Increasing shelf-life makes food safer for longer, you don't have to buy food as often, so that's the opposite of increasing the bottom line.
Noted Quack The Food Babe, her critics and the war on Chemicals in our foodstuffs
- Thread starter Kinitari
- Start date
- Status
Increasing shelf-life makes food safer for longer, you don't have to buy food as often, so that's the opposite of increasing the bottom line.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Africans aren't people, Opiate, the EU already decided on that one when they decided that they needed real food without any chemicals. Get it through that skull of yours.
bearythebear
Member
Without these "chemicals", food prices will increase exponentially, and good luck buying an avocado out of season. If we really want to talk about the way our human society is set up, that's a different conversation.
The following paper should give pause to the idea that anything that has been approved is OK:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237642/
"Many foods contain preservatives, emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, food coloring, and other fillers that have not been previously consumed in significant quantities. Virtually none of these nonfood compounds have been carefully assessed for a potential impact on obesity or diabetes."
"The ability of mono-oleoylglycerol (MOG) to stimulate insulin secretion at basal glucose was concentration dependent and significant at a concentration as low as 25 μmol/L (Fig. 4B). The physiological relevance of monoglycerides is not established because there appear to be few measurements (25,26) and no standard for the level of circulating or tissue monoglycerides."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237642/
"Many foods contain preservatives, emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, food coloring, and other fillers that have not been previously consumed in significant quantities. Virtually none of these nonfood compounds have been carefully assessed for a potential impact on obesity or diabetes."
"The ability of mono-oleoylglycerol (MOG) to stimulate insulin secretion at basal glucose was concentration dependent and significant at a concentration as low as 25 μmol/L (Fig. 4B). The physiological relevance of monoglycerides is not established because there appear to be few measurements (25,26) and no standard for the level of circulating or tissue monoglycerides."
irfaanator
Banned
man I lost it at the oxygen excerpt.
AbsolutBro
Member
#EatBugs2015 #TheREALpaleoDiet
Sorry if that seemed rude or something, but it actually was (and still sort of is) an honest question. I'm mostly curious where you draw the lines. I see your point about the medicine (though I was thinking more something like Ibuprofen which doesn't generally have deadly side effects), though it was meant more to be an illustrative question.
For instance, carbonated water isn't really "natural". Nor is cheese or even butter. I mean, they're made from natural ingredients but still processed.
Since I've been growing my own produce I admit to being very picky about certain things, tomatoes especially. I generally avoid buying grocery store produce, but more because it doesn't taste like it should than because of chemical ripening agents that are used.
The thing is:
SOME research MAY be flawed.
Literally everything this lady is spewing has no sound base.
Seeing the difference yet?
Here is another recent example.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7541/full/nature14232.html
Grocery stores wouldn't be paying for expired products, it's absolutely helpful to the food producers bottom line. (Not that I mind the preservatives or that I don't see the consumer benefit as well)
I actually preferred multivarible calc to the other calculus courses I took. But in general I didn't care for the math courses that much. The physics courses on the other hand I actually enjoyed.
entremet
Member
trans fats are good example of food made in lab that wreaks havoc on blood lipid profiles. But we didn't know this for decades after their introduction.
Now they are banned in many jurisdictions and the science against them is solid.
I think that's what Dennis is talking about. food babe is still a quack tho.
Now they are banned in many jurisdictions and the science against them is solid.
I think that's what Dennis is talking about. food babe is still a quack tho.
There is no hard and firm rules for me. It is not like I try to control all the food I eat. I eat out and you know that ain't going to without a lot of added stuff. But I try to minimize things that seem unnecessary to me when I can.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
True, but we do need to look at cases where we genetically modify plants to withstand pesticides and herbicides. After which they can bathe the plants in the substances, substances which when consumed in large enough quantities are harmful.
On the other hand, modifying plants to be resistant to pests or block weeds, I'm all for.
Ah, yeah. I saw that a few weeks ago. The relevance of the gut microbiome has only just started to be recognized within the past several years, well after many of these food additives have been approved. Just how all of these novel food additives interact with the countless arrays of microbiota that inhabit our guts probably won't be well understood for a while.
So, no snark here, but don't you think this is a bit silly? If we dig very hard, we might find that some of the additives we put in food may (very tenuously) have a negative effect on our bodies. Like obesity.
With that in mind, there things that are very very strongly linked to obesity, and these are found entirely in natural foods. Sugar, basically. Does that mean people shouldn't eat Apple's, for example?
My question is basically, where is the line? If someone shows that eating a lot of fruits, vegetables and grains can lead to a host of negative health effects (I'll save you the trouble, it's been shown) - does that mean you shouldn't consume these things?
Almost everything we eat, if we look hard (or not even that hard) can be linked to things like obesity, poor cardiovascular health or other problems. So where is the line?
I definitely agree that more research to confirm the safety of the things we eat is a good thing. The issue is where we draw the line. For instance, some newer preservatives haven't had their long term effects tested because... they haven't been around for 50 years, let alone 100. The only way to actually test how new products affect people 100 years from now is to let people eat them and find out.
Or rather, it's not the only way. You could also run century long tests that check everything you could possibly think of -- all types of cancers, heart disease, hypertension, colitis, and so forth -- on every new compound we create.
That would certainly increase safety, but it would simultaneously prevent anyone from ever making a product ever again. No company has the money to test every food product for every possible malady, and run that test for 100 years, before they're allowed to sell that product to consumers. They would just stop making new things in that case.
I think we can have a reasonable discussion about how much testing should be done on new preservatives and additives and enhancements and so forth, but I find that many people seem to feel that there is never enough study. Did you show that GMOs are safe when eaten for 10 years? Fine, but what about 20 years? Okay, now what about 30 years? How about 40? Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't do long term studies -- obviously we should -- but if you insist that nothing be sold until we have a century of data that examines every possible malady a new product might cause, then new products will cease to be made.
And millions of people will starve in the meantime.
Or rather, it's not the only way. You could also run century long tests that check everything you could possibly think of -- all types of cancers, heart disease, hypertension, colitis, and so forth -- on every new compound we create.
That would certainly increase safety, but it would simultaneously prevent anyone from ever making a product ever again. No company has the money to test every food product for every possible malady, and run that test for 100 years, before they're allowed to sell that product to consumers. They would just stop making new things in that case.
I think we can have a reasonable discussion about how much testing should be done on new preservatives and additives and enhancements and so forth, but I find that many people seem to feel that there is never enough study. Did you show that GMOs are safe when eaten for 10 years? Fine, but what about 20 years? Okay, now what about 30 years? How about 40? Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't do long term studies -- obviously we should -- but if you insist that nothing be sold until we have a century of data that examines every possible malady a new product might cause, then new products will cease to be made.
And millions of people will starve in the meantime.
More Fun To Compute
Member
I'm all for having chemicals in food because I imagine that putting a vacuum in my tummy would be painful as well as not as tasty,.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
You are gonna have to define synthetic chemical crap.
I basically tell my coworkers I won't eat subway because they put rubber in their bread (the real reason - their subs are awful). This woman started that because of a chemical used in one form is a common food chemical but in another is used to make rubber. She takes small associations and then writes sensational headlines to get website hits which just about all sites do these days. Sadly it seems to work with her.
Subway has now removed it because of her campaign.
Lol - I see this has already been brought up several times.
Subway has now removed it because of her campaign.
Lol - I see this has already been brought up several times.
Simply Sarah
Member
Apple's what? All of their products? Are iPhones OK even if iPads are ruled out? The new MacBook is fine, right? I mean, it's so light and thin that it shouldn't kill my diet. How do the Apple Watch models compare nutritionally?
But seriously, I both agree and disagree with you. I agree in the sense that natural stuff, even if it has been consumed by humans for a long time, may not be the best for us either and "synthetic" stuff can certainly be fine. That said, we also shouldn't dismiss actual research in to "unnatural" materials if it show areas for concern.
entremet
Member
Trans fats are a big one.
As another example, bringing a new medication to the consumer market takes years of testing. On average, from the conception of a new drug to the release on the marketplace, it takes 5-10 years. During that time, they first do preliminary studies, then (if successful) start doing studies on rats, then (if successful) start doing phase 1 trials on humans, with very limited sample sizes, then (if successful) they start doing phase 2 trials with a large data set and more aggressive dosage, then (if successful) they start doing phase 3 trials, which is practical clinical use.
Now, we could add more to this. Maybe they could study the effects in pigs before they move from rats to humans. Sometimes they do this already, but they don't have to. Maybe we could add a fourth phase that does more robust study on some particular maladies.
But the point is that we have to draw the line somewhere. Yes, if drug companies had to do 20 years of testing instead of 5-10, there would probably be fewer medications that get through and only later are discovered to cause things like heart disease due to long term use. 30 years would be even safer than that. And so forth.
The goal here isn't to stay that longer, more thorough testing = automatically worse, it's only to show that there is a cost. Fewer drugs will be created if we insist on a 20 year test cycle; further, some people who could have benefited from the drug would have gotten it if it were available 10 years earlier. If you want 100% absolutely certainty that a new drug, or food, or preservative, cannot possibly cause any harm, then you will never let anything out of the trial phase, because there is always something else to check for, or a new time horizon to consider.
Now, we could add more to this. Maybe they could study the effects in pigs before they move from rats to humans. Sometimes they do this already, but they don't have to. Maybe we could add a fourth phase that does more robust study on some particular maladies.
But the point is that we have to draw the line somewhere. Yes, if drug companies had to do 20 years of testing instead of 5-10, there would probably be fewer medications that get through and only later are discovered to cause things like heart disease due to long term use. 30 years would be even safer than that. And so forth.
The goal here isn't to stay that longer, more thorough testing = automatically worse, it's only to show that there is a cost. Fewer drugs will be created if we insist on a 20 year test cycle; further, some people who could have benefited from the drug would have gotten it if it were available 10 years earlier. If you want 100% absolutely certainty that a new drug, or food, or preservative, cannot possibly cause any harm, then you will never let anything out of the trial phase, because there is always something else to check for, or a new time horizon to consider.
CornBurrito
Member
That's not a definition.
Simply Sarah
Member
First off, not all trans fats are "synthetic" as there are some that exist completely "naturally". Second, this doesn't really answer the previously mentioned questions about where the line on "natural" is.
Lastly, and more in tune with reality, trans fats have proven to be less and less the apocalyptic food additive that they were originally thought of as and more as a normalized food additive that is better avoided in high quantities.
entremet
Member
I'm aware. I ahould have clarified as those derived from vegetable oils. Those are not naturally occurring. There is some processing involved. Actually, a lot.
entremet
Member
Well the issue is that trans fats were in everything. So overconsumption is not uncommon.
BlastProcessing
Member
Cancer cells are full of Dihydrogen Monoxide. And Hitler drank it everyday because he believed it sustained him. The bastard even bathed in the stuff! Sicko.
Agreed.
As I already mentioned quite a few times: Some so called immune system diseases happen to younger and younger humans.
For example Ulcerative Colitis + Crohn's Disease. Noone knows what's exactly causing them and they are not curable, which means some kind of medication is needed for the rest of the patient's lives. For UC the cause of the inflammations is known (and no, it's not the immune system going berserk), but it's still not known what's causing that cause.
Those diseases happened to 25-35 year olds 10 to 15 years ago. That was the common age. Nowadays those happen to 1 or 2 year olds (yeah, no typo. 1 or 2 year olds, where some cases are so severe, that they require chemo-therapy). They also happened in western countries only (no Asia including Japan and especially no third world countries - strangely). Nowadays they happen there as well (I think 3rd world countries not included).
Which means it's pretty obvious that some speciality in western countries causes them. And this cause seems to have gotten worse otherwise the age of the patients wouldn't have changed so badly.
What research are you referring to? All that research I've read has demonstrated that partially hydrogenated vegetables oils / elaidic acid, the kind that was found in stick margarine and many baked goods, dramatically increases heart attack risk. From what I remember, increased daily consumption of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils by 1% can increase the risk of having a heart attack by ~20%. There is a reson PHVOs are essentially being phased out of the food supply.
Like most woo advocates, spreading misinformation and fear. Just seeing the topic title made me feel depressed, I've already heard and read too much about this ignorant terrible human being but I couldn't look away.
I actually don't disagree with you, being reactive to new information is as important I think to thoroughly testing foodstuffs before we put them on the market.
I just wonder what we should react to. Let's say we make some compound that increases food shelf life by 3x, which we've already discussed why is great in this thread. It seems safe, passes preliminary tests and makes it to market. Years down the line, it's a defacto preservative, and it's helped reduce the prices of food around the world. However, new research shows that if consumed in very high quantities, it can give you the runs. There doesn't seem to be any other side effects. What should be done?
Simply Sarah
Member
Can you provide sources on this? As far as I am aware the science against trans fats has gotten stronger rather than weaker, although there may still be some questions about certain natural trans fats.
It will always be a risk/cost-benefit situation in my mind that really doesn't have a general answer, although when it comes to food for normal consumption the acceptable risks and costs will generally be much lower than, for example, a last resort antibiotic.
The Albatross
Member
I think I can count 8 photos of herself on her articles. That places her firmly in the "vapid self promoter" category for me.
Sorry, still looking for a free source on this. Keep in mind, what I've read doesn't obviate the want for a global ban on trans fats, it was just a study that wanted to re-evaluate some of the more apocalyptic studies done in the 90s and early 00s. An example of science continuing the due diligence that is required for making sweeping statements on chemical intake and health, something that most "natural is better" food slingers don't do.
NekoFever
Member
I'm amazed the Food Babe has lasted this long given her stance on chemicals:
"There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever."
"There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever."
I swear i get angry at the mere mention of "Chemicals" and "Natural" stuff.
Everything's chemical, and either everything is natural or nothing is.
Sigh.
ScottSullivan
Member
I look forward to the eventual John Oliver episode skewering this stuff
way more
Member
She's an idiot but plenty of gaffers exhibit her philosophy of chemicals.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...beaver_ass_coal_tar_and_yoga_mat_in_your.html
She wants Yellow Dye removed from Kraft Mac and Cheese because they are colloquially known as coal tar.
It's pure framing.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...beaver_ass_coal_tar_and_yoga_mat_in_your.html
She wants Yellow Dye removed from Kraft Mac and Cheese because they are colloquially known as coal tar.
It's pure framing.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
It's still kind of different. We understand how sugar works, derived from Sugar Cane and Honey (technically honey is processed lol). We know how the body works, if the sugar is not burned off it will turn to fat.
Research is starting to show that a lot of our modern food messes with the insulin in our body possibly having a direct influence on our bodies storing fat. Instead of either burning off the food that's coming in or just pooping it out, the body is now being instructed to store all energy coming in.
Beer Monkey
Member
Lumination
'enry 'ollins
After reading the OP, I read up on this woman a bit. I couldn't keep going. It's like if Jenny McCarthy and Dr. Oz had a kid.
J
Jpop
Unconfirmed Member
People like this are the worst. Anti-Vaccer as well? GTFO.
Flu-Shot as a genocide tool? What am I even...
Flu-Shot as a genocide tool? What am I even...
BrokenFiction
Member
A forensic chemist who goes by Science Babe (out of hate for Food Babe) wrote a devastating smack down on Hari.
http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit-1694902226?rev=1428349613882
http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit-1694902226?rev=1428349613882
Beer Monkey
Member
In my experience the rhetoric, logic, and tactics of the anti-GMO movement mirror those of the anti-vaxxer movement so closely it's almost like they stole the playbook.
Sadly the gap between what the public believes versus scientists on GMOs is HUGE, there is much work to be done educating people...
Quite a bit of food interacts with the insulin in our body. Old food and new, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, or something we should inherently fear.
Yeah, the great flu-shot genocide of 1979. It was a method for thinning the intelligent people of the population so big pharma could enslave the rest of us. [citation needed]
- Status