I see from the Guardian that Nestlé have announced they no longer use artificial ingredients. Nestlé removes artificial ingredients from entire confectionary range

But some time go talking to a biologist who works in the food industry (cornetto's and banger company), she said that in many ways it was safer to use artificial additives, because natural ones could and do contain traces of things we would not want in our bodies.

So is this a good news story or as usual just a marketing ploy?

P.S. I'm and electronics engineer and dropped biology at school and only did enough chemistry as was needed, i.e. batteries, electrolysis etc.

I'd say it's a politically correct feel good marketing ploy.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

What is the definition of Artificial and will their products rot or taste funny if there are no preservatives or emulsifiers ?

lets hope they don't use high fructose corn syrup. This is a manufactured product much like nutra sweet or splenda. I would be happy if they claimed that they were't using products not found in nature

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

High fructose corn syrup , I am sure, would be classified as a "Natural" product

Here I have found another news item that questions whether natural/organic is the way to go.

Then there's organic food. The tech spec of organic food – the fact that nothing synthetic is used in its production – suggests flavour, nutritional value and agricultural ethics. But it has become a devalued, mass-market symbolic indicator. Organics are promoted as both available to all and a luxury treat, but often they're more expensive and they taste the same. And they're not even necessarily good for the environment, either. Increasing demand has led to organic meat being raised on vast industrial feed lots, and the scarcity of organic ingredients means they are flown around the world. Research sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs showed that the production of a litre of organic milk requires 80% more land than conventional milk. And that organically reared cows burp and fart twice as much methane as conventionally reared cattle, which would be amusing if it weren't for the fact that methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Is the food revolution just a great big fat lie? Eliane Glaser, Guardian, Friday 2 March 2012.

Catering to the ignorant at its finest. Things like this are meant to appease those who believe something is bad or dangerous because it contains "chemicals". Why is something safer because it's natural? Arsenic is natural. Should I eat that? It doesn't matter if something is natural or artificial, all that matters is the chemical makeup of the molecule and the interactions it undergoes inside your body. In a way artificial is better, because you know exactly what you are getting.

---

catering to the ignorant and apparently wealthy, you mean. It's been a while since I've been to a Whole Foods store but their prices are quite high for "natural and organic" products.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope