Yep. Removing the skin is a process, and the carrot underneath is then exposed to oxidation.

No clue if there is a health effect due to it. Just pointing out what processing means. Though usually processing is totally destroying the physical structure of something and applying heat/freezing/chemical exposure for preservation or transformation.

To get really nitpicky, digging the carrots out of the ground is also a process. Where does it end?

Maybe "processed foods" is a completely useless term.

I'm pretty sure it's a backformation from "heavily processed foods," which is a useful way to compare foods that have been picked and washed to foods that have been picked and washed and etc, and etc, and etc. Being meaningful makes is less useful for making grand purity pronouncements, though.

All food is processed, all of it is impure, it will make you dirty on the inside, and make you sick. The food that won't make you sick is the food that humans haven't sinned on between God's hand and your mouth.

Slippery, sloped, and in the case of carrots, roasted with olive oil and some kind of herb (dill, rosemary, thyme, or basil. The "or" is important here), perhaps some onion and garlic. Or on top of salad with balsamic vinaigrette.

The other comment on gradients is a good thought too.

Unless you're paying EU100 per litre, your "balsamic vinaigrette" isn't made with proper balsamic vinegar. It's made from regular vinegar mixed with colouring agents, flavouring agents and preservatives.

Proper balsamic vinegar is made using a solera system, and takes a number of years. I doubt any restaurant chef would use real balsamic vinegar to make a "balsamic vinaigrette"; the real thing is for sipping.

Neat to learn. I'm almost certainly using a knockoff

I'm not really being fair. It's just that the standards are terribly confusing. There are two main standards; one is ultra-strict, and the other is so relaxed as to be meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balsamic_vinegar_of_Modena

Well, that's how I see it. I didn't mean that the lower-grade stuff is 'knock-off'; I've never so much as seen a bottle of the 'proper' stuff, except in photos. But I'm sure I wouldn't take snifters of normal deli balsamic vinegar.

I do love the standard stuff one finds in the deli :)

It's a gradient. More processing makes it more processed.

Chewing is a process that totally destroys the physical structure of the food, and exposes it to oxidation.

Chewing is not what anybody ever means when they talk about processed food.

I don't generally want to eat food that's already been chewed. Arguably things like applesauce have been industrially chewed though.

When you eat food, your body processes it, exposing it to all sorts of nasty physical and chemical processes.

The objection to 'processed foods' is mostly about when the processing significantly changes the content of the food, whether that's from significant additives, or strucural changes like breaking down fiber. If you're ok with eating meat, nobody much cares about processing that removes parts that people don't eat and don't want to see, but if anything much is added, that's flagged (dye, water, preservatives, etc)

We semantically agree. There is a starting point to "processing" and the commentator's question for whether something applied falls into scope. Whether the connotation is agreeable to denotation is sort of a separate discussion, IMO. Separation of degree, not kind.

Again, this is a meaningless definition, and not at all what the vast majority of people mean when they say processed.

They may not agree on their definition of processed in this context, but it sure isn't this definition.

By this definition chewed food is processed because it exposes the carrot to digestion (which itself would be processing).

Yes. Everything that isn't raw is processed. If processed isn't what you mean by "processed," maybe you should say what you mean, e.g., smoking, adding sulfites, nitrates, sodium, and/or sugar.

I don't need to provide a definition for what is a nebulous term like "processed" in order to argue that the one provided in the original comment is both ridiculous and not congruent with what most other people would consider processed.

> Everything that isn't raw is processed.

Likewise, this is a circular definition.

You only do if you want to make that argument successfully.

>> Everything that isn't raw is processed.

> Likewise, this is a circular definition.

No, it is not. A circular definition is that everything that is processed is processed, the one you're carefully avoiding in favor of argument by calling something ridiculous.

Then please define “raw” and “processing” in such a way that “raw” =/= “not processed”.

So you are eating processed food if you peel a carrot and then eat it? Fascinating

Yes. That's far less processing than separating out but molecular structure and only eating one kind of molecule.

No, this is not what people mean with "processed food" at all.

Right, you're arguing a connotation on "processed" when the question was "would this hypothetical count as processed?"

The hypothetical shows the disconnect between denotation and connotation.

Except that it was clear that I meant "processed" in the way that it is generally used in the context of "processed food" and not in the sense of "having had something done to it".

The argument is that it doesn't have a general meaning, so relying on that general meaning misses the point.

And that argument is wrong.

A “sandwich” doesn’t have an explicit general meaning, but almost nobody would classify a pizza as an open face sandwich.

Likewise, the vast majority of people would consider a carrot (peeled or otherwise) “unprocessed food” and would consider cheetos “processed food”.

I'm not in it for the rightness and wrongness and virtue and exercises of justice to the carrots, I'm in it for your request as to whether peeling a carrot counts as processing, which it does, as sometimes the most banal of examples illustrate a tapestry of lived complexity.

Carry on, friend.

But that is what the comment he's referring to means, that's the point.

No, that's a meaningful definition. When food is transformed through a process, it becomes processed.

The alternative definition seems to be to throw the word around randomly, and to vaguely mention something like a tv dinner from the 50s as a counterexample.

It's annoying. I wish when people were talking about "processed meats" they'd talk about which meats and which processes. They're not fungible. Once you've learned one process, you haven't learned them all. Whether I'm using sodium chloride or sodium citrate makes a difference if we're doing science.