PEANUT BUTTER Insect filth
(AOAC 968.35) Average of 30 or more insect fragments per 100 grams
Rodent filth
(AOAC 968.35) Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams
Grit
(AOAC 968.35) Gritty taste and water insoluble inorganic residue is more than 25 mg per 100 grams
extra proteins is never badActually too much is but it's not the place to talk about it lolz
i said it was gross but "interesting" i mean where the hell do they pull these numbers out and stuff too like "oh man 3 rat hairs that's one too many for chocolate" or whatever the hell
i don't know how well the fda works, but i'm assuming it's a good organisation which does it's job judging by the replies so far.It's not that good of an organization. I'm not saying everything it does is bad...but it's had it's fair share of horrible things (Vioxx to name one).
yeah i thought you'd say something like that. if you want to post a couple of things they have done which are objectionable with some links showing evidence (that aren't 90 minute speech videos please) then i'd like to give em a skim.Well they approved the drug vioxx even though it was dangerous and so many people who were on it got health problems related to it such as strokes.
In Survey of Aspartame studies: correlation of outcome and funding sources, Ralph G. Walton, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine (NEOUCOM) [90], surveyed 166 studies of aspartame in peer reviewed medical literature. According to Walton's review, 74 studies had Nutrasweet industry related funding and 92 were independently funded. 100% of the industry funded research attested to aspartame's safety, whereas 92% (85 of 92) of the independently funded research identified a problem.[91]A lot of companies that fund things are funding research for THEIR product meaning they want money. They're not going to say Aspartame is bad if that is what they are selling. For example, Cardbury-Schweppes is known to invest money in diabetes research.
You get more chlorine in your system from jumping in a pool
well they will have some tests, experiments, calculations etc to determine at what point the risk of a food spreading disease and infection becomes unacceptable. i don't know how well the fda works, but i'm assuming it's a good organisation which does it's job judging by the replies so far.
so 3 rat hairs per 100 grams of chocolate for example might mean that there is potentially enough bacteria in 3 rat hairs for it to spread disease, but humans can tolerate the levels which would be on two or one.
i don't think the reasoning is like "three rat hairs? no way that's too gross", it will be more to do with science and numbers.