Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: 35% less calories in avocado

  1. #1 35% less calories in avocado 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    I saw, in Publix, an avocado that contains "35% less calories" and "50% less fat". How in the world do they go about reducing the calories and fat in an avocado (note that this is the actual fruit, not canned or anything like that)?


    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: 35% less calories in avocado 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I saw, in Publix, an avocado that contains "35% less calories" and "50% less fat". How in the world do they go about reducing the calories and fat in an avocado (note that this is the actual fruit, not canned or anything like that)?
    By selective plant breeding. And no, it's not genetically modified, just selective breeding and cross-breeding. :wink:


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    37
    Selective breeding and cross-breeding IS genetically modifying imo. Don't see what the big deal is with GMO's, it's not like their poisonous or anything. But I think I'll start a new thread on this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas999
    Selective breeding and cross-breeding IS genetically modifying imo. Don't see what the big deal is with GMO's, it's not like their poisonous or anything. But I think I'll start a new thread on this.
    I'm sorry but that viewpoint is completely incorrect. Breeding and cross-breeding is totally natural and, in fact, happens all the time in nature.

    Genetic modification, on the other hand, involves splicing in genes from completely foreign sources - something that could never happen in nature.

    I'm not opposed to GM but you're also incorrect in your assumption that they aren't producing poisons in some cases. One particular example of that is a cultivar of soybeans that's been engineered for the express purpose of producing a poison to kill insects that feed on the plant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas999
    Selective breeding and cross-breeding IS genetically modifying imo. Don't see what the big deal is with GMO's, it's not like their poisonous or anything. But I think I'll start a new thread on this.
    I'm sorry but that viewpoint is completely incorrect. Breeding and cross-breeding is totally natural and, in fact, happens all the time in nature.

    Genetic modification, on the other hand, involves splicing in genes from completely foreign sources - something that could never happen in nature.

    I'm not opposed to GM but you're also incorrect in your assumption that they aren't producing poisons in some cases. One particular example of that is a cultivar of soybeans that's been engineered for the express purpose of producing a poison to kill insects that feed on the plant.
    I agree.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: 35% less calories in avocado 
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I saw, in Publix, an avocado that contains "35% less calories" and "50% less fat". How in the world do they go about reducing the calories and fat in an avocado (note that this is the actual fruit, not canned or anything like that)?
    I agree with everyone else, selective breeding. And I'd like to point out that the calories are probably just cut out with the fat, so I don't think they're directly producing 'low calorie' fruit, it's just a consequence of making it low-fat.
    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas999
    Selective breeding and cross-breeding IS genetically modifying imo. Don't see what the big deal is with GMO's, it's not like their poisonous or anything. But I think I'll start a new thread on this.
    I'm sorry but that viewpoint is completely incorrect. Breeding and cross-breeding is totally natural and, in fact, happens all the time in nature.

    Genetic modification, on the other hand, involves splicing in genes from completely foreign sources - something that could never happen in nature.

    I'm not opposed to GM but you're also incorrect in your assumption that they aren't producing poisons in some cases. One particular example of that is a cultivar of soybeans that's been engineered for the express purpose of producing a poison to kill insects that feed on the plant.
    Yes, true, but the main goal is to make the plant produce poison that would kill insects, but not harm a human being right? Or were there cases of people getting sick?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas999
    Yes, true, but the main goal is to make the plant produce poison that would kill insects, but not harm a human being right? Or were there cases of people getting sick?
    Yes, you're right - that was the main goal. As far as I know, no - no people have been made sick.

    But there was an unexpected side effect. It was found that butterflies visiting the blossoms were killed and they don't feed on plant parts. So the concern was that it wight also be killing other pollinators as well. And if that's the case it could cause some very serious problems for the food supply as a whole. The fact that it was completely unexpected - and still hasn't been figured out, the last that I've seen - simply indicates that there are possible lurking dangers that could erupt at any time.

    And that's why I said that there needs to be very, very careful controls in place and extensively exhaustive studies made before anything is made generally available.

    It's not a simple thing because the companies that have developed these things have spent considerable amounts of money. And they are understandably under a lot of pressure to get them to market as quickly as possible to recover that investment. So it's all too easy for them to want to try to shortcut the testing phase and miss something critical.

    I still believe that GM foods have very bright and important future. We just need to figure out how to make it a safe one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Geezer
    I still believe that GM foods have very bright and important future. We just need to figure out how to make it a safe one.
    And I couldn't agree more
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •