MemeGate 2012 - First Responder, post #2
Originally Posted by .skully.
People are living a lot longer than they did even 100 years ago. Maybe some of these harmful chemicals are preserving our bodies...
I'm hungry, who's hungry?
better yet, who knows the legal definition of "mechanically separated"?
and WHO keeps on buying this stuff? eating this stuff? ignoring this stuff?
· ·we're only gonna die for our own arrogance that's why we might as well take our time...
· · /
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to Ø
I am a baked potato.
I'll be in my bunk.
All this thread has taught me is that animals shouldn't eat humans.
In 1905 people were using huge amounts of lead arsenate and copper acetoarsenite for growing apples. It was so toxic that it burned the grass away around the trees. So, your point is that people are living longer than they did 100 years ago because of advances in Chemistry?
The fact is that a lot of toxicity is avoidable and is designed merely to pad the pockets of some elites. There were, for instance, two methods of producing high fructose corn syrup. One method did not cause mercury contamination. Both methods were used. It's not like the non-mercuric method was much more expensive to use. So people were exposed to mercury for no reason other than the fact that mercury-grade production benefited some people who were wealthy enough to know about the problem and warn their loved ones. Plus, let's look at the whole context, eh? The context is: we shouldn't be subsidizing the production of high fructose corn syrup in the first place! Not only is it less healthy than sucrose (even without the mercury), it's also more expensive to produce. The only reason it's even in the market is because of subsidization. So, we're getting the lovely benefits of your Chemistry in conjunction with pork/bribery ("lobbying").
The excuses fail. Chemicals are necessary only to the degree that they are necessary. Beyond that they are misused to line the pockets of people who should know better than to sacrifice the health of others as if that's actually good for them and their society.
FDA proposes "voluntary" reductions of antibiotics for animals
LOL indeedThe Food and Drug Administration called on drug companies Wednesday to help limit the use of antibiotics in farm animals, a decades-old practice that scientists say has contributed to a surge in dangerous, drug-resistant bacteria.
Antibiotic drugs like penicillin are routinely mixed with animal feed and water to help livestock, pigs and chickens put on weight and stay healthy in crowded barns. Scientists have warned that such use leads to the growth of antibiotic-resistant germs that can be passed on to humans.
An estimated 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. wind up on animal farms. Neither industry nor the government tracks what percentage of those drugs are used to boost animal weight, but many experts believe the vast majority go toward non-medical uses.
The rollout from FDA comes at an unusual time in the agency's attempts to curb antibiotic use in animals. Last month a federal court judge ordered the agency to take action on its own 35-year-old rule that would have banned non-medical use of two popular antibiotics, penicillin and tetracycline, in farm animals.
The FDA issued the rule in 1977 but never enforced it, following vigorous pushback from members of Congress and lobbyists for farmers and drugmakers.
The waning effectiveness of antibiotics has been a global health concern for several decades, attracting the attention of the World Health Organization, the Institute of Medicine and other health groups. As bacteria have grown more resistant, new and more deadly forms of malaria, staph and other infections that were once easily treatable have emerged across the globe.
The Cooking Animal is my side project: a blog for horngry food geeks. Check it out!
How about instead of calling these things just chemicals, call them harmful chemicals. And there are plenty of those. If you really cared about these harmful chemicals, you would not drive a car, and utilize a lot of modern day items. Get on with reality.
How about you bunch of hypocrites stop using the INTERNET, ELECTRICITY, CARS....
I asked you because I have lived in other countries and I KNOW how those other countries operate. If you do not like the USA, GTFO. Nothing is keeping you here. I just get tired of some of you whinney fvcks complaining all the time. Like I said a bunch of hypocrites that have nothing better to do, but complain.
In b4 TL. Seriously. Why is everybody so aggressive lately?
Like I said you are a hypocrite because you like to use all these modern anemities and do not realize where the **** to power them come from.
Also, many studies show that the people who live beyond the average lifespan are those who avoid the sorts of foods complained about in this thread.
Is anyone else being bombarded by "corn sugar" propaganda when they turn on the TV lately?
There's a commercial that proclaims "the body doesn't know the difference" — attempting to mislead the public into believing there is no heath difference between sucrose and HFCS. There certainly is when it's contaminated with mercury. The HFCS industry argues that HFCS only has 5% more fructose than sucrose, but that 5% adds up when there's a nation of obese sugar-eaters, since fructose is worse for the body than glucose. Plus, the mercury contamination issue is certainly not frivolous—unless the government were to ban HFCS production involving "mercury-grade" materials.
So, not only are our tax dollars going toward an artificial economic incentive to produce the less healthy HFCS (sucrose is cheaper, without the subsidy), they went to pay for politicians who were bribed into changing its name to "corn sugar", and they are going to pay for these untruthful propaganda pieces.
My wallet can tell the difference. Stop the subsidization.Originally Posted by good luck with that
Last edited by O_G; 04-17-2012 at 02:22 AM.
Today i am a tamale
Sent from my Sensation using Tapatalk 2
A great man
I am a double cheese burger and hot chocolate
There's some truth to all of this. Last week I ate Easter Dinner at a household where artificial sweeteners are their own food group. I was wonky afterwards and felt drugged out for more than 3 days. Stupid as heck too. No thanks!
It's all the chemicals and pesticides in our food!
P.S. I just ate 2 Organic oranges. They cost the same as regular. In the same store. Sue me!
Originally Posted by Kyle C
Nasty health degradation aside, research has also found that artificial sweeteners lead to weight gain because the brain isn't fooled (the missing calories) and will demand more sweet treats which eventually leads to increased caloric intake.
DNA damage isn't something that people will notice because it's the cause of aging. It's something that can be isolated in lab testing.
check this out:Originally Posted by cspi
UCLA Toxicology reportOriginally Posted by ucla report
Last edited by O_G; 04-18-2012 at 01:31 AM.
A great man