|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| nor does he show a single stat where food was not good in 1910, he just bashes the stats that we use to show that its not good now. |
"We",? You haven't provided a single stat from a credible source.
I cited "The Jungle". The characters in that novel died from food and waterborne diseases that don't exist today. eg cholera and dysentery. That certainly doesn't happen today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| re:cursive wrote: |
I doubt anyone is going to find accurate data on the quality of food a century ago. There was nowhere near the level of analysis as there has been in recent years. I suspect those statistics do not exist.
There has been at least one study that found a decline in key nutrients in vegetables since WWII due to the focus of modern culture on increased yields.
I'll see if I can locate the information and post it in a bit. |
Many vegetables simply weren't available around the turn of last century and especially during the depression. An orange was an extreme luxury. I think I would take lower nutrient but available fruit and veg over absent but high nutrient value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prideofidaho
Joined: 19 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| re:cursive wrote: |
I doubt anyone is going to find accurate data on the quality of food a century ago. There was nowhere near the level of analysis as there has been in recent years. I suspect those statistics do not exist.
There has been at least one study that found a decline in key nutrients in vegetables since WWII due to the focus of modern culture on increased yields.
I'll see if I can locate the information and post it in a bit. |
Many vegetables simply weren't available around the turn of last century and especially during the depression. An orange was an extreme luxury. I think I would take lower nutrient but available fruit and veg over absent but high nutrient value. |
And there you have the proverbial chicken or egg. Firstly, oranges were most definitely available one hundred years ago, just not everywhere in the world. Secondly, wanting to have every fruit, vegetable, grain, and meat at your local supermarket has caused the mass industrialisation of food production and distribution, which then leads to situations where food-related illnesses become more commonplace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| prideofidaho wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| re:cursive wrote: |
I doubt anyone is going to find accurate data on the quality of food a century ago. There was nowhere near the level of analysis as there has been in recent years. I suspect those statistics do not exist.
There has been at least one study that found a decline in key nutrients in vegetables since WWII due to the focus of modern culture on increased yields.
I'll see if I can locate the information and post it in a bit. |
Many vegetables simply weren't available around the turn of last century and especially during the depression. An orange was an extreme luxury. I think I would take lower nutrient but available fruit and veg over absent but high nutrient value. |
And there you have the proverbial chicken or egg. Firstly, oranges were most definitely available one hundred years ago, just not everywhere in the world. Secondly, wanting to have every fruit, vegetable, grain, and meat at your local supermarket has caused the mass industrialisation of food production and distribution, which then leads to situations where food-related illnesses become more commonplace. |
I don't buy the premise that industrialized food causes more food borne illness. Even if it does, I believe the trade off, for more variety, to be worth it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Senior wrote:
| Quote: |
| I don't buy the premise that industrialized food causes more food borne illness. Even if it does, I believe the trade off, for more variety, to be worth it. |
Tell that to the woman who lost her 2-year-old son to an e-coli tainted hamburger. Or to any other parent who has lost a child to food-borne illness.
If you were in a congressional hearing, faced with a mother whose child died from eating food, would you be so certain? "Yes ma'am, I know your kid died, but it's a small price to pay for more variety at the supermarket, isn't it?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prideofidaho
Joined: 19 Mar 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
okay for frick sake STOP trying to prove anything to Senior
He has freely admitted he "doesnt buy evidence" and he freely admits that he has no valid proof for what he does buy ( this was in his last 2 posts alone)
He WILL NOT entertain any evidence or opinion in conflict with the ones he already holds.
Hes the type of guy that wont beleive that the speed of light barrier is broken if it one day is because he read and beleives Einsteins theory of relativity.
He refuses to listen to reason or evidence against him, all the while NEVER providing any proof for the "facts" he spouts off.
Can we please stop feeding the troll? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pangaea
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Interesting article, prideofidaho. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
