In a shocking revelation, a groundbreaking study published on September 8, 2023, has exposed the clandestine involvement of US tobacco giants in the proliferation of hyper-palatable foods (HPF) in the American food system. Conducted by researchers at the University of Kansas, this study provides empirical evidence of how tobacco companies strategically disseminated foods designed to be irresistibly tasty and potentially addictive. The implications of this revelation are far-reaching, shedding light on the intersection of public health, corporate influence, and government regulation.

Background and Aims: The Tobacco-Food Connection

The study delves into the historical connection between tobacco and food industries. Surprisingly, during the years 1980 to 2001, leading tobacco companies like Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds owned major US food corporations. This period coincided with the meteoric rise of hyper-palatable foods, which are characterized by combinations of fat, sugar, sodium, and carbohydrates designed to trigger an artificially rewarding eating experience.

To uncover the extent of tobacco’s involvement in shaping the American food landscape, the researchers combed through primary industry documents, seeking food brands that were owned by tobacco companies. These documents, housed in the University of California San Francisco’s Industry Documents Library, unveiled a comprehensive list of 373 tobacco-owned brands.

Next, the study integrated data sets from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which represent the American food system. The analysis focused on three crucial time periods: 1988, 2001, and 2018, capturing the tobacco companies’ leadership in the food industry.

Key Findings: Tobacco’s Impact on Food Palatability

The study found that during the critical period of 1988 to 2001, foods owned by tobacco companies were found to be 29% more likely to be classified as fat and sodium HPF and a staggering 80% more likely to be carbohydrate and sodium HPF. These statistics indicate that tobacco giants had a significant hand in the development and dissemination of hyper-palatable foods.

Additionally, the researchers observed that in 2018, regardless of their prior tobacco ownership status, these hyper-palatable foods remained highly prevalent in the American food landscape. Fat and sodium HPF were found in over 57% of food products, and carbohydrate and sodium HPF exceeded 17%, suggesting a widespread saturation of these foods in the market.

The study draws parallels between the tactics employed by tobacco companies in maximizing the addictiveness of cigarettes and their approach to crafting hyper-palatable foods. For instance, tobacco companies utilized specific nicotine delivery thresholds and manipulated nicotine delivery to enhance addiction. Similarly, they added ingredients to increase the appeal and acceptability of cigarettes, such as menthol and sugar.

Implications: A New Public Health Concern

This revelation raises serious public health concerns. The prevalence of hyper-palatable foods in the American diet has been linked to overconsumption, obesity, and potential addiction. Despite the mounting evidence of the detrimental health effects of these foods, there are currently no federal regulations addressing their accessibility.

The study suggests that the American food environment today resembles the era of the tobacco epidemic in the 1950s when tobacco products were unregulated. In response to revelations about tobacco industry practices, the US federal government implemented regulations to control the availability and marketing of tobacco products. The study argues that a similar approach may be needed to regulate hyper-palatable foods, given the alarming evidence that the same tobacco companies may have played a role in shaping the current food landscape.

The study’s findings have unveiled a troubling chapter in the history of American corporate influence on public health. The involvement of tobacco giants in the proliferation of hyper-palatable foods highlights the need for regulatory action to protect the well-being of consumers. As the debate over food regulation heats up, one thing is clear: this study has exposed a hidden link between tobacco and food, with potentially dire consequences for public health.

Unraveling the MSG Enigma: A Comprehensive Analysis

Monosodium glutamate (MSG), a ubiquitous flavor enhancer, has been systematically withdrawn from the list of unsafe ingredients in the Supermarket App Pro database. This strategic move is rooted in a thorough reevaluation of MSG’s safety status, prompted by the evolving understanding of its impact on human health.

Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) in Focus

Monosodium glutamate, commonly known as MSG, has been a renowned flavor enhancer for nearly a century. With roots dating back to the early 1900s, this additive has earned both appreciation and apprehension in culinary circles worldwide.

Though naturally occurring in select foods, MSG has found extensive application in various cuisines, including Chinese dishes, canned products, and processed foods. The reexamination of MSG’s reputation arises from the recognition that its perceived negative effects might be less definitive than initially assumed.

Dispelling the Myth

Once vilified as a detrimental ingredient, MSG gained notoriety in the 1960s when Dr. Robert Ho Man Kwok linked his adverse symptoms to Chinese cuisine consumption. This sparked widespread misinformation and negative associations with MSG, possibly fueled by biases against Chinese culinary traditions.

Subsequent research endorsed the idea that MSG was perilous, citing methodological flaws, inadequate control groups, and excessively high doses that diverged from real-world consumption patterns. However, contemporary investigations have unveiled the fallacies of this perception.

A Fresh Perspective

Contemporary analyses conducted by reputable health authorities, including the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Food Safety Association (EFSA), collectively recognize MSG as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). Furthermore, these entities have established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for MSG, far surpassing the customary dietary consumption.

Unraveling MSG’s Impact

The spectrum of studies scrutinizing MSG’s health effects ranges from its supposed contributions to obesity and metabolic disorders to concerns over brain health and sensitivity reactions. Although earlier research proposed associations between MSG and negative outcomes, these have been met with contradictory evidence. Exploring the potential consequences on energy intake, obesity, and brain function reveals a complex interplay of factors. The correlation between MSG and energy consumption remains ambiguous, with some studies suggesting appetite reduction and others implying the potential for overeating. Contradictions in the realm of obesity and metabolic disorders persist, as newer research challenges previous findings. While animal studies initially suggested an adverse relationship, more recent investigations have unveiled the possibility of anti-obesity effects, necessitating further human-focused studies.

The brain health discourse centers on glutamate’s role as a neurotransmitter, with concerns over excessive glutamate levels potentially causing cell death. Yet, evidence indicates that dietary glutamate hardly affects brain chemistry due to its efficient metabolism.

Addressing Sensitivity

A fraction of individuals may experience the MSG symptom complex (MSC), typified by symptoms akin to those recounted by Dr. Kwok. However, such reactions are exceedingly rare, with the threshold dose for these symptoms far exceeding typical dietary exposure.

The Path Forward

While once engulfed in controversy, MSG emerges with a renewed image of safety and value in flavor enhancement. The current consensus underscores that moderate consumption of MSG poses minimal risks, highlighting the importance of individual sensitivity. For those interested in moderating MSG intake, scrutinizing ingredient lists on packaged foods and condiments will ensure informed choices. This insight is critical, given that regulatory mandates necessitate the declaration of MSG presence on packaging.

The transformation from apprehension to appreciation of MSG reflects the dynamism of food science and the importance of remaining receptive to evidence-based knowledge.

– Written by ChatGPT, Prompted by FYU

We randomly compared our banned ingredient list with the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG.com) list and have confirmed that our banned list is almost the same as EWG’s banned list.  Its important to note, however, that we did not check all 1000+ unsafe ingredients.

Database Comparison

Ingredient	Supermarket App Pro	EWG
Polysorbate 80	Present in the Unsafe database	Yellow (1 – 3)*
Mono and diglycerides	Not present	Green (1)*
Monosodium glutamate	Present in the Unsafe database	Yellow*
Sodium Benzoate	Present but OK for external use	Yellow (1 – 3)*
Caramel Color	Present in the Unsafe database	Yellow*

*EWG scores ingredients from 1 to 10 and color codes them.  Green = Safe, Yellow and Red = Unsafe to Dangerous

The Supermarket App Pro’s ingredient list is not exactly the same as EWG’s because we also have ingredients on our banned list that is not on EWG’s of-concern list, for example:

Ingredient	Supermarket App Pro	EWG
Sucralose	Present in the Unsafe database	Green
Sodium Phosphate	Present in the Unsafe database	Green

Its important to note that these ingredients are in Supermarket App Pro’s Unsafe database because they are artificial sweeteners (Sucralose) and artificial preservatives (sodium phosphate)

Here are reference studies to support that Sucralose in fact affects gut microbiome:

Low dose sucralose alter gut microbiome in mice
Published 25 Feb 2022

Here is an excerpt from the research:

” However, researches have confirmed that sucralose can change the composition of gut microbiome, inhibiting intestinal development, and aggravating HFD-induced hepatic steatosis in adulthood (5, 9).

Gut microbiome refers to the complex community of microorganisms living in the digestive tract of human and animals, its number is about 10 times than our body cells (10). The balance between host and gut microbiome is essential to maintain a healthy gut barrier and optimal immune homeostasis, which helps to prevent the occurrence of diseases (11, 12). Gut microbiome contribute to the metabolic health of the human host, when aberrant, it will cause the pathogenesis of various common metabolic disorders including obesity, type 2 diabetes, non-alcoholic liver disease, cardio-metabolic diseases and malnutrition (13).”

Here are reference studies to support that sodium phosphate can, in fact, be unsafe for us.

Phosphate Additives in Food—a Health Risk
Published January 2012

Here is an excerpt from the research:

“One important step would be to inform physicians and the public thoroughly about the potential risks to cardiovascular and renal function arising from dietary phosphate consumption. Phosphate has long been known to elevate the cardiovascular risk in dialysis patients, but analogous effects have only recently been shown in persons with moderately impaired renal function (of whom the number is growing) and even in persons with normal renal function (6, 7, 23). The changing age structure of the population, with ever more elderly people, further deepens the implications of this problem for health policy, as does the high prevalence of “diseases of civilization,” such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and coronary heart disease, that damage the kidneys and accelerate the age-related decline of renal function. The link between phosphate and progressive renal failure was already suspected and investigated in the early 1980s (24, e10).”

Aside from adding unsafe ingredients to our database, we also remove ingredients from the database when we come across new information.  In Nov, 2017, there was a published study written by the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources.  The title of the study, “Re-evaluation of mono- and di- glycerides of fatty acids (E471) as food additives.”

Here are the important takeaways of that study:

• The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has evaluated the safety of mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E 471), a food additive used in a wide range of foods.
• EFSA considered two scenarios to assess exposure: regulatory maximum level and reported use levels. The non-brand-loyal scenario covering the general population was deemed the most appropriate and realistic scenario for risk characterization.
• The exposure estimates to E 471 ranged from 10 to 26 mg/kg bw per day, at the mean, and from 21 to 58 mg/kg bw per day for the 95th percentile in the adult population group. The contribution of E 471 to the daily fatty acid intake ranged from 0.8% to 7.8%.
• EFSA concluded that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for E 471, and that the food additive was of no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels.
• EFSA recommended that the European Commission consider revising the EU specifications for E 471 to include maximum limits for toxic elements, impurities, residual solvents, trans fatty acids, glycidyl esters, and erucic acid, and generate more data to decrease uncertainty regarding the occurrence of compounds of toxicological concern.
• The current re-evaluation of E 471 as a food additive is not applicable for infants under the age of 12 weeks.

Its important to note that this study was 45 pages long.  You can access this study, via a PDF here.

Because this study was 45 pages long, we used Chatgpt to provide the bulleted summary above.  Because there was no need for an ADI for E471, we removed this ingredient from our unsafe database.