Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed |
Date: |
Sun, 4 Jul 2004 22:12:46 +0100 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Jul 04, 2004, at 5:35 pm, Ken Stuart wrote:
>> • Second, a number of cultural factors have come into play that tend
>> to increase the amount of food eaten by various sectors of the
>> population. These include:
>>
>> - efforts, through the culinary art and the food processing
>> industry, to increase the palatability and general attractiveness of
>> foodstuffs
>
> This claim is countered by the fact that the blue-collar people who
> know zero about cuisine and eat the junkiest and least palatable of
> food, are more obese than upper-middle-class white-collar people who
> watch cooking shows and go to expensive restaurants.
I had interpreted the original statement to include things like
refining, salting and colouring foods rather than fancy sauces and
carrots carved into roses. Palatability is all relative anyway- give
me a plate of microwave curry and chips smothered in gravy, and a plate
of veal cutlets in a red wine sauce, and I could find you both a person
who would devour the chips and look in disgust at the veal, and another
who would be the exact opposite. Although, in the case of
"blue-collar" food, palatability equates more closely to addictiveness
than quality.
Ashley
|
|
|