Why is isinglass supposedly a problem?

The "ewww" factor is a major part of many of these FUD issues IMO, including "pink slime" and even "gluten"... they just sound bad.

My advice to the OP is to quit reading anything published by the Food Babe, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, or any of the other pseudo-science fear mongers of their ilk.

 

I don't understand this. I drink 3 to 5 beers a week. Well below CDC standards for problem drinking for a male adult, and likely in the range where alcohol consumption improves my health (though red wine might be better). For me any non zero toxic risk from additives, etc exceeds dangers from alcohol (as long as I am careful about dui, etc, which I am ). Did OP state a muchance higher level of intake?

Note I have nothing to add on risks from particular additives.

 

While CSPI may be imperfect, based on my understanding, they are not at all in the same class as the Food Babe.

 

But you see the point that many in this thread (and the other two started by the OP) are trying to make is that there are known toxic effects from alcohol. The non-zero risk from acohol in the beer exceeds the non-zero risk from other known toxic substances that may be found in the beer. Alcohol is a toxin and dosage matters to toxicity. So if one is to worry about toxic effects derived from drinking beer it is the toxic effects of the alcohol that will do you in long before you've accumulated enough other toxic substances to matter (accepting that you are indeed careful about dui). If you want a non-zero toxic effect stop drinking alcohol, any alcohol, in any quantity greater than zero.

 

Th

That assumes A. There are no toxins present in beer that present a non zero risk at a lower level of beer onsunption than alcohol does. That may well be true, thanks to regulation,etc, but it is not ipso facto true because alcohol is a toxin at some dosage. B. That beer is the only source of exposure to a given toxin. I get almost no exposure to alcohol outside my beer consumption. However I do eat fish, so I have other exposure to mercury etc. In some areas there is atmospherical exposure to some toxins. It is therefore possible that I exceed a safe dose for some other toxin, even with an alcohol consumption in a range where the health impact of beer consumption is actually a net benefit.

 

A is not assumed. Alcohol is a known toxin and the level of toxicity found in beer is higher than the level of toxicity of other known toxins found in beer.

Yes, absolutely the total dosage from all sources should be taken into consideration.

The fact that beer may have health effects does not change the fact that the alcohol itself has toxic effects as well. It boils down to a cost-benefit analysis. Do the health benefits outweigh the toxic costs. A choice we all have to make on almost everything we do, eat, or drink.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if she did.
Fortunately, the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to not take her incoherent, nonsensical and wildly unsubstantiated rants very seriously.

 

No one is in the same class as that fraud, TBH. But WRT CSPI, the Center for Pseudo-science in the Special Interest would be a more accurate name, IMO. They trade in questionable claims, fearmongering, and lawsuits.

 

When the barley is being harvested for the vegan beer, do the combine harvesters ask the moles, voles, mice and insects to move kindly out of the way, or do they get swept up by the rolling many bladed death machines plowing through acres at a time?

 

Contrary to the myth of individualism, no one person, no matter what their field of expertise will know enough to avoid all potentially dangerous toxins they might come in contact with. If one were to try to avoid all toxins they ever read about, they would fail horribly, waste their time and money, probably distract themselves from other very real dangers, and drive themselves crazy in the process, as even @Zamnb has admitted. If one does not allow science to guide health choices they might well just spin a roulette wheel to make their choices; the outcome will be just as informed and much less headache.

The best way to avoid toxins is to simply follow the guidelines of the FDA, USDA, EPA, professionally licensed doctor(s)/pharmacists, etc., because these organizations use the best science, toxicology, and medical practices available to establish their regulations and recommendations. As imperfect as these organizations may be, the fact is they are the best we have and no individual will do better [no matter how much they read online ]. Furthermore, those of us living in developed places like the US, Canada, the EU, Australia, etc. should be grateful to have these organizations, regulations to defend the public health, and a robust legal system to hold people accountable when they jeopardize the public health. If these systems are not good enough for some people, then I suggest they try living in another country without our science-based regulations and robust legal system, like Russia, India, China, Ivory Coast.... Good luck!

So, go drink a beer, and let the scientists and medical professionals do their job.

 

More barley is used for animal feed than to brew beer, so if you're all-of-the-sudden a pro-mice and pro-insect activist, it would behoove you to stop eating cows.

 

Shouldn't be a problem for vegans!

 

I...didn't write the article.

AND...it is obviously tongue in cheek. And...your jimmies seem...mind-fumblingly rustled.

Lack of protein.

 

Never thought you wrote the article; all you did was link it without comment. Why do you care that I hate it so much?

 

You're almost putting me off my beer. Almost.....

 

Let's see, they have pushed for food labeling, they have pushed for less consumption of saturated fat, and for less consumption of sugary drinks. They have supported funding for the CDC. They sound pretty good to me. I do note they have been attacked by Cato, by Bob Barr, and by various industry groups, including the tobacco industry.