Your food is TOXIC !

Status
Not open for further replies.
Having read "Civilization before Yesterday", "Guns Germs and Steel" (Jarad Diamond) and several other historical books about society and changes in societies in modern times, I have to agree that there is something in our environment (including food) which is responsible for the higher incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer when comparing modern societies to primitive societies which are still in existence.

When those primitive societies shift their diet to modern diets, they take on many of the same maladies we see in the modern world.

Something is wrong with our diet for sure.

One masking factor is smoking which accounts for about 70% of all cancer (at least in the USA). The other 30% needs explanation.
 
What previously killed we humans at much younger ages was infant mortality, infectious diseases, tainted food and especially water and lack of sewage systems, war and general violence/mayhem (read Stephen Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature).

My grandmother born only 119 years ago was one of 18 children (stillbirths included) with only 5 of them living to adulthood and only two of the five lived beyond their 60's. She had only two children, one survived to 91 and my Mom is still healthy and well at nearly 95. Our food sources, health care and general well being are far from perfect but to argue that we are all being systematically poisoned flies in the face of the contrary evidence that is all around us.

Just to be sure, I'm agreeing with you, and highlighting the ridiculous suggestion that "natural" foods are somehow superior. We're in a totally different space as far as longevity. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Edit to be even clearer: one of the biggest reasons we're living longer is due to modern agriculture, full of horrible unnatural foods. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if (given how common colorectal cancer is) that, given the much longer integration time we have to get diseases of age, that we're not "getting killed" ultimately by what we eat. We're also getting saved by what we eat. Heart diseases major contribution to that. Composition aside, how much we're eating is killing us.
 
Last edited:
My wife and I have, until very recently, had two allotments with a total growing space of about 300 square meters and have always ran them in a 100% organic way. Not once have we had to use any chemicals to 'treat' what we have grown. Protection by way of different grades of plastic mesh gave us all the defense against insect attack that we needed. Well rotted manure, garden compost and seaweed solution supplied all the nutrients.
We had abundant quantities of veg. that kept us going through most of the year. We both work fulltime so it was only possible to garden in the evenings and weekends so it is entirely feasible to grow your own and reap the benefits of the physical activity and delicious organically grown food if you put your mind to it and just get on with it.
As an anecdote; a friend who had a large garden with an orchard decided to 'spray off' the grass around the trees in his orchard with 'Roundup' which looked a mess with a large patch of yellow dead grass around each tree for months..........until he died of liver and pancreatic cancer!
Look it is really simple.......glyphosate is a deadly poison to plant material so do you really think that there is a chance that it is non toxic to animals? Oh, Monsanto say so......really?
Have a look at the sales figures for glyphosate worldwide........that's the undiluted volume or weight. This is a gargantuan problem.
 
My understanding is that a major justification for GM is that plants can be made to be resistant to large doses of roundup. If so, this has everything to do with Monsanto.

My main concern about GM is that I believe we don't know as much about genetics as we think we do. For example, epigenetics has only recently been seen as important. There may be other unknown unknowns, so randomly firing in bits of DNA from unrelated species seems foolhardy. I admit that part of my concern may arise from the common physicist's perception of biology and biologists as being not quite fully science; I apologise if that offends anyone reading this.

Monsanto's business practices are the worst thing about them. They sue little farmers into dust, constantly. That is how they have eaten up huge swaths of markets. To this day they don't exist in crops of Montana, in the USA (as far as I know, it would have been in the last 3 years something would have changed as I moved). Here's the thing, Montana threatens to secede from the union annually. They are the type that doesn't trust everything, and are pretty independent. Their reason for rejecting Monsanto at meetings with them was simply that they didn't trust them due to their business practices with suing etc.

GMO's are not that big of a deal. Unlike what you think, it's a bit less complicated. When they modify a plant they do so by injecting a "gene" but it is really a protein that has the expression they're looking to get. Predicting whether the protein is safe or not isn't that hard. If the plants generate a new protein at some point (which isn't easy for them to get too much drift with all of Monsanto's seed control and suing over it) that could be an issue but it's not really highlightable over existing crop genetic drift.

So if Monsanto one day decided that peanuts had some highly desirable trait, so they injected it into corn so it would acquire that trait... But maybe they didn't check to see if the peanut protein was the one that people are allergic to. Now you have people deathly allergic to corn products that are in countless non-corn products like Vanilla and sooooo many more.

You should look into lectins. The leading lectin scientist was chased out of the USA by Monsanto because he warned about the potential for harm from GMO products that don't have due diligence done for safety. For example if a protein from tomato's was put into wheat, I'd have to go wheat free probably because I'd otherwise experience cardio issues. As of now I consume very little tomato for a reason. The funny thing is a lot of this information has already been discovered, and isn't largely appreciated.

Personally I care a lot about food. I don't want pesticides etc. I'm sensitive to chemicals and such. I'm one of those MTHFR people that avoids consuming too much folic acid (a poison for half the population globally), and doesn't have a lot of the "most abundant antioxidants in the human body" no matter what, and my body isn't full compatible with it. But statistically on the flip side my body ruthlessly kills cancer faster than people that have Glutathione in abundance, yet I can develop minorly cancerous cells more often. Any way, there's a lot of reason to care about the quality of food and water, even though many are somewhat insensitive to it. We need options for food. Another example is the health craze for coconut oil and water... my body hates it, I produce a lot of antibodies against it. So that "super food" doesn't work for me. - I am against abandoning varied types of food due to associations.
 
When those primitive societies shift their diet to modern diets, they take on many of the same maladies we see in the modern world.

No need to go that far back in time. China's introduction to Western industrial convenience food is evidence enough. I long ago switched to only eating products made from recognizable food and stay clear of the dietary uncanny valley.
 
If Monsanto would not exist my opposition to GMO food would be reduced by over 90%.

Roundup/glyphosate is just as cancer causing as the Human Papilloma Virus which we give vaccines against because of it.
There is no overall benefit using Roundup-resistant crops when Roundup itself should be banned especially since there is no significant increase in yield using GMO.

I just googled yield comparisons and the only site claiming increased yield due to GMO is gmoanswers.com, a propaganda site run by Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta etc.
 
Check out studies by the American Geological Survey on rivers in the USA to see how Monsanto's claims about Glyphosate stand up........'safely inactivated by the soil'......just a plain lie.
Go organic, and I mean fully organic if you grow your own. It is very difficult to trust completely the 'organic' claims by most producers as tracibilty is so hard to confirm. So only home grown can be absolutely trusted. It is the best possible quality of food that you can eat.....without exception.
 
Yeah, nice link and very positive. Agree that it is mostly impracticle for many people but this is mainly due to how our priorities have been forced to shift over the years., but also how the size of our housing plots have been reduced in order to accommodate a high density and therefore increase the financial 'yield' to developers. Once-upon-a-time local authority housing properties were allocated a garden large enough to sustain a family in vegetables for a year.........
As for the lack of efficiency of locally grown food, it is of course complete nonsense. How can it possibly be inefficient? The highest yield is achieved from the smallest managed area, and you only have to read of the yield rates of urban farms in Cuba to understand this. This makes it very efficient especially if you have zero chemical inputs and negligible fuel inputs.
 
I'm more concerned about antibiotic use in farming.

OGM´s ?
Genetically modified vegetables with all of poisons are massively use into productions of industrial food.
For example corn :skull:
Scientific are not sure about eventual mutations in long time periods and risks for human DNA.
Buy directly from departament organic farmer's are the solution for urban people's.
AMAP is small bio food associations structures in France
who sell quality (not poisoned) fruits and vegetables at the resonable price happyly.
Annuaire des AMAP en : 34
Kindest regards 🙂
 
As for the lack of efficiency of locally grown food, it is of course complete nonsense. How can it possibly be inefficient?

Diversity is more of a complaint, extremists will say that if you live, for instance, in the northern UK you have no business eating tropical fruit. Unless you irrigate heavily some things like celery come out very different than what you are used to. If you are truly non-interventionist you will have certain things fail at times and end up with more kale 🙂.
 
Locally the ground is very poor, thin highly acidic soil, very rocky and nowhere is flat. I tried a bit of food growing but the extremely abundant wildlife put pay to the very little I managed to grow, kale did quite well, seriously.
One method that can succeed here is "forest gardening" and there are some experiments going on locally
 
I'm more concerned about antibiotic use in farming.

A valid concern but the trash food and pesticides cause similar problems, but not quickly.

Scientist don't know the long term affects on humans from GMO's because they can't guess things that they can't imagine being a problem. There is no significance unless a protein that is harmless is used, and in that case it is just the equivlant to allergies, IGG, and tissue binding (lectin).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.