Question:
[I'll apologize right now for any accidents of editing that may occur below. Basically, I'm just trying to keep the thread trim, without changing Bob's intent or context.] Let me make a forecast. Even if research showed sugars to be utterly sure things to kill us all, the only way we humans will stop eating sweet is by dying. It’s an integral part of what moves us to seek "healthful" sources of nourishment from the formula "ripe fruit=healthy." The same thing appears to go for carbs in general. We look for that high glycemic index food because it makes us feel pretty much the same way that sugars do. The science already has demonstrated how and why we react to sugars and carbs.
From my interpretation of what I’ve read, there’s certainly nothing wrong with the average person consuming reasonable quantities of natural sugars as found in fruits and other, natural, high glycemic foods. However, the processed foods with their unnatural concentrations of carbs seem, again from what I’m reading, to be sending our bodies into self- perpetuating, addictive cycle of consume, consume, consume. Between the limited amounts of time that people take to prepare foods today–rushing them into the arms of processed foods–to what I’m willing to bet is a chemical dependence upon feelings created by these unnatural, high carb foods, there seem to be an awful lot of people who are addicted. (I know I was.) Where you have addicts, you have pushers. Perhaps I’m cynical–and I try hard not to be–but I’m willing to bet that just as Big Tobacco was found to have been aware of the addictiveness of their product and worked to make it more addictive, I can’t help but think that the same is true of Big Food. (If for no other reason than the ones you stated below…basically, demand breeds supply.) You’re inclined to ascribe motive to it all. I say that it’s more a matter of our having found ways to use our essential, evolution-developed physiological needs against ourselves. Sounds silly at first, this whole notion of doing what we like until it kills us…
Well, yes…I guess I do. Motive, brought on by profit-driven societies. Kind of wildly bizarre, as I’m truly a free-market–TRUE FREE MARKET–type of guy. (See http://www.real-reform.org for a view of how corporate real estate has gotten out of control in Wisconsin. Same (sort) of thing is happening all across the United States.) But, your premise from directly above, in my view, reduces down to just exactly that. We–being they…corporate food–have found a way to exploit our "evolution-developed physiological needs". Or, to say it my way, they have recognized an addiction, and have moved to capitalize upon it. The discovery that these foods were addictive was probably quite accidental, brought about by what were probably scientific discoveries and workplace efficiencies, at the time…but, I’m still willing to bet that they have long since discovered that these products are addictive and are doing everything that they can to make them even moreso. That’s the nature of capitalism. <Jay Wrote So, to that end, when I see people railing against corporate food–while I used to just kind of roll my eyes and say, whatever…now, I have a hard time not agreeing on one, or more, levels. Ascribing fault or blame doesn’t take care of the problem. It’s unique as a social problem. It’s the first one that is outside the control of any regulatory body. Tobacco, drugs, etc. all have their agencies to govern them. But if some agency says I can’t have something, it’s prettily likely I can make or grow it myself if I want it badly enough. The food supply is an individual issue at base. As is our being overweight.
Well, outside of the control of any effective regulatory body, at any rate. I mean, there is a Food and Drug Administration here in the US. And it isn’t as if there hasn’t been any progress, either. I mean, the labels on foods continue to get better and better–when they’re accurate–all the time. Seems to me, though, that it is time for some hard science and some hard political stances on what is/isn’t healthy, so that education CAN improve, warning labels can be created–fwiw–and the addictiveness can be recognized and addressed on a more wholesale basis. That’s where I see the entities that have the money as being capable of using their PAC dollars and legislative influence toward slowing down reform and education. Using my own efforts with Real Estate Agency Law-Reform as a backdrop, I can tell you that any truth which is contrary to entrenched interests is never going to receive publicity by those who power it jeopardizes. Those in power will lie, they will conspire, they will misdirect, they will ignore and they will deny access to contrary opinions and evidence in every way that they possibly can. To quote Malcolm X, "Power never takes a backstep – only in the face of more power." In my experience with fighting the Wisconsin Realtors Association, the third largest and–formerly–first most powerful lobby in the State of Wisconsin, that is all true. That is the nature of (unchecked) power. I think that corporate food is not appreciably different than corporate cars, clothes, booze, medical care, encyclopedias, charities, churches… See the point I’m making? When you get a bunch of people dedicated to a project, it *always* assumes a life of its own and the first priority is its own survival and expansion.
Yes, and I agree that most people want to do what is right, until their self-interest is jeopardized or even perceived to be jeopardized. …when it gets complicated, the right gets compromised for the preservation of the organization and its expansion. And then there are Enrons and groups like them.
Enron? Don’t get me started. <grin I just have a gut feeling, based upon the huge number of accounting irregularities that started to be discovered at a number of other mega corporations throughout the US, and the resultant impact–in conjunction with other world events–on the US economy, that Enron is more of the rule, than the exception. Get away with whatever you can, as long as you can and let the chips fall where they may. But Occam’s Razor (William of Occam – check him out. Name spelled different ways. Smart guy.) says that the simplest explanation is likely to be the most accurate.
Yep. Familiar with Occam. But what is the simplest explanation here? Greed. Increase demand, sell more. Anybody disagree that tobacco is addictive? What better product to possess, than one that breeds an ongoing need for more? (And not just more…but increasing quantities to combat the body’s adjustment to the addiction. Instead of a pack a day to get your fix, it takes two packs a day.) Well, I really don’t see refined sugars and starches as being much different. They cause chemical reactions in our bodies that create a need for more. Cravings brought on by addiction. Education won’t overcome hard wiring. It won’t overcome the feeling of comfort that food, or at least the process of eating, can deliver. It’s a hard thing to run counter to what your body says it wants. Hard. Listen to the folks here.
It is hard. Personal experience and observation of the experiences of others, both here and in life in general makes that apparent. However, education is what helped me push past my hard wiring or–again, in the way I look at it–my food addictions. I think, in many ways, we may agree. For the longest time, I had been one who would give the benefit of the doubt to large corporations, figuring they were just more efficient and were deserving of their standing in the world. Now, after having battled–and, for now–defeating a trade association which is firmly controlled by large corporate interests–I have a different perspective. Can it be applied across the entire spectrum of large corporations? Well, when I think of Big Tobacco, Enron/Arthur Andersen, WorldCom and just general corporate malfeasance, I can’t help but think it can. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/business/2002/scandals/ Jay Reifert, Organizer/Director of Operations REAL-Reform (Real Estate Agency Law-Reform) http://www.real-reform.org 305/240/180 And for those who might want to explore my bias, here is my full signature: Full-Time Exclusive Buyer Agency Firm.***(608)273-8841, Office or http://www.Buy-Madison-Real-Estate.com
Response:
Truly a pity. You would think, based upon the wholesale fattening of those in the Western world and the rapidly increasing number of adults with type two diabetes and children with juvenile diabetes, that there would be an outcry for more and immediate research.
Screwed up, faulty memory. Should have simply said increasing number of adults and children with type two diabetes… Oops. Jay Reifert, Organizer/Director of Operations REAL-Reform (Real Estate Agency Law-Reform) http://www.real-reform.org 305/240/180
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So when you look at the science of dietetics, mostly what’s there is vacuum. Truly a pity. You would think, based upon the wholesale fattening of those in the Western world and the rapidly increasing number of adults with type two diabetes and children with juvenile diabetes, that there would be an outcry for more and immediate research. I wonder if a lot of the problem isn’t the world of corporate food, which has found in products that have refined sugars and starches, amazingly addictive items that people seem to crave/need.
Well, way back at the dawn of man, sweet was good. Look at primates; they like it. Hell, cats even like sweet. It’s hard-wired in. Sweet is what ripe fruit is all about. Back when we were all hunter-gatherers, the best criterion for wholesomeness in plant materials is sweet. The worst is bitter (alkaloids) because it could mean poison. Certainly, corporate food doesn’t want the populace to become educated…so they aren’t going to fund the science that slays the goose laying those golden eggs.
Let me make a forecast. Even if research showed sugars to be utterly sure things to kill us all, the only way we humans will stop eating sweet is by dying. It’s an integral part of what moves us to seek "healthful" sources of nourishment from the formula "ripe fruit=healthy." The same thing appears to go for carbs in general. We look for that high glycemic index food because it makes us feel pretty much the same way that sugars do. The science already has demonstrated how and why we react to sugars and carbs. Government, which funds some pretty silly-sounding studies on a regular basis, doesn’t seem to have given dietetic research much study…but then maybe what it really isn’t doing is giving study to the lifestyles that appear to be working, like Atkins.
I don’t think so. I suspect it may be more an issue of that glacial pace of scholarship. Before you can study anything, the questions need to be formulated. We haven’t really known enough to do that well. The other problem is unique to people. When you try to study them, they lie. "Did you eat any fat today?" "No, I didn’t (urp…)." Studying people is even less fun that herding cats. Government also tends to listen quite carefully to those toting PAC dollars…and I’ll be that corporate food has some pretty deep pockets dedicated to creating legislative goodwill and continuing ignorance.
You’re inclined to ascribe motive to it all. I say that it’s more a matter of our having found ways to use our essential, evolution-developed physiological needs against ourselves. Sounds silly at first, this whole notion of doing what we like until it kills us, but look at yeasts. They make sugars into alcohol until they make enough to kill themselves. The very thing that they’re designed to do works against them. Animals will eat everything in their feeding grounds, endangering themselves, before moving on to another. We’re designed to eat heavily when it’s available so we can survive periods of scarcity. Look at how other animals eat, particularly carnivores. We like sweet, smooth, salty, crunchy… you know what we like. They’re mostly pro-survival things reflecting what we evolved to eat. Except now we eat different things than we evolved to eat. And we’re still evolving this way. Our jaws are way smaller than early humanoid fossils. We’ve evolved to eat cooked foods. All these desires lead to a world where we try to get what we like because it’s (irony at work) GOOD for us except it’s only good for us in moderation. And, then perhaps there’s the lack of the glamour aspect to lifestyles like Atkins, which essentially boil down to, eat what’s good for you and exercise. Talk about your hard sell. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I damn near had to kill myself by overeating before figuring out that I had better make some serious changes.
And you think you should be different than all the rest of us how? You can’t seriously imagine that the folks here have changed their ways of living for any reason that’s materially different, can you? All the reasons are variations of "I gotta change or it’ll kill/hurt me." People who need to lose 15 pounds and want to *try* Atkins or Sugar Busters or whatever aren’t hard-core here. They aren’t looking to change beyond a situational sort of way. And they haven’t read the writing on the wall. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sugar/refined starches equals death. Works for me! A bit oversimplified, I’d say, but with a certain nucleus of more and more demonstrable truth. Pastorio Way oversimplified, BUT, that’s my quick, efficient way of keeping myself from grabbing a bowl of corn flakes and putting six to eight teaspoons of sugar on it. (Or two bowls.) Damn stuff–sugar–is so addictive. So, to that end, when I see people railing against corporate food–while I used to just kind of roll my eyes and say, whatever…now, I have a hard time not agreeing on one, or more, levels.
And yet, there really is enough information out there, crappy as it is in the specific, that more people should be getting it. Many are, but the rest will keep buying those sticky buns and big cans of lager irrespective of the concepts most already say they subscribe to. Even if the specific information is unavailable in scholarly form, all anybody has to do is look around at the fatties filling their vistas from sea to shining sea. Ascribing fault or blame doesn’t take care of the problem. It’s unique as a social problem. It’s the first one that is outside the control of any regulatory body. Tobacco, drugs, etc. all have their agencies to govern them. But if some agency says I can’t have something, it’s prettily likely I can make or grow it myself if I want it badly enough. The food supply is an individual issue at base. As is our being overweight. I think that corporate food is not appreciably different than corporate cars, clothes, booze, medical care, encyclopedias, charities, churches… See the point I’m making? When you get a bunch of people dedicated to a project, it *always* assumes a life of its own and the first priority is its own survival and expansion. "We’re going to make and sell good, wholesome foods packaged carefully like our grandmother did it." The initial goals very soon get lost in the systems and situations the organization faces. It has to face other organizations, whether governmental or commercial or political or some combination. And the goals get further changed. By the time some sincere food people have had to contend with the supply questions, processing questions, distribution questions, the legal and regulatory situations, and the rest, they all passively conspire to force it into directions it may not have been designed to do. Of course there are bastards out there who’ll do anything for a buck. But it’s been shown again and again that people really would like to do the right things (however they’re defined in the situation). But when it gets complicated, the right gets compromised for the preservation of the organization and its expansion. And then there are Enrons and groups like them. It’s humans you should be pissed with. If it weren’t for the damn humans running those companies, life would be a lot better. Or not. Sugar is–I’m willing to bet–for some people anyway, chemically addictive. (That’s a study worth funding.)
Depends on how you define addictive. But the study has been done, results known, tee shirts printed. There’s another thread of conversation where a person is talking about aspartame headaches. I wonder if it isn’t that s/he’s going through sugar withdrawal. I know it was hell on me…
Could well be. Another already demonstrated effect. I understand the frustration about feeling like we’ve been fed a bill of goods. But Occam’s Razor (William of Occam – check him out. Name spelled different ways. Smart guy.) says that the simplest explanation is likely to be the most accurate. I think you give corporate types both too much and too little credit. Too much in the sense that they have sinister plans to keep everybody in the dark about food. There are zillions of sources for info available to anybody who wants to take a few minutes to look. The guys who make food for sale make what they can sell. If people buy it, they’ll make more. If not, they’ll stop. All the books and all the King’s horses can’t really stop it. The sensibilities of the public move slower than the continents drift. It took decades for the low fat gospel to permeate the culture, and then it was more the consuming folks saying they were eating low fat than actually doing it. There were some interesting studies done by a group of people who called themselves "garbologists." They surveyed cities asking about what people ate and drank. Then they went to the landfills and looked at (and counted) what they saw. Even with all the low fat propaganda out there, people *said* they ate more "wisely" but they didn’t. The dissonances between what people said they consumed and what the tale of the trash was were very different. Education won’t overcome hard wiring. It won’t overcome the feeling of comfort that food, or at least the process of eating, can deliver. It’s a hard thing to run counter to what your body says it wants. Hard. Listen to the folks here. Hard business. But a sign of a triumph of the spirit over the weaknesses of the flesh. I generally stay low carb, but every now and again, I just "break bad" as they say around here. I do a pizza or some store bought or home made ice cream or something, sometimes for a few days before I get back on my LC horse. I’ve been inclined to beat myself up about it in the past, but I’ve relaxed about it. I’m still committed to keeping my weight down (who is it for if not me!), but I recognize that mostly I feed … read more »
Response:
Bob, While I generally agree with you, I have to say I think you were a bit more harsh than you needed to be in replying to Curt.
I agree. I did it too strongly. Curt pushes a button of mine. It’s the button that asserts (directly or indirectly) that what one person likes should be the universal truth for all. That whole business of "this is what I do and you don’t have to do it but my way’s better." That whole self-congratulatory tone just pokes me. Particularly when it’s based on air and fairydust. The ideas Curt holds are ideas that he has been taught since he was a kid, from what he says. He may need to re-examine some of them as an adult to find out what values are his and what have been pounded into him by others, but I think that he would be more likely to do so if you show him facts, without remarks about motherships and conspiracies.
If this were the first exchange between us, perhaps. Curt has posted several posts that detail the same unexamined vision. Filled with "I think that…" and I believe…" with scant attachment to any demonstrable reality beyond wishful thinking. He’s said that his ideas won’t change. Hmmmm. What does it say about me to prod him anyway? Futility… Your article was good, and thought provoking; why lessen it’s impact by putting someone on the defensive before they read it?
Quite right. Perhaps I ought to just killfile Curt and spare us all my distress at such a knuckle-dragging vision of the world. Pastorio
Response:
So when you look at the science of dietetics, mostly what’s there is vacuum.
Truly a pity. You would think, based upon the wholesale fattening of those in the Western world and the rapidly increasing number of adults with type two diabetes and children with juvenile diabetes, that there would be an outcry for more and immediate research. I wonder if a lot of the problem isn’t the world of corporate food, which has found in products that have refined sugars and starches, amazingly addictive items that people seem to crave/need. Certainly, corporate food doesn’t want the populace to become educated…so they aren’t going to fund the science that slays the goose laying those golden eggs. Government, which funds some pretty silly-sounding studies on a regular basis, doesn’t seem to have given dietetic research much study…but then maybe what it really isn’t doing is giving study to the lifestyles that appear to be working, like Atkins. Government also tends to listen quite carefully to those toting PAC dollars…and I’ll be that corporate food has some pretty deep pockets dedicated to creating legislative goodwill and continuing ignorance. And, then perhaps there’s the lack of the glamour aspect to lifestyles like Atkins, which essentially boil down to, eat what’s good for you and exercise. Talk about your hard sell. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I damn near had to kill myself by overeating before figuring out that I had better make some serious changes. Sugar/refined starches equals death. Works for me! A bit oversimplified, I’d say, but with a certain nucleus of more and more demonstrable truth. Pastorio
Way oversimplified, BUT, that’s my quick, efficient way of keeping myself from grabbing a bowl of corn flakes and putting six to eight teaspoons of sugar on it. (Or two bowls.) Damn stuff–sugar–is so addictive. So, to that end, when I see people railing against corporate food–while I used to just kind of roll my eyes and say, whatever…now, I have a hard time not agreeing on one, or more, levels. Sugar is–I’m willing to bet–for some people anyway, chemically addictive. (That’s a study worth funding.) There’s another thread of conversation where a person is talking about aspartame headaches. I wonder if it isn’t that s/he’s going through sugar withdrawal. I know it was hell on me… Jay Reifert, Organizer/Director of Operations REAL-Reform (Real Estate Agency Law-Reform) http://www.real-reform.org 305/240/180
Response:
I can’t tell the difference either in taste or texture.
Really? It does look more gray, but we all know how most people are about that.
Hmmm. What can that mean? That "most people" thing again… We even dye cat food and they are color blind.
I bet we wouldn’t if *cats* bought it instead of people (who can distinguish colors and often make decisions based on that). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FWIW, I like the way nitrates make bacon taste. We raise pigs and have had them processed both with and without nitrates. IMO, the bacons and hams taste much better with nitrates and have a better texture. Tonya I understand that nitrates are not very healthy for you. But I think it’s a personal choice whether or not to eat bacon and hotdogs, etc. that have nitrates. I just read this: http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/ My question is do eating these foods with nitrates hinder your weight loss on Atkins as long as they are in the carb range you are supposed to have? TIA, Kathy
Response:
I can’t tell the difference either in taste or texture. It does look more gray, but we all know how most people are about that. We even dye cat food and they are color blind. Curt — 211/204/190 Started Atkins May 18, 2003 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FWIW, I like the way nitrates make bacon taste. We raise pigs and have had them processed both with and without nitrates. IMO, the bacons and hams taste much better with nitrates and have a better texture. Tonya I understand that nitrates are not very healthy for you. But I think it’s a personal choice whether or not to eat bacon and hotdogs, etc. that have nitrates. I just read this: http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/ My question is do eating these foods with nitrates hinder your weight loss on Atkins as long as they are in the carb range you are supposed to have? TIA, Kathy
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Stop being so fearful of things that have been examined by literally thousands of scientists and not found to be disastrous. Bob, I would agree that science has probably contributed a great many things which are good and wonderful, with regards to foods…however, (hundreds of) thousands of scientists and millions of people are of the opinion that a high fat/low carb lifestyle can’t be good for you. And, conversely, that low fat with no real worry about carb intake is just fine. So, I’m not inclined to think that science is that much less prone to getting caught up in groupthink than most other walks of life.
You’re confusing science (which demands evidence) and media (which demands advertisers). The science hasn’t been done very well about carbs and low carbs. That hasn’t stopped the snake oil salesmen and groups with vested interests from promoting their mantras. So when you look at the science of dietetics, mostly what’s there is vacuum. Look at the science of organic chemistry and biochemistry, though, and the mechanisms are generally understood. It’s rather a pity that our diet is poked and prodded by bureaucrats, bookselling messiahs, "nutritionists" and other non-expert experts. Sugar/refined starches equals death. Works for me!
A bit oversimplified, I’d say, but with a certain nucleus of more and more demonstrable truth. Pastorio
Response:
Well, many of these sugar substitutes are pretty bad too, according to some studies. We’ve heard that before. That "according to some studies" thing. But I guess it’s all a giant conspiracy, as you cite below, with the supermarket chains, drug companies, FDA, USDA, all the other governments on earth and those little guys in the mothership out there. Way out there. I didn’t state that it was all a giant conspiracy. You are putting words in my mouth and I don’t care for that.
Nah. I’m stating it more bluntly, that’s all. There’s still that tinge of arrogance in your positions. As though you have some exclusive grasp on the truths here. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I try and eat food that isn’t altered and is organic. Meaning free range eggs that are fed organic food without pesticides and so on. I figure when I eat out I am getting every chemical known to man because restaurants don’t really care about those type of things unless it is a co-op or something. There’s a very big difference between not caring and not buying the scare stuff. You "figure" you’re "getting every chemical known to man" because restaurants don’t care about the same things you do. They don’t understand the urgency of your fixation. And you "figure" without the remotest clue of what actually happens in restaurants. And, of course, all restaurants are the same. Well lets see Bob, I owned a restaurant and worked in several restaurants. I know how MOST of them buy items and what is in MOST of there minds. Cost-Taste vs. Price. I suggest you stick with subjects you know…if there are any.
Wow. You owned a restaurant and worked in several. I had my first restaurant job in 1953 when I was 12. I’m a trained chef. I’ve owned a whole string of restaurants since the ’70s ranging from country and BBQ to full-service, white tablecloth, starred operations. I’ve run country clubs and resorts. I’ve consulted in a score of others. I’ve designed products for both foodservice and retail sales. I’ve spent a great deal of time studying food science and as recently as last week, I took a course from the FDA on food safety. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is too bad food just can’t be food without all the additives and chemicals. I guess as long as it is packaged in a pretty wrapper it is ok. I am a believer that many cancers are related to this situation. I don’t think it will stop in my lifetime. Maybe we will find a cure for cancer and we can eat all the crap in the stores and just take a pill. I bet you think that cancer is one thing, right? Like it’s one disease and that if we only had the right medicine, it would all be fixed. Read about it and see if that holds up. Once again you start this paragraph off by stating that I think cancer is on thing. You are now trying to tell me what is in my brain. First you put words in my mouth and now tell me what’s in my brain. What is your problem?
See, Curt. Communications is a two-way street. You have to say what you mean in clear terms so there’s no chance of misunderstanding. You don’t seem to do that very well. When you say something like "Maybe we will find a cure for cancer" it’s the "A" cure that leads to the conclusion that you think it’s "A" disease. I restated what you said. I now make a living in the stock market. Many of my holdings are in bio’s. I have read volumes on cancer and possible cures and ways of treating it. These words are not foreign to me…. natural and recombinant protein-based drugs, viral and malignant diseases, natural human alpha interferon, monoclonal antibodies, peptide drugs and therapeutic vaccines. I suggest you stop assuming what I may or may not know about subjects oh intelligent one.
I can only work with what’s on the screen here. And what’s on the screen leads in the directions you seem to dislike. Sorry about that. As far as me eating organic food under the California Organic Food Act of 1990, that is a choice I make. There are of course two sides to this type of decision. I also am aware that one out of every two American males will encounter some form of cancer in there life. I am not interested in being a human to be tested on throughout my life as I feel the FDA does to us. This is purely my opinion and it will not change.
I don’t expect it will. I also don’t expect you’ll actually examine it any further. There’s a logical fallacy that you’re committing here called "post hoc, propter hoc." "After this, therefore because of this." As for the FDA, it’s statements like this that lead me to interpreting your observations as suggesting dark motives and sinister actions. I deal with the FDA regularly. They have been colossal pains in the ass to me. But I’ve not ever seen anyone say, hint at, imply or otherwise mean anything but the most conservative interpretations of what safety concerns are applicable to any given food or process. Here’s one place where I see your belief that others are somehow *deliberately* doing nefarious things. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That way the supermarkets make the most money and the drug companies make money too. It is a very profitable circle that will be created. Sorry about the rant. It just gets me going that it is so hard to find food that is natural (organic). Read below about "natural." I wish everyone people here could get nitrate free bacon. It tastes every bit as good if not better than most slab bacon I get. Here’s something from another post written by tb: FWIW, I like the way nitrates make bacon taste. We raise pigs and have had them processed both with and without nitrates. IMO, the bacons and hams taste much better with nitrates and have a better texture. Exactly. The nitrates that have been used in the traditional processing of meats aren’t there for decoration. They’ve been put there for bacteriological and other preservational reasons. And they are material contributors to the final taste, appearance and mouthfeel of the product. Not having them means not having the real thing. You have quite an ego I see. "not having them means not having the real thing". What a statement. I guess you know the full history of bacon. You are certain that the founders of such a thing used Nitrates. You are quite a historian.
I guess you didn’t read the article for comprehension. It was an historical piece. Yes, I am quite a historian and writer. I even have a degree in English in addition to the other university and professional training. But that aside, I do know the history of what we now call bacon and, yes, for much of its lifetime, nitrates have been used. It was discovering that the food wouldn’t make you sick that prompted people to use nitrates. From "natural" salt deposits. My guess is you have not eaten good nitrate free bacon.
I’ve eaten nitrate-free bacon. I’ve never eaten *good* nitrate-free bacon. How do you like me telling you what you have or not have done?
Well, It’s actually kind of funny since you seem not to have read what I wrote. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe now you know what that is like. And I wish people would stop being so terrorized by the dinner table. Stop being so fearful of things that have been examined by literally thousands of scientists and not found to be disastrous. Stop being so inward-looking and see the delights the world has to offer. This whole "organic and natural" business is based on a negative viewpoint: to avoid rather than to seek. And, to answer some of the questions curt and other "food was so much better before it was processed" types raise, here’s a column I wrote on the subject a while back: SNIP In recent years, gums have come under fire. Gums like gum arabic, carrageenan, guar gum, pectin and others. What they do is make food feel smoother when you eat. Ice creams, all kinds of desserts, sauces and lots of other things have gums in them. Some researchers said they may help reduce serum cholesterol; all tests aren’t in yet. Right, you guessed it. Praise. I see you have the word Praise here. Why. Some researchers said they MAY help reduce serum cholesterol, ALL TESTS AREN’T IN YET. You made fun of the "some researchers" earlier in the post. Why do you think your "some researchers" is better than the next one?
Do you also miss irony in daily life? I spoke of "some researchers" here the same way as elsewhere. The point is that people leaped on the bandwagon just as quickly here as elsewhere on incomplete information. SNIP2 And here’s how the real world works: we’ll reject any food in the store that shows "natural" blemishes from insects, branches that rub, bruises, blood spots or anything. (Of course, if we butcher the meat or pick things from our garden, they can have some imperfections and we’ll still eat them.) Excellent point. This is my point exactly. It was hard to find anything in you long speech here that had some substance, but I found it and here it is. I eat food that is imperfect looking all the time because I go to the food co-op that has organic foods. The people that shop there are educated on environmental issues. Educated doesn’t mean they are right or wrong it just means they have done some reading and made a choice to be what I believe to be more environmentally conscious.
Sorry. I have to butt in here. Educated *does* imply rightness. The word you want is "aware" or maybe "conscious" which, unfortunately, don’t include anything at all about rationality. Merely lower-level brain function. It is precisely this point that I find so silly. That people who have "done some reading" are "educated." And that the concept of being … read more »
Response:
Well, many of these sugar substitutes are pretty bad too, according to some studies. We’ve heard that before. That "according to some studies" thing. But I guess it’s all a giant conspiracy, as you cite below, with the supermarket chains, drug companies, FDA, USDA, all the other governments on earth and those little guys in the mothership out there. Way out there.
I didn’t state that it was all a giant conspiracy. You are putting words in my mouth and I don’t care for that. I try and eat food that isn’t altered and is organic. Meaning free range eggs that are fed organic food without pesticides and so on. I figure when I eat out I am getting every chemical known to man because restaurants don’t really care about those type of things unless it is a co-op or something. There’s a very big difference between not caring and not buying the scare stuff. You "figure" you’re "getting every chemical known to man" because restaurants don’t care about the same things you do. They don’t understand the urgency of your fixation. And you "figure" without the remotest clue of what actually happens in restaurants. And, of course, all restaurants are the same.
Well lets see Bob, I owned a restaurant and worked in several restaurants. I know how MOST of them buy items and what is in MOST of there minds. Cost-Taste vs. Price. I suggest you stick with subjects you know…if there are any. It is too bad food just can’t be food without all the additives and chemicals. I guess as long as it is packaged in a pretty wrapper it is ok. I am a believer that many cancers are related to this situation. I don’t think it will stop in my lifetime. Maybe we will find a cure for cancer and we can eat all the crap in the stores and just take a pill. I bet you think that cancer is one thing, right? Like it’s one disease and that if we only had the right medicine, it would all be fixed. Read about it and see if that holds up.
Once again you start this paragraph off by stating that I think cancer is on thing. You are now trying to tell me what is in my brain. First you put words in my mouth and now tell me what’s in my brain. What is your problem? I now make a living in the stock market. Many of my holdings are in bio’s. I have read volumes on cancer and possible cures and ways of treating it. These words are not foreign to me…. natural and recombinant protein-based drugs, viral and malignant diseases, natural human alpha interferon, monoclonal antibodies, peptide drugs and therapeutic vaccines. I suggest you stop assuming what I may or may not know about subjects oh intelligent one. As far as me eating organic food under the California Organic Food Act of 1990, that is a choice I make. There are of course two sides to this type of decision. I also am aware that one out of every two American males will encounter some form of cancer in there life. I am not interested in being a human to be tested on throughout my life as I feel the FDA does to us. This is purely my opinion and it will not change. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That way the supermarkets make the most money and the drug companies make money too. It is a very profitable circle that will be created. Sorry about the rant. It just gets me going that it is so hard to find food that is natural (organic). Read below about "natural." I wish everyone people here could get nitrate free bacon. It tastes every bit as good if not better than most slab bacon I get. Here’s something from another post written by tb: FWIW, I like the way nitrates make bacon taste. We raise pigs and have had them processed both with and without nitrates. IMO, the bacons and hams taste much better with nitrates and have a better texture. Exactly. The nitrates that have been used in the traditional processing of meats aren’t there for decoration. They’ve been put there for bacteriological and other preservational reasons. And they are material contributors to the final taste, appearance and mouthfeel of the product. Not having them means not having the real thing.
You have quite an ego I see. "not having them means not having the real thing". What a statement. I guess you know the full history of bacon. You are certain that the founders of such a thing used Nitrates. You are quite a historian. My guess is you have not eaten good nitrate free bacon. How do you like me telling you what you have or not have done? Maybe now you know what that is like. And I wish people would stop being so terrorized by the dinner table. Stop being so fearful of things that have been examined by literally thousands of scientists and not found to be disastrous. Stop being so inward-looking and see the delights the world has to offer. This whole "organic and natural" business is based on a negative viewpoint: to avoid rather than to seek. And, to answer some of the questions curt and other "food was so much better before it was processed" types raise, here’s a column I wrote on the subject a while back:
SNIP In recent years, gums have come under fire. Gums like gum arabic, carrageenan, guar gum, pectin and others. What they do is make food feel smoother when you eat. Ice creams, all kinds of desserts, sauces and lots of other things have gums in them. Some researchers said they may help reduce serum cholesterol; all tests aren’t in yet. Right, you guessed it. Praise.
I see you have the word Praise here. Why. Some researchers said they MAY help reduce serum cholesterol, ALL TESTS AREN’T IN YET. You made fun of the "some researchers" earlier in the post. Why do you think your "some researchers" is better than the next one? SNIP2 And here’s how the real world works: we’ll reject any food in the store that shows "natural" blemishes from insects, branches that rub, bruises, blood spots or anything. (Of course, if we butcher the meat or pick things from our garden, they can have some imperfections and we’ll still eat them.)
Excellent point. This is my point exactly. It was hard to find anything in you long speech here that had some substance, but I found it and here it is. I eat food that is imperfect looking all the time because I go to the food co-op that has organic foods. The people that shop there are educated on environmental issues. Educated doesn’t mean they are right or wrong it just means they have done some reading and made a choice to be what I believe to be more environmentally conscious. Most people in the grocery stores are just reading cal, fat and other stuff on the labels, they don’t know about pesticides and such or they may know, but don’t care. Now if I wanted to act like you I would insert the sentence on the end of this. "I would imagine this would be hard to understand for someone like you. Just as an example. SNIP3 And, oh by the way, food is cheaper today than it has ever been BECAUSE it’s processed and preserved. Don’t tell me that ground beef was only 19 cents a pound when you were a kid. Tell me how many hours you had to work to buy a pound of meat. It’s cheaper today than ever before in all of human history.
I told you in my post that it was about making as much money as possible. They found a way to get the price down far enough that everyone can afford to eat beef for every meal. They are turning a pile of product and making big bucks. Most every cow out there has a clip on their ear. That is a steroid so they grow bigger so they can make more money. Is that good or bad for us? Who knows? No one really. It is so new that we really have no idea of long term effects. SNIP3 Nitrates, nitrites, nitrosamines. Cyclamates. Saccharin. Nutrasweet. BHA. Bleached/unbleached. They really are issues and I’m not suggesting we dismiss the questions. What I am saying is that they are questions, not conclusions. We need responsible research into all these questions. Not the kind of pop science reports that end up needlessly terrifying people about salmonella or offering garbled noises about butter, fat, margarine and oils. Until then, maybe the best advice we could follow is to treat ourselves gently. Should we let the manufacturers and processors decide what goes into our food without scrutiny, without standards, without accountability? Should they be looked at with "a very little attention to…civil regulation"? You call it.
I am calling it for myself. That is up to you what you want to do. I find it obnoxious that you attack someone’s beliefs like you have done. I am doing what I am doing. My mother is an organic gardener and I am doing that on a small scale myself. I really don’t want to wash my vegetables with soap and warm water to get all the crap off. That is my decision. If you want to eat wax on your apples and whatever that is up to you. I would appreciate if you wouldn’t put words in my mouth or assume I think a certain way without knowing me. Not sure who you are trying to impress, but I suspect it is yourself. That is just a guess. Respectfully, Curt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <<<<<<<<<<<<<< begin quote THE BAD OLD DAYS There are these amazing ideas floating around that couldn’t be more wrong – and you probably believe some of them. They’re part wishful thinking, part ignorance of history, part prejudice and part the result of misinformation from "experts". Here are specific examples: * That at some time in the past, foods were better for us. * That "natural" and "pure" somehow equal "healthful". * That putting commercial additives in food automatically makes them inferior to the foods with nothing added. * That processing foods destroys their inherent goodness and nutritional integrity. How’s that? Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? It’s all nonsense. Every one of these "truths" isn’t necessarily true and is
… read more »
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What I’ve seen written that could be problematic, if true, is that nitrates/nitrites are carcinogenic in high doses. That said, I’m addicted to bacon…have a really hard time finding meats that don’t have nitrates/nitrites, other than deli fresh meats…and even then you have to wonder if they know what’s in their meats. Guess I’m just going to have to hope that it’s only carcinogenic in ultra high doses in lab animals! Jay Reifert, Well, many of these sugar substitutes are pretty bad too, according to some studies. We’ve heard that before. That "according to some studies" thing. But I guess it’s all a giant conspiracy, as you cite below, with the supermarket chains, drug companies, FDA, USDA, all the other governments on earth and those little guys in the mothership out there. Way out there. I try and eat food that isn’t altered and is organic. Meaning free range eggs that are fed organic food without pesticides and so on. I figure when I eat out I am getting every chemical known to man because restaurants don’t really care about those type of things unless it is a co-op or something. There’s a very big difference between not caring and not buying the scare stuff. You "figure" you’re "getting every chemical known to man" because restaurants don’t care about the same things you do. They don’t understand the urgency of your fixation. And you "figure" without the remotest clue of what actually happens in restaurants. And, of course, all restaurants are the same. It is too bad food just can’t be food without all the additives and chemicals. I guess as long as it is packaged in a pretty wrapper it is ok. I am a believer that many cancers are related to this situation. I don’t think it will stop in my lifetime. Maybe we will find a cure for cancer and we can eat all the crap in the stores and just take a pill. I bet you think that cancer is one thing, right? Like it’s one disease and that if we only had the right medicine, it would all be fixed. Read about it and see if that holds up. That way the supermarkets make the most money and the drug companies make money too. It is a very profitable circle that will be created. Sorry about the rant. It just gets me going that it is so hard to find food that is natural (organic). Read below about "natural." I wish everyone people here could get nitrate free bacon. It tastes every bit as good if not better than most slab bacon I get. Here’s something from another post written by tb: FWIW, I like the way nitrates make bacon taste. We raise pigs and have had them processed both with and without nitrates. IMO, the bacons and hams taste much better with nitrates and have a better texture. Exactly. The nitrates that have been used in the traditional processing of meats aren’t there for decoration. They’ve been put there for bacteriological and other preservational reasons. And they are material contributors to the final taste, appearance and mouthfeel of the product. Not having them means not having the real thing. And I wish people would stop being so terrorized by the dinner table. Stop being so fearful of things that have been examined by literally thousands of scientists and not found to be disastrous. Stop being so inward-looking and see the delights the world has to offer. This whole "organic and natural" business is based on a negative viewpoint: to avoid rather than to seek. And, to answer some of the questions curt and other "food was so much better before it was processed" types raise, here’s a column I wrote on the subject a while back: <<<<<<<<<<<<<< begin quote THE BAD OLD DAYS There are these amazing ideas floating around that couldn’t be more wrong – and you probably believe some of them. They’re part wishful thinking, part ignorance of history, part prejudice and part the result of misinformation from "experts". Here are specific examples: * That at some time in the past, foods were better for us. * That "natural" and "pure" somehow equal "healthful". * That putting commercial additives in food automatically makes them inferior to the foods with nothing added. * That processing foods destroys their inherent goodness and nutritional integrity. How’s that? Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? It’s all nonsense. Every one of these "truths" isn’t necessarily true and is usually false. Sometime around the year 1365, a long poem called "Piers the Plowman" was written by a Londoner who chronicled much of daily living. Because of adulteration of foods, people are suffering, he says and it’s the job of English officials To punish… Brewers, bakers, butchers and cooks; For these be the men on earth who do most harm To the poor people who buy piece-meal. They poison the people secretly and most often… Four hundred years later with the publication of "The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker" in 1771, the complaints about London’s foods have persisted and intensified. Says Matthew Bramble, a character in the book, "As to… wine, it is a vile, unpalatable, and pernicious sophistication, balderdashed (mixed) with cyder, corn-spirit and the juice of sloes… The bread… is a… paste, mixed up with chalk, alum and bone-ashes; insipid to the taste, and destructive to the constitution." He comments that the miller and baker MUST make flour and bread this way because people insist on the whitest breads with no concern for nutritive value. White is more important than good. Milk is made from "faded cabbage leaves and sour draff," (spoiled milk usually fed to pigs) "lowered with hot water, frothed with bruised snails, carried through streets in open pails… the tallowy rancid mass, called butter, is manufactured with candle-grease and kitchen-stuff…" And, bad as the food is, something else is even worse, he says as he goes on in sarcastic indignation, "Now, all these enormities might be remedied with a very little attention to… civil regulation; but the wise patriots of London have taken it into their heads, that all regulation is inconsistent with liberty." Beer was adulterated in ways that are puzzling to us today. Unscrupulous brewers added coriander, red pepper, tobacco, opium and other narcotics, licorice, ginger, linseed, molasses and some kinds of metal salts to improved the foam. That took care of it, right? As soon as all this nasty stuff was made public, the government immediately corrected the situation, right? Sure, just like in real life. Well, a half century later, in 1820, Frederick Accum, an English Chemist, published a book numbingly titled "A treatise on adulterations of food, and culinary poisons exhibiting the fraudulent sophistications of bread, beer, wine, spirituous liquors, tea, coffee, cream, confectionery, vinegar, mustard, pepper, cheese, olive oil, pickles and other articles employed in domestic economy and methods of detecting them." Not at all scary. The title page features an engraved urn with a skull perched atop it draped with a shroud and the inscription "There is death in the pot" from the Second book of Kings in the old testament. You don’t even have to read the book, it’s all right there in the name. In this country there were similar concerns and protests. Upton Sinclair wrote about the disgusting and dangerous conditions in the meat packing industry and other writers shouted about other issues. Around the turn of the century laws were enacted that covered some of these problems. But it wasn’t until 1914 that narcotics were controlled and therefore removed from foods and patent medicines, the so-called "soothing syrups." I’ll bet they soothed. Real, addictive drugs. It’s estimated that there were more than 2,500,000 addicts in this country in the years just before the First World War. The conclusion here seems to be that the only safe, good food in all of history has been that which the eater personally grew. Well, that’s not true, either. Plants contain "natural" pesticides and toxins. Things as different as green potatoes, apricot pits, lima beans, cabbage, rhubarb leaves or those pretty red and blue mushrooms called "Death’s Heads" all produce "natural" poisons. You can name others. Cultivating and hybridizing the plants for thousands of years has helped them evolve to new strains with less potential for poisoning us, but in some cases, it’s still there. Really, don’t eat rhubarb leaves. If you eat the right plants in the right amounts, you will experience a "natural" death. Bacteria, microbes and viruses are just as much a part of nature as we are and they would have much more fun with us if we didn’t control them by cooking, chilling and chemically preserving. Nature is not neutral or benign. Here’s the bizarre inconsistency – we want our food to be pretty, every pepper green, shiny, crisp and big, every carrot tapered, bright and heavy. No blemishes, no spots and it should sit unspoiled and unwilted in the refrigerator until we decide to use it, as though it came from some Henry Ford farm producing identically perfect tomatoes, matched melons and esthetically equal eggplants. And there should be no chemicals used to get there; no chemical fertilizers, no insecticides, no fungicides, no waxes to make it shiny, no gases in the boats or railroad cars from the fields to the stores. And here’s how the real world works: we’ll reject any food in the store that shows "natural" blemishes from insects, branches that rub, bruises, blood spots or anything. (Of course, if we butcher the meat or pick things from our
… read more »
Response:
Stop being so fearful of things that have been examined by literally thousands of scientists and not found to be disastrous.
Bob, I would agree that science has probably contributed a great many things which are good and wonderful, with regards to foods…however, (hundreds of) thousands of scientists and millions of people are of the opinion that a high fat/low carb lifestyle can’t be good for you. And, conversely, that low fat with no real worry about carb intake is just fine. So, I’m not inclined to think that science is that much less prone to getting caught up in groupthink than most other walks of life. Sugar/refined starches equals death. Works for me! Jay Reifert, Organizer/Director of Operations REAL-Reform (Real Estate Agency Law-Reform) http://www.real-reform.org 305/240/180
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What I’ve seen written that could be problematic, if true, is that nitrates/nitrites are carcinogenic in high doses. That said, I’m addicted to bacon…have a really hard time finding meats that don’t have nitrates/nitrites, other than deli fresh meats…and even then you have to wonder if they know what’s in their meats. Guess I’m just going to have to hope that it’s only carcinogenic in ultra high doses in lab animals! Jay Reifert, Well, many of these sugar substitutes are pretty bad too, according to some studies.
We’ve heard that before. That "according to some studies" thing. But I guess it’s all a giant conspiracy, as you cite below, with the supermarket chains, drug companies, FDA, USDA, all the other governments on earth and those little guys in the mothership out there. Way out there. I try and eat food that isn’t altered and is organic. Meaning free range eggs that are fed organic food without pesticides and so on. I figure when I eat out I am getting every chemical known to man because restaurants don’t really care about those type of things unless it is a co-op or something.
There’s a very big difference between not caring and not buying the scare stuff. You "figure" you’re "getting every chemical known to man" because restaurants don’t care about the same things you do. They don’t understand the urgency of your fixation. And you "figure" without the remotest clue of what actually happens in restaurants. And, of course, all restaurants are the same. It is too bad food just can’t be food without all the additives and chemicals. I guess as long as it is packaged in a pretty wrapper it is ok. I am a believer that many cancers are related to this situation. I don’t think it will stop in my lifetime. Maybe we will find a cure for cancer and we can eat all the crap in the stores and just take a pill.
I bet you think that cancer is one thing, right? Like it’s one disease and that if we only had the right medicine, it would all be fixed. Read about it and see if that holds up. That way the supermarkets make the most money and the drug companies make money too. It is a very profitable circle that will be created. Sorry about the rant. It just gets me going that it is so hard to find food that is natural (organic).
Read below about "natural." I wish everyone people here could get nitrate free bacon. It tastes every bit as good if not better than most slab bacon I get.
Here’s something from another post written by tb: FWIW, I like the way nitrates make bacon taste. We raise pigs and have had them processed both with and without nitrates. IMO, the bacons and hams taste much better with nitrates and have a better texture.
Exactly. The nitrates that have been used in the traditional processing of meats aren’t there for decoration. They’ve been put there for bacteriological and other preservational reasons. And they are material contributors to the final taste, appearance and mouthfeel of the product. Not having them means not having the real thing. And I wish people would stop being so terrorized by the dinner table. Stop being so fearful of things that have been examined by literally thousands of scientists and not found to be disastrous. Stop being so inward-looking and see the delights the world has to offer. This whole "organic and natural" business is based on a negative viewpoint: to avoid rather than to seek. And, to answer some of the questions curt and other "food was so much better before it was processed" types raise, here’s a column I wrote on the subject a while back: <<<<<<<<<<<<<< begin quote THE BAD OLD DAYS There are these amazing ideas floating around that couldn’t be more wrong – and you probably believe some of them. They’re part wishful thinking, part ignorance of history, part prejudice and part the result of misinformation from "experts". Here are specific examples: * That at some time in the past, foods were better for us. * That "natural" and "pure" somehow equal "healthful". * That putting commercial additives in food automatically makes them inferior to the foods with nothing added. * That processing foods destroys their inherent goodness and nutritional integrity. How’s that? Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? It’s all nonsense. Every one of these "truths" isn’t necessarily true and is usually false. Sometime around the year 1365, a long poem called "Piers the Plowman" was written by a Londoner who chronicled much of daily living. Because of adulteration of foods, people are suffering, he says and it’s the job of English officials To punish… Brewers, bakers, butchers and cooks; For these be the men on earth who do most harm To the poor people who buy piece-meal. They poison the people secretly and most often… Four hundred years later with the publication of "The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker" in 1771, the complaints about London’s foods have persisted and intensified. Says Matthew Bramble, a character in the book, "As to… wine, it is a vile, unpalatable, and pernicious sophistication, balderdashed (mixed) with cyder, corn-spirit and the juice of sloes… The bread… is a… paste, mixed up with chalk, alum and bone-ashes; insipid to the taste, and destructive to the constitution." He comments that the miller and baker MUST make flour and bread this way because people insist on the whitest breads with no concern for nutritive value. White is more important than good. Milk is made from "faded cabbage leaves and sour draff," (spoiled milk usually fed to pigs) "lowered with hot water, frothed with bruised snails, carried through streets in open pails… the tallowy rancid mass, called butter, is manufactured with candle-grease and kitchen-stuff…" And, bad as the food is, something else is even worse, he says as he goes on in sarcastic indignation, "Now, all these enormities might be remedied with a very little attention to… civil regulation; but the wise patriots of London have taken it into their heads, that all regulation is inconsistent with liberty." Beer was adulterated in ways that are puzzling to us today. Unscrupulous brewers added coriander, red pepper, tobacco, opium and other narcotics, licorice, ginger, linseed, molasses and some kinds of metal salts to improved the foam. That took care of it, right? As soon as all this nasty stuff was made public, the government immediately corrected the situation, right? Sure, just like in real life. Well, a half century later, in 1820, Frederick Accum, an English Chemist, published a book numbingly titled "A treatise on adulterations of food, and culinary poisons exhibiting the fraudulent sophistications of bread, beer, wine, spirituous liquors, tea, coffee, cream, confectionery, vinegar, mustard, pepper, cheese, olive oil, pickles and other articles employed in domestic economy and methods of detecting them." Not at all scary. The title page features an engraved urn with a skull perched atop it draped with a shroud and the inscription "There is death in the pot" from the Second book of Kings in the old testament. You don’t even have to read the book, it’s all right there in the name. In this country there were similar concerns and protests. Upton Sinclair wrote about the disgusting and dangerous conditions in the meat packing industry and other writers shouted about other issues. Around the turn of the century laws were enacted that covered some of these problems. But it wasn’t until 1914 that narcotics were controlled and therefore removed from foods and patent medicines, the so-called "soothing syrups." I’ll bet they soothed. Real, addictive drugs. It’s estimated that there were more than 2,500,000 addicts in this country in the years just before the First World War. The conclusion here seems to be that the only safe, good food in all of history has been that which the eater personally grew. Well, that’s not true, either. Plants contain "natural" pesticides and toxins. Things as different as green potatoes, apricot pits, lima beans, cabbage, rhubarb leaves or those pretty red and blue mushrooms called "Death’s Heads" all produce "natural" poisons. You can name others. Cultivating and hybridizing the plants for thousands of years has helped them evolve to new strains with less potential for poisoning us, but in some cases, it’s still there. Really, don’t eat rhubarb leaves. If you eat the right plants in the right amounts, you will experience a "natural" death. Bacteria, microbes and viruses are just as much a part of nature as we are and they would have much more fun with us if we didn’t control them by cooking, chilling and chemically preserving. Nature is not neutral or benign. Here’s the bizarre inconsistency – we want our food to be pretty, every pepper green, shiny, crisp and big, every carrot tapered, bright and heavy. No blemishes, no spots and it should sit unspoiled and unwilted in the refrigerator until we decide to use it, as though it came from some Henry Ford farm producing identically perfect tomatoes, matched melons and esthetically equal eggplants. And there should be no chemicals used to get there; no chemical fertilizers, no insecticides, no fungicides, no waxes to make it shiny, no gases in the boats or railroad cars from the fields to the stores. And here’s how the real world works: we’ll reject any food in the store that shows "natural" blemishes from insects, branches that rub, bruises, blood spots or anything. (Of course, if we butcher the meat or pick things from our garden, they can have some imperfections and we’ll still eat them.) We’ll still whine about additives. Want perfect apples? Yes? Want Alar? No? Then, according to the laws of physics and biology; you can’t have perfect apples. Oh, I see. You want perfect apples, anyway. Oh, yes, additives. They’re all bad. Everybody knows that.
… read more »
Response:
I’m of the other opinion — I can’t tell the difference (other than nitrates make the bacon look different). — Bob ctviggen at rcn dot com
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FWIW, I like the way nitrates make bacon taste. We raise pigs and have had them processed both with and without nitrates. IMO, the bacons and hams taste much better with nitrates and have a better texture. Tonya I understand that nitrates are not very healthy for you. But I think it’s a personal choice whether or not to eat bacon and hotdogs, etc. that have nitrates. I just read this: http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/ My question is do eating these foods with nitrates hinder your weight loss on Atkins as long as they are in the carb range you are supposed to have? TIA, Kathy
Response:
FWIW, I like the way nitrates make bacon taste. We raise pigs and have had them processed both with and without nitrates. IMO, the bacons and hams taste much better with nitrates and have a better texture. Tonya
I understand that nitrates are not very healthy for you. But I think it’s a personal choice whether or not to eat bacon and hotdogs, etc. that have nitrates. I just read this:
http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My question is do eating these foods with nitrates hinder your weight loss on Atkins as long as they are in the carb range you are supposed to have? TIA, Kathy
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What I’ve seen written that could be problematic, if true, is that nitrates/nitrites are carcinogenic in high doses. That said, I’m addicted to bacon…have a really hard time finding meats that don’t have nitrates/nitrites, other than deli fresh meats…and even then you have to wonder if they know what’s in their meats. Guess I’m just going to have to hope that it’s only carcinogenic in ultra high doses in lab animals! Jay Reifert, Organizer/Director of Operations REAL-Reform (Real Estate Agency Law-Reform) http://www.real-reform.org
Well, many of these sugar substitutes are pretty bad too, according to some studies. I try and eat food that isn’t altered and is organic. Meaning free range eggs that are fed organic food without pesticides and so on. I figure when I eat out I am getting every chemical known to man because restaurants don’t really care about those type of things unless it is a co-op or something. It is too bad food just can’t be food without all the additives and chemicals. I guess as long as it is packaged in a pretty wrapper it is ok. I am a believer that many cancers are related to this situation. I don’t think it will stop in my lifetime. Maybe we will find a cure for cancer and we can eat all the crap in the stores and just take a pill. That way the supermarkets make the most money and the drug companies make money too. It is a very profitable circle that will be created. Sorry about the rant. It just gets me going that it is so hard to find food that is natural (organic). I wish everyone people here could get nitrate free bacon. It tastes every bit as good if not better than most slab bacon I get. Enjoy, Curt — 211/204/190 Started Atkins May 18, 2003
Response:
If I can’t find the ones with no nitrates, I just get it anyway. I love bacon and never had a problem with it. Curt
What I’ve seen written that could be problematic, if true, is that nitrates/nitrites are carcinogenic in high doses. That said, I’m addicted to bacon…have a really hard time finding meats that don’t have nitrates/nitrites, other than deli fresh meats…and even then you have to wonder if they know what’s in their meats. Guess I’m just going to have to hope that it’s only carcinogenic in ultra high doses in lab animals! Jay Reifert, Organizer/Director of Operations REAL-Reform (Real Estate Agency Law-Reform) http://www.real-reform.org
Response:
LOL! Isn’t a "whoosh" when you lose a few pounds overnight?
Yeppers! And they feel MAH-velous! I wasn’t just referring to bacon though. I was thinking hot dogs, kabasa…stuff my daughter asked for that I’m not sure about. Her favorite is kabasa and broccoli, but I want to help her do this diet the right way. So if it’s gonna hinder our weight loss, we’re gonna stay away from it! 
I think that the main problem with kielbasa is that it is so high in calories. If she eats moderate portions, she should be okay. I don’t touch the stuff anymore, after entering it into FitDay once. OUCH! Carol — 226/196.5/150 May Challenge Goal – 199 Atkins since 1-26-2003 Type 2 Diabetic since 5-15-2001
Response:
If this concerns you, you can certainly get bacon and hot dogs without nitrates. I just had some bacon from Whole Foods that have no nitrates and saw some yummy Coleman hot dogs that are all beef with no nitrates. If I can’t find the ones with no nitrates, I just get it anyway. I love bacon and never had a problem with it. Curt — 211/204/190 Started Atkins May 18, 2003
I understand that nitrates are not very healthy for you. But I think it’s a personal choice whether or not to eat bacon and hotdogs, etc. that have nitrates. I just read this:
http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My question is do eating these foods with nitrates hinder your weight loss on Atkins as long as they are in the carb range you are supposed to have? TIA, Kathy
Response:
LOL! Isn’t a "whoosh" when you lose a few pounds overnight? I wasn’t just referring to bacon though. I was thinking hot dogs, kabasa…stuff my daughter asked for that I’m not sure about. Her favorite is kabasa and broccoli, but I want to help her do this diet the right way. So if it’s gonna hinder our weight loss, we’re gonna stay away from it! Kathy I understand that nitrates are not very healthy for you. But I think it’s a personal choice whether or not to eat bacon and hotdogs, etc. that have nitrates. I just read this:
http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My question is do eating these foods with nitrates hinder your weight loss on Atkins as long as they are in the carb range you are supposed to have? I’ve never gained from eating a ton of bacon. In fact, some of my finest whooshes have come after totally pigging out on the stuff. I’m not scared to eat bacon at all. Carol — 226/196.5/150 May Challenge Goal – 199 Atkins since 1-26-2003 Type 2 Diabetic since 5-15-2001
Response:
I understand that nitrates are not very healthy for you. But I think it’s a personal choice whether or not to eat bacon and hotdogs, etc. that have nitrates. I just read this: http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/ My question is do eating these foods with nitrates hinder your weight loss on Atkins as long as they are in the carb range you are supposed to have?
I’ve never gained from eating a ton of bacon. In fact, some of my finest whooshes have come after totally pigging out on the stuff. I’m not scared to eat bacon at all. Carol — 226/196.5/150 May Challenge Goal – 199 Atkins since 1-26-2003 Type 2 Diabetic since 5-15-2001
Response:
I understand that nitrates are not very healthy for you. But I think it’s a personal choice whether or not to eat bacon and hotdogs, etc. that have nitrates. I just read this: http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/ My question is do eating these foods with nitrates hinder your weight loss on Atkins as long as they are in the carb range you are supposed to have? TIA, Kathy
Response:
I understand that nitrates are not very healthy for you. But I think it’s a personal choice whether or not to eat bacon and hotdogs, etc. that have nitrates. I just read this: http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/ My question is do eating these foods with nitrates hinder your weight loss on Atkins as long as they are in the carb range you are supposed to have? TIA, Kathy
Bacon works for me, wouldn’t touch a hot dog…. BJ 232/196/185
Response:
LOL! So, you don’t know if it’ll affect weight loss on this plan? Kathy
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I understand that nitrates are not very healthy for you. But I think it’s a personal choice whether or not to eat bacon and hotdogs, etc. that have nitrates. I just read this: http://atkinscenter.com/helpatkins/faqs/faqfood/ My question is do eating these foods with nitrates hinder your weight loss on Atkins as long as they are in the carb range you are supposed to have? TIA, Kathy Bacon works for me, wouldn’t touch a hot dog…. BJ 232/196/185
Response:
Categories: Food Addictions | 
No Comments »
)