3 ms·

Being omnivores our senses help us to distinguish good food from bad. For example we prefer sweet food because sugar in nature is rare, the fruits delivering su

Being omnivores our senses help us to distinguish good food from bad. For example we prefer sweet food because sugar in nature is rare, the fruits delivering sugar being a source of carbohydrates, vitamins and other essential nutrients. We avoid bitter plants because that's usually the taste of substances that do us harm. And rotten meat disgusts us. Plus we rely on the wisdom of our ancestors to know what to eat. But the food industry, in all its wisdom has produced foods that (1) lie to our senses, (2) are rich in calories, but poor in nutrients and (3) are so novel that our bodies aren't digesting it properly. Being a consumer is actually easy, if you can read the signs. It's the food industry that's feeding you the lie that nutrition is complicated and needs expert guidance. Does the food come in a package? Does it make health claims? Is the list of ingredients containing substances you don't recognize? Is sucrose or high fructose corn sirup one of those ingredients? Does it come from far away? Is it sold in a super market? All of those are red flags you should watch out for ;-)

hueving 11y ago
>Is the list of ingredients containing substances you don't recognize? This is a bit of a bogus argument. If you had to break down meat into its component chemicals, nobody would understand it then either. We just have a guideline that requires man-made things to list the components which leads to the false argument that seeing lower level chemicals in something means it's bad.
- bad_user 11y ago
  Yes, but my ancestors ate meat from chicken, pigs or cattle, they survived and I'm alive as well. Compared to rats, we don't have to do a trial and error for everything we eat, as culture is part of who we are and we've been eating most of the same meat, vegetables and dishes for hundreds if not thousands of years. You are never going to see meat being broken down to its components on an ingredients label. The only way you're going to see chemicals on such labels is if those chemicals were added by food processors, for various desired effects, like for improved texture, or taste, or for extending shelf life. It's usually bad because, as I said, it's meant to fool your senses. Why do you think sugar or HFCS is in everything these days? It's also bad in the case of health claims and fads because reductionist science is applied.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I mean let's be specific. This article calls out Hershey for moving away from polyglycerol polyricinoleate (PGPR) to friendlier-sounding emulsifiers. In exactly what way does a consumer benefit from reduced consumption of PGPR? Your ancestors also ate a lot of meat roasted over open fires, or in comparatively primitive ovens. Within the next 20 years we're going to come to understand exactly how carcinogenic that millennial-old practice is (cooking, it is going to turn out, is basically carcinogenic), and it's going to make us feel silly about caring about PGPR --- and, I hope, about looking to micronutrients in the food supply as an answer to most of our public health concerns.
    - redblacktree 11y ago
      I'm dimly aware that that wonderful black and brown crust on the meat I've grilled is carcinogenic, and I try really hard not to think about it.
  - hueving 11y ago
    >Yes, but my ancestors ate meat from chicken, pigs or cattle, they survived But they died from cancers, heart disease, and a myriad of other disorders. Some of my ancestors smoked tobacco, which was completely 'organic', and it didn't do them any good.
tptacek 11y ago
Well, that can't be entirely true, because if it was, Kraft would still own the category-killing brand for every frozen and fresh prepared food product. There must be more to it than palatability. I don't think the effective differentiator is healthfulness, but it's something other than hyperpalatability.

hueving 11y ago

>Is the list of ingredients containing substances you don't recognize? This is a bit of a bogus argument. If you had to break down meat into its component chemicals, nobody would understand it then either. We just have a guideline that requires man-made things to list the components which leads to the false argument that seeing lower level chemicals in something means it's bad.

bad_user 11y ago
Yes, but my ancestors ate meat from chicken, pigs or cattle, they survived and I'm alive as well. Compared to rats, we don't have to do a trial and error for everything we eat, as culture is part of who we are and we've been eating most of the same meat, vegetables and dishes for hundreds if not thousands of years. You are never going to see meat being broken down to its components on an ingredients label. The only way you're going to see chemicals on such labels is if those chemicals were added by food processors, for various desired effects, like for improved texture, or taste, or for extending shelf life. It's usually bad because, as I said, it's meant to fool your senses. Why do you think sugar or HFCS is in everything these days? It's also bad in the case of health claims and fads because reductionist science is applied.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I mean let's be specific. This article calls out Hershey for moving away from polyglycerol polyricinoleate (PGPR) to friendlier-sounding emulsifiers. In exactly what way does a consumer benefit from reduced consumption of PGPR? Your ancestors also ate a lot of meat roasted over open fires, or in comparatively primitive ovens. Within the next 20 years we're going to come to understand exactly how carcinogenic that millennial-old practice is (cooking, it is going to turn out, is basically carcinogenic), and it's going to make us feel silly about caring about PGPR --- and, I hope, about looking to micronutrients in the food supply as an answer to most of our public health concerns.
  - redblacktree 11y ago
    I'm dimly aware that that wonderful black and brown crust on the meat I've grilled is carcinogenic, and I try really hard not to think about it.
- hueving 11y ago
  >Yes, but my ancestors ate meat from chicken, pigs or cattle, they survived But they died from cancers, heart disease, and a myriad of other disorders. Some of my ancestors smoked tobacco, which was completely 'organic', and it didn't do them any good.

tptacek 11y ago

Well, that can't be entirely true, because if it was, Kraft would still own the category-killing brand for every frozen and fresh prepared food product. There must be more to it than palatability. I don't think the effective differentiator is healthfulness, but it's something other than hyperpalatability.