What constitutes "Edible"? "Food"?

[Starkman]

Hello all,

I was thinking the other day, and I got to wondering, particularly about edible flowers: what constitutes what makes one flower edible and another not edible?

Now I'm not talking about the simple things, like, "Well, gee, if you eat that flower, you'll be dead in an hour, and quite frankly, I don't think I'm strong enough to tote you to the cemetary."

I'm interested in a more precise understanding of what really constitutes something as a food (e.g., flowers, fungus, offal, etc). Is it the presence of nutrition? Is it "Well, you won't die from eating it"? or "It doesn't taste good, so we don't eat it."

What about insects, bugs and things like these? Said to be full of protien, does that mean these critters should still be eaten? Has anyone checked to see if there are harmful products in these critters that outweigh the protein?

The cuisine of some countries include foods that are allowed to literally rot. I can't help but ask the question: Doesn't common sense tell us that foods that are rotten should not be eaten? Why then people consider these "foods" as edible? (I don't to offend any culture's manner of preparing cuisine, but I have these questions that bother me.)

Finally, people around the world have been forced to eat all kinds of things in order to survive. Some of these "foods" have not become part of the daily cuisine. But should they have become such?

What consitutes something as as a food?

Thanks,

Starkman

[Magictofu]

Edible simply means that you can eat it without suffering too much inconvenience and ideally gaining something in terms of taste or nutrition. I don't think one should look further than that.

However, you raise an interesting point by suggesting that not all that is edible should necessarily be eaten in a world of expanding food offering and choice. I am the kind of people who thinks one's palate is not fixed at birth and that what appears as disgusting at first can turn out to be thought of as a delicacy after some exposure (coffee comes to mind).

To be objectives in our food selection however, I believe it is more appropriate to destroy the many food taboos that prevent us from experiencing the true diversity of food around us than eliminating food that we consider less palatable (particularly when others truly enjoy it).

That being said, I have nothing against rot... I love cheese, wine, stinky tofu, etc.

[slkinsey]

Edible and palatable are not the same thing.

Edible means "can be used as food." It has no connotations as to whether the food tastes good.

Palatable means "agreeable to taste." Diverse cultures (not to mention individuals within a given culture) differ as to what is considered palatable. As with all things, this is a function of both nature and nurture.

Edited October 12, 2008 by slkinsey (log)

[docsconz]

What is "edible" to one, may not be to someone else, depending on a number of factors such as previous exposure, genetics and health. I would define "edible" as something that can be eaten without making the eater physically sick. Generally there is a lot more in the world that is truly "edible" than most people allow for. Many times people can get sick from eating things they find unpalatable, but that does not necessarily mean that it was inedible.

[Starkman]

. . . . I would define "edible" as something that can be eaten without making the eater physically sick. Generally there is a lot more in the world that is truly "edible" than most people allow for. . . .

←

Is, then, something that is considered edible considered food?

Starkman

[Chris Amirault]

As it turns out, Michael Pollan (who wrote The Omnivore's Dilemma, and more) addressed this issue in the NY Times Magazine this weekend, in which he urged the next US president to

Create a Federal Definition of “Food.” It makes no sense for government food-assistance dollars, intended to improve the nutritional health of at-risk Americans, to support the consumption of products we know to be unhealthful. Yes, some people will object that for the government to specify what food stamps can and cannot buy smacks of paternalism. Yet we already prohibit the purchase of tobacco and alcohol with food stamps. So why not prohibit something like soda, which is arguably less nutritious than red wine? Because it is, nominally, a food, albeit a “junk food.” We need to stop flattering nutritionally worthless foodlike substances by calling them “junk food” — and instead make clear that such products are not in fact food of any kind. Defining what constitutes real food worthy of federal support will no doubt be controversial (you’ll recall President Reagan’s ketchup imbroglio), but defining food upward may be more politically palatable than defining it down, as Reagan sought to do. One approach would be to rule that, in order to be regarded as a food by the government, an edible substance must contain a certain minimum ratio of micronutrients per calorie of energy. At a stroke, such a definition would improve the quality of school lunch and discourage sales of unhealthful products, since typically only “food” is exempt from local sales tax.

[docsconz]

. . . . I would define "edible" as something that can be eaten without making the eater physically sick. Generally there is a lot more in the world that is truly "edible" than most people allow for. . . .

←

Is, then, something that is considered edible considered food?

Starkman

←

I agree in principle with Pollan, but disagree on the specific terminology. I would say that something edible is indeed "food," though not necessarily good food or food that I or anyone else should, in fact eat. I agree with Pollan that soda is not the best thing to have during school lunches or at other times, but it is still food, in that it contains nutritive value, albeit low and suboptimal to say the least. I agree that junk foods should not be aspired to in any nutritive system.