Oh, I see. GeeGee's post in bewteen yours and the one you were responding to threw me.
Printable View
Oh, I see. GeeGee's post in bewteen yours and the one you were responding to threw me.
Actually, companies routinely do stupid stuff like that. A lot of advertising/marketing is an arms race - if X 'healthy' cereal claims it is good for heart health, then Y 'healthy' cereal better claim it's good for colon cancer or something. If doesn't mean they actually get more market share if everyone ups their marketing game. But if they don't, they might get left out in the cold. Yes, I'm sure some people who simultaneously care about such things and are stupid get fleeced/taken in by these claims (not too many who fall into this category, though). But I think most (American) consumers are exposed to so much marketing that we're extremely skeptical of claims made about a product. Being the world's consumer of last resort has its advantages - you get very good at sifting through mountains of products to find the one that best fits your needs, all BS ignored. You don't need to be a scientist to realize that continually changing recommendations from various 'studies' are full of crap; nor do you need to be a food engineer to realize that 'cheese food' is not the same thing as 'cheese' (is there anyone who thinks Cheez Whiz has much real cheese in it? Anyone?!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
edit: I think what I disliked most about the piece was that its argumentation rested on ridiculous assumptions about what the consumer already thinks. To be shocked by these things, the consumer need to think that blueberry muffins you buy from the store are healthy, or that ground beef is even remotely healthy/good for you, or that free range eggs are superior, or that fruit juice in general (let alone OJ) is a particularly healthy food. It's ridiculous - I'm sure there are people who believe some of these, but most consumers aren't fooled. Most people don't buy free range eggs; they drink OJ because it tastes good; they eat hamburgers as a cheap/tasty source of protein, not a healthy alternative; and they eat blueberry muffins because they like sweet baked goods. We know a huge portion of our food is artificial; most people just don't care.
For that matter, food chemistry/engineering is actually pretty amazing - it keeps our food fresher, better tasting, etc. for much longer... and allows for things like decent frozen pizza that would have been impossible just a short time ago. They do some pretty cool work.
i think you'd be surprised sure what people believe about food!
Food chemistry/engineering is amazing, but so is packaging and marketing. We have two major local super markets (Weis and Giant) competing against regional stores (Walmart, Whole Foods and Wegman's). They're creating elaborate Natural Foods and Organic Foods sections, some with a "fair trade" component like what Starbucks began. It's very interesting, and I can see Food Politics at play. Whole, unprocessed grains like Quaker Oatmeal won't be found in those aisles, because (I think?) the natural/organic food people are mostly smaller operations that can't compete with big national name brands.
It's a distortion of what the consumer is looking for, though.
http://www.businessinsider.com/11-di...n-food-2012-3#
Human ingenuity knows no bounds :o
"Sodium bisulfite is used in most toilet boil cleaning agents. It's also used to extend the shelf-life and bleach out the discoloration of potato chips."
In related news, water is the main constituent of human piss. It's also the main ingredient in most drinks. THE HORROR! :o
To be fair, sodium bisulfite is a tad bit more toxic and irritating than water :o
I personally thought the fish-bladders and duck-feathers were the coolest :up:
Yes, though there's probably no observable effect on human health at the concentrations they use in potato chips. Which I bet are very low, since sodium bisulfite has a fairly unpleasant smell which would make the product less pleasant for the consumer, should it be detectable.
My point was, though, that it's an association fallacy, and there's nothing disgusting about this chemical as such.
Quote:
This was in fact what I was trying to convey to Wiggin with my post, ie. that it's unlikely companies are expending resources on such efforts without profiting from doing so.
Essentially what was just said is you're right minx, because it's not stupid if it helps keep them stay in the game, as in they are profiting from their gimmicks. Also, I think they're more effective than Wiggin believes, for the same reason negative political campaigning is so effective.Quote:
Actually, companies routinely do stupid stuff like that. A lot of advertising/marketing is an arms race - if X 'healthy' cereal claims it is good for heart health, then Y 'healthy' cereal better claim it's good for colon cancer or something. If doesn't mean they actually get more market share if everyone ups their marketing game. But if they don't, they might get left out in the cold.
Oh, please. It's a simple chemical that limits oxidation. That's about as ridiculous as them worrying about where they get denatured collagen from for gelatin (or isinglass), or the whole hair-cysteine thing. You have a medical background, I don't need to explain to you how much of a non-issue that is. I particularly found their horror at the use of silica as an anti-caking agent to be amusing - do you know that in Europe they use sodium ferrocyanide as an anticaking agent in salt? CYANIDE! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The bottom line is that nearly all of these examples are highly purified chemicals/molecules that just happen to have a cheap source in X. They're useful and benign, so why get all upset about it?
I'm not upset, more fascinated. I mean, duck-feathers?? It's amazing!
That being said, I've known people to have adverse reactions to sulfites in food and drink. It's not super-common and no doubt sodium bisulfite is a little different from sodium metabisulfite and sodium sulfite in this respect, but it's certainly no water :downcast: the association with toilet-cleaning is a peripheral issue. I was surprised to learn, some years ago, that some people do worry about gelatin; specifically some of my Muslim and Jewish acquaintances who take the whole pig thing seriously.
I remember my friend's girlfriend was a vegan when I first met her, and I saw her scarfing down marshmallows at an event. I remember the look on her face when I told her they typically contain gelatin, then had to tell her what gelatin was made of. I was trying to be helpful, but she was such a bitch to me about it. I did make amends by finding a health food store with vegan-friendly marshmallows though :)
Sulfites also occur naturally; they're not just additives for preservation. Regardless, sulfites are relatively harmless; people have reactions to peanut butter, and we're not suggesting that it's terrible that some food uses peanuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Of course it's an issues - lots of things are issues from a dietary perspective if people have moral issues with particular kinds of foods (generally from animal or insect sources). That doesn't mean there's anything fundamentally wrong with using the additive for food engineering, it just means that some people may want to avoid it because of religion/preference. I'm well aware of these issues from both a kosher/halal and vegetarian/vegan perspective.Quote:
I was surprised to learn, some years ago, that some people do worry about gelatin; specifically some of my Muslim and Jewish acquaintances who take the whole pig thing seriously.
Neither am I :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Yes, I realise this! I've scanned through my posts in this thread and I'm fairly sure I haven't said anything to the effect of food engineering being reprehensible or terrible or the like. At most I've suggested that I think these additives are surprising to me and that it's nice to know what goes into our food so we know what we're paying for. The pages I've linked to are mostly intended to be humorousQuote:
Of course it's an issues - lots of things are issues from a dietary perspective if people have moral issues with particular kinds of foods (generally from animal or insect sources). That doesn't mean there's anything fundamentally wrong with using the additive for food engineering, it just means that some people may want to avoid it because of religion/preference.
Er... your first post in this thread linked to a ZOMG article about all of the terrible crap that's in our food. The article you just linked isn't much better. They make it sound like your food is chock full of beetles, hair, toilet cleaner, poop, etc. 'Most horrifying lies' about the food we eat? 'Disgusting' ingredients that food companies don't talk about? This is neither disgusting nor horrifying!
Look, I can't tell what you think about this from your posting, but all I can comment on is the ridiculousness of your links. It all feeds into ignorant people who talk a bit talk about 'processed food' without having any idea whatsoever about the composition of those foods. These articles do not help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracked.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The second link tries too hard, but it also contains cooler ingredients :p now I assumed that most people on this forum are kinda like me and are therefore not particularly horrified by these things but are rather interested. The general public can be as fussy as it likes about bugs in food, although tbh the vast majority of them don't seem to care very much, articles or no articles.
Fear-mongering about gene-manipulated tomatoes and cloned cows, that I could get a little upset about.
Ohh, that sounds like my sister! She won't eat anything containing gelatins or caseins. She even has a problem with certain honeys, depending on how the beehives are 'treated'. (The honey is intended for the baby bees, you see.) She won't even use a product containing beeswax (lipsticks) or eat an apple that's been shined up with food-grade beeswax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgrrl
But she's an extreme vegan based on animal-rights activism, and an obsessive label-reader. Turns out it's easier to eliminate foods than cosmetic products, soaps and shampoos, perfumes, or even medications...because those might be tested on animals or use animal by-products. Yes, she even uses a vegetable-based hormone replacement instead of Premarin. :bulb:
I think most would agree that generally speaking processed food= not good for you. I think there would be a noticeable difference in health if someone cut out all proccessed food. Maybe in an individual bag of chips it doesn't matter, or in an individual t.v. dinner. However, added up, if these preservatives and additives are in all the stuff they eat it can make a difference. I'm sure they add to obesity, teeth decay, lack of muscle growth, height, life span, and general unhealthiness. Teeth decay would probably be best contributed to sources like pop, which America drinks in massive quantities.
Whereas eating food our body has been evolved on digesting, such as nuts, roots, berries, meats would be healthier for you. That's not to say ALL processed or man-made food is bad but definitely eating those types of foods daily is not good for you.
I think most would agree that most people have absolutely no evidence to back up any of their food-based assertions.
You know how it is, some people just prefer to be cautious while waiting for controversy-settling studies that will never come. Take it easy with the cured meats and colorful candy at least.
You mean some people accept science when it suits them and reject it when it doesn't? Especially when those same people want us to spend trillions on the basis of one uncertain science, while refusing to gamble their life on the basis of another uncertain science. Got it.
Look man I am not here to help you fight your phantoms, okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's a perfectly valid point, and rather a lot of cognitive dissonance from you, actually. Call it what you want (though I personally wouldn't settle for such a weak excuse), but Loki's called out exactly what's going on with your views here and your views regarding healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Yeah, I was just trying to explain where I thought LD was coming from, not endorsing what LD was saying. LD's convictions notwithstanding, nutrition is a topic full of uncertainty and controversies. LD can choose to eat whatever he likes if he's paying for it with his own money. He's probably right about soda and dental health, I dunno.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Today, even in the US, healthcare providers are guided by the precept primum non nocere. Some people imagine that being cautious entails doing more diagnostics and more treatments, and forget that all those interventions come with their downsides--for the patient, for the system and for society. Depending on where the uncertainty lies, many doctors and patients may (SHOULD) in fact prefer to proceed with caution, eg. by choosing watchful waiting or observation over surgery, or by refraining from ordering an unnecessary CT, or by not taking a test that's unlikely to be helpful, or by choosing a vaccine that doesn't contain mercury. Fortunately, many of these lame choices are strongly grounded in both theory and in evidence. The downsides of excessive testing and treatment have been well characterised in many areas. In those cases, controversy and outcomes are not comparable to eg. LD choosing to buy nuts instead of salami, with his money.
If Loki wishes to clarify his position he's welcome to do so. Perhaps he's saying we shouldn't waste lots of money by banning preservative-free food and the like based on LD's gut feelings? If so, then I mostly agree with him. LD's free to buy steak at a 100% markup if he likes, but preferably not on the taxpayer's dime, and he shouldn't be able to limit my access to cheap salami. If the thrust of Loki's argument is that healthcare and nutrition are both uncertain sciences --> ??? --> ZOMGHYPOCRISY U SUK!!!! then, er :bored: if it's something else, then I eagerly await clarification.
At the end of the day, healthcare in the US is incredibly and unnecessarily wasteful. This is a true fact, with or without imagined hypocrisy. The best available evidence strongly suggests a number of important contributors to that waste and help exclude some others. Even if I'm a nut-loving salami-hating hypocrite, that evidence remains. If either you or Loki want to address that evidence then there is a current thread on healthcare in the D&D forum where you can do so, as well as several older threads in the same forum containing references. I realise that some people are, for various reasons, willing to accept the risks that come with wastefulness, inappropriate testing and inappropriate treatments (provided they are fully aware of those risks in the first place).
The reference in question was to climatology.
That makes far more sense :up: When it comes to that, I can't say I know what--if anything--we can/should do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki