ftp.pasteur.org/FAQ//ftp-pasteur-org-FAQ.zip/FAQ/sci/food-science-faq/diff

Text File | 2004-05-12 | 34.2 KB | 708 lines

Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!dreaderd!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <sci/food-science-faq/[e-mail]>
Supersedes: <sci/food-science-faq/[e-mail]>
Expires: 8 Jun 2004 10:49:07 GMT
X-Last-Updated: 2004/05/02
From: [e-mail] (Paul King)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.food-science,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: [sci.bio.food-science] Additions and Changes to FAQ, and New User Info
Followup-To: sci.bio.food-science
Organization: none
Approved: [e-mail]
Summary: Additions and changes to the FAQ, including information for new users.
Originator: [e-mail]
Date: 11 May 2004 10:50:37 GMT
Lines: 688
NNTP-Posting-Host: penguin-lust.mit.edu
X-Trace: 1084272637 senator-bedfellow.mit.edu 557 18.181.0.29
Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu sci.bio.food-science:15191 sci.answers:16000 news.answers:271124

Archive-Name: sci/food-science-faq/diff

Posting-Frequency: biweekly
Last-modified: 2004/05/02

RECENT CHANGES (2 May 2004):

There are some changes that will be made to the FAQ over the coming weeks.
So, watch out for changes to other parts, notably 3/3.

Paul King,
SBFS Maintainer

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following addition was made to the section below, called "INFORMATION
FOR NEW USERS":

     NOTES ON 'NETTIQUETTE:

     Please read also FAQ 1/3, Part I: GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR POSTING IN
     SCI.BIO.FOOD-SCIENCE

     There has been a slow but sure trend in recent years for some
     posters to get emotional or to bait emotional debates with their
     postings. This is never a good thing, since discussions most
     commonly deteriorate into name-calling and so on. Others wonder
     why their posts hardly get any responses from this group. All this
     is discussed here.

     Emotional debates are common in any topic for which adherents hold
     passionate, but opposing, beliefs. One of life's many paradoxes
     holds that if you shout, you will not be heard. Keep your
     conversations polite and cordial. The basis of politeness means
     that you must realise that this is a text medium, and people
     cannot see your body language to find out what you intend with
     these words, and as a result most people tend to assume the worst.
     You have to be extra careful in how you word things with others.

     However, there are many other reasons your postings do not get
     desirable responses. First of all, realise that this is a food
     science newsgroup, and that most of the posters tend to toe the
     party line of science. If you find this hard to take, there are
     many other newsgroups that you might find more friendly. In FAQ
     1/3, for example, the newsgroup has many explicitly-stated goals,
     along with a newsgroup charter. These were agreed to and voted on
     over 10 years ago. Charters and statements of goals are a fact of
     life of all newsgroups under the sci.* hierarchy, and other
     hierarchies as well.

     While we welcome posts from anybody and everybody, you must ensure
     that your postings are on-topic. Some newsgroups dealing with
     other aspects of foods which we don't deal with:

     sci.med.nutrition      rec.food.preserving      rec.food.cooking
     rec.food.recipes       alt.food.wine            alt.food.fat-free
     rec.food-veg           rec.food.veg.cooking     alt.support.diet
     alt.food.vegan         alt.food.vegan.science
     alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   alt.sport.weightlifting.vegetarian
     alt.support.diet.*  (there are several newsgroups in this
     hierarchy)

     If you wonder why your posting garners few or no responses, it
     could be due to several reasons, including: 1) Nobody understood
     your post; 2) your post was not on-topic for the newsgroup, 3)
     your post showed an obvious intent at baiting an argument, and
     people properly ignored it, or 4) your post perhaps gave nothing
     for others to respond to.
__

The following changes/additions have been made to FAQ 2/3 - Definitions:

Adulteration

        The addition or contamination of a food by a substance foreign
   to the normal product, which debases it or disguises inferior
   quality. See Unadulterated.

Botulinum Cook

         The heat treatment given to a low acid canned food (having
    a pH higher than 4.2) sufficient to inactivate 1012 spores of
    Clostridium botulinum. This heat treatment is called the Fo value
    and it is equivalent to a process of 3 mins at 121║C, 10 mins at
    115║C or 32 mins at 110║C.

Controlled atmosphere packaging

         A procedure whereby residual air in a food pack is replaced
    by a gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide, in order to minimise
    deteriorative changes on storage. An example is the packaging of
    peanuts in an atmosphere of nitrogen to inhibit rancidity.
         Where food has been packed in this way in order to increase
    shelf life, the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 require the
    statement 'packaged in a protective atmosphere' to appear on the
    label.

Dairy-free (Non-dairy)

         A description that may be applied to a food that is free from
    milk products and also from milk derivatives such as lactose,
    caseinate and whey powder.

Flavour/flavoured

         The term 'flavour' may have reference to sensory quality of
    a food as perceived by a combination of smell and taste.
    Alternatively, 'flavour', for which the legally correct term is
    'flavouring', is defined in the Flavouring in Food Regulations 1992
    as a material used to impart odour, taste or both to a food. Under
    the UK Food Labelling Regulations 1996, if the declared flavour of
    a product is derived wholly or mainly from the named food, the
    product name is (for example) "Strawberry X". If it does not derive
    wholly or mainly from the named food, the product name is
    "Strawberry Flavour X".
         The UK Food Standards Committee's 2nd Report on Food Labelling
    suggested that consumers do not appreciate the difference between
    'flavour', which the FSC equated with artificial flavouring and
    'flavoured' which they equated with the use of the real food to
    provide flavouring.
         The UK Food Advisory Committee (FAC), in its 1990 Report on
    Labelling, decided that the difference between 'flavour' and
    'flavoured' was significant and that since consumers were said to
    have difficulty distinguishing between the two, 'flavour' should be
    banned and replaced by 'taste'.
         The supposed confusion between the two words is a misconception.
    Contrary to paragraph 64 of the FAC Report, the then Food Labelling
    Regulations 1984 as amended, and the current UK Food Labelling
    Regulations 1996. make no provision for the use of the term
    'flavoured'. As indicated above those Regulations provide for
    (e.g.) 'Strawberry X' or 'Strawberry Flavour X' but no intermediate
    designation such as ' strawberry flavoured X'.
         The only legal use of "flavoured" is in the Cocoa and Chocolate
    Products Regulations 1976. In those Regulations, cocoa products and
    non-filled chocolates may be described as 'Y flavoured chocolate',
    as the case may be, if the flavour is derived wholly or mainly from Y.
         The term 'flavour' serves a useful and well-established
    purpose. The FAC suggestion to prohibit it and substitute 'taste'
    (reiterated in September 1994) is scientifically inaccurate and,
    if it were to be embodied in legislation, would create instead of
    removing confusion.

Food

         In the UK Food Safety Act 1990, 'food' is defined as including
    (a) drink; (b) articles and substances of no nutritional value which
    are used for human consumption; (c) chewing gum and other products of
    a like nature and use; and (d) articles and substances used as
    ingredients in the preparation of food or anything falling within
    this subsection. It does not include (a) live animals or birds, or
    live fish which are not used for human consumption while they are
    alive; (b) fodder or feeding stuffs for animals, birds or fish; (c)
    controlled drugs within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971;
    and (d) subject to certain exceptions, medicinal products in respect
    of which product licences or marketing authorisations are in force.
    This definition states what 'food' includes and excludes (similarly
    to the latter part of the Codex definition) but it is deficient in
    failing to define what food is, i.e. does not specify "intended for
    human consumption".
         The Codex Alimentarius defines 'food' as "any substance,
    whether processed, semi processed or raw, which is intended for human
    consumption and includes drink, chewing gum and any substance which
    has been used in the manufacture, preparation or treatment of food,
    but does not include cosmetics or tobacco or substances only used
    as drugs".
         The EU Commission, in its November 2000 Proposal for a
    Regulation laying down the general principles and requirements of
    food law, establishing the European Food Authority, and laying down
    procedures in matters of food, proposed the following definition:
         'Food' (or 'foodstuff') means any substance or product, whether
    processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or
    expected to be ingested by humans. It includes drink, chewing gum
    and any substance intentionally incorporated into the food during
    its manufacture, preparation or treatment. It includes water, without
    prejudice to the requirements of Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC.
    It shall not include:
         (a) feed;
         (b) live animals unless they are prepared, packaged and/or
             served for human consumption;
         (c) plants prior to harvesting;
         (d) medicinal products within the meaning of Council Directive
             65/65/EEC 17;
         (e) cosmetics within the meaning of Council Directive 76/768/EEC
             18 ;
         (f) tobacco and tobacco products within the meaning of Council
             Directive 89/622/EEC 19 ;
         (g) narcotic or psychotropic substances within the meaning of
             the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,
             1961 and the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic
             Substances, 1971.

Genetic modification

         The process of making changes to the genes of an organism
    (whether an animal or plant organism or a microorganism). Genetic
    changes occur spontaneously in nature over a long period of time, but
    they may be produced intentionally either by traditional methods of
    selective breeding of animals and plants, or by modern methods of
    removal or insertion of genes. The latter method involves four basic
    steps;

         1. the DNA of a cell of the donor organism is broken down and
            the pieces separated;
         2. the desired gene is selected;
         3. that gene is copied many times; and
         4. nth generation laboratory copies (not the donor's original
            genes) are then inserted into the DNA of the receiver organism.

    'Within-species' genetic modification is essentially similar to
    traditional breeding methods (except that it is much speedier and
    much less haphazard). Through 'trans-species' modification, results
    are obtainable that could not be obtained by traditional breeding
    methods. In relation to food, the potential scientific benefits of
    genetic modification are:

         * Improved agricultural performance (yields) with reduced use
           of pesticides
         * Ability to grow crops in inhospitable environments (e.g. via
           increased ability of plants to grow in conditions of drought,
           salinity and extremes of temperature
         * Delayed ripening, permitting improvements in quality and
           processing advantages.
         * Altered sensory attributes of food (e.g. flavour, texture, etc.) *
         Improved nutritional attributes e.g. combatting anti-nutritive
           and allergenic factors, and increased Vitamin A content in rice.
         * Improved processing characteristics leading to reduced waste
           and lower food costs to the consumer.

    Some forms of trans-species modification may give rise to ethical and
    religious issues.
         See also FAQ in section V (including within-species and
    trans-species) Part 2, Q 7, 8, and 9

HACCP

         Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) is a preventive
    system of food control. It involves

         1. Hazard analysis - examining and analysing every stage of
            a food-related operation to identify and assess hazards
            (q.v., below);
         2. determining the 'critical control points' (q.v., above) at
            which action is required to control the identified hazards;
         3. establishing the critical limits that must be met at each
            critical control point;
         4. establishing monitoring procedures;
         5. establishing corrective procedures when a deviation is
            identified by monitoring;
         6. establishing verification procedures to demostrate that it
            is working correctly.
         7. Establishing record-keeping and documentation.

    A few authoritative sources of information are:

         * "HACCP Systems and Guidelines" , CODEX Alimentarius, 1997.
         * Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Principles and
           Application Guidelines, (US) National Advisory Committee on
           Microbiological Safety of Foods, 14 August 1997
           http://www.fst.vt.edu/haccp97/
         * Food Safety and Inspection Service, US Department of
           Agriculture, Pathogen Reduction/HACCP & HACCP Implementation
           http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/haccp/imphaccp.htm
         * Canadian Food Inspection Agency 's Food Safety Enhancement
           Program Web page of links at
           http://www.cfia-acia.agr.ca/english/ppc/haccp/haccp.html
         * A Simple Guide to Understanding and Applying the Hazard
           Analysis Critical Control Point Concept. ILSI Europe, 1997.
           http://www.ilsi.org/pubs/ilsihace.pdf

Isotonic

         A term applied to a liquid product, e.g. a drink, having osmotic
    properties approximating to those of blood serum, i.e. 280 milli-
    osmoles per kg. However, the EU Scientific Committee for Food's
    February 2001 Report on Sports Drinks
    http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out64_en.pdf includes

         "It has become common to refer to carbohydrate-electrolyte
         sports drinks as isotonic drinks, as though the tonicity was
         their most important characteristic. The osmolality of
         ingested fluids is important as this can influence both the
         rates of gastric emptying and of intestinal water flux: both
         of these processes together will determine the effectiveness
         of rehydration fluids at delivering water for rehydration. An
         increasing osmolality of the gastric contents will tend to
         delay emptying, and increasing the carbohydrate or electrolyte
         content of sports drinks will generally result in an increased
         osmolality. The composition of the drinks and the nature of
         the solutes is, however, of greater importance than the
         osmolality itselfàà."

   and concludes:

         "Although most of the popular sports drinks are formulated to
         have as close to that of body fluids [102] and are promoted as
         isotonic drinks, there is good evidence that hypotonic solutions
         are more effective when rapid rehydration is desired. Although
         it is argued that a higher osmolality is inevitable when
         adequate amounts of carbohydrate are to be included in sports
         drinks, the optimum amount of carbohydrate necessary to improve
         exercise performance has not been clearly established."

Junk Food

         This term has no specific meaning. It is an invented label
    which has, for example, been applied indiscriminately to all fast
    food and all snack foods. It has also been applied to any food high
    in fat and/or sugar (and so in calories) but low in other nutrients.
    However, there is no evidence that such foods are other than
    acceptable as part of a balanced diet

Meat

         'Meat' means the flesh, including fat and the skin, rind, gristle
    and sinew in amounts naturally associated with the flesh, of any animal or
    bird which is normally used for human consumption, but including only those
    parts of the carcase listed in Part I of Schedule 2 of the UK Meat Products
    and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984. However, Regulations now
also
    exclude those parts named as Specified Risk Materials.
         Note that from 1 January 2003 EU Member States will have to
    give effect to a Directive amending Directive 2000/13/EC, limiting
    the definition of "meat" to skeletal-attached muscle plus not more
    than 25% muscle-adhering fat and connective tissue (not more than
    10% in the case of birds and rabbits), requiring systematic
    indication of the species from which the meat comes, and excluding
    "mechanically separated meat" from the definition.

Natural
    [The following was added to the end of the definition]
         However, see also the FAC Review of the use of the terms Fresh,
    Pure, Natural etc. in Food Labelling 2001, in connection with which
    the UK Food Standards Agency has announced an intention to legislate
    www.foodstandards.gov.uk/press_releases/uk_press/2001/pr010725.htm

Organic

         (See FAQ part 1, No. 20 for comparisons between organic and
    other foods)
         Organic food can be defined as "the product of a farming system
    which avoids the use of man-made fertilisers, pesticides, growth
    regulators and livestock feed additives. Instead the system relies
    on crop rotation, animal and plant manures, some hand weeding and
    biological pest control". This definition serves to distinguish
    the use of the word 'organic' in this context from its more
    traditional scientific meaning as a description of a
    carbon-containing molecule. 'Organic' is the description used only
    in English-speaking countries; in other markets 'Bio' , 'Oko' or
    'Eco' are appropriate. The Organic Products Regulations 1992 as
    amended implement EU Council Regulation EEC No 2091/91 (as
    amended in 1995) on organic production of agricultural products
    and foodstuffs. The use of the word 'organic' is restricted to
    agricultural crops and livestock and products made from them, in
    compliance with the detailed provisions of Annexes I, II and III
    of the Council Regulation.
         Organic processed foods are labelled depending on the
    proportion of organic ingredients present:

         * Category 1: Product contains a minimum of 95% organic
           ingredients by weight. Product can be labelled 'Organic'
           eg Organic Cornflakes
         * Category 2: Product contains 70 - 95% organic ingredients
           by weight. Product can be labelled 'Made with Organic
           Ingredients' eg Tomato Ketchup made with Organic Tomatoes.

    Regulation 2092/91 as amended contains a list of the non-organic
    ingredients which can be included in an otherwise organic food -
    for example water, salt, permitted food additives, processing
    aids, carrier solvents and flavourings. The Regulations also
    specifically exclude the use of irradiated or genetically
    modified (GM) ingredients in organic food.
         Throughout the EU each member state has a national Control Body.
    In the UK it is UKROFS, (The Register of Organic Food Standards)
    which regulates the activities of six UK Certification Bodies, who
    are the organisations charged with inspecting and regulating UK
    organic producers and manufacturers. The largest Certification Body
    is the Soil Association, which currently undertakes 80% of all
    certification in the UK. The other UK Certification Bodies are
    Organic Farmers & Growers, Scottish Organic Producers Association,
    Demeter, Organic Food Federation (OFF) and Irish Organic Farmers &
    Growers Association. Other prominent EU certification bodies
    include Ecocert (France), Naturland (Germany) and Skal (Holland),
    whilst OCIA, OGBA, QAI and FVO are the prominent certification
    bodies in the USA. The production of organic food requires the same
    involvement of professional food scientists and technologists and
    is subject to the same requirements of good manufacturing practice
    and food safety as the rest of the food industry, but is also subject
    to specific additional legal requirements as to cultivation,
    composition and labelling.

Risk

         The probability that a particular adverse consequence results
    from a hazard within a stated time under stated conditions. "Risk
    assessment" should take account of both the probability of
    occurrence and its seriousness if it occurs. See Hazard and Risk
    Analysis.

Risk Analysis

         This comprises risk assessment, risk management and risk
    communication. Risk assessment requires expertise both in the
    product or process in which the risk has been identified, and in
    modern risk assessment techniques. While experts also have a
    responsibility to contribute to risk management (i.e. the action
    to be taken in relation to the assessed risk), it is not the
    province of experts alone; in relation to a product or process
    within a food operation, it is the responsibility of top
    management; in the wider context of food legislation it is the
    responsibility of the appropriate governmental authority after
    consultation. Consultation is part of the process of risk
    communication, which should take place both before and after
    risk management.

 __

That's it for the changes! Now on to New User Information. No need to
read the rest of this "NEWS" section unless you're new to the group.
 __

                           INFORMATION FOR NEW USERS
 __

     NOTES ON 'NETTIQUETTE:

     Please read also FAQ 1/3, Part I: GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR POSTING IN
     SCI.BIO.FOOD-SCIENCE

     There has been a slow but sure trend in recent years for some
     posters to get emotional or to bait emotional debates with their
     postings. This is never a good thing, since discussions most
     commonly deteriorate into name-calling and so on. Others wonder
     why their posts hardly get any responses from this group. All this
     is discussed here.

     Emotional debates are common in any topic for which adherents hold
     passionate, but opposing, beliefs. One of life's many paradoxes
     holds that if you shout, you will not be heard. Keep your
     conversations polite and cordial. The basis of politeness means
     that you must realise that this is a text medium, and people
     cannot see your body language to find out what you intend with
     these words, and as a result most people tend to assume the worst.
     You have to be extra careful in how you word things with others.

     However, there are many other reasons your postings do not get
     desirable responses. First of all, realise that this is a food
     science newsgroup, and that most of the posters tend to toe the
     party line of science. If you find this hard to take, there are
     many other newsgroups that you might find more friendly. In FAQ
     1/3, for example, the newsgroup has many explicitly-stated goals,
     along with a newsgroup charter. These were agreed to and voted on
     over 10 years ago. Charters and statements of goals are a fact of
     life of all newsgroups under the sci.* hierarchy, and other
     hierarchies as well.

     While we welcome posts from anybody and everybody, you must ensure
     that your postings are on-topic. Some newsgroups dealing with
     other aspects of foods which we don't deal with:

     sci.med.nutrition      rec.food.preserving      rec.food.cooking
     rec.food.recipes       alt.food.wine            alt.food.fat-free
     rec.food-veg           rec.food.veg.cooking     alt.support.diet
     alt.food.vegan         alt.food.vegan.science
     alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   alt.sport.weightlifting.vegetarian
     alt.support.diet.*  (there are several newsgroups in this
     hierarchy)

     If you wonder why your posting garners few or no responses, it
     could be due to several reasons, including: 1) Nobody understood
     your post; 2) your post was not on-topic for the newsgroup, 3)
     your post showed an obvious intent at baiting an argument, and
     people properly ignored it, or 4) your post perhaps gave nothing
     for others to respond to.
 __

This FAQ has been accepted to the *.answers newsgroups, and can be found in
both
sci.answers and news.answers.

     DOWNLOADING This FAQ: This is not an exhaustive list. Pick a
     site nearest you. All paths end in "sci/food-science-faq/"
     except for Gopher sites, which use menus, and FSP sites, which have
     protocols that I am unfamiliar with. FSP stands for "File Service
     Protocol". There are several other sites not mentioned here. To get
     the very latest list, look under:

     <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/news-answers/introduction>

     They include Gopher sites, FTP sites, FSP sites, and web sites in
     Europe, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia.
     This list is intended only as a representative sample.

     From Canada:
       <gopher://jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca:70>
            This is the only Canadian FAQ repository, located in the
            maritime province of New Brunswick.
     From Germany:
       via FSP from: ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
       <ftp://ftp.Germany.EU.net:80/pub/newsarchive/news.answers/>
            This FTP site uses compression. You must download a GZIP
            decompression package to see the text, which should be
            available at this site.
     From Hong Kong:
       <ftp://ftp.hk.super.net/mirror/faqs/>
            One of many Asian sites.
     From Mexico and Central America:
       <ftp://ftp.mty.itesm.mx/pub/mirrors/usenet/news.answers/>
             This FTP site uses compression. You must download an
             UNCOMPRESS package to see the text, which should be
             available at this site.
     From South Africa:
       <ftp://ftp.is.co.za/usenet/news.answers/>
     From the United Kingdom:
       <ftp://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/news.answers/>
       via FSP from: src.doc.ic.ac.uk, port 21
     From the United States:
       <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/news.answers/>
       <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/alt.answers/>
       <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/news/answers/>
       <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/alt/answers/>
           rtfm.mit.edu is the central repository for most of the
           official FAQs that appear on the Usenet. In fact, this is the
           place where you are *guaranteed* the most up-to-date FAQ,
           since they have to do the auto-posting.
       <ftp://ftp.mirrors.aol.com/pub/rtfm/usenet/news-answers/>

     From the Web:
         Old postings to sbfs can be found at http://dejanews.com, using
     "sci.bio.food-science" as a search string.

     Other WWW Pages: Check out a site nearest you:

       Germany: <http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/>
          This actually leads to a search engine where the FAQ must be
          downloaded via FTP as above. The files are compressed with
          GZIP.

       The UK:  <http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/news.answers/>
          This is a "bare text" web page. In other words, there are no
          live web links. It is a plain text FAQ.

       <http://www.lib.ox.ac.uk/internet/news/faq/sci.bio.food-science.html>
          This is the other British Homepage worth mentioning, which
          will hopefully be updated soon. All links mentioned in this
          FAQ are live, and is a good starting point in surfing to
          various food science web sites. See "SCI.BIO.FOOD-SCIENCE ON
          THE WORLD-WIDE WEB" below:

       The USA: <http://www.smartpages.com/faqs/>
  __

A SHORT NOTE ON FTP RETRIEVAL OF THIS FAQ (for Windows users with SLIP/PPP):

If you find your web browser too slow on your system, a better way to FTP is by
use of freeware like WS-FTP. It can be downloaded via anonymous FTP from
<ftp://129.29.64.246/pub/msdos>. WS-FTP is free for private, household use. A
fee is required for commercial use. You may find the transfer on WS-FTP is much
faster, and that it uses far less memory. Also, WS-FTP allows you to maintain a
menu of your favourite FTP sites. This is not intended to be an endorsement of
WS-FTP, and others are available. __

SCI.BIO.FOOD-SCIENCE FAQ ON THE WORLD-WIDE WEB:

Our FAQ has been converted to HTML for users of the World-Wide Web. It may
be found at two locations:

<http://www.landfield.com/faqs/by-newsgroup/sci/sci.bio.food-science.html>
                                   or
                          <http://dejanews.com/>

The first site is a direct link to our FAQ; the second requires you to fill out
a search form for the correct newsgroup, since DejaNews lists ALL news articles
posted on the Internet over several months. In both cases, the great thing
about
seeing out FAQ on HTML is that all of the links we mention are LIVE links. That
is, if you have Netscape, you may point and click on our FAQ from any web site
we mention to wherever those links take you.

I also have my own personal web page, with most of the links mentioned in
this FAQ. The intent was to write a simple web page that was easy to move
around in. You may find it a bit more user-friendly than the web pages
offered at landfield.com or by Deja News. I won't be updating it as much as the
FAQ, so it may not have the most current URLs. I stress here that the entire
FAQ
is not on my home page - just the links mentioned in it. Visit the site and
tell
me what you think! The web site is at

                     <http://www3.sympatico.ca/pking123>

You are given a choice as to the kind of web page you want, based on your
browser capability and download speed.

__

HISTORICAL POSTINGS OF SBFS:

Another item worthy of mentioning is the finding of

     <http://www.ibiblio.org/london/rural/food/sci.bio.food-science>

It is at the University of North Carolina (sunsite.unc.edu), and contains
historical postings from the first day the newsgroup began (May, 1995), up
until December 1996. I consider it to be a valuable resource, and would
appreciate it if anyone else finds archived postings from our newsgroup that
proceed from December 1996 onward.

__

VIEWING THE SBFS FAQ ON NETSCAPE 2.2 and above:

Of the Web Browsers, I have found Netscape to have the best news reader.
This is because the Netscape's news browser turns any mention of a web URL
into a live link, as well. What is ideal about this kind of arrangement is
that if you point and click on the "blue" URL reference on the news browser,
the
web page will pop up in a new window. That means can surf the 'net without ever
losing track of our news articles. __

Professional food scientists, academics, and others involoved in the food
industry are invited to list their "favourite", or "most highly recommended"
textbooks in the food science field to be added to the FAQ for the benefit of
non-food scientists. The following format is preferred for ease of editing
(loosely based on the Journal of Food Science):

SUBJECT: Author(Year). Title. Edition. City: Publisher. ISBN. Comments.

The basic idea is to provide enough information for someone to walk into a
library or bookstore and order it. The ISBN number is essential. Comments
are optional.
__

PERSONAL FOOD SCIENCE WEB PAGES:

News for persons maintaining a "personal" food science web page: Jim Eilers
([e-mail]) is maintaing a list of persons who are maitaining a
home page of Food Science links. If you are such a person, email him at
[e-mail], and if you wish to view his homepage, "surf" to:

              http://homepage.interaccess.com/~jreilers/foodsci.htm
 __

               "ETHNIC" FOOD PREPARATION METHODS ON THE WEB

Ralph, Rachel, and I have proposed a new sub-section dealing with an
important and as of yet overlooked aspect of foods: Ethnic (non-American and
non-British) food preparations. Specifically, we are looking for web pages
dealing with details on the preparation of foods that are described as "halal",
"kosher", "pareve", and so on - you fill in the terminologies for your ethnic
group. How are these foods prepared, inspected, and manufactured? What does the
consumer expect in terms of organoleptic properties and health benefits of such
foods? Are there any mass-produced foods that have the designation? How does a
person in that ethnic group know they are buying a food prepared according to
their ethnic or religious doctrines?

If you know of any web pages that describe or even mention these things,
please send your suggestions to Paul King at <mailto://[e-mail]>
 ___

You are all encouraged to contact one of us if you have suggestions
additions, or other 'major' questions we haven't thought of. Our names and
email addresses are:

Rachel Zemser, creator of the newsgroup sci.bio.food-science
    <mailto://[e-mail]>

J Ralph Blanchfield, Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law
    Consultant, Chair, IFST Member Relations & Services Committee and Web
    Editor, IFST Web on the WWW <mailto://[e-mail]>

Paul King, Creator and Maintainer of the List of Common Abbreviations, and
    New User Info <mailto://[e-mail]>

For a glossary of scientific, marketing, industry, technical and legal terms of
relevance to food science, see FAQ 2 of 3. For a list of common questions and
answers about food and food science, see FAQ 3 of 3.

 - Paul King

------- End of forwarded message -------
------- End of forwarded message -------
===========================================================
Place the course code at the start of the "Subject:" line
when you send email. Examples: SBI OA, SCH 3A, or SCH OA.
Paul King                                      Oakville, ON
Course Pages:             http://strider0123.bravepages.com
Food Science:             http://www3.sympatico.ca/pking123
===========================================================