5 ms·

Perhaps this is ignorance, but I do not want this anywhere near my food. The FDA's said a lot of things are non-toxic over the years.

by gamache 14y ago

Alex3917 14y ago
Knowing they FDA, they'll just ban companies from telling consumers whether or not it's in their products. Because if it's a medicine you might actually want to use, it's illegal unless you have $100 million dollars to pay for testing. But if it's something that can make food corporations money, not only doesn't it need to be tested but it's illegal for you to even know if you're eating it.
- alastair 14y ago
  Do you have an example of this already happening?
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    The obvious one is that it's illegal for food companies to advertise whether or not their products are GMO: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modification/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modif... There are a lot of other food safety best practices that the FDA has effectively banned as well though. For example the movie Food Inc. explains the issues surrounding bacteria in beef.
    - dingfeng_quek 14y ago
      While the regulation on GMO labels is evident, it's hard to decide whether GMO is good or bad, and whether it is right or wrong to encourage or discourage GMO. Bacteria in beef is problematic to justify because the bad outcomes tend to be low-probability events, and the events can often be attributed to other causes, so it's hard to pin it down on food safety practices. Try something more clear-cut, like the history of trans-fat regulation as compared to when the adverse health-effects of trans-fat were identified, and whether trans-fat was allowed as a food additive with compelling evidence for its safety (by appeal to long-term epidemiological data or otherwise). Trans-fat is also clearer because the government has encouraged (with marketing dollars) its consumption over other kinds of fat. I'm sure there are many better examples than GMO labeling and bacteria in food.
- rytis 14y ago
  So this is never going to fly then. Why would a food company use this coating at all? It's not in their interest - wasted food means more money for the company.
  - kijin 14y ago
    That was my first thought, too. A million tons of food saved = a million tons of food unsold. Unless, of course, the bottles are so slippery that people inadvertently pour a lot more ketchup than they used to. That would be a million tons of food wasted = more money for Heinz.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    > It's not in their interest - wasted food means more money for the company. It's sick. But I keep wondering - why no one in this industry seems to be trying to be good and use it as a marketing advantage? "We do not try to make profits on stealing from you by wasting materials and energy like everyone else out there". I'd definitely try to buy as much as I could from such company.
    - rytis 14y ago
      Capitalism at its best - it's all about profit and outsmarting the competition. There are companies out there that try to do the right stuff - organic food, healthy stuff, etc, etc. But they struggle. They struggle because 'the good stuff' costs more to produce, therefore they have to charge more. Whilst the 'bad' companies sell unhealthy stuff at a lot lower price, thus yielding better profits. Which in turn means better advertising, better position on shelves, etc. Society is not ready for the change yet. You would do the right thing, but I'm guessing 90% of population, just don't care.
      - driverdan 14y ago
        I think you've been misinformed about organic food. It's not healthier, isn't necessarily better for the environment, and the profit margins are much higher.
vegardx 14y ago
So, let me get this straight. You will not have this near your food solely based on the fact that FDA has approved of it? That's crazytalk if you ask me.
- andr0x 14y ago
  I don't believe he's saying he would not use the product BECAUSE the FDA has approved it, but rather FDA approval has not always been the best indicator that a particular product is indeed safe.
rohansingh 14y ago
This was posted in the comments section of the article: >I'm Dave Smith, and I just want to clarify that we make the coating from materials that are not just FDA approved, but that we actually eat on a regular basis in much larger quantities than could possibly be released from the coating.
- zizee 14y ago
  It sort of looks like the bottle has been coated on the inside with oil. Because of the chemical similarities between oil and plastics, oil really sticks to plastic, creating a hard to remove oily coating on plastic surfaces. You really notice this effect if you have the joy of having to hand wash a plastic mixing bowl that has had oil in it. I wonder if something similar is going on here? If they are eating this stuff already is the magic ingredient simply an edible oil? [edit] readability.
  - smackay 14y ago
    Just use a little bit of detergent without any water. Scrub then rinse.
durkie 14y ago
This effect could be achieved with a "standard" superhydrophobic coating (or superhydrophilic for oil-based condiments). Those can be easily done with something like a nanostructured silica film (without having to functionalize the coating with additional chemicals), and silica is a very common food additive (fumed silica is already added to ketchup in fact to alter its flow properties)
- tomkinstinch 14y ago
  Nanostructures may be likely, considering the group's recent (but different) patent: http://www.google.com/patents?id=JBoFAgAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=JBoFAgAAEBAJ&printsec=a...
- schiffern 14y ago
  The problem is that even benign materials can have unexpected outcomes that depend on their nano-structural properties. Carbon is safe, but carbon nanotubes can form cysts [1] and cause brain damage in fish [2]. [1] http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080520/full/news.2008.845.html http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080520/full/news.2008.845.ht... [2] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4825-buckyballs-cause-brain-damage-in-fish.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4825-buckyballs-cause-...
  - durkie 14y ago
    You're absolutely right -- there are some materials that would be very bad candidates here. I was pointing out only that this can be achieved with structure only (no additional hydrophobic/hydrophilic chemicals), and that it can be done with materials that have already proven themselves inert when ingested in nano-scale particle sizes.
baddox 14y ago
Out of curiosity, what criteria do you use to determine which food products are probably safe for your consumption? Do you do research yourself, or is there another source of research you consult?
- dingfeng_quek 14y ago
  There's a list of approved food additives for most developed countries.
- gamache 14y ago
  I try to stick to food products that existed 200 years ago.

Perhaps this is ignorance, but I do not want this anywhere near my food. The FDA's said a lot of things are non-toxic over the years.

by gamache 14y ago

Perhaps this is ignorance, but I do not want this anywhere near my food. The FDA's said a lot of things are non-toxic over the years.

Alex3917 14y ago

Knowing they FDA, they'll just ban companies from telling consumers whether or not it's in their products. Because if it's a medicine you might actually want to use, it's illegal unless you have $100 million dollars to pay for testing. But if it's something that can make food corporations money, not only doesn't it need to be tested but it's illegal for you to even know if you're eating it.

alastair 14y ago
Do you have an example of this already happening?
- Alex3917 14y ago
  The obvious one is that it's illegal for food companies to advertise whether or not their products are GMO: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modification/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modif... There are a lot of other food safety best practices that the FDA has effectively banned as well though. For example the movie Food Inc. explains the issues surrounding bacteria in beef.
  - dingfeng_quek 14y ago
    While the regulation on GMO labels is evident, it's hard to decide whether GMO is good or bad, and whether it is right or wrong to encourage or discourage GMO. Bacteria in beef is problematic to justify because the bad outcomes tend to be low-probability events, and the events can often be attributed to other causes, so it's hard to pin it down on food safety practices. Try something more clear-cut, like the history of trans-fat regulation as compared to when the adverse health-effects of trans-fat were identified, and whether trans-fat was allowed as a food additive with compelling evidence for its safety (by appeal to long-term epidemiological data or otherwise). Trans-fat is also clearer because the government has encouraged (with marketing dollars) its consumption over other kinds of fat. I'm sure there are many better examples than GMO labeling and bacteria in food.
rytis 14y ago
So this is never going to fly then. Why would a food company use this coating at all? It's not in their interest - wasted food means more money for the company.
- kijin 14y ago
  That was my first thought, too. A million tons of food saved = a million tons of food unsold. Unless, of course, the bottles are so slippery that people inadvertently pour a lot more ketchup than they used to. That would be a million tons of food wasted = more money for Heinz.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  > It's not in their interest - wasted food means more money for the company. It's sick. But I keep wondering - why no one in this industry seems to be trying to be good and use it as a marketing advantage? "We do not try to make profits on stealing from you by wasting materials and energy like everyone else out there". I'd definitely try to buy as much as I could from such company.
  - rytis 14y ago
    Capitalism at its best - it's all about profit and outsmarting the competition. There are companies out there that try to do the right stuff - organic food, healthy stuff, etc, etc. But they struggle. They struggle because 'the good stuff' costs more to produce, therefore they have to charge more. Whilst the 'bad' companies sell unhealthy stuff at a lot lower price, thus yielding better profits. Which in turn means better advertising, better position on shelves, etc. Society is not ready for the change yet. You would do the right thing, but I'm guessing 90% of population, just don't care.
    - driverdan 14y ago
      I think you've been misinformed about organic food. It's not healthier, isn't necessarily better for the environment, and the profit margins are much higher.

vegardx 14y ago

So, let me get this straight. You will not have this near your food solely based on the fact that FDA has approved of it? That's crazytalk if you ask me.

andr0x 14y ago
I don't believe he's saying he would not use the product BECAUSE the FDA has approved it, but rather FDA approval has not always been the best indicator that a particular product is indeed safe.

rohansingh 14y ago

This was posted in the comments section of the article: >I'm Dave Smith, and I just want to clarify that we make the coating from materials that are not just FDA approved, but that we actually eat on a regular basis in much larger quantities than could possibly be released from the coating.

zizee 14y ago
It sort of looks like the bottle has been coated on the inside with oil. Because of the chemical similarities between oil and plastics, oil really sticks to plastic, creating a hard to remove oily coating on plastic surfaces. You really notice this effect if you have the joy of having to hand wash a plastic mixing bowl that has had oil in it. I wonder if something similar is going on here? If they are eating this stuff already is the magic ingredient simply an edible oil? [edit] readability.
- smackay 14y ago
  Just use a little bit of detergent without any water. Scrub then rinse.

durkie 14y ago

This effect could be achieved with a "standard" superhydrophobic coating (or superhydrophilic for oil-based condiments). Those can be easily done with something like a nanostructured silica film (without having to functionalize the coating with additional chemicals), and silica is a very common food additive (fumed silica is already added to ketchup in fact to alter its flow properties)

tomkinstinch 14y ago
Nanostructures may be likely, considering the group's recent (but different) patent: http://www.google.com/patents?id=JBoFAgAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=JBoFAgAAEBAJ&printsec=a...
schiffern 14y ago
The problem is that even benign materials can have unexpected outcomes that depend on their nano-structural properties. Carbon is safe, but carbon nanotubes can form cysts [1] and cause brain damage in fish [2]. [1] http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080520/full/news.2008.845.html http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080520/full/news.2008.845.ht... [2] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4825-buckyballs-cause-brain-damage-in-fish.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4825-buckyballs-cause-...
- durkie 14y ago
  You're absolutely right -- there are some materials that would be very bad candidates here. I was pointing out only that this can be achieved with structure only (no additional hydrophobic/hydrophilic chemicals), and that it can be done with materials that have already proven themselves inert when ingested in nano-scale particle sizes.

baddox 14y ago

Out of curiosity, what criteria do you use to determine which food products are probably safe for your consumption? Do you do research yourself, or is there another source of research you consult?

dingfeng_quek 14y ago
There's a list of approved food additives for most developed countries.
gamache 14y ago
I try to stick to food products that existed 200 years ago.