Read more:
• Controversial additive no longer in our cake, assure supermarkets
It said that it was often found in Sara Lee and WeightWatchers products but also in store baking.
So I went searching and couldn't find it in Sara Lee or WeightWatchers, or for a while in the in-store baking section.
Then I found this. And the number 216 was staring up at me.
Please note that the ingredients label has many of the words cut off or repeated so I am transcribing it as I see it and making educated guesses about what the ingredients actually are.
Ingredients
• Sugar - This means the main ingredient in this cake is sugar. Per 65g serve you will get 31.6g of sugar which is almost half your serve or 7.5 teaspoons.
• Water
• Eggs - Good to see real eggs in here instead of egg powder or egg substitute.
• Flour, Flour - Not sure why this is mentioned twice, but this will be flour as you use in baking cakes at home.
• Hiratio Canolao il - This one had me going for a while. I thought these were two trademarked products used in processed foods until I worked out that it stood for high ratio canola oil. This doesn't mean that the oil has been altered, but more that canola oil has a high level of mono unsaturated fats.
• Cocoa - This will provide the chocolate flavour.
• Vegfa - I'm going to say this is supposed to say Vegfat as in vegetable fat. Not sure what vegetable oil this will be but it will be in here to replace butter.
• Non fat milk solids - These will be in here for flavour.
• Emulsifer (450, 471) - These are disphosphates (450) which are salts of phosphoric acid and mono and diglycerides of fatty acid (471) which are produced primarily from hydrogenated soya bean oil.
• Soyflour - This is flour taken from soybeans.
• Starch - Not sure what kind of starch, mostly likely to be corn starch.
• Maize flour - This is corn flour.
• Colour (150, 133,122,155, 160, 170) - And here we have six colours which will be here because of the 100s and 1000s sprinkled on top of the cake. They are caramel I (150) which is the safest of caramels because it doesn't use ammonium or sulphites. Brilliant blue (133) is an artificial colour. In 2007 a study in UK medical journal the Lancet found that consumption of this and other artificial colours may be linked to attention deficit disorder. Carmoisine (122) is a red colour which was included in a voluntary phase-out called for by the UK's Food Standards Agency and an EU-wide health warning must now be put on any food or drink that still contains this colour.
Brown HT (155) is not used in the United States because it can cause allergic reactions but it is allowed here and in the European Union. Paprika (160) is a natural orange colour and calcium carbonate (170) is a natural white colour.
• Anti cake agent (450, 500, 541) - These are disphosphates (as above), baking soda (500) and sodium aluminium phosphate (541).
• Salt - You'll get 268.2 mg of sodium per 65g serve which is quite high.
• Solvent (1520, 420) - Solvent? In a cake? The first solvent is propylene glycol, which can be used as an antifreeze by the chemical, food and pharmaceutical industries. The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says the Food and Drug Administration has classified propylene glycol as an "additive that is 'generally recognised as safe' for use in food. It is used to absorb extra water and maintain moisture in certain medicines, cosmetics, or food products. It is a solvent for food colours and flavours, and in the paint and plastics industries. Propylene glycol is also used to create artificial smoke or fog used in fire-fighting training and in theatrical productions."
The last time I came across this was when I reviewed a supermarket-made Raspberry Slice in February, 2011, so not much has changed in the last four years.
The other solvent is sorbitol (420) which is a sugar alcohol. Excess consumption can have a laxative effect and cause gas and bloating.
All I'm going to say is that the last time I made a chocolate cake I didn't have to use solvent.
• Flav - This will be artificial flavour, which in homemade chocolate cakes is not necessary if you use plain old cocoa.
• Preserv (216, 202) - I hope you are paying attention because you need to know about the first preservative here called propyl paraben (216). This substance has been the subject of many studies. In 2004 the European Food Safety Authority issued an advisory that the presumed safe exposure level for propyl paraben in food was no longer valid because it affected sex hormones and the male reproductive organs in young rats. The decision cited a study by researchers in Tokyo which found that propyl paraben decreased sperm counts in young rats at and below the concentrations which the US Food and Drug Administration considers safe for human consumption in food.
Based on that advice, in 2006, regulators removed propyl paraben from the list of food additives authorised for use in the European Union.
It is still allowed for use in New Zealand and in other countries.
Many cosmetic companies are reducing their use of propyl paraben. Under pressure from the Environmental Working Group and other health advocates, in August 2012 Johnson & Johnson voluntarily pledged to remove this and other members of the paraben family from all its baby products.
The other preservative, potassium sorbate (202), is neutralised sorbic acid which has no known adverse effects.
Highlights
• Contains preservative propyl paraben which is a hormone disruptor and is not authorised for use in food in the European Union.
• Contains a solvent, commonly used as antifreeze.
• Contains artificial colours which have been voluntarily recalled in the UK and must carry a warning in the EU.
My recommendations
I find it astonishing that a supermarket would sell this with their name proudly displayed on this nasty label.
Not only does it contain a solvent but it also contains a known hormone disruptor, propyl paraben.
Surely, in the interests of their consumers, the supermarket chain should look at replacing this cake with something which resembles the real thing, containing real food and no additives.
They might say that at $3.89 they couldn't make it for that, and I would say that I think consumers might be willing to pay a bit extra for something which wouldn't, in my opinion, potentially hurt someone - despite official assurances that the amounts involved are far too small to affect human health.
Do you have a food product you would like to feature in Wendyl Wants to Know?
Email wendylwantstoknow@gmail.com with suggestions. Unfortunately Wendyl cannot correspond with readers.
