Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Carbs cause cancer - Scientific proof
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Do you really consider the item in the pic to be "food"?
Some things that are food for us are poison to othe species and vice versa. Nature has no obligation in making things palatable to us.
Which is a totally different subject. Someone said "natural foods" are better and someone responded with a poisonous mushroom. I'm just not sure what the point was.
Because the mushroom is natural food, but certainly not safer for most people than any processed food, barring allergies to particular processed foods.
No, it's not natural food. It's not food at all. You are just being silly. Saying natural food is best is not even close to being the same as saying eating anything natural is best.
Using such ridiculousness what wouldn't be food? Because if natural food = everything natural, then wouldn't synthetic food = everything synthetic?
So no foods cause cancer because causing cancer is a forming of poisoning people, and thus any food that causes cancer must not be food. Threads done folks!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Do you really consider the item in the pic to be "food"?
Some things that are food for us are poison to othe species and vice versa. Nature has no obligation in making things palatable to us.
Which is a totally different subject. Someone said "natural foods" are better and someone responded with a poisonous mushroom. I'm just not sure what the point was.
Because the mushroom is natural food, but certainly not safer for most people than any processed food, barring allergies to particular processed foods.
No, it's not natural food. It's not food at all. You are just being silly. Saying natural food is best is not even close to being the same as saying eating anything natural is best.
Using such ridiculousness what wouldn't be food? Because if natural food = everything natural, then wouldn't synthetic food = everything synthetic?
So no foods cause cancer because causing cancer is a forming of poisoning people, and thus any food that causes cancer must not be food. Threads done folks!
What?? You've lost me again. WTH are you on about now?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Do you really consider the item in the pic to be "food"?
Some things that are food for us are poison to othe species and vice versa. Nature has no obligation in making things palatable to us.
Which is a totally different subject. Someone said "natural foods" are better and someone responded with a poisonous mushroom. I'm just not sure what the point was.
Because the mushroom is natural food, but certainly not safer for most people than any processed food, barring allergies to particular processed foods.
No, it's not natural food. It's not food at all. You are just being silly. Saying natural food is best is not even close to being the same as saying eating anything natural is best.
Using such ridiculousness what wouldn't be food? Because if natural food = everything natural, then wouldn't synthetic food = everything synthetic?
So no foods cause cancer because causing cancer is a forming of poisoning people, and thus any food that causes cancer must not be food. Threads done folks!
What?? You've lost me again. WTH are you on about now?
If that mushroom can't be food because it is poisonous, foods that cause cancer can't be food either. It is just slow acting poison.0 -
Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Do you really consider the item in the pic to be "food"?
Some things that are food for us are poison to othe species and vice versa. Nature has no obligation in making things palatable to us.
Which is a totally different subject. Someone said "natural foods" are better and someone responded with a poisonous mushroom. I'm just not sure what the point was.
Because the mushroom is natural food, but certainly not safer for most people than any processed food, barring allergies to particular processed foods.
No, it's not natural food. It's not food at all. You are just being silly. Saying natural food is best is not even close to being the same as saying eating anything natural is best.
Using such ridiculousness what wouldn't be food? Because if natural food = everything natural, then wouldn't synthetic food = everything synthetic?
So no foods cause cancer because causing cancer is a forming of poisoning people, and thus any food that causes cancer must not be food. Threads done folks!
What?? You've lost me again. WTH are you on about now?
If that mushroom can't be food because it is poisonous, foods that cause cancer can't be food either. It is just slow acting poison.
That's an odd leap to take. And again it sounds like you are saying everything is food.
But, perhaps you are right. Should these things we consume be considered food if they kill us? I imagine that is the point of the research.0 -
Well to a certain degree I believe human stupidity is definitely a major contributor.
Exhibit A. Time Lapse Map of Every (known) Nuclear Explosion Since 1945
Try guessing how many there are by the end of the video.
https://youtu.be/uNE47ikLDTY
Not many people are aware of how many nukes we have actually released into the atmosphere, most are shocked by the tally at the end of the video.0 -
If It Fits Your Mouth-hole #YOLONeed2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Do you really consider the item in the pic to be "food"?
Some things that are food for us are poison to othe species and vice versa. Nature has no obligation in making things palatable to us.
Which is a totally different subject. Someone said "natural foods" are better and someone responded with a poisonous mushroom. I'm just not sure what the point was.
Because the mushroom is natural food, but certainly not safer for most people than any processed food, barring allergies to particular processed foods.
No, it's not natural food. It's not food at all. You are just being silly. Saying natural food is best is not even close to being the same as saying eating anything natural is best.
Using such ridiculousness what wouldn't be food? Because if natural food = everything natural, then wouldn't synthetic food = everything synthetic?
So no foods cause cancer because causing cancer is a forming of poisoning people, and thus any food that causes cancer must not be food. Threads done folks!
What?? You've lost me again. WTH are you on about now?
If that mushroom can't be food because it is poisonous, foods that cause cancer can't be food either. It is just slow acting poison.
That's an odd leap to take. And again it sounds like you are saying everything is food.
But, perhaps you are right. Should these things we consume be considered food if they kill us? I imagine that is the point of the research.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
For the mushroom, it doesn't even have to be dumb humans. Even wilderness survival and mushroom experts die from time to time eating wild mushrooms they were sure they had classified properly.0 -
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
For the mushroom, it doesn't even have to be dumb humans. Even wilderness survival and mushroom experts die from time to time eating wild mushrooms they were sure they had classified properly.
Right, they thought it was food.0 -
If It Fits Your Mouth-hole #YOLONeed2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Do you really consider the item in the pic to be "food"?
Some things that are food for us are poison to othe species and vice versa. Nature has no obligation in making things palatable to us.
Which is a totally different subject. Someone said "natural foods" are better and someone responded with a poisonous mushroom. I'm just not sure what the point was.
Because the mushroom is natural food, but certainly not safer for most people than any processed food, barring allergies to particular processed foods.
No, it's not natural food. It's not food at all. You are just being silly. Saying natural food is best is not even close to being the same as saying eating anything natural is best.
Using such ridiculousness what wouldn't be food? Because if natural food = everything natural, then wouldn't synthetic food = everything synthetic?
So no foods cause cancer because causing cancer is a forming of poisoning people, and thus any food that causes cancer must not be food. Threads done folks!
What?? You've lost me again. WTH are you on about now?
If that mushroom can't be food because it is poisonous, foods that cause cancer can't be food either. It is just slow acting poison.
That's an odd leap to take. And again it sounds like you are saying everything is food.
But, perhaps you are right. Should these things we consume be considered food if they kill us? I imagine that is the point of the research.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
For the mushroom, it doesn't even have to be dumb humans. Even wilderness survival and mushroom experts die from time to time eating wild mushrooms they were sure they had classified properly.
Right, they thought it was food.
So do some foods become not foods retroactively when they kill people? Fugu is a delicacy made of the puffer fish - make it wrong and you're dead. When it kills someone, was that fugu not food, but other fugu is food?
What about almonds? Wild varieties can vary in their level of cyanide, enough to be poisonous. Does such an almond retroactively stop being food?
Acorns similarly are poisonous and domesticating them too difficult because the genes for it are on multiple alleles of inheritance unlike almonds. You'd need some Mendelian diagrams to become the would be acorn farmer, particularly given the life time of the plant. Still, cooking them makes them edible, and some varieties are safe even raw (don't try it oneself). Are they food or not?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
No, I'm not discrediting that. I don't think of it so much as "sugar causes cancer", but more so "excess sugar can increase the risk of cancer/ increase the chance of recurrence".ForecasterJason wrote: »
My guess is that overall, early treatment and detection are the main causes (assuming that cancer rates are indeed decreasing). But it doesn't mean that diet isn't playing a negative role.Why is it that due to research, cancer rates are falling, where as sugar intake is increasing?
So you believe an unproved study but deny statistics?
Nobody suggests that diet doesnt play a negative role but to suggest that sugar causes cancer is just emblematic of the scaremongering in the food industry which 'experts' use to gain attention and money.
So the same as excess of pretty much anything causes cancer, deficiency-related disease, etc....
The title of the forum was 'Carbs cause cancer - Scientific proof'. That is just not true. It is typical of the dietary scaremongering that make people money.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
I didn't know there were edible mushrooms that look like the fly mushroom.
I only know there's a really deadly one that looks like white button mushrooms.0 -
I'm so bummed by the nuclear bomb thing. So many bombs.
... and now Belgium.0 -
No food that I know about 'causes' cancer as we think of cancer today. While carbs as in the OP can increase the risk of developing cancer carbs did not 'cause' cancer.
We all have cancer cells in our bodies today but we do not say we have 'cancer'. Cancer in a medical sense comes long after we have had cancer cells in our bodies. When the cancer cells become a mass/tumor and/or is spreading to other body parts is when we can best detect cancer in the body.
What 'causes' cancer as I understand it today is a weak/failing immune system that does not kill cancer cells before they start to divide.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
For the mushroom, it doesn't even have to be dumb humans. Even wilderness survival and mushroom experts die from time to time eating wild mushrooms they were sure they had classified properly.
Right, they thought it was food.
So do some foods become not foods retroactively when they kill people? Fugu is a delicacy made of the puffer fish - make it wrong and you're dead. When it kills someone, was that fugu not food, but other fugu is food?
What about almonds? Wild varieties can vary in their level of cyanide, enough to be poisonous. Does such an almond retroactively stop being food?
Acorns similarly are poisonous and domesticating them too difficult because the genes for it are on multiple alleles of inheritance unlike almonds. You'd need some Mendelian diagrams to become the would be acorn farmer, particularly given the life time of the plant. Still, cooking them makes them edible, and some varieties are safe even raw (don't try it oneself). Are they food or not?
Google tells me a simple definition of food is:
any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.
synonyms: nourishment, sustenance, nutriment, fare;
I'm good with that. Poisonous substances wouldn't fit that definition, even if they look like or are a botanical relative of something that does.0 -
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »No food that I know about 'causes' cancer as we think of cancer today. While carbs as in the OP can increase the risk of developing cancer carbs did not 'cause' cancer.
We all have cancer cells in our bodies today but we do not say we have 'cancer'. Cancer in a medical sense comes long after we have had cancer cells in our bodies. When the cancer cells become a mass/tumor and/or is spreading to other body parts is when we can best detect cancer in the body.
What 'causes' cancer as I understand it today is a weak/failing immune system that does not kill cancer cells before they start to divide.
Thanks for this.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
I'm pretty sure those mushrooms contain nutrients too along with the poison, making it a food to anything that isn't bothered by the poison. Bleach probably doesn't.
Hot peppers are hot to stop the wrong animals from eating them, including us. They give us a reaction similar to burning our mouths or being exposed to irritative chemicals and can give actual health concerns if there was more capsaicin in it than you can handle. Many people still love it spicy even though it gives you the feeling of pain.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
For the mushroom, it doesn't even have to be dumb humans. Even wilderness survival and mushroom experts die from time to time eating wild mushrooms they were sure they had classified properly.
Right, they thought it was food.
So do some foods become not foods retroactively when they kill people? Fugu is a delicacy made of the puffer fish - make it wrong and you're dead. When it kills someone, was that fugu not food, but other fugu is food?
What about almonds? Wild varieties can vary in their level of cyanide, enough to be poisonous. Does such an almond retroactively stop being food?
Acorns similarly are poisonous and domesticating them too difficult because the genes for it are on multiple alleles of inheritance unlike almonds. You'd need some Mendelian diagrams to become the would be acorn farmer, particularly given the life time of the plant. Still, cooking them makes them edible, and some varieties are safe even raw (don't try it oneself). Are they food or not?
Google tells me a simple definition of food is:
any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.
synonyms: nourishment, sustenance, nutriment, fare;
I'm good with that. Poisonous substances wouldn't fit that definition, even if they look like or are a botanical relative of something that does.
Ah but there you have it in your own definition. People or animals. So something that is poisonous to us but not some species of animals would still be a food, even if you can't eat it.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
I didn't know there were edible mushrooms that look like the fly mushroom.
I only know there's a really deadly one that looks like white button mushrooms.
Yes, there are.
http://themushroomforager.com/2010/09/21/amanitas-from-deadly-to-delicious/
See also: http://northernbushcraft.com/mushrooms/
It was super confusing. We had the fly mushrooms pop up in our backyard constantly.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
For the mushroom, it doesn't even have to be dumb humans. Even wilderness survival and mushroom experts die from time to time eating wild mushrooms they were sure they had classified properly.
Right, they thought it was food.
So do some foods become not foods retroactively when they kill people? Fugu is a delicacy made of the puffer fish - make it wrong and you're dead. When it kills someone, was that fugu not food, but other fugu is food?
What about almonds? Wild varieties can vary in their level of cyanide, enough to be poisonous. Does such an almond retroactively stop being food?
Acorns similarly are poisonous and domesticating them too difficult because the genes for it are on multiple alleles of inheritance unlike almonds. You'd need some Mendelian diagrams to become the would be acorn farmer, particularly given the life time of the plant. Still, cooking them makes them edible, and some varieties are safe even raw (don't try it oneself). Are they food or not?
Google tells me a simple definition of food is:
any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.
synonyms: nourishment, sustenance, nutriment, fare;
I'm good with that. Poisonous substances wouldn't fit that definition, even if they look like or are a botanical relative of something that does.
So if there is an animal that could eat that mushroom and survive, it is food?
That still avoids the question about things that are, in fact, the same thing. A poisonous almond is only one gene off from regular one. Does the gene stop it from being food, even if we only find out post mortem - well we don't find out if we're the mortem, but still...0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
I'm pretty sure those mushrooms contain nutrients too along with the poison, making it a food to anything that isn't bothered by the poison. Bleach probably doesn't.
Hot peppers are hot to stop the wrong animals from eating them, including us. They give us a reaction similar to burning our mouths or being exposed to irritative chemicals and can give actual health concerns if there was more capsaicin in it than you can handle. Many people still love it spicy even though it gives you the feeling of pain.
Hot Peppers? They're for the birds!0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
For the mushroom, it doesn't even have to be dumb humans. Even wilderness survival and mushroom experts die from time to time eating wild mushrooms they were sure they had classified properly.
Right, they thought it was food.
So do some foods become not foods retroactively when they kill people? Fugu is a delicacy made of the puffer fish - make it wrong and you're dead. When it kills someone, was that fugu not food, but other fugu is food?
What about almonds? Wild varieties can vary in their level of cyanide, enough to be poisonous. Does such an almond retroactively stop being food?
Acorns similarly are poisonous and domesticating them too difficult because the genes for it are on multiple alleles of inheritance unlike almonds. You'd need some Mendelian diagrams to become the would be acorn farmer, particularly given the life time of the plant. Still, cooking them makes them edible, and some varieties are safe even raw (don't try it oneself). Are they food or not?
Google tells me a simple definition of food is:
any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.
synonyms: nourishment, sustenance, nutriment, fare;
I'm good with that. Poisonous substances wouldn't fit that definition, even if they look like or are a botanical relative of something that does.
Ah but there you have it in your own definition. People or animals. So something that is poisonous to us but not some species of animals would still be a food, even if you can't eat it.
Well sure, it would be food for them.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
For the mushroom, it doesn't even have to be dumb humans. Even wilderness survival and mushroom experts die from time to time eating wild mushrooms they were sure they had classified properly.
Right, they thought it was food.
So do some foods become not foods retroactively when they kill people? Fugu is a delicacy made of the puffer fish - make it wrong and you're dead. When it kills someone, was that fugu not food, but other fugu is food?
What about almonds? Wild varieties can vary in their level of cyanide, enough to be poisonous. Does such an almond retroactively stop being food?
Acorns similarly are poisonous and domesticating them too difficult because the genes for it are on multiple alleles of inheritance unlike almonds. You'd need some Mendelian diagrams to become the would be acorn farmer, particularly given the life time of the plant. Still, cooking them makes them edible, and some varieties are safe even raw (don't try it oneself). Are they food or not?
Google tells me a simple definition of food is:
any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.
synonyms: nourishment, sustenance, nutriment, fare;
I'm good with that. Poisonous substances wouldn't fit that definition, even if they look like or are a botanical relative of something that does.
So if there is an animal that could eat that mushroom and survive, it is food?
That still avoids the question about things that are, in fact, the same thing. A poisonous almond is only one gene off from regular one. Does the gene stop it from being food, even if we only find out post mortem - well we don't find out if we're the mortem, but still...
The mushroom would be food for that creature, but that wouldn't make it food for humans.
And yes, absolutely if we consider something food and then find out it is killing us we should stop considering it food. What sense would there be in continuing to eat something that harms us just because we used to eat it?
Time for a hike.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
For the mushroom, it doesn't even have to be dumb humans. Even wilderness survival and mushroom experts die from time to time eating wild mushrooms they were sure they had classified properly.
Right, they thought it was food.
So do some foods become not foods retroactively when they kill people? Fugu is a delicacy made of the puffer fish - make it wrong and you're dead. When it kills someone, was that fugu not food, but other fugu is food?
What about almonds? Wild varieties can vary in their level of cyanide, enough to be poisonous. Does such an almond retroactively stop being food?
Acorns similarly are poisonous and domesticating them too difficult because the genes for it are on multiple alleles of inheritance unlike almonds. You'd need some Mendelian diagrams to become the would be acorn farmer, particularly given the life time of the plant. Still, cooking them makes them edible, and some varieties are safe even raw (don't try it oneself). Are they food or not?
Google tells me a simple definition of food is:
any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.
synonyms: nourishment, sustenance, nutriment, fare;
I'm good with that. Poisonous substances wouldn't fit that definition, even if they look like or are a botanical relative of something that does.
So if there is an animal that could eat that mushroom and survive, it is food?
That still avoids the question about things that are, in fact, the same thing. A poisonous almond is only one gene off from regular one. Does the gene stop it from being food, even if we only find out post mortem - well we don't find out if we're the mortem, but still...
The mushroom would be food for that creature, but that wouldn't make it food for humans.
And yes, absolutely if we consider something food and then find out it is killing us we should stop considering it food. What sense would there be in continuing to eat something that harms us just because we used to eat it?
Time for a hike.
At the risk at sounding like cookie monster, does that mean almonds are sometimes a food, and sometimes not a food?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
I didn't know there were edible mushrooms that look like the fly mushroom.
I only know there's a really deadly one that looks like white button mushrooms.
Yes, there are.
http://themushroomforager.com/2010/09/21/amanitas-from-deadly-to-delicious/
See also: http://northernbushcraft.com/mushrooms/
It was super confusing. We had the fly mushrooms pop up in our backyard constantly.
Destroying angel is the most metal name for a mushroom ever.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
I didn't know there were edible mushrooms that look like the fly mushroom.
I only know there's a really deadly one that looks like white button mushrooms.
Yes, there are.
http://themushroomforager.com/2010/09/21/amanitas-from-deadly-to-delicious/
See also: http://northernbushcraft.com/mushrooms/
It was super confusing. We had the fly mushrooms pop up in our backyard constantly.
Destroying angel is the most metal name for a mushroom ever.
Alaska is very metal.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions