In this blog post, we’ll examine the impact of “additive-free” food marketing on consumers and the food industry—focusing on the example of synthetic sodium nitrite—not only from scientific and biological perspectives but also from ethical and social ones.
With the launch of “THE Healthy Ham” in 2010, an “additive-free” craze began sweeping through South Korea’s processed food industry. This trend spread to various foods, including coffee, instant noodles, and soy sauce, and companies in the South Korean processed food industry began competing fiercely to remove food additives and advertise this fact. This phenomenon sometimes took extreme forms, with marketing surrounding synthetic sodium nitrite being a prime example. When companies used nitrates derived from natural plants instead of synthetic sodium nitrite in processed foods and marketed them as “additive-free,” there were even concerns within the industry that this could lead to legal disputes. Strictly speaking, it was true that no “synthetic” sodium nitrite was added, but the marketing process left room for consumers to interpret it as if sodium nitrite itself had not been added at all. However, this fact was not widely known, and as the product became a huge success, competitors—fearing they might lose the first-mover advantage due to protracted litigation—began actively emulating this strategy. The marketing of “additive-free” foods remains a contentious issue. Some might argue that there is no real problem as long as the product is legally compliant and safely managed in accordance with standards set by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. However, I intend to analyze this argument not only from scientific and biological perspectives but also from ethical and social perspectives to present a counterargument. While there are numerous types of food additives—including synthetic preservatives, sodium erythorbate, synthetic flavorings, monosodium glutamate, and sodium caseinate—in addition to synthetic sodium nitrite, this article will narrow its focus and center the discussion on the case of synthetic sodium nitrite.
First, let’s examine the position that “no-additive” marketing poses no significant problem. The argument is that the essence of marketing lies in promoting sales, and everything else is merely a means to that end. Looking at this specific case, since chemically synthesized sodium nitrite and nitrites produced or derived from natural sources ultimately amount to the same chemical substance—nitrite—it is difficult to distinguish food safety solely based on whether the substance is synthetic or not. From the company’s perspective, even if they left some room for intentional misunderstanding, they could argue that they did not directly distort the information. Furthermore, from the consumer’s perspective, since they were able to purchase the product with satisfaction—believing it aligned with their “well-being” values, regardless of the reason—it could be argued that no one suffered any clear harm. Since there are no clear victims—and the product has actually brought economic benefits to the manufacturer and psychological satisfaction to consumers—one could even view this positively.
However, is it truly ethical to engage in marketing that exploits consumers’ limited background knowledge and misconceptions? This issue must be examined not only from economic or psychological perspectives but also from an ethical standpoint, and furthermore, it needs to be viewed as a social issue. Ethics refers to the principles that people must uphold and the actual moral norms they follow; in modern society, where the reliability of information is crucial, it is becoming an increasingly important value. “No-additives” marketing that violates basic principles such as respect, responsibility, justice, and the prohibition of harm can be seen as a case of disregarding ethics. Furthermore, if society tolerates such practices, advertisers will go beyond mere exaggeration and focus solely on how to manipulate consumer perceptions even more subtly. Consumers will gradually lose trust in marketing itself, creating a vicious cycle that could emerge as a major problem for society as a whole, which is built on trust.
Some believe that “no-additive” marketing can serve as a good opportunity to raise awareness about food safety in the long run. This is because, after being exposed to such marketing, people actually begin to perceive food additives as dangerous, which can lead to positive outcomes—such as checking the types and amounts of additives when purchasing other products in the future. This argument holds some merit. If consumers take an interest in food additives and actively voice their opinions, it will become easier for companies to produce products that meet consumer demands, leading to greater consumer satisfaction. Furthermore, if additives with relatively high risk levels were used—perhaps for economic reasons—or if they were used in quantities exceeding what is necessary, there is a possibility that such practices could be improved based on consumer feedback.
However, the problem lies in the fact that the use of food additives itself is a risk management tool designed to ensure food safety. Food safety authorities, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of South Korea, evaluate and regulate food additives—including their types, purposes, target foods, and usage levels—based on scientific evidence. Standards for the use of food additives are specifically defined for each substance and food category, and safety assessments comprehensively consider factors such as toxicity, exposure levels, and the target consumer group. However, this type of marketing that emphasizes “no additives” risks oversimplifying or exaggerating the actual risks posed by the additives themselves. In reality, consumers tend to prefer the simple premise that “it’s safe because it doesn’t contain additives” over the complex explanations provided by experts regarding “how dangerous” a substance is. Consequently, focusing on the symbolic “no additives” label leads to the problem of neglecting to consider the actual level of risk, the purpose of use, and exposure levels. In particular, nitrites are used in processed meat products to inhibit microbial growth, preserve meat color, and enhance flavor. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that simply removing them makes the food safer. Conversely, it cannot be concluded that nitrites are unconditionally safe substances either. A risk assessment that takes into account the levels used in food and actual intake is necessary, and the possibility that nitrites may react with other substances to form compounds such as nitrosamines must also be considered. In fact, even in evaluations by food safety authorities, while the use of nitrites at permitted levels is considered manageable within safety standards, they report that continuous evaluation and management are required regarding the potential risks associated with nitrosamines.
As such, “no-additives” marketing is a sales strategy for products that carry potential risks. Let’s now examine the fundamental characteristics of “no-additives” marketing and the potential adverse effects it may cause in the future. First, food marketing that emphasizes “no additives” can exploit consumers’ vague anxieties about food additives. Consumers tend to view food additives as one of the major sources of concern regarding food safety. Without fully understanding what role sodium nitrite plays, why it is used, or at what level of exposure it becomes problematic, consumers are likely to get the impression that this additive is unconditionally harmful simply because advertisements emphasize the phrase “no additives.” In reality, nitrites are important additives used in processed meat products to inhibit microbial growth, maintain a stable meat color, and enhance flavor. In particular, the distinctive pink color of processed meats is formed through a curing process involving the meat’s natural pigments and nitrites, making it difficult to achieve exactly the same characteristics using other substances alone. However, this does not mean that the health risks associated with nitrites can be ignored. Under certain conditions, nitrites can contribute to the formation of nitrosamines, and some nitrosamines are classified as carcinogenic. Therefore, the key is not to categorize nitrites as either unconditionally dangerous or unconditionally safe, but to assess the actual risk by comprehensively considering the purpose of use, dosage, intake levels, and cooking and processing conditions. In fact, when used in accordance with appropriate purposes and standards, this additive can help ensure microbiological safety. If non-existent risks are exaggerated or, conversely, actual risks are downplayed—thereby exploiting consumers’ anxiety or sense of relief and reinforcing stereotypes—this can restrict the normal use of the additive in food or hinder consumers from making rational judgments, which could lead to significant problems.
Second, categorizing all previously produced processed foods as “unsafe” is an overly extreme approach. Marketing based on blind trust in such “additive-free” foods may overlook realistic circumstances. This is not a desirable development for companies from a long-term perspective either. While a specific company may reap relatively large profits from its initial additive-free products, if every other company in the industry follows suit and releases additive-free foods, differentiation will eventually become impossible. There were clearly specific reasons for using additives in the first place, and if they can no longer be used, alternative measures will need to be implemented. For example, in the case of foods without nitrites, additional control methods may need to be applied to ensure microbiological safety, and depending on the product’s processing and storage conditions, stricter management may become necessary. This could lead to increased production costs and processes, potentially placing a burden on both processors and consumers. Furthermore, even when replacing synthetic sodium nitrite with nitrates or nitrites derived from natural sources, if separate ingredients and processes are added simply to achieve the symbolic status of being “natural,” an increase in production costs may be inevitable. What matters is not whether a substance is perceived as “synthetic” or “natural,” but rather the nature and quantity of the substance present in the final product, as well as its impact on food safety.
Finally, consumers may suffer direct or indirect harm due to misinformation about food additives. For example, if “additive-free” foods continue to be advertised, consumers may develop distrust toward the very concept of food additives—and by extension, the term “processed food” itself. Processed foods refer to foods made from natural ingredients—such as agricultural, livestock, and seafood products—that have been treated, either as-is or with the use of additives, to make them easier to eat, more digestible, and capable of long-term storage. This has evolved from traditional methods—such as adding salt, drying, smoking, and heating—to the use of modern food processing technologies and food additives. The use of food additives has played a crucial role in enhancing food preservation and quality, enabling distribution and storage, and ensuring food safety and variety. It is difficult to achieve food variety using traditional methods alone, and it is also challenging to adequately address practical issues such as extending shelf life and suppressing foodborne pathogens. Furthermore, since these methods are not suitable for mass production and long-distance distribution, they are used in conjunction with various processing technologies in the modern food industry. The “no-additives” trend, without fully considering these realities, emphasizes the perception that “natural is best” and risks dismissing food processing itself as unnecessary. This can cause vague anxiety about processed foods, which may pose a significant burden on the future of the processed food industry.
Food processing plays countless important roles, such as ensuring variety, extending shelf life, improving safety, enhancing flavor to increase palatability, and boosting nutritional value or utilizing functional ingredients. As food safety has emerged as a major issue, the processed food industry has begun to fully capitalize on the “no-additives” marketing trend. However, this strategy poses a significant problem in that it exploits consumer anxiety without sufficiently examining whether it is directly related to the safety of the food itself. Food additives cannot be judged for safety based solely on the simple distinction between synthetic and natural; their intended use, dosage, intake levels, and processing and storage conditions must all be taken into account. Therefore, what consumers need is not marketing that repeatedly emphasizes the symbolic phrase “additive-free,” but accurate information that clearly explains which ingredients are used in a given food, why they are used, and how strictly they are regulated. If the industry merely seeks to capitalize on this trend in pursuit of short-term profits, the future of the food processing industry will inevitably be bleak. Therefore, alongside continued attention to the negative effects of “additive-free” marketing, it is necessary to provide accurate information and implement appropriate regulations so that consumers can make rational judgments regarding food safety and additives.
