41–50 of 120 posts
I am sorry but GMO is actually bad for you.... Monsanto tried to spread gmo corn in France, they tested it on rats for a year and the rats developed multiple tumors the size of an egg.
Non-GMO and organic is mostly BS of course, but it's a fact that refined carbs are cheap and plentiful, so the poor consume proportionally more of them. They simply can't afford fruit and meat. This is in part because of the infinite shelf life of processed carbs, and in part because they're heavily subsidized by the government. Also, government dietary guidelines still push people towards relatively high carb diets,…
> They simply can't afford fruit and meat. Maybe this differs per area, but in most places i know, fruit is significantly cheaper than processed snacks. I can eat 4 apples for the price of one Mars bar.
This disagrees with my daily experience in Europe, so I conclude it's a US-specific thing.
This article smacks of narrow-minded contrarianism for its own sake. The cheapest thing one can do -- and healthier than the option of eating Lucky Charms daily -- is to grow one's own food. The space requirements are actually tiny -- it's possible to grow all of one's own veggies in something like 300 sq ft of space (in a mid-latitude region) and all one's own calories in something like 800 sq ft of space. It's chea…
This is only a cheap option if you consider your own labor to be free. Plus don't forget about the seasonality of the crops, the effort of preservation, etc.
"100-percent organic, locally sourced, non-GMO, and free of antibiotics" Even if it does not have an effect on your health, three of those four (100-percent organic, locally sourced, and free of antibiotics) are at least good for the environment. The fourth (free of antibiotics) is maybe even good for your health, in the long run: Over-use of antibiotics by farmers (not using them to cure sick animals, but to make an…
"100-percent organic, locally sourced, non-GMO, and free of antibiotics" Even if it does not have an effect on your health, three of those four (100-percent organic, locally sourced, and free of antibiotics) are at least good for the environment. The fourth (free of antibiotics) is maybe even good for your health, in the long run: Over-use of antibiotics by farmers (not using them to cure sick animals, but to make an…
It often takes more energy to grow food locally (greenhouses and fertilizer) than transported food.
Antibiotic-raised foods grow faster and thus have better caloric ratios, and less farmland per pound of beef.
"100-percent organic, locally sourced, non-GMO, and free of antibiotics" Even if it does not have an effect on your health, three of those four (100-percent organic, locally sourced, and free of antibiotics) are at least good for the environment. The fourth (free of antibiotics) is maybe even good for your health, in the long run: Over-use of antibiotics by farmers (not using them to cure sick animals, but to make an…
>Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian scientists pitted 'reduced-risk' organic and synthetic pesticides against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid. They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides more effective means of control, the organic pesticides were more ecologically damaging, including causing higher mortality in other, non-target species like the aphid's predators. Of course, some organic pesticides may fare better than these ones did in similar head-to-head tests, but studies like this one reveal that the assumption that natural is better for the environment could be very dangerous.[0]
---
[0]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogs...
"100-percent organic, locally sourced, non-GMO, and free of antibiotics" Even if it does not have an effect on your health, three of those four (100-percent organic, locally sourced, and free of antibiotics) are at least good for the environment. The fourth (free of antibiotics) is maybe even good for your health, in the long run: Over-use of antibiotics by farmers (not using them to cure sick animals, but to make an…
Your wording makes it sound like you've accounted for all four of those adjectives, but you haven't done anything with "non-GMO."
Possible problems with GMO: - Harder to digest proteins - Possible new allergies for some people (because if slightly different proteins, or mixes from other plants) - Plants with build in pesticide - Patents - Plant monoculture - Plants that grow faster and are cheaper, but not optimized for taste. Is the above list inherit to GMO's: no. Do I know if the GMO I am eating is suffering from this: no. As such until I ge…
But what do I know. I'm a food contrarian - if I see two items, one labeled "no GMO" and one without such label, I pick the latter...
Non-GMO and organic is mostly BS of course, but it's a fact that refined carbs are cheap and plentiful, so the poor consume proportionally more of them. They simply can't afford fruit and meat. This is in part because of the infinite shelf life of processed carbs, and in part because they're heavily subsidized by the government. Also, government dietary guidelines still push people towards relatively high carb diets,…
Possible problems with GMO: - Harder to digest proteins - Possible new allergies for some people (because if slightly different proteins, or mixes from other plants) - Plants with build in pesticide - Patents - Plant monoculture - Plants that grow faster and are cheaper, but not optimized for taste. Is the above list inherit to GMO's: no. Do I know if the GMO I am eating is suffering from this: no. As such until I ge…
It's completely irrational to focus on “GMOs”.