Alarming Levels of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Found in Popular U.S Foods | Food Democracy Now

Source: Alarming Levels of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Found in Popular U.S Foods | Food Democracy Now

Alarming Levels of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Found in Popular U.S Foods

A new report by Food Democracy Now! and the Detox Project exposes shocking levels of glyphosate contamination in popular American foods, including Cheerios, Doritos, Oreos, Goldfish and Stacy’s Pita Chips.

Levels found in these product are well above the levels found by independent peer-reviewed studies which show that ultra-low levels of glyphosate can cause organ damage starting at 0.1 parts per billion (ppb). This is 1,750 times lower than what the EPA currently claims is safe. The highest levels detected were found in General Mills’ Original Cheerios, which were simply off the charts, at 1,125.3 ppb or nearly twice the level considered potentially harmful according to the latest scientific research in a single serving.

As a result, we’re calling on the EPA Inspector General to investigate the agency’s failure to properly test and regulate glyphosate, end the practice of pre-harvest spraying of Roundup as a drying agent and release ALL of the industry data submitted to federal agencies, but kept hidden from the American public as “trade secrets.”

Demand that your regulatory agencies, like the EPA, FDA and USDA protect the American people from toxic chemicals in our food, water and air! It’s time to get Monsanto’s Roundup off your plate, ban glyphosate and label GMOs! We need your help today. Every voice counts! The report can be viewed here.

Advertisements

11 Fake Foods You Eat All the Time

FOODS_FAKES3

By McKenzie Maxson July 21, 2016 |

If you pick up a block of Parmesan cheese at the grocery store, you assume it’s the good stuff, preferably from Italy. But many times it’s mixed with cheaper cheeses and sometimes wood pulp. (Now that’s something to chew on!) Larry Olmsted calls out these frauds in his book Real Food/Fake Food. Here are the biggest offenders:

1. Coffee

If you brew your own pot at home, buy your beans whole, not ground. Ground coffee often contains additives, such as wheat, barley, and even twigs (crunchy!), because it’s cheaper and harder to tell the difference in the bag.

2. Tea

Tea seems like such a wholesome drink, but some varieties are mixed with other leaves and sometimes even sawdust to make it last longer, Olmsted says.

3. Sushi

If you order a spicy salmon roll, chances are that’s not what you’re getting. Oceana, a nonprofit marine conservation group, found that 100 percent of the seafood it tested at sushi restaurants in New York was not the fish it was claimed to be.

4. Fish

Red snapper and grouper are almost always fake because they’re expensive, Olmsted says. Some of the fish sold as grouper couldn’t be identified when tested. Ew.

5. Extra-virgin olive oil

There’s no use splurging on the good stuff. Even though it’s marketed as “pure,” EVOO is often stripped of many nutrients and diluted with peanut or soybean oil, which are cheaper.

6. Parmesan cheese

The Parmesan on shelves in the U.S. is far cry from the authentic Italian kind. A recent FDA study found it tends to be cut with less expensive cheese and sometimes even wood pulp.

7. Honey

Here’s a not-so-sweet secret: There aren’t regulations on what gets called honey. Some companies mix it with high-fructose corn syrup, so make sure you read all the ingredients.

8. Dry spices

Lab tests found instances where oregano included weeds and turmeric contained corn.

9. Champagne

You’ve probably heard sparkling wine can’t be called Champagne unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. But that doesn’t stop companies from being deceptive. André still claims to be Champagne, but that bottle of booze comes from California, not France.

10. Kobe beef

The USDA is very strict about Kobe beef imports. Just 10 companies are allowed to sell the meat in the U.S. (you can see the list here). So chances are, you aren’t getting the real stuff.

11. Fruit juice

Just because a container says “pomegranate juice” doesn’t mean it only contains the one fruit. In many instances, expensive juices are mixed with cheaper ones (like apple) to cut costs, so check the label every time. If it doesn’t list percentages, don’t buy it.

Toxics and New Borns

naturalnews.com

Originally published July 21 2016

 BLACK_NATION_BC-DEATH PLAN\

Study: Toxic chemicals in makeup, plastics and other everyday products are
harming unborn babies, damaging the brain and reducing IQs

by Amy Goodrich

(NaturalNews) Most consumers generally assume that products available on the market are proven to be safe. They believe that the government would not allow any product on the market that may be harmful to their health.

Unfortunately, this is not true. Many products sold today contain toxic ingredients with very limited safety testing. A growing number of researchers now believe that a variety of chemicals found in everyday household items, such as makeup, plastics, and food containers, may pose a serious threat to the developing brain of fetuses and growing children. These chemicals may even be lowering their IQ.

In a first-of-its-kind consensus statement, called Project TENDR (Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks), dozens of scientists, health practitioners, and children’s health advocates are calling for a more aggressive regulation.

The aim of the coalition is to protect expectant mothers, infants, and children from toxic chemicals that endanger neurodevelopment in fetuses and children of all ages.

 

A broken system

In the statement, the authors concluded that the existing system in the U.S. for evaluating scientific evidence and making health-based decisions about environmental chemicals is “fundamentally broken.”

American children are at an “unacceptable” risk of developing neurological disorders including autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), intellectual disabilities, and other learning and behavioral disabilities. Parents report that one in six American children have a developmental disability, which is 17 percent more than a decade ago.

These rising neurological defects are very complex disorders caused by genetic, social, and environmental factors. While we cannot change our genetic makeup, the toxic effect chemicals have on our health can, and should, be prevented.

One way pregnant women can protect their little one and build up immunity is through juicing health-promoting superfoods.

 

Chemicals are everywhere

The report gives bad press to the U.S. that continues to allow these chemicals to flood the market with little or no evidence of the effects they may have on the developing brain. With the TENDR consensus statement, the authors hope to reduce toxic chemical exposure and neurodevelopmental disabilities in America’s children.

The chemicals singled out by the coalition include lead, mercury, organophosphate pesticides used in agriculture and gardens, flame retardants, combustion-related air pollutants, and phthalates found in plastic bottles, food containers, and beauty products.

Furthermore, they note that traffic pollution and smoke from wood can also affect the neurological development of both unborn baby and growing child.

While polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been banned or restricted in America for years, the authors report that these can linger in the environment for decades and are also reason for concern.

 

Chemicals are everywhere

Professor Susan Schantz, of the University of Illinois, said that these chemicals are not only found in air and water, but also in everyday products that we use in our home or apply on our skin. Reducing the exposure is possible and urgently needed to protect our future generation.

Almost every day we come in contact with phthalates and other endocrine disruptors found in all kinds of different products. As reported by the Daily Mail, 90 percent of pregnant women in the U.S. have detectable levels of 62 different chemicals.

Many of these chemicals can interfere with the normal activity of hormones, like thyroid hormones, estrogen, and androgens. Schantz and her colleagues are studying the effects phthalates and other endocrine disruptors have on the child’s brain and behavior.

Professor Schantz said that very little is known about what these chemicals are doing to children’s neurological development.

“They just haven’t been studied.”, Schantz said. She expressed that if it looks like something is a risk, many scientists feel policymakers should be willing to make a decision that the chemical could be trouble and we need to stop its production or limit its use. Professor Schantz went on to say, “We shouldn’t have to wait 10 or 15 years — allowing countless children to be exposed to it in the meantime — until we’re positive it’s a bad actor.”

Sources for this article include:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/EHP358/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160701093942.htm
http://huromslowjuicers.naturalnews.com/huromslowjuicers.html

 

Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals : NPR

Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals : NPR.

Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals : NPR
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134196209/study-most-plastics-leach-hormone-like-chemicals

March 02, 2011 4:07 PM ET
Jon Hamilton
FOODS_BPA
Makers of water bottles, including Camelback, now sell products that don’t contain BPA, a chemical that can mimic the sex hormone estrogen. But a new study says that even if they don’t contain BPA, most plastic products release estrogenic chemicals.

Makers of water bottles, including Camelback, now sell products that don’t contain BPA, a chemical that can mimic the sex hormone estrogen. But a new study says that even if they don’t contain BPA, most plastic products release estrogenic chemicals.

Most plastic products, from sippy cups to food wraps, can release chemicals that act like the sex hormone estrogen, according to a study in Environmental Health Perspectives.

The study found these chemicals even in products that didn’t contain BPA, a compound in certain plastics that’s been widely criticized because it mimics estrogen.

Many plastic products are now marketed as BPA-free, and manufacturers have begun substituting other chemicals whose effects aren’t as well known.

But it’s still unclear whether people are being harmed by BPA or any other so-called estrogenic chemicals in plastics. Most studies of health effects have been done in mice and rats.

The new study doesn’t look at health risks. It simply asks whether common plastic products release estrogen-like chemicals other than BPA.

The researchers bought more than 450 plastic items from stores including Walmart and Whole Foods. They chose products designed to come in contact with food — things like baby bottles, deli packaging and flexible bags, says George Bittner, one of the study’s authors and a professor of biology at the University of Texas, Austin.

Then CertiChem, a testing company founded by Bittner, chopped up pieces of each product and soaked them in either saltwater or alcohol to see what came out.

The testing showed that more than 70 percent of the products released chemicals that acted like estrogen. And that was before they exposed the stuff to real-world conditions: simulated sunlight, dishwashing and microwaving, Bittner says.

Exactly how BPA affects humans, and how serious its effects are, are still very much up for debate. The U.S. government generally advocates caution and more research, but agencies have issued a range of hesitant warnings. The National Toxicology Program, a division of the National Institutes of Health, says it has “some concern” about potential BPA exposures to the brains and prostate glands of fetuses, infants and children. Other agencies say they have lingering, unresolved “questions” about the chemical.

Those questions largely circle around how prolonged exposure to the chemical in childhood or adulthood could affect reproduction and growth; how low-dose exposure at sensitive developmental stages could affect children and babies later in life; and how parental exposure could affect the next generation. Studies have shown links between BPA and cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and a host of other illnesses.

One major sticking point for scientists is the challenge of drawing conclusions from hundreds of studies, each using different animals (mice and rats among them), doses, and routes of exposure. As the Environmental Protection Agency has noted, “there is controversy about whether effects seen at lower doses in animals are meaningful and relevant to humans.” And scientists have also wondered whether rodents are more sensitive to the chemical than us because they metabolize it differently.

Last year, the NIH launched a new round of studies, all with the same methodology, designed to answer the some of the niggling questions and help the government provide clearer guidance than it’s been able to so far.

— Eliza Barclay

“Then, you greatly increase the probability that you’re going to get chemicals having estrogenic activity released,” he says, adding that more than 95 percent of the products tested positive after undergoing this sort of stress.

But what about all those products marketed as BPA-free? That’s a claim being made for everything from dog bowls to bento boxes these days.

The team concentrated on BPA-free baby bottles and water bottles, Bittner says, “and all of them released chemicals having estrogenic activity.” Sometimes the BPA-free products had even more activity than products known to contain BPA.

The testing didn’t show which chemicals are to blame, which is likely to be frustrating to manufacturers.

But Bittner says consumers should be encouraged that at least some plastic products had no estrogen-like activity. He says that shows it is possible to make these products.

Early reaction to the study was mixed. Some scientists wondered about the test’s reliability. Others noted that wine and many vegetables also can act like estrogen. And a few observed that Bittner has a financial interest in the testing lab and in a company involved in making plastic products that don’t release estrogenic chemicals.

On the other hand, groups that have warned about the potential dangers of BPA in the past seemed to welcome the new research.

“This is really helpful because they took a look at very common products,” says Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group.

But the results suggest that concerns about plastics can’t be solved by worried consumers at the checkout counter, Lunder says. It’s a problem for government, she says.

“Regulatory agencies need to study the effect of chemicals leaching out of plastic,” Lunder says, adding that an EPA program formed more than a decade ago to do this sort of research still hasn’t produced many results.

Until scientists come up with more definitive answers, Lunder says, worried consumers can follow the old advice to avoid putting those baby bottles and other plastic products in dishwashers or microwaves.

“We’ve long cautioned consumers to avoid extreme heat and cooling for plastics, to discard scratched and worn plastics and we feel like this [study] validates one of our many concerns,” she says.

WHAT’S IN YOUR FOOD(S)?

Why nobody knows what’s really going into your food
The Center for Public Integrity
Published on Apr 13, 2015

Why doesn’t government know what’s in your food? Because industry can declare on their own that added ingredients are safe without ever consulting the Food and Drug Administration about potential health risks. Read the story: http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/0…

Calories Not Chemicals

FOODS_CHEM-COUNT

Study: Correlation, GMOs & 22 Diseases!

Alternet
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
FOODS_MONSANTO2
 Study Shows Dramatic Correlation Between GMOs And 22 Diseases
Popular Resistance [1] / By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers [2]
November 18, 2014  |

There is a growing movement for labeling of GMO crops, and many would go further and ban GMOs completely. Currently there is a close vote in Oregon on a GMO labeling initiative, with advocates for labeling 0.3% behind and raising money to check ballots (we urge your support) [3]. Those who profit from GMOs spent $20 million to prevent labeling in Oregon. Several states in the Northeast [4] have put in place laws that will require labeling.

Vermont is about to be sued [5] to prevent GMO labeling. GMO profiteers have an unusual marketing strategy. While most companies brag about their product, the GMO industry spends hundreds of millions to hide their product. The US does not requiring labeling of GMOs despite the fact that 64 countries around the world label GMO foods [6].

Millions have marched against Monsanto [7] urging labeling or the banning of GMO products. There is a national consensus in favor of labeling [8] but the government has been unable to respond. Indeed, President Obama’s food czar is a former Monsanto executive [9]. The deep corruption of government is putting the health of the American people at serious risk.

The research highlighted below, “Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America,” was published in The Journal of Organic Systems [10] this September and links GMOs to 22 diseases with very high correlation. We reprinted many of the graphs from the study that show an incredible correlation between the rise of GMO crops that use the herbicide glyphosate and a wide range of diseases. (Read Full Article)

Toxic Chemical Footprints of Everyday Items

Alternet
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)

The Horrifying Toxic Chemical Footprints of Everyday Items
OnEarth Magazine [1] / By Susan Freinkel [2]

Toxic Chemicals
September 11, 2014  |
This story originally appeared at OnEarth.org. [3]

In a 2007 Skidmore College museum exhibit titled Molecules That Matter [4], the exhibit’s curators noted that we are never more than three feet away from something plastic. That stunning statistic reflects just how thoroughly plastics permeate the fabric of our daily lives. So it’s sobering, then, to consider that the plastics industry is one of the largest consumers and users of chemicals known to be hazardous to human health or to the environment.

The process by which fossil fuels are transformed into an iPhone case—or a toothbrush, a Barbie, a soda bottle, a car seat, or countless other objects—consumes a mindboggling 244 million tons of toxic chemicals, according to a recent report [5]. The recipes for many of our most common consumer plastics include carcinogens such as benzene and styrene, as well as hormone-disrupting phthalates and Bisphenol A (BPA). Indeed, 96 percent of the BPA that gets produced in our labs goes toward the manufacture of plastics.

Consumers have been concerned about the issue for years. But with plastic playing such an essential role in the global marketplace, the public demand for more information about the relative safety of different kinds of plastic has been met with a mostly tepid response from manufacturers.

Enter the Plastics Scorecard [6], a new tool that has been designed to evaluate the chemical footprints of these omnipresent materials. As far as I can tell, the Plastics Scorecard represents the first time that anyone has ever tried to bring this level of (you’ll pardon the pun) transparency to plastics. The hope, of course, is that—as with similar tools that are capable of analyzing the chemical footprints ofelectronics [7], cosmetics [8], and cleaning products [9]—the Plastics Scorecard will encourage manufacturers, brand owners, and retailers to reduce industry’s reliance on hazardous chemicals that are, as of right now, such an integral part of plastics production. “We’re trying to lay out a framework that companies could use to make decisions about what would be a safer plastic,” says Mark Rossi, co-director of Clean Production Action (CPA [10]), the Boston-based nonprofit that designed and produced the scorecard.

As Rossi and his colleagues were putting their scorecard through its paces in order to test its efficacy, their findings underscored the scope of the problem. For starters, they learned that there really are no inherently “safe” raw plastics. Five of the ten common plastics that the team evaluated received failing scores—zero out of a possible 100 points—due to the fact that toxic chemicals were used at every single stage of their production. That ignoble group included well-known problem plastics like PVC [11] and styrene [12], but also included lesser-known materials such as polycarbonate (used for compact discs), styrene butadiene rubber (often used for tires and the heels of shoes) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (found in an array of products, including musical instruments, golf clubs, and Legos).

Even the least hazardous plastic they evaluated—polylactic acid [13] (PLA), the corn-based plastic that’s typically found in compostable foodware—only rated a middling 58 points, according to their scale. The tough ratings reflect the fact, as Rossi put it, “very few chemicals are inherently safe.” Still, dinging PLA, which is a relatively benign material, does raise the question of whether the scorecard is “too challenging,” he admits. (They may revisit the issue in version 2.0 of the scorecard, he adds.)

And as their accompanying report made clear, it’s not only the type of plastic that matters: what you do to it matters, too. Equally implicated in the toxicity profile of any given plastic are many of the additives that give it certain properties the marketplace demands: that make it stronger, or more flame retardant, or more flexible, for example. Often, these are the very chemicals most likely to off-gas or leach out. (Read Full Article)

New Food Additive: “GRAS”?

Who decides if a new food additive is “safe”? Often times, the company profiting off of it.

Alice
HEALTH_FDA5
What does it mean when a food ingredient is labeled “safe”? The question seems straightforward, but the answer proves to be disorienting. Recently, the biotechnology company Senomyx, Inc. was in the news following confusion over a safety determination for one of its products.

The San Diego-based company develops, manufactures, and sells a variety of flavor ingredients for use in food and drinks. Their latest product – a flavor modifier called Sweetmyx – is a “sweetener enhancer,” which allows food and beverage manufacturers to reduce sweetener use while maintaining taste intensity. Under a 2010 agreement, Pepsi holds exclusive rights to use Sweetmyx in non-alcoholic beverages.

On March 11, Senomyx issued a statement announcing, “Sweetmyx flavor ingredient, previously referred to as S617, has been determined to be Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, administered by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Shortly after the announcement, news outlets reported that Sweetmyx had been determined safe by the FDA. A Reuters headline read, “FDA says Senomyx sweetener enhancer safe” while a subhead by the financial news outlet Barron’s declared, “The biotech received a nod from the FDA for the sweetener Sweetmyx.” Subsequently, the value of Senomyx stock shares jumped as high as 26 percent on the day before closing up 17 percent.

So what’s the problem?
The FDA Does Not Determine “Generally Recognized As Safe” Status

The FDA issued a statement the day after Senomyx’s announcement, underlining the fact that the agency had not made the GRAS determination and even going so far as to chide Senomyx. “When making a GRAS self-determination, companies should not state or imply that the FDA has made a GRAS determination on their food ingredients,” the agency said.

Whether or not the wording of Senomyx’s announcement was purposefully misleading, the situation did highlight serious confusion over how GRAS determinations are made and what it means for food ingredients to be labeled “safe.”

The GRAS Process

For new ingredients (or by legal terms, “substances”) to be added to food, companies must comply with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Food Safety News points out that under the law, “Substances are added to food either as food additives or as GRAS. The difference between the two paths is significant: FDA must sign off on food additives, but companies can use GRAS substances without FDA approval. Notably, companies make their own GRAS determinations, which they may or may not voluntarily submit to FDA for review.” (Emphasis added)

In other words, industry is allowed to police itself when it comes to the safety of a significant number of ingredients added to the foods and beverages our families eat and drink every day.

In a recent article, Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University, weighed in on Sweetmyx, the GRAS process, and what she calls a “shocking gap in FDA regulatory authority over GRAS determinations.” She asked the involved parties:

Pepsi: Don’t you want FDA approval before putting this stuff in your drinks?
    Chemists: What is Sweetmyx, anyway?
    FDA: Don’t you think you ought to take a look at this thing?
    Congress: How about insisting that the FDA establish a better system for dealing with food additives?

Nestle isn’t alone. The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have also been vocal in criticizing the process and expressing hope for reform. Additionally, a 2010 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report called for the FDA to update the GRAS process, citing conflict of interest issues. A 2013 study published by the American Medical Association backed up those concerns, concluding, “Between 1997 and 2012, financial conflicts of interest were ubiquitous in determinations that an additive to food was GRAS.”

Robert McQuate, CEO of GRAS Associates, LLC, doesn’t see the GRAS process leaving the public overly vulnerable. In February, McQuate told Kelly Damewood of Food Safety News, “If FDA sees that there is an issue that adversely affects public health, even if [the substance] has previously enjoyed GRAS status, FDA does have the authority and capability to make changes.” He went on to cite the FDA’s proposal to “de-GRAS” partially hydrogenated oils, the primary source of industrially produced trans fatty acids, which can cause heart disease.

True, the FDA proposal to remove Generally Recognized As Safe status from partially hydrogenated oils was a step in the right direction, one that the Center for Effective Government strongly supported. But the fact that it would take the agency a decade to take action suggests serious flaws in the process, leaving Americans at risk from under-scrutinized food additives that may harm their health.

Source(s):
http://www.foreffectivegov.org

Subway Removing Chemical From Bread!

Subway to remove ‘dough conditioner’ chemical from bread

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN

updated 1:23 PM EST, Thu February 6, 2014
Watch this video

Subway removing chemical from bread

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Azodicarbonamide is a chemical found in yoga mats and shoe soles
  • The chemical has been used for the purpose of strengthening dough
  • Announcing its removal, Subway notes chemical has USDA and FDA approval
  • ‘Food Babe’ blogger drew attention to the issue

(CNN) — Take a look at ingredients for some varieties of Subway’s bread and you’ll find a chemical that may seem unfamiliar and hard to pronounce: azodicarbonamide.

To say this word, you would emphasize the syllable “bon” — but the attention the chemical has been getting has not been good. Besides bread, the chemical is also found in yoga mats and shoe soles to add elasticity.

But it’s not long for bread at Subway: The company says it’s coming out.

“We are already in the process of removing azodicarbonamide as part of our bread improvement efforts despite the fact that it is (a) USDA and FDA approved ingredient,” Subway said in a statement. “The complete conversion to have this product out of the bread will be done soon.”

The controversial chemical has been used by commercial bakers for the purpose of strengthening dough but has been poorly tested, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

One of the breakdown products, derived from the original substance, is called urethane, a recognized carcinogen, the organization says. Using azodicarbonamide at maximum allowable levels results in higher levels of urethane in bread “that pose a small risk to humans,” CSPI said.

Another breakdown product is semicarbazide, which poses “a negligible risk to humans” but was found to cause cancers of the lung and blood vessels in mice, CSPI said.

CSPI advocates for reducing the amount of the chemical that is allowed to be used.

“We urge the Food and Drug Administration to consider whether the Delaney amendment, which bars the use of food additives that cause cancer in humans or animals, requires the agency to bar its use,” CSPI said.

The FDA has said that the additive cannot exceed 0.0045% by weight of the flour when used in as a “dough conditioner.”

The American Bakers Association told CNN: “Past FDA sampling results have indicated appropriate low level use in products. As a dough conditioner it has a volume/texture effect on the finished loaf. It is a functional ingredient that improves the quality of bread and any substitutes are likely not to work as well as ADA (azodicarbonamide).”

Food blogger Vani Hari, of the popular food blog Food Babe, originally drew public attention to this issue, CSPI said. She has written about Subway ingredients several times since 2012, this week she launched a petition urging Subway to stop using azodicarbonamide. More than 67,000 people signed.

Grocery store breads and restaurant breads also contain this chemical. Other major fast food chains have products with the ingredient too, including McDonald’s, Starbucks and Arby’s.

McDonald’s has also responded to concerns about the chemical with regard to its McRib sandwich buns, but continues to use the chemical in that product.

McDonald’s notes on its website that a “variation of Azodicarbonamide has commercial uses and is used in the production of some foamed plastics, like exercise mats. But this shouldn’t be confused with the food-grade variation of this ingredient.”

Azodicarbonamide is not legally allowed to be used as a dough improver in the European Union, according to the European Food Safety Authority. It is also banned in Australia.

A 1999 report from an international group of health experts, published by the World Health Organization, says some studies suggest that the chemical can induce asthma, based on evidence from people with symptoms and employees of facilities where the chemical is manufactured or used.

But use of the chemical in the workplace is very different, and carries much greater exposure than eating a tiny amount in bread.

The report notes that the concentration required to produce asthmatic reactions is unknown.

“The level of risk is uncertain; hence, exposure levels should be reduced as much as possible,” WHO said.

CNN’s William Hudson contributed to this report.

« Older entries