The Clean Eating Delusion...
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »Marketed by people I assume are out to make a quick buck on outrage.
The pictures at the top there are certainly not becrying environmental issues, they're making an appeal to nature fallacy to your health.
If I google vegetarian diet, I get a lot of categories (on top again) about weight loss. This does not mean that the average vegetarian avoids meat to lose weight.
Associating opposition to pesticides or even worse GMOs to "clean" eating, it is something that is for me just completely irrational.0 -
That's not categories, that's literally what you get immediately after typing in GMO foods.
Half a dozen pictures of various fruits (mostly tomatoes) with syringes sticking in them, one of them with the caption "Do you really want pesticides in the DNA of your food?" Pictures with "Top 10 common GMO foods" one of them adding "a.k.a. frankenfood". Stitched together apples with vials of liquid next to them, zombies munching on corn, rats with tumors (apparently attributed to being fed GMOs), "our bodies on GMOs" (the GMOs being in a font that makes it look like it's gooey, dripping down), claims of health effects of them, how to spot them, talking about labelling them or better yet banning them.
This is the #1 reason people talk about GMOs. Not because of the environment, because they think it makes your brain rot and gives you cancer and various other diseases.
Page 4 has the first one that even mentions the environment, while still mostly talking about how evil Monsanto is because big corporation.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Marketed by people I assume are out to make a quick buck on outrage.
The pictures at the top there are certainly not becrying environmental issues, they're making an appeal to nature fallacy to your health.
If I google vegetarian diet, I get a lot of categories (on top again) about weight loss. This does not mean that the average vegetarian avoids meat to lose weight.
Associating opposition to pesticides or even worse GMOs to "clean" eating, it is something that is for me just completely irrational.
One of your keywords is "diet" and you get categories related to weight loss.
I'm shocked. SHOCKED0 -
stevencloser wrote: »https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusion/In practice “clean eating” tends to be avoiding whatever food is the latest boogeyman in the pseudoscientific diet-advice industry. Today this often includes eating organic, avoiding GMOs, avoiding gluten, avoiding perceived “chemicals,” eating “natural” which can mean many things but often means avoiding processed foods and food additives, and sometimes eating raw foods.
It is important to emphasize that none of these food beliefs are science based. After 50 years of research there is no evidence for any health benefit to eating organic. After 20 years of research there is no evidence of any health risk to any currently available GMO foods.
Why is there an assumption that people who prefer organic and avoid GMO are only doing this for health benefits? It is like claiming a vegetarian will not eat a burger because the burger is not "clean".
Because it is marketed toward that reason people. Especially the GMO one.
The GMO debate goes well beyond "clean" - it concerns crop replacement, seed control, cross pollination, accidental harm to other species, allergens, pesticide effectiveness, etc... there are GMO foods that have not been brought to market because their pesticide production was higher than GRAS. The largest argument in Europe tends to be around "unintended consequences" which is a politically conservative position.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »That's not categories, that's literally what you get immediately after typing in GMO foods.
Half a dozen pictures of various fruits (mostly tomatoes) with syringes sticking in them, one of them with the caption "Do you really want pesticides in the DNA of your food?" Pictures with "Top 10 common GMO foods" one of them adding "a.k.a. frankenfood". Stitched together apples with vials of liquid next to them, zombies munching on corn, rats with tumors (apparently attributed to being fed GMOs), "our bodies on GMOs" (the GMOs being in a font that makes it look like it's gooey, dripping down), claims of health effects of them, how to spot them, talking about labelling them or better yet banning them.
This is the #1 reason people talk about GMOs. Not because of the environment, because they think it makes your brain rot and gives you cancer and various other diseases.
Page 4 has the first one that even mentions the environment.
I have no doubt that there are people trying to promote their eating plan who will use whatever they can find. However, in many places all over the world (I am guessing here you are either American or British, sorry if I am wrong), GMOs are not considered safe for the environment or proven safe for human consumption, they are basically considered a gamble. This is not a new movement associated to losing weight or detoxing or selling new products. Perhaps there is a cultural difference here, so it is hard to understand how what you consider as a normal part of diet is completely banned in other countries, but it is true.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Marketed by people I assume are out to make a quick buck on outrage.
The pictures at the top there are certainly not becrying environmental issues, they're making an appeal to nature fallacy to your health.
If I google vegetarian diet, I get a lot of categories (on top again) about weight loss. This does not mean that the average vegetarian avoids meat to lose weight.
Associating opposition to pesticides or even worse GMOs to "clean" eating, it is something that is for me just completely irrational.
One of your keywords is "diet" and you get categories related to weight loss.
I'm shocked. SHOCKED
I typed in vegetarian cats into google image search and this was the top result. I think it speaks for itself.
0 -
I'm from Germany.
From what I've seen so far the evidence seems to be overwhelmingly on the "it's safe" side of things (health wise at least) while opponents keep saying that not enough has been done.
Also wikipedia tells me that there's no consensual reason to why the EU is so strict about them but all listed possible explanations are politically oriented, not scientifically.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I'm from Germany.
From what I've seen so far the evidence seems to be overwhelmingly on the "it's safe" side of things (health wise at least) while opponents keep saying that not enough has been done.
Also wikipedia tells me that there's no consensual reason to why the EU is so strict about them but all listed possible explanations are politically oriented, not scientifically.
But for sure I have not seen any country banning GMOs to promote "clean" eating. So call it political, scientific, ethical, whatever the motives are, it is one of those things that is not related to any eating style.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I'm from Germany.
From what I've seen so far the evidence seems to be overwhelmingly on the "it's safe" side of things (health wise at least) while opponents keep saying that not enough has been done.
Also wikipedia tells me that there's no consensual reason to why the EU is so strict about them but all listed possible explanations are politically oriented, not scientifically.
But for sure I have not seen any country banning GMOs to promote "clean" eating. So call it political, scientific, ethical, whatever the motives are, it is one of those things that is not related to any eating style.
I didn't know you were specifically talking about countries' reasons for being against them when you saidhttps://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusion/In practice “clean eating” tends to be avoiding whatever food is the latest boogeyman in the pseudoscientific diet-advice industry. Today this often includes eating organic, avoiding GMOs, avoiding gluten, avoiding perceived “chemicals,” eating “natural” which can mean many things but often means avoiding processed foods and food additives, and sometimes eating raw foods.
It is important to emphasize that none of these food beliefs are science based. After 50 years of research there is no evidence for any health benefit to eating organic. After 20 years of research there is no evidence of any health risk to any currently available GMO foods.
Why is there an assumption that people who prefer organic and avoid GMO are only doing this for health benefits? It is like claiming a vegetarian will not eat a burger because the burger is not "clean".
People (as in Jane and John from next door) who avoid GMO are doing so predominantly because they think it's bad for you. And it gets marketed that way by "diet gurus". See the pages upon pages of fearmongering pictures. Same but to a lesser extent with clean eating.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm from Germany.
From what I've seen so far the evidence seems to be overwhelmingly on the "it's safe" side of things (health wise at least) while opponents keep saying that not enough has been done.
Also wikipedia tells me that there's no consensual reason to why the EU is so strict about them but all listed possible explanations are politically oriented, not scientifically.
But for sure I have not seen any country banning GMOs to promote "clean" eating. So call it political, scientific, ethical, whatever the motives are, it is one of those things that is not related to any eating style.
I didn't know you were specifically talking about countries' reasons for being against them when you saidhttps://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusion/In practice “clean eating” tends to be avoiding whatever food is the latest boogeyman in the pseudoscientific diet-advice industry. Today this often includes eating organic, avoiding GMOs, avoiding gluten, avoiding perceived “chemicals,” eating “natural” which can mean many things but often means avoiding processed foods and food additives, and sometimes eating raw foods.
It is important to emphasize that none of these food beliefs are science based. After 50 years of research there is no evidence for any health benefit to eating organic. After 20 years of research there is no evidence of any health risk to any currently available GMO foods.
Why is there an assumption that people who prefer organic and avoid GMO are only doing this for health benefits? It is like claiming a vegetarian will not eat a burger because the burger is not "clean".
People (as in Jane and John from next door) who avoid GMO are doing so predominantly because they think it's bad for you. And it gets marketed that way by "diet gurus". See the pages upon pages of fearmongering pictures. Same but to a lesser extent with clean eating.
I am against GMO. Everyone I know IRL (or rather everyone I know IRL with whom I have discussed the issue), is against GMO because they do not believe there is a way to predict the environmental consequences. I have never heard a diet guru being mentioned.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm from Germany.
From what I've seen so far the evidence seems to be overwhelmingly on the "it's safe" side of things (health wise at least) while opponents keep saying that not enough has been done.
Also wikipedia tells me that there's no consensual reason to why the EU is so strict about them but all listed possible explanations are politically oriented, not scientifically.
But for sure I have not seen any country banning GMOs to promote "clean" eating. So call it political, scientific, ethical, whatever the motives are, it is one of those things that is not related to any eating style.
I didn't know you were specifically talking about countries' reasons for being against them when you saidhttps://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusion/In practice “clean eating” tends to be avoiding whatever food is the latest boogeyman in the pseudoscientific diet-advice industry. Today this often includes eating organic, avoiding GMOs, avoiding gluten, avoiding perceived “chemicals,” eating “natural” which can mean many things but often means avoiding processed foods and food additives, and sometimes eating raw foods.
It is important to emphasize that none of these food beliefs are science based. After 50 years of research there is no evidence for any health benefit to eating organic. After 20 years of research there is no evidence of any health risk to any currently available GMO foods.
Why is there an assumption that people who prefer organic and avoid GMO are only doing this for health benefits? It is like claiming a vegetarian will not eat a burger because the burger is not "clean".
People (as in Jane and John from next door) who avoid GMO are doing so predominantly because they think it's bad for you. And it gets marketed that way by "diet gurus". See the pages upon pages of fearmongering pictures. Same but to a lesser extent with clean eating.
I am against GMO. Everyone I know IRL (or rather everyone I know IRL with whom I have discussed the issue), is against GMO because they do not believe there is a way to predict the environmental consequences. I have never heard a diet guru being mentioned.
You and your friends do not represent the general population0 -
Although only 1% of the population may have celiac (which is life threatening and shouldn't be poo-poohed), that doesn't exclude the other types of gluten insensitivity. IBS is often triggered by gluten. I had to learn how to cook using the FODMAP diet for my partner (and myself, because I'm not cooking two separate meals.) we've identified that gluten is her main trigger, along with apples and high lactose dairy. But, mainly gluten.
So articles and posts that claim the vast majority of gluten free people are making it up are false and obviously not written by someone with any real gastrointestinal knowledge.
I've seen the effects of gluten and IBS, and it ain't pretty .0 -
Popcorn at the ready0
-
thatshistorical wrote: »Although only 1% of the population may have celiac (which is life threatening and shouldn't be poo-poohed), that doesn't exclude the other types of gluten insensitivity. IBS is often triggered by gluten. I had to learn how to cook using the FODMAP diet for my partner (and myself, because I'm not cooking two separate meals.) we've identified that gluten is her main trigger, along with apples and high lactose dairy. But, mainly gluten.
So articles and posts that claim the vast majority of gluten free people are making it up are false and obviously not written by someone with any real gastrointestinal knowledge.
I've seen the effects of gluten and IBS, and it ain't pretty .
To be fair the article points out that too many people jump straight to gluten and know nothing about FODMAP. While gluten may be the main trigger, many people have additional relief when they identify and eliminate all triggers. It's not saying people shouldn't find a way to treat their medical conditions, but they should actively and accurately do that, not follow a fad.0 -
thatshistorical wrote: »Although only 1% of the population may have celiac (which is life threatening and shouldn't be poo-poohed), that doesn't exclude the other types of gluten insensitivity. IBS is often triggered by gluten. I had to learn how to cook using the FODMAP diet for my partner (and myself, because I'm not cooking two separate meals.) we've identified that gluten is her main trigger, along with apples and high lactose dairy. But, mainly gluten.
So articles and posts that claim the vast majority of gluten free people are making it up are false and obviously not written by someone with any real gastrointestinal knowledge.
I've seen the effects of gluten and IBS, and it ain't pretty .
Did you actually read the article?
About one percent of the population has true gluten sensitivity, called celiac disease. For everyone else there is no current consensus that gluten causes any problems. This story is more complicated, though, as there are also wheat allergies, and some people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are sensitive to FODMAPs, which are in many of the same foods as gluten.
It said almost exactly what you did (minus the butthurt)0 -
I read that website all the time. Helpful.0
-
Your comments about chemicals are ridiculous. Of course all things are made of chemical compounds, whether found in nature or the lab. But, people eating organic or raw are trying to avoid or minimize the amount of pesticides, processed foods and toxins in their bodies. Most of what you have written are opinions, not fact, and describing others' choices as ignorant or nonsense just proves that you are the one who is both!-5
-
meeehh . . My only rule is that if I can't reproduce it in my kitchen, I'm not buying it. I have yet to find something I couldn't reproduce in my own kitchen. A hand blender and corn starch can do a lot. *grins*0
-
Your comments about chemicals are ridiculous. Of course all things are made of chemical compounds, whether found in nature or the lab. But, people eating organic or raw are trying to avoid or minimize the amount of pesticides, processed foods and toxins in their bodies. Most of what you have written are opinions, not fact, and describing others' choices as ignorant or nonsense just proves that you are the one who is both!
you do realize that organic foods and vegetables are treated with pesticides, correct?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions