Originally Posted by Superpredator
Did you read more than the title and the first half of the first paragraph?
Nope got my info regarding your poor choice of a source here:
"A natural flavor is not necessarily healthier or purer than an artificial one. When almond flavor (benzaldehyde) is derived from natural sources, such as peach and apricot pits, it contains traces of hydrogen cyanide, a deadly poison. Benzaldehyde derived through a different process—by mixing oil of clove and the banana flavor, amyl acetate — does not contain any cyanide. Nevertheless, it is legally considered an artificial flavor and sells at a much lower price. Natural and artificial flavors are now manufactured at the same chemical plants, places that few people would associate with Mother Nature. Calling any of these flavors “natural” requires a flexible attitude toward the English language and a fair amount of irony."
and the subsequent paragraphs right before the end. I read the article, no need to question that.
From wikipedia (its ok, its one of the paragraphs that the wiki cites):
In biology, epigenetics is the study of inherited changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above) -genetics. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism; instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.
The only time that (mentioned in the links above) that a child is in danger of epiginetic sources is when they are developing fetuses in the womb (take for example alcohol, drugs, etc... from the mother). If this is the case, then a person's diet will at best affect their child, no subsequent generations. Secondly if you're the father then you have nothing to worry about. If your the mother, then your diet may affect the child. But as pointed out in the initial article you mentioned, the amount of flavor chemicals used is well below the threshold of adverse human effects, so eat as you please. Further more, the flavors you get from the "natural food" for example bananas (See I read the article), are the SAME as the ones in the flavoring. So if natural food affects the kid so will the "artificial" one. To sum it up, there is nothing that eating artificial flavors will do to your kid that won't happen to them from you using natural flavors. So your claim with epigenetics really doesn't hold much water so yes it is nonsensical.
|Not sure where you got the idea that I think chemicals are inherently bad. That's obviously quite silly. My issue is with the practice of disguising nearly valueless food with lab-created additives. The additives themselves may or may not have negative health consequences; I would guess that in the vast majority of cases they do not. The smoke flavoring in a McDonald's hamburger, for instance, is probably no more carcinogenic than the charring on a real hamburger.
From your initial post:
"The backyard tomato that tastes amazing is more nutritious than a supermarket tomato--our taste buds are actually looking out for us"
Our taste buds dont have to look out for us -but you obviously think they need to.