Is the food you buy safe to eat?

[GoldenBrain]

Cool discussion, guys.

And props to you, GoldenBrain. You've got some mad produce kung fu. It sounds to me like you're really living the life!

Thank's bro! It's a good life for which I'm very thankful.

[SoCo KungFu]

Careful GoldenBrain, there are some that like to paint those that are opposed to GMO and pesticides as anti-science hippies that are just over-reacting because they don't understand science and technology

Frankly, I think that when discourse is discouraged like this, there's a big problem.

No, we just demand proof if you're going to make a claims such as this:

80% - 90% of all diseases are a result of diet and lifestyle

Yeah, starving is worse, but diabetes and heart disease isn't that much better.

I'll remember that next time I'm in South America or Africa and I'm looking at 6 year olds with their ribs sticking out, begging on the street side.

[SoCo KungFu]

Anyway, in terms of genetically modifying crops, poultry, meat, etc., it's all about the money. If you follow the trail of greed, you can see why people will mess around with nature to benefit themselves, without regard for any probable/certain consequences to the rest of the world in the long-term.

You're right. All those researchers I see around me every day, all those graduate students...yeah, none of them have a desire at all to feed their families back in countries in which droughts and crop disease make our "bad" harvest look like a once a century boon.

[SoCo KungFu]

I have just a few personal thoughts on this. More questions than answers.

First of all, I'm wondering if food allergies were as widespread in the past, before genetically modified crops, pollutants, etc. Or did people just die from various food allergies and not know the causes? I know one woman who claims she has a bad peanut allergy here, yet she can eat them in Europe. Might this be a difference due to modified/non-modified crops?

Are these issues geographical? Are instances of gluten intolerance as common in, say, Asian countries, where "gluten-free" is a fairly alien concept?

We live in an age of homogenization. Diet was something that for the greater part of human existence was regional. This is why articles like the one someone linked on the early 1900's Swiss village create a false argument. That diet would not work for the majority of people in the world. Never mind the other nonsense claims. Kids playing in glacial rivers in the winter? Yeah ok, I don't give a shit what you diet is, hypothermia is a bitch. Did he happen to count their toes by chance?

[SoCo KungFu]

You may find this article interesting. It talks about the effects of industrial food vs a traditional, cultural diet.

Diet is regionally specific. Most people in the world wouldn't be able to properly digest this type of diet because we lack the proteins to do so. There is no such thing as the perfect diet. I've already mentioned how nonsense the claim about kids playing in rivers is, and as such, extravegant claims discredit the rest of this Dr. Price's information. Lastly, decreased jaw space and issues of dental crowding have nothing to do with diet. Well actually that's not true, it is diet. But not human diet. Its because in the process of evolving into humans the increase in our cranial capacity necessitated the decreased in size of the zygomatic and jaw line. Our ape ancestors traded dental space for increased brain size. Those extra teeth were necessary when our ape forefathers were chewing through heavy vegetation which was havoc on teeth and required the extreme muscular strength provided by such a heavily developed masticators that our ancestors (and modern apes) have.

Such articles also have no mention of other disease factors. Yeah, I wonder why an isolated swiss village nearly a mile high above sea level had less disease than crowded, temperate to tropical locations of the world.

[Kymus]

Hi SoCo,

There is no such thing as the perfect diet.

There is no such thing as the perfect diet for every person, no. But there are principles one can follow to having a perfect diet.

extravegant claims discredit the rest of this Dr. Price's information.

That's a seriously reaching statement. I can't say with authenticity "all", but I'd say that at a bare minimum, "much" of Dr. Price's work has been proven. Have you read anything by Dr. Chris Masterjohn or Dr. Mary Enig? Dr. Masterjohn just finished a series of articles on the scientific approach of Dr. Price which discusses Dr. Price's study design at length. (here's a link to the last page, which has links to the other 6 pages, fwiw)

Lastly, decreased jaw space and issues of dental crowding have nothing to do with diet. Well actually that's not true, it is diet. But not human diet.

Why is it that every area that followed its traditional diet had perfect teeth while the industrialized ones didn't?

Yeah, I wonder why an isolated swiss village nearly a mile high above sea level had less disease than crowded, temperate to tropical locations of the world.

Sugar and white flour.

I will only ask one thing from you: if you're going to try to discredit something I say, please have familiarity with it. I don't mind if you disagree with me, not at all, but you demonstrate a very poor knowledge of Dr. Price's work.

In Dr. Price's time, genetics was used as an excuse to explain physical degeneration. Dr. Price always had a control group: a nearby town that was industrialized. Some of the controls he used were even twins.

Each culture that had followed their traditional diet had perfect teeth, well formed jaws, and were healthier overall. Dr. Price analyzed the food that they ate and sent what he could back to his lab in Ohio to analyze it. From there he found that their diets were all high in fat soluble vitamins and K2. This formed the basis of the Weston A. Price Foundation's dietary guidelines.

Considering that every group that followed these dietary guidelines had no disease, didn't really get sick, had perfect teeth and well structured faces, and the control groups which consumed an industrialized diet were ravaged with cavities, the children's faces looked pinched, and - at least in Switzerland - tuberculosis was a problem for them, I have to ask: why?

[Kymus]

That diet would not work for the majority of people in the world.

The principles of that diet have worked all over the world.

Kids playing in glacial rivers in the winter? Yeah ok, I don't give a shit what you diet is, hypothermia is a bitch. Did he happen to count their toes by chance?

He's talking about their viral immunity. The observation has nothing to do with hypothermia.

During this period of time in Switzerland, tuberculosis was a major problem. Raw milk has been blamed at times for contributing to this pandemic, but government officials told Dr. Price that there were no recorded cases of TB in the Valley, ever. The people living there were so hardy that children would actually play in the freezing cold rivers (which were created from glacial runoff) barefoot and bareheaded, right in the middle of winter.

[Kymus]

No, we just demand proof if you're going to make a claims such as this:

No, generally the people I mention belong to the modern day pseudo-skeptic movement that worships all things conventional and rejects all things that are not, regardless of evidence. Why are they pushing statins and SSRI's and mammograms when they're continually shown in medical journals to be dangerous and counterproductive? The same thing goes for the GMO debate. The science isn't settled. Most of the research done has been industry funded. More research should be done. But, according to lots of people, if you dare to question GMO then you're afraid of science and technology.

I've got no problem providing evidence for the things I claim. You may disagree with it, and I may not even always be right, but never accuse me of pulling things straight out of the air.

I'll remember that next time I'm in South America or Africa and I'm looking at 6 year olds with their ribs sticking out, begging on the street side.

Really, SoCo, is such attitude like this necessary? I've always been courteous to you on this board and it seems that you just want to act like a b!tch. WTF bro?

Let me help you. Here's what you do, you say:

I disagree with this statement and I'd appreciate it if you could provide for me the evidence you base this off of.

Is it really that hard?

I don't have a problem with you man, and I'd like to not have a problem with anyone here (ok, I lied, there are two people I wouldn't mind punching, but you're not on my punch list ). Can you please treat me with the same courtesy and respect that I do to you?

This is what I'm basing my statement on:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/

Heart disease is a disease of diet and lifestyle, cancer is largely a disease of diet and lifestyle, diabetes is a disease of diet and lifestyle.

Are there other major diseases that I missed? I'm not talking about stuff like malaria, here.

Let me change my statement to the lawyer version:

Although there are many factors for disease, the major epidemics that we suffer from in the United States of America such as cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes are largely the result of poor diet and lifestyle choices. Most of the time - depending on the severity - these diseases can be prevented and possibly treated with dietary and lifestyle interventions. Always consult your doctor or accredited health specialist before taking the advice off of someone from the internet. Side effects may include god-knows-what.

Are we on even ground now, my friend?

[Syn7]

I have so much to say about this topic that I have avoided saying anything.


I'm just going to say this:

Don't read opinion pieces about studies that had no peer review and miniscule datasets. They do us all a disservice. Read actual studies, they are available and relatively easy to find.

I catch shit from my progressive friends and fam all the time(and yes I am a progressive in the true sense of the word. No I am not a "liberal"). They make these claims they read off facebook links and never actually look deeper, they just parrot an opinion that jives with what they already wanted to believe.


As my godson would say... "Don do dat!"

[SoCo KungFu]

The principles of that diet have worked all over the world.

A nutritious diet means very little if the majority of people can't eat it, or at least without symptoms ranging from mild (the majority of cases) to potentially severe. Diminished lactase activity effects around 65% of the world population, hitting over 90% in Asia. Even here in the states people have trouble eating heavy unfermented dairy (and many have issues with fermented) without medicinal supplementation, and we're heavily Euro decent. I wonder why a Swiss village can sustain so well on such a diet? Because less than 5% of their population suffers from the side effects of said diet...

Healthy diet is just as much an emergent property of geographical location as any other disease factor. There is no such thing as a silver bullet diet. And anyone attempting to claim such is BSing in the face of everything we know about human physiology, genetics and disease pathology.

He's talking about their viral immunity. The observation has nothing to do with hypothermia.

Which has what to do with your premise (that 80-90% of disease is based on diet)? At best you have a non-sequitur. At worst you have a ridiculous claim in your link. The observation has everything to do with hypothermia (and any other cold exposure emergency). He's claiming that this population is so hardy that can do these great feats will no adverse effects (or at least, that's the implication). And he's using this to attempt to validate his claims to the miraculousness of their diet. Extraordinary claim is extraordinary. Its the same nonsense you see in fad alternative med marketing today. Its got magnetic power bands written all over it. And something so nonsensical should raise a red flag for anyone reading his piece. How is he supposed to be taken seriously when he's making ridiculous claims like this? Come on man, this isn't even an attack. Its pointing out what should be obvious.

[SoCo KungFu]

Hi SoCo,

There is no such thing as the perfect diet for every person, no. But there are principles one can follow to having a perfect diet.

Right, and those principles are far more than just avoid flour and sugar....

That's a seriously reaching statement.

No, its not at all. And in fact, that's reality. Go into any talk trying to defend a hypothesis and make extravagant claims and see how long you stay in the room.

And no, I typically don't get my info from blog sites. I have access to pub med, biosis, etc.

Why is it that every area that followed its traditional diet had perfect teeth while the industrialized ones didn't?

Perfect is a relative term. Tooth decay is a bacterial phenomenon. And while sucrose is a large part of that, its not the whole story. And this has nothing to do with my comment on jaw line. Totally different issue, as I've already described. But one more tid bit. Enamel is the hardest material created by an organism on this planet. And until very recently, it was the hardest organic material by any source, period. That should tell you something. Evolution has its hand print every where in this. Its no secret bacteria thrives off sucrose while is less abundant with fructose and glucose. Sugar doesn't rot your teeth, the bacteria that feeds on it does.

Sugar and white flour.

Explain how you've managed to isolate these two factors from the myriad of possibilities. Nothing to do with low latitude species abundance? Nothing to do with vector transmission of disease? (which btw, includes what we eat) Nothing to do with environmental suitability of microfauna? Nothing to do with genetics? Remember what I said in the other thread about what I think of any medicinal field that fails to understand the evolutionary contribution to disease pathology?

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowl...ology-15947677

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60982202013751

I will only ask one thing from you: if you're going to try to discredit something I say, please have familiarity with it. I don't mind if you disagree with me, not at all, but you demonstrate a very poor knowledge of Dr. Price's work.

Explain to me why I should follow up on an individual who, from just a cursory glance, makes unsubstiatable and down-right ridiculous claims. Never mind the whole issue of correlation vs causation.

In Dr. Price's time, genetics was used as an excuse to explain physical degeneration. Dr. Price always had a control group: a nearby town that was industrialized. Some of the controls he used were even twins.

Each culture that had followed their traditional diet had perfect teeth, well formed jaws, and were healthier overall. Dr. Price analyzed the food that they ate and sent what he could back to his lab in Ohio to analyze it. From there he found that their diets were all high in fat soluble vitamins and K2. This formed the basis of the Weston A. Price Foundation's dietary guidelines.

Considering that every group that followed these dietary guidelines had no disease, didn't really get sick, had perfect teeth and well structured faces, and the control groups which consumed an industrialized diet were ravaged with cavities, the children's faces looked pinched, and - at least in Switzerland - tuberculosis was a problem for them, I have to ask: why?

I've already answered this. Why are most Asians short? Why do Australian aboriginals have large supraorbital ridges?

Why would an industrial center would have a higher TB incidence rate than an isolated mountain village? It might have something to do with all the people lining the streets ya?

[SoCo KungFu]

Really, SoCo, is such attitude like this necessary? I've always been courteous to you on this board and it seems that you just want to act like a b!tch. WTF bro?

When you make a comment like heart diabetes and heart disease isn't much better than starvation, it doesn't make me "uppity" or "bitchy," it ****es me the F off. It screams of privileged westerners trying to equate our 1st world problems with true f'n misery that gets imposed on the rest of the world. 1st world problems that arise in large part by how crappily we stomp all over everyone else's resources. I've done humanitarian work in some of these places when I was military. Trying to equate our crappy health in late life to the plight of people being murdered for food and clean water, its not even in the realm of appropriate.

If my posts have been abrasive, it's because I find this offensive. And after trying to toss bags of rice out the back of a Chinook while fully armed marines act as a riot squad because local warlords are trying to confiscate food from the starving locals so they can force them into subjugation, I challenge anyone here to experience that and not feel the same.

Heart disease is a disease of diet and lifestyle, cancer is largely a disease of diet and lifestyle, diabetes is a disease of diet and lifestyle.

And genetics, and environmental factors, and more and more we learn about the implications of human ecology and understand our own resident microbiome.

[GoldenBrain]

I've been tied down with a family reunion all day so this is the first time I have had a chance to add to this thread. When I created this thread I would have never imagined such a subject could turn into a heated debate. I respect both of your opinions and points of view SoCo and Kymus, but seriously, why don't y'all just perform a virtual handshake/man-hug and squash this business. Or, at least have a brawl and film it for our entertainment.

Seriously, I don't think anybody here is advocating letting poor people around the world starve to death. I'm fully aware that our 1st world problems don't amount to shit compared to some of the worst places to be in this world. With that said I also don't believe that GMO frankensteined foods are the only way to feed the starving people out there, and I don't think anybody here likes to ingest pesticides or herbicides in their food, which is really what this thread is all about.

So, I'll repost this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft0ylk4sU5M which is a wonderful documentary on a man by the name of Masanobu Fukuoka who spent his life farming the natural way without pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers and his yields are amazing. He uses a technique called permaculture which can be applied in most places on this earth. As long as you can get water there this method will work and really, if you can't get water there then there's not much hope of growing a GMO plant either.

I'd really like to hear Syn7's view on this topic as well and please SoCo and Kymus don't leave this thread because there's room for everybody's opinion.

[Kymus]

edit: I'm gonna try to tackle this through PM through some one on one moderation.

I'd like to avoid having problems with anyone on here. I don't see why we have to be flippant every time we disagree with someone on here. SoCo, check your PM's bro.

[Kymus]

I've been tied down with a family reunion all day so this is the first time I have had a chance to add to this thread. When I created this thread I would have never imagined such a subject could turn into a heated debate. I respect both of your opinions and points of view SoCo and Kymus, but seriously, why don't y'all just perform a virtual handshake/man-hug and squash this business. Or, at least have a brawl and film it for our entertainment.

Being wrong on the internet is a serious offence.

Seriously, I don't think anybody here is advocating letting poor people around the world starve to death. I'm fully aware that our 1st world problems don't amount to shit compared to some of the worst places to be in this world. With that said I also don't believe that GMO frankensteined foods are the only way to feed the starving people out there, and I don't think anybody here likes to ingest pesticides or herbicides in their food, which is really what this thread is all about.

Thank you for illustrating my point. As a Westerner, I don't have to worry about starving to death. I also don't live in the hood, so I don't have to worry about getting shot, either. I do have to worry about preventable diseases; the risk factors for such can be reduced through proper diet and lifestyle choices.

Too much soy? Thyroid disease (goitrogens)
Too much grain? Mineral deficiencies (phytates) among possible other things (anything and everything, depending on what study you want to believe. Gut dysbiosis for one. For the record though, I like bread )
Vegetable oils? Heart disease
(edit: some link meat and animal products with heart disease. I think that there is no evidence to prove this and I will mention it every chance I get because it's so absurd. )

The list goes on and on. We can even enter in to the nuances of HCA and BPA (which I think is overblown, but still, it's on the table right now in current events).

I've made a few dietary changes in my life. None of them gave me all that energy and lifefulness everyone always talks about when they start eating organic or eat more greens. The last few changes I made to my diet seemed to correlate with better viral immunity (I noticed I was getting sick much less). I'm not (*cough cough*) trying to make any wild claims. I see a positive correlation in my diet (an unintended one, at that), I'm happy with my diet, I know it's healthier, so I'm going to stick with it.

So, I'll repost this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft0ylk4sU5M which is a wonderful documentary on a man by the name of Masanobu Fukuoka who spent his life farming the natural way without pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers and his yields are amazing. He uses a technique called permaculture which can be applied in most places on this earth. As long as you can get water there this method will work and really, if you can't get water there then there's not much hope of growing a GMO plant either.

The idea that we need GMO to "feed the world" is bullsh!t. There have been a number of studies showing crop failure and poor yields after switching to GM crops. The most famous example is the cotton farmers in India.

Even if crop yield improved over conventional yield, as you said, permaculture can produce better results. Look at the Dervaes family; they have 1/10 of an acre of growing space and they can grow all their own food (for the record, no, I'm not saying that everyone should do this. All I'm saying is that this is an effective method. He!! I am tired of being taken out of context and having to add lots of stuff in parenthesis)

I've got a book somewhere packed away that discusses solely the effects of conventional farming. I've only read a little bit so far (I wanted to finish Dr. Howell's book on enzymes first), but it's the only book I know of that focuses solely on that (I have no idea what it suggests as alternatives; as I said, I've only read a tiny bit).

edit: found it! The Fatal Harvest Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture.