Bad food technology

[fresco]

We're blessed, in many ways, with having the technology and infrastructure to produce, preserve and transport an amazing variety of food across great distances, and make it available to just about everyone.

But it cuts both ways. The aerosol can, for instance, has allowed food processors to introduce some hideous stuff which has all but replaced the real thing, including fake whipping cream.

What's your nomination for food technology or innovation we could all do without?

[Katherine]

The aerosol can, for instance, has allowed food processors to introduce some hideous stuff which has all but replaced the real thing, including fake whipping cream.

Aw, c'mon. Spray can whipped cream's not that bad, especially when you compare it to cool whip, which is that bad.

The worst I would say about it is that it's not really there. Eye candy.

Plenty of real abominations out there waiting to be served to us unawares.

[fresco]

You have me at a disadvantage. I've always been able to avoid Kool Whip, somehow.

[Katherine]

Sweetened crisco, with enough emulsifiers to allow it to get fluffy under factory conditions.

The problem arises when well-meaning friends use the term "whipped cream" as a generic term that covers all manner of chemicl-laden abominations, so long as they are sweet and white.

One woman brought her oft-talked about pistachio pudding to a potluck. Turns out the major ingredients were instant pistachio pudding mix and cool whip. Bleh.

I could say other things about the menu at that potluck, but they're OT, as the other offenders were distinctly low-tech.

[docsconz]

The jury is out, but genetically modified crops will turn out to be great or more likely IMO, a terrible problem. While environmental concerns are real, I fret about the potential loss of diversity in our food supply. If that turns out to be true, I as a lover of many different tastes, textures and colors will consider that catastrophic enough for nomination.

[Moopheus]

The technology to transport, preserve, and produce that wide variety of food has itself affected the quality of food, and not in a good way. Recent discussions on such topics as mad cow disease, farmed salmon, vegetarian eggs, and the Farmer's Diner wouldn't be issues except in a world of highly centralized production and long-distance transport. We're spoiled by having everything all year round, but often what we get is second-rate. I'm not saying transport should be less efficient, but that less centralized production would mean, generally, better food. Obviously, not everything can be produced locally everywhere, but There should be more room for locally grown food in the market.

[Moopheus]

While environmental concerns are real, I fret about the potential loss of diversity in our food supply.

Not to mention the increased dependence of the farmer on the seed producer. Recently Monsanto has taken to suing farmers who save seed from the harvest of their crops, so that the farmers will be forced to buy new seed every year. And the farmers use those seeds because they're the only plants that will survive Monsanto's pesticides.

[docsconz]

Improved transport is a boon for getting quality products direct from the farm or manufacturer. Where it falls short is with distribution via middlemen. It is here that products are by necessity inferior. They are designed for shelf-life rather than gastronomic appeal. The winter tomato is a classic example. Of course, genetic modification can theoretically improve this by building a tomato with flavor and durability(thus part of its appeal), but again at the huge potential cost of diversity.

[docsconz]

While environmental concerns are real, I fret about the potential loss of diversity in our food supply.

Not to mention the increased dependence of the farmer on the seed producer. Recently Monsanto has taken to suing farmers who save seed from the harvest of their crops, so that the farmers will be forced to buy new seed every year. And the farmers use those seeds because they're the only plants that will survive Monsanto's pesticides.

This concern has been expressed to me by a farmer at my local farmer's market, although his biggest concern is loss choice since only a few large companies apparently have the bulk of the seed market cornered. With GM, it is possible to limit a line so that it no longer produces seed requiring repurchase from the seed co.

[Katherine]

The technology to transport, preserve, and produce that wide variety of food has itself affected the quality of food, and not in a good way.

It's a double-sided coin. Thanks to technology, we have preservatives (BHA, BHT) in our grain products that keep them from going rancid. On the one hand, this means that our stores are full of products with preservatives in them. But on the other hand, these materials are not rancid, and you would not want to eat rancid cereal, or moldy bread.

In the absense of refrigerated transport we would have not more high quality meat and fish, but products of dubious freshness and edibility, and very little of even supermarket quality. Before refrigeration, fresh meat was something that only happened when something was freshly slaughtered. After you slaughtered your pig, you ate what you could, and threw the rest in a barrel of brine to preserve it, so that you would have some sort of meat during the winter. If you didn't live near the coast, you didn't get fresh fish.

I don't think they'd let me keep a pig in my yard here.

[docsconz]

Katherine,

You are correct in that the sword is double-edged. I would venture that that is likely to be the case for just about everything likely to be mentioned on this thread. If the innovation was totally "evil" without any redeeming factor, it would probably not survive the market...unless it had really good commercials

[Katherine]

Katherine,

You are correct in that the sword is double-edged. I would venture that that is likely to be the case for just about everything likely to be mentioned on this thread. If the innovation was totally "evil" without any redeeming factor, it would probably not survive the market...unless it had really good commercials

Way too many commercials, that's what the problem is.

[docsconz]

In all seriousness, television could be considered another nominee here, especially as regards commercials for junk foods and food or snack items geared towards kids.

[Boris_A]

If the innovation was totally "evil" without any redeeming factor, it would probably not survive the market...unless it had really good commercials

Redeeming factor yes - but maybe only for the one who paid for the commercials.

[Moopheus]

It's a double-sided coin. Thanks to technology, we have preservatives (BHA, BHT) in our grain products that keep them from going rancid. On the one hand, this means that our stores are full of products with preservatives in them. But on the other hand, these materials are not rancid, and you would not want to eat rancid cereal, or moldy bread.

In the absense of refrigerated transport we would have not more high quality meat and fish, but products of dubious freshness and edibility, and very little of even supermarket quality. Before refrigeration, fresh meat was something that only happened when something was freshly slaughtered. After you slaughtered your pig, you ate what you could, and threw the rest in a barrel of brine to preserve it, so that you would have some sort of meat during the winter. If you didn't live near the coast, you didn't get fresh fish.

I don't think they'd let me keep a pig in my yard here.

Preservatives in grain products are not strictly necessary. The bread, rice, and flour I have here doesn't have any. My breakfast cereal does.

In the absense of refrigerated transport we would have not more high quality meat and fish, but products of dubious freshness and edibility,

I'm not arguing that efficient transport is per se a bad thing. Unless you actually grow your own food, some transport is necessary. What I have a problem with is the overreliance on long distance transport that selects food for transportability rather than taste.

For simple example, here in the northeast, apple orchards are common, and if you go to a farm or a farm stand or a farmer's market in a city, you can get excellent fresh apples, but in an ordinary supermarket, generally you can't, even in season. Even when the supermarket has local apples, you can tell they've been off the tree longer than the apples at the farmer's market.

[Mabelline]

Okay, I am out here just treading water. Because I want you all to eat healthy, I DO , but what am I gonna do against gov. restrictions? What if it means the difference in me losing everything my family built over three generations? Tell me what to do, you all?

[jhlurie]

Great topic fresco. You win the no-prize for this week! Your award will be in the mail some time next century!

I understand and agree with Moopheus' point about how the "technology to transport, preserve, and produce that wide variety of food has itself affected the quality of food, and not in a good way". And yet, at the same time, I truly am appreciative of the flash freezing process, and how much better frozen food is than when I was a kid (and even more-so how much better it is than canned).

I think its not the process that is to blame, it's the philosophy of "convenience first" which has come along with it. Convenience CAN be great, and things to boost the quality of those convenient things are not in of themselves a step back, but somewhere along the line the less convenient local fresh, non-frozen, non-vacuum sealed, non-polished products need a boost up. At the very least we need to be reminded that they are there and ultimately how much better they are--just in case we forgot or something.

[mags]

I'd nominate the development of high-fructose corn syrup, which -- because it's so cheap -- has been added by the bucketload to just about every processed product in the market, thereby helping to create a craving for sugar that is disastrous to both our tastebuds and our health. For similar reasons, even though it's not technically a technology, I'd add the supersizing phenom to the list.

[Mabelline]

Hear, hear- it has never been about our diet----it HAS been about what we have allowed Talkin Heads to tell us what we need to eat, or abstain from...

[Mudpuppie]

Not to mention the increased dependence of the farmer on the seed producer. Recently Monsanto has taken to suing farmers who save seed from the harvest of their crops, so that the farmers will be forced to buy new seed every year. And the farmers use those seeds because they're the only plants that will survive Monsanto's pesticides.

It's worse than that. Monsanto sued a Canadian farmer whose fields were sown with windborne Monsanto volunteeers. They claimed that the farmer -- who had intentionally not planted RoundupReady crops -- owed Monsanto a licensing fee because the crops were growing his land.

And there's the Terminator gene, which they bought the rights to but never introduced into the market.

I second the vote for GM stuff being an affront to economics and to the palate.

(But really, I think the biggest crime is that tomatoes are available in supermarkets in January in most of the country. )

[ExtraMSG]

Johnny Appleseed: Upsetting the ecology of America.

The Conquistadors: Ruining the ecology of Asia with chiles

Cro Magnon: Forever introducing carcinogens into our diet by cooking with fire.

[Pan]

In all seriousness, was there any way in which the introduction of chilis to Asia created ecological problems? I'd never heard of any.

[ExtraMSG]

You'd probably have to ask a ecological/environmental historian, but I imagine these issues weren't big back then, so....

But certainly the same problems arose in the past that arise now. Animals and plants have been transferred by humans all through history. Who knows what was replaced, what natural ecosystem was displaced.

People are often historically myopic about these matters. They complain about upsetting traditions, cultures, ecosystems, and so on by moving around foods, but then they aren't upset about all the apple trees and trout in their state.

[oraklet]

People are often historically myopic about these matters. They complain about upsetting traditions, cultures, ecosystems, and so on by moving around foods, but then they aren't upset about all the apple trees and trout in their state.

i fail to see that it has been the case on this thread. to me, it seems that most posters are concerned with the lack of taste in the once seasonal but now year round produce like apples, tomatoes, strawberries etc. also, by the tendency to import cheap fruit and vegetables even when better local produce can be had, or the introduction of standardized gmo versions of divers crops that will slowly but surely supplant diversity.

what is your agenda here? that we should just say "well, that's how it is, that's development, and there's nothing we can or should do about it"? well, you're on egullet, so supposedly you're interested in food as a sensual experience. gmo and other industrialization is not favourable to that.

[fifi]

I will nominate transfats. Who ever thought THAT was a good idea? On top of that, there have been all of these "health campaigns" over the years to ply us with un-natural sources of oils and fats to displace those that we have evolved with. Remember the tropical oils brouhaha? It was all crap. The horrors of pig fat? More crap. At least until Armour started hydrogenating it (= transfats) so they could store it on a shelf. Butter bad/Margarine good? I don't think so.

I did see an encouraging sign yesterday. I bought a loaf of Orowheat bread and it had a big banner on the label, "No tranfats".

But I will say that some things have gone in the right direction. Flash freezing is one of them. Flash frozen shrimp are a pretty darn good alternative to meeting the boat.