Controversial stance, maybe?

24

Replies

  • Dragonwolf
    Dragonwolf Posts: 5,600 Member
    While I agree that science has lengthened our lifespan, I think the means by which it has are also a double-edged sword.

    For example, a large factor in our increased lifespan is from modern medicine. Things like vaccines, antibiotics, etc. However, because of these things, we're now getting strains that are resistant to our medicines and becoming "super bugs". We also leave significantly cleaner lives - to the point that our immune systems overreact to even the smallest thing, causing allergies to things that weren't as much of an issue in previous generations (such as the rise in peanut allergies).

    On the less benign side, as dipsl19 mentioned, cigarette companies DO make a product that will kill you. They know this, and have known it for decades. That's why they have always marketed so hard toward younger people (to the point that in the US, it required government mandates to get them to stop).

    The problem with a lot of the artificial stuff is that there is often inadequate long-term testing done on it before it's sent to market. DDT is a prime example of this. It was the greatest thing since sliced bread, until people realized that it's a bioaccumulating toxin that was killing off our raptor population.

    And then there's Monsanto - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto , the company that loves playing Dr. Frankenstein with our foods. Again, it's not necessarily that it's going to kill us right now, but rather, that we don't know what it will do to us twenty years from now.

    While I agree that a lot of the "organic!" hype is exactly that, there's still something to be said about the work mother nature has already done. So yes, a lot of what humanity does is technically "unnatural," but there's no point throwing the baby out with the bathwater by saying "most of what humanity does is unnatural, so why bother trying to go back to nature when it comes to our food?"
  • bry_all01
    bry_all01 Posts: 3,100 Member
    And then there's Monsanto - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto , the company that loves playing Dr. Frankenstein with our foods. Again, it's not necessarily that it's going to kill us right now, but rather, that we don't know what it will do to us twenty years from now.


    did you REALLY quote from wikipedia?!?
  • _GlaDOS_
    _GlaDOS_ Posts: 1,520 Member
    So many misinformed people...
  • odusgolp
    odusgolp Posts: 10,477 Member
    Great topic...

    First, Try to think back - when did Kraft Mac n' Cheese start hitting shelves containing Yellow Dye #5, Yellow Dye #6 and Tartrazine? When did taco seasoning begin to be sold with Silicone Dioxide? When did hamburger helper become popular hydrogenated oil, red dye 40, yellow dye 5 &6, Silicon Dioxide, Disodium Inosinate, & Disodium Guanylate? When did our animals - meats and dairy - begin containing growth hormones? Or what about good ol' MSC in your Lawry's Season Salt?

    Were your grandparents raised on those foods? Were your parents? Or were you...

    Most likely, unless your parents are still in their 30's or early 40's, It starts with YOU. And do we completely know the affects of living out of foods in a box rather than food from the farm which your grandparents were more likely raised on? I think we can all agree that there's really no definitive way to say we 100% know the long-term affects of these chemicals being added to our foods.

    What we do know? For nearly a decade the affects of many of these additives ARE known and have been banned in the UK. Indeed, Kraft has been sending mac n' cheese over to Europe for years without the Yellow dyes and Tartrazine in it. It's fact. The UK banned it because of it's ill health affects on children long ago.

    It is a known fact that many food dyes are carcinogenic. The cause hyperactivity in children. They believe there may be links to Autism and are researching. They provide no nutritional value. Yellow dye #6 has been found to cause adrenal gland and kidney tumors, and contains small amounts of many carcinogens. Red dye #3 is known to cause thyroid tumors.

    How about Guanylate? Well, it's unsafe for babies under 12 months, unsafe for asthmatics, has known affects on sperm motility, and can be directly used as a pesticide. Also not allowed in the UK, btw. It provides no nutritional value.

    Silicone Dioxide? Exact same thing that comes in a box of shoes. It's a plastic that absorbs moisture. Thusly a preservative - it allows that taco seasoning I mentioned to sit on the shelf for 5 years before the manufacturer has to scrap it. Should food really last for five years?? That same exact taco seasoning would last 1.5 years without the plastic in it.

    Is eating any of this going to kill you tomorrow? Nope. Not unless you're very allergic or have a pre-existing medical condition that could be affected by it. But does that mean you should stock up and continue to eat all these pre-packaged foods? I would promote doing so only in moderation. Because the simple fact is, you don't know.

    I'm not a purist.... but I also try not to be ignorant of the exponential growth of Autism, ADD, ADHD, etc in the US... which... is only occurring at this inflated rate in the US...

    Did I mention that kids are going through puberty on average 13 months earlier than children did in 1991 according to statistics? In 20 years, we've shaved over a year off puberty and inflated the rate of precocious puberty - that's full blown puberty for 7 year olds....

    But yeah, I'm sure it's just nature and not at all the changes in our diets :wink: <
    *that was my sarcastic font*
  • odusgolp
    odusgolp Posts: 10,477 Member


    I agree. All natural is over used. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it is safe. Produce you can wash off so I think an apple is an apple. They put hormones in chickens so the will be full grown in just 6 weeks. The more chickens they sell the more money they make. So if the hormone does that to the chicken what do you think that it is going to do to you? No you may not die from the additives and hormones immediately but it def causes health problems. Cancer being a huge one.

    All ability to label something Natural is over-used because it's not very well regulated (Organic is much more regulated). And Natural and Organic are COMPLETELY separate issues.

    And don't even get me started on chlorinated chickens *shivers*
  • Dragonwolf
    Dragonwolf Posts: 5,600 Member
    And then there's Monsanto - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto , the company that loves playing Dr. Frankenstein with our foods. Again, it's not necessarily that it's going to kill us right now, but rather, that we don't know what it will do to us twenty years from now.


    did you REALLY quote from wikipedia?!?

    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

    Wikipedia has been proven by numerous studies to be as reliable as any other encyclopedia, and in some cases (such as current events), it's actually superior because it can update faster. Also, in some circumstances, such as in highly controversial topics (arguably, such as Monsanto), it can even be the only unbiased source of information. If you still take issue with the information presented by the Wikipedia article I linked, you're more than welcome to peruse the 120+ sources that it cites.
  • odusgolp
    odusgolp Posts: 10,477 Member
    While I agree that science has lengthened our lifespan, I think the means by which it has are also a double-edged sword.


    For the record, we are the first generation expected to have a shorter life-span than our parents as well.
  • Qarol
    Qarol Posts: 6,171 Member
    Why DO we have dyes in food? Is the natural color of the food not good enough?

    I took my younger brother to an indoor playground once where they sold Icees. But these had no color. They were literally the color of crushed ice. They just omitted the red dye. Fabulous!
  • odusgolp
    odusgolp Posts: 10,477 Member
    The simple fact is that companies have started making natural alternatives affordable and SUPER easy. You CAN get Mac n cheese without the food dyes and I would encourage everyone to give it a try. It still really has no "nutritional goodness" - unbleached flower and cheeses *L* But at least you don't have to have the chemicals.

    And, the original post said NATURAL, which is what I'm addressing. NOT Organic. They are two very VERY separate things.
  • odusgolp
    odusgolp Posts: 10,477 Member
    They've also removed dyes from children's medications prescription and non. Pay attention and it's easy to get dye-free. Again, they know the negative affects - and are self-regulating. Yay.
  • bry_all01
    bry_all01 Posts: 3,100 Member
    And then there's Monsanto - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto , the company that loves playing Dr. Frankenstein with our foods. Again, it's not necessarily that it's going to kill us right now, but rather, that we don't know what it will do to us twenty years from now.


    did you REALLY quote from wikipedia?!?

    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

    Wikipedia has been proven by numerous studies to be as reliable as any other encyclopedia, and in some cases (such as current events), it's actually superior because it can update faster. Also, in some circumstances, such as in highly controversial topics (arguably, such as Monsanto), it can even be the only unbiased source of information. If you still take issue with the information presented by the Wikipedia article I linked, you're more than welcome to peruse the 120+ sources that it cites.


    I honestly could care less either way. I just know (per colleges) it is not to be held as a reliable source (as it is revised by anyone at any given time).
  • aj_rock
    aj_rock Posts: 390 Member
    A couple books that come to mind...

    1. "Fast Food Nation"

    2. "Seeds of Deception"

    3. "Fats that heal, fats that kill"

    I don't think the word natural has a legal definition when it comes to food, so I think it is important to use common sense and to educate yourself about our choices. If you think the foods you eat that are massed produced by big industry are produced primarily with your nutrition in mind, I would have to state that my opinion is you are kidding yourself. They put stuff in there that is just not right. You would be surprised!

    I want to highlight the EDUCATE YOURSELF part of that statement. That's why I started this topic stating I had a controversial opinion. Whether you really think monsanto is going to create tomatoes that go all venus fly try on our butts or Yellow Dye 69 is going to make us all infertile-yet-sex-crazed-monsters, there are a lot of people here who both a) don't read the material out there and b) don't use common sense. They'd rather someone tell them what their opinion should be.

    As an aside though, when companies added stuff like silicon dioxide or dyes to food, its true, they didn't know the health consequences. Which is why versions of their product pop up without the harmful stuff, and if ENOUGH people purchase it, they'll phase out the bad stuff eventually.
  • Dragonwolf
    Dragonwolf Posts: 5,600 Member
    And then there's Monsanto - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto , the company that loves playing Dr. Frankenstein with our foods. Again, it's not necessarily that it's going to kill us right now, but rather, that we don't know what it will do to us twenty years from now.


    did you REALLY quote from wikipedia?!?

    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

    Wikipedia has been proven by numerous studies to be as reliable as any other encyclopedia, and in some cases (such as current events), it's actually superior because it can update faster. Also, in some circumstances, such as in highly controversial topics (arguably, such as Monsanto), it can even be the only unbiased source of information. If you still take issue with the information presented by the Wikipedia article I linked, you're more than welcome to peruse the 120+ sources that it cites.


    I honestly could care less either way. I just know (per colleges) it is not to be held as a reliable source (as it is revised by anyone at any given time).

    Colleges also don't allow conventional encyclopedias in formal papers, usually, so the matter is rather moot.
  • frostiegurl
    frostiegurl Posts: 708 Member
    "Primal" man as you call it actually lived to be over 100 years old :happy:

    It's when all the junk started to be added to our wonderful food that the age expectancy has decreased.



    I'm curious as to what your sources are for the information you stated in your post?

    You wouldn't happen to be a forensic anthropologist or perhaps a paleopathologist by chance?
  • liftingbro
    liftingbro Posts: 2,029 Member
    I agree with the OP.

    The fact is everything is good for you in the right amounts. "natural" "Organic"....ect are just big marketing terms. I highly doubt anyone eating only organic foods would live any longer than anyone eating standard foods if the nutrition is the same.
  • lins_crafters
    lins_crafters Posts: 18
    Mankind is a part of nature, I have never understood people *****ing about mankind interferring with nature when we are a huge part of it.... We destroy it just like every other creature out there does, they just dont have the means to do it as efficiently as we do.

    But to comment on the topic, since mankind is a part of nature, then the things mankind create are a part of nature, therefore natural. Good for you??? Not so much....
  • odusgolp
    odusgolp Posts: 10,477 Member
    I agree with the OP.

    The fact is everything is good for you in the right amounts. "natural" "Organic"....ect are just big marketing terms. I highly doubt anyone eating only organic foods would live any longer than anyone eating standard foods if the nutrition is the same.

    Absolutely... You may go bald and gain 50 lbs from thyroid cancer and have stupid sperm, though.
  • WarriorJayne
    WarriorJayne Posts: 66
    Love it!

    I get caught up in the Caveman diet thing due to my environment. The entire " Have you ever seen a picture of a fat Caveman?" has always made me laugh, because Ive always answered back: "Have you ever seen a picture of a Caveman?"

    I don't mind eating cleaner, and eating locally. But cutting some milk and some vegetables (corn and some carbs like oatmeal) make me shake my head.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    ok so for all of you that despise pesticides, and given they are soaked into some foods, not just on the skin, can I ask, Do you drink tap water? straight from the tap? or a public drinking fountain?

    I have a Brita filter on my tap.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    I get caught up in the Caveman diet thing due to my environment. The entire " Have you ever seen a picture of a fat Caveman?" has always made me laugh, because Ive always answered back: "Have you ever seen a picture of a Caveman?"

    Too funny!! :laugh:
  • mericksmom
    mericksmom Posts: 222 Member
    My thought on "all natural food" If it was natural then we wouldn't add anything to it and it would be fed what is should when in the wild. MOst food out there is made to "make more" cows fed corn to fatten up, hormones for more milk ( i used cows because for me they are easier to pick on but insert plants or other animals and there are many of same issues).... A lot of the food out there would be healthier for humans If we didn't go and force it to produce more or try and change it to do something else. Even produce is not as nutritious as they used to be because we pick them before they are at their peak and we engineer them to look the same.....tomatoes can and will look ugly when grown at home but are more flavorful.

    I tend to be hormone sensitive, I cant handle too much and certain meat will cause me reactions, Milk is another one I have to watch out for. Other people I know have IBS and gluten allergy so I can assume our food could be the causing these reactions....if not then I guess we are now diagnosing it more now.
  • ascoope
    ascoope Posts: 42
    I love that you wrote this. I didn't read all the responses- my general feeling towards all this hysteria/conspiracy theory/sensationalism is just to calm the #$%* down and use common sense. It's worked for me so far. Okay well I'm 20, but my parents taught me this way of thinking and it's served them well!
  • liftingbro
    liftingbro Posts: 2,029 Member
    I agree with the OP.

    The fact is everything is good for you in the right amounts. "natural" "Organic"....ect are just big marketing terms. I highly doubt anyone eating only organic foods would live any longer than anyone eating standard foods if the nutrition is the same.

    Absolutely... You may go bald and gain 50 lbs from thyroid cancer and have stupid sperm, though.

    My wife would argue that happened to me without the Cancer. :tongue:
  • odusgolp
    odusgolp Posts: 10,477 Member
    I agree with the OP.

    The fact is everything is good for you in the right amounts. "natural" "Organic"....ect are just big marketing terms. I highly doubt anyone eating only organic foods would live any longer than anyone eating standard foods if the nutrition is the same.

    Absolutely... You may go bald and gain 50 lbs from thyroid cancer and have stupid sperm, though.

    LOL God bless you for having a sense of humor;-)
    My wife would argue that happened to me without the Cancer. :tongue:
  • JennsLosing
    JennsLosing Posts: 1,026
    Assuming that every big company has it out for your life makes no sense. They can't make money if their product killed people; it's in their best interest to feed you food that WON'T kill you.

    ... cigarette companies? hello??!
    i mean there's just so much i can say in response to this. pesticides are used so that there is more product to be sold, period. because it makes more MONEY.

    .... everything is about money. companies dont care about their customers. lets get real here..

    obviously everything is relative, and no you wont DIE from eating a bag of cheetos once a week, but if you eat them all day every day it WILL negatively affect your health.

    luckily its not my job or concern to convince anyone, so carry on lol
    well some companies that are throwing the word "natural" around are just trying to make money too...you cant be too sure if everything your putting into your body is natural...unless your killing your own animals for meat, and eating all home grown vegis and even then, im sure some type of chemical or something has leaked in somewhere.
  • bry_all01
    bry_all01 Posts: 3,100 Member
    And then there's Monsanto - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto , the company that loves playing Dr. Frankenstein with our foods. Again, it's not necessarily that it's going to kill us right now, but rather, that we don't know what it will do to us twenty years from now.


    did you REALLY quote from wikipedia?!?

    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

    Wikipedia has been proven by numerous studies to be as reliable as any other encyclopedia, and in some cases (such as current events), it's actually superior because it can update faster. Also, in some circumstances, such as in highly controversial topics (arguably, such as Monsanto), it can even be the only unbiased source of information. If you still take issue with the information presented by the Wikipedia article I linked, you're more than welcome to peruse the 120+ sources that it cites.


    I honestly could care less either way. I just know (per colleges) it is not to be held as a reliable source (as it is revised by anyone at any given time).

    Colleges also don't allow conventional encyclopedias in formal papers, usually, so the matter is rather moot.


    I had kinda thought it was moot when I said I don't care either way, lol. Just sayin'. :tongue: :laugh:
  • erinsueburns
    erinsueburns Posts: 865 Member
    My take on it is that for one thing the term natural in the food industry is an unregulated and bs term, I ignore it. I will freely admit that I buy organic produce and milk without that hormone. I am not a purist but eating pesticide ladden produce makes my asthma worse, and drinking the hormone "supplemented" cows milk causes galactorhea in me. Personally I prefer my oxygen consumption unimpeded and I also strongly prefer that my breasts don't leak. But that oas just me, not everyone had the same effects that I do.
  • perceptualobfuscator
    perceptualobfuscator Posts: 159 Member

    I agree with you to a point insofar as natural does not always equal better. But some of your analogies are way off. LOL

    I concur.

    I think there are better or worse ways to eat, but 'natural' as healthy is a very silly concept. For one thing, humans have lived in such a diversity of regions that our recent ancestors may have eaten very different things. Diverse conditions lead to diverse diets. What we should be doing to determine health is to look for the best, most recent, quality research upon which we can find scientific consensus. And even then, dietary needs can be remarkably individual.
  • MzPix
    MzPix Posts: 177 Member
    I think natural tends to be better in most cases, about most things,
    but I have a bit of a hippie streak in me. :flowerforyou:

    And as a college instructor, I deduct 10% off any paper that cites Wikipedia.
    My students know this policy and yet..... they still cite it.

    It's just not natural.
  • Gsc122
    Gsc122 Posts: 36
    This is the first website, forum, or thread I've read where people are actually critical of wikipedia. ... Its actually worse then grammar nazis I think.

    Anyway I'm writing this on my cellphone and it isn't that easy to do.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories