My favorite is the people who rail against GMOs. Bitch, every food you eat has been genetically modified by humans. Either by selective breeding over a long period of time, or what they used to do in the early 20th century: bomb seeds with radiation and see what came out, toss the weird stuff, keep the neat stuff.
Everything is GMO. What's being done now is actually safer than before, because they actually know what they're trying to create, and are far more surgical in the process.
GMOs aren't dangerous because of the genetic manipulation. They're dangerous because of everything around it. Now it's possible to create vegetables that survive a centimetre of glyphosate coating. And if the farmers reuse seeds, they're breaching copyright law. With this, plants are copyrightable, would you like all of the cancer of contemporary American IP law applied to your food?
But then if you can’t copyright it companies wouldn’t invest money in it since it wouldn’t be profitable. That’s kinda the whole point of copyright, so that there’s an incentive for innovation. Why invest in R&D when you can just let your competitor do it and immediately steal it from then?
Yes, this is exactly what happens. Lone humans just can’t do much on their own, you need money to fund you, and money doesn’t fund anything that isn’t going to make them more money.
Copyright doesn't create incentives for innovation it creates incentives for stagnation. It's a guaranteed profit window for a static solution. Competition is what breeds innovation as you need to have the best product for its cost to capture market share. As copyright is inherently an anti-competitive practice only there to minimize risk it reduces innovation in favor of stable profits. Just because r&d costs money it doesnt mean that supply chains and production are handed to competitors for free. Its just a tool to minimize risk for venture capital because those who lobbied for it wanted to protect their assets from risk exposure and did so at the expense of consumers and innovation through lobbying. Removing it wouldnt stop people from creating solutions or trying to invent new products. Those who do the r & d always have a leg up as they have the research available to them for tweaking there process or final output that a competitor would not.
The Epa was the only way we got them to stop with DDT.
They keep ratcheting the poison further and further up to keep weeds out. They basically carpet bombed the South with ddt to kill off something and that killed off the birds and fishes and sucked up anyone that ate it for twenty years.
Which was a lot of the South, but now hunting is a rich mans privilege down here. Wheras only rich folk ate cattle with any frequency, now it's pretty common food.
I've often thought that Monsanto was the only thing wrong with GMOs.
The problem is that the way GMO is used in practice is to maximize profits: get giant fruits that weigh a lot and catch eyes on the shelf, but are low in nutritional value and have shitty taste/texture.
Like huge strawberries that taste like water, or taste unripe even when they're ripe. Or giant asparagus that's as tough as sisal twine.
I have a theory that if you GMO to prioritize nutritional density, it'll taste better, because the photonutrients phytonutrients are the stuff that taste good.
Is not a consideration either way (and that's part of the problem) time and "viability" from pick to market are even more important than that and even flavor. Hence, hothouse tomatoes, the most tasteless tomato on the planet.
also yeah, optimizing for looks is a real issue and i've encountered it too often, but that's just supermarkets in general and has nothing to do with GMO.
Phytonutrients, it was fucking autocorrect's fault.
But no, GMO has a lot to do with it. I know supermarkets were shady about this before, but the same applies to GMO, and it extends all the way up the supply chain.
Monsanto engineers their crops to maximize profit. That means high-yielding plants with giant fruits. It minimizes low nutritional density because the plants have to distribute the same amount of nutrients over more crop. And it makes the taste and texture worse.
I remember when asparagus was around 5mm in diameter, and tender. Now it's more like 10mm, and stringier than celery. It's like the whole stalk is made of that inedible part of the greenbean
I think the argument against GMO (for me) isn't so much the yields and other benefits, but rather the potential for single blight to wipe entire crops (did to the lack of variety, despite their claims to blight resilience) and the shady stuff that gmo companies do - sterilised seeds, patent wars, etc.
It's already happened to bananas. That's why banana candy tastes NOTHING like the bananas you can buy today, it tastes like the bananas that died out from a fungus.
It's more that banana flavoring is a simple chemical (isoamyl acetate) that when tasted was kinda closer to bananas (and pears apparently) than anything else in their minds. Old bananas had more of it than modern ones, but it isn't like it was ever a faithful recreation.
It's similar to how some grapes taste more or less like methyl anthranilate, but the chemical itself really just distinctly tastes like artificial grape.
Yeah the discussion has to be clear. I'm not in love with splicing genes very unrelated to the destination organism and not seeing what the long-term effects are. Also splicing genes specifically to make crops more resistant to Roundup so we can kill everything but the crop even harder and be unconcerned of the wider environmental impact the pesticide has.
Yeah ancestral plants that became many crops look almost nothing like their descendants in many cases
The funniest I think are secondary crops like oats and rye. Our forebears weren’t even trying to grow a better version of those, those started off as just weeds that people were trying to get rid of in their wheatfields. In the course of purging them they accidentally selected for more wheat-like plants that people would be less likely to rip out until they became actual decent crops on their own, while also maintaining hardiness in areas that wheat couldn’t handle such that they spun off and became popular on their own rights.
Should be whole food and not organic. You can process organic food how much you want. You can buy organic ultra-processed pure white beet sugar if you want. Doesn't mean it's healthy or chemically different than regular white sugar. Organic only applies to how it's grown, not what happens to it after leaving the field.
What it means as a food label is (theoretically, at least), "not made with inorganic ingredients" i.e. certain kinds of pesticides/fertilizers or additives
This is blatant misinformation. Most food labels like “free range” mean whatever the labeler wants it to mean, as long as there is some definition available on the label (or a very small printed link to a website with the definition). The organic label, as far as I can tell, is the only one with a precise definition and requirements outlined by the USDA.
For crops this means a lack of certain pesticides/chemicals used, regenerative techniques for the fields, and no GMOs. For animals it requires certain living conditions and a diet of nearly entirely organic food.
Which part was misinformation? That inorganic things aren't food? Good luck arguing that point lol. Everything else I said was an opinion so idk where you're coming from there. I'm aware that a person or a committee or something somewhere was paid to redefine a word that already had a static, objective meaning for no reason other than to make more money, that doesn't stop it from being misleading and unnecessarily ambiguous. Why that word? Sure you've done your homework about this so you might consider yourself "immune" to the false advertising, but the majority of Americans have no clue and believe everything they see, as far as they can understand it. Most people like you who would be curious enough to do that research probably already know what organic and inorganic actually mean so they weren't really going to get duped anyway, but they make up a tiny portion of the population.
Try eating nothing but salt, see how that works out for ya. "Food" is metabolizable, salt isn't. Salt's as necessary as water, yes, but also like water, it's not enough on its own.
I never gave "my" definition of organic and logic really has nothing to do with it, it has an objective scientific definition already. With all due respect, if you're out there buying organic salt, you're exactly the kind of under-informed, over-paying consumer I'm trying to look out for.
The misinformation is the part where you're pushing a false narrative that using the term organic in any way other than being organism-derived (or however you prefer to define it) is inherently misleading and wrong. Unless you want to argue that a word can't have two meanings, in which case good luck arguing that point. Unlike the word "literally" it's pretty easy for a layperson to tell which definition is being used based on context. "There is organic material in this sample" is clearly referring to the only definition you'll accept. Saying "this tomato I bought is organic" is pretty easy to understand that the tomato in question is more similar to a naturally occurring tomato than one that has undergone alterations, even if the person saying that doesn't know the specifics. Why not that word? If the term the USDA used was "natural" you'd be telling me right now that if it wasn't natural it wouldn't be food.
I do think the term "organic" should be split into at least four different terms to cover all the major qualifications (GMO-free, synthetic pesticide free, sustainable, free range for animals but actually defined) to be called organic, but that's different than saying that it's inherently misleading as a term or that it would be misleading on purpose. What purpose? To make more money? It's more expensive to grow produce that meets the requirements to be called organic. If there was legitimately no difference between organic-labeled and non-organic-labeled food you might have a point, but there is.
They're using it in its chemistry meaning. In chemistry organic means a category of carbon based chemicals and reactions. Ironically that includes petrochemistry. This is a popular gotcha for a certain type of nerd.
But yes, organic farming is a different meaning of the word, and it derives from a movement to treat the farm as an organism.
It's easier to squeeze out smaller competition that can't afford to meet the requirements but aren't necessarily cutting corners or providing unhealthy or even less healthy products, netting more money for the companies that can jump through the hoops. And like you say, it's more expensive to get that organic label, that means someone is making more money. Now I assume I don't need to explain conflicts of interest or political lobbying to you, but that's because you're seem much more informed and aware than the average American consumer.
I wish I had as much faith in American regulatory institutions as you, I guess experience has left me too jaded.
I'm well aware of the "theories", what it actually functionally means is they can charge more while falsely implying food without that label is necessarily unhealthy and may, in fact, not even be food at all.
If someone is uneducated about what food labels mean and which ones have a regulatory definition and which ones don't, then sure they might be duped into overpaying for shit that doesn't deliver on its promises. But organic is one of the few terms that are actually defined by regulation and have specific requirements to meet to use the label, so it's kind of weird that you would choose this one to pick a bone with.
if someone is uneducated about what food labels mean and which ones have a regulatory definition and which ones don't
Yeah you just described 95% of Americans, maybe more, thanks for illustrating my point! "They" (read: A politician) chose to use a word that already has specific implications for that market, which they absolutely didn't need to do and, imo, they almost certainly did on purpose. I don't like that, sorry 🤷♂️
Wait what politician is using the word in this context? I must have missed something.
And just because loads of people are ignorant and uneducated doesn't mean we should abandon words just because they can be misunderstood. It was a weak point.
I was referring to the politician in charge of the USDA when they decided to redefine a scientific term for no other determinable reason than to make more money. Loads of people being ignorant and uneducated enough to misunderstand advertising is exactly the reason we have and need strong consumer protection regulations, like antitrust and fair competition laws.
Idk what the last sentence is referencing or I'd address it, sorry.
This is blatant misinformation. Most food labels like “free range” mean whatever the labeler wants it to mean, as long as there is some definition available on the label (or a very small printed link to a website with the definition). The organic label, as far as I can tell, is the only one with a precise definition and requirements outlined by the USDA.
For crops this means a lack of certain pesticides/chemicals used, regenerative techniques for the fields, and no GMOs. For animals it requires certain living conditions and a diet of nearly entirely organic food.
Neither is food, food is metabolizable into energy. Yes salt and water are needed to facilitate this process, but without organic matter, there is no process.
Doritos fucking nailed this. However, I can't respect a man eating Doritos in public. Imagine if you lawyer showed up to your court case munching on a bag of Doritos. I wouldn't trust them.
I don't care where your pipe is or what pipe your talking about or what pipe location even has to do with any of this, if you're too ashamed to eat Doritos in public, you don't deserve to enjoy them in private.
I thought Lemmy is just a knock-off Reddit, though... if there is really any difference between the two (especially in terms of user culture) I have yet to find it.
actually i just checked and that's not actually true. cheapest tomato sauce here: 0.70€ / 250 ml, makes 2.80€/kg. meanwhile fresh tomatoes: 10€/kg typically.
wtf, do you live in like Svalbard or something? They are 2-4€ per kilo in the summer and 4-6€ in the winter in most places on the continent for normal truss tomatoes. I live in a country with very expensive food but basic Spanish tomatoes are 2€ right now in the cheaper supermarkets, and fancy tasty fleshy ones are like 5 or 6.
no processed food can beat the absolute genious design of the raspberry. easy to grab, clear information whether it's ripe or not, visually appealing, tastes wonderful.
The sad thing is - we COULD produce processed foods designed for our health. We just choose not to. The more its processed, the more room there is for profit margin improving adjustments.
(Meanwhile we evolved to eat not-ultraprocessed food so obviously that's best for us.)
The sad thing is - we COULD produce processed foods designed for our health. We just choose not to.
Yes, mostly.
(Meanwhile we evolved to eat not-ultraprocessed food so obviously that's best for us.)
Not how this works. Evolution cares about us procreating and spreading our genes, not living long healthy lives. Hence there being plenty animals that die after having children. "We evolved to" just means it won't kill us quickly, not that it is healthy long term.
Hyperprocessed foods are designed to sit on store shelves as long as possible, be addictive, and have just enough flavor to make you want more while at the same time being made of the cheapest possible ingredients, sometimes even including weird things like titanium dioxide.
When you see a food decomposes, it's going to do something similar in your gut. If you see that a food never seems to decompose, you can bet that's not going to be great for your gut.
And fiber really needs to be recognized as the essential nutrient that it is.
Norman Borlaug developed wheat that can be grown in all kinds of climates temperatures and environments on Earth. It is by definition a genetically modified organism that helped alleviate starvation for billions of people since its creation.
Many people say that the most important person in human history is Jesus Christ, but I believe it is Norman Borlaug.
Thank god the global South has so many white saviours.
Borlaug quite litterally paved the way for industrialized agriculture in countries like India with all the devastating social and environmental effects that come with it.
This is a textbook example of arguing in bad faith.
I said Norman Borlaug's work helped alleviate starvation for billions of people. Somehow you turned that into "white savior," industrial agriculture, and the absurd claim that I think pre-Green Revolution famines were "all their own fault." I didn't say any of those things. You invented an argument because you couldn't address the one I actually made.
Borlaug's contribution stands on its own. His research dramatically increased crop yields and helped prevent catastrophic famine. That isn't a matter of opinion, it's one of the most well-documented humanitarian achievements of the 20th century.
You're also trying to pin every downstream consequence of industrial agriculture on one scientist, as though he personally designed decades of government policy, farming practices, and corporate incentives. That's a ridiculous standard. By that logic, every inventor is responsible for every misuse or unintended consequence of their invention forever.
If you want to discuss the environmental tradeoffs of the Green Revolution, that's a legitimate conversation. But that's not what you did. Instead, you injected race into a discussion where it wasn't relevant, built a straw man out of things I never said, and then congratulated yourself for knocking it down.
If your argument requires inventing my position before you can refute it, maybe your argument isn't as strong as you think it is.
You are, once again, introducing things that were never part of the discussion and making assumptions about what I was or wasn't saying. Nothing I said was messianic in any way, shape, or form, nor did I bring anything related to that into the conversation.
Please stop.
If this is the kind of discourse you want to have, arguing against things that were never said and inventing positions for the other person to defend, there are plenty of flat Earth videos on YouTube where that style of reasoning will fit right in.
So once again, you're claiming there's some kind of Jesus angle here.
Jesus was never brought up. Neither were God, gods, Christianity, or Catholicism. You are once again injecting completely unrelated nonsense into the discussion.
None of that exists in what I said.
Yes, goodbye. You are either incapable of following the conversation or simply arguing with something you invented.
Idk man, them food scientists been up to some strange shit out at the farm and at the food processing plant for like a century now and things have gotten out of hand a little.
I'm not sure the goal has been to make the food healthy.. I'm pretty sure the goal has only been to maximize profits and decrease costs within the bounds of whatever is considered legal (including lobbying to maintain legality).
I'm 14 and this is deep bullshit. There are different levels of processed food. Nobody is against cooking your food. Countless studies demonstrate that the less processed your food is, the healthier it is for you.
The misunderstanding, and rightly, the confusion, comes like you said from the level of processing. Cooking is considered processing - so these words have little value in reality as they mean different things for different people
No there's value to what the commenter said.... but like I said there also has to be some kind of thought into how you are processing because then the varying levels of processing matter. Like you said cooking is considered processing, while I gave the example of making a food oil.
How you cook determines the amount of processing you will have to apply. How I make a food oil will determine the amount of processing I will need to apply.
I am not trying to invalidate you. I'm 33 and I think about how something is processed. Though, it's prudent to keep in mind that the further you think about how something is processed, you will eventually come to the realizations about the levels of processing. For example: You could make your own olive, grape and peanut oil with less processing or more depending on how you do it.
This is a matter of semantics, linguistics, and basic communication. When someone says processed food, what do they actually mean by that? Do they mean a baked potato, or do they mean a twinkie?
Language and communication don't work on technicalities. If someone says they would like a bowl of fruit, you can't serve them some tomatoes and say well you have to enjoy this! Tomatoes are technically a fruit! Communication occurs only when people accept the intended meaning of what someone is saying rather than the literalist interpretation of it.
188 Comments
Triumph@fedia.io · 112 pts · 35d
My favorite is the people who rail against GMOs. Bitch, every food you eat has been genetically modified by humans. Either by selective breeding over a long period of time, or what they used to do in the early 20th century: bomb seeds with radiation and see what came out, toss the weird stuff, keep the neat stuff.
Everything is GMO. What's being done now is actually safer than before, because they actually know what they're trying to create, and are far more surgical in the process.
ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world · 64 pts · 35d
GMOs aren't dangerous because of the genetic manipulation. They're dangerous because of everything around it. Now it's possible to create vegetables that survive a centimetre of glyphosate coating. And if the farmers reuse seeds, they're breaching copyright law. With this, plants are copyrightable, would you like all of the cancer of contemporary American IP law applied to your food?
IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf · 48 pts · 35d
this is actually such a big problem in tissue culture
no one should be able to copyright LIVING BEINGS
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 35d
in tissue culture this is considered a DICK MOVE
shneancy@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 35d
ironically copyright laws as they are today are cancer, maybe they should copyright copyright so that it all just eats itself and dies
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 1 pts · 35d
SorryQuick@lemmy.ca · -7 pts · 34d
But then if you can’t copyright it companies wouldn’t invest money in it since it wouldn’t be profitable. That’s kinda the whole point of copyright, so that there’s an incentive for innovation. Why invest in R&D when you can just let your competitor do it and immediately steal it from then?
IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 34d
"steal it" you cannot steal knowledge
copyrighting living beings is bad
SorryQuick@lemmy.ca · -2 pts · 34d
You’re not stealing knowledge, you’re stealing someone else’s time, effort and money. There’s a reason there’s IP laws everywhere.
What then do you suggest as the alternative? Or is your suggestion just to stop innovation?
IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf · 4 pts · 34d
free is good
"time effort and money"
im sorry but innovation will be sustained without copyright
no one is just gonna go "I cant make obscene amounts of money on this, better not do it at all" if they actually care about it
free is good only hurts the rich
IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 34d
"no ones gonna do it if they cant exploit it for money" - very serious business human
SorryQuick@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 34d
Yes, this is exactly what happens. Lone humans just can’t do much on their own, you need money to fund you, and money doesn’t fund anything that isn’t going to make them more money.
AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 34d
Copyright doesn't create incentives for innovation it creates incentives for stagnation. It's a guaranteed profit window for a static solution. Competition is what breeds innovation as you need to have the best product for its cost to capture market share. As copyright is inherently an anti-competitive practice only there to minimize risk it reduces innovation in favor of stable profits. Just because r&d costs money it doesnt mean that supply chains and production are handed to competitors for free. Its just a tool to minimize risk for venture capital because those who lobbied for it wanted to protect their assets from risk exposure and did so at the expense of consumers and innovation through lobbying. Removing it wouldnt stop people from creating solutions or trying to invent new products. Those who do the r & d always have a leg up as they have the research available to them for tweaking there process or final output that a competitor would not.
IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 34d
why would anyone buy from someone who just copied it instead of made it?
and money has ruined innovation
are you suggesting that we would just stop innovationn without copyright?
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 1 pts · 33d
Copyright suffocate to death innovation by preventing people to use that technology and build on it, it's just a dick move to make money.
Humans can innovate without shitright too, that's what we have always done
Innovation is for making humanity greater, or at least it should be
sangeteria@lemmy.ml · 21 pts · 35d
But then the problem is not the GMO it's the copyright laws
BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 35d
The Epa was the only way we got them to stop with DDT.
They keep ratcheting the poison further and further up to keep weeds out. They basically carpet bombed the South with ddt to kill off something and that killed off the birds and fishes and sucked up anyone that ate it for twenty years.
Which was a lot of the South, but now hunting is a rich mans privilege down here. Wheras only rich folk ate cattle with any frequency, now it's pretty common food.
I've often thought that Monsanto was the only thing wrong with GMOs.
Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 34d
their buissness model with certainty.
Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 34d
Exactly right. Well said.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 5 pts · 35d
does anyone know how long the copyrights on seeds holds? i.e. i think for many pharmaceuticals it's 20 years. does this apply here too?
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 1 pts · 33d
The problems then aren't GMOs but it's the fact that someome can patent and copyright it, destroy the patent and copyright system not the GMOs
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 35d
Yes
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 21 pts · 35d
The problem is that the way GMO is used in practice is to maximize profits: get giant fruits that weigh a lot and catch eyes on the shelf, but are low in nutritional value and have shitty taste/texture.
Like huge strawberries that taste like water, or taste unripe even when they're ripe. Or giant asparagus that's as tough as sisal twine.
I have a theory that if you GMO to prioritize nutritional density, it'll taste better, because the
photonutrientsphytonutrients are the stuff that taste good.Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 34d
Is not a consideration either way (and that's part of the problem) time and "viability" from pick to market are even more important than that and even flavor. Hence, hothouse tomatoes, the most tasteless tomato on the planet.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 34d
Right, that's what I'm saying. But the nutritional density suffers as a result of maximizing size and yield.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 2 pts · 35d
wth are photonutrients?
also yeah, optimizing for looks is a real issue and i've encountered it too often, but that's just supermarkets in general and has nothing to do with GMO.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 35d
Phytonutrients, it was fucking autocorrect's fault.
But no, GMO has a lot to do with it. I know supermarkets were shady about this before, but the same applies to GMO, and it extends all the way up the supply chain.
Monsanto engineers their crops to maximize profit. That means high-yielding plants with giant fruits. It minimizes low nutritional density because the plants have to distribute the same amount of nutrients over more crop. And it makes the taste and texture worse.
I remember when asparagus was around 5mm in diameter, and tender. Now it's more like 10mm, and stringier than celery. It's like the whole stalk is made of that inedible part of the greenbean
Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 34d
Aldi's in Chicago has wonderfully thin and crisp asparagus almost all the time. Don't ask me how, I just buy and eat it.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 34d
Probably cause it's grown in Europe where they actually regulate their food production...
Exatron@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
The US also regulates its food production, sweetie .
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 0 pts · 34d
Barely. There's a reason Europe won't import most of it.
Naz@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 35d
Botanist dragging a barrel of glowing green fluid across the tiles of the station floor
Security Chief: "Botanist! What the ABSOLUTE HELL are you doing with 50 liters of radium?"
Botanist: "Mutating the corn so it's blight and drought resistant"
Chief: "????"
Botanist: "I've also mutated a species of hobby lemon to fill itself with sugary lemonade instead of citric acid"
Chief: "Oh, holy crap okay go right ahead"
Triumph@fedia.io · 10 pts · 35d
Pretty much. Except that there was zero plan about what was going to come out the other end. It was just "irradiate, plant, see what happens."
Naz@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 35d
Lemons are an artificial creation by genetic splice of the bitter orange and citron :)
TheHonourablePierrePoilievre@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 34d
If you think thats interesting, look into the origins of maize corn.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
Or almonds
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 34d
Pretty sure the bitter orange is also a highly divergent crop that may be hybridized as well.
Prathas@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 34d
"Hobby lemon?"
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 34d
Miracle fruit is easier than doing your own genetic modifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synsepalum_dulcificum
Prathas@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 33d
Interesting, TIL!
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 35d
okay i was all ready to devil's advocat you but you had to say FOOD. punk.
i was about to go eat, i don't know, a car or something to prove you wrong. I haven't had coffee yet i haven't thought this through
icelimit@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 35d
I think the argument against GMO (for me) isn't so much the yields and other benefits, but rather the potential for single blight to wipe entire crops (did to the lack of variety, despite their claims to blight resilience) and the shady stuff that gmo companies do - sterilised seeds, patent wars, etc.
Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 34d
It's already happened to bananas. That's why banana candy tastes NOTHING like the bananas you can buy today, it tastes like the bananas that died out from a fungus.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 34d
It's more that banana flavoring is a simple chemical (isoamyl acetate) that when tasted was kinda closer to bananas (and pears apparently) than anything else in their minds. Old bananas had more of it than modern ones, but it isn't like it was ever a faithful recreation.
It's similar to how some grapes taste more or less like methyl anthranilate, but the chemical itself really just distinctly tastes like artificial grape.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 34d
Yeah the discussion has to be clear. I'm not in love with splicing genes very unrelated to the destination organism and not seeing what the long-term effects are. Also splicing genes specifically to make crops more resistant to Roundup so we can kill everything but the crop even harder and be unconcerned of the wider environmental impact the pesticide has.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 4 pts · 35d
yeah GMO has a lot of potential. i think the scepticism was mostly because it was considered a new technology, but that's years ago.
Nautalax@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 34d
Yeah ancestral plants that became many crops look almost nothing like their descendants in many cases
The funniest I think are secondary crops like oats and rye. Our forebears weren’t even trying to grow a better version of those, those started off as just weeds that people were trying to get rid of in their wheatfields. In the course of purging them they accidentally selected for more wheat-like plants that people would be less likely to rip out until they became actual decent crops on their own, while also maintaining hardiness in areas that wheat couldn’t handle such that they spun off and became popular on their own rights.
0x0@lemmy.zip · -5 pts · 35d
...right...
Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 34d
If you can't tell the difference between random mutation and targeted gene replacement, you DO NOT belong in this conversation.
Either educate yourself or STFU and let the adults talk
0x0@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 34d
Educated genius alert!
Barley_Man@sopuli.xyz · 65 pts · 35d
Should be whole food and not organic. You can process organic food how much you want. You can buy organic ultra-processed pure white beet sugar if you want. Doesn't mean it's healthy or chemically different than regular white sugar. Organic only applies to how it's grown, not what happens to it after leaving the field.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 35d
Also "organic" is intentionallly misleading language that should be abandoned, if it's not organic, it's not food.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 35d
What it means as a food label is (theoretically, at least), "not made with inorganic ingredients" i.e. certain kinds of pesticides/fertilizers or additives
Jaycifer@piefed.social · 5 pts · 35d
This is blatant misinformation. Most food labels like “free range” mean whatever the labeler wants it to mean, as long as there is some definition available on the label (or a very small printed link to a website with the definition). The organic label, as far as I can tell, is the only one with a precise definition and requirements outlined by the USDA.
For crops this means a lack of certain pesticides/chemicals used, regenerative techniques for the fields, and no GMOs. For animals it requires certain living conditions and a diet of nearly entirely organic food.
Source: I wanted to understand what food labels and “organic” food means a year or two ago and spent a few hours reading the laws provided by the USDA. Turns out they also have a basic outline of the requirements: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 0 pts · 35d
How does that in any way contradict what I said?
You know what most of those pesticides and other disqualifying things are? Inorganic.
Of course there's more complexity to it than that, but in a nutshell that's why it's called "organic" and not "gleebleglanic"
Jaycifer@piefed.social · 3 pts · 35d
Sorry, I think I meant to reply to the same comment you did. I've been running on just a few hours of sleep the past few days.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 34d
Okay, that makes a lot more sense now...
Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 34d
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 34d
I said there's more complexity to it than that. I was putting it in overly simplistic terms to make it easier to grasp for the willfully ignorant.
Also, plants don't require NaCl. Sodium is actively harmful to plants. They don't crave electrolytes.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 34d
Which part was misinformation? That inorganic things aren't food? Good luck arguing that point lol. Everything else I said was an opinion so idk where you're coming from there. I'm aware that a person or a committee or something somewhere was paid to redefine a word that already had a static, objective meaning for no reason other than to make more money, that doesn't stop it from being misleading and unnecessarily ambiguous. Why that word? Sure you've done your homework about this so you might consider yourself "immune" to the false advertising, but the majority of Americans have no clue and believe everything they see, as far as they can understand it. Most people like you who would be curious enough to do that research probably already know what organic and inorganic actually mean so they weren't really going to get duped anyway, but they make up a tiny portion of the population.
Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 34d
Sodium Chloride is not "organic" but there is not a single kind of life on the planet earth that can survive without it.
So according to your (il)logic, NOTHING can be organic, your definition, not mine.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
Try eating nothing but salt, see how that works out for ya. "Food" is metabolizable, salt isn't. Salt's as necessary as water, yes, but also like water, it's not enough on its own.
I never gave "my" definition of organic and logic really has nothing to do with it, it has an objective scientific definition already. With all due respect, if you're out there buying organic salt, you're exactly the kind of under-informed, over-paying consumer I'm trying to look out for.
Jaycifer@piefed.social · 3 pts · 34d
The misinformation is the part where you're pushing a false narrative that using the term organic in any way other than being organism-derived (or however you prefer to define it) is inherently misleading and wrong. Unless you want to argue that a word can't have two meanings, in which case good luck arguing that point. Unlike the word "literally" it's pretty easy for a layperson to tell which definition is being used based on context. "There is organic material in this sample" is clearly referring to the only definition you'll accept. Saying "this tomato I bought is organic" is pretty easy to understand that the tomato in question is more similar to a naturally occurring tomato than one that has undergone alterations, even if the person saying that doesn't know the specifics. Why not that word? If the term the USDA used was "natural" you'd be telling me right now that if it wasn't natural it wouldn't be food.
I do think the term "organic" should be split into at least four different terms to cover all the major qualifications (GMO-free, synthetic pesticide free, sustainable, free range for animals but actually defined) to be called organic, but that's different than saying that it's inherently misleading as a term or that it would be misleading on purpose. What purpose? To make more money? It's more expensive to grow produce that meets the requirements to be called organic. If there was legitimately no difference between organic-labeled and non-organic-labeled food you might have a point, but there is.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
They're using it in its chemistry meaning. In chemistry organic means a category of carbon based chemicals and reactions. Ironically that includes petrochemistry. This is a popular gotcha for a certain type of nerd.
But yes, organic farming is a different meaning of the word, and it derives from a movement to treat the farm as an organism.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
It's easier to squeeze out smaller competition that can't afford to meet the requirements but aren't necessarily cutting corners or providing unhealthy or even less healthy products, netting more money for the companies that can jump through the hoops. And like you say, it's more expensive to get that organic label, that means someone is making more money. Now I assume I don't need to explain conflicts of interest or political lobbying to you, but that's because you're seem much more informed and aware than the average American consumer.
I wish I had as much faith in American regulatory institutions as you, I guess experience has left me too jaded.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 35d
I'm well aware of the "theories", what it actually functionally means is they can charge more while falsely implying food without that label is necessarily unhealthy and may, in fact, not even be food at all.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 35d
If someone is uneducated about what food labels mean and which ones have a regulatory definition and which ones don't, then sure they might be duped into overpaying for shit that doesn't deliver on its promises. But organic is one of the few terms that are actually defined by regulation and have specific requirements to meet to use the label, so it's kind of weird that you would choose this one to pick a bone with.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 34d
Yeah you just described 95% of Americans, maybe more, thanks for illustrating my point! "They" (read: A politician) chose to use a word that already has specific implications for that market, which they absolutely didn't need to do and, imo, they almost certainly did on purpose. I don't like that, sorry 🤷♂️
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 34d
Wait what politician is using the word in this context? I must have missed something.
And just because loads of people are ignorant and uneducated doesn't mean we should abandon words just because they can be misunderstood. It was a weak point.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 34d
I was referring to the politician in charge of the USDA when they decided to redefine a scientific term for no other determinable reason than to make more money. Loads of people being ignorant and uneducated enough to misunderstand advertising is exactly the reason we have and need strong consumer protection regulations, like antitrust and fair competition laws.
Idk what the last sentence is referencing or I'd address it, sorry.
Jaycifer@piefed.social · 3 pts · 35d
This is blatant misinformation. Most food labels like “free range” mean whatever the labeler wants it to mean, as long as there is some definition available on the label (or a very small printed link to a website with the definition). The organic label, as far as I can tell, is the only one with a precise definition and requirements outlined by the USDA.
For crops this means a lack of certain pesticides/chemicals used, regenerative techniques for the fields, and no GMOs. For animals it requires certain living conditions and a diet of nearly entirely organic food.
Source: I wanted to understand what food labels and “organic” food means a year or two ago and spent a few hours reading the laws provided by the USDA. Turns out they also have a basic outline of the requirements: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means
Nikki@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 35d
reply posted on lemmy shitpost@lemmy.world
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 11 pts · 35d
People can still talk about reality here, sometimes shitposts provoke intelligent discussions and that's okay. It's not shitcomment@lemmy.world.
If everyone here was this, then there'd be no point:
Spooge@lemmy.world · -13 pts · 35d
Jesus Christ, man. It's a joke.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · -14 pts · 35d
No, that's not true.
zarathustrad@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 35d
Not true? In that some food is in fact not made of organic molecules?
For example:
Table Salt (NaCl)
Water (H2O)
No carbon, still food.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 35d
Neither is food, food is metabolizable into energy. Yes salt and water are needed to facilitate this process, but without organic matter, there is no process.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 35d
Nope not true
thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de · 52 pts · 35d
Ultra-processed was designed so you can't stop eating it.
Spooge@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 35d
Doritos fucking nailed this. However, I can't respect a man eating Doritos in public. Imagine if you lawyer showed up to your court case munching on a bag of Doritos. I wouldn't trust them.
VinegarChunks@lemmus.org · 6 pts · 35d
Imagine meeting your lawyer while he’s eating Doritos and then you shake hands with him
Ravenheart@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 35d
Gotta sneak a bit of that delicious finger dust.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 35d
Funny, I can't respect a person that eats their Doritos in private fear while pretending they're above it in public. Zero trust.
Spooge@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 35d
Pipe down.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 35d
I don't care where your pipe is or what pipe your talking about or what pipe location even has to do with any of this, if you're too ashamed to eat Doritos in public, you don't deserve to enjoy them in private.
Spooge@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
Great joke! You've truly got the whole humor thing nailed down.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 34d
Thanks! And you, apparently, have a pipe down, hope it's not an important one.
Phantaloons@piefed.zip · -2 pts · 34d
Yo, Bird up!
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 35d
Jokes on you, that's the lawyer I want.
remon@ani.social · 7 pts · 35d
Well, if you stop eating you die anyway!
thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de · 14 pts · 35d
That's just big food propaganda
MoffKalast@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 35d
I mean have you ever met anyone who's died of hunger?
No? Coincidence?
I think
NOT!
HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub · 50 pts · 34d
Okay, this is a high quality shit-post.
hansolo@lemmy.today · 15 pts · 34d
I just found it. It's an organic shitpost.
Alberat@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 34d
because its already expired
myotheraccount@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 34d
Assuming the designed food contains a lot of fiber, the shit itself will also be of high quality!
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 33d
😉
Karl@literature.cafe · 0 pts · 34d
myotheraccount@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
Removed
Karl@literature.cafe · 1 pts · 34d
I said I've seen the same meme too many times and then I got ashamed of behaving like a redditor and deleted it :|
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
Bring it back
HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub · 1 pts · 34d
I thought Lemmy is just a knock-off Reddit, though... if there is really any difference between the two (especially in terms of user culture) I have yet to find it.
Karl@literature.cafe · 1 pts · 33d
Ur right
HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub · 1 pts · 34d
forgotten
myotheraccount@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
Cursed
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 22 pts · 35d
counterargument: raw salmon is fucking delicious.
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 34d
It’s flash frozen to make it safe, other wise you end up with parasites. Ergo it’s processed.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 34d
I'm no bitch those parasites can't eat me
Bluewing@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
Wild salmons are flash frozen to kill parasites. But I don't think farmed salmons require that.
icelimit@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 35d
Inb4 raw salmon is farmed specifically for your tastebuds
Captain_Patchy@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 34d
The parasites just add spice!
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 34d
Particularly the worms, that's the best part.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 2 pts · 35d
and raw tomatoes are cheaper than pre-cooked tomato sauce.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 7 pts · 34d
actually i just checked and that's not actually true. cheapest tomato sauce here: 0.70€ / 250 ml, makes 2.80€/kg. meanwhile fresh tomatoes: 10€/kg typically.
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 34d
wtf, do you live in like Svalbard or something? They are 2-4€ per kilo in the summer and 4-6€ in the winter in most places on the continent for normal truss tomatoes. I live in a country with very expensive food but basic Spanish tomatoes are 2€ right now in the cheaper supermarkets, and fancy tasty fleshy ones are like 5 or 6.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 1 pts · 34d
TheHonourablePierrePoilievre@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 34d
Not where I live
tino@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 34d
no processed food can beat the absolute genious design of the raspberry. easy to grab, clear information whether it's ripe or not, visually appealing, tastes wonderful.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 14 pts · 34d
-"Visually appealing"
-Is just some plant balls
hansolo@lemmy.today · 11 pts · 34d
Pineapple has entered the chat.
"Bitch, I'm fruit on a pole! Yellow means go!"
Gahidus@lemmus.org · 8 pts · 34d
Better not eat too much though, or it starts digesting you back!
Whelks_chance@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 34d
Dissolves your fingerprints, or so says the urban legend
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 10 pts · 34d
What about Cheetos?
expatriado@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 35d
my body love processed food so much that keeps it an extra day or two my guts
Nurgus@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 34d
The sad thing is - we COULD produce processed foods designed for our health. We just choose not to. The more its processed, the more room there is for profit margin improving adjustments.
(Meanwhile we evolved to eat not-ultraprocessed food so obviously that's best for us.)
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 33d
Yes, mostly.
Not how this works. Evolution cares about us procreating and spreading our genes, not living long healthy lives. Hence there being plenty animals that die after having children. "We evolved to" just means it won't kill us quickly, not that it is healthy long term.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 34d
There's no 'we' you're free to eat whatever food you want.
wolfrasin@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 34d
Whatever food is available, not whatever one wants
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 33d
And sometimes healthy food is out of reach because you can only afford the shitty stuff.
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net · 16 pts · 34d
Hyperprocessed foods are designed to sit on store shelves as long as possible, be addictive, and have just enough flavor to make you want more while at the same time being made of the cheapest possible ingredients, sometimes even including weird things like titanium dioxide.
Where do you get your fiber?
Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca · 17 pts · 34d
My ISP provided the fiber, they came and hooked it up and everything.
glitch1985@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 34d
Does this keep you regular? I've been just as constipated as when I had cable but the lower latency and symmetrical upload are worth it.
ITGuyLevi@programming.dev · 7 pts · 34d
What's weird about titanium dioxide?
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 34d
Too healthy
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 33d
Do you normally add metallic powders directly to your food?
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 33d
Every time you cook in a cast iron skillet.
Which is actually recommended as a source of dietary iron.
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 33d
Not really the same thing.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
Exactly the same thing.
ITGuyLevi@programming.dev · 2 pts · 33d
I do... Usually I bond them with a deadly gas first though (salt).
Whelks_chance@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 34d
It helps Kimi Antonelli drive too fast.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 34d
Sounds like they are made with health of the consumer in the forefront.
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 33d
When you see a food decomposes, it's going to do something similar in your gut. If you see that a food never seems to decompose, you can bet that's not going to be great for your gut.
And fiber really needs to be recognized as the essential nutrient that it is.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 33d
wabafee@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 34d
Why can't we have human kibbles if they have for cats and dogs. They keep selling it as the only healthy option.
Squirrelanna@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 34d
They do it's called cereal.
AnnaFrankfurter@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 34d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK-cKWSPBBs
wabafee@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
Wow they actually exist.
Emerald@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 34d
Please I need human kibble to happen for totally normal reasons
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 33d
Meal replacement drinks and powders exist. They are pretty much that.
kamen@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 34d
In all seriousness, shortening "organically grown" to "organic" is quite stupid since all food is organic, but not all food is organically grown.
vithigar@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 34d
Now I'm wondering if anyone has ever labeled salt as organic.
domdanial@reddthat.com · 4 pts · 34d
The one thing likely not grown, nor carbon containing.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 33d
Norman Borlaug developed wheat that can be grown in all kinds of climates temperatures and environments on Earth. It is by definition a genetically modified organism that helped alleviate starvation for billions of people since its creation.
Many people say that the most important person in human history is Jesus Christ, but I believe it is Norman Borlaug.
ShotDonkey@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
Thank god the global South has so many white saviours.
Borlaug quite litterally paved the way for industrialized agriculture in countries like India with all the devastating social and environmental effects that come with it.
But sure there were severe famines before Borlaug came, all their own fault.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 33d
This is a textbook example of arguing in bad faith.
I said Norman Borlaug's work helped alleviate starvation for billions of people. Somehow you turned that into "white savior," industrial agriculture, and the absurd claim that I think pre-Green Revolution famines were "all their own fault." I didn't say any of those things. You invented an argument because you couldn't address the one I actually made.
Borlaug's contribution stands on its own. His research dramatically increased crop yields and helped prevent catastrophic famine. That isn't a matter of opinion, it's one of the most well-documented humanitarian achievements of the 20th century.
You're also trying to pin every downstream consequence of industrial agriculture on one scientist, as though he personally designed decades of government policy, farming practices, and corporate incentives. That's a ridiculous standard. By that logic, every inventor is responsible for every misuse or unintended consequence of their invention forever.
If you want to discuss the environmental tradeoffs of the Green Revolution, that's a legitimate conversation. But that's not what you did. Instead, you injected race into a discussion where it wasn't relevant, built a straw man out of things I never said, and then congratulated yourself for knocking it down.
If your argument requires inventing my position before you can refute it, maybe your argument isn't as strong as you think it is.
ShotDonkey@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 33d
That's a whole mouthful from somebody who (checks notes) started off with some messianic comparisons.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 33d
You are, once again, introducing things that were never part of the discussion and making assumptions about what I was or wasn't saying. Nothing I said was messianic in any way, shape, or form, nor did I bring anything related to that into the conversation.
Please stop.
If this is the kind of discourse you want to have, arguing against things that were never said and inventing positions for the other person to defend, there are plenty of flat Earth videos on YouTube where that style of reasoning will fit right in.
ShotDonkey@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 33d
It might be a US American thing to do this Jesus thing. Same as praising the productivist paradigm still in 2026.
Anyways. I'll leave it here and hope you might draw some inspiration of this: https://spectrejournal.com/the-enduring-fantasy-of-feeding-the-world/ My part of the conversation stops here. Regards
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
So once again, you're claiming there's some kind of Jesus angle here.
Jesus was never brought up. Neither were God, gods, Christianity, or Catholicism. You are once again injecting completely unrelated nonsense into the discussion.
None of that exists in what I said.
Yes, goodbye. You are either incapable of following the conversation or simply arguing with something you invented.
ShotDonkey@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 31d
"Jesus was never brought up."
"Many people say that the most important person in human history is Jesus Christ, but I believe it is Norman Borlaug."
(Clown emoticon)
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 34d
Idk man, them food scientists been up to some strange shit out at the farm and at the food processing plant for like a century now and things have gotten out of hand a little.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 34d
Yeah, we let it get too healthy, I hear ya.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 34d
I'm not sure the goal has been to make the food healthy.. I'm pretty sure the goal has only been to maximize profits and decrease costs within the bounds of whatever is considered legal (including lobbying to maintain legality).
Marn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 35d
You can still have ultra processed organic foods
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 35d
False , I bet you can't even name 63 instances
barnaclebutt@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 33d
I'm 14 and this is deep bullshit. There are different levels of processed food. Nobody is against cooking your food. Countless studies demonstrate that the less processed your food is, the healthier it is for you.
adhdsergio@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
The misunderstanding, and rightly, the confusion, comes like you said from the level of processing. Cooking is considered processing - so these words have little value in reality as they mean different things for different people
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
No there's value to what the commenter said.... but like I said there also has to be some kind of thought into how you are processing because then the varying levels of processing matter. Like you said cooking is considered processing, while I gave the example of making a food oil.
How you cook determines the amount of processing you will have to apply. How I make a food oil will determine the amount of processing I will need to apply.
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
I am not trying to invalidate you. I'm 33 and I think about how something is processed. Though, it's prudent to keep in mind that the further you think about how something is processed, you will eventually come to the realizations about the levels of processing. For example: You could make your own olive, grape and peanut oil with less processing or more depending on how you do it.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
Nah
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 34d
Processed food was designed to make profit.
Holytimes@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 34d
Bread is a professed food and it's not designed for profit. It was designed to make wheat fucking edible.
Homemade sourdough bread is a processed fucking food. For fuck sake.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 34d
That's why its so high quality, healthy and affordable.
hansolo@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 34d
It's to make calories easier to get.
Grains, pulses, meat, and some fruits and veggies need to cooked, i.e. processed, to make them safe or easier to eat.
"Processing" is as minimal as sprouting beans. Removing bran. Cutting into small tiny bits. Warming or heating. Pounded or smashed.
Not all "processed food" is ultra-processed diabetes - inducing poison. A baked potato is a processed food. A steak is a processed food.
Gahidus@lemmus.org · 4 pts · 34d
This is a matter of semantics, linguistics, and basic communication. When someone says processed food, what do they actually mean by that? Do they mean a baked potato, or do they mean a twinkie?
Language and communication don't work on technicalities. If someone says they would like a bowl of fruit, you can't serve them some tomatoes and say well you have to enjoy this! Tomatoes are technically a fruit! Communication occurs only when people accept the intended meaning of what someone is saying rather than the literalist interpretation of it.
hansolo@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 34d
Absolutely correct.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 34d
It was designed to make you pro-fit.
Gatorade, hit me up, I do marketing.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 34d
You are even more unprocessed than unprocessed food.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 34d
Thank you
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 33d
How do I become as unprocessed as you?
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 35d
Even home-grown fruits are not organic.