6 ms·

This is another very interesting article from Jacobin, but I'm not sure who the author is arguing against. I've never heard of any "culinary luddites" avoiding

by maceo 11y ago

This is another very interesting article from Jacobin, but I'm not sure who the author is arguing against. I've never heard of any "culinary luddites" avoiding food products because they come from an industrial farm. There's ALWAYS another reason. It could be because the consumer believes that raising chickens without any sunlight or space to walk around is cruel. Or because the industrial farm pays its migrant laborers under minimum wage. Or because the brand under which the product is sold has a parent company that spends millions lobbying for anti-consumer laws. Or because the final product is so loaded with preservatives that its not as healthy as its fresh alternative. Or perhaps someone favors local produce because transportation to the market emits less carbon than the imported variety. Sure, there might be some irrational people who don't like industrial farm products because they're industrial farm products. But they're a tiny, insignificant percentage of the "slow food" advocates.

aaron695 11y ago
Ha, you're the exact luddite the article is about. It's funny to see your attempt to justify your beliefs. Humans are strange creatures. > Or because the final product is so loaded with preservatives that its not as healthy as its fresh alternative. You said this line is because you believe in magic. Not sure if pointing it out can help. But I'll try anyway.
- maceo 11y ago
  No, I said it because I've been bodybuilding for 10 years and I know nutrition. Food with added preservatives are significantly higher in sodium, which causes your body to retain more water. This is critical to know if you're trying to stay lean, but it's also important to know if you're trying to stay healthy. The excess water adds an extra burden for your heart, which can lead to high blood pressure and all the ills that come with it. It's a very simple concept, and it has nothing to do with Luddism. It's the reason that I eat "fresh" Foster Farms chicken breasts instead of the frozen Foster Farms chicken breasts.
  - CuriouslyC 11y ago
    You've been bodybuilding for 10 years, but you've still got a lot to learn. Sudden increases in sodium intake cause you to retain water, but as long as your sodium intake stays fairly regular, it doesn't really matter how much you consume. This is because the body responds to sodium intake by adjusting the production of aldosterone, which controls water retention and sodium excretion in the kidneys. Thus, if you regularly eat more sodium, your body responds by excreting more sodium. This is the reason that bodybuilders will sodium load for 4-5 days before competition, then cut all sodium 24 hours before competition. The loading phase causes the body to readily excrete sodium, and when sodium is suddenly cut from the diet it takes time for the body to start retaining sodium, producing a short-lived diuretic effect.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Besides rude, this comment doesn't have any arguments. He might very well believe in magic, but it seems like you believe you found the fountaint of truth. There's nothing "magic" or "unscientific" about preservatives being bad for you. Not all of them, but a hell of a lot are. Chosing between a fruit or a meat with and without preservatives, it's a no brainer which is healthier (unless the latter is rotten to begin with). Besides food processing is not "science" (which is all about understanding and analysing things) it's technology (which can be informed by science, but can also be all about being able to manipulate things for a quick buck, understanding or morals be damned).
  - aaron695 11y ago
    I think I'll just be hitting my head against a wall, but there no such thing as healthy food. There is just 'not unhealthy' This magic belief system is ridiculous to have in this day and age, and is dangerous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservative You might argue sugar is a preservative, but I'd call it more filler. I think the science is out on salt but other wise, preservatives are fine. This backwards based beliefs that scary sounding names are bad for you is ridiculous. People fear industrial farm products because they fear science, they are luddites, that's all there is to it. Strawman attempts to justify it are just part of that fear. Seriously who's more likely to illegally under pay workers, Joe Blow or Ronald McDonald? It doesn't even make sense for a big company to risk breaking the law. Look at the crap McDonalds is currently getting about Qatar. And lets not get started about people driving all around town to buy local. (Although to be fair buying local is a large part racism)
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >I think I'll just be hitting my head against a wall, but there no such thing as healthy food Not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Of course even water can kill you if you take it in large does, so that statement is trivially true, but doesn't say anything much. There is such a thing as food with harmful (cancinogenic, bad for the heart, causing higher pressure, etc) additives, and there is such a thing as the same food without them. There are cows and chickens stuffed with growth hormones and there are others without them. Sure some perfectly untouched foods can be harmful in themselves too -- e.g. eating lard. That's OK, seeing that not selling food at all is not an option, whereas not selling food with additives is. And it's not that those are needed because else food would be prohibitevely expensive. A lot of additives and preservatives those are used to squeeze extra profit margins -- while keeping prices the same or even raising them. People ate just fine even before the rise of corn syrup in the 70s. It's not like all these HFCS industry and invansion on the american diet "had to happen" because "the poor where starving". >People fear industrial farm products because they fear science, they are luddites, that's all there is to it. Some do. Not all, and there are people well versed in the science and actual processing of food (people working in food chemistry, food industry etc.) that can assure you that's not the only case. The belief described above -- that complaints against anything "scientific" come from luddites and people who fear -- is a pseudo-scientific ideology, where science is some pure ideal, and not a pragmatic, human driven endeavor. That kind of belief in this abstract "science" is no less magic and unicorny than believing that the government or the police are good guys always there for the good of society. (And usually serves as a substitute for religion). The worst thing is that it cannot separate "science" (which is mostly a method, that can also be followed imperfectly, and often has) with "technology" (which is the application of knowledge in building things, and can very well produce harmful stuff either by intention to cause harm, or by intention to cut margins).
- dalek_cannes 11y ago
  From guidelines: In Comments Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
scott_s 11y ago
Often, consuming local produce uses more carbon. Transportation is often a minor contributor to food production's carbon footprint (http://www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/Ch9_0923.pdf http://www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/Ch9_0923.pdf). We tend to get our food from places which can efficiently produce it. Even when factoring in transportation, it can still use less overall carbon than consuming less efficiently grown local food.
throwawayaway 11y ago
i think she is saying that irrespective of consumers reason for avoiding industrial produce - the author is challenging industrial producers to do better. casting a wide lens over consumers past and present, she uses her understanding of history to critique present day tastes as ahistorical and challenges consumers and producers alike to evaluate food on a case by case basis - rather than behaving a certain way because of assumptions that are just too general.
- mef 11y ago
  she
  - throwawayaway 11y ago
    somehow the url had confused me - thanks for the correction - i've fixed the comment now.
lkbm 11y ago
> Or because the final product is so loaded with preservatives that its not as healthy as its fresh alternative. ... Sure, there might be some irrational people who don't like industrial farm products because they're industrial farm products. I think you just hit the nail on the head and then moved on without noticing. People want things to be "natural" because that's "healthy", but they aren't natural and natural doesn't mean healthy. In my experience, these people are very, very far from being a tiny, insignificant percentage Maybe you hang out with engineers instead of hippies, but I can assure you that there's no shortage of baseless anti-technology culinary Luddites. Try asking the average American (or European how they feel about GMO crops. Sure, scientists overwhelmingly say they're safe to eat, but the majority of Americans disagree[1], often very vehemently. (I will admit that my situation, is certainly biased towards over-estimating the number of "all-natural" proponents, but the data show it's not just the people I hang out with--it's pervasive.) [1] http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/chapter-3-attitudes-and-beliefs-on-science-and-technology-topics/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/chapter-3-attitudes-an...
- coldtea 11y ago
  >I think you just hit the nail on the head and then moved on without noticing. People want things to be "natural" because that's "healthy", but they aren't natural and natural doesn't mean healthy. Natural doesn't mean always healthy (there are poisonous plants for example), but it does mean chickens that are grassfed and not loaded with growth hormones for example...
- kbenson 11y ago
  I think this is exactly it. I'm always annoyed when I hear people talking about how healthy something is because it's natural, purely because it's natural. There are plenty of natural things that can outright kill you if you eat them, that doesn't make them any less natural. It's an excuse to not have to think critically about the problem. I'll be the first to admit I don't always eat very well, but doing something as extreme as some of the fad diets that have popped up is (in some cases) like deciding to walk everywhere myself because I'm concerned about some unsafe driving habits I have. There is a middle ground with positive aspects and less negative consequences, it just takes some thought and effort.

by maceo 11y ago

aaron695 11y ago

Ha, you're the exact luddite the article is about. It's funny to see your attempt to justify your beliefs. Humans are strange creatures. > Or because the final product is so loaded with preservatives that its not as healthy as its fresh alternative. You said this line is because you believe in magic. Not sure if pointing it out can help. But I'll try anyway.

maceo 11y ago
No, I said it because I've been bodybuilding for 10 years and I know nutrition. Food with added preservatives are significantly higher in sodium, which causes your body to retain more water. This is critical to know if you're trying to stay lean, but it's also important to know if you're trying to stay healthy. The excess water adds an extra burden for your heart, which can lead to high blood pressure and all the ills that come with it. It's a very simple concept, and it has nothing to do with Luddism. It's the reason that I eat "fresh" Foster Farms chicken breasts instead of the frozen Foster Farms chicken breasts.
- CuriouslyC 11y ago
  You've been bodybuilding for 10 years, but you've still got a lot to learn. Sudden increases in sodium intake cause you to retain water, but as long as your sodium intake stays fairly regular, it doesn't really matter how much you consume. This is because the body responds to sodium intake by adjusting the production of aldosterone, which controls water retention and sodium excretion in the kidneys. Thus, if you regularly eat more sodium, your body responds by excreting more sodium. This is the reason that bodybuilders will sodium load for 4-5 days before competition, then cut all sodium 24 hours before competition. The loading phase causes the body to readily excrete sodium, and when sodium is suddenly cut from the diet it takes time for the body to start retaining sodium, producing a short-lived diuretic effect.
coldtea 11y ago
Besides rude, this comment doesn't have any arguments. He might very well believe in magic, but it seems like you believe you found the fountaint of truth. There's nothing "magic" or "unscientific" about preservatives being bad for you. Not all of them, but a hell of a lot are. Chosing between a fruit or a meat with and without preservatives, it's a no brainer which is healthier (unless the latter is rotten to begin with). Besides food processing is not "science" (which is all about understanding and analysing things) it's technology (which can be informed by science, but can also be all about being able to manipulate things for a quick buck, understanding or morals be damned).
- aaron695 11y ago
  I think I'll just be hitting my head against a wall, but there no such thing as healthy food. There is just 'not unhealthy' This magic belief system is ridiculous to have in this day and age, and is dangerous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservative You might argue sugar is a preservative, but I'd call it more filler. I think the science is out on salt but other wise, preservatives are fine. This backwards based beliefs that scary sounding names are bad for you is ridiculous. People fear industrial farm products because they fear science, they are luddites, that's all there is to it. Strawman attempts to justify it are just part of that fear. Seriously who's more likely to illegally under pay workers, Joe Blow or Ronald McDonald? It doesn't even make sense for a big company to risk breaking the law. Look at the crap McDonalds is currently getting about Qatar. And lets not get started about people driving all around town to buy local. (Although to be fair buying local is a large part racism)
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >I think I'll just be hitting my head against a wall, but there no such thing as healthy food Not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Of course even water can kill you if you take it in large does, so that statement is trivially true, but doesn't say anything much. There is such a thing as food with harmful (cancinogenic, bad for the heart, causing higher pressure, etc) additives, and there is such a thing as the same food without them. There are cows and chickens stuffed with growth hormones and there are others without them. Sure some perfectly untouched foods can be harmful in themselves too -- e.g. eating lard. That's OK, seeing that not selling food at all is not an option, whereas not selling food with additives is. And it's not that those are needed because else food would be prohibitevely expensive. A lot of additives and preservatives those are used to squeeze extra profit margins -- while keeping prices the same or even raising them. People ate just fine even before the rise of corn syrup in the 70s. It's not like all these HFCS industry and invansion on the american diet "had to happen" because "the poor where starving". >People fear industrial farm products because they fear science, they are luddites, that's all there is to it. Some do. Not all, and there are people well versed in the science and actual processing of food (people working in food chemistry, food industry etc.) that can assure you that's not the only case. The belief described above -- that complaints against anything "scientific" come from luddites and people who fear -- is a pseudo-scientific ideology, where science is some pure ideal, and not a pragmatic, human driven endeavor. That kind of belief in this abstract "science" is no less magic and unicorny than believing that the government or the police are good guys always there for the good of society. (And usually serves as a substitute for religion). The worst thing is that it cannot separate "science" (which is mostly a method, that can also be followed imperfectly, and often has) with "technology" (which is the application of knowledge in building things, and can very well produce harmful stuff either by intention to cause harm, or by intention to cut margins).
dalek_cannes 11y ago
From guidelines: In Comments Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

scott_s 11y ago

Often, consuming local produce uses more carbon. Transportation is often a minor contributor to food production's carbon footprint (http://www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/Ch9_0923.pdf http://www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/Ch9_0923.pdf). We tend to get our food from places which can efficiently produce it. Even when factoring in transportation, it can still use less overall carbon than consuming less efficiently grown local food.

throwawayaway 11y ago

i think she is saying that irrespective of consumers reason for avoiding industrial produce - the author is challenging industrial producers to do better. casting a wide lens over consumers past and present, she uses her understanding of history to critique present day tastes as ahistorical and challenges consumers and producers alike to evaluate food on a case by case basis - rather than behaving a certain way because of assumptions that are just too general.

mef 11y ago
she
- throwawayaway 11y ago
  somehow the url had confused me - thanks for the correction - i've fixed the comment now.

lkbm 11y ago

> Or because the final product is so loaded with preservatives that its not as healthy as its fresh alternative. ... Sure, there might be some irrational people who don't like industrial farm products because they're industrial farm products. I think you just hit the nail on the head and then moved on without noticing. People want things to be "natural" because that's "healthy", but they aren't natural and natural doesn't mean healthy. In my experience, these people are very, very far from being a tiny, insignificant percentage Maybe you hang out with engineers instead of hippies, but I can assure you that there's no shortage of baseless anti-technology culinary Luddites. Try asking the average American (or European how they feel about GMO crops. Sure, scientists overwhelmingly say they're safe to eat, but the majority of Americans disagree[1], often very vehemently. (I will admit that my situation, is certainly biased towards over-estimating the number of "all-natural" proponents, but the data show it's not just the people I hang out with--it's pervasive.) [1] http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/chapter-3-attitudes-and-beliefs-on-science-and-technology-topics/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/chapter-3-attitudes-an...

coldtea 11y ago
>I think you just hit the nail on the head and then moved on without noticing. People want things to be "natural" because that's "healthy", but they aren't natural and natural doesn't mean healthy. Natural doesn't mean always healthy (there are poisonous plants for example), but it does mean chickens that are grassfed and not loaded with growth hormones for example...
kbenson 11y ago
I think this is exactly it. I'm always annoyed when I hear people talking about how healthy something is because it's natural, purely because it's natural. There are plenty of natural things that can outright kill you if you eat them, that doesn't make them any less natural. It's an excuse to not have to think critically about the problem. I'll be the first to admit I don't always eat very well, but doing something as extreme as some of the fad diets that have popped up is (in some cases) like deciding to walk everywhere myself because I'm concerned about some unsafe driving habits I have. There is a middle ground with positive aspects and less negative consequences, it just takes some thought and effort.