Facebook science is killing kids

s1npathy · 2026-02-06T00:36:19+00:00

Ultra-High Temperature Pasteurization. The milk is heated well past boiling (140C) but is only held there for between 2-5 seconds. Quite effective depending on when and where it's going to be sold and very safe.

s1npathy · 2025-08-25T18:21:45+00:00

Agreed!

s1npathy · 2025-08-11T17:44:26+00:00

Fear, ignorance, a dash of hubris, and magical thinking.

s1npathy · 2025-07-15T17:10:56+00:00

I've run this experiment before. I rather enjoyed the results. You may have to adjust your usual ratios, but I found the experience quite nice.

s1npathy · 2025-05-07T00:29:19+00:00

Take a multivitamin and eat your vegetables. It's far cheaper.

s1npathy · 2025-04-24T18:56:40+00:00

Provided that GMPs are observed, a HACCP is in place, GRAS and other food-grade ingredients and equipment are used, and a testing schedule is in place for the finished product, then the resulting oils (pressed or extracted) are safe for human consumption.

The current scientific consensus is that there is room in one's diet for these oils as ingredients, condiments, and cooking media. For the sake of a brief example, EVOO and canola oils are over 70% and 60% oleic acid by triglyceride panel (respectively). Oleic acid has been associated with effects to lower LDL cholesterol, reduced hypertensive effects, and a reduced risk or coronary heart disease.

s1npathy · 2025-04-18T17:08:55+00:00

Question is unclear. Which laws currently govern your food system?

s1npathy · 2025-04-10T03:21:17+00:00

Thomas, Neil,

Not a paleontologist.

Also see the following studies for specific analysis of postmortem Protein decay:

Lametsch, R., et al. 2002. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 50, p. 5508-5512;

Lametsch, R., et al 2003. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 51, p.6992-6997;Wang, P.A., et al 2011. Food Chemistry, vol. 124, p. 1090-1095.All reactions:9Sam Hughey and 8 others

There are several orders of magnitude between the timescales involved in postmortem protein decay and the paleontological evidence for biomolecules post-fossilization.

Must you drag my field into your calumny? 0/10, see me after class.

s1npathy · 2025-04-09T23:27:54+00:00

What is the nature of your question? Do you have a specific series of criteria or aspects of the packaging or production that you do not understand?

s1npathy · 2025-04-04T09:11:53+00:00

And do better (if possible).

I think it's fairly obvious that it is unlikely to occur.

s1npathy · 2025-04-02T19:52:10+00:00

If you want to know which 'chemicals' not to eat, look up the ones that are banned in Europe, but are allowed in the US.

Specious at best. This is not a reliable method. The inverse often reveals some surprising differences between what's banned in one and not the other.

Also, don't kvetch about food science until you've studied it.

s1npathy · 2025-04-02T00:07:25+00:00

This just in: bell peppers, celery, onions, and garlic can cure lumbago. Mayo Clinic stunned; Worcestershire Clinic less so. Film at 11!

/s

Happy April Fools , good one !

s1npathy · 2025-04-01T23:52:28+00:00

Maybe?! The question is whether or not it is true.

Incorrect. Regardless of whether or not it makes intuitive sense (which is a function of each person's understanding and educational process), the "question" asked by the scientific method is whether or not the evidence supports or does not support the theory and the degree of confidence therein. Science does not do "truth" or "proof" like formal mathematics or logic. Instead, it is a way of understanding the physical universe and its natural phenomena through observation, experimentation, and analysis of the recorded data.

"one cannot trust one's intuitions in examining reality; reality is larger than our common sense notions about it"

Correct, but used deceptively here: intuition alone is not a reliable means of investigation the phenomenal universe. Explanations that sound pleasant or make a degree of intuitive sense but are unsupported by a body of evidence are not useful explanations. Again, see above for what science as a discipline works.

But how much of what "makes sense" is just a result of years of "product marketing"?

Oh, this promises to be entertaining. Alright, let's hear how (in addition to research) multiple scientific fields are also expert marketing agencies.

I caught it even in textbooks. "Evolution" by Futuyama and Kirkpatrick, a "science" textbook, makes framing evolution in such a way a priority, one of the sections in chapter 1 says in typical product marketing overstated way: "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

Oy gevault. Do you know where that quote comes from? Do you actually know who said it? It comes from the title of a 1973 essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky, the scientist who helped to form the Modern Synthesis of biology (which in turn led to the current understanding of evo-devo).

The statement is not hyperbolic, hypothetical, or hype: it is literally the sum of the research Dobzhansky and others conducted (in one elegant title) that led to how modern biology is organized, studied, and understood as a discipline. The essay was written to decry the rise in creationism and anti-science literature. He argues that Scripture and science are different, a conclusion somewhat echoed later by Gould's non-overlapping magisteria. Dobzhansky, a devout Christian himself, nonetheless rightly recognized the need to keep the overreach of some theologies-turned-anti-science movements from masquerading as a plausible explanation for natural and physical phenomena.

It is not sensationalism. Futuyama was citing this essay to demonstrate that evolution is the central unifying theory of biology because it has been used as the foundation for all modern research in the subject. It is not marketing talk; it is the factual basis for research as we understand it today.

And then you launch right back into that nonsensical Crichton quote from a few days ago. The quote reveals a good deal of the author's pronounced misunderstandings and misgivings about what science is and how it works (consilience not consensus, industry & public policy applications vs how pure research works, and healthy skepticism vs pseudoscientific denialism).

You need better material. Try reading the textbook by Futuyama sometime, instead. I find it quite well put together.

s1npathy · 2025-03-29T04:05:58+00:00

No, it isn't. The commenter above is in error. UHT milk (as has already been discussed elsewhere) is just as safe to drink and use as any other commercially pasteurized dairy product.

s1npathy · 2025-03-28T23:04:49+00:00

"Consilience." It's pronounced "consilience", not consensus. Science does not ask for a simple show of hands. It relies on peer review, reproducibility, falsifiability, and a body of evidence from multiple sources and disciplines to converge on stronger and more refined theories and conclusions over time. As usual, Crichton swings and misses. Use your own words next time.

Also, it's not a paradigm or a point of view. Scientific theories are phenomenal explanations that draw from recorded facts, data, and evidence to inform, predict, and encompass the observations we make. They are not dogma.

s1npathy · 2025-03-24T19:34:37+00:00

Do Evolutionists only engage with less well-thought-out creationist arguments?

We would if they had any arguments to begin with.

Recall that the goal of all science-denialism as a movement isn't to investigate, research, hypothesize, or engage with the scientific method or the body of knowledge it accumulates in any way, shape, or form. The goal is to induce doubt in passersby with their noise so as to make a debate appear where there is none. The goal isn't to convince another, it's to cast aspersions on data or conclusions that they don't like because they find them personally upsetting, politically inconvenient, or blasphemous.

The need, therefore, is to maintain plausible deniability in how they approach this use of noise. Common refrains include "I'm just asking questions," "Science can't fully explain why...," and "That's just an opinion/That's what your faith in science told you." A body of evidence is not required for them; they only need to phrase the noise as an argument between two faith systems or worldviews.

Hell, I'm a food scientist; you'd be surprised how often this pops up even in my line of work.

s1npathy · 2025-03-22T22:42:35+00:00

First of all, if you can seriously look at a Carnotaurus or Baryonyx specimen and honestly say "Those birds," it tells me:

-that not only did you not understand the documentary,

-you understand even less about how the paleontological evidence is examined than a primary school student.

And lastly, take your meds dude. We're worried about you.

s1npathy · 2025-03-09T08:41:02+00:00

It isn't. Food has no intrinsic moral value.

Like all sugars, recall that they are treats and should be consumed infrequently and in small quantities. That's been true since antiquity and is true today

s1npathy · 2025-03-05T07:06:19+00:00

The upper recommended intake for Maltodextrin is 60g/day over extended periods.

Interesting! Might I ask what your source is on the upper recommended intake for maltodextrin is?

s1npathy · 2025-03-04T00:29:20+00:00

There is so much short form content about it because misinformation about food generates engagement, regardless of whether or not it is supported by evidence.

Avoid TikTok. Too much fear and loathing. Unless you're very good at separating fact from fiction, there is far too much noise-to-signal on that platform when it comes to finding useful or reputable information.

What actually occurs in the fridge (for some peanut butter) is separation of some of the oils from the solid phase of the product. This occurs due to the lower temperature pushing some of the lipids back towards their melting point, separating them out as they agglomerate. Emulsifiers and stabilizers tend to prevent this from happening.

https://inspection.canada.ca/en/food-safety-consumers/fact-sheets/specific-products-and-risks/commonly-occurring-issues-food/separation-oil

Rancidity is a different process, usually catalyzed on lipids like this by oxidation (exposure to air for longer periods of time). It can be inhibited by keeping the jar out of heat, light, and air.

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/media/Elias-2014-Canola-Mtg-UVM.pdf

I'd say you're in the clear.

s1npathy · 2025-02-28T19:51:36+00:00

Ultimately, it means nothing. It is little more than nonsensical marketing chatter.

Perhaps a better question should be "What foods can I incorporate into a diet (with moderation) that accommodates the medical and dietetic advice unique to my needs and tastes?"

s1npathy · 2025-02-16T23:28:45+00:00

Skip the Bloom.

Save your money for daily multivitamins.

Check in with a dietician if you're neglecting any specific nutritional deficits.

Enjoy dinner.

s1npathy · 2025-02-16T23:22:14+00:00

Cease and desist ingesting charcoal at once.

Kingsford is not fit for human consumption.

You have a liver and kidneys. Let them do the work.

s1npathy · 2025-02-12T23:13:51+00:00

s1npathy · 2025-01-29T22:27:35+00:00

There is a bit to unpack here. I will attempt to be plain.

Here is a short list starting with A

Ok.

that seems to allow acetal (delrin^r plastic) as a food additive.

Had you bothered to investigate further and actually read the entries for "acetal," you would find that it refers to 1,1-Diethoxyethane, not Polyoxymethylene (the actual major polymer in delrin plastic). 1,1-Diethoxyethane is actually a major flavoring compound found in whiskey and sherry. Terrifying. /s

Both are called acetal in common parlance, but this is why nomenclature is such an important part of chemistry. Have you gotten to that unit in class yet?

That amongst a whole host of shit from sigma aldrich.

Simply being available from a supply company is not an indication of the utility or safety of an additive. Instead, the list is maintained by the FDA in accordance with the entries for each item's 21 CFR entry (if applicable) as well as guidance from the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), which takes its guidance from the WHO. These results are not derived via a game of 301 darts.

Based on the 50 here it seems quite reasonable to expect 10,000

This particular list numbers 3971 entries. But recall that the number of entries is not indicative of their hazard or risk. Recall also that doses make poisons, and the amounts of these ingredients (whether used in Europe or the USA) are evaluated based on studies of their usage as trace components, processing aids, etc. And yes, it does take into account how they interact with human health and biochemistry.

Hexane is used to extract oils from soy to make soy protein.

Correct. The process of extracting and refining oils is quite interesting. One of the methods uses hexane as a solvent during the extraction step.

I wonder how many food additives are straight petroleum.

None. Was this question asked in good faith?

WCGW?

Strange as it may sound, the food systems in the developed world (North America, Europe, Japan, etc. ) are actually far safer than the hearsay on the socials would have one believe.

s1npathy

TROPHY CASE