Easter candy (it's worse than you can imagine)

Forums › Off topic › Easter candy (it's worse than you can imagine)

kingdragonfly

11994 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12891

Subscriber

#212705 8-Apr-2017 08:43

From the Huffington Post. Click on the "Cadbury Crème Egg" for an unpleasant surprise

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/easter-candy-calories-nutrition-info_n_2974958.html?utm_hp_ref=@food123]

1 | 2

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1365

Subscriber

#1759334 8-Apr-2017 08:48

Who cares??

Regards,

Old3eyes

kingdragonfly

11994 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12891

Subscriber

#1759336 8-Apr-2017 08:54

old3eyes:
Who cares??

Sorry, I didn't realize you were into eating beaver anus.

timmmay

20859 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5350

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1759337 8-Apr-2017 08:55

One day, probably doesn't matter. I'd limit the amount given to kids though, and I don't personally want any.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184
Inactive user

#1759339 8-Apr-2017 08:57

That article doesn't work on mobile, there's no way to scroll that interactive box. But from the articles title I highly doubt it's something bad that I could never imagine, disappointing.

kingdragonfly

11994 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12891

Subscriber

#1759341 8-Apr-2017 09:00

It's beaver anus gland

gzt

18690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1759344 8-Apr-2017 09:05

Imo users should minimally quote from an article to provide the basis for a discussion.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

mugs2000

66 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 28
Inactive user

#1759345 8-Apr-2017 09:09

Just be wary of anything you read in the Huffington Post; It is not well known for investigative journalism.

They could be correct in this instance, but they were not very specific with the description of the additives.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1759364 8-Apr-2017 09:33

Personally, I would be more concerned about the sugar. It is in literally everything that isn't picked straight from the garden. I certainly feel no need to consume it in pure form wrapped in chocolate or any other flavouring, whether it comes from beaver bums or not.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1461
Inactive user

#1759376 8-Apr-2017 09:58

At no point is it stated that the product contains the example.

You have taken a poorly written statement, read it poorly, and made connections that don't necessarily exist.

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1461
Inactive user

#1759379 8-Apr-2017 10:06

While you're busy learning horrible things about food.

Food safety standards often specify the acceptable levels of cockroach in chocolate.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1759408 8-Apr-2017 10:54

This is a can of worms in these parts on several levels. For example, I would hate to do a germ swab of the meat shelves in some of the supermarkets I have been in.

Apparently they have yet to discover sealed tray packaging technology, so blood and so on is busy dripping all over those shelves in a food safety disaster - since I doubt they have rigidly enforced, adequately supervised cleaning regimes.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184
Inactive user

#1759410 8-Apr-2017 10:55

Apparently some of the colourings used in gummy lollies come from a beatle, and is also used to make a type of varnish. So what? Don't the FDA also have acceptable levels for rat feces in peanut butter? Here's the thing: if is scientifically acceptable then smarter people than me have figured out that it won't kill me, so frankly, bring on the beaver anus, rat poop, whatever. There'll never be enough in there to notice while eating it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1759413 8-Apr-2017 11:00

Apparently a little sheep faeces in the Havelock North water supply wasn't enough to notice while drinking it. Gee, I wonder why all those people got sick?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184
Inactive user

#1759422 8-Apr-2017 11:35

Yeah but did they really science that? If they had they probably would have found nastys beyond acceptable levels - or never had them in the first place. Nice try though :p.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1759429 8-Apr-2017 12:05

PaulBags: Yeah but did they really science that? If they had they probably would have found nastys beyond acceptable levels - or never had them in the first place. Nice try though :p.

Water provision appears to run on the Amateur Hour Principle as far as I can see.

1 | 2