No artificial sweeteners or preservatives.

Catsmokinpot

Now let me start by saying I'm not against aspartame or think it can kill you, make you stupid or cause cancer; these all may or may not be the case i just don't know enough about them.

TBH I just plain don't like the taste of it, it's not even too sweet its just a fake sweet taste and I cant stand it. so I'm reduced to buying Ribena (not tooth kind or the other ****e) which costs a fortune, but I'm always on the lookout for a bottle of Robinson's that has actual sugar in it and avoid the ones with aspartame like the plague.

So, one day in tesco, I spotted a bottle of Robinson's that didn't have no added sugar plastered on it; instead it said "no artificial flavours or preservatives" I decided to look at the back of the bottle and what did i see? aspartame! since when was aspartame a natural sweetener? it's as artificial as Jordan's tits, have they changed a law or something to make it a legal "natural sweetener" now?

TLDR: we're already being misled about everything else, now they're lying to us about diluted orange of all things....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Why did I click on this thread again...?

ScumLord

Sue them.

OutlawPete

Wait, it said: "no artificial flavours or preservatives".

What has that got to do with "no artificial sweeteners"?

I'm with you that the stuff is the devil's sperm by the way

Zombienosh

fake oranges?!!

wurzlitzer

if ya intake enough of it, the aul aspartame, it gives ya the runs....

very sweet runs

hondasam

It's a conspiracy OP, drink water.

robbyvibes

It's definitely misleading and i'm surprised nobody challenged some of these companies in court.

For example, canned soups sometimes have a high level of sodium/salt.
2g of salt is good but these cans have high level in them.

obviously too much salt is unhealthy so campbells had a low salt/sodium choice but it turns out there was no difference in levels.

Lawsuit says Campbell's '25% less sodium' soup label is misleading

as scumlord points out, you could sue them.

starbelgrade

And the moral of the story is..

If you buy processed foods, don't be surprised to find that they are full of shite.

Catsmokinpot

ScumLord wrote: »

Sue them.

i think i'm part of a minority but i don't believe in it or i would, would be nice if you could make them give a load of money to charity or something.

Catsmokinpot

OutlawPete wrote: »

Wait, it said: "no artificial flavours or preservatives".

What has that got to do with "no artificial sweeteners"?

I'm with you that the stuff is the devil's sperm by the way

you're saying sweetness isn't a flavour? :rolleyes:

Logical Fallacy

robbyvibes wrote: »

It's definitely misleading and i'm surprised nobody challenged some of these companies in court.

For example, canned soups sometimes have a high level of sodium/salt.
2g of salt is good but these cans have high level in them.

obviously too much salt is unhealthy so campbells had a low salt/sodium choice but it turns out there was no difference in levels.

Lawsuit says Campbell's '25% less sodium' soup label is misleading


as scumlord points out, you could sue them.

Balls, it's a sweetener, not a "flavour" or a "preservative". That's not me being pedantic either, those are the proper classifications under law.

As such they are labeling exactly as they are told to.

Catsmokinpot

hondasam wrote: »

It's a conspiracy OP, drink water.

shhhh they might be listening :pac:

ScumLord

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

i think i'm part of a minority but i don't believe in it or i would, would be nice if you could make them give a load of money to charity or something.

Well if you want to go down the road of burning down their factory I guess that's another way of doing things.

Logical Fallacy

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

you're saying sweetness isn't a flavour? :rolleyes:

Nope, the EU is saying it.

Catsmokinpot

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Balls, it's a sweetener, not a "flavour" or a "preservative". That's not me being pedantic either, those are the proper classifications under law.

As such they are labeling exactly as they are told to.

It's very misleading language to use.

If something claims to be lacking artificial ingredients and then fails to mention that its got something that's totally artificial in it along with those other things, then it's misleading.

OutlawPete

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

you're saying sweetness isn't a flavour? :rolleyes:

Did you just roll your eyes at me?? Hhhmmm ..

Anyway, MSG is an "artificial flavouring".

Aspartame is an "artificial sweetener".

Have you ever heard anyone ever describe their favourite flavour as: "Sugar!"

No, you haven't - because it's not a flavour.

The company were correct in saying that the drink comtained: ""no artificial flavours or preservatives".

Why? Because it didn't.

Logical Fallacy

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

It's very misleading language to use.

If something claims to be lacking artificial ingredients and then fails to mention that its got something that's totally artificial in it along with those other things, then it's misleading.

But it's not claiming to be lacking in artificial ingredients, in claiming to be lacking in two EU classifications of the them, flavours and preservatives. Under EU Food Additive Directives they have sweeteners as a completely different classification.

I agree with you, it is misleading but it's also a case of consumers not being up to date on labeling laws and seeing issues where there are none...at least from a legal standpoint.

The link below is to a BBC page, i'm linking to that because it's a ****e side easier to read than the EU page dealing in the same info. Basically you can see that the additives are catagorised by function, and the advertising and labeling laws work around the same functions.

As such, peoples issues should be with the EU laws, and not the company itself. If the company did anything different it would be in breach of the law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3103822

Catsmokinpot

OutlawPete wrote: »

Did you just roll your eyes at me?? Hhhmmm ..

Anyway, MSG is an "artificial flavouring".

Aspartame is an "artificial sweetener".

Have you ever heard anyone ever describe their favourite flavour as: "Sugar!"

No, you haven't - because it's not a flavour.

The company were correct in saying that the drink comtained: ""no artificial flavours or preservatives".

Why? Because it didn't.

Yes, in case you didn't see it the first time I'll do it again. :rolleyes:

Flavour:
1. taste perceived in food or liquid in the mouth
2. (Cookery) a substance added to food, etc., to impart a specific taste

Sweetness can be included in that definition.

Catsmokinpot

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

But it's not claiming to be lacking in artificial ingredients, in claiming to be lacking in two EU classifications of the them, flavours and preservatives. Under EU Food Additive Directives they have sweeteners as a completely different classification.

I agree with you, it is misleading but it's also a case of consumers not being up to date on labeling laws and seeing issues where there are none...at least from a legal standpoint.

The link below is to a BBC page, i'm linking to that because it's a ****e side easier to read than the EU page dealing in the same info. Basically you can see that the additives are catagorised by function, and the advertising and labeling laws work around the same functions.

As such, peoples issues should be with the EU laws, and not the company itself. If the company did anything different it would be in breach of the law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3103822

Thanks, i suppose you're right, i didn't really know who to be angry with . now i know its the damned EU :pac: will have a read of that in the morning, off to bed now.

Will I Amnt

OutlawPete wrote: »

Anyway, MSG is an "artificial flavouring".

Aspartame is an "artificial sweetener".

Have you ever heard anyone ever describe their favourite flavour as: "Sugar!"

No, you haven't - because it's not a flavour.

Never heard of anyone with msg as their favourite either in all fairness

OutlawPete

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

Yes, in case you didn't see it the first time I'll do it again. :rolleyes:

Bad mistake two roll eyes in a row. Good luck with logging out and then logging back in again.

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

Flavour:
1. taste perceived in food or liquid in the mouth
2. (Cookery) a substance added to food, etc., to impart a specific taste.

Sweetness can be included in that definition.

Can .. but it's not when it comes to labelling.

cambo2008 wrote: »

Never heard of anyone with msg as their favourite either in all fairness

MSG is a flavour enhancer which is comes under "flavouring".

I am not saying it is a "flavour".

Sweeteners and Flavouring are different, a product labelled as saying it doesn't contain one, should not be assumed to also not have the other.

Akrasia

hondasam wrote: »

It's a conspiracy OP, drink water.

That's what they want you do do, so they can get busy flouridating you to death (or if you drink bottled water, cancering you to death from the plastic in the bottles)!!


Regarding artificial sweetners, Yeah, Diet coke tastes different and asparteme does have a particular taste, but the new 'zero' products actually don't taste any different than the other product (IMO)

I bought some coke zero the other day and it tastes fine.

Now we are in an epidemic of obesity in the western world. Imagine if someone could invent a cure for obesity, that would be class, right?

Well, obesity is caused by people taking in too many calories. Diet soft drinks contain only a tiny fraction of the calories that full sugar drinks contain. Therefore if someone switches from full sugar drinks to diet drinks and makes no other changes, then their weight should reduce (or increase more slowly depending on diet and exercise)

People object to soft drinks because they think there isn't any 'goodness' in them, but if you have a decent diet that includes fruit and veg from other sources, the 'goodness' io fruit juices are not required and it's just empty calories.

I compared the number of calories in coke zero with a carton of orange juice. There are 50 times more calories in orange juice than in coke zero
there are 75 times more calories in grapefruit juice.

If you're the kind of person who doesn't like drinking water, it is far better to get your fluids from drinking diet soft drinks than from full sugar soft drinks or undiluted fruit juices.

For the occasional soft drink consumer, diet soft drinks used to be a sacrifice in terms of taste, but the newer versions seem to taste much closer to the traditional taste.

Shenshen

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

Now let me start by saying I'm not against aspartame or think it can kill you, make you stupid or cause cancer; these all may or may not be the case i just don't know enough about them.

TBH I just plain don't like the taste of it, it's not even too sweet its just a fake sweet taste and I cant stand it. so I'm reduced to buying Ribena (not tooth kind or the other ****e) which costs a fortune, but I'm always on the lookout for a bottle of Robinson's that has actual sugar in it and avoid the ones with aspartame like the plague.

So, one day in tesco, I spotted a bottle of Robinson's that didn't have no added sugar plastered on it; instead it said "no artificial flavours or preservatives" I decided to look at the back of the bottle and what did i see? aspartame! since when was aspartame a natural sweetener? it's as artificial as Jordan's tits, have they changed a law or something to make it a legal "natural sweetener" now?

TLDR: we're already being misled about everything else, now they're lying to us about diluted orange of all things....

I'm with you, I hate that too,
I can't stand the taste of artificial sweeteners, they make everything taste like sick. But avoiding them isn't easy... they used to advertise them as toothkind and no added sugar, so these were clear signs what I needed to stay away from.
Now they add them on top of sugar! Utterly disgusting!

Shenshen

Akrasia wrote: »

That's what they want you do do, so they can get busy flouridating you to death (or if you drink bottled water, cancering you to death from the plastic in the bottles)!!


Regarding artificial sweetners, Yeah, Diet coke tastes different and asparteme does have a particular taste, but the new 'zero' products actually don't taste any different than the other product (IMO)

I bought some coke zero the other day and it tastes fine.

Now we are in an epidemic of obesity in the western world. Imagine if someone could invent a cure for obesity, that would be class, right?

Well, obesity is caused by people taking in too many calories. Diet soft drinks contain only a tiny fraction of the calories that full sugar drinks contain. Therefore if someone switches from full sugar drinks to diet drinks and makes no other changes, then their weight should reduce (or increase more slowly depending on diet and exercise)

People object to soft drinks because they think there isn't any 'goodness' in them, but if you have a decent diet that includes fruit and veg from other sources, the 'goodness' io fruit juices are not required and it's just empty calories.

I compared the number of calories in coke zero with a carton of orange juice. There are 50 times more calories in orange juice than in coke zero
there are 75 times more calories in grapefruit juice.

If you're the kind of person who doesn't like drinking water, it is far better to get your fluids from drinking diet soft drinks than from full sugar soft drinks or undiluted fruit juices.

For the occasional soft drink consumer, diet soft drinks used to be a sacrifice in terms of taste, but the newer versions seem to taste much closer to the traditional taste.

I have to disagree, I'm afraid. I never understood why they launched Coke Zero, it has the exact sick-like bitterness at the back of your throat as diet Coke does.
I'd love to see a drink with taste (soft drink, or fruit drink, or whatever) with less calories, but artificial sweeteners aren't a solution.
Years ago companies in Germany started coming out with fragranced water, basically lightly sparkling mineral water with flavour (lemon and lime, peppermint, mostly very fresh flavours), but no sweeteners.No sugar. Just tasty water.
I loved those, but they didn't really catch on that much across the board, unfortunately. I don't know if they're still around, but they never made it outside of Germany.

Spunge

Anything written in big bright letters on food packaging like Low in X, 100% Y is all bs, you have to read the nutritional information and ingredients.

Low in fat = probably full of sugar and salt
Low in salt = probably full of sugar and fat etc

Basically any processed food is filled with any crap to make it taste nicer, and they write any crap on the packaging so you'll buy it.

Also aspartame tastes like ass.

Akrasia

Shenshen wrote: »

I have to disagree, I'm afraid. I never understood why they launched Coke Zero, it has the exact sick-like bitterness at the back of your throat as diet Coke does.
I'd love to see a drink with taste (soft drink, or fruit drink, or whatever) with less calories, but artificial sweeteners aren't a solution.
Years ago companies in Germany started coming out with fragranced water, basically lightly sparkling mineral water with flavour (lemon and lime, peppermint, mostly very fresh flavours), but no sweeteners.No sugar. Just tasty water.
I loved those, but they didn't really catch on that much across the board, unfortunately. I don't know if they're still around, but they never made it outside of Germany.

Obviously it's all down to personal tastes, but I wouldn't write off the concept of artificial sweetners. Just because they haven't developed one tha you are happy with yet does not mean that such a thing is impossible (or even improbable given the massive leaps in chemistry that we have seen over the last few generations)

The holy grail in tackling obesity is prevention and short of mind control to stop people from craving sweet things, developing alternatives to meet those cravings without the side effects of weight gain, diabetes and tooth decay might be the best preventiative measure we can take.

Shenshen

Akrasia wrote: »

Obviously it's all down to personal tastes, but I wouldn't write off the concept of artificial sweetners. Just because they haven't developed one tha you are happy with yet does not mean that such a thing is impossible (or even improbable given the massive leaps in chemistry that we have seen over the last few generations)

The holy grail in tackling obesity is prevention and short of mind control to stop people from craving sweet things, developing alternatives to meet those cravings without the side effects of weight gain, diabetes and tooth decay might be the best preventiative measure we can take.

I'm actually more sceptical, and not just on taste grounds.
There's some stuff around actually made from sugar but with far less calories (can't remember what it's called right now). I've tried that, and I have to say that it does in fact have none of the sicky taste other sweeteners have.

But, and that's a big but where obesity is concerned, I found that when I tried using it in tea for about a week, I started to get insanely intense cravings for sweets. Really insane, and I felt hungry most of the time.
It puzzled me, and I looked into what artificial or reduced-calorie sweeteners actually do to you :
You get the sweetness, the taste in your mouth. To your body, that's a signal that it will soon have a fair amount of sugar to use up. To do that, it will release insulin. That insulin floats around in your blood, waiting for the sugar to arrive... but it never does. So the insulin uses up whatever sugar it can get at, lowering your blood sugar level. The body registers that, and sends out requests for more sugar, to get the blood sugar levels up again. So you start craving sweets.
Some doctors are looking into a potential connection between long-time diet drink consumption and some types of diabetes.

So I'd rather go for not as sweet but still tasty drinks. Highly diluted squash or fruit juices are my current favourite.