2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge
Comments
-
I refer you to my earlier response.
0 -
How about we just call emulsifiers emulsifiers.
And which emulsifiers are we talking about? All of them or just a few specific ones?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Sure, like I said, you call it what you want, whatever stops you eating it.
I'd tend to not avoid egg yolks, and try to avoid xanthan gum, soy lecithin, mono and diglycerides of fatty acids. Things that I wouldn't expect to use if I'm cooking.
Bringing it back to politics, it just being a rule of thumb does make it difficult to ban or put sin taxes on, which nobody who proposes them seems to acknowledge. Putting restrictions and labels on high fat products has probably increased the use of this crap.
0 -
What is 'it'?
Xanthan gum has been in commercial use for 56 years. It's produced by fermenting glucose and sucrose, so the recommendation to eat fermented products needs some adjustment. The digestion of xanthan gum has been looked into pretty extensively.
Gum Arabic is another common emulsifier that has been in use in food for hundreds of years with many claimed health benefits.
That's not to say there aren't some ingredients we'd be better off without but I don't think simplistic and imprecise labels like food/not food or 'wouldn't find it in your kitchen cupboard' are helpful. They mean removing many things from a diet that don't need to be removed, and I suspect involve a fair amount of middle class snobbery and nostalgia for some fictional better time when everything was pure and good.
This is why trying to do public health messages in a five minute interview is always going to be a stretch. There's not 'this one simple trick'.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Up to you, isn't it? "Been in use since the late 60s" isn't a great point in its favour for me.
It's not all about what the individual product does to you, its also the removal of the benefits of what it is a cheap replacement for. Or what is removed or altered by the extra processing it allows while still staying palatable.
But if you like bread containing esters of mono and diglycerides (hovis wholemeal), crack on.
0 -
What know ye about esterification of glycerides?
0 -
I think you're at risk of perfect getting in the way of good there. Follow those "simple tricks" and sure you might remove a handful of things from your diet you didn't strictly need to, but you would definitely remove a lot of things that you'd be better off not eating.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I know it's not going to be part of any laws or guidelines because it's not easy to define what is "bad".
They should have given them a more snappy name like "modified soya bean oil".
0 -
The reality is that we don’t really know the impact of individual ultra processed ingredients so it’s not worth splitting hairs, but there is a correlation between eating less of it and being healthier.
I mean, coffee, which surely by any measure is ultra processed (roasted, ground, put into hot water to brew, then you drink the remaining water and not the coffee grounds) is like an elixir for gut health so it’s clearly not just processing it a lot.
The frustration with the advice is that it’s vague but that’s all we have right now
0 -
-
Are you seriously confused about the difference nutritionally between coffee and ham?
1 -
-
So if you are rapidly reversing, it's hsoow.
0 -
Don't suppose you have the jist of the FT article itself? Probably this is a seeded narrative, becaude I've already read an article today (a v. superficial one) about labour considering changing the fiscal rules.
It's not a negative thing by any means but blimey they are making a hash of messaging already if they do so after several months of telling us we need to live on baked beans.
0 -
honestly, just getting bored with arguing with you. It’s obviously not that and if you are struggling to understand tbh I don’t really care.
0 -
Baked beans are ultra processed as well.
0 -
You've seen the headlines about national debt recently right?
0 -
If you don’t want to see that debt is only a problem as a proportion to an economy then it’s a pointless argument, and it is also not the argument Starmer campaigned on.
the “revelation” of the hole, true or not, doesn’t change that logic
0 -
-
I believe jezyboy is referring to the prediction that debt is going to rise as a proportion to the economy at an astronomical rate. Whether it comes to fruition is yet to be seen as it was based on a lot of worst case scenarios.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Sure, but the recent headlines were that debt would get to 300% of GDP, which is pretty undesirable.
I'd like to think we'll have more focus on the GDP part of the debt to GDP ratio. But the Treasury can only ever "control" one side, so I can see how you go down the Treasury brain route.
0 -
This is exactly what I mean. If someone can't tolerate gluten, home made bread will make you ill. If you want to make bread without gluten, you need to add something like xanthan gum to the flour to make the dough stick together. It's got nothing to do with it being cheap or otherwise. Things aren't inherently good just because they have short Anglo Saxon names. It's worth noting that mono and diglycerides naturally occur in foods as well as being an additive.
A loaf of non-Chorleywood method bread without anything but flour, yeast and water costs roughly double a bog standard sliced loaf because it takes a lot longer to make and spoils more quickly. So the push for everything to be made only with ingredients you might find at home means that more people will go short and more food will go to waste.
Not a lot. Definitely your field. But a fair bit of my dad's knowledge of food production, particularly meat, has rubbed off.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Like I say, if you want food with that in it, there's loads out there for you. It's not all in there for people with dietary needs, it's mostly to make the food cheaper or more desirable to eat.
0 -
-
Wine too! Quite happy to extend that to whisky. Don't know what the fuss is all about. 😉
IME the fuss should be all about takeaways, crisps, fizzy drinks, cakes, biscuits, sugar, salt... . ...stuff we all know about. (Yes, I know beer (lager/cider, but not my favourite cider) is a fizzy drink but allow me something! 😂)
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Of course. Cheaper food is a good thing. It means fewer people are malnourished or just plain hungry.
And yes, sometimes it's to make cheaper food more palatable - why is that a bad thing? It would be lovely if we could all afford £4.50 sourdough but let's be real.
This just feels like the latest iteration of tutting at poor people for not being healthy enough and being such a burden.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Drinking Coffee within an hour of a meal will deplete the uptake of nutrients, worth considering. I doubt many people do this anyway, but still.
0 -
We have both an obesity problem and 7 million in food poverty, so I don't think the current solutions are working well if you think this is a solution to a societal problem.
But I can only say again that you can eat it in abundance if you want, there's loads of it available.
0 -
What about drinking coffee with your meal, how does that work. I’d heard that drinking water with food effects your up take of nutrients but wine helps by breaking down the enzymes so they are more easily digested.
0
