aguywhoplaysthief on 11/5/2006 at 00:41
Health and Safety legislation is the work of COMMUNISM!
TheGreatGodPan on 11/5/2006 at 01:57
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Jesus, how the fuck is such a thing legal? Do you guys not have health and safety legislation over there?
He didn't specify what exactly the gasses were. It could be rather harmless (this would fit with his fine bill of health afterward) but just smell really bad. Perhaps despite how scary the name sounds it is legal to do this in England.
Rogue Keeper on 11/5/2006 at 07:26
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Health and Safety legislation is the work of COMMUNISM!
It has flashed through my head somebody would make that remark before I turned to page 3. :p
Convict on 11/5/2006 at 07:45
BR where is the evidence that the food additive (
http://curezone.com/foods/enumbers.asp) causes cancer (as suggested by that website)? And where is the evidence to support your hypothesis that chemicals in food are causing cancer (referring back to the post where I provide 2 good links for you to find evidence)?
Tony, just because a carcinogen is put into furniture doesn't mean that it will cause cancer (e.g. it may be "locked in" to the wood or released so little). Of course, it may cause cancer. :erg:
Gingerbread Man on 11/5/2006 at 08:54
I don't know from food additives, but there's a lot of evidence that drinking more than 2 liters of tap water (including tap water-based drinks) carries with it an astonishingly higher risk of bladder cancer in males in North America. Like 50% higher, by some reckonings. Multiple, independent, very well-executed studies.
Rogue Keeper on 11/5/2006 at 09:01
Convict:
You have provided support for your claim that bad diet habits cause colon cancer, but that's all (I was aware of this, I just wanted you to make some effort to look for some resources, too). If you think that all those 10-70 percent of cancers are just colon cancers, then I don't.
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/medical_notes/466757.stm)
Quote:
Most food additives are considered safe ... However, some scientists have linked additives - particularly tartrazine or E102 - to hyperactivity in children, allergies, asthma, migraines and even cancer ... Nitrite and Nitrate: Meat preservatives that can form powerful cancer causing chemicals when heated ... Saccharin: linked to cancer is laboratory animals.
It hasn't been reliably proven that saccharin causes cancer in humans, but the fact that it has been mostly replaced by fenylalanine (aspartam) is a good hint that it's consumption isn't considered as 100% safe, especially in higher doses.
(
http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_369473__langId-en,00.html) Canadian Cancer Society recommends to use artificial sweeteners in moderation.
Swedish Consumer Coalition has this to say:
(
http://www.konsumentsamverkan.se/english/myths.html)
Quote:
Myth number 1: The additives are safe
Expert-comments on chemical additives often result in cynical word-wars claiming how safe the synthetic additives are, especially when compared to natural toxins or other hazards like travelling by car or plane. To use comparisons between totally unrelated risks is a trick taught by consultants. Risk analysis as a concept has become widely known in the food industry. From the consumers perspective we are fighting to have the precautionary principle acknowledged as part of Risk analysis. One example of how positives can be weighed against negatives is Nitrite (E 249, E 250) and Nitrate (E 251, E 252); they are not usually allowed in Denmark although they may be used in Sweden in eg sausages. The Danish authorities base the prohibition on the fact that Nitrate/Nitrite can be converted to cancerogenic materials called Nitrosamines. Denmark's attempt to keep the country free from Nitrite has been criticised by experts in the European Commission. Seeing as Nitrite is an effective preservative, the industry has had a lot to gain in being allowed to continue using it.
Newer additives have also met strong criticism. Butylated hydroxyanisole (E 320) & Butylated hydroxytoulene (E 321) are two antioxidants listed as possible cancerogenic substances, according to WHO's cancer research. Avoid! The Azo colours are another example. They were prohibited in foods in Sweden but since joining the EU in 1995, Sweden has been forced to accept imported goods containing these colours, despite that they can cause allergic reactions in many people. EU's experts decided that there was too little evidence to prohibit them. Swedish Consumer Coalition did, however, manage to convince the Swedish food manufacturers to not use the Azo colours. A survey done in 1998 showed that 11% of candy in average shops contained the previously banned colours. A new survey done in 2001 published by the food manufacturing industry, showed that the Azo colours appear in 14 % of candy, fizzy drinks and snacks.
This report appeared in Medical News Today two years ago. It appears to be a not well supported concern of a director of the Chinese Centre for Respiratory Illness, but, if a "pro" says that...
Quote:
Cancer and sterility linked to food additives says doctor in China
(
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=6857)
Main Category: Public Health News
Article Date: 28 Mar 2004 - 0:00am (PDT)
According to a doctor in China, chemicals and additives which are put into foods are responsible for the increase in cancers and sterility in China.
Professor Zhong Nanshan, director of the Centre for Respiratory Illness in southern Guangdong province, said in the Beijing Daily that there was a sharp increase in many cancers among women in the city of Guangzhou. The cancers that showed a marked increase were ovarian, uterine and intestine cancers.
Male sperm counts are half now what they used to be forty years ago in his province.
As the use of chemical fertilizers, additives, preservatives and hormones in food production increase, so do the numbers of cancers and drop in sperm counts. He says the changes are directly related.
He said the authorities should have more power to control food quality.
His report, however, did not include details of his findings.
Quote:
(
http://www.businessweek.com/1996/19/b3474101.htm)
Several additives are suspected carcinogens. Take butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). Food companies use these similar chemical substances to prevent spoilage in foods with oil or shortening and to preserve many breakfast cereals (from Total to Quaker Instant Oatmeal), enriched rice products, and dried soups. Repeated studies have shown that BHA and BHT increase the risk of cancer as well as accumulate in body tissue, cause liver enlargement, and retard the rate of DNA synthesis and thus, cell development. However, one study, released in 1994, suggests these same additives may actually retard cancer development because of their antioxidant properties....
The evidence is less controvertible in the case of nitrates and nitrites, which prevent botulism in and enhance flavor and color of such meat products as processed turkey, ham, hot dogs, bologna, and bacon. They aren't carcinogenic by themselves, but when they pair with chemicals called amines, they become an extremely potent cancer-causing chemical known as nitrosamine. Amines occur naturally both in food and in the body and bind readily with nitrates and nitrites at high temperatures such as when frying bacon or roasting ham.
Here is another exhausting list of dangerous food additives.
(
http://www.lactose.co.uk/milkallergy/numbersprint.html)
I counted about 10 Es which are proven or at least suspicious of being related to cancer, not talking about other health risks. The fact that they are banned in some countries is based on laboratory experiments and tests made by food safety agencies or medical/hygienic institutes. In other countries they may not be considered as unsafe. But it's difficult to monitor every food manufacturer as he theoretically obtain dangerous additives from country where it is not banned, or he can manufacture it himself.
Rogue Keeper on 11/5/2006 at 10:06
There is no clear evidence you're rationally considering findings of food safety agencies and mere facts that dangerous additives are banned from use.
I can steal some test reports from the nearest food safety agency, for, say 10000 bucks. You pay first. Bargain? Otherwise I'm afraid that trying to convince you is not worth my time.
Convict on 11/5/2006 at 11:10
I gave you a link to Medline and Cochrane. They have evidence-a-plenty. Indeed I looked at Cochrane (being lazy) to give me something about fibre and cancer and I found I was (limited) wrong. You can do the same thing!
Rogue Keeper on 11/5/2006 at 12:07
The situation is simple. I am not dismissing findings of your resource, even though it's final conclusions are just that (as you have quoted) "Genes, diet and lifestyle all seem to be important in the development of bowel cancer".
Diet. Fine. That's quite general statement. In common words it means just "what you eat". That's about it. Asano and McLeod do not scrutinize in-depth details of origin and causes of development of the bowel cancer, simply because it wasn't goal of their research.
Neither it does really support the second half of your original suppostition that "Colo-rectal cancers seem to be caused by a lack of certain foods in the diet rather than chemicals added to the diet."
Since you are dismissing my resources in such a scantly manner, without providing adequate counter-argumentative sources, I am curious what recognized medical authority you are to responsibly do so. You say "that's not evidence" and ignore it's references to credible associations, but at the same time the source is good enough for you to quote parts which support your position.
So not scientific approach. First learn to think objectively and without prejudice, then engage in scientific discussions.