GMO Shmo - Natural cereal isn't so natural...

Vasquez on 5/9/2012 at 09:21

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

Unfortunately even porridge has to be screened.

Of course, but it's easy: if the list of ingredients says "oats" and nothing else, you're probably safe.

Vivian on 5/9/2012 at 09:49

I understand it as 'unnatural' meaning 'human artefacts that are so (relatively) new or deposited in such unusually high concentrations that the rest of the biosphere has trouble dealing with them', such as plastics, industrial chemicals, introduced or GM organisms, concrete paving, etc etc. I mean, yeah, everything is natural etc etc but if you leave an xbox in the woods nothing is going to be able to live off it, vs a log cabin, where a lot of things could eat it.

Thirith on 5/9/2012 at 10:10

Agree with Vivian - and while I think there's a lot that's silly about the terminology being used to guilt-trip people into certain behaviours, I think it's equally silly and a clear instance of throwing out the baby with the bathwater to go, "Well, in fact everything comes from nature in the end, so there!"

faetal on 5/9/2012 at 12:42

I think the term arises from us being self-referential. I just wish there was a better term than "natural" to use in place of "not made by humans", since the conflation is precisely the reason we have these dopes buying into the marketing buzz-words.

LarryG on 5/9/2012 at 20:56

Quote Posted by Vasquez

Of course, but it's easy: if the list of ingredients says "oats" and nothing else, you're probably safe.

I wonder how many insect bits are allowed? In the old USofA

Quote:

The Food and Drug Administration, recognizing that it's impossible to keep some products perfectly clean from the farm to your cupboard, has guidelines for allowable levels of contamination.

And a couple of insect parts or rat hairs aren't going to hurt you. They're just not very pleasant to think about.

I couldn't find the FDA's "defect action level" for cereal, but I can tell you that wheat flour is allowed up to an average of 75 insect parts and one rodent hair per 50 grams. Fifty grams is roughly a couple of ounces.

Peanut butter is allowed up to an average of 30 insect fragments and one rodent hair per 100 grams.

(ref. (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0713clay13.html) Rat hair, bug parts in cereal not forbidden)

See also, (http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/06/29/how_many_insect_parts_and_rodent_hairs_are_allowed_in_your_food.htm) How Many Insect Parts and Rodent Hairs are Allowed in Your Food?

The FDA's (http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidancedocuments/sanitation/ucm056174.htm) Defect Levels Handbook is an eye opener! For example, Apple Butter:

Quote:

Mold
(AOAC 975.51) Average of mold count is 12% or more
Rodent filth
(AOAC 945.76) Average of 4 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams of apple butter
Insects
(AOAC 945.76) Average of 5 or more whole or equivalent insects (not counting mites, aphids, thrips, or scale insects) per 100 grams of apple butter

DEFECT SOURCE: Mold - post harvest infection. Rodent hair - post harvest and/or processing contamination with animal hair. Whole or equivalent insects - preharvest, and/or post harvest and/or processing insect infestation,
SIGNIFICANCE: Aesthetic

So if the mold count is 11% of the product and there are only 3 rodent hairs and 4 whole insects (not counting mites, aphids, thrips, or scale insects of which we can have unlimited numbers I guess) per 100 grams, that's OK to sell. I'm sure I would like to see the verified defect counts put on food product labels. I wonder how long it would take for manufacturers to start up a 6-Sigma program to drive down to zero defects? Sheesh! I'll bet that if this was on the label, the significance would not just be "aesthetic"!

demagogue on 6/9/2012 at 03:23

Naturally they have to have those laws because it's ludicrously expensive for vanishing returns to get every last bug leg -- the main source of contamination IIRC is during transportation -- and the FDA allows manufacturers not to put it on their labels for levels below the standard exactly because of the instinctive prejudice compared to the actual risk involved. But it is good (for rational people anyway) to see the standards so they have no illusions what the food industry involves.

What's hinky IMO is when you have, e.g., some European countries (at least a few years ago last I checked) having minimum standards for GMO corn "contamination" that are stricter than insect parts. Really? You're worried about a single grain of GMO corn more than a roach?

And what about the GMO corn was bad again? It's "unnatural" & there are some molecules of Bt, a natural pesticide used mostly for organic farming in just as high/higher quantities. Remember, this is the product that's supposed to be punching holes in our stomach according to the bad science studies, the pesticide we also use on organic crops... But do we have comparable laws to restrict "organic" contamination in the food supply, much less to levels lower than roach parts? This is the part where pro-organic people yammer and insist there's a "big difference"... Yeah, in your imagination there's a big difference, but in the physical situation, Bt is Bt, and there are laws treating it as "contamination" worse than roach parts from some foods (GMO), but even preferred over synthetic pesticides, the "antidote" to the contamination, in other foods (organic crops). Way to go logical consistency.

Edit: Also heaven forbid a batch of organic crops loses its organic status because it's "contaminated" with a few grains of GMOs left in the train car. The last thing we want is our corn carrying Bt pesticide to be contaminated with a few grains of corn carrying Bt pesticide!!! It's much more preferable that it be contaminated with roach parts (we could keep our organic status then!), since according to the legal standard it's worse for a few micrograms of Bt pesticide to get into our crops already carrying vast amounts of Bt pesticide....

Vasquez on 6/9/2012 at 04:14

Quote Posted by LarryG

I wonder how many insect bits are allowed?

Insect bits and rat hairs are not exactly additives, they just happen. It's not like you can grow and pack your oats in space.
If I found a recognizable bit of an insect in my oatmeal, obviously that would be GROSS. But still, I'd prefer some hairs or tiny bits of chitin in my food than added chemicals.

LarryG on 6/9/2012 at 04:36

Quote Posted by Vasquez

This is where I disagree. Not that they are additives, but that they are defects. Their presence makes for a defective product. How many chips in the paint of a new car are acceptable? How many roaches in your cereal? As far as I'm concerned we should be striving for zero tolerance in both cases. If we can ship a chip free car, why can't we ship roach free cereal? It's just technology and the will to make defect free food.

Vasquez on 6/9/2012 at 05:00

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of striving to zero defects, but since they're not harmful (well, mold can be, but microscopic bits of chitin and hair aren't), there are more important concerns to deal with first. Like if you had to choose a car without brakes or a car with brakes and a chip or two, you'd probably choose brakes.
Also I'm afraid it's unrealistic to even expect to ever get rid of EVERY single organic little extra bit from stuff you grow on fields.

And if the answer is more pesticides, I'm still gonna prefer eating chitin and hair.

SubJeff on 6/9/2012 at 09:00

Yeah, I agree with Vas. Unless it's demonstrably harmful it's not really a big deal. Have ever noticed tiny bits of chitin in your stuff? It might even be good for you.