Are Chemical Additives Harmful?

THE public is asked to believe that there is no harm in all the chemical additives in food, since the amount eaten each day is usually very small. Still, this question persists in the minds of those who reason on what they are asked to believe: If a large amount of a chemical is poisonous and harmful, will not a little bit each day be harmful too, but just take longer to have its effect?

Those who argue for the safety of additives often refer to the fact that a small amount of salt is good for the health of most persons, but large amounts of salt can kill. They therefore conclude that other chemicals are safe in small amounts. This may be true, provided those other chemicals can be carried off like excess amounts of salt and are not cumulative in the body like DDT.

It can be argued that there is no definite proof as yet that these chemical additives are harming people. But is this not putting the cart ahead of the horse? Perhaps it is better to state the converse, that there is no definite proof as yet that these food additives are not harming people. Would it therefore not be mere sensible to keep the use of these additives to the absolute minimum until such time as all shadow of doubt as to their safety has vanished?

A case in point: There were those who long ago argued that smoking was probably harmful. But from day to day it was not possible to see any visible change in health, so the promoters of cigarettes liked to say there was no harm. Now, after decades of experience, it is definitely established that smoking is injurious to health. It can cause cancer, heart disease and other ailments. But that took many years to prove. Who is to say that the additives to our food are not also having harmful effects, even though over a long term?

There are vast differences in body makeup. You likely know persons who can stay out in cold weather for long periods and not get sick. Yet, others may stay out only briefly and come down with an illness.

No one can say what the limit of tolerance is for any person. What may not harm one who enjoys enough vitality so that his body appears to throw off harmful agents may kill another who does not enjoy that vitality. So who is to say how much of a chemical really harms one’s health? Even if it is only a small percent of the population that is harmed, would you care to be part of that percent?

Those who argue for a certain viewpoint may direct your attention to the results of certain experiments. But is such evidence always conclusive? For example, rats that were well fed over a period of six months were given nothing to drink but cola beverages. It was found that their teeth dissolved down to the gum line. It is said that the acids in these drinks can dissolve iron and limestone. That seems on the surface to be a very impressive experiment and the conclusion may be drawn from it that surely some harm would come to humans if they drank such beverages, whether over a long period of time or only occasionally.

However, much of the force of this argument is lost when someone points to the fact that the acids in lemon juice and vinegar will also dissolve iron and limestone. Hence, if the cola acids in small amounts are harmful over a long term, then lemon juice and vinegar also might be said to be detrimental to one’s health. So, it is evident that a broad range of knowledge is needed if sound conclusions are to be drawn.