I’m not much for the whole hippy-dippy holistically “natural” nonsense that some people buy into, but the composition of processed foods does make one wonder what the goals of the food producers are.
A healthy society? A society based on consuming as much as possible? Some combination of the two?
The ‘pillars’ involved in the creation of fast food make me think that a healthy society isn’t much of a priority. This excerpt from the Alter.Net article:
“Processed-food companies increasingly turn to their legions of scientists to produce foods that we can’t resist,” he writes. McFedries notes that he is “indebted” to New York Times reporter Michael Moss, particularly for his fascinating new book Salt Sugar Fat, for many of the following terms:
- Pillar Ingredients—Salt, sugar, and fat are the Pillar Ingredients, and the industry strategically combines the three to keep you hooked.
- Bliss Point—If we crave pillar ingredients so much, why not just crank them up as much as possible? It turns out there is an optimum amount of salt, sugar, or fat the human brain likes best, and it is called the bliss point.
- Mouthfeel—This is literally the way food feels inside a person’s mouth; junk food industry scientists also adjust factors like crunchiness to produce a mouthfeel that consumer most crave.
- Flavor Burst—Technologists alter the size and shape of salt crystals, so that they induce a flavor burst that “can basically assault the taste buds into submission.”
- Vanishing Caloric Density—Underlying all junk-food science is vanishing caloric density, which is the process by which the food melts in your mouth so quickly that the brain is fooled into thinking it is consuming fewer calories than it actually is. The packaged-food scientists want to avoid triggering sensory-specific satiety, the brain mechanism that tells a person to stop eating when it is overwhelmed by flavors. The goals are either passive overeating, which is the excessive eating of foods that are high in fat because the human body is slow to recognize the caloric content of rich foods, or auto-eating: that is, eating without thinking or without even being hungry.
13 comments
June 22, 2013 at 2:15 pm
anonymous
I think they are lacing the food with opiates.
LikeLike
June 22, 2013 at 2:45 pm
john zande
Food science goes to these lengths? Shit…
LikeLike
June 22, 2013 at 5:48 pm
VR Kaine
Yeah it’s crazy the lengths they go to. Can’t think of the doc name at the moment but they were saying how much thought and science goes into the precise flavor of heinz ketchup. It reminded me of those exposés on tobacco companies
LikeLike
June 22, 2013 at 5:52 pm
sm
Why do you feel the need to crap on those who advocate for natural foods over manufactured and processed food? Doesn’t that tell you the the big food manufacturers have done a bit of brainwashing on you that you would poo poo the natural option, even while pointing out the manipulative nature of the food industry?
LikeLike
June 22, 2013 at 6:05 pm
bleatmop
Seems like capitalism at its finest. They are designing their food to make it as appealing as possible at the lowest price point. The large fast good companies have responded to our demands for healthy options at least. I feel comfortable getting my daughter some McDonalds fries when I combine it with the apple slices and milk options.
I think the root problem here is how we have organized our societies. We’ve allowed corporations to exist without a mandate other than making profit. We could choose to change this, but it would mean a radical shift in our society from consumerism to sustainability and equity. Until that day though, the only way to force these corporations to change their business practices is to vote with our wallets.
LikeLike
June 22, 2013 at 6:26 pm
cocacolafiend
As a Food Science student, I can say that might be true.
BUT, nearly all the R&D placements that are offered seemed to revolve around lowering sugar, fat and salt without impacting mouthfeel or flavour. That’s what’s in demand and that’s the major drive these days.
I’d talk about this more but I’m on my phone, which makes it difficult.
P.S. You’re right about the all-natural thing, it’s a total con. It’s a line often swallowed hook, line and sinker by mothers who want to give their kids “healthy” snacks, but those kind of products are often packed with sugar.
LikeLike
June 22, 2013 at 8:41 pm
The Arbourist
@JZ
The drive for expanding the bottom line knows no boundaries. I often forget this quintessential truth about what makes our western societies go and thus am surprised when I read articles about balancing salt, fat and sugar for the optimal taste (and thus buying more) experience rather than what is good for you.
If anything this adds to my thesis that along with religion, capitalism poisons everything. :)
LikeLike
June 22, 2013 at 8:42 pm
The Arbourist
@Vern
Let me know if you can remember the Doc’s name as I would be interested in learning more about the wonderful world of food science.
LikeLike
June 22, 2013 at 8:55 pm
The Arbourist
@SM
Because many in the natural food lobby are full of shit. Being anti-processed foods is one thing, but being anti-science is quite another and too many for my taste have crossed that line into Junk Science and Junk thought.
Why is it that I have to explain to so many people what “organic” actually means? Processed foods are “organic”, anything that isn’t a metal (or a noble gas etc) on the periodic table is organic, unless you’re into noshing on aluminum. So where does this inaccuracy come from – often from advocates of the ‘natural’ food lobby. If they stopped abusing science with such zeal, I may see fit to revise my opinion of them.
I’ll worry about “Big Food” in due time. I’m happy that they are keeping the underclass fed, as I have no desire to become someone’s soylent green patty at the next burning man event.
Which part of the capitalist system is not manipulative/exploitative?
LikeLike
June 22, 2013 at 8:57 pm
The Arbourist
@Bleatmop
Ramen, Brother! Ramen! You tell it. :) I could have not said it better myself.
LikeLike
June 22, 2013 at 8:59 pm
The Arbourist
@CCF
It an article on the internet, and the fact checking for these sorts of things is always in question. If you have any studies that are relevant that you can point me to that would be great as I am no expert in food science.
I suspect at one point in time it was a good movement, then came the junk science and thus the fail that we see today.
LikeLike
June 23, 2013 at 4:22 am
cocacolafiend
@TA,
I haven’t been taught specifically about these things, but I certainly think it would be possible. As I said, most of the things we discuss are based on lowering fat/sugar/salt etc. while trying to maintain a good mouthfeel or flavour. I could probably find you hundreds of articles about that kind of thing.
This sounds like private company research, which wouldn’t be accessible to the public.
LikeLike
June 23, 2013 at 7:30 am
VR Kaine
@Arb,
i think it’s this one?
http://www.hungryforchange.tv/about
LikeLike