Discussion in 'Food' started by Harper, Feb 11, 2017.
And I read the article. It does not attribute it to "modern food."
I never said it did. I just responded to your general question.
If you look around and see all the kids with Type 2 diabetes, asthma, etc., I suspect the question will be whether or not advances in the good areas of medicine will outpace the detrimental effects of food quality, lifestyle, etc.
I don't know if it's true or not, but it seems to me that there is a lot more cancer nowadays than there used to be. All I have to go by are my parents' generation, and mine. Most of their generation seemed to die of things other than cancer. But in my world, the people I know, there is always 2 or 3 people going thru cancer treatment, or dying of it. Our diet is a lot different than our parents' was, for sure. Lots more prepared food, additives of all kinds, sugar, etc in peoples' diets now. And I am certain that we were healthier kids than the ones I see now. It was rare to see a fat kid when I was growing up. We were outside playing, getting into trouble, getting broken bones, breaking windows with our baseballs, going fishing, working on yard jobs for our spending money, and hated sitting around inside. A lot of kids are overweight now, and a lot of them spend a lot of time indoors either at school or sitting in front of TVs and computers at home. For us a soda pop was a big treat that we got occasionally. A lot of kids now drink several per day.
I don't seem to get taken seriously when I say this but the "UN agenda 21" is all about what is going on. it's no secret it's on line, look it up !!
This is not derailing , it has every thing to do with the subject at hand .
It is a population control agenda.
Good. Only so much room in the vivarium.
I'm sure hoping that this is sarcasm.
Our planet is a closed system - a vivarium, with so much arable land, so much water, and so much air. The "green revolution" of pesticides, fertilizers, and medicines allowed us, at a price being discussed in this thread, to postpone the day of reckoning for our overpopulation of the Earth. In my adult lifetime, we passed 3,000,000,000 souls, raced past 6,000,000,000 souls, and now speed towards 9,000,000,000, only some of whom can be adequately fed. Why do you think those poor people in Bangladesh build houses on slits over the Bay of Bengal - where the next cyclone will kill its hundreds of thousands? They have to, even as their national height and weight decline due to national chronic starvation. https://www.wfp.org/stories/10-facts-about-hunger-bangladesh
You think there is no limit? I hope you know better.
Below is an article about a report put out by the EU regarding the dangers of pesticides and the advantages of organic food.
From the article:
The article: http://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-n...esticides-far-more-dangerous-than-was-thought
The study: http://bit.ly/2qKfyu9
I'm not a big fan of California's government, but I have to give them props for taking action with respect to glyphosate:
Harper sir, I think you should get some help, you are way to obsessed about this crap.
Thanks for your concern.
I want to try to stay that way, too.
But I agree with you to this extent--the Frankenfood that is out there is crap.
IMO, Increased cancer risk, infertility and preventable diseases from lack of nutrition can all be attributed to GMO food.
I saw this coming 20 years ago.
The fake food is bad enough but the petroleum based packaging it comes in is just as bad. Glass jars are still here but what happened to day old newspapers for fish, plain waxed brown butcher paper for meats, cheese, breads and other soft bulk items.
As usual the MSM was a 'blackhole' of silence on this long awaited EPA report.
Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper:
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential
EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs December 12, 2017
"For cancer descriptors, the available data and weight-of-evidence clearly do not support the descriptors “carcinogenic to humans”, “likely to be carcinogenic to humans”, or “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential”. For the “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” descriptor, considerations could be looked at in isolation; however, following a thorough integrative weight-of-evidence evaluation of the available data, the database would not support this cancer descriptor. The strongest support is for “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans”." https://www.epa.gov/sites/productio...aper_evaluation_of_carcinogenic_potential.pdf
A) It's not the GE food... it's what is sprayed on them. Ban roundup and the entire study is moot.
B) It's long been known that the "generally known as safe" the FDA uses is a huge loophole.
C) GMO food in and of itself is not a bad thing... WE humans have bred out a lot of the host plants original ability to protect itself in the hunt for bettering our food over millennia.
D) Even "organic" food has tested positive for chemicals as they tend to be grown in countries with little actual regulation and over site (including our own)
E) Your DNA is being altered all the time without you even realizing it. Every Virus you get alters your DNA. The Sun alters your DNA. Random point mutations change your DNA.
F) It's long been known a lot of pesticides are bad for you... not cancer causing... since when is cancer the only scary thing. Most actually attack the nervous system.
ZZZZZZZZZZZ--- these posts sure don't give me much to read about bushcraft. Just eat turmeric and use oil of oregano already will ya!!
I'm thinking an 'herbalist' with a dog in the fight might not be the most unbiased 'researcher' on the subject.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that with almost 8 billion folks on the planet, feeding them is not something that can be done with back yard food plots. Agri business just has to be in the mix, and that means GMO foods, pesticides, additives, preservatives and other things that some of us, as individuals don't want or need. The answer for those of that mind could well be to just grown your own food, process it, and cook it.
This is one topic that reliably generates n entire range of responses - some informed, some speculative and some apparently rather far fetched. Maybe raising the issue and thereby interest levels is all for the best?
There are some basic concepts that seem necessary to acknowledged in this discussion. Some are definition and some are simple fact:
There is a difference between diet and nutrition. Diet is what we eat, nutrition is what we get out of diet. For most of us being overweight is a matter of storing excess calories. In theory one could exist solely on candy bars and diet soda but it would be wishful thinking to expect them to flourish.
When a food product is marketed as "organic" does that mean it is of better nutritional quality? Maybe, but only maybe. Are Organic Practices a la Rodale etc better for the biosphere? Yes. That doesn't necessarily carry over to marketing. Far from it.
Processed foods sold in most supermarkets are engineered primarily for shelf life since shelf space is figured in cost per square foot (often costing more than a middle class home on SF basis) and highly analyzed by all concerned. It is not by chance that stores are laid out as they are or packaging is what it is.
Articles like the one cited in the OP may contain reliable information, IF one is knowledgeable about what is and is not presented, but there are no guarantees since discussions concerning one of our essential requirements are pretty wide open. This is true of food in general, including supplements and the like. Food labels provide some useful information (same caveats apply as with the article) but things like Food Pyramids are part science, part politics and all business. Some of the best selling books on diets of one type or another are more humorous than anything else. But as another pointed out, initially raising awareness can spread out into other areas of health.
Some already know all this and more, some will think it bunk and some will be in between. Fair enough. I don't mean to be pedantic here; I taught this subject for a while and guess I got in the habit. I have also seen how opinion dominates and facts are ignored, how dietary choices are culturally determined and how difficult it is for people to think through change.
Perhaps most importantly - Humans have for some decades and still do produce enough food annually for every man, women and child alive to receive a minimum 1800 Cal/day of nutritionally adequate food. The key word, of course, is "receive". In that sense GMOs are NOT necessary to feed the world, despite claims to the contrary. Health benefits or lack of them aside, we might question whether allowing the source of our food supplies to become subject to an ever narrowing concept of ownership might not have results in the future that we will regret. For me, this is one of the most troubling issues we fail to address.
I consider myself a man of science, and frankly I'm worried by GMOs for two reasons. First, I think some of them were tossed into the food chain without enough evidence that they're safe. Obviously some of them probably are but we know that GMO salmon are wreaking havoc on wild stocks. The second reason, and arguably just as serious, is the absurd power we've handed companies like Monsanto. By allowing a patent on a living thing we let them shake down everyone that doesn't use their products. They can't keep their DNA out of your fields, and you can't either, but if their lawyers find any of it there they'll ruin you. It's hard enough to be a family farmer without government sanctioned extortion.
For what it's worth, here's my take on this and other articles that bash GMO's, first off, I believe that true organic and free range foods are far healthier than commercialized farming and animal production, that said, many people can't afford the higher prices that these purer foods command at the super market, also many foods that are labeled organic really are not organically grown, they have packaging loop holes that allow them to be sold as such but aren't really organic.
Another important consideration when confronted with reports, studies, articles, papers, and claims such as those introduced by the author of this thread is where did they originate and for what reasons, many if not most if true and legit would be touched on on the five o'clock news, but when you read about studies and reports from entities you never heard of, or from super market fake news rags like the Daily Mail you can pretty much count on it being pure Bull Schitt.
Many of these studies are little more than propaganda pieces put out by radical environmental groups or by corporations that are in direct competition with those they are trying to trash, such is the case with the groups and studies offered by the author of this thread, who by the way has more than a few of these types of threads started on this forum.
If someone cares enough about our modern day foods and how they affect the general health of our society a little research will uncover common sense answers to their questions, Fact, our society is not as healthy as it was in the 20th. century, we have far more illnesses that plague us, and the food we eat has not as healthy as it once was when we got our produce locally from family run farms, or from our own victory gardens, the same goes for our meats and dairy products, but our diets aren't the same either, we eat fast foods, don't cook from scratch at home anymore, and when we do it's mostly all processed food.
Kids today don't have the same oversight that they once did, Moms no longer fix a kids lunch anymore, we send them to school where they are fed crap because it's cheap, when they get home they eat potato chips, ding dongs, ring dings, and wash it down with a two liter coke, at supper time when mom and dad get home dog tired from a ten hour work day and an hour commute, they order delivery pizza or Chinese food, is it any wonder our kids and adults are sick.
But if they did eat healthier they'd still be behind the eight ball, our folks used to work with their backs and hands, kids played baseball, rode bikes, walked to the playground and actually did things that were healthy, today most kids sit in school all day, then go home and watch TV, get on face book, or play video games until bed time.
GMO's may not be the best food for us, but it's food, what does that mean, our world population is about nine billion people, in the last few decades we have paved over or built housing on well over half of our farm land, family run farms are a thing of the past, we are now growing some produce like corn and soy for fuel instead of food, the same thing is going on across the globe, we are producing less food while over producing people who need to eat to survive.
Like it or not GMO's make it possible to grow larger quantities of food in much smaller spaces at less cost than ever before, without it this planet may not survive starvation, but corporate is feeding us GMO's to increase their bottom line, yes they are, and greedy bastards they might be for doing it, but we don't live in a perfect world and probably never will, the good news is the sicker we get the better medical technology gets, and in spite of it all we're living longer.
Just something to ponder.
Burning our food (fuel) is insane! Ethanol is a secret disaster that has benefited no one but the corn industry. But that's a subject for another thread.
To be clear, I'm not critical of all GMOs but it's clear that some are being rubber-stamped by technocrats in the pocket of lobbyists. We need to take a long hard look at how we humans are using/misusing the planet if we want to be here in another 10,000 years. Heck, if we want to survive for a couple hundred more years we'll need to do a better job than we have the last two hundred.
The FDA is a complete joke.
As to the article, I wish I could afford to eat organic food or even naturally produced food, but it costs too much and likely always will.