The Clean Eating Delusion...

1111214161719

Replies

  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    I didn't know there were two meanings to "eating clean". This whole time all I had to do before a competition is to avoid GMO and eat organic??? I always though "eating clean" meant eating a well balanced diet that included fruits, veggies, lean proteins, legumes and whole grains. I'm not familiar with your version of eating clean.

    One of the problems with clean eating is that there is no concise definition of clean eat. We've seen probably about 30 different definitions adamantly defended on these forums at different times.

    Anyone have @diannethegeek list somewhere?

    ETA: Here's the list:

    Nothing but minimally processed foods.
    Absolutely no processed foods.
    Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
    Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
    Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
    No take-out or junk food at all.
    Nothing at all with a barcode.
    Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
    No added preservatives.
    No added chemicals.
    No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
    No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
    No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
    Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
    Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
    Don't eat foods that have a mascot.
    If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
    Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
    Eat "food" and not "food-like substances."
    No added sugar.
    No added refined sugar.
    Swap white sugar for brown.
    No "white" foods.
    Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
    Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
    Nothing but a plant-based whole food diet.
    Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food.
    Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
    Only pesticide-free foods.
    Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation.
    No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
    No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
    No bad carbs and processed foods.
    Anything that makes a better choice.
    Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
    Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.

    You're faster than I am at finding it!

    The search function isn't too bad once you limit it to a known author...
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited January 2016
    I didn't know there were two meanings to "eating clean". This whole time all I had to do before a competition is to avoid GMO and eat organic??? I always though "eating clean" meant eating a well balanced diet that included fruits, veggies, lean proteins, legumes and whole grains. I'm not familiar with your version of eating clean.

    You know what they say, 2 clean eaters, 3 definitions of clean eating!

    Around here (not the bodybuilding world) it seems to mean "not eating processed foods" but I've seen it used to mean avoiding meat, avoiding grains, eating paleo, avoiding carbs, avoiding fast food and highly processed foods, and eating only organic and avoiding GMOs. Also a lot of stuff about avoiding foods from a box or bag and foods with more than X ingredients.

    Edit: Oh, and I'm way late -- Dianne's list is great.
  • QueenKristine77
    QueenKristine77 Posts: 67 Member
    richln wrote: »
    I disagree. Microwaves are only good for reheating food previously cooked using a better cooking method. And ramen.

    +1 on this ^^

  • muscleandbeard
    muscleandbeard Posts: 117 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    I didn't know there were two meanings to "eating clean". This whole time all I had to do before a competition is to avoid GMO and eat organic??? I always though "eating clean" meant eating a well balanced diet that included fruits, veggies, lean proteins, legumes and whole grains. I'm not familiar with your version of eating clean.

    One of the problems with clean eating is that there is no concise definition of clean eat. We've seen probably about 30 different definitions adamantly defended on these forums at different times.

    Anyone have @diannethegeek list somewhere?

    ETA: Here's the list:

    Nothing but minimally processed foods.
    Absolutely no processed foods.
    Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
    Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
    Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
    No take-out or junk food at all.
    Nothing at all with a barcode.
    Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
    No added preservatives.
    No added chemicals.
    No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
    No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
    No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
    Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
    Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
    Don't eat foods that have a mascot.
    If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
    Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
    Eat "food" and not "food-like substances."
    No added sugar.
    No added refined sugar.
    Swap white sugar for brown.
    No "white" foods.
    Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
    Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
    Nothing but a plant-based whole food diet.
    Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food.
    Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
    Only pesticide-free foods.
    Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation.
    No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
    No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
    No bad carbs and processed foods.
    Anything that makes a better choice.
    Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
    Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.

    I wouldn't consider that "clean" eating in terms of fitness lingo. Maybe "healthy" "organic" or "natural". Next time I do a "clean" bulk I'll just avoid GMO extra hard.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    I didn't know there were two meanings to "eating clean". This whole time all I had to do before a competition is to avoid GMO and eat organic??? I always though "eating clean" meant eating a well balanced diet that included fruits, veggies, lean proteins, legumes and whole grains. I'm not familiar with your version of eating clean.

    One of the problems with clean eating is that there is no concise definition of clean eat. We've seen probably about 30 different definitions adamantly defended on these forums at different times.

    Anyone have @diannethegeek list somewhere?

    ETA: Here's the list:

    Nothing but minimally processed foods.
    Absolutely no processed foods.
    Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
    Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
    Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
    No take-out or junk food at all.
    Nothing at all with a barcode.
    Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
    No added preservatives.
    No added chemicals.
    No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
    No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
    No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
    Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
    Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
    Don't eat foods that have a mascot.
    If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
    Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
    Eat "food" and not "food-like substances."
    No added sugar.
    No added refined sugar.
    Swap white sugar for brown.
    No "white" foods.
    Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
    Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
    Nothing but a plant-based whole food diet.
    Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food.
    Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
    Only pesticide-free foods.
    Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation.
    No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
    No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
    No bad carbs and processed foods.
    Anything that makes a better choice.
    Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
    Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.

    You're faster than I am at finding it!

    In one thread an OP used it to describe meeting one's calorie and/or macro goals. I was excited to learn that I've been eating clean this whole time.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,360 Member
    "Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:

    a vegetarian
    a vegan
    a raw vegan
    a fruitarian
    a Paleo dieter
    a low-fat dieter
    a low-carb dieter
    a keto dieter
    an IIFYM dieter

    So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    I didn't know there were two meanings to "eating clean". This whole time all I had to do before a competition is to avoid GMO and eat organic??? I always though "eating clean" meant eating a well balanced diet that included fruits, veggies, lean proteins, legumes and whole grains. I'm not familiar with your version of eating clean.

    One of the problems with clean eating is that there is no concise definition of clean eat. We've seen probably about 30 different definitions adamantly defended on these forums at different times.

    Anyone have @diannethegeek list somewhere?

    ETA: Here's the list:

    Nothing but minimally processed foods.
    Absolutely no processed foods.
    Shop only the outside of the grocery store.
    Nothing out of a box, jar, or can.
    Only food that's not in a box or hermetically sealed bag, or from e.g. McDonald's.
    No take-out or junk food at all.
    Nothing at all with a barcode.
    Nothing with more than 5 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 4 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 3 ingredients.
    Nothing with more than 1 ingredient.
    No added preservatives.
    No added chemicals.
    No chemicals, preservatives, etc. at all.
    No ingredients that you can't pronounce.
    No ingredients that sound like they came out of a chemistry book.
    Nothing that is processed and comes in a package or wrapper, or has any ingredient that sounds scientific.
    Don't eat products that have a TV commercial.
    Don't eat foods that have a mascot.
    If it grows or had a mother, it is ok to eat it.
    Don't eat products that have a longer shelf life than you do.
    Eat "food" and not "food-like substances."
    No added sugar.
    No added refined sugar.
    Swap white sugar for brown.
    No "white" foods.
    Nothing but lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.
    Nothing but lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and beans.
    Nothing but a plant-based whole food diet.
    Eat foods as close to their natural state as POSSIBLE, and little to no processed food.
    Only meat from grass-fed animals and free-range chickens.
    Only pesticide-free foods.
    Nothing that causes your body bloat or inflammation.
    No trigger foods, nothing from fast food chains, nothing in the junk food aisles, and no high gmo foods.
    No red meat, no sweets, no pasta, no alcohol, no bread, no soda, nothing but fresh fruits and vegetables, complex carbohydrates and lean proteins.
    No bad carbs and processed foods.
    Anything that makes a better choice.
    Not cheating on whatever diet you are on.
    Any food that doesn't make it difficult to hit your macro/micro targets.

    I wouldn't consider that "clean" eating in terms of fitness lingo. Maybe "healthy" "organic" or "natural". Next time I do a "clean" bulk I'll just avoid GMO extra hard.

    It's one of those words that have lost their original meaning over time and been applied to almost everything. Like detox or ironic.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    "Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:

    a vegetarian
    a vegan
    a raw vegan
    a fruitarian
    a Paleo dieter
    a low-fat dieter
    a low-carb dieter
    a keto dieter
    an IIFYM dieter

    So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?

    Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.

    Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...
  • muscleandbeard
    muscleandbeard Posts: 117 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    "Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:

    a vegetarian
    a vegan
    a raw vegan
    a fruitarian
    a Paleo dieter
    a low-fat dieter
    a low-carb dieter
    a keto dieter
    an IIFYM dieter

    So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?

    Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.

    Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...

    I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    "Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:

    a vegetarian
    a vegan
    a raw vegan
    a fruitarian
    a Paleo dieter
    a low-fat dieter
    a low-carb dieter
    a keto dieter
    an IIFYM dieter

    So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?

    Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.

    Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...

    I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.

    It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,917 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    "Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:

    a vegetarian
    a vegan
    a raw vegan
    a fruitarian
    a Paleo dieter
    a low-fat dieter
    a low-carb dieter
    a keto dieter
    an IIFYM dieter

    So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?

    Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.

    Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...

    It is. The only difference between a clean and a dirty bulk is how big your surplus is.
  • muscleandbeard
    muscleandbeard Posts: 117 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    "Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:

    a vegetarian
    a vegan
    a raw vegan
    a fruitarian
    a Paleo dieter
    a low-fat dieter
    a low-carb dieter
    a keto dieter
    an IIFYM dieter

    So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?

    Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.

    Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...

    I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.

    It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.

    You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
    The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".
  • CorvusCorax77
    CorvusCorax77 Posts: 2,528 Member
    I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields :( Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.

    I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!

    The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.
  • CorvusCorax77
    CorvusCorax77 Posts: 2,528 Member
    none of which is to say I don't trust modern medicine. Because for the most part I do (I'm still iffy on psychotropic medications, but surgery I'm down with...tho)
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    "Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:

    a vegetarian
    a vegan
    a raw vegan
    a fruitarian
    a Paleo dieter
    a low-fat dieter
    a low-carb dieter
    a keto dieter
    an IIFYM dieter

    So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?

    Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.

    Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...

    I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.

    It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.

    70ec314f6f2232ce557694c962a36572.jpg
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    "Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:

    a vegetarian
    a vegan
    a raw vegan
    a fruitarian
    a Paleo dieter
    a low-fat dieter
    a low-carb dieter
    a keto dieter
    an IIFYM dieter

    So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?

    Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.

    Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...

    I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.

    It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.

    70ec314f6f2232ce557694c962a36572.jpg

    That's one of my favorite definitions
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,456 Member
    edited January 2016
    auddii wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    "Clean eating" will have an entirely different definition if you ask:

    a vegetarian
    a vegan
    a raw vegan
    a fruitarian
    a Paleo dieter
    a low-fat dieter
    a low-carb dieter
    a keto dieter
    an IIFYM dieter

    So which one is right? And what objective criteria/science exists to determine that?

    Apparently @muscleandbeard is correct and no one else is.

    Of course, I though a clean bulk was eating a moderate surplus so that your muscle/fat ratio remains optimal...

    I'm sorry for thinking this was a "fitness" app.

    It is...but there is more than one definition of "fitness" too.

    You're right. I have to get out of that mentality. Still used to BB.com
    The thing for me is that I've eaten clean for a huge part of my life and "organic" and GMO has never crossed my mind. However, I do feel a certain way when a headline states that I'm delusional for eating "clean".

    Perhaps you should read the article and the entire thread then and not just the headline. People aren't saying that everyone who eats a certain way for their specific reasons are delusional. They are saying that people who believe that eating clean (whatever definition you follow) and avoiding certain types of foods, automatically means that you are healthier, have been deluded to believe that.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields :( Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.

    I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!

    The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.

    Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
    Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
    As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
    Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    _John_ wrote: »
    _John_ wrote: »
    susan100df wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    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?

    Some are. You do realize that many people grow food that is not treated with pesticides, correct?

    The post you replied to said "avoid or minimize" pesticides in your body. If you want to minimize pesticides organic may do that

    "Treated" by whom? There are no pesticide free plants.

    Treated by a human. I've never known anyone to refer to a plant's own defense system as treatment.

    I tend to trust acts of men over acts of plants. Humans have a nominal interest in not killing me, plants have an outright incentive to see me as little different from an aphid.

    I agree mostly. Monsanto employees are eating the GMO foods too.

    You can't deny that companies (humans) have caused people to become very sick and/or die because they put profit over safety. The first thing that comes to mind is companies releasing bad stuff into the water supply and lots of people get cancer in the area. It cost more to dispose the bad stuff properly.

    Like I said I eat and feed my family GMO foods. I just don't have trust that it's 100% safe.

    100% safe anything is a fallacy...

    How so? If I pick and apple, eat it and suffer no ill effects, wasn't that apple 100% safe?

    no, not at all. You just exposed your body to all sorts of substances with potential negative chronic/acute effects.

    You do this every time you breath, drink water, touch anything.

    Most of the time you happened to expose yourself to low enough concentrations that the exposure caused no observable adverse effect.

    Why wouldn't that mean 'safe'? No harm no foul, right?

    And by that definition, organic is no safer than conventional.

    Crops treated with approved pesticides are no safer than those that aren't

    What part of this don't you understand?

    All of it. Though I never said I thought crops treated with pesticides were not safe, I don't see how making such a leap is logical.

    Why else would anyone want to minimize their exposure to pesticides?

    I wasn't the one who said that, but I don't see why "not safe" would always be the answer. I'd bet "don't know' is just as common.

    Don't know what?

    If it is safe.
    aggelikik wrote: »
    _John_ wrote: »
    _John_ wrote: »
    susan100df wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    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?

    Some are. You do realize that many people grow food that is not treated with pesticides, correct?

    The post you replied to said "avoid or minimize" pesticides in your body. If you want to minimize pesticides organic may do that

    "Treated" by whom? There are no pesticide free plants.

    Treated by a human. I've never known anyone to refer to a plant's own defense system as treatment.

    I tend to trust acts of men over acts of plants. Humans have a nominal interest in not killing me, plants have an outright incentive to see me as little different from an aphid.

    I agree mostly. Monsanto employees are eating the GMO foods too.

    You can't deny that companies (humans) have caused people to become very sick and/or die because they put profit over safety. The first thing that comes to mind is companies releasing bad stuff into the water supply and lots of people get cancer in the area. It cost more to dispose the bad stuff properly.

    Like I said I eat and feed my family GMO foods. I just don't have trust that it's 100% safe.

    100% safe anything is a fallacy...

    How so? If I pick and apple, eat it and suffer no ill effects, wasn't that apple 100% safe?

    no, not at all. You just exposed your body to all sorts of substances with potential negative chronic/acute effects.

    You do this every time you breath, drink water, touch anything.

    Most of the time you happened to expose yourself to low enough concentrations that the exposure caused no observable adverse effect.

    Why wouldn't that mean 'safe'? No harm no foul, right?

    And by that definition, organic is no safer than conventional.

    Crops treated with approved pesticides are no safer than those that aren't

    What part of this don't you understand?

    All of it. Though I never said I thought crops treated with pesticides were not safe, I don't see how making such a leap is logical.

    Why else would anyone want to minimize their exposure to pesticides?

    This is one very good reason for me: http://sos-bees.org/
    I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields :( Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.

    I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!

    Did they actually implement it? Probably not.

    Nobody said that there shouldn't be testing and oversight. There should (and is)

    From your description, it sounds like an early stage experiment. The primary goal was reached (sterilization, but breed specificity wasn't. That part would come in a later stage.
    The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.

    Good thing this doesn't actually happen.



    http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
  • CorvusCorax77
    CorvusCorax77 Posts: 2,528 Member
    edited January 2016
    senecarr wrote: »
    I have worked on organic farms that didn't spray. They used compost to fertilize, didn't engage in monoculture... these were farms that were run by students studying agriculture, or hippie communes completely dedicated to ecology... anyways, the farms ended up testing positive for pesticides because conventional farms soil would runoff into our fields :( Still... I tend to prefer organic. Call me crazy, but I have more faith in evolution than I do in acts of man. I also think using natural treatments are better for us (back to evolution).... I do my own organic farming and while it's not super productive, it tastes better. I try to support organic agriculture and I do so because it is in line with my ethics. I don't freak out if I eat non-organic, but I try. I also try to support local and small businesses.

    I take issue with GMO's for two reasons. One is safety- again, back to evolution. Back to trusting evolution more than I trust acts of men. I worked on GMO research- we were developing a way to control deer population without hunting (because these were urban deer and shotguns near playgrounds are a bad idea)... anyways, we took a gene from an elephant, put it into a tomato, and tested it on voles. It successfully caused an auto-immune system response making the voles immune system attack their own ovum and therefore preventing any reproduction. Yay! Problem: it wasn't species specific and it wasn't a terminator seed. That is scary if you think about it. These scientists knew what they were trying to create and kinda forgot some important details. These are the geniuses we are handing over our children's health to? ....I'd rather go with thousands of years of evolution!

    The other thing about GMO I really don't like is intellectual property. The fact that a company can own seeds and require a farmer to burn their crops because it got cross pollinated with a copyrighted seed is just ludicrous.

    Epistemologically, faith in a science or scientific theory would be an oxymoron.
    Evolution is quite happy to kill you at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Evolution has no concern about you living a happy and full life. Evolution, as in natural selection, doesn't even exist on farms or in almost any of the food we eat as it is all artificially selected. Most human beings would not recognize the wild variants of the food they eat that are more like the ancestor our food comes from.
    As for burning down crops because of cross pollination - well I hate GMOs because of pink fuzzy elephants with telekinetic powers. Both don't exist. The people burning down crops - that's Green Peace trying to prevent blind kids from getting the nutrition that will save their eye sight.
    Nor did GMO's even create the idea of "copyright" seeds. Patenting seeds became an option in the USA in the 1920s, long before GMO. Someone can use traditional crossbreeding, patent the seeds, and it is just as illegal to reuse the seeds. That's compounded by the fact that one of the reasons those patents have as much power as they do is people lump copyright and patent law together as one entity and call it intellectual property to give it an exaggerated legitimacy.

    Hi, yeah, I'm an attorney and "intellectual property" is what we call the whole area of law under which things like...ideas....become owned.

    When I talk about farmers losing rights to their own crops, here's a taste of what I'm talking about: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/plant-patents-how-has-this-altered-farming-practices
    and this: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html

    And by "faith in evolution" I meant that my body is the result of thousands of years of evolution and has evolved to survive certain things in nature and to live off of certain things, things like plants that are bred with their own species, as we have done in agriculture for so long. GMO is throwing in new things that we have yet to really understand the consequences of.... I guess it was a stretch of me to expect you to understand that is what I meant.