Hydrogenated Oils vs Sat. Fat...Need Help
Steve
intake (High cholesterol). While scouring the Internet for Low Fat
recipes and alternatives, I've come across what appears to be a very
evil thing... Partially Hydrogenated Veg. Oils. It's very
discouraging to get excited about trying a product that is promoted as
a healthful alternative to meat, such as Boca Burgers, only to find
Part. Hydro. Veg. Oils. listed in the ingrediants.
There's few points that I'm a problem getting clear on (besides the
obvious one of why the FDA even allows these to be used).
1-How can you tell how much of these are in the food?
If the label lists 14 g total fat, 1 g Sat Fat, 3 g monounsaturated,
and 4g polyunsaturated, is it safe to assume that the remaining 6g is
Partially Hydrogenated Oils?
2-Is there a safe level of consumption? It seems like this this is
something that should be avoided whenever possible.
3-Is an occasional lean beef burger better than a Boca Bufer w/ Part.
Hydr. Veg Oil Oils? I remember Turkey burgers were big a ew years ago.
How do they fit in.
Are there any good resources where I can find Low Fat productes tht do
not contain Part. Hyd. Veg. Oils.
Thanks
Seeker Of Porridge
The Dutch have been the test-bed for trans fatty acids. At times
averaging 12 grams per day, now 6. I doubt that the obsessively health
conscious, eating 0.2 grams per day will suffer much. (Keep in mind
that these people also eat huge quantities of fat, so the analysis may
be meaningless to obsessive low-fatters, possibly increasing your
heart risk from 0% by a factor of 1.03 ...)
Also remember that these evil trans fatty acids are naturally present
in meat and diary. I think we should go out and shoot cows.
BACKGROUND: Evidence on the relation between trans fatty acid intake
and coronary heart disease is limited. We investigated this relation
in a Dutch population with a fairly high trans fatty acid intake,
including trans fatty acids from partly hydrogenated fish oils.
METHODS: We prospectively studied 667 men of the Zutphen Elderly Study
aged 64-84 years and free of coronary heart disease at baseline. We
used dietary surveys to establish the participants' food consumption
patterns. Information on risk factors and diet was obtained in 1985,
1990, and 1995. After 10 years of follow-up from 1985-95, there were
98 cases of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease. FINDINGS:
Between 1985 and 1995, average trans fatty acid intake decreased from
4.3% to 1.9% of energy. After adjustment for age, body mass index,
smoking, and dietary covariates, trans fatty acid intake at baseline
was positively associated with the 10-year risk of coronary heart
disease. The relative risk for a difference of 2% of energy in trans
fatty acid intake at baseline was 1.28 (95% CI 1.01-1.61).
INTERPRETATION: A high intake of trans fatty acids (all types of
isomers) contributes to the risk of coronary heart disease. The
substantial decrease in trans fatty acid intake, mainly due to
industrial lowering of trans contents in Dutch edible fats, could
therefore have had a large public-health impact.
Seeker Of Porridge
From this document:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Other/trans_fa.pdf
The trans fatty acid content of
Cheese fat = 2.9%
Milk fat = 2.9%
Butter = 21.8%
Lard = 1.64%
Next, all we have to do is make plausible excuses why the trans fatty
acid in butter is good for you.
Steve Harris
news:286b7a3c.02041...@posting.google.com...
No, first we need to find butter in this document at all. I do not believe I
see it. What number is it, please?
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Steve Harris
news:286b7a3c.02041...@posting.google.com...
> Also remember that these evil trans fatty acids are naturally present
> in meat and diary.
But not in the amounts you quote. Try getting your facts right.
Steve
me.. is it all just hype, or is there something to be concerned about
here?
oh and BTW I'm not "obsessively health conscious", but I'd rather make
a few lifestyle changes than take Pills. What I am obsessive about is
information, so that I can make the right adjustments and not run off
on some half-baked medical/nutritional fad of the day.
> "Seeker Of Porridge" <complet...@email.com> wrote in message
>
Steve Harris
"Steve" <sric...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:63d59b02.02041...@posting.google.com...
> When you guys get done beating each other up maybe you could enlightne
> me.. is it all just hype, or is there something to be concerned about
> here?
> oh and BTW I'm not "obsessively health conscious", but I'd rather make
> a few lifestyle changes than take Pills. What I am obsessive about is
> information, so that I can make the right adjustments and not run off
> on some half-baked medical/nutritional fad of the day.
If you're obscessive about information, then measure your own LDL and HDL
concenterations and bet back to us. That will tell you how much you have to
worry about things like saturated fat and its more-evil twin trans-fat.
slenon
model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 >webpages, Nutrition
(www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now with more documentation and
sharper terminology >than ever before. John Gohde,
And how many commercial links do you include in this multi-media
monstrocity? Award winning? Right. Anyone with imagination and a dot
matrix printer can print up unlimited amounts of awards to bring in revenue.
The more I see of you and your works, the more I am convinced that you are a
self-deluding buffoon. And once more, this is the time and place where you
typically respond with vulgarity. Picasso is art, Kipling is art. Bach is
art. Nutrition always has and always will remain science.
--
Stev
Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line is patients not
profit
Save a cow, eat a PETA member
sle...@tampabay.rr.com
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm
Hua Kul
> me.. is it all just hype, or is there something to be concerned about
> here?
> oh and BTW I'm not "obsessively health conscious", but I'd rather make
> a few lifestyle changes than take Pills. What I am obsessive about is
> information, so that I can make the right adjustments and not run off
> on some half-baked medical/nutritional fad of the day.
>
Here's an article. It's not a study but it might give you something
to chew on (dumb pun intended):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/30/FD40307.DTL&type=food
"The ongoing Nurses' Health Study of 80,000 women, conducted by
Harvard Medical School and the Brigham and Women's Hospital in
Massachusetts, showed that for each 2 percent increase in the amount
of calories from trans fat, a woman's coronary risk jumps by 93
percent."
--Hua Kul
Jay Tanzman
Steve wrote:
>
> When you guys get done beating each other up maybe you could enlightne
> me.. is it all just hype, or is there something to be concerned about
> here?
It's serious. Trans fatty acids raise LDL and lowers HDL. It's not found in
important quantities in natural foods, either animal or vegetable. The two
major sources in the American diet are processed foods, especially packaged
baked goods, and foods fried in reused oil. Avoid these and you'll have no
problems with trans fatty acids.
-Jay
Jay Tanzman
Oops, and margarine, of course.
-Jay
Jay Tanzman
John 'the Man' wrote:
> Weighing in at 17 webpages,
> Nutrition (www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now with more
> documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
"Sharper terminololgy" such as the above.
-Jay
slenon
Now face him back my way, Jay. There's plenty of abuse to go around for
John.
Steve Harris
news:3CB63BC5...@sph.llu.edu...
Solid margarine (with one exception I know of). Liquid margarines are
generally fine.
Alf Christophersen
Porridge) wrote:
>Also remember that these evil trans fatty acids are naturally present
>in meat and diary. I think we should go out and shoot cows.
So you keep a long distance from any CLA?? (The evil transfat of diary
fat)
pierre
> @[offendingISP]."
> "Steve" <sric...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:63d59b02.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > When you guys get done beating each other up maybe you could enlightne
> > me.. is it all just hype, or is there something to be concerned about
> > here?
> > oh and BTW I'm not "obsessively health conscious", but I'd rather make
> > a few lifestyle changes than take Pills. What I am obsessive about is
> > information, so that I can make the right adjustments and not run off
> > on some half-baked medical/nutritional fad of the day.
If you want to know more about all that ...read " fats tha heal,fats
that kill" from udo erasmus. You'll find all the information you
ever dreamed to find. Before to red that , stay away from trans .
Seeker Of Porridge
> But not in the amounts you quote. Try getting your facts right.
>
Thanks.
I think that my argument stems around the new margarines having a
trans fatty level of less than 1%..... It is hard to find values for
TFA in dairy, and that USDA document certainly had me confused with
butter, as it had about 50 entries described with "butter", but no
actual butter.
So I have cast around the net for some less confusing information:
Trans fatty acids are found in the body fat of ruminants such as
cattle and sheep, with concentrations ranging from 4% to 11% (similar
to butter fat). The major trans fatty acid in milk, butter, and beef
fat is 11t-18:1 (vaccenic acid). Trans fatty acids also are found in
goats, deer, and marsupials. Sommerfeld (4) reviewed data on trans
fatty acids in plants, which although relatively rare, are reported in
six species of plants, including pomegranates with 70% of their fatty
acids being punicic acid (9c, 11t, 13c--18:3).
http://www.faseb.org/ascn/ajcn7799.htm
Although my hasty figure for butter was a bit out, it still seems that
my original point is intact: margarine has substantially less TFA than
ruminant fat.
These figures are new to me. I never realised that the dairy industry
wasn't telling me everything. Honestly, I had complete faith.
wuzzy
most people don't know that margarine contributes more saturated fat
than butter to the american diet... [margarine also contributes
obviously more trans-fatty acids]
the american diet is so bad that margarine contributes 3% of fat..
the top contributers of saturated, just to repeat are:
Cheese, beef, milk, cakes/cookies/breads/doughnuts, margarine,
butter, ice cream, salad dressing. (in that order, but by the time
you have removed ice creeam you are left with only 0.1% saturated fat
from salad dressing..
Steve Harris
news:286b7a3c.02041...@posting.google.com...
news:<a933gk$jiv$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> > But not in the amounts you quote. Try getting your facts right.
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> I think that my argument stems around the new margarines having a
> trans fatty level of less than 1%.....
And a lot of OLD margarines (what you were reading as "butter" having trans
fat contents of 20-30%.
It is hard to find values for
> TFA in dairy, and that USDA document certainly had me confused with
> butter, as it had about 50 entries described with "butter", but no
> actual butter.
Right. But look at the TFA that is in these solid margarines. It's the worst
of the lot. As for the rest, beef fat, milk, and cheese are all of a kind,
which is not surprising. You are what you eat, or what your gut bacteria
make. That gives whole milk, creme cheese, butter, and beef fat all about
the same TFA content per gram total fat. And it's probably one reason why
they are all bad for you (though cheese, as we've long noted, must have some
redeaming virtues).
> So I have cast around the net for some less confusing information:
>
> Trans fatty acids are found in the body fat of ruminants such as
> cattle and sheep, with concentrations ranging from 4% to 11% (similar
> to butter fat). The major trans fatty acid in milk, butter, and beef
> fat is 11t-18:1 (vaccenic acid). Trans fatty acids also are found in
> goats, deer, and marsupials.
There you go.
Sommerfeld (4) reviewed data on trans
> fatty acids in plants, which although relatively rare, are reported in
> six species of plants, including pomegranates with 70% of their fatty
> acids being punicic acid (9c, 11t, 13c--18:3).
Which is interesting but not relevent, since the total amount of fat in a
pomegranite is so low.
>
> http://www.faseb.org/ascn/ajcn7799.htm
>
> Although my hasty figure for butter was a bit out, it still seems that
> my original point is intact: margarine has substantially less TFA than
> ruminant fat.
No, you're still wrong. Read the damn report yet AGAIN.
> These figures are new to me. I never realised that the dairy industry
> wasn't telling me everything. Honestly, I had complete faith.
Um, what can I say.
Steve Harris
> > trans fatty level of less than 1%.....
>
trans
> fat contents of 20-30%.
Just to make this completely clear. When I white "old margarines" this does
not mean margarines not still available. MOST stick margarines and tub
margarines on your shelf are heavily trans-fatted, and have 2 or 3 times
more than you'd get from the same amount of butter, which itself isn't good.
These margarines are intensely bad for you. You've been sold a bill of goods
from the food industry for a decade, and money and power will continue this
for at least another five years. Meanwhile you have to read the net,
Prevention Mag, and some other popular sources to get the facts on how bad
must butter (and many other processed foods with "partially hydrogenated
blahblah oil.") are for you. They are even worse than butter, and butter
isn't good.
To repeat, today's solid margarines are very bad, with the exception of one
or two which are made from whipped protein and specifically say "no trans
fat." Liquid margarines, on the other hand, typically don't have enough
trans fat to be worth mentioning (it's after salt on the label). Butter buds
(a kind of solid butter flavor) is fine. You can think of the liquid
margarines as being like PUFA oils, which is what they essentially are.
Stay away from the rest like the plague.
Also (secondarily) stay away from all dairy and most beef fat. Eat non-fat
dairy foods and fish and fancy nuts and olives and avocado. Keep beef way
down, and if you must have red meat, make it low fat ham (it's not the other
white meat). Chicken's okay but go easy (it's full of fat, but no trans
unless they fry it in Crisco). Watch the fast and processed food-- industry
puts in hydrogenates at every opportunity, because they're cheap. You can
have a little aged cheese, and a reasonable number of eggs.
Lastly, I think there is a conspiracy, of sorts-- but it's really a cultural
blindness and a wild greed for money. We've also heard endlessly about the
good things there are in chicken soup, and the bad things than hide out in
pork. That's the Jewish science lobby, which is no different than the
Seventh Day Adventists saying meat is bad (lumping in lard with chicken
fat), and the Mormons quoting their bad anti-coffee studies (which are full
of holes, and also you'll notice even the Mormons have shut up about the
science of tea).
As for the Jews and their ancient dietary laws the Kosher diet full of beef
fat and dairy fat (yea, though they may separate the two in cooking and
meals) does not keep them from getting heart disease. On the contrary, they
get it in spades-- surprise. They don't get trichinosis-- big deal.
Trichinosis is not a problem any more for the rest of us, either. Heart
disease is.
Alf Christophersen
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>Right. But look at the TFA that is in these solid margarines. It's the worst
>of the lot. As for the rest, beef fat, milk, and cheese are all of a kind,
>which is not surprising. You are what you eat, or what your gut bacteria
>make. That gives whole milk, creme cheese, butter, and beef fat all about
>the same TFA content per gram total fat. And it's probably one reason why
>they are all bad for you (though cheese, as we've long noted, must have some
>redeaming virtues).
TFA content in margarine and butter is a local national problem in US
as many other countries are forcing industry to produce TFA free or
very low content of it now. Only in US it seems, industry is free to
put any amount of TFA without any consequences because otherwise US
would be a communistic regime due to many of you :-)
Well, I guess that is the bill of total freedom :-) Freedom to kill
that is.
Steve Harris
"Alf Christophersen" <alf.chris...@basalmed.uio.no> wrote in message
news:3cb9e960...@nntp.uio.no...
> TFA content in margarine and butter is a local national problem in US
> as many other countries are forcing industry to produce TFA free or
> very low content of it now. Only in US it seems, industry is free to
> put any amount of TFA without any consequences because otherwise US
> would be a communistic regime due to many of you :-)
> Well, I guess that is the bill of total freedom :-) Freedom to kill
> that is.
Alf, there's no doubt that the best kind of government is a benevolent
dictatorship which is all-wise. The problem is in implementation.
In the US, people are free to buy ice cream and shortening bread and solid
margarine and Crisco (vegetable shortening) full of trans-fats, just as they
are free to buy cigarettes. That's okay with me. It's not an intrinsically
governmental problem. When somebody puts toxins in the water supply or air
where I can't get away from them, or makes me go to the store and buy trans
fats and eat them, or holds a gun to my head and forces me to smoke, then it
does become a problem for government, and I'll be calling the cops.
Meanwhile, having government get involved is a cure worse than the disease.
hilite
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>In the US, people are free to buy ice cream and shortening bread and solid
>margarine and Crisco (vegetable shortening) full of trans-fats, just as they
>are free to buy cigarettes. That's okay with me. It's not an intrinsically
>governmental problem.
>When somebody puts toxins in the water supply or air where I can't get away from them
Are you saying you live somewhere in the US where the air and water
are pure? I doubt it.
>, or makes me go to the store and buy trans fats and eat them
How about when you can't distinguish whether your milk is from normal
cows or from cows injected with BGH? Does that bother you?
How about when you're pretty sure most of the processed food you buy
contains genetically modified plant products and there's no way for
you to know the consequences? Does that bother you?
Does it bother you that you don't know whether your vegetables are
genetically modified?
That's what the government of the US does for business interests.
Don't bother calling the cops, they won't be able to help you.
Marketing food which is potentially toxic is perfectly legal here.
Growing GE corn that could permanently eliminate natural corn through
cross-pollination is perfectly legal here. Tough luck for natural corn
in Mexico too.
>, or holds a gun to my head and forces me to smoke, then it
>does become a problem for government, and I'll be calling the cops.
>Meanwhile, having government get involved is a cure worse than the disease.
You've got that right. It's too bad the government is already highly
involved, and its on the side of big business, its not on your side.
The government is the disease and they aren't looking for cures.
Democracy is not all its cracked up to be. US citizens are
brain-washed, and this issue of unhealthy/unsafe margarine is an
excellent example of just how perverted the situation is. And this is
just the tip of the iceberg.
I'm no longer proud of my highly corrupt government, or it's
ineffectual constitution. While idiots bemoan their loss of personal
privacy and personal freedoms, the bill of rights will surely lead to
the destruction our country by foreign enemies. C'est la vie.
Seeker Of Porridge
find the posts I'm replying to.
Some interesting issues since I last posted.
There does seem to be a quite arbitrary distribution of countries
which poison their populace. I'm not certain if there is a good
correlation with capitalism.
In Australia, I'm pretty certain that the gov has clamped down on
highly hydrogenated oils. The "margarines" that we buy here are near
liquid. They are made solid by aeration, lecithin, water etc - with
TFA below 1%.. This could be voluntary, I'm not sure.
From an Australian perspective, the FDA works in a weird way,
presuming inocence until proven guilty. We have a mixture of
approaches. One of them is a type of democracy where people get a say,
occasionally, every few years, when something odd happens in
government. It could just be that one back-bencher woke up and found
he was the only one in parliament at 2am, and managed to scribble a
Trans Fat Bill down on the back of a napkin and get it passed.
As for reading Prevention Magazine, I think I'll stick to watching
X-Files. I find some of the information there a little way out, but in
general, OK. :)
Steve Harris
news:u67kbucbuj60bsjfr...@4ax.com...
> >When somebody puts toxins in the water supply or air where I can't get
away from them
>
> Are you saying you live somewhere in the US where the air and water
> are pure? I doubt it.
You don't get that choice anywhere. Such decisions are democratic, and
everybody gets what only the majority deserve. New concept to you?
> >, or makes me go to the store and buy trans fats and eat them
>
> How about when you can't distinguish whether your milk is from normal
> cows or from cows injected with BGH? Does that bother you?
Only academically, since I don't believe BGH is harmful.
> How about when you're pretty sure most of the processed food you buy
> contains genetically modified plant products and there's no way for
> you to know the consequences? Does that bother you?
No, since again I doubt that it's harmful. If you ate only genetically
unmodified foods you'd be down to a pretty pitiful plate. Forget all that
produce you see-- it's all more genetically modified than your dog is from a
wolf. And was, even before they came up with artificial molecule splicing.
> Does it bother you that you don't know whether your vegetables are
> genetically modified?
Again, only academically. Does it worry you that you don't know if the
vitamins in your food were made in a lab? You're probably wearing synthetic
clothes now. You've been eating synthetic chemicals all your life (trans
fats being just one example). Genetic engineering is just matter of getting
living critters to do inside them what we've been doing in labs for your
entire existence. So what?
> That's what the government of the US does for business interests.
Your country, if democratic, is run by business interests also, I assure
you. This is just another name for "human interests". Which is to say,
it's the economy, stupid. Without it, you get to be a caveman.
> Don't bother calling the cops, they won't be able to help you.
Since they work for the 51%.
> Marketing food which is potentially toxic is perfectly legal here.
> Growing GE corn that could permanently eliminate natural corn through
> cross-pollination is perfectly legal here. Tough luck for natural corn
> in Mexico too.
You make me laugh. "Natural corn" from which maize originated by a lot of
careful breeding, is a little shrivelled-up thing an inch long that would be
put to shame by those fetal corn things they put on your salad. You'd starve
trying to get by on it, and then you wouldn't have to worry about genetic
engineering.
> >, or holds a gun to my head and forces me to smoke, then it
> >does become a problem for government, and I'll be calling the cops.
>
> >Meanwhile, having government get involved is a cure worse than the
disease.
>
> You've got that right. It's too bad the government is already highly
> involved, and its on the side of big business, its not on your side.
That is my side. Yours too, since you're sitting there typing away on your
computer, rather than pulling a plow by lamplight to try to get in a Spring
crop of mutated Indian corn.
> Democracy is not all its cracked up to be.
Don't tell me-- you'd like to be dictator?
>US citizens are
> brain-washed, and this issue of unhealthy/unsafe margarine is an
> excellent example of just how perverted the situation is. And this is
> just the tip of the iceberg.
Probably not. It's the single worst thing in the average US diet that I know
if, and I think it and diary and beef fat are probably most of the iceberg.
Other than this, if you take your money and buy produce, whole grain bread,
fish, nuts, and vitamins, you can eat a damn healthy diet for cheap. That's
something humans have never been able to do through most of history.
> I'm no longer proud of my highly corrupt government, or it's
> ineffectual constitution. While idiots bemoan their loss of personal
> privacy and personal freedoms, the bill of rights will surely lead to
> the destruction our country by foreign enemies. C'est la vie.
Gee, and I thought the bill of rights was the best thing about our
constitution, which is the best thing about our government (I'd be happy if
the US treated all human beings as though our bill of rights applied to
them).
Obviously, you should imigrate to a country where they have a constitution
you approve of.
Alf Christophersen
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>Alf, there's no doubt that the best kind of government is a benevolent
>dictatorship which is all-wise. The problem is in implementation.
There was no need for some dictatorship. Newspaper started to write
about TFA and within few weeks, the producers changed the production
line to remove TFA from most fats. But still cakes and pastries do
contain harmful fats :-(
People just denied to buy their products :-) Only afterwards,
government came in and made som reinforcements.
But what some of us hope is to have some regulations saying omega-3 to
omega-6 ratio has to be declared. (Most probably the opposite ratio
should declared and newspapers should be asked to publish repeatedly
that ratio in general should be less than 10 if it is the omega-6 to
omega-3 ratio that is reported (or bigger than 0.1 in opposite ratio)
But government are more eager to listen to US industry who are telling
that if they don't stop such nonsense, US Army will take care of it:-(
Alf Christophersen
>You've got that right. It's too bad the government is already highly
>involved, and its on the side of big business, its not on your side.
>The government is the disease and they aren't looking for cures.
What's worse is that they dictate other governments to keep away from
US industry and import all toxic compounds they want to sell other
countries. If not, US Marines will be sent in.
Alf Christophersen
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
>You don't get that choice anywhere. Such decisions are democratic, and
>everybody gets what only the majority deserve. New concept to you?
Isn't it rather a "Sicilian democratic decission"??
Alex Brands
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:06:53 -0600, "Steve Harris"
> <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In the US, people are free to buy ice cream and shortening bread and solid
> >margarine and Crisco (vegetable shortening) full of trans-fats, just as they
> >are free to buy cigarettes. That's okay with me. It's not an intrinsically
> >governmental problem.
>
> >When somebody puts toxins in the water supply or air where I can't get away from them
>
> Are you saying you live somewhere in the US where the air and water
> are pure? I doubt it.
>
> >, or makes me go to the store and buy trans fats and eat them
>
> How about when you can't distinguish whether your milk is from normal
> cows or from cows injected with BGH? Does that bother you?
>
> How about when you're pretty sure most of the processed food you buy
> contains genetically modified plant products and there's no way for
> you to know the consequences? Does that bother you?
>
> Does it bother you that you don't know whether your vegetables are
> genetically modified?
Does it bother you that there are no long term studies on almost all of
the non-GM foods that you eat?
hilite
many generations.
You keep inferring that if we can't be confident of the safety of any
produce, for various reasons, such as cross-breeding, grafting, etc.,
then we have no right to worry about, or voice our concerns about,
genetically engineered food. This is fallacious reasoning. The fact
that you are aware of many more dangers lurking in the produce food
supply than I am aware of doesn't make your apparent lack of concern
about genetic engineering valid. It only makes it more
incomprehensible. In fact, I consider it irresponsible for you to try
to convince people that genetically engineered foods are safe when you
are acutely aware that they may not be safe.
Steve Harris
In fact, I consider it irresponsible for you to try
> to convince people that genetically engineered foods are safe when you
> are acutely aware that they may not be safe.
COMMENT
If I worried about what "might" not be safe, I wouldn't get out of bed in
the morning, much less leave the house.
If your ancestors had worried too much about what might not be safe, they'd
never have built the world you see around you, which has 10 dangers
surmounted for every success you see, from the food to the transportation to
the electric light to your very political freedom.
Have some guts. And if you can't, take a Valium.
Alex Brands
> Of course it would be safer to eat foods that have been around for
> many generations.
>
> You keep inferring that if we can't be confident of the safety of any
> produce, for various reasons, such as cross-breeding, grafting, etc.,
> then we have no right to worry about, or voice our concerns about,
> genetically engineered food. This is fallacious reasoning.
You have the right to worry about it, but unless you, or anyone, can come
up with a reason to suspect that GMO foods are *more likely* to be
dangerous than the foods we eat every day. there is no basis for
subjecting them to more rigorous standards than the rest of the food
supply.
The fact
> that you are aware of many more dangers lurking in the produce food
> supply than I am aware of doesn't make your apparent lack of concern
> about genetic engineering valid. It only makes it more
> incomprehensible. In fact, I consider it irresponsible for you to try
> to convince people that genetically engineered foods are safe when you
> are acutely aware that they may not be safe.
I am only trying to convince you that they are as safe as their imediate
predecessors. In some cases, there is reason to suspect they may present
fewer dangers than non-GMO foods.
What's irresponsible is to perpetuate the anti-GMO hysteria with no
scientific basis whatsoever.
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:04:18 -0500, Alex Brands
> <abbr...@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, hilite wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:06:53 -0600, "Steve Harris"
> >> <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In the US, people are free to buy ice cream and shortening bread and solid
> >> >margarine and Crisco (vegetable shortening) full of trans-fats, just as they
> >> >are free to buy cigarettes. That's okay with me. It's not an intrinsically
> >> >governmental problem.
> >>
> >> >When somebody puts toxins in the water supply or air where I can't get away from them
> >>
> >> Are you saying you live somewhere in the US where the air and water
> >> are pure? I doubt it.
> >>
> >> >, or makes me go to the store and buy trans fats and eat them
> >>
> >> How about when you can't distinguish whether your milk is from normal
> >> cows or from cows injected with BGH? Does that bother you?
> >>
> >> How about when you're pretty sure most of the processed food you buy
> >> contains genetically modified plant products and there's no way for
> >> you to know the consequences? Does that bother you?
> >>
> >> Does it bother you that you don't know whether your vegetables are
> >> genetically modified?
> >
> >Does it bother you that there are no long term studies on almost all of
> >the non-GM foods that you eat?
> >
>
>
Alex Brands
Washington University