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
-
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 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »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.
I'm not particularly "gov't should stay out of business" in that there are lots and lots of regulations I support, but I am generally pro market. IMO, that's why if organics and/or non GMOs are preferred by consumers (or a segment of them), producers adding voluntary labels to identify those products makes total sense. Same with labels about how animals were treated and so on. I have my own way of identifying foods I wish to buy (I mainly buy from local farms, although in the winter I buy produce conventionally and grown far away, since I live in a colder climate), but I fully support allowing voluntary non GMO and organic labels, as we do.
There is some dispute about how non GMO should be defined, which is why (one of the many reasons) it makes sense for those who care about avoiding them to define what qualifies for the label.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.
That's not true. Something I buy often that has a "no GMO" label is tofu (also tempeh), and I would not choose that above GMO tofu if they tasted the same and one was cheaper or if the GMO one tasted better. (Mostly I don't check.)
If you care, however, find the kind labeled no GMO.1 -
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.
I'm contrarian. I will by the GMO's every time!5 -
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.
I Agree! Food labeling for all irrational superstitions should be mandatory. In fact, there is a case to be made that all food that was touched in any way by a woman while she is biblical unclean is unfit for consumption by men. Records must be kept and labels must be legislated! Please don't tell me that you are afraid of letting the market decide. That could be the only possible reason you would be against this label.15 -
astronaught wrote: »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.
I Agree! Food labeling for all irrational superstitions should be mandatory. In fact, there is a case to be made that all food that was touched in any way by a woman while she is biblical unclean is unfit for consumption by men. Records must be kept and labels must be legislated! Please don't tell me that you are afraid of letting the market decide. That could be the only possible reason you would be against this label.
Actually, that rule hasn't applied since 68CE, when the second temple was destroyed. But thanks for playing.8 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »astronaught wrote: »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.
I Agree! Food labeling for all irrational superstitions should be mandatory. In fact, there is a case to be made that all food that was touched in any way by a woman while she is biblical unclean is unfit for consumption by men. Records must be kept and labels must be legislated! Please don't tell me that you are afraid of letting the market decide. That could be the only possible reason you would be against this label.
Actually, that rule hasn't applied since 68CE, when the second temple was destroyed. But thanks for playing.
Hey, just because you don't follow my irrational superstition doesn't make it invalid nor invalidate the very important need for labels.5 -
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.
I'm not against labeling because I couldn't care less, but I would choose the one that tastes better. If I had no experience with either product I buy both and decide later which one I will continue buying. If there are several products I just grab whichever 2-3 products I reach for first and "look nice". Whether we want to admit it or not, packaging does influence buying decisions for the first purchase.1 -
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.
I personally ignore all irrelevant information on a package -- I don't use it to make purchasing decisions.
1 -
Something else I don't understand...
What's it to you people whether or not the food industry is required to label Gmo's anyway?
How is it going to negatively effect you personally if a company is required to label their gmo products?
Guess what, if less people are buying their gmo products because of the label, that's a good thing for you gmo lovers because it will drive down the price right?
Labeling gmo products will not effect you negatively in any way, only positively... However, others do feel not labeling Gmo's could negatively effect them personally.
So who the hell are you, with no skin in the game, to tell everyone else they don't have a right to be informed about their products... And these are the same people who preach an ideology of libertarianism.9 -
stanmann571 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 almost want to see this play out.
I'd even be willing to jump in, because I KNOW I can hold my own.
I'm holding my own now.
TMI?13
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions