Starbucks moving away from artificial ingredients
@3SnuggleBunnies (16374)
United States
March 27, 2012 6:21am CST
However the new replacement ingredient is made from an insect. On one hand I think this is gross, on the other hand red #40 is on many people lists of things to avoid as well. The sad thing is though we have no idea what's in our processed foods all we know if it smells good, looks good, and tastes good we'll eat it. To me there's no difference if we drink something knowing it's color is a byproduct of an insect vs unknowingly eating meat coated with "pink slime" which has ammonia in it and we wouldn't add that to our food knowingly?!?! There's so much we don't know about in our food hidden b fancy scientific or brand names.
What do you think of Starbucks move to a more natural ingredients? Does the fact it's a ground up insect bother you?
http://news.yahoo.com/starbuggs-strawberry-frappuccino-colored-insects-162910712--abc-news.html
6 people like this
12 responses
@pergammano (7682)
• Canada
27 Mar 12
As with so many other news releases, I am a bit skeptical of this one..TOO!
Red Cocchineal dye (from the Dactylius coccnus female insect)has been part of our lives since time immemorial, found on cactuses of Mexico and south America, mostly on the Prickly Pear Cactus! The cost of collecting (hand)and processing & pulverizing this dye is astronimical, so that so, today, it is mostly used for biological stains! It is one of the highest priced natural dyes available, so find it hard to believe that Starbucks would be leaning in this direction, due to cost!
No...it does not bother me, snuggles..as much as chemical dyes, food colorants!
2 people like this
@pergammano (7682)
• Canada
27 Mar 12
Morning to you, too....wise lady! Great research! I was extracting "old data" from the old brain....remembering this from "Biology" way back when....BUT, brings up another topic; "what would the expense be if it was "Fair Market?"
Great link...and Thanks! Last time I looked at the "Euro" dollar here in Canada it was about $2.65 Canadian...so around $132.to a kg...still pretty pricey for esthetics, tho..just because we need "eye candy" to make it more palatable...and really brings to light, how our enjoyment is reliant on colors!
2 people like this
@topffer (42155)
• France
27 Mar 12
Hello perga and good morning,
It is not a very expensive dye : 50 Euros/kg for the cochineal dye produced in Canarias islands, and a lot less when it is produced in Peru -- look here : http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/106649277/cochineal.html --. Knowing that 20 mg are enough to give a color to 1 kg of food, it is possible to put it in a low value food like a coffee.
2 people like this
@topffer (42155)
• France
27 Mar 12
It is the "fair market" price, but Canarias cannot sell their production outside Europe, because prices in Peru are 3 to 4 times cheaper -- and it is no more "fair market" --. $132 for 1 kg looks expensive, but you can prepare 50000 coffees with one kg of cochineal dye = $0.00264 for a coffee.
2 people like this
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
27 Mar 12
I would not want to drink that. Why do they need to color it anyway?! We need to stop all the artificial coloring of everything. Did you know that the meat in the store is colored to look more appetizing? When it begins getting brown that's only the coloring leaching out!
I wish companies would stop all artificial coloring but the public would have to change their attitudes for it to work.
2 people like this
@3SnuggleBunnies (16374)
• United States
27 Mar 12
I totally agree with you on this. Same with them pumping a chemical vapor of some sort into the packages to keep them from going brown and increase the shelf life. Alot of colorants help in shelf life not just eye appeal.
They say alot of these colorants can lead to health and behavior issues as well. But there's so much junk in everything you don't know what you are eating unless you grew it yourself.
1 person likes this
@SomeCowgirl (32189)
• United States
27 Mar 12
I would not want to drink any more coffee from starbucks after this. Of course I hardly ever go to startbucks anyway. If we sit back and think about it, no food that we get "packaged" is really the most healthy for us. I know that we probably eat more insects and other nasty things then we realize, btu to be told? It's a good thing and a bad thing.
1 person likes this
@3SnuggleBunnies (16374)
• United States
27 Mar 12
You are right there isn't much that is packaged that is healthy. Even if labeled healthy or a low cal/carb food it was still made in a factory just the same and had preservatives along with some colorants added.
Yes it's a double edge to be informed as we all want to be but yet find our favorite things unappealing due to this knowledge.
1 person likes this
@katsmeow1213 (28716)
• United States
27 Mar 12
Ever heard the saying "Ignorance is bliss"? Stop reading about this stuff! LOL
2 people like this
@3SnuggleBunnies (16374)
• United States
27 Mar 12
*lol* Not that exact phrase but yes... sometimes knowing too much about something is not a good thing.
1 person likes this
@topffer (42155)
• France
27 Mar 12
I will congratulate Starbuck when a strawberry "frappuccino" will be colored by strawberries and not with the same dye than in a salami
. You need ammonia and sodium carbonate to extract a "good" red from cochineal bugs, but maybe they will find other bugs to replace ammonia and sodium carbonate
. I know that you sell more with a "natural" dye than with an "artificial" one, but this thing -- is it still a coffee ? -- does not seem very natural
.
. You need ammonia and sodium carbonate to extract a "good" red from cochineal bugs, but maybe they will find other bugs to replace ammonia and sodium carbonate. I know that you sell more with a "natural" dye than with an "artificial" one, but this thing -- is it still a coffee ? -- does not seem very natural. 2 people like this
@rogue13xmen13 (14402)
• United States
27 Mar 12
I never really thought that they had artificial ingredients to begin with, but I guess they did. Anyway, I mostly only buy the teas from their menu.
1 person likes this
@danishcanadian (28954)
• Canada
27 Mar 12
Natural ingredients are great as long as they disclose exactly what those natural ingredients are. Insects are a delicacy in some parts of the world.
@dorannmwin (36392)
• United States
1 Apr 12
I do think that the move to more natural ingredients is something that is a really good thing because there are a lot of things that we put into our bodies that we don't know anything about. Even knowing that the substitute ingredient is something that does come from insects that have been ground up is not something that bothers me either. The reason that this doesn't bother me is because of the fact that there are a lot of people in cultures that use insects as a main component of their diets, so I know that it isn't going to be something that is really harmful to us to consume.
@god_is_good (683)
• Philippines
27 Mar 12
It's not a new move by a company that has been part of the world's coffee economy. At least they admitted that their coffee has chemical ingredients that is not totally good for our health. For all we know, we drink coffee from starbucks, not knowing that our life is not going to be healthy, and we pay them huge amount of money, for their name's sake. I still prefer coffee with organic processing and ingredients, with less amount of payment than drinking coffee full of chemical additives, though they plan to reduce it.
