Diet-related diseases pose a major risk for Covid-19. But the U.S. overlooks them.

David PS

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
14,675
Location
Dark side of the moon

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
the problem is no one can agree what a healthy diet is. that article says countries are taxing/banning products with a lot of sugar/salt/fat, yet in the right context all of those can b healthy. for example who's healthier, someone who eats ice cream, pizza, and pancakes every day, or someone who eats salmon, raw kale, flax seeds? most people in the world nowadays would say the second option is best, although metabolically it may be the first (assuming they don't have any major deficiencies)
 
Last edited:

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
the problem is no one can agree what a healthy diet is. that article says countries are taxing/banning products with a lot of sugar/salt/fat, yet in the right context all of those can b healthy. for example who's healthier, someone who eats ice cream, pizza, and pancakes every day, or someone who eats salmon, raw kale, flax seeds? most people in the world nowadays would say the second option is best, although metabolically it may be the first (assuming they don't have any major deficiencies)
:darts:
 

mrchibbs

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
3,135
Location
Atlantis
the problem is no one can agree what a healthy diet is. that article says countries are taxing/banning products with a lot of sugar/salt/fat, yet in the right context all of those can b healthy. for example who's healthier, someone who eats ice cream, pizza, and pancakes every day, or someone who eats salmon, raw kale, flax seeds? most people in the world nowadays would say the second option is best, although metabolically it may be the first (assuming they don't have any major deficiencies)

I think at the core, if you avoid excipients, food additives (gums, bromide, colouring etc.) and vegetable/seed oils that would alleviate a lot of the problems people experience. From there everyone can choose and tweak whatever diet they prefer.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
I think at the core, if you avoid excipients, food additives (gums, bromide, colouring etc.) and vegetable/seed oils that would alleviate a lot of the problems people experience. From there everyone can choose and tweak whatever diet they prefer.
Yea I would add vitamin D in that as well. unfortunately the vast majority of people don't understand the true extent of harm caused by things like carrageenan and other additives. Imagine being able to walk into a burger joint and getting a cheeseburger with non-iron fortified bread, cheese with animal rennet, fries cooked in beef tallow, a soda with real sugar, and a chocolate milk shake without carrageenan or gums. I mean it would create a night and day difference in health compared to the burger, fries, shake, and soda people order today. Its almost hard to believe there was a time in our grandparents/parents generation that this was the norm at restaurants
 
K

Kayaker

Guest
the problem is no one can agree what a healthy diet is. that article says countries are taxing/banning products with a lot of sugar/salt/fat, yet in the right context all of those can b healthy. for example who's healthier, someone who eats ice cream, pizza, and pancakes every day, or someone who eats salmon, raw kale, flax seeds? most people in the world nowadays would say the second option is best, although metabolically it may be the first (assuming they don't have any major deficiencies)
I think the problem is a group of people deciding what people eat. Has Peat taught you nothing about corruption of government agencies?

Also, even in a complete absence of corruption, and assuming they are correct, are you really okay with a group of people deciding what you eat? Don't you feel a bit like livestock that way?
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
Yea I would add vitamin D in that as well. unfortunately the vast majority of people don't understand the true extent of harm caused by things like carrageenan and other additives. Imagine being able to walk into a burger joint and getting a cheeseburger with non-iron fortified bread, cheese with animal rennet, fries cooked in beef tallow, a soda with real sugar, and a chocolate milk shake without carrageenan or gums. I mean it would create a night and day difference in health compared to the burger, fries, shake, and soda people order today. Its almost hard to believe there was a time in our grandparents/parents generation that this was the norm at restaurants
Burger King has decided crypto is a better lure than health:

 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
I think the problem is a group of people deciding what people eat. Has Peat taught you nothing about corruption of government agencies?

Also, even in a complete absence of corruption, and assuming they are correct, are you really okay with a group of people deciding what you eat? Don't you feel a bit like livestock that way?
:darts:
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
I think the problem is a group of people deciding what people eat. Has Peat taught you nothing about corruption of government agencies?

Also, even in a complete absence of corruption, and assuming they are correct, are you really okay with a group of people deciding what you eat? Don't you feel a bit like livestock that way?
government agencies are corrupt, but still necessary. I dont think they should tell people what to eat, but they do need to set a better standard for food being grown and sold. In fact I think they should regulate much more so than they already do, by banning things like titanium dioxide and silica, nanoparticles, setting stricter limits on heavy metals in food and water, banning dangerous pesticides. We need a good regulatory body, the problem is half the people in our regulatory agencies are on the corporate boards of food industry corporations (at least in the US). Whats the solution? I have no clue, but the current way of life is killing millions.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
government agencies are corrupt, but still necessary.
100% disagree. Why do you think corrupt agencies are necessary?

Plus, the more regulation you put on any industry, the more you consolidate that industry into a handful of entities.

I live in The Republic. Clearly, if you read our founding documents, there was no thought about "Federal Agencies." They were all created by Congress, and delegated to the Executive Branch. This is why you see so many "Presidential Nominees" having to be confirmed by the Senate, since they are technically operating under their authority, granted by the Commerce Clause.
 
K

Kayaker

Guest
government agencies are corrupt, but still necessary. I dont think they should tell people what to eat, but they do need to set a better standard for food being grown and sold. In fact I think they should regulate much more so than they already do, by banning things like titanium dioxide and silica, nanoparticles, setting stricter limits on heavy metals in food and water, banning dangerous pesticides. We need a good regulatory body, the problem is half the people in our regulatory agencies are on the corporate boards of food industry corporations (at least in the US). Whats the solution? I have no clue, but the current way of life is killing millions.
I've heard this before. "What's the solution? I have no clue". But there's no problem. Yes, practically all food contains toxins, it's only a question of how much nutrition vs harm it provides. When it comes to pesticides, the old banned lipid-soluble ones DDT/PCB are still in the food chain and found in most animal fat, for example.

Industrialization provides unique dangers. Government agencies also provide unique dangers, such as making a lot of people rely on them instead of inspecting, testing, or determining the source of the food they eat themselves.

Choosing what to eat and who to trust is a part of life, as is choosing to become educated in the matter of nutrition and health.

Yes, many people don't meet their potential when most food is devoid of nutrients or full of toxins. They may develop disease or die from it. If you look closely, this whole subject of consuming nutrients and avoiding toxins is like video game lore. Who needs people to meet their potential if the environment is so rich in complexity?

Regulation of food would sterilize that world. People and society as a whole may be able to reach higher levels of intelligence, but at what cost? At the destruction of the ecosystem full of a multitude of toxins, allergens that effect some people and not others, risks of periodic contamination. Special food that took a lot of work to discover would cease to be special.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
100% disagree. Why do you think corrupt agencies are necessary?

Plus, the more regulation you put on any industry, the more you consolidate that industry into a handful of entities.

I live in The Republic. Clearly, if you read our founding documents, there was no thought about "Federal Agencies." They were all created by Congress, and delegated to the Executive Branch. This is why you see so many "Presidential Nominees" having to be confirmed by the Senate, since they are technically operating under their authority, granted by the Commerce Clause.
i don't think the founding fathers could envision titanium dioxide, nanoprticles, microplastics, all infiltrating our food supply. there's just too many life threatening toxins in the food and water supply for there not to be heavy regulation of companies that profit off it. the level of manufacturing has changed the game
Choosing what to eat and who to trust is a part of life, as is choosing to become educated in the matter of nutrition and health.
if 99/100 ice cream options have carrageenan in them, do you think there's much choice there? individual responsibility is not a valid arguement when we're taking about multi billion dollar food industries. and what about poor people (i.e. the majority of the country)? you assume everyone has access or time to educate themselves on nutrition.
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
i don't think the founding fathers could envision titanium dioxide, nanoprticles, microplastics, all infiltrating our food supply. there's just too many life threatening toxins in the food and water supply for there not to be heavy regulation of companies that profit off it. the level of manufacturing has changed the game

if 99/100 ice cream options have carrageenan in them, do you think there's much choice there? individual responsibility is not a valid arguement when we're taking about multi billion dollar food industries. and what about poor people (i.e. the majority of the country)? you assume everyone has access or time to educate themselves on nutrition.
Ridiculous. Nothing you said is an argument for any agency in the first place, and certainly not corrupt ones. Especially since agencies concentrate power, and create the very problems you claim to be against.

Of course it will always come down to individual responsibility. The people of this country are sovereign. If 99 out of 100 ice cream options have carrageenan in them, and you don't want to eat carrageenan, then don't buy any of those 99. Even in your example, you still have 1 you can buy pre made. Or, you could always make your own. Or, you can eat something other than ice cream. There is no "right" to buy ice cream.

And even with this current agency model, it still comes down to individual responsibility. All the agencies in place allow carrageenan in foods, for example. And there are plenty of other toxins out there, allowed or even endorsed by your "necessary corrupt agencies," like the demonvax, acetaminophen, and high PUFA oils. Maybe poor people should spend some time learning how to make more money. And I have 24 hours in a day, just like everyone else. So yes, everyone does certainly have the time to educate themselves on nutrition, if they so choose. And with the internet, more access than ever. They don't have any "right" to same knowledge that may have taken someone else 500-1000 hours of research to discover, if they are unwilling to even pick up their thumbs and run them across a keyboard.

Of course, even saying that the agencies are completely unnecessary still doesn't mean there can't be any sort of government regulation. Congress can still pass laws, and every state has a legislature that can do the same. Why you think corrupt agencies are needed is beyond me.
 

mrchibbs

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
3,135
Location
Atlantis
Yea I would add vitamin D in that as well. unfortunately the vast majority of people don't understand the true extent of harm caused by things like carrageenan and other additives. Imagine being able to walk into a burger joint and getting a cheeseburger with non-iron fortified bread, cheese with animal rennet, fries cooked in beef tallow, a soda with real sugar, and a chocolate milk shake without carrageenan or gums. I mean it would create a night and day difference in health compared to the burger, fries, shake, and soda people order today. Its almost hard to believe there was a time in our grandparents/parents generation that this was the norm at restaurants

Yeah I think McDonalds switched from beef tallow to veg oil around 1990. GMOs were introduced in the mid 1990s as well. It's pretty hard to comprehend just what was lost over the past few decades.

If you go back even further to the golden age of america from the mid1950s-early 70s, people were eating a lot more calories than they are today, with lots of burgers, eggs, bacon, milkshake and the like and there was virtually no obesity. The majority of people had very high metabolic rates and even baldness affected only a small minority of men, unlike the majority today.

Of course, most were breastfed, with lots of social interaction, grew up on butter, milk, eggs, meat etc, didn't have to deal with EMF or countless vaccinations (typically 2-3 vaccine injections per infant, vs. a few dozen shots today).

Of course there were other issues, like sexism/racism, indiscriminate use of DDT and other toxins, the military draft etc. But I'd say it was much closer to an ideal society than what we have today, even with all the supposed advancements we've made.
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
Ridiculous. Nothing you said is an argument for any agency in the first place, and certainly not corrupt ones. Especially since agencies concentrate power, and create the very problems you claim to be against.

Of course it will always come down to individual responsibility. The people of this country are sovereign. If 99 out of 100 ice cream options have carrageenan in them, and you don't want to eat carrageenan, then don't buy any of those 99. Even in your example, you still have 1 you can buy pre made. Or, you could always make your own. Or, you can eat something other than ice cream. There is no "right" to buy ice cream.

And even with this current agency model, it still comes down to individual responsibility. All the agencies in place allow carrageenan in foods, for example. And there are plenty of other toxins out there, allowed or even endorsed by your "necessary corrupt agencies," like the demonvax, acetaminophen, and high PUFA oils. Maybe poor people should spend some time learning how to make more money. And I have 24 hours in a day, just like everyone else. So yes, everyone does certainly have the time to educate themselves on nutrition, if they so choose. And with the internet, more access than ever. They don't have any "right" to same knowledge that may have taken someone else 500-1000 hours of research to discover, if they are unwilling to even pick up their thumbs and run them across a keyboard.

Of course, even saying that the agencies are completely unnecessary still doesn't mean there can't be any sort of government regulation. Congress can still pass laws, and every state has a legislature that can do the same. Why you think corrupt agencies are needed is beyond me.
Anecdotally, the non-English workers that have done stuff on my major home remodel all drink cane sugar sodas. Indeed, they even brought a little stove top to make themselves steaks for lunch and eat them with fruit (which look like home grown ugly oranges). All the American contractors drink "zero-sugar" drinks and tend to eat granola nut bars with their stevia drink. They banter about cutting wayy back on beef (believing ground turkey the healthiest meat). They are the ones with this great access to info.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
Ridiculous. Nothing you said is an argument for any agency in the first place, and certainly not corrupt ones. Especially since agencies concentrate power, and create the very problems you claim to be against.

Of course it will always come down to individual responsibility. The people of this country are sovereign. If 99 out of 100 ice cream options have carrageenan in them, and you don't want to eat carrageenan, then don't buy any of those 99. Even in your example, you still have 1 you can buy pre made. Or, you could always make your own. Or, you can eat something other than ice cream. There is no "right" to buy ice cream.

And even with this current agency model, it still comes down to individual responsibility. All the agencies in place allow carrageenan in foods, for example. And there are plenty of other toxins out there, allowed or even endorsed by your "necessary corrupt agencies," like the demonvax, acetaminophen, and high PUFA oils. Maybe poor people should spend some time learning how to make more money. And I have 24 hours in a day, just like everyone else. So yes, everyone does certainly have the time to educate themselves on nutrition, if they so choose. And with the internet, more access than ever. They don't have any "right" to same knowledge that may have taken someone else 500-1000 hours of research to discover, if they are unwilling to even pick up their thumbs and run them across a keyboard.

Of course, even saying that the agencies are completely unnecessary still doesn't mean there can't be any sort of government regulation. Congress can still pass laws, and every state has a legislature that can do the same. Why you think corrupt agencies are needed is beyond me.

I didnt say the agencies are doing a good job. I said we need them to do a better job. and I have no solution for how to do that. But I do believe all people no matter their class have a right to clean food and water, including carageenan-free ice cream. Some things go beyond rationality or constitutional sovereignty, clean food is more in the realm of divine rights. No human being alive should be subjugated to eating carageenan or microplastics or nanoparticles. Its an affront to life itself.

Yeah I think McDonalds switched from beef tallow to veg oil around 1990. GMOs were introduced in the mid 1990s as well. It's pretty hard to comprehend just what was lost over the past few decades.

If you go back even further to the golden age of america from the mid1950s-early 70s, people were eating a lot more calories than they are today, with lots of burgers, eggs, bacon, milkshake and the like and there was virtually no obesity. The majority of people had very high metabolic rates and even baldness affected only a small minority of men, unlike the majority today.

Of course, most were breastfed, with lots of social interaction, grew up on butter, milk, eggs, meat etc, didn't have to deal with EMF or countless vaccinations (typically 2-3 vaccine injections per infant, vs. a few dozen shots today).

Of course there were other issues, like sexism/racism, indiscriminate use of DDT and other toxins, the military draft etc. But I'd say it was much closer to an ideal society than what we have today, even with all the supposed advancements we've made.

completely agree. I have a sense of nostalgia for parts of that time period despite never living in it, especially the food, although things will always seem better than they are when you didn't live through it. They certainly had their challenges but the foundation of society and the science was in a better place
 
Last edited:

Ben.

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,722
Location
Austria
The expectation that everyone is and should need to know everything about nutrition, finances and law is ridiclious. Simultanously expecting them to have the energy and comprehensive ability to do so in the first place is unrealistic.

But I do believe all people no matter their class have a right to clean food and water, including carageenan-free ice cream. Some things go beyond rationality or constitutional sovereignty, clean food is more in the realm of divine rights. No human being alive should be subjugated to eating carageenan or microplastics or nanoparticles. Its an affront to life itself.

Very much this.
People didn't need to think about modern industrial crap in their food/water X years ago and that should be the standard even today. Also noone has his/her own lab to test every ******* food they bring home.
Allowing coorporations to do w/e they want sounds nice on paper when it comes to freedom but their "freedom of production" ends up in everyone elses food/water/air which will result even in the most "careful" grown/made food to be contaminated. Ofcourse one does not have to buy shitty products, but aslong as the majority does it it will affect everyone else no matter how educated and well-versed one is in nutrition.

On that note most people wont know about this problem until its already to late (cancer diagnosis, autoimmune disease, allergies etc.). If we already have entities that regulate stuff they better do it damn right and should be held responsible for when they fail to do so.
 

Lilac

Member
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
636
If there were any honest players in the major media, the dangers of carrageenan and gums (etc., ad nauseam) would be known by the general public and then the market would have to respond to the demand for nondangerous ice cream. People are kept ignorant deliberately.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
I didnt say the agencies are doing a good job. I said we need them to do a better job.
And I say we don't need them. Some of them, like the CDC, are completely redundant and irrelevant. Nothing but a waste of money. Why do we need the CIA, NSA, FBI and Homeland Security when the State Department has their own intelligence agency too? And every branch of military. There are at least 17 different ones-


Why do we need the USDA to pay subsidies to farmers to NOT grow food, when the Federal Government is bankrupt and $28 Trillion in debt?

There is no doubt many of the agencies could be eliminated altogether, and there could either be a more concentrated few still do some of the more useful/needed things that may currently fall to them. Or, they could be all be eliminated, and those things could fall back on congress, to the legislatures in the several states, or the people themselves.

Ron Paul even suggested five agencies to eliminate right off the bat in his 2012 campaign ad-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyqqhXpFpOg


Ronald Reagan gave an example of some of the waste/bloat in the Federal Government, back in the 1970s on The Tonight Show.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IWY6uLaxKE


Yes, it's sooooooo important for the Federal Governement to fund studies like the "Demography of Happiness" study, which found, as Reagan says, it's better to be rich, young and healthy than old, poor and sick. Brilliant. I'm sure no human alive could have ever figured that out if they hadn't spent $249,000 in back in the 70's or earlier to find this out.

But yes, obviously, this kind of corrupt spending is so very necessary.
and I have no solution for how to do that.
That's because you don't even understand the model you are advocating for, which is bloated, corrupt, and financed by an entity over $28 Trillion in debt, and funded mostly by debt and instruments like bonds. The Grace Commission showed us that not a single dime of collected income tax goes to any service that the people expect, nor any of these bloated agencies, instead going 100% to pay interest on the debt.
But I do believe all people no matter their class have a right to clean food and water, including carageenan-free ice cream.
And they can exercise that right and get carageenan free ice cream right now, even with the corrupt agency model you are so fond of, or without it.
Some things go beyond rationality or constitutional sovereignty, clean food is more in the realm of divine rights.
And it would appear that every free person, at least in the Republic, indeed has that right. It's just a matter of if they choose to exercise it.
No human being alive should be subjugated to eating carageenan or microplastics or nanoparticles.
Lol, who's being "subjugated" to this? You have video of someone at gunpoint being forced to eat carageenan?
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Allowing coorporations to do w/e they want sounds nice on paper when it comes to freedom but their "freedom of production" ends up in everyone elses food/water/air which will result even in the most "careful" grown/made food to be contaminated.

If you read through my responses, I never suggested anything like this.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom