The History of Licorice - Or Things Like It
The following is a copy of the Thomas Question email devotional. You can subscribe to the email edition from our website.
There’s a fascinating chapter in Eric Schlosser’s book, Fast Food Nation that talks about the little known heartland of the flavor industry which is responsible for making most of what you taste, taste like it tastes (see “Why the Fries Taste so Good” starting on p. 111).
You may be interested to know that “the aroma of food can be responsible for as much as 90 percent of it’s flavor” and “a nose can detect aromas present in quantities of a few parts per trillion – an amount equivalent to 0.000000000003 percent.” And how about this, “The chemical that provides the dominant flavor of bell pepper can be tasted in amounts as low as 0.02 parts per billion; one drop is sufficient to add flavor to five average size swimming pools.” Shocking. Truly.
Taste – our experience of flavor – is a form of direct stimulation from which we can derive pleasure. Obviously. We can only assume it was intended to be a compliment to nutrition – to give us a tactile motive for eating. So far so good. But candy – and in particular, for me, red licorice – is a means of attempting manufacture bite sized explosions of flavor for the sake of flavor alone. They are engineered to be irresistible, and to send a signal to our brains, “this is good” when in fact, it’s really anything but. It’s a chemical lie! And I wonder – what is the effect of “unlinking” taste from nutrition so that we crave a level of flavor you just don’t find in nature?
In fact, it begs a whole series of questions related to “things meant to be taken in lock step with each other”.
Think interlocking gears. For example: sex in step with love, inhaling matched to exhaling, death control (ie extended health care) matching birth control (ie to prevent a population explosion). And what about material abundance matching spiritual significance (so it leads to generosity not just wild consumption), and investments made in the environment to match the constant withdrawals we are making with smoke stacks and exhaust pipes? Or repentance matched with forgiveness so it doesn’t lead to license; and finally, dreams matched with action so it doesn’t lead to distraction.
I suppose, given the option, who wouldn’t choose to simply feel good by a shorter and shorter route. But at a certain point, eventually, that would just lead to a narcotic, wouldn’t it? Clearly we were made for something more than just taste. What about substance?
Last Sunday I began a two part series on dreams, purpose and passion with “The Power of a Dream”. This Sunday, I’d like to present the other half of what you need to know about building an authentic adventure instead of just chasing fantasies with “The Problem of a dream.” Are your dreams all “taste”? Or are they substance, too?
If you missed this past Sunday, you can visit our website. and catch up on this or any other message.
I hope to see you there, and I hope you bring someone with you,
CSW
There’s a fascinating chapter in Eric Schlosser’s book, Fast Food Nation that talks about the little known heartland of the flavor industry which is responsible for making most of what you taste, taste like it tastes (see “Why the Fries Taste so Good” starting on p. 111).
You may be interested to know that “the aroma of food can be responsible for as much as 90 percent of it’s flavor” and “a nose can detect aromas present in quantities of a few parts per trillion – an amount equivalent to 0.000000000003 percent.” And how about this, “The chemical that provides the dominant flavor of bell pepper can be tasted in amounts as low as 0.02 parts per billion; one drop is sufficient to add flavor to five average size swimming pools.” Shocking. Truly. Taste – our experience of flavor – is a form of direct stimulation from which we can derive pleasure. Obviously. We can only assume it was intended to be a compliment to nutrition – to give us a tactile motive for eating. So far so good. But candy – and in particular, for me, red licorice – is a means of attempting manufacture bite sized explosions of flavor for the sake of flavor alone. They are engineered to be irresistible, and to send a signal to our brains, “this is good” when in fact, it’s really anything but. It’s a chemical lie! And I wonder – what is the effect of “unlinking” taste from nutrition so that we crave a level of flavor you just don’t find in nature?
In fact, it begs a whole series of questions related to “things meant to be taken in lock step with each other”.
Think interlocking gears. For example: sex in step with love, inhaling matched to exhaling, death control (ie extended health care) matching birth control (ie to prevent a population explosion). And what about material abundance matching spiritual significance (so it leads to generosity not just wild consumption), and investments made in the environment to match the constant withdrawals we are making with smoke stacks and exhaust pipes? Or repentance matched with forgiveness so it doesn’t lead to license; and finally, dreams matched with action so it doesn’t lead to distraction. I suppose, given the option, who wouldn’t choose to simply feel good by a shorter and shorter route. But at a certain point, eventually, that would just lead to a narcotic, wouldn’t it? Clearly we were made for something more than just taste. What about substance?
Last Sunday I began a two part series on dreams, purpose and passion with “The Power of a Dream”. This Sunday, I’d like to present the other half of what you need to know about building an authentic adventure instead of just chasing fantasies with “The Problem of a dream.” Are your dreams all “taste”? Or are they substance, too?
If you missed this past Sunday, you can visit our website. and catch up on this or any other message.
I hope to see you there, and I hope you bring someone with you,
CSW
LAST SUNDAY
The Power of a Dream. You can listen on our podcast or visit our website.
THIS SUNDAY
The Problem With a Dream.
NEXT SUNDAY
A whole new series: "A Guide to the Satisfied Life".
COMMUNION A BIT DIFFERENT
The first communion was dinner in a home among friends and Jesus said He’d never do it that way again until we were all back together again. We’re challenging you to have communion this fall in your homes. Invite someone you know and someone you don’t – and leave a chair empty to remind you of how it all began. More details available on Sundays.
DON'T FORGET
Tell someone about the Thomas Question, our podcast or the website. You never know.
posted by CSW at
3:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home