Quote:
Originally Posted by Fazc
Come on, maybe this is a generational thing but are we that far gone as a society that we really need a definition of what is considered good food?
|
But the OP said 'clean' food, not good food - though the two are related in the way people use the word 'dirty.'
I've got sympathy with the OP, because I do think people use the definition in different ways and it shifts every few years.
For example, in the UK in the 1950s, good food meant pie and mash, meat and two veg, gravy etc.
In the 1980s, good/clean food meant low fat (and still does to many people). Breakfast cereals, yoghurt, orange juice were clean.
In the 1990s, good food meant organic or low glycaemic index, low saturated fat, low salt
In 2000 onwards.....? Emphasis - at least in this neck of the woods - is usually on 'natural'. Natural or unprocessed is clean, processed is dirty.
To me, the problem with using labels like clean and dirty is that it results in very black and white thinking. I definitely agree that many 'dirty' processed foods are horrible: high in sugars, salts, saturated fat, low in micro-nutirents and fibre. But just because something is natural doesn't necessarily mean it's good for you. That's a kind of Walt Disney view of nature, imo.
For example, using most the definitions above: honey = clean, soda = dirty. But if you switch from 3 cans of soda a day to the equivalent amount of honey, you are still going to face the same health risks from ingesting large amounts of sugar. The trace B vitamins aren't going to help
.