Grass fed organic meats

Carnmore said:
In what way Purple? Regardless of the nutritional value, by choosing organic you're not exposed to 50+ chemicals or GMO. Certain chemicals are permitted in organic production but only a few.
Click to expand...
On a macro level Europe under-produces food. We are capable of producing 30-50% more than we do at the moment. Instead we import a large proportion of what we consume from other countries which have much lower environmental standards. In effect we export the environmental impact of the production food we consume.

On a micro level "Organic" is a cop-out; We have high food standards here and anything used in the food chain is highly regulated. The whole idea that Natural is better than scientifically developed is also nonsense. There are plenty of "natural" things that can harm is and the cure is often "artificial".

I see no problem with GMO as a concept. There are good GMO products and bad GMO products. It is a tool, a method. It can be abused and needs to be regulated but the idea that GMO is bad is also nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Leo
Carnmore said:
From inhalation or absorption?
Click to expand...
Inadvertent inhalation by all accounts.

Pretty much all of them longer than 20 years ago, when these things didn't get much media nor any internet attention. But they were a big factor in angel dust use dying off for good - even before the advent of scientific veterinary controls would have eliminated it anyway.
 
Last edited:
Purple said:
In effect we export the environmental impact of the production food we produce
Click to expand...

Do you mean consume rather than produce?


Purple said:
I see no problem with GMO as a concept. There are good GMO products and bad GMO products. It is a tool, a method. It can be abused and needs to be regulated but the idea that GMO is bad is also nonsense.
Click to expand...

Modifying a food product changes its natural constitution so GMO is inherently dubious.
 
Carnmore said:
Modifying a food product changes its natural constitution so GMO is inherently dubious.
Click to expand...

These food products have been evolving since long before any of us were around. To state that artificial modification is inherently dubious is baseless.
 
Leo said:
These food products have been evolving since long before any of us were around. To state that artificial modification is inherently dubious is baseless.
Click to expand...

Naturally occurring change (evolution) and artificial modification are incomparable.
 
Purple said:
What, like Dwarf Wheat? Norman Borlaug might disagree.
Click to expand...

Wheat is a case in point - Green Revolution modification is the reason it's such a problematic food; it's fundamentally different to the wheat we've been consuming for 10,000 years.

https://paleoleap.com/what-is-wrong-with-grains/


Purple said:
My dog is a Cocker Spaniel. She is a genetically modified organism.
Click to expand...

Another case in point - so-called pedigree breeds have multiple health problems due to human meddling.
 
Carnmore said:
Wheat is a case in point - Green Revolution modification is the reason it's such a problematic food; it's fundamentally different to the wheat we've been consuming for 10,000 years.
Click to expand...
True, but it's also the reason millions of people don't starve to death. As I said, GMO is no intrinsically bad, we just have to learn to do it better some of the time.
10,000 year ago we didn't consume much dairy or salt.
 
Carnmore said:
Naturally occurring change (evolution) and artificial modification are incomparable.
Click to expand...
OK, but then we would have no apples or potatoes or most of our fruit and veg in any recognisable form.
All domestic animals are the result of hundreds or thousands of generations of selective breeding. Without human support nearly all of them would die out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register