Here is something I just read which
immediately made me write my comments right away here as a food scientist, nutritionist,
and clinician.
I was wondering for what other very
good reasons do those Sarawak scientists want to turn sago into rice other than
the reasons they gave in the link above? Don’t we think their imitation
rice is not going to be very popular, any cheaper, let alone more nutritious
than the original sago, not to mention the acceptability of fake rice to
consumers?
First, let me explain the
nutritional differences between sago and rice.
Sago and rice are both starchy
foods commonly used in different culinary traditions in Malaysia and around the
world, but they have distinct nutritional profiles.
Rice is a cereal grain that is a
staple food for a large portion of the world's population especially in Asian
countries. It comes in many varieties, with white rice and brown rice being the
most common. Brown rice retains the outer bran layer and germ, making it higher
in fibre, vitamins, and minerals compared to white rice, which has been milled
and polished, stripping away some of these nutrients. Generally, rice is a good
source of carbohydrates and provides energy, with some varieties offering small
amounts of protein and micronutrients like manganese, magnesium, and B
vitamins.
Sago, on the other hand, is derived
from the pith of certain tropical palm trees, primarily the sago palm. It is a
type of starch that is extracted from the core of the palm and processed into
granules, pearls, or flour. Nutritionally, sago is primarily composed of
carbohydrates, mainly starch. It is low in protein, fat, and fibre and lacks
significant amounts of vitamins and minerals compared to rice. Sago is often
used as a thickening agent in cooking or as a main ingredient in desserts and
drinks.
In other words, while both sago and
rice are sources of carbohydrates, rice generally offers more nutritional
value, including fibre, vitamins, and minerals, compared to sago. However, the
choice between the two may depend on culinary traditions, dietary preferences,
and availability in different regions of the world, more importantly cultural
food acceptability by Malaysians or other races. In short, most prefer real
rice than imitation rice made from sago, which would be a food aversion for us
to reject it.
Nutritionists like me are aware of
prisoners of war who prefer to die of starvation with a loaf of bread in their
hands. Yes, there have been instances in history where prisoners of war died of
starvation despite having food in their hands. One significant example is
during World War II, particularly in concentration camps like Auschwitz, where
prisoners were subjected to extreme conditions including forced labour,
inadequate rations, and brutal treatment by their captors.
The reasons for these deaths were
multifaceted. Firstly, the concentration camps were deliberately designed to
dehumanize and exterminate prisoners, with starvation being one of the methods
used for this purpose. Secondly, the logistical challenges of providing food
for the vast numbers of prisoners in the camps, coupled with the intentional
withholding of adequate nourishment by the Nazi authorities, contributed to
widespread starvation and malnutrition.
Furthermore, even when food was
occasionally distributed to the prisoners, it was often insufficient in
quantity and nutritional value to sustain life, especially considering the
physically demanding labour and harsh living conditions within the camps. Additionally,
some prisoners were too weak or ill to consume the food provided, despite being
in desperate need of nourishment.
These tragic circumstances resulted
in countless deaths due to starvation and malnutrition among prisoners of war
and other detainees in concentration camps during World War II. It stands as a
grim reminder of the atrocities committed during that dark period of history.
While food culture and taboos can
certainly play a role in people's dietary preferences and habits, it's unlikely
that this was a significant factor in the deaths of prisoners of war due to
starvation during World War II, particularly in the context of concentration
camps like Auschwitz.
In concentration camps, the primary
issue was not about prisoners refusing to eat unfamiliar foods due to cultural
or religious reasons. Instead, the main factors contributing to starvation were
deliberate policies of the Nazi regime to withhold adequate food from prisoners
as part of their genocidal agenda, logistical challenges in providing food for
the large number of inmates, and the harsh living conditions within the camps.
However, it's worth noting that
food preferences and cultural considerations can still have an impact on
people's ability to consume certain foods, especially in extreme situations
such as captivity or displacement. For example, in some cases, prisoners may
have struggled to consume unfamiliar or unpalatable foods, which could
exacerbate issues of malnutrition and starvation. However, in the broader
context of the Holocaust and the conditions in concentration camps, such
individual preferences were likely overshadowed by systemic factors related to
the intentional deprivation of food by the authorities.
I think those Sarawak scientists have nothing else to do than changing sago into artificial rice. Don’t you think this is cheating consumers to accept a food culture we normally would reject? This is the same as Big Pharma using petroleum chemicals introduced by Rockefeller for doctors to use as “medicines” till today? Why not change water into food to feed the hungry world?
Over 2,000 years ago Jesus changed
water into wine here:
https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=jesus+first++miracle
Jesus also managed to multiply five
loaves and two fish to feed 5,000 people as written in all four Gospels in the
New Testament. Here are the references:
- Matthew 14:13-21
- Mark 6:30-44
- Luke 9:10-17
- John 6:1-14
Each of these accounts recounts the
miracle of Jesus feeding a large crowd with a small amount of food,
demonstrating his power and compassion.
“Taking the five loaves and the two
fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then
he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the
people. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve
basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. The number of those who
ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children”.
If any scientist can change water,
mud, stones, rocks, bricks, cement, and concrete used by engineers to build
castles into food and rice instead, then there is something to shout about.
Then they deserve the Nobel Prize for anything from freedom from hunger to real
medicine and peace for all humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment