Pizza Hut Cheese is Silicone

Pizza Hut is nasty. I'm glad I don't eat there.

https://youranonnews.com/249-pizza-hut-cheese-is-what/item

Also, this must be why Pizza hut recently made a triple stuffed cheese pizza, i Kid you not. They just want to load you up on it.

I have heard that Velveeta has plastics in it too !

In this "modern era" you can never be sure WHAT the hell is in food you buy unless you make it yourself from scratch, the world is now about money and in order to maximize productivity/profit while keeping costs low companies are willing to put anything in their products that they can get away with.

Also most things you buy these days are made to LOOK good, that means using all kinds of additives that does god knows what to your body in the long run. If something's poisonous but has benefit to looks or whatever they'll get away with it by adding such a small amount like 0.01% that they know would be deemed to insignificant to pose a real threat should it come to light.

People should know this, and not complain when something like this happens.

I'm not surprised.

"Do you put dimethylpolysiloxane, an anti-foaming agent made of silicone, in your chicken dishes? How about tertiary butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), a chemical preservative so deadly just five grams can kill you?

These are just two of the ingredients in a McDonald's Chicken McNugget. Only 50 percent of a McNugget is actually chicken. The other half includes corn derivatives, sugars, leavening agents and completely synthetic ingredients."


Dr. Joseph Mercola

It is crazy the crap that is now in our foods, i have always wanted to grow my own fruit and veg and raise animals to eat in the future so i know where it all comes from when i have the land to do so as i can only grow a small amount at the moment and i think my neighbors would not like me having a cow in the garden .

I'm not surprised either. We might as well let corporations get away with murder at this point. They control and dictate much more of our lives than many people know, or want to admit. They do things like this by exploiting legal loopholes in a broken system and then we give them the same rights as individuals in the courtroom. This way of life will fall apart eventually when people start waking up.

edgecrusher said:

I'm not surprised either. We might as well let corporations get away with murder at this point. They control and dictate much more of our lives than many people know, or want to admit. They do things like this by exploiting legal loopholes in a broken system and then we give them the same rights as individuals in the courtroom. This way of life will fall apart eventually when people start waking up.

Click to expand...

Corporations are motivated by profit. If their customer's demand cheap food, then cheap food is what they get. What kind of blame can you put on a corporation for satisfying the demands of their customers? If you don't want silicone cheese then source a cheese that fits your demands. If a majority of the population did this then the company would have to change to meet the changing demands of their customers or fail. We all control what corporations do by controlling what we spend our money on.

Not only is that not right, that's not even wrong. It's a meaningless statement. Saying something is "one molecule away" from plastic is like saying a farm is one letter away from a fart. Water is "one molecule away" from being explosive hydrogen gas.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16785_7-retarded-food-myths-internet-thinks-are-true_p2.html

Dr. Strangelove said:

Corporations are motivated by profit. If their customer's demand cheap food, then cheap food is what they get. What kind of blame can you put on a corporation for satisfying the demands of their customers? If you don't want silicone cheese then source a cheese that fits your demands. If a majority of the population did this then the company would have to change to meet the changing demands of their customers or fail. We all control what corporations do by controlling what we spend our money on.

Click to expand...

That's why I said if people even know and that we need to wake up. Many do not because they just see something cheap and buy it without questioning what it is. Even if they do know what it is, many become complacent and just accept it in the face of what is becoming a broken system. On both sides account in some ways. However, corporations are in a position of power and make decisions that affect many. Considering that these corporations are just run by other people, other humans, that is negligence on their part. Knowingly putting something that is obviously not meant to be food...into food...isn't anything but that. Especially if they aren't telling people what they are doing. In fact, considering the position they are in I'd say they have more responsibility to display some sense and consideration for their fellow man and not feed them things like this. If the action has to be hidden or disguised, then it's not a good thing to be doing in the first place. It's ridiculous and the pursuit of money is not a justification. If we think it is, that means that we are even worse off as a species than we even know.

Walley said:

Not only is that not right, that's not even wrong. It's a meaningless statement. Saying something is "one molecule away" from plastic is like saying a farm is one letter away from a fart. Water is "one molecule away" from being explosive hydrogen gas.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16785_7-retarded-food-myths-internet-thinks-are-true_p2.html

Click to expand...

News like this is always exaggerated to hook readers in, another favorite is to word news titles in a way that's more serious than it is.

Walley said:

.... Saying something is "one molecule away" from plastic is like saying a farm is one letter away from a fart....

Click to expand...

I do not see that claim in the original article. Polydimethylsiloxane is a silicone, not something that is "one molecule away" from being one. As an inert nontoxic ingredient it could be said that too much is made of it being in a few different fast foods but it is in the silicone group, not "one molecule away" .

edgecrusher said:

Dr. Strangelove said:

Corporations are motivated by profit. If their customer's demand cheap food, then cheap food is what they get. What kind of blame can you put on a corporation for satisfying the demands of their customers? If you don't want silicone cheese then source a cheese that fits your demands. If a majority of the population did this then the company would have to change to meet the changing demands of their customers or fail. We all control what corporations do by controlling what we spend our money on.

Click to expand...

That's why I said if people even know and that we need to wake up. Many do not because they just see something cheap and buy it without questioning what it is. Even if they do know what it is, many become complacent and just accept it in the face of what is becoming a broken system. On both sides account in some ways. However, corporations are in a position of power and make decisions that affect many. Considering that these corporations are just run by other people, other humans, that is negligence on their part. Knowingly putting something that is obviously not meant to be food...into food...isn't anything but that. Especially if they aren't telling people what they are doing. In fact, considering the position they are in I'd say they have more responsibility to display some sense and consideration for their fellow man and not feed them things like this. If the action has to be hidden or disguised, then it's not a good thing to be doing in the first place. It's ridiculous and the pursuit of money is not a justification. If we think it is, that means that we are even worse off as a species than we even know.

Click to expand...

You say it's negligence on the corporations part but has anyone proven that this silicone is actually harmful in reasonable quantities? Sure the article loves to make people scared by claiming the silicone in question is used in numerous industrial applications but... so what? Water is used in food and industrial applications. So are oranges and fats and numerous other ingredients. To make the negligence claim you have to prove that the company knew what they were doing was harmful. Negligence doesn't mean they did something you disagree with. Furthermore, a monetary pursuit might not "justify" an action, it does, however, prevent the company from doing anything overly risky. A company would not add an ingredient to a food item that would cause any adverse effects the consumer wouldn't expect. (obviously a consumer knows the continual consumption of hamburgers will make them fat, but they wouldn't expect immediate food poisoning.) The cost of litigation completely outweighs the money saved by making the product cheaper. Not to mention the monetary disaster that comes from their company name becoming tainted.

Finally, many people buy things that are cheap and they do not know what is in it but do you want to be big brother and force them to buy a safer, but more expensive, alternative? What about personal choice and personal preference? What if somebody simply cannot afford a healthy alternative, or they simply choose not to? The best way is education, teach people about what they purchase. Try to convince them that something is better than something else but let them decide for themselves.

To give an example, I smoke. I know smoking is bad. Throughout my entire schooling all I ever heard was how bad smoking is. I've seen the research, I've seen actual lungs that are completely black due to a lifetime of smoking. I get it, but I choose to smoke anyway because I enjoy it. Would I ever in a million years decide to blame the tobacco companies for providing a product that produces cancer? Blame them for producing a product that might ultimately kill me? No. It was my choice to smoke.

Dr. Strangelove said:

... I get it, but I choose to smoke anyway because I enjoy it. Would I ever in a million years decide to blame the tobacco companies for providing a product that produces cancer? Blame them for producing a product that might ultimately kill me? No. It was my choice to smoke.

Click to expand...

I used to think that. To continuouly use a product that was widely known to be dangeous to your health and then to sue the tobacco companies when it proved to have a harmful effect on you, seemed kind of unreasonable to me. I have changed my opinion after former vice president of research and development at Brown & Williamson, Jeffrey S. Wigand released information about additives and a process for 'impact boosting' used by his former employer, which in effect made dangerous products even more of a health risk.

Minus said:

Dr. Strangelove said:

... I get it, but I choose to smoke anyway because I enjoy it. Would I ever in a million years decide to blame the tobacco companies for providing a product that produces cancer? Blame them for producing a product that might ultimately kill me? No. It was my choice to smoke.

Click to expand...

I used to think that. To continuouly use a product that was widely known to be dangeous to your health and then to sue the tobacco companies when it proved to have a harmful effect on you, seemed kind of unreasonable to me. I have changed my opinion after former vice president of research and development at Brown & Williamson, Jeffrey S. Wigand released information about additives and a process for 'impact boosting' used by his former employer, which in effect made dangerous products even more of a health risk.

Click to expand...

let's hope then that one day also fast food gets the warning label 'eating this pizza may kill you'

Dr. Strangelove said:

You say it's negligence on the corporations part but has anyone proven that this silicone is actually harmful in reasonable quantities? Sure the article loves to make people scared by claiming the silicone in question is used in numerous industrial applications but... so what? Water is used in food and industrial applications. So are oranges and fats and numerous other ingredients. To make the negligence claim you have to prove that the company knew what they were doing was harmful. Negligence doesn't mean they did something you disagree with. Furthermore, a monetary pursuit might not "justify" an action, it does, however, prevent the company from doing anything overly risky. A company would not add an ingredient to a food item that would cause any adverse effects the consumer wouldn't expect. (obviously a consumer knows the continual consumption of hamburgers will make them fat, but they wouldn't expect immediate food poisoning.) The cost of litigation completely outweighs the money saved by making the product cheaper. Not to mention the monetary disaster that comes from their company name becoming tainted.

Finally, many people buy things that are cheap and they do not know what is in it but do you want to be big brother and force them to buy a safer, but more expensive, alternative? What about personal choice and personal preference? What if somebody simply cannot afford a healthy alternative, or they simply choose not to? The best way is education, teach people about what they purchase. Try to convince them that something is better than something else but let them decide for themselves.

To give an example, I smoke. I know smoking is bad. Throughout my entire schooling all I ever heard was how bad smoking is. I've seen the research, I've seen actual lungs that are completely black due to a lifetime of smoking. I get it, but I choose to smoke anyway because I enjoy it. Would I ever in a million years decide to blame the tobacco companies for providing a product that produces cancer? Blame them for producing a product that might ultimately kill me? No. It was my choice to smoke.

Click to expand...

Of course with this situation it depends on if they know or not. For all we know the story could be exaggerated. Knowing the media in this country, it certainly is possible. I was only claiming my point on it being true. As more of a general sense for these types of scenarios. You see stories like this all the time which says that there are very likely to be some truths in there. I agree when it comes to smoking. There are warnings and the health concerns for it are widely known. If one chooses to do it anyway then that's fine. I would not take that away from them.

If people want to buy the cheaper less healthy and/or food with no real nutritional value that's fine. Like the cigarettes situation, I would not take that away from them. That is not the case with food however. There are no warning labels on any food and the ingredients are mostly listed in a way in which a vast majority of the general public doesn't know what they are reading. If a law were to be passed that required a sticker that said something to the effect of "contains genetically altered ingredients" on foods, people would be shocked at how many foods would get that sticker. The same goes for the claims of situations like this article and putting things that are not meant to be edible in foods as filler. It's just like the Taco Bell situation where their "beef" was claimed as being only like 36% actual beef. How can it be advertised as beef if it's not at least 51% beef?

The way the food industry is now when it comes to stuff like this is deceptive. That's all I'm saying. It's basically like saying that leaving out information or not explaining it in layman's terms isn't the same as lying. For all intents and purposes it still is lying. And they do it because they can get away with it due to the way the legal system can be easily exploited when it comes to things like this. And this is how it is with many corporations right now and why I say they dictate more about our lives than they should. In that sense, I think there is a level of negligence on their part. The problem is, they don't care because they are making money. I'll even say that I doubt many of the people in the top levels of these corporations actually eat what they release to the general public because of things like this.

I think there are just a lot of armchair-chemists that hear the word "silicone" and think it is simply bath tub caulking.
if that were the case then why did the FDA approve it finally in 1998, 5 years after the initial application and after intense scrutiny and testing? (here comes the anti-government explanations..)
this argument comes up every couple of years, just like the debate about whether Fluoride in drinking water is killing us, even though no negative effects have ever been observed or proven. there is a case going on right now again in my area where a guy is suing the region for putting it in the water and he wants them to pay for a filtration system he installed to remove it. meanwhile expert after expert says that he doesn't know what he is talking about and for 40years they have been studying it and found nothing wrong with, only benefits.

not to say that all this fast food isn't crap and bad for you and maybe killing us all slowly...

Maybe the occasional food additive that gets banned, sometime for an unproven reason, causes people to be leery in general of some of the chemicals in highly processed foods.

edgecrusher said:

If people want to buy the cheaper less healthy and/or food with no real nutritional value that's fine. Like the cigarettes situation, I would not take that away from them. That is not the case with food however. There are no warning labels on any food and the ingredients are mostly listed in a way in which a vast majority of the general public doesn't know what they are reading. If a law were to be passed that required a sticker that said something to the effect of "contains genetically altered ingredients" on foods, people would be shocked at how many foods would get that sticker. The same goes for the claims of situations like this article and putting things that are not meant to be edible in foods as filler. It's just like the Taco Bell situation where their "beef" was claimed as being only like 36% actual beef. How can it be advertised as beef if it's not at least 51% beef?

Click to expand...

But at what point does personal responsibility come into play? Everybody knows that the best foods to eat are unprocessed. Shouldn't a person realize that they shouldn't eat something when they go to read the ingredients and they don't know what any of it is?

I'm apprehensive about putting more government required labels on items because all that does is create a bigger bureaucracy that can, and will, be exploited by corporate lobbyist. Much in the same way you argue that corporations take advantage of the legal system, corporations will take advantage of this. For example, a company might lobby to only require GM food labels on items that contain GM wheat, but not GM corn. Or perhaps an organic company will push for labels on food that has any kind of artificial coloring. Or further down the line an organic company might push to require any company to call a food item "organic" has to get the food certified by a third party (who is also lobbying) for a substantial fee. In the end the larger corporations will actually push for more regulation because it prices the competition out of the market. Corporations love the government and the power that comes with it.

I don't think we will agree, so we can agree to disagree haha. I simply just say that government is never the answer.

Minus said:

Maybe the occasional food additive that gets banned, sometime for an unproven reason, causes people to be leery in general of some of the chemicals in highly processed foods.

Click to expand...

Yes, in fact it was just on the news the other day about how a particular additive is banned from Canada but why not here - some places are more strict than others.