"In the autumn of 2000, a California woman named Grace Booth went into anaphylactic shock after eating three corn tacos; after ruling out all other food allergies, she became suspicious about the corn in the tortillas. Earlier that year, the consumer group Genetically Engineered Food Alert found that some Taco Bell shells, along with other corn products, contain a pest-repelling protein called Cry9C[2]. Originally from common soil bacteria, Cry9C can specifically destroy insect intestine and was introduced into StarLink GMO corn to kill predatory caterpillars (see this article). The StarLink corn had only been approved for animal feeding, and was never intended for human consumption because of concerns that Cry9C would be difficult to digest and cause an allergic reaction. However, it still entered the human supply due to cross-pollination when the GMO corn was planted too close to unmodified crops, and the tortillas that Grace ate were soon recalled due to contamination from a GMO product (Figure 1)."
I think my summary is a fair evaluation.
GMO food should be labeled.
That it is GMO. And the source of each gene added to the original stock.
"GM potatoes Feeding mice with potatoes transformed with a Bacillus thuringiensis var.kurstaki Cry1 toxin gene or the toxin itself was shown to have caused villus epithelial cell hypertrophy and multinucleation, disrupted microvilli, mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles and activation of crypt Paneth cells (Fares and El-Sayed 1998). "
" Allergenicity studies
When the gene is from a crop of known allergenicity, it is easy to establish whether the GM food is allergenic using in vitro tests, such as RAST or immunoblotting, with sera from individuals sensitised to the original crop. This was demonstrated in GM soybeans expressing the brasil nut 2S proteins (Nordlee et al. 1996) or in GM potatoes expressing cod protein genes (Noteborn et al. 1995). It is also relatively easy to assess whether genetic engineering affected the potency of endogenous allergens (Burks and Fuchs 1995). Farm workers exposed to B. thuringiensis pesticide were shown to have developed skin sensitization and IgE antibodies to the Bt spore extract. With their sera it may now therefore be possible to test for the allergenic potential of GM crops expressing Bt toxin (Bernstein et al. 1999). It is all the more important because Bt toxin Cry1Ac has been shown to be a potent oral/nasal antigen and adjuvant (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000).
The decision-tree type of indirect approach based on factors such as size and stability of the transgenically expressed protein (Oâ(TM)Neil et al. 1998) is even more unsound, particularly as its stability to gut proteolysis is assessed by an in vitro (simulated) testing (Metcalf et al. 1996) instead of in vivo (human/animal) testing and this is fundamentally wrong. The concept that most allergens are abundant proteins may be misleading because, for example, Gad c 1, the major allergen in codfish, is not a predominant protein (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000). However, when the gene responsible for the allergenicity is known, such as the gene of the alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitors/allergens in rice, cloning and sequencing opens the way for reducing their level by antisense RNA strategy (Nakamura and Matsuda 1996).
It is known that the main concerns about adverse effects of GM foods on health are the transfer of antibiotic resistance, toxicity and allergenicity. There are two issues from an allergic standpoint. These are the transfer of a known allergen that may occur from a crop into a non-allergenic target crop and the creation of a neo-allergen where de novo sensitisation occurs in the population. Patients allergic to Brazil nuts and not to soy bean then showed an IgE mediated response towards GM soy bean. Lack (2002) argued that it is possible to prevent such occurrences by doing IgE-binding studies and taking into account physico-chemical characteristics of proteins and referring to known allergen databases. The second possible scenario of de novo sensitisation does not easily lend itself to risk assessment. He reports that evidence that the technology used for the production of GM foods poses an allergic threat per se is lacking very much compared to other methodologies widely accepted in the food industry."
Ah, so if you die because of an undocumented food additive, you'd be cool with it.
Instead of asking, "why wasn't this labeled?" as you died, you'd e saying "think of all the people who weren't allergic unlike me."
Doubt it.
GMO food needs to be labeled. And the source of and reason for the genes needs to be labeled.
It cuts both ways- GMO *can* remove or reduce allergens.
It's not GMO per se that's bad. It's the greedy companies opposing labeling it.
If GMO food was labeled and sold for a slight discount- most people would slowly change over to buying and eating it with no problem. If the discount was 10%, I am certain you'd have 60% consumer conversion to the lower priced GMO food within 24 months.
It's the secrecy and repeated terrible events in corporate food and drug history that makes people rationally very suspicious when corporations get secretive.
The secrecy turns Taco Bell tacos (made unknowingly from corn mixed secretly with gmo corn) which were safe last week into life threatening tacos this week. It would be like they suddenly started putting shrimp protein or peanut sauce on the taco's without warning about it.
However- one caveat. Be very careful of "organic" food at local food markets. Some "organic" farmers have been caught when the produce they were selling was tested by the government (which apparently buys a lot of samples around the country every year).
Unless it comes from a certified organic farm you trust, you can't be sure. Instead it might have some really toxic stuff on it.
The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances
return arrow Back to Top Â205.600 Evaluation criteria for allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and ingredients.
The following criteria will be utilized in the evaluation of substances or ingredients for the organic production and handling sections of the National List:
(a) Synthetic and nonsynthetic substances considered for inclusion on or deletion from the National List of allowed and prohibited substances will be evaluated using the criteria specified in the Act (7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518).
(b) In addition to the criteria set forth in the Act, any synthetic substance used as a processing aid or adjuvant will be evaluated against the following criteria:
(1) The substance cannot be produced from a natural source and there are no organic substitutes;
(2) The substance's manufacture, use, and disposal do not have adverse effects on the environment and are done in a manner compatible with organic handling;
(3) The nutritional quality of the food is maintained when the substance is used, and the substance, itself, or its breakdown products do not have an adverse effect on human health as defined by applicable Federal regulations;
(4) The substance's primary use is not as a preservative or to recreate or improve flavors, colors, textures, or nutritive value lost during processing, except where the replacement of nutrients is required by law;
(5) The substance is listed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when used in accordance with FDA's good manufacturing practices (GMP) and contains no residues of heavy metals or other contaminants in excess of tolerances set by FDA; and
(6) The substance is essential for the handling of organically produced agricultural products.
(c) Nonsynthetics used in organic processing will be evaluated using the criteria specified in the Act (7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518).
return arrow Back to Top Â205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.
Link to an amendment published at 82 FR 31243, July 6, 2017.
In accordance with restrictions specified in this section, the following synthetic substances may be used in organic crop production: Provided, That, use of such substances do not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water. Substances allowed by this section, except disinfectants and sanitizers in paragraph (a) and those substances in paragraphs (c), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, may only be used when the provisions set forth in Â205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest.
(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems.
(1) Alcohols.
(i) Ethanol.
(ii) Isopropanol.
(2) Chlorine materialsâ"For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.
(i) Calcium hypochlorite.
(ii) Chlorine dioxide.
(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.
(3) Copper sulfateâ"for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(4) Hydrogen peroxide.
(5) Ozone gasâ"for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.
(6) Peracetic acidâ"for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed
yea, there was a big scandel where a lady nearly died due to anaphylactic shock after eating commercially prepared tacos which had always been safe before and it turned out the taco shells had secret gmo corn and that corn had genes added to it which set off the lady's allergies. The taco shells, corn, etc. was all recalled.
If you insert peanut genes into something- you damn sure better label that the product has peanut genes.
It's crazy because if they would simply LABEL GMO (and what genes were added from what other plant/animal) instead of sneaking it in, then people wouldn't have rare allergic reactions and most would buy it if it were 10% cheaper.
Then after 5 years, they could raise the prices to be the same and folks would stay with it.
But as it is, they act so shady that it makes people suspicious.
The point is that they tried to suppress the research.
The question is how risky is glycophosphate that they felt the need to try to suppress research.
This is like Donald Trump and Jared Kushak's meeting with the russians.
A) no meeting reported... B) there was a meeting with one russian lawyer about adoptions and was meaningless. C) uh.. okay so there was a meeting with 2 russians. DEF) Increasingly more russians. G) Okay so it was supposed to be about russians providing damaging clinton/DNC information H) Uh.. Okay so I do have a relationship with the participants going back for years and I did say, "I love it!" when I thought it was about clinton. I) Oops.. some of the russians are ex intelligence officers and/or have intelligence training.
Monsanto is at step B).
Is it going to turn out that glycophosphates are as carcinogenic as saccharine (not much/really have to literally eat the stuff by the handful) or is it going to be as carcinogenic as dioxins (which were also wonderful and safe until they were not).
a) giving out mortgages to unqualified people of *all* races (but perhaps minorities at a higher rate). b) lying and saying that "A" class bonds mixed with bad mortgages were still "A" class. c) people (esp large funds, governments, etc.) being stupid and buying CDOs that paid 7% when "A" bonds paid 4% and assuming the risk was the same.
Helping the oppressed is what the democrats are about.
With President Trump's approval ratings down to 33% and his hard core support finally wilting away as well, I don't think democrats have as much to worry about.
Republican voters did a wonderful thing for Democrats when they elected Mr. Trump.
Republican states average twice as much money back from the federal government as they pay in. So "welfare" is fine for republicans too.
Yup. Amazon is well into making picker robots that will pick items off the shelf and put them into the box. When they do, most of the warehouse jobs go away.
My brain has learned to blank them out. Even if I might have been interested in them I see nothing.
Spam calls have gotten so bad that now I answer the phone, "hello"... and then hang up immediately if it's not someone I have whitelisted or blacklisted already. So far ( crossing my fingers ), I haven't done it to a friend yet. Lol.
Too many ads means there are effectively NO ads.
Same with TV shows.
When you have 6 ads per hour- I used to see them. Even if I wasn't interested in them.
Now- I either go to streaming sources or pick up my smart phone and start playing a game or do something else but I don't process the ads at all. Sometimes I'll even wander off and forget about the show entirely.
I occasionally see pandora ads because they come up at stop signs. but I've never bought a product from them.
As ads exceed 10% of content- they become worthless if I'm the target (and I suspect most people).
Part of the reason for this is that everyone in the entertainment industry is overpaid now. So they have to sell too many ads to pay those salaries.
A word of warning to those folks- you are figuratively killing the golden goose here. You are literally destroying your customers interest in your products by using too many ads.
I first saw it in Genesis 2 in the 1970's (Mariette Hartley as a two navel mutant) and a very young john saxon. I liked the idea so much that I had a global hyperloop in my post nuclear war non apocolyptic Superhero 2044 roleplaying game.
And not too interested in "States Rights" it seems.
I've noticed Republicans talk a lot about state and local rights while prohibiting states and local rights to regulate their own environments.
i.e. cable tv, internet, cars, dealerships, etc. where they are suddenly top down pro federal government over states and pro state government over cities and counties.
I mix sweeteners. I find each one hits a different note. Stevia seems best in tea, okay in coffee (great up to the point where it stops removing bitterness and actually starts sweetening). But I bet after 30 years, you are completely used to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Real world data is showing a likely 350,000 mile lifespan for tesla batteries.
And then they can still be used for other uses (like a home powerbank).
From the first article
"In the autumn of 2000, a California woman named Grace Booth went into anaphylactic shock after eating three corn tacos; after ruling out all other food allergies, she became suspicious about the corn in the tortillas. Earlier that year, the consumer group Genetically Engineered Food Alert found that some Taco Bell shells, along with other corn products, contain a pest-repelling protein called Cry9C[2]. Originally from common soil bacteria, Cry9C can specifically destroy insect intestine and was introduced into StarLink GMO corn to kill predatory caterpillars (see this article). The StarLink corn had only been approved for animal feeding, and was never intended for human consumption because of concerns that Cry9C would be difficult to digest and cause an allergic reaction. However, it still entered the human supply due to cross-pollination when the GMO corn was planted too close to unmodified crops, and the tortillas that Grace ate were soon recalled due to contamination from a GMO product (Figure 1)."
I think my summary is a fair evaluation.
GMO food should be labeled.
That it is GMO.
And the source of each gene added to the original stock.
No, I have an event backed up by plenty of studies.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/fl...
GMOS are allergens.
And worse...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
"GM potatoes
Feeding mice with potatoes transformed with a Bacillus thuringiensis var.kurstaki Cry1 toxin gene or the toxin itself was shown to have caused villus epithelial cell hypertrophy and multinucleation, disrupted microvilli, mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles and activation of crypt Paneth cells (Fares and El-Sayed 1998). "
"
Allergenicity studies
When the gene is from a crop of known allergenicity, it is easy to establish whether the GM food is allergenic using in vitro tests, such as RAST or immunoblotting, with sera from individuals sensitised to the original crop. This was demonstrated in GM soybeans expressing the brasil nut 2S proteins (Nordlee et al. 1996) or in GM potatoes expressing cod protein genes (Noteborn et al. 1995). It is also relatively easy to assess whether genetic engineering affected the potency of endogenous allergens (Burks and Fuchs 1995). Farm workers exposed to B. thuringiensis pesticide were shown to have developed skin sensitization and IgE antibodies to the Bt spore extract. With their sera it may now therefore be possible to test for the allergenic potential of GM crops expressing Bt toxin (Bernstein et al. 1999). It is all the more important because Bt toxin Cry1Ac has been shown to be a potent oral/nasal antigen and adjuvant (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000).
The decision-tree type of indirect approach based on factors such as size and stability of the transgenically expressed protein (Oâ(TM)Neil et al. 1998) is even more unsound, particularly as its stability to gut proteolysis is assessed by an in vitro (simulated) testing (Metcalf et al. 1996) instead of in vivo (human/animal) testing and this is fundamentally wrong. The concept that most allergens are abundant proteins may be misleading because, for example, Gad c 1, the major allergen in codfish, is not a predominant protein (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000). However, when the gene responsible for the allergenicity is known, such as the gene of the alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitors/allergens in rice, cloning and sequencing opens the way for reducing their level by antisense RNA strategy (Nakamura and Matsuda 1996).
It is known that the main concerns about adverse effects of GM foods on health are the transfer of antibiotic resistance, toxicity and allergenicity. There are two issues from an allergic standpoint. These are the transfer of a known allergen that may occur from a crop into a non-allergenic target crop and the creation of a neo-allergen where de novo sensitisation occurs in the population. Patients allergic to Brazil nuts and not to soy bean then showed an IgE mediated response towards GM soy bean. Lack (2002) argued that it is possible to prevent such occurrences by doing IgE-binding studies and taking into account physico-chemical characteristics of proteins and referring to known allergen databases. The second possible scenario of de novo sensitisation does not easily lend itself to risk assessment. He reports that evidence that the technology used for the production of GM foods poses an allergic threat per se is lacking very much compared to other methodologies widely accepted in the food industry."
Ah, so if you die because of an undocumented food additive, you'd be cool with it.
Instead of asking, "why wasn't this labeled?" as you died, you'd e saying "think of all the people who weren't allergic unlike me."
Doubt it.
GMO food needs to be labeled. And the source of and reason for the genes needs to be labeled.
It cuts both ways- GMO *can* remove or reduce allergens.
It's not GMO per se that's bad. It's the greedy companies opposing labeling it.
If GMO food was labeled and sold for a slight discount- most people would slowly change over to buying and eating it with no problem. If the discount was 10%, I am certain you'd have 60% consumer conversion to the lower priced GMO food within 24 months.
It's the secrecy and repeated terrible events in corporate food and drug history that makes people rationally very suspicious when corporations get secretive.
The secrecy turns Taco Bell tacos (made unknowingly from corn mixed secretly with gmo corn) which were safe last week into life threatening tacos this week. It would be like they suddenly started putting shrimp protein or peanut sauce on the taco's without warning about it.
You'll notice- unlike GMO, EVERYTHING is listed.
However- one caveat. Be very careful of "organic" food at local food markets. Some "organic" farmers have been caught when the produce they were selling was tested by the government (which apparently buys a lot of samples around the country every year).
Unless it comes from a certified organic farm you trust, you can't be sure. Instead it might have some really toxic stuff on it.
https://www.usda.gov/media/blo...
The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances
return arrow Back to Top
Â205.600 Evaluation criteria for allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and ingredients.
The following criteria will be utilized in the evaluation of substances or ingredients for the organic production and handling sections of the National List:
(a) Synthetic and nonsynthetic substances considered for inclusion on or deletion from the National List of allowed and prohibited substances will be evaluated using the criteria specified in the Act (7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518).
(b) In addition to the criteria set forth in the Act, any synthetic substance used as a processing aid or adjuvant will be evaluated against the following criteria:
(1) The substance cannot be produced from a natural source and there are no organic substitutes;
(2) The substance's manufacture, use, and disposal do not have adverse effects on the environment and are done in a manner compatible with organic handling;
(3) The nutritional quality of the food is maintained when the substance is used, and the substance, itself, or its breakdown products do not have an adverse effect on human health as defined by applicable Federal regulations;
(4) The substance's primary use is not as a preservative or to recreate or improve flavors, colors, textures, or nutritive value lost during processing, except where the replacement of nutrients is required by law;
(5) The substance is listed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when used in accordance with FDA's good manufacturing practices (GMP) and contains no residues of heavy metals or other contaminants in excess of tolerances set by FDA; and
(6) The substance is essential for the handling of organically produced agricultural products.
(c) Nonsynthetics used in organic processing will be evaluated using the criteria specified in the Act (7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518).
return arrow Back to Top
Â205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.
Link to an amendment published at 82 FR 31243, July 6, 2017.
In accordance with restrictions specified in this section, the following synthetic substances may be used in organic crop production: Provided, That, use of such substances do not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water. Substances allowed by this section, except disinfectants and sanitizers in paragraph (a) and those substances in paragraphs (c), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, may only be used when the provisions set forth in Â205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest.
(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems.
(1) Alcohols.
(i) Ethanol.
(ii) Isopropanol.
(2) Chlorine materialsâ"For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.
(i) Calcium hypochlorite.
(ii) Chlorine dioxide.
(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.
(3) Copper sulfateâ"for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(4) Hydrogen peroxide.
(5) Ozone gasâ"for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.
(6) Peracetic acidâ"for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed
yea, there was a big scandel where a lady nearly died due to anaphylactic shock after eating commercially prepared tacos which had always been safe before and it turned out the taco shells had secret gmo corn and that corn had genes added to it which set off the lady's allergies. The taco shells, corn, etc. was all recalled.
If you insert peanut genes into something- you damn sure better label that the product has peanut genes.
It's crazy because if they would simply LABEL GMO (and what genes were added from what other plant/animal) instead of sneaking it in, then people wouldn't have rare allergic reactions and most would buy it if it were 10% cheaper.
Then after 5 years, they could raise the prices to be the same and folks would stay with it.
But as it is, they act so shady that it makes people suspicious.
The point is that they tried to suppress the research.
The question is how risky is glycophosphate that they felt the need to try to suppress research.
This is like Donald Trump and Jared Kushak's meeting with the russians.
A) no meeting reported...
B) there was a meeting with one russian lawyer about adoptions and was meaningless.
C) uh.. okay so there was a meeting with 2 russians.
DEF) Increasingly more russians.
G) Okay so it was supposed to be about russians providing damaging clinton/DNC information
H) Uh.. Okay so I do have a relationship with the participants going back for years and I did say, "I love it!" when I thought it was about clinton.
I) Oops.. some of the russians are ex intelligence officers and/or have intelligence training.
Monsanto is at step B).
Is it going to turn out that glycophosphates are as carcinogenic as saccharine (not much/really have to literally eat the stuff by the handful) or is it going to be as carcinogenic as dioxins (which were also wonderful and safe until they were not).
Do we stop at step B.. or are we going to step R?
That's a nice republican talking point. But it's not true.
Or else job aid for appalachians wouldn't be protected by democrats from republicans who were trying to cut it. And that benefits their own voters.
I agree the CDO crisis was due to
a) giving out mortgages to unqualified people of *all* races (but perhaps minorities at a higher rate).
b) lying and saying that "A" class bonds mixed with bad mortgages were still "A" class.
c) people (esp large funds, governments, etc.) being stupid and buying CDOs that paid 7% when "A" bonds paid 4% and assuming the risk was the same.
Helping the oppressed is what the democrats are about.
With President Trump's approval ratings down to 33% and his hard core support finally wilting away as well, I don't think democrats have as much to worry about.
Republican voters did a wonderful thing for Democrats when they elected Mr. Trump.
Republican states average twice as much money back from the federal government as they pay in. So "welfare" is fine for republicans too.
not as long as lenders discrimnate against equally qualified minorities.
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
http://www.denverpost.com/2016...
and refuse to even call back equally qualified minorities for rentals and leases.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...
Yup. Amazon is well into making picker robots that will pick items off the shelf and put them into the box. When they do, most of the warehouse jobs go away.
This attitude is probably the root of HBO's problems.
It's so common among big companies these days.
But it could also be inability to get quality talent at the salaries they offer.
In any case, the leaks don't matter to me. I don't even watch trailers for the next episode. I like to hit the episodes completely tabula rasa.
The current internet has almost become worthless.
Festering with ads and malware.
Tracking everything you search for and selling that data to the highest bidder.
There is a new charging technology out which will charge 25% in 5 minutes and 90% in 15 minutes. Sounds very promising.
It uses a water cooled connector. It might require a new connector.
I agree that I hope they all use the same connector. Tesla released so many patents to encourage electric cars.
There are too many ads.
My brain has learned to blank them out. Even if I might have been interested in them I see nothing.
Spam calls have gotten so bad that now I answer the phone, "hello"... and then hang up immediately if it's not someone I have whitelisted or blacklisted already. So far ( crossing my fingers ), I haven't done it to a friend yet. Lol.
Too many ads means there are effectively NO ads.
Same with TV shows.
When you have 6 ads per hour- I used to see them. Even if I wasn't interested in them.
Now- I either go to streaming sources or pick up my smart phone and start playing a game or do something else but I don't process the ads at all. Sometimes I'll even wander off and forget about the show entirely.
I occasionally see pandora ads because they come up at stop signs. but I've never bought a product from them.
As ads exceed 10% of content- they become worthless if I'm the target (and I suspect most people).
Part of the reason for this is that everyone in the entertainment industry is overpaid now. So they have to sell too many ads to pay those salaries.
A word of warning to those folks- you are figuratively killing the golden goose here. You are literally destroying your customers interest in your products by using too many ads.
When you set up an account (as I did), you specify what region and type of english you are speaking.
For me it was the milla jovavich steam punk Three Musketeers. The first film I ever saw use 3d right.
And it was a fun romp too. i wish it had been popular enough to get the second one.
It's like the benefits of cloning vs sexual reproduction.
Each works well in different environments. Each fails in other environments.
Capitalism, communism, democracy have failed over and over.
Just like the U.S., when china falls into the behavioral sink, it will be very hard for them to avoid their particular failure case.
I first saw it in Genesis 2 in the 1970's (Mariette Hartley as a two navel mutant) and a very young john saxon. I liked the idea so much that I had a global hyperloop in my post nuclear war non apocolyptic Superhero 2044 roleplaying game.
And not too interested in "States Rights" it seems.
I've noticed Republicans talk a lot about state and local rights while prohibiting states and local rights to regulate their own environments.
i.e. cable tv, internet, cars, dealerships, etc. where they are suddenly top down pro federal government over states and pro state government over cities and counties.
"Just 3 weeks til retirement!" lol.
I use stevia.
I mix sweeteners. I find each one hits a different note. Stevia seems best in tea, okay in coffee (great up to the point where it stops removing bitterness and actually starts sweetening). But I bet after 30 years, you are completely used to it.
You have an interesting point.
When I eat spicier foods, they race thru my system and I have lost weight during those periods so I assume the food is less efficiently digested.