The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There seems to have been a renewed interest in E numbers recently. Another documentary going into the details of why they're bad, why they're good, and why they're necessary on the BBC.
Now, I see E numbers as an easy way of showing chemicals that have been readily approved for use in foodstuffs, and to see what ingredients that food shares. The "general public" seems to think it's a list of synthetic additives that have been engineered to cause health problems and hyperness in children. I have the feeling that if I attempted a petition to ban E Numbers 300 to 305 due to the huge toxicity risk that an overdose in them can cause, that I would get a fair number of signatures.
I doubt that I'd get anywhere near the response if I were to replace the E numbers with their generic name: 'Vitamin C".
I would suggest that E numbers be replaced by just the full chemical names, but I fear that would probably just scare everyone even further into what's going into their food. I remember a Marks and Spencers campaign along the lines of "Just pure natural Vanillin, and not even a hint of 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde" despite them being the same thing.
I think that people worry so much about E numbers and calorific intake that they completely ignore the remainder of the nutrition that is requires. Many people diet looking purely at calorific intake, not noticing where the calories are coming from, and therefore heading down straight carbohydrate diets with minimal protein (and don't get me started on rubbish like Atkins etc.)
What does everyone else think?
Now, I see E numbers as an easy way of showing chemicals that have been readily approved for use in foodstuffs, and to see what ingredients that food shares. The "general public" seems to think it's a list of synthetic additives that have been engineered to cause health problems and hyperness in children. I have the feeling that if I attempted a petition to ban E Numbers 300 to 305 due to the huge toxicity risk that an overdose in them can cause, that I would get a fair number of signatures.
I doubt that I'd get anywhere near the response if I were to replace the E numbers with their generic name: 'Vitamin C".
I would suggest that E numbers be replaced by just the full chemical names, but I fear that would probably just scare everyone even further into what's going into their food. I remember a Marks and Spencers campaign along the lines of "Just pure natural Vanillin, and not even a hint of 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde" despite them being the same thing.
I think that people worry so much about E numbers and calorific intake that they completely ignore the remainder of the nutrition that is requires. Many people diet looking purely at calorific intake, not noticing where the calories are coming from, and therefore heading down straight carbohydrate diets with minimal protein (and don't get me started on rubbish like Atkins etc.)
What does everyone else think?
There seems to have been a renewed interest in E numbers recently. Another documentary going into the details of why they're bad, why they're good, and why they're necessary on the BBC.
Now, I see E numbers as an easy way of showing chemicals that have been readily approved for use in foodstuffs, and to see what ingredients that food shares. The "general public" seems to think it's a list of synthetic additives that have been engineered to cause health problems and hyperness in children. I have the feeling that if I attempted a petition to ban E Numbers 300 to 305 due to the huge toxicity risk that an overdose in them can cause, that I would get a fair number of signatures.
I doubt that I'd get anywhere near the response if I were to replace the E numbers with their generic name: 'Vitamin C".
I would suggest that E numbers be replaced by just the full chemical names, but I fear that would probably just scare everyone even further into what's going into their food. I remember a Marks and Spencers campaign along the lines of "Just pure natural Vanillin, and not even a hint of 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde" despite them being the same thing.
I think that people worry so much about E numbers and calorific intake that they completely ignore the remainder of the nutrition that is requires. Many people diet looking purely at calorific intake, not noticing where the calories are coming from, and therefore heading down straight carbohydrate diets with minimal protein (and don't get me started on rubbish like Atkins etc.)
What does everyone else think?
Now, I see E numbers as an easy way of showing chemicals that have been readily approved for use in foodstuffs, and to see what ingredients that food shares. The "general public" seems to think it's a list of synthetic additives that have been engineered to cause health problems and hyperness in children. I have the feeling that if I attempted a petition to ban E Numbers 300 to 305 due to the huge toxicity risk that an overdose in them can cause, that I would get a fair number of signatures.
I doubt that I'd get anywhere near the response if I were to replace the E numbers with their generic name: 'Vitamin C".
I would suggest that E numbers be replaced by just the full chemical names, but I fear that would probably just scare everyone even further into what's going into their food. I remember a Marks and Spencers campaign along the lines of "Just pure natural Vanillin, and not even a hint of 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde" despite them being the same thing.
I think that people worry so much about E numbers and calorific intake that they completely ignore the remainder of the nutrition that is requires. Many people diet looking purely at calorific intake, not noticing where the calories are coming from, and therefore heading down straight carbohydrate diets with minimal protein (and don't get me started on rubbish like Atkins etc.)
What does everyone else think?
HighflyerVII wrote:
> I would suggest that E numbers be replaced by just the full
> chemical names
I believe this is what they do in the States, and it means food packets are full of these chemical names (not that anybody over there would read them, let alone understand them).
The E Number system was brought in, like you say, as a full reference guide to prevent food packets being clogged up with the chemical names. I think the only way forward is to try and educate the 'general public' that this is the case and that E numbers don't necessarily mean bad.
Hopefully the recent press given by the BBC on this will go some way to helping.
> I would suggest that E numbers be replaced by just the full
> chemical names
I believe this is what they do in the States, and it means food packets are full of these chemical names (not that anybody over there would read them, let alone understand them).
The E Number system was brought in, like you say, as a full reference guide to prevent food packets being clogged up with the chemical names. I think the only way forward is to try and educate the 'general public' that this is the case and that E numbers don't necessarily mean bad.
Hopefully the recent press given by the BBC on this will go some way to helping.
Another "issue" created by typical newspaper scaremongery. The newspapers themselves are more dangerous than E numbers.
Nin wrote:
> The newspapers themselves are more dangerous than E
> numbers.
Especially if you eat the newspapers. Think about all the e's and numbers you'd be eating then....
I'll get my coat, the one with E529 in the pocket:)
> The newspapers themselves are more dangerous than E
> numbers.
Especially if you eat the newspapers. Think about all the e's and numbers you'd be eating then....
I'll get my coat, the one with E529 in the pocket:)
I have the feeling that the "general public" will always find something to be scared of. Prehaps if the media didn't require scaremongering to sell, then the country would be a far better and easier place to live.