Chipotle Has Jumped the Shark

[ch33zw1z]

Cater to your client base, makes sense.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Who gives a shit, their food is loaded with salt. People can now be excited to go get some Saltotle, awesome...

Do you think other food establishments aren't loaded with salt?

 

[Subyman]

So you aren't going to answer my question? Is it because you can't? I already know the answer, I'm just trying to give you an opportunity to fess up here. By the way, I used to live in Southern IL and still own a house there. Still doesn't answer my question.

Wow, you are really serious. Here we go then, I've grown most of these myself: okra, tomatoes, sweet corn, jalapenos, sweet potato, carolina rice, banana, any type of berry (I grow black berries and raspberries), cucumber, and the list goes on. Surely you understand the quality of the food is better when taste is the priority, not yield or profitability. I've grown all those myself other than the rice and banana. I switched to the smaller organic bananas several years ago after the normal bananas began to taste mealy and wouldn't produce as sweet bananas foster.

It isn't all GMO either, its also selective breeding for profitability above taste.

Again, if you read my very first post, I said my issues with GMO are cursory to GMO itself. I don't believe GMO to be a health hazard nor do I believe it is intrinsically bad. I believe the process of creating GMOs to be limiting to our selection and are used not to increase the taste of the food, but the large scale profit margins.

For me it doesn't really matter. I pay a bit more and buy local produce that caters to taste instead of massive production profitability.

So if everyone was engineered to have blue eyes, does that automatically mean that we aren't genetically diverse? Does that make us more susceptible to disease?

Human to plant analogies do not work. I've already stated the risk reasons previously.

Again, an entire crop can be susceptible to a disease. If we have many types of corn, there are many more things to consider. If we use your example, now we don't have to worry about the disease that happens to somehow only affect a particular type of GMO corn. No, now we have to worry about every single disease that could affect any type of corn, everywhere. How is that better?

It spreads the risk. Only one disease needs to present itself to wipe out an entire yield if we sow only a few types of seed. Having more diversity safeguards us from one catastrophic plight. The beauty of it is that we don't need to try to maintain every single type of corn, everywhere because the diversity is such that it washes out on the large scale.

As I also said before. I don't find the risk to be very high, but it is something to consider.

 

[Subyman]

There are a few varieties of squash but that completes the list.

Maybe now Subyman will understand what I was getting at. I had hoped he would come clean first. You ruined that...for him.

I think you are trying to prove a misunderstanding of what I said. My issues with GMO are cursory to GMO itself. I said it in my very first post. I do not believe GMO to cause health defects. I do not think they are a hazard in any way. The process of selective breeding and limiting the seed selection due the initial cost of GMO engineering for profitability have decreased the taste of many common foods. GMO being the prime reason for that is not what I am saying at all.

 

[xBiffx]

Wow, you are really serious. Here we go then, I've grown most of these myself: okra, tomatoes, sweet corn, jalapenos, sweet potato, carolina rice, banana, any type of berry (I grow black berries and raspberries), cucumber, and the list goes on. Surely you understand the quality of the food is better when taste is the priority, not yield or profitability. I've grown all those myself other than the rice and banana. I switched to the smaller organic bananas several years ago after the normal bananas began to taste mealy and wouldn't produce as sweet bananas foster.

It isn't just GMO either, its also selective breeding for profitability above taste.

Again, if you read my very first post, I said my issues with GMO are cursory to GMO itself. I don't believe GMO to be a health hazard nor do I believe it is intrinsically bad. I believe the process of creating GMOs to be limiting to our selection and are used not to increase the taste of the food, but the large scale profit margins.

For me it doesn't really matter. I pay a bit more and buy local produce that caters to taste instead of massive production profitability.

Which of those are worst tasting GMO varieties. You made a blanket statement about GMO's and taste. You think doubled down saying that it was widely accepted. Well, there are only three kinds of GMO produce available so where are you getting this data to make such claims?

Also, what tastes good to you may taste strange/terrible to someone else. Weird, I know.

Human to plant analogies do not work. I've already stated the risk reasons previously.

We are talking about genetics here, in general, so my example is completely valid. Sorry you can't refute it other than to summarily dismiss it with nothing to back that up.

It spreads the risk. Only one disease needs to present itself to wipe out an entire yield if we sow only a few types of seed. Having more diversity safeguards us from one catastrophic plight. The beauty of it is that we don't need to try to maintain every single type of corn, everywhere because the diversity is such that it washes out on the large scale.

As I also said before. I don't find the risk to be very high, but it is something to consider.

And again, how is that different with a bunch of different varieties of corn or a crop in general?

Where are you getting that having more diversity safeguards us when it comes to disease? Care to share your source on that? If its where you got your GMO and taste data, I'm not sure I can stand the smell.

 

[xBiffx]

I think you are trying to prove a misunderstanding of what I said. My issues with GMO are cursory to GMO itself. I said it in my very first post. I do not believe GMO to cause health defects. I do not think they are a hazard in any way. The process of selective breeding and limiting the seed selection due the initial cost of GMO engineering for profitability have decreased the taste of many common foods. GMO being the prime reason for that is not what I am saying at all.

Please, tell me where I misunderstood this?

My issue is the reduction in food choice. GMOs are specifically engineered for profitability above all else, taste be damned.

And this?

Walmart corn was one example. Not the extent of my knowledge. Do you really believe the only GMO food I have ever tasted and compared is walmart corn? Come on now, debate my points don't try to weasel an argument out of tiny stuff like that.

And this?

You are serious? I need to explain why heirloom produce tastes better than some GMOs? I can't believe you are still going down that path. It is generally accepted. Move along

I asked you to explain where you come up with your conclusion about GMOs and taste. You claimed that is was widely accepted and it wasn't just corn. To date, there are all of three types of produce that the general public can obtain that are GMO.

What you said was bullshit. When called on it, you doubled down with more bullshit. And now you continue to feed us more bullshit. Exactly who gets to determine what tastes good and what doesn't? Nevermind, I know that your answer is going to stink as well.

 

[Subyman]

Which of those are worst tasting GMO varieties. You made a blanket statement about GMO's and taste. You think doubled down saying that it was widely accepted. Well, there are only three kinds of GMO produce available so where are you getting this data to make such claims?

Also, what tastes good to you may taste strange/terrible to someone else. Weird, I know.

I answered this in my last post. I believe we had a misunderstanding of what I was saying.

We are talking about genetics here, in general, so my example is completely valid. Sorry you can't refute it other than to summarily dismiss it with nothing to back that up.

You framed the wrong question. Obviously, giving someone blue eyes through gene work isn't going to kill the entire population. As I've said before, the issue is cursory to GMO. Its that the blue eyed person is then cloned into the entire human race.

And again, how is that different with a bunch of different varieties of corn or a crop in general?

Where are you getting that having more diversity safeguards us when it comes to disease? Care to share your source on that? If its where you got your GMO and taste data, I'm not sure I can stand the smell.

It doesn't take much of a search to find it. Even wikipedia has a decent description with relevant examples:

One particular threat to mass-producing plants for harvest is their susceptibility to diseases. Generally speaking, a species has a range of genetic variability that allows for individuals and/or populations within that species to survive should a stressor or disturbance occur. In the case of agriculture, this is a tricky business to ensure, as seeds are planted under uniform conditions. For example, monocultural agriculture potentially elicits low crop diversity (especially if the seeds were mass-produced or cloned). It is possible that a single pest or disease could wipe out entire areas of a crop due to this uniformity.[15] One of the more historically known examples of harvests that suffered from low crop diversity was the Irish Potato Famine of 1845-1847.Another example is when a disease caused by a fungus affected the 1970 US corn crop causing a loss of over one billion dollars in production. If the corn acreage hadn't been such a monoculture, the fungus wouldn't have been able to spread as rapidly, as it would have encountered barriers of genetically resistant plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_diversity#Disease_threats_to_crops_with_low_genetic_diversity

 

[Subyman]

Please, tell me where I misunderstood this?



And this?



And this?



I asked you to explain where you come up with your conclusion about GMOs and taste. You claimed that is was widely accepted and it wasn't just corn. To date, there are all of three types of produce that the general public can obtain that are GMO.

What you said was bullshit. When called on it, you doubled down with more bullshit. And now you continue to feed us more bullshit. Exactly who gets to determine what tastes good and what doesn't? Nevermind, I know that your answer is going to stink as well.

How about we go back to my initial post where it all started?

My main concern is secondary to GMOs being used. I don't believe they have any type of health effect or are dangerous in and of themselves. My issue is the reduction in food choice. GMOs are specifically engineered for profitability above all else, taste be damned. Because GMOs are specifically engineered, it takes thousands of man hours and millions of dollars to develop and produce one type of seed. For this reason, variety is immensely limited.

I think you keep skipping over that I said GMO are cursory. It isn't the splicing of genes into food that makes them taste bad, its the fact they are engineered (both GMO and selectively) for profitability above taste. All mass market GMOs are like that because it isn't worth the engineering effort unless its for large scale production.

So, yes we are having a misunderstanding. If I was unclear, then I hope that cleared it up, but it certainly isn't "bullshit." Perhaps don't be so eager to pursue a crusade and instead have a decent discussion as we better understand each other's position.

 

[xBiffx]

I answered this in my last post. I believe we had a misunderstanding of what I was saying.

I believe you got caught in a lie.

You framed the wrong question. Obviously, giving someone blue eyes through gene work isn't going to kill the entire population. As I've said before, the issue is cursory to GMO. Its that the blue eyed person is then cloned into the entire human race.

Where did I say it would kill the entire population? It was claimed that genetic diversity is good for disease susceptibility. What are you on about now? How again is everyone being blue eyed a bad thing in this case?

It doesn't take much of a search to find it. Even wikipedia has a decent description with relevant examples:

None of which pertains specifically to just GMOs. And none of which is actually backed by anything. Again, we are talking about essentially something similar changing the color of people's eyes and somehow that makes everyone no longer genetically diverse.

 

[smackababy]

Who gives a shit, their food is loaded with salt. People can now be excited to go get some Saltotle, awesome...

ITT we have someone who thinks Chipotle has too much salt. In another, someone crying they don't have enough...

 

[xBiffx]

How about we go back to my initial post where it all started?



I think you keep skipping over that I said GMO are cursory. It isn't the splicing of genes into food that makes them taste bad, its the fact they are engineered (both GMO and selectively) for profitability above taste. All mass market GMOs are like that because it isn't worth the engineering effort unless its for large scale production.

So, yes we are having a misunderstanding.

How about you address the parts of your OP where I took issue and mentioned, and not the ones I didn't question.

Again, who is the great decider of taste? You still haven't answered that one.

 

[Subyman]

I believe you got caught in a lie.

I think you are jumping the gun before understanding me correctly.

Where did I say it would kill the entire population? It was claimed that genetic diversity is good for disease susceptibility. What are you on about now? How again is everyone being blue eyed a bad thing in this case?

You are deflecting. Again, that blue eyed person is then cloned to represent most humans, which is the issue. Not the blue eyes in the first place.

None of which pertains specifically to just GMOs. And none of which is actually backed by anything.

Again, again, again, my issues are cursory to GMOs.

 

[Subyman]

How about you address the parts of your OP where I took issue and mentioned, and not the ones I didn't question.

No, you took those out of the context which I just provided you. Now you know what I meant.

Again, who is the great decider of taste? You still haven't answered that one.

Me.

 

[xBiffx]

I think you are jumping the gun before understanding me correctly.

You've done nothing to refute anything I've said.

You are deflecting. Again, that blue eyed person is then cloned to represent most humans, which is the issue. Not the blue eyes in the first place.

I'm deflecting? I think you should look in the mirror. That blue eyed person is not cloned in the case of corn. The gene for blue eyes is guaranteed but the rest of the DNA is left alone. Again, you have a serious lack of understanding of how GMOs work/are made.

Again, again, again, my issues are cursory to GMOs.

Then why bring it up? We are talking about GMOs here. If something isn't specific to them, what's the use in talking about it?

 

[TheSlamma]

I have no idea *SNIP*

Really you can stop there, it's VERY clear

 

[xBiffx]

No, you took those out of the context which I just provided you. Now you know what I meant.

If I took it out of context, why did you double, hell triple down defending it?

Me.

How scientific. I guess it is true that GMOs taste worse then because of no reason other than they are GMOs.

 

[chucky2]

Do you think other food establishments aren't loaded with salt?

Nope, I know they are. Just saying, dropping the GMO doesn't somehow make Chipotle some great place to go eat. Tasty? I guess so. Tasty because the food quality is good because it's good quality and not packed with salt to make it taste good? Uh, no...

People want quick Western foods, they're going to get lots of salt packed in...not too many places can actually pull off tasty and healthy and quick and somewhat sane pricing.

 

[chucky2]

ITT we have someone who thinks Chipotle has too much salt. In another, someone crying they don't have enough...

Who the heck is wanting more salt in their diet?

 

[Subyman]

If I took it out of context, why did you double, hell triple down defending it?

I think this is the biggest issue here. How about this. I'll state exactly what I intended to say, perhaps it wasn't explicitly clear to you. That is fine. It's getting tiring going around in circles, so I'll go ahead and recap exactly what I mean.

To answer the quote: I have always been in the context I provided in the first post. I did not realize my context wasn't clear to you until a few posts back, which is where I brought it up.

First thing, the process of GMO foods is why I dislike them. They are selectively bred for profitability first. Engineering GMO food is initially expensive and done for large scale production, so only the most profitable selectively bred foods are modified for production. This is where I check out on the process. I'd rather pay a bit more to get foods that are taste-first.

Secondly, the process of splicing in a few genes does not always alter the taste, but the prerequisite process of selective breeding for profitability does normally have an effect.

As I said before, my issue is cursory to GMO. I actually led with that.

How scientific. I guess it is true that GMOs taste worse then because of no reason other than they are GMOs.

The taste is obviously determined by the consumer and in my case, me. I don't care for foods that have gone through the process I described above and instead prefer traditional methods. You may be different. If so, then that is great, you just saved some cash.

 

[xBiffx]

First thing, the process of GMO foods is why I dislike them. They are selectively bred for profitability first. Engineering GMO food is initially expensive and done for large scale production, so only the most profitable selectively bred foods are modified for production. This is where I check out on the process. I'd rather pay a bit more to get foods that are taste-first.

So because GMOs are profitable, GMOs are only created for profit? Did I get that right? Ever here of Golden Rice?

GMOs aren't bred for profitability first, that is your own misconception. They are bred to add or eliminate a gene(s). Making that profitable is the job of the GMO maker afterwards. Now, I would stipulate that a non profitable GMO isn't going to likely make it to market or even be developed, but it still does happens. Again, look at Golden Rice.

Secondly, the process of splicing in a few genes does not always alter the taste, but the prerequisite process of selective breeding for profitability does normally have an effect.

Glad to see you reverse yourself, finally.

 

[Moonbeam]

Didn't some emotionally dead person turn traitor on the One just so he could enjoy slop turned into steak by the Matrix?

 

[ivwshane]

And what GMOs have caused a loss in taste? The only ones readily available to consumers are corn and papaya.

Producers have been breeding for visual appeal for years. That means they need to survive transit to the store and have a nice appearance. That's what the consumers have demanded and that's the nature of the current system. That has almost nothing to do with GMOs.

If anything, GMOs could help in this regard - if the regulatory barriers weren't so high (and smaller players could more easily bring traits to the market), you might see a push for more consumer-oriented GMO traits instead of only producer-oriented ones.

Did you read the article I linked to?


I should also clarify. While I stated "GMO", in my original post, I'm really talking about any kind of selective breeding, GMO created or not.

For me the one GMO food that I have eaten and do not like is corn on the cob, it's just seems to lack flavor.

I'm working on growing my own vegetables, that's how I voice my concerns

 

[TheSlamma]

So because GMOs are profitable, GMOs are only created for profit? Did I get that right? Ever here of Golden Rice?

Here there everywhere!

 

[Subyman]

So because GMOs are profitable, GMOs are only created for profit? Did I get that right? Ever here of Golden Rice?

GMOs aren't bred for profitability first, that is your own misconception. They are bred to add or eliminate a gene(s). Making that profitable is the job of the GMO maker afterwards. Now, I would stipulate that a non profitable GMO isn't going to likely make it to market or even be developed, but it still does happens. Again, look at Golden Rice.

Please list all GMO products that were specifically made to enhance taste over profitability. (PS, I messing with you.)

Glad to see you reverse yourself, finally.

Glad to see you finally understand what I meant all along :thumbsup:

 

[MiniDoom]

Who the heck is wanting more salt in their diet?

electrolytes, it's got what plants crave!