Apeel again: Misleading evidence for alleged harmlessness?

91

In mid-May 2023 I published an article on Apeel, the “edible peel” [1]. Not only since this post, there seems to have been a number of confusions, especially in relation to allegedly documented “side effects” that can or should occur from the consumption of this artificial skin.

In my contribution, I quoted a publication by “Ökotest” on Apeel, which classified this coating as “edible and has no side effects”. The assessment basis for this does not seem to be corresponding scientific studies, but assumptions and assessments by corresponding “experts” from the field of “fact checkers” and the food industry.

So the “fact checker” [2] by Reuters: “Fact Check – Compounds in Apeel’s edible food coating found safe by FDA.Or in other words: The safety of Apeel can be considered guaranteed because the FDA says so and because a corresponding classification (rather than scientific assessment) was made here. Great!

Even the World Economic Forum has great things to report from and about Apeel [3]. Of course, this is also a statement that seems to claim to be able to replace scientific studies.

Misleading Evidence of Adverse Effects of Apeel?

There are indeed a number of posts on social media warning against Apeel products. As a rule, they warn of the lipids that are in the Apeel coating as “toxic mono- and diglycerides” that are said to make you ill [4][5].

And then a safety data sheet appeared [6] on the Apeel coating, reporting eye damage, skin irritation and environmental damage. And there are a number of critical contributors who have made this safety data sheet the basis of their criticism of Apeel, such as “The Untouchables” [7]:

„The hazard warnings on the “Apeel” data sheet are quite a challenge: Serious eye damage, allergic skin reaction, harmful to aquatic organisms. The safety warning sounds similar to that for handling highly toxic cytostatics, which medical personnel must protect themselves against before administering them intravenously to poor patients: Wear protective gloves/protective clothing/eye protection/face protection when working. In case of skin contact: Wash off with plenty of water.“

If you take a closer look at the safety data sheet, you will have to realize that this cannot be the Apeel coating. Only the name of the product is identical to the name of the coating. The product dealt with in the safety data sheet is a cleaning product from Great Britain.
This becomes clear at the latest when it comes to the “relevant area of ​​application”, which is identified in this report as “hard surface cleaner” (“Identified uses: Neutral, Hard Surface Cleaner”).

Report 24 was even able to find a third Apeel product, an Australian product for neutralizing odors in carpets and rugs [8]. “Report 24” also initially fell for the fact that the products had the same name:

„Report24 also initially made the mistake of assuming that Apeel is a globally protected brand and that the safety data sheets can be assigned to this product. But this is not the case, the three substances have nothing to do with each other. The relevant information has now been corrected in this article.“

By the way: If you are interested in such information, then you should definitely request my free practice newsletter “Independent. Naturally. clear edge.” to:

Has Apeel been washed clean with that?

Supposedly, the Apeel coating is “edible” because it consists only of “mono- and diglycerides.” The question immediately arises as to why only citrus fruits, melons, pineapples, bananas, papayas, mangoes, avocados and pomegranates can be considered for the Apeel treatment in the EU?

Is it now possible to eat these types of fruit with their peel after treatment with Apeel? If the Apeel “peel” is really edible, why not put it on strawberries, cherries, plums, etc.? But what is not, can still be… Because according to RND [9] „Apeel is currently preparing an application for approval with the European Commission so that the process can also be approved for fruit and vegetables whose peel is eaten.“

The RND article also reports that the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) has not yet published anything on this subject. There is still no reliable information on the risk assessment for the fruit varieties that have been treated with Apeel.

Or in other words: Here, too, first introduce the product to the market and only then look at the risks. This is the new strategy since the introduction of the “corona vaccinations”, which were still thrown onto the market as “emergency approval”. What “emergency approval” is there for Apeel?

An interesting piece of information from “Report 24”: Not every discounter has introduced Apeel fruit to the acclaim. For example, the Spar Group, according to “Report 24”, once again demonstrated common sense, which was probably also the case with the topic of “masks” during the Corona period and with insect foods, from which they clearly distance themselves. Apparently there are no Apeel products in the range at Spar.

Conclusion

There are three Apeel in the world. UK, Australia and USA. And all three products have the same name, but they all do something different. It is therefore particularly advisable to take a very close look at the product information and safety data sheets in order to avoid any embarrassing misunderstandings, which the “fact checkers” are particularly happy about.

By the way: If you are interested in such information, then you should definitely request my free practice newsletter “Independent. Naturally. clear edge.” to:
Sources:

Featured Image: pixabay.com – lukinlgor

This article was created on 08/11/2023.