• lugal@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The free market will regulate this since at some point, saw dust will become rare

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    “How much sawdust can you put in a Rice Krispy treat before people notice?”

    Answer: As much as they can legally get away with. If you’ve ever eated grated Parmesan cheese from the store, you’ve eaten sawdust. They list it on the can as “cellulose.”

    • ornery_chemist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sawdust is not (just) cellulose and cannot be listed as such on nutrition labels. Sawdust, i.e., wood shavings, contains many other compounds, especially lignin. Wood is refined by e.g. the Kraft process to separate the lignin from the cellulose, giving a suspension of cellulose fibers in water called “wood pulp.” I didn’t look, but I would imagine that calling wood pulp “cellulose” on a nutrition label is fine, 'cause that’s what it is.

      Now, none of this invalidates the crux of your argument that cellulose can be used as a cheap filler, such as in cheap “Parmesan cheese,” and no disagreement here that that shit is scummy af. However, there are some legitimate uses for smaller amounts in foods, such as anti-caking, thickening, and literal dietary fiber.

      • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s all about companies putting things on the label that are technically true but deliberately misleading. For years, Kraft sold “100% Grated Parmesean cheese” that was nearly 8% cellulose. I assume their excuse if they got caught would be, “Well, our cheese is ‘100% Grated’ just like it says on the label.” Meaning, everything in the can WAS “100% grated” but it was NOT 100% cheese. The first reports on this were around 2015, but it looks like their more recent containers don’t have the word “100%” anymore. They’re constantly playing these stupid little word games with their customers.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Money.

        Before the FDA, they used to put formaldehyde and cow brains into milk. It killed children and they knew it killed children, but they tried to tell people it actually made children stronger and that we didn’t need the FDA.

        In the vast majority of cases, every step we’ve taken away from libertarianism has been a huge improvement.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just like you can get away with eating cellulose from other plants. It’s usually called fibre and everyone likes fibre.

        • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          So would sand and talc powder. Diamond dust.

          It’s cheap and doesn’t hurt you. There are more food like things that will fix it that are more expensive.

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Cellulose from wood is literally a dietary fibre. Just like that good healthy fibre you are getting from kale. Which is also mostly cellulose. There’s no difference for your body between kale and saw dust.

            • Bgugi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think it’s fair to say kale and cellulose are basically the same.

              I’d much rather eat cellulose.

            • htrayl@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yup, actually cellulose in food is not a problem at all in my mind, and is probably actually improving the average Americans health if anything.

            • kase@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s no difference for your body between kale and saw dust.

              Be careful now, say something like that and someone might start a weird fad diet

            • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well there is right? Kale has other macro and micro nutrients, unlike you’re referring to the Fibre part only, then there would be no different right?

            • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              What? Does sawdust have high levels of vitamins A, B6, C, K, folate, fiber, carotenoids and manganese? The last time i checked it doesn’t.

              • Aux@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                We’re talking about fibre here. If anything, pure cellulose is better than kale.

      • Wiz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because it’s kinda-sorta edible (you won’t die from eating it) and it makes a cheap filler.

        • Soggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not filler, it’s an anti-clumping agent to make sure your cheap cheese shakes out of the can correctly every time.

      • GreenM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s not harmful so i guess as long they print it on the can it’s just unethical but not yet illegal.

  • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fun experiment. Look at labels when shopping and make note of standard fillers like “cellulose”.

  • Landmammals@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I usually think of myself as a libertarian, but end up getting into arguments with other people who think they’re libertarians. My version of the libertarian government has a very powerful EPA, child protective services, and fda. Because the freedom to do what you want with the things you own does not extend to polluting. Children are their own humans and needs their freedom protected, you don’t own them and can’t abuse them just because they live in your house. Also you can make and eat whatever you want, but you’re not allowed to poison people.

    It’s like the phrase, your right to wave your fists in the air ends at my nose. Do whatever the hell you want, as long as it’s not hurting anyone. But it’s not a trust based system.

    • 31415926535@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      I always identified as libertarian, then had surgery, lost my job, became homeless. I’ve seen firsthand how important things like Medicare, ssi, social services are. Yeah, a lot of people using these programs are lifers, don’t care about getting a job. But there are a lot of people who just need help, women fleeing domestic abuse, people with legitimate physical or mental disabilities that make it hard to hold jobs. Many see this help as essential, but temporary, they want to get back on their feet, start working.

      • Ser Salty@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those “lifers” will quite often also just not be fit to work. Physically, sure, but they might be mentally fucked. I don’t mean full schizophrenia or something, just… broken people. Saw it all around me growing up, literally in my neighbors. People that were at some point just discarded. They can’t get a job and the longer they can’t get one, the less likely it is they’ll ever get one. They fall into alcoholism, health deteriorates… 20 years later the chances of them getting a job are slim to none because nobody would hire them. They just end up stuck, lost in a system that doesn’t care about them.

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know a lot of libertarians. I think a lot do accept that the government is going to do some amount of provision for poor or sick people or children. But many are very skeptical of these services, it’s true.

    • Hobo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Please don’t take this the wrong way. I’m assuming you’re saying you’re philosophically libertarian, and not Libertarian as in a particular party, because you didn’t capitalize the word but could be mistaken…

      So you’re a liberal that doesn’t like to label themselves that way? Why throw your hat into a ring with all the rest of that batshit crazy shit if you believe in a strong centralized government and regulation (ie support for a strong FDA, EPA, and CPS)? The things you appear to support are philosophically liberal ideals. What things make you want to label yourself libertarian that conflict with a liberal philosophy?

      Again, genuinely curious because libertarians tend to be either liberals that don’t like that label, or batshit crazy racists that want the end of times so they can shoot minorities. And I’m just endlessly fascinated by both types of people. Also I’m always on the look out for the elusive 3rd type of libertarian.

      • naeap
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not the one you responded to, but I do see myself as libertarian socialist - which is nothing else than an anarchist.

        The right side always seems to want to steal the labels from our side, because freedom and liberty sells good…

        A liberal on the other hand is a very comformist stance in my opinion

        • sigmaklimgrindset
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          TIL that a libertarian socialist can be equated to an anarchist…

          Time to go dive into another wikipedia hole regarding classical political theory.

          • pirat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes, traditionally,

            a libertarian socialist can be equated to an anarchist

            However, that’s only one of the definitions. Libertarian capitalism, commonly known as anarcho-capitalism, is another type of anarchism.

        • Hobo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Where specifically does your philosophy diverge from liberalism. What parts of it seem conformist and what made you feel that way? In my understanding libertarian-socialist, with a lean to anarchist, seems to be liberalism without the label. So just trying to figure out the specifics of your personal philosophy.

          Do you believe in private property? Regulation of commerce? Do you think social safety nets should be maintained by the government? Emergency/public services like fire departments, school, and utilities? Taking a step back, do you think the government should collect taxes? Again, just curious where your personal philosophy diverges and why. Not trying to put you on the defense or anything, just genuinely curious.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also I’m always on the look out for the elusive 3rd type of libertarian.

        You mean the original libertarians? Lol!

    • GreenM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can (probably) sum it as “Person’s freedom ends where rights of other begins.”

    • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same here, my version of libertarianism is basically socialism, which tends to greatly offend other “libertarians”. And socialists too, for that matter.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, it’s still sort of a trust based system even with the FDA. It just becomes, “do I trust the FDA?” instead of the market or someone else. I think they’re generally pretty good. But then sometimes they get pressure from Big Dairy and stomp all over farmers producing almond milk because calling it milk is deceptive in their eyes. And other times they block life saving drugs from being approved for years while sick people die, even after the drugs have been proven safe. So, there’s still trade offs.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think an FDA with token regulations that companies can follow to the letter without actually providing safety (and to some extent EPA) help that much. I think especially for food safety the best way to ensure it is not by providing the shield of “we were following FDA regulations” and instead by allowing companies to be very vulnerable to suits.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    As they say, “Either the government chooses the rules, transparently, or the company does, secretly. Take your pick.”

  • 31415926535@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I haven’t been able to drink milk since I discovered that the FDA allows a certain amount of pus in each carton.

    • Soggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the allowed amount was “literally none” then the cost of adherence and monitoring would make milk too expensive to produce or it would be poorly enforced and nothing would be different. The same is true for insect parts, rat hair, and other contaminents in literally all processed food. Perfect cleanliness simply isn’t possible, and you’ll never notice anyway.

      • XRchiver@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This. This is why there’s an episode of Bob’s Burgers about their daughter lying at school about the funeral parlor next to the burger shop and her dad’s food having corpses in it and the FDA investigating the restaurant because it potentially had more than 0.4% (?) of human flesh content. Why any at all? At such a small amount it’s impossible to detect, completely safe to consume, and would be well less than a single finger in literal tons of hamburger. It’s gross, but you’ll be fine just like you have so far.

        That, and farmers have to drink milk too; if there was pus in the milk, they’d care enough to do better, and they do because that’s why we give cows antibiotics sometimes.

        Now, if the government decides to loosen all those regulations, THEN I’ll be worried.

    • comador @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wanna hear how many rodents crap on your vegetables in warehouses throughout the US before the get loaded in trucks?

    • Leg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d advise against learning about how any other food or drink is prepared in that case. It’s more gross than un-gross across the board.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well, mastitis is very common in an animal that consistently lies on dirt to rest. And when you think about it, pus is nothing more than immune cells and their secretions fighting bacteria, but it’s diluted to the point what it’s negligible.

      On the other hand, coprophagia is also inevitable and part of everyday life but nobody curls their upper lip at that! Lol

      But yeah, studying microbiology changes people. *twitches*

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In one of my D&D campaigns, my wizard got tasked with a quest by half a pantheon, but mostly the god of knowledge, and realized that she was going to have to go tell Clerics of these gods what to do. She asked for “some sort of proof of the task, a letter of recommendation, or something.” The god of knowledge magically wrote his glyph on her forehead. At least it stopped glowing after a week, so you could only see it with a “True Sight.” after that. It didn’t go away even once she had a new body.

        Be careful what you say around God’s. Your DM may decide to be “funny.”

        • jackoneill@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          We have a campaign going where my character is blind. It didn’t start out that way - we ran across an eldritch horror that wanted eyes in exchange for great power. I like power, so I gave on my own eyes, that way all the power would be mine

          Now I’m blind and have a seeing eye penguin. He’s a pretty cool penguin though

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t lie. You’re secretly role playing the “Linux guy” from Ctrl+Alt+Del

            The penguin gave it away. A seeing eye pseudodragon I wouldn’t have seen through.

            Pun intended.

    • ogoflowgo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t think so. But I remember the picture, I think from an Onion article from the ancient internet of about 15 years ago.

    • GreenM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Water is still put in the milk, aside from i being economical it’s also because drinking milk from cow directly could give you diarrhea and taste is too much form many people. I’ve seen the process on bio farm with manual milking.

      • Ser Salty@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fun fact: if you stop drinking milk for a while you are very likely to develop a lactose intolerance

        • GreenM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Interesting. Does it work for all “races” . Because I thought Caucasian developed high rate of lactose tolerance genetically to compensate for lack of vitamin D from sun light among other things but e.g. Asians have higher rate of lactose intolerance.

          • Ser Salty@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            As far as I am aware, yes. Maybe not with a 100% success rate, but yes. I am white as snow and when I went vegan I developed a lactose intolerance (every once in a blue moon I’ll accidentally grab some milk chocolate or something without realising.) While there’s probably some genetics at play, western cultures have a much higher focus on milk, so you are much more likely to just drink/consume milk with some regularity throughout your life, from childhood, so you just never lose those… well, I don’t know, enzymes, I think? Every mammal starts out with a lactose tolerance, after all.

            • GreenM@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              interesting. I’ve always read about genes version never about time between consumption of lactose.

              As for mammals, it’s unique for humans to be able to drink other species milk on large scale AFAIK. Even adult cats can get into trouble after drinking cow milk.

  • Rice_Daddy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I had an internet discussion with someone who believed that all regulations are bad. I don’t think s/he’s a troll, but tried as I might I couldn’t get this person to agree that at least some regulations might be good.

    Can’t remember off the top of my head, but one argument was that even for major safety violations, the market would put them out of business, and other companies won’t do it. I said that this would be after the damage is done and people/environment are hurt, but the person said that regulations are reactive anyway and companies would just stop doing it. It was very frustrating trying to get this person to agree that maybe some regulations can be good.