The Quorn Should be Outlawed.
Options
Replies
-
Its technically a mould. A mould found in soil to be specific. It grows in the long fibres that you see which are compressed together in the final product. It does contain trace amounts of myco toxin which some people are allergic to. In things like the sausages some of the mycoprotien ( mould) has been replaced with rusk to reduce the toxins, however this has increased the carbs and reduced the protein. I was veggie for 12 years and virtually lived off the stuff and had no issues but did know 2 people who it gave stomach cramps.
In the uk it is pasteurised and has added egg white to bind it which makes it unsuitable for vegans and those with egg allergies.
0 -
The prefix "myco-" means fungus. How more obvious should it be?0
-
Bottom line, anything you think should be done to relabel/warn people about Quorn, to be fair it has to be done to all products containing peanuts first. Because peanut allergy is far more common and severe reaction much more likely.
http://www.jantoo.com/cartoons/keywords/allergic0 -
I fully support adequate labelling of allergens. But saying it should be outlawed is a little... hysterical?0
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »I fully support adequate labelling of allergens. But saying it should be outlawed is a little... hysterical?
This was my thought, exactly! we can't get wrapped up in outlawing everything that might pose a risk to a few people, when a warning that they should be looking for in the first place should be more than sufficient.0 -
I love the quorn chik'n patties with the cheesy whatever stuff. The nuggets are gross. But um... When I first bought the product, I read the labels on the back, and it clearly states it's made from fungi... Which is why I tried so hard to keep my dog from eating the nugget that fell on the floor a few years ago. Wasn't quick enough and she puked all over.0
-
I demand we stop calling it mycoprotein and call it scrapping from athlete's foot.
I also demand we stop fooling ourselves with the term lactose and instead says cow tit squeezings.
I also demand we stop using contains eggs, and instead say contains stuff that comes from a chicken's poop shoot (they have a cloaca, so yeah, same hole).
I also demand instead of contains nuts, we say contains plant embryos.0 -
I demand we stop calling it mycoprotein and call it scrapping from athlete's foot.
I also demand we stop fooling ourselves with the term lactose and instead says cow tit squeezings.
I also demand we stop using contains eggs, and instead say contains stuff that comes from a chicken's poop shoot (they have a cloaca, so yeah, same hole). chicken menstruation
I also demand instead of contains nuts, we say contains plant embryos.
FIFY0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I demand we stop calling it mycoprotein and call it scrapping from athlete's foot.
I also demand we stop fooling ourselves with the term lactose and instead says cow tit squeezings.
I also demand we stop using contains eggs, and instead say contains stuff that comes from a chicken's poop shoot (they have a cloaca, so yeah, same hole). chicken menstruation
I also demand instead of contains nuts, we say contains plant embryos.
FIFY
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand there goes breakfast for the next 3 weeks til I forget this happened.0 -
I'm with the OP. If it's nothing but fungus and a known allergen, it should be outlawed.
0 -
There may be a distinct marketing difference ..quorn has been available here since mid 90s ..it's well know. And available in all supermarkets
Middle aged American here. I shop and cook a lot. I wonder if it's new or newish here.
I've never heard of it and wouldn't have had a clue what mycoprotein is till you guys talked about.
Seems It should have an allergen statement on it.
Are you vegetarian? Do you ever venture into the frozen meatless meat substitute aisle?
I'm a nonvegetarian middle-aged American, but I do venture into the meat substitute section. I've heard of Quorn and seen it around occasionally, but's it not the most prominent or common meat-sub brand in the U.S. I see Morningstar, Boca, and Tofurkey much more. I wasn't aware until fairly recently (last year or so) that Quorn was a protein derived from fungus, but I can't imagine having a serious allergy to fungi and not checking the ingredient list and recognizing "myco-" as a prefix indicating it meant fungus.
0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »thankyou4thevenom wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »People who have severely anaphylactic children simply don't take chances with unknown ingredients IME
I find it odd that they didn't look into it
Do you think that the onus is solely on the consumer or do you think that companies have a duty to be transparent in their labeling of products?
Incidentally the complaint outlines that the child's mother did check the label but was unaware that it contained mould given how it is worded.
If this was peanuts these guys would have been arrested already. Yeah, companies have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to list this stuff, not just a moral responsibility. Somebody's baby died for godssakes...
The problem with your argument is it was labeled. They just didn't realise that the name they were reading was a fungi.
The onus to label it was fullfiled but a lack of knowledge led to this tragic death. Should it be dumbed down to prevent this happening again. I'd say yes. However you should educate yourself so you always know what you and your child is eating
I know in the UK allergens now have to be bolded on labels, so it'd be interesting to know if it's bolded.CoffeeNCardio wrote: »thankyou4thevenom wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »People who have severely anaphylactic children simply don't take chances with unknown ingredients IME
I find it odd that they didn't look into it
Do you think that the onus is solely on the consumer or do you think that companies have a duty to be transparent in their labeling of products?
Incidentally the complaint outlines that the child's mother did check the label but was unaware that it contained mould given how it is worded.
If this was peanuts these guys would have been arrested already. Yeah, companies have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to list this stuff, not just a moral responsibility. Somebody's baby died for godssakes...
The problem with your argument is it was labeled. They just didn't realise that the name they were reading was a fungi.
The onus to label it was fullfiled but a lack of knowledge led to this tragic death. Should it be dumbed down to prevent this happening again. I'd say yes. However you should educate yourself so you always know what you and your child is eating
I know in the UK allergens now have to be bolded on labels, so it'd be interesting to know if it's bolded.
The ingredients listing listed "mycoprotein". I'm just saying, if something is labeled as having "quiche" in it, we would still requires the company to list "contains eggs*" at the bottom. We ask them to list "this product was manufactured in a facility that also manufactures products containing soy, eggs, gluten, etc*". I dunno why we let a company say "mycoprotein" and not list "*contains fungus" under the ingredients list like literally every other product out there is required to do. I had NEVER seen that word before in my life. I googled it, so yay me, but how hard is it to just put a little asterisk and the word "fungus" which the general non-vegan population actually are familiar with?
I feel like the parents weren't careful enough, but this company wasn't careful enough at best, and they were negligent/purposefully manipulative at best. I mean it's a quarter inch of ink.... sounds to me like they didn't want people to hear the word fungus.
Because Mycoprotien is type of fungus. It's why in my edit I put it should be labeled in brackets because even people who are looking after those with severe allergies either can't be bothered or not educated well enough to know it is one. If you have someone with THAT severe of an allergy you'd be really careful. They clearly weren't.
Also the quiche thing doesn't work because that's a product made of many ingredients. Mycoprotien is a type of fungus but not all fungus is Mycoprotien. It's the same with peanuts. They are a type of nut but not all nuts are peanuts.
No nuts are peanuts. Peanuts are legumes, not nuts.0 -
I read what Quorn was comprised of and was surprised. It's nothing but fungus and it's a known allergen.
http://www.cspinet.org/quorn/Medical studies have proven that Quorn's fungal ingredient is an allergen, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency still allow its sale. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit food-safety organization based in Washington, D.C., has heard from more than 2,000 consumers in Europe, the United States, and Australia/New Zealand who suffered reactions to Quorn.
They sell this stuff at a Whole Foods near me and I had a friend recently have an allergic reaction to it. I'm not saying that the Quorn is going to outright kill you but if you have any allergic reaction to fungus or even if you can eat mushroom be careful. It's not the same type of fungus as mushrooms.
Family Files Lawsuit After Son Dies From Reaction to Quorn
Never heard of it, but I wouldn't buy it anyway.
People eat mushrooms, which are fungi.
You can't outlaw foods, that would be silly. But, I can understand if you don't want to eat something made from a vat of fungus. I don't think I would either just cause it sounds gross.0 -
I demand we stop calling it mycoprotein and call it scrapping from athlete's foot.
I also demand we stop fooling ourselves with the term lactose and instead says cow tit squeezings.
I also demand we stop using contains eggs, and instead say contains stuff that comes from a chicken's poop shoot (they have a cloaca, so yeah, same hole).
I also demand instead of contains nuts, we say contains plant embryos.
At the risk of ruining satire with a semi-serious rant, I demand food manufacturers stop listing "dehydrated cane juice" as an ingredient. How are people cutting out all white carbs supposed to know that dehydrated cane juice is sugar?0 -
Queenmunchy wrote: »
I haven't bought it in probably 10 years, but it used to say mycoprotein on it...I distinctly remember that being labeled somewhere on the package (maybe the back).
Naked chicken?
I didn't realize they wore clothes...ever.
0 -
Honestly, I think a better case could be made against the parents for negligent homicide or something of that sort, or for taking any other children away from them on the grounds that they have proved themselves to be unfit parents, than to go after the manufacturer of a product that accurately lists the ingredients and notes that mycoproteins are derived from fungi. I'm not saying that's what should happen to the parents; I'm just saying that it would be more reasonable than holding the manufacturer responsible for the parents' mistake.0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »It's a know allergen? Like that means anything
If you're not allergic it's fine
You didn't know it was fungus?
Personally I like beef but there's nothing wrong with quorn if you don't have a reaction to it
Me? I find egg yolk and prawns to be "known allergens" for me
I think it's that they market it as beef. Have you seen the packaging pictures? Perhaps they should just be made to put a disclaimer on the front.
In the US, Quorn is marketed as a meat substitute. Are we talking about the same product?
Yeah, but the packaging just has tiny print that says it's a substitute and a giant picture of what looks like grilled chicken. Quorn marketing is devious.
No, it's really not. I think they probably expect you to read at least some of the label. I am allergic to penicillin, but I don't think they should stop giving it to other people, just to me. I looked at the lawsuit and I looked up mold allergies. It's apparently common knowledge that if you have a mold allergy then you shouldn't eat mushrooms. Since the package clearly says it's a fungus, I don't think they should have a case. I'm sure they'll argue that she didn't know mushrooms were the same as fungus, but I truly feel if you have an allergy, the onus is on you to understand it and know what foods to avoid.0 -
The point from the court documents linked in the OP is that the labeling is misleading or deliberately omitted the nature of the product in that it contains mould - a substance which was lethal to the poor kid who died as a result of eating the Quorn product.
It is alleged that the producers of Quorn may have deliberately concealed this fact as it could have a negative impact on profits.
I thought this was common knowledge about quorn?
I've known how it was made since I was a teenager. That's...a while ago.
I'm all for clearer labelling but I don't think quorn has done anything sinister. Allergies are individual to the person so it's really their responsibility to make sure they're not consuming something they know they are allergic to.
I had a friend who was allergic to sunlight. Should the weather reporter be responsible for warning them about the risks?0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »There may be a distinct marketing difference ..quorn has been available here since mid 90s ..it's well know. And available in all supermarkets
Middle aged American here. I shop and cook a lot. I wonder if it's new or newish here.
I've never heard of it and wouldn't have had a clue what mycoprotein is till you guys talked about.
Seems It should have an allergen statement on it.
Young American here, and I agree, I have only heard of this because my sister in law went vegan and likes it when we all go to vegan/vegetarian restaurants together (she's desperately trying to convert us). That one time in that one place was the only time I have ever even heard of it, I don't shop at whole foods, cause $$$$$$$$ so I have never encountered it in the package.
I just want to point out to your sister in law that Quorn is not a vegan food.
It was something I was considering at a vegan SLASH vegetarian restaurant. I think she knew. She doesn't approve of meat substitutes, as well as animal products in general.
My only issue with meat substitutes is that actual meat tastes much better. I'd be okay with this stuff if they'd be up front about the potential allergic reaction in large print. Something like the Surgeon General warning on cigarette packages.
So, again, do you think this Surgeon General's warning should be on peanut butter? Shellfish? All other allergens?
I haven't really weighed in on this issue which is heartbreakingly sad, but the company has labeled everything correctly including the statements that Mycoprotein is from the fungi family and bolded it on the ingredient label as an allergen.
*edited to fix a typo
Why not. It's more deadly than cigarettes if you're allergic to it. Mostly I just think that shaping a food into the shape of a food it is not and marketing it as a food it is not should be labeled. If someone made chicken looking peanut butter patties and had them depicted as grilled chicken on the front I think that should be declared.
If this food was sold as it really was and not as pretend meat then it would require no warning.
Do you think a chicken would recognise a chicken breast as one of its relatives?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions