It's only "Natural" and the FDA wants your opinion!
Replies
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »"Natural" has no formal definition or criteria to meet vs. say "organic". Just read the label...as a consumer, you are the one ultimately choosing what goes into your body; the FDA can't make your decisions for you. Time & resources are better spent on preventing outbreaks & contamination of food borne illnesses
The point is, the product is NOT listed on the ingredients list, so how am I to know if it isn't there for me?
This has been an interesting thread, you have those who have their opinions, I have my opinion and we are all entitled to them. I can't say anymore than I already have. I want transparency in the labeling of carageenan, so that I can be diligent in not becoming ill because I ate something that does not have it listed. There are many people out there just like me who have problems with carageenan.
I am pretty positive that the people who had allergic reactions to those items which are required to be listed on labels such as, nuts, dairy, gluten, wheat flour, etc. had the same problems getting it recognized that it was harmful to their health. They also had a right to safe food labeling so they could stay away from what causes them ill effects.
Thing is, those allergic reactions are all recognized by the medical field as actually existing. As far as I've seen that is not (yet?) the case with this.
And also the problems with at least nut allergies go so far that it has to be labelled even if it was only made in the same factory as things containing nuts. It doesn't even have to actually contain it, that's how bad of a reaction someone can have to them.
I'm guessing the OP has not had a patch test.
No, I had complete blood workup, and it went just like happened to this person here. I don't have the skin problems with eczema he speaks of, I do have all the other symptoms regarding gastro issues. I was left on my own to figure out what my problem was. Go figure that one out and let me know how it works, ok?
eczemafreenaturally.com/are-you-allergic-to-carrageenan/
So you suspect it to be carrageenan, but haven't had a skin test. Would suggest you try this:
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/reaction-ice-cream-kernel-oil.aspx
Not sure that your link has anything to do with anything - it talks about uncertainty of testing, a symptom you don't have and the need to evaluate thoroughly. Do a skin test at home, it might help. Could just as easily be locust bean or another additive... just trying to help.
Really? That's your answer? OK, I am not doing a skin test, I had a complete blood allergy workup, I don't need a skin test that will not tell me anything near what a full blood workup will tell me. All testing is uncertain, there are no guarantees in medical testing. It is used to try to find a "reason" for something and it is often unsuccessful when it is done. I have all symptoms except the skin rash, does this mean I am not legitimate in my claim I have a reaction to carrageenan? Enlighten me please.
I think you don't understand this, just like everyone else doesn't understand it. Those who suffer, like me and the man in the link understand it to be debilitating when we eat carrageenan. No amount of "this isn't real" from anyone will fix it for us.
0 -
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.
0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »"Natural" has no formal definition or criteria to meet vs. say "organic". Just read the label...as a consumer, you are the one ultimately choosing what goes into your body; the FDA can't make your decisions for you. Time & resources are better spent on preventing outbreaks & contamination of food borne illnesses
The point is, the product is NOT listed on the ingredients list, so how am I to know if it isn't there for me?
This has been an interesting thread, you have those who have their opinions, I have my opinion and we are all entitled to them. I can't say anymore than I already have. I want transparency in the labeling of carageenan, so that I can be diligent in not becoming ill because I ate something that does not have it listed. There are many people out there just like me who have problems with carageenan.
I am pretty positive that the people who had allergic reactions to those items which are required to be listed on labels such as, nuts, dairy, gluten, wheat flour, etc. had the same problems getting it recognized that it was harmful to their health. They also had a right to safe food labeling so they could stay away from what causes them ill effects.
Thing is, those allergic reactions are all recognized by the medical field as actually existing. As far as I've seen that is not (yet?) the case with this.
And also the problems with at least nut allergies go so far that it has to be labelled even if it was only made in the same factory as things containing nuts. It doesn't even have to actually contain it, that's how bad of a reaction someone can have to them.
I'm guessing the OP has not had a patch test.
No, I had complete blood workup, and it went just like happened to this person here. I don't have the skin problems with eczema he speaks of, I do have all the other symptoms regarding gastro issues. I was left on my own to figure out what my problem was. Go figure that one out and let me know how it works, ok?
eczemafreenaturally.com/are-you-allergic-to-carrageenan/
So you suspect it to be carrageenan, but haven't had a skin test. Would suggest you try this:
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/reaction-ice-cream-kernel-oil.aspx
Not sure that your link has anything to do with anything - it talks about uncertainty of testing, a symptom you don't have and the need to evaluate thoroughly. Do a skin test at home, it might help. Could just as easily be locust bean or another additive... just trying to help.
Really? That's your answer? OK, I am not doing a skin test, I had a complete blood allergy workup, I don't need a skin test that will not tell me anything near what a full blood workup will tell me. All testing is uncertain, there are no guarantees in medical testing. It is used to try to find a "reason" for something and it is often unsuccessful when it is done.
I think you don't understand this, just like everyone else doesn't understand it. Those who suffer, like me and the man in the link understand it to be debilitating when we eat carrageenan. No amount of "this isn't real" from anyone will fix it for us.
Your blood test come up positive to carrageenan? Hmm. As far as I know, the FDA has not approved an IgE in-vitro assay for it. This is news!
I'm not saying it isn't real - I'm saying that it may be real or it may be a few other things. Testing can help you pinpoint that - or help others that wander into the thread that are unsure.
You own your medical determination and I wish you luck with avoiding your issues - but personally, if I thought I had a specific and debilitating allergy and someone offered me a way to evaluate that, I'd be on that right away.
ETA: you can buy a small sample of carrageenan from amazon for less than $10 and test yourself (even carry out a double blind, reverse test) if you like.0 -
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?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »"Natural" has no formal definition or criteria to meet vs. say "organic". Just read the label...as a consumer, you are the one ultimately choosing what goes into your body; the FDA can't make your decisions for you. Time & resources are better spent on preventing outbreaks & contamination of food borne illnesses
The point is, the product is NOT listed on the ingredients list, so how am I to know if it isn't there for me?
This has been an interesting thread, you have those who have their opinions, I have my opinion and we are all entitled to them. I can't say anymore than I already have. I want transparency in the labeling of carageenan, so that I can be diligent in not becoming ill because I ate something that does not have it listed. There are many people out there just like me who have problems with carageenan.
I am pretty positive that the people who had allergic reactions to those items which are required to be listed on labels such as, nuts, dairy, gluten, wheat flour, etc. had the same problems getting it recognized that it was harmful to their health. They also had a right to safe food labeling so they could stay away from what causes them ill effects.
Thing is, those allergic reactions are all recognized by the medical field as actually existing. As far as I've seen that is not (yet?) the case with this.
And also the problems with at least nut allergies go so far that it has to be labelled even if it was only made in the same factory as things containing nuts. It doesn't even have to actually contain it, that's how bad of a reaction someone can have to them.
I'm guessing the OP has not had a patch test.
No, I had complete blood workup, and it went just like happened to this person here. I don't have the skin problems with eczema he speaks of, I do have all the other symptoms regarding gastro issues. I was left on my own to figure out what my problem was. Go figure that one out and let me know how it works, ok?
eczemafreenaturally.com/are-you-allergic-to-carrageenan/
So you suspect it to be carrageenan, but haven't had a skin test. Would suggest you try this:
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/reaction-ice-cream-kernel-oil.aspx
Not sure that your link has anything to do with anything - it talks about uncertainty of testing, a symptom you don't have and the need to evaluate thoroughly. Do a skin test at home, it might help. Could just as easily be locust bean or another additive... just trying to help.
Really? That's your answer? OK, I am not doing a skin test, I had a complete blood allergy workup, I don't need a skin test that will not tell me anything near what a full blood workup will tell me. All testing is uncertain, there are no guarantees in medical testing. It is used to try to find a "reason" for something and it is often unsuccessful when it is done.
I think you don't understand this, just like everyone else doesn't understand it. Those who suffer, like me and the man in the link understand it to be debilitating when we eat carrageenan. No amount of "this isn't real" from anyone will fix it for us.
Your blood test come up positive to carrageenan? Hmm. As far as I know, the FDA has not approved an IgE in-vitro assay for it. This is news!
I'm not saying it isn't real - I'm saying that it may be real or it may be a few other things. Testing can help you pinpoint that - or help others that wander into the thread that are unsure.
You own your medical determination and I wish you luck with avoiding your issues - but personally, if I thought I had a specific and debilitating allergy and someone offered me a way to evaluate that, I'd be on that right away.
ETA: you can buy a small sample of carrageenan from amazon for less than $10 and test yourself (even carry out a double blind, reverse test) if you like.
Please re-read my response, I didn't say my blood test had any success. I said I had to find out on my own what the problem was. Please re-read my answer for your understanding.
I don't think you are really truly understanding what I posted. I will not have a skin test or prick test. The blood test is a complete test that will show more than the skin test will ever do. At least that was according to my then current doctor.
I don't need to buy carageenan, I know it makes me ill by the foods it is in and I consume them. The reaction is the problem. I already have my answers, I am not seeking new ones to determine my problem because I already have. This is why I want to know what is in the foods I am buying. To avoid carageenan.
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.
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.
Can you clear up what the issue is with these cookies? You want them to list coconut? Why? It's on the ingredients list... Ingredients:
Chocolate Chips (Chocolate Liquor, Sugar, Anhydrous Dextrose, Soy Lecithin [Emulsifier], Artificial Flavor), Enriched Bleached Flour (Wheat Flour, Niacin, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Butter, Brown Sugar, Sugar, Liquid Whole Eggs, Dried Unsweetened Coconut, Whey Powder, Sodium Bicarbonate, Baking Powder (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate, Corn Starch, Monocalcium Phosphate, Calcium Sulfate), Natural Flavor.
I am just confused on what your are striving for now... Admittedly, I have only been somewhat following this thread.
0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »
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.
I agree that ingredients need to be labeled but find that the idea "there is enough room for a piece of coconut" to not really make sense.
From the ingredient list, those have soy, wheat, milk, egg, coconut. Manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts, tree nuts.
So according to that picture logic - it should have a picture of egg, another of milk, another of peanuts, another of soy, etc...
There are people allergic to certain proteins - others to almost every fruit, others to guar gum. I can see now that every product would just be covered with pictures. Makes no sense.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.
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.
Can you clear up what the issue is with these cookies? You want them to list coconut? Why? It's on the ingredients list... Ingredients:
Chocolate Chips (Chocolate Liquor, Sugar, Anhydrous Dextrose, Soy Lecithin [Emulsifier], Artificial Flavor), Enriched Bleached Flour (Wheat Flour, Niacin, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Butter, Brown Sugar, Sugar, Liquid Whole Eggs, Dried Unsweetened Coconut, Whey Powder, Sodium Bicarbonate, Baking Powder (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate, Corn Starch, Monocalcium Phosphate, Calcium Sulfate), Natural Flavor.
I am just confused on what your are striving for now... Admittedly, I have only been somewhat following this thread.
That's been covered way up in the thread, please read above.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »
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.
I agree that ingredients need to be labeled but find that the idea "there is enough room for a piece of coconut" to not really make sense.
From the ingredient list, those have soy, wheat, milk, egg, coconut. Manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts, tree nuts.
So according to that picture logic - it should have a picture of egg, another of milk, another of peanuts, another of soy, etc...
There are people allergic to certain proteins - others to almost every fruit, others to guar gum. I can see now that every product would just be covered with pictures. Makes no sense.
Again, it's been covered way up in the thread, I was only responding to another post regarding pictures. Please read up above for you answers.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »"Natural" has no formal definition or criteria to meet vs. say "organic". Just read the label...as a consumer, you are the one ultimately choosing what goes into your body; the FDA can't make your decisions for you. Time & resources are better spent on preventing outbreaks & contamination of food borne illnesses
The point is, the product is NOT listed on the ingredients list, so how am I to know if it isn't there for me?
This has been an interesting thread, you have those who have their opinions, I have my opinion and we are all entitled to them. I can't say anymore than I already have. I want transparency in the labeling of carageenan, so that I can be diligent in not becoming ill because I ate something that does not have it listed. There are many people out there just like me who have problems with carageenan.
I am pretty positive that the people who had allergic reactions to those items which are required to be listed on labels such as, nuts, dairy, gluten, wheat flour, etc. had the same problems getting it recognized that it was harmful to their health. They also had a right to safe food labeling so they could stay away from what causes them ill effects.
Thing is, those allergic reactions are all recognized by the medical field as actually existing. As far as I've seen that is not (yet?) the case with this.
And also the problems with at least nut allergies go so far that it has to be labelled even if it was only made in the same factory as things containing nuts. It doesn't even have to actually contain it, that's how bad of a reaction someone can have to them.
I'm guessing the OP has not had a patch test.
No, I had complete blood workup, and it went just like happened to this person here. I don't have the skin problems with eczema he speaks of, I do have all the other symptoms regarding gastro issues. I was left on my own to figure out what my problem was. Go figure that one out and let me know how it works, ok?
eczemafreenaturally.com/are-you-allergic-to-carrageenan/
So you suspect it to be carrageenan, but haven't had a skin test. Would suggest you try this:
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/reaction-ice-cream-kernel-oil.aspx
Not sure that your link has anything to do with anything - it talks about uncertainty of testing, a symptom you don't have and the need to evaluate thoroughly. Do a skin test at home, it might help. Could just as easily be locust bean or another additive... just trying to help.
Really? That's your answer? OK, I am not doing a skin test, I had a complete blood allergy workup, I don't need a skin test that will not tell me anything near what a full blood workup will tell me. All testing is uncertain, there are no guarantees in medical testing. It is used to try to find a "reason" for something and it is often unsuccessful when it is done.
I think you don't understand this, just like everyone else doesn't understand it. Those who suffer, like me and the man in the link understand it to be debilitating when we eat carrageenan. No amount of "this isn't real" from anyone will fix it for us.
Your blood test come up positive to carrageenan? Hmm. As far as I know, the FDA has not approved an IgE in-vitro assay for it. This is news!
I'm not saying it isn't real - I'm saying that it may be real or it may be a few other things. Testing can help you pinpoint that - or help others that wander into the thread that are unsure.
You own your medical determination and I wish you luck with avoiding your issues - but personally, if I thought I had a specific and debilitating allergy and someone offered me a way to evaluate that, I'd be on that right away.
ETA: you can buy a small sample of carrageenan from amazon for less than $10 and test yourself (even carry out a double blind, reverse test) if you like.
Please re-read my response, I didn't say my blood test had any success. I said I had to find out on my own what the problem was. Please re-read my answer for your understanding.
I don't think you are really truly understanding what I posted. I will not have a skin test or prick test. The blood test is a complete test that will show more than the skin test will ever do. At least that was according to my then current doctor.
I don't need to buy carageenan, I know it makes me ill by the foods it is in and I consume them. The reaction is the problem. I already have my answers, I am not seeking new ones to determine my problem because I already have. This is why I want to know what is in the foods I am buying. To avoid carageenan.
I completely understand what you are saying.
What I'm saying is that a blood test is irrelevant in your case because it isn't sensitive to your issue. A skin test might help as it might even help identify cross-allergies, and other stuff you should avoid - I also understand that you don't want to do one. Ok, I'm certainly not going to belabour the point further.
It was also brought up because it might also help others. These threads are read by people who might not be at the same point in their own determination of allergy issues.
Best of luck.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »"Natural" has no formal definition or criteria to meet vs. say "organic". Just read the label...as a consumer, you are the one ultimately choosing what goes into your body; the FDA can't make your decisions for you. Time & resources are better spent on preventing outbreaks & contamination of food borne illnesses
The point is, the product is NOT listed on the ingredients list, so how am I to know if it isn't there for me?
This has been an interesting thread, you have those who have their opinions, I have my opinion and we are all entitled to them. I can't say anymore than I already have. I want transparency in the labeling of carageenan, so that I can be diligent in not becoming ill because I ate something that does not have it listed. There are many people out there just like me who have problems with carageenan.
I am pretty positive that the people who had allergic reactions to those items which are required to be listed on labels such as, nuts, dairy, gluten, wheat flour, etc. had the same problems getting it recognized that it was harmful to their health. They also had a right to safe food labeling so they could stay away from what causes them ill effects.
Thing is, those allergic reactions are all recognized by the medical field as actually existing. As far as I've seen that is not (yet?) the case with this.
And also the problems with at least nut allergies go so far that it has to be labelled even if it was only made in the same factory as things containing nuts. It doesn't even have to actually contain it, that's how bad of a reaction someone can have to them.
I'm guessing the OP has not had a patch test.
No, I had complete blood workup, and it went just like happened to this person here. I don't have the skin problems with eczema he speaks of, I do have all the other symptoms regarding gastro issues. I was left on my own to figure out what my problem was. Go figure that one out and let me know how it works, ok?
eczemafreenaturally.com/are-you-allergic-to-carrageenan/
So you suspect it to be carrageenan, but haven't had a skin test. Would suggest you try this:
http://www.aaaai.org/ask-the-expert/reaction-ice-cream-kernel-oil.aspx
Not sure that your link has anything to do with anything - it talks about uncertainty of testing, a symptom you don't have and the need to evaluate thoroughly. Do a skin test at home, it might help. Could just as easily be locust bean or another additive... just trying to help.
Really? That's your answer? OK, I am not doing a skin test, I had a complete blood allergy workup, I don't need a skin test that will not tell me anything near what a full blood workup will tell me. All testing is uncertain, there are no guarantees in medical testing. It is used to try to find a "reason" for something and it is often unsuccessful when it is done.
I think you don't understand this, just like everyone else doesn't understand it. Those who suffer, like me and the man in the link understand it to be debilitating when we eat carrageenan. No amount of "this isn't real" from anyone will fix it for us.
Your blood test come up positive to carrageenan? Hmm. As far as I know, the FDA has not approved an IgE in-vitro assay for it. This is news!
I'm not saying it isn't real - I'm saying that it may be real or it may be a few other things. Testing can help you pinpoint that - or help others that wander into the thread that are unsure.
You own your medical determination and I wish you luck with avoiding your issues - but personally, if I thought I had a specific and debilitating allergy and someone offered me a way to evaluate that, I'd be on that right away.
ETA: you can buy a small sample of carrageenan from amazon for less than $10 and test yourself (even carry out a double blind, reverse test) if you like.
Please re-read my response, I didn't say my blood test had any success. I said I had to find out on my own what the problem was. Please re-read my answer for your understanding.
I don't think you are really truly understanding what I posted. I will not have a skin test or prick test. The blood test is a complete test that will show more than the skin test will ever do. At least that was according to my then current doctor.
I don't need to buy carageenan, I know it makes me ill by the foods it is in and I consume them. The reaction is the problem. I already have my answers, I am not seeking new ones to determine my problem because I already have. This is why I want to know what is in the foods I am buying. To avoid carageenan.
I completely understand what you are saying.
What I'm saying is that a blood test is irrelevant in your case because it isn't sensitive to your issue. A skin test might help as it might even help identify cross-allergies, and other stuff you should avoid - I also understand that you don't want to do one. Ok, I'm certainly not going to belabour the point further.
It was also brought up because it might also help others. These threads are read by people who might not be at the same point in their own determination of allergy issues.
Best of luck.
Thanks for clarifying that, I wasn't understanding that to be the case. I will still hold tight on not having a skin test because I already know what causes the problem for me. Thank you.0 -
If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.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.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »"Natural" has no formal definition or criteria to meet vs. say "organic". Just read the label...as a consumer, you are the one ultimately choosing what goes into your body; the FDA can't make your decisions for you. Time & resources are better spent on preventing outbreaks & contamination of food borne illnesses
The point is, the product is NOT listed on the ingredients list, so how am I to know if it isn't there for me?
This has been an interesting thread, you have those who have their opinions, I have my opinion and we are all entitled to them. I can't say anymore than I already have. I want transparency in the labeling of carageenan, so that I can be diligent in not becoming ill because I ate something that does not have it listed. There are many people out there just like me who have problems with carageenan.
I am pretty positive that the people who had allergic reactions to those items which are required to be listed on labels such as, nuts, dairy, gluten, wheat flour, etc. had the same problems getting it recognized that it was harmful to their health. They also had a right to safe food labeling so they could stay away from what causes them ill effects.
Well then, that is blatant mislabeling & you should be entitled your money back. They didn't have any description of carageenan anywhere on the packaging? Not even listed vaguely as "other preservatives" or "artificial ingredients", etc.? Then that is total bull because inactive components consumed in substantially large quantities do matter...food labeling requires ingredients listed in order of quantity composition.
This is covered in the thread. Read it. It's not a violation of the rules or considered an ingredient in the cases where it's not listed.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.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.
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.
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.
Yep, I haven't been paying enough attention...lol. I'm out.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 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.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.
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
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