If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   I don't really know how to break this to you, but it's probably not 100 percent accurate to call Goldfish crackers a "natural" food   (slate.com) divider line 75
    More: Sad, goldfish, goldfish crackers, genetically modified crops, preservatives, genetically modified organism, cooking oils, Wesson, human hand  
•       •       •

6191 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2012 at 8:05 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-19 08:07:09 AM  
So they're not made from real goldfish?
 
2012-11-19 08:13:38 AM  
"Food scientists at the FDA are not
equipped to handle such matters of natural philosophy."


fark you, asshole. they're exactly equipped to answer this question and they're the ones you should be asking. ignorant! ignorant! ignorant!
 
2012-11-19 08:14:10 AM  
Hate to burst your bubble, but everything in existence is "natural". That is, it exists in nature. The only thing that is not "natural":

Religion.

That's right. The most toxic radioactive sludge in existence is every bit as "natural" as rabbit poop. Why? Because it is a byproduct of a living organism or a group of organisms. It is made of elements found in nature, and undergoes natural processes.
 
2012-11-19 08:14:15 AM  
Pepperidge Farm Goldfish crackers are made from flour, oil, milk, and salt, and not much else. The cheddar variety is "baked with real cheese" and contains no artificial preservatives. But are these crucian crackers really "natural," as the package claims? Or are they fishy Frankenfoods?

So any food that involves combining 2 or more ingredients becomes an unnatural abomination?
 
2012-11-19 08:17:56 AM  
Horse crap is natural.
 
2012-11-19 08:18:42 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Hate to burst your bubble, but everything in existence is "natural". That is, it exists in nature. The only thing that is not "natural":

Religion.

That's right. The most toxic radioactive sludge in existence is every bit as "natural" as rabbit poop. Why? Because it is a byproduct of a living organism or a group of organisms. It is made of elements found in nature, and undergoes natural processes.


HOLY FARK, seriously? You're gonna be THAT guy?
 
2012-11-19 08:19:09 AM  
hey gaiz wats this thread?
 
2012-11-19 08:20:25 AM  

I drunk what: hey gaiz wats this thread?


its natural
 
2012-11-19 08:20:46 AM  

Hand Banana: Horse crap is natural.


But it's just not really good food.
 
2012-11-19 08:21:21 AM  
There are elements that have been created by nuclear scientists.
They can be called 'not natural'.
The 'not natural' list is pretty short and yes, Virginia, Trump's hair is on that list.
 
2012-11-19 08:22:06 AM  
Its a meaningless marketing term. People who can't figure that out deserve to be fleeced.
 
2012-11-19 08:23:05 AM  

All Latest


So they're not made from real goldfish?


Not even real gold. One might say Au contraire.


This joke shows up periodically.
 
2012-11-19 08:23:28 AM  
The FDA shouldn't give two shiats because "natural" is a silly word. They should just make a big statement that "We do not regulate things that are labeled natural. But we will regulate _____."

Then they could regulate things like "contains preservatives" or make sure the ingredients list is right.

Seriously people quit reading stuff like "natural" or "organic" on the front and READ THE INGREDIENTS. Is that really so hard?
 
2012-11-19 08:24:37 AM  
Here's how I think about it: If I can walk out into a field/woods/ocean/whatever, and pick up a *blank* then it is natural. If I have to take it back to a lab and process it, it's not natural. You could argue finer points, but when it comes to things I eat or put on my body, I'm perfectly fine using the idea generally.
 
2012-11-19 08:24:37 AM  
Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.
 
2012-11-19 08:28:00 AM  

spidermilk: Seriously people quit reading stuff like "natural" or "organic" on the front and READ THE INGREDIENTS. Is that really so hard?


considering some states/counties had to ban trans fat, msg, large sized soda, smoking, alcohol sales, etc. yes, it must be.
 
2012-11-19 08:29:22 AM  

Honest Bender


Here's how I think about it: If I can walk out into a field/woods/ocean/whatever, and pick up a *blank* then it is natural. If I have to take it back to a lab and process it, it's not natural. You could argue finer points, but when it comes to things I eat or put on my body, I'm perfectly fine using the idea generally.


Note to self: find a breadfruit tree so I can make a sandwich.
 
2012-11-19 08:36:43 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Hate to burst your bubble, but everything in existence is "natural". That is, it exists in nature. The only thing that is not "natural":

Religion.

That's right. The most toxic radioactive sludge in existence is every bit as "natural" as rabbit poop. Why? Because it is a byproduct of a living organism or a group of organisms. It is made of elements found in nature, and undergoes natural processes.


That's only the definition pedantic assholes try to claim for the word natural, same thing they do with the word organic. Everyone else has a different expectation when they see those words.
 
2012-11-19 08:37:01 AM  

Porous Horace: There are elements that have been created by nuclear scientists.
They can be called 'not natural'.
The 'not natural' list is pretty short and yes, Virginia, Trump's hair is on that list.


You know, those elements ARE thought to occur naturally. The problem is that these unstable nuclei tend to break apart so quickly after they're created, that scientists have been forced to recreate them. All nuclei are just clumps of protons and neutrons with a good bunch of electrons orbiting them. If you have any large amount of free neutrons and protons, any nucleic composition can be achieved. However, most of the combinations are about as durable as the promises of a politician during election year.

The whole "natural" thing? Yeah, that one's gonna be a biatch to solve. Everything's natural when you go deep enough, just like religion is a natural byproduct of our imaginations and a deep-seated need to explain the world of phenomenons that we continually experience.
 
2012-11-19 08:39:30 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.


We already have more than enough food for everyone in the world, the problem isn't food production it's distribution. There is no profit in feeding people on the other side of the globe.
 
2012-11-19 08:47:56 AM  
The proper way to eat a Goldfish cracker is similar to the technique to eat a sunflower seed. Turn the Goldfish on it's site in your mouth and crack it along the hemispherical axis into two identical pieces. Then crunch in silent pleasure
 
2012-11-19 08:48:49 AM  
Natural and Organic (in food labeling terms, not true scientific terms) should mean the exact same thing. If a food has been sprayed with pesticides, they should be listed on the label. Bread isn't all-natural if the wheat has pesticides in it. An apple is not just an apple if it has been sprayed. It is an apple plus all of those pesticides. The label should tell you that. It is part of having a healthy intelligent informed citizenry.
 
2012-11-19 08:52:01 AM  

manimal2878: WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.

We already have more than enough food for everyone in the world, the problem isn't food production it's distribution. There is no profit in feeding people on the other side of the globe.


Distribution is expensive. You need to be able to grow strains of healthy foods where they are needed, not fly bags full when they are needed. GM foods developed to grow and contain vital nutrients in those regions is key. It is still (sadly) a profits game. Companies that own patents to GM foods preventing their global free distribution to help diminish world hunger over profit margins are just as bad as people who wouldn't have them distributed due to their "frankenfoodiness" or whatever.
 
2012-11-19 08:52:43 AM  
I prefer supernatural foods.
 
2012-11-19 08:57:20 AM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Note to self: find a breadfruit tree so I can make a sandwich.


upload.wikimedia.org

But I digest... bread, by my consideration, isn't natural. It's a manufactured good. I think you may be making an assumption regarding my attitude towards non-natural goods. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's healthy and just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it is unhealthy.
 
2012-11-19 08:59:42 AM  

Englebert Slaptyback: All Latest

So they're not made from real goldfish?


Not even real gold. One might say Au contraire.


This joke shows up periodically.


Groan x2
 
2012-11-19 09:00:13 AM  
Most of the farks out there that raise a stink over this stuff don't care and don't know dick about science. It's as natural as coal, tree bark or squirrel split. Last time I checked I didn't see any ghost parts in the Cheetos. Also last time I checked snake venom was all natural and so is coal tar.

People need to stop buying into a repackaged form of vitalism. It was disproven over 100 years ago. It has no bearing on health and in fact I dare say it creates more risks. While people worry about the hyped up problem of "unnatural" food they ignore the simple fact that no junk food is good for you. They also ignore things like all natural rat turds.

I love going into a store and seeing info on meat being free range, organic, steroid free, etc. However no mention of how fresh the meat is, how it was packaged, how it was stored, handled, its date of production or any of that actual important info.


/I work at an airport. The biggest seller is water. people biatch about the price and still buy. There is a %100 free source of water 15 feet from that point, a water fountain. That's the power of marketing. Oh and they do give out water bottles or hey can be bought for about $1. the bottle of water is at least $2.50
 
2012-11-19 09:05:33 AM  

SuburbanCowboy: Natural and Organic (in food labeling terms, not true scientific terms) should mean the exact same thing. If a food has been sprayed with pesticides, they should be listed on the label. Bread isn't all-natural if the wheat has pesticides in it. An apple is not just an apple if it has been sprayed. It is an apple plus all of those pesticides. The label should tell you that. It is part of having a healthy intelligent informed citizenry.


Organic (which is a dumb word as all darn near all fertilizers and pesticides contain carbon regardless of source) doesn't mean no pesticides, it means shiat for fertilizer and pesticides derived from biological toxins rather than cheimical toxins.
 
2012-11-19 09:06:29 AM  
Ingredients in Pepperidge Farm Goldfish: Cheese, salt, magic.
 
2012-11-19 09:11:07 AM  

SuburbanCowboy: Natural and Organic (in food labeling terms, not true scientific terms) should mean the exact same thing. If a food has been sprayed with pesticides, they should be listed on the label. Bread isn't all-natural if the wheat has pesticides in it. An apple is not just an apple if it has been sprayed. It is an apple plus all of those pesticides. The label should tell you that. It is part of having a healthy intelligent informed citizenry.


What if a natural insect repellant was used? What if the plants weren't spray with pesticides but where genetically modified to be resistant? What if the plants were grown organically but preservatives were used in making the bread? What if those preservatives were derived from natural products? What about the varieties of wheat and apples which have been cultivated by humans but would not survive in nature?



It seems to me that the FDA is right to not want to get into specifically defining another emotionally-charged term. I'm fine with having these sorts of things (pesticides, GMO, etc) on the label, but even reading this thread you can see that "natural" is far to vague a term, understood by different people to mean vastly different things (probably even people within the FDA) to make it a regulated term. Will we next have them start spending their time regulating terms like "healthy", "wholesome", and "delicious" as well?
 
2012-11-19 09:11:39 AM  

Honest Bender


But I digest... bread, by my consideration, isn't natural. It's a manufactured good. I think you may be making an assumption regarding my attitude towards non-natural goods. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's healthy and just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it is unhealthy.


Short answer: that was just a silly comment on 'find' vs 'create in a lab'.

Long answer: no assumptions, really. Bread is indeed manufactured, but there is a world of difference between bread made with only flour, yeast, water, etc (i.e. ingredients ostensibly found in nature) and bread made using chemicals with ten-syllable names (i.e. compounds found only in laboratories). I know wheat must be milled into flour, but work with me here,

And I wanted to make a silly comment on 'find' vs 'create in a lab' while using 'breadfruit' in a sentence.
 
2012-11-19 09:12:54 AM  

Hot Carl To Go


Groan x2


My work here is done. *tips hat*
 
2012-11-19 09:22:20 AM  
Englebert Slaptyback:
Short answer: that was just a silly comment on 'find' vs 'create in a lab'.

Long answer: no assumptions, really. Bread is indeed manufactured, but there is a world of difference between bread made with only flour, yeast, water, etc (i.e. ingredients ostensibly found in nature) and bread made using chemicals with ten-syllable names (i.e. compounds found only in laboratories). I know wheat must be milled into flour, but work with me here,

And I wanted to make a silly comment on 'find' vs 'create in a lab' while using 'breadfruit' in a sentence.


I like to use "minimally processed", yea it is vague but there is no simple way to cut through ridiculously tangled knot of weasel words and nonsense terminology billions upon billions of dollars marketing dollars have infused in the collective psyche.

95% (or however much exactly) of what you can buy in a supermarket is unhealthy, especially stuff with labels on it that give the impression of being "healthy". You are pretty much confined to the fruit/veggie aisle unless the supermarket in question sells humanely raised, grass-fed meat and dairy... which is rare.
 
2012-11-19 09:22:55 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.


counter-troll:

Monsanto bankrupting farmers for planting seeds they grew themselves

I believe that makes us love-love. Your serve.
 
2012-11-19 09:29:27 AM  

willfullyobscure: I drunk what: hey gaiz wats this thread?

its natural


the intertubes grows on trees?

HAMMERTOE: The only thing that is not "natural":

Religion.


are humans natural?
 
2012-11-19 09:32:17 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.


Genetically modified food, like nearly all technologies is an entirely neutral thing, what is good or bad is how it is used. And right now it is used, mostly (there are notable exceptions), to line rich corporation's coffers with more money. Damn the consequences to public health, the environment, sustainability, nutritional value, farmers, livestock, and whatever else removes so much as a penny from the bottom line.

For the record I don't much like the word either, as it is designed to elicit an emotional reaction to sway public opinion, when there are much, much better reasons to call into question the current use of GMOs.
 
2012-11-19 09:40:03 AM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Honest Bender

But I digest... bread, by my consideration, isn't natural. It's a manufactured good. I think you may be making an assumption regarding my attitude towards non-natural goods. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's healthy and just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it is unhealthy.


Short answer: that was just a silly comment on 'find' vs 'create in a lab'.

Long answer: no assumptions, really. Bread is indeed manufactured, but there is a world of difference between bread made with only flour, yeast, water, etc (i.e. ingredients ostensibly found in nature) and bread made using chemicals with ten-syllable names (i.e. compounds found only in laboratories). I know wheat must be milled into flour, but work with me here


2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid is a lot of syllables, its other "E330" name seem horrible to some, yet it's just citric acid. Everything has systematic/standardized names, that doesn't make it inherently good or bad. The "natural" denomination is naive at best, actively misleading at worst.

OG.
 
2012-11-19 09:41:31 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Hate to burst your bubble, but everything in existence is "natural". That is, it exists in nature. The only thing that is not "natural":

Religion.

That's right. The most toxic radioactive sludge in existence is every bit as "natural" as rabbit poop. Why? Because it is a byproduct of a living organism or a group of organisms. It is made of elements found in nature, and undergoes natural processes.


Cheetos are found in nature? As in they occur naturally without being made?

Are you high?
 
2012-11-19 09:44:57 AM  

All Latest: So they're not made from real goldfish?


Well, they taste like fish, so there's that.
 
2012-11-19 09:48:31 AM  

galibert


2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid is a lot of syllables, its other "E330" name seem horrible to some, yet it's just citric acid. Everything has systematic/standardized names, that doesn't make it inherently good or bad. The "natural" denomination is naive at best, actively misleading at worst.


Read my post again, paying particular attention to (i.e. compounds found only in laboratories). Citric acid is a poor example as it is obviously found in nature.

Then consider the wide variety of compounds that are made in laboratories to be used as preservatives, texture enhancers, and other similar additives.
 
2012-11-19 09:55:00 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Hate to burst your bubble, but everything in existence is "natural". That is, it exists in nature. The only thing that is not "natural":

Religion.

That's right. The most toxic radioactive sludge in existence is every bit as "natural" as rabbit poop. Why? Because it is a byproduct of a living organism or a group of organisms. It is made of elements found in nature, and undergoes natural processes.


FYI: Anything that is purely intangible, such as philosophy, is not natural.
 
2012-11-19 09:57:55 AM  
But they're made with smiles! :(
 
2012-11-19 10:27:19 AM  
How about when they make claims like "organic" or "all-natural" on food products, they have to put an asterisk next to it and have the definition they're using printed somewhere on the packaging in letters large enough for people to find and read it?

Hipsters can still feel superior to everybody else for buying their organic locavore crap, and those of us who want to actually be informed as to what's in our food can find out what they mean right there on the package.
 
2012-11-19 10:45:47 AM  

Englebert Slaptyback: galibert

2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid is a lot of syllables, its other "E330" name seem horrible to some, yet it's just citric acid. Everything has systematic/standardized names, that doesn't make it inherently good or bad. The "natural" denomination is naive at best, actively misleading at worst.


Read my post again, paying particular attention to (i.e. compounds found only in laboratories). Citric acid is a poor example as it is obviously found in nature.

Then consider the wide variety of compounds that are made in laboratories to be used as preservatives, texture enhancers, and other similar additives.


There are almost no compounds found only in laboratories (exceptions are the elements created through radioactive bombarding). Many compounds also found in nature can be synthisized in a factory as well (essentially made from the building blocks of carbon chains as the plants or animals did originally but in a different method). Those preservatives, texture enhancers etc were almost all originally isolated from something more complex (usually through a complex process). Today rather than buying a ton of eggs for a thickener, more thickener can simply be made. It's not "natural" but the chemical is the same.
 
2012-11-19 11:17:15 AM  
i.ebayimg.com

All natural dried goldfish snack.
 
2012-11-19 11:30:40 AM  

Crackers Are a Family Food: But they're made with smiles! :(


Fun fact: only 40% of Goldfish crackers have smiles.
 
2012-11-19 11:32:16 AM  

SuburbanCowboy: Natural and Organic (in food labeling terms, not true scientific terms) should mean the exact same thing. If a food has been sprayed with pesticides, they should be listed on the label. Bread isn't all-natural if the wheat has pesticides in it. An apple is not just an apple if it has been sprayed. It is an apple plus all of those pesticides. The label should tell you that. It is part of having a healthy intelligent informed citizenry.


You do realize that 99.99% of pesticides are natural - as in the plants themselves produce them, right? Pesticides sprayed on a plant make up a very tiny amount of the pesticides in the food you are consuming.
 
2012-11-19 11:35:35 AM  

willfullyobscure: WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.

counter-troll:

Monsanto bankrupting farmers for planting seeds they grew themselves

I believe that makes us love-love. Your serve.


Monsanto is evil because of their business practices, not because of GMOs.
 
2012-11-19 11:42:06 AM  

nelsonal: SuburbanCowboy: Natural and Organic (in food labeling terms, not true scientific terms) should mean the exact same thing. If a food has been sprayed with pesticides, they should be listed on the label. Bread isn't all-natural if the wheat has pesticides in it. An apple is not just an apple if it has been sprayed. It is an apple plus all of those pesticides. The label should tell you that. It is part of having a healthy intelligent informed citizenry.

Organic (which is a dumb word as all darn near all fertilizers and pesticides contain carbon regardless of source) doesn't mean no pesticides, it means shiat for fertilizer and pesticides derived from biological toxins rather than cheimical toxins.


Not entirely accurate. Organic just means they can only use a special list of approved pesticides which have been shown to be less potent and "safer" for human consumption. For example, sulfur can be used as a pesticide (it's probably the oldest pesticide out there; been used for thousands of years). It used to be that organic foods could only use "natural" sulfur, but it turned out that unprocessed sulfur contains arsenic, so it was changed to allow for processed sulfur to remove the arsenic.

Now here's the amusing part: because the approved pesticides are less potent, they have to use more of the chemical to produce the desired effect, which actually makes some organic farms more environmentally destructive than conventional farms (conventional is defined as farms which use normal pesticides), due to the agricultural run-off of the pesticides.

I put safer in quotes because the safety of a chemical is dependent on the dose. High potency with low doses can easily be safer than low potency with high doses. It all depends on the chemical.

/Toxicologist
 
2012-11-19 11:52:05 AM  

nelsonal: Englebert Slaptyback: galibert

2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid is a lot of syllables, its other "E330" name seem horrible to some, yet it's just citric acid. Everything has systematic/standardized names, that doesn't make it inherently good or bad. The "natural" denomination is naive at best, actively misleading at worst.


Read my post again, paying particular attention to (i.e. compounds found only in laboratories). Citric acid is a poor example as it is obviously found in nature.

Then consider the wide variety of compounds that are made in laboratories to be used as preservatives, texture enhancers, and other similar additives.

There are almost no compounds found only in laboratories (exceptions are the elements created through radioactive bombarding). Many compounds also found in nature can be synthisized in a factory as well (essentially made from the building blocks of carbon chains as the plants or animals did originally but in a different method). Those preservatives, texture enhancers etc were almost all originally isolated from something more complex (usually through a complex process). Today rather than buying a ton of eggs for a thickener, more thickener can simply be made. It's not "natural" but the chemical is the same.


I know people that believe the same exact chemical will have different effects depending on whether it's "natural" or made in a lab.

Hell, my brother believes that "pesticides" and other "unnatural chemicals" will stay in your body forever (as in, a biological half-life doesn't exist), and even if you take just minute amounts, say on the order of micrograms or nanograms, then it will eventually add up until it kills you 40 years down the line. To be fair, my brother barely has a high school education (he dropped out, then took his GED test years later), so I can forgive him a bit on the subject. He's not the brightest bulb in the box. His wife, however, has a masters degree in botany - she I cannot forgive. She once spent a half hour explaining how wrong I was when I incorrectly thought a plant was of a different genus than it really was (and I admittedly was wrong; she's the botanist, so she would know). But what pissed me off was how she kept saying I was wrong when we started talking about toxicants - my specialty. When I finally started pulling out journal articles and aggregate research, she hand-waved it away with, "oh, anyone can make any conclusion by manipulating statistics."

/It irks me when people use their scientific credentials to gain authority and then disregard the actual scientific research for their own batshiat crazy beliefs.
 
2012-11-19 11:55:36 AM  

willfullyobscure: WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.

counter-troll:

Monsanto bankrupting farmers for planting seeds they grew themselves

I believe that makes us love-love. Your serve.


Which is a problem with patent law, not science. And as much as I hate Monsanto, you sign a contract not to save seed and re-use it, then I'm not going to cry when lawyers plant a lawsuit up your ass if you break it. Nobody made you buy the seed. You bought it because it increases yield by allowing you to spray your field indiscriminately. Take away their right to exercise rights over that, but don't put GMO in a box over that.
 
2012-11-19 11:58:57 AM  

mgshamster: nelsonal: Englebert Slaptyback: galibert

2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid is a lot of syllables, its other "E330" name seem horrible to some, yet it's just citric acid. Everything has systematic/standardized names, that doesn't make it inherently good or bad. The "natural" denomination is naive at best, actively misleading at worst.


Read my post again, paying particular attention to (i.e. compounds found only in laboratories). Citric acid is a poor example as it is obviously found in nature.

Then consider the wide variety of compounds that are made in laboratories to be used as preservatives, texture enhancers, and other similar additives.

There are almost no compounds found only in laboratories (exceptions are the elements created through radioactive bombarding). Many compounds also found in nature can be synthisized in a factory as well (essentially made from the building blocks of carbon chains as the plants or animals did originally but in a different method). Those preservatives, texture enhancers etc were almost all originally isolated from something more complex (usually through a complex process). Today rather than buying a ton of eggs for a thickener, more thickener can simply be made. It's not "natural" but the chemical is the same.

I know people that believe the same exact chemical will have different effects depending on whether it's "natural" or made in a lab.

Hell, my brother believes that "pesticides" and other "unnatural chemicals" will stay in your body forever (as in, a biological half-life doesn't exist), and even if you take just minute amounts, say on the order of micrograms or nanograms, then it will eventually add up until it kills you 40 years down the line. To be fair, my brother barely has a high school education (he dropped out, then took his GED test years later), so I can forgive him a bit on the subject. He's not the brightest bulb in the box. His wife, however, has a masters degree in botany - she I cannot forgiv ...


So. Question. If these chemicals have no half life, what is poop? And wouldn't we all be thousand pound (or larger) behemoths by the time we die?
 
2012-11-19 12:30:36 PM  
i1136.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 01:04:29 PM  

Kinek: And wouldn't we all be thousand pound (or larger) behemoths by the time we die?


Some of us are well on our way... Lookin' at you, people of wallmart!
 
2012-11-19 01:04:59 PM  
Next thing your going to try and tell me is that Snowballs aren't real snowballs
 
2012-11-19 01:42:56 PM  

WhiskeyBoy: manimal2878: WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.

We already have more than enough food for everyone in the world, the problem isn't food production it's distribution. There is no profit in feeding people on the other side of the globe.

Distribution is expensive. You need to be able to grow strains of healthy foods where they are needed, not fly bags full when they are needed. GM foods developed to grow and contain vital nutrients in those regions is key. It is still (sadly) a profits game. Companies that own patents to GM foods preventing their global free distribution to help diminish world hunger over profit margins are just as bad as people who wouldn't have them distributed due to their "frankenfoodiness" or whatever.


True, good points. Some places are just not good places to try and grow things, if GM food can help with that that would be great.
 
2012-11-19 02:49:54 PM  
"Natural" doesn't mean anything on a label, but "Organic" foods have USDA standards they have to adhere to. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICAT I O.

/tmyk
 
2012-11-19 03:18:44 PM  

Kinek: willfullyobscure: WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.

counter-troll:

Monsanto bankrupting farmers for planting seeds they grew themselves

I believe that makes us love-love. Your serve.

Which is a problem with patent law, not science. And as much as I hate Monsanto, you sign a contract not to save seed and re-use it, then I'm not going to cry when lawyers plant a lawsuit up your ass if you break it. Nobody made you buy the seed. You bought it because it increases yield by allowing you to spray your field indiscriminately. Take away their right to exercise rights over that, but don't put GMO in a box over that.


Except it doesn't and it didn't. The GMO soybeans were substantially outperformed by conventional crops.

And the farmer used MORE herbicide, not less, and it ended up costing him money. So GMO soybeans sucked for him and then Monsanto collected secret evidence to sue him with when he didn't do anything wrong. His fields got contaminated with the GMO crops.

And now, we can't get any seed that is guaranteed to be GMO free even when not buying from Monsanto. I'd say there's a few issues here that go beyond predatory business practices.
 
2012-11-19 05:21:46 PM  

willfullyobscure: Kinek: willfullyobscure: WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.

counter-troll:

Monsanto bankrupting farmers for planting seeds they grew themselves

I believe that makes us love-love. Your serve.

Which is a problem with patent law, not science. And as much as I hate Monsanto, you sign a contract not to save seed and re-use it, then I'm not going to cry when lawyers plant a lawsuit up your ass if you break it. Nobody made you buy the seed. You bought it because it increases yield by allowing you to spray your field indiscriminately. Take away their right to exercise rights over that, but don't put GMO in a box over that.

Except it doesn't and it didn't. The GMO soybeans were substantially outperformed by conventional crops.

And the farmer used MORE herbicide, not less, and it ended up costing him money. So GMO soybeans sucked for him and then Monsanto collected secret evidence to sue him with when he didn't do anything wrong. His fields got contaminated with the GMO crops.

And now, we can't get any seed that is guaranteed to be GMO free even when not buying from Monsanto. I'd say there's a few issues here that go beyond predatory business practices.


Gonna need a big old citation on that.

And the use of MORE herbicide is a decision that's left up to the farmer. You can spray a few times, or lots. That's up to the farmer.

And despite the convenient narrative, the story of 'accidental' GMO contamination is a load of bull hockey. One of the cases had a farmer going into a seed dumping silo, growing out the seeds testing for herbicide resistance, and then selecting those as the ones he was going to use for an extra growing season because he didn't want to pay the licensing fees. He got caught. The case is going up before the Supreme Court I think. Other cases have GM seeds magically drifting past acres of land managing to land on fertile soil. Farmers aren't dumb. And they're under pressure to produce and have extremely low profit margins. I don't blame them for trying to scrimp and save where they can.. If there was a way to screw the Man, I'd take it too. But they're not innocent here. The question is at its basis, are units of reproduction themselves patentable? As it stands at the moment, the answer is yes. I hope it changes. It'll stop the scientific waters being muddied by politics.

And the world could've fixed the whole issue with GM 'Pollution' by allowing the terminator seeds. But it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sterile seeds and people poured out of the woodwork saying that the corporations were trying to control the food supply. Fertile seeds and people piss and moan about contamination.
 
2012-11-19 05:30:24 PM  

DownDaRiver: Next thing your going to try and tell me is that Snowballs aren't real snowballs


They contain water which a part of was once snow somewhere.
 
2012-11-19 05:31:40 PM  
In other news, introduced in 1962, Pepperidge Farms Goldfish Crackers turn 50 this year.

/I thought they tasted a bit stale...
 
2012-11-19 05:32:01 PM  

cedarpark: DownDaRiver: Next thing your going to try and tell me is that Snowballs aren't real snowballs

They contain water which a part of was once snow somewhere.


They've got coconut in them. And coconut is mostly water, right?
 
2012-11-19 06:41:25 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Read my post again, paying particular attention to (i.e. compounds found only in laboratories). Citric acid is a poor example as it is obviously found in nature.

Then consider the wide variety of compounds that are made in laboratories to be used as preservatives, texture enhancers, and other similar additives.


I like when people not in the food industry talk like they're actually in the food industry. You can pick them out pretty easily when they say 'compounds that are made in laboratories', specifically when they say it like its a bad thing.

It's really a poor blanket statement.
 
2012-11-19 08:07:45 PM  

portnoyd: Englebert Slaptyback: Read my post again, paying particular attention to (i.e. compounds found only in laboratories). Citric acid is a poor example as it is obviously found in nature.

Then consider the wide variety of compounds that are made in laboratories to be used as preservatives, texture enhancers, and other similar additives.

I like when people not in the food industry talk like they're actually in the food industry. You can pick them out pretty easily when they say 'compounds that are made in laboratories', specifically when they say it like its a bad thing.

It's really a poor blanket statement.


But it is a good litmus test to determine if the person actually knows what they are talking about.
 
2012-11-19 08:20:57 PM  

WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.


this.
 
2012-11-19 09:06:14 PM  
TFA: A survey released last week, of 4,000 people in eight European countries, found that lots of people would rather eat more "natural" foods-74 percent called these products healthier, and 72 percent said they'd pay a premium to get them. But respondents didn't have a consistent sense of what the label means.

Well, that's not the least bit surprising.


willfullyobscure: "Food scientists at the FDA are not
equipped to handle such matters of natural philosophy.
"

fark you, asshole. they're exactly equipped to answer this question and they're the ones you should be asking.


Why? It's pointless.
If the FDA rules that Goldfish are natural because they don't contain preservatives and are made with the same ingredients (flour, oil, cheese, salt, yeast, spices) and the same process (baking) that you can use at home, do you then think that everyone is going to suddenly say, "Oh, well, I guess Goldfish are a perfectly natural food"? Nobody would give a goddamn what they said about it. The word "natural" is a heavily politicized word whose meaning is constantly disagreed upon. WTF good does it do for a government agency to try and settle a quibbling debate over the definition of a now-meaningless word by impotent fiat? NONE.
 
2012-11-19 09:30:29 PM  

Kinek: willfullyobscure: Kinek: willfullyobscure: WhiskeyBoy:

Gonna need a big old citation on that.



RTFA noob
 
2012-11-19 11:29:13 PM  

WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.


You should read up more on the causes of modern famine.

GM foods, oddly, are incapable of resolving economic, ethnic and religious conflicts.
 
2012-11-19 11:34:18 PM  

Kinek: willfullyobscure: Kinek: willfullyobscure: WhiskeyBoy: Genetically modified foods are a good thing. A VERY VERY good thing. If you think otherwise, and campaign to force the world to adhere to your belief, you're helping to contribute to the global starvation problem. Yeah I said it.

Also if you use the term "frankenfood" I will not take your argument seriously.

counter-troll:

Monsanto bankrupting farmers for planting seeds they grew themselves

I believe that makes us love-love. Your serve.

Which is a problem with patent law, not science. And as much as I hate Monsanto, you sign a contract not to save seed and re-use it, then I'm not going to cry when lawyers plant a lawsuit up your ass if you break it. Nobody made you buy the seed. You bought it because it increases yield by allowing you to spray your field indiscriminately. Take away their right to exercise rights over that, but don't put GMO in a box over that.

Except it doesn't and it didn't. The GMO soybeans were substantially outperformed by conventional crops.

And the farmer used MORE herbicide, not less, and it ended up costing him money. So GMO soybeans sucked for him and then Monsanto collected secret evidence to sue him with when he didn't do anything wrong. His fields got contaminated with the GMO crops.

And now, we can't get any seed that is guaranteed to be GMO free even when not buying from Monsanto. I'd say there's a few issues here that go beyond predatory business practices.

Gonna need a big old citation on that.

And the use of MORE herbicide is a decision that's left up to the farmer. You can spray a few times, or lots. That's up to the farmer.

And despite the convenient narrative, the story of 'accidental' GMO contamination is a load of bull hockey. ..


Absolutely incorrect. First thing off Google, and there's MANY more.

http://www.biotech-info.net/blown.html
 
2012-11-20 01:10:27 AM  
natural = comes from nature
everything is part of nature, therefore everything, including my plutonium, arsenic, and asbestos sandwich, is natural.
 
2012-11-20 09:08:54 AM  

PunGent: http://www.biotech-info.net/blown.html


FTA:
He claims his crop was contaminated after pollen blew onto his property from nearby farms.

This is after one of the people was caught. It's not mine officer. I swear. I just found it here.

As for the beginning story, the one about the organic farmers, I'm not sure one way or another. The problem COULD be solved with Terminator seeds.

I know one professor who's working on sterility isolation. Essentially making GMOs only able to breed with eachother, reducing 'genetic pollution'.
 
2012-11-20 09:12:42 AM  

willfullyobscure: Kinek: willfullyobscure: Kinek: willfullyobscure: WhiskeyBoy:

Gonna need a big old citation on that.



RTFA noob


What article? The Slate one? I'm not seeing anything relating to yield. Point it out so I can refute it.
 
2012-11-20 09:15:09 AM  

Kinek: PunGent: http://www.biotech-info.net/blown.html

FTA:
He claims his crop was contaminated after pollen blew onto his property from nearby farms.

This is after one of the people was caught. It's not mine officer. I swear. I just found it here.

As for the beginning story, the one about the organic farmers, I'm not sure one way or another. The problem COULD be solved with Terminator seeds.

I know one professor who's working on sterility isolation. Essentially making GMOs only able to breed with eachother, reducing 'genetic pollution'.


FTA: While no figures exist, anecdotal evidence suggests that cases such as that of the Fitzgeralds are becoming far more common.

Yeah, that's not going to cut it.
 
2012-11-20 09:28:53 AM  

Kinek: willfullyobscure: Kinek: willfullyobscure: Kinek: willfullyobscure: WhiskeyBoy:

Gonna need a big old citation on that.



RTFA noob

What article? The Slate one? I'm not seeing anything relating to yield. Point it out so I can refute it.


To further clarify, you -MAY- be right. I'll have to see what you dig up. I know that there was an extremely controversial report that came out recently. Can't find or remember it. The issue is, even if you're right, your conclusions may be wrong. The way GMOs are treated at the moment are apalling. Basically the only two modifications we have are Bt insertion and Glysophate resistances. That's pretty much it. Glysophate resistance because it ties into Monsanto's business plan. Bt because it was a natural choice.

There's so much more that can be done with GM crops. Halide resistance (something that I worked on as an undergrad, essentially making it so that plants can deal with high salt concentrations and not taste terrible), copy paste resistance to diseases, on the fly modification, insertion of bacterial detoxification genes into weeds to assist bioreclamation of industrial waste sites. Hell, I heard someone mention the other day the idea of Perennial wheat. GM is one more tool in the box for breeding, and it's an excellent tool. But the current uses its being put to are less than impressive. This is partially due to business practices, but also due in part to the fact that there's no public sector for this research. The public decided to defund most crop research programs 20 years ago, and we're seeing the loss in innovation now. And GM is such a politically poisonous well at the moment that most grants won't even fund it. The public has decided that Monsanto and GMs are one and the same, and by doing so, have made it true by raising the bar of entry to the market so high that only Monsanto can step over it.
 
2012-11-20 03:25:12 PM  

Kinek: Kinek: willfullyobscure: Kinek: willfullyobscure: Kinek: willfullyobscure: WhiskeyBoy:

Gonna need a big old citation on that.



RTFA noob

What article? The Slate one? I'm not seeing anything relating to yield. Point it out so I can refute it.

To further clarify, you -MAY- be right. I'll have to see what you dig up. I know that there was an extremely controversial report that came out recently. Can't find or remember it. The issue is, even if you're right, your conclusions may be wrong. The way GMOs are treated at the moment are apalling. Basically the only two modifications we have are Bt insertion and Glysophate resistances. That's pretty much it. Glysophate resistance because it ties into Monsanto's business plan. Bt because it was a natural choice.


I am clearly an ironic troll but in all seriousness my objection to GM crops isn't all technical; its in the application. in the US, these decisions aren't being made around improving of food supply. they're being made around driving revenues for Monsanto. Laudable efforts to improve historically poor yields, like the ones you mentioned, are ignored, on purpose, to push products into American agriculture which doesn't have any of those problems. And we don't yet know what happens when something goes wrong.
 
Displayed 75 of 75 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report