Key result
Natural preservatives are linked to ~17% CVD prevalence, whereas artificial options show lower genotoxicity.
Why the study?
Preventing food deterioration traditionally relies on adding large amounts of salt or sugar, or alternatively using other food preservatives. This study aimed to quantify and compare the human health impacts—specifically cardiovascular disease prevalence and micronuclei induction frequency—associated with exposure to natural and artificial preservatives.
Does substituting or combining artificial food preservatives (benzoic acid, sorbic acid) with natural preservatives (sodium chloride, sucrose) reduce estimated cardiovascular disease risk relative to genotoxic risk?
Does substituting or combining artificial food preservatives (benzoic acid, sorbic acid) with natural preservatives (sodium chloride, sucrose) reduce estimated cardiovascular disease risk relative to genotoxic risk?
Combining artificial and natural food preservatives may lower dietary sodium and sucrose intake, thereby reducing estimated cardiovascular disease risk with comparatively lower genotoxic risk than using high-salt or high-sugar preservation alone.
To extend product shelf life, it is especially important to prevent foods from deteriorating. Apart from the traditional methods of adding salt or sugar in large amounts, other additives, such as food preservatives, can also be applied to achieve the aim of food preservation. This study employs probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) to quantify human health impacts associated with exposure to sodium chloride, sucrose, benzoic acid (BA), and sorbic acid (SA), utilizing cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevalence and micronuclei (MN) induction frequency as dual epidemiological and toxicological endpoints. We evaluated the risks of natural and artificial preservatives in products, such as pickled vegetables, fermented vegetables, candied fruits, and preserved fruits, with the same antibacterial efficiency and under controlled pH and water activity conditions. The results revealed a significant risk trade-off: Although the CVD prevalence associated with natural preservatives reached 16.2%-18.2% across different food categories, the MN frequency induced by artificial preservatives remained comparatively lower at 7.4%-11.6%. The results suggest that combining natural and artificial preservatives may reduce sodium chloride or sucrose intake and the associated cardiovascular health risks compared with using natural preservatives alone. These findings indicate that although limiting high-sodium and high-sugar foods is crucial for cardiovascular health, dietary exposure to artificial preservatives, such as BA and SA, was associated with relatively low estimated genotoxic risks, though potential hepatic or renal impacts warrant further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ling et al. (2026) studied Cardiovascular disease and genotoxicity associated with dietary food preservatives. Artificial food preservatives (benzoic acid and sorbic acid) vs. Natural food preservatives (sodium chloride and sucrose) was evaluated on Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevalence and micronuclei (MN) induction frequency. Natural preservatives were associated with 16.2%-18.2% CVD prevalence, while artificial preservatives induced lower micronuclei frequency (7.4%-11.6%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: