|
Helsing posted:
Because "processed meat" is referring to a certain set of processes 90% of the time so if you properly qualify your definition its (somewhat) useful. "Processed food" is a giant useless clusterfuck that can mean anything from canning tomatoes, to making wheat into bread, or adding stabilzer gum to cheese.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Probably people who buy lots of fresh food, more than they need. Other stuff doesn't go bad. My father does quite a bit and knows it, and is fully conscious that in his case it is a combination of mediocrly treated anxiety and growing up in extreme poverty. Not sure whether his case can he extrapolated much, but he derives a lot of comfort from knowing that now that he is financially secure he has more food in the house than he can ever feasibly eat. Wouldn't be TOO surprised if that is a thing impoverished people / boomers from poor backgrounds in general are prone to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I know this is a little ways back but holy poo poo if milling, adding salt and sugar, and then fermenting something doesn't count as "processing" then we've really hit peak useless terminology here. That's why they sometime say "ultra-processed." That's the difference between Quaker Rolled Oats (processed) and Quaker Maple and brown sugar instant oats (ultra-processed). Bread is processed and Hot Pockets are ultra-processed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:That's why they sometime say "ultra-processed." That's the difference between Quaker Rolled Oats (processed) and Quaker Maple and brown sugar instant oats (ultra-processed). Bread is processed and Hot Pockets are ultra-processed. That sure sounds like peak useless terminology to me. Especially considering Quaker Maple and brown sugar oats are way way less processed then bread, and hot pockets are basically only more "processed" then bread in the sense that it's a combination of multiple processed foods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I thought this would be an interesting discussion on food waste and ways to avoid it at various levels. Nope, pages and pages of arguing what junk food is and if it's worse to eat than fresh veggies. Ok. It's really not hard to waste food. My wife is a pretty good cook and when there is enough time she can and will put together a unique meal every night of the week with two sides. So she often buys stuff with this idea in mind. But then two things happen. First the amount you buy doesn't match the meals you actually make, leaving odd amount of leftovers. And second, you don't end up having time to cook what you planned for. Good fresh ingredients often don't even last a week so if you buy them with good intentions and plans change they go to waste. Now on the first point we have some disagreements. I'm not picky so I don't give a crap if we repeat something or if there is only a half portion of something or wahtever. But her standards are higher and she'll be willing to throw stuff out in order to have a more proper meal. Since I contribute nothing to the kitchen, I have little leverage changing how anything happens there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
The easiest way to not waste food is to eat "processed" food. It keeps well and is generally portioned in single portions. So we really should be glad if there's a lot of consumer food waste, because it means people are cooking. There is no food waste in a hungry man dinner because it is exactly one portion. But if you cook your own Sunday roast, you tend to misjudge things a little. You make 5 portions of carrots, 6 of potatoes and 4 of meat for your 4-person family, and you throw away 300g of peelings and bones - shocking waste!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The easiest way to not waste food is to eat "processed" food. It keeps well and is generally portioned in single portions. So we really should be glad if there's a lot of consumer food waste, because it means people are cooking. There is no food waste in a hungry man dinner because it is exactly one portion. But if you cook your own Sunday roast, you tend to misjudge things a little. You make 5 portions of carrots, 6 of potatoes and 4 of meat for your 4-person family, and you throw away 300g of peelings and bones - shocking waste! We had a poster earlier in this thread rant about the evils of food waste, how the cost of food is too high, and how processed food is bad. How his brain does not explode from simultaneously holding three contradictory opinions, I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Why should anyone give a poo poo about food waste? As long as you're not dumping it into a pond etc. you're fine. It biodegrades wonderfully. The problem is "the poor are going hungry". The answer is more and more robust welfare programs, full stop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Onion Knight posted:Why should anyone give a poo poo about food waste? As long as you're not dumping it into a pond etc. you're fine. It biodegrades wonderfully. Yes. This a thousand times. Food waste is bad because... If the answer is "that food could be feeding someone" then the question is "why don't we feed that person some other way, is dealing with food waste the best way to get people fed?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Yes. This a thousand times. Food waste is bad because... I agree with this. I think the logical linkup comes from the "obviously we are producing way more food than actually gets consumed" side of the equation. Like, if we have so much surplus food then why do we have people struggling to get a proper meal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:I agree with this. I think the logical linkup comes from the "obviously we are producing way more food than actually gets consumed" side of the equation. Like, if we have so much surplus food then why do we have people struggling to get a proper meal? Also, "we don't have infinite money so why not recapture what would be wasted and use it to feed people?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Wouldn't people buying like twice as much food as they need raise the price ? If people bought twice as much gas as their car's tank could hold and just let the rest spill out and go down the drain because "the gas stations only sell fuel in 20 liters but my car only holds 10" wouldn't that raise the price of fuel?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Wouldn't people buying like twice as much food as they need raise the price ? 70% of food is not wasted. Of the amount wasted, 20% come from consumers. So it's at most about 30% extra food.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Post-consumer food waste is generally not in the form that can be handed out to the hungry. Half a wilted lettuce, a small of piece furry cheese, and the stale ends of the loaf aren't going to be of much interest to the first-world poor who are generally not literally, at this moment, starving. That doesn't mean they don't need help with food, but they need help with palatable food. Supermarkets throw out much better food - a dented can, or a pack of pork chops that needs to be used or frozen today, or a whole lettuce that got a bit scuffed. That sort of food can really help a poor family.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Onion Knight posted:Why should anyone give a poo poo about food waste? As long as you're not dumping it into a pond etc. you're fine. It biodegrades wonderfully. So there was some back-of-the-napkin math in the Techbros thread. Lyesh posted:Let's play the fun back of the envelope game: Nessus posted:According to ancient Japanese wisdom (no really) about 330 pounds of rice is enough to feed one person for one year. Round that up to 400 and now a ton of rice feeds FIVE people for a year, and that's before you get the beans involved! Liquid Communism posted:Yeah, it averages out to ~1500 calories a day. Not too shabby, really, as far as subsistence staples go. Figure that plus whatever you can come up with in the way of local veggies, dairy, and small game/fish and you definitely won't starve to death quickly. Hmm, it does look like a steal when you put it like that. How much would it cost to feed an adult on nothing but rice for a year? A metric ton of rice is enough to feed two adults for a year (about 1750 calories per day) . A metric ton is about 2200 pounds, so for easy math let's say a person eats 1100 lbs of rice. Let's assume rice retalis for $10/20 lbs to make the math easy, so the retail cost to feed 1 adult on rice for a year is 1100/20 * 10 or $550. About $45/month. Doable as a social insurance thing, possibly, but also pretty doable for the vast majority of even poor people with their own incomes plus assistance they have available now. Like...if you have a way to cook rice and you're somehow paying for food now you can probably afford your basic nutrition without a new program.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
An adult can't live on only rice, you realize? E: VVV Haha, well done. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:An adult can't live on only rice, you realize? Depends if it's processed or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Depends if it's processed or not.  I wonder how much money you start saving at that point by just starting up rice farms yourself. I'd be pretty ok with government coordinated subsistence farming. 
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Depends if it's processed or not.  WampaLord posted:An adult can't live on only rice, you realize? idk man, looking at the quotes from the Techbros thread people seem to think so. But let's assume we add some beans. According to the USDA a pound of dry kidney beans cost about $1.67 on average in 2013. Let's say it's $2.00 because math. According to Calorie King there are 99 calories in 1 oz of dry kidney beans, so 16oz * 99 calories = 1584 calories in a pound. Let's say hypotheticly you split your daily 1750 calories evenly between rice and beans. 875 calories of rice costs about .75 cents per day (half of $45 per month / 30 days). 875 calories of beans costs about $1.11 (875/1584 calories per pound * $2.00 per pound) Throw in a one-a-day multivitamin - about $10.00 for 365 tablets, or $.83 cents per month. So feeding a person on rice and beans for a month at retail costs more or less ($1.11 + $0.75)*30 + $0.83 or $56.63. Still pretty doable. edit: I think a question we might ask ourselves is, given that food is so cheap and that assistance is available, how is anyone with access to a stove and a pot food insecure in the US? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Yes. This a thousand times. Food waste is bad because...
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
In what world in 1750 calories per day representative of average? I need 2700 calories per day to maintain my weight, and I'm skinny (6'2", 165 lbs).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:In what world in 1750 calories per day representative of average? I need 2700 calories per day to maintain my weight, and I'm skinny (6'2", 165 lbs). edit: To be clear, by which I mean that government programs should just provide for a basic amount of food to everyone, either by directly giving them cash to buy food or by distributing food generally. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Depends if it's processed or not.  Alright, well done. wateroverfire posted:
Well, first of all 1750 calories isn't exactly generous and also the idea that the poor should exist on a diet of nothing but rice and beans is so obviously unacceptable that I'm not sure why you're bothering to bring it up at all. Besides which you're ignoring the time it takes to purchase and prepare, as well as access to transportation to and from the store, and enough leeway to save up money (have $50 or $100 saved up when you're truly poor isn't necessarily a small thing), etc. You start to add that up and it turns into the death of a thousand cuts. There's no one big reason for food security, just a lot of local and proximate ones united by a shared theme of near utter indifference to the plight of the poor by everyone who isn't poor. And yeah, as I think you're alluding to, a lot of poor people experiencing food insecurity on a semi-regular basis are probably suffering from other issues like mental illness and addiction. Or they simply lack any kind of positive examples to emulate because of how insidious inter-generational poverty is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
My guess is there is a lot of this. Even among friends of mine who are typically employed, albeit minimally, they will spend every cent they have with little thought put to planning. If they run out of money they get "cheap" things like small chocolate bars or bags of chips, even though these are actually super expensive compared to what an equivalent amount of rice would cost. I'm really not sure why they do this as its not how I operate. They live pay-cheque to pay cheque and are constantly poor. By changing their buying habits they could, by their own admission, have plenty of money with no change to their quality of life. Its baffling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:In what world in 1750 calories per day representative of average? I need 2700 calories per day to maintain my weight, and I'm skinny (6'2", 165 lbs). You may already know that basal metabolic rate varies pretty widely. For example my height and maintenance are the same but I weigh 30+ more pounds than you (you fucker). You also may be more active than average? America is pretty sedentary as a whole. But really we should give the peasants minimum calories so that they will stay puny and can't effectively rebel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:My guess is there is a lot of this. It's baffling to us because the unstated civic religion of the west is the cult of the rational individual who gets what is coming to them. It's our version of that famous old British hymn, All Things Bright and Beautiful: "The rich man in his castle / the poor man at the gate / God made them high and lowly / and ordered their estate". We shouldn't be any more surprised by the persistence of poor eating habits than we should be surprised by the persistence of smoking half a century after it was conclusively demonstrated that smoking destroys your body and greatly raises your chance of a premature and horrific death. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but there's a conservative leaning philosopher named John Gray who sums up the paradox of the modern world pretty well: Straw Dogs: Thoughts On Humans And Other Animals, John Gray posted:For the pre-Socratic Greeks, the fact that our lives are framed by limits was what makes us human. Being born a mortal, in a given place and time, strong or weak, swift or slow, brave or cowardly, beautiful or ugly, suffering tragedy or being spared it -- these features of our lives are given to us, they cannot be chosen. If the Greeks could have imagined a life without them, they could not have recognised it as that of a human being. Insofar as human autonomy can be a reality rather than an ideal, it tends to emerge from a highly supportive and structured upbringing and environment in which opportunity is balanced out with an equivalent amount of security. That's not what modern society provides to people who grow up in households or neighborhoods that suffer from food insecurity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Will we be able to earn extra vitamin rations by turning in people who eat potato chips or drink wine without at least a 55,000 dollar salary?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
After I'm king there won't be potato chips anymore because all food processing will be outlawed. You'll be allowed to make a salad, but only if the ingredients are fresh and you eat it on the spot. This will save on power bills because we'll no longer require fridges. Money will be abolished, and vitamins themselves will be the new legal tender.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
For me not throwing food away is a moral thing. There's a saying in these parts of the world (Eastern Europe) that translates to "throwing away is sin". 'Sin' not being a religious term in this case, it's closer to 'shame'. If I'm full and there's still food on my plate I'll either force myself to finish it or I'll store it. I hate seeing people throw half the plate to garbage because they decided they weren't that hungry or they didn't like it too much. To me that's frivolous. Wasting food while there are hungry people, killing animals and plants just to throw them away... I'm aware that it's an irrational stance to have and that in the current system not wasting food won't directly help the hungry. Maera Sior posted:Our level of agriculture is damaging to the environment. There are other reasons to think about how much we produce vs. what we consume. And we are not staying at this level - it's getting worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:For me not throwing food away is a moral thing. There's a saying in these parts of the world (Eastern Europe) that translates to "throwing away is sin". 'Sin' not being a religious term in this case, it's closer to 'shame'. If I'm full and there's still food on my plate I'll either force myself to finish it or I'll store it. I hate seeing people throw half the plate to garbage because they decided they weren't that hungry or they didn't like it too much. To me that's frivolous. Wasting food while there are hungry people, killing animals and plants just to throw them away... Yeah, I feel bad about throwing "good" food away, but I think we need to make a distinction between waste that's easy to deal with (essentially leftovers) and waste that would require a lot of ingenuity to deal with. Throwing out a half portion of cooked food that you could eat the next day is different from putting half an onion that's been in your fridge for a week into the compost, simply because you didn't have anything that called for half an onion. You could save all the odds and sods and make a stock or something, but realistically that's only slightly better than just composting those things. Sometimes the leftovers get used "naturally" and other times they don't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
I had to throw away 3 tiny bananas because they were lovely "organic" ones that turned into liquid mush in a few days. I hate that the only supermarket near me is a lovely organic one with horrible mushy produce at higher prices. This is the most food I've wasted all month.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I had to throw away 3 tiny bananas because they were lovely "organic" ones that turned into liquid mush in a few days. I hate that the only supermarket near me is a lovely organic one with horrible mushy produce at higher prices. This is the most food I've wasted all month. You could've frozen them before they went to poo poo and/or made them into banana bread, just sayin' Kidding aside, that's an acceptable amount of food waste. Trying to get to 0 is not a realistic goal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, I feel bad about throwing "good" food away, but I think we need to make a distinction between waste that's easy to deal with (essentially leftovers) and waste that would require a lot of ingenuity to deal with. Throwing out a half portion of cooked food that you could eat the next day is different from putting half an onion that's been in your fridge for a week into the compost, simply because you didn't have anything that called for half an onion. You could save all the odds and sods and make a stock or something, but realistically that's only slightly better than just composting those things. Sometimes the leftovers get used "naturally" and other times they don't. I'm not attacking you for wasting half an onion, but I don't see that distinction. Maybe you picked a wrong example but I add onion to salads, to cottage cheese and cream, or when I fry something, or make a soup...
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I had to throw away 3 tiny bananas because they were lovely "organic" ones that turned into liquid mush in a few days. I hate that the only supermarket near me is a lovely organic one with horrible mushy produce at higher prices. This is the most food I've wasted all month. Organic bananas aren't any different to ordinary ones, your supermarket sucks for different reasons than being organic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
For the record, I just read through this thread focusing on Helsing's response and it seems a lot of sperglords here sure liked to jump over the use a colloqual heuristic that's commonly used as the start of educationg regular people about what foods to eat. Reading through it, it didn't come across to me as Helsing arguing against GMOs or some other airy-fairy crap, it was rather straightforward, but too much time on the autism spectrum I guess causes the kind of picking apart conversation that I have so often lurked and only read about. People seem set to construct this giant strawman of Helsing spewing on about "DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE IN MY FOOD! OH MY GOD!" when he has never argued for that position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
There's no need to rehash the debate yet again. Besides, after a decade of posting in D&D I think I was overdue for an angry red custom title of my own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
I'm starting to think there's a "processed food" autism link due to this thread. I actually find food waste an interesting topic and think reducing food waste is a good idea, as well as other ways of reducing our ecological footprint. Would be cool to see some discussion related to the topic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Just pitching in to say that cooking for yourself can be a problem when you can only either buy certain ingredients either at twice the amount you can consume/store in a reasonable period of time, or at twice the price for a more sanely sized package. I ended up giving up on certain meals because I feel awful throwing away food (read: money I can't really afford to waste)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
If you want to minimize food waste, make stews. They're the ultimate "shove all your leftover raw ingredients together" food, and you can freeze whatever you don't immediately eat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
P-Value Hack posted:
Cool of you to literally use a straw man accusation there. Nobody accused Helsing of spewing about "DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE IN MY FOOD! OH MY GOD!". He was arguing against what are essentially preserved foods in a food waste thread, and conflating the dangers between a processed food like salami and a processed food like canned tomatoes. He has weird ideas about nutrition, recommending first someone home cook pasta, vegetables, and rice in order to eat more healthily than prepared foods--this is lovely because pasta and rice are things we try to get people to eat less of because they're calorific, not satisfying, and have a high glycemic index. He hasn't got a leg to stand on at any point, especially since his poo poo was one massive derail anyway. Prepared foods are one of the absolute best ways we deal with food waste, and doing home-cooked everything is not a solution to food waste, at all. One of the major problems with public health in urbanization during the late 1800s was that it wasn't economical to import enough fresh food, including fresh milk, into the city to feed everyone, since a lot of those people were stinking poors and vegetables and stuff take up a lot of room. Milk was also really, really hard to get, because it needed intense refrigeration, leading to swill milk http://www.forgottendelights.com/DairySwillMilk.html. I would rather see more recipes that dealt with canned and frozen vegetables and ways to spruce them up than endless "farm-fresh tomatoes from your farmers market" style stuff. We have enough of the latter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 16:26
|
|
