In Defense of the Pumpkin Spice Latte
A chemist defends the lack of pumpkin in fall's favorite drink
http://time.com/3264103/pumpkin-spice-latte-chemistry/
"...
Pumpkin spice flavoring, instead, has natural and artificial flavors. What are those, exactly, and why is there no pumpkin?
Kantha Shelke, a food scientist with a background in organic chemistry and spokesperson for the Institute of Food Technologists, gets questions like this all the time. This conversation about chemicals in food requires a certain amount of responsibility, which I think some of these elitist writers and bloggers and speakers have somehow forgotten, she says of the backlash against pumpkin spice flavoring. I think its very irresponsible to be ignorant to such a level as to lead others astray and tell them to eat chemical-free food. After all, she says, water and salt are chemicals.
So is the stuff in your PSL. Theres no pumpkin in it because its pumpkin spice, and not pumpkin, thats the star. The coffee flavorings are designed to resemble cooked pumpkin spice: a blend of nutmeg, cinnamon, ginger, and cloves. Its supposed to taste like the spicy components of a homemade pumpkin pie, not actual pumpkin.
...
Despite her PR passion for chemicals, Shelke doesnt drink flavored coffee. But thats because shes a bit of a flavor snob; her sense of smell is so good that she can tell which flavors are missing. When I ask Shelke for her review of the pumpkin spice latte, she admits shes never tried one. I cannot get past the aroma, she admits, which to her smells far too rich. Im very puritanical in my approach.
..."
I don't drink flavored coffee either, but, uh, the silly, baseless fear mongering has just got to stop!
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)... but that has nothing to do with chemicals or any of that nonsense.
Pumpkin. Coffee. Two great tastes that have NO BUSINESS being together. **shudder**
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)... and the fact that "chemical" does not equate to "horrid and poisonous."
I have similar issues with the idea that "all natural" equates to "safe and wonderful" -- after all, arsenic and uranium are both natural, and I don't want to eat either of them.
And then, again, there's that pumpkin spiced coffee thing, which is horrid for completely different reasons.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)climate denialists who say CO2 is naturally in the air, so not to sorry.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Thanks for the reminder.
The flowery language of propaganda is mind porn.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Oddly enough, that ad is actually more accurate than most anti-Monsanto BS.
Think about that for a minute.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Explain pls.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You posted a Monsanto ad.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)I'm tired. What do you mean???
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Until you explain that, I'm done.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)I brought Monsanto into the discussion because of this:
"Kantha Shelke, a food scientist with a background in organic chemistry and spokesperson for the Institute of Food Technologists, gets questions like this all the time. This conversation about chemicals in food requires a certain amount of responsibility, which I think some of these elitist writers and bloggers and speakers have somehow forgotten, she says of the backlash against pumpkin spice flavoring. I think its very irresponsible to be ignorant to such a level as to lead others astray and tell them to eat chemical-free food. After all, she says, water and salt are chemicals. "
Especially the last part - oversimplification of the issues. It reminded me of the Monsanto ad. Life's impossible without chemicals so how can anyone be against chemicals?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it.
Oddly, you think that the individual who actually cares about the science is the one who is "oversimplifying" the matter.
WOW!
JUST WOW!
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Just saying...
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Otherwise, if it's not straight up, I'm, well, a dang fundamentalist about it!
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)I don't drink any sort of flavored coffee (unless the flavoring is Irish Whiskey), so I appreciate your disdain for the drink - but you do realize it hasn't anything to do with pumpkin, right?
Technically, I suppose it should be "pumpkin pie spice" latte, because that's all they're doing. It says that in the article.
Like this (only fake, I guess):
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)But my brain tastes those things all mixed together and automatically says "pumpkin!"
I suspect I don't know what pumpkin itself actually tastes like, never having eaten it sans spice.
Also, I don't have anything against flavored coffees per se, there are just a few that make my mind hurt. Like blueberry. And candy cane. And coconut. All sold in my local quik-mart at various times of the year.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Blueberry flavored coffee? That is just wrong. yuck.
Pumpkin without spice tastes like squash (which it is). Not terrible, but not pie!
PADemD
(4,482 posts)Youll Never Guess Whats In A Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte (Hint: You Wont Be Happy)
Case In Point: Youll get 2 doses of Class IV Caramel Coloring in Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte.
There are four different types (classes) of caramel coloring and two of those types contain the dangerous substance 4-methylimidazole (4-Mel). Starbucks uses Class IV Caramel Color, considered the most harmful type that contains 4-Mel, in many of their drink syrups and sauces. Its even in their whipped cream!
http://foodbabe.com/2014/08/25/starbucks-pumpkin-spice-latte/
There's a nice little image illustrating the ingredients.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And I really hope there is no DU support for "Food Babe."
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)I follow her for purely entertainment reasons.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 4, 2014, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)
Her entire schtick is unethical.
Here's a good piece on the matter: http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2014/08/give-food-babe-inch.html?m=1
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Rant is one of them....she twisted their words and over reacted. And some of her substitute recipes are disgusting and arent even close to what she is trying to replicate.
sweetloukillbot
(11,008 posts)PADemD
(4,482 posts)Not good if you are diabetic or even pre-diabetic.
I wonder how long someone would have to exercise to work off that much sugar.
One teaspoon of granulated sugar equals 4 grams of sugar.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/sugar-shockers-foods-surprisingly-high-in-sugar
PatSeg
(47,399 posts)but The Farmer's Daughter USA who was mentioned in this thread is a Monsanto apologist who blogs as a "daughter of a conventional farmer" and then expounds on the virtues of genetically modified crops. Can't say she gets paid by Monsanto, but I wouldn't be surprised.
I've been seeing a lot of this sort of thing on DU lately and it is very disturbing.
Anyway, thanks for the link. I don't see what the problem is with Food Babe, as the page is very well documented and there is legitimate concern over the caramel color, not to mention the lack of transparency at Starbucks.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)I need to warn my eldest, who is allergic to sulfites; and Carrageenan gives me acid reflux. Also, my endocrinologist would have a fit if I were to drink 16 ounces (Grande size) of a coffee that contained 1/3 cup of sugar (50 grams).
PatSeg
(47,399 posts)I would have thought Food Babe was a just an opportunistic fear-monger, but when I did some research, I was quite impressed. Meanwhile, this Farmer's Daughter USA seems to just be pushing GMOs. Food Babe's Facebook page has over 750,000 likes and Farmer's Daughter 3211, not that popularity necessarily makes one credible.
As for Starbucks, the lack of transparency is disturbing. I have asthma and like your son, I need to know what I'm consuming.
1/3 cup of sugar? That is insane unless you're suicidal.
Half the drinks in existence are, apparently, a problem for you, and you didn't know that?
Maybe your issues aren't what you think they are.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)If not, you might wonder why you make the claims you do.
Monsanto might not be your biggest concern.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thanks for the confession.
PatSeg
(47,399 posts)but snarky as ever.
I said: "Can't say she gets paid by Monsanto, but I wouldn't be surprised."
Not necessary to respond, as I probably won't be back here for a while.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Lame sauce.