The balanced diet, low glycemic index part. I'm not ethically committed enough to be a vegetarian and frankly I like meat but I have to give very sincere props to anyone who does go that route. 

I'm not overly concerned about the Frankenfoods thing though really, aside from the fact that the tomatoes in the supermarket taste like cardboard these days. Frankly I think there's a whole lot of hysteria and very little science on the anti-GM side and the a whole lot of good that can be done by GM goods.

The same goes for HFCS. As far as I know the relative percentages of fructose and glucose are the about same in HFCS as in common table sugar and there is solid research to show that the metabolic effects are equally similar. It is true that there are studies showing that fructose can adversely affect human metabolism and cause deleterious effects roughly similar to long term alcoholism but that is in high fructose only diets (which I guess are recommended to some diabetics). So it seems to me that as long as we are consuming our sugars in relatively the same ratios as we have in the past that there should be no effect on obesity.

There is a study that I have only heard about briefly and would like to track down when I can remember to do so that found something interesting about the consumption of sugary drinks between meals. Normally our bodies do compensate our hunger based on how much food we've recently eaten. So if we have a snack (both drink and eat) between meals we will usually eat correspondingly less at meal time. However, this study found that people who consume sugary drinks (like soda) between meals have their satiation mechanism suppressed to the point where they actually consume more at meal time than they would have if they hadn't consumed anything between meals. So if this is true and our diets are significantly higher in sugar than in the past then this might be a possible explanation for rising rates of obesity. If it's true. I'd really like to track down that study. Damn. Wish I knew where I had heard about it.

Of course too there is a question of whether there really is an increase in obesity and if there is then if it's a significant increase. There are also questions about the actual effects of obesity on human health. Clearly being severely obese has can have serious health consequences (I know -- I am really, really fat) but the point at which those consequences occur seems to be different for everyone and much higher than the hysteria being pumped out of the CDC, Surgeon General's Office and mass media in recent years. Furthermore it would also seem that being slightly to moderately overweight (that's overweight -- not obese) is actually healthier than being normal or even slightly underweight. Of course I know of studies that find longevity is tied to being slightly underweight too so I'm not really sure there is any solid science one way or the other to justify the sort of moral panic we're in regarding obesity.

You know, now that I think about it, this would be a really good topic to explore in depth on the forums here at NG. Is anybody else game? Hmm... The Skeptics' Diet... I'm sensing a book in here.

I sometimes wonder if the primary purpose of congress is to protect the people, or the people making a buck from the people.

I think the primary purpose of Congress is to get re-elected and since that takes money...

Still, it's amazing how much good does get done despite how messed up it all seems to be. 

My biggest wonder about the cloning thing is "Why?" Surely it's not less expensive than tapping a Bull?

Thay're going to keep playing with it until they have a "Whoops!" monment, then we can starve to death, I guess...  Unless we're wealthy enough to afford "Long Pig".

Round and Round it Goes...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'tapping a bull' but as for "whoops" moments there is that possibiility. It's always been that way. Humans have a uniquee ability to fuck up their environment in ways beyond imagination. Does that mean we shouldn't try to make things better? Don't get me wrong. The corps like Monsanto are in it for purely selfish reasons. I detest them. If they should come up with something that should help humanity though, should we ignore it because of ignomious origins? I don't think so. It just underscores the need for governmental oversight. But we have to try. We can't continue on as we've done in the past and there's no turning back the clock so all we can do is try. And frankly Monsanto has a better chance of suceeding than Farmer Bill. That doesn't rule out that Monsanto will royally screw the pooch and kill us all, but if we don't try then we're just ignorant fools and cowards.

Remember? There's something the bull's got that the cow needs? Seriously, though, since they use AI now, you could quibble over what exactly does "Natural" mean. But I still don't think cloning is more cost-effective than the current practices.

"If they should come up with something that should help humanity though, should we ignore it because of ignomious origins?"

That's a real paradox, isn't it? The way I see it, at present, the only parts of Humanity getting any help from Monsanto and the rest of the FrankenFood bunch are the stockholders.

Round and Round it Goes...

Ah! I see! Actually, I have seen that in the past and hope never to have to witness it in the future. It just exacerbates my own feelings of inadequacy you know?

It might be that only the shareholders are being helped by Frankenfoods right now, but as long as the research is out there (and here's where I have a real problem -- patentiing genetic sequences) then who knows what it might lead to in the future. Maybe something bad. Maybes something good. More likely, a problematic solution to a problem no one anticipated. So I'm still going to err on the side of, "We've got to try." I just wish there was more governmental oversight and genetic sequences couldn't be patented.

I guess what I'm saying is it's not the technology that disturbs me, it's who's in control.

Know what I'm saying?