[margalabargala]

Respectfully, that's a crock of nonsense.

"It's not at absolute zero, therefore there's some chemical process going on, therefore we don't know if it's causing significant portions of cancer"?

The number of things you can say that about is frankly infinite. You have zero reason to believe that any of the "chemical processes" that happen to an apple (or any food) in long term storage have anything to do with cancer.

This is a great example of correlation not equaling causation. You might as well say that writing years starting with a "2" could cause particular risks that account for a significant portion of cancer because of the different motions of our hand affecting our lymphatic system etc etc.

Irresponsible fearmongering with no foundation whatsoever.

[wemwemwem]

Science is building hypothesis and testing them. It is not saying it seems unlikely so I don't care. You can look up the changes to green beans depending if they are fresh, shipped a huge distance without bring frozen or frozen. Some nutrients change, these changes could affect satiety which could affect obesity, but you just don't care?

[margalabargala]

> Science is building hypothesis and testing them.

Bad science is building hypothesis and promulgating it publicly alongside zero evidence whatsoever.

The discussion is about stored apples specifically causing increased cancer rates, paired with an arbitrary woo categorization of "living" vs "dead" food. OP wondered why this did not occupy a larger portion of public discourse. Again, this hypothesis exists alongside humans writing more years whose first digit is "2", as evidence-supported cancer progenitors.

> Some nutrients change, these changes could affect satiety which could affect obesity

Yes, if you walk back the "living vs dead" woo concept and expand the scope to more varieties of foods than just apples and more processing methods than passively storing otherwise intact fruit, then you exit the zero evidence crackpot zone.

Lots of crackpot woo theories are similarly half a step away from real evidence-supported theories. Another example would be biodynamic agriculture, which looks a lot like organic and integrated farming practices right up until you get to the part about burying ground quartz stuffed into the horn of a cow so you can harvest cosmic forces in the soil.

[wemwemwem]

Passively storing (whole) fruit changes fruit, I'm sorry if that aligns with crackpot theories but you shouldn't just dismiss things as not happening to try to take them away from fad theories that have a story that propels them above a lack of evidence. This makes it all the more popular to hold theories as faith and argue that everyone does.

[margalabargala]

> I'm sorry if that aligns with crackpot theories

Don't be sorry! Instead of apologizing, all I ask is that you notice, read, and internalize the part where the objection is to "and therefore that's why cancer rates are increasing".