4 ms·

>Just look at the ingredients in popular chocolate candy out there; they are despicable and it’s why I don’t buy these brands any longer, even for an occasional

>Just look at the ingredients in popular chocolate candy out there; they are despicable and it’s why I don’t buy these brands any longer, even for an occasional “treat”: Below it is the following image (mirrored to avoid hotlinking): http://i.imgur.com/FpnP87r.jpg http://i.imgur.com/FpnP87r.jpg Notice "lactose" highlighted in an alarming orange color next to Almond Joy

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fleitz 12y ago
You're reading it wrong, I think she just highlighted the words she needs to look up later in the dictionary. Clearly she understand the word milk, but is confused by lactose, so she needs to look it up later so she can figure out that lactose is in milk. Then when she highlight the bad ingredients she can highlight milk AND lactose. I'm interested to know her opinions on breastfeeding and whether lactose, HGH, and IGF-1 are bad for babies.
x0x0 12y ago
Her basic point -- as should have been obvious from reading the article -- is that chocolate should have: cacao beans, cane sugar, and vanilla. And milk for milk chocolate. Everything else may not be in your interest to eat. Including sugars extracted from milk with who-knows-what processing done to it. Not eating ingredients you can't pronounce or recognize is a great rule of thumb, particularly in the incredibly permissive US food regulation regime.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Quickly checking Wikipedia sort of favors the lactose for having a cleaner process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane#Refining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane#Refining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose#Isolation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose#Isolation
- jsmthrowaway 12y ago
  > Not eating ingredients you can't pronounce or recognize is a great rule of thumb Bullshit. So because we call cacao beans cacao beans, they're okay to eat, but because we call whatever whatever, it's not? Do you really base your decisions for what's okay and not based upon whether you've heard the English word for a substance? How do you cope when you travel to a place wherein you do not speak the language? Do you engage in a panic when someone tells you about residual radioactivity in almost every living thing on the planet? So you have vanilla in your chocolate. Should I explain to you the chemical composition of vanilla? What you call "vanilla" is actually a compound of unpronounceable things; would you be concerned if I told you a number of them have MSDS sheets? The primary component of vanilla is vanillin. You know what vanillin is really called, its IUPAC name? 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde. Your comment represents everything wrong with the Internet era of pseudoscience. Absolutely everything. You're really in the same bucket as Jenny McCarthy with a comment like that. I realize this is a mean reply (I'm honestly just passionate about willful and flagrant misinformation on the Internet), but come on. You are actively harming the public if you proselytize stuff like this, especially considering that most people just parrot what they hear without comprehension; one need look no further than Jimmy Kimmel's "which is better, the ACA or Obamacare?" segment for evidence of that.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    And you're stupid for pretending that because vanilla has a chemical name therefore people shouldn't wonder what all the chemicals are doing in their food. QED.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

fleitz 12y ago

You're reading it wrong, I think she just highlighted the words she needs to look up later in the dictionary. Clearly she understand the word milk, but is confused by lactose, so she needs to look it up later so she can figure out that lactose is in milk. Then when she highlight the bad ingredients she can highlight milk AND lactose. I'm interested to know her opinions on breastfeeding and whether lactose, HGH, and IGF-1 are bad for babies.

x0x0 12y ago

Her basic point -- as should have been obvious from reading the article -- is that chocolate should have: cacao beans, cane sugar, and vanilla. And milk for milk chocolate. Everything else may not be in your interest to eat. Including sugars extracted from milk with who-knows-what processing done to it. Not eating ingredients you can't pronounce or recognize is a great rule of thumb, particularly in the incredibly permissive US food regulation regime.

maxerickson 12y ago
Quickly checking Wikipedia sort of favors the lactose for having a cleaner process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane#Refining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane#Refining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose#Isolation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose#Isolation
jsmthrowaway 12y ago
> Not eating ingredients you can't pronounce or recognize is a great rule of thumb Bullshit. So because we call cacao beans cacao beans, they're okay to eat, but because we call whatever whatever, it's not? Do you really base your decisions for what's okay and not based upon whether you've heard the English word for a substance? How do you cope when you travel to a place wherein you do not speak the language? Do you engage in a panic when someone tells you about residual radioactivity in almost every living thing on the planet? So you have vanilla in your chocolate. Should I explain to you the chemical composition of vanilla? What you call "vanilla" is actually a compound of unpronounceable things; would you be concerned if I told you a number of them have MSDS sheets? The primary component of vanilla is vanillin. You know what vanillin is really called, its IUPAC name? 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde. Your comment represents everything wrong with the Internet era of pseudoscience. Absolutely everything. You're really in the same bucket as Jenny McCarthy with a comment like that. I realize this is a mean reply (I'm honestly just passionate about willful and flagrant misinformation on the Internet), but come on. You are actively harming the public if you proselytize stuff like this, especially considering that most people just parrot what they hear without comprehension; one need look no further than Jimmy Kimmel's "which is better, the ACA or Obamacare?" segment for evidence of that.
- x0x0 12y ago
  And you're stupid for pretending that because vanilla has a chemical name therefore people shouldn't wonder what all the chemicals are doing in their food. QED.