Fast Food Outlet in Pickle as Activists Attack Foa

[EmptyTimCup]

the truth sux

Fast Food Outlet in Pickle as Activists Attack Foam Cups


Remember when most “to-go” coffee came in convenient, insulated foam cups? Remember when McDonald’s served food in foam clamshells that kept your meal nice and warm? Those were the days, my friend — lost to political correctness.

Today, consumers often burn their hands holding paper cups filled with hot beverages that leak along the rim because the tops are not as snug-fitting as they are on foam cups. The politically correct solution has been to add paper sleeves around the cup, which mitigates hot fingers, but doesn’t keep coffee hot or prevent leaking.


[clip]


First consider the impact on energy usage. Earlier this year, the research group Franklin Associates released findings from their life-cycle assessment of polystyrene packaging and alternative paper products. Such assessments attempt to measure the impact that products have on the environment during their entire lifetime — from cradle to grave.

The company found that the average 16-ounce polystyrene cup uses a third less energy, produces 50 percent less solid waste by volume, and releases a third less of so-called “green house gases” than does a 16-ounce paper cup with a sleeve. Over their lifecycles, polystyrene packaging products require 20 to 30 percent less water than do paper alternatives.

Ironically, there are additional adverse environmental impacts resulting from the politically correct substitution of foam cups. Specifically, the elimination of foam cups causes some people to “double cup,” placing one paper cup within another to prevent burning their hands. According to Franklin Associates: “‘double-cupping’ results in over twice as much energy and solid waste volume, over five times as much solid waste by weight, and nearly twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as the use of a single polystyrene cup.”

But what about the chemical used to make foam cups — styrene? Isn’t it bad for our health? According to California Clean Water Action: “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that styrene is a known lab-animal carcinogen and a possible human carcinogen, particularly in the occupational setting, with the strongest evidence coming from reinforced plastics workers.”

If you are alarmed about those claims, you should stop eating pickles on your burgers and drinking coffee — both are also IARC “possible human carcinogens.” In fact, the “possible” category indicates a very low risk. It’s akin to saying: “There isn’t much evidence of harm, but we can’t prove otherwise.” IARC couldn’t even find significant risk among workers exposed to relatively high levels of styrene.

Some lab animals (mice but not rats) — which are highly susceptible to cancer — have developed cancer when administered very high amounts of styrene. And they also get cancer from pickles, coffee, and dozens of other things when exposed to very high doses — often injected into rodent cells and stomachs. In that case, it’s the dose and the test itself that causes the cancer. Humans — even plastics workers — don’t experience such high doses or exposure routes in real life, which makes extrapolation from rodents to humans a very tenuous exercise.

so you inject something into a mouse it would not otherwise EAT .......

 

[bcp]

Just week before last, I stopped while traveling and bought a cup of coffee.
Back on the road, 65mph towing the camper, I lift the cup and the top pops off and burns me on the stomach and other parts that should never be exposed to anything above 98.6 ° F. I bet the people behind me thought I was drunk for the next mile or so as I tried to cool off my stomach and other parts that should never be exposed to anything above 98.6 ° F.

I should have sued.

but I didn't.

 

[Gilligan]

I wish I could find that study reporting on the discovery of how dangerous common black pepper was to the rodents used in the research.

 

[ftcret]

I wish I could find that study reporting on the discovery of how dangerous common black pepper was to the rodents used in the research.

Number 4 ...

Putting warning labels on acrylamide-containing foods would be a scientific/medical travesty and should be rejected. Here's why:

#1. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that the presence of acrylamide poses a human cancer risk.

#2. Labeling potato products may deter people from eating them -- but there is no evidence that it will prevent even one case of human cancer.

#3. Acrylamide in food has been present since humans began cooking food. It has always been there, has never posed a problem, and is of no health significance.

#4. The argument that acrylamide poses a cancer risk is based exclusively on the results of high-dose rodent experiments. These studies are conducted using astronomical doses, and the results have no relevance to human risk.

#5. Labeling fried potato products as "cancer-causing" because of the presence of acrylamide opens the door to requiring labels on myriad foods -- because acrylamide is found in bread, cereal, pretzels, English muffins, roasted peanuts, fried fish, cocoa powder, black olives, coffee, pizza, and more. Microwaving a grated potato for only two minutes results in an average acrylamide content slightly higher than that in French fried potatoes. To be consistent, we would have to label a full spectrum of foods as "cancer-causing," which is absurd.

#6. Singling out acrylamide as a cancer risk would open a Pandora's box of labels on naturally-occuring carcinogens. Nature abounds in chemicals that cause cancer at high dose in animal tests, including the hydrazines in mushrooms, the safrole in black pepper, and aflatoxins in peanut products. If we were to label every food containing something that causes cancer in rodents, few foods would be spared. A supermarket, with everything labeled, might as well have "abandon all hope ye who enter here" emblazoned on its welcome mat.

#7. The decision of the California AG to single out potato chips and fries for cancer labels strongly suggests that this effort is more a politically-driven attack on so-called "junk food" than an effort to protect people from animal carcinogens -- otherwise, the legal mandate for warning labels would have to be far broader.

#8. Legal action against food manufacturers and regulations requiring labels translates into increased costs for consumers. As food companies scramble to reduce acrylamide levels -- to protect us from risks that do not exist -- we can expect a decline in food quality, particularly as cooking temperatures are lowered. This might actually increase the risk of foodborne diseases.

#9 The proposed labels are yet another effort to scare people away from a generally safe food supply. The acrylamide scare will soon become part of the history of scares (cranberries in 1959, cyclamates in 1969, saccharin in 1977, alar in 1989, etc.), but in the meantime one of the pleasures of life -- eating tasty food -- will be once again threatened. Even fries and chips, when eaten in moderation, can be part of a healthy, varied diet.

#10. All the "cancer prevention" efforts focused on reducing exposure to acrylamide only serve to distract us from the real cancer threats around us, ones that are well within our control: cigarette smoking, overexposure to sunlight, a diet deficient in fruits and vegetables, and overconsumption of calories in general.

Here's a more useful warning: carcinogen labels on fries and chips is an extremely bad idea.


Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is President of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

 

[Gilligan]

Number 4 ...

Putting warning labels on acrylamide-containing foods would be a scientific/medical travesty and should be rejected. Here's why:

#1. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that the presence of acrylamide poses a human cancer risk.

#2. Labeling potato products may deter people from eating them -- but there is no evidence that it will prevent even one case of human cancer.

#3. Acrylamide in food has been present since humans began cooking food. It has always been there, has never posed a problem, and is of no health significance.

#4. The argument that acrylamide poses a cancer risk is based exclusively on the results of high-dose rodent experiments. These studies are conducted using astronomical doses, and the results have no relevance to human risk.

#5. Labeling fried potato products as "cancer-causing" because of the presence of acrylamide opens the door to requiring labels on myriad foods -- because acrylamide is found in bread, cereal, pretzels, English muffins, roasted peanuts, fried fish, cocoa powder, black olives, coffee, pizza, and more. Microwaving a grated potato for only two minutes results in an average acrylamide content slightly higher than that in French fried potatoes. To be consistent, we would have to label a full spectrum of foods as "cancer-causing," which is absurd.

#6. Singling out acrylamide as a cancer risk would open a Pandora's box of labels on naturally-occuring carcinogens. Nature abounds in chemicals that cause cancer at high dose in animal tests, including the hydrazines in mushrooms, the safrole in black pepper, and aflatoxins in peanut products. If we were to label every food containing something that causes cancer in rodents, few foods would be spared. A supermarket, with everything labeled, might as well have "abandon all hope ye who enter here" emblazoned on its welcome mat.

#7. The decision of the California AG to single out potato chips and fries for cancer labels strongly suggests that this effort is more a politically-driven attack on so-called "junk food" than an effort to protect people from animal carcinogens -- otherwise, the legal mandate for warning labels would have to be far broader.

#8. Legal action against food manufacturers and regulations requiring labels translates into increased costs for consumers. As food companies scramble to reduce acrylamide levels -- to protect us from risks that do not exist -- we can expect a decline in food quality, particularly as cooking temperatures are lowered. This might actually increase the risk of foodborne diseases.

#9 The proposed labels are yet another effort to scare people away from a generally safe food supply. The acrylamide scare will soon become part of the history of scares (cranberries in 1959, cyclamates in 1969, saccharin in 1977, alar in 1989, etc.), but in the meantime one of the pleasures of life -- eating tasty food -- will be once again threatened. Even fries and chips, when eaten in moderation, can be part of a healthy, varied diet.

#10. All the "cancer prevention" efforts focused on reducing exposure to acrylamide only serve to distract us from the real cancer threats around us, ones that are well within our control: cigarette smoking, overexposure to sunlight, a diet deficient in fruits and vegetables, and overconsumption of calories in general.

Here's a more useful warning: carcinogen labels on fries and chips is an extremely bad idea.


Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is President of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

No..I'm pretty sure the report I read had something to do with dropping 1, 2 and 3 lb bags of black pepper on top of the rodents from a uniform height of about 3 feet. The mortality rates were frightening..as I recall...regardless of the doseage given.

 

[ftcret]

No..I'm pretty sure the report I read had something to do with dropping 1, 2 and 3 lb bags of black pepper on top of the rodents from a uniform height of about 3 feet. The mortality rates were frightening..as I recall...regardless of the doseage given.

 

[hvp05]

No..I'm pretty sure the report I read had something to do with dropping 1, 2 and 3 lb bags of black pepper on top of the rodents from a uniform height of about 3 feet. The mortality rates were frightening..as I recall...regardless of the doseage given.

Most of the serious coffee drinkers I know purchase their drink then pour it into a permanent, insulated cup. Millions of insulated cups are sold every year, which is good for the economy.

 

[MrZ06]

I bet the people behind me thought I was drunk for the next mile or so as I tried to cool off my stomach and other parts that should never be exposed to anything above 98.6 ° F.

I should have sued.

but I didn't.

did you hang your other parts out the car window to cool them down faster.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

To be consistent, we would have to label a full spectrum of foods as "cancer-causing," which is absurd.

FOOD Causes CANCER .......

 

[MrZ06]

FOOD Causes CANCER .......

Jack Daniels doesn't cause cancer

drinking Jack Daniels = smart

 

[EmptyTimCup]

Just week before last, I stopped while traveling and bought a cup of coffee.

was pan lady distressed ........ did you frighten small Children swearing



I drink my coffee from a 32 oz refillable cup there by being GREEN