Comments on: New Coating Gets Ketchup Out Lickety-Split

By: Marty G

Marty G — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:56:56 +0000

I for one am far less interested in its application for food containers. Instead something like this would be nice to have on car windshields or even applied to a cars paint. Or how about clothing. The industrial uses for this are far reaching.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:03:05 +0000

I’m with Laurie and Lisa. I DON’T WANT ARTIFICIAL INGREDIENTS ADDED TO MY FOOD OR MY FOOD CONTAINERS! There have been too many instances of the FDA and other government agencies siding with business and approving substances and practices that have not been adequately tested over long periods of time. For the sake of not having too shake a bottle or use a knife or spoon, I have yet another set of “safe, don’t worry about it” chemicals to pay for and ingest? No thank you.

By: Donald Ravey

Donald Ravey — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:26:21 +0000

Yes, this stirred up a vigorous and healthy debate. Good! Personally, I don’t find this particularly alarming, but of course I’d like to know more about it than this brief article. I think some commenters misinterpreted what was reported; this substance is evidently intended to coat the inside of a bottle, not added to the food. It’s conceivable that such a coating might contaminate the contents, but that shouldn’t be that difficult to determine, and my guess is that the FDA already examined that possibility. Disclaimer: I am an MIT graduate.

By: FellFeline

FellFeline — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:56:58 +0000

From all these comments it seems that our government has about as much legitimacy to us as Mubarak’s had to the Egyptians.

By: Doug in Maine

Doug in Maine — Tue, 29 May 2012 15:10:53 +0000

I think Kathy – 5/24 at 7:56pm got it right. Ketchup and Mayo manufacturers (as well as others) will want these bottles. Consumers will feel they are getting a better deal as nothing will be left in the bottle, but, most likely, in each usage they will pour out more than they did with the “sticky” bottles. Consumers feel better as they get all the product, retailers get quicker sales. I bet this is how it will play out…

Doug

By: David Gardener

David Gardener — Sun, 27 May 2012 21:59:35 +0000

As Wilson (5) pointed out, no one knows what will happen when certain non-toxic products are combined in a new way. By not wanting to let the public know the contents, I get very suspicious. When I eat it will it make my intestines slippery as well?

By: Connie

Connie — Sun, 27 May 2012 20:48:57 +0000

I hope this additive will be on the product label. I do not want to buy anything that has this substance lining the bottle. Our foods are too full of chemicals as it is.

By: Leni Deutschland

Leni Deutschland — Sun, 27 May 2012 18:39:49 +0000

I for one am all about knowing what’s in it so I can make my own decision whether or not I want to put that in my body.
What is important to me…..the freedom to choose for myself. And when I understand the “whatever”….,whether yay or nay, I will feel good about my decision, and THAT will not only benefit me but also my fellow man. My fellow man is as important as I am.

By: Sharon

Sharon — Sun, 27 May 2012 15:34:26 +0000

Once again it is assumed the public in general are a collective group of uninformed and uneducated lemmings who are willing to follow these idiots right off the cliff.

Here is the bottom line; if it is created in a lab and is not found naturally in the environment I DO NOT want it touching my GMO food! Yes, that is sarcasm. Let’s stop this one before they begin coating baby bottles with it.

I can only imagine future generations shaking their heads in disbelief at the undertone of excitement this article attempts to make us feel. I know that I am shaking mine in disbelief.

By: janye

janye — Sun, 27 May 2012 14:08:33 +0000

I wonder how long it will be before one of the ingredients in the coating is discovered to cause cancer or otherwise be bad for your health.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Thu, 24 May 2012 23:56:06 +0000

I’m a little cynical that manufacturers will line up for this product. The more consumers waste…the quicker they replace. But…then again, maybe it will slide out so fast…more wasteful accidents will happen.

By: Katia

Katia — Thu, 24 May 2012 17:26:28 +0000

So it’s currently defined as non-toxic, but is it recyclable?

By: Bricktop Polford

Bricktop Polford — Thu, 24 May 2012 16:15:01 +0000

5 comments – one humorous, one thoughtful and three negative. I for one think this is very cool, good for the consumer and good for the environment.

By: Wilson

Wilson — Thu, 24 May 2012 14:44:02 +0000

As a chemist, I love it when orgnaizations claim that a product is ‘made from natural ingredients’. Because everything on this planet is made from natural ingredients. I mean, from where else would we get the ingredients, another universe?

I know that I can purposefully make known carcinogenic materials from natural ingredients. It should be a no-brainer to accidentally make both known and unknown carcinogenic materials from natural ingredients.

The issue is how natural ingredients are altered, and, maybe more importantly, what byproducts occured in the process.

This issue is complex. Determining and proving adverse health effects will always trail far far behind the excitment of creating new synthetic materials and new streams of profit.

By: Yes2MI

Yes2MI — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:03:14 +0000

I can’t help but wonder, could it be applied to the lining on cloth baby diapers? LOL