Fair Trade and Organic..

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Babbles
In my strong opinion - and the opinion of many professionals - is that organic is more of a joke and a scam.

If you really want to make some sort of impact it is best to buy local goods when possible, regardless if they are grown organically or not.

Many organic fruits and veggies nowadays are grown on the large scale farms and are too trucked in to your grocery store from all over the country, so there is still a significant 'carbon footprint' due to transportation costs. Also organically grown foods are typically less robust and offer lower yields so it takes more resources and times to get the same amount that conventional means may use.

Anyhow, again, buy local.

People who buy organic generally don't do it for the "carbon" factor. They do it because they don't want to eat pesticides or GMOs, or because they believe organic foods taste better. If you didn't realize that, your strong opinion isn't worth a whole lot.

Babbles has done lab research on it, I imagine he looks at it first from a perspective from his research. He answered the question again later when I clarified it.

Babbles, were the pesticides on the Organic food lower in quantities if not variety?

That is touch to answer, every food product we tested had different results. I could not say all of X is lower than Y. We analyzed hundreds of samples with ~500 analytes per sample, I just simply do not remember all of the results! Typically, though, we only had about the same dozen or so that would show up - if they showed up that is.

In most cases, the results were below our linear detection limit. Meaning we would run a known standard at a concentration equal to ~2 ppb (parts per billion). Technically that would be the lowest concentration we could report- we have not proven that we could see lower (even though if we tried we could for some analytes). Anyhow, we would still liberally extrapolate concentrations below that detection limit. So we may get a value of 0.4pbb and the problem is that we have no confidence in the accuracy of that value.
The point of the study, though, was just to provide information to monitor things to see if the relative concentrations increase or decrease, not necessarily what the exact value it is.

Those values are crazy low. Well, well, below any sort of LD50. Pesticides are used at percent levels and were were monitoring things at 1ppb.

Ah alright, thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

If you want to read things for yourself, look HERE

HERE are the results for the FDA monitoring program up to 2006.

Enjoy!

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: chusteczka
I avoid non-organic milk. There is a definite taste, composition, and overall quality difference between organic and non-organic milk. Other "organic" items I give due consideration and preference to but not exclusively.

This is my preferred milk, in order:

1. Organic Valley Cooperative
2. Horizon Organic

While it is true the term "organic" is often used as a marketing gimmick, I do not trust most "professional" opinions due to the fact that they often continue to trust the FDA and have not yet outgrown the propaganda they learned while living in the United States. To me, their "professional" opinions are worthless because they do not know anything outside of good old homegrown American propaganda as it concerns our cancer causing food supply.

The taste and composition difference is most likely because all of the organic milk I've ever seen is ultra-pasteurized, which heats the milk to a considerably higher temperature than that used in conventional pasteurization. The result is a much longer shelf life, which I would assume is desirable since organic milk probably doesn't sell as quickly as the regular stuff.

Originally posted by: Babbles
I previously addressed the pesticide issue - it is really moot. The GMO issue, in my opinion is a joke as well. People have been cross-breading strains of crops - and animals - for thousands of years. Then as soon as somebody did it in a lab under different conditions than *gasp* all of sudden it's bad. GMOs have the potential to save millions of lives and it is ridiculous to think that they are somehow an evil unleashed on the world. The EU, historically against them, have been letting GMOs into their union because there is really no harm with them.

And that leads to people with no nutritional or medical background writing books, advocating a return to a "Stone Age diet" as they call it. As you alluded to, we've been accelerating the process of natural selection for millennia, taking seeds from the individual plants with the most desirable traits, and using them to plant the fields of the next season.
If our diets were really so toxic and carcinogenic, I doubt we'd have our average lifespans of 70+ years; we'd all be dead of cancer by age 30.

 

[chusteczka]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: chusteczka
I avoid non-organic milk. There is a definite taste, composition, and overall quality difference between organic and non-organic milk. Other "organic" items I give due consideration and preference to but not exclusively.

This is my preferred milk, in order:

1. Organic Valley Cooperative
2. Horizon Organic

While it is true the term "organic" is often used as a marketing gimmick, I do not trust most "professional" opinions due to the fact that they often continue to trust the FDA and have not yet outgrown the propaganda they learned while living in the United States. To me, their "professional" opinions are worthless because they do not know anything outside of good old homegrown American propaganda as it concerns our cancer causing food supply.

The taste and composition difference is most likely because all of the organic milk I've ever seen is ultra-pasteurized, which heats the milk to a considerably higher temperature than that used in conventional pasteurization. The result is a much longer shelf life, which I would assume is desirable since organic milk probably doesn't sell as quickly as the regular stuff.

That is a good point about the ultra-pasteurization. I was wondering about the longer than expected Sell By date but did not give it enough thought. I do not see any harm in the ultra-pasteurization though, do you? The milk is ultra-pasteurized in Europe, then put in an air-tight box on a non-refrigerated shelf. That European milk is far better quality than the milk here in the US, with the US organic milk coming close.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: chusteczka
I avoid non-organic milk. There is a definite taste, composition, and overall quality difference between organic and non-organic milk. Other "organic" items I give due consideration and preference to but not exclusively.

This is my preferred milk, in order:

1. Organic Valley Cooperative
2. Horizon Organic

While it is true the term "organic" is often used as a marketing gimmick, I do not trust most "professional" opinions due to the fact that they often continue to trust the FDA and have not yet outgrown the propaganda they learned while living in the United States. To me, their "professional" opinions are worthless because they do not know anything outside of good old homegrown American propaganda as it concerns our cancer causing food supply.

In my opinion, for the most part the FDA is a pretty good institution. They are sort of like airline safety where nobody hears about the hundreds of planes that land safely it is just the random accident that works people up. Ditto with the FDA, people do not recognize the thousands of thousands of products tested and evaluated, but one nightmare case like Vioxx screws up perception. Granted they are a bureaucratic organization so there are the natural problems when dealing with a government agency, but for the most part I think they are decently managed.

Over many years now, there has been a drive to established international harmonization of standards and testing - this is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Many of the FDA testing guidelines, chiefly preclicinal GLP (good laboratory practices) and GMP (good manufacturing practices) were adopted as de facto standards for OECD.

Basically one can hate on the FDA and see it as American-centric, however the standards put forth by the FDA have essentially been adopted as international standards.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Organic = less pesticides used?

Not really. It just means they didn't use synthetic pesticides.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: chusteczka
That is a good point about the ultra-pasteurization. I was wondering about the longer than expected Sell By date but did not give it enough thought. I do not see any harm in the ultra-pasteurization though, do you? The milk is ultra-pasteurized in Europe, then put in an air-tight box on a non-refrigerated shelf. That European milk is far better quality than the milk here in the US, with the US organic milk coming close.

It is my understanding that heat can change some nutritional properties of food. How significant this is, or how big the resulting difference is from regular vs ultra pasteurization, I do not know.

 

[blinky8225]

My understanding of organic food is that the nutritional benefits are little to non-existent. However, the environmental benefits are very real. Considering how precious of a resource soil is, I think that is reason enough to go organic. Anyway, inherently they should be slightly more expensive but not that more. Unfortunately, the gov't only subsidizes big factory farm operations, while organic farms do not receive any such subsidies.

 

[jiggahertz]

Originally posted by: Jumpem
I don't even pay attention to any of that. though if anything, goods with liberal slogans all over them would discourage me from purchasing them.

I only buy Free Trade coffee.

 

[chusteczka]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: chusteczka
I avoid non-organic milk. There is a definite taste, composition, and overall quality difference between organic and non-organic milk. Other "organic" items I give due consideration and preference to but not exclusively.

This is my preferred milk, in order:

1. Organic Valley Cooperative
2. Horizon Organic

While it is true the term "organic" is often used as a marketing gimmick, I do not trust most "professional" opinions due to the fact that they often continue to trust the FDA and have not yet outgrown the propaganda they learned while living in the United States. To me, their "professional" opinions are worthless because they do not know anything outside of good old homegrown American propaganda as it concerns our cancer causing food supply.

In my opinion, for the most part the FDA is a pretty good institution. They are sort of like airline safety where nobody hears about the hundreds of planes that land safely it is just the random accident that works people up. Ditto with the FDA, people do not recognize the thousands of thousands of products tested and evaluated, but one nightmare case like Vioxx screws up perception. Granted they are a bureaucratic organization so there are the natural problems when dealing with a government agency, but for the most part I think they are decently managed.

Over many years now, there has been a drive to established international harmonization of standards and testing - this is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Many of the FDA testing guidelines, chiefly preclicinal GLP (good laboratory practices) and GMP (good manufacturing practices) were adopted as de facto standards for OECD.

Basically one can hate on the FDA and see it as American-centric, however the standards put forth by the FDA have essentially been adopted as international standards.

What you say is true and I agree with this. Growing up, I gave these accomplishments primary concern and trusted the FDA had my best interests as their primary concern. Then while in college, I talked with Europeans on food quality and they opened my eyes to the failures of the FDA.

The FDA permits use of harmful artificial sweeteners, food colorings, oils, thinning agents, and preservatives in our food. Food is allowed to be processed to a point where all the nutrition is removed from it. The unfortunate bureaucratic aspect of the FDA allows successful bribing of officials in the name of lobbying. It is extremely difficult to find food that does not comprise some of these harmful ingredients. This is where I believe the FDA has betrayed the American trust.

It is my belief the large number of overweight people in America is not primarily due to a combination of a sedentary lifestyle and gluttony but rather extremely poor food quality available. I have realized there are two types of food available here in the US; food for the masses to keep the poor people in this country from revolting due to starvation and the hard-to-find good quality food that can be safely consumed. It used to be the two main expenses in any budget was housing and food. Cheap food has changed this budgetary concern but replaces it with a shortened lifespan due to cancer or even organ failure. Sure, the blue-collar worker performs physical labor to a degree that tires and wears out the body to a point where many experience a shorter than average life expectancy but it is almost as if the poor food quality ensures people do not live to retirement age.

This potential connection of the FDA regulating food quality that kills people before retirement then slips into conspiracy when it is realized that our government does not have enough social security money to pay everyone when they retire. The question arises if our government wants to lower the quality of food to increase profits and decrease the lifespan of the average American to avoid paying social security benefits.

These realizations lead me to strongly believe the best health care system for this country is a social system that provides everyone standard care for free. In order to decrease expenses, Congress would then regulate food quality better to ensure people live healthier lives without using the expensive services of the social health care system. This would lead to positive regulations in other areas of our life including an increase in available public transportation so people will get more exercise. This direction then slips into America's reliance on oil.

To me, the FDA's approval of harmful food is merely a symptom of poor government relying on capitalistic failures for continued personal gain while betraying the public trust.

As far as genetically modified foods are concerned, I have not yet formed a solid opinion. I am concerned with food combinations being developed so quickly that the human body does not recognize the new molecules as food with the potential the body may react to these unrecognized food molecules in unforeseen ways. I have not yet seen strong evidence to support this but do give consideration to colon cancer and other cancers of the digestive system.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: chusteczka
I avoid non-organic milk. There is a definite taste, composition, and overall quality difference between organic and non-organic milk. Other "organic" items I give due consideration and preference to but not exclusively.

This is my preferred milk, in order:

1. Organic Valley Cooperative
2. Horizon Organic

While it is true the term "organic" is often used as a marketing gimmick, I do not trust most "professional" opinions due to the fact that they often continue to trust the FDA and have not yet outgrown the propaganda they learned while living in the United States. To me, their "professional" opinions are worthless because they do not know anything outside of good old homegrown American propaganda as it concerns our cancer causing food supply.

In my opinion, for the most part the FDA is a pretty good institution. They are sort of like airline safety where nobody hears about the hundreds of planes that land safely it is just the random accident that works people up. Ditto with the FDA, people do not recognize the thousands of thousands of products tested and evaluated, but one nightmare case like Vioxx screws up perception. Granted they are a bureaucratic organization so there are the natural problems when dealing with a government agency, but for the most part I think they are decently managed.

Over many years now, there has been a drive to established international harmonization of standards and testing - this is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Many of the FDA testing guidelines, chiefly preclicinal GLP (good laboratory practices) and GMP (good manufacturing practices) were adopted as de facto standards for OECD.

Basically one can hate on the FDA and see it as American-centric, however the standards put forth by the FDA have essentially been adopted as international standards.

What you say is true and I agree with this. Growing up, I gave these accomplishments primary concern and trusted the FDA had my best interests as their primary concern. Then while in college, I talked with Europeans on food quality and they opened my eyes to the failures of the FDA.

The FDA permits use of harmful artificial sweeteners, food colorings, oils, thinning agents, and preservatives in our food. Food is allowed to be processed to a point where all the nutrition is removed from it. The unfortunate bureaucratic aspect of the FDA allows successful bribing of officials in the name of lobbying. It is extremely difficult to find food that does not comprise some of these harmful ingredients. This is where I believe the FDA has betrayed the American trust.

It is my belief the large number of overweight people in America is not primarily due to a combination of a sedentary lifestyle and gluttony but rather extremely poor food quality available. I have realized there are two types of food available here in the US; food for the masses to keep the poor people in this country from revolting due to starvation and the hard-to-find good quality food that can be safely consumed. It used to be the two main expenses in any budget was housing and food. Cheap food has changed this budgetary concern but replaces it with a shortened lifespan due to cancer or even organ failure. Sure, the blue-collar worker performs physical labor to a degree that tires and wears out the body to a point where many experience a shorter than average life expectancy but it is almost as if the poor food quality ensures people do not live to retirement age.

This potential connection of the FDA regulating food quality that kills people before retirement then slips into conspiracy when it is realized that our government does not have enough social security money to pay everyone when they retire. The question arises if our government wants to lower the quality of food to increase profits and decrease the lifespan of the average American to avoid paying social security benefits.

These realizations lead me to strongly believe the best health care system for this country is a social system that provides everyone standard care for free. In order to decrease expenses, Congress would then regulate food quality better to ensure people live healthier lives without using the expensive services of the social health care system. This would lead to positive regulations in other areas of our life including an increase in available public transportation so people will get more exercise. This direction then slips into America's reliance on oil.

To me, the FDA's approval of harmful food is merely a symptom of poor government relying on capitalistic failures for continued personal gain while betraying the public trust.

As far as genetically modified foods are concerned, I have not yet formed a solid opinion. I am concerned with food combinations being developed so quickly that the human body does not recognize the new molecules as food with the potential the body may react to these unrecognized food molecules in unforeseen ways. I have not yet seen strong evidence to support this but do give consideration to colon cancer and other cancers of the digestive system.

lol.... crazy people

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: chusteczka
I avoid non-organic milk. There is a definite taste, composition, and overall quality difference between organic and non-organic milk. Other "organic" items I give due consideration and preference to but not exclusively.

This is my preferred milk, in order:

1. Organic Valley Cooperative
2. Horizon Organic

While it is true the term "organic" is often used as a marketing gimmick, I do not trust most "professional" opinions due to the fact that they often continue to trust the FDA and have not yet outgrown the propaganda they learned while living in the United States. To me, their "professional" opinions are worthless because they do not know anything outside of good old homegrown American propaganda as it concerns our cancer causing food supply.

In my opinion, for the most part the FDA is a pretty good institution. They are sort of like airline safety where nobody hears about the hundreds of planes that land safely it is just the random accident that works people up. Ditto with the FDA, people do not recognize the thousands of thousands of products tested and evaluated, but one nightmare case like Vioxx screws up perception. Granted they are a bureaucratic organization so there are the natural problems when dealing with a government agency, but for the most part I think they are decently managed.

Over many years now, there has been a drive to established international harmonization of standards and testing - this is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Many of the FDA testing guidelines, chiefly preclicinal GLP (good laboratory practices) and GMP (good manufacturing practices) were adopted as de facto standards for OECD.

Basically one can hate on the FDA and see it as American-centric, however the standards put forth by the FDA have essentially been adopted as international standards.

What you say is true and I agree with this. Growing up, I gave these accomplishments primary concern and trusted the FDA had my best interests as their primary concern. Then while in college, I talked with Europeans on food quality and they opened my eyes to the failures of the FDA.

The FDA permits use of harmful artificial sweeteners, food colorings, oils, thinning agents, and preservatives in our food. Food is allowed to be processed to a point where all the nutrition is removed from it. The unfortunate bureaucratic aspect of the FDA allows successful bribing of officials in the name of lobbying. It is extremely difficult to find food that does not comprise some of these harmful ingredients. This is where I believe the FDA has betrayed the American trust.

It is my belief the large number of overweight people in America is not primarily due to a combination of a sedentary lifestyle and gluttony but rather extremely poor food quality available. I have realized there are two types of food available here in the US; food for the masses to keep the poor people in this country from revolting due to starvation and the hard-to-find good quality food that can be safely consumed. It used to be the two main expenses in any budget was housing and food. Cheap food has changed this budgetary concern but replaces it with a shortened lifespan due to cancer or even organ failure. Sure, the blue-collar worker performs physical labor to a degree that tires and wears out the body to a point where many experience a shorter than average life expectancy but it is almost as if the poor food quality ensures people do not live to retirement age.

This potential connection of the FDA regulating food quality that kills people before retirement then slips into conspiracy when it is realized that our government does not have enough social security money to pay everyone when they retire. The question arises if our government wants to lower the quality of food to increase profits and decrease the lifespan of the average American to avoid paying social security benefits.

These realizations lead me to strongly believe the best health care system for this country is a social system that provides everyone standard care for free. In order to decrease expenses, Congress would then regulate food quality better to ensure people live healthier lives without using the expensive services of the social health care system. This would lead to positive regulations in other areas of our life including an increase in available public transportation so people will get more exercise. This direction then slips into America's reliance on oil.

To me, the FDA's approval of harmful food is merely a symptom of poor government relying on capitalistic failures for continued personal gain while betraying the public trust.

As far as genetically modified foods are concerned, I have not yet formed a solid opinion. I am concerned with food combinations being developed so quickly that the human body does not recognize the new molecules as food with the potential the body may react to these unrecognized food molecules in unforeseen ways. I have not yet seen strong evidence to support this but do give consideration to colon cancer and other cancers of the digestive system.

lol.... crazy people

He has a point. It is one of the reasons my grocery bill went from 20-40$ a week to 80-120$. Look at the ingredients between the cheap no-name food most unfortunate people buy, and there counterparts that are 2-3x as expensive. I wouldn't go as far to blame the FDA in some conspiracy to kill people before they reach retirement age as a way to save on SS or something, I think the fact that the cheapest food is also the unhealthiest is a valid point, but there is no real fix for this.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: RichardE

He has a point. It is one of the reasons my grocery bill went from 20-40$ a week to 80-120$. Look at the ingredients between the cheap no-name food most unfortunate people buy, and there counterparts that are 2-3x as expensive. I wouldn't go as far to blame the FDA in some conspiracy to kill people before they reach retirement age as a way to save on SS or something, I think the fact that the cheapest food is also the unhealthiest is a valid point, but there is no real fix for this.

I know he's not completely off the deep end, but some of that stuff was nuts.

Certain quality food costs money; it's just the way it is. I can eat good food for about $40/week or less, depending on what I buy and when I buy it.

As for as cheapest foods to buy vs. quality of food, it's kind of a myth. Looking at the stuff I can buy locally, the junk food is actually more expensive than the healthy foods. It's just that healthy foods require prep time, and people buy the crap to avoid spending 20 minutes making a good meal.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: RichardE

He has a point. It is one of the reasons my grocery bill went from 20-40$ a week to 80-120$. Look at the ingredients between the cheap no-name food most unfortunate people buy, and there counterparts that are 2-3x as expensive. I wouldn't go as far to blame the FDA in some conspiracy to kill people before they reach retirement age as a way to save on SS or something, I think the fact that the cheapest food is also the unhealthiest is a valid point, but there is no real fix for this.

I know he's not completely off the deep end, but some of that stuff was nuts.

Certain quality food costs money; it's just the way it is. I can eat good food for about $40/week or less, depending on what I buy and when I buy it.

As for as cheapest foods to buy vs. quality of food, it's kind of a myth. Looking at the stuff I can buy locally, the junk food is actually more expensive than the healthy foods. It's just that healthy foods require prep time, and people buy the crap to avoid spending 20 minutes making a good meal.

Ah that is a good point, most of my meals take a while to make.

 

[chusteczka]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: RichardE

He has a point. It is one of the reasons my grocery bill went from 20-40$ a week to 80-120$. Look at the ingredients between the cheap no-name food most unfortunate people buy, and there counterparts that are 2-3x as expensive. I wouldn't go as far to blame the FDA in some conspiracy to kill people before they reach retirement age as a way to save on SS or something, I think the fact that the cheapest food is also the unhealthiest is a valid point, but there is no real fix for this.

I know he's not completely off the deep end, but some of that stuff was nuts.

Certain quality food costs money; it's just the way it is. I can eat good food for about $40/week or less, depending on what I buy and when I buy it.

As for as cheapest foods to buy vs. quality of food, it's kind of a myth. Looking at the stuff I can buy locally, the junk food is actually more expensive than the healthy foods. It's just that healthy foods require prep time, and people buy the crap to avoid spending 20 minutes making a good meal.

Yes, this is one true aspect of the situation. However, have you looked at the ingredients of the food you purchase? Cottonseed oil, sodium benzoate, BHT, MSG, food colorings, aspartame, phenylalanine. All of these are known to cause physical problems, with exception of cottonseed oil. I avoid cottonseed oil since it is not a food product.

There is arsenic in our pork and chicken. Arsenic increases water retention in the animal while living, which increases the weight of the meat so the meat can be sold for more money. This is very easy to regulate and control yet it is not. These animals are actually fed arsenic on purpose with this intended result. Yet arsenic is not on the list of ingredients.

Then there are those large strawberries that are hard and white inside yet surprisingly sweet. Such strawberries are sweet because artificial sweeteners have been added to the water, yet those artificial sweeteners are not on the list of ingredients.

It is not good that these ingredients are allowed and it becomes increasingly difficult to find food that can actually be eaten.


EDIT: "... yet those artificial sweeteners are NOT on the list of ingredients."
EDIT2: "These animals are actually fed arsenic on purpose with this intended result. Yet arsenic is not on the list of ingredients."

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: RichardE

He has a point. It is one of the reasons my grocery bill went from 20-40$ a week to 80-120$. Look at the ingredients between the cheap no-name food most unfortunate people buy, and there counterparts that are 2-3x as expensive. I wouldn't go as far to blame the FDA in some conspiracy to kill people before they reach retirement age as a way to save on SS or something, I think the fact that the cheapest food is also the unhealthiest is a valid point, but there is no real fix for this.

I know he's not completely off the deep end, but some of that stuff was nuts.

Certain quality food costs money; it's just the way it is. I can eat good food for about $40/week or less, depending on what I buy and when I buy it.

As for as cheapest foods to buy vs. quality of food, it's kind of a myth. Looking at the stuff I can buy locally, the junk food is actually more expensive than the healthy foods. It's just that healthy foods require prep time, and people buy the crap to avoid spending 20 minutes making a good meal.

Exactly.
I do not think that buying healthy foods necessarily costs more money than buying unhealthy foods. I don't have any numbers, but I am sure somebody out there has had to do a study evaluating cost and nutritional content.
In my neck of the woods, frozen veggies cost ~$0.89. That is pretty darn cheap and has like 3 or 4 servings in there. Much, much cheaper than a side of French fries. Speaking of which, have you guys seen the prices at McDonald's? It can cost over $7 for a complete meal. Surely one can buy deli meat, a loaf of good bread, and some veggies for less money per serving. People are just lazy, or maybe it is more proper to say that people are addicted to convenience regardless of the value both monetarily and nutritionally.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: RichardE

He has a point. It is one of the reasons my grocery bill went from 20-40$ a week to 80-120$. Look at the ingredients between the cheap no-name food most unfortunate people buy, and there counterparts that are 2-3x as expensive. I wouldn't go as far to blame the FDA in some conspiracy to kill people before they reach retirement age as a way to save on SS or something, I think the fact that the cheapest food is also the unhealthiest is a valid point, but there is no real fix for this.

I know he's not completely off the deep end, but some of that stuff was nuts.

Certain quality food costs money; it's just the way it is. I can eat good food for about $40/week or less, depending on what I buy and when I buy it.

As for as cheapest foods to buy vs. quality of food, it's kind of a myth. Looking at the stuff I can buy locally, the junk food is actually more expensive than the healthy foods. It's just that healthy foods require prep time, and people buy the crap to avoid spending 20 minutes making a good meal.

Yes, this is one true aspect of the situation. However, have you looked at the ingredients of the food you purchase? Cottonseed oil, sodium benzoate, BHT, MSG, food colorings, aspartame, phenylalanine. All of these are known to cause physical problems, with exception of cottonseed oil. I avoid cottonseed oil since it is not a food product.

This is a little crazy.

MSG is a salt form of gluatmic acid, a very natural and abundant amino acid. It also can give a 'meaty' flavor which is why the salt form is used as a food additive. I am sure if one cares to research it they will likely discover that some people have a lower tolerance for it, but with a worldwide population of what, over 6 billion people, I am certain you could find people who have a problem with every single thing out there. Many, not all, food colors are derived from natural sources, a good example being beets. The artificial ones have been robustly tested for a hundred years all over the world. I would wager that they are okay.

Aspartame & phenylalanine has been debated about so much it is silly to even try to re-hash. My opinion is those sweetners are okay for consumption, but to each their own. Don't like it, then don't buy it.

Sodium benzoate is the salt form of benzoic acid, which too does occur naturally. Sodium benozoate and BHT have been added to so many products that they have been robustly evaluated. Again I am sure somebody somewhere out there may have an allergic reaction to both of those, but that is to be expected.

There is arsenic in our pork and chicken. Arsenic increases water retention in the animal while living, which increases the weight of the meat so the meat can be sold for more money. This is very easy to regulate and control yet it is not. These animals are actually fed arsenic on purpose with this intended result. Yet arsenic is not on the list of ingredients.

I do not think that is quite true, but I could be wrong. The compound found in some feed additives may contain an arsenic atom (or two) but that is a far cry from feeding somebody elemental arsenic. It is akin between eating pure sodium (elemental) and a sodium containing compound, e.g. NaCl, table salt. One makes food taste yummy, the other majestically explodes on contact with water (wonder what that would do in your mouth). Anyhow, I believe those feed additives are for disease prevention, not bulking up water. Which I suppose would lead to selling more meat, because animals dead from disease bring in not much profit.

Then there are those large strawberries that are hard and white inside yet surprisingly sweet. Such strawberries are sweet because artificial sweeteners have been added to the water, yet those artificial sweeteners are not on the list of ingredients.

I find it unlikely that artificial sweetners are added to water with the intended effect of the sweetner containing water diffusing into the cells then just sorta hanging out in there until somebody bites into it.
Even if the pathways would work like that, it seems like an irresponsible business decision to spend money to create some sort of artificial sweetner in water solution to feed strawberry plants. It makes no logical sense at all.

It is not good that these ingredients are allowed and it becomes increasingly difficult to find food that can actually be eaten.

The above quoted post seems to be a fair example of otherwise intelligent people make illogical arguments. I get the feeling that there is this idea that if a chemical is added by man (or to be fair woman) then it is somehow more harmful than those compounds put there by mother nature. Those chemical additives are robustness tested over and over (e.g. BHT is added to so many products when the parent product is evaluated for safety and efficacy the BHT essentially gets evaluated again, along with the other fillers and additives).

Do you really think that characteristics and toxicology studies have been performed on all 'naturally' occurring compounds found in food products? I think we could probably reasonably say that we know less about the naturally occurring compounds than we do about the ones added by people. Additionally just because it is 'natural' does not mean it is inherently safe or otherwise 'better' than an analogous artificial compound (e.g. salicylic acid and aspirin would be a good example).

I do not want people to necessarily trust what I have to say - I am a pretty dumb guy and don't know too much. I'm just asking that before one gets worked up over things to sort of think things through using some sort of logic.

 

[chusteczka]

Thank you for providing such a thoughtful reply. Your time is appreciated. You mention some ideas that I have considered and am not certain one way or the other about.

What bothers me about the subject is that each of your logical points arrive at a point of uncertainty and ambiguity that requires faith and trust. My point of view meets these same points of uncertainty and ambiguity but I have lost my faith and trust in this government. I see the ambiguity of such issues through the tinted veil of a capitalistic government where the prime motivation is personal greed rather than social good. This viewpoint then assumes the worst in any situation where knowledge is limited.

You mentioned a good point that

somebody somewhere out there may have an allergic reaction to both of those [Sodium Benzoate and BHT], but that is to be expected.

My view in this situation is that everyone is allergic to such chemicals but those few people displaying a reaction have a diminished immune system that is unable to absorb the chemical impact like everyone else is able to. Thus, the effect is similar for everyone but some people are better able to hide or absorb the effect than others. Therefore, in my view, my body is affected the same as those who are allergic but my body is better able to hide the effect.

I believe you are correct that sodium benzoate occurs naturally in foods but most likely only in trace amounts that our body can easily handle. It is possible the naturally occurring chemicals are added by man in doses too large for our bodies to deal with. Add the fact that we consume multiple doses each day of something as innocuous as table salt and we will experience a cumulative detrimental effect.

Consider that fruits grow naturally in a small size but very sweet, such as blueberries or strawberries. People select those fruits in the market that are larger, brighter, and less bruised than the others. Someone decides to genetically modify the strawberry to grow larger so people will be happy to purchase such large strawberries and the farmer can sell fewer berries per container. Unfortunately, a larger fruit still contains the same amount of sugar in it as a small fruit. Just because a strawberry is larger does not mean the plant provides it with more sugar. So now we have large strawberries that are not as sweet as the naturally occurring smaller variety. People stop buying the large, genetically modified version from California and Florida and prefer the smaller, sweeter, natural variety from Virginia, for example. The farmer of the large, genetically modified version needs to figure out a way to make his strawberries sweeter while keeping them large and filled with white fiber. So he figures the way to make the large strawberry sweet is to feed it water with artificial sweetener added in with the fertilizer. The end result is a shiny red, large strawberry filled with tasteless, white fiber that is somehow very sweet. People buy these large strawberries again, the farmer is happy, and the FDA is happy for the money paid it by the fertilizer companies like Monsanto to allow such foods on the market.

I do not believe that my view point is crazy. Sure, much of it is extrapolation based on limited knowledge in areas that are not publicized but I consider my view to be quite logical. Albeit, through the tinted veil of lost faith and trust in our governmental organizations.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: chusteczka
Thank you for providing such a thoughtful reply. Your time is appreciated. You mention some ideas that I have considered and am not certain one way or the other about.

What bothers me about the subject is that each of your logical points arrive at a point of uncertainty and ambiguity that requires faith and trust. My point of view meets these same points of uncertainty and ambiguity but I have lost my faith and trust in this government. I see the ambiguity of such issues through the tinted veil of a capitalistic government where the prime motivation is personal greed rather than social good. This viewpoint then assumes the worst in any situation where knowledge is limited.

You mentioned a good point that

somebody somewhere out there may have an allergic reaction to both of those [Sodium Benzoate and BHT], but that is to be expected.

My view in this situation is that everyone is allergic to such chemicals but those few people displaying a reaction have a diminished immune system that is unable to absorb the chemical impact like everyone else is able to. Thus, the effect is similar for everyone but some people are better able to hide or absorb the effect than others. Therefore, in my view, my body is affected the same as those who are allergic but my body is better able to hide the effect.

I believe you are correct that sodium benzoate occurs naturally in foods but most likely only in trace amounts that our body can easily handle. It is possible the naturally occurring chemicals are added by man in doses too large for our bodies to deal with. Add the fact that we consume multiple doses each day of something as innocuous as table salt and we will experience a cumulative detrimental effect.

Consider that fruits grow naturally in a small size but very sweet, such as blueberries or strawberries. People select those fruits in the market that are larger, brighter, and less bruised than the others. Someone decides to genetically modify the strawberry to grow larger so people will be happy to purchase such large strawberries and the farmer can sell fewer berries per container. Unfortunately, a larger fruit still contains the same amount of sugar in it as a small fruit. Just because a strawberry is larger does not mean the plant provides it with more sugar. So now we have large strawberries that are not as sweet as the naturally occurring smaller variety. People stop buying the large, genetically modified version from California and Florida and prefer the smaller, sweeter, natural variety from Virginia, for example. The farmer of the large, genetically modified version needs to figure out a way to make his strawberries sweeter while keeping them large and filled with white fiber. So he figures the way to make the large strawberry sweet is to feed it water with artificial sweetener added in with the fertilizer. The end result is a shiny red, large strawberry filled with tasteless, white fiber that is somehow very sweet. People buy these large strawberries again, the farmer is happy, and the FDA is happy for the money paid it by the fertilizer companies like Monsanto to allow such foods on the market.

I do not believe that my view point is crazy. Sure, much of it is extrapolation based on limited knowledge in areas that are not publicized but I consider my view to be quite logical. Albeit, through the tinted veil of lost faith and trust in our governmental organizations.

Ah I see where your logic is faulty. Strawberries as well as other foods do not contain a certain amount of "X" overall. a 5 gram strawberry and a 12 gram strawberry have different amounts of naturally occurring sugar. Like 100 chicken breast and a 200g chicken breast have different amounts of meat protein, it is not a "X object has precisely Y amount of this".

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: chusteczka
You mentioned a good point that

somebody somewhere out there may have an allergic reaction to both of those [Sodium Benzoate and BHT], but that is to be expected.

My view in this situation is that everyone is allergic to such chemicals but those few people displaying a reaction have a diminished immune system that is unable to absorb the chemical impact like everyone else is able to. Thus, the effect is similar for everyone but some people are better able to hide or absorb the effect than others. Therefore, in my view, my body is affected the same as those who are allergic but my body is better able to hide the effect.

Allergy = immune response. If you have no reaction, you're not getting an immune response. Some people have immune systems that are sensitive to certain things for reasons unknown. It doesn't mean that "everyone is having the same effect, but their bodies hide it better." That's nonsense.

I believe you are correct that sodium benzoate occurs naturally in foods but most likely only in trace amounts that our body can easily handle. It is possible the naturally occurring chemicals are added by man in doses too large for our bodies to deal with. Add the fact that we consume multiple doses each day of something as innocuous as table salt and we will experience a cumulative detrimental effect.

Ingestion != absorption. You might ingest a small amount of something, but it doesn't mean you'll absorb that same small amount.

Consider that fruits grow naturally in a small size but very sweet, such as blueberries or strawberries. People select those fruits in the market that are larger, brighter, and less bruised than the others. Someone decides to genetically modify the strawberry to grow larger so people will be happy to purchase such large strawberries and the farmer can sell fewer berries per container. Unfortunately, a larger fruit still contains the same amount of sugar in it as a small fruit. Just because a strawberry is larger does not mean the plant provides it with more sugar. So now we have large strawberries that are not as sweet as the naturally occurring smaller variety. People stop buying the large, genetically modified version from California and Florida and prefer the smaller, sweeter, natural variety from Virginia, for example. The farmer of the large, genetically modified version needs to figure out a way to make his strawberries sweeter while keeping them large and filled with white fiber. So he figures the way to make the large strawberry sweet is to feed it water with artificial sweetener added in with the fertilizer. The end result is a shiny red, large strawberry filled with tasteless, white fiber that is somehow very sweet. People buy these large strawberries again, the farmer is happy, and the FDA is happy for the money paid it by the fertilizer companies like Monsanto to allow such foods on the market.

Larger strawberries have more sugar than smaller strawberries. More cells means that the plant has to provide more nutrients to keep those cells growing and healthy. They are the same thing as the smaller strawberries except they are larger.

It's not really genetic modification in the sense that they are genetically engineering stuff in a lab. Genetic selection of superior fruits/vegetables (for human consumption) has been going on for thousands of years. Did you know that undomesticated walnuts (I think it was walnuts... it's in Guns Germs and Steel) are poisonous? Apples used to be much, much smaller, etc...

 

[chusteczka]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: chusteczka
Yes, this is one true aspect of the situation. However, have you looked at the ingredients of the food you purchase? Cottonseed oil, sodium benzoate, BHT, MSG, food colorings, aspartame, phenylalanine. All of these are known to cause physical problems, with exception of cottonseed oil. I avoid cottonseed oil since it is not a food product.

This is a little crazy.

MSG is a salt form of gluatmic acid, a very natural and abundant amino acid. It also can give a 'meaty' flavor which is why the salt form is used as a food additive. I am sure if one cares to research it they will likely discover that some people have a lower tolerance for it, but with a worldwide population of what, over 6 billion people, I am certain you could find people who have a problem with every single thing out there. Many, not all, food colors are derived from natural sources, a good example being beets. The artificial ones have been robustly tested for a hundred years all over the world. I would wager that they are okay.

Regarding the food colors, yes the natural food colors are perfectly good. I enjoy seeing food that contains beets as a natural coloring in it because the manufacturer made an intelligent decision to use natural instead of artificial.

Back in the 1960's or 1970's Mars candy company used a red coloring on their M&M's that turned out to be cancerous. Now, they use another variety of red as well as blue on their M&M's. Are these colors safe? I do not believe so, I believe someone somewhere was paid well to allow such use. This is a shame because Mars candy company is one of the better quality candy manufacturers. How can a blue color be safe?

I remember using a bunsen burner to burn heavy metals in chemistry class. The flames from these heavy metals produced wonderfully vivid colors. I expect such heavy metals to be prevalent in food coloring in doses too high for our bodies to handle.

However, to be honest, I do not know how the artificial food coloring is manufactured.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: chusteczka
Yes, this is one true aspect of the situation. However, have you looked at the ingredients of the food you purchase? Cottonseed oil, sodium benzoate, BHT, MSG, food colorings, aspartame, phenylalanine. All of these are known to cause physical problems, with exception of cottonseed oil. I avoid cottonseed oil since it is not a food product.

This is a little crazy.

MSG is a salt form of gluatmic acid, a very natural and abundant amino acid. It also can give a 'meaty' flavor which is why the salt form is used as a food additive. I am sure if one cares to research it they will likely discover that some people have a lower tolerance for it, but with a worldwide population of what, over 6 billion people, I am certain you could find people who have a problem with every single thing out there. Many, not all, food colors are derived from natural sources, a good example being beets. The artificial ones have been robustly tested for a hundred years all over the world. I would wager that they are okay.

Regarding the food colors, yes the natural food colors are perfectly good. I enjoy seeing food that contains beets as a natural coloring in it because the manufacturer made an intelligent decision to use natural instead of artificial.

Back in the 1960's or 1970's Mars candy company used a red coloring on their M&M's that turned out to be cancerous. Now, they use another variety of red as well as blue on their M&M's. Are these colors safe? I do not believe so, I believe someone somewhere was paid well to allow such use. This is a shame because Mars candy company is one of the better quality candy manufacturers. How can a blue color be safe?

I remember using a bunsen burner to burn heavy metals in chemistry class. The flames from these heavy metals produced wonderfully vivid colors. I expect such heavy metals to be prevalent in food coloring in doses too high for our bodies to handle.

However, to be honest, I do not know how the artificial food coloring is manufactured.

Well, if you want to know (I warned you!) Red food coloring tends to be made from insects. Carmine is crushed red scales of insects, so nice and natural 😉

Green tends to be made from seaweed. 🙂

 

[chusteczka]

The insect coloring is very interesting and the green seaweed makes sense. Overall, there are some good points made and I am happy this discussion did not turn into a flame fest. I will continue to consider the different angles to this subject. At the moment, I will bow out of the discussion because there are other things I need to do. Thank you.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Our University brought a speaker up and she basically debunked the whole "fair trade coffee is better for developing countries" concept. In a nutshell, buy what you like and buy gourmet coffee if you really want to help out the poorer countries. They're making better money on the gourmet stuff, whereas the "fair trade" coffee is basically the union labor of coffees.

I will see if I can dig up a transcript of the lecture, or at least a copy of the newspaper article covering it. It was quite interesting.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Regarding the food colors, yes the natural food colors are perfectly good. I enjoy seeing food that contains beets as a natural coloring in it because the manufacturer made an intelligent decision to use natural instead of artificial.

Back in the 1960's or 1970's Mars candy company used a red coloring on their M&M's that turned out to be cancerous. Now, they use another variety of red as well as blue on their M&M's. Are these colors safe? I do not believe so, I believe someone somewhere was paid well to allow such use. This is a shame because Mars candy company is one of the better quality candy manufacturers. How can a blue color be safe?

I remember using a bunsen burner to burn heavy metals in chemistry class. The flames from these heavy metals produced wonderfully vivid colors. I expect such heavy metals to be prevalent in food coloring in doses too high for our bodies to handle.

However, to be honest, I do not know how the artificial food coloring is manufactured.

I get the feeling that you support the notion that if something bad happens then it must be due to some sort of conspiracy, i.e. somebody got paid off.

When you are talking about carcinogens, one of the problems is that it may take years to develop any symptoms and with all poisons the dosage is crucially important. As an aside, the father of toxicology, Paracelsus, noted (paraphrased) that everything is a poison, it just depends on the dose.

Anyhow, when you look at data generated 40 years ago one should not leap to a conclusion of conspiracy but rather look a bit more practically. Technological advanements have made the detection of such compunds possible today that was impossible 40 years ago. I have been doing analytical chemistry for about ten years and even in that short amount of time there has been some major leaps in technology. The point is 40 years ago it may have been impossible to analyze any potential carcinogens. Today we have the ability to do so.

As an additional aside, another current topic of note is that in the environment we are seeing pharmaceuticals as environmental pollutants (e.g. estrogen). Some of the questions that have risen from this are: (1) Are these new to the environment and just now popped up within the past few years (2) Are they now at concentrations large enough to be detected and as such may increase in concentration at exponential or linear rates (2) Or are we just now seeing these compounds because we only now have the technology to be able to see them.

This is not really a deep topic, and in fact is quiet simple Everybody on the internet should be able to understand it: There exists today technologies that did not exist 40 years ago.

In regards to the colors one sees there are many things going on. Elemental metals do burn with different colors and the use of their wavelengths is a fundamental part of how Flame AA (atomic absorption) instruments function. Additionally noble gases will have different colors when a electric charge is applied: these are neon signs with each type of gas giving off a different color.

Just because you saw one metal burn blue, doesn't mean that all blue color has to contain that metal (cobalt?).

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
Our University brought a speaker up and she basically debunked the whole "fair trade coffee is better for developing countries" concept. In a nutshell, buy what you like and buy gourmet coffee if you really want to help out the poorer countries. They're making better money on the gourmet stuff, whereas the "fair trade" coffee is basically the union labor of coffees.

I will see if I can dig up a transcript of the lecture, or at least a copy of the newspaper article covering it. It was quite interesting.

I read something recently along similar lines in that shade grown coffee is a gimmick. In fact I think it was an article linked here on ATOT.

 

[EGGO]

Originally posted by: Babbles
That is touch to answer, every food product we tested had different results. I could not say all of X is lower than Y. We analyzed hundreds of samples with ~500 analytes per sample, I just simply do not remember all of the results! Typically, though, we only had about the same dozen or so that would show up - if they showed up that is.

In most cases, the results were below our linear detection limit. Meaning we would run a known standard at a concentration equal to ~2 ppb (parts per billion). Technically that would be the lowest concentration we could report- we have not proven that we could see lower (even though if we tried we could for some analytes). Anyhow, we would still liberally extrapolate concentrations below that detection limit. So we may get a value of 0.4pbb and the problem is that we have no confidence in the accuracy of that value.
The point of the study, though, was just to provide information to monitor things to see if the relative concentrations increase or decrease, not necessarily what the exact value it is.

Those values are crazy low. Well, well, below any sort of LD50. Pesticides are used at percent levels and were were monitoring things at 1ppb.

Aside from "Results may vary" what does the rest of that babble mean babbles? Maybe I should read that after I get proper rest from a tiring workout.