this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025
144 points (98.6% liked)
Slop.
472 readers
404 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also basic food preservation techniques are ubiquitous and historically extremely important, and most/all of those involved somehow filling the food with "cHeMiCaLs" so that it wouldn't spoil (salt, acid, sometimes sugar, smoke, fermentation byproducts, etc) all of which are as "bad" or notably worse than modern food preservation methods.
Their point isn't just wrong about people doing fine without food preservation, it's also wrong about them not having similar-but-worse food preservation.
Nah this (edit: the tweets, not your reply) is just dumbing down and turning a valid point into a non-discussion. Chemicals ≠ chemicals. Some are safe, some are not safe. Some you can have a lot of, some need moderation. Some are artificial, some are not. Those people just can't not think in black and white.
Also, a lot of really effective food preservation today don't even require chemicals inside the food. A bit of citric acid, yeah, or some vitamin c. Canned goods are a really, really effective way of storing food. You don't need chemicals for that. Like, there's this whole BPA-discussion but this regards chemicals in the packaging, not the product itself.
Oh funny shit I found on Wikipedia btw
ahahahaha
The bigger issue that a lot of the worst parts of food aren't really modern, they're just more accessible in modern foods. Like excessive amounts of salt, sugars, and fat, all of which are fine and necessary in certain quantities but which get used in a very imbalanced way. These preserve food and when used correctly improve its flavor, but in a lot of modern slop get overused in a form that's specifically engineered to avoid satiation and keep people buying and consuming more well above the level of what they want or need.
There are also additives like dyes and stabilizers that might not be great for people to eat, but which still pale in comparison to the carcinogenic (and other, also harmful) effects of just like chugging bottles of syrup for hydration or relying on heavily salted instant food.
And that's before you even get to issues like heavy metal contamination and whatnot, that aren't intentionally added but which show up anyways.
Exactly, like there's pasteurization and irradiation and sterile airtight packaging which can replace or supplement what are basically just more advanced versions of traditional preservation methods like giving food a PH that bacteria and fungi can't tolerate, using salts, sugars, and fat to make it too desiccating to spoil easily, etc.
Everything is chemicals in the first place. Like fat are just Triglyceride which in turn is made up of fatty acids and glycerol.