How safe/pure are our ingredients?

[K8memphis]

This topic is a spin off of the one about using shortening or oleomargarine in baking. The subject of trans fats came up, the newly crowned bastard child of pastry.

So yes trans fats are not so good for us ultimatley but they make a dang good product when called for. Not as a 100% replacement for butter but as a viable ingredient in it's own right.

But has it ever crossed your mind how many insect fragments and rodent hairs are in our wheat that we grind into flour? Mammalia excreta in the sesame seeds, etc? Drosophila eggs in the golden raisins? 35 per 8oz seems like a lot to me! Or how many rats & mice ate on my popcorn before I eat it. How much insect filth is in peanut butter? The nutmeg's gotta go. There's poo in the mace & ginger. The cornmeal's crummy. Chocolate's got icky issues. Cinnamon's screwed. Apple butter, apricots and berries aren't too savory either. And that's just what they are reporting as the non-hazardous levels. Seems like eating a few chemicals isn't so bad after all?

click here

Then the following is from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dalbook.html#CHPTA

WHEAT FLOUR Insect filth

Average of 75 or more insect fragments per 50 grams

Rodent filth

Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 50 grams 

SESAME SEEDS Insect filth

Average of 5% or more seeds by weight are insect-infested or damaged

Mold

Average of 5% or more seeds by weight are decomposed

Mammalian excreta

Average of 5 mg or more mammalian excreta per found

Foreign matter

RAISINS, GOLDEN Insects and insect eggs

10 or more whole or equivalent insects and 35 Drosophila eggs per 8 oz.

POPCORN Rodent filth

1 or more rodent excreta pellets are found in 1 or more subsamples, and 1 or more rodent hairs are found in 2 or more other subsamples

OR

2 or more rodent hairs per pound and rodent hair is found in 50% or more of the subsamples

OR

20 or more gnawed grains per pound and rodent hair is found in 50% or more of the subsamples 

PEANUT BUTTER Insect filth

Average of 30 or more insect fragments per 100 grams

Rodent filth

Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams

NUTMEG, GROUND Insect filth

Average of 100 or more insect fragments per 10 grams

Rodent filth

Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 10 grams

MACE Insect filth and/or mold

Average of 3% or more pieces by weight are insect-infested and/or moldy

Mammalian excreta

Average of 3 mg or more of mammalian excreta per pound

Foreign matter

Average of 1.5% or more of foreign matter through a 20-mesh sieve

GINGER, WHOLE Insect filth and/or mold

Average of 3% or more pieces by weight are insect-infested and/or moldy

Mammalian excreta

Average of 3 mg or more of mammalian excreta per pound

CORNMEAL Insects

Average of 1 or more whole insects (or equivalent) per 50 grams

Insect filth

Average of 25 or more insect fragments per 25 grams

Rodent filth

Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 25 grams

OR

Average of 1 or more rodent excreta fragment per 50 grams

COCOA BEANS Mold

More than 4% of beans by count are moldy

Insect filth

More than 4% of beans by count are insect-infested including insect-damaged

Insect filth and/or mold  More than 6% of beans by count are insect-infested or moldy

NOTE: Level differs when both filth and mold are present 

Mammalian excreta

Average of 10 mg or more mammalian excreta per pound

CHOCOLATE AND CHOCOLATE LIQUOR Insect filth

Average is 60 or more insect fragments per 100 grams when 6 100-gram subsamples are examined

OR

Any 1 subsample contains 90 or more insect fragments

Rodent filth

Average is 1 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams in 6 100-gram subsamples examined

OR

Any 1 subsample contains 3 or more rodent hairs

Shell

For chocolate liquor, if the shell is in excess of 2% calculated on the basis of alkali-free nibs

CINNAMON, GROUND Insect filth

Average of 400 or more insect fragments per 50 gram

Rodent filth

Average of 11 or more rodent hairs per 50 grams

The Food Defect Action Levels

Levels of natural or unavoidable defects in foods

that present no health hazards for humans

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION

Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 110.110 allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish maximum levels of natural or unavoidable defects in foods for human use that present no health hazard. These "Food Defect Action Levels" listed in this booklet are set on this premise--that they pose no inherent hazard to health.

Poor manufacturing practices may result in enforcement action without regard to the action level. Likewise, the mixing of blending of food with a defect at or above the current defect action level with another lot of the same or another food is not permitted. That practice renders the final food unlawful regardless of the defect level of the finished food.

The FDA set these action levels because it is economically impractical to grow, harvest, or process raw products that are totally free of non-hazardous, naturally occurring, unavoidable defects. Products harmful to consumers are subject to regulatory action whether or not they exceed the action levels.

It is incorrect to assume that because the FDA has an established defect action level for a food commodity, the food manufacturer need only stay just below that level. The defect levels do no represent an average of the defects that occur in any of the products--the averages are actually much lower. The levels represent limits at which FDA will regard the food product "adulterated"; and subject to enforcement action under Section 402(a)(3) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.

As technology improves, the FDA may review and change defect action levels on this list. Also, products may be added to the list. The FDA publishes these revisions as Notices in the Federal Register. It is the responsibility of the user of this booklet to stay current with any changes to this list.

So sure I see the point that these trans fats have surpassed some folk's standard of excellence. I mean if a little rat poop won't kill yah neither will a coupla trans fats. Everything in moderation, no?

Hmm, then if the organic world uses uses less chemicals wonder how close they are to pushing against these 'safe' levels. They use more insects right? Food for thought.

[cdh]

What doesn't kill me makes me stronger. None of those things have killed me yet, and those levels of acceptable contamination have been around for a while. Immune systems need stimulation.

I'm not scared of my spice cabinet. Absolute purity is overrated.

[Darcie B]

I'd much rather eat insect parts (most likely grasshopper or cricket for small grains) than the hazardous chemicals in pesticides. I know that food has naturally occurring trans fats and I've been known to eat the occasional Oreo, but I try to avoid it for the most part.

If you have ever seen small grains harvested you would know why their is so much insect "filth." If you pick up a handful of grain you are liable to see a grasshopper leg or such. However, I find it hard to believe that many remain after sifting and sorting. Guess I could be wrong. It's just additional protein!

Not so pleased about the excreta, but then again think about what chicken eggs pass through before they get packaged. What are you gonna do?

[Lior]

first:

second:

third:

fourth:

last cdh is right:

I'd rather have pure but it doesn't exist. I guess humans have always eaten AT LEAST that if not much worse...

[Nathan]

the simple scientific answer is:

safer than at any point in human history. (I'm uncertain what "pure" means in this context)

[paulraphael]

...but then again think about what chicken eggs pass through before they get packaged. What are you gonna do?

←

My short answer: stop thinking about it.

[jumanggy]

Good points, everyone. I shudder at the thought of rodent hairs in my chocolate, as I HATE rats (not to say that the rodents they speak of *are* rats), but I guess not enough to stop eating chocolate. Hah. Besides, Drosophila are pretty clean

[etalanian]

What doesn't kill me makes me stronger.  None of those things have killed me yet, and those levels of acceptable contamination have been around for a while.   Immune systems need stimulation.

I'm not scared of my spice cabinet.  Absolute purity is overrated.

←

I agree. We are really killing ourselves off by being too sanitized. My son and I went to Morocco last year and ate whatever we wanted in the medinas in Fez and Marakesh, with no concern about whether the food was prepared in sanitary conditions. We never got sick.

When my husband and I went to Singapore we ate most of our meals in the food stalls. Never got sick.

Some of our friends are appalled at this kind of behavior. They will only eat in bona fide restaurants when they travel. They are missing so much!

But then, I don't use germicidal handwashes, antibacterial dish soaps, and germ-be-gone counterwipes in my house. We need to have a certain amount of bacteria around so our bodies know how to handle it. All of this fear of a few germs is hogwash. (No pun intended!)

I see this as a completely different issue from the shortening argument. (Geez, I can't stand the slimy feeling I get in my mouth when I eat that stuff.) It ain't natural. Bacteria, insects, mammalian poop - those things are natural. Chemicals are what are really killing us off. Chemical pesticides, fertilizers, additives, "food products". I don't think they are good for us.

But, K8 - I'm surprised a good old Hoosier like you would be so very upset about people not liking Crisco. You're cooler than that! Didn't we learn better at Saint Joe's? (Or did we?)

Eileen

Edited December 18, 2007 by etalanian (log)

[alanamoana]

Eileen, I think your sig line says it all!

I don't necessarily think we are "safer" than any other point in history, mainly because of points made by Eileen...too many antibiotics, too many chemical compounds being created.

An aside, but somewhat related, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom wants to add a surcharge to beverages (sodas) that contain high fructose corn syrup. He claims consumption of these beverages puts a burden on the medical system. He drinks diet. Right, because artificial sweeteners are so much better for you.

I'm a moderation girl. Even trans fats. If Crisco makes the cookie better, then use a little Crisco...just don't eat twenty cookies.

It isn't that we're eating and drinking this stuff, it is that we can't stop at a reasonable amount.

edited for spelling

Edited December 18, 2007 by alanamoana (log)

[Lindacakes]

I'm with the "it's natural" vibe.

I've been very sick in Mexico, from eating fish in a local restaurant. The result was an event I'll never forget and would certainly like to. When travelling in 3rd world countries where water supplies may be contaminated with sewage, it's a good idea to eat consciously. I was conscious when I ate the grasshoppers in Mexico . . .

Regarding bacteria and antibacteria: (I work in a field that involves microbiology) Bacteria are an actual threat, particularly to wounded veterans returning from Iraq. Long story. But the short story is, bacteria quickly resist antibacterial agents and become super strains of bacteria. This is an actual threat to public health, and I've met microbiologists who feel this is what is going to do us in.

Perhaps you've heard of bacteriaphages? They're now sprayed on hot dogs and cut fruit. They're very good. People freak out when they see the labeling. A bacteriaphage is a virus that consumes bacteria naturally, in a manner that does not result in stronger strains of bacteria, which is what happens when you use antibacterial soap. Antibacterial soap actually assists in the formation of super strains of bacteria -- one of your major threats when you enter a hospital.

Which is to say, the issue isn't simple. A bit of animal parts in food is okay, probably unavoidable. But bacteria itself is not a good thing.

[paulraphael]

I don't necessarily thing we are "safer" than any other point in history ...

←

I bet that records of mortality rates and food-borne illness would show that we're a lot safer.

[alanamoana]

I don't necessarily think we are "safer" than any other point in history ...

←

I bet that records of mortality rates and food-borne illness would show that we're a lot safer.

←

I don't deny that (thus "safer" being in quotes to indicate relativity to certain conditions). I guess what I'm referring to is more along the lines of what Lindacakes mentions above (and what Eileen stated...which was in my original post). If you have either read the book or watched the "Guns, Germs and Steel" mini-series, you'll see that some stuff which might have been considered bad, actually helped some societies become dominant. Our fear of dirt might end up being our downfall as we inadvertently produce super-bacteria and the like while simultaneously weakening our own systems' ability to defend against said bacteria.

But, to get back on topic...a little bit of crap or hair isn't going to kill us

Edited December 18, 2007 by alanamoana (log)

[etalanian]

I'm with the "it's natural" vibe.

I've been very sick in Mexico, from eating fish in a local restaurant.  The result was an event I'll never forget and would certainly like to.  When travelling in 3rd world countries where water supplies may be contaminated with sewage, it's a good idea to eat consciously.  I was conscious when I ate the grasshoppers in Mexico . . .

Regarding bacteria and antibacteria:  (I work in a field that involves microbiology)  Bacteria are an actual threat, particularly to wounded veterans returning from Iraq.  Long story.  But the short story is, bacteria quickly resist antibacterial agents and become super strains of bacteria.  This is an actual threat to public health, and I've met microbiologists who feel this is what is going to do us in.

Perhaps you've heard of bacteriaphages?  They're now sprayed on hot dogs and cut fruit.  They're very good.  People freak out when they see the labeling.  A bacteriaphage is a virus that consumes bacteria naturally, in a manner that does not result in stronger strains of bacteria, which is what happens when you use antibacterial soap.  Antibacterial soap actually assists in the formation of super strains of bacteria -- one of your major threats when you enter a hospital.

Which is to say, the issue isn't simple.  A bit of animal parts in food is okay, probably unavoidable.  But bacteria itself is not a good thing.

←

I'm not a fan for unreined bacterial growth, but this super-hype about it is just crazy. Trying to wipe it all out first of all can't be done, and second of all, could ultimately kill us. It's why armies train - so when the big war comes, they can overcome the enemy. Same with our bodies. They need to have small fights with bacteria in order to be able to fight the big wars more effectively. It builds antibodies. Without them the bacteria win. Would I go out into the bush and drink water out of a village stream? Probably not. But I have no fears about eating in food stalls in cities that have public sewage systems. It's a matter of using common sense.

My concern with chemical additives, pesticides and fertilizers is that they are things the human body hasn't learned to handle over the last several millennia. And I don't think the body processes them very well. Sure, we may not be dying from food-borne diseases in the numbers of the past, but we sure as hell are dying of cancer. All kinds. In growing numbers. We have growing birth defect rates and growing infant mortality rates. My personal theory is that it's from what we assault our bodies with on a daily basis. man-made chemicals. And lots of them.

JMHO.

Eileen

Edited December 18, 2007 by etalanian (log)

[Nathan]

I don't necessarily thing we are "safer" than any other point in history ...

←

I bet that records of mortality rates and food-borne illness would show that we're a lot safer.

←

A LOT safer. and that includes infant mortality rates and mortality related to congenital anomalies (birth defects).

in fact, despite the presence of chemicals, pesticides, artificial sweeteners, etc...infant mortality rates and birth defect rates in developed countries are far lower than in developing countries.

despite the hysteria..."natural" is bad.

(people once opposed the steel plow on the same grounds)

one other thought: when it comes to the food stalls of Singapore....well, that's Singapore...not Champawat.

[Nathan]

oh, and cancer mortality rates go down every year as well.

[Nathan]

[ Sure, we may not be dying from food-borne diseases in the numbers of the past, but we sure as hell are dying of cancer. All kinds. In growing numbers. We have growing birth defect rates and growing infant mortality rates.

←

As I noted above, this is completely false.

I'll take the "chemicals"

[gfron1]

My motto is moderation (I really don't eat all the desserts that I make). My neighbors, however, need to have their own motto.

I recently read a summary of the research on organics that showed that there was no evidence that organics were healthier for you than non-organics. They didn't say if non-organics were causing problems, but they showed that eating organics was not going to make you healthier (a subtle difference).

So my organic use is based on taste (when proven) and supporting local economies, but not for health reasons. And when I bake, my decisions align with use - meaning, if I'm baking a brownie, I'm less picky than if I'm making a delicate fruit topped danish. My recent celery mousse used organics because I wanted purity (just cricket legs), but the granola top was just cheapo stuff with cricket legs and chemicals.

[Nathan]

well, yeah, the molecular content of foodstuffs doesn't change just because they're "organic"...

[Pebs]

While the standards that started this thread are in fact in place, that doesn't mean that food processors are only striving to meet those minimum standards.

My brother-in-law runs a plant for a large food processing company with plants all over the world. I am continually amazed at the strick cleanliness standards their plants are required to meet. They get monthly inspections by "Bug Man" who spends literally an entire day taking apart stuff and squeezing under stuff to make sure there is not a trace of bug nor vermin. He actually recently requested that all plants and trees be removed from the entire property the plant sits on. The company President drew the line at defoliation.

In addition, their labs inspect every raw ingredient coming into their plant and reject anything anywhere near those standards above. Why? Because they supply seasonings, coating and blends to the likes of McDonald's, Tyson's, Heinz and the like. Every batch they ship gets the same rigorous inspection and testing on the other end, and if it comes anywhere near those minimum standards, it gets rejected. So most stuff is alot safer than it might seem.

Either way, when I was growing up, we ate all sorts of stuff. The neighbor kid ate a worm to gross us out. Lord knows what we ate picking up the gum that fell out of mouths and popping it back in. We sold french fried grasshoppers and chocolate covered ants for our Epicurian Club for International Night in High School. And "oh heavens!" SNAILS. We actually gave certificates out attesting to the fact that a person actually ate bugs and snails. We all lived to tell about it.

[Patrick S]

I'd much rather eat insect parts (most likely grasshopper or cricket for small grains) than the hazardous chemicals in pesticides.

←

The irony is that while you could probably take extreme measures to eliminate insect parts from food (e.g. growing and processing food indoors under some extremely controlled conditions), a diet including plants could never be free of pesticides, for the simple reason that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the diet are produced by plants themselves as chemical defenses against predators (Ames, Profett and Gold, 1990). For instance, Ames et al point out that the following 49 natural pesticides occur in cabbage:

Glucosinolates: 2-propenyl glucosinolate (sinigrin),* 3-methylthiopropyl glucosinolate, 3-methylsulfinylpropyl glucosinolate, 3-butenyl

glucosinolate, 2-hydroxy-3-butenyl glucosinolate, 4-methylthiobutyl glucosinolate, 4-methylsulfinylbutyl glucosinolate,

4-methylsulfonylbutyl glucosinolate, benzyl glucosinolate, 2-phenylethyl glucosinolate, propyl glucosinolate, butyl glucosinolate

Indole glucosinolates and related indoles: 3-indolylmethyl glucosinolate (glucobrassicin), 1-methoxy-3-indolylmethyl glucosinolate

(neoglucobrassicin), indole-3-carbinol,* indole-3-acetonitrile, bis(3-indolyl)methane

Isothiocyanates and goitrin: allyl isothiocyanate,* 3-methylthiopropyl isothiocyanate, 3-methylsulfinylpropyl isothiocyanate, 3-butenyl

isothiocyanate, 5-vinyloxazolidine-2-thione (goitrin), 4-methylthiobutyl isothiocyanate, 4-methylsulfinylbutyl isothiocyanate,

4-methylsulfonylbutyl isothiocyanate, 4-pentenyl isothiocyanate, benzyl isothiocyanate, phenylethyl isothiocyanate

Cyanides: 1-cyano-2,3-epithiopropane, 1-cyano-3,4-epithiobutane, 1-cyano-3,4-epithiopentane, threo-1-cyano-2-hydroxy-3,4-epithiobutane,

erythro-1-cyano-2-hydroxy-3,4-epithiobutane, 2-phenylpropionitrile, allyl cyanide,* 1-cyano-2-hydroxy-3-butene, 1-cyano-3-

methylsulfinylpropane, 1-cyano-4-methylsulfinylbutane

Terpenes: menthol, neomenthol, isomenthol, carvone*

Phenols: 2-methoxyphenol, 3-caffoylquinic acid (chlorogenic acid),* 4-caffoylquinic acid,* 5-caffoylquinic acid (neochlorogenic acid),*

4-(p-coumaroyl)quinic acid, 5-(p-coumaroyl)quinic acid, 5-feruloylquinic acid

Moreover, when natural pesticides are tested for carcinogenicity using the same methods which are used to test the carcinogenicity of synthetic pesticides, a similar proportion of both groups are found to be carcinogenic. There does not appear to be any evidence that the natural pesticides are, as a group, more or less harmful than the synthetic pesticides which are present in vastly smaller quantities. I don't necessarily freak out about that, however, since the methods that are usually used to test for carinogenicity (administering the maximum tolerated dose to an animal every day for life and then looking for tumors after it dies) do not reflect real-world exposures and therefore say very little about what the real-world risks are.

It would seem natural to assume that since natural pesticides have by and large been around for millions of years, that humans would have developed some sort of toxicological immunity to them that they could not have developed against newly developed, sythetic pesticides. Ames, Profet and Gold (1990B) however seem to doubt that:

Humans have not had time to evolve into a "toxic harmony" with all of the plants in their diet. Indeed, very few of the plants that humans eat would have been present in an African hunter-gatherer's diet. The human diet has changed drastically in the last few thousand years, and most humans are eating many recently introduced plants that their ancestors did not-e.g., coffee, cocoa, tea, potatoes, tomatoes, corn, avocados, mangoes, olives, and kiwi fruit. In addition,

cruciferous vegetables such as cabbage, broccoli, kale, cauliflower, and mustard were used in ancient times "primarily for medicinal purposes" and were spread as foods across Europe only in the Middle Ages (22, 23). Natural selection works far too slowly for humans to have evolved specific resistance to the food toxins in these newly introduced plants.

My personal practice is to watch the total number of calories I eat and to try not to be too immoderate, too often with alcohol, but otherwise I don't much worry at all about what I eat. Even the bug parts.

Ames, Profet and Gold (1990A). Dietary pesticides (99.99% All Natural). Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 87(19): 7777-7781.

Ames, Profet and Gold (1990A). Nature's chemicals and synthetic chemicals: comparative toxicology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 87(19): 7782-7786.

[lebowits]

My motto is moderation (I really don't eat all the desserts that I make).  My neighbors, however, need to have their own motto.

I recently read a summary of the research on organics that showed that there was no evidence that organics were healthier for you than non-organics.  They didn't say if non-organics were causing problems, but they showed that eating organics was not going to make you healthier (a subtle difference). 

So my organic use is based on taste (when proven) and supporting local economies, but not for health reasons.  And when I bake, my decisions align with use - meaning, if I'm baking a brownie, I'm less picky than if I'm making a delicate fruit topped danish.  My recent celery mousse used organics because I wanted purity (just cricket legs), but the granola top was just cheapo stuff with cricket legs and chemicals.

←

I'm with Rob on this one. I want people to want what I make. I also want to be proud of the way my product looks and tastes. I don't add ingredients which serve no purpose in the finished good. That being said, I've come to appreciate what commercial glucose syrup does for the quality of my ganache. The rise of "high tech" food such as that created by Wylie DuFresne and others is bringing chemistry back into great food when we've spent decades getting chemicals out of our food.

The fundamental difference is that we can now make the choice.

[Tri2Cook]

but then again think about what chicken eggs pass through before they get packaged. What are you gonna do?

←

Reminds me of that old joke:

Have you ever seen an eggplant?

"Yes."

Then you've been farther up a chicken's butt then I'd want to be.

Where the egg came from doesn't bother me at all... that little white clump of umbilical cord-looking stuff in the egg is a different story. I ignore the smaller ones but the huge, nasty looking ones have to go. I hate seeing a big hunk of it in a bite of chocolate cake.

[etalanian]

I don't necessarily thing we are "safer" than any other point in history ...

←

I bet that records of mortality rates and food-borne illness would show that we're a lot safer.

←

A LOT safer. and that includes infant mortality rates and mortality related to congenital anomalies (birth defects).

in fact, despite the presence of chemicals, pesticides, artificial sweeteners, etc...infant mortality rates and birth defect rates in developed countries are far lower than in developing countries.

despite the hysteria..."natural" is bad.

(people once opposed the steel plow on the same grounds)

one other thought: when it comes to the food stalls of Singapore....well, that's Singapore...not Champawat.

←

The US, which uses many of these chemicals actually has the highest infant mortality rate of any developed country.

Third world countries, the ones with the highest mortality rates, have no medical care available for mothers or infants. That is the cause of their infant mortality.

Eileen

Edited December 19, 2007 by etalanian (log)

[etalanian]

oh, and cancer mortality rates go down every year as well.

←

And consumption of organically produced foods increase every year. No correlation?

Eileen

[gfron1]

I have a friend who's policy is to only buy foods from non publicly traded companies. His assertion is that quality and cost can't be bed partners.

In thinking about baking, if I were selling my desserts and using only fresh ingredients without chemicals, wouldn't that significantly decrease shelf life, and then wouldn't that make baking as a business impossible?