Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Clean Eating Delusion
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusion/"While some parts of the world are concerned with eating, because of food insecurity, the “worried and well-fed well” are increasingly obsessed with so-called “clean eating.”
This is nothing new, but like every cultural phenomenon, it seems, has increased partly due to the easy spread of misinformation over the internet. If you are anxious about your health, and who isn’t to some degree, your anxiety is fed by a steady diet of pseudo-experts, con-artists, and internet personalities telling you about all the things you eat that adversely affect your health.
This phenomenon is increasingly being recognized as a health issue among experts. In 1996 Dr. Steven Bratman proposed a formal disorder he calls orthorexia nervosa. He writes:
For people with orthorexia, eating healthily has become an extreme, obsessive, psychologically limiting and sometimes physically dangerous disorder, related to but quite distinct from anorexia.
Essentially orthorexia is an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy. There are a lot of parallels with anorexia, which is an unhealthy obsession with weight control. As Bratman himself points out, and I want to emphasize – there is a spectrum from a healthy concern with eating a healthful diet at one end to a harmful or even delusional obsession with a restrictive diet at the other. This is also not an attack on veganism or vegetarianism, which are a combination of health and ethical considerations.
..."
-----------------------------------------------
A good read, IMO.
96 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
The Internet does spread bad information faster, however. Of course, as you note, it can also spread good information faster.
Your OP:
For people with orthorexia, eating healthily has become an extreme, obsessive, psychologically limiting and sometimes physically dangerous disorder, related to but quite distinct from anorexia.
While it's not in your article or on television, the science shows plutonium from Fukushima has gone global:
[en] The Plutonium isotopes 239Pu (T1/2=2.4.104a), 240Pu (T1/2=6.5.103a) and 242Pu (T1/2=3.7.105a) are anthropogenic radionuclides emitted into the environment by nuclear activities. Pu is accumulated in the human body and hence, poses a considerable hazard to human health. Due to the long half-lives, these isotopes are present in the biosphere on large time scales and a build-up can be expected. Therefore it is important to study the contamination pathway of Pu into the drinking water. At the Maier-Leibnitz-Laboratory in Munich a method to detect long-lived Pu isotopes by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) is being developed. AMS requires only few milligrams of sample material, which is a substantial advantage over decay counting techniques. Consequently, more samples from different locations can be taken which is essential when searching for locally increased Pu concentrations as in the Pacific Ocean after the Fukushima accident in March 2011. Samples from different locations in the Pacific Ocean and from the snow-hydrosphere are planned to be investigated by AMS. The principle detection method using AMS and an overview of the status of the project is presented.
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:45097951
What everyone needs know from DOE:
DOE-STD-1128-98
Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities
EXCERPT...
4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination
[font color="green"]There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many
potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire
to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) The one characteristic that many believe is
unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force. Whether from
alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or
removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area. [/font color]
SOURCE (PDF file format): http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/docs/standard/DOE-STD-1128-2008.pdf
That means plutonium doesn't stay in one spot. It spreads through the air, water, and, evidently, harder forms of matter.
Some of it might get in people's food. And they wouldn't even know about it, because the subject is censored from the news.
Here's more science on the subject:
J Environ Radioact. 2011 Dec 27. (Epub ahead of print)
Radionuclides from the Fukushima accident in the air over Lithuania: measurement and modelling approaches.
Lujanienė G, Byčenkienė S, Povinec PP, Gera M.
Source
Environmental Research Department, SRI Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Savanoriu 231, 02300 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Abstract
Analyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs ranged from 12 μBq/m(3) and 1.4 μBq/m(3) to 3700 μBq/m(3) and 1040 μBq/m(3), respectively. The activity concentration of (239,240)Pu in one aerosol sample collected from 23 March to 15 April, 2011 was found to be 44.5 nBq/m(3). The two maxima found in radionuclide concentrations were related to complicated long-range air mass transport from Japan across the Pacific, the North America and the Atlantic Ocean to Central Europe as indicated by modelling. HYSPLIT backward trajectories and meteorological data were applied for interpretation of activity variations of measured radionuclides observed at the site of investigation. (7)Be and (212)Pb activity concentrations and their ratios were used as tracers of vertical transport of air masses. Fukushima data were compared with the data obtained during the Chernobyl accident and in the post Chernobyl period. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs were found to be by 4 orders of magnitude lower as compared to the Chernobyl accident. The activity ratio of (134)Cs/(137)Cs was around 1 with small variations only. The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.
SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22206700
And what a little bird told no one in particular...
Plutonium bioaccumulation in seabirds
Dagmara I. Strumińska-Parulska, Bogdan Skwarzec, Jacek Fabisiak
University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Chemistry, Analytics and Environmental Radiochemistry Chair, Sobieskiego 18, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland
Received 7 April 2011. Revised 5 July 2011. Accepted 16 July 2011. Available online 23 August 2011.
The aim of the paper was plutonium (238Pu and 239+240Pu) determination in seabirds, permanently or temporarily living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea coast. Together 11 marine birds species were examined: 3 species permanently residing in the southern Baltic, 4 species of wintering birds and 3 species of migrating birds. The obtained results indicated plutonium is non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of analyzed seabirds. The highest plutonium content was found in the digestion organs and feathers, the smallest in skin and muscles. The plutonium concentration was lower in analyzed species which feed on fish and much higher in herbivorous species. The main source of plutonium in analyzed marine birds was global atmospheric fallout.
Highlights
► We determined 239+240Pu in seabirds living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea. ► We noticed plutonium was non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of seabirds. ► We found the highest plutonium content in the digestion organs and feathers. ► We found Pu content was lower in birds feeding on fish and higher in herbivorous.
SOURCE: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X11001676
So, the plutonium must be from Chernobyl, seeing how Lithuania's clear on the other side of the world from Fukushima.
Anyone remember reading about any of this in their local newspaper? How about the tee vee? Anyone? Anyone?
Which leaves DU as about the only place this is getting reported, thanks in great measure to you.
Sources from Octafish:
International Atomic Energy Agency
US Department of Energy (PDF)
US National Institutes of Health
Science Direct
How do you fail to understand that?
Now, it's time to move to an OP that you want to discuss. You clearly have nothing to say in response to this OP.
Again.
... if it's not organic. Sometimes, it is, but, most often it's not, any more. Partly because of that experience.
WTF?
It's owned by a vocal Libertarian, anti-union asshole marketing overpriced consumerist shit to people who think it makes them so progressive and morally superior.
It is these people's air of moral superiority that I think offends me the most. I think a big reason a lot of blue collar folks here in "flyover country" vote GOP is that the Republicans have done a good job channeling this anger at the insufferable elitist pretentiousness of the urban middle class (this is what the GOP is referring to when they talk about "liberal elites"
.
The whole vomiting because someone else is vomiting thing is because we've always cared about clean eating. We didn't get to find out what was safe to eat, and what wasn't, by accident. It was trial and error and a good herbalist (or any gatherer) had to be trained, and learn to use their intuition, and use the senses of smell and taste. They needed to use the scientific method and experiment on how to make the iffy stuff safe.
Salt was worth big money because it can preserve food. Herbs like Basil and Cilantro were/are prized in part because they keep food from making you sick. Turmeric as well.
Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food, if I might coin a phrase. 
lol
Looked just like one at first. 
ROBYN O'BRIEN, or where the pedal meets the metal, sample: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024927038
NRDC, sample: http://www.nrdc.org/food/safety-loophole-for-chemicals-in-food.asp (Last revised 5/12/2014)
PEW FOOD ADDITIVES PROJECT, sample:
[center]
Beck - Where It's At [/center]
NRDC, sample: http://www.nrdc.org/food/safety-loophole-for-chemicals-in-food.asp (Last revised 5/12/2014)
PEW FOOD ADDITIVES PROJECT, sample:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/search#q=food%20additives/s=Relevance/pg=0/sortDir=asc
[center][/center]
Search Results for "food additives"
1 - 20 of 2236 Resultshttp://www.pewtrusts.org/en/archived-projects/food-additives-project
Food Additives Project
May 2, 2014
The nation’s food supply has changed dramatically since 1958 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established its program to regulate chemicals added to food. Over that time, Americans have significantly increased their consumption of processed foods, which often contain large amounts of chemical additives, yet concerns have been raised by industry and consumers alike that the FDA’s regulatory science has not kept pace..
From 2010 to 2013, The Pew Charitable Trusts conducted a comprehensive assessment of the federal food additives regulatory program. Relying on a transparent process that engaged stakeholders, Pew examined food additive issues in partnership with the food industry, the public interest community, and the federal government, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. We held five expert workshops and published six reports in peer-reviewed journals. This report summarizes our findings and provides recommendations to address the problems that we identified.
With more than 10,000 additives allowed in food, Pew’s research found that the FDA regulatory system is plagued with systemic problems, which prevent the agency from ensuring that their use is safe.http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases/2008/05/20/food-chemical-regulations-rely-heavily-on-industry-selfpolicing-and-lack-transparency
PRESS RELEASE
May 20, 2008
Food Additives Project
[center]Food Chemical Regulations Rely Heavily on Industry Self-Policing and Lack Transparency[/center]
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Safety decisions concerning one-third of the more than 10,000 substances that may be added to human food were made by food manufacturers and a trade association without review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), according to an analysis spearheaded by the Pew Health Group.
The report, published today in the peer-reviewed journal Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, illustrates potential problems with the U.S. food additive regulatory program.
“Congress established our food additive regulatory program more than 50 years ago, and it does not stand up well to scrutiny based on today's standards of science and public transparency,” said Tom Neltner, Food Additives Project director in the Pew Health Group.
The research also found that the FDA developed an expedited process in the mid-1990's that essentially eliminated the opportunity for public involvement in decision making prior to FDA's safety determination. This shift doubled the rate of industry requests for FDA review. In contrast, standard operating procedure for other federal regulatory decisions regarding drug, workplace, and environmental safety requires public notice and an opportunity to comment.
“While the shift to a new regulatory process–one in which companies make safety decisions and ask FDA to confirm them–has sped up agency review, it has also bypassed the public,” Neltner said. “Subjecting safety decisions to comment from competitors, academic scientists, public interest groups, and the general public can result in stronger protections for consumers. In an age of growing demand for government transparency, there is virtually no meaningful opportunity for participation in decisions about large classes of substances added to the food supply.”
When Congress passed the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, it created a structure that has limited the FDA's ability to effectively regulate substances added to food because the law:1. Allows manufacturers to determine that the use of an additive is “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), and then use that substance without notifying the FDA. As a result, the agency is unaware of many substances that may be added to food and lacks the ability to ensure that safety decisions were properly made.
2. Does not require that manufacturers inform the FDA when health reports suggest new hazards associated with additives already used in food. Therefore, the agency has no access to unpublished reports and must expend limited resources sifting through published information to identify potential problems and set priorities.
In addition to the article examining the state of the food additive regulation, a piece in the same publication summarizes a workshop, co-sponsored by the Institute of Food Technologists and the journal Nature, examined how FDA evaluates the potential hazards posed by substances added to food. The two-day session, held in April 2011, brought together science and food policy experts from government, industry, academia, and public interest organizations. Issues discussed at the workshop and presented in the journal article include:- The need for clear procedures to develop validated toxicological tests and regularly revise guidance documents to reflect advances in science;
- Opportunities to improve academic research to make it more usable for regulatory decision making and enhance coordination between federal agencies; and
- Challenges to reassessing a chemical's safety after it is on the market.
Both journal articles appear in the November issue of Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. They are the first in a series of the Pew Health Group's assessments of the scientific evidence and FDA's regulatory system, evaluating whether the agency ensures chemicals added to food are safe as required by law. Future articles will consider other aspects of the scientific analysis and the law, and will provide case studies of issues raised about the FDA's food additives program. The Pew Health Group will develop policy recommendations to reduce unnecessary and hidden risks that are informed by their evaluation.
[center]
Beck - Where It's At [/center]