In a recent article in DN, Marie-Louise Danielsson-Tham declared that we ought to keep certain additives and preservatives in our provisions. Her arguments are that people simply don't understand why certain additives and preservatives are used and that if we were to remove some of these substances, then there would be an increased risk of dying from eating sausages and other meats.
The debate ought to be more transparent, instead of complaining about the consumer's ignorance, nutritionists need to educate us on what these foreign substances do to our provisions, how they effect us and what would happen if we were to remove certain substances. Thus acknowledging the chemical "grey zones" and teach us about different perspectives on substances and provisions.
Perhaps we ought to eat less meat, or no meat at all? And how do we really now whether or not a substance makes us addicted or not? Danielsson-Tham's condescending manner is not something that other so called experts ought to apply when debating. Her tone and rehtoric do not impress me at all.
Bitcoin vs. Political Power: The Cryptocurrency Revolution – Stefan Molyneux at TNW Conference - ”Historically, politicians have always fought for the power to create money out of thin air, so they can increase their spending without having to directly...
4 years ago