Coffee, sure. Some still oppose it. But refrigerators? I doubt it, unless you were an ice man. I can think of nothing less controversial then keep your food from spoiling.
Is the thought that fridges give off some kind of chemical that affects the food? Is it the act of making the food cold itself that makes it less healthy? Is she opposed to electric refrigeration, or would something like an old school icebox[0] be objectionable too?
It's why the debate about whether or not milk/eggs/bread are healthy rages on and on. There is no definition of the word healthy so anyone can make their own interpretations of what makes those foods healthy or unhealthy.
To this issue specifically, I think it's more of a shelf-life concern, that you can't artificially lengthen the shelf life of a food without corrupting it somehow. In that regard, I can't say she doesn't have a point. That the movie "Better Life Through Chemistry" is a satire is somewhat telling.
Americans refrigerate more than we need to. Butter, eggs, certain vegetables (like tomatoes). Tomatoes have healthy compounds in them that break down under refrigeration. I'm sure you've noticed certain things taste different after they've been refrigerated?
In this particular arena, we often don't know what we don't know. Instinct can lead us astray, but it can also be nagging at us for a very good reason.
It will not. It remains on my kitchen counter in a ceramic or glass container and keeps its shape. Lots of people do this, look up "butter bell" or "butter keeper" For example: http://goo.gl/fLIotj
Butter melts above 32 C.
I agree with you about the Tomatoes though. That one is backed by science, but what else is impacted by refrigeration that hasn't been discovered by science yet? There's no danger in leaving produce on the counter so long as you eat it within 2-3 days. It varies, of course. I keep bananas on the counter for a full week.
[0]: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/oil-melting-points-d_1088....
That's what butter keepers are for.
I was surprised that the antibiotics are mandated in Europe, given the problems we're seeing with antibiotic-resistance in bacteria that's largely due to overuse in farming. I would've expected that the US farmers were using antibiotics and Europeans were not, rather than the other way around.
A little bit of n=1: I eat eggs directly from the local Mennonite community. They don't use antibiotics in their chickens. I keep the eggs in a bucket in the pantry (cool, but not refrigerated). I wash my eggs before using them. I haven't had an issue with Salmonella yet. I imagine there's a very big difference between free range, naturally raised chickens and eggs and factory farmed chicken and eggs, but I'm not up to date on the details.
Mandating antibiotic use would be a great way to breed resistant salmonella.
I'm surprised that free market enthusiasts rarely talk about the Lion Mark, because it's great example of entirely private business (except for the government trademark enforcement) improving standards for consumers.
See: https://www.egginfo.co.uk/british-lion-eggs/about/british-li...
Antibiotics seem to be a part of it, but not the most important factor. The egg naturally has a thin film around it which protects it from contamination by microbes. In the US, the eggs are washed, which removes this film, rendering the egg susceptible to contamination. The eggs then have to be refrigerated to slow bacterial growth. In the rest of the world, the eggs are left unwashed, so the film prevents the egg from being contaminated and no refrigeration is required.
Such as? It's true that refrigeration can impact the taste/texture of tomatoes. That doesn't mean it necessarily makes them less healthy. Also, if you're buying store-bought tomatoes, they're shipped in refrigerated trucks anyway.
Depending on how long you have tomatoes on hand, you might be better off refrigerating them even for taste and texture.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/09/why-you-should-refrigerat...
COLLEGE EDUCATED people believe that vaccines cause autism. GMOs are considered less healthy than normally grown foods Organic foods are considered "healthier" than normally grown foods even though studies have shown that there isn't a statistically significant difference in nutrients that matter. People believe microwaving foods causes cancer in humans and also makes food less nutritious in a significant manner.
These are people who have every single resource in the world to educate themselves on the science of things, and yet believe dumb shit.
Compared to that, some farmers in a small village not completely trusting something that they don't understand or really have any ability to properly understand seems much less crazy.
I think people eat it because they heard it's good for you and it tastes amazing. They're not necessarily 'anti-science'.
So more for economics than nutrition per se, outside of a few niche markets.
Perceived threat to vested/commercial interest? Spot on.
Out here in India, until the early 1980s, there were only two types of (largely indigenous and engineering-wise inferior) cars available in the market. Then, the then prime minister allowed a domestic company to manufacture (more) sophisticate cars in collaboration with Suzuki. The model they started with was far superior as compared to the two ancient mechanical atrocities.
Since the car mechanics at large here had never even seen any piece of engineering like that, leave alone the matter of repairing it, they all generally used to say: Yes, this car is a marvel of technology blah blah... BUT... it won't work on our roads!!
I've seen similar trends with Microwave ovens as well. For some reason people have all sorts of weird notions about new stuff.
One more thing I can think of is TV. Kids growing up in a home with a TV were considered will end up being bad students.
I assume this has partly to do with the relative novelty of AC.
Classic click-bait.