Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eating Clean is Useless

tonic.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#111

Post by jjawssd »

bpodgursky wrote: post #110
jjawssd wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes intuitive sense but I have never seen good evidence for it. I personally do not believe that: - organic food is bad for the environment - organic food is less space efficient to grow I do believe that: - organic food may have lower crop yields

Uh... > - organic food is less space efficient to grow > - organic food may have lower crop yields These are the same thing. If you have to generate X calories, and you generate fewer per acre, then you need more acres of crop.

Think outside the box. Think 3D agriculture. Aeroponics.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#112

Post by [deleted] »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #106

While the article is somewhat correct in that 'clean eating' is useless, what the hell is up with every single US News outlet literally stirring up racial tensions? Back to the clean eating part - all my ancestors that I know of (grandparents, great-grandparents) at relatively unhealthy food. Tons of butter, lard, and carbs. True, it was natural-ish, they all grew up on a homestead, but far from the 'clean eating' id…

[deleted]

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#114

Post by nunez »

Finally. So true. "Eating clean" is probably one of the best marketing campaigns in history; billions of dollars spent on products that make you feel healthier, but in reality, don't amount to shit.

It's all about calories in, calories out and macronutrient composition (carbs, fats, proteins). That's literally it.*

* Unless you seriously train for a sport, in which case the little stuff (eating time, micronutrients, # of meals, etc) matter.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#115

Post by yellowapple »

kirrent wrote: post #70
yellowapple wrote: post #64

I never understood the hate toward GMOs themselves, considering that genetic modification is practically the definition of agriculture as it's existed for thousands of years. Granted, we relied on artificial selection instead of, say, CRISPR, but still. I do understand the hate toward companies like Monsanto, however. Hating all GMOs because of some unethical company peddling them seems heavy-handed and broad-stroked…

I'm always interested in people's perceptions of Monsanto considering that to me they seem like an entirely pedestrian and boring GM crops company with a couple of cool products. Perhaps you could explain why you dislike them and think they're unethical?

I don't like their intellectual property policies. Suing small farmers because their crops were inadvertently exposed to patent-encumbered Monsanto pollen is, suffice it to say, a dick move.

Monsanto is basically to agriculture as Oracle is to IT.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#116

Post by Banthum »

jjawssd wrote: post #111
bpodgursky wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh... > - organic food is less space efficient to grow > - organic food may have lower crop yields These are the same thing. If you have to generate X calories, and you generate fewer per acre, then you need more acres of crop.

Think outside the box. Think 3D agriculture. Aeroponics.

But if you're willing to do that for organic you're also willing to do that for non organic.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#117

Post by Banthum »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #106

While the article is somewhat correct in that 'clean eating' is useless, what the hell is up with every single US News outlet literally stirring up racial tensions? Back to the clean eating part - all my ancestors that I know of (grandparents, great-grandparents) at relatively unhealthy food. Tons of butter, lard, and carbs. True, it was natural-ish, they all grew up on a homestead, but far from the 'clean eating' id…

They don't want to solve the problem, they want to exploit the problem.

A lot of media/activist/political activity makes a lot more sense through this lens.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#118

Post by kirrent »

yellowapple wrote: post #115
kirrent wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always interested in people's perceptions of Monsanto considering that to me they seem like an entirely pedestrian and boring GM crops company with a couple of cool products. Perhaps you could explain why you dislike them and think they're unethical?

I don't like their intellectual property policies. Suing small farmers because their crops were inadvertently exposed to patent-encumbered Monsanto pollen is, suffice it to say, a dick move. Monsanto is basically to agriculture as Oracle is to IT.

Perhaps you could link me to an example where that happened? Probably the most famous cases of Monsanto suing farmers were Bowman v. Monsanto and Monsanto v. Schmeiser. In both cases the infringement was entirely purposeful.

Schmesier's case is one where the seeds were initially blown onto his property so that may be what you're referring to. From Wikipedia:

As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997. He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#119

Post by yellowapple »

kirrent wrote: post #118
yellowapple wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like their intellectual property policies. Suing small farmers because their crops were inadvertently exposed to patent-encumbered Monsanto pollen is, suffice it to say, a dick move. Monsanto is basically to agriculture as Oracle is to IT.

Perhaps you could link me to an example where that happened? Probably the most famous cases of Monsanto suing farmers were Bowman v. Monsanto and Monsanto v. Schmeiser. In both cases the infringement was entirely purposeful. Schmesier's case is one where the seeds were initially blown onto his property so that may be what you're referring to. From Wikipedia: As established in the original Federal Court trial decision…

Sorry, mixed up seeds with pollen.

Regardless, to me that's a distinction without a difference. Suing a farmer because he used seeds that blew into his property is still a dick move. Too bad the Canadian courts don't seem to agree (though considering that the Supreme Court decision was a 5-4 split, I'd argue that the legality of contaminating someone's field with genetically-modified seeds and then suing farmers for using those seeds or the products thereof is still very contestable, and for good reason).

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#120

Post by [deleted] »

jjawssd wrote: post #111
bpodgursky wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh... > - organic food is less space efficient to grow > - organic food may have lower crop yields These are the same thing. If you have to generate X calories, and you generate fewer per acre, then you need more acres of crop.

Think outside the box. Think 3D agriculture. Aeroponics.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN