How to read food additives on a label

Under European law, an authorised additive is not simply “approved” in a generic sense. It is listed with conditions of use: food categories, maximum levels, purity specifications and, in some cases, specific labelling statements. Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 sets the Union list and conditions of use; Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 also explains how many additives must appear in the ingredients list: functional class plus specific name or E number.

That is the right starting point. An E number is not a list of good and bad ingredients. It is a regulatory identifier. To read it well, ask at least four questions: what it does, which food it is used in, how much exposure it may contribute, and what recent reassessments say.

The E number is not the verdict

On a label you may see “preservative: sodium nitrite”, “antioxidant: ascorbic acid”, “emulsifier: lecithins” or codes such as E250, E300 and E322. EU rules often allow the specific name or the E number, but the meaning is the same: the additive must have a technological function.

That function matters. A preservative helps limit microbial growth or spoilage. A colour changes appearance. An emulsifier helps water and fat stay together. A sweetener gives sweetness with a different profile from sugar. Two additives with similar-looking numbers can have very different toxicological histories, uses and exposure margins.

So a serious reading starts with context, not the number alone. An additive in a product eaten rarely is not the same practical issue as the same additive, or related additives, appearing every day across several products. The label does not measure your total exposure, but it gives the first clue.

ADI, dose and exposure: the missing part in online lists

The ADI, or acceptable daily intake, is an estimate of the amount that can be consumed daily over a lifetime without an appreciable health risk, based on available data. EFSA, JECFA and other authorities use it when the evidence allows a threshold to be set. It is not a target. It is not a magic line between harmless and harmful.

The key word is exposure. Estimating it requires concentration in the food, portion size, frequency and body weight. A child and an adult do not have the same margin for every substance because dose per kilogram changes. The sum across products can also matter: drinks, chewing gum, snacks, sauces, desserts and supplements may all contribute to the same additive or functional group.

When an assessment says average exposure remains below the ADI, it does not mean every individual habit is identical to the average. When a substance has no ADI, it does not automatically mean it is banned or hazardous in every use: it may mean the data do not allow a numerical threshold, or that another regulatory approach is used.

Hazard and risk are not the same question

One common confusion is the difference between hazard and risk. Hazard asks whether a substance can cause an adverse effect under some conditions. Risk asks how likely that effect is at real-world exposures. The distinction is central to additive assessment.

Aspartame is a useful example. In 2023 IARC classified it as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in Group 2B, a hazard evaluation. JECFA, in the same WHO/FAO assessment cycle, retained the ADI of 0-40 mg/kg body weight per day. These are not interchangeable statements: one identifies a hazard signal, the other considers dose and exposure.

The case of E171, titanium dioxide, is different. In 2021 EFSA could not rule out genotoxicity concerns, and the European Union later removed E171 from authorised food additives. There is no need to turn the document into panic: it is a regulatory decision made because the margin of certainty was no longer sufficient.

Authorised does not mean irrelevant

An authorised additive has been assessed for specific uses. That does not make it universally interesting or irrelevant. It means that, under the stated conditions, the competent authority considered the use acceptable. If data, exposure estimates or consumption patterns change, the assessment can be reopened.

The EU programme for re-evaluating additives authorised before 20 January 2009 exists for this reason. Additives are not frozen in time. EFSA reassesses toxicological data, specifications, impurities, dietary exposure and new publications. Sometimes it confirms an ADI. Sometimes it changes it. Sometimes it identifies data gaps.

That is why labels should be read with method, not with a definitive table saved years ago. The latest regulatory document may matter more than whether a chemical name sounds familiar.

When one additive deserves a closer look

Some cases are not solved by “present” or “absent”. Nitrites and nitrates in cured meats have an important preservative role, but the practical question is frequency, product type and the overall diet. Colours linked to warnings on children's activity and attention show that labels can carry signals for more sensitive groups.

Carrageenan E407 requires distinguishing the authorised food additive from degraded forms or different experimental contexts. BHA and BHT are antioxidants with evaluations and limits that slogans do not capture well. Monosodium glutamate is useful for separating common perceptions, available data and actual amounts.

The common thread is function, dose, frequency, exposed population and assessment status. The ingredients list begins the investigation; it does not end it.

A practical 60-second method

When you have a product in your hand, read additives in this order:

1. Find the ingredients list and look for words such as colour, preservative, antioxidant, emulsifier, stabiliser and sweetener.
2. Note the name or E number. If only the name appears, the code may simply be omitted; that is not automatically better or worse.
3. Ask what the function is: preserving, colouring, thickening, sweetening or stabilising.
4. Look at the product type: snack, drink, cured meat, sauce, dessert or children's food do not have the same use context.
5. Consider frequency and cumulative exposure: is it occasional, or does it appear every day across several products?
6. Check for specific warnings, such as those for certain colours or aspartame as a source of phenylalanine.

This is not a toxicological assessment. It helps avoid two opposite mistakes: ignoring everything because it is authorised, or rejecting everything because it has a code.

Conclusion

Reading food additives means leaving the good-versus-bad list behind. An E number indicates a substance authorised for certain uses, not an eternal guarantee and not a condemnation. The useful question is more precise: what function does it have, what dose can it contribute, how often does it appear in your diet, and what do the latest assessments say?

The informed choice remains personal. The label gives verifiable clues; the reader connects them to context, frequency and uncertainty.

---

Sources cited

• Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives.
• Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information to consumers, Annex VII Part C.
• European Commission, EU rules on food additives and conditions of use.
• EFSA, Food additive re-evaluations, programme under Regulation (EU) No 257/2010.
• FAO/WHO JECFA, risk assessment and food additive principles.
• IARC/WHO/JECFA, aspartame assessments, 2023.