/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>5662436
I have no idea what your rambling about, Ivan.

>>5662441
Is it because the producers of your food hide the fact about E-numbers you consume?
Well, the less you know, the sounder you sleep, right? Ignorance is bliss, that's your kind of thing, huh?

>>5662448
Still not following you. Are you holding a half empty bottle of vodka right now?

We don't have E-numbers in America, they just list the ingredients. Most people don't know how to read ingredient lists or nutritional information. Some do.

>>5662452
Well, I guess this just perfectly illustrates the effect of E-numbers in your food on one's cognitive and perception abilities.

>>5662441
>>5662452
you now, the numbers they put in your food? the e numbers? what part of this don't you understand? they are putting dangerous numbers in the food now.

captcha: seven rocumth

>>5662463
Fuck. I bet Monsanto is behind this. Those sinister swine.

Are there no Brits at all here? E stands for European classification of additives or some such

>>5662436
E numbers are just short hand for ingredients and additives that we have in the US. People are just as stupid and afraid of "chemicals in the food" over here.

"Duh, what's riboflavin. Sounds gay and communist!"

>>5662463
Holy shit, they're seriously putting numbers in our food and not listing it in the ingredients?

>>5662504
they have to list anything that contains 2's 3's and 7's because of allergies

>>5662514
>allergic to 2s

Nobody is allergic to 2s, that's a fucking bandwagon bullshit idiot craze designed to sell "2 free" food to a bunch of nincompoops.

>>5662436
What the fuck is going on ITT

>>5662519
my doctor told me i can't digest 2's and sometimes 3's irritate me in the same way because they're basically the same thing, they've just got, like, another one added on.

>>5662525

You're confused because you don't know what an E-number is.

>>5662534
Someone with a degree is numerology is not a real doctor. You should consult with real health professionals regarding diet and exercise.

>tfw you can digest any number up to and including 99
plebs

>>5662567
>not eating E621

>>5662573
that number gives me migraines and make you add.... learn the bad numbers guys, they're putting them in everything these days

stop numbers

That's numberwang!

>children/young adults are being diagnosed with cancer at ever increasing rates
>autism, ADD, ADHD, and other psychological conditions are becoming more and more common
>every second kid has some kind of immunological allergy.

>herpderp my dioxiphinalhydracydalamamene is perfectly safe, the FDA said so.

http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/blog/312-risky-drugs

>>5662591
It was fine to put lead in certain foods one hundred years ago. How do you know that we have a complete understanding of all food additives?

>>5662471
>riboflavin
Fuck, I heard some scientists are genetically engineering rice to have this shit in it. It probably kills rats or something.

>>5665053
That's actually a B-number, by the way. Even worse than E-numbers for you.

>>5665045
Or maybe detection and diagnosis have broadened or become more accurate and advanced.

>>5662436
E numbers sounds like some shit the corn growers would have thought up to hid the fact they shove it in everything.
Honestly surprised to hear it coming from somewhere where I had higher expectations.

>>5662436
OP gets it. why in the world don't they simply write the true honest ingredients in the place of EHUE123HUE#

it seems like a deliberate trick to make it harder to find what is in your food, forcing you to stop for EVERY SINGLE FOOD ITEM and look up the E# on the internet making each shopping trip take hours instead of minutes.

its dishonest and makes me RAGE.

stupid E numbers.

>>5665074
nope, people are actually getting worse and worse.

we didn't have the equipment and knowledge we do right now overnight, we got better and better and actually noticed a change that wasn't related to increased detection.

why would people go to the doctor more often "THIS HURTS I DON'T FEEL GOOD" if they didn't have a problem?

>>5665193
this

>>5662436
Hilarious thing I just witnessed start-to-finish today.
Mother and mother's mother give kid entire bag of gummy lollies as they yap, kid eats the whole thing. They supply kid with multiple bottles of 30% fruit juice raspberry drink, kid is running around knocking shit over and being a nasty shit climbing on things, and then blames it on the fruit drink.
5 year old kid, eating a 500 gram of strawberry creams. ITS THE HALF DRUNK RED BOTTLE OF FROOT DRINK!

>>5665193
what do you think isopropbulous is going to mean to you more than E290390494 would?
>hint: it'll change nothing.

>>5665201
Because they are women?

>>5665193
the commoner names of many of those ingredient is misleading that's why.

Also, they all belong to a single classification. That way, it is very convenient. You can easily look up each component.
E number range Subranges Description
100–199 (full list)
Colours 100–109 yellows
110–119 oranges
120–129 reds
130–139 blues & violets
140–149 greens
150–159 browns & blacks
160–199 gold and others
200–299 (full list)
Preservatives 200–209 sorbates
210–219 benzoates
220–229 sulphites
230–239 phenols & formates (methanoates)
240–259 nitrates
260–269 acetates (ethanoates)
270–279 lactates
280–289 propionates (propanoates)
290–299 others
300–399 (full list)
Antioxidants & acidity regulators 300–305 ascorbates (vitamin C)
306–309 Tocopherol (vitamin E)
310–319 gallates & erythorbates
320–329 lactates
330–339 citrates & tartrates
340–349 phosphates
350–359 malates & adipates
360–369 succinates & fumarates
370–399 others
400–499 (full list)
Thickeners, stabilisers & emulsifiers 400–409 alginates
410–419 natural gums
420–429 other natural agents
430–439 polyoxyethene compounds
440–449 natural emulsifiers
450–459 phosphates
460–469 cellulose compounds
470–489 fatty acids & compounds
490–499 others
500–599 (full list)
pH regulators & anti-caking agents 500–509 mineral acids & bases
510–519 chlorides & sulphates
520–529 sulphates & hydroxides
530–549 alkali metal compounds
550–559 silicates
570–579 stearates & gluconates
580–599 others
600–699 (full list)
Flavour enhancers 620–629 glutamates & guanylates
630–639 inosinates
640–649 others
700–799 (full list)
Antibiotics 700–713
900–999 (full list)
Miscellaneous 900–909 waxes
910–919 synthetic glazes
920–929 improving agents
930–949 packaging gases
950–969 sweeteners
990–999 foaming agents
1100–1599 (full list)
Additional chemicals 1100–1599 New chemicals that do not fall into standard classification schemes

>>5665500
This is outrageous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

I wonder, is palm oil on a list of vile shit you never touch, too?
Around here, it is. You can easily make someone throw it in the trash and never buy again if it is there, as a cheap substitute, esp. for milk products.

Pictured:
>American peanut butter

Not pictured:
>Peanut butter they sell in European countries that only consists of roasted peanuts and salt

>>5665547
http://nypost.com/2014/04/19/the-tyranny-of-the-organic-mommy-mafia/

>>5665574
Good goy. Keep eating processed foods. Mr. Schweinsbergwitz will be pleased. :))

That whole vile pile of additives is the DIRECT consequence of marketing - make the illusion of huge consumption, where as products lie on shelves for months and beautifully cheat the eye. The need for long shelf life is the reason all commercial food is now like that. It is apparently cheaper to substitute food with additives, and spend money of marketing, package and other AUXILARY attributes, than on food quality itself.
They're not selling you 100 people an ice-cream, it's way too expensive for you to eat that frequently. Instead, they sell you the idea of eating and ice-cream, putting palm oil with other additives to make it appealing in a dishonest way, and packaging and ads mask it even further. Customer satisfaction mean jack shit, if that customer is misinformed and/or a moron.

>>5665504
This is actually disturbing:
United States
With the exception of infant formula and baby foods which must be withdrawn by their expiration date, Federal law does not require expiration dates. For all other foods, except dairy products in some states, freshness dating is strictly voluntary on the part of manufacturers. In response to consumer demand, perishable foods are typically labelled with a Sell by date.[29] It is up to the consumer to decide how long after the Sell by date a package is usable. Other common dating statements are Best if used by, Use-by date, Expiration date, Guaranteed fresh <date>, and Pack date

>>5665500
Expat in Sweden reporting in.
Here's an example
>inb4 "ew"
A friend of mine said to avoid the E300s. I say avoid as much as you can of the E series.

>>5665593
>Federal law does not require expiration dates

Nor should they. Expiration dates may mean well, but the problem is that they are impossible to create accurately. The longevity of a product is dependant on how it is stored, and even small changes in storage conditions can have a massive effect on how long the food stays fresh. These conditions are not known in advance, so the whole concept of a reliable date is flawed.

>>5665606
Is that excuse even accepted?
It's all about the BURDEN of RESPONSIBILITY, m8. If it's difficult, why shift it to consumer? It is the seller, manufacturer, distributor who should strain their brain trying to solve it. Check all you fridges, make adequate inventory management, install some labelling system, hire people for checking shelves etc, etc
Heh, in my country it is the responsibility of the employer to actually collect taxes from employees and file and transfer them to gov't all together, even before salary/wage paying. Last I heard, in US every single one damn employed citizen has to file his own form?
I remembers, that your sellers aren't even obliged to display FULL and FINAL price on an item, adding taxes later, out of sheer cunningness.
You individualists are kinda unable to cooperate, I guess? kek kek kek

>>5665620
Individuals are also responsible, although they aren't held so today/

>>5662452

>>5665620
>Is that excuse even accepted?

It's not an excuse, it's impossible to do with any sort of accuracy.

For example, suppose the scientists do a bunch of research and determine that milk is good for 20 days when kept at a certain temperature.....but then the delivery truck gets stuck in traffic and the product gets a bit warmer. Or the stockboy takes a smoke break and lets the butter sit out in the warehouse a little longer than normal before putting it on the shelf. Or maybe all of the "supply chain" is perfectly managed, but you the customer have overloaded your refrigerator or simply set it a degree or two warmer than expected. Any of those scenarios can have a radical effect on how long the food lasts, and are beyond the control of whomever packages the food. As a result they tend to print overly conservative dates on the food because that's really the only option they have.

What would make a lot more sense is to have "smart packaging" that can detect the signs of food going off. So instead of, say, a date printed on the package you have a small sticker than changes color to indicate spoilage.

Or, the customer could simply learn how to tell when food goes off, and do some research regarding proper food storage. I suggest the latter, and buy a proper thermometer to check the temp of your fridge. 3 C is the magic number that you want to be below.

>>5665547
Enjoy your salt.

>>5665637
>scat
>>>/b/

>>5665636
I wonder, what does your typical customer do when they buy sealed package, come home, open it, and find this? Can you return it? Complain to some organization? Or just cry on a imageboard?

>>5665636
>it's too hard to manage stuff
>America

No wonder, American consumer products are considered mid-tier worldwide.

>>5665644
>Can you return it?

Of course. Generally in in the US you can return anything for any reason.

>Complain to some organization?
Yes, of course. bugs in food is a serious health code violation

>>or just cry on an imageboard
more like threaten to sue the producer and then settle out of court with millions of $$$.

>>5665648

You misunderstand. It's not that it's difficult to manage stuff, it's that there is a fundamental disconnect of information between the printing on the package and how the food will be stored in the future. It's asking someone to predict the future, which cannot be done anywhere on earth.

Even in highly corrupted Russia (products are rarely good - lots of fakes and swindling) they at least make some effort to inform consumers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtkY-oABUKg
We even have a dedicated consumer's right association: http://www.ptac.gov.lv/page/251
That's because single persons have no way to compete with corporations, and need to be helped.

>>5665661
>single persons have no way to compete with corporations
Have you heard of the dollar vote system?

>>5665659
>There was a bug in my can
>I'm suing you
>Prove you didn't just put it in there
>No problem I take a video of every food package I open for this very reason!

>>5665659
>Yes, of course. bugs in food is a serious health code violation

It isn't actually, there's a legal percentage of foreign hazards allowed in food as long as it's not dangerous for the health. And no matter how gross, flies and their larvas or crustaceans aren't a health hazard once cooked and pasteurized.
At best you'll will some coupons

>>5665673
>>Prove you didn't just put it in there

A forensic lab can easily answer that question. A few years ago there was a woman who claimed there was a mouse in her canned soup. She sued, it went to court. The forensic examiner found that the mouse was not cooked, nor was there any soup in the mouse's lungs. Therefore it was impossible for the mouse to have been in the can at the time it was closed in the factory, and she got caught trying to pull off fraud. Had they found a cooked mouse containing soup in its lungs then it would be pretty clear how it got in there.

>>5665445
in the US they have no problem writing an honest ingredient list even if it's not easy to pronounce.

replacing it with some cover up number that forces another layer of deception and confusion upon the customer is simply a nuisance, not a service.

>>5665494
so replacing "titanium dioxide" for example with huehueh123222E would somehow make it all better? I rather do an internet search of titanium dioxide to figure out what it is rather than search "HUEHUHEU123E" = titanium dioxide = what it is?

why add more confusion? it is absolutely no issue at all to have a legitimate honest ingredient list without all the extra bureaucracy and red tape.

>>5662436
>Is it common in your country/neighborhood/home to reject food with E-numbers in ingredients?

E-numbers are just a way of cataloguing food ingredients, OP.

If you rejected them all, you'd starve. There are some which you're better off avoiding, obviously. E1510 is pretty deadly, but being Russian I imagine you're 50% E1510 right now.

Incidentally, E1510 is also produced in limited quantities by carrots when they're old or damaged.

>>5665723
or they could just be honest and print the real ingredients on the food label without hiding them behind some sneaky Enumber.

>>5665547
>rapeseed
u wot m8 ?

>>5668385
i think the point of the numbers is that most people wont' know the chemical name anyways, so a number is easier for people to google, if they care, and most people won't. also, if they do care, they can at least memorize the classification scheme so they know what class the ingredient belongs to "oh, that number is in the range of preservatives, I'll avoid this because etc"

>>5668385
Easier for chemists and manufacturers to print 2 characters than the full name.

>>5668420
>i think the point of the numbers is that most people wont' know the chemical name anyways, so a number is easier for people to google,

this doesn't fly with me. the result of their search will again just be another chemical they don't know.

a quick search of "hydrogenated soybean oil" in their peanut butter will easily come up with results that tell them what it is. why put another layer of confusion in between?

>>5668437
don't tell me your going with:
>it costs companies more money to put a sticker to label a gmo product
type of thing...

in america they have no problem printing a thousand ingredients of artificial flavor and corn syrup on the ingredient list at all.

>>5668385
E numbers are a whitelist of additives that are legal to add to your food product. They are uniform across all of Europe, so if you see a "E 290", you always know it's CO2. And you know that - according to European law at least - is not supposed to be detremental to your health (unless you're allergic, but that's a different matter).
Being scared of E-numbers is just as stupid as being scared of ascorbic acid.

>>5668779
I'm not afraid of them, they are just a pain in the ass.

it would be nice if they included both a straight forward "literal ingredient list" like in america and additionally right next to it, the Enumber list.

that would be more fair.

>>5662452
Are you american?