>gluten is bad >lactose is bad >sugar is bad >genetic modification is bad >carbonhydrate is bad Who the fuck comes up with this shit and why are these so widespread? Are these the same faggots who believe in the illuminati or some shit?

File: 81 KB, 745x749, 974449_625157617589942_1260527349_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:15:52 2014 No.5977116 [Reply] [Original]

>gluten is bad
>lactose is bad
>sugar is bad
>genetic modification is bad
>carbonhydrate is bad

Who the fuck comes up with this shit and why are these so widespread? Are these the same faggots who believe in the illuminati or some shit?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:16:48 2014 No.5977120 GMOs are bad

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:19:50 2014 No.5977132 >>5977120 How exactly?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:21:27 2014 No.5977136 File: 136 KB, 468x1840, 20090830.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5977116 >Who the fuck comes up with this shit and why are these so widespread? Because pic related.

Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:24:01 2014 No.5977140

>>5977136
it's 1 part bad journalism and 1 part retards who can't understand even the basic science that is in journalism
look at jenny mcarthy or whoever the fuck. literal porn star going on a tirade about how vaccines gave her child autism with no proof or knowledge in science

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:26:41 2014 No.5977149 >>5977140 Her child doesn't have autism. It doesn't exist. Autism is a crutch for bad parents who raised socially awkward children.

Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:28:23 2014 No.5977156

I don't care about GMO from a nutrition point of view. There is no health risks from eating it. None.

What I care about, personally, is that GMO foods are overwhelmingly designed to make lots of money for companies like Monsanto at the expense of the farmers. This stuff is great for corporate farms, but sucks for everyone else.

Worse, these guys are suing people because they're "growing" GMO crops "without a license", which is obvious bullshit. I also in absolutely no way trust them to create sterile non-invasive crops; mutations will happen, and things like herbicide resistance will spread to non-GMO crops. This is obviously very bad.

Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:28:56 2014 No.5977161

Because people are idiots. They want to believe there is a miracle cure out there for cancer/fatness/whatever. They want to believe that their fatness is not their fault, it must be gluten/carbs/whatever. And they fear what they don't understand, which is everything, because they're idiots.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:29:44 2014 No.5977164 >>5977149 There is such a thing as Autism, but the newer and more loose "Autism Spectrum Disorder" which can be applied to anyone per. the DSM classification, is obvious bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:30:50 2014 No.5977166 File: 311 KB, 400x225, 1328152959855.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5977149

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:33:52 2014 No.5977172 >>5977116 You forgot fat is bad.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:34:24 2014 No.5977173 >>5977156 >is that GMO foods are overwhelmingly designed to Sounds like a legal problem, not a food problem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:35:56 2014 No.5977179 >>5977173 It's neither, it's a moral problem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:38:18 2014 No.5977185 >>5977166 The truth, you fcking idiot. Just Cuz your kid is a weirdo who can't make friends doesn't mean he has a disorder. It means he's a fcking weirdo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:40:28 2014 No.5977191 >>5977185 >all I know about autism I learned from /b/

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:41:03 2014 No.5977192 >>5977172 havent you heard, fat is good now

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:41:51 2014 No.5977199 >>5977185 Sure there are wierdos. But there are also people who are way beyond that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:48:56 2014 No.5977222 >you don't need to do research, just rely on common sense! Do people really think this is a good idea?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:54:37 2014 No.5977235 >>5977185 >implying being "a weirdo who can't make friends" isn't unusual and dysfunctional I don't think you actually know what a disorder is.

Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:58:11 2014 No.5977246

>>5977132
Not him. I would say the general application of them is bad. Would love it if they put out some GMOs that increased nutrition, flavor, yield, better texture, decrease pollution, those sort of thing. Instead we get GMOs that exist purely to lock people into spending more on the company products and which happen to directly increase pollution as a result. And those are the smaller problems, IMO, but people have to be pretty obstinate to argue against those facts. The other facts will create a sperg fest from idiots who have no clue what they're talking about that I try to avoid agitating on /ck/.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 14 18:59:13 2014 No.5977251 >>5977235 It's called being raised by bad parents. Failing at parenting does not make a disorder. It means there are bad parents who raise overly coddled weird kids.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 00:20:35 2014 No.5978076 I don't eat wheat. You mad?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 00:57:42 2014 No.5978145 File: 1.05 MB, 480x270, 1408913422965.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I see you, Monsanto shills.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 01:00:39 2014 No.5978149

>>5977116
if you convince people a certain food is unhealthy, it means they'll buy more of other foods.

if you aren't producing an item that contains gluten, try to convince people gluten is unhealthy.

if your product doesn't contain dairy, convince people dairy is bad.

etc. this way they buy more of your product

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 01:07:31 2014 No.5978163

Simple.

Bloggers making a quick buck.
People view the blog. Everyone is easily swayed and plays follow the leader.
They mimic what they read on a blog written by a shitty person who is capitalizing on one or two poorly done studies on food.
That shit spreads. Eventually gets to major news outlets who do what the blogger did on a higher level. Anyone who disagrees with the opinion is told to "educate themselves" or that they are "ignorant" which basically means go read that one shitty article by that shitty writer who wrote a clickbait article based off of shitty studies, and thus is spread even more.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 01:20:10 2014 No.5978199

>>5977251
Well you're in the minority on that, though I don't understand why you would even care. I'm sort of glad it's recognized as one, otherwise treatment would be prohibitively expensive in most cases, which wouldn't be fair considering if anyone is at 'fault' it's the parents.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 01:25:21 2014 No.5978207 >>5977191 >>5977235 This. Also pretty sure this shit is bait though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 01:27:34 2014 No.5978212 >>5977185 Actual autism goes far beyond that. Those people can't really learn anything normally or function at all. It usually comes paired with other developmental disorders like ADHD or IDD.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 01:28:17 2014 No.5978215 >>5977179 Why? Those corporations spent millions or billions of dollars researching and developing those superior producing seeds and have every right to recoup their expenses through exclusivity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 01:31:42 2014 No.5978220 >>5977132 A lot of these companies have questionable business and legal practices.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 02:27:09 2014 No.5978308 File: 197 KB, 500x351, 1415326749456.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5977185 >This pissed about autism >15/11/14: /ck/ discovers the self-hating autist. The attached picture is of our proud discovery.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 02:41:35 2014 No.5978329 >>5977149 Well, reality disagrees with you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 02:49:41 2014 No.5978341 I fucking hate white people

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 02:59:15 2014 No.5978358 >>5978341 well I hate you.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 07:52:40 2014 No.5978649

>>5977116
The people who buy all of this stuff want somebody to blame for their lack of self control and they want to believe that one thing if eliminated from their diet will cure all of their problems.

Girls tend to be the most insecure about food because they are taught and believe much of their value comes from their looks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 07:56:04 2014 No.5978651 >>5978220 Yes, monsanto is a shit company. That doesn't make GMOs bad.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 11:09:17 2014 No.5979038

>>5978651
Literally the only gmo products monsanto has made other than BT corn, are all roundup resistant crops, So farmers can spray tons of glycophosphate on their fields all season long and it wont kill the food crop. Man where would farmers be without being able to spray roundup on all their food?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 11:25:32 2014 No.5979080 >>5977116 People with more time than sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 11:30:02 2014 No.5979097 >>5977116 Liberal mental midgets

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 11:34:40 2014 No.5979116 I just want us to figure out why the fuck all the bees are dying and stop that shit. I rather enjoy honey.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 11:36:18 2014 No.5979121 Tinfoil liberalists and conservative youths

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 11:37:18 2014 No.5979125 >>5979116 Pesticides, pollution, changing climates, migrating illnesses, competitors and predators.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 11:47:05 2014 No.5979144

>>5977116
>Who the fuck comes up with this shit and why are these so widespread?
The American diet is so fucked up, and the food so suspect that people don't know where the fuck to begin when trying to eat healthier. Most folks have no real desire to change their lifestyle, but they don't want to think they're in an unhealthy pattern of eating. So they look for a simple answer - a magic bullet. One thing they can blame for whatever ills they have.

For some people gluten is bad. Some really can't digest lactose. Going at the simple carbs (especially sugar) with too much gusto can make anybody fat and prone to type 2 diabetes.

As for GMOs, it's just like organic - there's no proof pesticide residues are bad, just like there's no proof GMOs are bad. But the people assuring you that they're safe are the same people profiting from selling them. That does not exactly inspire blind trust in a critical thinking person.

But for a lazy thinker it becomes a matter of grabbing on to one thing (doesn't matter what it is) and hoping that thing is the source of their ills. The typical American diet is so fucked up in so many ways that nearly anything that moves one away from it will probably result in a better diet. So even if their reasoning is fucked up the result might still work out for them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 11:55:57 2014 No.5979169 >>5979125 Beebola

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:09:47 2014 No.5979206 >genetic modification is bad Years ago they genetically modified corn and they had to pull the products made with it off the shelves due to allergies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:32:16 2014 No.5979278 don't forget vaccines and MSG, those are just as bad as gluten and GMOs

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:37:02 2014 No.5979287 I've tried the low carb diet and lost 20 kilos. So maybe there's a point about this one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:38:35 2014 No.5979297 >>5979206 people are allergic to all sorts of normal good things

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:39:04 2014 No.5979300 >>5979287 You just ate less calories. Why are people so stupid?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:39:26 2014 No.5979301 >>5979278 And penicillin, and refined sugar.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:39:47 2014 No.5979303 >>5979287 You don't have to go low carb to lose weight. You just have to eat slightly less than normal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:39:55 2014 No.5979304 >>5979144 >But the people assuring you that they're safe are the same people profiting from selling them. Not really true, and the people telling you they are not safe are entirely uneducated hippie types

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:40:16 2014 No.5979305

>>5979287

Many diets work by means of "trickery". Low-carb is one of them. If you follow Atkins or similar it is honestly difficult to eat a large number of calories while being low-carb. All that fat and protein fills you up very quickly. So even if the "low carb" concept is bullshit you still lose weight because a side-effect of the "diet" is cutting calories, and that *always* works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:40:26 2014 No.5979306 >>5979300 It's easy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:41:02 2014 No.5979307 >>5979297 some people are allergic to sunlight but i guess sunlight does give you cancer. maybe they're vampires

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:41:45 2014 No.5979309 >>5979305 partially true, but calories from carbs (especially simple ones) are actually worse for you than calories from protein and fat

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:42:28 2014 No.5979312 File: 14 KB, 441x411, agadf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >I have taken nutrition in college so I understand how the human body processes food

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:44:04 2014 No.5979318

I have a coworker (work at a local pizza place) who used to stuff her face with gluten filled pizza all the time. She's completely fine health-wise for eating gluten. Then she hopped aboard the fad diet hype train and now constantly points out all the shit she's eating that gluten free.

It's pretty cringe worthy, but I just bite my tongue and let her eat her crap. Doesn't affect me any, I guess.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:44:16 2014 No.5979319

>gluten is bad
Not in moderation

>lactose is bad
Not in moderation

>sugar is bad
Not in moderation

>genetic modification is bad
It can be

>carbohydrate is bad
Depends on which one really

Lactose and gluten might even in moderation still have some minor niggles

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:44:35 2014 No.5979322 >>5979312 well at least I have a better idea that the conspiracy theorist high school dropouts and liberal women who are afraid of GMOs, vaccines, and MSG, eat organic etc

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:45:27 2014 No.5979325 >>5979304 Monsanto pls

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:46:09 2014 No.5979327 >>5979309 I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I'm just saying that even if you ignore ketosis and the various other effects of a low- or no-carb diet it will almost always work simply because it carries with it a calorie reduction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:46:29 2014 No.5979331 >>5979322 You probably don't in all likelihood, most people don't

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:46:35 2014 No.5979332 >>5979319 >Not in moderation gluten isn't bad in any concentration, its more or less inert >genetic modification can be bad sure you could intentionally make some evil crop but its kind of silly to fear mad scientists

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:47:15 2014 No.5979335

>>5979304
>Not really true,
Absolutely true. The government agencies that regulate this shit are made up of people who sit on the boards of these companies. I don't give two fucks about what hippies say, but I'm not one to blindly trust the government and big corporations, because my best interests and theirs do not exactly line up.

Really I don't give a fuck about organic or GMOs. Given the choice I'll go for the organic/non-GMO option if it isn't too much more expensive, though. Not because I think GMOs and pesticide residues are evil, but because I'd rather not be the Guinea pig on that one. Because consumers are the first human tests on the safety of this stuff. Given the choice I'd rather not participate in that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:48:02 2014 No.5979338 >>5979331 >most people don't almost everyone does, even only taking bio 101 at a shitty college you would have a better understanding than those people

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:48:56 2014 No.5979344

>>5979332
>gluten isn't bad in any concentration

Objectively false

>sure you could evil crops
It's about how it affects the plant itself and how the human body could react to it, not someone intentionally sabotaging it to put farts in it or something, as well as the environmental effects of it

Then again, all people have different reactions to different things

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:49:04 2014 No.5979345

>>5979335
>Absolutely true. The government agencies that regulate this shit are made up of people who sit on the boards of these companies. I don't give two fucks about what hippies say, but I'm not one to blindly trust the government and big corporations, because my best interests and theirs do not exactly line up.
While a reasonable sentiment, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest its bad so its dumb to assume it is just because you don't like some guys who support it

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:50:07 2014 No.5979350

>>5979344
>It's about how it affects the plant itself and how the human body could react to it, not someone intentionally sabotaging it to put farts in it or something
It is incredibly unlikely, essentially impossible, to unintentionally mass produce a GMO crop that is harmful for human consumption

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:52:24 2014 No.5979359 >>5979297 Sure but this wasn't a normal thing and it was implied it created allergic reactions in people without a history.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:54:17 2014 No.5979365

>>5979359
gonna need to see some evidence on that one that sounds crazy

also it is a normal thing, science isn't bad, and all GMO crops just take genes from one safe thing and put them into another, we are not to the point where we are synthesizing novel genes yet

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:54:46 2014 No.5979368 >>5979350 It really isn't especially since you don't have quantitative and conclusive research on the subject Food doesn't have to instantly make you vomit in order for it to be bad for you

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:55:28 2014 No.5979374

>>5979345
I'm not assuming GMOs are bad. I just don't have any interest in being the Guinea pig in what amounts to the first round of safety tests. Add to that the fact that I'm not terribly sympathetic to the companies who make this stuff, and I have no problem avoiding it, given the option.

It's less a matter of whether or not the product is "bad" and more a "voting with my dollars" thing. I don't like you, I don't trust you so you don't get my money. Simple as that.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:56:18 2014 No.5979377

>>5979368
>It really isn't especially since you don't have quantitative and conclusive research on the subject
Thats an unreasonable burden.

Imagine wee find some plant in the rainforest or some other little explored area that tastes really good. Should we put that throuh decades of clinical research before our government allows people to eat and sell it? Because that has a substantially higher probability of being harmful than some benign GMO crop

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:57:36 2014 No.5979379

>>5979374
>in what amounts to the first round of safety tests
They have been on the market for decades.

There really is no risk, genetics isn't magic, these are small predictable changes we are making to the genome, it just doesn't have the potential to make mysteriously poisonous things

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:57:47 2014 No.5979381 >>5977116 >don't believe propaganda from school >believe propaganda on tv and the internet The person in OP's pic needs to burn her friends and start over.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:57:51 2014 No.5979382 >>5979125 >climate change is killing bees o am i laffin

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:59:06 2014 No.5979386 >>5979382 Secondary effects as was listed after.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 12:59:31 2014 No.5979389 >>5979206 Then it was improperly modified. A GMO isn't innately bad because mother nature didn't shit it out, it's only bad when it's been poorly engineered.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:01:16 2014 No.5979392 File: 2.63 MB, 400x200, filthy goombahs.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5979377 >that's an unreasonable burden Just stop while you're behind

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:01:19 2014 No.5979393 >>5979374 how many years of evidence do you need? You seem to be unreasonably paranoid about this. Being a Luddite always proves to put you on the wrong side of history

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:01:47 2014 No.5979394 How do you guys feel about studies that show roundup present in breastmilk?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:02:21 2014 No.5979396 >>5979392 So you don't understand science or economics?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:02:53 2014 No.5979398 >>5979389 >when it's been poorly engineered Which is about 75% of them

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:03:13 2014 No.5979399 >>5979394 Not worried about it at all. Glyphosate is less toxic than table salt, so why would I worry about tiny trace amounts in milk?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:04:06 2014 No.5979402 >>5979398 >Which is about 75% of them how do you figure?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:04:34 2014 No.5979403 >>5979398 >Makes blanket statement with no empirical evidence.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:04:46 2014 No.5979405

>>5979396
Nobody has once asked for half a century of research other than yourself, only quality and somewhat conclusive research

You're just spouting rapid generalizations that mean nothing, really

If you're going to half assedly put out a product, you may as well label it at the very least

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:06:02 2014 No.5979411 >>5979402 >>5979403 Monsanto

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:06:10 2014 No.5979412 >>5979405 >Nobody has once asked for half a century of research >You're just spouting rapid generalizations that mean nothing, God, I just laughed so hard I nearly shat myself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:06:24 2014 No.5979413 >>5979405 the only reason we shouldn't label them is people are fucking dumb and will think that the fact that it is labelled means it is bad thanks to liberal propaganda

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:07:04 2014 No.5979414 >>5979379 Small changes to genomes can drastically affect an organism, that's fucking fifth grade science

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:07:34 2014 No.5979415 >>5979411 That doesn't sound like a list of GMO crops showing what their problems were and totaling over 75%. Try again with more explanation this time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:08:06 2014 No.5979416 >>5979413 That's horrific reasoning

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:08:47 2014 No.5979419

>>5979405
>Nobody has once asked for half a century of research other than yourself, only quality and somewhat conclusive research
Then what more do you need?

and do you seriously think we should be putting billions of dollars into researching each new strain we create? That amount of burden is just crushing to science and unnecessary for public health, no one is ever going to try and advance us if the burden is so high. Seriously, you Luddites are the worst, you should just go be an amish person

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:09:07 2014 No.5979420 >>5979415 Monsanto controls a large share of the GMO market, that's not that hard to figure out

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:09:57 2014 No.5979422

>>5979379
>mysteriously poisonous things
I'm not worried about being poisoned. These companies have a responsibility to their shareholders that would be destroyed if they started poisoning people.

I'm concerned about quality. Most varieties that have been developed over the last 40 years have been developed to be easy to grow and ship. Fair enough. But taste has suffered. I won't even buy a tomato in the supermarket because it tastes like shit. I'll pay a premium for a locally grown heirloom tomato in season because it tastes good.

These modifications are not designed to improve taste. Flavor often suffers from them. So fuck that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:10:04 2014 No.5979424 Okay here it is I believe and it wasn't as bad as I recalled it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_corn_recall

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:10:16 2014 No.5979425 >>5979412 Those two statements aren't in the slightest bit related

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:10:32 2014 No.5979426 >>5979414 >Small changes to genomes can drastically affect an organism Kind of, in many predictable ways, but evolving in a way to become poisonous is a very complex process and not something that can serendipitously be achieved by human modification

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:10:46 2014 No.5979427

>>5979416

I think it's fantastic reasoning. A great example is expiration dates on food. We started doing that and as a result very few people know how to judge whether food is good or not anymore. They just blindly follow the label, which isn't even accurate in the first place. It's "taught" an entire generation that canned food only lasts a year or two, or that they should throw away salt because it's beyond the date on the box. These sorts of thing have unintended consequences.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:12:09 2014 No.5979429 >>5979427 Salt has expiration dates?

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:12:23 2014 No.5979430

>>5979419
>Then what more do you need
Quality and conclusive research, is that hard to comprehend?

>do you seriously think we should be putting billions of dollars
No, and again, you're the only suggesting this to any degree and continue on a slippery slope as if it has any bearing

>Luddite
You keep using that term like it makes any sense and as if it helps your poor argument

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:12:49 2014 No.5979431

>>5979422
>I'm concerned about quality. Most varieties that have been developed over the last 40 years have been developed to be easy to grow and ship
That was way before 40 years ago and happened entirely without the help of GMOs, GMOs when embraced will finally allow us to have the best of both worlds and will entirely relive this problem

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:12:59 2014 No.5979432 >>5979425 Well, let me explain it to you Timmy. First anon made a generalization. Then, in his/her very next sentence, anon proceeded to rail about generalizations. It's better then Comedy central!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:13:24 2014 No.5979434 >>5979426 How can you be so sure of that? Again, just because it doesn't have instantaneous effects doesn't mean it's free of danger

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:14:00 2014 No.5979436 >>5979422 >These modifications are not designed to improve taste. Flavor often suffers from them. You are thinking of old fashioned selective breeding spearheaded in the early 1900s This issue is entirely unrelated to GMOs

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:15:10 2014 No.5979439 >>5979430 >Quality and conclusive research there is no such thing as conclusive research

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:15:55 2014 No.5979442 >>5979427 Nobody is teaching that GMOs are bad unless you consider opinionated articles on the internet as the modern day school Should we not label nuts as well because they really aren't that bad for most people?

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:16:47 2014 No.5979445

>>5979430
>No, and again, you're the only suggesting this to any degree and continue on a slippery slope as if it has any bearing
Then how have we not already passed this threshold you desire? There is a shit ton of research and it conclusively shows GMOs are not inherently unsafe for consumption.

You clearly are only interested in research that supports your Luddite view, and will find silly reasons to disregard everything that supports reality and not your point of view

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:17:29 2014 No.5979448 >>5979432 What exactly is the generalization in saying nobody asked for half a century of research, which the person who was being replied to was actually referring to in his argument?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:18:23 2014 No.5979452 >>5979382 lel science is funny xD http://www.vtfoodatlas.com/assets/resources/files/Climate%20Change_Honey%20Bees.pdf We've known bees can be affect by climate change for a while now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:18:30 2014 No.5979453 >>5979439 Now you're pulling at hairs, you understand the premise, yet you're just intentionally fucking around for the sake of argument

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:18:34 2014 No.5979454

>>5979434
>How can you be so sure of that
because science isn't that hard

We are putting genes that encode for proteins which have a known, safe, effect into an organism we also known to be safe. There is just no plausible way this would magically make it poisonous in either short or long term

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:19:26 2014 No.5979459 >>5977116 Companies looking to advertise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:19:38 2014 No.5979460 >>5979453 >Now you're pulling at hairs If you don't think we already have conclusive research, you are the one pulling at hairs

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:20:35 2014 No.5979463

>>5979445
>shit ton of research that shows GMOs are not inherently unsafe

Such as?

>that supports your Luddite view
You keep using this irrelevant ad hominem that is 100% contradictory considering how we're communicating, unless you think I'm using my mind or some shit

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:20:49 2014 No.5979465

>>5979434
>How can you be so sure of that?

Because with expertise in genetics we know what will happen. It's not rolling the dice, things behave in predictible ways.

>>Again, just because it doesn't have instantaneous effects doesn't mean it's free of danger

And you are correct, of course. There always could be some small hidden danger. But the problem is how much testing are you going to do? Even if you did a massive multibillion dollar 50-year study, what if there was a super-rare condition that only showed up after 100 years? At some point you have to say, OK, it's good enough, let's go forward. To the people on the outside looking in that may sound scary. But the people doing the work are better informed than you or I are.

It's like riding along with a race-car driver or a pilot in an airplane. You or I have no idea how to fly the plane or drive the race car, so we might get scared and think we're going to crash and die. But the person behind the controls has experience that we don't. They know what is or is not safe to do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:22:46 2014 No.5979469 >>5979463 Luddite means someone who is irrationally afraid of advancement through science and technology a very fitting term for the Anti-GMO/Anti-Vaccine movement

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:22:58 2014 No.5979470

>>5979454
>because science isn't that hard

That's a magnificent summary of your entire argument

>which have a known safe effect
It's not entirely known if known at all which is the point

Especially since you have companies like Monsanto that are pretty lackadaisical about it

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:24:09 2014 No.5979473 >>5979460 You just said literally said there was no such thing as conclusive research and now you say there is? Because it fits your argument better?

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:25:34 2014 No.5979478

>>5979470
um, what?

You people act like science is some mysterious thing that no one understands.You don't have to be fucking Gandalf to make and understand GMOs and the science behind them. I genuinely hate this anti-science attitude that so many have taken up

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:25:36 2014 No.5979479

>>5979469
>anti-gmo/anti-vaccine is mutual

Computers are a monumental advancement in science and technology, guess what I'm using right now :)

You're using an irrelevant ad hominem because it makes your piss weak argument look slightly stronger, you think at least

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:26:35 2014 No.5979482 >>5979473 I was clearly going by your definition as you tried to make it a semantic argument that I had no interest in

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:27:37 2014 No.5979484 >>5979479 nothing wrong with ridiculing people with silly, antiquated views

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:28:42 2014 No.5979487

>>5979479

He didn't say they were mutual, just two examples of modern-day Luddites.

And hey, hypocrisy is nothing new. I know a few people who are really big into the whole "environmentalism" movement but that doesn't stop them from owning a cell phone or driving a hybrid car containing 1500 lbs of toxic waste battery in it.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:28:57 2014 No.5979488

>>5979465
>how much testing are you going to do
You always test things to see if they still uphold and results are consistent, why do you think people still bother testing dairy?

>even if you did a massive multibillion 50 year study
You're the only one to keep on suggesting such things

The point is there is nothing that shows it may or not may be good enough, so the least you can do you is add a labeling so the consumer knows what they're consuming

People outside the US do things very differently, for better or worse, there is not one universal practice

>the person behind the controls
The thing is, there is not one thing that says whether is this safe enough or not either way

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:30:05 2014 No.5979493 >>5979482 >I was clearly backtracking because I can't make a proper argument on my own

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:30:31 2014 No.5979494 >>5979479 >>anti-gmo/anti-vaccine is mutual Not quite mutual, but very similar attitudes and largely the same people

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:31:07 2014 No.5979495 >>5979487 So despite the fact I am knowingly using a computer, and have questions about GMOs it makes me a Luddite? It's an irrelevant and useless ad hominem that only further distracts from the argument

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:33:35 2014 No.5979498
File: 41 KB, 385x477, predator-arnold.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5977116

>people have issues with "bad food" i.ie fried chicken or whatever
>same people who buy like 200 worth of magic pills at GNC with all sorts of untested chemicals and shit that is apologetically made in a lab.

muh hypocrisy.
2 steps away from everyone drinking brawndo.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:33:43 2014 No.5979499 >>5979495 obviously not a Luddite in the literal, original sense, but a Luddite none the less

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:34:45 2014 No.5979501 >>5979495 >It's an irrelevant and useless I disagree, it is a very relevant name for anti-science people

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:37:22 2014 No.5979508

>>5979488
>, why do you think people still bother testing dairy?

That's a different thing entirely. Testing a new GMO crop has the goal of determining whether or not there are any unknown health problems with it. Testing dairy is not for the purpose of looking for unknown health problems. Rather it's quality control. There are legal standards regarding the dairy--for example the fat content, color, viscosity, bacterial contamination, and so on. It's QC and safety assurance according to a checklist, not open-ended research looking for "what ifs".

>>You're the only one to keep on suggesting such things

I am not. Perhaps you confused me with another poster?

>>The point is there is nothing that shows it may or not may be good enough

I disagree. My point is that we will never know, ever, no matter how much science and testing we do, if anything is really truly safe on an absolute (pedantic) scale. That being said, it's a matter of degree. In other words, how much science is enough versus how much is too little.

You appear to be of the opinion that we haven't done enough science to know.

Other people are of the opinion that we have done enough to know. Usually these are the people who don't understand GMOs and tend to react with fear or irrationality when they hear about GMOs.

I will freely admit that I am no expert on genetics. On the other hand, GMO crops have been eaten by millions upon millions of people and there appear to be no significant issues as a result. That's good enough for me, though it may not be good enough for someone else.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:38:20 2014 No.5979511

>>5979499
That makes absolutely no sense at all, is everyone that is skeptic of something a Luddite?

How absolutely idiotic

>>5979501
You're just idiotically justifying liberally throwing around a pretty specific term

>>5979494
>largely the same people
Hardly

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:44:20 2014 No.5979526

>>5979508
>testing dairy is not for the purpose of looking for unknown health problems
That's what's being actually being researched and tested though, you know exactly what I mean, yet you're grasping at straws yet again

>no matter how much science and testing we do
>again grasping at straws
The point is, there is absolutely nothing certain in the slightest bit, in the sense of absolute certainty or "ah fuck it just put it out there", nothing

>usually these are the people
More ad hominems, what a shocker, and I'm assuming you idiotically associated "we have done enough to know" with people relating to fearing GMOs or what not

How can you be so conclusive on something that is so relatively new?

>and there appear to be no sigifnicant issues as a result
How would you even begin to gauge that? Not that'd you even know to begin with.

Anonymous Sat Nov 15 13:58:08 2014 No.5979550

>>5979526
>That's what's being actually being researched and tested though

Perhaps I misunderstood you? When you said "testing dairy" I assumed you were talking about the normal tests done at a dairy, like checking the fat content of milk. If that's not what you're referring to then perhaps you can give an example?

>>The point is, there is absolutely nothing certain in the slightest bit
Yes, that's my point as well. We agree here.

>>More ad hominems,
I'm not trying to insult anyone, that's why I said "usually" and "some people" instead of you. Apologies if you thought I was insulting anyone.

>How can you be so conclusive on something that is so relatively new?

Because we have done a lot of research on it and the GMO crops are out in the market where people are consuming them, and we haven't found any issues yet. That tells me there are no major obvious problems, but perhaps there might be some minor ones or ones we don't find out about for a long time. And find that level of risk acceptable.

>>How would you even begin to gauge that? Not that'd you even know to begin with.

Empirically. These days the government watchdogs as well as activists and money-grubbing lawyers scrutinize everything. If there was a legitimate health problem with a GMO crop it would be all over the news as well as all over the academic circuit and especially all over the activist circles. But it's not. The problems just aren't there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 14:41:37 2014 No.5979635 >>5979511 >is everyone that is skeptic of something a Luddite if you are irrationally fearful of progress, yes

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 14:43:18 2014 No.5979642 >>5979511 >Hardly The anti-GMO and Anti-vaccine people are widely the same. Typically west coast or new england middle and upper class women with minimal science knowledge. The same people who buy organic food and avoid gluten and MSG

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 23:40:08 2014 No.5980979 >>5977116 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22202229 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21798302 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10854122

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 15 23:54:43 2014 No.5981010 File: 37 KB, 240x240, 1411500316773.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5977246 >this entire post

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 04:46:10 2014 No.5981500 >>5977149 Autism does exist. It's aspergers that doesn't exist.

Anonymous Sun Nov 16 05:10:06 2014 No.5981518

>>5977116

>gluten is bad

for some with celiac, yes.

>lactose is bad

for most people, generally unhealthy, yes.

>sugar is bad

again, yes, added sugar is bad.

>GMO is bad

no evidence that GMOs are bad, but organic is probably better

>carbs are bad

if you're a fatass strangling your arteries with shit ingredients like white flour, yes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 05:29:19 2014 No.5981545 >>5981518 >organic is probably better No it's really not. Unless you are actually growing your own food you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 05:36:57 2014 No.5981552 >>5977246 >Would love it if they put out some GMOs that increased nutrition, flavor, yield, better texture, decrease pollution, those sort of thing. Then you should be very happy, because science has achieved all of these things.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 07:05:07 2014 No.5981654 >>5981518 Organic farming on a mass scale is actually worse for the environment than GMO shit. But then again, try and tell that to hipsters and I KNOW EVERYTHING types.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 09:22:42 2014 No.5981860 Gluten is only bad if you have Celiac's. Just wish basic bitches didn't make it into a fad and stores carried all-purpose gluten-free baking mix or xanthum gum.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 09:31:34 2014 No.5981872 >>5977116 did you know that everyone that died at some point in their life drank water? Water is bad man, it KILLS

Anonymous Sun Nov 16 10:21:48 2014 No.5981945

>>5979431
>GMOs when embraced will finally allow us to have the best of both worlds and will entirely relive this problem
But they haven't, the vegetables in the supermarket taste like shit compared to heirloom veggies.
>>5979436
>This issue is entirely unrelated to GMOs
Bullshit. GMOs are never made for flavor. They're made for disease resistance, or immunity to specific pesticides. That's nice for agribusiness, but what does it get the consumer? Cheap food. I suppose that's nothing to complain about, but if that cheap food tastes like shit it's hardly a boon. 80% of GMO agriculture is growing utility grade corn and soy. What is that used for? Animal feed and shitty processed foods. I eat very little in the way of animal products and heavily processed food. It's not that GMOs are bad, it's that the system we have built on them is shit. And thus supporting them is supporting that shit system.

I have no problem whatsoever with the science behind GMOs. I have a huge problem with the way we've chosen to apply that science, and because of that I avoid these products so as not to support that system.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 10:24:39 2014 No.5981949 I want to buy a Monsanto jacket and wear it around town just to piss people off. Please, give me a reason to make you realize how stupid you sound.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 10:27:43 2014 No.5981958 >>5978220 really, would you like to list these companies and examples of them doing so? Give me some examples off your head, I'd be happy to do my own research on them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 11:12:07 2014 No.5982037 >>5979642 Not who you're responding to, but I avoid MSG because good food doesn't need a fucking crutch. I'm a broke-ass dude in Texas, so not the butthole demographic you might assume.

Anonymous Sun Nov 16 13:53:17 2014 No.5982395

>>5977116
I'm going to regret engaging, but let's start here:

>gluten is bad
if my gf eats gluten, she spends the rest of the night shitting her guts out into the toilet. She has Celiac disease. In her case, gluten is bad. Meanwhile, I can eat noodles in a bread bowl with Seitan chunks on it and have no ill effects. In my case, gluten seems to be fine.

>lactose is bad
If my colleague eats lactose (without taking an enzyme supplement) he will spend the rest of the day shitting his guts out into the toilet. In his case, lactose is bad. Meanwhile, I can eat tres leches cake and wash it down with a milkshake and feel no ill effects. In my case, lactose is fine.

I think two examples is enough to prove my point: for each item on OP's list, there are cases where those things are bad. But nowhere on the list is there anything that is universally bad. The bigger issue is actually what this guy posted about:

>>5977136

a little bit of knowledge is dangerous, and it leads to half-informed people making assumptions which are then turned into sensationalized internet headlines. Then we get an information cascade of exaggerated or just plain misrepresented facts that the general population can't be bothered to verify for themselves.

And that's how you end up with a pointless ban on delicious fois gras.

Anonymous Sun Nov 16 18:00:01 2014 No.5983120

>gluten is bad

it is if you're celiac, which some people are

>lactose is bad

it is if you're lactose intolerant, which a lot of people are, especially if they're white

>sugar is bad

sugar is pretty bad

>gmos are bad

gmos can be bad if they, for example, encourage overuse of pesticides or destructive farming practices, so it's reasonable to be wary of them

>carbonhydrate is bad

high-GI carbs are bad for the same reason sugar is

>OP is bad

I agree

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 18:18:43 2014 No.5983193 >>5977116 I sure hope you don't eat food, OP... don't you know that food is bad for you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 18:27:02 2014 No.5983211 >>5983120 >especially if they're white I think you mean Asian dude

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 18:33:15 2014 No.5983237 >>5983120 >especially if they're white Surely you mean 'especially if you are not white'

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 18:55:25 2014 No.5983307 File: 42 KB, 351x440, 1379937604551.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5982395

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 18:57:32 2014 No.5983311 >>5977156 there have been many cases of GMO feed grains causing farm animals to stop producing young, or causing still births and other issues, maybe do some actual research you dumb faggot

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 19:03:53 2014 No.5983322 >>5983311 I'm not for or against GMO, but do you have any citations? >inb4 motherjones

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 19:06:34 2014 No.5983336 >>5983322 >please use google for me, I am too stupid

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 19:09:15 2014 No.5983345 >>5983336 I thought you might have some credible sources bookmarked.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 19:09:45 2014 No.5983348 >>5983336 >I'm citing this very specific instance of this thing that my argument relies on but I won't post it Good job. Expecting that Naturalnews link any minute.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 19:11:24 2014 No.5983352 >>5983348 Sometimes I wonder if people ever actually go to these websites they complain about Half the time someone here is spouting off about naturalnews, you can find 50 articles on naturalnews that agree with their viewpoint

Anonymous Sun Nov 16 19:15:44 2014 No.5983358

>>5977116
>gluten
A fad diet, the only people who really need to watch out for it are those with Celiac disease and trust me you would know if you have Celiac.

>Lactose
I actually haven't heard of this one before, so no comment

>sugar
Sugar is bad for you, but if you keep it at reasonable levels it won't do anything terrible.

>GMO
I personally think GMO is fine, but if people want to avoid it over ethical issues that's fine with me.

>Carbs
Carbs are basically just another form of sugar, they cause an insulin spike in the body that makes you feel hungry, which makes you eat more. They are fine in moderation just like sugar but most people ear way too many carbs in their diets.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 19:36:07 2014 No.5983419 >>5983358 As people age they generally lose some of their ability to handle lactose, meaning a large chunk of the population is lactose intolerant to some degree.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 19:48:09 2014 No.5983455 >>5983358 >ethical issues That's the thing, the idea of there being ethical issues involved with GMO's is ridiculous. There's no reason to distrust GMO's.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 19:54:39 2014 No.5983480 >>5983419 >be asian >no problems for 18 years of my life >dad has lactose intolerance >older brother becomes lactose intolerance >tfw became lactose intolerant 1 month ago

Anonymous Sun Nov 16 20:03:45 2014 No.5983499

>>5983480
Last year I noticed I was feeling awful every weekday morning/afternoon for no obvious reason. I eventually noticed that if I didn't eat a bowl of cereal and milk I magically didn't get stomach cramps and headaches later. I'm dreading the day I can't handle cheese and other dairy stuff without taking some enzyme pill first.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 20:09:05 2014 No.5983519 >>5983455 I'm by no mean a conspiracy theorist but there are a lot of reasons to distrust GMOs. They are essentially the DRM of the food world.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 23:06:48 2014 No.5984103 >>5977116 Sugar is quite bad apart from that EVERYTHING IN MODERATION. Genetic modification is more of an ethical issue and if your that bothered by it just avoid it. Not like it's forced upon you or anything

Anonymous Sun Nov 16 23:30:34 2014 No.5984199

>>5983455
>the idea of there being ethical issues involved with GMO's is ridiculous.

>Hey, here's a modified Brand Name seed to grow better crops
>Sign this contract stating you'll pay us for our Brand Name modified seed
>Now that your name is signed, these are terminator seeds and won't bear fertile fruit
>So you'll have to buy more each season at an increasing cost
>And they're not as good as we say they are, your yield won't be as projected
>And you can't get out of the contract
>And your neighbors crops were cross pollinated with our seed, so now they owe us money
>They have to destroy all saved seeds and buy from us now
>Because they can't afford to take us to court, we're a massive multibillion dollar corporation
>We own your food sources, you cannot avoid us
>Small time farming, HAHAHA, how quaint
>We can buy politicians off and destroy any small farming protections while securing more safety nets for massive mono-crop agribusiness
>You'll be legislated, fined and harassed out of your lot of land in no time
>Have fun eating a shotgun while you watch your former crop land turn into a subdivision, or a new Wal-Mart
>And remember, GMOs aren't bad, they're feeding America!

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 16 23:49:53 2014 No.5984262 >>5984199 this

Anonymous Sun Nov 16 23:53:42 2014 No.5984272

>>5977156

Actually, farmers don't have to buy GMOs to plant. They buy GMOs to plant because they expect to earn more on their crops with greater production.

For some crops such as corn, most farmers were buying seed every year because of the greater productivity from F1 Hybrids. For other crops farmers could easily save seed to plant next year but they find the benefits from using GMO seed worth buying new seed each year.

So the idea that it is the seed companies such as Monsanto making money at the expense of the farmers is nothing but nonsense.

Anonymous Sun Nov 16 23:55:58 2014 No.5984288

>>5977246
>Instead we get GMOs that exist purely to lock people into spending more on the company products

There are no such GMO products. Any farmer can readily go back to raising non-GMO crops if he desires. That they don't is because of better productivity and increased profits from using GMO products.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 17 00:00:31 2014 No.5984311 >>5979379 >They have been on the market for decades. To be precise, two decades. The first GMO food was made available in 1994. Prior to that, there were no commercially available GMO food products at all.

Anonymous Mon Nov 17 00:04:39 2014 No.5984329

>>5979445
>There is a shit ton of research and it conclusively shows GMOs are not inherently unsafe for consumption.

That clearly should read "There is a shit ton of faulty research and it falsely puports to conclusively show GMOs are not inherently unsafe for consumption."

Anonymous Mon Nov 17 00:04:50 2014 No.5984330

>>5977116
>>5984103
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/sugar-suppresses-immune-system/#axzz3JIbLpSTP

agreed. All of OPs bad things things are mostly bad only in excess. But what is excess you ask? Eating over 100 grams of sugar a day can lower your immune system by two thirds. Most people eat at least 200 grams and they wonder why cancer is so wide spread

Anonymous Mon Nov 17 00:08:45 2014 No.5984346

>>5979508
>On the other hand, GMO crops have been eaten by millions upon millions of people and there appear to be no significant issues as a result.

Don't be stupid.

The germ GMO was coined to very specifically refer to those organisms created by using specific modern bioengineering techniques to modify the genome. Those techniques have been available for the last 40 years or so.

Consequently, there were never any GMO food products or GMO anything else until quite recently. The first GMO crop was not commercially available until 1994.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 17 00:10:17 2014 No.5984354 >>5981500 In the latest DSM, Aspergers was officially moved into the Autism Spectrum.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 17 00:11:49 2014 No.5984360 >>5981949 Where I live, wearing a Monsanto jacket wouldn't piss anyone off. Everyone would just think that the Monsanto representative gave it to you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 17 00:13:42 2014 No.5984370 >>5983336 It is up to the person making such claims to back those claims up with substance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 17 00:24:42 2014 No.5984409 File: 3 KB, 155x119, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5977116 >doesnt know how to eat healthy >believes most of the modern world isn't corrupted mfw OP is 12

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 17 01:03:35 2014 No.5984554 I thought Cristina was gonna say Jew.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 17 08:18:10 2014 No.5985206 File: 1.11 MB, 4678x3308, 87258b92-b715-4f2b-8094-bb93eb5e5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5983336 You have committed "burden of proof".

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 17 08:21:07 2014 No.5985209 >>5984409 Of course almost everything is corrupted, but that doesn't make any of those bad. The only one of those that's bad is sugar, especially in excess. Carbs in excess aren't good either, but then again eating anything in excess is not ideal.

Anonymous Mon Nov 17 08:31:28 2014 No.5985220

>>5977116
It comes from all sorts of sources. Outdated government recommendations based on poor or incomplete science, fad diets, conspiracy theorists, shitty science reporting, people only reading sensationalist headlines without reading or comprehending the accompanying article, etc.

The internet has made this stuff spread more easily though between clickbait blogs, social media, and the ability for people to seal themselves in a world where only information they already agree with gets in.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 17 12:45:50 2014 No.5985629 >>5985209 >eating anything in excess is not ideal Truer words were never spoken.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/ck/ - Food & Cooking