You probably eat more sand then you realize. It was the filler in Taco Bell meat before they got called out for not having enough beef to call it beef.
So they sourced cheaper beef, of course, and the taste went to shit.
Also, I appreciate the label, even though it is a misnomer. I prefer not eating glyphosate.
Wikipedia silica and you’ll see it’s a common food additive.
Here’s a paper on glyphosate in food. I read this yesterday to be sure I wasn’t talking out of my ass. It’s a bit dense but if you pick it apart basically cereal grains are the worst offenders.
Okay, I may have been wrong about TB. They did change their meat formulation about ten years ago (I remember the texture changed drastically, possibly as a PR move by TB when Alabama sued them in 2011).
Silica is a common food additive regardless. You can verify this yourself easily on Wikipedia.
While silcon dioxide is used as a food additive, and is found naturally in a lot of food, it’s regarded as safe and even has been shown to have health benefits.
To be fair, genetic modification and selective breeding are not the same thing. It is funny how one is totally normal and the other is considered negative when they’re quite similar
I think some reservations can come out of the idea that the natural environment isn’t producing these genetic changes. Just to play devil’s advocate.
Edit: does nobody fucking know what devil’s advocate means? This isn’t my opinion christ. Also there’s a bit more depth to the argument though that you guys seem to be really obtuse about.
The natural world tries to kill you all the time. Why are you trusting that!?! Seriously though, both of these arguements are somewhat fallacious. Saying that GMOs are safe because, “It happens all the time in nature.” Is the same fallacy that it isn’t safe because, “It isn’t natural to accelerate the process with genetic modification.” Both are just mental shortcuts for people so they don’t have to think about the insanely complex topic of GMOs, the effects, and what the right path forward is for all of us.
I think this is somewhat strawmanning what the point of the argument in this specific case is. They’re not appealing to nature being good, that’s not the argument.
The point is that if you are genetically selecting for specific genes through modification then you are circumventing the typical process for genetic change. There are lots of unintended effects of genetic changes and there are lots of corrective mechanisms built into DNA when genetically modified through selective processes rather than direct gene splicing. Science is always slow to catch up with analysis of an entourage effect where many other small factors may influence results long term.
I’m not anti GMO and this isn’t my opinion as I think GMO products have amazing potential. I’m just sick of people on my side totally misrepresenting this argument as “hurr durr nature good.” It’s such a smooth brained take.
Virtually everything we eat now is GMO after countless generations of selective breeding and all that. Ever read about the wild versions of common foods? Bananas, watermelons, corn, all that stuff in their completely natural wild form is unrecognizable from the monstrosities on sale in every grocery store.
Not quite the same. I couldn’t get my normal soy milk recently and opted for a more expensive organic type from the same company. It tasted baaaaad. Like idk what the material difference is, but it sucked. The smell was really strong. I think I actually tossed a bunch of it out it was that difficult to drink. Now I just get light if the regular stuff is gone.
Do you consider a tomato a fruit as well? Organic has different meanings depending on the context, just like the culinary vs botanical version of fruits and vegetables.
lemmyshitpost
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.