I recently started a conversation/debate with someone online about raw foods, veganism. Its curious, I never thought about it. Maybe raw foodists and vegans don't use the same terminology as everyone else.

'Toxin'
"an antigenic poison or venom of plant or animal origin, esp. one produced by or derived from microorganisms and causing disease when present at low concentration in the body."

Curious, this person pointed out that some raw foodists are using a more expanded use of the term. When is it really appropriate, and when is it misused? I clearly get the idea that when a raw foodist uses the term, sometimes it means something that is unhealthy, not necessarily something that is immediately life threatening.

What might be a better term to use? As she does not see salt, animal fat,HCA's, acrylomide or even hydrogenated fats as 'toxins'. And as a strict definition, perhaps these cannot be used in that way.

Maybe its not useful to continue the debate for much more, but I still think its worthwhile for me to understand better the terms used by the raw food movement, and what is or is not used outside when it comes to nutrition.

I think the word "toxic" would better describe what you mean.


Toxic: [www.google.com]

Anything harmful for the body could be described as toxic if ingested.

vs.

Toxin: [www.google.com]

A toxin is an organic poison produced by a living creature. Think snake venom. I think a toxin almost always contains a protein that causes the damage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2013 05:44AM by swimmer.

I don't think we need to define irritants as allergens or toxins for our concerns about exposure to those things to be taken seriously but that's what seems to happen. We inject our personal bias into the language used to express our points but I believe it can make us seem hysterical and unrealistic. If a person pursuing a healthier diet says things like "cooked food is poison", potatoes are deadly nightshades, herbs and spices aren't food, etc it probably just makes them seem like a crazed fanatic to some. That's a phase some people seem to need to go through, an extremism that might balance out over time, but it probably does more harm than good to themselves as well as whomever they discuss their beliefs with.

What's wrong with calling an irritant what it is? It doesn't have to be poisonous or toxic for someone to want to avoid it. It's irritating, that should be reason enough to choose something else to eat/wear/wash clothes house or body with.

You're right. The word irritant does fit better. However toxic has more punch. It makes something sound worse, so it tends to be used to portray a worse than irritating results. Accuracy in communication does not always show the emotion behind the words. I think that's why words get so commonly swapped/misused. I do it all the time without thinking about it.

I think if someone says something is "toxic" when it clearly is not considered so by definition, than they are trying to add their feelings to the phrase.

I believe any conversation we have that is not face to face is handicapped because language is such an inefficient form of communication, we need the visual to portray emotions properly.

Oh, I SO agree! When having a "discussion" on here I see people picking out little bits of past statements made by others and injecting them as "quotes" into their own posts to prove whatever point they are trying to make and I just think are you Kidding me?! That's not how real dialogue works at all, lol. There is an overall feeling to a discussion that colours the entire thing that is entirely missing online, lol. You don't really get to know a person or understand what they're saying to you without that human face-to-face interaction. Picking small bits of what was said, little exact snippets removed from the whole, that creates a different flavour to the dialogue. It's a weird adjustment, this online conversing, one we are all muddling through with varying degrees of success.

But I digress... I agree that stronger words get used give a statement more punch but then where do we go from there? When you need to use that word in it's proper context it's too weak! You've got to find some uber expression that goes right over the top. then we're all talking in extremes all the time. People say "I love you!" now when in the past you'd just say "goodbye"! I mean, really, you LOVE me? Ooookkkaaayyyy.... Now somebody who really loves me says it and... meh.

Take "allergy" for example. People say they are allergic to a food they simply don't want to eat so in a restaurant the staff hear the word so often that it loses it's impact. Then someone with a true allergy comes along and the attention to that has gotten so slack that it gets into their food anyhow and hey, say hello to anaphylaxis. That's an example of a dangerous misuse of a word.
For something less extreme take the word "vegan". It has a very specific meaning but still gets used by people who eat bee products, for example. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with eating those things, that's a personal choice. My point is simply the use of a word incorrectly or out of context. Now someone who is following the real meaning of vegan, that label doesn't really represent them anymore. Remember when you'd say you were a vegetarian and you'd be offered chicken or fish as a meal because, hey, those aren't meat, right? Seriously, on an airline a vegetarian meal would include fish. LOL. Language is supposed to represent specific meaning but it's misused all the time. It's done regularly and without discretion by most people. Is this just a natural evolutionary use of the language or are we better served in terms of communication by being sticklers about the correct use of terminology and language in general? Who knows, matter of a opinion I guess.

Interesting discussion guys .

Great input everyone! I don't know what to say to her. But I suppose one cannot say anything to someone that doesn't want to hear the information. Her latest response was so avoidant of the issues I don't want to bother, and maybe thats best. Its on a comment section below a you tube video. Someone was saying why they weren't raw and vegan any more. Just so you know its not on this forum.

I must say however, that I had used the word 'toxin' wrong, and perhaps some other term. So when it comes to explaining what I mean, instead of addressing the issues, still there is a focus on the original terms. Maybe not the most correct, but the conversation has moved on, and she hasn't. Whatever...

Well, I suppose it ultimately matters in a scientific paper, on in some rare cases where someones health will be seriously injured because of the wrong application of the word. So I will keep that in mind and just say something is 'bad for you'. I think thats the technical language I will use.

I'm not sure even that would work since what is bad for one may have little to no effect on another or even be perceived as good! It's hard to apply a definitive term on things unless they are an absolute and of those I do not believe there are many. Even for ourselves, what's true in one moment may change in the next. Sometimes I can eat something with wheat in it and suffer no side effects, I'm not sure that means wheat in that instances isn't bad for me but it seems so and may be perceived as so.
Language is a funny thing, I'm always working on deepening my understanding of communication. It's a work in progress... .

I agree with coco. I don't think you want or need to simplify your conversations that much. Why not use web dictionaries to make sure what your posting is accurate? You'll also learn a lot along the way.

coco,

I've been teaching myself to read lips. I'm amazed at how much I miss by not paying attention to someones entire face while I listen. Some people (like me) take with our eyes and faces almost as much as with our mouths.

Get out. How does one as a hearing person learn to read lips? Are you watching tv with the sound off? Eavesdropping from across the room? Oh my goodness, what an amazing skill. I want it! LOL!

What if someone's had a lot of botox or other facial altering? How would you even know?!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2013 01:43AM by coco.

TV is a good idea, I should try that. No, I'm just trying to pay attention to mouth movements during regular conversations.

Swimmer,
Well 'toxic' isn't quite accurate either, but perhaps closer. Animal fats tend to have more nasty stuff in them, but as for the lipids themselves general western nutritional models don't classify them as 'toxic'. Only when its causing some sort of health concern when they are overconsumed. At what level, who is to say. But generally people seem to have problems with consuming animal fats. Micheal Greger is great at pointing out that vegans stastically have better health. How to say this concisely to someone that isn't really interested? I guess I shouldn't really bother.

swimmer, I forgot to add that I used to be able to lip read as a child. I thought everyone could do that. But later in life I lost the skill, because I didn't think it was important or useful.

The discussion continues, but the direction its going is sooo unexpected. What people think about food is interesting, sometimes so weird....

Very interesting about reading lips when you were young. It's an incredibly useful skill. I'm not very good at it.

Have fun wherever the discussion takes you....

The people there seem to think a person will not absorb enough nutrients on a raw food diet. They also seem to think there is a difference between chemicals in cigarette smoke and cooked foods. Also that these by products of heating don't mean anything.