(11-21-2024 04:02 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 01:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:10 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I've decided that I agree that if people want to eat poison we should let them. But they should have to let us know it's poison.

If that is the logic we are going to apply them we have to lift ban on about a gazillion deadly things we already ban from food (everything from lead to more things than you can possibly imagine).

Or just maybe there is a smarter way we can go about it by keeping proven dangerous additives out of our foods that kill people, cripple our healthcare system and give diseases to millions of children.

Some are creating an imaginary straw man that somehow banning certain dyes and other additives is going to make all your favorite foods suddenly taste horrible. Its a fantasy argument that has no basis in reality or fact at this point.

There is a BIG difference between banning something to make food less fattening and banning something because its proven to cause cancer. These are to completely different things that many don't seem to understand the difference between.

Unhealthy options people want to choose should absolutely be fully avaible, but known cancer causing and proven dangerous additives should NOT be.

This is where you are showing your ignorance. Virtually everything causes cancer in large doses. But there is nothing allowed in the US that is known to cause cancer or dangerous at anywhere near the levels allowed. Nobody knowingly is putting dangerous substances in food. Food companies understand the US tort laws. We have a very good regulatory regime. They just don't jump after every internet scare or rant from a Food Babe or lobbyist from the organic farm group.

"Virtually everything causes cancer in large doses"

You sure about that ? What about milk & dairy products ? How about pure water.

I'm pretty sure you could feed mice mass quantities of ingredients in milk & dairy products and cause cancer. Everything is a chemical. Possibly even too much water! There are trace carcinogens in water and lots of other chemicals. If the water passed through the mouse and the carcinogens remained....

And a lot of people, especially non-Europeans, are lactose intolerant.

(11-20-2024 06:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  And so you think RFK should be able to tell us what we can and cannot eat?

oh, so you're all about Capitalism's big corporations and their profits now, eh?

As far consumers having the choice in what they buy, the graphic in this article shows how little choice we have at the store. These are just the things we know they make, but they also make most of the store brand products as well, but that’s proprietary knowledge.

A shopper would need to walk around with an encyclopedia to avoid buying from one company or another.

https://www.good.is/this-infographic-sho...ood-brands

(11-21-2024 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 04:02 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 01:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:10 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I've decided that I agree that if people want to eat poison we should let them. But they should have to let us know it's poison.

If that is the logic we are going to apply them we have to lift ban on about a gazillion deadly things we already ban from food (everything from lead to more things than you can possibly imagine).

Or just maybe there is a smarter way we can go about it by keeping proven dangerous additives out of our foods that kill people, cripple our healthcare system and give diseases to millions of children.

Some are creating an imaginary straw man that somehow banning certain dyes and other additives is going to make all your favorite foods suddenly taste horrible. Its a fantasy argument that has no basis in reality or fact at this point.

There is a BIG difference between banning something to make food less fattening and banning something because its proven to cause cancer. These are to completely different things that many don't seem to understand the difference between.

Unhealthy options people want to choose should absolutely be fully avaible, but known cancer causing and proven dangerous additives should NOT be.

This is where you are showing your ignorance. Virtually everything causes cancer in large doses. But there is nothing allowed in the US that is known to cause cancer or dangerous at anywhere near the levels allowed. Nobody knowingly is putting dangerous substances in food. Food companies understand the US tort laws. We have a very good regulatory regime. They just don't jump after every internet scare or rant from a Food Babe or lobbyist from the organic farm group.

"Virtually everything causes cancer in large doses"

You sure about that ? What about milk & dairy products ? How about pure water.

I'm pretty sure you could feed mice mass quantities of ingredients in milk & dairy products and cause cancer. Everything is a chemical. Possibly even too much water! There are trace carcinogens in water and lots of other chemicals. If the water passed through the mouse and the carcinogens remained....

And a lot of people, especially non-Europeans, are lactose intolerant.

You’re just saying carcinogens (the cause of cancer) causes cancer, not water. Because water does not contain ANY carcinogens. If it does, it’s adulterated water, thus, chemically, not H20. In a laboratory setting, it’s doubtful they would be using anything but pure water to do experiments.

(11-21-2024 04:47 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think there is something amiss in our food supply. I think the majority of American's never truly sat down and thought it through. Here is an example that doesn't compute.

At the generic Kroger site I can buy a 52 oz container of orange juice for $4. This equates to $2.46 for a quart. Keep this price in mind.

https://www.kroger.com/q/simply+orange+juice

Here is a reference site to let us know how many oranges it would take to make 1 quart of fresh squeezed orange juice.

https://thepharmjuicebarandkitchen.com/b...cup-juice/

Quote:Average Size Of An Orange:
The average size of an orange can vary depending on the variety and cultivation methods. Generally, oranges range in size from roughly the size of a golf ball to as large as a baseball. Navel oranges are typically larger than other varieties and can range from 3 to 4 inches in diameter. On the other hand, Valencia oranges tend to be a bit smaller, usually measuring around 2½ inches in diameter.

While there is no set measurement for what constitutes a “medium” orange, most within this range weigh about 4-5 ounces. It’s important to note that size doesn’t necessarily reflect quality – smaller oranges may be juicier and sweeter while larger oranges may have thicker skin and be more difficult to peel. Overall, the average size of an orange is just one factor to consider when selecting the perfect piece of citrus fruit for your needs.

How Many Oranges For 1 Cup Of Juice?
When it comes to making orange juice, one question that may arise is how many oranges are needed to yield one cup of juice. The answer to this question largely depends on the size and juiciness of the oranges being used, but on average, it takes about three medium-sized oranges to produce one cup of juice. If you’re looking to make a large batch of orange juice, however, you may need more than three oranges.

For example, if you’re making a quart (1 liter) of orange juice, you’ll likely need 8-10 oranges depending on size and variety.If you’re looking to make a large batch of orange juice, however, you may need more than three oranges. For example, if you’re making a quart (1 liter) of orange juice, you’ll likely need 8-10 oranges depending on size and variety. It is important to note that certain tools, such as a juicer, can help extract more juice from the oranges than simply squeezing them by hand, so be sure to adjust accordingly when making large batches.

Additionally, it is always recommended to choose ripe, firm oranges and to wash them thoroughly before juicing. With these tips in mind, making delicious and nutritious orange juice can be a simple and rewarding task.

According to this site https://weighschool.com/orange-weights/ an average orange is 6.7 oz.

Back to our Kroger site - a bag of oranges, weighing 4 lbs, is $5. Convert lbs to oz to get 64 oz and divide by 6.7 oz and you get 9.55 oranges...basically 9 to 10 oranges in a bag.

https://www.kroger.com/p/kroger-fresh-na...ult_search

So...working with just oranges in their raw, unprocessed state will cost you about $5.00 to make your own OJ at home for over twice the cost of buying the Simply Orange bottle and pouring out 32 oz to get your one quart. Simply Orange is one of the more expensive brands of OJ I've seen in our local grocery stores. We're not talking store brand or OJ made from concentrate. I get that the factory can get discounts on oranges vs us unwashed masses. HOWEVER, they have to pay for employees (wages + benefits), machinery that needs to be maintained, utilities costs, etc, etc.

How is that possible? The product from the factory has to be different from the one you would make at home. You know the inputs you used at home are real ingredients. How about the factory?

Interesting question. While I don't specifically know the answer, here's what I can tell you.
There are different types of oranges. Navel oranges are usually the type you eat. The best types go into fruit you eat directly. Lesser ones tend to go into juice. Florida and Brazilian oranges are most often converted into juice. Not that there are many Florida oranges left. Last year was the smallest production since the 1940s. In a few years Brazil may have that greening disease too hurting their crops. Fresh fruit also requires fairly prompt transportation of a heavy item. Juice is just the liquid to transport and it can be preserved for a longer period. An orange juice like Simply or Florida's Natural are blends of different types of oranges and crops to get the profile they want. And if you might think its not as good as it used to be, you would be right. The greening disease has significantly reduced the amount and quality of the oranges. So they are using oranges that are less sweet. I can't really taste the difference, but my wife the food scientist can. If they haven't already, they are thinking about reducing the standards for what is defined as "orange juice" because they simply can't produce to the "Brix" standards. The crops aren't good enough. Simply is more expensive in part because it is blended to a higher Brix standard than the generic brands.

(11-21-2024 05:10 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 04:02 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 01:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  If that is the logic we are going to apply them we have to lift ban on about a gazillion deadly things we already ban from food (everything from lead to more things than you can possibly imagine).

Or just maybe there is a smarter way we can go about it by keeping proven dangerous additives out of our foods that kill people, cripple our healthcare system and give diseases to millions of children.

Some are creating an imaginary straw man that somehow banning certain dyes and other additives is going to make all your favorite foods suddenly taste horrible. Its a fantasy argument that has no basis in reality or fact at this point.

There is a BIG difference between banning something to make food less fattening and banning something because its proven to cause cancer. These are to completely different things that many don't seem to understand the difference between.

Unhealthy options people want to choose should absolutely be fully avaible, but known cancer causing and proven dangerous additives should NOT be.

This is where you are showing your ignorance. Virtually everything causes cancer in large doses. But there is nothing allowed in the US that is known to cause cancer or dangerous at anywhere near the levels allowed. Nobody knowingly is putting dangerous substances in food. Food companies understand the US tort laws. We have a very good regulatory regime. They just don't jump after every internet scare or rant from a Food Babe or lobbyist from the organic farm group.

"Virtually everything causes cancer in large doses"

You sure about that ? What about milk & dairy products ? How about pure water.

I'm pretty sure you could feed mice mass quantities of ingredients in milk & dairy products and cause cancer. Everything is a chemical. Possibly even too much water! There are trace carcinogens in water and lots of other chemicals. If the water passed through the mouse and the carcinogens remained....

And a lot of people, especially non-Europeans, are lactose intolerant.

You’re just saying carcinogens (the cause of cancer) causes cancer, not water. Because water does not contain ANY carcinogens. If it does, it’s adulterated water, thus, chemically, not H20. In a laboratory setting, it’s doubtful they would be using anything but pure water to do experiments.

I'm pretty sure you are right that pure H2O is not carcinogenic.
But tap water has a lot more than H2O. Ask the people of Flint, Michigan.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/202...luence-he/
RFK's ideas to get at the root causes of disease is good. Its his big federal regulation approach that is the problem.

I don't drink tap water. Not for many years now. I bought a $$ filtering system.

(11-21-2024 05:50 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I don't drink tap water. Not for many years now. I bought a $$ filtering system.

My tap water comes from a well so I'm probably good, too.

(11-21-2024 05:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 04:47 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think there is something amiss in our food supply. I think the majority of American's never truly sat down and thought it through. Here is an example that doesn't compute.

At the generic Kroger site I can buy a 52 oz container of orange juice for $4. This equates to $2.46 for a quart. Keep this price in mind.

https://www.kroger.com/q/simply+orange+juice

Here is a reference site to let us know how many oranges it would take to make 1 quart of fresh squeezed orange juice.

https://thepharmjuicebarandkitchen.com/b...cup-juice/

Quote:Average Size Of An Orange:
The average size of an orange can vary depending on the variety and cultivation methods. Generally, oranges range in size from roughly the size of a golf ball to as large as a baseball. Navel oranges are typically larger than other varieties and can range from 3 to 4 inches in diameter. On the other hand, Valencia oranges tend to be a bit smaller, usually measuring around 2½ inches in diameter.

While there is no set measurement for what constitutes a “medium” orange, most within this range weigh about 4-5 ounces. It’s important to note that size doesn’t necessarily reflect quality – smaller oranges may be juicier and sweeter while larger oranges may have thicker skin and be more difficult to peel. Overall, the average size of an orange is just one factor to consider when selecting the perfect piece of citrus fruit for your needs.

How Many Oranges For 1 Cup Of Juice?
When it comes to making orange juice, one question that may arise is how many oranges are needed to yield one cup of juice. The answer to this question largely depends on the size and juiciness of the oranges being used, but on average, it takes about three medium-sized oranges to produce one cup of juice. If you’re looking to make a large batch of orange juice, however, you may need more than three oranges.

For example, if you’re making a quart (1 liter) of orange juice, you’ll likely need 8-10 oranges depending on size and variety.If you’re looking to make a large batch of orange juice, however, you may need more than three oranges. For example, if you’re making a quart (1 liter) of orange juice, you’ll likely need 8-10 oranges depending on size and variety. It is important to note that certain tools, such as a juicer, can help extract more juice from the oranges than simply squeezing them by hand, so be sure to adjust accordingly when making large batches.

Additionally, it is always recommended to choose ripe, firm oranges and to wash them thoroughly before juicing. With these tips in mind, making delicious and nutritious orange juice can be a simple and rewarding task.

According to this site https://weighschool.com/orange-weights/ an average orange is 6.7 oz.

Back to our Kroger site - a bag of oranges, weighing 4 lbs, is $5. Convert lbs to oz to get 64 oz and divide by 6.7 oz and you get 9.55 oranges...basically 9 to 10 oranges in a bag.

https://www.kroger.com/p/kroger-fresh-na...ult_search

So...working with just oranges in their raw, unprocessed state will cost you about $5.00 to make your own OJ at home for over twice the cost of buying the Simply Orange bottle and pouring out 32 oz to get your one quart. Simply Orange is one of the more expensive brands of OJ I've seen in our local grocery stores. We're not talking store brand or OJ made from concentrate. I get that the factory can get discounts on oranges vs us unwashed masses. HOWEVER, they have to pay for employees (wages + benefits), machinery that needs to be maintained, utilities costs, etc, etc.

How is that possible? The product from the factory has to be different from the one you would make at home. You know the inputs you used at home are real ingredients. How about the factory?

Interesting question. While I don't specifically know the answer, here's what I can tell you.
There are different types of oranges. Navel oranges are usually the type you eat. The best types go into fruit you eat directly. Lesser ones tend to go into juice. Florida and Brazilian oranges are most often converted into juice. Not that there are many Florida oranges left. Last year was the smallest production since the 1940s. In a few years Brazil may have that greening disease too hurting their crops. Fresh fruit also requires fairly prompt transportation of a heavy item. Juice is just the liquid to transport and it can be preserved for a longer period. An orange juice like Simply or Florida's Natural are blends of different types of oranges and crops to get the profile they want. And if you might think its not as good as it used to be, you would be right. The greening disease has significantly reduced the amount and quality of the oranges. So they are using oranges that are less sweet. I can't really taste the difference, but my wife the food scientist can. If they haven't already, they are thinking about reducing the standards for what is defined as "orange juice" because they simply can't produce to the "Brix" standards. The crops aren't good enough. Simply is more expensive in part because it is blended to a higher Brix standard than the generic brands.

That’s interesting information. It is certainly true that some things are better and cheaper than we can make ourselves.

On a side note, anyone else remember the packs of frozen orange juice concentrate that were rectangular containers, about the size and shape of a box of 4 sticks of butter. It was something like a milk carton material? They I swear I remember those, but no one else seems to.

Am I having an OJ Mandela effect kind of thing lol?

(11-21-2024 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 04:02 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 01:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:10 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I've decided that I agree that if people want to eat poison we should let them. But they should have to let us know it's poison.

If that is the logic we are going to apply them we have to lift ban on about a gazillion deadly things we already ban from food (everything from lead to more things than you can possibly imagine).

Or just maybe there is a smarter way we can go about it by keeping proven dangerous additives out of our foods that kill people, cripple our healthcare system and give diseases to millions of children.

Some are creating an imaginary straw man that somehow banning certain dyes and other additives is going to make all your favorite foods suddenly taste horrible. Its a fantasy argument that has no basis in reality or fact at this point.

There is a BIG difference between banning something to make food less fattening and banning something because its proven to cause cancer. These are to completely different things that many don't seem to understand the difference between.

Unhealthy options people want to choose should absolutely be fully avaible, but known cancer causing and proven dangerous additives should NOT be.

This is where you are showing your ignorance. Virtually everything causes cancer in large doses. But there is nothing allowed in the US that is known to cause cancer or dangerous at anywhere near the levels allowed. Nobody knowingly is putting dangerous substances in food. Food companies understand the US tort laws. We have a very good regulatory regime. They just don't jump after every internet scare or rant from a Food Babe or lobbyist from the organic farm group.

"Virtually everything causes cancer in large doses"

You sure about that ? What about milk & dairy products ? How about pure water.

I'm pretty sure you could feed mice mass quantities of ingredients in milk & dairy products and cause cancer. Everything is a chemical. Possibly even too much water! There are trace carcinogens in water and lots of other chemicals. If the water passed through the mouse and the carcinogens remained....

And a lot of people, especially non-Europeans, are lactose intolerant.

First off I said pure water, maybe you missed it. When you find a study on dairy products causing cancer, please Post it. "Everything is a chemical", no chit. I'm pretty sure here we are talking about synthetic chemical being added to our food.

(11-21-2024 05:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 04:47 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think there is something amiss in our food supply. I think the majority of American's never truly sat down and thought it through. Here is an example that doesn't compute.

At the generic Kroger site I can buy a 52 oz container of orange juice for $4. This equates to $2.46 for a quart. Keep this price in mind.

https://www.kroger.com/q/simply+orange+juice

Here is a reference site to let us know how many oranges it would take to make 1 quart of fresh squeezed orange juice.

https://thepharmjuicebarandkitchen.com/b...cup-juice/

Quote:Average Size Of An Orange:
The average size of an orange can vary depending on the variety and cultivation methods. Generally, oranges range in size from roughly the size of a golf ball to as large as a baseball. Navel oranges are typically larger than other varieties and can range from 3 to 4 inches in diameter. On the other hand, Valencia oranges tend to be a bit smaller, usually measuring around 2½ inches in diameter.

While there is no set measurement for what constitutes a “medium” orange, most within this range weigh about 4-5 ounces. It’s important to note that size doesn’t necessarily reflect quality – smaller oranges may be juicier and sweeter while larger oranges may have thicker skin and be more difficult to peel. Overall, the average size of an orange is just one factor to consider when selecting the perfect piece of citrus fruit for your needs.

How Many Oranges For 1 Cup Of Juice?
When it comes to making orange juice, one question that may arise is how many oranges are needed to yield one cup of juice. The answer to this question largely depends on the size and juiciness of the oranges being used, but on average, it takes about three medium-sized oranges to produce one cup of juice. If you’re looking to make a large batch of orange juice, however, you may need more than three oranges.

For example, if you’re making a quart (1 liter) of orange juice, you’ll likely need 8-10 oranges depending on size and variety.If you’re looking to make a large batch of orange juice, however, you may need more than three oranges. For example, if you’re making a quart (1 liter) of orange juice, you’ll likely need 8-10 oranges depending on size and variety. It is important to note that certain tools, such as a juicer, can help extract more juice from the oranges than simply squeezing them by hand, so be sure to adjust accordingly when making large batches.

Additionally, it is always recommended to choose ripe, firm oranges and to wash them thoroughly before juicing. With these tips in mind, making delicious and nutritious orange juice can be a simple and rewarding task.

According to this site https://weighschool.com/orange-weights/ an average orange is 6.7 oz.

Back to our Kroger site - a bag of oranges, weighing 4 lbs, is $5. Convert lbs to oz to get 64 oz and divide by 6.7 oz and you get 9.55 oranges...basically 9 to 10 oranges in a bag.

https://www.kroger.com/p/kroger-fresh-na...ult_search

So...working with just oranges in their raw, unprocessed state will cost you about $5.00 to make your own OJ at home for over twice the cost of buying the Simply Orange bottle and pouring out 32 oz to get your one quart. Simply Orange is one of the more expensive brands of OJ I've seen in our local grocery stores. We're not talking store brand or OJ made from concentrate. I get that the factory can get discounts on oranges vs us unwashed masses. HOWEVER, they have to pay for employees (wages + benefits), machinery that needs to be maintained, utilities costs, etc, etc.

How is that possible? The product from the factory has to be different from the one you would make at home. You know the inputs you used at home are real ingredients. How about the factory?

Interesting question. While I don't specifically know the answer, here's what I can tell you.
There are different types of oranges. Navel oranges are usually the type you eat. The best types go into fruit you eat directly. Lesser ones tend to go into juice. Florida and Brazilian oranges are most often converted into juice. Not that there are many Florida oranges left. Last year was the smallest production since the 1940s. In a few years Brazil may have that greening disease too hurting their crops. Fresh fruit also requires fairly prompt transportation of a heavy item. Juice is just the liquid to transport and it can be preserved for a longer period. An orange juice like Simply or Florida's Natural are blends of different types of oranges and crops to get the profile they want. And if you might think its not as good as it used to be, you would be right. The greening disease has significantly reduced the amount and quality of the oranges. So they are using oranges that are less sweet. I can't really taste the difference, but my wife the food scientist can. If they haven't already, they are thinking about reducing the standards for what is defined as "orange juice" because they simply can't produce to the "Brix" standards. The crops aren't good enough. Simply is more expensive in part because it is blended to a higher Brix standard than the generic brands.

Before this was Posted, I looked at my wife's orange juice that she drinks. She buys the Florida Orange Juice brand. I looked on the back and it said made with orange juices from Florida, Brazil and Mexico no sugar added. She also told me like Bullet said that Florida had taken a hit on their oranges. She said in the past that it was only Florida orange juices used on the back of the carton.

(11-21-2024 01:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:07 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 09:02 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I wrote: I do not want to ban ingredients in junk food that make it taste like junk food…”. Does the proposal ban ingredients in junk food that make it taste like junk food?

Many of these additives don't even have anything to do with taste, they are dyes, preservatives and other things that have nothing to do with flavor or taste. You are just blindly throwing that stuff out there because you know virtually nothing about the topic.

And I said there are already mountains of studies and evidence out there showing these things are dangerous and harmful, both here and abroad. These are not some new unknown things we need to BEGIN to study, its things we have know for many years now. Its time we stop ignoring the well documented dangers of many of these things and there impact on children and our entire population, not to mention the astronomical impacts on healthcare and costs of such for decades to come.

You went from talking about banning foods to government issued health mandates and then get offended when I point out those things have nothing to do with the topic and illustrate you actually know nothing about the topic yet.

I remember reading a number of years ago about the latest thing that was causing cancer in white mice.

It was scientists! You give a mouse enough of anything and it will kill them!

There are plenty of long range studies. There are decades of practice. These things are not harmful at the doses in food. If you are worried about it, read the labels and shop at Whole Foods.

As for all this nonsense about dyes, did you know peanuts kill certain people? Shell fish kill certain people. People have wheat allergies. Some people are allergic to some chemicals. But most people aren't or they wouldn't be allowed.

Here's some discussion of sweeteners. Cyclamates were banned in the US and haven't been allowed back, but subsequent studies have show they aren't unsafe. Europe is being pressured by lobbyists to ban aspartame. But it is safe at levels people use. A lot of these additives are just the same.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/caus...fact-sheet

The Olympic level gymnastics some of you will jump through for the sake of arguing is just sad.

"some people are allergic to peanuts, so therefore nothing harmful has ever been put in our food or water and nothing ever will be. And since some people are allergic to peanuts we might as well just allow whatever. There is nothing to see here, pay no attention to the health differences between us and the rest of the world, or the dramatic differences in food additives between us and the rest of the world, and pay no attention to all the studies and science out there on this topic."

As much as you and a few others want it to be, this topic has nothing on earth to do with banning foods or how much exercise kids today get. Those are lame and pathetic excuses to ignore the topic and deflect. There are multiple reasons there is a health epidemic in America and with our children and food additives is one of several factors, But you don't point to the others just to dismiss this one and vice verse. They ALL play a role.

You will pretty much get on your knees and swallow down whatever the MIC, Big Pharma and the Big Food shoots down your throat and then beg for seconds.

(11-21-2024 01:31 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(11-21-2024 01:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  I remember reading a number of years ago about the latest thing that was causing cancer in white mice.

It was scientists! You give a mouse enough of anything and it will kill them!

There are plenty of long range studies. There are decades of practice. These things are not harmful at the doses in food. If you are worried about it, read the labels and shop at Whole Foods.

As for all this nonsense about dyes, did you know peanuts kill certain people? Shell fish kill certain people. People have wheat allergies. Some people are allergic to some chemicals. But most people aren't or they wouldn't be allowed.

Here's some discussion of sweeteners. Cyclamates were banned in the US and haven't been allowed back, but subsequent studies have show they aren't unsafe. Europe is being pressured by lobbyists to ban aspartame. But it is safe at levels people use. A lot of these additives are just the same.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/caus...fact-sheet

Garbage.


We have categorical evidence of massive increase of estrogen levels in todays men and women compared to decades ago and high estrogen is linked to cancer and other diseases and illnesses. Where does high levels of estrogen comes from? Water supply, FOOD (food dyes) and pesticides, herbecides….etc These are thevery areas RFKjr is targeting. If you tell stories and say that the increase in estrogen is made up or comes out from unknown sources then you’re hopelessly lost

He is hopelessly lost and just arguing for pride purposes at this point.

(11-21-2024 05:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/202...luence-he/
RFK's ideas to get at the root causes of disease is good. Its his big federal regulation approach that is the problem.

That's a fair criticism. I'm not a fan of that approach either, to be honest. At the same time, we absolutely HAVE to get synthetic (read: non-naturally occurring) chemicals and hormones out of our food supply and get back to eating more truly natural foods.

As for local vs. national chain grocery stores, you're absolutely spot on. I completely agree with you on that. However, and I should've learned this sooner than later, spending more money on natural foods and being healthy years later is less expensive than spending less money on cheap junk food and being unhealthy years later. Still, I think we can all agree on that.

(11-21-2024 01:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  There are plenty of long range studies. There are decades of practice. These things are not harmful at the doses in food. If you are worried about it, read the labels and shop at Whole Foods.

I didn't respond to you directly about this comment but this section here was one of the reasons why I went through the orange juice evaluation post about making it homemade from oranges directly vs buying it at the stores. The message I receive from this statement is as follows: If you don't like the highly processed foods we provide for you at the stores - go pay twice as much elsewhere or more.... For an awful lot of people that's all the further they will go. If we're talking about a completely intact traditional family unit, the majority of those are 2 income families where both parents are working outside the house - especially if the jobs these parents work are lower income - they will be pressed for both time and to stretch their budgets. So when you take the step back and look at the bigger picture and realize - I can save more money buying foods that have been heavily processed vs buying unprocessed or mostly unprocessed "whole foods" - alarm bells should be going off. In what world should it be cheaper to buy foods that include a lot of processing costs over minimally processed or unprocessed foods???

First off there is the issue with economics - supply and demand. I'm not sure which side is the bigger driver. Are people not demanding minimally processed foods and just want more processed food with convenience being the big driver and/or artificially making processed food more desirable? Or are there issues with supply where farmers prefer to grow crops that bolster the processed and ultra-processed food industry over foods to sell directly to consumers before factories can strip them down to recombine them into something...else? Or are the Food MNCs gobbling up more supply of the foods in their whole form and thus driving up those prices for us due to supply issues?

Another thing to consider is that the Federal Gov't gives our farmers and ranchers subsidies. Are the subsidies incentivizing our farmers to grow grains and starchy foods to the detriment of growing fruits and vegetables?