tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8149442405815988000.post6297026212699077861..comments2023-09-24T09:31:47.775-04:00Comments on Edible Intelligence: Opinions, Facts, and Assholes Like Me.Edible Intelligencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06407476500631094935noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8149442405815988000.post-4130161945211488902010-04-12T16:39:11.128-04:002010-04-12T16:39:11.128-04:00Absolutely, they look at that kind of stuff. A lo...Absolutely, they look at that kind of stuff. A lot of research goes into colors and the emotions they bring out in people, smells and how they link to flavor. A lot of marketing work to see what color to make a product label and what font to use. The whole industry's goal is to put out products that the customers like, so customer perception is very important. This is why you see a lot of companies now advertising all natural or no preservatives on some products. it isn't because the products are better, it's because it's what the people want. <br /><br />It's the same reason they have Modified Atmospheric Packaging for meat. When meat is first cut into steaks, it is purple because of the way myoglobin reflects light. After more exposure to oxygen, the meat 'blooms', producing a bright red color that people mistake for blood. It's actually oxymyoglobin. But from there, it quickly changes to a brown color due to metmyoglobin. The purple and the brown steaks are perfectly fine, but due to customer perception, they are considered bad. So the industry uses M.A.P. to maintain the blood color that customers look forward to.<br /><br />Also, as technology progresses, food scientists reevaluate foods and their effect on the body to make sure they are safe or identify ways to increase the nutrition.Edible Intelligencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06407476500631094935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8149442405815988000.post-12979799902910223652010-04-12T15:33:32.733-04:002010-04-12T15:33:32.733-04:00Didn't someone do an investigative report a fe...Didn't someone do an investigative report a few years back that found that Philip Morris USA was sharing research with Kraft Foods (at the time they were under the same parent co.) on the addictive nature of their (PMUSA) products? In this case, I think it was brain research to see how the brain reacted to certain flavors. Now, I'm not a food science major, so I will have to rely on you, Sam, to tell me just how much a food scientist studies when it comes to how foods and other ingredients (genetically modified/engineered or not) act on the various parts of the body? But it seems to me that facts, depending on what they are, can be used in different ways. A fact may be a fact, but how that fact is used is what I and many others are concerned about.Whit Reneehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00767448554672121007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8149442405815988000.post-12996178596766970222010-04-10T11:28:45.637-04:002010-04-10T11:28:45.637-04:00ClimateGate was a fraud of a fraud. New reporting...ClimateGate was a fraud of a fraud. New reporting on that shows that the data is not wrong.<br /><br />Huge difference between big tobacco and the food industry. They hired scientists to try to defend their product. The food industry employs food scientists to develop product and research food looking for new applications and ways to cut certain steps to streamline a process. There are also food scientists emloyed in academia, doing independent research. These scientists don't answer to any corporate entity and yet come to very similar conclusions on nearly everything. Why? It's for the same reason that a corporate scientist and an academic researcher throwing a ball into the air will get the same result. In both cases, the science is the same - gravity. It's no different with food science. We know how proteins, sugars, fats, and additive work with other foods and with people because a lot of work has already been done and the results reproduced.Edible Intelligencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06407476500631094935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8149442405815988000.post-52614479595425613312010-04-10T09:35:51.403-04:002010-04-10T09:35:51.403-04:00Heard of "ClimateGate"? People are susp...Heard of "ClimateGate"? People are suspicious of scientists because their credibility has been blown. When data is manipulated "facts" become subjective. I'd trust a Tyson or Monsanto scientist about as much as I'd trust a RJ Reynolds/Marlboro scientist.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01392705840856463599noreply@blogger.com