8 Foods Even The Experts Won’t Eat

[PrincessFiona60]

I know my cattlemen, hogmen, poultry growers. I count on the buying expertise of the butcher department at my favorite store for fish.

 

[Vanitas]

Washing veg is one thing, but when there have been numerous reported outbreaks 'of foodborne illnesses' from having eaten beansprouts...I for one take note! Would washing the beansprouts rid of the bacteria? Is it that simple? The advice is to cook them which depletes the beansprouts nutritionally.

So...can you give me any better examples of foods high in nutrition having bacteria enough to be linked with illnesses (not manufactured products)?

Being someone who absolutely adores sprouts - from beansprouts in a stir-fry to alfalfa sprouts on a sandwich - I had to look into this more. If you're worried about sprouts causing food-borne illnesses, then you might want to quit eating produce altogether.

According to the CDC, sprouts and fungi are the least likely plant types to cause illness. Shockingly, leafy greens are the most likely culprit of ALL food-borne illnesses. Better skip the salad bar!

P.S. does the title of the original article bother anyone else? Why would they call them foods "even" the experts won't eat? It would make sense if they said "even homeless people wouldn't eat them" or "even starving third-worlders wouldn't eat them". Makes it sound like the experts have looser standards when it comes to food choices. Sorry, end of my pedantic rant.

 

[creative]

Being someone who absolutely adores sprouts - from beansprouts in a stir-fry to alfalfa sprouts on a sandwich - I had to look into this more. If you're worried about sprouts causing food-borne illnesses, then you might want to quit eating produce altogether.

According to the CDC, sprouts and fungi are the least likely plant types to cause illness. Shockingly, leafy greens are the most likely culprit of ALL food-borne illnesses. Better skip the salad bar!

Hmm....bearing in mind that sprouts HAVE been linked with numerous reported outbreaks of food-borne illnesses (and other foods have not), are you saying the media is lying? Bear in mind that I am in UK. Perhaps this is not the case where you are.

Let's keep a sense of proportion here. I dare say restaurants wash their salad leaves (I do at home); in any case, I rarely visit restaurants to go to the salad bar.

 

[Vanitas]

Hmm....bearing in mind that sprouts HAVE been linked with numerous reported outbreaks of food-borne illnesses (and other foods have not), are you saying the media is lying? Bear in mind that I am in UK. Perhaps this is not the case where you are.

But other foods HAVE been linked to cases of food-borne illnesses, as my link illustrates. My link shows a table which breaks down each case of reported food-borne illness into the food groups which caused it.

Let's keep a sense of proportion here. I dare say restaurants wash their salad leaves (I do at home); in any case, I rarely visit restaurants to go to the salad bar.

A sense of proportion is exactly what I'm trying to show here. Sure, sprouts have been linked to cases of illness - but LESS often than other types of vegetables. According to the table I linked, for every one person getting sick from sprouts there are 65 people getting sick from leafy greens.

The fact that restaurants wash their salad leaves makes this data even more shocking, because this table is talking about actual cases of food poisoning - not potential cases. If that many people are getting sick from produce and leafy greens, just imagine how many more would be getting sick if those veggies weren't washed!

 

[Kitchen Chatters]

That is exactly my point.



Yes, that's what I'm saying. Farm workers in general are transients with very low wages and no health insurance (they move around depending on what crops are ripening) so I would expect them to have higher rates of all kinds of diseases.

You can eat or not eat whatever you want. Doesn't make a difference to me My view is that in general, people in Western societies are healthier and better fed than people have ever been before in history.

Btw, have you ever sprinkled salt on a slug? It's a pretty effective pesticide People are neither pests nor fungus.

With all do respect. Have you ever taken the time to research the harmful effects of pesticides on the hunan body?

Just do a google search for Monsanto's roundup some time. Shoukd keep you plenty busy.

Regards

 

[GotGarlic]

With all do respect. Have you ever taken the time to research the harmful effects of pesticides on the hunan body?

Just do a google search for Monsanto's roundup some time. Shoukd keep you plenty busy.

Regards

Thanks for the suggestion. I am a master gardener and learning how pesticides and herbicides work was a big part of the class. I don't just Google and randomly pick scary results; I get my information from the researchers who have tested glyphosate extensively and determined that there is minimal risk to humans from using it.

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/

http://www.biofortified.org/2015/01/medical-doctors-weigh-in-on-glyphosate-claims/

 

[AnthonyJ]

Correlation does not equal causation. X may be "linked with" Y, but that doesn't prove that X caused Y. Making a decision because something "seems to make sense" is not based on evidence, so it may or may not be true.

Question: Did you wake up this morning? So did I! So did your waking cause mine, or did my waking cause yours? Or are they unrelated? If they're "linked" because they both happened at the same time, what is the hypothesis that explains why?

As my new favorite author says "If I pick my nose during the Super Bowl and it cuts to commercial, did I cause that?"

I've mentioned this to my fiancee when she touts meat free diet (this, the same woman who has no problem grabbing MY bacon when I make it on the weekend). She cited to me a passage from The Blue Zones. [Paraphrasing] People in The Blue Zones live longer and tend to only have meat four to five times a month.

As Tim Ferriss said: "Maybe it's not the lack of meat but the presence of vegetables."

I prefer organic veggies, the few times I get meat it has to be grass fed/finished and organic and I don't buy farmed fish. I don't do microwave popcorn and really stay away from the microwave in general (physics nerd, I have my own feelings).

When it comes to veggies and such, I stick to organic to avoid the ungodly amount of crap that gets sprayed on it. The evidence is always changing and everyone has an agenda. Your best bet is to just keep yourself informed and pay attention to where the funding is coming from. I've seen extreme reports on both ends of the spectrum, but when you look at the funding source, it becomes clear why.

Question everything, but do so with an open mind.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Thanks for the suggestion. I am a master gardener and learning how pesticides and herbicides work was a big part of the class. I don't just Google and randomly pick scary results; I get my information from the researchers who have tested glyphosate extensively and determined that there is minimal risk to humans from using it.

Is glyphosate toxic to humans? - Biology Fortified, Inc.

Medical Doctors weigh in on Glyphosate Claims - Biology Fortified, Inc.

I have to agree with one of the comments in one of those articles.

"I need to ask, if Glyphosate is so safe, and Roundup, is so benign, why all the lies Monsanto? Why all the tens of millions spent in lobbying-efforts, and Counter-PR measures to silence your products critics? And why, in 2009, did a French court find Monsanto guilty of lying; falsely advertising its Roundup herbicide as "biodegradable," "environmentally friendly" and claiming it "left the soil clean."?"

If there is nothing to hide, why are they spending so much money to ... hide?

Sure, there is conflicting information out there, but until there is a better consensus, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. Besides, we've made it hundreds of thousands of years without the stuff, why is it a necessity now?

 

[GotGarlic]

Because the Earth has never had 7 and a half billion people to feed before and only a tiny percentage of the population is involved in farming.

This is 45 minutes long, but it's well worth watching.

https://youtu.be/wSWek2qZuxk

 

[AnthonyJ]

Be that as it may, GMO does not have a higher yield and it brings us to a better point. Our population is growing UP, literally, as in stacking people on top of other people to live. Yet we are counting on the same square meter of land to provide for multiple times the people per square meter. On top of that, "pests" are the other problem. So let's break it down.

We have a problem with pests, but we make the problem exponentially worse by creating mono-crop farms. Abundance yields abundance. Our human population didn't boom until we mastered agriculture and provided ourselves with more food. So what are we doing? Planting every acre of land with the same single crop rather than dividing up a field into MANY crop types (each of which has a different pest, generally speaking). So what we are doing is causing a boom in pests and then combating the boom we caused by spraying large amounts of questionable chemicals on to the plants. In the process, we've created super bugs and super weeds that are resilient to the chemicals.

We can combat both issues, rise in population and pests eating crops (though some of these "pests" are the pollinators) by bringing the plants indoors to keep the pests out and creating a multi-level farm easily doubling, tripling, quadrupling our farming area by "stacking" farms.

 

[creative]

Anthony J - brilliantly debated (the last post on previous page, # 70)

Monsanto cannot be trusted to tell the truth. When the finger was pointed at their pesticides as directly adversely affecting the bee population, what did they do?

They bought up the leading bee research company! Yep, so now they can fabricate statistics.

Hmm

 

[creative]

Monsanto's past track record is pretty grim...remember, Agent Orange?

 

[GotGarlic]

Be that as it may, GMO does not have a higher yield and it brings us to a better point. Our population is growing UP, literally, as in stacking people on top of other people to live. Yet we are counting on the same square meter of land to provide for multiple times the people per square meter. On top of that, "pests" are the other problem. So let's break it down.

We have a problem with pests, but we make the problem exponentially worse by creating mono-crop farms. Abundance yields abundance. Our human population didn't boom until we mastered agriculture and provided ourselves with more food. So what are we doing? Planting every acre of land with the same single crop rather than dividing up a field into MANY crop types (each of which has a different pest, generally speaking). So what we are doing is causing a boom in pests and then combating the boom we caused by spraying large amounts of questionable chemicals on to the plants. In the process, we've created super bugs and super weeds that are resilient to the chemicals.

We can combat both issues, rise in population and pests eating crops (though some of these "pests" are the pollinators) by bringing the plants indoors to keep the pests out and creating a multi-level farm easily doubling, tripling, quadrupling our farming area by "stacking" farms.

It certainly does have a higher yield. GMOs are not monocrops; there are different varieties for different conditions around the world.

Glyphosate is safer than many pesticides and herbicides used in organic farming. Look up Rotenone. And organic farming creates resistant pests and weeds, too.

Companies are creating indoor farms. I saw one when we visited my in-laws in Michigan recently. But it's not cheap to build, so it won't help poor countries anytime soon.

 

[GotGarlic]

Anthony J - brilliantly debated (the last post on previous page, # 70)

Monsanto cannot be trusted to tell the truth. When the finger was pointed at their pesticides as directly adversely affecting the bee population, what did they do?

They bought up the leading bee research company! Yep, so now they can fabricate statistics.

Do you have a credible source for that?

You do know that a lot of research on glyphosate done by the government and universities, right? And that the patent on glyphosate expired in 2000. Lots of other companies make it, too.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Anthony J - brilliantly debated (the last post on previous page, # 70)

Monsanto cannot be trusted to tell the truth. When the finger was pointed at their pesticides as directly adversely affecting the bee population, what did they do?

They bought up the leading bee research company! Yep, so now they can fabricate statistics.

Hmm

Doesn't help that former Monsanto execs are now at the helm of the FDA. Conflict of interest anyone? Same goes for drug companies. If the idea of Monsanto and Big Pharma execs being in powerful positions in the FDA doesn't reek of conflicted interests, I don't know what it does.

So long as there is a dollar to be made, there will be someone who will throw as many dollars as they need to at whatever needs to be done so they can continue to make more dollars.

 

[GotGarlic]

Monsanto's past track record is pretty grim...remember, Agent Orange?

That was 50 years ago. Lots of things have changed in the meantime.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Do you have a credible source for that?

You do know that a lot of research on glyphosate done by the government and universities, right? And that the patent on glyphosate expired in 2000. Lots of other companies make it, too.

Back to the FDA, which is full of Monsanto and Big Pharma execs. Who is funding the university studies? Dig deeper. Just because lots of companies make it now doesn't mean it's safe. I'm not going to tell you how to eat, if you feel comfortable eating this stuff, good on ya. I don't feel comfortable with the evidence I've found in regard to the stuff, so I'm staying away.

Let me know about the studies done once all the lobbyists are gone and the former chemical and drug company people are no longer in the FDA. Until then, three words: Conflict of interests. Why would people paint something they profit from in a negative light?

 

[AnthonyJ]

That was 50 years ago. Lots of things have changed in the meantime.

Yeah, like them trying to use part of it as a "new" pesticide. Because we don't have other alternatives that would work better...

 

[AnthonyJ]

It certainly does have a higher yield. GMOs are not monocrops; there are different varieties for different conditions around the world.

Glyphosate is safer than many pesticides and herbicides used in organic farming. Look up Rotenone. And organic farming creates resistant pests and weeds, too.

Companies are creating indoor farms. I saw one when we visited my in-laws in Michigan recently. But it's not cheap to build, so it won't help poor countries anytime soon.

Monocrops, as in entire farms planted with one single crop. I understand there are more than one type of GM crop. Also, a GM crop that doesn't produce more than an organic one won't help a poor country soon either.

Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops (2009)

Do GMO Crops Really Have Higher Yields? | Mother Jones

Do GMO Crops Increase Yields? New Report Says Maybe Not

No disrespect intended, but I really shouldn't have to do all the work here. It's not hard to find information on this subject. Funny how of all the pages I've found, only Monsanto says they do, every other study says no.

 

[GotGarlic]

Back to the FDA, which is full of Monsanto and Big Pharma execs. Who is funding the university studies? Dig deeper. Just because lots of companies make it now doesn't mean it's safe. I'm not going to tell you how to eat, if you feel comfortable eating this stuff, good on ya. I don't feel comfortable with the evidence I've found in regard to the stuff, so I'm staying away.

Let me know about the studies done once all the lobbyists are gone and the former chemical and drug company people are no longer in the FDA. Until then, three words: Conflict of interests. Why would people paint something they profit from in a negative light?

So, what are the sources you trust and how are they funded?