On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 23:40:35 +1200, Steve B
posted:

On 21 Aug 2003 10:11:40 GMT, (bogus address)
wrote:


A question that's long been in the back of my mind: I understand
sodium benzoate and methyl benzoate are (or were) used as mould
retardants in bread, but are now banned, at least in NZ, if not
more widely.
What is the perceived harm here, and is it greater than the potential
ill-effects of eating mouldy bread?

Moulds that grow on wheat aren't generally very toxic. Benzoate has
next to no toxicity, but a pretty high allergenicity risk. The main
reason for the preservative is that customers won't buy mouldy bread
rather than because it might harm them if they did.

So: produce "bread" and "hypo-allegenic bread". The latter will be
exactly equivalent to the bread that we have no choice but to eat
today, and won't be any more expensive. The former will be distinctive
on the NZ market in that it won't go mouldy after as little as four
days. God, we now have advertisements that actually boast that a
certain brand of bread will go for three days without losing its
freshness!

In the Bad Old Days when I was a child in Britain, a loaf of bread
might last a week (in an ordinary "bread bin", not having to be put in
the fridge), and loaves actually got *finished* before they became
inedible - certainly before there was the slightest sign of mould.

In NZ today, I an forced to throw away about 20% of the bread I buy.
Who are the "capitalists" trying to control our eating to their own
profit?

Can't two sets of sensitivites and two sets of "freedoms" be
accommodated at once?

I feel there must be another reason for this deprivation, other than
potential allergenicity.

Any more ideas?

Steve B.


Make yer own.