Healthy Food?. its all very well for politicians to tell us that fresh veggies are healthy....while they nom down food grown privately in secure gardens at the  revolution
x
Click to expand

Healthy Food?

(Enlarge)
Healthy Food?. its all very well for politicians to tell us that fresh veggies are healthy....while they nom down food grown privately in secure gardens at the

its all very well for politicians to tell us that fresh veggies are healthy....while they nom down food grown privately in secure gardens at the same time they feed us god knows what from the chemistry sets

t Ill
The Media
m,, To WEAR THIS WHEN
WATER" YOUR FOOD.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+15
Views: 3529
Favorited: 0
Submitted: 05/12/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to konradkurze Subscribe to politics submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #4 - ilovehitler (05/12/2013) [-]
If you really care that much about your food being completely unmodified, grow some yourself. Find the time of the day to do some small work, get a good garden going, and start growing your own food.

User avatar #6 to #4 - konradkurze (05/12/2013) [-]
my flatmate and i do.....

though just a matter of time before the government crack down on home gardens as 'unsafe' because they dont control that food supply or spray it with poison
User avatar #7 to #6 - ilovehitler (05/12/2013) [-]
In all reality, GM plants really aren't that bad. They don't exactly put cyanide in it.

Most, if not all, of the genetic modifications are to help the plant grow more, resist disease, grow faster, or any other beneficial things. And, they do it for a good reason, too. This increase in food makes sure that more people can get fruits and vegetables.

It's arguable if it's even unnatural.
User avatar #9 to #7 - konradkurze (05/12/2013) [-]
well all in all, its unknown if GM harms people.....the reason they GM food is to make it adapt to the poisons they spray all over everything, so eventually plants will ONLY grow in soil with poisons in it, that and GM to remove seeds from things to prevent people from growing at home

making people unable to grow at home guarantees people relying on the government supplied produce
#10 to #9 - pjers (05/12/2013) [-]
no you GM food so it doesn't need pesticides, grows faster & bigger. there is conciderable evidence that GM does less harm than coventional farming, what he's spraying is probably fertiliser which you really don't want to breath it's mostly watered down ammonia.
User avatar #11 to #10 - konradkurze (05/12/2013) [-]
food growing bigger and faster just means they can get more produce in stores to cope with supply and demand, but fast grown food doesnt have as many nutrients as normal food does, also shown by how it does less damage to the farmland, soaking up less nutrients means more left in the soil

plus using chemicals to fertilize plants is so healthy to eat right?
#12 to #11 - pjers (05/12/2013) [-]
you have missunderstood it grows faster and bigger because it exploits resources more efficiantly than evolved plants they can be modifyed to be more nutrition efficiant (more protean, more minerals, more vitamines). chemical fertilisers are also more efficiant than natural ones like **** and far less likely to carry infections, the only reason you don't want it on you is because it's far more concentrated than natural fertilisers and can turn you oringe by the time you eat the food it's been washed off.
User avatar #13 to #12 - konradkurze (05/12/2013) [-]
okay youre contradicting yourself, one side you say its less harmful that normal farming...then you say it exploits the soil.....

yeah, chemical fertilizers stop the natural order and prevent plants from getting infections.....and also doesnt matter how much you scrub the **** out of them to clean the outside, the plants soaked up some of those into itself,

guess you must have a taste for toxins.......
#22 to #13 - pjers (05/12/2013) [-]
exploit is the same as use in this context, and the fertiliser is only dangerous in higher concentrations (far higher than is sprayed) the stuff inside the plant is being used by it and is not harmful in consumption, like horse meat (horses have various chemicals in their blood that would kill you if you tryed to drink it) but horse is still eaten by many world wide without harm, you may as well give up toothpaste for all the harmful chemicals in it.
User avatar #14 - logicstrike (05/12/2013) [-]
what he is doing there is probably an insecticide spray that has nothing to do with genetic modification of the crops (infact less so as some GM crops are being developed to be less appealing to insects) your content is wrong and your opinions are based on incorrect assumptions, you should feel bad and work to improve this.
User avatar #15 to #14 - konradkurze (05/12/2013) [-]
this was more referring to GM as something else while the pic itself was about the sprays
also, one has to think, if crops are mutated to be less attractive to bugs to stop them eating them, what effect would they have to us for eating them anyway.......also, between GM and the sprays, is there anything in it all that accumulates over time, (like arsenic) that takes a long time for the body to pass out and harms the body while its in there

we dont know and the government wont tell us
User avatar #16 to #15 - logicstrike (05/12/2013) [-]
no most sprays are generally only harmful in concentrate, which has no chance of happening to the crops between the thorough washing process and the recomended wash and/or skin you do as meal preperation. On the genetic side if it is happening on a genetic level and it is not say a manipulation to produce a stron poison (which is actual quite easily done with potatoes and tomatoes as parts of there plants are already poisonous) than there should not be any harmful affects for doing so, though with genetics their are still a few unknown factors which is why only the most basic manipulations are done.
User avatar #17 to #16 - konradkurze (05/12/2013) [-]
well there it is again,....the sprays are only openly harmful in concentrated form, BUT what happens if the diluted version builds up in the human body over time?

washing produce doesnt help with the poisoned water absorbed by the plants as they grow, and that is consumed when produce is eaten

plus theres no real way to measure the effects of GM food over time.....humans have been safely eating natural food for many thousands of years and we are the way we are because of it,....theres no telling how we will change eating mutant food
mother nature can be a bitch when we **** with her
User avatar #18 to #17 - logicstrike (05/12/2013) [-]
they are filtered out by your liver and kidneys long before any concentration from properly washed crops would build up in your body. The reason he is wearing the anti chemical suit is to prevent inhalation which can cause lung damage (before you sayit no there is no way the sprayed crops can damage your in the state they are in when you buy them in the shops)

With the genetics side it is more like accelerated selective breeding than straight up nature ******* as it is essentially recognising favorable traits that already exist in the plant and enhancing them, this is what would happen in regular agriculture over years of picking from the best of the crop to replant them anway, Except now it can be done in one planting season and it can't be undone bye nature so easily, as with the old way on season of floods or draughts could kill of your crop leaving only want can besalvaged left to plant as oppose to what you choose.
User avatar #19 to #18 - konradkurze (05/12/2013) [-]
right there we have it, damaging your liver and kidneys filtering out toxic chemicals we shouldnt have eaten in the first place.......but you support it so its okay right?

the 'favorable' traits they pick are just the ones that make the plant look and taste good to the consumer but provide much less nutritional value than natural plants.....so basically eating candied **** as far as fruit and veggies go

plus the fact they GM breed crops to not produce seeds o people cant grow their own, at the same time they have people convinced thats a good thing because it saves lazy ******* from having to cut seeds out before they eat.....convenience is so much better than practicality right?
and as you said, GM crops cant be undone by nature real easy....what science lab boys can do in one season may take many years for nature to right the wrong and let plants go back to normal

floods only affected plants when numbnuts flattened miles of land so the water had nowhere to go and drowned plants...and droughts came from people planting only one type of plant on areas of land so theres no natural ecosystem keeping areas with regular water
(look up some vids about food forests, THAT is the right way to plant crops)
User avatar #20 to #19 - logicstrike (05/12/2013) [-]
woah lets try to keep it civil (even though my opening comment was maybe more aggressive than I would have intended).
It's not doing any particular harm to your kidneys and liver filtering out toxins is their job.

Favorable traits are mostly size related and will never be about removing neutrients (it defeats the point)

floods do happen for reasons other than messing with floodplains and crops (regular or otherwise) still get devastated and people go without food to eat except the normal way of growing crops it takes longer to recover the quality of the crops.

and nature doesn't have to "undo" geneticly modified crops as they get "undone" themselves come harvest time they are made sterile exactly so this doesn't happen.

Now I will state now GM crops being sterile is the one big problem I have with them. as it than don't give the farmers a lot of choice in what they do, it makes buying the seed more expensive (they can no longer get seeds from alternate sources) and as they have to sell all there crop they ultimately make less on selling it as well (being forced to sell in bulk is never good because that normally means there is glut and reckless waste ensues), as on both ends the the distributor has complete control. However as I eluded to earlier the crops being sterile is so they do not affect the ecosystem, so it isn't just to screw with the farmers wallet. Also labwise they would not have to map the effects their modifications through multiple generations of plant (which is a neverending task)
User avatar #24 to #20 - konradkurze (05/12/2013) [-]
well if regular intake of a natural foodstuff like alcohol ***** up your liver and kidneys, then its assured a foreign substance like a toxic chemical would do worse

they dont care if they remove the nutrients, all they care about is having food that looks attractive to the consumer to guarantee sales, so big and pretty crops will impress people, and they wont care if they get half or less of the nuttritional value as long as they have full stomachs

plants that have been made sterile is part of the governments plan to guarantee dependence, its one thing if the crops fail and the people have to start again growing their own food....but if the plants are sterile, they have to run to the government and beg for seeds at clearly overpriced levels

then again, soon enough we may not even be able to grow anything, the president of the nestle corporation has shown hes a psychotic bastard by stating he considers water (including rainwater) to be a foodstuff and should be set a market value to sell to the people, which will make it too costly to grow our own
User avatar #25 to #24 - logicstrike (05/12/2013) [-]
alcohol only ***** up your liver if you drink to much constantly over a long period of time. (it recovers over time)

yes aesthetics are a factor considered to much perhaps, but those of scientific inclination would not deliberately affect the genetics to make it less neutritious that would be really difficult, and also most of the neutrients are absorbed as the plant grows gentics have little to do with it.

I agree and beleive made the point earlier that the sterile plants thing is ultimately a bad idea as it removes control from the farmer, however they are not being forced by law to grow GM foods you yourself are proof that their is market for organic natural food.

as for your last point that would be from the head of a corporation he can so whatever the hell he likes doesn't mean it will become official (however this story I have no knowledge of so I can't offer any more conjecture on this particular point)
User avatar #26 to #25 - konradkurze (05/12/2013) [-]
the ones doing the GM are doing it on behalf of the government, producing aesthetic foods that guarantee sales, pretty foods sell better and faster meaning they generate better profits, AND are GM'd to be less nutritional so not only does the poor nutrition make people less healthy and more prone to health and mental issues, if they want more nutrition, they can buy those expensive diet supplements for more profit to the system, and all these health issues is the systems way to inspire people to go to doctors alot more than they need, to get medical advice and medication to make themselves 'healthy' at a price

yes there is a market for natural foods, for now, the way the government is slowly cracking down on private gardeners it wont be long before its illegal to grow your own , its certain the government will ban natural foods on their grounds of 'ensuring crop safety by forbidding unchecked farming' and only allowing their own GM'd and poisoned foods that if bugs wont touch them how are they safe to us

as for nestle, they are the single biggest global corporation, they have the money to do most anything, its only a matter of time before already greedy bastards want to get greedier.
just last month, nestle tried to put a patent on the fennel flower, a naturally occurring plant, so they can have sole rights to it.....whats next?
User avatar #27 to #26 - logicstrike (05/12/2013) [-]
I am sorry this beggining to sound like cospiracy theories now.

There is nothing inherently wrong with making food more aesthetically pleasing. reducing the nutrition to make people less healthy deliberately is pointless, it would reduce faith in the product, let alone how it is ethicaly wrong and would cause a **** storm if anyone found out. The medication point I severly doubt it (though I'm English where we have a national health service so make people ill and making money is an alien concept to me)

A law against growing certain foods and growing foods privately is absurd and anyone who trys to get one passed would be laught straight out of whatever government building they suggested it in.

And I am aware of the company Nestle but apparently not all of there buisness dealings, I am guessing the patent didn't pass that kind of proves with all the money in the world they can't do everything.
User avatar #32 to #27 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
right, because any time someone questions what the government does, its a conspiracy........

your average person on the street doesnt know or care if food doesnt give them nutrition, as long as it looks and tastes good, and the specialists who do test it are instructed to keep quiet and provide false information

idk what the story in the UK is, but youd have to agree, as outsiders, looking in at how americans think eating pills for this or that as a way of life is not normal,

its fairly straightforward in how they will ban people from growing their own crops...areas have already begun clamping down on people collecting rainwater 'just in case' the water has picked up contaminants from somewhere....how long before homegrown crops face the same 'safety' issues, or even the government claiming banning home crops to prevent cross-contamination from plants not monitored by their 'safety' systems
User avatar #1 - herecomesjohnny (05/12/2013) [-]
creating GM plants doesn't happen by spraying things, it happens through gene splicing and i believe this man is spraying insecticide.
User avatar #3 to #1 - konradkurze (05/12/2013) [-]
its putting out the message of "you dont need to know if your food has been unnaturally mutated....just like you dont need to know about what chemicals we put on your food"
#5 to #3 - John Cena (05/12/2013) [-]
you're putting out the message "you don't need to know if you have false pics....just like you don't need to know how it really happens"
User avatar #21 - billybong (05/12/2013) [-]
How many layers of tin foil did you make your hat out of?

The guy is spraying pesticides, and genetically modified crops are fine. The only issue I have is that they are made sterile meaning farmers continually need to buy more seeds, but there's a good reason for that, if there is anything wrong with the fruit/vegetable, It can't reproduce and cause problems to the environment
User avatar #23 to #21 - konradkurze (05/12/2013) [-]
and also people cant grow their own
nice how the government moves to control the food supply by preventing us from producing our own
User avatar #28 to #23 - retroper (05/13/2013) [-]
The government doesn't have **** to do with it. Go bitch to Monsanto or some similar company.
User avatar #31 to #23 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
If you don't like your country's government move to a different one. "The government" is your government (I'm assuming the USA), not my government, not everyone here is from the America.. Also I'm pretty sure in the US you can grow your own food for personal consumption, selling it would be a different matter as it would need to be regulated to some extent for quality control. That isn't unique to the USA, and that's a good thing, it stops Joe Bloggs from selling his own produce with his own home made pesticide put on it.
User avatar #34 to #31 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
hell all 1st world country governments are doing it...so move where?

selling it isnt truly bad, you dont need all those chemical **** pesticides to stop bugs getting at your crops, theres plenty of natural plants that bugs cant stand, plant those around your crops and theyre safe......only issue would be the government bitching about selling homegrown crops as an illegal untaxed income

#36 to #34 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
I just scrolled down reading the rest of your posts again after my first comment... you really are one paranoid 			************		 who has only a partial understanding of too many areas causing you to jump to conclusions.... I suggest you read up about basically every scientific area you've mentioned in this trail of comments
I just scrolled down reading the rest of your posts again after my first comment... you really are one paranoid ************ who has only a partial understanding of too many areas causing you to jump to conclusions.... I suggest you read up about basically every scientific area you've mentioned in this trail of comments
User avatar #37 to #36 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
better paranoid and looking for problems than simply accepting how **** things are
User avatar #39 to #37 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
you completely misunderstand. Learn how things do work, then look for problems. Don't half ass your research then come to these inane conspiracy theories.
User avatar #44 to #39 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
well lets hear your explanation of all this **** the government is stirring up

User avatar #46 to #44 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
I don't even get what you're talking about. Organisms can have their genetic code modified to better suit their environment. Where''s the **** being stirred apart from here and your conspiracy theories?
User avatar #47 to #46 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
so humans will NEVER have any negative outcome from ******* with the food we eat..
well if you say its that way i guess its true....*gag*
User avatar #49 to #47 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
And that's basically the same over-dramatic and sarcastic response you've given at the end of every other thread on your content. By the way, that's not what I'm implying - That there could be no negative effects. But you are just making up baseless conspiracy theories. I bet you're the kind of person who refuses to drink tap water because of the "fluoride". And I'm certain you believe in the Illuminati...

I suggest you read this great website, and then rethink every discussion you've ever had in your life.. yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
User avatar #51 to #49 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
no i refuse to drink tap water because of the **** they put it in

my flatmate puts the tap water through one of those counter top filters, then through a filter jug to filter a 2nd time and the jug filter still turns up with **** in it

how can you trust tap water when it screws with 2 filtering systems?

and as far as that fallacy website goes, you broke a couple of those, so kinda hypocritical pointing it at me
User avatar #53 to #51 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
and they are? (aside from the ad hominem attack after you've proven yourself to be a conspiracy theorist)
#55 to #53 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
well you broke the fallacy fallacy:   
[You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.]   
- because im not the best at presenting my case, you just auto declared it wrong   
   
ad hominem:   
[You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.]   
- as somehow because I have seen the beginnings of a downhill slope caused by the government, because you dont see or dont want to see it, you call me a conspiracy theorist to discredit me   
   
personal incredulity:   
[Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.]   
- simple, you dont want to accept my negative argument may have something to it, you declare it untrue   
   
waiting to see if you break the 'appeal to authority' and 'no true scotsman' fallacies   
just how obedient to the government are you?
well you broke the fallacy fallacy:
[You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.]
- because im not the best at presenting my case, you just auto declared it wrong

ad hominem:
[You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.]
- as somehow because I have seen the beginnings of a downhill slope caused by the government, because you dont see or dont want to see it, you call me a conspiracy theorist to discredit me

personal incredulity:
[Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.]
- simple, you dont want to accept my negative argument may have something to it, you declare it untrue

waiting to see if you break the 'appeal to authority' and 'no true scotsman' fallacies
just how obedient to the government are you?
User avatar #57 to #55 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
1. Incorrect, It's not that the claim has been poorly argued, it's that you've provided no evidence at all for your case, only your opinion. Eg "hell all 1st world country governments are doing it...so move where? " Which has so far proven to be false.

2. I already admitted that one.

3. couldn't be farther from the truth, I actually do understand how pesticides can be absorbed into plants, I also understand the process of genetic modification which is why I'm not paranoid like you seem to be.

Also, you might have missed "tu quoque" because you just did that one
User avatar #58 to #57 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
no the first one still stands, just because im not going to run around providing you with everything,m its porly argued, so instead of moving your lazy ass you declare my case false

you may understand how pesticides are absorbed into plants BUT you dont know how they affect people over time, you dont know what else they use on plants (lke the gas ripening) and because its still early, theres no real data on the long term effects of GM food on people to check any dangers.....but youre totally confident you know how they work
#59 to #58 - John Cena (05/14/2013) [-]
Lol @ blocking me

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

And we're back to this again, the burden of proof is yours. You're making the claim, you provide the evidence to support it... but just because I haven't jumped up and agreed with what you've claimed doesn't mean I'm dismissing your theories. It's just really really really unlikely since it'd be self limiting for a government to do that to their own populace. Deliberately poisoning the people as you are alluding to, is like shooting yourself in the foot.
User avatar #60 to #59 - konradkurze (05/14/2013) [-]
oh i can provide evidence, just i dont see any point to it, reading into you, i dont see any evidence being able to change your opinion, youre quite set in telling yourself the world is good and naysayers are wrong
#61 to #60 - John Cena (05/15/2013) [-]
Maybe you can, yet you don't, and instead provide vague irrelevant reasons for not doing so.
User avatar #64 to #61 - konradkurze (05/17/2013) [-]
good now case closed, lets move along
User avatar #62 to #61 - konradkurze (05/15/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link een-poisoned.html

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/poisoningfoods.html

http://bestmeal.info/food/fluoridation.shtml

http://www.wddty.com/gm-foods-are-poison-say-biologists.html

You need to login to view this link

www.oocities.org/frontierweekly/pdf-files/vol-42-5/poison-42-5.pdf

theres a start, now shut your sphincter, *********
#63 to #62 - John Cena (05/17/2013) [-]
That's what you should have posted from the beginning. Not your stupid picture, asshat.

The sources aren't great, however It's much better than your hearsay and conjecture.

I didn't read them all, because I'm not as fanatic about the subject as you, and I'd rather not continue this "conversation" but thanks for the info nonetheless.
User avatar #35 to #34 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
I have never heard of any first world country prohibiting you from eating your own produce. Citation please?

No, the hypothetical home grown seller has no quality control, and you have no idea what he does to the product. Yes there are natural deterrents. However you don't know if the person is doing that. Hence he could be doing anything, that's why selling your own unregulated produce may be illegal (I have no idea if that's even illegal in the US, you're making that claim.)
User avatar #38 to #35 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
well theres the thing
either way you dont truly know whats being sprayed on the crops, but theres a greater chance of honesty from a private citizen than the government
User avatar #40 to #38 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
"but theres a greater chance of honesty from a private citizen than the government "

No there isn't
User avatar #41 to #40 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
politicians talk **** as a way of life
with normal people theres at least a good chance, depending on where you live, that a random person will be a good guy
User avatar #42 to #41 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
I disagree, but I'm still waiting for that citation of any first world country that prohibits you from eating your own produce.
User avatar #43 to #42 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr875/text

its been discussed for a while now, but its supporters havent given up on it
User avatar #45 to #43 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
Did you reed that document? I did a search and I couldn't find anything prohibiting someone from growing food for themselves, all I could find were policies regarding the sales of food. Care to point out where it would prevent you from growing your own food?
User avatar #48 to #45 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
[ visit and inspect food production facilities in the United States and in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law]

[conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment]

in short, this and other conditions in the bill mean keeping an eye on everyone across the world to monitor what they grow and if they find even a tiny flaw, declare the garden as a whole to be unsafe and scrap the plants
User avatar #50 to #48 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
And if you read the definition of a food production facility, it does not include your vegetable patch at home, since it wouldn't fall into any of the following categories (No it's not classified as a farm, a farm is for commercial use)

(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.
User avatar #52 to #50 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
some people do take homegrown veggies to small businesses for sale

by lawyer speak, that would qualify as production
lawyers are dicks when it comes to twisting words
User avatar #54 to #52 - billybong (05/13/2013) [-]
Well, if you're going to sell your food, It's fair enough that it should be regulated. If you are selling it, then it's a farm. If you aren't selling it, it's not a farm.
User avatar #56 to #54 - konradkurze (05/13/2013) [-]
well having dealt with lawyers.....they would also consider barter like one trading his produce for goods or services from the other person to be a form of sale

never underestimate the ******** a lawyer can spew when they want to
#30 - John Cena (05/13/2013) [-]
dude, take your meds.
0
#8 - John Cena Comment deleted by konradkurze [-]
 Friends (0)