I believe cooking food destroys many of the nutrients in it

Since we're talking about the wrong sort of teeth, how did this happen?

Canines. Well, we call them that. So we should classify horses as predators. I bet bunnies have canines too.

But horses, and bunnies, also have their eyes at the sides of their heads. That is a sure indicator of non-predator-ness, I've been told. So how did this happen?

Sharks are not predators. But we are. Right?

How can there be any doubt?

OMG! Do you think obese Americans need that kind of help? Celery is what they need.

That's true. And its effect is to break down cell walls, making food more digestible. That's not the same thing as "softening."

Do you really know what you're talking about here, or are you faking it?

I don't know. Is it one of your hobbies?

I have no idea. Ask a horse.

Poor reading comprehension?

Well, I don't think Ed was flaunting his "meat pounding".

Jeasus but you are obsessive about this "meat pounding". and right out in public too.

You seem to be watching the wrong sort of YouTube films. Horses don't have canine teeth, nor do rabbits.

You really do have a problem don't you. Add to your list the fact that nearly all fish and birds have eyes on the sides of their heads although some birds and many fish are predators.

But perhaps you are a "city boy" and the only wild life you have seen is the pigeon that shit on your head that time.

"confirmation bias" to some degree or other.

opinions. Staying detached and objective is difficult, especially with subjects that are near & dear to our heart.

susceptible to "confirmation bias" than most.

I don't know a thing about red states or blue states or multi color states but I lived a few years in California - a couple of years near Marysville and a couple more in Riverside. Seemed almost like two states with the northerners sort of conservative and the southerns a bit weird. I remember everyone bitching and complaining about smog in the L.A. basin and then voting down a bond issue to finance a public transportation system for the area .... did it twice too :-)

A great rebuttal.... albeit not on the same topic, but thoughtful.

Now, rather than go frolicking off into never, never land will you tell us how a "raw eater" such as your good self propose to devour any of the cereal grains, often refereed to as "staples".

It's not the same thing as oxidizing either. Your argument amounts to a lie of omission.

You do know. You feel that you have to sweep oxidation under the rug to keep your argument alive.

You really are faking it, aren't you.

Here's an example of a Falco Rusticolus th "The micronutrients, minerals, and vitamins[11] in fruit and vegetables may be destroyed or eluted by cooking. Vitamin C is especially prone to oxidation during cooking and may be completely destroyed by protracted cooking. 12][not in citation given]

Note the last part. The food-faddist moron who wrote the piece cited a source, and then the Wikipedia editors noted that the claim is not supported by the citation.

In fact, the citation says the exact opposite:

"Cooking vegetables 'improves benefits'"

That's typical of the lunacy perpetuated by raw-food, vegan, vegetable-juice and other nutritionauts. Their minds are so addled -- perhaps from their diets? -- that they see reality upside-down.

Carry on, Falco. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Falco has no facts.

Bernie is over the top. The FDA has promoted labelling of it since

2001. If they make it a requirement, they'll be excoriated from both sides in Congress -- those who think it's inadequate, and those from farm states will say they're overstepping their authority. Currently there is no evidence-based science that shows it's harmful in food and the FDA has no legal basis, therefore, to demand it.

So they're waiting for Congress to act on it. Congress has had over a decade to decide one way or the other. There's no reason for FDA to get in the middle of a debate in which there is no scientific proof to support their action.

Wrong. There are no chemicals in genetically engineered food that are not in other food. There is no scientific evidence that it's harmful.

Ergo, FDA has no authority to demand the labelling. If we want it labelled, Congress has to demand it.

This documentary is probably exacerbating the hysteria.

I looked it up after somebody told me it was worth watching. A great steaming load of pseudoscience from a crackpot who's trying to make a living off the hornswoggled.

It doesn't matter, unless you can get Congress to change FDA's charter. That's what Bernie is trying to do, but he's unfairly putting heat on FDA. Maybe he's trying to garner Republican support.

Those are consumer groups, BTW, not mainstream agricultural groups. The NFU and NEFU are heavy with organic farmers and heritage-crop farmers who oppose genetically modified crops. They're anti-agribusiness.

Let me guess: Alex Jones? No? Hannity? d8-)

Well, then, tell your Congressman. Don't jump on the FDA. They're following the rules.

They can't arbitrarily demand things of the food industry. They need a reason that's within the law. There is nothing now that authorizes the FDA to require labelling of genetically modified foods.