"The Shocking Ingredients In Beer"

I don't drink most of the crap shown here, but I've been known to enjoy a Guinness. Has anyone been able to find substantiated facts about there being HFCS in it? In other words, something found outside this terribly written article?

 

Do you eat popcorn? Gmo corn.

 

Well, that was a massively hyperbolic straw man statement of what I posted.

But thanks anyway and have a beer.

 

You said that just because the OHSA and EPA worry about a chemical (ethylene glycol) doesn't mean that you should. Ethylene glycol can give you a slow and excruciating death. That's not hyperbolic.

 

Ethylene glycol can give you a slow and excruciating death. That's not hyperbolic.[/quote]

Do you know in what quantities over what period of time it can give you a slow and excrutiating death? I don't so that's why I'm asking. Many of the things that are supposed to be bad for us have to be ingested in such large quantities over a long period of time and I was wondering if this is one of them or will a drop kill us?

 

yea not very shocking, but its still important to be mindful of what is being used or where ingredients are sourced.

If I like it I'm going to drink it, added bonus if they support local growers, use quality ingredients and are in it more then just to make a buck

 

For an adult, .5 oz of 50% ethylene glycol is toxic. Depending on your weight and the concentration anywhere from 1-7 oz can be lethal. I haven't looked into exposure over a period of time.

As far as I know it's only actually used in beer refrigeration systems, so you probably won't be exposed to it. It just annoys me when people talk about chemicals that will put you in the hospital/ground being harmless.

 

Your comment suggesting that if I don't ascribe to some of the overreaching alarmist positions taken by government bureaucrats, then I am OK with drinking toxic quantities of ethylene glycol is most certainly hyperbolic and a straw man argument.

Too much salt can give you a slow and excruciating death. Too much water can do the same.
And too much alcohol can do likewise. So why are you even drinking beer or posting on a beer website?

 

Thanx.

 

hahahaha ... great point

tilapia is good

 

Jesus, you actually thought I was using it as a source? What on earth is wrong with you? It's a manifestation of popular culture access to information that is commonly known. Propylene glycol is mildly toxic, but not in quantities that are permitted as food additive. Same goes for a lot of food colorings. There have been a number of criminal cases where people (usually a spouse or a greedy scion) were prosecuted for slowly poisoning relatives by putting antifreeze in their food. This is not an imagined problem. Let me put it does way--a fact used in a work of fiction does not in itself become fictitious.

 

I like the "GMO Rice?". Not sure? Don't put it in your article then!

 

It's another gelatin-like substance added for consistency.

Try Fage brand Greek yogurt. Their listed ingredients are:
Grade A Pasteurized Milk and Cream, Live Active Yogurt Cultures (L. Bulgaricus, S. Thermophilus, L. Acidophilus, Bifidus, L. Casei)

Only bad part is they use cow's milk. Goat milk makes much better tasting yogurt (and better tasting dairy in general).

 

GMO's do no harm to your body. There is no concrete scientific evidence that GMO's are harmful to us. The article should have just said "corn" and "corn syrup" without throwing that arbitrary GMO in front of it like it is evil.

 

this powdered plastic is also used in wine production. I wonder if the food writer has stumbled across this tidbit.

 

Most of that picture is garbage, without the captions.

 

So maybe not everything is completely accurate but doesnt she give a good argument to drink craft beer instead?

 

Haha I love it when threats are purposely misdirected to make them seem as though they aren't threats. GMO plants have been bred to be resistant to certain insecticides and herbicides. This way, as I understand it, we can spray the plants and the weeds and insects die, and we get better yields. Too bad that insects and weeds develop resistance, so the poisons we use no longer work. Hmm, maybe now we can breed another generation of even more unnatural plants and develop even stronger insecticides and herbicides. If we can. Monsanto is the big winner here. Not so much us, as I have heard it.

Trust me, if we can no longer grow enough food it might be harmful to us.

There are no long term studies done on GMO effects on the environment. Or on our bodies. It is possible that we are sowing (pun intended) the seeds of our doom. I may be wrong, but the key point is you cannot point to any long term studies, that prudence would dictate be done, to prove I am wrong. It is the "lets put rabbits in Australia and see what happens" method of product testing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia

 

Excuuuse me for using a word you disagreed with. Let me rephrase: "...using a fiction series on TV as a reliable reference for scientific information?" I know Homer Simpson said TV wouldn't lie to us however comma...

And speaking of accuracy in writing, your post certainly made it appear to me you were using the TV show as a source. Since I don't know you personally, putting a post on an internet website where you reference a TV show doesn't explain to me that you weren't considering it in that manner. Where did you indicate you were merely showing how it is common knowledge versus using it as an authoritative source?

Chill out and have a tasty beer, man. Nothing on earth is wrong with me, or you, for that matter.

 

see point 2 (and all of them for that matter)

http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/22/the-top-five-lies-about-biotech-crops/1