However, if you do come to Canada, I have to recommend a mushroom melt hamburger (not at a fast food place. The best one I've ever had was at St. James Place in Banff, Alberta). They aren't the healthiest, but they're delicious!
Why I want to be a Westerner - Page 8
Blogs > Azera |
Carson
Canada820 Posts
However, if you do come to Canada, I have to recommend a mushroom melt hamburger (not at a fast food place. The best one I've ever had was at St. James Place in Banff, Alberta). They aren't the healthiest, but they're delicious! | ||
tonight
United States11130 Posts
| ||
Mstring
Australia510 Posts
On July 01 2012 21:36 Kukaracha wrote: Are you mad because I provided you with an unsourced statement, like you claimed it should be? The rest wasn't directed towards you. When I read insults I feel disappointment at the waste of time, not maddness. I didn't claim things should or shouldn't be sourced ("Whether those answers refer to other sources is up to the person giving the answer"-- my second sentence implies that sources are secondary to the answer). I said that I wasn't after a source. I'm simply after an answer to the questions I ask, in your own words, not someone else's words. It is clear that for most topics, you're going to run into troubles without sources. Asking for sources gets people's google muscles flexing, not their brain. I don't give a crap about your sources, I want to know what you learned from them and then have you tell me in your own words. If you can't tell me in your own words, then quoting a source isn't going to help any cause except me leaving the conversation disappointed. I'm speaking to the construction of the argument here, not the content. Of course Heh_ needs to quote some studies in this particular case. Keyword here is quote. I've been given sources, but I'm not doing his dirty work. If I ask a question, linking a webpage isn't an answer. It might be a good place to form an answer, but that's not the responsibility of the asker. | ||
tonight
United States11130 Posts
"Food B is better because you're an assface." America | ||
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
Error 404 | ||
Heh_
Singapore2712 Posts
On July 01 2012 21:34 Kukaracha wrote: Demonstrate that there is a consensus among the scientific community that states that A)GMOs are inherently safe, B)current GMO technology is safe or that C)benefits outweight the risks and D)no change can be made so far. And I stress the term consensus. I don't know how you can do this, but it's the position you seem to defend. A) Nothing is absolutely safe. The water that you're drinking now, the authorities can't claim that it has 0 pathogenic organisms inside. It passes inspection if the water quality is above a certain threshold. Same with GM crops. There are two main risks: pesticide usage and potential for allergy. For the first, the risk is minimized by proper farm management practices and quality control along the supply chain. Tests are regularly conducted for pesticide levels, presence of pests and parasites, etc. Non-GM crops are also subject to the same risks. For the second, there is the chance that the gene introduced may produce a protein that causes an allergic reaction in some. Possible, but exceedingly rare if caution is taken (many allergens are known). Article: http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/386/1317.full B) Testing is performed before releasing to the public. If any adverse reactions were detected, the product will obviously not be released. You could argue the case that there could be long-term consequences; true, but drugs are released after trials that span a few years. It could be argued that there hasn't been an increase in whatever disease due to consumption of GM food, 18 years after it was released to the market. Yes, some drugs get recalled. But drugs are radically different from uncontaminated food. C) GM food is one of the ways to boost crop yields. Faster growth, less wastage due to pests, even supplementing vital nutrients to undernourished people (golden rice). These are huge potential benefits. Some risks are overstated, like the risk of cross-contamination of non-GM plots (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18227452) and food safety (see above). D) No change to what? Using non-GM technology? Food production has stagnated while food demand has steadily increased. There is a shortage of arable land, together with pressure for biofuel crops. The potential food crisis of the 1980s was averted by the Green Revolution, but demand has caught up, and a second Green Revolution is required. E) One more point about "new things popping up". In the case of GM food, you're in contol of what's "popping up". You can't control natural mutation to unmodified parts of the genome. A mutation that boosts yields (and thus be selected for) may also produce a deadly toxin, and this can happen in both GM and non-GM crops. | ||
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
they don't even have real bread there. when i was living in the usa my parents sent me german bread for my birthday and it was like the best present ever. i missed bread so much. :D vs | ||
Mstring
Australia510 Posts
| ||
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
1) A lot of people don't cook thus unless you're really rich you're going to be eating a bit of chain restaurants and fast food. 2) Food availability is very heterogenous depending on location. In some places its hard to even get a decent bit of fresh lettuce and tomatoes for a salad. Generally, larger cities are better than small cities but I've definitely been to a number of "large" cities where getting exactly what I want is not feasible. 3) Depending on the city, if you can get "fresh/farmer market" type produce it will be 10x more expensive than what it should be. Some cities are better about this than others. So basically, if you're filthy rich and will live in a big city there shouldn't be a problem in the US. | ||
An Ornery Owl
6 Posts
| ||
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On July 01 2012 21:54 Heh_ wrote: A) Nothing is absolutely safe. The water that you're drinking now, the authorities can't claim that it has 0 pathogenic organisms inside. It passes inspection if the water quality is above a certain threshold. Same with GM crops. There are two main risks: pesticide usage and potential for allergy. For the first, the risk is minimized by proper farm management practices and quality control along the supply chain. Tests are regularly conducted for pesticide levels, presence of pests and parasites, etc. Non-GM crops are also subject to the same risks. For the second, there is the chance that the gene introduced may produce a protein that causes an allergic reaction in some. Possible, but exceedingly rare if caution is taken (many allergens are known). Article: http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/386/1317.full Nothing is safe, but you took an example that is essential to us. GMOs on the contrary were never necessary, they never responded to our need but rather appeared over years of research. Never were we on the verge of starving. Next, you speak of two main threats, when the question was "is it inherently safe". You simply dissmissed questions that rose over the years and remain unanswered. A few examples : Although the biotech industry confidently asserted that gene transfer from GM foods was not possible, the only human feeding study on GM foods later proved that it does take place. The genetic material in soybeans that make them herbicide tolerant transferred into the DNA of human gut bacteria and continued to function. That means that long after we stop eating a GM crop, its foreign GM proteins may be produced inside our intestines. It is also possible that the foreign genes might end up inside our own DNA, within the cells of our own organs and tissues. Source The idea that a major part of our DNA is "garbage" ignored the fact that a key feature of biological organisms is optimal energy expenditure. To carry enormous amounts of unnecessary molecules is contrary to this fundamental energy saving feature of biological organisms. Increasing evidence are now indicating many important functions of this DNA, including various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called non-coding DNA influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways. Still there is very little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes. This adds to other factors making it impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes. + the AAEM's recommendation to avoid GMOs when in doubt. On July 01 2012 21:54 Heh_ wrote: B) Testing is performed before releasing to the public. If any adverse reactions were detected, the product will obviously not be released. You could argue the case that there could be long-term consequences; true, but drugs are released after trials that span a few years. It could be argued that there hasn't been an increase in whatever disease due to consumption of GM food, 18 years after it was released to the market. Yes, some drugs get recalled. But drugs are radically different from uncontaminated food. You said it. There has been no long-term testing. And there has been no studies on the effects on the population as GMOs have no tracability whatsoever. On July 01 2012 21:54 Heh_ wrote: C) GM food is one of the ways to boost crop yields. Faster growth, less wastage due to pests, even supplementing vital nutrients to undernourished people (golden rice). These are huge potential benefits. Some risks are overstated, like the risk of cross-contamination of non-GM plots (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18227452) and food safety (see above). See above. You simply dismissed the most important questions in regards to genetic engineering. While GMOs have helped in some regions, it led others to starve (see the India example, again). On July 01 2012 21:54 Heh_ wrote: D) No change to what? Using non-GM technology? Food production has stagnated while food demand has steadily increased. There is a shortage of arable land, together with pressure for biofuel crops. The potential food crisis of the 1980s was averted by the Green Revolution, but demand has caught up, and a second Green Revolution is required. Not at all. In fact, thousands of tons are wasted every year. Also: And yet, the world’s biggest ever agricultural study – the work of 400 scientists and 60 governments, headed by Dr Bob Watson, now Chief Scientist at Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture – concluded that GM was not the simple answer to poverty. In truth, it could even do more harm than good. For a start there is the inconvenient truth that it is far from clear that genetic modification does increase yields. The biotech industry cites evidence to support its insistence that it does, but other studies actually show a decrease. One, at the University of Nebraska, for example, revealed that five different GM soyas produced an average of 6.7 per cent less than their closest unmodified relatives, and ten per cent less than the most productive conventional soyas available at the time. The results suggest two factors are responsible. First, it takes time to modify a plant and, in the meantime, better and higher yielding conventional ones are being developed. And second, the fact that GM plants did worse than their nearest unmodified relatives suggests that the very process of modification lessens productivity. Of course, it may well be that biotechnology eventually overcomes these obstacles to produce unambiguously higher yielding crops. But even that will not necessarily answer world hunger. For increasing food production, though sorely needed, does not of itself solve hunger. India now has both a grain surplus, and hundreds of millions of hungry people, because the poor cannot afford to buy the food they need. Any realistic hunger-beating strategy has to help poor people earn more – or grow more food for themselves, for many of the world’s hungry are themselves small farmers. GM seeds are more expensive than conventional ones, and so they can’t afford them and they tend to be bought by richer farmers instead. If they were to succeed in increasing yields the rich are likely to use their increased economic power to drive the poor off their land. This happened during the Green Revolution, which greatly increased yields but often led to greater hunger. Source On July 01 2012 21:54 Heh_ wrote: E) One more point about "new things popping up". In the case of GM food, you're in contol of what's "popping up". You can't control natural mutation to unmodified parts of the genome. A mutation that boosts yields (and thus be selected for) may also produce a deadly toxin, and this can happen in both GM and non-GM crops. See above. Also, three more thoughts : F)couldn't genetic modifications be wrong from an ethical point of view, G)is the patenting of various forms of life not worth debating and H)is the direct and private control of expensive and mutually necessary products that are the very source of our food not dangerous, especially in the case of a monopoly? I don't pretend to have a single clue about wether GMOs are a good or a bad thing, but I find it hardly believable that you do. Skepticism is, in this case, totally reasonable. | ||
kochujang
Germany1226 Posts
| ||
Aelonius
Netherlands432 Posts
On July 01 2012 11:45 DeepElemBlues wrote: Yeah, meat is pretty awesome and we just love the hell out of it here in the West. Yes. Everything is bigger, most importantly the amount of good meat available and boobs. I recall that the Dutch have women with bigger boobs than Americans, unless you count in the obese. Should look up the data :D | ||
Semtext
Germany287 Posts
On July 01 2012 21:55 lefix wrote: I don't know why you would want to go to the us and even list bread as one of the reasons. they don't even have real bread there. when i was living in the usa my parents sent me german bread for my birthday and it was like the best present ever. i missed bread so much. :D vs This. American bread is really not worth mentioning, if you were born and raised in western europe. But maybe it is even worse in singapore? | ||
serge
Russian Federation142 Posts
Fucking IDIOT. User was warned for this post | ||
DRTnOOber
New Zealand476 Posts
I have to say... if you're after good bread and meat... The Netherlands is probably the best place I've ever been. Also Denmark. I mean... it's amazing. You don't get that soft white bread you find in New Zealand but the cheese and the cured meat is just incredible, and you get all kinds of different breads you'd never normally see. Oh and the beef jerky too... When I was in Amsterdam I asked for a "flat white" in a cafe... that was awkward. How was I to know that no-one else in the world calls an expresso coffee with milk a "flat white" except New Zealand and Australians? | ||
B.I.G.
3251 Posts
| ||
ecstatica
United States542 Posts
| ||
ecstatica
United States542 Posts
On July 02 2012 06:48 serge wrote: Yes, let's assume that GM-organism DNA being incorporated into inactive DNA of gut bacteria is somehow worse than non-GM organism DNA being incorporated into inactive DNA of gut bacteria. Fucking IDIOT. Even though I am not going as far as arguing against GMO on basis of safety (just taste), I would say that your stance is more idiotic than his. There is a certain concern about GMO foods and scientifically sound theories explaining why. Unless you're a PhD in genetics or microbiology I wouldn't be gaping my mouth like that. | ||
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
| ||
| ||