Avoid Eating “Doof” and “pome”. What are doof and pome?

January 11, 2020 by Joshua
in Nature

We need a new word to describe a concept missing from English.

Books on food try to distinguish between healthy, fulfilling food grown to sustain and industrial products designed for profit, to entertain your mouth, without regard for your health.

For example, when Michael Pollan’s Food Rules says “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants,” by food he means not industrial products designed for chewing and swallowing, but not really sustenance.

Marion Nestle’s book Food Politics prompted seeing the need for the new word. Other books face the same challenge—from Michael Gregor and Joel Fuhrman too. I love these authors.

Phrases like “fast food” and “junk food” contain the word food and suggest they have something in common with food. These writers struggle to talk about the industrial products without implying they’re like food when they keep having to use the word food in the phrases.

Supermarket Aisles

Just because you can chew something or drink it, swallow it, and not die immediately doesn’t make something food.

I propose the term doof—food spelled backward—to mean industrial products designed to entertain your mouth and for profit without regard for your health.

An example of “doof,” also known as pome.

I played with the acronym POME, for profit-oriented mouth entertainment, or lower-cased so it’s like a word: pome. I prefer doof for its sound, but why not include two words just because they mean the same thing?

I recommend replacing the phrases “junk food,” “fast food,” “snack food,” and the like with doof and pome. Then kids and others won’t confuse them for food.

I recommend avoiding doof and pome.

Read my weekly newsletter

Initiative leadership spodek

On initiative, leadership, the environment, and burpees

We won't send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time. Powered by ConvertKit

1 response to “Avoid Eating “Doof” and “pome”. What are doof and pome?

  1. I like the idea behind this. Certainly there should be a convenient term for “empty calories” food, which tends to be nutrition-less carbs. I don’t like “profit-oriented mouth entertainment” because 99% of agriculture (whether good or bad) is profit-oriented, and all food for sale is profit-oriented. Also, mouth entertainment shouldn’t be a negative term, and would help to perpetuate the stereotype that healthy food has to taste bad.

    It would probably be good if the word sounded vaguely scientific, which would give it more credibility. I can’t think of anything though.

Leave a Reply

Sign up for my weekly newsletter