tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655889105820772060.post406132151078575002..comments2023-10-17T16:44:08.588+03:00Comments on Fake Plastic Souks: A Corny TaleAlexanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14141884153180374138noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655889105820772060.post-85193832395017275532010-09-21T22:28:48.597+03:002010-09-21T22:28:48.597+03:00I personally love smoked salmon, poached or scramb...I personally love smoked salmon, poached or scrambled eggs, and cherry tomatoes. Yum! Made-at- home eggs benedict with a sprinkle of pepper; minus the bread. I really don't even mind grilled squid for breakfast - well that's after I found out tinned herring has so much sugar in it!!!i*maginatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11768590735811322295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655889105820772060.post-29899449438948157892010-09-21T22:28:14.586+03:002010-09-21T22:28:14.586+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.i*maginatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11768590735811322295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655889105820772060.post-51298139710367006062010-09-16T20:30:25.538+03:002010-09-16T20:30:25.538+03:00Ah, but Alexander, even your reply is a perfect il...Ah, but Alexander, even your reply is a perfect illustration of this conflation of bad science and emotive propaganda.<br /><br />Here's your bad science: "demonstrably a causative of endemic obesity and diabetes". While there may well be a linkage between the prevalence of HFCS and obesity, there is no respectable published study - the only benchmark we have in science which has a much higher burden of proof than legal evidence - which has deemed it "causative". Granted, in such a complex biological system that will be very difficult to do - but it IS bad science to make such a claim. You may passionately believe the evidence demonstrates causality but that is not a scientific validation. Same reason the big bang and evolution are still described as theories despite having substantially more supporting evidence than this claim.<br /><br />Here's your emotive propaganda:<br />"highly processed, genetically modified product". Now in your profession you are very familiar with the concept of loaded words, ostensibly innocent but articulated to provide them with all sorts of meaning, especially to an audience already suggestible based on the context. There is nothing inherently wrong with something that is "highly processed" (like, say, cheese souffle) nor is there any hazard attributable to genetically modified foods, yet here they are conducted to a semiotic crescendo of implied horror. Much as you did in the original post by listing those scary-sounding enzymes without mentioning that they happen to be naturally occurring in human metabolism.<br /><br />I don't see the antics of "big food" on this one being different or more reprehensible in any substantial way than any other industry lobby group, whether big oil, big pharma, big electronics (all those health hazards attributed to radiation from mobile phones and TVs in stand-by mode) or - worst of all - big (or even little) media. I find the sanctimonious "organic food" movement to be far more obnoxious, not just because it's championed by your Prince Charles. Not a single reputable study has ever demonstrated any nutritional benefits from organic food production despite its claims to inherent virtue. It has even been difficult to reliably repeat favourable taste preference in properly conducted blind tests. Inefficient, low-yield organic production is an environmental disaster and somehow still seems to be embraced by the same people who jump on every passing green-wagon. Industrial farming may have given us CJD and mass salmonella poisoning but it has also given us the best fed, best nourished, longest-living generation of humans in history.Rootlessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655889105820772060.post-47392179621061958792010-09-16T10:51:53.745+03:002010-09-16T10:51:53.745+03:00Rootless, there's no bad science in there.
An...Rootless, there's no bad science in there.<br /><br />Any industry trying to take a highly processed, genetically modified product that is demonstrably a causative of endemic obesity and diabetes and present it as good for you is, in my book, evil.<br /><br />And I don't get my bills paid by taking on work like that... so I don't have to rely on the unrealistic prospect of that Booker for a while yet. :)Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14141884153180374138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655889105820772060.post-76499610247869840972010-09-16T09:36:23.305+03:002010-09-16T09:36:23.305+03:00Any valid points you may have here are swamped in ...Any valid points you may have here are swamped in the hagiographic conflation of bad science with sensationalistic nonsense underpinned by Victorian prejudice about the superior virtue of all things natural.<br /><br />Let me just play back two of your finest moments in this post: <br /><br />"This is mixed with water to make a slurry treated with the addition of a number of enzymes including alpha-amylase (also used in bread improvers and detergents) and Xylose isomerase. Nice, eh?" So what is it that is supposed to be so repulsive here? Those long unfamiliar chemical names? Enzymes? That it is a slurry? In fact, your description of this process is pleasantly reassuring to me as somebody who has had some concerns about HFCS and who is not as wilfully scientifically illiterate as the audience at whom this is clearly aimed.<br /><br />"You only need to go to the Association’s current corn sugar promoting website and see the pictures of happy families tucking into mountains of fruity goodness to know that there is a fundamentally evil force at work here." Huh? Fundamentally evil force??? Stand aside Al Qaeda, the real enemy reveals itself.. So a large established industry trying to defend its interests and present its side of the story (to which I am becoming ever more sympathetic) is fundamentally evil? Sorry, please remind me which profession pays your bills (until you have that Booker winning blockbuster of course)?<br /><br />I have had some concerns about HFCS but the increasingly insubstantial and hysterical case against it is causing me to examine the evidence more thoroughly. Well done all you promulgators of swivel-eyed conspiracies, you are starting to make me feel some sympathy for ADM, Cargill and their unscrupulous, oligopolistic ilk.Rootlessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655889105820772060.post-86516218830439327512010-09-15T11:51:37.310+03:002010-09-15T11:51:37.310+03:00Real Fast food - lets face it, it takes less time ...Real Fast food - lets face it, it takes less time to crack a few eggs and make an omlette than it does to wait for a delivery where the packaging usually has more nutritional value and flavour too!<br /><br />I object to the malnutrition industry taking over the term "fast food" and I claim it back!Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18397103747971860352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655889105820772060.post-73794410067064762272010-09-15T08:59:34.923+03:002010-09-15T08:59:34.923+03:00Excellent post, thanks. I share your abhorrence of...Excellent post, thanks. I share your abhorrence of all things pre-prepared, but have yet to come up with a suitable acronym for the cooking style - Nothing From A Packet doesn't work yet as a name, but it's a wonderful basic philosophy that wraps up all that's best in Slow Food, Locavore, SOUL and organic. Am counitng down the days till the cover comes off the barbeque!<br /><br />EoDEyeOnDubaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09599441309027509658noreply@blogger.com