass of additional information about E-numbered additives and about the wider implications of the need for certain additives in foods where many manufacturers are able to produce excellent foods without their use. Key issues such as the nutritional consequences of the overuse of additives are explored for the first time in this new edition of
To me, the great merit of Maurice Hanssen’s book is that his explanations are clear to all. It is cram full of essential information for the careful shopper. Every essential term, like preservatives, stabilizers, emulsifiers, tenderizers and flavouring, is clearly spelt out.
This book is not just for those who did not buy the first edition. It contains so much that parents need to know. Do additives affect ability, and what about hyperactivity in children? The fact is that more and more is now known about the effects of what we eat—and we
We
THE RT. HON. LORD ENNALS
HOUSE OF LORDS
This comprehensive book is one which in a sense I wish need never have been written. I would prefer to live in a world where we harvested our foods fresh from the earth, ate them immediately and never had to give a thought to food preservatives, artificial emulsifiers and stabilizers, anti-oxidants and permitted colours. Alas, we do not live in such a world. High technology food production and elaborate chains of food distribution have created a situation in which food additives are necessary. Yet for the protection of oneself and one’s family it is also necessary to be well informed about these hundreds of additives in quite specific terms and highly aware of the possible implications of their inclusion in our daily diet.
I therefore welcome Maurice Hanssen’s
LESLIE KENTON
My first encounter with food additives was in the 1950s when I was concerned with creating new products for people on special diets. It soon became clear to me that many food technologists were using a wide variety of additives simply because they were available, and that they had not really given any thought to the nutritional or health consequences of what they were doing.
I asked the question: ‘Why are we using ingredients that I would not need in the kitchen when preparing the same food?’ Sometimes there were good technical reasons, but in 90 per cent of the cases there was none. It is because I enjoy cooking at home and because I have a strong background in practical food technology on a factory scale that I began to question whether or not we had true freedom of choice whether we knew what we were eating and whether many of the additives were necessary at all.
In the 1960s, with the National Association for Health, sponsored by Joyce Butler MP, and with the help of 750,000 well-wishers, we presented a petition to Parliament asking them to ‘add all additives’. This was a plea to have a full label declaration of all the ingredients.
For the past 100 or so years there has been an artificial division in our minds between foods and medicines. Since the earliest times man has known that he can live on a wide variety of foods, and that some apparently attractive plants are dangerous whilst some help bring vibrant health and fitness. Even more sophisticated has been the use of very small quantities of otherwise dangerous herbs, such as foxglove or deadly nightshade, which are both still today very important medicines in minute doses.
To stay at the peak of fitness a Roman soldier was only allowed stoneground wholemeal flour. None of the sifted white flour, beloved of the rulers of Rome, found its way into his diet. In the Middle Ages, writers on health said that ‘the bread which had all the bran in it was a remedy for constipation caused by eating too much of the fine white bread’! It is obvious that the foods we eat are more important than any additives. But in general terms we have had personal control over our choice of food but little influence on the additives being used.
The 1984 Food Labelling Regulations gave us, for the first time, a good insight into what we were eating and gave me the chance to write
A close and careful reading of
Since 1 January 1986 most foods have had to carry a relatively complete list of ingredients. Flavourings do not have to be declared, except by the word ‘flavourings’, but all the other ingredients, including water, have to be listed in descending order by weight, determined as at the time of their use in the preparation of the food. Water, when there is more than 5 per cent, and other volatile products which are added as ingredients of the food, are listed in order of their weight in the finished product, the weight being calculated in the case of water by deducting from the total weight of the finished product the total weight of the other ingredients used.
If an ingredient used in food is in a concentrated or dried form and becomes reconstituted during the preparation of the food then the weight, in determining the order of the list of ingredients, can be the weight of the ingredient before it has been concentrated or dried. If the food is itself a mixture of concentrated or dried ingredients which have to be reconstituted by adding water, then it is allowable to list the ingredients in descending order of their weight when reconstituted provided that, instead of just saying ingredients’, the list is preceded by the words ‘ingredients of the reconstituted product’, or something similar.
If a food consists of, or contains, mixed fruits, nuts, vegetables, spices, or herbs and no particular fruit, nut, vegetable, spice, or herb predominates significantly by weight, the ingredients can be listed in no particular order if the list is headed by a phrase such as ‘in variable proportion’, and if the variable proportion mix is just a part of the list of ingredients, then the producer can state that that part of the ingredients list is in variable proportion.