You're not eating mass market brand name foods produced by multinational food conglomerates, right Veeky Forums?

Kellogg's was started by a genius and a Christian.

The rest of those are run by (((you know who)))

Why did Kraft change their name?

Unilever actually started from pretty humble beginnings.

Shill

But he was a moron and a sexual deviant?
So you are half-right.

I manage to avoid almost all of those brands, partially out of dislike for those companies, but mostly because I think the products they make are shit.

>You're not eating mass market brand name foods produced by multinational food conglomerates, right Veeky Forums?
Rarely.

My rule of thumb is that real food doesn't come in any kind of packing or with a brand label on it. It comes like pic related.

Of course I do buy condiments, spices, etc, canned food, etc, but I try and make the majority of all my ingredients to be fresh produce, poultry, seafood, or meat.

>But he was a moron

He was a Seventh Day Adventist, you retard. Or did the Adam Ruins Everything video you watched on Plebbit not explain that properly?

I buy the basics at Aldi and the other things at a shop with a pretty good selection of the nicer things. Pretty sure I didn't buy any of pic related this year. Maybe a Snickers bar or two last year.

this

What exactly distinguishes "processed food" from unhealthy food a home cook can put together? Is there a specific food technology that distinguishes it?

I can actually think of one example for this question: Alberger salt. It's table salt that's specially cut into fine flakes, which adheres to food in more favorable ways than ordinary salt. And ordinary consumers can't purchase Alberger salt unless they buy 50 pounds at a time.

Top lad!

I have been looking at becoming a process engineer in the food industry after I finish university. Would that be immoral?

In 10 years, people will probably be thinking of it as the equivalent to Big Tobacco.

>I have no argument so I'm just going to spout /pol/ shit
Are you retarded? My arguement was to stop buying processed trash from multinational corporations, and find local sources for your produce. This helps the little guy while supporting your neighbors, plus you don't need any more processed foods, fatass.

>My local economy is the whole world
>the kills the local businesses
Stop being a poorfag and help your community, faggot

>What exactly distinguishes "processed food" from unhealthy food a home cook can put together?
The level of processing, being full of shitty ingredients a home cook wouldn't use and amounts of fat, salt and/or sugar well beyond what most home cooks would use. Here are some examples:

Preservatives: home cooks make food that's going to be eaten shortly after it's made, so they have no need to add preservatives to their food. But preservatives are common in much industrially made food to make it shelf stable. It's up to you how much you want to eat in terms of preservatives, but as little as possible sounds like a good idea to me.

Lowest possible quality cheap ingredients: I don't know any home cooks who keep soy oil, cottonseed oil, palm oil, HFCS, various artificial flavors, whey, dextrose, lecithin and the like lying around their kitchens. These ingredients are used in industrially produced food because they're cheap.

Fat, salt and sugar: Since industrially produced food made from the cheapest possible ingredients isn't going to be all that appealing they give it more flavor by ramping up these three things far beyond what most home cooks would in homemade food.

Looks like Maldon salt, which you can buy at any supermarket.

I'll buy local when its price/quality ratio is better. I'm not gonna support someone who uses resources inefficiently just because they live close to me.

Not the same thing.

I'm looking for specifics here, not talking points you can read on any nutrition blog.

>uses resources inefficiently
When the vast majority of your agriculture is growing corn and soy using resources efficiently means making everything out of corn and soy. That's not the kind of efficiency I really want to support.

>efficiency=good
You know what would be efficient? If you ate plastic and toxic waste (very cheap to produce, of course) and crooked it at your retirement party. Or maybe just move to China.
*tips fedora*

Preservatives, ingredients so cheap they're rarely sold for home use and excess fat/salt/sugar seem pretty specific to me. You can add artificial colors to that list as well. My point is that mass producing cheap, shelf stable food requires an entire chemistry lab's worth of things home cooks never touch to make ingredients of such poor quality that home cooks would never buy them in the first place taste like something people would want to eat.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to support that industry in principle alone, but when you factor in that the food they make really doesn't taste good either (to me, at least) it's not a difficult decision to choose not to be a part of it.

First of all, there's nothing wrong with corn and soy. Second of all, with my comparison I was obviously talking about identical / near identical products between local sellers and larger organizations. That includes products not made of corn and soy, and large organizations still come out on top most of the time (price/quality).

That was not an argument, but still, let me elaborate on efficiency. Being more efficient means selling cheaper products, which means customers being able to afford more, or having more money left over after purchase. More money means higher quality of life (economically). Also, more purchases means more jobs for the companies. Why should I prefer local, when buying global still helps people hold down a job. Why do people who live close to me deserve better, even though they do a less efficient job?

Going for the more efficient product is literally the more morally justifiable one.

wtf doesn't Unilever make? They make like all of the shampoos and soaps too

>Soy
Trashed

Not the guy you're replying to, but I personally almost always buy the cheapest raw ingredients when cooking, mostly because I'm stingy with money.
I've never read anything to convince me that preservatives are bad for you. (btw, home cooks use them too, think jams and other preserved foods)

As for the salt/fat/sugar, that's all on the label, you can decide not to buy it if you want. It's not the companies' fault if people want to buy food like that.

>why do people who live close to me deserve better

There's no such thing as ceteris paribus IRL. No two products are the same, and efficiency (rather, profit) can be achieved in many different ways, many of which are not morally justifiable, not just by having a more efficient production line or whatever you are imagining is the reason huge conglomerates are so profitable.
You sound like you're exactly 14.

>uses resources inefficiently

So building a sustainable, living soil with materials produced on your own land and harvesting seeds for planting next years crop is less efficient than using a dead soil as a root anchor and mechanism for transporting industrial petroleum manufactured fertilizers and toxic pesticides and herbicides into the plant and buying your GMO seed yearly from a multinational corporation? The latter poisonous garbage slopped into america's human slop troughs for a cheaper price are cheaper due to the fact your tax money subsidizes that kind of production with corporate welfare while the smaller guys producing edible food get nothing. It's only getting worse under the reign of l'orange.

Fuck Crapitalism.
NatSoc when? Big business needs to stop putting hormones in my food or they get the rope.

>I've never read anything to convince me that preservatives are bad for you.
Which ones? As you said, "preservative" is a very broad term.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3899519

You have to be careful about which products you consider not made of corn and soy, because your meat and farmed fish is. As for blindly trusting in economies of scale to be efficient you're ignoring other things, biggest one being quality. In large operations anything that can shave off the smallest margins of production cost can result in much higher profit. And large organizations have a lot of people whose jobs it is to come up with ways to do just that. This is why the tomatoes in the supermarket taste like trash compared to the ones I grow in my garden. The bread my wife bakes from grain she grinds herself is far better than anything I can find at a decent local bakery, let alone the supermarket. You can't mass produce food and keep quality as a priority - the realities of business dictate otherwise. But a small producer can prioritize quality, it's just that their products will never be able to compete on price. Those of us who value quality just accept the fact that good stuff costs a lot more than mass produced.

Perfect example: you don't see people who are really concerned about the quality of the food they eat buying any of the brands in OP pic.

Well, yeah, but if I should assume that conglomerates are shady, why couldn't I assume that local producers are?
And the fact that efficiency (not profit, I'm not talking about that) can be achieved through evil means doesn't mean that they are. Am I supposed to be afraid of the possibility?
Besides, what if there's no ceteris paribus? I just want something that is cheap, won't kill me, and doesn't lie on the packaging. I'm still alive and don't spend that much, so it's all good thus far. (I barely ever buy processed food, btw)

I'm 24, by the way, but I really don't see why you had to try and talk down to me like that.

I couldn't be more stingy - I live mostly on dried beans, greens and rice - but when I want something that's more of a luxury food, like cheese or meat I'll spend more for the good shit because the cheap shit is awful.

As for preservatives I'm of the mind that if they're on the ingredient list for the benefit of the producer and not the consumer I'd rather have them not be there. Also they're often an indicator of product quality - the more the ingredients list looks like a chemistry lesson the lower quality the product usually is.

>It's not the companies' fault if people want to buy food like that.
I agree completely. But if you make your money selling shitty food to people who aren't paying attention to what they buy you're a shit company.

I have no idea whether the people in this thread defending megacorps are just being contrarian for the hell of it, or legitimate corporate shills.
Is there a way to tell?

Well, for the first question, the answer is yes. Otherwise, I totally agree with you about the dangers of lobbying and political shenanigans. Governments all around should be less corrupt and influenced by big money, but even with these faults, I would rather have this system, than, say, communism.

>Cue rat study without the amount of the consumed materials left out.
No offense, user, but still not convinced.

Well this I can partially agree with. I have actually had the chance to compare homegrown tomatoes to Tesco ones, and never felt any difference. I live in Eastern Europe, though. I'm given the understanding that the store produce is worse in Freedomistan.
That said, farm chicken IS a lot better then its supermarket counterpart, I admit, but not enough to make me spend the dough. I guess I'm just a turbo pleb.

>why couldn't I assume that local producers are?
Because they don't have entire labs dedicated to saving pennies and dodging (and crafting) laws.
And still, you shouldn't. For example, chances are that your local butcher shop's has a jug of pre-mixed additives somewhere for making "homemade" sausages and such.
>And the fact that efficiency (not profit, I'm not talking about that) can be achieved through evil means doesn't mean that they are
It does. If they're not, you can assume it was the marketing's department idea.
> I really don't see why you had to try and talk down to me like that.
Because of the short-sighted nihilism in your "why are my neighbors more important than anyone else"

>I'm given the understanding that the store produce is worse in Freedomistan.
Here in Freedomistan the quality of what's in our supermarkets is really low, but nobody notices because most folks shop at the supermarket, so they don't know anything better. You can get really good stuff if you're rich enough to go out to eat at nice restaurants, shop at farmers' markets and specialty shops. But for most of our food it's been a race to the bottom in terms of quality to assure the prices are really cheap. The problem with that is that it gets really expensive really quickly if you want to do any better than that, because good quality food is seen as a luxury here.

I usually don't feel much difference between the store brand and the primo stuff I buy every blue moon, but I guess that's just personal preference.

Yeah, but about the preservatives, you have to see the point of the original user, who asked for specifics. You may be right, but you're acting on feelings and premonitions, not on facts.

As for the third point, I do not agree with you. I think buying shitty food is a freedom. People like that know what they're doing and putting into law what they can and cannot buy and what they can and cannot produce would be kinda dictator-like. People should be allowed to make personal mistakes, otherwise you take away their freedom.

I'm arguing on the corporations' side because I honestly believe they helped raise overall quality of life. You can tell I'm genuine because I'm not using any curse or buzzwords, and am trying my best not to talk down to people.

Post a specific preservative. I'll gladly waste a couple of seconds googling if it is poison or not.

>
Yeah, but there's government regulations and checkups, when some companies DO get fined, but it's mostly just small stuff. I'm not gonna spend time fantasizing about how people MIGHT be screwing me over, I have better things to do.
>
Or because of govt regulations, or fear of people finding out about shit products. It's like in the Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith always hated capitalists, and said that the benefits of the system are not in the intentions of the capitalists.

>
How on earth could it be nihilism if I was trying to make the point that it raises QoL and gives jobs to people? It might seem soulless, but I honestly believe that the net effect is positive.

potassium sorbate

>the primo stuff I buy every blue moon
For me that primo stuff is things that don't even have store brand equivalents. Because they tend to be things that can't be mass produced, like porcini mushrooms, burrata or jamon serrano.
>you're acting on feelings and premonitions, not on facts.
I think it's a pretty solid fact that you don't see long ingredient lists on traditionally produced food products, only mass produced ones.
>buying shitty food is a freedom.
>putting into law what they can and cannot buy
I don't really give a fuck about freedom or laws. I give a fuck about food, and if you make shitty food you're a shitty company. And when your shitty companies work with the government to set shitty standards for food that probably isn't really freedom - that's an oligarchy using price fixing and legislation to determine what the masses are going to eat.

The problem is local business is so inefficient now that the carbon footprint is higher than mass produced shit.

>
Then we're obviously not on the same level. I really don't have a refined palate or whatever, I'll freely admit.

>
Yes, but that in itself doesn't guarantee that it's bad for you. For you, the quality might be noticeably worse, but that's down to personal preference.

>
It's preference again. What is shitty for you might perfectly hit the spot for someone else. But I agree with you on your other point. Government lobbying in the US is straight awful, I hear. The masses still have a choice, and this is not what price fixing is, but the system is flawed, no doubt about that. I don't live there, but you're a citizen, it's partly your responsibility to get your voice heard.

>Yeah, but there's government regulations and checkups, when some companies DO get fined, but it's mostly just small stuff.
That's why I said dodge the law, and not break it. Big corporations are obligated to play on the edge. For example see differences between EU and US regulations and subsidies, and how they adapt to them in each continent.
> I'm not gonna spend time fantasizing about how people MIGHT be screwing me over
You don't need to fantasize, just don't turn a blind eye to the news and product labels. The TTPI has been on front-pages for years.
>it raises QoL and gives jobs to people [presumably, vs local products]
How? We're talking about a practically unlimited resource that you eat and then flush down the toilet, not 19th century steel mills.

Not cut into fine flakes. The crystals grow that way.

>you're a citizen, it's partly your responsibility to get your voice heard.
Unlikely. This shit is entrenched in both parties - any mainstream politician is going to support it, and any who doesn't will never be mainstream. I just vote with my dollars, avoiding mass produced products made by large corporations, which is easy for me since I don't like that stuff anyways. As for that being a matter of preference I'd respond like this: people like what they're used to. If they're used to something of poor quality that tastes fine and happens to be cheap they'll like it. But if you get used to eating better quality food eating poor quality stuff is awful. I have a bunch of friends who grew up in Europe, immigrated here and became US citizens. There are a lot of common things in the American supermarket they just won't touch, because they can't lower their standards that far.

Do the world a favor and live on HFCS for the next month.

>Brought circumsicion culture to america
>Not working for the Jews
You've been rused goy

>first two points
I guess they could be getting away with shit, but I trust that lots of people buy their stuff, so any nasty thing would get discovered fast. The rest of the risk I'll take personally, if it means a cheaper product.

>third point
I described it here:
in the second part

You should rally against big money influencing politics at all, but yeah, slim chances.

So..

An even bigger moron?

A religious extremist who ran a quack sanatorium that operated under the idea that avoiding coffee, alcohol and meat could cure most ills.

>the idea that avoiding coffee, alcohol and meat could cure most ills.
We sure have come a long way since then.

>being more efficient means selling cheaper products, which means customers being able to afford more, or having more money left over after purchase. More money means higher quality of life (economically).
It didn't even occur to me that you meant for the costumer. Then you'd have to factor in the consequences of eating nutrient barren trash, and the fact that raw ingredients are still cheaper than processed stuff. There are no local Oreos. Contrary to some people here, I'll concede that some of it is delicious.
Still, a very difficult thing to measure.
>Also, more purchases means more jobs for the companies.
And how does a company create more jobs with the same money or according to you, less? If you pay 5€ for something that money goes to wages, suppliers, taxes, the owners, etc. regardless of who you give it to. The only difference is the type of jobs, industries and people being supported. If I can choose between giving 1€ to the girls down at the bakery, or a hundred faceless wagecucks packing a ton of bread every minute 1000kms away (not to mention other more demonic creatures that inhabit large corporations and take a cut), the choice is clear all other concerns aside.

Kraft spun off the snacks division in 2012 to reflect a more global oriented marketing plan.

Do you not understand my point? Perhaps I should have mentioned that Alberger salt IS what's widely used in the food industry to impart powerful flavors to their products. It's an advantage that industrial food has and the common grocery shopper doesn't.

This thread. My sides!

It's really easy to avoid these brands if you don't buy overpriced bullshite already. A majority of these products cost pennies to produce and sell for many dollars more than generic versions.

Almost every single one of these products is 90% sugar water, corn or flour. They extract all the fat from their dairy products and replace it with sugar so they can resell the fat as cheese powder on their other products.

Looking at all those products the only one I've purchased in the last year is Coleman's mustard, which again, is a hugely profitable product $4 for like 2 ounces of hot mustard.

It's not like I'm actively boycotting these brands, these brands are simply a clear rip off, and a bad value. Carrying a little bit of discernment with you into the grocery store is all you need.

I bet 50% of these products' packaging is more expensive than the product itself.

Statistics show that massive corporations and box stores reduce prices, control inflation, and produce more jobs than "the little guy" in the communities where they exist. The big stores also end up being greener and better for the environment in the long run. The big stores ALSO take their business overseas, employing millions of impoverished people around the world.

There are substantial pros and cons to supporting corporations. It is not a black/white dichotomy. You sound like an idi--
>prozessddd fuds is bad 4 u anun ;^)XDDD
Yea, you're a fucking idiot.

>Statistics show...

>Statistics show that massive corporations and box stores reduce prices, control inflation, and produce more jobs than "the little guy" in the communities where they exist.

You betcha'! But, uhh..., us'ns cuckservatives, sho' nuff support small business. We jus' don't likes dem damn small business dat are hippy freak stuff competin' wid' us full blooded 'murrican multinational corporations owned by otha' countries! Good ting' dis' latest budget done got dem multinationals mo' subsidy money, hell yass!

this

Why's he smoking a cigarette and how's he gonna know when to ash his cigarette

Because dude so real fuck

wow great argument you sure showed us

@9545835
xD