Sexy Friends Toronto

Should unhealthy foods be banned?

bjaddict

New member
Dec 6, 2011
55
0
0
What mean unhealthy? A tons of chemicals in the veggies and the fruits. The lard is healthier(new study) than the oil.
The heart friendly margarins are bad choice over the butter. The fish from the ocean are full of heavy metals.
So who knows what is healthy or what is not?
 

Anynym

Just a bit to the right
Dec 28, 2005
2,960
6
38
Why would someone want to ban water? After all, if you drink enough of it, it will kill you.

Apart from that, who is to say how much is "moderate"?
 

MattRoxx

Call me anti-fascist
Nov 13, 2011
6,752
3
0
I get around.
That's unfortunate about Diet Cola.Caffeine free Pepsi is one of my "treat" drinks twice a week.I don't think anything should be banned, but I think taxing it and making mandatory correct packaging labels should be law.I never got into these energy drinks but from researching them I think they are as unhealthy as cigarettes long term.About 2 years ago(in the shadow of 40) I started cutting out processed food.I was amazed at all of the(to me) "normal"body reactions I had that went away.Acid reflux,fatigue swings, bloating,even sweating(yup..some of the foods made me sweat).

I have not had a fast food meal in over a year and bake all my own breads,meals and treats.Bake your own.....only way you really know what goes into your body.unhealthy foods will not go away.They have wayy too big a lobby group behind them.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/07/27/f-food-guide-70.html
It's been longer for me. But I had a very similar experience: I cut out processed foods and take-out meals and re-took control of my diet - and lo and behold, all my gastric problems disappeared! No more acid reflux, no more heartburn, lost some flab, and have much better sleep, more and more consistent energy. It was one of those 'eureka' situations.
I go to Brickworks farmers market every Saturday, there is some great produce'n'stuff sold and it's really not that much more expensive than Loblaws or Whole Foods. This past Saturday I found these amazing smoke-dried tomatoes.

Oven baked some squash and cauliflower with a couple of cloves of garlic and these tomatoes (made the whole kitchen smell great, like a wood burning stove), then put in blender with vegetable broth for the soup base. Chopped up a bunch of carrots, sweet peppers, broccoli, zucchini, and a few more of the smoke-dried tomatoes, tossed in the soup for crunch.
Blended in some artisan maple-flavoured goat cream cheese before serving. Turned out SO GOOD!

MrJake said:
No offense to you Kathleen, but that list seems silly to me, never eat corn? Sorry, you lose me there.
Corn is cattle feed, given to cows to fatten them up before slaughter so why would you want to eat it? If your goal is to get as fat as possible as quickly as possibly, eat corn. There are much better foods to eat for carbs, for protein, for fats, and as a grain.
And it's already in pretty much every packaged food you buy. Pop is basically liquid corn. And when you read a label and see maltodextrin, starch, binders, fiber (eg anything promising "high in fiber") - they're all made from highly processed corn.
maltodextrins and corn syrup solids production process begins with the basic corn starch slurry from the wet milling operation. The starch in water slurry is hydrolyzed with food grade acids and/or enzymes. The hydrolysis is controlled to achieve the desired end point. The resulting syrup is then refined by filtering and carbon treatment prior to spray drying. The spray-dried powder is packaged or agglomerated and packaged.
Mmm mmm good.

For more corn info, read Michael Pollan's book, The Botany of Desire. And if you don't like to read, check out the entertaining doc, King Corn.
http://www.youtube.com/movie?v=nvMxIEgbsIo&feature=mv_sr
 
Last edited:

lenny2

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2012
3,574
729
113
If Aspirin was introduced today, it would not pass the stringent test to be approved as a drug let alone an over the counter drug.
Artificial sweeteners have passed years of modern testing.
What about Advil? Is it ok to eat 30 X 400mg in 10 consecutive days every month?
 

wangbang

Camel Toad
Nov 19, 2007
3,161
5
38
Gettin' Licked

Artificial sweeteners have passed years of modern testing.

It took me almost a year to get off/over aspartame. That stuff is nasty. Gained huge weight on diet pop and lost it and felt better on regular pop.

That said, McDonald's disgusts me (that's a hamburger???) and I do avoid cold cuts.

Seriously, you can't regulate stupidity.
 

jazzpig

New member
Jul 17, 2003
2,507
1
0
It's been longer for me. But I had a very similar experience: I cut out processed foods and take-out meals and re-took control of my diet - and lo and behold, all my gastric problems disappeared! No more acid reflux, no more heartburn, lost some flab, and have much better sleep, more and more consistent energy. It was one of those 'eureka' situations.
I go to Brickworks farmers market every Saturday, there is some great produce'n'stuff sold and it's really not that much more expensive than Loblaws or Whole Foods. This past Saturday I found these amazing smoke-dried tomatoes.

Oven baked some squash and cauliflower with a couple of cloves of garlic and these tomatoes (made the whole kitchen smell great, like a wood burning stove), then put in blender with vegetable broth for the soup base. Chopped up a bunch of carrots, sweet peppers, broccoli, zucchini, and a few more of the smoke-dried tomatoes, tossed in the soup for crunch.
Blended in some artisan maple-flavoured goat cream cheese before serving. Turned out SO GOOD!

Corn is cattle feed, given to cows to fatten them up before slaughter so why would you want to eat it? If your goal is to get as fat as possible as quickly as possibly, eat corn. There are much better foods to eat for carbs, for protein, for fats, and as a grain.
And it's already in pretty much every packaged food you buy. Pop is basically liquid corn. And when you read a label and see maltodextrin, starch, binders, fiber (eg anything promising "high in fiber") - they're all made from highly processed corn.

Mmm mmm good.

For more corn info, read Michael Pollan's book, The Botany of Desire. And if you don't like to read, check out the entertaining doc, King Corn.
http://www.youtube.com/movie?v=nvMxIEgbsIo&feature=mv_sr
Where did you get this from?
My parents came from a part of Italy where they ate tons of corn, specifically corn meal. They're staple was corn, beans, potatoes. Very little meat after the war,
You look at pictures when they and others came here, they were lean and strong as oxen. They only fattened up after they got here because they could indulge.
I still eat a lot of corn. Not a problem, and I digest it better than most other grains.

It's the cows that are not supposed to eat corn.
And you can't lump in processed modified corn products with natural corn.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,484
4,902
113
Denmark just removed the unpopular tax on saturated fat ($4 per kg) that was introduced a year ago.
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
Not everyone can or wants to eat healthy, so I don't think all unhealthy foods should be banned, but there are a few foods that are so poisonous that I think they should be banned. Pop which is full of sugar should be banned, processed meats that are full of nitrites i.e. bacon, sausage, pepperoni, ham, hot dogs, salami, etc. should be banned, fries and chips which are full of acrylamides should be banned.

If you have to go to McDonald's don't get pop and fries. Get a small hamburger or cheeseburger and water and that's it, don't get a Big Mac, Quarter Pounder, McChicken, Chicken Nuggets, or Filet o' Fish. Make smarter choices.

Do you think certain unhealthy foods that are known to contain poisonous preservatives and chemical compounds should be banned?
no we need people to die. in fact we should a mcdonalds meal and a pack of smokes to everyone over 65
 

msog87

Banned
Dec 11, 2011
2,071
1
0
Not everyone can or wants to eat healthy, so I don't think all unhealthy foods should be banned, but there are a few foods that are so poisonous that I think they should be banned. Pop which is full of sugar should be banned, processed meats that are full of nitrites i.e. bacon, sausage, pepperoni, ham, hot dogs, salami, etc. should be banned, fries and chips which are full of acrylamides should be banned.

If you have to go to McDonald's don't get pop and fries. Get a small hamburger or cheeseburger and water and that's it, don't get a Big Mac, Quarter Pounder, McChicken, Chicken Nuggets, or Filet o' Fish. Make smarter choices.

Do you think certain unhealthy foods that are known to contain poisonous preservatives and chemical compounds should be banned?

no they shouldnt, but this is the moral hazard of socialized medicine...people live unhealthy lives
 

msog87

Banned
Dec 11, 2011
2,071
1
0
Remember when Harper said he's subsidize fitness club memberships? But only once the deficit has been eliminated so :closed_2:
if the govt started doing that, prices would rise not a good idea, but sounds good to the idiot vote....the most important vote
 

Madeline Rhodes

Den Mother Extraordinaire
Jul 23, 2010
582
0
0
Corn is cattle feed, given to cows to fatten them up before slaughter so why would you want to eat it? If your goal is to get as fat as possible as quickly as possibly, eat corn. There are much better foods to eat for carbs, for protein, for fats, and as a grain.
And it's already in pretty much every packaged food you buy. Pop is basically liquid corn. And when you read a label and see maltodextrin, starch, binders, fiber (eg anything promising "high in fiber") - they're all made from highly processed corn.
Good luck explaining it and having people listen... I tell people that all the time.

We feed cattle corn to fatten it up but we believe the BS that Popcorn is a healthy, diet friendly snack.

Wait... WHAT?

Just saying...

Where did you get this from?
My parents came from a part of Italy where they ate tons of corn, specifically corn meal. They're staple was corn, beans, potatoes. Very little meat after the war,
You look at pictures when they and others came here, they were lean and strong as oxen. They only fattened up after they got here because they could indulge.
I still eat a lot of corn. Not a problem, and I digest it better than most other grains.

It's the cows that are not supposed to eat corn.
And you can't lump in processed modified corn products with natural corn.
There is NO such thing as commercially produced NATURAL corn available in today's market.

The CORN your parents ate when they were in Italy is NOT the corn that people consume now.

99% of all wheat and corn have been hybridized to yield larger quantities, and have specific qualities. From there most strains have been genetically modified again to splice in specific characteristics so they will grow with specific fertilizers and pesticides.

Crop corn, and crop wheat cannot grow without specific ingredients and a lot of human attention.

Traditional corn and wheat grew naturally.

They are no longer the same. They have not been since the 70's... Don't believe me? Have a read:

http://www.cimmyt.org/

CIMMYT is a non-profit research and training center headquartered in Mexico. (The abbreviation "CIMMYT" derives from the Spanish version of our name: Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo.)
Mission

To sustainably increase the productivity of maize and wheat systems to ensure global food security and reduce poverty.
Vision and strategic goal

CIMMYT works with and brings together public research and extension organizations, private companies, advanced research institutes, NGOs, and farmer associations in countries worldwide, working pragmatically and apolitically to fight hunger and poverty. The Center applies the best science to develop and freely share:

  • High-yielding, stress tolerant maize and wheat varieties.
  • Large, unique collections of maize and wheat genetic resources.
  • Productivity-enhancing, resource-conserving farming practices.
  • Training and information relating to the above.
Through these activities and outputs, CIMMYT works to foster global and local food security, helping farmers meet rapidly rising demand from expanding populations and affluence, while addressing the emerging challenges of global climate change and resource degradation and scarcities.

CIMMYT achieves the above with about 105 specialized research staff and 500 support staff from about 40 countries, on a yearly budget of some USD 50 million. The Center is funded by international and regional development agencies, national governments, private foundations, and the private sector. It is a member of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
Origins


CIMMYT grew out of a pilot program in Mexico in 1943, sponsored by the Government of Mexico and the Rockefeller Foundation. The project developed into an innovative, sustained collaboration with Mexican and international researchers. It established international networks to test experimental varieties. Under the leadership of late wheat scientist Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, the team developed shorter wheat varieties that put more energy into grain production, responded better to fertilizer than older varieties, grew well at different latitudes, and were resistant to the devastating wheat disease known as stem rust. By the late 1950s, Mexico was self-sufficient in wheat production. Mexico’s success inspired project researchers to become fierce and effective advocates for the Mexican innovation model in other countries.
Around 1965, South Asian cereal production was in dire straights. Population was outstripping wheat and rice production, and more than 10 million tons of grain were regularly being imported to make up for the deficits. Hunger was widespread, and government leaders in Pakistan (which then included East Pakistan, now Bangladesh) and India were desperate to improve national cereal production. The following year, CIMMYT was established as an international center with its headquarters in Mexico. In 1967 India imported 18,000 tons of seed of the improved Mexican wheat varieties, and Pakistan soon began to use them. During 1967-71, the two countries doubled their wheat production.

The successes of the new crop varieties, along with improved management practices like the use of fertilizer, sparked the widespread adoption of improved varieties and farming techniques in the developing world—a phenomenon that came to be called the "Green Revolution." The social and economic benefits of this movement were recognized worldwide when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Norman Borlaug in 1970. The following year, a small cadre of development organizations, national sponsors, and private foundations organized the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to spread the impact of research to more crops and nations. CIMMYT was one of the first international research centers to be supported through the CGIAR.

Why do maize and wheat matter?



  • Seventy percent of the world’s poorest people live in the countryside. Many depend on farming, especially of maize and wheat, for food and income.
  • According to FAO, maize and wheat account for about 40% of the world’s food and 25% of calories consumed in developing countries.
  • Millions of people—including poor people in urban areas—get more than half of their daily calories from maize and wheat alone.
  • Maize and wheat occupy almost 200 million hectares in developing countries. We must grow these crops in environmentally responsible ways, or the results could be devastating.
  • To meet the need for food, developing countries will need 368 million additional tons of maize and wheat by 2020 (today, they need about 700 million tons).
The impact of CIMMYT's work





  • Wheat varieties bred at CIMMYT and its predecessor organization prevented famine and hunger in South Asia and elsewhere in the world. The benefits of this Green Revolution were recognized through the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize.
  • More nutritious maize varieties developed by CIMMYT won recognition through the 2000 World Food Prize.
  • Recent estimates indicate that wheat varieties developed by CIMMYT and its partners are planted on more than 64 million hectares in developing countries, representing more than 75% of the area planted to modern wheat varieties in those countries.
  • Maize varieties developed by CIMMYT and its partners are planted on nearly half of the area sown to improved varieties in non-temperate areas of the developing world.
  • As reported in Science (v. 300: 758-62), in the absence of CGIAR Centers such as CIMMYT, with their many partners in the developing world, crop yields in developing countries would have been 19.5-23.5% lower; prices for food crops would have been 35-66% higher; imports would be 27-30% higher; calorie intake would have been 13.3-14.4% lower; and 32-42 million more children would have been malnourished. The area planted to crops would be 4% higher for wheat and 2% for maize.
  • Lower food prices extend the benefits of agricultural research to poor consumers in urban areas and landless people in rural areas (and even to the industrialized world).
  • If the developing world attempted to meet its food requirements in 1995 without the improved varieties of food crops developed since the Green Revolution, an additional 426 million hectares of cropped area would be needed (a five-fold increase over cropped area in 1965).
  • This land savings helped to preserve forested and environmentally fragile lands and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 35%. A higher concentration of greenhouse gases might have caused climate change to begin sooner.
Shocking that Corn allergies and intollerences, as well as Celeiac, and gluten intollerences and sensitivities have risen dramatically.

Hybridization occured for over 50 years without mandatory human or animal testing. GMO finally started getting tested after 10 years of production due to public outcry.

Please... Keep convincing yourselves it is the same thing as your parents ate.

Maddie
 

Noelle Frost

New member
Mar 15, 2012
122
0
0
Guelph, ON
That's a myth that has been debunked by current science. Aspartame is safe. The original study done on aspartame that led to panic and tons of media attention was later found to be illegitimate because the animals used had a bacterial disease that caused the pathology which was thought to be a result of the aspartame.
diet pop is worse than regular pop... because of the fake sweetener they use. Want cancer down the road? drink diet pop ;)
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,484
4,902
113
That's a myth that has been debunked by current science. Aspartame is safe. I'm doing research in Toxicology in case you question my credibility.
And I am willing to go out on a limb and tell you that Aspertame is not good for you. It may be that there is no indication yet, because of the very low doses most people get, but it will appear one day. No chemical compound with a phenyl ring is good for you.
 

Noelle Frost

New member
Mar 15, 2012
122
0
0
Guelph, ON
You do know it's the dose that makes the poison...right? Doses of compounds consumed below the toxic threshold are not a danger. Overdose is.

Are you aware of the scientific method, and how these compounds are tested? Human intervention, surveys, cohorts, and case control studies are only one aspect of the picture. Even animal model studies as well as in vitro cell free and cell culture studies are performed on such compounds, allowing one to test the effects of massive concentrations of compounds that would not likely be encountered by humans. Even most of these studies have failed to demonstrate a statistically significant causal relationship between massive aspartame exposures and proposed pathologies.

Also, are you suggesting that amino acids which are absolutely essential to our cells, such as phenylalanine, tryptophan, histidine, and tyrosine, are bad for us because they contain a phenyl ring? Phenyl rings which are stabilized by large electron withdrawing groups, which occurs when attached to a larger molecule, are not the same as some of the small and highly lipophilic toxins that we are worried about. Hmmm...sounds like sensationalism to me.

By that logic I propose this:

Water is bad for you. We don't know it yet because of the small concentrations that humans are exposed to. Anything that's only one atom away from being hydrogen peroxide, a strong oxidizing agent known to cause significant cellular death and stress, can't be good for you.

Furthermore, you've spelled Aspartame wrong. I'm sorry to say but I question your expertise on this subject.

And I am willing to go out on a limb and tell you that Aspertame is not good for you. It may be that there is no indication yet, because of the very low doses most people get, but it will appear one day. No chemical compound with a phenyl ring is good for you.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,484
4,902
113
You do know it's the dose that makes the poison...right? Doses of compounds consumed below the toxic threshold are not a danger. Overdose is.

Are you aware of the scientific method, and how these compounds are tested? Human intervention, surveys, cohorts, and case control studies are only one aspect of the picture. Even animal model studies as well as in vitro cell free and cell culture studies are performed on such compounds, allowing one to test the effects of massive concentrations of compounds that would not likely be encountered by humans. Even most of these studies have failed to demonstrate a statistically significant causal relationship between massive aspartame exposures and proposed pathologies.

Also, are you suggesting that amino acids which are absolutely essential to our cells, such as phenylalanine, tryptophan, histidine, and tyrosine, are bad for us because they contain a phenyl ring? Hmmm...sounds like sensationalism to me.
Yes, Yes and No. I do have a proper education in the field. I am sure that likewise you are aware of all the artificial chemicals that over the years have been declared safe additives, for later to be retracted. As I said, I am not questioning your data, I am predicting that sometime in the future Aspertame is going to be retracted as a safe additive. That is all.
 

Noelle Frost

New member
Mar 15, 2012
122
0
0
Guelph, ON
Interesting prediction. Let's then agree to disagree.

Yes, Yes and No. I do have a proper education in the field. I am sure that likewise you are aware of all the artificial chemicals that over the years have been declared safe additives, for later to be retracted. As I said, I am not questioning your data, I am predicting that sometime in the future Aspertame is going to be retracted as a safe additive. That is all.
 
Toronto Escorts