The Clean Eating Delusion...
Replies
-
I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.0 -
-
I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Now this I like.
0 -
I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
What an intelligent argument this "meme" makes with using foreign language to make their point. That's sarcasm if you couldn't tell. Each and every one is pronounceable if the reader is familiar with the language. Kudos for posting something that the average non- French, Italian, Spanish, (Asian language as I'm unsure) speaker wouldn't know.
0 -
I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Well said.
In addition to the ethical problem I have with animals spending most of their lives on factory farms/CAFOs, it's just not healthy for the animals. I'm willing to spend more money for meat from animals not treated like this. To mitigate this, I mostly eat chicken and don't eat red meat very often.
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/
...Perhaps the most serious thing that can go wrong with a ruminant on corn is feedlot bloat. The rumen is always producing copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime that can trap gas forms in the rumen. The rumen inflates like a balloon, pressing against the animal’s lungs. Unless action is promptly taken to relieve the pressure (usually by forcing a hose down the animal’s esophagus), the cow suffocates.
A corn diet can also give a cow acidosis. Unlike that in our own highly acidic stomachs, the normal pH of a rumen is neutral. Corn makes it unnaturally acidic, however, causing a kind of bovine heartburn, which in some cases can kill the animal but usually just makes it sick. Acidotic animals go off their feed, pant and salivate excessively, paw at their bellies and eat dirt. The condition can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, liver disease and a general weakening of the immune system that leaves the animal vulnerable to everything from pneumonia to feedlot polio.
Cows rarely live on feedlot diets for more than six months, which might be about as much as their digestive systems can tolerate. “I don’t know how long you could feed this ration before you’d see problems,” Metzen said; another vet said that a sustained feedlot diet would eventually “blow out their livers” and kill them. As the acids eat away at the rumen wall, bacteria enter the bloodstream and collect in the liver. More than 13 percent of feedlot cattle are found at slaughter to have abscessed livers.
What keeps a feedlot animal healthy—or healthy enough—are antibiotics. Rumensin inhibits gas production in the rumen, helping to prevent bloat; tylosin reduces the incidence of liver infection. Most of the antibiotics sold in America end up in animal feed—a practice that, it is now generally acknowledged, leads directly to the evolution of new antibiotic-resistant “superbugs.” In the debate over the use of antibiotics in agriculture, a distinction is usually made between clinical and nonclinical uses. Public-health advocates don’t object to treating sick animals with antibiotics; they just don’t want to see the drugs lose their efficacy because factory farms are feeding them to healthy animals to promote growth. But the use of antibiotics in feedlot cattle confounds this distinction. Here the drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn’t be sick if not for what we feed them.
I asked Metzen what would happen if antibiotics were banned from cattle feed. “We just couldn’t feed them as hard,” he said. “Or we’d have a higher death loss.” (Less than 3 percent of cattle die on the feedlot.) The price of beef would rise, he said, since the whole system would have to slow down.
“Hell, if you gave them lots of grass and space,” he concluded dryly, “I wouldn’t have a job.”0 -
AshleyC1023 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
What an intelligent argument this "meme" makes with using foreign language to make their point. That's sarcasm if you couldn't tell. Each and every one is pronounceable if the reader is familiar with the language. Kudos for posting something that the average non- French, Italian, Spanish, (Asian language as I'm unsure) speaker wouldn't know.
And each and every one of the "unpronouncable" ingredients is pronouncable if the reader is familiar with chemistry at a high school level.0 -
I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...0 -
I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
The problem is you're equating less ingredients with higher quality.
And by the way as you probably know but I'm going to mention it anyway. We'be been manipulating food for millennia to make it taste better and prettier through selective breeding and to make its shelf life longer through preservatives. An evil chemical. It's found in rocks mostly. We literally mine for it like it's coal or something, then put it in our food to make it last longer and taste better. It even has a hard to pronounce name, sodium chloride. Salt.0 -
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/
...The economic logic behind the feedlot system is hard to refute. And yet so is the ecological logic behind a ruminant grazing on grass. Think what would happen if we restored a portion of the Corn Belt to the tall grass prairie it once was and grazed cattle on it. No more petrochemical fertilizer, no more herbicide, no more nitrogen runoff. Yes, beef would probably be more expensive than it is now, but would that necessarily be a bad thing? Eating beef every day might not be such a smart idea anyway—for our health, for the environment. And how cheap, really, is cheap feedlot beef? Not cheap at all, when you add in the invisible costs: of antibiotic resistance, environmental degradation, heart disease, E. coli poisoning, corn subsidies, imported oil and so on. All these are costs that grass-fed beef does not incur.
...Meat-eating may have become an act riddled with moral and ethical ambiguities, but eating a steak at the end of a short, primordial food chain comprising nothing more than ruminants and grass and light is something I’m happy to do and defend. We are what we eat, it is often said, but of course that’s only part of the story. We are what what we eat eats too.0 -
I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Um, no. That's not what that says at all. I did not mention overeating.0 -
I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
in the final analysis one is not better than the other....0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
The problem is you're equating less ingredients with higher quality.
And by the way as you probably know but I'm going to mention it anyway. We'be been manipulating food for millennia to make it taste better and prettier through selective breeding and to make its shelf life longer through preservatives. An evil chemical. It's found in rocks mostly. We literally mine for it like it's coal or something, then put it in our food to make it last longer and taste better. It even has a hard to pronounce name, sodium chloride. Salt.
I agree, mankind has always sought to prolong the life of their food, survival often depended upon it. I just don't need a lot of Red Dye No. 2, Sodium benzoate, Sodium nitrite, etc. in my food, I don't care if my food isn't bursting with amazing colors, and I can refrigerate or freeze food after a few days, I don't need a snack that can be placed in a time capsule for 100 years and then removed and enjoyed by my ancestors.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/
...The economic logic behind the feedlot system is hard to refute. And yet so is the ecological logic behind a ruminant grazing on grass. Think what would happen if we restored a portion of the Corn Belt to the tall grass prairie it once was and grazed cattle on it. No more petrochemical fertilizer, no more herbicide, no more nitrogen runoff. Yes, beef would probably be more expensive than it is now, but would that necessarily be a bad thing? Eating beef every day might not be such a smart idea anyway—for our health, for the environment. And how cheap, really, is cheap feedlot beef? Not cheap at all, when you add in the invisible costs: of antibiotic resistance, environmental degradation, heart disease, E. coli poisoning, corn subsidies, imported oil and so on. All these are costs that grass-fed beef does not incur.
...Meat-eating may have become an act riddled with moral and ethical ambiguities, but eating a steak at the end of a short, primordial food chain comprising nothing more than ruminants and grass and light is something I’m happy to do and defend. We are what we eat, it is often said, but of course that’s only part of the story. We are what what we eat eats too.
Pollan's sentiments are quaint and may be feasible if we all still lived in small villages with local ranchers, lots of open land and a limited population to feed. The problem is, we're too overpopulated and overbuilt for that model to be practical.0 -
I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
And the point you're missing is that while it's ok for you to have that preference, that's all it is, a preference.
It is not necessary for healthy eating. The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.0 -
I don't know which I love more...OP's post or his avi.0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
you can manipulate context to make nearly any food "good" or "bad".0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
you can manipulate context to make nearly any food "good" or "bad".
Is that a random thought, or is that what you were attempting to say originally?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/
...The economic logic behind the feedlot system is hard to refute. And yet so is the ecological logic behind a ruminant grazing on grass. Think what would happen if we restored a portion of the Corn Belt to the tall grass prairie it once was and grazed cattle on it. No more petrochemical fertilizer, no more herbicide, no more nitrogen runoff. Yes, beef would probably be more expensive than it is now, but would that necessarily be a bad thing? Eating beef every day might not be such a smart idea anyway—for our health, for the environment. And how cheap, really, is cheap feedlot beef? Not cheap at all, when you add in the invisible costs: of antibiotic resistance, environmental degradation, heart disease, E. coli poisoning, corn subsidies, imported oil and so on. All these are costs that grass-fed beef does not incur.
...Meat-eating may have become an act riddled with moral and ethical ambiguities, but eating a steak at the end of a short, primordial food chain comprising nothing more than ruminants and grass and light is something I’m happy to do and defend. We are what we eat, it is often said, but of course that’s only part of the story. We are what what we eat eats too.
Pollan's sentiments are quaint and may be feasible if we all still lived in small villages with local ranchers, lots of open land and a limited population to feed. The problem is, we're too overpopulated and overbuilt for that model to be practical.
I agree that the world would have to eat less red meat for grazing cattle to work.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.0 -
I do not eat organic or gluten-free unless it actually saves me money which in most cases it does not. I think the science showing organic to be superior to GMO foods is dubious and has a long way to go to make their case. Sadly, the masses have bought it as established fact. This is just not the case. Save yourselves some money and buy some GMO food. Your wallet will thank you and your body won't know the difference.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
In proper context and dosage, they're not. But that's another 60 page thread.
But no, that's not what I meant. What I meant is that an organic tomato is no better for me than a "non-organic" tomato.
Organic or "clean" or non-GMO doesn't make it a better food. It only makes it a food that fits one's preference0 -
I do not eat organic or gluten-free unless it actually saves me money which in most cases it does not. I think the science showing organic to be superior to GMO foods is dubious and has a long way to go to make their case. Sadly, the masses have bought it as established fact. This is just not the case. Save yourselves some money and buy some GMO food. Your wallet will thank you and your body won't know the difference.
Agreed. I just eat mostly from non-organic meat, eggs and produce with some frozen things. I'm doing fine and I save money as best I can. No need to eat gluten-free treats when everything you eat is a gluten-free treat.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think that the "anti-clean eating" people miss the basic point when analyzing people who are looking for less processed food. I simply would rather eat a piece of bread with 5-6 basic ingredients than some processed piece of bread (like Subway, for example), with 30+ ingredients that make the bread look, feel, and taste like the 5-6 ingredient bread but also have a very long shelf life. If I can eat a burger from a cow that just wandered around eating grass it's whole life, I would prefer that over one that stood in a cage for a year and was injected with steroid and anti-biotics.
I'm not radical about it, I eat fast food and processed crap, because I just don't have time to be some naturalist that is existing out in the wild in a loincloth living off of the roots and weeds that I come across - I'm simply speaking of aspiring to eat higher quality food that are not substantially manipulated simply to make it more profitable for some corporation by increasing it's shelf life or making it look prettier.
Which is fine and something that I find myself doing, but when people say the "non-clean" food is causing people to be obese, or all "non-clean" food is unhealthy--that is untrue. Promoting that falsehood is detrimental to public health.
Especially for the people aren't able to afford the organic/grassfed/non-gmo stuff. In my opinion, it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false, but some still might think that and never even try because they think it's impossible...
LOL You believe people overeat because they can't afford to eat clean? How would that make sense?
Did you miss this part or just blatantly ignore it in order to twist the argument?it gives the falsehood that if you can't afford that stuff, you can't be healthy or lose weight, which is completely false0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
I have no doubt that some do. But I also think it's complete lunacy to assume that everyone that chooses to eat less additives in their food does so because they believe they are "bad" or "evil" or that all chemicals are bad/evil. That simply is not true.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The foods not deemed "clean" are not bad for you and those that are "clean" are no better for you.
What do you mean by this? It sounds like you are saying that no foods are better for us than others.
I believe he's referring to the perception that eating "clean" is inherently healthier for an individual than eating food which doesn't meet the arbitrary definitions.
The fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what make the OP so ridiculous.
And I think the fact that the definition is so arbitrary is what makes the article in the OP so spot on. "Clean" is a marketing term that preys on the average person's chemphobia. By convincing people that chemicals are "bad" and other things are "clean" ergo "good"; fear based marketers have been able to create a hypocrisy based, highly profitable industry which surpasses food and extends into other consumer products.
Saw this Forbes article last week which includes some interesting insights about the prevalence of the approach.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-marketers-use-fear-of-chemicals-3-steps/#2715e4857a0b790853616804
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions