Sorry, no definitions found. Check out and contribute to the discussion of this word!


Sorry, no etymologies found.


    Sorry, no example sentences found.


Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.

  • Right. Or "cholesterol free" on a jar of peanut butter--the assumption being that most people won't make the distinction between cholesterol and plain old fat.

    June 15, 2009

  • Well, occasionally it's true. Cheerios are pretty good for you, as cereals go (for example). I imagine you're talking more about "fat free" on a package of Twizzlers. ;) (Of COURSE it's fat free; there's nothing in it but sugar!)

    June 15, 2009

  • I've found that to be quite true.

    June 14, 2009

  • "...a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food..."


    June 13, 2009

  • Perhaps the person who uses this phrase is using Michael Pollan's definition of "food":

    "...You’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat “food.�? Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat."

    -- "Unhappy Meals", as published in the New York Times.

    Using this definition of "food", the phrase "food advocate" makes sense (it has roughly the meaning that chained_bear gave, below). The problems start, though, when you assume that your listeners are using the same definition of "food" that you are.

    That's my theory, anyway.

    June 13, 2009

  • I heard it on the radio this morning, as a stand-alone phrase. As I said, I understand what it's supposed to mean, but it's not a clear phrase on its own.

    June 13, 2009

  • Where is the source of this objectionable stand-alone phrase? Whenever I have seen it, it is further modified by a word such as local, organic, etc.

    June 13, 2009

  • Exactly! The Lorax of food!

    June 13, 2009

  • Like the Lorax? Ha ha ha!! "I am the Lorax. I speak for the food!"

    No, it's supposed to mean a person who supports/agitates for organic, small-farm-grown vs. "industrial" agribusiness-created (etc.) foods. I'm not against the cause (though I have my own views I'll refrain from stating here), but this phrase needs serious help.

    June 13, 2009

  • Is it someone who speaks for all food?

    June 12, 2009

  • It also does not refer to someone who strives to keep food from being abused, as in food fights, wastefulness, etc.

    June 12, 2009

  • At first glance, I thought, Well, who's not a food advocate? Who would actually be against food?

    Not very clear, to be sure.

    June 12, 2009

  • I understand the proposed meaning of this phrase, but as phrases go, it's not a very clear one. It sounds like someone, for example, who works to end world hunger, when it's really not.

    June 12, 2009