Iam a big fan of science. As the corporate executive chef at Ajinomoto Health & Nutrition, I work with food scientists daily to fuse the culinary arts with ingredient formulation to achieve delicious tasting products without compromising on nutrition. I’m also the son of a physicist – I was raised to recognize that science consists of facts verified and proven through a time-tested tradition of experimentation, replicable data/results, and peer review. It is not about opinion, feeling, or belief system.
However, The clean label trend sweeping the nation is fueled by marketers and retailers prioritizing opinion over proven science as a branding strategy. The problem with this is that it is often presented as science or combines opinion with some level of science to the detriment of our entire industry and our food system. Baseless claims are shaping the ‘no-no’ lists of mainstream grocers and retailers in direct opposition to standards regulated by established institutions like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
So, who should consumers trust: their local grocery store's list of banned ingredients or the FDA?
In Defense of Our Food System
The FDA has spent more than one hundred years taking action to safeguard our food supply from contaminated foods, outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, harmful additives, deceptive labeling, and more. According to a 2022 report from The Economist that measures the Global Food Security Index, the
United States is ranked first for the food safety indicator. We officially have one of the safest food supplies in the world, thanks to scientists who diligently and painstakingly research, test, and collect data on every ingredient used in American food products.
By contrast, a leading grocery chain makes the following statement before launching into a 260-ingredient-long list of ‘no-nos’:
We believe that the best ingredients belong on your plate. That's why we've banned hydrogenated fats, high-fructose corn syrup, and sweeteners like aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin — along with more than 260 colors, preservatives, flavors, and other ingredients from all of the food we sell in our stores. We want you to feel confident about what goes in your cart. If it doesn’t meet our standards, we won’t sell it.
A cursory look at the language tells us everything we need to know. They don't say, ‘read this peer-reviewed article from our team of expert food scientists and formulators on why we’ve banned x, y, and z.’ They say, 'We believe,'…' we want you to feel confident’…’ It doesn't meet our standards.’
Looking closely at this list, there are some products that the FDA has, in fact, banned. However, other ingredients are listed as perfectly safe by the FDA. This, ultimately, is not about science but about beliefs and feelings. They don’t even bother to disclose the credentials of the people within their organization who are making the no-no list decisions. Yet, the people behind these claims explicitly tell consumers they know better than our nation's leading experts and scientists.
Excising ingredients based on a perceived consumer trend, or worse, on dated notions tracing back to xenophobia, not only throttles food innovation – it erodes consumer trust in our most fundamental institutions.
In Defense of a Wrongfully Maligned Ingredient
While these ‘no-no’ lists contain many wrongfully maligned ingredients, the decades-long campaign against monosodium glutamate (MSG) defies all reason. The only explanation, in fact, is rooted in xenophobia.
Glutamate, the amino acid paired with sodium that comprises monosodium glutamate, is already present in every human being. In fact, it’s the most abundant amino acid in the human body and is even
produced naturally in breast milk.
In the early 1900s, Dr. Kikunae Ikeda was the first to identify glutamic acid as the source of savory taste. He called this fifth taste umami and helped found Ajinomoto to develop monosodium glutamate, the essence of umami. MSG has been safely and effectively used as a flavor enhancer and as an effective way to add our fifth basic taste to food ever since.
In the 1960s, however, in the midst of the Civil Rights movement and the racial tensions that underscored American life, MSG gained a reputation for being ‘toxic,’ allegedly causing symptoms like headaches and nausea. A debunked letter to the New England Journal of Medicine called this ‘Chinese Restaurant Syndrome,’ and the myth has persisted amidst anti-Asian sentiment.
It’s now 2023, and the time for propping up old xenophobic strictures should be well behind us. Let me be clear – there is no evidence to support the exclusion of MSG on no-no lists. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
recognizes MSG as safe. The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are also in agreement.
In Defense of Food Innovation
Another major consideration the clean label trend fails to account for is the global and national need for continued food innovation. Keeping our nation and our world fed and healthy requires a great deal of problem-solving from food scientists, nutritionists, and chefs. Beyond logistic issues like food production, distribution, and preservation, innovators frequently need to solve for better, more nutritious solutions.
For example,
the FDA estimates that 90 percent of American adults are eating more sodium than is recommended, leading to major health complications like high blood pressure, heart disease, and stroke.
Data shows a 25-40 percent reduction in sodium is possible in specific product categories when MSG is substituted for a portion of the salt in the recipe.
When food scientists and culinary artists sit down at the formulation table to develop products that can help solve real health problems and maintain good taste, we need to use all the tools at our disposal. Food innovators and manufacturers should not be handcuffed to a list of ‘acceptable’ ingredients from anonymous bodies that ‘believe’ or ‘feel’ that certain ingredients don’t have a place at the table.
The fact is that glutamates are found in many food products these stores sell, including aged cheeses and cured meats. Furthermore, these stores do not seem to have a problem offering foods that are high in sugar, salt, and/or saturated fat. Any argument made against offering products with MSG has no basis in logic or science. The makers of these ‘no-no’ lists are not providing the consumers with science. Marketers, grocers, and retailers who ban ingredients that our food experts have deemed safe either believe they know more than our nation’s best food scientists or they're misleading customers to advance their brand. Either way, it’s time for those of us who know better to speak out and set the record straight.
Excising ingredients based on a perceived consumer trend, or worse, on dated notions tracing back to xenophobia, not only throttles food innovation – it erodes consumer trust in our most fundamental institutions. As we see authenticity and honesty valued increasingly highly among millennials and Gen Z, I anticipate a culture shift and a rude awakening for those making these baseless claims. I’m calling for an anti-clean label movement. Or maybe, more to the point, a pro-food science movement.
