Is there much scientific evidence that proves that many food additives and preservatives are actually harmful?

Question

like the health food stores and aficionados preach ?

Answer 1

some preservatives can be:
-Benzoic Acid and Sodium Benzoate... (used to preserve oyster sauce, fish sauce, ketchup, non-alcoholic beverages, fruit juices, margarine, salads, confections, baked goods, cheeses, jams and pickled products) can cause hyperactivity
-Sulphur Dioxide and Sulphites are used as bleaches and antioxidants to prevent browning in alcoholic beverages, fruit juices, soft drinks, dried fruits and vegetables. It prevents yeast growth and also retards bacteria growth in wine. Causes asthma, and hyperactivity.
-Propyl Gallate are used in oils, margarine and salad dressings used as a preservative through antioxidation. Can cause gastric and skin irritation.
-Butylated hydroxyanisole added to fried snacks, soft drinks, oils, margarine, and chewing gum. Some common reactions are hyperactivity, asthma, adverse eractions, allergies, and increases cholesterol levels
... there are tons more at http://www.anarac.com/additives_and_preservatives.htm

Answer 2

First- Lioness gave a great answer, with scientific evidence. I had to add that I think you may be missing the main point. You question whether cooking the meat and killing any potentially harmful bacteria is more beneficial than feeding the meat raw, but at the same time completely fail to realize that it doesn't matter if there are bacteria in the meat. Dogs do not have the digestive system of a human, they digest their food at LEAST four times faster than we do. The bacteria doesn't sit in their guts long enough to do the damage it would do to us. I, honestly believe, you need to try to stop comparing your dog to you and see it for what it really is. As others have said (curtis I believe) balancing a cooked diet the way you are doing is very difficult because of the stripping of nutrients. All diets sold for dogs in stores contain a vitamin/mineral mix to make up for the cooking process.

Answer 3

Not really, the main this is they claim pesticides cause long term damage to people. However there arnt any actual long term studys on people that actually prove this.

There doesnt seem to be much evidence on it really i do notice the big thing people say is... "Its natural that means its good for you!"

There are plenty of people whom live long healthy lives without touching overtly expensive organic foods.

However im sure youll hear alot more people claiming its better for you, i may be unaware also of some studys. I think if the food was a serious danger to people the government would restrict it.

Answer 4

There are literally millions of reports suggesting that these preservatives are not for consumption by humans. Yes, this does include the preservatives listed by others... You want to know why US is allowing this to happen?! Cause they don't give a damn about you and everybody else. It's cheap, efficient, and made for mass production. Your life is the lowest priority for the big corporate businesses and their connections to the government has allowed them to do what the hell they want unless millions of people die, then they think about what they should do.

Answer 5

If there were, the FDA would step in. It happens, but not often, and even then on further review the problems tend to be smaller than thought at the time of action.

Answer 6

Yes. I personally know of one- my wife who is allergic to aspartane-type sweeteners. Others are allergic to sulfites. Alot of the banned additives were banned because they have the potential (based on mouse or rat tests) to cause cancer. Although this couldn't be proved for humans, would you take the chance?

Answer 7

They have had additives and preservatives that were once FDA approved and now not approved for evidence of their harm.

Answer 8

there's probably "at least" one paper about the effects of so-and-so additive/preservative.

being "healthy" just means that's the slowest possible way for you to die =X