Week #7 - Social and Ethical Issues (due 3/4)

  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.
  • warning: Parameter 2 to securepages_link_alter() expected to be a reference, value given in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/courses/spring2011/biol/coursedrupaltemplate/includes/common.inc on line 2892.

Thousands of years ago, people living in the Middle East discovered that when they added a tiny quantity of extract from the inner lining of the fourth stomach of a freshly killed calf to cows milk, the milk turned to cheese. In the twentieth century, biochemists isolated and characterized the responsible agent: an enzyme named chymosin. The enzyme is encoded by a single gene that is expressed only in animals that chew their cud and only before weaning. Until just two decades ago, cheese makers had to use this animal product as an essential component of the cheese-making process. Then, using the tools or recombinant DNA technology, biotechnologists cloned the cow chymosin gene in a bacterial expression vector, making it possible to produce fully functional chymosin in a culture of cloned bacteria. In 1990, chymosin produced in this way became the first approved product of recombinant DNA technology to enter the US food market. Unlike calf chymosin, recombinant cow chymosin can be standardized; it can also be inexpensively produced, and it doesn't require the killing of any animals. Purified calf chymosin and bacterially produced chymosin are indistinguishable in their structure and enzymatic activities. By 2004, over 90% of the cheese on supermarket shelves in the US, Europe, and most other countries around the globe were produced using recombinant chymosin.

Chr. Hansen, the Danish company that produces recombinant chymosin under the trademark of ChyMax, claims in their promotional literature that it is "nature's own enzyme for clotting milk and a natural ingredient for the food industry." What is the definition of the term natural? Is it appropriate for a company to use this term to describe a protein made from a mammalian-specific gene inside bacterial cells? Does it matter that the purified chymosin proteins from the calf's stomach and from cloned bacteria are structurally and functionally identical? How important is the process relative to the product in assessing something's naturalness?

Comments

Blog 7

The word natural means: existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial), based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature, of or pertaining to nature or the universe. I think that Hensen is correct in saying that "nature's own enzyme for clotting milk" because that is what chymosin is. But he should not refer to the recombinant chymosin as something from nature, although part of the definition of natural is " based on the state of things in nature..." So if we were to only take into consideration this part of the definition then Hensen could refer to the recombinant chymosin as from nature. It does not matter that they are funtionally identical because that allows the artificial chymosin to inteact with our bodies like that natural one would.

ChyMax is natural??

The definition of natural by the Oxford english dictionary is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". I think that because of this definition, I think that ChyMax should not be able to use this in their slogan. They could say something like "designed by nature, captured (created, formulated, produced, conceived) for the food industry". Until this definition changes in some way, and we become more comfortable with bioengineering, it is misleading to use such a slogan.

Week 7

Natural is defined as coming from nature as in not created artificially. I think in the case of ChyMax, it could be considered natural. As stated, they are using a structurally and functionally identical form of the enzyme that was not lab created or a substitute (perhaps a compound that acts similarly to chymosin). Though chymosin "naturally" occurs in calf stomachs, this bacteria expresses the exact replicate and does not utilize unnatural compound substitutes. I think it is okay for the company to use the word natural in the description of bacteria created ChyMax but consumers should be aware of ChyMax's origin.

ChyMax

The process of producing recombinant chymosin in this case is not natural. The company used bacteria to cloned the cow chymosin gene whereas naturally, a freshly calf is killed to cows milk. The company cannot call it natural because they used technology to speed the production of cheese without the presence of the animal. They used the term natural to advertise their product in an optimistic way so that people would buy it. I do not think it is right, but that is how they do business and we have a choice to buy it or not.

Week 7

I believe that ChyMax should not and can not be advertised as natural. The fact that it is identical to the enzyme recovered from a calf is not the problem, it is the fact that it has been manipulated to be produced outside of the calf. The "natural" occurance of this enzyme is only in the calf, thusly when created outside of the calf it is not natural. Something occurring naturally can not be manipulated to occur. Once human involvement occurs in facilitating the process, the term "natural" can not be used. I understand the company's want to advertise this as natural to play to the eye of the consumer, however it is not true. The mention of sparring calf's lives should be their angle for advertisement.

week 7

I do not believe that the ChyMax should be able to call their enzyme natural. Natural implies that the enzyme came from its own source without any human manipulation. Even though the enzyme is identical to the one found in a calf, the ChyMax enzyme was still purified and made through a BEV making it unnatural. There is nothing wrong with the enzyme as it is identical to the one found in the nature-made source and the company should advertise that and the fact that using the ChyMax enzyme prevents having to kill innocent animals just to make cheese.

week 7 blog response

In the modern food industry, countless companies utilize the word “natural” with no regard for its meaning. We can no longer trust this word without substantial proof to back the claim. The process of recombinant chymosin production, of course, is not natural; any process occurring in a laboratory is not natural. Even still, this unnatural process does yield a chymosin product completely identical to that found in nature. For this reason, it is difficult to find fault with Chr. Hansen. The company never stated anything about the unnatural method they used to produce their chymosin enzyme. While Chr. Hansen is clearly misleading the consumer, their advertisement is not a lie; chymosin is the natural enzyme for clotting milk. Even if their chymosin was not produced naturally, it is chymosin, nonetheless.

week 7 reply

Something that is natural should be something that originates from a living organism. In the case of the chymosin made by bacteria, this would not be natural because the enzyme is not being made in its original host. As a result the company would not be correctly advertising to their clients. The natural and the made chymosin may be exactly similar in structure, but the made one is not an enzyme naturally used by the cow in their stomaches. A product that uses these artificially made enzymes may be the same as products made naturally, but for people who take things being natural seriously in their food it would not meet their requirements.

week # 7- Social and Ethical issues

I think any product that is genetically modified is unnatural. These products/ enzymes even though they may have the same genes are not from natural processes but are made through genetic engineering and should be label as such. They should embrace it and explain to the world how amazing genetic engineering is! After all, most of our consumption is GMO already.

Week #7 response

The term to be natural means to be unaltered by human means and to come about in its own self. The chymosin from the calves was natural in the lining in their stomachs, but to alter bacteria to produce it would make it unnatural as it did not occur on its own. I don't think it is appropriate to market as that as it is not natural because they had to alter it to create it. I don't think it matters with that they are structurally and functionally identical because the bacterial version did not come about on its own. This is of course important in assessing naturalness in something's but what needs to also be considered is this only a important component to the final product and is not all the ingredients. If the milk were unnatural and the other ingredients they would have a harder time calling it natural.

Week #7 Response

I don’t think ChyMax should be able to call their recombinant chymosin a natural ingredient seeing as the enzyme has been cloned from the natural enzyme in cows’ genes. Instead of making misleading claims like this, they should instead focus on the fact that it avoids the unnecessary killing of animals, and that it’s structurally and functionally identical to the natural calf chymosin. They shouldn’t be able to claim that it’s “a natural ingredient” if it’s man-made.

Response to week # 7 blog

Being natural means that the item / phenomenon under observation is in accordance with nature. It would not be appropriate for a company to market a product like ChyMax as a natural enzyme as this has been produced using recombinant DNA technological tools. It is a great progress that the purified Chymosin protein from the calf's stomach and from the cloned bacteria are structurally and functionally identical but to make a statement that it is a natural enzyme is a misleading and falsifying one as bacteria does not produce this protein naturally. The process of creation is pivotal to say that something is natural. There should be a clear distinction between bio-engineered and naturally occurring products so that the consumers of the products are well informed about the choices they are making.

Week 7 Blog Entry

I consider something natural if it comes form nature and is not altered by man. I understand the company's logic in labelling the product as "natural" because the enzyme they produce seems to be identical to the enzyme produced by animals. However, calling the product "natural" is probably important for marketing, and this likely drives the company to use the term. The fact that a mammalian gene must be inserted in a bacterial cell to make the enzyme suggests that this specific version of the enzyme could not exist without the action of man. Because the product is man-made, I don't believe the company can rightfully describe the product as "natural".

Week 7

I do not believe it is appropriate for ChyMax to claim recombinant chymosin as "natural" or as "nature's own enzyme". The term natural should imply something that is unchanged by human's and human technology. Although the purified chymosin from the calf's stomach and from the cloned fragment are identical, the cloned chymosin has been produced by human technology and is therefore, by definition, unnatural. In our culture, the process does seem to be valid in regard to assessing something's naturalness. For example, in vitro fertilization would not be considered a natural way to conceive a child and give birth. Although the product is the same, the process affects what we consider to be natural.

I believe it is fair for the

I believe it is fair for the company to refer to the enzyme as ‘nature’s own’ as it is identical to the naturally occurring enzyme. However, I do not feel it is accurate to say that their product is natural. I think that in order for something to be ‘natural’ it has to come directly from nature and not from human manipulation of something that appears in nature. While it may be identical to the enzyme that is made in the cow’s stomach, since it does not come from this source I do not feel it is fair to use the term natural to describe it.

Week 7

The term natural should not apply to this protein. Although it is naturally occurring in the calf's stomach, the protein was made in a bacteria cell, not the mammal. The chymosin was synthesized by people, and would not have occurred without human influence, therefore it is no longer natural.

The term Natural would be

The term Natural would be considered a substance that hasn't been altered in anyway by an outside source. I don't believe it's appropriate for a company to use the term Natural to describe a protein that was grown in a bacterial cell. The root of the protein was found in Calf's to begin with so that it where it is "Naturally" Grown. To say it is Natural from a bacterial Cell is somewhat twisting the truth because even through it may be identical in structure and so but the bacteria originally did not have the gene. I don't believe it should matter if the the proteins are identical. The process is important when dealing with the naturalness of the protein because it's important to understand where the protein is made from to label the product natural or not.

Blog 7

Natural can have a variety of meanings but is generally taken as something that occurs in the world without the intervention of people. The term natural should not be used to describe the protein/ enzyme in this case because in the wild the bacteria do not produce this protein by themselves. The fact that the enzymes produced by this recombinant process are structurally and functionally identical as those found in the calf's stomach does matter. The enzyme could be labeled/ advertised as naturally occurring because the enzyme does occur in the calves without interference by people. So by the standard that natural things occur without the interference of people then the process has a great effect on whether something is considered natural or not.

Week 7 Response

The term natural refers to a substance that has not been altered artificially by humans. Consequently, it is appropriate for the company to describe the protein as natural. The purified chymosin remains structurally and functionally identical to the protein that is produced by the calf. In other words, it has not been modified in any form. However, the process by which it is obtained is not natural because its gene is not naturally found in bacteria. The process should be considered when assessing a product’s naturalness only if it somehow alters the final product. If the product remains identical to the version found in nature, then it can still be considered natural.

Week 7- Alice Trei

"Natural" is a ridiculous concept, and a very different adjective from natural. Today I read an opinion voiced in an entirely different context by John Stuart Mill; he said that we tend to accept whatever /is/ as "natural." That is, "natural" refers to the way things normally are, the way we are used to them, the way we are comfortable with. We assign "unnatural" things that moniker because we are not sure how they fit in with our world view or because they are not understood. The quotes are inserted because we /know/ it's a different kind of thing than natural. Unnatural is the computer I am using to write this, the paint on my fingernails, the light I read by at night. They are all things we understand, control, and have dominion over. By calling genetically altered vegetables "unnatural" you are placing them in the same category 15th century peasants put werewolves or vampires. When you are not entirely comfortable with the idea of something, when it doesn't fit with your world view and just knowing it exists makes you slightly queasy, to you it is "unnatural."

That said, I define natural as something that could reasonably happen in nature without intelligent human involvement. (With a probability higher than the chance that trace metals and freak lightning bolts could form a working pocketwatch.) Alternatively, you could say natural is anything accomplished by humanity or the environment without technology more advanced than hitting two rocks together. By either definition the protein itself IS natural and its placement inside of bacterial cells is not. The fact that the purified chymosin is structurally identical is why the protein itself is natural. Its use certainly isn't, but if the extract taken from the cow's stomach lining requires much processing at all, neither is any kind of the cheese we eat.

I suppose the answer to your last question comes down to is how comfortable you are with unnatural things, at what point they cease to jive with your worldview, and how strict you are with your personal definition of natural. The reason the process in question here is unnatural to me is just because the chances of a mammalian-specific gene getting into a bacterial cell are almost negligible. For me process is entirely relevant when assessing the naturalness of a final product. If it cannot have formed without an unnatural process, then it must be unnatural.

I just don't care whether it is natural or not. I admit sometimes the idea of eating something so modified gives me the willies, but logically I don't see a reason for it to do so. I take pills for many reasons, they are hardly natural. I take them for a purpose and they fulfill that without harming me or my environment. If a genetically altered tomato fulfills all the purposes of a tomato without hurting me or anything else, then I have no problem with it.

  • Alice Trei

Week 7 Blog

I think that in this case, the term 'natural' can apply to the bacterial chymosin, since the gene in its entirety was transferred from the cow to the bacteria. Besides trimming the DNA with the right restriction enzymes and placing it in the vector, the gene is naturally occurring. If the scientists cut and pasted segments of multiple genes together, or otherwise somehow created a novel gene that produced functional chymosin substitutes, then the products cannot be considered natural. I also think it matters that the purified chymosin shares an identical structure and function with calf chymosin: if the cloned product and the calf product are indistinguishable, it is hard to argue that the clone is unnatural. However, as mentioned above, the process by which genetic engineers make transgenic products must be considered when deeming something 'natural' or not. I think anything that changes the sequence of a gene from its parent cannot be considered natural.

Week 7 Blog

In order for something to be considered natural, it should not be modified by humans. Since there is a substantial process involved in creating this enzyme, it should not be marketed as natural. Although there is no danger in consuming the product and it is indistinguishable from the natural one, there is an issue with false advertisement of the company. If something is processed, then it should be marketed as such.

Though there is no distinguishable difference, the public should not be mislead on how their food is processed. Although this particular enzyme is safe for consumption, there may be one that is marketed as natural, even if its processed, which may be harmful to others.

Chymosin

For something to be natural it needs to be without artificial interference. I do not think it is appropriate to use the term natural since recombinant DNA technology was used to get it to that point but adding that biotechnologist used recombinant DNA technology to clone the gene in a bacterial expression vector does make it sound less appetizing. It does not matter that chymosin and the calf's natural proteins are structurally and functionally the same. The process is very important to assessing something's naturalness because if you do anything to the product it is no longer natural.

Week #7 - Social and Ethical Issues (due 3/4)

What is natural? Natural is a term best used when an object, organic or inorganic is viturally indistinguishable from its equivalent in the wild. For example in the case described since the enzyme produced by the bacteria is indistinguishable from the enzyme produced by the cows stomach it could be called natural. As long as the function and form are the same as the original variety then the variety produced by bacterial recombination can be considered natural. As such there is nothing wrong with a company marketing the recombinant enzyme as natural because essentially it is. This product is a perfect example of the standards of naturalness that should be upheld. If there was something different about the structure of the enzyme but it still functioned the same as the original calf enzyme then it could not be called natural. In fact the FDA uses a somewhat similar process when labeling GMO's. If what was done to the organism differs significantly from its natural form then it is labeled as a GMO. To conclude, if it is the same as the natural form then the new form should be considered natural.

Week 7 Response

I believe in order for something to be considered natural its has to occur in nature without the involvement of any human influence. So in the case of the recombinant chymosin, it should not be considered natural because the gene that encodes for it is not found in bacterial cells in nature. Even though it is identical to a calf's gene, it still takes human involvement to make it. In order to be considered natural, there should be no human involvement in the production of the protein. On the other hand, I think it is still a good argument that anything natural is something that is not genetically engineered, which in this case, the protein is not genetically engineered; the exact protein is made somewhere else. It all depends on the publics view on the exact definition of natural.

Week 7 Blog

For me, natural means something that is found in nature without any human intervention. Since the recombinant chymosin was made by a human it cannot be considered as natural. So, in my opinion it is not appropriate for company to use the term natural on something they made it even if the chymosin is structurally and functionally identical. I think the consumer has the right to know if it’s natural or manmade. Naturalness is very important to some consumer so it will be very wise to label a product properly. If something is made by human intervention it shouldn’t be labeled as natural.

Blog 7 Entry

Natural can be simply defined as an existing in or formed by nature opposed to artificial which is man made. So when we look at the scenario at hand I don’t believe that it is appropriate for the company to use this term “nature own” due the fact it that it modified in the laboratory using DNA technology. The simple fact that company intervened in making there own chymosin synthesis out of nature it is not concerted natural any longer. In this case again even though the purified chymosin proteins from the calf’s stomach and the cloned bacteria are structurally and functionally identical it is still not natural because of human intervention and modification of its natural form. So the company cannot the use the term natural. In this case naturalness does not play much of role since they both are structurally and functionally identical but in other cases naturalness can become a great concern. The majority of people want to know what they are consuming and if manufactured or naturally made. So consumers have a right to know the truth rather then receiving false advertisement saying that everything is natural when it is not. Naturalness in other cases can play big role in consumer’s consumption.

Week 7 Comment

Natural stands for something that exists in nature without human intervention. Anything that is modified by the humans in the laboratory using DNA technology, chemicals etc. is, by definition, not natural. It doesn’t matter if the purified chymosin proteins from the calf's stomach and the one from cloned bacteria are structurally and functionally identical. The protein from cloned bacteria does not occur in natural, hence, the company should not use the term natural for this protein. The recombinant cow chymosin can be produced without killing animals so in a way it is better than the ‘natural’ calf chymosin, and that’s great, but the consumers have the right to know that it is not ‘natural’ chymosin but instead is produced using biotechnology.

Week 7

Natural is more and more loosley defined as something that occurs in nature. And Chymosin certainly occurs in nature, and yet in the stomachs of particular mammals rather than in bacterial vectors. When thought of literally, a gene from any species expressed in the genome of another species is still the same gene. The only difference would be found in post-translational modifications according to the capacity of the host species. However, that gene is not being expressed from its natural genome. Therefore, bacterial Chymosin's similarity to the original Chymosin doesn't speak at all to its "naturalness", and doesn't make a difference here, but it certainly could become a totally different can of worms if it was not. Taking these two aspects the define naturul as the basis for my position, I would have to say that this Chymosin fails one of the two and hence is not natural. And I believe the company should use the term "nature-derived".

The process carries some importance in naturalness; Cheesewhiz is obviously less "natural" than an artisan cheese. A general processing rule of thumb, the higher ratio of hands to machinery used to process this food (and the components used to make it eg. chymosin) ,the more natural. For example, Cheeesewhiz comes out of a canister and was put in that canister by a tube which leads to a vat which may be inspected by a human twice a week. For a product that's has as few ingredients as cheese (milk, salt, chymosin), the process is more important relative to the naturalness. As the products get more complicated in terms of number of ingredients such as spaghetti sauce, the process goes to become just another one of those ingredients. The only way around this is to just make your spaghetti sauce at home from scratch.