5 ms·
I predict many of the additives in our food and other products will be dimly viewed in retrospective, similar to how we view asbestos & lead paint today. The p
by claar 12y ago
I predict many of the additives in our food and other products will be dimly viewed in retrospective, similar to how we view asbestos & lead paint today.
The preservatives, anti-caking agents, food colorings and other profit-enhancing additives are basically used with an "innocent until proven guilty" mindset.
As usual, you need only follow the money; who profits from adding these things to our food? Pretty much everyone.
There's much less profit motivation for pure food, so it simply won't happen until there's conclusive proof that the additives are bad.
And who's going to pay for that proof -- enough that those profiting from them can't squash it?
- ArkyBeagle 12y agoBecause of market forces and some of the documentation regimes, the end cost to the consumer is higher without these things. One might think it's because the-products-without are less mainstream and less subject to economy of scale, or just because shopping at Whole Foods signals caring. That does not make Whole Foods a scam; it's complicated. Not picking on Whole Foods ( I've never even been there ) - they're just a visible metaphor for this phenomenon. There's something in our Values Map that seems to put profit at cross purposes to "human values" or "caring". It may also be that food "made by hand" is actually of higher quality since the producers have more control and are interested in it more as an... art statement(?). Maybe it is profit; maybe it ain't.