After reading the whole article I believe she (Food babe) has done herself a bit of disservice by not pointing out some equally harmful ingredients in the UK foods, which are some of the same things as here in the US but with different names (glucose syrup, artificial colors) and she doesn't see to understand that Canola Oil (marked bad in US foods) is the same as Rapeseed Oil, which she did not mark bad on the UK foods.
[QUOTE]After reading the whole article I believe she (Food babe) has done herself a bit of disservice by not pointing out some equally harmful ingredients in the UK foods, which are some of the same things as here in the US but with different names (glucose syrup, artificial colors) and she doesn't see to understand that Canola Oil (marked bad in US foods) is the same as Rapeseed Oil, which she did not mark bad on the UK foods. [/QUOTE]
Dead right about the rapeseed oil. My mom knew it as rapeseed oil... we're Canadian, so we have some lingering British-isms, although Canola is definitely the common term here. :)
I posted this over to a martial arts forum, and a man in Austria said that he's under the impression part of the disparity is labeling requirements.
According to his source, the makers in the EU -don't- have to label everything we do.
However, I cannot confirm (nor deny) the truth of that statement.
I did think it was a little strange rapeseed was OK but Canola not. I perused her blog and wasn't too impressed. I got the impression that, while her intent was in the right direction, her picture of the situation was not complete.
Some of that is a matter of law... the long ingredient list for flour for example is a direct result of US law from the early 20th century intended to prevent malnutrition in school age children. You can't really blame Betty Crocker for using ingredients that are required by law and have been for 100 years.
Some of it is a matter of language. Notice that the author red-letters "corn syrup" in a US product, but doesn't highlight "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose_syrup]glucose syrup[/url]" in the European product.
The rest of it... well... who actually buys that crap anyway? The foods they are talking about are foods that maybe I have tried (When Chick-fil-a started opening stores in California they were giving away free sandwiches for example) but they represent less than 0.01% of my total caloric intake over the past 20 years. Why? Because it's all very expensive and not very good.
I think the problem with these sorts of articles is that the implication is that we should have more laws to tell manufacturers what to do, when really what we need is for more people to have some basic life skills like cooking. If you have even the barest ability to cook for yourself you won't buy most of those products because you'll recognize them as very expensive while offering basically no reward. It's only when you are - due to ignorance - dependent on pre-made food that you must buy this sort of product. You can lobby for laws but - as the enriched flour part of the ingredients list demonstrates - that just enshrines today's conventional wisdom....or you can teach people to cook in which case most of the food products listed here simply go away. Which is a better solution? I know my answer.
Thanks for sharing this. Since going Primal I don't even want to eat in restaurants anymore but it is hard to convince my husband that Whole Foods Hot bar is my new restaurant of choice. Went to Applebee's last night and had steak/portabella mushroom with spinach and broccoli. I was thinking the whole time "what ELSE am I eating". This is scarier that I ever imagined.