[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 47 KB, 500x707, applesaredangerous.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4751219 No.4751219 [Reply] [Original]

Why do you still eat apples?

They contain ten times more toxins than pork.

>> No.4751223

>>4751219
Inb4 troll? Those are just chemical names for nutrients...most of them anyway...

>> No.4751259

>>4751223

I think the point is that some people are idiots who think all chemicals everywhere are bad and dont understand that just because something is an E-number it isnt lethal.

He also used 'toxins' which is one of those words you see flung around everywhere but which is never defined or used correctly.

>> No.4751264

>manganese

uguu~ is apple-chan cute yet, onii-chan?

>> No.4751272

>>4751223
I am guessing he is making fun of how liberals are afraid of anything with a chemical name

>> No.4751274

>>4751264
>>4751264
>apple-chan
I believe you mean ringo-chan

>> No.4751283

>uguu~ is apple-chan cute yet, onii-chan?

what does this shit even mean? Am I the only non-weeaboo on here?

>> No.4751305

OP, it is important to distinguish between synthetic and natural "nutrients". Nobody declares chemicals as a bad thing. The universe itself is based on the laws of chemistry and physics.

monosodium glutamate != glutamic acid; for example. One is an endogenous substance and the other a full synthetic industrial product, and both affect your body differently.

>> No.4751325

>>4751272
You realize the majority of researchers are "liberal", right?

>> No.4751353

>>4751272
I don't know how this is supposed to be helpful.
The take-away message of this is "well, all those scientists who told me that there were bad things for me in processed foods must be liars since there are chemicals in apples".

>> No.4751369

>>4751305
>monosodium glutamate != glutamic acid; for example. One is an endogenous substance and the other a full synthetic industrial product, and both affect your body differently.
yeah, thats not how it works

Glutamate takes hydrogen ions from water and pretty much instantly becomes glutamic acid once dissolved. Both MSG and Glutamic acid are perfectly "natural" not that natural is a good or bad thing,
glutamate is ubiquitous in your body, and increased consumption of it has not shown to have any effects whatsoever

>> No.4751373

>>4751353
no, the point is there is absolutely no correlation between something being a "chemical" and it being bad

Processed foods are bad, not because they have chemicals in them, its because of the amount of carbs and types of fat they have, and no scientist has ever claimed it was the scary sounding chemicals that made them bad

>> No.4751375

>>4751305
>>4751369
that faggot just got rekt

>> No.4751387

>>4751325
>You realize the majority of researchers are "liberal"
eh, not really. They are liberal in so much as they like the government to give them grants, but they are most certainly not the typical Luddite liberal who is afraid of anything that sounds like a chemical and is afraid of genetic modification

>> No.4751397

I like them with my pork

A slow cooked pork belly with salty gravy, with a gravy made from the juices, using dry cider to deglaze the pan and home made apple sauce is heavenly.

>> No.4751401

>>4751387
>They are liberal in so much as they like the government to give them grants
I believe you are thinking of conservatives here. Do you remember the great bailouts and ongoing subsidies championed by the right wing?

>but they are most certainly not the typical Luddite liberal who is afraid of anything that sounds like a chemical and is afraid of genetic modification
They are liberal in that they are open-minded and not reactionary, traditionalists who are afraid of anything new.

It's funny how you relate people who are suspicious of new food technology as "liberals" and "luddites".

Just curious, what is your employment?

>> No.4751417

>>4751401
>I believe you are thinking of conservatives here. Do you remember the great bailouts and ongoing subsidies championed by the right wing?
I am not trying to get into a political argument, but almost always it is democrats voting to give more money to academia, also to call Bush right-wing is a bit misleading, he was thoroughly a neocon, which is basically a socially conservative democrat.

Being suspicious doesn't make you a luddite, refusing to embrace technology out of misguided fear does

and liberal = non-reactionary? They are the ones trying to ban vaccines and GMO at the first bullshit media report of potential negative effects
I am a chemist with a background specifically in biochemistry

>> No.4751424

>>4751401
>It's funny how you relate people who are suspicious of new food technology as "liberals" and "luddites".
Being suspicious with no evidence to back your suspicion of a technology that isn't even that new. You are buying into conspiracy theories and using this as a basis to block progress (yet you call yourselves progressives)

>> No.4751428

>>4751417
>They are the ones trying to ban vaccines and GMO at the first bullshit media report of potential negative effects
Must be why the right-wing Christians aren't flipping out about the HPV vaccine, among other things.

>I am a chemist with a background specifically in biochemistry
What kind of lab do you work at? How does being a technician make you think you understand about the ecological safety of Bt-transgenic crops?

>> No.4751432

>>4751424
>Being suspicious with no evidence to back your suspicion of a technology
As opposed to embracing something because it is available, despite being just as ignorant about said technology as those who refrain from it are?

>> No.4751436

>>4751428
>Must be why the right-wing Christians aren't flipping out about the HPV vaccine, among other things.
I am not defending them, not sure how other people doing dumb things makes up for your people doing dumb things

Also their freak out has nothing to do with the technology about it, they aren't making retarded claims about its fake negative effects, just dumb moral claims about it which in my mind is at least a little more respectable that the factually incorrect claims "progressives" like to make

>> No.4751441

>>4751428
>What kind of lab do you work at? How does being a technician make you think you understand about the ecological safety of Bt-transgenic crops?
I don't think because there is the unlikely possibility that we could produce something with minor negative ecological effects means we should shun the technology in general like liberal like to do

>> No.4751444

>>4751441
>I don't think
We all know that.

>> No.4751445

>>4751432
I know for a fact that I am more educated about the subject than anyone who ever claims they are inherently bad

>> No.4751448

>>4751441
>effects that I have full certainty will be ecologically minor even though it is a brand new technology

inb4 ancient mesopotamians were inserting bacterial DNA into maize

remember Silent Spring, kids? no of course not, you were too young to remember.

>> No.4751451

>>4751444
great contribution to the thread

>> No.4751454

>>4751448
Its not brand new technology, we have been using it for a while now


and just because we can't prove something doesn't do something (because proving a negative just isn't feasible), doesn't mean we should never attempt to do anything with any risk

>> No.4751461

>>4751454
>a while now
>30 years

Yea, no.

You can get back to me when scientists can publish actual unbiased research on the topic without having their families threatened.

>> No.4751480
File: 52 KB, 439x659, 1339677189121.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4751480

A friend of mine told me last night that aspartame turns into formaldehyde in your liver and will kill you.

>> No.4751482

>>4751461
they have consistently

There is a ridiculous amount of evidence in its favor from all sorts of sources, absolutely no credible evidence against it despite countless biased sources trying very hard

>> No.4751485

>>4751369
>>4751375

OH LOOK WE HAVE A SMARTASS OVER HERE -as I said before, on one side you have glutamate, which is an endogenous substance (natural amino acid) while msg on the pther side is the synthetic sodium salt of glumate. MSG (the way it is produced nowadays) doesn't equals with glutamate.

You can't compare the glutamate in naturally fermented soy sauce with the MSG IN DORITOS YOU NEVER UNDERSTANDING FAGGOTS

>> No.4751486

>>4751480
>The methanol produced by the metabolism of aspartame is absorbed and quickly converted into formaldehyde and then completely oxidized to formic acid, which, due to its long half life, is considered the primary mechanism of toxicity in methanol poisoning. The methanol from aspartame is unlikely to be a safety concern for several reasons. The amount of methanol in aspartame is less than that found in fruit juices and citrus fruits, and there are other dietary sources for methanol such as fermented beverages. Therefore, the amount of methanol produced from aspartame is likely to be less than that from natural sources. With regard to formaldehyde, it is rapidly converted in the body, and the amounts of formaldehyde from the metabolism of aspartame are trivial when compared to the amounts produced routinely by the human body and from other foods and drugs. At the highest expected human doses of consumption of aspartame, there are no increased blood levels of methanol or formic acid,[8] and ingesting aspartame at the 90th percentile of intake would produce 25 times less methanol than what would be considered toxic

>> No.4751488

>>4751485
no, MSG is not synthetic

MSG does equal glutamate, sodium completely dissociates from glutamate in solution, they are exactly the same thing

Are you being serious?

>> No.4751490

>>4751441
>ecological effects
>bring up some silly soft science in a discussion of actual science

>> No.4751493

>>4751482

Most of the academic research on the topic is published by researchers whose departments, if not the entire university, are dependent on hush money from certain interested parties.

Whack job environmentalists have always had to operate on the fringe because there's no money in looking for something that you're not sure what to look for, especially when there's an assfuckton of money in looking for something that someone in a position to withdraw that money is very interested in having you find.

Rachel Carson was only vindicated when the bad shit became so fucking bad that even joe six pack had no trouble seeing it.

Obviously, it's going to have to get to that point before anyone puts any serious effort into researching the repercussions of transgenic monoculture. Neither you nor I have any say in this matter, so I guess we can agree to disagree and maybe in 60 years we'll see who was right: the company that had a lot to cover up, or the public who asked reasonable questions and were told to shut their hysterical traps and let the big boys carry on with their big money business.

>> No.4751499

>>4751493
science is science regardless of who funds it

If you have issues with the methodology please bring them up, but of course people are going to research things they are invested in, that in no way discredits facts. I have no clue why one would assume the crazy liberals against science would be less biased than scientists partially funded by "evil corporations"

The fact is both sides have looked very hard, and nothing of concern has been found, we can't just put off all scientific progress because of a vague sense of risk

>> No.4751501

>>4751454
Most people aren't complaining about the technology, they are complaining about planting of millions of hectares of land with inadequately tested cultivars.

You are ignorant if you can only say, "hurrr liberal luddite is afraid of GMOs" when people bring up valid, specific points of contention.

>> No.4751503
File: 8 KB, 260x315, 1341069241117.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4751503

>>4751486
Thanks anon, now I can tell her why she's full of shit. She's pretty much the stereotypical liberal hippie.

>does drugs
>smokes like a chimney
>fat
>going to school for art

>> No.4751504

>>4751488
Do you even synthetic?

syn·thet·ic
sinˈTHetikSenden
adjective
1.
(of a substance) made by chemical synthesis, esp. to imitate a natural product.

>> No.4751505

>>4751493
I have no issue with the concept of a specific strain having negative ecological effects. But the idea that GMOs in general are unsafe is just fucking crazy, almost on par with the anti-vacciners

>> No.4751506

>>4751499
>science is science regardless of who funds it
Now who is being juvenile.

People don't have to publish negative results, and rarely do so. If I am being paid by Monsanto to look at the safety of one of their products, I am under no legal binding to publish unfavorable results.

This isn't conspiracy theory stuff, it is the way the world works. Unless someone pays researchers to poke around they aren't going to do so.

>> No.4751507
File: 32 KB, 240x161, chapela.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4751507

>>4751499
>crazy liberals against science

Right, because doing scientific research for a public research university is "crazy anti-science liberalism" when Monsanto has a problem with it, but it's The Scientific Truth when Monsanto agrees with it.

You can reread my previous posts if you have no clue how bias works in the research field. They're not that hard to grasp.

>> No.4751509

>>4751501
>Most people aren't complaining about the technology, they are complaining about planting of millions of hectares of land with inadequately tested cultivars
thats not the impression that most GMO threads o here have given me


Its mostly people saying they cause cancer or similar ridiculous claims

>> No.4751512

>>4751507
I was about to post a link to Chapela's story.

>> No.4751513

>>4751504
glutamate is not an imitation of a natural product, it is a natural product

Synthetic would be something similar to glutamate but not the same that we make in its place for whatever reason

>> No.4751515

>>4751507
When all evidence shows you are wrong but you delusionally continue to pursue some crazy theory, tat makes you crazy anti-science liberal

>> No.4751516

>>4751513
>Synthetic would be something similar to glutamate but not the same that we make in its place for whatever reason
No, that's not what synthetic means.

>> No.4751519

>>4751515
>When all evidence shows you are wrong
Describe such a scenario and specify the GMO.

>> No.4751520

>>4751515

So I guess Monsanto is anti-science for wanting to suppress evidence, yes? As for your definition of liberal, I guess it would make sense at this point to determine whether we are using the retro "rapacious free market capitalism" sense of the term, or the American style "egalitarian/enlightened" sense of the term.

>> No.4751522

>>4751520
Anti-science is when someone is hesitant when they should just open their wallet, shut up, and be happy.

>> No.4751523

>>4751516
You are trying to argue that the glutamate in our food is inherently different than that in our body

This is a factually incorrect idea, glutamate is glutamate

>> No.4751524

>>4751519
but I thought the line was all GMOs are bad?

Do you want us to run a large scale 50 year study on every new technological development to make sure it is safe?

>> No.4751528

>>4751520
My definition of liberal is people who self identify as liberal.

In the modern english language, the word liberal does not mean classical liberal, those are now known as libertarians

>> No.4751529

>>4751523
I'm not arguing anything, I'm just saying that isn't what synthetic means.

>> No.4751527

>>4751524
>but I thought the line was all GMOs are bad?
You don't know how to argue.

>> No.4751530

>>4751524
So you say people who are "against GMOs" are stupid but you obviously know nothing about the technology or cultivars being employed.

>> No.4751532

>>4751527
for a strain of GMO to be bad, you would basically have to specifically engineer it to be so, which could certainly be done if someone desired, but its quite dumb to be worried we are accidentally going to do this

How many years of evidence in favor oof GMO is enough for you? Do we need to wait another 20 years before we can go ahead with science?

>> No.4751536

>>4751523
What you are saying is that our bodies do metabolize both in the same way, alright, but still both effect our bodies differently

>> No.4751539

>>4751530
I know quite a bit about the subject, I have personally made transgenic organisms in the lab

What about the previous post suggested otherwise

>> No.4751542

>>4751536
>but still both effect our bodies differently
how? They are exactly the same thing. Your body has no possible way to differentiate from them.

and even if your body could tell the difference, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the effects are different

>> No.4751543
File: 67 KB, 731x807, science.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4751543

>>4751528

Well, since corporations are people now, I can accept that Monsanto is liberal since they claim that all the poor people will die if they don't shut up and accept their version of reality, and as we both know liberals love the poor. So they're not only liberal but as we also discussed, they are also anti-science. How funny that we came to the same conclusion despite our apparent disagreement!

>> No.4751547

>>4751543
a lot of poor people will die if we shun technology

>> No.4751549

>>4751543
what did his evidence suggest, and why has no one ever been able to replicate it?

Repeatability is a basic tenant of science

>> No.4751551

>Toxins

There's really no such thing. Pretty much any chemical can have toxic effects above a certain threshold, but that doesn't make anything innately toxic.

As such, the word "toxin" is essentially meaningless. Every time I hear it, I know immediately that the shithead speaking it knows absolutely nothing if chemistry.

>> No.4751555

>>4751532
>for a strain of GMO to be bad, you would basically have to specifically engineer it to be so, which could certainly be done if someone desired, but its quite dumb to be worried we are accidentally going to do this
Some would consider engineering a plant to produce toxins (in both the tissue and pollen) that specifically kill Lepidoptera (which includes key pollinators, such as moth and butterflies) a bad idea.

Or a plant that is tolerant to glyphosate, which causes a dramatic increase in the application of glyphosate in fields along with the subsequent increase in glyphosate resistant weed species.

These two examples are the two most popular GMO plants employed in the world.

>> No.4751559

>>4751549
>So essentially, Quist and Chapela reached two conclusions. The first was that GM contamination had occurred in Mexican maize and the second was that the GM DNA seemed to be randomly fragmented in the genome of the maize. If the first point was contentious, the second was explosive, as it suggested that transgenic DNA was not stable. Quist and Chapela knew that if the research was published it would cause an international outcry, so they wanted to make sure that their research was correct. The biotech industry had hardly recovered from the StarLink scandal in the USA, and GM contamination of Mexican maize would represent a 'nightmare' scenario for the industry

What makes you so sure no one has ever been able to replicate it when there's a mafia-like code of omerta surrounding the subject? Absence of proof is not proof of absence. lrn2 science

>> No.4751561

>>4751539
>I know quite a bit about the subject, I have personally made transgenic organisms in the lab
Lots of people have, including myself. But getting E. coli to produce a specific protein is different than actively spreading that E. coli in wild populations based on research funded by private organizations that want to market said product.

>> No.4751564

>>4751549
>why has no one ever been able to replicate it?
It has been replicated.

>> No.4751567

>>4751551
>There's really no such thing.
Semantics =/= intelligence. I guess Bt-toxin isn't a thing.

>> No.4751570

>>4751559
>Absence of proof is not proof of absence. lrn2 science
I see you don't know much about science. the phrase is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Scientists do not speak of proof, they look for evidence and draw conclusions from evidence, they don't prove things

>> No.4751573

>>4751542
Yeah, there you have it folks, forget freshly prepared food and logical selective eating because according to this guy and the general food industrial you can forget all that. Instead you can eat ramen all day, who needs essential nutrients when you have food supplements

>> No.4751574

>>4751561
I understand the difference, just saying that the fact I have done such a thing strongly suggests I know at least more than the average person about the mechanisms involved

>> No.4751578

>>4751573
what the hell are you talking about?

I never said anything remotely like that

>> No.4751581

>>4751574
Again, we aren't talking about methodology but the impacts of the technology as it is currently being applied.

>> No.4751589

>>4751581
I just don't understand where worst case scenario conspiracy theorists are coming from.

What standard do you want before we allow new technology to be pursued? Do you desire nothing to have any effect on the environment whatsoever? that doesn't seem realistic especially when more conventional crops can have much more severe impact on the environment

>> No.4751595

>>4751428
yeah its fucked up how christians hate vaccines, I am so sick of bill maher demonizing them when ever they come up in conversation.

>> No.4751600

>>4751570

Well, thank god you corrected my recollection of a colloquialism or this argument might have continued. "Science" has won another round.

>> No.4751601

>>4751595
pretty sure Christians don't hate vaccines

Most of the anti-vaccine crusaders are northeastern middle aged soccer moms, not your crazy religious southerners (though there are exceptions of course)

>> No.4751607

>>4751601
exactly right, bill maher is a big time atheist and rabid supporter of left wing political policy. Saying its right wing christians is out of line.

ghandi refused to allow his wife to take medicine of any kind when she was sick, fucking christians man.

>> No.4751613

>>4751607
all I know, is people who are against vaccines in this day and age are the worst kind of people regardless of their religion or other political beliefs

>> No.4751616

>>4751589
>What standard do you want before we allow new technology to be pursued? Do you desire nothing to have any effect on the environment whatsoever? that doesn't seem realistic especially when more conventional crops can have much more severe impact on the environment
The standard has to be higher than the current self-regulatory paradigm.

People think, "if it's bad we'd know", but how? If Monsanto (for example) is the only one testing their own product, do you think they would publish negative results? I bet you can't find one paper showing such a thing.

What about third-party researchers - how are they going to get grant money to work on something that, if it proves successful, will not make money but actually piss off major university research contributors?

People don't understand how funding works in science. They think science is unbiased but in a real world scenario it is anything but.

>> No.4751618

Threadly reminder that university researchers would make more money if they were in industry.

>> No.4751620

>>4751616
the idea that all research must be third party, and any research with ties to either side of an issue is meritless is ridiculous and not feasible

>> No.4751622

>>4751613
While I agree it is irresponsible from a social perspective, you'd be singing a different tune if your child was paralyzed or debilitated by narcolepsy as a result of a vaccine side effect.

>> No.4751627

>>4751613
>yfw over 47,000 Indians are now paralyzed because of the polio vaccine

>> No.4751628

>>4751622
>ou'd be singing a different tune if your child was paralyzed or debilitated by narcolepsy as a result of a vaccine side effect
but vaccines don't have such side effects

A lot of these parents suffer from the correlation/causation confusion. They see things happen at about the same time and assume they are correlated. Its a natural human response, but illogical none the less

>> No.4751630

>>4751627
How many millions would be paralyzed or dead without the vaccine?

>> No.4751632

>>4751627
>47,000 Indians are now paralyzed because of the polio vaccine
lol, really now?

>> No.4751634

>>4751620
I didn't say "all research". Hyperbole isn't a proper form of discourse.

If there is virtually no third-party research than one must be suspect. If you can't see this you are naive.

>> No.4751639

>>4751630
So you would be a proud citizen if you were paralyzed from the vaccine, knowing you did your part for the herd?

>> No.4751640

>>4751639
I am not talking about herd immunity

Say there is a 1% chance you get polio and become paralyzed and die, compared to .0001% with the vaccine, thats a risk you should take regardless of the additional benefits of herd immunity

47K in india is fucking nothing, not getting the vaccine, even more of those people would have become paralyzed

>> No.4751643

>>4751639
No, but I wouldn't be trying to ban something that saves and/or protects the lives of 99% of the population just because I have inferior genetics.

>> No.4751646

>mfw the monsanto shills are trying to equate vaccine hysteria with reasonable people concerns

clever

>> No.4751665

>>4751646
the vaccine people think they are reasonable as well. to me you all all conspiracy nuts

>> No.4751670

>>4751646
there is nothing reasonable about being against genetic modification

>> No.4751676

>>4751219
i am sick of the fluoride in the water that isn't even the right kind of fluoride! sodium fluoride is BAD and doesn't make your teeth stronger, it actually weakens them! look up calcium fluoride (naturally occurring) vs sodium fluoride (THAT COMES FROM ALUMINUM FACTORIES AND FERTILIZER BY-PRODUCTS!) all this bad stuff comes from monsanto!


when i go to the store i avoid 99% of EVERYTHING that has any artificial colors/ingredients/additives/chemicals in it!

i am sick of the bad chemicals in our food!

tell me this: why is fluoride good for your teeth, but they want you to drink it into your body through the faucet, when clean water you can trust should be coming out???

if you brush your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, (which by the way says to contact emergency poison control if you swallow it) then its touching your teeth! that is topical contact, so why isn't that enough? why should we drink poison?

when shopping i avoid fructose corn syrup (look it up, its an INCOMPLETE sugar that poisons your liver) unlike honey, that is complete and much healthier.

eat like a bear: nuts,berries,fish,milk, salad (bears dont eat salad lol) and fruits/vegetables!

YOU DONT HAVE TO POISON YOURSELF ANYMORE, take the 30 seconds it takes (dont be lazy) to find the ingredient label on the back of your food items! if you find something that simply IS NOT FOOD/a normal ingredient, DON'T BUY IT. don't give them more money, and don't ruin your body, eat healthy so that your quality of life will be better till the moment your done!

i see this on the back of 99% of all food

ingredients: yellow5, titanium dioxide, azodiacarbonamide, hydroxypropylmethlcellulose, high fructose corn syrup, iron oxide, fluoride, aspartame.

THESE THINGS ARE LITERALLY POISON. give yourself a gentle smack on the face and wake the everloving fruit UP.

don't let them win, have a happy and healthy life. peace.

ask your doctor before doing anything. you are responsible for your own health.

>> No.4751678

>>4751646
The anti-vaccine, anti-MSG, and anti-GMO people have a whole lot in common

>> No.4751680

>>4751219
calories in my personal and unprofessional opinion are nothing but a consistent way for the government to get the same number or calories out of the same foods over and and over again every time, without any true intelligent regard for WHAT the food is, what its nutritional content is, or how the body handles it, as well as completely disregarding the fact that when you eat food- YOU POOP usually half or more out of you straight into the toilet, in the form of CRAP

yet it is obvious to say that if you eat several sticks of butter you are likely to get very fat, as goes with common sense. (believe it or not it may not be so common after all)
i believe they are a false representation of what a unit of energy should be for people, since everyone is so different from each other.
if a person goes into the jungle and eats leaves all day long, they could get sick or even die, yet when observing a gorilla in its natural habitat, it eats leaves and plants all the time and it is one of the strongest animals on earth.
my point is that i think the system of calories is incorrect and inaccurate, and we simply don't know enough to truly be able to tell someone that they will get so many "units of energy" out of one food compared to a different food, without even taking into consideration how different everyone's bodies are and how their needs differ from one another.

>> No.4751681

>>4751670
There is plenty reasonable about being against the current applications of GMO, and the business practices which surround the products, as well as the environmental concerns.

>> No.4751682

>>4751219
it just bothers me when i see my family complaining and moaning and weighing their low fat chicken breasts on tiny food scales and counting how many "hue hue points" are in their Zero-Calorie soda drink (meanwhile its full of aspartame and other chemicals that are suspected to cause cancer).... and yet they continue to eat foods full of additives and chemicals like yellow 5 and titanium dioxide and high fructose corn syrup which by the way again in my personal and unprofessional opinion(some say 100% proven) is an incomplete sugar that poisons the liver into making you gain weight, unlike honey which is a complete sugar that the body knows how to handle better.
so essentially people run around looking at these gimmicky hipster points called calories all day long and worrying that their little turkey slice is too heavy for their professionally pretentious "daily allowed servings" instead of looking at foods labels where they actually count, THE INGREDIENT LIST.
>what is in this food?: rice, milk, potato's, beans.
sounds ok!

>whats in this food?: YELLOW 5 MAGNESIUM STEARATE TITANIUM DIOXIDE HYDROGINATED TRANSFAT OILS AND FATS HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP ASPARTAME ARTIFICIAL COLORS FLAVORS AND SWEETENERS MODIFIED CORN STARCH
>NOPE

my point is that i believe that everyone's personal metabolisms or "how their body handles the food" are too complex and different to make a system so general that it covers everyone like a giant umbrella. people are not all the same and shouldn't be treated like their stomachs have a number inside them that perfectly describes the way they are.
>inb4 "but anon, trans fats and yellow 5 are chemicals just like water, so it should be safe, because water and corn syrup are made out of atoms, so they are the same thing and therefore ok.... (YOU ARE WRONG)

ask your doctor before doing anything
i am not responsible for what you eat
you make your own decisions in life at your own risk.

>> No.4751683

>>4751676
>why is fluoride good for your teeth
because it hardens enamel, making it tougher for cavities to form

It doesn't take much fluoride to benefit your teeth, it takes quite a lot for it to be bad for your body

>> No.4751685

they contain 10 times more your mama than pork

>> No.4751690

>>4751670
>>4751646
>>4751678

i personally am not against genetic modification, it fascinates me, just thinking of the possibilities , but i am completely against and in full disagreement with the way monsanto does things.

with monsanto all i seem to understand from them is
FISH+rotten potato fungus+sick tomato etc. and then DROWN it in pesticides, THEN they want to feed these vegetables to everyone like they don't care what might happen to them, even if in several years.

>> No.4751691

Is apple juice good to drink?

>> No.4751693

>>4751681
the anti vaccine folks say the exact same thing

>> No.4751694

>>4751681
no, there really arent

>> No.4751695

>>4751683
whats good for teeth?
fluoride?
why does the government then put
>fluorine (different) in the water, and then people drink the water?

if its only good for your teeth than why should people have to drink it and swallow it? its absolutely disgusting and insane!

>> No.4751697

>>4751695
How else can the CIA attune their mind-control devices?

>> No.4751698

>>4751690
There are no vegetables being cross bred with animals being sold to the public as food, when they do that its purely for experimentation in a lab setting

>> No.4751699

>>4751219


Why don't you just grow your own?

>> No.4751701

>>4751683
>taking the bait

>> No.4751738

>>4751690
>but i am completely against and in full disagreement with the way monsanto does things
the thing is, that has absolutely nothing to do with the science of genetic modification and should be treated separately

>> No.4751742

>>4751695
water contacts your teeth, and gets in crevices. The data shows this has dramatically improved dental health. The concentrations are not nearly high enough to have effect on your digestive system after it passes your teeth

>> No.4751744

>>4751690
I just want them to put GFP in everything, then the world would be awesome, you could see farm fields fluorescing from space etc

>> No.4751761

>>4751693
you're dumb
>>4751694
Oh, ok, so letting a company develop a monopoly on agriculture is fine? Letting them sew others because their modified plants pollinated other crops is fine? Increasing the amount of insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used per acre exponentially is a good idea? Having every single cell of an organism produce insecticide and herbicide toxins is a good idea? Do we really think there won't be massive consequences to furthering the practices of monoculture, known, and unforseeable? Anyone who thinks these aren't valid concerns is delusional.

>> No.4751763

>>4751761
fucking phone
sue*

>> No.4751764

>>4751742
disabled-world.com/artman/publish/fluoride-poison .shtml

>> No.4751773

>>4751764
seems legit

>> No.4751769

>>4751761
THIS anon makes sense

>> No.4751776

>>4751761
>so letting a company develop a monopoly on agriculture is fine
that is entirely unrelated to the science of genetically modifying crops

>> No.4751778

>>4751761
>Increasing the amount of insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used per acre exponentially is a good idea
better than needing 10 times as much land for the same yield

Would you rather have more deforestation or use technology?

Which is worse for the environment

>> No.4751779

>>4751761
>Having every single cell of an organism produce insecticide and herbicide toxins is a good idea
a lot of organisms already do that

>> No.4751781

>>4751761
>monoculture
This happened long before the invention of GMOs

>> No.4751783

Do you faggots do nothing but shitpost all day fucking day?

>> No.4751839
File: 421 KB, 215x194, 43523463.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4751839

>>4751778
>other comment is basically saying ">implying its good to have poison everywhere"
>this comment replies, ">better than needing more poison"

"WOULD U RATHER CUT DOWN TREES OR USE COMPUTERS"

whats worse for nature.
1/10 troll replying with a comment COM***INGPLETELY unrelated to another one


this is the new "have you ever even been as decided to look more like"

>> No.4751850

everything is a fucking chemical.

>> No.4751860

>>4751850
you are not very smart

>> No.4751867

>gmos are bad
>dihydrogen monoxide sounds scary
>fluoride is killing us all because of the jews or something like that
>vaccines cause autism because that playboy model says so

fucking liberals

>> No.4751880

>>4751781
No shit, and current applications of GMOs are geared specifically to increase the practice.

>> No.4751881

>>4751867
oh yea, and MSG is bad

>> No.4751882

>ITT: this is what stupid conservatives think

>> No.4751890

>>4751880
the practice was incredibly widespread and had nothing to do with GMOs

They surely aren't trying to reverse the trend, but its disingenuous to blame GMOs for this, this happened over 100 years ago

>> No.4751894

>>4751776
It is related in as much as that is what Monsanto would love to see happen.
Also, it is completely related to the points I made.

>> No.4751903

>>4751894
monsato=/=GMO

Thats no different than saying all corn is bad and should be banned because Monsato sells corn

>> No.4751918

>>4751890
It's disingenuous to insinuate that I am blaming GMOs for it. Read, for once, and get your preconceived notions about what I am saying out of your head. The current applications of GMOs only serve to further the practice of monocultures, and that is a large concern.

>> No.4751921

>>4751918
so what do you want to be done about it?

>> No.4751924

>>4751903
Can someone actually be this fucking dense? Please tell me you're trolling. No one can be so stupid and stubborn as to completely ignore what someone is saying, insisting that they are making a point which was never made. There are few cases where being trolled would increase my faith in humanity, but this is one of them.

>> No.4751927

>>4751903
>monsato=/=GMO
Considering the vast majority of crops are Monsanto patents, yes, it pretty much means that currently.

>> No.4751930

>>4751918
Perhaps if these companies looked for ways to improve organisms that did not rely on the further purchases of their other products which are environmental concerns, they wouldn't get so much flak, and GMOs MIGHT be seen as advantageous. As it is, all we get are more problems, and a few people getting very rich by screwing over many.

>> No.4751932

>>4751643
>I have inferior genetics.
Vaccine reactions aren't necessarily due to inherited traits.

>> No.4751940

>>4751930
meant as a reply to
>>4751921

>> No.4751951

>>4751930
>by screwing over many.
I just don't see this. Most of the world is better of with GMOs

>> No.4752007

All these morons talking about GMOs that are not food. Stop that. This is /ck/, not /bacteria & non-food organisms/. GMO foods are not helping a damn thing other than lining pockets with money.

>> No.4752012

>>4752007
>GMO foods are not helping a damn thing other than lining pockets with money.
and greatly increasing the yield stopping poor people from farming and reversing deforestation in the 3rd world

>> No.4752018

>>4752012
>and greatly increasing the yield stopping poor people from farming and reversing deforestation in the 3rd world

That is simply not true at all. They actually yield less, are causing small farmers to lose their farms and jobs causing more poor people, and they are increasing deforestation so people can plant more.

3/10 for getting me to reply.

>> No.4752029

>>4752018
wait, why would small farmers buy them fi they aren't as good?

>> No.4752032

>>4752018
Why would people need to plant more when the yield is so much higher since they aren't losing crop to pests etc?

>> No.4752041

>>4751272
MY JUICE HAS CITRIC ACID
NEVER AGAIN

>> No.4752064

>>4752029
Small farms get put out of business because of the muscling the other larger farmers near them do to them. Also, in 3rd world countries farmers that are in business farming age old local crops get put out of business when they can't compete with super cheap GMO crops.

>>4752032
As one example, GMO corn does not yield higher at all. It is made to be grown closer together. You plant more in a smaller area, but the number of ears of corn per stalk is the same. As far as pests go, GMO require pesticides gear specifically towards their GMO additive. The pests are developing immunity to these pesticides. It's an arm's race.

>> No.4752095

>>4752064
The only future I can think of is hydroponics, only draw back is the power consumption.

>> No.4752166

>>4752095
Aquaponics is better and you don't need GMO for that.

>> No.4752218
File: 53 KB, 548x687, 65534235.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4752218

>>4751867
>2013
>seriously defending this outrage of evil
>shigga doodle doo


anon i hope you are trolling

>> No.4752257

>>4752218
He isn't trolling. He's just a conservative. They are born to take it up that ass.

>> No.4752289

Organic gala apple tree owner here,Cut um up ,worms and all, to make hard cider.
Fuck you God,The snake was righteous!

>> No.4752509

>>4752289
absolutely disgraceful


>implying the apple we all know is even the same apple or even the same metaphorically intended depiction in the story, implying that the apple wasn't just a simple metaphorical representation for disobeying G-D