E-number的可以嗎?

歐盟委員會(European Commission)是重繪立法添加劑,編織在一起八個不同的規定懷孕在過去的幾十年到一個嶄新的。但是這個過程隻是在它的早期階段,它可能會年新規定。與此同時,歐盟已經認識到,科學的當前狀態意味著它不能坐吃老本,等待它。今天的一些被用於食品添加劑,自從他們第一次開了綠燈,安全性研究的主題,引起了恐慌。所以歐洲食品安全署(歐洲食品安全管理局)已涉水通過數據的任務在所有45左右食品中添加劑目前允許在歐洲,從最古老的,看看他們有完美的安全記錄在人們的預料之中。到目前為止它已經發表了結論隻有一個,紅色的2 g (E128)在某些成員國用於香腸和漢堡。這並不是好消息。研究1999年以來發表了安全局認為它潛在的致癌物質,並撤回ADI(接受每日攝入量)成立於1981年。周五發生在EC常務委員會的一個會議上討論其合法性在歐洲層麵,決策,它應該被禁止。在本質上,重新評估是一件好事。 But if studies raised questions in 1999, why has it taken almost eight years for any regulator to look at this? Additives have a bad rap with consumers anyway. The system has baffled many consumers since it was first introduced. After all, who really knows their E128 from their E110 (sunset yellow) when glancing quickly at a label? It's no real wonder that consumers are suspicious when legislators have been slow to act on the evidence. A rolling science assessment should have been in place years ago. The fact that it wasn't, and some long-held fears now proving to have legs, only adds to the legitimacy of such suspicions. We will have to wait until EFSA's review is over and done with in late 2008 before we know the true fall out from the outmoded system. But even so, a question mark over a previously available food ingredient undermines trust in the checks and balances of our regulatory system. What does this diminishment of trust mean for the innocent E-number, one just minding its own business, not causing anyone any harm? If EFSA is the doorman guarding entry to the glamorous party of food ingredients, its role is to keep out those malicious ingredients concealing weapons beneath their cloaks. But in the current climate, what of the innocents that are let in only to find themselves ostracized by the other guests because they come from the wrong side of the tracks that separate natural from synthetic? No-one can really blame them from slinking off from the party early - nor ingredients companies removing from sale ingredients that carry a stigma so that no-one wants in their food. Or else, in order to be accepted, the ingredient formerly known as E will need to be re-branded. Given a make-over, if you will, to carry favour with the in-crowd. The whole system of E numbers, for those additives that survive EFSA's science cull, may need to be redrawn. Or, if not, the industry will have to power up a huge PR machine to assure consumers one and all that not all additives are evil - and synthetic is not always a synonym for sinister. Consumers are already seeking out goods made with all natural ingredients, retailers are promising to cater to them and are ordering clean-label products from their manufacturers. For instance, UK supermarket ASDA has said it is removing all artificial colours and flavourings from its own-label foods and beverages. The ingredients industry is stepping up to the mark with natural ingredients offerings. This is a fertile market sector, and the tale of Red 2G is like a liberal spreading of dung across the top of it - foul-smelling, but encouraging more growth. The anti-additives movement is already active at market level. It makes little sense for the industry to wait on legislation. It needs to start second-guessing the ramifications now if it wants its ingredients to be invited to the party again.傑斯韓禮德是獲獎網站FoodNavigator.com的編輯。在過去的十年中她曾在印刷、廣播和網絡媒體在歐洲和美國。如果你想要評論這篇文章,請電郵jess.halliday特'decisionnews.com