I have had similar discussions with people who know things "must be true it was in the newspapers". I would always go with butter as other posters have said better a little of the real thing than a little of a poor imitation and that goes for chocolate too!
On a slightly different subject there was news item on the radio this morning that says that the use of nano particles in food will lead to virtually fat free chocolate that tastes the same! I think I'll wait and see on that one. If anyone knows anymore about this please post!
Listening to the Today programme?
I find this interesting. On one hand, I am, I suppose a former nanotechnologist. My PhD is in
supramolecular chemistry which can be a similar branch of science. That's where my issue is. It
can be similar. Nanotechnology encompasses such wide subject areas from a 'bottom up' molecular approach (as per supramolecular chemistry) a 'top down' approach (as in making smaller and smaller 'things' or making materials on a small scale) and a 'top down' more biological approach. Every application has it's merits and I suspect its risks. I would say that every application needs to be judged on its safety and its merits; perhaps this is where a 'super
HACCP' meets chemical, physical and biological science could take a role?
That said, I'm sure they wouldn't advertise it in this way but a crisp manufacturer is using salt which has been made using a supramolecular style approach. I know a bit about how it's done (I went for an interview at the manufacturer) and I have no concerns about the safety, in fact it's a fantastic thing as it's reducing salt intake for millions of people, however, if you told someone that nanotechnology was already in use in their food would they be happy? Interesting question I think. I worry that this lack of openness could lead to a backlash.
