Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should you be able to pronounce the names of product ingredients?
Replies
-
I can pronounce all that crap. I've taken plenty of chem classes and I'm a proficient reader with a strong phonics background. Even if I don't know what something is, I can sound it out properly following basic rules of the language. Because I can "speak" the ingredients properly, does it make it safer for me to eat certain things than it is for someone who is less educated and can't pronounce the ingredients? I guess an illiterate person has to starve to death.
I don't see how being able to read/pronounce words has any bearing on the safety of a product. The definition of a word is more important than the spelling. If there's a harmless (or even beneficial) chemical compound with a complicated name in my protein bar, I don't care. If there's something toxic in there I don't care how easy it is to say (take lead, for example) I'm not having it. Who cares if you can say it or not? If you don't know what something is, you have access to all kinds of information online - look it up.
I can effortlessly and correctly pronounce cyanide, ricin, sarin, strychnine, mercury and polonium. The fact that I can pronounce them doesn't make it any better an idea to ingest any of them.6 -
I think the bottom-line stupidity of "don't eat it if you can't pronounce it" is that most people have their phones with them when they shop. If you can't pronounce it or don't know what it is, look it up, for pete's sake! Most of us aren't going to know the definition and pronunciation of words we don't use in everyday life, but we all know how to type the word into google and educate ourselves. People could get away with making up a woo rule like that in the days where you'd have to carry around a dictionary to look things up, but there's just no excuse in 2018.
Yeah but I mean there are also plenty of people who are too lazy/thoughtless to look up (or frankly just ask about) the pronunciation of someone's name when they're presenting that person who an audience.
edit: but more to the point, most people have no need to pronounce various names of chemicals. They are low frequency words for the vast majority of English speakers and that's perfectly fine.3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Companies today just do the same thing with laws and convolution, including sometimes trying to hide what ingredients are present with words that are hard to comprehend, or conversely, with words that are easy to comprehend but give the wrong impression. (they do not use technical words AND simplistic ones in the same product for no reason, you know?)
No..they really don't. Don't confuse the lay-public's ignorance of chemistry with attempts at misdirection or confusion. The ingredients listed on boxes are the names of those ingredients, they don't have other names and there isn't some sort of misdirection. Maltodextrine is maltodextrine...that is what it is called....if you don't know what that is I am not sure why the company that posts it as an ingredient is to blame for your lack of knowledge. I'm not claiming that everyone should know everything about everything that would be ridiculous...but to act like if you don't know something it is because of some sinister plot is a bit ridiculous too.
If there's a widely understood word for something (e.g., water), and manufacturers intentionally use a different word or phrase relatively few people understand (e.g., dihydrogen monoxide), yeah, I'm pretty sure they're intentionally trying to confuse.
My favorite example of this, although not a chemical name, is labels that list "evaporated cane juice" as an ingredient. Because they don't want consumers to know the food product has sugar in it.
And what did the FDA do about it? Can you give a current example that is at all long standing and not something that was immediately smacked down? Is this a real problem or a hypothetical?2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Companies today just do the same thing with laws and convolution, including sometimes trying to hide what ingredients are present with words that are hard to comprehend, or conversely, with words that are easy to comprehend but give the wrong impression. (they do not use technical words AND simplistic ones in the same product for no reason, you know?)
No..they really don't. Don't confuse the lay-public's ignorance of chemistry with attempts at misdirection or confusion. The ingredients listed on boxes are the names of those ingredients, they don't have other names and there isn't some sort of misdirection. Maltodextrine is maltodextrine...that is what it is called....if you don't know what that is I am not sure why the company that posts it as an ingredient is to blame for your lack of knowledge. I'm not claiming that everyone should know everything about everything that would be ridiculous...but to act like if you don't know something it is because of some sinister plot is a bit ridiculous too.
If there's a widely understood word for something (e.g., water), and manufacturers intentionally use a different word or phrase relatively few people understand (e.g., dihydrogen monoxide), yeah, I'm pretty sure they're intentionally trying to confuse.
My favorite example of this, although not a chemical name, is labels that list "evaporated cane juice" as an ingredient. Because they don't want consumers to know the food product has sugar in it.
And what did the FDA do about it? Can you give a current example that is at all long standing and not something that was immediately smacked down? Is this a real problem or a hypothetical?
I'm sure I've seen evaporate cane juice on labels in the past year. So, no, not a hypothetical. (And since you asked about the FDA, I did the research for you -- not sure why you think that's my responsibility, since I wasn't talking about the FDA, just what I have actually seen frequently on food labels -- and apparently there is "guidance" that companies should say sugar, not evaporated cane juice, but guidance isn't a regulation.)
ETA: FDA saysFDA’s guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe our current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited.
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm181491.htm3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I mean just a quick primer on how to pronounce "chemical-sounding" names.Chemical names are derived from a collection of descriptive prefixes and suffixes that are often latin or greek derived. Our language is latin/greek derived so much of the pronounciation is the same. The reason chemical names look so strange is in our language latin prefixes are attached to some root where a lot of chemical names are just a bunch of prefixes and suffixes strung together.Each of these names tells you something about either what it is made of or what it does.
So using your examples
ergocalciferol. Ergo-calci-fer-ol. Ergo as in...well...ergo in latin for work. Calci- as in calcium. Fer as in ferrous, as in iron, -ol as in acohol as in an -OH group.
So from the name I can guess this compound has something to do with iron and calcium and probably has an alcohol group and I know how to pronounce it it Ergo-calci-fer-ol...even though i have never seen that name before because I know how to pronounce ergo, calcium, ferrous and alcohol so I just string those together ergo-calci-fer-ol
That is the thing with chemical names, they are actually more descriptive than standard names like Apple. Apple doesn't tell you anything unless you know what an apple is already. But Ergocalciferol tells me whatever it is has something to do with iron calcium and likely has an alcohol group in it. So if i basically just interpreted the name it would be something that works with iron and calcium and is an alcohol (ie it has an -OH group on it somewhere).
cholecalciferol
Chole- as in cholesterol
Calci- as in calcium
fer- as in ferrous
ol as in alchol. So if you can say cholesterol, calcium, ferrous and alcohol you can say chole-calci-fer-ol
nicotinamide riboside
Nicotin- as in nicotine
-amide as in, well, amide...that one is a chemical term
Ribo- as in ribose
-ide is a chemistry suffix to name the negative ion such as chloride (Cl-) or hydroxide (OH-)
So Nicotin-amide Ribos-ide
dihydrogen monoxide
Di- as in the latin for two
Hydrogen, as in hydrogen
Mon- as in the latin for one
Ox - as in oxygen
-ide is a chemistry suffix
So Di-hydrogen Mon-ox-ide
😠Now you've gone and spoiled my rule!
Just catching up on this thread.
Interesting conversation. Especially as someone who doesn't eat a lot of processed foods. In the past week I might have eaten (things I didn't have to peel, wash or crack): sugar, oatmeal, milk, flour, butter, yogurt, coffee, tea, oil, mustard, vinegar, and various spices.
I don't feel particularly healthier than anybody else. Overall I probably just consume little added sugar and sodium but that's about it for health benefits.3 -
9 -
What point are you making John??
Of course one can collect a group of supposedly difficult to pronounce processed foods - one could equally collect a group of supposedly difficult to pronounce raw fruits and vegetables.
How is that any common sense??
Not sure what I am missing here
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »What point are you making John??
Of course one can collect a group of supposedly difficult to pronounce processed foods - one could equally collect a group of supposedly difficult to pronounce raw fruits and vegetables.
How is that any common sense??
Not sure what I am missing here
Just my take on his post: the majority of the hard-to-pronounce words in the photo are not English. If English is the only language you speak and you follow the can't-pronounce-it-so-don't-eat-it rule, you're going to be hungry and/or missing out on a lot of foods.
Aka, it's a joke.7 -
paperpudding wrote: »What point are you making John??
Of course one can collect a group of supposedly difficult to pronounce processed foods - one could equally collect a group of supposedly difficult to pronounce raw fruits and vegetables.
How is that any common sense??
Not sure what I am missing here
They are all perfectly healthy foods with non-English names that many people pronounce wrong!2 -
-
0
-
johnslater461 wrote: »
Now I want to make a mascarpone sauce with proscuitto to go over gnocchi
Edit to correct sp as I spelt pretty much every thing wrong!1 -
Do you think that a criteria for a safe/healthy product (food, health, or medical) is that it contains ingredients you can pronounce?
On a related note, most people can't pronounce my last name. Does that mean that I'm dangerous?
Nope. I would miss out on too many foreign foods although luckily, @johnslater461, I would be able to still eat the charcuterie (I don't eat charcuterie actually), the haricot vert and the chateau de lavernette above. I'll pass on the poutine though.
As @MzBaz0918 above I am not healthier than the average person (actually as an obese I AM unhealthier than the average person) although I don't eat lots of foods with chemical ingredient names.
Also my last name makes me dangerous outside of my home country since people can't pronounce my name. I am a cute and cuddly, I am safe!0 -
I'm a biologist, so I know all this stuff. That means I can eat anything, right?
3 -
hippiesaur wrote: »I'm a biologist, so I know all this stuff. That means I can eat anything, right?
As a chemist I will agree with you 2 -
hippiesaur wrote: »I'm a biologist, so I know all this stuff. That means I can eat anything, right?
As a chemist I will agree with you
Another chemist chiming in! Go us for being able to eat anything, lol.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »What point are you making John??
Of course one can collect a group of supposedly difficult to pronounce processed foods - one could equally collect a group of supposedly difficult to pronounce raw fruits and vegetables.
How is that any common sense??
Not sure what I am missing here
They are all perfectly healthy foods with non-English names that many people pronounce wrong!
oh, ok - yes I missed that then.
Worcestershire sauce is very common here - didnt realise anyone would consider it non English
well it isnt - it is named after place in England where it was first made.
1 -
<curmudgeon> Eschewing unpronounceable ingredients is just another form of dietary virtue signaling in an anti-intellectual, science-rejecting, "trust your gut" culture. </curmudgeon>
<juvenile chortle> See what I did there, with, "chew" and "gut"? </juvenile chortle>
And it's Just Wrong to mention DHMO without citing http://dhmo.org , because it's just too, too good to miss.7 -
<curmudgeon> Eschewing unpronounceable ingredients is just another form of dietary virtue signaling in an anti-intellectual, science-rejecting, "trust your gut" culture. </curmudgeon>
<juvenile chortle> See what I did there, with, "chew" and "gut"? </juvenile chortle>
And it's Just Wrong to mention DHMO without citing http://dhmo.org , because it's just too, too good to miss.
<snorting into my coffee> Thanks for the link!1 -
thezenarya wrote: »hippiesaur wrote: »I'm a biologist, so I know all this stuff. That means I can eat anything, right?
As a chemist I will agree with you
Another chemist chiming in! Go us for being able to eat anything, lol.
Can you fire up your metabolism by increasing your vocabulary? Dr. OZ reports... lol!8 -
I like to be able to recognize what the ingredients are, I won't buy bread or crackers if I don't know what the heck is in them2
-
Does this mean that as
Does this mean that (as a microbiologist by training) because I can pronounce Bacillus anthracis and Botulinum toxin I can eat it too?thezenarya wrote: »hippiesaur wrote: »I'm a biologist, so I know all this stuff. That means I can eat anything, right?
As a chemist I will agree with you
Another chemist chiming in! Go us for being able to eat anything, lol.
PS the latter (type A and B ) is being used in Botox Type H is the deadliest toxin in the world
1 -
Lolinloggen wrote: »Does this mean that as
Does this mean that (as a microbiologist by training) because I can pronounce Bacillus anthracis and Botulinum toxin I can eat it too?thezenarya wrote: »hippiesaur wrote: »I'm a biologist, so I know all this stuff. That means I can eat anything, right?
As a chemist I will agree with you
Another chemist chiming in! Go us for being able to eat anything, lol.
PS the latter (type A and B ) is being used in Botox Type H is the deadliest toxin in the world
I have had it injdcted twice into my pyloric sphincter so I guess I kinda have eaten it.1 -
I can sound my way through ingredients on food labels (it's really not that hard), though I might accent the wrong syllable, I'm sure I come close enough.
My tongue trips every time I try to say "real weird".
I'm not sure what my point is other than the fact that being able to pronounce things doesn't prove anything, and that learning phonics when I was a kid was helpful.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I can sound my way through ingredients on food labels (it's really not that hard), though I might accent the wrong syllable, I'm sure I come close enough.
My tongue trips every time I try to say "real weird".
I'm not sure what my point is other than the fact that being able to pronounce things doesn't prove anything, and that learning phonics when I was a kid was helpful.
Your tongue is just trying to save you from using an adjective (real) when you should be using an adverb (really).
You should reward you tongue with something really delicious when that happens.
5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I can sound my way through ingredients on food labels (it's really not that hard), though I might accent the wrong syllable, I'm sure I come close enough.
My tongue trips every time I try to say "real weird".
I'm not sure what my point is other than the fact that being able to pronounce things doesn't prove anything, and that learning phonics when I was a kid was helpful.
Your tongue is just trying to save you from using an adjective (real) when you should be using an adverb (really).
You should reward you tongue with something really delicious when that happens.
Grammatically incorrect foods are the most dangerous.4 -
Confirmed.
5 -
It's also sad that people will eat things with no consciousness as to the ingredients8
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
- 175.9K 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
- 96.3K 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