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.
USA vs. Europe, NY Times
Keto_Vampire
Posts: 1,670 Member
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/well/eat/food-additives-banned-europe-united-states.html
Just an interesting article on the various food additives banned in Europe vs. USA...try not to fight too much & keep an open mind
Just an interesting article on the various food additives banned in Europe vs. USA...try not to fight too much & keep an open mind
5
Replies
-
While I think the European stance on GMO's is silly, I think the US keeping these additives in food is possibly a question that might come down to following the money. That's what my gut is telling me. They don't need to be there, you know? I'm sure there are safe alternatives.
ETA: I'm saying this off the cuff, with no real knowledge, just a gut reaction based on having a son who did react to food dyes. I'm open to reading research and do know animal studies don't necessarily pan out to similar results in humans.8 -
In1
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While I think the European stance on GMO's is silly, I think the US keeping these additives in food is possibly a question that might come down to following the money. That's what my gut is telling me. They don't need to be there, you know? I'm sure there are safe alternatives.
ETA: I'm saying this off the cuff, with no real knowledge, just a gut reaction based on having a son who did react to food dyes. I'm open to reading research and do know animal studies don't necessarily pan out to similar results in humans.
This is largely my position too (including on the GMOs). If I didn't mainly eat from whole foods anyway, I'd probably do more research and have a basis to avoid or not when buying packaged stuff as I know there are arguments on both sides with some of these and I have not explored them in enough detail. As it is I read labels if buying something like a spicy sauce or mustard or greek yogurt or dried pasta or canned beans or tomatoes, etc., and rarely run into anything that seems questionable on the things I buy with labels (usually there are just the ingredients you'd expect). I'd rather not consume things like dyes whether they are actually harmful or not, but that's just me and not a science-based position, which I freely admit.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While I think the European stance on GMO's is silly, I think the US keeping these additives in food is possibly a question that might come down to following the money. That's what my gut is telling me. They don't need to be there, you know? I'm sure there are safe alternatives.
ETA: I'm saying this off the cuff, with no real knowledge, just a gut reaction based on having a son who did react to food dyes. I'm open to reading research and do know animal studies don't necessarily pan out to similar results in humans.
I totally agree with the "follow the money" idea.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While I think the European stance on GMO's is silly, I think the US keeping these additives in food is possibly a question that might come down to following the money. That's what my gut is telling me. They don't need to be there, you know? I'm sure there are safe alternatives.
ETA: I'm saying this off the cuff, with no real knowledge, just a gut reaction based on having a son who did react to food dyes. I'm open to reading research and do know animal studies don't necessarily pan out to similar results in humans.
This is largely my position too (including on the GMOs). If I didn't mainly eat from whole foods anyway, I'd probably do more research and have a basis to avoid or not when buying packaged stuff as I know there are arguments on both sides with some of these and I have not explored them in enough detail. As it is I read labels if buying something like a spicy sauce or mustard or greek yogurt or dried pasta or canned beans or tomatoes, etc., and rarely run into anything that seems questionable on the things I buy with labels (usually there are just the ingredients you'd expect). I'd rather not consume things like dyes whether they are actually harmful or not, but that's just me and not a science-based position, which I freely admit.
I tend to agree with all of this but epecially the bolded. My biggest problem with red velvet cake is the bottle of red food dye that gets poured into it. It just squicks me out
6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While I think the European stance on GMO's is silly, I think the US keeping these additives in food is possibly a question that might come down to following the money. That's what my gut is telling me. They don't need to be there, you know? I'm sure there are safe alternatives.
The anti-GMO/Organic marketing has plenty of money to follow as well. There are certain foods banned in the US that are sold in the EU as well (e.g. raw milk). I do find it funny the level of anti-GMO rhetoric kind of funny from the same countries where smoking is still so prevalent in comparison to the US though...11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While I think the European stance on GMO's is silly, I think the US keeping these additives in food is possibly a question that might come down to following the money. That's what my gut is telling me. They don't need to be there, you know? I'm sure there are safe alternatives.
ETA: I'm saying this off the cuff, with no real knowledge, just a gut reaction based on having a son who did react to food dyes. I'm open to reading research and do know animal studies don't necessarily pan out to similar results in humans.
This is largely my position too (including on the GMOs). If I didn't mainly eat from whole foods anyway, I'd probably do more research and have a basis to avoid or not when buying packaged stuff as I know there are arguments on both sides with some of these and I have not explored them in enough detail. As it is I read labels if buying something like a spicy sauce or mustard or greek yogurt or dried pasta or canned beans or tomatoes, etc., and rarely run into anything that seems questionable on the things I buy with labels (usually there are just the ingredients you'd expect). I'd rather not consume things like dyes whether they are actually harmful or not, but that's just me and not a science-based position, which I freely admit.
I'm also not a fan of food & drug cosmetics that serve absolutely no purpose other than BS marketing/visuals to falsely appeal more vibrant colored foods are healthier, more appetizing, etc.4 -
Most of the additives were in use before we had the ability to know what effects they have on the body. I know its probably less harmful but the adding of chalk to bread to reduce the cost to the bread makers in the late 18/1900's so the poor, most people could have something to eat, was actually adding to their ills. Then came the food extenders etc, from war time. (Not quite long enough in the tooth to remember that but I did come in on the tail end of rationing, being told that, in my pram, I ate the family's weeks cheese allocation in one go!)
In my view, GMO, if some gene expression is changed in a lab we are not always aware how these things will affect the outside world, in the wild with cross pollination, it could make weeds even more invasive or problematical. Changing the structure of something physically in this way is a far cry from how the farming community regularly breeds for the key traits in a plant or animal which makes the development more beneficial to us in some way or other. Being seasonal, breeding the simple Brussel Sprout to make it less tart more sweet and acceptable to the 21st century pallet. (Bitter foods have been shown to benefit the liver-bile production and elimination systems)
I come at this issue from the position of someone who has had the foods I could safely eat dramatically reduced, at one stage only feeling safe eating 10 foods, not good from a nutritional/variety point of view. I could not even fuel my car because of the fumes making me, at best, gag. I still don't! Yet it is the best way for me to travel when other peoples laundry residues, cosmetics and perfumes have disturbed my equilibrium, there were some parts of town where I needed the fresh sea air, as long as it did not come with eau-de- caravan park!
Paraben, is something which is used as a preservative in foods, medication and even domestic and personal hygiene products as well as cosmetics. Increasingly the lengthening list of paraben categories, cause digestive issues in a growing number of people. Salicylate is a plant mechanism to protect them from moulds and mildews and is related to paraben. Salicylate is seen as helpful when uses in skin products, yet it can be highly toxic to people like me. My experience has been, general medicine does not, is not able/permitted to keep up with the science of health problems at least here in the UK. I had intolerance/allergy testing under the NHS which showed nothing but having under taken private ones, which results drove a coach and horses through the NHS results, those tests were not as accurate as the newer ones the scientific community is making them. Acting on the Private tests, my health has improved. Many medications, particularly antibiotics freely damage our digestive biome, I have benefited from taking digestive microbes. (Ok, those of you who are not affected in any way as yet will disagree because it is outside your personal or familial experience)
(I discovered recently here in the UK, mercury is no longer used in vaccinations, instead they use various antibiotics which explained one great grandson's digestive upsets. I've given the family some digestive microbes to restore his balance.)
I truly believe we need to investigate all the pre year 2000 additives in foods etc and eliminate those which have the ability to damage our health. I realise I'm one of the outliers of society who has shown problems from the multitude of chemicals which surround us. Listening and reading most things medical, and taking us away from the GMO debate even more. I heard a UK University Scientific facility along with several international ones have discovered micro plastics in our world wide human population!
Would we all be as happy with genetically modified people as we are with foods? I think not, from some of the debate going on over here when there is the slightest suggestion some major, life limiting genetic disorder could be eliminated by using a section of a third persons dna. Not least to be taken into consideration, is the suffer saying, in part the condition has made them who they are.
Good luck folks. Stay Healthy.17 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While I think the European stance on GMO's is silly, I think the US keeping these additives in food is possibly a question that might come down to following the money. That's what my gut is telling me. They don't need to be there, you know? I'm sure there are safe alternatives.
The anti-GMO/Organic marketing has plenty of money to follow as well. There are certain foods banned in the US that are sold in the EU as well (e.g. raw milk). I do find it funny the level of anti-GMO rhetoric kind of funny from the same countries where smoking is still so prevalent in comparison to the US though...
This staement seems to conflate a lot of unrelated concepts. I am sceptical of GMOs (their impact on the environment and biodiversity) but have 0 interest in the Organic movement/marketing. Availability commercially of raw milk, or honey or whatever, has nothing to do with food additives and a lot to do with how the state views the risk and effect of food poisoning, how educated consumers are about food safety and how easy and expensive it is to sue the producer/manufacturer. I can easily boil the milk I buy raw, but cannot separate food addtives from the food.
And the comparison between smoking prevalency and food additives - cigarettes are easy to spot and avoid, food additives are not. I think that you need to compare the taste, colour and ingredient tags of foods produced in the US and Europe to actually begin to have a grasp of how much unnecessary dyes etc. Americans devour daily. There is yellow dye in cheese and red dye in strawberry jam because consumers are brainwashed enough to search for what looks bright and more colourful than the real thing, and not care what it contains. Europeans would soon be like that too if certain things were not banned outright. We are all primitive and simple animals, easy to fool and make drool.
I agree with you that there is money to follow in organic marketing, but there is tons more to follow in the regular food industry due to its sheer market size. But mostly, the US values businesses and lobbyists a lot more than it does its citizens so money speaks a lot louder there. Someone like me can chose where to live, but not everyone has that luxury and poor people always pay disproportionately the health price of lobbying and policy decisions.
7 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »While I think the European stance on GMO's is silly, I think the US keeping these additives in food is possibly a question that might come down to following the money. That's what my gut is telling me. They don't need to be there, you know? I'm sure there are safe alternatives.
The anti-GMO/Organic marketing has plenty of money to follow as well. There are certain foods banned in the US that are sold in the EU as well (e.g. raw milk). I do find it funny the level of anti-GMO rhetoric kind of funny from the same countries where smoking is still so prevalent in comparison to the US though...
It's like how we park on driveways and drive on parkways!!0 -
One thing I did not mention above. Wheat has three sets of genes, it managed this feat of science on its own at some stage in its natural development. I've not seen it recorded that there are any other organisms which have achieved this same feat naturally. One of the issues we humans have can with the plant, is with the protein gluten, only what they do not tell us is the genetic background of wheat inflates the number of proteins wheat contains, some of those who test negative for gluten may well react to one or more of these other proteins.
I fear the use of chemicals. I like organic foods when possible because the number of chemicals used in their prodiction is much smaller and less damageing to us and the soil, than the dominant chemicals in general agriculture. Naturally the productivity teds to be lower from such plants which increases the unit costs. As the quality of the soils the plants are grown in improves the productivity will increase. I discovered some time ago the principal cell in our lungs which take oxygen from the atmosphere was utilised from some mould or similar, these simple structures are damaged by salicylate/paraben which pollutes our atmosphere from weed killers, household detergents, personal hygiene products, preservatives in foods and so much more. (I find all this sciency stuff incredibly interesting, I really wish more of you were even a tiny bit interested, remember, I used to be unable to go into public spaces because of others laundry residue and perfumes, take heed because I fear this could happen to a few of you)
As I have said, I am one of the outlyers having dietary/health problems caused by living in this chemical dependant world. Its true many plants which are gmo will not need the same chemicals and any ordinary agrecultural crop but I believe we are playing fast and loose with our quality of life and this is causing the rise in chronic ilness and autoimmune disorders, even weight gain.
BTW, smoking over here in the UK is only permitted in ones own homes not in public places, it has been so for years. There was even talk of parents being prosecuted for smoking in the car with their children present! Over here we walk on pavements and drive on roads. We have so much more to concern ourselves with than scientists finding ways to increase food crops by messing with plant structures, how about reducing the rate of abnormal weather incidents such long dry, hot summer burning up the ground then torrential rainfall washing them or large populated areas away. Pardon, this is global warming and no one believes in that on here, do they?
Stay Healthy. Happy New Year to one and all.11 -
Really, since they can handle inhaling noxious diesel fumes day and night, that literally permeate concrete walls, a few food additives wouldn't be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Oh yeah and the second hand smoke. And espresso coffee more corrosive than nail polish remover.1
-
I beg your pardon, do you have a point I am missing?4
-
When it comes to allowing or banning what is used in our food, I very much prefer the UK's manner of doing it than America's, for one specific reason: one shows more concern for people's health.
If you read the descriptions of what is banned, and why, in the UK, the reasons seem to boil down to: this either may be unsafe or it causes problems for some of our population, so we are going to ban it unless/until it is proven safe and/or put warning labels on it about the potential issues for those it may impact.
If you read the descriptions of why certain things are not banned in the US, the reasons seem to boil down to: this has not been proven to be completely unsafe and/or it doesn't cause problems for most members in the population, so we are not banning it unless it's proven to be very unsafe or to cause problems for the majority of our population.
One protects the population more but may cause more problems for industry. One protects industry and may cause more problems for the population.
This is, IMHO, especially true for GMO's. GMO's might be the best freaking thing since sliced bread for our food. However, the research into long term effects on human beings, and especially on potential environmental impact, is slim, honestly. Genetic manipulation is a very big deal - both in what it could potentially change for the better, but also what it could unintentionally change for the worse.
We have some catastrophically bad issues environmentally simply by one or two plants entering an ecosystem when they didn't originate there, and breeding or cross breeding in the new environment. GMO's should not be treated any differently, in terms of cautions when introducing to the environment and their potential impact, but that is not what happens.
That does not seem responsible. What does seem responsible, in terms of concern for people and where they live, is to ban or limit GMO use until better and more complete research has been completed.9 -
One thing I did not mention above. Wheat has three sets of genes, it managed this feat of science on its own at some stage in its natural development. I've not seen it recorded that there are any other organisms which have achieved this same feat naturally. One of the issues we humans have can with the plant, is with the protein gluten, only what they do not tell us is the genetic background of wheat inflates the number of proteins wheat contains, some of those who test negative for gluten may well react to one or more of these other proteins.
I fear the use of chemicals. I like organic foods when possible because the number of chemicals used in their production is much smaller and less damaging to us and the soil, than the dominant chemicals in general agriculture. Naturally the productivity teds to be lower from such plants which increases the unit costs. As the quality of the soils the plants are grown in improves the productivity will increase. I discovered some time ago the principal cell in our lungs which take oxygen from the atmosphere was utilised from some mould or similar, these simple structures are damaged by salicylate/paraben which pollutes our atmosphere from weed killers, household detergents, personal hygiene products, preservatives in foods and so much more. (I find all this sciency stuff incredibly interesting, I really wish more of you were even a tiny bit interested, remember, I used to be unable to go into public spaces because of others laundry residue and perfumes, take heed because I fear this could happen to a few of you)
As I have said, I am one of the outliers having dietary/health problems caused by living in this chemical Dependant world. Its true many plants which are gmo will not need the same chemicals and any ordinary agricultural crop but I believe we are playing fast and loose with our quality of life and this is causing the rise in chronic illness and autoimmune disorders, even weight gain.
BTW, smoking over here in the UK is only permitted in ones own homes not in public places, it has been so for years. There was even talk of parents being prosecuted for smoking in the car with their children present! Over here we walk on pavements and drive on roads. We have so much more to concern ourselves with than scientists finding ways to increase food crops by messing with plant structures, how about reducing the rate of abnormal weather incidents such long dry, hot summer burning up the ground then torrential rainfall washing them or large populated areas away. Pardon, this is global warming and no one believes in that on here, do they?
Stay Healthy. Happy New Year to one and all.
I developed chemical sensitivities after working in a building that turned out to have toxic mold. I am MUCH better than I was in 1999, but still cannot use my backyard when my neighbor is drying clothes with fabric softener sheets, and I can tell when she is doing laundry from surprisingly far out in the woods.3 -
One thing I did not mention above. Wheat has three sets of genes, it managed this feat of science on its own at some stage in its natural development. I've not seen it recorded that there are any other organisms which have achieved this same feat naturally. One of the issues we humans have can with the plant, is with the protein gluten, only what they do not tell us is the genetic background of wheat inflates the number of proteins wheat contains, some of those who test negative for gluten may well react to one or more of these other proteins.
Polyploidy is very common in flowering plants, with estimates of 30% to 70-80% of all species of flowering plants being polyploids. Many commercial crops are polyploids as it's useful for hybrids, but so are many wild plants.
source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy#Plants
https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/82/4/411/2643061#822597545 -
Thank you, The_Enginerd. So, so many plants can have many more proteins, its fortunate, they do not appear in our diet that often.
To Kashama 2001, I know exactly where you are coming from. Reacting to moulds is really not good. You may, if you have not already, find it helpful to try using digestive microbes, ones recommended for after or while taking antibiotics were really helpful to me when it came to smells. The microbs sphere of influence on our bodies is becoming much better known. Also you could look into some kind of liver cleanse, sometimes facilitating the elimination of chemical residues and products of living which cells make can help too. One does not need to register a concerning level in some liver function test to benefit. A squeeze of half a lemon can help increase bile flow aiding the process.
All the very best.8 -
I'm not following why plants having more proteins = bad.8
-
One thing I did not mention above. Wheat has three sets of genes, it managed this feat of science on its own at some stage in its natural development. I've not seen it recorded that there are any other organisms which have achieved this same feat naturally. One of the issues we humans have can with the plant, is with the protein gluten, only what they do not tell us is the genetic background of wheat inflates the number of proteins wheat contains, some of those who test negative for gluten may well react to one or more of these other proteins.
I fear the use of chemicals. I like organic foods when possible because the number of chemicals used in their prodiction is much smaller and less damageing to us and the soil, than the dominant chemicals in general agriculture. Naturally the productivity teds to be lower from such plants which increases the unit costs. As the quality of the soils the plants are grown in improves the productivity will increase. I discovered some time ago the principal cell in our lungs which take oxygen from the atmosphere was utilised from some mould or similar, these simple structures are damaged by salicylate/paraben which pollutes our atmosphere from weed killers, household detergents, personal hygiene products, preservatives in foods and so much more. (I find all this sciency stuff incredibly interesting, I really wish more of you were even a tiny bit interested, remember, I used to be unable to go into public spaces because of others laundry residue and perfumes, take heed because I fear this could happen to a few of you)
As I have said, I am one of the outlyers having dietary/health problems caused by living in this chemical dependant world. Its true many plants which are gmo will not need the same chemicals and any ordinary agrecultural crop but I believe we are playing fast and loose with our quality of life and this is causing the rise in chronic ilness and autoimmune disorders, even weight gain.
BTW, smoking over here in the UK is only permitted in ones own homes not in public places, it has been so for years. There was even talk of parents being prosecuted for smoking in the car with their children present! Over here we walk on pavements and drive on roads. We have so much more to concern ourselves with than scientists finding ways to increase food crops by messing with plant structures, how about reducing the rate of abnormal weather incidents such long dry, hot summer burning up the ground then torrential rainfall washing them or large populated areas away. Pardon, this is global warming and no one believes in that on here, do they?
Stay Healthy. Happy New Year to one and all.
I think you are referring to ploidy not gene number. Lots of plants are polyploidy having high ploidy numbers naturally...and by lots I mean like half of all plants...its actually really common and definately not unique to wheat. Also there are diploid, tetraploid and sextaploid species of wheat but not sure there is a triploid. Plants dont have the monopoly on polyploidy either... there are many organisms that have polyploidy....there is a frog that is dodecaploid (12 copies of each chromosome).
Total chromosome number or the total number of copies of each chromosome or genome size doesn't actually tell you much...its not like it correlates with complexity. Humans have 23 chromosomes... carp have like 400...ameoba have like 500 chromosomes and their genomes are 100s of times larger than ours (290 billion base pairs vs our 3 billion).
Polyploidy has no effect at all on protein diversity so not sure what you mean with the rest of your post. Also not sure why proteins are bad now or why you think plants have a relatively high diversity or total amount of proteins.10 -
As for genetic engineering I can see legitimate skepticism or concern with regards to regulation, patent law, control of food supplies and environmental effects. Unfortunately hard to even have that legitimate conversation when there is so much over the top and unfounded fear mongering and conspiracy theories a la frankenfruit/Monsatan etc etc9
-
I prefer not to eat gmo If I can help it I just don’t think it’s natural or healthy. I find American packaged foods are mostly horrible with bitter/ artificial aftertaste.
I’m from England, lived in Spain a few years now in the US in my opinion food here is lower quality but larger portions and too much “cheese”. Does anyone else hate the taste of high fructose corn syrup products?9 -
American food (including packaged) is hugely variable, to generalize about it as if it was all one thing is odd.
Personally, I rarely eat anything with HFCS, but it does tend to taste less good than those made with sugar, to me. I don't really eat a ton of packaged foods that include sweetener, though.4 -
Thank you, The_Enginerd. So, so many plants can have many more proteins, its fortunate, they do not appear in our diet that often.
Like bananas, many apple varieties, potatoes, oats, leeks, peanuts, strawberries, ginger, watermelons etc?
Plants *have* to have more proteins than animals because they require all the cellular machinery to carry out photosynthesis. I don't get why you think more proteins = bad?
1 -
Chantelle9112 wrote: »I prefer not to eat gmo If I can help it I just don’t think it’s natural or healthy. I find American packaged foods are mostly horrible with bitter/ artificial aftertaste.
I’m from England, lived in Spain a few years now in the US in my opinion food here is lower quality but larger portions and too much “cheese”. Does anyone else hate the taste of high fructose corn syrup products?
We constantly engage in unnatural behavior and "natural" doesn't equal beneficial or good, why draw this specific line?
American packaged food comes in all kinds of forms and tastes. This is a bizarre generalization.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »...American packaged food comes in all kinds of forms and tastes. This is a bizarre generalization.
Actually...I would agree with this one, and I'm an American. I had a medical issue for a while where I was having bad allergic reactions but we didn't know to what. Ended up having to make all my own foods from very fresh products, couldn't even have grains or dried spices. And when I was trying foods again that were packaged - yeah, blech. I honestly thought something new had been done to the foods I tried, because there was so much bitterness or this odd chemical-aftertaste. And then finally did some research and found out that, no, it's just what we do to our packaged food. All of it.
Because while there may be variety in the actual food itself, there is a huge homogeneity in the chemicals use ON the food. Most grains, for example, have certain chemicals used on them during storage, like insecticides or anti-fungals. Most processing lines use similar soaps and cleansers, and most packages have some similar linings because it's food safe and the cheapest. Most packaged foods use one out of only a small list of preservatives or anti-bacterials/anti-fungals on them. Most foods contain a small number of ingredients that have a lot of chemicals used in processing (for example, corn starch and corn syrup both have sulfites used in their processing, during the wet corn milling).
And if you don't eat these all the time? You CAN taste these. And it absolutely is bitter or has odd taste that I can only describe as 'chemical.' Kind of like how some toilets have that blue water and it smells chemical - you couldn't say WHAT chemical, but it's noticeable, you know?
These chemicals are often not on any labels, because these are used for 'processing,' so are not considered ingredients. Also, there are enough people who have allergy-equivalent reactions to some of the more common preservatives that we know that these chemicals DO remain in the food. Because these folks react to the food.
Heck, for a good example? Buy some 100% orange juice, and then buy some oranges. Juice the oranges. Then boil both the store bought juice and the fresh juice until you have maybe 1/3 the volume and taste them. The store bought orange juice is tremendously more bitter, in my experience, and that bitterness is the same as I started to taste after I had been away from packaged foods for a long while.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »...American packaged food comes in all kinds of forms and tastes. This is a bizarre generalization.
Actually...I would agree with this one, and I'm an American. I had a medical issue for a while where I was having bad allergic reactions but we didn't know to what. Ended up having to make all my own foods from very fresh products, couldn't even have grains or dried spices. And when I was trying foods again that were packaged - yeah, blech. I honestly thought something new had been done to the foods I tried, because there was so much bitterness or this odd chemical-aftertaste. And then finally did some research and found out that, no, it's just what we do to our packaged food. All of it.
Because while there may be variety in the actual food itself, there is a huge homogeneity in the chemicals use ON the food. Most grains, for example, have certain chemicals used on them during storage, like insecticides or anti-fungals. Most processing lines use similar soaps and cleansers, and most packages have some similar linings because it's food safe and the cheapest. Most packaged foods use one out of only a small list of preservatives or anti-bacterials/anti-fungals on them. Most foods contain a small number of ingredients that have a lot of chemicals used in processing (for example, corn starch and corn syrup both have sulfites used in their processing, during the wet corn milling).
And if you don't eat these all the time? You CAN taste these. And it absolutely is bitter or has odd taste that I can only describe as 'chemical.' Kind of like how some toilets have that blue water and it smells chemical - you couldn't say WHAT chemical, but it's noticeable, you know?
These chemicals are often not on any labels, because these are used for 'processing,' so are not considered ingredients. Also, there are enough people who have allergy-equivalent reactions to some of the more common preservatives that we know that these chemicals DO remain in the food. Because these folks react to the food.
Heck, for a good example? Buy some 100% orange juice, and then buy some oranges. Juice the oranges. Then boil both the store bought juice and the fresh juice until you have maybe 1/3 the volume and taste them. The store bought orange juice is tremendously more bitter, in my experience, and that bitterness is the same as I started to taste after I had been away from packaged foods for a long while.
Not snarky, genuinely curious -- would you consider yourself to be a super-taster?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »[quote=
We constantly engage in unnatural behavior and "natural" doesn't equal beneficial or good, why draw this specific line?
American packaged food comes in all kinds of forms and tastes. This is a bizarre generalization.
I don’t just draw this line for example I had my children born at home naturally and it was perfect for me. I don’t like that companies are sneaky about gmos too, like if they are so awesome for you write about it on the product.5 -
Chantelle9112 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »[quote=
We constantly engage in unnatural behavior and "natural" doesn't equal beneficial or good, why draw this specific line?
American packaged food comes in all kinds of forms and tastes. This is a bizarre generalization.
I don’t just draw this line for example I had my children born at home naturally and it was perfect for me. I don’t like that companies are sneaky about gmos too, like if they are so awesome for you write about it on the product.
You're communicating this to me via computer, so clearly there are some situations where you've chosen unnatural over natural.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »...American packaged food comes in all kinds of forms and tastes. This is a bizarre generalization.
Actually...I would agree with this one, and I'm an American. I had a medical issue for a while where I was having bad allergic reactions but we didn't know to what. Ended up having to make all my own foods from very fresh products, couldn't even have grains or dried spices. And when I was trying foods again that were packaged - yeah, blech. I honestly thought something new had been done to the foods I tried, because there was so much bitterness or this odd chemical-aftertaste. And then finally did some research and found out that, no, it's just what we do to our packaged food. All of it.
Because while there may be variety in the actual food itself, there is a huge homogeneity in the chemicals use ON the food. Most grains, for example, have certain chemicals used on them during storage, like insecticides or anti-fungals. Most processing lines use similar soaps and cleansers, and most packages have some similar linings because it's food safe and the cheapest. Most packaged foods use one out of only a small list of preservatives or anti-bacterials/anti-fungals on them. Most foods contain a small number of ingredients that have a lot of chemicals used in processing (for example, corn starch and corn syrup both have sulfites used in their processing, during the wet corn milling).
And if you don't eat these all the time? You CAN taste these. And it absolutely is bitter or has odd taste that I can only describe as 'chemical.' Kind of like how some toilets have that blue water and it smells chemical - you couldn't say WHAT chemical, but it's noticeable, you know?
I rarely eat packaged foods. I sometimes eat oats (Bob's Red Mill, usually), I sometimes eat dried pasta (imported from Italy), I sometimes eat canned tomatoes (Italian or American, no sugar added, because that's weird), I buy dry beans and lentils, and I sometimes buy canned beans/chickpeas. I buy cottage cheese and yogurt from the farmers market more often than not (although sometimes Fage yogurt). (I buy eggs from a farm too.) I get tofu/tempeh, but it's non GMO (because I buy it at WF more than because I care).
I buy olive oil, vinegars, and spices.
Hmm. I do buy smoked salmon, and frozen fruits and veg.
Despite this, when I do have something packaged, I don't perceive bitterness or a chemical aftertaste at all. At least not with the foods I choose. (I like a lot of greens some people call bitter, so maybe I just wouldn't notice.)3 -
Chantelle9112 wrote: »
I don’t just draw this line for example I had my children born at home naturally and it was perfect for me. I don’t like that companies are sneaky about gmos too, like if they are so awesome for you write about it on the product.
genetic engineering is a technology and a process not an ingredient. Should bread packaging list out the types of fertilizers used to grow crops that produced the grain that was used to bake the bread even if the bread did not contain the fertilizer? What use would that serve? Not all information is useful or relevant.
If a product has a sticker on it that says "GMO" that doesn't actually tell you anything about the actual ingredients of the product, nor nutrition, nor safety, nor caloric value or anything really. All it tells you is that at least one of the ingredients within was sourced from an organism whose genome was genetically altered using molecular biological techniques developed over the last 60 years. Doesn't say that that ingredient itself is a result of those genetic changes...most aren't. So what use is it?7
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
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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