Food for thought. Organic labbled fruits and vegetables in the stores, "are not Organic"

noname said:
Good for you. Still something that is truly organic is going to be pesticide free. And you can't expect to get high quality food from a company that doesn't even claim to grow to organic standards.
Click to expand...
The best organic standards are the ones you oversee yourself. That's not necessarily a slight against commercial organic farms because of the problems of scale. When you have to produce lots of crops under time constraints it does impact quality. This is why a home cook can often produce better food at home than a chef. Not because the chef is incapable. It's because the chef has to cook for lots of people, in a fast paced environment. The chef simply can't take up endless time on each individual when he has countless orders flooding in at once.
 
Jahrule said:
Since I’m not fully convinced by the broader claims made by the organic industry, I only buy certain organic products, and even then, not consistently. For example, I tend to choose organic for items like spinach, strawberries, and other "spongy" vegetables. Research suggests a slight advantage in choosing organic for these items, particularly due to lower pesticide residues (Nicolia et al., 2013).

Similarly, studies have indicated that organic milk and meat may have marginal benefits related to growth hormones (Nicolia et al., 2013). However, it’s worth noting that avoiding these doesn’t necessarily require organic certification.

It’s also important to consider that natural pesticides used in organic farming aren’t always better than synthetic ones. Some research shows no significant difference in the effectiveness or safety of natural versus synthetic pesticides (Robertson, 2013). The assumption that "natural" automatically means safer or healthier can lead to the naturalistic fallacy; many natural substances can be harmful (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Living in Vermont, I have access to a lot of local farms, some organic and others not, which makes it easier to source fresh, high-quality food. I value supporting local farms over buying into organic as an industry, which, like many industries, can be profit-driven. In other parts of the world, where farming practices differ, organic might make more sense. However, the studies I’ve reviewed primarily focus on the U.S. market, so my views reflect that context
Click to expand...
Your comment about the "organic industry" ignores the fact that all food was organic before the chemical industry was created and then used to create the modern conventional farming techniques.
Everything is somewhat profit driven because it has to be in this world or no products would be available because they would not have the resources to make them available. You yourself work for profit. So profit has nothing to do with it. Those that produce the highest quality deserve to make higher profit.
 
Jahrule said:
Since I’m not fully convinced by the broader claims made by the organic industry, I only buy certain organic products, and even then, not consistently. For example, I tend to choose organic for items like spinach, strawberries, and other "spongy" vegetables. Research suggests a slight advantage in choosing organic for these items, particularly due to lower pesticide residues (Nicolia et al., 2013).

Similarly, studies have indicated that organic milk and meat may have marginal benefits related to growth hormones (Nicolia et al., 2013). However, it’s worth noting that avoiding these doesn’t necessarily require organic certification.

It’s also important to consider that natural pesticides used in organic farming aren’t always better than synthetic ones. Some research shows no significant difference in the effectiveness or safety of natural versus synthetic pesticides (Robertson, 2013). The assumption that "natural" automatically means safer or healthier can lead to the naturalistic fallacy; many natural substances can be harmful (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Living in Vermont, I have access to a lot of local farms, some organic and others not, which makes it easier to source fresh, high-quality food. I value supporting local farms over buying into organic as an industry, which, like many industries, can be profit-driven. In other parts of the world, where farming practices differ, organic might make more sense. However, the studies I’ve reviewed primarily focus on the U.S. market, so my views reflect that context.
Click to expand...
It's not about the amount of nutrition its about the quality of it.
There is no debate, you cannot debate the fact that food grown naturally how it was created to be grown is healthier than toxic intervention. Regarding the study you posted, their own conclusion was the organic food had a beneficial impact on reduced pesticide exposure, an increase in male sperm quality and a positive BMI.
It also said this "For diseases and functional changes, there was an overall beneficial association with organic food intake"
Which contradicts your previous statement.
 
noname said:
Your comment about the "organic industry" ignores the fact that all food was organic before the chemical industry was created and then used to create the modern conventional farming techniques.
Everything is somewhat profit driven because it has to be in this world or no products would be available because they would not have the resources to make them available. You yourself work for profit. So profit has nothing to do with it. Those that produce the highest quality deserve to make higher profit.
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean by organic. I think you are confusing two different things. In nature, "organic" refers to substances that are derived from living organisms, typically containing carbon and being part of biological processes. In contrast, the "organic" label in the food industry is a protected certification that follows specific guidelines set by governing bodies, such as the USDA in the United States or similar agencies in other countries. These guidelines include practices like avoiding synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, using non-GMO seeds, and ensuring certain animal welfare standards. While these practices aim to promote sustainability and natural growth, they are defined by regulations that vary by country and organization.

The organic industry has become a regulated market, where foods that meet certain criteria receive an "organic" label. This label is primarily a certification designed to provide assurance to consumers about how a product was produced, but it does not always guarantee that the product is free from any synthetic elements or superior in quality or nutrition. Governing bodies that oversee these certifications are influenced by various interests, and the regulations can be subject to political or economic considerations, which means that the label may not always align perfectly with what consumers expect from "organic" in a natural sense.

Furthermore, the organic industry itself is driven by market forces and, at times, may emphasize profit over true ecological benefits. The certification process can be costly, and smaller farmers who use organic practices may not always be able to afford certification, meaning their products can't be labeled "organic" under the legal definition. Therefore, the organic label is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the absolute quality or environmental impact of a product, but rather a reflection of compliance with a set of specific, regulated standards.

noname said:
It's not about the amount of nutrition its about the quality of it.
There is no debate, you cannot debate the fact that food grown naturally how it was created to be grown is healthier than toxic intervention. Regarding the study you posted, their own conclusion was the organic food had a beneficial impact on reduced pesticide exposure, an increase in male sperm quality and a positive BMI.
It also said this "For diseases and functional changes, there was an overall beneficial association with organic food intake"
Which contradicts your previous statement.
Click to expand...
As I have stated before, organic practices can have some marginal benefit, however, in terms of overall nutrition and yield efficiency, including quality, differences can be small or context-dependent, and conventional farming may have advantages in affordability, availability, and productivity. Therefore, the benefits of organic are not universally superior across all metrics. Merely slapping an organic label on something doesn't mean as much as you think it does.

The quality of nutrition can be influenced by many factors, including soil health, variety, and freshness, and "natural" is not always synonymous with better health. Additionally, organic farming can still involve certain natural toxins or practices that aren't free from health risks.

The important takeaway is that while there are some benefits to organic food, the debate is more nuanced, with both organic and conventional farming having advantages and limitations. Acknowledging both sides allows for a more balanced discussion rather than viewing it in absolute terms.
 
Last edited:
Jahrule said:
Simply being genetically modified isn't inherently good or bad.
Click to expand...
I’d say any process that messes with Jehovah’s creation in any way is bad. I sometimes wonder if there was genetic manipulation in the pre flood world… the platypus comes to mind. Maybe Jehovah allowed it to stay as a way to disprove evolution, since there’s no way that animal evolved!
 
Carl said:
I’d say any process that messes with Jehovah’s creation in any way is bad. I sometimes wonder if there was genetic manipulation in the pre flood world… the platypus comes to mind. Maybe Jehovah allowed it to stay as a way to disprove evolution, since there’s no way that animal evolved!
Click to expand...
I don't know, Carl. I am pretty sure Jah expected us to modify our environment to at least some extent. We were charged with subduing the earth. That means take responsibility over, bring under control, etc. He didn't say, "Go therefore, take care of the earth, but be careful not to alter anything." It seems reasonable he expected us to change the world into a paradise, which is to change the world from one state to another, which would require a process of some sort to go from non-paradise to paradise.

Otherwise he wouldn't have created the world in such a way that makes adaptations possible. Only Eden was technically a paradise. So at the very least, he did expect us to change it, at least in that sense. Probably not through genetic engineering, but change nontheless. Had sin never been a thing, there wouldn't be starving countries today or vitamine A defecencies. We wouldn't need to worry about feeding billions of people because God would be in charge. Nevertheless, I am certain the adapability of the world wasn't a license to do anything we want. But it's still noteworthy how nearly everything we eat, at least in our world, has been modified over the past few thousand years. Some of the stuff today that we created is kind of awesome.
 
Brother Obvious said:
Great documentary video:

"One Straw Revolution" - Best Documentary , a Must Watch​


Click to expand...
I'll give it a watch. Thanks. Recently stumbled onto this young lady in New York who just wanted to have a natural garden, but thank to stupid regulatory authorities she is being persecuted because her lawn doesn't look like her neighbors. This just goes to show that natural and regulatory agencies are not allies.

 
Jahrule said:
I too trust in Jah. I just also understand he entrusted humans as stewards of this world to cultivate the land to our needs. Nearly all the fruits and veggies we have today did not exist in their present form centuries ago. There were no tangerines in the Garden of Eden. For example, modern bananas, carrots, and tomatoes look quite different from their wild ancestors. This process of domestication has led to varieties that are tastier, larger, and more resistant to pests and diseases.

Essentially, we’ve shaped much of our produce through agriculture and innovation. While it's not often noted, it's not just GE that alters DNA. Selective breeding does in fact alter the DNA of produce over time. It just does it gradually over many successive generations. Here's an example of what an old banana looked like compared to a modern banana. This wasn't done with GE. It was done the old fashioned way through selective breeding.

I don't think Jah would be displeased with us for trying to get rid of all the seeds inside the banana to make them more palatable. And if it's okay to modify genes slowly over time, I don't necessarily see why he'd then take issue with us being able to modify the genes directly to produce the same effect, such as making rice with vitamin A, which could potentially helps many millions of people not go blind in developing countries.

View attachment 7339
Click to expand...
I don’t know how you would know what was or wasn’t in the Garden of Eden. But I am glad you are mentioning bananas because they are a very good example of the error of human intervention. I grow bananas in my yard. The best ones are the Vietnamese and Thai bananas. Very very different than supermarket bananas. If you tasted my backyard bananas it would ruin you because then you would never want to eat grocery store bananas again. Sure some bananas are fibrous but some are very creamy and sweet. The variety in bananas is amazing as well as all kinds of produce. We often are unaware of the variety because its very localized. For example, a popular banana in Hawaii is the Hawaiian Apple Banana. One type of banana is best for cooking, the plantain. But you will never find our Hawaiian Apple bananas in the grocery stores on the mainland because it is not commercially viable. Not a long enough shelf life. Even here in Hawaii, you mostly have to grow the banana in your yard or buy it at the Farmer’s market. Occasionally, I will see some in the produce department at a local grocery store, but even that is a rare occasion.

Not only is the supermarket banana inferior with the exception of its appearance, they pick it green and then gas it to ripen it. So, the grocery store banana is much bigger, longer shelf life but the taste is extremely inferior. I doubt that the nutritionally value is better either. Additionally, because most of the commercial bananas are one variety, if there is a blight it could take out most of the commercial banana production. Variety keeps crops safe from eradication by pests or disease.

I think the ocean is good to contemplate. Humans have not used selective breeding or much of anything to change the fish in the ocean. Humans pollute the ocean and over-fish it but the variety and fish in it are largely the result of a natural system as Jehovah created. Look at all the variety. They discover new species of fish regularly. Look at the beautiful marlin, whales, dolphins, etc. Could human intervention ever improve the ocean? I doubt it. I think fruit and vegetables are similar but we are unaware of the variety because it is often very localized. Look at rice and how many varieties of rice there are that we commonly know about. Black rice, long grain rice, short grain rice, wild rice, basmati rice. They all taste very different and they are not the result of human creation but Jehovah’s creation, at least as far as the varieties.

Have you ever contemplated the variety of fruit there is? I have grown some very exotic fruit trees and you would be amazed. My favorit is the Abui. Its an incredible fruit that is like the best jello you have ever eaten. We have lilikoi, jackfruit, breadfruit, Jamaican cherry, lemon guava, strawberry guava, miracle fruit, chico fruit, brazilian cherry, sugar apple (not an apple at all), sapodilla, various lime trees, lemon tree, various orange trees, jaboticaba, surinam cherry, mulberry, papaya, etc. I can guarantee you that these were created by Jehovah and have not been improved through the efforts of men.
 
SusanB said:
I don’t know how you would know what was or wasn’t in the Garden of Eden. But I am glad you are mentioning bananas because they are a very good example of the error of human intervention. I grow bananas in my yard. The best ones are the Vietnamese and Thai bananas. Very very different than supermarket bananas. If you tasted my backyard bananas it would ruin you because then you would never want to eat grocery store bananas again. Sure some bananas are fibrous but some are very creamy and sweet. The variety in bananas is amazing as well as all kinds of produce. We often are unaware of the variety because its very localized. For example, a popular banana in Hawaii is the Hawaiian Apple Banana. One type of banana is best for cooking, the plantain. But you will never find our Hawaiian Apple bananas in the grocery stores on the mainland because it is not commercially viable. Not a long enough shelf life. Even here in Hawaii, you mostly have to grow the banana in your yard or buy it at the Farmer’s market. Occasionally, I will see some in the produce department at a local grocery store, but even that is a rare occasion.

Not only is the supermarket banana inferior with the exception of its appearance, they pick it green and then gas it to ripen it. So, the grocery store banana is much bigger, longer shelf life but the taste is extremely inferior. I doubt that the nutritionally value is better either. Additionally, because most of the commercial bananas are one variety, if there is a blight it could take out most of the commercial banana production. Variety keeps crops safe from eradication by pests or disease.

I think the ocean is good to contemplate. Humans have not used selective breeding or much of anything to change the fish in the ocean. Humans pollute the ocean and over-fish it but the variety and fish in it are largely the result of a natural system as Jehovah created. Look at all the variety. They discover new species of fish regularly. Look at the beautiful marlin, whales, dolphins, etc. Could human intervention ever improve the ocean? I doubt it. I think fruit and vegetables are similar but we are unaware of the variety because it is often very localized. Look at rice and how many varieties of rice there are that we commonly know about. Black rice, long grain rice, short grain rice, wild rice, basmati rice. They all taste very different and they are not the result of human creation but Jehovah’s creation, at least as far as the varieties.

Have you ever contemplated the variety of fruit there is? I have grown some very exotic fruit trees and you would be amazed. My favorit is the Abui. Its an incredible fruit that is like the best jello you have ever eaten. We have lilikoi, jackfruit, breadfruit, Jamaican cherry, lemon guava, strawberry guava, miracle fruit, chico fruit, brazilian cherry, sugar apple (not an apple at all), sapodilla, various lime trees, lemon tree, various orange trees, jaboticaba, surinam cherry, mulberry, papaya, etc. I can guarantee you that these were created by Jehovah and have not been improved through the efforts of men.
Click to expand...
You live in Hawaii? That's so cool. I have a longer response, but I'm in the middle of watching Robert's latest video. I'll continue my response shortly.
 
SusanB said:
I don’t know how you would know what was or wasn’t in the Garden of Eden. But I am glad you are mentioning bananas because they are a very good example of the error of human intervention. I grow bananas in my yard. The best ones are the Vietnamese and Thai bananas. Very very different than supermarket bananas. If you tasted my backyard bananas it would ruin you because then you would never want to eat grocery store bananas again. Sure some bananas are fibrous but some are very creamy and sweet. The variety in bananas is amazing as well as all kinds of produce. We often are unaware of the variety because its very localized. For example, a popular banana in Hawaii is the Hawaiian Apple Banana. One type of banana is best for cooking, the plantain. But you will never find our Hawaiian Apple bananas in the grocery stores on the mainland because it is not commercially viable. Not a long enough shelf life. Even here in Hawaii, you mostly have to grow the banana in your yard or buy it at the Farmer’s market. Occasionally, I will see some in the produce department at a local grocery store, but even that is a rare occasion.

Not only is the supermarket banana inferior with the exception of its appearance, they pick it green and then gas it to ripen it. So, the grocery store banana is much bigger, longer shelf life but the taste is extremely inferior. I doubt that the nutritionally value is better either. Additionally, because most of the commercial bananas are one variety, if there is a blight it could take out most of the commercial banana production. Variety keeps crops safe from eradication by pests or disease.

I think the ocean is good to contemplate. Humans have not used selective breeding or much of anything to change the fish in the ocean. Humans pollute the ocean and over-fish it but the variety and fish in it are largely the result of a natural system as Jehovah created. Look at all the variety. They discover new species of fish regularly. Look at the beautiful marlin, whales, dolphins, etc. Could human intervention ever improve the ocean? I doubt it. I think fruit and vegetables are similar but we are unaware of the variety because it is often very localized. Look at rice and how many varieties of rice there are that we commonly know about. Black rice, long grain rice, short grain rice, wild rice, basmati rice. They all taste very different and they are not the result of human creation but Jehovah’s creation, at least as far as the varieties.

Have you ever contemplated the variety of fruit there is? I have grown some very exotic fruit trees and you would be amazed. My favorit is the Abui. Its an incredible fruit that is like the best jello you have ever eaten. We have lilikoi, jackfruit, breadfruit, Jamaican cherry, lemon guava, strawberry guava, miracle fruit, chico fruit, brazilian cherry, sugar apple (not an apple at all), sapodilla, various lime trees, lemon tree, various orange trees, jaboticaba, surinam cherry, mulberry, papaya, etc. I can guarantee you that these were created by Jehovah and have not been improved through the efforts of men.
Click to expand...
Voy a acampar está noche mientras duerma en tu jardín!! 😍Mmmm...que rico todo😍
 
SusanB said:
I don’t know how you would know what was or wasn’t in the Garden of Eden. But I am glad you are mentioning bananas because they are a very good example of the error of human intervention. I grow bananas in my yard. The best ones are the Vietnamese and Thai bananas. Very very different than supermarket bananas. If you tasted my backyard bananas it would ruin you because then you would never want to eat grocery store bananas again. Sure some bananas are fibrous but some are very creamy and sweet. The variety in bananas is amazing as well as all kinds of produce. We often are unaware of the variety because its very localized. For example, a popular banana in Hawaii is the Hawaiian Apple Banana. One type of banana is best for cooking, the plantain. But you will never find our Hawaiian Apple bananas in the grocery stores on the mainland because it is not commercially viable. Not a long enough shelf life. Even here in Hawaii, you mostly have to grow the banana in your yard or buy it at the Farmer’s market. Occasionally, I will see some in the produce department at a local grocery store, but even that is a rare occasion.

Not only is the supermarket banana inferior with the exception of its appearance, they pick it green and then gas it to ripen it. So, the grocery store banana is much bigger, longer shelf life but the taste is extremely inferior. I doubt that the nutritionally value is better either. Additionally, because most of the commercial bananas are one variety, if there is a blight it could take out most of the commercial banana production. Variety keeps crops safe from eradication by pests or disease.

I think the ocean is good to contemplate. Humans have not used selective breeding or much of anything to change the fish in the ocean. Humans pollute the ocean and over-fish it but the variety and fish in it are largely the result of a natural system as Jehovah created. Look at all the variety. They discover new species of fish regularly. Look at the beautiful marlin, whales, dolphins, etc. Could human intervention ever improve the ocean? I doubt it. I think fruit and vegetables are similar but we are unaware of the variety because it is often very localized. Look at rice and how many varieties of rice there are that we commonly know about. Black rice, long grain rice, short grain rice, wild rice, basmati rice. They all taste very different and they are not the result of human creation but Jehovah’s creation, at least as far as the varieties.

Have you ever contemplated the variety of fruit there is? I have grown some very exotic fruit trees and you would be amazed. My favorit is the Abui. Its an incredible fruit that is like the best jello you have ever eaten. We have lilikoi, jackfruit, breadfruit, Jamaican cherry, lemon guava, strawberry guava, miracle fruit, chico fruit, brazilian cherry, sugar apple (not an apple at all), sapodilla, various lime trees, lemon tree, various orange trees, jaboticaba, surinam cherry, mulberry, papaya, etc. I can guarantee you that these were created by Jehovah and have not been improved through the efforts of men.
Click to expand...
To address the claims and provide a balanced perspective on selective breeding, let's first consider tangerines. Tangerines, like many other fruits, did not exist in their current form 6,000+ years ago because they are hybrids of natural citrus species. Specifically, they are a result of crossbreeding between different ancestral citrus fruits. Citrus fruits, including tangerines, have a complex history of hybridization that began long after the Garden of Eden, which would have predated any such human-directed breeding. Genetic studies have shown that tangerines are hybrids involving ancestral mandarins and pomelos, and their current form is largely the result of centuries of selective breeding by humans to produce fruits that are sweeter, more flavorful, and easier to peel than their wild ancestors.

For bananas, the original bananas that existed thousands of years ago were quite different from what we see today. Wild bananas were filled with large, hard seeds and had far less flesh, making them difficult to eat. It was through selective breeding that humans created the seedless varieties we are familiar with, which have a high flesh-to-seed ratio and are much more enjoyable to eat. The differences between backyard and store-bought bananas today are largely a result of commercial pressures. Store-bought bananas, primarily the Cavendish variety, are chosen for their ability to withstand long shipping times and have a longer shelf life, whereas backyard bananas are often grown for taste. The creamy and sweet varieties you grow may be closer to how bananas tasted before commercial standardization, showing that human intervention can lead to both high-quality fruit for taste and convenient, storable versions for the market.

Your examples of different fruit varieties and even the diversity in rice are important to recognize, but many of these varieties have also been shaped by human selection over thousands of years. While Jehovah's creation provided the genetic diversity and the building blocks, humans have been able to work with that creation to bring out qualities that suit their needs, whether for taste, nutrition, or resilience to pests and diseases. Selective breeding is an example of humans exercising stewardship and care over the Earth, a role that can be seen as aligned with Jehovah's command for Adam and Eve to cultivate and take care of the garden.

The ocean, as you mentioned, is indeed largely untouched by selective breeding, and we see the beauty of Jehovah's creation in the diversity of marine life. However, this doesn’t imply that human intervention in other areas is inherently harmful. The variety and richness of the fruits you grow—bananas, jackfruit, guava, and many others—demonstrate that Jehovah’s creation offers vast potential that can be respectfully enhanced through selective breeding. The goal is not to replace nature but to work in harmony with it, bringing out the best qualities that already exist. In the case of agriculture, this has led to more nutritious, accessible, and varied food sources, which is especially beneficial for a growing human population.

 
Last edited:
Jahrule said:
To address the claims and provide a balanced perspective on selective breeding, let's first consider tangerines. Tangerines, like many other fruits, did not exist in their current form 6,000+ years ago because they are hybrids of natural citrus species. Specifically, they are a result of crossbreeding between different ancestral citrus fruits. Citrus fruits, including tangerines, have a complex history of hybridization that began long after the Garden of Eden, which would have predated any such human-directed breeding. Genetic studies have shown that tangerines are hybrids involving ancestral mandarins and pomelos, and their current form is largely the result of centuries of selective breeding by humans to produce fruits that are sweeter, more flavorful, and easier to peel than their wild ancestors.

For bananas, the original bananas that existed thousands of years ago were quite different from what we see today. Wild bananas were filled with large, hard seeds and had far less flesh, making them difficult to eat. It was through selective breeding that humans created the seedless varieties we are familiar with, which have a high flesh-to-seed ratio and are much more enjoyable to eat. The differences between backyard and store-bought bananas today are largely a result of commercial pressures. Store-bought bananas, primarily the Cavendish variety, are chosen for their ability to withstand long shipping times and have a longer shelf life, whereas backyard bananas are often grown for taste. The creamy and sweet varieties you grow may be closer to how bananas tasted before commercial standardization, showing that human intervention can lead to both high-quality fruit for taste and convenient, storable versions for the market.

Your examples of different fruit varieties and even the diversity in rice are important to recognize, but many of these varieties have also been shaped by human selection over thousands of years. While Jehovah's creation provided the genetic diversity and the building blocks, humans have been able to work with that creation to bring out qualities that suit their needs, whether for taste, nutrition, or resilience to pests and diseases. Selective breeding is an example of humans exercising stewardship and care over the Earth, a role that can be seen as aligned with Jehovah's command for Adam and Eve to cultivate and take care of the garden.

The ocean, as you mentioned, is indeed largely untouched by selective breeding, and we see the beauty of Jehovah's creation in the diversity of marine life. However, this doesn’t imply that human intervention in other areas is inherently harmful. The variety and richness of the fruits you grow—bananas, jackfruit, guava, and many others—demonstrate that Jehovah’s creation offers vast potential that can be respectfully enhanced through selective breeding. The goal is not to replace nature but to work in harmony with it, bringing out the best qualities that already exist. In the case of agriculture, this has led to more nutritious, accessible, and varied food sources, which is especially beneficial for a growing human population.

Click to expand...
No doubt because humans have been given the job of caring for the earth, they can use natural methods to refine what Jehovah has created and cultivate something pleasing. But I also think that left on their own, we will see incredible fruits and vegetables that are shaped by the natural laws that Jehovah has in place. I am opposed to lab DNA manipulation. I believe there is a huge difference.
 
Jahrule said:
To address the claims and provide a balanced perspective on selective breeding, let's first consider tangerines. Tangerines, like many other fruits, did not exist in their current form 6,000+ years ago because they are hybrids of natural citrus species. Specifically, they are a result of crossbreeding between different ancestral citrus fruits. Citrus fruits, including tangerines, have a complex history of hybridization that began long after the Garden of Eden, which would have predated any such human-directed breeding. Genetic studies have shown that tangerines are hybrids involving ancestral mandarins and pomelos, and their current form is largely the result of centuries of selective breeding by humans to produce fruits that are sweeter, more flavorful, and easier to peel than their wild ancestors.

For bananas, the original bananas that existed thousands of years ago were quite different from what we see today. Wild bananas were filled with large, hard seeds and had far less flesh, making them difficult to eat. It was through selective breeding that humans created the seedless varieties we are familiar with, which have a high flesh-to-seed ratio and are much more enjoyable to eat. The differences between backyard and store-bought bananas today are largely a result of commercial pressures. Store-bought bananas, primarily the Cavendish variety, are chosen for their ability to withstand long shipping times and have a longer shelf life, whereas backyard bananas are often grown for taste. The creamy and sweet varieties you grow may be closer to how bananas tasted before commercial standardization, showing that human intervention can lead to both high-quality fruit for taste and convenient, storable versions for the market.

Your examples of different fruit varieties and even the diversity in rice are important to recognize, but many of these varieties have also been shaped by human selection over thousands of years. While Jehovah's creation provided the genetic diversity and the building blocks, humans have been able to work with that creation to bring out qualities that suit their needs, whether for taste, nutrition, or resilience to pests and diseases. Selective breeding is an example of humans exercising stewardship and care over the Earth, a role that can be seen as aligned with Jehovah's command for Adam and Eve to cultivate and take care of the garden.

The ocean, as you mentioned, is indeed largely untouched by selective breeding, and we see the beauty of Jehovah's creation in the diversity of marine life. However, this doesn’t imply that human intervention in other areas is inherently harmful. The variety and richness of the fruits you grow—bananas, jackfruit, guava, and many others—demonstrate that Jehovah’s creation offers vast potential that can be respectfully enhanced through selective breeding. The goal is not to replace nature but to work in harmony with it, bringing out the best qualities that already exist. In the case of agriculture, this has led to more nutritious, accessible, and varied food sources, which is especially beneficial for a growing human population.

Click to expand...
I just want to add that regarding bananas, I don’t think we can trust what the scientists say about them. How could they know from thousands of years ago when a banana just disintegrates? I do realize that bananas have seeds but the propagation is mostly through “suckers” that come up from the root. So, the new banana stalk is exactly like the old one. No pollinating needed. I cannot agree that the bananas that I have are the result of human intervention. That’s a leap.
 
There are these small bananas, 4"-6" long, grown in the West Indies Islands, Jamaica etc. The are firm and bright yellow, but sweet and delicious. I love them, because of their size. Nice little snack, because it is sometimes hard to get through a whole large banana.
 
SusanB said:
I just want to add that regarding bananas, I don’t think we can trust what the scientists say about them. How could they know from thousands of years ago when a banana just disintegrates? I do realize that bananas have seeds but the propagation is mostly through “suckers” that come up from the root. So, the new banana stalk is exactly like the old one. No pollinating needed. I cannot agree that the bananas that I have are the result of human intervention. That’s a leap.
Click to expand...
I don't trust scientists. But I do tentatively trust the scientific process. It's entirely possible everything is a lie, and bananas have been exactly the same for thousands of years. There is just no data to base that belief off of. In other words, I don't just believe something because a smart dude said so. I accept whatever the research suggests based on the data available. That's a different thing from saying I believe it. The data itself can be wrong. That's the beauty of science as a process. Anything can be questioned. Scientists are just regular flawed people. We're all biased. We all fall short. Nothing in science outside mathematics is considered absolute.

There's this story, I forget where I heard it or the exact context. But there was this scientist speaking on a subject, and another scientist came on stage and proceeded to demonstrate how he was wrong. The guy admitted in front of everyone, he said something like. "Thank you for this data. I have been wrong all these years." And there was an eruption of applause celebrating the older scientists humility. That's how science is supposed to work. That's the part of science I love. This kind of moment captures the true spirit of science: the willingness to change one's views in the face of new, compelling evidence. It aligns with similar stories of scientists like Niels Bohr, Richard Feynman, and even Albert Einstein, who showed an openness to revising their views when presented with new data. So if bananas have always been the same, I'd accept that tentatively if presented with evidence suggesting it.
 
Brother Obvious said:
Truth is, most scientist's will defend their theory's to the bitter end when they are challenged, even with glaring evidence that they are wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is true, and it is backed up by scientific research according to peer reviewed data. Once again, basing my opinions off an established body of data and not just my opinion.

Studies have shown that biases among scientists can be a significant issue, particularly when it comes to data recording methods. One common form of bias arises from a lack of blinding during experiments. In an analysis of 960 empirical studies in animal behavior, only 6.3% were conducted blind, and this lack of blinding has been found to impact the reported effect sizes and the likelihood of statistically significant results. For example, in evolutionary biology, non-blind studies often showed larger effect sizes compared to their blind counterparts, indicating the potential influence of observer bias. This effect size difference is considered substantial, often leading to an overestimation of the results due to researcher expectations.

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002190

 
Last edited:
Ana said:
Voy a acampar está noche mientras duerma en tu jardín!! 😍Mmmm...que rico todo😍
Click to expand...
Brooks and I will be going to Frankie’s Tree Nursery tomorrow to buy a miracle fruit bush and a couple of papaya trees. Here are some photos of their fruit. They sell the trees and also sell the fruit they grow.

Gallery | Frankie's Nursery

www.frankiesnurseryllc.com www.frankiesnurseryllc.com
 
Watchman said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1840472529573486965
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken, produce max is a type of disinfectant approved by the FDA. I believe their rationale is that it reduces cross-contamination of pathogens and spoilage organisms, which helps extend the shelf life of fruits and vegetables. Exactly how safe that makes you feel though is another story. This is exactly why I keep telling people the best "organic" practices are the ones you practice in your own garden. Just because something is approved by the FDA means very little. PPA was an ingredient in many over-the-counter decongestants and weight loss products. In 2000, the FDA requested that products containing PPA be removed from the market after studies linked it to an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke, particularly in young women. Just to put that in perspective, PPA was approved by the FDA since 1930. So it was approved for 70 years before being banned.
 
Unfortunately cheese in the US is also being contaminated. This post explains why all of a sudden I am seeing in very small print that the cheese is now a bio-engineered product. I don’t think imported cheese has the same issue. But hey, I just learned that Haiti is so poor they make mud cookies for the starving children, supposedly from mineral rich mud and even though they don’t taste very good, they eat them because it fills their stomachs.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1840623733884457247
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top