Talk:Food/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Protection

Hey guys, unprotect this article please! (yes i have put a request on the requests for unprotection list) Arghlookamonkey 22:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Food definition

Although the definition of nutrition may be in need of refinement, water cannot (as David states) be a food if it provides neither energy nor nutrition (or the definition of food in the article is wrong) - Marshman 00:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is the intuitive view, which I understand. However, in the UK, this is not the case. The definition of food is contained in Section 1 of the Food Safety Act 1990 [1] and this includes matters consumed which have alot nutritional value,chewing gum, preservatives and flavorings which have no nutrtional value such as water.

Likewise EU Law [2] specifically includes foods. Article 2 of Regulation 178/2002 specifically states ...

"For the purposes of this Regulation, "food" (or "foodstuff") means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans. "Food" includes drink, chewing gum and any substance, including water, intentionally incorporated into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment. "

It might be different outside Europe, but here it definately includes water chewing gum and other such like things which we consume.

I plan to leave this a few days so that others can contribute to the helpful debate, and then I will change the food article to include something on the legal definition of food. This will be based on the European position (as that is what I know), unless someone can contribute the URL's for the legal definition of food made by Governments or Religious edicts elsewhere in the world. I don't think that WHO has a definition for food (at least I couldn't find it on their website). I'm not sure about the US or the World Trade Organization. It would be great if contributors could put links to these things here so I can incorporate this in the changes I plan to make to the food article. Thanks David Thrale 11:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is great. I was not arguing that water was NOT food, but that the definition in the article seemed to exclude it. Putting in (several) official definitions will really improve the article - Marshman 17:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Minor precisification of first paragraph. (1) A food can be substance but not an object: a wheel of cheese is an object, and is food. Cheese is also food, though it is not an object, in any normal sense, but a kind. (2) Only what is normally eaten ought to be called food. There are, for example, people who eat glass and metal for entertainment, etc. It is not therefore food.

As the legal definition reference to substance rather than object fits in with the above comment, I have changed description to just say substance. The metal/glass eating example is so rare that it is perhaps not worth worrying about? David Thrale 22:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

"Normally" eaten seems like a reasonable addition - Marshman 22:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

This is a small point and I do not want to make a big issue of it. However, the problem that always arises from the word 'normally' is - normal to who? Presumably eating glass is normal to a troope of circus act performers who specialise in eating glass? Seriously though, clearly glass is not food, either in the common sense application of the word and the legal sense of the word. My view is that people know that glass isn't food whether the word normal is added to the definition or not. However, adding the word 'normally' may lead people of one culture to disregard foods which they do not normally eat which is normally consumed by another culture without being well known across cultures. Therefore I think its inclusion is POV and adds nothing to knowledge from the article. Why don't we leave it for the time being and later think about finding another way to distinguish glass from other real foods with no nutritional value if there are any other objections to the use of this word? David Thrale 07:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I dislike the definition of food - it should contain a purposive element, IMO. How about: "Food - any substance that may be subsumed into an organism in order to provide the ingredients necessary for carrying out the life processes of that organism." Food may be consumed for other reasons (e.g. taste, politeness), but it is only food if it satifies the primary purposive consideration. This definition excludes chewing gum and glass, but includes water. It also applies to plant 'food', amongst other things.

The current definition is widely accepted and enshrined in law. I guess that there are many foods that are consumed which have ingedients that are not necessary for carrying out the life processes of that organism, e.g. alcohol! David Thrale 23:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aside from arguing that alcohol most certainly isn't a food - it's a drug - I'd say that the definition very carefully does not specify that food is that which *is* consumed for the purpose etc., but that which *may be* consumed to satisfy the requirements of the body. I can't really comment on the legal definition - I was mostly referring to the informal definition at the top of the article: "Food is any substance normally eaten or drunk by living organisms. The term food also includes liquid drinks. Food is the main source of energy and of nutrition for animals, and is usually of animal or plant origin." I don't like my phrasing too much, though - far too formal...j-o-s-h

Aquaculture / Mariculture

Apiculture is part of agriculture. But are mariculture and aquaculture actually different. I have never seen mariculture before. Is mariculture harvesting algae and seaweed, aquaculture farming fish and fisheries catching wild fish? -rmhermen

I threw in some of these terms hoping someone can write about them. I heard that all cat fishes sold in California are product of aquaculture. I heard that the Japanese are doing mariculture by preying on the fish's behavior. They raise the fishes in open sea, and they sound a signal before feeding the young fishes to establish a behavior conditioning. The fishes wander off to the open sea and grow up on their own, at the right season when the fishes come back to their birth place, the fishermen simply sound a bell and collect the harvest. I guess aquaculture and mariculture are quiet different in term of operation, e.g. fresh water ponds vs open sea etc. I guess culture pearl production can be consider mariculture though no food product is produced.

Yes, there certainly is such a word. Mariculture is the culture of marine organisms like seaweeds and lobsters and oysters, etc.: ponds that circulate sea water (very big in Hawaii) or cages set up in the open sea (big in parts of Asia). While the story about the fish and ringing the bells sounds good, I have my doubts that it is true. - Marshman 03:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seafood

David, the article on seafood (which could be wrong, of course, although I've never considered that algae would be "seafood", but why not) says plants from the sea are NOT included in the definition - Marshman 16:52, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Marshman, You are right, I have moved it into the animal section. I have used my research on seafood to improve the seafood article as well. Thanks for the pointer 195.137.76.252 09:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Game

It may not be widely eaten in urban western society - but it is eaten and hunted for food and has been for centuries. Therefore I have restored this deleted category twice. It was deleted by 216.68.191.107 and 216.68.188.76. If you want to delete this category, can you join the debate and explain why this isn't food or a category of food worthy of mention? David Thrale 11:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC

Wild game IS eaten widely in western society indeed a know quite a few people who only eat vegetarian food or game, since they object to the farming of animals. Oh and the commonest forms of game are game birds: pheasant, pidgeon, patridge so we need to decide what to do versus poultry--BozMo|talk 15:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem is that game means different things in different countries. In the UK game is defined by the archaic Game Act of 1832 "Game" is defined as including hares, pheasants, partridges, grouse, heath or moor game and black game". Deer is not included in the definition, but is covered by the controls provided for in the Game Act.

I believe in the US / Canada it includes large mammmals like bears and moose. In Africa I think it includes things like Wildebeest, zebra etc Swaziland defination. It may even include Kangaroos, Crocs or alligators in Australia?!

It seems that we can't universally categorise game by type, e.g. small mammal or bird, etc. I think that instead, we should revert to the dictionary defination of "animal hunted for food or sport". This does seem to encompass all the animals mentioned and does accurately represent my understanding of the word. It certainly distinguishes this food from food that is farmed. Although there may be some grey areas (My local supermarket now sells pheasant!)

If so, we can use such an approach to clarify the information in the Food article. Then it seems that other wikipedia articles will need similar clarification. Wiki articles I found include Large game and Gamebird and Bushmeat some descriptive text on Game (disambiguation). We could probably have a single article with section for each part of the world, and redirect all the other artcicles at this new article. What say others?

New article Game (food) created David Thrale 11:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Game animals are those which are hunted for sport or food, it is true, but in the context of foodstuffs it is not necessary that they *have* been hunted for them to be game. A dead pheasant remains game regardless of how it dies. The common link that perhaps serves as the best pointer towards a serviceable definition is that game animals can't easily be farmed - they tend to be fast moving, active animals. Compare deer and cows, pheasants and chickens. (This is not strictly accurate, since tame turkeys are classed as poultry whilst wild ones are game). Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the flavour described as 'gamey' comes from the so-called 'slow-twitch' muscle fibres - those which are used for extended exertion. This compares to the 'fast-twitch' muscle fibres used for short, intense exertion. (This is essentially the same difference as between 'dark' and 'white' meat on a single turkey.) Game animals are those in which the lifestyle encourages development of slow-twitch musculature, this lifestyle usually being incompatible with farming.

Some traditionally game animals are now begiming to be farmed. Maybe the definition could be adjusted to allow animals that are traditionally game but are now farmed to be included? At college, I was taught that the term "Gamey" arises from the very strong flavour that arises from the extended hanging period between the death and evisceration. Detractors view this as partial decomposition, whereas supporters use the term "Gamey". I don't recall anything about slow or fast twitch. David Thrale 23:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The gamey flavour seems to develop more if the meat is hung, but it is still very present in freshly killed game, IME. I'm not in favour of including farmed 'game' in the same category. There's no comparison betweent he wild and farmed variants of the same animal. There can't be - it's the active lifestyle which gives game the flavour, and you can't get that in farm conditions. Or possibly it's the taste of freedom ;p Fast and slow twitch accounts for white/dark meat having a different flavour - effectively one is more concentrated protein than the other, IIRC. Proteins all taste pretty similar, though. See umami. J-o-s-h

Cereal

Is sugarcane really a cereal? It is a kind of grass, but we eat the stalks instead of the grain. - Burschik

I suggest that we change the text to ...

• Grasses, including barley, Cereals, corn or maize, oats, rice, rye, sugarcane, wheat

What do you think? David Thrale 00:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

History of food

Diet of Homo habilus/erectus/neanderthalis/etc/sapiens. Impact of totalitarian agriculture -- food as property, the introduction of farmed animals, and the evolution of lactose tolerance. Diet of early civilizations; invention of beer and bread. Famines throughout civilization, from the Romans to the Irish and the Ethiopeans. Effect of exploration in introducing new foods, e.g. tomato, chocolate, rice. Difficulties in food preservation. Invention of refrigeration: effect on meat consumption and confectionery. Invention of restaurants, catering, processed food, tinned food, fast food. Improved nutrition throughout history. Decreasing time available for food preparation, and increasing obesity in developed countries.

-- Mpt 16:38 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Creationists vs Evolutionists

I'm of the opinion that the subsections on "Creationists" and "Evolutionists" are not really helpful. The first just gives the chronologically early mentioning of "food" in the bible (Adam & Eve and the "apple" is rather clearly a metaphore, not having to do with food) and the Evolutionists segment is an oversimplification of the subject, and probably not really correct (what evolutionist believes the distribution of ancient man resulted only from wandering around looking for stuff to eat during an ice age?) Populations of all animals and plants disperse, and all organisms need "food", but hunger is not the only cause of expansion in all species in the sense of a driving force (for locusts, maybe it is, but that is part of a "normal" migration pattern). I especially object to the dichotomous presentation, because I object to the idea that learning is a process of reading more about "what you believe". - Marshman 17:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With the exception of the last sentence, which goes against the NPOV principle, I agree. All this stuff was on the food page before i started work on it. I just sectionised it and improved the explanation where I could. I'd like to delete this as well. I suggest that we leave this until the end of March and if no-one puts a counter view, delete this stuff in early April. David Thrale 11:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I concur with that approach - Marshman 19:27, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew Levine. It was silly and needed removal - Marshman 04:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cannibalism

I put Cannibalism in a seperate category on the food page, as human flesh is not a plant source and, according to the wikipedia definition of animal, not an animal source. An unregistered user has moved Cannibalism back into animal source. What do others think? (including that person if they see this entry? David Thrale 13:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi David, While I am not the unregistered user who moved Cannibalism from a Human category back into Animal source, I did move (and change the designation) from Cannibalism -> Meat (human), as I felt it was more in line with the way the list was formed. I was not aware of this discussion. But still firmly believe that the human is an animal (colloquially or not, as Wikipedia points out), and it is one type among many other animal sources for meat. After all, if one look at Wikipedia's definition of human, it would be hard to not draw the conclusion that we are "animals". Sfdan 18:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out that current anthropological theorists don't beleive cannibalisim as a major food component has ever existed among humans. Ritualistic cannibalisim and cannibalisim out of nessecity donnor party are a different story. ZPS102 01:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statements, i have seen and read many a documentary and book about cannibalism and not one seems to show that human flesh is a primary source of food. One of the few tribes that practice cannibalism eat their dead as a sign of love and respect, their main source of meat is the wild pigs and boars that inhabit the forests around their villages

USDA information, from Main Page

A user commenting on the Talk:Main Page asked whether the (comprehensive, PD) USDA info for each food couldn't be included in its article template. Is there a Food wikiproject?

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR16-1/sr16-1.html

+sj+ 08:24, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

i think it should be included with the food article

Alternative Medicine

Calling this general food article part of the Alt Med group is a strectch. Having a reference to alternative medicine is a stretch as well, but I can see it barely. However, the TinyCam link and other links in Alt Med land being organized by MrNaturalHealth are in flux. If they change the CamTiny link could change the apprearance markedly. A simple link to Alternative Medicine is the most appropriate. Kd4ttc 20:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are not God. Just thought that you might want to know. You do not own this article. Your opinion, is exactly that: Yours! -- John Gohde 20:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Kd4ttc-- "food" generically doesn't seem to have much to do with alternative medicine. Marnanel 00:16, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also agree. If food is "alt medicine" then so is clean air. Having everything one needs to live under Category:Alternative medicine sort of ruins the category for searching purposes. Really Kd4ttc was helping make the category better by questioning the appropriateness of marginal inclusions. That makes him a good editor (perhaps equivalent to God?) - Marshman 03:24, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that it is my opinion. With time we will see how widely the opinion is shared. What is your opinion? What got you so annoyed? Kd4ttc 22:39, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Any link to alt med will through Nutrition. There is an article on that with some disccusions on health id alt med goes anywhere it goes there (probably in the holistic section but There are other places it could go.Geni 11:42, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Eating utensils

I wonder if we should split off Eating utensils into a page of its own. We could discuss there how eating has changed; and an overview of different cultures' way of eating. And also mention chimps using sticks to eat termites... -- Tarquin 13:04 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Food topics

I think we could use something like List of food related topics. (I'm not up to starting such today). Thoughts? -- Infrogmation 17:59 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Related links, sort by: composition, process, effect. Possibly. Meals, utensils etc. should be pushed into their own articles.

Agreed, i reciently have seen an exhibit primarily about eating utensils. It was quite interesting and i believe someone could make a rather nice article of it.

Food Allergy and Sensitivities?

I am a total beginner, so please forgive ignorance. My question is what, where and how should food allergy and sensitivity be covered? I think there should at least be a general article here. This is one of those relatively rare problems for which individuals need to become more expert than their doctors, and the information needed is hard to find. There are pockets of info on the web, but much good could be done by collecting and systemizing a fair bit of it here.

My idea of top level article would be something like this....

Some people have allergies or sensitivities to foods which are wholesome to others. Allergies and sensitivities may present differently, but both are immune system responses in which the body reacts negatively to the food. These reactions affect one or more organ systems, such as the skin (e.g. hives), the gut (e.g. vomiting), lungs (e.g. breathing problems) or the circulatory or nervous systems (e.g. headache). The problematic reactions range in severity from nuisance to life threatening depending on the sensitivity of the individual and the amount of exposure. The amount of the food substance required to provoke a reaction in a highly sensitivie individual can be extremely minute. For instance, tiny amounts of food in the air, too minute to be smelled, have been known to provoke lethal reactions in sufficiently sensitive individuals. In theory, any food may provoke a reaction. The foods most commonly reported as problematic include gluten, corn (zea maiz), shellfish (mollusks), peanuts, and soy....

Multiple theories attempt to explain how individuals become allergic or sensitive to foods. Some amount of susceptibility appears to be genetic. But there are undoubtedly multiple mechanisims at work...

Thanks.

Thanks for the contribution. I have created a new section in the food article, using much of your work. Do have a look, and edit to improve! David Thrale 08:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Food manufacture

"Food manufacturing, or food processing, arose during the industrialisation era in the 19th century"

This is simply wrong, at least as far as I understand the term 'food processing'. Food processing extends back many millennia - man has been salting, drying, smoking, or otherwise preserving food for as long as there has been an excess. Since cheese and bread are included in the list of processed foodstuffs, it seems that the intent is not to restrict the definition to industrial processing of food, but perhaps it should be.

I agree, I will try to change this explanation for the better David Thrale 23:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hate this and I hate that ... fat people eat lots

Is there an article for the personal dislike of certain foods? For example, I hate eggplants, bananas and pumpkins. If I were the President (of whatever country), I'll nuke all eggplant fields, jail and torture all banana farmers and send taxman to all restaurants that serves pumpkins. It's my own policy. And it's supposed to be the National Policy. -- Toytoy July 7, 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Very unlikely, far too POV. Haoie 10:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I like junk food, but please distroy the oat meal cereal crap. Tastes might be individual, but there must be some science behind it. Like about tastebuds or something. Maybe a psycology page... jess523s 20:40 (PST)

Food groups - interesting omission

It is interesting to see the absence of an article or even a passing mention of "food groups" in this or most other articles (a lonely standout is the Food guide pyramid article). I know that the term is not much in favor in the United States (and perhaps other places) right now, but it was a major part of nutritional advice prior to the advent of the pyramid notion. If I were prepared to address the omission myself, I would do so, but I thought that someone with keen interest in nutrition and history might wish to take that on. Regards, Courtland 01:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

how much food?

How much food does the average adult human eat? what about certain animals? Don't birds eat like 20 times there weight or something?

Languages?

I can't believe such a topic would be written in only two languages. Food's more important to our daily lives than almost everything else!

Added link to Hebrew wiki Avi 21:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeez you're fast. BirdValiant 21:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) Avi 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In the foreign language pages linked to from Food, most of the English-language links lead back to Meal. I think we need a fluent speaker of the other languages to check if we are incorrectly linking English-languge Food to foreign-language meal or they are incorrectly linking foreign-language food to English-language Meal. Avi 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Food peer review

Interested in food? Then help to peer review Portal:Food --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pedantic

I hate to be pedantic here but

"Food is any substance that can be consumed for nutritional value and to provide extra energy."

Doesn't it just provide 'energy'? Rather that "extra energy"? Otherwise where is the initial energy coming from, because the sentence implies that our primary energy does not come from food. Supposed 16:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, does food have to be 'consumed'? It could be fed to people introveniously in which case is this really consumption?

Supposed 16:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

you got a point there man. -- Anonymous

Problems with the definition of Food Science

(Food portal) I take issue with the use of the word "consumed" on Portal:Food. Any product bought by a consumer is "consumed". If I "consume" a car or palm pilot, does that mean I eat it? Paul King 21:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(Food Science) I also think Heldeman's quote, or some form of it, should be the definition. Why bury it down at the bottom? The definition at the start is too "technology-sounding". Food Science really is a science, unlike "political science" or something else with science at the end of the topic name. Food Technology is just one branch of food science. Food science is a hybrid of actual science (albeit applied) (the study of food and its properties), and engineering (the improvement of foods for safety, better nutrition and low cost). There doesn't seem to be a way to edit this page. What do I do? Paul King 22:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a more sophisticated name for Food Science?(as in "Botany" instaed of "Plant Science")--Whytecypress

Removed { { cookbook } } tag

I removed the tag, for two reasons. First of all, it produced the highly silly message, "Wikibooks Cookbook has a recipe for Food". Secondly, it led to a broken link anyway. Apparently wikibooks cookbook does not have a recipe for "Food". What a shame, that sounded tasty. --Xyzzyplugh 00:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Readded the page...

The page was completely blank, so I restored it to what it was prior to the last edit. Hope that was right. 147.240.236.9 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Roy

Wiki Cookbook

I would just like to say, I think it would be a good idea to have a Wikipedia recipe book. Contact me if you think it's a good idea. Asteroidz R not planetz 19:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the Wikibooks Cookbook. --Macrakis 22:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Food Network

Why the Advert for the Food Network? (This mean nothing in the UK either) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.111.169.120 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The link at the top of the page isn't an advertisement; it is there to redirect users who are looking for the article on the TV network called "Food". - Eron 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone needs to take out the line "or who eats all the time" from the "Dietary Habits" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.67.142.56 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing that out. - Eron 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This page needs to be locked. There's way too much vandalism that's been going on recently. I've already reverted the page twice now.

Twice? Twice?

Lazy. It needs clearing up, not locking.Arghlookamonkey 22:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good article

I think this article is rather good. I would pass it if you were to nom it. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 22:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

where is Food Product

I searched for food product and was redirected to food. Why is this? Food as a product is a phenomena of industrial and/or modern consumer society, generally something packaged, perhaps processed. While food is a general term of things consumed for sustanance. There should be two different entries as not everyone today or throughout history as eaten "food products". 67.53.78.15 11:13, 2 Feb 2007 (UTC)

• Either because someone thought there wasn't enough information for a separate article or because someone thought it would be enough to cover this in the food article. Food Product would be a wrong title anyway. The P shouldn't be capitalized. You probably want to read Wikipedia:Redirect to get an idea when things are redirected. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fictitious food

Where does fictitious food such as soylent green fit in? It doesn't!

-- Probably under food symbolism, I am not sure if there is a topic on food symbolism in movies or other cultural media mediums.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

Can we get some protection here? This page is being constantly vandalized now Korrybean 02:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

In this article there are differing spellings (e.g. "flavor" and "flavour") and differing uses of the serial comma (i.e., some series have them, others don't). Should we adhere to one standard? Shiggity 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to do a full GA review, so I don't want to fail the article, but it needs to be pointed out that the article can't be considered broad in its coverage unless there's at least a minimum on food history and culture. Overall, there's way too much focus on the legal and corporate aspects of food, making it a slightly dull read. The marketing section, for example, is really tedious. Try to cut down on stubby sub-sections overall.Did you know farts smeel bad?

And do try to separate sources from the notes. Go for shorthand notation in "Notes" and make a separate list of each of the sources used in a "References/Sources" section below. That way one can get a quick overview of the works used. And try not to limit this to just the print sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the way the notes are placed into the article at length make for very difficult editing. I think I will try to make some sense out of them, although it may take me some time. I'd like to see a food taboo heading in here, and a food in popular culture as well (although not under a history heading).--Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

I have reviewed the article according to the GA criteria and have failed the article based on the following issues.

1. Expand the lead, it should probably be around three paragraphs. Summarize the majority of the sections if possible. Look to WP:LEAD for further explanation.
2. "Almost all foods are of plant or animal origin, although there are some exceptions." Either expand on this information or incorporate the information into another paragraph. Seeing that it is an intro sentence, it would be better to expand on it.
3. Add a wikilink for mushrooms in the "Other foods" section.
4. Inline citations go directly after the punctuation; go through the article and make sure all occurrences are fixed.
5. Convert the information in "Legal definition" from a list to prose.Strike-through text
6. "Sustainable agricultural" Sustainable doesn't need to be capitalized. Same goes for "Organic farming".
7. Again, go throughout the rest of the article and make sure no single sentences are standing alone.
8. "This has greatly affected world food trade." What is "This"? Specify.
9. "For example, fifty-six companies are involved in making one can of chicken noodle soup. These businesses include not only chicken and vegetable processors but also the companies that transport the ingredients and those who print labels and manufacture cans." Move the inline citation after the first sentence instead of the second one, if it covers the information.
10. "Sometimes, also, food aid provisions will require certain types of food be purchased from certain sellers, and food aid can be misused to enhance the markets of donor countries." Remove ", also,"
11. "Discovery of techniques for killing bacteria using heat and other microbiological scientists why girls shouldn't cheat on boys

such as Louis Pasteur contributed to the modern sanitation standards that we enjoy today." Reword "we enjoy today"; doesn't sound very encylopedic.

1. "This was further underpinned by the work of Justus von Liebig whose work led to" Work is repeated twice, reword.
2. "For instance, tiny amounts of food in the air, too minute to be smelled, have been known to provoke lethal reactions in sufficiently sensitive individuals." Minute was used in the sentence before it; replace on of the instances to allow for more variety.
3. "Most patients present with diarrhea after ingesting certain foodstuffs, skin symptoms (rashes), bloating, vomiting and regurgitation." This sentence seems to be missing a few words, reword it.
4. "Rarely, the food allergy chelce can lead to..." What is "chelce"?
5. "Rarely, the food allergy chelce can lead to anaphylactic shock: hypotension (low blood pressure) and loss of consciousness. This is a medical emergency." Combine the two sentences.
6. "Kosher foods are permitted by Judaism" Kosher isn't capitalized.
7. Fix the external links, they aren't formatted properly. Also there is an extra bracket at the last link.
8. Some of the section headings and subheadings aren't properly formatted. I don't think that "Famine and hunger" and "Food safety" and the other editors should be subheadings of "Food trade". Go through the table of contents and see how the headings should be formatted.
9. Other sections that should be mentioned: obesity (this is barely mentioned and could use some more expansion), cooking (using ovens, barbeque, raw food such as sushi) restaurants (this is very important for food; a whole section could probably be devoted to this or at least a paragraph (buffets, fast food, high-quality restaurants)).
10. More images should be added for the last half of the article. Go to some of the pages for the wikilinks and I'm sure that some useable images will pop up.

Add inline citations for:

1. "In fact, the majority of all foods consumed by human beings are seeds." Is the inline citation at the end of the paragraph for this? If not, then add an inline citation for this statement.
2. "Fruits are made attractive to animals so that animals will eat the fruits and excrete the seeds over long distances." Add inline citation.
3. Many cultures eat honey, produced by bees, and some cultures eat animal blood.
4. There are two basic views of food marketing: production focus and consumer focus.
5. There are three steps to both developing and extending: generate ideas, screen ideas for feasibility, and test ideas for appeal.
6. The two most common factors leading to cases of bacterial foodborne illness are cross-contamination of ready-to-eat food from other uncooked foods and improper temperature control.
7. In profitably pricing the food, the manufacturer must keep in mind that the retailer takes approximately 50 percent of the price of a product.
8. Commonly food allergens are gluten, corn, shellfish (mollusks), peanuts, and soy." Also, should it be "Common"?

I am going to fail the article for now as this seems like a lot of work to do and the article will be signficantly changed if the above issues are addressed. A lot of the sections just hint at the information and coud use a lot more expansion. The current article is at 38kb or so, but I think it sounds reasonable for the article to be expanded. The article is very broad, which is good, but still needs to cover more things, as food is a very wide topic to cover. Once you have addressed the above issues, consider getting a peer review or having a third party look over the article before renominating. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate review at Good article review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 07:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed recommendations! I'm sorry it didn't pass, but your comments are very helpful. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Food Marketing Mix and the Four Ps of Marketing

I would recommend removing this section entirely. It contains 4 stubby sub-sections, and mostly unreferenced material, both reasons why the article didn't make "good" status. One reviewer above suggested cutting down on the marketing information, as it's "tedious", and I agree. Marketing is covered in another section as well. Would anyone object to my removing this section? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also think the "external links" section is unnecessary. It's good to link to "food" on Commons and Wikibooks, but the Food Network and the ADA? I don't see why any of these are anything more than tangents. In my opinion, the don't belong unless they are used as sources. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. I went ahead and made these changes. Please complain here if you think that was a bad idea. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the section is necessary as it is just a repeat of information found the food marketing article and seems a bit unnecessary. Maybe just an explanation of the four P's.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 21:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To-do

I just added a to-do list at the top of this page. Please strike off items as they are completed, and feel free to add items as necessary. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable references

The list of sources is already huge and we haven't even started on history and culture yet. Could we try to limit the list at least somewhat? Sources like The Barbecue Bible and Endurance, Exercise and Adipose Tissue could most be replaced with more general ones (perhaps already in use?). And it doesn't seem entirely reasonable to specifically cite extremely general statements like "Although humans are omnivores, each culture holds some food preferences and some food taboos."

Peter ^Isotalo 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was tired and just grabbing whatever book was in reach last night when I worked on the cooking section, I pointed it all appropriately to Davidson in the Oxford Companion to Food. Were you planning on working some history into the article?--Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the excess cites. But about citing general statements, WP:CITE says "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." It may seem obvious to a sociologist that all cultures have food taboos, but many laypersons may be surprised at such a sweeping statement. ("You mean all cultures have food taboos? It's not just mine?") Of course what's "likely to be challenged" is debatable, but we'd like to get this article up to featured status, so I'd rather err on the side of overciting, rather than underciting. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially on the food taboos and cultural ideas. I have been removing many of these from the cuisine pages, stating that eating horse meat isn't common, or that escargot, balut and other such items are odd. They aren't to those cultures, and thus not always common knowledge and open to a reader's own POV.

Specific claims should generally be cited, but it seems quite excessive for claims like "(food) taboos exist everywhere" or "most cultures have a recognizable cuisine". These facts are just so basic that even general ignorance can't be considered a good reason to add footnotes to them. We're not talking knowledge that is confined to scholars of a specific discipline, and above all, the people who would question these facts are not the ones who will bother to check sources. At the very least one should wait for someone to make a genuine, articulate challenge of it. That would not include fellow editors formulating meta-criticism based on specific readings of policy documents. But my main quibble in the first post was actually the list of cited works. We haven't even gotten to culture and history and we're already past the 40+ mark. That's not a good thing for any article.

And yes, I'll try to try write a paragraph or two on food history soon, but I have to spend some time at the library first. I'm going to try to limit myself to a few general sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you position Peter, I haven't had time lately, but I am going to try and go through to consolidate the information into less sources even further. We should stop adding sources and try to look into the ones we have here already. I have taken a little break from editing the article for right now as I am helping out with a food styling conference and then have a couple clases early in the week. I should get back to it sometime later in the week.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got it under 40 now, Ill continue to work at it.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate all the recent work on this, but there are two places where you took out information in order to take out a reference, and I have to disagree on those. (1), you took out the fact that nearly half of the food dollars spent in the U.S. are spent of fast food. I think that's relevant to the "food" article, and it's the only link to "fast food" in the article. I think it's a good fact to include. (2), you changed in from "all" cultures have food preferences and taboos to "many" cultures do. But all cultures do. It's a fact, and it's cited. I don't think we should weaken the statement just to reduce the references. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The reasons I removed them was not just for removal of excessive citation. I listed on the fast food quote that citing Fast Food Nation, much like the Steingarten book is a poor secondary source riddled with excessive POV material. The statement would be fine if it came from a concrete primary source. These are the ways that articles get up to an A and then Featured Article status, although we are concerned in the short term with the GA status, I am looking past that. I changed it from All to many cultures, because the citation does not mention a page and I could not verify it. I would never remove citations just for the sake of removing citations, I always have a reason, in addition the statement is not weakened by its removal, if anything it is strengthened as it is no longer cited to a vague note.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, and I don't doubt your motivations. But I still think that an accurate sourced statement, even if the source is a polemic, is better than not having the statement at all. Of course its better to have an academic source, but I couldn't find one. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I will look for a proper citation on fast food from the National Restaurant Association tomorrow. I will respectfully have to disagree on having the statement there just to have it there, because if the source (Fast Food Nation) is inaccurate because of bias, then it weakens the article. Authors such as that manipulate data to get shocking results to help sell their books and agendas, thus that statistic may not be completely accurate.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 04:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

FFN is absolutely a POV work designed to sell through controversy, but if the statistics he cited were flat-out inaccurate then his enemies (who are many) would have a field day with it. For this reason, controversial works (like FFN) are often meticulously accurate in their facts, even as they over-reach in their opinions. Unfortunately, the author didn't cite his source. I already looked through the NRA, and I couldn't find anything there. (Most of their factsheets you have to pay for, and the free ones didn't separate out "fast food".) I do think that the article isn't complete with out some reference to fast food, putting its prominence in perspective. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is now accurate with statistics taken from the USDA in 2005.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

See also

According to Wikipedia:Guide to layout, a see-also section "should ideally not repeat links already present in the article." This is why I don't think we should include links to cuisine and culinary arts in the see-also section; they are linked to in the relevant sections already. (Besides, the culinary arts article is really, really bad.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, too many pages have excessive See Also sections which are just repeats of the article, and I think I am going to take a rest from this article and try to see what I can do with that Culinary Arts article.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I lied

I made one more edit for today, I changed the format of the references to shorten the size of the page and make them not look so ominous as there are so many. Please feel free to change it back if you do not like it.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to do that myself. It looks much better. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Steingarten citation

Using Jeffery Steingarten's book for citation on the use of blood in sausage and soup, although probably accurate, is not really a reliable source. That is a food writing book, not a culinary reference, perhaps finding the same information in McGee or Davidson which are also both already in the article would be more appropriate.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 20:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither McGee nor Davidson mentions blood sausage or soup. I know Steingarten is a lame choice to use as a source, but a search through my bookshelf and Google Books turned up nothing better. I'd like the ref to be replaced, if anyone can find a better one. (A trip to the library should do it, but my library isn't open on Memorial Day.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I must have something in my home library that mentions it, I'll look through it but until then it is better to have that note than none at all. I need to actually go an accomplish something today and not sit on here all day which is what happened yesterday working on this article. I find working on this stuff too much fun and too addictive. It's better than television at least.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Davidson, Oxford Companion to Food (1st ed) has over two columns on "Blood sausage", in alphabetical order right after "Blood", plus another half-column on an Irish blood sausage, drisheen. On the other hand, he has exactly one sentence on blood as a thickener in civet, and I didn't see anything on soup. The WP article on blood sausage, however, doesn't cite him or any other good refs.... --Macrakis 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Good work. Should there be a blood as food article combining this, blood sausage, blood soup, and coq au vin et al? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it just a little while ago.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 23:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Obesity

Just in case anyone else gets to it, I just wanted to put in my two-cents and mention that I think Obesity should go under nutrition, which would also greatly help expand that section.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 21:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Edible clay

When I was reading about Inca cuisine, I came across mention of edible clays that were used as flavoring for potatoes or even some type of penance food for the religiously devout. Does anyone know if minerals in the form of clay are eaten in other cultures as well?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I just saw a restaurant in Spain is doing a dish called "clay potatoes" which was small potatoes covered in powdered clay, but I think it is a molecular gastronomy novelty. I do recall hearing cultures eating clay before, but honestly off the top of my head, I am at a loss.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember hearing that pregnant women somewhere in Africa would sometimes eat clay to get some sort of mineral that they weren't getting enough of in their diet. Obviously my memory of this is fuzzy. I don't think it really counts as "food", per se. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant article here is geophagy. Richard001 07:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to know where to fit a topic like this. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've actually tried that. Not bad if it's in the right dish. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect

How do we semi-protect this page, I've noticed that as people work on a page more often people tend to vandalize it more. I foresee the same happening with French cuisine which I have been working on, and have had a few vandals recently.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Also, I'm an admin and I'm watching this page, so if I see it vandalized often enough I'll protect it. But protection isn't often used preemptively. You have to show that it's been vandalized a lot lately. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

who cares!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.1.103 (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Artificial food

Some notes about possible future of food consuming and agriculture should be considered here. May mankind grow entirely artificial food in laboratories not depending on agriculture in case of nuclear winter? What humans have yet to do to obtain this type of production? How may genetical changes help people consume cellulose and, feeding on solar rays as plants, create not only proteins in their bodies, but aminoacids also? Perhaps, this is a topic for another article, but I have not found one yet. Yes, I know Wikipedia is not a cristal ball, but may we create an article like 'food in science fiction'. --85.235.196.35 14:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This information is entirely speculative and non-fact based which means it would be technically "original research" which is not what Wikipedia desires in its encyclopedic articles.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

However Food in science fiction would be an appropriate article, so long as each example is sourced to a specific piece of literature. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Quadellon this.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be advantageous if we could digest cellulose (our distant ancestors could, with the help of bacteria), and being able to synthesize all the amino acids, vitamin C (another molecule we used to be able to make) and anything else like that would also be helpful.

On the other hand, an organism that creates its own food such as a plant would never have enough energy to move around and do the things we do - that's why it takes about 10kg of plant material to make 1kg of primary consumers. Any 'artificial' attempts at creating food would still require an energy source, and the sun is about the only one we have. Therefore plants and other phototrophs will surely remain our primary source of energy unless we become partially robotic or are replaced by some electronic life form. If we can't grow plants, we'll soon be extinct.

I don't know of any non-science fiction plans to change humans in this way, but there are certainly attempts to improve the nutritional value of foods, such as improving protein and vitamin content of basic staples like rice, which causes great nutritional deficiencies if eaten with little else. This aspect can be written about, but the rest is too far fetched. Richard001 07:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vegetables vs. Meat?

I notice that there is a large portion at the top of the article devoted to vegetables, as opposed to meat. Is this on purpose? I understand the health benefits that we're trying to pitch here and of course vegetables are much healthier. Is it because vegetables are simply more widely eaten than meat? or is this just an accident. Squiggle 17:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see an over abundance of vegetable information in the article over animal proteins, If you mean the two pictures, it is just coincidence, however in the first picture there is not just vegetables, there are also grains. There is no intention of promoting vegetarianism, I am a classically trained chef who cooks many fattening things, not just veggies.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 04:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Squiggle, both should be even. It's obvious that pro vegetarians have invaded this article.--209.80.246.13 (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Can someone enlighten me as to why this is still semi-protected? I'd like to unprotect unless there are objections and reasons. Pedro :  Chat  20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Free Rice

Hey all. Since the page on food is locked, I wanted to ask how I could go about adding a link in there to FreeRice. It's a program to fight world hunger and I think it would go great in the paragraph about hunger and famine. I am trying to appropriately deorphanize the page on FreeRice, and this would help. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.63.210 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the protection on the page, however, if you add information to the article please make sure it is properly sourced as the entire article is sourced properly at the moment.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Food/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Food any substance which is consumed by living organisms for the purpose of growth and reproduction. 209.247.23.241 (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Rendering link

The "Rendering" link goes to a disambig page rather than Rendering (food). I'd change it myself but it seems the article is locked again? (I can't see any edit links) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.163.61.3 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Food and Ethics

Tradional diets, which have sustained life for over 10,000 years, are a counter-culture? The Western diet of sugar, fats, white flour and other anti-nutrients is the anomaly. 68.102.69.14 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sentence about Vegetarian diet

This should be rewritten. It implies that the vegetarian diet isn't that healthy, and that a diet which avoids sugars or animal fats and increases consumption of dietary fiber and antioxidants is better, and yet the vegetarian diet does just this! It was probably not intended but that's the impression I got when I first read it.

"Many individuals limit what foods they eat for reasons of morality, or other habit. For instance vegetarians choose to forgo food from animal sources to varying degrees. Others choose a healthier diet, avoiding sugars or animal fats and increasing consumption of dietary fiber and antioxidants.[63]"--Phenylalanine (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Modern Food

Hi, Whilst reading through this article, I noticed that hardly anything has been mentioned about modern food, (for example: fast food). I am not sure what to say about modern food, but there is a definite need for information about it in this article. Regards, Liam-carson (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Blokquote

Perhaps its possible to include following blokquote:

Nuchi gusui Food should nourish life. That is the best medicine. Okinawan proverb .

The quote is to refer to the "eat to live"-ethic (eg also popularised by Joel Fuhrman.

Thanks. 81.244.205.121 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unnessary talk sections

Can I delete the unnessary talk sections? It's talking up too much space and we don't really need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.0.210 (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.0.210 (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Supermarket picture

It's a cool picture, but there doesn't actually seem to be much (any?) food on the aisles in the picture from the Portland supermarket. Hmmm. Wikidemo (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Look closer. The only non-food products are limited to a small rack of kitchen utensils to the far left and some kitty litter in the foreground. The overwhelming majority of the products in the picture appear to be edible.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Human reliance on food

Shouldn't there be something on how long a well-fed person can live without eating, and how it would affect them physically and mentally? Enelson (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the kind of information you would find in nutrition.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should try to stay on topic. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Articles need to stay focused. The worst mistake an article can make is trying to take on too much.99.224.137.2 (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bhuni kaleji

Bhuni kaleji or Fried kaleji is a common dish world wide but the specially prepared by Muslims on Eid al-Adha. It is a religious trend that Muslim always try to breakfast after "qurbani". and take a meal with this delicious food. To see direction Bhuni kaleji--Sydadnan (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Amount of normal food consumption for a person not included in article

Please include the normal amount of caloric intake required for a person/day. Depending on whether the person is mature or not and female or male, this fluctuates but is around 2800-3000kcal/day. Also, depending on where a person lives (warmer/colder climates, height level) can severely influence this (I believe that in tropical climates only 2100-2200 kcal are required for a average adult).

Please include all this information (preferably in a table with the different factors such as male, female, height level, ...) in this article or in a article called "food consumption" or something.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.193.44 (talk) 09:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Removed from WP:Most vandalized pages

Because the article is now semi-protected I've removed it from the above page. If vandalism continues to be a problem after the protection expires/is removed, please do not hesitate to re-add it. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone vandalize an article about food? Some people have way too much free time. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Food

For many years Americans have been in the heated discussion of food. From the beggining of time people have needed food whether it was tasty or gross to the the humans 3 senses. Blah Blah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fghj89 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think such an obscure subject as "food" (whatever that is) is worthy of its own article.

You must be joking? Food is one of the top three things humans need to survive. It has become it's own art form. Of course it deserves it's own article! Either way I don't think this post is helping anyone. You can discuss this somewhere else.--209.80.246.13 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Western processed foods

Perhaps a section can be made on the fact that the current foods are so processed and radically different from what humans used to eat that people are directed towards eating too much (as the human body can no longer accuratly determine how much it requires using these new foods). See the article by Yann Rougiers (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:LFkVrLGMGZgJ:www.yannrougiercoaching.com/legersurpoids/regimeefficace+yann+rougier+and+industrialisation&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=be , translate with google translate), add section in article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.186.248 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add [[sr:Храна]] interwiki. Thanks. M!cki ^talk 14:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change "Production" section to "(History of) procurement and producction"

This section, as currently written, refers to some historical trends in how food is 'obtained' and a contemporary on in how food is cultivated. Food has not been traditionally 'produced', with hunting and gathering predominating for 97-98% of human (pre)history. In addition to agriculture, the "see also" redirect should provide links to hunter-gatherer and fishing. I would re-write the beginning of this section to read:

Food is traditionally obtained from hunting and gathering, a subsistence method that predominated for over 200,000 years. Fishing emerged at least 40,000 years ago, possibly itself an adaptation to dwindling land-based wildlife resources. More recently, the Neolithic Revolution, whose earliest developments took place only 12,000 years ago, provided a new source of food—agriculture—though hunting and gathering remained crucial to subsistence. As early as 5000 BC, agriculture began to replace other sources as the predominant mode of obtaining food, part of the emergence of civilizations beginning with Sumer. Today, agriculture is nearly ubiquitous in the provision of food, with a dozen domesticated species comprising over half of all food production.

The existing commentary on contemporary trends toward sustainable agriculture methods would follow, probably as a new paragraph. Please consider making this change, as it would broaden and deepen any discussion of FOOD.

Daily Food

Is there a list of exact natural food items human needs to eat daily to function properly?

(I mean - human being is a chemical machine - all the chemicals* must be present else it doesn't work correctly) (* chemicals contained within natural food items taken into organism)

I've seen nutrient calculators and stuff, but that's all impractical and requires you to indulge yourself into nutrient theory matters (and usually it points to use of substitutes containing those chemicals - not the common natural food). I can't believe facts regarding daily food intake needs aren't definitely determined, widely known and routinely practiced! It should list common natural widely available food items each containing some of the nutrients human body needs - together compiling the that full list of foods needed to take inside all the chemicals body needs, It shouldn't be scientifically precise, it should roughly estimate (always exceed), there should be separate list for every group of humans (according to age, weight, gender etc. assuming that you wish to maintain your current body weight, and what's most important - remain fully healthy and functional), for example - it should simply state things like this: I LIKE FOOD

Daily you should eat following items: 2 apples 3 slices of bread 3 boiled eggs 10 (I-don't-know-what) 6 seeds of (what?) 1 (vegetable 1) 2 (vegetable 2) 3 (vegetable 4) etc.

Are there such lists, where, or on the other hand can someone compile it, and where do we read it then? Thank you.

Also: answer this question please: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_food_to_eat_so_you_don%27t_feel_lazy_so_it_gives_you_energy_and_affects_your_mind_so_you_feel_willing&waAn=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.74.191 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mass/weight of food consumed daily per capita

I am unable to find any data on total daily consumption of food, by any group of people, by mass or weight of food. Everything is in calories, and then only usually "recommended", not research into actual total calorie consumption per capita. (And consider here that the food "kcal" is a very badly calibrated unit of measure.) Or else it is broken down by type of food, and no attempt is made at adding up for one person per day. What gives! Very frustrating. Any leads? HOW MUCH DO PEOPLE EAT!?

:)

A 71.61.18.244 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Added a line on vegitarianism and veganism

since it wasn't mentioned in the the entire article despite being a notable concept related to the notion of foods\diet. I made it as concise and general as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftadot (talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Peer Review criticism/comments

Tommy (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Civit"?

"Civit" is a small wild feline - "Dinuguan" is pork blood stew. Is this what the author meant?

Terds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.168.189 (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously

"Almost all foods are of plant or animal origin."

What are we omitting here, fungus?

I love mushrooms, but... seriously... is this sentence even needed? Aren't for all practical purposes ALL foods of plant or animal origin?

Would not mushrooms be considered a plant, here? In this context? We farm mushrooms... it's a relatively big business, in fact... you can buy mushrooms at practically any grocery store.

Is it the insects? Aren't they animals, too? Where do you draw the line?

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk... this just doesn't sound right to me. I get that the modifying word "almost" can cover a lot of ground, but, gee whiz... shouldn't we then be more specific and include fungus, insects, or whatever the writer of this line intended to leave out by his/her use of the word "almost"? some people even eat food through their noses.

I have eaten "almost" everything considered edible. Including fungus (love it, for the most part) and insects (hate it, for the most part, probably a cultural bias).

Isn't "almost" almost (sorry) a "weasel word" in this context?

Look, I'm just, really, asking... if it ain't plant or animal, what is it, then? And why do we (or do we not) consider it "food"?

Personally, I think the lobster or crab is the epitome of this discussion... who would want to eat those things, if you saw them on a beach in pre-historic days? Honestly. I'd be afraid of them, I think. And their "meat" is liquid until you cook them. Yet I love lobster and crab, both, properly cooked and served. So what, exactly, is "almost" leaving out, and why?

Thanks. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.81.103 (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Some foods are of non-biological origins, such as salt. 62.194.142.107 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Food|p00547n1}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC). If you wan't FREE RESTAURANT RECIPES like dinner recipes, salad recipes, pizza recipes and endless number of other recipes! You can Get more than 12.000 unique restaurant recipes right now! Go here:<a href="http://restaurantrecipebook.com/">restaurant recipe book</a> Also you can can find very useful information like this<a href="http://restaurantrecipebook.com/articles/best-bbq-chicken-ecipes/">Best BBQ Chicken Recipes</a> and visit this page and get some bonuses (and be sure this is not for everybody) <a href="http://restaurantrecipebook.com/">restaurant recipe book</a> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.204.64.201 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

About calorie map

That's not accurate. It's not right to think Africans consume the least; I'm Nigerian and I'll say we eat a lot of carbohydrates everyday. We should be in yellow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.255.33.134 (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fast food

Why did we go from homemade food to fast food? It is healthier with homemade food and much cheaper, why?

http://swedish-recipes.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.168.225 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I made a general summary of food as it relates to the world, which is consistent with the illustration and moved the other information to its own respective section. USchick (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ralphlauren12421432, 22 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The types of food eaten can be affected by culture and religion. Ralphlauren12421432 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The request is incomprehensibly incoherent. Please clarify what needs to be added or changed. Intelligentsium 22:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed sentence that didn't belong

I'm in the process of copy editing this article, and I just removed the sentence "One of the earliest food recipes made from ground chickpeas is called hummus, which can be traced back to Ancient Egypt." I removed it because it was in the middle of the "Food sources" section, stuck in a discussion about seeds. I'm posting it here because perhaps there is somewhere else in the article where it would make sense to have it.Spock of Vulcan (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of sections

This is how it looks like at the moment:

• 1 Food sources
• 1.1 Plants
• 1.2 Animals
• 2 Production
• 3 Cuisine preparation
• 3.1 Taste perception
• 3.2 Presentation
• 3.3 Contrast in texture
• 3.4 Contrast in taste
• 3.5 Food preparation
• 3.6 Restaurants
• 3.7 Food manufacture
• 4 Commercial trade
• 4.1 International exports and imports
• 4.2 Marketing and retailing
• 4.3 Prices
• 5 Waste
• 6 Famine and hunger
• 6.1 Preventing waste
• 6.2 Food aid
• 7 Safety
• 7.1 Allergies
• 8 Diet
• 8.1 Cultural and religious diets
• 8.2 Diet deficiencies
• 8.3 Moral, ethical, and health conscious diet
• 9 Nutrition and dietary problems
• 10 Legal definition
• 11 Types of food
• 12 See also
• 13 Notes
• 14 References
• 15 Further reading
• 16 External links

I think it would be more logical to have the arrangement like so

• 10 Legal definition --> MERGE WITH description
• 11 Types of food --> MERGE WITH 1 Food sources , 1.1 Plants, 1.2 Animals
• 2 Production
• 3 Cuisine preparation
• 3.1 Taste perception
• 3.2 Presentation
• 3.3 Contrast in texture
• 3.4 Contrast in taste
• 3.5 Food preparation
• 3.6 Restaurants
• 3.7 Food manufacture
• 8 Diet
• 8.1 Cultural and religious diets
• 8.2 Diet deficiencies
• 8.3 Moral, ethical, and health conscious diet
• 9 Nutrition and dietary problems
• 7.1 Allergies
• 5 Waste
• 6 Famine and hunger
• 6.1 Preventing waste
• 6.2 Food aid
• 4 Commercial trade
• 4.1 International exports and imports
• 4.2 Marketing and retailing
• 4.3 Prices
• 7 Safety
• 12 See also
• 13 Notes
• 14 References
• 15 Further reading
• 16 External links

A good article 216.249.56.20 (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

SciAm resource

Vitamins, Minerals and MicroRNA The food we eat may control our genes Scientific American November 25, 2011 by Anne-Marie C. Hodge

See Vitamins, Minerals and MicroRNA

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

See gene expression and excerpt ...

The revelation that plant microRNAs play a role in controlling human physiology highlights the fact that our bodies are highly integrated ecosystems. Zhang says the findings may also illuminate our understanding of co-evolution, a process in which genetic changes in one species trigger changes in another. For example, our ability to digest the lactose in milk after infancy arose after we domesticated cattle. Could the plants we cultivated have altered us as well? Zhang’s study is another reminder that nothing in nature exists in isolation.

99.181.134.134 (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Converted (wikilinks) (()) to wikilinks. 99.35.12.139 (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Assimilation

This looks like a good article, but why doesnt it mention anything about digestion? The lede briefly talks about how "assimilation" occurs after ingestion, but that appears to be it. This article needs a section that overviews digestion and other chemical and physical properties of assimilation. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC) dfgt78sdt78fguevsr76gtsrg6gduiwtyswghg2hw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.35.143 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

horrible ass aarticle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerdouglas (talk • contribs) 03:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This article looks quite good overall, but the statement that "Vegetarians do not consume meat" is wrong, vegetarianism in itself means that you remove all animal based products like a vegan, but some vegetarians can choose to include for example milk (lacto-vegetarian) or egg (ovo-vegetarian). There are also some semi-vegetarians who choose to eat chicken or fish. Also I would like to suggest that the link on the word vegetarians should be pointed to the article about vegetarianism and not to a list of people who are vegetarians. My reason for that change would be that most people who click on the link will probably click on it to find out more about vegetarian diets and not which people that have a vegetarian diet. Lundibird (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your helpful comment.Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Aslong as you put in a reliable source its fine i think. there are multiple and different definitions of vegetarism, but they mainly do not eat meat. so I supose a added sentence is fine if we keep the old oneWitsBlomstein (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Humans are Omniviors and so vegitarianism as a human is unnatural — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.8.2 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to say about this one. Tricky... Coolness107 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Link needs to be changed for Boullion

I was reading the article named 'Food', and under the main article Restaurants, the link to bouillon needs to be changed to the bouillon (soups) link, instead of the Bouillon (Belgium) link in Wikipedia. food is generally necessary for one's survival. Trebecca (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)  Done Gigs (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Some links are not working

At the end of the page I tried those three links, however, my status doesn't allow me to make changes here in this article. The link to the FAO is not working anymore, I was searching the FAO site to find this marketing page, but I did not find it. Maybe http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0185e/a0185e00.htm might replace the link? And then I noticed that the link to the Cookbook is not working either. The right URL should be http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook. Could anyone with the appropriate rights do the changes? Thanks ... Joheba (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern "types of food" ?

Shouldn't the "Types of food" list at the end contain also links to Novel food, Medical food, Functional food and Genetically modified food, maybe in a subsection ? The last two are mentioned in "Production", but I guess the "types" list is the best place to group the references for people interested in their differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.195.150 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a good point! I agree with you. Types describes it at best. Jaxkhug (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

1+1+1=3

"Historically, people secured food through two methods: hunting and gathering, and agriculture." guys..really?wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.149.209 (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"Hunting and gathering" is one method — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.110.50 (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Food marketing

The image shown for "food marketing" shows in the foreground non-food items (vitamin supplements and household items). It really doesn't do justice to the concept of packaged food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.110.50 (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2014

In the section on commercial trade/ investment it states the "George W. Bush's Commodities Modernization Act of 2000.". This is an incorrect. I understand the editor wanted to throw a jab in there but it is untrue. Bush wasn't the US President in 2000. considering the attached hyperlink takes you to the wickipage for the actual law and states the Commodoties Modernization Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton on December 2000. It doesn't need to say Bill Clinton's Commodities Modernization Act either. It's understandable but petty either way. How about just remove George W. Bush's and leave it at that. Precision should trump politics. Jacoby Iron (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hrmm.. Interesting... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-real-hunger-games-how-banks-gamble-on-food-prices--and-the-poor-lose-out-7606263.html actually says When George W Bush passed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act 12 years ago, there was an influx, led by Goldman Sachs, of purely financial players who had no interest in ever buying food, but who sought solely to profit from changes in food prices, says Olivier De Schutter, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food. which means to me that there will need to be an equally reliable source saying that it was Bill Clinton who signed it or that says it was George W. Bush had nothing to do with it. In some cases, unfortunately, information backed in reliable sources is more greatly valued than the "truth". — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)