|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenks
2802 days ago
|
|
|
As i mentioned, commercial farming leads to less nutrient dense food. The processes of digestion, metabolization, assimilation, and elimination each take energy and nutrients to work. Foods grown in low-vitamin dense soil inherently have less nutrients to provide the organism which consumes them. Be cautious in your assumption that everything is great with commercially farmed food. Widespread disease, reliance on stimulants like coffee, energy drinks, and even as extreme as ADHD medicine being given to children - even though the effects are almost identical to those of people being on cocaine - are becoming more widespread the more prevalent commercial farming becomes. The rate of cancer in 1900 was 1 in 30,
1980 it was 1 in 5,
1990 1 in 4,
1995 1 in 3,
2000 1 in 2. Correlation? causation? It's impossible to tell, but the idea that engineering mother nature to make her work more efficiently than the way she has engineered life over millions of years has yet to ever work in our favor each time we have tried throughout history. |
|
|
Even taking this as a given, "less nutrient dense" is far from "so nutrient poor that digestion literally takes more energy than the food contains", which is what your original comment claimed.
> The rate of cancer in 1900 was 1 in 30, 1980 it was 1 in 5, 1990 1 in 4, 1995 1 in 3, 2000 1 in 2.
Ok. The cancer diagnosis rate has skyrocketed. That's a different point. In many ways this is good -- it means more people are living long enough with medical care to get a diagnosis.
> the idea that engineering mother nature to make her work more efficiently than the way she has engineered life over millions of years has yet to ever work in our favor each time we have tried throughout history
What? GMOs have worked out on a massive scale, improving billions of lives through new drought/pestilence/act-of-God-resistant strains.
I'm with you that agribusiness has many problems and bad actors, but the claims you're making go really far.