>> Consumers these days expect year-round availability of a product, which is consistent every time a person buys it, eats it, and cooks with it.
It's like a fairy tale witch cursed us all for our greed: you will have any food you like any time you like it, but it will taste bland and boring and you will long for a taste you have never known.
That's why people get so protective of their food culture, even their food habits (like meat-eaters getting up in arms when they hear from vegans). It's because if we leave food completely at the hands of big food, we'll all end up eating food that it is just nutritious enough to keep us from starving and just good enough to eat to keep us from all going mad.
> we'll all end up eating food that it is just nutritious enough to keep us from starving
That's not a problem with "big food" - the food is far too nutritious and abundant. Sugary cereals for children and big macs can't be described at "just keeping us from starving".
We want restricted (but complete) nutrition that is just enough to keep us from starving, so that we maintain our size and don't end up with an energy abundance that causes processes like fat storage and inflammation to run wild.
Even outside "big food", the virtue of trying to maximize "tasty" means that our home cooking is also driven by food addiction - "big food"'s laser focus on this makes them much more effective in making addictive foods at the lowest cost, in turn making the healthier options seem "bland".
Our bodies and food reward systems are not geared for this abundance of concentrated nutrition.
It's only "good" if the tastier versions of food don't come with even more nutrition that we cannot handle. Carrots in their natural form are for example not at all as large, sweet and nutritious as the orange things we have now. They were bitter and bland.
There are different meanings or measures of what nutritious and taste mean, which I feel like is contributing to miscommunications here.
Nutrition as you define it seems to be purely calories. Another definition would be complete micronutrient profile.
Taste as you define it seems to be fat, sugar, salt. Another definition would be complexity of taste.
Big food currently optimizes for the first definitions of above which is bad for long term health. Second definitions of above would be better for long term health.
Nutrition is to me all the nutrients we need to consume. The same rules apply to them all - we need a certain amount of them all, all non-engineered foods only cover some subset of it (hence needing to eat “balanced” to even things out), and we handle abundance of any of them very poorly. “Big food” is not problematic because of what it lacks (getting more of any time of nutrition is easy in modern society), but because of what it has too much of (hard to uneat something). Hence too nutritious. I won’t argue against there being other definitions, but I find this one most appropriate and indicative of the problem. :)
No, your assumption of my definition of “tasty” is not right. Did you like the taste? Then it is tasty. Eating tasty foods is pleasurable, and therefore addictive. And what home cook wouldn’t try to make their food more tasty?
Fats, sugars and salts are shortcuts to maximizing primitive tastiness because “tasty” is meant to drive a search for nutrients and a guidance away from dangerous foods (especially salt giving how rare it can be - ever seen what animals do to get to a salt lick?), but that’s all.
Complexity is itself not tastiness. If a “complex” taste does not make you want to eat more, I’d argue that the food was not at all tasty, but just an interesting experience. Like seeing an art piece that was not beautiful and certainly not something you’d ever consider buying, but still worth having a look at once on a special day.
You are basically ignoring an entire dimension of food taste, enjoyment, and satisfaction by saying complexity is not tastiness. Plus you are ignoring the fact that nutrition includes micronutrient profile. Then you are concluding that high calorie food has high nutrition and tasty foods are foods that you want to eat more of. No offense but this is like a child's view of food, or maybe some kind of food addict view of food. There is a lot more to nutrition and taste than your current definition of it.
You are ignoring that I am in fact including both macro and micro nutrient profile (if you exceed any individual parameter, you have consumed too much nutrition) and that I am using the widest possible definition of food taste that would include any type of pleasurable food experience - merely implying that complexity alone itself is not tastiness. Complex taste profiles can be tasty, but sometimes they are merely interesting.
The focus on too much is important. No food has everything you need (other than engineered Soylent-like foods), and we rely on composing a healthy diet by using foods whose profiles augment each other. The weaker the nutrition of a food item, the more room you have to augment your diet to obtain the needed balance. If you are already close to any limit, your options for augmentation to cover the remaining needs without reaching an excess is heavily reduced. If a single food item already exceeds any limit, there is no way to construct a healthy diet with it.
If your way of dealing with disagreement is to call opposing views childish, then it is safe to say that you are not mature enough to hold a discussion on the matter.
Looks like you completely made up the interpretation that you wanted and fitted your point.
Your point can be valid, but it does lose strength when your interpretation of the previous comment gets both points backwards.
"I don't fit in a generalisation therefore that generalisation is not true". At the same time, not sure we have the data to back up the original argument. Personal anecdata? People around do expect to find everything all year round, and they get mad if they don't.
What are you supposed to say if you read a statement that includes you in a group you don't belong? That's why it's important to be more precise instead of saying "customers" in general.
It’s obviously a generalization. If you don’t fit that description then they’re obviously not talking about you therefore nothing has to be done. Why would you have to say anything anyways? Who are you?
"personal anecdata" or not, what he is saying is market demand. If you offer cavendish that taste like mashed potatoes, you won't see that persons money. Mine neither. Fact.
There are plenty of examples of produce bred for color, size, and shelf-life over flavor (e.g. tomatoes). In general, the fruits and vegetables we have today are fantastically more delicious and edible than long ago. Watermelon might be the best example of this: https://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9050469/watermelon-breeding-pa...
It's like a fairy tale witch cursed us all for our greed: you will have any food you like any time you like it, but it will taste bland and boring and you will long for a taste you have never known.
That's why people get so protective of their food culture, even their food habits (like meat-eaters getting up in arms when they hear from vegans). It's because if we leave food completely at the hands of big food, we'll all end up eating food that it is just nutritious enough to keep us from starving and just good enough to eat to keep us from all going mad.