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.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »This whole argument ties into my belief that there are two kinds of people in the world. Victims and Just-Get-On-With-It types.
We see it all the time on these forums and I know we all see it a hundred times a day IRL too.
The former hangs on to the past (past hurts/past events/past perceived injustices) and the latter looks to the next thing and how they can contribute in a meaningful, helpful way.
You can live in fear or live in faith - pick a side carefully.
Some people truly are victims though and deserve care and therapy to put the pieces of their lives back together. Even if they tried to just get on with it, they'd end up mentally ill through repressing and failing to deal with their past traumas. I think your opinion is too dismissive of trauma and doesn't recognise the impact it can have on a person's physical and mental health.
Everyone has (PAST) trauma.
Would you care to play, "My trauma is worse than your trauma?" I'm pretty sure I could hold my own in that.
My point is that the world goes forward, not backward. It's okay to have moments of sadness and grief and fear, but to then make that your life-view is tragic and a slap in the face to the rest of us who do deal with our pasts and do move on.
A tragic/scary/horrible event does not have to define anyone's life. Sure, they will continue to get triggered every now and then, but to give into those fears gives the PAST power. There is no power in the past. It is an illusion.
Hmmm I honestly don't think you could "hold your own" because it is clear you have zero understanding of trauma and absolutely no empathy for sufferers of PTSD. "Moments of sadness, grief and fear" indeed!
I almost want to see this play out.
I'd even be willing to jump in, because I KNOW I can hold my own.3 -
Frozen bourbon gummy bear ice cubes.
Excellent.
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »This whole argument ties into my belief that there are two kinds of people in the world. Victims and Just-Get-On-With-It types.
We see it all the time on these forums and I know we all see it a hundred times a day IRL too.
The former hangs on to the past (past hurts/past events/past perceived injustices) and the latter looks to the next thing and how they can contribute in a meaningful, helpful way.
You can live in fear or live in faith - pick a side carefully.
Some people truly are victims though and deserve care and therapy to put the pieces of their lives back together. Even if they tried to just get on with it, they'd end up mentally ill through repressing and failing to deal with their past traumas. I think your opinion is too dismissive of trauma and doesn't recognise the impact it can have on a person's physical and mental health.
Everyone has (PAST) trauma.
Would you care to play, "My trauma is worse than your trauma?" I'm pretty sure I could hold my own in that.
My point is that the world goes forward, not backward. It's okay to have moments of sadness and grief and fear, but to then make that your life-view is tragic and a slap in the face to the rest of us who do deal with our pasts and do move on.
A tragic/scary/horrible event does not have to define anyone's life. Sure, they will continue to get triggered every now and then, but to give into those fears gives the PAST power. There is no power in the past. It is an illusion.
Hmmm I honestly don't think you could "hold your own" because it is clear you have zero understanding of trauma and absolutely no empathy for sufferers of PTSD. "Moments of sadness, grief and fear" indeed!
I am not going to go toe-to-toe with you about my trauma vs anyone else's. I have empathy, but there is a way out. I hope you find it.
Then why make the offer? Did I call you on a bluff? Lol. Poor you. You are too funny.-6 -
This content has been removed.
-
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »This whole argument ties into my belief that there are two kinds of people in the world. Victims and Just-Get-On-With-It types.
We see it all the time on these forums and I know we all see it a hundred times a day IRL too.
The former hangs on to the past (past hurts/past events/past perceived injustices) and the latter looks to the next thing and how they can contribute in a meaningful, helpful way.
You can live in fear or live in faith - pick a side carefully.
Some people truly are victims though and deserve care and therapy to put the pieces of their lives back together. Even if they tried to just get on with it, they'd end up mentally ill through repressing and failing to deal with their past traumas. I think your opinion is too dismissive of trauma and doesn't recognise the impact it can have on a person's physical and mental health.
Everyone has (PAST) trauma.
Would you care to play, "My trauma is worse than your trauma?" I'm pretty sure I could hold my own in that.
My point is that the world goes forward, not backward. It's okay to have moments of sadness and grief and fear, but to then make that your life-view is tragic and a slap in the face to the rest of us who do deal with our pasts and do move on.
A tragic/scary/horrible event does not have to define anyone's life. Sure, they will continue to get triggered every now and then, but to give into those fears gives the PAST power. There is no power in the past. It is an illusion.
Hmmm I honestly don't think you could "hold your own" because it is clear you have zero understanding of trauma and absolutely no empathy for sufferers of PTSD. "Moments of sadness, grief and fear" indeed!
I am not going to go toe-to-toe with you about my trauma vs anyone else's. I have empathy, but there is a way out. I hope you find it.
I think that's about 99% of the conflict over the internet. It's a sad race of whose suffering and victim status is greater.
Simple solution - don't be a victim.9 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »This whole argument ties into my belief that there are two kinds of people in the world. Victims and Just-Get-On-With-It types.
We see it all the time on these forums and I know we all see it a hundred times a day IRL too.
The former hangs on to the past (past hurts/past events/past perceived injustices) and the latter looks to the next thing and how they can contribute in a meaningful, helpful way.
You can live in fear or live in faith - pick a side carefully.
Some people truly are victims though and deserve care and therapy to put the pieces of their lives back together. Even if they tried to just get on with it, they'd end up mentally ill through repressing and failing to deal with their past traumas. I think your opinion is too dismissive of trauma and doesn't recognise the impact it can have on a person's physical and mental health.
Everyone has (PAST) trauma.
Would you care to play, "My trauma is worse than your trauma?" I'm pretty sure I could hold my own in that.
My point is that the world goes forward, not backward. It's okay to have moments of sadness and grief and fear, but to then make that your life-view is tragic and a slap in the face to the rest of us who do deal with our pasts and do move on.
A tragic/scary/horrible event does not have to define anyone's life. Sure, they will continue to get triggered every now and then, but to give into those fears gives the PAST power. There is no power in the past. It is an illusion.
Hmmm I honestly don't think you could "hold your own" because it is clear you have zero understanding of trauma and absolutely no empathy for sufferers of PTSD. "Moments of sadness, grief and fear" indeed!
I am not going to go toe-to-toe with you about my trauma vs anyone else's. I have empathy, but there is a way out. I hope you find it.
Then why make the offer? Did I call you on a bluff? Lol. Poor you. You are too funny.
ha. You first. List your trauma(s).
C'mon, this isn't the place to have a therapy session. There are many sites for anxiety/depression/PTSD whatever you want to call it. There is plenty of help out there, but the healing comes from within. There is no reason to live in the past. None.
I stand by my point that rehashing past stuff ad infinitum and using it as an excuse for remaining a victim is the weak approach. Personal power is found in hope, overcoming, faith, and joy.
6 -
Report submission on the introduction of Bourbon Bears into bourbon:
After introducing bourbon (Eagle Rare) into a gelulose matrix I tested stated bears at 23 C, -18 C, and -196 C. At room temp the gel matrix is weakened and while delivering a complimentary sweet flavor to the drink it degrades and has a strange texture.
Sample at -18 C came to room temperature quickly and held matrix solidly - delivering a complimentary sweet flavor to the drink and chilling slightly.
Sample at -196 C held temp longer and melted in a fashion similar to a water based structure. By far superior - delivering a very complimentary flavor.
If you have access to liquid nitrogen - this is awesome! I'm freezing gummy bears at my next party and adding these to the drinks.
I like the way you party!1 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
Organic is a scam and a waste of money
GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
o
You might be surprised, but many advocates for GMO labelling weren't asking for it due to safety concerns but for religious reasons. Their religious leaders view genetic modification as playing God and therefore immoral. So they do not want to support what they view to be an immoral industry. This isn't different from requests to label kosher or halal food, so why object to labelling GMOs?
Organic is similarly labelled and desired for by many for moral reasons. Many people buying organic believe in the tenets of organic food production which have higher environmental and animal welfare standards than conventional means. If people are willing to pay extra for eggs produced by free range chickens because free range chickens are happier than barn raised chickens, why not allow that market to exist?
Actually, kosher concerns are one reason that GMO labeling is advocated. All fruits and vegetables in nature are kosher by definition. Insects are not. So, if the fresh tomatoes I buy have been modified by firefly genes, this could be a concern. (The debate is ongoing; some kosher authorities say that it is, some that it isn't. But clearly, without specific labeling, there's no way for the average consumer to be sure whether the produce they're buying raises these issues.)
That would be the same as labelling everything "not kosher" instead of the few things that are "kosher", though.
More like labeling products nut-free or 'this product was produced in a factory that uses nuts, soy, dairy, peanuts, and wheat'. I've seen both. Not sure whether such labeling is mandatory (it could well vary by location), but I think I'm safe in assuming that someone with a food allergy would pay attention to such things and, depending on the severity of their allergy, such labeling might well impact their decision.
So everyone that feels it would boost their sales pointing out that they don't use GMO is free to put that on their label.2 -
Oh you people are going to hate me.
- Artificial flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners are terrible for you. If your a paleo preacher, you shouldn't defend artificial sweeteners in the same breath.
- If companies like Nestle, Tyson and McDonald's can make a buck by selling you poison in a box, they will not only do it, but will higher entire universities to figure out the best way to systematically do it, with the highest return. It's also strange how the same people who argue for their right to do so, are the same people that will deny they do so.
- Organic is not the scam, Coca-Cola, fast food, the Corn industry, factory farms, and Monsanto are the scam.
- The rise in obesity and heart disease is do in part to a systematic approach to profit as much as possible against the cost of your health...
- Last thought, I hear all the time about people "giving up" or "quitting" soda. It's not easy, most experience headaches and feel like crap while trying to quit. Many fail, or have to whim themselves off over time..... Come on! What the *kitten* are they putting in our food that grown adults have such a hard time "quitting" something like soda... How in the hell is some poor little boy or girl going to stand a chance against billion dollar industries with a university of chemist behind them.
- These companies also pay food engineers to come on forums like mfp to defend their products.39 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Muscles do not mean fit or healthy at all.
The visceral fat levels, the cholesterol levels and risk of heart disease in of a lot of lifters is really concerning for them, but if you comment on it you're jel?
A clean diet and cardio (20 minutes hard work 3-5 times a week) can supplement your lifting and drive down the cholesterol and visceral fat levels...
You have access to their medical records and serum cholesterol? Or are you making an unsubstantiated assumption.
Queue the lifter to ignore the point of the post... I've highlighted the key words by bolding them up for you...
I don't need their medical records. I see it daily when I measure lifters body composition statistics at the gym. So they're not unsubstantiated either in my experience.
You do serum blood cholesterol testing at your gym?
Also, what about my question or my profile makes you think that I'm a lifter.
Hint: I'm not.
Or accurate body composition measurements down to differentiating subcutaneous and visceral fat for that matter.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
Organic is a scam and a waste of money
GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
o
You might be surprised, but many advocates for GMO labelling weren't asking for it due to safety concerns but for religious reasons. Their religious leaders view genetic modification as playing God and therefore immoral. So they do not want to support what they view to be an immoral industry. This isn't different from requests to label kosher or halal food, so why object to labelling GMOs?
Organic is similarly labelled and desired for by many for moral reasons. Many people buying organic believe in the tenets of organic food production which have higher environmental and animal welfare standards than conventional means. If people are willing to pay extra for eggs produced by free range chickens because free range chickens are happier than barn raised chickens, why not allow that market to exist?
Actually, kosher concerns are one reason that GMO labeling is advocated. All fruits and vegetables in nature are kosher by definition. Insects are not. So, if the fresh tomatoes I buy have been modified by firefly genes, this could be a concern. (The debate is ongoing; some kosher authorities say that it is, some that it isn't. But clearly, without specific labeling, there's no way for the average consumer to be sure whether the produce they're buying raises these issues.)
That would be the same as labelling everything "not kosher" instead of the few things that are "kosher", though.
More like labeling products nut-free or 'this product was produced in a factory that uses nuts, soy, dairy, peanuts, and wheat'. I've seen both. Not sure whether such labeling is mandatory (it could well vary by location), but I think I'm safe in assuming that someone with a food allergy would pay attention to such things and, depending on the severity of their allergy, such labeling might well impact their decision.
So everyone that feels it would boost their sales pointing out that they don't use GMO is free to put that on their label.
Labeling in the USA is voluntary for GMOs by the FDA BUT if they do label as a GMO or non-GMO, then the FDA can investigate "mislabeling" of food products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. So it may boost sales but they have to be able to prove it if they put it on the label on way or another.
https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm059098.htm#A
ETA: bourbon gummy bears is on my to-do list now
ETA2: Also, I had no idea GMO aversion could be religious linked, I thought it was just weird fear mongering. Thanks to everyone who helped clarify that!2 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »Oh you people are going to hate me.
- Artificial flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners are terrible for you. If your a paleo preacher, you shouldn't defend artificial sweeteners in the same breath.
- If companies like Nestle, Tyson and McDonald's can make a buck by selling you poison in a box, they will not only do it, but will higher entire universities to figure out the best way to systematically do it, with the highest return. It's also strange how the same people who argue for their right to do so, are the same people that will deny they do so.
- Organic is not the scam, Coca-Cola, fast food, the Corn industry, factory farms, and Monsanto are the scam.
- The rise in obesity and heart disease is do in part to a systematic approach to profit as much as possible against the cost of your health...
- Last thought, I hear all the time about people "giving up" or "quitting" soda. It's not easy, most experience headaches and feel like crap while trying to quit. Many fail, or have to whim themselves off over time..... Come on! What the *kitten* are they putting are food that grown adults have such a hard time "quitting" something like soda... How in the hell is some poor little boy or girl going to stand a chance against billion dollar industries with a university of chemist behind them.
- These companies also pay food engineers to come on forums like mfp to defend their products.
Because as everyone knows, dead customers buy the most stuff.
Also "what they put in" soda is called caffeine, you might know it from drinks such as coffee and is probably the most deadly thing in a can of soda, i.e. it has the lowest lethal dose.18 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »Oh you people are going to hate me.
- Artificial flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners are terrible for you. If your a paleo preacher, you shouldn't defend artificial sweeteners in the same breath.
I've never seen a "paleo preacher" defend artificial flavors.- If companies like Nestle, Tyson and McDonald's can make a buck by selling you poison in a box, they will not only do it, but will higher entire universities to figure out the best way to systematically do it, with the highest return. It's also strange how the same people who argue for their right to do so, are the same people that will deny they do so.
If it was poison in a box, people would be dying instead of going back for more.- Organic is not the scam, Coca-Cola, fast food, the Corn industry, factory farms, and Monsanto are the scam.
Yes, it's Monsanto's fault that children are starving in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Somalia. And Organic is the solution.- The rise in obesity and heart disease is do in part to a systematic approach to profit as much as possible against the cost of your health...
- Last thought, I hear all the time about people "giving up" or "quitting" soda. It's not easy, most experience headaches and feel like crap while trying to quit. Many fail, or have to whim themselves off over time..... Come on! What the *kitten* are they putting are food that grown adults have such a hard time "quitting" something like soda... How in the hell is some poor little boy or girl going to stand a chance against billion dollar industries with a university of chemist behind them.
Caffeine addiction/dependency is a real thing. Just like Heroin, It's possible to quit.- These companies also pay food engineers to come on forums like mfp to defend their products.
3 -
I wonder if "organic" food companies pay food engineers to come on forums to lie about non-organic foods. Also why would you need food engineers for that, seems like it would be out of their area of expertise, rather a marketing or social media person.11
-
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »
- These companies also pay food engineers to come on forums like mfp to defend their products.
By this logic organic companies would engage in the same practice, as would every special interest group.
How effective are internet debates in your experience?
There's a key concept in business known as Return On Investment (ROI). I can't imagine putting together a strategic proposal to the board to pay an engineer's annual salary and have them devote time to policing an internet forum.7 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »
- These companies also pay food engineers to come on forums like mfp to defend their products.
Just when I thought this conversation couldn't get any weirder. Why hasn't anybody told me we're supposed to be paid for saying it's okay to not get an anxiety attack every time you pass by a McDonald's?16 -
jseams1234 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
Organic is a scam and a waste of money
GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
You don't really need 8 glasses of water- thirst exists for a reason
Almost no one can follow a fad diet forever- and healthful changes will only last with a change you can sustain for the long haul
That's all I got for now
Science>woo
You might find more and more people are seeing this. Although there are still a lot of propaganda driven "mocumentaries" out there.
Even sarcasm wouldn't make that comment appropriate...
Lol.
@nutmegoreo - they deleted that mean post I was multi-quoting and left part of yours still up - makes it look like I was just quoting you and pepptpea, so I get flagged. heh
I saw that. :laugh: you shouldn't be so mean to me
3 -
stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
Organic is a scam and a waste of money
GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
o
You might be surprised, but many advocates for GMO labelling weren't asking for it due to safety concerns but for religious reasons. Their religious leaders view genetic modification as playing God and therefore immoral. So they do not want to support what they view to be an immoral industry. This isn't different from requests to label kosher or halal food, so why object to labelling GMOs?
Organic is similarly labelled and desired for by many for moral reasons. Many people buying organic believe in the tenets of organic food production which have higher environmental and animal welfare standards than conventional means. If people are willing to pay extra for eggs produced by free range chickens because free range chickens are happier than barn raised chickens, why not allow that market to exist?
Actually, kosher concerns are one reason that GMO labeling is advocated. All fruits and vegetables in nature are kosher by definition. Insects are not. So, if the fresh tomatoes I buy have been modified by firefly genes, this could be a concern. (The debate is ongoing; some kosher authorities say that it is, some that it isn't. But clearly, without specific labeling, there's no way for the average consumer to be sure whether the produce they're buying raises these issues.)
That would be the same as labelling everything "not kosher" instead of the few things that are "kosher", though.
More like labeling products nut-free or 'this product was produced in a factory that uses nuts, soy, dairy, peanuts, and wheat'. I've seen both. Not sure whether such labeling is mandatory (it could well vary by location), but I think I'm safe in assuming that someone with a food allergy would pay attention to such things and, depending on the severity of their allergy, such labeling might well impact their decision.
So everyone that feels it would boost their sales pointing out that they don't use GMO is free to put that on their label.
The nut-free label is a little different because people with severe nut allergies could *kitten* die if they ate something they did not know had nuts. It's not a matter of preference or personal issues with it.
In regards to the non-GMO label, this is something which manufactures ALREADY DO. Because they believe paying to have the certification through the non-GMO project has a positive ROI based on consumer preference and people buying into that woo.
3 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »
- These companies also pay food engineers to come on forums like mfp to defend their products.
Speaking of which, is anyone else's check late this month?17 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »
- These companies also pay food engineers to come on forums like mfp to defend their products.
Speaking of which, is anyone else's check late this month?
<runstomailbox>
Damn.
7 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
Organic is a scam and a waste of money
GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
o
You might be surprised, but many advocates for GMO labelling weren't asking for it due to safety concerns but for religious reasons. Their religious leaders view genetic modification as playing God and therefore immoral. So they do not want to support what they view to be an immoral industry. This isn't different from requests to label kosher or halal food, so why object to labelling GMOs?
Organic is similarly labelled and desired for by many for moral reasons. Many people buying organic believe in the tenets of organic food production which have higher environmental and animal welfare standards than conventional means. If people are willing to pay extra for eggs produced by free range chickens because free range chickens are happier than barn raised chickens, why not allow that market to exist?
Actually, kosher concerns are one reason that GMO labeling is advocated. All fruits and vegetables in nature are kosher by definition. Insects are not. So, if the fresh tomatoes I buy have been modified by firefly genes, this could be a concern. (The debate is ongoing; some kosher authorities say that it is, some that it isn't. But clearly, without specific labeling, there's no way for the average consumer to be sure whether the produce they're buying raises these issues.)
That would be the same as labelling everything "not kosher" instead of the few things that are "kosher", though.
More like labeling products nut-free or 'this product was produced in a factory that uses nuts, soy, dairy, peanuts, and wheat'. I've seen both. Not sure whether such labeling is mandatory (it could well vary by location), but I think I'm safe in assuming that someone with a food allergy would pay attention to such things and, depending on the severity of their allergy, such labeling might well impact their decision.
So everyone that feels it would boost their sales pointing out that they don't use GMO is free to put that on their label.
The nut-free label is a little different because people with severe nut allergies could *kitten* die if they ate something they did not know had nuts. It's not a matter of preference or personal issues with it.
In regards to the non-GMO label, this is something which manufactures ALREADY DO. Because they believe paying to have the certification through the non-GMO project has a positive ROI based on consumer preference and people buying into that woo.
I agree. And if people see "contains GMO" on a label they'd probably be like "see I told you they're dangerous, why else would they need to label them like allergens and phenylanine and stuff?"5 -
I didn't even know there were corn chips that were still non GMO. The more you know.1
-
cmriverside wrote: »I didn't even know there were corn chips that were still non GMO. The more you know.
Sweet corn is still almost exclusively non-GMO, although some GMO varieties have started to make inroads. The bulk of corn (90%) is grown is for animal feed and ethanol. Those varieties are the ones which are heavily GMO.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
Organic is a scam and a waste of money
GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
o
You might be surprised, but many advocates for GMO labelling weren't asking for it due to safety concerns but for religious reasons. Their religious leaders view genetic modification as playing God and therefore immoral. So they do not want to support what they view to be an immoral industry. This isn't different from requests to label kosher or halal food, so why object to labelling GMOs?
Organic is similarly labelled and desired for by many for moral reasons. Many people buying organic believe in the tenets of organic food production which have higher environmental and animal welfare standards than conventional means. If people are willing to pay extra for eggs produced by free range chickens because free range chickens are happier than barn raised chickens, why not allow that market to exist?
Actually, kosher concerns are one reason that GMO labeling is advocated. All fruits and vegetables in nature are kosher by definition. Insects are not. So, if the fresh tomatoes I buy have been modified by firefly genes, this could be a concern. (The debate is ongoing; some kosher authorities say that it is, some that it isn't. But clearly, without specific labeling, there's no way for the average consumer to be sure whether the produce they're buying raises these issues.)
That would be the same as labelling everything "not kosher" instead of the few things that are "kosher", though.
More like labeling products nut-free or 'this product was produced in a factory that uses nuts, soy, dairy, peanuts, and wheat'. I've seen both. Not sure whether such labeling is mandatory (it could well vary by location), but I think I'm safe in assuming that someone with a food allergy would pay attention to such things and, depending on the severity of their allergy, such labeling might well impact their decision.
So everyone that feels it would boost their sales pointing out that they don't use GMO is free to put that on their label.
The nut-free label is a little different because people with severe nut allergies could *kitten* die if they ate something they did not know had nuts. It's not a matter of preference or personal issues with it.
In regards to the non-GMO label, this is something which manufactures ALREADY DO. Because they believe paying to have the certification through the non-GMO project has a positive ROI based on consumer preference and people buying into that woo.
I agree. And if people see "contains GMO" on a label they'd probably be like "see I told you they're dangerous, why else would they need to label them like allergens and phenylanine and stuff?"
Exactly.
15 -
It is true that people are much less likely to buy a product if it says "Contains Gmo's"
What I fail to understand is why all these "pro market", "Gov't should stay out of business" people are so afraid of letting the market decide what they want to consume.
All you people who are against labeling know damn well that if you walk into a store to buy dinner for your kids and see two versions of the same product at the same price and one says "Contains Gmo's" you're going to choose the other.
And if you don't care, thats okay, but plenty others do. Food labeling should not be something that is voted on, it should just be mandatory.2 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »It is true that people are much less likely to buy a product if it says "Contains Gmo's"
What I fail to understand is why all these "pro market", "Gov't should stay out of business" people are so afraid of letting the market decide what they want to consume.
All you people who are against labeling know damn well that if you walk into a store to buy dinner for your kids and see two versions of the same product at the same price and one says "Contains Gmo's" you're going to choose the other.
And if you don't care, thats okay, but plenty others do. Food labeling should not be something that is voted on, it should just be mandatory.
Or it could be evidence based instead of muh feelz.8 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »- Last thought, I hear all the time about people "giving up" or "quitting" soda. It's not easy, most experience headaches and feel like crap while trying to quit. Many fail, or have to whim themselves off over time..... Come on! What the *kitten* are they putting in our food that grown adults have such a hard time "quitting" something like soda... How in the hell is some poor little boy or girl going to stand a chance against billion dollar industries with a university of chemist behind them.
Caffeine. Same reason people experience minor side effects when quitting coffee sometimes. I have, it's no biggie.
I have also quit soda, and found it extremely easy. Currently I don't drink it much, so don't see any reason to cut it out, but it's absolutely no hardship to skip it. Coffee, on the other hand, I'd miss a lot, so I do get why it's hard to give up something you love. This is separate from the minor addictive effect of caffeine -- I am not talking about getting headaches -- but just my enjoyment of the ritual of drinking coffee and my pleasure in it, so I'd miss it.
There's nothing in my coffee but coffee.- These companies also pay food engineers to come on forums like mfp to defend their products.
Evidence?5 -
stevencloser wrote: »Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »Oh you people are going to hate me.
- Artificial flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners are terrible for you. If your a paleo preacher, you shouldn't defend artificial sweeteners in the same breath.
- If companies like Nestle, Tyson and McDonald's can make a buck by selling you poison in a box, they will not only do it, but will higher entire universities to figure out the best way to systematically do it, with the highest return. It's also strange how the same people who argue for their right to do so, are the same people that will deny they do so.
- Organic is not the scam, Coca-Cola, fast food, the Corn industry, factory farms, and Monsanto are the scam.
- The rise in obesity and heart disease is do in part to a systematic approach to profit as much as possible against the cost of your health...
- Last thought, I hear all the time about people "giving up" or "quitting" soda. It's not easy, most experience headaches and feel like crap while trying to quit. Many fail, or have to whim themselves off over time..... Come on! What the *kitten* are they putting are food that grown adults have such a hard time "quitting" something like soda... How in the hell is some poor little boy or girl going to stand a chance against billion dollar industries with a university of chemist behind them.
- These companies also pay food engineers to come on forums like mfp to defend their products.
Because as everyone knows, dead customers buy the most stuff.
Also "what they put in" soda is called caffeine, you might know it from drinks such as coffee and is probably the most deadly thing in a can of soda, i.e. it has the lowest lethal dose.
Ah, of course you beat me to it! ;-)0 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »It is true that people are much less likely to buy a product if it says "Contains Gmo's"
What I fail to understand is why all these "pro market", "Gov't should stay out of business" people are so afraid of letting the market decide what they want to consume.
All you people who are against labeling know damn well that if you walk into a store to buy dinner for your kids and see two versions of the same product at the same price and one says "Contains Gmo's" you're going to choose the other.
And if you don't care, thats okay, but plenty others do. Food labeling should not be something that is voted on, it should just be mandatory.
Food labeling is mandatory.
Corn, wheat, etc all right there on the label.4 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »It is true that people are much less likely to buy a product if it says "Contains Gmo's"
What I fail to understand is why all these "pro market", "Gov't should stay out of business" people are so afraid of letting the market decide what they want to consume.
All you people who are against labeling know damn well that if you walk into a store to buy dinner for your kids and see two versions of the same product at the same price and one says "Contains Gmo's" you're going to choose the other.
And if you don't care, thats okay, but plenty others do. Food labeling should not be something that is voted on, it should just be mandatory.
So you are suggesting those who are for the free market would support legislation which would require mandatory labeling of GMO's vice a voluntary labeling of non-GMO products by those companies who choose to have their products certified and labeled as such...
7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions