Lies of food.

questionablemethods

My sweetie has already been worried that I'm about to stop shaving and go whole hog hippie on him, and damned if I might not start today after reading this article. Yes, I knew that they stored juice in vats for ages and the cellulose doesn't surpise me, but I've been having a hard time buying meat lately and that was just because of the salt solution they inject it all with. After reading the ammonia thing I may just have to get a second job so I can buy my meat at Whole Paycheck. But I'm still going to shave, thank God.

I don't know what is available in your area, but farmer's markets are usually less expensive places to find meat than Whole Foods. Or, go in with a few families to buy a cow. The prices end up being pretty reasonable (of course, you have to have a place to store all the meat -- but if you split it with enough people, it is doable even without a chest freezer).

ninerbuff

I agree that not everyone who eats a bunch of processed food is overweight or sick or that everyone who is overweight or sick is that way because they eat a lot of processed food. I am saying that, from a broad perspective, you cannot argue that our food system has shifted dramatically over the past century (and yeah, the late 60s/70s was when a lot of the shift began--not arguing with you there). And, along with that shift, our waistlines and our health.

Yeah, we are definitely eating more calories today than we were a century ago. Have we suddenly just gotten hungrier? Or is it that cheap, addictive, highly-palatable calories lacking in micronutrients are easier to come by?

I don't think that wood pulp or ammonia in and of itself is highly palatable. That's not what I am saying. I just think these are symptoms of a terribly broken food system and, by consequence, a very unhealthy population.

At the same time technology has gotten better, physical fitness education has declined, nutrition classes are not offered anymore, kids can opt out of PE, people watch more television now than in the 70's, portions are HUGE at everywhere you eat or take out, people work WAY longer hours than before, etc. There's lots that you can correlate to why we have so many fat people out there more now than before.
But think about it...............in countries over seas, the same processed foods are eaten and offered yet many of those countries don't suffer from being overweight. I was in the Philippines this year and ate no different than when I was here. Same Spam, bacon, eggs, steak, canned food items. etc. Lots of HFC's in their products, lots of sodium, lots of fat. Yet the people as a whole are well within weight range.
Had to explain why this happens here and not everywhere else when the same products are available.

ninerbuff

Actually the food additives are different...............

There wasn't sugar and trans fats in everything. Packaged things were made with real sugar and coconut or palm oil until the corn and canola agencies ran them out of the country and everything got switched over to high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated oils.

Bread and other packaged items went stale and molded. Milk soured and curdled.....................Things don't go bad for a long time now days...............

I was talking to my friend about this and she grew up on that packaged stuff and she said she is trying to not let her kids have that stuff because it is NOT the same as it was in the 70's and it dang sure is not the same as it was 100 years ago.

I am pretty sure these food scientists that boast about their contributions were not alive 100 years ago.

Again, if it were as bad as everyone believes, then other countries that have access to the same processed foods should be suffering the same dilema that we have. You don't honestly believe that the processed foods we have here aren't shipped to other countries?

questionablemethods

But think about it...............in countries over seas, the same processed foods are eaten and offered yet many of those countries don't suffer from being overweight. I was in the Philippines this year and ate no different than when I was here. Same Spam, bacon, eggs, steak, canned food items. etc. Lots of HFC's in their products, lots of sodium, lots of fat.
Had to explain why this happens here and not everywhere else when the same products are available.

They are on their way to having the same problem. Everyone always thinks of the "French paradox" when they talk about how much rich food the French eat but yet they stay so thin. Well, yeah, they used to eat rich food--but it was REAL food. A lot of them still do. Tour de France not withstanding, the average French person does not live and die by their gym appointments. In fact, in the two years that I lived there, I don't know that I *saw* a gym in the sense that we have them here. They walk more than we do, but that's about the only difference I saw. Most Americans I know have spent far more time consciously exercising than any of my French friends.

However, their food system has gotten more and more industrialized over the past couple decades too -- and they are getting heavier right along with it. I saw it on the news all the time while I lived there and a Weight Watchers chapter opened up in the small town where I was teaching.

The reason these other countries that have adopted a lot of our diet aren't as bad off as we are is because we are "innovators" here in the US. We are leading the way and they are "behind" us.

There is the adage that weight loss is about 80% diet and 20% exercise. Or, in the bodybuilding world, they will say "abs are made in the kitchen." So, why then does it not make sense to shift the majority of the burden of our national obesity problems to our national food supply?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that video games and long work commutes don't have anything to do with it, but we are not eating good, wholesome food like our grandparents did. I don't care about comparisons with how things were in the 1970s. Like I said, that was the beginning of a lot of this. How does our food system now compare with that of 1900?

ninerbuff

They are on their way to having the same problem. Everyone always thinks of the "French paradox" when they talk about how much rich food the French eat but yet they stay so thin. Well, yeah, they used to eat rich food--but it was REAL food. A lot of them still do. Tour de France not withstanding, the average French person does not live and die by their gym appointments. In fact, in the two years that I lived there, I don't know that I *saw* a gym in the sense that we have them here. They walk more than we do, but that's about the only difference I saw. Most Americans I know have spent far more time consciously exercising than any of my French friends.

However, their food system has gotten more and more industrialized over the past couple decades too -- and they are getting heavier right along with it. I saw it on the news all the time while I lived there and a Weight Watchers chapter opened up in the small town where I was teaching.

There is the adage that weight loss is about 80% diet and 20% exercise. Or, in the bodybuilding world, they will say "abs are made in the kitchen." So, why then does it not make sense to shift the majority of the burden of our national obesity problems to our national food supply?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that video games and long work commutes don't have anything to do with it, but we are not eating good, wholesome food like our grandparents did. I don't care about comparisons with how things were in the 1970s. Like I said, that was the beginning of a lot of this. How does our food system now compare with that of 1900?

I will say it's because if it shifted that direction than it will become unaffordable for many families. While health should be the NUMBER 1 desire of any individual, it's not. We see that today without having to do a study.
To shift to it, more foods would have to be shipped daily, meaning more workers and hours, meaning more trucks on the road, meaning more pollution, meaning that there would be a lot of waste because foods may ripen or go bad faster, meaning that even supermarkets would have to change work schedules. All this would definitely increase the cost of food. Organic alone costs more in most cases, and to shift that to a more industrialized harvesting, growing, etc. will increase the cost immensely. Will that decrease the overweight population? I doubt it because eating habits would have to change too.
It may not seem right, but people will take processed foods for cost over more healthful alternatives. You see that today. I'm saying take what we have now, and just do what you can physically to not let it make you overweight.

questionablemethods

I'm saying take what we have now, and just do what you can physically to not let it make you overweight.

Sounds a lot like "sit down and shut up." I still believe we vote with our dollars. Decide what is important to you and spend the money you have in a way that reflects your values. Up until getting married last year, I've lived the last decade on ~$12-18K/year (while not going into debt and contributing to a Roth IRA). Real food is important to me. You do what is important to you.

I like how this guy (Joel Salatin) addresses the issue: https://player.vimeo.com/video/28017707

questionablemethods

To shift to it, more foods would have to be shipped daily, meaning more workers and hours, meaning more trucks on the road, meaning more pollution, meaning that there would be a lot of waste because foods may ripen or go bad faster, meaning that even supermarkets would have to change work schedules.

Also, I don't quite see the logic that trying to move back to a more local food supply system would result in more food being shipped and more trucks on the road, etc.

In light of this discussion, I thought I would re-watch the documentary Food, Inc. in the background. The movie provided an interesting statistic about the typical chicken producer for companies like Tyson.

A typical grower with two chicken houses has borrowed over $500,000 (for the system that the larger company requires them to have, etc.) and earns about $18,000 a year.

Our system doesn't really seem to be benefiting the average farmer/grower, either.

Grokette

Actually the food additives are different...............

There wasn't sugar and trans fats in everything. Packaged things were made with real sugar and coconut or palm oil until the corn and canola agencies ran them out of the country and everything got switched over to high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated oils.

Bread and other packaged items went stale and molded. Milk soured and curdled.....................Things don't go bad for a long time now days...............

I was talking to my friend about this and she grew up on that packaged stuff and she said she is trying to not let her kids have that stuff because it is NOT the same as it was in the 70's and it dang sure is not the same as it was 100 years ago.

I am pretty sure these food scientists that boast about their contributions were not alive 100 years ago.

Again, if it were as bad as everyone believes, then other countries that have access to the same processed foods should be suffering the same dilema that we have. You don't honestly believe that the processed foods we have here aren't shipped to other countries?

According to the WHO many, many other countries are suffering from the same dilemma we are. There are countries that are seeing diseases that were known only as "Western diseases"............obesity, Diabetes, cancer, etc.

It is just the United States is leading the way.

Grokette

To shift to it, more foods would have to be shipped daily, meaning more workers and hours, meaning more trucks on the road, meaning more pollution, meaning that there would be a lot of waste because foods may ripen or go bad faster, meaning that even supermarkets would have to change work schedules.

Also, I don't quite see the logic that trying to move back to a more local food supply system would result in more food being shipped and more trucks on the road, etc.

In light of this discussion, I thought I would re-watch the documentary Food, Inc. in the background. The movie provided an interesting statistic about the typical chicken producer for companies like Tyson.

A typical grower with two chicken houses has borrowed over $500,000 (for the system that the larger company requires them to have, etc.) and earns about $18,000 a year.

Our system doesn't really seem to be benefiting the average farmer/grower, either.

Amen. I feel sorry for the average farmer. It is like slavery or rather indentured servitude................These companies are FORCING the farmer to build these building in a certain way and have complete control over the birds and the farmer, their building, etc. The farmers don't make anything and are constantly being told what to do.

And don't get me started on the innocent farmers that are cultivating their own seed blends and don't want to conform to the ALL MIGHTY Monsanto and Monsanto sends out their "investigators" to pillage in this innocent farmers field and low and behold the poor farmer gets slapped with a gigantic law suit for patent infringement.

Which we all know that the cross pollination is happening naturally through the wind blowing or animals and birds carrying the pollen from one field to another.


This is agricultural RAPE that you are buying into when you purchase processed foods.

kleverkira

Wow. Fortunately, I don't eat a lot of that stuff anyway, or at least not very frequently. It's a little frightening what the food industry will do to turn a profit.

ninerbuff

Sounds a lot like "sit down and shut up." I still believe we vote with our dollars. Decide what is important to you and spend the money you have in a way that reflects your values. Up until getting married last year, I've lived the last decade on ~$12-18K/year (while not going into debt and contributing to a Roth IRA). Real food is important to me. You do what is important to you.

I like how this guy (Joel Salatin) addresses the issue: https://player.vimeo.com/video/28017707

If you believe that, then you have to believe that many people don't care about their health. I find that to be true and while I'll agree with some of what you say, I don't think it's economically sound to switch. Many families who barely make it now and can only spend for inexpensive food would find themselves starving or needing government assistance if food that's unprocessed costs more than what they would spend for some processed of less cost.
You have access to "real" food, so I don't see what the big complaint is about if it's not affecting you.

ninerbuff

Also, I don't quite see the logic that trying to move back to a more local food supply system would result in more food being shipped and more trucks on the road, etc.

In light of this discussion, I thought I would re-watch the documentary Food, Inc. in the background. The movie provided an interesting statistic about the typical chicken producer for companies like Tyson.

If shorter shelf life is apparent, then more shipping has to be done. More shipping means more trucks.

A typical grower with two chicken houses has borrowed over $500,000 (for the system that the larger company requires them to have, etc.) and earns about $18,000 a year.

Our system doesn't really seem to be benefiting the average farmer/grower, either.

So could you imagine farmers having to upgrade and/or borrowing money to accommodate a higher volume of output?

ninerbuff

According to the WHO many, many other countries are suffering from the same dilemma we are. There are countries that are seeing diseases that were known only as "Western diseases"............obesity, Diabetes, cancer, etc.

It is just the United States is leading the way.

But it states that the Western diseases are attributed to weight gain from energy dense foods. Again, it's more attributed to the weight of people than the chemicals that are in the food.

The growing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some cancers is tied to excess weight. The burden of these diseases is particularly high in the middle-income countries of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia, where obesity is the fifth-most-common cause of the disease burden — ranking just below underweight. The high risk of both diabetes and cardiovascular disease associated with obesity in Asians may be due to a predisposition to abdominal obesity, which can lead to the metabolic syndrome and impaired glucose tolerance.

The increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is closely linked to the upsurge in obesity. About 90% of type 2 diabetes is attributable to excess weight. Furthermore, approximately 197 million people worldwide have impaired glucose tolerance, most commonly because of obesity and the associated metabolic syndrome. This number is expected to increase to 420 million by 2025.

Population-based surveys of 75 communities in 32 countries show that diabetes is rare in communities in developing countries where a traditional lifestyle has been preserved. By contrast, some Arab, migrant Asian Indian, Chinese, and U.S. Hispanic communities that have undergone westernization and urbanization are at higher risk; in these populations, the prevalence of diabetes ranges from 14 to 20%. In addition, most of the population growth in the developing world is taking place in urban areas.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp068177

The world health report 2006: working together for health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2006.

ninerbuff

Amen. I feel sorry for the average farmer. It is like slavery or rather indentured servitude................These companies are FORCING the farmer to build these building in a certain way and have complete control over the birds and the farmer, their building, etc. The farmers don't make anything and are constantly being told what to do.

And don't get me started on the innocent farmers that are cultivating their own seed blends and don't want to conform to the ALL MIGHTY Monsanto and Monsanto sends out their "investigators" to pillage in this innocent farmers field and low and behold the poor farmer gets slapped with a gigantic law suit for patent infringement.

Which we all know that the cross pollination is happening naturally through the wind blowing or animals and birds carrying the pollen from one field to another.


This is agricultural RAPE that you are buying into when you purchase processed foods.

While I don't disagree, it's not me you have to convince. Go to congress or your congress man and get it changed. People today aren't doing it because their care isn't about health. Till then, like I said take what we have an make it work.

questionablemethods

Sounds a lot like "sit down and shut up." I still believe we vote with our dollars. Decide what is important to you and spend the money you have in a way that reflects your values. Up until getting married last year, I've lived the last decade on ~$12-18K/year (while not going into debt and contributing to a Roth IRA). Real food is important to me. You do what is important to you.

I like how this guy (Joel Salatin) addresses the issue: https://player.vimeo.com/video/28017707

If you believe that, then you have to believe that many people don't care about their health. I find that to be true and while I'll agree with some of what you say, I don't think it's economically sound to switch. Many families who barely make it now and can only spend for inexpensive food would find themselves starving or needing government assistance if food that's unprocessed costs more than what they would spend for some processed of less cost.
You have access to "real" food, so I don't see what the big complaint is about if it's not affecting you.

I do believe that a lot of people don't care about their health and/or they don't believe their health is greatly impacted by food quality (and maybe for some who hit the genetic lottery, it isn't) and/or they are unaware of a lot of the realities of how most of the food in the grocery stores gets there.

I am not complaining. I jumped on this thread because I saw others saying "ewww" and "time to join a commune" and I was there to cheer them on and say "yeah, if this grosses you out and you want to have real food, then do it and when more people spend their money doing it, it will be easier to come by."

And yes, many families are living on the edge and can't afford to switch. That is unfortunate. Luckily, a lot of farmer's markets are starting to take food stamps and WIC. It is, however, very feasible for a great many people to find and buy actual food *if* they care about it.

Go to congress or your congress man and get it changed. People today aren't doing it because their care isn't about health. Till then, like I said take what we have an make it work.

I don't think that government intervention is the answer. I think education (which this thread is about) and money is the answer. Educate yourself (talking generally here) on where your food is coming from and, if you don't like what you see, don't buy it. I can't recommend the book The Omnivore's Dilemma or the documentary Food, Inc. highly enough. I know that Food, Inc. is available on Amazon streaming and I believe it is also on Netflix streaming.

ninerbuff

I don't think that government intervention is the answer. I think education (which this thread is about) and money is the answer. Educate yourself (talking generally here) on where your food is coming from and, if you don't like what you see, don't buy it. I can't recommend the book The Omnivore's Dilemma or the documentary Food, Inc. highly enough. I know that Food, Inc. is available on Amazon streaming and I believe it is also on Netflix streaming.

Documentaries are neat to watch, but even having the education doesn't change habits. There are lots of good documentaries on how chickens, cows, and pigs are raised for food and how they are abused, but for the amount of people that have seen it, how many have stopped eating meat or stopped buying from an abusive producer? For change to happen, the majority would have to all feel the same way.

questionablemethods

I don't think that government intervention is the answer. I think education (which this thread is about) and money is the answer. Educate yourself (talking generally here) on where your food is coming from and, if you don't like what you see, don't buy it. I can't recommend the book The Omnivore's Dilemma or the documentary Food, Inc. highly enough. I know that Food, Inc. is available on Amazon streaming and I believe it is also on Netflix streaming.

Documentaries are neat to watch, but even having the education doesn't change habits. There are lots of good documentaries on how chickens, cows, and pigs are raised for food and how they are abused, but for the amount of people that have seen it, how many have stopped eating meat or stopped buying from an abusive producer? For change to happen, the majority would have to all feel the same way.

Well then I guess I'll throw my hands up and give up. Clearly the government and industrial food suppliers know what's best for me so I'll just let them think for me and never try to encourage others to investigate things that they might be interested in learning more about. </sarcasm>

I guess I am more of an optimist. I'm not trying to mandate watching the movie or force it Clockwork Orange style on anyone. And that's why I also don't think more government regulation is the answer. Reading books and watching documentaries is how I have educated myself. It is how I have changed my habits. Isn't education the way most everyone here has changed their habits, be it just reducing calories or altering food quality? I thought this site was primarily aimed at people wanting to get healthier. Maybe some just want to be bikini fit, but I think a lot of people are continually trying to improve themselves in all kinds of ways. I certainly don't have the answer. I am still learning myself. It's not like I saw one movie and everything changed overnight. Books and documentaries can make people think and question things and I, for one, think that is always a good thing.

Grokette

Amen. I feel sorry for the average farmer. It is like slavery or rather indentured servitude................These companies are FORCING the farmer to build these building in a certain way and have complete control over the birds and the farmer, their building, etc. The farmers don't make anything and are constantly being told what to do.

And don't get me started on the innocent farmers that are cultivating their own seed blends and don't want to conform to the ALL MIGHTY Monsanto and Monsanto sends out their "investigators" to pillage in this innocent farmers field and low and behold the poor farmer gets slapped with a gigantic law suit for patent infringement.

Which we all know that the cross pollination is happening naturally through the wind blowing or animals and birds carrying the pollen from one field to another.


This is agricultural RAPE that you are buying into when you purchase processed foods.

While I don't disagree, it's not me you have to convince. Go to congress or your congress man and get it changed. People today aren't doing it because their care isn't about health. Till then, like I said take what we have an make it work.

I am going to Congress, The Senate and I have emailed the White House, Monsanto, Cargill, USDA and FDA. I am only one person though.

For change to occur we have to have more than a hand full of people speaking out. This is where voting with our $$$ comes into play.

There are countries in this world that are far more poor than some of our poorest people and yet Americans spend way less on food than any other country in the world.

Yeah, that shows that people are concerned for their health.

Grokette

I don't think that government intervention is the answer. I think education (which this thread is about) and money is the answer. Educate yourself (talking generally here) on where your food is coming from and, if you don't like what you see, don't buy it. I can't recommend the book The Omnivore's Dilemma or the documentary Food, Inc. highly enough. I know that Food, Inc. is available on Amazon streaming and I believe it is also on Netflix streaming.

Documentaries are neat to watch, but even having the education doesn't change habits. There are lots of good documentaries on how chickens, cows, and pigs are raised for food and how they are abused, but for the amount of people that have seen it, how many have stopped eating meat or stopped buying from an abusive producer? For change to happen, the majority would have to all feel the same way.

Well then I guess I'll throw my hands up and give up. Clearly the government and industrial food suppliers know what's best for me so I'll just let them think for me and never try to encourage others to investigate things that they might be interested in learning more about. </sarcasm>

I guess I am more of an optimist. I'm not trying to mandate watching the movie or force it Clockwork Orange style on anyone. And that's why I also don't think more government regulation is the answer. Reading books and watching documentaries is how I have educated myself. It is how I have changed my habits. Isn't education the way most everyone here has changed their habits, be it just reducing calories or altering food quality? I thought this site was primarily aimed at people wanting to get healthier. Maybe some just want to be bikini fit, but I think a lot of people are continually trying to improve themselves in all kinds of ways. I certainly don't have the answer. I am still learning myself. It's not like I saw one movie and everything changed overnight. Books and documentaries can make people think and question things and I, for one, think that is always a good thing.

Same here. I have watched many documentaries and I know what humane slaughter is because we used to do this in the fall when I was a kid. It was a whole family affair, bon fire, chili, apple pie and my grandpa making apple butter over an open fire in a big cauldron sitting on that fire with silver dollars tossed in the bottom so the apple butter wouldn't stick.

I have also read many books and between the books and documentaries led me to ALWAYS make the farm raised and local choice over going to a supermarket chain.

maillemaker

Yeah, we are definitely eating more calories today than we were a century ago. Have we suddenly just gotten hungrier? Or is it that cheap, addictive, highly-palatable calories lacking in micronutrients are easier to come by?

This is my feeling as well.

I believe food has changed radically in the last 100 years. Instead of something that was farmed or produced it is now something that is manufactured. And like any manufactured product, the emphasis is on taste, shelf life, shipping cost, and cheap to manufacture. Nutrition is low on the list of priorities.

I don't think it's any accident that in 1900 people consumed less than 5 pounds of sugar a year and today they consume over 100 pounds of sugar a year. I don't think people just got hungrier. I think people are heavily swayed by taste, cost, and convenience, and they just don't know, like I didn't, that wood chips are used as a filler for your food, or that orange juice doesn't taste like real orange juice because it is artificially flavored even though it is actual orange juice. People don't know that the little blue dots in their food that they think are blueberries really aren't.

Yes, you can blame everyone for not educating themselves about what they eat. But the food is marketed specifically to deceive people about what it really is.

People assume that we have an FDA and that the stuff sold in food stores can't be terribly bad for you. I don't know how bad it really is but I don't trust the people making this stuff to have nutrition and safety as their top priorities.

Steve

scraver2003

I think bagels are officially ruined for me...

bjenny12345

Yuck!

questionablemethods

I think this is a great supplement to the discussion about our broken food system: http://www.gnolls.org/2542/real-food-is-not-fungible-how-commoditization-eliminates-nutrition-impoverishes-farmers-and-destroys-the-earth/

ninerbuff

Well then I guess I'll throw my hands up and give up. Clearly the government and industrial food suppliers know what's best for me so I'll just let them think for me and never try to encourage others to investigate things that they might be interested in learning more about. </sarcasm>

I guess I am more of an optimist. I'm not trying to mandate watching the movie or force it Clockwork Orange style on anyone. And that's why I also don't think more government regulation is the answer. Reading books and watching documentaries is how I have educated myself. It is how I have changed my habits. Isn't education the way most everyone here has changed their habits, be it just reducing calories or altering food quality? I thought this site was primarily aimed at people wanting to get healthier. Maybe some just want to be bikini fit, but I think a lot of people are continually trying to improve themselves in all kinds of ways. I certainly don't have the answer. I am still learning myself. It's not like I saw one movie and everything changed overnight. Books and documentaries can make people think and question things and I, for one, think that is always a good thing.

I support education especially when it comes to weight loss/gain and for fitness and health. But where I think you're missing what I'm saying is that people really have to care if anything is going to happen.
People know why the are fat and out of shape. They know foods they shouldn't be eating. They know what approach they should attempt to change it. Yet it's not happening because people really don't care. If they did they wouldn't have let it happen.
So the attitude has to change before any else will. Bad habits take time to break and it also takes time to form new ones. I've been at this for over 28 years and as time has passed the portions are getting bigger, people are exercising less and the weight loss business has boomed.

tonilizzy88

i started readin but got to grossed out to carry on

questionablemethods

I support education especially when it comes to weight loss/gain and for fitness and health. But where I think you're missing what I'm saying is that people really have to care if anything is going to happen.
People know why the are fat and out of shape. They know foods they shouldn't be eating. They know what approach they should attempt to change it. Yet it's not happening because people really don't care. If they did they wouldn't have let it happen.
So the attitude has to change before any else will. Bad habits take time to break and it also takes time to form new ones. I've been at this for over 28 years and as time has passed the portions are getting bigger, people are exercising less and the weight loss business has boomed.

I am not missing that point. I understand and agree that people need to care. Isn't caring (at least about weight loss, presumably about health too) why people are here? Can I not assume that at least many people share some of the same interests that I do? We are a self-selected group, after all, not the general population.

Of course I don't think everyone cares, but I think many DO and they want to eat well but a lot of things that look like healthy foods are still processed to within an inch of their lives. Some people do care, which is why they read the thread!

I guess I'm confused by your pattern of responses. You have thus far 1) accused us of scare mongering, 2) implied that we should accept whatever wood pulp our food system overwhelms our supermarkets with (while just making sure to not eat too much of it), and 3) expressed frustration about the topic because a lot of people don't care.

The first two seem to be saying that we really shouldn't care about our food but then you are frustrated that a lot of people don't.

maillemaker

I support education especially when it comes to weight loss/gain and for fitness and health. But where I think you're missing what I'm saying is that people really have to care if anything is going to happen.
People know why the are fat and out of shape. They know foods they shouldn't be eating. They know what approach they should attempt to change it. Yet it's not happening because people really don't care. If they did they wouldn't have let it happen.

I don't think I believe this. I don't think people really understand just how manufactured what they eat is. Sure, everyone knows from grade school that you are supposed to eat a lot of fresh foods.

But we are surrounded with processed foods and many of those processed foods are deceptively marketed to make them seem wholesome.

Look, I'm a pretty smart guy. I have a BS in Computer Science. But it never dawned on me until I read the article that 100% orange juice is stored in a vacuum rendering it tasteless until a manufactured "taste packet" is added to it to make it taste like orange!

Who would think that lots of processed food is filled with wood by-products as a filler?

The problem is one of education. The problem is, people just aren't educated on how bad most food really is for you. And there are a lot of huge, huge companies that have a lot of money at stake making sure people don't find out.

And then even for those who are somewhat aware, it is hard and expensive, and time consuming to eat a diet that avoids those foods!

But ultimately, I just don't think most people really know just how manufactured their food is.

maillemaker

To quote from the article that Kaitlin posted:

Most products in the snack and breakfast aisles are made from disassembling artificially cheap corn into its constituent parts, adding some artificial flavoring and coloring, and reassembling them into something that costs more per pound than pork, chicken, or hamburger. Cheetos, Fritos, Doritos, Tostitos, Corn Flakes, Corn Pops...

But what they didn't say is that the processed foods are more flashy, more convenient to eat, and tastier. In short, they are damn tempting to eat!

ninerbuff

I guess I'm confused by your pattern of responses. You have thus far 1) accused us of scare mongering, 2) implied that we should accept whatever wood pulp our food system overwhelms our supermarkets with (while just making sure to not eat too much of it), and 3) expressed frustration about the topic because a lot of people don't care.

The first two seem to be saying that we really shouldn't care about our food but then you are frustrated that a lot of people don't.

1. Because it is scare mongering. Trying to convince people about how bad processed foods are for their health, when it's not been proven that the chemicals in them are the true culprit, is a scare tactic. Correlation isn't proof.
2. All vegetables have cellulose. Show me a peer reviewed clinical study that shows that wood pulp (cellulose) debilitates the body. Some may get gas or diarrhea, but you can get that from prunes, apples, dairy, etc.
3. Taxes frustrate me. So does congress. People don't care enough to combat it, so I deal with what is out there till something changes. Would I love a different government? Yes.

questionablemethods

I guess I'm confused by your pattern of responses. You have thus far 1) accused us of scare mongering, 2) implied that we should accept whatever wood pulp our food system overwhelms our supermarkets with (while just making sure to not eat too much of it), and 3) expressed frustration about the topic because a lot of people don't care.

The first two seem to be saying that we really shouldn't care about our food but then you are frustrated that a lot of people don't.

1. Because it is scare mongering. Trying to convince people about how bad processed foods are for their health, when it's not been proven that the chemicals in them are the true culprit, is a scare tactic. Correlation isn't proof.
2. All vegetables have cellulose. Show me a peer reviewed clinical study that shows that wood pulp (cellulose) debilitates the body. Some may get gas or diarrhea, but you can get that from prunes, apples, dairy, etc.
3. Taxes frustrate me. So does congress. People don't care enough to combat it, so I deal with what is out there till something changes. Would I love a different government? Yes.

1) Okay. Well I guess my main point wasn't about the "scary" stuff in food, but just the plain old filler and nonsense -- especially food that is doctored up to represent food (the juice, the "blueberries"). I was commenting on a more global level. I honestly didn't read the article with an eye for the scare mongering because I've heard it all before. It doesn't frighten me, but it saddens me.

2) I'm not afraid of celluose either. I was simply using that as an example of how you seemed to be saying "take your filler and deal with it."

3) Me too. Which is why I am here trying to engage in conversation that might shift our behavior from a grassroots level instead of lobbying congress. But you just seem to have given up. And that's fine, but it doesn't mean that some people--on this site especially--are not open to learning more about food.