|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Food processing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned peer reviews: Rafaelasabo.|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned peer reviews: GenerikErik.|
It would be nice to show some food cook history and benefits. Maybe also reference the raw food diet for a counterpoint. The Rod 21:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It would also be good to include a history of the legislation surrounding processed foods. There is a stub article that talks about the history of food regulation in the US, but it is missing a lot of information and is plagued with plagiarism so it isn't even worth merging the info there. If we can consolidate the info here that would be great. On top of that, there are differences between processed foods in the US compared to places such as the EU where there are more regulations on what can be processed and sold. This section could also merge the "Trends" section since issues such as hygiene and efficiency generally fall under legislation. GenerikErik (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
No sources and unencyclopedic content
this article lacks sources and has some unencyclopedic content as well as not having a neutral point of view.
here is one choice example: "As all this is surfacing, more people get to realise it's better to turn away from this and instead get into raw food and macrobiotic diets." - unsigned comment by 220.127.116.11
- I agree and I have made some mods. However, if an article looks wrong its often easier to make the mods yourself. Velela 08:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This article really isn't NPOV. I've changed things in the past but a few people always change it back and never cite the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Under the "Examples" section, they mention "extreme examples" of food processing, such as " preparation of deadly fugu fish, preparing space food for consumption under zero gravity, winemaking, hot dogs, and chicken nuggets." While I acknowledge that hot dogs and chicken nuggets are heavily processed, it's hardly "extreme" in the sense of employing unique or cutting-edge techniques. And what's extreme about winemaking? It's a standard centuries-old process. I realize that this line has been part of the article since mid-2005, so I'll wait a week or two for comments before changing it. -- A. 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Food additives etc. ==> need merging.
At WikiProject Food and Drink I've started the thread Food additives etc. ==> need merging. in hopes that some of the pages:
- Food supplements,
- Food additive,
- Food fortification,
- Dietary supplement,
- Food processing,
- Bodybuilding supplement,
- Nutraceutical, and
- Nutrification (aka food enrichment)
can be merged/eliminated. I hope that that thread will be a central place to discuss this somewhat messy situation. I'll be adding this comment to each of the articles' Talk pages. --Hordaland (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Under 'Benefits' : 'The extremely varied modern diet is only truly possible on a wide scale because of food processing.'; this is only the teat of the iceberg as far as citations go. Godspeed~ Woods Flash (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC) EDIT: changed from minor edit, after reviewing what a... minor edit... was. Woods Flash (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The citation in the second paragraph in the "Drawbacks" that discusses the effects of processed food in the stomach is sourced in a magazine article, which is in no way a reliable source, especially if it is talking about the importance of microbes in our body. There is numerous research done that would serve as a reliable source instead of a magazine. GenerikErik (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Merge from Food manufacturing
The Food manufacturing article title suggests it is a topic is separate and distinct from food processing. Then that articles content is all about food processing. Just less than the food processing article. Less information. Less sources. Nothing good comes from two articles about the same topic with different titles. I suggest merging anything useful. Although none of the Food processing article is sourced. Gab4gab (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC) .. oh, I meant to say that none of the Food manufacturing article is sourced.Gab4gab (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC) I agree, merge please.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
"Benefits" section relies too strongly on only one source, and there are too many inferences that are made from the author's words. Information should also account for the bias that the original article has towards fast food. Also, fast food is not the only processed food available, so it would be nice to see distinctions. The "History" section is also a little lacking on sources. • Claim of frozen food ‘credited to Clarence Birdseye” has not been given reasonable frame, and opinionated. “ Performance parameters for food processing has not been given reasonable evidence to prove that those are in fact the parameters of food processing success. Entire section of “De-agglomerating batter mixes in food processing” is arbitrary topic that is helpful to understand the topic, but not worth enough to have a whole new section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangwonlee48 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Rafaelasabo (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- In addition, the last section for "Benefits" is problematic since taste itself is subjective to each individual's interpretation. If taste is to be included, then it should at least discuss the process of engineering flavors and ignore whether or not it tastes good. It's also definitely an issue when literally every single citation in the Benefits is sourced in the one editorial that shows extreme bias for processed foods. GenerikErik (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)