Chemicals in Food

As you have probably heard, RFK Jr. wants to ban a range of chemical food additives, starting with petroleum-based dyes. Ok, whatever, we can live without bright orange Cheetohs. But I was very disturbed by this Julia Belluz piece in the NY Times. Here is the red flag:

Research on chemicals that have been vetted by the F.D.A. tends to be extremely narrow in focus, looking mostly for cancer, genetic mutations or organ damage in animal or laboratory studies. This means the ingredients in our coffee creamer, cereal, ketchup and frozen pizza aren’t tested for more subtle effects on long-term health, or whether they may increase the risk of the other common chronic diseases, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. What’s more, most safety studies examine single chemicals in isolation, not how the hundreds or thousands of chemicals we consume might interact with one another or affect our long-term health.

How, even in principle, would you study how hundreds or thousands of chemicals consumed in various combinations might impact our health? I submit that this is completely impossible. But don't take my word for it, go read John Ioannidis's magnificent article (summary here) on dietary research:

Individuals consume thousands of chemicals in millions of possible daily combinations. For instance, there are more than 250 000 different foods and even more potentially edible items, with 300 000 edible plants alone. Seemingly similar foods vary in exact chemical signatures (eg, more than 500 different polyphenols). Much of the literature silently assumes disease risk is modulated by the most abundant substances; for example, carbohydrates or fats. However, relatively uncommon chemicals within food, circumstantial contaminants, serendipitous toxicants, or components that appear only under specific conditions or food preparation methods (eg, red meat cooking) may be influential. Risk-conferring nutritional combinations may vary by an individual’s genetic background, metabolic profile, age, or environmental exposures. Disentangling the potential influence on health outcomes of a single dietary component from these other variables is challenging, if not impossible.

The mistake that both Belluz and Kennedy make is assuming that if our food is making us sick, the problem must be some nefarious modern chemical. But why assume that? We live much longer than our ancestors, which means that 1) we are exposed to potential natural hazards for decades longer, so whatever dangers those compounds present will show up much more often in our world, and 2) whatever dangers modern food presents, it doesn't keep us from leading long, healthy lives.

So far as I can see, the biggest dangers in the modern diet are fat and sugar, which are both perfectly natural. The reasons we eat too much are complicated, and the advertising and product optimization of big food companies probably play a role. But mainly we do it because we like it. Giving up things that make you feed good is just hard, especially if you feel that your life doesn't offer enough other pleasures. The notion that this can be fixed by tinkering with chemical food additives strikes me as absurd.