What's the best kept secret in the food industry?

Don't send back food to the kitchen.

McDondal habaenro ranch sauce

>xenoestrogens
>the FDA allowing products with less than five calories to be listed at 0 calories

A quick dip in the fryer cures food that fell on the floor.

In New Mexico, you can get green chilis on any sandwich.

...

Love.

Fukushima and pink slime/

Olive oil being cut with other oils is a close second.

Fukushima

shallots

This gets turned into ground beef

...

But remember guys pesticides didn't couse those tumors becasue Dr.______, said they didn't.

Truffle oil is mostly bs too. The majority of it uses an artificial ingredient.

Here's a secret for ya. In nh(cant speak for other states) there isnt enough health inspecters. Their backlog is months or even a year long. Basically restaurants have no oversight in terms of health and safety.

Olestra Oil

Sysco

All your chains special sauces and flavors are sysco.

>Thing is locked away in a massive vault.
And there's a copy of it in every single factory. It's just marketing user, the vault is just for the show.

There are tons of regulations for maximum quantities of certain things in your food that you wouldn't want to be there. It's not forbidden, it's just that you shouldn't go above it, because in a way, it's expected to be there.

Like urine in your orange juice, bugs in your bread, human flesh in your processed meat, or feces on your cucumbers. Yes, workers piss in juice tanks, insects end up in the flour, some lose fingers in slaughterhouses, and showing cucumbers up your ass is apparently common in cucumber factories. Look up the regulations, you'll be baffled by how much crazy stuff there is.

That's why you should avoid processed foods too.

Lucky Charms created the marshmallow cereal crazy because someone realized puffed marshmallow from cheap HF was several times cheaper (~6 originally) to make then puffed wheat. The profit margin on puffed HF marshmallows sold by volume is insane, not to mention HF is backed by huge government subsidizes. Then they up-sold it under the marketing that the new marshmallows were an upgrade and a national name brand. The money they make on each box is practically criminal.

Material testing labs can and have successfully reverse engineered coca cola down to a molecular level, so no recipe is secret if you can afford the lab testing, Which is only in the $1,000~100,000 range depending on complexity.

To deal with more savvy consumers companies are mixing sugar types so you see 5% of ten different sugars at the end of the ingredients rather then 50% sugar as the first ingredient. This is in addition to older tricks like using alternate names and changing serving size.

Some store brands are the same as the name brands, just boxed differently. I like how one TV dinner box says X company brand name while another says X company brand name "store generic" with the same font and everything.

If you read the labels you will find all sorts of things. As a grocery stocker I've seen so much. Garlic bread without garlic, mineral water with complex legal disclaimers about what constitutes mineral salable content as it didn't really have any. Box sizes changing while prices stay the same. It is insane! And people just have no idea where their food comes from or even what it is.

Thanks for your input, people whose idea of radiation comes from Fallout.

I think Coke is a bit sweeter than Pepsi, which is why I prefer the latter

MSG

>eat the pus from my own cysts all the time
>first reaction to that image was hunger

what's wrong with me

>amerilard believe big corp bullshit as part of their mythologies

>cucumber factories
american education lads

Well if there aren't any cucumber factories, then where do they de-vinegar all the pickles?

>food just spontaneously teleports from the farm to the store, with no cleaning, inspection or packaging involved

Nuka cola

juice control the world.

You're both wrong.

>what's wrong with me
i think "eating pus from your own cysts" is what's wrong with you, you should stop doing that

...

Microwaves
~50% of restaurant quality meals can just be preped in bulk earlier then reheated with little to no difference in flavour and texture. People need to use this at home more instead of cooking a single serve meal every night, wasted hours IMO

...

All health problems are caused by eating things other than whole food plant based.

The recipe for brewing Chartreuse is only known by like 3 monks

Truffle oil is BS in that it's mainly artificial truffle flavoring + vegetable oil.

That said, in and of itself, how is that any worse than using artificial vanilla extract? Few people seem to get in a tizzy about using artificial vanilla regularly (as opposed to always buying vanilla beans). Yeah, vanilla beans are better, but there's nothing wrong with putting some fake vanilla in your plain yogurt or whatever.

Truffle oil SHOULD be the same way. Why should you give a shit if I, a person who cannot very well keep a constant stock of real truffles, like to put a little 'fake' truffle oil on my pasta once in a while?

The problem is that truffle oil manufacturers are sketchy as shit. They put a couple tiny flakes in a bottle and try to pretend that they didn't just use the chemical. I'd rather just get sold a fine white powder of the chemical at it's actual cost, and mix it with my own oil, than get sold some 5000% marked up vegetable oil with $0.30 of synthesized truffle aroma.

imagine saturating an oil with the fake truffle flavor compound and throwing it at someone.

Wrong. You're going to find out firsthand.

Imagine marketing it as cologne

>What's the best kept secret in the food industry?

Long term vegetarian diets have an astonishingly high rates of Colon Cancer and other ailments.

Want to be healthy? Eat a balanced diet like every other person who lived to be 100.

That Mcdonalds Is Actually A Super Food For Olympic Athletes

devilish

Olive Garden

retard

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704
>It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned...vegetarian...vegan...diets are healthful...and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases...Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871675
>Vegetarian diets confer protection against cardiovascular diseases, cardiometabolic risk factors, some cancers and total mortality...vegan diets seem to offer additional protection for obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes, and cardiovascular mortality.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929
> a statistically significant association was found between vegetarian diet and cancers of the gastrointestinal tract (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.90)...vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99)...for female-specific cancers (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.92). Lacto-ovo-vegetarians appeared to be associated with decreased risk of cancers of the gastrointestinal system (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25751512
>Vegetarian diets are associated with an overall lower incidence of colorectal cancers.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26853923
>This comprehensive meta-analysis reports a significant protective effect of a vegetarian diet versus the incidence and/or mortality from ischemic heart disease (-25%) and incidence from total cancer (-8%). Vegan diet conferred a significant reduced risk (-15%) of incidence from total cancer.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26561618
>Vegan diets may confer a lower risk of prostate cancer. This lower estimated risk is seen in both white and black vegan subjects, although in the latter, the CI is wider and includes the null.

The fact that the second part is what disturbs you.

I wish, I've seen what they do in those places.
Plus teleporter tech would be nice to have.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21407994
> vegetarian and vegan diets are generally considered to be cancer protective...Most large prospective observational studies show that vegetarian diets are at least modestly cancer protective (10%-12% reduction in overall cancer risk) although results for specific cancers are less clear... evidence links specific plant foods such as fruits and vegetables, plant constituents...healthy weight to reduced risk of cancer diagnosis and recurrence. Also, research links the consumption of meat, especially red and processed meats, to increased risk of several types of cancer. Vegetarian and vegan diets increase beneficial plant foods and plant constituents, eliminate the intake of red and processed meat, and aid in achieving and maintaining a healthy weight. The direct and indirect evidence taken together suggests that vegetarian diets are a useful strategy for reducing risk of cancer.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19300265
>Small clinical trials suggest that tumor biology can be altered by either a vegan low-fat diet or eliminating simple carbohydrates accompanied by weight loss. Larger and longer term studies are needed to determine the clinical relevance of these findings.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420687/
>Vegetarian diets are associated with an overall lower incidence of colorectal cancers. Pescovegetarians in particular have a much lower risk compared with nonvegetarians. If such associations are causal, they may be important for primary prevention of colorectal cancers.

Good for them. I see the free staters are really having an impact. I think I'll be moving in a couple years.

Well you need a bit of B12 but that's about it.

wrong, food standards regulate that this needs to be thrown out and the surfaces it touched need to be disinfected.

illegal immigrants

>there isnt enough health inspecters
Apparently there aren't enough teachers, either.

I'm sure that shit causes cancer.

Everything causes cancer.

>MUH CANCER

Anyone that didn't fail biology 101 would know that cancer is when cell division goes haywire, and this has a chance of happening every time a cell divides. Meaning that anything that causes cell division is cancerous.

Also that graph has no sources and is retarded and makes no sense.

Not to sound like a shill, but Boly ate McNuggets before he broke the fuckin sprint record, iirc.
Everything in moderation.

Milk is pretty bad for you other than the fact that it has calcium in it.

And yet cheese is surprisingly good for you.

By that logic, cigarettes don't cause cancer either. Yes, cancer is caused by "cell division gone haywire" in the same way that "AIDS is caused by T cells fucking up" but HIV is still the underlying cause of AIDS.

> makes no sense
> it's a graph showing a linear correlation

That the relationship between meat (particularly red meat) consumption and cancer rates is positive and linear is well-supported and you can easily find many reputable organizations talking about it + many studies about it (the methodology of that specific graph is here healthhubs.net/cancer/meat-and-cancer-country-comparisons/):

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121650/
>In summary, red and processed meat intake appears to be positively associated with risk of cancer of the colon and rectum, esophagus, liver, lung, and pancreas in a new, large US cohort study of 500,000 men and women.

wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/link-between-lifestyle-cancer-risk/red-processed-meat
>(World Cancer Research Fund International) Global patterns of meat consumption reveal trends towards increased meat consumption. This is of interest in terms of cancer prevention, as the consumption of red and processed meat has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer and processed meat with an increased risk of stomach non-cardia cancer.

progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat
>Red meat and processed meat are associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, and evidence also suggests their association with some other cancers, such as prostate cancer

The protein found in milk is basically the best you can get. If you can digest lactose it can help keep your gut flora healthy.

>it's a graph showing a linear correlation
>That the relationship between meat (particularly red meat) consumption and cancer rates is positive and linear is well-supported and you can easily find many reputable organizations talking about it + many studies about it (the methodology of that specific graph is here
>COORELATION

M8 comparing cancer rates of countries as proof that meat is of bad shows that you are either stupid or have an ulterior motive.

> cohort study
Memes

Your sources all say that vegetarians and vegans weigh less and that lowers their risk of cancer. There are overweight vegetarians and vegans so that obviously means the diets aren't inherently going to keep you at a healthy weight.

Yeah, I'm sure it's all one huge random coincidence

There are studies "proving" that literally every type of diet is bad in some way or another. They can't all be right.

Most people should probably eat less meat and more plant foods but most of your sources do say that lower obesity rates = lower cancer rates, and that vegetarians and vegans seem to be, on average, less obese. Just pointing that out.

Some things cause cancer more than others.

For example, you'll get more mouth cancer from smoking cigarettes than from using Swedish snus, and more mouth cancer from snus than from nicotine gum;

You'll get more lung cancer from being in a basement contaminated with radon gas than you will with one that doesn't;

You'll get more skin cancer from repeatedly sunburning yourself to achieve an orange glow than you will from merely getting enough to meet your vitamin D needs;

You'll get more cancer from using rancid oils instead of fresh oils;

And yes, you'll get more ass-cancer from a steak cooked at high heat than you will from a black bean burrito.

If could be, again.
>correlation
>cohort study
One theory besides meat is ebil is that a person who has a set diet is simply healthier than a person who doesn't.

A more accurate study would be one where you had 3000 people of the same age group, sex, weight, feed them all the same calories worth of food in the same meal size, and wait 10 years.

Even better would be if you could account for placebo by feeding them all nutrient paste that was made to taste the same no matter the content.

>You'll get more cancer from using rancid oils instead of fresh oils;
You also get more cancer from using oils instead of animal fat for cooking.

>>cohort study
>Memes
What?

Cohort studies have the least amount of accuracy of studies, because they account for a small amount of variables if any. They also can easily suffer from sampling bias and be tampered with.

They're certainly higher in the hierarchy of evidence than case-control, cross section, ecological, animal, etc studies, and in many cases especially in nutrition science they're the best available. You can run db-rcts to show that smoking causes cancer, both for ethical and financial reasons for example, but you can use the Hill causal criteria and get pretty close.

Only the bugs in flour part is real, the rest was invented by "Did you know?" book authors

*can't run

>There are studies "proving" that literally every type of diet is bad in some way or another. They can't all be right.

Which is true, but that's why you can also look to meta-analyses and to things like cancer charities or government health bodies whose job it is to sort through those studies and figure out which ones had the best methodologies.

Besides that, there are actually plausible biological mechanisms that would explain a link between meat and cancer. These article go over some potential causes:

blogs.plos.org/publichealth/2014/11/17/red-meat-biological-evidence/

>Carcinogenic by-products of cooking meat at high temperatures
>Nitrites and nitrates in processed meats
>Hormone residues in meat (e.g., bovine growth hormone)

health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/pages/2014-12-29-sugar-molecule-in-red-meat-linked-to-cancer.aspx
> Neu5Gc (type of sugar) present in red meat

Based on that information, from a health perspective, it would be better to avoid processed meat altogether, cook your meat at a low temperature (e.g., sous vide), and stick to meat from farms that don't give their cows hormones. From a purely health perspective, it would probably be best to limit meat consumption to fish low on the food-chain that accumulate the least mercury.

Maybe if you're talking about eating hydrogenated or very high omega 6 PUFAs like soybean oil, but if you take care to make sure that your omega 3/6 balance isn't totally out of whack, vegetable oils are fine. Look into camelina!

While true, this is a limitation of dietary science in general because it's extremely difficult to perform an intervention study over the long-term. You have to examine the study methodology, but where possible, they usually try to control for obesity and smoking among other factors.

That being said, there are a number of Mediterranean diet intervention studies, particularly for heart disease, which more closely aligns with pesco-vegetarianism.

>Carcinogenic by-products of cooking meat at high temperatures
>Nitrites and nitrates in processed meats
>Hormone residues in meat (e.g., bovine growth hormone)

That has nothing to do with meat but poor quality meat and cooking procedures.

Yeah, that's why right below there I said that it would be best to cook meat at a low temperature like by using sous vide and getting it from a farm that doesn't use growth hormone.

Neu5Gc is intrinsic to red meat though, you can't really work around that without genetic engineering of either cows or humans

>Maybe if you're talking about eating hydrogenated or very high omega 6 PUFAs like soybean oil, but if you take care to make sure that your omega 3/6 balance isn't totally out of whack, vegetable oils are fine. Look into camelina!
eating=/=cooking
It's been proven that for frying animal fat is less cancerous than oils.

>Neu5Gc is intrinsic to red meat though, you can't really work around that without genetic engineering of either cows or humans

In all honesty cows are better for dairy than meat, I prefer pork to beef and goose over all of them.

One thing most studies do that I find wrong is that they try and find a flaw with diet A or B, or how diet A or B is bad, which is not that hard but at the same time they don't find a way to actually make a good diet. For example as bad as meat is made out to be, meat is necessary, and in a proper amount provides health benefits. At the same time fish is very good, and we eat too much processed meat and meat in general.

Greece is killing it, close to US in it's meat consumption and close to India in its cancer incidence.

Something tells me your standards for that being 'proven' are much lower than the bar you set for red meat consumption being linked with ass cancer...

If you're talking about aldehyde production when frying, particularly this study that was all over the new: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814609011303

The bottom line is that if you're going to fry something, it's better to fry it in saturated fat like coconut oil. Also, if you search the literature aldehydes are formed at various levels from frying in lard too.

> dat Mediterranean diet

>If you're talking about aldehyde production when frying, particularly this study that was all over the new: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814609011303
I can't even access the study to see for myself and confirm. Not to mention it doesn't have any animal fats in the study,

>> dat Mediterranean diet
I'm pretty sure it's the protective effect of lentils and beans which if I'm not mistaken they consume quite a lot of in Greece. On the other hand I think it's safe to avoid any dietary choices that match Hungary's. Poor sods eat as much meat as the US and are almost chernobyl level of cancer.

India is an interesting one. While I'm sure their low meat consumption as well as turmeric consumption will have some protective effect but I'm also sure it suffers from under-reported numbers due to poor medical facilities. Also, given the fact that stuff like asbestos and other carcinogens aren't banned there and are regulated even worse their exposure to carcinogens will be much higher than say Norway.

What is heme iron

They retire in their 50s and sit on beautiful beaches relaxing with the wife taking care of them and have relatively traditional values and lifestyles.

Americans stress themselves to death.

>Poor sods eat as much meat as the US and are almost chernobyl level of cancer.
They are also alcoholics, suicidal and not that far away from Chernobyl, which had an effect on cancer rates in the region.

>not that far away from Chernobyl
Sometimes I forget how close everything is in Europe.

It's not that close, but the problem is that air currents carried the radiation quite a bit away.
Worse affected country was Belarus, not Ukraine.

Moral of the story is that Eastern Europe has cancer because of communism, alcoholism and we smoke too dam much.

>Look at all these links! I totally need to go vegan right now!
t. nobody ever