What are some of your unpopular opinions about food?

Options
1…3233353738…217

Replies

  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    seltzermint555 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Machka9 wrote: »
    glassyo wrote: »
    Can we judge in here because....not liking oreos??? No point to chocolate milk??? I just died a little inside. :(

    Oreos are a very boring cookie.

    Chocolate milk makes me sick. I'd much rather eat a chocolate bar.

    I don't get drinking chocolate milk with a meal, which was mostly what I saw as a kid -- other kids buying chocolate milk with their lunches, or friends having chocolate milk with lunch or dinner at home. The idea of drinking something chocolatey and sweet to wash down your meatloaf or tuna casserole was just absolutely gross to me. And if it's not as part of a meal, there are so many tastier treats than chocolate milk.

    But you're so wrong on Oreos. Of course, they should be dunked in coffee.

    I was an oddball as a child. Other kids bought chocolate milk or fruit juice during recess, and I bought tomato juice. I suspect the reason they kept selling it is because I kept buying it haha. I didn't like chocolate milk and still don't (it tastes kind of grainy and heavy). If I had to get flavored milk it was strawberry milk.

    Just curious - do you still enjoy the taste of strawberry milk? I ask because I loved it as a kid, but it's one of those things I've tried more recently and thought "ick this is like pink, sugar flavored milk" and I'm definitely not one of those people who ever really says things like "this treat is too sweet for me". Also it may have been the brand I tried (Nesquik) but it's the same strawberry milk I drank as a kid. Dunno.

    There's a small dairy in Fordland, Missouri, that does the most amazing flavored milks though. They have orange creamsicle and cotton candy milk. Both sound terrible but they're delicious. Sweet, but so delicious and creamy like a dessert.

    I used to like strawberry milk as a kid too, and I'm afraid to try it now. I don't think I'd like it at all.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    Apple pie. For fall pies, it's the best one.

    Strawberry-rhubarb is also in the running, but it's not a fall pie.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    Options
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    CarvedTones wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    CarvedTones wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    CarvedTones wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    CarvedTones wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    CarvedTones wrote: »
    A substantiated opinion - the case against using GMO products is complete woo. Every major health organization around the world (CDC, WHO, EUPHA, etc) endorses them as safe. Purposefully avoiding GMO products is pretty much anti-science. A lot of common products avoid them because of public perception so we end up avoiding them without trying. There are reasons to hate Monsanto's business practices with respect to GMO crops. It's a real shame; GMO crops have more yield per acre, reducing the amount of farmland that needs to be cleared. They are more tolerant of drought, increasing the food supply in some areas that need it most. They are more bug resistant, decreasing the need for pesticides that often pollute water supplies.
    pinuplove wrote: »
    CarvedTones wrote: »
    A substantiated opinion - the case against using GMO products is complete woo. Every major health organization around the world (CDC, WHO, EUPHA, etc) endorses them as safe. Purposefully avoiding GMO products is pretty much anti-science. A lot of common products avoid them because of public perception so we end up avoiding them without trying. There are reasons to hate Monsanto's business practices with respect to GMO crops. It's a real shame; GMO crops have more yield per acre, reducing the amount of farmland that needs to be cleared. They are more tolerant of drought, increasing the food supply in some areas that need it most. They are more bug resistant, decreasing the need for pesticides that often pollute water supplies.

    Agreed. I have zero issue with GMOs.

    There is no more rational basis for having a blanket opinion about all GMOs than there is for having a blanket opinion about all possible non GMO organisms. Some will be generally safe for all people, with a very low incidence of allergies. Some will be toxic. And there will be foods that fall somewhere between those extremes.
    The process of genetically modifying something doesn't make it automatically safe to eat, anymore than the fact that something isn't genetically modified (by humans through gene manipulation) makes it safe to eat.

    Please identify an example of a food that wasn't toxic before modification and is afterwards.

    The CDC, WHO, EUPHA and all the other major health organizations are making evidence based scientific conclusions. IMO, trusting science is more rational than dismissing it because I don't like blanket conclusions. There is no rational basis for assuming that modification makes something unsafe to eat when there is no evidence to support that. Science rarely if ever claims 100% certainty of anything only because it is logistically impossible to ever be 100% certain. That doesn't put an unproven hypothesis that isn't based on any evidence on equal footing.

    EDIT - Also, they don't just create some new GMO variant and start selling it as food without extensive testing. Mostly they are making sure there is a benefit to the modification, but they do test to make sure the food is acceptable (taste, texture and doesn't kill anyone) as well as achieving their objective (better, yield, more nutrition, higher tolerance to adverse conditions, world peace, etc).

    Each GMO food is its own individual case, so having "zero issues" with GMOs is like having "zero issues" with all potential foods There is nothing magical about the GMO process that guarantees that all foods will be safe for all people. I'm perfectly happy to eat GMOs if they have been well-vetted AND if I am allowed access to information about what the modification is. I'm about basing judgments on as much information as possible, so don't try to insinuate that I'm anti-science or anti-evidence. If the evidence is there, there shouldn't be any objection to letting consumers have access to it in each case.

    What if they've inserted protein-generating sequences from wheat into a tomato, and I have celiac disease?

    I forget the details, but there was a GMO fish that was being brought to market, and they had subbed some gene sequences from a fish that reaches adult weight more quickly than the original fish they were modifying. I would not eat that UNTIL I was able to obtain further information about the fish they were getting the fast-growth genes from. It was a fish that was also commonly eaten by humans, so for me, it was not a concern.

    Given the number of drugs that have been approved and brought to market with horrific consequences during my lifetime, due to inadequate vetting, I reserve the right to make my own judgment about each instance of something new that has been "extensively tested" (in the case of GMOs, these extensive tests appear to be on the order of a year or two, which is hardly enough to judge long-term effects).

    Long winded way of saying that no, you can't identify a single instance of the issue that you are worried about. But since I can't prove the sky isn't falling I guess you might as well wear the tin foil hat for protection in case it is.

    You are taking the very unscientific position that if something is produced by a particular process, it must be healthful, regardless of what ingredients were used to produce it. I think you better check your own headgear.

    And the headgear of the CDC, WHO, EUPHA and other major health organization scientists, who I trust more than other internet posters and that should be trusted more than me. They all endorse GMO. Many GMO crops would allow us to feed more people using less resources. But the fear of them is too widespread, and even though that fear isn't based on hard science (it actually discredits hard science), farmers and merchants are reluctant to use them. Less people would die if it weren't for the irrational fear of GMO crops.

    No, they endorse individual GMO foods/crops, or they endorse GMO as a useful way to quickly develop crops that grow better than conventional crops under certain adverse conditions or have a higher yield. There is no scientific basis for saying that because GMO Foods (1 to X) are safe, than then all GMO Foods (x+1 to infinity) will be safe. You really seem to be missing the point.


    Edited to fix typo.

    Yes, there is scientific basis to say that the odds of GMO introducing an unsafe variant are not higher than natural mutations or cross breeding without GMO which are not as carefully monitored as GMO. There is unfounded fear in the face of science; this is nothing new. I am not missing your point at all; it just isn't based on anything meaningful. A little more education and understanding would help you get past your fear.

    I don't have "fear," so it is impossible for me to have "unfounded fear." And questioning someone's education and understanding is an ad hominem attack -- the refuge of those who have run out of logical support for their own arguments.

    You might want to expand the old comments to find the part where you asked me to check my headgear. My childish personal attack was retaliatory. No, I haven't run out of logical support. You just don't seem to believe the scientists at all the large health organizations so I have given up on reasoning with you. We are at an impasse - I can't convince you and I can't make you right. I am dropping the discussion because it is frustrating, not because I lack logical support.
  • netitheyeti
    netitheyeti Posts: 539 Member
    Options
    I think brussels sprouts and liver are delicious... but somehow I don't like steak or pepperoni pizza
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    Brussels sprouts and liver are great.

    So's steak.

    So's good pizza (but I admit to not caring for pepperoni or that type of pizza usually).
  • seltzermint555
    seltzermint555 Posts: 10,742 Member
    Options
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Apple pie. For fall pies, it's the best one.

    Strawberry-rhubarb is also in the running, but it's not a fall pie.

    I do not like apple pie, apple cobbler, or any apple dessert. I don't hate it but I can easily pass, it just does not appeal to me even though I do like apples. Among my friends & family, this seems to be a very unpopular opinion.

    Rhubarb pie is my absolute favorite. My husband and I both love it and make it at least 2-3 times per year. Strawberry-rhubarb's good too but I prefer simply rhubarb. I was so surprised and disappointed to see that our grocery store was completely out of frozen rhubarb this week...who makes that for Thanksgiving? (I wanted to)
  • no1racefan1
    no1racefan1 Posts: 277 Member
    Options
    steveko89 wrote: »
    My #1: Corn, in any form other than popped, salted, and buttered, is overrated and a waste of everyone's time.

    others receiving votes:
    - bananas are gross
    - I strongly dislike the texture of beans, in all forms
    - Granny Smith > any other apple variety... fight me.
    - I don't like avocado unless made into guacamole


    YESSSS to the italics. Also--avocadoes, fish, seafood (especially lobster), kale, coconut water, plain greek yogurt, most condiments, and a lot of other things are just GROSS.

    Here are my other unpopular opinions:

    Coffee in any form is the worst-tasting thing on the planet.

    Some foods I won't even try because of how they look--Brussel sprouts and asparagus being two of those.

    If the dessert was not made in house, it's probably not worth ordering.

    Artificial sweeteners are disgusting.

    I don't really eat bread any more but when I did, I thought the cheap, unhealthy white bread tasted the best. Especially with PB&J.

    Buffets are horrible, germ-infested places to stay far away from.

    Apples are really boring unless they are baked into something, like a pie.
  • Adam__20000
    Adam__20000 Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    The KFC zinger burrito is the best item on the kfc menu
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    CarvedTones wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I thought CarvedTone's point was that the hypothetical safety of non studied and approved GMO products was irrelevant, since the only ones that would come on the market would be studied and approved. Not that any possible hypothetical GMO product would inherently be safe -- that seemed like a misrepresentation of what he had said.

    Am I misunderstanding, CarvedTone?

    That was a point I made early. Where we got off in the weeds is in the discussion about how likely it is that any hypothetical future GMO products would be unsafe. We aren't absolutely sure they would all be safe, only almost absolutely sure. IMO, it's far more likely that people will eat unsafe food because of contaminants like pesticides because the crops aren't as resistant as GMO variants or get less nutrition or go hungry due to lower yields and/or failed crops due to drought.

    My concern is that the backlash could actually have a negative effect or at least stand in the way of some positive ones. You would think they would be in the lab working on creating Romaine lettuce that retards or prevents the growth of e coli. They probably aren't only because it would not sell.

    I only want to answer your question, not re-open the discussion. The other poster who disagreed with me seems to believe that we can't assume that the chance of something being unsafe and making it to market is as insignificant as I think or at least that is the impression I got. I infer that the poster believes more lives would be lost due to those hypothetical safety problems than would be saved by properly feeding more people from less land using existing GMO strains with an eye toward creating more.

    There appears to be near zero chance that either of us will change our minds, so we had just agreed to drop the debate. The other poster may come back and clarify their position if I misstated it above, but it is pointless for us to continue the back and forth.

    Thank you.
  • krael65
    krael65 Posts: 306 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Bacon doesn't make everything better.

    Blasphemy! :)
  • krael65
    krael65 Posts: 306 Member
    Options
    I like machine cappuccinos and lattes.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    Options
    krael65 wrote: »
    I like machine cappuccinos and lattes.

    I liked them better before I started going to the gym. Huh? The reason for that odd correlation is that we have a machine at work that I would get coffee and the occasional latte from and that was pretty much my only common source of coffee. Now I often go to the gym before work. I go to a gym near my office and have time to drink a cup of coffee before I get there. I make a cup from the Keurig at home and we get better coffee than what is at my office, so I am becoming conditioned to that as normal.

Categories