Slight hijack, but how are company’s able to claim that their products are 100% pure [whatever] when they’re a combination of stuff? The best example is Ivory soap, which is 99% pure soap. However, ‘soap’ is made up of other stuff. Everything is 100% of what it is. My car is 100% pure car, but to say so is pretty much meaningless.
Yeah, pure maple syrup from my Dad’s farm. Why do you ask? 
This is wrong in many ways. Ivory’s claim is that the soap is “99-44/100% pure”. What that meant was that they compared their soap in a laboratory to castile soap, then the standard, and found it had fewer impurities. Soap-making involved natural ingredients so getting all impurities out was beyond the technology of the time. Although it’s not the actual claim, it’s correct to say that Ivory was 99-44/100% pure soap. It’s not meaningless; it’s actually extremely specific and advanced for the day.
Any time you proces natural ingredients, some fraction of impurities will occur. That’s why you sometimes see those scare claims that peanut butter can contain up to 8 spider eggs per jar (made up for effect). Those are utterly microscopic and part of nature. They can’t be eliminated. The problem today is that technology is so good that laboratories can detect impurities in concentrations so low that purification techniques can’t touch them. For most products 100% is an approximation of reality, but a very good approximation, with impurities in the parts per million or parts per billion range. It’s a difficult standard, but a closely monitored one. The FDA and the USDA in the U.S. enforces it. Same with “-free.” A product that claims to be lactose-free, e.g., must have no detectable lactose at the lab limits. It’s not a rounded claim like 0 calories is rounded down from anything under 5. So 100% and -free are defined, technically correct for foods, and meaningful labels that any good consumer should watch for.
So in modern language, the crud in Ivory Soap amounts to 6,600 ppm. Whoa, that sounds way the heck worse.
I’m confused. If one wanted to make a “100% juice” product, wouldn’t it be cheaper to just use normal juices in it? Why would manufacturers go through the expense and difficulty of deflavoring an inoffensive-tasting fruit juice for use in a fruit flavored product?
If you could get a really inexpensive, but disgusting-tasting fruit juice, then maybe it would make economic sense to de-funkify it to bulk out your product and still maintain the “100% juice” label. But, was there seriously a focus group that disliked a brand of grape, apple, or pear juice because it tasted too much like it’s constituents? “Whoa, dude! Too fruity. Can you dilute it with some sugar water?”
Knock yourself out using HFCS, I have to be very careful reading ingredient lists. I can eat apples until I live in the bathroom, but HFCS is a known and diagnosed migraine trigger in me. Eliminate everything that has it [ever tried to find nongranola crunchy bread without it? I bake my own] and 90% of my migraines went away. I am down to less than 1 a month [and usually we discover that I accidentally got some HFCS in something totally absurd] and I am a lot happier now.
No, but cranberries are not particularly juicy, for example, so the big brand “cranberry juice cocktail” or whatever they call it is mostly water, sweetener and a small amount of actual cranberry juice.
Cranberry juice products that advertise 100% fruit juice, contain a base of more bland but sugary juices.
Why the word “seem”, in there? Adding vitamins really does make it more nutritious, in that regard.
And I’ve heard many people claim that HFCS is a migraine trigger for them, but I’ve never heard anyone complain about migraines from honey. Which is basically just impure HFCS.
I imagine it’s because the vitamins’ placement on the list seems to imply that there’s not all that much vitamins actually in the beverage. When I was in college, the campus cafe stocked a drink that I liked. I don’t remember the name of it, but I loved that the label proclaimed in bright, bold letters, “Provides your daily allowance of chromium!” You know, because I’m so worried I’m getting all the chromium my body needs.
Is juice actually any healthier than Sunny D? Aren’t they both just sugar-water?
You can do it overnight with some seasoning salt (like Lawry’s), but two hours should do fine. I’d put a little more salt in my marinade if doing it for a shorter period of time, turning it more into a brine than a marinade.
It’s surprisingly good. I don’t mind shortcuts from time to time, and processed food is fine in moderation.
Sounds like 2X homeopathic juice.
I knew I wasn’t going to want to drink Sunny D again after this
Dude, it’s Sunny D - nobody ever claimed it was all-natural. That said, the only things on that list that could possible be construed as anything but innocuous* are the last four, and those are in seriously minute quanitites. You’d have to chug a gallon a day for it to make any possible difference.
Unless … you’re not hand-wringing and "eek!"ing about the vitamin C and B1 they add, are you? :dubious:
- other than people with rare, specific medical issues such as migraine triggers
Missed the edit window, but I didn’t mean to type “all natural” up there as that is clearly not the term I was going for - sorry bout that, folks. Should have specified “pure juice” as that was what I meant.
Just wondering why you don’t mind eating a plate of sucrose but marinating in fructose is “ick”.
Because it’s from a tree so it’s natchural, not from some chemist’s lair where it’s probably been tainted with bovine growth hormones or something. Fucking chemists.
Also, pure country water is perfectly safe for everything, but H[sub]2[/sub]O is a chemical which will sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids.
I prefer the term “hydroxic acid”.
I thought trans-fat “free” foods only need to contain less than a certain amount (0.5g?) per serving, not necessarily 0 trans fat.