Norwegian food scientists have discovered that one-third of analyzed food products contain emulsifiers, thickeners, and stabilizers, raising new questions about the long-term health effects of chemical combinations in our diets. A groundbreaking study from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) examined 45,000 food items available in Norway, providing the most comprehensive mapping of these additives to date. The findings have surprised researchers and prompted calls for urgent investigation into the potential 'cocktail effects' of multiple additives interacting in the body.
The Scale of the Discovery
Out of 45,000 food products analyzed, approximately 15,000 contained what researchers term ETS additives—emulsifiers, thickeners, and stabilizers. These substances are used extensively by food manufacturers to achieve desired texture, taste, and shelf life. While individual additives undergo safety assessments, this study marks the first systematic attempt to understand how prevalent they are in the Norwegian food supply and how they combine in everyday products.
Åsne Skram Trømborg, a research fellow at NMBU who led the study, expressed particular concern about the frequency of combinations. "What surprised me most was how widespread the combinations of additives in food products are," Trømborg said in an interview. "We know too little about possible cocktail effects. This makes it difficult to say what it is about the food that might affect our health."
The Unknown Health Equation
The core issue identified by the NMBU team isn't necessarily the individual additives, which are approved by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Instead, it's the lack of knowledge about how these substances interact when consumed together in various combinations. Previous research has largely focused on single additives studied in isolation, a methodology that fails to reflect real-world consumption patterns where people ingest multiple additives from different sources throughout the day.
Several of these additives have previously been linked in scientific literature to potential negative health impacts, including alterations to gut microbiota and the promotion of inflammatory processes in the body. The gut microbiome is increasingly understood as critical to overall health, influencing everything from immunity to mental well-being. Disrupting this delicate system could have wide-ranging consequences that current safety protocols do not adequately assess.
Regulatory Response and Limits of Current Safety
Marius Kallerud Beck, head of the chemical food safety section at the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (Mattilsynet), responded to the study by emphasizing existing safeguards. "All additives have undergone a risk assessment before they are approved," Beck stated. "These are done by EFSA, which is the EU's food safety agency." He explained that these assessments are based on all available research and population exposure estimates.
Beck confirmed that approved additives should be safe when used correctly in permitted amounts. However, he acknowledged a critical caveat: "The safety of the substances can be reassessed if new relevant research emerges, or if it has been a long time since the original risk assessment was done." This statement opens the door for regulatory review based on studies like NMBU's, particularly regarding combination effects that original assessments likely did not consider.
| Aspect of Study | Key Finding |
|---|---|
| Products Analyzed | 45,000 food items in the Norwegian market |
| Products with ETS Additives | Approximately 15,000 (One Third) |
| Primary Concern | Health impact of additive combinations ('cocktail effects') |
| Regulatory Framework | Individual additives approved by EFSA after single-subject risk assessment |
The Consumer Dilemma in Practice
The study highlights a practical problem for Norwegian consumers aiming to make informed choices. While ingredient lists are mandatory, understanding the implications of numerous E-numbers and chemical names requires significant scientific literacy. An anecdote from the research illustrates this disconnect: one participant, Maja, described reading the back of a package and deciding to throw all her biscuits in the trash after realizing their additive content.
This reaction, while extreme, points to a growing public anxiety about processed foods and the chemicals they contain. The NMBU study provides scientific backing for these concerns, moving them from anecdotal worry to a documented issue of scale. It challenges the notion that individual responsibility alone can navigate a food environment saturated with complex, engineered ingredients.
A New Direction for Food Science
This research represents a significant shift in approach. Trømborg and her colleagues argue that the next frontier in food safety is understanding interactions, not just isolated substances. "It should be researched more on the mixture of substances in the food we eat, as it can give a different health effect than individual substances alone," she stated.
Consequently, this publication is just the first in a planned series of investigations from NMBU. The next phase will focus more directly on what these additive combinations might do to human health, moving from mapping prevalence to investigating biological impact. This could involve laboratory studies on cell cultures or animal models to observe inflammatory responses or gut flora changes from combined additives.
Implications for Policy and Industry
The findings place pressure on both Norwegian authorities and the broader European regulatory system. While Norway follows EFSA guidelines, the country could potentially advocate for stricter review processes at the EU level that mandate combination testing. Domestically, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority may issue new consumer guidance or initiate monitoring programs specifically tracking additive combinations in popular food categories.
For the food industry, the study signals rising scrutiny. Manufacturers may face consumer demand for cleaner labels and simpler ingredient lists. Proactive companies might begin reformulating products to reduce the number of simultaneous additives, even if each one is technically approved, to avoid being caught in a future regulatory shift or public relations challenge.
Looking Ahead: From Mapping to Understanding
The true importance of this NMBU study lies in its potential to change the conversation about food safety. It moves beyond debating individual chemicals to asking a more systemic question: are we assessing the safety of our food in a way that reflects how we actually eat? The answer, according to this research, appears to be no.
As Norwegians continue their January health kicks and scrutinize what they put in their mouths, they are navigating a landscape far more chemically complex than previously quantified. The promise of more research offers little immediate comfort to consumers today, but it establishes a crucial evidence base for future decisions. The ultimate question remains whether regulatory science can keep pace with both food technology and the emerging understanding of human biology, or if a fundamental overhaul of safety assessment is needed to protect public health in the long term.