Food, Inc.

[Gina B]

Having done both, I can't say I have a preference either way.

Same answer. Having done both, I can't say I have a preference either way.

I agree completely, but those concerns should be weighed in light of objective facts, not subjective feelings.


BTW, totally off-topic, what's wrong with ionizing radiation?

Seems odd not to have a preference between two choices.

As for ionizing radiation, here are a couple links that talk about it:

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch23/radiation.php

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae636.cfm

 

[Johnv]

Seems odd not to have a preference between two choices.

I don't see why, since, if you weight both overall with just the facts, there's typically not going to be a significant advantage to one over the other for the average person. Now, if there's a specific advantage in a specific instance, then that's different, but generally, there isn't. Like I've said, I've done both.

As for ionizing radiation, here are a couple links that talk about it:

But there's nothing whatsoever that suggest there's anything harmful about it to the consumer. The idea that people get is that an irradiated food product is radioactive, and that's simply not so. In fact, it's complete ignorance to claim it is.

 

[Gina B]

But there's nothing whatsoever that suggest there's anything harmful about it to the consumer. The idea that people get is that an irradiated food product is radioactive, and that's simply not so. In fact, it's complete ignorance to claim it is.

Who made that argument?
Is there any other argument against this type of processing?

 

[Johnv]

Who made that argument?

No one here. It's a common argument of extreme pro-organic persons. Irradiation was cited in one of your prior posts from the USDA definition, which is why I brought up the question. I didn't mean to imply you had a position on it if that's the way my post came off. Sorry about that.

Is there any other argument against this type of processing?

No, that's the common argument.

 

[Gina B]

My personal issue with it would not be that, as you can see from the links I gave you to read for information.

I do not want this for my kids' food because

1. I'm concerned about possible nutrient loss from this method

2. It is used for some major stuff - I don't trust that it has no negative effects

3. The by-products of using this type of radiation are increased when it is used to treat consumable products. Whenever we can avoid creating toxic products that leave behind toxic waste, it is wise to do so.

4. It goes against my common sense instinct to feed my kids stuff that's been treated by a method that requires some of the most sophisticated safety and security methods known to mankind so that they do not suffer deadly results from exposure. While that one isn't grounded in fact, I have no problem with looking at something and going "nuh-uh, not good." Kinda like that gut instinct I had with Obama. No proof, just common sense kicking in and saying "doesn't look or smell or sound like a good idea and I don't want it at my table."

 

[Johnv]

I'm concerned about possible nutrient loss from this method

Any food treated for pathogen reduction is subject to some form of nutrient loss (for example, plasturization and flash freezing). There's no evidence of a net nutrient loss in irradiated foods vs treated nonirradiated foods.

It is used for some major stuff - I don't trust that it has no negative effects

There's no evidence that said negative effects exist.

The by-products of using this type of radiation are increased when it is used to treat consumable products. Whenever we can avoid creating toxic products that leave behind toxic waste, it is wise to do so.

Any form of treating foods leaves behind waste. The waste left by the irradiation process hasn't been shown to be any more or less of an impact than other forms of food treatment.

It goes against my common sense instinct to feed my kids stuff that's been treated...

Our common sense isn't always based on objectivity. The same "common sense" argument was used to oppose pasteurization in its advent. Irradiation has been used for decades now, and is used in some 40 countries. Common objections raised simply haven't materialized.

 

[Benjamin]

All kinds of diseases, including cancer have been on the rise for decades now. Common sense tells us this is due to what we are exposing ourselves to and putting in our bodies for nutrition. There is no evidence that pacifism in these areas of introducing unnatural stimusus's on us and our our food suplies is not contributing to the root of the problems.

 

[Johnv]

There is no evidence that pacifism... is not contributing...

There's simply no evidence that supports your contention, so all you've got left is to say "it doesn't 'not' prove it. You can't prove a negative.

All kinds of diseases, including cancer have been on the rise for decades now. Common sense tells us this is due to what we are exposing ourselves to and putting in our bodies for nutrition.

If that's so, then common sense is wrong. The most common killer of both men and women is heart disease. The most common contributor to heart disease is eating too much and moving to little.

Eat less and move more. Stop blaming everyone else for what you eat and for not excercizing. If a person can't understand this, that person lacks common sense.

 

[Benjamin]

There's simply no evidence that supports your contention, so all you've got left is to say "it doesn't 'not' prove it. You can't prove a negative.

My point exactly, I was just throwing your own logic backatcha, fer fun:

There's no evidence of a net nutrient loss in irradiated foods vs treated nonirradiated foods.

If that's so, then common sense is wrong. The most common killer of both men and women is heart disease. The most common contributor to heart disease is eating too much and moving to little.

Eat less and move more. Stop blaming everyone else for what you eat and for not excercizing. If a person can't understand this, that person lacks common sense.

So what?! Try going a little deeper my friend, there are "many reasons" that our society is becoming more unhealthy and "many ways" to try and help turn this around.

 

[Johnv]

My point exactly, I was just throwing your own logic backatcha, fer fun:

Hahaha, very funny. Seriously, though, my logic on the topic is objective reasoning. To say "this-or-that is bad for you", but the only support is "prove it doesn't", doesn't bode well for the argument.

So what?! Try going a little deeper my friend...

That sounds quite hypocritical coming from a person who has chosen to lay American's dietary problem on the fast food industry (while the rest of us here are laying the dietary problems on the American, where it rightly belongs).

... there are "many reasons" that our society is becoming more unhealthy...

And it is primary the American dietary consumer who is responsible for it.

 

[Benjamin]

Hahaha, very funny. Seriously, though, my logic on the topic is objective reasoning. To say "this-or-that is bad for you", but the only support is "prove it doesn't", doesn't bode well for the argument.

*1 I’m not here to “argue” every point that goes beyond your “Golden Rule” of eating less and moving more for good health!

*2 I’ve addressed “your” principles of “objective reasoning” more than once, so stop patting yourself on the back with your intellectual reasoning abilities, I’m simply not impressed with your logical reasoning…K?

*3 I’ve previously tried to ask you nicely to quit being a troll in this forum about anything that goes beyond your “Golden Rule”:

Originally Posted by Benjamin:
Eating less and moving more is only part of the battle and I like to go into more depth than that concerning good physical fitness lifestyle habits and to promote better health and awareness. With that in mind, I would ask you to please not take the contrary every time I go beyond the “Golden Rule” (eating less and moving more) of better health for sake of argument. It would make for nothing but ugly and/or result in a boring new forum with only argument happening over any greater depth.

Examples of what I care to go beyond from this forum:

Originally Posted by Johnv:
“You're right, we don't need diet dogmas, because in and of themselves, they dont' work. We need to change our living attitude: Eat less, and move more.”

“People are overwight because they are forced to eat more and move less.”

“The answer is eating right and moving more.”

“People aren't obese because of primarily what they eat, they're obese because of primarily how much you eat.”

“The golden rule for achieving a healthy weight (and not just losing weight for the sake of losing weight) is EAT LESS, MOVE MORE.”

“Eating right and eating less will only get you so far. If you're not moving, you won't lose much weight.”

“No, doubt, you'll find some way to blame the fast food industry for America's falure to eat less and move more.”

Originally Posted by Johnv:
That's a bit vague. Perhaps if you could tell us exactly what those methods are, and what specific health problems they're leading to.

*4 I've been far from vague to get a simple point across to you as to why (my motivation) I participate in this forum:So far all I conclude from your input in this forum is: A) You have some sort of extreme pacifist agenda and/or personal hang ups concerning ANYTHING that goes beyond your “Golden Rule” and/or a false pride and arrogance in your abilities to be an “objective philosophical debater” while in reality just glorying in your intellectual abilities to continue in meaningless rhetorical argument.

Perhaps in your “intellectual objectivism” you could tell us exactly what you “wouldn’t” strive to argue about like a single-minded, highly prone to offense as a defense, quarrelsome overweight person that just was just approached by a health conscientious objector’s concerns about society’s blindly accepting all, or even any part of the government’s, FDA’s, private industry’s manipulation of our food sources and other exposure allowances, and that states it as in reasonable probability as an unhealthy choice? Something that should be avoided, or a method of positive lifestyle change that wouldn’t necessarily agree with the status quo, REGARDLESS of “ones” pride in ability to be contrarily asinine by demanding reliance on some form of indisputable evidence before intelligently and consciously making a healthy lifestyle change?

Originally Posted by Johnv:
That sounds quite hypocritical coming from a person who has chosen to lay American's dietary problem on the fast food industry (while the rest of us here are laying the dietary problems on the American, where it rightly belongs).

…and I’ve also already clearly addressed this above disingenuous strawman issue:

Originally Posted by Benjamin:
I certainly believe in personal responsibilty and haven't said other wise, (not saying you suggested that), but I do not disregard the responsibilty of the fast food industry as an enabler that supplies that garbage while being motivated to form habits in our children (who eat there at an ever increasing rate) by marketing play houses and good ole Ronald to them in an effort to establish these habits.

Originally Posted by Benjamin:
The claim that a person is 100% responsible for what they eat, although true, does not change the truth that the fast food industry is 100% responsible for pushing that garbage on people and the effects it has on them.

 

[Johnv]

*1 I’m not here to “argue” every point that goes beyond your “Golden Rule” of eating less and moving more for good health!

But you are ignoring the reality that most of the health concerns yoru being up are mitigated by said golden rule.

*2 I’ve addressed “your” principles of “objective reasoning” more than once

But you've failed to refute objective reasoning. The OP topic is the film "Food Inc", and it's claims. Although a well-made film, the film is neither objective nor accurate, and in some cases false, as previously noted.

*3 I’ve previously tried to ask you nicely to quit being a troll in this forum...

By your own definition of what a troll is, you must acknowlege that you are a troll.

*4 I've been far from vague...

Actually, you have. You've made a lot of broad claims, but never once provide factual support for them. Whenever I ask for specific examples, you call me a pacifist or some such nonsense.

…and I’ve also already clearly addressed this above disingenuous strawman issue:

That's funny, considering the fact that your argument by definition are strawman arguments.