You are what you eat, America

[dubb~stylee]

That's one assumption among many. Another is that I don't live on this board.

Anything interesting to say on the subject of food quality?

And, speaking to the need for attention versus the amount of substantive contribution to the forum...

another is that you got banned for a little while. either that or your mom pulled the plug on your internet connection for a good week. good week for us at least.

[O_G]

another is that you got banned for a little while. either that or your mom pulled the plug on your internet connection for a good week. good week for us at least.

Even the Psychic Hotline has standards, FYI. Your fantasies aren't very relevant to this topic.

[ATL_Av8r]

well eat a lot vjayjay...

Anyone who calls it "vjayjay" has never had an encounter with one

[B3sat16v]

Back up your accusation with proof. Prove that the sources I linked to aren't credible. Prove that the information isn't credible.

You can't and you won't.

Here is your proof, even plagued with Cancer people get to live nearly 60 years, some even get to live 100 years (when their chemistry is sufficient to survive cancer or not get cancer at all). Go back and study history and tell me how long people lived when they ate more "Natural" things. Also everything is a freaking Chemical. We are chemistry.

People are living a lot longer than they did even 100 years ago. Maybe some of these harmful chemicals are preserving our bodies...

[VR6ix]

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?

[B3sat16v]

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?

^^^ Blah Blah Blah. Guess what?!? Your time is your time. If you do not like it, well grow your own beef, pork, chickens.

[muffintop]

I am a baked potato.

[Shin Akuma]

All this thread has taught me is that animals shouldn't eat humans.

[O_G]

Here is your proof, even plagued with Cancer people get to live nearly 60 years, some even get to live 100 years (when their chemistry is sufficient to survive cancer or not get cancer at all). Go back and study history and tell me how long people lived when they ate more "Natural" things. Also everything is a freaking Chemical. We are chemistry.

People are living a lot longer than they did even 100 years ago. Maybe some of these harmful chemicals are preserving our bodies...

I guess you missed the dramatic increase in deformed genitals and the implications of that.

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.

[O_G]

[IMG]http://www.****************[/IMG]LOL

FDA proposes "voluntary" reductions of antibiotics for animals

The 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.

LOL indeed

[Turbio!]

I'm hungry, who's hungry?
]

I'm not sure pink slime is necessarily dangerous. It's gross, devoid of nutritional value, unnecessary, and was created to pander to people who shop for groceries by price....but it ain't gonna kill ya.

[B3sat16v]

I guess you missed the dramatic increase in deformed genitals and the implications of that.

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.

Budy, we are composed of chemicals. I hope you know that. But it sounds like you have not a clue about science and I would not expect you to know that. If you do not like it, well GTFO. I am sure if you were a lobbyist you would get your pockets fat too. Fvcking hypocrite.

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.

[B3sat16v]

People are no different then cattle in this country, fed crap factory food, forced to pay for everything (like health care), and worked to death.

Ahh yes, the grass is always greener on the other side type of comment. Have you lived anywhere else? I bet the answer is no. You have a choice in this country. You can go to the Farmer's Market and buy fresh meats and vegs.

How about you bunch of hypocrites stop using the INTERNET, ELECTRICITY, CARS....

[leontief]

Ahh yes, the grass is always greener on the other side type of comment. Have you lived anywhere else? I bet the answer is no. You have a choice in this country. You can go to the Farmer's Market and buy fresh meats and vegs.

How about you bunch of hypocrites stop using the INTERNET, ELECTRICITY, CARS....

Exactly.

Here let me help O__G:

You will die, get over it.
Everybody will. Everything in the world will kill you in one way or the other.

Go live a life.

[B3sat16v]

South Korea, and Germany... checkmate son.

Checkmate Son?!? What a childish comment are you 12 and a Gangster? I have lived in more places than you and I have relatives living in other places in this world. And yeah Germany and South Korea does not compare to the places I have been or that I am from. Get a grip. And there is plenty of processed food coming from South Korea and Germany. I would know.

[B3sat16v]

Why are you defensive about it? Yeah I'm totally gangster dude, and maximum respect that you've lived in more places than I, I'm flattered that I'm relevant to your life. Kettle calling the pot black when you get all in a hissy fit and get into a pissing match over how many places you've been to. You asked me if I've lived anywhere else, and I answered you... who's the childish one again?

Blah Blah Blah. U mad son? Sound like you need a pacifier!

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.

[B3sat16v]

Scumbag Army brat

US taxpayers and government pay for him to see the world

Hates America.

You certainly sound like that.... If you do not like the USA.... GTFO! Do not let the door hit you on the arse.

[sjt1985]

In b4 TL. Seriously. Why is everybody so aggressive lately?

[B3sat16v]

Ignorant ****, yeah let us not change anything, and anyone who does want to change something, GTFO! I bet you've never even lived anywhere outside this country.

I am not even going to get into it with you my child. I let you in a little secret, I was not even born in the USA. You figure that one out.

[B3sat16v]

You're a c unt.

Quoting you..... So you know how smart you sound.

[O_G]

Budy, we are composed of chemicals. I hope you know that.

I'm so thankful that you've come to the rescue of this topic with such brilliant insight.

How about instead of calling these things just chemicals, call them harmful chemicals.

I suppose I should, since it's clear that the obvious must be stated. Gee whiz, Wally, is mercury harmful?

[O_G]

You have a choice in this country. You can go to the Farmer's Market and buy fresh meats and vegs.

I suppose the kids born with deformed genitals have a choice, too. What would that be, exactly?

How about you bunch of hypocrites stop using the INTERNET, ELECTRICITY, CARS....

Because the Internet forces us to not list aluminum on the label of processed cheese, or just not put it in in the first place. It's all Al Gore's fault! He's the one who came up with mercury-grade HFCS production. He invented it!

[B3sat16v]

I suppose the kids born with deformed genitals have a choice, too. What would that be, exactly?


Because the Internet forces us to not list aluminum on the label of processed cheese, or just not put it in in the first place. It's all Al Gore's fault! He's the one who came up with mercury-grade HFCS production. He invented it!

Did a quick research about the subject. Came out with very, very few unrelaible sources. I might have to look into it. I work around Aluminum all day long and my penis is fine.

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.

[O_G]

Did a quick research about the subject. Came out with very, very few unrelaible sources. I might have to look into it. I work around Aluminum all day long and my penis is fine.

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.

[Jader Pack]

Here is your proof, even plagued with Cancer people get to live nearly 60 years, some even get to live 100 years (when their chemistry is sufficient to survive cancer or not get cancer at all).

There are far, far too many confounding factors for that information to be useful. The extension of our lifespans has to do with a lot more than just food. Antibiotics and knowledge of basic sanitation alone probably boosted the average life by 30 years alone.

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.

[Jader Pack]

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.

There is nothing hypocritical about enjoying beneficial or largely harmless modern amenities while complaining about detrimental aspects of modern life.

[O_G]

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.

In a court hearing Wednesday morning in Los Angeles, the Corn Refiners Association and its members are defending themselves in a lawsuit filed by eight sugar producers and two sugar associations, which claim the former produced false advertising.

The Corn Refiners Association started an "educational campaign" in 2008 to "correct misinformation" about high fructose corn syrup. Its current television spots, which claim that "your body can't tell the difference" between high fructose corn syrup and sugar, began airing in September 2010.

My wallet can tell the difference. Stop the subsidization.

[v408w]

Today i am a tamale

Sent from my Sensation using Tapatalk 2

[vento86]

I am a double cheese burger and hot chocolate

[TigerinColorado]

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!

In b4 TL. Seriously. Why is everybody so aggressive lately?

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!

[O_G]

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!

I'm a big fan of muscle spasms/twitching from trichlorosucrose ("Splenda"), but the hidden DNA damage from Stevia is a close second.

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.

[O_G]

Funny that Stevia is natural, and Japan uses it as a sweetener in soft drinks.

Puffer fish poison is natural. The destroying angel mushroom is natural, too.

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.

Rebaudioside A and stevioside are so closely related that any damaging evidence for either one casts doubt on the safety of the other.

The UCLA toxicologists' first concern: In some test tube and animal studies, stevioside (but not rebaudioside A) caused mutations, chromosome damage, or DNA breakage.

For example, when Brazilian researchers added stevioside to the drinking water of lab rats, the investigators found DNA breakages in ceils in the animals' blood, liver, spleen, and brain. (1)

If a chemical causes DNA damage, the second question is whether it causes cancer. It's reassuring that in two studies that fed stevioside to rats for two years (most of their lives), tumors didn't increase. (2) But no one has fed rebaudioside A to rats to see if it causes tumors.

What's more, substances can cause cancer in one animal and not another, so the FDA recommends testing compounds like stevia--which could be ingested at high levels by a huge number of people--in two species (typically rats and mice). But no one has published studies looking at whether rebaudioside A or stevioside causes cancer in mice.

"Rebaudioside A is likely to be consumed by tens of millions of people, and needs to be tested in two rodent species in lifetime carcinogenicity studies before it can be accepted as generally recognized as safe," says Curtis Eckhert, a professor of molecular toxicology at UCLA. He and graduate student Sarah Kobylewski co-authored the review commissioned by CSPI.

check this out:

According to the literature review by Brusick et al. (2008) on the genotoxicity of steviol and stevioside, two of 16 studies showed genotoxic activity for stevioside and four of 15 studies (Brusick et al. did not include Pezzuto et al., 1985, and TM677 results by Matsui et al., 1996a) showed genotoxic activity for steviol (see Tables 4 and 5, respectively).

Stevioside showed positive results in Salmonella typhimurium (S. typhimurium) strain TA98 at 50 mg/plate for 99% pure stevioside (Suttajit et al., 1993). The results showed a 4-fold increase in revertants without S9 extract and a 2-fold increase with S9. That study used stevioside pre-incubated with and without β- glucosidase. Those results demonstrate that at 50 mg/plate, stevioside (without β-glucosidase or S9), steviol (stevioside + β-glucosidase), stevioside metabolite(s) (stevioside +S9), and steviol metabolite(s) (stevioside + β- glucosidase + S9) are all mutagenic in TA98.

Using the comet assay, Nunes et al. (2007) reported DNA breakage in blood, spleen, liver, and brain cells in Wistar rats exposed to 400 mg/kg of stevioside in drinking water. The strongest effects of stevioside were found in the liver cells.

Metabolically-activated steviol was found to cause dose-related positive responses in several mutagenicity tests. These results indicate that a steviol derivative is likely responsible for its mutagenic activity, but the metabolite has not been identified (Brusick et al., 2008). The mutagenicity of steviol metabolites needs to be further investigated.

Matsui et al. (1989) showed positive results for steviol in a plasmid mutagenesis study.
Matsui et al. (1996a) found that steviol is mutagenic in S. typhimurium strain TM677, caused chromosome aberrations in cultured Chinese hamster lung (CHL) cells, and mutagenic in CHL cells in the presence of S9. In the same study, steviol produced a weak positive response with or without S9 in the umu test.

A forward mutation assay using S. typhimurium strain TM677 found mutagenicity using 100 μg/ml steviol when assayed with S9 extract (Pezzuto et al., 1985).

Studies in rats have failed to produce any evidence of carcinogenicity of stevioside, though rebaudioside A, the subject of the GRAS notification, itself has not been tested. It is important to note that FDA normally asks for tests in two rodent species, usually rats and mice, in a compound with such a high predicted exposure level. Also, all three of the aforementioned studies were done with stevioside, not rebaudioside A. It is possible that differences in metabolism and toxicokinetics would result in different risks of carcinogenicity using the two steviol glycosides.

Older studies reported anti-fertility effects, as well as decreases in the weights of the testes, seminal vesicle, and cauda epididymides and a reduction in spermatozoa concentration, in rats administered crude stevia extracts (Mazzei-Plana and Kuc 1968; Olivereira Filho et al., 1989, and Melis, 1999).

In both the rat and human metabolism studies, investigators demonstrate that rebaudioside A and stevioside have similar metabolic pathways within each species. However, rebaudioside A’s extra glucose moiety causes differences in the two compounds’ pharmacokinetic parameters (Tables 1, 2, and 3). Because of those differences, toxicity data for stevioside cannot be assumed to be an appropriate basis for assessing the safety of rebaudioside A. Separate toxicity studies on rebaudioside A itself are necessary to make definitive conclusions about its safety.

Since steviol glycoside metabolism in rats and humans is not identical, the rat may not be an ideal model for evaluating human toxicity. Both species hydrolyze the glycosides into steviol by the gut microflora, but after absorption the metabolic pathways differ.

Hutapea et al. (1997) reported a steviol-16,17-epoxide stevioside metabolite. Given the structures of stevioside and rebaudioside A, an epoxide is a likely metabolite. The possibility of a steviol glycoside forming an epoxide metabolite needs to be investigated carefully, because epoxides may react with DNA and cause mutations.

Genotoxicity studies published in the Food and Chemical Toxicology supplement, as well as other studies, raise significant concerns. Suttajit et al. (1993) reported positive results for reverse mutations in the S. typhimurium strain TA98 with and without S9 extract at a 50 mg/plate dose of stevioside. The ability of stevioside and rebaudioside A to cause reverse mutations as indicated by TA98 needs to be further investigated, because such mutations suggest the possibility of carcinogenesis. Stevioside also caused DNA breakage in blood, spleen, liver, and brain cells in rats (Nunes et al., 2007). The mutagenicity of this compound requires further, careful investigation.

Steviol was found positive in an umu test, mutagenic in a forward-mutation assay, and caused chromosome aberrations and gene mutations in mammalian cells (Matsui et al., 1996a) and plasmid mutagenesis (Matsui et al., 1989). Pezzuto et al. (1985) found that steviol is both toxic and mutagenic in the TM677 assay using S9 extract. Matsui’s studies were all conducted with S9. These results indicate that steviol has a mutagenic metabolite that has yet to be identified. These finding are very important because rebaudioside A is hydrolyzed into steviol before it is absorbed by the GI tract. Before rebaudioside A can be generally regarded as safe, the mutagenic steviol intermediate needs to be identified and further studied. Overall, because of the warning flags raised by several studies, it is critical that further genotoxicity testing be conducted to clarify the potential risks.

further studies on rebaudioside A, including a study on mice, are needed for several reasons:

• The rat is an imperfect model for evaluating steviol glycoside toxicity and carcinogenicity risks in humans because of the differences in metabolism in the two species.

• Several genotoxicity studies that found that stevioside and steviol cause mutations, chromosomal damage, and DNA breakage indicate the need for greater reassurance of noncarcinogenicity.

• The differences in pharmacokinetics between rebaudioside A and stevioside indicate the need to test rebaudioside A itself in two rodent species.

• Based on a maximum estimated intake level of steviol glycosides of 1.7 mg/kg bw/day (steviol equivalent), steviol glycosides should be considered a concern level III chemical, for which the FDA recommends carcinogenicity studies in two rodent species (usually mice and rats) (FDA Redbook, 2000).

The value of testing chemicals in two species is indicated by the fact that bioassays of chemicals with a variety of structures that did not find carcinogenicity in rats did find carcinogenicity in mice.

In sum, a lifetime carcinogenicity study in mice of rebaudioside A must be conducted before that substance (or other steviol glycosides) can be accepted as a GRAS ingredient that likely would be consumed by tens of millions of people.

In conclusion, the FDA should ensure that the genetic toxicity studies that produced either positive or conflicting results be repeated. Studies that look at potential DNA adducts related to the potential reactive metabolites (C-13 carbonium ion or the epoxide) of steviol would be a strong addition to the genotoxicity data. Finally, the FDA should require carcinogenicity4 and toxicology studies in rats and in mice before accepting rebaudioside A as a GRAS substance or approving it as a food additive. Ideally, all those studies would be conducted by an independent party, such as the National Toxicology Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

UCLA Toxicology report

[v408w]

O_G is

[butterface]

O_G is (robot pic)

He's like Wimbledon in TCL, but with useless Jerry Fletcher-like paranoid hyperbole.

[O_G]

He's like Wimbledon in TCL, but with useless Jerry Fletcher-like paranoid hyperbole.

Speaking of useless...

If you don't have anything more to do with your time than come into my topics to toss lame potshots I suggest recalibration.