9 ms·

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

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
You're giving the marketing department way too much credit in my opinion. Pretty much all of these highly processed foods are highly processed in order to reduce cost in some way (e.g. increasing shelf life, decrease storage requirements, use a substitute ingredient, remove the need for some other product, etc). All the finicky bits of producing food (e.g handling ingredients that are much less shelf stable than the final product) and abstracts that away to some factory somewhere. All of this seems like you're getting something for nothing if you don't know it's unhealthy. The technology and processes used to create stuff that is recognizable as "modern industrial food" were mostly developed and matured over the late 1800s and early 1900s. For reasons that should be immediately obvious cheap and shelf stable became highly sought after traits for ingredients in the 1930s and 1940s. Likewise a generation of people grew up seeing their parents shoe-horn products like Crisco into use cases formerly reserved for other more natural ingredients. Considering that they grew up on it it's no surprise they stocked their 1950s and 60s cupboards and pantries with the sorts of products that they were familiar with from their youth. Of course marketing is icing on the cake but things, like cooking habits, that you generally learn from your parents are generally resistant to fast change without some sort of strong outside motivation.
- kop316 7y ago
  I think Chris Kimball of America's test kitchen spoke on this, one of the other big reasons that American's went from lard to Vegetable shortening was because lard is used in ammunition, so in world war II, much of the production of lard went to the war effort, so folks started to use shortening instead.
- squish78 7y ago
  Thank you for a detailed and nuanced history. No doubt the industrial processed food supply was necessary for the population growth in the latter half of 20th century. The agriculture industry will need some massive overhauls to survive the next century https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-industrial-agriculture https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-industrial-agr...
- emodendroket 7y ago
  All makes sense but I'd say that there is also the factor of trying to maximize particular nutritional traits for marketing purposes ("no saturated fat," "no fat," "no sugar added," "no nitrates," whatever).
rayiner 7y ago
What is “real food?” Are sausages, for example, “real food?”
- squish78 7y ago
  Are you doing a semantic word-play thing, or are you genuinely curious about the food supply? Edit: I see that you're a former lawyer. I'm going to assume it's a semantic word-play thing
  - rayiner 7y ago
    It’s not semantics. I’m trying to understand what OP means by “real food,” because I suspect he’s peddling nature woo.[1] Heavily processed food, like sausages and cured meats, have been a basic part of the human diet for millennia. [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nature_woo https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nature_woo
    - squish78 7y ago
      Then you just answered your own question if sausage is real food... so why are you asking? But if you want to talk about curing meats, that's a fun topic. The ones my fam makes are way tastier than Jimmy Dean's
      - rayiner 7y ago
        I’m trying to figure out the contours of what OP considers “real food.” Because there is no scientific basis for the term.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  If you make them yourself at home, yes. If not, no.
  - kevinmchugh 7y ago
    If I buy them from the butcher at the end of my block who make them in house, they're not real food? If the butcher makes them at the store and takes them home, they're not real food? What if I make them at my house and take them to someone else's home?
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
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 just can't find a way to extract a meaning beyond "the kind of food that real food advocates like".
- squish78 7y ago
  It's OK if there's not a universal definition of every concept. Some things in life are culturally subjective - especially cuisine. However, I think an intelligent person can look at string cheese and say that's fake food. I've started realizing that there is very little space for nuance and subjectivity in discussing things on HN
  - emodendroket 7y ago
    > However, I think an intelligent person can look at string cheese and say that's fake food. Why is it any faker than regular cheese? Perhaps I am not as intelligent as I'd like to think.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    String cheese is another great example. Most people would identify it as a clear example of "fake food", but it's literally just mozzarella stretched in a particular way. I have no objection to nuance and subjectivity. There's nothing wrong with someone saying "I like fresh salads and fish and tofu, but string cheese and Big Macs aren't for me". Certainly I wouldn't say that you must eat string cheese unless you have an ironclad reason to avoid it. What I object to (and what I think HN is particularly sensitive to) is trying to sneak personal preferences under the guise of loaded terms like "real food".
    - squish78 7y ago
      Then I guess I'm guilty sneaking my personal preferences. I wanted to have a conversation about the industrial food supply and failed to ask the right questions

You're giving the marketing department way too much credit in my opinion. Pretty much all of these highly processed foods are highly processed in order to reduce cost in some way (e.g. increasing shelf life, decrease storage requirements, use a substitute ingredient, remove the need for some other product, etc). All the finicky bits of producing food (e.g handling ingredients that are much less shelf stable than the final product) and abstracts that away to some factory somewhere. All of this seems like you're getting something for nothing if you don't know it's unhealthy. The technology and processes used to create stuff that is recognizable as "modern industrial food" were mostly developed and matured over the late 1800s and early 1900s. For reasons that should be immediately obvious cheap and shelf stable became highly sought after traits for ingredients in the 1930s and 1940s. Likewise a generation of people grew up seeing their parents shoe-horn products like Crisco into use cases formerly reserved for other more natural ingredients. Considering that they grew up on it it's no surprise they stocked their 1950s and 60s cupboards and pantries with the sorts of products that they were familiar with from their youth. Of course marketing is icing on the cake but things, like cooking habits, that you generally learn from your parents are generally resistant to fast change without some sort of strong outside motivation.

kop316 7y ago
I think Chris Kimball of America's test kitchen spoke on this, one of the other big reasons that American's went from lard to Vegetable shortening was because lard is used in ammunition, so in world war II, much of the production of lard went to the war effort, so folks started to use shortening instead.
squish78 7y ago
Thank you for a detailed and nuanced history. No doubt the industrial processed food supply was necessary for the population growth in the latter half of 20th century. The agriculture industry will need some massive overhauls to survive the next century https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-industrial-agriculture https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-industrial-agr...
emodendroket 7y ago
All makes sense but I'd say that there is also the factor of trying to maximize particular nutritional traits for marketing purposes ("no saturated fat," "no fat," "no sugar added," "no nitrates," whatever).

rayiner 7y ago

What is “real food?” Are sausages, for example, “real food?”

squish78 7y ago
Are you doing a semantic word-play thing, or are you genuinely curious about the food supply? Edit: I see that you're a former lawyer. I'm going to assume it's a semantic word-play thing
- rayiner 7y ago
  It’s not semantics. I’m trying to understand what OP means by “real food,” because I suspect he’s peddling nature woo.[1] Heavily processed food, like sausages and cured meats, have been a basic part of the human diet for millennia. [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nature_woo https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nature_woo
  - squish78 7y ago
    Then you just answered your own question if sausage is real food... so why are you asking? But if you want to talk about curing meats, that's a fun topic. The ones my fam makes are way tastier than Jimmy Dean's
    - rayiner 7y ago
      I’m trying to figure out the contours of what OP considers “real food.” Because there is no scientific basis for the term.
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
If you make them yourself at home, yes. If not, no.
- kevinmchugh 7y ago
  If I buy them from the butcher at the end of my block who make them in house, they're not real food? If the butcher makes them at the store and takes them home, they're not real food? What if I make them at my house and take them to someone else's home?

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

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 just can't find a way to extract a meaning beyond "the kind of food that real food advocates like".

squish78 7y ago
It's OK if there's not a universal definition of every concept. Some things in life are culturally subjective - especially cuisine. However, I think an intelligent person can look at string cheese and say that's fake food. I've started realizing that there is very little space for nuance and subjectivity in discussing things on HN
- emodendroket 7y ago
  > However, I think an intelligent person can look at string cheese and say that's fake food. Why is it any faker than regular cheese? Perhaps I am not as intelligent as I'd like to think.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  String cheese is another great example. Most people would identify it as a clear example of "fake food", but it's literally just mozzarella stretched in a particular way. I have no objection to nuance and subjectivity. There's nothing wrong with someone saying "I like fresh salads and fish and tofu, but string cheese and Big Macs aren't for me". Certainly I wouldn't say that you must eat string cheese unless you have an ironclad reason to avoid it. What I object to (and what I think HN is particularly sensitive to) is trying to sneak personal preferences under the guise of loaded terms like "real food".
  - squish78 7y ago
    Then I guess I'm guilty sneaking my personal preferences. I wanted to have a conversation about the industrial food supply and failed to ask the right questions