What the following 2 studies show is that the risk is minimal to negligible in most cases. What I find important about them is that they both state that they were unable to determine definite safety or danger. To me, this is a big red flag. If you cannot show your food additive is safe, it should not be in food IMO. The FDA on the other hand seems to be operating under the “we haven’t proved it’s dangerous yet but we will ban it when we do” model that they’ve been accidentally killing us with for the past 100 odd years. I’m not convinced that’s a good model.
This really isn’t a red flag at all, like I said before it’s very hard to prove a negative. It is enough that you look very hard and can’t find any problems, which the studies you’ve linked seem to show.
The fact that the FDA have allowed this and the EU haven’t is probably more down to the EUs over-reliance on the opinions of ‘public health’ ideologues (who tend to have backgrounds in sociology, not science, medicine and statistics) in contrast to the actual opinions of the scientists whose studies they base their rulings on (see their ridiculous, and frankly public-health damaging, stance on e-cigarettes for a recent example of this).
Here is a study point more towards your concerns of food safety. The important part of this study is that the focus in on the chemical as used in foods and the effect thereof. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf201819x
This study just shows the rate of production of semicarbazide from azodicarbonamide in different bread products, it doesn’t actually investigate any health impacts.
There was a study that did though, this one was done on rats, and while it did find the semicarbazide to be carcinogenic, the dosage relative to their body weight translated to humans would require the average person to ingest around 5,000kg of bread (minimum) to hit the same levels! Ridiculous. Another problem with drawing conclusions from this study is that the semicarbazide was administered orally, rather than via bread baked from flour containing azodicarbonamide.
Here we have a confirmed human case of an asthma attack brought on by the chemical confirmed by specific inhalation challenge http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15119006 This is in stark contrast to the studies used by the FDA claiming no such risk exists.
I’ve already covered this, and your additional links fall under the same category, occupational exposure at very high levels is irrelevant to exposure at very low levels as a food additive. Toxicity is meaningless without dosage, by your logic we should also ban dihydrogen monoxide.
These studies lead me to believe the jury is still out on azodicarbonamide and many of these authors seem to agree. Knowing there is a potential for problems, why would we choose to introduce such a chemical in to our food supply? It seems prudent to avoid it and I applaud the Food Babe for trying to educate us about what we eat - hyperbole and all.
As I’ve shown, these studies show nothing of the sort, they fail to find any negative health effects from the use of azodicarbonamide as a food additive. Vani Hari isn’t trying to educate anyone, she’s fleecing the ignorant.