Blue Smarties

[kyektulu]

Originally Posted by Jaxom_Ruatha

Isn't that kind of like saying we should no longer be allowed to cook? There's a difference between like for example concocting poisons or narcotics and cooking responsibly to make hearty, healthy meals.

No not at all, I believe u misunderstand me.
I am not against cooking food for goodness sake, after all it makes products such as meat more easily digestable for humans, and cooking meat on a stove isnt exactly altering its basic components is it.
What I mean is I see no point in manipulating foodstuffs, the end product is unnatural, most probably lacking in natural vitamins and minerals that the human body needs to be healthy.
Also, we dont fully comprehend the long term affects Genetically modifying food can have on the product itself or the results of comsuming them have on people.

I for one wouldnt touch GM food with a barge pole.

[chrispenycate]

What reason do you have to believe that GM foods will lack vitamins or minerals? And in what way, according to you, does genetic modification differ from traditional selective breeding techniques, in terms of final results?
I'm not coming out in favour of genetic modification; merely posing a few questions.
The standard ecological argument against installing disease (or parasite) resistance into crops or herds is that, by reducing their natural predation these new species will sweep across the countryside, replacing their predecessors, reducing biodiversity, wiping out the wildlife (a similar argument can be used for crops imported from other continents, or monoculture in general) Then, the same people get up and complain that the plants can't reproduce naturally, that the peasants can't just collect the seed for the following year, that the seed companies are cheating those peasants by making higher yield crops, so they are forced to buy every year or become uncompetitive. (anyone else count more than three contradictory positions in that list) The same people laud biodiesel, from oilseed rape, one of the most soil-destructive crops around, while complaining that crops which give higher yields with fewer insecticides pull more goodness out of the soil (which they do; though whether they still do when compared with the final quantity produced, rather than the land surface covered, is doubtful)
Now, if we were talking about flavour, the argument would be different; but traditional selection techniques seem to have eliminated that fairly thouroughly, without waiting for the geneticists. I can't remember when I last had a tomato that tasted really good, without having grown it. If I can eat vegetables that don't have insecticides on them, or meat with no antiobiotics, because the pests or microbes against which these measures were taken no longer find them attractive, I'll risk growing a second head (if they can make them taste good as well, that's a real bonus)
Only our developements in agriculture up to now have enabled the world's population to grow as large as it has, Certainly, I'd aprove of it falling by a significant factor, but don't consider starvation the optimum pruning technique (amoung other, more humanitarian arguments, malnutrition has been shown to reduce intelligence, and what is required is fewer, but brighter human beings)
When one is hungry, food, even if it doesn't taste as good as it might, isn't a luxury. The idea of food being destroyed while esewhere babies die of the lack of it, makes me angry. Leaders controling their subjects by cutting off food supplies, claiming that the rich countries are trying to poison them with GM foods, are almost worse.
No-one suggests that GM replaces traditional; indeed I (like many others) grow nonEU approved vegetables, and collect the seeds, to maintain biodiversity.(and flavour) But rejecting it is bioluddism: even if it only reduces pesticide use by a small percentage, it's not a total waste, and it could be a recipe for a new agricultural revolution. Sure, some corporations are getting very rich out of them, but that's part of a different system, that you can dislike if you so desire.

[j. d. worthington]

I hadn't jumped in on this one too much because I tend to be distrustful of GM, myself. Call it paranoia; I just don't believe that we've done enough research on the fallout from some of our manipulation. Note I say some. But Chris is right, in that at least a certain amount of genetic manipulation has been going on as long as there's been any sort of breeding system used, even one as (relatively) crude as culling. I still maintain that we need to think this one through before going far enough that we have too much trouble stopping the train; but there are indeed two very worthy sides to this question; and Chris also raises the point of hunger in countries where it simply doesn't need to be, in order to press a "politically correct" environmentalist agenda such as some politicos are prone to do. This one requires some serious thought, and it's heartening to see some good debate going on here.

[Niolani]

I remember when blue smarties came out here in Australia. I was 6 and so excited because we were going to have them on a birthday cake. I think if your allergic, avoid it. I'd like for them to keep the blue smarties, but then in the big scheme of things it kinda doesn't matter.

[chump]

Originally Posted by Jaxom_Ruatha

The blue one is blueberry flavor? So the outside is flavored according to color and then the inside is chocolate?

No, they all taste the same. Smarties are basically M&M's with more shell and less chocalate.

[mikeo]

Originally Posted by chump

No, they all taste the same. Smarties are basically M&M's with more shell and less chocalate.

And they're a bit bigger. The chocolate isn't as sweet either - American chocolate can be really sweet sometimes!

On the subject of additives, environmental pollutants (or even things judged to not be pollutants) and behaviour problems, this is an increasingly common problem, according to someone I know who's just finishing off medical school.

One of my dreams is to someday be able to afford to build my own house somwhere relatively remote with entirely chemical-free building materials. I'm increasingly convinced we're overdoing it on exposure to random chemicals which have been judged to be "safe" in short-term tests, if any tests are done at all.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by purple_kathryn

my brother used to be hyper active - due to an additive in Maine Cola (it was this local stuff that you could get delivered like milk). Not sure if this was the only cause but it's the only one I remember. He was so bad a social services had to arrange a taxi to take him to a special school once a week so my mum could have break. Once they foundo ut what it was they cut it out, he calmed down. He's 24 now but apparently if he eats something like Fizzy Haribo he still gets all hyper. Makes me wonder if cutting out E numbers would help with kids with AD/HD

I think it's also been suggested that E numbers can excerbate conditions like asthma as well - how true this is I don't know.

E numbers get a bad press. What the E number is, is an addative that has been tested for inclusion in food and assigned a specific number. Food manufacturers can refer to the E number documentation for test results and maximum permitted levels.

Sometimes people are alergic to food addatives and sometimes these addatives have E numbers. The reason that some E numbered addatives (not all) are more renowned for allergies is precicesly because they have been tested and they are easier to identify because there is a registration and numbering system. Once people find out what they are alergic to the E numbering system helps them to identify food contents and avoid them.

The alternative: no testing and no numbering. If this was the case we would have no idea what was in food, no idea what we had an alergic reaction to and would be unable to identify it in other foods.

If tartrazine, for example, had no E number, parents would find it difficult to avoid giving it to children who have an adverse reaction. In fact it would be difficult for them to identify what caused the advers reaction in the first place.

[greylin]

Yay! Blue Smarties are coming back! Life just hasn't been the same without them.

BBC NEWS | UK | Seaweed allows Smarties comeback

[Joel007]

I wonder what impact using all that seaweed will have on the environment