Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
of course it isn't, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a biological niche that must be filled.Top Gun wrote:The "appeal to nature" trick always gets a good laugh out of me. I mean, anthrax is a naturally-occurring bacterium present in the soil in many places, so it must be good for us!
well, there is garbage science if I've ever seen it, TC. First off, no scientific study, merely anecdotes, the source for which is clearly biased against GMO products. Second, no proof beyond his word of even THIS event.tunnelcat wrote:Slick, what do you think of this one? Apparently, cows and pigs won't eat GMO's, so do they innately understand something about the stuff we don't?
http://rense.com/general92/avoid.htm
has nothing to do with GMOs. Hell, it does speak to the crap some people put into foodstuffs, and why I read the labels. Some of that crap, colorings notably, scare the bejeepers out of me, given my education and experience. It's one thing, however, to put potential mutagens in food, another to shun a perfectly edible bean or seed crop because someone yells GMO loud enough.Then we have this nice chemical being used in commercial and fast food breads called azodicarbonamide. The same stuff that's used to make foamy plastics like urethane exercise mats and shoe soles. The European Union bans it for human consumption. They also tightly regulate GMO's. I think American companies are trying to poison all of us, and make a profit doing so.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/06/health/su ... index.html
what the hell is the 'wrong one'? There are no different proteins in GMO soybeans, for instance, that have been isolated, than those that occur in non-GMO beans. NONE. And, once in the gut, proteins become amino acids rather quickly, so no real danger anyway. It's the aromatics and other mutagenic amine types that you have to be afraid of, and those get dumped into food all the time(see reply to TC)flip wrote:Maybe their going by the Georgia Guidestones! Lol, who knows. I know some people think they have Adonis blood in them and are actually in the position to make it happen. You already know my thoughts on GMO foods. I'm all for scientific experimentation in a lab, but this has way to much potential for widespread damage. Sure, eventually it breaks down into sugars........etc, but the manner and process in which it breaks down is also very important. Wrong combination at the wrong time and you just pulled the trigger. Proteins are a fundamental building block of nature, get the wrong one and your in trouble.
Obviously a slim to none chance, but still a chance and I'm also not willing to accept just one person's assessment either.A:Expert Answer
By: Dr. Nicholas Storer, Global Leader for Scientific Affairs, Biotechnology Regulatory and Government Affairs Group, Dow AgroSciences on Tuesday, 10/08/2013 1:26 pm
If by “rogue proteins” you are referring to proteins that could be incidentally produced as a result of new cryptic reading frames, my co-authors and I discuss this in a publication (Herman et al., 2011). In brief, proteins could theoretically be produced by “hidden” or “cryptic” DNA sequences. In the case of GM crops, such sequences would be generated at random. The chances of assembling a gene that actually expresses a protein by random is very low, the chances of this protein being functional is miniscule, and the chances of it being a safety concern are astronomically small. Because far fewer random changes occur during the insertion of a GM trait compared with traditional breeding processes, the chances of producing a rogue protein during the development of a GM crop are orders of magnitude lower than the chances of producing a rogue protein during traditional breeding. Our experience with traditional breeding tells us that this is a very, very remote possibility. Even so, and unlike traditionally bred varieties, molecular characterization of transgenic events allow us to say with great confidence that rogue proteins are not produced by the DNA within or adjacent to the GM trait insertion.
One such danger that has actually not been spoken about has been revealed in a recent report by a safety watchdog group known as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Another Dirty Secret of Monsanto In the EFSA report, which can be read online, you can find (within the scientific wording) that researchers discovered a previously unknown viral gene that is known as ‘Gene VI’. What’s concerning is that not only is the rogue gene found in the most prominent GMO crops and about 63% of GMO traits approved for use (54 out of 86 to be precise), but it can actually disrupt the very biological functions within living organisms. Popular GMO crops such as Roundup-Ready soybeans, NK603, and MON810 corn were found to contain the gene that induces physical mutations. NK603 maize, of course, was also recently linked to the development of mass tumors in rats. According to Independent Science News, Gene VI also inhibits RNA silencing. As you may know, RNA silencing has been pinpointed as vital for the proper functioning of gene expression when it comes to RNA. Perhaps more topically, it is a defense mechanism against viruses in plants and animals alike. On the contrary, many viruses have developed genes that disable this protective process. Independent Science News reports that the Gene VI is one such gene. - See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/revealed- ... qeMoj.dpuf
Next time read the article. And the links.tunnelcat wrote:Then we have this nice chemical being used in commercial and fast food breads called azodicarbonamide.
When you mix C2H4O2N4 with food, you get food. When you mix C2H4O2N4 with chemicals to make rubber, you get rubber. By itself it is dangerous in high quantities. Then again, so are most things. Here is another popular bread ingredient you have been eating your whole life: Calcium sulfate. Again, the chemicals alone in high quantities are certainly dangerous. So is salt and sugar.news.mcdonalds.com wrote: The truth is a small amount of Azodicarbonamide, a common flour-bleaching ingredient, is used in our McRib bun. This is a common food additive and is used in many items on your grocer’s shelves, including many hot dog buns and other bread products that you probably already purchase. It is regulated under the FDA and is considered safe. It is not a yoga mat, plastic or rubber.
A variation of Azodicarbonamide has commercial uses and is used in the production of some foamed plastics, like exercise mats. But this shouldn’t be confused with the food-grade variation of this ingredient.
Well then, why doesn't someone perform a viable study to see if this is true instead of just blasting off GMO opponents as uninformed and crazy? I think the question needs answering. Typical of most people, even doctors and scientists, we charge into something full bore because we think it has some great and wonderful benefit, then years later, we wonder why we didn't ignore the warning signs when we finally had problems.callmeslick wrote:well, there is garbage science if I've ever seen it, TC. First off, no scientific study, merely anecdotes, the source for which is clearly biased against GMO products. Second, no proof beyond his word of even THIS event.tunnelcat wrote:Slick, what do you think of this one? Apparently, cows and pigs won't eat GMO's, so do they innately understand something about the stuff we don't?
http://rense.com/general92/avoid.htm
I realize that. I just posted it alongside the GMO topic because it's one more human additive or modification relevant to food safety. Yes, I realize that colorants and dyes are a big nasty. I can't even touch M&M's anymore. I'm guessing it's the dyes.callmeslick wrote:has nothing to do with GMOs. Hell, it does speak to the crap some people put into foodstuffs, and why I read the labels. Some of that crap, colorings notably, scare the bejeepers out of me, given my education and experience. It's one thing, however, to put potential mutagens in food, another to shun a perfectly edible bean or seed crop because someone yells GMO loud enough.tunnelcat wrote:Then we have this nice chemical being used in commercial and fast food breads called azodicarbonamide. The same stuff that's used to make foamy plastics like urethane exercise mats and shoe soles. The European Union bans it for human consumption. They also tightly regulate GMO's. I think American companies are trying to poison all of us, and make a profit doing so.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/06/health/su ... index.html
Are you so sure of that? The chemical is man-made. It's not found in food naturally and it adds no benefit nutritionally to the food. It's only use is to make the texture of bread fluffier and spongier for stupid consumers. I consider it just another chemical adulterant. Kind of like those trans fatty acids, that have turned out to be a very-nasty-for-us food stabilizer.vision wrote:When you mix C2H4O2N4 with food, you get food. When you mix C2H4O2N4 with chemicals to make rubber, you get rubber. By itself it is dangerous in high quantities. Then again, so are most things. Here is another popular bread ingredient you have been eating your whole life: Calcium sulfate. Again, the chemicals alone in high quantities are certainly dangerous. So is salt and sugar.
vision, I don't know how old you are, but as I've aged, my system has had more and more problems tolerating quite a bit of the processed food we get in the grocery stores. It's almost impossible to get around the stuff too, so I have to hunt for more organic and plain foodstuffs.One of the breakdown products, derived from the original substance, is called urethane, a recognized carcinogen, the organization says. Using azodicarbonamide at maximum allowable levels results in higher levels of urethane in bread "that pose a small risk to humans," CSPI said.
Another breakdown product is semicarbazide, which poses "a negligible risk to humans" but was found to cause cancers of the lung and blood vessels in mice, CSPI said.
No I get it. I have developed a lot more sensitivity too, but it's mostly along the lines of "can't tolerate much caffeine or alcohol, can't eat spicy foods like I used to" and most of what I do eat is seriously bland. However, I have a harder time digesting things that are high in sugar, sodium, and fat than any processed food with trace amounts of boogeyman chemicals. But personal experiences aside, we don't see azodicarbonamide creating the problems sugar does. If any of us should be worried about additives it should be how much sugar is pumped into everything. We can definitely see diabetes on the rise. Azodicarbonamide related cancers? That is very unclear. So this is more of a perspective thing. I don't care for scare tactics, like associating Subway sandwiches with yoga mats. That's just an ignorant statement designed to move ignorant people toward an ideology.tunnelcat wrote:vision, I don't know how old you are, but as I've aged, my system has had more and more problems tolerating quite a bit of the processed food we get in the grocery stores.
well, if it weren't for genetic modification of other organisms, you wouldn't have many vaccines available.tunnelcat wrote:By the way, the one area of biology that has had one of the greatest successes and benefits to mankind is vaccinations. I'm not one of those nutcases that thinks vaccines are bad for you.
Yeah, I know what you mean. The old body can't take all these chemicals anymore. I can't tolerate soy products or alcohol anymore, but fortunately, caffeine is not a problem. As for bread, all it should contain is wheat, water, a small amount of fat, some salt and sugar and the yeast to make it rise. Anything else is an adulterant. Just my 2 cents.vision wrote:No I get it. I have developed a lot more sensitivity too, but it's mostly along the lines of "can't tolerate much caffeine or alcohol, can't eat spicy foods like I used to" and most of what I do eat is seriously bland. However, I have a harder time digesting things that are high in sugar, sodium, and fat than any processed food with trace amounts of boogeyman chemicals. But personal experiences aside, we don't see azodicarbonamide creating the problems sugar does. If any of us should be worried about additives it should be how much sugar is pumped into everything. We can definitely see diabetes on the rise. Azodicarbonamide related cancers? That is very unclear. So this is more of a perspective thing. I don't care for scare tactics, like associating Subway sandwiches with yoga mats. That's just an ignorant statement designed to move ignorant people toward an ideology.
Don't get me wrong. I prefer my food without pesticides and crazy chemicals. But I also don't have hangups about man tampering with food. After all, man makes bread. There are no bread trees. Cooking is all about chemistry, mixing things together and heating them up -- it changes their properties. And not everything you eat from nature is nutritious.
Vaccines didn't use to be genetically modified, did they? I thought that they where weakened or killed strains of the cooties we were trying to protect ourselves against?callmeslick wrote:well, if it weren't for genetic modification of other organisms, you wouldn't have many vaccines available.
Wait don't you mean "some sodium chloride and sucrose and the Saccharomyces cerevisiae to make it rise?" Chemical names are much scarier than common names, and this is part of the fuel that drives the organic movement. Also, the whole white sugar/HFCS debate is a little complicated. I don't think making a distinction between them is as important as avoiding both whenever you can.tunnelcat wrote:As for bread, all it should contain is wheat, water, a small amount of fat, some salt and sugar and the yeast to make it rise.
Krom wrote:Dihydrogen monoxide:
* is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
* may cause severe burns.
* is fatal if inhaled.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of Styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, product remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
amphetamines were cheap in the day......flip wrote:Another thing I'd like to point out is obesity. Go back and find videos of people in the 60's and 70's. You will find maybe 1 large person out of 200, maybe.
Salt comes from the ocean or mineral deposits. Sucrose comes from sugar beets or sugar cane and yeast is a naturally living microrganism that consumes that sugar and gives off CO2 as a byproduct. I see no complicated man-made organic carbon-based chemicals in there, chemicals most likely derived from petroleum products I'm guessing. If I'm wrong, please correct me.vision wrote:Wait don't you mean "some sodium chloride and sucrose and the Saccharomyces cerevisiae to make it rise?" Chemical names are much scarier than common names, and this is part of the fuel that drives the organic movement. Also, the whole white sugar/HFCS debate is a little complicated. I don't think making a distinction between them is as important as avoiding both whenever you can.tunnelcat wrote:As for bread, all it should contain is wheat, water, a small amount of fat, some salt and sugar and the yeast to make it rise.
Carbon is the 4th most abundant element in the universe (by mass). It is the 15th most abundant element of the Earth's crust (where we live). Almost everything you eat has carbon in it, especially if it was alive at one time. Carbon-based food molecules necessarily need to be complicated because we don't eat simple carbons like coal. In fact, the carbon-based additives in food are more simple in structure than the macromolecules in foodstuffs. Fats, carbohydrates, and proteins all contain carbon. When we look for life on other planets we look for carbon. Unfortunately, we have been conditioned over the years to associate carbon with petroleum and greenhouse gases, which are bad. But we are made of carbon ourselves and need it to survive. Azodicarbonamide is C2H4O2N4*, which happen to be some of the most abundant elements on the planet. Now, if there were Lanthanides in there I would be a bit worried...tunnelcat wrote:I see no complicated man-made organic carbon-based chemicals in there, chemicals most likely derived from petroleum products I'm guessing. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
I took a course in organic chemistry in college. My husband's father and grandfather were organic chemists. His grandfather worked at DuPont and helped with the creation of Nylon. A carbon compound not fit for human consumption I might add.vision wrote:Carbon is the 4th most abundant element in the universe (by mass). It is the 15th most abundant element of the Earth's crust (where we live). Almost everything you eat has carbon in it, especially if it was alive at one time. Carbon-based food molecules necessarily need to be complicated because we don't eat simple carbons like coal. In fact, the carbon-based additives in food are more simple in structure than the macromolecules in foodstuffs. Fats, carbohydrates, and proteins all contain carbon. When we look for life on other planets we look for carbon. Unfortunately, we have been conditioned over the years to associate carbon with petroleum and greenhouse gases, which are bad. But we are made of carbon ourselves and need it to survive. Azodicarbonamide is C2H4O2N4*, which happen to be some of the most abundant elements on the planet. Now, if there were Lanthanides in there I would be a bit worried...tunnelcat wrote:I see no complicated man-made organic carbon-based chemicals in there, chemicals most likely derived from petroleum products I'm guessing. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
His father first worked for Ethyl Corp as an engineer for their refinery in Louisiana, overseeing petroleum production. So, having taken a class and having been around some of these these organic chemists, I'm quite familiar with carbon structures. Now what's funny about my father-in-law's degree is that specific degree allowed him to change jobs and industries without any trouble. So later on in his life, when he had to move, he was hired by a food company, General Mills, and oversaw the development of the new industry cash cow, soybean-based foods. He called the soybean a "miracle bean that could be used to mimic other foods". One of their first fake soybean-based foods, called Baco-Bits, promptly gave me indigestion. Not a good food I'd ever consume again IMHO. Now maybe there is an easy switch between organic chemistry in petroleum production and in food production, but somehow, I don't think we can fool mother nature just by manipulating carbon chains to make "food" or "food additives". Something will always be lost in translation because we don't know it all.Actually, isn't the "carbon char" we get on barbecued meat a carcinogen?vision wrote:* Actually, this simple structure is similar to some coals, but cooking is a process and what goes in is not what comes out. There is context to consider. You probably ingest more simple carbon from grilling on a barbecue than eating one of those scary Subway sandwiches.
Just curious, do you have the same reservations about baking soda?tunnelcat wrote:One of their first fake soybean-based foods, called Baco-Bits, promptly gave me indigestion. Not a good food I'd ever consume again IMHO. Now maybe there is an easy switch between organic chemistry in petroleum production and in food production, but somehow, I don't think we can fool mother nature just by manipulating carbon chains to make "food" or "food additives". Something will always be lost in translation because we don't know it all.
This is awful simplistic. First, the connection between ingesting cholesterol and your body's ability to create and maintain it are sketchy. There is evidence that removing cholesterol from your diet makes no difference on your cholesterol levels. There is also evidence to say the opposite. The jury is still out on this one. Also, Alzheimer's disease has unclear origins as well. Recent studies have found a connection between Alzheimer's and insulin, thus causing some medical experts to label Alzheimer's as "type 3 diabetes."flip wrote:Also has an interesting insight concerning Alzheimers. Said that since our brains are about 70% cholesterol, that to severely limit it in your diet also limits the ability of the brain to repair itself.
, although I don't claim to know one way or the other concerning this. Like I said, it has the spark of truth because on an atomic level, missing ingredients means missing or deficient parts. Otherwise I don't care. I have no confidence in doctor's anyways.
Baking soda is a naturally mined product, just like salt, or is produced from things we normally consume, except for the ammonia, which is no longer present after the reaction anyway. I only have reservations if it contains heavy metals or poisons. Besides, it's been consumed for thousands of years, so it's got a track record of safety for consumption in food. You can't say the same for some of these designer carbon compounds we're creating from petroleum bases, which are now being used in products for animal and human consumption.vision wrote:Just curious, do you have the same reservations about baking soda?tunnelcat wrote:One of their first fake soybean-based foods, called Baco-Bits, promptly gave me indigestion. Not a good food I'd ever consume again IMHO. Now maybe there is an easy switch between organic chemistry in petroleum production and in food production, but somehow, I don't think we can fool mother nature just by manipulating carbon chains to make "food" or "food additives". Something will always be lost in translation because we don't know it all.
I used to be able to eat straight dried soybeans and tofu. I sure can't anymore. I don't know if I should blame age, or GMO's. No proof of causality from either reason. However, I never was able to tolerate Baco-Bits. That stuff causes me indigestion right after consuming it. Even though they taste like bacon, they don't burp up as bacon.vision wrote:It's too bad your body doesn't like soybeans. They are like the flagship food of the whole natural/organic movement. Soy products do tend to aggravate my digestive system in high doses, but I've had some soy chili that is out of this world.
The point I was trying to make was this:Your Brain Needs Cholesterol
Cholesterol is vitally important for brain function. While your brain represents about 2-3% of your total body weight, 25% of the cholesterol in your body is found in your brain, where it plays important roles in such things as membrane function, acts as an antioxidant, and serves as the raw material from which we are able to make things like progesterone, estrogen, cortisol, testosterone and even vitamin D.
In fact, in a recent study available on the NIH Public Access site, researchers showed that in the elderly, the best memory function was observed in those with the highest levels of cholesterol. Low cholesterol is associated with an increased risk for depression and even death.
This understanding of the important role of cholesterol in brain function raises concern as we now see changes in recommendations for prescribing statin medication. Some estimates indicate that moving forward, the number of individuals taking statins to lower cholesterol in America may actually double! This presents a worrisome proposition for brain health.
