Talk:Healthy eating

message: This section describes only one POV. While this material is perfectly OK, the article as a whole desperately needs opposing POVs to provide balance and neutrality. GeorgeStepanek\talk 20:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please give specific examples as to what "POV" you are referring to, here?  At first glance, it appears that instructions like, "the only practical advice is to consume as little processed foods and drink as possible" should be neutralized, removed, or sourced. If you could provide examples of why you added the POV header, I will attempt to neutralize the section and remove the header. --Viriditas  | Talk 21:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that food manufacturers, for example, would seriously question the assertion that all food additives are "toxins". They would doubtless assert that all their additives are completely safe, even when taken in large quantities. Others (including my partner—a food scientist) say that it depends upon the additive in question. There is a lot of dispute around this issue. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that anyone would seriously assert that any additive is completely safe, so I disagree.  There may be a lot of dispute around this issue (although I don't see one) but if you can't limit the dispute to the article in question (instead of hypotheticals) you should remove the tag and add this article to Wikipedia:Requests for comment.  See also the comment I left on your user page.  With all due respect, I kindly suggest that you resolve the dispute in whatever way you think best, or remove the tag. --Viriditas  | Talk 09:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI...I've added this article to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law. --Viriditas  | Talk 10:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Toxins in Food and Drink POV

message: Viriditas appropriately moved this request for discussion to RfC; I am removing the NPOV tag.  I believe the manufacturer's viewpoint is adequately represented -- the article discusses the manner in which they conduct their studies and certify their products as safe.  My expertise lies in animal nutrition, however, similar problems with toxins exist.  For example, while a particular preservative may be found in safe amounts (amounts which a typical body can naturally filter without assistance) when eaten daily in kibble, if other food items (treats, chews etc) with the same preservative are ingested on a regular basis, the body may not be capable of filtering the increased amount.  Some sources discussing the toxicity of additives (especially artificial sweeteners since they are the exemplar) would be appropriate. --.:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response from RfC

message: After reading this article, much of the article is very good. However, I can see why the Toxins section attracted a Request for Comment- I find it to be very POV and needs to be cleaned up. It implies that all studies of new additives are biased and that all studies follow the same pattern of: biased study > biased results > overconsumption by public. It then goes on to say that Mandatory Food Labeling is an ill-concieved program, and that since the above studies could be biased, the only safe thing for consumers to do is eat as little processed foods as possible. In lieu of a complete rewrite, a solution would be to add several NPOV phrases like "some critics claim that," plus a couple paragraphs of pro-additive arguments.
EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another RfC Response

message: Read the article. 'Toxins' starts by saying the immune system can deal with poisons. Is this strictly correct? I though the immune system dealt with invading organisms (live things). Is it medically correct to say it deals with simple chemicals?
I take the point about consuming excess additives, but it applies equally to too much of non-additives. The consequence of eating too many carrots is you turn orange. Possibly also other nasty things happen, but I forget, the orange bit sticks in the mind. It was apparently a side effect of war-time diets. Presumably carrots were available, and are quite nice to eat.
Pure water... I recall something about iodine insufficiencies causing disease? Well maybe that is not exactly a useful comment, but I am not wholly convinced literally pure water is the best possible drink. Would blood be a good nutritious mix? I am not seriously advocating that, but actually it might be. What was the evidence for literally pure water?
The section on difficulties of consumers understanding labels is a little patronising. You do not need to be a chemist to understand a label. All you need is straightforward advice about good and bad things to eat and an idea of the sensible quantity. Also, it seems to me the only way of going about assisting the public to get a good diet. We just discussed that almost anything can be poisonous/ bad diet if just eaten exclusively. The labelling allows people to make an informed choice, if they are interested/concerned enough to do so. How else are they going to decide? go round with a booklet detailing the ingredients of every product by every manufacturer, instead of it being written on the tin?
The statement about processed food may be correct, but it is not processing per se which is to blame. Rather, that manufacturers add things either for their own convenience, or actually because people like them (sugar, salt). So the problem is at least in part persuading people not to buy what they are asking for. Sandpiper 21:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: And another

message: Registered Dietician, Spum here. The term "Healthy Eating" relates to your intake of food. This is exactly the same term as "Diet", which refers to the food which is consumed. I am expanding the Healthy diet page, and i have already added the term to the page, and hopefully, it'll be a featured article, as let's be fair, it kicks arse.
Suggestions and feedback are welcome. (Spum 10:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I don't see any reason not to merge and redirect this article to Healthy diet. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree; looks like this content would make a more complete article taken together and diet does seem to be the more approriate term. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I completely agree, and hope that a merge will in fact solve this problem, allowing us to focus on one article instead of two.  Citing sources should weed out any dubious claims.  --Viriditas Viriditas  06:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move / Merge 

message: I've conferred with colleagues and they agree with me, Healthy eating is a part of a healthy diet, seen as Diet refers to the intake of food, and healthy eating is a more literal term. The Healthy diet article 'is not finished', and still has a lot of expansion to be done before it is finished. I know that you're trying to go analytical about how i've wrote the diet article, but the difference is nonexistant. In the 1950's, the idea was that healthy "eating" was referred to as what a "Healthy diet" is referred to  now.
The main reasons for such a term, was because the balance of macro and micro nutrients was something which did not occur at the time, and was just thought of as something that "helps itself", in fact, back then, the ideal was to drink plenty of milk and eat foods that prevented what was known as "bow leggedness", which occured in children.
The term today is obsolete, because eating is only one of the processes involved in a healthy diet. Most countries now reccomend that people not only monitor the food they are eating, but the nutrients, fat and other properties foods have, as well as the amounts they eat, most of these which were NOT considered during the time in which "healthy eating" was a virtue. The reason for this could be seen as many various reasons but the reality of it is because mostly back then foods were not mass-produced as they are now in supermarkets, and were thus unprocessed, plant-based, or what is now distinguished as "organic" foods, which are not chemically-altered or treated.
I'm sorry if i sound snappy, but i can understand where you're coming from, but rest assured, the above explanation is what is seen as the only difference, and the comparison you are making is between an incomplete article, and an ill-informed one. 86.112.146.218 20:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Alteripse 

message: Obviously this couldn't go into the main article for being both original 'research', and completely 'POV', but I have found that if you would like to live to be 200, here are The Rules, in descending order of importance:
1. No eating tetrapods (beef, pork, chicken etc.). When you feel like meat, make it fish or seafood. Wild Pacific salmon, in season, is hands down the best -- but you will also find crab, tuna, haddock, eel, clams, lobster, mussels etc etc etc to be highly conducive to good health.
2. No preservatives, or methods of preservation, that occured in a lab. This means absolutely no hydrogenated (or partially hydrogenated) oils (aka trans fats). Citric acid is fine. Sodium benzoate is not. If something on the ingredient list sounds suspicious, see if you can't find a more natural, organic, intestinal-friendly alternative. May neccessitate shopping at more hippy-ish stores.
3. Dairy and eggs are fine, in moderation. But if you feel bloated or gassy afterwards, next time make it one scoop of ice cream instead of three.
4. Carbs are your friend. Seriously, as long as none of the other rules are flagrantly violated, and the carbs you are eating were grown in a happy, healthy potato patch/ wheat field/ rice paddy, never ever feel guilty about eating the whole goddamn bag of potato chips/ loaf of bread/ bowl of rice.
5. Nothing wrong with sugar. As long as your teeth don't feel horrible afterward.
6. If it tastes good, it IS good. Most importantly, compare how different foods make your guts feel 30 minutes later. That hot fudge sunday may have tasted great going down, but how's it sitting now? Could you get up and walk around for two minutes? If the meals you eat routinely fail the gut-check test, chances are good that you're eating yourself to death.
7. Finally: ignore the above rules. If you really feel like drinking anti-freeze, go ahead. Obviously you have a very serious health problem, which neccessitates a very serious treatment regimen. The treatment could mean death, but if it puts an end to your miserable existence, so much the better! :)
Chris 09:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A heads' up