4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >It's an excuse to not have to think critically about the problem. The way those people mean "natural" refers to things that people have been eating for millenia, not merely any natural thing. They very well know that poisonous mushrooms and rocks are natural but not edible. "Natural" in the context of food has a more constrained meaning than the main dictionary definition of "appears in nature". It means edible food products without additives or artificial preservatives. So this thing about those people "talking about how healthy something is because it's natural, purely because it's natural" is a huge strawman.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > The way those people mean "natural" refers to things that people have been eating for millenia, not merely any natural thing. No, it doesn't always mean that. Until recently I've mostly heard it in the context of "minimal processing". The whole paleo diet thing is much more recent interpretation of "natural", or at least it's more recent to the public at large (IMO). > They very well know that poisonous mushrooms and rocks are natural but not edible. Of course they know that some natural things are dangerous and deadly, it's this exact cognitive dissonance that I'm describing, and this is the problem. Adherence to a rule that we all know to be false (even those proposing it), while ignoring the times the rule isn't followed because it makes no sense, doesn't lead to useful results, it leads to dissatisfaction. I don't see this as any different than the many previous hopelessly simplistic strategies for dealing with food. Fat is bad, caffeine is bad, alcohol is bad. Then, some fat is good, caffeine can had positive effects, alcohol in moderation helps. People strive for simple rules to help manage the complexity of their lives, and the multitude of choices we have. Unfortunately, simple rules rarely encapsulate a good strategy for a complex system, and we are very complex system, even just our dietary needs. Of all the places where (societally) we should accept, even encourage, some complexity and the required critical thinking is brings, I think our health is a good candidate.
jules 11y ago
That's right in most cases, but not in all cases. Compare modern, industrial bread with "artisanal" bread. The latter is in my opinion vastly superior. Not because it's healthier because it isn't, but because it tastes better and has better texture. Also some "old" vegetables like parsnip taste great. Or cucumber varieties that aren't as big but don't taste like water. So there are certainly reasons beyond natural health hype to like older food. And natural <-> healthly, unnatural <-> unhealthly isn't a bad rule of thumb.
maceo 11y ago
There's a a difference between being "anti-technology" and being cautious. Nassim Taleb's paper applying of the precautionary principle to the GMO debate is probably the most lucid piece on the matter. There's a reason that most of the US population views the anti-vaccine crowd as delusional, while at the same time being skeptical of GMO's. Vaccines have been used for over a hundred years and have a very clear payoff. GMO's, not so much. You're writing these people off as anti-technology. That's wrong. These people use all modern technology just like you do. The odd-balls are actually people like you (and most engineers), who are eager to embrace new technology without thinking through potential negative consequences. I'm not saying that GMO's are bad or should be banned. But I do believe that the pro-business American approach is dead wrong. Just as the American approach to weight loss and nutritional supplements (just put them on the market, no need to test), is wrong. I'd argue that your approach (the American, pro-business approach) shows disdain for the scientific method. It's the kind of policy vomited out of a Congress where only 2 out of the 535 representatives are scientists. In China on the other hand, where 8 of the 9 top government officials are trained scientists [1], they're very skeptical of GMO's and have only allowed them, I believe, for the papaya crop. But as the data continues to comes in, the Chinese government is showing signs of warming up to GMO's -- as they should. [1] http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/ http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-a...
- pron 11y ago
  You're treating "people" as isolated individuals, some may be more "cautious" than others. But what's happening here is probably no more and no less than social trends and attitudes. What you attribute to caution is an interesting shift in society's attitude to technology and industrialization that is far more complex than just well-reasoned caution. The rule is, whenever you see a lot of people behave in the same way, it's almost never due to some empirical, reasoned argument that they all arrive at, and almost always due to cultural influence (which may or may not be partly based on evidence).
MichaelGG 11y ago
SF is full of this. I've seen places proudly announce they're selling tea (green tea at that) with sugar, but "not that chemical stuff". They literally believe that eating sugar is better than sucralose or similar substitutes. When pressed, it's because "it's a chemical", "it's unnatural", or my favorite, "the FDA was corrupted into approving it". They claim all sorts of maladies, but aren't ever able to cite anything. They also ignore how not only the FDA, but every other food safety body, as far as Singapore, have also approved it. I cut out all aspartame and sucralose for a few months, and those people were shocked that I noticed no difference - so sure they were of evil chemicals hurting my, I dunno, being. I actually carry sucralose around in SF, as some restaurants won't have any zero glycemic index sweeteners. Sorta like MSG. Double blind trials of people that claim MSG sensitivity show no problems. Yet "No MSG" is touted all over and people swear it's real. To be really annoyed, read up on Golden Rice. Here's a rice mod that can literally save thousands of children annually, but anti "GMO" try to stop it because "we should just give all the kids supplements".
- EdwardDiego 11y ago
  > Yet "No MSG" is touted all over I try to avoid MSG to limit the amount of sodium in my diet, I get enough through salt already.
scruple 11y ago
This all reminds me of Vibram's and the minimalist running shoe movement. Runner's wanted things to be "natural" because it's "healthier." It sounds very novel. But we didn't respect the fact that we're running miles on blacktop and concrete surfaces.
Dewie3 11y ago
The kind of people who will complain that what they sell at the store has "chemicals" in them. That doesn't make them sound very informed.

by lkbm 11y ago

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.

coldtea 11y ago
>It's an excuse to not have to think critically about the problem. The way those people mean "natural" refers to things that people have been eating for millenia, not merely any natural thing. They very well know that poisonous mushrooms and rocks are natural but not edible. "Natural" in the context of food has a more constrained meaning than the main dictionary definition of "appears in nature". It means edible food products without additives or artificial preservatives. So this thing about those people "talking about how healthy something is because it's natural, purely because it's natural" is a huge strawman.
- kbenson 11y ago
  > The way those people mean "natural" refers to things that people have been eating for millenia, not merely any natural thing. No, it doesn't always mean that. Until recently I've mostly heard it in the context of "minimal processing". The whole paleo diet thing is much more recent interpretation of "natural", or at least it's more recent to the public at large (IMO). > They very well know that poisonous mushrooms and rocks are natural but not edible. Of course they know that some natural things are dangerous and deadly, it's this exact cognitive dissonance that I'm describing, and this is the problem. Adherence to a rule that we all know to be false (even those proposing it), while ignoring the times the rule isn't followed because it makes no sense, doesn't lead to useful results, it leads to dissatisfaction. I don't see this as any different than the many previous hopelessly simplistic strategies for dealing with food. Fat is bad, caffeine is bad, alcohol is bad. Then, some fat is good, caffeine can had positive effects, alcohol in moderation helps. People strive for simple rules to help manage the complexity of their lives, and the multitude of choices we have. Unfortunately, simple rules rarely encapsulate a good strategy for a complex system, and we are very complex system, even just our dietary needs. Of all the places where (societally) we should accept, even encourage, some complexity and the required critical thinking is brings, I think our health is a good candidate.

jules 11y ago

That's right in most cases, but not in all cases. Compare modern, industrial bread with "artisanal" bread. The latter is in my opinion vastly superior. Not because it's healthier because it isn't, but because it tastes better and has better texture. Also some "old" vegetables like parsnip taste great. Or cucumber varieties that aren't as big but don't taste like water. So there are certainly reasons beyond natural health hype to like older food. And natural <-> healthly, unnatural <-> unhealthly isn't a bad rule of thumb.

maceo 11y ago

There's a a difference between being "anti-technology" and being cautious. Nassim Taleb's paper applying of the precautionary principle to the GMO debate is probably the most lucid piece on the matter. There's a reason that most of the US population views the anti-vaccine crowd as delusional, while at the same time being skeptical of GMO's. Vaccines have been used for over a hundred years and have a very clear payoff. GMO's, not so much. You're writing these people off as anti-technology. That's wrong. These people use all modern technology just like you do. The odd-balls are actually people like you (and most engineers), who are eager to embrace new technology without thinking through potential negative consequences. I'm not saying that GMO's are bad or should be banned. But I do believe that the pro-business American approach is dead wrong. Just as the American approach to weight loss and nutritional supplements (just put them on the market, no need to test), is wrong. I'd argue that your approach (the American, pro-business approach) shows disdain for the scientific method. It's the kind of policy vomited out of a Congress where only 2 out of the 535 representatives are scientists. In China on the other hand, where 8 of the 9 top government officials are trained scientists [1], they're very skeptical of GMO's and have only allowed them, I believe, for the papaya crop. But as the data continues to comes in, the Chinese government is showing signs of warming up to GMO's -- as they should. [1] http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-americans-elect-scientists/ http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/why-dont-a...

pron 11y ago
You're treating "people" as isolated individuals, some may be more "cautious" than others. But what's happening here is probably no more and no less than social trends and attitudes. What you attribute to caution is an interesting shift in society's attitude to technology and industrialization that is far more complex than just well-reasoned caution. The rule is, whenever you see a lot of people behave in the same way, it's almost never due to some empirical, reasoned argument that they all arrive at, and almost always due to cultural influence (which may or may not be partly based on evidence).

MichaelGG 11y ago

SF is full of this. I've seen places proudly announce they're selling tea (green tea at that) with sugar, but "not that chemical stuff". They literally believe that eating sugar is better than sucralose or similar substitutes. When pressed, it's because "it's a chemical", "it's unnatural", or my favorite, "the FDA was corrupted into approving it". They claim all sorts of maladies, but aren't ever able to cite anything. They also ignore how not only the FDA, but every other food safety body, as far as Singapore, have also approved it. I cut out all aspartame and sucralose for a few months, and those people were shocked that I noticed no difference - so sure they were of evil chemicals hurting my, I dunno, being. I actually carry sucralose around in SF, as some restaurants won't have any zero glycemic index sweeteners. Sorta like MSG. Double blind trials of people that claim MSG sensitivity show no problems. Yet "No MSG" is touted all over and people swear it's real. To be really annoyed, read up on Golden Rice. Here's a rice mod that can literally save thousands of children annually, but anti "GMO" try to stop it because "we should just give all the kids supplements".

EdwardDiego 11y ago
> Yet "No MSG" is touted all over I try to avoid MSG to limit the amount of sodium in my diet, I get enough through salt already.

scruple 11y ago

This all reminds me of Vibram's and the minimalist running shoe movement. Runner's wanted things to be "natural" because it's "healthier." It sounds very novel. But we didn't respect the fact that we're running miles on blacktop and concrete surfaces.

Dewie3 11y ago

The kind of people who will complain that what they sell at the store has "chemicals" in them. That doesn't make them sound very informed.