Is sauerkraut good for you?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
File (): BAEED09A895711347D7398C56B18ACEC-3622830.gif (3.5 MB, 848x1180, 6198585__explicit_artist-colon-angrylittlerodent_edit_editor-colon-edits+of+hate_editor-colon-unofficial+edits+thread_imported+from+twibooru_oc_oc+only_oc-colon (1).gif)
File (): 167764F5A576B91AD39C6F9AD2BBA60D-71231.jpg (69.6 KB, 581x1000, 1701639427400381.jpg)
>>369709
Yes. Fermented brined vegetables are considerably healthier than raw, boiled, baked, or fried.
However, DO NOT buy sauerkraut 'made in the US', there's a 99% chance it will have around 1% propylene glycol added... as a preservative.
Yes. Fermented brined vegetables are considerably healthier than raw, boiled, baked, or fried.
However, DO NOT buy sauerkraut 'made in the US', there's a 99% chance it will have around 1% propylene glycol added... as a preservative.
Anonymous
No.369728
>>369717
sauerkraut is really easy to make anyway, the two ways being fermenting, and with vinegar... both are delicious.
sauerkraut is really easy to make anyway, the two ways being fermenting, and with vinegar... both are delicious.
Anonymous
No.369732
>>369709
Jus' stick some fukkin cabbige inna vaggu then you gots mergency rations. Pop inna peppa corn if feelin ventureous. If it gets all fuzzy you fucked up an dinnae used a vaggu. Gittin it out a botch inna half use boff of em like a twist top yae?
Jus' stick some fukkin cabbige inna vaggu then you gots mergency rations. Pop inna peppa corn if feelin ventureous. If it gets all fuzzy you fucked up an dinnae used a vaggu. Gittin it out a botch inna half use boff of em like a twist top yae?
>>369709
Sauerkraut contains fiber and vitamins and a little iron, if you believe the USDA. But commercially prepared canned sauerkraut of the type most commonly sold in the US is really, really, really high in salt, so maybe it might not be good to make a regular habit of eating lots of it.
>>369717
I don't see propylene glycol listed as an ingredient. Also, it's an emulsifying agent, not a preservative. It is not obvious to me why sauerkraut would need an emulsifier.
Sauerkraut contains fiber and vitamins and a little iron, if you believe the USDA. But commercially prepared canned sauerkraut of the type most commonly sold in the US is really, really, really high in salt, so maybe it might not be good to make a regular habit of eating lots of it.
>>369717
I don't see propylene glycol listed as an ingredient. Also, it's an emulsifying agent, not a preservative. It is not obvious to me why sauerkraut would need an emulsifier.
>>369778
Then you don't know the FDA ruling that states: "if an ingredient is <2% of total weight/volume, it doesn't have to be listed (IF sold only in the US)".
There are hundreds of businesses using propylene glycol as a preservative: Panera, Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway/Albertsons, Dollar General and subsidiaries, McDonald's, etc. etc. etc. etc. It's sprayed on vegetables and fruit to, no fucking joke, "preserve appearance". Even worse, lot of liquors, ESPECIALLY wines, can contain anywhere from 3-10%.. as a preservative and sweetener. Look up the Austrian Wine Scandal.
Then you don't know the FDA ruling that states: "if an ingredient is <2% of total weight/volume, it doesn't have to be listed (IF sold only in the US)".
There are hundreds of businesses using propylene glycol as a preservative: Panera, Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway/Albertsons, Dollar General and subsidiaries, McDonald's, etc. etc. etc. etc. It's sprayed on vegetables and fruit to, no fucking joke, "preserve appearance". Even worse, lot of liquors, ESPECIALLY wines, can contain anywhere from 3-10%.. as a preservative and sweetener. Look up the Austrian Wine Scandal.
Anonymous
No.369783
>>369781
It depends on the ingredient. Allergenic ingredients have to be listed, or at least given warning labels. 1% peanuts/gluten can be enough to kill someone with an allergy.
It depends on the ingredient. Allergenic ingredients have to be listed, or at least given warning labels. 1% peanuts/gluten can be enough to kill someone with an allergy.
Anonymous
No.371602
>>369781
>It's sprayed on vegetables and fruit to, no fucking joke, "preserve appearance".
I've never heard of this. Idk how it would possibly help.
>It's sprayed on vegetables and fruit to, no fucking joke, "preserve appearance".
I've never heard of this. Idk how it would possibly help.
>>369781
This is wrong.
(2) The descending order of predominance requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section do not apply to ingredients present in amounts of 2 percent or less by weight when a listing of these ingredients is placed at the end of the ingredient statement following an appropriate quantifying statement, e.g., "Contains __ percent or less of ______" or "Less than __ percent of ______." The blank percentage within the quantifying statement shall be filled in with a threshold level of 2 percent, or, if desired, 1.5 percent, 1.0 percent, or 0.5 percent, as appropriate. No ingredient to which the quantifying phrase applies may be present in an amount greater than the stated threshold.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.4
You may be thinking of 101.100 exemptions, but this doesn't apply to substances that stay in the food, for the most part, and definitely doesn't exclude chemicals not GRAS:
(3) Incidental additives that are present in a food at insignificant levels and do not have any technical or functional effect in that food. For the purposes of this paragraph (a)(3), incidental additives are:
(i) Substances that have no technical or functional effect but are present in a food by reason of having been incorporated into the food as an ingredient of another food, in which the substance did have a functional or technical effect.
(ii) Processing aids, which are as follows:
(a ) Substances that are added to a food during the processing of such food but are removed in some manner from the food before it is packaged in its finished form.
(b ) Substances that are added to a food during processing, are converted into constituents normally present in the food, and do not significantly increase the amount of the constituents naturally found in the food.
(c ) Substances that are added to a food for their technical or functional effect in the processing but are present in the finished food at insignificant levels and do not have any technical or functional effect in that food.
(iii) Substances migrating to food from equipment or packaging or otherwise affecting food that are not food additives as defined in section 201(s) of the act; or if they are food additives as so defined, they are used in conformity with regulations established pursuant to section 409 of the act.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.100
This is wrong.
(2) The descending order of predominance requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section do not apply to ingredients present in amounts of 2 percent or less by weight when a listing of these ingredients is placed at the end of the ingredient statement following an appropriate quantifying statement, e.g., "Contains __ percent or less of ______" or "Less than __ percent of ______." The blank percentage within the quantifying statement shall be filled in with a threshold level of 2 percent, or, if desired, 1.5 percent, 1.0 percent, or 0.5 percent, as appropriate. No ingredient to which the quantifying phrase applies may be present in an amount greater than the stated threshold.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.4
You may be thinking of 101.100 exemptions, but this doesn't apply to substances that stay in the food, for the most part, and definitely doesn't exclude chemicals not GRAS:
(3) Incidental additives that are present in a food at insignificant levels and do not have any technical or functional effect in that food. For the purposes of this paragraph (a)(3), incidental additives are:
(i) Substances that have no technical or functional effect but are present in a food by reason of having been incorporated into the food as an ingredient of another food, in which the substance did have a functional or technical effect.
(ii) Processing aids, which are as follows:
(a ) Substances that are added to a food during the processing of such food but are removed in some manner from the food before it is packaged in its finished form.
(b ) Substances that are added to a food during processing, are converted into constituents normally present in the food, and do not significantly increase the amount of the constituents naturally found in the food.
(c ) Substances that are added to a food for their technical or functional effect in the processing but are present in the finished food at insignificant levels and do not have any technical or functional effect in that food.
(iii) Substances migrating to food from equipment or packaging or otherwise affecting food that are not food additives as defined in section 201(s) of the act; or if they are food additives as so defined, they are used in conformity with regulations established pursuant to section 409 of the act.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.100
>>371895
Additionally, you're thinking of diethelyne glycol (which is poison), not propylene glycol (which is GRAS in both the US and Europe (E490))
Additionally, you're thinking of diethelyne glycol (which is poison), not propylene glycol (which is GRAS in both the US and Europe (E490))
Anonymous
No.371897
File (): B1AE6C219CFC18346A498E9772988013-1457425.png (1.4 MB, 1066x1061, Screenshot_2024-03-15_005757.png)
I love it when shitpost threads generate actual conversation.
>>371895
Pigshit. Do you seriously think any JewS corporation gives a fuck? Paying a tiny little fine, getting a weak slap on the wrist, and a promise that everything stays out of the media is exactly what megacorps get. Also:
>trying to prove a point using THE FDA'S OWN WEBSITE
Either you're a dipshit, a flunky, or coping. The FDA has always had a revolving door policy with the same megacorps they're supposed to be at odds with. Here's how it works:
special interests -> megacorp lobbyists -> megacorp lawyers -> FDA affiliates -> FDA -> special interests.
Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer ring a bell? Can't poison a well if there's no water in it.
>>371896
Propylene glycol is not (((generally recognized as safe))).
https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-about-propylene-glycol-in-foods
https://www.medicinenet.com/is_propylene_glycol_harmful_to_humans/article.htm
https://draxe.com/nutrition/propylene-glycol/
It's strange that none of the governmental "health" sites fail to list much of the above. Here's an excerpt from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK598030/
2.2.1. Inhalation Exposure: "Information regarding health effects of propylene glycol following inhalation exposure is limited. No studies of health effects in humans were found. Studies in animals were few (Konradova et al. 1978; Robertson et al. 1947; Suber et al. 1989)." Isn't it STRANGE that all common research ends in 1989? That's a significant year.
2.2.1.1 Death: "No studies were located regarding death in humans following inhalation exposure to propylene glycol." Roberston et al. 1947 is brought up 3 times. Why not the two in 1978 and 1989?
2.2.1.2 "No studies were located regarding respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematological, musculoskeletal, hepatic, renal, endocrine, dermal, ocular, body weight, or metabolic effects in humans, or cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, dermal, ocular, or metabolic effects in animals after inhalation exposure to propylene glycol." tl;dr: suppress, deny, deflect, decry.
Respiratory effects: ((("inconclusive"))). All 3 studies are brought up, and tl;dr: 'studied effects WERE ONLY EVER TEMPORARY'.
Hematological effects: "Limited information was available on hematological effects of propylene glycol." Starting to see a pattern here?
Hepatic effects: The results from animal studies show that there are no adverse hepatic effects in rats after intermediate inhalation exposure to 707 ppm of propylene glycol (Suber et al. 1989)." Oh, that's a pattern all right.
Renal effects: "Intermediate inhalation exposure of rats to 707 ppm propylene glycol did not cause adverse renal effects (Suber et al. 1989), although kidney weight was reduced at 321 ppm in males and females." The next few paragraphs use the sand handwaves of 'studied effects WERE ONLY EVER TEMPORARY'. HRM.
2.2.1.3 Immunological and Lymphoreticular Effects: "No studies were located specifically regarding adverse immunological effects in humans or animals after inhalation exposure to propylene glycol."
2.2.1.4 Neorological Effects: "No studies were located regarding neurological effects in humans or animals after inhalation exposure to propylene glycol."
2.2.1.5 Reproduce Effects: "No studies were located regarding reproductive effects in humans after inhalation exposure to propylene glycol."
>95 of the GRAS list is banned in the EU & Japan. You know, places where there's still some actual food safety standards and concern remaining? So wouldn't it be a shock that a (((generally recognized as safe))) chemical ISN'T? After all, that could cost a megacorp's agents, affiliates, and lapdogs their cushy jobs in the FDA.
Pigshit. Do you seriously think any JewS corporation gives a fuck? Paying a tiny little fine, getting a weak slap on the wrist, and a promise that everything stays out of the media is exactly what megacorps get. Also:
>trying to prove a point using THE FDA'S OWN WEBSITE
Either you're a dipshit, a flunky, or coping. The FDA has always had a revolving door policy with the same megacorps they're supposed to be at odds with. Here's how it works:
special interests -> megacorp lobbyists -> megacorp lawyers -> FDA affiliates -> FDA -> special interests.
Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer ring a bell? Can't poison a well if there's no water in it.
>>371896
Propylene glycol is not (((generally recognized as safe))).
https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-about-propylene-glycol-in-foods
https://www.medicinenet.com/is_propylene_glycol_harmful_to_humans/article.htm
https://draxe.com/nutrition/propylene-glycol/
It's strange that none of the governmental "health" sites fail to list much of the above. Here's an excerpt from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK598030/
2.2.1. Inhalation Exposure: "Information regarding health effects of propylene glycol following inhalation exposure is limited. No studies of health effects in humans were found. Studies in animals were few (Konradova et al. 1978; Robertson et al. 1947; Suber et al. 1989)." Isn't it STRANGE that all common research ends in 1989? That's a significant year.
2.2.1.1 Death: "No studies were located regarding death in humans following inhalation exposure to propylene glycol." Roberston et al. 1947 is brought up 3 times. Why not the two in 1978 and 1989?
2.2.1.2 "No studies were located regarding respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematological, musculoskeletal, hepatic, renal, endocrine, dermal, ocular, body weight, or metabolic effects in humans, or cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, dermal, ocular, or metabolic effects in animals after inhalation exposure to propylene glycol." tl;dr: suppress, deny, deflect, decry.
Respiratory effects: ((("inconclusive"))). All 3 studies are brought up, and tl;dr: 'studied effects WERE ONLY EVER TEMPORARY'.
Hematological effects: "Limited information was available on hematological effects of propylene glycol." Starting to see a pattern here?
Hepatic effects: The results from animal studies show that there are no adverse hepatic effects in rats after intermediate inhalation exposure to 707 ppm of propylene glycol (Suber et al. 1989)." Oh, that's a pattern all right.
Renal effects: "Intermediate inhalation exposure of rats to 707 ppm propylene glycol did not cause adverse renal effects (Suber et al. 1989), although kidney weight was reduced at 321 ppm in males and females." The next few paragraphs use the sand handwaves of 'studied effects WERE ONLY EVER TEMPORARY'. HRM.
2.2.1.3 Immunological and Lymphoreticular Effects: "No studies were located specifically regarding adverse immunological effects in humans or animals after inhalation exposure to propylene glycol."
2.2.1.4 Neorological Effects: "No studies were located regarding neurological effects in humans or animals after inhalation exposure to propylene glycol."
2.2.1.5 Reproduce Effects: "No studies were located regarding reproductive effects in humans after inhalation exposure to propylene glycol."
>95 of the GRAS list is banned in the EU & Japan. You know, places where there's still some actual food safety standards and concern remaining? So wouldn't it be a shock that a (((generally recognized as safe))) chemical ISN'T? After all, that could cost a megacorp's agents, affiliates, and lapdogs their cushy jobs in the FDA.
>>371914
>Do you seriously think any JewS corporation gives a fuck?
Considering how lax the FDAs rules are, it's more convenient for corporations to simply comply with them, because it's easier than being open to litigation. When they don't like the rules, they simply lobby to have them overwritten to please them, since they can do so easily. There's no real reason for them to break the law when they can so easily rewrite the laws.
>Do you seriously think any JewS corporation gives a fuck?
Considering how lax the FDAs rules are, it's more convenient for corporations to simply comply with them, because it's easier than being open to litigation. When they don't like the rules, they simply lobby to have them overwritten to please them, since they can do so easily. There's no real reason for them to break the law when they can so easily rewrite the laws.
>>371916
Most people completely miss the point that little damage is ever caused to megacorps or the FDA. Fines are always suspended long enough for lobbyist firms to 'change the law', making it easier to skirt or ignore regulations in the future.
If the above cycle wasn't a permanent in bed together situation, there wouldn't be continual erosion of basic fucking food safety standards.
Most people completely miss the point that little damage is ever caused to megacorps or the FDA. Fines are always suspended long enough for lobbyist firms to 'change the law', making it easier to skirt or ignore regulations in the future.
If the above cycle wasn't a permanent in bed together situation, there wouldn't be continual erosion of basic fucking food safety standards.
>>371925
a lot of the time the fines are less than the money they made doing the illegal thing, fines are pretty much just a business expense and don't really seem to deter companies from doing illegal stuff
a lot of the time the fines are less than the money they made doing the illegal thing, fines are pretty much just a business expense and don't really seem to deter companies from doing illegal stuff
Anonymous
No.371928
Anonymous
No.371933
>>371927
Precisely the root cause of the above troubles, which a certain fucktard isn't cognizant of. Not only that, lobbyists have allowed fines to become deductibles for megacorps, but when a little business gets hit with a 500 petroshekel fine one time, they don't get to claim that as a deduction? Fuck the entire system.
Precisely the root cause of the above troubles, which a certain fucktard isn't cognizant of. Not only that, lobbyists have allowed fines to become deductibles for megacorps, but when a little business gets hit with a 500 petroshekel fine one time, they don't get to claim that as a deduction? Fuck the entire system.
Anonymous
No.372460
>>371895
>>371896
Hey shitheel, got another one for you: "Apeel". FDA labeled it as a (((GRAS))) due to the use of "purified", IE: highly processed monoglycerides and diglycerides. Do you even know what those are commonly known as?
That's right: trans fats. AKA: transitional semi-synthetic fats caused by hydrogenation, which is the unnatural addition of hydrogen to molecules thereby creating a well known health hazard. Do you know a diabetic? Get them to stop eating and drinking EVERYTHING that is hydrogenated. By force if need be.
(((Bill Goyimgates))), not even his real name, gave that company a 100k petroshekel fund in 2012, then a 1mil petroshekel bonus in 2015. The Gates Foundation then helped that company circumvent the FDA using his lawyer-lobbyists to claim that the "0.66% citric acid" plus "99.34% (((OTHER INGREDIENTS))) were perfectly natural and safe [to consume]".
But guess what EU tests revealed: "slightly below individually hazardous amounts of arsenic, mercury, cadium, lead, palladium, ethyl acetate, and heptane were discovered... in trace amounts (single unit consumption)". Mind you, this is for ONE small apple, avocado, lime, or lemon.
The process of converting grape seed oil into said mono- and diglycerides adds those in, along with assuredly multiple unnamed toxic/mutagenic chemicals and elements.
How weird is it to see the same pattern over and over again! It's a real mystery, Scoob.
Go ahead. Keep consuming the (((GRAS))). Or, as a decent portion of EU biologists and chemists call them: Generally Recognized As Suicide.
>>371896
Hey shitheel, got another one for you: "Apeel". FDA labeled it as a (((GRAS))) due to the use of "purified", IE: highly processed monoglycerides and diglycerides. Do you even know what those are commonly known as?
That's right: trans fats. AKA: transitional semi-synthetic fats caused by hydrogenation, which is the unnatural addition of hydrogen to molecules thereby creating a well known health hazard. Do you know a diabetic? Get them to stop eating and drinking EVERYTHING that is hydrogenated. By force if need be.
(((Bill Goyimgates))), not even his real name, gave that company a 100k petroshekel fund in 2012, then a 1mil petroshekel bonus in 2015. The Gates Foundation then helped that company circumvent the FDA using his lawyer-lobbyists to claim that the "0.66% citric acid" plus "99.34% (((OTHER INGREDIENTS))) were perfectly natural and safe [to consume]".
But guess what EU tests revealed: "slightly below individually hazardous amounts of arsenic, mercury, cadium, lead, palladium, ethyl acetate, and heptane were discovered... in trace amounts (single unit consumption)". Mind you, this is for ONE small apple, avocado, lime, or lemon.
The process of converting grape seed oil into said mono- and diglycerides adds those in, along with assuredly multiple unnamed toxic/mutagenic chemicals and elements.
How weird is it to see the same pattern over and over again! It's a real mystery, Scoob.
Go ahead. Keep consuming the (((GRAS))). Or, as a decent portion of EU biologists and chemists call them: Generally Recognized As Suicide.
Anonymous
No.372462
>>371895
>>371896
https://www.nutritionwithjudy.com/meet-apeel
The WEF supported Apeel from its founding. OH GEE, I WONDER WHY THAT'S SUCH A BIG DEAL.
https://myhealthforward.com/blogs/my-health-forward-blog/apeel
That's a lot of chain stores which, for ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, stopped carrying most (((GRAS))). I mean, lawsuit, anyone?
https://www.fda.gov/media/135999/download
HRM.
https://www.evansvanodine.co.uk/assets/eng_apeel.pdf
Yep, that's a huge pattern.
https://organicinsider.com/newsletter/organipeel-apeel-controversy-key-takeaways-coating-fungicide-your-weekly-organic-insider/
-According to Orsi Dézsi, executive director and CEO of OMRI, “OMRI reviewed and approved Apeel’s Organipeel as a fungicide for post-harvest use, not as a fruit coating for use in further processing of organic products. OMRI reviews products for the uses indicated by the manufacturers, not for every conceivable use.
If an OMRI Listed® product is used in an application beyond those indicated in its OMRI listing, it could be out of USDA organic compliance.
When it comes to the post-harvest handling of produce, OMRI bases its policy on NOP 5023, a guidance document from the National Organic Program (NOP) that intends to clarify what is permitted based on the USDA organic regulations."
>>371896
https://www.nutritionwithjudy.com/meet-apeel
The WEF supported Apeel from its founding. OH GEE, I WONDER WHY THAT'S SUCH A BIG DEAL.
https://myhealthforward.com/blogs/my-health-forward-blog/apeel
That's a lot of chain stores which, for ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, stopped carrying most (((GRAS))). I mean, lawsuit, anyone?
https://www.fda.gov/media/135999/download
HRM.
https://www.evansvanodine.co.uk/assets/eng_apeel.pdf
Yep, that's a huge pattern.
https://organicinsider.com/newsletter/organipeel-apeel-controversy-key-takeaways-coating-fungicide-your-weekly-organic-insider/
-According to Orsi Dézsi, executive director and CEO of OMRI, “OMRI reviewed and approved Apeel’s Organipeel as a fungicide for post-harvest use, not as a fruit coating for use in further processing of organic products. OMRI reviews products for the uses indicated by the manufacturers, not for every conceivable use.
If an OMRI Listed® product is used in an application beyond those indicated in its OMRI listing, it could be out of USDA organic compliance.
When it comes to the post-harvest handling of produce, OMRI bases its policy on NOP 5023, a guidance document from the National Organic Program (NOP) that intends to clarify what is permitted based on the USDA organic regulations."
Anonymous
No.373206
File (): 68AF33C6D9F2C4ACE61D820F5A421634-54271.jpg (53.0 KB, 758x960, 4b7.jpg)
File (): 7B457AB1FCCFA0EAEE9CC67FB4E1A8DD-2475695.png (2.4 MB, 2000x2700, 6874111__explicit_artist-colon-gsuus_imported+from+twibooru_oc_oc-colon-aryanne_earth+pony_human_pony_abs_anatomically+correct_bed_belly+button_crotchboobs_dial.png)
File (): 9B73F758B373A0AA4FC09D2882110F79-545424.png (532.6 KB, 3151x2162, 6741994__explicit_artist-colon-randy_edit_editor-colon-strifesnout_oc_oc+only_oc-colon-aryanne_earth+pony_pony_anatomically+correct_anus_blushing_colored_dock_f.png)
Anonymous
No.373213
Has any non german tried to confirm if it''ss edible or not?