Re: cloned food?

[Guest guest]

Dear Amy

The problems from cloned food are quite separate from the problems of genetically modified foods. Cloning in the strict sense means no more than eating bacon from twin pigs. No big deal. Likewise, GM is no big deal if it's done for the right reasons by responsible and informed researchers. See http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/biotech/1980.htm

You are far more at risk from the foolhardy people who put fluoride in everything on the basis of "if a little is good for you, them more must be better"

See http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=second-thoughts-on-fluoride and

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

R

[infections] cloned food?

does anyone have any opinions on cloned food?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7190305.stmI am not sure what ot think but perhaps it could be bad for us somehow?and not labeled

[Guest guest]

,

>Cloning in the strict sense means no more than eating bacon from twin pigs. No big deal.

Not sure. Cloned animals have health issues that twin animals don't have and die faster than non-cloned animals, see Dolly in the UK who was not slaughtered for meat but who was observed for during all of her "natural" life. We simply don't know what kind of things might go wrong with cloned animals downstream. The dangers, as always, come from things that we are precisely not aware of at a given point in time.

Nelly

[infections] cloned food?

does anyone have any opinions on cloned food?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7190305.stmI am not sure what ot think but perhaps it could be bad for us somehow?and not labeled

[Guest guest]

My understanding is that what

happens to the clone is that their telomeres are already frayed; they

basically age faster than the original. I'm not up to speed on whether

what you're getting in the store is the meat from an actual clone or

just the clone's offspring, and whether the premature aging applies to

the offspring or not. Probably wouldn't. I'm also not up to speed on

whether Dolly's premature aging is universal or if the cloning

technology has partially or completely addressed this in the years

since.

However, I think you're right, Nelly, we are tampering with things we

don't fully understand and it seems almost foreordained that in a

generation or so, as our science improves, someone will figure out that

in fact it's not the same as eating bacon from twin pigs. I would

rather stay as close to nature as possible, and I would like my food

labeled so that I can make those decisions for myself. I already

willingly pay a premium for quality organic foods, and I would

generally pay a monetary premium to avoid cloned or GM foods as well.

The irony is that if they would just be matter-of-factly truthful about

the trade offs and truthful in their packaging / advertising, they'd

probably make more money, not less. Because the people who don't care

will buy whatever is cheapest / easiest / tastiest and those of us who

care will pay extra for the things we care about.

--Bob

Nelly Pointis wrote:

,

>Cloning

in the strict sense means no more than eating bacon from twin pigs. No

big deal.

Not sure. Cloned animals have health

issues that twin animals don't have and die faster than non-cloned

animals, see Dolly in the UK who was not slaughtered for meat but who

was observed for during all of her "natural" life. We simply don't know

what kind of things might go wrong with cloned animals downstream. The

dangers, as always, come from things that we are precisely not aware of

at a given point in time.

Nelly

-----

Original Message -----

From:

Windsor

To:

infections

Sent:

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:51 AM

Subject:

Re: [infections] cloned food?

Dear Amy

The problems from cloned food are

quite separate from the problems of genetically modified foods. Cloning

in the strict sense means no more than eating bacon from twin pigs. No

big deal. Likewise, GM is no big deal if it's done for the right

reasons by responsible and informed researchers. See http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/biotech/1980.htm

You are far more at risk from the

foolhardy people who put fluoride in everything on the basis of "if a

little is good for you, them more must be better"

See http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=second-thoughts-on-fluoride and

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

R

-----

Original Message -----

From:

amydent9

infections

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:37 PM

Subject: [infections] cloned food?

does anyone have any opinions on cloned food?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7190305.stm

I am not sure what ot think but perhaps it could be bad for us somehow?

and not labeled

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, "don't care" might easily be translated to "can't afford" or "don't know better". While I understand your point, in the bigger picture, I don't like this argument at all. Bottom line it's the same as it always has been, if you're poor you get the dregs and cast offs, if you're well-off, you get to live the high-life. pennyBob Grommes <bob@...> wrote: My understanding is that what happens to the clone is that their telomeres are

already frayed; they basically age faster than the original. I'm not up to speed on whether what you're getting in the store is the meat from an actual clone or just the clone's offspring, and whether the premature aging applies to the offspring or not. Probably wouldn't. I'm also not up to speed on whether Dolly's premature aging is universal or if the cloning technology has partially or completely addressed this in the years since.However, I think you're right, Nelly, we are tampering with things we don't fully understand and it seems almost foreordained that in a generation or so, as our science improves, someone will figure out that in fact it's not the same as eating bacon from twin pigs. I would rather stay as close to nature as possible, and I would like my food labeled so that I can make those decisions for myself. I already willingly pay a premium for quality organic foods, and I would generally pay a monetary premium to avoid

cloned or GM foods as well.The irony is that if they would just be matter-of-factly truthful about the trade offs and truthful in their packaging / advertising, they'd probably make more money, not less. Because the people who don't care will buy whatever is cheapest / easiest / tastiest and those of us who care will pay extra for the things we care about.--BobNelly Pointis wrote: , >Cloning in the strict sense means no more than eating bacon from twin pigs. No big deal. Not sure. Cloned animals have health issues that twin animals don't have and die faster than non-cloned animals, see Dolly in the UK who was not slaughtered for

meat but who was observed for during all of her "natural" life. We simply don't know what kind of things might go wrong with cloned animals downstream. The dangers, as always, come from things that we are precisely not aware of at a given point in time. Nelly [infections] cloned food? does anyone have any opinions on cloned food?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7190305.stmI am not sure what ot think but perhaps it could be bad for us somehow?and not labeled

[Guest guest]

Penny,

In a perfect world of course I think we would all agree that we should ALL be getting good quality untampered with food, BUT since the world we live in is far far far from what I would like it to be, and I don't have the strength to be involved in trying to change it by being an activist, I would, like Bob, have the opportunity to choose NOT to buy meat made from cloned animals or GM vegies.

Do you think that's very elitist? I am well aware that many, many, many people are not in a position to decide what they eat, many are not even in a position to decide whether they'll eat or not.

Nelly

[infections] cloned food?

does anyone have any opinions on cloned food?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7190305.stmI am not sure what ot think but perhaps it could be bad for us somehow?and not labeled

[Guest guest]

I wouldn't go so far as to

say that you have no point at all, Penny, but I mostly disagree, even

in the bigger picture. First off, the difference in cost is not an

order of magnitude. It's often ten or twenty percent or less, and in

some cases (remember I'm talking about what I call "quality organics"

and not the dreck they sell as organic someplace like the corner

Safeway) the taste is ten or twenty percent better anyway.

But more importantly, we have crappy foods because we as a society want

them. Consumers demand convenience, sweetness, speed of preparation,

ease of use, and perfect consistency of shape, texture, flavor and

color. To the uninformed / disbelieving / uncaring / unthinking

masses, these are one or both of two things: important positives that

they don't want to give up, or "just the way it's done" and they don't

want to appear "different". We don't have pesticide-free, natural

foods because by and large we don't care, not because by and large we

can't afford them.

A perfect example of this is raw milk. Pasteurization is a response to

the inherently unsanitary conditions in factory dairy farming.

Homogenization is a response to consumer demand for the cream not to

separate so we are not reminded that it comes from icky cows. But the

two processes together plus the use of factory cows over legacy breeds,

change milk into something that a lot of people can't even properly

digest. To produce raw milk on any scale we would have to go back to a

model of small local suppliers and higher prices -- we'd have to

emphasize a less scalable production system that delivers fresher

product to market faster, and puts an emphasis on quality and

cleanliness. The simple fact is that no one feels strongly enough

about milk to make these major changes, plus milk isn't addictive like

the caffeine and sugar-laden sodas and "energy drinks" that the food

industry would prefer we be hooked on. (Come to think of it, isn't the

whole food industry geared to produce hoards of mindless "addicts"

rather than consumers)?

I also don't buy the argument that most people in the US at least

"can't afford" organic food. It's a matter of priorities. I know poor

families that "can't afford" this or that but they have a color

television (or two) and their children have the latest Wii game machine

and designer backpacks. Even the ones who are truly living

hardscrabble existences are often grotesquely obese.

Mostly people want it all and don't have the discipline to prioritize

and to delay gratification. And frankly, that is why quite a lot of

them are poor.

Safe, quality food is important enough to me that if I had to, I'd go

without a car to have it and restructure my life accordingly. I submit

to you that at least 99% of the people in this country would rather die

with Twinkie residue stuck to their teeth than to have their car pried

from their cold, dead fingers.

--Bob

Penny Houle wrote:

Unfortunately, "don't care" might easily be translated to "can't

afford" or "don't know better". While I understand your point, in the

bigger picture, I don't like this argument at all. Bottom line it's the

same as it always has been, if you're poor you get the dregs and cast

offs, if you're well-off, you get to live the high-life.

penny

Bob Grommes <bobbobgrommes> wrote:

My understanding is

that what happens to the clone is that their telomeres are already

frayed; they basically age faster than the original. I'm not up to

speed on whether what you're getting in the store is the meat from an

actual clone or just the clone's offspring, and whether the premature

aging applies to the offspring or not. Probably wouldn't. I'm also

not up to speed on whether Dolly's premature aging is universal or if

the cloning technology has partially or completely addressed this in

the years since.

However, I think you're right, Nelly, we are tampering with things we

don't fully understand and it seems almost foreordained that in a

generation or so, as our science improves, someone will figure out that

in fact it's not the same as eating bacon from twin pigs. I would

rather stay as close to nature as possible, and I would like my food

labeled so that I can make those decisions for myself. I already

willingly pay a premium for quality organic foods, and I would

generally pay a monetary premium to avoid cloned or GM foods as well.

The irony is that if they would just be matter-of-factly truthful about

the trade offs and truthful in their packaging / advertising, they'd

probably make more money, not less. Because the people who don't care

will buy whatever is cheapest / easiest / tastiest and those of us who

care will pay extra for the things we care about.

--Bob

Nelly Pointis wrote:

,

>Cloning

in the strict sense means no more than eating bacon from twin pigs. No

big deal.

Not sure. Cloned animals have

health issues that twin animals don't have and die faster than

non-cloned animals, see Dolly in the UK who was not slaug htered for

meat but who was observed for during all of her "natural" life. We

simply don't know what kind of things might go wrong with cloned

animals downstream. The dangers, as always, come from things that we

are precisely not aware of at a given point in time.

Nelly

-----

Original Message -----

From:

Windsor

To:

infections

Sent:

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:51 AM

Subject:

Re: [infections] cloned food?

Dear Amy

The problems from cloned food

are quite separate from the problems of genetically modified foods.

Cloning in the strict sense means no more than eating bacon from twin

pigs. No big deal. Likewise, GM is no big deal if it's done for the

right reasons by responsible and informed researchers. See http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/biotech/1980.htm

You are far more at risk from

the foolhardy people who put fluoride in everything on the basis of "if

a little is good for you, them more must be better"

See http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=second-thoughts-on-fluoride and

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

R

-----

Original Message -----

From: amydent9

infections

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:37 PM

Subject: [infections] cloned

food?

does anyone have any opinions on cloned food?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7190305.stm

I am not sure what ot think but perhaps it could be bad for us somehow?

and not labeled

[Guest guest]

> Mostly people want it all and don't have the discipline to

prioritize and to delay gratification. And frankly, that is why

quite a lot of them /are/ poor.

> I submit to you that at least 99% of the people in this country

would rather die with Twinkie residue stuck to their teeth than to

have their car pried from their cold, dead fingers.

Pretty accurate picture, I think... but what's the origin of

indiscipline itself? My guess (a guess) is that a lot of it is lower

physiological vigor and lesser physiological disposition for delayed

gratification, though some of it could also come from culture or from

the psyche. (Whatever the psyche is; I think it can't really be

defined or probed in objective inquiry, but only by introspection.)

> I would, like Bob, have the opportunity to choose NOT to buy meat

made from cloned animals or GM vegies.

> Do you think that's very elitist? I am well aware that many, many,

many people are not in a position to decide what they eat, many are

not even in a position to decide whether they'll eat or not.

Elitist - yes.

There's a lot more than food supply that most people are not in much

of a position to control, as we all found out.

No matter in what ways or in what degrees people may be accountable

for their own circumstances, certain facts hold anyway. Perfect

economic equality is a recipie for nationwide poverty and mediocrity

in the arts, science, and exploits. Radical anti-elitism stands

against Pasteur, da Vinci, Edmund Hillary & Tenzing Norgay, the Taj

Mahal, and flights to the moon, in addition to humble marvels like a

gourmet steak.

Which is not to say that I would want to enslave thousands to build me

a giant palace or tomb, personally, if I could. All comes down to a

question of degree, I think. Like Bob said, natural food isn't that

much more expensive, and it's not like clone-derived or GMO food is

actually known to be dangerous.

[Guest guest]

Bob, I'm not saying you have no point either. You do. But be careful, it's an age old argument that the aristocracy has always used, from slavery to serfdom (they liked being "taken care of") to literacy. Babies & children, when given unlimited choice, actually choose healthy food over bad. But once conditioning is in place, it's hard to change. If all everyone had to do was choose from a variety of free foods already prepared for them, people would gravitate to the healthier ones. Unfortunately, higher cost, lack of convenience, and ignorance of how nutrition impacts health, not to mention marketing schemes, makes choosing cheaper, more convenient, and less healthy options a whole lot easier. I personally don't think we should say it's okay to make bad food for the

masses because they are too stupid/lazy (or whatever) to care, while ensuring that those of us who are so much "more intelligent" should have options. One thing I know is that only looking out for ourselves will always end up biting us in the butt. One individual looking out for others actually ends up benefitting the individual as much or more than it benefits others. penny Bob Grommes <bob@...> wrote: I wouldn't go so far as to say that you have no point at all, Penny, but I mostly disagree, even in the bigger picture. First off, the difference in cost is not an order of magnitude. It's often ten or twenty percent or less, and in some cases (remember I'm talking about what I call "quality organics" and not the dreck they sell as organic someplace like the corner Safeway) the taste is ten or twenty percent better anyway.But more importantly, we have crappy foods because we as a society want them. Consumers demand convenience, sweetness, speed of preparation, ease of use, and perfect consistency of shape, texture, flavor and color. To the uninformed / disbelieving / uncaring / unthinking masses, these are one or both of two things: important positives that they don't want to give up, or "just the way it's done" and they don't want to appear "different". We don't have

pesticide-free, natural foods because by and large we don't care, not because by and large we can't afford them.A perfect example of this is raw milk. Pasteurization is a response to the inherently unsanitary conditions in factory dairy farming. Homogenization is a response to consumer demand for the cream not to separate so we are not reminded that it comes from icky cows. But the two processes together plus the use of factory cows over legacy breeds, change milk into something that a lot of people can't even properly digest. To produce raw milk on any scale we would have to go back to a model of small local suppliers and higher prices -- we'd have to emphasize a less scalable production system that delivers fresher product to market faster, and puts an emphasis on quality and cleanliness. The simple fact is that no one feels strongly enough about milk to make these major changes, plus milk isn't addictive like the caffeine and

sugar-laden sodas and "energy drinks" that the food industry would prefer we be hooked on. (Come to think of it, isn't the whole food industry geared to produce hoards of mindless "addicts" rather than consumers)?I also don't buy the argument that most people in the US at least "can't afford" organic food. It's a matter of priorities. I know poor families that "can't afford" this or that but they have a color television (or two) and their children have the latest Wii game machine and designer backpacks. Even the ones who are truly living hardscrabble existences are often grotesquely obese.Mostly people want it all and don't have the discipline to prioritize and to delay gratification. And frankly, that is why quite a lot of them are poor.Safe, quality food is important enough to me that if I had to, I'd go without a car to have it and restructure my life accordingly. I submit to you that at least 99% of the

people in this country would rather die with Twinkie residue stuck to their teeth than to have their car pried from their cold, dead fingers.--BobPenny Houle wrote: Unfortunately, "don't care" might easily be translated to "can't afford" or "don't know better". While I understand your point, in the bigger picture, I don't like this argument at all. Bottom line it's the same as it always has been, if you're poor you get the dregs and cast offs, if you're well-off, you get to live the high-life. pennyBob Grommes <bobbobgrommes> wrote: My understanding is that what happens to the clone is that their telomeres are

already frayed; they basically age faster than the original. I'm not up to speed on whether what you're getting in the store is the meat from an actual clone or just the clone's offspring, and whether the premature aging applies to the offspring or not. Probably wouldn't. I'm also not up to speed on whether Dolly's premature aging is universal or if the cloning technology has partially or completely addressed this in the years since.However, I think you're right, Nelly, we are tampering with things we don't fully understand and it seems almost foreordained that in a generation or so, as our science improves, someone will figure out that in fact it's not the same as eating bacon from twin pigs. I would rather stay as close to nature as possible, and I would like my food labeled so that I can make those decisions for myself. I already willingly pay a premium for quality organic foods, and I would generally pay a monetary premium to avoid

cloned or GM foods as well.The irony is that if they would just be matter-of-factly truthful about the trade offs and truthful in their packaging / advertising, they'd probably make more money, not less. Because the people who don't care will buy whatever is cheapest / easiest / tastiest and those of us who care will pay extra for the things we care about.--BobNelly Pointis wrote: , >Cloning in the strict sense means no more than eating bacon from twin pigs. No big deal. Not sure. Cloned animals have health issues that twin animals don't have and die faster than non-cloned animals, see Dolly in the UK who was not slaug htered for meat but who

was observed for during all of her "natural" life. We simply don't know what kind of things might go wrong with cloned animals downstream. The dangers, as always, come from things that we are precisely not aware of at a given point in time. Nelly [infections] cloned food? does anyone have any opinions on cloned food?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7190305.stmI am not sure what ot think but perhaps it could be bad for us somehow?and not labeled

[Guest guest]

> I'm not up to speed on whether what you're getting in the

> store is the meat from an actual clone or just the clone's offspring,

I think the latter, so far, in the US. They are very expensive to

make, so they are used in breeding. The FDA recommended not selling

the meat of the clones proper.

> My understanding is that what happens to the clone is that their

> telomeres are already frayed; they basically age faster than the

> original.

Interesting. I hadn't known that. All I know about it is I read in the

paper that they can be sickly in youth and then tend to get better.

You could express telomerase in a clone; it re-lengthens telomeres;

maybe then you would know if that was the sole cause of their illness.

Perhaps, though, that would have harmful effects of its own, so it

might not be practicable.

Nothing's risk free - don't matter how many ways you study it, it

ain't 100% risk free if it's new under the sun. I'd probably be

willing to eat the meat myself, just for the sake of having tasted a

clone. It definitely seems a little creepy, though, that they get sick

- kinda harsh, too, to make animals that you know are likely to

suffer. I'm all for " playing god, " we just need to do a good job of

it. Perhaps it could be used as little as possible, or at least pretty

far towards the lower end of what might be useful. Certainly we

already do a lot of very harsh things to animals for medical research,

when necessary... better then than me...

[Guest guest]

Penny,

I don't know whose babies and children made healthy food choices over

bad when left to themselves. They sure weren't my babies and children.

If everyone had the ability to choose from a variety of free foods

prepared for them, they would place a zero value on said foods and I am

skeptical that they would put much value on the choices. After all,

there would be an unlimited supply. They'd probably overeat the good

foods even if they chose them.

I think you get to the heart of the matter by saying that "choosing

cheaper, more convenient, less healthy options is a whole lot easier".

Exactly. That is why many consider sloth the worst of the seven deadly

sins. It is, in a sense, the sins from which all others arise. We

lie, cheat ,steal and start wars because we're too lazy to be honest

with ourselves and deal in reality and to delay gratification in the

interests of doing things right. But don't forget: Things are the way

they are because they got that way. We as a society have worked hard

to make everything cheap, convenient, and painless, and now that we got

it, we shouldn't imagine that it's a communist plot. We've met the

enemy, and he is us.

There is a balance to be had between looking out for #1 and looking out

for the greater good. The paradox is that we have to start by

looking out for #1 because if we don't love ourselves we have no basis

for loving others. Then there is the business of deciding what IS the

greater good. We all, from time to time, like to look wistfully out

our window and sing "If I Ruled the World" and fantasize that we know

what's best. But even if we really know a better way and would in fact

make a good benevolent dictator, and were in fact incapable of being

corrupted by power -- what then? Well, people would RESENT us, that's

what. They'd ask who are we to decide that there should be plenty of

fresh organic produce in the market, but no Hostess Ho Hos? There

would be Petitions and Demonstrations. We'd be hated for taking away

choice, even if the only choices we took away were the worst of the bad

ones.

Unfortunately, there isn't any shortcut. People have to grope their

way to maturity, responsibility, and personal courage one by one. God

has no grandchildren. The most any one of us can do is our personal

best. If a majority of us would just do that, the rest would take care

of itself.

--Bob

Penny Houle wrote:

Bob, I'm not saying you have no point either. You do. But be

careful, it's an age old argument that the aristocracy has always

used, from slavery to serfdom (they liked being "taken care

of") to literacy.

Babies & children, when given unlimited choice, actually

choose healthy food over bad. But once conditioning is in place, it's

hard to change. If all everyone had to do was choose from a variety

of free foods already prepared for them, people

would gravitate to the healthier ones. Unfortunately, higher cost,

lack of convenience, and ignorance of how nutrition impacts health, not

to mention marketing schemes, makes choosing cheaper, more convenient,

and less healthy options a whole lot easier.

I personally don't think we should say it's okay to make bad f

ood for the masses because they are too stupid/lazy (or whatever) to

care, while ensuring that those of us who are so much "more

intelligent" should have options. One thing I know is that only looking

out for ourselves will always end up biting us in the butt. One

individual looking out for others actually ends up

benefitting the individual as much or more than it benefits others.

penny

Bob Grommes <bobbobgrommes> wrote:

I wouldn't go so far

as to say that you have no point at all, Penny, but I mostly disagree,

even in the bigger picture. First off, the difference in cost is not

an order of magnitude. It's often ten or twenty percent or less, and

in so me cases (remember I'm talking about what I call "quality

organics" and not the dreck they sell as organic someplace like the

corner Safeway) the taste is ten or twenty percent better anyway.

But more importantly, we have crappy foods because we as a society want

them. Consumers demand convenience, sweetness, speed of preparation,

ease of use, and perfect consistency of shape, texture, flavor and

color. To the uninformed / disbelieving / uncaring / unthinking

masses, these are one or both of two things: important positives that

they don't want to give up, or "just the way it's done" and they don't

want to appear "different". We don't have pesticide-free, natural

foods because by and large we don't care, not because by and large we

can't afford them.

A perfect example of this is raw milk. Pasteurization is a response to

the inherently unsanitary conditions in factory dairy farming.

Homogenization is a response to consumer demand for the cream not to

separate so we are not reminded that it comes from icky cows. But the

two processes together plus the use of factory cows over legacy breeds,

change milk into something that a lot of people can't even properly

digest. To produce raw milk on any scale we would have to go back to a

model of small local suppliers and higher prices -- we'd have to

emphasize a less scalable production system that delivers fresher

product to market faster, and puts an emphasis on quality and

cleanliness. The simple fact is that no one feels strongly enough

about milk to make these major changes, plus milk isn't addictive like

the caffeine and sugar-laden sodas and "energy drinks" that the food

industry would prefer we be hooked on. (Come to think of it, isn't the

whole food industry geared to produce hoards of mindless "addicts"

rather than consumers)?

I also don't buy the argument that most people in the US at least

"can't afford" organic food. It's a matter of priorities. I know poor

families that "can't afford" this or that but they have a color

television (or two) and their children have the latest Wii game machine

and designer backpacks. Even the ones who are truly living

hardscrabble existences are often grotesquely obese.

Mostly people want it all and don't have the discipline to prioritize

and to delay gratification. And frankly, that is why quite a lot of

them are poor.

Safe, quality food is important enough to me that if I had to, I'd go

without a car to have it and restructure my life accordingly. I submit

to you that at least 99% of the people in this country would rather die

with Twinkie residue stuck to their teeth than to have their car pried

from their cold, dead fingers.

--Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob Grommes <bob@...> wrote: I don't know whose babies and children made healthy food choices over bad when left to themselves. They sure weren't my babies and children. Numerous studies out there to support this. My own children ate really, really well, until I got too sick and started providing them with more and more pre-prepared, processed foods. So do I blame THEM for their evolution to a pretty typical american diet or do I blame myself for being too sick to prepare the kind of foods that would have been more beneficial to their health? If healthier foods on the shelves and at fast food restaurants were the norm, I wouldn't be feeling guilty about feeding my kids (or myself) crap. When you're sick, the idea of

shopping is beyond daunting, let alone coming home, putting it away and then preparing and cooking it and cleaning up afterwards. My adopted father was acutely diabetic and died at an abnormally young age because of his illness. I couldn't stand sugar as a child. Truly didn't like it because I never had it until neighbor kids gave it to me. Angel Food cake with no frosting was my birthday cake as a child, and I only tolerated it because that's what you do at a birthday. Not until I was constantly influenced by peers and their love for candy did I start to eat more sweets, but until this day I prefer the most plain and vanilla of sweets when I have them and only drink tart juices. Sweets are not my thing, and that was simply because of my conditioning at a young age. I was also conditioned to like fats, because my father could have lots of that. Later in my life, as my CFS became a big problem, I started craving

sugar for the first time in my life, despite all the advice to limit myself to protein. I truly needed the sugar for that tiny bit of energy it gave me but I felt terribly guilty about that and resisted it. Thanks to Alfred Blasi and a couple of other CFS researchers, I realized that a person with CFS who has difficulty creating energy from food, adding a little sugar to the diet is a necessary thing, and I no longer felt so guilty about that. Just as my father sometimes had to drink juice to get his blood sugar adjusted, I sometimes need it to be able to get off the couch. Even so, I still get my sugar & carbs in tart juices and plain breads, etc. due to my early conditioning. My point here is that environmental factors play a huge role in our food choices. Just look at the Japanese or mediterranean diets. That's cultural conditioning. Our cultural conditioning is fast, cheap, convenient and based

on our capitalistic foundation. And yet there is an inherent knowledge that the body has which knows what is healthy and needed when the options are there. This has even been studied in adults. If the proper choices are made available, people will eat healthier. Wouldn't it be nice if the mass marketer food suppliers out there got that? penny p.s. This doesn't mean that I don't want my foods identified if they're GMFs or Cloned. I want to know exactly what's in my food. Unfortunately, we're already (in the U.S.) eating so many unidentified GMFs, it should be criminal. The Europeans are not letting their food suppliers get away with it and we shouldn't either. But we are not conditioned in the U.S., as they are in Europe, to believe that food is an essentially important part of life, and that's why we're stuck with this crap, while Europeans

will have nothing to do with it.