Grape Nuts v. Cheerios

[heycal]

Originally Posted by JoeR

I've got to ask... if you've been eating grape nuts every morning for years, for the last 20 years... why would you change things up now?

Because if it would lead to any improvement in either health or appearance, I'm willing to do it. I drank whole milk for 47 years, and made the switch to 2% for the same reason.

I guess I'm become a believer in making small changes to stay fit as I get older. I'm probably fitter now at age 50, at least appearance-wise, than I've ever been in my life.

Originally Posted by SteveI

Been eating Cheerios for 53 years...never have had total cholesterol over 170.. you be the judge.

I wonder if would be any different had you been eating Grape Nuts for decades.

Will you try Grape Nuts for 10 years and report back to us?

[Steve Dykstra]

Originally Posted by heycal

I don't want to alternate. I want to find the better of the two and stick with it.

If health is your goal, you are probably better off alternating between the two (or more ideally among several healthy alternatives). If you eat only a handful of different foods, you are likely to have deficiencies of several nutrients in your body which can lead to problems.

Both Grape Nuts and Cheerios (and lots of other cereals) seem relatively healthy, but both offer differ different ingredients and nutrients. Your body functions best if you eat a large variety of healthy foods (especially lots of plants).

Other cereals to try are pretty much anything by Barbaras, Nature's Path, Kashi (popular, although I personally think most of it tastes like crap), Arrowhead Mills, Uncle Sam's, Ezekiel, etc. A good alternative if you have a few minutes extra time is steel cut oatmeal (I add in fresh berries, cinnamon, nutmeg, and a bit of brown sugar).

[loci]

go with oatmeal.

[heycal]

Originally Posted by Steve Dykstra

If health is your goal, you are probably better off alternating between the two (or more ideally among several healthy alternatives). If you eat only a handful of different foods, you are likely to have deficiencies of several nutrients in your body which can lead to problems.

Both Grape Nuts and Cheerios (and lots of other cereals) seem relatively healthy, but both offer differ different ingredients and nutrients. Your body functions best if you eat a large variety of healthy foods (especially lots of plants).

Other cereals to try are pretty much anything by Barbaras, Nature's Path, Kashi (popular, although I personally think most of it tastes like crap), Arrowhead Mills, Uncle Sam's, Ezekiel, etc. A good alternative if you have a few minutes extra time is steel cut oatmeal (I add in fresh berries, cinnamon, nutmeg, and a bit of brown sugar).

Originally Posted by loci

go with oatmeal.

Of course, if the popular book "Wheat Belly" is be believed, ALL this stuff is horrible for you.

[Posture Guy]

I think both are relatively devoid of meaningful nutritional benefit.

But worse, both now contain GMO ingredients. The data coming out on GMO foods is flat out scary. Eat what you wish, I won't touch GMO stuff.

[ollinger]

^^ the data on genetically engineered organisms (GMO) are actually not very scary. One study of modified corn suggested possible carcinogenesis in a breed of rat known to have a high rate of spontaneous tumors, but the study was repudiated on many other grounds and deemed unacceptable science by the European Agricultaral Organization. Nobody has put forth any decent science showing clear harm from GMO food. There are some concerns about possible increased allergic reaction but this is mostly hypothetical at this point.

[Posture Guy]

Ollinger....yeah, that french study turned out to be poorly done.

And that speaks to one of the key issues that laymen have with this issue. I'm not a chemist or a biologist so my ability to see a study and then assess its validity is beyond limited. I read the laundry list of stuff like at this site:

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

and I'm concerned. Do I view any of that as definitive 'proof' of the dangers of GM foods? Nope. But it would seem to me that neither can its proponents demonstrate the safety of these foods. So, here we are in the midst of a grand, large scale experiment on the impact of GM foods on human health. The results of that experiment could very well be benign to positive, but those are not dice I'm willing to roll.

I thought this page always points to some nice resources. I'd be lying if I said I could fully assess the validity of the papers linked in this article, but they seem (to me) to raise points worthy of discussion.

http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/06/03/lotter-gmopaper/

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...-foods/251051/

[ollinger]

Given the amount of starvation in the world, I think those dice have to be rolled. And when you really look at what GMOs do (modify animals so their meat has less fat, modify flaxseed to produce more omega 3, modify wheat to have more B vitamins, modify bacteria to produce insulin) it doesn't sound all that daunting at all. Much of the response to these things is ignorance and hysteria -- I read articles headlined "cereal given to children has GMO" as if it were poison. Reminds me that some people who use microwaves every day in their kitchens complain they would never buy "irradiated" food.

[sureshs]

If it is as simple as that, why did these companies outspend the opposition by several times to prevent a labeling proposition from going forward in California? What are they afraid of?

[ollinger]

^^ They're afraid of ignorance and hysteria, which are considerable. There are people who think that eating genetically engineered plants will turn you into a mutant and that eating irradiated food will make you glow in the dark. The articles I've seen in the popular press are ludicrous in how they churn up fears based on nothing. If I were running those companies, I think I'd rather not have to deal with all of that with labeling.

[sureshs]

That does not answer the question. What are they afraid of? That people will switch to competitor's products? So they think they have a right to force people to eat their products?

If they afraid of the people, why are they selling to them?

They are afraid of what might happen if people started asking detailed questions after reading the labels.

[ollinger]

What don't you get?? They're afraid that a package labeled "genetically modified food" will frighten people to not buy the product. Since it's not been shown to be a health hazard, there's a legitimate argument whether they should be required to have it on the label. All animal and plant based food in a sense is genetically altered by selective breeding; that need not be on the label. Lots of things done to food (steamed, air dried, dessicated, boiled, sedimented) need not be on the label because they're not shown to be harmful and a vital consumer interest; some feel the same way about genetic alterations in the absence of any good evidence.

[sureshs]

Well, it will affect all the manufacturers equally then, and the free market will set in. Consumers who want to avoid the foods will avoid them, and those who think the GMO ones are cheaper or not harmful, will still buy them. Eventually, someone may come up with a non-GMO food for a cheaper price, maybe not.

Why not let the market decide after providing all the information?

[Kevin T]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Well, it will affect all the manufacturers equally then, and the free market will set in. Consumers who want to avoid the foods will avoid them, and those who think the GMO ones are cheaper or not harmful, will still buy them. Eventually, someone may come up with a non-GMO food for a cheaper price, maybe not.

Why not let the market decide after providing all the information?

The California law was bad because it excluded foods represented by a number of powerful lobbying groups/lobbyists, including dairy, alcohol and restaurant foods.

I agree with Olli that it would contribute to mass hysteria, in a sense, without cause. As Olli also mentioned, virtually all plants and animals have been "genetically modified" at this point in history and the only real concern is potential (and very hypothetical) increased allergenicity. Just buy organic foods and don't worry about it.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Kevin T

The California law was bad because it excluded foods represented by a number of powerful lobbying groups/lobbyists, including dairy, alcohol and restaurant foods.

I agree with Olli that it would contribute to mass hysteria, in a sense, without cause. As Olli also mentioned, virtually all plants and animals have been "genetically modified" at this point in history and the only real concern is potential (and very hypothetical) increased allergenicity. Just buy organic foods and don't worry about it.

There is a difference between the gradual selection done by farmers and breeders in the past, and today's possibilities.

[heycal]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Well, it will affect all the manufacturers equally then, and the free market will set in. Consumers who want to avoid the foods will avoid them, and those who think the GMO ones are cheaper or not harmful, will still buy them. Eventually, someone may come up with a non-GMO food for a cheaper price, maybe not.

Why not let the market decide after providing all the information?

As I understand it, those companies are not in the business of ensuring a free market or providing a level playing field and so on. They are in the business of making money. So why would they not lobby against something that could hurt their sales?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by heycal

As I understand it, those companies are not in the business of ensuring a free market or providing a level playing field and so on. They are in the business of making money. So why would they not lobby against something that could hurt their sales?

That is also true for cigarette companies. What is your point?

The issue is whether people should know or not. Whether it passes or not is not being discussed.

People claimed that if organic farming was used, millions will starve to death. That did not happen. Some farms became organic, others did not. It cost more, some people buy it, some people don't.

[heycal]

Originally Posted by sureshs

That is also true for cigarette companies. What is your point?

The issue is whether people should know or not. Whether it passes or not is not being discussed.

People claimed that if organic farming was used, millions will starve to death. That did not happen. Some farms became organic, others did not. It cost more, some people buy it, some people don't.

Pay attention to your own arguments, please. You began by moaning about companies opposing labeling measures and wondering why. Me and others have explained why they would.

[r2473]

Lets all sing along:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCt_aRB9ceU

[Steve Dykstra]

Originally Posted by heycal

Of course, if the popular book "Wheat Belly" is be believed, ALL this stuff is horrible for you.

I'm not familiar with the book, but if you eat too much of pretty much anything, it can be bad for you. Try this book if you are serious about getting healthy:

http://www.amazon.com/Food-Matters-C...s=food+matters

It's a great book that is easy to read and understand, and helps explain a lot of misconceptions that many people have about food.

I don't know much about GMOs, but humans have had a pretty bad track record in our attempts to alter food. There have been so many attempts which all seemed like a great idea at the time, but turned out to be horrible. Chances are good this attempt will also have some negative effects, although there will not be any definitive evidence for many years.

The bottom line is that our digestive systems evolved over many thousands of years based on what was available to eat. What most people eat today is radically different from what people ate only 50-100 years ago, but evolution does not work on such a short time scale and so people are becoming very unhealthy.