Elawady: preservatives in industrial products are of little health concern (sodium benzoate is present in trivial amounts; preservatives are preferable to pesticide residues; 'returning to nature' is a trap).
Original statement
الحاجه المصنعه اللي هي يا مواد حافظه ارحم ولا المبيد الحشري بالعقل يعني اكل عنقود العنب مليان مبيد مبيد ولا اكل شيكولاتايه
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Elawady: preservatives in industrial products are of little health concern (sodium benzoate is present in trivial amounts; preservatives are preferable to pesticide residues; 'returning to nature' is a trap).
Origin
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live!صباح الخير اتباع العوضي (Open source)
- Published
- 19 September 2025
- Timestamp
- 1:03:02 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Machine/CC transcript; wording may contain transcription errors.
- Claimed mechanism
Low doses; liver detoxifies.
- Claimed health effect
No harm from preservatives.
- Population concerned
Everyone
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Diverging source versions
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- اتفرجوا عالبودكاست ده وقولولي رأيكوا عشان انزلكوا الحلقه التانيه منه (Open source)
- Published
- 9 April 2026
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Machine/CC transcript; wording may contain transcription errors.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- بدأت قناة ＂Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي＂ بثًا مباشرًاFAQs (Open source)
- Published
- 6 April 2026
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Machine transcript; the remark 'I love preservatives' may be ironic.
ناخد مواد حافظه جسمي يستحملها وماخدش مضاد حيوي وماخدش مبيد حشري واخد الوان صناعيه ارح حم ولا ايه؟ ما هو بالعقل يعني
So we take preservatives, which my body can tolerate, and do not take antibiotics, do not take insecticide, and take artificial colours - more merciful, or not? It is simple logic.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live!صباح الخير اتباع العوضي (Open source)
- Published
- 19 September 2025
- Timestamp
- 1:03:54 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; wording may contain speech-recognition errors; speaker turns are not marked, the excerpt was judged to be Elawady's own speech from context. Read in context (same video, a few sentences earlier: 'preservatives are more merciful than insecticide'), he argues FOR preservatives and colours as the lesser evil compared with pesticide and antibiotic residues.
Scientific assessment
Unclear / insufficient evidence – The data do not allow an assessment either way.
Certainty of evidence: low – Further research is likely to change the assessment considerably.
1. What was claimed?
Preservatives are not a meaningful health concern.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Authorised preservatives are evaluated individually and permitted within safety limits; sodium benzoate intake is generally small (consumed by 3.5% of participants in a large French cohort, I-UPF-117); 11 of 17 commonly consumed preservatives showed no association with cancer in that cohort.
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
A blanket dismissal is not supported: several common preservatives were associated with more cancer, diabetes and high blood pressure in a large prospective cohort (I-UPF-117 to I-UPF-119), and additive mixtures including sodium benzoate increased hyperactivity in children in a randomised trial (I-UPF-120). The comparison with pesticide residues and the 'return to nature is a trap' remark are opinions that cannot be tested as stated. The statement also conflicts with the archive's own UPF page.
4. What remains unclear?
Long-term effects of combined additive exposure.
5. Which studies support it?
I-UPF-06 (EU authorisation and re-evaluation framework); low benzoate intake in I-UPF-117.
6. Which studies contradict it?
Hasenboehler 2026 BMJ (I-UPF-117; cancer), Nat Commun (I-UPF-118; type 2 diabetes), Eur Heart J (I-UPF-119; hypertension and CVD); McCann 2007 RCT (I-UPF-120; hyperactivity in children); A-UPF-21 (E171 withdrawal, a colour, indirect); I-UPF-04, I-UPF-05 (emulsifiers).
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
EU positive list and re-evaluation programme apply.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Not verified.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Authorised preservatives are not an acute danger, but their long-term safety is being re-examined; favouring fresh and minimally processed foods is a reasonable precaution, not a medical necessity.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
In the EU, preservatives are authorised with ADIs and re-evaluated by EFSA (I-UPF-06). Sodium benzoate intake is usually small: in a large French cohort only 3.5% of participants consumed E211 (I-UPF-117, full text). However, the same cohort (2026) associated several widely used preservatives (sorbates, sulfites, nitrites/nitrates, acetates) with more cancer (HR 1.16 for non-antioxidant preservatives), type 2 diabetes and hypertension/CVD (I-UPF-117 to I-UPF-119), and an RCT found that mixtures of colours with sodium benzoate increased hyperactivity in children (I-UPF-120). The new findings are observational, from one cohort, and not yet replicated.
- Source quality
Own words (machine transcript); contradicts the archive's own UPF page, which warns of additives.
- Regional transferability
EU-specific regulatory framework; Egyptian supervision not verified.
- Individual exceptions
Individuals with specific intolerances (e.g., sulphite sensitivity) are exceptions.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
Insufficiently studied – There is too little research to say whether the claim is right or wrong.
Research question: In the general population, are authorised food preservatives (e.g. sodium benzoate) at usual intake of little health concern?
Research question in detail (PECO)
- Population
- General population incl. children
- Intervention or exposure
- Food preservatives at usual intake
- Comparison
- Lower/no intake
- Geographic scope
- universal biology
- Outcomes
- Cancer
- Type 2 diabetes
- Hypertension/CVD
- Child behaviour
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
How the EU regulates food additives
European Commission (DG SANTE). European Commission website 2026 (accessed) Guideline / position statementfull text checkedEU authorises preservatives individually with ADIs and re-evaluates them (EFSA).
- Actual result
- Positive list; re-evaluation programme.
- Methodological quality
- high (regulatory framework)
- Relevance
- indirect (framework, not outcome data)
- Limitations
- Does not test health outcomes.
What speaks against the claim?
Food preservatives and cancer in a French cohort
Hasenböhler A et al.. BMJ 2026 · PMID 41500678 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2025-084917 Cohort studyfull text checkednewly addedNutriNet-Sante: several common preservatives associated with cancer.
- Actual result
- Non-antioxidant preservatives HR 1.16 (1.07-1.26); absolute 13.3% vs 12.1% by age 60.
- Methodological quality
- moderate-high (cohort; full text)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Observational; not replicated.
Food preservatives, blood pressure and heart disease
Hasenböhler A et al.. Eur Heart J 2026 · PMID 42161430 · DOI 10.1093/eurheartj/ehag308 Cohort studyabstract checkednewly addedSame cohort: preservatives associated with hypertension and CVD.
- Actual result
- Hypertension HR 1.29; CVD HR 1.16.
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Same cohort.
Food colours, sodium benzoate and children's behaviour
McCann D et al.. Lancet 2007 · PMID 17825405 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61306-3 Randomised controlled trialabstract checkednewly addedRCT: colours plus sodium benzoate increased hyperactivity in children.
- Actual result
- Effect sizes 0.12-0.32.
- Methodological quality
- moderate (RCT)
- Relevance
- direct for children
- Limitations
- Benzoate not separated from colours.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Regulators consider authorised preservatives safe at permitted levels, and sodium benzoate intake is low; but new large cohort data and a children's RCT raise unresolved concerns about some preservatives.
Why some studies weigh more
Regulatory toxicology vs new observational signals from one cohort; neither settles human long-term effects.
Is a causal relationship established? Not established Associations from one cohort; mixtures in RCT.
Remaining uncertainty
Replication; benzoate-specific data.
Justified conclusion
In the French cohort (I-UPF-117, full text) sodium benzoate was consumed by only 3.5% of participants and 11 of 17 preservatives showed no cancer association, which partly fits Elawady's 'trivial amounts' remark; still, a blanket dismissal of preservatives is not supported, and neither is proven harm; the comparison with pesticide residues and the 'return to nature' statement are opinions that cannot be tested as stated.
Why do studies seem to disagree?
Regulatory ADIs (animal toxicology, safety factors) vs cohort associations (human, observational): different methods; cohort signals may reflect residual confounding by processed-food consumption.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Universal.
- Eating habits
- Preservative intake depends on processed-food consumption.
- Origin of the food
- Not relevant.
- Contaminants
- Not relevant.
- National production conditions
- Not assessed.
- Legal rules
- EU positive list and ADIs; Egyptian supervision not verified.
- Actual monitoring data
- None.
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- Absolute risk difference / NNH – 1.2-1.6 percentage points by age 60; NNH about 62-83; CIs log-symmetric. recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Health effects of preservatives at usual intake
- Starting level
- low (observational studies)
- Reasons for downgrading
- risk of bias (confounding)
- imprecision/inconsistency (single cohort)
- Result
- low
Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.
Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
- European Commission (DG SANTE): Re-evaluation of food additives (I-UPF-06) (2026 (accessed)) · Original publication
Page fetched 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200): additives authorised before 2009 are re-evaluated by EFSA; the page also documents the titanium dioxide (E171) withdrawal (content as recorded in I-UPF-06).
Search strategy
Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).
| Database | Date | Search | Looking for | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (TITLE:benzoic OR TITLE:benzoate*) AND (TITLE:"re-evaluation" OR TITLE:"safety") AND JOURNAL:"EFSA J" | supporting evidence | 15 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | "E 210" AND "E 211" AND "re-evaluation" | supporting evidence | 4 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (TITLE:"food additives" OR TITLE:"sodium benzoate" OR TITLE:preservative*) AND (TITLE:hyperactiv* OR TITLE:behaviour OR TITLE:behavior) AND (PUB_TYPE:"Randomized Controlled Trial" OR PUB_TYPE:"Meta-Analysis") | contradicting evidence | 4 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (TITLE:preservative* OR TITLE:sorbate OR TITLE:nitrite* OR TITLE:sulfite* OR TITLE:"food additive") AND (TITLE:cancer OR TITLE:"type 2 diabetes" OR TITLE:cardiovascular) AND TITLE:"NutriNet" AND PUB_YEAR:[2023 TO 2026] | contradicting evidence | 15 | |
| European Commission website | 26 October 2026 | https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/food-improvement-agents/additives/re-evaluation_en (re-fetched) | guidelines | 1 |
How deeply was this checked?
8 linked studies: 4 checked in full text (2 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 4 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.
Last scientific review: 26 October 2026
History of the verdict
- 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Potentially true (low)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Verdict changed: Potentially true (low) → Unclear / insufficient evidence (low)
New 2026 NutriNet-Sante studies (cancer, T2D, hypertension/CVD) and the McCann RCT provide direct human evidence against a blanket 'little concern' statement, while regulatory assessments and low benzoate intake still support part of it. The balance is now genuinely unclear rather than leaning true.
New sources: I-UPF-117 I-UPF-118 I-UPF-119 I-UPF-120
In plain language
Dr. Diaa said preservatives are not a big problem and are better than pesticide residues. Regulators do approve preservatives within safety limits, and sodium benzoate is eaten only in small amounts. But a large French study published in 2026 found that people eating more of several common preservatives had somewhat more cancer, diabetes and high blood pressure, and a trial found that additive mixtures with sodium benzoate made some children more hyperactive. These new findings need confirmation, so the question is open.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (1)
-
How the EU regulates food additives
European Commission (DG SANTE). European Commission website 2026 (accessed)Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checkedEU additives need authorisation, are re-evaluated, and E171 was banned in 2022.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Regulatory framework for food additives in the EU.
- How was the study done?
Official regulatory information pages (read).
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; Not applicable
- What was actually found?
All EU additives must be authorised and listed with conditions of use (Reg. 1333/2008, Annex II Union list) based on safety assessment, technological need and not misleading consumers. Additives permitted before 20 January 2009 are re-evaluated by EFSA under Reg. (EU) 257/2010. Regulation (EU) 2022/63 (adopted 14 January 2022, in force 7 February 2022) withdrew the authorisation of titanium dioxide (E171), with transitional measures.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Additives are checked and can be withdrawn.
- What are the study's limitations?
Regulatory status may change
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Directly applicable in EU/Germany.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Safety of any individual additive not mentioned.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (7)
-
EFSA: titanium dioxide no longer safe
EFSA FAF Panel et al.. EFSA J 2021 · PMID 33976718 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6585Risk assessmentcited by the Tayebat archivefull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentEFSA could not rule out DNA damage and concluded E171 is no longer safe; the EU then banned it.
Counter-example to a blanket dismissal of additive concerns.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Is E171 safe as a food additive?
- How was the study done?
Regulatory scientific opinion (risk assessment).
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; Not applicable
- What was actually found?
Low absorption but possible accumulation; no general/organ toxicity up to 1,000 mg/kg bw/day (E171); potential immunotoxicity, inflammation, neurotoxicity, aberrant crypt foci; genotoxicity concern (DNA strand breaks, chromosomal damage) could not be ruled out; E171 no longer considered safe.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
One additive withdrawn after re-evaluation.
- What are the study's limitations?
Based on animal and laboratory studies; the decision was precautionary because a risk of DNA damage could not be ruled out, not because harm in people was shown; applies to one colouring (E 171) only.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-09; limits C-UPF-11 (additives not uniformly harmless).
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That all additives are harmful.
-
Emulsifiers and heart disease in France
Sellem L et al.. BMJ 2023 · PMID 37673430 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2023-076058Cohort studyindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyHigher intake of some emulsifiers, including CMC, was linked with slightly more heart disease.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Are emulsifier intakes associated with CVD?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort with additive exposure estimation.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
95,442; 1,995 CVD events; Adults without CVD, 79% women
- What was actually found?
Celluloses (E460-E468) CVD HR 1.05 (1.02-1.09), CHD 1.07; CMC (E466) CVD 1.03 (1.01-1.05), CHD 1.04; E471/E472 associated with all outcomes; E472b cerebrovascular 1.11; trisodium phosphate CHD 1.06.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.03-1.11 per SD
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Small possible effect.
- What are the study's limitations?
One French cohort of mostly women volunteers; associations are very small and some disappear after correction for multiple testing; most emulsifiers studied showed no link; additive intake was estimated, not measured in blood or urine.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-06 weakly.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot show that emulsifiers cause heart disease, nor that they erode the gut mucus in people; it does not provide absolute risks.
-
Emulsifiers and diabetes in France
Salame C et al.. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2024 · PMID 38663950 · DOI 10.1016/S2213-8587(24)00086-XCohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checkedSeveral emulsifiers were linked with slightly higher diabetes risk.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Are emulsifiers associated with T2D?
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort with time-dependent additive exposure.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
104,139; 1,056 T2D cases; Adults, 79% women
- What was actually found?
Carrageenans HR 1.03 per 100 mg/day; tripotassium phosphate 1.15 per 500 mg/day; E472e 1.04; sodium citrate 1.04; guar gum 1.11; gum arabic 1.03; xanthan gum 1.08.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.03-1.15 per increment
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Small possible effect.
- What are the study's limitations?
Single cohort; Multiple testing; Observational design; residual confounding possible; Self-reported dietary intake
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-UPF-06 weakly.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causation.
-
Food preservatives and cancer in a French cohort
Hasenböhler A et al.. BMJ 2026 · PMID 41500678 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2025-084917Cohort studyindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyHigher intake of several common preservatives was linked to slightly more cancer (about 1-2 more cases per 100 people by age 60); most preservatives studied showed no link.
Several common preservatives (sorbates, sulfites, nitrites/nitrates, acetates) associated with cancer; benzoate not analysable (3.5% consumers).
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
To link preservative intake to cancer.
- How was the study done?
Cohort with detailed food-brand records.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
105,260 adults.
- What was actually found?
Several preservatives linked to more cancer; 11 of 17 not.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.16 (1.07-1.26) for non-antioxidant preservatives.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Preservatives may not be as harmless as assumed, but the evidence is not conclusive.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational; one cohort.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts the blanket view in C-UPF-11.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot prove that preservatives cause cancer.
-
Food preservatives and type 2 diabetes
Hasenböhler A et al.. Nat Commun 2026 · PMID 41501013 · DOI 10.1038/s41467-025-67360-wCohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checkedIn the same French cohort, 12 widely used preservatives were linked to more type 2 diabetes.
12 common preservatives associated with T2D after multiple-testing correction (same cohort as I-UPF-117).
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
To link preservatives with diabetes.
- How was the study done?
Cohort study.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
108,723 adults.
- What was actually found?
12 preservatives linked to more diabetes.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not in abstract.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
A signal worth checking.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational; same cohort.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-UPF-11.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot prove causation.
-
Food preservatives, blood pressure and heart disease
Hasenböhler A et al.. Eur Heart J 2026 · PMID 42161430 · DOI 10.1093/eurheartj/ehag308Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checkedPeople with higher preservative intake had more high blood pressure and somewhat more cardiovascular disease in a French cohort.
Non-antioxidant preservatives associated with hypertension (HR 1.29) and CVD (HR 1.16); same cohort.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
To link preservatives with blood pressure and CVD.
- How was the study done?
Cohort study.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
112,395 adults.
- What was actually found?
More hypertension and CVD with higher preservative intake.
- How large was the observed effect?
Hypertension HR 1.29; CVD HR 1.16.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
A signal worth checking.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational; same cohort.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-UPF-11.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot prove causation.
-
Food colours, sodium benzoate and children's behaviour
McCann D et al.. Lancet 2007 · PMID 17825405 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61306-3Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checkedIn a blinded trial, drinks with artificial colours plus the preservative sodium benzoate slightly increased hyperactive behaviour in children.
Mixtures of artificial colours with sodium benzoate increased hyperactivity in children (small effects).
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
To test additives on children's behaviour.
- How was the study done?
Double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
297 children.
- What was actually found?
Small increase in hyperactivity.
- How large was the observed effect?
Effect sizes 0.12-0.32.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Some additive mixtures may affect sensitive children.
- What are the study's limitations?
Benzoate and colours not separated.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Limits C-UPF-11.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show benzoate alone is harmful.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (0)
No studies in this group.
Regional context
Germany / EU
EU positive list and re-evaluation programme apply.
Egypt
Not verified.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Unclear / insufficient evidence Unclear: regulators consider authorised preservatives safe within limits, but new large studies link several common preservatives to cancer, diabetes and high blood pressure.
The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:
- Additives and processing
- Controls, imports, recalls, labelling
Choose a country to see the checked information for it.
Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.
Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country
References
- European Commission: Re-evaluation of food additives (incl. Q&A on titanium dioxide, Regulation (EU) 2022/63) and EU rules on food additives (Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008). European Commission (DG SANTE). European Commission website 2026 (accessed)
- Safety assessment of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive.. EFSA FAF Panel et al.. EFSA J 2021 · PMID 33976718 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6585
- Food additive emulsifiers and risk of cardiovascular disease in the NutriNet-Santé cohort: prospective cohort study.. Sellem L et al.. BMJ 2023 · PMID 37673430 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2023-076058
- Food additive emulsifiers and the risk of type 2 diabetes: analysis of data from the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort study.. Salame C et al.. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2024 · PMID 38663950 · DOI 10.1016/S2213-8587(24)00086-X
- Intake of food additive preservatives and incidence of cancer: results from the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort.. Hasenböhler A et al.. BMJ 2026 · PMID 41500678 · DOI 10.1136/bmj-2025-084917
- Associations between preservative food additives and type 2 diabetes incidence in the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort.. Hasenböhler A et al.. Nat Commun 2026 · PMID 41501013 · DOI 10.1038/s41467-025-67360-w
- Preservative food additives, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases: the NutriNet-Santé study.. Hasenböhler A et al.. Eur Heart J 2026 · PMID 42161430 · DOI 10.1093/eurheartj/ehag308
- Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.. McCann D et al.. Lancet 2007 · PMID 17825405 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61306-3