I’d have to do further research to determine my stance on consumption of glyphosate. But my post was pretty much materialized after reading all the news articles that came out over the past week.
My main point is, the masses will be exposed to this in the news/media: the words “carcinogenic” and “glyphosate” and the credential of the WHO will likely be enough for the public perception to automatically sway in a negative direction. Then products with glyphosate will become increasingly less desirable to the public.
I might agree with you on the perception or PR angle. However, that is a broader question: Should Soylent add/remove things based on the public perception or should they add/remove things to give the best health, lowest cost, and widest availability?
They also list Coffee, and working nights as carcinogens. The studies that IARC based its rating off of were few, and the conclusions the researchers in said studies where 'not statistically significant". IARC came to different conclusions than those who preformed the studies. If my memory serves correct, they need as few as 2 studies to show ANY carcinogenic results to classify it as a carcinogen, regardless of how many show its not.
As many others have said, dosage makes the poison. People consuming round-up ready crops are at a far lower risk (if any) that those applying the glyphosate.
As to the video, it sound like he coined his own definition for “GMO”. As to his ‘correlation data’, if the left side is number of Autism cases (I think he said it is), then i would take it with a large grain of salt. The population itself was of course growing during the same time span, and we can find numerous other “correlations” between the same time period and consumption. I would argue the large jumps and differences in some years show it is NOT correlated at all.
It is really true that you just received a big order and use it nearly every day? The reason I ask is that I tend to clump people who are fiercely anti-GMO in the same category as those who fear “chemtrails” and chemicals in general. I find it odd that such a person would be ordering Soylent to begin with.
My suspicion (and maybe I’m unfairly stereotyping) is that you are an anti-chemical, anti-GMO, anti-science activist and are merely posting here to stir the pot and publish some links to anti-GMO propaganda. It’s just my jaded distrusting opinion of course.
So, why would a person such as yourself be consuming Soylent in the first place? Shouldn’t you also be a person who is anti “processed” foods in general? It doesn’t get more “processed” than Soylent, after all.
We all know what potatoes taste like, right? Couple years back, I was able to eat home-grown potatoes and became hooked. They didn’t taste like any potato I’ve ever had… The result of the rich Missouri soil in my backyard is such a far departure from potatoes mass produced using “conventional” factory farming methods that it’s hard to believe it’s even the same food… and if you look at the nutrient profile, they’re hardly the same food.
That better taste is from the potato being fresh out of the ground. The potatoes you get in the store are who knows how old. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are GMO or industrially produced.
Unless you’ve done a double blind taste test I wouldn’t draw conclusions about what anything tastes like. That’s not to say foods produced a certain way can’t taste different than foods produced a different way but rather than this is the kind of thing where people can easily deceive themselves via confirmation bias. There is a really funny video on Youtube of a Penn & Teller BS show with them at a Farmer’s Market doing taste tests of organic vs non-organic food. The people have preconceptions of what things ought to taste like and they end up looking silly.
Your wording about the potatoes concerns me. You act like Missouri soil is magical or something. It’s soil. If it’s soil that is good to grow potatoes in then fine. All potatoes are grown in some kind of soil, unless maybe there is some kind of hydroponic way or some other way of growing them.
One of two things are true. Either Missouri soil is the best possible medium in which to grow potatoes or else there is a better medium, even if perhaps we don’t know what it is yet. And it seems to me that it would be an utter miracle if the former was true instead of the latter. So even if Missouri soil is good to grow potatoes, it’s pretty likely there’s an even better way. Lots of people put farming in a sacred level and won’t admit it’s not.
Also, the nutrient profile of potatoes grown on “factory farms” is roughly the same as those grown in rich Missouri soil or anywhere else and the same is true of other foods. Small differences might exist but the notion that foods are completely different depending on where they’re grown isn’t accurate.
Also from the choice of variety. When growing at home, we get to pick from a wide variety of seeds, and get a wide variety of flavors - although the best tomatoes, to me, are still my mother’s heirloom tomatoes, and you can only get the seed from her.
A lot of hobby gardeners actually get to choose from better-tasting varieties. Commerical growers try to grow flavorful and appealing varieties, but they also have to consider tolerance for the local conditions/pests/diseases, varieties that pack, store, and ship well, etc.
My mother’s heirlooms look awful on the vine and have to handled carefully when fully ripe, but nobody debates that their flavor is top-notch. (She’s been nursing her sprouts for a couple weeks already, putting them into the porch light most days, and bringing them in every evening, because it’s too cold to leave them out.)
But anyway, you’re right - even if you grew potatoes from sprouted eyes of a store-bought potato (i.e., had a genetically identical potato plant to the one the grower had), you’re right - it wouldn’t taste exactly the same, grown in your soil/climate/conditions.
Digera isn’t saying that Missouri soil is perfect or that the potatoes there are somehow outside the norm for their breed. He’s only saying the freshly dug potatoes taste better than the farmed ones. What your not considering is that Missouri soil has a unique mineral and biomaterial profile not to mention a unique weather pattern. The exact same potato breeds grown there would have detectably different flavor, aroma, and nutrition profile than the same potato grown in Idaho. They would still be within the norm for the breed but different.
I am a sceptic and a scientist and I posted a lecture on the science behind glyphosate, not propoganda. I am careful about using industrial chemicals, in my profession I have to use the extremely toxic variety. I have learned from experience not to trust the politics that are inherent in the for-profit mega-industries and am extremely concerned about what’s happening in how food is grown. You admit to ‘clumping,’ stereotyping, assumptions, distrust and being jaded. I understand, I’m a cynic because I live in this world too, but so far you’ve been wrong about me on every count. (what might you learn from that?) I use soylent because I too hate eating shitty food when I don’t have time for ‘real’ food. I’m also sick and tired of it’s sweetner they for some reason think is necessary, but it’s better than fucking Taco Bell. I customize every batch so it’s more drinkable, still it’s the best food replacement I’ve found and I’ve tried a dozen. I eat organic food straight from the best garden in this county (in my backyard) I eat also eat out, and I eat processed food. I do not want to eat poison. Nuff said?
You eat organic food straight from the best garden in this country, which is your backyard? Do you expect us to believe that the best garden in the country is your backyard?
You are careful about using industrial chemicals? Are you careful about using other chemicals too? If not, why? If so, why did you feel the need to single out industrial chemcials?
You’ve learned from experience not to trust the politics of for-profit-mega-industries? Okay. Have you also learned from experience not to trust the politics of for-profit-non-mega-industries? If not then I wonder why.
Forgive my cynicism but a lot of what you write just sounds too dogmatic-y.
Correct… To clarify, I sheer pieces off of GMO or whatever potatoes I have and plant those in my backyard. When they’re fully regrown, their flavor is unlike it was the first time I ate it. Organic potatoes are hit or miss… Some GMO potatoes are really good, too… I’m quite positive that it has very little to do with the genetic structure of the potato and everything to do with the production methods.
I would believe that the freshness is a factor in the flavor, but, Missouri is known for its rich soils.
One of the main reasons any crop gets genetically modified is to make it more resistant to pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Earth worms and other bugs eat various things, changing them chemically, and then deposit nutrients into the soil. Many plants “digest” things in different ways, their leaves and branches fall, depositing nutrients into the soil. Fungi, while sometimes extremely dangerous to your crops, also “digest” various things, depositing nutrients into the soil.
Untouched, natural biodiversity yields tremendous results and the ONLY danger of GMOs that I recognize is the danger to soil as man attempts to circumvent and/or stifle the natural soil-nutrient cycles.
If we could use GMOs and also natural methods (or find a better way to achieve the same/better results), I would support the notion… However, if you want crop diversity and you start allowing some weeds, allowing some pests, and allowing some fungi, you’ve just ruled out the need and attraction of 99% of GMO seeds.
So I watched that video up there. The speaker, Thierry Vrain, sounds like a reasonably intelligent guy, but he also makes several dubious claims in the video that set off my quack alarms. For example, how shows what appears to be a 1:1 correlation between RoundUp use and autism. The guy is a quack.
I actually agree with some of what you just, but not this part:
You also need to apply your skepticism to the popular pseudo-science which, together with the Naturalistic Fallacy, is the primary backlash against “big farming” and “big pharma.” I have plenty of complaints about both industries, but when I take a step back and look objectively and skeptically at the whole playing field, the anti-GMO and anti-chemical and etc. crowd are by far the least subject-eductated, the least scientific, and quite honestly the least honest in their propaganda.