Hacker News Reader

Comment by forgotmypw | Hacker News Reader

I'm including both corporate chains like TGIF and Chipotle, in addition to:

* that sushi restaurant in the strip mall, that serves you rice cooked with fluoride water and soy sauce with sodium beonzoate

* that "gourmet" deli that serves you sodium nitrate-laden on top of pesticide- and preservative-laden bread with a yellow #5 pickle.

* that coffee shop that pours a hot beverage at 140F/60C into a plastic-lined, plastic-lidded cup.

* that cafeteria in that corporate office that heats up frozen soup in a plastic bag before pouring it into the serving pot.

* and so on

Our food system resembles a Brave New World-esque intelligence test that most of us are failing.

View on HN

> fluoride water

So... tap water? Most countries add flouride to their tap water because it improves dental health. Unless you're a redneck screaming about alien mind control, that isn't some crazy scary chemical compound.

> soy sauce with sodium beonzoate

*Sodium Benzoate

Again, perfectly boring salt that reduces pH. Not some scary mind control substance, just a salt you can produce at home.

> sodium nitrate-laden

Every preserved meat in the world. Also found naturally in Chile.

> pesticide- and preservative-laden bread

Pretty much been the case since humans found out about vinegar. I wouldn't call < 1% in total to be "laden" though, unless you're eating an awful lot of bread.

> yellow #5

You realize that was a myth that it would reduce your sperm count right? There is a segment of the population that has a sensitivity to it, but it's pretty small.

> heats up frozen soup in a plastic bag

Again, most plastics are rated for this. Also helps cut down on glass shards in your food, or badly sanitized cookware giving you the runs.

I'm sorry, but your points here aren't some ultimate "gotcha", they're just anti-scientific scaremongering. I'd tell you to stock up on tinfoil for those hats, but I heard that causes alzheimer's.

Note the "...respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says..." in the site guidelines. Calling parent a "redneck screaming about alien mind control" is definitely not this. Many developed countries have either stopped fluoridating their water or never chosen to add fluoride to their tap water supply, for various reasons.

> > sodium nitrate-laden

> Every preserved meat in the world. Also found naturally in Chile.

Just because it's common or "natural" doesn't mean it's not bad for you. There are legitimate health concerns about nitrate use in foods.[1][2]

>> heats up frozen soup in a plastic bag

> Again, most plastics are rated for this. Also helps cut down on glass shards in your food, or badly sanitized cookware giving you the runs.

How do you know which plastics are being used by the restaurants you eat at? And what does "being rated" for heating actually mean? Does it mean that no plastic or other chemicals from the bag actually gets in to the food? As a consumer I have no way of knowing.

> I'd tell you to stock up on tinfoil for those hats, but I heard that causes alzheimer's.

This sort of snark is really not welcome on HN. Please try to be civil.

[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-pr...

[2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16510960

> How do you know which plastics

This is regulated by the FDA. See [1] for a link to their hub which goes into far more detail. Obviously a restaurant can violate the regulation, just as they can slip glass shards into your food or not wear gloves.

> Just because it's common or "natural" doesn't mean it's not bad for you

You're correct in this regard at large, see Sharks, Lions and Bears. However nitrates (especially sodium nitrate, not to be confused with potassium nitrate) have been used for a very very very long time in human history for preserving meat. The guardian article is extremely disappointing in that it makes no reference to published material and seems to make several bad claims, including to the reference of salting meat as an "alternative". That being said like all chemicals too much of it will cause adverse side effects, and there are people with genuine reasons (migraines) who want to watch their consumption of it.

> This sort of snark is really not welcome on HN

I'm mostly surprised to see blatantly conspiracy theorist level "there's fluoride in the water man!" kind of nonsense here. It's one thing to discuss your favorite nitrate-free red wine or have a preference on bacon, it's another to suggest that flouridated tap water is a negative.

There was recently a town near me, in Texas, that voted to de-flouridate their water supply. This kind of non-logical fear is backed by comments like this that suggest anything with a vaguely scientific name is bad for you or should be avoided.

We have already seen this happen with vaccines and already kids have died from measles - MEASLES. A disease that should never pop up again in the industrialized world. We shouldn't be wasting resources to convince educated adults in a first world country to get their vaccines, we should be helping to bring life saving basic medicine to everyone.

So yes, that was snarky and sharp. However I don't think it's okay to spew blatantly alarmist non-scientific nonsense and pretend it's "just an opinion". (And sorry for the rather long rant.)

[1] - https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/Packag...

I think you're clearly downplaying some of the risks the original poster notes, simply to make a point.

Nitrates, for example, are in fact quite bad for us. They're carcinogens according to the WHO (1)

It's also well known that plastic does indeed frequently leach into our food and drinks.

I agree with previous poster, less snark would be appreciated considering you are also incorrect in some of your points.

1. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo...

Processed meat itself is basically a carcinogen according to the WHO:

> Furthermore, processed meats can also contain other carcinogenic compounds such as PAHs which can be formed during smoking of meat (e.g. salami). Processed meats, particularly those containing red meat also contain heme iron, which can enhance the formation of carcinogenic compounds (NOCs) in the body.

I'm not opposed to specific, verifiable claims - "Non-foodsafe plastics are likely to leech into food especially when heated", etc. I'm entirely opposed to vague claims - "plastics are in your food and killing you!"

If you have a specific claim, then by all means make it. Don't make the claim "but nitrate laden meats!" because that is meaningless.

Ignoring conspiracy theory gibberish (in this case the fluoridated water rubbish) is MUCH worse than calling it out. You want HN to eventually be populated solely by ‘science proves immunization causes autism’ fruit-cakes? Then keep doing what you’re doing, which is ignoring their lunatic conspiracies and attacking anyone who calls them out with petty sanctimonious appeals to the rules.

Instead of calling you out, I'll just leave these here...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3433161/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144112/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11275672

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17097768

>> fluoride water

> So... tap water? Most countries add flouride to their tap water because it improves dental health. Unless you're a redneck screaming about alien mind control, that isn't some crazy scary chemical compound.

There are legitimate sources [1] today that are questioning the utility of adding fluoride to tap water. Questioning the utility and healthfulness of chemicals added to tap water should not be taboo or related to conspiracy theories.

[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluor...

Shame on that source for splitting up those two graphs and giving them different axes. Furthermore it doesn't give us the actual incidence rate of cavities between the two groups numerically, or account for differences in dental care.

But yes, unsurprisingly, dental care has improved since 1975. I would be horrified if that were not the case.

Let's follow that link at the bottom of the story, the one that lists "Letters in response".

> On behalf of the American Dental Association and its 159,000 member dentists, I am writing to express sincere concern over the article entitled, “Is fluoridated water safe,” by Nicole Davis that appears in Harvard Public Health, Spring 2016. The article overlooks critical facts about community water fluoridation that must be shared with your esteemed readers and the public at large.

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/201...

> I am writing to express concern that Harvard Public Health would publish an article titled “Is Fluoridated Drinking Water Safe?” in the Spring 2016 issue and to share the reasons why the American Academy of Pediatrics stands behind the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/201...

I'm going to stop there, despite there being MANY more letters. Flouride in water is safe. That doesn't mean we can't still research it, ask specific questions and continue being informed, but if you are petitioning to remove flouride from water currently, you are acting irrationally and with no scientific basis whatsoever.

And again, this miniscule phthalate level increases matters why? (Even cumulative.)

Please answer with solid evidence of morbidity. Guardian did not do the homework. The studies on phthalates are quite tenuous for adults. There are a few which link to developmental problems.

This is a very different case from children chewing on phthalate containing foams or sleeping in such. Which has been quite clearly linked. The risk is mainly for pregnant women then?

Regardless, most of the problems would be related to packaging. Ditch styrofoam and plastic. Use ones certified phthalate free.

Oh and Guardian published this some years ago in a better way. Misrepresenting evidence then too.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/phthala...

Sounds like some sort of agenda.

The other quotes border on conspiracy theory.

Not sure what kind of agenda you are implying... Prematurely stop plastic use in food production/packaging before we are completely sure it affects our health negatively?

All I know is that this is new, untested input into a 4-billion-year-old tangle of spaghetti code.

If you are confident being the guinea pig, since "human health effects of phthalates are not yet fully known but are being studied," be my guest.

* Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is listed as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen"

* Current levels of seven phthalates posed "minimal" concern for causing reproductive effects.

* High levels of one phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, may adversely affect human reproduction or development.

Source: https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=24

Source source: https://www.google.com/search?q=phthalate+site:nih.gov

Note that high levels of the specific phthalate is of relevance to workers in plastic factories. There's really no way to get them that high up otherwise. For an adult of course. It is different for a newborn fed and hydrated by pvc tube.

I agree about potential carcinogen. How about actual carcinogen evidence though? Should be easy to get, scrutinize plastic workers.

You seem to imply that this research has not already been carried out, or is non-obvious...

>The reinforced plastic plant workers showed, in terms of semen quality, better values in the percentages of live sperm and immotile sperm, whereas they had a reduced percentage of normally shaped sperm.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2980348

Source source: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:nih.gov+plastic+workers

> Our food system resembles a Brave New World-esque intelligence test that most of us are failing.

Agreed, it's very sad.

I had a friend who took me to this burger place for lunch once, that he said was a gourmet burger place.

It was utter shit, it was the worst looking, cheapest looking patties I've seen outside of a McDonalds, cooked to the point of worthlessness then a few pieces of limp looking salad on top.

Then the guy wants to charge proper burger place prices. (£10 / $15). Now, I don't mind $15-$20 for a burger, if it's a good burger but this was just atrocious, and my friend had no idea how bad it was.

I don't know what some peoples baseline is for food quality, but it's way too low.

Are they really the same? It's hard for me to believe that. Seems like fast food chains would have the things you list + many other bad things.

It really is not that much different. Both are buying and reselling large quantities of standardized food products, the production and lifecycle of which are part of the problem.

The restaurant supply company is selling to dozens and hundreds of restaurants, so it is kind of like a fast food chain, just not under the same logo.

The restaurant needs twenty five-pound bags of prepared chicken every day. The supplier sources this chicken meat, spices, seasonings, and synthetic chemicals from a number of distributors, who source the components from a number of other suppliers, who eventually source them from the farms. The farms are producing for volume, so quality is not really in the picture, as long as it meets the inspection standards and government regulations.

It is not only the finished product, but also the sub-components, that spend days, months, sometimes years in the supply chain, being processed, preserved, and homogenized, and processed again.

This isn't a problem unique to restaurants, though - at some point you have to get your own ingredients from that supply chain unless you have the money or time to do otherwise.

Yes, you are correct.

Just like with software, you have to check and verify all the sources, or at least have someone do it for you. This may mean buying from the farmer's market, or going to the farm itself.

If you can't do that, you have to find a trustworthy supplier and take their word for it.

> I'm including both corporate chains like TGIF and Chipotle

I would not consider those, nor e.g. a diner, to be a “restaurant”. Restaurant implies having a chef; chefs are active in sourcing and preparing their food. If someone is heating up pre-made things they’re a cook, not a chef, and work at something that isn’t a restaurant.

OK, this is moot, though, since the article talks about "dining out" and doesn't distinguish based on your restaurant classification.

> the article talks about "dining out" and doesn't distinguish based on your restaurant classification

I think the gist of this discussion is that lumping together fast food and restaurants muddies the study. It is like saying "eating mushrooms increases levels of poisoning" because one didn't differentiate between edible and non-edible fungi. These findings are applicable for people who regularly eat industrial food, to whom I can't imagine this is surprising.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com