[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 106 KB, 800x500, 482128_415236175178373_1188001137_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4010820 No.4010820[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37396355/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/nutritional-value-fruits-veggies
-dwindling/

With the onset of conventional farming and Geneticayy Modofied foods to make it grow faster and bigger we are losing the nutrients in our food.

>> No.4010825

>>4010820
This isn't a surprise at all.

Growing trees fast also results in shit quality wood.

>> No.4010828

"Genetically Modofied". My keyboard sucks.

>> No.4010831

>>4010825
Yup, and the food industry wants us to believe it is all good.

>> No.4010834

>>4010820
I'm sure most people know due to us getting flavorless tomatoes these past years.

>> No.4010859
File: 17 KB, 250x250, 1300044776986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4010859

>Organic
>Not being an efficient farmer
>Not using modern day science to boost your own crop yields

>2012
>Not using F1 hybrid seeds, growth hormones and hydroponics
>brb just gonna play my shigeridoo

>> No.4010866

>>4010820
invest into some GM research then, so we can feed the 3rd world AND have nutrients. one billion lives.

>> No.4010870

>>4010866
You still need a substrate with nutrients in it.

The plant can't simply make nutrients out of nothing because it is, "genetically modified".

>> No.4010875

>>4010866
>so we can feed the 3rd world AND have nutrients. one billion lives.

Why do people say this? Do you really think Monsanto's biggest market is some dirt poor country?

And why would you "save one billion lives"? Do you know how short-sighted that is?

>> No.4010876

I love how people say "YOU WANT THE POOR TO STARVE", as if America actually needs GM foods or increased productivity to feed themselves.

Have fun subsidizing billion dollar corporations though.

>> No.4010886

>>4010876
The poor are a giant anchor holding the massive sky-castle that is humanity down. We need to break the chains and let the anchor fall if we are to soar.

>> No.4010891

>>4010870
at least understand

http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publications/food-and-water-crises/146-the-gm-food-potential.html

>> No.4010900

>>4010876
Billions if not trillions of aid to Africa. They are still shit at EVERYTHING they do. What's the point of trying to feed them? Better send it to Latin America or Asia. Though, less to Asia.

>> No.4010945

>organic
>sustainable

ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>> No.4010978

>>4010945
>Organic for the awesome countries.
>Shit, tasteless food for the poor countries who are lucky to be fed

We can both have what we want.

>> No.4010987

Geez, here come the "organic food" shills.

>> No.4011011
File: 8 KB, 319x179, GA3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4011011

>implying "organic" plants are any more "organic" than the hormones we treat them with

pic related, it's an organic compound produced by plants and used to help them grow larger. Learn 2 chemistry

>> No.4011037

If you want to confuse an organic advocate, ask them to back up their claims. All they have is hearsay.

>> No.4011052

I'm not sure what the point of aiding Africa even is. Does anything even come of it, other than short-term relief to some people, and adding more resources to get funneled into the hands of corrupt nigger warlords?

>> No.4011054

There's no reason that GM foods on their own should be unhealthy or dangerous, they just need to be made better.

>> No.4011060

>>4011052

They have vast mineral wealth and other global powers would like to have a share in the goodies. It's in our long term strategic interest to have influence there.

But keep on voting for Ron Paul and pushing your head all the way up your ass, because we can obviously continue to be a global superpower without getting our hands dirty.

>> No.4011068

>>4011060
Less people = Less people objecting to us taking their minerals.

If you're rich and fed, you have no need to deal.

>> No.4011157

I wish people wouldn't be so stupid as to lump all GM crops together. Granted, some do turn out to have fewer nutrients for a variety of reasons, such as making them put on cellulose weight faster than they can produce the kinds of vitamins that people consider nutritious. But there should be nothing scary about genetically modifying a plant's DNA. This is how almost all modern crops have come about. Our ancestors just used the more time-consuming process of cross-pollination, but that was still genetic modification.

Some people freak out because Monsanto engineers some strains of corn to produce "pesticides" in their leaves, but what these people don't realize is that chemicals that insects don't like to eat are produced by lots of plants naturally, and what's poisonous to arthropods isn't necessarily poisonous to mammals.

So if you want to cherry-pick your examples (no pun intended), and ignore obviously good things like the many varieties of regular crops where the only change is that they've been modified to grow better in colder or drier environments, thus making food distribution more efficient, and giving farmers more options, go ahead. But just realize that you're making a logical fallacy and ignoring a lot of facts.

Sorry if this came off sounding like an advertisement for Monsanto. My degree was in plant science, and I rage when I see ignorance that's made it into the mainstream thought process.

>> No.4011166

>>4011068
While I want to agree with you...

>hungry people = revolution and war

It's in the ruling class' best interest to have fed citizens so they can remain in power. They can't do this without America.

>> No.4011179

>>4011166
Yeah, we're feeding them right now. How's it working for us? Does it look like Disneyland over there yet?

>> No.4011244

>>4010900
> What's the point of trying to feed them?

There isn't any. There isn't any point in sending them billions of dollars worth of vaccines either. They need to replace their infrastructure (Gadaffi was working on this shit before he got iced by some niggas) and become self-sufficient instead.

>> No.4011249

/pol/pleasego

>> No.4011262

>>4011244
I'm pretty sure most of our aid sent to Africa goes to sub-Saharan Africa, of which Libya is not a part.

>> No.4011302

>>4010886

Maybe you just need to learn how to fucking share the planet, instead, you pathetic, sheltered child.

>> No.4011312

>>4010875
>implying he's talking about greedy-ass monsanto
>implying he's not talking public interest research

Did you seriously only read the second half of the first sentence of his post?

>> No.4011326

well it's obviously debateable if those things were right for business

considering if they didn't have some business value, they would have never been done in the first place

>> No.4011329
File: 5 KB, 200x200, 1352531558359.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4011329

>mfw organicfags fail to realize that the pesticides and herbicides used in organic farming are generally more harmful to the environment than modern synthetic pesticides and herbicides.
>mfw organicfags don't understand enough basic chemistry to realize that organic crops are no more nutrient dense than contemporary crops
>mfw organicfags have managed to put agricultural issues on public referendum
>mfw the voting force is chiefly comprised of scientific illiterates

>> No.4011332

Todays synthetic pesticides are much safer than commonly used natural pesticides, it has been proven. You shouldn't assume it's worse for you just because it's not natural, nature does a great job at creating poisons as well.

Organic farming is not sustainable. They produce much less food; That is why they are more expensive. If all the farmland in the world was converted to only organic farming, people would starve.

There is no noticeable difference in nutritient content between standard and organic farming. Blind tests have been conducted and they show that organic vegetables aren't more likely to taste better either. Growth homrones consumed through the mouth have shown to have no negative effect in humans, as they are broken down.

>> No.4011335

>>4011302
Wut. If we didn't share, they would've starved. Maybe they should learn how to farm.

>> No.4011338

>>4011335
>Maybe they should learn how to farm.
They can learn to farm after they get to Heaven. Let's start by getting them to Heaven asap.

>> No.4011346

>>4010820
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37396355/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/nutritional-value-fruits-veg
gies
>-dwindling/

Replying to the OP, I really hate it when the mass media grabs onto something "sciency" and tries to act like they know what they're talking about.

>Pair your produce
>"When eaten together, some produce contains compounds that can affect how we absorb their nutrients," explains Steve Schwartz, PhD, a professor of food science at Ohio State University. His 2004 study of tomato-based salsa and avocado found this food pairing significantly upped the body's absorption of the tomato's cancer-fighting lycopene.

What exactly is the purpose of this paragraph? Is it supposed to educate consumers on what vegetables to eat with what? Because it only gives one example, and doesn't even imply that other examples exist. There's also no context given for the study's findings. Were these in normal table-sized portions of tomatoes and avocados? Or were the test subjects eating massive quantities of them? Does it imply a lower cancer rate just because people are getting more lycopene, or can the body only absorb so much of this? Finally, what does this have to do with organic produce, at all? Are they implying that such effects can't be obtained from non-organic produce? Too many unanswered questions and convenient implications.

>> No.4011378

>>4011329
>pesticides and herbicides used in organic farming are generally more harmful to the environment than modern synthetic pesticides and herbicides.
[Citation Required]

>> No.4011380

>>4011332
>Todays synthetic pesticides are much safer than commonly used natural pesticides, it has been proven.
Proof.

>> No.4011394

>>4011378
Not him, but something like Roundup bonds to the soil and doesn't pollute at all. I don't know about ultimate safety pesticides, but Roundup, at least, is really safe stuff if you aren't a plant that it's in immediate contact with. A lot of insecticides can be targeted to only kill insects, but people probably wouldn't want to consume too much of them.

Organic farmers use a lot of manure, and that's why you need to wash organic food even more than you have to wash non organic - because animal shit is loaded with bacteria and other really nasty microorganisms that you really don't want to eat. I'm not sure what organic farmers use to ward off pests.

>> No.4011412

>>4011394
Roundup, and its various formulations, contain many unregulated "trade secret" chemicals (various surfactants and the like). These are untested, yet research has indicated these compounds may be responsible for non-target toxicity.

In other words, glyphosate may be relatively safe, but the other stuff may not be.

Not to mention the fact that glyphosate inhibits the shikimic pathway, which is not only present in plants.

>> No.4011417

>>4011380
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

Here's an example that speaks of organic pesticides in general, but google is full of specific examples.

>> No.4011422

>>4011417
>post "article" with no citations or actual conclusions
>just go check Google lol

Nice.

>> No.4011426

>>4011417
This is just somebody's personal webpage at school.

>> No.4011429

>>4011426
B-but it says Berkeley!

lol

>> No.4011432

>>4011412
>These are untested, yet research has indicated
lol, ok

>> No.4011436

>>4011422
>The data describing the carcinogenicity of natural and synthetic compounds are referenced in Gold, L.S., et al. (1992) _Science_ Vol. 258, pp. 261-265.

>> No.4011441

>>4011436
>Many thanks go to the Organic Crop Improvement Association for their cooperation in this study.

>> No.4011442

>>4011432
They are untested because how are researchers going to get their hands on compounds that are trade secrets?

Researchers look at the toxicity of various formulations and have to make inferences. Hence, "indicated".

>> No.4012853

>>4011011
>Aspie Alert!

Organic farming does not mean the same as your Organic chem class. It's almost as if no one knows how to spell google these days.

>> No.4012861

This wouldn't be happening if we do population reduction.

>> No.4012881

>>4010886
have fun doing all the shitty jobs we do for you then asswipe.

>> No.4012912
File: 131 KB, 480x343, maize2-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4012912

What is the big fucking deal with genetically modified food and why are so many hipsters getting their panties in a bunch over it? All fucking fruits and vegetables are genetically modified from their original form through natural and artificial selection over thousands of years. Next time a faggot asks me about genetically modified shit I'm going to show him a piece of pic related and tell him to eat that because it's way closer to the original "corn" plant than any other modern iteration.

>> No.4012933

>>4012912
don't forget the original eggplants were tiny white balls and the original carrots were disgusting looking black spindly things and bok choy, brussels sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, etc wouldn't exist; there'd just be a single type of cabbage.

>> No.4012934

Can you be one of the 3 billion who need to die for organic farming to be sustainable?

>> No.4012939

>>4012934
If I was fat or poor.

>> No.4012941

>>4012934
just grow spirulina in massive amounts and have everyone eat that. that's about as back-to-the-source organic as you can get.

>> No.4012949

>>4012941
So everyone should eat slime because of your ass backwards beliefs. I wish Fritz Haber and Norman Borlaug were still alive so they could introduce you to the working parts of a Haber process reactor.

>> No.4012953

>>4012949
No... everyone should eat slime because its lifehack cheap and nutrient dense.

>> No.4013039

>>4012941
>spirulina
I just Wikipedia'ed that. Wow. It's amazing what you don't know.