Fight! Fight For Life!

Kathleen's Tip Jar (9.70 / 10)

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 12:56:53 PM CST

Thank you maryscott (10.00 / 3)

thank you thank you!

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 13:34:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is a great rule of thumb. (7.20 / 5)

"Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food."

No Cheezy-Pooofs?




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 13:43:01 PM CST

with a couple of exceptions, maybe? (7.00 / 3)

tempeh and tofu, ancient foods from the East might not fit that rule of thumb.

(Although Kathleen's concern about genetically modified soybeans might rule out these two items.)

And you must have an exception for Cheezy-Poofs!

laughter makes you live longer

---

by: danl318 @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 13:56:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good point (0.00 / 0)

Ruled out for me would be anything with soy, including soy sauce, salsa and anything else Mexican, tibouleh, and anything Chinese like.

On the other hand, unlike the scientifically challenged anti-intellectuals we have now, she would recognize (correctly) GMO corn as food.  Heck, my grandfather might have grown some in his garden.

No cheezy poofs.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 02:06:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

for you Mad (8.33 / 3)

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 08:24:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dis- (7.67 / 3)

gusting!

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 17:29:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that's a special batch of Cheezy Poofs just for Mad, right? (7.00 / 1)

- Made from genetically modified corn
- Orange color derived from freeze-dried salsa
- Salty taste added with soy sauce

laughter makes you live longer

---

by: danl318 @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 19:33:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You know, danl (0.00 / 0)

An odd thing about websites like this is that people tend to take one thing a person says and then assign them to a bin.

As you may have noticed, I wouldn't eat cheesy poofs.  But i would certainly have no problem eating something made from GMO corn.  It helps to know the science.  So far, I have not seen one argument against eating something made with GMO corn that made any sense whatsoever.

For yellow colour, one might use E160b.  A few years ago I ran into a bunch of people on the net who were spreading the word that this dye was killing people right and left.  Of course it is a natural plant product that has been used for centuries in native foods as a colorant and as a flavouring.

I generally never add salt to anything.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 00:11:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

but I'm not putting you in a bin (8.00 / 2)

Mad, I admire your fierce independence and integrity. You fit only in the bin labeled "Madscientist."  

laughter makes you live longer

---

by: danl318 @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 14:48:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, danl (5.50 / 2)

I overreacted.  I think it was the same day that someone said I was friends with the "teabaggers."

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 04:24:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"friends with the 'teabaggers'"??? (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, that would get my knickers in a twist too.

laughter makes you live longer

---

by: danl318 @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 06:17:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No cheezy-pooofs (6.00 / 3)

rule number 16 in the book, Food Rules

Buy your snacks at the farmer's market.

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 13:57:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No Cheezy-Pooofs. (3.86 / 7)

Well?

How 'bout Jimmy Dean's Pancake and Sausage on a stick?

{With chocolate chips.}

No?




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 14:01:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Only for the zombies!!! n/t (8.00 / 4)

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 14:05:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

nope! (8.00 / 3)

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 21:01:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's see, Karma (7.00 / 1)

My grandmother made pancakes, she sometimes served sausage, and she definitely used chocolate chips in her cookies.  No doubt she would see these as food.

I actually purchased this item!  Of course, i wouldn't eat it, but it is such a great product, i couldn't resist.  You have to reward people who think outside the box.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 02:10:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

your food (7.33 / 3)

should not come in a box!

THAT is thinking (& eating!) outside the box!!

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 08:49:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ria (0.00 / 0)

No boxes in your pantry?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 17:30:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not many. (10.75 / 4)

i never buy frozen dinners or pizza. or cake mix or brownie mix or hamburger helper or any stuff like that. my raisins come in a box, but i'm hoping my grapes will do better this year since they've been pruned & i won't have to buy raisins any more.
i DO buy butter in a box. but we are looking for a milk cow (i really want a mini-moo )then i can make my own butter.
i'm already making my own yogurt. & sometimes my own ice cream.

the thing is mad.... i try not to buy anything processed or pre-cooked. i buy dried beans & cook them myself (pintos, kidneys, black-eyed, limas, garbanzos, black, navy, pinks, & those itty bitty ones i can't never remember the name of) about the only cans i buy are canned fruit. my veg i buy either fresh or frozen.

i will have a BIG garden this year & i'll be canning & freezing the majority of my vegetables again...enough to last through until next spring. i'm hoping to grow enough beans that i can dry my own beans to last thru winter.
(small garden may 2008)

every bit of processing takes some of the nutrition OUT of your food. that is most of why people our age say "gosh, tomatoes sure don't taste as good as they did when i was a kid" well, hell NO they don't! monsanto has bought up many of the small seed companies & quit selling many of the heirloom variety seeds. they want to sell their seed (that you must puchase every year) & the farms grow that same type vegetable too. it is hybridized to be able to be picked green, shipped 1,000 miles, have the perfect shape & still arrive at your store looking like a tomato. the thing is it no longer tastes like a tomato.
i have some heirloom brandywine seeds that grow some of the damn ugliest tomatos ever... but DAMN they're delicious!

the closer you are to your food, the better it is for you, the better it tastes & (as an added bonus) the more you are taking profits away from greedhead corporations.

there is really no need for anyone to buy pre-chopped vegetables. are we as a society so damn lazy we can't even chop vegetables any more?
gha!
if so, we deserve to die from all the clorox & chemicles they wash those vegetables with!

now i DO realize not everyone has the land or inclination to garden. & that's fine. but you (not just you mad, i mean the everybody reading- you)can buy from a farmers market, support those who grow food near you, support your community. you can look into joining a CSA. if nothing else you can buy fresh from your grocery store.

there's LOTS we can do to get fresh wholesome food & fight the corporations.

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 19:47:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

those pre-chopped vegetables (9.00 / 2)

bug the hell out of me.  I'm sure the people who buy them feel virtuous about buying them, because they've convinced themselves they're eating healthy, but I'd bet most of their nutrients are gone.  They're also ridiculously expensive and overpackaged.

I'm just sad that my gorgeous tomato plants succumbed to the freeze last month.  I guess it's not too late to start over, but I'd better hurry or it will be too hot for them to set fruit by the time they start to blossome.

Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 20:14:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What? (1.50 / 2)

No hamburger helper?

Why would anyone have need of such a product?

I have soy milk in a box, oatmeal, Graham crackers, and those strawberry frosted mini wheats.  Fact is, I've had a taste for artificial strawberry flavour since I was a kid.  It's quite different from strawberry.  My daughter has the same taste buds.  My dad had me tasting things analytically from a young age.  (He was a chemist.)

Like i said above to kathleen, I've been on this since I was a boy.  I'm just not into the conspiracy theories, the enemy identification, or the anti-science stuff.  this includes the demonization of Monsanto based on half truths and such.  (find out why Monsanto's GMO plants don't set seeds.  they did, originally.)

when i was a kid, my mom and my grandfather had a rather large garden every year.  We ate fresh vegetables from the garden all summer long.  We had fresh apples from the trees in the neighborhood.  Can't get much fresher than picked from the tree!  And the worms provided a little extra protein!

My mother spent a month canning every year, and we ate from that stuff all winter.  Since many women canned in our little town, such things were traded so that food variety might actually be greater in winter.  Farms in the area always had a little stand to sell things you might not grow.

We also had this thing called "seasonality."  I miss it. There was nothing like the first strawberries, grown locally.  Raspberries and blackberries were the result of a day up in the hills.  The jams and jellies were enjoyed all year.

A few years ago, I grew most of the ingredients for my staple food, habenaro salsa, myself.  (Give me bread and salsa, and i am a contented person.)

Of course, all of this depended on something that is rarer now:  the stay-at-home mother with plenty of time to grow, tend, harvest, prepare, and cook food.  My bet is that if we went back to that kind of arrangement, we'd be eating a lot less prepared food, and a lot more home made and fresh food.  It would also help to get rid of TV, radio, Ipods, cell phones, computers, and all the other stuff that distracts us from long days sitting on the porch waving at passing walkers, or lying in the grass contemplating the clouds.

So...

if so, we deserve to die from all the clorox & chemicles they wash those vegetables with!

Washing chemicals are not the problem.  They are actually the solution (little joke there).  This is the kind of thing that sounds scary and causes hysteria.  Like that phony Alar on apples scare, which probably had the effect of actually raising the amount of cancer.    

there's LOTS we can do to get fresh wholesome food & fight the corporations.

We can eat better if we have the time and money to do so.

I'm not interested in fighting the corporations.  They are going to produce what people buy.  Selling people what hey want is usually considered a service.  But you know me, I'd even legalize marijuana and heroin!

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 00:58:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

look (8.67 / 3)

i'm not going to argue with you about this & i'm not being hysterical. i've done my research.

monsanto develops seed that will only grow with chemicles that monsanto sells. they will not produce viable seed that will grow. this puts farmers in debt to monsanto much like "i owe my soul to the company store"

they have also bought up many small seed companies & quit selling many different varieties of heirloom seed. many of their hybrid seeds grow plants that will not produce viable seed.

their GMO corn infects other farmers corn fields because corn pollen floats on the wind. then monsanto accuses the farmer of having/developing a patented seed & sues the crap out of him. monsanto's GMO Corn Linked to Organ Damage....& it's not just corn they're doing this with.

monsanto is trying to gain Concentration in Agriculturemuch like wal-mart & lowe's did for shopping at different local stores.

and monsanto wants to do this worldwide

so. don't tell me about monsanto. i DO know what i'm talking about.

yes. lack of time, stay at home moms is part of the problem. also the break up of extended families as people move far away from home.
but.
there are farmers who DO raise wholesome food- Support Them!

& make the time to cook for yourself from scratch. put up some of your own food by canning or freezing. it's a very satisfying feeling & puts you one step close to your food.

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 08:15:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You know, Ria (0.00 / 1)

What you seem to have missed is that i agree with almost everything you say about how we should eat.

i've done my research.

I kind of resent it when someone thinks i haven't.  I knew the next day after the first GMO was created, years ago.  (It was a bacterium.  My area of study.)

Here's the thing, if you've done the research, just link me to it.  Although articles in scientific journals are not generally available, the abstracts are.  Now, I'm just speaking softly here.  You gave me two links about BMO corn.  Neither link was to a scientific source, not even a reputable popular compiler like Scientific American, readable by anyone with a high school education.  (One would never rest with this source, but it can be a useful way into the research.)

So here is a part of the problem.  Have you read the actual study?  Have you read criticisms of the study by scientists and government organizations?  Surely this is a part of doing your research and knowing about the topic.

One reason i ask is the title of the Huffington Post article, which is:  "
Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals."  This is an example of the hysteria i was talking about.  In fact, the study says nothing like this.  Had you read the study, you would know this, and would not have linked to Huffington Post.  Your other link is to a site that one could not call objective, and makes the same mistake.  Here is what the authors say:

Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity.

Not even close to "organ damage."

The paper itself is suspect for many reasons.  First, it is published in what critics call a Journal of questionable quality."  It is a pay for publish journal, which may mean that the authors could not get the paper accepted by a top flight peer-reviewed scientific journal.  The journal itself may claim to be peer-reviewed, although i didn't see such a claim, but if you go to the submissions section, you will find that the authors themselves are asked to suggest reviewers!

The "study" itself is merely a reworking of the same data from the original studies done by and for Monsanto, not new research.  The authors criticize the original studies for being too small, but seem to have missed the irony that if their criticism is true, it also applies to their own study!

There are also many internal problems with their paper, including a faulty statistical analysis and an absolute failure to even suggest a mechanism for the effects they think they see.

It took me less than an hour to read your links, their study, and two critiques from the Discover magazine blog.  I highly recommend to everyone that before discussing this news item, one read the article itself and some reaction to it by scientists.

Here's the article cited.  (Scroll up to get to the top of the article.) The link was in your sources, as it should be.

Here's the fist Discover article.  It's a quick response article written when the study hit the news, and is very short.

And here's the second Discover blog article, written a couple of days later.  The article contains some new questions about the study, and also includes responses by the lead investigator of the study to criticisms in the first article.  (That's how it is done in science!)

Both of these articles come with rather good comment sections, although among the mostly thoughtful comments are a few trolls and people biased one way or another, mostly against GMOs.  Overall, the articles are even handed, and many of the comments are too, even when there is disagreement.

There was one farmer who wrote that he used a GM corn for a few years, and it did exactly what Monsanto said it would do.  But in, I think, the fourth year, a bunch of his cattle died.  Now, the farmer is not a scientist, and we can know this because he said they died of mycotoxins, which must have come from the GM corn they were fed.  Of course, this makes no sense.

You might want to check out the youTube interview with the lead investigator linked in the second Discover article.  (Although I did notice that the interviewer/poster repeated the mistake cited in his graphics!)

Ria, this is what i do before presenting stuff here.  Everyone on this site is smart enough to do this minimum, to read and evaluate the original source, and to read responses to the original source.  Particularly with scientific claims, i would avoid quoting or citing what non-science sites say.

You've been patient.  Just a couple of comments.

monsanto develops seed that will only grow with chemicles that monsanto sells.

This is false.  Here's how it works.  These plants are genetically engineered to contain a gene, originally isolated from Agrobacter, whose products confers resistant to Glyphosate, the herbicide in question.  Monsanto's brand name for glyphosate-based herbicide is "Round-Up."  So naturally, they call the seeds from these plants "Round-Up Ready."  But what it means is that if you plant these seeds, you can control weeds by spraying with glyphosate.  That can be any glyphosate product, not just Monsanto's.  (There is no patent anymore.)  The seeds will do just fine without spraying with glyphosate if weeds are controlled by another means.  Obviously, you wouldn't need glyphosate or any other herbicide in a garden, where weeds can be controlled by hand.  So it's intended for use where weed control has to be handled with herbicide.  (This relates to the need for mass food production.)  Glyphosate was originally favoured because it was less toxic to humans than those herbicides it replaced, and also less likely to get into runoff, although, of course, it is toxic, and it does get into runoff, mostly from spraying on hard surfaces, as in "cosmetic" use in cities.

In four years, Monsanto's patents on seeds begin to run out.  (That's why they are making different kinds.)

The lead researcher mentions a problem with the patents in this area.  Even worse is the fact that actual patents can be taken on genetic material.  In fact, if I recall correctly, a person whose genetic material was taken from a cancer sued the University who had patented it for a share of the profits and lost.  These biological patents are a huge source of income for Universities, who license them to companies like Monsanto.

btw, two of the GMOs in the study were Bt corn.  As you must know, Bt the pesticide is the only pesticide that can be used on organic food.  It is a toxin for insects made originally by Bacillus thuringiensis, a common soil bacteria.  It has been extensively tested, and has never shown any toxicity in mammals.  Bt (you see why it's called that) GMOs incorporate the gene from the bacteria (along with regulatory elements) which makes the toxin.  So far, Bt toxin being used for decades with very little resistance built up in those insects against which it acts.

make the time to cook for yourself from scratch

What do you think i do?

Anyway, I asked above why most of Monsanto's seeds grow into plants which do not set seeds.  Let me give you a hint:  this trait was developed NOT because they could sell seed every year.  However, that side effect has certainly turned out pretty well for them.  Now, what is the real reason this trait was developed?

Note, Ria, that i wrote this with love....

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 06:23:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You know Mad (10.50 / 4)

you break my heart.

I almost deleted this whole essay and quit MLW because of it.

The whole point here was not for you to find some little thing to argue about and derail the purpose of the post, which is what you did and do so often.

This post was written because I care about this subject not because I want to have to spend pointless hours digging up research to prove anything to satisfy you.  I have no desire to win anything which seems to be the game you play when blogging

I know you wrote this to Ria but you are stabbing me and diminishing the importance of this subject.

So with this I have to walk away from MLW for a while because emotional I can't take this.

You go ahead and defend Monsanto until the cows come home, you win.  That's what you want to hear? You win.

The purpose was this......

Rules Worth Following, for Everyone's Sake
The New York Times
February 2, 2010

By Jane E. Brody

In the more than four decades that I have been reading and writing about the findings of nutritional science, I have come across nothing more intelligent, sensible and simple to follow than the 64 principles outlined in a slender, easy-to-digest new book called 'Food Rules: An Eater's Manual," by Michael Pollan.

Mr. Pollan is not a biochemist or a nutritionist but rather a professor of science journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. You may recognize his name as the author of two highly praised books on food and nutrition, "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto" and "The Omnivore's Dilemma." (All three books are from Penguin.) If you don't have the time and inclination to read the first two, you can do yourself and your family no better service than to invest $11 and one hour to whip through the 139 pages of "Food Rules" and adapt its guidance to your shopping and eating habits.

Chances are you've heard any number of the rules before. I, for one, have been writing and speaking about them for decades. And chances are you've yet to put most of them into practice. But I suspect that this little book, which is based on research but not annotated, can do more than the most authoritative text to get you motivated to make some important, lasting, health-promoting and planet-saving changes in what and how you eat.

Reasons to Change

Two fundamental facts provide the impetus Americans and other Westerners need to make dietary changes. One, as Mr. Pollan points out, is that populations who rely on the so-called Western diet -- lots of processed foods, meat, added fat, sugar and refined grains -- "invariably suffer from high rates of the so-called Western diseases: obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer." Indeed, 4 of the top 10 killers of Americans are linked to this diet.

As people in Asian and Mediterranean countries have become more Westernized (affluent, citified and exposed to the fast foods exported from the United States), they have become increasingly prone to the same afflictions.

The second fact is that people who consume traditional diets, free of the ersatz foods that line our supermarket shelves, experience these diseases at much lower rates. And those who, for reasons of ill health or dietary philosophy, have abandoned Western eating habits often experience a rapid and significant improvement in their health indicators.

I will add a third reason: our economy cannot afford to continue to patch up the millions of people who each year develop a diet-related ailment, and our planetary resources simply cannot sustain our eating style and continue to support its ever-growing population.

In his last book, Mr. Pollan summarized his approach in just seven words: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." The new book provides the practical steps, starting with advice to avoid "processed concoctions," no matter what the label may claim ("no trans fats," "low cholesterol," "less sugar," "reduced sodium," "high in antioxidants" and so forth).

As Mr. Pollan puts it, "If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don't."

Do you already avoid products made with high-fructose corn syrup? Good, but keep in mind, sugar is sugar, and if it is being added to a food that is not normally sweetened, avoid it as well. Note, too, that refined flour is hardly different from sugar once it gets into the body.

Also avoid foods advertised on television, imitation foods and food products that make health claims. No natural food is simply a collection of nutrients, and a processed food stripped of its natural goodness to which nutrients are then added is no bargain for your body.

Those who sell the most healthful foods -- vegetables, fruits and whole grains -- rarely have a budget to support national advertising. If you shop in a supermarket (and Mr. Pollan suggests that wherever possible, you buy fresh food at farmers' markets), shop the periphery of the store and avoid the center aisles laden with processed foods. Note, however, that now even the dairy case has been invaded by products like gunked-up yogurts.

Follow this advice, and you will have to follow another of Mr. Pollan's rules: "Cook."

"Cooking for yourself," he writes, "is the only sure way to take back control of your diet from the food scientists and food processors." Home cooking need not be arduous or very time-consuming, and you can make up time spent at the stove with time saved not visiting doctors or shopping for new clothes to accommodate an expanding girth.

Although the most wholesome eating pattern consists of three leisurely meals a day, and preferably a light meal at night, if you must have snacks, stick to fresh and dried fruits, vegetables and nuts, which are naturally loaded with healthful nutrients. I keep a dish of raisins and walnuts handy to satisfy the urge to nibble between meals. I also take them along for long car trips. Feel free to use the gas-station restroom, but never "get your fuel from the same place your car does," Mr. Pollan writes.

Treating Treats as Treats

Perhaps the most important rules to put into effect as soon as possible are those aimed at the ever-expanding American waistline. If you eat less, you can afford to pay more for better foods, like plants grown in organically enriched soil and animals that are range-fed.

He recommends that you do all your eating at a table, not at a desk, while working, watching television or driving. If you're not paying attention to what you're eating, you're likely to eat more than you realize.

But my favorite tip, one that helped me keep my weight down for decades, is a mealtime adage, "Stop eating before you're full" -- advice that has long been practiced by societies as diverse as Japan and France. (There is no French paradox, by the way: the French who stay slim eat smaller portions, leisurely meals and no snacks.)

Practice portion control and eat slowly to the point of satiation, not fullness. The food scientists Barbara J. Rolls of Penn State and Brian Wansink of Cornell, among others, have demonstrated that people eat less when served smaller portions on smaller plates. "There is nothing wrong with special occasion foods, as long as every day is not a special occasion," Mr. Pollan writes. "Special occasion foods offer some of the great pleasures of life, so we shouldn't deprive ourselves of them, but the sense of occasion needs to be restored."

Here is where I can make an improvement. Ice cream has been a lifelong passion, and even though I stick to a brand lower in fat and calories than most, and limit my portion to the half-cup serving size described on the container, I indulge in this treat almost nightly. Perhaps I'll try the so-called S policy Mr. Pollan says some people follow: "No snacks, no seconds, no sweets -- except on days that begin with the letter S."

I am so done with you.

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:28:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

OK, Kathleen (0.00 / 1)

We're done if you like.  what i simply did here was agree with all your positive points and offer some facts.

Note that this post you responded to was (purposely) not addressed to you.  it addresses some claims that Ria made.

But this breaks my heart:

This post was written because I care about this subject not because I want to have to spend pointless hours digging up research to prove anything to satisfy you.

You see, I would think that if you cared about the subject, you would spend a few minutes, like i did, to support what you were going to say to satisfy yourself.

You go ahead and defend Monsanto until the cows come home, you win.  That's what you want to hear?

I didn't defend Monsanto.  In fact, I don't like them.  I didn't like them when they were a German company, even.  

So, since we are so done, maybe just ask yourself this one:  when presented with a citation that says something that the original article cited did not say, is inflammatory, and is just plain wrong, what is the moral and truthful thing to do?  How is your cause served by misinformation?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:03:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Mad, you seem to turn just about everybody against you (8.50 / 2)

It must be them. Right?

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:15:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't delete the diary. (6.00 / 3)

Just ignore the giant, aggressive, paragraphs long distraction. It only gets worse if you try to engage him. He's a contrarian, which means that he'll find some way to disagree with almost anything you say, even if it means he's disagreeing with something he said (or implied) half way up the page. Giant waste of time. And when he's indulged in this little exercise, the ensuing conversation can suck all the life and all the interest out of a comment thread, until you can't help but want to delete the entire thing. I can't abide anyone whose need for attention is so great that they'll choke the oxygen out of another person's diary discussion this way. Believe me. Ignoring it, or giving short answers, without expectation of resolution, is the only safe path.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:55:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Kathleen (5.00 / 2)

It may help to perceive Mad has having some kind of personality disorder.

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:24:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

sorry (7.50 / 2)

i can't read scientific journals.
i don't have a high school education so i can't understand them.

but i've read these (& you should too)

Food Giant's Power Tactics

Roundup Kills More Than Weeds

Monsanto-Funded Research Echoes Organic Center's "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use" Report

Monsanto "Seed Police" Scrutinize Farmers

Plowing for Profits

The Monsanto Machine

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Happy-Homesteader/Monsanto-Buying-Seed-Companies.aspx

& i've read these

Is Agribusiness Making Food Less Nutritious?

Industrial Farming is Giving us Less Nutritious Food

Genetically Modified Foods Pose Huge Health Risk

Are Chemicals Killing Us?

When more grain equals fewer nutrients

Organic Food Is All That, and More. Just Eat It.

ACTION ALERT:Genetically Modified Alfalfa Threatens Organic Agriculture

Local Food Movement Thrives Thanks to Entrepreneurship

HEALTHY PEOPLE, HEALTHY PLANET

How Do Your Eggs Stack Up?

Meet Real Free-Range Eggs

The Amazing Benefits of Grass-fed Meat

if you draw a different conclusion than i do...GREAT!

but i really don't want to hear any more from you about this subject. or really any other.

i'm damned tired of finding long tirades from you being O So Sure that only you are thinking correctly.

in fact i won't be reading or replying to your comments for quite some time.

i've tried really hard with you. bent over backwards once, over several days, to explain to you how your manner of reply is very off-putting.

i'm sorry, but i am done with you.

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:47:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

When you bend over backwards for someone like Mad (5.00 / 2)

you simply make the problem worse. It's doubtful anything can help him here, but in my experience the best approach is ruthless compassion.

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:29:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

i AM (0.00 / 0)

being compassionate.
you don't want me to say what i'm really thinking/feeling.

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:44:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually I do (4.00 / 1)

want you to say exactly what you're really thinking and feeling. Utter honesty is part of what being ruthlessly compassionate is all about.

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 13:29:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

impeccable (10.00 / 1)

 manners prevent me doing that.
& also great heaping portions of empathy that make me know how i'd feel if that were said to me.

sometimes being ruthlessly compassionate is plainly stating the facts as you see them & then stepping away from the situation.

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 15:12:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

digdugboy (0.00 / 0)

Actually I do  
want you to say exactly what you're really thinking and feeling.

Do you want me to say exactly what i am really thinking and feeling?

Could you provide us with a list of those you would allow to speak honestly, and a list of those you would not allow to speak honestly?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:08:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That would certainly be an improvement (0.00 / 0)

over your contrarian douchebag bullshit.

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:11:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's see (0.00 / 0)

You say:

That would certainly be an improvement  (0.00 / 0)

over your contrarian douchebag bullshit.

And you tell me I'm the bad guy because my tone is bad.  Please show kme in my reply to RiaD about the Huffington Post stuff where my tone was that bad.  I didn't call her or her stuff "douchebag."  And i didn't call her stuff "bullshit."  I followed her links, read them, did a little digging in followup, and told her a little about what i found, and provided links so sahe could go there and make up her own mind.  Why is that wrong?

I also explained some science where she had stated a common misconception.  What would be preferable?

And what makes you think I don't say exactly what I'm thinking?  While i didn't talk about my feelings much in that post, I DID say exactly what i was thinking.  And i did it without on scintilla of abuse.  Something you might try.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:32:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I applaud you, digdugboy (11.00 / 1)

In admitting your love of "ruthless compassion," you have revealed much about yourself.

'Ruthless,' of course, means "having no pity : merciless, cruel."

I believe such acts of self-honesty should be rewarded, as i have attempted to do here.

Well done, sir!

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:14:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You've alienated (0.00 / 0)

Me
Curmudgette
Edger
Ria
Kathleen

Is there anyone I've missed? I'd like to make the list complete.


Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:28:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Lots (0.00 / 0)

The list goes on.

I've alienated everyone who values one who agrees with him more than one who says what he thinks.

I've alienated all those who told me what was in my mind but were wrong.

Now, read this carefully:  I'm not saying that everyone on the list is close-minded or unwilling to hear different opinions, but what i will say is that if i never expressed what i really thought, there would be no one on the list.

digdugboy, as i remember, you once alienated quite a few people here.  I think you took an hiatus.  i remember thinking at the time that I wasn't quite sure what the ruckus was about, but some of it had to do with charges that I had no way of evaluating.  So, if you remember, i didn't join in.  I also thought many of your comments, especially when on point and not abusive, were interesting, even if i didn't end up agreeing with them.  I am glad you got some things cleared up (i think that's what happened), and came back.

Now, I've asked for your help in asking some questions.  Please don't duck them.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:41:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're asking the wrong question (0.00 / 0)

You already have all the answers to the question you should be asking -- why you alienate so many people.

Here, try answering this one:

How is it that a self-described misanthrope liberal like Curmudgette can have a cordial and friendly conversation with a conservative like Phil, but you manage to alienate the kindest, most loving heart on MLW -- Kathleen?


Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 19:32:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

asking the wrong question (0.00 / 0)

I was always told that there is no such thing as a stupid question.  I asked for your help, and you ducked again.

Do you have a cordial relationship with C."  if so, should i follow your lead and refuse to answer her on point, but refer to her writing as "douchebag bullshit?"

Apparently, my efforts to put little emotional content in my substantive responses invites readers to supply their own.  This is much less likely to happen face to face.  I am almost always truly shocked when I write the equivalent of "two and two is four, check it here" with a link, and someone comes back to tell me that I have committed some crime.

If I have a weakness, I have noticed that I have a tendency to mirror the tone of the post to which i am responding reflexively, without being aware of it.  I have attempted to be more aware.  For instance, I didn't mirror the tone of your "douchebag bullshit" post.

I am very disturbed that kathleen and Ria feel alienated by what i wrote on this thread.  I see no reason for it in what i wrote, but i am not privy to their thoughts and feelings.  I asked you for specific help, but you just ducked.  So far.

How is it that a self-described misanthrope liberal like Curmudgette can have a cordial and friendly conversation with a conservative like Phil

Phil has tact, meaning that he doesn't always say what he thinks or feels.  Sometimes he has said a little more, and he has often been jumped for what he said.  Some have even demanded his banning!

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 20:01:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I ducked? (0.00 / 0)

I was always told that there is no such thing as a stupid question.  I asked for your help, and you ducked again.

There is such thing as a stupid question. When you ask for my help you don't get to decide in which form I offer it. You want to frame my "help" in a manner that permits you to debate it in your contrarian way. The post to which I am responding is a perfect example of that.

Do you have a cordial relationship with C."  If so, should i follow your lead and refuse to answer her on point, but refer to her writing as "douchebag bullshit?"

Actually my relationship with Curmudgette is cordial and it takes some consideration and give and take on both of our parts for it to be that way. For an example of that, you might take a moment to review my response to her post on my "Outing Sofia" diary and her reply to my response. You will note that I didn't challenge or question her thoughts or feelings. I acknowledged them. That means a lot to other people.

Apparently, my efforts to put little emotional content in my substantive responses invites readers to supply their own.  This is much less likely to happen face to face.  I am almost always truly shocked when I write the equivalent of "two and two is four, check it here" with a link, and someone comes back to tell me that I have committed some crime.

Obviously others don't perceive your writing as you claim you intend it. That mismatch between others' perception and your claimed intention is not isolated. It's typical. When anybody tries to tell you why your writing is so perceived, you argue about why everybody else is perceiving you wrongly. You can't control others' perceptions. All you can control is your writing. The fact that you managed to alienate both Kathleen and Ria in the same thread should speak volumes to you, yet all you can offer is that "I am just writing 2 + 2 = 4, it's everybody else's fault." How is that strategy working out for you?

Mad, I am not going to tell you again why I think your writing is so perceived. In the past when I have done so you haven't listened. Instead you tell me why I'm wrong. You claim you are very disturbed by alienating Kathleen and Ria but you look outward, not inward, to discover the reasons. You have a problem. You have to analyze that on your own, because when somebody else tries to analyze it for you, you just argue with their analysis. You don't come across as actually wanting help. Instead, you come across as wanting debate.

Let's look at my original question to you about Phil managing to maintain cordial relations with Curmudgette (who is quite prickly on certain issues) but you managing to alienate Kathleen and Ria. You say "Phil has tact, meaning he doesn't always say what he thinks or feels." Mind-reading, something you frequently accuse others of doing to you?  How do you know he doesn't say what he thinks or feels? Then you duck the remainder of the question by pointing out that some few have demanded his banning for being conservative, while accusing me of ducking your question.

What people say is often less important than how they say it. How you say what you say seems to make people think you are calling them stupid. You write paragraph after paragraph of contrarian debate over the tiniest of disputes and now nobody wants to engage with you here. You need to stop looking at others for the reasons why this is so, and look at yourself.
 

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 09:38:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

digdugboy (11.00 / 1)

Thanks for the extended reply.

first, le6t's take care of this:

You say "Phil has tact, meaning he doesn't always say what he thinks or feels." Mind-reading, something you frequently accuse others of doing to you?

You are exacly right.  i should ave said that I see Phil as possessing and using tact.  Part of the reason for this is that he has stated positions on things, and then when something that is both contrary to his position and abusive is stated, he has either ignored it, or given a mild reply.  So, either he is falsely saying what he thinks in the first place, or choosing not to state it in the second place.  btw, if you think Phil has no tact, make the case.  tis was stated this way so that you would have an opening to tell me that perhaps I should be more tactful.

"I am just writing 2 + 2 = 4, it's everybody else's fault."

of course, I never made such an argument.  And i have never claimed that it is everyone else's fault.  As I have repeatedly stated, it is a matter of miscommunication.  Communication is a two way street.  in this case, it is obvious that my writing is commonly misperceived, which could indicate that there is something in my writing that doesn't work.  (I write like I talk, and it works on that level.  People often come to me for information and advice.  they know that i won't try to fake it when I don't know something.)  So that is why i have been asking for the help.  but you say:

Mad, I am not going to tell you again why I think your writing is so perceived. In the past when I have done so you haven't listened. Instead you tell me why I'm wrong. You claim you are very disturbed by alienating Kathleen and Ria but you look outward, not inward, to discover the reasons. You have a problem. You have to analyze that on your own, because when somebody else tries to analyze it for you, you just argue with their analysis. You don't come across as actually wanting help. Instead, you come across as wanting debate.

here is the crux.  How do we tell the difference between an honest convergence orf opinion and groupthink?

Here's how i see it.

You remember the Moliere play in which someone asked the doctor why opium but people to sleep, and the doctor responded, "Because of its soporific qualities?"  Here, i set about asking, "Why do people find my posts annoying??  The answer is usually, "Because of their annoying qualities."  in some version.  "Because they are argumentative."  this tells me nothing.  I know that those who write these things think they are helpful, but they are not.  Why?  Because they don't tell me what is annoying.  If i go back and review, say, the last fifty posts I've made, i find nothing annoying in most of them.  Many get positive numerical ratings and positive and/;or thoughtful r3esponses.  yet you, puzzled, C., and a few others speak as if thyere is nothing other than annoying in what i write.  People say, "Your posts are annoying" rather than, "that post was annoying."  That's problem one.

Years ago, roysol helped me get out of a few habits that were annoying.  what he did, with great patience, was to show me in the posts what was annoying.  For instance, i had a habit of making my first line something like, "that's douchebag bullshit."  (I actually never went that far.  I'd say, often, "that's idiotic.")  This was a habit from years of seminars.  It amounts to an entrance, a place marker to say, "My turn."  Nobody ever took it personally.  roysol convinced me that it wasn't necessary here, and that it would likely be misundeerstood and taken personally since, he pointed out, this isn't a seminar.  So, i made an effort to change that.  (I might note here that your use of this technique is not rare.)

Lately, i've started asking what in the posts is annoying.  I haven't gotten a specific answer.  i narrowed it to, "what in that post which people found annoying do you find offensive and why?"  This is what roysol told me.

When anybody tries to tell you why your writing is so perceived, you argue about why everybody else is perceiving you wrongly.

That's how you perceive it.  What i perceive is that the conversation and communication gets truncated.  You (pr someone else says I meant this or that, and if I didn't mean this or that, I say what i meant.  Where i come from, this is perfectly normal.  Normally, I would get to restate what i meant, and you would reflect that to see if we came closer to communicating.  What happens  (to me) is that after i say what I actually intended to say in other words, I'm told i am wrong or lying.

Here, in your answer, you were nice enough to use the construct, "you don't come off as wanting help."  Usually I get, "you don't want help."  I thank you very much for that.  It's quite refreshing.

So, let me ask you directly.  In the post above where i answered Ria, and which erveryone found so annoying, I did two things which might have seemed annoying.  First, I followed Ria's links, , did a little digging to find the actual study being discussed, and noted that the account of the study in her sources was overblown and inaccurate.  i then offered some criticisms of the study (believe me, just a couple of the many) and I linked her to the study and just two(2) discussions of the study itself.

My question here is why would anyone find this annoying, if they did?  It's what i want people to do.  i appreciate the effort Ria made to provide me with links, and i am reading them all.

I've been discussing these topics for 40 years.  I once had a conversation with someone on another board, a man from South Africa who had some great ideas about using organic farming in Africa, which covered all the topics addressed on this thread and more.  The conversation lasted a year and a half.  I learned a lot and i think he did as well.  I was more argumentative with him than i am here, and so was he.  Both of us came away from this effort with different positions.  Both of us were aided along the way by other who came in and out of the conversation with specific knowledge and different perspectives.

So, if someone cites a study, why would discussing the study be offensive?  Or, what about my discussion of this study seems offensive?

Another thing i did was to catch a common misconception:  that Round-Up Ready seeds will grow only if used with Monsanto chemicals.  this is incorrect, but a common misconception.  My options here are to let Ria remain with her misconception, in which case she should be very angry with me and feel betrayed, or to simply say, "you're wrong," and nothing else.  instead, I tried to explain what the reality is.  Was there something offensive in my doing this, or in the way i did it?

Helpful would be to give me the words that i used that are offensive, of that are likely to be perceived as offensive.  Even more helpful would be, "You could have said the same thing this way, "......""  

Believe it or not, i do find this kind of stuff helpful.  I'm a slow learner (check out my report cards from school) and need help focusing.

What people say is often less important than how they say it. How you say what you say seems to make people think you are calling them stupid.

Ok.  I've been told in R/L by some, "sometimes when you talk I feel stupid."  Nobody's ever told me that i'm calling them stupid, except my dad, when he became aggressively drunk, and demanded that you agree with everything he said.  if you didn't, he would say, "So I'm stupid, am I?"  At that point we knew the evening was over, and everyone else in the room headed for the hills.  The person who fell into this was in for hell.

You write paragraph after paragraph of contrarian debate over the tiniest of disputes

I do try to be thorough.  What was in my response to Ria that was tiny?  I have a better view of my fellow humans.  I think that if they make a claim, they expect that if someone thinks differently, they will say so, and explain why, offering evidence and argument.  Am I wrong?  After all, they weren't forced to make the claim.

digdugboy, I take your point, and have tken your point for a long time that the way i say things leads to misunderstandings.  I'm looking for help in identifying exactly how this is happening by examining specific cases, so I can make changes.  My goal here is not to argue, it is to have two way communication.

I don't have these problems in general face to face.  I believe that is becausxe of the advantages of being able to see all the non-verbal cues, but also because questions of interpretation can be addressed immediately.

Here, what seems to me to be true is that people interpret things i say in ways i didn't intend.  Despite what you say, i don't blame them in general.  I need to communicate more clearly in ways that lend themszelves to being misinterpreted as to "tone" (whatever that means) or intention.  Repeating thi to me doesn't help me.  I'm looking to advance the analysis.  Looking in the mirror won't help me.  I've been talking this way forever.

Thanks again for your response.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 19:58:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mad, (0.00 / 0)

I am sorry that you're going through this bit of difficulty.

I have no particular desire to critique anyone's style of expression on a blog, but I suppose that if someone writes a diary on a topic that they feel passionate about and any one of us disagrees about this or that aspect, it helps to establish a friendly tone and relationship with that person when responding.

Please understand that I am not saying that you never do that.  You've certainly managed it easily enough with me, but I suspect that this is not the case with others.

So much depends on who we're talking to and our previous interactions with that person.  For example, I can go up to DA and say, "Listen here, Mr. Crazy Man..." and chances are he'll not get offended, but I know that I cannot do that with other people.

This is just like you know that you can kid around with me about Jewish issues and I would not get offended, because I know that you have no ill will whatsoever to Hanukkah Harry and his friends, such as myself.

But, anyway, yeah, I am sorry that you are going through this bit of difficulty... particularly since it is with DDB, my foxhole buddy in the Gilroy Wars.





Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 20:59:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Karma (7.00 / 1)

for the kind words.

Don't take this the wrong way, please.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:26:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Shut up Karma (7.00 / 1)

Douchebag!

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 09:14:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly! n.t (7.00 / 1)

Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:50:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Since I'm posting songs today (7.50 / 2)

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 14:27:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the list goes on (6.00 / 2)

Joools has pretty much left the site because of Mad's hectoring.  There have been many others over the years who have also reached the same conclusion--it's a fruitless endeavor to engage with him, and have quietly (or not so quietly) slipped away.

Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 10:00:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Ria (0.00 / 0)

You may not read this, but I'd like to thank you for all the links.  It must have taken some effort to assemble them.  it's almost like you care, wanting to share with me.

I will read them all.  Scanning the titles, i see only one article that i know i will disagree with.  As i have said, I agree with most of what you and Kathleen say.

i'm damned tired of finding long tirades from you being O So Sure that only you are thinking correctly.

I didn't do any tirades.  That you would characterize my responses as such means that we have a failure to communicate.

I said nothing about my thinking correctly.  I offered links so you could see evidence i found, so that you could make up your own mind.  It seems to me to be the moral and truthful thing to do.  Just as you did here.

Finally:

i can't read scientific journals.
i don't have a high school education so i can't understand them.

this makes me so sad.  I have more faith in your abilities.  And i am sure that i am not the first person who has said something like this to you.

I've been in the same boat when it comes to some fields.  I knew nothing about climate science, for instance.  But when climate change became a topic, I had to learn some, with difficulty, to understand what people were saying.  It took years, and perfection is never the object.

Right here is an interesting article from an actual science journal.  (Link will work for a few weeks.)  this is not an original report of research, but a news summary done right.  it has to do with the effects of living higher (as in up the mountain) on obesity.  I think it's interesting, and i think that it is readable by anyone here.

Perhaps someone could read it and tell me whether i am right or wrong.

And Ria, your working in your garden is much more worthwhile than all the research you could do.  Basically, all i've said on this thread is that this should be the focus, eating better, and the rest is a distraction.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 19:10:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What I disagree with here (6.00 / 3)

is this:

the enemy identification, or the anti-science stuff.  this includes the demonization of Monsanto based on half truths and such.

Half truths and demonization OK Mad where are the half-truths?

Where are the conspiracy theories?  

Just because it sounds that way to you does not make it so?  Just for you to make this statement does not make it so and demonstrates how little you know on the subject.  Sorry, but if you are going to fling around these accusations you had better do some research.

Science yes I love science but keep it out of our food.  As far I as I can see you can not improve on mother nature and every time it is tried it does more damage than good.  So don't engineer my food.

I know Mad your pet peeve is conspiracy theories but this isn't one and for you to imply this only shows how uninformed you are.

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 09:16:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

OK, Kathleen (0.00 / 0)

You know, Kathleen, i hate to get you reacting this way.  but i also hate it when people tell me i don't know something I've been studying for years.

Half truths and demonization OK Mad where are the half-truths?

Where are the conspiracy theories?  

Well, this wasn't directed to you, but the whole field is full of all three.  Read my exchange above with Ria for some examples.

But you said in the original article:

every time we buy food to no longer support the corporations that are killing us for their gain.

I don't think there is much evidence that corporations are killing us.  this is a half-truth at best.  Secondly, this makes the corporation into knowing killers.  That's certainly a demonization.  And to speak as if they are consciously working to kill people is certainly a conspiracy theory.

I've thought a little about how this sort of stuff arises.  I think sometimes we expect corporations (and government) to social service oprganizations who work for the common good of all mankind.  Well, they aren't.  So the tendency is to demonize them because they aren't.

And, as you might expect, "for greed" means absolutely nothing to me.  Imagine that, a corporation that wants to make money!

So, there is plenty of things one can say about Monsanto's practices.  either they are legal or they are not.  I think their patent practices are wrong according to my sense of ethics, but they are legal, made so by your government and other governments.  If we expect corporations to follow our moral principles and react negatively when they don't, we are in for a life of anger and unhappiness.

Science yes I love science but keep it out of our food.

Really?  Just a hundred years ago, pellagra was an epidemic in parts of the US.  Science changed that.  In fact, cooking itself is an instance of science being applied to food.

So don't engineer my food.

Really?  How do you think corn came to have huge ears instead of the small tassels like its ancestor grasses.  That's right:  it was engineered by humans.  Domestic plants and animals, often unable to survive without humans, engineered by humans.  The "Green Revolution," without which starvation would be rampant today in the world, was the result of engineering.

The only difference between GMO engineering and Green Revolution engineering is that the latter is blind, depends on chance, and depends on recognizing changes in genetics of the plant that we then select for.  In GMO, the process is not blind, since we know ahead of time what results we will get, and depends only on the success of the engineering that is done purposely and with full sight.  Plants whose genetics are changed in process before GMO are not tested at all for safety; GMO plants are.

A good example of this is a strain of celery developed old style for use by organic farmers, which caused serious rashes in those who handled it.  They were trying to select for insect resistance, and ended up selecting for a chemical that not only the insects didn't like, but was unusable for humans as well.

I know Mad your pet peeve is conspiracy theories but this isn't one and for you to imply this only shows how uninformed you are.

Hardly my pet peeve, but i do find these little religions an annoyance.  Try this:  corporations are interested in profits; not a surprise.  Food industries make food products that aren't as good in many ways as those you can grow in your garden or make from the things you grow in your garden; this just has to be true.  Foods from your garden are healthier than foods grown en masse;  probably true, although I actually know somebody who died from eating home canned food.  Corporations are trying to kill us out of greed;  conspiracy theory.

As I noted above, the notion that a food producer would try to kill its customers doesn't pass the laugh test.    

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 07:47:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you sure you didn't ghost write (7.33 / 3)

"How To Win Friends and Influence People"?

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 09:26:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

wrong! (6.00 / 2)

You know, Kathleen, i hate to get you reacting this way.

i think you really get off on pissing people off by being contrary.

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:41:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Absolutely wrong (7.00 / 1)

I am amazingly conflict averse.  If i had these conversations on my couch, no one would think my "tone" was bad.

My "contrariness" consists mostly in saying "but what about this...?"  And I have noticed that it can piss people off who don't like their faiths challenged.

As i have said many times, if someone says to me that the subject is a matter of faith for them, and they don't like it challenged, I never speak of the subject to them again.

Thing is, I didn't grow up that way.  And i wasn't trained that way.  I was taught from an early age that when someone said, "but what about this...?" they were doing you a kindness.

Once, on a blog long ago, a poster interrupted my opining about the Patriot Act by suggesting that i actually read it.  He did me the further kindness of providing me a link.  I found out that some of the things i was saying were just wrong.  I had gotten them from other sources.  Is this not a great kindness?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:52:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How is that you are so dreadfully misunderstood? (7.00 / 1)

How could it happen that so many people on this site find you insufferable; even people who have gone out of their way to try to empathize with your position? I guess it's our problem, because of our "religious beliefs" or some other flaw you'd ascribe to us. It can't possibly be you. Nah. It must be our total inability to understand how conflict averse and helpful you really are.

You know Mad. I have never cared for the term "blogwrecker." I think it's thrown around far too much, but in your case, I think it just might apply. You have driven lovely people off this site. You have drastically reduced the participation of others. But, I suppose, in every case their total annoyance with you must rest in their complete misunderstanding of your true, conflict-averse nature. How could so many people be so wrong. Puzzling.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 21:19:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, C. (0.00 / 0)

For the honour of a reply.  You raise some interesting points.

How could it happen that so many people on this site find you insufferable; even people who have gone out of their way to try to empathize with your position?

What's my position that someone could empathize with?  I'm not sure of the referent here.

The answer to the question I guess is miscommunication. Don't you think?

I guess it's our problem, because of our "religious beliefs" or some other flaw you'd ascribe to us.

I've never found "religious beliefs" to be a "flaw."  I'll bet there are those here who do, especially if they are Christian beliefs.  What i say is that convictions are enemies of the truth.

It can't possibly be you. Nah. It must be our total inability to understand how conflict averse and helpful you really are.

Of course you are here putting words into my mind.  If I were to do that to you, you would be rightfully angry.  Why is it OK for you and others to do that?  thing is, i never made any statement like this.  In fact, especially lately, i have been asking people to show me in the post they say is offensive to show me which words were offensive.

Perhaps you would do me the kindness of a try.  The subject here has been my response to RiaD, the post in which she offered me the link to Huffington post which said that a study had shown that three types of GMO corn had caused organ damage.  it's just up the thread.  Where was I offensive in my response?  Please help.

Since i take this as a matter of miscommunication, that automatically involves me in fault.  Communication is a two-way street.  Since so many people have joined in telling me that my stuff is "Douchebag bullshit," an apparently inoffensive way of speaking, then it is obvious to me that i am not communicating very well.  this is why i have been asking for help.

I suppose, in every case their total annoyance with you must rest in their complete misunderstanding of your true, conflict-averse nature.

Why do you suppose that?  i don't.  and I never said anything like this.

Here's the thing.  I model my responses to these substantive essays and comments on the model of letters to journals.  I try not to make it a matter of feelings.  It's usually about information.

Sometimes though, it's different.  Above, I said that I was amazingly conflict averse.  I'm just saying what i think, and what I think to be the truth.  Straightforward.  My wife does all of our "assertiveness" stuff just because i avoid conflicts.  She is sometimes annoyed because I am so conflict averse, and tells me so.

But despite the fact that I said truly what i believe to be true about me, someone i've been around for a long time, Ria tells me I'm wrong, and that I get some secret joy from pissing people off by being contrary.  this isn't my responsibility.  I stated honestly what i thought.  (The odd thing is that this comes up on a thread where i agreed with almost everything she and Kathleen said!)

And above, you read things into my mind that i never said.  I'm not responsible for that, either.  (See how i used specific examples?)

So, help me out.  Look at that response to Ria and tell me where i went wrong.  Please don't tell me what was in my mind.  i already know that.  it is what I put in the response.  So....

How is that you are so dreadfully misunderstood?

That's what i am trying to find out.


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 00:05:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh please. (0.00 / 0)

People have explained to you repeatedly why they find your tone and verbiage unbearable. You simply argue those points, too. You don't appear to have the capacity to take in and process the opinions or feelings of others with any empathy. It is pointless to try to explain it to you, because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't even have enough respect for other people to just leave them alone when they ask you to. You don't respect boundaries. It's insufferable. At some point, Mad, when you get enough negative feedback, from enough varied sources, you need to take a hard look in the mirror. It's called shadow work. I highly recommend it.

Statements like this insult my intelligence.

I've never found "religious beliefs" to be a "flaw."  I'll bet there are those here who do, especially if they are Christian beliefs.  What i say is that convictions are enemies of the truth.

Not a flaw; only harboring an enemy of truth. Unbelievable. I'm sure you also mean nothing derogatory when you tell people they are "chanting" or "bleating." Honestly, Mad. I don't know how many insults you expect people to take, and still accept it when you say you're not insulting them.

Whatever. I've wasted enough time and battery power on the fruitlessness of any discourse with you. Grind the rest of this to dust on your own time.  

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 00:21:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Madscientist = world's ultimate contrarian (7.50 / 2)

no more, no less. Take Mad as he is.  If his comments bug you, ignore them.

Personally I like the way that Mad challenges me to dig deeper and defend amy beliefs. But he sometimes exhausts me or wears me down, at which point I throw up my hands and move on.

If some I/T uber geek in this crowd could analyze the traffic here, I'd wager that Mad has submitted the most keystrokes of any contributor at MLW.


laughter makes you live longer

---

by: danl318 @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 21:49:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's a cultural flaw (7.00 / 2)

I approve, if only because americans don't eat near enough meat on a stick.  

to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance .  G. Washington

---

by: Kane in CA @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 11:27:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

ka-bobs? (8.00 / 3)

when we went to puerto rico next to the tiny airport at the end of our journey was the most wondrous bakery- fresh bread with a crispy crust but light as air inside..... out front was a guy with a gas grill cooking chicken & pork on sticks. it was fabulous! one of the best meals of my life was right there, with wild chickens begging for scraps at our feet.

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 15:22:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

no Cheezy-Poofs! (7.33 / 3)

I have spoken!

Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 13:59:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Now do you see (0.00 / 0)

How I look at just about everything in life.

Oh here is Umar Fizzlepants, I like that name.
http://willyloman.wordpress.co...

Surfing the Apocalypse-So you don't have to!

---

by: Lasthorseman @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 16:01:56 PM CST

Oh Well... (6.00 / 2)

Schelling, some German guy I know nothing about except for a statement he made about poets living a somewhat bohemian life style, said that he could see the value in how they were living, actually wanted to live the same way, but was too "corrupted" by his life to change.  Alas, that may be me and real food.  I know I should only eat what my great grandmother would recognize (except for fucking lutefisk)but hey, life without pizza is simply not worth living.

Your point about corporate made food poisoning us for profit can be made about the drug industry and the insurance industry as well.  Thanks to the short sightedness of American corporate greed meisters, they will kill off their customers.  Oops, I don't think "Thanks to" is the best way to put that.

In a democracy, citizens get the government they deserve.  Scary, ain't it.  

---

by: Phronesis @ Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 21:34:37 PM CST

you can (11.00 / 2)

have pizza. pizza is actually very very nutritional (& much much tastier) if you make it yourself

here's some great pizza dough recipes with links to pizza topping rules & pizza sauce recipes.

& for $20 or $30 (or whatever you'd spend at the pizza joint) you can buy everything you need & have enough to make pizza at least a couple times!

try it! you'll never eat pizzeria or (especially) frozen pizza again!

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 09:51:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

i also meant (6.00 / 1)

to say....

pizza is actually one of the 'perfect' foods.
a well made pizza has every food group.

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 09:53:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

phronesis, a link just for you (0.00 / 0)

The Ecology of Pizza(Or Why Organic Food is a Bargain)

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 10:53:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Kathleen (3.00 / 1)

I'm not sure I understand this:

Lets vote every time we buy food to no longer support the corporations that are killing us for their gain.

So you are saying that corporate executives in the food industry are so stupid that they think they can make a profit by killing off those who buy their products?  And if that is their plan, why don't they just put cyanide in all their products?

I remember seeing on some science show that in 1830, the average American breakfast consisted of a kind of paste made of flour and lard.  Natural, to be sure, but do you think it is healthier than Strawberry Frosted Mini-Wheats and soy milk, something I've been known to eat?  (Think about that:  soy milk.  Does that sound natural to you?)

Let's go back to the sixties.  The problem is population.  The food companies have to process and distribute huge quantities of food.  I am with you on "conscious eating" and all, but I am not sure that the population of America could thrive if the food companies suddenly were gone from the face of the earth.  Including the largest food company in the world, the Swiss company, Nestle.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 02:29:08 AM CST

You need to see Food INC (9.50 / 2)

and listen to Michael Pollan because I can talk to you about this.

So you are saying that corporate executives in the food industry are so stupid that they think they can make a profit by killing off those who buy their products?  And if that is their plan, why don't they just put cyanide in all their products?

I am not saying that killing us was the motive or that they were stupid.  The motive was greed and what is killing us is the result of that greed.  The food industry is not interested in good healthy products.  The result is type 2 diabetes, cancer, heart disease, ecol i, creating immunities to antibiotics is a good list to start with.  These corporations operate with virtually no government oversight and are subsidized by our tax dollars.  

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 08:04:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You know, Kathleen (3.00 / 1)

I'm mostly with you on the food thing.  I get off at the conspiracy theories.

The motive was greed and what is killing us is the result of that greed.

Why is this necessary?  Why not just say that their motive is providing huge amounts of food to the public while making a profit so they can pay their workers and have a little left for the share holders?  Why not note that the process of mass production of foods creates products with a certain baseline appeal.  

Philip Wylie wrote a famous essay in 1954 called "Science has Spoiled my Supper."  (Link is to a Google reader copy from the Milwaukee Journal.)  Wylie makes some of the same complaints.  Inparticular, he notes that as food become mass produced, it must lose flavour so as not to offend.  (Damn you Kraft for ruining our cheese!)  And note that he wouldn't accept the bread you buy, no matter what it said on the package, since you could make better at home from real ingredients.

A bit (typed out because one can't copy these google sources):

The Germans say, "Mann is was er isst."  (Man is what he eats.)  If this be true, the people of the USA are well on their way to becoming a faceless mob of robots.

I call for rebellion.

The result is type 2 diabetes, cancer, heart disease, ecol i, creating immunities to antibiotics is a good list to start with.

I don't think that the food supply is a significant cause, relative to others, of these things.  Take immunities.  Demands of the market cause the use of antibiotics in dairy cows, which can cause problems, but which definitely increases milk production.  If there was less of a demand for milk and milk products, antibiotics wouldn't be needed.  But this is not a significant cause of antibiotic immunity in bacteria.  More important is the overuse of antibiotics in humans.

btw, the food industry is highly regulated, it was among the first industries to have extensive regulation.  It may not be well regulated, due to the huge volume of foods necessary.

To me, the answer lies exactly where you have put it, in individual responsibility.  Trying to make the food supply over into your garden by regulating the food industry is a bit like trying to solve the drug problem by interdiction.  

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 17:55:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

See the movie (7.50 / 2)

and listen to Michael Pollan and then we can talk.

What has happen was not intentional but the data is clear now, now to continue with what is being done is pure greed.  It is no better than the tobacco industry, are you going to defend them?

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 18:45:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kathleen (0.00 / 1)

I know Pollan.  In fact, i saw the Moyers interview you posted.  I don't consider him (or anyone else) the bible on these things.  The most important thing he said on the tape, to my mind, is that one third of children in the US go to a fast food place every day.

Thing is, i thought you were interested in better eating, not demonizing the food industry, which, after all, only sells what people want.  And you know, I don't have such a negative view of my fellow people that i think that just a few of us enlightened persons are able to escape the grasp of of the latest evil monster.

I remember when it was predicted that with subliminal messages, we'd all be zombies doing the bidding of the government or Hollywood or commercial makers by 1965.

there are many reasons why we collectively eat the way we do, and there are many reasons for obesity.  Cancer rates have been falling.  It's just more complicated than "stamp out the evil corporations and Utopia will be upon us."

The answer is to make responsible decisions for oneself.  When enough oneselfs stop buying a certain product, it won't be offered for sale.  Even this can be stupid:  consider Betamax vs VCR.

The fact is that much of the reason we eat the way we do is because we are distracted, we work too much, and we don't have the time or energy to devote to preparing food anymore.  When we did, most households had one person dedicated to household chores 24 hours a day.  I guarantee you that the quality of our diet would increase immediately if we passed a law that no married woman could work outside the home.  Or, for the modern version, at least one member of a married couple had to stay home and not work.

We've made choices.  We pick on cost quite a bit.  You've seen that inner city families not only don't have much access to fresh foods, but can't afford them when they do.  they can afford fast foods.

As Pollan says, feeding people for less than hourly wage is wonderful.  And it is new.

the data is clear now

OK.  point me to the data.  Not what someone says is the data, the data itself.  let me decide if it is clear to me.  I remind you how science works.  Today's truth is overthrown tomorrow, and re-instated the day after.  When we had our daughter, the rule was that one never laid a child on her back (lest she spit up and choke, or aspirate).  Now, the advice is precisely to lay an infant on her back in the crib, although you'll probably have to get rid of the crib.

You know, watching the trailer of the movie, the closest I'm likely to get to it, I don't think it contains much that is new.  i remember when i lived with my great aunt and uncle.  the chicken would come home on Saturday.  It would be squawking as its neck was rung early Sunday morning, it would hang out to bleed just outside the back door, and then would be on the platter for dinner.

Generally, i take broad, fear-inducing claims of doom like appear on their web site with a large grain of salt.  As you know, I'm not fond of the politics of fear.

Seems to me that if one cannot make their point without sticking to the facts while avoiding catastrophizing and fear mongering, as well as avoiding creating scary and immoral demons, one doesn't have a case.  It only aids those you seem to want to fight to make extravagant claims that are easily refuted.

The big strategy in situations like this is to ask oneself what one wants to believe, and then to refuse to believe that unless you have the absolute proof.

Meanwhile, "eat food.  Not much.  Mostly plants" is a wonderful statement.  but ""the whiter the bread, the sooner you'll be dead," is just irresponsible.

But it sells books.


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 01:39:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Mad don't do this please (7.50 / 2)

Thing is, i thought you were interested in better eating, not demonizing the food industry, which, after all, only sells what people want.

If I see wrong being done for the purpose of personal gain and see our government with our tax dollars subsidizing this I am going to speak up.  I too would love to look through rose colored glasses but in this case and I am sure many others it serves no good purpose to do so.

Pollan is a hero for bringing light to the truth.

"stamp out the evil corporations and Utopia will be upon us."

 So what is Utopia looking the other way??
For christ sake Mad are we not supposed to talk about these thing?

The answer is to make responsible decisions for oneself.  When enough oneselfs stop buying a certain product, it won't be offered for sale.

  This is exactingly what I am saying and promoting, did you not read the post?

All I am trying to do is create more awareness, this is how change happens by talking about it.

This is a serious question, please don't be offended because I really want to know......  What are you doing?  What is your purpose?  Today right now I don't get it.

Of course it is complicated this is the very reason I am urging people to see Food INC because it goes way back and gives the history of how we got from there to here.  Pollan did not make this movie he narrated it, but he is an ever louder voice advocating for the real food industry.

If we just stop buying non food food items and stop buying our food through a car window we will be giving support to the real food farms.  If we refuse to eat food that comes in a box made in a plant and switch to foods that are plants we will be a healthier society.

The poor take the brunt of it with less choices and they talk at length about this and another reason I am speaking up.

The big strategy in situations like this is to ask oneself what one wants to believe, and then to refuse to believe that unless you have the absolute proof.

Mad all you need for proof is go into a super market and see that 3/4 of what is sold is not health building.  All you have to do is read the labels to see how many non food substances are in our foods.

Meanwhile, "eat food.  Not much.  Mostly plants" is a wonderful statement.  but ""the whiter the bread, the sooner you'll be dead," is just irresponsible.

But it sells books.

Please do not talk to me about this anymore because you are nit-picking on the wrong subject and with the wrong person. :o)

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 08:51:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

well (10.50 / 2)

So you are saying that corporate executives in the food industry are so stupid that they think they can make a profit by killing off those who buy their products?  And if that is their plan, why don't they just put cyanide in all their products?

that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

how about they take out the nutrition but put in the formulation that makes you feel hungry... the exact amount of sugars/salts/starches....

how about those HFCS cause wieght gain, diabetes, heart problems... which allows the pharmaceutical industry to profit? & the insurance industry to sell you on a plan to 'lessen' your expenses in case of catastrophic illness?

how about they have of every ingredient the exact amount  that your body can stand and/or process... & they make sure they will most probably not kill you, that you will continue to purchase their crappy products which are literally killing you by giving you less & less actual nutrition.

a book you may enjoy Good Omens by Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman. There is a little section (paragraphs?) that discusses just thisin a satirical way.

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 09:26:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I saw this guy (10.00 / 3)

I think on Jon Stewart. One of the things he said was "eat food made by a plant, not in a plant". His book is waiting on my kindle to be read, looking forward to it.

---

by: joexmd @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 08:14:03 AM CST

thank you kathleen (11.00 / 2)

this is Such an Important Issue. & one that is not on too may people's radar- although it should be!

the corporations- from those that sell farmers on using round-up, round-up ready seed & special fertilizer to those that process package & sell foods to us, (often times importing cheaper non-food safe ingredients)... well these corporation have only one thing in mind- PROFIT.
& it's just not enough to them to have profit, it must be ever increasing profit... & so they use cheaper, ingredients, sometimes adding things that could harm you (ex: sawdust in whole grain bread as 'fiber' labeled as cellulose; high fructose CORN syrup instead of sugar-{which promotes their GMO round-up ready corn seed (which by the way must be bought every year, NO savng seed from year to year)} which has been shown to be one of the major contributing factors in the prevalence today of diabetes)

michael pollan is at the forefront of the real food movement.
i trust literally everything he has to say.

thank-you for your kind words & promoting my wee-tiny blog.
i'm hoping that people will find some resources there to begin doing (what i call) subversive politics.

things just like what you're talking about here. quit buying processed foods. get whole fresh fruits & vegetables & cook from scratch. support your local farmers & business owners. quit shopping at franchise stores.....
using our dollars to vote against corporations & for ourselves & our communities.

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 08:56:04 AM CST

In this time of feeling (10.00 / 1)

helpless on what our government is doing or not doing this where we can have the most impact.

If consumers are informed enough about what is happening and has happened to our food and as a result our health we can say NO with out money.

Supporting people who are doing it right.

Example......

There is a bread that is made in Oregon that we love more than any bread we have ever bought.

It is called Dave's Killer Bread and he has a slogan on his bread package that says, "Just say no to bread on drugs."

His website: http://www.daveskillerbread.com/

There are so many seeds on the crust of this bread that we all fight over the heals and the crumbs in the sack.

It is now being sold by Costco in a 2 pack, thank god because it is $5 bucks a loaf at the local market.

I know you are way ahead of the pack on this one RiaD and when you see Food INC it will be preaching to the choir but it is ONE more way to get the message out there.

Sending you a huge hug as the wave rolls, the tide is growing to build a better world.

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 09:18:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

yum (11.00 / 2)

There's nothing better than really good bread.  My SIL's brother is a member/baker at this co-op, and when she visits him, she brings back some awesome bread.

I've recently started baking my own bread more often, using the Artisan Bread in 5 Minutes a Day method.  No muss, no fuss, no kneading, and the breads are really good.

The authors have a second book; Healthy Bread in 5 Minutes a Day.

Maybe if I'm really nice hubby will get me the book for Valentine's Day.

Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 16:28:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i first read (10.00 / 1)

about that bread at mother earth news.
i've told literally dozens of people about it all over the blogosphere.

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 19:55:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

used to shop @ Bread & Circus in the Boston area (10.00 / 2)

They had all kinds of amazing bread. One brand, Baldwin Hill, was this amazing dense whole wheat sourdough. It was awesome toasted with miso-tahini spread and served with tofu sauteed with tumeric, tamari, and sesame seeds. Ah, those were the days

laughter makes you live longer

---

by: danl318 @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 21:53:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kathleen, (8.00 / 3)

all joking aside, thanks for the diary.

I will make sure to put the movie in my netflix queue and give it a look-see.

In truth, Laurie and I are pretty good about avoiding pre-packaged foodstuffs... This is not so much for political reasons or health reasons or anything like that, but merely because we enjoy good food.

If you like good food, and if you have the time, it's always best to go for fresh rather than boxed or plasticized.

Cheers!




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 11:59:47 AM CST

This is all I am asking (7.50 / 2)

is for people to see the movie and to think about what they buy to put in their bodies.  I know I am mostly preaching to the choir here.  

Thank you please let me know what you think after seeing the movie.

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 08:55:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I rented it to watch with my wife (4.00 / 1)

She could not get through the entire thing.  Being married to me and knowing about the Illuminati Plan to Destroy America in full living color.  Well she had to stop at the food level opting to not know rather than fight against just one more thing.

Surfing the Apocalypse-So you don't have to!

---

by: Lasthorseman @ Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 13:04:49 PM CST

Kathleen, had you seen this one? (9.00 / 1)

On Monsanto:

In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom, "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.

 

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 11:12:49 AM CST

Y'know, Kathleen, (10.75 / 4)

people often wonder if blogging has any effect on real world behavior.

All I can say is that after reading this post I discussed it with Laurie and the next thing I know she's bringing home all these peaches and grapes and bananas (for homemade smoothies).

When I asked her what was up with all the fruit she said, "Well, I thought about our conversation and we really should start eating better."

So, thank you again for the diary.

Peace to you, please.




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 12:53:18 PM CST