It's only "Natural" and the FDA wants your opinion!
Options
Replies
-
anewstart22 wrote: »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.
So this is from your memory of a newspaper story?
Either it is misremembered/inaccurately reported or a freak labeling mistake that does not reflect what the actual labeling requirements are. (If the latter, obviously the company would be liable.)
The point is that it can't be taken as an indictment of our current labeling requirements.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/
Thank you, I saved both links to my list of foods to try. I just bought some unflavored gelatin two weeks ago to try a recipe but haven't made it yet. I just don't eat jello so it doesn't pop into my head to make, it's been years since I bought any, lol. Have you ever tried frozen peas in the recipe? I don't buy canned but I think I could heat the peas and let them cool, then add them to the recipe? Otherwise I have everything needed to make that recipe, I also believe in yeasts, and corn starch and other items to make meals.
This is the recipe I have plans for with the unflavored gelatin I bought. The link takes you to Earthbound Farms and their page for a recipe one of their customers came up with using the butternut squash.
Maple Harvest Mousse
ebfarm.com/organic-bound/easier-healthier-harvest-dessert/
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Wow, thanks, I appreciate that. You know a friend of mine happened to be at that pool that day, saw the kid on the concrete and saw him taken away by ambulance, so if there are any gaps it seems it's in your thoughts only. Or did I take it wrong that you were insinuating that I am not telling the truth?
You know, out here you won't hear about juveniles and things that are wrong with them unless the parents go to the news media. They don't report on juveniles without permission of the parents, usually things like this are mentioned once or twice and they stop reporting on it. For privacy sake.
But you are right, if it was labeled wrong, nothing would have changed the outcome.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »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.
So this is from your memory of a newspaper story?
Either it is misremembered/inaccurately reported or a freak labeling mistake that does not reflect what the actual labeling requirements are. (If the latter, obviously the company would be liable.)
The point is that it can't be taken as an indictment of our current labeling requirements.
It is both, memory of the news but a friend was there at the pool when it happened. The point I am trying to make here is that truth in labeling is what I am fighting. I want to know what is in my food, I have a right and so does everyone else to know what is in our food. Whether it was mislabeled (and I don't know if it was, or the outcome) or not, the point is, the kid went to the hospital, and none of us deserves to be ill because ingredients are undeclared.
0 -
But how would changing the current law make a difference to that? It would not, because ingredients like jalapeno juice already must be disclosed. (As for gaps, one example is that your story makes it sound like the nachos were ordered at a food counter or something -- I'm still not sure I'm following, but if it's truly a labeling issue and not a server issue or someone being negligent in reading the label, it is possible that there was some freak mistake with the label which would already violate the labeling laws.)
Your issue with the carrageenan is different, as it's listed when an ingredient and not only when it's used solely as a processing aid. I thought the explanation for that was reasonable, but am open to argument/not completely decided.
As for needing to put photographs of the ingredients or include them in the title, I don't think that's reasonable -- the consumer must take more responsibility than that.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Wow, thanks, I appreciate that. You know a friend of mine happened to be at that pool that day, saw the kid on the concrete and saw him taken away by ambulance, so if there are any gaps it seems it's in your thoughts only. Or did I take it wrong that you were insinuating that I am not telling the truth?
You know, out here you won't hear about juveniles and things that are wrong with them unless the parents go to the news media. They don't report on juveniles without permission of the parents, usually things like this are mentioned once or twice and they stop reporting on it. For privacy sake.
But you are right, if it was labeled wrong, nothing would have changed the outcome.
I'm sure it was an upsetting thing to see. Seeing a child in medical distress doesn't mean that we have special insight into the cause of that distress though -- the emotions we feel upon seeing someone suffering are in a completely different place than understanding how and why that suffering is happening.
I don't think you're not telling the truth. By your own accounting, you either don't remember or don't fully understand what happened. You said yourself that your accounting was "only a guess, not direct knowledge." True food safety issues are usually reported on, however, even if they involve young people (think of the young e.coli victims in the Jack in the Box case, for example). This may not have been reported because it was a local story where the child (thankfully) survived. But the fact that he was young wouldn't bar the media from reporting on it if it was judged to be a sufficiently interesting story.
Using this event to make a case for better labeling isn't particularly effective exactly because you aren't able to explain what went wrong. The child was told that there was no jalapenos in the cheese and you aren't sure if the can had the wrong label on it or if someone misread the label.
Things that happen in our community can bring up strong emotions for us. This isn't an attack on you, I'm just observing that we don't know enough to take this case as an example of incorrect labeling, insufficient labeling, or a tragic case of communication gone wrong between the child and the person who read the label. Nobody is saying that you aren't sharing the truth as you understand it to have happened. But the very vagueness of your recollection of the exact circumstances means that this isn't a great example of the issue we're discussing here.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But how would changing the current law make a different to that? It would not, because ingredients like jalapeno juice already must be disclosed.
Your issue with the carrageenan is different, as it's listed when an ingredient and not only when it's used solely as a processing aid. I thought the explanation for that was reasonable, but am open to argument/not completely decided.
As for needing to put photographs of the ingredients or include them in the title, I don't think that's reasonable -- the consumer must take more responsibility than that.
Let's get off the juice ok? I was just making a point about labels not declaring ingredients and how the outcome can sometimes be very disastrous.
Let's get onto the carageenan and it being listed. The point I am trying to make here regarding it is, I have bouts with the carageenan, because I find out it is undeclared in something I purchased. Now then after I make that purchase and consume the item I believe to be free of carageenan I have an episode which is quite painful, takes at least three days to clear. I then have to call the manufacturer and find out what ingredients are in their supposed "all natural ingredients" that doesn't truly list the carageenan. I should not have to go through that, and nobody else should either if they have a reaction to it.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Wow, thanks, I appreciate that. You know a friend of mine happened to be at that pool that day, saw the kid on the concrete and saw him taken away by ambulance, so if there are any gaps it seems it's in your thoughts only. Or did I take it wrong that you were insinuating that I am not telling the truth?
You know, out here you won't hear about juveniles and things that are wrong with them unless the parents go to the news media. They don't report on juveniles without permission of the parents, usually things like this are mentioned once or twice and they stop reporting on it. For privacy sake.
But you are right, if it was labeled wrong, nothing would have changed the outcome.
I'm sure it was an upsetting thing to see. Seeing a child in medical distress doesn't mean that we have special insight into the cause of that distress though -- the emotions we feel upon seeing someone suffering are in a completely different place than understanding how and why that suffering is happening.
I don't think you're not telling the truth. By your own accounting, you either don't remember or don't fully understand what happened. You said yourself that your accounting was "only a guess, not direct knowledge." True food safety issues are usually reported on, however, even if they involve young people (think of the young e.coli victims in the Jack in the Box case, for example). This may not have been reported because it was a local story where the child (thankfully) survived. But the fact that he was young wouldn't bar the media from reporting on it if it was judged to be a sufficiently interesting story.
Using this event to make a case for better labeling isn't particularly effective exactly because you aren't able to explain what went wrong. The child was told that there was no jalapenos in the cheese and you aren't sure if the can had the wrong label on it or if someone misread the label.
Things that happen in our community can bring up strong emotions for us. This isn't an attack on you, I'm just observing that we don't know enough to take this case as an example of incorrect labeling, insufficient labeling, or a tragic case of communication gone wrong between the child and the person who read the label. Nobody is saying that you aren't sharing the truth as you understand it to have happened. But the very vagueness of your recollection of the exact circumstances means that this isn't a great example of the issue we're discussing here.
Thanks for clarifying where you are coming from, I appreciate that.
My vagueness can come from the fact it was years ago, but I know for sure that person read the label and so did other adults that were in the area. I do understand the parents were there also, and read the label. I guess I should have been more informative, but my recollection hasn't been lost on the fact that the kid went to the hospital, that our news outlet only covered it a couple of times and that our news doesn't cover young children. Just because your news in your area might, ours does not.
How about the fact we had a drive by shooting in my little tiny town a little more than one month ago. My quiet little town and there was absolutely no news reports anywhere for it. How about I was standing in my kitchen around 3:30 am and seasoning one of my cast iron skillets to not only hear the gun shots, but be able to feel those gunshots in my floor beneath my feet? I called the police, the first thing I was asked was, "did you hear gunshots?" I said, "yes, I felt them too!. Our news is not like the news media, we don't hear about everything here, it's rural. We aren't nearly as important as a large city is and it's not even mentioned on my city's police departments web page. If that's not unsettling, I don't know what is. I sure would like to know what's going on in my town.
0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Wow, thanks, I appreciate that. You know a friend of mine happened to be at that pool that day, saw the kid on the concrete and saw him taken away by ambulance, so if there are any gaps it seems it's in your thoughts only. Or did I take it wrong that you were insinuating that I am not telling the truth?
You know, out here you won't hear about juveniles and things that are wrong with them unless the parents go to the news media. They don't report on juveniles without permission of the parents, usually things like this are mentioned once or twice and they stop reporting on it. For privacy sake.
But you are right, if it was labeled wrong, nothing would have changed the outcome.
I'm sure it was an upsetting thing to see. Seeing a child in medical distress doesn't mean that we have special insight into the cause of that distress though -- the emotions we feel upon seeing someone suffering are in a completely different place than understanding how and why that suffering is happening.
I don't think you're not telling the truth. By your own accounting, you either don't remember or don't fully understand what happened. You said yourself that your accounting was "only a guess, not direct knowledge." True food safety issues are usually reported on, however, even if they involve young people (think of the young e.coli victims in the Jack in the Box case, for example). This may not have been reported because it was a local story where the child (thankfully) survived. But the fact that he was young wouldn't bar the media from reporting on it if it was judged to be a sufficiently interesting story.
Using this event to make a case for better labeling isn't particularly effective exactly because you aren't able to explain what went wrong. The child was told that there was no jalapenos in the cheese and you aren't sure if the can had the wrong label on it or if someone misread the label.
Things that happen in our community can bring up strong emotions for us. This isn't an attack on you, I'm just observing that we don't know enough to take this case as an example of incorrect labeling, insufficient labeling, or a tragic case of communication gone wrong between the child and the person who read the label. Nobody is saying that you aren't sharing the truth as you understand it to have happened. But the very vagueness of your recollection of the exact circumstances means that this isn't a great example of the issue we're discussing here.
Thanks for clarifying where you are coming from, I appreciate that.
My vagueness can come from the fact it was years ago, but I know for sure that person read the label and so did other adults that were in the area. I do understand the parents were there also, and read the label. I guess I should have been more informative, but my recollection hasn't been lost on the fact that the kid went to the hospital, that our news outlet only covered it a couple of times and that our news doesn't cover young children. Just because your news in your area might, ours does not.
How about the fact we had a drive by shooting in my little tiny town a little more than one month ago. My quiet little town and there was absolutely no news reports anywhere for it. How about I was standing in my kitchen around 3:30 am and seasoning one of my cast iron skillets to not only hear the gun shots, but be able to feel those gunshots in my floor beneath my feet? I called the police, the first thing I was asked was, "did you hear gunshots?" I said, "yes, I felt them too!. Our news is not like the news media, we don't hear about everything here, it's rural. We aren't nearly as important as a large city is and it's not even mentioned on my city's police departments web page. If that's not unsettling, I don't know what is. I sure would like to know what's going on in my town.
I'm not critiquing the fact that your local news didn't cover the story in more depth (although I'm sorry you aren't regularly getting the information you want, that must be frustrating). I'm saying that when we're talking about policy changes, it's helpful to use examples where we know all the facts. We don't know enough to know if this is a case of incorrect labeling (the company put the wrong label on the can), insufficient labeling (company intentionally left an ingredient out of the ingredients list), miscommunication (child asks if it has jalapenos, server thinks child means pieces of jalapenos and truthfully says "no"), or poor reading comprehension (server looks at correct label and fails to see ingredient in ingredients list).0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Wow, thanks, I appreciate that. You know a friend of mine happened to be at that pool that day, saw the kid on the concrete and saw him taken away by ambulance, so if there are any gaps it seems it's in your thoughts only. Or did I take it wrong that you were insinuating that I am not telling the truth?
You know, out here you won't hear about juveniles and things that are wrong with them unless the parents go to the news media. They don't report on juveniles without permission of the parents, usually things like this are mentioned once or twice and they stop reporting on it. For privacy sake.
But you are right, if it was labeled wrong, nothing would have changed the outcome.
I'm sure it was an upsetting thing to see. Seeing a child in medical distress doesn't mean that we have special insight into the cause of that distress though -- the emotions we feel upon seeing someone suffering are in a completely different place than understanding how and why that suffering is happening.
I don't think you're not telling the truth. By your own accounting, you either don't remember or don't fully understand what happened. You said yourself that your accounting was "only a guess, not direct knowledge." True food safety issues are usually reported on, however, even if they involve young people (think of the young e.coli victims in the Jack in the Box case, for example). This may not have been reported because it was a local story where the child (thankfully) survived. But the fact that he was young wouldn't bar the media from reporting on it if it was judged to be a sufficiently interesting story.
Using this event to make a case for better labeling isn't particularly effective exactly because you aren't able to explain what went wrong. The child was told that there was no jalapenos in the cheese and you aren't sure if the can had the wrong label on it or if someone misread the label.
Things that happen in our community can bring up strong emotions for us. This isn't an attack on you, I'm just observing that we don't know enough to take this case as an example of incorrect labeling, insufficient labeling, or a tragic case of communication gone wrong between the child and the person who read the label. Nobody is saying that you aren't sharing the truth as you understand it to have happened. But the very vagueness of your recollection of the exact circumstances means that this isn't a great example of the issue we're discussing here.
Thanks for clarifying where you are coming from, I appreciate that.
My vagueness can come from the fact it was years ago, but I know for sure that person read the label and so did other adults that were in the area. I do understand the parents were there also, and read the label. I guess I should have been more informative, but my recollection hasn't been lost on the fact that the kid went to the hospital, that our news outlet only covered it a couple of times and that our news doesn't cover young children. Just because your news in your area might, ours does not.
How about the fact we had a drive by shooting in my little tiny town a little more than one month ago. My quiet little town and there was absolutely no news reports anywhere for it. How about I was standing in my kitchen around 3:30 am and seasoning one of my cast iron skillets to not only hear the gun shots, but be able to feel those gunshots in my floor beneath my feet? I called the police, the first thing I was asked was, "did you hear gunshots?" I said, "yes, I felt them too!. Our news is not like the news media, we don't hear about everything here, it's rural. We aren't nearly as important as a large city is and it's not even mentioned on my city's police departments web page. If that's not unsettling, I don't know what is. I sure would like to know what's going on in my town.
I'm not critiquing the fact that your local news didn't cover the story in more depth (although I'm sorry you aren't regularly getting the information you want, that must be frustrating). I'm saying that when we're talking about policy changes, it's helpful to use examples where we know all the facts. We don't know enough to know if this is a case of incorrect labeling (the company put the wrong label on the can), insufficient labeling (company intentionally left an ingredient out of the ingredients list), miscommunication (child asks if it has jalapenos, server thinks child means pieces of jalapenos and truthfully says "no"), or poor reading comprehension (server looks at correct label and fails to see ingredient in ingredients list).
I totally agree with this, it could be a number of things and none of us will ever know for sure. As far as talking about policy changes, I was only making a point about what happens when labels are not correctly listing ingredients.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »"anewstart22 wrote: »Carageenan is used as a thickener, and it keeps products from separating. Why can't we just go back to the label saying, "Shake well before use? That would take the carageenan completely out of the dairy products.
This actually makes sense. I wonder how many people think they're lactose intolerant when it's really the carageenan in the dairy products that's causing symptoms.
A quick google search makes it seems like a lot of regular milk doesn't have this. Some organic brands do.
Lactaid does. So for someone who is lactose intolerant still experiencing issues when drinking lactose free milk, that should be an indicator.
A lot of milk alternatives contains it. Seems like avoiding milk would cause more problems than plain milk if that were the case.
Neither my fat free lactaid nor my cashew milk has this.......as far as I can tell, except it might not be on the label.
Labeling is definitely an issue because we deserve to know what we buy.0 -
I posted a link that identifies various brands with and without, upthread.
It doesn't have to be listed if used as a processing aid (vs. as an ingredient, which is why you do see it as an ingredient in all sorts of products).0 -
catscats222 wrote: »horizon and silk products used to have carreegenan
http://foodbabe.com/2014/08/19/breaking-major-company-removing-controversial-ingredient-carrageenan-because-of-you/
it looks like it might have been in lactaid back in 2010
http://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=38&m=1952006
companies are paying attention to consumers that speak up
surprised to see it in kraft cottage cheese
people don't stir cottage cheese before they eat it?
Yes, it will be by the end of 2016 that they remove it from most products. I have emailed Horizon to find out if I can get a list of what will have it removed and when. It would be nice if I could buy more than just one product without carageenan at my store(s).
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I posted a link that identifies various brands with and without, upthread.
It doesn't have to be listed if used as a processing aid (vs. as an ingredient, which is why you do see it as an ingredient in all sorts of products).
That's the problem, for people like me who have reactions to it we need to know it's there so we can make the decision on what to buy and what to steer clear of. The problem with the lists of products with and without is there are a few out there and the manufacturers have some products with and some without right under the same brand., and the lists are not all complete. This depends on the products though. I got a response today from WhiteWave Foods because I asked them exactly what had carageenan and what did not have it. I use their regular half and half because it is without, I also use their butter because it is without but I have problems finding whipping cream without it.
This was their response.
Thank you for your recent email to WhiteWave Foods®.
At WhiteWave Foods - we manufacture Land O Lakes® Half & Half and Heavy Whipping Cream under a licensing agreement with Land O Lakes®. Our Original Half & Half does not contain carrageenan but our Fat-Free Half & Half, Low-Fat Half & Half, Mini Moo's Half & Half and Heavy Whipping Cream do contain carrageenan.
Please visit landolakes.com/Products/ to view other products and ingredients. I hope this helps!
Thanks again for contacting the Consumer Connections Department.
Sincerely,
Gabriel Gonzalez
Consumer Connections Representative0 -
Now it's an anti-China thread? Good times.
(Are there coveted Chinese cars? Mine is Japanese, and I love sushi.)0 -
It's already been stated up-thread that Carrageenan comes from Ireland. It grows exclusively in the Atlantic. That's a far cry from China.0
-
Do people avoid buying Irish cars? I do know there's some anti potato sentiment hereabouts.
Personally, I root against Notre Dame.0 -
catscats222 wrote: »carreegenan - a product from China
there are some that won't buy cars from them, but will buy their food additives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan
If you refuse to eat foods because they (or the dish they are based on, give the way Chinese food works in America) comes from China, I feel bad for you.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions