Let's have mechanically separated chicken for dinner tonight.

[giblets]

Two years is a long time for a rat

[Felch]

What's the difference between 1,000 cans of coke a day for 40 years, or 20,000 cans for two years? They're both totally unrealistic. If you drink 10 cans of coke a day, diabetes would kill you long before the 4MI.

[Dinner]

My point being because of expense we only do acute exposure tests and not long term low dosage tests (because they'd take so long and cost so much). It could very well be six cans a day for 40 years results in a measurable increase, at this point we don't really know, so label it and let everyone decide for themselves. The big difference here is I'm coming out in favor of full disclosure and people making up their own minds while you're advocating not telling anyone so they effectively cannot make up their own minds. More information is always good for the consumer even if it won't matter to most people. Greater transparency is a good thing.

[kentonio]

What's the difference between 1,000 cans of coke a day for 40 years, or 20,000 cans for two years? They're both totally unrealistic. If you drink 10 cans of coke a day, diabetes would kill you long before the 4MI.

Is this chemical only present in this one food item?

[Dinner]

It's in just about anything which contains artificial colors which means most processed foods. The big problems are interactions (each compound is tested by themselves but a product can contain dozens of different ones and it's never been tested all together to see what effects they have) and life time cumulative exposure. A little here, a little there, and over time your total exposure can get up there. That's why some people opt to avoid it entirely but to do that they first need to know which products contain it and which don't. Thus the need for proper labeling.

[Felch]

More information is always good for the consumer even if it won't matter to most people. Greater transparency is a good thing.

Not if that information is misleading. Your hypothesis that 4-MI is dangerous in small quantities over the long term is not supported by any evidence. It's just paranoia.

And I have no idea why you think a 106 week study is an "acute exposure test." Like grib said, two years is a long time for a rat.

[Dinner]

FACT: It is a carcinogen. We're fuzzy about exactly which dosages for what duration causes cancer but some consumers do not want to consume it so they should be able to make the choice if they want to consume it or not. Proper labeling will allow them to do that and make an informed choice for themselves. You want to make it so they are unable to do that, you want to make it so companies don't even have to tell people what is in their products, you want companies to decide that for people, and that's why you are completely wrong. Everything needs to be above board. Companies need to label what is in their products and then let the free market work. PEOPLE get to decide what they want to consume and to do that they need to know what is in the things they buy.

You're not going to get out of this one. You might disagree and think they're dumb but it should be THEIR choice. Not your choice and sure as hell it shouldn't be the company's choice. The company has an obligation to disclose what is in their products and consumers get to decide. Yes, I know you think California is "stupid" for taking this position but with our method you can still eat all the pink slime and cancer cola you want while the other people still get to do what they want; with your approach other people don't even have the option or ability to avoid it if they wanted to. Greater transparancy is ALWAYS better for the consumer and we error on the side of what's good for people.

[The Mad Monk]

Ammonia is a nutrient now?

No garden could exist without it.

[Dinner]

If all the information is disclosed and the company is unhappy with the choices consumers made then it is their obligation to try to convince consumers to change their buying habits. You don't keep the consumer in the dark though, pretend you're better than them, and say they're just too dumb to make up their own minds. Tell them what is in your products and then let them decide if they want to buy it or not. It's up to them and if the company is unhappy with the choices consumers make then it's their job to try to make consumers change their minds. You're just being a corporatist by claiming customers don't need to know what is in their food. I say they need to know EVERYTHING and EVERYTHING should be disclosed. If people don't care, fine, but if they do then now they have the ability to vote with their dollars.

[Dinner]

Even if 4MI levels are ten times higher here, I'd have to drink 2,000 cans of coke a day for years to get the same dosage as the lowest dosage group of rats. There's simply no realistic danger from the substance. The reason we don't label it is because it's not an intentional ingredient, it's a contaminant, one that exists in very small quantities and which poses no realistic danger to humans. If we put every possible contaminant on the labels, there'd be no room for anything else. And who wants to read about all the tiny bug parts that get ground up into peanut butter, or anything like that? That's not informative, it's just off-putting.

BTW it is not a contaminant accidentally introduced into a product. It is an intentionally added ingredient. They add it as an artificial coloring agent to their products as such it belongs on the label as part of the list of ingredients. If they like they can add additional information (additional information is ALWAYS good for consumers) such as the dosage amounts or what ever else they wish to add as long as it is scientifically based & factual. They have a right to educate consumers and try to change their minds but they do not have a right to hide what is in their products. They must tell consumers what they have added into their products so consumers can decide for themselves if they want to buy it or not.

[Dinner]

I'd like to add that it is entirely unnecissary. The same exact color can be achieved with natural ingredients such as caramel. The problem is caramel costs about $0.05 more per can so the companies prefer to add the artificial color instead of the natural coloring agent. That's fine. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with them adding it but not telling consumers what is in the product. They need to list it on the label and then let consumers decide for themselves. The only reason companies attempt to hide this information from consumers is to attempt to deceive them and prevent them from making informed choices for themselves, that needs to stop.

[giblets]

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure Coke uses caramel color.

[Dinner]

It does. Some part is caramel and some part is artificial colors. The exact amount varies depending on which bottler we are talking about and what the current market prices of caramel and artificial coloring agents are.

[Felch]

FACT: Oerdin is wrong about everything.

FACT: It is a carcinogen. We're fuzzy about exactly which dosages for what duration causes cancer but some consumers do not want to consume it so they should be able to make the choice if they want to consume it or not. Proper labeling will allow them to do that and make an informed choice for themselves. You want to make it so they are unable to do that, you want to make it so companies don't even have to tell people what is in their products, you want companies to decide that for people, and that's why you are completely wrong. Everything needs to be above board. Companies need to label what is in their products and then let the free market work. PEOPLE get to decide what they want to consume and to do that they need to know what is in the things they buy.

You're not going to get out of this one. You might disagree and think they're dumb but it should be THEIR choice. Not your choice and sure as hell it shouldn't be the company's choice. The company has an obligation to disclose what is in their products and consumers get to decide. Yes, I know you think California is "stupid" for taking this position but with our method you can still eat all the pink slime and cancer cola you want while the other people still get to do what they want; with your approach other people don't even have the option or ability to avoid it if they wanted to. Greater transparancy is ALWAYS better for the consumer and we error on the side of what's good for people.

If you read the NIH study, you would see that it was only carcinogenic in mice that were ingesting 625 ppm of the chemical. They were getting 20,000 cans of coke worth of 4MI a day for two years. Try to understand that it is an outrageously insane quantity that we're talking about here. These mice aren't getting cancer under realistic conditions. They're being force fed amounts that you will never come into contact with.

If all the information is disclosed and the company is unhappy with the choices consumers made then it is their obligation to try to convince consumers to change their buying habits. You don't keep the consumer in the dark though, pretend you're better than them, and say they're just too dumb to make up their own minds. Tell them what is in your products and then let them decide if they want to buy it or not. It's up to them and if the company is unhappy with the choices consumers make then it's their job to try to make consumers change their minds. You're just being a corporatist by claiming customers don't need to know what is in their food. I say they need to know EVERYTHING and EVERYTHING should be disclosed. If people don't care, fine, but if they do then now they have the ability to vote with their dollars.

I think that people should know about things that pose realistic dangers. When things are only dangerous in the wild imagination of SoCal hipsters, we can safely ignore them.

BTW it is not a contaminant accidentally introduced into a product. It is an intentionally added ingredient. They add it as an artificial coloring agent to their products as such it belongs on the label as part of the list of ingredients. If they like they can add additional information (additional information is ALWAYS good for consumers) such as the dosage amounts or what ever else they wish to add as long as it is scientifically based & factual. They have a right to educate consumers and try to change their minds but they do not have a right to hide what is in their products. They must tell consumers what they have added into their products so consumers can decide for themselves if they want to buy it or not.

4MI is a contaminant. It is not an intentionally added ingredient. Read the damn CSPI press release.

Maillard reactions that occur when carbohydrates and ammonia (with or without sulfites) are used to produce forms of caramel coloring lead to the formation of numerous byproducts. Two of those by-products are 2- and 4-methylimidazole (“2-MI” and “4-MI” or “4-MEI”).

I'd like to add that it is entirely unnecissary. The same exact color can be achieved with natural ingredients such as caramel. The problem is caramel costs about $0.05 more per can so the companies prefer to add the artificial color instead of the natural coloring agent. That's fine. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with them adding it but not telling consumers what is in the product. They need to list it on the label and then let consumers decide for themselves. The only reason companies attempt to hide this information from consumers is to attempt to deceive them and prevent them from making informed choices for themselves, that needs to stop.

It does. Some part is caramel and some part is artificial colors. The exact amount varies depending on which bottler we are talking about and what the current market prices of caramel and artificial coloring agents are.

I have no idea where you get your "facts" from. Do you just make things up?

Caramel Color IV (synonyms: ammonia sulfite process caramel, sulfite ammonia caramel, sulfite ammonia process caramel, acid-proof caramel, beverage caramel, and soft-drink caramel) is prepared by the controlled heat treatment of carbohydrates with ammonium-containing and sulfite-containing compounds. Soft drinks colored with caramel coloring generally are made with Caramel Color IV.

Nobody makes cola with the candy caramel.

[Lorizael]

So, Oerdin, is it your claim that in food, there should be no threshold for inclusion on an ingredient list? If that's the case, we can greatly simplify the process. Simply direct all potential consumers here.