4 ms·

no hyperbole, read the article: > so intrinsically disagreeable that my throat nearly closed up reflexively. and then: > That night, my stomach’s rebellion a

no hyperbole, read the article: > so intrinsically disagreeable that my throat nearly closed up reflexively. and then: > That night, my stomach’s rebellion against the loaf was anything but neutral. I felt so full and lethargic that I skipped dinner and the following breakfast. ...followed by a euphemism for serious diarrhea. I'd encourage you to call poison control with those symptoms. Then consider what you would do if you had a kid or loved one with those symptoms and they ate "something" they didn't know what it was. Regarding starving, they feel like they have not eaten, but rather have been poisoned and can no longer eat more. That's not eating.

gruez 2y ago
>no hyperbole, read the article: I did. You cherrypicked one part, which is seemingly contradicted by other parts of the paragraph: "The mushy, disturbingly uniform innards recalled the thick, pulpy aftermath of something you dissected in biology class: so intrinsically disagreeable that my throat nearly closed up reflexively. But the funny thing about Nutraloaf is the taste. It’s not awful, nor is it especially good. I kept trying to detect any individual element—carrot? egg?—and failing. Nutraloaf tastes blank, as though someone physically removed all hints of flavor." The author admits that taste isn't even bad, so presumably his body is disagreeing with the texture. Maybe I care about texture less than the average person, or the scientists at Aramark managed to make something so textually bad that it transcends normal foods, but I can't imagine something so textually bad that it tastes anywhere close to literal poison. Underneath the writer's flourish, I don't see anything to suggest it's not anything worse than my previous assessment of "just flavorless with bad texture". >...followed by a euphemism for serious diarrhea. Besides the problem reading way too much in between the lines, I can't think of any plausible reason how the food can cause diarrhea. After all, the blandless/bad texture can plausibly describe meal replacements like soylent or meal squares, and those seem to sell well enough to suggest they don't give people gastric distress. >I'd encourage you to call poison control with those symptoms. Then consider what you would do if you had a kid or loved one with those symptoms and they ate "something" they didn't know what it was. Regarding starving, they feel like they have not eaten, but rather have been poisoned and can no longer eat more. That's not eating. I know you're trying really hard to push to "this is poison" angle, but this is just silly. The only reason why you'd call poison control in that case is that there's a plausible chance that household chemicals were consumed. I seriously doubt you're going to call poison control that absent that possibility (eg. your kid coming home from school with upset stomach). Nutriloaf, as bad as it is texture wise, doesn't contain any toxic chemicals. It just tastes bland and has bad texture.
- jerlam 2y ago
  I do not doubt that Nutriloaf would give some people diarrhea, but that doesn't mean that it's poison. Nutriloaf is drastically different than normal/usual food which is enough to cause problems. It probably has a lot more fiber if they're adding cheap vegetables as filler. It probably has a lot less simple carbs/fat too. People complain about Taco Bell giving them diarrhea for similar reasons.
- motohagiography 2y ago
  It is designed to tell your body you are being force fed something other than food. The author was made sick by it. Litigate this somewhere else. I said it was described as what was essentially a "simulated poison," because force feeding it to people it is analogous to how a mock execution uses "simulated" click of a trigger- it's not poisoning people and firing blanks isn't killing them- but they are both simulated acts intended to force compliance. This isn't "bland," it's manufacturing shit that doesn't kill you immediately and forcing people to eat it. I did not say it was poison, but I'd be pretty suspicious of what your interest is on this one. try not to make it sound like you've been torturing people.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >It is designed to tell your body you are being force fed something other than food. The author was made sick by it. Litigate this somewhere else. It's designed to be bland. Everything else is your conjecture. Moreover, what even is "something other than food"? Like I said in my previous comment, people seem to eat ultraprocessed foods like soylent and mealsquares just fine, and those are probably even further from what "food" actually is. At least with nutriloaf you can make out pieces of the constituent ingredients. >I said it was described as what was essentially a "simulated poison," because force feeding it to people it is analogous to how a mock execution uses "simulated" click of a trigger No, simulated poison would be feeding you denatonium or something. Eating nutriloaf might not be the most appetizing, but based on the ingredients it's nowhere close to eating actual poison. I looked at other sources[1] and so far as I can tell, it's just bland. I also found a lawsuit by an inmate that alleges it was making him sick, but aside from him and the dining critic, I can't find any evidence that it's causing sickness on a large scale, which would be expected given how many institution use it. Maybe it really is "simulated poison" to a few % of people, and in those cases I'd agree it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, but people who get sick from milk or taco bell, that doesn't mean milk or taco bell is "simulated poison". [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/02/256605441/punishing-inmates-with-the-loaf-persists-in-the-u-s https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/02/256605441/pu... >I did not say it was poison, but I'd be pretty suspicious of what your interest is on this one. try not to make it sound like you've been torturing people. If you have to resort to questioning motives and borderline implying that I torture people, it's probably a sign that you don't have actual responses to the object level question and want to derail the discussion into something else.

gruez 2y ago

>no hyperbole, read the article: I did. You cherrypicked one part, which is seemingly contradicted by other parts of the paragraph: "The mushy, disturbingly uniform innards recalled the thick, pulpy aftermath of something you dissected in biology class: so intrinsically disagreeable that my throat nearly closed up reflexively. But the funny thing about Nutraloaf is the taste. It’s not awful, nor is it especially good. I kept trying to detect any individual element—carrot? egg?—and failing. Nutraloaf tastes blank, as though someone physically removed all hints of flavor." The author admits that taste isn't even bad, so presumably his body is disagreeing with the texture. Maybe I care about texture less than the average person, or the scientists at Aramark managed to make something so textually bad that it transcends normal foods, but I can't imagine something so textually bad that it tastes anywhere close to literal poison. Underneath the writer's flourish, I don't see anything to suggest it's not anything worse than my previous assessment of "just flavorless with bad texture". >...followed by a euphemism for serious diarrhea. Besides the problem reading way too much in between the lines, I can't think of any plausible reason how the food can cause diarrhea. After all, the blandless/bad texture can plausibly describe meal replacements like soylent or meal squares, and those seem to sell well enough to suggest they don't give people gastric distress. >I'd encourage you to call poison control with those symptoms. Then consider what you would do if you had a kid or loved one with those symptoms and they ate "something" they didn't know what it was. Regarding starving, they feel like they have not eaten, but rather have been poisoned and can no longer eat more. That's not eating. I know you're trying really hard to push to "this is poison" angle, but this is just silly. The only reason why you'd call poison control in that case is that there's a plausible chance that household chemicals were consumed. I seriously doubt you're going to call poison control that absent that possibility (eg. your kid coming home from school with upset stomach). Nutriloaf, as bad as it is texture wise, doesn't contain any toxic chemicals. It just tastes bland and has bad texture.

jerlam 2y ago
I do not doubt that Nutriloaf would give some people diarrhea, but that doesn't mean that it's poison. Nutriloaf is drastically different than normal/usual food which is enough to cause problems. It probably has a lot more fiber if they're adding cheap vegetables as filler. It probably has a lot less simple carbs/fat too. People complain about Taco Bell giving them diarrhea for similar reasons.
motohagiography 2y ago
It is designed to tell your body you are being force fed something other than food. The author was made sick by it. Litigate this somewhere else. I said it was described as what was essentially a "simulated poison," because force feeding it to people it is analogous to how a mock execution uses "simulated" click of a trigger- it's not poisoning people and firing blanks isn't killing them- but they are both simulated acts intended to force compliance. This isn't "bland," it's manufacturing shit that doesn't kill you immediately and forcing people to eat it. I did not say it was poison, but I'd be pretty suspicious of what your interest is on this one. try not to make it sound like you've been torturing people.
- gruez 2y ago
  >It is designed to tell your body you are being force fed something other than food. The author was made sick by it. Litigate this somewhere else. It's designed to be bland. Everything else is your conjecture. Moreover, what even is "something other than food"? Like I said in my previous comment, people seem to eat ultraprocessed foods like soylent and mealsquares just fine, and those are probably even further from what "food" actually is. At least with nutriloaf you can make out pieces of the constituent ingredients. >I said it was described as what was essentially a "simulated poison," because force feeding it to people it is analogous to how a mock execution uses "simulated" click of a trigger No, simulated poison would be feeding you denatonium or something. Eating nutriloaf might not be the most appetizing, but based on the ingredients it's nowhere close to eating actual poison. I looked at other sources[1] and so far as I can tell, it's just bland. I also found a lawsuit by an inmate that alleges it was making him sick, but aside from him and the dining critic, I can't find any evidence that it's causing sickness on a large scale, which would be expected given how many institution use it. Maybe it really is "simulated poison" to a few % of people, and in those cases I'd agree it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, but people who get sick from milk or taco bell, that doesn't mean milk or taco bell is "simulated poison". [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/02/256605441/punishing-inmates-with-the-loaf-persists-in-the-u-s https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/02/256605441/pu... >I did not say it was poison, but I'd be pretty suspicious of what your interest is on this one. try not to make it sound like you've been torturing people. If you have to resort to questioning motives and borderline implying that I torture people, it's probably a sign that you don't have actual responses to the object level question and want to derail the discussion into something else.