Are the British white the weakest male race?

[Tattieboy]

3 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

Oh so it's all in the mind. Gotcha!

Everything is in the mind after you educate yourself about it 

[Franco Vazquez]

Still no one's getting to the main point that many young generation white British guys are effeminate 

[Stradlater]

45 minutes ago, Franco Vazquez said:

Still no one's getting to the main point that many young generation white British guys are effeminate 

I learnt a new word today.

[Tattieboy]

1 hour ago, Franco Vazquez said:

Still no one's getting to the main point that many young generation white British guys are effeminate 

Do you have gone from white British guys to young generation British guys .

Can I ask what your experience of these effeminate young British guys is ?

[Alam_dar]

It is due to Modern Diet 

 

Younger generations of Englanders is perhaps taking the most unhealthy diet in Europe. 

 

Bread:

English people are using industrial bread today which all have "Chemicals" to preserve it for long period of time.

This is the basic difference between English and for example the Indians/Pakistanis living in England. 

Indians/Pakistanis children are getting fresh made Roti at home which is free of any chemicals. 

 

Bread is a basic food. The chemicals are working as slow poison and thus one does not feel it.  

 

Chemicals in Sausages:

Today English children are eating sausages which are full of chemicals, which are causing a lot of cancers. 

It was not the case in the history of England, where fresh meat was used and even the sausages were chemicals free. 

 

Again Indian/Pakistanis are getting mostly fresh meat as mothers in homes cook fresh meats almost daily. 

 

Gene manipulated vegetables and usage of chemicals:

 

Pasteurized Milk and pasteurized Cheese:

Till the begin of 20th century, English people were using raw milk and raw milk cheese/butter, which was very healthy. 

In my experience, pasteurized cheese/milk are in fact dangerous for health. 

 

 

As compared to English people, other countries in the Europe are eating little more of the traditional diet, although there too children are getting fat and all the diseases which are found in English children. 

 

In London people have no time to cook. They have the worst eating habits, and people are drinking too much in the pubs as compared to other European countries. 

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It is due to Modern Diet 

 

Younger generations of Englanders is perhaps taking the most unhealthy diet in Europe. 

 

Bread:

English people are using industrial bread today which all have "Chemicals" to preserve it for long period of time.

This is the basic difference between English and for example the Indians/Pakistanis living in England. 

Indians/Pakistanis children are getting fresh made Roti at home which is free of any chemicals. 

 

Bread is a basic food. The chemicals are working as slow poison and thus one does not feel it.  

prove to us, that these preservative 'chemicals' are poisonous to humans. 

Quote

 

Chemicals in Sausages:

Today English children are eating sausages which are full of chemicals, which are causing a lot of cancers. 

It was not the case in the history of England, where fresh meat was used and even the sausages were chemicals free. 

Of all the brits i used to know in school (and there were many), hardly 1 or 2 ate sausages more than once a week. If you are going to bring your religious beliefs on diet again, i'd require you to make it less propagandistic. Something people eat 1/5th of the days for 1/3rd of their meals per day (only breakfast most of the time), for it to be a decisive health issue, descisive evidence needs to be presented. 

 

Quote

Again Indian/Pakistanis are getting mostly fresh meat as mothers in homes cook fresh meats almost daily. 

Your average Brit kid is in far better nutritional quality than the average Indian or Pakistani kid. 

 

Quote

Gene manipulated vegetables and usage of chemicals:

Ok. now i know for a fact that you are a religious nutter regarding fad diets and dietary ideas. There is nothing non-nutritious or harmful about gene manipulated veggies. 

 

Quote

Pasteurized Milk and pasteurized Cheese:

Till the begin of 20th century, English people were using raw milk and raw milk cheese/butter, which was very healthy. 

In my experience, pasteurized cheese/milk are in fact dangerous for health. 

.I have already proven, with scholarly scientific peer reviewed article, that shows pasteurized milk is better for health an safety of people. I can quote that research again. 

 

I can again quote evidence that shows English kids today have better nutrition than English kids 100 years ago. 

Quote

 

As compared to English people, other countries in the Europe are eating little more of the traditional diet, although there too children are getting fat and all the diseases which are found in English children. 

 

In London people have no time to cook. They have the worst eating habits, and people are drinking too much in the pubs as compared to other European countries. 

Yes, the English do drink a lot, but that itself can be mitigated. The Finns drink even more than the Brits and they are in much better health overall. 

[riya]

12 hours ago, beetle said:

Again.....what has being gay got to do with masculinity.

Gays can be as strong and masculine as anyone else .

U know what those stereotypes we saw in movies.....thats how these opinions are formed....

[Alam_dar]

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

prove to us, that these preservative 'chemicals' are poisonous to humans. 

Here it is in this study:

http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0415/ijsrp-p4014.pdf

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Of all the brits i used to know in school (and there were many), hardly 1 or 2 ate sausages more than once a week. If you are going to bring your religious beliefs on diet again, i'd require you to make it less propagandistic. Something people eat 1/5th of the days for 1/3rd of their meals per day (only breakfast most of the time), for it to be a decisive health issue, descisive evidence needs to be presented. 

Just two sausages per week may raise breast cancer risk

Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO ...

WHO cancer report: Bacon, sausages and other processed meats ...

 

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Your average Brit kid is in far better nutritional quality than the average Indian or Pakistani kid. 

May be in comparison to Indian/Pakistani kids, where other factors could be involved. May be use of lot spices and over cooking the food, less healthy activities etc. 

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Ok. now i know for a fact that you are a religious nutter regarding fad diets and dietary ideas. There is nothing non-nutritious or harmful about gene manipulated veggies. 

There are already some doubts about it:

//

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/

The biggest threat caused by GM foods is that they can have harmful effects on the human body. It is believed that consumption of these genetically engineered foods can cause the development of diseases which are immune to antibiotics. 

//

Some times gene manipulation is used to grow the vegetables in soil which is not suitable. Some time it is used to make bigger size vegetables/fruits in short times. It is believed that such type of gene manipulation is producing sub-level products while vegetables/fruits need lot of sun energy and also good soil to produce healthy vegetables/fruits. 

 

 

Use of Antibiotics and Growth Hormones in the Modern diet:

 

Another dangerous trend in the modern diet is the use of growth hormones and the use of antibiotics in the meat. 

One should thus avoid the industrial poultry chickens and industrial beef too. 

Organic Beef/Chicken is much safer in this regard. 

 

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

.I have already proven, with scholarly scientific peer reviewed article, that shows pasteurized milk is better for health an safety of people. I can quote that research again. 

I respectfully disagree with you. 

Pasteurized milk is only slightly safer while sanitization regulations by the Government has made the consumption of raw milk safter too, and thus governments have allowed the purchase of raw milk from the government certified farms. 

While when it comes to health benefits, then pasteurized milk is inferior and lacks omega-3 fatty acids and thus causing the allergies and asthmas in the children. 

 

 

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I can again quote evidence that shows English kids today have better nutrition than English kids 100 years ago. 

May be.

But in the end British children today are super fat as compared to the kids 100 years ago. 

 

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, the English do drink a lot, but that itself can be mitigated. The Finns drink even more than the Brits and they are in much better health overall. 

It may be Finns have become healthy due to other factors despite drinking, but for sure excessive drinking is one of the reason for poor health in England. 

[Muloghonto]

38 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Here it is in this study:

http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0415/ijsrp-p4014.pdf

This is not a study. This is simply a claim. Saying it raises risk of cancer is irrelevant. Inhaling smoke from a volcano increases risk of cancer.

Not all food preservatives have sulphites in them either. Plenty of sausage ingredient lists do not have sulphites. So your claim is unsupported. 

 

Quote

Just two sausages per week may raise breast cancer risk

Ok. but it is irrelevant to your initial claim, as the claim is about processed meat, not modern preservative techniques. English people ate way more preserved meat, aka sausage,ham,etc. 100 years ago than they do today. 

 

Quote

May be in comparison to Indian/Pakistani kids, where other factors could be involved. May be use of lot spices and over cooking the food, less healthy activities etc. 

False. Spices enhance the food's nutritional quality, not decreasing it. The reason is because of a better diet. 

Quote

There are already some doubts about it:

//

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/

The biggest threat caused by GM foods is that they can have harmful effects on the human body. It is believed that consumption of these genetically engineered foods can cause the development of diseases which are immune to antibiotics. 

 

Sure. Immunity to antibiotics is a topic that needs research. it however, has ZERO link to nutritional quality or safety of eating said food product. 

A GMO apple is just as nutritious and healthy as a non-GMO apple.

And in cases, such as golden rice, GMO food is superior to non GMO food. 

 

Not to mention, this is a very old study in the GMO food field. (already six years old, which in GMO terms is ancient). 

While consumption of GMO foods that are modified for pesticide resistance can have consequences towards acceleration of diseases that are immune to antibiotics, that factor is not present at all in GMO foods that are GMO to enhance nutritional value only, such as golden rice.

 

The acid test of whether you are a religious nutter over GMO or an actual educated person, is golden rice: a rice strain,specifically developed by charities with no other gene modification, except inclusion of protein in the rice, to give protein to the world's poor who can only consume rice and not much sources of protein due to economic reasons. 
 

Opposition of these type of gene modifications are not only inhumane, they are also idiotic to the core. 

Quote

 

 

//

Some times gene manipulation is used to grow the vegetables in soil which is not suitable. Some time it is used to make bigger size vegetables/fruits in short times. It is believed that such type of gene manipulation is producing sub-level products while vegetables/fruits need lot of sun energy and also good soil to produce healthy vegetables/fruits. 

 

I dont care about unsubstantiated hocus pocus belief. Present to us chemical composition analysis. We dont have time for your belief systems with zero evidence. 

Quote

 

I respectfully disagree with you. 

Pasteurized milk is only slightly safer while sanitization regulations by the Government has made the consumption of raw milk safter too, and thus governments have allowed the purchase of raw milk from the government certified farms. 

While when it comes to health benefits, then pasteurized milk is inferior and lacks omega-3 fatty acids and thus causing the allergies and asthmas in the children. 

Your disagreement means nothing to us. I have already demonstrated, word for word, from expert peer reviewed sources, that prove that raw milk and raw cheese are more harmful to humanity than pasteurized milk. Your disagreement is just your religious mentality taking over.You did not prove your sanitization claim like i asked you to. Yet you keep repeating it like a religion and pollute other threads with your nonsense. 

I also proved that pasteurized milk eliminated zoonotic diseases like tuberculosis being passed through milk. 

Your opinion is immaterial in front of expert testimonial presented.

 

As for 'government' - dont make blanked claims about governments. I too live in a western socialist nation that is the envy of the world and with one of the highest HDIs in the world and my government SPECIFICALLY warns about the negative effects and discourages consumption of raw milk and milk products.

 

I have also pointed out (and you ran away) that your conclusion of 'slightly unsafe' is itself not supported by the article. The article mentions that raw milk's rate of disease causing is minimized, because raw milk consumed in the study is consumed ONLY in personal home capacity. It does not account for any commercial milk product these people are also eating. Ie, anytime they buy a salad with cheese on it, pizza, coffee, etc. they are NOT consuming raw milk as per the study, but pasteurized milk. So as a % of milk consumption, even the raw milk consumers in the study are seen to consume only a small portion of their milk products raw. 

 

Quote

 

 

May be.

But in the end British children today are super fat as compared to the kids 100 years ago. 

 

More nutrition + more sedentary activity = being fat. Duh. Kids 100 years ago didnt spend as much time sitting on their butt studying, watching tv and playing video games. 

 

Quote

It may be Finns have become healthy due to other factors despite drinking, but for sure excessive drinking is one of the reason for poor health in England. 

they are a lot more active. British climate makes being active a chore. I know,because i lived there for a little bit and the doom and gloom + rain and cold makes staying indoors a lot easier in the winter. Compared to Ontario, where its -30 but sunny and bright, it atleast makes you wanna layer up and go outside.

 

 

EDIT: In any case, i'd ask you not to keep polluting other threads about your raw milk propaganda. You already created a thread on it, kindly keep your nonsense there, instead of being a religious fanatic who spreads his religious mumbo-jumbo on each and every opportunity. 

Edited May 20, 2018 by Muloghonto

[panther]

Easy way to check if you were exposed to more testostorone when  you were in your mother's womb is if your ring finger is longer than your index finger.

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

This is not a study. This is simply a claim. Saying it raises risk of cancer is irrelevant. Inhaling smoke from a volcano increases risk of cancer.

Not all food preservatives have sulphites in them either. Plenty of sausage ingredient lists do not have sulphites. So your claim is unsupported. 

Off course it is a study, and there are plenty of them which are warning against these preservatives. 

//

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200397/

Food additives, especially preservatives and artificial colours as well as suboptimal intake of essential nutrients, have been linked to hyperactive behaviours and poor attention in a subgroup of children. 

//

 

//

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170809155736.htm

How food preservatives may disrupt human hormones and promote obesity

//

 

//

https://www.nature.com/news/food-preservatives-linked-to-obesity-and-gut-disease-1.16984

Food preservatives linked to obesity and gut disease

//

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Ok. but it is irrelevant to your initial claim, as the claim is about processed meat, not modern preservative techniques. English people ate way more preserved meat, aka sausage,ham,etc. 100 years ago than they do today. 

I am afraid that it is not irrelevant. 

//

Just two sausages per week may raise breast cancer risk

... Processed meats are those that have been modified to enhance their flavor or lengthen their shelf life. Sausages, bacon, hot dogs, and salami are just some examples of processed meats.

//

 

This enhancing of flavour is done by chemical additives, while lengthening of shelf life is done by chemical preservatives. 

 

This makes present day sausages much much dangerous as compared to the sausages which were made 100 years ago while they had no chemical preservatives. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

False. Spices enhance the food's nutritional quality, not decreasing it. The reason is because of a better diet. 

Today all the spices are irradiated, and I have my concerns about irradiation. 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2b72/76fbad6acabe8178391dd74323be96aa7b24.pdf

Health concerns regarding consumption of irradiated food

 

It may be that English children are using more salads and greens and have more physical activities than Indian/Pakistanis. 

 

Whatever may be the reason, but one thing is sure that chemical free freshly made Roti is much more healthier than the bread with preservatives. 

 

If English people leave these chemicals in the bread, and consume more freshly made breads without preservatives, then it will make them only more healthy than now. 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Your disagreement means nothing to us. I have already demonstrated, word for word, from expert peer reviewed sources, that prove that raw milk and raw cheese are more harmful to humanity than pasteurized milk. Your disagreement is just your religious mentality taking over.You did not prove your sanitization claim like i asked you to. Yet you keep repeating it like a religion and pollute other threads with your nonsense. 

It's ok if it is your opinion.

While my opinion is this that you greatly exaggerated the dangers, which were found false in the light of modern science. Thus governments allowed the sale of raw milk. 

And science also proved that raw milk is superior in health benefits as compared to the pasteurized milk. 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

More nutrition + more sedentary activity = being fat. Duh. Kids 100 years ago didnt spend as much time sitting on their butt studying, watching tv and playing video games. 

It is true that kid are playing video games today. But it is not the only issue, but also the diet is a factors as has been shown above that additives and preservatives are among one of the reasons for obesity.  

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

they are a lot more active. British climate makes being active a chore. I know,because i lived there for a little bit and the doom and gloom + rain and cold makes staying indoors a lot easier in the winter. Compared to Ontario, where its -30 but sunny and bright, it atleast makes you wanna layer up and go outside.

True. The weather of England indeed is a factor which is playing a role in it. 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

EDIT: In any case, i'd ask you not to keep polluting other threads about your raw milk propaganda. You already created a thread on it, kindly keep your nonsense there, instead of being a religious fanatic who spreads his religious mumbo-jumbo on each and every opportunity. 

This is my opinion regarding bad health of English children today, and I am fully allowed to express my opinion. While you have all the right to deny it in every thread if you wish. 

[kosingh]

This is one bizarre thread. 

[Muloghonto]

57 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Off course it is a study, and there are plenty of them which are warning against these preservatives. 

//

It is not a study. Its a claim. A study without its data, is not a study. As i said, don't talk any random internet article with me. 

Quote

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200397/

Food additives, especially preservatives and artificial colours as well as suboptimal intake of essential nutrients, have been linked to hyperactive behaviours and poor attention in a subgroup of children. 

//

Does not state the rate or prevalence of the link. 

 

Quote

 

//

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170809155736.htm

How food preservatives may disrupt human hormones and promote obesity

 

'May' is not a fact. Its a speculation. Definitive proof is lacking. 

Quote

 

 

I am afraid that it is not irrelevant. 

//

 

This enhancing of flavour is done by chemical additives, while lengthening of shelf life is done by chemical preservatives. 

 

This makes present day sausages much much dangerous as compared to the sausages which were made 100 years ago while they had no chemical preservatives. 

 

Completely irrelevant, because as i said, there are plenty of sausages that do not include said food preservatives/additives and follow traditional manufacturing process. 

Quote

Today all the spices are irradiated, and I have my concerns about irradiation. 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2b72/76fbad6acabe8178391dd74323be96aa7b24.pdf

False . Not all spices are irradiated. As per your 'religious concern', we have already seen how baseless your religious nonsense regarding nutrition is. 

Quote

Health concerns regarding consumption of irradiated food

 

It may be that English children are using more salads and greens and have more physical activities than Indian/Pakistanis. 

Or it may have nothing to do with food itself. You are simply speculating due to your religious tilt on food. What is a fact is English nutrition today is superior to 100 years ago. Ergo, superior diet cannot be blamed for inferior health. 

 

Quote

Whatever may be the reason, but one thing is sure that chemical free freshly made Roti is much more healthier than the bread with preservatives. 

 

If English people leave these chemicals in the bread, and consume more freshly made breads without preservatives, then it will make them only more healthy than now. 

You still have not demonstrated how the obseisty rate is not affected by the far more sendentary lifestyle now than 100 years ago. 

 

Quote

It's ok if it is your opinion.

Its not my opinion, its the opinion of experts and i have quoted them directly. 

Quote

While my opinion is this that you greatly exaggerated the dangers, which were found false in the light of modern science. Thus governments allowed the sale of raw milk. 

You are lying again. No such danger was found false in the light of modern science. I have presented modern scientists themselves saying raw milk is more dangerous than pasteurized milk.  This is why you keep running away from the evidence i presented that unpasteurized milk used to cause TB transmission to humans and it has been completely irradicated through pasteurization.

 

There are many advanced governments, like mine, in public healthcare societies, that recommend not using raw milk and milk products. So dont make blanket statements about governments. 

Governments have legalized drugs and if you are allowed to put cigarettes into your body, ofcourse they will allow you to put unsafe food into your body as a right as well. This is why responsible governments like mine allow it but also advice against it. 

 

Quote

And science also proved that raw milk is superior in health benefits as compared to the pasteurized milk. 

False. Science proves that raw milk is inferior, due to its risk of contracting disease. 

Quote

It is true that kid are playing video games today. But it is not the only issue, but also the diet is a factors as has been shown above that additives and preservatives are among one of the reasons for obesity.  

You have shown zero link between dietary additives in sausages and obsesity. 

Quote

True. The weather of England indeed is a factor which is playing a role in it. 

This is my opinion regarding bad health of English children today, and I am fully allowed to express my opinion. While you have all the right to deny it in every thread if you wish. 

Your opinion is as valid as a religious opinion, since i've already proven your opinion false. Hence you ran away from that thread but choose to propagate your irresponsible, dangerous, fad-food religion on others. 

 

I am simply asking you to voice your opinion on the thread dedicated to it,not pollute every thread with your religious zealotry like religious zealots of conventional religions you hate so much. Otehrwise it just makes you a hypocrite. 

 

 

PS: Where is your acknowledgement regarding golden rice ? Did your BS religion of fad-diet get in the way of facts again ??

 

Edited May 20, 2018 by Muloghonto

[MechEng]

6 hours ago, kosingh said:

This is one bizarre thread. 

It  has become a food science thread courtesy gentlemen @Alam_dar and @Muloghonto. 

[Muloghonto]

49 minutes ago, MechEng said:

It  has become a food science thread courtesy gentlemen @Alam_dar and @Muloghonto. 

more like food science vs food religion. 

 

apparently the fool i am arguing about, knows even less biology than me (which is only high school level tbh) and thinks we should eat meat & animal products raw, because some BS about more 'nutrients preserved that way'. Nevermind the fact that we are not meant to eat raw food, did not evolve to eat raw food ( all human habitation sites from more than 10,000 years show evidence of cooked meats), that raw food is crawling with pathogens and is dangerous for us. And even a few people eating raw foods (because of this raw food religious fad) in their own time has lead to hospitalizations from potentially deadly disease. 

 

[Alam_dar]

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

It is not a study. Its a claim. A study without its data, is not a study. As i said, don't talk any random internet article with me. 

References were given in the study. This study was made by a PHD holder doctor, and was published in the Science Journal. 

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Does not state the rate or prevalence of the link. 

It does not change the fact that preservatives are dangerous according to this study. 

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

'May' is not a fact. Its a speculation. Definitive proof is lacking. 

"May" is enough to avoid the preservatives in the industrial breads and food items available today.

 

//https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14232

Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome

//

 

//

https://www.nature.com/news/food-preservatives-linked-to-obesity-and-gut-disease-1.16984

Food preservatives linked to obesity and gut disease

//

 

 

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Completely irrelevant, because as i said, there are plenty of sausages that do not include said food preservatives/additives and follow traditional manufacturing process. 

I am afraid it is completely relevant as there are hardly any sausage in the market which is free of these chemical conservatives today. 

In fact, even the Traditional sausages also used heavy nitrites and curing salts, which is harmful to health. 

Therefore, the use of sausages (traditional or non-traditional with chemical preservatives), is harmful and should be avoided. 

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

False . Not all spices are irradiated. As per your 'religious concern', we have already seen how baseless your religious nonsense regarding nutrition is. 

It seems that lot of spices are being irradiated today. 

// https://www.eurofins.in/food-and-agriculture/food-irradiation-testing/

Worldwide about 250,000 tons of food and dietary supplements are irradiated annually, the major part of which are spices. The amount and number of foods to be irradiated is increasing steadily. A study in the UK showed that 42% of all dietary food supplements have been irradiated.//

 

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Or it may have nothing to do with food itself. You are simply speculating due to your religious tilt on food. What is a fact is English nutrition today is superior to 100 years ago. Ergo, superior diet cannot be blamed for inferior health. 

Superior Diet today?

A Diet full of growth hormones and antibiotics? (You neglected it). 

Industrial farmed Chickens are getting non natural diets today. 

Industrial feed of cows contain bone meals, which is causing mad-cow disease. 

Moreover, cows are given grains and fattening feed so that they could gain a lot of weight in short period, which is producing lot of diseases in cows and producing bad quality meat. 

 

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You still have not demonstrated how the obseisty rate is not affected by the far more sendentary lifestyle now than 100 years ago. 

I said off course life style today is a cause of obesity today. But also the "DIET" today of Englanders is responsible for this with preservatives in their food and also their habit of eating of fast foods today. 

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Its not my opinion, its the opinion of experts and i have quoted them directly. 

You are lying again. No such danger was found false in the light of modern science. I have presented modern scientists themselves saying raw milk is more dangerous than pasteurized milk.  This is why you keep running away from the evidence i presented that unpasteurized milk used to cause TB transmission to humans and it has been completely irradicated through pasteurization.

There are many advanced governments, like mine, in public healthcare societies, that recommend not using raw milk and milk products. So dont make blanket statements about governments. 

Governments have legalized drugs and if you are allowed to put cigarettes into your body, ofcourse they will allow you to put unsafe food into your body as a right as well. This is why responsible governments like mine allow it but also advice against it. 

Cigarettes are killing hundred and thousands of people every year. 

While there is not a single death reported due to the consumption of raw milk in the population of 10 million who consume raw milk.

It would be extremely foolish to compare the cigarettes with raw milk. 

Raw milk with sanitization precautions is safe enough to consume, as has been proved by the scientific facts and thus many leading nations as Germany, US, UK, Holland have now allowed the sale of raw milk in the open markets, and whole of Europe is full of raw milk cheese and raw milk butter which are even more safe. 

 

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

False. Science proves that raw milk is inferior, due to its risk of contracting disease. 

False. Science proves dangers from the raw milk from properly sanitized farm is "insignificant". 

While raw milk is superior in health benefits due to it's omega-3, while pasteurized milk is producing allergies and asthma. 

More severe problem is this that this disease is hereditary and being passed to the children from the parents. 

 

And it is not only omega-3, but also vitamin D is less in pasteurized milk. Also pasteurization is killing the good Bacteria, which are essential for our gut health (link). 

 

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You have shown zero link between dietary additives in sausages and obsesity. 

I already mentioned the study. 

//

https://www.nature.com/news/food-preservatives-linked-to-obesity-and-gut-disease-1.16984

Food preservatives linked to obesity and gut disease

//

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

PS: Where is your acknowledgement regarding golden rice ? Did your BS religion of fad-diet get in the way of facts again ??

If all the necessary research has been done that golden rice is safe, then I have no problems with it. 

 

Nevertheless, it seems that golden rice only has one benefit i.e. more vitamin A. But it seems that much better options is available to get vitamin A then farming golden rice, which has it's potential dangers too. 

 

http://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/Global/international/publications/agriculture/2013/458 - Golden Illusion-GE-goldenrice.pdf

 

 

[Alam_dar]

2 hours ago, MechEng said:

It  has become a food science thread courtesy gentlemen @Alam_dar and @Muloghonto. 

I am sorry for the inconvenience bro. 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

14 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

References were given in the study. This study was made by a PHD holder doctor, and was published in the Science Journal. 

It does not change the fact that preservatives are dangerous according to this study. 

too much water is also dangerous. Unless data-set is provided, its a nothing-study. Provide data-sets to your claims like i did. 

And as i said, sulphites (the specific preservative named in your study) is not found in most sausages. So either withdraw 'additives in sausages' comment or admit that the Brits ate more sausages 100 years ago than now, made the same way. 

Quote

"May" is enough to avoid the preservatives in the industrial breads and food items available today.

Sorry but no. May is just speculation. I can also say 'eating may cause death'. It has same value. 

Quote

 

//https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14232

Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome

//

 

//

https://www.nature.com/news/food-preservatives-linked-to-obesity-and-gut-disease-1.16984

Food preservatives linked to obesity and gut disease

//

 

Nature.com is not a scientific article. Neither is your other propaganda piece. 

Quote

 

I am afraid it is completely relevant as there are hardly any sausage in the market which is free of these chemical conservatives today. 

False. Show me a sausage ingredient list that has sulphites in it. 

Quote

In fact, even the Traditional sausages also used heavy nitrites and curing salts, which is harmful to health. 

Therefore, the use of sausages (traditional or non-traditional with chemical preservatives), is harmful and should be avoided. 

So then the decline of the health of British population cannot be blamed on sausages if traditional sausages have the same stuff in it, the brits were eating it more 100 years ago than now and were fitter. 

Quote

It seems that lot of spices are being irradiated today. 

// https://www.eurofins.in/food-and-agriculture/food-irradiation-testing/

Worldwide about 250,000 tons of food and dietary supplements are irradiated annually, the major part of which are spices. The amount and number of foods to be irradiated is increasing steadily. A study in the UK showed that 42% of all dietary food supplements have been irradiated.//

Yes, but the study you cited about harmful effects of irradiated food is 15 years old. Show us current stuff. I can show you current stuff that shows irradiated food is safe. 

 

Quote

Superior Diet today?

Yep. More nutritious diet. 

Quote

A Diet full of growth hormones and antibiotics? (You neglected it). 

Doesnt matter. They are eating more chicken today than before. Kids are no longer malnourished like before. 

Quote

Industrial farmed Chickens are getting non natural diets today. 

Industrial feed of cows contain bone meals, which is causing mad-cow disease. 

Bone meals involving bovine products have been banned since the 90s MCD outbreak. 

Quote

Moreover, cows are given grains and fattening feed so that they could gain a lot of weight in short period, which is producing lot of diseases in cows and producing bad quality meat. 

 

I said off course life style today is a cause of obesity today. But also the "DIET" today of Englanders is responsible for this with preservatives in their food and also their habit of eating of fast foods today. 

Fast foods sure. Preservatives being a cause is completely invented by you. Show us link where preservative has been linked with obseity and give us the prevalence rate. 

Quote

Cigarettes are killing hundred and thousands of people every year. 

While there is not a single death reported due to the consumption of raw milk in the population of 10 million who consume raw milk.

There would be deaths without modern medicine. E-coli, lysteria, etc. kills without modern medicine. Just because we have modern medicine doesnt mean you get to spread nonsense propaganda about dangerous food and waste taxpayer money over treatment. 

Quote

It would be extremely foolish to compare the cigarettes with raw milk. 

Nope. Raw milk is dangerous. Already proven by most recent article of scientists. Already provided and you ran away from it, trying to put your own spin on it. 

Quote

Raw milk with sanitization precautions is safe enough to consume,

False. Again you spread your religious propaganda.I have already provided scholarly evidence that raw milk related diseases are caused from farms already under compliance of sanitation protocol. 

 

Quote

as has been proved by the scientific facts and thus many leading nations as Germany, US, UK, Holland have now allowed the sale of raw milk in the open markets, and whole of Europe is full of raw milk cheese and raw milk butter which are even more safe. 

No such scientific proof has been presented. I have presented scientific proof that raw milk is dangerous. 

 

Quote

False. Science proves dangers from the raw milk from properly sanitized farm is "insignificant". 

Utter lies. I posted the article that specifically states that raw milk dangers exist despite farms following sanitation protocol. You ignored it in the other thread- should i post it again to expose your religious fanaticism over this fad-diet nonsense ?

Quote

While raw milk is superior in health benefits due to it's omega-3, while pasteurized milk is producing allergies and asthma. 

rather get omega-3 from other sources or not get it at all, than risk my kid getting TB from raw milk or e-coli, lysteria etc- all potentially deadly diseases, which come from farms selling raw milk in compliance with the sanitation protocol. 

Quote

More severe problem is this that this disease is hereditary and being passed to the children from the parents. 

The prevalence rate of asthma due to raw milk is minimal, so its not a big deal. 

Quote

And it is not only omega-3, but also vitamin D is less in pasteurized milk. Also pasteurization is killing the good Bacteria, which are essential for our gut health (link). 

Rather not have the good bacteria, than have children die from diseases or seek medical treatment due to foolish religious idiots like yourself making up nonsense claims. 

 

Quote

 

I already mentioned the study. 

//

https://www.nature.com/news/food-preservatives-linked-to-obesity-and-gut-disease-1.16984

Food preservatives linked to obesity and gut disease

//

Again, not a scholarly article. Just a random internet opinion piece. I'd have thought by now you would know what constitutes scientific pieces if you wish to engage me. 

Quote

If all the necessary research has been done that golden rice is safe, then I have no problems with it. 

 

Nevertheless, it seems that golden rice only has one benefit i.e. more vitamin A. But it seems that much better options is available to get vitamin A then farming golden rice, which has it's potential dangers too. 

 

http://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/Global/international/publications/agriculture/2013/458 - Golden Illusion-GE-goldenrice.pdf

 

 

Greenpeace is not an authority you should quote. I live in the city that founded greenpeace and we hate them for their duplicity.

Greenpeace is not a scientific source- so keep your propaganda against GMO to yourself, else show us scientific proof your GMO claims against golden rice. 

 

And no, those options are NOT available to the poor who suffer from Vitamin-A deficiency yet consume rice.

 

 

And more importantly, why are you rehashing your religious nonsense in a new thread ? there is already a thread dedicated by you towards spreading propaganda about dangerous foods, where i shut you down with scholarly articles and you ran away from there. So why not continue there ? You think a new thread means i can't quote sources from the previous thread ?!?

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

1. Evidence that raw milk used to cause zoonotic diseases (meaning diseases that we contract from coming into contact with raw animal products of animals that are natural carriers of these diseases symbiotic to their bodies) :

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/51/12/1418/316955

 

From the article : "In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds."

 

Alam Dar wants our kids to die from brucellosis or TB from drinking raw milk,like in the old days because 'its got more omega-3s'. 

 

2. Same paper cites evidence that despite proper sanitation processes undertaken, the raw milk still contains the said contagions:

 

"

 

"The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. ""

 

3. Evidence that consuming properly sanitized raw milk still causes these diseases:

 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/23/6/15-1603_article

 

 

Conclusion: Say no to fad diets about raw meat and raw milk. Our ancestors did not consume it ( no evidence outside of polar regions and a tiny % of outlier tribes like Masai for consumption of raw meat as the majority of meat consumption in the diet), medical experts warn against it and we should heed medical advice instead of playing nutritionists and gamble with our children's lives.

 

 

[Alam_dar]

38 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

too much water is also dangerous. Unless data-set is provided, its a nothing-study. Provide data-sets to your claims like i did. 

The above mentioned scientific study showed that already the amount of preservatives that is being consumed today is causing the problems and diseases. 

//

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200397/

Food additives, especially preservatives and artificial colours as well as suboptimal intake of essential nutrients, have been linked to hyperactive behaviours and poor attention in a subgroup of children. 

//

Another study suggests the amount of 2 sausages per week is dangerous. 

Just two sausages per week may raise breast cancer risk

While WHO suggests that more than 50 grams of sausage is dangerous and causes cancers. 

 

I have 100% correctly pointed out that British people and children are consuming sausages, which is the reason for poor health (irrespective of today or the earlier century) and thus it must be avoided. I don't know what is your problem with this simple fact, other that this that you are showing a  stubborn attitude, which is unfortunate. 

 

Actually, according to WHO usage of sausages is causing the deaths due to cancer and other health problems, which are at the level of cigarettes and alcohols. 

 

UN health body says bacon, sausages and ham among most carcinogenic substances along with cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos and arsenic

 

Not even the modern medication is able to stop these millions of deaths due to use of sausages or even the cooked red meat in general, while you are lamenting for raw milk which caused not a single death and only 22 hospitalization cases in a year, in a huge population of 10 million consumer of raw milk. 

 

38 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

And as i said, sulphites (the specific preservative named in your study) is not found in most sausages. So either withdraw 'additives in sausages' comment or admit that the Brits ate more sausages 100 years ago than now, made the same way. 

Unfortunately, you continue to show your biased attitude. 

It is not only the sulphites, but all the chemical preservatives and artificial flavouring are blamed for the cancer causing effects in the sausages. 

//

Just two sausages per week may raise breast cancer risk

... Processed meats are those that have been modified to enhance their flavor orlengthen their shelf life. Sausages, bacon, hot dogs, and salami are just some examples of processed meats.

//

 

You should ponder upon it: "What makes sausages (processed meat) different than normal meat?" 

It is nothing else than these preservatives and artificial flavouring which is making them a processed harmful meat. 

 

The health risk of bacon is largely to do with two food additives: potassium nitrate (also known as saltpetre) and sodium nitrite. It is these that give salamis, bacons and cooked hams their alluring pink colour (link).

 

In earlier centuries, sausages and other such things were made using heavy normal salt (although Saltpetre – sometimes called sal prunella – has been used in some recipes for salted meats since ancient times). But in the early 20th century, the meat industry found that the production of cured meats could be streamlined by adding sodium nitrite to the pork in pure form. In trade journals of the 1960s, the firms who sold nitrite powders to ham-makers spoke quite openly about how the main advantage was to increase profit margins by speeding up production (link).

 

Traditional Raw processed Meats are free of cancer diseases

 

Compared to the modern processed meats, the traditional raw processed meats were free of such cancer diseases. 

 

For example, JERKY and Pemmican (which are totally raw meats and only processed through sun drying) were used by the Native Indians since centuries, without any kind of health issues (actually they have many health benefits).  

 

Biltong is another kind of dried meat without cooking it. Similarly, fish has also be preserved by usage of salt and drying (without cooking). 

 

All these traditional foods are much much better than the today's sausages/hams/salami ... but still there are people who claim that modern Diet with sausages is more nutritional and better. 

 

38 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Sorry but no. May is just speculation. I can also say 'eating may cause death'. It has same . 

Read WHO report about the deaths and rate of cancer due to the usage of sausages. 

If you still don't agree and want to consume sausages, then it is your own fate. 

 

38 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Nature.com is not a scientific article. 

It is plain stupidity. 

It is not the Nature, but it is the Universities who made this research and the following experts took part in it:

//

1. Center for Inflammation, Immunity and Infection, Institute for Biomedical Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, USA

   • Benoit Chassaing
   •  & Andrew T. Gewirtz

2. Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University, Safed, 13115, Israel

   • Omry Koren

3. Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

   • Julia K. Goodrich
   • , Angela C. Poole
   •  & Ruth E. Ley

4. Digestive Diseases Division, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA

   • Shanthi Srinivasan

 

 

Contributions

B.C. and A.T.G. conceived the project, designed the experiments, interpreted the results, and wrote the manuscript. B.C. performed all experiments and analysis with advice and guidance from O.K., J.K.G., and A.C.P. S.S. and R.E.L. guided experimental design and data interpretation.

//

 

Thus this study (link) was submitted and approved by ENA. 

 

38 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

So then the decline of the health of British population cannot be blamed on sausages if traditional sausages have the same stuff in it, the brits were eating it more 100 years ago than now and were fitter. 

Sausages with chemical preservatives were dangerous in the beginning of 20th century, and they are dangerous even today and perhaps consumed in bigger quantity today than before.

 

Their consumptions should be stopped, simple is that. 

38 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, but the study you cited about harmful effects of irradiated food is 15 years old. Show us current stuff. I can show you current stuff that shows irradiated food is safe. 

15 years has not changed the facts that has been stated in the study. You have to present a latest study which address the previous study and claims it to be false. 

 

38 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yep. More nutritious diet. 

Doesnt matter. They are eating more chicken today than before. Kids are no longer malnourished like before. 

This is a study which shows American Men born to the mothers, who used more Beef with hormones and antibiotics were less fertile. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17392290

Semen quality of fertile US males in relation to their mothers' beef consumption during pregnancy

 

And this is a study which shows that pesticides are having bad effects on the semen quality too. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16466525

Semen quality in fertile US men in relation to geographical area and pesticide exposure

 

 

38 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Again, not a scholarly article. Just a random internet opinion piece. I'd have thought by now you would know what constitutes scientific pieces if you wish to engage me. 

It is a scholarly article by Benoit Chassaing of Georgia State University and has been hosted here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323195891_Impact_of_food_additives_on_the_gut-brain_axis

 

I don't have full access to it. But the conclusion of his research is given here:

// https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076906-surge-in-obesity-and-diabetes-could-be-linked-to-food-additives/

 Benoit Chassaing of Georgia State University showed that mice that drank water containing one of two emulsifiers underwent changes in gut bacteria and inflammation of the gut – changes that led to obesity and diabetes in these animals.//

 

38 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Greenpeace is not an authority you should quote. I live in the city that founded greenpeace and we hate them for their duplicity.

Greenpeace is not a scientific source- so keep your propaganda against GMO to yourself, else show us scientific proof your GMO claims against golden rice. 

It is enough to read the article at Greenpeace.