Subway and the Yoga Mat chemical.

Subway to remove chemical from bread

The chemical/food additive that is being forced out is approved by the FDA for use here in the US and is used in Canada as well. It’s banned in Europe and other Countries for different reasons such as being a trigger for asthma, potentially:

So what’s your opinion? Do people go overboard on these type of things? From the comments I have read, people are pretty upset at Subway assuming that they have trying to serve them nothing more than Soylent Green the whole time.

My opinion is that while more chemicals are used than are probably needed, most people have a poor understanding that while one chemical can be used in one application, it can be used in another and that’s ok, it probably happens with a lot of things we have no idea about.

the other day i drank a glass of liquid that is used in taking the hair off of cow hide.

Not that I’d necessarily want to drink a pint of whatever the hell this is, but as a general rule, the “chemical also used in _______!” trope is sensational clickbait bullshit.

As I was going on about my newfound love for the Subway chicken enchilada sandwich (I’ve already had it three times this week), someone brought up the horrible chemical in the bread that was going to do…something…to me. I can’t get too disturbed about this kind of health hysteria. I eat a lot of Subway sandwiches, and so far I haven’t had an asthma attack or any other traceable health consequences. Besides, I’d be willing to risk some minor health impact for those chicken enchiladas.

Arsenic is a chemical, sodium hexafluoride is a chemical, water is a chemical, beef broth is chemicals, and strawberries are chemicals. If you want me to be upset, you need to do more then scream, CHEMICALS.

sage nod Dihydrogen monoxide is also responsible for countless drownings around the world every year!

Linked to allergies. Know a kid with allergies? That’s why.

OTOH, the food conglomerates are pretty casual about using whatever chemical enhances their profits. Look at almost any packaged food and you’ll find a dozen additives that serve no purpose except to extend shelf life and sales appeal.

If Subway can remove this additive, what was it doing there in the first place? Ensuring the bread could last three weeks instead of two? Yum.

First, the chemicals used are regulated. GRAS list.
Second, I don’t think you’d like shopping if the shelves are mostly empty or the product is already stale because it can’t spend even a few days from production to store.

If you read the OP, you’d know why.

Now expand the acronym, noting the equivocation.

I’m not raving about chemical-free food; I am noting that the food processors consider it worthwhile to trade potential health issues for vastly longer shelf life and food presentation qualities that enhance sales. If you choose to accept that Kraft and FritoLay’s profits are more important than genuinely healthy food,* bon appetit*.

Given that the different websites I’ve seen indicate that this is in most store bought breads and cereals, I believe that the health risk is low enough to assume that the dosage we are exposed to is safe.

The question of genuinely healthy food is another matter and, for the most part, as nothing to do with azodicarbonamide.

Nothing is safe for everyone. There’s always someone sensitive to something. Would you rather have an increase in food borne illness simply because nothing can be in transit for a few days without spoiling?

FritoLay, Kraft? Genuinely healthy foods? Snerk.

There is no such thing as chemical-free food. While there might be some concern about that particular chemical (I’m not saying yes or no on that question) I am quite amused that it somehow matters in the grand scheme of things that it is used in yoga mats. SO???!!!

What’s the argument here - that there’s no point in regulating food ingredients because all of them will affect someone?

Additives are very rarely about short-term spoilage. They’re about extending shelf life for years. More often, they are about increasing the “appeal” - retaining color or shape or consistency that has next to nothing to do with food safety and everything to do with outselling the other brand. At some point, it becomes more about improving profits than in any way improving the food value.

Are you aware that either of them, and several more besides, could fill a grocery store with nothing but their products without leaving a gap on any shelf? We’re not talking about potato chips and boxed mac’n’cheese… the conglomerates all produce thousands of products under hundreds of shelf brands.

Yeah, I’d like a lot of those to shed additives that promote sales and pad profits to the detriment of the (literal) consumer.

I’m of the hive mind here, it appears.

  1. I don’t give a shit if it’s used in yoga mats, that tells me nothing about whether it’s safe at the levels found in bread.

  2. That shit is in everything. I feel kind of bad that Subway is bearing the brunt, as they really are the most “healthful” of the fast food options, if you order with care. I’m surprised that the rest of the fast food places and supermarket breads aren’t being screeched about, too.

  3. If it doesn’t need to be in there, then take it out and be done with it. All things being equalish, I’d rather my food be food. Not because I’m scared of “chemicals,” but because my body (and yours) evolved to eat plants and animals, not petrochemicals. Could they be perfectly safe? Of course. But could they also be unsafe? Yeah, it’s possible. GRAS listed ingredients aren’t tested like medications are. They’re considered safe because no one’s noticed harm over many years of use, but not because anyone’s looked real hard for it.

I think it was Unca Cece who put it, “Being on the GRAS list doesn’t mean they’re harmless, just that they haven’t killed a conspicuous number of people.”

I’m also pretty sure there’s a list of items that have been de-GRASsed for good (discovered) reasons.

‘Chemical’ is a useless word for describing anything then.

Certainly when you talk about harmful substances in food it is.

By the way, is acetic acid a chemical? How about ascorbic acid? citric acid?

When it’s reduced to four-letter word in any discussion, it’s useless.

See also: “toxins,” “artificial,” “organic,” and “natural.” And with more caveats: “processed.” All of these words have meaningful definitions in specific fields, but when applied to food as “scare” or “health” indicators, are effectively meaningless.