It's only "Natural" and the FDA wants your opinion!
Options
Replies
-
anewstart22 wrote: »Please read the studies regarding it, the links are there in the article, I posted for everyone's benefit to learn and do your own research if you are interested. I have provided links for you to begin the descending down the whirlpool if you choose to do so. There are links from the Dr's. regarding studies on carageenan and it's use of it in food products. I am not going to answer that question again. Do your own research if you are interested if you won't take a look at and go further with what I provided. The research is there for the outcome of the health effects caused by carageenan.
as others pointed there are no links to studies..
since you are making these claims it is on you to provide them and link us to them…
feel free to do so at any time.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »Please read the studies regarding it, the links are there in the article, I posted for everyone's benefit to learn and do your own research if you are interested. I have provided links for you to begin the descending down the whirlpool if you choose to do so. There are links from the Dr's. regarding studies on carageenan and it's use of it in food products. I am not going to answer that question again. Do your own research if you are interested if you won't take a look at and go further with what I provided. The research is there for the outcome of the health effects caused by carageenan.
I've looked. Those links do not contain peer-reviewed studies that support your claim.0 -
catscats222 wrote: »i still want to know why on earth they would put careegenan in CHICKEN !!!
that answer would be awesome !!!!
right now could care less about a study on how msg type additives make people sick
carrageenan bonds easily with proteins. Most frozen meat is salinated before freezing to preserve shape and color. I'm guessing it's to assist the saline in preserving the shape of the chicken during freezing, but that's just a guess.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »I'm good, at least as far as this is concerned. I've not seen any conclusive science that proves that it's bad, and much that proves that it's ok. I understand that it's considered as needing more research, but until such a time as I see some convincing science, I'm going to continue doing what I do.
More power to you, though. Especially if it causes you health problems. Almost everything causes someone health problems... we can't ban everything due to a small percentage of the population. We can, on the other hand, label it so that consumers can make their own decisions based on their own personal health needs.
Yes, sure, but the FDA is now recognizing that carageenan is a problem additive in foods. It's banned in other countries and should be banned here. The problem with not banning an ingredient that causes health problems (even to a small percentage of people-but the list is growing) means that we suffer from the ingredient added to our foods, and it isn't needed at all. It's a useless ingredient, if we could just go back to foods that are as close to natural as possible a huge amount of the people who have cancer would go way down in counts. Also, part of the problem is some manufacturer's are not labeling it, even though they are by law required to. So people like me eat something that we think is safe and suddenly we have extreme pain in the stomach and digestive tract with then causes a lot of other problems down below. It's painful to say the least.
I'm glad you don't seem to have a problem with it, but as time goes on you might find that suddenly you have problems with your stomach and digestive tract. If that does occur you will begin tracing what the problem is, because the effects of carageenan for me, and many others, is utter daily suffering.
There obviously has to be a reason it is put in. It would cost money to a company using it. They aren't going to pay for it to add to their food just because they feel like it.
I'm with you on the labelling. That way people have a choice. But for the rest. I'm out.
Are we going to ban peanuts? Fish? They cause far more problems and more serious problems.
Mango triggers migraines for my husband. Should that be banned as well?0 -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1242073/pdf/ehp0109-000983.pdf
Above is a PDF of different studies made on carageenan and the effects caused by it. Peer reviewed studies are not out there that I can find, and why would they be? The FDA claims that there is no problem using the additive, why would anyone do a peer review on it if the FDA says it's ok?
Studies on the effects of the additive are there and the FDA is now recognizing there may be problems for people consuming additives and proper labeling. This is so that we as consumers can make informed decisions on what we are buying for our families and selves.
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with ER visits or any other problems regarding additives in food will never understand what we go through and no-one should have to give you a peer review backing up our claims to what we go through and the pain we suffer. It is just not going to happen until these additives are truly recognized for what they are.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »i still want to know why on earth they would put careegenan in CHICKEN !!!
that answer would be awesome !!!!
right now could care less about a study on how msg type additives make people sick
carrageenan bonds easily with proteins. Most frozen meat is salinated before freezing to preserve shape and color. I'm guessing it's to assist the saline in preserving the shape of the chicken during freezing, but that's just a guess.
Yes, and I can't ever remember having a problem with chicken holding color and shape, even when fresh off the farm and put in the freezer to use later. It stumps me as to why they are adding it to the chicken, does not make any sense at all.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »I'm good, at least as far as this is concerned. I've not seen any conclusive science that proves that it's bad, and much that proves that it's ok. I understand that it's considered as needing more research, but until such a time as I see some convincing science, I'm going to continue doing what I do.
More power to you, though. Especially if it causes you health problems. Almost everything causes someone health problems... we can't ban everything due to a small percentage of the population. We can, on the other hand, label it so that consumers can make their own decisions based on their own personal health needs.
Yes, sure, but the FDA is now recognizing that carageenan is a problem additive in foods. It's banned in other countries and should be banned here. The problem with not banning an ingredient that causes health problems (even to a small percentage of people-but the list is growing) means that we suffer from the ingredient added to our foods, and it isn't needed at all. It's a useless ingredient, if we could just go back to foods that are as close to natural as possible a huge amount of the people who have cancer would go way down in counts. Also, part of the problem is some manufacturer's are not labeling it, even though they are by law required to. So people like me eat something that we think is safe and suddenly we have extreme pain in the stomach and digestive tract with then causes a lot of other problems down below. It's painful to say the least.
I'm glad you don't seem to have a problem with it, but as time goes on you might find that suddenly you have problems with your stomach and digestive tract. If that does occur you will begin tracing what the problem is, because the effects of carageenan for me, and many others, is utter daily suffering.
There obviously has to be a reason it is put in. It would cost money to a company using it. They aren't going to pay for it to add to their food just because they feel like it.
I'm with you on the labelling. That way people have a choice. But for the rest. I'm out.
Are we going to ban peanuts? Fish? They cause far more problems and more serious problems.
Mango triggers migraines for my husband. Should that be banned as well?
Carageenan is used as a thickener, and it keeps products from separating. Why can't we just go back to the label saying, "Shake well before use? That would take the carageenan completely out of the dairy products.
0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1242073/pdf/ehp0109-000983.pdf
Above is a PDF of different studies made on carageenan and the effects caused by it. Peer reviewed studies are not out there that I can find, and why would they be? The FDA claims that there is no problem using the additive, why would anyone do a peer review on it if the FDA says it's ok?
Studies on the effects of the additive are there and the FDA is now recognizing there may be problems for people consuming additives and proper labeling. This is so that we as consumers can make informed decisions on what we are buying for our families and selves.
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with ER visits or any other problems regarding additives in food will never understand what we go through and no-one should have to give you a peer review backing up our claims to what we go through and the pain we suffer. It is just not going to happen until these additives are truly recognized for what they are.
Because any respectable research is published in peer reviewed journals at some point. There doesn't have to be a claim from the government of something being unsafe submit your research to a peer reviewed journal. When I was a physics undergrad my Thesis was peer reviewed (everyone with a passing grade got the same deal), and it was on a topic that wasn't dangerous at all. There's peer reviewed studies on what the different frequencies a cat purrs at mean, there are peer reviewed studies on if wearing a tin foil hat really blocks out spy satellites. There's peer reviewed studies on just about everything.
People who do studies and refuse to publish them in peer reviewed journals are generally scared of being exposed.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »i still want to know why on earth they would put careegenan in CHICKEN !!!
that answer would be awesome !!!!
right now could care less about a study on how msg type additives make people sick
carrageenan bonds easily with proteins. Most frozen meat is salinated before freezing to preserve shape and color. I'm guessing it's to assist the saline in preserving the shape of the chicken during freezing, but that's just a guess.
Yes, and I can't ever remember having a problem with chicken holding color and shape, even when fresh off the farm and put in the freezer to use later. It stumps me as to why they are adding it to the chicken, does not make any sense at all.
Because slow freezing and flash freezing have different results? Flash freezing will drastically change the shape and texture of the things frozen.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1242073/pdf/ehp0109-000983.pdf
Above is a PDF of different studies made on carageenan and the effects caused by it. Peer reviewed studies are not out there that I can find, and why would they be? The FDA claims that there is no problem using the additive, why would anyone do a peer review on it if the FDA says it's ok?
Studies on the effects of the additive are there and the FDA is now recognizing there may be problems for people consuming additives and proper labeling. This is so that we as consumers can make informed decisions on what we are buying for our families and selves.
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with ER visits or any other problems regarding additives in food will never understand what we go through and no-one should have to give you a peer review backing up our claims to what we go through and the pain we suffer. It is just not going to happen until these additives are truly recognized for what they are.
Because any serious research is published in peer reviewed journals. There doesn't have to be a claim from the government of something being unsafe submit your research to a peer reviewed journal. When I was a physics undergrad my Thesis was peer reviewed, and it was on a topic that wasn't dangerous at all.
People who do studies and refuse to publish them in peer reviewed journals are generally scared of being exposed.
OK, I get what you are saying. I also get what happens to me and how it took me years to figure out why I was in so much pain. I have a friend who had IBS all of her life, now she is free of it because she has done very well to get carageenan out of her diet, of course some sneaks in because it isn't labeled properly. There are so many people out there who suffer because the big food industry puts cheap additives in our foods to make theirs last longer on the shelves. I can understand wanting food to last longer, but not at the expense of my health or that of my family.0 -
That's not how any of this works.anewstart22 wrote: »http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1242073/pdf/ehp0109-000983.pdf
Above is a PDF of different studies made on carageenan and the effects caused by it. Peer reviewed studies are not out there that I can find, and why would they be? The FDA claims that there is no problem using the additive, why would anyone do a peer review on it if the FDA says it's ok?
Studies on the effects of the additive are there and the FDA is now recognizing there may be problems for people consuming additives and proper labeling. This is so that we as consumers can make informed decisions on what we are buying for our families and selves.
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with ER visits or any other problems regarding additives in food will never understand what we go through and no-one should have to give you a peer review backing up our claims to what we go through and the pain we suffer. It is just not going to happen until these additives are truly recognized for what they are.
0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1242073/pdf/ehp0109-000983.pdf
Above is a PDF of different studies made on carageenan and the effects caused by it. Peer reviewed studies are not out there that I can find, and why would they be? The FDA claims that there is no problem using the additive, why would anyone do a peer review on it if the FDA says it's ok?
Studies on the effects of the additive are there and the FDA is now recognizing there may be problems for people consuming additives and proper labeling. This is so that we as consumers can make informed decisions on what we are buying for our families and selves.
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with ER visits or any other problems regarding additives in food will never understand what we go through and no-one should have to give you a peer review backing up our claims to what we go through and the pain we suffer. It is just not going to happen until these additives are truly recognized for what they are.
That PDF you posted:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1242073/
A lot of "may cause..." in this one. And this:Genetic characteristics that affect sulfatase and hydrolysis reactions as well as the individual intestinal microflora may influence how carrageenan is metabolized and how its effects are manifested. These factors
may determine how carrageenan is metabolized differently by different individuals, but these characteristics may not be accessible to manipulation. A basic factor that can be controlled is the intake of carrageenan, which is amenable to dietary modification or food additive regulation.
I understood this to mean that it may cause some adverse affects if you're genetically predisposed for it to do so or according to your intestinal bacteria. Since I've not noticed any ill effects, I'll go ahead and keep eating it. I'm sorry that you have troubles with it (did you actually go to a doctor to confirm?) but nothing in this study says anything about the number of people this may affect, and how severe those effects may be on the population. Probably because they were all animal studies that dosed the animals far more than a typical person would consume in a day.
While I agree with food labeling transparency in general, I don't agree that this ingredient deserves to be banned.0 -
So, we are now in agreement that there are no peer reviewed studies that show this additive causes cancer?
Excellent, my work here is done.
0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »I'm good, at least as far as this is concerned. I've not seen any conclusive science that proves that it's bad, and much that proves that it's ok. I understand that it's considered as needing more research, but until such a time as I see some convincing science, I'm going to continue doing what I do.
More power to you, though. Especially if it causes you health problems. Almost everything causes someone health problems... we can't ban everything due to a small percentage of the population. We can, on the other hand, label it so that consumers can make their own decisions based on their own personal health needs.
Yes, sure, but the FDA is now recognizing that carageenan is a problem additive in foods. It's banned in other countries and should be banned here. The problem with not banning an ingredient that causes health problems (even to a small percentage of people-but the list is growing) means that we suffer from the ingredient added to our foods, and it isn't needed at all. It's a useless ingredient, if we could just go back to foods that are as close to natural as possible a huge amount of the people who have cancer would go way down in counts. Also, part of the problem is some manufacturer's are not labeling it, even though they are by law required to. So people like me eat something that we think is safe and suddenly we have extreme pain in the stomach and digestive tract with then causes a lot of other problems down below. It's painful to say the least.
I'm glad you don't seem to have a problem with it, but as time goes on you might find that suddenly you have problems with your stomach and digestive tract. If that does occur you will begin tracing what the problem is, because the effects of carageenan for me, and many others, is utter daily suffering.
There obviously has to be a reason it is put in. It would cost money to a company using it. They aren't going to pay for it to add to their food just because they feel like it.
I'm with you on the labelling. That way people have a choice. But for the rest. I'm out.
Are we going to ban peanuts? Fish? They cause far more problems and more serious problems.
Mango triggers migraines for my husband. Should that be banned as well?
Carageenan is used as a thickener, and it keeps products from separating. Why can't we just go back to the label saying, "Shake well before use? That would take the carageenan completely out of the dairy products.
We used to shake ice cream and cream cheese before using?0 -
catscats222 wrote: »frozen chicken needs a thickener?
in dairy products you know to look for it, but in CHICKEN?
I found one site that says "Carrageenan increases a chicken's ability to hold salt and broth. And broth is cheaper than chicken." So I imagine it's used to help plump the chicken with liquid, thus increasing its weight.0 -
catscats222 wrote: »frozen chicken needs a thickener?
in dairy products you know to look for it, but in CHICKEN?
Hasn't that already been explained? The flash freezing/keeping shape?
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
- 404 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
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions