Food, Inc.

Seems odd not to have a preference between two choices.

As for ionizing radiation, here are a couple links that talk about it:

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch23/radiation.php

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae636.cfm

 

I don't see why, since, if you weight both overall with just the facts, there's typically not going to be a significant advantage to one over the other for the average person. Now, if there's a specific advantage in a specific instance, then that's different, but generally, there isn't. Like I've said, I've done both.

But there's nothing whatsoever that suggest there's anything harmful about it to the consumer. The idea that people get is that an irradiated food product is radioactive, and that's simply not so. In fact, it's complete ignorance to claim it is.

 

Who made that argument?
Is there any other argument against this type of processing?

 

No one here. It's a common argument of extreme pro-organic persons. Irradiation was cited in one of your prior posts from the USDA definition, which is why I brought up the question. I didn't mean to imply you had a position on it if that's the way my post came off. Sorry about that.

No, that's the common argument.

 

My personal issue with it would not be that, as you can see from the links I gave you to read for information.

I do not want this for my kids' food because

1. I'm concerned about possible nutrient loss from this method

2. It is used for some major stuff - I don't trust that it has no negative effects

3. The by-products of using this type of radiation are increased when it is used to treat consumable products. Whenever we can avoid creating toxic products that leave behind toxic waste, it is wise to do so.

4. It goes against my common sense instinct to feed my kids stuff that's been treated by a method that requires some of the most sophisticated safety and security methods known to mankind so that they do not suffer deadly results from exposure. While that one isn't grounded in fact, I have no problem with looking at something and going "nuh-uh, not good." Kinda like that gut instinct I had with Obama. No proof, just common sense kicking in and saying "doesn't look or smell or sound like a good idea and I don't want it at my table."

 

Any food treated for pathogen reduction is subject to some form of nutrient loss (for example, plasturization and flash freezing). There's no evidence of a net nutrient loss in irradiated foods vs treated nonirradiated foods.

There's no evidence that said negative effects exist.

Any form of treating foods leaves behind waste. The waste left by the irradiation process hasn't been shown to be any more or less of an impact than other forms of food treatment.

Our common sense isn't always based on objectivity. The same "common sense" argument was used to oppose pasteurization in its advent. Irradiation has been used for decades now, and is used in some 40 countries. Common objections raised simply haven't materialized.

 

All kinds of diseases, including cancer have been on the rise for decades now. Common sense tells us this is due to what we are exposing ourselves to and putting in our bodies for nutrition. There is no evidence that pacifism in these areas of introducing unnatural stimusus's on us and our our food suplies is not contributing to the root of the problems.

 

There's simply no evidence that supports your contention, so all you've got left is to say "it doesn't 'not' prove it. You can't prove a negative.

If that's so, then common sense is wrong. The most common killer of both men and women is heart disease. The most common contributor to heart disease is eating too much and moving to little.

Eat less and move more. Stop blaming everyone else for what you eat and for not excercizing. If a person can't understand this, that person lacks common sense.

 

My point exactly, I was just throwing your own logic backatcha, fer fun:

So what?! Try going a little deeper my friend, there are "many reasons" that our society is becoming more unhealthy and "many ways" to try and help turn this around.

 

Hahaha, very funny. Seriously, though, my logic on the topic is objective reasoning. To say "this-or-that is bad for you", but the only support is "prove it doesn't", doesn't bode well for the argument.

That sounds quite hypocritical coming from a person who has chosen to lay American's dietary problem on the fast food industry (while the rest of us here are laying the dietary problems on the American, where it rightly belongs).

And it is primary the American dietary consumer who is responsible for it.

 

*1 I’m not here to “argue” every point that goes beyond your “Golden Rule” of eating less and moving more for good health!

*2 I’ve addressed “your” principles of “objective reasoning” more than once, so stop patting yourself on the back with your intellectual reasoning abilities, I’m simply not impressed with your logical reasoning…K?

*3 I’ve previously tried to ask you nicely to quit being a troll in this forum about anything that goes beyond your “Golden Rule”:

Examples of what I care to go beyond from this forum:

*4 I've been far from vague to get a simple point across to you as to why (my motivation) I participate in this forum:So far all I conclude from your input in this forum is: A) You have some sort of extreme pacifist agenda and/or personal hang ups concerning ANYTHING that goes beyond your “Golden Rule” and/or a false pride and arrogance in your abilities to be an “objective philosophical debater” while in reality just glorying in your intellectual abilities to continue in meaningless rhetorical argument.

Perhaps in your “intellectual objectivism” you could tell us exactly what you “wouldn’t” strive to argue about like a single-minded, highly prone to offense as a defense, quarrelsome overweight person that just was just approached by a health conscientious objector’s concerns about society’s blindly accepting all, or even any part of the government’s, FDA’s, private industry’s manipulation of our food sources and other exposure allowances, and that states it as in reasonable probability as an unhealthy choice? Something that should be avoided, or a method of positive lifestyle change that wouldn’t necessarily agree with the status quo, REGARDLESS of “ones” pride in ability to be contrarily asinine by demanding reliance on some form of indisputable evidence before intelligently and consciously making a healthy lifestyle change?

…and I’ve also already clearly addressed this above disingenuous strawman issue:

 

But you are ignoring the reality that most of the health concerns yoru being up are mitigated by said golden rule.

But you've failed to refute objective reasoning. The OP topic is the film "Food Inc", and it's claims. Although a well-made film, the film is neither objective nor accurate, and in some cases false, as previously noted.

By your own definition of what a troll is, you must acknowlege that you are a troll.

Actually, you have. You've made a lot of broad claims, but never once provide factual support for them. Whenever I ask for specific examples, you call me a pacifist or some such nonsense.

That's funny, considering the fact that your argument by definition are strawman arguments.