The Clean Eating Delusion...

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

CorvusCorax77 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

CorvusCorax77 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

CorvusCorax77 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

CorvusCorax77 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.

You're an attorney but you aren't a patent attorney, are you? Patent law is the one legally recognized legal specialty. There is no legal recognition of copyright lawyer. And while intellectual property is a phrase, that's the point - it is one construction of language that has come about to legitimize a school of thought in owning thoughts. That somehow imagining how something could be done is a possession the same way that a toothbrush is a possession.
And the Percy wasn't accidental contamination. How are you an attorney and you couldn't follow that case? He was found guilty because he had a field that was 70% RoundUp ready - he discovered his crops had the RR trait and intentionally sprayed those ones, and save them. There was no accident involved.
As far as your "faith" response, actually, nature has species cross genes all the time. You owe your existence to it. You have genes in your body right now from bacteria and sea life that you allow you to efficiently process carbs. Evolution itself produces random mutations that we can't know the consequences of either, but you have to accept that you can't anticipate all consequences. I do know the consequences of abandoning GMO technology: more population, and worse conditions for the poorest of human beings.

I'm not a patent attorney. Are you? I am licensed to practice law. Are you? I'm not going to argue with you about terms about patent law/intellectual property/copyright/trademark when the point is the same- a person can own the legal rights to a gene code. That's the problem I am pointing out.

How can I be an attorney and "not follow the case"?? Easy. I WORK.

So admittedly, you're ignorant of the actual facts of what you're linking to, assuming it supports your claim, but then condescending towards me because I know more about it even though you're the lawyer?
If you have a moral problem with owning genes, you're better off fighting pharmaceutical and medical industries than the dozen or so novel genes patented in food production. Also already said, patenting genes isn't even necessary for agriculture, it has been possible to patent traits side the 1920s before transgenic was a term. Lumping patent lawyer with other parts of the law is part of the problem that lends ethical legitimacy to those claims.

youngmomtaz wrote: »

So, why have other countries gone so far as banning gmo, actually burning the crops, and outlawing many of the chemicals we use? If they are banning based on small studies showing unfavourable results in rats, if they are banning simply to do more research and have a wider timeframe to look at, I find those acceptable and smart reasons.

I cannot remove all things processed. And sometimes eat them despite what I feel is "good for me" but for the most part, I will choose the least processed, lab created, altered foods possible.

I will continue to buy local when possible, organic when possible, as unprocessed as possible(eg. I grind my own flour for my family from organic wheat grown by good friends) and I will feel good about it. I temper that by eating out and occasionally buying food in a box. I know what tastes good. Without me even mentioning the difference, my children choose what they prefer taste wise. Again, we all make choices. I could never be a vegetarian but I do not find fault in their choice. I do find fault with being ridiculed for mine though.

Few countries have banned them, many simply have never approved their use.
There are also countries that ban homosexuality, but they're wrong too.

It's not my concern that you think I was being condescending when I asked you the same types of questions you asked me. The case about the canola oil, I browsed it. From what I read, he sprayed a field that had cross pollinated crops. Saved the cross pollinated crops and then used that to reseed the next year. Farmers have for a long time selected which seeds to save to grow. I don't think the case is as clean cut as you apparently think it is.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue to put words in my mouth and then argue against things I didn't even say. Have a nice day.

You said you work, implying I actually know the case because I do not. That's condescension.

Percy sprayed round up on weeds, noticed some of his crops near thus spraying resisted the spraying. He intentionally reused those seeds knowing they had RR trait, so that he grew done fields with 70% showing that trait. That's not cross contamination. If these were animals instead of crops, it would be like a neighbor's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, Percy captured it, used it to breed with his dog, repeatedly, and when the neighbor hard about it, he claimed it was an accident - even though he now has pups of those pups that are three quarters purebred bull dog. Yet Purely is getting the media to say his neighbor sued Percy over the neighbor's dog trespassing. Well, that dog don't hunt as they say.

I don't think it's quite like that - it more like a neighbour's prize winning bull dog came on Percy's lawn, screwed his pooch and then had puppies or gave birth on his lawn. Or replaced his own dog and had puppies.

Percy has some claim, imho, as that crop drift isn't of his doing. Or at least it isn't clear cut.

Percy sprayed round up on parts of his crop, and saw they resisted. He took the resistant ones, grew their seeds, sprayed again to keep resistant ones. The court found he knew what he was doing, hence the reason he was find liable.
He had a field growing that was 70% RR trait. If it was Bull Dogs, it would literally be the grand pups of Monsanto's that Percy was holding but telling the court "I don't know where all these dogs came from."
If it was pure accident, Monsanto has a standing policy that they'll pay for any accidental contamination at their expense to remove it. Like leaving missing posters with a reward offer up permanently because the dog is valuable.

See people get outraged about Percy's version of the story because it would indeed be injustice. Percy's version didn't happen though.

Ok, I can see that.

And it's more like they can't keep their damn dog in the yard. So if it chews your loafers they'll pay.

FunkyTobias wrote: »

CorvusCorax77 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

CorvusCorax77 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

CorvusCorax77 wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

CorvusCorax77 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.

You're an attorney but you aren't a patent attorney, are you? Patent law is the one legally recognized legal specialty. There is no legal recognition of copyright lawyer. And while intellectual property is a phrase, that's the point - it is one construction of language that has come about to legitimize a school of thought in owning thoughts. That somehow imagining how something could be done is a possession the same way that a toothbrush is a possession.
And the Percy wasn't accidental contamination. How are you an attorney and you couldn't follow that case? He was found guilty because he had a field that was 70% RoundUp ready - he discovered his crops had the RR trait and intentionally sprayed those ones, and save them. There was no accident involved.
As far as your "faith" response, actually, nature has species cross genes all the time. You owe your existence to it. You have genes in your body right now from bacteria and sea life that you allow you to efficiently process carbs. Evolution itself produces random mutations that we can't know the consequences of either, but you have to accept that you can't anticipate all consequences. I do know the consequences of abandoning GMO technology: more population, and worse conditions for the poorest of human beings.

I'm not a patent attorney. Are you? I am licensed to practice law. Are you? I'm not going to argue with you about terms about patent law/intellectual property/copyright/trademark when the point is the same- a person can own the legal rights to a gene code. That's the problem I am pointing out.

How can I be an attorney and "not follow the case"?? Easy. I WORK.

So admittedly, you're ignorant of the actual facts of what you're linking to, assuming it supports your claim, but then condescending towards me because I know more about it even though you're the lawyer?
If you have a moral problem with owning genes, you're better off fighting pharmaceutical and medical industries than the dozen or so novel genes patented in food production. Also already said, patenting genes isn't even necessary for agriculture, it has been possible to patent traits side the 1920s before transgenic was a term. Lumping patent lawyer with other parts of the law is part of the problem that lends ethical legitimacy to those claims.

youngmomtaz wrote: »

So, why have other countries gone so far as banning gmo, actually burning the crops, and outlawing many of the chemicals we use? If they are banning based on small studies showing unfavourable results in rats, if they are banning simply to do more research and have a wider timeframe to look at, I find those acceptable and smart reasons.

I cannot remove all things processed. And sometimes eat them despite what I feel is "good for me" but for the most part, I will choose the least processed, lab created, altered foods possible.

I will continue to buy local when possible, organic when possible, as unprocessed as possible(eg. I grind my own flour for my family from organic wheat grown by good friends) and I will feel good about it. I temper that by eating out and occasionally buying food in a box. I know what tastes good. Without me even mentioning the difference, my children choose what they prefer taste wise. Again, we all make choices. I could never be a vegetarian but I do not find fault in their choice. I do find fault with being ridiculed for mine though.

Few countries have banned them, many simply have never approved their use.
There are also countries that ban homosexuality, but they're wrong too.

It's not my concern that you think I was being condescending when I asked you the same types of questions you asked me. The case about the canola oil, I browsed it. From what I read, he sprayed a field that had cross pollinated crops. Saved the cross pollinated crops and then used that to reseed the next year. Farmers have for a long time selected which seeds to save to grow. I don't think the case is as clean cut as you apparently think it is.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue to put words in my mouth and then argue against things I didn't even say. Have a nice day.

It's very clean cut. It was theft of service, plain and simple

As an analogy, say we have two sports bars A and B, right next to each other. The owner of bar A pays the cable company for the rights to televise a PPV boxing match. Rather than running wires he streams the signal to the other TVs in his bar wirelessly.

Owner B funds his WiFi password, and televised the fight in his bar, without paying royalties

Owner B is in clear violation

senecarr wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Paleo_Porky wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

muscleandbeard wrote: »

juggernaut1974 wrote: »

muscleandbeard 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.

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.

No - eating clean means eating optimally. That means eating the highest level of nutrition on intake and eating at a volume that would achieve a desired outcome, whether it's weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain. Can't live on cake alone - certainly can't lose weight if you are hungry all the time and eating cake. You need to eat a high protein, high fat, high fiber diet to achieve satiety, a higher metabolism, and muscle retention in the course of losing weight by CICO standards. It sets up the maintenance phase once the outcome of weight/fat loss is achieved. Clean eating is an optimal approach - and certainly not delusional. There's no downside to avoiding GMOs and grains - actually, the upside is really all there is.

You can't live on broccoli alone.
Therefore clean eating is bunk.
Next.

If you live on nothing but broccoli, it's probably best to live alone, if you know what I mean...

Only broccoli,
if only there was protein,
never souls nearby.

Broccoli protein
exceptionally high
needs fats for a diet

Brocoli protein?
Now I am very confused
Thought it was a grain