4 ms·

There was a change.org petition by "Food Babe" to get this changed due to a lot of bunk arguments. Replacing a tiny amount of a very common food dye is not goin

There was a change.org petition by "Food Babe" to get this changed due to a lot of bunk arguments. Replacing a tiny amount of a very common food dye is not going to affect the healthiness in any substantial way.

JohnTHaller 11y ago
Food Babe: "When your body is in the air, at a seriously high altitude, your body under goes some serious pressure. Just think about it – Airplanes thrive in places we don’t. You are traveling in a pressurized cabin, and when your body is pressurized, it gets really compressed!" That line from one of her articles sums up her thought process perfectly.
- parennoob 11y ago
  I agree that Food Babe makes a lot of rather silly arguments "That ingredient in Subway bread is also used in car tires!", etc. but she has drawn attention to some unnecessary additive choices (like 4-Mel in Starbucks pumpkin spice lattes), which I think is helpful. Even if the additive is not harmful, as a consumer, it's good to have more knowledge about what Starbucks puts in their drinks. Having watchdogs like the Food Babe keeps companies a bit more on their toes about the health impacts of their additives than they would be otherwise.
  - douche 11y ago
    A broken watch is right twice a day.
  - runin2k1 11y ago
    And why is that an unnecessary additive? Is it actually harmful? A quick google seems to indicate that is just the same inciteful(note: not insightful) nonsense to get page views. Not to mention the fact that she is targeting a drink where the primary ingredient(s) are actually bad for you in the quantities they are served in unless you are already following a fairly well-balanced diet. It is insane to single out minutiae that are orders of magnitude less impactful than the huge sugar bomb that is the core of the food/beverage.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    > she has drawn attention to some unnecessary additive choices Most ingredients are unnecessary. Nothing useful about picking random ones to complain about on that basis alone. > Even if the additive is not harmful, as a consumer, it's good to have more knowledge about what Starbucks puts in their drinks. In theory it's always good to learn things. In practice there is limited time throughout the day, and a popular enough food blog about harmless additives gets in the way of people trying to find out about harmful additives. >Having watchdogs like the Food Babe keeps companies a bit more on their toes about the health impacts of their additives than they would be otherwise. No it doesn't. It keeps them on their toes about ~spooky~ ingredients, and more likely to pick natural ingredients even when they are inferior or worse for you than artificial ones.

JohnTHaller 11y ago

Food Babe: "When your body is in the air, at a seriously high altitude, your body under goes some serious pressure. Just think about it – Airplanes thrive in places we don’t. You are traveling in a pressurized cabin, and when your body is pressurized, it gets really compressed!" That line from one of her articles sums up her thought process perfectly.

parennoob 11y ago
I agree that Food Babe makes a lot of rather silly arguments "That ingredient in Subway bread is also used in car tires!", etc. but she has drawn attention to some unnecessary additive choices (like 4-Mel in Starbucks pumpkin spice lattes), which I think is helpful. Even if the additive is not harmful, as a consumer, it's good to have more knowledge about what Starbucks puts in their drinks. Having watchdogs like the Food Babe keeps companies a bit more on their toes about the health impacts of their additives than they would be otherwise.
- douche 11y ago
  A broken watch is right twice a day.
- runin2k1 11y ago
  And why is that an unnecessary additive? Is it actually harmful? A quick google seems to indicate that is just the same inciteful(note: not insightful) nonsense to get page views. Not to mention the fact that she is targeting a drink where the primary ingredient(s) are actually bad for you in the quantities they are served in unless you are already following a fairly well-balanced diet. It is insane to single out minutiae that are orders of magnitude less impactful than the huge sugar bomb that is the core of the food/beverage.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  > she has drawn attention to some unnecessary additive choices Most ingredients are unnecessary. Nothing useful about picking random ones to complain about on that basis alone. > Even if the additive is not harmful, as a consumer, it's good to have more knowledge about what Starbucks puts in their drinks. In theory it's always good to learn things. In practice there is limited time throughout the day, and a popular enough food blog about harmless additives gets in the way of people trying to find out about harmful additives. >Having watchdogs like the Food Babe keeps companies a bit more on their toes about the health impacts of their additives than they would be otherwise. No it doesn't. It keeps them on their toes about ~spooky~ ingredients, and more likely to pick natural ingredients even when they are inferior or worse for you than artificial ones.