Everything Causes Cancer

[quitejaded]

Because everything has been modified into forms that are not good for our body. Even your fruits and vegetables have been altered. Isn't it ridiculous that apples are now 3 times the size that they are supposed to be, but are 3 times less nutritious?

And before I started citing research and articles, I just wonder how many of us on here are concerned at all about their health and the corporate manipulation of our food so that we can have an intellectual conversation about it. I'm just itching to have one. It'd be really nice to meet someone who's not 40 years old to talk to about this.

I'm not one of those people who think that the FDA and every food empire's goal is to kill every person. But I do know I will be growing a lot of my own food and no longer using a microwave. I've cut out junk foods, fast foods, sodas, etc, for the most part. My goal is to eat as much real food as possible.

[∞]

Nothing 'causes' cancer, save for an unhelpful mutation in self-replication that means the growing tissue eventually becomes fatal. 'Everything' just increases the chances of you getting cancer in certain areas.

[Puddle Jumper]

Bio food is simply food straight from the farm brought to you in the store. That doesn't cause cancer.

[Johnny Stooge]

Originally Posted by quitejaded

And before I started citing research and articles, I just wonder how many of us on here are concerned at all about their health and the corporate manipulation of our food so that we can have an intellectual conversation about it. I'm just itching to have one. It'd be really nice to meet someone who's not 40 years old to talk to about this.

I take drugs and drink like a lonely pirate.

I'm not concerned. Being too cautious makes things boring.

[stephaknee]

Yet the average life span still goes up. Go figure.

Oh, also: BBC NEWS | Health | Organic 'has no health benefits'

[krexia]

Originally Posted by quitejaded

Isn't it ridiculous that apples are now 3 times the size that they are supposed to be, but are 3 times less nutritious?

Got a peer-reviewed source on that?

What drives me crazy is this idea that 'natural' is always healthier than 'artificial'. Countless lives are saved every day by synthetic medicines. Inorganic fertilisers generally improve the nutritional value of food, and genetically modified foods have been used to save lives in countries where vitamin deficiencies are a problem. Look at Norman Borlaug's work; look at golden rice.

[Teiku 5]

while i don't know about health concerns i will agree with the fact that produce has been manipulated in plenty of ways. nevertheless, its what the people want.

just about everyone loves strawberries, right? and if you had a nice big plate/bowl/whatever of strawberries in front of you, which one would you pick? probably the biggest one as long as it was nice and such.

i havent eaten strawberries for going on almost 2 years, because i had Amish strawberries that are about as natural as you can get. they were smaller than average, but they were the deepest red i've ever seen a strawberry be. and talk about sweet and juicy. it was amazing.

and i haven't had them since :/.

now i'm not saying that all food is tasting less then its best, but you can be for sure that food companies are trying to make things bigger so they'll be more appealing to the eye and to help save/make them money.

[▽]

Originally Posted by quitejaded

I'm not one of those people who think that the FDA and every food empire's goal is to kill every person. But I do know I will be growing a lot of my own food and no longer using a microwave. I've cut out junk foods, fast foods, sodas, etc, for the most part. My goal is to eat as much real food as possible.

Skipping fatty foods, sure it'll help you stay on weight, doesn't prevent cancer. However the microwave is pretty harmless, aside from causing burns. It doesn't have the energy to ionise atoms in tissues, something that does cause cancer, it is only able to increase the kinetic energy of water molecules. And no, food doesn't cause cancer, i hate ct bullshit.

[krexia]

Originally Posted by ikkuh2

However the microwave is pretty harmless, aside from causing burns. It doesn't have the energy to ionise atoms in tissues, something that does cause cancer, it is only able to increase the kinetic energy of water molecules.

Heh, I completely missed the bit about microwaves in the OP. Funny stuff.

[Devious]

I used to work at Whole Foods so I have the whole "Natural Food, Natural Life" thought process caught up in my mind. As unfortunate as some of you may find - hell, even I find it a little bemusing - there are a few things that I have learned about recent GMO products that absolutely disgust me in the sense of wanting to even trust commercial food products.

FDA To Allow Irradiation Of Spinach And Lettuce

This link describes how the FDA has allowed the irradiation of spinach and some forms of lettuce for bacterial control purposes. I personally find this to be a horrid example of how we are ruining our food and possibly even killing ourselves slowly by making our food almost radioactive. However, this is my opinion and I base it on what I have read, seen, and even tasted in some of my experience.

Toward Freedom - Genetic Eucalyptus Trees Threaten Southern U.S.

This link is merely to provide a bit more information on my previous point about GMOs. It speaks of how Genetically Altered Eucalyptus trees are allowed to be planted by one GM group in the US as a "field trial". However, I'm sure all of you have taken a simple biology class and learned that adding an exotic species of plant or animal to an ecosystem is cause for disaster. My point being that we as humans are doing many things to our entire ecosystem (even down to genetics) that are cause for concern or redress due to the damage that can be done now, or in our future. This does include my personal belief that genetically altered food can cause inflammation and possibly even mutation, leading to a greater risk for cancer.

"In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."
- From The Great Law of The Iroquois Confederacy

[▽]

Devious, your post is dripping with ignorance. Go spread you BS somewhere else. Unlike you, i actually understand what radiation truely is and i am pretty sure food does not get radioactive. If that were to be the case, isotopes in food would be used in nuclear power plants. That would solve all energy problems, which we obviously haven't solved. Second of all, exotic species do not mean the collapse of an ecosystem, it would simply replace the organism with the same niche. At worst it would lead to new diseases. Second of all, would you call an apple-tree which gives enlarged apples exotic? Since that too is accomplished through GM. You obviously reason with emotions, but have no knowledge of it whatsoever.

[Devious]

Originally Posted by ikkuh2

Devious, your post is dripping with ignorance. Go spread you BS somewhere else. Unlike you, i actually understand what radiation truely is and i am pretty sure food does not get radioactive. If that were to be the case, isotopes in food would be used in nuclear power plants. That would solve all energy problems, which we obviously haven't solved. Second of all, exotic species do not mean the collapse of an ecosystem, it would simply replace the organism with the same niche. At worst it would lead to new diseases. Second of all, would you call an apple-tree which gives enlarged apples exotic? Since that too is accomplished through GM. You obviously reason with emotions, but have no knowledge of it whatsoever.

Did I not state that it was my personal opinion? I believe you telling me to spread my "BS" elsewhere is much more ignorant than my post with a couple of links and a clear state that it is something that I think personally to be true to an extent. If you want to try to prove me ignorant the way you claim then please. Continue. Post your facts, be respectful, and if I lose a debate, then I lose a debate. No?

Irradiating a plant can cause mutation in the cells of the plant and therefore, when ingested, it has the potential of causing inflammation or other adverse effects on the body that intakes the plant. Note I am saying has the potential. Meaning that it won't always happen. Don't get too butt hurt now. :)

Do you believe that a Eucalyptus tree really belongs in the U.S. where the climate is much colder than that of its natural habitat? The fact that it is not suited to grow in the U.S. is what makes it exotic. Not the fact that it is GM. The GM is to make it more resistant to cold. Had you read the article you would know that and the fact that Eucalyptus take up a large amount of water and when they are planted in a largely forested area that means that some of the vegetation in the area has a high probability of dying due to lack of water.

You call me ignorant, when you yourself have not really shown any sign of reading a single piece of the article or considering the factors with a sense of respect before placing your fingers to the keyboard. Cheers

[▽]

You did not act as if it were a personal opinion, you obviously presented it as fact, with articles trying to show how truthfull it is. Oh and btw, the word BS has nothing to do with ignorance, too bad huh. You claimed that radiation literally causes radioactivity, you did not mention mutations until after i posted. Not that mutations in a plant are a bad thing, since any spontanious difference to the genotype is a mutation. With that in mind, a mutation could cause resistance to a disease, so inflamation upon ingestion, i don't think so. And the eucalyptus would die in the environment it's not suited for. Unless it is able to absorb at a rate that is several factors from other plants, it won't get enough. Absorbtion depends on several factors like root-area, humidity of the ground etc.

[Devious]

Originally Posted by ikkuh2

You did not act as if it were a personal opinion, you obviously presented it as fact, with articles trying to show how truthfull it is.

Simply read this quote:

Originally Posted by Devious

However, this is my opinion and I base it on what I have read, seen, and even tasted in some of my experience.

Now I don't think that's necessarily saying "this is fact! I don't care who you are, or where you're from! This is fact!" Or did I miss out on some kind of meeting?

Originally Posted by ikkuh2

Oh and btw, the word BS has nothing to do with ignorance, too bad huh.

Yes, but I believe saying that I should leave and speak somewhere else is fascist. Am I wrong? Instead of simply trying to correct my statements, or disrupt them you have just told me to shut up and get the hell out, so to speak. Last I checked fascism is pretty ignorant.

Originally Posted by ikkuh2

You claimed that radiation literally causes radioactivity, you did not mention mutations until after i posted. Not that mutations in a plant are a bad thing, since any spontanious difference to the genotype is a mutation. With that in mind, a mutation could cause resistance to a disease, so inflamation upon ingestion, i don't think so.

Ah yes, the wonderful word could. As I believe I did say:

Originally Posted by Devious

Irradiating a plant can cause mutation in the cells of the plant and therefore, when ingested, it has the potential of causing inflammation or other adverse effects on the body that intakes the plant. Note I am saying has the potential. Meaning that it won't always happen.

Which basically means, you could be right, and I could be right. No? Also I do apologize for not mentioning mutation until later. I guess I should try to make my posts more complete in the future. I'll try to get a lot of this across now so I don't get bashed for missing out on a paragraph of information. :)

Originally Posted by Devious

I personally find this to be a horrid example of how we are ruining our food and possibly even killing ourselves slowly by making our food almost radioactive.

I did say I personally. I guess I can see where you think I'm claiming fact or fiction on this. I also did say possibly meaning - once again - that I could be wrong. I posted those two links up merely to support what I say. Didn't know I'd have someone riding my ass for actually trying to support what I say. Next time I say something I'll just make sure that I say exactly what I mean with very small words so no one gets confuzzled. Mkay?

Originally Posted by ikkuh2

And the eucalyptus would die in the environment it's not suited for. Unless it is able to absorb at a rate that is several factors from other plants, it won't get enough. Absorbtion depends on several factors like root-area, humidity of the ground etc.

That's the wonderful world of GMO, isn't it? Taking something that shouldn't grow that big, or in that area, or with that type of gene and making it so! How wonderful it is to mess with the genes of plants and animals to make them more suited to our needs! :D

[▽]

[Fascism, compare me to hitler while you're at it, half the job is no job. Maybe i should rephrase, educate yourself and then post. It helps, a lot. As for missing that final sentence, it was your opinion i guess, but don't take counterarguments personal. I just want to show mutations have a bad ring to it, which is not entirely fair, since evolution, an endless chain of mutations, has helped humans reach their full potential. Mutation =/= disease/health risk. And GM is in no means bad or unnatural, nature does it through evolution, we do it in a lab. You know, how do you think the vegetables and fruits we eat have those perfect qualities of taste, size, shape and health-beneficial? All achieved through cross-breeding, a primitve form of GM. Technology ain't bad, mkay.