Slashdot Mirror


Report Finds PFAS Chemicals In One-Third of Fast Food Packaging (cnn.com)

dryriver quotes CNN: Most of the time, when you order fast food, you know exactly what you're getting: an inexpensive meal that tastes great but is probably loaded with fat, cholesterol and sodium. But it turns out that the packaging your food comes in could also have a negative impact on your health, according to a report published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters. The report found fluorinated chemicals in one-third of the fast food packaging researchers tested.

These chemicals are favored for their grease-repellent properties. Along with their use in the fast food industry, fluorinated chemicals -- sometimes called PFASs -- are used "to give water-repellant, stain-resistant, and non-stick properties to consumer products such as furniture, carpets, outdoor gear, clothing, cosmetics (and) cookware," according to a news release that accompanied the report. "The most studied of these substances (PFOSs and PFOAs) has been linked to kidney and testicular cancer, elevated cholesterol, decreased fertility, thyroid problems and changes in hormone functioning, as well as adverse developmental effects and decreased immune response in children."

The chemicals can migrate into your food, says one of the study's authors, who suggests removing it from the packaging as quickly as possible. (You might also request your french fries in a paper cup, which are free from "chemicals of concern".) But they also suggest pressuring fast food chains to remove the chemicals from their packaging, and the president of the Foodservice Packaging Institute acknowledges that after the study concluded in 2015, fluorochemical-free packaging was introduced.

80 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. What are the known risks by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most studied of these substances has been linked....

    As usual, the key information to know the extent of the potential problem is missing. So, we know that there is a study out there that shows a possible link between one of these substances and health problems.

    How much exposure required to show a link? What is the elevation in risk for common intake from packaging? How much of the studied substance is actually in use vs other substances?

    There hardly appears to be enough information to make any recommendations.

    1. Re:What are the known risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a pretty standard "Ban X Now" hit piece. Strong on potential effect light on detail.

      You are exactly right in asking those questions. Any of them can make this a 'so what' issue but then there is no news item painting fast food in a negative light

    2. Re:What are the known risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      EHP Article
      tl;dr
      health data was collected from community residents in 2005 and 2006 and from a follow-up medical survey of these participants between 2008 and 2011. They also included data from 4,391 DuPont workers. For each worker and resident, the authors estimated lifetime cumulative PFOA serum levels based on factors including drinking water source, tap water consumption, and any employment at the DuPont plant.
      Of 32,507 individuals in the current study, 2,507 had primary cancers of 21 different types that were validated using medical records and cancer registries. The incidence of both testicular and kidney cancers increased with higher estimated PFOA serum levels. Although the dose–response trend was not statistically significant for kidney cancer, the association is supported by two other studies by the C8 Science Panel: a geographical study of cancer in the mid-Ohio Valley and a mortality study of DuPont workers.
      Most notable study design limitation is that it is [largely] a survivor cohort
      "The authors also found a positive association between estimated PFOA levels and thyroid cancer, but there was not a consistent dose–response trend, and the association was not statistically significant."
      "small numbers of cases for some individual cancers, including testicular cancer, also may have led to imprecise estimates of association."
      "Data from the nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2000 showed that participants averaged PFOA blood concentrations of 5.2 ng/mL,4 whereas the cohort in the six counties exposed to contaminated drinking water near the DuPont Washington Works plant had concentrations averaging 32.9 ng/mL." SI-YMMV

      Mid-Ohio Valley tl;dr
      Results:
      Participants (n = 32,254) reported 2,507 validated cancers (21 different cancer types). Estimated cumulative serum PFOA concentrations were positively associated with kidney and testicular cancer [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.24 and HR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.79, respectively, for 1-unit increases in ln-transformed serum PFOA]. Categorical analyses also indicated positive trends with increasing exposures for both cancers: for kidney cancer HRs for increas
      ing exposure quartiles were 1.0, 1.23, 1.48, and 1.58 (linear trend test p = 0.18) and for testicular cancer, HRs were 1.0, 1.04, 1.91, 3.17 (linear trend test p
      = 0.04).
      conclusions:
      PFOA exposure was associated with kidney and testicular cancer in this population. Because this is largely a survivor cohort, findings must be interpreted with caution, especially for highly fatal cancers such as pancreatic and lung cancer.

      Still with me?
      Pyrolysis of PTFE is detectable at 200 C (392 F), and it evolves several fluorocarbon gases and a sublimate.
      While PTFE is stable and nontoxic at lower temperatures, it begins to deteriorate after the temperature of cookware reaches about 260 C (500 F). The degradation by-products can be lethal to birds, and can cause flu-like symptoms in humans. See polymer fume fever.
      Meat is usually fried between 204 and 232 C (399 and 450 F), and most oils start to smoke before a temperature of 260 C (500 F) is reached.

    3. Re:What are the known risks by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      So, are "the most studied of these substances" the ones they're finding in fast-food wrappers? Or is this just a bit of scare-mongering?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:What are the known risks by plover · · Score: 2

      It sounds like they're describing ScotchGard, a surface treatment whose key ingredient was PFOS.

      As far as your other questions, measuring direct contact of one burger wrapper with one person's blood levels isn't how these studies are typically done. There are too many variables: how long was the food in contact with the wrapper, how much surface area of the wrapper actually came in contact with how much surface area of the food, what kind of food, how many liquids from the food soaked into the paper and were returned to the food, etc. Another problem is the levels in the individual interactions are so low that they're difficult to measure. Instead, they look at the prevalence of the chemical in the environment, and the levels of the chemical in the blood of members of the population over time. But that means the data won't allow them to draw detailed conclusions, such as "Burger Chain's wrappers for their Big Beef Burger deliver 3x more PFAS than Taco Chain's wrappers for their Bottomless Burrito."

      And it turns out the details of individual interactions don't matter much because the solution is almost always a broad spectrum approach: once they determine the link between levels of PFAS in the blood and rates of diseases, they'll simply ban the substance entirely from all products, not just food wrappers. ScotchGard was never used to treat food wrappers - it was used to make furniture, carpeting, and fabrics stain resistant - yet we all ended up with PFOS in our blood as a result of it simply being in the environment.

      The good news is that bans are an effective approach. Once the substance is banned, measured levels of it in the population decline.

      --
      John
    5. Re:What are the known risks by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      As far as your other questions, measuring direct contact of one burger wrapper with one person's blood levels isn't how these studies are typically done.

      I wasn't suggesting it is. But they certainly can study the amount of these chemicals that migrates into the food under typical circumstances. And yes, since the levels are likely so low its difficult to measure, that should be taken into account before jumping to the 'ban' gun as you suggest. We certainly don't ban everything that has potential health risks.

    6. Re:What are the known risks by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      ScotchGard was never used to treat food wrappers

      Can you provide hard evidence of this? How do you know fast food chains are not wrapping their burgers in carpet? Have you ever tasted fast food?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    7. Re:What are the known risks by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      And yes, since the levels are likely so low its difficult to measure, that should be taken into account before jumping to the 'ban' gun as you suggest. We certainly don't ban everything that has potential health risks.

      The problem with the chemicals in question is that they are known to accumulate in the environment, and there is increasing evidence that their presence in drinking water, etc. can cause serious problems. And the studies that had been used to create previous recommended drinking water standards were basically knowingly corrupted by DuPont, a primary manufacturer. You may want to look up the cases against DuPont and Rob Bilott, the primary attorney who has litigated these cases (who actually used to work as a defense attorney FOR big chemical companies, but who became convinced of the gross injustice and lies in the present case, so he "switched sides").

      I'm not one of the typical "chemophobic" folks who worries about "chemicals," but in this particular case, the continued use of the chemicals in question is worrisome not just for any direct health effects from consumption of the food/packaging, but also from the large amount of fast food packaging waste and the future environmental lifespan of those chemicals. In case you haven't been paying attention over the past year or so, chemical testing is now going on in water systems around the country because of heightened concerns over PFAS chemicals -- the idea that we're still using them in something as common as fast-food packaging is a concern.

    8. Re:What are the known risks by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Of course not. From TFA:
      "These are long-chain PFASs that have largely been phased out, in favor of shorter-chain compounds that are thought to have shorter half-lives in the human body, but these shortened forms have not yet been thoroughly studied."

      Maybe the shorter chain compounds have similar effects and maybe they leave the body faster. Or maybe not. We don't know.

      The logical thing would be to demand a study of the compounds that are in use, but good luck getting that with budgets being cut and information being locked down under the current administration.

    9. Re:What are the known risks by justthinkit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cliff notes: this is for the workers who deal with PFOA, not for chinese food (and apparently chinese food container) eaters. In short, sensationalist headline is sensationalist, and is distracting from watching the Patriots lose.

      --
      I come here for the love
    10. Re:What are the known risks by psmoot · · Score: 1

      ...and is distracting from watching the Patriots lose.

      Ahem. Distracting you from the greatest comeback in NFL history.

  2. And? by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's inside the plastic wrapping is going to kill you quicker than whatever the wrapping is made of.

    Or, otherwise, we'd pretty much all be dead by now.

    Sure, start phasing it out, like thousands of things before it, but it's not an end-of-the-world, evil-fast-food-chain, profiteering-bastards kind of story at all.

    Hell, I remember when McDonald's burgers came in a polystyrene box. They changed that and it's now a card-thing with shiny outside. I'm sure those things were always marked as "food-safe" or they'd have been in court a million times by now because of it.

    But our idea of food-safe changes as knowledge increases. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up going back to polystyrene boxes at some point, we're bound to find out that something older and abandoned actually wasn't all that bad or we can now make it without it being bad.

    But the tone of the summary/story is quite heavily in the "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" section. When actually the story is more like "Huh, there's a tiny chance this could very slightly statistically be worse for you that paper. Oh well, let's change that, but it's not worth panicking and trying to do that overnight. Let's just phase it out for something slightly better."

    Hell, they banned fish and chip shops in the UK from using newspaper for wrapping the food in, which they always did in my father's day, because of the ink in the paper being not ideal to wrap a greasy load of fried fish and potato into. But try and point to someone who died or was taken ill as a result and you'd be hard pressed to come up with anything at all.

    And then, ironically, they all started using polystyrene and plastics, which we're now telling them are bad for the environment and they should go back to paper, and recycled paper at that...

    1. Re:And? by gtall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "But try and point to someone who died or was taken ill as a result and you'd be hard pressed to come up with anything at all."

      What matters are statistics. Point to someone who died from a chemical spill, hard to do. Point to a community with elevated cancer rates, not so hard.

    2. Re:And? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      What's inside the plastic wrapping is going to kill you quicker than whatever the wrapping is made of.

      Fair point. But when I first read about this topic, and looked up what these chemicals are & what they're used for, 1st thought was: "What the F#$K are these chemicals doing near our food in the first place? And even more, in food packaging?". I simply don't understand.

      It seems compounds like this could be an ingredient in cleaning agents. Okay, as a producer you may have issues with washing the reminder of cleaning agents such that traces remain & get in the food processed. But if that's a known problem, why not use more 'food-friendly' cleaning agents where it isn't a big issue if traces remain?

      Okay, it could be used in kitchen utensils. Or non-stick surfaces. But even then, in daily use these things don't break down fast enough to leave more than minute traces in what they come in contact with. That, or the cooking / baking process is screwed up so bad you'd tell from the end product in other ways.

      But as a component in food packaging? For fast food? The kind of cups & trays that are typically discarded within hours from purchase anyway? That makes no sense. It should be soooo easy to find packaging materials where the element F doesn't even occur in any shape, form, or significant quantities. For this application, why risk using organofluorine compounds at all?

    3. Re:And? by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's inside the plastic wrapping is going to kill you quicker than whatever the wrapping is made of.

      The most studied of these substances (PFOSs and PFOAs) has been linked to kidney and testicular cancer, elevated cholesterol, decreased fertility, thyroid problems and changes in hormone functioning, as well as adverse developmental effects and decreased immune response in children.

      When there is an obesity epidemic, its worth considering what role the packaging may be playing in messing with hormones and thyroid function, both of which can lead to weight gain.

    4. Re:And? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Cancer rates doubled during the industrial revolution, much more than could be accounted for by increases in lifespan that happened for some classes around the same time. One wonders (okay, I wonder) what they would be like today without all this probably-carcinogenic (and known-carcinogenic) plastic involved.

      Obviously, in some cases we really depend on plastics, and I'm not suggesting it should all go away. In [most] other cases, glass is a lot better, and we should use it instead of plastic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When there is an obesity epidemic, you should start to seriously question the policies of the last 2-3 generations worth of government bodies who decided they could make people better. Like the war on fats.

    6. Re:And? by ledow · · Score: 1

      And life expectancy - and overall deaths - nearly halved in most developed countries at the same time.

      Cancer is what happens to you when nothing else kills you - it's quite literally a lottery on every cell replication as to whether it mutates badly or not. And over time, you WILL get and die of cancer if nothing else does.

      Blaming increasing lifespan, which means more people die of cancer, on the presence or invention of plastic is actually good evidence FOR plastic. Such as - how do you sterilise or clean paper, cloth, etc. to food standards? Much harder than doing the same for plastic.

      Additionally, almost every substance known to man is carcinogenic or has carcinogenic variants or cousins. What you're basically saying is "The only thing now left to kill us if the extremely low risk of cancer from an otherwise pretty harmless substance, that up until we started using it had even worse alternatives".

      There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. And statistics mean nothing if you don't interpret them in context.

    7. Re:And? by ledow · · Score: 1

      Life expectancy DOUBLED and overall deaths HALVED. Sorry, I mis-edited that line.

    8. Re:And? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      By the same token, that's also how you can tell whether your town's witches are actively casting their cancer spells.

    9. Re:And? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Dihydrogen monoxide is the most prevalent chemical in most cleaning agents. So what?

  3. Re:Fast food by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You're confusing fast food with meat.

    Meat isn't bad for you, in any way shape or form. There are no conclusive, unchallenged papers saying so.

    In fact, very nearly the opposite:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
    CONCLUSIONS:

    United Kingdom-based vegetarians and comparable nonvegetarians have similar all-cause mortality. Differences found for specific causes of death merit further investigation.

    60,310 people studied. That's a LOT.

    But don't confuse "meat-eating" with "fast-food junky". And don't think that a vegan or vegetarian diet does ANYTHING for you. It doesn't. It's just the same, but you can't eat meat. If you're used to eating meat, that can make you miserable.

    And if you go too strict, you can do more damage to your body and have to take an artificial supplement to restore what's missing from your diet (i.e. the stuff normally found in meat!).

    And what you think wild-caught salmon is going to do differently to you than a farmed salmon, we can argue about until the cows come home but basically the stats say the same again: It makes NO difference.

    Rather than try to argue on the basis of "this sounds good, and I think I'm helping", find some proper, serious, researched literature and narrow down what you're recommending.

    Is it a) meat or lack of it, b) fish instead of meat, c) "free-range" fish over farmed fish, d) vegetarian over meat-eating, e) anything over fast-food?

    Because confusing the issue in ONE SENTENCE between five different things, and getting most of those wrong in terms of actual science, is not the way to convince people.

    You might as well tell me to only use organic pencils as they "draw better".

  4. Calculated risks by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Inform me of the risks.

    Let me choose to patronize restaurants that give me safer-to-eat food or food in packaging that is less likely to leak grease or mayo through the wrapper.

    If enough people demand safe-to-eat food, the other packaging will disappear.

    If enough people demand water-and-grease-repellant packaging, the other kind will disappear.

    In general, the market decide.

    I'm willing to budge and go "nanny state" when it comes to food marketed towards minors and food that is sold in "captive/concession-controlled" environments where the customer's choices are very limited. Yes, movie theaters and sports stadiums and airports, I'm looking at you.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Calculated risks by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Let me choose to patronize restaurants that give me safer-to-eat food or food in packaging that is less likely to leak grease or mayo through the wrapper.

      If they're giving you your food in a wrapper, it's not a restaurant.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Calculated risks by gtall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's eliminate airline regulations. If enough people die, then they'll stop flying or the planes will be made safer. It'll a be a bit late for the dead people, but then Ayn Rand followers can wax poetical on the magic of the markets.

    3. Re:Calculated risks by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem is that people will assume that if it's used in the fast food industry, it isn't something that will give your kids cancer by the time they're 50. They also won't know that the grease proof wrapper is an endocrine disrupter. You can bet when asking which wrapping you want the cashier won't ask "would you like to super-size your prostate?".

  5. Breaking News: Toxic food served in toxic wrappers by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    If you expected any better from these mega-food corporations then you've set yourself up for disappointment.

  6. Re:Fast food by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    What vegetables have the most vitamin B12 ?

  7. Re:Fast food by zero2cx · · Score: 1
    Consider that economics (i.e. food board lobbying) as much as Nutrition Science has historically shaped our USDA nutritionists' dietary recommendations. The Texas Beef Council just may have (and of course they did) lobbied to ensure red meat's prominence as an immutable, foundational keystone for that pyramid you cite.

    Humans can't survive without meat.

    And what, you gurgled that for us here because there is no such creature as a surviving Vegan, I guess?

  8. Re:PVC piping, really nondegradable by tsqr · · Score: 2

    under someone's theory that my water main pressure might drop (it never did)

    Congratulations on being the only person ever who's gone 45 years without having to shut off the water to your house for a plumbing repair.

  9. simple: eat less packaging ! by swell · · Score: 4, Funny

    For my part, I'll gradually reduce the packaging material I eat. By the end of March of this year I hope to maintain a 20% reduction. Assuming no serious withdrawal symptoms, I may cut consumption of packaging material in half by the end of the year. Wish me luck!

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  10. Re:Fast food by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    > Humans can't survive without meat.

    I assume you trolling, since that is clearly not true.

  11. Re:Fast food by PoopJuggler · · Score: 3, Informative

    Meat isn't bad for you, in any way shape or form.

    Except there's a strong link between red and smoked meats and increased chance of colorectal cancer.

  12. Re:Fast food by religionofpeas · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been vegan for 5 years (since high school) and I've never had a vitamin deficiency of any sort and I don't take any any B vitamin supplements whatsoever.

    Your liver can store enough B12 to last years. The fact that you don't have a (noticeable) deficiency after 5 years doesn't mean you're not exhausting your supply.

  13. So what? by fredrated · · Score: 1

    As we move into the era of 'less regulation', what difference does it make, nothing will be done about it.

  14. Re: Fast food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Graaa, you did the same thing the parent was arguing against. Stupid, pointless, useless one liners without any backing, justification, or facts.

    "You shouldn't eat vegetables". See what I did there?

  15. Re:Fast food by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

    And don't think that a vegan or vegetarian diet does ANYTHING for you. It doesn't.

    I guess all those dummies that study nutrition don't know as much as you.

  16. Re:Fast food by Imrik · · Score: 2

    The USDA food pyramid was based on the food used to fatten livestock.

  17. Re:Fast food by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

    There's also a link between eating red meat and deaths caused by falling from ladders. Correlation doesn't mean much.

  18. Re:Fast food by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    The USDA food pyramid has grains at the bottom (and widest) portion of the pyramid

    No it doesn't. The pyramid with horizontal slices is obsolete, and was replaced with VERTICAL slices. Of course, vertical slices don't even fit the metaphor of a pyramid, and are thus meaningless, but THAT IS THE INTENT. The USDA was fed up with trying to please so many interest groups (farmers, food manufacturers, nutritionists, etc) that they just threw up their hands and went with something pointless, meaningless, and content free.

    The vertical "pyramid" diagram has now been replaced with the MyPlate diagram, which is slightly less stupid.

    Also, just in case anyone is wondering, PFAS means perfluorinated alkylated substances.

  19. Re:Fast food by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

    The problem with epidemiological studies is that it's very hard to account for all the confounders. And if the researcher is biased towards a certain result, it's very easy to get it. People who choose to live a vegetarian lifestyle also make a lot of other choices regarding their health.

  20. Re:Fast food by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    There are no conclusive, unchallenged papers saying so.

    Why the weasel words? In nutrition research NOTHING is conclusive and unchallenged.

    In fact, very nearly the opposite: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

    You are cherry-picking the report, and then cherry-picking quotes from the report. This report actually found that veggies live longer, but without enough data to be "conclusive". Many other studies have found a stronger correlation.

  21. Re:Fast food by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    Not that meat is bad but the food pyramid you're referring to is decades out of date.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  22. You say you're worried about your health? by Macdude · · Score: 1

    If you're eating at fast food restaurants you're not worried about your health, so this is truly a non-story.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  23. Re: Fast food by elschism · · Score: 1

    You must be a Troll.. Please do your own research before you slander those who have.. Here's more places u can also find PFAS https://toxicnow.com/is-your-k...

  24. Re:Fast food by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    What vegetables have the most vitamin B12 ?

    Mushrooms. Cremini mushrooms are an especially good source. Tempeh (fermented soybeans) also has B12. Also, many vegan foods are supplemented with B12, such as bread and breakfast cereal.

  25. Re:Fast food by religionofpeas · · Score: 3

    A serving of 100 grams of Cremini mushrooms have only 2% of your daily B12 requirement (other sources say 3 or 4%). Tofu has even less. Seems that veganism isn't a natural lifestyle.

  26. Re: Fast food by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    "You shouldn't eat vegetables"

    My Dad always argued that lettuce was fattening. He smoked Cuban cigars and lived to be 93.

    OTOH, 75% of statistics can cause you to die young!

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  27. Re:Fast food by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
    Correlation doesn't mean much.

    There's also a link between eating red meat and deaths caused by falling from ladders.

    In this case it means eating meat causes people to climb ladders.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  28. Re:Fast food by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

    And what, you gurgled that for us here because there is no such creature as a surviving Vegan, I guess?

    While you can certainly survive as a vegan, it's really not ideal. Animal protein carries 100% of essential aminos and a number of essential micronutrients, and in order to replace them you have to go out of your way with different food sources that are otherwise (without modern technology) mutually out of reach of any given geographic area.

    Furthermore, the diet has to be micromanaged in order to work, similar to a diabetes diet or a renal diet.

  29. Re:Fast food by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

    BUT -- The first GMO animal to be sold into the human food chain is salmon, so buyer beware.

    Why buyer beware? Every single time somebody tries to challenge GMO, it has always been empirically proven to not only be safe, but beneficial both in terms of environment and nutrition. Anything claiming the contrary has always been proven to be junk science.

    It's on the market *now*, and it's a genetic cross between a sockeye salmon and a Brazilian jumbo tapeworm larvae. Disgusting, right??

    That's a load of shit. The whole idea of "frankenfood" is a myth. Sure, in some lab experiments moving genes between species is done to understand what given genes do, but nobody actually serves food that way. Instead what's used is proteomics to construct specific mutations.

  30. Tastes great ? by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

    One must have severely damaged taste-buds to consider that fast food tastes even remotely '0K'.
    If you are used drinking water, eating fresh, lightly seasoned, food (home made, or from a good restaurant), ...
    then fast-food tastes like mouth-burning salty/acidic sponge (or sole, depending on the "meal").
    Of course, if one is used to fast-food and sodas then water and proper food is probably taste-less : after all, one gets used to pain.

    --
    Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
    1. Re:Tastes great ? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      What is this "lightly seasoned" bullcrap? I have a colleague who refuses to use any salt in his cooking, and you can tell simply by looking at him, how miserable his food tastes.

      Season your food so it tastes right, the seasonings have no health impact*, so go hog wild. Making otherwise bland food taste palatable is good. Fat carries a lot of flavor, but is also high in calories. Remove the fat, and you remove a lot of taste, but you can compensate for this by using spices. As a side effect, really spicy food tends to sate the appetite more, at least that's what I've experiences when eating properly spicy Indian food.

      But the most important thing is to consider sugar a seasoning, not a major constituent of your diet. Used in moderation, sugar will enhance a sauce and it will make fish like mackerel take on a whole new dimension of taste. Just like salt, it can be a flavor enhancer without obviously contributing a flavor of its own.

      Bland food is for bland people.

      * except stuff like capsaicin, which can have a small positive effect on blood pressure and metabolism.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  31. Re: Fast food by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    Well, eat whatever you want, but colon cancer is the 3rd most prevalent cancer in America and can go undetected for a long time, easily into stage 3 or 4. Don't say I didn't warn you.

  32. Re:Fast food by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    Pre-historically, people probably stopped drinking milk by age 2.

    It is far more likely they continued beyond the age of 5. There were no primary schools in pre-history, and no formula or bottled baby foods. And no prudes (probably).

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  33. Re: Fast food by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    Sure, but even if there's a correlation with eating meat, that doesn't mean that meat is actually responsible. It could be something else that meat eaters are more likely to do (or not do, like eating fiber), and just cutting out meat from your diet wouldn't help.

  34. Re:Fast food by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Seems that veganism isn't a natural lifestyle.

    Of course not. The diets of all primitive societies contain meat (mostly from small animals), and eggs. But just because something isn't "natural" doesn't mean it isn't healthy. Smallpox vaccines and indoor plumbing are not "natural" either, but they have vastly extended human lifespans. There is a fair amount of evidence that veggie/vegan diets are healthier than meat rich diets. For people that do eat meat, there is evidence that meat from small animals and fish is healthier than meat from large mammals such as cows and pigs. For people that do eat beef and pork, there is evidence that it is better to eat it in moderation and avoid meat that is charred or smoked.

    Disclaimer: I try to mostly stick to a vegetarian diet, but I am not a fanatic about it.

  35. Re:Fast food by guises · · Score: 1

    If you actually read the paper you linked, it's way more interesting and way less simple than you're suggesting with your claim that "Meat isn't bad for you, in any way shape or form." First: the paper notes that these results are inconsistent with results from a couple of other similar studies, and speculates that perhaps the reason is regional - all of the test subjects in this study were British, while a similar study conducted in the US showed a 12% decrease in mortality among vegetarians.

    Second: while the overall mortality was similar among the tested groups, when they picked out eighteen common causes of death and looked just at those (cancers, heart problems, etc.) the groups which ate little or no meat all had lower mortality by 7-10%. So, somehow, British people who eat less meat are more likely to die for unusual reasons.

  36. Re:Fast food by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    There's nothing wrong with grains but there's everything wrong with the highly processed stuff that the American consumer usually buys.

    Humans can easily survive without meat. You can easily get proper amino acid intake from vegetable sources alone although you have to balance them. With just a little bit of dairy or fish it's trivial (and a lot healthier than meat.)

  37. Re:Fast food by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not, farmed salmon has a much higher quantity of mercury than wild-caught salmon (and salmon is really not a fish that has a mercury problem in the wild).

    Got a citation for that? The only reputable info I can find says the opposite.

    http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

  38. Re:Fast food by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    all of the test subjects in this study were British, while a similar study conducted in the US showed a 12% decrease in mortality among vegetarians.

    Not sure if it's related, but meat bought in the USA is far more likely to be pumped full of antibiotics than in the UK. There are other differences in the kinds of meat in different price brackets, so 'eating meat' probably means something quite different on each side of the pond.

    So, somehow, British people who eat less meat are more likely to die for unusual reasons.

    Being bludgeoned to death for excessive smugness is the leading cause of death among vegans.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  39. testicular cancer by ferret4 · · Score: 1

    Own up, who has been wiping used hamburger wrappers on their testicles? You have no-one to blame but yourselves.

  40. Re:Fast food by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    The biggest problem with a pure vegan diet, is that it seems to require importing a significant number part of the diet. This is a significant burden on the environment compared to eating locally-grown/raised food.

    Sure, be vegan if you think it helps you sleep better at night. But don't delude yourself into thinking it's better for the environment.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  41. Re: Fast food by connect4 · · Score: 1

    -1

  42. Wait, which packages now, exactly? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    All the fast food chains around here had already switched to paper years ago... where is this actually still a problem? Which types of packages/materials are actually still being used that even require a non-stick coating, and which actual restaurant chains are still using them?

  43. Re: Fast food by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    " The vegans I know all seem to have emotional problems as well."

    I'd like to suggest that many had those problems prior to becoming vegans, and made that change because being a vegan makes you a special snowflake, drawing attention to yourself at every shared meal. Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying ALL vegans.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  44. Re: Fast food by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    There are 3 other sides to a pyramid. You do realize those are all vegetables, right?

    Um, no. Just flat out, no.
    https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/site...

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  45. Re: Fast food by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    +1 Bravo!

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  46. Re: Fast food by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and there's a strong correlation between people who breath, and people who die. Please stop breathing, and save yourself!

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  47. Re:Fast food by strikethree · · Score: 1

    Except there's a strong link between red and smoked meats and increased chance of colorectal cancer.

    There is something poetic about a guy named PoopJuggler having a link handy that shows a correlation between meat and colorectal cancer.

    More oddly, I do not recall seeing this name until recently and yet the userid is relatively low.

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  48. Re:Remove kebab as quickly as possible. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    "Just remove the shitty food from your diet as quick as possible."

    So, "shitty food" means different things to different people. YMMV, but I happen to like the taste of some fast food, and choose to continue stimulating my pleasure center. No, not that one. At 58 yrs old, with no major health issues, I'd much rather enjoy my food than eat tofu and rice cakes, because at this point, I've probably only got another ten to twenty years, and why the fuck should I have to put up with eating food that tastes like plaster.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  49. Re: Fast food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nah pretty much all vegans...

  50. Re: Fast food by lactose99 · · Score: 1

    Q: How do you know you're talking to a vegan?

    A: Don't worry, he'll/she'll tell you

    --
    Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  51. Re: Fast food by lactose99 · · Score: 1

    That is possibly the most terrible-looking site since the Time Cube dude.

    --
    Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  52. Re:Fast food by lactose99 · · Score: 1

    My paleo-diet kid can beat up your vegan kid

    --
    Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  53. Re: Fast food by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    /golfclap

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  54. Re:Fast food by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

    There's also a link between eating red meat and deaths caused by falling from ladders

    Yes. It's so important to wash your greasy hands after a meal.

  55. Re:Fast food by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    The biggest problem with a pure vegan diet, is that it seems to require importing a significant number part of the diet.

    What? I have never heard anyone claim this before, and it makes no sense. Do you have evidence whatsoever that this is true?

  56. Re:Fast food by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    I live in Denmark. A lot of food recommended by vegan blogs does not grow locally. Best-case, it's imported from southern Europe. Worst-case, it's imported from Asia or something.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  57. Re:Fast food by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    There is no such thing as a healthy vegan.