Currently, is automatically changed to .

Is this policy correct?

| |

No, is different from .

is specific

 Nutritional science investigates the metabolic and physiological responses of the body to diet.

Wikipedia – Nutrition

Example: Does asparagus contain enough vitamins for a whole day?

Whereas is generic

 Food is any substance consumed to provide nutritional support for the body.

Wikipedia – Food

Example: Do blue carrots exist?

As such they should be used as appropriate and not synonyms: for questions about the nutritional properties, and  for more general questions about food.

Note: sometimes food is better tagged or

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

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .