General Mills To Drop Artificial Ingredients In Cereal 163
schwit1 writes: General Mills announced Monday that it will be removing artificial colors and flavoring from its cereal products over the next two to three years. The company said that Trix and Reese's Puffs will be some of the first cereals to undergo the changes adding that cereals like Lucky Charms that have marshmallows may take longer to reformulate. They say 90 percent of their cereals will have no artificial ingredients by the end of 2016. "We've continued to listen to consumers who want to see more recognizable and familiar ingredients on the labels and challenged ourselves to remove barriers that prevent adults and children from enjoying our cereals," said Jim Murphy, president of General Mills cereal division, in a statement.
Artificial? (Score:1)
Like high fructose corn syrup? Because HFCS doesn't grow on trees, whereas certain red dyes do at least grow on beetles.
Finally, Cookie Crisp might actually taste like Cookie Crisp once again.
(Disclaimer: I really don't have the foggiest if Cookie Crisp is General Mills, Post, or whatever. Not the point.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Artificial? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is not the presence of fructose. Sucrose [wikipedia.org] (cane/beat sugar) is a disaccharide combination of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose. The body breaks down sucrose into glucose and fructose using an enzyme. The problem with HFCF is that it simpler molecules are absorbed into the body must faster than of they had to be broken down first. Spikes in sugar in the bloodstream strain the liver and get stored into fat.
Re:Artificial? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is not the presence of fructose. Sucrose [wikipedia.org] (cane/beat sugar) is a disaccharide combination of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose. The body breaks down sucrose into glucose and fructose using an enzyme. The problem with HFCF is that it simpler molecules are absorbed into the body must faster than of they had to be broken down first. Spikes in sugar in the bloodstream strain the liver and get stored into fat.
This video Sugar: The Bitter Truth [youtube.com] explains the fructose metabolism you describe in detail and how fructose gets metabolized much like alcohol, but without the limiting effects of consuming too much alcohol ... From the YouTube blurb:
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin.
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo. It's popular to attack HFCS because naturalist religion is afraid of the name (i.e. they have this stupid belief that any chemical name means unnatural and therefore evil,) but the reality is that all refined sugars are equally bad
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is not the presence of fructose.
What a state we've come to now that Sucrose is considered healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much of anything is unhealthy
Re: (Score:2)
Too much of anything is unhealthy
No kidding. But one might be able to eat more corn on the cob than say arsenic, no doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.
Problem is HIGHER amount of fructose. (Score:2)
HFCS 55 is 55% fructose, ~41% glucose and ~4% other sugars.
Sucrose is 50-50 glucose and fructose.
Low blood sugar is low glucose. We eat/drink until we get to the "high glucose" level. At which point the craving stops.
HFCS 55 (the soda kind) contains 110% more fructose than sucrose, and ~80% less glucose than sucrose.
So, to get the same "high glucose" level we will have to ingest more HFCS than sucrose.
About 1.25 times more. Of a sweetener which contains 1.1 times more of that fat forming fructose.
1.25 * 1.1
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that you ask for citations yet give none.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that you ask for citations yet give none.
It's a well-established fact that pure fructose causes weird metabolic effects. Unfortunately, because most people who don't know anything about chemistry assume "high fructose" means "almost all fructose" or something, they assume that studies must apply to HFCS, even when HFCS is very similar in composition to disassociated sucrose. Heck, start with Wikipedia -- the HFCS article [wikipedia.org] cites a bit of possibly irrelevant stuff about pure fructose, and then a number of studies that claim there's probably no sign
Re: (Score:2)
I've looked extensively for studies actually contrasting metabolic effects of HFCS vs. sucrose, and I've only found TWO
Then log off from google, browse/search/google anonymously.
You likely find much more "evidence".
If you seriously have new studies on this, I'd like to see them.
What do you mean with "new"?
We know this since the mid 1970s ... seems you are stuck in a backyard.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish HFCS would be removed from most products because it's overused, generally unnecessary, and only economically makes sense because of stupid corn subsidies
It actually has a bit of a tangier taste to it. Compare for example regular mountain dew to the throwback version in the white can. Basically the only difference is one uses hfcs and the other uses cane sugar. They're both equally bad for you, but the taste is distinctively different.
Oh and by the way, both kinds of sugars come from very closely related plants, and both use a refining process to extract the sugar from the plant in its purest form. HFCS just goes by a chemical name rather than a colloquial n
They are not "equally bad". (Score:4, Insightful)
Sugar (sucrose) feeds you equal amounts of glucose and fructose.
HFCS used in sodas is 55% fructose and 41% glucose.
Human body has built-in sensors for high glucose. Our blood sugar goes up, we feel energized, we stop being hungry.
Human body has NO sensors for fructose. You can eat or drink it all day and never feel you had enough.
That's cause fructose in nature comes in the form of fruit. With all that fiber you have to gobble down and then carry around in your gut till the fructose gets extracted.
And that would trip a bunch of other sensors telling us to stop eating.
So, when we take sucrose which is exactly half glucose half fructose, the moment we hit satiety for glucose that also trips our "I'm full" sensor and we stop eating.
At which point we have ingested an equal amount of both ready to burn glucose and ready to be turned into fat and burned later fructose.
HFCS 55 on the other hand only has about 80% of glucose that sucrose has. And no fiber to trip the "fructose-comes-with-a-lot-of-fiber" sensor.
So, to reach glucose satiety and trip the "I'm full" sensor drinking HFCS 55, we will have to intake about 1.25 times more sweetener then with sucrose.
But HFCS 55 has 110% of the amount of the fructose contained in sugar (sucrose).
Meaning that to reach the same glucose satiety level which would trip that "I'm full" senor, we ingest 1.25 more sweetener which contains 1.1 times more of the chemical we use solely for production of fat.
Unless we're hiking dozens of miles daily, in snow, up hill, both ways.
Cause we evolved to store that fructose which grows in warm weather for the long winter months when there is no food growing on trees.
And we don't start burning it until we burn all our glucose in our bloodstream.
1.25 times 1.1 equals 1.375 times more fructose (i.e. future fat) ingested when drinking HFCS 55 sweetened soda, compared to drinking the same soda sweetened with sucrose.
Re: (Score:2)
Sugar (sucrose) feeds you equal amounts of glucose and fructose.
HFCS used in sodas is 55% fructose and 41% glucose.
Nice cherry picking, but actually HFCS varies between 42% fructose and 55% fructose, so depending on the source it may have less than 50%.
Human body has NO sensors for fructose. You can eat or drink it all day and never feel you had enough.
I don't know where you're getting this from, but it's wrong. The 'sensors' you're referring to come in the form of leptin, and fructose does raise your leptins, just not by as much as glucose. However fructose is commonly found in fruit, and your liver uses it as an intermediary to produce...guess what? Glucose.
Anyways don't let me interrupt your food religion rant, go ah
Re: (Score:3)
No, the problem is that sugar tariffs mean the price of other sugars are artificially priced high. Most countries use sugar where the US uses HFCS, even in poorer countries, because sugar isn't artificially priced higher.
Re:Artificial? (Score:4, Informative)
HFCS is the worst offender
Is it? That HFCS is "bad" is something that everyone "knows", despite little or no evidence. The NIH did a comprehensive review [nih.gov] of research on fructose, and found no basis for believing that replacing other sugars with fructose leads to obesity, or is worse for you than sucrose or glucose in any way. Yes, you should try to reduce the amount of sugar in your diet, but there is no reason to single out fructose over other sugars.
Re: (Score:2)
HFCS is the worst offender
Is it? That HFCS is "bad" is something that everyone "knows", despite little or no evidence.
Because people believe anything a cometing industry puts out. HFCS has been at the top of the heap so it's competitors want to take it down.
Please to pardon Sam Kinison Rant
"It's SUGAR!!!!!! It's Fucking SUGAR!!!!! It's all fucking POISON!!!!!!! Sucrose Fructose, FUCKTOSE!!!! it's all bad!!!!!! Quit fucking Kidding yourselves!!!!!! Its SUGAR!!!!"
Rant off.
Phew. All better now...
THAT'S BULLSHIT AND YOU'RE TROLLING! (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a cometing industry.
A comet is small, icy, Solar System body that, when passing close to the Sun, heats up and begins to outgas, displaying a visible atmosphere or coma, and sometimes also a tail.
And they are most certainly NOT made of sugar. No, not even that white tail.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a cometing industry.
A comet is small, icy,
Too late fool! I have been making comets in my garage in secret for the last ten years, and will be making out IPO next month.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not HFCS specifically.
Other countries like Australia use plain old sucrose, and have followed the same path of increased obesity and diabetes.
And sugar is only one part of the changes is diet and activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? That HFCS is "bad" is something that everyone "knows", despite little or no evidence. The NIH did a comprehensive review [nih.gov] of research on fructose, and found no basis for believing that replacing other sugars with fructose leads to obesity, or is worse for you than sucrose or glucose in any way. Yes, you should try to reduce the amount of sugar in your diet, but there is no reason to single out fructose over other sugars.
You are misinterpreting the abstract you pointed to. First, the NIH did not research the link between HFCS and increased BMI (weight gain). They "reviewed" existing studies. The conclusion of the review is that it discredits the non-scientific studies that have been done in the past (both showing an increase in obesity or not) and specifically states that there is not enough scientificly valid data to reach a conclusion one way or the other. It strongly recommends that more scientific research is needed sp
Re: (Score:2)
Like high fructose corn syrup? Because HFCS doesn't grow on trees, whereas certain red dyes do at least grow on beetles.
You say that as if soaking raw cane/beets in lime to get "raw" sugar is a natural process...
Re: (Score:2)
Like high fructose corn syrup? Because HFCS doesn't grow on trees, whereas certain red dyes do at least grow on beetles.
You say that as if soaking raw cane/beets in lime to get "raw" sugar is a natural process...
Not to mention one method of soybean processing:
Solvent extraction: This process, which is the one used most commonly around the world, uses hexane to leach or wash (extract) the oil from flaked oilseeds. This method reduces the level of oil in the extracted flakes to one percent or less.
Yum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. So true. Tofu has to have one of the most nasty look and texture of tofu. It combines rubbery with slimy in one go.
Re: (Score:2)
High Fructose Corn Syrup comes from Corn (hence the name Corn Syrup). Not really a tree, but a plant nonetheless. Grinding up beetles (you don't think they peel them do you?) I would expect grosses more people out than corn.
Re: (Score:2)
Trees? No. Corn? Yes, hence the name.
question (Score:1)
I assume it's healthier to drop the artificial ingredients as a final step, rather than add them during the mixing process like they do currently?
Re: (Score:1)
*drop the artificial ingredients in as a final step
Re: (Score:1)
The first thing to realize is that the summary and the linked article are muddying terms. The GM press release [marketwatch.com] (I think that's the text of the official press release) doesn't actually mention "artificial ingredients" but rather the clunkier phrasing "artificial flavors and colors from artificial sources". So it's not all "artificial ingredients", just the artificial colors and flavors. (So things like synthetically produced vitamins, emulsifiers and preservatives aren't necessarily covered by this announcem
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't been demanding it. I don't know anybody else who has either. Most people I know understand the concept of food coloring (like what you buy for cake decorating) and aren't bothered by it.
The only people that are rabidly opposed to it are the natural food religious zealots. They don't really give a shit if science has found it safe, they just hate seeing chemical names on their food labels and assume that because it doesn't sound like the name of a plant or a vitamin, why then without a doubt it mus
Re: (Score:2)
...The only people that are rabidly opposed to it are the natural food religious zealots. They don't really give a shit if science has found it safe, they just hate seeing chemical names on their food labels and assume that because it doesn't sound like the name of a plant or a vitamin, why then without a doubt it must be bad for you because it's not as gaia intended...
I very rarely choose to buy food with colourings, flavourings or preservatives, either artificial or natural. My rationale is terribly simple and bears no resemblance to your suppositions.
Almost all food tastes and looks pretty good when it's first harvested or slaughtered. If it's been processed to the point where the colour and taste need to be enhanced in some way, or if it's going to hang around in a warehouse for long enough to need preservatives, I figure that there's a pretty good chance that a load
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all food tastes and looks pretty good when it's first harvested or slaughtered. If it's been processed to the point where the colour and taste need to be enhanced in some way, or if it's going to hang around in a warehouse for long enough to need preservatives
That's almost never why. If you've ever had a fruit tree in your back yard, or seen actual corn in a field before, you'd know that not all food ends up the same color. Some people misinterpret it as exactly what you're doing now (assuming it's just outdated) when in reality it's perfectly fine (i.e. the taste isn't impacted, nor is the nutritional content.) That's where coloring comes in.
Anyways as for the food religion's common complaint about processing and not being fresh, I just have the following two p
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is, whether the problem with artificial ingredients, is just a problem with regard to specific artificial ingredients that are just selected to mimic a specific characteristic of a natural ingredients (flavour, odour, texture, anti-biotic activity) with little regard to the other characteristics of that artificial ingredient and those other characteristics causing problems.
Would a completely artificial food, properly engineering for safe consumption and low allergen characteristics with
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is, whether the problem with artificial ingredients, is just a problem with regard to specific artificial ingredients that are just selected to mimic a specific characteristic of a natural ingredients (flavour, odour, texture, anti-biotic activity) with little regard to the other characteristics of that artificial ingredient and those other characteristics causing problems.
Would a completely artificial food, properly engineering for safe consumption and low allergen characteristics with an indigestible fibre added for digestive function be a suitable goal. Logically it could prove far safer than genetic manipulation and ever increasing levels of toxins in the environment. Rather than fake food pretending to be natural food how about actual completely engineered artificial foods. Taste is important though, as it allows active dietary control via flavour profiles, a preference for particular minerals via varying flavour preferences.
Most things that people eat are completely engineered artificial foods. Real food does not contain ingredients. An apple is an apple. An egg is an egg and a chicken leg is a chicken leg. On the other hand, if there are ingredients listed on the label, then it is already engineered and most likely artificial. It is possible to have ingredients that are all foods in and of them self. A cobb salad could be an example, but even though it might not be artificial, if you are buying it pre-packaged, it is still
Define "artificial". (Score:1)
Really. Define that word in an accurate, unambiguous way. I challenge you.
Even if you could do this, the most toxic things in cereals are natural byproducts. See Acrylamide.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound pretty indignant about the whole thing but without the glove slap to the face I'm not really feeling this challenge.
Re:Define "artificial". (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.22 [fda.gov]
Right at the top. (a)(1).
Re: (Score:2)
It's better than nothing. Besides, I suspect this is the definition General Mills is using.
(After all, it's the definition he used when he lead his troops to victory in WWII.)
Re: (Score:2)
The most toxic things in these cereals are the fact that most servings that most people pour into their bowl have twice the amount of carbohydrates that you should have in a day.
If you wanted a filling portion of that size that doesn't have too many carb based calories, then you wouldn't ever eat cereal.
Early corporate boardroom conversation leak (Score:2)
PERSON 1: "Well, you know we can always use natural sources for color."
PERSON 2: "But we've always used petroleum-based colors in our cereals."
PERSON 1: "It would probably cut back on all of the side effects our internal studies have proven, like increased obesity, hypertension disorder, ADD..."
PERSON 2: "But it still costs more."
PERSON 1: "Well....I can get some numbers togeth..."
PERSON 2: "Let's go to lunch, I know a really good Hooters just down the street."
PERSON 1: "....Ok."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
arsenic would be considered a natural flavoring.
Arsenic is considered a natural flavoring just as much as gunpowder is and would land General Mills execs in prison for knowingly having it put in their cereals.
Re: (Score:1)
i think you mean a 'nominal fine' far below the illicit gains and with no admission of guilt.
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC, gunpowder is a 3>2>1 mixture of sulphur, saltpeter, and charcoal. Sulphur dioxide is a food preservative, probably used in the raisins and other preserved fruit in yuor breakfast cereal... within legally recognized tolerances.
So no. No jail for the GM GMs.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you underestimate the power of Facebook. Publicly shaming corporations such as GM is a HUGE PR hit if they actually started introducing such things into their cereals, even in small, legal doses. Just imagine if they started putting Sodium Fluoride in their cereals under the presumption that it would help kids fight cavities.
There's a million-large bandwagon of people ready to post about stuff like this and get the word out that even tolerable levels of this kind of stuff is included in their kids'
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. I work in the Animal Health field, and many manufacturers put arsenic in the animal feed. They have been cracking down on it in the past couple years though, but still is fairly common.
What are natural flavors, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are natural flavors, really? (Score:4, Funny)
When I say I am in mood for strawberry, I mean strawberry, not beetle wings. Is that really so much to ask?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that much to ask, but do you know for sure what you're really asking for [youtube.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Please be aware that the following is a joke, always wanted to do this one:
I'm allergic to strawberries you insignificant clod!
Which is sad, I do like strawberries, but can't eat them fresh.
True to an extent (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuredly evidence might not be enough to forbid the ingredients, but it is enough to warrant caution and maybe remove it from children's food. Personally I do not know the research good enough to tell. Anyway, definitively not natural. But the natural fallacy (which you might have wanted to mention) never took hold for me. Pure natural arsenic or botulism toxin is poison, artificial non naturally existing recent antibiotic, preservative additive are helpful. It is not about the natural or artificial provenance that people should look to, but the effects. But then again that's why it is called a fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Cereal doesn't grow on trees, it's all processed. Same goes for bread, coffee and almost everything you eat except for perhaps fruit.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Coffee doesn't grow on trees? WTF!? Since when?
Re: (Score:2)
So, drying, baking, grinding, then running water through them is processing now and makes them artificial? Generally, when people are discussing processing in relation to food, they are speaking of the use of chemicals. Chemicals are only used on coffee in decaffeinated coffee which is an unholy abomination anyways. So anyways, yes, coffee does grow on trees, but nothing is added to it to make it even fit in with the conversation we are having which is artificial ingredients.
Also, in the case of fruit, i
Re: (Score:1)
Didn't read the story, did you? (Score:2, Flamebait)
We are not talking about flavors specifically, but also COLORS. Read up on where artificial colors come from.
If you are OK with it, that's fine for YOU.
"Consumers" have a right to consume what they want and not what they don't.
Re: (Score:1)
Consumers, by and large, are ignorant panicky and stupid. Just because they want something does not mean it makes sense...
Re: (Score:2)
The dose makes the poison. Water can be toxic [wikipedia.org] if consumed in large quantities. Mercury can be harmless [wikipedia.org] or highly toxic [wikipedia.org] depending on which type of molecule you ingest and in
Re: (Score:2)
Chlorine and Sodium are pretty much toxic separately, but I don't think anyone completely avoids NaCL on their food.
before the 'bad science' complaints (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This change has nothing to do with health or whether one additive is more deadly than another additive. For all we know the new formulations are going to be more deadly to humans.
They won't, they will just be a little less colorful.
Now, if we are talking nutrition, I would say a mug of steel cut oatmeal with raisins is a good minimally processed food, that is cheap and nutritional to boot.
Even as a kid, I liked oatmeal prepared with some texture... and a whole lot of sweetener. My typical breakfast these days is 3/4c of organic quick oats with ~1Tbsp of peanut butter, and some kind of sweetener. Right now it's monkfruit and stevia extracts...
But look at a box of cereal, most of the stuff in there with long names is either there to extend shelf life or to save a little money, not because it needs to be in there to get the product consistenc
Good first step... (Score:2)
... but if they really want to clean up their act, they have to stop their partnership with Nestle right now.
This is interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
There's this huge movement against GMOs, artificial ingredients and other scapegoat ingredients du jour, despite the fact that virtually all of them have undergone rigorous testing and long-term studies and have proven to be safe for human consumption in reasonable quantities. But I guess if it spooks consumers, companies are going to do what's necessary to maintain their revenue streams. Never mind that a diet high in simple carbs like sugar and HFCS (which are highly and conspicuously represented in General Mills products) are the real enemies that shorten your life and bring on obesity and all its nasty side effects like cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Then again, I guess it's better to simply green wash them as "organic evaporated cane juice" and the like than to risk making things less palatable?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Those bodies and the 'eat lots of sugar' instinct evolved in a world before industrial agriculture - when food was scarce and starvation a very real risk. The instincts say to eat as many carbs as possible whenever you get the chance so they can be stored as fat and used when the inevitable lean times come. Today there is never a food shortage for those living in the developed world - this mismatch between instinctual behavior and environment is responsible for the obesity problem.
Re: (Score:3)
There's this huge movement against GMOs, artificial ingredients and other scapegoat ingredients du jour, despite the fact that virtually all of them have undergone rigorous testing and long-term studies and have proven to be safe for human consumption in reasonable quantities.
Wait, GMOs have gone through long term studies? Since when? Last I checked they were considered GRAS which basically means they don't have to bother with all that science nonsense. If you think there have been long term studies on them I'd like a citation as that's an extraordinary claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation required. I want to see these "studies." They don't exist. Many of these ingredients have been grandfathered in. The assumption being that since no one has provably dropped dead from having eaten them that they do not cause harm. The term is GRAS [fda.gov], Generally Recognized As Safe. An increasing body of these GRAS ingredients have come under suspicion as of late, some provably show to cause harm.
Regarding GMOs, Monsanto and co. prevent ANYONE from testing their seeds. Farmers are contractually
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
despite the fact that virtually all of them have undergone rigorous testing and long-term studies and have proven to be safe for human consumption in reasonable quantities.
No they have not.
Otherwise we would knew EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING that causes diabetes, cancer and any other degenerative desease.
What is so damn hard in eating food "as it is"? Why is it necessary to add random chemicals? How can that be "cheaper"?
And how can you be such an idiot that you "believe" this would make any sense?
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it necessary to add random chemicals? How can that be "cheaper"?
It's cheaper to not have food spoil. It's cheaper not to transport and store parts of food that everyone cuts off and throws away. It's cheaper to synthesize ascorbic acid than it is to extract it from fruits, and the ascorbic acid is identical. Etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt they talked about chemicals like this: "ascorbic acid".
And btw. it is usually not synthesized but produced by bacteria in fermenters.
HFCS (Score:1)
Re:HFCS (Score:5, Funny)
How hard would it be to drop the corn syrup part and just call it fructose?
Because "High Fructose Corn Syrup" rolls off the tongue slightly better than "a 50%:50% ±10% homogeneous mixture of fructose and glucose with >0.5% residual corn proteins and cellulose."
And bacterial enzymes. (Score:2)
Because "High Fructose Corn Syrup" rolls off the tongue slightly better than "a 50%:50% ±10% homogeneous mixture of fructose and glucose with >0.5% residual corn proteins and cellulose."
Not to mention bacteria enzymes.
My personal problem with HFCS is that I'm allergic to corn, and food-grade purification processes don't clean out enough of what I'm allergic to for ANY corn-sourced food ingredient to be safe for me. (As I understand it, antibodies are THE most sensitive detectors of particular
Re: (Score:2)
It's also delicious and really, really cheap, so food manufacturers tend to use a great deal of it in everything they can.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty hard considering it would be erroneously referring to fructose-glucose blend simply as fructose.
Re: (Score:2)
In canada, it is simply called "glucose-fructose" and that seems to convince some people that it is healthier than HFCS
Re: (Score:2)
How hard would it be to drop the corn syrup part and just call it fructose?
Well, to do that, you probably would want for it to actually be, well, fructose (or, at least, mostly fructose), and well, NOT be corn syrup (which it is manufactured from).
As it is, the standard varieties of high fructose corn syrup is generally about 24% water, with roughly 34-44% glucose, and 32-42% fructose.
But don't feel bad -- you're not the only one who can't actually bother to look at the chemical specifications. For decades researchers have been claiming that HFCS is worse than sucrose by test
Great misread title (Score:2)
I read the title, I imagined them doing experiments where they had bowls of cereal lined up, then they took various artificial ingredients and dropped them into the bowls to see what would happen. So basically, research for their next cereal, what additional artificial crap can we add that we haven't already tried?
I'm glad to see exactly the opposite was actually the case (supposedly. I'll believe it when it actually happens.)
sold by weight, not volume (Score:3)
But will the cereals still smell the same? (Score:2)
Growing up, we only got sugary cereals like Trix and Froot Loops one week out of the year when we stayed with our grandparents during summer break. I've always imagined that all of the artificial ingredients were the source of the distinctive smell that causes the "Ratatouille moment" I experience whenever I get a whiff of a freshly opened box of Trix.
Re: (Score:2)
Try crushing some sassafras leaves sometime... the exact smell of fruit loops. I'm sure they used an artificial flavorant for that, because why would you ever want anything natural?
No artificial ingrediants? Two words: (Score:2)
Crunchy Frog [wikipedia.org] - "If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy - would it?"
About time. (Score:4, Funny)
Because when I eat "Lucky Charms Cereal", I expect it to be as natural and healthy as the appearance and packaging imply.
Re: (Score:2)
Too little, too late (Score:3)
Their entire line of product is sugary junk -- Cocoa Puffs and the like. I think the decades long movement of making our food chemically better is now starting to swing in the opposite direction, with the likes of Paleo diet that won't even look at organic whole grains, let alone processed cereals with added sugar and artificial ingredients.
What's interesting is that just as the US was the first in terrible food and bad eating habits, with the rest of the world catching up, it appears it's also the first to lead on the way back.
Due to popular demand: (Score:2)
We are removing the di-hydrogen monoxide from our products and replacing it with water!
Re: (Score:2)
The cosmetics and bathroom-products industries routinely describe water on their labels as 'aqua' to hide that a substantial part of the volume of their overprices luxury shampoo is just water and thickener.
Natural sugar (Score:2)
While removing chemical stuff is good, too much natural sugar still leads to natural diabetes
Hunter-gatherer (Score:2)
Arguably, all of our agricultural produce is artificial to one degree or another. You want 'all natural' cereal for breakfast? Your box of cereal will contain a woven grass basket with instructions to go out and collect it yourself.
Even more reason to switch to knock-off brand (Score:3)
Remember folks... (Score:2)
What a disappointment (Score:2)
Makes no difference (Score:2)
This is just a marketing stunt, really. Look at strawberry jam, for example - 'No artificial colours' doesn't mean 'All the red in this jar comes from strawberries', it means 'We used beetroot juice' and so on. And of course, 'natural' isn't the same as good either - strychnine and morphine are very natural substances. And 'No added sugar' mostly just means 'We used concentrated something to increase the sugar contect "naturally"'.
But really, breakfast products are no more than cakes and sweet desserts; mos
Must be tired (Score:2)
MOAR mote (Score:2)
Should have thought of that a year ago.
New York Times, April 2014
When 'Liking' a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue [nytimes.com]
No artificial ingredients ? None ??? (Score:2)
What do you mean - that's not artificial? But humans did it, not Mother Nature.
I wonder if these almonds have a low enough amount of natural cyanide to be safe to eat? Well it'll be OK, because Mother Nature's cyanide doesn't kill you as ba
Re: (Score:3)
Research of replacement options, testing how well they work including long term shelf stability and market approval, establishing new supply chains with different producers, retooling factories, and producing new stock.