"Clean eating? That's some rich white people shit."

While this quote is funny this is, IMHO, a great article about this clean eating craze people are on.

Quote:

---

"Clean eating" is a feel-good diet based around organic, non-GMO, ethically raised foods that are free of unnatural additives. It's a popular method among wealthy yoga moms, Whole Foods hippies, and the occasional fitness fanatic. It offers "fast fat loss that lasts a lifetime," and promises a Gwyneth Paltrow-esque vision of wellness that will "reset" your health.

---

REF: https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article...-any-healthier

Basically: "upper class white women latch onto a concept, add a bunch of extraneous bullshit to said concept, then snub their noses at everything else. This and more, on news at 11."

It's a cycle. It happens every few years. This is the same demographic who was all up on Richard Simmon's nuts, until they realized that there was some actual work involved.

Que sera sera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarmyg

While this quote is funny this is, IMHO, a great article about this clean eating craze people are on.



REF: https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article...-any-healthier

---

Not too far off from truth!!!!

I’m off for gf weekend and food menu is GF, organic,non GMO, non [emoji535], non refined sugar until it comes to after dinner drinks and wine!!! Lololol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GirlyGymRat

Not too far off from truth!!!!

I’m off for gf weekend and food menu is GF, organic,non GMO, non [emoji535], non refined sugar until it comes to after dinner drinks and wine!!! Lololol

---

where's my invite???

I think the article is a little short sited. While the nutrition is similar the environmental impact is not. It's like there trying to divorce the fact that there are environmental consequences to the foods you eat and select. This really can't be divorced. I mean if all you can afford is non organic peaches vs some organic peaches its probably nutritionally similar but to say it doesn't matter about the environment would be a mistake. Don't trick yourself into thinking its not part of the problem in society. There are some studies which show pesticides are unhealthy... Theres a lot more like are even the definitions of free range acceptable or what people think of as free range and how much is just marketing. I don't look down on anyone who gets non organic spinach because they can't afford it but to say it's not part of the problem would not be true. Some of these problems are global. I like when people think how is this food effecting the environment and my health. It's uncomfortable to think about but its also good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrockBadger

I think the article is a little short sited. While the nutrition is similar the environmental impact is not. It's like there trying to divorce the fact that there are environmental consequences to the foods you eat and select. This really can't be divorced. I mean if all you can afford is non organic peaches vs some organic peaches its probably nutritionally similar but to say it doesn't matter about the environment would be a mistake. Don't trick yourself into thinking its not part of the problem in society. There are some studies which show pesticides are unhealthy... Theres a lot more like are even the definitions of free range acceptable or what people think of as free range and how much is just marketing. I don't look down on anyone who gets non organic spinach because they can't afford it but to say it's not part of the problem would not be true. Some of these problems are global. I like when people think how is this food effecting the environment and my health. It's uncomfortable to think about but its also good.

---

I’m building a business around ethically raised beef and other animal meats. People like you say are completely divorced from the reality of how people get their food, especially beef. If you have ever seen 500-1000 cattle living in a feedlot all pinned up, vs 100 cattle out on a huge ranch eating grass. You know which steak is going to be both better quality and better for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuscleScience

I’m building a business around ethically raised beef and other animal meats. People like you say are completely divorced from the reality of how people get their food, especially beef. If you have ever seen 500-1000 cattle living in a feedlot all pinned up, vs 100 cattle out on a huge ranch eating grass. You know which steak is going to be both better quality and better for you.

---

No doubt!

Perfect example is Chicken eggs and the color of the yolk

So would dirty eating be poor black people shit? Just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Couchlockd

So would dirty eating be poor black people shit? Just curious.

---

Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuscleScience

I’m building a business around ethically raised beef and other animal meats. People like you say are completely divorced from the reality of how people get their food, especially beef. If you have ever seen 500-1000 cattle living in a feedlot all pinned up, vs 100 cattle out on a huge ranch eating grass. You know which steak is going to be both better quality and better for you.

---

There's a pretty solid farmers market in my town that peddles such things. I only discovered it because I was looking for a source for raw goat milk.

Amusingly, and contradictory to the article, the prices there tend to be notably lower than Walmart. However, take a wild guess at which one tends to get more traffic from EBT wielders with beetus feet. Clearly, the market needs motorized carts and frozen pizzas.

The fact is, people have choices, and they usually tend to make the shittier ones, because the brain is retarded when it comes to food, and rewards behavior that is ultimately destructive to the rest of the body.

I mean there's 7 billion people on the planet. Don't tell me there food choices have no consequences on the environment or you can somehow disregard it or pretend nothing happens. According to the article is it better to be ignorant of your choices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrockBadger

I mean there's 7 billion people on the planet. Don't tell me there food choices have no consequences on the environment or you can somehow disregard it or pretend nothing happens. According to the article is it better to be ignorant of your choices?

---

I think this is more a population problem than a food source problem. Sustainable organic farming is notoriously inefficient from a production standpoint. Granted, there's probably a grey area between that and "food is rotting in silos from overproduction, so hey, vegetable oils and high fructose corn syrup", but we never seemed to have found that balance.

Unfortunately, said overproduction has led to drastic overconsumption. This has, in turn, created a pretty fucked up Ouroboros of races to the bottom in our food supplies. Fatties got fat, gonna keep fatting, and want to fat as cheaply and conveniently as possible. The market shall provide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gallowmere

I think this is more a population problem than a food source problem. Sustainable organic farming is notoriously inefficient from a production standpoint. Granted, there's probably a grey area between that and "food is rotting in silos from overproduction, so hey, vegetable oils and high fructose corn syrup", but we never seemed to have found that balance.

Unfortunately, said overproduction has led to drastic overconsumption. This has, in turn, created a pretty fucked up Ouroboros of races to the bottom in our food supplies. Fatties got fat, gonna keep fatting, and want to fat as cheaply and conveniently as possible. The market shall provide.

---

From a production standpoint some organic farmers depending on who they are are actually more efficient per lot than others. Some are inefficient. And there getting better every day. But again even if its inefficient from a production standpoint and there are more inputs then they would like it may be better for the soil for example. The product may cost more but the soil may be better. And there are other concerns. Like GMO. It's production is more efficient but at what cost... biodiversity? etc, etc. In other words also there are more choices than just is it organic. And that's 7 billion people making choices. But yeah I hear you on the overproduction part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrockBadger

From a production standpoint some organic farmers depending on who they are are actually more efficient per lot than others. Some are inefficient. And there getting better every day. But again even if its inefficient from a production standpoint and there are more inputs then they would like it may be better for the soil for example. The product may cost more but the soil may be better. And there are other concerns. Like GMO. It's production is more efficient but at what cost... biodiversity? etc, etc. In other words also there are more choices than just is it organic. And that's 7 billion people making choices. But yeah I hear you on the overproduction part.

---

Oh, I definitely agree. However, when you're talking a "feed the planet" scope, things get nasty quickly.

For one, shelf stability is non-existent in fresh produce, meat and dairy. This leads to either a massive uptick in transportation requirements, an increase in the number and decrease in proximity of farms, or even larger gaps in food supply than what we see now with fresh whole food.

Freezing and canning obviously circumvent this, but good luck convincing every soccer mom that's bought into the organic shtick that a pressure canned or frozen vegetable is no different than their fresh produce isle at Whole Foods. Shit, even Wendy's prides itself on the fact that it's nasty ass burgers were never frozen, and you could drop those in a ditch, dust it of and slap it on the bun, and most people couldn't tell the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Couchlockd

So would dirty eating be poor black people shit? Just curious.

---

No!!!!

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e1e0662b04.jpg

Definition of Clean Eating [emoji58]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GirlyGymRat

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e1e0662b04.jpg

Definition of Clean Eating [emoji58]

---

It's like they tried to cram every douchey adjective onto the label that they could think of.

I have ran and operated organic and non organic dairys.
The highest bacteria counts I have ever seen in a specimen sample came from amish and organic dairys.

All the hype about "No antibiotics" is absolute bullshit.
NO NON ORGANIC MILK YOU CAN BUY OFF A STORE SHELF WILL HAVE ANTIBIOTICS EVER PERIOD !!!

Hiland dairy is an enormous supplier of non organic and they have a zero tolerance policy for antibiotics because it gets people killed! Does anyone think Hiland dairy will run the risk of someone dying and suing???

Cattle have a 72 hour hold when they are treated withantibiotics meaning their milk is rendered unuseable. Should someone accidentally put an antibiotics treated animal in a bulk tank it will literally ruin an entire truck load of milk. EVERY OUNCE IS TESTED FOR ANTIBIOTICS and loads of money is made off the concept of "organic no antibiotics ever".

The worst quality and least stringent standards are given to organic manufacturers of milk and cheese. If you market the product yourself then you answer only to the usda. USDA standard is a once a year inspection and a joke. The "feds" have no clue what thwy are looking at so they kick a couple of tractor tires and move along.
Non organic farms that sell to co-op's like DFA or land-o-lakes (over 70% of the milk in the country is owned by them) fall under state regulations and state inspections that are random and irritatingly stringent. Then the milk falls under USDA inspection at the plant.

I have literally sent milk with antibiotics in it to a cheese making facility at an organic farm because I was told to do so even though it tested positive! I didn't work there long because they were unethical and cared only about their wallets.

When given the option of organic vs. nonorganic I will choose non every time because it is cleaner and held to much higher standards. A piss ass little farm grossing $1,000,000 dollars per year is not going to have the quality of product of a super co-op.

Anyone who doesn't understand never had to run out the back door of a milk barn with a bunch of antibiotics in their pocket because an inspector was coming down the driveway. This isn't an isolated incident, it is on nearly every farm and it is always gonna be that way. Organic is a joke, a ploy, and a money scheme.

99.9% of the time antibiotics are only administered on a dairy cow if she has mastitis which is something every cow experiences at some point in its lifespan. A product such as "today" is administered containing penicillin into the cows teat and three days later the cows milk is free of antibiotics.

Sooo....

Would you rather that cows milk be tested by two government agencies and a co-op?
Or...
Would you rather that milk be tested by one redneck on an organic farm and just hope he is actually telling the truth that it tested negative?

One other thing about the "No Antibiotics Ever" milk propoganda...

Have any of these dumb sumbiches thought to look up the half life of penicillin???

Antibiotics are a short lived miracle drug and these fad dieters eating clean neet to go back to the dark ages before them. Antibiotics are not the devil.

GMO's... I have no idea and further research is needed before anyone can come to a conclusion. Personally I find it interesting that more and more people (including myself) have become gluten intolerant. I honestly wonder if GM wheat could be causing this. Either way DeKalb and Monsanto won't ever let it be found out if thats the case.
They have too many billions of dollars.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesl...s-no-surprise/
Its interesting how Monsanto can say a gmo of theirs posed no public health risk when modern medical science has been unable to understand why more and more people are losing the enzymes to properly break down wheat.

We gotta meet production needs so breeds will be altered until they produce enough bushels per acre to make them as rich as they can be and meet the demand.
Nearly all species are hybrids today just to serve this purpose.

A good friend farmer of mine tried to replant some corn from a monsanto crop which is illegal. The shit grew 16-20 feet tall and didnt produce a single ear of corn because it is hybrid. Was actually pretty hilarious.

Organic is basically a marketing gimmick. It is not healthier or better for the environment at scale.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2...r-environment/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...8820M920120903

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...e-planet-thin/

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

That's how all hybrids work, they don't reproduce the parent. This is not limited to Monsanto's products. Regarding the ability to break down wheat proteins and/or FODMAPS, I'd look at antibiotics.

Regarding GMOs, there is no health threat from any commercially available GM crop. GM is simply a breeding technique, not an ingredient, and is thus not fundamentally different than any non GMO counterpart. Every single major international science body has released statements stating there is no difference in safety between GMO and non GMO foods.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2017/...d-overwhelming

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixter

That's how all hybrids work, they don't reproduce the parent. This is not limited to Monsanto's products. Regarding the ability to break down wheat proteins and/or FODMAPS, I'd look at antibiotics.

Regarding GMOs, there is no health threat from any commercially available GM crop. GM is simply a breeding technique, not an ingredient, and is thus not fundamentally different than any non GMO counterpart. Every single major international science body has released statements stating there is no difference in safety between GMO and non GMO foods.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2017/...d-overwhelming

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

---

They say there is no threat with half knowledge. If they could cure any cancer or disease I might be apt to listen but this like all things is about money.

Who is to say a new GMO wouldn't be a perfect host for a disease that would wipe out every stalk of wheat in the country? That is why it is so tightly regulated.
Its impossible to check every angle so in the end its a roll of the dice while some guys play God with the genetics of a plant to crank out a few more busels per acre.

Yes all hybrids behave that way not just monsanto I was simply using monsanto as an example.

I am from the mule state.
All I was saying and my point was they can't say no threat is posed when genetically modifying any organism. Too many unseen factors come into play.

Factly, I find no better explanation for gluten intolerance other than gmo's. It may or may not be so.
Im no hippy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obspowerstroke

They say there is no threat with half knowledge. If they could cure any cancer or disease I might be apt to listen but this like all things is about money.

Who is to say a new GMO wouldn't be a perfect host for a disease that would wipe out every stalk of wheat in the country? That is why it is so tightly regulated.
Its impossible to check every angle so in the end its a roll of the dice while some guys play God with the genetics of a plant to crank out a few more busels per acre.

Yes all hybrids behave that way not just monsanto I was simply using monsanto as an example.

I am from the mule state.
All I was saying and my point was they can't say no threat is posed when genetically modifying any organism. Too many unseen factors come into play.

Factly, I find no better explanation for gluten intolerance other than gmo's. It may or may not be so.
Im no hippy.

---

With respect, your concerns are because you don't properly understand the science. There is nothing novel about the GM process that doesn't already occur in nature. Yes, even different species swap DNA. Horizontal Gene transfer is common in nature. GM simply allows us to create new strains much more accurately, safely, and in less time than conventional methods. We actually learned certain GM techniques by observing nature at work.

Maybe some context will help. Are you familiar with mutagenic breeding? We've been doing it since the 40's and it's how many of our favorite foods came to be. Think rice, sweet potato, Ruby red grapefruit, etc. It basically involves blasting seeds with DNA altering chemicals or gamma radiation. This scrambles hundreds or thousands of genes, completely at random. Plants are then grown from these mutant seeds and selected for "beneficial" traits such as size, color, flavor, or heartiness, but we have no idea which or how many genes were altered. This process is considered "Organic", believe it or not. Little to no testing is required of these mutants before they go to market. By contrast, GM tech alters one or two specific genes to create a specific trait. Results are methodically screened, tested, and resequenced to make sure nothing was altered unintentionally. This costs millions of dollars and takes years to bring to market. Both methods are actually quite safe but it makes concern over GM tech seem silly when you realise what other methods we've been using for decades.


You said that you can find no better explanation for gluten intolerance other than gmo's. Could you explain how this is possible when there's never been a GMO wheat product on the market?

Here's a complete list of all GMO products (wheat isn't one of them).

Corn (field & sweet)
The GM version of field corn protects the crop against corn rootworms and the Asian corn borer. Like GM field corn, GM sweet corn also protects the crop against destructive pests.

Soybeans
The GM soybean plant is resistant to pests and disease as well as being tolerant of herbicides that are most effective, allowing for less herbicide use overall.

Cotton
GM cotton requires fewer pesticides and protects against the cotton bollworm.

Canola
Canola has been modified through biotechnology to make it tolerant to some herbicides. This allows for a reduced amount of chemicals needed for weed control. The modified plant also has resistance to pests and fungus.

Alfalfa
The GM version of alfalfa is tolerant of some herbicides, allowing for a reduced amount of chemicals needed for weed control.

Sugar Beets
The GM sugar beet has increased tolerance to some herbicides, allowing for a reduced amount of chemicals needed for weed control. GM sugar beets also have virus and pest resistance traits.

Papaya
The GM version of papaya makes the plant resistant to the prevalent Papaya Ringspot Virus.

Squash
GM squash has traits that improve the plant’s defense against viruses.

Arctic Apple
Developed by Okanagan Specialy Fruits of British Columbia, Canada, this new fruit was developed by turning off the enzyme in apples that cause them to brown when cut, bruised or bitten.

Innate Potato
This new potato that resists browning and has fewer unsightly wasteful bruises has been approved by the USDA for commercial planting.

Aquabounty Salmon
This new salmon is genetically engineered to reach market size more quickly than non-GE farm-raised Atlantic salmon.

That's it, 11. A couple of the last ones aren't even to market yet.

And I know you're no hippie. I spend most days attempting to explain science to them. It's infuriating lol.



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixter

With respect, your concerns are because you don't properly understand the science. There is nothing novel about the GM process that doesn't already occur in nature. Yes, even different species swap DNA. Horizontal Gene transfer is common in nature. GM simply allows us to create new strains much more accurately, safely, and in less time than conventional methods. We actually learned certain GM techniques by observing nature at work.

Maybe some context will help. Are you familiar with mutagenic breeding? We've been doing it since the 40's and it's how many of our favorite foods came to be. Think rice, sweet potato, Ruby red grapefruit, etc. It basically involves blasting seeds with DNA altering chemicals or gamma radiation. This scrambles hundreds or thousands of genes, completely at random. Plants are then grown from these mutant seeds and selected for "beneficial" traits such as size, color, flavor, or heartiness, but we have no idea which or how many genes were altered. This process is considered "Organic", believe it or not. Little to no testing is required of these mutants before they go to market. By contrast, GM tech alters one or two specific genes to create a specific trait. Results are methodically screened, tested, and resequenced to make sure nothing was altered unintentionally. This costs millions of dollars and takes years to bring to market. Both methods are actually quite safe but it makes concern over GM tech seem silly when you realise what other methods we've been using for decades.


You said that you can find no better explanation for gluten intolerance other than gmo's. Could you explain how this is possible when there's never been a GMO wheat product on the market?

Here's a complete list of all GMO products (wheat isn't one of them).

Corn (field & sweet)
The GM version of field corn protects the crop against corn rootworms and the Asian corn borer. Like GM field corn, GM sweet corn also protects the crop against destructive pests.

Soybeans
The GM soybean plant is resistant to pests and disease as well as being tolerant of herbicides that are most effective, allowing for less herbicide use overall.

Cotton
GM cotton requires fewer pesticides and protects against the cotton bollworm.

Canola
Canola has been modified through biotechnology to make it tolerant to some herbicides. This allows for a reduced amount of chemicals needed for weed control. The modified plant also has resistance to pests and fungus.

Alfalfa
The GM version of alfalfa is tolerant of some herbicides, allowing for a reduced amount of chemicals needed for weed control.

Sugar Beets
The GM sugar beet has increased tolerance to some herbicides, allowing for a reduced amount of chemicals needed for weed control. GM sugar beets also have virus and pest resistance traits.

Papaya
The GM version of papaya makes the plant resistant to the prevalent Papaya Ringspot Virus.

Squash
GM squash has traits that improve the plant’s defense against viruses.

Arctic Apple
Developed by Okanagan Specialy Fruits of British Columbia, Canada, this new fruit was developed by turning off the enzyme in apples that cause them to brown when cut, bruised or bitten.

Innate Potato
This new potato that resists browning and has fewer unsightly wasteful bruises has been approved by the USDA for commercial planting.

Aquabounty Salmon
This new salmon is genetically engineered to reach market size more quickly than non-GE farm-raised Atlantic salmon.

That's it, 11. A couple of the last ones aren't even to market yet.

And I know you're no hippie. I spend most days attempting to explain science to them. It's infuriating lol.



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/monsantos-u...954609745.html
Yes gmo wheat is out there and has been for many years. It is not marketed or commercially available but it has been found in many places because experimental wheat was not properly contained. There is not a commercial seed that hasn't been attempted to be modified at some point. Most times it is a failure is all.

You are very knowledgeable on this not arguing or offended or anything. How many years has the gluten intolerance fad been going on? I had never heard the term until recently and now its rampant. I spent years hiving out nightly with terrible gas and "skin writings" before I found out what my issue was. I was so pissed off when I found out I was gluten intolerant because I saw it as a bunch of hypochondriac's and hippies with a new diet craze.

Gluten Disorders - Institute for Responsible Technology
I see it as a money battle. Even the dumbasses in this link try to push organic which I can't stand but they touch a little more on gmo corn etc causing gluten intolerance (just theory at this point).

Attachment 171077

One thing you will notice from the chart is the "gluten intolerance craze" started shortly after the spike of gmo's into the food supply.

I could be totally wrong as I said before but its one hell of a coincidence that suddenly millions of people small intestines started sensing food particles as microbial invaders because they lacked the enzymes to properly break down gluten.

Also on the never been a gmo wheat on the market subject, it was found in two states in food supply crops.
It was literally found growing out of place by farmers that were apparently sharp as a tack. I know guys that have been planting wheat for 80 years and you stick a few of monsantos experimental gmo wheat plants in their field and they would never catch it. Then again it was a multimillion dollar suit.... Maybe the were given the seeds/plants ust for that reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obspowerstroke

https://www.ecowatch.com/monsantos-u...954609745.html
Yes gmo wheat is out there and has been for many years. It is not marketed or commercially available but it has been found in many places because experimental wheat was not properly contained. There is not a commercial seed that hasn't been attempted to be modified at some point. Most times it is a failure is all.

You are very knowledgeable on this not arguing or offended or anything. How many years has the gluten intolerance fad been going on? I had never heard the term until recently and now its rampant. I spent years hiving out nightly with terrible gas and "skin writings" before I found out what my issue was. I was so pissed off when I found out I was gluten intolerant because I saw it as a bunch of hypochondriac's and hippies with a new diet craze.

Gluten Disorders - Institute for Responsible Technology
I see it as a money battle. Even the dumbasses in this link try to push organic which I can't stand but they touch a little more on gmo corn etc causing gluten intolerance (just theory at this point).

Attachment 171077

One thing you will notice from the chart is the "gluten intolerance craze" started shortly after the spike of gmo's into the food supply.

I could be totally wrong as I said before but its one hell of a coincidence that suddenly millions of people small intestines started sensing food particles as microbial invaders because they lacked the enzymes to properly break down gluten.

---

Careful with ecowatch, they have some legitimate articles but they often stray into pseudoscience territory.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ecowatch/

Your second link is from the institute for responsible technology, a site run by this man.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Smith

The article on the IRT site references a well known junk study by the infamous Stefanie Seneff.

Seneff would like you to believe that GMOs are not only responsible for gluten issues, but for autism as well.

http://www.science20.com/agricultura...disease-132928

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2014...yone-autistic/

Not to mention that there probably isn't a gluten problem anyways, aside from legitimate celiac sufferers. The real issue is likely FODMAPS.

https://www.vox.com/2017/11/21/16643...roblem-fodmaps

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4406911/

And yes, you are correct. There were and still are many trial fields for GMO wheat.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixter

Careful with ecowatch, they have some legitimate articles but they often stray into pseudoscience territory.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ecowatch/

Your second link is from the institute for responsible technology, a site run by this man.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Smith

The article on the IRT site references a well known junk study by the infamous Stefanie Seneff.

Seneff would like you to believe that GMOs are not only responsible for gluten issues, but for autism as well.

A Fishy Attempt To Link Glyphosate And Celiac Disease | Science 2.0

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2014...yone-autistic/

Not to mention that there probably isn't a gluten problem anyways, aside from legitimate celiac sufferers. The real issue is likely FODMAPS.

https://www.vox.com/2017/11/21/16643...roblem-fodmaps

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4406911/

And yes, you are correct. There were and still are many trial fields for GMO wheat.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

---

You are mpre knowledgable on this than me but you should watch the video of the doctor's discussion. I learned a little about leaky gut.

I never delved deep into the science. I am just a guy that has farmed a lot

Which video specifically? I scrolled up in the thread but didn't see anything. I will say I'm very skeptical of "leaky gut syndrome" in the first place.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/leaky-bowel/

I did see your comment about organic vs non organic dairy farming and I could not agree with you more. Antibiotics are for the health and welfare of the animals. Antibiotics are used to treat sick animals which are removed from production until such time as the antibiotics are undetectable in their milk.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixter

Which video specifically? I scrolled up in the thread but didn't see anything. I will say I'm very skeptical of "leaky gut syndrome" in the first place.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/leaky-bowel/

I did see your comment about organic vs non organic dairy farming and I could not agree with you more. Antibiotics are for the health and welfare of the animals. Antibiotics are used to treat sick animals which are removed from production until such time as the antibiotics are undetectable in their milk.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

---

The video on the institute of responsible tech link.
The basically explain how celiacs disese works and try to give explanation for the immense rise in the disease. Good video but they start trying to pin every failure in human health on GMO's and its bullshit.

It never ceases to amaze me how when someone is pushing propoganda for their "cause" they start getting way out in left field. It always works that way though. I am not a moderate guy but jeepers creepers the human body is a little bit more adaptive than physicians usually seem to realize. There are no cure-alls or kill-alls causing and treating every disease known to man.

Haha yeah! organic eggs- bit shit on them,and the odd feather in the carton.

Agreed, Obs!

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

More on the gluten intolerance myth

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/how-c...uten-1.4424537

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23648697

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuscleScience

I’m building a business around ethically raised beef and other animal meats. People like you say are completely divorced from the reality of how people get their food, especially beef. If you have ever seen 500-1000 cattle living in a feedlot all pinned up, vs 100 cattle out on a huge ranch eating grass. You know which steak is going to be both better quality and better for you.

---

both are cruel and unneeded IMO, but i agree many are disconnected on where their food actually comes from, the pain it causes, the pollution it adds and the un-necessity of it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixter

More on the gluten intolerance myth

Your 'gluten sensitivity' might not have anything to do with gluten - Home | Quirks & Quarks with Bob McDonald | CBC Radio

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23648697

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

---

there is such thing as gluten allergy... but alot group it into a bunch of stuff.

I’ve gone gf with amazing results. Feel better, more energy, no inflammation or digestive issues. Flat tummy too. :)

Lmao.........

Pesticides do effect the environment. Organic is important for this reason. How does it effect the environment pesticides causes depletion of bee population and this is clear in the science. Also, lack of biodiversity effects the bees as well in the plants. So monoculture crops are destroying bee population. So its a double threat to bees. This type of farming is deleterious.