I came across this article through a friend on Facebook. http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/15-food-companies-that-serve-you-wood/
Although I shouldn't be, I am a bit surprised at the idiocy of both the article and the comments. The article claims that 'wood' (i.e. cellulose) is being used in processed foods, and that this is a bad thing. No evidence of this, of course.
The real crazy is, as anyone who has passed high school biology would know, that ALL plants have cell walls composed of cellulose, that this sugar matrix is inert to the human digestive system and is otherwise known as 'fiber', and that this fiber is generally a good thing in terms of digestive health.
Yet the comments are filled with everything from yelling of processed food corps to stop putting "wood" in their products, to utterly crazy shit like some guy claiming the government is genetically modifying trees to have softer lignin and something about them falling down easier. It's a shitfest of idiocy, with only a few people saying, hey, wait a second, cellulose is in ALL plants we eat. :lulz: There's even some "natural supplements" woo in there.
Wow, people consistently impress me with their stupidity. :lulz:
I'm going to read this thread aren't I?
Then I'm going to forget about it and eat this food again.
And then right after I'm going to remember this thread.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 23, 2011, 03:29:30 AM
I came across this article through a friend on Facebook. http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/15-food-companies-that-serve-you-wood/
Although I shouldn't be, I am a bit surprised at the idiocy of both the article and the comments. The article claims that 'wood' (i.e. cellulose) is being used in processed foods, and that this is a bad thing. No evidence of this, of course.
The real crazy is, as anyone who has passed high school biology would know, that ALL plants have cell walls composed of cellulose, that this sugar matrix is inert to the human digestive system and is otherwise known as 'fiber', and that this fiber is generally a good thing in terms of digestive health.
Yet the comments are filled with everything from yelling of processed food corps to stop putting "wood" in their products, to utterly crazy shit like some guy claiming the government is genetically modifying trees to have softer lignin and something about them falling down easier. It's a shitfest of idiocy, with only a few people saying, hey, wait a second, cellulose is in ALL plants we eat. :lulz: There's even some "natural supplements" woo in there.
Oh. Well, that's much more comforting than what I was expecting.
:)
All true.
Still, legally speaking a pork sausage only has to be 42% pork. In the case of non-gourmet ones, wood may be a healthier option than what is currently being used.
Quote from: Cain on November 23, 2011, 08:03:19 AM
All true.
Still, legally speaking a pork sausage only has to be 42% pork. In the case of non-gourmet ones, wood may be a healthier option than what is currently being used.
:lulz: :lulz:
Seriously. I refuse to buy sausages that are lower than 80% of whatever meat they are supposed to be.
What if they have kale and garlic in them?
I kind of love those kale and garlic sausages.
Also, that blog post made me want to skin people. The most offensive aspect is that the author might have actually had a valid point about refined cellulose being used as a filler//additive, if they hadn't gone tabloid/extremist about it.
Also, jesus fuck, adding undigestible plant fiber to our snack foods? LEAST OF OUR WORRIES. GET A HOBBY, ASSHOLE.
Sorry, that may have been a bit Dawkins Fallacy of me. But as far as I can tell, added plant fiber isn't actually hurting anyone... especially not in this gluttonous country. If you're buying reduced fat cookies, more undigestible fiber is probably your friend.
Those I would make an exception for, but honestly, it seems those kind of sausages are gourmet-sausage standard in the first place. Which works out nicely. In fact... yup, just checked in my fridge. Cumberland sausages, 85% pork.
THE STUPIDITY IN THE COMMENTS IS MAKING ME HOMICIDAL.
And Cain, yes, the sausages available around here are mostly some kind of artisan-gourmet shit. Oh, Portland.
I like my slightly overpriced, high quality food goods.
Which is just as well, because Shoreditch is basically where Islington put all the hipsters, once it purged them from its territory. And they can't just do normal food, oh no...it has to show the deep pain, anguish, ennui, torment and lust of their soul.
Quote from: Cain on November 23, 2011, 09:13:52 AM
I like my slightly overpriced, high quality food goods.
Which is just as well, because Shoreditch is basically where Islington put all the hipsters, once it purged them from its territory. And they can't just do normal food, oh no...it has to show the deep pain, anguish, ennui, torment and lust of their soul.
Oh god.
You live in the Portland of the UK.
Pretty much, yes! I'm just hoping the rising property prices will drive them out in a couple of years and force them to seek fresh ground. Hopefully south of the river.
Camden is probably still worse, but only barely.
Quote from: Cain on November 23, 2011, 09:20:49 AM
Pretty much, yes! I'm just hoping the rising property prices will drive them out in a couple of years and force them to seek fresh ground. Hopefully south of the river.
Camden is probably still worse, but only barely.
Well, at least you can enjoy artisan sausages in the meantime.
I tried to tell a guy tonight that Portland used to be 1/3 abandoned. Seems hard to absorb for people who weren't here, but it could easily happen again.
This thread is not about a meal with a "happy ending" which the title implies...... :argh!:
What? You know some of you thought the same thing.... :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on November 23, 2011, 09:02:22 AM
Sorry, that may have been a bit Dawkins Fallacy of me. But as far as I can tell, added plant fiber isn't actually hurting anyone... especially not in this gluttonous country. If you're buying reduced fat cookies, more undigestible fiber is probably your friend.
Yes.
I think I heard somewhere that a human in its natural environment (ie, before the Industrial era) is supposed to poo like 3 times a day.
How often does that happen to anyone unless they've been on a bender or had a lot of beans?
I definitely poop 3 times a day.
I'm trying to get up to 5.
TBH most of the time I just go to the bathroom out of boredom.
drinking coffee all day doesn't help
what is the advantage of poop frequency? (apart from the added reading time)
poop's funny
you should see the poop my 4yo produces. he has constipation issues sometimes, and occasionally passes a sample the size of his forearm. this is not hyperbole.
we have found that aloe juice does the trick in keeping him regular, and no longer suffering on the commode like he once did, but he will still from time to time walk into the room and announce that he 'pooped a telephone pole', or 'pooped a train', and it requires our admiration.
It does!!
Sometimes I wish I could still announce my epic poops to people for admiration.
I'd be happy to start a thread for that
I'm sure Richter would use it too
Until that time, I'll just use this thread.
It's in the right subforum, after all.
This reminds me of another article I read while back. The author was trying to make high fructose corn syrup as scary as possible by listing the steps of the process by which it's made in the most technical terms he could. One of the steps was described as something about using beta-amylase to convert polysaccharides into monosaccharides. I posted a comment, "Oh, so they malt the corn, and then use the naturally present enzymes to convert the starches into simple sugars. Got it."
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on November 30, 2011, 09:24:58 PM
This reminds me of another article I read while back. The author was trying to make high fructose corn syrup as scary as possible by listing the steps of the process by which it's made in the most technical terms he could. One of the steps was described something about using beta-amylase to convert polysaccharides into monosaccharides. I posted a comment, "Oh, so they malt the corn, and then use the naturally present enzymes to convert the starches into simple sugars. Got it."
This is what irks me about high fructose corn syrup. It's the problem those pro-corn syrup commercials have as well.
The problem with high fructose corn syrup isn't that it's deadly to consume. THE PROBLEM WITH HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP IS IT THAT IT'S IN EVERYFUCKING THING. EVERYWHERE.
HFCS is bad in the same sense that all simple sugars are bad, i.e. OK in moderation but too much is harmful. I have been told that HFCS is metabolized more quickly than other sugars, so it might be slightly worse. It's by far the cheapest form of sugar on the market. When I see it in a list of ingredients, it tells me that the manufacturer is more interested in saving money than in producing a quality product, and that's the main reason I avoid it.
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on November 30, 2011, 09:50:02 PMIt's by far the cheapest form of sugar on the US market.
Fixed. We use sugar beets here. Other places use cane, or whatever. The US just has a lot of corn.
Also, compared to whatever kind of sugar, artificial sweeteners like aspartame or sucralose are practically free. I'm still not sure whether aspartame is bad for you or not (though some people do have bad reactions to it), I just avoid it because the aftertaste is yucky. Sucralose, while it doesn't taste
quite like sugar, is not bad for you.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 30, 2011, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on November 30, 2011, 09:50:02 PMIt's by far the cheapest form of sugar on the US market.
Fixed. We use sugar beets here. Other places use cane, or whatever. The US just has a lot of corn.
Also, compared to whatever kind of sugar, artificial sweeteners like aspartame or sucralose are practically free. I'm still not sure whether aspartame is bad for you or not (though some people do have bad reactions to it), I just avoid it because the aftertaste is yucky. Sucralose, while it doesn't taste quite like sugar, is not bad for you.
Thanks, Trip. Sorry about my Amerocentrism. We subsidize the fuck out of corn, and that's the main reason HFCS is so cheap here.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 30, 2011, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on November 30, 2011, 09:50:02 PMIt's by far the cheapest form of sugar on the US market.
Fixed. We use sugar beets here. Other places use cane, or whatever. The US just has a lot of corn.
Also, compared to whatever kind of sugar, artificial sweeteners like aspartame or sucralose are practically free. I'm still not sure whether aspartame is bad for you or not (though some people do have bad reactions to it), I just avoid it because the aftertaste is yucky. Sucralose, while it doesn't taste quite like sugar, is not bad for you.
Sucralose gives me gut cramps and the explosive runs like a motherfucker. In that sense, it's definitely bad for me.