4 ms·

Consider this...Corn is intended to feed a baby plant. Humans are not corn. Some corns cob for humans is likely not harmful. But beyond that you're ingesting a

Consider this...Corn is intended to feed a baby plant. Humans are not corn. Some corns cob for humans is likely not harmful. But beyond that you're ingesting a cocktail of nutrients and hormones intend for a baby plant. Put another way, just because Big Corn has normalized doesn't mean it's a good dietary decision. Proceed at your own risk. PS. Sorry for being so snarky, but I hope you read my silly comment with an open mind, and realize how weak your argument is as of now. You need facts to back up such extraordinary statement. It even has anthropological implications.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
[flagged]
- TylerE 3y ago
  A bigger part of the corn syrup thing was basically coincidence of timing - it came out right at one the cyclical peaks of fat vilification. So products were reformulated to have less fat (and often less salt), and surprise surprise, they tasted like crap.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Cheaper === more consumption. That's basic economics. The corn subsidies drove down the price of that sweetener and in turn those (mostly unhealthy) products feel in price. *And* it became attractive to use in other products. Yes, of course. There are other factors. But that doesn't diminish the fact that tax dollars are used to make the taxpayers unhealthy.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    I should add, that cheaper corn also makes the things that eat corn cheaper. That doesn't mean those things are healthy. The power structure / status quo is based on stability. Hunger / starvation of the masses tends to bring about instability. The point is, the food system is NOT driven by health (of the masses or the environment for that matter). It's driven by Food X's ability to starve off starvation (and associated unrest). That is, just because you're eating what's been normalized doesn't mean it's ideal for your health.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  > Repeat after me...Corns doesn't have nipples. Not sure what you've been sucking on but it's not corn nipples. Do you have trouble with abstract thinking or are you being intentionally obtuse?
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Not any more trouble than the trouble you have believing Big Diary's marketing is scientific fact, and that they value you and your health more than they value profits. Fact: You're ingesting a cocktail intendend for another species at a completely different moment in their lifecycle. To say nothing of the human influence on that cocktail (i.e., additional hormones given to increase production). But celebs pushing "Got milk?" means it's a smart and healthy choice? Here...have a cigarette while you're at it. Or "Look moms...no need to use your own milk. That's messy. That's an inconvenience. You don't need to be there...there's cows' milk. We promise you that stuff for baby cows is good for your new born as well." Lol. Are you listening to yourself? That's all fact. And the fact that that's been normalized is your problem, not mine. I don't have a problem with abstract thinking. But the fact is, we don't need it. It's a distraction. Let's instead stick to fact.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      Purposefully obtuse then.
cies 3y ago
Corn is not for humans, as it is a cultivated type of grass, like all (pseudo-)grains. Fruit, tender green leaves and bugs are our food; by the following reasons: * they existed before humans developed (not a plant cultivated by humans) * we can gather them without the use of tools (all animals can find their food without needing technology) * we can digest it without technology (yes cooking grains is using technology) * they taste and look great in natural form (ever saw a runover bird: did it look attractive? no? then its not your food) Just some food (lol) for thought
- hnfong 3y ago
  Hakuna Matata! It means no worries For the rest of your days~
- ASalazarMX 3y ago
  You're ignoring adaptation. It's not about if we can eat creatures that existed before homo sapiens, or if we can eat them raw and wild; it's about how being able to eat things affects survival and reproduction. Take mushrooms, for example: they've existed for 700+ million years, way before homo sapiens, and while 1-2% of them are poisonous to us, we can eat others just fine. It's not like the others were healthy, it's that food wasn't available all the time, and individuals being able to eat mushrooms thrived better than those who couldn't. They kept eating mushrooms and getting sick, until someone didn't, because they were hungry. Same with fire. Fire is like predigesting food, making nutrients more readily available for our relatively fast digestion. It will soften hard fibers, cartilage, hard meat, and coerce nutrients out of hard-to-digest plants. After it there was no need for massive jaws to munch your food for most of the day. Cooking is likely what made humans what we are today, it was practiced by homo erectus 1.5 million years ago. Homo sapiens emerged just 300,000 years ago, so cooking with fire also existed before us, hence it's part of our natural environment. And don't get me started on agriculture! While I agree that we're doing it wrong in many aspects, agriculture enabled human civilization. Instead of everyone being a hunter-gatherer, the farmers could produce food, even a surplus, while others could produce other things (or exploit the population :). Rejecting herding, farming, fire, and technology in general is stupid, it's like declaring oneself a "sovereign citizen", but still wanting all the comforts of life paid with taxes, like firefighters, 911 calls, electricity, waste management, clean water, roads, police, weather reports, tornado warnings, etc. You wouldn't exist today without those things you seem to reject. Seriously, I don't know why I'm bothering to argue with you, I have the impression that you're not interested in facts, history or science, but in personal opinions and feelings.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

[flagged]

TylerE 3y ago
A bigger part of the corn syrup thing was basically coincidence of timing - it came out right at one the cyclical peaks of fat vilification. So products were reformulated to have less fat (and often less salt), and surprise surprise, they tasted like crap.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Cheaper === more consumption. That's basic economics. The corn subsidies drove down the price of that sweetener and in turn those (mostly unhealthy) products feel in price. *And* it became attractive to use in other products. Yes, of course. There are other factors. But that doesn't diminish the fact that tax dollars are used to make the taxpayers unhealthy.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  I should add, that cheaper corn also makes the things that eat corn cheaper. That doesn't mean those things are healthy. The power structure / status quo is based on stability. Hunger / starvation of the masses tends to bring about instability. The point is, the food system is NOT driven by health (of the masses or the environment for that matter). It's driven by Food X's ability to starve off starvation (and associated unrest). That is, just because you're eating what's been normalized doesn't mean it's ideal for your health.
Eisenstein 3y ago
> Repeat after me...Corns doesn't have nipples. Not sure what you've been sucking on but it's not corn nipples. Do you have trouble with abstract thinking or are you being intentionally obtuse?
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Not any more trouble than the trouble you have believing Big Diary's marketing is scientific fact, and that they value you and your health more than they value profits. Fact: You're ingesting a cocktail intendend for another species at a completely different moment in their lifecycle. To say nothing of the human influence on that cocktail (i.e., additional hormones given to increase production). But celebs pushing "Got milk?" means it's a smart and healthy choice? Here...have a cigarette while you're at it. Or "Look moms...no need to use your own milk. That's messy. That's an inconvenience. You don't need to be there...there's cows' milk. We promise you that stuff for baby cows is good for your new born as well." Lol. Are you listening to yourself? That's all fact. And the fact that that's been normalized is your problem, not mine. I don't have a problem with abstract thinking. But the fact is, we don't need it. It's a distraction. Let's instead stick to fact.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Purposefully obtuse then.

cies 3y ago

Corn is not for humans, as it is a cultivated type of grass, like all (pseudo-)grains. Fruit, tender green leaves and bugs are our food; by the following reasons: * they existed before humans developed (not a plant cultivated by humans) * we can gather them without the use of tools (all animals can find their food without needing technology) * we can digest it without technology (yes cooking grains is using technology) * they taste and look great in natural form (ever saw a runover bird: did it look attractive? no? then its not your food) Just some food (lol) for thought

hnfong 3y ago
Hakuna Matata! It means no worries For the rest of your days~
ASalazarMX 3y ago
You're ignoring adaptation. It's not about if we can eat creatures that existed before homo sapiens, or if we can eat them raw and wild; it's about how being able to eat things affects survival and reproduction. Take mushrooms, for example: they've existed for 700+ million years, way before homo sapiens, and while 1-2% of them are poisonous to us, we can eat others just fine. It's not like the others were healthy, it's that food wasn't available all the time, and individuals being able to eat mushrooms thrived better than those who couldn't. They kept eating mushrooms and getting sick, until someone didn't, because they were hungry. Same with fire. Fire is like predigesting food, making nutrients more readily available for our relatively fast digestion. It will soften hard fibers, cartilage, hard meat, and coerce nutrients out of hard-to-digest plants. After it there was no need for massive jaws to munch your food for most of the day. Cooking is likely what made humans what we are today, it was practiced by homo erectus 1.5 million years ago. Homo sapiens emerged just 300,000 years ago, so cooking with fire also existed before us, hence it's part of our natural environment. And don't get me started on agriculture! While I agree that we're doing it wrong in many aspects, agriculture enabled human civilization. Instead of everyone being a hunter-gatherer, the farmers could produce food, even a surplus, while others could produce other things (or exploit the population :). Rejecting herding, farming, fire, and technology in general is stupid, it's like declaring oneself a "sovereign citizen", but still wanting all the comforts of life paid with taxes, like firefighters, 911 calls, electricity, waste management, clean water, roads, police, weather reports, tornado warnings, etc. You wouldn't exist today without those things you seem to reject. Seriously, I don't know why I'm bothering to argue with you, I have the impression that you're not interested in facts, history or science, but in personal opinions and feelings.