Everything we eat is “chemicals” that is broken down chemically to be turned into energy (edit: and structural purposes). Sure in like-minded folks, chemicals

Everything we eat is “chemicals” that is broken down chemically to be turned into energy (edit: and structural purposes). Sure in like-minded folks, chemicals may be understood to mean artificial sweeteners, pesticides, GMOs, HFCS, etc. but it’s unclear which they’re objecting to or even what agricultural sub-industry they’re criticizing. Heck even high amounts of sodium in the American diet is criticized, but strip it out entirely and you’ve got a different set of problems now. Most likely each change was done for a reason that improved either the cost-effectiveness or the appeal of food, or solved issues relating to storage, availability, changing ecologically factors, vulnerability to plant disease, malnutrition, etc. It’s just not constructive to say something that’s so generic that it evaluates to “food could have healthier ingredients” or even “food could have more natural ingredients”. It’s just handwaving a bunch of supply chain issues as if people are just choosing to be arseholes. It’s like taking potshots at tech for centralizing personal information into databases that keep getting compromised for identity theft. Yeah, there are issues with that paradigm, but that’s not to say that solving the issue is as simple as decentralizing all information storage - that introduces another set of issues (eg are end users really going to have sufficient cybersecurity chops to not lose their data themselves instead of a third-party). It’s easy to complain about the solution when you aren’t familiar with the constraints that keep it from being perfect.