DailyDirt: What's That In Your Food?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Processed foods are everywhere. They’re quick and easy, as well as mighty tasty because they’re designed to hit the perfect combination of salt, sugar and fat our bodies crave. Unfortunately, few things are actually perfect if you look closely enough. Common food packaging frequently lists ingredients that sound like a nightmare chemistry exam you haven’t studied for, and preservatives aren’t all that appetizing even if you can’t taste them. Here are a few links on food additives that you may or may not think are scary.

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DailyDirt: What's That In Your Food?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
32 Comments
Nicholas Weaversays:

First link is high on the bogosity factor...

The FIRST one of “questionable” differences was

1: Corn syrup, while the UK version just had more sugar. Both are equally damaging.

2: Corn starch, in red, was also in the UK version

3: The colorant, in red, was probably just the unspecified “color” in the UK version

4: The fats were just all classed as “fatty acids” in the UK version.

5: The artifical flavor, in red, was probbaly just the uspecified flavor in the UK version.

Casesays:

Re: First link is high on the bogosity factor...

And Partially hydrogenated oils == Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids

So really, what #2 said.
Did TD have some bioconservative revival and we’re in for more “CHEMICALS!!!!!111111” vs. “natural sources” (which of course do not have any chemicals inside them) BS in the future?

Anonymoussays:

Really? Linking to Foodbabe? The same woman who kicked off the ridiculous (and non-scientific) Subway bread scare, based entirely off misunderstanding the difference between compounds that are safe to eat and not safe to breathe? Water: Safe to drink, unsafe to breathe. Should we ban water? Techdirt is usually much better than this.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

There are many additives, the reasons for their inclusion varies. Some are for looks, some for shelf life, and others simply to keep costs down. Your either/or claim that additives are required or else suffer the ill affects of bacterium is incorrect.

There are banned additives, but you claim they are not harmful. Go figure.

Casesays:

Re: Re: Re:

Your either/or claim that additives are required or else suffer the ill affects of bacterium is incorrect.

Where I say you automatically get EHEC from eating preservative-free food? It’s like other diseases, plenty of people got lucky and did not get Polio before vaccines became available — but today, we’re able to improve everybody’s chances by quite a margin.

There are banned additives, but you claim they are not harmful.

Again, [citation needed]

FYI, the original claim was “The additives are not there for your benefit”, which should tell anybody who can read two things: First, we’re talking about additives which are in food and not those which are banned. Second, we’re discussing the typical biocon conspiracy that they just put bad stuff in our foods to twirl their mustaches and laugh manically.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

To which you replied:

“Well, if you prefer additives live Botulism or E. Coli, go ahead…”

The either/or is implied.

Maybe you were addressing a limited set of food additives. that was not clear. Then your latest post further limits the discussion to tinfoil hat mode.

The point remains, those additives are not there for your benefit. They are there to increase profits – nothing else.

Casesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The either/or is implied.
What is implied is a certain basic capability of the reader. Such as understanding that a paragraph talking about food-borne disease means we’re talking about one kind of ingredients, “making something taste and look better” in another paragraph means it’s about another category.

They are there to increase profits – nothing else.
Most additives are far more expensive per kilo than the base product. If the evil corps could sell the same stuff without those additives, they’d make a larger profit.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, everyone is clairvoyant and easily discerns your meaning no matter how convoluted or misconstrued, if they do not – well then it is certainly their fault and they lack a remedial level of reading comprehension.

Additives like high fructose corn syrup are less expensive than real sugar. So yeah, you must be right – they are there to give you free stuff that has been throughly tested to ensure it does no harm to lifeforms as we know them.

Eat up, it’s all good!

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“They are there to increase profits – nothing else.”

This is true for every aspect of everything that is sold, therefore meaningless. For example: adding something to your food product that ensures it won’t sicken or kill people is done to increase profits (people won’t buy it if it kills them). But the path to increased profits is to benefit people. So it’s put there to benefit people.

Anonymoussays:

Large food companies regularly re-formulate their products to tailor them to local markets

I HATE, HATE this practice. I’m from the poor part of Europe, and the so-called ‘western’ companies sell their hight priced products with crappy, below standard, and just really cheap ingredients, while claiming you are buying the same product you see in the UK, or Germany, or France. I consider this a criminal scam, and a really unfair unethical practice, they take our money and then treat us as nothing but animals who will eat all the things they can’t sell in their precious regulated western markets. Scum, all of them.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

I guess it depends on what you consider “good”. Human remains probably have nutritional value and could likely be used as a healthy source of protein.

On the other hand it is incredibly gross and there would be ethical concerns. But a lot of people would argue that eating animal meat is incredibly gross and has ethical concerns. LFTB or “pink slime” is just kinda gross to think about. Much like sucking the heads when people eat crawfish. But I don’t see how it is any worse than eating “pure” ground up animal flesh. Especially since it is just processed animal flesh itself.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it