(Not being snarky, just genuinely curious as to where to draw the line.)
There are exceptions to everything, of course. Celery can be used as a source of nitrates.
And a whole lot of fruit is genotypically modified as well through various means!!
Humans ARE nature. What we build IS nature. Or do you think beavers look at their dams and buildings and go "that shit is unnatural".
additives is still a bit vague, but at least that generally fits what I'm aiming for. if it wouldn't be in the food if you made it at home, then that's an additive. no need for "natural" to come into it
According to the WHO [1], food additives are
> Substances that are added to food to maintain or improve the safety, freshness, taste, texture, or appearance of food are known as food additives. Some food additives have been in use for centuries for preservation – such as salt (in meats such as bacon or dried fish), sugar (in marmalade), or sulfur dioxide (in wine).
I guess you could limit it to "food additives that are added only to maintain or improve the safety, freshness, taste, texture, or appearance of food are bad", but even then I'd argue that's not true in any real sense. The ability to keep food in a good state for longer is a boon to society as a whole. We just need to be careful about the side effects.
[1] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-additi...
That being said, I do disagree with your opinion that "they're all bad" even limited to the definition you gave. Being able to make food last longer is good. And recognizing that, it's a matter of tradeoffs for the additive in question.
my position is a hedged rule of thumb. of course additives are not all bad, but taking this attitude is a simple policy that I trust for my general health, and a low-noise signal to send to food producers and other consumers.
>it's a matter of tradeoffs for the additive in question
this is true. and when the tradeoffs are health vs hunger that's fine, but when they're health vs profit/share price, it becomes an issue. obviously there's a situation where lack of profit motive can lead to hunger, but that's not a situation currently likely to arise in the developed world
obviously this is a rule of thumb and quite a generalisation. I’m sure a fair few counter-examples can be given, but is it better to generally follow this rule, or not? I say better