Synthetic Food

[Meno_]

perhaps the difference is overplayed.
A tree turns falls into substratum and fossilized into carbon. The pressures attained after drifting lower into the earth turns the carbon into diamond.
It takes may be hundreds of millions of years for it to take place, and not all organic material is placed under so much pressures.

[Mowk]

bon appetit

[Mr Reasonable]

You can't eat diamonds, but you can trade them for a lot of food.

[Mowk]

I don't speak for any form of life but mine.

If me and the maker are having an issue, that has nothing to do with any other life. Don't use my choice about my life in any regard as an excuse to how you tr-eat any other living thing. Get yourself up real close and personal with you.

Your life is yours to do with as you wish. If there is ability, cut the rest of life a similar slack. Crave what you will.

[Antithesis]

Man always makes a mess of things. Synthetic food will probably be cancerous, deficient, toxic and produce all kinds of problems, but these problems, which'll be suppressed by the synthetic food companies, won't be ascertained for decades or even centuries after it comes out, and a great deal of damage has already been done.

[Mowk]

Of course. Duh!

[Karpel Tunnel]

I strongly prefer real food.

Can you talk about that bias? I mean how much synthetic food have you had to have arrived at that preference? And why wouldn't it be "real".

The we used to eat, at least, was food that came from organisms that we coevolved with and which changed very slowly over time, and the changes had to be harmonic to the organisms as a whole. IOW they had to thrive, be able to procreate, and so on. Now companies notorious for lying, fudging science, controlling their own oversight and breaking the law are making fake food, doing it fast, jamming it onto markets. And they push this 'we are saving the world' when in fact it is just about money.

[MagsJ]

What gives food manufacturers the authority to peddle their synthetic wares? and how very Star Trek food-replicator of them.. minus the instant appearance factor.

The current state of food manufacturing processes are causing illnesses, and yet they still persevere in aiming for full synthesisation.

[Mowk]

It seems there is more apprehension with the processing then the product.

Markets being what they are, you're already playing in a rigged market. That's a given huh?

Blimey.

What gives food manufacturers the authority to peddle their synthetic wares? and how very Star Trek food-replicator of them.. minus the instant appearance factor.

The current state of food manufacturing processes are causing illnesses, and yet they still persevere in aiming for full synthesisation.

Some body is buying it.

I'll put my time up in exchange for anyone's time, even trade.

That's what will never happen and gives us the silly notion any natural resources have actual costs.

Somebody had to go and think they had more value...

And that someone else has less.

Until there is no perceived difference, the shit will continue.

[Meno_]

Natural is usually more preferred except at certain times, as the following describes: (warning::: Not Overly salient or appetizing!)

Resently the following nutritional posting have uncovered the following:

Meat from China shipped to Africa, have been discovered to contain human remains, rather beef for preparation of corned beef.

As at turned out, such practice has not been noted before, and it came as a certain surprise to meat inspectors. With China's population soaring into the many billions, added with Buddhist believes surrounding it, it the surprise is do.finished somewhat.

[Meno_]

The above is predicated on economic considerations: of reusability. The re-use of bodies is a.conservativen effort to preserve the ingredients from which synthetic foods are manufactured , (seriously,) whereas recyclimg bodies has a never ending potential.

The Buddhist example is apropo, in Tibet, a dead person's back is broken, them carried to the top of a mountain and left to feed carrions.

do owe an apology, for it appears beyond understanding in the Western mode of apprehension to entertain such notions, but the East handles matters like this with a completely different approach , and it does coincide with their belief systems.
The Chinese decision to reverse the law that forced a 1 parent family and subsequent population growth causing food source concerns, now systemic worldwide, brings new focus.

[Gloominary]

Replicated food? If it provided the nutrient requirements and could be fashioned into a flavor and consistency that was appealing, would you be willing to switch?

https://medium.com/foodofthefuture/the- ... b101ee9f43

It is an argument that for now is essentially economic. But things change.

If it absolutely could, I would, but I doubt they'll be able to anytime soon, if ever.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Is natural better than synthetic?

If it's natural arsenic, no.

But when you are synthesizing incredibly complicated 'products' the liklihood that you create allergins or chemicals that will cause problems, perhaps only after years of use, go up. We coevolved with many of our food sources and our bodies developed in relation to the chemicals in those life forms. Companies today want us to believe they can track all the side effects of their crap shoot manufacturing and tinkering. Science does not back them up, despite what they argue, especially around gm products.

[Mowk]

Is natural better than synthetic?

If it's natural arsenic, no.

But when you are synthesizing incredibly complicated 'products' the liklihood that you create allergins or chemicals that will cause problems, perhaps only after years of use, go up. We coevolved with many of our food sources and our bodies developed in relation to the chemicals in those life forms. Companies today want us to believe they can track all the side effects of their crap shoot manufacturing and tinkering. Science does not back them up, despite what they argue, especially around gm products.

Arsenic has it's place, naturally.

I think I prefaced the question with a fairly big IF. To respond, would be to accept the possibility of that IF, then see. If you can't even accept the premise, well, that says a lot. And if you can't tell the difference that says more.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Is natural better than synthetic?

If it's natural arsenic, no.

But when you are synthesizing incredibly complicated 'products' the liklihood that you create allergins or chemicals that will cause problems, perhaps only after years of use, go up. We coevolved with many of our food sources and our bodies developed in relation to the chemicals in those life forms. Companies today want us to believe they can track all the side effects of their crap shoot manufacturing and tinkering. Science does not back them up, despite what they argue, especially around gm products.

Arsenic has it's place, naturally.

I think I prefaced the question with a fairly big IF. To respond, would be to accept the possibility of that IF, then see. If you can't even accept the premise, well, that says a lot. And if you can't tell the difference that says more.

I am not sure why you are responding to my response to someone else rather then the post where I responded to you earlier in this thread. Sure, arsenic has its place. I was pointing out that something being natural is not enough of a criterion to tell if something is harmful or not, which actually is a point that could be used to support the OP.

Yes, you used the word 'if' but coming after that 'if' were the adjectives 'nutritious' and 'appealing'. The latter has nothing to do with my point. Obviously we can make unhealthy things appealing. Yes, the full definition of nutritious means it should be healthy, but the food industry will focus on certain aspects of a product and call it nutritious - it has a bunch of (set of X) nutrients - but the problems with, for example, gm foods, and some other sythetic foods, is that while they can have nutrients, they can also have problematic components.

The question I responded to was 'why the bias`?' (which can be seen in the post I made responding to your post) And I sure answered that question. That's the bias I have when people talk about making synthetic foods, even with their provisos. I certainly wasn't presenting proof that all of it will be unhealthy. But since, so far, given where and how I live, I don't have to have it, I have that bias.

So if you are capable of actually reading the polite posts of the people responding to your posts in such a way that you get the context of those responses,then perhaps you will refrain such snides responses as the one above.

There's a different 'if' to be mulled over.

Have fun with your thread.

[Mowk]

Have fun with your thread.

Yeah, all thanks to you.

It went south long ago, just let the thought fade.