Currently, food is automatically changed to nutrition.
Is this policy correct?
Add a comment
|
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. Sep 4 '12 at 8:42
-
@KonradRudolph - Agreed, maybe "foodstuffs" could be used to define the difference as it is a bit more specific?– rjziiSep 4 '12 at 11:54
-
@RobZ is foodstuff a common enough word? Should we replace food->foodstuff on future tags?– SklivvzSep 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?)– SklivvzSep 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?– rjziiSep 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. Nov 16 '12 at 13:25