... but this will mainly be due to

[GoldfishLord]

In our evolutionary history, innate and learned responses to food properties were an adaptive response to real or potential energy requirements. These energy needs are still real, although reduced by our sedentary lifestyle, but what has changed is that sufficient energy is now always available. The same is true of other nutrients that the body values, such as salt. At the same time, our diets are still driven by the same pleasure-seeking processes that have always operated and we tend to resist reductions in those food ingredients that contribute to sensory pleasure. For instance, attempts to reduce our physiologically excessive salt intake by using low-salt versions of products typically fail due to their lack of flavour impact. A 50 per cent reduction of salt in bread might have quite a substantial impact on the amount of salt in our diet because bread is a staple. But this will mainly be due to a dramatically reduced intake of a product that now tastes like cardboard.

Source: Taste Matters: Why We Like the Foods We Do
By John Prescott

---

1. Why is "same" used? What is the same as the pleasure-seeking processes?
2. What does "this" refer to?
3. Why will this mainly be due to a dramatically reduced intake of a product that now tastes like cardboard?

 

[teechar]

A 50 per cent reduction of salt in bread might have quite a substantial impact on the amount of salt in our diet because bread is a staple. But this will mainly be due to a dramatically reduced intake of a product that now tastes like cardboard.

---

1. What does "this" refer to?

Impact.

2. Why will this mainly be due to a dramatically reduced intake of a product that now tastes like cardboard?

Are you asking for the meaning of the last sentence? If so, it means:
Bread is a staple for many people (it represents a large/substantial part of their diet), so a 50% reduction of the salt in it would mean a substantial reduction of dietary salt for those people. The author hypothesizes that less salt in bread would make it less tasty, so that would make people eat less of it. By contrast, for example, potato chips (crisps in Br E) also have a lot of salt in them, but they are not a staple, so cutting the salt in them would not have as much of an impact.

 

[GoldfishLord]

How does "this" have a relationship with " a dramatically reduced intake of a product that now tastes like cardboard"?

 

[teechar]

This impact will be mainly the result of ...
Does that help, or are you asking something else?

 

[GoldfishLord]

This impact will be mainly the result of ...
Does that help, or are you asking something else?

Something else.
I think that there is a lack of evidence to support the claim.

 

[5jj]

That may be so, but the language is fine.

 

[GoldfishLord]

But this will mainly be due to a dramatically reduced intake of a product that now tastes like cardboard.

I don't agree.
Eating less of a product that now tastes like cardboard would make you eat something else.

 

[Tarheel]

I don't agree.
Eating less of a product that now tastes like cardboard would make you eat MORE OF something else.

And wasn't that the point?

 

[5jj]

Eating less of a product that now tastes like cardboard would make you eat something else.

I think that there is a lack of evidence to support the claim.

 

[emsr2d2]

How does "this" have a relationship with "a dramatically reduced intake of a product that now tastes like cardboard"?

In post #7, Tarheel changed your "How" to "What". That correction was wrong. Your original "How does X have a relationship with Y?" was correct (although "How does X relate to Y?" would be better). To use "What" at the start, the sentence would need to be "What relationship does X have with Y?"

Remember not to put a space after opening quotation marks.

 

[jutfrank]

1. Why is "same" used? What is the same as the pleasure-seeking processes?

the pleasure-seeking processes that operate now
=
the pleasure-seeking processes that have operated at every point in the evolutionary history of our species

2. What does "this" refer to?

The 50% reduction in consumption of salt in bread.

3. Why will this mainly be due to a dramatically reduced intake of a product that now tastes like cardboard?

People will eat less salt because they will eat less bread.

The reason people will eat less salt is because the bread doesn't taste good and not because they want to reduce their salt intake.

 

[teechar]

The 50% reduction in consumption of salt in bread.

That's not what the original text says! The 50% reduction is about how much salt is added to bread, not about how much salt is consumed.

 

[jutfrank]

I meant to say "The 50% reduction of salt in bread". I don't know how the word 'consumption' slipped in.

 

[teechar]

I meant to say "The 50% reduction of salt in bread".

That can't be what the bold "this" refers to. It would make the original text read:
"But this (50% reduction of salt in bread) will mainly be due to a dramatically reduced intake of a product that now tastes like cardboard".

 

[jutfrank]

I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that 'this' is the result of something. Yes, right—the result is the benefits on health.

Have I understood correctly?

 

[teechar]

As I said above (post #2), "this" refers to the "impact" (in "... quite a substantial impact").

Yes, right—the result is the benefits on health.

You can say that, though I would say "benefits to (human) health".