Originally Posted by BillyD

No, that's not fair to say at all. There's more than one way that a food can become preferred over another. *I* would argue that before the industrial age man ate better because he ate natural foods that were available. Obviously some were unhealthy, some killed them, and some produced strong, robust survivors. In other words, trial and error, natural-selection style.

After the industrial age, and post-war, particularly in the 60s, entrepreneurs (aka capitalists) came to realize there was a tremendous untapped market in convenience foods and easy to store and easy to prepare foods. They threw whatever chemicals they could find in there in order to get the job done and make a buck, with little or no regard for people's long term health. So long as it didn't kill folks immediately it was fair game. The longer it took for people to die off the harder it was to trace it back to their products.

So today some people are just convinced natural is better than man-concocted stuff from the lab. The bottom line is individuals can believe whatever they want, but you're putting words in his mouth that were never said, you're just making a defensive inference.