But one side of the debate, that is the producer side, is greedily eager to rush ahead before the consumer side is ready to take up the question intelligently.

So to me it makes sense to expect the producer side to, at the very least, be scrupulous about letting people know what they're eating. Otherwise people are just buying a pig in a poke, as it were. I dislike doing business with people who aren't willing to be completely transparent. And I tend to dig in my heels and push back with people who aren't. So to me it makes good sense to at least ask for labelling. People need time.

Aside from that, the initiative strikes me as being poorly written, but that's a different story.

Just thoughts, and all FWIW!

On the other hand, it is almost impossible for farmers to keep corn free of GMO's, as corn is wind pollinated.

However, these same techniques are now being used as a more efficient way to develop desirable traits within a plant, such as finding a highly drouth tolerant corn, using gene mapping to identify genes for drouth tolerance, then transferring those genes into a modern corn variety. It can be much more specific and quicker than cross breeding to get a desirable trait, then cross breeding undesirable traits back out. This has not necessarily been targeted by the anti-GMO crowd because the same results could be obtained with traditional cross breeding techniques--but at greater cost in time.

The proposal does not distinguish between these two types of genetic modification, just the process. Unless you are a Luddite, this latter method of using modern science to speed development of desirable traits should not raise an issue.

Just as selective breeding sped up the process of natural selection, the techniques of genetic engineering can speed up the progress of selective breeding.

Oddly enough, once these things are in place, an easy out is to say the product "may contain" so that the supply chain does not have to go through the cost of testing, segregation, etc. and you really don't learn anything about your food, only that the producer doesn't want to use the presence or non-presence as a marketing gimmick.

Yep...and even more difficult to obtain non-gmo seed. As I understand it Monsanto has bought out a number of tradional seed producers making it near impossible to source non-gmo seed.
That's really my only BIG hangup with the whole gmo ordeal. Mega-corporations getting legal control over life forms. Off the cuff it seems ok, but it concerns me that they could potentially obtain warrants to search your property based on speculation. Monsanto achieved great things with their biotech, but their legal execution and policing left a lot to be desired.

But I am not a fan of government regulation, so would rather see this GMO thing be consumer driven. Consumers can and do say no to things. GMO potatoes were put out of business because McDonalds did not want them because they were afraid of consumer push back. That is the model I prefer.

Some people keep talking about GMO's saving the world by making crops more drought tolerant or resistant to pests, but this has proven to be for the most part, hype.

Show me the examples of this, (GMO's saving the world) and I may feel somewhat differently about labeling, but for the most part this is a story about huge corporations wanting the wool over the eyes of the public to avoid damage to their vast profits. In other words, labeling is in the interest of the public, and the other side of the debate is about these companies trying to convince voters that labeling is a bad idea.

By the way, good old plant breeding has been creating drought resistant and pest tolerant crops for millennia.

Clearly there is a whole lot of debate regarding gmo, with folks on both sides of the issue unable to understand how the opposition can't see what they see as obvious.

The fact that such controversy does exist, with reasonable and intelligent people arguing both sides would seem to me to support a labeling law. People should be free to choose what they put into their bodies and support with their purchases.
If you produce a new product, and claim it is safe....why would you be reluctant to label it?
The common argument I hear is that the label implies a difference, and will create a reluctance among consumers. As a consumer I feel that's not my problem. It is the job of the producers to sell their product. If honest labeling makes that difficult for them, then they need to develop better marketing strategy, and convince the consumer.....not hide the product they claim is safe and attempt to remove the ability to choose from the consumer.

We don't see a big push against labeling for corn or sugar as an ingredient and those things need to be on a food label, why not GMOs? The answer is pretty clear. The produces and farmers know that if they tell people what they are buying, their sales will go down. Isn't that really what it is about.

These same product are required to have this labeling (and more) in other places (Europe for example). So if they are already doing it there, why do they care about doing it at home too? Hmmm.

There is a lot more to the GMO debate than just the technology, There are also the questions about what it has been used for (right now mostly putting herbicide resistance and insecticides into the plant). These have the side effects of putting residues of those products (the internal ones and the applied ones) into the food supply at far greater levels than before. Something which has not been adequately studied IMO.

I think your should give people the full information and let them choose. If some companies don't like it when people don't choose their products, let them find new ones. Far better approach than keeping people in the dark so they can continue to make their profits.

What is poisonous to the bugs is poisonous to humans. Almost certainly the sharp increase in diseases of civilization is related to these developments. All plants defend themselves by making toxins, no exceptions. Only ripe fruits are somewhat emptied of toxins, because that is advantageous in an evolutionary sense. Making our own food more toxic, and effectively passing the costs (and pain) to the consumer, is hardly progress.

Obviously, some labeling is a good thing. The question is where to draw the line. Should we require cans of coffee (or individual cups of coffee) to have warnings too much coffee can cause health problems?

Producers of GM food argue the preponderance of the evidence is that GM food is as healthy as non-GM counterparts. They argue, labeling will be interpreted by some consumers as a warning, even though the FDA and the American Medical Association state there is no scientific justification for labeling such products.

I think it's similar to soy milk. There is some debate on the health concerns of soy milk (and soy in general). Interestingly, there is no serious push to label soy milk with the potential dangers of consuming it.

The type of labeling is also an important distinction. If GM labeling required only fine print, included with all the other ingredients on the back or side of the package, it would probably not be interpreted as a "warning". In that case, the package simply contains information for the consumer regarding the ingredients in the product.

It is quite another thing to mandate that a genetically modified food be labeled, "PRODUCED WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING" and placed "in a clear and conspicuous manner" on the package, as in the case of Colorado Prop 105. In that case, whether intended or not, the labeling may effectively become simply a marketing campaign for the organic industry. If that's the case, it strikes me as a sort of "intangible" subsidy for that industry, which (pardon the pun) leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

It would be more akin to the GMO thing, if the soy milk manufacturers were trying to just label their product as MILK and pass it off as the same thing as dairy milk, at least in my opinion.

Sorry, your word means nothing. Show studies. plus we are living longer, so how is disease increasing? Maybe we can attribute our longer life span to these changes also.
Longer life spans is common knowledge documented by hundreds of studies.

Olpea, your post makes a lot of sense, I agree 100%.

Steve,

I agree the analogy falls short (most analogies do). My point is that labeling is not as black and white as it sometimes seems on the surface.

Perhaps a closer analogy would be requiring salt suppliers to put on their labels in bold print, "This product contains cyanide" (Some brands of salt do contain a form of cyanide as an anti-caking agent, but the form of cyanide used has very low toxicity.)

Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to requiring GMO labeling in the area reserved for food ingredients, so people who want to avoid GMO foods can do so. There seems to be enough of the population concerned about GMOs to warrant that. But the Colorado initiative seems to me something different.

You can find this info all over the web, but the study below is nice because it compares directly inflammation markers and gut inflammation w.r.t. the type of wheat. And there is a lot of evidence that diseases of civilization start with an inflamed gut.

Not necessarily true, glib.
Bt toxin has no effect on mammalian/avian cells - only affects specific members of the Lepidoptera, and only larval stages feeding on the target plant, at that.
Incorporation of Bt genes into corn, resulting in less stalk and ear damage by borers and corn earworms results in greater productivity and less mycotoxin contamination of the grain product.
The naturally-occurring mycotoxins that contaminate damaged/stressed grain-producing plants are a much greater concern to those of us who know about their actions than are genes that encode for production of Bt toxin or tolerance of herbicide application.

Now that is funny!!! Ha!!
USA has the best cancer survival rates. We live longer, and have less deaths at birth. Much propaganda is out there. The anti-capitalists trying to say progress is bad. Laughable!
Much like the fake global warming. If you look at the actual data, as with global warming, what is said and what is true are in contrast.
The link is funny too, you call that research? It's just an abstract! Come on! What a joke!

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

http://www.thecountriesof.com/top-5-countries-with-lowest-life-expectancy-rates-in-the-world/

http://www.thecountriesof.com/top-5-countries-with-higest-life-expectancy-rates-in-the-world/

Notice the developed industrial countries have the highest life expenancy USA ranks about 35th, but they count abortions, and soldier deaths, if you eliminate that, we fair really well. What I mean by spin or propaganda, to lower our rate they included abortions, which are not counted in other countries. People are too stupid to actually do their homework, so this propaganda works really well.

Good point Lucky P, so the BT GMO is making corn less toxic, exactly opposite of what is said. Disinformation is the rule these days. I must say the book 1984 is coming true. Orwell was a genius! We have people and organizations trying to shut down companies and techniques that make life safer and better touting that they are harmful. I would have never thought the level of ignorance would ever rise this far. But here it is right in this thread.

The CIA says we are #42, and that is good enough for me. Are you accusing the CIA of anti-capitalism? Partially developed: Greece, Saint Pierre, Virgin Islands, Anguilla,

1 Monaco 89.57
2 Macau 84.48
3 Japan 84.46
4 Singapore 84.38
5 San Marino 83.18
6 Hong Kong 82.78
7 Andorra 82.65
8 Switzerland 82.39
9 Guernsey 82.39
10 Australia 82.07
11 Italy 82.03
12 Sweden 81.89
13 Liechtenstein 81.68
14 Canada 81.67
15 France 81.66
16 Jersey 81.66
17 Norway 81.60
18 Spain 81.47
19 Israel 81.28
20 Iceland 81.22
21 Anguilla 81.20
22 Netherlands 81.12
23 Bermuda 81.04
24 Cayman Islands 81.02
25 Isle of Man 80.98
26 New Zealand 80.93
27 Ireland 80.56
28 Germany 80.44
29 United Kingdom 80.42
30 Greece 80.30
31 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 80.26
32 Austria 80.17
33 Malta 80.11
34 Faroe Islands 80.11
35 European Union 80.02
36 Luxembourg 80.01
37 Belgium 79.92
38 Taiwan 79.84
39 Korea, South 79.80
40 Virgin Islands 79.75
41 Finland 79.69
42 United States 79.56

To prevent cross-contamination, you need a totally segregated distribution
Cost of new grain elevator: 3 million (and several years to build)
Cost of new railroad cars - $50-100 thousand each, and you are in line behind Warren Buffet in the buying queue
Cost of grain bins - $50-300K each, depending on features
Cost of flour mills
Etc.

Expecting the general public to pay for your food whims and fetishes is like demanding that the extra cost of Kosher and Halal inspecting be subsidized by Buddhists and atheists. And to label porkchops as "Not-Kosher".

If you want non-GMO you can already get it by buying certified organic foods.

==========
And look at the "Don't ask, don't tell" loophole" they created.

3) FOOD WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED MISBRANDED UNDER PARAGRAPH (q) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION IF IT IS PRODUCED BY A PERSON WHO:

(a) GROWS, RAISES OR OTHERWISE PRODUCES SUCH FOOD WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE THAT THE FOOD WAS CREATED WITH SEED OR OTHER FOOD THAT WAS DERIVED IN ANY WAY THROUGH A PROCESS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING;

=========

It's going to be interesting if the major manufacturers slap a label on everything saying "PRODUCED WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING" except for their small organic house brands where they are paying for the certified organic label.

I'll take my chances with GMO products over 'organic', as currently labeled.

You do not need separate storage facilities, we don't have them now for organics, why should you need them for a lesser standard like non-GMO? It's a nice straw dog to scared folks with though.

And the claims of bankrupting these large corps because they need to label GMOs is equally laughable. They track and label them now for their export markets in Europe. Yet another straw dog argument.

There are two different types of pesticides to consider: systemic ones, which are either made by a plant (GMO or not) and ones which are temporarily applied (yes I know there are some spray on systemics too). The temporary ones can be washed off, and come off with rain and exposure (at least the above ground ones). The systemic ones do not. Whether it is a natural systemic or a GMO one, they are in the plant for good. Our genetic manipulating abilities are not to the point where we can "make" a plant that produces a pesticide right up to the time of harvest and then stops just in time to have clean food. Would be nice, but hasn't happened yet.

So GMO plants which make their own Bt, will always have elevated levels in their product. It's not like regular corn sprayed with Bt, where there is a withholding period and it can be washed off. Some of the sprayed on insecticides can be equally pervasive, such as the synthetic nicotinoids, which are systemic too I hear.

Hard to say which is worse for the human population as a whole, but there have been reports that Bt toxin is commonly found in detectable levels in all people living in the US. Obviously doesn't cause folks to drop over dead, but who knows what the long term effects of it will be. Hopefully nothing, but I strongly feel people should have the info so that they can choose whether they want to be part of this experiment or not.

A lot of very good and well thought out ideas and opinions going on here. Enjoying the read.

I don't really like either side of this issue, the producers don't seem to realize that it is nearly impossible to gauge what the long-term effects could be, so a little more humility is needed. Sure the Bt-fed and non-Bt-fed rats got cancer at the same rates, but did you notice all the itching those Bt-fed rats were doing? (As one hypothetical example: there are countless effects that chemicals can produce besides cancers and its impossible to study them all.) The anti-GMO side often has little grasp of the science to begin with.

Scott

SPRINGFIELD, IL�"Wreaking untold environmental and economic devastation throughout the region, a strain of harvest-resistant corn engineered by the agrochemical company Monsanto is now engulfing most of the Midwest, officials confirmed Monday.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the genetically modified crop, which Monsanto originally enhanced with traits to provide resistance from pests, diseases, and environmental conditions such as drought and frost, has become completely impervious to industrial reaping machinery and has spread uncontrollably across 700,000 square miles of land. With the unharvestable corn growing through asphalt roadways and airport tarmacs all over the Midwest, FEMA has been leading efforts to evacuate millions of residents before the plants obstruct all travel in the central United States.

“This particular strain of Monsanto corn is advancing at an alarming rate, and all efforts to contain the aggressive infestation have thus far been unsuccessful,” said Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Krysta Harden, who confirmed that the bioengineered crop thrives even in inhospitable environments and threatens entire ecosystems through rapid colonization and domination of native vegetation. “At this rate, we are facing a catastrophic level of growth. The corn has spread quickly from farms, overwhelming small towns and suburban neighborhoods, and is now starting to encroach upon highly populated cities.”

“We’re dealing with a virtually indestructible corn plant that faces no natural competition and can take hold and flourish on any available surface,” added Harden. “At this point, the stretch of land from Minnesota to Arkansas has almost been completely consumed by this agribusiness product.”

According to accounts, hundreds of farmers throughout the region have been forced to abandon tractors and agriculture equipment in fields overgrown with the robust crop. Despite efforts by the USDA to halt the crop’s expansion using high-concentration herbicides, chemical treatments of the region’s soil, and controlled fires, thick rows of the corn�"officially known by the Monsanto product ID MON915�"have continued to overtake farmland, forests, parks, and both commercial and residential properties.

Officials confirmed that the highly resilient corn is composed of a Monsanto-patented steel-like plant fiber, creating an unbreakable stalk and an impenetrable husk that is impossible to open or separate from the rest of the organism. In addition, sources confirmed that the corn’s roots become too firmly embedded in the bedrock to remove the plant from the soil.

“This genetically modified corn is so dense in places that it has rendered many towns in the Midwest completely inaccessible,” said Harden, warning that the corn, which was carefully engineered in Monsanto’s St. Louis laboratories, was rapidly draining the nutrients from the soil and depleting the region’s groundwater. “By our estimates, the crop is now consuming 100 acres of land per hour, and is likely to completely cut off the Omaha metropolitan area by month’s end.”

“Unfortunately, the start of colder weather hasn’t slowed this bioengineered corn at all,” added Harden. “It’s too hardy.”

Following its introduction during the 2013 agricultural season, the corn has ravaged natural habitats by crowding out local wildlife’s food sources and clogging major waterways, including the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, with its dense root systems. In recent weeks, experts expressed concerns about the humanitarian crisis caused by the crop’s unrelenting expansion, which has forced the populations of Columbia, MO, Carbondale, IL, Ames, IA, and several other cities to abandon their homes.

“The corn started inching in on the outskirts of town about four months ago,” said Columbia, MO, resident Carla Tanner, who was forced to evacuate with her family of four after numerous stalks of the bio-patented crop burst through her home’s floorboards, compromising several of the load-bearing elements in the building and making the structure unsafe for habitation. “None of us expected the corn to grow so fast and so thick. By the time we left, you could hardly see from one side of Main Street to the other for all the stalks.”

“There is no Columbia anymore,” Tanner continued. “It’s all just corn.”

At press time, the Monsanto Company had announced plans to bring legal action against the 65 million people of the Midwest for growing patented genetic material without paying them.

LOL!

One single component of wellness, regular vigorous exercise, reduces and in some cases nearly eliminates the risk of type 2 diabetes, stroke, heart disease, fatty liver disease, high blood pressure, depression, some cancers, arthritis, falls, dementia, and more. While improving mood, sex, energy, and sleep. Add in the other components of wellness and it sums up to a mountain of benefits compared to something like GMOs. But how many really take advantage? Not many from what I can see compared to the crowd looking to pop a pill for what ails them.

Ill tell you how to solve the problem. Some of you wont like it.
Mandatory death penalty for any ceo thats sells gmo food that kills or seriously incapacitates a single consumer, beyond any doubt.
I guarantee the chances of gmo foods causing problems will shrink to virtually zero.

Gmo foods have been around for centuries. The world population would not be what it is today if not for gmo. It will be around, with greater influence, for centuries to come.
A balance must be found, I do hope it happens before there is a gmo related food scare.
I propose if people didnt have some much time and money, there wouldnt be an issue. Look how many years we have eaten gmo with nary a discouraging word.

What strikes me is that people worry about pesticides, GMO, and other factors that likely have little influence on health, happiness, and longevity. The USA is 10 yrs behind Monaco in the later largely due to lifestyle induced syndromes. What percent of Americans are obese, at least a third.
One single component of wellness, regular vigorous exercise, reduces and in some cases nearly eliminates the risk of type 2 diabetes, stroke, heart disease, fatty liver disease, high blood pressure, depression, some cancers, arthritis, falls, dementia, and more. While improving mood, sex, energy, and sleep. Add in the other components of wellness and it sums up to a mountain of benefits compared to something like GMOs. But how many really take advantage? Not many from what I can see compared to the crowd looking to pop a pill for what ails them.

THIS....THIS IS how I see it. Everyone gets all worrisome about GMO's (not saying it's not worthy of concern), but their own lifestyle of their choice is super self-destructing. I'm not pointing fingers either, I'm as guilty as the next person, in fact, likely moreso. If everyone was as health conscious as the activity of this thread has indicated everyone would be too busy playing ball with their kids or at the gym or preparing a healthy meal or reading a good book after an exhaustive exercise,or taking a spirited hike with friends or family in the outdoors, to even have time to have an opinion of GMO's. Priorities friends...that's where it's at and lucky makes a very good point here.
A Very good point!
I need to do a little self examination of my own life and habits, I've known that for some time, but lucky's post just highlights that for me.
Thanks Lucky.

GMO corn that poisoned root eating worms vastly reduced the need to drench the soil with polluting pesticides but because it was the exclusive control it lost its power almost entirely in 10 short years, now BT can't be used at all to counter this pest at many sites and farmers are back to the poison drench. This is a completely non-sustainable model but Monsanto made their money.

I also believe if a significant percentage of the public wants to know if their food contains GMO's they should be allowed to know- I don't want the Gov being my Daddy, even if I might need one to steer me to a more logical perspective. It is a slippery slope when information is withheld by the gov. for the "public good".

Nature releases mutations by the millions, any one of which could very well destroy human beings before they know what hit them if our luck runs out. Think about AIDS and Ebola.

I don't believe these man made "mutations" significantly increase the threat and the logical balance is to use them to help feed the world (and maybe create a medicine to treat a new air borne strain of Ebola). I don't think you can find many people knowledgeable in the science of plant breeding that don't see the potential here- it is only the layman who calls this potential hype, IMO.

...but because it was the exclusive control it lost its power almost entirely in 10 short years

Where is this info from? I hadn't heard of pests building up resistance to GMO's.
______________________________________

Well, I'm going to fill in my ballot tonight and I still don't feel comfortable with either decision. I don't think the proposition is written well enough to put into law, on the other hand, I don't want to side with Monsanto.

Suzanne Goldenberg: "Monsanto alone has spent $4.7 million to defeat the measure. Other top donors to the campaign to defeat pro-labeling Proposition 105 read like a grocery shopping list. They include: Pepsico, Kraft Foods, General Mills, Hershey Company, Coca-Cola and Kellogg, and Flower Food, according to Colorado state campaign finance records."

The problem with GMO is who decides which lines of GMO should be undertaken. I am strongly in favor of restoring the american chestnut for example. In that case, ideally, you just develop a tree that has anti-blight fungicides in the cambium, but the nut is unchanged.

Diet is important but not more so than exercise. The factors mentioned are just excuses. I've enjoyed 10 hrs a week for 50 yrs, lots of that with my family.

What nutrients are 90% of Americans deficient in?

Together with glycine, the essential component of collagen, a number of other compounds lack in our diet (chondroitin, glucosamine and other compounds that I do not remember now), which help our collagen-containing tissues (skin, tendons, cartilage, and bones). all due to the fact we only eat animal muscle, instead of the whole animal.

I do take Vit D even though the sun shines brightly here all yr. Try to limit exposure to save the skin.

I eat a lot of fish, some canned which is pretty much the whole fish. That and ground flax seeds has my omega 3 covered.

For magnesium, the only way is to eat a lot of green leaves.
Tomorrow I am going to clear my garden, harvest all the daikon, the beets, the carrots and the turnips. All tops are saved and frozen in large ziploc bags. My wife makes blended vegetable soup with all these (plus roots, potatoes, beans and something spicy like a chili pepper for taste). It is pretty good, and a trick my mother used to make us kids eat vegetables. You can eat a lot of greens that way (soup, plus regular side dishes with meat). I have 40 cuft of freezer space of course.

I eat lots of greens twice a day, lots of raw veggies, nuts, whole grains, fish, and of course fruit.

Thanks for the link. Maybe I'm not educated enough on this but there was a note at the bottom of the article:

"Conflict of interest statement: A.J.G. has received research funding related to this project from Monsanto..."

Get your vitamins,minerals and flavenoids from the food you grow as much as possible, I say, and don't eat more meat than about what you need for protein- but eat the whole animal as much as your appetite enjoys, including fatty parts- fill the plate with other real and whole food devoid of excess sugar.

But nothing beats having the right genes, and exercise seems to trump diet as a health and mortality factor. Sitting for long periods is also apparently harmful to the heart and other organs, even if you start or end the day with vigorous exercise. If you must sit, take frequent breaks and walk around

But whatever our behavior, we are all here on a very temporary basis, so the best thing you can do is try to savor every day. For some that includes doing a fair amount of stuff that is "bad" for us. Too much guilt is extremely unhealthy.

I agree with everything you say except the part about saturated fat and red meat. All I've read over many yrs says cutting out those is the cornerstone of a healthy diet. Do you have any references that back your position? That's not showing up in the wellness monthlies that I read.

wholehealthsource.blogspot.com

But on this we will have agree that we disagree. Lard is mostly monounsaturated anyway, and IMHO the best of all fats when sourced from a pastured pig.

What is still considered dangerous are the hydrogenated oils.

The good thing about all fats is they actually satisfy one's appetite instead of stimulating it as refined sugars seem to, including the sugar in orange juice, which has been artificially separated from its cellulose. Fruit juices appear to be almost as harmful as soda pop in excess.

It bothers me that there is political pressure against the Gov being involved in helping to regulate children's diets in this country- even in public funded school lunches. Americans don't deserve to be seduced by corporations to become diabetic from the time they start watching television. They suffer and we all suffer from the consequences of the typical American diet. How do you counter the Mc Donald's propaganda without the aid of gov? Obviously what is going on now is failing us as a nation.

Every month what I pay for health insurance subsidizes those who don't make the decisions I do.

Upon further reading, I did find that the medical community still considers a reduction in fat to generally be helpful, but I wasn't able to find supportive evidence on this continuing claim- it seems to be based on fat's high calorie content which is baseless if you don't take into consideration its affect on the appetite.

The Harvard researcher most responsible for publicizing this new perspective is very conservative in his assessment of its meaning, only claiming that saturated fat's danger has been highly exaggerated. You are probably correct to be skeptical of media interpretation and influence from the food industry.

The good thing about fats, IMO, is they satisfy in a way that may steer people from consuming too many refined carbos. When Americans started going low fat they went high sugar and obesity ballooned.

That last link is right where my sources stand. The recommended diet near the end is almost word for word what I listed above.

Agree strongly about sugar. I don't even eat all that much fruit. Can't digest it well anymore especially the high brix stuff. Haven't had a sugary drink in years.

What I see that's really unhealthy IMO is relatives that have a high sugar drink in hand day and night. They're way over weight and pre diabetic in their 20s. That can't end well unless they mend their ways soon.

PS: I also agree with your earlier comment that exercise and staying active is more important than diet as related to health. A really active and fit person can get away with eating habits that most couldn't but both are important.

I'm trying to stay active as much as possible all day. Like you say it's not enough to just have short periods of intense activity. Staying on the move and involved with things like gardening is very beneficial to my mental health.

People will always bend the research and even deductive reasoning to their own emotions, beliefs and profit motives- the best we can do is try to be aware of this, especially in our selves.

I agree with this completely. I used to be hypoglycemic and therefore was always trying to satisfy my appetite, when I would get the shakes and dizzy, with carbs. Now I stay away from carbs and choose protein instead. I eat a lot of fats now, usually in the form of nuts, and my appetite is far less, I never feel like I have low blood sugar, and I don't need wrinkle cream or moisturizers, except on my hands, and that's in arid Colorado.

True. I read some time ago that our average lifespan increase is largely due to lower infant and child mortality. Adjusted for infant and child mortality, we have only added 5 years to our life span in the last several generations. This was a shocker to me.

It appears once our individual genetics indicates our cells have replicated themselves enough, it's curtains.

Myself, I come from a short lived family. My dad died in his 50s. I've had a history of skin cancer in my family (Scandinavian decent) w/ death involved. I've never expected to live a long life myself.

I ask questions such as what diets are associated with longevity, or which diets are associated with absence of heart disease, or absence of dementia. In a sense I prefer to listen to anthropologists, paleontologists and evolutionary scientists. And I am fairly sure that the biggest culprits in various diseases of civilization are all recently introduced foods: hydrogenated, high temperature and trans fats, seed oils, sugar and corn syrup, and modern grains.

I think your reasoning is good. I tend to think along the same lines. The reason we need exercise is because hard working people were the survivors during our evolution. Those less ambitious were less successful, smaller families, or dead. Nothing came easy back then. Hard work finding food all day, evading predators, fighting the elements, and fending off rival tribes. Few of us work that hard anymore so we have to adapt to modern times. Making an active lifestyle fun has been the key for me.

Basically our metabolic system evolved to sustain hard work day after day. Humans and many animals really are capable of amazing amounts of work for many yrs. That's what it took to survive. Now days we don't have to work nearly as hard and our body isn't adapted to setting around 24/7/365.

People that fly into space really fall apart. Losing gravity causes all sorts of issues, bone and muscle loss, etc. We work a lot just getting out of bed and moving around but not enough to attain optimum metabolic functioning and strong bodies.

No, the jury is not still out. The research is clear, convincing, and complete. They're not any more inherently dangerous than any other food.

This law is dangerous, based on ignorance and fear, and does nothing but make our food more expensive.

For a while it was illegal for a dairy to claim their milk contained no growth hormones. Maybe this law led to cheaper milk, but freedom of speech is the FIRST amendment and more important than the cheapest possible milk..