Controversial stance, maybe?

Options
135

Replies

  • bry_all01
    bry_all01 Posts: 3,100 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    "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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options

    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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.

Categories