(11-21-2024 10:33 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Nobody has to put dye in food. It has been proven to hurt our brains... especially children.

Nobody has to put BHT or TSP in food. TSP is something I used to sterilize brewing equipment... and it is in Lucky Charms.

If we can get rid of dyes and harmful preservatives, it will go a long way.

To me, it’s one of those things that is only beneficial to them, the manufacturers. They forget they are manufacturing FOOD, and want to use every industrial technique available because they can.

They fear a spawn of small companies producing good food locally that is better and cheaper. The big guys can master warehousing and national distribution, but they can never deliver fresh food en masse like small local companies can. It’s all about keeping the competition out.

That’s why cereal, chips, candy and soda makers have to buy shelf space in stores. This, incidentally, is not even legal in many countries. It’s seen as market manipulation, monopolistic style business designed to suppress competition, and distort the retail climate.

It’s a warped version of capitalism. But, as long as the people vote with business interests over public interest, that what we will always get.

(11-21-2024 12:27 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Food for thought for those with an open mind:

Many companies over the years have sought to shed additives to appease consumers’ desire for simpler ingredients. But U.S. shoppers have sometimes revolted when food makers switched to more natural, but less colorful and less tasty, alternatives. "

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved nine synthetic color additives for use in food, and said they are safe when used in accordance with FDA regulations. The FDA said the totality of scientific evidence shows that most children experience no adverse effects from eating foods with the added colors, though some evidence suggests certain children may be sensitive to them. Kellogg said its products and ingredients comply with all relevant laws and regulations."

"A Kellogg spokeswoman said that the company offers alternate versions because consumers’ preferences differ across markets, and that its dyes are permitted in Canada."



https://www.wsj.com/business/how-froot-l..._lead_pos8

A common theme is Americans like colorful and favorable foods and do not view dyes as a health threat. Otherwise, they would flock to alternatives.

I think the dye free advocates hurt their cause by using hyperbolic words like "poison" and "toxic". It equates dyes with items like bleach to the consumer and because that is not the case it lessens the credibility of the advocates.

Emphasis added to highlight colorful. Not just Americans, but all humans are instinctively wired to "eat the rainbow". We're also wired to attack foods that have a lot of fat and sugar as well due to evolutionary developments that really aren't useful in American society today. Food companies work very hard to engineer products that try to light up our old programming to gorge ourselves on fats and sweets to prepare for the inveitable famines that were common in earlier centuries and millenia.

(11-21-2024 09:07 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:02 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I wrote: I do not want to ban ingredients in junk food that make it taste like junk food…”. Does the proposal ban ingredients in junk food that make it taste like junk food?

Many of these additives don't even have anything to do with taste, they are dyes, preservatives and other things that have nothing to do with flavor or taste. You are just blindly throwing that stuff out there because you know virtually nothing about the topic.

And I said there are already mountains of studies and evidence out there showing these things are dangerous and harmful, both here and abroad. These are not some new unknown things we need to BEGIN to study, its things we have know for many years now. Its time we stop ignoring the well documented dangers of many of these things and there impact on children and our entire population, not to mention the astronomical impacts on healthcare and costs of such for decades to come.

You went from talking about banning foods to government issued health mandates and then get offended when I point out those things have nothing to do with the topic and illustrate you actually know nothing about the topic yet.

I remember reading a number of years ago about the latest thing that was causing cancer in white mice.

It was scientists! You give a mouse enough of anything and it will kill them!

There are plenty of long range studies. There are decades of practice. These things are not harmful at the doses in food. If you are worried about it, read the labels and shop at Whole Foods.

As for all this nonsense about dyes, did you know peanuts kill certain people? Shell fish kill certain people. People have wheat allergies. Some people are allergic to some chemicals. But most people aren't or they wouldn't be allowed.

Here's some discussion of sweeteners. Cyclamates were banned in the US and haven't been allowed back, but subsequent studies have show they aren't unsafe. Europe is being pressured by lobbyists to ban aspartame. But it is safe at levels people use. A lot of these additives are just the same.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/caus...fact-sheet

(11-21-2024 09:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:10 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I've decided that I agree that if people want to eat poison we should let them. But they should have to let us know it's poison.

If that is the logic we are going to apply them we have to lift ban on about a gazillion deadly things we already ban from food (everything from lead to more things than you can possibly imagine).

Or just maybe there is a smarter way we can go about it by keeping proven dangerous additives out of our foods that kill people, cripple our healthcare system and give diseases to millions of children.

Some are creating an imaginary straw man that somehow banning certain dyes and other additives is going to make all your favorite foods suddenly taste horrible. Its a fantasy argument that has no basis in reality or fact at this point.

There is a BIG difference between banning something to make food less fattening and banning something because its proven to cause cancer. These are to completely different things that many don't seem to understand the difference between.

Unhealthy options people want to choose should absolutely be fully avaible, but known cancer causing and proven dangerous additives should NOT be.

This is where you are showing your ignorance. Virtually everything causes cancer in large doses. But there is nothing allowed in the US that is known to cause cancer or dangerous at anywhere near the levels allowed. Nobody knowingly is putting dangerous substances in food. Food companies understand the US tort laws. We have a very good regulatory regime. They just don't jump after every internet scare or rant from a Food Babe or lobbyist from the organic farm group.

(11-21-2024 09:47 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  I'm in favor of getting the addictive chemicals and other unhealthy crap out of our foods because, well, I've found myself getting addicted to food in general, and junk food in particular. I used to be very, very active as a kid. Slowly, I stopped being active, or at least as active as I used to be. Not only that, but Mom for a long time had made an Herculean effort to keep me from eating foods that had artificial colors and flavors as well as MSG and excess sugar. I was healthy as hell! Now, I'm definitely overweight, maybe even obese. (A lot of that has to do with lack of proper exercise, but apparently, one of my great-grandmother on my dad's side had bad genetics in that she was overweight.) I've tried quite a few times to get active and eat better again, but even those attempts are derailed by "cheat days" that turn into eating junk again.

If RFK, Jr. can get food corporations to actually start making our food healthy again, I'm all for it. Eating habits in general also need to change. As soon as I have quite a lot of money under my belt, I'm going to start buying nothing but natural foods and buy a bicycle so I can ride around the neighborhood like I used to. (That also includes severely limiting how much pizza I eat. lol)

Would you have them take caffeine, flavors and sugar out of food? Few foods are more addictive than sugar and caffeine. Get educated and make informed choices. And stick with them. Don't blame others.

So they should be able to put fentanyl in food?

(11-21-2024 12:44 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 10:33 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Nobody has to put dye in food. It has been proven to hurt our brains... especially children.

Nobody has to put BHT or TSP in food. TSP is something I used to sterilize brewing equipment... and it is in Lucky Charms.

If we can get rid of dyes and harmful preservatives, it will go a long way.

To me, it’s one of those things that is only beneficial to them, the manufacturers. They forget they are manufacturing FOOD, and want to use every industrial technique available because they can.

They fear a spawn of small companies producing good food locally that is better and cheaper. The big guys can master warehousing and national distribution, but they can never deliver fresh food en masse like small local companies can. It’s all about keeping the competition out.

That’s why cereal, chips, candy and soda makers have to buy shelf space in stores. This, incidentally, is not even legal in many countries. It’s seen as market manipulation, monopolistic style business designed to suppress competition, and distort the retail climate.

It’s a warped version of capitalism. But, as long as the people vote with business interests over public interest, that what we will always get.

Slotting fees are an issue. But none of them fear the small companies. They just want as much visibility as possible and its the grocers who have created this, not the food companies. The small companies are not cheaper. They are generally more expensive. And if they are successful, the bigger companies buy them!

Do you know for instance what Yellow 5 is???
which is made from the byproducts of petroleum.
Thought to be responsible for Hyperactivity

Red Dye 40? (also a byproduct of PETROLEUM)
The dye is thought to be linked to allergies, migraine, and mental disorders in children. (considered safe within reasoN).


Why put that _crap_ in US food when we dont need it?

(11-21-2024 01:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:07 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:02 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I wrote: I do not want to ban ingredients in junk food that make it taste like junk food…”. Does the proposal ban ingredients in junk food that make it taste like junk food?

Many of these additives don't even have anything to do with taste, they are dyes, preservatives and other things that have nothing to do with flavor or taste. You are just blindly throwing that stuff out there because you know virtually nothing about the topic.

And I said there are already mountains of studies and evidence out there showing these things are dangerous and harmful, both here and abroad. These are not some new unknown things we need to BEGIN to study, its things we have know for many years now. Its time we stop ignoring the well documented dangers of many of these things and there impact on children and our entire population, not to mention the astronomical impacts on healthcare and costs of such for decades to come.

You went from talking about banning foods to government issued health mandates and then get offended when I point out those things have nothing to do with the topic and illustrate you actually know nothing about the topic yet.

I remember reading a number of years ago about the latest thing that was causing cancer in white mice.

It was scientists! You give a mouse enough of anything and it will kill them!

There are plenty of long range studies. There are decades of practice. These things are not harmful at the doses in food. If you are worried about it, read the labels and shop at Whole Foods.

As for all this nonsense about dyes, did you know peanuts kill certain people? Shell fish kill certain people. People have wheat allergies. Some people are allergic to some chemicals. But most people aren't or they wouldn't be allowed.

Here's some discussion of sweeteners. Cyclamates were banned in the US and haven't been allowed back, but subsequent studies have show they aren't unsafe. Europe is being pressured by lobbyists to ban aspartame. But it is safe at levels people use. A lot of these additives are just the same.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/caus...fact-sheet

Garbage.


We have categorical evidence of massive increase of estrogen levels in todays men and women compared to decades ago and high estrogen is linked to cancer and other diseases and illnesses. Where does high levels of estrogen comes from? Water supply, FOOD (food dyes) and pesticides, herbecides….etc These are thevery areas RFKjr is targeting. If you tell stories and say that the increase in estrogen is made up or comes out from unknown sources then you’re hopelessly lost

(11-21-2024 01:23 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  So they should be able to put fentanyl in food?

Nobody is putting dangerous stuff deliberately in our food. To imply otherwise is just cuckoo conspiracy nut stuff.

But agriculture, to feed the world, needs pesticides. Trace amounts often remain.
The US bans a lot of pesticides that are used in most of the world. Our farmers are much safer in how they use them than many other places.

And as someone said above, food manufacturers do put things in food that make us want to eat more of it. Like dyes that make it more attractive. Like sugar. Duh.

Your body, your choice isn't believed by most of the left unless they want to destroy the life of an unborn child who has no choice. RFK Jr. is from that mindset.

Well, we're obviously never going to agree about this, and you're a good guy so I can't pull a tom rant on you, so we'll just agree to disagree.

Bullet is playing coy to how Big AG manipulates the agencies to keep the status quo and then turn around and play ignorant that somehow we want to ban food when that was never the point.

(11-21-2024 01:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:10 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I've decided that I agree that if people want to eat poison we should let them. But they should have to let us know it's poison.

If that is the logic we are going to apply them we have to lift ban on about a gazillion deadly things we already ban from food (everything from lead to more things than you can possibly imagine).

Or just maybe there is a smarter way we can go about it by keeping proven dangerous additives out of our foods that kill people, cripple our healthcare system and give diseases to millions of children.

Some are creating an imaginary straw man that somehow banning certain dyes and other additives is going to make all your favorite foods suddenly taste horrible. Its a fantasy argument that has no basis in reality or fact at this point.

There is a BIG difference between banning something to make food less fattening and banning something because its proven to cause cancer. These are to completely different things that many don't seem to understand the difference between.

Unhealthy options people want to choose should absolutely be fully avaible, but known cancer causing and proven dangerous additives should NOT be.

This is where you are showing your ignorance. Virtually everything causes cancer in large doses. But there is nothing allowed in the US that is known to cause cancer or dangerous at anywhere near the levels allowed. Nobody knowingly is putting dangerous substances in food. Food companies understand the US tort laws. We have a very good regulatory regime. They just don't jump after every internet scare or rant from a Food Babe or lobbyist from the organic farm group.

"Virtually everything causes cancer in large doses"

You sure about that ? What about milk & dairy products ? How about pure water.

(11-21-2024 01:28 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Do you know for instance what Yellow 5 is???
which is made from the byproducts of petroleum.
Thought to be responsible for Hyperactivity

Red Dye 40? (also a byproduct of PETROLEUM)
The dye is thought to be linked to allergies, migraine, and mental disorders in children. (considered safe within reasoN).


Why put that _crap_ in US food when we dont need it?

I was hoping someone would bring this up without me having to go find it.
+3 Sir

I don't see why those companies are so adamant about continuing adding crap to their products. I would think not adding them would lower their costs in the long run. I guess they don't eat their own products either, don't want to die.

(11-21-2024 01:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:47 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  I'm in favor of getting the addictive chemicals and other unhealthy crap out of our foods because, well, I've found myself getting addicted to food in general, and junk food in particular. I used to be very, very active as a kid. Slowly, I stopped being active, or at least as active as I used to be. Not only that, but Mom for a long time had made an Herculean effort to keep me from eating foods that had artificial colors and flavors as well as MSG and excess sugar. I was healthy as hell! Now, I'm definitely overweight, maybe even obese. (A lot of that has to do with lack of proper exercise, but apparently, one of my great-grandmother on my dad's side had bad genetics in that she was overweight.) I've tried quite a few times to get active and eat better again, but even those attempts are derailed by "cheat days" that turn into eating junk again.

If RFK, Jr. can get food corporations to actually start making our food healthy again, I'm all for it. Eating habits in general also need to change. As soon as I have quite a lot of money under my belt, I'm going to start buying nothing but natural foods and buy a bicycle so I can ride around the neighborhood like I used to. (That also includes severely limiting how much pizza I eat. lol)

Would you have them take caffeine, flavors and sugar out of food? Few foods are more addictive than sugar and caffeine. Get educated and make informed choices. And stick with them. Don't blame others.

I take responsibility for my heavier-than-normal body weight. (I also eat more than I should, which is what I was alluding to in the post you previously responded to.) At least my share of the blame, anyway. But you can not tell me junk food doesn't also have the same endorphin-stimulating effects that sugar and caffeine do. I'm not saying get rid of junk food. I'm saying get the chemicals and artificial colors and flavors out of them so they're not so addicting, which is what we should do.

And for the record, I've been making an effort to be more active again. I came in from doing some stuff outside so it's not like I'm completely sedentary or anything.

(11-21-2024 03:36 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Bullet is playing coy to how Big AG manipulates the agencies to keep the status quo and then turn around and play ignorant that somehow we want to ban food when that was never the point.

They really don't "manipulate the agencies." They lobby, but they don't always get their way. FDA has a lot of independent academic types. Toxicologists, food scientists, nutritionists.

The issues aren't with our food supply. Its with our choices.

I think there is something amiss in our food supply. I think the majority of American's never truly sat down and thought it through. Here is an example that doesn't compute.

At the generic Kroger site I can buy a 52 oz container of orange juice for $4. This equates to $2.46 for a quart. Keep this price in mind.

https://www.kroger.com/q/simply+orange+juice

Here is a reference site to let us know how many oranges it would take to make 1 quart of fresh squeezed orange juice.

https://thepharmjuicebarandkitchen.com/b...cup-juice/

Quote:Average Size Of An Orange:
The average size of an orange can vary depending on the variety and cultivation methods. Generally, oranges range in size from roughly the size of a golf ball to as large as a baseball. Navel oranges are typically larger than other varieties and can range from 3 to 4 inches in diameter. On the other hand, Valencia oranges tend to be a bit smaller, usually measuring around 2½ inches in diameter.

While there is no set measurement for what constitutes a “medium” orange, most within this range weigh about 4-5 ounces. It’s important to note that size doesn’t necessarily reflect quality – smaller oranges may be juicier and sweeter while larger oranges may have thicker skin and be more difficult to peel. Overall, the average size of an orange is just one factor to consider when selecting the perfect piece of citrus fruit for your needs.

How Many Oranges For 1 Cup Of Juice?
When it comes to making orange juice, one question that may arise is how many oranges are needed to yield one cup of juice. The answer to this question largely depends on the size and juiciness of the oranges being used, but on average, it takes about three medium-sized oranges to produce one cup of juice. If you’re looking to make a large batch of orange juice, however, you may need more than three oranges.

For example, if you’re making a quart (1 liter) of orange juice, you’ll likely need 8-10 oranges depending on size and variety.If you’re looking to make a large batch of orange juice, however, you may need more than three oranges. For example, if you’re making a quart (1 liter) of orange juice, you’ll likely need 8-10 oranges depending on size and variety. It is important to note that certain tools, such as a juicer, can help extract more juice from the oranges than simply squeezing them by hand, so be sure to adjust accordingly when making large batches.

Additionally, it is always recommended to choose ripe, firm oranges and to wash them thoroughly before juicing. With these tips in mind, making delicious and nutritious orange juice can be a simple and rewarding task.

According to this site https://weighschool.com/orange-weights/ an average orange is 6.7 oz.

Back to our Kroger site - a bag of oranges, weighing 4 lbs, is $5. Convert lbs to oz to get 64 oz and divide by 6.7 oz and you get 9.55 oranges...basically 9 to 10 oranges in a bag.

https://www.kroger.com/p/kroger-fresh-na...ult_search

So...working with just oranges in their raw, unprocessed state will cost you about $5.00 to make your own OJ at home for over twice the cost of buying the Simply Orange bottle and pouring out 32 oz to get your one quart. Simply Orange is one of the more expensive brands of OJ I've seen in our local grocery stores. We're not talking store brand or OJ made from concentrate. I get that the factory can get discounts on oranges vs us unwashed masses. HOWEVER, they have to pay for employees (wages + benefits), machinery that needs to be maintained, utilities costs, etc, etc.

How is that possible? The product from the factory has to be different from the one you would make at home. You know the inputs you used at home are real ingredients. How about the factory?

(11-21-2024 04:47 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think there is something amiss in our food supply. I think the majority of American's never truly sat down and thought it through. Here is an example that doesn't compute.

At the generic Kroger site I can buy a 52 oz container of orange juice for $4. This equates to $2.46 for a quart. Keep this price in mind.

https://www.kroger.com/q/simply+orange+juice

Here is a reference site to let us know how many oranges it would take to make 1 quart of fresh squeezed orange juice.

https://thepharmjuicebarandkitchen.com/b...cup-juice/

Quote:Average Size Of An Orange:
The average size of an orange can vary depending on the variety and cultivation methods. Generally, oranges range in size from roughly the size of a golf ball to as large as a baseball. Navel oranges are typically larger than other varieties and can range from 3 to 4 inches in diameter. On the other hand, Valencia oranges tend to be a bit smaller, usually measuring around 2½ inches in diameter.

While there is no set measurement for what constitutes a “medium” orange, most within this range weigh about 4-5 ounces. It’s important to note that size doesn’t necessarily reflect quality – smaller oranges may be juicier and sweeter while larger oranges may have thicker skin and be more difficult to peel. Overall, the average size of an orange is just one factor to consider when selecting the perfect piece of citrus fruit for your needs.

How Many Oranges For 1 Cup Of Juice?
When it comes to making orange juice, one question that may arise is how many oranges are needed to yield one cup of juice. The answer to this question largely depends on the size and juiciness of the oranges being used, but on average, it takes about three medium-sized oranges to produce one cup of juice. If you’re looking to make a large batch of orange juice, however, you may need more than three oranges.

For example, if you’re making a quart (1 liter) of orange juice, you’ll likely need 8-10 oranges depending on size and variety.If you’re looking to make a large batch of orange juice, however, you may need more than three oranges. For example, if you’re making a quart (1 liter) of orange juice, you’ll likely need 8-10 oranges depending on size and variety. It is important to note that certain tools, such as a juicer, can help extract more juice from the oranges than simply squeezing them by hand, so be sure to adjust accordingly when making large batches.

Additionally, it is always recommended to choose ripe, firm oranges and to wash them thoroughly before juicing. With these tips in mind, making delicious and nutritious orange juice can be a simple and rewarding task.

According to this site https://weighschool.com/orange-weights/ an average orange is 6.7 oz.

Back to our Kroger site - a bag of oranges, weighing 4 lbs, is $5. Convert lbs to oz to get 64 oz and divide by 6.7 oz and you get 9.55 oranges...basically 9 to 10 oranges in a bag.

https://www.kroger.com/p/kroger-fresh-na...ult_search

So...working with just oranges in their raw, unprocessed state will cost you about $5.00 to make your own OJ at home for over twice the cost of buying the Simply Orange bottle and pouring out 32 oz to get your one quart. Simply Orange is one of the more expensive brands of OJ I've seen in our local grocery stores. We're not talking store brand or OJ made from concentrate. I get that the factory can get discounts on oranges vs us unwashed masses. HOWEVER, they have to pay for employees (wages + benefits), machinery that needs to be maintained, utilities costs, etc, etc.

How is that possible? The product from the factory has to be different from the one you would make at home. You know the inputs you used at home are real ingredients. How about the factory?

That's a good question, I can't wait to hear some answers about this. It does make you think about the process.

(11-21-2024 03:36 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Bullet is playing coy to how Big AG manipulates the agencies to keep the status quo and then turn around and play ignorant that somehow we want to ban food when that was never the point.

(11-21-2024 04:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 03:36 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Bullet is playing coy to how Big AG manipulates the agencies to keep the status quo and then turn around and play ignorant that somehow we want to ban food when that was never the point.

They really don't "manipulate the agencies." They lobby, but they don't always get their way. FDA has a lot of independent academic types. Toxicologists, food scientists, nutritionists.

The issues aren't with our food supply. Its with our choices.

You finally got one right.

Americans are very bad consumers. Yes, billions upon billions are spent annually to brainwash them into thinking any of this garbage is anything but laboratory concoctions, but the lazy, dumb and ignorant consumers are one of the worst examples of what is wrong with things.

That’s why people in other countries always say “Americans will buy anything!”

“Keep these serfs too busy to have the time to live life right” ought to be the official slogan of the food companies. And the political industry. And the fast food industry. And most of the other garbage parts of American society.

The big food producers do everything they can to maintain their opolies (be it a monopoly, duopoly or whatever) because their products don’t stand up the competition. The thing they fear most is consumers having a choice they can’t profit from.

They hide their products under hundreds of different brands too, because they don’t want people to be aware of how much of thr grocery store they each control.

Whether it’s their ingredients , branding, advertising, lobbying, or abuse of the market place, virtually everything big food does is done to screw consumers.