Dear Company Spokesperson,
Thank you so much for your response to the inquiry as to whether or not the ingredients in your product contain corn.
I have to point out, however, that you were not being asked to comment on the safety of corn derivatives for individuals with corn allergies. Nor are you being asked to replace the role of medical advisor. And if I took your advice to discuss every product I was considering placing across my lips with my medical provider, my medical provider would not have time to attend to any other patients. That's why they suggest I do my own research. As they advise every patient to do.
Which is why you received a letter inquiring as to the origination of your ingredients.
I'm pleased to hear that you know of no documented reactions to caramel color/citric acid/microcrystalline cellulose etc. Unfortunately, I have experienced reactions under blind trial conditions. These reactions were identified through the use of food diaries and helpful companies who were willing to share the source of their ingredients. How else would I know why ascorbic from batch A made me sick and ascorbic acid from batch B didn't?
I believe my doctor's response was "Huh, that's weird. There are no documented cases of allergic reactions to these derivatives. But if they affect you like this, I think you should definitely avoid them."
Which brings me full circle to the problem at hand.
Where were your ingredients derived? I am asking for my health, not for the heck of it. I'm not asking for proprietary information. I'm asking for sources of ingredients listed in your product.
If you don't want my business, simply respond that you don't serve people with unique allergies. Don't quote the FDA's impressive quality control measures. I presume, since you are still in business, that you adhere to their policies. I don't really care about FAAN's policies since the top 8 allergens, as identified by the FDA, don't really pertain to corn. But I do think that as a consumer, I have the right to know where products come from. What country. What plant. And whether the plant originated as a seedling or a science fiction worthy science experiment.
Thank you.
This letter was inspired by THIS post at Delphi forums.
Showing posts with label vent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vent. Show all posts
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Franken-food Revisited
We've long known that the unprocessed, unadorned food is most likely found on the outside aisles of the grocery store. Produce, meats, bakery, deli, and refrigerated section are generally on the outside. Work your way in to find cereals, snack bars, soda and the like.
Dieticians caution their clients to stick to the outside aisles. The slow food movement, overlaying a shift towards "real food" and "whole food" diets, encourages people to stick to the outside aisles, where "real" food is.
But what you see isn't always what you get. Pork, for instance, appears to be a slab of meat that was cut from the carcass of a pig. Of course...most of us would rather not think of the logistics of how that slab of meat got from the field to our roasting pan, but we're pretty certain that we could trace it's journey if pressed to do so.
Science is changing everything.
With breaking new research, stem cells harvested from shoulder muscles can be used to grow pork. No pig, no slaughter, no "Sooo-eeeey!" required. Excited researchers tell us that this technology will easily translate to other flesh foods, and potentially be used to design healthier meals. Like burgers that unclog your arteries with "healthy" fish oil.
The thing is...It's still frankenfood. It's frankenfood taken to the limits of Mary Shelley (author of the original Frankenstein)'s wildest nightmares. It stretches the margins of my nightmares. And the worst part?
Scientists are excited.
The article claims that the environmental impact will be impressive. Somehow, my gut tells me their vision isn't of the multitude of industrial waste involved in the chemical production of fake food. Plastic petrie dishes (made either from biodegradable corn or chemical laden petroleum sources), latex gloves, masks, the building itself. Too much can go wrong.
I'm a life long animal lover. A vegetarian who doesn't WANT to tumble. (I'm eating ethically raised poultry but against my desires.) I was once vegan, for the ethics surrounding the issues of animal consumption.
But I say slaughter the poor creatures and be done with it. We can't play G-d by creating new food out of cells and DNA and test tubes. The idea that they're even contemplating it turns my stomach.
Laboratory food is not the answer to world hunger. World hunger is a political problem, causes of hunger are typically financially related rather than a lack of global calories. It's cheaper to stick seeds in the ground, and anyone can do it, regardless of their educational status. Besides, from what I understand the third world countries most in need of quick, convenient calories to save the masses would never accept some trumped up chemical soup. They don't want to simply survive. They want to thrive by their own hands, and they deserve that dignity.
We need to get back in fields, we need to recreate the fields, and start supporting our local farmers. Not just for produce, but for the meats and eggs and dairy products so many of us consume regularly. Shop outside the box...at the farmer's market, or the local co-op. We need to fight franken food before our other options vanish. We've already seen GMO corn, soy and canola quietly infiltrate the food supply. High Fructose corn syrup avoiders are starting to put up a ruckus as they discover how limiting their diet can be. (Much to the amusement of us uncornies, who can't tolerate the corn in artificial sweeteners, let alone the rest of the derivatives.) America dropped the ball on the food dye issue (the bandwagon comes back every now and then, but no one seems to want to jump on. We'd rather follow at a distance.)
With genetically modified seeds running rampant, and foreign genes in our produce, it's not surprising that the meat is the next to go. the question is where are we, as a society, going to put our foot down? Does it have to have an immediate threat to get our attention? If GMO's made our skin turn purple and our spleens explode within 24 hours, they'd get banned. But it doesn't. Like lead and melamine, it takes awhile before the devastating effects can be seen.
Unfortunately, when our entire food supply is at risk (not to mention the potential of our future food supply) one has to wonder just how much more vital it is to be safe rather than sorry. We're already overmedicating mild conditions not suffered by poorer nations. Digestive disturbances, behavioral problems, and childhood epidemics like the 4-As are skyrocketing. Do we need conclusive proof to use our brains and say there's something unnatural about growing food in environmentally controlled petrie dishes instead of ouside in the sun, soil and elements? After all, that's where it was designed to grow. Fruit on trees, veggies on plants, grains as grasses, and meat on animals.
Dieticians caution their clients to stick to the outside aisles. The slow food movement, overlaying a shift towards "real food" and "whole food" diets, encourages people to stick to the outside aisles, where "real" food is.
But what you see isn't always what you get. Pork, for instance, appears to be a slab of meat that was cut from the carcass of a pig. Of course...most of us would rather not think of the logistics of how that slab of meat got from the field to our roasting pan, but we're pretty certain that we could trace it's journey if pressed to do so.
Science is changing everything.
With breaking new research, stem cells harvested from shoulder muscles can be used to grow pork. No pig, no slaughter, no "Sooo-eeeey!" required. Excited researchers tell us that this technology will easily translate to other flesh foods, and potentially be used to design healthier meals. Like burgers that unclog your arteries with "healthy" fish oil.
The thing is...It's still frankenfood. It's frankenfood taken to the limits of Mary Shelley (author of the original Frankenstein)'s wildest nightmares. It stretches the margins of my nightmares. And the worst part?
Scientists are excited.
The article claims that the environmental impact will be impressive. Somehow, my gut tells me their vision isn't of the multitude of industrial waste involved in the chemical production of fake food. Plastic petrie dishes (made either from biodegradable corn or chemical laden petroleum sources), latex gloves, masks, the building itself. Too much can go wrong.
I'm a life long animal lover. A vegetarian who doesn't WANT to tumble. (I'm eating ethically raised poultry but against my desires.) I was once vegan, for the ethics surrounding the issues of animal consumption.
But I say slaughter the poor creatures and be done with it. We can't play G-d by creating new food out of cells and DNA and test tubes. The idea that they're even contemplating it turns my stomach.
Laboratory food is not the answer to world hunger. World hunger is a political problem, causes of hunger are typically financially related rather than a lack of global calories. It's cheaper to stick seeds in the ground, and anyone can do it, regardless of their educational status. Besides, from what I understand the third world countries most in need of quick, convenient calories to save the masses would never accept some trumped up chemical soup. They don't want to simply survive. They want to thrive by their own hands, and they deserve that dignity.
We need to get back in fields, we need to recreate the fields, and start supporting our local farmers. Not just for produce, but for the meats and eggs and dairy products so many of us consume regularly. Shop outside the box...at the farmer's market, or the local co-op. We need to fight franken food before our other options vanish. We've already seen GMO corn, soy and canola quietly infiltrate the food supply. High Fructose corn syrup avoiders are starting to put up a ruckus as they discover how limiting their diet can be. (Much to the amusement of us uncornies, who can't tolerate the corn in artificial sweeteners, let alone the rest of the derivatives.) America dropped the ball on the food dye issue (the bandwagon comes back every now and then, but no one seems to want to jump on. We'd rather follow at a distance.)
With genetically modified seeds running rampant, and foreign genes in our produce, it's not surprising that the meat is the next to go. the question is where are we, as a society, going to put our foot down? Does it have to have an immediate threat to get our attention? If GMO's made our skin turn purple and our spleens explode within 24 hours, they'd get banned. But it doesn't. Like lead and melamine, it takes awhile before the devastating effects can be seen.
Unfortunately, when our entire food supply is at risk (not to mention the potential of our future food supply) one has to wonder just how much more vital it is to be safe rather than sorry. We're already overmedicating mild conditions not suffered by poorer nations. Digestive disturbances, behavioral problems, and childhood epidemics like the 4-As are skyrocketing. Do we need conclusive proof to use our brains and say there's something unnatural about growing food in environmentally controlled petrie dishes instead of ouside in the sun, soil and elements? After all, that's where it was designed to grow. Fruit on trees, veggies on plants, grains as grasses, and meat on animals.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The most frustrating thing in the world...
Is when you have successfully adapted a cake recipe. And you write it down. And you put it somewhere safe.
And then, when you've been craving said cake and there is a really good reason to make one, and you find a recipe that's in your handwriting. You make the recipe, thinking something seems wrong but you don't know exactly what. And when it comes out of the oven, it becomes apparent that it is nothing at all like the cake that you have been craving like crazy.
And you can't buy something similar. And when you try to find out if you wrote the recipe on the computer, you realize that you did not because your husband re organized all of your writing. In fact, his junior high papers are now mixed in with your carefully sorted-by-disk articles. Not to mention everything that you've taken hours and days and months to research about allergies and manufacturers, and...oh, yes, recipes.
And you can't just pull up a new recipe. This was converted from one that you stumbled across once that looked convertible, and took 3 tries.
You just wasted rice flour that costs $4 per pound; plus shipping. So you'll serve it to the family, who will enjoy it, but it still won't be that moist, yummy gingery cake that you've been craving and will, apparently, continue to crave until you find a similar recipe. And manage to properly convert it to gluten free/casein free/corn free. (Most gluten free recipes contain xanthan or guar gum, while guar is okay for some with corn allergies it's a major faux-pas for anyone with IBS. And why flirt with danger?)
I know the original handwritten notes are on a piece of paper I had just 2 days ago; that I used to share a different "cheese-less cheese cracker" with someone. So it has to be here somewhere. But, that doesn't make it any less disappointing.
And then, when you've been craving said cake and there is a really good reason to make one, and you find a recipe that's in your handwriting. You make the recipe, thinking something seems wrong but you don't know exactly what. And when it comes out of the oven, it becomes apparent that it is nothing at all like the cake that you have been craving like crazy.
And you can't buy something similar. And when you try to find out if you wrote the recipe on the computer, you realize that you did not because your husband re organized all of your writing. In fact, his junior high papers are now mixed in with your carefully sorted-by-disk articles. Not to mention everything that you've taken hours and days and months to research about allergies and manufacturers, and...oh, yes, recipes.
And you can't just pull up a new recipe. This was converted from one that you stumbled across once that looked convertible, and took 3 tries.
You just wasted rice flour that costs $4 per pound; plus shipping. So you'll serve it to the family, who will enjoy it, but it still won't be that moist, yummy gingery cake that you've been craving and will, apparently, continue to crave until you find a similar recipe. And manage to properly convert it to gluten free/casein free/corn free. (Most gluten free recipes contain xanthan or guar gum, while guar is okay for some with corn allergies it's a major faux-pas for anyone with IBS. And why flirt with danger?)
I know the original handwritten notes are on a piece of paper I had just 2 days ago; that I used to share a different "cheese-less cheese cracker" with someone. So it has to be here somewhere. But, that doesn't make it any less disappointing.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Food Allergy study Rant
Apparently, hundreds of parents are simply crazy. Yes, folks, studies have shown that regardless of parental confidence in their children's "allergies"; medical facts can't prove that the kids do, medically speaking, react.
Poor children are being deprived of "life giving" nutrients because the parents are hypochondriacs. At least, according to some specific guidelines that don't appear to take into consideration the potential for outgrown allergies, or exageration of symptoms to invoke cooperation, or the possibility that the reaction is delayed or even needs time to build up because maybe, just maybe, these parents have done a decent job of avoiding exposure and thus reaction.
Now, I don't know about you, but I find it absurd that its even a question of who's right, dr's or parents. Do schools need to accommodate parental requests regarding what children are told to ingest? Do parents need to relinquish control since they are required to send their children to school anyways?
I think that we've reached a point where the schools are providing too many throw away foods period. The kids don't need it to begin with.
But no, it's the parents who have a problem. How dare we be concerned with kids health! How dare we deny them donuts! How dare we nix nuts! How can we possibly ban pizza?
Many children spend half their waking hours under supervision of their school. Most then skip off to daycare for a few hours before heading home for dinner and bed. Is it really unreasonable that parents are noting symptoms and looking for answers?
Attitudes such as this "Fake food allergies" make parents feel even more out of control. Because their valid concerns are undermined by those who side with statistics. Statistically, I'm not going to drop dead when I hand out popcorn at the spring fling. That doesn't mean that the nasty rash and intestinal discomfort I later experience (or even begin experiencing after a few minutes) isn't going to irritate the heck out of me. And my kids?
I want anyone in a position of authority over them to take this whole "certain foods cause unpleasant symptoms" thing seriously. That may mean labeling a "little intolerance" as an allergy. At least until the medical community gets their act together and comes up with an appropriate label to be used for those who need food restrictions but are not anaphylactic.
A hundred years ago, food allergies may not have been prolific. But, foods were easier to avoid. They weren't nearly as invasive. They were often "whole". Easy to identify. I don't know about you, but common sense tells me that if every time I ate cornbread I threw it up and spent the next several days in a good deal of discomfort, I wouldn't have even bothered tracking down a doctor and trading a few chickens for his diagnosis of "I wonder if it's something known as an allergy..." I'd have followed my instincts and stopped eating corn bread. And I'd probably have noticed in a hurry that Grandma's cornstarch thickened pudding bothered me too.
A hundred years ago, I'd have had a few other options. Not the ones I have now, perhaps. Tapioca, rice, buckwheat, quinoa, amaranth weren't well known and variety wasn't necessarily the spice of life. But, seriously...salad would have been safe. Potatoes, apples, water, milk...
Food intolerances need a label now because our society has changed. Parental wishes need to be followed because we are the parents. We are the ones who put the kids to bed at night and wake them up in the morning. We brought them into this world, and we have every right to not only keep them in it but keep them happy to be here. Some would call it an obligation.
I don't care if someone out there thinks that food allergies are some freudian fraud, or if they are simply another Darwinian method to thin the herd. I don't care how many people are actually at risk for anaphylaxis. I want it acknowledged that it is a valid threat.
I want it acknowledged that food can be fatal. I want it acknowledged that food is just food, it isn't the end of the world if you can't feed me or my kids. It isn't the center of all celebration. No one is suffering for lack of sugar, or need for pizza, or wasting away for the want of a PB&J. Food restrictions make life hard. And "studies" like this, that indicate people choosing to improve their or their children's health through dietary intervention are actually in need of a psychiatrist simply make life harder for those who have valid reasons for adapting their diet.
Even if we don't have a valid reason, if it makes us happy to avoid something like the plague who is it hurting to accept that choice?
Poor children are being deprived of "life giving" nutrients because the parents are hypochondriacs. At least, according to some specific guidelines that don't appear to take into consideration the potential for outgrown allergies, or exageration of symptoms to invoke cooperation, or the possibility that the reaction is delayed or even needs time to build up because maybe, just maybe, these parents have done a decent job of avoiding exposure and thus reaction.
Now, I don't know about you, but I find it absurd that its even a question of who's right, dr's or parents. Do schools need to accommodate parental requests regarding what children are told to ingest? Do parents need to relinquish control since they are required to send their children to school anyways?
I think that we've reached a point where the schools are providing too many throw away foods period. The kids don't need it to begin with.
But no, it's the parents who have a problem. How dare we be concerned with kids health! How dare we deny them donuts! How dare we nix nuts! How can we possibly ban pizza?
Many children spend half their waking hours under supervision of their school. Most then skip off to daycare for a few hours before heading home for dinner and bed. Is it really unreasonable that parents are noting symptoms and looking for answers?
Attitudes such as this "Fake food allergies" make parents feel even more out of control. Because their valid concerns are undermined by those who side with statistics. Statistically, I'm not going to drop dead when I hand out popcorn at the spring fling. That doesn't mean that the nasty rash and intestinal discomfort I later experience (or even begin experiencing after a few minutes) isn't going to irritate the heck out of me. And my kids?
I want anyone in a position of authority over them to take this whole "certain foods cause unpleasant symptoms" thing seriously. That may mean labeling a "little intolerance" as an allergy. At least until the medical community gets their act together and comes up with an appropriate label to be used for those who need food restrictions but are not anaphylactic.
A hundred years ago, food allergies may not have been prolific. But, foods were easier to avoid. They weren't nearly as invasive. They were often "whole". Easy to identify. I don't know about you, but common sense tells me that if every time I ate cornbread I threw it up and spent the next several days in a good deal of discomfort, I wouldn't have even bothered tracking down a doctor and trading a few chickens for his diagnosis of "I wonder if it's something known as an allergy..." I'd have followed my instincts and stopped eating corn bread. And I'd probably have noticed in a hurry that Grandma's cornstarch thickened pudding bothered me too.
A hundred years ago, I'd have had a few other options. Not the ones I have now, perhaps. Tapioca, rice, buckwheat, quinoa, amaranth weren't well known and variety wasn't necessarily the spice of life. But, seriously...salad would have been safe. Potatoes, apples, water, milk...
Food intolerances need a label now because our society has changed. Parental wishes need to be followed because we are the parents. We are the ones who put the kids to bed at night and wake them up in the morning. We brought them into this world, and we have every right to not only keep them in it but keep them happy to be here. Some would call it an obligation.
I don't care if someone out there thinks that food allergies are some freudian fraud, or if they are simply another Darwinian method to thin the herd. I don't care how many people are actually at risk for anaphylaxis. I want it acknowledged that it is a valid threat.
I want it acknowledged that food can be fatal. I want it acknowledged that food is just food, it isn't the end of the world if you can't feed me or my kids. It isn't the center of all celebration. No one is suffering for lack of sugar, or need for pizza, or wasting away for the want of a PB&J. Food restrictions make life hard. And "studies" like this, that indicate people choosing to improve their or their children's health through dietary intervention are actually in need of a psychiatrist simply make life harder for those who have valid reasons for adapting their diet.
Even if we don't have a valid reason, if it makes us happy to avoid something like the plague who is it hurting to accept that choice?
Friday, December 22, 2006
In response to a form letter
Dear Any Company,
I want to thank you for your informative response to my query about whether my allergens are contained in your food product.
I have spoken to my doctor. Many times. He continues to tell me to contact companies to verify whether or not my allergens, which are not all on the top 8 list created by the FDA, are contained in a food. He continues to inform me that if I get sick eating a food, that I should avoid eating any other foods including it as an ingredient, regardless of the "standards" in place regarding allergens. He continues to inform me that the only treatment is complete and total avoidance, and yet, that I need calories and in this society...that means the occassional prepackaged food.
I have contacted the companies you put me in touch with. They focus mainly on the top 8 allergens identified by the FDA. They do inform me that the top 8 are not the only allergens out there (Which I guessed, being a corn allergy sufferer) and that though they have very little info on my allergens, I should try contacting companies in order to protect myself.
I realize that you have careful allergy precautions in place. That is why I am hpopeful that I may be able to use your product. What I need to know...is do these precautions protect me from MY allergens? For I'm not a statistic. I'm a human, and although I'm not in the "most likely" group, I still have feelings, health, and physical needs.
Corn is not gluten. It is not Tree Nuts. It is not peanuts, or wheat, or dairy or eggs but it can be contained in any of the above. It is not shellfish, or fresh fish, or soy. Corn is considered hypoallergenic to many, although it causes severe reactions in just as many. It is also the most difficult allergy to isolate, and the most difficult allergen to avoid as it is found incidentally in so many products.
So I ask again. please, check with your suppliers...find the source of ingredients, and ask about the packaging process. Is it safe for me to eat your food?
Sincerely,
A statistically insignificant customer
I want to thank you for your informative response to my query about whether my allergens are contained in your food product.
I have spoken to my doctor. Many times. He continues to tell me to contact companies to verify whether or not my allergens, which are not all on the top 8 list created by the FDA, are contained in a food. He continues to inform me that if I get sick eating a food, that I should avoid eating any other foods including it as an ingredient, regardless of the "standards" in place regarding allergens. He continues to inform me that the only treatment is complete and total avoidance, and yet, that I need calories and in this society...that means the occassional prepackaged food.
I have contacted the companies you put me in touch with. They focus mainly on the top 8 allergens identified by the FDA. They do inform me that the top 8 are not the only allergens out there (Which I guessed, being a corn allergy sufferer) and that though they have very little info on my allergens, I should try contacting companies in order to protect myself.
I realize that you have careful allergy precautions in place. That is why I am hpopeful that I may be able to use your product. What I need to know...is do these precautions protect me from MY allergens? For I'm not a statistic. I'm a human, and although I'm not in the "most likely" group, I still have feelings, health, and physical needs.
Corn is not gluten. It is not Tree Nuts. It is not peanuts, or wheat, or dairy or eggs but it can be contained in any of the above. It is not shellfish, or fresh fish, or soy. Corn is considered hypoallergenic to many, although it causes severe reactions in just as many. It is also the most difficult allergy to isolate, and the most difficult allergen to avoid as it is found incidentally in so many products.
So I ask again. please, check with your suppliers...find the source of ingredients, and ask about the packaging process. Is it safe for me to eat your food?
Sincerely,
A statistically insignificant customer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)