Jump to content

  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Edit History

paulraphael

paulraphael

5 hours ago, Yiannos said:

I get this argument too, and you are right, but this applies to literally EVERYTHING on this planet... While there are many "chemicals" that may subjectively improve an ice cream, I can't imagine you want to just toss whatever into your food that makes it better just because deep down in its molecular structure somewhere it originated naturally on Earth, if that makes sense.

 

I'm not suggesting that all ingredients are equal, just that the "natural" vs. "chemical" distinction is almost always both meaningless and useless. 

 

For one thing, when I ask people what these chemicals are that they're worried about, it's usually gums (guar gum, carrageenan, locust bean gum). These are no less natural than anything in your kitchen. Guar gum is flour made from a legume. Locust bean gum is flour made from a tree seed. Carrageenan is rendered Irish moss seaweed. Table sugar is more processed than any of these ingredients. Chocolate is more processed than just about anything.

 

Many ingredients that sound "chemically" to people are just sugars. Dextrose is just glucose. It's flowing through your veins right now, keeping you alive. Fructose is another sugar, found in fruits and all over the natural world. Invert syrup is the primary component of honey. Atomized glucose is glucose syrup that's been dried into a powder. Trehalose is a less common, but naturally occurring sugar. Inulin is a large-molecule sugar extracted from chicory. 

 

So I end up thinking that by "chemical," people mean an unfamiliar ingredient. This is just closed-mindedness—although I get that "gum" isn't an appetizing word. This is a PR problem, not a culinary one.

 

There are some ingredients that can be helpful in ice cream that I can understand calling "unnatural," because they have been so significantly altered from their natural precursors. I don't know exactly where you might draw the line, but carboxymethyl cellulose (cellulose gum) and glycerol monostearate (a lipid used as an emulsifier) aren't things I'd call natural. But they're also harmless. And if they are chemicals, they are chemicals in the exact same sense that water is a chemical. 

 

For perspective, many natural things are not harmless. Consider hemlock. Radon. Shellfish toxin. Botulism. You're more likely to die from the saturated fat in the cream than you are from cellulose gum.

 

paulraphael

paulraphael

5 hours ago, Yiannos said:

I get this argument too, and you are right, but this applies to literally EVERYTHING on this planet... While there are many "chemicals" that may subjectively improve an ice cream, I can't imagine you want to just toss whatever into your food that makes it better just because deep down in its molecular structure somewhere it originated naturally on Earth, if that makes sense.

 

I'm not suggesting that all ingredients are equal, just that the "natural" vs. "chemical" distinction almost always both meaningless and useless. 

 

For one thing, when I ask people what these chemicals are that they're worried about, it's usually gums (guar gum, carrageenan, locust bean gum). These are no less natural than anything in your kitchen. Guar gum is flour made from a legume. Locust bean gum is flour made from a tree seed. Carrageenan is rendered Irish moss seaweed. Table sugar is more processed than any of these ingredients. Chocolate is more processed than just about anything.

 

Many ingredients that sound chemically to people are just sugars. Dextrose is just glucose. It's flowing through your veins right now, keeping you alive. Fructose is another sugar, found in fruits and all over the natural world. Invert syrup is the primary component of honey. Atomized glucose is glucose syrup that's been dried into a powder. Trehalose is a less common, but naturally occurring sugar. Inulin is a large-molecule sugar extracted from chicory. 

 

So I end up thinking that by "chemical," people mean an unfamiliar ingredient. This is just closed-mindedness—although I get that "gum" isn't an appetizing word. This is a PR problem, not a culinary one.

 

There are some ingredients that can be helpful in ice cream that I can understand calling "unnatural," because they have been so significantly altered from their natural precursors. I don't know exactly where you might draw the line, but carboxymethyl cellulose (cellulose gum) and glycerol monostearate (a lipid used as an emulsifier) aren't things I'd call natural. But they're also harmless. And if they are chemicals, they are chemicals in the exact same sense that water is a chemical. 

 

For perspective, many natural things are not harmless. Consider hemlock. Radon. Shellfish toxin. Botulism. You're more likely to die from the saturated fat in the cream than you are from cellulose gum.

 

paulraphael

paulraphael

5 hours ago, Yiannos said:

I get this argument too, and you are right, but this applies to literally EVERYTHING on this planet... While there are many "chemicals" that may subjectively improve an ice cream, I can't imagine you want to just toss whatever into your food that makes it better just because deep down in its molecular structure somewhere it originated naturally on Earth, if that makes sense.

 

I'm not suggesting that all ingredients are equal, just that the "natural" vs. "chemical" distinction almost always both meaningless and useless. 

 

For one thing, when I ask people what these chemicals are that they're worried about, it's usually gums (guar gum, carrageenan, locust bean gum). These are no less natural than anything in your kitchen. Guar gum is flour made from a legume. Locust bean gum is flour made from the seeds a tree seed. Carrageenan is rendered Irish moss seaweed. Table sugar is more processed than any of these ingredients. Chocolate is more processed than just about anything.

 

Many ingredients that sound chemically to people are just sugars. Dextrose is just glucose. It's flowing through your veins right now, keeping you alive. Fructose is another sugar, found in fruits and all over the natural world. Invert syrup is the primary component of honey. Atomized glucose is glucose syrup that's been dried into a powder. Trehalose is a less common, but naturally occurring sugar. Inulin is a large-molecule sugar extracted from chicory. 

 

So I end up thinking that by "chemical," people mean an unfamiliar ingredient. This is just closed-mindedness—although I get that "gum" isn't an appetizing word. This is a PR problem, not a culinary one.

 

There are some ingredients that can be helpful in ice cream that I can understand calling "unnatural," because they have been so significantly altered from their natural precursors. I don't know exactly where you might draw the line, but carboxymethyl cellulose (cellulose gum) and glycerol monostearate (a lipid used as an emulsifier) aren't things I'd call natural. But they're also harmless. And if they are chemicals, they are chemicals in the exact same sense that water is a chemical. 

 

For perspective, many natural things are not harmless. Consider hemlock. Radon. Shellfish toxin. Botulism. You're more likely to die from the saturated fat in the cream than you are from cellulose gum.

 

×
×
  • Create New...