Notices
Results 1 to 47 of 47
Like Tree21Likes
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 4 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By jocular
  • 4 Post By Write4U
  • 1 Post By babe
  • 1 Post By jocular
  • 1 Post By jocular
  • 3 Post By scheherazade
  • 2 Post By Write4U
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By skeptic

Thread: Changes in Preserved Foods

  1. #1 Changes in Preserved Foods 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Way back when I was a kid, our old family doctor told my Dad lay off preserved meats like ham and sausage, for they contain Sodium Nitrite; that stuff is not good for you or your family. This was around 60 years ago! I love ham, always have, and ate tons over my lifetime. So, the nasty nitrosamines formed maybe affect some folks, but not all.

    Last couple of decades, I've noted the appearance of sealed packaged foods of various kinds, including meats, stored at room temperature, in the stores. Most contain no preservatives of the types we try to avoid (or any at all). I am not privy to the legal requirement for revealing use of radiation to preserve sealed packaged foods, but have not seen that imprinted on any.

    So, thinking irradiation of foods, done properly, must kill virtually every microbe contained therein. Are these foods indeed irradiated?

    jocular

    Edit: 2 attempts needed to post


    Last edited by jocular; July 26th, 2013 at 02:46 PM. Reason: getting sick of it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Most places irradiated food needs to be labelled as such. Don't know why, since it is harmless to the consumer.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation
    US Labeling[edit]

    The US defines irradiated foods as foods in which the irradiation causes a material change in the food, or a material change in the consequences that may result from the use of the food. This definition does not include foods where one of the ingredients is irradiated. This definition is not consistent with the Codex Alimentarius. All irradiated foods must bear the Radura symbol at the point of sale and the term "irradiated" or a derivative there of, in conjunction with explicit language describing the change in the food or its conditions of use.[41]
    The meaning of the label is not consistent as the amount of irradiation used can vary and the FDA regulations are on a product by product basis. The amount of pathogens affected by irradiation can vary as well.
    Food that is processed as an ingredient by a restaurant or food processor is exempt from the labeling requirement in the US.
    The Radura logo as regulated by FDA is slightly different from the international version as proposed in Codex Alimentarius.


    EU Labeling[edit]
    The European union follows the Alimentarius provision to label irradiated ingredients down to the last molecule. However, there is no option provided to use the RADURA-logo (what would not exclude to use this logo voluntarily). The European Union is particularly strict in enforcing irradiation labeling requiring its member countries to perform tests on a cross section of food items in the market-place and to report to the European Commission; the results are published annually in the OJ of the European Communities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Well I like ham, but I am particular.

    Bacon, I can find with no nitrates.

    My sister makes her own prociutto, and I have made my own sausage.......we chose what we ingest..and every once in awhile I crave something major not good for me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,244
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well I like ham, but I am particular.

    Bacon, I can find with no nitrates.

    My sister makes her own prociutto, and I have made my own sausage.......we chose what we ingest..and every once in awhile I crave something major not good for me
    Thanks to American movies I know how to pronounce "prosciutto". Seems they do have a function after all. Google can take care of what it actually is.

    I seem to have developed a taste for "nostalgia food". That includes various kinds of canned foods, including spaghetti and sauce, meatballs, corned beef, sweetened corn, pilchards, etc. They don't taste that wonderful on their own, but that touch of nostalgia from the distinctive taste from way back when adds something to it.

    Must say I am not too worried about preservatives and such. Maybe I should be if I want to live another 35 years.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I seem to have developed a taste for "nostalgia food".
    Same here. I sure as hell don't impulse buy Beanie Weenies because they taste good....
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Re preservatives.
    Anyone who eats bacon, or any smoked food, should not be concerned with preservatives. Smoke is 1000 times worse. Smokes contain carcinogens. Iceland has the world's highest consumption of smoked meats, and also has the world's highest rate of lip, tongue and throat cancer.

    Worrying about preservatives, while eating smoked food is like a 60 per day smoker worrying about car exhausts.
    jocular likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Re preservatives.
    Anyone who eats bacon, or any smoked food, should not be concerned with preservatives. Smoke is 1000 times worse. Smokes contain carcinogens. Iceland has the world's highest consumption of smoked meats, and also has the world's highest rate of lip, tongue and throat cancer.

    Worrying about preservatives, while eating smoked food is like a 60 per day smoker worrying about car exhausts.
    Worrying can bring on problems of it's own, to be sure. Perhaps caution, applied in the form of simply using moderation as far as preservatives are concerned, is the best middle ground. At any rate, smoking is undoubtedly one of life's nastier habits. I learned that the additional load placed on the heart by lungs damaged by smoking is as common as respiratory disease resulting from it.

    Thank you for the info about Iceland. Surprisingly, in view of your facts regarding cancer incidence, Iceland has (or perhaps, now had) the world's greatest average longevity. When I was a kid, American lifespan being around 70 something, Icelands was in the 80s. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    I can no longer find the link, but I recently heard that when we die our bodies do not decompose as fast as in the past. The claim was that the ingestion of preservatives and other stabilizers alters our body chemistry and prevents normal decomposition.

    I am not as worried by food irradiation as I am by food preservation. There is a real trend to consume more and more processed foods, rather than fresh foods. Cost seems to be an important factor as well as time for preparation.

    Anecdote; once I complained to a grocery clerk that fruits and vegetables are becoming very expensive. He reminded me that it is better to spend 5 dollars on a pound of fresh fruit, than to spend it on 1/2 pound of beef (injected with hormones and preservatives).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Again, about preservatives.

    They do not concern me. Among all the risks to life and health in today's world, preservatives in food is about at the very bottom of my priority list. There are people who spend their entire professional lives studying food preservatives, and many work for assorted governments, using their work to determine which preservatives are safe and at what doses. As long as the governments concerned monitor food standards, and ensure that food additives, including preservatives, are used according to the rules, the risk from them is minimal.

    As I said, smoked foods are a much greater risk. So is inhaled smoke, from any source, whether tobacco, wood fires, coal fires, diesel exhaust, incense, or marijuana. I am far more concerned with the wood smoke that drifts from my neighbour's home fire and enters my home where I have to inhale it, than I am about any number of food additives, as long as they are used according to legal requirements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I shoot and butcher deer. Most goes into the freezer wrapped in 2 different plastic wraps to slow "freezer burn".
    A little is thin sliced and jerked, then cured in spiced salt and sugar and vinegar brine, then smoked between 180 and 220 degrees F for 4-6 hrs.
    Though likely less healthy, the jerky never lasts more'n 3 months, while I am still cooking the frozen roasts and steaks 7-9 months after the killing.

    unlealthy? but really liked!

    I treat myself to store bought meat rarely. I really like bacon and a well marbled steak is a real pleasure.

    Summertime now, and most of what we eat grows in the backyard garden. Even the potatoes taste better'n store bought. And, the berries----the season starts with red raspberries and nanking cherries, then black raspberries and mulberries, and now, blackberries--------the earth is bountifull. I have a philosophy derived from the paleo diet crazies that we should pig out on whatever is ripe at the time of ripening, then move on to the next ripening, on into autumn with nuts and meat and potatoes o'er the winter--looking forward to spring's renewed bounty and the first asparagus.
    Apples and peaches and apricots are doing well now and I look forward to them in a month or so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I can no longer find the link, but I recently heard that when we die our bodies do not decompose as fast as in the past. The claim was that the ingestion of preservatives and other stabilizers alters our body chemistry and prevents normal decomposition.

    I am not as worried by food irradiation as I am by food preservation. There is a real trend to consume more and more processed foods, rather than fresh foods. Cost seems to be an important factor as well as time for preparation.

    Anecdote; once I complained to a grocery clerk that fruits and vegetables are becoming very expensive. He reminded me that it is better to spend 5 dollars on a pound of fresh fruit, than to spend it on 1/2 pound of beef (injected with hormones and preservatives).
    Ain't much protein in fresh fruit, though! jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Again, about preservatives.

    They do not concern me. Among all the risks to life and health in today's world, preservatives in food is about at the very bottom of my priority list. There are people who spend their entire professional lives studying food preservatives, and many work for assorted governments, using their work to determine which preservatives are safe and at what doses. As long as the governments concerned monitor food standards, and ensure that food additives, including preservatives, are used according to the rules, the risk from them is minimal.

    As I said, smoked foods are a much greater risk. So is inhaled smoke, from any source, whether tobacco, wood fires, coal fires, diesel exhaust, incense, or marijuana. I am far more concerned with the wood smoke that drifts from my neighbour's home fire and enters my home where I have to inhale it, than I am about any number of food additives, as long as they are used according to legal requirements.
    Such naivete is one reason, IMO, that Americans can thank for the dismally sad circumstances surrounding them today as subjects, instead of citizens. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I shoot and butcher deer. Most goes into the freezer wrapped in 2 different plastic wraps to slow "freezer burn".
    A little is thin sliced and jerked, then cured in spiced salt and sugar and vinegar brine, then smoked between 180 and 220 degrees F for 4-6 hrs.
    Though likely less healthy, the jerky never lasts more'n 3 months, while I am still cooking the frozen roasts and steaks 7-9 months after the killing.

    unlealthy? but really liked!

    I treat myself to store bought meat rarely. I really like bacon and a well marbled steak is a real pleasure.

    Summertime now, and most of what we eat grows in the backyard garden. Even the potatoes taste better'n store bought. And, the berries----the season starts with red raspberries and nanking cherries, then black raspberries and mulberries, and now, blackberries--------the earth is bountifull. I have a philosophy derived from the paleo diet crazies that we should pig out on whatever is ripe at the time of ripening, then move on to the next ripening, on into autumn with nuts and meat and potatoes o'er the winter--looking forward to spring's renewed bounty and the first asparagus.
    Apples and peaches and apricots are doing well now and I look forward to them in a month or so.
    I've always thought, perhaps incorrectly, that apricots could not be grown in the kind of climate you have supporting berries and apples and peaches. jocular
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    yeh jocular, my son Michael(the science teacher) planted them------surprised me too.
    But, they sure taste good.----zone 5 but with the windbreaks and downwind of the house maybe a higher microclimate?
    let us not forget "global warming" ----no 26 degrees below zero for the last 10 years----------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I can no longer find the link, but I recently heard that when we die our bodies do not decompose as fast as in the past. The claim was that the ingestion of preservatives and other stabilizers alters our body chemistry and prevents normal decomposition.

    I am not as worried by food irradiation as I am by food preservation. There is a real trend to consume more and more processed foods, rather than fresh foods. Cost seems to be an important factor as well as time for preparation.

    Anecdote; once I complained to a grocery clerk that fruits and vegetables are becoming very expensive. He reminded me that it is better to spend 5 dollars on a pound of fresh fruit, than to spend it on 1/2 pound of beef (injected with hormones and preservatives).
    Ain't much protein in fresh fruit, though! jocular
    We used to raise pigs and chickens (mostly for eggs).
    Our pigs lived like kings (for the duration). We fed them "calves manna" and sprouted alfalfa and non productive chickens. Came time for slaughter we fed them 2 beers each to relax them and prevent lactic acid from stiffening the meat and muscles.

    Talk about bacon and pork chops (protein)!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Thanks to American movies I know how to pronounce "prosciutto".
    Well, you know how Americans pronounce it
    We always callied it....

    pršut

    "prosciutto" in Slovenian
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I shoot and butcher deer. Most goes into the freezer wrapped in 2 different plastic wraps to slow "freezer burn".
    A little is thin sliced and jerked, then cured in spiced salt and sugar and vinegar brine, then smoked between 180 and 220 degrees F for 4-6 hrs.
    Though likely less healthy, the jerky never lasts more'n 3 months, while I am still cooking the frozen roasts and steaks 7-9 months after the killing.

    unlealthy? but really liked!

    I treat myself to store bought meat rarely. I really like bacon and a well marbled steak is a real pleasure.

    Summertime now, and most of what we eat grows in the backyard garden. Even the potatoes taste better'n store bought. And, the berries----the season starts with red raspberries and nanking cherries, then black raspberries and mulberries, and now, blackberries--------the earth is bountifull. I have a philosophy derived from the paleo diet crazies that we should pig out on whatever is ripe at the time of ripening, then move on to the next ripening, on into autumn with nuts and meat and potatoes o'er the winter--looking forward to spring's renewed bounty and the first asparagus.
    Apples and peaches and apricots are doing well now and I look forward to them in a month or so.
    I can all of our albacore tuna (no additives), all of our organic marinara sauce (no additives) and all of our organic dill pickles. I am a fresh fruit nut, and my husband used to hunt. I also made deer jerky. We ate pheasant, also, but neither was our main staple. We live in both places coastal, so fish is another fresh staple.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post

    Such naivete is one reason, IMO, that Americans can thank for the dismally sad circumstances surrounding them today as subjects, instead of citizens. jocular
    Actually, it is not naievity. I would call the uncritical acceptance of paranoid views on the FDA etc total naievite.
    I have friends who work for the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, and I can assure you that they are a fine body of dedicated scientists and researchers. There is no corruption among them, no callousness, but only dedication and excellent and very professional work. They frequently meet with their FDA counterparts, and their views on the paranoia expressed by nut case foodies are scathing. I do not consider myself an expert in this field, but I am happy to accept the opinions of those I know are genuine professionals in the field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post

    Such naivete is one reason, IMO, that Americans can thank for the dismally sad circumstances surrounding them today as subjects, instead of citizens. jocular
    Actually, it is not naievity. I would call the uncritical acceptance of paranoid views on the FDA etc total naievite.
    I have friends who work for the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, and I can assure you that they are a fine body of dedicated scientists and researchers. There is no corruption among them, no callousness, but only dedication and excellent and very professional work. They frequently meet with their FDA counterparts, and their views on the paranoia expressed by nut case foodies are scathing. I do not consider myself an expert in this field, but I am happy to accept the opinions of those I know are genuine professionals in the field.
    I surely would also. I am loathe to accept, however, knowing facts such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was seated on the Board of Directors of the manufacturer of Aspartame, during the period in which our FDA Director was fired for refusing to label the sweetener as safe for universal use in foodstuffs, and the NEW Director immediately blindly agreed to acceptance.This sort of egregious behavior has soured my respect for elected officials to a degree never before as intense. jocular
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post

    Such naivete is one reason, IMO, that Americans can thank for the dismally sad circumstances surrounding them today as subjects, instead of citizens. jocular
    Actually, it is not naievity. I would call the uncritical acceptance of paranoid views on the FDA etc total naievite.
    I have friends who work for the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, and I can assure you that they are a fine body of dedicated scientists and researchers. There is no corruption among them, no callousness, but only dedication and excellent and very professional work. They frequently meet with their FDA counterparts, and their views on the paranoia expressed by nut case foodies are scathing. I do not consider myself an expert in this field, but I am happy to accept the opinions of those I know are genuine professionals in the field.
    But skeptical inquiry is not necessarily an indictment of the science and the research.

    Sometimes the real scientists are preempted by other agents, who usually have no scientific expertise (except perhaps as practitioner of medicine) and are under enormous political pressure from Big Business who have enormous stockholder pressures to produce profits as quickly and efficiently as possible. Every one wants to do the right thing, but conflicting interests and priorities by non scientists tend to corrupt the patient and prudent research required to evaluate long term impact of using certain chemical "additives" for direct mass consumption. MSG?

    Science reports the risk factors without prejudice. Science is concerned with facts, not business models. Those moral decisions are made by others, sometimes even in spite of the facts. And every one with knowledge is sworn to secrecy in the name of proprietary ingredients.

    Perhaps I am too cynical, but he first time I heard the phrase "acceptable risk" it raised a red flag in my mind. Who determines "acceptable risk"?

    Big money, Big ethical problems. I am skeptical of other phrases such as the 'Cheney exemptions'
    Four years after Vice President Dick Cheney spearheaded a massive energy bill that exempted natural gas drilling from federal clean water laws, Congress is having second thoughts about the environmental dangers posed by the burgeoning industry
    Natural Gas Politics - ProPublica
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post

    Such naivete is one reason, IMO, that Americans can thank for the dismally sad circumstances surrounding them today as subjects, instead of citizens. jocular
    Actually, it is not naievity. I would call the uncritical acceptance of paranoid views on the FDA etc total naievite.
    I have friends who work for the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, and I can assure you that they are a fine body of dedicated scientists and researchers. There is no corruption among them, no callousness, but only dedication and excellent and very professional work. They frequently meet with their FDA counterparts, and their views on the paranoia expressed by nut case foodies are scathing. I do not consider myself an expert in this field, but I am happy to accept the opinions of those I know are genuine professionals in the field.
    But skeptical inquiry is not necessarily an indictment of the science and the research.

    Sometimes the real scientists are preempted by other agents, who usually have no scientific expertise (except perhaps as practitioner of medicine) and are under enormous political pressure from Big Business who have enormous stockholder pressures to produce profits as quickly and efficiently as possible. Every one wants to do the right thing, but conflicting interests and priorities by non scientists tend to corrupt the patient and prudent research required to evaluate long term impact of using certain chemical "additives" for direct mass consumption. MSG?

    Science reports the risk factors without prejudice. Science is concerned with facts, not business models. Those moral decisions are made by others, sometimes even in spite of the facts. And every one with knowledge is sworn to secrecy in the name of proprietary ingredients.

    Perhaps I am too cynical, but he first time I heard the phrase "acceptable risk" it raised a red flag in my mind. Who determines "acceptable risk"?

    Big money, Big ethical problems. I am skeptical of other phrases such as the 'Cheney exemptions'
    Four years after Vice President Dick Cheney spearheaded a massive energy bill that exempted natural gas drilling from federal clean water laws, Congress is having second thoughts about the environmental dangers posed by the burgeoning industry
    Natural Gas Politics - ProPublica
    You are here talking the exact type of doubtfulness I express, in direct opposition to statements you made previously. Thus, I am "hearing" that while you trust governmental policies which affect your very peace of mind, you at the same time DIStrust those policies. What do you truly berlieve in? jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I can no longer find the link, but I recently heard that when we die our bodies do not decompose as fast as in the past. The claim was that the ingestion of preservatives and other stabilizers alters our body chemistry and prevents normal decomposition.

    I am not as worried by food irradiation as I am by food preservation. There is a real trend to consume more and more processed foods, rather than fresh foods. Cost seems to be an important factor as well as time for preparation.

    Anecdote; once I complained to a grocery clerk that fruits and vegetables are becoming very expensive. He reminded me that it is better to spend 5 dollars on a pound of fresh fruit, than to spend it on 1/2 pound of beef (injected with hormones and preservatives).
    Won't matter to me.....cremated and tossed.....like a salad!

    I don't eat hardly anything processed ever and I cook from scratch. All my meat is bought w/o hormones or preservatives...been that way for years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    jocular;445614,
    You are here talking the exact type of doubtfulness I express, in direct opposition to statements you made previously. Thus, I am "hearing" that while you trust governmental policies which affect your very peace of mind, you at the same time DIStrust those policies. What do you truly berlieve in? jocular
    No I distrust the implementation of those good policies which sets standards of quality for protecting individual rights to by protecting their water supply or their food supply.
    Standards don't mean much when the Industries for which these standards were set, are exempt from them and the Industries only have to deal with state agencies and officials, which now must rely on the "word" of the industry to police itself. And yes, they provide a lot of jobs.
    Unfortunately a disparate few jobs for dispassionate and competent "inspectors". In fact in some states the budget for qualified scientific research as a social service are being cut.

    Perhaps I am cynical, but when patterns of neglect or use of inferior ingredients emerge consistently in association with massive environmental failures and dangerous food products for mass use, public inquiry is the only remedy.
    IMO, the rights to expect the federal protection of water and food resources is common to all states and of federal interest and should be sufficiently budgeted.

    Did I not hear that the FDA budget was cut while the population and therefore consumption of ever new products (some designed to addict the consumer) is increasing at an exponential rate?
    Was the EPA budget not slashed while an increasing population places even greater demand for protection of clean water resources? If I am wrong please correct me, I would love to be proved wrong.
    Last edited by Write4U; July 31st, 2013 at 05:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    First, to Jocular.
    Aspartame is, in fact, 100% safe. I have read both sides of the aspartame argument. The anti-aspartame people tend to be cherry pickers. There have been literally hundreds of scientific studies on its safety, and a tiny number, through chance effects, show minor risks. The vast bulk of such studies show complete safety. If you happen to be a foodist nutter wanting to cast suspicion on aspartame, you can do so by carefully selecting the tiny minority of studies that support your view. There was an excellent article a few issues back in Skeptic magazine, written by Dr. Harriet Hall, who reviewed the data on aspartame.

    This is a major reason why people who are professionals in the field are vital. People like those scientists I know in the NZ Food Safety Authority. They are paid to review all the evidence, and I do mean all. Thus, they do not fall into the foodist follower trap of getting spoon fed cherry picked data. You need to be very careful indeed about where you get your information from. There are literally hundreds of nut case web sites out there that are used by complete nut cases to support total bullsh!t.

    On the business of conspiracies inside government departments.
    I repeat something I have said many times. Conspiracies depend on secrecy. As soon as secrets are revealed, the conspiracy fails. We have seen a number of wonderful people becoming whistle blowers in the last few years, and we now have Wiki Leaks as a medium to carry vital released information.

    The general principle is simple, and pretty much infallible. Two people can successfully share a secret. Up to 7 can, in fact, though the risk of betrayal increases with each new participant. By the time the number gets to 10, the odds of betrayal approach 100%. If you have a conspiracy within a government department (like hiding toxic nature of a food additive), and the number in the conspiracy is 10 or more, then the conspiracy will be betrayed. Simple as that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Did I not hear that the FDA budget was cut while the population and therefore consumption of ever new products (some designed to addict the consumer) is increasing at an exponential rate?
    Was the EPA budget not slashed while an increasing population places even greater demand for protection of clean water resources? If I am wrong please correct me, I would love to be proved wrong.
    I debate, based upon belief in my knowledge of wherefore I speak. No doubt budgets were cut, as you mention. EPA being one of universal vital interest to all humans, consider the fact that the largest consumer of petroleum in the world is the U.S. Military. Use of petroleum is a polluting practice, no way around it. Therefore, the U.S. Military is a major polluter which inherently enjoys complete protection from EPA governance.

    This is one of the many ironies which we, the people, can do nothing about. jocular
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    First, to Jocular.
    Aspartame is, in fact, 100% safe. I have read both sides of the aspartame argument. There was an excellent article a few issues back in Skeptic magazine, written by Dr. Harriet Hall, who reviewed the data on aspartame.
    Trouble is, that both sides of the argument about Aspartame safety each have their own agenda. Did the article you refer to include exposure of the data being referred to, certifying it's accuracy? Likely, no. Thus, have YOU read or seen any of this data yourself? When you can successfully explain to me how the body's metabolism of Aspartame to Wood Alcohol is "safe", I will be satisfied. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    On another forum, there was a poster who suggested that it is always of interest to backtrack the money trail wherever controversial decisions are made.

    Preserved foods have long been utilized but for myself, I prefer the methods of nature, those being freezing and drying. I know how to can and make preserves and for many years I have put a lot of food by in order to save money and to know exactly what was in the food we ate. Since coming to work in the retail grocery trade, I have less time for those pursuits and easier access to fresh food year round. I keep a few canned goods and convenience foods around for emergencies but the majority of our diet comes from the perimeters of the market, fresh, organic in many cases, and Canadian origin is preferred.

    I also am privy to information regarding many products that are recalled for 'quality control reasons', these being reasons that do not make the national news but which are of concern and interest nonetheless. That information also factors into my decision making and there are many corporations that I have no confidence in and shop accordingly. As far as safety of preservatives and additives are concerned, while they may be safe for most people, there are people who are sensitive to these additives and each person will have to do their own diligence in this regard. I personally am sensitive to tartrazine, which is in many baked goods and pickles and relishes but has become of less concern as I no longer eat most of these and the ones I do, I make from scratch at home.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine
    sculptor, jocular and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Incidentally, for those who like homegrown porkchops (raise pigs), an old-timer once gave me a simple method for keeping pigs free of ticks and other insects.

    He advised me to place a strong pole (at least 3' deep) at a 60 angle into the ground. The top portion easily accessible to the pigs to rub their backs (which they love to do).
    Then wrap a large jute sack around the top portion of the pole and saturate it with clean 30 weight oil or a mineral oil.

    Pigs do not sweat and do not absorb through their skin, so the oils are not harmful to the pigs but as the pigs rub the pole any insects will be smothered by the oil and the pigs stays free of any skin infestation.

    My pigs were the cleanest, pinkest pigs I have ever seen and even as we were in the middle of heavily wooded forest, we never had any problems with insect infestation.

    The pole may also be used to wash the pigs by soaking the jute with soapy water. It' is a cheap and useful addition to a pig pen.
    KALSTER and sculptor like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Skeptic:

    The methanol produced by the metabolism of aspartame is absorbed and quickly converted into formaldehyde and then completely oxidized to formic acid, which, due to its long half life, is considered the primary mechanism of toxicity in methanol poisoning. The methanol from aspartame is unlikely to be a safety concern for several reasons. The amount of methanol in aspartame is less than that found in fruit juices and citrus fruits, and there are other dietary sources for methanol such as fermented beverages.

    Aspartame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Sure, it's "safe" But so are many poisons, in moderation. What gripes me most is the extremely shady way in which approval was obtained for "universal" use of this shit; similarly, the fluoride now introduced into most American municipal water systems is very toxic. Does it really eliminate dental caries? Many municipalities have now discontinued it's use.

    History? Our mining industry here has left millions of tons of "tailings" exposed to run-off from precipitation, leading to high levels of "heavy metal" contamination, and fluorides! Faced with the need to comply with fluoride elimination from the environment, we are FORCED by the government to feed it to our children, thereby eliminating it from the overall environment. (nut-case jocular)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    On another forum, there was a poster who suggested that it is always of interest to backtrack the money trail wherever controversial decisions are made.

    Preserved foods have long been utilized but for myself, I prefer the methods of nature, those being freezing and drying. I know how to can and make preserves and for many years I have put a lot of food by in order to save money and to know exactly what was in the food we ate. Since coming to work in the retail grocery trade, I have less time for those pursuits and easier access to fresh food year round. I keep a few canned goods and convenience foods around for emergencies but the majority of our diet comes from the perimeters of the market, fresh, organic in many cases, and Canadian origin is preferred.

    I also am privy to information regarding many products that are recalled for 'quality control reasons', these being reasons that do not make the national news but which are of concern and interest nonetheless. That information also factors into my decision making and there are many corporations that I have no confidence in and shop accordingly. As far as safety of preservatives and additives are concerned, while they may be safe for most people, there are people who are sensitive to these additives and each person will have to do their own diligence in this regard. I personally am sensitive to tartrazine, which is in many baked goods and pickles and relishes but has become of less concern as I no longer eat most of these and the ones I do, I make from scratch at home.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine
    I am personally dead against the widespread use now found of food colorings. Recently, I picked up a container of cottage cheese in the market; it's label indicated it contained blue food coloring! WTH does cottage cheese, which I EXPECT to be white, need blue coloring in it for?

    joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Jocular

    Aspartame produces tiny amounts of methanol inside the human body. So does my and your normal natural metabolism. Methanol is found in a wide range of healthy foods, as is formaldehyde. Apples, for example, contain formaldehyde. Tiny amounts of methanol or formaldehyde in our food or drink are irrelevant, since our bodies already contain mechanisms for degrading and eliminating these common toxins.

    On the business of knowledge and reading all the studies. Of course I have not read all the studies, and neither have you, because there are hundreds of the damn things. That is why we rely on experts who study these things intensively. Some of those working for the NZ Food Safety Authority get given these tasks, and these guys are genuine experts. They read the hundreds of studies and come up with a final assessment. I am not stupid enough to try to repeat their much more professional work. I look at the final conclusion and accept it. What I do not do is follow crackpot web sites.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    ... I don't eat hardly anything processed ever and I cook from scratch. ...
    Entertaining side note?
    My mother's last husband, Tony, was a pastry chef from the rhineland. "Scratch" for him meant the garbage you toss out for the chickens.
    So, when someone complemented him by guessing that he had made some pastries from "scratch", he was highly offended.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Jocular

    Aspartame produces tiny amounts of methanol inside the human body. So does my and your normal natural metabolism. Methanol is found in a wide range of healthy foods, as is formaldehyde. Apples, for example, contain formaldehyde. Tiny amounts of methanol or formaldehyde in our food or drink are irrelevant, since our bodies already contain mechanisms for degrading and eliminating these common toxins.

    On the business of knowledge and reading all the studies. Of course I have not read all the studies, and neither have you, because there are hundreds of the damn things. That is why we rely on experts who study these things intensively. Some of those working for the NZ Food Safety Authority get given these tasks, and these guys are genuine experts. They read the hundreds of studies and come up with a final assessment. I am not stupid enough to try to repeat their much more professional work. I look at the final conclusion and accept it. What I do not do is follow crackpot web sites.
    I understand, and appreciate what you are saying. Thing is, there is always the stipulation voiced in the reporting related to the amount of aspartame ingested. It is now used very widely. In soft drinks it is often the 3rd ingredient listed, after water and caramel, while the last is caffeine, with perhaps 40 mg. Thus we know the 12 oz. can contains more than 40 mg of aspartame. Nonetheless, I myself continue to consume, mainly soft drinks, foods containing it.

    My preoccupation with non-sugar sweeteners is not caloric; I am after sweet taste that does not rot away the teeth! jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    jocular;445817,
    I am personally dead against the widespread use now found of food colorings. Recently, I picked up a container of cottage cheese in the market; it's label indicated it contained blue food coloring! WTH does cottage cheese, which I EXPECT to be white, need blue coloring in it for?

    joc
    Blue makes white look brighter. I agree it is a completely superfluous (and possibly toxic) additive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    To Jocular

    Obviously dose is always important. My reading, however (mostly Dr. Harriet Hall on this topic) states that the methanol and formaldehyde from aspartame is so small a dose as to be inconsequentiaL.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    ... I don't eat hardly anything processed ever and I cook from scratch. ...
    Entertaining side note?
    My mother's last husband, Tony, was a pastry chef from the rhineland. "Scratch" for him meant the garbage you toss out for the chickens.
    So, when someone complemented him by guessing that he had made some pastries from "scratch", he was highly offended.
    Mahalo!! for that lighter side of the discussion! I had a great laugh from that description.

    I should possibly reword my response as to...hmmm...I make everything from fresh, and organic (if possible) ingredients, usually purchased within three days, and mostly from the COOP or Farmer's Certifed Organic Street Market, and don't own a can opener!!

    Is that better? *chuckle*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    I will stick to plain old fashioned raw, unprocessed sugar

    I don't have enough of it to affect me, anyhow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    jocular;445817,
    I am personally dead against the widespread use now found of food colorings. Recently, I picked up a container of cottage cheese in the market; it's label indicated it contained blue food coloring! WTH does cottage cheese, which I EXPECT to be white, need blue coloring in it for?

    joc
    Blue makes white look brighter. I agree it is a completely superfluous (and possibly toxic) additive.
    When I was a kid, my Mother had a bottle of "bluing" stationed nearby the old wringer type washing machine. The stuff was an intensely blue liquid, to be added to white laundry...obviously, it did not dye the cloth enough to make it look blue. Don't know if such stuff is still on the market or not. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To Jocular

    Obviously dose is always important. My reading, however (mostly Dr. Harriet Hall on this topic) states that the methanol and formaldehyde from aspartame is so small a dose as to be inconsequentiaL.
    It probably is, so long as one doesn't consume the stuff in all material ingested. I recall back when cyclamates were banned here (I absolutely loved Tab soda, drank many cans daily) the testing for safety was decried as ridiculously slanted, the equivalent of thousands of daily doses, fed to rats. After that "scare", work began on a Saccharin ban, that having been in use by diabetics for decades. Testing was rumored to have shown dangers, but somehow the whole thing got shelved. I often wonder how one as suspecting as I am can ever get reliable information. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    jocular;445817,
    I am personally dead against the widespread use now found of food colorings. Recently, I picked up a container of cottage cheese in the market; it's label indicated it contained blue food coloring! WTH does cottage cheese, which I EXPECT to be white, need blue coloring in it for?

    joc
    Blue makes white look brighter. I agree it is a completely superfluous (and possibly toxic) additive.
    When I was a kid, my Mother had a bottle of "bluing" stationed nearby the old wringer type washing machine. The stuff was an intensely blue liquid, to be added to white laundry...obviously, it did not dye the cloth enough to make it look blue. Don't know if such stuff is still on the market or not. jocular
    Blue pigment is still used in white paints.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    There is a pseudoscientific fallacy that crops up on this forum regularly. It is called the naturalistic fallacy, and states that anything natural is better than things that are unnatural or man made. It is a fallacy because it is simply wrong. There is no connection between natural/unnatural and good/bad. Natural things can be good, or they can be bad. Unnatural things can be good, or they can be bad.

    One of the widest examples of the naturalistic fallacy is the belief that 'organic' food is healthier than conventional. In fact, the British Food Safety Agency contracted a meta study to check this out, and found no health connection with organic versus conventional at all.

    An example of natural being bad relates to sugar. Sugar cane is as natural as you can get, and yet the over-consumption of its product leads to obesity, type II diabetes etc. Those who consume the 'unnatural' substitute aspartame instead, end up healthier.

    So, I suggest to those on this forum who believe in good science, and in evidence based thinking, that you add to your cerebral bullsh!t detector, the idea that being natural does not, in itself, mean better.
    jocular likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Skeptic, I guess I "lucked-out" on this one, for two real reasons. First your post above does not appear to be aimed solely at me; secondly, there is nowhere to be found any utterance by myself embracing "organic" or "natural". We have here in our country (perhaps elsewhere too) a spin-off on organic, called something like "free-range", the term applied mainly to chickens.

    Our neighbor in Missouri sold his free-ranged chickens in a parking lot in town. As we drove by his stand, my wife and I always snickered, wondering if his customers might not vomit after consuming his foul fowl, if they were then shown the birds' living conditions! jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    I read somewhere that sugars and other caloric substances are broken down by the body itself into useful amino acids, but to ingest pure sugars or other pure amino acids bypassing the bodies natural functions may cause long term (accumulative) side effects.
    Aspartame is a methyl ester of the dipeptide of the natural amino acids L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine. Under strongly acidic or alkaline conditions, aspartame may generate methanol by hydrolysis. Under more severe conditions, the peptide bonds are also hydrolyzed, resulting in the free amino acids.[9]
    Aspartame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    and

    L-Phenylalanine is biologically converted into L-tyrosine, another one of the DNA-encoded amino acids. L-tyrosine in turn is converted into L-DOPA, which is further converted into dopamine, norepinephrine (noradrenaline), and epinephrine (adrenaline). The latter three are known as the catecholamines.

    Phenylalanine uses the same active transport channel as tryptophan to cross the blood–brain barrier, and, in large quantities, interferes with the production of serotonin. Conversion of phenylalanine and tyrosine to its biologically important derivatives.png
    Phenylalanine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    To jocular

    You are correct that my post on the naturalistic fallacy was not directed at you, or any other individual for that matter. It was general in nature.

    However, I do notice the fallacy being exercised quite often on this forum by various people who should know better. It goes beyond just food, of course. A common variation is the belief that anything ecological that differs from 'natural' pristine ecosystems has got to be bad.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    but to ingest pure sugars or other pure amino acids bypassing the bodies natural functions may cause long term (accumulative) side effects.
    Interesting short piece on the ABC's science show Catalyst this week. Catalyst: Ancient Teeth - ABC TV Science

    If the video won't play the transcript is there to be read. Basically our high carbohydrate diet changes the bacteria all the way from our mouths to the gut - and we get tooth decay whereas hunter gatherers don't.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    I love my pasta! Wife finally convinced me only whole wheat is the way to go, so that's all I buy now. Beware: Big names like Ronzoni and Barilla are only 50% whole wheat! Surprisingly, some "house brands" are 100%! Kroger has their brand, Wally-Market theirs.

    Schez, I don't know about you guys way up yonder! joc
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. GMO foods
    By Holmes in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 6th, 2013, 05:41 PM
  2. Charred Foods
    By jocular in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 12th, 2013, 10:34 AM
  3. Certain foods and drinks stop disease ??
    By chad in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: January 15th, 2012, 08:29 AM
  4. testing for sulfur compounds in chinese preserved egg
    By takopachi18 in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 9th, 2009, 04:13 AM
  5. How many foods to stay healthy
    By marcusclayman in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 28th, 2009, 03:50 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •