Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Hmm... that FDA list is almost entirely of processed foods. It tells us nothing definite/measurable about the main ingredients when prepared in a home environment. For instance what is the typical range of acrylamide in french fries that were made by slicing and frying a potato at home? And what kind of potato? And fried in what kind of oil? Peeled vs not? Does the FDA think Americans are all too lazy to fry their own potatoes? All these questions are rhetorical.
"...After reading 'The Jungle,' (Teddy) Roosevelt agreed with some of Sinclair's conclusions. The president wrote "radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist."[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle *********************************************** So, now we have meat inspections. Is it keeping the public safe and informed?
"...And it doesn't have to appear on the label, because over the objection of its own scientists, USDA officials with links to the beef industry label 'pink slime' as "meat."
I swear to gawd, one of these days I'm goona do like Ernest Borgnine and become vegetarian.
When this California law was passed I owned a manufacturing business that was doing some business in the state. I was notified that we had to comply even though my products were tested and free of any problems. We made the decision not to do business in California as they were too radical.
I remember this law well as it was set up as a money making entity by a law firm and a group as a profitable venture.
Folks, California is making it so loads of companies will flee the state and move to a business friendly one.
I frequently visit family in Texas near Austin. The I-35 corridor is booming with many fed up manufacturers who have moved out of California.
If you're correct about California, consider this, too: I recall the CBS "60 Minutes" episode which aired long ago, looking at Texas and its "business friendly" environment....
The show's crew invested a minimal sum: application was made to become a Notary Public. The submitted name was "I.M.Fake." It was approved and the application granted. And the official stamp appeared came in the mail, or however it came, with "I.M. Fake." Then the appropriate official was interviewed about it. His response? Well, ya know, here in Texas, we want to be business-friendly. I don't mean to pick on Texas. It probably could have happened in any Red State.
@Ben My impression is that acrylamide naturally occurs in foods as a chemical reaction to how the foods are cooked or processed, and is not a chemical additive. So even if you're making french fries at home, it doesn't matter. Foods that are roasted--coffee for instance--toasted and fried tend to produce acrylamide and I believe the more you cook them the worse your acrylamide exposure gets so for instance burnt toast is worse than light toast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide Anyone of a scientific bent please correct me if I'm wrong.
One of the linked articles said that —although it may seem counterintuitive — the longer coffee is roasted the lower the acrylamide. It's compli-ma-cated!
@Ben My impression is that acrylamide naturally occurs in foods as a chemical reaction to how the foods are cooked or processed, and is not a chemical additive. So even if you're making french fries at home, it doesn't matter. Foods that are roasted--coffee for instance--toasted and fried tend to produce acrylamide and I believe the more you cook them the worse your acrylamide exposure gets so for instance burnt toast is worse than light toast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide Anyone of a scientific bent please correct me if I'm wrong.
Foods that are roasted--coffee for instance--toasted and fried tend to produce acrylamide and I believe the more you cook them the worse your acrylamide exposure gets [...] Anyone of a scientific bent please correct me if I'm wrong.
During that Maillard reaction and acrylamide formation which inevitably follows, you may be able to reduce how much there is by roasting more.
That seems counterintuitive, but the reason for that is because acrylamide forms early during the Maillard reaction (roasting). During the later stages, it’s actually broken down.
Emphasis in original.
This just goes to show that these things are quite complex and that simple warnings can create more confusion than illumination. IMHO Prop 65 is well intentioned, but when everything seems to get stamped with a warning, the warnings are just ignored. Who has turned around and not entered an establishment because they saw a Prop 65 notice by the door?
There's the same problem with laws to ensure product safety. A product is deemed defective if its design is defective (e.g. Pinto gas tanks), or if the item you bought was manufactured incorrectly (even if the design is okay and the other items are okay), or if it does not have adequate safety warnings. The result? Products plastered with warnings. Read the side of your ladder lately?
I must be gluten free. Not infrequently I read a label along the lines of "gluten free, processed in a facility that processes wheat." What's that supposed to mean, especially now that there are regulations covering what can be called gluten-free?
It's extremely difficult to convey risks clearly. I don't have a good answer, but I do see problems in the two approaches above: sledgehammer (Prop 65) and abundance (lots of different warnings for the same product).
@MSF and Ben I was wondering about coffee and the roasting of it and why light roast was worse than dark roast. So thanks. Yet it is still true in other foods that more cooking or crispiness releases more acrylamide: https://cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/acrylamide-fact-sheet It does seem counterintuitive though, but the crispier the fries and darker the toast the worse it is, yet with coffee it's the opposite.
I better stop coating meats for the grill with coffee, then.
>> a label along the lines of "gluten free, processed in a facility that processes wheat." What's that supposed to mean,
It is to alert one in case one is extra-extra-sensitive, perhaps. Do you have a reaction with such products, can you determine? I don't know that gluten for anyone is like peanuts for a few (potentially lethal), but I bet that's the semi-analogous, aspiringly protective thinking.
Not to go too far off the subject, but to briefly address gluten ...
Celiac disease is a condition where the body attacks any gluten in the intestines in a self-destructive way. It's an immune reaction, not an allergy. Short term, the symptoms can range from nothing, to discomfort, pain, bathroom issues, etc. Long term, the interference with nutritional absorption leads to malnutrition and its effects, as well as a slew of other less obvious effects. This can be deadly, but not short term like a peanut allergy. https://celiac.org/celiac-disease/understanding-celiac-disease-2/what-is-celiac-disease/
Other people are sensitive to gluten, and will tend to exhibit similar short term symptoms. Degrees of sensitivity differ.
Whatever I'm doing, and I tend to disregard the warnings about food being processed in Kansas with its wheat fields waving, seems to be sufficient. I had a biopsy a year or two ago, and the villi in my intestines looked fine.
My own thought about the labeling "gluten free, but ..." is that it's lawyers gone wild. Warning about everything may provide legal cover but has the effect of warning about nothing.
Interesting fact about veggie burgers - almost all have wheat filler. I guess for health reasons I have to stick with good old beef
When I was in college studying pharmacologic... The PhD professor started half of the plants we eat have some form of carcinogenic that may cause various cancer
@msf; Interesting fact about veggie burgers - almost all have wheat filler. I guess for health reasons I have to stick with good old beef:-) They have corn fillers !! Enjoy your beef !! Derf
Yes, non-celiac gluten sensitivity is different from the true disease, which is why I asked. It is now well-studied and defined at least compared w a couple decades ago and more. Glutenfree may be legal fear in excelsis, but even non-alarmist parents (and consumers in general) like to know, whether to be needlessly alarmed, or genuinely.
There are lots of non-gluten veggie burgers, I see every time I look at the supermarket, plus sites devoted to same.
And for sure lots of "natural" products, plants and much else, are wicked dangerous, carcinogenic and worse.
Coffee has health benefits. It cures headaches. It prevents traffic accidents. And to quote a a friend from the west of Ireland who was amused by the idiomatic expressions of young people of the late 1960s: "now the t'ing about coffee, it really gets your sh** together". But veggie burgers? What did veggie burgers ever do for anyone?
VEGETABLES (MUSHROOMS, WATER CHESTNUTS, ONIONS, CARROTS, GREEN BELL PEPPERS, RED BELL PEPPERS, BLACK OLIVES), TEXTURED VEGETABLE PROTEIN (SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, WHEAT GLUTEN, WATER FOR HYDRATION), EGG WHITES, COOKED BROWN RICE (WATER, BROWN RICE), ROLLED OATS, CORN OIL, CALCIUM CASEINATE, SOY SAUCE (WATER, SOYBEANS, SALT, WHEAT), CONTAINS TWO PERCENT OR LESS OF ONION POWDER, CORNSTARCH, SALT, HYDROLYZED VEGETABLE PROTEIN (CORN, SOY AND WHEAT), AUTOLYZED YEAST EXTRACT, NATURAL FLAVORS FROM NON-MEAT SOURCES, SUGAR, SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE, SPICES, GARLIC POWDER, DEXTROSE, JALAPEÑO PEPPER POWDER, CELERY EXTRACT.
Yes there are niche glutten-free veggie burgers; still almost all contain wheat: "Avoid Morningstar Farms, Boca Burgers, and Gardenburger products—virtually all of their products contain wheat and gluten ingredients, and those that do not will be subject to gluten cross-contamination." https://www.verywellfit.com/gluten-free-veggie-burgers-562387
Amy's, correct, some; Praeger, some; a few others; all are at my local supermarkets (Mass.). The other manufacturers that come up from a search not so much. I believe Gardein I found once, but then it disappeared, will check and report next time. Praeger has a wee spinach cake that is gf; Costco sells it some of the time too.
@Maurice While I also think California overreacted to coffee, posting op-eds from bs sources is not helping your argument. The Center for Accountability in Science is a front for corporate lobbyist Richard Berman who is behind almost every garbage anti-science campaign out there:
@Maurice Not here to "demonize" all your comments. I just have a low tolerance threshold for junk science promulgated by corporate lobbyists who are facilitating the destruction of our planet. Also, if you read carefully, I actually agree with you that California overreacted. Your reference to junk science weakens your argument, not strengthens it.
@Maurice I consider comments from a representative of an organization specifically backed by a lobbyist for corporations seeking to repeal or weaken California's Prop. 65 for their own financial interests highly suspect on their face. That's why I say it weakens your argument. You don't need to cite a controversial biased source to make the case California overreacted. The data from the FDA reveals that there are worse offenders than coffee that have acrylamide in them, especially when you consider the dilution factor in making coffee. In other words, you used the nuclear option on your argument when a scalpel will do just fine.
I've got to go along with davidrmoran here - assuming there are valid arguments that acrylamide in coffee is not a potential carcinogen, this is not the guy to cite.
I don't think anyone here has said Prop 65 doesn't have problems. I've said that Prop 65 warnings are so ubiquitous that they seem to be largely ignored. But criticizing the law doesn't alter the facts about coffee or acrylamide.
Among other things, it says that potato chips (from Frito-Lay, HJ Heinz, Kettle Foods, and Lance) used to contain a level of acrylamide that necessitated a Prop 65 warning. But as a result of a Prop 65 suit, the potato chips were reformulated to contain a much smaller amount of acrylamide. No longer is a warning required. So even though the other articles cited seem to say that you're stuck with acrylamide as a cooking byproduct, at least for some foods that's not true. For potato chips, the result of Prop 65 was not a warning sticker, but a safer product.
Regarding the studies saying that coffee is safe, the court viewed the question differently. Suppose I gave you two pills, one that doubled your risk of cancer, and one that cut it in half. Would you say that the total package was something okay (since it didn't increase your odds of getting cancer), or would you say that you were consuming a carcinogen? The court said the latter. While the total package that you get with coffee may not increase your risk of cancer, it still contains a high level of acrylamide, a potential carcinogen.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
***********************************************
So, now we have meat inspections. Is it keeping the public safe and informed?
"...And it doesn't have to appear on the label, because over the objection of its own scientists, USDA officials with links to the beef industry label 'pink slime' as "meat."
I swear to gawd, one of these days I'm goona do like Ernest Borgnine and become vegetarian.
I remember this law well as it was set up as a money making entity by a law firm and a group as a profitable venture.
Folks, California is making it so loads of companies will flee the state and move to a business friendly one.
I frequently visit family in Texas near Austin. The I-35 corridor is booming with many
fed up manufacturers who have moved out of California.
Did that turn out to be a sound business decision?
The show's crew invested a minimal sum: application was made to become a Notary Public. The submitted name was "I.M.Fake." It was approved and the application granted. And the official stamp appeared came in the mail, or however it came, with "I.M. Fake." Then the appropriate official was interviewed about it. His response? Well, ya know, here in Texas, we want to be business-friendly.
I don't mean to pick on Texas. It probably could have happened in any Red State.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide
Anyone of a scientific bent please correct me if I'm wrong.
https://www.superfoodly.com/acrylamide-coffee-cancer-risk/Emphasis in original.
This just goes to show that these things are quite complex and that simple warnings can create more confusion than illumination. IMHO Prop 65 is well intentioned, but when everything seems to get stamped with a warning, the warnings are just ignored. Who has turned around and not entered an establishment because they saw a Prop 65 notice by the door?
There's the same problem with laws to ensure product safety. A product is deemed defective if its design is defective (e.g. Pinto gas tanks), or if the item you bought was manufactured incorrectly (even if the design is okay and the other items are okay), or if it does not have adequate safety warnings. The result? Products plastered with warnings. Read the side of your ladder lately?
I must be gluten free. Not infrequently I read a label along the lines of "gluten free, processed in a facility that processes wheat." What's that supposed to mean, especially now that there are regulations covering what can be called gluten-free?
It's extremely difficult to convey risks clearly. I don't have a good answer, but I do see problems in the two approaches above: sledgehammer (Prop 65) and abundance (lots of different warnings for the same product).
It does seem counterintuitive though, but the crispier the fries and darker the toast the worse it is, yet with coffee it's the opposite.
>> a label along the lines of "gluten free, processed in a facility that processes wheat." What's that supposed to mean,
It is to alert one in case one is extra-extra-sensitive, perhaps. Do you have a reaction with such products, can you determine? I don't know that gluten for anyone is like peanuts for a few (potentially lethal), but I bet that's the semi-analogous, aspiringly protective thinking.
Celiac disease is a condition where the body attacks any gluten in the intestines in a self-destructive way. It's an immune reaction, not an allergy. Short term, the symptoms can range from nothing, to discomfort, pain, bathroom issues, etc. Long term, the interference with nutritional absorption leads to malnutrition and its effects, as well as a slew of other less obvious effects. This can be deadly, but not short term like a peanut allergy.
https://celiac.org/celiac-disease/understanding-celiac-disease-2/what-is-celiac-disease/
Other people are sensitive to gluten, and will tend to exhibit similar short term symptoms. Degrees of sensitivity differ.
Whatever I'm doing, and I tend to disregard the warnings about food being processed in Kansas with its wheat fields waving, seems to be sufficient. I had a biopsy a year or two ago, and the villi in my intestines looked fine.
My own thought about the labeling "gluten free, but ..." is that it's lawyers gone wild. Warning about everything may provide legal cover but has the effect of warning about nothing.
Interesting fact about veggie burgers - almost all have wheat filler. I guess for health reasons I have to stick with good old beef
They have corn fillers !! Enjoy your beef !!
Derf
There are lots of non-gluten veggie burgers, I see every time I look at the supermarket, plus sites devoted to same.
And for sure lots of "natural" products, plants and much else, are wicked dangerous, carcinogenic and worse.
Yes there are niche glutten-free veggie burgers; still almost all contain wheat: "Avoid Morningstar Farms, Boca Burgers, and Gardenburger products—virtually all of their products contain wheat and gluten ingredients, and those that do not will be subject to gluten cross-contamination."
https://www.verywellfit.com/gluten-free-veggie-burgers-562387
Amy's is pretty well known, but look what they're getting into: fast food drive through complete with acrylamide-laden french fries.
https://www.today.com/food/amy-s-kitchen-open-fast-food-drive-thru-restaurants-t116035
Amy's, correct, some; Praeger, some; a few others; all are at my local supermarkets (Mass.). The other manufacturers that come up from a search not so much. I believe Gardein I found once, but then it disappeared, will check and report next time. Praeger has a wee spinach cake that is gf; Costco sells it some of the time too.
stophumanewatch.org/blog/web-of-lies
https://citizensforethics.org/berman-enlists-industry-scientist-for-center-accountability-in-science/
https://theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/politics/pr-executives-western-energy-alliance-speech-taped.html
I don't think anyone here has said Prop 65 doesn't have problems. I've said that Prop 65 warnings are so ubiquitous that they seem to be largely ignored. But criticizing the law doesn't alter the facts about coffee or acrylamide.
Here's a good summary of the case, including the scientific background, the law, and the court's reasoning. It's only about 10 paragraphs long, and it comes from a law firm:
https://www.hollandhart.com/california-court-does-not-side-with-coffee
Among other things, it says that potato chips (from Frito-Lay, HJ Heinz, Kettle Foods, and Lance) used to contain a level of acrylamide that necessitated a Prop 65 warning. But as a result of a Prop 65 suit, the potato chips were reformulated to contain a much smaller amount of acrylamide. No longer is a warning required. So even though the other articles cited seem to say that you're stuck with acrylamide as a cooking byproduct, at least for some foods that's not true. For potato chips, the result of Prop 65 was not a warning sticker, but a safer product.
Regarding the studies saying that coffee is safe, the court viewed the question differently. Suppose I gave you two pills, one that doubled your risk of cancer, and one that cut it in half. Would you say that the total package was something okay (since it didn't increase your odds of getting cancer), or would you say that you were consuming a carcinogen? The court said the latter. While the total package that you get with coffee may not increase your risk of cancer, it still contains a high level of acrylamide, a potential carcinogen.