Yet another foodscare :-(
- Stokey Sue
- Posts: 4139
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Stoke Newington, London
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
Stokey Sue wrote:I reiterate my mantra
Eat [real] food. not too much. musty plants
I of course meant
Eat [real] food, not too much, mostly plants
Spell checker excelled itself ergot is genuinely nasty
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
Glad I've not tried ergot then
On the possible rosti item, Wikipedia tells me that traditional US hash browns were shredded spud (i.e rosti) and then later some included onion, so maybe it's a US full English?
I find some US meat programmes funny, i.e. the yikes or yuck factor if anything but beef is put before them. So I guess lamb qualifies as a food scare
On the possible rosti item, Wikipedia tells me that traditional US hash browns were shredded spud (i.e rosti) and then later some included onion, so maybe it's a US full English?
I find some US meat programmes funny, i.e. the yikes or yuck factor if anything but beef is put before them. So I guess lamb qualifies as a food scare
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
Mat's cartoon on front of Telegraph - two guys on a nuclear sub, 'This is the navy's latest nuclear sub, it's armed with overcooked roast potatoes.'
And I see some baby food, kettle crisps, Burt's crisps, Hovis, Fox's biscuits and Kenco coffee are also included - that's front page of the Daily Mail.
Looks like we ain't goin' to last long.
And I see some baby food, kettle crisps, Burt's crisps, Hovis, Fox's biscuits and Kenco coffee are also included - that's front page of the Daily Mail.
Looks like we ain't goin' to last long.
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
Just so long as they leave chocolate alone....
Hashed brown? More like trashed brown!
Anyway, ultimately all food is made out of stars, and they're pretty scary.
Hashed brown? More like trashed brown!
Anyway, ultimately all food is made out of stars, and they're pretty scary.
- Stokey Sue
- Posts: 4139
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Stoke Newington, London
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
The FSA is of course the original source of the advice
Here it is from the horse's mouth; the "science bit " is right down the bottom, don't think I've ever seen the worlds possibly, probably, potentially and might used so often in one article
https://www.food.gov.uk/science/acrylamide-0
Having said which, the video at the top of the page does make the warning a little more reasonable, perhaps the FSA have shot themselves in the foot by dumbing down their message too much so that it is risible
From what they say, I do agree that the mechanism of carcinogenicity found in rodents is such that it is quite likely to apply to humans
Having said which, the "golden" roast potatoes they show would not IMO be edible - if you define edible as something you can eat without saying "yuk" and pulling a face (I feel the same about "well-done" burgers, obviously I am not long for this world)
Reckon I had my lifetime exposure to acrylamide in school dinners, those roasties that were the same colour as my polished brown Clarke's shoes, with an outer layer so tough it was all a 7 year old could do to stick a fork in them
Here it is from the horse's mouth; the "science bit " is right down the bottom, don't think I've ever seen the worlds possibly, probably, potentially and might used so often in one article
This means that acrylamide might contribute to your lifetime risk of developing cancer; although it is not possible to estimate how big this contribution may be
https://www.food.gov.uk/science/acrylamide-0
Having said which, the video at the top of the page does make the warning a little more reasonable, perhaps the FSA have shot themselves in the foot by dumbing down their message too much so that it is risible
From what they say, I do agree that the mechanism of carcinogenicity found in rodents is such that it is quite likely to apply to humans
Having said which, the "golden" roast potatoes they show would not IMO be edible - if you define edible as something you can eat without saying "yuk" and pulling a face (I feel the same about "well-done" burgers, obviously I am not long for this world)
Reckon I had my lifetime exposure to acrylamide in school dinners, those roasties that were the same colour as my polished brown Clarke's shoes, with an outer layer so tough it was all a 7 year old could do to stick a fork in them
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
.... and yet we're all living longer than ever, so let's not worry too much! Stress does a lot of physical damage too.
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
Another horror story. I don't want to know that there is a 1 in 4 chance that my lunch is "contaminated with faecal matter". Could be the most nauseating sentence I've read this year.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... fail-tests
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... fail-tests
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
The most laughable sentence to me in the article is that no visibly contaminated meat reaches the public.
Now, let me think, when did I myself last spot a microscopic bacterium. I'll have to check my diary. Or I won't bother if once every three years is good enough.
♪ Food glorious food ♪
Now, let me think, when did I myself last spot a microscopic bacterium. I'll have to check my diary. Or I won't bother if once every three years is good enough.
♪ Food glorious food ♪
- Badger's Mate
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:07 pm
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
I'm reasonably confident there's a greater than 25% chance that my food is contaminated with faecal matter.
There's a lorry-load of it being delivered to the allotment next week...
Sure, we should take care to minimise contamination as far as practicable, but animals and ourselves are homes to bacteria, some of which could make us ill in certain circumstances. Disembowelling and cutting up animals carries a risk of cross-contamination. Always has, always will. However, we need to be aware of this at home too when preparing meat, poultry & eggs as well as risks from soil contamination of fruit and veg. Cooking, washing & peeling things properly is our best defence - additionally taking care to avoid contamination once they're cooked.
Still; get some journalists, add a celebrity scientist who hasn't been interviewed yet today plus if possible an organisation worried about its future funding, and column inches will flow.
There's a lorry-load of it being delivered to the allotment next week...
Sure, we should take care to minimise contamination as far as practicable, but animals and ourselves are homes to bacteria, some of which could make us ill in certain circumstances. Disembowelling and cutting up animals carries a risk of cross-contamination. Always has, always will. However, we need to be aware of this at home too when preparing meat, poultry & eggs as well as risks from soil contamination of fruit and veg. Cooking, washing & peeling things properly is our best defence - additionally taking care to avoid contamination once they're cooked.
Still; get some journalists, add a celebrity scientist who hasn't been interviewed yet today plus if possible an organisation worried about its future funding, and column inches will flow.
- Stokey Sue
- Posts: 4139
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Stoke Newington, London
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
@Badger's Mate
Exactly, all part of the cycle
Faecal contamination of meat is probably historically normal, as long as it comes from the farm yard and isn't human, don't panic
Exactly, all part of the cycle
Faecal contamination of meat is probably historically normal, as long as it comes from the farm yard and isn't human, don't panic
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
Good point well made.I'm reasonably confident there's a greater than 25% chance that my food is contaminated with faecal matter.
There's a lorry-load of it being delivered to the allotment next week...
I suspect that your produce is treated with a little more loving care and attention than the image of abattoir hell that the article conjures up, though.
But isn't the point of licensing abattoirs to minimise cross-contamination; and if standards are set, they have firstly be agreed, secondly to be monitored and thirdly to be enforced. If 25% of abattoirs are failing to meet the standard, is it that the tests are too stringent (or unrealistic) or that the abattoirs are failing?
Meanwhile you have prompted me to take more care when preparing my veg.
- Badger's Mate
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:07 pm
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
I wasn't intending to be flippant or belittle the efforts of food safety legislation, more highlight the inevitability of contamination. I doubt that 'no visible contamination' is the same as 'no contamination'. Whatever the rules, surely they don't sterilise the equipment for each cut, so cross-contamination is possible. Whilst contact between food and floor is best avoided anywhere it doesn't mean the operation is incompetent nor unfit for purpose. Every kitchen floor has had food on it. Consequently whilst the 25% with observed failings might be 'at risk of faecal contamination' so would the other 75% and indeed just about any uncooked foodstuff we encounter, for a variety of reasons.
E coli 0157 was mentioned; it does indeed kill people, and my recollection is that in the UK (Scotland iirc) people have died as a result of consuming cooked meat purchased from a butcher, where there is a very obvious risk of cross-contamination. I believe that legal action was taken against the butcher concerned.
I think I was reacting to the simplistic assumptions that 'this food is safe' versus 'this food is unsafe' based on a nonsensical criterion; that of possible contamination with something that most of our raw and unprocessed food is likely to be contaminated with.
E coli 0157 was mentioned; it does indeed kill people, and my recollection is that in the UK (Scotland iirc) people have died as a result of consuming cooked meat purchased from a butcher, where there is a very obvious risk of cross-contamination. I believe that legal action was taken against the butcher concerned.
I think I was reacting to the simplistic assumptions that 'this food is safe' versus 'this food is unsafe' based on a nonsensical criterion; that of possible contamination with something that most of our raw and unprocessed food is likely to be contaminated with.
- Stokey Sue
- Posts: 4139
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Stoke Newington, London
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
Badger's Mate wrote:E coli 0157 was mentioned; it does indeed kill people, and my recollection is that in the UK (Scotland iirc) people have died as a result of consuming cooked meat purchased from a butcher, where there is a very obvious risk of cross-contamination. I believe that legal action was taken against the butcher concerned.
There's a real problem with cross contamination form raw it cooked in butchers it seems, it doesn't happen that often that I know of, but when it does it can be nasty
The last typhoid outbreak I am aware of in UK that was not related to travelling, happened in Hampshire ca 1970 and was due to corned beef being cut with a knife previously used for imported (and infected) lamb
But the thing to remember from this is that they had probably been stocking and handling infected lamb for months, not just an isolated carcase, and nobody caught typhoid directly from the lamb, the normal hand washing protected the batchers, and normal cooking protected the consumers, typhoid bacillus is delicate and quite easily killed off. iirc e. coli is a tiny bit tougher, but not much
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
Oh for heaven's sake, this has to be the biggest turnaround yet. And after all that fuss about replacing the sugar in Ribena with artificial sweeteners.
I have to say I'd rather die podgy with heart failure than through stroke and dementia. Although some would say the dementia's already set in...
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... tudy-finds
I have to say I'd rather die podgy with heart failure than through stroke and dementia. Although some would say the dementia's already set in...
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... tudy-finds
- Stokey Sue
- Posts: 4139
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Stoke Newington, London
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
I'll have to start drinking the gin without the tonic then - apart from premium brands like Fevertree, most contain both sugar and sweeteners
Fevertree naturally low is sweetened with fructose so not a good option
Interestingly some French soft drinks are flashed "pur sucre" as they don't trust the chemicals
Fevertree naturally low is sweetened with fructose so not a good option
Interestingly some French soft drinks are flashed "pur sucre" as they don't trust the chemicals
- strictlysalsaclare
- Posts: 907
- Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:06 pm
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
Sakkarin wrote:Oh for heaven's sake, this has to be the biggest turnaround yet. And after all that fuss about replacing the sugar in Ribena with artificial sweeteners.
I have to say I'd rather die podgy with heart failure than through stroke and dementia. Although some would say the dementia's already set in...
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... tudy-finds
Thanks for the sharing the article Sakkarin. I can't help thinking that not enough focus was on what the study participants were eating rather than drinking. I've watched enough American and Canadian diner type programmes to become well aware how how much meat they eat in one meal. During a recent job interview as a care home for dementia sufferers, I was informed that Alzheimer's is caused by a large amount of amino acids building up in the brain which resulted in blocking the path that leads to short term memory capabilities. So my reckoning is that the same thing could cause strokes? what are your views Stokey Sue?
Luckily I don't drink that many fizzy drinks these days so I don't think the findings will affect me that much in any case . My gout also tells me when to back off the proteins for a few days as well!
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
A friend frequently sends me information on healthy eating, based solely on American 'nutritionists', hardly relevant as far as I'm concerned.
Does this put things in context?
From an interesting nutritional study, please don't ask which, thanks!
1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than we British.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than we British.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than we British.
4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than we British.
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than we British.
Conclusion:
Eat and drink what you like, speaking English is apparently what kills you.
Does this put things in context?
From an interesting nutritional study, please don't ask which, thanks!
1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than we British.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than we British.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than we British.
4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than we British.
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than we British.
Conclusion:
Eat and drink what you like, speaking English is apparently what kills you.
- Stokey Sue
- Posts: 4139
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Stoke Newington, London
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
So far it's one study
The bad news is that this is a properly done study, part of the excellent Framingham data collection programme.
They compared people eating diets that were very similar apart from only the artificial sweeteners.
“After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), calorific intake, diet quality, physical activity and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischaemic stroke, all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease dementia,” the co-authors write.
However it's so far only one study of 4300 people, which is not in this context a huge number
I'm actually surprised that stroke and Alzheimer's would be linked to the same cause
In Alzheimer's you get a build of "stuff" (beta amyloid plaque) in among the nerve cells, which stops them working. This is made up of amino acids
But stroke is related to the build up of cholesterol, fat and junk in the arteries, so different "stuff" in a different place. This stops the blood flow
So no obvious connection
Both kinds of stuff are called plaque but that's just what pathologists call stuff not made of cells that shouldn't be there (dental plaque too for example)
strictlysalsaclare wrote: I can't help thinking that not enough focus was on what the study participants were eating rather than drinking. I've watched enough American and Canadian diner type programmes to become well aware how how much meat they eat in one meal.
The bad news is that this is a properly done study, part of the excellent Framingham data collection programme.
They compared people eating diets that were very similar apart from only the artificial sweeteners.
“After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), calorific intake, diet quality, physical activity and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischaemic stroke, all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease dementia,” the co-authors write.
However it's so far only one study of 4300 people, which is not in this context a huge number
strictlysalsaclare wrote:During a recent job interview as a care home for dementia sufferers, I was informed that Alzheimer's is caused by a large amount of amino acids building up in the brain which resulted in blocking the path that leads to short term memory capabilities. So my reckoning is that the same thing could cause strokes? what are your views Stokey Sue?
I'm actually surprised that stroke and Alzheimer's would be linked to the same cause
In Alzheimer's you get a build of "stuff" (beta amyloid plaque) in among the nerve cells, which stops them working. This is made up of amino acids
But stroke is related to the build up of cholesterol, fat and junk in the arteries, so different "stuff" in a different place. This stops the blood flow
So no obvious connection
Both kinds of stuff are called plaque but that's just what pathologists call stuff not made of cells that shouldn't be there (dental plaque too for example)
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
First I admit I'm out of my depth with a lot of the statistics in this study, but 2.96% difference doesn't look like three times to me.
Second, newspapers reports are often sensational. On this occasion the Guardian is reasonably accurate because the headline uses the word 'suggests', the Daily Mail is quite clear, 'Diet drinks TRIPLE your risk of stroke and dementia … '
Despite my stats weakness some statements seem contradictory. The Abstract concludes, “Artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia.”
But in the body of the actual report it says,
“...the observational nature of our study precludes us from inferring causal links between artificially sweetened beverage consumption and the risks of stroke and dementia." (P7 Stroke Journal May 2017)
Framington data collection does have world wide credibility but it is following (since 1971) a group of people who lived/are living a life style that may be quite different from those of us in the UK. Strictly's statement resonates with me.
We eat 84kg of meat a year, US 120kg each per year.
Saturday's Guardian said, "The problem with the latest study is that it did not find the same dementia risk from standard sugary drinks = despite the known association between sugar and stroke as well as obesity and diabetes."
Second, newspapers reports are often sensational. On this occasion the Guardian is reasonably accurate because the headline uses the word 'suggests', the Daily Mail is quite clear, 'Diet drinks TRIPLE your risk of stroke and dementia … '
Despite my stats weakness some statements seem contradictory. The Abstract concludes, “Artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia.”
But in the body of the actual report it says,
“...the observational nature of our study precludes us from inferring causal links between artificially sweetened beverage consumption and the risks of stroke and dementia." (P7 Stroke Journal May 2017)
Framington data collection does have world wide credibility but it is following (since 1971) a group of people who lived/are living a life style that may be quite different from those of us in the UK. Strictly's statement resonates with me.
I've watched enough American and Canadian diner type programmes to become well aware how how much meat they eat in one meal.
We eat 84kg of meat a year, US 120kg each per year.
Saturday's Guardian said, "The problem with the latest study is that it did not find the same dementia risk from standard sugary drinks = despite the known association between sugar and stroke as well as obesity and diabetes."
- Stokey Sue
- Posts: 4139
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:02 pm
- Location: Stoke Newington, London
Re: Yet another foodscare :-(
There are always problems with observational / longitudinal / case control studies
I think "suggests" is right, it "suggest" there's enough to be worth a further look
What I am not sure about is how they control for non-beverage sources of artificial sweeteners, while drinks are a big part I suspect most of what I consume is in pickles, flavoured yogurts etc. Mrs Elswood's dill pickles used to contain so much saccharin I found them inedible, they left a funny aftertaste
And there is also the data quality, I participate in a similar UK study, and I'm not 100% impressed by some of the questionnaires. But sheer numbers do help
The Framingham cohort is quite a middle class bunch, probably less obese and more "European" in life style than many Americans from what I've seen in documentary films, certainly more vegetarians and teetotallers than the average. The American Nurses Study is much more typical I suspect
I think "suggests" is right, it "suggest" there's enough to be worth a further look
What I am not sure about is how they control for non-beverage sources of artificial sweeteners, while drinks are a big part I suspect most of what I consume is in pickles, flavoured yogurts etc. Mrs Elswood's dill pickles used to contain so much saccharin I found them inedible, they left a funny aftertaste
And there is also the data quality, I participate in a similar UK study, and I'm not 100% impressed by some of the questionnaires. But sheer numbers do help
The Framingham cohort is quite a middle class bunch, probably less obese and more "European" in life style than many Americans from what I've seen in documentary films, certainly more vegetarians and teetotallers than the average. The American Nurses Study is much more typical I suspect
Return to Food Chat & Chatterbox
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests