The Tiger Balm story: how ointment for every ailment was created, fell out of favour, then found new generation of users

Analgesic balm in a hexagonal jar, launched in Rangoon by the Aw brothers in 1924, was a staple of Chinese families’ medicine cabinets for a generation. Today, Tiger Balm products have fans around the world, including Lady Gaga

PUBLISHED : Saturday, 17 February, 2018, 8:31am

UPDATED : Monday, 19 February, 2018, 9:50am

You get a strong whiff of it before you see it. Approaching the nondescript factory block in a suburban estate on the edge of Singapore, you are hit by the invigorating aroma of menthol and camphor. Your sinuses clear, your eyes tingle. 

“Nobody who works here has to worry about getting sick,” Han Ah Kuan jokes as he stands outside the entrance to the factory.

Han is executive director of the Haw Par Corporation, the company responsible for that powerful aroma. He has tousled white hair, an easy-going demeanour, and little hexagonal jars of Tiger Balm in his home, office and car. For nearly a century, people around Asia and farther afield have been using his company’s product to relieve muscle aches, cold symptoms, headaches and more.

Made in Hong Kong: the story of Po Chai Pills, ‘cure all’ medicine Chinese families have relied on for over 60 years

Former Hong Kong resident Andrea Tam remembers how her grandmother kept a tiny red tin of the balm in one of her undershirt pockets. “She literally used it for everything – any type of cuts and aches,” she says.

British-born journalist Vicky Wong has a similar story. “[It] reminds me of my nan,” she says. “No matter what the ailment – sore throat, cold, nosebleeds, mosquito bites – she would just put Tiger Balm on you.”

Han has refused to let Tiger Balm recede into the shadows of nostalgia since he joined the company more than 25 years ago. He wants it to be seen as indispensable by everyone from athletes to Snapchatting teenagers. 

“Today, I would say our consumer demographic ranges [across] all ages and classes, male and female,” he says. “That means we’re able to produce products for different users in different generations.”

The Tiger Balm story begins several generations ago in rural Fujian province, in southern China. That’s where, in the late 1860s, Aw Chu Kin, the son of a herbalist, set off to join his uncle in the Burmese city of Rangoon. 

[It] reminds me of my nan. No matter what the ailment – sore throat, cold, nosebleeds, mosquito bites – she would just put Tiger Balm on you.

VICKY WONG

It was a long journey that took him through Singapore and Penang, in Malaya, where he earned more in a day selling herbal remedies to dock workers than he did in a month back home. 

By 1870, Aw had made it to Rangoon. He set up an apothecary named Eng Au Tong (the Hall of Eternal Peace) and had three sons: Aw Boon Leong (“Gentle Dragon”), Aw Boon Haw (“Gentle Tiger”) and Aw Boon Par (“Gentle Leopard”). 

Boon Leong died young, and father Aw died in 1908, leaving the family business to Boon Par and Boon Haw. Together, they delved into their father’s recipes and adapted them to produce an analgesic balm to treat any manner of ills. When it launched in 1924, Boon Haw named it after himself: Tiger Balm.

The product spread quickly through the world’s Chinese communities. While Boon Par focused on managing the business, Boon Haw aimed to gain influence. He donated money to charities and schools, and founded a string of newspapers in Singapore, Malaya and Hong Kong, including Sing Tao Daily and the Hong Kong Tiger Standard – which is today known simply as The Standard. 

He also built mansions in Singapore, Hong Kong and Fujian, with adjoining theme parks known as Tiger Balm Gardens. Their pathways were lined by bizarre and morbid concrete statues in scenes from Chinese mythology. 

The Hong Kong park was torn down in 2004 after it was sold to Li Ka-shing’s Cheung Kong Holdings by Boon Haw’s adopted daughter, Sally Aw Sian. The Singapore park was donated to the city’s government, which maintains it as a historic site.

The Tiger Balm business endured a period of struggle after the Aw brothers died; Boon Paw in 1944 and Boon Haw in 1954. Not long after it went public on the Singapore stock exchange in 1969, the company was taken over by British conglomerate Slater Walker, which soon afterwards collapsed in a banking crisis. 

After a period of uncertainty, Singaporean banker Dr Wee Cho Yaw gained control of Haw Par in 1981 and began rebuilding the company. In 1992, Haw Par took back Tiger Balm, which had been franchised out for 20 years during the Slater Walker period. By that time, the tiger was a shadow of its former self.

“When we took it back, the product had lost almost a generation of users,” says Han. He joined the company in 1992 after being headhunted from Vicks VapoRub, one of Tiger Balm’s direct competitors.

Born in Malaysia, Han grew up in Singapore and, like most people in the city state, he was familiar with Tiger Balm from his youth. But from a professional perspective, he saw how the brand was struggling. 

Han was convinced that the weakness stemmed from the branding, not the product. Tiger Balm works by tricking nerve endings with cooling and heating sensations, interrupting other signals from muscle pain or itchy insect bites. 

It is much stronger than most similar products on the market. Vicks contains 8.6 per cent active ingredients: synthetic camphor, eucalyptus oil and menthol. Tiger Balm contains 60 per cent, including natural camphor, mint oil, cajuput oil, menthol and clove oil. 

But the ointment had its limits. Some consumers didn’t want to smell like Tiger Balm when they sat in the office; others didn’t like how greasy it was. And a jar of ointment can last for months, if not a year – hardly a recipe for revenue growth.

Made in Hong Kong: the Camel vacuum flask, once an essential for school packed lunches, and the story behind it 

Han realised Tiger Balm’s main challenge was to improve its reach. So the company’s formula was adapted for a new range of products. The first was a disposable plaster, introduced in 1993. “It’s Tiger Balm you can wear,” Han says. 

Since then, the company has introduced a line of sports-focused warm-up creams called Tiger Balm Active, mosquito repellent patches and, most recently, a lavender-scented neck and shoulder rub targeted specifically at muscles strained by the posture of smartphone users. 

All told, there are now 10 products under the Tiger Balm brand.

Han also pushed the company to expand into new markets. “I think almost every Singapore, Hong Kong and Thai person grew up using Tiger Balm – and that’s where the issue is,” he says. 

Western markets were a blank slate by comparison. “They don’t have the baggage of it being their grandfather’s product.”

In the 1990s, Tiger Balm enlisted American football stars Joe Montana and Jerry Rice as spokesmen, which helped the ointment become popular among athletes. “Some of them, their arms are bigger than my thigh,” says Han. “They use a lot of Tiger Balm.” 

Most recently, the brand has received unsolicited endorsements from Lady Gaga and other celebrities, who have praised it on social media. The company also tweaked its branding, striking a balance between conserving its heritage and refreshing its image. 

The proprietary orange colour was preserved, along with the hexagonal-shaped bottle, both of which were introduced by the Aw brothers when the product was first launched. (Han says they chose a hexagon because “it’s a very auspicious shape” – and it’s easier to grip than a round bottle.) 

The brand’s main emblem was given a new look, however. “We changed from a resting tiger to a leaping tiger,” Han says.

Made in Hong Kong: Eu Yan Sang’s 138-year journey making traditional Chinese medicine has been a bumpy one

The changes seem to have worked. Last year, Tiger Balm sold 66 million units of its products, a 16 per cent increase over 2016. It is now available in about 100 countries and trademarked in 145. 

Han says the company often fends off imitators – Leopard Balm and the like. “We are paying a lot of legal fees,” he says, laughing.

What hasn’t changed much is the original product, whose two varieties – red for muscle aches, white for cold and flu – are still based on the formula pioneered by the Aw brothers.

After donning a hairnet, surgical mask, disposable white jacket and protective bootees, Han steps onto the factory floor and explains how the balm is made. 

First, essential oils are analysed in a lab to make sure they meet quality standards. They are then blended with paraffin petrolatum – a petroleum by-product that keeps Tiger Balm semi-solid at room temperature and soft when it touches the body – in steel tanks about the size of a large refrigerator.

Next, the hot formula is piped into glass jars, cooled, and packaged using machines custom-designed to handle the balm’s hexagonal paper boxes. It’s a noisy procession of clinking jars controlled almost entirely by machines, though not without human supervision. There are about 100 workers in the Singapore factory, and more in Tiger Balm’s facilities in Malaysia and China.

At the end of the line, little boxes of Tiger Balm are placed by hand into slightly larger boxes, which are in turn placed into even larger cartons that are shipped around the world.  

And when they reach their destination, a grandmother or an athlete or a stiff-necked office worker will open up a jar and breathe in that unforgettable aroma.

http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-beauty/article/2133311/tiger-balm-story-how-ointment-every-ailment-was-created-fell

MUST READ: Can the Conventional Medical Profession Be Trusted?

An analysis of the studies found whopping discrepancies between promised efficacies and the real McCoy. Many common treatments do more harm than good, so browse this website before agreeing to proceed. Plus, see how this chef 'miraculously' saved her father's life.

February 6, 2018 

Visit the Mercola Video Library

Story at-a-glance

• Trust in the medical profession has dramatically declined in recent decades. In 1966, more than 75 percent of Americans had great confidence in medical professionals; today only 34 percent do
• Only 25 percent have confidence in the U.S. health system and a mere 14 percent trust the federal government will do what’s right most of the time
• A glaring example of how little attention our medical system affords health is the fact that U.S. hospitals and senior care institutions still insist on serving highly processed, sugary foods and meal replacement beverages
• Research by John Ioannidis, one of the world's foremost experts on the credibility of medical research, shows as much as 90 percent of the published medical information relied on by doctors is flawed or incorrect
• Research published in 2016 concluded that medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S., killing an estimated 250,000 Americans each year

By Dr. Mercola

According to a recent article in The New York Times, growing distrust in the medical profession poses a threat to public health and safety.1 “Trust is crucial in the relationship between patients and health care providers, but it's been on the decline in recent decades,” Dr. Dhruv Khullar, a physician at New York Presbyterian Hospital and a researcher at Weill Cornell Department of Healthcare Policy and Research writes, noting that:

“Mistrust in the medical profession — particularly during emergencies like epidemics — can have deadly consequences. In 1966, more than three-fourths of Americans had great confidence in medical leaders; today, only 34 percent do.

Compared with people in other developed countries, Americans are considerably less likely to trust doctors, and only a quarter express confidence in the health system. During some recent disease outbreaks, less than one-third of Americans said they trusted public health officials to share complete and accurate information. Only 14 percent trust the federal government to do what’s right most of the time.”

Trust Requires Trustworthiness

Trust in the conventional medical paradigm has declined for a good reason. As noted by Khullar, “Waning trust in the health system is partly a result of the sometimes well-founded public perception that its key players pursue profits at the expense of patients.” Indeed, how is anyone expected to trust a system as riddled with corporate profit bias as what we currently have?

Doctors, while well-intentioned, have by and large become untrustworthy for the simple fact that they stopped thinking for themselves and fell into a corporate for-profit scheme that depends on chronic illness. Few are those who buck the system, do their own research rather than getting their information from pharmaceutical reps, and focus on patient education about preventive strategies that don’t involve costly drugs or surgical interventions.

A healthy whole food diet, exercise, proper breathing and movement, sensible sun exposure and grounding — these are all simple foundational aspects of good health that cost very little or nothing. Yet they’re rarely if ever considered when it comes time to address illness. The article also rightfully notes that transparency is a key feature that inspires trust, and honest transparency has become increasingly difficult to come by.

As just one example, the list of medical professionals, nutritional professionals and academics who pose as independent experts sharing their well-educated stances with the public — when in fact they are paid shills for one corporation or another — has grown longer with each passing year. Hiding conflicts of interest has become the norm, it seems, and honest disclosure of possible conflicts of interest is a cornerstone of the kind of transparency needed to build trust.

Following are a few blaring examples showcasing why distrust in the medical system is actually warranted, and could be viewed as a sign of sanity prevailing over orchestrated attempts to undermine public health and well-being.

CDC and Coca-Cola — Still ‘Partners in Health’

In 2015, it was revealed that a Coca-Cola front group called the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN) was founded to cast doubts on claims that soda consumption is a major if not primary cause of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and related health problems. The network, funded with millions from Coca-Cola that were never publicly disclosed, pushed the already debunked theory that to maintain a healthy weight, all you need is more exercise.  

After that public relations nightmare, Coca-Cola vowed to be more transparent about its funding of scientists and health partnerships, but as noted in a recent report by Russ Greene,2 the company has not changed its ways.

While Coca-Cola claims to publish “all relevant funding of well-being related research, partnerships and health professionals and scientific experts” every six months, when comparing the company’s data with annual reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention (CDC) and the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), Greene discovered major discrepancies.

As it turns out, Coca-Cola failed to report some of its largest payments to the CDC. “Coca-Cola donated to the [CDC’s] Foundation in 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017, according to the Foundation’s annual fiscal reports. And yet a search for ‘Centers for Disease Control’ in Coca-Cola’s website yields no results since 2012,” Greene writes.

He also notes that these payments seem to be at odds with statements made by former CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden, who last year stated he’d been “winding down Coke-funded programs” during his tenure, and had “basically canceled” the CDC’s Coca-Cola run anti-obesity campaign, saying he couldn’t justify having “Coca-Cola run an obesity campaign that had an exclusive focus on physical activity.”

Conflict of Interest Policy Forbids CDC Foundation From Partnering With Soda Giant

Frieden also claimed he’d encouraged the company to provide nonexercise-related donations, but that nothing had come of it, with the exception of a $20,000 donation for a program linked to fighting the Ebola virus.

“Frieden’s claims … are not consistent with the fact that Coca-Cola donated to the CDC Foundation during every single year of his tenure except 2014,” Greene writes, “And Coca-Cola’s ‘transparency’ archive is hiding at least four separate payments to the CDC Foundation. So, both parties are acting as if they’re ashamed of their partnership. And yet it persists.”

Perhaps most importantly, the CDC Foundation’s acceptance of funding from Coca-Cola is at odds with its own conflict of interest policy, which does not permit “Partnership with an organization that represents any product that exacerbates morbidity or mortality when used as directed (mission compatibility).” Anyone who has read even a fraction of the research on sugar and sweetened beverages in recent years would agree that Coca-Cola does not qualify as a CDC “mission compatible” health partner.

Coca-Cola Still Hides NIH Payments

Coca-Cola has also neglected to report payments to the FNIH, Greene found. Since the FNIH is a nongovernmental entity, it is not subject to the same policies and regulations as the NIH itself. This, as noted on the FNIH’s website, allows the foundation “to have a unique role” in public and private partnerships. As noted by Greene:3

“The NIH Foundation is essentially a money launderer. It provides corporations that are banned by NIH’s conflict of interest policy from donating directly to NIH with a convenient loophole. For example, Coca-Cola can’t pay the NIH directly, but it can pay the NIH Foundation, which then transfers the money to the NIH … Coca-Cola is listed twice as a donor to the NIH Foundation in 2015. But Coca-Cola’s archives do not list an NIH Foundation payment that year …

[A]t this point, is there any reason to believe that we’ve been allowed to see the full extent of the Coca-Cola partnerships with CDC and NIH? Consider that we have corrected Coca-Cola’s archives multiple times in the past, and they updated their records shortly thereafter.” 

Hospitals Serve Sugar-Laden Processed Foods

Another glaring example of how little attention our medical system affords health is the fact that U.S. hospitals and senior care institutions still insist on serving highly processed, sugary foods and “nutritional shakes” like Ensure and Boost.4,5 Fruit juices are another unhealthy staple. Even diabetics are served ample amounts of bread and other refined carbs that will ensure they’ll never be able to keep their blood sugar under control.6

Sugar, especially high-fructose corn syrup, is the very last thing a sick person needs while trying to recuperate and recover, and if there ever was a place where healthy eating should be the norm, it would be in our hospitals. Yet hospital meals are chockful of sugars, chemicals and genetically engineered ingredients that do your body no good.

Take Ensure, for example. Of its 36 itemized ingredients, the first six are corn syrup, corn maltodextrin, sugar (sucrose), corn oil, sodium and calcium caseinates, soy protein isolate and artificial flavor.

This horrendous concoction is typically given as complete meal replacements to people who cannot chew or swallow and need to use a feeding tube. At present, there appears to be just one organic, whole food-based feeding tube formula on the market. It’s called Liquid Hope,7 and was created by Robin Gentry McGee, a health and lifestyle coach and chef, whose father suffered a brain injury that left him in a coma in 2005. Refusing to feed him what she calls “garbage,” she eventually created her own formula.

“I basically created it because I had to. I was trying to save my dad’s life, and to me giving him the high-fructose corn syrup sugar water was not an option,” she explained back in 2013.8 Her formula contains over 20 organic whole food ingredients. “Within six weeks the healing was [so] profound that his M.D. called me up and told me it was a miracle,” McGee told a reporter. “But it wasn’t a miracle, it was nutrition.” 

Science-Based Medicine Requires Patients to Take Control of Their Health

John Ioannidis is one of the world's foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have repeatedly shown that many of the conclusions biomedical researchers arrive at in their published studies are exaggerated or flat-out wrong. Yet this is the “science-based evidence” doctors use to prescribe drugs or recommend surgery. According to Ioannidis’ findings, as much as 90 percent of the published medical information relied on by doctors is flawed or incorrect.9

He’s not the only one who has reached this conclusion. In fact, the idea that conventional medical treatments are “scientifically proven” and based on solid science is quite the misnomer. According to 2007 data from the British Medical Journal’s “Clinical Evidence” website, of the 2,500 treatments evaluated, only 15 percent were rated as beneficial. A whopping 46 percent had an efficacy rating of “unknown.”10,11

In other words, nearly half of accepted medical treatments used in general practice were not scientifically proven to work or provide benefit for the patient. Granted, that’s a significant improvement over statistics compiled in 1978, when the Office of Technology Assessment concluded only 10 to 20 percent of medical treatments had evidence to support their use.12 Research also shows that many novel medical treatments gain popularity over older standards of care due mostly to clever marketing, not solid science.

An investigation13 by the Mayo Clinic published in 2013 proved this point. To determine the overall effectiveness of medical care, researchers tracked the frequency of medical reversals over the past decade. Not only did they find that reversals are common across all classes of medical practice, but they too confirmed that a significant proportion of medical treatments offer no patient benefit.

The most telling data in the report confirm that many common medical treatments actually do more harm than good. Of the studies that tested an existing standard of care, 40 percent reversed the practice as it was found to be either ineffective or harmful. Only 38 percent of the studies reaffirmed existing standards.

The remaining 22 percent were inconclusive. This means that anywhere between 40 and 78 percent of the medical testing, treatments and procedures you receive are of no benefit to you — or are actually harmful — according to clinical studies.

Scientific Bias and Fraud Are a Growing Problem

In more recent years, the shocking prevalence of scientific bias and outright fraud14 has also garnered attention, as this trend undermines the credibility of the field of science altogether.15 A major weakness is the fact that many studies that fail to find a benefit never see the light of day, and when only positive findings are published, it presents an incredibly skewed view of the facts.

Then there’s the influence of funding, which has repeatedly and consistently been shown to have a dramatic impact on study results. As previously reported in Live Science:16

“One of the most well-known examples of bias involves the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) paroxetine (Paxil), an anti-anxiety medicine. The pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline suppressed results from four trials that not only failed to show treatment effectiveness for off-label use of its SSRI among children and teens, but also showed possible increased risk of suicidal tendencies in this age group.”

Modern Medicine Is the Third Leading Cause of Death

Doctors (not to mention drug companies) may bemoan the lack of trust and faith in their offerings, but you certainly cannot claim that it’s an undeserved trend. In 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield published a study revealing that doctors are in fact the third leading cause of death in the U.S., killing an estimated 225,000 patients annually.17 Her statistics showed that each year:

• 12,000 die from unnecessary surgery
• 7,000 die from medication errors in hospitals
• 20,000 die from other errors in hospitals
• 80,000 die from hospital-acquired infections
• 106,000 die from the negative side effects of drugs taken as prescribed

Unfortunately, few believed it, and no affirmative action was ever taken to address and correct the situation. So, when new data was published in 2016, showing the situation has only gotten worse, I for one was not surprised.

The study,18 published in the BMJ, concluded that medical errors now kill an estimated 250,000 Americans each year — an increase of about 25,000 people annually from Starfield’s estimates — and these numbers may still be vastly underestimated as deaths occurring at home or in nursing homes were not included.

Many media outlets, including The Washington Post,19 bore headlines saying medical errors are “now” the leading cause of death, but the truth is, modern medicine has been the third leading cause of death for at least two decades, that we know of. Research20published in 2013 estimated that preventable hospital errors kill 210,000 Americans each year — a figure that is very close to the latest statistics.

However, when deaths related to diagnostic errors, errors of omission and failure to follow guidelines were included, the number skyrocketed to 440,000 preventable hospital deaths each year. That’s inching ever closer to the death toll from cancer — the second leading cause of death in the U.S. — which is projected to claim just over 609,000 Americans this year.21

Overtesting, Overtreatment and Hospital-Acquired Infections Also Take a Toll

Overtesting and overtreatment are also part of the problem. Instead of dissuading patients from unnecessary or questionable interventions, the system rewards waste and incentivizes disease over health. According to a 2012 report by the Institute of Medicine, an estimated 30 percent of all medical procedures, tests and medications may in fact be unnecessary,22 at a cost of at least $750 billion a year. To learn which tests and interventions may do more harm than good, browse through the Choosing Wisely website.23

Other grim statistics revealing the hazards of modern medicine include rates of hospital-acquired infections. According to CDC statistics,24,25 1 in 25 patients end up with a hospital-acquired infection, and about 75,000 people die from these infections each year.26Medicare patients may be at even greater risk. According to the 2011 Health Grades Hospital Quality in America Study,27 1 in 9 Medicare patients developed a hospital-acquired infection.

Take Control of Your Health

Considering everything mentioned so far, is it any wonder that trust in the medical profession has dwindled to about one-third, or that only 1 in 4 Americans trust the health care system as a whole? Bear in mind, the examples included above are just a sampling. I haven’t even touched on the corruption and conflicts of interest involving the food industry at large, or the fact that junk food purveyors fund and provide much of the educational material for our nutrition professionals.

The take-home message is that you cannot be too careful when it comes to medical and nutritional advice. On the whole, our medical establishment has a long way to go before they will regain their old aura as the ultimate authority on health. In the meantime, remember you are ultimately responsible for your own health, and while it’s certainly wise to listen to health professionals you trust, it cannot hurt to get a second or third opinion.

Seeking input and feedback from alternative health professionals can also provide you with alternatives you may never get from a conventional doctor. More often than not, successfully addressing chronic illness will require a holistic approach that may include both conventional and complementary approaches.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/02/06/declined-trust-in-conventional-medical-profession.aspx

MUST READ: Eggs Cannot Be Defined by Law

An unlikely source - a fast-food chain - revealed a bizarre government rule banning the establishment of a definition for eggs. As a result, the 'egg' in many popular menu items may be more aptly described as an egg product, while impostor food items, from fake eggs to fake burgers, continue to flood the market.

February 6, 2018

Story at-a-glance

• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a rule that forbids the creation of a definition for eggs, stating “no regulation shall be promulgated fixing and establishing a reasonable definition and standard of identity for the food commonly known as eggs”
• The lack of definition allows restaurants to pass off “eggish” products as real eggs, with no obvious distinctions to consumers
• Food chain Panera, which is launching a breakfast sandwich made from “100% real eggs,” submitted a petition to the FDA to eliminate the “no definition rule” and asking for eggs to be defined to “reflect a food made from a cracked shell egg without addition of additives or further processing”

By Dr. Mercola

Eggs, organic and pastured, are among the healthiest foods you can eat, and discussing the definition of an egg seems, on the surface, to be a rather moot point. That is, until you learn a curious fact about the legal definition of an egg, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While the FDA wasn’t shy about legally defining egg whites, frozen egg yolks and liquid eggs, regular eggs — the kind in the shell (as though there were any other kind) — have no such definition.

Stranger still, the FDA has a rule on the books that forbids it, stating “no regulation shall be promulgated fixing and establishing a reasonable definition and standard of identity for the food commonly known as eggs.”1 One can only speculate why the FDA would go to such a length to avoid pinning down a definition for eggs, but one thing the lack thereof allows is for restaurants to pass off “eggish” products as real eggs, with no obvious distinctions to consumers.

So it’s not surprising that food chain Panera, which is launching a breakfast sandwich made from “100% real eggs,” submitted a petition to the FDA to eliminate the “no definition rule” and asking for eggs to be defined to “reflect a food made from a cracked shell egg without addition of additives or further processing” — the exception being pasteurization or other treatment to destroy salmonella.2

As the saying goes, truth really is stranger than fiction, and although Panera is clearly seeking to legally define eggs in order to bolster profits, it seems to be a worthwhile endeavor nonetheless. As Modern Farmer noted, “[I]t seems that Panera has actually stumbled on something bizarre and worth digging into. What possible reason could the FDA have for not only declining to define an egg, but for going a step further and actually passing a rule that specifically forbids anyone from defining one?”3

Egg Sandwiches Often Made From ‘Egg Products’ Instead

Eggs play a starring role in most fast food breakfast sandwiches, with many taking for granted the notion that an “egg sandwich” contains real egg. This is where the FDA’s strange egg loophole rears its ugly head, as an egg sandwich may actually be made with a heavily processed “egg product.” Ironically, fast food giant McDonald’s — hardly known for wholesome food — is among those that touts the use of a whole cracked egg in its breakfast menu, but only on its McMuffin (which still does not make it a health food).

Most of their other egg sandwiches contain “folded egg,” which is a mix of eggs, nonfat milk, modified food starch, salt and citric acid.4Other food chains are similarly guilty of passing of unappetizing egg concoctions as simply “eggs” on its sandwiches. Dunkin’ Donuts’ bacon, egg and cheese sandwich, for instance, is made with an “egg patty” that includes soybean oil, cornstarch, xanthan gum and natural flavor, among other ingredients.5

Even Starbucks, many people may be surprised to learn, uses a “puffed scrambled egg patty” on its sausage, cheddar and egg breakfast sandwich, made with soybean oil, modified food starch, butter flavor and guar gum, to name just some of its ingredients.6 The moral of the story is that if you choose a fast food breakfast, there’s a good chance the egg it contains is a far cry from the kind you could, just as quickly, whip up at home — although Panera is trying to change that. The company wrote in a press release:7

“In developing its newest breakfast sandwiches, Panera discovered that current FDA regulations do not establish a definition or a standard of identity for eggs. Without this, companies can sell and advertise items that contain multiple additives, such as butter-type flavors, gums and added color, under the generic term ‘egg.’ Panera’s goal in petitioning the FDA is to better support and inform guests in the absence of a true definition for the term ‘egg.’”

Further, Panera’s director of wellness and food policy Sara Burnett, explained, “After discovering the FDA’s lack of definition for the simple term ‘egg,’ Panera began exploring menus from other companies in the food industry to better understand what’s in their ‘egg’ sandwiches. Panera found that 50 percent of the top 10 fast casual restaurants that sell breakfast have an ‘egg’ made of at least five ingredients, often more.”8

Fake Eggs an Actual Problem in Asia

In Asia, fake eggs are taken to another level entirely, with whole egg lookalikes appearing on store shelves since about the mid-1990s. Circa 2005, it was said that fake eggs cost about half as much to make as real eggs, whereas other reports suggest 10 fake eggs cost just 2 cents to produce,9 hence the attempts to pass them off to unsuspecting consumers.

Made with strange combinations like calcium carbonate and paraffin wax for the shells, resin, coagulant, pigment and sodium alginate for the whites and yolks, the fake eggs appear eerily similar to the actual thing, although with ingredients linked to liver, brain and nerve damage.10 An investigation by the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) in Malaysia revealed slight differences between real and fake eggs to watch out for.

The fake eggs, CAP said, were rougher on the surface and larger than real eggs, with yellower yolks and no chalazae, the ropy strand of egg white that holds the yolk in place. Further, fake eggs smell different from real eggs, with some having no scent at all, and, if shaken in the shell, you’ll hear liquid sloshing around, as opposed to a more solidified sound from a real egg.11

Reports on social media suggest the eggs become rubbery when cooked, with yolks that may even bounce on the floor. In speaking with a reported 10-year veteran in the fake egg industry, on investigation with the Qilu Evening News, reported by the Epoch Times, explained more unsettling details about how the fake eggs are created:12

“The eggshell is created in a mold; stirring the calcium mixture and applying it evenly is crucial in creating a convincing fake. In 10 minutes, the egg is complete. To reduce the strong chemical smell given off by the compounds that comprise the whites and yolk, the eggs are treated with aquarium water to recreate an authentic odor. For added effect, traces of chicken droppings can be placed on the eggs.”

Beyond Eggs for US — Ultra-Processed Isolates Backed by Gates

A different type of fake egg has already hit store shelves in the U.S. Dubbed “Beyond Eggs,” the pea-based egg replacement was created by Hampton Creek, a food startup backed by Bill Gates, aiming to replace animal foods with plant products.13

The Beyond Eggs product was intended to be used only in baking, but the company is hoping to soon release another plant-based artificial egg product made from mung beans, called Just Scramble, and intended to replace other egg replacement products used by schools and universities.

Along with the fake eggs, the company also makes a plant-based mayonnaise and is working on plant-based ice cream and butter, along with a lab-grown meat product. It’s the latest lineup of ultra-processed food created from isolates and cultures that is being passed off as healthier than the real thing. The “Beyond Meat” Beyond Burger is another example that’s already sitting on U.S. grocery store shelves.

Made from a heavily processed concoction of ingredients like pea protein isolate, canola oil, gum Arabic, modified food starch and cellulose from bamboo, it’s far from health and a far cry from real food.

The Impossible Burger, a meat substitute made from soy, wheat, coconut oil, potatoes and plant-based “heme,” the latter of which is derived from genetically engineered (GE) yeast, is another example of the fake food fad that seems to be rising in the U.S., as is the meat substitute known as Quorn, a fungus-based ferment that hit the U.S. market in 2002.

It’s important to remember that a key feature of healthy food is being as natural and unprocessed as possible, and meat alternatives such as the Beyond Burger, Impossible Burger and Quorn involve the highest level of processing imaginable. These products are manufactured from start to finish and involve the use of man-made ingredients.

Even more importantly, real, whole food such as meat and eggs contain a complex mix of nutrients and cofactors that you cannot recreate by an assembly of individual components. As a general rule, man-made foods are vastly inferior to natural, whole foods and always will be.

Real Nutrition Comes From Real Eggs

Getting back to eggs, if you’re interested in real nutrition, forget the fake egg patties, powders and replacements and opt for the real thing instead. Eggs became largely vilified over recent decades, in part because of misconceptions regarding their cholesterol content. In reality, eggs, particularly the yolks, provide valuable vitamins (A, D, E and K), omega-3 fats and antioxidants. They’re also one of the best sources of choline available.

Choline helps keep your cell membranes functioning properly, plays a role in nerve communications, prevents the buildup of homocysteine in your blood (elevated levels are linked to heart disease) and reduces chronic inflammation. Choline is also needed for your body to make the brain chemical acetylcholine, which is involved in storing memories.

In pregnant women, choline plays an equally, if not more, important role, helping to prevent certain birth defects, such as spina bifida, and playing a role in brain development.

According to a study published in the journal Nutrients, only 8 percent of U.S. adults are getting enough choline (including only 8.5 percent of pregnant women).14 Among egg consumers, however, more than 57 percent met the adequate intake (AI) levels for choline, compared to just 2.4 percent of people who consumed no eggs. In fact, the researchers concluded that it’s “extremely difficult” to get enough choline unless you eat eggs or take a dietary supplement. One egg yolk contains nearly 215 mg of choline.

Why else are egg yolks good for you? They’re rich in the antioxidant carotenoids lutein and zeaxanthin, which are beneficial for vision health. Egg yolks are also an excellent source of healthy fat and protein, while providing you with vitamins that many Americans are lacking. Eating egg yolks may even be an ideal way to resolve other common nutrient deficiencies beyond choline, including vitamins A, E and B6, copper, calcium and folate.15

Free-range or "pastured" organic eggs are far superior when it comes to nutrient content, while conventionally raised eggs are far more likely to be contaminated with disease-causing bacteria such as Salmonella. You can usually tell your eggs are pastured by the color of the egg yolk. Foraged hens produce eggs with bright orange yolks, and this is what most people who raise backyard chickens are after. Dull, pale yellow yolks are a sure sign you're getting eggs from caged hens that are not allowed to forage for their natural diet.

Where You Get Your Eggs Matters

Since the FDA currently does not allow eggs to be defined, be aware that “egg” dishes may take on a variety of processed forms in restaurants. You can easily avoid falling for this fake egg loophole by being choosy about where your eggs come from and preparing them yourself at home. Unfortunately, loopholes also abound in terms of eggs sold in U.S. grocery stores, allowing CAFO-raised chickens and eggs to masquerade as "free-range" and "organic."

The Cornucopia Institute addressed some of these issues in their egg report and scorecard, which ranks egg producers according to 28 organic criteria. It can help you to make a more educated choice if you’re buying your eggs at the supermarket. Ultimately, however, the best choice is to get to know a local farmer and get your eggs there directly.

Alternatively, you might consider raising your own backyard chickens or picking up organic, pastured eggs from a local farmers market or food co-op. This way, there’s no confusion over what’s a real egg and what’s not — regardless of what the FDA definition ultimately turns out to be.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/02/06/eggs-no-definition-rule.aspx