41–50 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. Gluten allergies or intolerance seem to be on the rise. Probably makes sense to exclude it if they wanna be the future of food.
Why would gluten allergies and intolerance be on the rise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With “natural” I mean natural for humans to eat them. Those foods can be assumed safe because, by definition, they have been eaten by humans for hundreds of thousands of years. Can you say the same thing for GM food?
Over the thousands of years we were eating foods before the inventions of GMOs, we had plenty of other ways to breed crops and livestock to be more desirable. We also tended to die a lot of malnutrition.
Only because populations tended to run closer to their own carrying capacity so that any shock (from variation in the natural environment or human conflict or ...) would put them over and cause malnutrition, not because normal supply was inadequate.
It's only fairly recently that humans other than in the most ideal environments could produce more than a small surplus of food even in good years (of course, that capacity was acheived in part by millenia of engineering for food for yield traits, with a lot of incidental changes induced along the way.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re doing this so they can irresponsibly dump roundup on the soy plants without killing them. Roundup is a non-specific herbicide, so this will damage the environment near the farms. Also, Roundup is almost certainly a carcinogen, and impossible burgers already have higher levels than competitors. I definitely won’t be buying any more of their product. Edit: Fun reading: https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreame…
A lot of GMO soy actually lets them use less additional roundup that would contribute to runoff. Edit: I was talking about run off specifically, not about the end product.
How so? (I’m genuinely curious)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The potential downside of not worshiping Roko's Basilisk: Superintelligent Godess is similarly human extinction. She kills all pagans, you see. That's her thing. Kill the non-believers. Which is everyone, currently. Come to think of it...there are a literal infinitude of things which may result in our extinction. Zombies. Aliens. Rogue trapezists. Who knows! But we don't sweat the zombie thing. There's not sufficient…
The burden of the proof is on the GMOs. We have plenty of evidence that eating food that we’re not used to eat can cause catastrophic harm. If this was a local tribe experimenting with GMOs, then it’s fine. But if we expose virtually every person to that downside, the risks are considerable.
The only reason to dislike GMO is if they increased herbicide usage (e.g., roudup). But from what i hear, using GMO to reduce herbicide usage is more likely, and therefore, is better than a non-GMO version of the crop.
Good. Anti-GM crusades are a load of anti-science nonsense, and if you're serious about replacing a percentage of America's meat intake (as Impossible seems to be) then it only makes sense to make the most of GM crops to get you there.
They’re doing this so they can irresponsibly dump roundup on the soy plants without killing them. Roundup is a non-specific herbicide, so this will damage the environment near the farms. Also, Roundup is almost certainly a carcinogen, and impossible burgers already have higher levels than competitors. I definitely won’t be buying any more of their product. Edit: Fun reading: https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreame…
That point is highly contested.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/09/spray-pr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With “natural” I mean natural for humans to eat them. Those foods can be assumed safe because, by definition, they have been eaten by humans for hundreds of thousands of years. Can you say the same thing for GM food?
> Those foods can be assumed safe because, by definition, they have been eaten by humans for hundreds of thousands of years Even prior to GM foods, humans have been engineering food to change it's traits for longer than civilization, and essentially everything humans eat today is a product of such engineering. GM foods differ systematically from other forms fo engineering only on the degree of precision and control p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden of the proof is on the GMOs. We have plenty of evidence that eating food that we’re not used to eat can cause catastrophic harm. If this was a local tribe experimenting with GMOs, then it’s fine. But if we expose virtually every person to that downside, the risks are considerable.
GMO foods have been eaten for well over 3 decades. I think if there were adverse health effects, we would've seen 'em. The only reason to dislike GMO is if they increased herbicide usage (e.g., roudup). But from what i hear, using GMO to reduce herbicide usage is more likely, and therefore, is better than a non-GMO version of the crop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Broccoli have been eaten for over 2000 years. If they killed us, we would have known.
Oh, that’s the cutoff? What about Brussels sprouts?
Edit: The risk is reduced significantly after we’ve eaten something for a few generations. The problem is if we test something new on the global population before a local tribe tries it on themselves for a few generations.
I wish they'd go back to using healthy wheat protein (gluten) in their product, too. They did in early formulations, but eliminated it later on.
As a celiac, I certainly don't. Even for those that aren't celiac, making the claim that gluten is healthy is dubious at best. I'd also imagine there are many more celiacs out there than those with soy allergies.
Soy allergies according to CDC are about 1.2% of general population. This makes it about twice as common as celiac disease (from NIH numbers) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850429