"Discover Cooking, Discuss Life."

Go Back   Discuss Cooking - Cooking Forums > General Cooking Information > General Cooking
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-20-2014, 08:53 AM   #11
Chef Extraordinaire
 
GotGarlic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeastern Virginia
Posts: 16,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyJ View Post

Yes and no, Mad Cook. They can be trusted to an extent, but in the end, they are funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from. So there is a *slight* conflict of interests. Though they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently.
Howzat? The FDA is a government agency, which means it's funded by all the taxpayers - that includes you and me, not just the food industry.
__________________

__________________
The trouble with eating Italian food is that five or six days later you're hungry again. ~ George Miller
GotGarlic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2014, 11:04 AM   #12
Master Chef
 
jennyema's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 9,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyJ View Post
Yes and no, Mad Cook. They can be trusted to an extent, but in the end, they are funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from. So there is a *slight* conflict of interests. Though they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently..

I also don't understand this comment.
__________________

__________________
Less is not more. More is more and more is fabulous.
jennyema is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2014, 01:09 PM   #13
Head Chef
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyJ View Post
They [the FDA] can be trusted to an extent, but in the end, they are funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from. So there is a *slight* conflict of interests. Though they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently.
I agree with AnthonyJ on this issue and give it a 3+.

That being said, I'm very glad we DO have the FDA. It's better than NOT having an FDA for certain things. Be aware I'm not a conspiracist but I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye.

I believe when AnthonyJ said "they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently" he may have been talking about the new labeling suggested by the FDA. And the fact that conflict of interest statements are mandatory now for articles written about food and drugs.
__________________
cave76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2014, 01:52 PM   #14
Chef Extraordinaire
 
GotGarlic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeastern Virginia
Posts: 16,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by cave76 View Post
I agree with AnthonyJ on this issue and give it a 3+.

That being said, I'm very glad we DO have the FDA. It's better than NOT having an FDA for certain things. Be aware I'm not a conspiracist but I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye.
You can believe what you want about the FDA's recommendations, but the idea that it's "funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from" is simply not a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cave76 View Post
I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye..."
As have I. And I look for corroboration from university research. Different scientists from different institutions replicating another researcher's work and arriving at the same conclusions provides pretty reliable information, IMO.
__________________
The trouble with eating Italian food is that five or six days later you're hungry again. ~ George Miller
GotGarlic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2014, 01:09 PM   #15
Assistant Cook
 
AnthonyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: On The Moon
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cave76 View Post
I agree with AnthonyJ on this issue and give it a 3+.

That being said, I'm very glad we DO have the FDA. It's better than NOT having an FDA for certain things. Be aware I'm not a conspiracist but I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye.

I believe when AnthonyJ said "they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently" he may have been talking about the new labeling suggested by the FDA. And the fact that conflict of interest statements are mandatory now for articles written about food and drugs.
I would rather have one than not. The new labeling and finally catching up with the rest of the world on transfats is mainly what I was talking about. Now, I'm going to try to keep this as far from political as I can. ALL of the government gets money from big industries. ALL of it. From ALL of them. They will spend whatever money they need to in lobbying to protect their own interests. I.E. GMO food. They are so proud of what they have done, yet they aren't proud enough to label it and have spent as much money as they had to to keep from labeling their product. We can have a very long, very drawn out discussion with countless links as to the problems with the FDA as a whole, but I would rather not do that here.

I try my best whenever I am on any forum or during any interaction with others to keep in mind the Irish pub rules: No religion, no politics. Everyone is free to believe what they wish to about whatever topic, I was merely stating that I have my reasons for only trusting them to an extent.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GotGarlic View Post
I look for corroboration from university research. Different scientists from different institutions replicating another researcher's work and arriving at the same conclusions provides pretty reliable information, IMO.
There is an issue there as well. There was a university study done by Stanford that said there is no health benefit from eating organic vs "conventionally" grown. This is highly misleading because the study itself even admits:

Quote:
There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.
and

Quote:
While researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides.
Now, I just read a scientific study done by the government, who just signed a bill into law that no one can sue Monsanto for food related illnesses... that found that about 75% of rain and air samples contains TOXIC chemicals from RoundUp. No surprise that other information has found this:

Quote:
The health effects of Roundup cannot be understated. Research has linked exposure to the pesticide to Parkinson’s disease and cancers. Laboratory rats that eat Monsanto’s GMO food get tumors and die faster than rats that eat other food. Most children in Argentina where Roundup is used in high concentrations have been found to be in poor health, with 80 percent showing signs of the toxins in their bloodstreams.

Read more: 75% Percent of Rain and Air Samples Contain Roundup Pesticide | Care2 Causes
So unfortunately, even the most organic farms will be contaminated with those toxic chemicals. The reason that all of the people I know who do choose organic food is not for "more nutrition." The argument for nutrition is nonsense, they all have about the same about of nutrients. The argument is for the LACK OF toxic chemicals.

You have to do a lot of reading and research and even more critical thinking about the information you've read. The only thing left I have to say is, I am respectful of others choices to eat whichever they want and I only ask of the same respect in return. This is how I personally feel about my food. I am not trying to preach to anyone or convert anyone to eat this way and I am certainly NOT bashing anyone who eats differently from me.
__________________
Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.

You start the game with a full pot of luck and an empty pot of experience. The object is to fill the pot of experience before you empty the pot of luck.
AnthonyJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2014, 01:34 PM   #16
Chef Extraordinaire
 
CWS4322's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rural Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 12,296
According to a search on the 'Net, people do soak and freeze beans without cooking them.

Preparing, cooking, and freezing Dried Beans

Can You Freeze Already Soaked and Uncooked Butter Beans? | Everyday Life - Global Post

Which reminds me, I have a pot of beans in the fridge I better drain and cook...
__________________
I've got OCD--Obsessive Chicken Disorder!
http://www.discusscooking.com/forums...les-76125.html
CWS4322 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2014, 01:53 PM   #17
Head Chef
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,759
Read up on the Bayh-Dole Act. It's good and it's bad, like most acts/laws but it definitely contributed to the cessation of universities being 'ivory towers' of research.

In the past a person could usually count on university research being almost pure research. The Bayh Dole Act (sometime in the 80's) stopped all that.

Four Unintended Consequences of the Bayh-Dole Act - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

http://waynedev.uakron.edu/dotAsset/727693.pdf
__________________
cave76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2014, 03:11 PM   #18
Sous Chef
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 511
>> the FDA . . .
aaahhhhhhhh. gotta' luv' 'em but hate 'em at the same time.

the FDA relies - not enough / some what / too much, pick a viewpoint - on "research" provided by the (generically expressed) "supplier"
and we all know, of course, that large corporations and nut-case 'doctors / scientists' _never_ lie, fib, manipulate, alter, skew, yadda yadda yadda - the "real data" to their advantage.

something like the doctor who proved childhood vaccines cause autism. oops. data did not stand up to scrutiny; he finally admitted he's just faked the data, since he knew his theory was right . . . .

regrettably, most of the FDA decisions are not based on truly independent research. when a study is bought and paid for by the supplier of the 'thing' one must be highly suspicious of the validity of the results. it is not unheard of for big companies pay for study after study, modifying / refining the 'study guidelines / conditions' until they get a result that is favorable and 'scientifically acceptable' to the FDA.
__________________
dcSaute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2014, 03:44 PM   #19
Chef Extraordinaire
 
GotGarlic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeastern Virginia
Posts: 16,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyJ View Post
... You have to do a lot of reading and research and even more critical thinking about the information you've read.
The link you included also says this:

Quote:
Some scientists pointed out that the types of experimental rats used in the study are prone to tumors, says NPR. David Spiegelhalter, a professor at the University of Cambridge whose specialty is the public perception of risk, said in the New York Times that the “numbers of animals in each group was too low to draw firm conclusions.”

In addition, other scientists pointed out that the rats who ate a diet with a GMO concentration of 11 percent were less healthy than those whose diet contained a GMO concentration of 33 percent: if the experiment intended to show a link between developing tumors and GMOs, those who ate more GMOs should have been less healthy.

In Reuters, Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, observed that, since genetically modified food has “been in the food chain” in the U.S. for over ten years, “If the effects [of Seralini's study] are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?”
And my question is: If FDA and university research can't be trusted, on what are you basing your decisions? A lot of the "alternative research" I've seen is just faked or written in such a way that people without a PhD can't understand them and sometimes it's not research at all but speculation and advocacy disguised to look like it. And "an internet search shows 150,000 results!" means nothing since a lot of it is just echoing what was posted elsewhere.
__________________
The trouble with eating Italian food is that five or six days later you're hungry again. ~ George Miller
GotGarlic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2014, 03:44 PM   #20
Head Chef
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcSaute View Post
>> the FDA . . .
aaahhhhhhhh. gotta' luv' 'em but hate 'em at the same time.

the FDA relies - not enough / some what / too much, pick a viewpoint - on "research" provided by the (generically expressed) "supplier"
and we all know, of course, that large corporations and nut-case 'doctors / scientists' _never_ lie, fib, manipulate, alter, skew, yadda yadda yadda - the "real data" to their advantage.

something like the doctor who proved childhood vaccines cause autism. oops. data did not stand up to scrutiny; he finally admitted he's just faked the data, since he knew his theory was right . . . .

regrettably, most of the FDA decisions are not based on truly independent research. when a study is bought and paid for by the supplier of the 'thing' one must be highly suspicious of the validity of the results. it is not unheard of for big companies pay for study after study, modifying / refining the 'study guidelines / conditions' until they get a result that is favorable and 'scientifically acceptable' to the FDA.
Can't find anything to 'argue' about with your view point. And I can provide even more proof (not opinions) about this but won't in this thread.
__________________

__________________
cave76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
beans

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Discuss Cooking on Facebook

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.