Vicki sed:
It's the statement as it reads that confuses me, "natural flavor with OTHER natural flavor." Why repeat it twice? Why not just say, "Natural flavor." That is what's bugging me.
It obviously has to mean that those Oreo's are 2X as good for you as the ones with only a single natural flavor
Why food manufacturers love MSG
"MSG tricks the taste buds into getting stimulated and tricks the brain into thinking we are eating protein that is wholesome and nourishing for the body. Nothing could be further from the truth. This salt-like substance creates an insulin explosion in the blood stream even when blood glucose levels are normal. The sudden and unexpected insulin release combined with protein stimulation creates an insatiable appetite. The result naturally will be over eating, and gradually obesity and a host of other illnesses."
That seems like a reasonable point and a good reason to use it in moderation. Though I think most people's fear of it is mostly based on ignorance, which is further compounded by it's scary chemical name. wikipedia has a pretty good and easy to read discussion about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate
But getting down to brass tacks, the same thing can be said of many things we ingest, like "natural" sweeteners and tobacco. They are derived from plants, right?
The word natural is at best relative and at worst dangerous...but mostly meaningless in the terms of food processing.
I think the main difference is that the general public has been largely educated on the risk factors associated with sugar consumption and how it relates to obesity and it's health consequences or tobacco and it's obvious health drawbacks. Some of the other stuff that goes into our blood streams?....not so much.
Marketing will always find a way to get around the facts or bend the truth despite the best regulatory efforts to prevent it.
At least we can all agree that no one eats Oreo's because of their awesome nutritional value.
BTW, are those Oreo's gluten free? (facetiousness intended)