Toxic bread or TikTok panic? What you should know about azodicarbonamide (aka the yoga mat chemical)

Claim 1: “Bread like this has a yoga mat chemical in it to fluff it up just like a yoga mat.”

Fact-check: This claim is misleading because it appeals to a fallacy of equivalence: comparing ingredients that we regularly consume with the production of synthetic products can sound very scary without context. Let’s break down the facts to understand why this is not a meaningful comparison.

What is Azodicarbonamide? And can it break down into harmful chemicals?

Azodicarbonamide (ADA) is a chemical with different uses. As a food additive it can be used as a bleaching agent and dough conditioner, to improve texture and shelf life of bread. It is also used in food packaging to seal glass jars and bottles (source), which is actually a more significant source of contamination in food than its use in bread (source).

In non-food settings, it is used as a blowing agent to create foamed plastic and rubber products such as yoga mats and shoe soles (source).

Phillips isn’t wrong that ADA can break down during baking. When flour is dry ADA is stable, however when it is moist, as is the case during the bread making process it reacts to produce biurea. The high temperatures then used during baking, cause biurea to transform into semicarbazide (source) (source).

However, this transformation does not necessarily make bread dangerous. Context and dose matter greatly, and are often left out of many social media reels.  Let’s take a further look.

‍

What are the health concerns surrounding Azodicarbonamide and Semicarbazide? And do these concerns translate to bread products?

It is true that ADA has been linked to respiratory issues like asthma and skin sensitisation (source), but this link is limited to inhalation exposure in occupational settings (as Phillips himself states in the video caption). Occupational exposure refers to contact that occurs in the workplace, such as factories, where the powdered form of ADA is used in large amounts.

In contrast, when ADA is used in bread it is ingested, not inhaled. Additionally, ADA use in bread is strictly regulated and only consumed in trace amounts. For example the U.S. FDA allows ADA use at a maximum of 45 mg/kg in flour (source). These amounts are far smaller than the amounts of ADA workers would encounter in a factory. 

The other concern of ADA use is its breakdown product Semicarbazide (SEM). Some animal studies found SEM may cause DNA damage (genotoxicity) or weak carcinogenic effects at high doses. For example, one study in rats found SEM caused damage to DNA and RNA in some rat organs (source). However, another study in mice found no evidence of genotoxicity (source). Overall, the European Food Safety Authority has concluded that the level of SEM found in food products is not a concern to human health (source).

‍

A note on animal studies 

While animal studies are a valuable tool in scientific research and often help guide future investigations, it is important to remember that just because something is harmful to animals does not automatically mean it will be harmful to humans. For example, it is well known that chocolate can be extremely toxic to dogs (source), however this is definitely not the case for humans! 

Furthermore, the doses used in animal studies are often much higher than those of typical human consumption and therefore do not translate to an accurate picture of risk in the context of a human diet. 

‍

Claim 2: “The EU banned it [ADA] in both food and food contact materials due to the carcinogenic risk [...] but here in the U.S., it’s still in some baked goods.”

‍

Fact-check: This claim lacks context. As we’ve already noted, EU authorities published a revised evaluation on the issue of carcinogenicity. Besides, different countries follow different principles to guide safety regulations. As a result, just because an ingredient is banned in a country does not mean it is necessarily unsafe in all contexts and at any dose.

‍

Regulatory landscape: why Is Azodicarbonamide banned in some countries and not others?

It is true that ADA has been banned in the EU, Australia, and Singapore, but it is still permitted in the U.S., Canada, and parts of Asia, within strict limits (source).

These differences often come down to risk assessment approaches. The bans of ADA in the EU reflect a precautionary approach, but this does not inherently mean that the food is dangerous and should be banned everywhere. There are equally lots of ingredients that are banned in the US but not in the EU.

For more information why not check out another recent fact check that covers the US ban of Red 3 and takes a deeper look at these different approaches. 

‍

Another great source of information on such topics is foodsciencebabe’s social media accounts, where she regularly posts videos to detail why such claims are misleading. She also provides insightful tips to recognise misleading claims. For example, if a post claims a ‘link to cancer’, always check that the author goes on to specify at what dose, and whether those links were found in humans. Here’s a video where she explains why the “this has been banned in the EU” argument can be a red flag that the claim in question is misleading:

‍

‍

Evaluating online claims that a food or ingredient has been linked to cancer

The presence of logical fallacies can be a reliable way to spot nutrition or health related misinformation, which differs from ‘fake news’, in the sense that it is often based on partial truths (source). 

While the information given by Phillips’ is technically accurate, the way it’s presented is what makes it misleading. His video doesn’t give the whole picture and his arguments rely on the following fallacies:

‍

• Cherry picking the data, citing articles that go along with his narrative but not providing new data that showed that previous concerns were seemingly unfounded.

• Appeal to fear: A lot of online claims reject the idea that they are fear mongering, on account that they provide a simple solution (in this case, simply read the labels and avoid such products). However, such claims can easily lead to toxic food thinking by repeatedly conveying the idea that there are hidden toxic chemicals in everyday foods, which might have been poisoning you without your knowing. They use emotionally charged language like “toxic” or “linked to cancer” without necessary context or evidence to back up such claims, and often resort to scary visuals and/or music. By appealing to fear, perceptions of risk are often affected, along with scientific literacy.

• Appeal to nature: These claims appeal to the idea that only natural is good and therefore anything “chemical” or synthetic is inherently dangerous. But this logic is flawed and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what chemicals are. Just because something is natural does not make it inherently better.

• False equivalence: Comparing two things which are not comparable in a meaningful or relevant way can easily cause misunderstandings. The logic here is flawed, because many ingredients have purposes outside of food production. For example, baking soda is regularly used in cleaning and cooking. It would be very easy to make baking soda sound unsafe to eat by comparing it with bleach, perhaps by  stating that baking soda is more effective than bleach to remove some stains, and concluding that it must therefore be a powerful agent that we should not consume. But this is another false equivalence, and a flawed way to answer the question: is baking soda safe to eat?

‍

Evaluating evidence cited to support a claim

It is also important to be able to evaluate whether a study cited is a reliable and/or relevant source to support a given claim. Phillips only gives two sources to support his argument that ADA should be avoided. The first source is an article from the Guardian. Unlike a first hand scientific paper, second hand data can sometimes be more prone to bias and occasionally misrepresent the science. This particular article cites sources like 'the food babe' and EWG, both of whom have been widely discredited due to misinformation spreading and fear mongering (source) (source).

Phillips’ second reference is a scientific paper of which he highlights the words ‘carcinogenic semicarbazide’ from the title. However, no explanation or context of the study is given, which can be a red flag. 

With a deeper look at the paper in question we quickly see that it is not the strongest evidence for the argument he is making. This study examined the effects of SEM on DNA fragments in test tubes, not on live animals or humans. Additionally, while this study did observe DNA damage caused by SEM, it did not demonstrate actual cancer development; other processes may take place in living organisms that are not taking place in a test tube on a single DNA fragment. So while this study may give some mechanistic insight, it alone is not strong evidence to support the claim that ADA is dangerous in bread.

The current science and regulatory assessments on ADA suggest that consuming it in trace amounts is safe.

‍

Final take away

While Phillips’ video raises concerns that are rooted in partial truths, it ultimately lacks the full scientific context necessary to assess real-world risk. Yes, Azodicarbonamide (ADA) can break down into semicarbazide (SEM) during baking, and yes, ADA has been banned in some countries. However, these facts alone do not prove that ADA is harmful in the trace amounts found in bread.

Scientific research and global regulatory assessments conclude that ADA is safe to consume at current permitted levels. Meanwhile Phillips’ cited evidence is drawn from few low-quality and secondary sources.

Misinformation such as this can lead to unnecessary fear around everyday foods like bread, which can be an important part of a balanced diet. For those who remain concerned, ADA-free products are available and clearly labeled. But for most people, there is no evidence-based reason to avoid ADA in bread.

By asking simple questions like ‘in what context does this food/ingredient cause harm?’, we can fill in the gaps that are often not present in social media posts warning against the dangers of everyday foods, and get a better understanding of actual risks.

‍

‍

We have contacted Warren Phillips and are awaiting a response.

Disclaimer

This fact-check is intended to provide information based on available scientific evidence. It should not be considered as medical advice. For personalised health guidance, consult with a qualified healthcare professional.