4 ms·

Consider how broad the phrase “treating food with chemicals” is, and you’ll start to see the problem with this kind of thinking. The word “chemical” includes li

Consider how broad the phrase “treating food with chemicals” is, and you’ll start to see the problem with this kind of thinking. The word “chemical” includes literally everything that food is made of.

mandmandam 1y ago
Particularly pointless pedantry. We all know what they mean, and are to assume the best reading of what they're saying. Bread, the example they used, is a particularly stark example where Americans are subjected to stuff that is rightly banned in most of the rest of the world.
- const_cast 1y ago
  It's not pointless pedantry at all, because whole foods are ALSO treated with chemicals. When you grow a tomato, you use pesticides and herbicides. When you grow meat, you use drugs on the animals and then you also wash the meat in bleach to kill bacteria. Why are these chemicals less harmful than, say, citric acid used in "processed" minced garlic to preserve it?
  - fakedang 1y ago
    > When you grow a tomato, you use pesticides and herbicides. And didn't they teach you at school to soak all vegetables for a couple hours in water after buying them and before storing/using them? As for injected hormones, in my part of the world (Asia and Europe), we reject such produce if we're trying to eat healthy. My family literally grows pineapples in our backyard (which I bring to Europe) because industrial pineapples are injected with ripening stimulators. > When you grow meat, you use drugs on the animals and then you also wash the meat in bleach to kill bacteria. In most of the civilized world, we typically ensure humane conditions as much as possible even in industrial farming, so that chicken need not be drugged and bleach washed. Like basic hygiene and humanity such as animals not being made to live in their own shit. > Why are these chemicals less harmful than, say, citric acid used in "processed" minced garlic to preserve it? Again, in most of the civilized world, we don't take issue with preserving minced garlic with citric acid. In fact, I regularly preserve a lot of veggies and sometimes even fruit this way. But I do have an issue when some industrial company decides to add sodium benzoate to their pickle to preserve it for months on end.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - mandmandam 1y ago
    > It's not pointless pedantry at all, because whole foods are ALSO treated with chemicals. That wasn't the point they were making. They made a purely pedantic point about the meaning of the word 'chemicals' in this context. > Why are these chemicals less harmful than, say, citric acid used in "processed" minced garlic to preserve it? I never said they are. Besides which, I pay a premium for organic for that very reason. Glyphosate residue is a serious problem. And then there's all the agricultural runoff, biosphere contamination, chemical interactions, etc. Less 'chemicals' is generally better; safer and healthier. It's super weird that people take issue with this simple statement, whether for pedantic reasons or through false equivalancies.
- mistercow 1y ago
  Actually, no, we don’t know what they mean. This is the foundation of the great motte and bailey that so much nutrition nonsense is based on. People say “chemicals”, and then they can gesture at a food label with a few obscure sounding ingredients and say “ooh, look how scary”. But for the vast majority of these “chemicals”, there is absolutely no reason to think that consuming them is a problem. Anyway, since “we all know”, why don’t you go check out the ingredients for beyond burgers, and report back which “chemicals” you think are so disastrous.

mandmandam 1y ago

Particularly pointless pedantry. We all know what they mean, and are to assume the best reading of what they're saying. Bread, the example they used, is a particularly stark example where Americans are subjected to stuff that is rightly banned in most of the rest of the world.

const_cast 1y ago
It's not pointless pedantry at all, because whole foods are ALSO treated with chemicals. When you grow a tomato, you use pesticides and herbicides. When you grow meat, you use drugs on the animals and then you also wash the meat in bleach to kill bacteria. Why are these chemicals less harmful than, say, citric acid used in "processed" minced garlic to preserve it?
- fakedang 1y ago
  > When you grow a tomato, you use pesticides and herbicides. And didn't they teach you at school to soak all vegetables for a couple hours in water after buying them and before storing/using them? As for injected hormones, in my part of the world (Asia and Europe), we reject such produce if we're trying to eat healthy. My family literally grows pineapples in our backyard (which I bring to Europe) because industrial pineapples are injected with ripening stimulators. > When you grow meat, you use drugs on the animals and then you also wash the meat in bleach to kill bacteria. In most of the civilized world, we typically ensure humane conditions as much as possible even in industrial farming, so that chicken need not be drugged and bleach washed. Like basic hygiene and humanity such as animals not being made to live in their own shit. > Why are these chemicals less harmful than, say, citric acid used in "processed" minced garlic to preserve it? Again, in most of the civilized world, we don't take issue with preserving minced garlic with citric acid. In fact, I regularly preserve a lot of veggies and sometimes even fruit this way. But I do have an issue when some industrial company decides to add sodium benzoate to their pickle to preserve it for months on end.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mandmandam 1y ago
  > It's not pointless pedantry at all, because whole foods are ALSO treated with chemicals. That wasn't the point they were making. They made a purely pedantic point about the meaning of the word 'chemicals' in this context. > Why are these chemicals less harmful than, say, citric acid used in "processed" minced garlic to preserve it? I never said they are. Besides which, I pay a premium for organic for that very reason. Glyphosate residue is a serious problem. And then there's all the agricultural runoff, biosphere contamination, chemical interactions, etc. Less 'chemicals' is generally better; safer and healthier. It's super weird that people take issue with this simple statement, whether for pedantic reasons or through false equivalancies.
mistercow 1y ago
Actually, no, we don’t know what they mean. This is the foundation of the great motte and bailey that so much nutrition nonsense is based on. People say “chemicals”, and then they can gesture at a food label with a few obscure sounding ingredients and say “ooh, look how scary”. But for the vast majority of these “chemicals”, there is absolutely no reason to think that consuming them is a problem. Anyway, since “we all know”, why don’t you go check out the ingredients for beyond burgers, and report back which “chemicals” you think are so disastrous.