Sunday, February 16th, 2025

Editor’s note: The Creemore Echo takes full responsibility for the grammatical error in the headline of the letter. It was not written by the author of the letter.

Editor:

I read with interest Viki Reynolds’ article on “veggies” (Jan. 15 edition of The Creemore Echo) and would like to offer a few comments on both its content and style.

First however, I would like to establish my “credentials” in order to give some measure of weight to my comments. English is not my “native tongue” and therefore I was forced to formally learn the language in the excellent Ontario school system of the 1950’s using one of the best language textbooks I have ever come across “Mastering Effective English”.

Secondly I have degrees in both Biochemistry and Education and spent 30 years teaching secondary Biology and Chemistry. I insisted on the proper use of language in all assignments such as laboratory reports ignoring the students’ cries that “This isn’t English class”.

Lastly, I am a reasonably accomplished amateur cook (that chemistry training came in handy) who has been fortunate enough to be asked to be a guest “chef” in one of the “hills” best restaurants.

My comments: I decry the decline in use of the word “fewer” in favour of the almost universal use of the word “less”. The heading of the article should read ‘Today’s “veggies” contain fewer nutrients’ or perhaps ‘Today’s “veggies” are less nutritious’.

From the point of view of a biochemist there is absolutely no scientific evidence to substantiate the nutrition claim. No valid independent studies have ever been done to prove the “superior” nutritional value of “organic” produce or the “dangers” of mass produced fruits and vegetables. The claim seems a marketing tool to lure the well to do middle class to spend much more than necessary for produce. It is important to remember that today’s average life expectancy is decades longer than when people, a century ago, ate exclusively “local organic” produce. In addition, growing food by strictly “organic” means would produce only enough to feed a small portion of the world’s population and at considerably increased cost.

Regarding taste, as a cook (I refuse to use the overworked term “chef”) I know that taste is very subjective and easily influenced by perception. Just as a $50 bottle of wine is presumed to be better than a $15 bottle even before tasting it is easy to assume that a $1 carrot is tastier and more nutritious than one costing mere pennies. The taste of food is also as much dependent on the skill shown in preparation as anything else.

Walter Sickinger,

Mulmur.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *