Food Ethics (Poll)

[LeMansAid]

How is it mandatory to bring up something illegal?

Just had the awareness to not make it sound as if I thought I was being way "out there" bringing it up.

@Danoff, any reason why the meat of executed humans shouldn't be up for the eating? It'd be just seized property for a person that has forfeited their rights?

Jerk Ox tail

Please tell me none of those words are verbs.

Might be even worse if ET likes the way we taste.

I tried, but maybe didn't quite get my point across in the human rights thread a while back - but if we don't recognise a right to life in say pigs, but they themselves recognise it in way that we can't comprehend, does that in fairness open ourselves up (by way of having infringed a right to life) to the same treatment (as we of pigs) by an alien life form that doesn't recognise our recognition of a right to life? Actually, also if the alien life form could recognise all rights to life in all creatures, it could rightly punish us how they see fit. That could include eating us.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I tried, but maybe didn't quite get my point across in the human rights thread a while back - but if we don't recognise a right to life in say pigs, but they themselves recognise it in way that we can't comprehend, does that in fairness open ourselves up (by way of having infringed a right to life) to the same treatment (as we of pigs) by an alien life form that doesn't recognise our recognition of a right to life? Actually, also if the alien life form could recognise all rights to life in all creatures, it could rightly punish us how they see fit.

Welp, we're plentiful and easily farmed, we're not genetically modified and we're free-range, we come in all shapes and sizes, from lean to extra fatty, we can come from suckling to well-aged, some are fed only on vegetables, some primarily fed on meat, and some are pumped up with steroids.... if we taste good, they'd be bonkers not too - they may well want to eat whatever's tasty.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I would, actually. From a consenting donor. If i had to amputate my own leg, I'd ask to have it saved for later. It would be an interesting experiment.

Earlier in the thread you called me selfish for not eating GMO food, and you're talking about eating human flesh?

 

[ryzno]

Just had the awareness to not make it sound as if I thought I was being way "out there" bringing it up.

@Danoff, any reason why the meat of executed humans shouldn't be up for the eating? It'd be just seized property for a person that has forfeited their rights?


Please tell me none of those words are verbs.


I tried, but maybe didn't quite get my point across in the human rights thread a while back - but if we don't recognise a right to life in say pigs, but they themselves recognise it in way that we can't comprehend, does that in fairness open ourselves up (by way of having infringed a right to life) to the same treatment (as we of pigs) by an alien life form that doesn't recognise our recognition of a right to life? Actually, also if the alien life form could recognise all rights to life in all creatures, it could rightly punish us how they see fit. That could include eating us.

I don't know how it's properly called. But it was Jamaican jerk seasoned ox tail.

 

[Northstar]

I don't know how it's properly called. But it was Jamaican jerk seasoned ox tail.

You were right, I've never had ox tail, but Jerk Chicken is amazing.

Also, humans would probably be a terrible source of food since it takes quite awhile for us to reach full size.

 

[Pseudopod]

Earlier in the thread you called me selfish for not eating GMO food, and you're talking about eating human flesh?
View attachment 462244

What's selfish about that? If I recycle myself, that just means more normal meat for the rest of you

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff, any reason why the meat of executed humans shouldn't be up for the eating? It'd be just seized property for a person that has forfeited their rights?

So just to be straight you're talking about cannibalism of a person who has committed a heinous crime (such as shooting up a school full of kids). I don't think there's any objective reason why that has to be banned. There are about 1000 subjective reasons why it can be banned, and so much of sentencing is subjective. For example, there's no objective reason why capital punishment has to be non-televised or by electrocution or lethal injection. Hanging in the public square is certainly an option (bbq to commence shortly after), but for subjective reasons, we no longer hang folks in the public square.

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/26/news/red-meat-processed-cancer-world-health-organization/index.html

The World Health Organization said Monday that eating processed meat such as sausages and ham causes cancer, while unprocessed red meat may also be carcinogenic.

The WHO's cancer research unit now classifies processed meat as "carcinogenic to humans on the basis of sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer," it said in a new report.

 

[JKgo]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/26/news/red-meat-processed-cancer-world-health-organization/index.html

...So basically, eat pork? Hell yeah, bacon....wait, bacon's not a processed food!! It's smoked!!

 

[Adamgp]

That won't stop me from eating processed meat.

Besides, what doesn't give you cancer these days?

 

[Johnnypenso]

...So basically, eat pork? Hell yeah, bacon....wait, bacon's not a processed food!! It's smoked!!

Not so fasthttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-cigarettes-global-health-chiefs-declare.html

That won't stop me from eating processed meat.

Besides, what doesn't give you cancer these days?

That's the same excuse my friends use to continue smoking into their 30's, 40's and 50's. "Breathing the air gives you cancer".

 

[niky]

That won't stop me from eating processed meat.

Besides, what doesn't give you cancer these days?

Dying?

-

As an aside, on the GMO argument... there are (non-profit) groups that are developing GMOs to put nutrition back into food crops... nutrition lost through overbreeding. And there's always the possibility of canning hybrid vigor or at least returning to modern crops pest and disease resistances lost through that same overbreeding.

Then there's the problem that you can still qualify food as "organic" if you use pesticides that contain naturally occuring compounds, then you can still use the label "organic"... even if you're using relatively toxic, off-the-shelf pesticides sold by big conglomerates.

And toxins are toxins. The only difference is that organic toxins are not as well studied as synthetic ones... and we still don't know the long term effects of big amounts of these toxins on the environment. (Hey, red tide is organic, too)

-

So, no, "GMO" and "organic" shouldn't necessarily be qualifiers that determine what you eat and don't eat... "farm-factory grown" or "sustainably farmed" might be more logical tags.

 

[Danoff]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/26/news/red-meat-processed-cancer-world-health-organization/index.html

I no longer trust any dietary recommendations from any source. Water is bad for you, no it's good for you, actually in moderation. Eggs are bad for you, no they're good for you, no they're bad for you, no they're good for you. Saturated fat is bad for you, well, sometimes. Fat is bad for you, no it's good for you. Whole grains are good for you, actually carbs are bad for you. Cholesterol is bad for you, well, it's complicated. Dietary cholesterol is linked with bad cholesterol, well, maybe not. Alcohol is bad for you, well, sometimes it's good.

And on a wider note... peanuts are bad for kids under 1 year old, actually introduce it at 6 months to prevent peanut allergies. Wash your hands constantly, actually that causes illness, but not washing them also causes illness. Wash the right amount. Soap is good for you, actually it's bad for your skin. Antibacterial mouthwash is good for your gums... actually bad for your gums and teeth.

So when I see a new study that links food X with condition Y, I say they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Liquid]

Excluding the free will to choose to not eat it, red meat is an evolutionary and biological staple of human beings, no? It's not surprising that there's something wrong with eating it but you'd take any warnings about it with a pinch of salt. And a dash of pepper. With some chilli sauce on the side.

 

[Joel]

It doesn't say never eat red meat and bacon again. It says there's a cancer risk involved with eating it regularly. I don't see why that's such a huge deal, or why it's such a big deal to maybe not have a big portion of beef or pork every single day.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Excluding the free will to choose to not eat it, red meat is an evolutionary and biological staple of human beings, no? It's not surprising that there's something wrong with eating it but you'd take any warnings about it with a pinch of salt. And a dash of pepper. With some chilli sauce on the side.

Human evolution was based mainly on eating wild game, caught or killed and eaten fresh. Domestication is a relatively recent phenomenon on the evolutionary scale, and large scale, industrialization of meat production is even more recent. We didn't naturally evolve eating cows, raised in pens, stationary for their whole lives and fed corn. Or pigs in the same conditions. Or chickens or any other commonly consumed meat source.

 

[Danoff]

It doesn't say never eat red meat and bacon again. It says there's a cancer risk involved with eating it regularly. I don't see why that's such a huge deal, or why it's such a big deal to maybe not have a big portion of beef or pork every single day.

It's not a big deal. But why should I change anything at all based on something I don't trust?

Human evolution was based mainly on eating wild game, caught or killed and eaten fresh. Domestication is a relatively recent phenomenon on the evolutionary scale, and large scale, industrialization of meat production is even more recent. We didn't naturally evolve eating cows, raised in pens, stationary for their whole lives and fed corn. Or pigs in the same conditions. Or chickens or any other commonly consumed meat source.

...and that makes a difference because?

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's not a big deal. But why should I change anything at all based on something I don't trust?

...and that makes a difference because?

If you're eating highly processed, industrial raised beef, you're not eating the same meat humans evolved eating, so basically, all meat is not created equal. The differences between free range, grass fed beef and beef raised in a pen for example:
http://chriskresser.com/why-grass-fed-trumps-grain-fed/

Just to be clear, I'm not a food Nazi. I'll still eat a steak once in a while that isn't free range. But I do believe in the old expression, "you are what you eat". I see the evidence all around me and it's hard to deny, amongst friends and family. The healthiest people I know eat right and are active, the unhealthiest people I know eat poorly and are less active. Until I hit near 40, I too thought I could just eat and drink whatever I wanted and everything would be fine. I no longer believe that and I simply try to select the highest quality food I can afford and shy away from things I don't believe will be healthy for me. I don't believe eating a few things off the "bad list" is going to affect me, but I do believe eating a diet that consists mainly of processed and convenience foods will negatively affect your health in ways that isolated studies can't necessarily pinpoint.

 

[FoolKiller]

Having read multiple sources for this study and all the quotes from scientists I have figured out what this study says.

Basically, it is unhealthy to eat about a pound of meat a day. So, same as always, only they say cancer will kill you this time. Considering what we know about nitrates it is no surprise on the processed meat thing.

So, continue on about your daily lives. Unless all you eat is a 10oz steak or 1/2 pound of ham every day you'll be fine. The same as always.

Considering that I (and a large portion of the population) also enjoy poultry and fish this is a non-issue. But don't let that stop American news agencies from kicking in the scare mongering headlines.


I have one giant fear regarding this. Protein is very effective in slowing the absorption of sugars through carbohydrates. Protein in your diet can prevent spikes in glucose. If we scare unhealthy eaters away from high sources of protein we could see a diabetic spike.

 

[Danoff]

If you're eating highly processed, industrial raised beef, you're not eating the same meat humans evolved eating, so basically, all meat is not created equal. The differences between free range, grass fed beef and beef raised in a pen for example:
http://chriskresser.com/why-grass-fed-trumps-grain-fed/

Just to be clear, I'm not a food Nazi. I'll still eat a steak once in a while that isn't free range. But I do believe in the old expression, "you are what you eat". I see the evidence all around me and it's hard to deny, amongst friends and family. The healthiest people I know eat right and are active, the unhealthiest people I know eat poorly and are less active. Until I hit near 40, I too thought I could just eat and drink whatever I wanted and everything would be fine. I no longer believe that and I simply try to select the highest quality food I can afford and shy away from things I don't believe will be healthy for me. I don't believe eating a few things off the "bad list" is going to affect me, but I do believe eating a diet that consists mainly of processed and convenience foods will negatively affect your health in ways that isolated studies can't necessarily pinpoint.

...and it makes a difference because? You think you've identified the various healths of all of your friends and know their diets and have an iron-clad correlation? Or you just think "you are what you eat" sounds good and figured hey, it costs more, must be better?

 

[Johnnypenso]

...and it makes a difference because? You think you've identified the various healths of all of your friends and know their diets and have an iron-clad correlation? Or you just think "you are what you eat" sounds good and figured hey, it costs more, must be better?

I'll never convince you that my anecdotal evidence from my own life means anything so I won't bother. For me though, I've been conscious of food and its connection to health for more than a decade and everything I see around me convinces me there's a definite correlation between the two. I don't expect it to convince anyone else nor do I offer it up as incontrovertible proof. It is what it is, one man's observations.

 

[W3H5]

I eat whatever I like and don't eat what I don't like.

To say I'm a fussy eater is an understatement. I don't like much, but what I do like probably came from something which once had a pulse.

Vegetables I don't like. I'd rather eat bugs than a carrot.

 

[Rallywagon]

I'm a big animals rights guy. My wife and I currently have a small rescue (mainly cats ATM), and will be moving soon to larger property to build a proper rescue facility. That said, I am not above the nature we come from. Biologically we are omnivores. I do indeed eat meat.
That said, meat is not the main component of my diet. We try not to eat out often. And everything we buy generally comes from local markets and farms. We tend to eat more vegetarian dishes. The meat we get comes from farms in the community my wife grew up in and we know a good number of them. The animals are free range and well treated. A far cry from the cruelty of factory farming.
I've been considering taking up hunting and only eating animals I am able to get myself, but at the moment, wasting disease is starting to spread through the deer populations around here.

And for the record, I am not against GMOs. People take almost a religious stance against them, a lot like the anti vax movement. I'm not a Monsanto supporter. I think their business practices are deplorable. But that is their business side. Further, Monsanto isn't the only company around. I just think people zero in on trigger words and get tunnel vision. They then begin to ignore contrary evidence to their beliefs. Most GMO plants go through nearly a decade or more of testing before being released for public consumption. GMOs and the scientist creating them are not the monsters some people want to believe them to be.

 

[Danoff]

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/genetically-modified-crops-are-safe-report-says-n575436

Report seems to really like GMOs from a health, biological responsibility, environmental, and economic efficiency perspective.

 

[FoolKiller]

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/genetically-modified-crops-are-safe-report-says-n575436

Report seems to really like GMOs from a health, biological responsibility, environmental, and economic efficiency perspective.

My only concern with GMOs is not the genetic modifications, but that we now can spray herbicides on them because they are resistant. One benefit of GMOs is less spraying of insecticide, so it feels like we may have just traded poisons.

That said, reading through this study, it appears that what tests on this there are that exist are very few and too small to draw any definite conclusion from.

Ultimately, it just comes down to washing your food well, which is a generally good idea for produce anyway. Fortunately, the majority of GMOs are corn and soybeans, both of which come with their own natural outer layer that humans rarely eat.

I get most of my stuff locally anyway, so it matters little to me.

 

[Rallywagon]

My only concern with GMOs is not the genetic modifications, but that we now can spray herbicides on them because they are resistant. One benefit of GMOs is less spraying of insecticide, so it feels like we may have just traded poisons.

That said, reading through this study, it appears that what tests on this there are that exist are very few and too small to draw any definite conclusion from.

Ultimately, it just comes down to washing your food well, which is a generally good idea for produce anyway. Fortunately, the majority of GMOs are corn and soybeans, both of which come with their own natural outer layer that humans rarely eat.

I get most of my stuff locally anyway, so it matters little to me.

I'm pretty sure nearly every fruit and veggie sold is a GMO. Larger, juicier, more flavorful and seedless produce.

 

[Swagger897]

I'm pretty sure nearly every fruit and veggie sold is a GMO. Larger, juicier, more flavorful and seedless produce.

Quite hard to tell too as the tags on them are super small..

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm pretty sure nearly every fruit and veggie sold is a GMO. Larger, juicier, more flavorful and seedless produce.

Corn, soybeans, sugar beets, canola and cotton, I believe are the foods most likely to be genetically modified. If you eat processed foods you simply can't avoid them but if you don't, they aren't that hard to avoid if that's your preference.

 

[Ken]

To say I'm a fussy eater is an understatement. I don't like much, but what I do like probably came from something which once had a pulse.

Sounds like me. But I do enjoy some vegetables, such as carrots.

 

[Pupik]

Probably only have to check "endangered animals" and cats/dogs. Maybe if it was a last resort, but the chances of that situation are effectively nil. They'd probably outrun me in my weakened state. Moderating the amount of intake (like having a second or third helping) is about it, for health reasons. Yay for turning 40...

If the organic choice actually tastes better and it's not overpriced, I'll give it a try. But usually, my palette and biota can't detect much difference. This is going to sound weird, but I have tried some organic foods that disagreed with me, so I'm a bit skeptical, such that "organic label" is largely without proof. If it tastes better in my personal opinion, that's really all that matters.

I've never been worried nor concerned about genetically-modified organisms. Do we absolutely know the long-term effects of it? No, but neither do we know about introducing anything new or modified into the ecosystem until we try it.