While the large sample size and many controlled variables are good, and make the results statistically significant, the effect sizes are awfully small. Only two of the emulsifiers, tripotassium phosphate and guar gum, increased the hazard of an individual developing diabetes by more than 10% (11% and 15% respectively, with very large error bars in the latter case). These are much smaller effects than previously known Type 2 diabetes risk factors.
For instance, the HR for family history of diabetes is 4.46 (vs 1.03-1.15 here, where 1.0 is no change in hazard).
The study was on a few emulsifiers used as food additives, not on all food emulsifiers. I wonder if egg yolks are correlated to increased diabetes risk, they're a common emulsifier (in mayonnaise, hollandaise, carbonara, custard, etc.)
What you listed likely contains PUFAs, specifically linoleic acid[1]. Even egg yolks contain 17% LA compared to 18% for canola oil and 50% for soybean oil.
I would say besides mayo (usually made with a seed oil), egg yolk would contain the highest amount of Poly Unsaturated Fatty Acids and Linoleic acid in your examples.
If my semi-controversial diet book is correct, PUFAs are to blame.
You can measure the linoleic acid in body tissue samples (don't even need to track dietary intake) and it doesn't correlate with worse health outcomes. LA veterans study is a good example of that.
The seed oil scare is the MSG scare of the 2020s: a social media meme that people passively take up through repetition.
Do the other emulsifiers from the study in this article contain PUFAs? If not, then then there's probably some other cause. Maybe PUFAs from other sources + emulsifiers, maybe something else entirely. So to the delight of the researchers applying for grants, this needs more study!
I wish America would regulate food additives the way the EU does: "you can't sell this until it's proven to be safe," rather than "feel free to sell this until we can prove it's unsafe."
Of course, the emulsifiers mentioned are approved for sale in Europe, so it's not a panacea. But still, it would cut down the number of chemicals with unknown long-term effects in our food.
That is from health concerns over its high erucic acid content, which is fair as there is some evidence of concern with it possibly causing hyperlipidemia of the heart.
At the same time though, there are thousands of years of history of people eating it their entire lives and not necessarily dying of fatty hearts, so take that with a grain of salt.
I don't think any of this data justifies a ban even for the worst offenders, and the comparison to Big Tobacco is pretty comical hyperbole.
Feels a bit overkill to ban these ingredients given the culinary uses, even in home cooking for things like gluten free baking and salad dressings, simply because they're mildly unhealthful. I can think of many common things from both home cooking and commercial cooking that present a far higher risk that are normalised... and health honestly is not everything.
For instance, the HR for family history of diabetes is 4.46 (vs 1.03-1.15 here, where 1.0 is no change in hazard).