Food Fraud

[diablopilot 2]

The "new" 59oz OJ cartons.....

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi J P,

Quote

The "new" 59oz OJ cartons.....

But do the gloves fit?

JerryBaumchen

[quack 0]

Quote

>The cap allows the gas to escape and the soda goes flat in three days after it's opened.

Uh, no. It goes flat because once the pressure is released and you remove some the remaining gas diffuses into the headspace and out of the soda.

Do this experiment. Get two liters of Coke. Cool them both to the same temperature. Open them both, then fill one to the very top. Close them both.

Then go back a week later and see which is still carbonated.

The headspace part is correct. But also, the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles lose gas volume through the plastic in a relatively short time. This is why, when filling them, the PET bottles are overcarbonated to a gas volume of around 4.5, so that they are received by the consumer at the same gas volume as a typical can of soda (around 3.6 gas volumes). Coca Cola/Pepsi/whomever tries to standardize, knowing that products may be left on the shelf, or opened repeatedly. So, a typical 2L bottle of soda will have a shelf-life of 9-13 weeks, while the equivalent product in an aluminum can will have a shelf-life of up to 52 weeks.

The cap seal is not the limiting factor in this case, even after being opened.

But you have to understand, mental illness is like cholesterol. There is the good kind and the bad. Without the good kind- less flavor to life. - Serge A. Storms

[quack 0]

My beef? I have many irritations because of how products are marketed, and outright fraud is a separate matter (e.g. horse meat being represented as beef).

One example of fooling the consumer comes from Bud Light. The Platinum brand is touted as the next wave of beer, and at 6.0% alcohol, seems more heavy than light. Here is an (older) article about the product. And here are the labeling rules in Canada regarding this type of product.

So, why is this allowed? Well, the brand is "Bud Light". While the name implies to the consumer that all beverages produced by this brand are 'light' by definition, the brand does not have an obligation to be 'light'. It is merely the name of the product. If Bud Light decided, in Canada at at least, that they were promoting a truly light beer, they would have to comply with the Food and Drug Regulations, and the product could not have more than the prescribed amount of alcohol. But there are always loopholes.

Slightly off topic, but when one sees an ad on the tele for a vehicle that states 'best in class', is the class that is described only applicable to that particular vehicle?

But you have to understand, mental illness is like cholesterol. There is the good kind and the bad. Without the good kind- less flavor to life. - Serge A. Storms

[Andy9o8 0]

I think it's fair to distinguish between food fraud and portion shrinkage. Shrinkage ain't fraud - outside the bedroom . Bogus labeling of fish is fraud. Horsemeat I'm guessing is possibly leaner and heart-healthier than beef; but ok, that's fraud.

Now those smaller cans of tuna these days. Not really enough to make 2 full sized sandwiches anymore. Bastards.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

I think it's fair to distinguish between food fraud and portion shrinkage. Shrinkage ain't fraud - outside the bedroom . Bogus labeling of fish is fraud. Horsemeat I'm guessing is possibly leaner and heart-healthier than beef; but ok, that's fraud.

Now those smaller cans of tuna these days. Not really enough to make 2 full sized sandwiches anymore. Bastards.

Forgot about that one. You're buying water!, if packed in water. And they even make a plastic squisher to remove the water as if you can't use the lid.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

>The cap allows the gas to escape and the soda goes flat in three days after it's opened.

Uh, no. It goes flat because once the pressure is released and you remove some the remaining gas diffuses into the headspace and out of the soda.

Do this experiment. Get two liters of Coke. Cool them both to the same temperature. Open them both, then fill one to the very top. Close them both.

Then go back a week later and see which is still carbonated.

The headspace part is correct. But also, the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles lose gas volume through the plastic in a relatively short time. This is why, when filling them, the PET bottles are overcarbonated to a gas volume of around 4.5, so that they are received by the consumer at the same gas volume as a typical can of soda (around 3.6 gas volumes). Coca Cola/Pepsi/whomever tries to standardize, knowing that products may be left on the shelf, or opened repeatedly. So, a typical 2L bottle of soda will have a shelf-life of 9-13 weeks, while the equivalent product in an aluminum can will have a shelf-life of up to 52 weeks.

The cap seal is not the limiting factor in this case, even after being opened.

Look at the serations in the threads. It will hold pressure when manufactured. But no matter if the cap is reapplied very tight, the soda will loose remaining pressure, very slowly over time.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

I think it's fair to distinguish between food fraud and portion shrinkage. Shrinkage ain't fraud - outside the bedroom . Bogus labeling of fish is fraud. Horsemeat I'm guessing is possibly leaner and heart-healthier than beef; but ok, that's fraud.

Now those smaller cans of tuna these days. Not really enough to make 2 full sized sandwiches anymore. Bastards.

Forgot about that one. You're buying water!, if packed in water. And they even make a plastic squisher to remove the water as if you can't use the lid.

But not applicable to a 11oz can of coffee, right? (See posts 3 and 4, this thread).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quack 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>The cap allows the gas to escape and the soda goes flat in three days after it's opened.

Uh, no. It goes flat because once the pressure is released and you remove some the remaining gas diffuses into the headspace and out of the soda.

Do this experiment. Get two liters of Coke. Cool them both to the same temperature. Open them both, then fill one to the very top. Close them both.

Then go back a week later and see which is still carbonated.

The headspace part is correct. But also, the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles lose gas volume through the plastic in a relatively short time. This is why, when filling them, the PET bottles are overcarbonated to a gas volume of around 4.5, so that they are received by the consumer at the same gas volume as a typical can of soda (around 3.6 gas volumes). Coca Cola/Pepsi/whomever tries to standardize, knowing that products may be left on the shelf, or opened repeatedly. So, a typical 2L bottle of soda will have a shelf-life of 9-13 weeks, while the equivalent product in an aluminum can will have a shelf-life of up to 52 weeks.

The cap seal is not the limiting factor in this case, even after being opened.

Look at the serations in the threads. It will hold pressure when manufactured. But no matter if the cap is reapplied very tight, the soda will loose remaining pressure, very slowly over time.

You are correct. It is a conspiracy by the soda manufacturers to lure you into buying more of their product. Recent, non-peer reviewed studies have clearly indicated the sugar and caffeine are not addictive enough to make people want more, and so the packaging has been cleverly designed to slowly fail before the laws of equilibrium have a chance to work.

But you have to understand, mental illness is like cholesterol. There is the good kind and the bad. Without the good kind- less flavor to life. - Serge A. Storms

[billvon 2,400]

> But also, the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles lose gas volume through the
>plastic in a relatively short time. This is why, when filling them, the PET bottles are
>overcarbonated to a gas volume of around 4.5 . . . .

> So, a typical 2L bottle of soda will have a shelf-life of 9-13 weeks,

At 13 weeks a cheap 1L PET bottle that started out at 4.5 volumes would be down around 3.8 volumes. 3 volumes is generally considered well carbonated, and you'd hit that around 35 weeks. Below 2 volumes is generally considered somewhat flat, which you'd hit in about a year.

A 2L bottle, having more volume to less surface area, would do better.

(Reference: Passive Barrier Assessment of PET Bottles, Mauro Profaizer. excerpt from the Proceedings of the COMSOL Multiphysics User's Conference 2005 Stockholm)

>The cap seal is not the limiting factor in this case, even after being opened.

Agreed.

[billvon 2,400]

>Look at the serations in the threads. It will hold pressure when manufactured. But no
>matter if the cap is reapplied very tight, the soda will loose remaining pressure, very
>slowly over time.

The serrations have nothing to do with the seal. The only thing that seals is the lip of the bottle against the sealing disk in the cap. The threads serve only to provide mechanical force to hold the seal against the lip.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>The cap allows the gas to escape and the soda goes flat in three days after it's opened.

Uh, no. It goes flat because once the pressure is released and you remove some the remaining gas diffuses into the headspace and out of the soda.

Do this experiment. Get two liters of Coke. Cool them both to the same temperature. Open them both, then fill one to the very top. Close them both.

Then go back a week later and see which is still carbonated.

The headspace part is correct. But also, the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles lose gas volume through the plastic in a relatively short time. This is why, when filling them, the PET bottles are overcarbonated to a gas volume of around 4.5, so that they are received by the consumer at the same gas volume as a typical can of soda (around 3.6 gas volumes). Coca Cola/Pepsi/whomever tries to standardize, knowing that products may be left on the shelf, or opened repeatedly. So, a typical 2L bottle of soda will have a shelf-life of 9-13 weeks, while the equivalent product in an aluminum can will have a shelf-life of up to 52 weeks.

The cap seal is not the limiting factor in this case, even after being opened.

Look at the serations in the threads. It will hold pressure when manufactured. But no matter if the cap is reapplied very tight, the soda will loose remaining pressure, very slowly over time.

You are correct. It is a conspiracy by the soda manufacturers to lure you into buying more of their product. Recent, non-peer reviewed studies have clearly indicated the sugar and caffeine are not addictive enough to make people want more, and so the packaging has been cleverly designed to slowly fail before the laws of equilibrium have a chance to work.

You are missing the point. Who likes drinking flat coke?

I venture to say: more coke is thrown out (from Liter bottles) than consumed due to this cap design.
OH HONEY, ITS FLAT, better buy some more coke! The liter bottles are fraud. Flat fraud.
Family bottle vs. Individual consumption packaging might be a consideration. Families might do well with liter bottles but might not be good for single person, unless of course they're drinking liters at a time.

[quack 0]

Quote

> But also, the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles lose gas volume through the
>plastic in a relatively short time. This is why, when filling them, the PET bottles are
>overcarbonated to a gas volume of around 4.5 . . . .

> So, a typical 2L bottle of soda will have a shelf-life of 9-13 weeks,

At 13 weeks a cheap 1L PET bottle that started out at 4.5 volumes would be down around 3.8 volumes. 3 volumes is generally considered well carbonated, and you'd hit that around 35 weeks. Below 2 volumes is generally considered somewhat flat, which you'd hit in about a year.

A 2L bottle, having more volume to less surface area, would do better.

(Reference: Passive Barrier Assessment of PET Bottles, Mauro Profaizer. excerpt from the Proceedings of the COMSOL Multiphysics User's Conference 2005 Stockholm)

>The cap seal is not the limiting factor in this case, even after being opened.

Agreed.

Ah, yes. Thanks for finding a reference (I am going from memory). I should have added that the 3.6 volume is the mid-range of the target for quality, based, in part, on consumer preferences. But that is subjective, so fizzy and not so fizzy will differ somewhat depending on the person.

But you have to understand, mental illness is like cholesterol. There is the good kind and the bad. Without the good kind- less flavor to life. - Serge A. Storms

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Passive Barrier Assessment of PET Bottles, Mauro Profaizer. excerpt from the Proceedings of the COMSOL Multiphysics User's Conference 2005 Stockholm

...which every educated consumer should have on his bookshelf at home.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Look at the serations in the threads. It will hold pressure when manufactured. But no matter if the cap is reapplied very tight, the soda will loose remaining pressure, very slowly over time.

You are correct. It is a conspiracy by the soda manufacturers to lure you into buying more of their product. Recent, non-peer reviewed studies have clearly indicated ....

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's nothing. I hope you don't think that the seafood you're eating is actually the name listed on the menu. Google it or check out yesterday's USA Today for a starting point. Tilapia is regularly passed off as red snapper.

You're right. Tilapia instead of Snapper in a restaurant is much worse than the idea that pretty much everyone in Europe who buys processed meat has been eating ex-carthorses from dodgy Romanian abattoirs.

What makes subbing horse for cow so much worse than one fish for another?

Projecting much?

Read it again, I never said meat substitution was worse than fish, but you said that meat substitution was nothing compared to fish substitution.

So let's fire your own question right back at you: Why do you feel that the complete breakdown of traceability, accountability and regulatory standards in the meat supply is so much less important than in the fish supply? Justify yourself, biatch.


(Or should I say Aquaman?)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[champu 1]

Well... what is the going rate for ground beef vs ground horse? Contrast that with the market price for red snapper vs tilapia.

What's that? They don't sell ground horse at your butcher? Well then you're getting a priceless meat at common ground beef prices! You should be thanking them you ungrateful bastard!

Seriously though, it's apples to oranges but in the grand scheme of things I would actually consider not being able to keep track of what meat went where much worse than intentionally ripping off people who don't know what fish they're eating anyway.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Well... what is the going rate for ground beef vs ground horse? Contrast that with the market price for red snapper vs tilapia.

I don't know whey they don't just send it all to places where eating horse is considered normal. France comes to mind. In France, specialized butcher shops (boucheries chevalines) sell horse meat, as ordinary butcher shops have been for a long time forbidden to deal in it. However, since the 1990s, it can be found in supermarket butcher shops and others.

Italy too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Seriously though, it's apples to oranges but in the grand scheme of things I would actually consider not being able to keep track of what meat went where much worse than intentionally ripping off people who don't know what fish they're eating anyway.

Exactly. Horse meat is one thing, but when the company selling it didn't know it was horse, the company packaging it didn't know it was horse, the company cooking it didn't know it was horse, the company buying the ingredients didn't know it was horse etc. etc. until you finally get to the point where the only people who knew it was horse meat were the bloke who took it to the abattoir and the bloke that put a nail in it's skull then the entire system has failed. What diseases was it tested for? What vaccinations did it have? What drugs was it fed? What else was in it? No-one knows. Eating Shergar isn't the problem, that's the problem.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Kennedy 0]

I think quality, care, health, and treatment of the animals before reaching a butcher means no respectable butcher would touch them, let alone sell them. Hence the shady deals and intentional fraud.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

they would have to comply with the Food and Drug Regulations, and the product could not have more than the prescribed amount of alcohol.

You know the "light" in Bud Light refers to calories, right?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 2,400]

> If Bud Light decided, in Canada at at least, that they were promoting a truly light
>beer, they would have to comply with the Food and Drug Regulations, and the product
>could not have more than the prescribed amount of alcohol.

For years Texas had an equally asinine law. "Beer" was legally defined as a beverage below 5% percent alcohol in Texas; "ale" was legally defined as having more than 5% ABV. (In reality, "ale" is any beer made with a top fermenting yeast; "lager" is any beer made with a bottom fermenting yeast.)

As a result some companies would relabel their beers and call them something like "Sculpin India Pale 'Beer in Texas.' " Most smaller breweries just plain stopped selling in Texas. It wasn't until 2011 that that law was voided.

A far better law (that many states have adopted) would just require breweries to report the ABV of their beers on the label.

[quack 0]

Quote

Quote

they would have to comply with the Food and Drug Regulations, and the product could not have more than the prescribed amount of alcohol.

You know the "light" in Bud Light refers to calories, right?

From the link I provided earlier:

10.2.1 Beer

Common names are also prescribed by means of labelling regulations. Section B.02.132 establishes mandatory common names or qualified common names as outlined below for various standardized beer products based upon alcohol content.

Item Percentage of Alcohol by Volume Qualified Common Name or Common Name Required on the Label or in any Advertisement
1. 1.1 to 2.5 Extra Light Beer, Extra Light Ale, Extra Light Stout, Extra Light Porter
2. 2.6 to 4.0 Light Beer, Light Ale, Light Stout, Light Porter
3. 4.1 to 5.5 Beer, Ale, Stout, Porter
4. 5.6 to 8.5 Strong Beer, Strong Ale, Strong Stout, Strong Porter, Malt Liqueur
5. 8.6 or more Extra Strong Beer, Extra Strong Ale, Extra Strong Stout, Extra Strong Porter, Strong Malt Liqueur


Albeit, these are Canadian regulations. But it is still misleading; the higher the alcohol content the higher the higher the caloric content, all other things being equal.

(This, below, is from Wiki, since I have troubles with making the markup work well)

Bud Light
Introduced in 1982 as Budweiser Light, Budweiser's flagship light beer with 4.2% AV and 110 calories per 12 US fl oz (355 mL) serving (1,300 kJ/L).
[edit]Bud Light Platinum
A slightly sweeter, higher alcohol version of Bud Light launched in early 2012, with 6% ABV. This product is noted for being packaged in a new translucent blue glass bottle. Bud Light Platinum has 137 calories per 12 ounce serving, 8 fewer than a regular Budweiser.

That isn't very 'light' even if you define by overall calories alone.

But you have to understand, mental illness is like cholesterol. There is the good kind and the bad. Without the good kind- less flavor to life. - Serge A. Storms

[billvon 2,400]

Interesting. Let's compare this to the BJCP (beer judge certification program) style guidelines. These are the standards that brewers brew to, since it is how they are judged at any organized competition.

>1.1 to 2.5 Extra Light Beer, Extra Light Ale, Extra Light Stout, Extra Light Porter

The term "extra" presents a problem since "extra" is its own style - extra/extra special/strong bitter and English pale ale. Alcohol contents range from 4 to 6.2%.

However I assume that if it doesn't say "extra light" it doesn't fall under these guidelines.

>2. 2.6 to 4.0 Light Beer, Light Ale, Light Stout, Light Porter

This would cover light hybrid beer (cream ale, blonde, kolsch, American wheat) and light lager (dortmunder, Munich helles, light American lager, premium American lager etc) Alcohol ranges from 3.2% to 6%.

>3. 4.1 to 5.5 Beer, Ale, Stout, Porter

These obviously are all over the map, with those terms covering all but the lager categories in the BJCP.

>4. 5.6 to 8.5 Strong Beer, Strong Ale, Strong Stout, Strong Porter, Malt Liqueur

These would include strong Scotch ale, Belgian strong ales, and the separate category of strong ales (category 19.) These range from 6 to 14%.

>5. 8.6 or more Extra Strong Beer, Extra Strong Ale, Extra Strong Stout, Extra Strong
>Porter, Strong Malt Liqueur

There is a specific category called extra special/strong bitter that would probably fall under this category but ABV's range from 4.6% to 6.2%

If those are just general categories used for accounting purposes great. But if they are required labels you'd end up with beers called "strong bitter strong beer" or "extra light lite beer" or even "strong lager light lager."

[wmw999 2,121]

Ya know, I think some folks might be parsing vocabulary differences that only make a difference to real aficionados.

Kind of like skydiving news stories, assault weapons and clips

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)