There's always chemicals in the food. That's what food is made of.
So not "when there's chemicals" (because the answer is always), but rather which chemicals, for example flour, salt, sugar, water, etc.
But practically speaking they don't - for example a mold release (oil) doesn't have to be disclosed. I don't like that law, but it is the law.
PS. If you are one of those who use "chemicals" as a shorthand for "dangerous chemicals" then ammonium hydroxide would not count because it's not a dangerous chemical.
He means artificial sweeteners, preservation chemicals, additives, etc.
Then say so (although additive is a meaningless word - don't say that).
Stuff people have not traditionally eaten for evolution-spanning years to be adapted to them, and are only used to maximize profit.
That's your definition. Other people don't define it that that way. I've heard definitions ranging from "dangerous" to "not natural", to "using the chemical name of something".
And your definition excludes sugar (sucrose) and corn (since they are both new), and includes sugar of lead (which has been eaten throughout history despite being toxic), so it's not a helpful definition.
What about Sodium acetate? How would you rank that? Chemical, or non chemical?
Plus if you are concerned about "maximizing profit" then don't eat wheat - modern dwarf wheat was invented to maximize profit. Then again everything people sell is done to maximize profit......
Your definition is useless and you know it. If you are concerned with a particular type of ingredient say so directly. I have great concern over preservatives and artificial food colors - but I don't call them "chemicals" since that means everything and anything.
And your definition excludes sugar (sucrose) and corn (since they are both new), and includes sugar of lead (which has been eaten throughout history despite being toxic), so it's not a helpful definition.
I'm pragmatic. I don't care about having a perfect definition. I'm not writing a dictionary entry -- and some things are inherently fussy anyway.
People know what I'm talking about: any kind of stuff added to food that doesn't belong to it in the first place (the way flour and salt belong in bread and beef belongs in meatballs).
Stuff that serves no nutritional value, and is only used to: give them more enticing color, preserve them for longer periods, have them be able to survive frozen, enable lower quality or throw-away animal parts reused, make them more addictive to consumers, make them cheaper, etc.
>Then again everything people sell is done to maximize profit......
In some kind of hell, maybe. In the real world there do exist people that take pride in their work, and who wouldn't fuck with the food they serve to "maximize profit", even if it means they wont get as much money as they could.
You know, the kind of people that refuse to let their famous restaurant turn into a nation-wide chain, despite the offers, cooks that insist on using the most fresh ingredients, etc.
Stuff that serves no nutritional value, and is only used to: give them more enticing color, preserve them for longer periods, have them be able to survive frozen, enable lower quality or throw-away animal parts reused, make them more addictive to consumers, make them cheaper, etc.
So...no salt, pretty much no sugar, no smoked meats or cheeses, no cured bacon or smallgoods, no pickles, no jams, jellies, or preserves, no applesauce? After all, those techniques are purely used to "preserve [the food] for longer periods prior to the advent of cheap, universal refrigeration. (And historically, there were no "throw-away" animal parts; we ate everything including the brain, eyes, and lungs. So I'm not really sure what point that's meant to make.)
Your "pragmatic definition" of food additives seems to be "stuff that seems weird to coldtea". That may be pragmatic, but it's not useful.
I am 'one of those' people who cares what he (and his kids) eat. I knew it wasn't all that great and fast food isn't really healthy. But I'd like to know about meat getting soaked in ammonium hydroxide to change it from 'not fit for humans' to 'fit for human consumption'.
It's not soaked - it's a small amount (and is perfectly safe). And he's wrong - it's doesn't make it "not fit for humans". The person in the article likes to massively exaggerate, and he has great power over the media, which he is not using responsibly.
Comments
There's always chemicals in the food. That's what food is made of.
So not "when there's chemicals" (because the answer is always), but rather which chemicals, for example flour, salt, sugar, water, etc.
But practically speaking they don't - for example a mold release (oil) doesn't have to be disclosed. I don't like that law, but it is the law.
PS. If you are one of those who use "chemicals" as a shorthand for "dangerous chemicals" then ammonium hydroxide would not count because it's not a dangerous chemical.
Not very useful pedantic correction. He doesn't mean flour, salt, sugar etc.
He means artificial sweeteners, preservation chemicals, additives, etc.
Stuff people have not traditionally eaten for evolution-spanning years to be adapted to them, and are only used to maximize profit.
Then say so (although additive is a meaningless word - don't say that).
That's your definition. Other people don't define it that that way. I've heard definitions ranging from "dangerous" to "not natural", to "using the chemical name of something".
And your definition excludes sugar (sucrose) and corn (since they are both new), and includes sugar of lead (which has been eaten throughout history despite being toxic), so it's not a helpful definition.
What about Sodium acetate? How would you rank that? Chemical, or non chemical?
Plus if you are concerned about "maximizing profit" then don't eat wheat - modern dwarf wheat was invented to maximize profit. Then again everything people sell is done to maximize profit......
Your definition is useless and you know it. If you are concerned with a particular type of ingredient say so directly. I have great concern over preservatives and artificial food colors - but I don't call them "chemicals" since that means everything and anything.
I'm pragmatic. I don't care about having a perfect definition. I'm not writing a dictionary entry -- and some things are inherently fussy anyway.
People know what I'm talking about: any kind of stuff added to food that doesn't belong to it in the first place (the way flour and salt belong in bread and beef belongs in meatballs).
Stuff that serves no nutritional value, and is only used to: give them more enticing color, preserve them for longer periods, have them be able to survive frozen, enable lower quality or throw-away animal parts reused, make them more addictive to consumers, make them cheaper, etc.
>Then again everything people sell is done to maximize profit......
In some kind of hell, maybe. In the real world there do exist people that take pride in their work, and who wouldn't fuck with the food they serve to "maximize profit", even if it means they wont get as much money as they could.
You know, the kind of people that refuse to let their famous restaurant turn into a nation-wide chain, despite the offers, cooks that insist on using the most fresh ingredients, etc.
So...no salt, pretty much no sugar, no smoked meats or cheeses, no cured bacon or smallgoods, no pickles, no jams, jellies, or preserves, no applesauce? After all, those techniques are purely used to "preserve [the food] for longer periods prior to the advent of cheap, universal refrigeration. (And historically, there were no "throw-away" animal parts; we ate everything including the brain, eyes, and lungs. So I'm not really sure what point that's meant to make.)
Your "pragmatic definition" of food additives seems to be "stuff that seems weird to coldtea". That may be pragmatic, but it's not useful.
I am 'one of those' people who cares what he (and his kids) eat. I knew it wasn't all that great and fast food isn't really healthy. But I'd like to know about meat getting soaked in ammonium hydroxide to change it from 'not fit for humans' to 'fit for human consumption'.
It's not soaked - it's a small amount (and is perfectly safe). And he's wrong - it's doesn't make it "not fit for humans". The person in the article likes to massively exaggerate, and he has great power over the media, which he is not using responsibly.