That's why that dumbass article about how locavores are preventing agricultural development was such nonsense. I'm not buying local food because it's going to save the world, though maybe it will. I'm buying it because it's better and it goes from the farmer's hands to mine or a butcher I trust. Farmers invite me to see their farms and I've even helped "process" chickens several times.It's good that you "trust" these people, but there's no reason to think that stuff from local farms will be "cleaner" then stuff you get from a big industrial operation. A lot of this stuff just seems like paranoia to me.
I guess that's our fundamental difference. I subscribe to the precautionary principle. News reports like this one are nothing new, and they are certainly evidence of potential risk of harm.What's the difference on an individual level between the precautionary principle and paranoia? There's obviously some point at which it crosses the line.
-From the U.N. environment programme(pdf); Ritter L; Solomon KR, Forget J, Stemeroff M, O'Leary C..
The developing fetus and neonate are particularly vulnerable to POPs exposure due to transplacental and lactational transfer of maternal burdens at critical periods of development. It has also been reported that residents of the Canadian Arctic, and who exist at the highest trophic level of the Arctic aquatic food chain, have PCB intake levels in excess of the acceptable daily intake, and that may place this population at special risk for reproductive and developmental effects. In another report, children in the northern Quebec region of Canada who have had significant exposure to PCBs, dioxins and furans through breast milk also had a higher incidence of middle ear infections than children who had been bottle fed. Most authors, however, conclude that the benefits of breast feeding outweighs the risks.
Studies of carcinogenesis associated with occupational exposure to 2.3.7.8-TCDD also seem to
indicate that extremely high-level exposures of human populations do elevate overall cancer
incidence. Laboratory studies provide convincing supporting evidence that selected
organochlorine chemicals (dioxins and furans) may have carcinogenic effects and act as strong
tumour promoters.
More recently, literature has been accumulating in which some researchers have suggested a
possible relationship between exposure to some POPs and human disease and reproductive
dysfunction. Researchers have suggested that the increasing incidence of reproductive
abnormalities in the human male may be related to increased estrogen (or estrogenic type)
compound exposure in vitro, and further suggest that a single maternal exposure during
pregnancy of minute amounts of TCDD may increase the frequency of cryptorchidism in male
offspring, with no apparent sign of intoxication in the mother. Associations have been made
between human exposure to certain chlorinated organic contaminants and cancers in human
populations. Preliminary evidence suggests a possible association between breast cancer and
elevated concentrations of DDE. While the role of phytoestrogens and alterations in lifestyle
cannot be dismissed as important risk factors in the dramatic increase in estrogen dependent
breast cancer incidence, correlative evidence suggesting a role for POPs continues to mount. This
latter theory has been supported in a report that noted that levels of DDE and PCBs were higher
for breast cancer case patients than for control subjects, noting that statistical significance was
achieved only for DDE. While a causal relationship between organochlorine exposure and
malignant breast disease remains far from proven, the possibility thatchronic low level exposure,
when coupled with the known bioaccumulative properties of POPs, may even contribute in some
small way to overall breast cancer risk has extraordinary implications for the reduction and
prevention of this very important disease.
They also reported that the rats on HFCS 24 hrs/day did not gain a statistically significant amount of weight when compared to the rats on sucrose or chow only. Additionally, no differences in blood-glucose levels were observed. Another study was conducted for 6-7 months, and fat pads were removed from the rats and weighed. Fat pads for rats on HFCS 12 hrs/day weighed significantly more than rats on chow only, but were not different from rats on sucrose. Fat pads for rats on HFCS 24 hrs/day did not have a statistically different weight than rats on chow only.So HFCS won't make you fat if eat it 24 hours a day, continuously. But it will make you fat if you eat it 12 hours a day, continuously, compared to eating table sugar 12 hours a day, continuously. If you're a rat. On the other hand:
A 2008 study in humans analyzed the circulating levels of glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and triacylglycerol during a 24 hour period after consuming drinks containing HFCS or sucrose. The researchers concluded that the consumption of HFCS or sucrose did not yield differing metabolic effects.[49]There are other studies that compare fructose consumption to non-fructose consumption, but the first study was the only one that compared it to sucrose (cane sugar). Sugar is bad for you, whether it's sucrose or fructose. But making HFCS out to be demon juice gets a little old.
The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas.Why not use the same levels? If you look at the study mentioned on wikipedia, rats fed with fructose 24/7 gained less weight then rats fed fructose 12h/day.
The second experiment -- the first long-term study of the effects of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on obesity in lab animals -- monitored weight gain, body fat and triglyceride levels in rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup over a period of six months. Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showedThe second experiment seems to ignore sucrose. I'm sure the results would be pretty similar. Anyway, I don't think people should be gulping down gobs of sugary drinks every day. Certainly people do that, and it's a really bad idea. But the idea that HCFS is some kind of poison, that there are small amounts of it in random food products, and it will kill you is way over the top. Replacing HCFS with sucrose won't make food any safer.
I mean, this right here? This is a bloody hunk of cow muscle. This is, by any objective standard, entirely gross, and far more disgusting than ingesting things which, under other circumstances, might be proscribed you by a physician.Wait, You seem to have a reversed view to what I am seeing... the "flesh of another life-form" may have some ick factor for some people... but this is inconsequential, and really, entirely subjective, entirely 'personal', and completely irrelevant; Human ancestors have evolved with EATING at least some MEAT (some with pure meat diets, some with almost none, others a balance between sources), so the "meat" isn't a problem on its own, only when combined with other bad practices, but seriously, how can chemicals not be considered some form of foreign substance... which our bodies have almost no experience with (evolutionarily) breaking down, dealing with, expelling or making use of.
« Older Gabe and Tycho from Penny Arcade discuss the impac... | How could this happen? A Repor... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:30 AM on May 1, 2010 [2 favorites]