<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sun On Herbs &#187; stupidity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://shawnohara.com/tag/stupidity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://shawnohara.com</link>
	<description>... and veggies and other matter...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 06:36:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Article: The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?</title>
		<link>http://shawnohara.com/articles/article-the-organic-elite-surrenders-to-monsanto-what-now/</link>
		<comments>http://shawnohara.com/articles/article-the-organic-elite-surrenders-to-monsanto-what-now/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 05:43:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>shawn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health and Nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GMO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupidity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnohara.com/?p=147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article is from Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association, and is so vital to know, I have included the entire article.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article is from Ronnie Cummins of the <em>Organic Consumers Association</em>, and is so vital to know, I have included the entire article.<span id="more-147"></span>It is copyright Organic Consumers Association. The original article is at <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm">http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm</a> and I thank Ronnie Cummins for informing us all.</p>
<p><strong>The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?</strong></p>
<p>By Ronnie Cummins, Organic Consumers Association, Jan 27, 2011</p>
<ul>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.millionsagainstmonsanto.org/">Straight to the Source </a><br />
</strong></li>
</ul>
<div>&#8220;The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must.&#8221;   -  Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011</p>
<p>In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto&#8217;s Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation&#8217;s 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America&#8217;s organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by <a href="http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2011/01/urgent-action-needed-to-support-organics-and-non-ge-crops/" target="_blank">Whole Foods Market</a>, <a href="http://www.organicvalley.coop/community/organicsense/article/article/gm-alfalfa-whats-happening-now/" target="_blank">Organic Valley</a>, and <a href="http://www.stonyfield.com/blog/2011/01/19/we-can%E2%80%99t-let-ge-alfalfa-destroy-organic-dairy-a-letter-from-gary/" target="_blank">Stonyfield Farm</a>, has decided it&#8217;s time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto&#8217;s controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for &#8220;coexistence&#8221; with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.</p>
<p>In a cleverly worded, but <a href="http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2011/01/urgent-action-needed-to-support-organics-and-non-ge-crops/" target="_blank">profoundly misleading email </a>sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and &#8220;seed purity,&#8221; gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the &#8220;conditional deregulation&#8221; of Monsanto&#8217;s genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa.  Beyond the regulatory euphemism of &#8220;conditional deregulation,&#8221; this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.</p>
<p>In exchange for allowing Monsanto&#8217;s premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants &#8220;compensation.&#8221; In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers&#8217; and rural residents&#8217; risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil&#8217;s crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay &#8220;compensation&#8221; (i.e. hush money) to farmers &#8220;for any losses related to the contamination of his crop.&#8221;</p>
<p>In its <a href="http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2011/01/urgent-action-needed-to-support-organics-and-non-ge-crops/" target="_blank">email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM</a> calls for &#8220;public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology industry,&#8221; even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called government &#8220;oversight&#8221; of Frankencrops such as Monsanto&#8217;s sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to Monsanto is permanent: &#8220;The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well  True coexistence is a must.&#8221;</p>
<p>Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?</p>
<p>According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack&#8217;s previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as &#8220;Governor of the Year&#8221; in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.&#8217;s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it&#8217;s time to reach for the consolation prize.  The consolation prize they seek is a so-called &#8220;coexistence&#8221; between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto&#8217;s unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.</p>
<p>WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/nongmoprojectdiscussionpaperOAPF-1.pdf" target="_blank">so-called Non-GMO Project</a>, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called &#8220;natural&#8221; foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI&#8217;s sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.</p>
<p>From their &#8220;business as usual&#8221; perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto&#8217;s GMOs.</p>
<p>Whole Food&#8217;s Dirty Little Secret: Most of the So-Called &#8220;Natural&#8221; Processed Foods and Animal Products They Sell Are Contaminated with GMOs</p>
<p>The main reason, however, why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that 2/3 of WFM&#8217;s $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called &#8220;natural&#8221; processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs. We and our allies have tested their so-called &#8220;natural&#8221; products (no doubt WFM&#8217;s lab has too) containing non-organic corn and soy, and guess what: they&#8217;re all contaminated with GMOs, in contrast to their certified organic products, which are basically free of GMOs, or else contain barely detectable trace amounts.</p>
<p>Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as &#8220;natural.&#8221;</p>
<p>Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called &#8220;natural&#8221; food as certified organic food, coupled with the <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/OrganicT30J09.pdf" target="_blank">takeover </a>of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.</p>
<p>Covering Up GMO Contamination: Perpetrating &#8220;Natural&#8221; Fraud</p>
<p>Many well-meaning consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as &#8220;natural,&#8221; and those nutritionally/environmentally superior and climate-friendly products that are &#8220;certified organic.&#8221;</p>
<p>Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed &#8220;natural&#8221; foods and products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a &#8220;natural&#8221; supply chain where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).</p>
<p>A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large formerly organic brands from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called &#8220;natural&#8221; ingredients. With the exception of the &#8220;grass-fed and grass-finished&#8221; meat sector, most &#8220;natural&#8221; meat, dairy, and eggs are coming from animals reared on GMO grains and drugs, and confined, entirely, or for a good portion of their lives, in CAFOs.</p>
<p>Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to &#8220;natural&#8221; imposters. It&#8217;s no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic, while well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and &#8220;natural&#8221; purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery store sales.</p>
<p>The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called &#8220;Natural&#8221; GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off the Market</p>
<p>There can be no such thing as &#8220;coexistence&#8221; with a reckless industry that undermines public health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world&#8217;s 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers.  There is no such thing as coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union. Why? Because in the EU there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor GM consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Because under EU law, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GMOs; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to purchase or consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald&#8217;s and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by a Monsanto executive when GMOs first came on the market: &#8220;If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.&#8221;</p>
<p>The biotech industry and Organic Inc. are supremely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don&#8217;t want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont &#8211; the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress.</p>
<p>Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don&#8217;t hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers&#8217; right to know what&#8217;s in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called &#8220;Citizens United&#8221; case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Perfectly dramatizing the &#8220;<a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/government-ties.cfm" target="_blank">Revolving Door</a>&#8221; between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.</p>
<p>With big money controlling Congress and the media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and go local. We&#8217;ve got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.</p>
<p>The Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, has just launched a nationwide <a href="http://www.millionsagainstmonsanto.org/" target="_blank">Truth-in-Labeling campaign</a> to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans.</p>
<p>Utilizing scientific data, legal precedent, and consumer power the OCA and our local coalitions will educate and mobilize at the grassroots level to pressure giant supermarket chains (Wal-Mart, Kroger, Costco, Safeway, Supervalu, and Publix) and natural food retailers such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe&#8217;s to voluntarily implement &#8220;truth-in-labeling&#8221; practices for GMOs and CAFO products; while simultaneously organizing a critical mass to pass mandatory local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances &#8211; similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens. If local and state government bodies refuse to take action, wherever possible we must attempt to gather sufficient petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012. If you&#8217;re interesting in helping organize or coordinate a Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling campaign in your local community, sign up here: <a href="http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/" target="_blank">http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/</a></p>
<p>To pressure Whole Foods Market and the nation&#8217;s largest supermarket chains to voluntarily adopt truth-in-labeling practices sign here, and circulate this petition widely: <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22309.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22309.cfm</a></p>
<p>And please stay tuned to Organic Bytes for the latest developments in our campaigns.</p>
<p>Power to the People! Not the Corporations!</p>
<p>Ronnie Cummins<br />
Organic Consumers Association</p></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnohara.com/articles/article-the-organic-elite-surrenders-to-monsanto-what-now/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letter to The Editor: The facts about sewage treatment</title>
		<link>http://shawnohara.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-the-facts-about-sewage-treatment/</link>
		<comments>http://shawnohara.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-the-facts-about-sewage-treatment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:25:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>shawn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment & Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupidity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnohara.com/?p=133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This excellent Letter to the Editor entitled The facts about sewage treatment by Ted Dew-Jones, was published in Monday Magazine, 30 September 2010. It shows the absolute idiocy of what Hon. Barry Penner, BC&#8217;s Minister of Environment, has &#8216;mandated&#8217; for Victoria. One of my favourite quotes is from Chris Bouchier &#8220;&#8230;policy needs to be based [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This excellent Letter to the Editor entitled <em>The facts about sewage treatment</em> by Ted Dew-Jones, was published in Monday Magazine, 30 September 2010. <span id="more-133"></span>It shows the absolute idiocy of what Hon. Barry Penner, BC&#8217;s Minister of Environment, has &#8216;mandated&#8217; for Victoria. One of my favourite quotes is from Chris Bouchier &#8220;<em>&#8230;policy needs to be based on evidence and science, not on ideology</em>.&#8221; The proposed land based sewage treatment for Victoria is purely ideological, and is wrong.</p>
<p>The original letter is at <a title="The facts about sewage treatment" href="http://mondaymag.com/articles/entry/letters-september-30/" target="_blank">mondaymag.com/articles/entry/letters-september-30/</a></p>
<p><strong>The facts about sewage treatment</strong></p>
<p>In 1968, when I was half my present age, I was assigned the job of assessing an application by the Capital Regional District to discharge screened raw sewage down the first of our long outfalls. The substantiation was by consulting engineers Associated Engineering Services Ltd., and their lead engineer was a brilliant man with a doctorate in engineering. It was more than adequate to prove the discharge would not cause pollution; the length of the outfall was derived form a formula developed by the engineering faculty of a U.S. university using scientific and medical information from the extensive monitoring already carried out elsewhere.</p>
<p>A permit was issued with a requirement that the discharge be monitored by an independent agency, for if land-based treatment was shown by a government agency not to be needed, no one would believe the politicians were doing anything but trying to save money. Indeed, the monitoring was not to prove that such treatment was not needed—which was readily predicable—so much as to enable the public to be so convinced. That purpose was never met for whilst the monitoring results were available; the CRD never publicized them and they have done nothing to justify their original decision to instal that long outfall since it was installed.</p>
<p>Following this, an identical process was carried out for the second of our long outfalls. The agency that the CRD and province agreed on was our own university and the medical health officers. It was obvious that no one was better qualified to assess the impact of the discharges and that is still obvious.</p>
<p>So following 30-plus years of monitoring, not a single biologist, oceanographer nor medical health officer supports the notion that we need land-based treatment. Six medical health officers and likewise as many scientists and not a single exception! When our minister of environment, Barry Penner, ordered land-based treatmnet to be provided, they and many other well qualified people—91 in all—wrote to Penner that he did not have the evidence needed to justify his decision. They received a fatuous answer.</p>
<p>This insult to the university is more important than the irreversible environmental damage that the building and operation of land-based plants will do, although that is significant, and more important than the the diversion of money from needed environmental projects. It not only means that the monitoring over 30 years has been a waste of money; more serious is the waste of talent. The scientists must wonder what their purpose in life is thought to be when the most important recommendation they will ever make is ignored. What was the point of all those exams and all that work?</p>
<p>Not only is their work trashed, so also is the work of the Pat Bay Oceanographic Centre, whose director, a scientist of world renown, gave lectures in Victoria explaining why we did not need land-based treatment. So is the work of the U.S. scientists who selected the director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, Professor Isaacs, to explain to a committee of Congress why land-based treatment was not needed with long outfalls. So is the work of U.K. scientists and medical health officers whose advise to a British Royal Commission led to a famous result that comparing secondary treatment with short outfalls to long outfalls, the latter under the right conditions, could be “environmentally preferable.”</p>
<p>Minister Penner quoted from a report by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (a report that never had peer review) in support of his order, but the most reasonable interpretation of the conclusions of that report is that we should not be installing land-based treatment.</p>
<p>We are back to Galileo and the sun going ’round the Earth, which was as obvious to citizens then as the need for land-based treatment is now. This is more than a mistake; it is a disgrace.</p>
<p>Ted Dew-Jones, Victoria</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnohara.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-the-facts-about-sewage-treatment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Australian Drinking &amp; Driving Ad</title>
		<link>http://shawnohara.com/life-death/australian-drinking-driving-ad/</link>
		<comments>http://shawnohara.com/life-death/australian-drinking-driving-ad/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:45:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>shawn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Idiocy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life & Death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obituary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupidity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnohara.com/?p=105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This very powerful drinking &#38; driving commercial from Australia should be required viewing for every idiot who has a few and thinks &#8216;I&#8217;m OK, I can drive.&#8217;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This very powerful drinking &amp; driving commercial from Australia should be required viewing for every idiot who has a few and thinks &#8216;I&#8217;m OK, I can drive.&#8217;<br />
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px;" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="100" height="100" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2mf8DtWWd8" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed style="height: 344px; width: 425px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100" height="100" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2mf8DtWWd8" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnohara.com/life-death/australian-drinking-driving-ad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A truly stupid idea: Cancer-fighting additive weighed for junk food</title>
		<link>http://shawnohara.com/idiocy/a-truly-stupid-idea-cancer-fighting-additive-weighed-for-junk-food/</link>
		<comments>http://shawnohara.com/idiocy/a-truly-stupid-idea-cancer-fighting-additive-weighed-for-junk-food/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:01:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>shawn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Idiocy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupidity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shawnohara.com/?p=29</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The following CBC article concerns adding something to junk food to fight cancer. The headline is misleading.It is not that something healthy is added to junk food to make it healthier. It is that in the cooking and processing of some types of junk food, cancer-causing agents are created. The proposed additives are to neutralize [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The following CBC article concerns adding something to junk food to fight cancer. The headline is misleading.<span id="more-29"></span>It is not that something healthy is added to junk food to make it healthier. It is that in the cooking and processing of some types of junk food, cancer-causing agents are created. The proposed additives are to neutralize the cancer-causing agents. This is truly a stupid idea. The healthiest is to avoid the junk food to begin with.</p>
<p>Here is the <a title="CBC Article" href="http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/12/22/acrylamide-junk-food-additive.html" target="_blank">CBC article</a>:</p>
<p>Cancer-fighting additive weighed for junk food<br />
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 | 12:50 PM ET</p>
<p>Canada is investigating whether to approve a cancer-fighting additive&#8217;s use in junk food, but Health Canada wants consumers to weigh in on the idea first.</p>
<p>The concern surrounds a chemical byproduct called acrylamide that is produced when carbohydrates such as bread or potatoes are cooked at high temperatures.</p>
<p>Studies in mice suggest acrylamide may cause cancer. There is less evidence in humans, but the suggestion that it might has governments and food manufacturers looking for ways to reduce the potential.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s where the additive comes in. It&#8217;s an enzyme used in some chemotherapy agents that could bring down levels of acrylamide.</p>
<p>Health Canada&#8217;s safety assessment of the enzyme, which is called asparaginase, didn&#8217;t turn up any health or safety concerns.</p>
<p>Use of the enzyme is approved by regulators in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and Denmark, and has been given a green light by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives, Health Canada said.</p>
<p>The Canadian regulator is seeking public comments on the proposal until Feb. 21.</p>
<p>The proposal has generated a lot of opinions from consumers.</p>
<p>&#8220;I thought Health Canada was supposed to encourage healthy eating habits,&#8221; Judith Ryan told CBC News. &#8220;If the additive is used, people will think junk food is safe and eat more. The result will be more obesity, more diabetes and more heat disease, and eventually more costs to the health-care system. How smart is this?&#8221;</p>
<p>Liz Head called the proposal &#8220;rubbish.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;When are we going to learn that to be healthy human beings we need to change our eating habits? The best way to prevent cancer is to eat a diet rich in fruit, vegetables, complex carbohydrates and some protein. At some stage, we need to take responsibility for our own good health and I know those changes are hard to make. Just put some sour cream and onion chips in front of me!&#8221;</p>
<p>Copyright © CBC 2009</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shawnohara.com/idiocy/a-truly-stupid-idea-cancer-fighting-additive-weighed-for-junk-food/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

