how "clean-eating" made me fat...

[scumbag]

http://healthylivingheavylifting.com/how-clean-eating-made-me-fat-but-ice-cream-and-subway-got-me-lean/

Any thoughts.

[Odysseus]

As soon as I read "and I went to Layne Norton, a NATURAL pro bodybuilder..." I Xed out of the page immediately.

[steve_d]

If you eat too much of a good thing of course you'll gain weight / fat. If you eat too little of a bad thing, yes, you'll probably lose weight, and body fat. Sure people will harp on me for using the calories in calories out explanation - but honestly, it will explain about 90% of the results one will see. I've gotten lean and i've gained fat eating good and bad foods and vice versa. Health on the other hand is a different story.

I've said this a number of times on this board and in a couple articles. Whatever is easiest on the mind will likely result in the best results long term. Ex. Jared the subway guy. Me, I couldn't lose weight at subway... wouldn't satisfy me. But I could lose weight on a diet that others would find impossible to control. I am not a fan of any specific diet. They all work for someone.

[TT Eric]

This is about a guy with eating disorder and how he was finally be able to control himself momentarily long enough to lean out.

Nothing to do with clean eating or not.

Eric

[cog]

This is about a guy with eating disorder and how he was finally be able to control himself momentarily long enough to lean out.

Nothing to do with clean eating or not.

Eric

Mostly agree.All that fruit on the "Paleo" diet didn't help.It is mostly about calories in and out,some people claim you can lose on a deficit of Sundae Supremes.....doubt you would have much muscle mass in the end.

[Praetorian]

Its about being consistent over time...you want to lose fat you need to restrict some things...quite simple. Can you still eat a bit of junk ...of course. Can you eat a lot of junk..hell no. Its common sense not rocket science and the article is designed and titled specifically with marketing hype...i sensationalism. It wouldn't be as enticing to read if it was titled "Dieting using common sense leads to fat loss" a no brainer!

P

[Praetorian]

If you eat too much of a good thing of course you'll gain weight / fat. If you eat too little of a bad thing, yes, you'll probably lose weight, and body fat. Sure people will harp on me for using the calories in calories out explanation - but honestly, it will explain about 90% of the results one will see. I've gotten lean and i've gained fat eating good and bad foods and vice versa. Health on the other hand is a different story.

I've said this a number of times on this board and in a couple articles. Whatever is easiest on the mind will likely result in the best results long term. Ex. Jared the subway guy. Me, I couldn't lose weight at subway... wouldn't satisfy me. But I could lose weight on a diet that others would find impossible to control. I am not a fan of any specific diet. They all work for someone.


Not to mention one may lose weight eating Subway yes but the questions is what does that weight consist of? For most people including BB's who should be concerned about preserving lean muscle it could be disastrous.

P

[steve_d]

Dieting is like poker. In poker, you have a set of cards and you have to think about how much you're going to bet, how much you are going to sacrifice to see what the other guys hand is and if you're going to win. Essentially pot odds. You might look down and think I have a 1 in a million chance of losing - so I'm going to bet and that bet isn't a hard thing to do. What's different is you think you have a 50-50 shot of winning, but if you win, man you'd win big. Again, not too tricky to bet. Finally, next is a bet hoping for that river card, and if you win, well, you only win small... So yeah, probably not worth the bet.

With dieting you have to think about how much you will lose by following a diet. I am not talking how much weight, I am talking about the sacrifices it is to you. If following a diet is too hard mentally, but you got the optimal results, than is that really better than something less hard mentally with 90% of the results? It's about finding the proper balance. Everything should be about balance. Jared the subway guy was fat. After his diet, he wasn't. And for the sake of argument, let's say the diet was easy for him to follow mentally. Then it probably doesn't matter that he lost a bit of muscle in the process. He's surely healthier now than he was eating likely pop and chips all day. So he's made an easy bet and won big. He could have made a more difficult bet and won bigger (ie - followed a more structured diet plan, preserved more muscle, remained even healthier - physically) but this might have been WAY harder mentally and he might not have been able to do it.

For the general population I say do what works for you. Don't need to follow a bodybuilding diet that might be more optimal. Bodybuilding is difficult, and not meant for everyone. Only the high rollers will succeed - or the ones who got extremely lucky on the river.

[cog]

For most of the population their feel good methods do not work.There will always be a new spin somebody is peddling.Just look at the money that ViSalus guy made.

[cog]

Double post.

[fathead]

i completely agree with you here steve.

after years of following really strict programs and eating on a clock and stressing about missing a meal or about every carb and fat gram i got burned out. it would result in a yearlong roller coaster cycle of getting in amazing shape and followed by letting myself go. i am now trying a much more casual and less demanding approach that fits my lifestyle and my preferences. so far so good. im eating less meals which is the biggest change, im not eating foods or specific meals i dont like, and im TRYING to fit a cheat meal in once in a while without it being scheduled or planned or obsessed over.

I have friends who really dont care about food. at all. they eat when they feel like it and dont really think or care about what it is. my dad eats for function 100%. some days he eats a lot, some days he has nothing but coffee. you could ask him what he ate yesterday and he wouldnt be able to tell you. to be honest im a little jealous of these peoples approach to food (that being said im not envious of how any of them look but that is another story) and i often wish i could be as mindless as they are regarding nutrition

In the end i think you hit the nail on the head. can you find a balance where you get 90% of the results with 50% of the effort? i think that is where i am right now and that is totally fine for me these days.

HOWEVER, i think if you want to excel at bodybuilding competitively this attitude isnt going to get you very far, the guy willing to go to the huge amount of extra effort to gain the slight advantage is going to win (assuming he's genetically similar). I dont think ill get to where i was when i was maniacal about the program but i think ill he happier looking almost as good without having to worry about it. and taking competitive bodybuilding out of the discussion again, i would say 95%+ of the population will not even notice or appreciate the difference between the 90% results physique and the 100% results physique. i have found that if im over 200lbs @5'9", with full abs, muscle separation and some degree of vascularity most people view me as having a "crazy" physique... they dont notice much difference a few weeks later and that little bit leaner.

[steve_d]

Exactly, and what I am finding is that SO many individuals, especially those new to the sport give it their 100% right from the get go, mess themselves up mentally and end up in the exact situation you speak of - thinking about food and creating an endless cycle of competing to look good, for 1 day. The sport like I say is not for everyone. Everyone can look good for a day, and everyone can follow even the most grueling of diets for a couple months. The problem is not everyone can recover from that type of diet. Whereas, put 50% of the effort, get 90% of the results, and have a better chance at recovering. I am being general here. I am not saying nobody should compete, or everyone should follow an 'easier' diet.

But honestly, I really do think the young people in the sport should take their time before putting 100% effort. See how the body responds to different things. Each time push yourself a little bit farther. Learn you're own breaking points - learn your own limits before going all in.

And for the other who will never compete, and are looking for a diet to get themselves in better shape. You have to determine what your goals are. Is it for a short while on vacation to look good in a bikini?? perhaps to get in a wedding dress? or something a little more long term - like the entire summer on the beach... Or, do you want this to be the new you. no more yo-yo results. All circumstances deserve a different approach and a different mind set going into it.

I am not perfect, I like yo-yoing. Even without competing I will find myself getting lean for nothing and bigger for nothing. But I like it. And I like what I look like at 5% and at 15%. If you get stuck thinking about 1 look as ideal, and that look is difficult to maintain, you have to re-think it all before you do more harm than good.

[Praetorian]

I think its more important whether the person is a BB, competitive, or just looking to lose weight that a healthy diet is recommended not just one that is easy to stick to but contains junk...ie subway. That in itself is not sustainable and it is far from healthy. The diet can be easy to stick to and yet improve health at the same time and the individual does have substantial leeway to eat things that they enjoy without it affecting them too much. Educating them on what and why to eat specific foods is more important because if they understand the concept it no longer is a diet but a lifestyle that they can follow and enjoy with added health benefits.
If the individual doesnt understand the process of why they are doing certain things then when they are finished they will revert back to what they were doing before and regain all the weight if not more.

P

[cog]

I think its more important whether the person is a BB, competitive, or just looking to lose weight that a healthy diet is recommended not just one that is easy to stick to but contains junk...ie subway. That in itself is not sustainable and it is far from healthy. The diet can be easy to stick to and yet improve health at the same time and the individual does have substantial leeway to eat things that they enjoy without it affecting them too much. Educating them on what and why to eat specific foods is more important because if they understand the concept it no longer is a diet but a lifestyle that they can follow and enjoy with added health benefits.
If the individual doesnt understand the process of why they are doing certain things then when they are finished they will revert back to what they were doing before and regain all the weight if not more.

P
Have an extended family member that went on the "Bernstein" diet.She lost about 80 pounds and then regained it all after she was finished.Then she was diagnosed with breast cancer and went through surgery and chemo.....apparently carbs are still on the menu.My busy season goes April till late October,every year I would lean out,suddenly around early 40's this no longer happened.To me it seems carbs set you up for bouts of hypoglycemia and gluconeogenesis.I find energy on keto is much more even and there are many ultra marathon people employing keto diets.Basically,I'm doing various levels of HIIT all day,carbs are a small gas tank.

[steve_d]

Educating them on what and why to eat specific foods is more important because if they understand the concept it no longer is a diet but a lifestyle that they can follow and enjoy with added health benefits.
If the individual doesnt understand the process of why they are doing certain things then when they are finished they will revert back to what they were doing before and regain all the weight if not more.

P

In theory you're right. However the problem is almost everyone who diets has at least a basic understanding if the concept of eat healthy/exercise. When I say basic, I mean very basic. They at least know that eating that cookie + donut is not heatlhy, and their regular coke isn't the best choice. But they still do it.

There is more psychology to diet then there is biology. If everyone was as smart about dieting as the leaders in the industry, it still wouldn't change some of the psychological aspects. It surely helps though. And it would help more if they knew this stuff at a young age - before psychology of food really takes over.

Post-contest problems are a combination of psychological, and biologicial reasons. Most people who start a contest diet learn alot about nutrition and what works and what doesn't. Knowing what they should eat and having the tools to make all the right choices still isn't enough. So imagine in the general population that an individual at 250-300 pounds and overweight may actually have a similar mindset/relationship with food as a post contest competitor who isn't able to control themselves...

I'm all for Education. Nutrition should be just as important as math, social studies, or language as early as grade 1. The young children learn that an apple a day keeps the doctor away... So why is it that once we have the tools (ie basic math) nutritional education isn't continued? Teach kids how to read labels. And then teach them micro and macro nutrients. I took a 1st year university nutrition course and this stuff could easily be taught in grade 6 or less.

[Primal]

I'm all for Education. Nutrition should be just as important as math, social studies, or language as early as grade 1. The young children learn that an apple a day keeps the doctor away... So why is it that once we have the tools (ie basic math) nutritional education isn't continued? Teach kids how to read labels. And then teach them micro and macro nutrients. I took a 1st year university nutrition course and this stuff could easily be taught in grade 6 or less.[/QUOTE]

^Hell yeah, literally just right now taking a break from studying in my Principle of Nutrition course. I'm fresh out of high school so I'm pretty sure the curriculum hasn't changed much. Where I was taught, we did have a small section of our gr.11 biology taken up by nutrition, but it was pretty basic. We just needed to know what a fat, protein and carb were and a few stuff on BMI e.t.c. It hardly showed up on our exam and I wouldn't be surprised if most of my fellow classmates forgot about it already. What I found much more informative on nutrition was my gr.12 chemistry class. That surprisingly, touched on what a triglyceride was and how its molecular structure was formed. Along with this, we also learned why some food rot faster than others and how certain foods can actually reverse the process of free radicals. Unfortunately, lots of my classmates took the class but dropped out after the first or second test after seeing how hard it was. It's a shame really, I think nutrition should be taught in P.E. class. I think that most provinces are starting to change to this which is good.

-Primal

[Praetorian]

In theory you're right. However the problem is almost everyone who diets has at least a basic understanding if the concept of eat healthy/exercise. When I say basic, I mean very basic. They at least know that eating that cookie + donut is not heatlhy, and their regular coke isn't the best choice. But they still do it.

There is more psychology to diet then there is biology. If everyone was as smart about dieting as the leaders in the industry, it still wouldn't change some of the psychological aspects. It surely helps though. And it would help more if they knew this stuff at a young age - before psychology of food really takes over.

Post-contest problems are a combination of psychological, and biologicial reasons. Most people who start a contest diet learn alot about nutrition and what works and what doesn't. Knowing what they should eat and having the tools to make all the right choices still isn't enough. So imagine in the general population that an individual at 250-300 pounds and overweight may actually have a similar mindset/relationship with food as a post contest competitor who isn't able to control themselves...

I'm all for Education. Nutrition should be just as important as math, social studies, or language as early as grade 1. The young children learn that an apple a day keeps the doctor away... So why is it that once we have the tools (ie basic math) nutritional education isn't continued? Teach kids how to read labels. And then teach them micro and macro nutrients. I took a 1st year university nutrition course and this stuff could easily be taught in grade 6 or less.

The most important aspects of life are left out of today's curriculum. Proper nutrition, financial management, and career planning.

P

[TT Eric]

True, but the 'system' would need a serious reform before! The actual 'message' is so wrong (and the lobbying too strong)... they are still making the population believe that they need to eat low fat, high carbs/grains, pasteurized/homogenized dairies, they say GMOs are ok, pesticides/herbicides are not dangerous, artificial sweeteners are ok, etc. Students at the university are still taught to go with the food pyramid.

Eric

[baddog]

Hello to all, my son and his friends look almost anorexic these days all on the quest for abs their not skinny but I hafto say that what they watch and see has a great influence on them, not so much in the house because I have been a muscle head before he was born, but I can remember him saying by the age of 10 things like I don't want body hair, this statement does not relate to food but the overall state of mind our youth have today , this whole metro sexual look of eating no carbs or very little is a big change from when I was growing up ,and because of this new state of mind I feel their strength has gone down, exp in my sons high school the chin up record is 9 and that's for the whole school scary, I do 80 chins and 80 pull ups on alternating days im 50 ,youtube, facebook, music vids no matter how much of a hands on parent you are today showing good eating and life style media is our childrens new hero's sad.

[Primal]

True, but the 'system' would need a serious reform before! The actual 'message' is so wrong (and the lobbying too strong)... they are still making the population believe that they need to eat low fat, high carbs/grains, pasteurized/homogenized dairies, they say GMOs are ok, pesticides/herbicides are not dangerous, artificial sweeteners are ok, etc. Students at the university are still taught to go with the food pyramid.

Eric

Yeah, this is true, we still do touch on the food pyramid at my university at least, we also still go by Canada's Food Guide. But believe me when I say that there is some change happening. For instance, we are starting to see some of the dairy products being put down as less important and putting an even greater emphasis on fruits and veggies which I think is well needed despite it already being overrated by teachers and dietitians.

In terms of GMO's, Eric, I must disagree with you on this one. I'm not saying all GMO's are good, I certainly know that lots are quite bad, but the simple truth is that we need them. Already, we are overdoing the Earth's growing potential of crops by 20% which is really scary if you think about it. This is mostly due to the huge population of larger countries (Canada's got a great population size I think). GMO's are needed to keep the up with the food demands of everybody's needs. Take for example, the tomato. Recently, they started adding in a special gene from a northern fish that made the tomato more resilient to colder temperatures. This is becoming increasingly important as droughts and more extreme weather is becoming the normal more frequently because of global warming. On the flip side of the coin, I know of a gene that was mixed with tomatoes recently that cause stomach bleeding in tested rats. Of course, this being United States, it somehow made its way to the shelves of grocery stores to be sold to customers. What I'm trying to say is that even though these foods aren't ideal, in the long run, they ensure our survival amidst a world of overpopulation, radically changing temperatures and terrible diseases. Already in Europe, the bees that are required for the pollination of 80% of their crops are nearing extinction. The culprit is a disease that causes the bee's wings to become so deformed that they cannot fly correctly. Hopefully they can find a gene or something that can reverse or fix this problem but I hope my point is getting across. In terms of eating healthy, yes the food is definitely not what we should be consuming in our best interest. In terms of survival, I know personally I'd eat this kind of food any day than starve. It is easy to point the finger when you are thinking in terms of yourself and fellow few citizens in a country as small as ours where we don't hear too much about crop failures or significant droughts that occur all over the world. I think that if you look at the bigger picture, we can appreciate a little more why some of the pesticides and such are used... Sorry for my rant.

-Primal

[cog]

Hello to all, my son and his friends look almost anorexic these days all on the quest for abs their not skinny but I hafto say that what they watch and see has a great influence on them, not so much in the house because I have been a muscle head before he was born, but I can remember him saying by the age of 10 things like I don't want body hair, this statement does not relate to food but the overall state of mind our youth have today , this whole metro sexual look of eating no carbs or very little is a big change from when I was growing up ,and because of this new state of mind I feel their strength has gone down, exp in my sons high school the chin up record is 9 and that's for the whole school scary, I do 80 chins and 80 pull ups on alternating days im 50 ,youtube, facebook, music vids no matter how much of a hands on parent you are today showing good eating and life style media is our childrens new hero's sad.

Usually only rock climbers can rep chins like that.Better that your kid is leaner than fat.

[cog]

True, but the 'system' would need a serious reform before! The actual 'message' is so wrong (and the lobbying too strong)... they are still making the population believe that they need to eat low fat, high carbs/grains, pasteurized/homogenized dairies, they say GMOs are ok, pesticides/herbicides are not dangerous, artificial sweeteners are ok, etc. Students at the university are still taught to go with the food pyramid.

Eric
You are right,the money will keep rolling over the opposition.Doctors are right there with them.Will tell you to eat a few extra vegetables and everything should be ok.

[TT Eric]

Yeah, this is true, we still do touch on the food pyramid at my university at least, we also still go by Canada's Food Guide. But believe me when I say that there is some change happening. For instance, we are starting to see some of the dairy products being put down as less important and putting an even greater emphasis on fruits and veggies which I think is well needed despite it already being overrated by teachers and dietitians.

In terms of GMO's, Eric, I must disagree with you on this one. I'm not saying all GMO's are good, I certainly know that lots are quite bad, but the simple truth is that we need them. Already, we are overdoing the Earth's growing potential of crops by 20% which is really scary if you think about it. This is mostly due to the huge population of larger countries (Canada's got a great population size I think). GMO's are needed to keep the up with the food demands of everybody's needs. Take for example, the tomato. Recently, they started adding in a special gene from a northern fish that made the tomato more resilient to colder temperatures. This is becoming increasingly important as droughts and more extreme weather is becoming the normal more frequently because of global warming. On the flip side of the coin, I know of a gene that was mixed with tomatoes recently that cause stomach bleeding in tested rats. Of course, this being United States, it somehow made its way to the shelves of grocery stores to be sold to customers. What I'm trying to say is that even though these foods aren't ideal, in the long run, they ensure our survival amidst a world of overpopulation, radically changing temperatures and terrible diseases. Already in Europe, the bees that are required for the pollination of 80% of their crops are nearing extinction. The culprit is a disease that causes the bee's wings to become so deformed that they cannot fly correctly. Hopefully they can find a gene or something that can reverse or fix this problem but I hope my point is getting across. In terms of eating healthy, yes the food is definitely not what we should be consuming in our best interest. In terms of survival, I know personally I'd eat this kind of food any day than starve. It is easy to point the finger when you are thinking in terms of yourself and fellow few citizens in a country as small as ours where we don't hear too much about crop failures or significant droughts that occur all over the world. I think that if you look at the bigger picture, we can appreciate a little more why some of the pesticides and such are used... Sorry for my rant.

-Primal

100% disagree with you, I think you are beginning to be brainwashed by their crap, lobbying is very powerful and they want you to think they are doing this to save the planet, but it's far from the truth. Never a GMO will be good in my book and about the thinking of yourself vs starving ones: ever heard about the collective suicide by whole families in India since they introduced the GMOs ? How they hold them by the balls after bullshitting them with promises, but it doesn't take long that they need to buy more and more round-up every year, at a point that those farmers don't make enough to survive so they commit suicides collectively. Also ever heard what this overuse of round-up make to our drinking water ? And so on...

Eric

[cog]

There was a doc on either NPR or the BBC recently concerning the farmers in India being duped by flashy ads promising bountiful harvests if they purchased GMO seeds.....big fertilizer bills.It's all a scam,my brother-in-law went through it on his family's 20,000 acre grain farm/feed lot a few years back......costs add up big time.

[Primal]

100% disagree with you, I think you are beginning to be brainwashed by their crap, lobbying is very powerful and they want you to think they are doing this to save the planet, but it's far from the truth. Never a GMO will be good in my book and about the thinking of yourself vs starving ones: ever heard about the collective suicide by whole families in India since they introduced the GMOs ? How they hold them by the balls after bullshitting them with promises, but it doesn't take long that they need to buy more and more round-up every year, at a point that those farmers don't make enough to survive so they commit suicides collectively. Also ever heard what this overuse of round-up make to our drinking water ? And so on...

Eric

I see where you are coming from Eric, but I think you are still misunderstanding the point that I am trying to make. I don't think all GMO's are good, they just aren't. However they are needed in a world (like I said above) where the weather is becoming more extreme. Yes I have heard about the suicides in India. Jeez man, its been happening in the U.S. and Canada for a long time too (not the suicides but the hanging them by the nuts bit)! I know, the corporations are terrible, they keep putting the farmers farther into debt with the new equipment that they have to purchase each year, e.c.t. I've seen the documentaries man, but what I am referring to strictly is the science behind GMO's themselves, not the shady business that the corporations and companies are into. I think what you guys are all thinking I'm referring to is the purposeful GMO's that the big companies put in on purpose, just to screw with us. Nobody says anything about it, but they are surely in there. This is not what I am referring to.

What I am referring to is the bigger picture. Like I said above the Earth's limit for population size to growth of food is already being exceeded. As I am sure you are all aware, carrots have been genetically bred to be bigger in size and contain much more nutrition. Now, I'm sure we all wouldn't label carrots down as a bad food right? Go online if you will and look up what an actual nature bred carrot looks like, I've seen one before in real life and let me tell you that they are about the size of my pinkie, and those were some of the bigger ones, there were some that were even smaller. The same is with bananas and broccoli. Like I said, I'm sure you guys wouldn't label these foods as bad food, even to the state that they are today (ie. bigger and more nutritious). Now, the pesticides on some of these foods, yes that is a big issue. Once again, these are not good, but if you look at how the some of the bacteria and bugs have evolved over time, you would see that some of these pesticides are necessary to keep these crop alive. Yes, I know the companies have built up tolerances that made the bacteria and bugs mutate but that is besides the point now, what is done is done, we know who to blame but we still can't do anything about it. Have also heard of the drinking water conditions, it is terrible but at least we have water that is relatively safe to drink. Believe me, ask anyone who has either lived or been to Winnipeg, we'll tell you all about our brown water that is stock full of manganese.

I'm sorry to hear about your brother in law cog. That is terrible that he had gotten into that. Once again, I know the corporations are terrible, what they do to the farmers is illegal and I wish that we could do more about it. The GMO seeds they use are strictly for profit, and these are not the GMO's that I am referring to. As with all science, it can be used for good and for bad purposes (super cheesy but true). Right now, there are some that are really bad for humans, but on the same coin, there are ones like fruits and veggies that save lives and fill people with the proper nutrition they need to stay alive. These are the GMO's I am referring to. Believe me, I've taken plant biology (1130 in case you are interested in taking it too!) and I know where this is all going. The companies are the problem, if we had a decent overhead, GMO's would be much more safe and beneficial to humans I think. Having a decent overhead would also save the economy a lot too, as if you recall many of the great empires fell because of underpaying and overworking their farmers. This paired along with a bad season would cause massive crop shortages and hence the empire would fall. That is why I ALWAYS rank farmers as one of the top 5 most important jobs in the world. I wish other people would look at it this way too, if farmers are being treated equally, this means more money can be spent on more room for the animals, better care and well being as well, which would reduce the amount antibiotic resistant diseases and also more quality meat and or crops. Just my 2 cents though. No disrespect intended.

-Primal

[cog]

^^^^^The bigger operations and the Hutterites can cope Primal.They aren't exactly hurting.

[Primal]

^^^^^The bigger operations and the Hutterites can cope Primal.They aren't exactly hurting.

Yeah, your right cog. They are making the money, that's for sure. I'm not taking their side, if anything I'm completely against the bigger operations. Just wanted to share that maybe all GMO's aren't bad and some can really help potentially. Sorry for the rants, totally strayed off topic. Prae is right, they don't teach basic things like nutrition and label reading in high school, or mine at least... Hopefully they do elsewhere.

-Primal

[cog]

There is more money to be made with grains,wheat,corn and soy.They can export to the developing world.....metabolic syndrome ensues,more drugs can be prescribed.....why do other people's homework....right?:)

The bigger operations are the result of many factors.The brother-in-laws farm is 100 years in the family.The uncle's son is an oil exec in Houston,so the uncle sold out to them,right next door.Neighbors get out.Hutterites pay top dollar.They have the best equipment and don't have to pay wages,not yet but they have plenty of runaways.

[Praetorian]

GMO is about money which as everyone knows leads to power, control, and ultimately corruption.

P

Article by David Suzuki

GMO's — or genetically modified organisms — refer to the plants or animals created through the gene splicing techniques of biotechnology. In conversation, GMO's and GE foods refer to the same thing. They are foods created by merging DNA from different species.
The first GMO crop (the Flavr Savr tomato) was approved by the FDA in 1994. Since then, GE varieties of corn, soya, sugar beets and canola have become common local crops in Canada. In addition to locally produced crops, GE varieties of cottonseed oil, papaya, squash and milk products are imported from the USA into Canada. In a mere 20 years, GMO ingredients have made their way into most of the processed foods available on Canadian grocery shelves. Apples, potatoes and wheat are all in the lineup for approval.
GMO crops, when first introduced, were touted as the answer to world hunger. The argument was that by developing pesticide and herbicide resistant crops, farmer's would be able to increase their yields and decrease their costs. This has not proven to be the case. Instead, bugs and weeds have become increasingly resistant to the widespread applications of these chemicals, leading to increased use of both. More spraying means more costs for the farmers, more damage to the environment and more health concerns.
Sign up for Queen of Green tips by email

On the flips side, it means more product purchased from the seed producer. The companies that develop and patent GMO seeds are the same companies that develop and patent the pesticides and herbicides to which the unique seeds are resistant. Monsanto is the largest seed company in the world and owns about 86% of GMO seeds sown globally. It is also the parent of Roundup.
The safety of GMO foods is unproven and a growing body of research connects these foods with health concerns and environmental damage. For this reason, most developed nations have policies requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods at the very least, and some have issued bans on GMO food production and imports.
In Canada we do not.
Canadians are often unaware that the foods they choose contains GMO ingredients. It is this basic right to choice that is behind the growing movement to have GMO foods labeled. While environmental and food advocates lobby for labeling, other groups, like The Non-GMO Project, have created voluntary non-GMO certification to facilitate consumer information.

[Primal]

*sigh* alright, I admit defeat... I really thought some were being used for some good purposes though, that's what some of the articles I read said. Yeah, Monsanto is an evil, evil corporation, it sucks that they have so much power over the seed production. Why do you think Canada lacks the policies that that other countries do to know the labeling of GMO foods?

-Primal

[cog]

I remember going past the Monsanto plant in Montreal early 70's......they were considered to be an evil empire by the hippies of the 60's.

[TT Eric]

They are my direct neighbor from where I actually live.

Eric

[natenator]

GMO is about money which as everyone knows leads to power, control, and ultimately corruption.

P

Article by David Suzuki

GMO's — or genetically modified organisms — refer to the plants or animals created through the gene splicing techniques of biotechnology. In conversation, GMO's and GE foods refer to the same thing. They are foods created by merging DNA from different species.
The first GMO crop (the Flavr Savr tomato) was approved by the FDA in 1994. Since then, GE varieties of corn, soya, sugar beets and canola have become common local crops in Canada. In addition to locally produced crops, GE varieties of cottonseed oil, papaya, squash and milk products are imported from the USA into Canada. In a mere 20 years, GMO ingredients have made their way into most of the processed foods available on Canadian grocery shelves. Apples, potatoes and wheat are all in the lineup for approval.
GMO crops, when first introduced, were touted as the answer to world hunger. The argument was that by developing pesticide and herbicide resistant crops, farmer's would be able to increase their yields and decrease their costs. This has not proven to be the case. Instead, bugs and weeds have become increasingly resistant to the widespread applications of these chemicals, leading to increased use of both. More spraying means more costs for the farmers, more damage to the environment and more health concerns.
Sign up for Queen of Green tips by email

On the flips side, it means more product purchased from the seed producer. The companies that develop and patent GMO seeds are the same companies that develop and patent the pesticides and herbicides to which the unique seeds are resistant. Monsanto is the largest seed company in the world and owns about 86% of GMO seeds sown globally. It is also the parent of Roundup.
The safety of GMO foods is unproven and a growing body of research connects these foods with health concerns and environmental damage. For this reason, most developed nations have policies requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods at the very least, and some have issued bans on GMO food production and imports.
In Canada we do not.
Canadians are often unaware that the foods they choose contains GMO ingredients. It is this basic right to choice that is behind the growing movement to have GMO foods labeled. While environmental and food advocates lobby for labeling, other groups, like The Non-GMO Project, have created voluntary non-GMO certification to facilitate consumer information.

are you seriously citing something from David Suzuki? I have no dog in this fight but he's as corrupt as those he rails against. There are more viable sources you can use without resorting to this hack.

[Primal]

are you seriously citing something from David Suzuki? I have no dog in this fight but he's as corrupt as those he rails against. There are more viable sources you can use without resorting to this hack.

Wait, what!? How the heck is David Suzuki corrupt?

-Primal

[Praetorian]

The post was used to illustrate that the GMO producer companies are also in the pesticide and herbicide business.
P

[K-Max]

I think the issue is more of consumer knowledge (or rather, smoke and mirrors) and choice when it comes to GMO foods. I don't like the fact that I am eating GMO foods and not knowing about it along with any other undisclosed ingredients because, for example, allergies. I'd like to choose to eat GMO foods or not in a similar fashion of choosing to eat Organic foods or not.

I don't like surprises when it comes to food. Opening up a chocolate bar to find stuff crawling all over it? Not cool.

With that said, GMO foods can be very beneficial in areas where it would benefit the most like developing nations and hunger/famine ravaged countries. They are here to stay and so far, haven't been proven unsafe.