Grenville Phillips Speaks: Difficult Conversations – Eating Meating

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean is predicting a 40% unemployment rate in Barbados in December 2020. To survive, many may need to learn how to make money stretch.

Every evening, I eat a delightfully healthy, nutritious, and well satisfying meal with my family. I cook this meal myself, and each forkful brings me immense pleasure. At the end of the meal, my taste-buds were well-activated and my belly is full.

While some fine dining (big-plate small-food) restaurants may charge me over $100 per meal to artificially activate my taste-buds, my home-dinner normally costs $1.20 per plate, and does the same thing naturally. Yes, one dollar and twenty cents. Let me show you how.

First, I stopped eating the corpses of dead animals few years ago; neither fish, fowl, nor beast of the field. This saves me about $75 each month per plate. If four persons in a household eat meat, then that costs about $300 per month per plate on meat alone. I get my proteins from lentil peas. The ingredients follow.

INGREASEMENTS.
I buy one bag of Camellia lentil peas for $4.62 including VAT. The ‘local’ brands, which are a lot cheaper, simply package imported peas, but do not state the source. That is against the laws of Barbados. I complained to the authorities, but no one seems to care.

I buy a 2-lb bag of Uncle Ben’s whole grain (brown) rice for $12.39. Again, the ‘local’ brands are a lot cheaper, but I do not support lawbreakers. Is the source country using child, enslaved, or prison labour? I care about such matters.
I buy a can of non-genetically modified (Non GMO) corn for $3.50. I can purchase genetically modified corn for less, but I care about what I eat. I buy Premium Bajan Seasoning with no Monosodium glutamate (MSG) for $4.99. If I can find Went Work’s seasoning, I but that instead. I also buy ginger ($0.85), garlic ($0.39), two medium sized onions ($0.96), and four large carrots ($3.85).

THE RECEPIE.
So, here is the recipe, which takes less than 30 minutes to prepare. I pour the bag of lentils and half of the bag of rice in a container, and rinse them. Then I put the rinsed contents in a large pot, with the same volume of water.
While the peas and rice are soaking, I cut up the two onions (in fine pieces), one-third of the ginger (large so they can be removed later), and two cloves of garlic (fine), and add them to the pot. I also put in a tablespoon of the seasoning, a teaspoon of sea-salt, and a sprinkle of ground cayenne pepper.

I then turn on the heat to high, and stir the mixture until all of the ingredients are mixed. Once the water starts boiling, I turn it to low, cover the pot while leaving a small gap, and let it simmer for 15 minutes (I use a timer).
While it is simmering, I cut up two large carrots (1/2 lb), and rinse the carrots and the can of corn. After 15 minutes of simmering, a little water should be in the bottom of the pot. I mix in the carrots and the corn and let it simmer for two minutes before turning off the heat. What is not eaten is portioned in containers and frozen for later use.

THE COST.
The cost of the high-priced ingredients used in the pot was $18. The pot holds 15 plates of food. Therefore, each plate costs $1.20. If I bought the cheapest rice, peas, corn, and seasoning, then each plate would cost about $0.85.
I can enhance each plate with one third of a chopped apple, so that each fork-full has a piece. That brings the total cost to $1.40 (or $1.05 using the cheaper foods). So, what do I do with the savings I make for eating in this manner? I buy meats for my family.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Grenville Phillips II is a Chartered Structural Engineer. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com

69 comments

  • Cook-up rice is very, very nice.

    A good old Bajan stew-food is excellent too, just eat whatever is in the ground or the market that day. All local,
    green banana, tomatoes, onions, breadfruit, yam, cassava, sweet potato, carrots, okras, spinach, pigeon peas,increase peas [those are real real easy to grow] if you spill some anywhere outdoors by accident next thing you know you have peas ready to eat. cook it all up in the same pot, put the ingredients which require more heat at the bottom, and and layer the other as you come to the top. Throw in whatever herbs you have on hand. If you don’t grow your own you should start doing so. Right now right outside of my kitchen door, I have in pots and in the soil, garlic chives,sweet basil and marjoram and parsley. Maybe put in a few Barbados corn dumplings on top.

    And when you are tired of stew food the exact same ingredients work for a wonderful soup.

    If you are not vegan you sac slip i a little meat. One chicken should serve 8 to 10 people, none of this business of serving half a chicken per person

    This works. My mother cooked by looking first to see “what’s in the ground” then she started cooking. Raised nearly a dozen children that way. All of us have so far made it past 60, and a few past 80.

    Yesterday I had some bonivist [whenlast did anybody else have bonavist?] and rice. Today it will be a nice soup using the ingredients above.

    Eat sweet, eat cheap.

    Like

  • Forgive the typos please.

    Like

  • Oh Jesus Christ!
    Why don’t you stick to engineering or politics.
    What you called taste buds cannot be artificially or naturally stimulated. They recognize no differences.
    And the kinds of edible substances you are suggesting – peas, beans, grains – have long been associated with the major diseases afflicting the population. Should you not in your usual fashion calculate ALL the costs including hospital cost, time off work, pain and suffering etc in the total cost of this poison you are recommending entirely based on an initial down payment.
    Could not continuing reading this piece toooooooo painful.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Pacha

    You are a vegan not do?

    Like

  • Hopeful politician and “civil engineer” should stick ro what he knows best and leave the cooking and food prep to his knowledgeable in house CHEF the wife.

    Like

  • re And the kinds of edible substances you are suggesting – peas, beans, grains – have long been associated with the major diseases afflicting the population.
    PLEASE KINDLY INDICATE THE MAJOR DISEASES CAUSED BY peas, beans & grains

    Like

  • The basic thing one learns in academia is to understand a question before attempting an answer.

    And if a claim was made that one variable has an association with another it would be imprecise to talk about causation.

    It may seem to be a distinction without a difference to the man in the street peddling junk science from the bible but for some of us there remain worlds apart.

    David, they are bare miseducated cunts here.

    Like

  • I ASK AGAIN VERY POLITELY……PLEASE KINDLY INDICATE THE MAJOR DISEASES CAUSED BY peas, beans & grains

    Like

  • Pach:

    Your tastebuds can be artificially activated with high-salt, high-sugar, and high-fat highly processed (unnatural) foods. Some of those foods are intentionally designed to be addictive.

    Your tastebuds are naturally activated with natural/whole foods.

    Like

  • PLEASE KINDLY EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “ARTIFICIAL ” ACTIVATION OF TASTEBUDS & “NATURAL” ACTIVATION OF TASTEBUDS

    Like

  • @GP

    Why not just say it, that both have posted foolishness…LOL

    Liked by 1 person

  • DAVID
    PLEASE KINDLY NOTE THAT I AM TRYING HARD TO BEHAVE, SIR.
    I WILL SAY,HOWEVER, THAT YOU SEEM TO HAVE A GRASP OF THE RELEVANT PHYSIOLOGY & NUTRITION. LOL

    Like

  • GP:

    For the article, I defined artificial activation as being activated with high-salt, high-sugar, and high-fat in highly processed unnaturally occurring foods. Some of those foods are intentionally designed to be addictive – like ‘potato’ chips.

    I also defined natural activation as being activated with natural whole foods, without the high additions of salt, fat and/or sugar.

    If David thinks that those definitions are foolish, he may – in a democratic country, he has the right to disagree. In a mature space, we should do so respectfully – without trying to damage each others’ personal or professional reputations.

    Like

  • @ nextparty246December 23, 2020 11:55 AM
    “If David thinks that those definitions are foolish, he may – in a democratic country, he has the right to disagree. In a mature space, we should do so respectfully – without trying to damage each others’ personal or professional reputations.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Well said! At least you are performing more effectively in the role of Food (kitchen) police than that of the Bedroom spy.

    Would you therefore support a proposal to the government to impose a special tax (let’s style it as a ‘FAT TAX’ for simplicity) on ‘large’ fast food outlets like Chefette, KFC and Burger King?

    Wouldn’t that be killing two fat birds with one trim taxation stone?

    There will no need for any additional tax collecting regime since it can use the existing VAT framework to impose and collect the ‘Hefty’ tax.

    The climate is ripe to sell such a tax since the government must find alternative sources of revenue to deal with the country’s public health challenges due to Covid-19 (and possibly 20) and the fast growing pressures being placed on the QEH and other public health institutions as a direct result of the alarming increases in NCD’s.

    Now there is some thing you can run with to help raise your non-political humanitarian stakes.

    Like

  • Oh dear! What then am I to eat? No peas, beans, grain, meat, fish, poultry, dairy?

    I am at a loss as to how I can stimulate my taste buds and my “smell buds”!

    What are health foods exactly?

    As far as I know, we all will detereorate and eventually die no matter what we eat.

    I have noticed that everything in life has its
    I eat everything in moderation as many centenarians advise. No real health problems so far.

    Like

  • Correction – its pros and cons

    Like

  • PLEASE KINDLY NOTE THAT THEIR IS NO SUCH THING AS “ARTIFICIAL ” ACTIVATION OF TASTEBUDS & “NATURAL” ACTIVATION OF TASTEBUDS.

    WE LEARN IN ALL THE MAJOR PHYSIOLOGY TEXTS THAT WE HAVE ABOUT FIVE BASIC TASTE BUDS FOR SWEET, SOUR ETC

    PLEASE KINDLY NOTE THAT INDIVIDUALS RESPOND TO THE BASIC FIVE MODALITIES DIFFERENTLY ACCORDING TO GENETICS. THIS AS BEEN DOCUMENTED ON BU ALREADY.

    PLEASE KINDLY POINT TO THE LITTERATURE THAT INDICATES AN “ARTIFICIAL ” ACTIVATION OF TASTEBUDS & A “NATURAL” ACTIVATION OF TASTEBUDS.

    CLEARLY IN ALL ETHNIC GROUPS THERE IS FOOD THAT ONE IS “ADDICTED” TO CULTURALLY

    ONLY A MORON WILL INTRODUCE A FAT TAX ON ANY FOOD CHAIN.

    AFTER ALL ONE MAY GET FAT BY IMBIBITION OF ALCOHOL, CARBS, PROTEINS OR FATS, SINCE ALL OF THESE SUBTANCES ARE METABOLISED TO ACETYL CO ENZYME A,

    PEOPLE ON BU SHOULD DO PROPER RESEARCH AND SEEK TO SPEAK ABOUT WHAT THEY KNOW WELL, AND SEEK TO BE ACCURATE AT ALL TIMES

    Like

  • @GP

    We have had this debate many times in this forum. Some are asking that fast food issue public disclosures to apprise the public of food content. Do you endorse such a request?

    Like

  • @ GP December 23, 2020 1:30 PM
    “ONLY A MORON WILL INTRODUCE A FAT TAX ON ANY FOOD CHAIN.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Are you saying that your dearly beloved government was MORONIC in imposing a SWEET Drink Tax on sodas and other sugary beverages sold to school children?

    Don’t cigarettes and alcohol attract a range of specific taxes called SIN TAXES?

    BTW, only a “MORON’ would continue to back a blasted lying racist jackass called Trump the Loser.

    Like

  • There is nothing wrong with fast food outlets issuing public disclosures to apprise the public of food content. But then what? You can read such labels for years and be no wiser. Proper teaching and learning must be done.

    Example: In a Biochemistry lecture about ten years ago, a med student (who had been a nurse) informed the class of an experience she had in which one of her alcoholic patients collapsed, after being taken of alcohol, suddenly. She asked for an explanation. Research revealed that alcohol is metabolized to acetylCoA. This was the source of his energy needs, and his cholesterol needs for conversion to CoQ, sex, salt and other steroid hormones. It explains why some alcoholics are fat.

    Like

  • Based on your posit public disclosure of food content is a good start to the process of achieving relevant public education.

    Like

  • I spent six years learning medicine and doing internship. I then practiced for about 20 years and learned some things from certain experiences. But I have learned the most in the last 18 years teaching, because I wont go before bright youngsters who are tracking you online as you speak, unprepared.
    There is a lot of talk in Bim about NCD’S, but there is little teaching. Attempts to do so on BU, has been futile especially when you had to delal with jackasses like the celebrated Bushtea, Miller and those of their ilk, who curse and criticize before they think…and in their inorance.

    Fast food chains are fairly recent to Barbados.
    In a place like USA it is the norm, and quite convenient, and there is a wide variety of places that one can go.

    Sweet drink taxes and fat taxes are not the answer if there is not CONCOMITANT PROPER PUBLIC TEACHING IN MY OPINION, WHICH MUST BEGIN IN PRIMARY SCHOOL BOTH .

    As children, we drank sweet drinks and swank in season, but most of the acetylCoA thus derived went to produce the energy we needed via the Kreb’s cycle, because we were very active. …….or more active than contemporary youth.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Nothing wrong with a fast food outlet that served green banana, , breadfruit, yam, cassava, sweet potato, carrots, okras, cabbage and other vegetables well seasoned with local herbs
    ALL THESE ARE COMPLEX CARBS and MUCH BETTER THAN POTATOES FRIED IN OIL,

    Like

  • @GP

    Your point about relevant education, types and content of foods, how it interacts with our individual bodies is understood. The process of educating people does not end event when the ignorant walk among us.

    Like

  • @ GP December 23, 2020 2:30 PM
    “Sweet drink taxes and fat taxes are not the answer if there is not CONCOMITANT PROPER PUBLIC TEACHING IN MY OPINION, WHICH MUST BEGIN IN PRIMARY SCHOOL BOTH .”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    You might just be right.

    Taxes really change human behaviours. Just look and see that people are still drinking and smoking.

    Not even prostitution can be stopped by imposing taxes on the johns and hookers.

    So too does the banning of any substance or (“immoral” activity) prevent abuse.

    What specific taxation on those products does is to (or ought to) help fund the cost of treatment of illnesses arising from the abuse of those substances including junk foods.

    It’s called front loading the cost of future health care; and even the cost of ‘educating’ the public including those lessons beginning in primary schools.

    Like

  • ONE MUST READ WITH THE UNDERSTANDING
    AS A BIOCHEMIST AND LECTURER IN NUTRITION I DONT LET ANY ONE DUMMY TELL ME RUBBISH
    ONE MUST ALWAYS STICK TO THE BASICS.
    THE STUDY OF NUTRITION IS BASED IN BIOCHEMISTRY AS ITS FOUNDATION

    DOES COMPONENTS OF FOOD INTERACT UNFAVOURABLY WITH ANY OF THE MAJOR METABOLIC PATHWAYS?
    I GONE

    Like

  • How many hours of nutrition does a medical student have to undergo? In the UK is is eight hours in six years.

    Like

  • How much hours of Biochemistry does a medical student have to undergo in the UK?

    After all, Biochemistry is the foundation of the relatively new Basic Science called Nutrition.
    The more pertinent question is whether one can apply this information, just as one needs to do in applying the other Basic Sciences.

    In fact, Biochemistry is to be found in all contemporary Basic Science texts. After all, Biochemistry is life, and life is Biochemistry.

    Like

  • I do not know anything any biochemistry. What I do know is that the eight hours of nutrition and nothing at all about alternative medicines was mentioned in the media recently by medical schools..

    Like

  • re I do not know any biochemistry I AM WILLING TO TEACH YOU ONLINE SIR lol
    Some alternative medicines (pharmaceuticals) are to be found in the current USMLE objectives. Can’t say for UWI, but I proposed having a course at BCC in 1998.

    Like

  • A very generous offer, but I have no interest medicine or science apart from as a curiosity. In my youth, I had two close friends who were doctors and even then I had no interest in medicine, apart from being a patient.
    It was then that I discovered the high rate of suicide among medical students and doctors in the UK.

    Like

  • Boy have times changed it wasn’t all that long ago all you Caribs were strictly meat eaters, I guess chowing down on some bad Arawak dick could turn you vegetarian. Neeps and tatties have been the scottish go to meal for eons and the only down side is that your legs look like one bite of a donut. I think you have to vary it up, a diet of monkey arse may seem appealing but as GP says you have to mix in the legumes .

    Like

  • David

    Left an explanation for you, above

    Like

  • @Hal Austin December 23, 2020 5:10 PM “It was then that I discovered the high rate of suicide among medical students and doctors in the UK.”

    I am curious. Is the high rate of suicide related to them being medical students/doctors or to their residence in the UK?

    Like

  • Here is this years Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols from Mona.
    I was priviliged to participate in 1974, when it was more traditional.

    Like

  • @Pacha

    The video you posted -does it not corroborate what GP is saying? The glutens affect people based on genetics. One cannot support wholesale positions as posited by Grenville and yours truly.

    Like

  • Those points are given. But primarily it associated grains with the production of inflammation and the diseases so spawned.
    David

    Like

  • @Pacha

    Yes but the substantive point stands, individual bodies handle intake differently.

    Like

  • Yes, but human genetics are the the only variables cited. We could have affects from pesticides, GMOs etc causing inflammation as well.

    Like

  • one must always read with the understanding
    what is “inflammation”?
    list the diseases spawned by “inflammation”
    what is “disease” essentially?

    Like

  • Not the only variables cited

    Like

  • @ GP December 23, 2020 3:49 PM
    “After all, Biochemistry is the foundation of the relatively new Basic Science called Nutrition.
    The more pertinent question is whether one can apply this information, just as one needs to do in applying the other Basic Sciences.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    It’s truly puzzling how a man who claims to be a guru in biochemistry and, possibly, a student of other life sciences which are all based on the theory of Evolution can be at the same time so schizophrenically paranoid when it comes matters of science vs. religion or magic.

    You just cannot ‘literally blindly’ believe in the Six days Adam & Eve creation Jewish fairy tale and still preach the ‘truth’ about chemistry, biology and genetics on the BU knowledge pulpit.

    Like

  • re other life sciences which are all based on the theory of Evolution
    rubbish!
    please kindly inform us how life sciences are all based on the theory of Evolution

    re schizophrenically paranoid when it comes matters of science vs. religion or magic.
    not interested in religion or magic— I am an ardent Bible student

    please kindly note that belief believe in the Six days creation and about Adam & Eve IS A MATTER FAITH
    Hebrews 11:6 TEACHES CLEARLY without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
    AND R OMANS 10:17 TEACHES THAT faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

    Like

  • Brexit: Boris Johnson hails free trade deal with EU

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55435930

    Like

  • @ GP December 24, 2020 1:43 PM
    “not interested in religion or magic— I am an ardent Bible student..”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    You are also an ardent Trump supporter who is still under the delusion that your idol won the elections fair and square and will continue to the POTUS after January 20th 2021 A.D.

    If you are such an ardent Bible student why don’t you go back to SUNDAY school and explain to us Bible illiterates how Noah and his family (all from one closely knit race of people) were able to turn into Africans, Europeans, East Indians, Chinese, ‘West Indians’, Arawaks, Caribs and Eskimos in less than 10,000 years.

    Was that racial diversity the direct result of incest or Noah’s descendants having sex with other primates or through evolution starting with Adam made from the dust of the ground?

    Like

  • The Miller

    You seek to draw the student out of him depth.

    We bet that his response will rest in a faith only a fool could muster.

    Like

  • @Pacha

    Why should a man be labeled a fool for his faith?

    Like

  • David

    Because the questions asked by The Miller cannot to answered by that faith.

    Like

  • @ Pachamama December 24, 2020 5:31 PM

    Isn’t that what ‘education’ supposed to stand for? To lead forth or to ‘draw out’ from a state of ignorance?

    Maybe the same baby student needs to be baptised at the temple of Thoth before his deprogramming can take place.

    Like

  • Since much of the packaged and canned foodstuffs, snacks etc. in our grocery stores comes from the US of A this is relevant to Bajans.

    <strong<FDA Ignores Law When Approving Chemical Food Additives, Putting Kids at Risk
    Investigation reveals FDA’s failure to account for the cumulative effect of chemicals on public health, particularly for communities already facing significant health and socio-economic disparities and for children who are uniquely susceptible to dietary exposures from multiple chemicals.

    By Environmental Health News

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) failure on food chemical safety has left consumers at risk of chronic diseases.

    The agency is required to review the safety of classes of chemicals rather than individual chemicals. Using the class approach, multiple chemicals adversely affecting the same organ or system (such as the immune, endocrine, or nervous systems) are evaluated together and a safe consumption level is determined for the class.

    This approach prevents the intentional new or expanded uses of chemical additives that increase chronic disease and, when coupled with a systematic review of prior decisions, results in health risk reduction. Instead, the agency has consistently reviewed individual chemicals without regard to the cumulative effect on chronic disease.

    In the last 60 years, innovations in processing, preserving, and packaging have made food more affordable, convenient, and available. To accomplish this transformation, industry, with the FDA’s approval, has brought thousands of chemicals into the food system, resulting in diets increasingly composed of ultra-processed foods without regard for the cumulative effect of these additives and their long-term chronic health consequences.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-ignores-law-chemical-food-additives-kids-at-risk/

    Like

  • Pesticide mixtures harm health even when each pesticide is present at “safe” levels
    New study challenges regulatory assumptions and practices.
    Report by Claire Robinson

    Mixtures of pesticide residues commonly found in foods in the EU can have adverse effects on health even when each individual pesticide is present at a level considered safe by regulators, a new study shows.

    The study also found that the use of molecular analytical techniques known as “omics” can reveal adverse effects on health that are missed by the standard toxicological measures used to support regulatory authorisations of pesticides.

    Study aim
    The study is the first to directly compare in-depth profiling of an organism’s molecular components using “omics” analytical techniques with the standard toxicological measures that regulators rely upon to assess the health risks of pesticides.

    The researchers set out to see if omics would reveal signs of ill health in rats fed a mixture of pesticides over the relatively short-term period of 90 days. The mix was made up of six pesticide active ingredients, which are among the most frequently detected at the highest levels in foods in the EU – azoxystrobin, boscalid, chlorpyrifos, glyphosate, imidacloprid and thiabendazole.

    A mixture was tested because this reflects real-world conditions, where we are exposed to cocktails of pesticides. Each individual pesticide was present at the EU acceptable daily intake (ADI) level, meaning the level that is deemed by regulators to be safe to consume on a daily basis.

    https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/19547-pesticide-mixtures-harm-health-even-when-each-pesticide-is-present-at-safe-levels

    Like

  • GP:

    As explained, I used the term artificially activated to mean activated by unnaturally occurring food. Things like MSG, and high-fat, high-sugar, and/or high salt highly processed food – which are not naturally occurring foods.

    Like

  • sir
    Please kindly note that the taste buds for the five modalities will respond whether the food is naturally occurring or synthetic
    if the food is sweet whether high or low -sugar, the taste buds for sweet will respond
    If the food is acidic the taste buds for acid will respond
    That is how the taste buds were designed, and that is how they function
    re MSG Note that glutamate (the amino acid glutamic acid) loses its amino group and is oxidized to alpha-ketoglutarate.in the krebs cycle. Note that CITRATE FUMARATE SUCCINATE AND OTHER krebs cycle. INTERMEDIATES ARE USED AS PRESERVATIVES .NOW THESE SUBSTANCES ARE ALL NATURALLY OCCURING IN THE BODY……………BUT HOW SAFE ARE THEY IN THE CONCENTRAIONS USED AS PRESERVATIVES .
    Note that glutamate IS ALSO A NEURO TRANSMITTER

    Like

  • Permit us to make a sincere appeal to all BU humanoids who, and almost all, would be gorging with the flesh of our best friends at this time.

    Those friends must include Ms Piggie the pig, Chickie the Fowl, Danger the Dog and Turkey Lurkey. All the rest of the creations of The Ahten.

    The crew will be fast to remind us that they don’t eat Doggie the Bow Wow. However, a pig is twice as intelligent as a dog. And if the Chinese eat our friend Mr Bow Wow why can’t you? LOL

    Like

  • GP
    Why not just give up. For it is impossible to convince Grenville of a factoid even a neophyte to this area well knows and drew to his attention even before you did.

    The real and underlying problem is how people who might have voted for him would be able to get the representation they need once he were in a relative power position, given his proclivities. That personality profile is vastly more bothersome.

    Grenville, there is nothing wrong with saying you made a mistake.

    Like

  • GP:

    That is understood. Tastebuds are activated in the same manner, whether from naturally occurring foods or synthetic foods. Using a car analogy, a car’s engine will turn over whether you turn the ignition key or your relative turns the key.

    I never claimed that the method of activation was different (the engine will turn in the same manner). I was trying to note that the source of food was different (the person sitting in the driver’s seat and turning the key to ‘activate’ the engine was different).

    I do not use any: artificial sweeteners, artificial flavourings, artificial enhancers, artificial preservatives, etc etc to activate/stimulate/cause a reaction in, my tastebuds. That was the point – which I hope is sufficiently clear. If not, then let us have another go.

    Let me commend you for your restraint and respectful conversation. It was a pleasure.

    Merry Christmas to you and yours.

    Grenville.

    Like

  • @ Pachamama w.r.t videos -“why grains bad for you”.
    Beware of lying fork tongue albinos. These lying albinos always contradicting themselves, see article below.

    Eating more whole grains linked with lower mortality rates :Eating more whole grains may reduce the risk of premature death, according to a new meta-analysis by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

    These liars told farmers that pesticides j & herbicides like Paraquat ( Gramoxone) & Roundup were safe knowing full well that they were extremely toxic . Bayer got their scientists & falsify the data & see article below.
    Roundup Maker to Pay $10 Billion to Settle Cancer Suits:
    Bayer faced tens of thousands of claims linking the weedkiller to cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, The New York Times.

    Lawyers for Roundup cancer claimants in the past have alleged that Bayer manipulated scientific studies and deceived the scientific community, claims Bayer denies, Reuters , Jun 2020.
    Roundup Trial: Monsanto Used Fake Data to Win Over Regulators-
    The company planted one of its employees at a contract lab called Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT) in the 1970s to fake negative mouse carcinogenicity data for Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate that were to be used to win regulatory approval for the weed killer in 1975; planned an attack to discredit the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research agency, anticipating the agency would classify glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015; and exploited “deep connections” within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to classify glyphosate as non-carcinogenic.

    These liars also told women that infant formula is better than breast milk , see article below.

    US ‘threatened Ecuador with trade sanctions’ if it introduced UN breastfeeding resolution:

    The US had supposedly asked for language asking governments to “protect, promote, and support breastfeeding” to be removed. The resolution ultimately passed but not before world health officials were shocked at the behaviour of the US delegation at the May UN World Health Assembly in Geneva, the New York Times reported….

    The US also reportedly threatened to cut its contributions to the World Health Organisation – the US contributes almost 15 per cent of the agency’s budget or $845m last year – if the resolution was introduced and passed. In light of the threat on Ecuador, other poorer countries in Latin America and Africa refused to introduce the resolution out of fear of American retaliation which left Russia to push it through.

    Like

  • Sorry , for errors above, should read.

    These liars told farmers that pesticides & herbicides like Paraquat ( Gramoxone) & Roundup …

    Bayer got their scientists to falsify the data ..

    Like

  • Rock33
    Yes. We’re well aware of these food politics, crimes of big agro-industrial and bio-tech interests. Thanks

    Like

  • @ Pachamama.
    Dr Peter Osbourne is just another lying albinos.
    Health experts around the world, including the American Heart Association,
    Harvard School of Public Health, and the USDA, agree that whole grains are
    a central component of healthy diets. Eating whole grains gives your body extra vitamins, minerals, fiber, and other disease-fighting nutrients. Adding whole grains to your diet can significantly lower your risk of chronic diseases
    and conditions such as heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes.

    Remember Bob Marley’s Zion Train:
    Two thousand years of history (history)
    Could not be wiped away so easily
    Two thousand years of history (Black history)
    Could not be wiped so easily (could not be wiped so easily).

    “Harvesting of wild grains may have begun more than 100,000 years ago.
    Humans may have been baking bread 105,000 years ago, says a researcher who has discovered evidence of ground seeds from sorghum grass on stone tools in a Mozambique cave…”
    Nature News, Dec 2009.

    Nestlé Scientist’s False Claims Exposed

    In the late 1980s, Nestlé sensationally launched an infant formula that the company claimed could reduce infants’ risk of developing allergies. As previously reported on the INFACT Canada website, Dr. Ranjit Chandra, who was paid to conduct the studies to justify Nestlé’s claims about Good Start, has had much of his work come under intense scrutiny for academic fraud and at least one of his studies has been completely discredited and retracted by the periodical that initially published it, the British Medical Journal. According to a three-part documentary aired on CBC’s the National, it now appears much of Dr. Chandra’s research may have been fraudulently produced. Evidently, the Nestlé Good Start infant formula study was never even conducted and the raw data Chandra cited could not have actually been collected.

    Dr. Chandra’s research has been used by Nestlé for years to create a market for its product and convince both the public and the health care sector of its formula’s supposedly hypoallergenic properties. Advertising materials and glossy product monographs quoting Dr. Chandra’s falsified research have been sent to mothers and health workers around the world and as a consequence, unknown numbers of babies over the past decade and a half have been unnecessarily exposed to the risks of artificial feeding, which include increased incidence of asthma, diabetes, childhood cancers, and mortality.

    According to UNICEF:

    “Formula feeding is expensive and carries risks of additional illness and death, particularly where the levels of infectious disease are high and where preparation and storage of these substitutes is not carried out properly. Many studies indicate that a non-breastfed child living in disease-ridden and unhygienic conditions is between six and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhoea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia than breastfed infants. A recent study of postneonatal mortality in the United States found a 25% increase in mortality when infants were not breastfed…

    Since 1981, the World Health Organization has recognized the damaging effects on infant health and mortality caused by the inappropriate and unethical marketing of infant formulas. The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (1981) and subsequent Resolutions of the World Health Assembly on infant and young child nutrition restrict the marketing of infant formulas to ensure that the health and lives of infants and young children are protected from the needless use of these products.

    Although the International Code was passed 25 years ago, Nestlé has systematically violated it with astonishing proficiency. Despite WHA resolutions restricting the marketing of infant formula, the company aggressively advertises to parents, not only through regular promotions but by infiltrating the health system with free samples of its products and giving inducements to health workers. The company refuses to restrain its marketing in all but the most superficial ways. Regular independent monitoring has shown that Nestlé is the single largest and most prolific violator of the International Code and the WHO Resolutions which strengthen and clarify it.

    An important tenet of the International Code was created in 2005 precisely to prevent scenarios like the Dr. Chandra scandal. World Health Assembly resolution, WHA 58.32, urges Member States:

    “(4) to ensure that financial support and other incentives for programmes and health professionals working in infant and young-child health do not create conflicts of interests;

    (5) to ensure that research on infant and young-child feeding, which may form the basis for public policies, always contains a declaration relating to conflicts of interest and is subject to independent peer review.”

    Although Nestlé has always been negligent in adhering to the International Code, these tenets should prove hard for the company to ignore in light of the Chandra studies.

    The potential for bias – present in all research – is clearly increased when research is commissioned and funded by a party which is active in the market. In this case, Nestlé’s funding evidently created a conflict of interest for Dr. Chandra and compromised his studies to the extent that it enticed him to commit gross academic fraud. Such dishonesty will always be a possibility as long as companies like Nestlé violate the International Code and give scientists incentives to come up with research which will be favourable to their marketing interests. In corporate-sponsored studies sizeable sums are exchanged and huge profits are at stake. With both the scientists and the companies concerned so deeply with money, who is looking out for the health of the public?

    Like

  • Many of the scientists in the western world , especially America are mealy mouth liars , once the price is right they will manipulate the data/ create bogus studies. Many of them are like Donald Trump, see article below.
    Albino scientists often make statements & then later contradict themselves, see article below.

    Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.

    Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills.

    But on Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. 
    New York Times, SEP 2019.

    These scientists discredited the IARC ,WHO & Many of the scientists in the western world , especially America are mealy mouth liars , once the price is right they will manipulate the data/ create bogus studies. Many of them are like Donald Trump, see article below.
    Albino scientists always make statement then later on walk back & contradict themselves, see article below.

    Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.

    Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills.

    But on Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. 
    New York Times, SEP 2019.

    These scientists discredited the IARC ,WHO & European Journal on Cancer Prevention (EJCP) reports.

    Red meat is classified Group 2A , possible carcinogen in humans.

    Processed meat has been classified as IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to human.

    Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also in (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans.

    Red meat refers to all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.

    EJCP:
    Our results suggest that high intakes of heme and iron from meat may be important dietary risk factors for esophageal and stomach cancer .reports.

    Red meat classified as IARC Group 2A , possible carcinogen in humans.

    Processed meat has been classified as IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to human.

    Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also in (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans.

    Red meat refers to all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.

    :Many of the scientists in the western world , especially America are mealy mouth liars , once the price is right they will manipulate the data/ create bogus studies. Many of them are like Donald Trump, see article below.
    Albino scientists always make statement then later on walk back & contradict themselves, see article below.

    Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.

    Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills.

    But on Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. 
    New York Times, SEP 2019.

    These scientists discredited the IARC ,WHO & European Journal on Cancer Prevention reports.

    Red meat is classified Group 2A , possible carcinogen in humans.

    Processed meat has been classified as IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to human.

    Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also in (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans.

    Red meat refers to all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.

    European Journal on Cancer Prevention:
    “Our results suggest that high intakes of heme and iron from meat may be important dietary risk factors for esophageal and stomach cancer ….
    Heme iron has cytotoxic and hyperproliferative effects in the rat colon..
    Heme iron also increases endogenous formation of NOC( N-nitroso compounds) which cause esophageal and stomach tumors in several animal species…”

    Like

  • Sorry for all the errors/ confusion, having computer troubles, see corrected version below.

    Many of the scientists in the western world , especially those in America are paid to manipulate /falsify scientific reports. Most of them are just like Donald Trump, see article below.

    Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.

    Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills.

    But on Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. 
    New York Times, SEP 2019.

    These scientists discredited the IARC ,WHO & European Journal on Cancer Prevention reports.

    Red meat is classified Group 2A , possible carcinogen in humans.

    Processed meat has been classified as IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to human.

    Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also in (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans.

    Red meat refers to all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.

    European Journal on Cancer:
    ” Our results suggest that high intakes of heme and iron from meat may be important dietary risk factors for esophageal and stomach cancer ….
    Heme iron has cytotoxic and hyperproliferative effects in the rat colon…..
    Heme iron also increases endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds( NOC) which cause esophageal and stomach tumors in several animal species…..”

    Like

  • Truth about the Tobacco Industry in its own words :

    At the beginning of the fifties, research was published showing a statistical link between
    smoking and lung cancer. At the same time the tobacco industry’s own research began to find
    carcinogens in smoke and began to confirm the relationship between smoking and cancer.
    This posed a serious problem for the industry: whether to admit to the health problems and try
    and find marketable solutions, or whether to basically deny everything.
    In the face of mounting damning evidence against their product, the companies responded by
    creating doubt and controversy surrounding the health risks, whilst at the same time by
    responding to the growing public concern by putting filters on cigarettes and promising
    research into the health effects of smoking. They lulled the smoking public into a false sense
    of security, because, whilst this had the hallmarks of responsible companies acting in the
    public interest, it was actually a public relations strategy to buy time, at the expense of public
    health.
    Many of the internal documents reveal that the industry was trying to look responsible in
    public, but privately was out to convince the public that smoking was not harmful. Despite
    decades of evidence to the contrary, and millions of deaths caused by tobacco, the industry
    still largely maintains that the case against the cigarette is unproven.

    Document:

    Imperial Tobacco: “I state that in our considered opinion
    there is no proof at all that smoking causes lung
    cancer and much to suggest that it cannot be the
    cause.” (Imperial Tobacco, 1956)

    “None of the things which have been found in tobacco
    smoke are at concentrations which can be considered
    harmful. Anything can be considered harmful. Apple
    sauce is harmful if you get too much of it.” 44 (Philip
    Morris, US tobacco company,1976).

    A Philip Morris Executive writes that “hitting the youth can be more
    efficient even though the cost to reach them is higher,
    because they are willing to experiment, they have more
    influence over others in their age group than they will
    later in life, and they are far more loyal to their
    starting brand.” (1957)

    Philip Morris starts using the Cowboy image on its commercials, because the image
    “would turn the rookie smokers on to Marlboro .. the
    right image to capture the youth market’s fancy ..a
    perfect symbol of independence and individualistic
    rebellion.”

    Philip Morris produces Virginia Slims, a cigarette targeted exclusively at women,
    running the slogan: “You Have Come Along Way Baby”. Within six years of the
    Slims launch, the percentage of teenage women who smoked had nearly doubled
    (1968).

    “a cigarette for the beginner is a symbolic act. I am no
    longer my mother’s child, I’m tough, I am an adventurer,
    I’m not square … As the force from the psychological
    symbolism subsides, the pharmacological effect takes
    over to sustain the habit” (Philip Morris, 1969).

    Like

  • Its antithetical

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s