“Naturally occurring ascorbic acid and added ascorbic acid — which may be chemically manufactured — may have different impacts on health,”
This article reeks of MAHA "naturalistic" bullshit.
this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
203 points (93.9% liked)
World News
56254 readers
1787 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Not necessarily. It is known that some vitamins can have differing effects depending on whether they're in whole food form, or in a supplement.
Haven't read the article yet, but my suspicion would be more correlation than causation. Those industrially manufactured ascorbic acids virtually always end up in highly processed foods, and that's what is more likely the main harm.
Go right to the actual scientific article. It doesn't seem to include this sort of nonsense. It's a seemingly well put together but herculean effort to try to study this. They do a nice job controlling for known covariables, but it's very possible they are missing a linked factor. Using this as a basis for a randomized study with these chemicals would be truly interesting.
I beg to differ. From the manuscript:
Despite food additive ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol having identical structures to their naturally occurring forms,[3]() their effects can differ based on factors such as food matrix (composition, structure, etc.), dosage, and interactions with other food compounds affecting bioavailability.[52]
This is probably where the science writer derived this from. This is so much clearer though that it's not the origin of the compound that matters so much as the environment it is in.
Yes but they still say that:
food additive ascorbic acid and alpha-tocoperol
Vs
their naturally occurring forms
And that
their effects can differ
So it’s not like the part the writer talked about wasn’t almost literally mentioned in the paper.
They are also just quoting the senior author, since the part of the article the guy you replied to omitted was:
“said Touvier, who is also director of research at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris.”
Scientific papers will always be dumbed down a bit and information will be omitted when writing an article for the general public.
The guy you replied to simply doesn’t know what he is talking about and thinks he knows better than the senior author.
Aye - the article is hot garbage. Science reporting is a complete mess.
Yep.
Entirely because people try to sensationalize it to make it interesting and exciting, and usually jump on it before theres even been other studies to confirm the results or not.
Which results in a lot of fatigue.. Like how people are, to this day, still confused about if eggs or good or bad because the flood of studies in the 90s, each contradicting eachother about eggs being good, eggs being bad, this part of the egg being good, that part being bad, etc etc.
Running interference for the corporate food industry, of course. Don't sue them, let them reduce their liability first.
Vitamin C
Saved a click
Vitamin C is a preservative?
Yep. As are salt, vinegar, alcohol and other common foods.
You ever squirt lemon juice on an avocado to keep it from browning for a bit?
People love to use the phrase "preservative" to mean something bad. But it's just anything that helps to keep food from spoiling.
You ever squirt lemon juice on an avocado to keep it from browning for a bit?
That's citric acid.
Yes - it's a preservative.
And ascorbic acid.
It is an antioxidant. And oxidation is one of the way food goes stale.
That explains why food is so stale in the rust belt.
It is acidic, which is a common preservation method as it reduces the amount of bacteria that can find the citrified food as hospitable.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ohhh yes.
It enables everyone to put 'now with vitamins!' on labels.
Doea it have electrolytes though?
I haven’t clicked the article, but it’s probably ascorbic acid. Very common preserver, as it acidifies the food and kills bacteria
Specifically synthetic vitamin C, not naturally occuring.
The interesting bit the unsupported claim there is a difference between manufactured and naturally occurring vitamin C. This goes on to say fruit is good but everything else is not. A long bow to draw.
Not sure if you are familiar with the sibject but chirality is a thing and nature usually prefers one chirality of a molecule while synthetic processes often produce both chirality.
Thanks, I’ve heard about it but didn't know enough consider it.
Well yes, but the manufactered kind. This doesn’t mean naturally occurring vitamin C in fruits has the same effects. Vitamin C is an important nutrient and antioxidant when consumed in its natural form.
Ahh yes, natural ascorbic acid. Not to be confused with artifical ascorbic acid with the same exact molecular structure.
that's not the point. Food origin ascorbate is delivered at a longer slower dose than popping a pill. Dosage matters.
Ahhh yes, enantiomers
While antioxidants such as citric and ascorbic acid are found naturally in foods such as fruits, they are “not exactly natural” when used as preservatives, senior author Mathilde Touvier said in an email. Touvier is the principal investigator of the NutriNet-Santé study used to conduct the research.
Yeah I’m gonna go with the senior author here. But hang in there sport!
Cooking isn't "natural" either by his definition. Next MAHA craze: No more cooking food? Just eat everything raw?
load more comments
(1 replies)
This does not describe them as acting different.
Despite food additive ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol having identical structures to their naturally occurring forms,[3]() their effects can differ based on factors such as food matrix (composition, structure, etc.), dosage, and interactions with other food compounds affecting bioavailability.[52]()
They're the same. If I gave you two molecules of C6H8O6 there is no way you could tell me how they were made and if one was "natural". Your body certainly wouldn't care either way.
I understand, but the article and paper clearly states that may not be the case.
Despite food additive ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol having identical structures to their naturally occurring forms,[3]() their effects can differ based on factors such as food matrix (composition, structure, etc.), dosage, and interactions with other food compounds affecting bioavailability.[52]()
their effects can differ based on factors such as food matrix (composition, structure, etc.), dosage, and interactions with other food compounds affecting bioavailability.
That sentence literally says that there is no difference in the origin of the vitamin C and that the differences they're seeing are due to the food it is in (and potential interactions of Vitamin C with those foods). That has zero to do with whether the Vit. C is "natural" or not.
The shit article probably took her quotes out of context and/or misunderstood them.
It definitely says there’s a difference in origin. They say there’s no difference in chemical composition.
I also never said there was a chemical difference between the two, I just talked about the effects. Just like the manuscript.
It definitely says there’s a difference in origin.
I worded that poorly - I meant "due to origin".
I also never said there was a chemical difference between the two, I just talked about the effects. Just like the manuscript.
Then riddle me this - how do two identical things have different effects?
The paper says it's not due to the origin of the chemical but due to interactions with other things in the food to which it was introduced.
It does not matter if the Vit. C was created in a lab, in a fruit, or divinely produced by God.
load more comments
(4 replies)
There is also a question of yield in various processes. One process could readily yield 99% ascorbic acid with 1% rapid and unmitigable death.
You have a lot of patience Photonic, to be willing to fight team science on scientifocity, especially since we all know it's really tiny elves which make some foods good to eat and others poisonous, and not, say, the effect of preservatives on gut microbiome.
I feel more like I’m fighting team “I read a thing once and am now going to bash someone just trying to make a small side note while not having read the article or paper” and not team “science”.
"Team science" does not say "natural vitamin C is better than chemically created vitamin C". 🤣
That's the shit you get from pop science in a book sold on daytime television.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Team science of Lemmy is team, "I vaguely remember grade 11 chemistry".
load more comments
(6 replies)
Preservative food additives, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases: the NutriNet-Santé study https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehag308/8679203?login=false
Abstract Background and Aims Experimental studies suggest that some preservative food additives may exert adverse cardiovascular effects, yet human data are lacking. The associations between exposure to these compounds and incidence of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) were investigated in the NutriNet-Santé cohort (France, 2009–2024). ..................................................................................................................................................................... Methods Dietary intakes were assessed using repeated 24-h dietary records (up to 96), including commercial brands. Exposure to food additives was evaluated through multiple composition databases and ad hoc laboratory assays in food matrices. Associations between cumulative time-dependent exposures to preservative food additives during follow-up and outcomes were characterized using multi-adjusted Cox models. ..................................................................................................................................................................... Results Overall, 112 395 participants were included (78.7% women, mean age 42.8 ± 14.7 years) with a median follow- up of 7.9 years. The sum of total preservatives encompassed 58 substances consumed by at least one participant. Total non-antioxidant preservatives were positively associated with higher incidences of hypertension [n = 5544; hazard ratio (HR) higher vs. lower consumers: 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20–1.39] and CVD (n = 2450; HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04–1.29), while total antioxidant preservatives were associated with higher incidence of hypertension (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13–1.31). Out of the 17 individual preservative food additives consumed by at least 10% of the study population, eight were associated with higher incidence of hypertension and one with higher incidence of CVD, after multiple test correction. ..................................................................................................................................................................... Conclusions Multiple associations between exposure to preservative food additives widely used in industrial foods and higher incidence of hypertension or CVD were observed in this large prospective cohort. Experimental research is needed to gain insight into underlying mechanisms. If confirmed, these new data call for the re-evaluation of regulations governing the use of these additives to improve consumer protection. ..................................................................................................................................................................... Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03335644.
view more: next ›