I maintain, and am still looking for contrary evidence, that food can be eaten and will provide a level of nutrition as long as it is cooked adequately to kill organisms (bacteria). I would agree that improper freezing, refreezing, long term freezing, etc. will cause “some deterioration in taste and texture”, but could still be eaten if well cooked. The situation example I use is: I’m lost, wandering , and ‘starving’ in the Alaskan wilderness and come across a cabin that has old, spoiled, even ‘rotting’ food. It may not be tasty, but as long as it’s well cooked, it should still provide calories and some nutrients. Doubt there would be a freezer in my cabin, but if there was, that food could be cooked and eaten… a better example might be a frozen animal carcass on a glacier.
Seems I read someplace that even improperly canned food contaminated with botulism can be eaten if it is well cooked. I understand that chemical contaminations may not be reversed by cooking, I.E. Cooking would not remove lead, arsenic, etc from food. I wonder about any chemical byproducts of organisms, especially the ‘molds’?
As an issue of fact, I am not convinced that food in the refrigerator must be discarded after a certain time. Or if ‘spoiled’. It just MUST be well cooked… And seasoned well enough to mask the taste… I like to use a lot of Tabasco. I suspect the ‘rules’ exist to protect the most people in the most situations. And there probably IS deterioration in nutritional content. And more groceries are sold.
I would propose that we evolved to not like the taste of spoiled food as a survival mechanism. And, perhaps, ‘discovery’ of fire was really so important because it allowed humans to cook and eat dead, scavenged, ‘spoiled’ animals.
So, objectively, I’m not convinced it’s a ‘deadly sin’ to refreeze food. It just causes various levels of deterioration in quality and nutrition and must be cooked adequately to kill any additional bacteria that may be present.