Sure. Attached is a summary of popular environmental markings/certifications here in sweden. Unfortunately I can’t locate a version in english. These types of surveys quickly dismiss the certifications that are just marketing bs, and most of the certs listed have been around for a decade or more. Each year a consulting company publish an excellent review of the top eco-markings for the year, but unfortunately right now they have removed the old yet not published the one for 2015 yet. Looking into it, no doubt. I’ll update you with more when I find some [bit hard to do this on my phone)
https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.konsumentforeningenstockholm.se/Global/Guider_pdf/Symbolguide/Symbolguide_KfS_mars2011.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi7uM6S4eDJAhWK1iwKHT0bAbEQFggiMAE&usg=AFQjCNEJiHFGnB2cJYOsbmQ37cUvNtC8dg&sig2=ffctod2JjMI8Obnh0bLA4w
@sanovine, if you’re Swedish, check out this excellent article from Jacob Guidol of the excellent blog träningslära.se, for some info on the dangers of labels like “ekologiskt” and KRAV. They are focused on process and not result, and they assume that whatever is “natural” is beneficial. There’s the example of azadiraktin, a “natural” insecticide that causes sterility and deformations in bees at 1/50th of the doses used on ecological and KRAV farms (and bee extinction is a very serious environmental problem). These labels are not as straightforward as you might think and they are, in my opinion, obscuring the real issue and hindering real progress since methods that are good for the environment and for the body are banned since they’re “unnatural” and methods that are harmful are used because they’re “natural”. This is what I mean whan I say the movement is, at its worst, technophobic and unscientific.
This stuff is incredibly popular in Sweden right now and I think it’s a shame. We need to focus on the individual methods and evaluate them based on result, not group them together and slap a label on them.
I’m unable to find any list of pesticides for any well known food (either by the manufacturer or any other source).
Could you point out info on pesticide use for any product from Nestlé, Heinz, Danone, or indeed any other company producing food?
I suspect you won’t find them, I certainly can’t.
As I said, there’s a lot less going on behind those stickers than you think, I won’t repeat myself as I’ve already made those points. Feel free to believe in them if you want, but you’re wrong.
This whole thread stinks of a really bizarre attempt at trolling.
If you think its trolling, just don’t read it. This has gone beyond a debate and you are now just being insulting and hostile. Clearly you have some personal beef against ecological products, but I’d appreciate it if you tone it down a bit. In your enthusiasm to be right you’ve crossed the line into being a jerk. Go eat your nestle products if thats the kind of thing you want to support.
No beef against them at all, I’m just not taken in by the marketing of products that, in many cases, offer little in the way of environmental benefits.
You make a point, someone counters it and you ignore them because it disagrees with what you believe. That’s rude, not my telling someone they’ve got something wrong.
You’re demanding that Huel provide something that literally no other company on the planet provides, for someone that has no idea what they’d be looking at anyway, I just don’t get it. But you go for it champ, I’m out.
There is nothing wrong with you being interested in what chemicals are in your food, but I think you need to understand that this is an unusual request to make. There is nothing wrong with your question “what pesticides are in my Huel?” There is only a problem in expecting a quick answer, and expecting @Julian to make it his top priority.
If instead it were a situation where Huel didn’t declare what its carbohydrate source was, then you would have more of a right to demand the information, because that kind of information is commonly known about food products. You must understand that it is very unusual to know what exact pesticides are in foods. There’s nothing wrong with you being interested, you just need to be more realistic about how easy it is to get hold of that information.
"They are focused on process and not result, and they assume that whatever is “natural” is beneficial"
That is a rather broad, sweeping generalization with no evidence to back it up.
" the movement is, at its worst, technophobic and unscientific."
And at its best, what is it?
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know much behind the ecological certifications, and have no doubt that some of them are just marketing to exploit well meaning people like myself. But many are certainly well-meant. However, as so bluntly pointed out, no food producers are forthcoming with further information so unfortunately I don’t have anything else to go on, do i?
I am not technophobic nor unscientific, I am an engineer by profession and the only reason I don’t know about these things is lack of time to read into it further. Relying on eco labels strikes me as a good safe bet in the long term, since if its bs its no worse than no label, if its ineffectual then the same, and maybe its actually better. I don’t think the majority are more damaging, so its a net win imho. You may disagree, I didnt join your thread to tell you how wrong you are.
Anyway, if Huel wants to be progressive and define itself as the future of food then they could do more than just play lip service to the issue of ecological markings and pesticide content. As you point out, this is hugely popular in Sweden, and growing in other markets too. People care about what they eat, and how it’s production affects the planet. Since many of us will eat 100% Huel I think we need new levels of communication and trust between producer and consumer compared to other produce.
Just ranting on about how great pesticides are or that some eko labels are a con is missing the big picture here. Huel isn’t normal food, so normal information isn’t quite sufficient. Huel have been very, very good about publishing the contents, the nutrition, debating the nutritional aspects, but as soon as pesticides are mentioned the shit hits the fan. And why is that? I still think it is a valid question and one which is of higher importance considering our food is now a single supplier.
Further, if you do think the ecological markings are a joke, then the best way to remedy that is not to sulk and leave the debate, it is to promote a better, more open and transparent information culture around what we eat. Simply saying that Huel sucks as much as everyone else isn’t really what we should aspire to here, tbh.
If Julian is looking into it then that’s ok by me, but I expect a decent follow up, whether it be something like “eco labels are just marketing gimmicks” or “Huel contains X and Y which have been shown in these trials to be harmless” or “we choose these cheaper ingredients to keep the cost down”, any of these types of results would be quite welcome, since it is improving understanding. I am hoping to see Huel state the facts and trust the consumer to make a smart judgement, just as we trust Huel not to put nasty pesticides in our food. That way we can all grow together, and I think that’s the point, right?
Thanks Marcus, first decent reply in this thread. Your point is well taken. Asking for exact pesticides is perhaps rather bold (although shouldn’t be !). Just some information from Huel on the production of ingredients would be welcome.
Well, this is the first time this question has been asked here. All I’m saying is, as valid as your question is, nobody else has needed to know that information yet. Everyone else (as far as we know) seems to have been happy enough with the information already available to make a decision on whether to give Huel a try or not. Then when they try it, most people seem to like it. A few people have not liked it.
But most requests here are regarding things like sweetness level, package size, wanting a low carb version. These are all things that are easy to either accommodate or provide information on. So with you being the first person to ask this question, and with it regarding information that is not normally readily available, it’s not realistic to expect Julian to suddenly jump to providing the information you require. Remember, he has a business to run, and needs to spend his time in whatever ways benefit the majority of people. Although perhaps it’s out of place for me to speak on his behalf. But my best guess is that he’s unlikely to bend over backwards just to satisfy one person’s unusual request.
And no matter how much it gets argued about on here, there’s really no getting around that fact that it’s an unusual request from just one person.
[quote=“sanovine, post:30, topic:915”]the best way to remedy that is not to sulk and leave the debate,
[/quote]
Just, lol. I’ve nothing else to say that hasn’t been covered above. Keep on believing.
That may also be due to most of the customer base being from the UK, where the attitudes to ecological produce and environmental concerns aren’t as well developed as other places. Honestly, an exhaustive list of chemicals isn’t really what I want either, I just want more background on where the stuff comes from. It could be that much of the ingredients are organic, pesticide free, but some are not meaning Huel wouldn’t meet certain criteria for a certification. I’d have no trouble with that. But the lack of any information at all leaves me with a feeling that the producers of the ingredients don’t want to mention it, and Huel doesn’t feel the need to ask. Again, maybe attitudes in the UK are different, but here in Sweden this is an important issue, and whether people are basing their choice on valid certifications or marketing gimmicks, the fact remains that the topic is important enough to them to make them choose one brand over another.
I think I recall Julian mentioning something about the production facility having a specific ISO certification. What does that mean?
In the UK we call comments like this hogwash.
I have read this conversation with great interest, as I am trying to eliminate chemicals from my diet and life (cleaning, makeup, bodycare etc) due to becoming allergic and intolerant to things because of an illness.
I just thought I would put what I think down.
I live in the UK and I care about chemicals, pesticides and environmental concerns, just as much as someone from any other country. Where you live certainly has an influence on your thoughts/beliefs, but it does not control them, anybody from anywhere can think anything.
I think, amongst other things, the original poster wants to know if Huel is 100% Organic. ie like having the label from the Soil Association http://www.soilassociation.org/whatisorganic/organicfood
Huel is so much more forthcoming re production and ingredients than most other companies that produce food, and even any other products/services. Labels and certain certifications take far longer to acquire than most consumers know, especially for food products. Also cost quite a lot too, which I think is difficult for small/med businesses.
I think what the original poster is asking for is a fair question, that I have no doubt will be answered in time by the Huel team, but in my opinion the question was asked in the wrong way. I think it could have been asked in a more positive and inquisitive way, rather than negativity/pessimistic way, ultimately putting people slightly on the defensive from the get go.
I am not saying this to be part of an argument, that is just the impression I got. In general you are more likely to get positive and constructive answers this way.
The evidence is in the article I linked to.
At its best, it’s a genuine and positive, but misguided, concern for people’s wellbeing.
If it’s BS, then it’s harmful. Complying with the demands of these labels cost lots of money and produce lower yields, meaning the price of food goes up and resources that could be used for genuine progress is wasted on ineffectual or harmful practices.
“In the UK we call comments like this hogwash.”
Although the uk is ranked 12 overall for least enivronmental impact, it is ranked 87th in Agriculture, 70th in biodiversity and habitat, and 90th of 178 countries for fisheries. Not exactly top of the charts there.
Source: http://www.epi.yale.edu/epi/country-profile/united-kingdom
I apologise if my comment of attitudes not being as well developed was unfair, I’ve no idea about the attitudes. I should have said the environmental impact of your food production is wantonly distructive. I assumed this stems from underdeveloped attitudes, my apologies if this is not the case.
This is going to sound like nitpicking, but everything is chemicals. Strawberries, oats and cows are 100% chemicals. If we remove the chemicals from Huel, there’ll be nothing left.
The point here is that this sort of essentialism is the problem. We think there’s some difference between chemicals that come from natural sources and those that are synthesized in factories, but there’s not. It’s all just chemicals. We need to look at them individually and make our decisions based on their effects on the environment and on the human body. This whole “ecological”, “organic”, and “natural” stuff is just muddying the waters and focusing on the wrong issues. And that’s why I think it’s important to point out that it’s impossible to remove chemicals from your diet without starving yourself to death.
Which ones are in Huel then?
Yes, I understand, sorry. I could have brought this up in a better way.
I don’t know; they’re looking into it. But I will assume it’s only legal ones that have been approved by the relevant authorities. So while it’ll certainly be interesting to find out, I don’t find it a pressing concern. I think it’s less important which ones are in Huel than which ones are legal and regulated. I don’t think it should be up to Huel to make these decisions, as they don’t have the necessary training for it. These are very complex issues. This should be decided (and is decided) on a national and international level by teams of experts, not by untrained personell in small startup companies and uninformed and easily swayed consumers.
That said, I’m all for transparency and would certainly welcome Huel posting a list. But I don’t see it as a top priority, especially since the company is so new.