| Author |
 Topic  |
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
 Posted - 07/22/2003 : 08:51:03
|
| What I was trying to say was that your posts read like you're a madwoman. It's what's so darn endearing about you. That and the fact that you call me freaky friday. That's just too cool for school. |
 |
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2003 : 08:56:18
|
Do I really read like a madwoman? How so?
And aaahhhh, you're too sweet to eat meat. |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2003 : 08:59:32
|
| If you even have to ask, then I couldn't possibly explain. And I may be sweet, but I do eat meat. Though I consider stopping. I actually am thinking about adopting some vegan style choices into my diet, and maybe getting rid of some stuff, like lactose, meat, etc... It's just so hard because there is so much conflicting information. Low carb is best. Low protein is best. What does one do? |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2003 : 09:04:05
|
| I'm just joking, I eat meat too, I just wanted to rhyme. I eat all the time, I have the metabolism of a rabbit, or whatever has fast metabolism. |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2003 : 09:13:28
|
| A pig or a goat? |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2003 : 10:23:07
|
Uh..guys..the Henhouse is this way. ;)
Yes, i'm from Victoria. Very different from Van.
Low carb / high protein is great for losing weight, but it puts a lot of stress on the kidneys, induces ketosis, heightens the risk for osteoporosis, and other potential problems. It should *not* be a 'lifestyle' choice.
Carbs are our best fuel, easily assimilated, etc.. I'd recommend a diet (assuming you're fairly active) of something like 10-20% fat, 10-20% protein and the rest as carbs. If you're avoiding processed and fatty foods, and getting lots of fibre, you should be pretty well off. This is all very general of course.
High carb diets are can be bad if you're sitting on your ass all the time, or eating crap foods. Otherwise there are very few health risks from this combo, where as high-fat and high-protein diets are pretty well documented as holding multiple health risks. |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2003 : 10:35:28
|
| Thank you Dave, that's actually quite informative and helpful. I will keep that in mind. What I meant by "lifestyle" choice was incorporating some veganism, like reducing my lactose and meat intake. Clearly, I need to study the subject more. But thanks again for the info throughout this thread. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2003 : 11:06:48
|
| Actually I was trying to talk about Superstore and if their organic line is any good b/c it seems relatively cheap, but you know how Mike gets going..... |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2003 : 12:32:38
|
| How about I give you a totaly non-vegan, carnivorous kick in the mommy/daddy button? Hmm? That'll get YOU going, I bet..... |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2003 : 16:55:58
|
Find some good vegan cookbooks, they're really helpful!
I recommend How It All Vegan and The Garden of Vegan, two funky, fun cookbooks, all super-easy and fast recipes with mainly 'regular' ingredients. I'm friends with the authors as well, and the computer hosting FB.net is also hosting their website: www.govegan.net
Superstore and organics..not sure what to say.. Org. is always 'better', if you're comparing them to an identical product (no pesticides or GMO's), but that doesn't make them 'healthy'. White flour and sugar are white flour and sugar.
I think i remember seeing that stuff at Lahblahs when i lived in the T-Dot, the stuff i ate was all pretty good!
The more they're bought, the more their price *should* decrease.. I haven't paid more than $0.99/lb for banana's in over a year now..and regularly less than eighty cents.. But then look at soymilk, it's only going up in price. =( |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 15:33:10
|
Here's an interesting article, the UK just released a 300 page report on GE foods, they say they don't pose a serious risk to human health (when eaten), but there's serious environmental concerns:
http://www.gristmagazine.com/forward.pl?forward_id=1315 |
|
|
|
Brackish Girl
~ Soul Eater ~
Ireland
1750 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 16:15:15
|
and gmos must be annoying to vegetarians and vegans because they sometimes(usually) are modified using fish guts and the like...
bored of the little comments. i guess i'll just have an actual signature. much shorter.
-Jessie |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 21:35:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brackish Girl
and gmos must be annoying to vegetarians and vegans because they sometimes(usually) are modified using fish guts and the like...
What? Genetical modified foods are modified with fish guts? You've lost me. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2003 : 23:41:54
|
Sort of..they've spliced fish genes into tomatoes, to make them resistant to cold.
Blech. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 09:01:36
|
| I heard that they want to splice them with scorpions or something like that to make them resistant to bugs/pests. That's too fucked up. |
|
|
|
Brackish Girl
~ Soul Eater ~
Ireland
1750 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 11:11:09
|
bleugh.
bored of the little comments. i guess i'll just have an actual signature. much shorter.
-Jessie |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 11:32:10
|
Fruits and vegetables have been artificially selected since the beginning of agriculture. In the past, farmers kept and used the seeds from more successful and desirable plants. This artificial selection leads to plants with more desirable attributes. In more modern times, agriculturalist have used hybridization to form new crops like pluots (plum/apricots). My point is only that people have for a long time been "designing" crops.
Also, I think saying the plants are "modified with fish guts" or "spliced with scorpions" unnecessarily casts a freakish light on the modified plants. Perhaps (I don't know these cases) genes from fish or scorpions are being inserted into the plant genome, but the "evil scientists" are not making half plant/half animal monsters.
Now, the effort to make crops that don't produce seeds, thus forcing the farmer to buy new seeds every year is evil when pushed onto Third World farmers. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 12:33:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
I heard that they want to splice them with scorpions or something like that to make them resistant to bugs/pests. That's too fucked up.
In the end, what's the difference between a scorpion and a fish, or a fish and a tree, other than the organs that have developed? |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 12:42:51
|
| Um, there not even in the same genus. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 13:08:31
|
Not even the same Kingdom.
King Philip Crossed Over For a Green Salad
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 13:13:24
|
| Science was not my forte but thanks for making my point Darwin. |
|
|
|
evilheat
- FB Fan -
12 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 13:23:23
|
Here's a nice article for you kids to chew on, and there is quite a difference between splicing fish genes with tomato genes with selective breeding/seed saving. At the very least seed saving simply reproducing something that is naturally produced in the wild, with gmo's it highly unlikely that fish genes could cross with tomato genes in the wild......now considering this article and the damage the selective breeding has had, think what a quicker more radical change to an ecosystem, like the introduction of gmo's can have....and it's not as if it reversible. In Saskatchewan it is impossible to honestly say any canola is 100% gmo free, because the wind blows seeds through fields. In Mexico gmo corn has been found growing 1000 km from the nearest farm, the wind blew it away and into the wild.
Until companies can actually proof there are negligible side effects (to the humans or the larger environment), it's kindof hard for me to support any of them, especially considering Monsanto's history of destructive, deceitful and ultimately deadly actions in the past that were sure to help the world.
http://globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030719/COBANANA19//?query=yes%2C+we%27ll+have+no+bananas
Yes, we'll have no bananas
Thanks to selective breeding, our favourite fruit can neither reproduce nor defend itself from disease. There's a lesson here, says biologist ROBERT ALISON
By ROBERT ALISON
Saturday, July 19, 2003 - Page A19
E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Advertisement
The banana is about to disappear from store shelves around the globe. Experts say the world's favourite fruit will pass into oblivion within a decade. No more fresh bananas. No more banana bread. No more banana muffins or banana cream pie.
Why? Because the banana is the victim of centuries of genetic tampering. Scientists say they will be unable to prevent the extirpation of the banana as an edible commercial crop. And its demise may be one more powerful argument in the hands of those who are concerned about genetic modification of foods.
The banana's main problem is that it has become sterile and seedless as a result of 10,000 years of selective breeding. It has, over time, become a plant with unvarying genetic sameness. The genetic diversity needed to cope with environmental stresses, such as diseases and crop pests, has long ago been bred out of the banana. Consequently, the banana plantations of the world are completely vulnerable to devastating environmental pressures.
According to Emile Frison, newly appointed director-general of the Rome-based International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, science is helpless to prevent the demise of the banana. Already, he says, as much as 50 per cent of the world's banana harvest is lost to insects and disease.
When humankind first encountered this fruit thousands of years ago we were probably not impressed by the almost inedible giant wild bananas. Historic mutations, rare and accidental, produced seedless bananas through chromosome triplication. Ancient humans focused on these seedless, pollen-less mutants to generate progressively more edible crops. Eventually, edible banana flesh retained only a few vague traces of the viable seeds once carried in the ancestral wild stock.
Ancient plant breeders grew edible bananas by grafting sterile mutants onto wild stems. This process was repeated for thousands of years to produce the emasculated, sterile -- and defenceless -- plantation banana that currently feeds millions of people globally.
But the stage was set for the final act in the story of this beloved yellow fruit in the 1950s. By then, generations of selective breeding had long since inhibited natural banana reproduction, and genetic tinkering had all but obliterated most commercial varieties. Eventually, one morph remained, the Gros Michel variety. All domestic stock was its clone, an exact genetic copy of that one variety. Every tree was equally vulnerable to plant disease, crop pests and climate variables.
Then Panama disease, a soil fungus, attacked banana plantations and the genetically enfeebled Gros Michel banana was virtually wiped out. By 1960, the Gros Michel was no longer a viable crop. Tireless agricultural research eventually produced a successor, the Cavendish. For the past 40 years or so, the Cavendish has been virtually the only commercially grown stock available on store shelves in developed nations.
In the tropics, you can still find other, less desirable banana varieties, mainly grown as a starchy food staple rather than a sweet treat. But these tropical bananas aren't much like their commercial cousins in North American supermarkets. They taste bland. Their texture is often fibrous and mealy. North American consumers would probably find them quite unpalatable compared to the Cavendish, which is sweeter and smoother-textured.
But like its genetic predecessor, the Cavendish is also sterile, equally unprotected from diseases and crop pests. And now a powerful plant pathogen, the Black Sigatoka fungus, has appeared on the scene, attacking the Cavendish stock around the world. Banana yields have already dropped by 50-70 per cent, and banana-tree life spans have been reduced from about 30 years to just about two years. The genetic uniformity among Cavendish bananas has made them helpless to fight Black Sigatoka.
Nor can chemical spraying save the day. Commercial growers have long attempted to control the fungus using fungicides such as dibromochloropropane (now banned because it caused sterility and leukemia among banana industry workers). According to Dr. Frison, even powerful fungicides don't work against Black Sigatoka because the fungus is rapidly capable of developing resistance to them. Indeed, banana plantations in Costa Rica and the Amazon have already been largely destroyed.
The selective plant breeding that has brought us to this impasse is comparable to genetic engineering. Both change the genetic makeup of a plant, perhaps irreversibly. So the case of the banana gives ammunition to critics of genetic engineering and to their claim that much can go wrong when we tamper with plant genetics.
Such warnings aren't new. In 1995, biologists warned that changing the genetic makeup of a plant is like playing with fire. Even so, genetic alteration continues. At Oregon State University, scientists are at work on generating sterility in poplar trees; the Canadian Forest Service is looking into breeding insect resistance in white spruces; at the University of California, work is being done on changing root systems in walnut trees. And at the Independent University in Madrid, orange trees are being modified to promote early fruit-bearing and to grow oranges that are easier to peel.
The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute's Dr. Frison says biotechnology could still delay the loss of the banana, by providing the genetic blueprint of inedible wild varieties that can be genetically altered to create a genetically modified product. Does this hold out hope of an 11th-hour reprieve? Will consumers accept a GM substitute for the sweet fruit they enjoy so much?
The disappearance of the banana should be a wakeup call -- to what can result from reckless genetic manipulation, complacency and inattention. If this can happen to the world's most popular fruit with all humanity as its witness, imagine what could happen to more obscure, but no less useful plants whose fates are less publicized and open to public scrutiny.
Robert Alison, a consultant biologist based in Orillia, Ont., is a former senior biologist for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 13:50:55
|
evilheat thanks for the article. I agree that tampering with genomes may have many unpredictable and potentially disasterous effects.
But, I find it ironic that the article talks about "the banana" disappearing. As the article states, there are other varities of bananas that aren't disappearing (hey just aren't as sweet, but I know that other varities are being produced). Our grandkids will get to see bananas, probably not wild tigers, but bananas yes. And, the sweet "banana" that the article bemoans losing is only present because of selective breeding. So, is selectively breeding bad because it lowers genetic variability and leads to things like killer fungus, or good because it originally produced the sweet banana that we like? |
|
|
|
evilheat
- FB Fan -
12 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 14:16:33
|
| ya d, that's why to say, all tampering with nature is purely evil is as dumb as saying we can save EVERYTHING NOW if only those hippy environmentalist get out of the way.....which reminds me of some gmo proponents. I think recognizing that colonizing EVERYTHING with selective breeding is bad is a good start, we need variability and diversity for a healthy ecosystem and so we can deal with changes/catastrophes/whatever. If we didn't try to get rid of every other kind of banana it would probably be fine....basically competition and demand is fine (ie. sweat banana), but killing off the competition (as we've kindof done) is bad, because it nows looks like we won't even have much left as far as sweat bananas go..........so my the point of my ramblings, is mellow out finding the one great cure/taste that will serve the world and kill off everything else, compete but don't kill of the competition, cause you may need them in the end. |
|
|
|
Golly
- FB Fan -
Sweden
51 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 14:35:41
|
*I am discusted when i see a dead carcass or raw meat
*I drewl when i see a good ol' grilled steak
who's to say wich of theese reactions are more "natural" ?
Us humans aren't equiped with any big fangs, claws or muscle streangt
Evolution provided us with a big brain instead. With big brains came tools and hunting...and we learned that with fire we could cook the meat and make it easier to digest (i guess) , last longer and taste better.
So we could even ask ourselfs if the electrical carrot peeler isn't as much a thing of nature as a flower. Is it "natural" NOT to eat meat...I choose to eat meat. But i have absolutely NO good argument to as why i do this, it just seems like the natural thing to do for me
|
|
|
|
Brackish Girl
~ Soul Eater ~
Ireland
1750 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 14:54:37
|
food is just so stupid.
bored of the little comments. i guess i'll just have an actual signature. much shorter.
-Jessie |
|
|
|
mereubu
= FB QuizMistress =
USA
2677 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 16:32:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
evilheat thanks for the article. I agree that tampering with genomes may have many unpredictable and potentially disasterous effects.
But, I find it ironic that the article talks about "the banana" disappearing. As the article states, there are other varities of bananas that aren't disappearing (hey just aren't as sweet, but I know that other varities are being produced). Our grandkids will get to see bananas, probably not wild tigers, but bananas yes. And, the sweet "banana" that the article bemoans losing is only present because of selective breeding. So, is selectively breeding bad because it lowers genetic variability and leads to things like killer fungus, or good because it originally produced the sweet banana that we like?
Someone emailed me that damned banana article yesterday, and I'm relieved to see a different take on it.
BTW, I got to go on a little fossil hunting excursion w/an evolutionary geneticist this weekend. You're in a fun crowd. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 16:53:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
Um, there not even in the same genus.
I wasn't saying they're EXACTLY the same and therefore in the same classification or anything, just that in the end, if you're splicing a gene from something else in there, what does it matter what the source is? The point is that you're still splicing, and at that level, everything is just proteins, cells, chromosomes, and so on anyway... whether their function is to give life to a scorpion, fish, or tree is irrelevant in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Brackish Girl
~ Soul Eater ~
Ireland
1750 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 17:24:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
Um, there not even in the same genus.
I wasn't saying they're EXACTLY the same and therefore in the same classification or anything, just that in the end, if you're splicing a gene from something else in there, what does it matter what the source is? The point is that you're still splicing, and at that level, everything is just proteins, cells, chromosomes, and so on anyway... whether their function is to give life to a scorpion, fish, or tree is irrelevant in my opinion.
so you would kill something to unnaturally add something to something else???
bored of the little comments. i guess i'll just have an actual signature. much shorter.
-Jessie |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 22:01:35
|
| You don't need to kill something to take a gene from one animal to the other anymore, unless we're talking about murder at the cellular level, and then I guess, yes, I would. I have no attachment to individual cells. And, of course, we kill at the cellular level on a minutely basis, so it'd be pretty hypocritical of me to preach such things. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 22:30:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by mereubu
Someone emailed me that damned banana article yesterday, and I'm relieved to see a different take on it.
BTW, I got to go on a little fossil hunting excursion w/an evolutionary geneticist this weekend. You're in a fun crowd.
Thanks merebu. It's usually a pretty good gig. |
|
|
|
bazza
* Dog in the Sand *
Ireland
1439 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 03:37:55
|
i am reading 'fast food nation' at the moment.
anybody care to comment?
Is your work done? Are all pigs fed, watered and ready to fly?....
- David Brent |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 07:40:04
|
| I've heard good things and been meaning to read it... |
|
|
|
speedy_m
= Frankofile =
Canada
3581 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 07:48:57
|
| I'm reading Stupid White Men. Flame on, friends! (erebus, dallas, etc, etc...) |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 11:24:21
|
| FFN is supposed to be really good. I guess i should read it some time too.. I've read enough reviews, interviews and quotes that i feel like i've read it tho. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
