GMO Food, Artificial Sweeteners and Processed Foods

[Auric]

I also don't like the lobbying of these companies to try to hide the fact that they're "enhanced". Like how when you buy milk if the cows aren't treated with hormones to produce more milk and the dairy processor wants to advertise this, they have to say on the label that the hormone has not been proven to impact human health. WHY do you need to say this when you are NOT USING THE HORMONE? This makes no sense.

Wow. It's also crazy and backwards that what has forever been normal food must be labelled to distinguish it from the "new normal" of factory farming. To wit: "wild" and "free range".

 

[angminas]

Youve tried rancid anus?

Their first album was good, but they kinda lost their way after the drummer OD'd.

 

[Doppel]

I actually do think artificial sweetners are unhealthy and should not be consumed. I stopped a few months ago after 20 years of drinking diet soda and other things. I think the science is mounting to show them as an unhealthy item. It's not damning, like eating paint chips, but there is enough data out there to show they are not benign. I've removed them entirely from everything I eat, other than one last tub of protein powder I'm slowly making my way through.

When I say science I'm not talking about naturalnews.com or dangersofaspartame.com (I assume that's a site), but large peer reviewed articles that tend to show a mild but negative effect.

Don't know enough about GMO to have an opinion. Processed foods are not great, as they tend to be lower in nutrients and illicit a strong insulin response (if we're talking about the carb heavy ones), but I still eat plenty of them.

Another change to my diet is I'm less afraid of fats than I used to be. Evidently, a large study comparing various diets and lipid profiles found that low-fat diets are associated with worse numbers. The low-fat craze has certainly gone far overboard.

 

[destrekor]

Here's my take on this. If you want want to be a vegan who eats only natural, organic, non-GMO produce, go ahead. More power to you. However, just be appreciative that you live in a country where you have that choice.

There have been concerted efforts by environmental organizations to push organic and non-GMO farming on the developed world. To put it bluntly, it is paternalistic, racist, and it's killing people. Then there are people like Norman Borlaug, who few have ever heard of. The man who saved a billion lives by introducing high yield GMO plants to third world countries. The fact that Monsanto owns and is very protective of patents on GMO seeds is a big issue, but not a science one. People need to stop confusing the two.

As for artificial sweeteners, I think the debate is still out on that. There's been a lot of controversy over aspartame but no conclusive research. Over 100 regulatory committees have deemed it safe. Saccharin, the original artificial sweetener was known to cause cancer in lab rats. Any diet product probably isn't good for you. I think a lot of the weight gain commonly associated with diet soda probably is more psychological. Junk food consumption of any sort should be in moderation. Pop isn't meant to be a replacement for water, nor sweets a replacement for food.

For starters, even our experts can be wrong on what is safe. It's happened many times in the past, when for decades something was considered perfectly safe and then they found some new scientific knowledge, and they turned around and went, "oh shit, sorry folks, this is actually terrible for you. please stop consuming it immediately."

That said, I have no opinion on GMO and, in my belief, the jury is still out on that one. I don't seek it out, nor do I avoid it... I just don't care if I eat it or not. If I buy something that is, whatever.


Artificial sweeteners, however, are a mixed bag. Some still have documented possibility negative health impacts, but I believe some of the issue may have been bad studies. I don't know about that, but I avoid most artificial sweeteners out of principal. The principal being, I prefer naturally-available chemicals as opposed to lab-generated, if at all possible. Even if it's a lab-generated version of what can be found in nature, that's cool. I don't think Ace K has ever been found in nature, nor has Aspartame or Sucralose.

In my eyes, the truly worst aspect of those three: they do nothing about blood sugar. If you have a diet designed to limit sugar intake for whatever reason, be it because you want to lose weight/cut fat, have an insulin problem, etc... those three chemicals cause a reaction in the body that essentially creates the same spikes in glucose and insulin levels, because the body THINKS it is getting sugar.

Sugar alcohols do not exhibit that issue, and better yet, neither does Stevia.

Whenever I'm looking to buy food I've bought before, I aim to buy the type with the lowest true sugar content. I also aim to avoid products full of artificial sweeteners - Stevia has been slow to rise but there are more products using it these days.

 

[destrekor]

I actually do think artificial sweetners are unhealthy and should not be consumed. I stopped a few months ago after 20 years of drinking diet soda and other things. I think the science is mounting to show them as an unhealthy item. It's not damning, like eating paint chips, but there is enough data out there to show they are not benign. I've removed them entirely from everything I eat, other than one last tub of protein powder I'm slowly making my way through.

When I say science I'm not talking about naturalnews.com or dangersofaspartame.com (I assume that's a site), but large peer reviewed articles that tend to show a mild but negative effect.

Don't know enough about GMO to have an opinion. Processed foods are not great, as they tend to be lower in nutrients and illicit a strong insulin response (if we're talking about the carb heavy ones), but I still eat plenty of them.

Another change to my diet is I'm less afraid of fats than I used to be. Evidently, a large study comparing various diets and lipid profiles found that low-fat diets are associated with worse numbers. The low-fat craze has certainly gone far overboard.

Yep. While Atkins is an extreme approach (and the Paleo diet is pretty damn similar), low carb, high protein high fat diets are the best for you and most successful.
It's best to especially combine said high fat high protein diet with an active lifestyle.

More than anything, I've tried to keep sugar intake low, but it's also with the main of bringing down my total carb intake. You obviously still NEED them, but we don't need 300-400g of carbs every day. If you follow the FDA guidelines, limiting to how much fat and protein they say you should get, the caloric deficit left would be filled with roughly 400G of carbs for a 2000 calorie diet! That's disgusting.

Not to mention, any diet where you still only get about 65-70g of protein typically means, if you begin a calorie-deficit style diet, you will lose muscle mass. If you maintain a higher intake of protein but still keep total calories low, you'll only burn fat.

 

[nehalem256]

In moderation, there is not a shred of evidence linking diet soda to anything nefarious.
I just find it amusing you (and to be fair, many others) dismiss diet soda as "just as bad" as sugared soda. There are ~150 calories in every can of sugared soda. Just drinking two diet sodas instead of regular is 300 calories right there, not to mention sugar and fat.

That's...measurable.

Pretty sure Pepsi is fat free

While I agree that in theory drinking diet instead of regular soda should make you thinner, oddly in practice the reverse is true...

One large study found that people who drank artificially sweetened soda were more likely to experience weight gain than those who drank non-diet soda. Others found those who drank diet soda had twice the risk of developing metabolic syndrome, often a precursor to cardiovascular disease, than those who abstained.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/diet-soda-health-problems/2507219/

 

[nehalem256]

Yep. While Atkins is an extreme approach (and the Paleo diet is pretty damn similar), low carb, high protein high fat diets are the best for you and most successful.
It's best to especially combine said high fat high protein diet with an active lifestyle.

More than anything, I've tried to keep sugar intake low, but it's also with the main of bringing down my total carb intake. You obviously still NEED them, but we don't need 300-400g of carbs every day. If you follow the FDA guidelines, limiting to how much fat and protein they say you should get, the caloric deficit left would be filled with roughly 400G of carbs for a 2000 calorie diet! That's disgusting.

Not to mention, any diet where you still only get about 65-70g of protein typically means, if you begin a calorie-deficit style diet, you will lose muscle mass. If you maintain a higher intake of protein but still keep total calories low, you'll only burn fat.

I don't think there is anything magical about sugar calories that make you lose weight. I think it is more an issue that protein(meat) calories seem like more of a meal so you end up eating less.

1/2 pound Top sirloin steak has less calories than a large muffin, but yet what kind of meal is a muffin?

 

[Vdubchaos]

First they lower the quality and it ends being complete shit.

Then they tell you how bad it is for you so that they can sell you more expensive things that make very little difference if any.

Then the quality of that is lowered and the cycle continues.....

FEAR is the main driver here. Welcome to America.

 

[W.C. Nimoy]

artificial sweeteners

Despite always having enjoyed black coffee, iced tea was my last hold out on sweet & low or similar packets (pink = cancer; blue = memory loss; yellow... i forget) because it's tough to dissolve sugar in cold beverages with ice in the way.

Something changed & i started preferring unsweetened iced tea, so long as it's strong enough.

 

[Brainonska511]

yeah, and how many people know what a dipeptide is? :biggrin:

Protein is a word most can understand.

Protein is a word most can understand, but it is very inaccurate, to say the least. They may have the same basic building blocks, but proteins have defined structure (with some exceptions), where as peptides are generally short and structureless.

I am against the type of GMO where they inject genes from a fish into a tomato. The thing is that there isn't enough testing and these types of products are pushed into the market in order to provide a return when the end results aren't fully understood.

How is it not well understood? I have yet to see any studies that report ill effects from moving a specific gene for a specific purpose from one organism to another in a defined fashion. They are hardly pushed onto the market; there are large regulatory hurdles and general ignorance to overcome.

Also, they tried to push GMO crops onto the 3rd world decades ago. The end result was that after the farmers took out loans to buy these seeds they didn't yield the expected output and a whole bunch of farmers committed suicide.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102944731

I don't know about that specific case, but there are plenty of GMO foods that would be fantastic for 3rd world countries. Golden rice, which would provide much needed Vitamin A to people, is one example. Drought-tolerant and nutrient enriched plants for Africa are others (development of these is ongoing). Ignorance and fear-mongering are preventing the roll-out of these new technologies, entrapping people in poverty and malnutrition.

I am NOT against GMO. I am against the low level of testing (for gene manipulation) that is present today. When you change the basic biology of a plant there should be VERY thorough testing before feeding it to the masses. Until we have better testing, I will try to avoid GMO.

Is it really changing the basic plant biology? If you cause it to express one additional protein that allows it to be tolerant to a pesticide, I don't see how that's changing anything of substance in the plant. You claim they go through very little testing, but I highly doubt that's the case. Anti-GMO types are always playing to this (frankly) unfounded fear and constantly move the goal-posts for testing.

I also don't like the lobbying of these companies to try to hide the fact that they're "enhanced". Like how when you buy milk if the cows aren't treated with hormones to produce more milk and the dairy processor wants to advertise this, they have to say on the label that the hormone has not been proven to impact human health. WHY do you need to say this when you are NOT USING THE HORMONE? This makes no sense.

That has nothing to do with GMO foods or the science behind them. Companies being douchy is a separate issue.

I also don't like synthetic pesticides since that stuff builds up in the body.

Synthetic does not mean bad. Plenty of natural things will bioaccumulate and are pretty toxic. Arsenic is one such example, and is actually a large problem in India with some of their water supplies (both because it is naturally occurring and some environmental contamination). There are plenty of 'organic' pesticides which would be just as bad if not worse for you than something like RoundUp. I wouldn't go drinking a bottle of any of them, but the idea behind RoundUp ready crops was that you could use a powerful pesticide like RoundUp and not harm your crops. You'd kill all the weeds and need less pesticide than was traditionally used. Unfortunately, nature is pretty good, and weeds are adapting (just like bacteria become resistant to antibiotics).

 

[nehalem256]

How is it not well understood? I have yet to see any studies that report ill effects from moving a specific gene for a specific purpose from one organism to another in a defined fashion. They are hardly pushed onto the market; there are large regulatory hurdles and general ignorance to overcome.

Not only is there no study reporting ill effects I have never even heard people proposing a mechanism which would make it dangerous. It is always "WE DONT KNOW!!!!!!!!"

I don't know about that specific case, but there are plenty of GMO foods that would be fantastic for 3rd world countries. Golden rice, which would provide much needed Vitamin A to people, is one example. Drought-tolerant and nutrient enriched plants for Africa are others (development of these is ongoing). Ignorance and fear-mongering are preventing the roll-out of these new technologies, entrapping people in poverty and malnutrition.

Well on the plus side dead people don't typically contract cancer :thumbsup:

 

[yhelothar]

If you're implying GMO foods are unsafe, please back that assertion with peer reviewed research.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

 

[surfsatwerk]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

Sorry, your request could not be processed because the format of the URL was incorrect. Contact the Help Desk if the problem persists. [SD-001]

 

[nehalem256]

I also don't like the lobbying of these companies to try to hide the fact that they're "enhanced". Like how when you buy milk if the cows aren't treated with hormones to produce more milk and the dairy processor wants to advertise this, they have to say on the label that the hormone has not been proven to impact human health.

Maybe we should start requiring bottled water to have a large label on the front saying "Contains Dihydrogen Monoxide"...

The people need to know what they are drinking

WHY do you need to say this when you are NOT USING THE HORMONE? This makes no sense.

The milk is labeled as hormone-free to prey upon the fears of people who are afraid of the hormones. Its basically a marketing gimmick.

 

[Markbnj]

Why not just keep it natural the way nature intended. Well I know why: so they can make more money, but I still say it's BS. They need to stop fucking with our food.

The only thing nature ever intended was for you to get eaten by something. She's not your buddy. If we "kept it natural" we'd probably have to get rid of like half the global population. Of course, there are a lot of armchair philosophers who think that would be a good thing. Personally, I believe in science, not alternative deities.

 

[Jeff7]

If you're implying GMO foods are unsafe, please back that assertion with peer reviewed research.

That was said mostly out of distrust for them, and for the situation which now exists.
- Look at our history, when you had far fewer regulations governing things like consumer safety. Look at China, and some of the stunts they pull - adding outright poisonous substances to food purely to boost their own bottom line. Look at what we do in this country if we know a food safety inspector won't be around for awhile. (Or the idiocy of giving plenty of advance warning for inspections. Here at work, we've got a UL inspector who shows up roughly every quarter. But we never know when it'll be, and I think that's how it should be.)
- On the subject of that history, look at how trading itself goes: One party tries to wring as much out of the other party as possible. If there's no regulation or law preventing you from doing something really shady, many companies or individuals will not hesitate to take that route.
- When the potential gains are hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars, concerns about safety have a habit of getting swept aside.
- Also something encountered at work - OSHA's website reports. Some companies incur hundreds of thousands of dollars, or eveninto the millions, of fines each year due to safety violations where workers get injured. You'd think that after the first dozen or so they might get tired of the financial hit, but evidently, they're choosing to keep paying the fines rather than make the work environment safer.

And so here you've got a huge company which has at least one of its former executives working in an agency that's intended to regulate it. You've also got that regulatory agency asking them, "Are your products safe? If you say that they are, we won't necessarily perform any independent verification."


It's not a setup that leaves me with a warm feeling of trust, and I doubt that their business practices, or lobbying efforts, or PR campaigns are done with the benefit of the consumer as the primary concern.

 

[bignateyk]

I dont really get why people don't just eat real sugar in moderation. If you have the need to try to use artificial sweeteners, maybe you should re-evaluate your overall diet and lifestyle.

 

[jagec]

The milk is labeled as hormone-free to prey upon the fears of people who are afraid of the hormones. Its basically a marketing gimmick.

Yup. The FDA requires them to put the disclaimer on there in order to weaken their fearmongering. It's pretty close to this.

Obviously the general public got the wrong idea, though...

 

[Brainonska511]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

I wouldn't cite that in support of the position that GMOs are dangerous. There are tons of flaws with that study.

 

[nehalem256]

Yup. The FDA requires them to put the disclaimer on there in order to weaken their fearmongering. It's pretty close to this.

Obviously the general public got the wrong idea, though...

The FDA requires you to lab your milk as not having used hormones in production assuming it hasnt?

 

[poofyhairguy]

I have no problem with GMO foods themselves, but all the crops designed to be pesticide resistant means we are indeed using more pesticides, a good number of which are carcinogenic.

Exactly. The worst part of GMOs.

 

[bignateyk]

Exactly. The worst part of GMOs.

Yeah. I'd challenge anyone who says eating these types of GMO crops is just as safe to take a drive down to the farming areas around Yuma. You can literally smell the round-up from miles away they soak it on so heavy and often.

Not only that, but thanks to drought resistant modifications and chemical fertilizers, they are growing these crops in sand. I'm sure they have just as many nutrients in them as crops grown in good soil.

 

[jagec]

The FDA requires you to lab your milk as not having used hormones in production assuming it hasnt?

No, the FDA requires that if you label your milk as "rBST-free!" (which sounds scary to ignorant consumers and implies that the other guy's milk is dangerous), you also have to put a disclaimer that there is no evidence that rBST is, in fact, bad.

How about this: Apples contain cyanide in the seeds, right? Let's imagine that your company develops a new variety of apple that no longer has any cyanide in it. If you started putting "Cyanide-free!" labels on your apples, would the other apple manufacturers be happy about your scare tactics? Especially when there is no evidence that the levels of cyanide in apples is at all dangerous?

 

[Jeff7]

I have no problem with GMO foods themselves, but all the crops designed to be pesticide resistant means we are indeed using more pesticides, a good number of which are carcinogenic.

Exactly. The worst part of GMOs.

This too.
My understanding is that the US testing methods don't get too concerned about chronic exposure to very small quantities.
Great, a dose of 20 micrograms won't kill you or sicken you.
What about 20 micrograms a day, every day?

No, the FDA requires that if you label your milk as "rBST-free!" (which sounds scary to ignorant consumers and implies that the other guy's milk is dangerous), you also have to put a disclaimer that there is no evidence that rBST is, in fact, bad.

How about this: Apples contain cyanide in the seeds, right? Let's imagine that your company develops a new variety of apple that no longer has any cyanide in it. If you started putting "Cyanide-free!" labels on your apples, would the other apple manufacturers be happy about your scare tactics? Especially when there is no evidence that the levels of cyanide in apples is at all dangerous?

Fluffy marketing BS.

Changed the packaging so it looks bigger, but contains less product?
"New Look! Same great product!"

Cheaper ingredients, or whip more air into the product.
"New texture!"


Ahh, marketing. Just think of one of the birds of paradise doing their elaborate mating dances. It's not like it says anything about the bird itself - he's just trying to convince the world that his "product" is the best, by looking like a fabulous, sexy beast.
We just call it "marketing."



(Or "Chatroulette," I suppose.)

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Poison is about dosage. Everything is bad for you if you consume enough. There is an amount of rat poison you can consume without causing harm. There is an amount of water you can consume that will kill you. Everyone knows this.

Is this shit bad for you? Sure. Just like everything else, if you have enough it will cause damage. Will a couple diet cokes a day kill you? No. Will drinking a case a day have ill effects? Most likely.

GMO...

What I do know is that life expectancy and quality of life are longer/better than they have ever been. I know that these crops feed starving people around the worlds and save lives.

People want to eat like a caveman and only organic and natural stuff. Paleo diet. Tell me, what was the average lifespan of a caveman? Was it 75 years?