“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[House of Usher]

Part 1 had more info about carcinogens in food, bath products, everyday items etc - but the time limit for watching on-line had passed. (I didn't know, for example, that talcum powder can cause cancer.)

I recommend watching the film The Incredible Shrinking Woman with Lily Tomlin in it. It's the combination of chemicals in her everyday consumer products that causes her to shrink. I went to the pictures to see that many, many years ago.

[Robin Low]

Part 1 had more info about carcinogens in food, bath products, everyday items etc - but the time limit for watching on-line had passed. (I didn't know, for example, that talcum powder can cause cancer.)

Yeah, but so can beer, smoking, traffic fumes, the carbon and fat in an over-cooked sausage and the acid in our own stomachs. Loads of things have the potential, but more often than not it's a matter of degree of exposure. Too much sun is potentially dangerous, but too little sun is bad as well. And the information is out there for anyone who cares to take an interest - for example, every packet of tablets comes with an insert listing numerous potential side effects, and there are forests worth of data sheets dealing with every chemical under the sun listing all sorts of delightful hazards and potential risks. 

I'm no more inclined to trust the pharmaceutical and chemical industries than I am any other profit-making outfit, but I get a little tired hearing about secrecy and cover-ups when people aren't actually interested in information that's freely available, and cheerfully ignore it anyway.

Regards

Robin

[The Legendary Shark]

Everything you say is true.

However, lack of action is viewed as consent so if people don't bother to read up on the carcinogens in everyday foodstuffs, then they consent to be poisoned.

But surely, if there are carcinogens in foodstuffs - isn't that what the media and government are there to educate us about and protect us from? Well, if it wasn't for advertisers and lobbyists, that is...

[Emperor]

We should get a T-shirt with the slogan "The Twoth? You can't handle the Twoth!!" with Tharg wrestling the prog from some brainshocked youngster.

Back to your regular programming.

[Robin Low]

Everything you say is true.

However, lack of action is viewed as consent so if people don't bother to read up on the carcinogens in everyday foodstuffs, then they consent to be poisoned.

People know full well that smoking, drinking and eating badly damages their health and puts additional strain on public services. Every attempt to provide information and encouragement to change attitudes and behaviour gets labelled as 'nanny state'.

If the government does nothing, it's accused of keeping secrets and being in the pockets of big business. If the government provides information, it's accused of nagging and wasting taxpayers' money on leaflets. If the goverment takes direct action, then it's accused of virtual dictatorship.

It's a no win situation for any goverment, and I say that as someone who holds the fuckers in utter contempt.

But surely, if there are carcinogens in foodstuffs - isn't that what the media and government are there to educate us about and protect us from? Well, if it wasn't for advertisers and lobbyists, that is...

Where do you think I get my information from?

Regards

Robin

[The Legendary Shark]

If I choose to smoke knowing the health risks, then that's my responsibility. If, on the other hand, I buy a sandwich that I assume to be made from safe ingredients but it turns out that the tomatoes used contain largely untested chemicals or genetic modifications, whose fault is that? Does slapping a GM TOMATO label on the sandwich constitute fair warning when the full effects of GM tomatoes on the human body have never been fully tested?

"Where do you think I get my information from?"

From more than one source, I assume.

I just believe that before any chemicals are added to foodstuffs they must be thoroughly tested. It's not good enough to perform a few cursory tests on rats and then mix the chemicals in anyway thinking that, if it makes anyone's liver melt then we'll think about taking those chemicals out at a later date if a court tells us to. No, I don't think that's good enough at all - and I assume that many people would agree with me on that.

Just look at the aspartame debacle. From laboratory testing of the chemical on rats, researchers  discovered that the drug induces brain tumours. On Sept 30, 1980 the Board of Inquiry of the FDA concurred and denied the petition for approval.

In 1981, the newly appointed FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, ignored the negative ruling and approved aspartame for dry goods. As recorded in the Congressional Record of 1985, then CEO of Searle Laboratories Donald Rumsfeld said that he would "call in his markers" to get aspartame approved. Rumsfeld was on President Reagan's transition team and a day after taking office appointed Hayes. No FDA Commissioner in the previous sixteen years had allowed aspartame on the market.

[vzzbux]

There is still debate as to whether GM food is harmful.

Over the past years I have took a back bench interest in this as I think GM food will be the norm in the future if we carry on fucking up the environment.

There is no conclusive proof that this is harmful to us. Similar statements to this crop up all the time on many reports that I have browsed over the years.

I am quite happy to eat GM food. I am sure it will be big news if it ever deemed unsafe which is why I keep my ear to the ground.

It has been on the shelves for roughly fifteen years worldwide now so I am sure it there are damaging qualities it would have surfaced by now.

To think we have the tobacco companies to thank for this breakthrough back in the early eighties although GM food stretches a lot further back.

I personally think much of the stigma relates to people thinking that we are playing god but as I am not religious that particular aspect doesn't bother me.



V

[House of Usher]

I don't know what the problem is. Genetically modified tomatoes are obviously wrong, and I wouldn't knowingly buy or eat them, but I don't see why they should give you cancer. I've heard of fish genes being put into tomatoes, but I don't think fish per se give you cancer.

Chemical food additives are tested, aren't they? It's not any kind of secret that aspartame isn't good for you. It's a straight choice for people whether they like sugar or cancer more, unless you have diabetes. Personally I like sugar, so I don't buy anything that contains aspartame, acesulfame potassium or saccharine. I know that refined sugar isn't particularly good for me, so I limit my intake of sugar.

I don't think everything comes down to a question of truth, lies and sinister conspiracies: I think in a lot of cases it comes down to freely available information, whether or not you access that information, and how you choose to act upon it.

[House of Usher]

To think we have the tobacco companies to thank for this breakthrough back in the early eighties although GM food stretches a lot further back.

You've confused me now. I don't know where tobacco companies come into it. Genetic modification goes back to recombinant bacteria in 1973 and subsequently genetically modified bacteria with human genetic material being used to manufacture insulin from 1978 onwards.

[vzzbux]

The first transgenic plant - a tobacco plant resistant to an antibiotic - was created in 1983. It was another ten years before the first commercialisation of a GM plant in the United States - a delayed-ripening tomato - and another two years (1996) before a GM product - tomato paste - hit UK supermarket shelves.

This is a generic quote which appears on many reports I have come across (obviously worded different and some go into far more detail). And as I said

GM food stretches a lot further back.

V

[Dandontdare]

Medicinal Cannabis and its impact on Human Health

http://www.tpuc.org/content/medicinal-cannabis-and-its-impact-human-he

Could you give me a brief summary of the what his point is? It's a 47 minute video and I can't be arsed - I'm a bit stoned.

[House of Usher]

The first transgenic plant - a tobacco plant resistant to an antibiotic - was created in 1983. It was another ten years before the first commercialisation of a GM plant in the United States - a delayed-ripening tomato - and another two years (1996) before a GM product - tomato paste - hit UK supermarket shelves.

I like your quote. However, I think it's possible to overstate the role of tobacco companies in the development of genetically modified plants. They may well have put up some of the money - tobacco companies love to fund research because they are both wealthy and evil - but genetically modified food organisms aren't in any literal sense the accidental offshoot of tinkering by the research arm of a tobacco company. It's more a question of scientist goes to tobacco company and says "will you fund this research?"


(P.S. - you win!)

[vzzbux]

Apparently GM tinkering goes back to the 19th century. I remember reading somewhere that monks spliced Peas with something or other. I probably dreamt it but it is quite a distinct memory.

EDIT. cross pollination of peas I think



V

[I, Cosh]

Just look at the aspartame debacle. From laboratory testing of the chemical on rats, researchers  discovered that the drug induces brain tumours.

Except they didn't, because it doesn't.

Quoted from the abstract of a reasonably recent review of studies conducted on the effects of aspartame. Full thing here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671

Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic...The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.

Rather than copy and paste a whole load of stuff, here's a link to a post on another site with a range of references you can sift through and follow up at your leisure

In other news, the MMR vaccine is safe too.

[Robin Low]

If I choose to smoke knowing the health risks, then that's my responsibility. If, on the other hand, I buy a sandwich that I assume to be made from safe ingredients but it turns out that the tomatoes used contain largely untested chemicals or genetic modifications, whose fault is that? Does slapping a GM TOMATO label on the sandwich constitute fair warning when the full effects of GM tomatoes on the human body have never been fully tested?

*shrug* If people ignore the research or dismiss the scientists doing it as being in the pockets of the GM companies, then it's a no-win situation.

And besides, most of these GM foods are single-gene modifications. Conventional breeding involves hundred of random genes being shared, but nobody makes a fuss about that.

Regards

Robin