Lies of food.

pixlamarque

My sweetie has already been worried that I'm about to stop shaving and go whole hog hippie on him, and damned if I might not start today after reading this article. Yes, I knew that they stored juice in vats for ages and the cellulose doesn't surpise me, but I've been having a hard time buying meat lately and that was just because of the salt solution they inject it all with. After reading the ammonia thing I may just have to get a second job so I can buy my meat at Whole Paycheck. But I'm still going to shave, thank God.

ninerbuff

Lol, for the last 100 years, food has had additives added to them. The food I ate in the 70's (Spam, Vienna sausages, McDonald's) is pretty much the same as now. All this "scare mongering" is nothing more than propaganda. Why are people fatter? Because they consume more than they need to. Why are they sicker? Because they are fatter. There are HUNDREDS of healthy professional athletes that eat this food. Stick to the facts. Eat less and you lose weight. Lose weight and you increase your chances for getting sick less. Eat your essentials and stay within your caloric range and you'll maintain weight.

pixlamarque

Lol, for the last 100 years, food has had additives added to them. The food I ate in the 70's (Spam, Vienna sausages, McDonald's) is pretty much the same as now. All this "scare mongering" is nothing more than propaganda. Why are people fatter? Because they consume more than they need to. Why are they sicker? Because they are fatter. There are HUNDREDS of healthy professional athletes that eat this food. Stick to the facts. Eat less and you lose weight. Lose weight and you increase your chances for getting sick less. Eat your essentials and stay within your caloric range and you'll maintain weight.

I certainly agree with all that, I'm just saying that I'd like to know if my meat has been hosed down with ammonia.

Grokette

Err...horrifying?

...Really?


I was expecting things like cows are actually chickens...but it's nothing more than stuff we probably already knew, and don't really care about, and will never notice the difference anyway!

They put stuff in fresh orange juice to make it last longer! Im horrified!

...how did we think it lasted so long?

Wow, I can't believe the I don't care attitude here..................Why don't you care?

This is the reason why we have so many re-calls on foods and the factory farming system. Because so many people don't care.

You do realize those packaged "food" products you purchase in the store are not real food????

As long as the above attitude keeps being displayed by people voting with their dollars in this manner - things are only going to get worse.

You do realise that not everyone WANTS to eat 100% clean? And that we've been eating this stuff for years and years, and it's never done us any provable harm? Im surprised people didn't already know a lot of this stuff either. Not everyone's ideal food future is the same as yours!

And really...is this "horrifying" to you? I can think of far worse things that are actually "horrifying". This is just a minor wakeup call to those who want to, and think they are, eating 100% clean.

Umm, No everyone hasn't been eating this stuff for years...................

I grew up on home grown meat, fruits and vegetables. In fact, I never had fast food until I went into the military and I didn't like it. until years later. It was easy for me to give up because it was never a part of my life.

I have never eaten packaged foods either. I have never had hamburger helper or any of those boxed skillet meals - that sounds gross and disgusting to me too.

I didn't grow up with store bought cookies, potato chips, etc. I don't like chocolate. I won't drink milk unless it is straight from a cow. I can't eat store bought eggs either - grossest thing ever............

And the fact that this nation is getting FATTER and SICKER and we are facing a health care crisis is PROOF enough of the provable harm.

If anyone is eating anything Packaged, including bread, then they are not eating 100% clean.

I eat between 80 and 90% clean - the most processed thing I have is some store bought bacon from time to time or some smoked sausage that might have been cured with nitrates.

I did know most of this stuff already and hence the reason for the last 2 1/2 almost 3 years I have not bought very much meat from a regular grocery store at all. I have purchased into a CSA for vegetables and I go pick my own fruit at the pick your own farm down the road from me.

I don't understand why people don't want to put their health first???? My health and well being is the #1 most important thing I have. Some packaged cakes or cookies is soo not worth putting my health at stake.

Grokette

Lol, for the last 100 years, food has had additives added to them. The food I ate in the 70's (Spam, Vienna sausages, McDonald's) is pretty much the same as now. All this "scare mongering" is nothing more than propaganda. Why are people fatter? Because they consume more than they need to. Why are they sicker? Because they are fatter. There are HUNDREDS of healthy professional athletes that eat this food. Stick to the facts. Eat less and you lose weight. Lose weight and you increase your chances for getting sick less. Eat your essentials and stay within your caloric range and you'll maintain weight.

Some of us didn't grow up with eating that stuff in the 70's..................

ninerbuff

Umm, No everyone hasn't been eating this stuff for years...................

I grew up on home grown meat, fruits and vegetables. In fact, I never had fast food until I went into the military and I didn't like it. until years later. It was easy for me to give up because it was never a part of my life.

I have never eaten packaged foods either. I have never had hamburger helper or any of those boxed skillet meals - that sounds gross and disgusting to me too.

I didn't grow up with store bought cookies, potato chips, etc. I don't like chocolate. I won't drink milk unless it is straight from a cow. I can't eat store bought eggs either - grossest thing ever............

And the fact that this nation is getting FATTER and SICKER and we are facing a health care crisis is PROOF enough of the provable harm.

If anyone is eating anything Packaged, including bread, then they are not eating 100% clean.

I eat between 80 and 90% clean - the most processed thing I have is some store bought bacon from time to time or some smoked sausage that might have been cured with nitrates.

I did know most of this stuff already and hence the reason for the last 2 1/2 almost 3 years I have not bought very much meat from a regular grocery store at all. I have purchased into a CSA for vegetables and I go pick my own fruit at the pick your own farm down the road from me.

I don't understand why people don't want to put their health first???? My health and well being is the #1 most important thing I have. Some packaged cakes or cookies is soo not worth putting my health at stake.

And of course we all grew up EXACTLY like you. Thanks for clearing that up.

ninerbuff

Some of us didn't grow up with eating that stuff in the 70's..................

My point is that additives and chemicals are nothing new to food. Whether you ate it or not, it still existed as it does today.

questionablemethods

Lol, for the last 100 years, food has had additives added to them. The food I ate in the 70's (Spam, Vienna sausages, McDonald's) is pretty much the same as now. All this "scare mongering" is nothing more than propaganda. Why are people fatter? Because they consume more than they need to. Why are they sicker? Because they are fatter. There are HUNDREDS of healthy professional athletes that eat this food. Stick to the facts. Eat less and you lose weight. Lose weight and you increase your chances for getting sick less. Eat your essentials and stay within your caloric range and you'll maintain weight.

I agree that not everyone who eats a bunch of processed food is overweight or sick or that everyone who is overweight or sick is that way because they eat a lot of processed food. I am saying that, from a broad perspective, you cannot argue that our food system has shifted dramatically over the past century (and yeah, the late 60s/70s was when a lot of the shift began--not arguing with you there). And, along with that shift, our waistlines and our health.

Yeah, we are definitely eating more calories today than we were a century ago. Have we suddenly just gotten hungrier? Or is it that cheap, addictive, highly-palatable calories lacking in micronutrients are easier to come by?

I don't think that wood pulp or ammonia in and of itself is highly palatable. That's not what I am saying. I just think these are symptoms of a terribly broken food system and, by consequence, a very unhealthy population.

questionablemethods

Some of us didn't grow up with eating that stuff in the 70's..................

My point is that additives and chemicals are nothing new to food. Whether you ate it or not, it still existed as it does today.

It depends upon your definition of "new." In terms of humanity, "since the 70s" still seems brand spanking new to me.

Grokette

Some of us didn't grow up with eating that stuff in the 70's..................

My point is that additives and chemicals are nothing new to food. Whether you ate it or not, it still existed as it does today.

Actually the food additives are different...............

There wasn't sugar and trans fats in everything. Packaged things were made with real sugar and coconut or palm oil until the corn and canola agencies ran them out of the country and everything got switched over to high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated oils.

Bread and other packaged items went stale and molded. Milk soured and curdled.....................Things don't go bad for a long time now days...............

I was talking to my friend about this and she grew up on that packaged stuff and she said she is trying to not let her kids have that stuff because it is NOT the same as it was in the 70's and it dang sure is not the same as it was 100 years ago.

I am pretty sure these food scientists that boast about their contributions were not alive 100 years ago.

questionablemethods

My sweetie has already been worried that I'm about to stop shaving and go whole hog hippie on him, and damned if I might not start today after reading this article. Yes, I knew that they stored juice in vats for ages and the cellulose doesn't surpise me, but I've been having a hard time buying meat lately and that was just because of the salt solution they inject it all with. After reading the ammonia thing I may just have to get a second job so I can buy my meat at Whole Paycheck. But I'm still going to shave, thank God.

I don't know what is available in your area, but farmer's markets are usually less expensive places to find meat than Whole Foods. Or, go in with a few families to buy a cow. The prices end up being pretty reasonable (of course, you have to have a place to store all the meat -- but if you split it with enough people, it is doable even without a chest freezer).

ninerbuff

I agree that not everyone who eats a bunch of processed food is overweight or sick or that everyone who is overweight or sick is that way because they eat a lot of processed food. I am saying that, from a broad perspective, you cannot argue that our food system has shifted dramatically over the past century (and yeah, the late 60s/70s was when a lot of the shift began--not arguing with you there). And, along with that shift, our waistlines and our health.

Yeah, we are definitely eating more calories today than we were a century ago. Have we suddenly just gotten hungrier? Or is it that cheap, addictive, highly-palatable calories lacking in micronutrients are easier to come by?

I don't think that wood pulp or ammonia in and of itself is highly palatable. That's not what I am saying. I just think these are symptoms of a terribly broken food system and, by consequence, a very unhealthy population.

At the same time technology has gotten better, physical fitness education has declined, nutrition classes are not offered anymore, kids can opt out of PE, people watch more television now than in the 70's, portions are HUGE at everywhere you eat or take out, people work WAY longer hours than before, etc. There's lots that you can correlate to why we have so many fat people out there more now than before.
But think about it...............in countries over seas, the same processed foods are eaten and offered yet many of those countries don't suffer from being overweight. I was in the Philippines this year and ate no different than when I was here. Same Spam, bacon, eggs, steak, canned food items. etc. Lots of HFC's in their products, lots of sodium, lots of fat. Yet the people as a whole are well within weight range.
Had to explain why this happens here and not everywhere else when the same products are available.

ninerbuff

Actually the food additives are different...............

There wasn't sugar and trans fats in everything. Packaged things were made with real sugar and coconut or palm oil until the corn and canola agencies ran them out of the country and everything got switched over to high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated oils.

Bread and other packaged items went stale and molded. Milk soured and curdled.....................Things don't go bad for a long time now days...............

I was talking to my friend about this and she grew up on that packaged stuff and she said she is trying to not let her kids have that stuff because it is NOT the same as it was in the 70's and it dang sure is not the same as it was 100 years ago.

I am pretty sure these food scientists that boast about their contributions were not alive 100 years ago.

Again, if it were as bad as everyone believes, then other countries that have access to the same processed foods should be suffering the same dilema that we have. You don't honestly believe that the processed foods we have here aren't shipped to other countries?

questionablemethods

But think about it...............in countries over seas, the same processed foods are eaten and offered yet many of those countries don't suffer from being overweight. I was in the Philippines this year and ate no different than when I was here. Same Spam, bacon, eggs, steak, canned food items. etc. Lots of HFC's in their products, lots of sodium, lots of fat.
Had to explain why this happens here and not everywhere else when the same products are available.

They are on their way to having the same problem. Everyone always thinks of the "French paradox" when they talk about how much rich food the French eat but yet they stay so thin. Well, yeah, they used to eat rich food--but it was REAL food. A lot of them still do. Tour de France not withstanding, the average French person does not live and die by their gym appointments. In fact, in the two years that I lived there, I don't know that I *saw* a gym in the sense that we have them here. They walk more than we do, but that's about the only difference I saw. Most Americans I know have spent far more time consciously exercising than any of my French friends.

However, their food system has gotten more and more industrialized over the past couple decades too -- and they are getting heavier right along with it. I saw it on the news all the time while I lived there and a Weight Watchers chapter opened up in the small town where I was teaching.

The reason these other countries that have adopted a lot of our diet aren't as bad off as we are is because we are "innovators" here in the US. We are leading the way and they are "behind" us.

There is the adage that weight loss is about 80% diet and 20% exercise. Or, in the bodybuilding world, they will say "abs are made in the kitchen." So, why then does it not make sense to shift the majority of the burden of our national obesity problems to our national food supply?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that video games and long work commutes don't have anything to do with it, but we are not eating good, wholesome food like our grandparents did. I don't care about comparisons with how things were in the 1970s. Like I said, that was the beginning of a lot of this. How does our food system now compare with that of 1900?

ninerbuff

They are on their way to having the same problem. Everyone always thinks of the "French paradox" when they talk about how much rich food the French eat but yet they stay so thin. Well, yeah, they used to eat rich food--but it was REAL food. A lot of them still do. Tour de France not withstanding, the average French person does not live and die by their gym appointments. In fact, in the two years that I lived there, I don't know that I *saw* a gym in the sense that we have them here. They walk more than we do, but that's about the only difference I saw. Most Americans I know have spent far more time consciously exercising than any of my French friends.

However, their food system has gotten more and more industrialized over the past couple decades too -- and they are getting heavier right along with it. I saw it on the news all the time while I lived there and a Weight Watchers chapter opened up in the small town where I was teaching.

There is the adage that weight loss is about 80% diet and 20% exercise. Or, in the bodybuilding world, they will say "abs are made in the kitchen." So, why then does it not make sense to shift the majority of the burden of our national obesity problems to our national food supply?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that video games and long work commutes don't have anything to do with it, but we are not eating good, wholesome food like our grandparents did. I don't care about comparisons with how things were in the 1970s. Like I said, that was the beginning of a lot of this. How does our food system now compare with that of 1900?

I will say it's because if it shifted that direction than it will become unaffordable for many families. While health should be the NUMBER 1 desire of any individual, it's not. We see that today without having to do a study.
To shift to it, more foods would have to be shipped daily, meaning more workers and hours, meaning more trucks on the road, meaning more pollution, meaning that there would be a lot of waste because foods may ripen or go bad faster, meaning that even supermarkets would have to change work schedules. All this would definitely increase the cost of food. Organic alone costs more in most cases, and to shift that to a more industrialized harvesting, growing, etc. will increase the cost immensely. Will that decrease the overweight population? I doubt it because eating habits would have to change too.
It may not seem right, but people will take processed foods for cost over more healthful alternatives. You see that today. I'm saying take what we have now, and just do what you can physically to not let it make you overweight.

questionablemethods

I'm saying take what we have now, and just do what you can physically to not let it make you overweight.

Sounds a lot like "sit down and shut up." I still believe we vote with our dollars. Decide what is important to you and spend the money you have in a way that reflects your values. Up until getting married last year, I've lived the last decade on ~$12-18K/year (while not going into debt and contributing to a Roth IRA). Real food is important to me. You do what is important to you.

I like how this guy (Joel Salatin) addresses the issue: https://player.vimeo.com/video/28017707

questionablemethods

To shift to it, more foods would have to be shipped daily, meaning more workers and hours, meaning more trucks on the road, meaning more pollution, meaning that there would be a lot of waste because foods may ripen or go bad faster, meaning that even supermarkets would have to change work schedules.

Also, I don't quite see the logic that trying to move back to a more local food supply system would result in more food being shipped and more trucks on the road, etc.

In light of this discussion, I thought I would re-watch the documentary Food, Inc. in the background. The movie provided an interesting statistic about the typical chicken producer for companies like Tyson.

A typical grower with two chicken houses has borrowed over $500,000 (for the system that the larger company requires them to have, etc.) and earns about $18,000 a year.

Our system doesn't really seem to be benefiting the average farmer/grower, either.

Grokette

Actually the food additives are different...............

There wasn't sugar and trans fats in everything. Packaged things were made with real sugar and coconut or palm oil until the corn and canola agencies ran them out of the country and everything got switched over to high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated oils.

Bread and other packaged items went stale and molded. Milk soured and curdled.....................Things don't go bad for a long time now days...............

I was talking to my friend about this and she grew up on that packaged stuff and she said she is trying to not let her kids have that stuff because it is NOT the same as it was in the 70's and it dang sure is not the same as it was 100 years ago.

I am pretty sure these food scientists that boast about their contributions were not alive 100 years ago.

Again, if it were as bad as everyone believes, then other countries that have access to the same processed foods should be suffering the same dilema that we have. You don't honestly believe that the processed foods we have here aren't shipped to other countries?

According to the WHO many, many other countries are suffering from the same dilemma we are. There are countries that are seeing diseases that were known only as "Western diseases"............obesity, Diabetes, cancer, etc.

It is just the United States is leading the way.

Grokette

To shift to it, more foods would have to be shipped daily, meaning more workers and hours, meaning more trucks on the road, meaning more pollution, meaning that there would be a lot of waste because foods may ripen or go bad faster, meaning that even supermarkets would have to change work schedules.

Also, I don't quite see the logic that trying to move back to a more local food supply system would result in more food being shipped and more trucks on the road, etc.

In light of this discussion, I thought I would re-watch the documentary Food, Inc. in the background. The movie provided an interesting statistic about the typical chicken producer for companies like Tyson.

A typical grower with two chicken houses has borrowed over $500,000 (for the system that the larger company requires them to have, etc.) and earns about $18,000 a year.

Our system doesn't really seem to be benefiting the average farmer/grower, either.

Amen. I feel sorry for the average farmer. It is like slavery or rather indentured servitude................These companies are FORCING the farmer to build these building in a certain way and have complete control over the birds and the farmer, their building, etc. The farmers don't make anything and are constantly being told what to do.

And don't get me started on the innocent farmers that are cultivating their own seed blends and don't want to conform to the ALL MIGHTY Monsanto and Monsanto sends out their "investigators" to pillage in this innocent farmers field and low and behold the poor farmer gets slapped with a gigantic law suit for patent infringement.

Which we all know that the cross pollination is happening naturally through the wind blowing or animals and birds carrying the pollen from one field to another.


This is agricultural RAPE that you are buying into when you purchase processed foods.

kleverkira

Wow. Fortunately, I don't eat a lot of that stuff anyway, or at least not very frequently. It's a little frightening what the food industry will do to turn a profit.