It is currently Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:49 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: What are we eating?
PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:26 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 1093
Location: McKinney,TEXAS
Here's a paper that I summarized from something recently on TV. It's long but hopefully worth the time.
Tony M

Who’s to Blame?
Obesity in America: How to Get Fat Without Really Trying

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are overweight and almost one in three Americans is obese, according to the federal government.
Who's to blame for America's obesity? Is it bad eating habits or poorly executed exercise regimes? Could the government and the food industry also be to blame?
"We're besieged," said Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "Wherever we go, we're encouraged to eat junk food."
Some say that personal health and well being are a matter of personal responsibility. But the processed food industry and the government know what is happening — and they are making a bad situation worse.
Last year there were more than 2,800 new candies, desserts, ice creams and snacks on the market — but only 230 new fruit or vegetable products.
"I think that the food industry is providing a wide variety of choice, and certainly if you look at some of the recent market trends, you're seeing a major increase in the good-for-you foods category," said Chip Kunde, the senior vice president of the International Dairy Foods Association.
"Ultimately it is a matter of personal choice," he said. "I mean we can't dictate what people choose to eat, so yes at some point what people choose to eat or how they choose to move is ultimately the issue here."
The problem is Americans are choosing foods with more sweeteners and more calories, drinking more sodas, eating more candy, and snacking all day. Is the food industry simply giving people the products they want?
"I don't think that you can talk about giving the public what the public wants without discussing the $33 billion a year that the food industry spends to try to promote that kind of want," said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University.
In the last 20 years, the food industry has increased the size of the food products, increased the number of new products and increased the marketing of products.
Kunde said these strategies are not designed to get people to eat more, but rather to respond to people's needs.
‘Kids Are Big Business’
It starts young. Marketing experts say the food industry spends billions of dollars marketing food to children, and every year it spends more.
"Kids are a very dynamic audience," said Paul Kurnit, an advertising executive who specializes in marketing to children.
The reason why so much time and money are spent advertising to children is because "kids are in many ways unsocialized, they are fresh-eyed, they are open to new ideas," said Kurnit. "Kids are big business, there's no question about that."
Most of the food that is advertised to children is processed food — and it is exactly what children are buying.
Children spend more of their own money on food than anything else — more than on CDs or movies or clothes or toys. And the public health implications of children's diets are enormous.
"The problem is that most of the foods that are marketed to children are unhealthy foods," said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, "and the children are exposed to so many messages about junk food that the cultural norm around food has changed. So that children think that they should be getting candy and cookies and chips and soda and these other junkie foods all the time."
The average American child sees 10,000 food advertisements a year on television alone, and most of those advertisements are for fast food, sugarcoated cereal, soft drinks and candy, and other foods dense in fat and calories.
"There are baby food desserts. Maybe that's where it starts and then when kids are 2 years old they gain the strength to turn on the television set and they see the constant stream of commercials," said Jacobson. "Then they go to school. And even in schools there are encouragements to eat junk food."
But when advertisers like Paul Kurnit are putting together an advertising campaign, do they care whether the product is healthy or not?
"I care that the product has a positive role in a child's life," said Kurnit. "It is not my fundamental responsibility to be sure that that product in and of itself fulfills a complete diet."
When asked if he played a role in making less healthy products appealing to children, thereby increasing their desire for those products, Kurnit responded, "I've played a role in making all kinds of products appealing to kids and the issue of less healthy is a judgment call that you can make."
But advertisers know where asparagus and soda pop line up.
"You are absolutely correct that I am not going to get the same return on investment for a client in advertising asparagus and spinach to a kid as advertising some of the so-called less healthy products to kids," said Kurnit. "Guilty as charged."
Agricultural Subsidies’ Impact
And nutritionists and health advocates say the government is contributing to obesity by giving subsides to create fattening food.
"We have government policies that promote overeating from the beginning to the end of the food chain," said Nestle.
Today, American farmers produce for domestic consumption vastly more food than America needs — nearly twice as much. And the more food we grow, the more we eat. Abundance has become the enemy.
During the Depression of the 1930s, the government began subsidizing farmers to save them from financial ruin. The money never stopped. This year, the U.S. government will put roughly $20 billion into agriculture — most of it going directly to the farmers.
But does the government take dietary guidelines and nutritional concerns into consideration when it's making those grants? Jacobson says no, "there's no concern whatsoever. There's no link between agricultural subsidies and health."
Jacobson said his group has been trying to find analyses of the health impact of farm subsidies, but it hasn't come up with a single study. The Bush "administration is handing out these subsidies without knowing what is the ultimate impact on their constituents, the American public," he told ABCNEWS.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, who is in charge of public health for the Bush administration, doesn't see any connection between the federal government's agricultural subsidy programs and nutrition.
"I really don't," said Thompson. "Because the subsidy programs are things that are done through Congress, much more so than trying to come up with an overall strategy as, as far as nutrition is concerned."
He does agree, however, that whatever the government subsidizes is going to be grown more. And some of those products are not good for nutrition.
Since 1995, meat and dairy got about three times the subsidies of grains. According to data from the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Working Group, fats and oils — the foods government says we should eat least — got about 20 times more subsidies than fruits and vegetables.
"There's a disconnect between agricultural policy and health policy," said Tom Stenzel, president and CEO of United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association. "That's probably the biggest problem that the federal government faces. We don't look at how agricultural policy can help improve public health. It's strictly about subsidies."
Corn, Corn, Everywhere Corn
The most heavily subsidized crop in America is corn. Farmers plant nearly 80 million acres of corn each year and in the last five years, they got an average of $5.5 billion in federal subsidies every year.
Corn isn't just the corn-on-the-cob you get from the local market. It's also a cheap raw material for the giant food industry. Corn is processed and put into thousands of products that Americans use every day.
Popcorn, for example, is made with subsidized corn. The popcorn is so inexpensive that the bag it comes in costs more than the popcorn. That's why you can buy the mega size at the movies for just a few pennies more.
The oil the movie theaters cook it in is subsidized, too. And so is the vegetable oil they put on top.
Soda also contains a corn product: a corn-derived sweetener called high-fructose corn syrup. Since the 1970s, its use has gone up more than 4,000 percent. Subsidized corn sweeteners — which have pretty much taken over from sugar — are in candy and pretzels and some hot dogs, too.
Americans consume nearly three times more corn in the form of corn sweeteners than they do in every other form.
"So what these subsidies do is to lower the cost of the ingredients that go in processed foods, particularly high-calorie processed foods, and they make those foods cheaper," said Nestle.
If Americans were to follow a healthy diet, the Department of Agriculture says that nearly twice the number of acres of fruit and vegetables would have to be planted.
Is More Exercise the Solution?
Americans talk a lot about being fit and thinner. There are thousands of exercise videos, machines, gadgets and gimmicks on the shelves — all designed to help us lose the weight we put on by eating too much.
And for the food industry, exercise is a convenient answer to obesity.
"I think people do need to exercise more and not just exercise because when you think of exercise it often seems like it's more than you can fit into your very busy day, but you can take small steps," said Kunde.
But would obesity be solved by physical activity?
"The food industry would like to blame everything on lack of exercise. Eat as much as you want. Exercise it off," said Jacobson. "Go out and buy a bike or play basketball with your kid.”
We should do that, but that's only part of the battle.
Michael Mudd, a senior vice president at Kraft, the largest American food processor, said the food industry needs to be a part of the solution.
"Our message is, eat a balanced diet, eat foods that are at the top of the pyramid in moderation, and get some activity in your life," said Mudd.
But Kraft's approach is different. The company has proposed a wholesale review of all their products and their marketing. Because it knows obesity is an epidemic.
Let's say I have a reduced-fat product that takes out 5 grams versus the original, and 10 people choose that product. So, on a population-wide basis, we've saved 50 grams of fat," said Mudd.
"But if I take the regular version of that product and I remove 1 gram of fat, and I do it in a way that doesn't affect the taste, and now 90 people choose that product, on a population-wide basis, I've saved 90 grams of fat. And that's my definition of a meaningful change."
In other words, making every product a little healthier would have an effect on more people


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 03, 2003 10:48 am
Posts: 241
Location: Arlington
Thank you Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 10:59 am
Posts: 277
Available now in video stores is the documentary "SuperSize Me," and it is a great view into the fast food culture and its effects. I recommend it.

_________________
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they aren't -- lament of the synthetic lifestyle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:59 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:18 pm
Posts: 1093
Location: McKinney,TEXAS
I second what Enzyme said and would add that it is also a funny, well done film. It is obviously not very complimentary to McDonald's but he doesn't go out of his way to slam them. Put aside the documentary aspects of the film, it's a good watch.
Tony M


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 10:59 am
Posts: 277
Among the striking facts in the movie is the amount of caloric sweeteners in the fast food products and the number of those products that contain caloric sweeteners. The movie stated that only 7 items on the entire menu did not contain added "sugar." They didn't specify the form, but I assume that is a combination of table sugar, corn sweetener, and corn syrup. If they gave a similar value for trans-fats, I missed it, and I don't think they mentioned trace minerals or vitamins.

I'm not entirely in the school of thought that corn sweetener, as it is used, is substantially worse than table sugar--other than the fact that the price of corn sweeteners encourages their use in a wider range of products and probably in greater quantities than would be seen with table sugar. Right now, I lean toward the idea that it is a problem of over consumption, which appears to be Dr. Mercola's stand on the issue, rather than of what type is consumed. To the body, white table sugar (sucrose) is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Virtually all of the digestion/absorption of sucrose occurs in the small intestine, where the enzyme commonly called "sucrase" splits sucrose into its constituent glucose and fructose. That enzymatic process is not a rate limiting step, which means that there is no significant difference between the speed at which the glucose and fructose from ingested sucrose are absorbed and that at which ingested free glucose and free fructose are absorbed. The saccharide composition of the great majority of the high fructose corn sweetener used is 45% glucose and 55% fructose, both of which are unbound. (I've seen "nutritional" comments on the Web to the effect that the average American does not consume free fructose or free glucose--don't believe it!) I question whether the 5% weighting toward fructose is a significant factor in the average person's metabolism unless there is a ceiling on total fructose consumption over a given period of time and the extra 5% pushes over that line. Use of specialty corn syrups is pretty small in comparison, and they often are selected because of their physical characteristics rather than their sweetening quality.

The amount of overall caloric sweetener that Americans consume is an entirely different matter. One of the problems with consumption is in measuring actual per capita consumption of caloric sweeteners. It often is said that, as of ~ 2001, Americans consumed an average of ~ 155 lbs of added sweeteners annually. That figure includes ~ 67 lbs. of sucrose, primarily cane and beet sugars, ~ 86 lbs. of corn-based sweeteners, and ~ 1 lb. of other sweeteners, such as honey and maple syrup (and presumably fruit juice used as sweeteners, such as white grape juice. The comparable per capita figure for 1966 is 113 lbs. That total value is the amount provided to the processing stream, and it doesn't account for waste and conversion into non-sugar forms, such as that in the baking process and pet foods(!) and possibly that in the alcohol brewing/distillation process. The sweetener industry claims that the FDA estimates current actual per capita caloric sweetener consumption at ~ 45 lbs/year. A comparable figure for 1966, based on the disappearance figure ratios, would be around 32 lbs. How the FDA derives that 45 lb figure and whether it's accurate, I don't know. Nonetheless, the question remains as to how much total glucose, how much total fructose, and how much total monosaccharides a person or population can tolerate without creating health issues--45 lbs still seems like a lot to me. Another question is for what nutritious foods a product containing nothing but sugar and dye substitutes in a person's daily food intake.

Bear in mind that the per capita sugar number tracks only sugars that are added to products; it does not include constituent sugars in fruits, vegetables, or milk. It appears to me that the overall contribution from fruit and vegetables could be up a little, even if total fruit/vegetable consumption remained fairly stable, if consumption preferences have moved to species/varieties with higher sugar content. It also seems to me that, to the extent it involves liquid milk, the large increase in dairy consumption over the past 50 years carries with it some increase in the amount of lactose consumed. (Lactose is made up of glucose and galactose.) There is not an appreciable amount of lactose in mass produced cheese, so the amount of the increase that is attributable to cheese does not carry an appreciable increase in lactose consumption. A final thought to bear in mind is that restaurants, fast food or otherwise, care much more about product taste and appearance than about nutrition. If it takes an extra cup of sugar to create that certain texture or to overcome the flavor of low quality or recipe-substitution ingredients chosen for that particular dish or on that particular day, you can bet that extra cup of (not organically produced) sugar is in there. Be careful out there.

_________________
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they aren't -- lament of the synthetic lifestyle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: What we are eating
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:09 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 420
Location: Whitesboro,TX
I don't know if this is true but I read something that
said that sucrose in large quanities will stimulate
the insulin system and we get a feeling of "I have
had enough", but corn products - fuctrose - do not
stimulate the insulin system but either burn up with
exercise or get stored as fat and cholesterol. Corn
products became popular in the early 80's because
of the cheap prices do to government subsidies - the
idea was to make cheap food for us and to put as
many foreign farmers out of business as possible so
our companies - ADM, Cargill, Tyson, etc can make
unbelievable profits at our health expense.

There are two things to think about corn. Corn is not a
vegetable - it is a grain and grains are not healthy.
Grains, both organic and junk food causes people to
gain weight. I eliminated grains from my diet in Feb
and I have lost over 60 lbs. I do eat carbs - fruits and
vegetables. There have been studies of American
Indians before corn and after corn. The bones and
teeth before corn were much stronger that after the
introduction of corn.

The second thing to consider is "How is GMO corn
products effecting our bodies"? Soy beans are 80
to 90 % GMO, corn is over 35% GMO. Milk has GMO
added because of the GMO BST hormones given to
cows. Not all milk is produced this way but milk is
mixed with many dairys before it gets to us.

Our ancestors were hunters and gathers. They
ate grass fed meat. nuts and berries - not grains.
Grains started out as organic with vitamins and
minerals, but today every thing is stripped off
the grain, except the herbicides and pesticides.
I have choosen to eliminate grains and detoxify
my system and I have done well in my weight
loss program.

I wish we could get locally grown fruits and
vegetables. Maybe that will come with time.

Robert D Bard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What we are eating
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 10:59 am
Posts: 277
Robert D Bard wrote:
I don't know if this is true but I read something that said that sucrose in large quanities will stimulate
the insulin system and we get a feeling of "I have
had enough", but corn products - fuctrose - do not
stimulate the insulin system but either burn up with
exercise or get stored as fat and cholesterol. Corn
products became popular in the early 80's because
of the cheap prices do to government subsidies - the
idea was to make cheap food for us and to put as
many foreign farmers out of business as possible so
our companies - ADM, Cargill, Tyson, etc can make
unbelievable profits at our health expense.


As we understand it now, fructose is metabolized (and absorbed) through a process that is different from the way glucose is metabolized, which is why fructose does not create a rapid insulin response. The bulk of the high fructose corn sweetener products that are used as sweetener are ~ 45% glucose and 55% fructose, although the ~58% glucose/42% fructose product is used some also. The manufacturers start with a concentrated fructose product and then, primarily to refine the taste and possibly the physical characteristics, they blend glucose back in to make the final product. Because the disaccharide sucrose is composed of one molecule of glucose and one molecule of fructose, the body sees table sugar as 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Other common disaccharides are maltose, which has two glucose molecules linked together, and lactose, which has one glucose molecule linked to one galactose molecule.

The focus on fructose from corn in popular writings often loses sight of the fact that HFCS is not pure fructose. An example is this nonsense statement: "Anything sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup is more glycemic than regular sugar, because HFCS is half glucose." It appears to me that satiety-related comments often make the same mistake. Even so, it appears that absorption and the effect on insulin of both HFCS and sugar can vary depending on the presence of other carbohydrate components and of fiber in the food with which the sweeteners are taken. I believe a can of regular Coke contains ~ 39 grams of caloric sweetener. A ripe medium kiwi contains less than seven grams:

Sucrose:0.114g
Glucose:3.124g
Fructose:3.306g
Maltose:0.144g
Sugars, total:6.832g
Galactose:0.129g

Of course, the kiwi contains a few more goodies and no caffeine. I wonder which makes one fill fuller--a can of fresh Coke with all of its carbonation intact, or the flesh of 6 kiwi fruits.

The switch to HFCS began when Reagan imposed import limits on foreign sugar and set minimum price support levels for domestic sugar (about the same time that he bailed out Harley-Davidson by imposing import duties on imported motorcycles with larger engines). That led to the commodity price for domestic sugar at about .20-24/lb while world sugar was ~.03-.09/lb. The probably unexpected result for the domestic sugar lobby was that domestic sugar was and still is marginalized. The choice between big sugar vs. big corn processors isn't a very good one, IMO, and I prefer little local honey as the lesser of the sweetener evils.

_________________
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they aren't -- lament of the synthetic lifestyle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: What we are eating
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:47 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 420
Location: Whitesboro,TX
I hope I am right but I think that it is easier to
over eat "stuff" with corn syrup than with sugar.
Hence we don't get the full feeling. However corn
syrup is not the only corn product that we get
from processed foods. My weight loss came from
doing the detox program and the elimination of
grains.
When is comes to sweetners, I prefer to use none.
I drink a lot on ionized water and tea with out any
sweetner. I drink tea to cover up the taste of public
water when in a restaurant.
Robert D Bard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What we are eating
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 10:59 am
Posts: 277
Robert D Bard wrote:
When is comes to sweetners, I prefer to use none. I drink a lot on ionized water and tea with out any sweetner. I drink tea to cover up the taste of public water when in a restaurant.


Sound practices and good advice. Satiety is a complicated concept and somewhat subjective concept, at least as we understand it now. Most of the data I've seen concerning satiety and HFCS involves beverages and concludes that we do not recognize calories taken in liquid form nearly as effectively as we recognize calories taken in solid food. As a practical matter, I believe that HFCS is a problem, but not simply because it contains slightly more or slightly less fructose than does table sugar. I see it as a combination of over-consumption of caloric soft drinks, the economics of HFCS compared to table sugar, the ability to manipulate sweetness/flavor that HFCS provides, and the opportunity to add sweeteners to enhance consumer acceptance of otherwise low palatability products. If the price and overall flavor of sucrose-sweetened soft drinks were the same as those of HFCS-sweetened soft drinks, I believe the results would be similar. The cost in the U.S. and the sweetness/flavor profiles, as used in products, are not the same for sucrose and HFCS . Even the 42% fructose HFCS product apparently is sweeter than sucrose, which raises the question of whether fewer calories of HFCS can be used to create the same sweet taste compared to sucrose. It should and maybe it does, but I believe excess HFCS is used to satisfy consumer demand for increasing sweetness, to mask palatability issues with the soft drinks' other ingredients, and/or to replace "flavor" with "sweetness." I don't take lightly the manufacturers' ability to craft designer sweeteners to match consumer cravings. HFCS's low cost enables wide use, and perhaps overuse, in soft drinks and the over consumption of them. One can question whether people would consume as much caloric soft drinks if the price reflected the support price of domestic sugar, or probably even the price of world sugar if the U.S. participated fully in that market.

Solid foods present a more complicated satiety issue because of more complex composition, absorption speeds, and maybe even aroma and personal preferences. Even if solid processed foods don't have the same level of satiety problems that beverages present, solid processed products carry plenty of drawbacks to compensate. A junk food product containing little more than modified corn starch, flavoring, dye, and caloric sweeteners has plenty of baggage.

_________________
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they aren't -- lament of the synthetic lifestyle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:08 am
Posts: 118
Location: Ladonia
Robert,

What do you mean by detoxifying your system and how do you go about doing that.

Thanks, Rick

_________________
Life is a Garden. DIG IT!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: sweetners
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:58 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 420
Location: Whitesboro,TX
We are exposed to toxins on a daily basis.
There are 500 toxins in the average public
drinking water, there are hormones, steroids,
antibiotics, and other chemicals in meat along
with out-gassing of plastics and styrene that
cause depression, cancer and early sexual
development of females, There 200 toxic
chemicals in new carpet, fire retardents in
new furniture, and the list goes on and on.
Last winter we had rocket fuel in the lettuce
from CA because of a leak in Nevada from
rocket fuel storage. Also don't forget the
herbicides and peasticides in the food at you
local store - unless it is organic.
There are numerous ways to detoxify, but if you
do not detoxify you can not loose weight easily
or keep it off as the toxins hold the fat cells in
the body. I personally use humates. I use humates
on the soil to detoxify the chemicals and it also
works internally. My next purchase will be a FIR
sauna to detoxify the whole body. This is the
ultimate but the cost is significant. I suggest that
you listen to my radio show on 990 AM radio. I
come on after Howard. This week, Nov 7th. is
with Dr. Pieper on ADD and ADHD. Part of the
interview will be on detox to help correct ADD
and ADHD. His website is www.walkthetalkproductions.com
On Nov 14th or 21st I will interview Sherry Rogers MD
on many topics but we will refer a lot of the interview
on her latest book "Detoxify or Die" Her website is www.prestigepublishing.com I also plan on talking
to her about why everyone won when they took
Vioxx of the market. Vioxx and Celebrix and that
family of drugs kills about 100,000 people a year
and not from heart problems. It is from internal
bleeding and destruction of the liver. These drugs
have been Rx ed to arthritis people to cover pain
instead of finding the cause of arthritis. Dr. Rogers
has figures that 75% of arthritis is from allergies to
night shade plants - including soy beans that have
been genetically engineered with petunias that are
night shade plants.
Other drugs that need to come off the market are
the statin drugs. They do not prevent heart disease
but they cause liver damage. The facts on the
NASAIDS (vioxx, etc) and Statins drugs have been
reported and they are on their way out but the drug
companies are trying to find "off label uses" for
these drugs so they will not have to give up the
billions of $ they are making. Drugs are chemicals
and they also create toxins in the body.
We live in an age that our government has sold out
to large corporation for campaign contributions,
and these companies control the food we eat and
they very willing give us poor food that is laden
with chemicals. Medicine is controlled by drug
companies are pleased to treat symptoms with
chemicals caused by chemicals. They are clearly
not interested in fin ding the cause of disease and
degeneration and preventing it as there is no money
in prevention.
Detoxifing with the consumption of minerals (there
are none in the food we eat from the stores - except
organic), whole vitamins, amino acids, and enzymes
is the only way to restore the health of our nation.
We have one of the poorest health care systems in
the world - there are many 3rd world countries that
have less disease than we have in our nation. We
do have the best medical emergency system in the
world, but the death, degeneration, and disease in
this country is something to be ashamed to admit.
My website is still under construction and there are
many changes to come but you can click on link to
radio station and listen with streaming audio. It is
www.robertbard.com
I know this has been long but for those of us that
have listened to Howard for all these years, we
are now bringing together more knowledgeable
professionals and the path is becoming clearer.
We can eat better, live better, detoxify and live
longer healthier lives. The Natural way is the
only way. Health care professionals ( not just MD's)
have to stop treating symptoms and start preventing
"conditions".
Is it safe to say that if we had healthy food, less
toxic chemicals, and detoxification, that over 50% of
disease, and degeneration would go away?????????
For the person that took exception to my reporting
on Vioxx, etc in another thread - this is not liberal
or conserative - it is just the facts. I am just a reporter.
Robert D Bard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: toxins
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 7:33 am
Posts: 764
Location: Plano & land at Dodd City,TEXAS
All I can add is: Well said! I might add that farmers have the highest incidence of lymphomas & blood cancers obviously due to pesticide & fertilizer exposure. (non-organic, that is)
Patty

_________________
Plano Patty & Jim


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by eWeblife