http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Billboards+warn+Americans+travel+dirty+Alberta/3276898/story.html
From my perspective Americans can whine and complain and print banner ads and bill boards all they like the but fact of the matter is we Canadians in particular we Albertans did not get them into the mess that they are currently dealing with.
Obama and the White House might be shocked that the US federal court overturned a six-month drilling moratorium but it's not that surprising.
It seems the political posturing missed a very important detail... , the US oil industry is on the brink of collapse.
It's not just America's oil supply and energy security that's in danger, it's not just BP oil and the spill and the subsequently stupid drilling ban, it's the entire gulf economy that's hanging by a thread and it won't take much more to toss it over the cliff.
Truth is thousands and thousands of rig workers were effectively laid off in the 33 rigs operating in the Gulf stopped drilling.
There's a very real possibility that lost wages alone are running $330 million per month.
If you look at the BP 100 million-dollar compensation fund it looks rather paltry.
That's not the end of it. Each rig job supports jobs for four additional jobs for trucks, supply ships, operator service industries, telephones etc.
This work stoppage is huge.
If the drilling ban became permanent which it won't of course, the consequences could be dire and just like the towns that died out in the upper Midwest after the demise of the auto plants the steel mills the entire Gulf Coast in deep water drilling which is so crucial to the US economy could just... fade... away.
At best, we could call this economy fragile.
Recently the Chinese stepped forward to call this economy no longer a AAA credit risk but now a AA credit risk placing the United States of America number 13 on the list of viable creditors on this planet.
If in fact the Gulf accounts for 30% of all the oil produced in the US and should the Gulf be put off-limits that shortfall has to be made up somewhere.
Viable options are few and far between.
Russia may be a friend now but history tells us they're fond of turning off the taps and screwing customers present and past and will most likely do so again should the opportunity present.
The Middle East is hardly America's best friend and royalty structures there leave a hell a lot to be desired.
In Venezuela Hugo Chavez nationalized 11 oil rigs belonging to the US. -- how lovely!
Now, let's consider option number two, our friendly neighbour to the north, the little country that already plays a big role in US energy market. Truth is one of every six barrels of oil consumed daily in the United States comes from Alberta Canada and oil sands have taken a pretty controversial hit by uninformed and ill-informed and had been presented as if there are like broken landscapes wreaking carbon emissions. I humbly ask compared to what?
They can whine and belly ache all they want but the oil sands are going to change and change very soon. They are cost effective and they're becoming increasingly green. Steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) pumps steam into the ground to liquify bitumen and stiff crude oil and makes it thin enough to be pulled out of the ground. No giant holes no toxic pale plummes just two horizontal pipes one above the other puffing away efficiently. There's no question that the Gulf oil spill has become a game changer.
If the US court allows a somewhat watered-down version of the drilling ban that have occurred and will drive the price of US oil stocks to unheard-of low levels pushing the US ever closer to a financial collapse.
In the end, only two real options are left in the hands of the US - the oil sands of Canada or rethinking the drilling ban.
So I say respectfully to Americans who choose to ban the import of the very product that will keep your financial ship afloat, fire away!
The very best you could expect from this unjustified and unneighbourly behavior might be to find yourself without a supplier for the lifeblood of the American economy.
It might seem at this point in time there no are purchasers for this oil sand product but all over the world there is a demand for oil and, as might be expected, the contracts that will be set out will be long-term and might very well preclude a change of heart from our American friends.
So be very sure of who you boycott and the reasons for doing so.
Make sure you have your facts straight and your ducks all in a row.
This is not your fathers’ planet.
http://ge.geglobalresearch.com/blog/alberta-oil-sands-are-going-green/
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/More+bitumen+fewer+emissions/3221396/story.html
Kootenay lake near Nakusp
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Nutraceuticals -- what are they?
This is a relatively new term for me and I was curious enough to research a bit of the background as to how this term came about.
Definition is at Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutraceutical
According to one report, it's the consumer that's driving growth in nutraceuticals. In the last 10 years people have become more concerned for their health and are increasingly inclined to self medicate. Health providers too are keen to shift some of the burden of health care costs on individuals and recognize that functional foods may provide alternatives for medication.
With the ever burgeoning government regulatory bodies popping up like dandelions is becoming increasingly difficult for beneficial products to reach the market without incurring huge costs in order to substantiate any health benefits.
Conducting studies to syndicate health claim applications in the European Union costs in excess of $7 million dollars per product.
Without question, those costs are similar if not higher here in North America where we have 2 bureaucracies doing the same task independently of each other and without any reciprocity whatsoever.
It should come as no surprise that getting a $1.50 a 1/2 pint of blueberries freeze-dried crumbled and encapsulated into a pill drives the cost of this beneficial fruit up to the $25-$30 level.
Partly because of our belief in folklore, most Westerners have a strong attraction to any "potion" that can be manufactured in pill or capsule form. Most recently new health claims are popping up in the form of soft drinks, green teas, strange berries, even gum and the list goes on.
If their benefits could be considered cumulative one could consider living a healthy life for 1000 years just like Methuselah.
As always, there has been keen interest by charlatans, pseudo-health practitioners, snake oil salesman, and of late, both the food and the drug industry.
I'm not in a position to say that what they are encapsulating, bottling and selling does not have a health benefit but I must question why those benefits are not clearly identified in the "public domain" by these bureaucracies who claim to administrate them.
Unless of course this is just another tax grab by greedy government. It seems, increasingly, that big government thinks it knows what's best for you.
What was designed as a "Service" has become a "Regulatory body" with the full force of the law behind it. I believe that with that should come responsibility. They are on the lawn, how much longer till they are in our gardeesn?
Definition is at Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutraceutical
According to one report, it's the consumer that's driving growth in nutraceuticals. In the last 10 years people have become more concerned for their health and are increasingly inclined to self medicate. Health providers too are keen to shift some of the burden of health care costs on individuals and recognize that functional foods may provide alternatives for medication.
With the ever burgeoning government regulatory bodies popping up like dandelions is becoming increasingly difficult for beneficial products to reach the market without incurring huge costs in order to substantiate any health benefits.
Conducting studies to syndicate health claim applications in the European Union costs in excess of $7 million dollars per product.
Without question, those costs are similar if not higher here in North America where we have 2 bureaucracies doing the same task independently of each other and without any reciprocity whatsoever.
It should come as no surprise that getting a $1.50 a 1/2 pint of blueberries freeze-dried crumbled and encapsulated into a pill drives the cost of this beneficial fruit up to the $25-$30 level.
Partly because of our belief in folklore, most Westerners have a strong attraction to any "potion" that can be manufactured in pill or capsule form. Most recently new health claims are popping up in the form of soft drinks, green teas, strange berries, even gum and the list goes on.
If their benefits could be considered cumulative one could consider living a healthy life for 1000 years just like Methuselah.
As always, there has been keen interest by charlatans, pseudo-health practitioners, snake oil salesman, and of late, both the food and the drug industry.
I'm not in a position to say that what they are encapsulating, bottling and selling does not have a health benefit but I must question why those benefits are not clearly identified in the "public domain" by these bureaucracies who claim to administrate them.
Unless of course this is just another tax grab by greedy government. It seems, increasingly, that big government thinks it knows what's best for you.
What was designed as a "Service" has become a "Regulatory body" with the full force of the law behind it. I believe that with that should come responsibility. They are on the lawn, how much longer till they are in our gardeesn?
Friday, July 2, 2010
"Parent blaming" and it's just rewards
If you feel that your childhood wasn't up to your standards its probably time you got over it.
Dwelling on this is pathetic and pointless and, for the rest of us innocent bystanders, it's very annoying.
I grow weary of all this whining and complaining at all this anger and victim mentality and your inability see that your current attitude is your biggest problem.
I'm also sick of blaming your bad behavior on your parents.
The thing standing between you and success right now is you, not your parents, not your history, not your education, just you. To harbour the fact that they have sabotaged your life and are somehow responsible for your current stupid behaviors and less than desirable outcomes reeks of denial, immaturity and delusion.
We, all of course, do understand that your childhood and parts of it didn't measure up to your high standards.
Is it even remotely possible that you could wrap your head around the fact that much of life doesn't meet with anyone's high standards? Perhaps your parents lives were affected by the same problems that you seem to be complaining of except they buried their problems in work and an effort to try and make a decent home, put food on the table, and even provide the odd holiday while you judged them.
Now you may have a very good reason to be pissed off at your parents.
I'm just saying let it go anyway and move on.
You can't be the judge of what they deserve and don't deserve.
If what you want is to destroy your own potential and your own enthusiasm ,your own optimism and your hope then become a chronic parent blamer. Hang onto that hurt no matter what. No matter how much you think your parents deserve your anger, vitriol and resentment.
I’m telling you it serves no positive purpose it will hurt you more than them stop being a big, immature, stupid baby and you and only you, are responsible for your current reality – no matter what your parents have or haven’t done to you, or for you.
Even though you may have a very good reason to be eternally pissed at your folks, I’m saying let it go anyway.
The other thing you could do is get on with your life and be careful not to waste your time on parent blaming it will destroy you from the inside out. It's an ugly fact that some people will die angry, bitter,resentful and tortured because they never found a way to let go of the self perpetuated - read that clearly, self perpetuated - misery.
If you're still hanging onto emotional crap from years ago it's you that's the problem.
When you're 20,30,40,50 and you're still thinking of talking and behaving like a teenager it is not the parents but -you- repeat -you- need a really big reality check.
The one thing you can change about the past is how you let it affect you now.
The problem as that parenting is a flawed process. You learned your skill or lack there of from your parents. Most of us add and subtract to the information we have as the situation presents.
Sometimes we do a real good job and sometimes not, this is not a perfect world!
This parental blaming game is a slippery slope of self-pity, self-
destruction and futility that's played by far too many people to their own detriment.
It's a game you're advised to avoid.
For better or worse, parents have limited power to influence their children. That is why they should not be so fast to take all the blame — or credit — for everything that their children become.
Dwelling on this is pathetic and pointless and, for the rest of us innocent bystanders, it's very annoying.
I grow weary of all this whining and complaining at all this anger and victim mentality and your inability see that your current attitude is your biggest problem.
I'm also sick of blaming your bad behavior on your parents.
The thing standing between you and success right now is you, not your parents, not your history, not your education, just you. To harbour the fact that they have sabotaged your life and are somehow responsible for your current stupid behaviors and less than desirable outcomes reeks of denial, immaturity and delusion.
We, all of course, do understand that your childhood and parts of it didn't measure up to your high standards.
Is it even remotely possible that you could wrap your head around the fact that much of life doesn't meet with anyone's high standards? Perhaps your parents lives were affected by the same problems that you seem to be complaining of except they buried their problems in work and an effort to try and make a decent home, put food on the table, and even provide the odd holiday while you judged them.
Now you may have a very good reason to be pissed off at your parents.
I'm just saying let it go anyway and move on.
You can't be the judge of what they deserve and don't deserve.
If what you want is to destroy your own potential and your own enthusiasm ,your own optimism and your hope then become a chronic parent blamer. Hang onto that hurt no matter what. No matter how much you think your parents deserve your anger, vitriol and resentment.
I’m telling you it serves no positive purpose it will hurt you more than them stop being a big, immature, stupid baby and you and only you, are responsible for your current reality – no matter what your parents have or haven’t done to you, or for you.
Even though you may have a very good reason to be eternally pissed at your folks, I’m saying let it go anyway.
The other thing you could do is get on with your life and be careful not to waste your time on parent blaming it will destroy you from the inside out. It's an ugly fact that some people will die angry, bitter,resentful and tortured because they never found a way to let go of the self perpetuated - read that clearly, self perpetuated - misery.
If you're still hanging onto emotional crap from years ago it's you that's the problem.
When you're 20,30,40,50 and you're still thinking of talking and behaving like a teenager it is not the parents but -you- repeat -you- need a really big reality check.
The one thing you can change about the past is how you let it affect you now.
The problem as that parenting is a flawed process. You learned your skill or lack there of from your parents. Most of us add and subtract to the information we have as the situation presents.
Sometimes we do a real good job and sometimes not, this is not a perfect world!
This parental blaming game is a slippery slope of self-pity, self-
destruction and futility that's played by far too many people to their own detriment.
It's a game you're advised to avoid.
For better or worse, parents have limited power to influence their children. That is why they should not be so fast to take all the blame — or credit — for everything that their children become.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Organic Pesticides Not Always 'Greener' Choice, U of G Study Finds
Despite the incessant clap trap from the uniformed masses the truth slowly emerges from the hype.
Consumers shouldn't assume that because a product is organic it's also environmentally friendly.
A new University of Guelph study reveals some organic pesticides can have a higher environmental impact than conventional pesticides because the organic product may require larger doses.
Environmental sciences professor Rebecca Hallett and PhD candidate Christine Bahlai compared the effectiveness and environmental impact of organic pesticides with those of conventional and novel reduced-risk synthetic products on soybean crops.
“The consumer demand for organic products is increasing partly because of a concern for the environment,” said Hallett. “But it’s too simplistic to say that because it’s organic it’s better for the environment. Organic growers are permitted to use pesticides that are of natural origin, and in some cases, these organic pesticides can have higher environmental impacts than synthetic pesticides, often because they have to be used in large doses.”
The study, which is published this week in the journal PloS One, involved testing six pesticides and comparing their environmental impact and effectiveness in killing soybean aphids — the main pest of soybean crops across North America.
The scientists examined four synthetic pesticides: two conventional products commonly used by soybean farmers and two new reduced-risk pesticides. They also examined a mineral oil-based organic pesticide that smothers aphids and another product containing a fungus that infects and kills insects.
The two researchers used the environmental impact quotient, a database indicating impact of active ingredients based on such factors as leaching rate into soil, runoff, toxicity from skin exposure, consumer risk, toxicity to birds and fish, and duration of the chemical in the soil and on the plant.
They also conducted field tests on how well each pesticide targeted aphids while leaving their predators — ladybugs and flower bugs — unharmed.
“We found the mineral oil organic pesticide had the most impact on the environment because it works by smothering the aphids and therefore requires large amounts to be applied to the plants,” said Hallett.
Compared with the synthetic pesticides, the mineral oil-based and fungal products were less effective because they also killed ladybugs and flower bugs, which are important regulators of aphid population and growth.
These predator insects reduce environmental impact because they naturally protect the crop, reducing the amount of pesticides that are needed, she added.
“Ultimately, the organic products were much less effective than the novel and conventional pesticides at killing the aphids, and they have a potentially higher environmental impact. In terms of making pest-management decisions and trying to do what is best for the environment, it’s important to look at every compound and make a selection based on the environmental impact quotient rather than if it’s simply natural or synthetic. It’s a simplification that just doesn’t work when it comes to minimizing environmental impact.”
here's the original source
Consumers shouldn't assume that because a product is organic it's also environmentally friendly.
A new University of Guelph study reveals some organic pesticides can have a higher environmental impact than conventional pesticides because the organic product may require larger doses.
Environmental sciences professor Rebecca Hallett and PhD candidate Christine Bahlai compared the effectiveness and environmental impact of organic pesticides with those of conventional and novel reduced-risk synthetic products on soybean crops.
“The consumer demand for organic products is increasing partly because of a concern for the environment,” said Hallett. “But it’s too simplistic to say that because it’s organic it’s better for the environment. Organic growers are permitted to use pesticides that are of natural origin, and in some cases, these organic pesticides can have higher environmental impacts than synthetic pesticides, often because they have to be used in large doses.”
The study, which is published this week in the journal PloS One, involved testing six pesticides and comparing their environmental impact and effectiveness in killing soybean aphids — the main pest of soybean crops across North America.
The scientists examined four synthetic pesticides: two conventional products commonly used by soybean farmers and two new reduced-risk pesticides. They also examined a mineral oil-based organic pesticide that smothers aphids and another product containing a fungus that infects and kills insects.
The two researchers used the environmental impact quotient, a database indicating impact of active ingredients based on such factors as leaching rate into soil, runoff, toxicity from skin exposure, consumer risk, toxicity to birds and fish, and duration of the chemical in the soil and on the plant.
They also conducted field tests on how well each pesticide targeted aphids while leaving their predators — ladybugs and flower bugs — unharmed.
“We found the mineral oil organic pesticide had the most impact on the environment because it works by smothering the aphids and therefore requires large amounts to be applied to the plants,” said Hallett.
Compared with the synthetic pesticides, the mineral oil-based and fungal products were less effective because they also killed ladybugs and flower bugs, which are important regulators of aphid population and growth.
These predator insects reduce environmental impact because they naturally protect the crop, reducing the amount of pesticides that are needed, she added.
“Ultimately, the organic products were much less effective than the novel and conventional pesticides at killing the aphids, and they have a potentially higher environmental impact. In terms of making pest-management decisions and trying to do what is best for the environment, it’s important to look at every compound and make a selection based on the environmental impact quotient rather than if it’s simply natural or synthetic. It’s a simplification that just doesn’t work when it comes to minimizing environmental impact.”
here's the original source
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Food fadisms and why they persist in our society
The folklore and superstition of cultures throughout history have attributed healing or harmful properties to certain foods. This tendency has not disappeared with the advent of the sciences of nutrition and medicine. Food folklore continues today, although in many instances it is inconsistent with scientific evidence.
Nutrition fraud is a comprehensive term used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to describe the abuses that occur as a result of the misleading claims for traditional foods, dietary supplements, and dietary products and of the deceptive promotion of other food substances, processes, and devices.
Food faddism is a dietary practice based upon an exaggerated belief in the effects of food or nutrition on health and disease.
Food fads derive from three beliefs:
1.That special attributes of a particular food may cure disease.
2. That certain foods should be eliminated from the diet because they are harmful.
3.That certain foods convey special health benefits.
Food faddists are those who follow a particular nutritional practice with zeal and whose claims for its benefits are substantially more than science has substantiated.
Food quackery, which involves the exploitive, entrepreneurial aspects of food faddism, is the promotion for profit of special foods, products, processes, or appliances with false or misleading health or therapeutic claims. A food quack is one who pretends to have medical or nutritional knowledge and who promotes special foods, products, or appliances with false or misleading claims, usually for personal financial gain.
Nutrition fraud flourishes today because of the diversity of cultures, the historical tradition of concern for health and the use of natural remedies, and the introduction of advanced communication technologies.
Food faddism has its roots in Great Britain, where patent medicines were advertised and sold by everyone from hawkers to goldsmiths. In the colonies, legal protection of consumers against fraudulent claims was first recorded in Massachusetts Bayin 1630. Nicholas Knopp, was whipped and fined five pounds for selling a cure for scurvy that had "no worth nor value" and was "solde att a very deare rate". [Young, J.H. The toadstool millionaires: a social history of patent medicines in America before federal regulation. 1961.]
It should be noted that processed foods should not necessarily be eliminated from a persons diet because of this belief, it is true that without fortification the more a food is processed and thus differs from its natural form the less nutrient dense it will be.
Some groups such as fruitarians actually go a step further, they don't eat processed or cooked foods. The reason being that when a food is cooked it is not able to be digested and becomes toxic. There is no scientific evidence to back this argument to its fullest extent.
Popular interest in nutrition, coupled with concern about food shortages during World War I, was fostered by the increasing promotion of the health properties of foods in the early 20th century. Vitamins, by the very nature of their discovery, became associated with the prevention or cure of disease and were soon promoted as curative agents.
Today the travelling patent medical man has been largely replaced by the highly skilled and organized use of electronic means to promote fraudulent marketing - computers, customized mailing lists, national advertisements, and other mass media. The medium and the details have changed, but the message and the goals remain. It is difficult for consumers to evaluate the validity of the health claims perpetrated by quacks and faddists.
Purveyors of nutrition fraud capitalize on people's desire to be healthy and on the lack of certainty in many areas of nutrition and health. No writer for a lay audience has any special insights into nutrition which are not known by a substantial part of the scientific community. Magic and sensational diets are nothing more than exaggerations of one facet of nutrition at the expense of another, often to the detriment of the willing victims.
Regulation of Nutrition Fraud
The first Federal legislation, the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906, made it unlawful to manufacture or introduce into interstate commerce adulterated or misbranded food or drug products.
Currently, numerous Government, medical and consumer-oriented organizations are responsible for preventing and controlling fraud. These agencies work cooperatively, and their antifraud activities have become more visible in recent years.
Private agencies and organizations such as the American Dietetic Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the National Council Against Health Fraud, and other health professional groups are also active against food fraud.
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act empowers the FDA to prohibit the introduction of any food, drug, device or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded. Only factual and nonmisleading information is allowed on food labels. Most false promotional claims, therefore, are not made on labels. Instead, they appear in books, lectures, and mass media that are protected by constitutional rights. The FDA has the authority to use its food additive and drug approval processes to control food products allowed on the market and to remove fraudulent products.
Most fraudulent food products are classified as foods, but when therapeutic claims are made for them, they are also considered to be drugs.
If a food product is also classified as a drug and is considered by the FDA to be ineffective for its claimed use, it will not have an approved New Drug Application. For example, if it is promoted for treating a disease that is not amenable to lay diagnosis, it cannot have adequate directions for use and will not be approved.
Health Consequences of Fraud
Nutrition fraud may lead to deleterious health consequences, caused by the failure to seek legitimate medical care, by potentially toxic components of foods and products, by nutrient toxicities and deficiencies, by diversion of monies from essential treatments, and by interference with sound nutrition education.
Public health and safety can be jeopardized by false promises that divert or deter individuals from pursuing sound forms of medical treatment or that encourage them to abandon beneficial therapy for a disease. Fraud may encourage people to reject legitimate medical advice and to practice inappropriate self-medication that is less likely to be helpful, and more likely to be directly harmful, than the medical technology based on a sound understanding of human biology and nutrition.
The FDA's annual reports document numerous instances of fraud-induced failure to obtain appropriate health care. Because early detection and treatment improve prognosis for many illnesses, unproven "nutritional" therapies may unnecessarily delay beneficial intervention. Some diet regimens recommended by health faddists to treat cancer, for example, are so nutritionally deficient or toxic that adherence to them has caused death or serious illness.
Public injury can occur when foods and unproven remedies are toxic. Just because a substance occurs naturally in food does not mean that it is necessarily safe. Many of the chemicals known to be present in herbs have never been tested for safety. Some plant foods contain potentially unsafe pharmacologically active ingredients such as aflatoxin, one of the most potent carcinogens known.
There has been a substantial increase in the use of herbal products that contain pharmacologically active ingredients that can possibly produce undesirable effects such as an increase in blood pressure. Occasional poisonings and clinical intoxications are reported after the use of herbal tea products. Ginseng, one of the most popular herbs, has been reported to produce oestro-like effects in some people. From present evidence, it cannot be concluded that all herbal products can be consumed safely over extended periods of time. [Larkin, T. Herbs are often more toxic than magical. FDA Consumer: 4-11, October, 1983.]
Potentially harmful ingredients have been identified in samples of other food supplements, such as an oestroic hormone in commercial alfalfa tablets, arsenic in kelp tablets, and cadmium in dolomite have caused the FDA to caution against use of these products, particularly by pregnant women and children.
Frauds and fads may induce nutrient toxicities or deficiencies. Many people take vitamins as self-medication for the prevention or treatment of health problems. The use of these products varies with such demographic factors as geographic region, education, income, and race. Women are more frequent consumers than men. Intakes range widely, extending up to 50 times the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for individual nutrients.
Nutrient supplements are usually safe in amounts corresponding to the RDA, but the RDA's are already set to provide maximum benefit consistent with safety. Thus, there is no reason to think that larger doses will improve health in already healthy people, and excess intake can be harmful. Mega-dose intakes can have seriously harmful effects. The toxicity of high dosages of vitamin A and D is well established. Because the margin is narrow between a safe and a toxic dose of most trace elements, excessive supplementation with these substances may be particularly hazardous.
Excessively restrictive dietary practices can also induce serious medical problems or even death. Popular weight reduction products often provide very low calorie intakes. Because such products have been associated with the deaths of some young women, the FDA now requires warnings on labels to alert consumers of such products.
Many popular diets are potentially harmful because they eliminate food groups or severely limit food variety. Examples include those that drastically reduce carbohydrate intake, or advocate excessive fruit consumption, and those that claim that a person cannot digest protein and carbohydrates at the same time. This is not true, it has been shown that different parts of the digestive tract deal with different nutrients and will absorb those nutrients, besides most foods usually contain both protein and carbohydrates (eg. legumes which are often 50% protein and 50% carbohydrate).
Fad diets seldom produce long-lasting weight control. Highly restricted diets, such as the more extreme forms of Zen macrobiotics, have led to nutritional deficiencies, starvation, and even death in a few individuals. [Council on Foods and Nutrition, Journal American Medical Association. Zen macrobiotic diets. 218:397, 1971.] Such diets have also been associated with retarded fetal development and childhood growth or other nutritional problems in young children.
Commercial interests have capitalized on a heightened public awareness of nutrition and health issues, but much of the public cannot evaluate the validity of available weight reduction schemes, supplements, and services. Self-appointed health and nutrition advisors have expressed distrust of proven public health measures such as fluoridation and pasteurization and, instead, have promoted treatment alternatives that are not supported by accepted medical practice. The public also may be misled by extravagant claims of health benefits from the use of certain foods or nutrient supplements.
Economic Consequences of Fraud
People experience economic injury when purported remedies and cures do not work, are untrue, or are greatly exaggerated or when purchased products are not needed. Fraudulent products are known to be extremely profitable to those who sell them.
Quackery has become big business and costs the deluded consumers in excess of $10 billion a year!
Most fraudulent products and services can be very costly yet are promoted as having nutritional or health benefits that have not been substantiated in scientific literature. [The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health,1988.]
A vast array of substances are available for a variety of different purposes. some of them may even appear to work owing to the power of the placebo effect - if you expect product X will make you feel better, then it probably will. But these supplements must not be dismissed as placebos in the sense of being inert pieces of chalk. These substances are what they say they are, and many of them have powerful pharmacological effects (though not necessarily those claimed for them). The dangers of hypervitaminosis is an obvious example. The effects of excess quantities of isolated amino acid supplements, minerals such asselenium and substances such as ginseng have never been fully explored and may be no less hazardous.
Even if consumed at a level which is not harmful, their use is still undesirable. In most instances they are unnecessary; either providing nutrients which are surplus to requirements or supposed nutrients which are probably not needed at all. Furthermore, those who are most susceptible to health food claims are perhaps those who can least afford to be. [Health Foods and Fad Diets, Manual of Dietetic Practice, British Dietetic Association. Pg 229. 1989.]
The public incurs other costs because many products labelled as "natural" or "organic" sell for higher prices than their "regular" counterparts, although their special benefits are not generally demonstrable. "Natural" vitamins often sell at double the price of synthetic products even though they are chemically identical. In some products labelled as "natural," only a minor fraction of the vitamin is actually derived from natural sources.
What is also very difficult to understand is why more natural foods, like whole wheat bread or unpolished rice, often cost more than their refined counterparts, white bread or par-boiled white rice, that have undergone costly processing and packaging which should make them more, not less expensive.
Most of what is printed here has been accumulated from what I feel are reliable sources and edited to make the information as clear and undrstandable as is within my current abilities.
Nutrition fraud is a comprehensive term used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to describe the abuses that occur as a result of the misleading claims for traditional foods, dietary supplements, and dietary products and of the deceptive promotion of other food substances, processes, and devices.
Food faddism is a dietary practice based upon an exaggerated belief in the effects of food or nutrition on health and disease.
Food fads derive from three beliefs:
1.That special attributes of a particular food may cure disease.
2. That certain foods should be eliminated from the diet because they are harmful.
3.That certain foods convey special health benefits.
Food faddists are those who follow a particular nutritional practice with zeal and whose claims for its benefits are substantially more than science has substantiated.
Food quackery, which involves the exploitive, entrepreneurial aspects of food faddism, is the promotion for profit of special foods, products, processes, or appliances with false or misleading health or therapeutic claims. A food quack is one who pretends to have medical or nutritional knowledge and who promotes special foods, products, or appliances with false or misleading claims, usually for personal financial gain.
Nutrition fraud flourishes today because of the diversity of cultures, the historical tradition of concern for health and the use of natural remedies, and the introduction of advanced communication technologies.
Food faddism has its roots in Great Britain, where patent medicines were advertised and sold by everyone from hawkers to goldsmiths. In the colonies, legal protection of consumers against fraudulent claims was first recorded in Massachusetts Bayin 1630. Nicholas Knopp, was whipped and fined five pounds for selling a cure for scurvy that had "no worth nor value" and was "solde att a very deare rate". [Young, J.H. The toadstool millionaires: a social history of patent medicines in America before federal regulation. 1961.]
It should be noted that processed foods should not necessarily be eliminated from a persons diet because of this belief, it is true that without fortification the more a food is processed and thus differs from its natural form the less nutrient dense it will be.
Some groups such as fruitarians actually go a step further, they don't eat processed or cooked foods. The reason being that when a food is cooked it is not able to be digested and becomes toxic. There is no scientific evidence to back this argument to its fullest extent.
Popular interest in nutrition, coupled with concern about food shortages during World War I, was fostered by the increasing promotion of the health properties of foods in the early 20th century. Vitamins, by the very nature of their discovery, became associated with the prevention or cure of disease and were soon promoted as curative agents.
Today the travelling patent medical man has been largely replaced by the highly skilled and organized use of electronic means to promote fraudulent marketing - computers, customized mailing lists, national advertisements, and other mass media. The medium and the details have changed, but the message and the goals remain. It is difficult for consumers to evaluate the validity of the health claims perpetrated by quacks and faddists.
Purveyors of nutrition fraud capitalize on people's desire to be healthy and on the lack of certainty in many areas of nutrition and health. No writer for a lay audience has any special insights into nutrition which are not known by a substantial part of the scientific community. Magic and sensational diets are nothing more than exaggerations of one facet of nutrition at the expense of another, often to the detriment of the willing victims.
Regulation of Nutrition Fraud
The first Federal legislation, the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906, made it unlawful to manufacture or introduce into interstate commerce adulterated or misbranded food or drug products.
Currently, numerous Government, medical and consumer-oriented organizations are responsible for preventing and controlling fraud. These agencies work cooperatively, and their antifraud activities have become more visible in recent years.
Private agencies and organizations such as the American Dietetic Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the National Council Against Health Fraud, and other health professional groups are also active against food fraud.
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act empowers the FDA to prohibit the introduction of any food, drug, device or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded. Only factual and nonmisleading information is allowed on food labels. Most false promotional claims, therefore, are not made on labels. Instead, they appear in books, lectures, and mass media that are protected by constitutional rights. The FDA has the authority to use its food additive and drug approval processes to control food products allowed on the market and to remove fraudulent products.
Most fraudulent food products are classified as foods, but when therapeutic claims are made for them, they are also considered to be drugs.
If a food product is also classified as a drug and is considered by the FDA to be ineffective for its claimed use, it will not have an approved New Drug Application. For example, if it is promoted for treating a disease that is not amenable to lay diagnosis, it cannot have adequate directions for use and will not be approved.
Health Consequences of Fraud
Nutrition fraud may lead to deleterious health consequences, caused by the failure to seek legitimate medical care, by potentially toxic components of foods and products, by nutrient toxicities and deficiencies, by diversion of monies from essential treatments, and by interference with sound nutrition education.
Public health and safety can be jeopardized by false promises that divert or deter individuals from pursuing sound forms of medical treatment or that encourage them to abandon beneficial therapy for a disease. Fraud may encourage people to reject legitimate medical advice and to practice inappropriate self-medication that is less likely to be helpful, and more likely to be directly harmful, than the medical technology based on a sound understanding of human biology and nutrition.
The FDA's annual reports document numerous instances of fraud-induced failure to obtain appropriate health care. Because early detection and treatment improve prognosis for many illnesses, unproven "nutritional" therapies may unnecessarily delay beneficial intervention. Some diet regimens recommended by health faddists to treat cancer, for example, are so nutritionally deficient or toxic that adherence to them has caused death or serious illness.
Public injury can occur when foods and unproven remedies are toxic. Just because a substance occurs naturally in food does not mean that it is necessarily safe. Many of the chemicals known to be present in herbs have never been tested for safety. Some plant foods contain potentially unsafe pharmacologically active ingredients such as aflatoxin, one of the most potent carcinogens known.
There has been a substantial increase in the use of herbal products that contain pharmacologically active ingredients that can possibly produce undesirable effects such as an increase in blood pressure. Occasional poisonings and clinical intoxications are reported after the use of herbal tea products. Ginseng, one of the most popular herbs, has been reported to produce oestro-like effects in some people. From present evidence, it cannot be concluded that all herbal products can be consumed safely over extended periods of time. [Larkin, T. Herbs are often more toxic than magical. FDA Consumer: 4-11, October, 1983.]
Potentially harmful ingredients have been identified in samples of other food supplements, such as an oestroic hormone in commercial alfalfa tablets, arsenic in kelp tablets, and cadmium in dolomite have caused the FDA to caution against use of these products, particularly by pregnant women and children.
Frauds and fads may induce nutrient toxicities or deficiencies. Many people take vitamins as self-medication for the prevention or treatment of health problems. The use of these products varies with such demographic factors as geographic region, education, income, and race. Women are more frequent consumers than men. Intakes range widely, extending up to 50 times the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for individual nutrients.
Nutrient supplements are usually safe in amounts corresponding to the RDA, but the RDA's are already set to provide maximum benefit consistent with safety. Thus, there is no reason to think that larger doses will improve health in already healthy people, and excess intake can be harmful. Mega-dose intakes can have seriously harmful effects. The toxicity of high dosages of vitamin A and D is well established. Because the margin is narrow between a safe and a toxic dose of most trace elements, excessive supplementation with these substances may be particularly hazardous.
Excessively restrictive dietary practices can also induce serious medical problems or even death. Popular weight reduction products often provide very low calorie intakes. Because such products have been associated with the deaths of some young women, the FDA now requires warnings on labels to alert consumers of such products.
Many popular diets are potentially harmful because they eliminate food groups or severely limit food variety. Examples include those that drastically reduce carbohydrate intake, or advocate excessive fruit consumption, and those that claim that a person cannot digest protein and carbohydrates at the same time. This is not true, it has been shown that different parts of the digestive tract deal with different nutrients and will absorb those nutrients, besides most foods usually contain both protein and carbohydrates (eg. legumes which are often 50% protein and 50% carbohydrate).
Fad diets seldom produce long-lasting weight control. Highly restricted diets, such as the more extreme forms of Zen macrobiotics, have led to nutritional deficiencies, starvation, and even death in a few individuals. [Council on Foods and Nutrition, Journal American Medical Association. Zen macrobiotic diets. 218:397, 1971.] Such diets have also been associated with retarded fetal development and childhood growth or other nutritional problems in young children.
Commercial interests have capitalized on a heightened public awareness of nutrition and health issues, but much of the public cannot evaluate the validity of available weight reduction schemes, supplements, and services. Self-appointed health and nutrition advisors have expressed distrust of proven public health measures such as fluoridation and pasteurization and, instead, have promoted treatment alternatives that are not supported by accepted medical practice. The public also may be misled by extravagant claims of health benefits from the use of certain foods or nutrient supplements.
Economic Consequences of Fraud
People experience economic injury when purported remedies and cures do not work, are untrue, or are greatly exaggerated or when purchased products are not needed. Fraudulent products are known to be extremely profitable to those who sell them.
Quackery has become big business and costs the deluded consumers in excess of $10 billion a year!
Most fraudulent products and services can be very costly yet are promoted as having nutritional or health benefits that have not been substantiated in scientific literature. [The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health,1988.]
A vast array of substances are available for a variety of different purposes. some of them may even appear to work owing to the power of the placebo effect - if you expect product X will make you feel better, then it probably will. But these supplements must not be dismissed as placebos in the sense of being inert pieces of chalk. These substances are what they say they are, and many of them have powerful pharmacological effects (though not necessarily those claimed for them). The dangers of hypervitaminosis is an obvious example. The effects of excess quantities of isolated amino acid supplements, minerals such asselenium and substances such as ginseng have never been fully explored and may be no less hazardous.
Even if consumed at a level which is not harmful, their use is still undesirable. In most instances they are unnecessary; either providing nutrients which are surplus to requirements or supposed nutrients which are probably not needed at all. Furthermore, those who are most susceptible to health food claims are perhaps those who can least afford to be. [Health Foods and Fad Diets, Manual of Dietetic Practice, British Dietetic Association. Pg 229. 1989.]
The public incurs other costs because many products labelled as "natural" or "organic" sell for higher prices than their "regular" counterparts, although their special benefits are not generally demonstrable. "Natural" vitamins often sell at double the price of synthetic products even though they are chemically identical. In some products labelled as "natural," only a minor fraction of the vitamin is actually derived from natural sources.
What is also very difficult to understand is why more natural foods, like whole wheat bread or unpolished rice, often cost more than their refined counterparts, white bread or par-boiled white rice, that have undergone costly processing and packaging which should make them more, not less expensive.
Most of what is printed here has been accumulated from what I feel are reliable sources and edited to make the information as clear and undrstandable as is within my current abilities.
Spraying Context on Organic’s Pesticide Claims
Spraying Context on Organic’s Pesticide Claims
Some say that this source has questionable funding and that may affect the content.
I maintian that the information provided is a starting point for anyone interested to begin doing a bit of research themselves and discover where the truth lies and perhaps even how it becomes distorted by greed and avarice in todays complex world.
My experiences with Organic activists has been personally unrewarding but that should not prevent my dear readers from gathering their own experiences and forming their own conclusions.
Some say that this source has questionable funding and that may affect the content.
I maintian that the information provided is a starting point for anyone interested to begin doing a bit of research themselves and discover where the truth lies and perhaps even how it becomes distorted by greed and avarice in todays complex world.
My experiences with Organic activists has been personally unrewarding but that should not prevent my dear readers from gathering their own experiences and forming their own conclusions.
So... Organic farming can feed the world's population?
Food prices on the world market tell us very little about global hunger. The majority of truly undernourished people -- 62 percent, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization -- live in either Africa or South Asia, and most are small farmers or rural landless laborers living in the countryside of Africa and South Asia.
They are significantly shielded from global price fluctuations both by the trade policies of their own governments and by poor roads and infrastructure. In Africa, more than 70 percent of rural households are cut off from the closest urban markets because, for instance, they live more than a 30-minute walk from the nearest all-weather road.
Now along come the organic movements with their short sighted science:
Organic crops can feed the world and totally eliminate dependence on pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, irrigation etc etc.
So,let’s just dispose of the ridiculous idea that the whole world could go organic if we all agreed to do it.
Limited crop yields mean organic agriculture simply can’t feed the world.
University of Manitoba agronomist Vaclav Smil calculated that in order to replace synthetic nitrogen (widely used today) with organic nitrogen, the U.S. alone would need an additional 1 billion livestock (for manure) and 2 billion acres of forage crops (for the livestock).
That’s the size of the lower 48 states.
In other words, the organic niche is just that—a niche, and a feel-good boutique system for those who can afford it.
But the idea that its widespread use would bring widespread benefits to humanity belongs in the compost.
What about nutritive value of Organic Food?
Rutgers University professor Joseph Rosen analyzed the marketing and health claims made by organic proponents. After noting that experts at the Mayo Clinic and American Dietetic Association don’t find any real benefits in organic food, Rosen concludes:
Much of the proof advanced by both the Soil Association and the Organic Center are based on research articles that have not been reviewed by independent scientists and data that are not statistically significant. Nonexistent or incomplete data are nevertheless “published” in the media. In some cases, organic food proponents omit data that do not support their views… Consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money.
Here's similar findings from yet another accredited group of scientists:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N3O920100524
What's so tragic about this is that we know from experience how to fix the problem. Wherever the rural poor have gained access to improved roads, modern seeds, less expensive fertilizer, electrical power, and better schools and clinics, their productivity and their income have increased. But recent efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided (if sometimes well-meaning) advocacy against agricultural modernization and foreign aid.
They are significantly shielded from global price fluctuations both by the trade policies of their own governments and by poor roads and infrastructure. In Africa, more than 70 percent of rural households are cut off from the closest urban markets because, for instance, they live more than a 30-minute walk from the nearest all-weather road.
Now along come the organic movements with their short sighted science:
Organic crops can feed the world and totally eliminate dependence on pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, irrigation etc etc.
So,let’s just dispose of the ridiculous idea that the whole world could go organic if we all agreed to do it.
Limited crop yields mean organic agriculture simply can’t feed the world.
University of Manitoba agronomist Vaclav Smil calculated that in order to replace synthetic nitrogen (widely used today) with organic nitrogen, the U.S. alone would need an additional 1 billion livestock (for manure) and 2 billion acres of forage crops (for the livestock).
That’s the size of the lower 48 states.
In other words, the organic niche is just that—a niche, and a feel-good boutique system for those who can afford it.
But the idea that its widespread use would bring widespread benefits to humanity belongs in the compost.
What about nutritive value of Organic Food?
Rutgers University professor Joseph Rosen analyzed the marketing and health claims made by organic proponents. After noting that experts at the Mayo Clinic and American Dietetic Association don’t find any real benefits in organic food, Rosen concludes:
Much of the proof advanced by both the Soil Association and the Organic Center are based on research articles that have not been reviewed by independent scientists and data that are not statistically significant. Nonexistent or incomplete data are nevertheless “published” in the media. In some cases, organic food proponents omit data that do not support their views… Consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money.
Here's similar findings from yet another accredited group of scientists:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N3O920100524
What's so tragic about this is that we know from experience how to fix the problem. Wherever the rural poor have gained access to improved roads, modern seeds, less expensive fertilizer, electrical power, and better schools and clinics, their productivity and their income have increased. But recent efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided (if sometimes well-meaning) advocacy against agricultural modernization and foreign aid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)