FOOD ADDITIVES THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL

I checked - I thought they shipped fairly far, but it seems not (and that makes sense). Highly rated though.
http://www.santamonicaseafood.com/

I used to think it was a kind of heaven for someone who likes seafood (me), and that was before they moved to a much larger place some blocks away.

what if they get a batch of shitty Metaphosphate soked scallops ? Do I send them back or just complain? Do they give me my money back? What does shipping a pund and half of scallops cost to vernight in a friggy pack?
Why would I even consider this as an option?

I think Ill keep shopping locally since really good scallops come from the back bays of the Atlantic seacoast.

Of course you won't ship from California - that was hyperbolic of me to say. But west coast u.s. people are interested in your subject too. SMSFood is highly rated as you'd see if you look at the link I gave.

I always keep V8 juice in the fridge because Antonio likes to drink it, one 12oz can has 200mg’s of sodium which is 8% and this one is labeled “Low Sodium”.

I think that many juices like V8 also have metaphosphate alts as "Emulsifying agents" a lot of products don't have to identify what they use as emulsifiers.

I suppose one can believe that the food industry has shaped the consumer's desire rather than responding to them, but I opt for the later.

Not that anyone wants to be shorted on weight, but everyone wants cheap prices, and food that looks like it was photographed by Gourmet Magazine.

We are fortunate to live in a time when we have an enormous array of choices that weren't available a relatively short time ago. Nowhere is this more the case than with food.

If you think that the big bad corporate food industry is selling you packaged crap, there are numerous alternative sources that are available to the vast majority of the population. It will cost you more, but are you going to let a few pennies stand in the way of your health?

Ironically there are a number of food products that are considered "healthier" by those who focus on such things, but which the government (FDA) will not let you buy. Camel milk only became available in 2012.

FM is perfectly correct when he advises all to "read the labels." Activists worked long and hard to insist on these labels, and yet how many people actually read them?

In a society where manufacturers are compelled to lable a product like Hersey's Almond Bar with the "WARNING: May contain traces of nuts," or those little bags of silica found in packages: "WARNING: Do not eat," the impetus is clearly lawsuit avoidance (in the face of utter stupidity) and compliance with regulation, rather than any realistic expectation that anyone actually reads the label beyond the name of the product.

How many people in this forum who have pets (and presumably feel some level of affection for them) read the labels of the food and treats they buy for them?

The vast majority of food products that are sold for pets are manufactured in China, and if you think Big Bad American Corporations play fast and loose with our lives and the lives of our adored animal companions...just know that a Chinese manufacturer of baby formula was OK with cost cutting that resulted in an estimated 300,000 Chinese babies getting sick. Something like a score of them died. They have also been found responsible for killing many more of our pets because they incorporated poisons that would jack up the required protein levels of their clients.

If you roll along in life thinking that everything you buy must be safe because the government wouldn't allow it to be otherwise... you will probably be A-OK, because the vast majority of what Americans buy is safe.

Every now and again a produce picker doesn't wash his or hands after defecating and a huge batch of something or other gets contaminated with e-coli. What actually happens though? A few people get really sick and some may even die, but a National Food Crisis? Hardly, but we seem to have developed into a society with virtually no tolerance for risk or the negative outcomes that are always inevitable, no matter how stringent controls and regulations might be.

Most Americans have no appreciation for how incredibly well our food production network operates.

If you are really concerned about the food you are putting in your mouths (and you should be) educate yourself, read the labels and stop expecting someone (government) else to take care of this for you.

Unfortunately not all of us have the abilities to coduct bacterial or food taint testing . (can you run testing for Arsenic in your vegetables ?)
We , in fact DO rely on several govt agencies to assist in keeping our food chain relatively safe. However, relatively safe is a work in progress.
We shouldn't make light of a mass tainting of lettuce where treated effluent is used with irrigation water. In a recent episode about 150 people nationwide became sickened by coliform bacteria that shouldn't have been allowed. (No "reading of labels" or "personal responsibility" would have prevented that contamination.

In the same vein, I, and several 10's pf others caught a supermarket with passing detergent treated seafood as "unadulterated". We paid the extra money per pound for "Dry packed" scallops and were screwed by some seafoo manager on the supermarket chain. It was found out later that the seafood shipper had "treated the scallops " with heametaphoosphate to jack the weights (and ruin the flavor)
The supermarket refunded and doubled our payment (probably expecting us to shut up)
Whose fault was it?

I certainly didn't have my "emulsifier and surfactant test kit" along and this stuff had no odor.

I still think that personal responsibility needs to be our first line of defense, but not our only.
You seem to want to ignore the facility of government to even assist in maintaining a safe (and tasty) food chain.
As I said before, I wont eat tomatoes this time of year. They haven't gotten the knack of "green ripening" to enhance flavor. The shippers only give a **** about weight and color, that's because those are the only items that affect their profits.

We still haven't been able to produce a tasty tomato or strawberry that needs to be shipped.

s far as my scallops, I got satisfaction and the supermarket has an entirely new seafood policy .

weve had a flap in Pa about selling "Raw milk" (unpasteurized). The state licenses specific raw milk dealers to make sure that farmers up and down the road aren't selling it without extra testing and assurances (As best as can be given)> STill, every year, we have several milk related sicknesses from tainted unpasteurized product.
Its kind of ironic, those people who sear by raw milks "healing powers" are often those most at risk if the system burps and some suppilers have incidents of bacterial contamination

It's precisely because of our expectations for "someone (government) else" to take care of educating us that we, you included notwithstanding your bitching about it, are able to educate ourselves by reading those labels that are, for the most part, accurate listings of the ingredients within the containers they adorn because "someone (government) else" has forced the labeling of said products.

For social awareness to develop, it is important for people to raise subjects into the mainstream social mind. I don't think it's a waste of time..social attitudes change gradually. Think of asbestos and lead paint. Once people realize the health implications everything changes through litigation, lobbying, boycotting, etc. Think of all the carcinogens you pour into your body without the smallest regard to implications..

You can't depend on the food suppliers or the FDA to protect your interests, unless you pressure the lawmakers to police them. So far, it only happens in a haphazard manner and so they only give in on the points where the most pressure gets applied. It's money and power that drives them, not your welfare.

Absolutely. And when lawsuits begin to pour in things change.

Obviously not even the much adored government can prevent all instances of food contamination, but then it can't prevent any hurricanes or earthquakes. Living involves risks and the risk of contaminated food in this country is quite slim. 150 sick people out of 350 million does not a food crisis make.

We do rely upon certain agencies to assist in keeping our food chain relatively safe, and it is a function of government which I find to be of value, but it is foolish to assume, as many do, that the government will make everything right for us. That's the sort of thinking that led to banning Big Gulp soft-drinks in New York City.

It is also the sort of thinking that has the federal government poised over Colorado, waiting to pounce should it's legalization of marijuana trip whatever wire it has established to protect us from ourselves.

Lucid exploration of our history of drug warring in the NYer this week.
Criminy..

I do think we need to be careful about products. I've long read labels, but labels don't tell all. I don't start out thinking companies are vile, mostly I like - or if not like, understand them, but the whole need to preserve and present good looks can be problematic to our health. Even the lining of cans, or so I hear. I don't buy many cans but I do buy canned tomatoes.

I'm an old foodie (in both senses of old) who now cooks most of her own meals primarily from scratch, but even from scratch is carrying troubling stuff at my accessible and affordable market.

On the other hand, I'm not exactly hysteric about gmo foods. Hybridizing has long gone on. I'm no fan of the foods modified to not suffer from glycophosphate (round up, etc) since that is heavily overused to take care of weeds.. and resistance is naturally happening.

I am frightened that x number of grown products will somehow takeover all of agriculture.

I do strongly rue the planting out, by zillions of acres, of opportunity for small farmers, orchard growers, and so on.

a lot of the silly positioning that led NYC to ban big sodas was accomplished with the aid of the NYT, which had, in the science Tuesday sections in previous years, done hatchet jobs on such sugary foods n drinks. It seems that, for fend that I not appear too much a conservative troll, that what NYT had missed was the important issue of SELF CONTROL and PERSONAL JUDGEMENT.

I saw today how some teacher of nutrition sciences challenged that old movie "SuperSize Me" where this guy, by eating only big macs, had ruined his health in 30 days.
This teacher lived on Mickey D **** but only had a daily intake of about 2500 calories. The guy maintained his weight and had only good responses to a solid 60 diet of Mickeyfoods. HE ASSUMED A PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND maintained an intake regimen and enjoyed the entire menu.
Living on an exclusive diet of 700 calorie big macs for all food for a day is just plain stupid and no one asked the question why only Big Macs (with fries and a soda)

Govt must have the responsibility to be the "MARSHAL" that sees our food is safe ,but portion intake is a personal choice.

Ultimately, we are each responsible for our own dietary habits, but we sometimes need to rely on group action to keep the suppliers honest.

I agree. Many are unable to actually navigate the confusing waters. I admire people who raise consciousness .

Who is behind the need to preserve and present good looking food? At best the responsibility is shared equally between producer and consumer.

You cannot eat fresh food in New York that is produced in California unless you are prepared to pay the associated price of flying it from one place to the other.

If you want cheap food throughout the year, no matter what the season, you must live with preservatives. Now this doesn't mean you need to live with preservatives that are obviously poison, but you can't expect producers to provide you with preservative free produce any time during the year and from 3,000 miles or more away.

Ultimately, virtually all of the ills you, reasonably, discern with the food supply is driven by the consumer's insistence on low prices and wide choice.

From a health and taste standpoint, the best approach is to source your food locally and seasonally, but to do so will mean you have to pay more for food, and limit your culinary choices.

I'm simply tired of people who demand they have it all.

And this is essentially my point, not only in this discussion, but so many others.

by KING 5 HealthLInk
khou.com
Posted on December 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM
If you are what you eat, you could be having an identity crisis. Foods we eat every day could include ingredients that aren't supposed to be the there. It's called "food fraud" and its a growing problem.
Fish, honey, milk, orange juice, and olive oil - what do they all have in common? They top the list when it comes to food fraud.

Cheap imitations are filling up grocery store shelves.

"One of the ways that happens is by substituting one ingredient for another. It's hard for consumers," said Dr. Mark Stoeckle, a Senior Research Associate in the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University.

High cost ingredients are especially susceptible to fraud, says Stoeckle. More expensive products are being replaced with cheaper imposters.

The top fraudster foods: olive oil. Even the extra-virgin kind is the most adulterated food, usually cut by hazelnut oil, which could pose a dangerous threat to those with nut-allergies.

Even milk can contain added sugar and salt, and skim powder - none of it listed on the label.

Tea bags are sometimes being filled with lawn grass. More expensive white tuna is switched for cheaper escolar.

Your favorite juice is mostly apple, even if it's labeled blueberry or cranberry. Honey is also one of the most common faux foods. Some are diluted with sugar syrup, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup. And according to Food Safety News, some honey being shipped from China is laced with antiobiotics and heavy metals.

Marianne Petrino sells her own honey at the farmers market.

But if you can't make your own, how do you protect yourself and your family? First, buy a whole lemon instead of lemon juice. Buy loose leaf tea instead of tea bags. Purchase whole spices, but don't buy into the newest food trend. And most importantly, rely on reputable sources you can trust. That means buying locally, if you can.

Activitists believe there also needs to be a push for more testing and regulation on foods coming from overseas.
Resource links:
U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention food fraud database