How safe are natural food antioxidants and synthetic food antioxidants?

2026-09-20 16:46:42

Consumers often think that 'natural=harmless, synthetic=risky', which is inaccurate. Both natural and synthetic food additives should be evaluated according to the same risk assessment logic: toxicology tests, ADI (daily allowable intake), scope of use, maximum dosage, and actual dietary exposure. As long as it complies with GB 2760 and is used according to the prescribed process, the safety evaluation methods for natural and synthetic materials are consistent, and there is no such thing as natural materials being necessarily safer.

The compliance boundary for synthetic Food antioxidants is harder:

China's GB 2760-2024 has been implemented, and BHA, BHT, and TBHQ all have clear food categories and maximum usage limits. Taking fried nuts and seeds as an example, the maximum usage of BHA, BHT, and TBHQ can all be 0.2g/kg, and PG is 0.1g/kg; The synthesis of phenols in gum based candies can reach up to 0.4g/kg, but there are significant differences among different categories.

Compared to the old version, the 2024 version has adjusted categories such as "fat and oil that are basically free of water". BHA/BHT has cancelled the oil category, and TBHQ has expanded some mooncake scenes to the pastry category. When companies change formulas, they need to recheck the categories and cannot use old information.

The international standards are not completely consistent: for example, some materials mention that the EU has stricter restrictions on TBHQ in most food scenarios, while the US FDA manages according to food categories and lipid standards, and JECFA provides ADI for different substances (reference values such as BHA 0-0.5, BHT 0-0.3, TBHQ 0-0.7, PG 0-1.4 mg/kg body weight, etc., subject to the latest assessment).

The safety awareness advantage of Natural food antioxidants is greater, but it is not "unlimited":

Vitamin C, vitamin E, tea polyphenols, rosemary, D-isoascorbate sodium, etc. are partially used according to "appropriate use according to production needs" or given maximum amounts in GB 2760; JECFA assigns "ADI not specified" to some natural substances, indicating that there is no need to set specific limits based on existing evidence, but it does not mean that they can be added indefinitely.

There are batch differences in natural extracts: tea polyphenols contain catechins, rosemary contains oxalic acid/salvianolic acid, and the content of plant active substances varies from different regions. If only "rosemary extract" is written without specifying the standard and dosage of active ingredients, the development of compound formulations will go out of control.

Natural does not automatically mean no allergies or changes in flavor. Rosemary has a high herbal flavor, while high levels of tea polyphenols may cause astringency and affect the color of meat products or pastries. Vitamin C is easily lost at high temperatures. In addition to safety compliance, sensory safety boundaries should also be established.

Grateful food suggestion: Export products should first be checked for categories according to the target market (China GB, Codex, FDA, EFSA); Domestic key synthetic limits for long-term preservation oil, deep frying, and nuts; Priority should be given to evaluating natural systems for mother and baby, organic, and clean label channels, but standardization of active ingredients is necessary.