>It's really amazing how much effort the religion of vegetarianism flows in a lot of sources and research that follows.
It's totally unclear to me what that sentence is supposed to mean.
>I'm not opposed to a mostly vegetable sourced diet. A lot of people do it for moral/ethical reasons, but hard science it isn't and has never been.
(That sounds to me (an 'ethical vegan') akin to "I'm not opposed to a mostly non-slave workforce. A lot of people have renounced slavery for moral/ethical reasons, but hard science it isn't and has never been.")
Maybe the "it" of the "hard science it isn't" half of the sentence refers the 'mostly vegetable sourced diet' of people who are vegetarian for reasons of their own health, which the rest of your comment seems to talk about exclusively , but you didn't make that clear. It seems probable that you meant to claim that "there's no scientific consensus that a vegetarian diet is healthier" (i.e. for humans). I won't comment on whether that's true or not, but just note that what you actually said was rather different. I think. It was confusing.
The first mentioned sentence is really stating that a lot of people (specifically vegetarians/vegans) have a bias much like religion in which they seek out to prove themselves right instead of finding out what really is, and when presented with evidence they are wrong, will further assert their being "correct" all the same.
"IT" is vegetarian/vegan diet as being healthier. It started off as a religious PoV and mostly still is. There's never been a closed clinical trial that showed that a vegetarian diet is any better than an omnivore or carnivore diet. Most studies already have a lot of factors and bias.
The "ethical vegan" is one who chooses to do so, because they don't want to be involved in the taking of animal life. This is generally a personal and moral reason. I don't have anything bad to say about someone that chooses this so long as they aren't trying to sway others out of a religious-like zealotry.
I’m not a vegan or vegetarian, but your posts on this topic range from persecutorial to bizarre. I can’t believe that you expect anyone reading your posts to be convinced by lists of accusations of evil, equivocation between cockroach bits and cows, or what diet leads to survival stuck “in the middle of any jungle, prairie etc.” there are better ways to make a point that seem less like self-gratification to the exclusion of making a real point.
I don't think that's true. There are three broad categories of produce: Organic, non-Organic/GMO, non-Organic/non-GMO.
Organic is grown without pesticides at all, but given higher prices it does not compete with gmo-non-organic or non-gmo-non-organic.
For non-organic food, both GMO and non-GMO plants are treated with various pesticides because those pests aren't removing themselves. The GMOs are treated with a smaller number of higher doses of glyphosate earlier in the plant's life, and no other pesticides. Non-GMO plants are treated with lower doses of many varieties of pesticides across a longer period of time. If anything, non-GMO products should have more pesticide residue on them, and those pesticides are less studied.
>...Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent critters from destroying their crops.
>...According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 1. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.
Most commercial corn is modified (by gmo or breeding) at this point... Corn and Soy are more inflammatory than other grains and it's fairly common to see more allergen response from GMO corn, soy and even wheat over more traditional strains (5-10 times more likely iirc).
Look at a couple of the books/articles/interviews by JJ Virgin to start... there's many more references that will spread out from there. I'm sorry but I've done a lot of reading over the past couple years mostly to expand personal knowledge, I'm bad about remembering all the individual articles to cite and mostly rely on google for what I can remember.
Tom Bilyeu and HVMN channels on youtube also have some great content. DietDoctor.com is another good resource.
edit2: you know, I didn't have a lot of time to look up a bunch of stuff... I provided what I could... I didn't mean to link to the image, but an article with it, and in the end, whatever... the vegetarians have spoken and down modded anything disagreeing into oblivion without any counter argument with citation, or any actual experiments confirming their own bias.
Did you just link to a PNG file [1] titled "7 foods to avoid on a virgin diet" as a proof of some sort?
I mean this file has literally no informational value - it's an opinion of unidentified persons based on unidentified research data. What does this have to do with your earlier assertion about GMO corn being allergenic?
"or breeding"? Corn was created by breeding from a native plant that doesn't really resemble corn at all, thousands of years ago. So 100% of corn was created "by breeding".
