Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
"Natural foods" vs "others"
Replies
-
More and more companies are now doing this and increasingly these artificial additives are getting pushed to the sidelines of the market. Because consumers are becoming more aware of the importance of what they are eating and demanding it. Why though? I mean, according to this thread, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with any of this stuff in our food. Why then are companies bothering to remove it?
You answer your own question and then ask it. Manufacturers will remove ingredients simply to satisfy consumer demand, even if there is nothing wrong with them.
I think it raises food prices for no good reason.15 -
To be perfectly honest, I do make choices about food (don't we all?). I regard them as personal preferences, not abstract objective values. Other people can make their own rational choices, and end up with different conclusions than I do, and I don't think they're doing the wrong thing. It's not generally a moral issue. (Note: I am not saying there are no possible wrong things or moral issues.)
After a lifetime (62 years so far), I've decided that I prefer to eat mostly foods that large numbers of humans have eaten successfully for centuries or millennia, and thrived on (long enough to breed, anyway
). They're evolution tested. From experience, I've learned that these foods also tend to be the most satiating and tasty for me personally. (This is clearly not true for everyone: Most "hyperpalatable" foods are not mostly even good enjoyment-wise, IMO, but others obviously differ.)
Clearly, I'm avoiding things that modern science suggests are affirmatively and significantly dangerous, no matter their history; and it makes sense to me to pay even more attention if those effects are cumulative, since we now live longer than was typical in many periods of history.
For things that are newer or with a history in very small ethnic/genetic groups, I may apply a bit more scrutiny. Very loosely, it matters what the FDA considers GRAS, what the Europeans regulate, and the like. I don't usually even think about it for things I eat in vanishingly tiny quantities or very infrequently, especially if many other humans are eating them routinely without obvious ill consequences from that one thing. It matters whether the thing in question is highly desirable to me in other ways, too - tastiness, nutrition, etc. - since these are all trade-offs. I don't eat Tide pods, or any non-food that I can think of.
I get that modern varieties of X agricultural product (wheat, fruit, whatever) are different from heritage varieties, and grown and different ways, but research suggests there's no great difference in their effect on humans. I tend to prefer heritage varieties of veggies and fruits, but more because it seems like good shipping qualities have driven out flavor and other desirable characteristics in some modern varieties. I love my (year-round, even in the US frozen North) farmers market - things are so much fresher, and usually tastier varieties - so I end up eating more organic produce than I otherwise might, because that's mostly what's there. I wash everything thoroughly, organic or not, especially things that involve eating the skin. Organic isn't magic, even with respect to undesirable pesticides or other undesirable tag-alongs. I don't mostly eat organic broccoli, because for some reason I find flea beetles especially gross. I do drink organic milk because even my cancer center RD couldn't find any definitive answers about residual estrogens in milk and estrogen-driven breast cancer (which I had), and I drink a lot of milk.
The thing is, none of this has anything to do with "natural" or "artificial". Humans have eaten "natural" things for centuries/millennia, and "artificial" things for centuries/millennia, by most definitions of those ill-defined terms. There are things modern "eat natural foods" advocates often seem to eat that I feel skeptical about (and mostly don't like), so I don't routinely eat them: Protein powder, fake meat, etc. I prefer sugar to Stevia.
One of my main points of skepticism about modern highly-processed foods is not what's in them, it's what's not in them. (Some of you will have seen me hand-wringing on other threads about people who think supplements are a suitable nutritional substitute for fruits/veggies, on the grounds that a number of essential nutrients and beneficial phytochemicals have been discovered in my lifetime: They're not in supplements before being "discovered", but they were in foods all along.)
So, food choices? I make a lot of them. That doesn't make my choices "right", or anyone else's choices "wrong". It has nothing to do with things being "additives" or "artificial" or "processed" vs. being "natural" or "whole" (whatever the heck that means). It's a ridiculous straw man that if I think there aren't abstractly "good" or "bad" foods irrespective of dosage and context, that that means I think all foods are the same in all respects and any quantity or regularity. (Tide pods are not food. Soap is used as a pesticide on organic produce, however.) We all make food choices.
I'm sticking to "no (inherently) good or bad foods", and the idea that a high-quality (nutritious) overall way of eating is a good thing for most people, even though they're entitled to choose a non-nutritious route if they're grown-ups. Context and dosage matter.
Oh, and sticking to CICO. Wait, this isn't that thread, is it?
This makes a lot of sense to me.
I can completely understand avoiding things due to reasons of taste and satiety or even because they make it much harder to meet calorie goals. And I think it makes sense that people will have "trends" in things they avoid, things they can describe in general terms and be fairly accurate. What I don't get is the insistence that these categories are meaningful or applicable to anyone else or that we can start evaluating if someone is a good parent or what type of person they are based on the foods they're choosing (to be clear, you aren't saying that in your post).
Someone who isn't baking their own bread isn't too "lazy," they're usually doing other things they consider a good use of their time (and, in fact, many people who bake bread in 2018 aren't doing it out a sense of industry, they're doing it because they enjoy it, it's self-care or even self-indulgence). There's no moral value to assign to things like baking your own bread or buying organic vegetables for your family. We all have a limited amount of time and resources and how we choose to spend our food time and money is only part of who we are.
11 -
mutantspicy wrote: »
Surprise, surprise, surprise: https://bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/nettiklive wrote: »If there is no difference between a homemade burger from grass-fed organic beef and a McDonald's patty? Between organic free-range chicken from a local farm and frozen nuggets?
I moderate my intake of leafy green vegetables, fruits, healthy grains, etc. too - because I need adequate protein and fat sources in my diet. I moderate my intake of grass-fed beef and organic free-range chicken because fiber is good for you and because I rely upon carbs for energy for my workouts, anti-catabolism and satiety. I moderate my intake of liquids because I need solid foods for satiety and nutrition. I moderate my intake of solid foods because I need liquids for hydration.nettiklive wrote: »The comments here about moderation only serve to prove the point that people on here who are educated about food realize that these are not equally good food choices, hence the need to moderate their intake. And are being facetious in arguing otherwise.
What is so hard to understand about moderation in everything being part of a well balanced, nutritious diet?
That article only discusses calories and macros. It doesn't discuss anything about the quality of nutrients you get from Grass Fed Beef or quality carbs. Its just more calories are calories blah blah. At some point you need to move past food 101.
Interesting take on the Lyle article. I found both the Bray et al paper and Lyle's commentary on the paper to be insightful. The only relevance of calories and macros stated there are that they were roughly normalized. I see a study and discussion well beyond just calories and macros.
What I don't understand is your term "quality of nutrients." I know about macro-, micro-, and phytonutrients, but I'm not sure what you mean by the term "quality of nutrients?" Same for "quality carbs." What are those? I know about mono-, di-, and polysaccharides. I understand carb metabolites and their metabolic pathways, and the nuances of starch digestion. But I don't know what the term "quality carbs" means.
My main issue with it was, is it was unnecessary and has a completely false conclusion. Of course if you compare these two meals using only macro nutrients they are going be nearly identical its a no *kitten* Sherlock moment. He is remiss to compare the micro nutrients which is exactly where the differences would lie. He ignores them, and their potential affect on hormonal levels. Alas none of that matters because the biggest sin of this study is the sample size. 1 meal. A study like needs to be done over the course of time. So once again, no major hormonal change over 1 meal equals No *kitten* Sherlock.
But to address your question, yes I understand the macro are meant to show equalization, but my point is there no other details to even discuss. They were ignored. The one valuable finding he did get, he minimizes because it runs counter to his entire premise. The whole thing seems intellectually dishonest, and I thought it wasn't fair the way it was being used to attempt to discredit the other poster.18 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »I found the secret to a zesty Mac and cheese, from a careful reading of the commercial ingredient list. I add dry mustard powder or curry. For that attractive orange colour, a little paprika.
My kids loved cream cheese with beet juice as color. It came out a pinkish red color and it was fun for them.
My poor kids getting hypnotized and drawn in by the fun color of beets. What a terrible mom I was. Lol
No you weren't, because you chose a natural method to add that color.
So if she had chosen red food dye, she would have been a terrible mother?
Maybe not 'terrible' but definitely a 'not-so-good' mom
Rethinking the fancy princess cake my mom made for my 6th birthday, the one with colored icing. I was so thrilled at the time. I loved princesses and it was my dream cake. Little did I know she was, at best, expressing her indifference to my wellbeing, if not outright hostility to it.
Does Hallmark make Mother's Day cards for the "not-so-good" moms? I need to let her know I'm finally on to her.
Oh ffs. Why do we have to turn to strawmen everywhere??
No, making your kid a birthday cake with pink icing doesn't make you a bad mother. Yes, dyeing the cream cheese with it every day because they won't eat it otherwise, along with feeding them Fruit Loops for breakfast, happy meals for lunch, doritos and pop for a snack and Kraft mac for dinner, day in and day out, makes you a mother who is not making good choices for her child's diet.
And before you say I'm exaggerating and no one actually feeds their kids like this, you'd be surprised. I'm in several online mom groups and it's quite eye opening to see how many actually don't see anything wrong with eating like that all day, every day. There are families out there whose kids don't know what a fresh veggie looks like. It's really sad.
Yes we all get busy. We all have parties and treats. that is NOT what I'm talking about. It is if you have the opinion, like stated by several on this thread, that there is NO difference between highly refined, additive laden foods and 'real' foods, whether you call them natural or whatever, that it becomes a problem. Because if there is truly no difference, why would eat them in moderation? What does it matter? Why wouldn't eat like that everyday?? If there is no difference between a homemade burger from grass-fed organic beef and a McDonald's patty? Between organic free-range chicken from a local farm and frozen nuggets? Between strawberries on your cake and artificial strawberry icing? If there is truly no benefit in one over the other, as some here say, let's just feed our kids that all the time, why not?
The comments here about moderation only serve to prove the point that people on here who are educated about food realize that these are not equally good food choices, hence the need to moderate their intake. And are being facetious in arguing otherwise.
Your assumptions about why people moderate their food choices just reinforce that you've got this all or nothing, black and white, good vs bad philosophy underscoring every comment you make about food.
People don't only moderate the "bad foods". You moderate ALL foods, that's the whole point of "All Things In Moderation, Including Moderation". You seem to be coming at it from the assumption that a person really wants to eat unlimited junk food and that the only way they can justify eating any junk food is to call it "moderation" but that all of those people are really hoping that they can somehow manage to take a pill to achieve nutritional goals, another pill to manage their weight, and then it's free reign to eat whatever they want which in your mind, is weirdly: Cheetohs, McDonalds, Kraft Easy Mac and Fake Strawberry Icing, if I remember the examples you've brought up in this thread.
Most people I know in real life (since you seem to be a fan of playing that game) want to eat a variety of foods. They like grilling out in the summer time with grass fed beef, maybe some roasted potatoes and asparagus, fresh strawberries (although I'm allergic, so for me, fresh strawberries are definitely bad) AND can appreciate a side of Velveeta Shells and Cheese thrown in the mix. That's what moderation is, you aren't checking the box on the healthy foods just so you can justify eating the Shells and Cheese or an Oreo McFlurry after dinner. You are building a comprehensive diet that includes ALL the foods, the healthy ones AND the less nutrient dense ones, in moderation.
If nutrition and calories were not a factor - would you eat nothing but "junk food"? Why do you assume that anyone wants to build a diet entirely around these types of food then?
We're talking about two different things here.
You are talking about choices and diet.
I am talking about knowledge and comparing foods - simply on their own, in isolation, regardless if you eat them once a year or every day.
And yes, I believe there are gradations of good, not-so-good, and bad (hence the term 'junk' btw, ever wonder where that came from?) foods. Does that always translate to me or others only eating the 'good' foods? Of course not. I don't always choose to eat or feed my family what I think is the best food choice. But I know that if we're eating pepperoni pizza from Pizza Hut tonight (which I can't remember the last time we did to be fair), we are not as making as healthy of a food choice as if we made homemade pizza with whole wheat crust and fresh toppings instead. I know that that my kid is going to a party and will eat neon-blue Costco cupcakes there, and that's fine, but if I am going to be making cupcakes for them and I have the time, I will make them from scratch, with no food dye and very little sugar, and believe me all the parents I know really appreciate it and most try to do the same on their end as well. (but if my kid really wanted blue cupcakes for his birthday, they would get them of course. If they wanted them every weekend, they wouldn't).
Another example: I have a friend who is hard-core into cooking and making everything herself. She raises chickens, she grows her own organic veggies. She has stopped buying prepared bread and even pasta for her family and makes it all herself ((with eggs from her chickens of course and specially-ordered whole-grain flours and sourdough cultures etc) and believes her homemade food is much healthier and better quality than storebought - and I agree. I am way too lazy to do all that, I will admit, and I despise gardening and outdoor work so I will probably never go to the extent of growing my own food - but for those who can, it is most certainly a superior choice than picking up conventional produce at Safeway. And I'm not afraid to admit that this friend is feeding her family better than I feed my own.
In my view, even natural foods come in degrees of quality - growing your own is better than buying, buying from a local farm is better than pre-packaged from a supermarket, cooking yourself is better than premade or frozen meals, pre-made meals that only use natural ingredients such as Amy's are better than those that are laden with other additives, etc etc.
At any point I can make an inferior food choice for convenience, pleasure or other reasons, but that does not discredit the fact that it is in fact inferior.
I'm not sure there is that much of a difference between the pepperoni you'd use to top a pizza at home and the pepperoni Pizza Hut is using. It seems like you're stressing yourself about things that are creating little, if any, real difference for your children
I wouldn't use pepperoni if we were making at it home, we would use grilled chicken breast and plenty of fresh veggies and homemade sauce.
If you honestly believe there is no difference between a homemade food made with quality ingredients over fast food made with the cheapest highly processed ingredients and flavor additives....well, I won't bother.
This thread is kind of surreal. Like an alternate reality, or arguing with a bunch of five year olds.
In real life, I see almost everyone moving towards natural and scratch-made and away from artificial and highly processed more and more, leaving it only for rare occasions; like I said I just assumed that was a common sense thing. Guess much of this country is still behind.
So you'd use different toppings, creating a difference in macronutrients. Pizza Hut offers chicken and vegetables as toppings, right?
To say there is a difference in the toppings . . . that's because you literally chose different toppings. You were free to choose chicken and vegetables for your pizza. You choose differently. To say that this somehow makes Pizza Hut inferior to your homemade pizza doesn't make sense.
They're different due to the specific choices you made. If you'd chosen vegetables from Pizza Hut they wouldn't be inferior to the vegetables you'd use at home, would they? I find it surreal that you're blaming Pizza Hut for including the processed ingredients that . . . you requested.
Actually yes, they probably would be, if I were using good quality organic veggies, even better seasonal and local.
As for the chicken, this is what's in Pizza Hut's chicken:
Chicken, Water, Modified Tapioca Starch, Garlic Powder, Onion Powder, Dextrose, Salt, Flavour, Spice, Sodium Phosphate, Spice Extractives,Tricalcium Phosphate.
As opposed to chicken, sea salt, fresh garlic and herbs.
Plus the chicken itself is very likely the cheapest and hence of low quality. As opposed to a free-range organic chicken.
This is one of their sauces:
Dried Butter (Cream, Salt), Palm Oil, Maltodextrin, Nonfat Milk, Salt, Food Starch-Modified, Natural Flavors, Sodium Caseinate, Dried Garlic, Soy Lecithin, Monoglycerides, Dipotassium Phosphate, Artificial Color, Xanthan Gum, Dried Parsley, Citric Acid, Bha (To Help Protect Flavor),Yellow 5, Yellow 6, And Less Than 2 Percent Silicon Dioxide (Anti-Caking Agent) -Contains Milk, Soy.
Why would someone want all this on their pizza, I'm honestly not sure.
You can argue all these things don't matter and there is no difference, go ahead. Sorry, I will not be convinced otherwise.
You ordered it though? I mean, if you can't explain why you wanted it, how can anyone else hope to know?
I'm sorry you have already decided that you are incapable of changing your mind. May I ask what you're hoping to get from this debate if you are unwilling to change your position even in the face of evidence?
I mean, garlic powder and onion powder . . . these aren't scary substances that remove nutrition from chicken. Many people actually use them in home cooking. Starches and thickeners . . . again, home cooks use them. I have xanthan gum at home, I'm using food starch in a homemade bean/potato sausage this weekend. What's wrong with including them in pizza?
You won't change your mind, but I am open to changing mine. You're arguing that it matters if someone eats these. Explain to me how it matters.
O/T... can you hook me up with this home made bean/potato sausage recipe? Sounds delicious and has two of my favorite foods in it.
It's bound together with wheat gluten!
I think you're gluten-free, right?
Yeah. That's the bummer about a lot of vegan stuff. The gluten thing. Thanks, though!3 -
I contend that some prepared cereals have a better micronutrient profile than their natural cousins. Take raisin bran cereal for instance.8
-
snowflake954 wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Why do you think someone who is okay with their children sometimes having frosting is going to never going to buy strawberries? Why can't a family have roasted chicken some days and chicken nuggets on others? Why can you only envision an all-or-nothing situation?
If you think opening the door to some days with frosting and chicken nuggets means people would eat nothing else, I hate to break it to you -- you don't really like strawberries and roasted chicken. You're just clinging to them out of fear.
You missed my point. I never said that "someone who is okay with their children sometimes having frosting is going to never going to buy strawberries". What I said is that it's silly for an informed person to argue that there is no difference between fresh strawberries and icing, and that one is not superior to the other simply because it's natural - that was the premise of the original post.
Most parents I know, myself included, will be fine with giving kids access to a huge bowl of fresh fruit, berries, veggies etc to snack on as much as they want (barring medical issues or allergies); but most would not do the same with a can of frosting. If one is no worse than the other, than why not?
No one, literally no one in this thread, including in the OP, said there was no difference between fresh strawberries and icing. People did say that so called "natural foods" are not inherently superior though, but again, making that general statement, is not the same as saying there is NO DIFFERENCE between fresh strawberries and canned icing.
Do you really think that is what people are saying?
It's good to know though that this entire time you've been arguing against a point in the Original Post which, I'm not sure if you realized, was a very distilled summary of a conversation that OP had with an unnamed person, and quite possibly, was not an exact accounting of the actual words that were exchanged... and probably not even completely reflective of the OP's actual opinion on food quality and nutrition. It was a conversation starter- not a definitive set in stone proclamation.
You seem to be arguing with the rest of us based on this misunderstanding and suggesting that any of us that are saying that there's nothing wrong with eating Oreos in moderation, or occasionally feeding kids chicken nuggets on busy nights are saying that all foods are completely equivalent in nutritional profile, which is just plain silly.
I don't know what the op was or wasn't trying to say, I can't read minds, only.what was written here. The way I read it, he and several others were implying that there are absolutely no benefits in choosing foods free of artificial additives over those that have them. Regardless of other diet context, I believe foods CAN be compared simply on their own. And no one will convince me that foods containing artificial additives are just as healthy as choice as an alternative without them (let's focus on this for this argument's sake and leave alone other considerations such as processing, organic etc).
People here are arguing that no food is inherently worse or better than another, it's only about context, and I disagree. Again, I can go back to my glass of wine. Can I have it as part of an.overall healthy diet? Of course. Does it mean there is nothing harmful or unhealthy about alcohol? No. I may have it as part of a healthy diet but I know that is very likely NOT doing favors for my health - at best, it is simply not causing any effects; at worst, it is doing damage somewhere at the cellular level even though I do not feel any I'll effects at the moment. It is a risk I am taking, knowing the cons and making an informed decision and practicing moderation. I don't have the same need to moderate, say, my intake of water or herbal tea because, aside from rare water intoxication in insane amounts, an extra cup doesn't have the potential for harm in the same way as wine.
I dont know how else to explain it. You can sprinkle your food with the tiniest bit of laundry detergent every day. Maybe it gives it a cool funky flavor that you enjoy. Likely if the amount is small enough, you won't feel any ill effects from it at the beginning. Maybe for days. Maybe for years. Maybe you can keep eating it all your life and live long and healthy and it will never affect you. And maybe it will build up and kill you in a matter of months or decades. I dont know. I haven't tried. But it somehow just makes sense that since it is not a food substance, it's better not to take that risk and find out.
And if some corporation now decides to create new and cool edible Tide pods claiming they can do your laundry AND double as a snack, I'm not going to run out and start buying them as part of the kids snack rotation. Again simply because it just seems like the logical thing to me. Apparently I'm in the minority on here. Oh well.
I would like to address your problem with wine. I live in Italy and two glasses a day are considered VERY good for your health. I don't see people keeling over on the street or in restaurants. Excess of alcohol is the problem. Moderate usage is being tested on the brain in preventing dementia. By the by, I don't drink wine. I prefer my calories from other sources, but a prosecco or Oppidum now and again are delicious.
There are studies showing that even a glass of wine a night increases a woman's risk for breast cancer, for instance, along with increased risk of mouth and throat cancers with moderate drinking; then there is the effects on the liver.
Yes, there are also studies showing benefits for heart health or whatever. That's the thing about studies - they're not the end-all; research is always changing, evolving, new findings are made and frequently contradict each other. And with many of the health tragedies in history, studies showing harm did not emerge until decades after the damage has already been done. Which is why I don't treat every study stating something is safe as gospel. I research, I read, and then I make my own conclusions and decisions. The way I see it, one is not likely to suffer ill effects from an alcohol deficiency. And it makes sense that taking in even small amounts of what is essentially a toxin, something the liver needs to work to filter out, has more potential to do damage than not. I enjoy the taste of small amounts of alcohol enough that it is worth it for me to override that risk. But I am aware that is there, and I limit my consumption and do not indulge in as often as I would have if I assumed it was 100% safe.
Same with additives. No, right now there aren't studies showing harm. However it makes sense to me that substances that essentially were NOT food sources, that were created as food sources entirely artificially (ie flavorings, colorings, aspartame etc) have more potential to cause harm, especially with regular consumption, then food sources humans have consumed for generations. Even if I am wrong, I am NOT LOSING ANYTHING by avoiding these ingredients in my food. That's the bottom line here. I am erring on the side of caution. I am not doing it psychotically - I don't bring my own cake to birthday parties (and I have known a mom who in fact did just that because she didn't want her child eating store-bought cake); if we're on a trip and starving and the only food available is McDonald's, I will eat it and not lose any sleep over it. However, these foods are simply not present as part of our family's regular diet and lifestyle, because, I don't see the point (and as I said, pretty much our entire community eats like that as well so it's not difficult to do). There are so many other options for healthy, delicious, varied food that does not include pop and Doritos, that these are simply not on our radar. My children are far from deprived and when presented with options will frequently choose homemade meals or something like sushi over fast-food pizza or burgers. Last year I pretty much gave my 7 yo free reign with his Halloween candy, and after having 1-2 pieces of the chocolates and fruit snacks a day, he gave me the rest of the bucket saying 'you can throw these away, these are all the artificial ones'. I have never told him he isn't allowed to have 'artificial' candy fwiw, but he has seen me shop and pick out food so it simply became ingrained. He doesn't enjoy soda either. I don't forbid them having these things on occasion; but this is simply how we eat and I see it as cultivating a healthy palate that appreciates the taste of fresh foods - because, and I know this from my personal experience, when you do consume junk food regularly, you do crave it and other foods start tasting bland and unsatisfying. It's a bad cycle. I did eat all this stuff as a teen. Once I stopped, initially for weight reasons, I found I no longer craved them, at all and never went back. These foods are designed to assault your taste buds with sugar, salt, grease, and whatever else is in these flavorings; they're made to be addictive in a way. I find nowadays I find pretty much all packaged sweets cloyingly, disgustingly sweet, and things like Doritos are too salty and just overpowering. But when I ate it all the time, it just seemed tasty.
You may be able to have kids who are fine eating these AND fresh foods on a daily basis, but many develop a strong preference for the junk and it's difficult to break. The argument that kids whose parents don't keep junk at home go overboard later is silly - I'm sure some do, but many, many overweight children come from homes where junk was abundant and in free supply. Bringing up kids with good eating habits so that they enjoy foods not laden with flavor additives is the main factor in their future diet choices. Saying families who don't consume junk or keep it at home need to start doing so so the kids learn moderation makes as much sense as saying families where the parents choose not to drink need to start buying and moderately consuming alcohol when the kids are older so they get to learn moderation in drinking and don't go overboard later.30 -
nettiklive wrote: »Same with additives. No, right now there aren't studies showing harm. However . . .
I'm not sure what the point of a debate is when one side acknowledges that there is no evidence for their position but intends to carry on believing it anyway.
Re: Your multiple anecdotes. I get that individuals prefer some flavors to others. This doesn't mean the non-preferred foods are objectively worse or that there is anything wrong with them. My husband hates anchovies, your son hates "artificial candy." This doesn't tell us anything about the inherent value of these foods. It simply tells us what not to serve these individuals. I also understand that some people find it difficult to enjoy other foods if they eat a lot of "junk food." You were in this group. This tells us something about you, but it doesn't mean that other people (who are capable of enjoying potato chips and baked potatoes, donuts and oatmeal) need to pay attention to the categories you've created.
Your arguments are so based in subjectivity. I understand why -- they have to be. You've already acknowledged there is no evidence to back up your claims.
If you don't like Doritos, that's a great reason for you not to eat them. I'm not sure it tells us anything meaningful about the "natural" vs "other" food distinction.25 -
janejellyroll wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Same with additives. No, right now there aren't studies showing harm. However . . .
I'm not sure what the point of a debate is when one side acknowledges that there is no evidence for their position but intends to carry on believing it anyway.
Because there isn't evidence DISproving harm either.
If I had read multiple large-scale independent longitudinal studies demonstrating clearly that absolutely no ill effects were shown in individuals consuming significant amounts of xyz additive on a regular basis over their lifetimes, I may believe it.
Until then, I will remain skeptical and critical.
I mentioned thalidomide above as one of the examples where using criticism helps. It was approved for use in pregnant women, which means women trusted their doctors when they said it was safe. Same with DES, which was given to increase fetal birthweight and resulted in cancers and birth defects (if you have never read My Year of Meats btw, I highly recommend it; insightful book touching on why it is worth it to reserve a measure of skepticism towards industry and medical claims). Science makes mistakes. Medicine makes mistakes. To me, knowing this history, it made sense that for instance during my pregnancy, and even in regular life, that I would not blindly take a new, non-essential medication suggested to me to treat a minor symptom, even if it was shown 'safe'. Not unless I could thoroughly research and verify its safety and even then.
If there is one thing I learned as I got older and faced various health and other issues, it's that no one, but no one, cares about your health and well-being aside from yourself and your loved ones. Not authorities, not doctors, not regulatory bodies. You need to be your own advocate, do your own research - and if significant research does not exist on a topic, figure out your own comfort zone with the risk involved. Weigh risks and benefits. That's different for everyone. There's nothing 'moral' about it, it really comes down to personal choice and it makes zero sense to berate someone for the choices they make for their own health...29 -
To be perfectly honest, I do make choices about food (don't we all?). I regard them as personal preferences, not abstract objective values. Other people can make their own rational choices, and end up with different conclusions than I do, and I don't think they're doing the wrong thing. It's not generally a moral issue. (Note: I am not saying there are no possible wrong things or moral issues.)
After a lifetime (62 years so far), I've decided that I prefer to eat mostly foods that large numbers of humans have eaten successfully for centuries or millennia, and thrived on (long enough to breed, anyway ). They're evolution tested. From experience, I've learned that these foods also tend to be the most satiating and tasty for me personally. (This is clearly not true for everyone: Most "hyperpalatable" foods are not mostly even good enjoyment-wise, IMO, but others obviously differ.)
Clearly, I'm avoiding things that modern science suggests are affirmatively and significantly dangerous, no matter their history; and it makes sense to me to pay even more attention if those effects are cumulative, since we now live longer than was typical in many periods of history.
For things that are newer or with a history in very small ethnic/genetic groups, I may apply a bit more scrutiny. Very loosely, it matters what the FDA considers GRAS, what the Europeans regulate, and the like. I don't usually even think about it for things I eat in vanishingly tiny quantities or very infrequently, especially if many other humans are eating them routinely without obvious ill consequences from that one thing. It matters whether the thing in question is highly desirable to me in other ways, too - tastiness, nutrition, etc. - since these are all trade-offs. I don't eat Tide pods, or any non-food that I can think of.
I get that modern varieties of X agricultural product (wheat, fruit, whatever) are different from heritage varieties, and grown and different ways, but research suggests there's no great difference in their effect on humans. I tend to prefer heritage varieties of veggies and fruits, but more because it seems like good shipping qualities have driven out flavor and other desirable characteristics in some modern varieties. I love my (year-round, even in the US frozen North) farmers market - things are so much fresher, and usually tastier varieties - so I end up eating more organic produce than I otherwise might, because that's mostly what's there. I wash everything thoroughly, organic or not, especially things that involve eating the skin. Organic isn't magic, even with respect to undesirable pesticides or other undesirable tag-alongs. I don't mostly eat organic broccoli, because for some reason I find flea beetles especially gross. I do drink organic milk because even my cancer center RD couldn't find any definitive answers about residual estrogens in milk and estrogen-driven breast cancer (which I had), and I drink a lot of milk.
The thing is, none of this has anything to do with "natural" or "artificial". Humans have eaten "natural" things for centuries/millennia, and "artificial" things for centuries/millennia, by most definitions of those ill-defined terms. There are things modern "eat natural foods" advocates often seem to eat that I feel skeptical about (and mostly don't like), so I don't routinely eat them: Protein powder, fake meat, etc. I prefer sugar to Stevia.
One of my main points of skepticism about modern highly-processed foods is not what's in them, it's what's not in them. (Some of you will have seen me hand-wringing on other threads about people who think supplements are a suitable nutritional substitute for fruits/veggies, on the grounds that a number of essential nutrients and beneficial phytochemicals have been discovered in my lifetime: They're not in supplements before being "discovered", but they were in foods all along.)
So, food choices? I make a lot of them. That doesn't make my choices "right", or anyone else's choices "wrong". It has nothing to do with things being "additives" or "artificial" or "processed" vs. being "natural" or "whole" (whatever the heck that means). It's a ridiculous straw man that if I think there aren't abstractly "good" or "bad" foods irrespective of dosage and context, that that means I think all foods are the same in all respects and any quantity or regularity. (Tide pods are not food. Soap is used as a pesticide on organic produce, however.) We all make food choices.
I'm sticking to "no (inherently) good or bad foods", and the idea that a high-quality (nutritious) overall way of eating is a good thing for most people, even though they're entitled to choose a non-nutritious route if they're grown-ups. Context and dosage matter.
Oh, and sticking to CICO. Wait, this isn't that thread, is it?
Fabulous post.
My thoughts about food are quite similar.5 -
Until I read multiple large-scale independent longitudinal studies demonstrating clearly that unicorns don't exist, I'll keep steadily believing in them and hiking through the forests daily to find one and become the prettiest princess.35
-
stevencloser wrote: »Until I read multiple large-scale independent longitudinal studies demonstrating clearly that unicorns don't exist, I'll keep steadily believing in them and hiking through the forests daily to find one and become the prettiest princess.
Go for it. Fresh air, exercise, certainly sounds like a healthier choice than eating Doritos 24 -
janejellyroll wrote: »My husband hates anchovies, your son hates "artificial candy." This doesn't tell us anything about the inherent value of these foods. It simply tells us what not to serve these individuals. I also understand that some people find it difficult to enjoy other foods if they eat a lot of "junk food." You were in this group. This tells us something about you, but it doesn't mean that other people (who are capable of enjoying potato chips and baked potatoes, donuts and oatmeal) need to pay attention to the categories you've created.
Yep.
I'll note that invariably I find that people who claim to not be able to appreciate non junk food when eating junk food* are not so much people who ate too much junk food (although probably that too) as people who have not been exposed sufficiently to other foods. I always found the claim pretty weird, since I never found that drinking soda (diet mostly) or eating sweets affected my palate for other things, and this could be just an individual difference, but almost always people who say that turn out to be people who really ate quite poor diets (and few fruits and veg) until recently, and so they needed to really wean off that stuff to even have the patience to work on expanding their palates. Others in similar situations seem to have been able to work on expanding and to do so without a dramatic change. It is true that often palates change between childhood and adulthood, so if one doesn't get exposed to different kinds of foods that might not happen (I like lots of foods that I did not as a kid, when I was disgusted by far more things, disliked spicy and some other strong flavors, etc., and I tend to dislike super sweet in a way I didn't as much back then (although even as a kid I hated some extra sweet things -- just personal taste, not meaningful, as you note)). It's also true that how much salt you consume affects the palate and that many new flavors (such as new vegetables) may need to be introduced multiple times to take.
I found it interesting that the same poster lecturing us about eating naturally admitted upthread that she doesn't really care for vegetables and fruit (if memory serves) but eats it for health reasons. Maybe that's related to this fear that if people didn't adopt rigid categories they'd eat poorly, she doesn't understand that many of us eat a variety of things (including vegetables and fruit) just because we enjoy them, as well as because of a desire to eat an overall balanced, nutrient-dense diet.
*Junk food is kind of a problematic term here anyway, as the poster has said she's good with homemade sweets, and I wouldn't call a homemade donut less "junk food" than a purchased one.12 -
-
nettiklive wrote: »Because there isn't evidence DISproving harm either.
If I had read multiple large-scale independent longitudinal studies demonstrating clearly that absolutely no ill effects were shown in individuals consuming significant amounts of xyz additive on a regular basis over their lifetimes, I may believe it.
Until then, I will remain skeptical and critical...
Show me multiple large-scale independent longitudinal studies demonstrating clearly that absolutely no ill effects were shown in individuals consuming significant amounts of organically raised cruciferous vegetables on a regular basis over their lifetimes. Also, please provide same for grass-fed beef, free range chickens and fresh fruits. Thanks, I'll be waiting right here for the links. Because obviously they're out there in plenitude, since you'll only believe something if it lives up to that burden of evidence.22 -
stevencloser wrote: »Until I read multiple large-scale independent longitudinal studies demonstrating clearly that unicorns don't exist, I'll keep steadily believing in them and hiking through the forests daily to find one and become the prettiest princess.
When you find her you can have her over for tea -- poured from Russell's Teapot6 -
Well this was certainly an eye opener.
Just to be clear - when I said "natural" vs "unnatural" - I meant if calories are equal and I'm meeting my macros.
As in getting my carbs/protein/fats from a McD's burger versus getting it from Home made burger. Some call that "junk" and homemade "natural". As if- we can't put the "junk" in homemade burger.
I thought it was self explanatory considering I posted this in Health and Fitness section instead of weight loss where newbies are-who are still learning.
It was protein bars -one was cliff and other was costco brand and I ate costco brand because it had more protein and fiber and it allowed me to hit my macros verus Cliff bar which had very low protein and fiber but sugar was high and 50 extra calories versus costco.
So she was like the sugar in Cliff bar is "natural" versus Costco has "chemicals and unnatural ingredients" .
That's why I was asking the knowledgeable audience -if there was a difference between those two lol
I guess, I just shaved off few mins off of my life /sarcasm
9 -
Well this was certainly an eye opener.
Just to be clear - when I said "natural" vs "unnatural" - I meant if calories are equal and I'm meeting my macros.
As in getting my carbs/protein/fats from a McD's burger versus getting it from Home made burger. Some call that "junk" and homemade "natural". As if- we can't put the "junk" in homemade burger.
I thought it was self explanatory considering I posted this in Health and Fitness section instead of weight loss where newbies are-who are still learning.
It was protein bars -one was cliff and other was costco brand and I ate costco brand because it had more protein and fiber and it allowed me to hit my macros verus Cliff bar which had very low protein and fiber but sugar was high and 50 extra calories versus costco.
So she was like the sugar in Cliff bar is "natural" versus Costco has "chemicals and unnatural ingredients" .
That's why I was asking the knowledgeable audience -if there was a difference between those two lol
I guess, I just shaved off few mins off of my life /sarcasm
Soooo...yeah. Specificity is the soul of narrative. You can't complain about not getting an answer to the question you didn't ask. Instead, you didn't come back to your thread for a while and it got hijacked by a militant mommy-blogger. Happens to everyone,
Since you didn't mention the protein/snack bars before...I'll take a crack at that one. If the Costco protein bar fit your calorie and macro goals better, that's what you should eat. There's no bonus points for eating the Cliff bar because of "natural" ingredients, but they're great if you need energy like on a hike because of the higher sugar and overall calories.
You can read the many previous pages for the various arguments about GRAS food additives, but the consensus for a large number of people here is that in a normal context such things are a non-problem. A large number of the people saying they're a non-problem actually eat a diet made up of mostly whole foods, but have no problem with having more processed foods in reasonable portions. If a person says there's something harmful, but has nothing to offer but vague appeals to nature or reductive arguments and declines to offer proof, what does that tell you?
19 -
nettiklive wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Until I read multiple large-scale independent longitudinal studies demonstrating clearly that unicorns don't exist, I'll keep steadily believing in them and hiking through the forests daily to find one and become the prettiest princess.
Go for it. Fresh air, exercise, certainly sounds like a healthier choice than eating Doritos
I don't see anything scary.
You think the food colours are scary?
https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm488219.htm
What are color additives and why are they used in food?
A color additive is any substance that imparts color to a food, drug, cosmetic, or to the human body. Color additives include both synthetic substances and substances derived from natural sources. Color additives may be used in food to enhance natural colors, add color to colorless and ‘fun’ foods such as cake decorations, and help identify flavors (such as purple for grape flavor or yellow for lemon). Color additives are sometimes called food dyes.
Are color additives safe to eat?
Yes, color additives are safe when they are used in accordance with with FDA regulations. When the FDA approves the use of a color additive in food, our regulations specify:
the types of foods in which it can be used,
any maximum amounts allowed to be used, and
how the color additive should be identified on the food label.
Do all color additives need to be approved by the FDA before they can be used in foods?
Yes. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,all color additives and new uses for listed color additives must be approved by the FDA before they may be used in foods. A full listing of all approved color additives is available in the Summary of Color Additives for Use in the United States in Foods, Drugs, Cosmetics, and Medical Devices.
What criteria does the FDA review when evaluating the safety of a color additive?
When evaluating the safety of a new color additive or a new use for a listed color additive, the FDA considers several factors. These include the short and long-term effects of consumption, composition and properties, manufacturing process, stability, likely amount of consumption/exposure, and the availability of analytical methods for determining its purity and the amount in food.
Synthetic color additives, also known as certified colors, are required to undergo batch certification, a process in which the FDA analyzes a representative sample of each batch of the color additive to ensure it meets the required identity and specifications before it can be used. Prior to certifying a batch, the FDA analyzes the chemical composition.
There are nine certified color additives approved by the FDA for use in food:
FD&C Blue No. 1
Confections, beverages, cereals, frozen dairy desserts, popsicles, frostings & icings
FD&C Blue No. 2
Baked goods, cereals, snack foods, ice cream, confections, and yogurt
FD&C Green No. 3
Cereal, ice cream, sherbet, drink mixers, and baked goods
Orange B
Only approved for use in hot dog and sausage casings
Citrus Red No. 2
Only approved for use to color orange peels
FD&C Red No. 3
Confections, beverages, cereals, ice cream cones, frozen dairy desserts, popsicles, frostings & icings
FD&C Red No. 40
Cereal, beverages, gelatins, puddings, dairy products, and confections
FD&C Yellow No. 5
Confections, cereals, snack foods, beverages, condiments, baked goods, and yogurt
FD&C Yellow No. 6
Cereals, snack foods, baked goods, gelatins, beverages, dessert powders, crackers, and sauces
What is the difference between a certified and an exempt color additive?
”Exempt” colors include pigments from natural sources such as vegetables, minerals, or animals. Examples include annatto extract (yellow), dehydrated beets (bluish-red to brown), caramel (yellow to tan), beta-carotene (yellow to orange) and grape skin extract (red, green). Although exempt color additives are not subject to batch certification requirements, they are still color additives and FDA must approve them before they can be used in foods.
Certified color additives are synthetic colorings that are used widely for intense, uniform color, and because they blend easily to create a variety of hues. These additives are classified as certified because they are required to undergo certification every time a new batch is manufactured.
How do I know whether color additives are in my food?
The FDA requires food manufacturers to list all ingredients on the label, with the ingredients used in the greatest amount first, followed in descending order by those in smaller amounts. The label must list the names of any FDA-certified color additive (e.g., FD&C Blue No. 1 or the abbreviated name, Blue 1). With the exception of carmine/cochineal extract, color additives exempt from certification can be listed collectively as “artificial colors,” “artificial color added,” “color added,” or equally informative terms, without naming each one. Because of potential allergic reactions in some people, carmine/cochineal extract are required to be identified by name on food labels.
Do color additives affect the behavior of children?
The FDA has reviewed and will continue to examine the effects of color additives on children’s behavior. The totality of scientific evidence indicates that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives, but some evidence suggests that certain children may be sensitive to them. The FDA will continue to evaluate emerging science to ensure the safety of color additives approved for use. Parents who wish to limit the amount of color additives in their children’s diet may check the food ingredient list on labels. Parents should also discuss any concerns with their family physician.
Should my family avoid color additives?
Color additives are safe when they are used in accordance with FDA regulations. If you choose to limit your intake of color additives or to avoid them altogether, you can identify whether they are in a product by reading the ingredients on the nutrition label.
If a problem were to arise with a color additive, what would the FDA do?
The FDA continually monitors reports of problems that may be related to color additives and takes action when necessary. The FDA can issue a warning letter to the manufacturer, detain products before they are shipped to stores, issue import alerts, or even seize products that are found to be unsafe or to contain color additives that are prohibited, misused, or not properly identified as ingredients. The FDA may also revoke or amend its regulations of current authorized uses as needed.
If you think that you have or your child has experienced an adverse reaction related to a color additive, you may report the reaction to your nearest FDA district office at www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/complain.html, or, report the problems to CFSAN’s Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS) by phone at 301-436-2405 or email at CAERS@cfsan.fda.gov.
=====
Still think anything is scary about Doritos, despite billions of people eating them?
Report it to the FDA.
24 -
...So she was like the sugar in Cliff bar is "natural" versus Costco has "chemicals and unnatural ingredients"...
Long story short - when somebody says something like that, nod your head, move on, and make a mental note to ignore everything they say regarding nutrition from that point forward. Because they're engaging in fearmongering, not fact.
Or maybe if you're in the mood for a little fun, show them these pictures (bonus points if you pick one of the scariest-sounding ingredients at random and ask them if they have any multiple large-scale independent longitudinal studies demonstrating clearly that absolutely no ill effects were shown in individuals consuming significant amounts of said ingredient):
15 -
Well this was certainly an eye opener.
Just to be clear - when I said "natural" vs "unnatural" - I meant if calories are equal and I'm meeting my macros.
As in getting my carbs/protein/fats from a McD's burger versus getting it from Home made burger. Some call that "junk" and homemade "natural". As if- we can't put the "junk" in homemade burger.
I thought it was self explanatory considering I posted this in Health and Fitness section instead of weight loss where newbies are-who are still learning.
It was protein bars -one was cliff and other was costco brand and I ate costco brand because it had more protein and fiber and it allowed me to hit my macros verus Cliff bar which had very low protein and fiber but sugar was high and 50 extra calories versus costco.
So she was like the sugar in Cliff bar is "natural" versus Costco has "chemicals and unnatural ingredients" .
That's why I was asking the knowledgeable audience -if there was a difference between those two lol
I guess, I just shaved off few mins off of my life /sarcasm
Send him/her to the http://dhmo.org/ website and watch the fun begin.9 -
Well this was certainly an eye opener.
Just to be clear - when I said "natural" vs "unnatural" - I meant if calories are equal and I'm meeting my macros.
As in getting my carbs/protein/fats from a McD's burger versus getting it from Home made burger. Some call that "junk" and homemade "natural". As if- we can't put the "junk" in homemade burger.
I thought it was self explanatory considering I posted this in Health and Fitness section instead of weight loss where newbies are-who are still learning.
It was protein bars -one was cliff and other was costco brand and I ate costco brand because it had more protein and fiber and it allowed me to hit my macros verus Cliff bar which had very low protein and fiber but sugar was high and 50 extra calories versus costco.
So she was like the sugar in Cliff bar is "natural" versus Costco has "chemicals and unnatural ingredients" .
That's why I was asking the knowledgeable audience -if there was a difference between those two lol
I guess, I just shaved off few mins off of my life /sarcasm
Send him/her to the http://dhmo.org/ website and watch the fun begin.
Their FAQ is pure gold. That is scary sounding stuff indeed!
Excerpt:Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.14 -
nettiklive wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Until I read multiple large-scale independent longitudinal studies demonstrating clearly that unicorns don't exist, I'll keep steadily believing in them and hiking through the forests daily to find one and become the prettiest princess.
Go for it. Fresh air, exercise, certainly sounds like a healthier choice than eating Doritos
I don't see anything scary.
You think the food colours are scary?
https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm488219.htm
What are color additives and why are they used in food?
A color additive is any substance that imparts color to a food, drug, cosmetic, or to the human body. Color additives include both synthetic substances and substances derived from natural sources. Color additives may be used in food to enhance natural colors, add color to colorless and ‘fun’ foods such as cake decorations, and help identify flavors (such as purple for grape flavor or yellow for lemon). Color additives are sometimes called food dyes.
Are color additives safe to eat?
Yes, color additives are safe when they are used in accordance with with FDA regulations. When the FDA approves the use of a color additive in food, our regulations specify:
the types of foods in which it can be used,
any maximum amounts allowed to be used, and
how the color additive should be identified on the food label.
Do all color additives need to be approved by the FDA before they can be used in foods?
Yes. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,all color additives and new uses for listed color additives must be approved by the FDA before they may be used in foods. A full listing of all approved color additives is available in the Summary of Color Additives for Use in the United States in Foods, Drugs, Cosmetics, and Medical Devices.
What criteria does the FDA review when evaluating the safety of a color additive?
When evaluating the safety of a new color additive or a new use for a listed color additive, the FDA considers several factors. These include the short and long-term effects of consumption, composition and properties, manufacturing process, stability, likely amount of consumption/exposure, and the availability of analytical methods for determining its purity and the amount in food.
Synthetic color additives, also known as certified colors, are required to undergo batch certification, a process in which the FDA analyzes a representative sample of each batch of the color additive to ensure it meets the required identity and specifications before it can be used. Prior to certifying a batch, the FDA analyzes the chemical composition.
There are nine certified color additives approved by the FDA for use in food:
FD&C Blue No. 1
Confections, beverages, cereals, frozen dairy desserts, popsicles, frostings & icings
FD&C Blue No. 2
Baked goods, cereals, snack foods, ice cream, confections, and yogurt
FD&C Green No. 3
Cereal, ice cream, sherbet, drink mixers, and baked goods
Orange B
Only approved for use in hot dog and sausage casings
Citrus Red No. 2
Only approved for use to color orange peels
FD&C Red No. 3
Confections, beverages, cereals, ice cream cones, frozen dairy desserts, popsicles, frostings & icings
FD&C Red No. 40
Cereal, beverages, gelatins, puddings, dairy products, and confections
FD&C Yellow No. 5
Confections, cereals, snack foods, beverages, condiments, baked goods, and yogurt
FD&C Yellow No. 6
Cereals, snack foods, baked goods, gelatins, beverages, dessert powders, crackers, and sauces
What is the difference between a certified and an exempt color additive?
”Exempt” colors include pigments from natural sources such as vegetables, minerals, or animals. Examples include annatto extract (yellow), dehydrated beets (bluish-red to brown), caramel (yellow to tan), beta-carotene (yellow to orange) and grape skin extract (red, green). Although exempt color additives are not subject to batch certification requirements, they are still color additives and FDA must approve them before they can be used in foods.
Certified color additives are synthetic colorings that are used widely for intense, uniform color, and because they blend easily to create a variety of hues. These additives are classified as certified because they are required to undergo certification every time a new batch is manufactured.
How do I know whether color additives are in my food?
The FDA requires food manufacturers to list all ingredients on the label, with the ingredients used in the greatest amount first, followed in descending order by those in smaller amounts. The label must list the names of any FDA-certified color additive (e.g., FD&C Blue No. 1 or the abbreviated name, Blue 1). With the exception of carmine/cochineal extract, color additives exempt from certification can be listed collectively as “artificial colors,” “artificial color added,” “color added,” or equally informative terms, without naming each one. Because of potential allergic reactions in some people, carmine/cochineal extract are required to be identified by name on food labels.
Do color additives affect the behavior of children?
The FDA has reviewed and will continue to examine the effects of color additives on children’s behavior. The totality of scientific evidence indicates that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives, but some evidence suggests that certain children may be sensitive to them. The FDA will continue to evaluate emerging science to ensure the safety of color additives approved for use. Parents who wish to limit the amount of color additives in their children’s diet may check the food ingredient list on labels. Parents should also discuss any concerns with their family physician.
Should my family avoid color additives?
Color additives are safe when they are used in accordance with FDA regulations. If you choose to limit your intake of color additives or to avoid them altogether, you can identify whether they are in a product by reading the ingredients on the nutrition label.
If a problem were to arise with a color additive, what would the FDA do?
The FDA continually monitors reports of problems that may be related to color additives and takes action when necessary. The FDA can issue a warning letter to the manufacturer, detain products before they are shipped to stores, issue import alerts, or even seize products that are found to be unsafe or to contain color additives that are prohibited, misused, or not properly identified as ingredients. The FDA may also revoke or amend its regulations of current authorized uses as needed.
If you think that you have or your child has experienced an adverse reaction related to a color additive, you may report the reaction to your nearest FDA district office at www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/complain.html, or, report the problems to CFSAN’s Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS) by phone at 301-436-2405 or email at CAERS@cfsan.fda.gov.
=====
Still think anything is scary about Doritos, despite billions of people eating them?
Report it to the FDA.
Thank god, someone in this **** show of a thread has a brain and understands food labeling, the FDA, and rules and regulations in the United States. Thank you15 -
Well this was certainly an eye opener.
Just to be clear - when I said "natural" vs "unnatural" - I meant if calories are equal and I'm meeting my macros.
As in getting my carbs/protein/fats from a McD's burger versus getting it from Home made burger. Some call that "junk" and homemade "natural". As if- we can't put the "junk" in homemade burger.
I thought it was self explanatory considering I posted this in Health and Fitness section instead of weight loss where newbies are-who are still learning.
It was protein bars -one was cliff and other was costco brand and I ate costco brand because it had more protein and fiber and it allowed me to hit my macros verus Cliff bar which had very low protein and fiber but sugar was high and 50 extra calories versus costco.
So she was like the sugar in Cliff bar is "natural" versus Costco has "chemicals and unnatural ingredients" .
That's why I was asking the knowledgeable audience -if there was a difference between those two lol
I guess, I just shaved off few mins off of my life /sarcasm
Send him/her to the http://dhmo.org/ website and watch the fun begin.
Their FAQ is pure gold. That is scary sounding stuff indeed!
Excerpt:Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.
The whole thing is pretty swell, all the stuff is there, right down to the connection to cancer, and the warning about a fake spam email. And every word is true, as far as I've read. I posted the link on Facebook once, with a note that people ought to check it out. Results: Priceless.7 -
Chemistry jokes making people look stupid never get old, lol9
-
I was reading this thread yesterday and thinking I should pick up some Doritos. Haven't had them in a long time. And then the "free Friday" offering email from the grocery store came in and it is Doritos!
Think I may need to pick up some tin foil at the store too.
17 -
I was reading this thread yesterday and thinking I should pick up some Doritos. Haven't had them in a long time. And then the "free Friday" offering email from the grocery store came in and it is Doritos!
Think I may need to pick up some tin foil at the store too.
http://www.quirkbooks.com/post/worst-case-wednesday-how-make-effective-tinfoil-hat12 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »I was reading this thread yesterday and thinking I should pick up some Doritos. Haven't had them in a long time. And then the "free Friday" offering email from the grocery store came in and it is Doritos!
Think I may need to pick up some tin foil at the store too.
http://www.quirkbooks.com/post/worst-case-wednesday-how-make-effective-tinfoil-hat
Make sure your pets are protected too...
https://www.amazon.com/Archie-McPhee-Foil-Hats-Conspiracy/dp/B07C169XZT/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&qid=1525548822&sr=8-25&keywords=tinfoil+hat5 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »I was reading this thread yesterday and thinking I should pick up some Doritos. Haven't had them in a long time. And then the "free Friday" offering email from the grocery store came in and it is Doritos!
Think I may need to pick up some tin foil at the store too.
http://www.quirkbooks.com/post/worst-case-wednesday-how-make-effective-tinfoil-hat
Make sure your pets are protected too...
https://www.amazon.com/Archie-McPhee-Foil-Hats-Conspiracy/dp/B07C169XZT/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&qid=1525548822&sr=8-25&keywords=tinfoil+hat
Don't do it
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/11 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »I was reading this thread yesterday and thinking I should pick up some Doritos. Haven't had them in a long time. And then the "free Friday" offering email from the grocery store came in and it is Doritos!
Think I may need to pick up some tin foil at the store too.
http://www.quirkbooks.com/post/worst-case-wednesday-how-make-effective-tinfoil-hat
Make sure your pets are protected too...
https://www.amazon.com/Archie-McPhee-Foil-Hats-Conspiracy/dp/B07C169XZT/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&qid=1525548822&sr=8-25&keywords=tinfoil+hat
Those look like cat head sized underwear!4 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »100_PROOF_ wrote: »I found the secret to a zesty Mac and cheese, from a careful reading of the commercial ingredient list. I add dry mustard powder or curry. For that attractive orange colour, a little paprika.
My kids loved cream cheese with beet juice as color. It came out a pinkish red color and it was fun for them.
My poor kids getting hypnotized and drawn in by the fun color of beets. What a terrible mom I was. Lol
No you weren't, because you chose a natural method to add that color. Why didn't you just add in food coloring? According to the thread, there is no benefit in using beet juice instead of red food dye.
Waiting for the argument now that red dye is actually made from insects so it's in fact natural...
I'm only up to here in this fun and fascinating thread, but I just had to post this:
(From two years ago)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/08/news/companies/kraft-mac-and-cheese-recipe/index.html
Notice anything different about your mac & cheese lately?
No? Don't worry, nobody else did either.
Kraft Heinz removed artificial preservatives, flavors and dyes from its mac & cheese recipe in December. To keep its yellow-orange glow, Kraft swapped out artificial food colors, including yellow 5 and yellow 6, for natural spices like paprika, annatto and turmeric.
The company is calling it "the world's largest blind taste test."
I didn't because i haven't eaten it since I was 12 and we were broke just-arrived immigrants getting our food from a food bank (in case anyone thinks my 'elitist' views stem from being privileged all my life).
But good for Kraft. And again proves my point. More and more companies are now doing this and increasingly these artificial additives are getting pushed to the sidelines of the market. Because consumers are becoming more aware of the importance of what they are eating and demanding it. Why though? I mean, according to this thread, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with any of this stuff in our food. Why then are companies bothering to remove it?
For the same reason Coke (or was it Pepsi?) removed aspartame from their diet version; marketing to the woo.
Thanks to social media, we now live in a post-factual world... Facts don't matter - only feelings. And chemicalz are scary.
Well to be fair any company selling a product to the public only cares about public opinion, they have no reason to care about anything else. I don't really blame them except I feel that they perhaps misread their market by listening to the loudest amongst them rather than the majority. I think the majority of people care more about the taste than what particular sweetener is in their drink, although I could be wrong.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions