04 Aug 2013, 9:31 am
04 Aug 2013, 9:46 am
1000Knives wrote:
BenderRodriguez wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Humans just can't do without their sugar, salt, starch, and yummy carcinogens..
You're exaggerating too much to make your point. Most people I know wouldn't touch that over-processed/canned stuff with a shitstick.
The people you know must be high class people who make 200K a year and shop at Whole Foods.
Not necessarily. I'm European though, food is generally more expensive here but you can buy fresh food at reasonable prices. I did fine with food markets, local seasonal produce and learning to cook properly back in the day on what would be today 20K a year (and I thought I was damn rich!)
I have a hard time believing Americans need 200K a year to avoid heavily processed stuff
04 Aug 2013, 12:15 pm
BenderRodriguez wrote:
I have a hard time believing Americans need 200K a year to avoid heavily processed stuff
Not at all. In fact, thanks to free trade agreements, we can buy fresh fruits from Chile that used to be available only during our summer (or that were very expensive during other seasons of the year).
It is hardly worth having a garden any more (except for exercise).
04 Aug 2013, 12:29 pm
Snackwell deliberately lies and misleads about its Crème Sandwich cookies
http://www.amazon.com/Snackwells-Creme- ... B000FA395I
Nabisco Propaganda wrote:
Cholesterol-free; no trans fats; low in calories
Classic sandwich cookie taste with none of that guilt
Classic sandwich cookie taste with none of that guilt
Actual Ingredients wrote:
Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate [Vitamin B1], Riboflavin [Vitamin B2], Folic Acid), Sugar, Vegetable Shortening (Partially Hydrogenated Canola, Soybean and/or Cottonseed Oils), Dextrose, Corn Flour, Glycerin, Whey, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Leavening (Baking Soda, Calcium Phosphate), Cornstarch, Emulsifiers (Datem, Mono- and Diglycerides, Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate), Salt, Wheat Starch, Cellulose Gum and Gel, Natural and Artificial Flavor.
Those partially-hydrogenated oils are nasty.
Of course the product is "cholesterol free", because it contains no animal products. But, consuming this crap will send your cholesterol levels to unhealthy levels.
And, "none of that guilt?" None of what guilt? Nabisco obviously takes its customers for idiots, which they are.
Moreover, "low in calories?" Compared to what? Their product list includes sugars 3 times ("sugar", "dextrose", and "high fructose corn syrup"). What reasonable person would believe that a concoction of sugar, flour, and partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils is "low in calories?"
04 Aug 2013, 1:17 pm
ArrantPariah wrote:
hanyo wrote:
This is the ingredients in my cat's food. They eat better than I do.
Ingredients
Chicken, chicken liver, salmon, turkey, duck, chicken broth, whole grain brown rice, white rice, oatmeal, potatoes, barley, egg product, guar gum, flaxseed meal, kelp, carrots, peas, apples, dried skim milk, cranberry powder, rosemary extract, parsley flake, taurine, dried chicory root, carrageenan gum, vitamin A acetate, vitamin D3 supplement, vitamin E supplement, niacin supplement, D-calcium pantothenate, riboflavin supplement, thiamine mononitrate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, vitamin B12 supplement, biotin, folic acid, copper sulfate, calcium iodate and sodium selenite.
Ingredients
Chicken, chicken liver, salmon, turkey, duck, chicken broth, whole grain brown rice, white rice, oatmeal, potatoes, barley, egg product, guar gum, flaxseed meal, kelp, carrots, peas, apples, dried skim milk, cranberry powder, rosemary extract, parsley flake, taurine, dried chicory root, carrageenan gum, vitamin A acetate, vitamin D3 supplement, vitamin E supplement, niacin supplement, D-calcium pantothenate, riboflavin supplement, thiamine mononitrate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, vitamin B12 supplement, biotin, folic acid, copper sulfate, calcium iodate and sodium selenite.
Compare that to the ingredients in a similar product marketed for human consumption
Ingredients wrote:
Ham, pork, sugar, salt, water, potato starch & sodium nitrite.
Humans just can't do without their sugar, salt, starch, and yummy carcinogens.
Take away the sugar, salt, starch and sodium nitrite, and humans won't eat it: it becomes pet food.
Add these key ingredients to any pet food, and change the label to imply that the result is healthy and tasty, and humans (especially Americans) will eat it.
Actually, the Spam is probably better for you than the Snack Well cookies. I know that I eat Spam regularly, and it's pretty tasty, but I'd never eat Snack Well cookies. The cookies are just a big concoction of chemicals and a little bit of wheat.
04 Aug 2013, 5:26 pm
04 Aug 2013, 5:37 pm
04 Aug 2013, 6:14 pm
Raptor wrote:
hanyo wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Somehow I suddenly get the urge to buy a box of snackwells to share with my dog.
The dog shouldn't have those, they have chocolate. They do look pretty tasty though.
My dog has had chocolate before. It's dark chocolate that will really poison them. Milk chocolate in moderation is sort of okay.
Oh. So THAT's how to take care of a neighbor's annoying dog.
04 Aug 2013, 6:18 pm
04 Aug 2013, 6:30 pm
Misslizard wrote:
Onions are also bad for dogs and there is a sugar free gum that can knock their liver out,my vet had posters of it warning people about it.
04 Aug 2013, 6:33 pm
04 Aug 2013, 7:00 pm
The question we should be asking is why are we talking about snackwells and dog food on a political forum. BUT, when we consider who the OP is it all sort of comes together. 
Anyhow, the snackwells are leading the poll.
04 Aug 2013, 7:05 pm
Raptor wrote:
The question we should be asking is why are we talking about snackwells and dog food on a political forum. BUT, when we consider who the OP is it all sort of comes together.
Okay. Give us your theory, then.
Raptor wrote:
Anyhow, the snackwells are leading the poll.
Thank you for finally entering your vote and breaking the tie.
Shatbat
Veteran
Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet
04 Aug 2013, 7:11 pm
Once my sister bought a single serving of whiskas wet cat food when we used to have one, when we opened it it looked good and also smelled good. Temptation crossed my mind but squeamishness won.
If I ever run into a similar situation I'll probably take a bite 
For science! After all, objectively speaking, if it tastes decent, is nutritive, and does not make me sick then it is good food, and there is nothing inherently dirty about well-packaged cat food that I know of.
04 Aug 2013, 7:28 pm
ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor wrote:
The question we should be asking is why are we talking about snackwells and dog food on a political forum. BUT, when we consider who the OP is it all sort of comes together.
Okay. Give us your theory, then.
There is no theory to give, only that one fact we keep coming back to......
[img][800:788]http://th06.deviantart.net/fs18/PRE/f/2007/130/8/9/Troll_Bridge_by_amoryburgess.jpg[/img]
04 Aug 2013, 7:39 pm
