Why the fuss about Sudan I?
May 28, 2005
American Council on Science and Health
Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
This article appeared in the May 28, 2005 issue of the British publication The Grocer:
Food is a highly emotional issue. As a result, food scares make great headlines. It has been said that scary rumors can be halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. This week, the great scare is the appearance of the banned dye called para red in several food products. The dye is called a "carcinogen" by the scaremongers, but it is unlikely to do harm in the tiny amounts ingested by humans.
Rarely has there been a clearer illustration of the fact that each new food scare seems to follow a pattern similar to ones that came before -- since the previous world-shaking food scare, just weeks earlier (and still ongoing), involved another harmless but banned red dye making its way into the food supply: Sudan I.
The Sudan I scare was insightfully described by The Economist as "the biggest food scare since the last one." Over 400 products containing Sudan I have been recalled due to the purported "human cancer risk" they pose. Sudan I is approved for use in polishes, waxes and solvents--but not in foods.
The alleged problem began when a very large batch of chili powder somehow was contaminated with Sudan I and then was used widely in the preparation of Worcester sauce, which, in turn, was used in as many as 600 prepared food products--everything from shepherd's pie to salad dressing.
The scare and recall was not limited to Great Britain. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued a "health hazard alert" for various chili sauces, and as this article is being written, the Sudan scare is heating up bigtime in South Korea and China. Indeed, the South Korean FDA has begun inspecting outlets of fast food restaurants after the Chinese operation of Kentucky Fried Chicken admitted that it had discovered traces of Sudan I in its cuisine. U.S. manufacturer Heinz reported traces of the dye in its Chinese products. The threat of a massive, region-wide recall is becoming increasingly possible.
What is at the heart of this spicy kerfuffle? The same old, same old.
In high doses, Sudan I and its numerical cousins--Sudan II, III and IV--cause cancer in laboratory rodents. Of course, as critics have pointed out, you would have to consume 800 liters of Worcester sauce daily for two years to get the amounts the rodents consumed, given that the amount of Sudan I in any affected product is only measurable in micrograms, or millionths of a gram. That's a lot of Bloody Maries. If, however, you believe that mice and men are the same, then you see a reason for alarm, despite these barely measurable levels.
What is of great interest here is the fact that the British government--specifically the UK Food Standards Agency--seems to have orchestrated this scare/scam in a very self-serving, manipulative manner. Instead of informing consumers that the risk was purely hypothetical, the FSA appeared to hype the risk, recommending that consumers "avoid eating any food known to be contaminated." Critics maintain that the agency's zeal and excessively precautionary warnings represent a PR move to convince consumers that their government food watchdog agency was indeed doing their job--and watching over their flock of nervous eaters. In Canada, the Food Inspection Agency was equally alarmist, warning consumers "not to consume the certain food products [which]contain a non-permitted color, Sudan I, which is considered to be carcinogenic." The fact is, myriad chemicals, natural and synthetic, cause cancer when administered to rodents at high doses--including the benzo(a)pyrene in your tea, and the furan in your scones.
The overwhelming majority of the European media coverage (the U.S. has thus far been spared this particular food scare) referred to the Sudan dyes as "causing cancer"--and that was enough to alarm people in dozens of countries. Such a designation, as described above, is grossly misleading.
Interestingly, there is not a shred of scientific evidence that people consuming foods with trace levels of this dye are at any increased risk of cancer. Perhaps we need a team of psychiatrists to explain why an estimated ￡100 million worth of perfectly safe and wholesome food was discarded--to avoid a cancer risk that was never there. Who knows what the cost of the para red scare will be? Or the next scare? Or the next?
Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health (http://ACSH.org, http://HealthFactsAndFears.com).
