GMO Food, Artificial Sweeteners and Processed Foods

[bignateyk]

Poison is about dosage. Everything is bad for you if you consume enough. There is an amount of rat poison you can consume without causing harm. There is an amount of water you can consume that will kill you. Everyone knows this.

Is this shit bad for you? Sure. Just like everything else, if you have enough it will cause damage. Will a couple diet cokes a day kill you? No. Will drinking a case a day have ill effects? Most likely.

GMO...

What I do know is that life expectancy and quality of life are longer/better than they have ever been. I know that these crops feed starving people around the worlds and save lives.

People want to eat like a caveman and only organic and natural stuff. Paleo diet. Tell me, what was the average lifespan of a caveman? Was it 75 years?

Our current lifespan has nothing to do with our diets. We're living longer in spite of our diets. Our obesity epidemic is actually causing the lifespan to drop.

 

[nehalem256]

What I do know is that life expectancy and quality of life are longer/better than they have ever been. I know that these crops feed starving people around the worlds and save lives.

But if they starve to death now they won't get cancer from the GMO foods in 50 years! :awe:

 

[yllus]

GMO foods are fine. There's been a bandwagon of rhetoric against them since the 90s and not a single piece of evidence has come up against it in all that time. The guy who kicked off the entire effort has repudiated it as well.

Mark Lynas – Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013

I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.

When I first heard about Monsanto’s GM soya I knew exactly what I thought. Here was a big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us. Mixing genes between species seemed to be about as unnatural as you can get – here was humankind acquiring too much technological power; something was bound to go horribly wrong. These genes would spread like some kind of living pollution. It was the stuff of nightmares.

These fears spread like wildfire, and within a few years GM was essentially banned in Europe, and our worries were exported by NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to Africa, India and the rest of Asia, where GM is still banned today. This was the most successful campaign I have ever been involved with.

This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn’t realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it.

…

So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.

I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.

I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.

I’d assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.

I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.

But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it’s called gene flow.

But this was still only the beginning. So in my third book The God Species I junked all the environmentalist orthodoxy at the outset and tried to look at the bigger picture on a planetary scale.

And this is the challenge that faces us today: we are going to have to feed 9.5 billion hopefully much less poor people by 2050 on about the same land area as we use today, using limited fertiliser, water and pesticides and in the context of a rapidly-changing climate.

…

It now costs tens of millions to get a crop through the regulatory systems in different countries. In fact the latest figures I’ve just seen from CropLife suggest it costs $139 million to move from discovering a new crop trait to full commercialisation, so open-source or public sector biotech really does not stand a chance.

There is a depressing irony here that the anti-biotech campaigners complain about GM crops only being marketed by big corporations when this is a situation they have done more than anyone to help bring about.

…

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough. So my conclusion here today is very clear: the GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe – over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case of harm. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food. More to the point, people have died from choosing organic, but no-one has died from eating GM.

Just as I did 10 years ago, Greenpeace and the Soil Association claim to be guided by consensus science, as on climate change. Yet on GM there is a rock-solid scientific consensus, backed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society, health institutes and national science academies around the world. Yet this inconvenient truth is ignored because it conflicts with their ideology.

One final example is the sad story of the GM blight-resistant potato. This was being developed by both the Sainsbury Lab and Teagasc, a publicly-funded institute in Ireland – but the Irish Green Party, whose leader often attends this very conference, was so opposed that they even took out a court case against it.

This is despite the fact that the blight-resistant potato would save farmers from doing 15 fungicide sprays per season, that pollen transfer is not an issue because potatoes are clonally propagated and that the offending gene came from a wild relative of the potato.

There would have been a nice historical resonance to having a blight-resistant potato developed in Ireland, given the million or more who died due to the potato famine in the mid 19th century. It would have been a wonderful thing for Ireland to be the country that defeated blight. But thanks to the Irish Green Party, this is not to be.

And unfortunately the antis now have the bureaucrats on their side. Wales and Scotland are officially GM free, taking medieval superstition as a strategic imperative for devolved governments supposedly guided by science.

 

[KeithP]

I find it humorous that this thread immediately goes to validity of what the mother-in-law is saying rather than the significantly more important issue of the OP's inability to handle the problem by talking to his wife and mother-in-law.

-KeithP

 

[Nintendesert]

Just wait until the mother-in-law discovers the horrors of sugar!

 

[destrekor]

I don't think there is anything magical about sugar calories that make you lose weight. I think it is more an issue that protein(meat) calories seem like more of a meal so you end up eating less.

1/2 pound Top sirloin steak has less calories than a large muffin, but yet what kind of meal is a muffin?

Don't think of it as calories, that's merely a representation of what kind of energy is held within a given amount of a given molecular structure.

Sugar, as in, glucose and fructose (and sucrose, which are the two former monosaccharides in a disaccharide form), is fast energy. It takes little digestive energy to get the raw energy out of them, which can be wonderful.

But people don't eat and live like the human body expects. The idea of something rich in sugar or simple carbohydrates is to provide a quick fulfilling burst of energy when your body needs it, or to briefly survive on it until you can find a proper food source.

It has many problems though: it has a tremendous rebound effect due to the movement of glucose/glycogen and insulin throughout the body in response to the consumption and digestion of sugar. The body typically reacts to sugar intake immediately - once the body recognizes sugar in the mouth (and likewise for artificial sweeteners like Sucrolose, Aspartame and Ace K - they fool the body even if in taste they do not), it begins releasing sugar stores because it knows/believes it will soon to replenishing that storage.

That sugar rebound causes a feeling of immense need to eat more to replenish the stores later.

It also has minimal actual use within the body, compared to how much can be easily consumed. We only need so much, but most consume far more than necessary.
Muscles need it for anaerobic energy, and the brain relies entirely upon glucose and nothing else. It doesn't take a large amount, however, to fulfill those needs.

The other part, is protein and fatty acids contain much more energy (so does ethanol ), but they require a little more effort to digest for energy purposes. And they are also used inside the body for just every function outside of muscle movement and brain activity. They are the building blocks of cells.
If you consume excess, or to put it another way, you have a surplus compared to what the body needed that day, proteins and fatty acids can be converted into different products for energy. It's a far more convoluted process that requires more energy and resources from the body - while there is a net gain, it does cost compared to breaking down carbohydrates, even the most complex carbohydrates. However, oligosaccharides and polysaccharides do take more energy to break down into basic energy units than the basic sugars, which typically are already in a basic unit for our body.

Which put it all together, and the body highly prefers to utilize available carbohydrates for energy, regardless of what else you eat or what you prefer. Which means, any surplus fat and protein gets stored, which is the "fat" we know. And as long as you continue to consume enough carbohydates that the body is satiated for energy, you will hold onto that stored fat and probably continue to add more fatty acids and proteins to that fat.

So to answer your question - consuming less sugar (and, in general, carbs/saccharides) often does lead to weight loss that can be maintained if you keep limiting the intake. Why? Because, as you said, proteins and fatty acids are generally slower to digest and thus, more filling (especially because a lot of the better "snacks" that are high in fats and proteins are also good sources of fiber, which is filling yet cannot be digested... or at least some kinds cannot be digested).
Also, if you switch to low sugar, you'll begin forcing the body to start burning the surplus of fatty acids and proteins consumed. More being utilized for growth, repair, and energy = less being stored in the body. Over time, there will be moments where the body does not sense an excess of those being consumed, and decides to finally start burning that stored energy.
If this is kept up, you will probably be consuming less calories on a daily basis (since this diet is more satiating, typically), AND you will be burning more and more of that stored energy, all while storing less extra energy to begin with. Which = weight loss.

In general, you'll also feel a hell of a lot more energized, with less fatigue throughout the day, by switching to a low-carb diet, because you won't be experiencing those massive swings and rebounds. By increasing fat and protein intake, you'll also probably end up having better skin and hair thanks to more fatty acids, of which by the simple odds of consuming enough of the right unsaturated fatty acids and probably more than you had before, you will be improving quite a few aspects of overall health.


Low fat diets took off because the term fat is so misunderstood. Peanut butter is loaded in fat, and almost every single gram of it is wonderful, tasty unsaturated fat.

I always hated labels that show "total fat = 16g" and then go on to only show "saturated fat = 1g trans fat = 0g" and nothing else. What the hell is the other ~15g of fat?! I know it to be polyunsaturated and monounsaturated, but it sure would be nice for the uneducated individual to see these things. Most people have no clue about nutritional science, and I'll readily admit I'm no expert but I try to learn as much as I can to get the nutrients I do need and avoid things which are worthless.

I'll treat myself with sugar and carbs, and get plenty in regular meals. I should cut back, I'm not doing as well as I had awhile ago, and gained that weight back. But I try to keep it smart - oh, I'm starving and I can't think at work, and I'm out of snacks. Well, this bite size candy bar (or two) has enough sugar to perk me up until my next meal. I'm going running later - I can't eat a meal but this cookie has enough energy to satiate me and not send me into zombie mode, energy-starved, mid-run.
A bowl of whole grain mixed-type cereal (oats, wheats, corns, etc) is a slow-digesting meal that should leave me satisfied until lunch, and if I eat the right cereal (though usually more than a single "serving") it usually does. If it doesn't or I didn't even eat enough, I have my "approved" snacks in a drawer at work.

 

[rudeguy]

My Mother in law is always ranting to my wife and I about the "scary dangers" of GMO, processed foods and artificial sweeteners. I just deleted yet another email from her pointing to some blog where the author went on about the horrors of Splenda.

I'm frankly tired of it. I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I don't think the Government is hiding the truth of the dangers of Aspartame. I think GMO crops are a great result of science, not something to be scared of. I try and research this stuff myself, and avoid blogs and forums on the subjects like the plague. I simply don't see what al the fuss is about. The "natural is always better" crowd is deluding themselves, and they are such zealots that they won't even consider science that shows otherwise...

tell her to eat what she wants

and that you will eat what you want

And then tell her to make you a sammich.

 

[SheHateMe]

My mom sends me the same emails about Aspartame.

She gets mad if I don't listen. She told me that she read that people wake up blind from having Aspartame and that it will mess up my diabetes and cause my BS to go up....


...I don't ever know what she's talking about anymore.

Yesterday, I was helping her find a new laptop and she starts going off about how she won't be able to use flash on laptop (she watching sewing videos on youtube....) because adobe is feuding with Android......

 

[DrPizza]

I am against the type of GMO where they inject genes from a fish into a tomato. The thing is that there isn't enough testing and these types of products are pushed into the market in order to provide a return when the end results aren't fully understood.

I am NOT against GMO. I am against the low level of testing (for gene manipulation) that is present today. When you change the basic biology of a plant there should be VERY thorough testing before feeding it to the masses. Until we have better testing, I will try to avoid GMO.

I also don't like the lobbying of these companies to try to hide the fact that they're "enhanced". Like how when you buy milk if the cows aren't treated with hormones to produce more milk and the dairy processor wants to advertise this, they have to say on the label that the hormone has not been proven to impact human health. WHY do you need to say this when you are NOT USING THE HORMONE? This makes no sense.

I also don't like synthetic pesticides since that stuff builds up in the body.
<some snips, for brevity>

Where's your evidence that there isn't much testing? There's been extensive testing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18328408

You're implying that synthetic pesticides bioaccumulate more than natural pesticides. Do you have any evidence for that?

In the latter part - that rule is there because those claims are fear mongering & intended to damage the reputation of the other companies for no rational scientific reason. "Our cows are only fed spring water, and never water from a well." The public reading that would think, "gee, if they're saying that, it means there's something wrong with well water." It's human nature. So, there are rules to protect companies from this kind of advertising.

I actually do think artificial sweetners are unhealthy and should not be consumed. I stopped a few months ago after 20 years of drinking diet soda and other things. I think the science is mounting to show them as an unhealthy item. It's not damning, like eating paint chips, but there is enough data out there to show they are not benign. I've removed them entirely from everything I eat, other than one last tub of protein powder I'm slowly making my way through.

When I say science I'm not talking about naturalnews.com or dangersofaspartame.com (I assume that's a site), but large peer reviewed articles that tend to show a mild but negative effect.

Don't know enough about GMO to have an opinion. Processed foods are not great, as they tend to be lower in nutrients and illicit a strong insulin response (if we're talking about the carb heavy ones), but I still eat plenty of them.

Another change to my diet is I'm less afraid of fats than I used to be. Evidently, a large study comparing various diets and lipid profiles found that low-fat diets are associated with worse numbers. The low-fat craze has certainly gone far overboard.

If "the evidence is mounting," then you should have zero problem finding a peer reviewed paper which shows any evidence at all of your claim. To the best of my knowledge, you're going to come up pretty empty handed.

I have no problem with GMO foods themselves, but all the crops designed to be pesticide resistant means we are indeed using more pesticides, a good number of which are carcinogenic. There are ways of growing foods organically without using excessive amounts of pesticides or at all, but I recognize that our industrial scale of farming means that right now it's more efficient and economical to do things the way they are being done right now.

Actually, as a result of GMOs, FEWER pesticides are needed. Roundup is a major pesticide - afaik, it's not carcinogenic.

 

[Drekce]

tell her to eat what she wants

and that you will eat what you want

And then tell her to make you a sammich.

This is exactly what I do, except I don't want to eat any sandwhich she would make me. It would probably be made with gluten free bread (she has no gluten allergies) and have flax seed poured all over it.

Oh God, gluten. Don't even get me started on our arguments about gluten...

 

[Crono]

Actually, as a result of GMOs, FEWER pesticides are needed. Roundup is a major pesticide - afaik, it's not carcinogenic.

Roundup might be one of the safer herbicides (certainly Monsanto would argue so using research that they've paid for), but there's still enough of a question of it's overall toxicity that I would prefer to eat food that wasn't treated with herbicides or pesticides. The EPA is reviewing glyphosate and making a decision by 2015, so things can change as to whether it's acceptable to use in the United States.

I'm not paranoid about it or anything, but wherever possible I think it's best to grow foods without the application of herbicides or pesticides.

I'm more worried about bioaccumulation/bioaccumulation of other industrial chemicals, but again, it's only my own preference to eat food grown the way farmers have grown food in the past, assuming otherwise safe and sustainable practices. I get that in many places in the world the land isn't fertile enough or traditional food production isn't cheap enough to sustain a population, so there aren't many good alternatives in every scenario.

We've gotten away from materials in the past that were once considered safe or were not known at the time to be harmful, such as lead, asbestos, and DDT, so it really wouldn't surprise me at all if later on we come to realize as a society that herbicides/pesticides are not the way to go. I'd rather err on the side of caution for my own purchasing decisions.

 

[Auric]

Fluffy marketing BS.

Changed the packaging so it looks bigger, but contains less product?
"New Look! Same great product!"

Cheaper ingredients, or whip more air into the product.
"New texture!"

This reminds me of another example of backwards labelling given the "new normal" being crap: ice cream specifying/touting "real". However, even though only containing "old normal" ingredients it is heavy on the sugar (presumably not just for corrupted tastes but due to relatively low cost) and, as you state, whipped with air to superficially appear to be more (but noticeably light weight and poor texture).

 

[gotsmack]

Where's your evidence that there isn't much testing? There's been extensive testing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18328408

You're implying that synthetic pesticides bioaccumulate more than natural pesticides. Do you have any evidence for that?

In the latter part - that rule is there because those claims are fear mongering & intended to damage the reputation of the other companies for no rational scientific reason. "Our cows are only fed spring water, and never water from a well." The public reading that would think, "gee, if they're saying that, it means there's something wrong with well water." It's human nature. So, there are rules to protect companies from this kind of advertising.

Extensive testing is a 3 month to 2 year study?

I would feel safe if they did 2 decades of research tracking the health over 5 or 6 generations of large animals that are not used for food, like donkeys or horses.

I disagree with your "Spring Water" example. I think that it should be assumed that dairy cows haven't been treated with hormones and when they have it should be labeled that the milk comes from treated cows.

If we use your example, why aren't there similar notes from free range chicken eggs or wild fish?

 

[destrekor]

This reminds me of another example of backwards labelling given the "new normal" being crap: ice cream specifying/touting "real". However, even though only containing "old normal" ingredients it is heavy on the sugar (presumably not just for corrupted tastes but due to relatively low cost) and, as you state, whipped with air to superficially appear to be more (but noticeably light weight and poor texture).

Ice cream has suffered some of the most in the realm of additives and major changes to try and cheapen what's inside so they can continue to make as much profit as possible while avoiding a rise in cost to the consumer (and still increasing cost anyway).

They've added so many things to the cheaper ice cream lines, when even those lines were pretty straight forward at one point, with the additives being related to flavor more than anything. Now, they add things like propylene glycol, which really has no place in ice cream... but it's one of the many filler ingredients used to help balance the product against the other fillers and try to maintain the same consistency and mouthfeel.

I actually cannot stand ice cream with those kinds of additives. It's not even because I'd rather not eat such ingredients, nor is it because I love the entire concept of the historical, rich and creamy goodness of a classic ice cream with maybe 5-7 ingredients... which is all true, mind you. But the biggest reason: it just feels so wrong. It feels filmy, not quite soapy, but hard to describe other than "wrong." It doesn't feel like ice cream, it feels like an entirely new type of frozen dairy dessert (which is what they call such products more often than not).

Ice cream is one that I think adding "real" to the label can be quite honest and refreshing. Ice cream like Graeter's and the classic flavors of Haagen Dazs (the kinds with short ingredient lists) - they have such a heavy, creamy, rich texture, and the flavor can be described with the same words. It feels like the best ice creams always have.
Ben & Jerry's, their more simpler flavors, are in the same category, though are far more rich in the sugar department. But they at least start with a premium high-cream product that is so rich and smooth. Some of the more premium but simpler offerings, like I think Graeter's, have quite a bit less sugar.


Something I've always noticed, and many people miss - an ice cream like Graeter's isn't really that much more expensive than similar ice cream. Some people scoff at the $4 or $5/pint price, when they see a half gallon (well, 1.5 or 1.75 gallons these days) for $3 or even less. Yet, that cheaper larger product has far more things added to it, but worst of it, as you said, it's whipped with a large amount of air. Bring it back down to that creamy, dense and rich consistency of the premium ice creams, and it's not that much more product at all. So, you pay more, but volume isn't really part of the equation.
If Graeter's changed and started whipping air into their french pot ice cream, that same pint would be pretty close to at least double, if not triple it's size.

 

[Paladin3]

GMO foods are fine. There's been a bandwagon of rhetoric against them since the 90s and not a single piece of evidence has come up against it in all that time. The guy who kicked off the entire effort has repudiated it as well.

Mark Lynas – Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013

Nice!

 

[yhelothar]

I wouldn't cite that in support of the position that GMOs are dangerous. There are tons of flaws with that study.

I was citing that in the support of the position that peer reviewed scientific papers does not necessarily mean jack shit.

 

[squarecut1]

Artificial sweeteners could cause spikes in blood sugar

Artificial sweeteners might be triggering higher blood sugar levels in some people and contributing to the problems they were designed to combat, such as diabetes and obesity, according to new findings published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...dc2-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html?hpid=z1

 

[SunnyD]

Sweet, sweet necromancy!

 

[OverVolt]

So my take on this stuff is that processed food is in fact pretty bad for you. Just look at people who live off the stuff. Diabetic, overweight, etc.

My other take on it is that people get a little paranoid schizo about whats in their food. So for example I just don't like sucralose and tend to generally avoid it nor eat many fake sweeteners for that matter. Though we had some iced tea packets and I had some just yesterday. I'll eat foods with it but I tend to generally avoid it.

I don't make a big deal out of it I just don't consume alot of that stuff. The worst offender I feel like is that Dasani flavored water, that'll turn anybody off sucralose on taste alone :awe:. I truly feel like sucralose is not a good thing to consume because its a chloro carbon. Sucralose is ~1,000 times sweeter than sugar. So the concentrations are very low. I just doubt that you can take sugar and add some Cl and voila its healthy to consume. Its just common sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organochloride

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose

I don't care if other people eat it. But I don't :awe:. It really is just sugar with chlorine. Oh wow that seems like a good idea. Not.

 

[xBiffx]

Guess SunnyD wasn't clear enough.

Posting in a necro....

 

[surfsatwerk]

I don't care if other people eat it. But I don't :awe:. It really is just sugar with chlorine. Oh wow that seems like a good idea. Not.

I'm assuming you have strong feelings about salt too?

 

[Newell Steamer]

,.. what could possibly go wrong by relying on a private company focused on making as much money as possible, when it comes to consuming food??

 

[destrekor]

So my take on this stuff is that processed food is in fact pretty bad for you. Just look at people who live off the stuff. Diabetic, overweight, etc.

My other take on it is that people get a little paranoid schizo about whats in their food. So for example I just don't like sucralose and tend to generally avoid it nor eat many fake sweeteners for that matter. Though we had some iced tea packets and I had some just yesterday. I'll eat foods with it but I tend to generally avoid it.

I don't make a big deal out of it I just don't consume alot of that stuff. The worst offender I feel like is that Dasani flavored water, that'll turn anybody off sucralose on taste alone :awe:. I truly feel like sucralose is not a good thing to consume because its a chloro carbon. Sucralose is ~1,000 times sweeter than sugar. So the concentrations are very low. I just doubt that you can take sugar and add some Cl and voila its healthy to consume. Its just common sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organochloride

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose

I don't care if other people eat it. But I don't :awe:. It really is just sugar with chlorine. Oh wow that seems like a good idea. Not.

Just because there is a chlorine atom in the molecule, does not mean we are suddenly ingesting chlorine.
Not all molecules can be broken down by the body, which is why it contains zero calories (not rounded). You may get some calories from starches that act as fillers so as to make the product easier to handle for measurements, but the actual chemical passes through the body.

From your first link:

"However, the presence of chlorine in an organic compound does not ensure toxicity. Some organochlorides are considered safe enough for consumption in foods and medicines. For example, peas and broad beans contain the natural chlorinated plant hormone 4-chloroindole-3-acetic acid (4-Cl-IAA);[11][12] and the sweetener sucralose (Splenda) is widely used in diet products. As of 2004, there were at least 165 organochlorides approved worldwide for use as pharmaceutical drugs, including the natural antibiotic vancomycin, the antihistamine loratadine (Claritin), the antidepressant sertraline (Zoloft), the anti-epileptic lamotrigine (Lamictal), and the inhalation anesthetic isoflurane.[13]


And that deals only with "organic" compounds, which are compounds which contain carbon.

Have you forgotten NaCl? It is not organic, by definition, but it is really a vital nutrient, as is potassium chloride, both incredibly important both inside and outside the cells throughout our body. Then there's the hydrochloric acid our body produces to make digestion possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organochloride#cite_note-13

 

[uclaLabrat]

Just because there is a chlorine atom in the molecule, does not mean we are suddenly ingesting chlorine.
Not all molecules can be broken down by the body, which is why it contains zero calories (not rounded). You may get some calories from starches that act as fillers so as to make the product easier to handle for measurements, but the actual chemical passes through the body.

From your first link:

"However, the presence of chlorine in an organic compound does not ensure toxicity. Some organochlorides are considered safe enough for consumption in foods and medicines. For example, peas and broad beans contain the natural chlorinated plant hormone 4-chloroindole-3-acetic acid (4-Cl-IAA);[11][12] and the sweetener sucralose (Splenda) is widely used in diet products. As of 2004, there were at least 165 organochlorides approved worldwide for use as pharmaceutical drugs, including the natural antibiotic vancomycin, the antihistamine loratadine (Claritin), the antidepressant sertraline (Zoloft), the anti-epileptic lamotrigine (Lamictal), and the inhalation anesthetic isoflurane.[13]


And that deals only with "organic" compounds, which are compounds which contain carbon.

Have you forgotten NaCl? It is not organic, by definition, but it is really a vital nutrient, as is potassium chloride, both incredibly important both inside and outside the cells throughout our body. Then there's the hydrochloric acid our body produces to make digestion possible.

Some organochlorides are known to be carcinogenic or toxic due to their propensity to act as alkylating agents or free radical propagators. Of all the ones quoted in the wiki article, only sucralose is able to really act in that manner, as it's a primary alkyl chloride (which is likely to be the most reactive under physiological conditions), all the others are aryl chlorides and would not typically display that sort of chemistry.

Chlorides aren't the best electrophiles, as the article notes, but in high doses they can be quite mutagenic, like chloroform. Dichloromethane is also something of a concern, but I've washed my hands with liters of that shit. Here's to hoping! :biggrin:

 

[Kaido]

My Mother in law is always ranting to my wife and I about the "scary dangers" of GMO, processed foods and artificial sweeteners. I just deleted yet another email from her pointing to some blog where the author went on about the horrors of Splenda.

I'm frankly tired of it. I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I don't think the Government is hiding the truth of the dangers of Aspartame. I think GMO crops are a great result of science, not something to be scared of. I try and research this stuff myself, and avoid blogs and forums on the subjects like the plague. I simply don't see what al the fuss is about. The "natural is always better" crowd is deluding themselves, and they are such zealots that they won't even consider science that shows otherwise...

I am a big fan of non-GMO, organic, and otherwise "natural" foods. With that said, you're going to die anyway, so how much do you really want to worry about it, you know? If your diet isn't killing your measurable vitals (i.e. failing the annual physical) or making you feel sick on a daily basis - meh. Most people experience huge gains just by going from a regular American diet to say the paleo way of eating. There are plenty of people out there who drink, smoke, and eat bacon every morning and still live into their 90's.

I got into the H&F scene due to being diagnosed with food allergies. I went from feeling like crap every day to feeling awesome all day long. With that said, if I could still eat McDonalds & Snickers bars, I totally would. I do think we all have a responsibility to take good care of our bodies by eating healthy things, but I also don't think that having a treat once in awhile is going to kill you. Moderation seems to be the name of the game.

If I could afford to go full-on all-natural, non-GMO, fertilized by unicorns, blah blah blah, sure, who wouldn't? But I can buy a mango fruit for a dollar at the store, versus $3 for the organic version (which also tastes exactly the same). So yeah, for double or triple the cause, with no proven direct correlation between autism, cancer, etc., and being able to have fresh fruit & veggies available year-round? Sure, why not.