‘Natural’ Is A Meaningless Marketing Term When Applied To Food
One of the many labels that you’ll see on food at your local food-buying store is “natural.” What marketers want you to think is that “natural” products lack artificial flavor or color additives or preservatives, and maybe even that they’re made with organic ingredients. What it actually means is that the product says “natural” on the label, and that label is probably in shades of tan and light green.
That’s misleading to consumers, who (perhaps naively) expect the words on their food packaging to have a meaning. The Food and Drug Administration has come to realize this, too. They note that there actually is no formal rule about when food marketers are allowed to call something “natural,” though the agency does have a policy of what a “natural” label should say.The FDA has considered the term “natural” to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food.
Why there are no long term GMO studies on humans
So “why don’t we do clinical trials on GMOs the same way we do for drugs?” Drugs are designed to cause a change in the human body: that’s the whole point behind them. Since drugs are altering something in humans, it’s important to know the side-effects that they may cause and whether or not they’re causing the anticipated effect (i.e. is it better than placebo). In contrast, GMOs are designed to be equivalent to their non-GE counterparts: they aren’t drugs or nutritional supplements. GE crops which ARE designed to impact human health, such as vitamin-A enriched rice, should be tested in humans to determine if the desired outcome is achieved (i.e that the rice actually delivers vitamin-A to the body). But such studies are not the same as looking for unknown long-term effects.Christians Against Dinosaurs Want You To Know They’re ‘Fighting Big Paleo For Christ’ (VIDEO)
Another reason why is that there’s no plausible mechanism for harm. In the past, I’ve explained how nothing can truly ever be proven to be 100 percent safe, whether it’s water, a computer or a car. Researchers examine safety when there’s a plausible mechanism whereby harm can occur. For example, a cholesterol lowering drug may act by interfering with cholesterol synthesis in the liver, so it may make sense to see if it impacts other metabolic functions in the liver. But when it comes to the traits that are introduced into GE crops, there isn’t really a mechanism of harm: for example, the Arctic Apple is engineered to have a gene turned off, and the gene doesn’t even exist in humans, so how could that harm us? This is why most scientists wouldn’t want to spend years trying to secure grants for a long term feeding study when the likelihood of having an important discovery or contribution to the field is so low. Safety is relative, and there have been many long-term feeding studies in animals which haven’t observed any harm, suggesting that follow-up testing of GE crops in humans is unnecessary.
This isn’t a cop-out. If we’re looking for a harmful effect but don’t know what it is because we don’t have a reasonable mechanism whereby harm may occur, how can you design the experiment? What variables will you measure? As this document from the FDA outlines, clinical trials for drugs go through very specific phases and can be variable in duration and size. However the thing they all have in common is that they’re looking for a very specific effect (improvement of the disease or its symptoms in the patient). Doctors know exactly what to measure, and look for any possible side-effects, which end up getting listed in the package insert for the drug, even if they are not causal.
So, I have had a "run-in" with this group, nothing bad mind you, questioning the veracity of whether they are Poe or not. The jury, among my peers, is still out. Many think that CAD is a Poe and treat it as such. I, on the other hand, can't seem to make up my mind. Would AronRa spend an hour+ with a Poe?Science Sheds Light Why Heating Your Food With Microwave Radiation Might Be A Bad Idea
So the attached article keeps appearing in my feed as if it is the gospel truth on the matter. It's not!! Let me remind you that the Food Babe got hammered over this very issue because of her BAD science; she eventually removed the offending article http://www.science20.com/…/the_food_babe_took_down_her_goof….
Below you will find 3 science based articles dealing with this very issue. The general conclusion, microwaves are safe and among the best methods of cooking in terms of preserving nutrients.
Specifically the 2003 study,,,
What about the study she references? That study, “Phenolic compound contents in edible parts of broccoli inflorescences after domestic cooking“, added water to the vegetables during microwaving. In essence, they were boiled using the microwave, so the results were more similar to boiling vegetables. Other studies looking at microwaving without added water demonstrate minimal nutrient loss. The advantage of microwaving is shorter cooking time – just don’t add water to your vegetables before putting them in the microwave.
"[W]hen you have the fda [sic] and pharmaceutical companies withholding information about treatments that help and even cure cancer." Exactly what alleged information (or more precisely chemical compound) are they holding back and which treatment "cures" cancer? Cancer is a "family" of diseases, as pointed out in the article, not just "one" thing that one miracle drug can cure. I can kill cancer cells in a petri dish with a gun, doesn't mean the "lead" will cure cancer in the body.There Is NO Cancer Cure Conspiracy
"[W]ithout access to the things that can help,,,". Although I am not happy with the health care I am receiving from my PC, she does have access to every available piece if science based medicine to her hearts content. Failure to use it is her own fault,,, Failure to push for answers, is my own fault.
You spit on the efforts of tens of thousands of health care workers (oncologists, nurses, researchers, students) passionately spending decades of their life tracking down these elusive killers by declaring your degrees from “Google University” and “ conspiracynutjobtheoriesilluminaticonfirmed.com “ outweigh their decades of effort doing…well…actual fucking research.