Point out where I have said that.

Also, to be fair, you've made an Argumentum Ad Populum or at least an Appeal to Belief fallacy by failing to cite sources beyond the incredibly vague notion of "reams of books and journals". Who are these written by? Doctors? Certified nutritionists? Ecologists? Laymen who took a class at a Newage bookstore? What are their personal beliefs about humanity, industry, and the government? Sources are important, and so is their background. Furthermore, peer review to publish a hypothesis doesn't make it a sound theory, either.

But I'll assume you knew this.

I never once said that modern food preservation methods and food processing was healthy, but if the argument is that "we don't know what the long-term effects are", then dear, that argument goes both ways and actually. Millennia ago, we didn't know what the long-term effects of eating pickled foods were, but now we do. Heck, at one time "everybody knew" that masturbation led to insanity and that homosexuals were going to touch your children, there were even "reams of books and journals" that detailed how it was supposedly true, and some of that was even written by actual doctors who were letting their personal beliefs dictate the interpretation of hard fact --but now we make fun of everybody who still thinks that.

And sure, tell me that it's not a perfect analogue, I'll own up to that, but at the same time I also don't see how using our ability as a species to make such significant scientific advances and use those advances is somehow "unnatural". I don't see a huge difference between an ant colony and the city of Chicago, either. "We do not return to nature, we are already there." - Lupa