|
"Food’s under attack from two quarters. It’s under attack from the food industry, which is taking, you know, perfectly good whole foods and tricking them up into highly processed edible food-like substances, and from nutritional science, which has over the years convinced us that we shouldn’t be paying attention to food, it’s really the nutrients that matter. And they’re trying to replace foods with antioxidants, you know, cholesterol, saturated fat, omega-3s, and that whole way of looking at food as a collection of nutrients, I think, is very destructive."
I've never heard anybody say you shouldn't pay attention to food. Quite the opposite.
People do add anti-oxidants to food. It prevents spoilage. It's also a good source of vitamin C. Looking at food is going to be pretty important if you're one of millions of americans on a special diet for medical purposes, or have a nutrietn deficiency. Lots of people do.
"No. Cholesterol in the diet is actually only very mildly related to cholesterol in the blood. It was a—that was a scientific error, basically. We were sold a bill of goods that we should really worry about the cholesterol in our food, basically because cholesterol is one of the few things we could measure that was linked to heart disease, so there was this kind of obsessive focus on cholesterol. But, you know, the egg has been rehabilitated. You know, the egg is very high in cholesterol, and now we’re told it’s actually a perfectly good, healthy food. So there’s only a very tangential relationship between the cholesterol you eat and the cholesterol levels in your blood."
That's because cholesterol is directly related to heart disease. Which is the number one killer. Yes, cholesterol has two sources, diet and genetics. You can't control genetics, you can control the diet.
"Yeah, it’s a literary scientific experience now going shopping in the supermarket, because basically the food has gotten more complex. It’s—for the food industry—see, to understand the economics of the food industry, you can’t really make money selling things like, oh, oatmeal, you know, plain rolled oats. And if you go to the store, you can buy a pound of oats, organic oats, for seventy-nine cents. There’s no money in that, because it doesn’t have any brand identification. It’s a commodity, and the prices of commodity are constantly falling over time.
So you make money by processing it, adding value to it. So you take those oats, and you turn them into Cheerios, and then you can charge four bucks for that seventy-nine cents—and actually even less than that, a few pennies of oats. And then after a few years, Cheerios become a commodity. You know, everyone’s ripping off your little circles. And so, you have to move to the next thing, which are like cereal bars. And now there’s cereal straws, you know, that your kids are supposed to suck milk through, and then they eat the straw. It’s made out of the cereal material. It’s extruded.
So, you see, every level of further complication gives you some intellectual property, a product no one else has, and the ability to charge a whole lot more for these very cheap raw ingredients. And as you make the food more complicated, you need all these chemicals to make it last, to make it taste good, to make—and because, you know, food really isn’t designed to last a year on the shelf in a supermarket. And so, it takes a lot of chemistry to make that happen."
Personally, I think labelling is a good thing. If that means you need to learn how to read words or understand scientific topics, too bad.
I personally have no problem with buying food that doesn't spoil quickly. It's more convenient. Don't like it? That's fine with me. Stop buying it.
" Nutritionism is the prevailing ideology in the whole world of food. And it’s not a science."
The Linus Pauling Institute would disagree with that. They do good nutrition science. Sure, there are charlatans out there. Buyer beware.
"And the last premise of nutritionism is that the whole point of eating is to advance your physical health and that that’s what we go to the store for, that’s what we’re buying. And that’s also a very dubious idea."
Then why is this guy telling us not to eat preservatives? Doesn't make sense.
"Well, an antioxidant is a chemical compound that plants produce,"
Gwah?!
"Yeah, that’s right. And we don’t—yeah, there’s very little sugar in our processed food. It’s all high-fructose corn syrup, which, in effect, the government is subsidizing."
high-fructose corn syrup is sugar. He may be talking about table sugar, but he was already ranting about that too.
"I mean, my basic philosophy of eating is, you know, if your great-grandmother wasn’t familiar with it, you probably want to stay away from it."
My great-grandmother wasn't familiar with anything spicier that tomatoes. Sounds like a shitty philosophy to me.
|