[VICAR OF DIBLEY]

Hi Gracie,

As the scientist conduct more test they are finding more things that cause Autism.

They are also reporting that older theories are no longer true.

I sometimes feel I read to much, get disheartened, and more concerned for what we as educated adults are doing to our planet and the children who are on this planet.

I do not understand how the heads of business can sleep knowing they are doing things that will hurt others in the long run.

The last thought I wrote because of the tobacco industry. They knew it would hurt people, yet they found more and more ways of making cigarettes addictive.

Many of us know, or are related to people who died of lung cancer due to smoking.

How many companies do you think are "honest" in letting the consumer know about the "whole" truth of all their research. Look at what was just approved to protect Monsanto.

From what I understand Monsanto hired someone to decide if a report about their company can be printed or not.

[graciegirl]

I do not think that all heads of big business are corrupt, nor do I feel we can lay all of the blame of the world at their feet.

Many bad things are caused by people who do not make ethical choices no matter what position they hold.

Can you link me to the articles you have read that say food is a causative issue in autism and debunks the old eggs theory? I am really getting behind and someone is going to soon say I have old thinking.

[VICAR OF DIBLEY]

You are correct about certain companies being ethical.

I had just read another article and heard a piece on what the additives in our food are potentially doing to us. The latter one was targeted for foods that are advertised for young children.

Thanks for pointing this out to me, when I read all of these articles I forget about the companies that are honest. I have read to much in the last week or so, learning more about Monsanto, Bayer, and other similar companies I feel disheartened.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by VICAR OF DIBLEY

You are correct about certain companies being ethical.

I had just read another article and heard a piece on what the additives in our food are potentially doing to us. The latter one was targeted for foods that are advertised for young children.

Thanks for pointing this out to me, when I read all of these articles I forget about the companies that are honest. I have read to much in the last week or so, learning more about Monsanto, Bayer, and other similar companies I feel disheartened.

While I understand being concerned about all environmental effects on our lives, including food and diet,I think that there is a lot of self-serving intent by special interests in many of the diet related health claims in the literature. Let us not forget that while our ancestors ate all natural diets, their life expectancy was decades lower than ours today. Now, I realize their are many medical and environmental advances that contribute to the increased longevity, but additives and diet don't seem to be lowering the overall life expectancy. A lot of the concern these days, in my opinion, is the overwhelming amount of information available, both legitimate and non-legitimate.

[VICAR OF DIBLEY]

Hi,

When you can please watch this. I found it quite informative. A Mother looking at the food she is serving her children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixy...XdahZmiZgz2ETh

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

While I understand being concerned about all environmental effects on our lives, including food and diet,I think that there is a lot of self-serving intent by special interests in many of the diet related health claims in the literature. Let us not forget that while our ancestors ate all natural diets, their life expectancy was decades lower than ours today. Now, I realize their are many medical and environmental advances that contribute to the increased longevity, but additives and diet don't seem to be lowering the overall life expectancy. A lot of the concern these days, in my opinion, is the overwhelming amount of information available, both legitimate and non-legitimate.

Let me think: Who would more likely be guilty of "self-serving intent by special interests"? The owners/operators of the small organic farm in Pedro, or a company like Monsanto? I think that the answer is so obvious that it's a no-brainer! As far as Monsanto is concerned, perhaps the chickens are finally coming home to roost....

Can we consider the possibility that "additives and diet" may not appear "to be lowering the overall life expectancy," but they may have a part in preventing yet greater life expectancy. I emphasize "may" because I am just speculating; I don't believe that this can be documented.

[jpharmat]

Be aware and read your food labels. If it has more than 5 ingredients think twice before you put it in our body.

[JP]

I think there are more cases of autism, etc being diagnosed because people are more aware of it and seek these diagnosis's because there are monies available for "special education" and special treatment. I don't think you can prove there are more cases of autism when you are comparing to our past society where everyone new 'Jimmy' was a little 'off' but did nothing about it. It's a societal trend that everyone is a victim.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by JP

I think there are more cases of autism, etc being diagnosed because people are more aware of it and seek these diagnosis's because there are monies available for "special education" and special treatment. I don't think you can prove there are more cases of autism when you are comparing to our past society where everyone new 'Jimmy' was a little 'off' but did nothing about it. It's a societal trend that everyone is a victim.

First, I agree that there are more cases diagnosed today, but the reason is probably better diagnostic measures and heightened awareness. To say that it is because there are monies available, and everyone is a victim, is cynical at best, and bigoted at worst IMHO. Perhaps I misunderstood your implication, and if so, I apologize.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Can we consider the possibility that "additives and diet" may not appear "to be lowering the overall life expectancy," but they may have a part in preventing yet greater life expectancy. I emphasize "may" because I am just speculating; I don't believe that this can be documented.

I think it can be documented if you look at large population studies like the one in Okinawa or Adventists in the U.S.. In places where they live healtier lifestyles, they have more centenarians and more supercentenarians per 100,000 population. Also, in addition to having a greater life expectancy, they have a greater health expectancy.

This is anecdotal but many times I have seen people fulfill the average life expectancy of 78 years but they had a poor quality of life during the last 5 to 10 years. This is largely because of medications with side effects and miscellaneous technological interventions. So it's not just legnth of life that is important but quality of life too.

At one of the USF health lectures we were told that the average 65 year old takes at least one medication per day. The average 75 year old takes 3 to 4 medications per day and 5 or more is not uncommon. This does not represent a good quality of life.

[rubicon]

It would seem that if processed foods containing nitrites and msg are bad for you the federal government needs to demand a warning label placed on every package as they demand with cigarettes.

Comparing previous generations gets tricky because standard of living changes, lifestyle, population growth advances in medical and RX technology age at which we marry, sanitation, etc .

Citing say Adventist diet as the cause of longevity ignores perhaps other important lifestyle attributes. In fact it would seem that diet alone is not enough. A person's desire for a healthy lifestyle include balanced diet, exercise, laughter his/her desire /determination to live a long life all factor in with the main and over-riding factor in my mind being genetics.

On a simple scale a dermatologist will tell you that those little tag, etc gaining ground on your aging skin were genetically engineered at birth to appear now.

While people can and should not caution to the wind our morbidity /mortality is primarily determined because of the limits of nature

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by rubicon

While people can and should not caution to the wind our morbidity /mortality is primarily determined because of the limits of nature

The limit, so far, is set at 122 by Jeanne Calment.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I think it can be documented if you look at large population studies like the one in Okinawa or Adventists in the U.S.. In places where they live healtier lifestyles, they have more centenarians and more supercentenarians per 100,000 population. Also, in addition to having a greater life expectancy, they have a greater health expectancy.

This is anecdotal but many times I have seen people fulfill the average life expectancy of 78 years but they had a poor quality of life during the last 5 to 10 years. This is largely because of medications with side effects and miscellaneous technological interventions. So it's not just legnth of life that is important but quality of life too.

At one of the USF health lectures we were told that the average 65 year old takes at least one medication per day. The average 75 year old takes 3 or more medications per day and 5 or more is not uncommon. This does not represent a good quality of life.

Why not. Some people take medicine to remain healthy.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

.... So it's not just legnth of life that is important but quality of life too....

This is a crucially important point; thank you!

Originally Posted by rubicon

It would seem that if processed foods containing nitrites and msg are bad for you the federal government needs to demand a warning label placed on every package as they demand with cigarettes....

This is a great suggestion! However, (1) how many years/decades did it take the federal government to mandate a warning label on cigarettes; and (2) what can we expect from a federal government that quietly passes a protection for Monsanto law—rather than a protection from Monsanto law?...

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

.... At one of the USF health lectures we were told that the average 65 year old takes at least one medication per day. The average 75 year old takes 3 or more medications per day and 5 or more is not uncommon. This does not represent a good quality of life.

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Why not. Some people take medicine to remain healthy.

It would seem to me that graciegirl's question should best be directed to the medical expert at USF who delivered the health lecture. Villages PL, did the expert elaborate on this point?