The Clean Eating Delusion...
Options
Replies
-
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...
We didn't eat much fast food, but we did eat a lot of fresh beef that in today's terms would likely be considered organic. That and the fresh veggies from my grandparents garden might have totally wiped my body out somehow!lemurcat12 wrote: »
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)
And my question would be why do you get offended if I make an observation that I don't imply in any way is relative to your position or input on the matter? I see a lot of comments that could offend me if they applied to me, yet I take no offense unless someone intentionally attaches my name to a view I don't hold.
I guess because I'm actively involved in the discussion on the "side" you seem to think are making these objectionable claims (that everyone must eat cookies, that no one should buy organic) and I don't see people making them, and as you aren't responding to a specific comment but generalizing about what people are saying it seems as though you are referring to all of us questioning the claim that "clean eating" is somehow "optimal."
I didn't mention you or most others taking "sides". But instead, clarified my point....robertw486 wrote: »To make it clear though, I don't attach that radical view to you, the OP, or quite a few other posters on this thread. But some are splitting hairs, attaching that stereotype of ignorance to others that have shown to know better, and essentially gone out of their way to try to "prove" someone ignorant when really they are just getting into semantics of how a person eats. Much like eating Oreo's, it really should all be taken in the overall context.
Snip
For the record, I'm having organic non GMO bread, GMO canned tomatoes, non organic cheese, and beans of unknown origin for dinner. But I'm sure someone thinks that choice isn't the best.
Duh. Steak would be much better.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...
We didn't eat much fast food, but we did eat a lot of fresh beef that in today's terms would likely be considered organic. That and the fresh veggies from my grandparents garden might have totally wiped my body out somehow!lemurcat12 wrote: »
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)
And my question would be why do you get offended if I make an observation that I don't imply in any way is relative to your position or input on the matter? I see a lot of comments that could offend me if they applied to me, yet I take no offense unless someone intentionally attaches my name to a view I don't hold.
I guess because I'm actively involved in the discussion on the "side" you seem to think are making these objectionable claims (that everyone must eat cookies, that no one should buy organic) and I don't see people making them, and as you aren't responding to a specific comment but generalizing about what people are saying it seems as though you are referring to all of us questioning the claim that "clean eating" is somehow "optimal."
I didn't mention you or most others taking "sides". But instead, clarified my point....robertw486 wrote: »To make it clear though, I don't attach that radical view to you, the OP, or quite a few other posters on this thread. But some are splitting hairs, attaching that stereotype of ignorance to others that have shown to know better, and essentially gone out of their way to try to "prove" someone ignorant when really they are just getting into semantics of how a person eats. Much like eating Oreo's, it really should all be taken in the overall context.
Snip
For the record, I'm having organic non GMO bread, GMO canned tomatoes, non organic cheese, and beans of unknown origin for dinner. But I'm sure someone thinks that choice isn't the best.
Duh. Steak would be much better.
QFT0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...
We didn't eat much fast food, but we did eat a lot of fresh beef that in today's terms would likely be considered organic. That and the fresh veggies from my grandparents garden might have totally wiped my body out somehow!lemurcat12 wrote: »
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)
And my question would be why do you get offended if I make an observation that I don't imply in any way is relative to your position or input on the matter? I see a lot of comments that could offend me if they applied to me, yet I take no offense unless someone intentionally attaches my name to a view I don't hold.
I guess because I'm actively involved in the discussion on the "side" you seem to think are making these objectionable claims (that everyone must eat cookies, that no one should buy organic) and I don't see people making them, and as you aren't responding to a specific comment but generalizing about what people are saying it seems as though you are referring to all of us questioning the claim that "clean eating" is somehow "optimal."
I didn't mention you or most others taking "sides". But instead, clarified my point....robertw486 wrote: »To make it clear though, I don't attach that radical view to you, the OP, or quite a few other posters on this thread. But some are splitting hairs, attaching that stereotype of ignorance to others that have shown to know better, and essentially gone out of their way to try to "prove" someone ignorant when really they are just getting into semantics of how a person eats. Much like eating Oreo's, it really should all be taken in the overall context.
There are some posts on both "sides" (if you consider sides as clean eating vs not, which is vague really) that I think are caustic, rude, and make assumptions. But I've found that the radical views on either side usually won't use any set standard for intelligent discussion, and as such it's not worth calling them out. I'd prefer to let people identify themselves as having a radical view that applies double standards. But I'm hoping that at some point some of those people will realize they represent only a single view, which is their own, and attempt to remove some of the stereotypes so they can participate in adult level discussion and debate.
For the record, I'm having organic non GMO bread, GMO canned tomatoes, non organic cheese, and beans of unknown origin for dinner. But I'm sure someone thinks that choice isn't the best.
You aren't having GMO canned tomatoes unless that can is maybe a decade old.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...
We didn't eat much fast food, but we did eat a lot of fresh beef that in today's terms would likely be considered organic. That and the fresh veggies from my grandparents garden might have totally wiped my body out somehow!lemurcat12 wrote: »
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)
And my question would be why do you get offended if I make an observation that I don't imply in any way is relative to your position or input on the matter? I see a lot of comments that could offend me if they applied to me, yet I take no offense unless someone intentionally attaches my name to a view I don't hold.
I guess because I'm actively involved in the discussion on the "side" you seem to think are making these objectionable claims (that everyone must eat cookies, that no one should buy organic) and I don't see people making them, and as you aren't responding to a specific comment but generalizing about what people are saying it seems as though you are referring to all of us questioning the claim that "clean eating" is somehow "optimal."
I didn't mention you or most others taking "sides". But instead, clarified my point....robertw486 wrote: »To make it clear though, I don't attach that radical view to you, the OP, or quite a few other posters on this thread. But some are splitting hairs, attaching that stereotype of ignorance to others that have shown to know better, and essentially gone out of their way to try to "prove" someone ignorant when really they are just getting into semantics of how a person eats. Much like eating Oreo's, it really should all be taken in the overall context.
There are some posts on both "sides" (if you consider sides as clean eating vs not, which is vague really) that I think are caustic, rude, and make assumptions. But I've found that the radical views on either side usually won't use any set standard for intelligent discussion, and as such it's not worth calling them out. I'd prefer to let people identify themselves as having a radical view that applies double standards. But I'm hoping that at some point some of those people will realize they represent only a single view, which is their own, and attempt to remove some of the stereotypes so they can participate in adult level discussion and debate.
For the record, I'm having organic non GMO bread, GMO canned tomatoes, non organic cheese, and beans of unknown origin for dinner. But I'm sure someone thinks that choice isn't the best.
You aren't having GMO canned tomatoes unless that can is maybe a decade old.
I was thinking the same thing.
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...
We didn't eat much fast food, but we did eat a lot of fresh beef that in today's terms would likely be considered organic. That and the fresh veggies from my grandparents garden might have totally wiped my body out somehow!lemurcat12 wrote: »
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)
And my question would be why do you get offended if I make an observation that I don't imply in any way is relative to your position or input on the matter? I see a lot of comments that could offend me if they applied to me, yet I take no offense unless someone intentionally attaches my name to a view I don't hold.
I guess because I'm actively involved in the discussion on the "side" you seem to think are making these objectionable claims (that everyone must eat cookies, that no one should buy organic) and I don't see people making them, and as you aren't responding to a specific comment but generalizing about what people are saying it seems as though you are referring to all of us questioning the claim that "clean eating" is somehow "optimal."
I didn't mention you or most others taking "sides". But instead, clarified my point....robertw486 wrote: »To make it clear though, I don't attach that radical view to you, the OP, or quite a few other posters on this thread. But some are splitting hairs, attaching that stereotype of ignorance to others that have shown to know better, and essentially gone out of their way to try to "prove" someone ignorant when really they are just getting into semantics of how a person eats. Much like eating Oreo's, it really should all be taken in the overall context.
Snip
For the record, I'm having organic non GMO bread, GMO canned tomatoes, non organic cheese, and beans of unknown origin for dinner. But I'm sure someone thinks that choice isn't the best.
Duh. Steak would be much better.
I had organic beef just the other day. I felt obligated to eat some GMO foods, mass farmed dairy products, and I forgot the ham that will be included on my sandwich. I think using margarine with all those nasty chemical names will balance out the organic nature of the bread. If I am gone from the forums, please for the sake of science inform people that this approach killed me.Carlos_421 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...
We didn't eat much fast food, but we did eat a lot of fresh beef that in today's terms would likely be considered organic. That and the fresh veggies from my grandparents garden might have totally wiped my body out somehow!lemurcat12 wrote: »
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)
And my question would be why do you get offended if I make an observation that I don't imply in any way is relative to your position or input on the matter? I see a lot of comments that could offend me if they applied to me, yet I take no offense unless someone intentionally attaches my name to a view I don't hold.
I guess because I'm actively involved in the discussion on the "side" you seem to think are making these objectionable claims (that everyone must eat cookies, that no one should buy organic) and I don't see people making them, and as you aren't responding to a specific comment but generalizing about what people are saying it seems as though you are referring to all of us questioning the claim that "clean eating" is somehow "optimal."
I didn't mention you or most others taking "sides". But instead, clarified my point....robertw486 wrote: »To make it clear though, I don't attach that radical view to you, the OP, or quite a few other posters on this thread. But some are splitting hairs, attaching that stereotype of ignorance to others that have shown to know better, and essentially gone out of their way to try to "prove" someone ignorant when really they are just getting into semantics of how a person eats. Much like eating Oreo's, it really should all be taken in the overall context.
Snip
For the record, I'm having organic non GMO bread, GMO canned tomatoes, non organic cheese, and beans of unknown origin for dinner. But I'm sure someone thinks that choice isn't the best.
Duh. Steak would be much better.
QFT
But which part is truth? Now I'm over thinking it and maybe I should go with all GMO products or none. Is mass farm raised cheese product safe with organic bread? Which stereotype should I apply, or is any type of rotten beef a better choice? Right now I think it might be safer to not eat until someone clears this up. Not eating anything can't be unhealthy can it?aggelikik wrote:The OP was not defending the position that "clean" eating is not necessary and just a personal choice. It was grouping several eating styles and personal preferences under the term "clean" eating and then several posters went on to defend this position, that if you follow any of the eating styles mentioned in the OP, then you are for sure some crazy person trying to follow the latest fad who demonises anything that is not "clean". I have never been a "clean" eater, yet arguments like this are offending. There appears to be a big group of posters who mock people not eating their way, and it is not the "clean" eaters doing this. If you choose to avoid GMO, to avoid preservatives, to avoid pesticides, to avoid fast food or whatever, automatically you are some weird person who avoids everything and who demomises cookies and burgers. You do not like bacon? You are crazy and have an unnatural fear of fat. You have decided that you prefer the organic eggs you find in your local farmer's market over the ones you find in the supermarket? You are some crazy person with an irrational fear of "chemicals", and need to be bombarded with nonsense posts about how the water in your apple is a "chemical". And so on.
Threads like this accomplish exactly the opposite of what they claim to do. They are supposed to be "educational" against fad diets and extreme restrictions, yet they are making fun of several groups of people because of their eating choices. And many of the posters who are very aggressive in their mocking of "clean" eating often advocate eating styles that are not just "mainstream" but go against the commonly accepted medical guidelines. Then posts about drs not being as educated as the average individual who has spent a few weeks googling random blogs follow, and people are mocked for following their drs advice, or the advice posted in sites of reputable medical organisations and universities.
In all fairness, at times articles and such like those the OP linked do provoke thoughtful and intelligent discussion. Often the most radical views in any thread set the tone, and without fail some people follow the pattern and the discussion just becomes inflamed. And often those threads do paint with a broad brush and insult people IMO. And it promotes the "sides" arguments that follow, with almost anyone attached to a "side". Like political views, I think most people make a choice, but most intelligent people I know might not agree with either choice as the best thing for them on an overall basis.
But as often as not, the people that expose radical views seem to do so only with diets that they don't participate in. If you say sugar, they will defend that cutting sugars isn't needed. But if someone says Bulletproof Coffee, they claim it's only supported by people that don't understand science. The reality as I see it is that just about anything can be eaten and be healthy or unhealthy. Yet I don't look for threads that promote high protein levels and argue against high protein, even though I think it's as unnecessary as added sugar, fats in coffee, or organic chia seeds. It's just person choice and can fit in a balanced diet.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »
Maybe you were fed organic fast food as a young child? This would definitely completely ruin you, for both sides of the debate...
We didn't eat much fast food, but we did eat a lot of fresh beef that in today's terms would likely be considered organic. That and the fresh veggies from my grandparents garden might have totally wiped my body out somehow!lemurcat12 wrote: »
I always get a little offended when you say this, because I don't see anyone saying that people shouldn't eat as they like. The argument is always about claiming that eating in a particular way is NECESSARY for health or weight loss. I also think it's funny because a lot of us who say "clean eating" is a silly meaningless term and unnecessary have basically the same goals for how we eat as those who claim to "clean eat." We just don't use the term and are more honest about the fact that of course we eat processed foods and being "processed" doesn't make something bad.
For myself, as I said above, I even buy a lot of organic foods, since I like to eat seasonally and support local farms and I think local tends to taste better for many things. The farms I buy from are mostly organic (although I don't care about that, I care about small and local and humane treatment of animals), so in season I eat mostly organics. Out of season I don't, because I don't see a difference that is worth the price difference. But given that I have my own reason for choosing certain things I don't assume others also do not. I would only argue if they asserted that they way I (or others) eat is "unclean" or unhealthy because we don't do the same things they do.
Also, I've yet to try chia seeds. ;-)
And my question would be why do you get offended if I make an observation that I don't imply in any way is relative to your position or input on the matter? I see a lot of comments that could offend me if they applied to me, yet I take no offense unless someone intentionally attaches my name to a view I don't hold.
I guess because I'm actively involved in the discussion on the "side" you seem to think are making these objectionable claims (that everyone must eat cookies, that no one should buy organic) and I don't see people making them, and as you aren't responding to a specific comment but generalizing about what people are saying it seems as though you are referring to all of us questioning the claim that "clean eating" is somehow "optimal."
I didn't mention you or most others taking "sides". But instead, clarified my point....
Yeah, I saw that and appreciate it, but was answering the question.
I generally find it preferable to take issue with specific posts rather than vaguely generalizing about posters in a thread, as the ones you mean probably won't realize it and others might take offense. And you might be misreading the ones you are referring to and taking issue specifically might actually result in a clarification.
Do I always live by this advice? Sadly, no, and obviously you can dismiss it as stupid if you wish.For the record, I'm having organic non GMO bread, GMO canned tomatoes, non organic cheese, and beans of unknown origin for dinner. But I'm sure someone thinks that choice isn't the best.
I don't really think most people are that judgy unless others start going on about how their diets are superior, which results in push back.
I ate out here, because I was going to a play nearby: http://a10hydepark.com/food/ (I know there are a variety of posters who like to talk about how eating out is inherently bad, but I enjoy it).0 -
The OP was not defending the position that "clean" eating is not necessary and just a personal choice. It was grouping several eating styles and personal preferences under the term "clean" eating and then several posters went on to defend this position, that if you follow any of the eating styles mentioned in the OP, then you are for sure some crazy person trying to follow the latest fad who demonises anything that is not "clean".
That's not how I read it. I saw it as attacking the claim that "clean eating" is inherently healthier or important for health or weight loss (which is a common claim) by pointing to both the vagueness of the term (it's simply that some group of foods -- like grains or added sugar, often -- have been demonized as the problem and that cutting them out is "cleaner" or more virtuous or healthy). Typically the clean vs. not argument comes down to cutting out vs. including in moderation. I think cutting something out as a personal choice can be fine (I do it myself sometimes), but that's different from asserting that it's inherently healthier or better -- for example telling others that they need to cut out GMOs or eat organic or avoid diet soda.There appears to be a big group of posters who mock people not eating their way, and it is not the "clean" eaters doing this.
Disagree. I see the pushback as a response to others making dramatic claims that are not science-backed -- the whole "carbs are unhealthy" or "if you don't eat clean you must be hungry all the time or must not care about nutrition or must be eating McD's and Twinkies only." I especially get annoyed by the assertion that not eating clean means you don't care about nutrition, as I am very interested in nutrition and try to pay attention to the advice and try things to see how they affect me, and my conclusion is that the usual things insisted upon by clean eaters make no sense from a nutritional or scientific standpoint (i.e., eat NO processed food). Yet whenever I try to discuss it with people asserting that clean is the way, I get some straw man about how saying "what's wrong with processed food, most food is processed in some way and processed foods may be full of nutrients" somehow means I think we should live on cake alone.If you choose to avoid GMO, to avoid preservatives, to avoid pesticides, to avoid fast food or whatever, automatically you are some weird person who avoids everything and who demomises cookies and burgers.
No -- I choose to avoid lots of stuff (and even have said this on plenty of threads) and haven't gotten that reaction. I think you get this reaction if you tell others that they ought to avoid or be afraid of [insert food here]. Or maybe you are taking offense from posts that I'm just not? Who knows. I eat mostly organic product in season (not at the moment, since it is January) and get all my meat (except for fish and restaurant meals) and eggs from a local farm, and don't think I'm being called a weirdo (maybe I am, shrug), because I'm not asserting that this is necessary for good health or makes me healthier. It's a luxury that works for me, I have my reasons, and I'm lucky enough to have the option.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »But as often as not, the people that expose radical views seem to do so only with diets that they don't participate in. If you say sugar, they will defend that cutting sugars isn't needed. But if someone says Bulletproof Coffee, they claim it's only supported by people that don't understand science. The reality as I see it is that just about anything can be eaten and be healthy or unhealthy.
I agree with the third sentence here. My issue with the first two is that I don't see anyone saying bulletproof coffee (trendy as it is) can't be part of a healthy diet if you like it. What I see people arguing is (1) it is hypocritical to say that all added sugar is unhealthy because calories that don't add many nutrients and because sugar in excess is probably bad for you, but then promote as super healthy a high calorie beverage that doesn't really add any nutrients beyond that and is high in sat fat, which in excess is probably bad for you; and (2) claims that BPC are a superfood or important to include in a healthy diet or superior to just eating breakfast (with, gasp!, carbs and protein, as well as fat) are bogus.
If someone says "I drink BPC because I can't deal with food in the morning but get hungry and enjoy it and find it filling," I'd think that was quite reasonable (also, what others eat is none of my business and I don't pay attention unless they start making more general claims or judge others). I still wouldn't get it, as BPC sounds icky to me (so does coffee with sugar -- IMO, black is best and the only decent addition is milk), but obviously THAT is a matter of personal taste. I think cold cereal is disgusting too, but only because I do not like it, not because it is "unclean."0 -
Personally my onlymain issue with GMOs has nothing to do with safety or health but the issue of market share and how industrial seed selection impacts varietals. Today, at the the market, the number of types of potatoes and other vegetables was pretty good. Part of that, the high variety and focus on taste is a cultural pressure against production focused just on productivity ratios, storage and shipping. Pure classic economics tend to render variety much rarer, and taste secondary to other factors. I'm glad to see that taste and social pressures push back - even if some of the market pressures are non-rational. I get to still enjoy salsifes, black potatoes and topinambours.
Today's new taste was purple mangosteens.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »I'm glad to see that taste and social pressures push back - even if some of the market pressures are non-rational. I get to still enjoy salsifes, black potatoes and topinambours.
Agree with this.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Personally my onlymain issue with GMOs has nothing to do with safety or health but the issue of market share and how industrial seed selection impacts varietals. Today, at the the market, the number of types of potatoes and other vegetables was pretty good. Part of that, the high variety and focus on taste is a cultural pressure against production focused just on productivity ratios, storage and shipping. Pure classic economics tend to render variety much rarer, and taste secondary to other factors. I'm glad to see that taste and social pressures push back - even if some of the market pressures are non-rational. I get to still enjoy salsifes, black potatoes and topinambours.
Today's new taste was purple mangosteens.
Actually some GMO efforts are aimed at avoiding that issue. Consider GMO papaya - papaya was going extinct due to ringspot virus. GMO was used in part because the genes could be transferred to multiple varieties. Discovering a naturally immune cultivar would result in only that cultivar and its descendents surviving.
Similar work is being done to revive an extinct banana variety.
Most farmers have access to a variety of seeds from a given seed provider as well as varieties of farmers. Variability of farming conditions means perfectly homogenous seeds would never be economically efficient, unless crops became purely regional, like Idaho became the only place to grow potatoes and grew absolutely nothing else.
Personally, I'm opposed to corporations as entities at all but I don't think Monsanto is an example of the worst corporate abuses, and I don't think anti science laws should be used to express my anti-corporatism in politics.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions