Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Grilled chicken kills!

  1. Sep 29, 2006 #1

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    well, maybe... I dunno. But the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is out to save you from (or at least warn you about) PhIP through their lawsuit:

    http://www.pcrm.org/news/release060928.html [Broken]

    Any biologists wanna weigh in before I bite down on my next grilled chicken salad from Mickey D's?

    Bear in mind that PCRM traditionally has very close ties to PETA. I actually have had high respect for PCRM in the past because they claim to be physicians who support seeking alternatives to animal research and who are concerned about animal welfare, but I can't help but wonder if this is just exploitation of California's http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain.html" [Broken] bolstered by a limited number of studies in order to push a PETA agenda (a vegan diet).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 29, 2006 #2

    JamesU

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    w007 I can still eat at Chili's and be safe
     
  4. Sep 29, 2006 #3

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Chili's is named in the suit, so in the future you may see warning labels for some of their menu items depending on how the lawsuit goes.
     
  5. Sep 29, 2006 #4

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rolleyes: I think living in California causes cancer...everything there seems to be labeled as carcinogenic.

    They actually have a line at the end saying grilled chicken is just as bad for you as fried chicken...in that case, go for the fried chicken then. :biggrin:

    If you look at their archived articles, you'll have a quick answer...they have a clear agenda to promote a vegan diet, which to me is a pretty IRresponsible thing for a physician to do.
     
  6. Sep 29, 2006 #5

    JamesU

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :grumpy: :frown:
     
  7. Sep 30, 2006 #6
    Sunlight causes cancer, big time.
     
  8. Sep 30, 2006 #7

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Just in case one has not hear of PhIP -

    2-AMINO-1-METHYL-6-PHENYLIMIDAZO[4,5-b]PYRIDINE

    http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol56/08-phip.html

    I can't stand articles that mention acronyms or jargon without explaining them. What do these people think - only oncologists would read the article? I was reminded that the convention in writing is to spell/write out the meaning of an acronym when it is first used. I figured it had to be a pyridine or pyrimidine based on the comment about being a heterocyclic amine.

    YES - nice avatar, yomamma!
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2006
  9. Sep 30, 2006 #8

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks Astronuc. Of course, if they spelled it out, that wouldn't sound as scary as an acronym nobody's ever heard of.
     
  10. Sep 30, 2006 #9

    jim mcnamara

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think they left PhIP unexpanded/unexplained because it's a four letter word. Or more probably because most folks in the US do not know methyl from pyridine.

    Stephen Hawking in an interview was supposed to have said that having one math formula in his book [the new one he was discussing in an interview] cuts readership by 50% - or so he was told.

    I guess that means the folks writing about PhIP challenge by PCRM decided to lose the chemical name to assure greater readership. :)
     
  11. Sep 30, 2006 #10

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    With all the stuff that's supposed to be bad for you...

    I figure that it's not possible for me to still be alive :grumpy:
    None of it seems much to worry about.
    Errr yea, worrying will kill you too :rolleyes:
     
  12. Sep 30, 2006 #11

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There was a PCRM representative being interviewed on the radio last night and the interviewer specifically asked him what PhIP stood for. He answered that it was a very long chemical name that he couldn't remember off the top of his head. This was very odd to me because this is the cause he is fighting for!:confused:

    Anyway, I am interested to see how far they can get with this lawsuit. Will we end up with warning labels on everything? Betcha the PCRM won't go after peanut butter, even though there are naturally occurring carcinogens in that, too.

    Maybe we should have signs at the border. "Welcome to California. Everything you do here could potentially kill you. You have been warned. Enjoy your stay."
     
  13. Sep 30, 2006 #12

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh, common, it's called PhIP for a reason. The oncologists probably only know it by that name. Anytime someone uses glycerol they should write (or explain that it is) 1,2,3-Propanetriol instead?
     
  14. Sep 30, 2006 #13

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rofl: That should do it, and cheaper than dealing with all these lawsuits and having to label everything individually. Maybe they should stamp it on the license plates too, just in case someone misses the sign at the border.
     
  15. Sep 30, 2006 #14
    California - the cancer state.
     
  16. Sep 30, 2006 #15
    I think there's more behind the headline "Grilled Chicken Kills" than is being reported here. Last week I glanced into an alley as I passed and saw what looked like a dozen or so grilled chickens attacking an older obese lady like the little dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park sequel. I thought I must be hallucinating, but now I'm not so sure.
     
  17. Sep 30, 2006 #16

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    California - we recycle everything - even the air and water. :biggrin:
     
  18. Sep 30, 2006 #17
    Is there any way to stop them? I mean, they've already got a stake through their hearts.
    EDIT: I mean the grilled chickens, not Californians.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2006
  19. Oct 1, 2006 #18

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    :rofl: Why limit this to CA.

    Welcome to the Universe.
    Something will kill you.
    You have been warned.
    Enjoy your stay.
     
  20. Oct 1, 2006 #19
    PCRM will probably win their suit.

    Although there are no human studies to date. Here is a summary of data.

    Of course if one eats a nutrient dense, whole food, plant based diet, the likelyhood of carcinogens and cancerous cells overcoming ones immune system are greatly reduced.
     
  21. Oct 2, 2006 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What an assinine lawsuit. Cooking meat at high heat causes carcinogens, that's been known for quite awhile. I guess we should just boil all meat over low heat?

    Here's an article about grilling and barbecuing.

    http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/feature_ent.html?id=c373e904a807b3938f6a17245d830100 [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  22. Oct 2, 2006 #21

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :biggrin:
    I think this will be my next bumper sticker.
     
  23. Oct 2, 2006 #22
    IMHO, PCRM in connection with PETA decided ASAP to keep the meaning of PhIP on the QT in CA. :yuck:
     
  24. Oct 2, 2006 #23
    After WWII, there was a strong commitment from the U.S. to feed the worlds children. The protein of choice was derived from peanuts, ie peanut butter. In the Philippines children started developing liver cancer. The best peanuts were sold as snacks in the affluent countries, while the seconds and sometimes rotten peanuts were made into peanut butter, and fed to starving children.

    T. Colin Campbell tells the story in his book "The China Study". He is a member of the PCRM advisory board.

    There are essentially three major factions, each representing one of three major perspectives, that are promoting a vegan diet. There is an overlap, and most of the vegans I have met state all three issues to varying degrees as determining factors in their decision to go vegan. These reasons are health, animal welfare, and the environment.

    First is health. PCRM promotes a vegan diet, because research has shown that the healthiest human diet is plant based. They advocate not a "vegan diet", but a diet of nutrient dense whole foods. The most nutrient dense foods are plant based. Our bodies are designed to take nourishment from plants much more efficiently than from animals, and without the negative side effects, ie coronary heart disease. There is nothing irresponsible about recommending that people change their diet and lifestyle in order to live a healthier life. In fact if you look at the record of Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D. of the Cleveland clinic, you will find that he has been 100% successful in arresting heart disease with a plant based diet.

    Then there is the animal suffering perspective. This is where the unhealthy vegans come from. They see the suffering, empathize, and stop eating and wearing animal products, yet they have no idea of what constitutes good nutrition. Because they were already eating a highly processed calorie dense, as opposed to nutrient dense diet, they don't know where to go or how to prepare vegan meals. Instead they eat vegan junk food and develop many of the same health problems that are associated with a meat based diet.

    PETA responsibly tries to educate these people, by providing lots of dietary information, however the best thing PETA has done is work cooperatively with PCRM so that their members can have access to good and up to date nutritional information and advice.

    Last there are the environmentalist perspective, unfortunately most of the people in the environmental movement are not vegan, or even vegetarians. Most will agree that their diet is a problem, but like smokers who can't quit, they cannot stop eating the flesh of another being.

    As for PCRM, they are doctors fulfilling their hippocratic oath, to prevent disease.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/hippocrates
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2006
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook