Lies of food.

questionablemethods

Why use the word WOOD PULP instead of cellulose? If you said "cellulose is added in food" would the impact of the statement attract the same attention as wood pulp? Of course not, because people don't normally think of themselves eating wood so using it catches their eye. And yes saying it this way does harm producers if people think it's actually "wood" in their food when cellulose is found in all plant material and vegetables. Not to mention that there's no real harm in it. EDIT: If it affects their sales because people view it as WOOD in the food, then it's harmful because it's not true.

Okay, I understand where you are coming from. However, I argue that identifying it as sourced from wood is important. Not because it is harmful but because it serves to identify how extraneous the added cellulose is to the food. This is not like adding some extra orange pulp to what is already orange juice (sorta) to make it extra pulpy because people like it that way. I guess I just took this as a strongly worded article that is trying to catch people's attention so they think and question for just a second about what goes into their food (harmful or not). I agree that "horrifying" is a bit of a stretch. But calling it "propaganda" because it might make a small dent in the giant food conglomerates' sales also seems like a bit of a stretch.

Edit on the topic of engineering wheat. There is research out there that it is more than just celiacs who might be harmed by wheat. I'm NOT trying to scare monger or propagandize. I am just saying that I believe we have only just begin to understand the detrimental role wheat plays in modern disease. That's my prediction, at least. (I don't think anyone had any ill intent, of course, and I certainly don't want anyone to starve.)

I'm sure that there will people who may have adverse effects against any form of wheat whether genetically altered or not. I'm allergic to Penicillin, but I wouldn't disregard it because it helps more people than it affects. I'll say the same with genetically altered wheat. If it can feed more at a lesser price, then I would support it as long as it's deemed as safe by FDA and USDA.
[/quote]

It is thought to be much more insidious than an anaphylactic reaction that one might have to something like Penicillin and, thus, far more difficult to easily identify. You can check out Dr. William Davis's new book Wheat Belly, if you're interested. I haven't had the chance to read it myself. But it also isn't just him saying it. Again, I'm not trying to fear monger or propagandize against the grain industry. I'm just putting it out there and predicting that we might be only just now understanding the harmful effects of some foods.

As for being deemed safe by the FDA and USDA. Maybe I need a tinfoil hat or something but I am a bit of a Libertarian at heart and I take pretty much anything a large governmental organization says with a grain of salt. I don't believe they would have any incentive at all to dig into this research because no one is saying it is immediately toxic (obviously it isn't). What they are saying, however, is that maybe it shouldn't be a staple of our food supply -- I really can't see the FDA or USDA ever getting on board with that.

But you're right, it can feed more at a lesser price. But, if it is truly contributing in large part to diseases of civilization as people claim, then isn't the real cost to us just being delayed?

ninerbuff

Okay, I understand where you are coming from. However, I argue that identifying it as sourced from wood is important. Not because it is harmful but because it serves to identify how extraneous the added cellulose is to the food. This is not like adding some extra orange pulp to what is already orange juice (sorta) to make it extra pulpy because people like it that way. I guess I just took this as a strongly worded article that is trying to catch people's attention so they think and question for just a second about what goes into their food (harmful or not). I agree that "horrifying" is a bit of a stretch. But calling it "propaganda" because it might make a small dent in the giant food conglomerates' sales also seems like a bit of a stretch.

Okay, I think we both have good points and have demonstrated that debates like this are educational for both sides.

As for being deemed safe by the FDA and USDA. Maybe I need a tinfoil hat or something but I am a bit of a Libertarian at heart and I take pretty much anything a large governmental organization says with a grain of salt. I don't believe they would have any incentive at all to dig into this research because no one is saying it is immediately toxic (obviously it isn't). What they are saying, however, is that maybe it shouldn't be a staple of our food supply -- I really can't see the FDA or USDA ever getting on board with that.

But you're right, it can feed more at a lesser price. But, if it is truly contributing in large part to diseases of civilization as people claim, then isn't the real cost to us just being delayed?

While I believe that the FDA and USDA can be manipulated to a point (I thought the banning of steroids and the amount of money being used to fight it now is a total waste of funds brought on by political motives) I do believe that the intent is to protect Americans from chemicals or substances that have been clinically studied and shown to harm people. I know that some will say that any chemicals added to food is harmful, but again we have to make it economically affordable for EVERYONE to eat.
Like anything else, if something is truly harming us, then I'm sure it will be merged out of our environment. Lead paint, asbestos, and leaded gasoline are a few examples.

maillemaker

I think the bottom line is still very simple:

Much of the food today is manufactured from one set of ingredients but marketed to imply it is made from something else altogether.

And if people knew what was really in it, they would probably buy less of it.

ninerbuff

I think the bottom line is still very simple:

Much of the food today is manufactured from one set of ingredients but marketed to imply it is made from something else altogether.

And if people knew what was really in it, they would probably buy less of it.

I don't disagree. In fact almost all marketing for weight loss or health uses words of camoflauge to sell for the almighty dollar.