Belief, science, and central cues in public messaging

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not sure what your question means.

If you mean that the quality of school lunches is the same in both poor districts and wealthy districts (urban doesn't factor in here as many rural districts also have high percentages of free lunch kids), then you'd be partially correct. In most cases quality is similar, but there are some districts that have incorporated healthier foods, most of which are in wealthier neighborhoods.

But that's not really the point. Free lunch kids eat that crap for both breakfast and lunch every single day. Wealthy kids often pack their own lunch and they certainly don't show up early for the free breakfast which usually consists of an assortment of pre-packaged pastries.

RQFALB
ReQuoted for arrogant little bastards.

Typical mark of elitists jerks. Anyone can make new acronym's that bear no meaning on the English language.
- ie. Your argument is weak and flawed.

I'll take 2+ billions years of natural selection over your biology scientists any day.

Is it possible you can capitalize your sentences? You claim to be literate, but you come out looking like an urban dweller with a less than complete 4th grade vocabulary.

I like you Jakob, you really sound like you need a hug.

Last edited by cw10 on 24 Aug 2011, 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I can't eat those cooked potatoes imported from Iowa because they contain your average daily allowance of sodium in 2 servings.

Wow.

Are you unaware that orange carrots are a result of human intervention in that natural selection?

Also bananas that humans can eat. They don't exist in the wild. We made them.

Potatoes have come a long way too. Hundreds of years ago they were much smaller, much harder, and much less nutritious.

Chickens? Pheasants + thousands of years of selective breeding. The chinese are awesome at that stuff. That little goldfish in the bowl is descended from a silver river carp that was bigger than your hand. The gold coloration didn't even show up until they had been selectively bred for hundreds of years. The manipulation of goldfish morphology is actually really interesting. Decades ago the Bristol Aquarist's Club held a meeting where they discussed multicolored goldfish they had heard about in japan called shubunken, and decided to design their own fish. They drew up sketches of the features they thought it might have, and boring men with dirt ponds in their back yards bred for it, and created it.

Almost everything you can buy at the farmer's market is, one way or another, the result of humans interfering with natural selection - by selecting for characteristics OTHER than those that nature preferred.

We now have the ability to directly program the traits we want. We're not great at it yet, but we're getting better at it every day.

And even now there are biologists who want to get around anti-GMO fears by using a process where they chemically induce mutation, raise a generation of a few thousand organisms, and then check to see if any of them spontaneously mutated the way they hope it will mutate. THAT sounds foolish and dangerous to me.

I'm not saying that we should manipulate for herbicide resistance - we shouldn't. We should also be very careful manipulating for insect resistance - having corn that creates a protein found in every soil sample in the world that happens to bind to the digestive tract of caterpillars is pretty damn clever, except it also kills butterflies. Oops.

But we should absolutely be manipulating crops so that they are resistant to drought and poor soil conditions. We should also manipulate crops to make them more nutritious.

Nature's great and all, but nature's goals aren't man's goals. There's no reason why rice should have beta carotene in it, from nature's perspective, but maybe that would help a lot of people who are really poor live a little better.

I should be more specific. I'm more concerned with industrialized farming practices that produce animals that require antibiotics and other drugs to stay healthy because of the lousy conditions and feed practices. Pesticides, and the runoff issues.

I also don't like genetically engineered foods, there's something amiss there.

Industrial food production is in many ways trying to kill us. Many diseases are nutrition related, and if you look at the numbers for most any random disease you'll notice a generally upswing. Not all of them mind you, but enough to cause concern. I recently was diagnosed with Congestive Heart failure which is mainly caused by a B-vitamin deficiency, and it's been on the rise in America over the last 50 years. Our food is void of nutrition, and any processing/shipping/freezing causes nutrients to fade.

Case in point, I got a darn good organic B-complex tailored to my condition. Within 15 minutes of taking a mega dose, I went from not being able to catch my breath to breathing comfortably. Not being able to walk more than 10 feet without slowing down to a crawl to walking somewhat comfortably with a steady stride.

Don't tell me modern food practices are "good for us".

You know why people live longer now with less illness than we used to? It's understanding brought to us by a Mr. Louis Pasteur. Germs are a major killer, as are viruses and we wouldn't have a clue without his work.

Now we have a new killer looming on the horizon, foods that are designed to make us sick through mismanagement of resources, misunderstanding of good animal husbandry, and shipping. As soon as food is picked, it begins to lose nutritional value.

Is it okay to eat food no matter is source without cleaning and preparing it first? Ask Mr. Pasteur.
Is it okay to eat foods from the industrial food farms? Yes, as long as you have a good multivitamin, that's chelated and properly digestible.

Did I make my point clear enough with enough evidence to back up my claims?

gmo's need to be looked at independently, many species of plants would be extinct without them, no common rule can to my knowledge be found today.

Well lets summarize your argument.

1: You fear the unknown
2: You assume that a vaguely defined organization is somehow out to get you
3: You offered one anecdote which you consider definitive
4: You repeated a popular misconception

I agree with oodian that GMO crops need to be individually examined. I don't buy the argument that it's better to wait for a cosmic ray to mutate a strand of DNA at just the right place and just the right time than it is to just go in there and change it ourselves.

It is foolish and . . . . weird . . . . to assume that, oh, lets say ConAgra wants to hurt you. Why would they? What's the objective? I'm pretty sure they have a profit motive, and i don't see how they profit from killing you.

Your own failure to eat enough B12 is your business. I don't know why deficiency is on the rise - i haven't studied it. I have, however, done some research on the increase in goiter and other issues due to iodine deficiency. It turns out there are multiple cultural and regulatory factors. Fast food is one of them, manufacturers of prepared foods don't use iodized salt because the iodine requires a whole other stack of papers to be filled out and submitted to the government. Dairy regulations turn out to be another - dairies used to be required to sterilize equipment with iodine, which left traces in milk and other products, but that regulation has been relaxed. Children and teens not eating enough fish is another -- anything from the sea has iodine in it. And then there is the cultural phenomenon advocating koshersalt and other boutique salts and condiments that do not contain iodine, vs. iodized table salt.

Some fruits and vegetables do not fully ripen until some time after they have been picked.

Most of the nutrients in corn are not bioavailable unless and until the corn has been treated with alkali. This has been known for nearly as long as corn has existed, even in ancient cultures. google 'nixtamalization'.

Oh, and i don't think you know what chelation is.

I think the trouble is, for people to really get passionate and pumped enough to be a spokesperson for a cause it takes an angular personality or an angular life. A scientist at the cutting edge of dietary science would be much too monotone or reserve to really hack leadership when you think about it and even if they could, their passion and drive to do that is lacking - their more or less passive reporters of what is and what isn't.

I think you also nailed it by when you said 'true believers' beating a drum - by the very phrase 'true believers' its an emotional thing, logically rooted perhaps but at a certain given point, after they felt like they had a religious epiphany, serious inquiry stopped.

That said I would agree with her on one thing - healthier school lunches could have significant implications on childhood obesity and other epidemics, possibly greatly increase their health as well in middle and old age as well as decrease the burden that they create on such things as medicaid or medicare if they still exist in any form similar to what they do now.

It seems very backwards to me that advocating for natural foods is somehow strange or crazy but accepting an assortment of edible substances as "food" is perfectly sane.

Here is a very complete list of food additives along with their safety ratings and common usages. If you scroll all the way down to the bottom (or click on the quick links to the right) you can also see a list of banned substances. The source is reputable. Many doctors use this as a go-to guide for patients. Feel free to browse the about us section for disclosures and donators.

http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm

It's not about fear of the unknown. It's about fear of the known. We know increased sodium intake leads to heart disease (all too common in processed foods). We know that many additives used in the past were linked to cancer and organ damage which is why they were banned. There is reasonable doubt about the safety of many additives used today such as BHA, certain food dyes and artificial sweeteners.

Couple this with the questionable practices of the mega-corporations in the food industry such as Monsanto and Nestle and it seems completely reasonable to me to be wary. It's not that they want to hurt the public, they just don't care. It's all about the bottom line and nothing else. Just Google Monsanto and Terminator seed or Nestle boycott (regarding baby formula). Here's a good link about the meat industry: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/

There's no need to be dogmatic about it, but what in the world is wrong with making smarter choices about nutrition?

I think the OP is just saying that he agrees with her but feels that her techniques of arguing are of a variety that generally steal credibility rather than lending it, and that he's even more dissapointed that its a cause he agrees with getting tarred by poor advocacy.

"Chelated minerals is a scientific term referring to a very specific molecular reaction that happens between a molecule and a nutritional mineral. Chelation is a natural process that takes place in the gut to facilitate transportation of nutritional minerals across the intestinal wall as a part of digestion. As our body is not very efficient at producing chelated minerals we look to these mineral forms in nutritional supplements to assure greater efficiencies of absorption."

Minerals/(vitamins also?) are bonded with amino acids your digestive system recognizes for easier absorption. I have purchased chelated vitamine supplements in the past and found them to be of high quality and easier on my stomach.

Are you really that misinformed?

http://www.optimalhealthsystems.com/showeduc.asp?id=120

The harsh reality is that an all-natural organic diet is a luxury for the wealthy who can afford it and for people who have enough land to support themselves through farming. In this sense, advocating for natural foods is slightly crazy.



I'm familiar with CSPI and I am not advocating for indiscriminate use of additives. What I'm really doing here is asking why advocates for natural food refuse to use logic or science when they speak to the public.



You said:



This is an expression of fear without an accompanying statement of any knowns.

Explain to me how this is something other than fear of the unknown.



Monsanto is not trying to kill you. They are trying to make money. Killing the customer ends the cash flow.

Also, "terminator seed" - something that has never been used commercially - is responsible science, and the sort of thing that someone afraid of GMO crops should be in favor of.

Do you want GMO crops that can leave the farm and grow wild or not? I suspect that you just don't want them at all - but some people do, and we could save thousands of lives and improve millions of lives in Africa if they were less paranoid over there.



Funny you should say that because you seem to be somewhat dogmatic about it. At least you have been spewing dogma.

Nothing wrong with being smart about nutrition. I'm saying that being smart about nutrition and taking a dogmatic stance against modern methods of food production aren't remotely the same thing.

Ironically, that's precisely how I view the OP's comment - as a sort of emotional backlash against basic common sense and current data and findings. He mentioned something about no clear link between diet and behavior but didn't back it up with anything. Here are some studies on ADHD and diet that all show clear links: (there are many, many more)

http://jad.sagepub.com/content/15/5/403.short
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22114 ... t-Disorder
http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/50/4/279.short
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/02February/ ... essed.aspx
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-fin ... oods-adhd/

I think it's a good thing to be skeptical. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," or something like that. IMO the extraordinary claim is that substances such as Red #40 and Acesulfame-K qualify as food. Real foods like apples and rice should really just be common sense at this point. There's nothing extraordinary about examining one's diet and making healthier and safer choices.

The part in bold above - that was someone else's post, not mine.

Natural diets also don't have to be expensive. I'm near broke, but I work it out. It is time consuming though.

And Monsanto, there's really a huge laundry list of unethical practices. From what I understand, the Terminator seeds are still in development. There have been accounts of it being used by neighboring farmers. What is the advantage of a seed that requires total dependency on the maker? The farmers have to buy it every single year. And God forbid a Monsanto seed should migrate to a nearby farm that is not a Monsanto client because that's pretty much death for the farmer. Monsanto breaks out the lawsuits and it's all over. Don't even get me started on the rBGH and their environmental dumping practices. To sum up their stance nicely, ""Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."- Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications.

Why not be wary of such practices? I don't see any real advantage of most modern methods of food production from the consumer's perspective. What is dogmatic about making macaroni and cheese with actual macaroni and cheese - not bright orange cheese-like powder?

Thanks for being predictable.
And for again not addressing my argument.
But of course that is the want of your class (fuzzy thinking Outrage junkies).
you are willing to take "natural selections" word for it but not the word of the folks that came up with the concept?
um ug science bad scientist trick hulk. smash.
Sorry I am not up on my right-wing dog-whistle racism does Urban-dweller mean Jew or Black?

Oh, sorry, I guess that was cw10.



You're here in this forum so unless you are sitting in a library somewhere i suspect there are many worse off than you are.



Monsanto claims to have never sold terminator seed. They continue to develop the technology but it is not being farmed.

If anything, genetic use restriction technology is a response to the lawsuits you are referring to.

Monsanto's GMO soya plants do produce viable seed. And they do spread viable pollen. The result of this is that almost all soya produced in the USA carries their genetic traits. This is an unfortunate, unintended outcome.

I can't defend the way they do it, but their habit of litigating farmers who plant soya with their genetic code in them without paying for it is an extreme equivalent to the age-old you got peanut butter on my chocolate / you got chocolate in my peanut butter dispute. They threaten the farmer as a means to avoid being threatened by the farmer. It's a bad situation but from a legal perspective it is hard to blame them.

Terminator seeds obviate the issue entirely. They are sterile and their genetic code does not reproduce or cross-pollenate. Problem solved.

You don't HAVE to buy that seed from Monsanto. you can buy some other seed from someone else.

You can't have high-yield crops with super-drought-tolerance AND not have neither engineered genetics spreading into the wild NOR a dependence on one manufacturer for the seeds.

And it is a big problem. Already we have reports that GMO canola with one form of herbicide resistance have cross-pollenated with canola that has another form of herbicide resistance, creating canola plants which are resistant to both commonly used herbicides. This means that it's now a weed that can only be killed by poisoning the soil or by manually uprooting and destroying the plant. Or potentially by the use of some third, possibly more toxic herbicide.

Any profit-seeking entity with a passel of shareholders will occasionally seem to be an ogre. That's a problem with the whole idea of owning shares in someone elses company, and not something we really need to discuss here.

If GMO crops mean that we can grow more food with less water, or grow more food with less land, or grow food that is more nutrient-rich than nature can provide, I say we do it. And frankly, the way population statistics are trending, we're not going to have much choice in a few generations.

Also, Angell is correct about the FDA's responsibility for food safety. He chose an a**hole way of saying it, but that is the reality of the situation in the USA. It would be nice if we knew for sure that Monsanto is considering safety - and there is every indication that they are - but it's up to the FDA to guarantee it. That is the FDA's function. It's why they exist. Not to protect the consumer, but to shift blame away from the manufacturer. Best congress money can buy.