The Truth About Healthy Eating

[Valentijn]

My point is there isn't a widespread dislike of Umami flavour ....people love it. People have been using all sorts of flavourings to enhance their food for thousands of years.

Umami flavors are pretty nice when naturally occurring. But I find artificial flavor enhancers to be a bit creepy - there's this savory flavor but it doesn't actually taste like anything. Of course, my dislike is probably strongly connected to the consequences of eating it for me.

The glutamate in yeast extract is classed as natural origin which is why it has a "cleaner label". Are you saying that manufacturers shouldn't use yeast extract at all? Just because it has glutamate in it doesn't mean that its wrong.

I'm saying it's dishonest to play "hide the MSG" by finding alternative sources for free glutamic acid that have exactly the same effect. You're also being extremely dishonest in equating glutamate with MSG or other sources of free glutamic acid.

Most flavourings added in EU food nowadays are natural flavourings,not artificial or nature identical.

Oh, bullshit. I read the ingredients of everything I put on our shopping list using the supermarket's app. There's still a ton of artificial flavorings in pretty much everything, and if they're moving away from yeast extract now at all, it's due to an increased rejection of it by consumers.

I'm not sure what meats you are referring to but my general rule of thumb is that anything with a gravy or sauce, coating or marinade can have flavouring added to it.

Or anything processed. Which means I order meats and veggies which are completely unprocessed, aside from being chopped. Here's a breakdown of the proteins on sale at a major Dutch supermarket currently:
MSG/E621:
Yeast Extract: 1 meatball, 1 vegetarian meat
"Yeast" (but no breading, etc): 1 spiced chicken wings
Hydrolyzed Proteins: 4 meatballs, 1 spiced chicken wings
Flavors: 4 meatballs, 1 smoked salmon, 1 spiced chicken wings
Natural Flavors: 1 meatball, 4 vegetarian "meats", 1 smoked salmon
Unspecified spices and/or herbs: 3 sausages
None of the Above: 1 sausage, 1 meatball, 1 smoked salmon, 4 unflavored chicken wings, 1 spiced chicken wings
Ingredients not listed: 2 meatballs

So out of 26 meats on sale, there's 8 I can safely eat. That's a lot of overly processed crap.

I am unaware of any fresh meat that has meat style flavourings added to it to enhance flavour or these fake fillers you are talking about.

The meatballs, for example, are between 52% and 87% meat, with several starches added. The sausages are 88-93% meat, with potato starch added to three of them.

With regards to "honest labeling" I'm not sure what you are getting at. Perhaps describe what you would like to see rather than just come up with blaming these fictitious corporations.

Added sources of free glutamic acid. Some things inherently contain it naturally, of course (mushrooms, parmesan, etc), but I'd like to look for one bloody ingredient on the package, not a dozen, and preferably highlighted like the common allergens. But it won't happen, because that is exactly what the food industry is opposed to doing. Obfuscation benefits their bottom lines, as it lets them get away with selling cheaper and tastier products for a while until they need to find a new euphemism for MSG.

My advice (for what its worth) to make it easier is to avoid brands and buy own label, trust the label declaration and avoid savoury products that have the word Flavouring in the ingredients list.

Hah, the Dutch supermarket labels are some of the worst. They'll have two products described the same way, eg with the same sauce, and the ingredients list will be completely different. Should I assume that "spices" can't include yeast extract, when the other product with the same sauce lists "yeast extract"?

I stick to completely unprocessed food as much as possible, but it'd be nice to have some variety without it being a major headache (pun intended) to figure out what's safe to eat. And being very disabled, I'm very limited in how much cutting, spicing, etc I can handle - yet I'm denied access to the most convenient foods, because unnecessary ingredients have been added to make them a taste a bit better.

The same could be applied to legislation for added ingredients with glutamate in them, however glutamic acid is an amino acid and naturally present in many many foods, so proving it was added or naturally present may be problematic from an analytical point of view.

Free glutamic acid is quite distinct from bound glutamate, as I suspect you already know. It's present naturally in very few foods, so I really don't see a problem with distinguishing between the two regarding labeling.

 

[Jigsaw]

Yes, phenols (mainly salicycilates), oxalates, you name it

That sucks.

My original resticted "clean foods" diet, when everything got intolerable in the late 1980's, early 1990's, was bottled mineral water (couldn't even tolerate spring water, had to be mineral), olive oil, lamb, lamb's liver, salmon, plaice, prawns, green veg (except peas), organic brown rice, organic rice cakes, lettuce, cucumber, a few herbs like tarragon, mint, and oregano. I could cope with small amounts of lemon juice in water. That was it. That was my diet for over ten years.

No fruit, including tomatoes, nothing that was a root vegetable (potatoes, carrots, parsnips, etc), nothing tinned, nothing ready-made and packaged, no chicken, beef, turkey, bacon, pork in any form (I've never really eaten processed meat products like sausages or burgers anyway), no eggs, peppers, nuts, wheat, oats, rye (all grains apart from brown organic rice), no alcohol, no tap water even for washing and cooking vegetables in, no cheese, no milk, no soft drinks or fruit juice, no yoghurt, cream, ice cream, fromage frais, custard, etc.

My diet is less restricted now, since my thyroid and adrenals were supported as of 2000, but I still don't tolerate tap water, alcohol, anything ready-made and packaged, nuts still make me projectile vomit, I'm still iffy with grains except organic brown rice, fruit juice (even fresh squeezed no additives no preservatives etc) and tinned products. I now tolerate milk, cheese, eggs, yoghurt, butter, some fruits, beef, chicken, turkey, pork (organic), and can use filtered tap water for washing and cooking foods.

I never did identify which substances in each food were causing my reactions. I simply avoided anything that made me feel ill, and still do.

What's your clean foods diet consist of?

 

[Gondwanaland]

What's your clean foods diet consist of?

It's a constantly moving target
No grains except for parboiled rice and (recently introduced) Teff (but might be causing me issues)
No milk
No soy
No raw tomatoes
No garlic
No tinned or packaged foods
Nothing pre-made or pre-frozen
Highly limited goitrogens (no spinach)
Highly limited cucurbitaceae (pumpkins)
Highly limited fruit
No tea/herbals at the moment
No sweet potatoes or taro
Highly limited nuts
No seeds at the moment
....
I can get away with potatoes if I limit them to 1-2x weekly

 

[Mij]

Table salt is only sodium and chloride, plus anti-caking agents and possibly iodine.

Right, the program was more to do with comparison in prices and why we shouldn't dish out more money for 'fancy' salt when we're not really gaining more benefit from mineral content that has fractional differences. I eat sea veggies to get all my iodine etc.

I'll stick with pink H salt and 'fancy' salt to avoid the junk.

 

[Jigsaw]

Red herring alert !

I have not been commenting on people's reactions to foods. I am commenting on comments made that manufacturers are deliberately trying to mislead consumers.

perhaps stick to the subject matter rather than try and interpret my emotions (which you seem to be way of beam btw) My only motivation here is to offer an experienced point of view of the food industry that counters some of the other comments made on this thread regarding the manufacture and labelling of products. I am not commenting on other peoples Illnesses in this regard.

Yes you did.

You responded to one of @Valentijn's posts by saying something like 'as you say, [bad reactions] are relatively rare, so I don't see how that's relevant' or somethimg very similar. I can't locate the post now.

And I am NOT throwing up red herrings. I was asking an honest question. It isn't unreasonable to ask questions in a discussion, and it isn't unreasonable to imagine that it must be harder for a non-hypersensitive eater to have a real understanding of what hypersensitive eaters go through.

Red herrings, scare-mongering.....it could be argued that these accusations are merely attempts at deflecting the comments made. They're emotive phrases. I'm not trying to interpret your emotions, I'm trying to understand why you're so defensive of processed food, and can only think that you don't experience the same physical response to it that some of us do.

I don't think I said manufacturers are deliberately trying to mislead consumers, over and above the recent inclusion of rapeseed oil as being healthy, which as far as I'm concerned, it is not, but I do agree with Valentijn. She makes some excellent points.

What I said was that for me, processed foods (by which I mean packaged with additives) make me ill and and I said hormones and antibiotics are used in intensive meat farming, which is a matter of fact, not fiction.

For your part, you've steadfastly not answered my question about whether you've read "The Great Food Gamble" by John Humphrys. I offered to lend it to you if we finally meet up. Aren't you curious?

 

[Jigsaw]

It's a constantly moving target
No grains except for parboiled rice and (recently introduced) Teff (but might be causing me issues)
No milk
No soy
No raw tomatoes
No garlic
No tinned or packaged foods
Nothing pre-made or pre-frozen
Highly limited goitrogens (no spinach)
Highly limited cucurbitaceae (pumpkins)
Highly limited fruit
No tea/herbals at the moment
No sweet potatoes or taro
Highly limited nuts
No seeds at the moment
....
I can get away with potatoes if I limit them to 1-2x weekly

Poor you. That sounds as rubbish as my clean foods diet.

I'm doing iodosupplementation at the moment, and according to the literature, and to personal accounts, iodine is heavily involved in digestive health. It keeps candida from proliferating to the point where it causes problems, it is necessary to produce stomach acid, it maintains healthy gut walls and stomach lining, and iodine deficiency is heavily implicated in food allergy and intolerance.

Have you done any research on iodine so far?

 

[Mij]

@arewenearlythereyet thanks for all the great info!

 

[Jigsaw]

https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/publication/foodpestfactsh.pdf

From the above -

"Pesticide residues can remain even when pesticides are applied in the right amount and at the right time. Sometimes they need to remain on the crop to do their job. For example, they may need to be on the surface of the fruit or the vegetable to protect it from pests during storage. Some pesticides are applied after harvest for this purpose."
-So even thorough washing doesn't get rid of some pesticides. ** I meant to copy the part of the document linked here that talk about systemic pesticides, not surface ones.



"Are pesticide residues in food safe?

People eating small amounts of pesticide residues in their diet are not at risk, provided that intakes are below the safety limits that are set by expert committees when the pesticide is approved."

-What is safe for one person isn't necessarily safe for another. Safety limits are presumably based on the impact of the substance concerned on a healthy person, not people with sensitivities.

"Many scientific studies are done to set the safety limits and it is standard practice to include a large safety factor. "
- Again, I have to assume they are focussed on healthy, non-sensitive consumers.

"On the best science available, no harm will come to people who consume an amount of pesticide that is below the safety limits for that pesticide."
-As mentioned elsewhere in this document, intake of pesticides is dependent on how high your intake of that food is, so you might easily exceed the safety limit by eating a lot of "healthy" fruit and veg.

"The risk to health from elinimating fruit and vegetables from the diet would far outweigh the risks posed by possible exposure to pesticide residues."
- Very dramatic. Organic growers manage to produce fruit and veg without chemical pesticides.

"

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

Yes you did.

You responded to one of @Valentijn's posts by saying something like 'as you say, [bad reactions] are relatively rare, so I don't see how that's relevant' or somethimg very similar. I can't locate the post now.

And I am NOT throwing up red herrings. I was asking an honest question. It isn't unreasonable to ask questions in a discussion, and it isn't unreasonable to imagine that it must be harder for a non-hypersensitive eater to have a real understanding of what hypersensitive eaters go through.

Red herrings, scare-mongering.....it could be argued that these accusations are merely attempts at deflecting the comments made. They're emotive phrases. I'm not trying to interpret your emotions, I'm trying to understand why you're so defensive of processed food, and can only think that you don't experience the same physical response to it that some of us do.

I don't think I said manufacturers are deliberately trying to mislead consumers, over and above the recent inclusion of rapeseed oil as being healthy, which as far as I'm concerned, it is not, but I do agree with Valentijn. She makes some excellent points.

What I said was that for me, processed foods (by which I mean packaged with additives) make me ill and and I said hormones and antibiotics are used in intensive meat farming, which is a matter of fact, not fiction.

For your part, you've steadfastly not answered my question about whether you've read "The Great Food Gamble" by John Humphrys. I offered to lend it to you if we finally meet up. Aren't you curious?

I think I'm going to have to have a lie down and try to answer these one by one.

You are questioning my sympathy and accusing me of being dismissive. That is a little low but I will answer you. I have every sympathy with anyone going through the symptoms of this shitty disease. I do not dismiss people's symptoms and do not dismiss the fact that one day I may be in the same place. There is plenty of evidence to show that immune response is way up the creek and this varies widely amongst us with what seems like a slow deterioration of symptoms being linked to increased sensitivity to many things. So I am not dismissive of food sensitivities. That doesn't mean I can't defend my profession and correct facts without being accused of being unsympathetic just because I don't have food sensitivity yet. hopefully that explains my sympathies.

I am trying to say that there is no conspiracy of manufacturers to hide things from consumers including free glutamate. The labelling legislation is what needs to change and this dictates what manufacturers can put on their label if consumers want that information.

I think I also challenged your claim that fresh produce manufacturers spray chlorophyll on plants to make them greener. you didn't seem to have any back up other than hearsay in the end despite saying that this was well reported or words to that effect. So I think you are being a little selective in your arguments here.

There also appears to be a difference in terminology. Processed food to me is anything that is fundamentally changed by a food processing plant e.g pasteurisation of milk, making butter, mincing beef bread etc. Unprocessed food would be simply graded and packed produce like eggs, unwashed fresh produce etc. I also use the word artificial in its legal sense ....there are terminology issues here I think. Natural flavourings are still classed as flavourings on the ingredients list, but they are not classed as artificial for claims such as "with no artificial colours or flavours" Yeast extract is classed as natural since its been "farmed" from yeast which is a natural organism like any other we eat.

I am not putting a judgement on what people should or shouldn't eat. Just trying to explain why things are labelled the way they are. it is a point of view and I'm sure I won't convince many who are entrenched in the daily mail version of the food industry and believe in the conpiracy of big business etc. Having worked in the food industry all my working life though...I can't say that this is something I've ever encountered. I have encountered ineptitude of an differing scales....but this isn't really what I would say is an orchestrated plan of deceit as many journalists portray.

I have not read the book, which I may. Unfortunately I have no feeling left in my fingertips to turn pages of books so I will need a kindle version rather than borrow a book. I have a backlog though and I'm steeling myself to read myhills mitochondria not hypochondria next.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Have you done any research on iodine so far?

My estrogen levels are too low to take iodine, plus Hashimoto's (which I have) doesn't always respond well to iodine

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

First @Valentijn I just wanted to reassure you that I wasn't being dismissive about what you are going through when i said it was a relatively rare condition. What I was trying to say was that because it is rare there is less pressure on the legislation to offer labeling advice more specific than the ingredients. This wasn't to say its rare so I don't care. It was more a statement of context for the rest of the labeling information. If I caused offence by this please accept my apologies that wasn't my intention

To quickly answer a couple of your challenges

I'm saying it's dishonest to play "hide the MSG" by finding alternative sources for free glutamic acid that have exactly the same effect. You're also being extremely dishonest in equating glutamate with MSG or other sources of free glutamic acid.

I don't think I'm being dishonest .....bit harsh .I'm not trying to hide anything just explain how the legislation is structured. Yeast extract is classed as a natural ingredient since its wholly from the yeast itself. If its labelled correctly and gives a benefit its a matter of choice. A bit like any other ingredient that some people have allergies to (celery etc etc). Whether it is really needed or not depends on the product I guess.

Oh, bullshit. I read the ingredients of everything I put on our shopping list using the supermarket's app. There's still a ton of artificial flavorings in pretty much everything, and if they're moving away from yeast extract now at all, it's due to an increased rejection of it by consumers.

This I think is a definition of artificial ......just to clarify all added flavourings will be described as "flavouring" on the ingredients list. "Natural flavourings" are a type of added flavouring as are "Nature identical" and "Artificial". So when you see a label with a claim "with no artificial colours or flavourings" that means it can still have flavourings in it but they have to be natural. A natural flavouring is comprised of extracts and tinctures from items found in nature. Most flavourings used nowadays are of this type since there was a big shift in EU away from artificial and Nature identical flavourings about 10 years ago. There are exceptions as mentioned earlier. Yeast extract is not classed as a flavouring or spice or anything else. It is defined as "yeast extract" on the ingredients label. So no you shouldn't see this hidden away as "spices" from a labeling point of view.

The meatballs, for example, are between 52% and 87% meat, with several starches added. The sausages are 88-93% meat, with potato starch added to three of them.

Right..I get what type of meat you are talking about now. So these are all meat products as oppose to fresh meat etc. What I would say is that you get what you pay for. Sausages (in the UK and ireland anyway) always have traditionally had a bit of rusk in them mainly to bind the meat and fat together. The minimum meat content is around 35% from memory. It is really tricky to get a 100% meat sausage since the texture is wrong and it falls apart so the higher the meat content means that you have less space for rusk so have to use potato starch instead. In the case of sausages, the meat also includes the fat. A traditional sausage from a butcher will have the same problem. Meatballs are similar and use breadcrumbs traditionally with minced pork. the breadcrumbs are used for the same reason as the sausage. So in this case, the cheap "filler" potato starch is actually used to bind the product so you get more meat in your sausage. In the case of meatballs I've seen rice flour and pea flour being used for the same reason recently mainly driven to the trend to have gluten free claims. So the cheap filler is mainly being used as a binder to make the product more expensive.

Added sources of free glutamic acid. Some things inherently contain it naturally, of course (mushrooms, parmesan, etc), but I'd like to look for one bloody ingredient on the package, not a dozen, and preferably highlighted like the common allergens. But it won't happen, because that is exactly what the food industry is opposed to doing. Obfuscation benefits their bottom lines, as it lets them get away with selling cheaper and tastier products for a while until they need to find a new euphemism for MSG.

As mentioned I don't believe that using yeast extract helps the bottom line and food manufacturers are resistant to not using it since it impacts their profit....its a bit like saying we shouldn't use cream because it makes food taste yummy cheaply and some people are allergic to dairy etc?

Hah, the Dutch supermarket labels are some of the worst. They'll have two products described the same way, eg with the same sauce, and the ingredients list will be completely different. Should I assume that "spices" can't include yeast extract, when the other product with the same sauce lists "yeast extract"?

That looks like an updated recipe or packaging ? weird. As mentioned they can't hide the yeast extract in the spices declaration so hope that helps a bit.

Free glutamic acid is quite distinct from bound glutamate, as I suspect you already know. It's present naturally in very few foods, so I really don't see a problem with distinguishing between the two regarding labeling.

I'm sure its possible given the right motivation, although last time I did analysis on amino acids, you had to hydrolyse the whole lot first with HCL before running it through an HPLC, The issue is you would have to somehow extract the free stuff from the bound ...I can see a number of problems with this in mixed food products especially those that have been cooked. Its not beyond the wit of man, but it will have to have a validated method established and set of accredited laboratories set up before the legislation can be updated.

 

[Jigsaw]

My estrogen levels are too low to take iodine, plus Hashimoto's (which I have) doesn't always respond well to iodine

Selenium has been shown in the studies by Abraham, Brownstein, et al, to negate the stimulation of thyroid antibodies.

Iodine is needed to make oestrogen and every other hormone.

Why do you think iodine sufficiency impacts negatively on oestrogen levels?

 

[Gondwanaland]

Selenium has been shown in the studies by Abraham, Brownstein, et al, to negate the stimulation of thyroid antibodies.

Iodine is needed to make oestrogen and every other hormone.

Why do you think iodine sufficiency impacts negatively on oestrogen levels?

I replied at the Iodine thread

 

[Jigsaw]

I think I'm going to have to have a lie down and try to answer these one by one.

You are questioning my sympathy and accusing me of being dismissive. That is a little low but I will answer you. I have every sympathy with anyone going through the symptoms of this shitty disease. I do not dismiss people's symptoms and do not dismiss the fact that one day I may be in the same place. There is plenty of evidence to show that immune response is way up the creek and this varies widely amongst us with what seems like a slow deterioration of symptoms being linked to increased sensitivity to many things. So I am not dismissive of food sensitivities. That doesn't mean I can't defend my profession and correct facts without being accused of being unsympathetic just because I don't have food sensitivity yet. hopefully that explains my sympathies.

I am trying to say that there is no conspiracy of manufacturers to hide things from consumers including free glutamate. The labelling legislation is what needs to change and this dictates what manufacturers can put on their label if consumers want that information.

I think I also challenged your claim that fresh produce manufacturers spray chlorophyll on plants to make them greener. you didn't seem to have any back up other than hearsay in the end despite saying that this was well reported or words to that effect. So I think you are being a little selective in your arguments here.

There also appears to be a difference in terminology. Processed food to me is anything that is fundamentally changed by a food processing plant e.g pasteurisation of milk, making butter, mincing beef bread etc. Unprocessed food would be simply graded and packed produce like eggs, unwashed fresh produce etc. I also use the word artificial in its legal sense ....there are terminology issues here I think. Natural flavourings are still classed as flavourings on the ingredients list, but they are not classed as artificial for claims such as "with no artificial colours or flavours" Yeast extract is classed as natural since its been "farmed" from yeast which is a natural organism like any other we eat.

I am not putting a judgement on what people should or shouldn't eat. Just trying to explain why things are labelled the way they are. it is a point of view and I'm sure I won't convince many who are entrenched in the daily mail version of the food industry and believe in the conpiracy of big business etc. Having worked in the food industry all my working life though...I can't say that this is something I've ever encountered. I have encountered ineptitude of an differing scales....but this isn't really what I would say is an orchestrated plan of deceit as many journalists portray.

I have not read the book, which I may. Unfortunately I have no feeling left in my fingertips to turn pages of books so I will need a kindle version rather than borrow a book. I have a backlog though and I'm steeling myself to read myhills mitochondria not hypochondria next.

Dear @arewenearlythereyet,

I'm not going to fall out with you over this.

It seems that we are not communicating well here.

I genuinely am at a loss to understand why my personal experience of being hypersensitive to what I perceive to be "processed" foods should provoke such provocative responses from you, together with aspersions that people who disagree with your point of view, your opinion, must be Daily Mail readers. You make reference to The Mail three times.

Best bet is to never read the daily mail on food issues. I understand that it's nice to make sweeping statements for effect

oh and that literary milestone the daily mail.

it is a point of view and I'm sure I won't convince many who are entrenched in the daily mail version of the food industry and believe in the conpiracy of big business etc.

I am not a Mail reader. I don't read "news"- papers and I wouldn't use any of them as a research resource.

You yourself use colourful language in your replies, with words and phrases like "blanket scaremongering", "claim" (several times), "bizarre claim", "grossly misinformed", "gross exaggeration", "sensationalist conspiracy theories", "accuse/ accusation/ accusing", and "preservatives are added so that you don't die" (which does imply that eating preservative-free foods kills people, and clearly that is not 100% accurate since I am alive to write this). You have deliberately applied "preservative" to include methods other than the chemical additives that were being debated in relation to food sensitivities, including freezing and salt, you have tried to put words in my mouth, have misquoted me, and generally have shown little respect for any opinion or experience I have expressed. All of those traits are, in my opinion, highly journalistic.

I had started to write a full and proper reply to you last night, but much of what I copy-pasted and quoted from our exchanges seems to have vanished from my screen today, and frankly, I've already spent a disproportionate amount of time on this and am not inclined to extend that much further.


But to respond to a few of your comments:

You are questioning my sympathy and accusing me of being dismissive. That is a little low

No, I haven't questioned your sympathy, I've questioned your understanding of food and chemical intolerances and asked if having no such intolerances led to you more easily dismissing our concerns over processed food. I did not accuse you of being dismissive, only of dismissing the concerns expressed in this thread:

Having said that, I'm surprised you aren't more cautious when it comes to processed foods. Do you not suffer from any chemical or food and drink sensitivities? I don't care how tightly regulated processed foods are, they are still full of pesticides, herbicides, hormones, preservatives, etc.

(Perhaps I should add "as far as I'm concerned." A substance doesn't have to be in any significant quantity for me to react badly to it, but if I do react badly to it, my perception is that it is "full " of pesticides/ herbicides /hormones /preservatives, etc.)

And

I don't have chemical sensitivities or allergies to food so luckily don't have to modify my diet too much....thanks for asking and your considered advice

(I don't believe I have offered you any advice re: food allergy or intolerance. The only thing I have said which could possibly be construed as "advice" is my observation that meat commonly contains hormones and antibiotics, and that oestrogen drives particular cancers.)

And

Apparently, @arewenearlythereyet, you don't experience the same sort of sensitivities that @Valentijn and myself, and many others with CFS/ME experience. Is it possible that you are so quick to dismiss our concerns because of this?

Some of which prompted a "red herring alert!" response from you. Please see below:

And I am NOT throwing up red herrings. I was asking an honest question. It isn't unreasonable to ask questions in a discussion, and it isn't unreasonable to imagine that it must be harder for a non-hypersensitive eater to have a real understanding of what hypersensitive eaters go through.

So I am not dismissive of food sensitivities.

I didn't say you were and I don't believe I implied that.

That doesn't mean I can't defend my profession and correct facts without being accused of being unsympathetic

By all means. Correcting facts is how we all learn. And, once again, at no point did I say you were unsympathetic. However, it doesn't matter how factual your comments are regarding food and regulations, because none of it will allow hypersensitive eaters to eat any wider a range of foods than they can already tolerate

I am trying to say that there is no conspiracy of manufacturers to hide things from consumers including free glutamate. The labelling legislation is what needs to change and this dictates what manufacturers can put on their label if consumers want that information.

Aside from touting blatantly unhealthy foodstuffs as healthy (e.g., 0% fat, rapeseed oil, which in my opinion are actively unhealthy) and glossing over the use of antibiotics, growth hormone, and oestrogen in meat and dairy animals, for all I know, your statement is correct. Your comment above about labelling legislation seems to imply that you think there is an existent problem with the labelling of food, however.

I think I also challenged your claim that fresh produce manufacturers spray chlorophyll on plants to make them greener. you didn't seem to have any back up other than hearsay in the end despite saying that this was well reported or words to that effect. So I think you are being a little selective in your arguments here.

You are right to challenge any statement that is obviously rubbish to you. Again, it's how we learn. You're right, it was essentially hearsay, albeit from someone in the food industry who said they had seen it with their own eyes. It was a long time ago, and it's always possible that I've got the name of the substance wrong, or that they made it up, or that proceedures have since changed. I am more than willing to accept that the information I was given is incorrect.

However, at no point did I claim it was "well-reported or words to that effect". What I said was

I do know that it is reportedly common practice for supermarket warehouses to spray their green veg with chlorophyll to keep it looking green and fresh,

It was reported to me, and I was told it was common practice.

I did not say they painted it. You used colourful and, to my mind, heavy-handed phrases such as "grossly misinformed" and "bizarre claim" in your response. You only needed to point out that "copper chlorophyll", if indeed that was what I was unknowingly referring to, had the opposite effect. There was no need to respond in the way that you did.

And yes, there is definitely a difference in our terminology. I defined what I see as processed food, and apparently you have not seen my various definitions. To clarify, for me, processed food is packaged food with additives generally not native to that foodstuff, and which cause an adverse reaction in me.

We clearly have different definitions of "processed". By processed, I mean foods that have had things (often artificial) added and or removed (often natural). And no, don't be facetious, you know very well I advocate unrefined salt use, but yes, I DO avoid NaCl table salt because of the anti-caking aluminium and general lack of the originally present minerals.

I'm sorry to hear about your fingers.

I had a reference lined up for about the biggest cause of mito dysfunction being iodine deficiency, but that too has disappeared from my screen today and it's probably not worth my effort to go and copy it again for you. Feel free to PM me if you want this reference.

I've read Myhill's mito paper. My then-GP was very supportive of the mitochondrial theory for explaining fatigue, and I was therefore able to get a mito biopsy in 2010 because of that support. However, he also taught at a local city hospital, and when I showed him Sarah's mito paper, he pulled it apart, saying it had "holes big enough to drive a coach and four through", and said he would use it as an example to his students of how NOT to write a good paper.


I am not here to argue with anyone, and since I have no wish to continue being placed in such a position, I am leaving this part of the conversation.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

@Jigsaw
I am not trying to upset you, but you appear to be taking comments I make out of context and like to change the subject of the conversation to focus on emotions and the use of colourful language. I'm sorry if you find my language colourful, but hopefully that doesn't distract too much from the factual content of what I've said. You don't seem to find other people's colourful language a problem? Perhaps colourful language is more acceptable to you when it agrees with your opinion? I could post a series of heavily edited captions to illustrate my point....but that's not really my style....and I can't be bothered to be frank.

I've laid out my view and tried to explain how the system works in terms of food legislation food standards and food processing. It is everybodys choice to dismiss this or use it ....I've put it out there so people can be informed on how to interpret the meaning of food labelling. My strength of conviction is when I see something that is blatantly incorrect I do feel passionate to offer the correct explanation as I see it.

I am still at a loss why this means that I have a lack of understanding of food intolerances? I've explained my views on this to you ...so I think you are repeating a point unnecessarily.

I don't intend to add very much more to this thread either. I've said what I think is adequate. If anyone has any questions on label interpretation to help them choose ingredients I'm more than happy to help in any way I can. As I have said to you I am completely sympathetic to anyone who has food intolerances. I do understand food intolerances to quite a high degree.....it's one of the key factors you need to consider during risk assessment for design of food products and how they are produced/ segregated.

I also have personal experience of this from members of my family...dwelling on this though just doesn't seem relevant to this thread. Questioning everybodys motivations for posting each comment would quickly derail most threads.

The thread subject was "the truth about food". I think I have tried to give information around this .....as I said its freely given to help inform and offer my opinion.

If anyone has any specific questions I am more than happy to try and answer them.

 

[Jigsaw]

@arewenearlythereyet
Ok, so I thought we'd moved this off the board and on to PM, but since you've chosen to post on the board again and I haven't yet had a PM back from you in response to the one I sent you last night in which I tried to sort things out between us, I'd better respond to this post here.

The thread subject was "the truth about food".

No it isn't. The title of the thread is "The Truth About Healthy Eating".

Food intolerances clearly fall into the "healthy eating" category since eating foods that provoke an unpleasant physical response are obviously not healthy for that individual. Migraines, anaphylaxia, digestive upset...none of those are healthy responses to ingesting food.

I am still at a loss why this means that I have a lack of understanding of food intolerances?

What I said was that it must be, understandably, difficult for you to understand what people with food intolerances go through, since you say you don't suffer from food intolerances yourself. It is a bald fact of life that unless people experience things directly for themselves, it is going to be harder for them to understand what other people with different experienes of the same thing go through. I am sympathetic to that. It's just how it is. I have great sympathy with MS sufferers, for example, but I can't say I understand what they go through every day because I haven't lived through it myself. Saying you must find it difficult to understand what hypersensitive eaters experience was not meant as a criticicm.

I also have personal experience of this from members of my family...dwelling on this though just doesn't seem relevant to this thread. Questioning everybodys motivations for posting each comment would quickly derail most threads.

I agree, it would. But I don't see that anyone except you has questioned anyone's "motivation". I think most poeople's motivation for posting is to share experiences, knowledge, opinions, etc.

Re personal experience of food intolerance from members of your family......honestly, this would give you a better understanding than someone who thinks food intolerance is nonsense, as some people do, and has never seen someone suffer an adverse reaction, but it genuinely will not allow you the same understanding as if you had experienced it first-hand for yourself by living through your own adverse responses to different foods and additives.

I don't intend to add very much more to this thread either. I've said what I think is adequate. If anyone has any questions on label interpretation to help them choose ingredients I'm more than happy to help in any way I can. As I have said to you I am completely sympathetic to anyone who has food intolerances. I do understand food intolerances to quite a high degree.....it's one of the key factors you need to consider during risk assessment for design of food products and how they are produced/ segregated.

It's useful to have someone with obvious expertise in how the food industry works, how labelling works, etc, that people with questions can go to for help, and your contributions on those topics are invaluble.
Having sympathy with food intolerance sufferers is a positive. However, genuinely, unless you've eaten something yourself that has caused a migraine, or vomiting, or full-body weakness and shaking, or diarrhoea, or anaphylaxis, or some other extreme physical response, I still think it's going to be difficult for a non-intolerant eater to fully understand what we go through. Being reactive to foods and additives changes your whole perception of "healthy eating". It severely restricts our choices. It changes the way we see food. It changes what we can eat.

I am not trying to upset you, but you appear to be taking comments I make out of context and like to change the subject of the conversation to focus on emotions and the use of colourful language. I'm sorry if you find my language colourful, but hopefully that doesn't distract too much from the factual content of what I've said.

I'm not upset
I'm not deliberately taking your comments out of context and I haven't changed the subject of the conversation. The conversation is about "Healthy Eating", and food intolerances fall under that. I didn't "focus" on what I see as your choice of colourful language, it was one point of many I made. I found it quite ironic that you can use the very same style of journalistic writing that you are obviously not a fan of in The Mail. That's all. I mentioned it once, in my previous post.

You don't seem to find other people's colourful language a problem? Perhaps colourful language is more acceptable to you when it agrees with your opinion?

That isn't a fair comment. Colourful language can be a positive tool in expressing a view or opinion. I find it to be a negative, even destructive, tool when it's used to shoot someone and their concerns down. When it's used in that way, it can appear to me as a form of aggression.

I could post a series of heavily edited captions to illustrate my point....but that's not really my style....and I can't be bothered to be frank.

Do you think I have "heavily edited" your comments? I have used only direct quotes from both yours and my posts to try and make you understand what I have said and why I have said it, because I haven't for one second intended to be inflammatory or provocative and yet this seems to be the effect I have had on your responses. No one else in this thread seems to have reacted to my posts in the same way that you have. I haven't changed anything you've said, at all, ergo, I am not guilty of heavily editing anything you've said.

I've laid out my view and tried to explain how the system works in terms of food legislation food standards and food processing. It is everybodys choice to dismiss this or use it ....I've put it out there so people can be informed on how to interpret the meaning of food labelling. My strength of conviction is when I see something that is blatantly incorrect I do feel passionate to offer the correct explanation as I see it.

I haven't dismissed how food legislation, food standards, food processing, or food labelling work. The factual information you've provided is useful to know and understand.

I've already said that it was right for you to correct my misinformation about green veg in storage, because correcting errors and misunderstandings is how we all learn, and I'm grateful you have put me right on that matter. What I mildly objected to was the manner in which you did it. It wasn't very kind. I know you to be kind, and it surprised me.

 

[Valentijn]

However, genuinely, unless you've eaten something yourself that has caused a migraine, or vomiting, or full-body weakness and shaking, or diarrhoea, or anaphylaxis, or some other extreme physical response, I still think it's going to be difficult for a non-intolerant eater to fully understand what we go through. Being reactive to foods and additives changes your whole perception of "healthy eating". It severely restricts our choices. It changes the way we see food. It changes what we can eat.

And then, after all of that, you have to obsessively read labels ... and are still often left with uncertainty as to whether or not a food item contains some form of the substance that makes you so sick. I don't blame anyone for free glutamic acid doing nasty things to me, but food manufacturers' persistence in playing games with my health (and sanity!) is inexcusable.

 

[TigerLilea]

My understanding is that table and sea salt both contain the same nutritional value. I prefer sea salt for the reason you stated and I also prefer the taste.

Some table salts have sugar added to it.

 

[TigerLilea]

I don't think manufacturers are "doing back flips" hiding glutamate as you suggest....this is the sort of sensationalist conspiracy theory put out by a lot of ill informed self hacked style websites, oh and that literary milestone the daily mail.

Added Msg has to be declared by law in the EU so the choice is yours buy or not, there is no hiding it from the consumer by not declaring it as you suggest. If you find a product with added msg you believe is "hidden", Report it to trading standards or the equivalent in the Netherlands. This is illegal.

I think that most food manufacturers probably do go out of their way to hide the fact that their food product contains MSG. People have a fear of MSG and don't want to buy a product if they think that it contains it. About 10 years ago someone posted a list online that listed the approximately 35 different names or terms for variations of MSG. I read recently that in Australia they came up with a list of 129 names or terms for variations of MSG.

 

[TigerLilea]

Most flavourings added in EU food nowadays are natural flavourings,not artificial or nature identical. The main exception is sugar confectionery where the high boiling point is problematic for natural flavour degradation.

The term "natural flavourings" doesn't really mean anything because some of those natural flavourings have an ingredient list 50 to 100 ingredients long.