Is Rush Bimbo next?

-ramon

Ramon wrote:Is Rush Bimbo next?

-ramon

Yes, my ultra-conservative perspective has proven to be a perfect platform for launching Rush's program.

Don't call me when they come for you.

At least you're remaining on topic.

-ramon

David Hammond wrote:

jlawrence01 wrote:There is no "truth in labeling" on coffee. When I was in Kona a decade ago and visited a plantation, the growers stated that most Kona blends had as little as 10% Kona mixed with cheaper beans. At the time, maybe 1992, authentic 100% Kona was going for about $20/lb.

What knocked me out was that the label said in big letters KONA COFFEE. No obvious indication that it was a blend until I read the reversed out copy. It'd be like buying a pound of something labeled BEEF only to find that it contained over 90% soy meal.

David "Would you like lies with that?" Hammond

I was in Sam's Club this evening and wandered past the coffee aisle. Konda coffee ... and I am sure that it is real. $25/lb. 100% Kona coffee.

David Hammond wrote:

jlawrence01 wrote:There is no "truth in labeling" on coffee. When I was in Kona a decade ago and visited a plantation, the growers stated that most Kona blends had as little as 10% Kona mixed with cheaper beans. At the time, maybe 1992, authentic 100% Kona was going for about $20/lb.

What knocked me out was that the label said in big letters KONA COFFEE. No obvious indication that it was a blend until I read the reversed out copy. It'd be like buying a pound of something labeled BEEF only to find that it contained over 90% soy meal.

David "Would you like lies with that?" Hammond

Most "Kona" coffees are the 10/90 blend as Hawai'i doesn't grow enough to meet demand. If it doesn't cost around $20/lb, it probably isn't 100% Kona. As an aside, the US government allows coffee to be labeled domestically grown if it contains only 10% domestic coffee.

Hi,

I don't know if this fits in the category of lies. It may even fit into the Maxwell Street moto of, "We cheat you fair."

When I am buying a product in the grocery store with no particular loyalty to any brand, then I buy for price. I use the price per unit to help me sort out which product I will select. They game the consumer by offering different units to price ratio. For instance, I was contemplating buying smoked fish spread today. The in-house produced spread was $7.89 per pound and a Bronx-made product was $0.59/ounce. Fortunately it was easy to mentally calculate the Bronx-made product was over $8/per pound. I bought the locally produced spread.

It's a small matter to be annoyed about. In fact the more confusing they make it, the more agressive I am to parse out the lowest priced product. While all the information is provided with various price per unit variables, you cannot complain of less than full disclosure. It is just annoying in the "We cheat you fair" kind of way.

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:...I use the price per unit to help me sort out which product I will select. They game the consumer by offering different units to price ratio.

I asked someone at a grocery store about this, and they said that those "price per" amounts come from the manufacturer. I thought that the store priced the items and produced the shelf tags. You'd think they'd program a uniform unit "all liquid detergent priced in ounces" or something.

Though usually this thread is a magnet and repository for bitter denunciations of the out-and-out falsehoods various food purveyors foist upon an unsuspecting public, what we have here (under House Specialties, third item down) is more of a pleasant folk euphemism -- not true but not in any sense malicious:



When wandering the streets of Puerto Vallarta one night, I saw "Caldo de oso" and got pretty excited. Bear soup! Wow, didn't expect to see that. Turns out, "bear soup" is actually an all-purpose name for such comestibles as sangria, a fish stew, or (as a cabbie explained to me) a meat dish containing "parts of the beef rib" and other stuff (not, it seems, offal, but just miscellaneous meat).

A few days ago, The Wife and I stopped by Dominick’s to get some Oak Park-required stickers for our yard trash, and thought we might as well pick up some fruit.

The Wife spotted this:



“Could it be,” she gasped, “that they spray paint oranges to be more…orange?!”

“Yes, my child,” I responded, gently moved by her naiveté and innocent wonder, ”Lies are what they feed us.”

Do they really "paint" oranges?

Is it possible that the orange only received a partial coat of food-grade wax (I know they wax fruits & veges) - I can't bring myself to believe they'd paint oranges (like farm-raised salmon so to speak).

Actually, I just read about Citrus Red No. 2 for the first time yesterday. It seems that it's a specialty dye approved only for use on some Florida oranges. I don't know if the above orange is from Florida, but I had no idea that it was common to dye the skins of citrus fruit.

Jen

JenDath wrote:Actually, I just read about Citrus Red No. 2 for the first time yesterday. It seems that it's a specialty dye approved only for use on some Florida oranges. I don't know if the above orange is from Florida, but I had no idea that it was common to dye the skins of citrus fruit.

Jen

The label on this particular orange reads "Sunkist 3107."

Vermont asks McDonald’s to add Maple to Fruit and Maple Oatmeal, or change the name.

Ran into my old nemesis "wild mushrooms" last pm @ the Palm. When asked to identify the shrooms in question we were told "shiitakes, portabellas and oyster mushrooms". Not.

David Hammond wrote:A few days ago, The Wife and I stopped by Dominick’s to get some Oak Park-required stickers for our yard trash, and thought we might as well pick up some fruit.

The Wife spotted this:



“Could it be,” she gasped, “that they spray paint oranges to be more…orange?!”

“Yes, my child,” I responded, gently moved by her naiveté and innocent wonder, ”Lies are what they feed us.”

The discoloration looks leaf-shaped to me which makes me think that that particular area of the orange was covered by a wet leaf while maturing.

Fujisan wrote:

David Hammond wrote:A few days ago, The Wife and I stopped by Dominick’s to get some Oak Park-required stickers for our yard trash, and thought we might as well pick up some fruit.

The Wife spotted this:



“Could it be,” she gasped, “that they spray paint oranges to be more…orange?!”

“Yes, my child,” I responded, gently moved by her naiveté and innocent wonder, ”Lies are what they feed us.”

The discoloration looks leaf-shaped to me which makes me think that that particular area of the orange was covered by a wet leaf while maturing.

It could be...or it could be that the orange was covered by a wet leaf while being spray painted with Citrus Red #2.

Citrus Red #2 is FDA-approved solely for dyeing the skins of oranges that will be sold whole (it can't be used on oranges intended for processing). Because several studies found that Citrus Red #2 caused cancer in animals, the WHO classified it in Group 2B ("possibly carcinogenic to humans"), and recommends that it not be used as a food additive.

After doing this research, I think I might stick to organic oranges (which, by definition, are not dyed) if I need orange zest, or if I want to make Bar DeVille-style Old Fashioneds

FWIW, Sunkist says they never dye their oranges.

http://www.sunkist.com/products/oranges.aspx

Khaopaat wrote:Citrus Red #2 is FDA-approved solely for dyeing the skins of oranges that will be sold whole (it can't be used on oranges intended for processing). Because several studies found that Citrus Red #2 caused cancer in animals, the WHO classified it in Group 2B ("possibly carcinogenic to humans"), and recommends that it not be used as a food additive.

After doing this research, I think I might stick to organic oranges (which, by definition, are not dyed) if I need orange zest, or if I want to make Bar DeVille-style Old Fashioneds

You know, I thought this was a (funny) joke. Then I realized it was serious and now I'm thoroughly depressed. It's like finding out that they tint the windows in hotel rooms to make it appear sunny all of the time.

Here's my dialogue with the FDA. I give them credit for the quick responses even though those responses are completely useless, border on rude, and make me want back the portion of my tax dollars that went toward hiring the people who fill these consumer affairs positions.


Me to FDA:
Dear Sir or Madame,

I became concerned about citrus red #2 when I learned that it was approved only for the sale of whole oranges that are not intended for processing, and that it could be carcinogenic if used as a food additive. Does the FDA not realize that many home cooks, like myself, use the whole orange, including the rind, in recipes? With no warning at all, how are we supposed to know that this additive may be unsafe? How are we even supposed to know that it's there? I hope the FDA will reconsider this dangerous policy.

Kenny Zuckerberg


FDA Reply:
From: CFSAN-Consumer <Consumer@fda.gov>
Subject: RE: citrus red number 2
To: "'Ken A'" <kennetha222@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 11:03 AM


Dear Ken A., the only information I have is in 21 CFR 74.302 http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/c ... trus%20red. It appears that it can not be in portions greater than 2.0%.

Ms. Jeannine Ertter-Prego
Consumer Affairs Specialist
Communication and Coordination Branch
Division of Education and Communication
Office of Food Defense, Communication and
Emergency Response
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
This communication is consistent with 21 CFR 10.85 (k) and constitutes an informal communication that represents my best judgment at this time but does not constitute an advisory opinion, does not necessarily represent the formal position of FDA, and does not bind or otherwise obligate or commit the agency to the views expressed.


Me to FDA:
From: Ken A [mailto:kennetha222@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:11 PM
To: CFSAN-Consumer
Subject: RE: citrus red number 2

Thank you very much for the reply. Unfortunately, it does not address the problem, which is that this additive has been deemed too dangerous to be used in oranges that will be used in processing, yet there is no warning to that effect for home cooks who may process and consume the rind at home. Is there someone who could address this problem?


FDA's Reply:
Dear Ken A., the only thing anyone can give you is the specific regulations. I believe that color additives when used for fruits or seafood are still required to be generally safe when used as intended. The amounts of the additive are restricted for safety purposes. This includes use at the consumer level.

Ms. Jeannine Ertter-Prego
Consumer Affairs Specialist
Communication and Coordination Branch
Division of Education and Communication
Office of Food Defense, Communication and
Emergency Response
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
This communication is consistent with 21 CFR 10.85 (k) and constitutes an informal communication that represents my best judgment at this time but does not constitute an advisory opinion, does not necessarily represent the formal position of FDA, and does not bind or otherwise obligate or commit the agency to the views expressed.

Appreciate your posting this exchange, Kenny.

" I believe that color additives when used for fruits or seafood are still required to be generally safe when used as intended." Textbook CYA.

David Hammond wrote:Appreciate your posting this exchange, Kenny.

" I believe that color additives when used for fruits or seafood are still required to be generally safe when used as intended." Textbook CYA.

Yeah, this is the whole problem. As intended by whom? Probably a combination of bureaucrats, scientists, and marketeers. I doubt serious home cooks are on the panel of intention-deciders.

I use orange rind a lot in cooking, which is why I am genuinely concerned about this. Every couple of weeks I dry a big batch of rind in a low oven and grind it to a powder to be used as seasoning for a whole host of things. I use it almost as much as salt and pepper.

Kenny - I hear ya. A couple more ways to skin this cat would be to contact the Illinois non-emergency consumer complaint line. Another way is to try direct consumer interaction with the sellers and to get the name of someone up the chain at Dominick's and Jewel's, write a letter, and follow-up. We know the big chains are selling sprayed oranges, so perhaps it's prudent to put direct pressure on the retailers to purchase fruit that is not spray-painted. These steps wouldn't produce immediate action, but it's a start.

Or buy organic.

I believe that color additives when used for fruits or seafood are still required to be generally safe when used as intended

So the question is, what's an intended use? When they set the safety limit, did they consider the use of the rind in cooking as one of the intended uses? If so, then the limit they set for the additive is considered by them to be non-harmful when used in cooking.

lemoneater wrote:

I believe that color additives when used for fruits or seafood are still required to be generally safe when used as intended

So the question is, what's an intended use? When they set the safety limit, did they consider the use of the rind in cooking as one of the intended uses? If so, then the limit they set for the additive is considered by them to be non-harmful when used in cooking.

Indeed, which is why I wrote back saying

It sounds quite reasonable that the amount of additive is deemed to be safe as long as the product is used as intended. With oranges, I'm just not sure what "as intended" means. Most people probably just eat the flesh or the juice and discard the rind, and if that's what "as intended" means I could be in trouble. I eat the rind. Quite a bit of it, in fact. Sometimes I candy it. Sometimes I dry it and grind it to a powder. Sometimes I grate it raw into a dish I'm about to eat. Are these things part of the safe "as intended" uses or are they dangerous?

I'll let you know how they respond.

from the Sunkist website:

Fresh Sunkist® oranges from California and Arizona are available year-round. Their vivid, naturally orange color is due to their growing climate; they are never dyed. The Sunkist label or sticker on your orange is a guarantee that you are buying citrus of the highest quality.

teatpuller wrote:from the Sunkist website:

Fresh Sunkist® oranges from California and Arizona are available year-round. Their vivid, naturally orange color is due to their growing climate; they are never dyed. The Sunkist label or sticker on your orange is a guarantee that you are buying citrus of the highest quality.

I was surprised to learn that, considering how uniform & bright their oranges can look. However, it's good info - I'll make it a point to stick to organic or Sunkist for zesting & other rind-using.

The final reply from Jeannine the Consumer Affairs Specialist: "Too much of anything can cause harm. I don't believe that if you consumer (sic) the peel in moderation that you will receive any affects (sic)."

Khaopaat wrote:

teatpuller wrote:from the Sunkist website:

Fresh Sunkist® oranges from California and Arizona are available year-round. Their vivid, naturally orange color is due to their growing climate; they are never dyed. The Sunkist label or sticker on your orange is a guarantee that you are buying citrus of the highest quality.

I was surprised to learn that, considering how uniform & bright their oranges can look. However, it's good info - I'll make it a point to stick to organic or Sunkist for zesting & other rind-using.

This is somewhat attributable to the variety. To the best of my knowledge, domestic Sunkist oranges are grown only in California and Arizona and are predominantly navel variety. They are mainly in season this time of year (November thru March). Rinds on navels are typically deep orange and uniform in color.

In Florida, Valencias are the primary commercial orange variety (though navels and other varieties are grown there) and they're known to have unevenly-colored rinds, which are sometimes even green in parts -- which explains but doesn't excuse the dying. They're often used for juicing or other applications where (it's wrongly assumed that) the consumer will never come in contact with the rind. The season in Florida for valencias is mainly March thru June. Commercial valencia orange production in California really doesn't exist anymore.

Citrus is one of the most protected industries in the U.S. and it's been this way for decades. I raise the issue because it points to the strong influence of the citrus lobby on laws and regulations, hence the use of a dye which appears to greatly favor the will of the producers over the safety of consumers.

I don't believe that all Sunkist oranges are domestic, which explains their claim that they are available year-round. I'm pretty sure they have agreements with growers abroad to bring in fruit under the Sunkist label year-round, which effectively creates uninterrupted supply of Sunkist brand fresh citrus.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:Citrus is one of the most protected industries in the U.S. and it's been this way for decades. I raise the issue because it points to the strong influence of the citrus lobby on laws and regulations, hence the use of a dye which appears to greatly favor the will of the producers over the safety of consumers.

Exactly what I was thinking (especially as it pertains to Florida). More reason, in my book, for the support and creation of alternative markets for food, and to move away from the current industrial, government-dictated food system. Even if the initial costs of new markets may be too expensive for some, it's a start in the right direction.

Hmmmm. It's never a good sign when the responses received from consumer/customer relations folks are shorter than their .sigs.

I don't eat a lot of fruit. Mrs. Kman does, though, but for citrus it's pretty much all fruit and no rind. However I do like my cocktails. And on a number of them my bartender takes a bit of orange peel and holds it over a lighter to release essential oils prior to topping my drink with it. I'm guessing that probably doesn't fall into whatever the agrigovernmental corporagency has classified as "appropriate use". I do know that at my regular place they typically score their fruit from Whole Foods so I *may* be slightly better off but I am passing this info on to them.

It's funny how consumer perceptions - and corporate perceptions of those consumers - can drive such aberrant practices. I'd always heard that while the Valencia oranges of Florida are, of course, outstanding juice oranges they are also pretty darned good eatin' fruit, too. The trouble is that they are rarely marketed as such outside of their immediate growing areas due to the non-uniform coloring issue that ronnie_suburban addresses above. Because they don't *look* "perfect" consumers won't buy them (or so the story goes). So, instead, we take the more uniform in appearance west coast varieties as the "standard" - but for fear of them ALSO not looking perfect we paint them (there's probably a joke/commentary or 12 about Hollywood buried in there).

How about just a little effort expended on consumer education that not all fruit looks like the pictures that are staged (painstakingly!) for cookbooks and magazine ads and that some discoloration is perfectly normal? Nah, that's a slippery slope that eventually leads to the shocking realization that most people that drink beer do NOT look anything like the ones pictured in beer commercials - and from there lies a straight path to Armageddon.

Hey Bartender! Gimme another Old Fashioned, extra cancer please!