The Rise of Nanofoods 369
separsons writes "Researchers are altering foods at the nanoscale level, changing their tiny molecular structures to enhance certain properties. (New Scientist has a more detailed look.) For example, one group of scientists found a way to hide water within individual droplets of oil, making low-fat mayonnaise taste like the real thing. The process can make spices spicier, potato chips healthier, and make diet food taste just like full-calorie snacks. Nanotech can even help combat global malnutrition. But the process is certainly controversial, and food manufacturers are being tight-lipped about exactly what nanofoods they're working on. So can nanotech create a healthier world, or is it just frightening Franken-food?"
That's great and all... (Score:2, Funny)
...but can it make beets taste like something other than shit?
Re:That's great and all... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:That's great and all... (Score:5, Funny)
To come back on topic, you make beets taste actually good, but for that you need a damn good chef. Could be used as a test of his competence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mix.A.Golden.Apple.In.
and if you really feel like haute cuisine hard boil an egg and sprinkle it on the mix.
and go easy on the vinegar and use a good quality oil. and don't forget a little bit of oignon.
Anything else ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like beets.
Re:That's great and all... (Score:4, Informative)
Beets straight off the in-law's farm, when cooked properly melt in your mouth and taste like they're buttered (when nothing has been added). Just season with a little salt and maybe drizzle a little balsamic vinegar (if that's to your taste). Even people who "hate" beets will rave about them.
Old beets taste like boiled stumps and are equivalently difficult to eat.
Same thing goes for a lot of veggies though. Fresh is best. I just had some fresh asparagus (just picked), and it was the best I had ever tasted. Delicate flavor, extremely tender. I can't wait for corn season. The early season corn cooks up to perfection in less than 2 minutes, is sweet, flavorful and not the least bit starchy (unlike corn from the grocery store which even if it has been hydro-cooled has often become extremely starchy). If corn is grown locally you should try purchasing it straight off the farm if possible (here most have stands that sell corn picked that day). My experience with local stores (even the ones that pretend to be more of a "farmer's market") is that they take too much time to get the produce on the shelves. They may have received it fresh picked earlier that day, but it won't be on the shelves for a day or two.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate to be the kid in The Emporer's New Clothes, but beer *does* taste like shit. Or, more accurately, really sting-y, bitter piss that hurts going down, and could NEVER hold a candle, in terms of taste, to a milkshake.
People. Drink. Beer. To. Get. High.
The taste? A cover to make it socially acceptable. "Ah, yeah, man, this beer is made by this ultra-special microbrew, man, it's got that really subtle, *refined* taste, that's why it's okay to take a psychoactive substance that would otherwise get
Re:That's great and all... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to sound like as ass, but I sometimes wonder if a lot of people never get a tastes nowadays because they eat a very small variety of foods is the US. Sugar drinks, fast food, pizza. Beer is an aquired taste, but you will see a lot more people actually drink it than say, coffee without sugar.
Over the years I have quired a taste for onions, mayonnaise (not a lot of it though), miso soup, pickled food, and various hard to eat Japanese foods. After all that pain to enjoy these things, I have a horr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's great and all... (Score:5, Interesting)
The first time I tasted a beer I drank a Budweiser at a friends house. Honestly, I didn't see the appeal to the drink (and most people can understand why I am sure). I mean, the flavors were smooth enough that I wouldn't describe it as stingy or anything like that, but it just tasted like liquefied bread and my response was something in terms of, "WTF is all the fuss about?"
However, a couple years later, one of my friends came back from Belgium and brought home some darker beers. I hadn't been drinking a lot at this point (actually, I only drank once since the Budweiser), so there was no acquired taste thing going on here. When I drank that beer, for the first time, I almost cried it tasted so good. There was a tart sweetness to it that was very difficult to find in any other food. The smoky flavor that is heavy in a lot of American dark beers was very mellow. The bitter nip to it (and it wasn't much more than a nip) stimulated a slight tingle on the tongue. Most noticeable of all, was how smooth it was going down the throat. I want to emphasize that last point. A good beer does not sting going down, it warms the throat just like a good whiskey does. It leaves you sitting there, feeling more complete for having drank it.
The thing that I appreciate about a good beer (yes I am an elitist) the most is the incredible variety of flavor experiences that can be found in a single drink. Very few consumables have the ability to stimulate so many different receptors as beer. This, in my opinion, is what makes it taste incredible. It doesn't just taste sweet, or salty, or whatever, it tastes complex, and I like that. More importantly, I think that's what makes a taste truly unique and worth appreciating. I'm not a wino, but for what it's worth, my wine drinking friends say the same thing about wine.
Now, you compare the taste of beer to the taste of a milkshake and say that a milkshake is what can be called, universally, good. I would agree that a milkshake is pleasing for the sweet receptors. However, it leaves all your other receptors lacking. To make a music analogy, I consider milkshakes to be the equivalent of fun, energetic modern pop music like Katy Perry. It's fun to listen to. It fills you with a good hype for a short time. It's very nice, but somewhat lacking in terms of depth and power. Now a good beer, on the other hand, is like a magnificent symphony or orchestra piece. It fills your very spirit with so many sounds tied together in such wonderful ways that it makes you think. You can listen to a good symphony, and your mind's eye will develop an entire cinematic to go along with the music, rife with character, feeling, plot, color and on and on. Now, is the powerful symphony better, or the fun pop music? Well that's a judgment more than anything, but I don't think either sounds better. I think they both sound great in their own ways.
Similarly, is the super sweet, awesome classic milkshake or the complex fulfilling beer better tasting? Well, neither. They both taste magnificent in their own ways. So you can reiterate your point all you want that beer tastes like shit, but I really think you have missed out on some world class beers or something. Beer provides one of the most complex, amazing symphonies of flavor that I've ever had the delight of partaking in.
Re:That's great and all... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called an 'acquired taste'. It's what happens when we get older and grow out of baby food: your tastes change to appreciate stronger and more sophisticated flavours. Some people never grow up and spend their adult lives eating children's foods such as milkshake.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
When he said "beer", he meant "budweiser"
Category mismatch. Does not compute...
Re: (Score:2)
Dwight Schrute? (Score:2, Funny)
Is that you?
Re:That's great and all... (Score:4, Interesting)
While I agree that the objects in the grocery chain stores don't taste anything like the stuff that comes out of our garden, I'd have to say that you can still get really great beef. However, it costs a lot more.
Now the chicken today tastes horrible compared to real chicken. Even the smell of the antibiotic and hormone-infused chickens cooking is repulsive to me. When I'm at our summer home in the Ozarks, I can buy fresh chickens that grew up uncaged and eating stuff that chickens like to eat and the taste is wonderful by comparison. The guy who raises those chickens likes to say that his chickens that peck their own food from corn and other meal are the best in the country. I suggested that he change his slogan to "nothing tastes as good as a pecker" but he was not amused. Well, he was sort of amused, but he's one of those guys who doesn't really show anything on his face. When he finds something absolutely side-splitting hilarious, he'll maybe twitch one corner of his mouth a millimeter or so. Raises great chickens, though, and plays mean mandolin.
Media Twist (Score:2, Troll)
Our best hope for allowing innovation like this without a knee-jerk, partisan backlash is for the mainstream media to ignore it completely: to let those who are actually vested in the technology and
Re:Media Twist (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a fine principle, except that all consumers of food have a vested interest in changes to diet. You can eat organic all you want, if wind-bourne pollen from modified crops is fertilizing the neighboring organic fields, you'll wind up eating something whose health effects are not all that certain. And yes, in many cases anti-GMO folks are concerned when there isn't reason to be; but this is our food supply we're talking about, and a precautionary principle is in full effect.
Besides, self-regulating industries are prone to misrepresenting health effects when they have financial interests at stake. CF Vioxx... It's all well and good to say "let the market sort it out," but market solutions are ex post facto -- you don't know to punish a bad market actor until they've already dumped a billion barrels of oil in your gulf (and that's assuming that you, as a lowly, non-media-empowered consumer, can even break through the asymmetries of information in the first place). Regulations can be over-cautious and even misguided, and they can certainly fail; but they are much more effective than free-market actions in preventing the disaster before it happens repeatedly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, self-regulating industries are prone to doing whatever the hell they want when they have financial interests at stake.
Just for clarification.
P.S. How do you do a strike on Slashdot? s,slash-s didn't work, neither did strike...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
P.S. How do you do a strike on Slashdot? s,slash-s didn't work, neither did strike...
You are doing it wrong: You need to convince others to join you in not posting for a given time (usually until your demands are met) and it helps if you can put some pressure on any traitors in your company and/or threaten violence to traitorous outsiders.
Re: (Score:2)
"Besides, self-regulating industries are prone to misrepresenting health effects when they have financial interests at stake."
(Looks at sat pics of Deepwater Horizon oil spill...)
Really? Who'd a thunk it?
Re:Media Twist (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree with you if I thought that the food industry would also play by those rules - use neutral, 3rd party science to determine what was safe, effective, etc. But we know that doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There have been problems with new foods, like transgenic crops. Trust Us, We're Experts [prwatch.org] details a case where potato crops utilizing a moth gene caused anaphylaxis (resulting in death) in a not-insignificant number of people who ate them. The scientist at Monsanto who was respons
nothing really new here (Score:2)
Re:nothing really new here (Score:4, Funny)
But it's nanofood. NANO! "Nano" means better, just like "digital".
Re:nothing really new here (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget, 70% of American's think that nanotechnology is inherently morally reprehensible. [eurekalert.org] And the numbers are even higher if you sample highly religious people. So either the general public has absolutely no idea what the word nanotechnology means or (and this is a scarier thought in my opinion) a significant majority of American's are against a technology are against any technology that promises to significantly enhance the human body.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:nothing really new here (Score:5, Funny)
The thing about digital food is, you either love it or you hate it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is just the next line of food additives that attempt to make food into something that it's not.
Proof, pls. kthxbai.
Nothing new here really. We've had diet food before, we'll have more of it in the future.
Really? Nothing new?
The taste might actually improve too.
So improvements in taste is nothing new?
Why don't we focus on improving our diets so that they actually include healthy foods? There's a lot of food out there that's healthy for us that doesn't taste like cardboard.
That food is also quite expensive. It either costs a lot of time, a lot of processing or a lot of space. Also, TFA implies that this nanofood-thingy might have the potency to make cheap (crap) food healthier! Why change your diet to a different kind of food when you could have the same kind, but a bit different, so that it doesn't harm you as much? As long as you like the taste, your body gets the right amount of energy and it d
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we focus on improving our diets so that they actually include healthy foods?
We've all had that option all along, yet diet related heart disease and obesity still exist, indirectly driving up everyone's health insurance costs even if you do eat healthy. Technical advances that improve the quality of food doesn't distract from your ability to eat natural healthy foods either (unless you happen to be a food researcher and are too busy researching to eat right I guess).
There are some people who are never going to give up the taco bell, and they're never going to lose weight as a conse
Re: (Score:2)
I have not given up Taco Bell.
I am also not a Hutt.
I also don't overindulge at Taco Bell nor indulge in Taco Bell itself too frequently.
It's not the food, it's the eater. Give them a "healthier version of Taco Bell" and they will just abuse that too.
"or is it just frightening Franken-food?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
New doesn't necessarily equal dangerous, but it also doesn't necessarily equal benign, either.
I just want to know what I'm buying, and that plenty of somebody elses have done guinea pig duty first.
Re: (Score:2)
the only frankenfood i know is franken berry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mills_monster-themed_breakfast_cereals).
Pretty good stuff, if yer into sugar food that is.
Everything else is still just carbs, fats, proteins and fiber.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh great. (Score:2)
I'm sure nothing bad will come of this. Nosirree.
False dichotomy detected (Score:2)
It can suck and be cool at the same time. Everyone in the world may end up well fed and the SS may use the same tech for assassinations.
Re: (Score:2)
the taste? (Score:4, Insightful)
What pisses me off isn't that new technologies are being incorporated, but the lack of labelling and identification.
* Olestra, remember that one? Eat a bag of chips, get "anal leakage".
* Or when McDonald's was ordered to strip transfats out of its foods, and the fries suddenly became a sea of suck.
* And then there was Foi Gras, which several jurisdictions outlawed because PETA said so.
Guys, it would be way cheaper to spend the money on education than by re-engineering our food into suckitude or to enforce some political ideology on all of us. There are some days when I just want a fucking cheeseburger, with fat oozing out of the sides, a thick slice of cheese, and smothered in a heart attack. Other days, I'll happily eat trail mix or a salad. It's my choice, not yours.
Re: (Score:2)
I sometimes thing a lot of people miss out on the different tastes is life. I wouldn't want my fatty hamburger every day, but it is one taste to experience. I don't want everything to be sweet either. You haven't experienced coffee if you're doing your best to hide the bitter taste with sweeteners and flavors. And no, I don't want cheese on absolutely _everything_. Sometimes I like to experience the taste of the spinach that is under that there cheese as it's really delicious when it's fresh.
I really w
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the really good McDonald's french fries used to be cooked in tallow (beef fat), and they were later pressured into using trans-fats because at one point some thought it was healthier.
As far as education, maybe we can educate people that animal fat isn't bad or a heart attack on a plate. Humans have eaten animal fat for about 2 million years. We only started eating processed omega-6 vegetable oils and margarine in the last 100 years or so (guess what century heart attacks became an epidemic).
I do q
Re: (Score:2)
plain old low tech food (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm lucky enough to live in an area where real food is grown in the ground, pulled out, washed and sold. That means I don't have to buy food where sugar has been replaced by corn syrup (because it's just as good!), oils have been replaced with whatever is cheapest (because it's just as good), cows have been fed corn -- or worse -- instead of wheat (because it's just as good!).
Every time industry tries to improve food, it seems to make things worse.
It's one thing to try to develop high yield crops, but engineering high tech food to reduce Americans' calorie intake is insane, when you could simply put sin taxes on soda.
Re:plain old low tech food (Score:5, Insightful)
The crack, mods, the crack! It is not good for you. How is this a troll?
Where exactly has the food industry actually improved our food in terms of quality and taste? All I can see is a constant trend to bland, overprocessed, undifferentiated, utterly boring crap. I am no zealot, you can't escape that all the time, but whenever I got time I try to prepare my own meals from food that, as the parent stated it, was "grown in the ground, pulled out, washed and sold". I don't even care if it is healthier, it is better, it has an actual taste.
So, dear food chemists, you can take your nanotech low-fat mayonnaise and shove it. I'll keep making my own when I need some. Yep, it's full of fat, so is the cauliflower gratin I just had - lightly sauteed cauliflower baked in a mix of egg yolk, butter, creme double and roquefort, add salt, pepper, chili power, saffron and lime juice to taste. That's why I don't gorge myself on it. How about just exerting some self-control instead of lowering calorie intake by pseudo-food substitutes?
Re: (Score:2)
... cows have been fed corn -- or worse -- instead of wheat (because it's just as good!).
No way.
Cows are supposed to eat grass, off the ground.
They do that here in Uruguay, and it's one of the reasons why we get good prices for the beef.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's altering food that's the problem. I sat down last year with a couple of nutrition texts and assembled a list of actual bodily needs and discovered that I could get everything in the form of pills. It turns out to be surprisingly cheap and easy, especially once you realize that you don't actually have to consume protein: you digest proteins into amino acids before they're absorbed in the gut, so you just need to get the necessary amino acids. I've gone as long as two months at a time without consuming a
excellent TED talk (Score:5, Informative)
In the case of these foods, there isn't even a danger that it will get out into the wild and reproduce or anything like that. If they turn out bad, we can stop making them, it's as simple as that. The risk is really quite modest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing of the kind in place for food, probably because historically, the public health problems resulting from new food production have been virtually nonexistent. You can hardly compare the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best fruit is still only accessible from your own private tree, but supermarket fruit has definitely seen an increase in quality
Re: (Score:2)
Re:excellent TED talk (Score:5, Insightful)
GMO corn and soybeans are regularly found crossing into other fields, sometimes miles away... you can't stop the spread of pollen.
I agree with the speaker on many points, but the honest truth is that humanity is rather poor at predicting long-term dangers in products. Radium, mercury, benzene, tobacco, asbestos and PCB's were all thought to be minimally safe, or containable, or easily managed.
Food is a basic necessity for all humans, and I think we should be making better crops, more nutritional foods, and increasing the sustainability of farming and ranching. But honest labeling should be mandated to allow consumers to make informed choices. Making a bad choice is allowable.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that a soy producer, after growing RR soy/RR wheat year after year, applying Roundup every time, for the length of ten years, is free to stop doing that and growing some other grain?
I was under the assumption that it's not that easy to walk away from herbicide-based crops.
Please enlighten me, I'm all ears.
Re: (Score:2)
Experimental food is like experimental drugs... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
The regulatory two-step... (Score:4, Insightful)
1.Any regulation of these novel techniques will be resisted on the grounds of "consumer choice"
2. Any requirement that foodstuffs incorporating these novel techniques be identified as such in any way will be resisted as "confusing" or "alarmist".
3. People will have no idea what they are buying; but their "decisions" will be held up as a vindication for consumer satisfaction with the new techniques.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the crap that comes in a cardboard box or plastic container is utter crap to begin with.
If you want to eat "safely" then dont touch anything that in packaging. go to a meat counter where they can cut and wrap your meat, go to a market to get your veggies... Buy flour to make your own pasta and breads if you cant find a good bakery that uses decent ingredients.
Good grief (Score:5, Insightful)
That blog post is entirely useless - all it does is take the New Scientist article, sprinkle in some extra paranoid fear-mongering, mix delicately and bake on high heat for ten minutes.
Why even link to it? Oh right, because "separsons" is probably the same person as the "Sarah Parsons" who wrote the blog post in the first place.
The real issue (Score:2)
Is it about making food better, or making food more profitable.
Sometimes those two interests align, but many times they don't
Profitability as the highest, if not only motive has done a lot to strengthen the distrust of genetically modified food.
The answer is sadly too clear... (Score:2)
Sure it *could* make healthier and tastier food, but where's the profit in that?
Monsanto could have made genetically modified wheat that produced more food.
But no, that discovery was done by a man who was more interested in solving hunger, than attaining personal profit. (Norman Borlaug, greatest human being in history.)
Monsanto would rather introduce the whole "Defective by design" element into the food chain.
low-fat mayonnaise taste like the real thing (Score:2)
Yeah, but can they give it the taste and consistency of Kraft Extra Heavy Mayo [kraftfoodservice.com]? Available from Amazon! [amazon.com]
I have news for you... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
it's franken-food regardless even if you grow it yourself. you honestly think that miracle grow plant food you use as fertilizer doesn't change the taste and modify the property of the plant?
I'll take a nano burger (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone remember spermicidal GMO Corn? (Score:5, Interesting)
Epicyte created corn in 2001 that has spermicidal properties.
Lovely.... I am sure the population control advocates will demand this be given as part of food aid to developing countries.
Re:Anyone remember spermicidal GMO Corn? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Lovely.... I am sure the population control advocates will demand this be given as part of food aid to developing countries."
Good. In our PC culture it's unfashionable to point out how ballistically fucked up the behavior and choices made by people in those countries lead to famine, war, pestilence and death. One way to fix some of that is to reduce population pressure that drives them into areas that cannot sustain them.
Giving them food ordinarily serves to sustain their crappy decision model (which is why I oppose all foreign food aid). It doesn't FORCE them to change.
Give them all the contraceptive corn they'll eat (not having to spew out a brat every time you get fucked had been tremendously LIBERATING to Western women!) and if they don't like it, then they can choose to abstain.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the reproductive responsibility I've seen in the US, we might want to start getting this into the domestic food supply first.
diet food? (Score:4, Interesting)
Diet food already tastes like the real thing. All my veggies taste real.
All my whole grain foods all taste real...
Oh wait, simulated chemical created chocolate cake and high fructose corn syrup laden junk? Is that what they are trying to make taste better?
How about simply not eating that trash?
(1) exercise (2) diet complicated (3) gm etc ok (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, here's three quick points:
(Posted with "It's All Text". Just say no to TEXTAREAs)
There's a word for that (Score:4, Insightful)
"altering foods at the nanoscale level, changing their tiny molecular structures to enhance certain properties"
Seems there's a word for altering materials at the nanoscale, and changing their molecular structures.
Let me think... molecular properties... hmmm... yes, I've got it! We call it "chemistry".
Scientists propose doing chemistry on food! Stop the presses! --What? Food chemistry has been an applied science since the 1700s? It's not news?
Oh,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
New toys are fun, but these guys should find a different justification. How about more nutritious cattle feed?
Like ... grass instead of corn? Done. :)
Re: (Score:2)
How about you show some proof that matters instead if regurgitating crap.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about you show some proof that matters instead if regurgitating crap.
Since you asked (even though nature is on my side, and the burden of proof is really on you to show that it doesn't matter):
How about the evolution of cows (they evolved to eat grass, not corn--they have a rumen and and eat grass; we can't, but we can eat them...should be a nice system, right?) and the sad state of both cattle and human health since the widespread adoption of corn diets for cows? Corn turns their stomach/rumen acidic (it's usually neutral), which both opens up the possibility for the evolut
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only animals that eat grains in nature are birds and mice. If you feed a cow grains, it will make it so sick that dies in a year or two. There is lots of proof showing that the contents of grass-fed beef is far healthier than grain-fed [eatwild.com].
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
They can magic the salt into a different shape that means more of the consumed salt hits the tongue, resulting in less salt used to achieve the same sensation of saltiness.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Saturated fat is bad" is entirely political. The US Gov't has literally spent billions of dollars on studies trying to prove the deleterious health effects of saturated fat. This started in the early seventies, and after they did a massive study, and with lots of lobbying from the grain-industry, politicians aren't going to come out and say, "We were wrong". Politicians aren't very good at saying that.
(Gary Taubes covered the history of low-fat in Good Calories, Bad Calories in great detail).
Saturated fat
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The saturated fat debate should have a been a non-starter, and probably would have been if people had the internet in the 50s, 60s and 70s when the science was done.
About a century ago, humans dramatically started changing their diet, notably with the introduction of refined sugar and vegetable oil (often processed into hydrogenated or trans fats). Ancel Keys, and the saturated fat researchers came up with the "lipid hypothesis", that fat sticks to the arteries and "clogs them up". They didn't even consider
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's the fat you're after, oil is much cheaper and more pure. Mayonnaise is just about being delicious.
Making potato chips less unhealthy is equivalent to making them healthier. No one's saying "healthy", just "healthier".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The brain is primarily made out of fat, and needs large amounts of fat to maintain brain cells. Eating low-fat deprives the brain of the nutrients it needs, which in many people manifests itself as a strong feeling of depression. Most vitamins and minerals are fat-soluble, that means we can only absorb and use them if they're consumed with fat. Lots of tribal cultures consume copious amounts of fat (Inuit), but they never get degenerative diseases such as diabetes or heart disease.
Real mayonnaise is made ou
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would anyone want low-fat mayonnaise? Fat is what mayonnaise is about
It always manages to surprise me when people say "The point of X is Y bad thing." If something tastes like mayo but doesn't make you fat, that's a good thing to many people. I mean, I'm assuming you don't have weight issues, but surely you can grasp the concept that other people do.
There's nothing you can do to make potato chips healthier; there's nothing healthy in potato chips to enhance.
What kind of reasoning is that? Reduce the amount of sodium, fat, cholesterol required to make them taste good and bam, it's healthier.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no need to go screwing around with the basic chemistry of food.
Simply man up and learn a little self control.
Mayo doesn't need to be "made healthier", you just need to avoid pigging out on it.
In the amounts you should be eating it in, it's harmfulness should not matter.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
I doth agree with thine alternate strategie! And I doth hold in the same regard, these so-called "birth-control" devices! Why, marital intercourse needn't be made less-procreative! Rather, one simply must be less lustful!
Re: (Score:2)
"Why would anyone want low-fat mayonnaise? "
because they want the great taste and not the fat? If you can make potato chips taste the same and half the fat wouldn't that be healthier?
Imagine Cheese cake with almost not fat, but tastes identical.
"How about more nutritious cattle feed?
I'm sure that would happen as well.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing you can do to make potato chips healthier; there's nothing healthy in potato chips to enhance.
I rather think the point is to make chips NOT unhealthy: they are something you eat for the pleasure and that's it.
It'd sorta be like making a cigarette that had no effect on your health and didn't stink. I'd smoke if they had that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> It's about as pure a food as you can get that doesn't come from a nipple.
>
> What the fuck does that even mean? Mayo is oils, eggs, vinegar, salt, sugar and seasoning (and generally a bunch of preservatives).
Except for that preservative at the end of the list, the ingredient list for Kraft Mayo is pretty much the same you would use in your own food processor.
This is a far cry from the usual sort of industrialized food.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not the way "I" make it...
Just get the food processor out, whip up some egg yolks, a little lemon juice, salt, splash of hot sauce and drizzle in some pure olive oil (not extra virgin, too strong a flavor), let it get creamy. No preservatives. Often, I'll add in a bit of dill, and maybe some roasted garlic...YUM! It takes only minutes, and your potato salad will taste like never before!!
I used to never eat
Re: (Score:2)
Could have been more diplomatic there, but you're absolutely correct.
Still, though, isn't there debate whether fat *per se* (as opposed to total calories, or total calories from carbohydrates or processed foods) is the determinant of how fat you are?
Just because we call fat people fat, and also call lipids fat, doesn't mean lipids cause obesity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is a debate, but it's sugar, alcohol and refined carbs make people fat. The liver can convert carbohydrates to fat. In fact, if fructose is consumed (which is 50% of the ingredients in table sugar), the liver has no choice but to convert it entirely into fat (and a really bad fat at that). Well, the first bit of fructose your body eats in a day can be turned into glycogen, maybe 10-80 grams depending upon your activity level, etc. But generally if you drink a can of pop, or a glass of fruit juice, it'
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You suck nanoparticles into your lungs with every breathe.
ARE YOU DEAD YET?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You will be.
Re: (Score:2)
"ARE YOU DEAD YET?"
It would be lovely if Bad Stuff either killed you or left you alone, but life isn't that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you what else is entirely constructed at the nanoscale level and was never subject to safety testing?
Every living thing on planet Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
> No, there's no such thing as "frankenfood,"
Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil
Aspartame