Currently, food is automatically changed to nutrition.
Is this policy correct?
No, food is different from nutrition.
nutrition is specific
Nutritional science investigates the metabolic and physiological responses of the body to diet.
Example: Does asparagus contain enough vitamins for a whole day?
Whereas food is generic
Food is any substance consumed to provide nutritional support for the body.
Example: Do blue carrots exist?
As such they should be used as appropriate and not synonyms: nutrition for questions about the nutritional properties, and food for more general questions about food.
Note: sometimes food is better tagged natural-remedies or herbalism
Examples: Does orange prevent flu?; Does chicory enhance your eyesight?
-
Tentative +1 but I see this potentially result in a lot of re-tagging with unclear boundaries. Sometimes a general, non-specific tag is enough. – Konrad Rudolph Sep 4 '12 at 8:42
-
@KonradRudolph - Agreed, maybe "foodstuffs" could be used to define the difference as it is a bit more specific? – rjzii Sep 4 '12 at 11:54
-
@RobZ is foodstuff a common enough word? Should we replace food->foodstuff on future tags? – Sklivvz Sep 4 '12 at 13:14
-
@KonradRudolph I think both could co-exist. A question could be about food and nutrition (are carrots good for me?), or about food only (do blue carrots exist?), or nutrition only (do vitamins survive cooking?) – Sklivvz Sep 4 '12 at 13:29
-
@Sklivvz - Not sure if it is or not, I tend to write with a slightly antiquated style but I have heard the term used before when people were talking about logistics so, maybe? – rjzii Sep 4 '12 at 13:55
-
Blue carrots may not be edible, so i think [plants] and [biology] are better tags than [food]. For dishes, see cooking.stackexchange.com. – Cees Timmerman Nov 16 '12 at 13:25
