Seems the alternatives are not much better. Really calls into question the safety of long-term food storage in cans...

http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/the-new-scary-threat-in-canned-soup

It seems like pretty much everything in our modern world causes cancer or heart disease or something bad. But we aren't dying of old age at 40 like we were 200 years ago, so we must be doing something right.

Anyways, that particular study talks about a 40-60% increase in meningioma, which is a pretty rare cancer. Not exactly my definition of "scary", imo.

Now I get it!

Can ... Cancer .... It should have been so obvious

Unfortunately, that study is virtually meaningless, at least as reported.

It studied 500 people who all had brain cancer and found that the 250 that had meningioma tended to have higher levels of BPA in their urine. While this implies that BPA causes meningioma, one could just as validly deduce that meningioma causes higher levels of BPA or that meningioma causes one to consume more canned food.

Apparently, meningioma is most often benign and asymptomatic, so if BPA makes one more likely to that type of cancer instead of another, perhaps we should eat more canned food!

Scarey, My SIL the vegetarian has been telling us about Cyanide in rice,and another friend pointed this about GMO corn when it hit with roundup causing horrible tumors. See link. Our food supply is a scarey thing anymore.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/09/20/...rifying-tumors/

I dont,chemicals and people just dont mix well IMO.

On my piddling garden we use nothing chemical,if it isnt made by nature,dont use it.And we lose little.Some just wont grow because of powdery mildew,oh well,then I cant grow it here.

As for the politics of can this be done large scale,beats me,but if I have a choice I avoid every chemical and every drug possible.Note IF POSSIBLE,some,like the canned food lining,we are stuck to a large degree,I would prefer it gone tho....

FWIW,again,world is a dangerous place.

It is an interesting study, but as has been previously stated, it is far from being clear on the exact threat level of BPA's.

While I plan to keep an eye on the subject, at this point, the unknown risk of BPA's is certainly preferable to going hungry for the duration of a disaster.

Agreed! Benefit to risk ratio is high in that situation.

I agree. While I don't eat a lot of canned food, I do drink daily and continuously from my original nalgene full-on BPA bottle. When I die, feel free to see if the bottle was the cause of death, although gravity will probably be the number one culprit.

Bill

We are all going to die from living. Last I checked the mortiality rate is still 100%, no one gets out of this life alive!
I quit trying to figure out what was going to end my life a long time ago, so I could just enjoy the years God is giving me. JMO

I think the concerns isn't so much for the >21 crowd as it is the younger folks. If it truly does cause mutations and linked to things like ADHD, that could cause some real disasters in 30 years when the cancer rates spike.

While not necessarily bad to investigate it, we don't have the data to really see IF, and WHAT, it's capable to screwing up.

Go back to glass and pottery - it's got a pretty good track record.

HFCS is a US government subsided sweeter (tax payer funded) and its cost of production is distorted in the World market place through Cane and beet sugar import tariffs and subsidies to grow corn (the majority grown in the USA is Monsanto GMO corn Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 i.e. the GMO corn to the report you have linked to). HFCS is also linked to a whole host of known, difficult to treat but wholly preventable diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. It would appear these Monsanto products are also linked to higher rates of cancer.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE-H__aIEFE

Even more concerning is the Russian study of Monsanto GMO corn, which has indicated long term sterility issues for subsequent generations in the mammals forced to eat this product i.e. who cannot avoid it because they cannot read the label ingredients

In the UK, I am now beginning to see many products that traditionally have used cane and beet sugars now being replaced with Fructose Corn Syrup. GMO corn products could not survive in the market place without the import tariffs and subsidies, yet the attempts to export this costly industrial mono agriculture product to other nations has even required strong arms foreign policy objective tactics to push these Monsanto products on to the rest of the world. (such as indicated in the Wikileaks information)

As for the apologists of GMO and the so called benefits of feeding the world (which are highly disputed anyway and has no basis in fact), then ultimately this will lead to a historical disaster. Remember how long it took the producers of tobacco to admit liability for its product for causing lung cancer.

As for estrogen chemical mimickers such as BPA and the other chemicals which effect the ability of the local Florida male gators which haven't been able to grow a penis, yeah its best to avoid as much as possible (along with the excrement of the Monsanto GMO bacteria which was developed for biological weapons research i.e. another sweetener that has known brain cancer effects)

I think were beginning to see a theme developing here by Monsanto Inc over the last few decades.

I can see this thread is going to get killed because unfortunately this has a huge political component to it,I dont believe this is happening in a vacuum outside of politics.

BPA,HFCS,GMO,all are bad things IMO and they exist because ..... yup,politics (MONEY).

We can avoid some of it,when they refuse to allow GMO to even be labeled,you are in trouble.How do you avoid that? I cant grow my own crops enough to feed us,nor can most of us.

Want a funny but true? When forums (the larger ones anyhow) for homesteading/farming mention GMO or Monsanto the company trolls hit the boards hard,seen it time and time again. Now THAT I find telling.

HFCS is chemically identical to plain old table sugar (sucrose). Explain to me how it is different.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/science-of-sweets.html

Some folks think pink slime is wholesome,I sure dont.But for those who do,more power to ya,I dont want it.

For starters,and perhaps most important,its in just about EVERYTHING processed. Obesity and HFCS seem to be almost related in usage/wt gain for the populace.

2nd,it isnt the same to me.One is cane one is corn,one is sugar,one is corn.Not the same to me,YMMV,I respect that.Mine is its 2 different critters,corn and cane.

HFCS usage increases....diabetes increases.I see a link,others wont but I see a direct linear line on both.I believe MY lying eyes before any other 'study',etc.

But its cheaper than sugar,hence stuff it everything,along with the corn subsidies (did I say that?)...oops,here comes the politics again. Im afraid it always comes back to dollars and politicians.

But for those who think processed foodstuffs and additives are good,and for those who think its bad,not a single opinion is going to be changed here.

But I can avoid HFCS to an extent thru labeling......

But I have a question,how can we realistically avoid GMO's? Anybody have an insight on that,I would really appreciate your thoughts on how.

Um, I almost hate to point this out to you, because I'm afraid it will ruin your day:
I've been admiring your Food Projects thread. You've been smoking, canning, pickling, drying and cooking all this food. Don't you realize that you're making "processed food"? Does your family know they are eating buckboard bacon that was processed in greenhouse gasses?

I think you are part of the problem

True, at least to the extent that it is listed as such. But if the ingredient is listed just as sugar, (sucrose, or table sugar, or cane sugar), about half of it is fructose, as sucrose consists of 1 molecule of glucose and 1 of fructose.

I don't think the body really can tell the difference if the fructose came from corn or sugar cane.

IMO, reduce both to the minimum you can in your diet.

Also, here is a link to the video of Dr. Lustig (cited by the article thseng cited). It details the adverse effects of HFCS and walks through how it affects the body, and is at the root of many of our medical problems. Warning--- it is 90 minutes, but well worth the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Good advice, but does anyone know how the mercury contamination of the HFCS occurs within the industrial production of the HFCS? Mercury is used in mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants as a catalyst, where the products (mercury-grade caustic soda), which is apparently used in the industrial grade production of HFCS

http://www.safeminds.org/mercury/chlor-alkali-manufacturing.html

Could this mercury contamination have led to the huge increase in Autism and retardation rates in the population?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism

Does anyone know what the excrements (enzymes such as alpha-amylase ,Glucoamylase and Xylose isomerase) from the Industrial batch production of the bacterium (Bacillus licheniformis, GMO version no doubt ) and the fungus mold (Aspergillus) has on the contaminated (GMO plant production of the internally produced toxic herbicides/pesticides i.e bt toxin)corn already present within the GMO corn starch as it gets fed into the industrial facility at the beginning of the rather expensive complex biochemistry process?

It would seem your not just getting the rather pure chemical known as Fructose and Glucose in the syrupy sludge before it goes on to adulterate/contaminate the rest of the processed food industry.

Again the only reason this process exists is that Cane and Beet sugar prices are artificially raised through trade barrier restriction to make the economics of this mono agricultural industrial biochemical production process viable, the question is why?

Then there are the artificial sweeteners as if HFCS wasn't already artificial enough.


Edit;


Russia has reportedly today suspended the import of GMO corn on the basis of the French University of Caen study.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ancer-risk.html

Spuds,

You may be confused about chemicals. Everything is made up of chemicals--people included. Some chemical compounds are synthesized by man and some by nature. There is no known difference between the same pure chemical synthesized by man or by nature.

Note also that there are some very toxic chemicals produced by nature--probably the most toxic ones.

I can understand why you could be confused by this. There is a lot of misinformation out there on this topic.

Spuds,

I think I should clarify my previous message. Note that I said "pure chemical." Most chemicals used in foods, food containers and/or agriculture are not 99.9% pure. They all have contaminates.

So it is true that a product called "sugar" from one source may not be completely identical to sugar from another source. Even a sugar from a natural source could be contaminated with chemicals such as pesticides, etc. Likewise man-made sugar could be contaminated.

This certainly clouds the issue, nevertheless, it still is true that just because a substance comes from natural products, it doesn't mean that it is "better" than a man-made substance.

Perhaps, instead it might be more accurate to say that there is a lot of information on this topic that is not truly in the public domain or in public thoughts as they consume that tasty McDs Burger and Coca Cola and that the HFCS producers, GMO companies, farm producers, Government agencies, lawmakers and financial interests are quite happy to keep consumers of their products ignorant of the facts.

As for the rat study by the University of Caen (the first study to run the rat study for 2 years rather than the 90 days), it is really just quite obvious that the organ failure and cancerous tumors exhibited by the rat study group, are merely the result that the rat genetics within the tested group haven't yet caught up to being fed the synthetic GMO corn, through the process of biological natural selection assuming of course their genetics can proceed after a the 3rd or 4th generation through the survival of fittest after constantly consuming the Monsanto product.

Unfortunately we'll have to wait another 25-100 years to find out if the rat study results can be applied to the human population now consuming the Monsanto product. Of course there is probably a scientific short cut though, GMO children for GMO corn. Heck they might even get the patent!..

When I say chemicals,read the labels on processed food,reads like a chemistry set,my homegrown/produced products do not.Yes,mine may have a few chemicals,it isnt chock full of endless alphabet chems.

I dont need food dyes,etc etc etc,or organo-phosphates on MY veggies I grow.

I will say this,the fewer chemicals you ingest from the the food you eat,breathe,the better off you are.

I DONT believe in better living thru chemicals.

And lets not get obtuse and say what about medicines that save your life? Thats of course true,there are also many pharmaceuticals,approved,that are later shown after being used on us guinea pigs and found to be most harmful.Im not jumping on the latest drug bandwagon,no thanks,I'll take the generics with decades of apparent safety before the latest greatest poorly tested profit driven carp being tested on ME.

And that friends are the GMO's,Im NOT happy with that!Being a lab rat,or am I just a victim on the war on the populace? Plenty in power think 3/4 of the worlds population needs to be eliminated,and no,thats not paranoia,its factual,the literature is out there,real stuff. Yet freakin again it comes back to politics and what your level of comfort is with these aspects.

So I choose not to be the lab rat for them,but am fine letting someone else be one should they have no problem with that.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/09/20/...rifying-tumors/



Is that pic your comfort risk level?It sure isnt mine.So now we have GMO HFCS in just about everything??? No,Im not comfortable with that.

In my foods I choose to avoid whatever non sense,profit generating chemicals I can.Have some red food dye,no thanks,not if I can avoid it,REASONABLY.

There are many examples of natures way being better than 'Pfizers' way....like on the blackberries for diarrhea/stomach cramps.Works better than the pharma drug,chock full of vitamins,tastes good and doesnt have side effects like constipation afterwards.Who needs Pharmas cure/treatment? Not me!

Silver for killing microbes,after all this time bacteria still havent developed immunity to that,but pharma? More and more powerful/dangerous drugs for the same that create super bugs.

Honey,another miracle drug but does have limitations,not for infants.

Not saying NO Pharma,saying avoid pharma until you need it for serious conditions,not for making salt not clump in packaging.Or plastics that leach hormones that are cheaper.Not interested,dont want it.

Apparently like Europe,the Russians arent so keen on GMO's either....
=======================================================

Russia suspends import and use of American GM corn after study revealed cancer risk

The European Food Safety Authority orders review in to the research, conducted at a French university
Russia's decision could be followed by other nations
Experts at the University of Caen conducted an experiment running for the full lives of rats - two years
The findings found raised levels of breast cancer, liver and kidney damage
The same trials also found minuscule amounts of a commonly used weedkiller, Roundup
Both the GM corn and Roundup are the creation of US biotech company Monsanto
================
Consumer scepticism in the UK and Europe means GM corn is not on supermarket shelves here, however it is fed to farm animals, including hens, pigs and dairy cows.
================

By Sean Poulter

PUBLISHED: 11:15 EST, 25 September 2012 | UPDATED: 01:57 EST, 26 September 2012

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...l#ixzz27eY0QWIa
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
[size:20pt][/size]

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/09/27/...antos-gmo-corn/

The top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s GM corn
===============================

Now some GOOD news for Californians....
---------
Poll finds Prop. 37 is likely to pass

In USC Dornsife/L.A. Times poll, supporters of labeling for genetically engineered food outnumber foes 2 to 1.

By more than a 2-to-1 margin, California voters favor an initiative to require food manufacturers and retailers to label fresh produce and processed foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

With less than six weeks until election day, Proposition 37 is supported by 61% of registered voters and opposed by 25%, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll. An additional 14% were undecided or refused to answer.

The poll showed broad support among voter groups, but the interviews took place before Tuesday's start of a major television advertising blitz by opponents aimed at changing voters' minds on the issue.

As of Sunday, the Yes on 37 campaign had raised $3.5 million, with its largest contribution of $1.1 million coming from Mercola.com Health Resources, a privately held Illinois company that operates a "natural health" website.

So far, the opposition campaign has raised more than $32.5 million, collected mostly from businesses affected by the measure.Opponents — primarily biotech companies and some of the best known manufacturers of packaged foods, including Nestle, Coca-Cola and Kellogg

The No on 37 campaign's largest donor as of Sunday was Monsanto Co. with $7.1 million, according to Maplight.org, a nonpartisan campaign finance tracking service. Monsanto markets seeds to grow corn, soybeans and other crops genetically modified to resist herbicides and pesticides.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-prop37-times-poll-20120927,0,5015236.story

Yawn.

If you don't want to eat GMOs, don't eat 'em.

If you don't want to grow GMOs, don't grow 'em.

Anything outside of that is, IMO, outside the scope of ETS.

Unless it refers to the skills specific to the processing of a Chernobyl rat.

Bon Appetit!
-Doug

(Honest comment: We have many fine, worthy, and highly skilled moderators; but I must respectfully submit that if I were a moderator I would have used my teeth to open the launch codes long ago. YMMV.)

And if it doesnt interest you,why do you want to shut up those who it does?

Some of us think food poisoning is a survival issue.

So Dont read it if it isnt your cuppa tea?

And yes,since it involves politics,guess it will be shut,whatever.

But poisons to me is a survival issue.If you face a 'potential' threat (Just like a bullet spraying whack job) from cancer,or reproduction,isnt that something you should consider on your or your families survival radar?

Some of us would consider the latest info helpful in identifying potential life threatening situations.And things you can do to avoid that risk if YOU so choose.

Barbarian's post on this is a rational,balanced view of food impurities and additives as they affect the major focus of this forum - disaster preparedness and survival issues. These days not too much of the food I and my family consume comes from cans. If the food supply chain is interrupted, the percentage of canned food in our diet will rise. In that situation, the benefits of canned far outweigh the possible negatives.

As always, reports of rational, substantive research are welcome. They do, indeed, provide food for thought.

And, yes, I think that is a pretty decent pun for 3 in the morning......

I admit that I posted in a moment of frustration, and so my post was neither diplomatic nor helpful in advancing the conversation. For that I apologize.

However, I disagree that walking away from a thread is the right thing to do. When a thread goes off the rails, we members (and by extension Mr. Ritter's foundation) are all tarred with that same "tin foil hat" brush. So I believe it is quite proper to speak up.

If a corporate recruiter asked me about my online activities (and they do ask), would I be proud to list my participation in ETS? Not the way things are going. They would take one look and say "crackpot!" These are the same organizations that make expensive decisions based on the foundation's credibility. What we say and do here has ramifications, and we need to remember that.

That's my two cents' worth, and I'll let it go at that.

Can I suggest that you watch two online documentaries from the UK from the early 1990s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS01DaQUu3g - A is for Atom. This is highly relevent to the Fukishima disaster and exposes the nuclear industry for the deception of the public as to the safety of its industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdiQiv3x6xM - Goodbye Mrs Ant.

These documentaries predate wide spread acceptance of Genetically Modified Organisms in agricultural use.

'Tin foil hat', perhaps, but then again I am progressively losing my Normalcy bias as I think it will make for a better survival strategy in a world of vested exploitative interest.

As for the corporate recruiter asking about your online activities, I would tell the recruiter that basically it was none of his business. Almost as bad as asking about private pension arrangements.

Edit: Original Study found. I don't have time to go over it until next week.

Anyone have a link to the test data on the GMO issue? Skin tumors are a common occurrence on lab mice so the pictures in this thread are meaningless without the corresponding numbers (dosage, delivery time, rat weight, specific lab rat clone series the test was run on, etc...). There may be a problem or it may be hype. Until I see the data myself I'm not going to freak out.

My two cents.
-Blast

Skipping to the second to last sentence in the conclusion might save you some time:

Emphasis added. Ok, so I'm being a little bit unfair since scientific reports are supposed to point out possible sources of error and suggest further experiments. But if, as they say, they suspect the "natural" pesticides produced by the GM corn plants are to blame for the observed indications of possible toxicity, wouldn't the next step be to isolate those substances and study thier effects?

It seems that science these days seldom asks the really useful questions.

Someone once gave us some "Homeopathic Teething Remedy" tablets. When two or three little beads were placed on a cranky baby's tongue, he was instantly comforted. What powerful substance could have such an instantaneous and powerful effect? Worried, I looked at the "active ingredients" and found nothing but a couple of herbs diluted literally one million times. The "inactive ingredient" was... sugar. Duh.

I am progressively losing my Normalcy bias as I think it will make for a better survival strategy in a world of vested exploitative interest.
=========================
You better believe it! Normalcy bias,thats a true thing for sure we need to protect against.
---------


Up to this point the only evidence put forward by Monsanto in the early days were 3 day feeding studies.

You wouldnt accept that for your meds,but your food? Without it even being labeled?

Telling that Europe doesnt want the stuff,same as BPA. I will follow the money and politics before taking on that risk,now we have the first lifetime studies,ever,on GMO's,the evidence says....be aware of possible risks.

Weird things happening in agriculture,be proactive.Like in your other preps,not reactive or inactive,thats a poor choice in your other preps.So should be in prepping your body IMO,thats what its all about after all,getting your body thru life's dangers.

There were early indications statins had problems ( BEFORE approval),the manufacturers knew and covered up those studies and didnt submit that data,now the dosages have been reduced....now that the patents have expired they are admitting,Oh BTW,this stuff can damage your heart.Best selling drug in history up to now,maybe its been surpassed,dont know,but we are talking billions and billions,and withheld info on dangers.

Follow the money,evil/greedy people will kill you for a buck,its history's story.Thats not tinfoil,thats reality.

Same story,be aware of possible risks,no statins in this house (fill in your drug,the list of killer drugs is huge),no heart damage either....like many now have.And took Decades to manifest. Glad I listened to my researcher friend who put it on the radar for me from the get go.

Be safe and keep informed and be ahead of the curve,just like you are in other areas,BOB,BOV etc etc.

Doug,You are correct,speaking up is appropriate and you are voicing your opinion,good on you.... however,being aware of SCIENTIFIC studies regarding food/drug studies is hardly 'crackpot' IMO.

No twitter/facebook here. Search away!

I post nothing that I dont stand by regarding my health/safety. I still have that right to freedom of speech and thought in America, (Not withstanding forum policies,they have a right to what is allowable on their site) at least for now.Im not giving that up to some corporation. Not me.

They have problems with you being informed on what scientific studies say about what you ingest and what others think about same,well.....I wouldnt be working there

THESE are MY opinions,NOT DOUGS!

I'll back off on this topic,getting waaaay too heated.Dont need the bad juju being voiced IMO,not good. If you feel the need to delete this thread no hard feelings here.I guess survival on a cellular level is not in the radar of many.

But my final thought is simply this,be informed and keep your mind open,you can perhaps avoid a terrible fate by keeping informed,up to date and ahead of the populace.

I just finished reading the scientific paper which seems to have started this latest hubbaloo.
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

The researches performed a more detailed and statistically-valid study of the effects of three gmo corns than Monsanto's original study. Their conclusions were:
1. There might be a hint of an effect, but most of the effects were very random* in nature (no pun intended) and could not be assigned to a particular cause.
2. The few effects (renal issues) that were relatively consistent were consistent with very low levels of RoundUp pesticide poisoning. The researchers thought this was as or more likely than the some unknown effect from the gmo corn.
3. More $tudies should be done.

*one rat would have an enlarged adrenal gland, another would have a slightly swollen liver, etc... basically, only a few rats developed some issue, and each rat had a different issue from the others.

After reading the study I really couldn't find anything that would cause a scientist to freak out, which leads me to believe Russia's recent banning of gmo corn from the USA is politically-based rather than science-based.

-Blast

Indeed, they did! Yet we have in the conclusion;





Shocking isn't it, an effective abandonment of safety critical testing for a product that would eventually be consumed by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world and not just for 90 days either.

Sections 2.2. 'Data collection' and 2.3. 'Statistical power related to the experimental' design are probably some of the strongest scientific criticisms I have seen in a published paper. About as strong a criticism without actually stating 'Scientific Fraud' on the part of Monsanto. This is an appalling state of affairs.

So lets assume, even if 90 days consumption of the Monsanto product only gives rise to 0.01% (this would be statistical insignificant i.e. completely unmeasurable in relation to the size of the test group in this paper) for human related liver and kidney disease leading to premature death for a 320 million test group. i.e. 32,000 human premature deaths.

Russia is indeed correct to ban the import of these Monsanto products even if based on the precautionary principle on products that have NOT been adequately tested for safety during the original safety testing by Monsanto, which itself is an appalling conflict of interest let alone a scientific one.

The mass human experiment continues.

A strange part of this story with regard to the banning of a food stuff product by Russia, which is heavily consumed within the USA, i.e. A huge proportion the GMO Corn varieties is being synthesized to HFCS through an industrial biochemical process and is found in so much food consumables that it is actually quite hard to avoid (there is even controversy even in informing consumers as to foodstuff which originates from a Genetically mutated intellectual property Patented source) is that the story has received virtually no amount of attention by the media. Normally these type of media stories are jumped on with nationalistic furore and indignant outrage.

Another question is for example, does the BT toxin remain intact throughout the synthesized HFCS process??

And to re-iterate once again, the only economic justification for these Monsanto GMO products to even exist in the first place is down to economic trade sanctions on Cane and Beet sugars and Government subsidy by the US funded tax payer as the vast majority of GMO corn production is processed into synthesized sweeteners.

GMO Corn production is a solution to a problem that only exists put there by the US Government.

That's 90 days of the lifespan of a lab rat/mouse (Normal for a mouse is 2-3 years in captivity).
Does the report list the ingredients of their diet or was it nothing but GMO grain? It was a mixed diet. Did they consume a normal amount or was it all they could eat?

Assuming an average of 2.5 years, that would be equivalent to a human eating the same diet for 7.4 years.

ADDED:
It would be interesting to see the results of a LARGE population study carried out over most of the lifespan of a rat.

I think it is virtually impossible to get a handle on the numbers of potential human premature deaths from this single study, which was attempting to repeat the original Monsanto safety study, but the fact that the study sees any physiological changes even in Lab rats is a concern. Hence the studies conclusion that further more detailed and verifiable studies are performed including other species, dosages and varying consumption timescales (even generational studies). You perhaps could extrapolate an order of magnitude indication i.e. 1000s, 10,000s, 100,000s or even millions of human premature deaths. Considering the size of the human experiment it will probably not be so small that the actuaries don't pick up on it.

Unfortunately the horse has already left the stable. It will be down to life insurance actuaries to work out the human death rates in the countries when/where the Monsanto product was consumed. Although saying that it could be masked by the vast numbers already succumbing to the actions of the synthesized sugars known as HFCS, currently causing the already known public health problems of its known induced diseases such as Obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

Well, AFLM, in the spirit of common ground I can certainly join you in opposing tariffs and subsidies.

I am not all up on the GMO stuff, I eat as clean as I can, cleaner than most. Looking back on my life, I have done far worse things to my body in one night of drinking or one endurance event than all the times in my life that I thought I got something from eating a genetically modified product. Honestly I would probably eat a GMO fruit or veggie over a Snickers bar.

I know that people that want to push a proposition in California for labeling GMO, (prop 37, IIRC) are getting their word out every where they can.

The OP regarded BPA in soup. To be honest, the entire time I read this thread I kept thinking, "Where is Blast? Why hasn't he chimed in?" The report he produced on the 'scam' of BPA in plastic really opened my eyes and I have put him on my top shelf of trusted sources on chemical components in everyday living.

GMO, BPA, HFCS, good, bad. If someone can lose 50 pounds eating corn that lasts longer in the season because its been modified or tomatoes because they are cheaper and larger or drink Gatorade instead of beer out of ten year old Nalgene bottles. Fine. Great. Better to lose 50lbs that way than die of the condition I consider obesity induced death because I can tell you from experience organic foods are more expensive and don't store as long.

Blast is finding it harder and harder to care. If people want to bring back the Dark Ages, let them. Blast will enjoy being King of the Wasteland, ruling his foolish peasants with a chemical fist.
-Blast, practicing his third-person royalty-speak

Bear in mind that Blast is an Extreme Chemist. He probably think everything is made of chemicals

His majesty will find it hard to deal with the Fire King of the East. Perhaps he should relinquish his lands and accept my past offer of a cabinet position instead. You will be hansomly rewared.

Come now, instead of "First Chemist and Minister of Demolitions" how about "Supreme Chemist and Knight-Commander of Texico and the Surrounding Blast Radius"?

Be warned, I have a copy of the Evil Overlord List and plan to follow it to the letter.

Blast, hold out for "Minister of Kaboom."

I'm thinking The Enchanter formerly known as "Tim".
[video:youtube]http://youtu.be/JTbrIo1p-So[/video]
-Blast

17% of men will get prostate cancer.#2 cancer in men. The cost to remove BPA from canned food is a whopping 2.2 cents per can.

When you get prostate Ca,would 2.2 cents per can seem ridiculous to you for removing a chemical that we dont need in our diet?Thats found in 93% of the populations urine.

When you put constant estrogen into your body.....the result is not going to be a good thing in any event,why would you want it in your food?

When you get prostate ca,my bet is you will wish you had never seen BPA,in any event you wont be chuckling about it.

My 2 best friends have prostate Ca,one is dead,other says today was told he is facing surgery.Neither found it amusing.I have BPH,bet a lot of you do too.

Do you need synthetic estrogen going after your reproductive organs when it doesnt need to be there?

And the cost to remove it is 2.2 cents per can of food?
===============================
March 1997: Studies show BPA to be toxic at levels that are in people. Just four years after EPA reaffirms its BPA safety standard, Fred vom Saal at the University of Missouri-Columbia finds that low level exposure to bisphenol A harms the prostate. This is the first of many studies from academic labs that will find harmful effects of BPA at levels of exposure far below the government's BPA safety standards, in the range of what is found in people. Over the next 11 years the body of literature on low-dose BPA toxicity will grow to include more than 100 publications linking BPA to breast and prostate damage, early puberty, behavioral problems, and other effects at levels up to 25 times lower than EPA's "safe" dose. [vom Saal's landmark 1997 prostate study]

I had prostate cancer and treated it about six years ago. The procedure was simple - I was discharged same day; after one semi-rough night, life went on as normal. One exception, my physician cautioned me that young women should not sit on my lap for the next six months. I am quite sure that several ladies threw themselves off a bridge when they herd this awful news...

Prostate cancer is very common. I doubt seriously that it results from any single substance or any single source. Monitoring is key; catch it early and you have several options which can be quite effective (like my seed implants). Late detection - not so much.

The trend now is toward watchful waiting. Many more of us will die with prostate cancer than from prostate cancer.

Best wishes to your friend on his surgery. I understand there are robotic techniques which are effective, with lessened side effects.

Apparently robotic isnt advisable on his for some reason,he is back tomorrow for further consultation.They are talking radical prostatectomy.Will be his third surgery from bladder and now prostate in about a year,so outlook is poor.First problem was the BPH and away he went.Elevated PSA,prostate not cancer,then bladder wall is ca and now prostate is cancer.

Congrats on your good outcome.

Agreed,more than just one cause,but to add to risk for why? Beats me.It just isnt good to put estrogen life long into our healthy bodies.

that sucks man, it does. my uncle died a horrible, painful death from pancreatic cancer a few years ago. I found out today my son may have a form of cancer and we are now scheduling appointments with a number of -ist's, to start figuring things out. optometrist, geneticists, neurologists, brain mapping MRI's, other -ists, too.

That being said, I simply do not believe that BPA in something is more dangerous than what we are getting from something. Meaning, we ingest more BPA from tap water than in the plastic cup you put it in. Meaning I would be more concerned about mercury or radiation in fish than the chemicals in a can of soup or the chlorine wash left on the peeled baby carrots I buy. I ate an apple the other day without washing it or rubbing it clean on my shirt. Do you know how many people could have touched that thing in the store before I did and the germs they had on their hands? That concerns me more than BPA. Someone sneezing into their hand and then trying to shake mine, concerns me more than BPA in food.

I am being contrarian. But I am being a realist. I personally don't want to pay more money just to read a label. Where does it stop where with the bleeding of money for the greater good. The manufactures should choose or be told to do so on their end. Will that get past down, probably but to stick a label on it as BPA-free just to raise the price and feel better about yourself (globally, not you specifically Spud) is as self serving as those that put BPA free on bottles that never had it to begin with. Or when companies put 'trans fat free' on products that never had trans fat to begin with.

Spud, I apologize if I got to hot there. I am leaving it up because I believe in what I said, but it was not my intent to say it the way in which I did which would rightly make a reader feel a rising anger. The filter I normally use for civil discourse is damaged tonight, as mentioned in my post above. While I don't agree with your point of view on BPA's, I concede we both disagree with the way in which I said said it. Please excuse my forceful discourse tonight.

Thanks Comm,and back at ya all the way.I respect your post 100% of stating your position/opinion,well done,not overboard at all IMO.

Yes,this issue has hot button all over it.It cant be discussed without politics entering it,it IS a political issue and Health issue equally.

Sorry about the cancer in your family,its bad stuff.My son had a sinus cancer,2 surgeries,looks like 2nd did the trick,no recurance in a couple years now.Prayers sent for your son.

I learned a lot about BPA I didnt know and appreciated the knowledge,I hope others did too.I know for me it sounds downside outweighs upside and I will be glad when its gone and fully expect it will be too.Huge momentum to remove it world wide.Thats good in my book.

I come across sounding like a radical left greenie extremist,Im not at all,I believe in a lot of chems and pharma when essential and proven safe, but when not proven safe OR beneficial to health ... it just isnt my cup of tea.But if it is for others I have no problem of people making it their personal choice.

Fewer drugs you take,the better,based on my lifetime of healthcare work its what I personally have seen,IMO.

Like my choice of no pesticides in garden,it isnt because Im a greenie,its because stuff will grow at home and nature will balance it out to a large extent.And no risks of is a pesticide good or not.It just isnt there,so I know Im good to go on the issue.

The philosophy of one for pests,one for mother nature,one for me,I can live with that,I usually get far more for me,though we have had spectacular failures too getting started.The year of 2 tomatoes comes to mind.LOL,the 86 dollar tomato!

If it was survival garden,the Sevin powder would have been deployed.Without any remorse.Yep,I actually have the stuff.

Im more of a modern Amish if that makes any sense at all.

BPA can seep into food or beverages from containers that are made with BPA. Exposure to BPA is a concern because of the possible health effects on the brain and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. It can also affect children's behavior. Additional research suggests a possible link between BPA and increased blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said that if the BPA in food packaging is at minimal level, it is safe at the very low levels that occur in some foods. This assessment is based on the review of hundreds of studies. The FDA continues to monitor the research.

If you're concerned about BPA, you can take steps to reduce your exposure:

Use BPA-free products. Manufacturers are creating more and more BPA-free products. Look for products labeled as BPA-free. If a product isn't labeled, keep in mind that some, but not all, plastics marked with recycle code 3 or 7 may contain BPA.
Avoid heat. Don't put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, because the heat may break them down over time and allow BPA to leach into foods.
Cut back on cans. Reduce your use of canned foods.
Use alternatives. Use glass, porcelain or stainless-steel containers for hot foods and liquids instead of plastic containers

In addition to this, the US body in charge of Food and Drug said if the BPA in food packaging is at minimal level, it is safe at the very low levels that occur in some foods. This assessment is based on the review of hundreds of studies. The FDA continues to monitor the research.