Jim Richards doesn’t look like a mad scientist and his plant-based milk made from macadamia nuts tastes delicious. Yet his carefully crafted product is one of many in the grocery store that can fall under the dubious heading of “ultraprocessed.”

Richards calls it “Milkadamia,” and his company makes the drink by grinding nuts and adding water. Consumers expect anything with milk in the name to provide protein and calcium, so he adds those, too. He also adds a little salt and sugar for taste and an emulsifier to keep the milk from separating.

Voila, something that could be considered an “ultraprocessed” food.

When it comes to figuring out what we put in our bodies, we’d argue that common sense is better than blind zealotry.

Where we do draw the line, however, is knowingly adding dangerous chemicals into our food supply. And, unfortunately, while entrepreneurs like Richards are focused on producing an organic, high-quality product, many major food manufacturers aren’t following suit, prioritizing low-cost production over guaranteeing a safe, healthy food supply.

Food regulators are starting to push back. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration banned Red Dye No. 3 over cancer risks. Good.

While we applaud the decision, it’s worth noting that it did come more than three decades after the same ingredient was banned from cosmetics over similar health concerns. Of course, banning one harmful ingredient is good, but if it’s replaced by something that’s also bad the problem continues. With Red 3 out, Red 40 is in as a potential swap for food manufacturers. Like Red 3, Red 40 is derived from petroleum, and in Europe carries a warning label that reads, “May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.”

The point — and the problem — remains: Food companies shouldn’t put harmful chemicals in their products. We eat them, after all. And as our food becomes more highly processed, our country is becoming sicker.

Many doctors believe that our health begins in our gut, which, of course, suggests that what we eat affects our overall well-being. That’s not to say that you’re sure to develop a chronic illness or cancer because of your diet, but it is very possible that diet can contribute to the rise of serious health issues.

Consider some alarming statistics: More young people are getting cancer. For example, the American Cancer Society reports that early onset colorectal cancer cases in adults younger than 50 grew by 2.4% each year from 2012-2021.

The rise in autoimmunity has reached epidemic levels, with 8% of Americans, over 26 million people, diagnosed with an autoimmune disease.

So: Is the Western diet causing a spike in autoimmune diseases? The World Economic Forum asked that question in 2022, and its answer was that evidence shows that as the Western diet spreads, so does autoimmunity. Research from the National Institutes of Health says, “current evidence implicates the momentous alterations in our foods, xenobiotics, air pollution, infections, personal lifestyles, stress and climate change as causes for these increases.”

While food alone can’t be blamed, it’s certainly part of the problem. The European Union has banned a number of ingredients still allowed in American foods, such as potassium bromate and azodicarbonamide, which are often used in flour but may cause cancer.

If we know certain chemicals and additives hurt the human body, we need to take them out of the food supply. When we learned that lead harms the brain, kidney and immune system, we stopped using lead-based paint in our homes. When we learned that asbestos could lead to cancer and respiratory issues, we restricted the use of asbestos in everyday things like tiles. The world is full of risks and dangers, and it’s on us to adjust accordingly when we find out something’s bad for us.

On the other hand, companies that choose to continue pumping foods with dyes and dangerous chemical additives need to be held accountable for their choices — and government officials should follow the lead of other countries that have banned cancer-causing agents from the food supply.

We need more food company leaders to adopt attitudes that reflect Richards’ commitment to providing healthy products. And if they won’t do the right thing, we need the folks at the FDA to apply sensible regulations that limit our exposure to harmful ingredients that have no business being in the food we eat.

The Chicago Tribune