Live data from Hacker News

How Crisco Made Americans Believers in Industrial Food

smithsonianmag.com

191–193 of 193 posts

Re: How Crisco Made Americans Believers in Industrial Food

#191
post #8

The agro-industrial complex in general convinced Americans to buy trademark branded products instead of real food

I'm not convinced that there's a coherent concept of real food. Most real food advocates I've seen are happy to eat, say, tofu. They'll admit that technically it's processed, in the sense that it's industrially manufactured by pulverizing soybeans beyond recognition then adding chemicals to the big holding vats. But people say it's not highly processed, or it hasn't lost the natural essence of soy, or whatever. I jus…

Really 'real food' is latter day religion/marketing based upon what sounds good and validates their emotions/sells the premium product.

The /actual/ ancient past was way more concerned about quantity and physiological performance in a 'can you get big on it' as a positive and 'how likely is it to kill you' as opposed to any high minded ideals.

Despite trying to sound like it 'real food' isn't a real goal or metric in the same way that dog breeds which don't have a purpose other than aesthetics defined by vapid breed standards rapidly become the canine counterpart to the Hapsburgs. Compare to a working dog breed's actual defacto requirements. "Smart enough to keep up with and herd livestock, mean enough to chase away predators but not so vicious it kills the livestock itself." is a real set of goals that constrains it into a functional space to optimize for and can even tolerate some wasteful vanity in appearance selection. Hell even something overspecialized like "Try to be the fastest on the race track without being so badly behaved that they are disqualified." is better.

I am convinced that the underlying issues be they dog breeds or food aren't the real problems but ways of thinking.

Re: How Crisco Made Americans Believers in Industrial Food

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they were safe enough at the timescales that people previously operated in." If you were a peasant in the 1800s expecting to live till 50, sausages and smoked meat would probably _increase_ your life expectancy due to the additional protein. You would also not live long enough, or eat so much of it as to have a significantly higher likelihood of getting cancer. The context in which those foods are consumed is differ…

Doesn't the point still stand, though, that you can't use historical usage to prove safety currently (given the change in how we eat food and how long we live)?

Safety is a spectrum really. To give a very binary example we are certain that eating rotten poisonous shark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1karl) won't kill you because of historical record in spite of eating rotten fish and eating toxic fish separately both being known lethal things.

It doesn't tell us if it is optimal health wise to do such a thing.

Re: How Crisco Made Americans Believers in Industrial Food

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salt is one of those weird things. The salt studies were years ago, mostly, and haven't fully been redone with modern standards. It isn't that they were fully wrong, but it doesn't always have the ills one is warned about and the amounts of "healthy" salt might vary. Some of those folks with high blood pressure will be helped by a lower salt diet: Some will not and I'm not sure if there are consistent links saying it…

And reducing salt has a devious unintended consequence: encouraging a diet higher in carbohydrates and fructose specifically—almost certainly worse than the salt for most people. Salt is one of the most effective ways to make healthy low carbohydrate foods (particularly fats and protein) palatable and compete with the sugar, corn and wheat that are so prevalent in unhealthy foods.

I find spicyness and sourness to be pretty good substitutes for salt and they make a lot of the blander (but healthy) vegetarian food taste fantastic.
Post reply on HN