toldailytopic: Junk food. Is it immoral to eat junk food? What about feeding junk foo

[Memento Mori]

Twinkies are barely food. The "cake" is made light by the addition of limestone - ew - and the "cream" is made of hydrogenated animal and vegetable oils - bleh. The sugar is real, except the part that is high fructose corn syrup, but is suspended in all that hydrogenated oil that your body can't use, and so stores. The flour is stripped of all its natural nutrients, so they "fortify" it for you - I wonder what the body does with that... Have a look at this article.

Twinkies are junk. If you really want a bit of sponge cake with cream filling, just make it in your kitchen with real food ingredients.

food (n.) - any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc. Dictionary.com

I'm not arguing whether or not Twinkies are food (even though they are). Junk food they are, but food nonetheless. I'm saying that Twinkies have a storied and important history. Don't undercut the Twinkies. For those in low income situations, food is food. For a kid with too much time on his or her hands, it's a diabetes pavement.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Would a Snickers bar be junk food to some starving kid in Africa?

 

[Lion]

Maybe... but it's so yummy!

 

[zoo22]

I'd just like to point out that Twinkies were very important for people of low income during the depression. Now, however, that importants may be lost. Also, those sugars and food stuff can be burned. That is essentially what a calorie is (a unit of heat).

Quick-cook ramen noodles are very important to people of low income. But quick-cook ramen noodles are a very bad food to be eating regularly as subsistence.

Twinkies should never, ever have been an important part of any diet.

 

[zoo22]

food (n.) - any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc. Dictionary.com

I'm not arguing whether or not Twinkies are food (even though they are). Junk food they are, but food nonetheless. I'm saying that Twinkies have a storied and important history. Don't undercut the Twinkies. For those in low income situations, food is food. For a kid with too much time on his or her hands, it's a diabetes pavement.

I had someone just yesterday telling me of people in a few extremely poor countries who eat mud pies... Actual mud. It's filling and there are traces of nutrients. Food.

 

[Traditio]

Gluttony, involving junk food or otherwise, is a mortal sin. Food exists for health of the body. When food or drink is consumed to a knowing excess, this constitutes a sin against our very nature as human persons, and, in some way, it rails against God, who is to be our Sole and Supreme Good.

Earthly things must never be enjoyed for their own sake, but for the sake of God alone.

That said, sinful or not (about which I am unprepared to speak), consuming junk food generally isn't prudential, to say the least. :idunno:

 

[nicholsmom]

Quick-cook ramen noodles are very important to people of low income. But quick-cook ramen noodles are a very bad food to be eating regularly as subsistence.

Twinkies should never, ever have been an important part of any diet.

Especially considering that you can bake a loaf of bread for about 50 cents even today - or around 75 cents for a loaded, multi-grain bread

 

[nicholsmom]

Would a Snickers bar be junk food to some starving kid in Africa?

Snickers bars have lots of non-food stuff - high-fructose corn syrup - but also plenty of real food - peanuts and sugar, so they are not complete junk. But wouldn't it be both cheaper and healthier to give them sacks of peanuts?