It's only "Natural" and the FDA wants your opinion!
Replies
-
I believe the issue is that it doesn't have to be labeled individually but can be "included" in the generic "Natural Ingredients" ingredient, no?
If that is the case, I absolutely think it needs to be separated out, but the current labeling format is fine for that, assuming it was done correctly.
I do believe that is what they are doing, hiding it within the "natural" label when we need to know it is there.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »did you know that the USDA now allows chicken to be sent to China for processing before being shipped back to the states for human consumption
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14/china-chicken-export-import-deal/
somehow, shipping a world away and then coming back is cheaper than just making the darn chicken nuggets at home
too much money is being "given" to china
(yes, i meant japan - confused)
That is so crazy, who knows what they put into it, I don't buy pre-cooked chicken so I think I'm good there, but still. Remember pet food?
That's the thing -- if you care about this stuff, why buy pre-cooked chicken or packaged nuggets? I don't particularly care about it, and yet I get almost all of my chicken from local farms.
I don't buy pre-cooked chicken, where did you get that in my statement you quoted? I hope you know just how lucky you are to have fresh chicken available to you and your family.
I doubt farms (or butchers) are that rare.
It was catscats talking about buying super processed chicken.
anewstart mentioned in the start of the thread that this was in frozen chicken legs she bought - not something that is "super processed". Adding brine is sufficiently common in the US that labelling should be clear. It seems that the OP ran across a case where the additive wasn't labeled - but it should be.
Correct, that's why (as I said in the post you quoted) that it was catscats talking about the super processed chicken.
As was covered above in the thread, in cases where carrageenan is an ingredient it is labeled. I believe that would include the brine, but am open to being corrected, as I am not 100% sure I'm properly understanding the distinctions. Where it is not listed is when it's used as a processing aid only (for example in some dairy), and remains in what are supposed to be insignificant amounts. I linked a site (that links to the federal regs) that explains why this is. As I said, I'm somewhat undecided on whether this makes sense or not for this specific ingredient. As I understand it, the USDA's position seems to be that what OP is claiming is not possible for the situations where carrageenan would be unlisted.
Right, and that is where the confusion lies, on one hand it has to be listed, on the other hand they say it doesn't.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I believe the issue is that it doesn't have to be labeled individually but can be "included" in the generic "Natural Ingredients" ingredient, no?
If it's an ingredient it has to be listed. If it was a processing aid, it does not have to be.
Processing aids need not be identified if they are on a well-tested list of things that are safe and if they: (1) do not remain at all in the final product; (2) convert into something otherwise listed; or (3) remain in "insignificant amounts."
I think here we are talking about (3).
I am not sure what the implications are of listing it or why it would be burdensome -- the site I identified seemed to be concerned that it would make labels less helpful and more confusing.
To me it comes down to whether the amount is truly insignificant, by which I am understanding there could be no negative result (perhaps incorrectly). On first blush, I tend to support disclosure, so would think adding it to the label for (3) would make sense, but I'd want to understand better why it's not (the argument to the contrary) to really form an opinion.
Also, it seems that it's not difficult to find out where it is and is not included -- companies will disclose and there are many lists of products around. OP's issue seems to be more: (1) it needs to be made more obvious even where it is listed (as with the coconut example), and (2) not enough people around her care so it continues to be in a lot of the products available at her local grocery. While I am likely to be supportive of the "should be listed" issue, I think the idea that things need to be on a photo or anything needs to be done beyond listing the ingredients is absolutely unnecessary, and there was zero wrong with the cookies and the coconut.
The problem is, it's in the brine solution, so it remains in the chicken for consumption.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »catscats222 wrote: »did you know that the USDA now allows chicken to be sent to China for processing before being shipped back to the states for human consumption
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14/china-chicken-export-import-deal/
somehow, shipping a world away and then coming back is cheaper than just making the darn chicken nuggets at home
too much money is being "given" to china
(yes, i meant japan - confused)
That is so crazy, who knows what they put into it, I don't buy pre-cooked chicken so I think I'm good there, but still. Remember pet food?
That's the thing -- if you care about this stuff, why buy pre-cooked chicken or packaged nuggets? I don't particularly care about it, and yet I get almost all of my chicken from local farms.
I don't buy pre-cooked chicken, where did you get that in my statement you quoted? I hope you know just how lucky you are to have fresh chicken available to you and your family.
You live in a rural area...could you not raise your own chickens?
I support your campaign for complete and accurate food labels...not so much however for banning based on your personal food sensitivities. I have a few of my own and I live with the fact that most pre-packaged food products contain those ingredients. I find alternatives when those alternatives exist...if they don't...I suck it up and carry on.
As far as pictures of the ingredients being on the package (at least from what I gathered from some posts) the cost and even the possibility of that being done is prohibitive. The cost of packaging would rise and many people already struggle with food costs. Some packaging is far too small to contain all of those pictures.
News in a rural area...yes sometimes that is hard to come by. I grew up in a very rural area...most often those gun shots were farmers scaring away the foxes from a hen house...not worth a police report long as well a news story. In my area a local news paper was started by the residents...mostly just gossip.
As far as food being shipped in from other countries...much of our food is. It is up to our government to ensure that it meets our standards.
I understand your frustration...I feel the same way about one ingredient that I need to monitor...it is not only in most foods that are manufactured but also occurs naturally in almost all foods. It is work...time consuming...frustrating to monitor these sensitivities but we have to deal with the bodies that we are given. I just don't think that we can punish/nor inconvenience the rest of the world by demanding that the items be banned.
I wish you luck in finding a solution to your problems.
Thank you, I am glad someone understands and I am sorry you too have food sensitivities. I think we all should be given a choice on what is added to our foods. If I make a gravy and use corn starch then I am deciding I want that additive in my food and the same with flour based gravies. This is where the food industry hides, they throw in chemicals and additives we know nothing about, except their own biased studies that they pay for to get them approved for food use. This has to stop, we need to know what is in our foods, but it will never stop so the best thing we can do is demand they list the ingredients so we can make the decision to consume or not.
As far as living rural, yes I am rural but I actually live in what is considered city limits, it's a small town with a lot of outlying land. I can't have livestock or chickens here and my yard is too small for that anyway. I would want a chicken tractor I could move around the yard and I don't have the space for that. I can have my own garden and do. Those gunshots were quite close to me, I believe the next street over and there is no livestock there. This was 5 gunshots in succession and then a few seconds later, one more.
I have sucked it up, for years, and lots of tears, and firing a doctor because she had the nerve to tell me to stop eating potato chips and cookies and junk food. I don't eat that stuff, I don't eat fast food, and I didn't appreciate her turning the tables on me because she couldn't find out what was wrong with me, she failed me. It was me who discovered the problem, by using the new Coffeemate Natural Bliss coffee creamer, it threw me into a tailspin and that is when I discovered the carageenan. Now I try hard to keep it out of my diet, but like you, find it's not listed on products you and I think are safe to eat.
Here is a link to the picture of the cookies my husband likes to eat. I don't know what the lure is but if it makes him happy, well ok. It's not like I bake cookies for him very often so he's got to get his fix somewhere, lol.
https://heb.com/product-detail/h-e-b-the-big-chip-chocolate-chip-cookies/1636890
I do understand the labeling is prohibitive in cost and photos too, but as you will see in that photo there is plenty of room to add a piece of coconut on the packaging. The picture covers the entire thing, and it's often the case for that particular brand.
Yes, I buy local if I can on all my foods but I never buy anything that says processed in another country. I buy frozen vegetables from the U.S. only if I can, I grow a lot of my own and do my best to make sure I am not eating a bunch of junk. I cook everything we eat from whole foods or semi processed like flour, butter, nuts.
I hope you find relief in your food issues too, may I ask what you are avoiding?
My biggest is sulfur though mainly it is medications containing sulfur that is the most dangerous for me. It is the first thing that I tell a doctor when meds are being prescribed...I do not want to have that experience again.
I am reasonably okay with most foods that contain sulfur if I watch the combinations of foods that I eat and the quantity of those foods.
Another is yeast...causes severe digestive issues. I can eat maybe one yeast roll and not have too many problems as long as I am not eating it along with other food items containing yeast. Consuming yeast doesn't put me at risk...just makes me very uncomfortable for a few days.
Sodium is what I am dealing with now...most food products...whether "natural" or "processed" contain it. If I stay within 1000-1200mg a day...I seem to do okay. Much more than that and my BP shoots up about 20 points or more even with taking BP meds. It highly limits my food choices, cooking methods and going out to eat.
I also have to watch my consumption of fiber...too much or too little in one day constipates me severely. I have 1 large and 2 small abdominal hernias that will cause me severe pain when constipated.
It is what it is though and we have to deal with the cards that we are dealt. It is not always fun nor convenient.
Thanks for letting me know, I am so sorry you have to deal with all of that. I also have a lot of problems with medications, a long list and (mostly referred to as Sulfa, that I have seen) is one of them as well. I totally understand what you go through there. I was able to relieve most of my gastro symptoms by refusing all medications, but couldn't get that last part that I was still suffering attacks. This is when I discovered carrageenan. Now if I can just keep it out of my life I would be extremely happy.
I hope things get better for you, hang in.0 -
This thread strikes me as a little funny considering the natural / clean foods / don't eat chemicals crowd.
It seems carageen was allowed into food because it qualifies as a natural ingredient and so didn't have to be put on the ingredients the way some people complain about not eating foods with chemicals they can't pronounce, more than four ingredients, etc.
Given there was an allergic reaction involved, it sounds like highly artificial foods with their plethora of chemicals written out are actually safer in this instance.
Just something I thought I'd note.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".0 -
This thread strikes me as a little funny considering the natural / clean foods / don't eat chemicals crowd.
It seems carageen was allowed into food because it qualifies as a natural ingredient and so didn't have to be put on the ingredients the way some people complain about not eating foods with chemicals they can't pronounce, more than four ingredients, etc.
Given there was an allergic reaction involved, it sounds like highly artificial foods with their plethora of chemicals written out are actually safer in this instance.
Just something I thought I'd note.
LOL, oh the irony!0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
Okay "dude". If you say so. My response was to Jof. No need to get overly defensive. If you "know" than you "know".0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
great, so the whole point of this thread is how you know that this effects you, fine. Does not mean that the rest of us have to eat in that manner, or that said additive has to be removed for the 99.9% of us that don't have an issue with it.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
great, so the whole point of this thread is how you know that this effects you, fine. Does not mean that the rest of us have to eat in that manner, or that said additive has to be removed for the 99.9% of us that don't have an issue with it.
And yet, your response to that which you quoted has nothing to do with this entire thread. This thread is about knowledge and you can learn or disregard. It is your choice.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
great, so the whole point of this thread is how you know that this effects you, fine. Does not mean that the rest of us have to eat in that manner, or that said additive has to be removed for the 99.9% of us that don't have an issue with it.
The problem is I was left to self diagnose all on my own, because the doctor (s) failed me. I have my answer, it's all I need and it was no help from the medical community and their tests in and out of hospital. So yes, that caused me to become defensive. Sometimes we are required to do things on our own because there are no answers in black and white.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
great, so the whole point of this thread is how you know that this effects you, fine. Does not mean that the rest of us have to eat in that manner, or that said additive has to be removed for the 99.9% of us that don't have an issue with it.
The problem is I was left to self diagnose all on my own, because the doctor (s) failed me. I have my answer, it's all I need and it was no help from the medical community and their tests in and out of hospital. So yes, that caused me to become defensive. Sometimes we are required to do things on our own because there are no answers in black and white.
again, you did it on your own, awesome.
However, your OP indicated that this was substance was bad for others and you had no science to back up your claims. You should probably revise your OP to say this is bad for me.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 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.
Yes, yes it does.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
Okay "dude". If you say so. My response was to Jof. No need to get overly defensive. If you "know" than you "know".
By the way, nocebo is the term you were looking for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo It is a real effect, even if it doesn't concern the OP.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
great, so the whole point of this thread is how you know that this effects you, fine. Does not mean that the rest of us have to eat in that manner, or that said additive has to be removed for the 99.9% of us that don't have an issue with it.
The problem is I was left to self diagnose all on my own, because the doctor (s) failed me. I have my answer, it's all I need and it was no help from the medical community and their tests in and out of hospital. So yes, that caused me to become defensive. Sometimes we are required to do things on our own because there are no answers in black and white.
again, you did it on your own, awesome.
However, your OP indicated that this was substance was bad for others and you had no science to back up your claims. You should probably revise your OP to say this is bad for me.
It's already in there, re-read please.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 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.
Yes, yes it does.
Thanks for the good laugh!0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
Okay "dude". If you say so. My response was to Jof. No need to get overly defensive. If you "know" than you "know".
By the way, nocebo is the term you were looking for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo It is a real effect, even if it doesn't concern the OP.
Okay, smart guy, with your logic and made-up words and stuff.
I think you've done quite enough damage in this thread already.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
Okay "dude". If you say so. My response was to Jof. No need to get overly defensive. If you "know" than you "know".
By the way, nocebo is the term you were looking for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo It is a real effect, even if it doesn't concern the OP.
Okay, smart guy, with your logic and made-up words and stuff.
I think you've done quite enough damage in this thread already.
Aren't we all here for the same thing?
0 -
Who needs tests when you have dem feelz0
-
anewstart22 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
great, so the whole point of this thread is how you know that this effects you, fine. Does not mean that the rest of us have to eat in that manner, or that said additive has to be removed for the 99.9% of us that don't have an issue with it.
The problem is I was left to self diagnose all on my own, because the doctor (s) failed me. I have my answer, it's all I need and it was no help from the medical community and their tests in and out of hospital. So yes, that caused me to become defensive. Sometimes we are required to do things on our own because there are no answers in black and white.
again, you did it on your own, awesome.
However, your OP indicated that this was substance was bad for others and you had no science to back up your claims. You should probably revise your OP to say this is bad for me.
I would also think if you are submitting things to the FDA in hopes of affecting change, that you'd realize having medical documentation would go a long way in things like this.0 -
0
-
For those of you that seem to be hung up on blood vs. skin tests - it wouldn't make a difference. The proposed effect of carrageenan is not an allergic reaction, though the symptoms are similar.
Quoted from the post by pzarnosky on page 2, I think:
Carrageenan can cause an inflammation response because of certain binding cascades which will activate an increased production of interleukin-8, which is part of the immune response. It seems that in some people there is a decreased threshold of tolerance to the additive. Exposure to it, for some, causes an overproduction of IL-8 through that binding cascade. IL-8 is basically a chemical signal to specific types of white bloods cells and it tells them there is a foreign substance that needs to be elimintaed. The attack that insues causes inflammation and some damage to the GI tract, this is the cause of your pain and problems. It's really similar to an allergy. That does not mean that it is bad and dangerous for all people. There is no proof of that. Yes, there is evidence that in some individuals carrageenan can cause problems, but your blanket statement isn't really appropriate.
I believe the assertion is based on this paper: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/170957570 -
Here's more information on labeling:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/meat-preparation/water-in-meat-and-poultry/ct_indexEnhanced Meat and Poultry Products
Many grocery stores are now offering meat and poultry products that have flavoring solutions added to them. For example, pork chops may be packaged with a solution of water, salt, and sodium phosphate (a solution that can add flavor and moisture to leaner meats). These new products also provide convenience by saving steps in preparation, such as "Teriyaki Beef in Teriyaki Sauce." To prevent confusion, the presence of flavor solutions must be stated on the front of the package.
Thus, you can't be surprised by the presence of this, even under the current law.Enhanced or value-added meat and poultry products are raw products that contain flavor solutions added through marinating, needle injecting, soaking, etc. The presence and amount of the solution will be featured as part of the product name, for example, "Chicken Thighs Flavored with up to 10% of a Solution" or "Beef Steak Marinated with 6% of a Flavor Solution." The ingredients of the flavor solution must be prominently identified on the label. Typically, this information will be on the principal display panel or the information panel.
The labeling term "marinated" can only be used with specific amounts of solution. "Marinated" meats can contain no more than 10% solution; boneless poultry, no more than 8% solution; and bone-in poultry, no more than 3% solution.
In the case of enhanced products, the solutions that are added to the meat or poultry, or into which the meat or poultry are placed for flavoring, seasoning, and tenderizing, are intended to be part of the product. The solutions are required by regulations and policies to be identified as part of the product names of the enhanced products, and whether the solution is incorporated into the product or is free-flowing, it is considered part of the product.
So this sounds to me like the carrageenan would have to be listed if used as part of the brine (vs. in some other processing aid capacity).
What OP really seems upset about is a different aspect of the labeling, the useless "natural" claim that is made on some foods (and which I've always heard should be ignored, as it's basically meaningless -- just as people shouldn't think "cage free" or "vegetarian" means anything significant re eggs and so on). That's covered here:Natural Products
All raw single ingredient meat and poultry qualify as "natural." However, certain products labeled as natural may also contain a flavoring solution provided the solution contains ingredients that are minimally processed and not artificial; e.g., natural flavoring. The amount of solution added to products bearing natural claims is not limited. All products claiming to be natural should be accompanied by a brief statement which explains what is meant by the term "natural."
So I take this to mean that as it currently stands the "natural" label can be used on products with carrageenan as part of the brine. Again, I don't think that's important (I think the "natural" label is stupid marketing nonsense), I think listing the ingredients is the key thing.
(I never buy chicken in the grocery store, but I'm going to go look at it ASAP now.)0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
great, so the whole point of this thread is how you know that this effects you, fine. Does not mean that the rest of us have to eat in that manner, or that said additive has to be removed for the 99.9% of us that don't have an issue with it.
The problem is I was left to self diagnose all on my own, because the doctor (s) failed me. I have my answer, it's all I need and it was no help from the medical community and their tests in and out of hospital. So yes, that caused me to become defensive. Sometimes we are required to do things on our own because there are no answers in black and white.
again, you did it on your own, awesome.
However, your OP indicated that this was substance was bad for others and you had no science to back up your claims. You should probably revise your OP to say this is bad for me.
I would also think if you are submitting things to the FDA in hopes of affecting change, that you'd realize having medical documentation would go a long way in things like this.
I have plenty of that to provide, no problem there.0 -
For those of you that seem to be hung up on blood vs. skin tests - it wouldn't make a difference. The proposed effect of carrageenan is not an allergic reaction, though the symptoms are similar.
Quoted from the post by pzarnosky on page 2, I think:
Carrageenan can cause an inflammation response because of certain binding cascades which will activate an increased production of interleukin-8, which is part of the immune response. It seems that in some people there is a decreased threshold of tolerance to the additive. Exposure to it, for some, causes an overproduction of IL-8 through that binding cascade. IL-8 is basically a chemical signal to specific types of white bloods cells and it tells them there is a foreign substance that needs to be elimintaed. The attack that insues causes inflammation and some damage to the GI tract, this is the cause of your pain and problems. It's really similar to an allergy. That does not mean that it is bad and dangerous for all people. There is no proof of that. Yes, there is evidence that in some individuals carrageenan can cause problems, but your blanket statement isn't really appropriate.
I believe the assertion is based on this paper: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17095757
Thank you, I was looking for that and couldn't locate it.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »If it was me, I'd spend the $10 and conduct my own skin test to confirm the hypothesis.
But that's just me.
Agreed. I'd rather know 100% for sure (in case I were to run into other issues) than self-diagnose. Then again, placebos and such have been known to be "effective".
This isn't placebo dude, this is real, and I don't need some skin test to tell me different. I have suffered this for more than 12 years and I finally know after all my remove this, remove that from my diet, what the problem is. I am 100% sure, I don't need a skin test, just don't serve me anything that has carrageenan in it. It is sad but I have to know what my friends are cooking before I can agree to have dinner with them. I am so thankful they don't mind letting me know.
great, so the whole point of this thread is how you know that this effects you, fine. Does not mean that the rest of us have to eat in that manner, or that said additive has to be removed for the 99.9% of us that don't have an issue with it.
The problem is I was left to self diagnose all on my own, because the doctor (s) failed me. I have my answer, it's all I need and it was no help from the medical community and their tests in and out of hospital. So yes, that caused me to become defensive. Sometimes we are required to do things on our own because there are no answers in black and white.
again, you did it on your own, awesome.
However, your OP indicated that this was substance was bad for others and you had no science to back up your claims. You should probably revise your OP to say this is bad for me.
I would also think if you are submitting things to the FDA in hopes of affecting change, that you'd realize having medical documentation would go a long way in things like this.
There is also the fact that the FDA wants our opinion on what the label "Natural" means to you, me, to everyone. It doesn't require medical reports or anything else. Please, if you have the time and the desire respond and give them your opinion. There are a series of questions they are asking, and they detail what they are looking for in the answers.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's more information on labeling:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/meat-preparation/water-in-meat-and-poultry/ct_indexEnhanced Meat and Poultry Products
Many grocery stores are now offering meat and poultry products that have flavoring solutions added to them. For example, pork chops may be packaged with a solution of water, salt, and sodium phosphate (a solution that can add flavor and moisture to leaner meats). These new products also provide convenience by saving steps in preparation, such as "Teriyaki Beef in Teriyaki Sauce." To prevent confusion, the presence of flavor solutions must be stated on the front of the package.
Thus, you can't be surprised by the presence of this, even under the current law.Enhanced or value-added meat and poultry products are raw products that contain flavor solutions added through marinating, needle injecting, soaking, etc. The presence and amount of the solution will be featured as part of the product name, for example, "Chicken Thighs Flavored with up to 10% of a Solution" or "Beef Steak Marinated with 6% of a Flavor Solution." The ingredients of the flavor solution must be prominently identified on the label. Typically, this information will be on the principal display panel or the information panel.
The labeling term "marinated" can only be used with specific amounts of solution. "Marinated" meats can contain no more than 10% solution; boneless poultry, no more than 8% solution; and bone-in poultry, no more than 3% solution.
In the case of enhanced products, the solutions that are added to the meat or poultry, or into which the meat or poultry are placed for flavoring, seasoning, and tenderizing, are intended to be part of the product. The solutions are required by regulations and policies to be identified as part of the product names of the enhanced products, and whether the solution is incorporated into the product or is free-flowing, it is considered part of the product.
So this sounds to me like the carrageenan would have to be listed if used as part of the brine (vs. in some other processing aid capacity).
What OP really seems upset about is a different aspect of the labeling, the useless "natural" claim that is made on some foods (and which I've always heard should be ignored, as it's basically meaningless -- just as people shouldn't think "cage free" or "vegetarian" means anything significant re eggs and so on). That's covered here:Natural Products
All raw single ingredient meat and poultry qualify as "natural." However, certain products labeled as natural may also contain a flavoring solution provided the solution contains ingredients that are minimally processed and not artificial; e.g., natural flavoring. The amount of solution added to products bearing natural claims is not limited. All products claiming to be natural should be accompanied by a brief statement which explains what is meant by the term "natural."
So I take this to mean that as it currently stands the "natural" label can be used on products with carrageenan as part of the brine. Again, I don't think that's important (I think the "natural" label is stupid marketing nonsense), I think listing the ingredients is the key thing.
(I never buy chicken in the grocery store, but I'm going to go look at it ASAP now.)
Yes, you got it. The chicken in question was a 10 pound bag of bone in with skin chicken leg quarters. There is a brine solution injected into the chicken, the carageenan is present in the brine, which is in the final product, and will be consumed to a degree when cooked. Only the brine is listed, not the ingredients in the brine. I need that label changed to indicate there is carageenan present, so that I can purchase chicken I know is free of carageenan. From what I understand they are supposed to be listing the carageenan in this example because the brine is in the final product for consumption. It's used for flavor and to plump the chicken.
0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's more information on labeling:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/meat-preparation/water-in-meat-and-poultry/ct_indexEnhanced Meat and Poultry Products
Many grocery stores are now offering meat and poultry products that have flavoring solutions added to them. For example, pork chops may be packaged with a solution of water, salt, and sodium phosphate (a solution that can add flavor and moisture to leaner meats). These new products also provide convenience by saving steps in preparation, such as "Teriyaki Beef in Teriyaki Sauce." To prevent confusion, the presence of flavor solutions must be stated on the front of the package.
Thus, you can't be surprised by the presence of this, even under the current law.Enhanced or value-added meat and poultry products are raw products that contain flavor solutions added through marinating, needle injecting, soaking, etc. The presence and amount of the solution will be featured as part of the product name, for example, "Chicken Thighs Flavored with up to 10% of a Solution" or "Beef Steak Marinated with 6% of a Flavor Solution." The ingredients of the flavor solution must be prominently identified on the label. Typically, this information will be on the principal display panel or the information panel.
The labeling term "marinated" can only be used with specific amounts of solution. "Marinated" meats can contain no more than 10% solution; boneless poultry, no more than 8% solution; and bone-in poultry, no more than 3% solution.
In the case of enhanced products, the solutions that are added to the meat or poultry, or into which the meat or poultry are placed for flavoring, seasoning, and tenderizing, are intended to be part of the product. The solutions are required by regulations and policies to be identified as part of the product names of the enhanced products, and whether the solution is incorporated into the product or is free-flowing, it is considered part of the product.
So this sounds to me like the carrageenan would have to be listed if used as part of the brine (vs. in some other processing aid capacity).
What OP really seems upset about is a different aspect of the labeling, the useless "natural" claim that is made on some foods (and which I've always heard should be ignored, as it's basically meaningless -- just as people shouldn't think "cage free" or "vegetarian" means anything significant re eggs and so on). That's covered here:Natural Products
All raw single ingredient meat and poultry qualify as "natural." However, certain products labeled as natural may also contain a flavoring solution provided the solution contains ingredients that are minimally processed and not artificial; e.g., natural flavoring. The amount of solution added to products bearing natural claims is not limited. All products claiming to be natural should be accompanied by a brief statement which explains what is meant by the term "natural."
So I take this to mean that as it currently stands the "natural" label can be used on products with carrageenan as part of the brine. Again, I don't think that's important (I think the "natural" label is stupid marketing nonsense), I think listing the ingredients is the key thing.
(I never buy chicken in the grocery store, but I'm going to go look at it ASAP now.)
Yes, you got it. The chicken in question was a 10 pound bag of bone in with skin chicken leg quarters. There is a brine solution injected into the chicken, the carageenan is present in the brine which is in the final product and will be consumed to a degree when cooked. Only the brine is listed, not the ingredients in the brine. I need that label changed to indicate there is carageenan present, so that I can purchase chicken I know is free of carageenan. From what I understand they are supposed to be listing the carageenan in this example because the brine is in the final product for consumption. It's used for flavor and to plump the chicken.
But it looks to me from these rules that they are required to identify the ingredients in the brine:The ingredients of the flavor solution must be prominently identified on the label. Typically, this information will be on the principal display panel or the information panel.
They aren't required to identify carrageenan when it is used as a processing aid and left only in insignificant amounts, which seems a different thing from the brine.0 -
Of course, another alternative is not to buy pre-brined chicken. I personally would not.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