Sudan 1 – the chemical used to dye oils, waxes, petrol, industrial solvents, as well as shoe and floor polishes – was present in a brand of Worcester sauce made by Crosse and Blackwell in Britain.
This Finding should be the bases for all to increase the awareness & right for asking for Food Safety.
The dye that used in bakeries, cakes,... Also those Food items in Chinese Food items such as yellow & black tofu, Cha Siew, Hong Sou Duck...etc.
Food & Drug Administration such learn from the British experience & do a 1005 check on the Food Manufacturers' , Coffee House, Restaurants...for the Great health of the people.
Food, poisonous food...
By Alasdair Palmer and Robert Matthews
(Filed: 27/02/2005)
The consensus is that it is "the biggest food scare since BSE". Three weeks ago, a random test in Italy showed that Sudan 1 – the chemical used to dye oils, waxes, petrol, industrial solvents, as well as shoe and floor polishes – was present in a brand of Worcester sauce made by Crosse and Blackwell in Britain.
The possibility that Sudan 1 is present in a flavour-enhancer as ubiquitous as Worcester sauce sounds seriously scary. It is used to flavour a whole variety of products, from crisps and supermarket sauces to ready-to-eat pizzas and oven-ready dishes with cheese toppings. So if you have ever eaten a supermarket steak and kidney pie or moussaka, chances are you have ingested Sudan 1.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) insisted last week that "because Sudan 1 may contribute to the development of cancer in people, it is not considered safe to eat at any level". It is illegal to add Sudan 1 to any food. In India, chilli powder is often dyed with Sudan 1, but since 2003 all powder imported to the UK has had to come with a certificate showing that it is free of the illegal additive. The Sudan 1-tainted chillies that were used in Crosse and Blackwell's Worcester sauce, however, were imported before that measure came into effect.
The penalties for failing to comply with directives from the FSA can be severe. Under the General Food Regulations, the legislation which now controls food safety, companies that do not to ensure the food they sell is fit for human consumption can face fines and a two-year jail sentence.
Two weeks before the FSA published a list of more than 470 products that it had identified as contaminated by the Sudan 1-containing Worcester sauce, the supermarkets, alerted by the EU food agencies' concerns about the discovery in Italy, had started removing from their shelves any brands that could have used it to enhance their products' flavour. Indeed, the supermarkets were much quicker off the mark than the FSA, which did not get round to issuing a public warning until several days after many supermarkets no longer had any products containing Sudan 1 on sale.
Why was the FSA so slow? A spokesman insisted to The Telegraph that the organisation had to be sure of its facts before it issued its warning. There is reason to doubt the effectiveness of that warning, however, "carefully considered" – and late – though it was. The supermarkets acted without it, but many small cornershops ignored it altogether, either because they did not hear about it or because they did not take it seriously. In spite of the biggest food recall in British history, it is still not difficult to buy an oven-ready meal spiked with Sudan 1.
The extent to which Sudan 1 has penetrated the food chain, and the difficulty of getting it out again, have multiplied the anxiety and alarm about the dangers posed by eating products which contain contaminated Worcester sauce. Last week, that anxiety surfaced in angry exchanges in Parliament. Tim Yeo, the shadow environment minister, said that the conduct of government ministers in the affair – who said food safety was the responsibility of the FSA, and not of any government department – was "frankly disgraceful". He added that "the FSA has fallen down on the job": its warning was late, and it did not have any plan for ensuring that the public was fully protected from the risks posed by Sudan 1.
It comes as some surprise, therefore, to learn that the Sudan 1 scare may turn out to be entirely bogus. The chemical at the centre of the crisis has never actually been proved to be dangerous to human beings. Not only has it never been proved to be cancer-causing, but there is no evidence that, when ingested as a result of being added to Worcester sauce, it will do any harm at all.
Sudan 1 is one of the dyes invented by German chemists during the late 19th century. It has a molecular structure that is similar to some compounds which have been shown to cause cancer, or at least which have been statistically linked to that group of diseases. Because of that similarity, food safety experts and other chemists have raised the theoretical possibility that, once Sudan 1 is in the body, it could break down in a way that would mean it becomes indistinguishable from cancer-causing molecules. If that happens, the theory predicts that Sudan 1 would end up causing cancer itself.
That's the theory. But is there any concrete evidence that Sudan 1 actually does cause cancer? At the moment, the answer is a resounding "No". Thirty years ago, experiments on mice and rats found that Sudan 1 could trigger bladder and liver tumours, but only if the chemical was injected directly into the animal. Tests that involved animals eating substances containing Sudan 1 – which is, after all, what human beings do – rather than having those substances introduced into their bodies via a hypodermic needle, proved to be entirely negative. Nothing happened to the animals. There were no tumours, no cancers: as far as the observers could tell, there was nothing at all wrong with them.
The scientists were not satisfied with this result, however. They wanted to check whether there was evidence that Sudan 1 could nevertheless cause harm if it were ingested over a prolonged period. So they fed material laced with Sudan 1 to rats and other rodents for months on end. Those tests found some evidence that Sudan 1 could cause kidney and liver damage, along with an increased risk of leukaemia and lymphoma. The correlation was weak, but it seems to be there.
The only problem is, the dose of Sudan 1 that it takes to produce those consequences is colossal. To ingest Sudan 1 in the amounts that were shown to cause harm in rats, a human would have to consume Crosse and Blackwell's Worcester sauce at the rate of three tons every day for two years.
Animal studies are usually viewed as inconclusive evidence of the safety or danger of foods, so food scientists have looked directly at the effect of Sudan 1 on human cells. They have found that, under laboratory conditions, Sudan 1 is able to damage DNA, the molecule that controls the production of genes and therefore the production of every cell in the body. Read More....
Telegraph | News | Food, poisonous food...
This Finding should be the bases for all to increase the awareness & right for asking for Food Safety.
The dye that used in bakeries, cakes,... Also those Food items in Chinese Food items such as yellow & black tofu, Cha Siew, Hong Sou Duck...etc.
Food & Drug Administration such learn from the British experience & do a 1005 check on the Food Manufacturers' , Coffee House, Restaurants...for the Great health of the people.
Food, poisonous food...
By Alasdair Palmer and Robert Matthews
(Filed: 27/02/2005)
The consensus is that it is "the biggest food scare since BSE". Three weeks ago, a random test in Italy showed that Sudan 1 – the chemical used to dye oils, waxes, petrol, industrial solvents, as well as shoe and floor polishes – was present in a brand of Worcester sauce made by Crosse and Blackwell in Britain.
The possibility that Sudan 1 is present in a flavour-enhancer as ubiquitous as Worcester sauce sounds seriously scary. It is used to flavour a whole variety of products, from crisps and supermarket sauces to ready-to-eat pizzas and oven-ready dishes with cheese toppings. So if you have ever eaten a supermarket steak and kidney pie or moussaka, chances are you have ingested Sudan 1.
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) insisted last week that "because Sudan 1 may contribute to the development of cancer in people, it is not considered safe to eat at any level". It is illegal to add Sudan 1 to any food. In India, chilli powder is often dyed with Sudan 1, but since 2003 all powder imported to the UK has had to come with a certificate showing that it is free of the illegal additive. The Sudan 1-tainted chillies that were used in Crosse and Blackwell's Worcester sauce, however, were imported before that measure came into effect.
The penalties for failing to comply with directives from the FSA can be severe. Under the General Food Regulations, the legislation which now controls food safety, companies that do not to ensure the food they sell is fit for human consumption can face fines and a two-year jail sentence.
Two weeks before the FSA published a list of more than 470 products that it had identified as contaminated by the Sudan 1-containing Worcester sauce, the supermarkets, alerted by the EU food agencies' concerns about the discovery in Italy, had started removing from their shelves any brands that could have used it to enhance their products' flavour. Indeed, the supermarkets were much quicker off the mark than the FSA, which did not get round to issuing a public warning until several days after many supermarkets no longer had any products containing Sudan 1 on sale.
Why was the FSA so slow? A spokesman insisted to The Telegraph that the organisation had to be sure of its facts before it issued its warning. There is reason to doubt the effectiveness of that warning, however, "carefully considered" – and late – though it was. The supermarkets acted without it, but many small cornershops ignored it altogether, either because they did not hear about it or because they did not take it seriously. In spite of the biggest food recall in British history, it is still not difficult to buy an oven-ready meal spiked with Sudan 1.
The extent to which Sudan 1 has penetrated the food chain, and the difficulty of getting it out again, have multiplied the anxiety and alarm about the dangers posed by eating products which contain contaminated Worcester sauce. Last week, that anxiety surfaced in angry exchanges in Parliament. Tim Yeo, the shadow environment minister, said that the conduct of government ministers in the affair – who said food safety was the responsibility of the FSA, and not of any government department – was "frankly disgraceful". He added that "the FSA has fallen down on the job": its warning was late, and it did not have any plan for ensuring that the public was fully protected from the risks posed by Sudan 1.
It comes as some surprise, therefore, to learn that the Sudan 1 scare may turn out to be entirely bogus. The chemical at the centre of the crisis has never actually been proved to be dangerous to human beings. Not only has it never been proved to be cancer-causing, but there is no evidence that, when ingested as a result of being added to Worcester sauce, it will do any harm at all.
Sudan 1 is one of the dyes invented by German chemists during the late 19th century. It has a molecular structure that is similar to some compounds which have been shown to cause cancer, or at least which have been statistically linked to that group of diseases. Because of that similarity, food safety experts and other chemists have raised the theoretical possibility that, once Sudan 1 is in the body, it could break down in a way that would mean it becomes indistinguishable from cancer-causing molecules. If that happens, the theory predicts that Sudan 1 would end up causing cancer itself.
That's the theory. But is there any concrete evidence that Sudan 1 actually does cause cancer? At the moment, the answer is a resounding "No". Thirty years ago, experiments on mice and rats found that Sudan 1 could trigger bladder and liver tumours, but only if the chemical was injected directly into the animal. Tests that involved animals eating substances containing Sudan 1 – which is, after all, what human beings do – rather than having those substances introduced into their bodies via a hypodermic needle, proved to be entirely negative. Nothing happened to the animals. There were no tumours, no cancers: as far as the observers could tell, there was nothing at all wrong with them.
The scientists were not satisfied with this result, however. They wanted to check whether there was evidence that Sudan 1 could nevertheless cause harm if it were ingested over a prolonged period. So they fed material laced with Sudan 1 to rats and other rodents for months on end. Those tests found some evidence that Sudan 1 could cause kidney and liver damage, along with an increased risk of leukaemia and lymphoma. The correlation was weak, but it seems to be there.
The only problem is, the dose of Sudan 1 that it takes to produce those consequences is colossal. To ingest Sudan 1 in the amounts that were shown to cause harm in rats, a human would have to consume Crosse and Blackwell's Worcester sauce at the rate of three tons every day for two years.
Animal studies are usually viewed as inconclusive evidence of the safety or danger of foods, so food scientists have looked directly at the effect of Sudan 1 on human cells. They have found that, under laboratory conditions, Sudan 1 is able to damage DNA, the molecule that controls the production of genes and therefore the production of every cell in the body. Read More....
Telegraph | News | Food, poisonous food...
Comments