Dark M’M’s OR How to Make Candy Depressing

by | Jun 3, 2005 | Food Reviews

I finally found some “dark” M&M’s; a not easy feat in itself. I’ve been looking for them for weeks. So, I get my prize home and tear it open only to find … the colors. They are so horribly depressing you might as well eat dirt.

Don’t they get it in M&M’s land? It’s the colors stupid! How could they not know it’s the deep dark brown package and the bright, vibrant colors that I love so much, not the stupid candy. The candy, frankly tastes like, er, I don’t know, sort of stale? I’ve never liked the taste of M&M’s but the colors, that’s another story.

Did anyone buy the white ones? That was doubly-dumb I thought. Who wants an anemic looking candy?

So, I’m not happy with this flavor at all. The taste is reminiscent of the sugar-free posers, and that’s not good either. I’ll stick with the regular.

Quorn: OR the Fungus Among Us

by | May 10, 2005 | Food Safety

Whole Foods Markets sell a meat substitute under the brand name Quorn. It’s what they call a mycoprotein and is described as being related to mushrooms, but the CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) claims it is a mold more closely related to mildew than truffles.

Apparently the trouble is some people have an allergic reaction to Quorn and for whatever reason Quorn Foods is reluctant to point that out on their package labels. They may end up wishing they’d simply been more truthful if the “mildew” idea sticks.

Truth in labeling is becoming a bigger issue. Recent cases brought by the CSPI include a suit against Arizona Rx drinks which claim to contain ginseng, echinacea, gingko biloba, valerian, and sometimes vitamins. The CSPI reports that independent laboratory tests showed the drinks had barely detectable levels of those ingredients. No surprise there either.

Don’t think because a drink suggests a health benefit that one exists. The law allows labeling to mention health benefits if the product contains the ingredient. They never said it had to be enough of the ingredient to actually cause an effect, just that it had to be present. Obviously expensive herbal ingredients will be added in minute amounts so they can be claimed on the labels.

CSPI means well, but they can be overly zealous in their attempts to be the food police. If only we could find a happy medium between being totally screwed over by food manufacturers and having the food police lording over us then maybe we could get somewhere. I’m not holding my breath.

Splenda Cost Going Down

by | Apr 23, 2005 | Diet Products

Good news! The price of Splenda may soon be going down! The primary patent held for Splenda by Tate & Lyle has already expired. They hold numerous other patents but this still opens the door to competition. Other companies can now create Splenda as well, and will soon bring it to market under different brand names (but it will be virtually the same thing just like a generic drug). This competition will encourage price to drop which is good news for everyone (except maybe Tate & Lyle).

Despite the questionable announcement of a “shortage of Splenda” which was probably bogus (I don’t have facts, but really, a shortage? Gimme a break), now the news that the patents are expired. Coincidence? I think not.

Splenda is considered far safer than aspartame and many companies are moving to use it. Seven-up has just announced they will be brining a diet 7-Up to market sweetened with Splenda.

Hopefully the day will come with the FDA will recognize that Stevia is even better being a plant (not a chemical process), and will let it be grown and sold as a sweetener. Why they do not now is beyond me. It’s as if they declared sugar cane a drug. Sugar cane is a plant, so is Stevia. Why is one okay, and one not? Ask big business.

Human Mad Cow in Holland

by | Apr 23, 2005 | Food Safety

Is Beef Safe to Eat?

A human has been report with Mad Cow Disease yet Holland cries, “Our beef is safe! Our beef is safe!” Is it? Did they figure the person traveled to say the UK and got the bad beef there? Do they really know? No, they do not.

Stop fooling yourself. Our meat supply is horribly tainted. If you like beef. Fine. Eat beef. But starting today buy from meat (beef, chicken, even fish) from your local butcher shop and local fish shop, and you will avoid all this nonsense and be able to enjoy meat in peace once again. Support your local farmers too. We should start going back to being neighborhood consumers and stop thinking by saving a few cents at Walmart that we are doing ourselves or our children any favors.

I know, it can be more expensive but I’m not willing to risk dying for a piece of steak or lousy hamburger at McD’s. Are you?

Your local butcher buys his meat from small local farmers who do not sell to the huge meat processing plants. This is good for you. Look in your phone book or do a search online and find a local butcher in your town. Their beef, chicken, etc. are cleaner, less likely to be full of hormones, and are not coming from sick cows. Local butchers can teach you which cuts to use for what. Go in, ask questions, get to know a local merchant, and maybe make a friend in the process. Plus, supporting your community is good for you and the community.

Mad Cow is not something to fool around with nor is it wise for this country (the US) to randomly test a mere teensy percentage of beef. In Japan they test all cattle. Here we still allow downer cows (cows too ill to stand) into the food supply, and if an animal is obviously ill, it should not be butchered and sold to school lunch programs. Meat processing plants claim they do not, but just visit any meat packing plant and see for yourself.

Report about Human with Mad Cow Disease in Holland

PowerPops – Weight Loss Aid or Scam? You Decide

by | Apr 9, 2005 | Diet Products

The PowerPops site states, “Power-Pops formula (patent pending) uses five natural ingredients to suppress appetite and provide energy. Power-Pops have approximately 32 calories. Now you can eat candy and LOSE WEIGHT too.” Uh, huh.

Farther down they state, ” Power Pops contain 7-9 carbohydrates and 7 grams of sugar each.” I’m not sure how they are doing the math. A gram of carbohydrate contains 4 calories and a gram of sugar contains 4 calories, thus having 7 grams of carbs X 4 would equal 28, plus 7 grams of sugar X 4 for another 28 calories or 56 total, but perhaps some of the sugar also counts as carbs? Who knows? I do know that eating these Power-pops four or five times a day is going to add a lot of extra calories for no nutritional value and nothing but sugar and carbs. Neat plan. Not to mention how nifty it is to continuously put something sweet in your mouth. That’ll go a long way toward breaking one of their sugar habit.

The advert continues “keep in mind that Citrimax “eats” this sugar so your body only actually consumes 1/2 of these carbs/sugars.” Whaaa? Since when does anything “eat” sugar calories? Since Neverland, that’s when.

Now Power Pops have added Hoodia, but Hoodia is not effective except in sufficient quantity. A teensy speck added to a candy lollypop isn’t going to be enough to do anything. I’d think there are far better ways than adding 100 calories (or more) to your diet in the false hope it will reduce your appetite.

A better approach? Have a cup of clear broth soup or miso soup before each meal.