British researcher N. W. Pirie noted as far back as 1969 that few topics give rise to as many myths as food, disease, and gardening. Given the widespread misinformation surrounding E-numbers, there is far too much to cover in just a few pages. However, it is worth clarifying some general aspects that are often misunderstood or completely overlooked.
E-numbers – a paradox
It is paradoxical that E-numbers are so vilified and distrusted when, in reality, these very codes were introduced into European legislation to provide consumers with greater confidence in the quality of food products available on the common market. The E-number system (with “E” standing for Europe) was first implemented in the early 1960s—specifically in 1962—by what was then the European Economic Community (EEC, now the European Union, or EU) to regulate food colourants. By the 1970s, the system was expanded to cover other categories of food additives as well.
A substance assigned an E-number is one that has undergone rigorous testing and has been deemed safe for use under the conditions set by European legislation—such as specific quantity limits or restrictions on use in certain product categories. Although the system was originally designed to instill confidence in consumers, paradoxically, from the very beginning, a significant portion of the European population viewed these numbers with suspicion and distrust.
The so-called “Villejuif Leaflet” became well-known, circulating as early as the mid-1970s in France and later in other parts of the world, with the aim of sowing distrust among consumers regarding the E-numbers authorised at the time in the EEC. This document was a fabricated, anonymous list, initially circulated as a typed page with a handwritten note claiming it had been issued by the hospital in Villejuif, a commune in France (in reality, the hospital in this commune is called the Gustave Roussy Institute). Although the Gustave Roussy Institute repeatedly denied any involvement in creating the list and explicitly stated that the leaflet “spreads false information about food additives,”[1] the document continued to circulate. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was passed around as a photocopied handout among friends and colleagues; later, it spread via digital communication. After first appearing in France in 1976, it rapidly reached the United Kingdom in 1984 and Denmark in 1989. By 1990, a German version of the text was circulating among European Commission employees in Brussels. Even in 2011, a digital version was still making the rounds online in France.
Why do myths arise so easily, spread so quickly, and prove so difficult to dispel? The answer seems to rest on one fundamental factor: human nature, with all its strengths and, more importantly, its limitations. Fear often prevents people from making rational decisions. Moreover, context plays a crucial role in how information is understood.
“Things were better in the past”… Really?
There is a common perception that today’s food labels, “full of E-numbers,” represent a significant decline compared to the past when things were supposedly much better.[2] However, an objective review of the evidence does not support this claim.
The practice of using additives in food production dates back to ancient Greece and Rome, where colourants and flavour enhancers were used to mask the appearance or smell of certain foods. During the Middle Ages, the practice of “adulterating” food with various additives—often of dubious origin—was widespread. Punishments for such offenses were notoriously harsh and imaginative, ranging from expulsion and whipping to ear-cropping or even forcing the guilty party to consume the adulterated food until it proved fatal. King Louis XIV went so far as to impose the death penalty for adding carmine (a plant-based dye with strong red-black pigments) to wine to alter its colour.
Unlike today, until the late 20th century, food additives were not listed on product labels, were often difficult to detect, and consumers were largely unaware of their presence. In 1844, a French culinary guide warned readers that finding pure chocolate was nearly impossible, though it offered a way to identify one of the most common adulterants—lentil flour: “You will recognise this fraud if the chocolate leaves a pasty taste in the mouth.” While lentil flour was likely harmless, other additives were far more dangerous, such as pickles dyed with copper derivatives or sweets coloured with lead oxide (red lead), Prussian blue, or cinnabar (a mercury compound). Around the same time, the French Public Health Council advised consumers to “only use the white salt of Bayonne, because it cannot be mixed with unhealthy substances without changing colour, thus indicating fraud.”[3]
British toxicology professor Andrew Cockburn noted that in the 1840s, the average life expectancy in Britain was around 40 years—compared to nearly 80 years today. With a touch of irony, he concluded, “This makes us the healthiest hypochondriacs that ever existed.”[4]
Not all E-numbers are artificial
Although many people equate “E-numbers” with “chemicals,” the reality is not so straightforward. A closer look at the list of E-numbers reveals that many of them are naturally occurring substances found in plants and animals.
At the very top of the list (E 100) is curcumin, a natural compound found in the rhizome of Curcuma longa—commonly known as turmeric. This rhizome is a staple of Indian cuisine, particularly in curry dishes. Not only is E 100 (curcumin) a natural substance, but there are likely over a thousand scientific studies suggesting it has beneficial effects, both preventive and therapeutic, for various health conditions.
Next on the list (E 101) is riboflavin, also known as vitamin B2. From an early age, we are taught that vitamins are essential for our health—so why would a vitamin suddenly become dangerous just because it has a code number? E 106 is a derivative of vitamin B2 that is easily hydrolysed in the body to produce vitamin B2.
E 140 refers to chlorophylls and chlorophyllins; the former are naturally found in all green leaves, while the latter are more soluble semi-synthetic derivatives of chlorophylls. Essentially, whenever we eat salad or spinach, we are also consuming significant amounts of E 140.
E 160a represents alpha-, beta-, and gamma-carotene—yellow, orange, red, and even violet pigments found naturally in plants, especially flowers and fruits. Carotenes are widely regarded as beneficial to human health. Among them, beta-carotene serves as the primary dietary source of vitamin A, earning it the classification of a provitamin A.
E 160b includes a group of colourants extracted from the seeds or fruit of a tropical plant—commonly listed on food labels as annatto. E 160c refers to paprika and the carotenoids derived from it—essentially what most people know as “paprika powder.”
Similarly, E 160c to E 160f, as well as E 161a and E 161j, are other natural or semi-synthetic carotenoid-based compounds. E 162 refers to beetroot red, while E 163 encompasses anthocyanins—red and purple pigments commonly found in fruits such as blueberries, blackcurrants, and red grapes.
Natural substances are found not only among E-number colourants. The first preservative on the list, E 200, is sorbic acid, a naturally occurring compound first isolated from rowan berries (Sorbus aucuparia). Benzoic acid, often thought to be synthetic, was originally extracted from plants—specifically through the distillation of a resin known as benzoin, which gave the substance its name. Many fruits naturally contain small amounts of benzoic acid; in cranberries—widely consumed in the UK—concentrations of up to 0.13% have been detected.
E 260 is acetic acid, better known as vinegar, while E 262 and E 263 refer to its sodium and calcium salts, respectively. In fact, in the human body, vinegar is often neutralised into sodium, potassium, or calcium acetate. E 270 is lactic acid, a compound widely consumed around the world in fermented dairy products like buttermilk, where it is responsible for the characteristic tangy taste. E 296 is malic acid, so named because it was first isolated from apple juice in the 18th century. However, it is present in many fruits, giving them their distinctive tart flavour.
E 300 is none other than the well-known vitamin C, while E 306 is a tocopherol-rich extract (vitamin E), and E 307 is pure vitamin E. E 322 refers to lecithins, naturally occurring substances found abundantly in the brain and in soybeans, while E 330 is citric acid—commonly known as lemon salt—because it is present in relatively high amounts in citrus fruits. E 406 is agar, derived from red algae, just like E 405 (carrageenan). The list of examples could go on, but by now, the point should be clear.
However, it’s important not to misinterpret these examples—just because something is “natural” does not necessarily mean it is harmless or beneficial.
“Natural” does not always mean “good”
The belief that everything natural is inherently good—and that something is good only if it is natural—has become almost axiomatic. Yet, as British author Rose Shapiro recently pointed out, the fact that “‘natural’ has come to be synonymous with ‘good’ shows just how out of touch we are with the natural world.”[5]
Nicotine, for instance, is a natural substance produced by tobacco leaves, but it is far from harmless. In fact, a dose of just 50–60 mg can be lethal to a human, and it acts quickly. Aconitine, a pseudoalkaloid found in monkshood (Aconitum sp.), is even more toxic—just a few milligrams can be fatal. The list of natural poisons is much longer. Strychnine, coniine (from hemlock), tubocurarine, ricin, and physostigmine can also kill swiftly and in small doses.
Some natural toxins work more slowly, including ones found in foods that have been consumed for centuries in certain parts of the world. Alcohol, for example, is a natural substance, but when consumed frequently or in large amounts, it is neither “good” nor “harmless.”
Cassava is a staple food for approximately 500 to 800 million people worldwide. Yet, due to its content of cyanogenic glycosides—which release hydrocyanic acid through hydrolysis—it poses significant health risks to consumers, including acute poisoning, endemic ataxic polyneuropathy, goiter, and pancreatitis.
Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus), a legume cultivated in Asia and East Africa, particularly during times of famine when other crops fail to survive, frequently causes a neurodegenerative disorder known as lathyrism, characterised by paralysis of the lower limbs.
Coltsfoot leaves, traditionally used in Romanian cuisine as wrappers for stuffed cabbage rolls (sarmale), contain tumorigenic pyrrolizidine alkaloids. And mushrooms—despite being entirely natural—must be selected with extreme care when foraged from the wild. Otherwise, the gap between a delicious meal and a fatal mistake could be just a matter of hours.
Coumarin, a naturally occurring compound found in tonka beans—a type of black bean native to South America—with a pleasant, vanilla-like aroma, was used as a flavouring agent in various countries for over 70 years before it was discovered to pose a relatively high risk of liver toxicity.
Sola dosis facit venenum
This short Latin phrase, coined by Paracelsus nearly 500 years ago, translates to “The dose makes the poison.” Paracelsus recognised—long before modern toxicology confirmed it—that any substance can be beneficial, harmless, or toxic, depending on the dose.
Vitamins, for example, are generally essential to the human body but, in large doses, some can have significant toxic effects. On the other hand, highly toxic substances can enter our bodies from entirely natural sources—without any additives—without noticeably affecting our health.
Take arsenic (arsenic trioxide), which is infamous for its toxicity. And yet, we ingest small amounts of arsenic daily through our food—not from additives, but from “natural” foods such as vegetables, fruits, fish, and meat. A kilogram of “unpolluted” soil contains between 1 and 40 mg of arsenic, which is absorbed by plants and then passed on to meat and fish. Isn’t that alarming? Not really—at the levels we typically consume (around 10-12 micrograms per day), arsenic does not cause toxic effects. The lethal dose for an adult is estimated to be around 100-200 mg of arsenic trioxide. Sola dosis facit venenum.
A concrete example: potatoes are generally considered a natural and healthy food—at least when they’re not fried. Yet, potatoes contain two alkaloids, solanine and α-chaconine, not just in the skin but also in the flesh. Solanine is a toxic compound that can cause gastrointestinal and neurological issues. How much solanine do potatoes contain? On average, about 75 mg per kilogram, though levels can vary. In the U.S., it has been estimated that a person consumes roughly 12.5 mg of solanine per day. But just how toxic is solanine? Studies on rats show that a dose of 590 mg per kilogram of body weight is enough to kill 50% of test subjects.
Now, let’s compare this with a food dye that many people—including myself—find unappealing simply because of the perception that it’s synthetic rather than natural: tartrazine (E 102). How much tartrazine can someone in Europe consume? Regulations allow a maximum of 500 mg per kilogram of food, though in practice, much lower amounts are typically used—between 10 and 220 mg per kilogram in food and up to 25 mg per liter in beverages. In the UK, the estimated daily intake is around 21 mg. But how toxic is tartrazine? Available data suggests that it is significantly less toxic than solanine. In rats, the dose required to kill 50% of subjects is over 2000 mg per kilogram of body weight—far higher than solanine’s lethal dose of around 590 mg/kg.
A study conducted on dogs, in which they were given doses of 250 mg/kg body weight and 500 mg/kg body weight over a two-year period, found no adverse effects associated with tartrazine. However, the acceptable daily intake established by European authorities for humans is significantly lower (7.5 mg/kg body weight) than the much higher levels at which tartrazine has been shown to be safe in animal studies.
Similar analyses can be conducted for other additives. In fact, most of us don’t need to do them ourselves, as European experts have already carried out thorough assessments for every substance on the E-number list. These evaluations are regularly reviewed in light of new scientific findings. For example, following a recent reassessment, the European Food Safety Authority lowered the acceptable daily intake for three colorants—Quinoline Yellow, Sunset Yellow FCF, and Ponceau 4R (E 104, E 110, and E 124, respectively).
In a future article, we will continue exploring this topic, focusing on some of the most controversial E-numbers, separating fact from myth, and putting potential risks into perspective.
