4 ms·
Given the nature of evolution, I think that the appeal to nature in nutrition is a much more substantive argument than can be immediately dismissed. Grossly spe
by jonfw 8y ago
Given the nature of evolution, I think that the appeal to nature in nutrition is a much more substantive argument than can be immediately dismissed. Grossly speaking, natural foods have also existed for longer and been better studied, meaning we are more likely to know about the impact of natural foods than newer foods that aren't yet common to our diet.
While "better because natural" isn't some infallible nutritional law, it serves as a very solid rule of thumb for those of us who don't have the time or motivation to more thoroughly study the science behind it.
- nickik 8y agoNature has also evolved lots of stuff that would kill you. And many things that are just plain unhealthy. And even those foods you consider 'natural' are highly evolved plants that have been optimized for human consumption by generations of humans. There is very little natural about many of the fruits and vegetables we eat that are actually truly natural.
- jonfw 8y agoI agree, there is a lot that's harmful in nature. But we as humans have been developing knowledge about how these natural foods affect our health for thousands of years, across a sample on the scale of billions. Tribes completely isolated from modern society have been proven to have extremely rich knowledge of the plants in their environments. As humans, we are extremely familiar with plants found in nature. GMO foods are chemically speaking much closer to natural than this veggie patty we are talking about. It lies on a spectrum so arguing about how neatly something fits a definition is missing the point.