Artificial ingredients |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Artificial ingredients
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
I see from the Guardian that Nestlé have announced they no longer use artificial ingredients. Nestlé removes artificial ingredients from entire confectionary range | |
| ID: 1201657 · | |
|
I'd say it's a politically correct feel good marketing ploy. | |
| ID: 1201665 · | |
|
What is the definition of Artificial and will their products rot or taste funny if there are no preservatives or emulsifiers ? | |
| ID: 1201718 · | |
|
lets hope they don't use high fructose corn syrup. This is a manufactured product much like nutra sweet or splenda. I would be happy if they claimed that they were't using products not found in nature | |
| ID: 1201743 · | |
|
High fructose corn syrup , I am sure, would be classified as a "Natural" product | |
| ID: 1201846 · | |
|
Here I have found another news item that questions whether natural/organic is the way to go. Then there's organic food. The tech spec of organic food – the fact that nothing synthetic is used in its production – suggests flavour, nutritional value and agricultural ethics. But it has become a devalued, mass-market symbolic indicator. Organics are promoted as both available to all and a luxury treat, but often they're more expensive and they taste the same. And they're not even necessarily good for the environment, either. Increasing demand has led to organic meat being raised on vast industrial feed lots, and the scarcity of organic ingredients means they are flown around the world. Research sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs showed that the production of a litre of organic milk requires 80% more land than conventional milk. And that organically reared cows burp and fart twice as much methane as conventionally reared cattle, which would be amusing if it weren't for the fact that methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. Is the food revolution just a great big fat lie? Eliane Glaser, Guardian, Friday 2 March 2012. | |
| ID: 1202296 · | |
|
Catering to the ignorant at its finest. Things like this are meant to appease those who believe something is bad or dangerous because it contains "chemicals". Why is something safer because it's natural? Arsenic is natural. Should I eat that? It doesn't matter if something is natural or artificial, all that matters is the chemical makeup of the molecule and the interactions it undergoes inside your body. In a way artificial is better, because you know exactly what you are getting. | |
| ID: 1205999 · | |
|
catering to the ignorant and apparently wealthy, you mean. It's been a while since I've been to a Whole Foods store but their prices are quite high for "natural and organic" products. | |
| ID: 1206011 · | |
Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Artificial ingredients
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |