additives Archives - usatoday24

Many foods and cosmetics have additives that we want to avoid at all costs.

July 22, 2026 by usatoday24

Every time we put a packaged potato omelet, hummus or moisturizing cream in the shopping cart, we incorporate dozens of substances into our body that often go unnoticed despite appearing on the label. The preservativesdyes, emulsifiers or sun filters are part of the usual composition of thousands of products that we buy in supermarkets. His presence responds to a legitimate industrial logic: it is necessary to extend the shelf life of a food or stabilize the texture of a cosmetic. The problem is that the regulations that regulate these additives almost always advance behind scientific knowledge. An additive can take decades to be approved and in widespread use before scientific studies force authorities to reopen its file. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) periodically reevaluates these compounds, but its way of working requires accumulating solid evidence and sustains years of continuous exposure before any regulatory change. This disconnection does not at all mean that everything permitted is automatically dangerous. In fact, the vast majority of authorized additives are supported by decades of toxicological studies. Even so, it is in consumers’ interest to know which substances have generated the most scientific controversy, in which products they appear most frequently, and which institutions have focused on them. Preservatives that are already under discussion Sodium benzoate (E211) is one of the most commonly used preservatives in packaged potato chips, pickles, sauces and soft drinks. The EFSA has reviewed your security on several occasions, the last in 2016, and has concluded that within the authorized levels it does not raise concerns about genotoxicity (the ability of a substance to damage the genetic material of a cell). It has warned, however, that certain population groups can easily exceed the acceptable daily intake. A quick note before we move forward: part of the controversy about this additive comes from research such as those of Professor Peter Piperfrom the University of Sheffield (United Kingdom), who has documented damage to mitochondrial DNA of cells exposed to sodium benzoate in in vitro assays. EFSA opts for regulatory prudence, while certain academic groups insist on stricter scrutiny Potassium sorbate (E202) follows a similar logic. It frequently appears in hummus, cheeses, yogurts or wines, and acts as an antifungal. The EFSA has reevaluated it in 2015 and again in 2019setting an acceptable daily intake together with sorbic acid of 3 mg per kilo of body weight per day. A study published in In Vitro Toxicology evaluated its genotoxic potential in human lymphocytes cultured in the laboratory, without finding relevant effects at the concentrations tested, which reinforces the official position of the agency. Another relevant note: both preservatives share the same pattern. No reference institution has classified them as carcinogenic, but there is no unanimity regarding their complete long-term safety. The EFSA opts for the regulatory prudencewhile certain academic groups insist on stricter scrutiny, especially in sensitive populations, such as children or people with an aspirin allergy. However, we are interested in putting these figures in context: the real exposure of those who eat packaged potato omelettes several times a week is well below the thresholds at which adverse effects have been observed in the most alarmist studies. The additives most highlighted by science Beyond preservatives, there are other additives that have received much stronger regulatory attention. The clearest case is that of titanium dioxide (E171), a white dye used for decades in candy, chewing gum and some cosmetics. The EFSA concluded in 2021 that its genotoxicity cannot be ruled out, especially due to its ability to accumulate in the body, which has led to the European Union to ban its use as a food additive from 2022. Even so, it is still allowed in cosmetics, such as sunscreens. The antioxidants BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole, E320) and BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene, E321), present in snacks, cereals and some cosmetics, illustrate well the nuances of this type of evaluations. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified BHA in group 2B as possible carcinogen for humans. BHT, on the other hand, remains in group 3, not classifiable due to insufficient evidence. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified BHA in group 2B as a possible human carcinogen. The European Commission has also placed BHA as a priority substance for endocrine disruption, while BHT only arouses similar suspicions in the scientific literature, without an equivalent institutional classification. Long-chain parabens in cosmetics follow a similar path: several of them are banned in the European Union since 2014 by decision of its scientific consumer safety committee. Sodium nitrite (E250), common in sausages and processed meats, closes the list with the best documented case: the IARC classified processed meat as a group 1 carcinogen in 2015, especially due to the formation of nitrosamines when cooked at high temperature. In the following table we summarize these six cases and identify the institution that has indicated the risk of each of them and the effects described in the scientific literature: Additive Where do we find it? Institution that has indicated the risk Described effects E211 (sodium benzoate) Packaged potato omelettes, pickles, sauces, soft drinks EFSA (2016 revision); University of Sheffield Overcoming the IDA in sensitive groups; damage to mitochondrial DNA in in vitro studies E202 (potassium sorbate) Hummus, cheeses, yogurts, wines EFSA (2015 and 2019 revisions) Possible cellular inflammation in animal models E171 (titanium dioxide) Candies, gum, sunscreen EFSA (2021 opinion) Genotoxicity not ruled out; banned as a food additive in the EU from 2022 E320 (BHA) / E321 (BHT) Snacks, cereals, some cosmetics IARC (group 2B for the BHA); European Commission (priority endocrine disruptor for BHA) BHA, possible carcinogen and hormone disruptor; BHT, similar suspicions without equivalent classification Long chain parabens Creams, shampoos, cosmetics Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (EU) Hormonal disruption; several banned in cosmetics since 2014 E250 (sodium nitrite) Sausages, processed meats IARC (group 1 for processed meat, 2015) Formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines when cooked at high temperatures Image | Kenneth Surillo More information | EFSA | European Union | IARC In Xataka … Read more

The lack of additives at low-cost gas stations does not keep drivers up at night. That’s why Moeve wants to be more Ballenoil

October 31, 2025 by usatoday24

Moeve has changed its strategy and has done so in a big way. In just 12 months, the company has converted 50 of its service stations traditional to Ballenoil, its low-cost brand. And since this type of gas stations began to become popular, the ‘lack’ of additives It has not been a concern for consumers who, above all, prioritize their pockets. The transformation has been especially intense since this summer, when the oil company decided to accelerate the process of further prioritizing its low-cost brand in strategic points throughout the Peninsula. Transformation. The old one Cepsa bought Ballenoil in November 2023 with a clear objective: to challenge Repsol for the crown, which maintains the largest share of the Spanish market. But it is not only about growing the number of gas stations. And it seems that Moeve has understood that the future involves being present in two worlds: the premium, where it maintains its traditional brand, and the low cost, where the customer seeks to fill the tank at a lower cost. From Moeve confirm to the Vozpópuli medium that “both premium and low cost are important to respond to the expectations of our customers.” The perfect timing. Although fuel prices have fallen since all-time highs which they reached after the Russian invasion of Ukraine (when they exceeded two euros per liter), continue to remain at high levels. The liter of 95 octane gasoline exceeds 1.45 euros on average and diesel is close to 1.40 euros, according to data from CincoDías. Logically, given the rise in fuel prices, many drivers are looking for specifically economical gas stations, and that is where the low-cost ones come in. All in a context in which traditional oil companies focus on attracting customers through their promises of premium fuel and additives. Figures. The integration of Ballenoil has made Moeve exceed 2,000 service stations in the Iberian Peninsula for the first time, reaching 2,040 gas stations, according to 2024 financial data. The figure is expected to increase before the end of the year. The pace of transformation accelerated in June, when 16 stations changed their image in a single month. Just like affirms In the middle, during September and October the conversions continued, prioritizing territories where the company already has a greater presence. Madrid leads this transformation with nine gas stations that become Ballenoil, followed by Barcelona, Navarra, Albacete, Ciudad Real, Granada, Seville and Badajoz. The Ballenoil network has also allowed Moeve to penetrate areas where it did not previously have a presence, especially in Catalonia, the Valencian Community, Andalusia and several regions of Castile. The rise of low cost. Low cost gas stations already represent 20% of all stations in Spain, according to inform the EconomíaDigital medium, with more than 2,400 installations spread throughout the country. As the media explains, the savings for the driver can exceed 0.18 euros per liter compared to traditional brands, a difference that ends up being noticed with each refueling. And the forecasts point high, which could mean a major structural change in the national oil panorama. Ballenoil, Plenergy and Petroprix are leading this transformation, betting on automated systems and simplified infrastructure that allow them to reduce costs. Manuel Sáez, CEO of Ballenoil, declared to CincoDías that the objective is to “exceed 380 operational service stations” in the second half of the year and “reach 500 throughout 2027.” Competence. Ballenoil has reached 350 service stations in Spain, becoming the leader in number of points of sale within the low cost segment. Plenergy follows closely, with 340 gas stations (331 in Spain and 9 in Portugal) and plans to reach 370 this year. However, Plenergy leads in business volume: closed 2024 with 1,385 million liters sold, a growth of 43% compared to the previous year. For its part, Petroprix, with 165 stations in Spain, has opted for a different strategy, prioritizing international expansion in markets such as Portugal, Chile, Panama and Poland. Cover image | engin akyurt In Xataka | Catalonia wants to make variable speed limits a reality. And he is already experimenting to improve the sleep of his neighbors

the debate on gasoline additives returns with force

October 27, 2025 by usatoday24

“That is the big lie. We buy the additive that Exolum recommends. But it is not worth anything, nor is it worth anything. We put the additive because people think that the additive is good” We don’t say that the additive is “worthless” at all. Of course, neither does “the best mechanic in Spain” say it, who firmly believes that gasoline low cost it is of worse quality. The person who speaks about the convenience or not of the additive is José Rodríguez de Arellano, “the king of cheap gasoline”they assure in The Country. In the Spanish newspaper they have interviewed Rodríguez de Arellano, CEO of Plenergya gas station company with 370 points of sale throughout Spain and which already sells about 1,700 million liters of fuel. Obviously, Rodríguez de Arelllano’s words hit home. Asked about the convenience of using additives to improve the useful life of the engine, the company’s CEO is very clear: “if it was worth something, the leaders would have already said so.” What do we know about additives Whether or not it is convenient to use additives for the car or refuel at a gas station that is supposed to be of “better quality” has some truth and a lot of hope. Because, really, if the fuel we refuel has the minimum quality standards that fuel in our country must meet, there should be no problem. What must be clear is that the gasoline we put in our tank at Plenergy or Ballenoil it is the same as if we do it at Repsol or BP. At least, it almost entirely is. As if it were a stew where everything comes from the same pot but then each cook ends up giving it their personal touch. The origin of all the fuel consumed in Spain is in Exolum, former CHL. The fuel comes to Exolum from the refineries that BP, Repsol or moeve They are spread throughout Spain. There it is verified that the fuel has the minimum quality for sale in our country and is distributed to the different companies. It is in this distribution where the differences begin. Exolum itself already sells fuel with and without additives. It is known as HQ300 and makes the product more expensive. “ANDIt’s the big lie. “We buy the additive that Exolum recommends.”. In his interview with The Countrythe CEO of Plenergy confirmed that they use this additive fuel and that, however, for him it made no sense and that it was a pure marketing exercise. And he continued: “The additive is not important for the engine. What happens is that we are in a dynamic in which everyone talks about the additive. If it was of any use, the leaders would have already said so. They would have done an independent study to demonstrate that their additive allows the car to go x kilometers longer. It is the same fantasy that still exists in the country, understanding that the fuel is different, but comes out of the same tank.” And this is where much of the secret lies. Once Exolum delivers its fuel with or without additive, it is the companies themselves that provide that chef’s touch that we were talking about. The most renowned firms (and cost for the customer) use their own additives that, they claim, improve the useful life of the engine or make the car travel more kilometers with the same amount of fuel. That is, consume less. However, there are so many conditions When it comes to demonstrating that this really influences it, it is not entirely clear that there is a real benefit. In fact, if you go to one of the websites where the operation of the additives is explained, they will always be accompanied by a small legal text at the bottom. Regarding longer engine life and better efficiency (BP assures that cars that use its fuels can travel 840 kilometers longer for every 13,000 kilometers traveled) On the BP website it reads the following: *Benefits are achieved over time and may vary depending on how and what vehicle you drive. **Claim based on continuous use over 13,000 km. Compared to basic fuels (fuels that only meet the minimum requirements established in Royal Decree 61/2006 of January 31). Benefits may vary depending on vehicle, driving style, road conditions and other factors. The problem is that it is almost impossible to carry out studies that can be translated into practice. Fuel consumption is closely linked to driving style but also to much simpler causes such as keep the tires at the correct pressure or simply perform proper maintenance of the vehicle, which can have much more impact on fuel consumption and avoiding possible breakdowns than on the use of one fuel or another. Everything indicates that so many kilometers would have to be traveled with so many different engines and for so long in laboratory conditions that the cost would be too high. That is why Rodríguez de Arellano assures that “the leaders” have not presented any independent study that validates the use of additives to improve the fuel that arrives from Exolum. This last perspective was the one validated by Carles Fité, professor of Chemical Engineering, and Rodrigo Soto, reading professor of Chemical Engineering, to The Confidential. Both experts pointed out that all the gasolines they had on display had the same base and that there were no substantial differences between them that could confirm that these supposed benefits exist. Photo | Plenergy In Xataka | Why can gas stations in large hypermarkets sell their product cheaper?

Log In

Sign In

Forgot password?

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections