Pages

Showing posts with label BPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BPA. Show all posts

Wednesday, 15 July 2020

Is it safe to microwave food?

There’s nothing risky about microwave radiation – but there is about heating up plastic.
The radiation in microwaves is completely harmless (Credit: Getty Images)
By Jessica Brown15th July 2020
D
Despite being a kitchen workhorse for decades, few household items have been more divisive than the microwave. It’s hailed as a lifesaver for those who can’t, or won’t, cook, and portrayed by some chefs as singlehandedly dragging the art of cooking into the gutter.
But another debate lies beyond the culinary disputes – when is microwave cooking bad for you?
When used correctly, there’s nothing to worry about in terms of a microwave’s radiation, according to the World Health Organization. But other concerns are less clear – including whether microwaving food causes nutrient loss, or whether heating food in plastic can trigger hormone disruption.
Losing nutrients
Some research has shown that vegetables lose some of their nutritional value in the microwave.
For example, microwaving has been found to remove 97% of the flavonoids – plant compounds with anti-inflammatory benefits – in broccoli. That’s a third more damage than done by boiling. 
You might also like:
However, one 2019 study looking at the nutrient loss of broccoli in the microwave pointed out that previous studies varied the cooking time, temperature, and whether or not the broccoli was in water. It found that shorter cooking times (they microwaved the broccoli for one minute) didn’t compromise nutritional content. Steaming and microwaving could even increase content of most flavonoids, which are compounds linked to reduced risk of heart disease. “Under the cooking conditions used in this study, microwaving appeared to be a better way to preserve flavonoids than steaming,” the researchers wrote.
Yet they also found that microwaving with too much water (such as the amount you’d use to boil) caused a drop in flavonoids.

Some foods, such as peas, lose nutrients when microwaved or steamed, but others, like green beans, do not (Credit: Getty Images)
Some foods, such as peas, lose nutrients when microwaved or steamed, but others, like green beans, do not (Credit: Getty Images)


Lead researcher Xianli Wu, a scientist at the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center at the US Department of Agriculture, says there isn’t one agreed mechanism to explain why microwaving could increase flavonoid content. It could be that microwaving makes flavonoids easier to measure – perhaps by softening the plant tissue, making them easier to extract – rather than increasing their amount
But there’s no straightforward answer as to whether microwaving vegetables will retain more nutrients that any other method. That’s because each food is different in terms of the texture and nutrients they contain, according to Wu.
“Though in general microwaving is a preferred method, the optimum time will be different for different vegetables,” Wu says. “When considering commonly used domestic cooking methods, microwaving is a preferred cooking method, at least for many plant foods, but probably not for every plant food.”
In another study, researchers compared the content of phenolics (compounds associated with various health benefits) of various vegetables after being boiled, steamed and microwaved. Microwaving and steaming caused a loss in phenolic content in squash, peas and leeks, but not in spinach, peppers, broccoli or green beans. The researchers also tested for antioxidant activity.
For both measures, vegetables fared better in the microwave compared to being boiled.
“Moderate heat treatment might have been a useful tool in improving health properties of some vegetables,” the researchers write.
Heating plastic
We often microwave foods in plastic containers and wrapping, but some scientists warn of the risk of ingesting phthalates. When exposed to heat, these plastic additives can break down and leach into food.

When exposed to heat, plastic additives like phthalates can break down and leach into food (Credit: Getty Images)
When exposed to heat, plastic additives like phthalates can break down and leach into food (Credit: Getty Images)

“Some plastic isn’t designed for microwaves because it has polymers inside to make it soft and flexible, which melt at a lower temperature and may leach out during the microwave process if it goes beyond 100C (212F),” says Juming Tang, professor of food engineering at Washington State University.
In a 2011 study, researchers purchased more than 400 plastic containers designed to contain food, and found that the majority leaked chemical that disrupt hormones.
Phthalates are one of the most commonly used plasticisers, added to make plastic more flexible and often found in takeaway containers, plastic wrap and water bottles. They have been found to disrupt hormones and our metabolic system.  In children, phthalates can increase blood pressure and insulin resistance, which can increase the risk of metabolic disorders such as diabetes and hypertension. Exposure also has been linked to fertility issues, asthma and ADHD.
Phthalates are also potential disrupters of thyroid hormones, says Leonardo Trasande, professor of environmental medicine and population health at NYU School of Medicine in New York. Among other things, these hormones are crucial for babies’ brain development during pregnancy.  
Bisphenol (BPA) is also commonly used in plastic products, and studies have suggested it may also disrupts hormones. But research is limited, compared to the amount of studies looking at phthalates.
Phthalates are everywhere – even in toys and body lotions – and it’s still unclear just how much damage they do. But most experts agree that heating plastic with phthalates can increase exposure.

Phthalates have been found to disrupt hormones and our metabolic system (Credit: Getty Images)
Phthalates have been found to disrupt hormones and our metabolic system (Credit: Getty Images)


“Microwaving mobilises contaminants,” says Rolf Halden, professor and director of the Biodesign Center for Environmental Health Engineering at Arizona State University. “This process is used in laboratories to extract pollutants from samples, prior to chemical analysis.”
And the potential risks don’t necessarily increase with how often an individual microwaves food in plastic containers, Trasande argues – as the relationship is non-linear between the amount of chemical exposure and risk of hormone disruption. 
“The old pedagogy was that the dose mediated poison. Now we understand from multiple studies that low level exposures are where the greatest component of effects happens, so there’s no safe level of exposure,” Trasande says.
It’s important to remember that, when heating food in a plastic container, exposure also can happen with plastic that doesn’t touch the food, such as a lid.
“Water rises as steam from the food, and then condenses on the underside of the lid, and the extracted chemicals from the lid then fall down into your food, contained in the condensation droplets,” Halden says.

To minimise risk, microwave food in a material that isn’t plastic, such as ceramic (Credit: Getty Images)
To minimise risk, microwave food in a material that isn’t plastic, such as ceramic (Credit: Getty Images)

The best ways to minimise risk are to use other microwave-safe materials than plastic, such as ceramic. If you do use plastic containers, avoid any that are losing their shape, since old and damaged containers are more likely to leach chemicals. You can also check your container’s universal recycling symbol, often on the bottom of a product – those with a number 3 and the letters “V” or “PVC” include phthalates.
Heat risks
Even if you avoid plastics, there are other potential risks of heating food in the microwave – including uneven heating, and the high temperatures used.
First, consider using microwaves to reheat, rather than cook, food, as it may cook unevenly. “Depending on the portion of food that’s heated, there will be some parts that are hotter than others,” says Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, professor of food safety at the University of Georgia.
“Temperatures will be different in a cross-section of the food. It’s hard to achieve a completely uniform temperature, especially when talking about raw foods.”
But it’s important to note that reheating food comes with risks, too. Food must be heated until it is 82C (176F) throughout to kill any harmful bacteria – and because bacteria can still grow each time food cools back down, you shouldn’t reheat a meal more than once. (Read more about whether it’s safe to reheat food).

Microwaves should be used to reheat food, not cook it, but it’s better not to reheat the same meal more than once – especially rice (Credit: Getty Images)
Microwaves should be used to reheat food, not cook it, but it’s better not to reheat the same meal more than once – especially rice (Credit: Getty Images)

The high temperatures of the microwave may also pose some risk. Generally speaking, higher temperatures aren’t a problem, but there is some research suggesting a risk linked to cooking some starchy foods in the microwave, including cereals and root vegetables.
When Betty Schwartz, professor of nutritional sciences  at theHebrew University of Jerusalem, saw her students heating jacket potatoes in the microwave on their lunchbreaks, she noticed small crystals inside their potatoes.
When she analysed them, she found they were high in the chemical acrylamide, which can be a natural by-product of cooking. Schwartz asked her students to boil their potatoes instead, and found that this didn’t create acrylamide, which she says forms in higher temperatures in the microwave.
This is a concern because animal studies have shown that acrylamide acts as a carcinogen because it interferes with cell’s DNA, but evidence in humans is limited. There is some research to suggest that microwaves are more favourable to the growth of acrylamide than other methods of cooking.
“At 100C (212F), there’s enough energy to alter the automatic joints between molecules to produce a molecule with much higher energy, which can react with DNA, which induces mutations," says Schwartz. "When you have many mutations it can produce cancer.” Animals studies have shown this to be the case with acrylamides.
One way around this is to soak the potatoes in water before putting them in the microwave.
Radiation safety
As for the radiation in microwaves, it is completely harmless. Microwaves use low frequency electromagnetic radiation – the same kind used in lightbulbs and radios. When you put food inside a microwave, it absorbs these microwaves, which makes water molecules in the food vibrate, causing friction that heats up the food.

The radiation in microwaves is completely harmless (Credit: Getty Images)
The radiation in microwaves is completely harmless (Credit: Getty Images)

Humans absorb electromagnetic waves, too. But microwave ovens produce relatively low frequency waves and they are contained inside the microwave. Even if that weren’t the case, the waves are harmless, says Tang. (Of course, the heat in a microwave isn't harmless — so you should never put, say, a living creature inside of a microwave).
“Microwaves are part of the electromagnetic waves we’re exposed to daily. When you bake bread, you’re exposed to electromagnetic waves and infrared energy from the heating elements of the oven. Even people exchange radioactive waves between each other,” Tang says.
“If you’re eating crops grown from sunlight, you shouldn’t be concerned about food from a microwave.”
Unlike X-rays, microwaves don’t use ionising radiation, which means they don’t carry enough energy to detach electrons from atoms.

Microwaves don’t use ionising radiation, so there’s nothing unsafe about using them to heat food (Credit: Getty Images)
Microwaves don’t use ionising radiation, so there’s nothing unsafe about using them to heat food (Credit: Getty Images)

“You have to break chemical bonds to damage DNA. This is the chief way radiation kills – it mutates cells and causes cancer,” says Timothy Jorgensen, associate professor of radiation medicine at Georgetown University’s medical centre.
Concerns about microwave radiation were largely settled in the years after the microwave oven was first invented, Jorgenson says.
In particular, a lot of research was carried out by scientists at the Army Natick Research and Development Laboratories in Massachusetts, US, around the safety of microwaves, which went a long way to allaying concerns.
When it comes to cooking food in the microwave, there’s a lot to consider. Microwaves have long been deemed a safe kitchen appliance – but that comes with caveats, according to research. And in particular, experts are still raising concerns about how the plastic packaging we use in the microwave can disrupt our hormones, and, subsequently, affect our health.

Thursday, 2 August 2018

Stop putting your kids' food in plastic containers: Top pediatricians tell parents to use glass or steel packaging to lower kids' exposure to chemicals

  • The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that chemicals in processed meat and plastic is more dangerous to kids than parents may think
  • They call for an update to the guidelines allowing 1,000 chemicals in food and containers
  • They also warn that, while high-income groups can afford to make substitutes, many low-income families will struggle to avoid these chemicals 

A panel of top pediatricians is urging parents to cut out as many chemicals from their child's packed lunch as possible.
Cans, plastic containers, and processed meats are just a few of the culprits they singled out as classic carriers of toxins that can get into a child's blood system and affect their hormones - potentially impacting development.
Things like BPA (which makes plastic hard) and nitrates (which make food last longer) have been part of everyday life for decades, and the traces are often so scant that they are 'generally recognized as safe'.
But the new policy statement, which will be published in the August edition of the journal Pediatrics, warns we now have significant evidence about the dangers of even tiny amounts of these toxins - and yet, the authors believe many parents remain blasé about the risks.
They also warn that low-income communities and ethnic minorities tend to be exposed to higher concentrations of these chemicals - a disparity that is not widely addressed in mainstream medicine. 
Risky? Cans, plastic containers, and processed meats are just a few of the culprits that the American Academy of Pediatrics singled out as classic carriers of toxins that can get into a child's blood system and affect their hormones - potentially impacting development
Risky? Cans, plastic containers, and processed meats are just a few of the culprits that the American Academy of Pediatrics singled out as classic carriers of toxins that can get into a child's blood system and affect their hormones - potentially impacting development
Our current guidelines on chemicals in food are laid out in the 1958 Amendment to the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 
It allows for about 1,000 chemicals to slip into our food and containers, because they are deemed GRAS (or, 'generally recognized as safe'). 
But, the authors say that 'accumulating evidence from nonhuman laboratory and human epidemiological studies' is showing that the threshold may not be low enough - particularly to protect children from the damage.
The report comes on the heels of a spate of studies warning about the extent to which we are exposed to these chemicals. 
Most of them have focused on pregnant women's exposure, and how that affects their unborn babies. 
Dr Janice Juraska of the University of Illinois last month told Daily Mail Online she was 'shocked' by her latest study, published on July 16, showing that women who eat food from plastic containers are more likely to have kids with slower reactions. The difference, she said, was stark.  
A week later, a study by the University of California, San Francisco found most pregnant women have high levels of at least 50 chemicals - such as BPA, triclosan and parabens - in their blood. 
With each report, chemists and endocrinologists warn that exposure to these chemicals in the womb could be life-changing for these women's kids. 
But this new advisory from the American Academy of Pediatrics reminds the public that kids of all ages are still going through a crucial phase of development, and they caution that evidence suggests our kids would be better off in the long run if we reduced their exposure to these chemicals as much as possible. 
WHAT ARE THE CHEMICALS TO LOOK OUT FOR? 
  • Phthalates, chemicals used to make plastic flexible and fragrances last longer 
  • BPA, chemicals used to make plastic containers harder 
  • PFCs, used in greaseproof paper and cardboard
  • Perchlorate, used in plastic food packaging
  • Nitrates, used to preserve food and maintain its color, particularly in processed meats 
HOW CAN YOU AVOID THEM?
The authors concede that avoiding these chemicals can be hard - particularly for low-income families. 
Toxin-free materials, like steel containers or reusable glass bottles, tend to be more expensive. Fresh, organic food free of preservatives is also pricey, since low-income areas tend to have fewer fresh food markets per square mile.   
For those communities, they urge pediatricians to 'advocate for modernization of the FFDCA', to force all sectors of food and product manufacturing to lower their levels of these chemicals.   
For those that can, they recommend taking these steps: 
  • 'Prioritize consumption of fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables when possible, and support that effort by developing a list of low-cost sources for fresh fruits and vegetables.
  • 'Avoid processed meats, especially maternal consumption during pregnancy.
  • 'Avoid microwaving food or beverages (including infant formula and pumped human milk) in plastic, if possible.
  • 'Avoid placing plastics in the dishwasher.
  • 'Use alternatives to plastic, such as glass or stainless steel, when possible.
  • 'Look at the recycling code on the bottom of products to find the plastic type, and avoid plastics with recycling codes 3 (phthalates), 6 (styrene), and 7 (bisphenols) unless plastics are labeled as 'biobased' or 'greenware,' indicating that they are made from corn and do not contain bisphenols.
  • 'Encourage hand-washing before handling foods and/or drinks, and wash all fruits and vegetables that cannot be peeled.'
Risk Bites explains what BPA is inside plastic materials

Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Previous
Play
Skip
Mute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time2:13
Fullscreen
Need Text

Sunday, 23 July 2017

How to count on food – Part 6

If you are reading this after a meal, and you are in an Asian country, the chances are reasonably high that you have just eaten some rice or rice-based foods...


How to count on food – Part 6
Antibiotics are some of the common additives in feeds for farmed meat and seafood and residue may exist in the processed end product. Photo: VisualHunt


Read : Part 1  Part 2  Part 3   Part 4   Part 5  Part 6


If you are reading this after a meal, and you are in an Asian country, the chances are reasonably high that you have just eaten some rice or rice-based foods. If so, then you have almost certainly also ingested tiny amounts of various arsenic-based compounds, which are sort of free additives – though of course they are rather undesirable ones.
Arsenic, in various concentrations, is very common in rice because arsenic is a metalloid element found practically everywhere on the planet (it is the 53rd most common element on Earth) – and rice is particularly efficient at extracting it from the irrigated soil in which it is grown.
Technically, arsenic compounds exist as both organic and inorganic forms – organic arsenic compounds contain one or more carbon atoms while inorganic arsenic compounds do not have any carbon atoms.
Inorganic arsenic compounds are much more common in soil and irrigation waters (and thus in rice) – and unfortunately, they are also significantly more toxic than organic arsenic compounds, especially the inorganic trivalent forms such as arsenic trioxide, sodium arsenite and arsenic trichloride.
Pentavalent inorganic arsenic compounds such as arsenic pentoxide, arsenic acid and arsenates (lead arsenate, calcium arsenate, et cetera) are less toxic and also pretty common but they can be metabolised into trivalent arsenic by human digestive systems.
A sobering example of arsenic poisoning is Bangladesh, where around 80 million people are affected by arsenic contamination. Around 43,000 people die each year in the country from this poison – and the symptoms are starkly summarised by an excerpt from a medical review published in 2011: “Chronic arsenic exposure is associated with many human health conditions, including skin lesions and cancers of the liver, lung, bladder and skin. It is also associated with many non-cancer health conditions, such as adverse reproductive outcomes, neurological disorders and impaired cognitive development in children.”
However, please note that not all the arsenic in Bangladesh is obtained from eating rice as much of the drinking water there is also severely contaminated. However, it does indicate the toxicity of arsenic, and led to the US Department of Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016 acting to limit the maximum permitted level of inorganic arsenic to just 100 ppb (parts per billion) for infant rice cereals – probably because toxicity is linked to the amount of arsenic ingested relative to body weight.
The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States also limits the amount of inorganic arsenic in drinking water to just 10 ppb.
Regardless of the somber situation in Bangladesh, there is generally no need to worry too much about arsenic in rice as supplies are tested regularly for arsenic content, at least in Western countries.
If you are still concerned, a validated technique is to soak rice overnight in water and then cooking the rice using a 5 to 1 ratio of water to rice, then throwing away the excess water. This method eliminates arsenic content by 80%.
A curious application of arsenic is its use in chicken feed as it has been found that organic arsenic helps fight parasitic infections and promote tissue development (weight gain) in poultry.
The problem is that the ingested safe organic arsenic compounds gets metabolised into toxic inorganic arsenic compounds (methylated phenylarsenical metabolites) by the digestive system of chickens – as such, adding arsenic to chicken feed is now banned in both the European Union and the United States.
However, it seems that the practice of feeding organic arsenic to chickens is still prevalent in many other countries.

Antibiotics with your steak, sir?

More free but unwanted common additives are the antibiotics used in the farming of animals. The biggest concern is that such use promotes the resistance of mammalian bacteria to the antibiotics, many of which are also used in humans.
The menu of antibiotics used in animals is impressive as the list includes chlortetracycline, procaine penicillin, oxytetracycline, tylosin, bacitracin, neomycin sulfate, streptomycin, erythromycin, linomycin, oleandomycin, virginamycin, bambermycins, et cetera.
The good news is that the use in animals of many of these compounds is now banned in the EU (especially those compounds with human medical applications); the bad news is that they are still heavily administered in most other countries, including the United States.
The other problem is that ingesting food laced with antibiotics can also promote within humans, bacterial resistance to antibiotics – potentially rendering future treatment with the same types of antibiotics ineffective.
As an indication of the scale of the problem: in the United States, animals consume 70% of ALL medically-important antibiotics produced, compared to just 30% for humans – a scary statistic indeed from Britain’s Review of Antimicrobial Resistance published in December 2015.
The same concerns also apply to shrimps, prawns and other seafood, so much so that imports of such seafood from China and various Asian countries are subject to heavy restrictions in both the United States and the EU – the antibiotics used include nitrofurans and chloramphenicol.

A dash of pesticides in your greens?

Apart from potentially poisoning humans when ingested, pesticides can have a significant impact on local fauna. Some impacts are very serious – a class of insecticide called neonicotinoids or neonics have been found to kill bees and other pollinators. Without pollination of plants by these insects, much of the world’s ability to produce food crops, vegetables and fruits would be severely compromised – and it is such a grave problem that the EU has banned the use of the three most common neonics: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam.
Strenuous monitoring of pesticides in the EU has resulted in 97.4% of crops in 2013 testing below the Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) permitted – imported foods, on the other hand, are five times more likely to exceed the MRL.
Several pernicious pesticides which are heavily used abroad, including the United States, are also banned in the EU – examples are Paraquat (linked to Parkinson’s disease); 1,3-Dichloropropene (linked to human cancers); Glyphosate, also known as Round-Up (the most heavily used pesticide in the United States, banned in some EU countries, linked to several serious human diseases) and Atrazine (linked to cancers and birth defects).
Even so, the EU dispersed almost 400,000 tonnes of pesticides in 2015 – of which 173,000 tonnes are fungicides and bactericides, 131,000 tonnes are herbicides and moss killers while 21,000 tonnes are insecticides and acaricides).
In case you are curious, acaricides are chemicals used to kill ticks, mites and other members of the arachnid subclass Acari.

Clandestine additives

Unintended additives such as inorganic arsenic compounds, antibiotics and pesticides are never included in the list of ingredients of processed foods, even though they are often not destroyed by food processing. Presumably the costs and efforts associated with such additional disclosures are not practical for the food industry – even the food regulators do not seem interested in exposing such information.
The catalogue of such “free” hidden food additives can be a very long list, ranging from mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in deep sea fish, flesh colourants (eg. synthetic astaxanthin) in farmed seafood to Bisphenol A (BPA) accumulated in food from plastic containers.

Natural is not always natural

To make things more confusing, many foods labelled as “natural” may not always be natural in the sense that you and I would understand it. While the ingredients may all be from natural sources, it is not natural to have, for example, a compound such as E325 (sodium lactate) injected into chicken meat as a preservative.
The self-evident argument is that a chicken by itself will never have sodium lactate included in its natural configuration, even if E325 is itself derived from natural sources.
Still, these obvious facts do not stop many food producers from marketing their products as “made from natural ingredients” or some derivation of “natural product”.

Maltodextrin

If this series has prompted you to inspect processed food labels more carefully, you would very likely have come across a compound called maltodextrin – it is used so ubiquitously that it does not even have an E-number as it is considered by the food industry as a normal ingredient, such as fish or flour or meat.
Maltodextrin has some interesting properties – it is usually artificially derived from wheat, corn, rice or potato starches by enzymatic processes and can be produced in various molecular lengths by varying the number of glycosidic bonds of starch glucose molecules.
The length of maltodextrin molecules determine its sweetness, which is denoted by the Dextrose Equivalent (DE) scale of between 3 and 20 – the higher the DE, the shorter the maltodextrin molecule and the sweeter the compound. Above a DE of 20, maltodextrin is practically just short strands of simple glucose molecules and is often then called glucose syrup.
Regardless of the DE scale, maltodextrin is easily broken down during digestion into glucose – this can have a significant impact on blood sugar levels.
Hence over-consumption of maltodextrin is not really suitable for people with blood sugar control issues as it is not different from ingesting sugars – but often without any warning from the sweetness of food.
One reason why maltodextrin is so commonly used is that it is manufactured in many configurations which can substantially improve the “mouth feel” of food without adding any disagreeable flavours.
Here is how it works: At a DE of 3, maltodextrin is practically flavourless, and the long glucose chains would also exist in polymeric (or grouped, bunched-up) configurations – the lower the DE, the greater the polymerisation of maltodextrin molecules.
So the density and textures of maltodextrin can be controlled by adjusting the DE (or polymerisation) of the compound – long-polymer maltodextrin is even used as a fat substitute in low-fat meat products as it can have the mouth feel of fat.
As such, maltodextrin is a very versatile compound and used extensively as thickeners and fillers, matching the textures of the required processed food items. It can also be added to drinks to improve the specific gravity of liquids.
Foods with long-polymer maltodextrins also tend to last longer as its molecules cannot be broken down by bacteria or fungi easily (eg. the maltodextrin added to beers to increase specific gravity is not affected by the fermentation yeast) – hence it is also used as a preservative.
There are no known major toxicity issues with any molecular configuration of pure maltodextrin, primarily because eating this compound is the same as ingesting glucose.
However, concerns may arise from the lack of sweetness and ubiquity of maltodextrin – these factors might induce blood sugar-related health issues with unwary consumers.
Also, maltodextrin is derived from commercial starch sources which may have been contaminated by pesticides – which can then find their way into foods with the compound.

Now, about that packaging

During commercial food production, ingredients usually lose nutrients during the processing unless some nutrients are added in artificially; eg. vitamin C (via E300), calcium (via E516), iron (via E579), et cetera.
Hence, the nutrition labels on the tins and packages indicate the residual nutrients that should be present when you finally open the processed food container.
What is interesting is that, especially in hermetically-sealed tins, the further degradation of nutrients happens only very slowly inside the tin.
So a tin opened a year or more after production would have retained a high percentage of the nutrients that were present during canning.
In many ways it is remarkable that nutritious food can be preserved and presented in such a convenient format, considering how the original ingredients would have normally rotted away within a very short space of time.
However, cooking canned contents, as with cooking fresh foods, would also result in some loss of nutrients (especially vitamins) due to the heat involved.

The nutrition panel

In the EU, all packaged foods now require a nutrition panel to indicate the nutrients in the products. The nutrition panels in Europe are different from those in the United States and other countries because of the different standards and legal requirements in various countries.
antibiotics
Picture 1: Colour-coded interpretation chart on food labels.

antibiotics
Picture 2: Actual food label – note that the percent numbers at the bottom indicate percentages of the daily adult recommended amounts for the respective food groups.
Some additional useful information is also sometimes offered voluntarily by large food suppliers, such as colour-coded tags for sugar, fats and salt related to a product (Picture 2 – note that the percentage numbers at the bottom indicate percentages of the daily adult recommended amounts for the respective food groups). And you will need a colour-code interpretation chart (Picture 1) to understand what it all actually means.
But generally, you are much more likely to see less friendly nutrition panels such as the following (Picture 3).
antibiotics
Picture 3: Example food nutrition panel.
Obviously, the important things to note about this label and other food nutrition panels are the calories, sugar and salt contents – note that in the EU, the unit “kcal” (kilocalorie) is used to represent 1,000 calories whereas in the United States, the unit used is “Cal” (Calorie).
The World Health Organisation (WHO)’s over-generous daily guideline for sugar consumption is 25g and consuming 100g of this food item would be consuming over a third of that daily sugar limit.
The WHO also recommends a limit of 6g of salt a day and 100g of this food would be over a tenth of that amount.
As you go through various meals, it would be helpful to keep a running total of the calories, sugars and salt that you are consuming and ensure that you keep within reasonable limits for the day as often as possible.
What is interesting about the Fats information in this example label is what it is NOT telling you.
If you sum up the saturates, mono-unsaturates and polyunsaturates, the total comes to 3.6g, which is 0.2g less than the total of 3.8g. The difference is almost certainly due to unreported trans-fats, a particularly unhealthy fat to ingest but very convenient for use in processed foods. On this basis alone, I would personally not eat this food item.
And this series sums up what I look for and understand from the data gleaned when I scrutinise ingredient lists and nutrition labelling. Although it is always preferable to cook fresh foods, often it is exigent to get some nutritious packaged food which can save time and effort.
Processed food is not always automatically bad for health – and often they can taste quite good too, which always seems a bit of a miracle considering the heavy processing they must undergo before arriving in a tin in front of you.
But at least, you now have a better idea how and why.
This ends our series on food labels. Next up is the science of ageing beef and a couple of experiments you can do at home to improve your steak.


Read : Part 1  Part 2  Part 3   Part 4   Part 5  Part 6

http://www.star2.com/living/viewpoints/2017/07/23/how-count-food-part-6/