4 ms·

What about the fact that our chemical laden foods feeds into addiction that perpetuates the cycle? We become addicted to the types of food we consume which caus

What about the fact that our chemical laden foods feeds into addiction that perpetuates the cycle? We become addicted to the types of food we consume which causes us to want more than we should. This in combination with increasing portion sizes is exacerbating the problem.

agumonkey 11y ago
Also quite often documentaries shows (or at least claim-suggest) how much the """"food"""" industry loves to put sugar on top of the remains the sell as meals so it doesn't taste like sand.
- balabaster 11y ago
  and corn syrup, monosodium glutamate, BHT, Red dye number whatever it is (Tartrazine) and other chemicals that by all accounts do everything from feed addiction and provoke ADHD and cause cancer, all in the name of profit.
  - munificent 11y ago
    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
    - balabaster 11y ago
      I wasn't, but I've gotta be honest, it doesn't appear to matter in the context of this specific topic. With the amount of information and disinformation out there regarding food and nationwide obesity levels, it's tough to tell what is and isn't true or to what degree. It's somewhat akin to the propaganda campaigns run by tobacco companies in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
  - DougMerritt 11y ago
    I'm not sure what you have in mind; Tartrazine is lemon yellow (although of course often mixed to create other colors) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine The famously banned "red dye number whatever" I think was red dye number 2, banned in 1976 due to suspected carcinogenicity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranth_(dye) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranth_(dye) But there are so many dyes that I can't be sure what you meant. I will say, though, that although many food additives are ultimately a bad idea in one way or another, historically most of the suspected carcinogens are not, because humans are resilient in ways that mice are not (in part due to two million years of cooked food, and in part due to testing using cancer-prone inbred mice for decades).
    - balabaster 11y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I was mixing up E102 as it is labelled int the UK (Tartrazine) which was banned in 2013 due to being linked to aggravating/causing ADHD and Red Dye Number 2 which was banned in North America in 1976 due to being a Carcinogen. [One of the downfalls of being an immigrant is that after a while you can never remember (or perhaps just lose the inclination to care) which news applied in which jurisdiction and not the other and which numbering systems belong where]
redthrowaway 11y ago
>chemical laden foods feeds into addiction Care to explain what you mean by this?
- balabaster 11y ago
  There are many articles on the internet - with varying levels of credibility. A quick Google for such things as chemical food addiction should yield many of this type of thing: http://www.alternet.org/5-unhealthy-foods-engineered-be-addictive http://www.alternet.org/5-unhealthy-foods-engineered-be-addi... Obviously you will be able to discern which are credible and which are not. That was sarcasm/cynicism, because it's really hard to discern what is credible, to what degree and what the motive of the author was. There is much propaganda on both sides of the fence, so at this point, it's pretty tough, beyond a religious debate to have any objective discussion.

agumonkey 11y ago

Also quite often documentaries shows (or at least claim-suggest) how much the """"food"""" industry loves to put sugar on top of the remains the sell as meals so it doesn't taste like sand.

balabaster 11y ago
and corn syrup, monosodium glutamate, BHT, Red dye number whatever it is (Tartrazine) and other chemicals that by all accounts do everything from feed addiction and provoke ADHD and cause cancer, all in the name of profit.
- munificent 11y ago
  I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
  - balabaster 11y ago
    I wasn't, but I've gotta be honest, it doesn't appear to matter in the context of this specific topic. With the amount of information and disinformation out there regarding food and nationwide obesity levels, it's tough to tell what is and isn't true or to what degree. It's somewhat akin to the propaganda campaigns run by tobacco companies in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
- DougMerritt 11y ago
  I'm not sure what you have in mind; Tartrazine is lemon yellow (although of course often mixed to create other colors) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine The famously banned "red dye number whatever" I think was red dye number 2, banned in 1976 due to suspected carcinogenicity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranth_(dye) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranth_(dye) But there are so many dyes that I can't be sure what you meant. I will say, though, that although many food additives are ultimately a bad idea in one way or another, historically most of the suspected carcinogens are not, because humans are resilient in ways that mice are not (in part due to two million years of cooked food, and in part due to testing using cancer-prone inbred mice for decades).
  - balabaster 11y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I was mixing up E102 as it is labelled int the UK (Tartrazine) which was banned in 2013 due to being linked to aggravating/causing ADHD and Red Dye Number 2 which was banned in North America in 1976 due to being a Carcinogen. [One of the downfalls of being an immigrant is that after a while you can never remember (or perhaps just lose the inclination to care) which news applied in which jurisdiction and not the other and which numbering systems belong where]

redthrowaway 11y ago

>chemical laden foods feeds into addiction Care to explain what you mean by this?

balabaster 11y ago
There are many articles on the internet - with varying levels of credibility. A quick Google for such things as chemical food addiction should yield many of this type of thing: http://www.alternet.org/5-unhealthy-foods-engineered-be-addictive http://www.alternet.org/5-unhealthy-foods-engineered-be-addi... Obviously you will be able to discern which are credible and which are not. That was sarcasm/cynicism, because it's really hard to discern what is credible, to what degree and what the motive of the author was. There is much propaganda on both sides of the fence, so at this point, it's pretty tough, beyond a religious debate to have any objective discussion.