10 ms·
While it's very possible potassium bromate is dangerous, I really hate this type of news story. There's some evidence that something is unsafe, so CBS found a
by boomboomsubban 4y ago
While it's very possible potassium bromate is dangerous, I really hate this type of news story.
There's some evidence that something is unsafe, so CBS found a professor to interview then asked them leading questions to get an explosive headline. Next they asked a random person if they're scared about this. Finally they asked the FDA and seemingly only published part of their reply.
Like I said, potassium bromate may be bad for you. But I don't feel like I've learned anything from this story about it. It only seems like fear mongering.
- permo-w 4y agoit may well be fear mongering, but food additives in general are just not a good thing. it barely matters what they are. barring a few well-studied exceptions, in the first place, we shouldn’t be synthesising chemicals and adding them en masse to food which you otherwise wouldn’t expect to contain them obviously this is a rule of thumb and quite a generalisation. I’m sure a fair few counter-examples can be given, but is it better to generally follow this rule, or not? I say better
- robertlagrant 4y agoThis is tricky, though. Where does it stop? If I really thought about what's natural, I wouldn't expect to find food at all.
- thfuran 4y agoNot even fruit?
- aperson_hello 4y agoHumans have modified most fruits to be nearly unrecognizable compared to their original forms!
- uoaei 4y agoThere's a difference between phenotypic and genotypic modifications.
- aperson_hello 4y agoNeither is "natural" And a whole lot of fruit is genotypically modified as well through various means!!
- uoaei 4y agoWell, phenotypic selection is natural in the inevitable, Darwinian sense. Genotypic selection is not because "nature" can't observe genes directly, only their expressions.
- bruce343434 4y agoDo you one better: what is "natural"? Are beaver dams natural? If so, are human buildings similarly natural? If so, are chemicals made by humans natural? Wasps and bees make a sort of paper, is that natural? How about human paper? Humans ARE nature. What we build IS nature. Or do you think beavers look at their dams and buildings and go "that shit is unnatural".
- robertlagrant 4y agoThat's my point.
- permo-w 4y agosorry for the late reply, but I didn't mention naturality. that would be far too vague. deadly nightshade is natural. bull sharks are natural. ebola is natural. et cetera. additives is still a bit vague, but at least that generally fits what I'm aiming for. if it wouldn't be in the food if you made it at home, then that's an additive. no need for "natural" to come into it
- Hackbraten 4y agoIn general, would you consider spices to be food additives, too? (Not being snarky, just genuinely curious as to where to draw the line.)
- linuxftw 4y agoIf it comes from an edible plant or animal source with minimal (eg, mechanical) processing, likely not an additive. There are exceptions to everything, of course. Celery can be used as a source of nitrates.
- RHSeeger 4y agoIt sounds like you are defining "food additives" as the ones that you consider bad, and then saying they are bad in general. According to the WHO [1], food additives are > Substances that are added to food to maintain or improve the safety, freshness, taste, texture, or appearance of food are known as food additives. Some food additives have been in use for centuries for preservation – such as salt (in meats such as bacon or dried fish), sugar (in marmalade), or sulfur dioxide (in wine). I guess you could limit it to "food additives that are added only to maintain or improve the safety, freshness, taste, texture, or appearance of food are bad", but even then I'd argue that's not true in any real sense. The ability to keep food in a good state for longer is a boon to society as a whole. We just need to be careful about the side effects. [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-additives https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-additi...
- permo-w 4y agoit sounds like you’re reading more into my words than there is to read. additives are ingredients in mass-produced food that wouldn’t be there if you made the same thing at home. it’s as simple as that
- RHSeeger 4y agoBut... that's _not_ what they are according to the definitions found in obvious places. Which is fine; it's a vague enough term that having your own definition is reasonable. That being said, I do disagree with your opinion that "they're all bad" even limited to the definition you gave. Being able to make food last longer is good. And recognizing that, it's a matter of tradeoffs for the additive in question.
- ajuc 4y agoIt's crazy that we're doing "innocent until proven guilty" with food additives. Should be the other way around. What's the risk/benefit? You can see how crazy it is when you compare it with drugs that we eat in doses smaller by orders of magnitude.
- threeseed 4y agoIt's not crazy. It's economics and politics. Food manufacturers are a powerful lobbying group and additives make a significant difference to profitability.
- fumblebee 4y agoIf, in this context, we're defining crazy as disturbing and unpalatable, then I struggle to see how "Food manufacturers are a powerful lobbying group and additives make a significant difference to profitability" _isn't_ crazy. The statement is factually accurate, but wow-oh-how messed up is it that by means of lobbying, they have the power to harm consumers to increase profits. (And no, I know this phenomenon is not limited to the food lobby)
- me_me_me 4y agothey are both right and wrong at the same time and also in the same camp on untested food adjectives People and language are not math.
- sanitycheck 4y ago> What's the risk/benefit? Freedom, baby! Within a few years we'll have that same freedom to consume whatever toxins we desire in post-Brexit Britain too.
- another2another 4y agoI look forward to _not_ having that freedom unsuspectingly foisted on me.
- 4y ago
- teekert 4y agoYeah, I love sentences like this: Asked if it can be said with certainty that differences in regulations mean people in the U.S. have developed cancers that they would not have developed if they'd been eating exclusively in Europe, Millstone said that was "almost certainly the conclusion that we could reach." ...almost certainly the conclusion that we could reach. What is being said, actually? It’s really just “No.”, right? Of course, when given a choice, I'd rather not eat Potassium bromate.
- rhaway84773 4y agoOnly a complete mangling of the English language would translate that into No. What he said was yes, it’s extremely likely that’s the case, but he’s not gonna give an unqualified yes because it’s still a very high percentage. They can’t point to any individual case and say that this person wouldn’t have cancer if he has been eating in Europe.
- teekert 4y agoI agree with the gist of your remark but the question was "can be said with certainty...", which is, indeed very difficult for a scientist to ever do. The "could reach" is also weird right?
- houseinthesky 4y agoIt's passive voice, not particularly weird. The scientist is specifically trying to avoid the trap of a "gotcha question" while answering accurately that the most likely outcome of lots of people consuming a carcinogen is that someone got cancer from it.
- procgen 4y agoIt sounds like it's an open question whether or not it is in fact carcinogenic when consumed in the quantities allowed by the FDA.
- BenGosub 4y agoVery true, but with food you want to be overly cautious with these substances, instead of experimenting on real people.