Talk:Food/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Protection

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aquaculture / Mariculture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seafood 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cereal 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cannibalism 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Alternative Medicine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Food Allergy and Sensitivities? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Food manufacture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I hate this and I hate that ... fat people eat lots 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Food groups - interesting omission 

message: 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)
replies: text: Jeez you're fast. BirdValiant 21:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :) Avi 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Languages? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pedantic 

message: (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)
thread_title:  Problems with the definition of Food Science 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed { { cookbook } } tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Readded the page... 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Food Network 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  where is Food Product 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fictitious food 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: I have reviewed the article according to the GA criteria and have failed the article based on the following issues.
#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.
#"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. 
#Add a wikilink for mushrooms in the "Other foods" section.
#Inline citations go directly after the punctuation; go through the article and make sure all occurrences are fixed.
#Convert the information in "Legal definition" from a list to prose.Strike-through text
#"Sustainable agricultural" Sustainable doesn't need to be capitalized. Same goes for "Organic farming".
#Again, go throughout the rest of the article and make sure no single sentences are standing alone.

#"This has greatly affected world food trade." What is "This"? Specify.
#"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.
#"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,"
#"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.
#"This was further underpinned by the work of Justus von Liebig whose work led to" Work is repeated twice, reword.
#"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.
#"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.
#"Rarely, the food allergy chelce can lead to..." What is "chelce"?
#"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.
#"Kosher foods are permitted by Judaism" Kosher isn't capitalized.
#Fix the external links, they aren't formatted properly. Also there is an extra bracket at the last link.
#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.
#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)).
#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:
#"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.
#"Fruits are made attractive to animals so that animals will eat the fruits and excrete the seeds over long distances." Add inline citation.
#Many cultures eat honey, produced by bees, and some cultures eat animal blood.
#There are two basic views of food marketing: production focus and consumer focus.
#There are three steps to both developing and extending: generate ideas, screen ideas for feasibility, and test ideas for appeal.
#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.
#In profitably pricing the food, the manufacturer must keep in mind that the retailer takes approximately 50 percent of the price of a product.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA failed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Food Marketing Mix and the Four Ps of Marketing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  To-do 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  See also 

message: 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)
replies: text: I was going to do that myself. It looks much better. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I lied 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Obesity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The relevant article here is geophagy. Richard001 07:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to know where to fit a topic like this. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edible clay 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vegetables vs. Meat? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Free Rice 

message: Substituted at 21:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rendering link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Food and Ethics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sentence about Vegetarian diet 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Modern Food 

message: Perhaps its possible to include following blokquote:
Nuchi gusui
Food should nourish life. That is the best medicine.
Okinawan proverb "The Okinawa program: Learn the secrets to healthy longivity" by Willcox, Willcox and Suzuki (page 68).
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)
thread_title:  Blokquote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unnessary talk sections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bhuni kaleji 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed from [[WP:Most vandalized pages]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Food 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please add sr:Храна interwiki. Thanks. M!cki talk 14:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western processed foods 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Daily Food 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mass/weight of food consumed daily per capita 

message: 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)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added a line on vegitarianism and veganism 

message: Tommy (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Peer Review criticism/comments 

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Civit"? 

message: "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)
replies: text: Some foods are of non-biological origins, such as salt. 62.194.142.107 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously 

message: Rich Farmbrough, 03:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Our Time 

message: 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)
thread_title:  About calorie map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fast food 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The types of food eaten can be affected by culture and religion.
Ralphlauren12421432 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The request is incomprehensibly incoherent. Please clarify what needs to be added or changed. Intelligentsium 22:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Ralphlauren12421432, 22 November 2010 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed sentence that didn't belong 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chronology of sections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Assimilation 

message: horrible ass aarticle  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerdouglas (talk • contribs) 03:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your helpful comment.Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarianism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link needs to be changed for Boullion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some links are not working 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is a good point! I agree with you. Types describes it at best. Jaxkhug (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern "types of food" ? 

message: "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)
replies: text: "Hunting and gathering" is one method  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.110.50 (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1+1+1=3 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Food marketing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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". —  (t • e • c) 12:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2014