It's only "Natural" and the FDA wants your opinion!
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »did you know that the USDA now allows chicken to be sent to China for processing before being shipped back to the states for human consumption
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14/china-chicken-export-import-deal/
somehow, shipping a world away and then coming back is cheaper than just making the darn chicken nuggets at home
too much money is being "given" to china
(yes, i meant japan - confused)
That is so crazy, who knows what they put into it, I don't buy pre-cooked chicken so I think I'm good there, but still. Remember pet food?
That's the thing -- if you care about this stuff, why buy pre-cooked chicken or packaged nuggets? I don't particularly care about it, and yet I get almost all of my chicken from local farms.
I don't buy pre-cooked chicken, where did you get that in my statement you quoted? I hope you know just how lucky you are to have fresh chicken available to you and your family.
I doubt farms (or butchers) are that rare.
It was catscats talking about buying super processed chicken.
anewstart mentioned in the start of the thread that this was in frozen chicken legs she bought - not something that is "super processed". Adding brine is sufficiently common in the US that labelling should be clear. It seems that the OP ran across a case where the additive wasn't labeled - but it should be.
Correct, that's why (as I said in the post you quoted) that it was catscats talking about the super processed chicken.
As was covered above in the thread, in cases where carrageenan is an ingredient it is labeled. I believe that would include the brine, but am open to being corrected, as I am not 100% sure I'm properly understanding the distinctions. Where it is not listed is when it's used as a processing aid only (for example in some dairy), and remains in what are supposed to be insignificant amounts. I linked a site (that links to the federal regs) that explains why this is. As I said, I'm somewhat undecided on whether this makes sense or not for this specific ingredient. As I understand it, the USDA's position seems to be that what OP is claiming is not possible for the situations where carrageenan would be unlisted.
A quick scan of coffee creamer shows.... that it is listed.
sometimes .., it isn't used?
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »did you know that the USDA now allows chicken to be sent to China for processing before being shipped back to the states for human consumption
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14/china-chicken-export-import-deal/
somehow, shipping a world away and then coming back is cheaper than just making the darn chicken nuggets at home
too much money is being "given" to china
(yes, i meant japan - confused)
That is so crazy, who knows what they put into it, I don't buy pre-cooked chicken so I think I'm good there, but still. Remember pet food?
That's the thing -- if you care about this stuff, why buy pre-cooked chicken or packaged nuggets? I don't particularly care about it, and yet I get almost all of my chicken from local farms.
I don't buy pre-cooked chicken, where did you get that in my statement you quoted? I hope you know just how lucky you are to have fresh chicken available to you and your family.
I doubt farms (or butchers) are that rare.
It was catscats talking about buying super processed chicken.
anewstart mentioned in the start of the thread that this was in frozen chicken legs she bought - not something that is "super processed". Adding brine is sufficiently common in the US that labelling should be clear. It seems that the OP ran across a case where the additive wasn't labeled - but it should be.
Correct, that's why (as I said in the post you quoted) that it was catscats talking about the super processed chicken.
As was covered above in the thread, in cases where carrageenan is an ingredient it is labeled. I believe that would include the brine, but am open to being corrected, as I am not 100% sure I'm properly understanding the distinctions. Where it is not listed is when it's used as a processing aid only (for example in some dairy), and remains in what are supposed to be insignificant amounts. I linked a site (that links to the federal regs) that explains why this is. As I said, I'm somewhat undecided on whether this makes sense or not for this specific ingredient. As I understand it, the USDA's position seems to be that what OP is claiming is not possible for the situations where carrageenan would be unlisted.
A quick scan of coffee creamer shows.... that it is listed.
Yes, it's listed on lots of stuff. Are we not communicating?0 -
-
I've seen it on lots of almond milk too.
From my links above:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/processing-aids-whats-not-on-the-label-and-why-zwfz1306zsal.aspx (quotes the same information as in the FDA regs):Processing aids are a subcategory of incidental additives. All processing aids are incidental additives, though not all incidental additives are processing aids.
Any substance is considered a processing aid and can be legally excluded from labels if it meets one of three criteria:
It’s added to the food but later removed. Think of something like activated charcoal, which filters out impurities.
It’s added to the food, but gets converted into a substance already present in the food. This could be something like a pH adjuster that converts to salt and doesn’t significantly add to the level of salt in the food.
It’s added for a technical effect during processing but isn’t present at “significant” levels in the food. This could be a preservative added to an ingredient, like anti-caking agent sodium silicoaluminate in the seasoning of some sausages.
One critical note is that any incidental ingredient that might affect the stability of the finished food (i.e. improve its shelf life), must be labeled, said Mark Itzkoff, food compliance lawyer for Washington, D.C.-based OFW Law. Any such substance, however insignificant, would be considered a preservative that would need to be labeled.
Processing aids are allowed in food production as long as each one falls within the guidelines of being “Generally Recognized as Safe,” a classification for ingredients often abbreviated as “GRAS.” The FDA and USDA rely on a consensus of qualified experts, via published peer-reviewed literature, to assess the safety of GRAS substances. The agencies lack the resources to perform the vetting process themselves....
Ultimately, the FDA and USDA don’t consider processing aids necessary to label because mentioning each nonfunctional component of the food production chain would be impractical and unhelpful information for consumers. Don’t be surprised to not find ‘dimethylamine epichlorohydrin copolymer’ listed on your bag of sugar anytime soon. By all legal definitions, it’s just as sweet without that on the label.
And from http://www.cornucopia.org/shopping-guide-to-avoiding-organic-foods-with-carrageenan/Carrageenan may be present in the final product but not listed on the ingredients label when it is used as a “processing aid,” for example in cream. We recommend contacting the company directly if you would like to confirm whether carrageenan is in the final product. Read more on processing aids here, and view USDA safe and suitable ingredients here.
Note: The law does not require ingredients to be listed on alcoholic beverages, and carrageenan is commonly used to clarify beer.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »did you know that the USDA now allows chicken to be sent to China for processing before being shipped back to the states for human consumption
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14/china-chicken-export-import-deal/
somehow, shipping a world away and then coming back is cheaper than just making the darn chicken nuggets at home
too much money is being "given" to china
(yes, i meant japan - confused)
That is so crazy, who knows what they put into it, I don't buy pre-cooked chicken so I think I'm good there, but still. Remember pet food?
That's the thing -- if you care about this stuff, why buy pre-cooked chicken or packaged nuggets? I don't particularly care about it, and yet I get almost all of my chicken from local farms.
I don't buy pre-cooked chicken, where did you get that in my statement you quoted? I hope you know just how lucky you are to have fresh chicken available to you and your family.
I doubt farms (or butchers) are that rare.
It was catscats talking about buying super processed chicken.
anewstart mentioned in the start of the thread that this was in frozen chicken legs she bought - not something that is "super processed". Adding brine is sufficiently common in the US that labelling should be clear. It seems that the OP ran across a case where the additive wasn't labeled - but it should be.
Correct, that's why (as I said in the post you quoted) that it was catscats talking about the super processed chicken.
As was covered above in the thread, in cases where carrageenan is an ingredient it is labeled. I believe that would include the brine, but am open to being corrected, as I am not 100% sure I'm properly understanding the distinctions. Where it is not listed is when it's used as a processing aid only (for example in some dairy), and remains in what are supposed to be insignificant amounts. I linked a site (that links to the federal regs) that explains why this is. As I said, I'm somewhat undecided on whether this makes sense or not for this specific ingredient. As I understand it, the USDA's position seems to be that what OP is claiming is not possible for the situations where carrageenan would be unlisted.
A quick scan of coffee creamer shows.... that it is listed.
Yes, it's listed on lots of stuff. Are we not communicating?
No, we are. I can see an argument for clearer labelling - but it isn't specific to this ingredient.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »did you know that the USDA now allows chicken to be sent to China for processing before being shipped back to the states for human consumption
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14/china-chicken-export-import-deal/
somehow, shipping a world away and then coming back is cheaper than just making the darn chicken nuggets at home
too much money is being "given" to china
(yes, i meant japan - confused)
That is so crazy, who knows what they put into it, I don't buy pre-cooked chicken so I think I'm good there, but still. Remember pet food?
That's the thing -- if you care about this stuff, why buy pre-cooked chicken or packaged nuggets? I don't particularly care about it, and yet I get almost all of my chicken from local farms.
I don't buy pre-cooked chicken, where did you get that in my statement you quoted? I hope you know just how lucky you are to have fresh chicken available to you and your family.
I doubt farms (or butchers) are that rare.
It was catscats talking about buying super processed chicken.
anewstart mentioned in the start of the thread that this was in frozen chicken legs she bought - not something that is "super processed". Adding brine is sufficiently common in the US that labelling should be clear. It seems that the OP ran across a case where the additive wasn't labeled - but it should be.
Correct, that's why (as I said in the post you quoted) that it was catscats talking about the super processed chicken.
As was covered above in the thread, in cases where carrageenan is an ingredient it is labeled. I believe that would include the brine, but am open to being corrected, as I am not 100% sure I'm properly understanding the distinctions. Where it is not listed is when it's used as a processing aid only (for example in some dairy), and remains in what are supposed to be insignificant amounts. I linked a site (that links to the federal regs) that explains why this is. As I said, I'm somewhat undecided on whether this makes sense or not for this specific ingredient. As I understand it, the USDA's position seems to be that what OP is claiming is not possible for the situations where carrageenan would be unlisted.
A quick scan of coffee creamer shows.... that it is listed.
Yes, it's listed on lots of stuff. Are we not communicating?
Nah, I just felt like posting a picture...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I've seen it on lots of almond milk too.
From my links above:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/processing-aids-whats-not-on-the-label-and-why-zwfz1306zsal.aspx (quotes the same information as in the FDA regs):Processing aids are a subcategory of incidental additives. All processing aids are incidental additives, though not all incidental additives are processing aids.
Any substance is considered a processing aid and can be legally excluded from labels if it meets one of three criteria:
It’s added to the food but later removed. Think of something like activated charcoal, which filters out impurities.
It’s added to the food, but gets converted into a substance already present in the food. This could be something like a pH adjuster that converts to salt and doesn’t significantly add to the level of salt in the food.
It’s added for a technical effect during processing but isn’t present at “significant” levels in the food. This could be a preservative added to an ingredient, like anti-caking agent sodium silicoaluminate in the seasoning of some sausages.
One critical note is that any incidental ingredient that might affect the stability of the finished food (i.e. improve its shelf life), must be labeled, said Mark Itzkoff, food compliance lawyer for Washington, D.C.-based OFW Law. Any such substance, however insignificant, would be considered a preservative that would need to be labeled.
Processing aids are allowed in food production as long as each one falls within the guidelines of being “Generally Recognized as Safe,” a classification for ingredients often abbreviated as “GRAS.” The FDA and USDA rely on a consensus of qualified experts, via published peer-reviewed literature, to assess the safety of GRAS substances. The agencies lack the resources to perform the vetting process themselves....
Ultimately, the FDA and USDA don’t consider processing aids necessary to label because mentioning each nonfunctional component of the food production chain would be impractical and unhelpful information for consumers. Don’t be surprised to not find ‘dimethylamine epichlorohydrin copolymer’ listed on your bag of sugar anytime soon. By all legal definitions, it’s just as sweet without that on the label.
And from http://www.cornucopia.org/shopping-guide-to-avoiding-organic-foods-with-carrageenan/Carrageenan may be present in the final product but not listed on the ingredients label when it is used as a “processing aid,” for example in cream. We recommend contacting the company directly if you would like to confirm whether carrageenan is in the final product. Read more on processing aids here, and view USDA safe and suitable ingredients here.
Note: The law does not require ingredients to be listed on alcoholic beverages, and carrageenan is commonly used to clarify beer.
thanks for that.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »did you know that the USDA now allows chicken to be sent to China for processing before being shipped back to the states for human consumption
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14/china-chicken-export-import-deal/
somehow, shipping a world away and then coming back is cheaper than just making the darn chicken nuggets at home
too much money is being "given" to china
(yes, i meant japan - confused)
That is so crazy, who knows what they put into it, I don't buy pre-cooked chicken so I think I'm good there, but still. Remember pet food?
That's the thing -- if you care about this stuff, why buy pre-cooked chicken or packaged nuggets? I don't particularly care about it, and yet I get almost all of my chicken from local farms.
I don't buy pre-cooked chicken, where did you get that in my statement you quoted? I hope you know just how lucky you are to have fresh chicken available to you and your family.
I doubt farms (or butchers) are that rare.
It was catscats talking about buying super processed chicken.
anewstart mentioned in the start of the thread that this was in frozen chicken legs she bought - not something that is "super processed". Adding brine is sufficiently common in the US that labelling should be clear. It seems that the OP ran across a case where the additive wasn't labeled - but it should be.
Correct, that's why (as I said in the post you quoted) that it was catscats talking about the super processed chicken.
As was covered above in the thread, in cases where carrageenan is an ingredient it is labeled. I believe that would include the brine, but am open to being corrected, as I am not 100% sure I'm properly understanding the distinctions. Where it is not listed is when it's used as a processing aid only (for example in some dairy), and remains in what are supposed to be insignificant amounts. I linked a site (that links to the federal regs) that explains why this is. As I said, I'm somewhat undecided on whether this makes sense or not for this specific ingredient. As I understand it, the USDA's position seems to be that what OP is claiming is not possible for the situations where carrageenan would be unlisted.
A quick scan of coffee creamer shows.... that it is listed.
Yes, it's listed on lots of stuff. Are we not communicating?
No, we are. I can see an argument for clearer labelling - but it isn't specific to this ingredient.
Oh, okay. Written communication can be hard sometimes. ;-) And, yes, that's what I'm thinking also.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »did you know that the USDA now allows chicken to be sent to China for processing before being shipped back to the states for human consumption
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14/china-chicken-export-import-deal/
somehow, shipping a world away and then coming back is cheaper than just making the darn chicken nuggets at home
too much money is being "given" to china
(yes, i meant japan - confused)
That is so crazy, who knows what they put into it, I don't buy pre-cooked chicken so I think I'm good there, but still. Remember pet food?
That's the thing -- if you care about this stuff, why buy pre-cooked chicken or packaged nuggets? I don't particularly care about it, and yet I get almost all of my chicken from local farms.
I don't buy pre-cooked chicken, where did you get that in my statement you quoted? I hope you know just how lucky you are to have fresh chicken available to you and your family.
I doubt farms (or butchers) are that rare.
It was catscats talking about buying super processed chicken.
anewstart mentioned in the start of the thread that this was in frozen chicken legs she bought - not something that is "super processed". Adding brine is sufficiently common in the US that labelling should be clear. It seems that the OP ran across a case where the additive wasn't labeled - but it should be.
Thanks for clarifying that, but the chicken I bought was not frozen, it was considered fresh. I suppose they could have thawed it before it was put out in the meat market but I have never seen that particular chicken frozen.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Understood, but I already know so what is the point? It's not something I plan to do, I do not want anymore suffering if I can help it.0 -
I believe the issue is that it doesn't have to be labeled individually but can be "included" in the generic "Natural Ingredients" ingredient, no?
If that is the case, I absolutely think it needs to be separated out, but the current labeling format is fine for that, assuming it was done correctly.
I do believe that is what they are doing, hiding it within the "natural" label when we need to know it is there.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »did you know that the USDA now allows chicken to be sent to China for processing before being shipped back to the states for human consumption
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14/china-chicken-export-import-deal/
somehow, shipping a world away and then coming back is cheaper than just making the darn chicken nuggets at home
too much money is being "given" to china
(yes, i meant japan - confused)
That is so crazy, who knows what they put into it, I don't buy pre-cooked chicken so I think I'm good there, but still. Remember pet food?
That's the thing -- if you care about this stuff, why buy pre-cooked chicken or packaged nuggets? I don't particularly care about it, and yet I get almost all of my chicken from local farms.
I don't buy pre-cooked chicken, where did you get that in my statement you quoted? I hope you know just how lucky you are to have fresh chicken available to you and your family.
I doubt farms (or butchers) are that rare.
It was catscats talking about buying super processed chicken.
anewstart mentioned in the start of the thread that this was in frozen chicken legs she bought - not something that is "super processed". Adding brine is sufficiently common in the US that labelling should be clear. It seems that the OP ran across a case where the additive wasn't labeled - but it should be.
Correct, that's why (as I said in the post you quoted) that it was catscats talking about the super processed chicken.
As was covered above in the thread, in cases where carrageenan is an ingredient it is labeled. I believe that would include the brine, but am open to being corrected, as I am not 100% sure I'm properly understanding the distinctions. Where it is not listed is when it's used as a processing aid only (for example in some dairy), and remains in what are supposed to be insignificant amounts. I linked a site (that links to the federal regs) that explains why this is. As I said, I'm somewhat undecided on whether this makes sense or not for this specific ingredient. As I understand it, the USDA's position seems to be that what OP is claiming is not possible for the situations where carrageenan would be unlisted.
Right, and that is where the confusion lies, on one hand it has to be listed, on the other hand they say it doesn't.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I believe the issue is that it doesn't have to be labeled individually but can be "included" in the generic "Natural Ingredients" ingredient, no?
If it's an ingredient it has to be listed. If it was a processing aid, it does not have to be.
Processing aids need not be identified if they are on a well-tested list of things that are safe and if they: (1) do not remain at all in the final product; (2) convert into something otherwise listed; or (3) remain in "insignificant amounts."
I think here we are talking about (3).
I am not sure what the implications are of listing it or why it would be burdensome -- the site I identified seemed to be concerned that it would make labels less helpful and more confusing.
To me it comes down to whether the amount is truly insignificant, by which I am understanding there could be no negative result (perhaps incorrectly). On first blush, I tend to support disclosure, so would think adding it to the label for (3) would make sense, but I'd want to understand better why it's not (the argument to the contrary) to really form an opinion.
Also, it seems that it's not difficult to find out where it is and is not included -- companies will disclose and there are many lists of products around. OP's issue seems to be more: (1) it needs to be made more obvious even where it is listed (as with the coconut example), and (2) not enough people around her care so it continues to be in a lot of the products available at her local grocery. While I am likely to be supportive of the "should be listed" issue, I think the idea that things need to be on a photo or anything needs to be done beyond listing the ingredients is absolutely unnecessary, and there was zero wrong with the cookies and the coconut.
The problem is, it's in the brine solution, so it remains in the chicken for consumption.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »did you know that the USDA now allows chicken to be sent to China for processing before being shipped back to the states for human consumption
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14/china-chicken-export-import-deal/
somehow, shipping a world away and then coming back is cheaper than just making the darn chicken nuggets at home
too much money is being "given" to china
(yes, i meant japan - confused)
That is so crazy, who knows what they put into it, I don't buy pre-cooked chicken so I think I'm good there, but still. Remember pet food?
That's the thing -- if you care about this stuff, why buy pre-cooked chicken or packaged nuggets? I don't particularly care about it, and yet I get almost all of my chicken from local farms.
I don't buy pre-cooked chicken, where did you get that in my statement you quoted? I hope you know just how lucky you are to have fresh chicken available to you and your family.
You live in a rural area...could you not raise your own chickens?
I support your campaign for complete and accurate food labels...not so much however for banning based on your personal food sensitivities. I have a few of my own and I live with the fact that most pre-packaged food products contain those ingredients. I find alternatives when those alternatives exist...if they don't...I suck it up and carry on.
As far as pictures of the ingredients being on the package (at least from what I gathered from some posts) the cost and even the possibility of that being done is prohibitive. The cost of packaging would rise and many people already struggle with food costs. Some packaging is far too small to contain all of those pictures.
News in a rural area...yes sometimes that is hard to come by. I grew up in a very rural area...most often those gun shots were farmers scaring away the foxes from a hen house...not worth a police report long as well a news story. In my area a local news paper was started by the residents...mostly just gossip.
As far as food being shipped in from other countries...much of our food is. It is up to our government to ensure that it meets our standards.
I understand your frustration...I feel the same way about one ingredient that I need to monitor...it is not only in most foods that are manufactured but also occurs naturally in almost all foods. It is work...time consuming...frustrating to monitor these sensitivities but we have to deal with the bodies that we are given. I just don't think that we can punish/nor inconvenience the rest of the world by demanding that the items be banned.
I wish you luck in finding a solution to your problems.
Thank you, I am glad someone understands and I am sorry you too have food sensitivities. I think we all should be given a choice on what is added to our foods. If I make a gravy and use corn starch then I am deciding I want that additive in my food and the same with flour based gravies. This is where the food industry hides, they throw in chemicals and additives we know nothing about, except their own biased studies that they pay for to get them approved for food use. This has to stop, we need to know what is in our foods, but it will never stop so the best thing we can do is demand they list the ingredients so we can make the decision to consume or not.
As far as living rural, yes I am rural but I actually live in what is considered city limits, it's a small town with a lot of outlying land. I can't have livestock or chickens here and my yard is too small for that anyway. I would want a chicken tractor I could move around the yard and I don't have the space for that. I can have my own garden and do. Those gunshots were quite close to me, I believe the next street over and there is no livestock there. This was 5 gunshots in succession and then a few seconds later, one more.
I have sucked it up, for years, and lots of tears, and firing a doctor because she had the nerve to tell me to stop eating potato chips and cookies and junk food. I don't eat that stuff, I don't eat fast food, and I didn't appreciate her turning the tables on me because she couldn't find out what was wrong with me, she failed me. It was me who discovered the problem, by using the new Coffeemate Natural Bliss coffee creamer, it threw me into a tailspin and that is when I discovered the carageenan. Now I try hard to keep it out of my diet, but like you, find it's not listed on products you and I think are safe to eat.
Here is a link to the picture of the cookies my husband likes to eat. I don't know what the lure is but if it makes him happy, well ok. It's not like I bake cookies for him very often so he's got to get his fix somewhere, lol.
https://heb.com/product-detail/h-e-b-the-big-chip-chocolate-chip-cookies/1636890
I do understand the labeling is prohibitive in cost and photos too, but as you will see in that photo there is plenty of room to add a piece of coconut on the packaging. The picture covers the entire thing, and it's often the case for that particular brand.
Yes, I buy local if I can on all my foods but I never buy anything that says processed in another country. I buy frozen vegetables from the U.S. only if I can, I grow a lot of my own and do my best to make sure I am not eating a bunch of junk. I cook everything we eat from whole foods or semi processed like flour, butter, nuts.
I hope you find relief in your food issues too, may I ask what you are avoiding?
My biggest is sulfur though mainly it is medications containing sulfur that is the most dangerous for me. It is the first thing that I tell a doctor when meds are being prescribed...I do not want to have that experience again.
I am reasonably okay with most foods that contain sulfur if I watch the combinations of foods that I eat and the quantity of those foods.
Another is yeast...causes severe digestive issues. I can eat maybe one yeast roll and not have too many problems as long as I am not eating it along with other food items containing yeast. Consuming yeast doesn't put me at risk...just makes me very uncomfortable for a few days.
Sodium is what I am dealing with now...most food products...whether "natural" or "processed" contain it. If I stay within 1000-1200mg a day...I seem to do okay. Much more than that and my BP shoots up about 20 points or more even with taking BP meds. It highly limits my food choices, cooking methods and going out to eat.
I also have to watch my consumption of fiber...too much or too little in one day constipates me severely. I have 1 large and 2 small abdominal hernias that will cause me severe pain when constipated.
It is what it is though and we have to deal with the cards that we are dealt. It is not always fun nor convenient.
Thanks for letting me know, I am so sorry you have to deal with all of that. I also have a lot of problems with medications, a long list and (mostly referred to as Sulfa, that I have seen) is one of them as well. I totally understand what you go through there. I was able to relieve most of my gastro symptoms by refusing all medications, but couldn't get that last part that I was still suffering attacks. This is when I discovered carrageenan. Now if I can just keep it out of my life I would be extremely happy.
I hope things get better for you, hang in.0 -
This thread strikes me as a little funny considering the natural / clean foods / don't eat chemicals crowd.
It seems carageen was allowed into food because it qualifies as a natural ingredient and so didn't have to be put on the ingredients the way some people complain about not eating foods with chemicals they can't pronounce, more than four ingredients, etc.
Given there was an allergic reaction involved, it sounds like highly artificial foods with their plethora of chemicals written out are actually safer in this instance.
Just something I thought I'd note.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".0 -
This thread strikes me as a little funny considering the natural / clean foods / don't eat chemicals crowd.
It seems carageen was allowed into food because it qualifies as a natural ingredient and so didn't have to be put on the ingredients the way some people complain about not eating foods with chemicals they can't pronounce, more than four ingredients, etc.
Given there was an allergic reaction involved, it sounds like highly artificial foods with their plethora of chemicals written out are actually safer in this instance.
Just something I thought I'd note.
LOL, oh the irony!0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
Okay "dude". If you say so. My response was to Jof. No need to get overly defensive. If you "know" than you "know".0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
great, so the whole point of this thread is how you know that this effects you, fine. Does not mean that the rest of us have to eat in that manner, or that said additive has to be removed for the 99.9% of us that don't have an issue with it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions