I had an argument with a cashier at a Godiva Chocolatier shop the other
day. I expressed disdain for Godiva Chocolates, because they claim to
be a "gourmet" chocolate maker, yet they contaminate their chocolates
with artificial colorings, emulsifiers, and fake vanilla (i.e.
vanillin). I mean, they're charging $30 or more for a box, and
they're such cheap *******s they don't even put natural vanilla in the
chocolate?!? I mean, with the artificial additives and carcinogenic
artificial dyes (derived from coal tar), what makes Godiva chocolates
any better than, say, Hershey's chocolate or the Russel Stover brand?
"Oh, please, don't even compare us to Hershey's chocolate," the Godiva
lady said.

Once again, as an American, I am embarrassed at our food supply, which
we contaminate with artificial additives, dyes, pesticides,
emulsifiers, etc. Not to mention our produce, which is tasteless and
nutrient-deficient because it is grown with excessive fertilizers on
barren land, with pesticides.

You want gourmet chocolate? Get it from Europe, and make sure it is
hand-made.

--Alf

wrote:
> I had an argument with a cashier at a Godiva Chocolatier shop the
> other day. I expressed disdain for Godiva Chocolates, because they
> claim to be a "gourmet" chocolate maker, yet they contaminate their
> chocolates with artificial colorings, emulsifiers, and fake vanilla
> (i.e. vanillin). I mean, they're charging $30 or more for a box,
> and they're such cheap *******s they don't even put natural vanilla
> in the chocolate?!? I mean, with the artificial additives and
> carcinogenic artificial dyes (derived from coal tar), what makes
> Godiva chocolates any better than, say, Hershey's chocolate or the
> Russel Stover brand? "Oh, please, don't even compare us to Hershey's
> chocolate," the Godiva lady said.
>
> Once again, as an American, I am embarrassed at our food supply, which
> we contaminate with artificial additives, dyes, pesticides,
> emulsifiers, etc. Not to mention our produce, which is tasteless and
> nutrient-deficient because it is grown with excessive fertilizers on
> barren land, with pesticides.
>
> You want gourmet chocolate? Get it from Europe, and make sure it is
> hand-made.
>
> --Alf

I agree with you about the decline in quality of Godiva, but there are those
of us who handmake truffles and chocolates in the United States using real
ingredients--and charge considerably less than Godiva, I might add.

at Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:05:07 GMT in <1143039907.162844.269080
@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, wrote :

....
>Once again, as an American, I am embarrassed at our food supply, which
>we contaminate with artificial additives, dyes, pesticides,
>emulsifiers, etc. Not to mention our produce, which is tasteless and
>nutrient-deficient because it is grown with excessive fertilizers on
>barren land, with pesticides.
>
>You want gourmet chocolate? Get it from Europe, and make sure it is
>hand-made.

Be careful about making generalisations! Remember, the bulk of the Euro
food supply is produced in the same way (with commensurate same loss of
nutritional value and taste) as the U.S. supply. And in both places, it's
equally possible to get good-quality food of high nutritional value that
hasn't been overprocessed. The bottom line in both places is exactly
that...the bottom line. In other words, if you want quality, you have to
PAY for quality. You can't expect high-quality food to be as low-priced as
commodity grade, although it will usually be within reason as long as you
don't look mostly for luxury foods (e.g. high-quality beef tenderloin is
going to be extremely expensive but a high-quality carrot won't)

Same thing applies with chocolate. In Europe, most of the chocolate sold is
of comparable quality to the commodity brands (Hershey's, M&M/Mars) you
find in the USA, and the only reason the commodity brands you see here are
American is for the same reason the commodity brands in Europe are European
- the costs of exporting and tariffs make it unprofitable to sell such
products overseas. A commodity brand is usually built around low price and
hence high costs can't be tolerated. Nestle and Cadbury are crossover
brands, mostly because they have a presence and facilities in the USA (or
licensing arrangements) so they can circumvent export costs.

And in the USA, there are plenty of top-grade chocolate brands (Guittard,
Scharffen Berger, Dagoba, etc.), and an even longer list of top-grade
chocolatiers. In fact, one chocolatier in the USA (Theo Chocolates) has
been consistently better than even the best chocolates I've had in Europe.
Absolutely world-class stuff. And as a side benefit they make their own
chocolate bean-to-bar and use all organic ingredients.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Chembake wrote:
> I dont see the point of putting vaniila bean extract in chocolates as
> that product is not supposed to be vanilla flavored ....vanillin only
> tends to improve the chocolate taste and not to overwhelm it...so
> chocolate manufacturers will place the artificial vanilla in it than
> the natural vanilla.

> Why ? nobody is placing artificial dyes in chocolates,,, as far as I
> know...
> So its not just to state that Godiva is loading their products with
> what you call carcinogens....
> BTW...I am not a Godiva Fan....I am only setting the record straight...
>

Vanillin is known to be a skin irritant, according to my handbook of
food additives. Personally, it stings my mouth slightly when I eat it.

I have no such problems with natural vanilla.

As for Godiva "not placing artificial dyes in chcoloates," you are
quite mistaken, Chembake. From the ingredient list for Godiva's
so-called "Platinum collection", I found:

preservatives (tocopherols, potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate)
fake vanilla (vanillin)
soya lecithin
partially hydrogenated palm kernal oil
invertase (whatever that is)
AND TONS OF ARTIFICIAL COLORS (FD&C yellow 6, FD&C
Yello 5, FD&C Blue 1, FD&C Red 40, FD&C Blue 1)
The chocolate was also processed with alkali

A delicious chemical stew in each $30 box!

-alf

wrote:
>
> I mean, with the artificial additives and carcinogenic
> artificial dyes (derived from coal tar), what makes Godiva
> chocolates any better than, say, Hershey's chocolate
> or the Russel Stover brand?

Name one carcinogenic dye used in Godiva
chocolates, or admit you are full of crap.

Janet Puistonen wrote:
>
> You have a problem with soy lecithin? Why?
>
> Since when is there a problem with alkali processing (aka "dutching").
>
> Worrying about invertase probably makes as much sense as worrying about
> glucose. Less, maybe.
>
> I'n no Godiva fan, but think you need to do some more research before you
> get overly worked up about some of these ingredients.

In the future, retail cash registers will have
microphones. When a customer comes up ranting
raving about emulsifiers, etc., the display
pointed toward the clerk will start flashing
"LOON ALERT".

Also, this website:

http://www.trochilids.com/dye.html

has info about the potential carcinogenic qualities of Red #40.
Scientific studies are quoted. The website says,
"Red #40 is banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany,
Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and Norway but can be used in
the USA. The LD50 (the Lethal Dose for 50% of the lab
animals) for oral administration in rats is > 10 g/kg."

I have read of a couple studies showing that the banning of
artificial colorings from school cafeteria food resulted in the
reduction of behavioral problems among students in the
school. They seemed to concentrate more and seemed
less hyperactive. Think about that next time you feed your
kid Lucky Charms cereal and Godiva chocolates, or foods
containing artificial cherries.

Am I paranoid? Or just a homeopathic macrobiotic guy?

--alf

wrote:
Chembake wrote:
> I dont see the point of putting vaniila bean extract in chocolates as
> that product is not supposed to be vanilla flavored ....vanillin only
> tends to improve the chocolate taste and not to overwhelm it...so
> chocolate manufacturers will place the artificial vanilla in it than
> the natural vanilla.
> Why ? nobody is placing artificial dyes in chocolates,,, as far as I
> know...
> So its not just to state that Godiva is loading their products with
> what you call carcinogens....
> BTW...I am not a Godiva Fan....I am only setting the record straight...


>Vanillin is known to be a skin irritant, according to my handbook of
>food additives. Personally, it stings my mouth slightly when I eat it.

>I have no such problems with natural vanilla.

FYI Well vanillin is a major component in natural vanilla flavoring

>As for Godiva "not placing artificial dyes in chcoloates," you are
>quite mistaken, Chembake. From the ingredient list for Godiva's
>so-called "Platinum collection", I found:

Sorry I was initially focusing on plain chocolates and not the filled
items
Where the additives are mostly lecithin and vanillin

>preservatives (tocopherols, potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate)
>fake vanilla (vanillin)
>soya lecithin
>partially hydrogenated palm kernal oil
>invertase (whatever that is)
>AND TONS OF ARTIFICIAL COLORS (FD&C yellow 6, FD&C
>Yello 5, FD&C Blue 1, FD&C Red 40, FD&C Blue 1)

But if you include the other chocolate varieties ,its difficult to get
away from that..
If you read the labels carefully of the many filled chocolates they
share the same ingredient lists
Anyway if these ingredients are offensive to you mentally then avoid
it,,by any means....
As I suggested before try to make your own ( chocolates )so that you
will have no complaints.

For ingredient functionality

Tocopherols are naturally derived antioxidants,
potassium sorbate ( or sorbates are present in some natural products)
and sodium benzoate are indeed preservatives

Vanillin is not fake vanilla but the active ingredient of the vanilla
bean itself!
What makes it offensive to many people is that nowadays it's made
synthetically

Soya lecithin is an emulsifier is a naturally derived ingredient from
soy processing .


>has info about the potential carcinogenic qualities of Red #40.
>Scientific studies are quoted. The website says,
>"Red #40 is banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany,
>Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and Norway but can be used in
>the USA. The LD50 (the Lethal Dose for 50% of the lab
>animals) for oral administration in rats is > 10 g/kg."



Artificial coloring is quite common but will become a thing of the
past soon in confectioneries.... R&D trials confirmed that naturally
derived colors can do the same job albeit more expensive...
Partially hydrogenated palm kernel oil or HPKO , yes there are some
issues about in particular about trans fats...This had been the subject
of discussion in the past few years during technical conference of the
confectionery manufacturers association and they are gradually going
away from this material by using alternative fats that does not undergo
hydrogenation process.
Yes it may make the product slightly more expensive but there is market
for such product anyway.


>I have read of a couple studies showing that the banning of
>artificial colorings from school cafeteria food resulted in the
>reduction of behavioral problems among students in the
>school. They seemed to concentrate more and seemed
>less hyperactive. Think about that next time you feed your
>kid Lucky Charms cereal and Godiva chocolates, or foods
>containing artificial cherries.

Manufacturers have a lots of options according to what ingredients
they have to use and as long as its LEGAL...customers may not like it
but what can you do?

Invertase is an enzyme derived from bakers yeast which makes the
chocolate fillings soft after storage and its not a thing to worry
about.

>The chocolate was also processed with alkali

That is normal and there is not yet any established fact that is
hazardous to ones health...
It only alters the chocolate or cocoa pH, modifying many sensory
qualities of the product


>Also, this website:

>http://www.trochilids.com/dye.html

>Am I paranoid? Or just a homeopathic macrobiotic guy?

You are indeed ....better consult your psychiatrist...

If you love chocolates and other confectioneries ....don't read too
much as it will spoil your enjoyment...
Food processing including confectionery manufacturing will always have
some fancy names in their ingredient lists. But I am certain that
these people are doing their best to improve their ingredients list by
going away with notorious substances....

But to avoid Vanillin....? Not in this century I presume<G>...

If and only if the vanilla beans can be produced as cheap as corn or
soybeans then that will happen...

wrote:
Chembake wrote:
> I dont see the point of putting vaniila bean extract in chocolates as
> that product is not supposed to be vanilla flavored ....vanillin only
> tends to improve the chocolate taste and not to overwhelm it...so
> chocolate manufacturers will place the artificial vanilla in it than
> the natural vanilla.
> Why ? nobody is placing artificial dyes in chocolates,,, as far as I
> know...
> So its not just to state that Godiva is loading their products with
> what you call carcinogens....
> BTW...I am not a Godiva Fan....I am only setting the record straight...


>Vanillin is known to be a skin irritant, according to my handbook of
>food additives. Personally, it stings my mouth slightly when I eat it.

>I have no such problems with natural vanilla.

FYI Well vanillin is a major component in natural vanilla flavoring

>As for Godiva "not placing artificial dyes in chcoloates," you are
>quite mistaken, Chembake. From the ingredient list for Godiva's
>so-called "Platinum collection", I found:

Sorry I was initially focusing on plain chocolates and not the filled
items
Where the additives are mostly lecithin and vanillin

>preservatives (tocopherols, potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate)
>fake vanilla (vanillin)
>soya lecithin
>partially hydrogenated palm kernal oil
>invertase (whatever that is)
>AND TONS OF ARTIFICIAL COLORS (FD&C yellow 6, FD&C
>Yello 5, FD&C Blue 1, FD&C Red 40, FD&C Blue 1)

But if you include the other chocolate varieties ,its difficult to get
away from that..
If you read the labels carefully of the many filled chocolates they
share the same ingredient lists
Anyway if these ingredients are offensive to you mentally then avoid
it,,by any means....
As I suggested before try to make your own ( chocolates )so that you
will have no complaints.

For ingredient functionality

Tocopherols are naturally derived antioxidants,
potassium sorbate ( or sorbates are present in some natural products)
and sodium benzoate are indeed preservatives

Vanillin is not fake vanilla but the active ingredient of the vanilla
bean itself!
What makes it offensive to many people is that nowadays it's made
synthetically

Soya lecithin is an emulsifier is a naturally derived ingredient from
soy processing .


>has info about the potential carcinogenic qualities of Red #40.
>Scientific studies are quoted. The website says,
>"Red #40 is banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany,
>Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and Norway but can be used in
>the USA. The LD50 (the Lethal Dose for 50% of the lab
>animals) for oral administration in rats is > 10 g/kg."



Artificial coloring is quite common but will become a thing of the
past soon in confectioneries.... R&D trials confirmed that naturally
derived colors can do the same job albeit more expensive...
Partially hydrogenated palm kernel oil or HPKO , yes there are some
issues about in particular about trans fats...This had been the subject
of discussion in the past few years during technical conference of the
confectionery manufacturers association and they are gradually going
away from this material by using alternative fats that does not undergo
hydrogenation process.
Yes it may make the product slightly more expensive but there is market
for such product anyway.


>I have read of a couple studies showing that the banning of
>artificial colorings from school cafeteria food resulted in the
>reduction of behavioral problems among students in the
>school. They seemed to concentrate more and seemed
>less hyperactive. Think about that next time you feed your
>kid Lucky Charms cereal and Godiva chocolates, or foods
>containing artificial cherries.

Manufacturers have a lots of options according to what ingredients
they have to use and as long as its LEGAL...customers may not like it
but what can you do?

Invertase is an enzyme derived from bakers yeast which makes the
chocolate fillings soft after storage and its not a thing to worry
about.

>The chocolate was also processed with alkali

That is normal and there is not yet any established fact that is
hazardous to ones health...
It only alters the chocolate or cocoa pH, modifying many sensory
qualities of the product


>Also, this website:

>http://www.trochilids.com/dye.html

>Am I paranoid? Or just a homeopathic macrobiotic guy?

You are indeed ....better consult your psychiatrist...

If you love chocolates and other confectioneries ....don't read too
much as it will spoil your enjoyment...
Food processing including confectionery manufacturing will always have
some fancy names in their ingredient lists. But I am certain that
these people are doing their best to improve their ingredients list by
going away with notorious substances....

But to avoid Vanillin....? Not in this century I presume<G>...

If and only if the vanilla beans can be produced as cheap as corn or
soybeans then that will happen...<G>

>Vanillin is known to be a skin irritant, according to my handbook of
>food additives. Personally, it stings my mouth slightly when I eat it.

i think any additives taken in concentrated dose does have some
irritating effect...

If you have the money....
Try eating a bunch of vanilla beans and I bet that you will experience
the same...

wrote:
>
> Also, this website:
>
> http://www.trochilids.com/dye.html
>
> has info about the potential carcinogenic qualities of Red #40.
> Scientific studies are quoted.

Like what? Why don't you quote the best evidence
they have that Red 40 is carcinogenic?

> The website says,
> "Red #40 is banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany,
> Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and Norway but can be used in
> the USA. The LD50 (the Lethal Dose for 50% of the lab
> animals) for oral administration in rats is > 10 g/kg."

I weigh about 70 kg. If the lethal dose for people
is the same as for rats, that means my lethal dose
would be 700 g. That's about one and a half pounds.
I'm pretty sure I couldn't eat a pound of salt and
live, so this stuff is safer to eat than salt.

> I have read of a couple studies showing that the banning of
> artificial colorings from school cafeteria food resulted in the
> reduction of behavioral problems among students in the
> school. They seemed to concentrate more and seemed
> less hyperactive. Think about that next time you feed your
> kid Lucky Charms cereal and Godiva chocolates, or foods
> containing artificial cherries.
>
> Am I paranoid? Or just a homeopathic macrobiotic guy?

You have been hoodwinked by health charlatans
trying to sell you stuff you don't need.

On 23 Mar 2006 13:05:03 -0800, wrote:

>Also, this website:
>
>http://www.trochilids.com/dye.html
>
>has info about the potential carcinogenic qualities of Red #40.
>Scientific studies are quoted. The website says,
>"Red #40 is banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany,
>Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and Norway but can be used in
>the USA. The LD50 (the Lethal Dose for 50% of the lab
>animals) for oral administration in rats is > 10 g/kg."
>
>I have read of a couple studies showing that the banning of
>artificial colorings from school cafeteria food resulted in the
>reduction of behavioral problems among students in the
>school. They seemed to concentrate more and seemed
>less hyperactive. Think about that next time you feed your
>kid Lucky Charms cereal and Godiva chocolates, or foods
>containing artificial cherries.
>
>Am I paranoid? Or just a homeopathic macrobiotic guy?
>
>--alf

You're pretty much full of shit.

There are certainly people - children and adults who show
sensitivities or allergic reactions to almost everything on earth, but
your claims above are a crock.

http://www.int-pediatrics.org/PDF/Vo...-1/beseler.pdf

Boron

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Like what? Why don't you quote the best evidence
> they have that Red 40 is carcinogenic?
>
> You have been hoodwinked by health charlatans
> trying to sell you stuff you don't need.

The evidence against Red 40 is pretty cut-and-dry.
It convinced a lot of European governments. If you
are one of those who eat a lot of processed, additive-laden
foods, and you're proud of it, well, we will just have to
agree to disagree.

However, I would encourage you to try the following
experiment: For an entire week, eat nothing but
unsweetened oatmeal with water, fresh walnuts,
Japanese green tea, and fresh apples. You will
likely experience the equivalent of a religious revelation, the great
revolution that comes when one makes the transition
from the processed American diet to the more
macrobiotic diet.

--Alf

PS: Are you aware that consumption of dairy products
like milk and cheese can saturate the body with foreign
animal proteins, triggering an immune response commonly
known as rheumatoid arthritis?

wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Like what? Why don't you quote the best evidence
> > they have that Red 40 is carcinogenic?
>
> The evidence against Red 40 is pretty cut-and-dry.
> It convinced a lot of European governments.

But you can't quote any of it?

Is the best evidence against Red 40
the unsupported assertions of a
scaremongering website?

Mark Thorson wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > Like what? Why don't you quote the best evidence
> > > they have that Red 40 is carcinogenic?
> >
> > The evidence against Red 40 is pretty cut-and-dry.
> > It convinced a lot of European governments.
>
> But you can't quote any of it?
>
> Is the best evidence against Red 40
> the unsupported assertions of a
> scaremongering website?

You and the boron guy seem to be advocates of the additive-laden
food industry. Here's a peer-reviewed article where the authors
examined
various studies of food dyes and their impact on behavior. This study
is from Columbia University:


Schab DW, Trinh NH. Do artificial food colors promote hyperactivity in
children with hyperactive syndromes? A meta-analysis of double-blind
placebo-controlled trials.
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2004 Dec;25(6):423-34. Columbia University,
Department of Psychiatry & The New York State Psychiatric Institute,
New York, New York 10032, USA. ABSTRACT:
Burgeoning estimates of the prevalence of childhood
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) raise the possibility
of a widespread risk factor. We seek to assess whether artificial food
colorings (AFCs) contribute to the behavioral symptomatology of
hyperactive syndromes. We searched ten electronic databases for
double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effects of AFCs.
Fifteen trials met the primary inclusion criteria. Meta-analytic
modeling determined the overall effect size of AFCs on hyperactivity to
be 0.283 (95% CI, 0.079 to 0.488), falling to 0.210 (95% CI, 0.007 to
0.414) when the smallest and lowest quality trials were excluded.
Trials screening for responsiveness before enrollment demonstrated the
greatest effects. Despite indications of publication bias and other
limitations, this study is consistent with accumulating evidence that
neurobehavioral toxicity may characterize a variety of widely
distributed chemicals. Improvement in the identification of responders
is required before strong clinical recommendations can be made.


Once again, think twice and thrice before feeding your kids Mountain
Dew soda, Sunkist or other orange-colored soda, Artificial
cherry-flavored soda, or bottled salad dressing containing the
infamous sequestering agent calcium disodium EDTA (a known
kidney toxin).

--alf

>Once again, think twice and thrice before feeding your kids Mountain
>Dew soda, Sunkist or other orange-colored soda, Artificial
>cherry-flavored soda, or bottled salad dressing containing the
>infamous sequestering agent calcium disodium EDTA (a known
>kidney toxin).

Tree huggers should stay away from civilization.....
You cannot find peace in the modern world....
Your unenviable life living in fear on what you eat daily is To be
laden with things that you abhor is creating more stress in your
lifestyle.....
you cannot change the modern world you live in nor can you find harmony
in it...youir life is full of paranoia....
There is only one place for you to live in the modern society... The
INSANE ASYLUM.

On 23 Mar 2006 19:28:10 -0800, wrote:

>Mark Thorson wrote:
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Mark Thorson wrote:
>> > > Like what? Why don't you quote the best evidence
>> > > they have that Red 40 is carcinogenic?
>> >
>> > The evidence against Red 40 is pretty cut-and-dry.
>> > It convinced a lot of European governments.
>>
>> But you can't quote any of it?
>>
>> Is the best evidence against Red 40
>> the unsupported assertions of a
>> scaremongering website?
>
>You and the boron guy seem to be advocates of the additive-laden
>food industry.

Yeah, I have raised three children on a diet of nothing but additives.
No foodstuffs allowed. It is the additives that got them on the Dean's
List, I'm sure. I cannot tell you how difficult it is to prepare
meals with nothing other than additives to work with, you dumb cluck.


>Here's a peer-reviewed article where the authors
>examined
>various studies of food dyes and their impact on behavior. This study
>is from Columbia University:

You idiot. If you do not have the slightest comprehension of what you
are reading, why bother to post it?

As I mentioned previously, you can find sub-sets people who are
sensitive to almost anything. YOU, on the other hand, claimed the
following:
***********************************************
>I have read of a couple studies showing that the banning of
>artificial colorings from school cafeteria food resulted in the
>reduction of behavioral problems among students in the
>school. They seemed to concentrate more and seemed
>less hyperactive.
******************************

The study below refers very specifically to children with "hyperactive
syndrome," and is not a general population study.

Get a clue.

>Schab DW, Trinh NH. Do artificial food colors promote hyperactivity in
>children with hyperactive syndromes? A meta-analysis of double-blind
>placebo-controlled trials.
> J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2004 Dec;25(6):423-34. Columbia University,
>Department of Psychiatry & The New York State Psychiatric Institute,
>New York, New York 10032, USA. ABSTRACT:
>Burgeoning estimates of the prevalence of childhood
>attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) raise the possibility
>of a widespread risk factor. We seek to assess whether artificial food
>colorings (AFCs) contribute to the behavioral symptomatology of
>hyperactive syndromes. We searched ten electronic databases for
>double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effects of AFCs.
>Fifteen trials met the primary inclusion criteria. Meta-analytic
>modeling determined the overall effect size of AFCs on hyperactivity to
>be 0.283 (95% CI, 0.079 to 0.488), falling to 0.210 (95% CI, 0.007 to
>0.414) when the smallest and lowest quality trials were excluded.
>Trials screening for responsiveness before enrollment demonstrated the
>greatest effects. Despite indications of publication bias and other
>limitations, this study is consistent with accumulating evidence that
>neurobehavioral toxicity may characterize a variety of widely
>distributed chemicals. Improvement in the identification of responders
>is required before strong clinical recommendations can be made.


>Once again, think twice and thrice before feeding your kids Mountain
>Dew soda, Sunkist or other orange-colored soda, Artificial
>cherry-flavored soda, or bottled salad dressing containing the
>infamous sequestering agent calcium disodium EDTA (a known
>kidney toxin).

Think twice about posting to Usenet.Fewer people will think you have
terminal idiocy.

Boron

Chembake wrote:
>> Once again, think twice and thrice before feeding your kids Mountain
>> Dew soda, Sunkist or other orange-colored soda, Artificial
>> cherry-flavored soda, or bottled salad dressing containing the
>> infamous sequestering agent calcium disodium EDTA (a known
>> kidney toxin).
>
> Tree huggers should stay away from civilization.....
> You cannot find peace in the modern world....
> Your unenviable life living in fear on what you eat daily is To be
> laden with things that you abhor is creating more stress in your
> lifestyle.....
> you cannot change the modern world you live in nor can you find
> harmony in it...youir life is full of paranoia....
> There is only one place for you to live in the modern society... The
> INSANE ASYLUM.

I have to disagree. While I for one am not about to launch into a
macrobiotic diet, I think that avoiding ingesting such things as pesticides,
artificial food additives, and dyes is a wise precaution for which there is
ample evidence.

On 23 Mar 2006 18:11:39 , wrote

> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Like what? Why don't you quote the best evidence
> > they have that Red 40 is carcinogenic?
> >
> > You have been hoodwinked by health charlatans
> > trying to sell you stuff you don't need.
>
> The evidence against Red 40 is pretty cut-and-dry. It convinced
> a lot of European governments. If you are one of those who
> eat a lot of processed, additive-laden foods, and you're proud
> of it, well, we will just have to agree to disagree.
>
> However, I would encourage you to try the following experiment:
> For an entire week, eat nothing but unsweetened oatmeal with
> water, fresh walnuts, Japanese green tea, and fresh apples.
> You will likely experience the equivalent of a religious
> revelation, the great revolution that comes when one makes the
> transition from the processed American diet to the more
> macrobiotic diet.
>
> --Alf

Where is your degree in dietary science or nutrition that
can allow you to make such malnutricious suggestions.

> PS: Are you aware that consumption of dairy products like milk
> and cheese can saturate the body with foreign animal proteins,
> triggering an immune response commonly known as rheumatoid
> arthritis?
>

Actually that is totally unclear. In some people with particular
problems that may be the case but it is far from a general rule.

You are either a dupe of diet quacks or a troll.

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > > Like what? Why don't you quote the best evidence
> > > > they have that Red 40 is carcinogenic?
> > >
> > > The evidence against Red 40 is pretty cut-and-dry.
> > > It convinced a lot of European governments.
> >
> > But you can't quote any of it?
> >
> > Is the best evidence against Red 40
> > the unsupported assertions of a
> > scaremongering website?
>
> You and the boron guy seem to be advocates of the additive-laden
> food industry. Here's a peer-reviewed article where the authors
> examined
> various studies of food dyes and their impact on behavior. This study
> is from Columbia University:

That has nothing to do with the untrue assertion
that Red 40 is carcinogenic.

May I now assume that the ONLY evidence
you have that Red 40 is carcinogenic
is the unsupported assertions of a
scaremongering website?

You have swallowed those assertions
hook, line, and sinker WITHOUT any
scientific evidence.

That makes you a fool. An ignorant,
hoodwinked fool.

wrote:
>
> I am not paranoid if anything I am too rational.
> Those who are too rational are often thought of as
> being at least somewhat non-sane.

For sure they cause the LOON ALERT sign
to start flashing.

Especially when they start ranting and
raving about EMULSIFIERS.

> have to disagree. While I for one am not about to launch into a
>macrobiotic diet, I think that avoiding ingesting such things as pesticides,
>artificial food additives, and dyes is a wise precaution for which there is
>ample evidence

Ample evidence....? iblown out of proportion by the press...?
Whatever evidence there is presented in an exaggerated
manner....therefore its half truth...
Well you have your choice and I leave it to you,
On further mention
Look in food additive testing,,,,its done ins doses which are
unimaginably exaggerated proportions..a myriad times the normal usage
level.... just to induce the desired effect...

Can you consideder that evaluation as reasonable and sensible?


Additives if used carefully is safe...but regardless of its safety,,,
there are hypersensitive indivudals that are allergic to it ( no
diffferent from allergies to what is considered perfectly natural
foods ) and its exacerbated if the particular person has a neurotic
mind....

Chembake wrote:
>> have to disagree. While I for one am not about to launch into a
>> macrobiotic diet, I think that avoiding ingesting such things as
>> pesticides, artificial food additives, and dyes is a wise precaution
>> for which there is ample evidence
>
> Ample evidence....? iblown out of proportion by the press...?
> Whatever evidence there is presented in an exaggerated
> manner....therefore its half truth...
> Well you have your choice and I leave it to you,
> On further mention
> Look in food additive testing,,,,its done ins doses which are
> unimaginably exaggerated proportions..a myriad times the normal usage
> level.... just to induce the desired effect...
>
> Can you consideder that evaluation as reasonable and sensible?
>
>
> Additives if used carefully is safe...but regardless of its safety,,,
> there are hypersensitive indivudals that are allergic to it ( no
> diffferent from allergies to what is considered perfectly natural
> foods ) and its exacerbated if the particular person has a neurotic
> mind....

I certainly agree that some individuals seem to be prone to claiming
imaginary allergies or inflating a sensitivity into an allergy and falling
under the sway of quack allergists. (I think it makes them feel important. )

I also agree that the way nutritional news is reported to the public (Eggs
are Bad For You...NO!....Eggs are Good For You!!) is often misleading and
confusing.

I also agree that there are additives that would appear to be safe if taken
in small quantities. That does not mean that pesticide residues are
necessarily harmless to humans, or that some food colorings are harmless, or
that additives should be consumed freely. One thing to consider is that the
effects of allergens can be cumulative, and as lifetime exposure increases,
so can sensitivity. (This can be true of poison ivy, shellfish, and bee
stings, so why not food additives?) It seems to me that the jury is still
out on whether the cumulative exposure to all kinds of potentially toxic
substances, from pesticides to cleaning products to preservatives, that is
inherent in modern life will turn out to have something to do with rates of
breast cancer or autism and so on.

Look, Wheyface--

Resorting to name calling is not going to
advance your counter-arguments, you
banana-brain, you vaghina-head, you
wenis-penis, you slime-o'-the-ocean
SLUT PUPPY!


Thanks.

--alf

wrote:
>
> Look, Wheyface--
>
> Resorting to name calling is not going to
> advance your counter-arguments, you
> banana-brain, you vaghina-head, you
> wenis-penis, you slime-o'-the-ocean
> SLUT PUPPY!

This is how you respond when asked
to back up your false accusations
with evidence.

You have no evidence. You just
dodge and weave, and finally end
with an outburst of invective
when asked for evidence.

There is no evidence. Godiva uses
nothing in their chocolates that
isn't perfectly safe to eat.

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>I had an argument with a cashier at a Godiva Chocolatier shop the other
>day. I expressed disdain for Godiva Chocolates, because they claim to
>be a "gourmet" chocolate maker, yet they contaminate their chocolates

You just might have to stop buying Godiva chocolates, then.


--
"The result of this experiment was inconclusive, so we had to use
statistics." (Overheard at international physics conference)