GMO vs Organic

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I like to go into vegan restaurants and demand, in a loud, annoying voice, 'BRING ME A LARGE PLATE OF GMO ANYTHING AND DO IT NOW!!!'

Seriously, though, all food is organic (you can't eat non-organics and stay alive) and all foods we eat (unless you live on a steady diet of tree bark and moss) have been genetically modified.

Boru

[Silver]

I work at Nature's Food Patch, and the majority of the customers we have are simply among the most unintelligent of the human race, especially when it comes to questions about gluten.

It is so obvious by their questions that the majority of them are merely following a gluten fad due to not having a single clue as to what gluten is or why they are even excluding it from their diet. If they have to ask if milk has gluten, then clearly they are dumb. Other than the select few who have celiac, the rest of us need gluten in our diets.

[scoobysnack]

I like to go into vegan restaurants and demand, in a loud, annoying voice, 'BRING ME A LARGE PLATE OF GMO ANYTHING AND DO IT NOW!!!'

Seriously, though, all food is organic (you can't eat non-organics and stay alive) and all foods we eat (unless you live on a steady diet of tree bark and moss) have been genetically modified.

Boru

Well yes to a point, but it's based on rules a regulations to certified USDA organic at least in the US. Even then, it's really about eating whole foods, and not processed foods like pepsi if its considered a food

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usda...lture.html

[scoobysnack]

I work at Nature's Food Patch, and the majority of the customers we have are simply among the most unintelligent of the human race, especially when it comes to questions about gluten.

It is so obvious by their questions that the majority of them are merely following a gluten fad due to not having a single clue as to what gluten is or why they are even excluding it from their diet.  If they have to ask if milk has gluten, then clearly they are dumb.  Other than the select few who have celiac, the rest of us need gluten in our diets.

Nice place! Looked over the cafe menu, and I'd eat there for lunch every day. I live up in Wisconsin, and we have a lot of fat people and plenty of unhealthy eating habits. Lots of beer and cheese, although where I live in Madison, we have a lot of great restaurants that are now catering to the health conscious, or obsessive. Years ago I became more aware of what I was eating, although I had to develop a taste for it, once I learned of the health benefits, I really don't want to go back to unhealthy foods of my past.

Have you ever used a nutrition tracker, or calorie counter? This is what I used to lose 20 pounds. It's interesting to use it for two weeks to get an idea to see how your diet is well balanced, or what nutrients or vitamins you might be deficient in. You enter your personal information like weight, height, and then you can record you diet, and other activities like exercise. You can even put in the number of minutes you spent having sex, and it will tell you the calories burned haha.

https://www.caloriecount.com

[brewer]

Anyone got a position on antioxidant food additives?

[Alex K]

Anyone got a position on antioxidant food additives?

I put lemon on my avocado dip so it doesn't turn brown. Does that count?

[brewer]

Anyone got a position on antioxidant food additives?

I put lemon on my avocado dip so it doesn't turn brown. Does that count?

Of course it does.

Got any ascorbic acid junkies out there? Linus Paulings fans?

[Aractus]

It follows the same principles as any other system. If it works and has benefits you have to ask what are the unintended negatives.

To me it makes sense to ask that question about specific GMO applications, but it doesn't make sense to apply it to the entire field and for posterity. The general technique works, some applications are largely benign (such as putting vitamin A in plantains), others are more problematic, some things are not yet understood. Calling into question whether genetic modification of organisms in general works out seems very misleading. Not comparing genetic modification to current techniques which are relying on uncontrolled mutations is dishonest.

Genetic material like DNA and RNA contains a kind of compression not understood by humans at this time. We only thus far understand about specific genes, we don't understand about instructions given in the meta-structure of DNA that comprise multiple points of DNA code. Yes you can add a gene to produce a certain nutrient, but it might upset the genetic instruction in another way not yet understood. This is the conservative view, but my point is that we should default to scepticism in all scientific matters.

[Aractus]

There's no such thing as a "superfood". It's a frivolous marketing term.

Well sure it's a marketing term, but what it refers to is the healthiest foods in each category, mainly vegetables and fruits.

No it doesn't. And there's no such thing as a "healthiest" food. Humans require a diverse diet, made up of a number of food groups. No one food contains complete nutrition, and no one food from food group A can replace nutrients from food group B.

Here's a link for you containing qualified advice at the Dietitians Association of Australia:

[Alex K]

To me it makes sense to ask that question about specific GMO applications, but it doesn't make sense to apply it to the entire field and for posterity. The general technique works, some applications are largely benign (such as putting vitamin A in plantains), others are more problematic, some things are not yet understood. Calling into question whether genetic modification of organisms in general works out seems very misleading. Not comparing genetic modification to current techniques which are relying on uncontrolled mutations is dishonest.

Genetic material like DNA and RNA contains a kind of compression not understood by humans at this time. We only thus far understand about specific genes, we don't understand about instructions given in the meta-structure of DNA that comprise multiple points of DNA code. Yes you can add a gene to produce a certain nutrient, but it might upset the genetic instruction in another way not yet understood. This is the conservative view, but my point is that we should default to scepticism in all scientific matters.

Do you really think that this uncertainty is under better control with the other methods for obtaining new varieties commonly used now?