It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There is no evidence of your food based conspiracies

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I see some of the most ignorant things posted here regarding high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, fluoride, etc... There is no evidence for the accusations that are being thrown around. By evidence I mean peer-reviewed scientific studies that show conclusive evidence that these substances are harmful.

Snippets from an article from the Mayo Clinic sums up what is known about HFCS:


"Some nutrition experts blame increased consumption of high-fructose corn syrup for the growing obesity problem. "



"One theory is that ... but this hasn't been proved."



"[A]nimal studies have shown ... [h]owever, the evidence is not as clear in human studies."



"Despite the lack of clarity in research ... be cautious about foods containing high-fructose corn syrup."


How can anyone with any remote sense of intellectual honesty consider the above evidence that HFCS is harmful to humans?

Then there are websites like this one:


"[HFCS] is linked to obesity, diabetes, and yes, even cirrhosis of the liver."


What kind of crap is that? On the surface it sounds oh so scary until you consider that an over consumption of HFCS occurs when you spend all day eating ding-dongs, ho-hos, and drinking soda floats and having a cheeseburger for dessert. That is what leads to obesity, which leads to an increased chance in diabetes and Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis which is a form of cirrhosis that is caused by an increase of fat deposits in the liver, a side effect of obesity.

Then there is this site which justifies their reasoning that HFCS is bad with this Science Daily article, which merely explains that "Eating too much fructose causes uric acid levels to spike, which can block the ability of insulin to regulate how body cells use and store sugar and other nutrients for energy, leading to obesity, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes.

I see no evidence that HFCS is harmful. All I see is a bunch of irresponsible, fearful conspiracy theorists and ignorant unscientific laymen in cahoots with each other on the internet, using fear and blame shifting to promote a campaign of absolute nonsense.

The fallacies of the food based conspiracies are that they declare a substance to be "toxic" or "threatening" without regards to dosage, intake, and frequency of consumption.

An alcoholic can die if they drink too much alcohol.
An addict can die if they pop too many pills.
A Junkie can die if he sniffs to much heroin.
etc...
etc...
etc...

Where and why do you ignore the fact that a "sugar junkie" can die if they eat too much sweets, become obese, and develop complications that can lead to death?

Why does fluoride become an absolute, in any form, in any dose, toxic substance that is going to kill you? Fluoride is a drug, and with any drug it is harmful at high doses.

A scientific study on aspartame concludes:



... there is no evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic ... Case-control studies showed an elevated relative risk of 1.3 for heavy artificial sweetener use (no specific substances specified) of >1.7 g/day. For new generation sweeteners, it is too early to establish any epidemiological evidence about possible carcinogenic risks. As many artificial sweeteners are combined in today's products, the carcinogenic risk of a single substance is difficult to assess. However, according to the current literature, the possible risk of artificial sweeteners to induce cancer seems to be negligible.


I'll admit that the rise of brain cancer shortly after Aspartame was introduced on the market is a compelling correlation; however it is certainly no basis for truth. Even so, I personally believe that aspartame probably is harmful and tend to stay away from it.

Still, the products are clearly marked with their ingredients and nobody is forcing anyone to drink products containing aspartame anymore than they are forcing you to eat products high in fat, or products that you are allergic to. It isn't a question of Aspartame being bad for us because there are many natural ingredients that are bad for us. All food that we eat can kill us by simply having us choke to death.

It's a question of being informed, and even in this world the public is informed about the potential dangers of aspartame, fluoride, and HFCS. It's up to you you to make the choice of what you put in your body, and it doesn't hurt to tell people that certain additives might be harmful if overconsumed.

It becomes intellectually dishonest, pretentious, arrogant, self-serving, and ignorant to suggest that these substances are absolutely toxic, to jump on the band-wagon, and to claim that they are inherently disease causing when there is not yet any conclusive proof. It's even worse to obfuscate the facts, to confuse overconsumption with moderation, and use made up and twisted "facts" as your basis and reason for why they are toxic.

Grow up, ATS.




posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Well one reason why it says "this isn't conclusive for humans" is because you can't harm someones health, which is what you'd need to do to prove it in a scientific study. You can do all you want to a lab rat though.

I did a paper on fluoride in the drinking water for a college paper and used all peer reviewed studies. I don't have it on this computer, otherwise I'd post it. But they've done studies showing that in fluoridated areas vs. unfluoridated areas, boys are at a greater risk for osteosarcomas. Elderly women that have been drinking fluoridated water their whole life have an increased risk for bone fracture. Further, ingestion of fluoride has no effect on dental carries. It affects the brain, bones, and the rest is eliminated through waste. Fluoride pollution has also been shown to reduce IQ in children in China.

"Why does fluoride become an absolute, in any form, in any dose, toxic substance that is going to kill you? Fluoride is a drug, and with any drug it is harmful at high doses."

One thing because it accumulates in your body and never leaves. I've heard half the fluoride you consume goes to your bones, the rest goes to the waste. That's why old women are at an increased risk for bone fracture, because they've accumulated over a lifetime a large amount of fluoride.

Most people aren't educated about the dangers of some of these substances, and it's designed that way. The minority are those that say these are dangerous so people aren't going to listen to them.

There's always a cutting edge, and those "in the know" aren't always a part of it...
video.google.com...

[edit on 7-9-2008 by ghaleon12]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Well, looks like you've solved the mystery! Why don't you go drink a diet coke to celebrate! And after that, go take a nice hot shower and be sure to inhale deeply.

The subject of poisonous substances in our food and drinking water is so big that I get tired just thinking about it. Just to cover the basic things you might want to know, aspartame turns into formaldehyde in your body after consumed.
The main problem with fluoride is that people never differentiate between the types. All types of fluoride are neurotoxic. The only potential benefits of fluoride are from calcium fluoride, and even then you would not consume it because it accumulates in your body.
But we don't even get calcium fluoride. We get sodium fluoride and stannous fluoride added to our water. Sodium fluoride was used as rat poison in the past.
The fluoride that is added to our water is literal toxic waste from the aluminum and phosphate fertilizer industry.

If you care about your health you will look into this.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Hey, I wanted to give you a new one since this is a food topic. This is what really scares the hell out of me. Ever hear of GURT, terminator seeds or suicide seeds?

If not, find out... if / when this crap cross pollinates we "could" be really screwed.

"GURT is a genetically engineered technique whereby farmers would be forced to turn to their seed supplier each harvest to get new seeds. The seeds would only produce one harvest. After that the seeds from that harvest would commit ‘suicide’ and be unusable. There has been much hue and cry, correctly so, that this process, patented ‘suicide’ seeds, officially termed GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies), is a threat to poor farmers in developing countries like India or Brazil, who traditionally save their own seeds for the next planting. In fact, GURTs, more popularly referred to as Terminator seeds for the brutal manner in which they kill off plant reproduction possibilities, is a threat to the food security as well of North America, Western Europe, Japan and anywhere Monsanto and its elite cartel of GMO agribusiness partners enters a market.” Source: www.globalresearch.ca...

en.wikipedia.org...

There are conceptually two types of GURT.

1. v-GURT.
This type of GURT produces sterile seeds meaning that a farmer that had purchased seeds containing v-GURT technology could not save the seed from this crop for future planting. This would not have an immediate impact on the large number of farmers who use hybrid seeds, as they do not produce their own planting seeds, & instead buy specialized hybrid seeds from seed production companies. The technology is restricted at the plant variety level - hence the term v-GURT. Manufacturers of genetically enhanced crops would use this technology to protect their products from unauthorised use.
2. t-GURT.
A second type of GURT modifies a crop in such a way that the genetic enhancement engineered into the crop does not function until the crop plant is treated with a chemical that is sold by the biotechnology company. Farmers can save seeds for use each year. However, they do not get to use the enhanced trait in the crop unless they purchase the activator compound. The technology is restricted at the trait level - hence the term t-GURT.


In other words.. buy our stuff or starve. And you know some sick bastard would love this technology to cross pollinate with ALL food crops and then you can only grow food with that "special" chemical or new seeds controlled by these corporations or governments.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


I believe that you are correct in saying we as individuals are responsible for being responsible for what we consume. In the links you provided, you are also correct in that there are many "unkowns", and yes, many people go way overboard in all facets of life, including their conspiracies. The interesting thing to me is that the simple saturation of these additives, preservatives, triglicerides, etc is only growing. Studies have shown that since the FDA forced companies to list health related info (calories/trans fat etc), there has only been an increase in sales for products with poor nutritional value. Why?

ColoradoJens



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


Nice. Thanks for adding that. I'm aware of those practices, especially in India. It is capitalism at its finest, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by logician magician
 


I believe that you are correct in saying we as individuals are responsible for being responsible for what we consume. In the links you provided, you are also correct in that there are many "unkowns", and yes, many people go way overboard in all facets of life, including their conspiracies. The interesting thing to me is that the simple saturation of these additives, preservatives, triglicerides, etc is only growing. Studies have shown that since the FDA forced companies to list health related info (calories/trans fat etc), there has only been an increase in sales for products with poor nutritional value. Why?

ColoradoJens


Thank you. I'm happy to hear that you have a well balanced head on your shoulders
.

I'm not aware of those studies, but I can believe it. I'm sure it is a combination of price and marketing. It's much cheaper to sweeten foods with HFCS for one, and for two the marketing centered around these foods is what is being pushed most upon the consumer. The consumer demands a "diet" soda, and the companies supply it! The whole diet soda market is completely dependent on low calorie artificial sweeteners such as splenda and aspartame.

Health food is becoming more and more expensive as the "mainstream" industry relies more and more on cheaper, artificial additives. Pay attention to commercials that twist the truth and try to make cheaper foods look nutritious. One that comes to mind is a brand of "protein" granola bars, with the "nutritious" marketing campaign to go along with it.

I don't think that is a conspiracy though. I think it's business, and I think the consumer is suffering because of it. I certainly don't think it's right, but again, to blame it on a conspiracy is to close your eyes to the workings of the world.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
You talk about doses, but in America doesn't the majority of people eat to much? Well in any industrialized country we eat to much. Did you know that diverticulitis (which is a gastric disease caused by not eating enough fiber) is highly common in places like the US? I am a nutritionist and see this crap all most every day. The food we eat effects are bodies greatly and to be completely honest, if your fat than you've eaten to much and I can assure you that if you do not have major health issues now, you will in the near future. I am so tired of seeing ( and hearing about) overweight and morbidly obese people who are sitting around wondering why there chest hurts, or why they have diabetes or high blood pressure. Yes, its because of the high fructose and fluoride, and twelve liters of hydrogenated fatty oils diet their on and you don't need and exact amount of how much is to much either. IF you got rolls than its to much.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mateandbucky06
You talk about doses, but in America doesn't the majority of people eat to much? Well in any industrialized country we eat to much. Did you know that diverticulitis (which is a gastric disease caused by not eating enough fiber) is highly common in places like the US? I am a nutritionist and see this crap all most every day. The food we eat effects are bodies greatly and to be completely honest, if your fat than you've eaten to much and I can assure you that if you do not have major health issues now, you will in the near future. I am so tired of seeing ( and hearing about) overweight and morbidly obese people who are sitting around wondering why there chest hurts, or why they have diabetes or high blood pressure. Yes, its because of the high fructose and fluoride, and twelve liters of hydrogenated fatty oils diet their on and you don't need and exact amount of how much is to much either. IF you got rolls than its to much.


I think General Mills makes NutriGrain. The point is that those products are available to us as consumers; however, most of us don't give a crap about eating healthy. Everybody just loves the sugary stuff. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy to make us eat it - it's because WE LIKE IT!

The point of that is that most of us put complete garbage into our body for one reason or another, and then a select view notice that and then scream CONSPIRACY!!!!



Yes, its because of the high fructose and fluoride, and twelve liters of hydrogenated fatty oils diet their on and you don't need and exact amount of how much is to much either. IF you got rolls than its to much.


I wouldn't say it's because of the high fructose and fluoride...

It's because they don't know enough about nutrition or are too poor to not eat the cheap crap that is supplied to us. Part of that is ignorance, and part of that demands a socialized food program...

Saying it's because of the HFCS is akin to saying it's because of the high fat content of a candy bar. Certainly they are both true, but it comes down to something else.

It's because the gluttonous spandex wearing wal-mart cow wants to drive around the store in the motorized scooter, breathing loud and hard while they ask the stockboy to get them 3 boxes of chocolate snack cakes from the top shelf.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12
Well one reason why it says "this isn't conclusive for humans" is because you can't harm someones health, which is what you'd need to do to prove it in a scientific study. You can do all you want to a lab rat though.

[edit on 7-9-2008 by ghaleon12]


Are you sure? People willingly consume HFCS and Aspartame. People willingly brush their teeth with Fluoride.

All it takes is organizing those types of people into a study.

The important question is why isn't it, or hasn't it happened?

The paranoid answer is that it is a cover up.

The simple answer is that the consumer majority doesn't care and the companies who create the product are still making a profit...

When/If we reach the point where the profit begins to go down, and no new sweeteners are to be created to act as red herrings for the previous, then that is when, and only when the producers will fund the studies.

In short, it won't happen because the general consumer doesn't care - by ignorance or otherwise.

.... and we're left with a fringe few who truly believe - with no real evidence - that the stuff is a killer.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


ever hear of diabetes? it's caused by having a diet high in refined sugar. this was discovered by the eskimoes on mars who also discovered that there are basically 3 times of sugar the human body metabolizes: sucrose, lactose, and fructose ... and probable some others oses as well.

But, the eskimoes from mars didn't tell how how to look in a dictionary to find out what the differences are.

that was left to Adelle Davis ... the body best metabolizes fructose, or -- UNPROCESSED SUGARS with the least risks of diabetes.

rather than rely on the U.S.D.A. pyramid of what foods you're supposed to eat each day, why not walk your self into a health food store and ask the pretty clerk behind the counter at the cash register, to explain it to you.

if she can't, then ask the store manager, (s)he will smile, and teach you what you need to know about the differences between your body processing refined sugar and fruit sugar ... if you even care to educate yourself about this subject. your call

I just can't get over how some people are so against the good health of others, they will argue over nothing, just to reinforce the NWO.

is that what a NWO disinfo agent, is?

you see, I'm asking you, because you're arguing against knowlegable people who already have researched good nutrition, and you're simply advocating the NWO position -- in fact, very simply.

you claim to be a nutritionist --- you certainly don't sound like one.

of course, there are those who believe in health foods and organic foods, do you? or, do you think health foods and organic foods are fairy tales,

do you think the NWO is a fairy tale, too?

c'mon now. where do you stand.

Do you support Bush, or not.

You see, usually its the same IQ level that supports Bush that makes fun of people trying to help others eat well.

I get so tired of doing research for folks who are too lazy to go into a health food store and ask the people who will give you the correct answers





[edit on 7-9-2008 by counterterrorist]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 



What is the point of this thread? You make the statement that you feel that there is no evidence that the listed substances are harmful but then you follow with this statement:




I'll admit that the rise of brain cancer shortly after Aspartame was introduced on the market is a compelling correlation; however it is certainly no basis for truth. Even so, I personally believe that aspartame probably is harmful and tend to stay away from it.


Doesn't correlation serve as evidence even if it is not a clear indicator of causation? It seems to me that you are suggesting that people should not discuss what may be toxic substances despite correlation of disease until there is "peer-reviewed scientific studies that show conclusive evidence that these substances are harmful". I hope individuals do not adopt this policy seeing how extremely rare conclusive evidence seems to be.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by counterterrorist
reply to post by logician magician
 




I'll just sum up the last guys post here:




this was discovered by the eskimoes on mars ...

But, the eskimoes from mars didn't tell how how to look in a dictionary to find out what the differences are.

if you even care to educate yourself about this subject. your call

they will argue over nothing, just to reinforce the NWO.

is that what a NWO disinfo agent, is?

you're simply advocating the NWO position -- in fact, very simply.

you claim to be a nutritionist --- you certainly don't sound like one.

do you think the NWO is a fairy tale, too?

Do you support Bush, or not.

You see, usually its the same IQ level that supports Bush that makes fun of people trying to help others eat well.



No, folks - no agenda/disinfo (I claim to be a nutritionist???") there. He's really concentrating on the reality of the subject!


wtf...



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by logician magician

Doesn't correlation serve as evidence ...


NO.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


From Merriam Webster Dictionary:




1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 a: an outward sign : indication


In my opinion correlation would serve as indication even if it is not causation.

BTW here is the definition of indication from the same source.




in·di·cate
Pronunciation: \ˈin-də-ˌkāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·di·cat·ed; in·di·cat·ing
Etymology: Latin indicatus, past participle of indicare, from in- + dicare to proclaim, dedicate — more at diction
Date: 1541
1 a: to point out or point to b: to be a sign, symptom, or index of



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


I am wondering to myself constantly how it is I am affected by marketing. Now that I have little humans to look after, it's much easier for me personally to be vigilant, but I have seen how companies market to them (Fast Food Nation does a great piece about "cradle-to-grave" marketing) and it is intense. "Vitamin C Fruity Lighting McQueens! 100% daily does of vitamin C in every freaking drop!" It is made to make you think there is something redeeming in it when there, unfortunately and slightly by the day to most humans less obviously, is none. I am tired, sorry for the post that almost made sense, and good thread. Any dialogue about the issue is good food. ba dum dum Go Broncos!

ColoradoJens

ColoradoJens



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Well, you knew I would be chiming in, I imagine.

lm, you are very good at taking an individual piece and making excuses for it, suggesting that because it is bad for lab animals that doesn't mean it's bad for humans (despite the same ills showing up in the public at large...), and otherwise being an apologist for the food and drink that is being laid before us.

You are very poor at putting the puzzle together. If you take each piece and connect it with each other piece, the picture that emerges is frightening. It explains why cancer, a relatively rare condition back in even the early 1900's is now rampant. 1 in 3 women are expected to get it; 1 in 2 men. WTF.

If you add to that knowledge the fact that, by law, corporations' number one concern MUST be profits, then you can see that, whether there is a conspiracy or not, moves by Big (fill in the industry) are NEVER done with a human heart. They are NEVER done with concern and compassion. They are ALWAYS motivated by the root of all evil: the love of money.

There are other factors I could mention that might clarify an actual conspiracy, but they are not needed, given the above.

So the fertilizer companies sell their toxic waste, and spend huge amounts on selling their clients, the utility companies and the public at large, on the "benefits" of toxic fluoride compounds, because PROFITS would be lost if they had to properly dispose of these industrial wastes. Seed manufactures create seed that has to be repurchased year after year by crudely bashing genetics, and suing farmers who have been contaminated with their genmod seed. Foods are sweetened with HFCS, because it's cheap.

And on and on.

Meanwhile, our prisons are jam-packed with people who did nothing worse that smoke an honest herb that has been shown to aid in fighting cancer, depression, asthma, pain, nausea, MS, Alzheimer's, glaucoma (and on and on)...because IT CUTS INTO THE PROFITS OF BIG PHARMA (and legalization would cut the profits of the black market, in turn cutting funds for black ops).

I am sure there is no conspiracy against the bulk of the human race, though. No sign of it anywhere.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


Is a docu for you to see if you didnt already.
video.google.com...

is another docu here:
video.google.com...



[edit on 8-9-2008 by kacou]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
One thing that hasn't been mentioned that I think everyone should know about is the Codex Alimentarius. It's the food code, basically it says that nutrients are bad and growth hormones are good. Google video-Codex



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
One thing that hasn't been mentioned that I think everyone should know about is the Codex Alimentarius. It's the food code, basically it says that nutrients are bad and growth hormones are good. Google video-Codex


I was JUST about to post that point. I watched that video a couple of months ago and thought that it had more potential to be a big load of bull. Then I started hearing about using radiation on veggies and fructose being good for you, now I am eating my original thoughts. Its clear that something is going on. Everything that we have learned about nutrition and whats good for you is being reversed. Personally, I feed my 9 month old all organic food and I DO NOT give him fluoridated water. Call me crazy, thats fine.. But everything I give him can not harm him. So, if its true we are safe. If its not, we are healthy.. Win Win IMO



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join