Something You Should Know - SYSK TRENDING - Are The Added Ingredients In Food All That Bad?

Episode Date: September 1, 2026

Processed food has gotten a pretty terrible reputation. We’re warned to avoid foods with long ingredient lists, mysterious additives and chemical names we can’t pronounce. “Ultra-processed” has practically become another way of saying “bad for you.” But is that a useful way to judge what we eat? After all, almost everything we eat has been processed in some way, and everything we eat — including perfectly natural food — is made of chemicals. So how can you tell which ingredients are worth worrying about and which ones just sound scary? Why do manufacturers put preservatives, emulsifiers, artificial flavors, stabilizers and other additives into food in the first place? And does a complicated-looking ingredient label actually tell you much about whether a food is healthy? Here to sort through the chemistry is George Zaidan, an MIT-trained chemist who created National Geographic’s web series Ingredients: The Stuff Inside Your Stuff. He is also author of Ingredients: The Strange Chemistry of What We Put in Us and on Us (https://amzn.to/2Zykgij). Listen as George explains what some of those strange-sounding ingredients actually are, what they do, what the science says about their safety and why our instincts about “natural” versus “chemical” can sometimes lead us astray. If you have ever stood in a grocery store reading a label and wondered, “What IS all this stuff?” this conversation may change the way you look at what’s in your food. PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS MONARCH: Write your own money story with Monarch! Use promo code SYSK at ⁠https://Monarch.com⁠ to get your 1st year of Monarch Core half off at just $50 AQUATRU: Head to ⁠https://AquaTru.com⁠ now and get 20% off your purifier using promo code SYSK AquaTru even comes with a 30-day best-tasting water guarantee or your money back! WAYFAIR: Ready to upgrade your home for way less? Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Wayfair.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ right now to shop all things home and get your space ready for less.  QUINCE: Find your next Fall favorites at Quince! Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Quince.com/sysk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! DELL: Built for those who want better. The Dell XPS, built for you! SHOPIFY: It's time to turn those "what ifs" into CHA CHING with Shopify Today! Sign up for your $1 per month trail and start selling today at ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Shopify.com/realm⁠⁠⁠⁠ INDEED: Get a $75 Sponsored Job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Indeed.com/PODCAST⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There is one word, I think, gets people in trouble with money. It's probably. I'm probably spending about this much every month. I'm probably saving enough. I'm probably on track for retirement. Probably is not a financial plan. I've been using Monarch. It's a personal finance app that puts your whole financial picture in one place,

and it replaces probably with actual numbers. For example, Monarch showed me that, our spending last month jumped about 30% from the month before. 30%. We had some home repairs, but none of the bills seemed like a big hit at the time, but put them all together and, wow. But I didn't realize how much our spending had jumped until Monarch showed me. And I think that's how money can get away from you.

It's not necessarily one giant expense that sets off alarm bells. It's all the things that add up that you don't really notice. That's what I like about Monarch. You can see your spending, accounts, investments, and savings goals all in one place and see what's really going on with your money. If you're operating on probably, maybe it's time to find out, write your own money story with Monarch. Use code Sysk at Monarch.com to get your first year of Monarch core half off at just $50. That's 50% off your first year at Monarch.com. with code SY-S-K.

Take a look at the ingredient list on almost any packaged food, and you'll probably find a few things that sound more like chemicals than food. Preservatives, artificial colors, emulsifiers, stabilizers, and ingredients with names you can barely pronounce. And we're often told that all that stuff is bad for us. But is it really? That's why today's S-Y-S-K trending topic is, are the added ingredients in food all that bad?

My guest is George Zaden. He's a chemist and author who has taken a close look at what's actually in the food we eat and what science says about those added ingredients. He'll explain why some additives may deserve your concern, while others probably don't, and why a scary-sounding chemical name doesn't necessarily mean something is dangerous. We'll get to our conversation in just a moment. Hear that? It's your money calling.

It wants a promotion. Elevate your savings with the Scotia high-interest savings account. Always earn high regular interest rates that grow the more you save and invest. Conditions apply. Visit scotiabank.com slash h-I-SA to learn more. Scotia Bank. You're richer than you think. I know you've heard this advice that when you buy a food product at the store, it's a good idea to look at the ingredient label.

And the general wisdom is that the fewer ingredients the better, and if there are a lot of hard-to-pronounce ingredients, well, that's a bad sign. So how accurate is that advice? And why are all those ingredients in some food products? And what are they in there for? Here to discuss this is George Zaden. He is an MIT-trained chemist who created National Geographic's web series,

ingredients, the stuff inside your stuff. He co-wrote and directed MIT's web series Science Out Loud, and he is the author of the book, Ingredients, the strange chemistry of what we put in us and on us. Hi, George, welcome. Mike, thanks for having me. So the advice that I think many of us have heard that, you know, if you're looking at a food product to buy

and there's ingredients in there that your grandmother didn't use or that you can't pronounce that you shouldn't buy it. Are you in agreement with that? So I know a lot of people who swear by that advice, and I don't. First of all, your grandma probably ate a lot of stuff that may have been easy to pronounce, which I think was another part of that advice, but not great for you, like, you know, spam or pound cake or snicker-toodles. And your life expectancy is probably higher than your grandmother's was.

So I'm not really sure why people think idolizing grandma's diet is a good idea. I'd listen to her wisdom, sure, but I would not try and copy her diet. Yeah, I get that, but I'm not so sure that I idolize my grandmother's diet so much as I have a concern, and I think a lot of people have a concern for the way food is seemingly over-engineered. I mean, things are artificially colored in colors that you don't find anywhere in nature, there are ingredients in the ingredient list of big long words I've never seen before. I don't know how to pronounce them. I don't know what they are.

So why am I eating them? Yeah, that's a great question. I think it helps to know a little bit about the different types of ingredients, of additives. There are things like vitamins and minerals, which, you know, are added to try and prevent nutritional deficiency diseases. Classic example there is iodine is added to almost all salt to try and prevent. goiter. There are flavorings, you know, which are added obviously to make food taste better, and that's a whole other, you know, debate we can have. There are lots of different types of texture modifying additives. So, for example, most peanut butter you buy will contain

emulsifiers to prevent the peanut solids from separating out from the peanut oil. And then, of course, there are preservatives, which if you didn't have those, your food would go bad a lot faster. So, you know, those are just a few of the categories. And if you're interested in seeing the entire long list, you can find that the FDA has a list. But the question is, you know, why is all this stuff in there? Does it need to be in there? We all want foods that are healthy, delicious, convenient, and cheap. But it's really hard, if not impossible, to have all of those things at once. If you want peanut butter that doesn't separate, you can either buy the all-natural stuff and put it in the fridge, which I personally think makes it taste not as good.

or you can buy a peanut butter with an emulsifier in it. It is a trade-off. You know, the other part of the trade-off is, if you want everything to be all-natural, be prepared to spend a lot more on your groceries and spend a lot more time preparing food. It really is a trade-off. The whole idea of added ingredients gets a bad wrap

because there is this just idea that the fewer ingredients the better. And I guess it's because, like, when you eat an apple, the only ingredient is apple, and that's a very natural, easy to understand concept. And so when you have something else, apple sauce, and there's 18 added ingredients, people are suspect of that. Yes, that comes part and parcel with the other piece of this, which is if the ingredient is really hard to pronounce, it must be bad for you. You know, I have issues with that too. My main issue with the pronouncing thing is like, you know, one chemical can have 40 different names, and they can range from really easy to pronounce to impossible to pronounce.

So if I tell you that a food contains one alpha D. Glucopyranacil 2 beta D. Fructoferanicide, you'd think I was trying to poison you. But that is just sugar. That's another name for sugar. The name of the chemical doesn't tell you anything about whether it's good or bad for you. it tells you how the FDA regulates ingredient labels. And your other point of, you know, the more ingredients it has, the worse it must be for you, that's, I think that's a side effect of the wellness industry, basically brainwashing us or trying to, to believe that chemicals are somehow bad for you or that just because something is a chemical,

it must therefore be bad for you. So the more chemicals you have, the worse of food is. And, you know, that couldn't be further from the truth. an apple, for example, seems really simple, but it has hundreds, if not thousands of chemicals in there. It's made of living cells with proteins and genomes and small molecules and, you know, polysaccharides, all kinds of things that are hard to pronounce, but, you know, no one would ever argue, oh, an apple has a thousand chemicals, so therefore it must be bad for you. So here's the concern I think people have that seems pretty obvious that the amount of processed food being manufactured and eaten

is on the rise. I mean, the store is full of processed food products. Every corner has one or two or three or four fast food places. There's a lot of processed food being consumed. And in addition, we have an obesity problem, a growing obesity problem in this country. People are getting heavier and I don't think it's going out on a limb to say these two things are probably connected. Yeah, so that's another great question. You know, trying to work out what caused and what is continuing to cause the obesity epidemic that we are all living through is really difficult. Ultra-processed foods could very well be responsible. It could be that by over-engineering these foods, we've made them addictive, so people eat more of them and then they become obese.

I talked to many scientists who totally buy that theory. I think it sounds very plausible. I also talked to a few scientists who had different ideas. They said, look, it may not just be one thing that's doing that. One person said that he thought the obesity epidemic could be explained partially by the decrease in smoking rates. Now, how might that have a role? Cigarettes are an appetite suppressant. So, you know, if a large number of people stop smoking, they're going to start eating more food.

Another scientist I talked to thought that architecture. might play a role. He said that, you know, the way homes are designed these days, kitchens are the hub of the home. And if you spend a lot of time near a kitchen, you know, that's going to make you want to eat more food. So my belief here is that the obesity epidemic has many different causes. One major one may very well be ultra-processed food, but there's not going to be one silver bullet to ending it. One of the processes of processed food seems to be everything has added shook. It's hard to find food that eats foods that you wouldn't necessarily even think would have sugar have sugar. There's a lot of added sugar in an awful lot of foods and people have demonized sugar, whether right or wrong, that that is a real culprit.

That is one theory. I find it a little slightly hard to believe that one chemical is the only responsible party for an entire epidemic across large parties. of one country. I think it's more likely that there are multiple causes at play. It's funny, the other part of that is sugar is completely natural. It's sort of funny to me that some of the same people who are saying sugar is the devil are also some of the people who are saying only natural things. That's conflicting advice. Yeah, but for example, if you make, I don't know, crackers at home, there probably isn't much sugar added to it, but if you look at a package of crackers you buy at the store, there's sugar.

in it. Well, why is there sugar and crackers aren't sweet, so why is there sugar in it? I'm not sure exactly. My suspicion is that if there is added sugar in something, it will cue you to eat more of it, or it will cue you to take that next bite. There was a study that came out one or two years ago that was done at NIH, and it was a randomized controlled trial, which is the gold standard of these kinds of studies. And basically what they did was they took two groups of people and fed one group a diet high in ultra-processed foods and fed another group a diet low in ultra-processed food. Now, this was not looking at sugar specifically. This was looking broadly at a diet that was more processed versus a diet that was less processed. And they

found that the people who were given the ultra-processed diet did eat more. It wasn't double, but it was a measurable amount more that, you know, over time does lend weight. to the theory that ultra-processed foods could be partially responsible for the obesity epidemic. So, yeah, I mean, I buy that sugar might play a role. I'm just not sure it's the only thing playing a role. We're talking about the foods you eat and the ingredients in those foods, what they are, what they do, and what they don't do. My guest is George Zaden. He is an MIT-trained chemist, and he is author of the book, Ingredients, the strange chemistry of what we put in us and on us. hear that it's your money calling it wants a promotion

elevate your savings with the scotia high interest savings account always earn high regular interest rates that grow the more you save and invest conditions apply visit scotia bank dot com slash h iSA to learn more scotia bank you're richer than you think so george it sounds like you're saying you know there's a lot of factors here and we can't really figure out or find a silver bullet, so don't worry about it. Is that what you're saying? Broadly, I would say, yeah, worry a little bit less.

But it also depends on who I'm talking to. So I'm talking really to the person who is worried a lot about food and spends a good chunk of time on the internet researching individual ingredients. If that's you, or if you've, you know, if you've changed your diet five times in the last year because of news you've seen, then I would say, yeah. Yes, you know, go ahead and worry less about food. You can relax a little bit. On the other hand, if you are overweight or obese,

or if you've got a medical condition of some kind, there I would say you're probably worrying the right amount or maybe you should worry a little bit more. Do you think that if a processed food is sold in the United States, that whatever is in it is probably okay? I believe that we can all be fairly confident that unless something is contaminated or something has gone wrong somewhere in a production process,

foods sold in the U.S. are not going to be immediately toxic or poisonous. Now, where things get tricky is when you start extending that time horizon. So, yeah, okay, those ingredients may not be poisonous immediately now, but are they going to raise your risk of a heart attack or cancer? That is a lot harder to figure out. You have to follow a large group of people over a long period of time. You have to accurately record what they eat. You have to track what diseases they get.

And so using these methods, scientists have estimated that eating 10% more ultra-processed food is associated with roughly a one-year shorter lifespan. And there's a lot of disagreement about that result. It's not ironclad. But I do think we have to be comfortable with the idea that we know less than we think we do about the longer-term health effects of most foods and ingredients. Then doesn't that circle back to and support the idea? that if we don't know the long-term effects of all these ingredients and all these things we're

eating, that we should eat a simpler diet and that that would be safer in the long run. Or you could argue, you know, you could argue the opposite. If we don't really know, why don't you just eat whatever, whatever you want? There's a lot of factors that go into your decision about what to eat. Some of it is health effects like we've been talking about. Other parts of it are, what do I enjoy? I mean, the sort of more European or the more French way of eating is we don't worry about whether a food is particularly good or particularly bad. We just eat what we like, what makes us feel good, what we eat with company.

And that I would argue is probably, I hesitate to use the word healthier, but that's maybe a more sane way of looking at foods rather than worrying about, well, is this one particular ingredient bad for me because I can't pronounce? it. Well, I think there is a suspicion that people who, the companies that make processed foods are up to something. I mean, why do we need to have caffeine in orange soda? I mean, oranges don't have caffeine. Why does the soda have to have caffeine? The suspicion is to hook people on it. And that there's just trouble afoot here, that manufacturers are manufacturing, addicting foods, making us fat or making us unhealthy, and that's the problem. Yeah, that's a really interesting question. I think that is a, that's a philosophy that actually France does share with us,

because they are quite vigilant about certain things over there, especially how, quote, unquote, natural a food is or how natural it's perceived to be. I think part of the problem does come down to the food industry there. I mean, they have made no bones about the fact that they have engineered foods to be, delicious. I mean, on the one hand, why wouldn't you engineer, if you're trying to sell a food, you would want it to taste as good as possible. So why wouldn't you engineer it to be delicious? But on the other hand, you know, you can argue that they've gone too far, that things are too good, that we eat too much of them. And so that that suspicion is probably a natural reaction

to that perception. Well, you know, in every story, there has to be a bad guy. And so it's easy to point fingers at the food manufacturers and point at things like, you know, why do cheese puffs have to be that bright orange color? What is that and what is it doing to us? I think everyone's heard that, you know, the artificial strawberry flavor is actually, you know, crushed up bugs. Why don't they just use strawberries? Why do they have to crush up bugs? There's this suspicion that somebody's manipulating this. Crished up bugs are completely natural. I mean, that's the funny thing about it, right? It is that part of it is a perception issue. You know, natural bugs are not okay, but adding caffeine to cola, for example, you know, it is fine.

The other thing I would say there is bad news tends to sell. And so if you have a headline that says, for example, you know, coffee raises your risk of a heart attack or whatever it may be, that is much more likely to get clicks and traction and media coverage than a headline that says, you know, coffee's probably fine and there's maybe one group of people who, who should avoid it, but most of the time you're okay. Let's go back to crushed up bugs for a sec. Crushed up bugs are there to make strawberry flavor. Why isn't there just strawberries in it?

And it's fine if you want to put natural crushed up bugs, but say it's natural crushed up bug flavored, whatever, not artificially strawberry flavor and put in crushed up bugs. So I think there it's because I think the crushed up bugs are actually for color, if I remember correctly, not for flavor. But your point is well taken. It's like, why would you add artificial strawberry flavor instead of actual strawberries? And basically there, the answer is cost.

I mean, it is way more expensive to, if you want to make strawberry ice cream, to make it out of freshly harvested, delicious, ripe strawberries than it is to take one or two of the chemicals in strawberry flavor, isolate them and add them to ice cream. So again, you can have healthy, cheap, delicious, and convenient food. You can't have all four of those things. Occasionally, they're going to have to be trade-offs. Well, and I think that's really where it comes down to, isn't it? It's really trade-offs because you can get naturally flavored just about anything,

but it's going to cost you more. Organic is going to cost you more. It's just, if you're willing to pay for it, go have it. But if you want cheap strawberry ice cream, well, it's probably going to have some artificial flavor. in it. Yeah, absolutely. There are a lot of people, though, who write books and go on TV and they wear white lab coats, and they demonize a lot of foods that they say that, you know, you should eat an all-natural diet and explain why all these horrible foods are going to kill you, and, and they have science to back it up. They publish a lot of either unsubstantiated stuff, or they'll

read a study and overinterpret it or not say things about the study that were counterintuitive or weaknesses of the study, they won't give you the full picture. You know, a lot of the stuff you read on blogs is basically blueberries are a miracle food or, you know, I don't know, kale is poison or things like that, extreme statements that aren't necessarily grounded in fact. Well, I've noticed that there is a lot of nutrition advice that is based on assumptions, based on philosophies that, you know, humans are naturally vegetarian. Oh, no, they're not. No, humans are naturally carnivores. Well, they can't both be right, but they take that one of those positions or some other position about what humans should or should eat and run with it based on the

philosophy. Yeah, exactly. And much of that advice, if it is tested at all, it's tested in a way that really doesn't actually test what the person is claiming was tested. You know, if they say, listen, you should avoid every single amount of processed food and never eat anything unless it's completely all natural. Well, no one's ever done that experiment. We've done experiments where we've incrementally increased someone's processed food intake, but we have not had two groups of people and, you know, released one group into the forest to fend for themselves and fed the other group, a diet entirely of Cheetos and Coke. That just doesn't happen like that. But reading these blogs, you'd think it does.

Well, I like having these conversations about food and nutrition because there is so much conflicting advice and some of it is very extreme, but every single person has to figure out and sometimes struggle with what should they eat, what should they not eat? And it's good to get some solid information about it. My guest has been George Zayden. He is an MIT trained chemist. He created the National Geographic web series Ingredients, the stuff inside your stuff,

and he is author of the book, Ingredients, the strange chemistry of what we put in us and on us. There's a link to his book in the show notes. Thanks, George. Cool. Thank you very much, Mike. And that's our S-Y-S-K trending topic for this week. I'm Mike Carruthers. Thanks for listening to Something You Should Know.