This article is a continuation of Part 1.
But are all petrochemical-derived ingredients carry the same ugly character? The answer is no – but understanding why helps understand why it’s still imperative to avoid them all.
I’ve began differentiating the two using the below schema: two classes of “petroleum-derived” ingredients. Both are derived, in whole or in part, from petrochemicals, but the final product of Class 1 are closer (and therefor worse) than Class 2 ingredients.
Class 1 petrochemical ingredients are molecules that retain the “core” molecular structure of their originating petrochemical. For example, artificial dyes originates from components such as benzene or toluene, and retain their original structure with penumbral atoms “linked” to that structure. For example, the so-called “benzene ring” is still there, it’s just the benzene ring plus other atoms linked onto that ring (see the images below).
(“Benzene Ring”)
Examples of Class 1 petrochemical ingredients include artificial dyes, benzoic acid (sodium benzoate), and many more.
Class 2 petrochemical ingredients are molecules that are derived, in whole or in part, by a petrochemical addition, but don’t meaningfully retain the structural formations of their originating petrochemical. In other words, the end product “grabs” a hydrogen atom or whatnot from the petrochemical, but doesn’t retain the Benzene Ring or similar petro-structure.
Examples of Class 2 petrochemical products would be synthetic Malic acid – an acid commonly found in apples and cinnamon. As seen in the illustration below, no benzene ring or similar petro-structure remains in the final product.
An evaluation of Class 2 additives
Let’s assume that we agree that synthetic ingredients are at very least “guilty until proven innocent.” Shouldn’t we agree that, even if we’re avoiding Class 1 additives, that Class 2 additives (at least those that are more or less the same as found in nature) are allowable ingredients?
The answer is still a strong no. Here’s why.
- A molecule isn’t just a molecule
One of the many pitfalls of our materialistic “studies-based” approach is that it is premised on the assumption that everything, including living things, are machines that can be understood as mere a collection of (albeit complex) parts. This may be helpful to a very limited extent or in specific situations, but it severely restricts the ability of someone to be wise – that is, to understand vast arrays of information and find an organic unifying principle. Tradition is a far more reliable approach to wisdom.
In this context, the assumption that “malic acid is just a molecule” implies that malic acid functions the same in any context – whether extracted from an apple or from a petrochemical. This simply isn’t true: 100% of the time, other compounds influence the effect of a given component – sometimes only a little, sometimes alot – sometimes completely reversing its effects. For example, Quercetin – a citrus component that become popular during Covid for it’s antioxidant properties – actually becomes highly oxidative without the presence vitamin C or a similar compound.
By definition, all living things require an organic balance. Even things that are toxic to us have some sort of balance that can sustain life. Ergo, even if an fruit like cranberry has, say, trace amounts of benzoic acid in, it can pass our principle of “guilty until proven innocent”: cranberry passes this standard because we’ve eaten it for all of human history – even without any additional information, it’s a good bet that the peripheral compounds within the cranberry likely do something that sufficiently neutralizes the benzoic acid.
However, deriving a molecule from petroleum or similar source by definition means that there will be no beneficial “peripheral” compounds that alleviate the bad effects.
2. Refining isn’t perfect
For a synthetic ingredient, by definition there will be no helpful peripheral compounds – but there will be harmful compounds that are leftover. No purification process is perfect – even if we make a pretty refined synth Malic acid, we can’t 100% remove the small percentage of originating petroleum source compounds.
Manufacturers and industry lobbyists spend a great deal of money and youtube clout trying to assure us that these “trace amounts” are completely insignificant. However, this assurance is coming from the same industry that tells us that quasi-raw petrochemicals like artificial dyes are 100% unproblematic and safe. I apologize if I’m cynical about their assurances, but there it is.
3. It’s actually often NOT the same
Sometimes the end result is the same chemical structure. But sometimes it’s actually not. Synthetic Malic acid, for example, can be differentiated into L-Malic acid and D-Malic acid: L-Malic acid is the natural compound, while D-Malic acid is the chemical mirror image of L-Malic acid. Synthetic Malic acid is called “DL-Malic acid,” denoting the fact that it actually a ~50/50 mix of the two.
This “close enough” approach is common: if it’s “close enough,” we can call it “the same.” You don’t have to be a chemist to understand that this isn’t a particularly reliable approach: in the chemical world, one tiny tweak can make a massive difference. The difference between table salt (sodium chloride) and straight-sodium is one atomic link – but you can eat table salt, while straight-sodium will burn your face off.
4. Trace amounts of a compound in nature vs. Practical Reality
There’s a strange bifurcation that goes on in artificial-ingredients promos. They first begin by asserting that “artificial doesn’t matter; just because something comes from nature doesn’t mean it’s healthy! (e.g. hemlock or something)” However, they soon do a 180-degree maneuver, and assert something to the effect, “…and it’s also ok because this synth-compound is the same as this natural compound, which of course is found in nature!”
It might be tempting to focus on the logical fallacies involved in this, but I find it’s more helpful to actually think about the practical realities involved here: yes, certain compounds like benzioc acid or whatnot are indeed found in living foods (*Note: I happen to believe it’s likely usually not in fact “natural” – I’m guessing that most of the petrochemical-type compounds found in plants and animals are not a result of natural balance, but rather a result of being fed or exposed to petrochemical agrotoxins – and you can see this easily in research). Living entities do occasionally have tiny amounts of these compounds – but they are just that: tiny amounts. Announcing these compounds are safe and beneficial because they’re naturally present in trace amounts, and then adding them in massively unnatural amounts to foods of all kinds is about as logical as saying that whaling your child with a 2×4 is the same as a high-five – they’re both just a physical impact, after all.
This self-serving recharacterization isn’t exclusive to preservative ingredients – this is the same maneuver used to characterize things like corn syrup or pretty much any grain products – it’s just corn after all. What’s wrong with that? What wrong is the fact that it’s not “just corn,” it’s a tiny nutritionally-void component of corn that’s extracted and concentrated – and in order to otherwise eat that same amount of that given component from actual corn, you’d have to eat hundreds or thousands of pounds of corn. Except the difference here is that usually the component in question is not just nutritionally-void – it’s actively harmful. You may have encountered it in trace amounts in nature, especially in rotten or substandard food contexts, but you’d never naturally encounter it in any substantial amount. In every food you ate!
5. We actually don’t know, despite our grand claims to the contrary
Again – my recommendation for food is that new elements are guilty until proven innocent. I know fake flavors have a brain-popping effect that tastes great, but there’s a reason “time-tested” is a real thing: respect traditions. And traditions take time. At the end of the day, we simply don’t know as much as we claim to.
Exhibit A is – no pun intended – Vitamin A. If you google “eating animal liver,” you’ll be greeted with something like, “liver can be good for you, but it’s RISKY.” (try it). From where I’m standing, there are few more absurd statements than calling liver “risky.” When you dig, you’ll encounter expert after expert stating that liver is extremely high in Vitamin A, which can lead to hypervitaminosis – a buildup of Vitamin A to toxic levels. Sounds scary! There’s even study after study that shows it happens!
But dig further. Because if you do, you’ll become just as cynical as me: you’ll find a WHO report that states that there were 200 – yes, 200 – cases diagnosed worldwide globally (note that an estimated 3 million children are Vitamin A deficient). You’ll find another report that from 1976-1987, there were TEN ENTIRE CASES of Vitamin A hypervitaminosis reported in the US. River City, we got trouble: move over skydiving and meth because there’s a new risky king in town!
But then you’ll ask: where did these “expert opinions” come from? And you’ll dig deeper, actually clicking on their links or tracking down their sources (the few that cite). And this is the payoff – you’ll find something amazing: every single medically-documented case of Vitamin A hypervitaminosis (that I could find, and I trawled alot) was from synthetic Vitamin A. You know – the stuff that’s exactly the same and indistinguishable in all ways to natural Vitamin A. That stuff. Yes – you probably can get Vitamin A hypervitaminosis if you go eat polar bear liver, or grouper liver. So next time you harvest a polar bear, easy does it on the liver (please livestream it for the FBI). But for some reason, 99.9% of the medical reports of Vitamin A hypervitaminosis come from petroleum-derived (artificial) Vitamin A – the experts may not know the difference, but apparently your body does.
Conclusion
In relation to Class 2 petro-additives, you have two scenarios: (1) where the compound is both found in nature (e.g. Malic acid) and usually healthful for you, or (2) the compound is found in nature, but not really desirable or healthy for you (e.g. Benzoic acid). Personally, I don’t usually differentiate, because you’re still getting small amounts of the leftover benzene or originating chemical. But if you did want to differentiate, scenario #1 above is most likely the least-worst: you’re still not going to get a compound that’s balanced by complimentary compounds; it’ll still have trace amounts of the bad-bad-bad stuff; let’s assume the compound in question is chemically the same; and you’ll still be getting a concentrated load of the compound in question: but, yes, synthetic Vanillin (the same as a certain compound in natural vanilla) is probably less worse than synthetic Benzoic acid – and certainly less worse than artificial dyes.
But here’s the chaser to all of this: there are almost certainly very different effects from various petroleum or synthetically-derived ingredients. Some are egregious and nasty; some might be so bad (or might even be beneficial in a very specific, controlled application, such as claims about methylene blue). But, aside from a few specific scenarios (e.g. Vanillin), there’s absolutely no consistent way to tell: theoretically, Class 2 petro-ingredients should be less worse that Class 1, but are they really that much different? That, and “artificial flavors” – there’s literally thousands of artificial flavors, with absolutely zero way to tell what’s-what (in fact, you can’t even tell if an artificial flavor is a Class 1 or Class 2 petro-ingredient).
For me, the obvious standard here is “guilty until proven innocent.” There’s absolutely zero reason why we need to be using petroleum-derived ingredients in food: we know that they’re almost always harmful, in a mind-boggling amount of ways: organ toxicity, endocrine disruption, weight gain, systemic inflammation, birth defects and developmental disorders, and a zillion other eye-popping danger-zones. The tradeoff of “cheaper” just isn’t doing it for me: go ahead and charge the extra $0.04 per product that you’re saving on using petro-preservatives if you need to; please do pass along that cost. Because the cost of lifelong health wreckage to my family, even on a sheer materialistic economic level, is significantly more.
There’s no scenario where anyone except profiteers are excited about putting petrochemicals in your food: no one is wandering around wishing, oh wishing, that they could just get some more benzene or toluene into their diet. On every level, it simply makes the most practical sense to avoid these baddies – guilty until proven innocent. Undoubtedly, some of these are more guilty than others, but as you dig in, you start to see the overarching character of this class of ingredients: avoiding them all is simply the most doable and reasonable approach when it comes to this entire category of food additives.
