Toxic ingredients in beer
If you are interested in understanding the trends that shape the modern food system you would do well to consider the Food Babe, her following, and how and when her campaigns get traction. My “favorite” Food Babe expose has been her work on hidden ingredients in beer. She is concerned that alcoholic drink companies aren’t required to label their ingredients fully (I agree with her here – they should be) and that some of those ingredients are potentially hazardous.
Looking down the Food Babe’s list there are some that can be easily thrown out (GM dextrose is chemically indistinguishable from non-GM dextrose). Let’s give the discussion some credibility and look at one that the much more thoughtful CSPI agrees is a risk, caramel colors. Should we fear caramel colors in beer?
Caramel colors are brown for pretty much the same reason that beer is brown. Sugars react with amines during heating via the Maillard reaction conducted either in a pressurized reaction vessel to make the caramels or during the roasting of the grain. As well as the pigments, the reaction responsible makes some compounds that may be toxic if consumed in sufficient amounts (e.g., 4-MEI, acrylamide). Caramel manufacturers have learnt to limit the 4-MEI in their products, but the process of malting is far less controlled and will make all kinds of compounds. It would be very hard to prove that a beer contained fewer potential toxins because it didn’t contain caramel colors but it would be very easy for a brewery to use a “free from caramel colors” label to imply to their consumers their product was healthier.
However, any debate about the relative potential for toxicity of tiny concentrations of Maillard products is being conducted in the context of a 5% solution of a known Group 1 carcinogen. Ethanol is toxic, addictive and its abuse is associated with much of the violence and accidents in our society. Why on earth is the argument about the other additives even worth having? It’s as if house is on fire and you are worried about the poor ergonomic design of your home office.
All this provides a great example of the inefficient ways people think about risk. In his book “How Risky is it Really?” David Ropiek builds a list of “fear factors” that make a potential risk seem worse, and many of them apply here:
- Trust. We are willing to accept more risk from sources we trust and, on the whole, “big food” is not trusted.
- Risk vs. Benefit. We are more willing to accept risk when we see a worthwhile associated benefit. Alcohol is a key “benefit” of beer while simply changing the color in this way seems more deception than benefit.
- Control. We are more tolerant of risks when we feel we are in control. Unlabeled additives strip us of that control and make any risk seem worse. If only for this reason, food companies should welcome openness.
- Natural or Human Made. “Natural” seems safer so the colors made in the brewing process appear less threatening than similar compounds introduced in caramels. (Interestingly caramel colors are marketed as natural pigments to distinguish them from petroleum-based dyes).
- Uncertainty. We are less tolerant of risks that are not fully understood. It would be unethical to actually measure the toxicity of food ingredients, so we are left with inference from animal studies extrapolated across species with several margins of error. Ironically, risks of alcohol are much more fully understood yet ignored.
The Food Babe and food companies consciously or unconsciously manipulate the fear factors to convince you ingredients are risky or safe respectively. Ropiek is careful to avoid saying what is really risky - he leaves that to each individual to decide - but he suggests that if the thing we are worried about fits into these categories it might be worth reconsidering the evidence.
Disclaimer: I really like beer.