The sad thing is - we COULD produce processed foods designed for our health. We just choose not to. The more its processed, the more room there is for profit margin improving adjustments.
(Meanwhile we evolved to eat not-ultraprocessed food so obviously that’s best for us.)
There’s no ‘we’ you’re free to eat whatever food you want.
Whatever food is available, not whatever one wants
You are even more unprocessed than unprocessed food.
Thank you
In all seriousness, shortening “organically grown” to “organic” is quite stupid since all food is organic, but not all food is organically grown.
Now I’m wondering if anyone has ever labeled salt as organic.
Why can’t we have human kibbles if they have for cats and dogs. They keep selling it as the only healthy option.
They do it’s called cereal.
Hyperprocessed foods are designed to sit on store shelves as long as possible, be addictive, and have just enough flavor to make you want more while at the same time being made of the cheapest possible ingredients, sometimes even including weird things like titanium dioxide.
Where do you get your fiber?
My ISP provided the fiber, they came and hooked it up and everything.
Does this keep you regular? I’ve been just as constipated as when I had cable but the lower latency and symmetrical upload are worth it.
What’s weird about titanium dioxide?
Too healthy
It helps Kimi Antonelli drive too fast.
Sounds like they are made with health of the consumer in the forefront.
Idk man, them food scientists been up to some strange shit out at the farm and at the food processing plant for like a century now and things have gotten out of hand a little.
Yeah, we let it get too healthy, I hear ya.
I’m not sure the goal has been to make the food healthy… I’m pretty sure the goal has only been to maximize profits and decrease costs within the bounds of whatever is considered legal (including lobbying to maintain legality).
Okay, this is a high quality shit-post.
I just found it. It’s an organic shitpost.
because its already expired
Assuming the designed food contains a lot of fiber, the shit itself will also be of high quality!
deleted by creator
Removed
I said I’ve seen the same meme too many times and then I got ashamed of behaving like a redditor and deleted it :|
I thought Lemmy is just a knock-off Reddit, though… if there is really any difference between the two (especially in terms of user culture) I have yet to find it.
forgotten
Cursed
no processed food can beat the absolute genious design of the raspberry. easy to grab, clear information whether it’s ripe or not, visually appealing, tastes wonderful.
Pineapple has entered the chat.
“Bitch, I’m fruit on a pole! Yellow means go!”
Better not eat too much though, or it starts digesting you back!
Dissolves your fingerprints, or so says the urban legend
-“Visually appealing”
-Is just some plant balls
What about Cheetos?
counterargument: raw salmon is fucking delicious.
Particularly the worms, that’s the best part.
It’s flash frozen to make it safe, other wise you end up with parasites. Ergo it’s processed.
I’m no bitch those parasites can’t eat me
Wild salmons are flash frozen to kill parasites. But I don’t think farmed salmons require that.
The parasites just add spice!
Inb4 raw salmon is farmed specifically for your tastebuds
and raw tomatoes are cheaper than pre-cooked tomato sauce.
actually i just checked and that’s not actually true. cheapest tomato sauce here: 0.70€ / 250 ml, makes 2.80€/kg. meanwhile fresh tomatoes: 10€/kg typically.
fresh tomatoes: 10€/kg
wtf, do you live in like Svalbard or something? They are 2-4€ per kilo in the summer and 4-6€ in the winter in most places on the continent for normal truss tomatoes. I live in a country with very expensive food but basic Spanish tomatoes are 2€ right now in the cheaper supermarkets, and fancy tasty fleshy ones are like 5 or 6.
deleted by creator
Not where I live
My favorite is the people who rail against GMOs. Bitch, every food you eat has been genetically modified by humans. Either by selective breeding over a long period of time, or what they used to do in the early 20th century: bomb seeds with radiation and see what came out, toss the weird stuff, keep the neat stuff.
Everything is GMO. What’s being done now is actually safer than before, because they actually know what they’re trying to create, and are far more surgical in the process.
Yeah ancestral plants that became many crops look almost nothing like their descendants in many cases
The funniest I think are secondary crops like oats and rye. Our forebears weren’t even trying to grow a better version of those, those started off as just weeds that people were trying to get rid of in their wheatfields. In the course of purging them they accidentally selected for more wheat-like plants that people would be less likely to rip out until they became actual decent crops on their own, while also maintaining hardiness in areas that wheat couldn’t handle such that they spun off and became popular on their own rights.
Yeah the discussion has to be clear. I’m not in love with splicing genes very unrelated to the destination organism and not seeing what the long-term effects are. Also splicing genes specifically to make crops more resistant to Roundup so we can kill everything but the crop even harder and be unconcerned of the wider environmental impact the pesticide has.
Botanist dragging a barrel of glowing green fluid across the tiles of the station floor
Security Chief: “Botanist! What the ABSOLUTE HELL are you doing with 50 liters of radium?”
Botanist: “Mutating the corn so it’s blight and drought resistant”
Chief: “???”
Botanist: “I’ve also mutated a species of hobby lemon to fill itself with sugary lemonade instead of citric acid”
Chief: “Oh, holy crap okay go right ahead”
“Hobby lemon?”
Miracle fruit is easier than doing your own genetic modifications
When the fleshy part of the fruit is eaten, this molecule binds to the tongue’s taste buds, causing sour foods to taste sweet
Pretty much. Except that there was zero plan about what was going to come out the other end. It was just “irradiate, plant, see what happens.”
Lemons are an artificial creation by genetic splice of the bitter orange and citron :)
Pretty sure the bitter orange is also a highly divergent crop that may be hybridized as well.
If you think thats interesting, look into the origins of maize corn.
Or almonds
I think the argument against GMO (for me) isn’t so much the yields and other benefits, but rather the potential for single blight to wipe entire crops (did to the lack of variety, despite their claims to blight resilience) and the shady stuff that gmo companies do - sterilised seeds, patent wars, etc.
It’s already happened to bananas. That’s why banana candy tastes NOTHING like the bananas you can buy today, it tastes like the bananas that died out from a fungus.
It’s more that banana flavoring is a simple chemical (isoamyl acetate) that when tasted was kinda closer to bananas (and pears apparently) than anything else in their minds. Old bananas had more of it than modern ones, but it isn’t like it was ever a faithful recreation.
It’s similar to how some grapes taste more or less like methyl anthranilate, but the chemical itself really just distinctly tastes like artificial grape.
The problem is that the way GMO is used in practice is to maximize profits: get giant fruits that weigh a lot and catch eyes on the shelf, but are low in nutritional value and have shitty taste/texture.
Like huge strawberries that taste like water, or taste unripe even when they’re ripe. Or giant asparagus that’s as tough as sisal twine.
I have a theory that if you GMO to prioritize nutritional density, it’ll taste better, because the
photonutrientsphytonutrients are the stuff that taste good.nutritional value
Is not a consideration either way (and that’s part of the problem) time and “viability” from pick to market are even more important than that and even flavor. Hence, hothouse tomatoes, the most tasteless tomato on the planet.
Right, that’s what I’m saying. But the nutritional density suffers as a result of maximizing size and yield.
wth are photonutrients?
also yeah, optimizing for looks is a real issue and i’ve encountered it too often, but that’s just supermarkets in general and has nothing to do with GMO.
Phytonutrients, it was fucking autocorrect’s fault.
But no, GMO has a lot to do with it. I know supermarkets were shady about this before, but the same applies to GMO, and it extends all the way up the supply chain.
Monsanto engineers their crops to maximize profit. That means high-yielding plants with giant fruits. It minimizes low nutritional density because the plants have to distribute the same amount of nutrients over more crop. And it makes the taste and texture worse.
I remember when asparagus was around 5mm in diameter, and tender. Now it’s more like 10mm, and stringier than celery. It’s like the whole stalk is made of that inedible part of the greenbean
asparagus
Aldi’s in Chicago has wonderfully thin and crisp asparagus almost all the time. Don’t ask me how, I just buy and eat it.
Probably cause it’s grown in Europe where they actually regulate their food production…
The US also regulates its food production, sweetie .
Barely. There’s a reason Europe won’t import most of it.
GMOs aren’t dangerous because of the genetic manipulation. They’re dangerous because of everything around it. Now it’s possible to create vegetables that survive a centimetre of glyphosate coating. And if the farmers reuse seeds, they’re breaching copyright law. With this, plants are copyrightable, would you like all of the cancer of contemporary American IP law applied to your food?
Exactly right. Well said.
But then the problem is not the GMO it’s the copyright laws
this is actually such a big problem in tissue culture
no one should be able to copyright LIVING BEINGS
ironically copyright laws as they are today are cancer, maybe they should copyright copyright so that it all just eats itself and dies
in tissue culture this is considered a DICK MOVE
deleted by creator
But then if you can’t copyright it companies wouldn’t invest money in it since it wouldn’t be profitable. That’s kinda the whole point of copyright, so that there’s an incentive for innovation. Why invest in R&D when you can just let your competitor do it and immediately steal it from then?
Copyright doesn’t create incentives for innovation it creates incentives for stagnation. It’s a guaranteed profit window for a static solution. Competition is what breeds innovation as you need to have the best product for its cost to capture market share. As copyright is inherently an anti-competitive practice only there to minimize risk it reduces innovation in favor of stable profits. Just because r&d costs money it doesnt mean that supply chains and production are handed to competitors for free. Its just a tool to minimize risk for venture capital because those who lobbied for it wanted to protect their assets from risk exposure and did so at the expense of consumers and innovation through lobbying. Removing it wouldnt stop people from creating solutions or trying to invent new products. Those who do the r & d always have a leg up as they have the research available to them for tweaking there process or final output that a competitor would not.
why would anyone buy from someone who just copied it instead of made it?
and money has ruined innovation
are you suggesting that we would just stop innovationn without copyright?
“steal it” you cannot steal knowledge
copyrighting living beings is bad
You’re not stealing knowledge, you’re stealing someone else’s time, effort and money. There’s a reason there’s IP laws everywhere.
What then do you suggest as the alternative? Or is your suggestion just to stop innovation?
“no ones gonna do it if they cant exploit it for money” - very serious business human
Yes, this is exactly what happens. Lone humans just can’t do much on their own, you need money to fund you, and money doesn’t fund anything that isn’t going to make them more money.
free is good
“time effort and money”
im sorry but innovation will be sustained without copyright
no one is just gonna go “I cant make obscene amounts of money on this, better not do it at all” if they actually care about it
free is good only hurts the rich
does anyone know how long the copyrights on seeds holds? i.e. i think for many pharmaceuticals it’s 20 years. does this apply here too?
The Epa was the only way we got them to stop with DDT.
They keep ratcheting the poison further and further up to keep weeds out. They basically carpet bombed the South with ddt to kill off something and that killed off the birds and fishes and sucked up anyone that ate it for twenty years.
Which was a lot of the South, but now hunting is a rich mans privilege down here. Wheras only rich folk ate cattle with any frequency, now it’s pretty common food.
I’ve often thought that Monsanto was the only thing wrong with GMOs.
Monsanto
their buissness model with certainty.
Yes
every food you eat
okay i was all ready to devil’s advocat you but you had to say FOOD. punk.
i was about to go eat, i don’t know, a car or something to prove you wrong. I haven’t had coffee yet i haven’t thought this through
yeah GMO has a lot of potential. i think the scepticism was mostly because it was considered a new technology, but that’s years ago.
bomb seeds with radiation and see what came out
are far more surgical in the process.
…right…
If you can’t tell the difference between random mutation and targeted gene replacement, you DO NOT belong in this conversation.
Either educate yourself or STFU and let the adults talk
Educated genius alert!
Processed food was designed to make profit.
It’s to make calories easier to get.
Grains, pulses, meat, and some fruits and veggies need to cooked, i.e. processed, to make them safe or easier to eat.
“Processing” is as minimal as sprouting beans. Removing bran. Cutting into small tiny bits. Warming or heating. Pounded or smashed.
Not all “processed food” is ultra-processed diabetes - inducing poison. A baked potato is a processed food. A steak is a processed food.
This is a matter of semantics, linguistics, and basic communication. When someone says processed food, what do they actually mean by that? Do they mean a baked potato, or do they mean a twinkie?
Language and communication don’t work on technicalities. If someone says they would like a bowl of fruit, you can’t serve them some tomatoes and say well you have to enjoy this! Tomatoes are technically a fruit! Communication occurs only when people accept the intended meaning of what someone is saying rather than the literalist interpretation of it.
Absolutely correct.
Bread is a professed food and it’s not designed for profit. It was designed to make wheat fucking edible.
Homemade sourdough bread is a processed fucking food. For fuck sake.
It was designed to make you pro-fit.
Gatorade, hit me up, I do marketing.
That’s why its so high quality, healthy and affordable.
Should be whole food and not organic. You can process organic food how much you want. You can buy organic ultra-processed pure white beet sugar if you want. Doesn’t mean it’s healthy or chemically different than regular white sugar. Organic only applies to how it’s grown, not what happens to it after leaving the field.
Also “organic” is intentionallly misleading language that should be abandoned, if it’s not organic, it’s not food.
This is blatant misinformation. Most food labels like “free range” mean whatever the labeler wants it to mean, as long as there is some definition available on the label (or a very small printed link to a website with the definition). The organic label, as far as I can tell, is the only one with a precise definition and requirements outlined by the USDA.
For crops this means a lack of certain pesticides/chemicals used, regenerative techniques for the fields, and no GMOs. For animals it requires certain living conditions and a diet of nearly entirely organic food.
Source: I wanted to understand what food labels and “organic” food means a year or two ago and spent a few hours reading the laws provided by the USDA. Turns out they also have a basic outline of the requirements: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means
What it means as a food label is (theoretically, at least), “not made with inorganic ingredients” i.e. certain kinds of pesticides/fertilizers or additives
This is blatant misinformation. Most food labels like “free range” mean whatever the labeler wants it to mean, as long as there is some definition available on the label (or a very small printed link to a website with the definition). The organic label, as far as I can tell, is the only one with a precise definition and requirements outlined by the USDA.
For crops this means a lack of certain pesticides/chemicals used, regenerative techniques for the fields, and no GMOs. For animals it requires certain living conditions and a diet of nearly entirely organic food.
Source: I wanted to understand what food labels and “organic” food means a year or two ago and spent a few hours reading the laws provided by the USDA. Turns out they also have a basic outline of the requirements: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means
Which part was misinformation? That inorganic things aren’t food? Good luck arguing that point lol. Everything else I said was an opinion so idk where you’re coming from there. I’m aware that a person or a committee or something somewhere was paid to redefine a word that already had a static, objective meaning for no reason other than to make more money, that doesn’t stop it from being misleading and unnecessarily ambiguous. Why that word? Sure you’ve done your homework about this so you might consider yourself “immune” to the false advertising, but the majority of Americans have no clue and believe everything they see, as far as they can understand it. Most people like you who would be curious enough to do that research probably already know what organic and inorganic actually mean so they weren’t really going to get duped anyway, but they make up a tiny portion of the population.
Which part was misinformation? That inorganic things aren’t food?
Sodium Chloride is not “organic” but there is not a single kind of life on the planet earth that can survive without it.
So according to your (il)logic, NOTHING can be organic, your definition, not mine.
Try eating nothing but salt, see how that works out for ya. “Food” is metabolizable, salt isn’t. Salt’s as necessary as water, yes, but also like water, it’s not enough on its own.
I never gave “my” definition of organic and logic really has nothing to do with it, it has an objective scientific definition already. With all due respect, if you’re out there buying organic salt, you’re exactly the kind of under-informed, over-paying consumer I’m trying to look out for.
The misinformation is the part where you’re pushing a false narrative that using the term organic in any way other than being organism-derived (or however you prefer to define it) is inherently misleading and wrong. Unless you want to argue that a word can’t have two meanings, in which case good luck arguing that point. Unlike the word “literally” it’s pretty easy for a layperson to tell which definition is being used based on context. “There is organic material in this sample” is clearly referring to the only definition you’ll accept. Saying “this tomato I bought is organic” is pretty easy to understand that the tomato in question is more similar to a naturally occurring tomato than one that has undergone alterations, even if the person saying that doesn’t know the specifics. Why not that word? If the term the USDA used was “natural” you’d be telling me right now that if it wasn’t natural it wouldn’t be food.
I do think the term “organic” should be split into at least four different terms to cover all the major qualifications (GMO-free, synthetic pesticide free, sustainable, free range for animals but actually defined) to be called organic, but that’s different than saying that it’s inherently misleading as a term or that it would be misleading on purpose. What purpose? To make more money? It’s more expensive to grow produce that meets the requirements to be called organic. If there was legitimately no difference between organic-labeled and non-organic-labeled food you might have a point, but there is.
They’re using it in its chemistry meaning. In chemistry organic means a category of carbon based chemicals and reactions. Ironically that includes petrochemistry. This is a popular gotcha for a certain type of nerd.
But yes, organic farming is a different meaning of the word, and it derives from a movement to treat the farm as an organism.
It’s easier to squeeze out smaller competition that can’t afford to meet the requirements but aren’t necessarily cutting corners or providing unhealthy or even less healthy products, netting more money for the companies that can jump through the hoops. And like you say, it’s more expensive to get that organic label, that means someone is making more money. Now I assume I don’t need to explain conflicts of interest or political lobbying to you, but that’s because you’re seem much more informed and aware than the average American consumer.
I wish I had as much faith in American regulatory institutions as you, I guess experience has left me too jaded.
How does that in any way contradict what I said?
You know what most of those pesticides and other disqualifying things are? Inorganic.
Of course there’s more complexity to it than that, but in a nutshell that’s why it’s called “organic” and not “gleebleglanic”
Sodium Chloride is not “organic” but there is not a single kind of life on the planet earth that can survive without it.
So according to your (il)logic, NOTHING can be organic, your definition, not mine.
I said there’s more complexity to it than that. I was putting it in overly simplistic terms to make it easier to grasp for the willfully ignorant.
Also, plants don’t require NaCl. Sodium is actively harmful to plants. They don’t crave electrolytes.
Sorry, I think I meant to reply to the same comment you did. I’ve been running on just a few hours of sleep the past few days.
Okay, that makes a lot more sense now…
I’m well aware of the “theories”, what it actually functionally means is they can charge more while falsely implying food without that label is necessarily unhealthy and may, in fact, not even be food at all.
If someone is uneducated about what food labels mean and which ones have a regulatory definition and which ones don’t, then sure they might be duped into overpaying for shit that doesn’t deliver on its promises. But organic is one of the few terms that are actually defined by regulation and have specific requirements to meet to use the label, so it’s kind of weird that you would choose this one to pick a bone with.
if someone is uneducated about what food labels mean and which ones have a regulatory definition and which ones don’t
Yeah you just described 95% of Americans, maybe more, thanks for illustrating my point! “They” (read: A politician) chose to use a word that already has specific implications for that market, which they absolutely didn’t need to do and, imo, they almost certainly did on purpose. I don’t like that, sorry 🤷♂️
Wait what politician is using the word in this context? I must have missed something.
And just because loads of people are ignorant and uneducated doesn’t mean we should abandon words just because they can be misunderstood. It was a weak point.
I was referring to the politician in charge of the USDA when they decided to redefine a scientific term for no other determinable reason than to make more money. Loads of people being ignorant and uneducated enough to misunderstand advertising is exactly the reason we have and need strong consumer protection regulations, like antitrust and fair competition laws.
Idk what the last sentence is referencing or I’d address it, sorry.
reply posted on lemmy shitpost@lemmy.world
People can still talk about reality here, sometimes shitposts provoke intelligent discussions and that’s okay. It’s not shitcomment@lemmy.world.
If everyone here was this, then there’d be no point:
No, that’s not true.
Not true? In that some food is in fact not made of organic molecules?
For example:
Table Salt (NaCl)
Water (H2O)
No carbon, still food.
Neither is food, food is metabolizable into energy. Yes salt and water are needed to facilitate this process, but without organic matter, there is no process.
Nope not true
Jesus Christ, man. It’s a joke.
Ultra-processed was designed so you can’t stop eating it.
Doritos fucking nailed this. However, I can’t respect a man eating Doritos in public. Imagine if you lawyer showed up to your court case munching on a bag of Doritos. I wouldn’t trust them.
Funny, I can’t respect a person that eats their Doritos in private fear while pretending they’re above it in public. Zero trust.
Pipe down.
Yo, Bird up!
I don’t care where your pipe is or what pipe your talking about or what pipe location even has to do with any of this, if you’re too ashamed to eat Doritos in public, you don’t deserve to enjoy them in private.
Great joke! You’ve truly got the whole humor thing nailed down.
Imagine meeting your lawyer while he’s eating Doritos and then you shake hands with him
Gotta sneak a bit of that delicious finger dust.
Imagine if you lawyer showed up to your court case munching on a bag of Doritos. I wouldn’t trust them.
Jokes on you, that’s the lawyer I want.
Well, if you stop eating you die anyway!
That’s just big food propaganda
I mean have you ever met anyone who’s died of hunger?
No? Coincidence?
I think
NOT!
You can still have ultra processed organic foods
False , I bet you can’t even name 63 instances
my body love processed food so much that keeps it an extra day or two my guts
