It's only "Natural" and the FDA wants your opinion!
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Oooooohhhhhh.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm471919.htm
Too bad as a Canadian I can't throw in my two cents. I suggest the FDA use the same definition already developed by the Brazilian food guide.
"Natural foods are those obtained directly from plants or
animals (such as green leaves and fruits, or eggs and milk)
and purchased for consumption without having undergone
any alteration following their removal from nature.
Minimally processed foods are natural foods which have
been somewhat altered before being purchased. Examples
include grains that are dried, polished, or ground as grits or
are cooled or frozen; and pasteurised milk."
http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Brazilian-Dietary-Guidelines-2014.pdf
I'm not sure what this would add for the consumer's benefit that we don't already know.
I think it's been long understood that "natural" as used on US food products means basically nothing and I'd be just as happy for it to be removed as a marketing term. I don't need "natural" stamped on my potato or carton of eggs or even my pasta, which has a list of ingredients (usually extremely short, of course).
It seems like what OP is really upset about is "[c]arrageenan 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."
(Also, apparently: "The law does not require ingredients to be listed on alcoholic beverages, and carrageenan is commonly used to clarify beer.")
http://www.cornucopia.org/shopping-guide-to-avoiding-organic-foods-with-carrageenan/
I have not looked at the evidence for why it wouldn't be listed if used as a "processing aid," so have no opinion yet on that.
Yes, thank you.
0 -
I once filed a complaint letter to the government that too much dryer lint was being thrown in to the landfills. The passionate writer included a sample along with her letter. One of the most interesting complaint letters I've ever filed. Nothing came of it however, no matter how passionate and creative her complaint. The government response was kind and nearly as creative.
I don't think it is realistic to demand that manufacturers FULLY describe their products in the title. The font would have to be too small. Titles have to be big, bold and punchy for us to notice them at all. Educated consumers can line up various products with the nutrition and ingredients labels facing forward (which hubby and I have done with cereals and hot-dogs) to pick the "better" product.
We found the no-name hot-dogs to be lowest in fat, salt, and additives by the way. Big surprise.
Your Big Chip cookie, if your complaint were taken seriously, would have to be labelled. "Chocolate-Chip-Brown-Sugar-and-other-sweeteners-read-the-label-Wheat-Coconut-rising-agents-read-the-label-Cookie".0 -
The poor Irish. Now their moss is getting dissed (the source of carrageenan). For vegetarians and vegans, it is very helpful so they can avoid gelatin.
0 -
Actually, it has pretty decent macros and nutrients so I wouldn't say "it provides nothing to the human body".
Okay, so it has no use for me and the many others who have problems with it. There are three different forms of carageenan out there and all can be derived in different ways to be used in our food sources. It is not original to a natural food form unless you eat the seaweed in it's true form to get all of the fiber and other nutrients it provides. Then you have a whole food without removing one component of that food to get something else to use for something else. Does any of that make sense to you? I am honestly not sure how to get across what it is I am trying to say, I do know I don't want it in my food.0 -
I don't think it is realistic to demand that manufacturers FULLY describe their products in the title. The font would have to be too small. Titles have to be big, bold and punchy for us to notice them at all. Educated consumers can line up various products with the nutrition and ingredients labels facing forward (which hubby and I have done with cereals and hot-dogs) to pick the "better" product.
Yes, I agree with this. Labels should be accurate, but the burden should be on the consumer to read it or not, period. If they choose not to, that's their choice.0 -
-
anewstart22 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »Labeling, yes. Banning, no.
I have a gazillion issues with the FDA and with the USDA and with the lack of appropriate funding for them to do a better job. The supplement industry in the USA gets away with outrageously dangerous claims under the standard warning "these statements have not been evaluated etc...". I remember a particularly bad outbreak of E. coli connected to baby spinach in which the source of the bacteria was the water they were washing the spinach with - now, that is not only dumb, it is scary.
When it comes to food intolerances and sensitivities, however, the burden has to be on the consumer.
When it comes to cancers, lots of things can and do increase the odds that an individual will develop it (Sun exposure, processed red meats, obesity, to name a few) - but at some point running those risks are an individual choice. Making the public aware of those risks might be (I think it is) the government's job- stopping an individual from running those risks (which ultimately affects not society but the self) it's not.
Philosophically there is always a tension between freedom and safety. There is no perfect balance (we have daily reminders).
In my opinion, even if there were studies confirming a link between carrageenan and cancer that - in and on itself - would not be reason to ban it. You would have to analyze the data and come up with a significant risk to do it.
Consumers can not make the distinction as to what is in the food if it is not labeled properly. We will have to disagree about banning carageenan, there is no true use for it. In My Opinion It's useless and provides nothing to benefit the human body.
fixed it for you
Yeah, thanks, aren't we all providing our opinions without having to note it? LOL
well when you are trying to make a statement of fact about additives leading to cancer with no scientific proof, I think it needs to be noted that these statements are a matter of opinion.
and as @Hornsby pointed out carrageenan does actually provide macro and micronutrients so it is not, as you stated, "useless" and provide nothing of benefit.0 -
Here's an article about why certain processing aids don't need to be added to the label in the US: http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/processing-aids-whats-not-on-the-label-and-why-zwfz1306zsal.aspx0
-
I once filed a complaint letter to the government that too much dryer lint was being thrown in to the landfills. The passionate writer included a sample along with her letter. One of the most interesting complaint letters I've ever filed. Nothing came of it however, no matter how passionate and creative her complaint. The government response was kind and nearly as creative.
I don't think it is realistic to demand that manufacturers FULLY describe their products in the title. The font would have to be too small. Titles have to be big, bold and punchy for us to notice them at all. Educated consumers can line up various products with the nutrition and ingredients labels facing forward (which hubby and I have done with cereals and hot-dogs) to pick the "better" product.
We found the no-name hot-dogs to be lowest in fat, salt, and additives by the way. Big surprise.
Your Big Chip cookie, if your complaint were taken seriously, would have to be labelled. "Chocolate-Chip-Brown-Sugar-and-other-sweeteners-read-the-label-Wheat-Coconut-rising-agents-read-the-label-Cookie".
Well, I got a good laugh from that, I haven't known anyone to be allergic to sugar, except a diabetic not being able to process it, and if someone has a gluten problem they certainly won't be eating a flour laden cookie. Coconut however is right up there with nut allergies for a large majority. A simple piece of coconut sitting next to the chocolate chips would do just fine to alert the buyer of the cookie that a known allergen is in it.
I am not surprised that you found the better product to be the no name product. I don't eat hot dogs, so I wouldn't know though.0 -
But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »
Actually, it has pretty decent macros and nutrients so I wouldn't say "it provides nothing to the human body".
Okay, so it has no use for me and the many others who have problems with it. There are three different forms of carageenan out there and all can be derived in different ways to be used in our food sources. It is not original to a natural food form unless you eat the seaweed in it's true form to get all of the fiber and other nutrients it provides. Then you have a whole food without removing one component of that food to get something else to use for something else. Does any of that make sense to you? I am honestly not sure how to get across what it is I am trying to say, I do know I don't want it in my food.
I'm pretty sure people with peanut allergies don't want peanuts in their food either, while the billions of people who aren't won't mind. That's why labelling the stuff is a good idea, but wanting to ban it is not.0 -
But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?0 -
My children, same age, would helpfully pull cereal boxes off the shelves, "Get this one, mom, it's FREE!" Yes, labeling is targeted to ten year-olds and my husband. Children have their parents and my husband has got to muddle through on his own.
Children with life-threatening allergies are typically coached not to eat anything outside their bubble.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »
Actually, it has pretty decent macros and nutrients so I wouldn't say "it provides nothing to the human body".
Okay, so it has no use for me and the many others who have problems with it. There are three different forms of carageenan out there and all can be derived in different ways to be used in our food sources. It is not original to a natural food form unless you eat the seaweed in it's true form to get all of the fiber and other nutrients it provides. Then you have a whole food without removing one component of that food to get something else to use for something else. Does any of that make sense to you? I am honestly not sure how to get across what it is I am trying to say, I do know I don't want it in my food.
I'm pretty sure people with peanut allergies don't want peanuts in their food either, while the billions of people who aren't won't mind. That's why labelling the stuff is a good idea, but wanting to ban it is not.
I agree for the most part, but nuts are not an ingredient used to thicken dairy or used to plump up chicken, etc. Carageenan on the other hand is fed to the masses without our knowledge in some cases which in turn make us sick. I don't see a need for it at all. It's not in it's natural state.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's an article about why certain processing aids don't need to be added to the label in the US: http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/processing-aids-whats-not-on-the-label-and-why-zwfz1306zsal.aspx
Thank you, this information is on the FDA website.0 -
My children, same age, would helpfully pull cereal boxes off the shelves, "Get this one, mom, it's FREE!" Yes, labeling is targeted to ten year-olds and my husband. Children have their parents and my husband has got to muddle through on his own.
Children with life-threatening allergies are typically coached not to eat anything outside their bubble.
Yes, true.0 -
I beg to differ. Peanut flour is in everything. Well, not literally. I have to mention this because this is a very literal board.
I see nothing wrong with leavening, thickening, and texturizing ingredients like, say, gelatin, yeast, or baking soda. They may not contribute directly to the nutritional value but we still like them.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »
Actually, it has pretty decent macros and nutrients so I wouldn't say "it provides nothing to the human body".
Okay, so it has no use for me and the many others who have problems with it. There are three different forms of carageenan out there and all can be derived in different ways to be used in our food sources. It is not original to a natural food form unless you eat the seaweed in it's true form to get all of the fiber and other nutrients it provides. Then you have a whole food without removing one component of that food to get something else to use for something else. Does any of that make sense to you? I am honestly not sure how to get across what it is I am trying to say, I do know I don't want it in my food.
I'm pretty sure people with peanut allergies don't want peanuts in their food either, while the billions of people who aren't won't mind. That's why labelling the stuff is a good idea, but wanting to ban it is not.
I agree for the most part, but nuts are not an ingredient used to thicken dairy or used to plump up chicken, etc. Carageenan on the other hand is fed to the masses without our knowledge in some cases which in turn make us sick. I don't see a need for it at all. It's not in it's natural state.
You don't need to add peanuts to anything either. And nothing is in its natural state because of millennia of purposeful breeding to make things have certain traits while reducing others. And even if it were, so what? Nature doesn't mean you any good. There's more things in nature that would kill you if you ate them than processed things made for the sole purpose of being eaten.0 -
I beg to differ. Peanut flour is in everything. Well, not literally. I have to mention this because this is a very literal board.
I see nothing wrong with leavening, thickening, and texturizing ingredients like, say, gelatin, yeast, or baking soda. They may not contribute directly to the nutritional value but we still like them.
I love that pic. That looks really good and I don't care for jello but that looks really good.
I agree that peanut flour could be in a lot of things but here in the U.S. we have recalls all the time for undeclared nuts, undeclared wheat or milk products, etc. Known allergens are required on the labeling.
Can I have the recipe for that?0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.
I'm confused. What said "nacho cheese" for chips? The ingredients list for the cheese sauce just said "nacho cheese"? "Nacho cheese," by itself, isn't an ingredient. If an ingredient list just said "nacho cheese," I would think anyone with an allergy would want to avoid it because that is clearly not a sufficient ingredient list for a product.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.
I'm confused. What said "nacho cheese" for chips? The ingredients list for the cheese sauce just said "nacho cheese"? "Nacho cheese," by itself, isn't an ingredient. If an ingredient list just said "nacho cheese," I would think anyone with an allergy would want to avoid it because that is clearly not a sufficient ingredient list for a product.
It's been a very long time, I do remember the can said, "Nacho Cheese for Chips", the picture had yellow cheese sauce pictured without any jalapenos. The ingredients list had everything you would expect for nacho cheese, but jalapeno was not listed. Nobody did anything wrong except the label. It's been years, I don't remember the brand or where they bought it. I just remember it happened and the people won't serve nachos anymore because they don't want to take a chance. I think it could be the manufacturer used the wrong label on the product, I don't know, that is only a guess, not direct knowledge. Around here you hear about something once or twice and then it disappears from public knowledge. Our news doesn't rehash things over and over like the national news stations do.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »
Actually, it has pretty decent macros and nutrients so I wouldn't say "it provides nothing to the human body".
Okay, so it has no use for me and the many others who have problems with it. There are three different forms of carageenan out there and all can be derived in different ways to be used in our food sources. It is not original to a natural food form unless you eat the seaweed in it's true form to get all of the fiber and other nutrients it provides. Then you have a whole food without removing one component of that food to get something else to use for something else. Does any of that make sense to you? I am honestly not sure how to get across what it is I am trying to say, I do know I don't want it in my food.
I'm pretty sure people with peanut allergies don't want peanuts in their food either, while the billions of people who aren't won't mind. That's why labelling the stuff is a good idea, but wanting to ban it is not.
I agree for the most part, but nuts are not an ingredient used to thicken dairy or used to plump up chicken, etc. Carageenan on the other hand is fed to the masses without our knowledge in some cases which in turn make us sick. I don't see a need for it at all. It's not in it's natural state.
You don't need to add peanuts to anything either. And nothing is in its natural state because of millennia of purposeful breeding to make things have certain traits while reducing others. And even if it were, so what? Nature doesn't mean you any good. There's more things in nature that would kill you if you ate them than processed things made for the sole purpose of being eaten.
I can't argue with that but I have the decision on whether I eat peanuts or not, or a whole food, processed food or whatever else I decide I want to eat. I want to know what is in my food, and I have a right to have safe food available to me, everyone does. Carageenan is not safe for me, I want to know about it so I can avoid it.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.
This isn't believable. Do you know the brand? Or do you mean on a menu, because ingredients must be listed on labels.0 -
Here's a representative recipe:
http://www.food.com/recipe/chicken-in-aspic-kyckling-i-gele-144193
And the source article (no recipe):
http://www.thisapronedlife.com/aspic-delightful-in-a-molded-pan/0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.
This isn't believable. Do you know the brand? Or do you mean on a menu, because ingredients must be listed on labels.
See my response to JaneJellyRoll above.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.
I get that, completely, but tell that to the nine year kid who sees the cookies that are chocolate chip and he's eaten plenty of chocolate chip cookies without any problems that he suddenly has become ill. I agree reading labels is important, but when nuts are included in a product they are generally shown in the picture of said product as well as being labeled in the ingredients. It is generally what you see when you look at a cookie package that contains coconut, usually a picture of coconut in one way or the other. The mother does need to look at the label, but in general sense the darn coconut should be on the picture. It's just one little snippet of information.
There was a kid not too far from here at a swimming pool and this child was allergic to jalapeno's, the people were serving nachos. The kid asked if there was any jalapeno in the cheese and was told no. This child went to the hospital because he was given jalapeno loaded nacho cheese, there were no chunks it was just jalapeno juice. He took one bite and that was all it took.
He asked, he was told no and this was years ago, at least 6 or 7. Thankfully this child only suffered for a little while and didn't die from it. It's too bad that labeling is so bad when it regards our foods.
This is a really unfortunate story, but asking someone what is in a food (and getting an incorrect answer) is really different than a labeling issue. Even if labels had giant pictures of everything that was in the food, it wouldn't have helped this child. Or are you saying that the person he asked had read the label and failed to see that jalapenos were included?
Yes, they read the label and there was zero indication that jalapeno was in it.
The ingredients list didn't include the jalapeno juice?
No, it was not listed. No pictures of jalapenos and no indication of any heat. Just said Nacho cheese for chips.
I'm confused. What said "nacho cheese" for chips? The ingredients list for the cheese sauce just said "nacho cheese"? "Nacho cheese," by itself, isn't an ingredient. If an ingredient list just said "nacho cheese," I would think anyone with an allergy would want to avoid it because that is clearly not a sufficient ingredient list for a product.
It's been a very long time, I do remember the can said, "Nacho Cheese for Chips", the picture had yellow cheese sauce pictured without any jalapenos. The ingredients list had everything you would expect for nacho cheese, but jalapeno was not listed. Nobody did anything wrong except the label. It's been years, I don't remember the brand or where they bought it. I just remember it happened and the people won't serve nachos anymore because they don't want to take a chance. I think it could be the manufacturer used the wrong label on the product, I don't know, that is only a guess, not direct knowledge. Around here you hear about something once or twice and then it disappears from public knowledge. Our news doesn't rehash things over and over like the national news stations do.
This story seems like it has some gaps, but if the issue is that the manufacturer put the wrong label on the can, the best labeling in the world wouldn't have avoided this.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions