Chef Forum banner

Food Transparency

2K views 32 replies 12 participants last post by  luc_h 
#1 ·
I am thinking of writing an article about Food Transparency... it is a very hotly debated trend these days in our industry.

I am curious to find out from other Chefs and Food Establishment owners there thoughts.

Is anyone interested in reading about it?
 
#3 · (Edited)
Im a  bit confused as to what you mean narrow it down.... food transparency is a rather broad subject which all goes together, from GMO's to food labeling, to how a few restaurants have already begun to post on their websites about their food sources.

Also how companies such as   Pepsi, Kraft, Kellogg’s, Coke and General Mills, Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical are spending millions of dollars in Colorado and Oregon to try and defeat the propositions that are going on the ballot about food labeling.

I feel that those of us as Chefs and restaurant industry professionals should be paying attention. I personally having an issue with these companies who are using GMO's claim that there is nothing harmful about it, but yet are spending all this money to stop it. For those who don't know about it, should be looking into it, as it can directly affect us.

Yes I do understand that it will cost companies extra money for the extra labeling, but it seems to me at least and in the reasearch I have conducted there is more to it than a a few cents for each label to spending tens of millions of dollars now.

Also the recent approval by the EPA (edited, I had put FDA) of Enlist Duo, an herbicide which has similar ingredients to Agent Orange, etc., etc.

I really started researching when I began to lose weight this past year, and I was amazed at some of the stuff that is either used to treat food, or is being put directly in it
 
#4 ·
Im interested. As long as it isn't completely one sided.

I had a conversation with my Dietician about labeling sugar. She said there is talk about de regulating labeling laws so they can call any sugar item just sugar, they think it will make labels easier to understand. I think it is dumbing down info. If its honey in a dressing I bought I certainly don't want it called " sugar" on the label.
 
#7 ·
Im interested. As long as it isn't completely one sided.

I had a conversation with my Dietician about labeling sugar. She said there is talk about de regulating labeling laws so they can call any sugar item just sugar, they think it will make labels easier to understand. I think it is dumbing down info. If its honey in a dressing I bought I certainly don't want it called " sugar" on the label.
That would go well with my girlfriend who is specifically intolerant to fructose.
 
#8 ·
Im interested. As long as it isn't completely one sided.

I had a conversation with my Dietician about labeling sugar. She said there is talk about de regulating labeling laws so they can call any sugar item just sugar, they think it will make labels easier to understand. I think it is dumbing down info. If its honey in a dressing I bought I certainly don't want it called " sugar" on the label.
True, but on the other hand it is difficult for some to know that there are many unecessary terms for sugar. Honey should be exempt, as should agave I think but the rest are purposefully deceptive
  • barley malt
  • beet sugar
  • brown sugar
  • buttered syrup
  • cane-juice crystals
  • cane sugar
  • caramel
  • carob syrup
  • corn syrup
  • corn syrup solids
  • date sugar
  • dextran
  • dextrose
  • diatase
  • diastatic malt
  • ethyl maltol
  • fructose
  • fruit juice
  • fruit juice concentrate
  • glucose
  • glucose solids
  • golden sugar
  • golden syrup
  • grape sugar
  • high-fructose corn syrup
  • honey
  • invert sugar
  • lactose
  • malt syrup
  • maltodextrin
  • maltose
  • mannitol
  • molasses
  • raw sugar
  • refiner's syrup
  • sorbitol
  • sorghum syrup
  • sucrose
  • sugar
  • turbinado sugar
  • yellow sugar
 
#9 ·
What is your point for all of this?  Why not go after the preservative and chemical end and the thickeners.
 
#10 ·
@ChefWD I am always interested in what another has to say about Food Transparency so go for it!! BIG subject though so I do agree with others as to narrow it down more OR write a series about it breaking it down to one subject a blog or chapter??

I use an 80/20 rule in my kitchens now and do VERY well for it (utilizing 80% local ingredients/ 20% non-local all transparent and direct sourced). I source all locally grown/farmed ingredients from farmers markets around our city and go directly to the farms to see how they farm and what seeds, fertilizer, etc they use so I know what to tell my customers. The farmers enjoy it, I enjoy it and the customers enjoy and eat it up! Took a lot of time and energy but the feedback and outcome is amazing.

People are waking up to the reality of 'food industry' so your article will help others see this. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/bounce.gif
 
#12 · (Edited)
True, but on the other hand it is difficult for some to know that there are many unecessary terms for sugar. Honey should be exempt, as should agave I think but the rest are purposefully deceptive
  • barley malt (could be deceptive)
  • beet sugar (has the term sugar in the name, not deceptive)
  • brown sugar (has the term sugar in the name, not deceptive)
  • buttered syrup (? don't know what that is but the term syrup in name not deceptive)
  • cane-juice crystals (deceptive)
  • cane sugar (has the term sugar so not deceptive)
  • caramel (could be deceptive)
  • carob syrup (term syrup in name not deceptive)
  • corn syrup (term syrup in name not deceptive)
  • corn syrup solids(term syrup in name not deceptive)
  • date sugar (has the term sugar not deceptive)
  • dextran (not deceptive)
  • dextrose (deceptive)
  • diatase (not a sugar it,s an enzyme)
  • diastatic malt (can be deceptive)
  • ethyl maltol (not a sugar but a flavour, aromatic chemical, taste like burnt sugar)
  • fructose (a sugar name, not deceptive)
  • fruit juice (is not from concentrate then a source of sugar but not deceptive)
  • fruit juice concentrate (can be deceptive but in beverage it is diluted to single strength juice)
  • glucose (a sugar name, not deceptive)
  • glucose solids (a sugar name, not deceptive)
  • golden sugar (has the term sugar not deceptive)
  • golden syrup (term syrup in name not deceptive)
  • grape sugar (has the term sugar not deceptive)
  • high-fructose corn syrup (term syrup in name not deceptive)
  • honey (is a sugar, can be deceptive because lacks the term syrup or sugar)
  • invert sugar (has the term sugar not deceptive)
  • lactose (a sugar name, not deceptive)
  • malt syrup (term syrup in name not deceptive)
  • maltodextrin (can be deceptive)
  • maltose (a sugar name, not deceptive)
  • mannitol (actual sugar alcohol name, not deceptive)
  • molasses (can be deceptive because lacks the term sugar or syrup)
  • raw sugar (has the term sugar not deceptive)
  • refiner's syrup (term syrup in name not deceptive)
  • sorbitol (actual sugar alcohol name, not deceptive)
  • sorghum syrup (term syrup in name not deceptive)
  • sucrose (a sugar name, not deceptive)
  • sugar (has the term sugar not deceptive)
  • turbinado sugar (has the term sugar not deceptive)
  • yellow sugar (has the term sugar not deceptive)
@Koukouvagia please understand that not all the terms you mentioned are misleading. Companies cannot call an ingredient something else then what it is. The rules are strick on ingredient declarations

Consumers should focus on nutritional labels to avoid being duped on sugars. The amount of sugars are clearly stated on the panel regardless of the source.

For a diabetic, sugars are sugars regardless if it's natural or not, in other words, honey is no better to a diabetic than juice concentrate, molasses or table sugar.

Luc H.
 
#16 ·
Great point TeamFat,

they actually tried multiple times to have it named corn sugar but it has been struck down by the FDA. At least the word syrup, indicative as a sugar sweetener, is included in the name hence not misleading.

Regulators should actually force the corn refiners to declare the enzymes they use in their process on the label. it would show how much of a frankenfood it actually is.

alpha-amylase,Glucoamylase and Xylose isomerase

but the refiners have convinced these chemicals are manufacturing aid and hence do not appear on the label.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup

This is what transparency (or lack thereof) means for me.

Luc H.
 
#17 ·
To be precise, alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are present in your saliva and intestinal secretions anyway. The only one not present in humans is the xylose isomerase, which is a microbial enzyme. Not that I like HFCS - I prefer my sugars to be raw with a more complex flavour profile, but those enzymes are hardly harmful.
 
#18 ·
Just to make sure we are on the same page: yes alpha and gluco amylase are in our bodies (both in the mouth and created in the pancreas), but the source used for corn syrup refining is most definitely not from human origin. It is all microbial.

Doesn't origin count within transparency?

the above was just an example of what is hidden/undeclared in ingredients as manufacturing aid.

The way you offhandedly justified how some ingredients are not harmful and not worth mentioning is exactly the train of thought manufacturers use to manipulate the regulators, the politicians and the consumer.

examples:

Transfat are naturally occuring in milk.  Why do we need to declare it in Hydrogenated vegetable oil? 

Why should we name unbleached flour unbleached when we should call white flour bleached instead (and name the chemicals)?

Our bodies are full of hormones, what's the controversy with giving hormones to cows, chickens, etc?

Why call milk ''organic'' when we should say that regular milk contains hormones and antibiotics from cows (herbivores) that eat animal protein (not from other bovine anymore, my goodness) and grains when their stomach has evolves to eat only grass?

Luc H.
 
#19 ·
@Luc_H this is a topic you are obviously passionate about but it does no use to argue with the people that visit the site, we're all serious cooks with a passion for good ingredients that we do out best to obtain. If only it was easy and affordable to buy the quality of foods I wish I could.

I've never heard of the term food transparency before.
 
#20 ·
Sorry if I seemed to have forcibly argued a bit to heavily my point. I acknowledged.

I will step back now from this post and let others give their opinion.

I'll finish by saying that FDA rules and regulations are actually very stringent in ingredient declarations yet there is still alot of wiggling room to obscure the ingredients behind industrial/commercial foods. I know since I am from that industry.

I agree with ChefWD that it's only a matter of time until the subject food transparency (ingredient declaration, sourcing, fare trade, organic, allergens declaration, calories) becomes a subject for food service industry to embrace or defend. I suspect it will start will strict ingredient control on allergens.

Thanks @Koukouvagia

Luc H.
 
#21 · (Edited)
Cane Juice Crystals = evaporated cane juice and is what sugar is before it gets refined.  It has more nutrients than sugar, fewer carbs per measure and tastes great.  I buy Bob's Red Mills organic evaporated cane juice.  Unlike refined sugar it has a shelf life.

I don't use a lot of sweeteners, but my go to are: cane crystals, honey, molasses, or dark brown sugar.  Strawberries macerated with cane crystals is a great topping, or mix with Greek yogurt and lemon zest for a dessert. 
 
#22 ·
Just to make sure we are on the same page: yes alpha and gluco amylase are in our bodies (both in the mouth and created in the pancreas), but the source used for corn syrup refining is most definitely not from human origin. It is all microbial.

Doesn't origin count within transparency?
Luc, don't get me wrong - I am completely on your side when it comes to labelling and transparency. However, we have to choose our battles - and in the grand scale of things, the use of microbial enzymes in food processing is a rather small problem when it comes to food in general and to HFCS in particular.
 
#24 ·
agreed,

my point was that even the simplest ingredient is not just that simple.

Luc H.
Speaking as a biochemist - *nothing* is simple when it comes to metabolism.... Anyone offering "simple" answers is selling snake oil.

I am just sticking with real, honest food. Got my local greengrocer, my local butcher, my local fishmonger, I raise my own chicken, rabbits and quails, grow some vegetables in the garden. I rarely ever visit a supermarket. As Koukouvagia said - around here, we are all passionate about our food, so you are somewhat preaching to the choir. No offense taken, though, we *are* on the same side.
 
#25 ·
No offense taken, though, we *are* on the same side.
We are absolutely on the same side!!

It is really unfortunate that today the foods and ingredients you have access to or discriminate from are not what the majority of consumers have access or knowledge of. Most consumers lack knowledge. In your perspective, food transparency is irrelevant because of your knowledge, background and way/choice of life. For the average consumer, there is only smoke and mirrors. My role in everyday life is to point at smoke and identify mirrors. That is what I was getting at and also to fuel the quest of @chefwd.

I, again, reiterate that my intention was not be aggressive towards anybody (@GeneMachine, @Koukouvagia or any other) or their point of view and regret if it appeared that way.

Oh and by the way.... I am also a biochemist, food chemist, industrial food formulator, food safety instructor, (occasional\contractual) food science teacher and foolishly trying to complete a master's degree in nutrition as my way to deal with my mid-life crisis (LOL!!)

Luc H.
 
#26 ·
Originally Posted by Luc_H

I, again, reiterate that my intention was not be aggressive towards anybody (@GeneMachine, @Koukouvagia or any other) or their point of view and regret if it appeared that way.

Oh and by the way.... I am also a biochemist, food chemist, industrial food formulator, food safety instructor, (occasional\contractual) food science teacher and foolishly trying to complete a master's degree in nutrition as my way to deal with my mid-life crisis (LOL!!)

Luc H.
No problem at all - yes, my point of view is most certainly coloured by my own experience and knowledge. But now we are opening a whole different can of worms - what help is it for the average consumer to see a label that says "xylose isomerase"? It's not just the labelling, we need a whole lot more of basic food education before it ever can make sense.

Never worked in the food area, by the way - my academic field was protein structure and dynamics, mostly by NMR. These days, I work in a patent law firm :p
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top