• You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Harming People in Order to Improve Revenue is allright???

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12
FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Disclaimer: by reading the following post you might get upset, or paranoid or aware of you resignation - do NOT blame this on me... umm

Ok - this is a discussion, but maybe a pointless one...

1 - a) look on your household cleaner ingredients listing... do you find "Sodium lauryl/ laureth sulfate"? ( bad? or not? or bad or not? or bad???
b) look on your shampoo ingredients list... do you find the same ingredient?
c) now look on your toothpaste: do you find this ingredient again?

2 - a) look on the contents of an average Australian wine: do you find a preservative with an "E" in front of it? bad? or not? listing overview
b) take a look at some imported wine from Spain, Italy: do you find any there?
c) look at an Australian wine outside Australia: do you find any preservatives added there?

3 - a) look on the package of your crisps: do you find any ingredient that says: Mono Sodium Glutamate (wich in fact isn't a "mate") bad? disputed? or harmless?
b) ask your waiter/ cook at this restaurant, whether or not he uses "MSG" in his dishes.
c) note the sensation you get while eating chips/ potatoe crisps (Kellys, Pringles, etc): can you actually stop before the package is finished? How much effort does it take you to stop before...?
d) note the sensation when you're eating out at your local fast food store/ indian/ chinese/ thai - restaurant: do you still have cravings after eating a delicious meal?

4 - a) look on your average drinking water listing: how high is the sodium content? concerned?
b) note the sensation of dry mouth/ gums some after drinking regular drinking water: is your mouth feeling dry? do you get thirsty again?

Do you think it's legal that food, or other manufacturers use ingredients that can potentially harm you or cause unease, in order to make you use more of their products or get any kind of addiction from it?

Same as of the above applies to add for say ingredients in certaain products like tobacco/ cigarettes, that increase the potential addiction to it.

I'm not talking about the top-speed of Porsches or Ferraris, which can only be enjoyed on a German Autobahn, or in the Northern Territory and potentially lead to kill yourself and others rolleyes

I'm talking about the everydays products and their ingredients which are potentially harmful - yet not proven... rolleyes and studies go back and forth and we'll only know in a 50 years when we're about to die (look at the lawsuits against tobacco companies - and the disclaiming health warning now - pathetic I call it!)

Would it be the government's task to protect it's citizens from industries trying to harm them for the profit?

shrug tell me please shrug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: FireTom


Do you think it's legal that food, or other manufacturers use ingredients that can potentially harm you or cause unease, in order to make you use more of their products or get any kind of addiction from it?



It's definitly legal smile

Personally I'd like to see it addressed, and legislation against some of it considered.

In particular, legislation against marketing for foods containing habit-forming chemicals, being targetted towards children.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:I'm not going to get too deep into this one cuz I can tell it's not going to make me happy but...



The chemicals you posted are not that bad. Even the "bad" links you linked to them don't make it sound that bad.



Consitering I get pages of warnings when I buy SAND or TABLE SALT for my chem classes you really need to be cautious against reacting to obscure warnings. You should always compare whether the chemicals you are damning is better than the alternative.



I mean the fact that you put the SODIUM levels of drinking water is laughable considering how much sodium the average person consumes on a daily basis.



If you really want to avoid some toxic chemicals you should at least start with some of the worst.



Check out DHMO. That stuff is NASTY.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Domino
SILVER Member since May 2004

UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK

Total posts: 757
Posted:It's very, very difficult to prove that something is safe. You can prove something is harmful but when it comes to proving a negative all you can do is prove that no harm has been observed yet. Look at any mobile phone contraversy.



On a side note I find it hard to stop eating a bag of crisps half way through but I think that's probably more psycological. I've paid for an entire bag, I wish to eat an entire bag. When you look at a plate of food you prepare yourself to eat that amount of food...



Anyways. Despite what fearmongers say we're living longer and healthier than we ever have done in history - we are not in an epidemic of people dieing from MSG or flouride posioning. Check out www.spiked-online.com for interesting articles from the other side.

EDITED_BY: Domino (1137163027)


Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: , United Kingdom

Total posts: 15414
Posted:Such as McDonalds, Dairylee and Cheese strings?

umm


Delete

Domino
SILVER Member since May 2004

UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK

Total posts: 757
Posted:I love that DHMO thing...

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:@NYC... yes... no intervention reg. sodium...

I'm only trying to point out that some are adding stuff that is potentially harmful just in order to improve revenue...

Sure we cannot really avoid frequencies from mobile phones (but with a headset) and sure the alternative might be even more harmful, but WHY in the first place?

And why is it still legal to sell (for say cigarettes) despite the proven fact that they are killing people? Ja well, now you could say that guns are for sale too... rolleyes do they have a disclaimer on guns??? umm


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: , United Kingdom

Total posts: 15414
Posted:Written by: FireTom
And why is it still legal to sell (for say cigarettes) despite the proven fact that they are killing people?





Because of the stupidly high revenue the government makes from tobacco.

And its the same for alcohol too.



Then again, these are offset by the ammount of money needed to treat people for smoking and drinking related illnesses. umm



Written by: FireTom
Sure we cannot really avoid frequencies from mobile phones (but with a headset)





Ive seen reports on the news I think a while ago that headsets were thought to transfer lots of the raiowaves stright into the ear umm



offtopic



Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:I'd like to add that e numbers aren't inherently bad. The e numbers are a list of additives which are considered reasonably safe in the European union. They include a large number of natural (which I expect you all to know that that doens't make them inherently safe either) chemicals. Most of the e numbers have an impecable safety record. The enitire system has gotten a bad reputation due to a small number of e numbers with a questionable effect.

For more information on e numbers as well as a fairly compehensive list check out the wikipedia entry.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom

Total posts: 5276
Posted:Who cares about salt, salt is just bad for you. Whereas sugar will KILL you. Sugar would be banned as an additive if they brought it out nowadays.

"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:I was shocked and horrified by the information revealed on the DMHO website. I am currently drafting a petition calling for a worldwide ban and the subsequent destruction of all existing stores of this dangerous chemical

I just know there's a government conspiracy behind how this stuff just falls from the sky and I can't help thinking it's an attempt to turn us all into mindless consumer robots. I demand financial compensation biggrin


Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Written by: mcp

Who cares about salt, salt is just bad for you. Whereas sugar will KILL you. Sugar would be banned as an additive if they brought it out nowadays.



It's true. I once had something with sugar in it and I died.

Oh no, wait, I didn't. confused


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Str8Jakit


Str8Jakit

Dealing in Perception & Probability
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sun...

Total posts: 135
Posted:what it boils down to is this. there are hundreds of things that we cosume each day, that are killig us in one way or another. we as consumers have a choice on what products we use, what foods we eat and from were, and whether or not we are going to drink/smoke.

i for one am a smoker. have been for at least 8 years. i know the damage it's doing to my body, and i understand that one day it may be my casue of death. but it's a choice i made, and one i will live (or die) with. like unbeaten said "Because of the stupidly high revenue the government makes from tobacco.
And its the same for alcohol" and that's exactly rigth.


Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.

If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Yes, we do have choices and it's up to the consumer to not only read the ingredients on food packaging, but educate himself on what those ingredients actually are, then make an informed choice as to whether he wants to consume it or not. That's why their there.

Failing that ,you always have the option of trusting your government and their determinations on just how harmful an ingredient is. If it was dangerous, they'd ban it. right?

Tobacco and alcohol are two products that are a holdover from days gone by, If both these were poisons were invented today, there's no way they'd ever be allowed as a consumer product.


Delete

Motley
GOLD Member since Oct 2005

Motley

addict
Location: UK

Total posts: 434
Posted:Written by: FireTom


1 - a) look on your household cleaner ingredients listing... do you find "Sodium lauryl/ laureth sulfate"? ( bad? or not? or bad or not? or bad???
b) look on your shampoo ingredients list... do you find the same ingredient?
c) now look on your toothpaste: do you find this ingredient again?





Ok I'm a toxicologist so this particular point grabbed my attention right away. Now please note that I havnt read any of these links and my specific knowledge of the harmful effects of these chemicals is very shaky. To be perfectly honest in order to give a proper opinion on the specifics of toxicity relating to these I wouldnt feel happy doing so until I'd done a thourough review of the literature (which would take ages :P). However I can make some general points on this. Firstly with any kind of toxicity its not the agent thats necessarily the problem, its the Dose. For example, millions of people take the right dose of paracetamol and have no ill effects. this is because the toxicity of paracetamol is only triggered in overdose (basically the metabolism of paracetamol is forced down an alternative route when the normal route is overwhelmed, this results in a toxic by product). The same (or similar) is true of any potentially toxic chemical, in laymans terms, toxicity is thresholded (for most chemicals, mutagens and carcinogens are excluded from this) and only if you exceed these doses will you see toxic effects.

The doses of chemicals in cosmetics etc are very carefully calculated and indeed regulated (they factor in everything from repeated usage, to using similar products with the same chemicals. how the product is used (like if u put it on the skin, are the chemicals absorbed? and to what extent? etc, to a large acute dose (eg when a child gets hold of the shampoo and tries eating it). So, bottom line is, for these chemicals that are a common ingredient in cosmetics the actual amounts used are A) pretty small compared to their potential for toxicity B) carefully regulated and C) have a lot of supporting data to back this up

Having said that I dont think eating shampoo is a very advisable thing to do on a regular basis, and it doesnt taste very nice!


Delete

Str8Jakit


Str8Jakit

Dealing in Perception & Probability
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sun...

Total posts: 135
Posted:Written by: stout

Failing that ,you always have the option of trusting your government and their determinations on just how harmful an ingredient is. If it was dangerous, they'd ban it. right?



ubblolubblolubblolubblolubblol that's the best joke i have heard all day. thanks stout wink i needed a good laugh


Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.

If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.

Delete

Motley
GOLD Member since Oct 2005

Motley

addict
Location: UK

Total posts: 434
Posted:Written by: stout

Tobacco and alcohol are two products that are a holdover from days gone by, If both these were poisons were invented today, there's no way they'd ever be allowed as a consumer product.



Alcohol in moderation really isnt harmful at all, its jsut alcohol abuse that results in toxic effects (either acute or chronic). I wont be pedantic and start talking about how tobacco is a mixture of many chemicals and what they are and where they come from and the relative toxicities the constituents in the smoke. For the most part I agree with you on the tobacco, it would never be legal if brought to the market today, and even if it was I cant see many people taking it up if it jsut appeared out of nowhere, there is a strong social bond with tobacco (like it or not), but this is starting to dwindle as awareness of the problems associated with tobacco use grows and social/political pressure starts to build.

All that said and done, I smoke and drink redface


Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Written by: Motley

Firstly with any kind of toxicity its not the agent thats necessarily the problem, its the Dose.



Yay. Logic.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Str8jakit, I was wondering how that comment would go over as it's purely subjective if one finds humour in it. Many people , like my wife for instance, take that as a truism, hence the boxes of Splenda that I keep finding. Given the track record of artificial sweeteners ( Saccharin, Aspartame ) I'm skeptical about this stuff, but I think it's a case of time will tell.

Sometimes it takes time in that vast beta testing vehicle known as the general public to determine if a product is indeed harmful, or whether a significant percentage of the population has a sensitivity to it. Remember PABA , and just look what's happening with MSG.

It really is all about dosage though.

And about perception.

I'm sure that if I broke herbal tea down into it's component molecules, it would loose a lot of it's appeal.
IUPAC nomenclature just doesn't have the romance that mother nature does,


Delete

Str8Jakit


Str8Jakit

Dealing in Perception & Probability
Location: On the edge of sunrise and sun...

Total posts: 135
Posted:oh come on IUPAC nomenclature tastes just like tofu.......besides anything you have to say 3 times in your head, just to pronunce correclty, has to be good for you. doesn't it confused wink

Legal and illegal are a point of view. All that matters is morality.

If there's a shadow in your life, then there is also sunshine. Perception is everything.

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University, United Kingdo...

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Written by: DHMO Website

as an industrial solvent and coolant,
in nuclear power plants,
by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
by elite athletes to improve performance,
in the production of Styrofoam,
in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
in abortion clinics,
as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
in cult rituals,
by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
by pedophiles and pornographers (for uses we'd rather not say here),
by the clientele at a number of homosexual bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
by the Serbian military as authorized by Slobodan Milosevic in their ethnic cleansing campaign,
by many terrorist organizations,
in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
by software engineers, including those producing DICOM software SDKs,
in animal research laboratories, and
in pesticide production and distribution.




umm DAMN!! Gotta get out of this Nazi camp and stop being a joint member of the KKK and Scientology!!!! wink

Written by: DHMO Website

as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
in spray-on oven cleaners,
in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections,
in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad,
in Formula One race cars, although its use is regulated by the Formula One Racing Commission, and
as a target of ongoing NASA planetary and stellar research.




I've just been through every single product of the type listed above in my room/kitchen. I can't find a single instance of DHMO ocurring anywhere on the ingredients list. Is this a chemical that's used in the UK?? Or are they just not obligated to list it? confused

And I could ask the question: Why do you really care? You're FIRESPINNERS for crying out loud. (Well, ok, not semantically true, but I reserve the right to exaggerate to give my point more impact wink) You inhale paraffin (or whatever fuel you use) vapour, fumes and droplets on a regular basis! Are you really so fussed about MSG or E-Numbers when you're using petrochemicals recreationally?

(Note the above statement is only semi-serious)

And Fire Breathers are twice as bad! spank

Oh, wait, I'm a Fire Breather... but then I like spank so carry on biggrin wink ubbangel


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: , United Kingdom

Total posts: 15414
Posted:Written by: The DHMO site
Dihydrogen monoxide was found at every recent school shooting



Written by: The DHMO site
Dihydrogen Monoxide is a major component of acid rain



umm


Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Written by: Sethis

I've just been through every single product of the type listed above in my room/kitchen. I can't find a single instance of DHMO ocurring anywhere on the ingredients list. Is this a chemical that's used in the UK?? Or are they just not obligated to list it? confused



No, I'm sure it's pretty common in the UK. I know I saw it listed on a few ingredients at Sainsbury's at least.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University, United Kingdo...

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Ah, maybe I'm lucky in what I buy then... but next time I go shopping I might just look around and see what has it and what doesn't. Thanks for bringing it to people's attention, I know I'd never heard of it before.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:I think that its interesting that rich people tend not to eat food with additives or chemicals - they buy the highest quality freshest organics they can get. I would have thought that people with loads of cash would be in a good position to find and use the best nutritional information they can - I dont think they buy super high quality organics just for the status of spending the money.

How can anyone in this day and age possibly trust that chem companies actually care whether something people eat is damaging? All they care about is profit (thanks Capitalism), and avoiding legal repercussions. This is a little bit like the GMO debate (do a search for the GMO thread - its not appropriate to open up that chestnut on this thread), in that people's textbooks tell them that GMO is safe, but analysis of the activities of the companies and regulatory bodies involved shows how completely dodgy the whole system is.

And generally speaking, the cheaper the food, the more chems (and I understand but do not accept the economic reasons for that). Just another way that the poor are getting nailed.


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University, United Kingdo...

Total posts: 1762
Posted:I'm a student umm

(And therefore not rich, and I also suck notoriously at buying "healthy" food...)

ubblol


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Sethis, it might already be too late, your body could be riddled with this stuff. You might want to do yourself a favour and print off the first four or five pages of the DHMO website and seek medical advice as quickly as possible !!!!!!! eek eek eek eek





Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:See now that's just overreacting. Let the boy be.



Written by: Pyrolific


And generally speaking, the cheaper the food, the more chems (and I understand but do not accept the economic reasons for that). Just another way that the poor are getting nailed.





Of course! That's generally obvious just by walking through poor neighborhoods and seeing what stores there are. Fried food and bullet proof glass are how you KNOW you're in the ghetto.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

BansheeCat
BRONZE Member since Jul 2005

veteran
Location: lost, Canada

Total posts: 1247
Posted:In regards to an earlier comment about dosage being the important issue with substance toxicity. Yes, but it is not always accurately measured, or considered. We may think the miniscule amounts in so many of our products are " Safe" Yet, the chemical additives are so ubiquitious that you may be getting said miniscule dose repeatedly, layered on yourself in multiple products over the course of a day ( looking at body care products, but issue is similar in food). Other chemical additives , even in small doses, actually remain stored in various tissues of the body , building up over time.



The total dose from *all sources*, *over time* may significantly exceed so called" safe" levels. Or not. Huge individual variances

( consumption levels, body size, gender... ) .



In addition to dosage, when considering safety with chemicals it is useful to consider interactions. One very mild carcinogen, mixed with another mild carcinogen, and suddenly the carcinogenic effects can start to increase in an exponential fashion.



Like say, the difference between just smoking( which has a lovely multiple range of potential chemical carcinagens) and smoking and drinking alcohol at the same time... The risk does not just double, it increases much more significantly. It always makes me cringe when a friend says dont worry, they only smoke when they are out for a drink!



Considering that the typical North American female layers herself with products containing something like over 138 dubious chemical additives and preservatives, foaming agents etc,daily , it is pretty hard to say what a chemical soup like that will do!



As a society we are aware of many risky substances, yet continue to use them. Talc, for example, a known carcinigen, is still rubbed all over babies, who are hugely vulnerable ( cells dividing rapidly, which one of the likeliest time for carcinogins to cause damage) We can do better than that! We know women using hair dye are at significantly greater risk of developing cancer. Yet now we promote its use for men too ( equal opportunity cancer risks;-)) These are well documented effects, not paranoia, you can do the research and check. Yet, still commonly available. Weird. Are we nuts?



At least if we chose natural products we know that there is a possibility that our bodies have developed a mechanism for dealing with their harmful effects. It is hard to over consume some of them without feeling pretty sick right off the bat. Many of the harmful effects of natural substances are well known over mankinds history, so we can avoid them. Generally, they are just less risky and far better understood. Also, the waste from the production and consumption of organic natural foods and products is better able to circle back into the planetary balance without harm.





All these new chemical additives, it is anyones guess if they are

" safe" or not. With all those nasty chemical washing to the water tables, no wonder frogs are growing mutant!



But why risk it? Why risk producing things that pollute our bodies and the environment? Most dont even taste good!



Should anyone be held legally accountable? Well, as adults, I think we should be educated well enough to be able to make a personal choice on that, and then live with the consquences of our choice.



But then the debate gets interesting, because do the poor, most likely to be eating crap, get enough education to be able to make that choice? ( Can a person with a university degree even figure out what some of those things are ? ) Do they have other manageable options ? And, if the health harm of someones " bad" choice is occurring somewhere like Canada which has a social system of medical care, am I then expected to pay for and deal with the consequence of my neighbors drinking habits smoking and other bad choices? Second hand smoke? Environmental pollution?



It may seem like a private issue, but I dont think so. Really, it is not just a personal choice. We all pay!



The solution? Educate, not legislate, and provide healthy cost effective alternatives... On a personal level, just simplify. If it needs labelling, dont eat it! ( great way of reducing packaging too) And if you can not read and comrehend the label of your shampoo, good god people dont put that stuff on your head! Your brain is in their you know!

hug


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

Domino
SILVER Member since May 2004

UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK

Total posts: 757
Posted:I think most of this argument is about pining for the theoreticle "Golden Era" (which, for every generation, is about 50 years ago). A time when summers were longer, food tasted better and the laugher of children filled the air. A time when the countryside was green, people were prettier and more coutisous. A time of happiness and of family values over profit at all costs.

It never happened.

The thing about organic food is that:
1 - It costs more to produce, therefore it sells for more
2 - People believe that they get what they pay for. It costs more therefore is must be better
3 - It has a rosy glow of being somehow "better" and "more natural"
4 - There is a demand for it and people are willing to pay more for it, so the price increases

Written by:
The growth of organic has been blithely immune to evidence about its pros or cons. Even the Soil Association, back in 2001, admitted that the 'perception that organic food is "good for you" appears to have been largely based on intuition rather than conclusive evidence'. There is no evidence that the tiny levels of synthetic pesticides in our food present any real threat to human health. Indeed, some academics, such as Anthony Trewavas of Edinburgh University, argue that consumers are potentially more at risk from natural chemicals in organic crops



Written by:
Organic food remains a luxury for those who don't mind paying extra for a warm glow, to feel that they are 'aware' and 'making a difference'. When money is no object, you can look down on the attempt to produce more, faster, cheaper as crude and uncouth. Romantic visions of harmony with nature are a dalliance, more than a practical reality. Prince Charles can wander around his pesticide-free estate, but when he comes back in he has personal assistants on hand to clean his shoes for him (or squeeze his toothpaste). Buyers of Spiezia organic beauty cream don't get their hands dirty; they just hand more cash over the counter.



Here's a nice article on our perception of chemicals:

Written by: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAD54.htm
br>Juicing the truth
A new ad by US orange juice promoters tries to scare consumers away from 'chemical-packed' rivals.
by Elizabeth Whelan

A recent ad by US orange juice promoters the Florida Department of Citrus - referred to on its website as 'The Laboratory' - shamelessly plays on consumer fears of 'chemicals' lurking in competing beverages. Particularly chemicals you cannot pronounce.

Why the scare tactic by orange juice flacks?

Orange juice sales are down - way down. What with families on the run skipping breakfast, and obsessive adherence to low-carb regimens, there are fewer and fewer cartons, jugs and bottles of orange juice in the shopping cart.

So it is no surprise that the Florida Department of Citrus has upped its advertising to get people to drink up. One of the ads is just plain silly and a bit revolting: it features a guy popping raw fish, rutabaga, liver and brussel sprouts into a blender to make a 'healthy drink', then suggesting that downing a glass of Florida orange juice was a more palatable route to good health.

The ad's orange juice hero sprints through a lab filled with foaming test tubes, pointing to cauldrons of high fructose corn syrup, inositol, pyridoxine hydrochloride, stumbling while trying to pronounce these ingredients and suggesting that people who drink processed juices and soft drinks are exposing themselves to scary 'chemicals'. The alternative? Drink Florida orange juice because it is 'simple' and 'natural' - and, of course, 'natural' has come to mean free of chemicals and thus, it is implied, safer and healthier than other drinks.

But what exactly is orange juice? It is the juice from Citrus sinensis (the botanical name), and all natural oranges contain a spectrum of chemicals, some with volatile properties, including: phenylethyl alcohols; acetone; formic acid; acetaldehyde; esters of formic, acetic and caprylic acids; geraniol; and terpineol.

The juice also contains B-sitosteryl-D glucosde and B-sitosterol. In the process of juicing, orange juice inevitably picks up bits of the orange peel, which has d-limonene, citral, citranellal and methyl ester of anthranilic acid, with a chaser of caprilic acid esters and decylic-aldehyde. Some of these chemicals - like acetaldehyde and d-limonene - even cause cancer when fed to rodents at high dose.

I wonder if our hero dashing through the lab could pronounce all the chemicals in the orange juice he is promoting?

Advertisements of this sort are just plain misleading - and completely unnecessary. Orange juice is a perfectly wholesome drink and a delicious way to pick up some ascorbic acid (vitamin C), folic acid, potassium and more. Why use scare tactics to frighten consumers about drinking (harmless) 'chemicals' in other drinks - just to promote sales of the 100 per cent natural chemicals that comprise orange juice?

Dr Elizabeth M Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health.




And another on our preoccupation with being ill here


Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

Domino
SILVER Member since May 2004

UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK

Total posts: 757
Posted:Now another note on how scarey sounding chemicals send out brains sideways (fnord mean anything to anyone?)

I'll give the joke away...

DHMO, read the website and you'll see it stands for Dihydrogen Monoxide. "Di" meaning 2 and "mon" meaning 1. So DHMO so it's chemical formula might be...

HHO
HOH

or even...

H2O -- Hmm, could it be that this killer chemical, that will surely be death to us all and cause of the coming apocolyps might actually be water?

Now go back and read the website again,

***

Sorry if I'm sounding short. I'm revising (or not) and not in a great mood...


Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

Page: 12