It was the article on glyphosate found in breakfast cereals which triggered this post. “Breakfast with a dose of RoundUp” was the headline. The original article, which was poorly written and had a number of typographical errors, was about the fact that an organization had sent some breakfast bars and cereals of well-known brands to a laboratory for testing. And, no surprise, they found low levels of glyphosate, a compound originally commercialized only by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup Ready® and now also produced by many other companies. In the report, instead of using recommended levels derived from scientifically based risk assessment (e.g. by EFSA and EPA), the organization arbitrarily set their own, extremely low levels, and therefore claiming that many brands exceeded such values.
What is the significance? Well, personally I doubt there is any, but it is the message that is conveyed to consumers that seriously concerns me. The message that gets across is that we have yet another bad chemical in our food that might kill us eventually.
In those situations, I always remember the story a chemistry teacher told us: “Some people stood, with a table top exhibit in front of a supermarket and asked customers about their perception of a new chemical that was discovered. The information they provided was:
A new chemical, dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO), has been discovered. DHMO occurs in tumors, it even makes metals rust, it is an enabling component of “acid rain”, and massive exposure to DHMO has led to loss of life. Do you think that that the chemical should be banned?”
As you can imagine, the vast majority of customers asked if the chemical should be banned answered with “yes” without hesitation.
For those who are not chemists, dihydrogen monoxide is H2O, or known to most of us as water. The interesting aspect about the information given is that the facts are correct: water does occur in tumors, water is the enabling component of acid rain, and if you are exposed to too much water, you can die from drowning. But this is not how the information is understood by the consumer.
The vast majority of consumers is not in the position to comprehend when chemical/technical language is used that they are not familiar with. And it does not only apply to chemistry – remember when an insurance broker is telling you about “Claim Settlement Provision” or “Community Rating System Discounts”?
However, when food is affected, consumers react in a particularly sensitive manner. And this sensitivity is exploited in campaigns lead by environmental activists, where consumers become sensitized to terms like “pesticides”, “dioxins”, “DDT” and others. And therefore, there is an automatic negative association with this terminology.
There is a generalized “Chemophobia”. “Chemicals are bad” seems to summarize many consumers’ perception, often not realizing that everything is made of chemicals. Humans consist of countless chemicals, and every food is consisting of nothing but chemicals. Some may argue that only artificial chemicals are the bad ones, without realizing than in nature there are many natural compounds that are toxic at very low concentrations. Even common foods are toxic if not prepared properly. For example, potatoes and aubergines contain solanine, a natural alkaloid, which maintains its toxicity if the vegetable is not cooked. By the way, solanine is a pesticide produced by the plant to protect itself.
A good example to illustrate the chemicals present in our foods is the poster series compiled by James Kennedy:
“Ingredients: Aqua (75.8%), Amino Acids (12.6%) (Glutamic Acid, (14%), Aspartic Acid (11%), Valine (9%), Arginine (8%), Leucine, (8%), Lysine (7%), Serine (7%), Phenylalanine (6%), Alanine (5%), Isoleucine (5%), Proline (4%), Tyrosine (3%), Threonine (3%), Glycine (3%), Histidine (2%), Methionine (3%), Cystine (2%), Tryptophan (1%)); Fatty Acids (9.9%) (Octadecenoic Acid (45%), Hexadecanoic Acid (32%), Octadecanoic Acid (12%), Eicosatetraenoic Acid (3%), Eicosanoic Acid (2%), Docosanoic Acid (1%), Tetracosanoic Acid (1%), Octanoic Acid (<1%), Decanoic Acid (<1%), Dodecanoic Acid (<1%), Tetradecanoic Acid (<1%), Pentadecanoic Acid (<1%), Heptadecanoic Acid (<1%), Tetradecenoic Acid (<1%), Hexadecenoic Acid (<1%), Eicosenoic Acid (<1%), Docosenoic Acid (<1%), Omega-6 Fatty Acid: Octadecadienoic Acid (12%), Omega-3 Fatty Acid: Octadecatrienoic Acid (<1%), Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA) (<1%), Omega-3 Fatty Acid: Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) (<1%)); Sugars (0.8%) (Glucose (30%), Sucrose (15%), Fructose (15%), Lactose (15%), Maltose (15%), Galactose (15%)); Colour (E160c, E160a), E306, E101; Flavours (Phenylacetaldehyde, Dodeca-2- Enal, Hepta-2-Enal, Hexadecanal, Octadecanal, Pentan-2-One, Butan-2-One, Acetaldehyde, Formaldehyde, Acetone); Shell (E170), Also Contains Benzene & Benzene Derivatives, Esters, Furans, Sulfur-Containing Compounds and Terpenes”
Which food contains all these components?
(Click here to find the answer)What you see above, are the all-natural components of a chicken egg
It also contains names that people would have a negative association with, like formaldehyde, benzene and terpenes. Presented like this, most consumers would likely think this is an artificial product of the food or chemical industry.
So, fearmongering with chemical terminology is one aspect. The second aspect is that the majority of consumers think binary when it comes to risk. Reading the word ‘pesticide’ means risk. It does not matter how much is present and if this has been assessed for safety at the level found. Risk assessment is beyond the comprehension of many consumers when it comes to poorly understood chemical terminology. And so are the procedures used to arrive at those limits or “safe concentrations”. And it’s just the lack of understanding and confusing concepts what authors producing such headlines take advantage of. Sometimes I wonder if they themselves understand. Clearly, the headline “Breakfast with a dose of RoundUp” reads better that the headline “Breakfast with a dose of RoundUp, but the levels found are considered safe for consumption by EFSA and EPA, except that we set so low levels without any scientific base that most tested products exceeded them.”
There is an imperative need for the industry, governments and risk assessment organizations to become more transparent, neutral and to provide more aligned assessments, thereby generating trust with consumers. And especially for some risk assessment agencies, there is a long way to go. However, this would be a good approach to fight viral, non-scientific opinions and pseudo-science that currently inundate the public media. Quality education is another vital component to create an environment of trust.
