I had an argument with a cashier at a Godiva Chocolatier shop the other
day. I expressed disdain for Godiva Chocolates, because they claim to
be a "gourmet" chocolate maker, yet they contaminate their chocolates
with artificial colorings, emulsifiers, and fake vanilla (i.e.
vanillin). I mean, they're charging $30 or more for a box, and
they're such cheap *******s they don't even put natural vanilla in the
chocolate?!? I mean, with the artificial additives and carcinogenic
artificial dyes (derived from coal tar), what makes Godiva chocolates
any better than, say, Hershey's chocolate or the Russel Stover brand?
"Oh, please, don't even compare us to Hershey's chocolate," the Godiva
lady said.

Once again, as an American, I am embarrassed at our food supply, which
we contaminate with artificial additives, dyes, pesticides,
emulsifiers, etc. Not to mention our produce, which is tasteless and
nutrient-deficient because it is grown with excessive fertilizers on
barren land, with pesticides.

You want gourmet chocolate? Get it from Europe, and make sure it is
hand-made.

--Alf

wrote:
> I had an argument with a cashier at a Godiva Chocolatier shop the
> other day. I expressed disdain for Godiva Chocolates, because they
> claim to be a "gourmet" chocolate maker, yet they contaminate their
> chocolates with artificial colorings, emulsifiers, and fake vanilla
> (i.e. vanillin). I mean, they're charging $30 or more for a box,
> and they're such cheap *******s they don't even put natural vanilla
> in the chocolate?!? I mean, with the artificial additives and
> carcinogenic artificial dyes (derived from coal tar), what makes
> Godiva chocolates any better than, say, Hershey's chocolate or the
> Russel Stover brand? "Oh, please, don't even compare us to Hershey's
> chocolate," the Godiva lady said.
>
> Once again, as an American, I am embarrassed at our food supply, which
> we contaminate with artificial additives, dyes, pesticides,
> emulsifiers, etc. Not to mention our produce, which is tasteless and
> nutrient-deficient because it is grown with excessive fertilizers on
> barren land, with pesticides.
>
> You want gourmet chocolate? Get it from Europe, and make sure it is
> hand-made.
>
> --Alf

I agree with you about the decline in quality of Godiva, but there are those
of us who handmake truffles and chocolates in the United States using real
ingredients--and charge considerably less than Godiva, I might add.

at Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:05:07 GMT in <1143039907.162844.269080
@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, wrote :

....
>Once again, as an American, I am embarrassed at our food supply, which
>we contaminate with artificial additives, dyes, pesticides,
>emulsifiers, etc. Not to mention our produce, which is tasteless and
>nutrient-deficient because it is grown with excessive fertilizers on
>barren land, with pesticides.
>
>You want gourmet chocolate? Get it from Europe, and make sure it is
>hand-made.

Be careful about making generalisations! Remember, the bulk of the Euro
food supply is produced in the same way (with commensurate same loss of
nutritional value and taste) as the U.S. supply. And in both places, it's
equally possible to get good-quality food of high nutritional value that
hasn't been overprocessed. The bottom line in both places is exactly
that...the bottom line. In other words, if you want quality, you have to
PAY for quality. You can't expect high-quality food to be as low-priced as
commodity grade, although it will usually be within reason as long as you
don't look mostly for luxury foods (e.g. high-quality beef tenderloin is
going to be extremely expensive but a high-quality carrot won't)

Same thing applies with chocolate. In Europe, most of the chocolate sold is
of comparable quality to the commodity brands (Hershey's, M&M/Mars) you
find in the USA, and the only reason the commodity brands you see here are
American is for the same reason the commodity brands in Europe are European
- the costs of exporting and tariffs make it unprofitable to sell such
products overseas. A commodity brand is usually built around low price and
hence high costs can't be tolerated. Nestle and Cadbury are crossover
brands, mostly because they have a presence and facilities in the USA (or
licensing arrangements) so they can circumvent export costs.

And in the USA, there are plenty of top-grade chocolate brands (Guittard,
Scharffen Berger, Dagoba, etc.), and an even longer list of top-grade
chocolatiers. In fact, one chocolatier in the USA (Theo Chocolates) has
been consistently better than even the best chocolates I've had in Europe.
Absolutely world-class stuff. And as a side benefit they make their own
chocolate bean-to-bar and use all organic ingredients.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

wrote:
>
> I mean, with the artificial additives and carcinogenic
> artificial dyes (derived from coal tar), what makes Godiva
> chocolates any better than, say, Hershey's chocolate
> or the Russel Stover brand?

Name one carcinogenic dye used in Godiva
chocolates, or admit you are full of crap.

Also, this website:

http://www.trochilids.com/dye.html

has info about the potential carcinogenic qualities of Red #40.
Scientific studies are quoted. The website says,
"Red #40 is banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany,
Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and Norway but can be used in
the USA. The LD50 (the Lethal Dose for 50% of the lab
animals) for oral administration in rats is > 10 g/kg."

I have read of a couple studies showing that the banning of
artificial colorings from school cafeteria food resulted in the
reduction of behavioral problems among students in the
school. They seemed to concentrate more and seemed
less hyperactive. Think about that next time you feed your
kid Lucky Charms cereal and Godiva chocolates, or foods
containing artificial cherries.

Am I paranoid? Or just a homeopathic macrobiotic guy?

--alf

wrote:
>
> Also, this website:
>
> http://www.trochilids.com/dye.html
>
> has info about the potential carcinogenic qualities of Red #40.
> Scientific studies are quoted.

Like what? Why don't you quote the best evidence
they have that Red 40 is carcinogenic?

> The website says,
> "Red #40 is banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany,
> Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and Norway but can be used in
> the USA. The LD50 (the Lethal Dose for 50% of the lab
> animals) for oral administration in rats is > 10 g/kg."

I weigh about 70 kg. If the lethal dose for people
is the same as for rats, that means my lethal dose
would be 700 g. That's about one and a half pounds.
I'm pretty sure I couldn't eat a pound of salt and
live, so this stuff is safer to eat than salt.

> I have read of a couple studies showing that the banning of
> artificial colorings from school cafeteria food resulted in the
> reduction of behavioral problems among students in the
> school. They seemed to concentrate more and seemed
> less hyperactive. Think about that next time you feed your
> kid Lucky Charms cereal and Godiva chocolates, or foods
> containing artificial cherries.
>
> Am I paranoid? Or just a homeopathic macrobiotic guy?

You have been hoodwinked by health charlatans
trying to sell you stuff you don't need.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Like what? Why don't you quote the best evidence
> they have that Red 40 is carcinogenic?
>
> You have been hoodwinked by health charlatans
> trying to sell you stuff you don't need.

The evidence against Red 40 is pretty cut-and-dry.
It convinced a lot of European governments. If you
are one of those who eat a lot of processed, additive-laden
foods, and you're proud of it, well, we will just have to
agree to disagree.

However, I would encourage you to try the following
experiment: For an entire week, eat nothing but
unsweetened oatmeal with water, fresh walnuts,
Japanese green tea, and fresh apples. You will
likely experience the equivalent of a religious revelation, the great
revolution that comes when one makes the transition
from the processed American diet to the more
macrobiotic diet.

--Alf

PS: Are you aware that consumption of dairy products
like milk and cheese can saturate the body with foreign
animal proteins, triggering an immune response commonly
known as rheumatoid arthritis?

wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Like what? Why don't you quote the best evidence
> > they have that Red 40 is carcinogenic?
>
> The evidence against Red 40 is pretty cut-and-dry.
> It convinced a lot of European governments.

But you can't quote any of it?

Is the best evidence against Red 40
the unsupported assertions of a
scaremongering website?

On 23 Mar 2006 18:11:39 , wrote

> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Like what? Why don't you quote the best evidence
> > they have that Red 40 is carcinogenic?
> >
> > You have been hoodwinked by health charlatans
> > trying to sell you stuff you don't need.
>
> The evidence against Red 40 is pretty cut-and-dry. It convinced
> a lot of European governments. If you are one of those who
> eat a lot of processed, additive-laden foods, and you're proud
> of it, well, we will just have to agree to disagree.
>
> However, I would encourage you to try the following experiment:
> For an entire week, eat nothing but unsweetened oatmeal with
> water, fresh walnuts, Japanese green tea, and fresh apples.
> You will likely experience the equivalent of a religious
> revelation, the great revolution that comes when one makes the
> transition from the processed American diet to the more
> macrobiotic diet.
>
> --Alf

Where is your degree in dietary science or nutrition that
can allow you to make such malnutricious suggestions.

> PS: Are you aware that consumption of dairy products like milk
> and cheese can saturate the body with foreign animal proteins,
> triggering an immune response commonly known as rheumatoid
> arthritis?
>

Actually that is totally unclear. In some people with particular
problems that may be the case but it is far from a general rule.

You are either a dupe of diet quacks or a troll.

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

On 23 Mar 2006 13:05:03 -0800, wrote:

>Also, this website:
>
>http://www.trochilids.com/dye.html
>
>has info about the potential carcinogenic qualities of Red #40.
>Scientific studies are quoted. The website says,
>"Red #40 is banned in Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany,
>Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and Norway but can be used in
>the USA. The LD50 (the Lethal Dose for 50% of the lab
>animals) for oral administration in rats is > 10 g/kg."
>
>I have read of a couple studies showing that the banning of
>artificial colorings from school cafeteria food resulted in the
>reduction of behavioral problems among students in the
>school. They seemed to concentrate more and seemed
>less hyperactive. Think about that next time you feed your
>kid Lucky Charms cereal and Godiva chocolates, or foods
>containing artificial cherries.
>
>Am I paranoid? Or just a homeopathic macrobiotic guy?
>
>--alf

You're pretty much full of shit.

There are certainly people - children and adults who show
sensitivities or allergic reactions to almost everything on earth, but
your claims above are a crock.

http://www.int-pediatrics.org/PDF/Vo...-1/beseler.pdf

Boron

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>I had an argument with a cashier at a Godiva Chocolatier shop the other
>day. I expressed disdain for Godiva Chocolates, because they claim to
>be a "gourmet" chocolate maker, yet they contaminate their chocolates

You just might have to stop buying Godiva chocolates, then.


--
"The result of this experiment was inconclusive, so we had to use
statistics." (Overheard at international physics conference)