3 ms·
But... that's _not_ what they are according to the definitions found in obvious places. Which is fine; it's a vague enough term that having your own definition
by RHSeeger 4y ago
But... that's _not_ what they are according to the definitions found in obvious places. Which is fine; it's a vague enough term that having your own definition is reasonable.
That being said, I do disagree with your opinion that "they're all bad" even limited to the definition you gave. Being able to make food last longer is good. And recognizing that, it's a matter of tradeoffs for the additive in question.
- ashwagary 4y agoWould you trade longer life expectancy for longer shelf life? I suspect anything that would prompt a "yes" from a food company is an additive the parent would ban.
- permo-w 4y agoI completely agree that there's a place for preservatives in the world. it would be silly to suggest otherwise my position is a hedged rule of thumb. of course additives are not all bad, but taking this attitude is a simple policy that I trust for my general health, and a low-noise signal to send to food producers and other consumers. >it's a matter of tradeoffs for the additive in question this is true. and when the tradeoffs are health vs hunger that's fine, but when they're health vs profit/share price, it becomes an issue. obviously there's a situation where lack of profit motive can lead to hunger, but that's not a situation currently likely to arise in the developed world