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".
Tofu is processed but also incredibly ancient[1]. If it was bad for us, we'd probably have found out about it by now. Ditto for seitan[2], tempeh[3], various pickles and other types of preserved foods, and cheeses. "Traditionally" processed foods get a pass on the "real" food scale because they've (mostly, apart from smoked and cured meats and fish) passed the "is it harmful?" test.
Also true. But arguably it was only possible for those dangers to become known recently. Smoked meats cause cancer. Death by cancer was not so frequent in the past, because fewer people lived long enough to develop cancers that could kill them. Or in other words, they were safe enough at the timescales that people previously operated in.
Also, even though the link between smoked meats and cancer is now as incontrovertible as the link between say tobacco and cancer, the risk is far lower. So it's not like they're wildly unsafe, just kinda sorta of unsafe.
Wouldn't that sort of counter your argument that traditional foods would have discovered the dangers over the ages? Traditional foods could have caused cancer and not been detected, according to your own argument.
"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 different today than it used to be. People live longer and consume way more meat (of every kind) than they used to. If you eat smoked meats and fish (and really any other meats) at the same rates as peasants of 200 years ago, I doubt they'll increase your cancer risk by all that much.
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.
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.
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
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".
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
The ingredients for mozzarella are: buffalo milk, salt and rennet (and a bit of leftover whey for the bacteria). I’m sure there is far more in a packet of “cheese strings” than that
rennet = enzymes and the original list left out cultures, but there are undoubtedly cultures in their cheese, so the only difference in the lists is presentation.
Anything frozen & prepared seems to be taboo -- like a frozen pizza. But frozen peas and berries are fair game. Everything else seems to come down to branding.
I've seen premade refrigerated pizza fly off the shelf. I've seen drinks with all kinds of highly processed ingredients sell like hotcakes. I've seen condiments with a list of ingredients as long as a phone book purchase by plenty of people that eat only "real food".
Protein powders and supplements intrigue me to no end. These are some of the most processed and unregulated things sold on shelves. But "real food" advocates literally eat them up.
One of my friends is making millions catering to this group. I've been trying to figure out how these shoppers think. To me, it doesn't seem like there's much in common. It seems to be mostly branding.
consider signaling. if you only eat "real food", you give off a vibe (not proof) that you're some mix of: educated, with disposable income, purveyor of quality
this is largely the same with other quasi-positive labels (esp. political ones). lots of $$ to be made here, as people generally want to reinforce both their own and others' perceptions of them.
This sort of thing always seems super american centric to me personally. It's common in chinese households to have a stash of frozen dumplings prepared in-kitchen, or frozen steamed buns, or various other frozen prepared foods that are kitchen staples. I get that if it's from a restaurant or big processing plant you might find things questionable, but if you prepare your own pizza and decide to freeze it for later I don't think anyone should besmirch you as suddenly less healthy compared to eating the pizza as soon as you made it.
I don't think anyone has a problem with food you cook and freeze. "Frozen foods" in this context are generally understood to mean "packaged frozen food, prepared by the seller" (which excludes the corner case of a local charcuterie preparing and freezing something).
I think many people do have a mistaken impression that frozen produce is less nutritious than fresh. Kind of an inverse version of the "health halo" that attaches itself unjustifiably to products like "pure, natural" cane sugar.
I had that mistaken impression until this very second, and I've been buying a lot less vegetables than I should for fear of fresh ones going to waste. Guess I have a good new years' resolution now.
> Anything frozen & prepared seems to be taboo -- like a frozen pizza
> I've seen premade refrigerated pizza fly off the shelf.
To be fair most frozen pizza is terrible - pre-baked bread that you're reheating, little better than frozen cheese toast. Whereas premade pizzas tend to be freshly made and you're baking the dough. So they taste a lot better.
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.
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.
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
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).
I think it's a spectrum of realness rather than real or not real - I also really dislike the title of this article as it connotes stuff that isn't literally conveyed. Industrially produced food is what nearly all of us eat, our sausages, our kale, our milk... all produced on an industrial scale.
That said, I think I value food that has fewer steps in preparation as being "more real" so I'd prefer something like a meat and onion skillet to beef wellington or a clumped cream chicken pot pie.
Sorry to clarify - I'm not worried about industrially produced kale - but the kale you buy in the supermarket is industrially produced.
I think the title is terrible for choosing that specific word - I'd much prefer a title like "How Crisco Made Americans Believers in Artificial Food". And in actuality it's more of an issue of the government not preventing wholly unhealthy food from finding the wide markets they have.
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?
It isn't pedantry, though. People talk about 'real' food, but they don't really have an idea of what that means except that it 'feels' real. I think this goes a long way to show that 'real' food is a meaningless statement, and we should stop using it... it doesn't mean we are pedantic.
Apologies. My post was too harsh and impersonal—dealing in generalities when a human whose concerns and actions are particular was involved. Sorry about that. Have a nice holiday season.
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.
Yes. They're also bad for you if eaten regularly. Not all "real food" is healthy. Not all "fake food" (whatever that means) is unhealthy. They're orthogonal concepts.
IMO any processed food that hasn't been around for a couple of generations should be treated with some suspicion.
If you want to define "processing" a loosey-goosey definition might be "anything that can't be done in the average kitchen using ingredients commonly found at a grocery store". By this definition, maybe breakfast cereals aren't processed - you could make Grape Nuts in your kitchen if you were sufficiently determined and masochistic. But it's a decent heuristic otherwise.
