Is modern food adulteration making us sick?

[jackson6612]

I won't go into details because many of you would know where I'm coming from. Some days ago I read a news article which starts circulating in mind every time I'm eating something. It was about food we consume. This article had that modern food adulteration is such that you wouldn't even notice that there is something wrong with the food. Actually it would taste good, healthier, and clean. It said that there were times when major problems with food cleanliness were bacteria, flies, and other such things. But these problems had simple solutions. You could eat fresh cooked food, you could heat food to kill bacteria and flies' excrement. But now the problem lies within the molecules of food. It also cited some research, one of the largest of its kind, conducted in European Union which found that organic farming is more than 50% more beneficial (I don't exactly remember the figure but it was above 50%) than non-organic farming used for rapid production with all the fertilizers, pesticides, etc. It also gave how milk adulteration is done and you won't even know it. It gave an example of a Chinese firm which used some artificial compound to increase some protein rating. It claimed cancer and many other diseases are becoming more common because of such adulteration because the very food we eat is going to give our body new molecules for bodily repair and growth and what if those molecules are corrupt.

Do I have any option left to remain healthy except that I start growing my own vegetables and fruits organically; and moreover start rearing some of my own cows etc?

Note: I'm not a science or biology student.

 

[Evo]

I won't go into details because many of you would know where I'm coming from. Some days ago I read a news article which starts circulating in mind every time I'm eating something.

You will need to post the peer reviewed scientific studies on all of this. And no, it can't come from websites selling the stuff or promoting the stuff. It must be the original scientific published papers in mainstream journals.

Thanks.

 

[jackson6612]

I read it on local newspaper. I'm asking for your opinions and I'm not going to write a report on any such thing. And I think some of the things that article said were credible and believable. So, please help. Thanks.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Do I have any option left to remain healthy except that I start growing my own vegetables and fruits organically; and moreover start rearing some of my own cows etc?

Well that's one approach..

Most of the stuff is scare story rubbish, there are no organic molecules and inorganic stuff doesn't automatically give you cancer.

Yes there are things added to food that you should worry about depending on the source of the food. There always were, people added sawdust, white lead and other stuff to flour to make it look nice and white 100years ago. The cheaper the source, and the more processed, the more likely that corners have been cut.

At least today they are more likely to be caught. Although that's part of the problem, 100years ago if somebody got food poisioning at a cafe 100miles away you wouldn't know - now a dozen cases at one plant is a nationwide story.

The bigger worry is what food you eat, not the details of how it was made. If all you eat is burgers, candy bars and sugar loaded soda you are in trouble - even if they were hand made by nuns on a farm using only unicorns.

 

[gravenewworld]

There are volumes and volumes written on how food is currently produced and you won't be able to cover everything while posting.

 

[gravenewworld]

The bigger worry is what food you eat, not the details of how it was made. If all you eat is burgers, candy bars and sugar loaded soda you are in trouble - even if they were hand made by nuns on a farm using only unicorns.

This is completely false. HOW you raise something has a huge impact on the quality of product produced and can also affect things like nutrition content in food. Beef is one prime example:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1200759,00.html

 

[Danger]

I must say that I have, for several decades now, been incredibly irritated by the term "organic food". That has to be one of the stupidest misuses of words that I've ever heard. All food is organic. If it's inorganic, it's a rock.
When it comes down to pollutants, I would rather ingest DDT than cow ****.

 

[jackson6612]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86972.php

 

[NobodySpecial]

I That has to be one of the stupidest misuses of words that I've ever heard. All food is organic. If it's inorganic, it's a rock.

You can buy organic salt!
I was googling for an example and came across the organic food people defn of organic salt - apparently it mustn't be artificially purified to remove essential minerals.
So nasty commercial salt is pure salt - organic salt is salt + other inorganic contaminants!

When it comes down to pollutants, I would rather ingest DDT than cow ***.

Still better for you than HFCS - at least it has fibre.

 

[Danger]

You can buy organic salt!

I figured that someone might say something like that, and took it into account. Salt is not food; it's a supplement. Moreover, it is not organic no matter what they call it. It's a rock.

I'm also, by the bye, getting sick of hearing about fibre. I could survive on a diet of Jell-O and still get enough fibre by virtue of living with a cat. Same with yogurt. I get sick thinking about milk, never mind sour milk. Bad enough that it tastes like ****, but now they're bragging that it makes you have to take one as well. That's the last thing that I need.

 

[Proton Soup]

I won't go into details because many of you would know where I'm coming from. Some days ago I read a news article which starts circulating in mind every time I'm eating something. It was about food we consume. This article had that modern food adulteration is such that you wouldn't even notice that there is something wrong with the food. Actually it would taste good, healthier, and clean. It said that there were times when major problems with food cleanliness were bacteria, flies, and other such things. But these problems had simple solutions. You could eat fresh cooked food, you could heat food to kill bacteria and flies' excrement. But now the problem lies within the molecules of food. It also cited some research, one of the largest of its kind, conducted in European Union which found that organic farming is more than 50% more beneficial (I don't exactly remember the figure but it was above 50%) than non-organic farming used for rapid production with all the fertilizers, pesticides, etc. It also gave how milk adulteration is done and you won't even know it. It gave an example of a Chinese firm which used some artificial compound to increase some protein rating. It claimed cancer and many other diseases are becoming more common because of such adulteration because the very food we eat is going to give our body new molecules for bodily repair and growth and what if those molecules are corrupt.

Do I have any option left to remain healthy except that I start growing my own vegetables and fruits organically; and moreover start rearing some of my own cows etc?

Note: I'm not a science or biology student.

maybe you could be more specific, as this sounds a bit bonkers. for example, the chinese problem involved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine#Melamine_poisoning_by_tainted_food".

 

[mugaliens]

I must say that I have, for several decades now, been incredibly irritated by the term "organic food". That has to be one of the stupidest misuses of words that I've ever heard. All food is organic. If it's inorganic, it's a rock.

Perhaps your ire is peaked because the definitions you're using are amiss. When it comes to raising food, the term "organic" simply refers to an "organic production is a system that is managed in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 and regulations in Title 7, Part 205 of the Code of Federal Regulations to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity." - http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop"

When it comes down to pollutants, I would rather ingest DDT than cow ****.

Cow is not a poullutant. ;)

However, you're correct in the DDT is a lot safer than many of the insecticides and herbicides which came later, and that one of the principle reasons behind its bad reputation was never the chemical itself, but it's misuse, such as its widespread spraying onto crops, the runnoff which infested the water system, which in turn infested so many other animals sourcing from that food chain.

A light spraying on the inside walls of a domicile in a mosquito-infested area, for example, is enough to drastically reduce the liklihood a sleeping child would be bitten by a malaria-infested mosquito, yet the concentration would be small enough that a child could take a lick or two on the walls with no harm. That would be a proper use of DDT. Widespread spraying the jungles, however, would not, as that would kill many things, including animals which eat mosquitos and their larva.

Getting back to "organic" as a means of minimizing modern food adulteration, including milk and beef, it's simply a way of raising food that's natural, not forced or accelerated. When foods are forced to grow larger than normal, and in a shorter time, their nutritional value suffers significantly, and in the case of beef and milk, they wind up containing chemicals not normally found in beef and milk.

 

[NobodySpecial]

by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.

That's the bit that always annoyed me. Painting heavy metals onto vines as insecticides is permitted in organic wine because it's the traditional method.
Airfreighting organic fruit around the world is allowed while growing it in a greenhouse locally is unnatural.

Cow is not a poullutant. ;)

Depends how close you get to one.

drastically reduce the liklihood a sleeping child would be bitten by a malaria-infested mosquito

I think that was DDT's problem - the risk benefit wasn't weighted toward the people banning it. A campaigner in Greenwich village was unlikely to be bitten by a malarial mozy but might have DDT on their exotic fruit.

When foods are forced to grow larger than normal, and in a shorter time, their nutritional value suffers significantly

Not necessarily - I think modern wheat (even without Monsanto's assistance) is significantly more productive than the wild wheat of 4000 years ago.