Long Live E-Numbers (Or Not?)

Rosanne Hertzberger’s much-discussed book, titled ‘Ode to E-Numbers’, has reignited the debate about the dangers of E-numbers in our food. But what is true? Editor-in-chief Marcus Polman lays out the facts.

Rosanne Hertzberger calls them food crazies. People with an above-average—call it an unhealthy—interest in food. Who see food almost as a religion. And who have a full-time job thinking about what, when, where and how to eat. In other words: the kind of people who populate the FavorFlav editorial team. People who make food shopping and cooking their life’s purpose, instead of pulling a microwave meal from the supermarket shelf (okay, I myself also like to make use of that well-known meal-box delivery service). The kind of people who never visit a restaurant without serious desk research beforehand. And who therefore think they are doing things tastily and properly. Those kinds of people.

Food fundamentalists
In her book ‘Ode to E-Numbers’, Hertzberger takes on the growing army of food devotees, food fundamentalists, food snobs and fanatical amateur cooks. “It seems as if we have collectively entered a new oral phase in which the world reaches us only through the mouth,” she said rather wittily on Pauw. This caused great consternation among the hardcore foodies and food bloggers. Hertzberger’s greatest irritation? The great ignorance that, according to her, exists among many food lovers. Especially when it comes to E-numbers and what is or is not healthy. She makes a passionate plea for embracing innovations in the food industry in our fight against obesity and climate change, instead of dismissing those innovations as dangerous or unnatural.

Long live microwave meals! Long live E-numbers

She does so with considerable bravado and a feel for provocation. Long live microwave meals! Long live E-numbers! Because in many cases, she argues, such a supermarket meal is better and more nutritious than many a homemade meal. Her publicity offensive in the media provoked unprecedentedly fierce reactions: online, on the radio, on television and in the newspaper. The age-old debate between anti-E-number activists and progress optimists such as Hertzberger flared up as never before.

But who is right in the debate? Does she have a point? Are E-numbers good or bad? Or does the truth lie somewhere in between?

Ten questions and answers about a contentious issue. So that you can take a well-informed position on it the next time you are sitting down to a pleasant meal with your slow-food-loving (or microwave-addicted) circle of friends.

1. What are E-numbers?
E-numbers are substances added to food to make it taste better (flavour enhancers). Or to give it an attractive colour (colourings). Or to make it last longer (preservatives). Note: these are additions. A tomato does not have to state that it contains E620 (a flavour enhancer), because it occurs naturally in it. If a manufacturer puts E620 in its soup, it must state this on the label. The substance is exactly the same. E-numbers are everywhere. Not just in Cup-a-Soup and margarine, but also in tomatoes, apples, bread and cheese.

2. Why are they used?
Without technology, for example, a smoothie would not keep for several weeks. Low-fat or low-salt ‘light products’ gain more flavour from them. And the bubbles in your virtuous chocolate bar would not be as attractive without these additives.

3. Why would you oppose them?
Opponents argue that E-numbers can be a danger to health in some, or even many, cases. One of the most outspoken anti-E-number activists is Frenchwoman Corinne Gouget, who wrote the handy E-number guide titled ‘What’s in Your Food?’ It was also published in the Netherlands by Bouillon. The booklet and app describe 353 E-numbers. Almost half, 173, are marked red, meaning ‘really avoid’. 105 E-numbers have an orange code: ‘additive about which conflicting scientific analyses exist. Beware’. Only a minority of 75 receive the green light: ‘currently considered harmless’. The book is an international bestseller. It is unclear, incidentally, what Gouget bases her information on. She writes that she wrote the booklet while pregnant and says she based it on scientific studies she does not specify further.

4. What does Hertzberger say in response?
E-numbers were actually created to make it clear to consumers that substances have been added and that those substances are safe. E-numbers have been tested exhaustively. Do you ever squeeze lemon over an apple to prevent browning? Nobody finds that frightening. But when preservatives such as E330 (citric acid) or E300 (vitamin C) are mentioned, everyone becomes suspicious.

Instead of a mark of safety and reliability, it has become synonymous with disgusting, fake and dangerous.

5. But does that also make the world a better place?
It certainly does, says Hertzberger. Without additives, we would waste much more food. If manufacturers replace flavour enhancers in their products with salt, those products actually become less healthy. She even goes so far as to say that convenience food promotes emancipation. Let’s embrace the microwave meal, just like the washing machine and dishwasher, which freed the housewife/househusband.

6. Why do E-numbers have such a bad reputation, then?
Because of consumers’ concerns about E-numbers, manufacturers started avoiding them (this is called clean labelling). To avoid being associated with the reviled E-numbers, manufacturers sometimes write out the name of an additive instead of using its E-number. So it says ascorbic acid instead of E300, or citric acid instead of E330, xanthan gum instead of E415. And that made critics even more suspicious. Sometimes a substance is added that is an E-number but does the same thing. Quite a few (organic) products are flavoured with yeast extract. This contains E621, the same substance as the much-discussed flavour enhancer MSG. E-numbers have achieved the opposite of what was intended. Instead of a mark of safety and reliability, they have become synonymous with disgusting, fake and dangerous.

7. But is there really nothing wrong with them?
Well, yes. Food manufacturers use E-numbers to produce products more cheaply. And to make their products seem better than they really are. Flavour enhancer in ready-made pasta instead of real aged cheese; colouring with sugar in ice cream instead of real fruit; meat-flavoured enhancer in soup instead of more actual meatballs. And for certain small groups of consumers, additives can in some cases have adverse effects (people with certain food allergies or sensitivities, or pregnant women).

8. Why does Hertzberger promote the microwave, then?
Ready-made meals, such as a steamed-vegetable meal offered by Appie, provide more fibre, more vegetables and less fat than a meal prepared at home by the average cook, according to the microbiologist. Recipes by Nigella and Jamie sometimes contain more calories and fewer nutrients than supermarket meals, research is said to show. The downside, she acknowledges, is that prefab dinners contain more salt, but salt reduction in the industry is increasing.

9. And homemade food tastes better, right?
We at FavorFlav say: what we make ourselves tastes better (and of course it does). But Hertzberger counters: taste is overrated. The presentation and context in which food is presented are at least as important in how a dish is appreciated. Chicken nuggets from McDonald’s served on an eco-friendly, sturdy wooden board? Many a connoisseur would judge them to be an artisanal and pure product.

10. But how dangerous or undesirable are E-numbers, all things considered?
In conclusion, we can say that Hertzberger makes an important point. She also manages to present it with great flair. Sensitivity to certain additives does occur, but it is extremely rare. Never eating E-numbers again would be rather absurd advice. The discussion about E-numbers distracts from what we should actually be talking about, Hertzberger rightly argues. It is not the substances with E-numbers that are the main causes of illness in industrial food. The biggest culprits are sugar, saturated fat and salt, which are found in much industrial food. And of these, sugar is the biggest culprit: sugar is the most important cause of diabetes and obesity.