10th August 2016, 5:39 AM
Everything that exists is a chemical ABF. Food IS chemicals. Sorry to say that if you are already aware, but a large number of Americans get their dietary information from daytime TV and seem to think "chemicals" only refer to stuff scientists created by sheer force of will in a lab.
Also, "organic" generally is just another word for "carbon based", but that's obviously not how a lot of people use the term. The problem is, the term as generally used has no coherent definition! In fact, the FDA has basically not been able to find any definition that is in any way logical and thus hasn't really defined it themselves. The same applies to the term "natural".
"Artisinal" is a cute one. It's literally a synonym for "artificial". People forget that before artificial got all the stigma attached to it, it just meant "the product of an art", because it's got the word "art" right in there.
"Processed" is a tough one too. It just means "made by some sort of process", which applies to anything we have to prepare in some way before we eat it. At least there's a coherent definition there. An apple fresh off a tree is unprocessed, but if you cut it up and dip the pieces in caramel, it's processed. A recent study actually had to define what "processed" specifically referred to when they did a study on the effects of "processed meat". Specifically, for the purposes of the study, the processes in question were smoking, salting, and the use of preservatives. The study grouped all three of those processes into one, which is unfortunate, because I'd love to know which of those processes lead to the higher rates of cancer, but it was still helpful. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd probably say that "salting" is probably the least likely of the three to be the cancer agent, with "smoking" being the most likely (as we already know the dangers of breathing smoke, and ingesting it probably isn't much better). Since there are so many kinds of preservatives, that leaves them as a wild card that could go either way. Heck, honey makes a good (and tasty) preservative.
I'm not just being pedantic here, as so many people I point this stuff out to try to tell me. Having coherent definitions for these health terms is a must, and many of them lack that, so how can those terms be in any way useful in getting healthy?
People do need to eat healthier, and it's clear that there's a lot of additives in modern food that are causing harm. That's clear because many countries have already banned it due to conclusions of the WHO, but the FDA is generally far slower in banning things like the yellow die used in our cheese (I'm totally okay with cheese looking white if it means getting rid of the known harm of that specific yellow food die). The truth is, there are no easy rules of thumb when it comes to health. Those who want to be health conscious can't just come up with something simple like "carbs are the enemy" (we actually need carbohydrates to live). It'll require for people to learn a LOT, or to push the government to give the FDA a bit more power to enforce their recommendations, but most people don't want the latter, and most people also don't want to be told they need to read vast dry tomes of scientific literature when Dr. Oz can just tell them some simple easy to digest rule of thumb. It also doesn't help that the media is full of pop-diet fad pushers banking on the public's ignorance to sell their latest gimmick.
So anyway, yes, I'm specifically talking about Hillary's attempt to secure an endorsement from Kissinger. Exactly who is she trying to reach out for, and why? It's entirely the wrong direction for her campaign to go in! Stop trying to win over the bible thumping war-monger crowd and focus on keeping your base! There's not even a reason to try and win over people who are almost certainly going to vote for Trump anyway, because Trump is losing! What it DOES do is alienate the progressive side yet again by showing that she doesn't care how it looks because she takes the progressive vote as a "given". (And why shouldn't she? Look at her opponent, the least qualified candidate in American history perhaps, but I don't know, you tell me.) I used to think of Kissinger as a funny celebrity cameo on Futurama, but now I realize just how much evil he was responsible for. That is NOT the sort of "reaching across the isle" that helps anyone. You don't court with evil like that. You repudiate it. She doesn't need him!
And yet, at the same time, Trump has just stated that Hillary being able to nominate a supreme court judge (as prescribed by the constitution) is "dangerous" and can't be stopped, but second amendment people might have a solution for that, I don't know, you tell me. So, he's whistling out there banking on some random extremist hearing the call and setting up a rifle on a grassy knoll. Also, I am pretty sure Putin is using him. Not that Trump's aware of it, but Putin just calls him every now and then to compliment him and his ego takes care of the rest.
Also, "organic" generally is just another word for "carbon based", but that's obviously not how a lot of people use the term. The problem is, the term as generally used has no coherent definition! In fact, the FDA has basically not been able to find any definition that is in any way logical and thus hasn't really defined it themselves. The same applies to the term "natural".
"Artisinal" is a cute one. It's literally a synonym for "artificial". People forget that before artificial got all the stigma attached to it, it just meant "the product of an art", because it's got the word "art" right in there.
"Processed" is a tough one too. It just means "made by some sort of process", which applies to anything we have to prepare in some way before we eat it. At least there's a coherent definition there. An apple fresh off a tree is unprocessed, but if you cut it up and dip the pieces in caramel, it's processed. A recent study actually had to define what "processed" specifically referred to when they did a study on the effects of "processed meat". Specifically, for the purposes of the study, the processes in question were smoking, salting, and the use of preservatives. The study grouped all three of those processes into one, which is unfortunate, because I'd love to know which of those processes lead to the higher rates of cancer, but it was still helpful. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd probably say that "salting" is probably the least likely of the three to be the cancer agent, with "smoking" being the most likely (as we already know the dangers of breathing smoke, and ingesting it probably isn't much better). Since there are so many kinds of preservatives, that leaves them as a wild card that could go either way. Heck, honey makes a good (and tasty) preservative.
I'm not just being pedantic here, as so many people I point this stuff out to try to tell me. Having coherent definitions for these health terms is a must, and many of them lack that, so how can those terms be in any way useful in getting healthy?
People do need to eat healthier, and it's clear that there's a lot of additives in modern food that are causing harm. That's clear because many countries have already banned it due to conclusions of the WHO, but the FDA is generally far slower in banning things like the yellow die used in our cheese (I'm totally okay with cheese looking white if it means getting rid of the known harm of that specific yellow food die). The truth is, there are no easy rules of thumb when it comes to health. Those who want to be health conscious can't just come up with something simple like "carbs are the enemy" (we actually need carbohydrates to live). It'll require for people to learn a LOT, or to push the government to give the FDA a bit more power to enforce their recommendations, but most people don't want the latter, and most people also don't want to be told they need to read vast dry tomes of scientific literature when Dr. Oz can just tell them some simple easy to digest rule of thumb. It also doesn't help that the media is full of pop-diet fad pushers banking on the public's ignorance to sell their latest gimmick.
So anyway, yes, I'm specifically talking about Hillary's attempt to secure an endorsement from Kissinger. Exactly who is she trying to reach out for, and why? It's entirely the wrong direction for her campaign to go in! Stop trying to win over the bible thumping war-monger crowd and focus on keeping your base! There's not even a reason to try and win over people who are almost certainly going to vote for Trump anyway, because Trump is losing! What it DOES do is alienate the progressive side yet again by showing that she doesn't care how it looks because she takes the progressive vote as a "given". (And why shouldn't she? Look at her opponent, the least qualified candidate in American history perhaps, but I don't know, you tell me.) I used to think of Kissinger as a funny celebrity cameo on Futurama, but now I realize just how much evil he was responsible for. That is NOT the sort of "reaching across the isle" that helps anyone. You don't court with evil like that. You repudiate it. She doesn't need him!
And yet, at the same time, Trump has just stated that Hillary being able to nominate a supreme court judge (as prescribed by the constitution) is "dangerous" and can't be stopped, but second amendment people might have a solution for that, I don't know, you tell me. So, he's whistling out there banking on some random extremist hearing the call and setting up a rifle on a grassy knoll. Also, I am pretty sure Putin is using him. Not that Trump's aware of it, but Putin just calls him every now and then to compliment him and his ego takes care of the rest.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)