Not food, but the plastic containers food comes in. Big-plastic essentially created the recycling industry purely as a smokescreen, and everyone is still believing it. Barely any plastics actually get recycled, and it creates tons of pollution during production and disposal. And who knows if any chemicals seep into the food.

I used to feel bad when I had a plastic container of a type that my town didn't recycle. Then China stopped accepting a lot of our "recyclables", a move that put a lot more scrutiny on the industry and what really happens. Apparently paper is only a little better, especially since 2018. Glass & aluminum though are supposedly well utilized, though notable in that their raw materials already require-- and can sustain-- being molten down to liquids in a process that gets rid of the dirty bits we leave on them.

Aluminum is actually quite profitable to recycle. The aluminum smelting process uses a ton of electricity, re-melting is much cheaper.

Amazing statistics: 75% of all aluminium ever produced is still in use today.

https://aluminiumtoday.com/news/international-aluminium-inst...

That makes me disproportionately happy.

Really? Does this number account for aluminium foil too? In France it's long been said that this should be thrown with the non-recyclable. Is France an outlier in this regard? Does that mean aluminium foil is a negligible amount?

My guess is that aluminium foil is indeed negligible in the big picture. But of course, I don't really know how accurate the original statistic is, either, nor do I know the distribution of aluminium for different uses. I imagine a lot of the metal is to be found in aircraft, which are of course pretty long-lived objects.

Aluminium is one of the best recyclable materials very low losses and initial energy output is multiple times higher for pristine material than one in recycling.

I suppose copper and steel aren't too bad in that regard either.

Glass, at least in the UK, just seems to be broken into aggregate to be used in building roads:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1907207.stm

I believe they’ve given it the catchy name glassphalt

Really we know that chemicals absolutely do seep into the food... but we don’t know if they are harmful yet. All plastics shed & leech.

How could it be that all plastic leach and yet some plastics remain in nature for thousands of years before they decompose?

Plastics absorb and then leach several compounds used to make the plastic itself, e.g. BPA. Plastics in general act as attractors for any number of harmful toxins. So yes, both can be true.

We could also burn the plastic for peaker plant electricity. Good short term solution considering all the factors.

Why we don’t I have no idea. The fuel is basically free. And the co2 impact is much less than building energy storage.

As a petroleum product, wouldn't the co2 impact be very similar to something like coal or gasoline?

Per lb of fuel? Yes. But the idea is that this would offset other oil consumption. It’s marginally better to turn plastic products into energy than it is to throw plastic away and burn more oil for power.

Ideally, we would think of this as getting a second use for your heating fuel. Between being mined and being burned, it's temporarily used to let you cary milk home from the store.

That's an excellent point, thanks.

Probably closer to coal than gasoline. Plus You have to factor in the fact that coal plants are designed to be most efficient with the kind of coal they are built to burn and with burning plastic waste it's usually some kind of a mix, so there's a good chance the CO2 emissions from burning plastic waste would be even higher per watt than with coal, which is already super bad.

Well.. i mean, it's not as if we'll stop using plastic soon, and since the whole world has issues with it now (since china doesn't but it anymore), investing in such redesigned burners would be a good investment now.

I think it’s optics that prevent the US from doing this. Too many people are convinced that plastic is highly recyclable and burning it would be wasteful.

I think people too often Go for the recycle (get it out of my sight) instead of the reuse and reduce angles of the conservation triangle.

Wouldn't it pollute the atmosphere? Is there a "clean" (modulo CO2) way to burn it?

Past thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880

I keep reading these comments, but too lazy to research myself. Anyone has any links handy?

This one seems to have some decent info on the situation

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...

Anti-GMO groups maybe? I certainly hope in 50 years we have embraced their ability to improve human and environment health

Why do you think it is the anti-GMO groups and not the other way around? I’m naturally more suspicious of the groups that have the most money invested, in the same way tobacco companies had more investments at stake than medical researchers funded by government grants, and big oil and coal have more (money) to lose than climate scientists.

Of course Monsanto et al have invested a lot of money into research that shows that GMOs are safe. That is of course not in any way proof that there is anything wrong with that research, but it definitely makes me more careful in interpreting the results.

I can understand not trusting Monsanto, Cargill, Bayer, etc., but humans have been genetically modifying plants since the dawn of agriculture, we just have tools to do it with way more precision now. Borland and others have used Mendelian genetics to create rust-resistant wheat, golden rice, and other "miracle" crops. With modern tools, you can test genetic variants more intentionally without relying on random selection each generation.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about doing this, and it has the potential to do a lot of good for humanity. It's important not to conflate the demagoguing of massive agricorps with a useful scientific technique.

The bigger scam is that, despite producing more calories than we could possibly use, they've continued modifying crops for calorie yield and chemical resistance, which has made a lot of crops less nutritious (per kg eaten), less tasty, and more dependent on advanced human intervention to successfully grow.

The most common use of the concept GMO exclude simple breeding, which is what we have done for thousands of years. We didn’t use to transfer genes between species or even between kingdoms.

I’m not that worried, but I’m not that fast to exclude the possible that something goes dangerously wrong somewhere, say some crop with new genes that make it spread uncontrollable through a whole ecosystem, in the same way invasive species sometimes do.

And then of course the issues you bring up in your last paragraph. The technique is in general not used to help humankind or the world, but to maximise revenue for the corporations. At least in the industrialised world, it is now more important to increase biodiversity than to maximise yield.

> say some crop with new genes that make it spread uncontrollable through a whole ecosystem, in the same way invasive species sometimes do.

You don't need to worry about GMOs for that. We already have Kudzu vines.

You mean, we don’t need GMOs to worry about that? Maybe it’s great if we don’t have to worry about some GMOs in addition to the problems we already have.

>Why do you think it is the anti-GMO groups and not the other way around?

How about checking the research papers cited in Wikipedia:

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

The ones funded by Monsanto and Cargill? Don’t you see the problem?

Not all of them are funded by those companies.

There are agri businesses that use GMO and those who don't. Naturally they would try to use what they can - real studies, fake studies, activists, etc.

Point being, there is money to be made on both sides.

GMO's are one of the reasons that food is still relatively abundant despite the population growth, where a few decades ago there were predictions that the world simply couldn't sustain the population growth that began around the 1960's. I suspect that continued growth will render the GMO debate moot by virtue of few alternatives to starving. As it is, AFAIK, GMO farms & imports are already relatively common in poorer & less developed countries.

I honestly never understood the objection to GMO. Identifying the gene that some plants have to resist disease & turning it off never struck me as any more inherently risky than the end result of a multi-generational cultivation process that ultimately selects for the same or similar variations.

Who benefits from GMO prohibition? Big chemical and agtech would make a fortune on designer crops. I imagine they could easily lobby if that was simply a matter of money.

Different for different types of GMO. Some would allow use of currently unusable land and easier entry so those who already have the usable land and don't want new entries perhaps. Everything that labels itself 'Organic', too or builds their brand around it, too I'd imagine.

At any rate, I'm not convinced it's so much a lobbying problem than appealing to a questionable public sentiment. How much of that sentiment is driven by profit and how much of it is driven by more mundane misconception is hard to tell (for me).

Edit:

> Big chemical and agtech

Not necessarily. Some GMO strains require less chemicals and make some of the tech redundant.

Lobbying can be very powerful, but it's also very far from the cynical caricature that legislation is consistently sold to the highest bidder.

One trivial example is that Google, one of the richest company in the world, has been trying to build housing in its home town of Mountain View for 20 years. Last I heard, nothing had happened.

Non-GMO and organic products still require fertilizers and pesticides that are manufactured by the chemical and agriculture industries. Organic, specifically, is essentially just freezing pesticide technology to the 50s. Somehow that's a good thing.

Organic is a huge industry which actively fights gmo products. Regardless of actual organic produce, you have to pay to get the organic certifiers and organic labeling.

The existing agri corporations.

Don't prohibit GMO, just invalidate the patents and regulate the results. If everyone can select the seeds that are designed best downstream farmers and consumers benefit from the reduction of monopoly.

Pesticide manufacturers, fertilizer manufacturers, seed companies without the gene editing know how. A very large number of people who are happy with the status quo and see disruption as a danger to their bottom line.

I can imagine that a huge corporation does both fertilizers and genetic engineering. German BASF is one such example.

I can imagine a lot of things, most of them cost a lot of money.

> Who benefits from GMO prohibition?

Literally the entire current farming industry. Especially the high markup “organic” segment.

I don't think that applies for monoculture commodity crops like corn and soy.

My point is that if all crops go organic, then they no longer have the higher margin of a premium product and are still at the current commodity price.

And my point is that everyone involved in organic certainly doesn’t want their narrative muddied by GMOs. If people accept that modified food is better, that destroys the demand for organic.

Why would a prohibition on GMO lead to a benefit of all the farming community? (That was your original comment)

Because it preserves the status quo. GMO crops, if they live up the promise, will disrupt the majority of current food crops.

Major economics changes in any industry entirely wipe out lots of participants. Investments in certain types of equipment no longer make sense, farms in particular areas stop making sense, etc.

There's certainly a balance that needs to be struck with GMOs.

The environmental and health impacts of new GMOs should be studied and regulated, but this "don't eat frakenfood" rhetoric or "No GMO" labeling aught to disappear as (as you've mentioned) it can be a huge win for hunger concerns.

More likely the other way around:

> "We found that ties between researchers and the GM crop industry were common, with 40 percent of the articles considered displaying conflicts of interest," said the study.

> Researchers also found that studies that had a conflict of interest were far more likely to be favorable to GM crop companies than studies that were free of financial interference.

> Conflicts of interest were defined as studies in which at least one author declared an affiliation to one of the biotech or seed companies, or received funding or payment from them

https://phys.org/news/2016-12-gmo-financial-conflicts.html

> So... which food additive's trade group is quietly paying scientists to point blame elsewhere right now? I'd prefer not to find out fifty years after the fact.

The soy scare made by the dairy and meat industries. A few years ago they caused a mass hysteria with the meme "google phythoestrogens". Sure, they bind to estrogen receptors, but their action actually inhibits mostly, so it kind of block estrogen.

Meanwhile, the same people would have no problem consuming products from the dairy industry abusing cows by pumping them with actual hormones. Dairy products full of actual estrogen and progesterone (not phyto-, the real deal).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=dair...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogen#Effects_on_human...

Everyone is blaming meat.

Everyone I know who eats 90%+ carnivore diet looks/feels great.

CheapProcessedVeganFood co's perhaps?

There may be something else in play: carb consumption. If you are 90% carnivore, you eat very few carbs per day, and lots of protein. If you are vegan, it is possible to eat rice and vegan muffins and croissants all day. (The vegan muffins I tried from whole foods were some of the sweetest things I've ever eaten. The vegan croissants I had from WF used margarine and didn't taste anywhere as good as the butter croissants.) So a vegan diet can definitely be less healthy than a omnivore diet.

I think if you are vegan and ate 90% tofu / pea protein / rice protein products, and spent the rest of your intake on avocados and olive and coconut oil and almonds and pecans, you might also look and feel great.

I think it boils down to ketosis/water fasting/calorie restriction.

Even if you eat a very protein-rich diet, your body is not going to accidentally slip into ketosis unless you are really fastidious about keeping carbs almost entirely out. There is no benefit to ketosis for the average person versus a diet that is similar calorically, and also low on carbs/starch but not low enough to be in ketosis.

Any runner preparing for a marathon is going to tell you how important carbs are.

Everything in moderation.

I think CheapProcessedVeganFood (Big Soy, and food processors downstream of Big Soy) is being more opportunistic then causing. The case against meat is very wide and much of it is based on more solid science then the anti-fat science 50 years ago. I suspect in the next decade we’ll see a very clear connection between lower meat/dairy consumption and better gut health, which will explain most of the health benefits we see in a plant based diet.

Are you claiming there's some wealthy Vegan lobby that's paying scientists blame meat for health problems? You really think that vegan food producers are more powerful than the meat and dairy industries?

Seriously? The "nutrition" industry is absolutely huge and banks off of the fact that we don't really know anything about diet, except that trans fats are bad, lots of refined sugar is bad, and folic acid is important for pregnant women. They point the finger at all manner of foods from red meats to fruits and everything in between, in order to sell supplements, fad diets, overpriced holistic/integrative medicine sessions, etc.

There’s a lot of trends and over interpreted small studies within popular nutrition science, but the basics are quite solid and quite simple: eat less, eat much more vegetables and fruit. There’s also solid evidence that too much red meat causes cancer.

Exactly. Here is another point in case: Go to the website of whichever body governs nutrition in your country (or the WHO) and see what they recommend and why.

There is no global conspiracy against red meat, it's simply our current scientific understanding.

No one said it's a conspiracy. It is clearly a misunderstanding of our actual knowledge, which is why we have studies that show everything from associations between red meat and cancer, no effects whatsoever between the two, and even reduction in some cancers from red meat consumption. That is standard across the entire field of nutrition epidemiology, but "nutritionists" and health "experts" rely on the fact that, if they cite a single study showing a cancer connection, people will eat it up and accept it as fact.

I'm not sure what your point is: Do you disagree that red meat is a carcinogen?

The fact that we have studies that show the full spectrum of association is exactly what you would expect, and, assuming no biases, is a strong indication that it's not the most powerful carcinogen there is.

I would even hypothesise that for most people simply eating more vegetables and greens is more beneficial than leaving out red meat and not changing vegetable intake.

Also you are free to take as many risks as you want (mostly), and there are plenty of people smoking, drinking tons of soda etc.

Soy and corn are the largest and most destructive monoculture crops in America, though a large amount is used as animal feed.

Nonetheless, "veganism" does not imply good agricultural practices or less money or power — likely the opposite. Do not think of veganism as your local farmers market. Think of it as mostly destructive monoculture farming.

Healthy ecosystems require ruminants and other animals and plants to thrive. Modern agriculture is usually split up — barren feed lots, barren corn fields, etc. Regenerative agriculture like what the Savory Institute espouses is what's needed.

Vegans are also a great target market and quite lucrative. People who can afford to be vegan will pay higher prices for lower cost goods. I wouldn't be surprised to see lobbying from vegan food companies.

> People who can afford to be vegan will pay higher prices for lower cost goods.

It's kind of funny how "vegan" has become a marketing term to the extent that vegan food is supposed to be expensive.

Vegan food is the cheapest food there is and powers nutrition on a global scale. Think wheat, rice, potatoes, beans, every single vegetable, all fruit, and products made thereof, bread, pasta, noodles, oils, etc.

In most parts of the world the standard diet is predominantly plant-based and meat is a luxury.

It used to be the same in Europe - my grandparents had meat at most once a week, usually on a Sunday.

The expensive bit is that most vegans want to broadly maintain the flavors and textures of a animal products diet without the animal products.

Oh, agreed, for sure. My grandparents were Germans who grew up during the war, and for them meat was seen as a great luxury — even bread was seen as a speciality.

But in the US (and I think it is mostly an American phenomenon), veganism has taken on a sort of strange alter ego as a life of expensive vegan donuts and vegan restaurants that charge (no joke) $18 for a small sandwich.

So I think it's important to differentiate between the two kinds of veganism — the expensive fad diet kind, and the one borne out of necessity.

Soy and corn in america is the meat industry

Yes, and I've started buying grass meats fed from local farms. It does mean that meat is more of a luxury, but I think food should be quality over quantity.

Which makes them commodities unless you can upsell them as health foods.

One has much bigger profit margins, better automation, and responds better to scale. This is extra true if you can get people to pay a premium for plant-based meat or oat milk.

Just make sure they know they're making the world a better place at your 32.30% gross margin (Beyond Meat). Compare to the gross margins of even big meat players like Pilgrims Pride or Sanderson Farms at 5-6%.

Vegan food producers are just big agriculture, so it actually isn't that unrealistic that some multinational soy or corn corporation is pushing this because they make more money from food additives than animal feed.

Why is that hard to imagine?

The plant based meat industry alone had a $4 billion market in 2020, about 39% of which is in the US, and it's total is forecasted to grow to $14 billion by 2027. [1]

While not a direct comparison, the US meat market is around a $7 billion annual market. [2]

[1] https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/plant-ba...

[2] https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/me...

That doesn't make sense to me at all. You're telling me the plant-based meat market in America is 57% of the size of real-meat, and that the average spend on meat in the US is only 20$ per person per year?

>The market value of the processed meat is expected to rise from 714 billion U.S. dollars in 2016 to over 1.5 trillion dollars by 2022.

https://www.statista.com/topics/4880/global-meat-industry/

It looks like the ibisworld link might be conflating US exports of meat with the US market total

"Perhaps" = "claiming"?

Maybe the person should have used: "suggesting"? Anyhow, I share the sentiment that the "vegan lobby" is an easy target to pick.

> You really think that vegan food producers are more powerful than the meat and dairy industries?

The corn lobby is definitely more powerful than meat or dairy are, yes.

Why would the corn lobby be anti meat and dairy? 1/3 of the corn grown in the US is used for livestock feed.

I don't believe that I said they were, I just said they were more powerful.

I think the overall meat thing is not necessarily dietary science related. That seems to stem more from environmental or ethical concerns.

It seems to be more of a red meat and saturated fat issue. I don't know about who might be behind it, or if it is even misguided.

Could it also relate to ketosis perhaps? (Water) fasting and calorie restriction seem to have favorable effects on living organisms.

I don't know. I tend to just follow the "everything in moderation" philosophy and look to stay away from some things when possible, like trans fats, soda, and artificial stuff. I figure if both sets of my grandparents made it to their 80s and 90s that way (without major issues up to that point), then it should be good enough for me.

Personally, the reason I avoid red meat is tail risk. I want to reduce the odds that I die abruptly because of cancer or heart disease. How great I look/feel takes a backseat to ensuring I live 60-70 more years, rather than 20-30 more.

I think you are basing your worldview on hearsay evidence, elevenoh.

Try to become part of the evidence-based nutrition movement.

Things are improving (slowly) through online forums, and MDs and PhDs creating content (like youtube, blogs, etc).

Heck, just be part of the longevity movement that is trying to do something about aging itself.

Valter Longo? Nutrition science is fuzzy. It isn't like physics or mathematics. Water fasting, calorie restriction[2], keeping your protein low and having a joyful life[1] seem convincing to me (Blue Zones), but I am yet another layman here.

[1] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-8...

[2] https://nintil.com/longevity/

Thanks. I didn't know about Valter Longo. Will sure check his content. I was mainly referring to folks like Peter Attia, Rhonda Patrick, etc.

For longevity, check out SENS foundation (and Aubrey de Grey).

Food is generally OK, the problem is with the packaging. A huge range of plastics are hormones disruptors and should not be permitted to be in contact with food or liquid meant for human consumption.

An example - BPA is used to coat the inside of tin cans. If you use a metal spoon to scrape out the contents, you're scraping away that lining into your food.

https://www.merieuxnutrisciences.com/corporate/en/news/endoc...

PVC pipes can leach hormone disruptors into drinking water:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315702292_Transfer_...

The relative effects of sugar and obesity dwarf the disruption of the endocrine and immune system compared to the average levels of plastic pollution. I’m not saying it’s not a problem, but we’re talking lifetime effects of 1 in 4 (cancer via obesity, sugar) vs lifetime effects of <1/1000 (plasticizers etc).

That's true for the average person, but you cannot avoid these plastics in the same way that you can avoid sugar.

Packaging materials are not disclosed on the ingredients list, for example. Few people would know that the insides of drink cans or food tins are coated with plastic.

Buy eggs, vegetables, crops and meat from the butcher. To say it otherwise, avoid processed foods.

The average person doesn’t need to avoid plastics is my point. They are a walking carcinogen already. Eliminating plastics for the average Joe is just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

*PEX (not PVC which is used on waste lines)

I don’t know who might be paying whom.

But speaking to regretful food decisions with lots of industry support and relatively little public awareness, I would rather our foods didn’t have so many emulsifiers in them.

Their risks to our gut biomes and immune systems weren’t appreciated when they were approved. Today they remain ubiquitous in typical American diets.

Artificial sweetners, perhaps.

Apparently they wreak havoc on your gut flora.

And it's basically the most important thing for overall health.

Stevia is reasonably safe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia#Safety_and_regulations

You could also argue Sucralose in moderate use, too. It's for sure much safer than the old sweeteners.

Any studies on this? Things I have seen in the past seem to point to theoretical risks at massive intakes. I get the impression that sugar free sodas are going to be better than going over a reasonable daily sugar intake but could well be wrong on that.

Vegetable oil is the big thing to avoid. I don't know if anyone is being paid off.

What is it exactly? Which type of oil is labelled as vegetable oil?

Specifically vegetable seed oil, like sunflower oil or canola oil.

The other thing I'm very skeptical of now is milk replacements, like oat milk.

For cooking just use olive oil, coconut oil, or regular butter.

What do you mean?

> Specifically vegetable seed oil, like sunflower oil or canola oil.

Please be more specific, my understanding is there is no easy X is harmful in nutrition. Your example vegetable seed oil:

Refined sunflower oil at high temperatures --> bad Cold pressed sunflower oil --> ok (great source of Vitamin E, but too much omega 6 compared to 3) Cold pressed linseed oil --> good

> The other thing I'm very skeptical of now is milk replacements, like oat milk.

Could you elaborate? You can make oat milk easily at home. Let oat flakes soak in cold water over night, blend, sift, done. Go fancy and add a drop of rapeseed oil (will work as a natural emulsifier) and a pinch of salt.

So the problem with all of those oils is the high concentration of PUFA which is more susceptible to oxidation and thus causes inflammation.

Commercial oat milk like that made by Oatly has rapeseed oil added into it and is then pasteurized. Heating vegetable oils is bad. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S15371...

Maybe something home made isn't bad.

Pasteurizing happens at like 160F. Vegetable oils oxidize at 350F or above.

There’s a palm oil hysteria in Russia. Social media is full of moms saying that palm oil has been banned in the EU. Yet here I am, enjoying pastry with palm oil in Belgium.

Maybe whatever group benefits from the gluten free trend? Also, maybe the soy and corn industries?

> Maybe whatever group benefits from the gluten free trend?

People with Coeliac disease mostly... doesn't seem like a very wealthy and well connected bunch though.

My guess would be (some) preservatives.

edit: the bad ones like sulfites, sodium benzoate, nitrites, etc...

Sulfites have been in use since the dawn of recorded history, so there are probably few significant secrets to discover there.

I'm hopeful we'll get somewhere with nitrites. The whole celery salt dodge feels like the first step of a slow process to find something better, or perhaps figure out how to counter the nitrosamines.

Damn ascorbic acid is killing everybody.

Ascorbic acid is vitamin C.

Citric acid is also found naturally in citrus, it was not available economically in chemical form until the late 1970's/early 80's.

Now citric acid is a commodity after experiencing cartel-like activity before we got to where we are today.

It's the common tangy additive to food in all kinds of formulations.

I don't like it since it's an insidious buffer where each gram you consume would require a compensating amount of additional true alkali intake to fully neutralize.

If you wanted to be as neutral as you would be otherwise.

As an example natural orange juice has a fairly strong pH which can be moderated toward neutrality by adding citrate (the "alkaline" form of citric acid).

This is sold as "reduced acid" orange juice. You can tell the difference when you taste it because it is not as sour as the plain orange juice.

Often the citrate added is calcium citrate which also acts as a calcium supplement, but I still think it's not worth it.

Since pH is not total acidity. pH is simply a measure of how far away from neutral the solution is at the time. Often chemistry students have difficulty understanding this. There's lots of equations, they are confusing, plus quizzes and exams. Even the X-Prize for "ocean acidity" was awarded to the operators who had the most outstanding performance in pH measurements under the proscribed real-world conditions, but none of the participants actually measured total acidity at all, just furthered the capability for meaningful pH measurement. There were a number of PhDs involved and it appears to have slipped past them all.

Counterintuitively, the more of the "reduced acid" orange juice you drink instead of the plain stuff, the more you will need to include additional alkaline intake to remain as neutral, that you did not need when drinking only plain juice. Even though the plain stuff tastes more sour because it is.

As a commodity, like sugar, the supplier may have only one product to sell and there are excellent discounts when you buy citric acid in quantity. They've got plenty and can really deal. For instance if your recipe is attractive using one gram of citric acid per serving, if you scale up you could get a price break where putting in two grams is less costly than it was when putting in only one gram at first.

So the incentive is there to use more than you need if you are a food processor.

Still recommend citric acid for cleaning glass cooktops on kitchen stoves. It's not too abrasive and works pretty good for that.

yeah, not all of them... I was thinking more like, sulfites, sodium benzoate, nitrites, etc...

It's carbon and nitrogen today.