Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Back to the Future with the Clintons Following Bush Who Followed the Clintons etc

!±8± Back to the Future with the Clintons Following Bush Who Followed the Clintons etc

A never ending story continues. Looks like everything has to be repeated over and over again until we get it right. The elder Bush announced the New World Order. President Clinton followed and led the way getting NAFTA and GATT Free Trade agreements passed sealing the fate of the American Workers. Millions lost their jobs while the Clintons chanted Happy Days are here again. President Clinton bombed Iraq on an ongoing basis and started wars in the Balkans to stop ethnic cleansing by doing the very same thing. He also bombed an aspirin factory in Africa just to show his macho image to the world in his "Wag the Dog" wars.

The younger President Bush followed and more of the Free Trade agreements were passed while all eyes were on the wars he started. The USA bombed Iraq for years but we never saw an Iraq plane bomb the USA. However, this did not stop President Bush from acting as if they did. He started his False Crusade with Black Knights- see article here at Ezine Articles. History tells us will over and over again, the U.S. will not win. Just like all the other nations in history who invaded the Middle East, the U.S. will come home and leave things worst than they were before they came.

At the same time more and more Americans drift into the Silent Depression. Millions have lost their jobs due to Free Trade with 39 percent of all over age 45 filing for bankruptcy from 1992 to 2002. ( Latest figures are still not available but most likely the number will grow larger with the Baby Booners on their way to old age.) Let us go back a bit in time and see how this all came about since we are being asked to let Hillary take over. Let us go back to a pivotal year - 1998 and get some examples of what is in store for us now.

Here are some numbers of job losses and a list of employers that closed down back in 1998 when the Clintons were proclaiming a statistical prosperity while millions were getting fired. The stock market thrived for a long time just as it is now based on workers getting fired instead of hired. Today people like Cavuto on Fox News keep telling us this is a good thing and not a bad thing. They hide the fact that the stock market had a trillion dollar loss when the Dot Coms went katput just when Clinton finished his job and Bush took over and the same thing is bound to happen again.

Here are the "good" old days in the Clintons' Land of "is" based 1998 as an example. This is the list of some of the major jobs losses.

In 1998, Rockwell cuts 3,800 jobs. Boeing and other related supporting companies cut 50,000 workers. LTC lays off 600. Kodak cuts 10,000 jobs. Raytheon cuts 14,000 jobs. TRW cuts 7,500 jobs. Lubrisol cuts 150 jobs. American Greeting cuts hundreds of jobs. Eaton cuts 200 jobs in chip-making operations. Sun liquidated with 2,800 losing their jobs. Hanna trims 260 workers and shuts down plant. Republic cuts 1,400 jobs. Bethlem Steel cuts 750 jobs and closes down operations. Weirton Steel lays off 300 workers.

(In the world of money ) - World Bank cuts 750 workers. Merrill Lynch cuts 3,400 jobs. Chase cuts 90 jobs locally. Huntington Bank cuts 1,000 jobs. Wells Fargo cuts 2,000 jobs.

Toro closes plants and lays off all workers. Texaco, Royal Dutch and Shell cut 4,000 jobs. Ameritech cuts 5,000 more jobs. Carpet Barn closes all its retail outlets. Heinz cuts 390 jobs. Cummins Engines cuts 1,000 jobs. NBC cuts 250 jobs. Toys R US closes 59 sores. Boston Chicken seeks bankruptcy protection. GE shuts New England plants. Goodyears plans more cuts after thousands were fired. BF Goodrich vacates headquarters ending the loss of thousands of jobs. Polaroid cuts 700 jobs. Venator Group closes 570 stores. Consolidated Gas cuts 2,600 jobs. Fruit of the Loom cuts another 5,000 workers and moved factories outside the USA saying they could not afford to pay an hour.

(In the high tech world where we hear about labor shortages ) INTEL cuts 5,000 jobs. Seagate cuts 20,000 jobs. DIGITAL cuts 15,000 jobs in merger with Compaq with company moving factories to China. Packard Belll lays off 1,000- later goes out of business. AST Research cuts hundreds of jobs.
LSI Logic cuts 1,200 jobs. Texas Instruments cuts 3,500 jobs. Gateway cuts 300 workers. Siemens worldwide cuts 60,000 jobs. Cadence cuts 180 engineers. In 1998, more than 250,000 lost their jobs in high tech alone.

Whirpool, Woolworth and International Paper announce thousands of workers will be cut. Scott Paper cuts 11,200 jobs. MCI WorldCom cuts 2,500 jobs. Nabisco cuts 3,100 jobs and closes plants. Pioneer Standard cuts hundreds. Goodrich closes four plants. Advance Lighting cuts 2220 jobs and closes plant. Kellogg cuts 525 salaried workers and 240 temporary workers. Liz Claiborne cuts 400 jobs and shuts down stores. HUFFY cuts 1,000 jobs and closes USA factories. Stanley works cuts 5,000 jobs. BF Goodrich closes down corporate headquarters in Akron Ohio. General Tire has similar situation. BP America closes down headquarters in Cleveland Ohio. Reliance Electric fades away after Rockwell buyout. Even McDonalds cut 525 workers in its Chicago Corporate Offices or about 23 percent of its staff. Weirton Steel idles blast furances. Mr. Gasket eliminates all production jobs and outsources jobs outside the USA.

(Some humor ) Scrabble is set to C-L-O-S-E factory. JUST CLOSEOUTS closes out all stores.

In 1998, Personal Bankruptcies jumped 19 percent to 1.3 million going bankrupt. Business failures surged 16 percent totalling 83,384 business failing.

THIS WAS 1998. There were plenty more jobs lost but these are the only figures we kept in 1998.
During the beginning of the Clinton years around 1992, IBM and AT@T/NCR cut about 250,000 workers
between just these three companies.

There is more and you can not blame the Clintons for all of the following but he and Hillary did nothing to correct the situation during their time in office. More than 700,000 workers lost their jobs and related jobs in the steel industry. More than 400,000 workers lost their jobs in the auto industry.

Here is a list of computer companies that folded surrounding the Clinton years. All of these computer companies are gone with most of them being U.S. manufacturers. ( We stand to be corrected with perhaps some of these companies remaining in part somehow but virtually they are all gone. )
Commodore, Compugraphics, Computer Automation, Computerm, Computone, Condor, Corvus, Data Systems, Delta Data, Datapoint, Four Phrase, Radio Shack Computers, Redactron, Remex, Standard Logic, Sykes, Eagle, General Automation, Redcor, General Computer, Intertel Data, Itek, Ohio Scientific, Novar, Sundance, Sperryrand, Televideo, Mohawk, Leading Edge, ITT, Lobo, Micromation, Modular Comp, Micropolis, Monroe, Nixdorf, Northern Telephone, Ontel, Perkins-Elmer, North Star, Ohio Nuclear-Technicare, Packard Bell, Leeds and Northrup, Pertec, Osborne, Vector, Vista, Vydek, Wango, Wordstream, Zilog, Wells America - (the last micro computer made in the USA ), Zenith, Unisis Mircros, AT&T Micros, Datatron, Datronix, Franklin, Basic FOur, Synon, QDP, Quasar, Star Tech, Tandem, Wang, BTI, Pronto, Rodine, Contel, CTI, Data Design, Data Logic, Datatronics, Heath, Intertek, and this is only a partial list.
We also have on file about a thousand systems houses in a tri-state area that went out of business surrounding the Clinton years.

In Mainframe computers, over a million workers lost their jobs prior and during the Clinton years.
They include Honeywell, GE, Sperry, Univac, Burroughs, Control Data, NCR, RCA, Xerox, IBM ( 150,000 were cut in the early 1990s ) DEC, Data General, Wang and more.

In computer media, 3M sold out to Imation who then laid thousands off. BASF Magnetics closed their US plants and sold this division to Korean company. Like many others, the brand name is the only thing left in the USA. The same applys to Dysan, Memorex and Verbatim.

Electing Hillary as President is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop and it history will always verify the fact that it was President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and Democrat controlled Congress that passed both NAFTA and GATT unfair trade agreements. See more at Tapart News and Art that Talks at http://tapsearch.com/tapartnews/ The dollar's value is based on the power of the USA and so wars follow accordingly. American shoppers are now "hooked" on cheap imports from around the world. What wars will now follow during Hillary's time in office?


Back to the Future with the Clintons Following Bush Who Followed the Clintons etc

Last Minute Stanley Backpack Sprayer Purchasing How To Build Composter Vmaa26 Sanus Guide

Monday, November 28, 2011

1, 2, and 4 and Here's to Your Good Health Without BPA - "Bisphenol A"

!±8± 1, 2, and 4 and Here's to Your Good Health Without BPA - "Bisphenol A"

This article was originally submitted for publication on August 9, 2010 and has been updated and revised as additional information on BPA could be verified.

Take the number one and double it. Now take the number two and double it. And with the number four you now have the easy to remember formula to your "possible" good health. But not so fast. These three numbers, one, two and four, so-called "resin identification code" numbers found within the ubiquitous triangle on most, not all, plastic pieces were the brainchild of the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) in 1988 for the environmental purpose of recycling. They stand in contrast to the numbers three, five, six and seven and what makes these three numbers "safe numbers" is their lack of the toxic chemical Bisphenol A, (BPA for short), which is inherent in the remaining four numbers.

BPA, a synthetic estrogen having industrial and dental applications, is the chemical that has been shown to leach into food including baby foods and formulas from BPA plastics and cans that are lined with BPA. This writer will not pretend to offer expertise on the subject. I have none. However, the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as of this writing, each post online over 300 technical entries on BPA. I'm sure other federal agencies may also address this serious matter of public health concern. The most comprehensive non-technical reporting on Bisphenol A is provided by the donation funded Environmental Working Group (EWG.org) and the search engine of the Center For Science In the Public Interest (CSPINET.org) also provides topics of concern on Bisphenol A while maverick physicians like Joseph Mercola, D.O. (mercola.com) openly discuss online the hazards posed by BPA.

In a random, non-scientific inquiry I inventoried my own home only to discover shocking results. Naturally my first inclination was to inventory any type of plastic that was even remotely connected to foods and beverages. Real old plastic containers used for food leftovers, like Rubbermaid for instance, understandably lack the numbered triangle. Instead, some pieces may have a number within a circle, the meaning of which is unknown. On to the post 1988 products and my first, and somewhat surprising item, is a Styrofoam carton housing a dozen eggs which bears the number six (6), a BPA-containing carton. I can't help but wonder if somehow this toxic chemical can permeate a porous eggshell barrier over a given period of time so my egg purchases today come in sturdy cardboard cartons that have no possible adverse effects on eggs and are very safe to recycle.

From an egg carton I move on to the colorless plastic bottles used for juices such as Tropicana. I have several of these, different brands and sizes. I routinely use them to refrigerate filtered tap water and they all seem to have the number one (1), but I'm dismayed when, under magnification, I examine their hard, colored plastic bottle caps but find no resin identification codes. I force myself to avoid speculation.

I have two food containing tubs in the fridge, a Kraft Philadelphia Whipped Cream Cheese, a must for my customary lox and bagel breakfast, and Stonyfield's Oikos Organic Greek (nonfat) Yogurt, my occasional health food lunch. They bear the numbers seven (7) and five (5) respectively and I'm too miffed to check the lids!

Over the years I somehow managed to accumulate those hard plastic water bottles with company logos that conveniently rest in automobile cup holders and often contain hot beverages. Now alarm sets in. All but two "safe" bottles, from the National Medical Association and G. H. Bass Clothing, bear the number five (5), but two findings compound the problem. None of the plastic caps have resin identification codes and all were manufactured in China, which notoriously manufactures merchandise having lead based paint. Add hot coffee, tea or other hot beverage to these vessels and the resulting chemical interaction could conceivably be harmful, even toxic, to a chemical sensitive person.

So it's off to the fast food joints but only to check the take-out beverage fountain cups, not the Styrofoam food containing dishes. None of these cups can be used for hot beverages. They're strictly cold beverage containers, some are of the Styrofoam variety, the others are the more rigid type. It makes no difference. The numbers I encounter are either five (5) or Styrofoam Six (6). I don't bother to check the lids. At this point I'm so disgusted the lids could be made of bazoonga for all I care. At home I come across two rigid plastic 64 ounce advertising cups, one from the major Cola manufacturer, the other from 7 Eleven and their respective numbers are five (5) and two (2) which, thanks to 7 Eleven, proves that each and every one of these cups can and should be made of BPA free plastic. I can't help but wonder if sodas are harmful to teeth enamel what sort of reaction occurs between BPA plastic and soda and then what is that resulting effect on teeth and the body? Could it also be that the plastics industry charges the food industry less money for BPA-coated plastic containers than for BPA-free products?

Chemical reactions between BPA, the foods and beverages they contact and any alleged health risks need to become an investigative priority as well as the financial incentives between these industries. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that canned tomato products lined with BPA increase the potency of the toxin and yet these cans show no markings of their BPA content. WHY NOT? This also begs the question should the toxin BPA now be listed as an ingredient or additive to affected foods and beverages? At the very least manufacturers of BPA lined cans and plastics should be required to spell out that their packaging contains BPA to preserve the product so that consumers can decide whether or not to purchase the product. Precedent for this requirement has already been established with health risk warnings on tobacco and alcohol products. Only when health risk warnings on plastics and metal cans appear on these products will consumers have the right to know for certain if foods and beverages they contain will be at risk for BPA contamination.

Here's where the tragedy and fun really begins. I'm in the bathroom where I notice a plastic bottle used to mist water on plants and two different plastics containing the shampoo brands Pert and Finesse. I decide to check these out as well as the various plastic cleaning product containers. They include large refill plastics of Tilex, Simple Green, Drain Care, as well as pump and pour plastics of Scrub Free, Tilex, Zep Mildew and Mold Stain Remover, Liquid Plumr and Kaboom. In the kitchen I come across a large plastic container of Heinz Distilled Vinegar. With the exception of Kaboom which bears the Safe number one (1) and Finesse Shampoo which bears BPA number three (3) every other plastic just named bears the SAFE number two (2) resin identification code!! I'm flabbergasted!! Every plastic used for harsh and caustic chemical solutions is BPA free while cans and most plastics intended to contain food or beverages for human consumption are laced with toxic BPA!! To make matters worse a BPA plastic is used to contain Finesse Shampoo, and in a store I find no resin identification code whatsoever on any plastic container of Fructis Shampoo. There must exist explanations for these abuses and it's time to demand those answers. Could it be the food industry conspired with packaging manufacturers to add BPA to their packaging so that they (the food manufacturers) wouldn't have to declare BPA as an additive or ingredient to preserve food? Food manufacturers must be held accountable for everything affecting food and beverages. Would it be feasible to convince Kraft and Stonyfield to sell their otherwise nutritious products in Zep and Scrub Free plastics for the sake of public health, or require Finesse Shampoo to use a number two (2) plastic container like its Pert competitor or demand that Fructis Shampoo reveal the resin identification codes on all its many different plastic containers? I would be quite satisfied with these corrections. I dare not check the resin identification codes for pesticide plastics. The very thought of BPA free plastic pesticide containers is unnerving.

Often overlooked in medicine cabinets are the clear orange colored plastic bottles used for prescription medications. They are made of resin identification code number five (5), BPA, which, should leaching occur, could contaminate prescribed medications with synthetic estrogen. For a number of patients estrogen in any form is a contraindication and for this reason medicines and nutritional supplements should be contained in glass bottles at time of manufacture or transferred immediately to a glass container at home. Certain dental appliances have a BPA plastic composition and these must be evaluated to determine the possibility of synthetic estrogen leakage.

PEDIATRICS, the Official Journal Of The American Academy Of Pediatrics, in a widely publicized study published on October 24, 2011 entitled, "Impact of Early-Life Bisphenol A Exposure on Behavior and Executive Function in Children" cited in its abstract, "Conclusions: In this study, gestational BPA exposure affected behavioral and emotional regulation domains at 3 years of age, especially among girls. Clinicians may advise concerned patients to reduce their exposure to certain consumer products, but the benefits of such reductions are unclear."

On a recent Sunday morning I head over to Costco where I find a set of plastic BPA-laced cutting boards (WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR COATING CUTTING BOARDS WITH BPA?) and an interesting on sale product named, "Snapware Glasslock 18-Piece Food Storage Set" whose box claims the product is BPA FREE. And indeed the Glassware by definition is BPA free and definitely microwave safe and definitely safe to recycle, but its plastic lid has an inconspicuous resin identification code number five (5), another BPA containing plastic and certainly unsafe for microwave cooking or recycling. So many questions can and must be raised about this and any obvious intrusion by the plastic and BPA manufacturers regarding the obscene exploit of BPA into and on everything dealing with our food supply. No lid should ever contain the toxin BPA and WHY CUTTING BOARDS? While in Costco a demonstration for the blender VITAMIX is taking place. I've always been intrigued by the presentation but never got around to making the actual purchase. On the box of each unit is a statement that says the container is BPA-free which also piques my curiosity. During the break I ask the salesperson if I could examine the container and at the bottom of the container I notice a BARELY VISIBLE resin identification code number seven (7), a known BPA laced plastic. I ask the salesperson about this and the reply astounds me. I'm told that the container is not a plastic at all but a copolyester which means it is neither plastic nor does it contain BPA. WHOA! I say nothing further as a new group of onlookers begins to gather, but can't help but wonder about any chemical reaction with BPA code number seven (7) or IF new copolyester products could leak their chemicals when the unit is used for any purpose but especially to microwave soup or other hot beverage.

When I return home I fire off an e-mail to Vitamix HQ requesting an explanation for what seems to be an obvious discrepancy. I'm impressed by the near immediate Sunday afternoon reply but not impressed by its substance from a company representative which reads in part, "...#7 includes both non-bpa and BPA containers (copolyester and polycarbonate). The containers used are the new copolyester BPA-free containers." Could this be true and if so has the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) changed the rules to mean "an all inclusive umbrella" under which anything goes? I set about to find answers and with the thought that regardless of the response numerous independent laboratories must identify all copolyester chemicals and confirm that this new copolyester container is indeed BPA free as advertised and ascertain that copolyester plastics do not leach their chemicals or have other harmful effects on foods or beverages especially at high temperatures including microwave heating.

That said, I e-mail my inquiry to the Society of the Plastics Industry and receive a prompt and courteous reply from someone I believe to be a secretary advising me to e-mail my queries to ASTM.ORG which I do, but before sending the e-mail I enter the word "copolyester" in its search engine which returns three inconsequential replies. My next step is to send the actual e-mail but incredibly my e-mail goes unanswered. In frustration I Google "Bisphenol A" where I find websites galore praising or condemning BPA, but nothing from the plastics industry that would allow me to explore questions about the role of resin identification code number seven (7). I can't help but think that some form of regulations governing resin identification codes are justified to curb what appears to be industry abuses that satisfy the needs of its membership, without any accountability, and at the health expense of the consumer. So I decide to investigate other country's dealings with the BPA issue.

The year 2008 became the pivotal year for the disposition of BPA. Canada banned BPA from baby bottles and although the debate rages on whether or not to ban the toxin entirely, on October 14, 2010 the government became the first government to officially declare BPA toxic. Denmark restricted the use of BPA. The Washington Post reported on June 12, 2008, "The new laws in the European Union requires companies to demonstrate that a chemical is safe before it enters commerce -- the opposite of policies in the United States, where regulators must prove that a chemical is harmful before it can be restricted or removed from the market." WHAT A MARVELOUS, SENSIBLE AND COST EFFECTIVE CONCEPT FOR EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS!!. In this country New York State and California led the fight to ban BPA from baby bottles but California legislators failed to pass the bill. I cannot say whether or not politics plays any role in the future of BPA, it shouldn't, but in April, 2008 Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and fellow Senate Democrats proposed legislation to ban BPA from all children's products. Then, a disturbing article in the December 15, 2008 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel entitled, "FDA maintains bisphenol A is safe" quotes Laura Tarantino, chief of the FDA's Office of Food Additive Safety saying, "At the moment, with all information in front of us, we do not believe we have the data on which we could base a regulatory ban," (HUH? 300+ entries on your own website not to mention confidential reports that aren't made public!) which makes this writer facetiously suggest to the "Powers That Be" at FDA that BPA should be reclassified as a nutrient so that the FDA could ban it once and for all! The above newspaper articles are "Must Reads" in their entirety and appear on the EWG.ORG website. As late as March 29, 2010 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared BPA a "chemical of concern." That same year Maryland legislators banned BPA from baby bottles and is actively pursuing additional restrictions on the chemical.

If additional documentation is needed for Laura Tarantino and the FDA to justify banning BPA the chief of the Office of Food Additive Safety is directed to the Editorial section of the September 17, 2008 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and a strongly worded review of a preliminary study entitled, "Bisphenol A and Risk of Metabolic Disorders" by Frederick S. vom Saal, PhD, and John Peterson Myers, PhD. In it the authors cite the following, "...Lang et al report a significant relationship between urine concentrations of BPA and cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and liver-enzyme abnormalities in a representative sample of the adult US population." Regrettably, this writer finds it necessary to remind and advise the FDA that its mission, its integrity, is to protect the U.S. population not the food industry, not the drug industry.

On the subject of safe microwave cooking with plastic Clair Hicks, PhD, professor of food science, University of Kentucky at Lexington maintains that resin identification code numbers one (1) and five (5) are safe and that number six (6) "may be microwaved only if it is covered with a barrier film, such as a microwave-safe plastic wrap." Here it must be emphasized that only the number one (1) resin identification code is free from BPA contamination making it the only safe plastic for the microwave and then only if glass cookware isn't available.

Until the federal government, plastics industry, metal can industry and food industry sort out this mess we consumers must exercise our own awareness and vigilance, a kind of civil protest, in our food purchases, preparation and recycling practices to limit our exposure to BPA as with any dangerous toxin. Until the use of known BPA plastics and unidentified metal cans containing BPA intended for food and beverage consumption is either eliminated or advertised with a warning notice, consumers would do well to buy similar products in glass jars which have no known toxins or deleterious health effects, are safe to microwave and safe to recycle. Metal and/or plastic caps should be certified BPA FREE. I intentionally avoid replacing BPA plastics with any plastic since the chemistry of so-called "safe plastics" could possibly result in other health issues particularly where microwave heating is employed. The ultimate purpose of resin identification codes is to recycle same type plastics and cans for future use. Are we then recycling BPA coated products to once again contact and contaminate our food supply?? I suspect we are and for this reason I no longer recycle any remaining BPA-laced plastic or can but instead trash them with other garbage or with hazardous waste material. It's time to send urgent messages to our legislators to resolve BPA issues and to the food industry that we will no longer buy your food products packaged in unidentified cans that may be lined with BPA or in plastics bearing the numbers three (3), five (5) six (6) or seven (7). I look forward to the day when food manufacturers proudly advertise their products to be safe in BPA FREE packaging (including lids) that only have the numbers 1, 2, or 4 (prominently visible) resin identification codes and no "slight of hand" switcheroos courtesy of the Society of the Plastics Industry.

It seems ironic that the day before the 2010 Earth Day rally in Washington, D.C. a contingent of the SPI Bioplastics Council flew to the nation's capital to lobby members of Congress. Their agenda, a call "for increased bioplastics funding through grants and other programs such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's BioPreferred program." Only In America could such audacity prosper unbridled. Corporate influence in government, especially that which adversely affects public health, is a corruption that must be exposed and legislatively eliminated even if it means overhauling the business of lobbying OUR legislators for commercial advantage.

This original limerick is intended to drive home the point that the continued use and intimacy of BPA with food or beverage is a case of Americans Poisoning Americans LEGALLY:

Imagine from a country named Reggert
We imported the delicacy Weggert
'Twas laced with the toxin
Known simply as Poxin
And our government simply did nuthin'

Ewg.org provides informative reports and newspaper articles and readers are encouraged to explore their search engine, "find something" and also enter the following term: "Bisphenol A In Plastic Containers" to consider the many sides of this issue.

Similarly, NPR (npr.org) has reported on the plastic and Bisphenol A controversy, as noted in its search engine, and two March, 2011 broadcasts by Jon Hamilton "Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals" ( http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134196209/study-most-plastics-leach-hormone-like-chemicals ) and "Plastic's New Frontier: No Scary Chemicals" ( http://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134240436/plastics-new-frontier-no-estrogenic-activity ) discuss the estrogen problem related to plastics and the future of possible harmless plastics. The New York Times followed these broadcasts with a Special Report by Erica Gies on April 18, 2011 entitled, "The Business of Green: Substitutes for Bisphenol A Could Be More Harmful."

The online article, "The Price of Environmental Stewardship" by this writer adds further commentary on Bisphenol A.

Writer: Allan R. Marshall, D.C.


1, 2, and 4 and Here's to Your Good Health Without BPA - "Bisphenol A"

Discounted Canon Sd550 Rice Krispe Treats Guide

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Canning Hot Peppers Recipe

!±8± Canning Hot Peppers Recipe

Do you have a plan to do any canning? Well, as we all know canning is a process of putting foods in cans or jars for preservation. And one example is the canning hot peppers recipe. And you can make it on your own if you have your equipments with you. Its easy. You only need to follow the directions carefully.

Today, many products are introduced to us by the different industries. And they are preserved inside the cans or jars. Not only the smoked foods are preserved but also they have the canning hot peppers recipe. The taste of this recipe is it depends on you whether you like it more hot or not. Then if you know what you like its up to you to add extra ingredients like chili powder or whatever ingredients you like. But first and foremost there are lots of things that you should know and reminded of. Like the things that are used in canning like a pressure canner (12 qt. capacity or more), canning jars and new lids and rings, a jar lifter that is used to pull the hot jars after processing and a canning funnel. And if you have all of the things in you then you can now start doing the recipe.

In preparing the canning hot peppers recipe you need the following ingredients such as 5 pounds ground beef, 2 cups chopped onions, 1 clove crushed garlic, 6 cups canned tomatoes and juice, oe cup chili powder, 1 oe tbsp. salt, 1 hot red pepper, chopped thinly and 1 tsp. Ground cumin seed. These are the following ingredients that are needed in making a hot pepper recipe. The ingredients that are listed above can be change whether you prefer adding a few extra cloves of garlic and another hot pepper but it depends upon on how hot the peppers are or what do you like most. And sometimes you can also add OE cup cider vinegar and quite a lot of ketchup using tablespoons and use 2 tsp. cumin instead for flavoring. By adding extra ingredients it helps a little bit to be hot.

Instructions for canning hot peppers recipe as follows:

1. In the bottom of a large pot, the ground beef, onions and garlic should be cook until brown. It should be drain so that the amount of fat will lessen. So that high fat cannot be included in cans because it has a tendency to cause higher proportion of jar seals thats why it fails during processing.

2. Add the remaining ingredients and reduce the heat when it boils. Continue cooking at about 20 minutes. Take away the floating fat.

3. In the meantime, prepare a pressure canner with a number of inches with boiling water. Place clean jars in the boiling water or maybe it can be washed in a dishwasher but if only your dishwasher has a sani-cycle, it is better.

4. Place the jar caps in hot water and get it when you are ready to use it.

5. Fill up the hot jars, one by one, should have at least 1 inch of headspace. Headspace is the amt. of space b/w the lid and the chili. Take away air bubbles from the mixture, if any, using a plastic knife or either a straw or it can be a plastic bubbler that is available from Ball.

6. Clean the rims of the jars with a dry paper towel so that they are perfectly clean for them to be seal well. Put the lid on and squeeze the ring until the point of resistance is met. Place the jar into the boiling water in the canner, and continue to fill up the remaining jars until all are used.

7. Place the lid on the canner but leave the faucet open or if you're using a weighted gauge canner, do not place the weight on for 10 min. It is necessary to vent a pressure canner so that there are no air pockets in the canner during processing. After 10 min. of venting close the faucet or position the weighted gauge. Don't begin timing until the gauge begins to rock 2-3 times a min., or if you are using a dial gauge canner, when the pressure comes up to 10 lbs.

8. Begin timing. Processing of pint jars is for 1 hour. 15 min. or qt. jars is for 1 hour. 30 min. long. If you are at a higher elevation than 2000 feet, check your USDA extension service about adjusting processing times for the elevation.

9. When the processing time has completed, let the pressure canner to cool for at least 30 min. and take away the weight gauge. After the pressure is at 0 pounds psi or (on dial gauge, or not steam escapes after the weight is removed), then it is the safety time to remove the lid. Face the lid away from you as it is removed. Be careful of the steam. Let jars sit at least 5 min. in the canner, then remove using the jar lifter to a draft-free place to cool and let it for at least 24 hrs. then remove the rings and wash jars. Test the lids by tapping gently with a metal spoon you will hear a ringing sound. And if you hear a dull sound from a jar that does not sound like the other, break the seal and put the jar in the refrigerator and use within a few days or reprocess it within 24 hrs. A new lid should be use.

Canning hot peppers recipe is very easy when you follow the instructions carefully. So try your home canning chili to serve your family anytime.


Canning Hot Peppers Recipe

Bargain Sale Black And Decker Storage Cabinets Low Cost Cacao Beans Rat Traps Best

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

baby aliment challenge

OPEN ME ;) Lauren has been wanting to do this for ages and i have always said no but at this perticular point i gave in and heres what happened

Good Gpsmap 60cs

Monday, November 14, 2011

Sugar - Your Health vs Politics - Always Read the Ingredients Label - Part 1 of 2

!±8± Sugar - Your Health vs Politics - Always Read the Ingredients Label - Part 1 of 2

So you have cravings for Sugar and Sweets and you consider Life without it pretty bland - don't we all?

Well, relax, this is not about coercing you into giving up on those lovely chocolates and tempting pastries, but rather to make you aware of how the choice of sweetener in the product affects your health and the health of your children - and to reveal the links to the unexplained horizontal growth you may be experiencing - even though you eat so little.

We have all heard that Americans consume huge amounts of sugar, over 150 pounds per person and year. As if this wasn't enough, a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) survey was cited as adjusting the latest numbers to160 pounds of sugar a year - a 30% increase since the early 1980s. That's the approximate equivalent of 53 heaped teaspoons of sugar per person per day! Well, these numbers appear to be inflated, in fact the April 2007 updated USDA release states the average daily sugar consumption in the US currently is "only" 30 teaspoons per person each day, not including synthetic sweeteners and honey. According to the year by year statistics, the sugar consumption actually slightly decreased in the past seven years, which was probably compensated by artificial sweeteners increase. However, even these lower numbers are staggering: each American consumes over 20% of daily food calories from refined Sugars - empty calories with no nutritional value!

Consider this: the 30 teaspoons of sugar per person per day is just straight sugar that is declared as such on food and beverage "ingredients" labels. Although a refined sugar, Alcohol is a "stealth sugar", undeclared as such. Just a small glass of wine or one can of beer will add the equivalent of 2 teaspoons of sugar, one whiskey, gin, vodka or the like will account for 4 teaspoons of sugar! More nutrients-deprived, indigestible calories.

Are you not able to maintain your perfect weight?

Do you suffer from Allergies or Asthma?

Such are the symptoms from consuming sugars in the above quantities for many years. So always reading the "Ingredients" Labels of all Foods and Beverages before buying may significantly help you reduce the consumption of the worst of the sweeteners, those that make you sick and spawn degenerative disease, including arthritis, candida, depression and digestive disorders. You will be surprised to find sugars added to almost all beverages and processed foods, including salty snacks like chips, nuts and instant soups. In addition, you may find inspiration and motivation to surrender some products and make them yourself instead. That is compelling when you read the following list of healthy and functional sugar alternatives available, that greatly improve taste and texture of dinners and desserts with very little work and skill required.
Your guests will commend you for your creativity and ability and you can all indulge in sweet, great tasting, and wholesome temptations with impunity.

Are you at risk of Diabesity?

Well - you are not alone: in the US 10% of Healthcare costs are used just for the "Diabesity" problems. According to Center for Disease Control "CDC" stats Estimated total diabetes costs in the United States in 2002 (direct and indirect): were 2 billion 1.5 Million New Cases were diagnosed in 2005 (age 20 and older) The diabetes II rate in the US has tripled in 30 years: over 20 millions have it and 1/3 don't even know it Total prevalence of diabetes among people aged 20 years or older, United States, 2005 Age 20 years or older: 20.6 million, or 9.6% Age 60 years or older: 10.3 million, or 20.9%

An additional 54 Million have pre-diabetic conditions, the so called metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance . Obesity is the driving force of diabetes: over 90% of diabetics are overweight. But the increase in food consumption was only 300 calories and thus could not account for this phenomenon.

What explains this unprecedented growth from the seventies to today's raging pandemic?

It should be noted that the US is not alone, a similar increase has been documented in other developed countries: in the UAE one in every four people is at risk and in the EU the current rate is at 7.5% the same as in the United States and half of these are estimated undiagnosed. In Japan 10% of 40 year olds have diabetes II, according to Health Ministry statistics Dr.Paul Zimmer, director of the International Diabetes Institute (IDI) in Victoria, Australia, predicts that diabetes "is going to be the biggest epidemic in human history that will bankrupt social security-systems."

There is an interesting correlation of the rise in Diabesity and the rise in the consumption of Sugar substitutes, namely

HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup).
In the 1970s the food and beverage industry discovered a cheap alternative to cane and beet extracted sugar, by chemically modifying corn starch from glucose to fructose. As from 1976, when HFCS could be mass produced, the cost advantage to the industry were so compelling, that consumption of HFCS increased by 4,000% until the year 2000 while the use of table sugar decreased by 35% and by now, Westerners consume more HFCS than sugar, according to the Weston Price Foundation website.

Check the label on the container of your favorite soft drink, and, unless it is the Aspartame and Sucralose variety, you are likely to find HFCS or High-Fructose Corn Syrup listed as a primary ingredient after water. Since soft drink giants Coke and Pepsi switched from sugar to HFCS in 1984, the product conquered markets beyond beverages, HFCS is omnipresent in most processed foods and even health foods and sports drinks. Not only is it found in cookies, candies, and other confections, but also ubiquitous in foods where one would least expect to find sugar: soups, hot dogs, pasta sauce, ketchup, breakfast cereals, buns that cover the hamburger patties and even salad dressings,

The industry wants to hoodwink you into believing that HFCS is a natural product, after all isn't Fructose the stuff that makes the fruits naturally sweet? Yet unlike in fruits were fructose is present with other sugars in a complex hydro-colloidal environment of fibers and active enzymes, the fructose in HFCS is an isolated derivative from genetically modified corn, processed by genetically modified enzymes - it is probably the highest processed food of all. Nevertheless, Snapple - sweetened with HFCS proclaims on their Labels: "All Natural Ingredients".

Why does this matter? Because HFCS is addictive: the more you eat the more you want! Consumption of high amounts of sweet fruits result in a sense of fullness, when we know it's time to stop eating, not so with isolated fructose. While glucose increases insulin release from the pancreas, fructose does not. Insulin helps to control sugar consumption by signaling the brain to indicate a sense of satiety, fructose lack of a triggering mechanism for insulin may lead to excessive caloric consumption. Also, fructose appears to convert to fat more readily than glucose because every cell in the body can metabolize glucose, while only the liver is able to metabolize fructose.

HFCS contains more fructose than sucrose and this fructose is more immediately available than fructose in fruits, because it is not bound up in sucrose. In animal studies, fructose showed disastrous effects particularly in growing animals that did not reach adulthood, had anemia, impaired collagen production, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy (where the heart enlarges until it explodes) according to Dr Meira Field who led the USDA study on rats fed with fructose. "Since the effects of fructose are most severe in the growing organism, we need to think carefully about what kind of sweeteners we give to our children." Of course the food industry contends that results in rats are not replicated in human, but if you don't want to prove them wrong yourself, you may want to simply not take a chance. Originally, the fructose content of HFCS was little over 50%, but more recently the manufacturers have introduced syrup containing 90% and more fructose, yet you wouldn't know from reading the food label. Therefore products containing HFCS should be avoided and certainly not be given to children.

As to expect, the beverage industries as well as the HFCS manufacturer oligopoly led by Archer Daniels Midland Company, have consistently denied any connection of HFCS and obesity and the FDA assumes HFCS as safe and studies unnecessary. But then the same suspects have successfully kept GMO food declaration away from the consumer arguing that genetically engineered food is the same as traditional breeding. Thus the manufacturers don't have to conduct and disclose pre-market safety studies. It is notable however that HFCS is absent in baby formulas. Will the food industry cave in to consumer activists demanding to replace HFCS? Not likely, unless they find a cheaper alternative. Instead expect to be deceived by fantasy terms, how about: "modified corn starch" or the like? We have recently seen such cover-up tactics with MSG which morphed into "natural flavor".

In July 2007, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a "Clinical study" that concludes: "There was no evidence that commercial cola beverages sweetened with either sucrose or HFCS have significantly different effects on hunger, satiety, or short-term energy intakes". Immediately, the American Beverage Association claimed that their Industry was not to blame for the Obesity epidemic in America. Interesting detail: the "study", was financed by the Beverage Association and the Corn Refiners Association included a mere 37 volunteers.

HFS (High Fructose Syrup)
is found on some Food labels particularly in Asian Foods and Beverages. HFS was originally developed in Japan where corn is not grown and is now made in Thailand from Cassava and in China from other starches. However the process is the same and so is the function of the product.

The functional and multi-functional engineered Sweeteners

A group non-sugar carbohydrates, manufactured, reduced-calorie, sugar-free sweeteners is now gaining momentum in the world of differentiated food and beverage producers and find their way into store shelves. You may never see the term Polyols on ingredients labels, even when several ones of the groups are present, but when a label reads "sugar alcohols" - Polyols are meant, when a label reads "sugar free" look for the listing and amounts of Polyols. Polyols or sugar alcohols are neither sugars nor alcohols. Instead, they are a group of low-digestible carbohydrates. These sweeteners taste like sugar but have several application specific advantages, including their suitability for diabetics. Polyols, are a low digestible carbohydrate which is only partially digested in the intestine. In the lower part of the intestinal tract, the non-absorbed portion is metabolized by colonic bacteria. Polyols are resistant to metabolism by oral bacteria and do not increase the acidity of the mouth after ingestion. This means that they will not lead to cavities or erode tooth enamel. The FDA has approved the use of a "does not promote tooth decay" health claim in labeling for sugar-free foods that contain polyols. So if Polyols are so great, why are they only sparingly available? Well, you guessed it: costs! Consumer awareness and resulting demand may bring the price down; it's just a matter of time. The market for Polyols in the US is at an emerging stage with sales of $ 517 million in 2005, according to Frost & Sullivan, San Antonio, TX,

Erythritol
has only been commercially produced since 1990 and added to foods and beverages to provide sweetness, as well as to enhance taste and texture. In Japan Erythritol has been approved as a food in 1990 and it received GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status by the FDA in 2001, it also approved in the EU. Erythritol is a white crystalline powder that is odorless, with a clean sweet taste that is similar to sucrose. It is approximately 70% as sweet as sucrose and flows easily due to its non-hygroscopic character. Like other polyols, erythritol does not promote tooth decay and is safe for people with diabetes. However, erythritol's caloric value of 0.2 calories per gram and high digestive tolerance distinguishes it from other polyols. It has approximately 7 to 13% the calories of other polyols and 5% the calories of sucrose. Because erythritol is rapidly absorbed in the small intestine and rapidly eliminated by the body within 24 hours, laxative side effects sometimes associated with excessive polyol consumption are unlikely when consuming erythritol containing foods.

HSH (hydrogenated starch hydrolysates),
including hydrogenated glucose syrups, maltitol syrups, and sorbitol syrups, are a family of products found in a wide variety of foods. HSH are produced by the partial hydrolysis of corn, wheat or potato starch and subsequent hydrogenation of the hydrolysate at high temperature under pressure. While some products in the HSH group have been approved in many countries including the EU and Japan, GRAS statuses is still pending, but with ADM Company as main proponent, expect HSH to appear on many ingredients labels rather soon.

Isomalt
has been known since 1960, it is made from Sucrose (table sugar) and it looks and feels like sugar. Isomalt enhances flavor transfer in foods. It dissolves more slowly in the mouth so that candies with isomalt have a longer lasting taste. Its sensory properties make isomalt an excellent ingredient hard candies, toffees, chewing gum, chocolates, baked goods, nutritional supplements, cough drops and throat lozenges. In Europe, Isomalt has been used since the early 1980s and is currently used in a variety of products in the US where it still awaits GRAS status - once obtained, expect Isomalt to become a household term. Isomalt absorbs very little water. Therefore, products made with it tend not to become sticky. Since the products do not absorb moisture, they have a longer shelf life. Isomalt does not promote tooth decay, has a very low blood glucose effect (low glycemic response), has an effect like dietary fiber in the gut and has only half of the caloric value of sucrose.

Lactitol
is known since 1920 but only used in foods for 25 years. It is a disaccharide polyol (sugar alcohol), derived from lactose, looks like sugar and tastes like sugar but has only 40% of its sweetness. Therefore don't expect to find Lactitol as the sole sweetener on a food label; it is often present in foods in combination with chemical sweeteners Aspartame, Sucralose, etc. It is used as a sugar substitute because it has better solubility and handling in processing that reduces costs and extends shelf life. Lactitol has been shown in a clinical study to increase bowel movement frequency in the elderly.

Maltitol
is made by the hydrogenation of maltose whose raw ingredient is cereal starch which is converted to sugar by the process of malting. The starch may be from wheat, rice, barley or other grains, and is very similar in taste to table sugar with only 90% of its sweetness and about half of its calories. Maltose has been known and used in China since the 2nd century BC. Maltitol is approved in the EU since 1985 and many other countries and is awaiting GRAS status in the US. The sweetener will be mainly found in sugar free chocolate products. Maltitol has a prebiotic effect and some people experience unpleasant gas and bloating, when taken in high quantities as when Maltitol is used in soft drinks.

Mannitol (E421)
is naturally occurring in abundance, particularly in exudates from trees, and in marine algae and fresh mushrooms. It is an isomer of sorbitol and is industrially produced by the hydrogenation of specialty glucose syrups. Mannitol is a polyol mainly known for its properties to not absorb moisture. This makes it uniquely suitable as a dusting powder for chewing gum to prevent the gum from sticking to manufacturing equipment and wrappers. In chocolate flavored coatings of ice cream bars and confectionary it is an industry favorite because of its high melting point and pleasant taste with only 40% of the calories of sugar. Mannitol is a polyol that comes with regulatory warnings for limitation of daily intake for low digestible carbohydrate. This means that excessive consumption can result in a laxative effect, for two reasons. First, because the sugar alcohols are not completely absorbed, they hold on to a lot of water in the bowel. This causes diarrhea. Another consequence is that when undigested carbohydrates reach the colon they have a prebiotic effect - resulting in unpleasant gas, and bloating.

Sorbitol (E420)
occurs naturally in a wide variety of fruits and berries. In its industrially produced form of hydrogenated glucose, it has been present in processed foods, pharma and cosmetics products for fifty years. Its unique feature is the function as moisture stabilizer in baked goods, confectionary and chocolate - read: longer shelf life! Sorbitol is about 60% as sweet as sugar and has 60% of its calories. Sorbitol comes with the same regulatory warnings as Mannitol.

Xilitol (E967)
is naturally occurring in fruits and vegetables and is also produced in the human body during metabolism. This polyol that has been known for over 100 years and been produced commercially from trees as sweetener for nearly fifty years. It is as sweet as table sugar with 30% less calories and a pleasant taste. Xilitols rise to fame is due to its property to reduce dental caries. Thus it is widely used in dental and oral health products, but also in pharmaceuticals and children's nutritional supplements. While all Polyols are not acted upon by bacteria in the mouth, and therefore do NOT cause tooth decay, Xylitol actually INHIBITS oral bacteria, and is often used in sugarless mints and chewing gum for this reason.

Dextrose and Polydextrose
have similarities with Polyols, such as their sweet taste and their ability to act as sugar substitutes (70% the sweetness of sugar), but as their endings in -ose suggests, these are sugars. Dextrose is a synthetic monosaccharide derived from corn starch and is about 95% glucose. It is used as a carrier in water soluble medications, but latest studies have shown Dextrose to be an Athletes performance booster, outperforming Ribose (widely used as a body builder supplement). Dextrose contains no fructose or lactose and is available as an inexpensive dietary supplement. Polydextrose is synthesized from Dextrose with added Sorbitol and citric acid and can replace sugar and fat and is often used as bulking agent in products designed for weight or blood sugar control. It may appear on food labels as E1200. Polydextrose acts in the body like fibers with no laxative effect. It has only 25% of the calories of sugar. You can find it in Lindt and other chocolates.

The functionally targeted Sweeteners have much less sweetening potency than the chemical products such as Aspartame and Sucralose, which are cheaper and therefore readily accepted by conscious consumers in search of cheap products. But Polyols are multifunctional in that they can act as thickeners and stabilizers in addition to low- or no-calorie sugar replacer. Furthermore they can be used in products to enhance certain body functions, to target a product for environment specific use and to differentiate food products.

The scam of "Eat all the sweets you want with impunity"

Everyone by now has heard that

Aspartame (E951) NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful -
is not good for health and since it doesn't taste good there is little sacrifice involved, but don't expect Monsanto to back off anytime soon! Though watch out for it's challenger, the very high growth

Sucralose (E955) Splenda -
which is far more dangerous because its promotion is so deceptive: "healthful and natural", so that even health gurus like Dr Andrew Weil endorse and recommend the product. However, Sucralose is a chemical substance, very different from sugar, 600 times sweeter and far from a natural product. Google finds more than 50,000 pages under "sucralose adverse effects" and many of the reports make you run for shelter. What is scary is the fact that Splenda is found in many so called health foods, health and weight loss guides and comes to you recommended by family physicians. You may find other strange terms on food label for sugar substitutes, such as

Acesulfame Potassium (E950) or ace-K Sunnet, Sweet-One -
often in combination with other sweeteners in more than 5,000 beverages and foods. It is 200 times sweeter than sugar and bears no calories. Ace-K is said to be worse than Aspartame and Sucralose in toxicity and has been cited in animal studies to be cancer causing. It has also been shown to attack the thyroid in animals. When you see such ingredients on a food label you want to stay away from that product, but such labels may be hard to find in chewing gum, instant tea and coffee mixes, gelatins, desserts and non-dairy creamers. Then there is

Neotame, NutraSweet -
a synthetic variation of Aspartame is 8,000 - 13,000 times sweeter than sugar and therefore attractive to food manufacturers as its use greatly lowers the cost of production compared to using natural sugar. The prime reason for its existence is the fact that the Aspartame patent had expired and the manufacturer - Monsanto - wanted new patent protection. The FDA approved NutraSweet in 2002 yet the products safety record is devastating: the Aspartame Toxicity web site summarizes 39 symptoms / syndromes' caused by Aspartame including death! It is well documented that Aspartame changes DNA and the medical literature is replete with evidence of adverse effect. It is noteworthy however that the FDA "found no problems after reviewing 113 studies" - all funded by the industry, while all independently funded studies - over 100 - found serious problems. The second Ramazzini Cancer Research Institute's study, published in June 2007 confirmed it's earlier findings that Aspartame causes cancer in Rats. But the FDA spokesman Michael Herndon said (in an email to Reuters News Agency's Health and Science Editor (June 25, 2007) the agency had not yet reviewed the study but was quick to add that the previous studies the FDA reviewed were sufficient for the agency and there was no need for action. .Thus, don't underestimate the industry lobby who managed to have the American Medical Association; the American Diabetes Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition make positive statements in support of Aspartame. Yet,
Ralph G. Walton MD, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine reported "The alarming increase in obesity, type II diabetes, and a wide variety of behavioral difficulties in our children is obviously attributable to multiple factors, but I am convinced that one powerful force in accentuating these problems is the ever increasing use of aspartame".
Dr. H. J. Roberts, F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P., in his paper "Warning School Children at Risk": "Aspartame induced disorders in children include headache, confusion, convulsions, irritability, depression, intellectual deterioration, antisocial behavior, rashes, asthma and unstable diabetes. Addiction to aspartame products has also become a problem."

Saccharin (E954)
is a artificial sweetener 300 times sweeter than sugar. Due to the water solubility the sodium salt is most frequently used. Saccharin is high temperature and cooking and backing resistant. Saccharin high dose was charged of causing bladder cancer, this could not be confirmed. In small amount saccharin is considered to be safe. In some industrial recipes sugar is being substituted only to cut cost. Higher concentration than 5% to 8% sugar substitution = maximum 0.02% saccharine in food will present a metallic taste.
All artificial sweeteners reduce their sweetening power when a certain dose is exceeded. The combination of two sweeteners such as saccharin/acesulfame K or saccharin/cyclamate or cyclamate/aspartame increases the sweetening power. In kitchens and in industrial production saccharin/cyclamate in relation 1 to 10 is therefore frequently used.

Cyclamate (E952)
an artificial non-caloric sweetener widely used in Europe and 55 other countries for soft drinks. Its chemical name is sodium or calcium cyclohexylsulfamate. Cyclamate is about 1/10 sweeter than saccharin and 30 times than sugar. It has no wrong taste in high concentrations. Cyclamate is heat resistant and is used in cooking and baking. Cyclamate is not digested by most of people. Cyclamate is often used in combination with other sweeteners enhancing each other so that final taste is sweeter as the sum of the individual sweeteners. 5 mg of saccharin together with 50 mg cyclamate are equivalent to 125 mg cyclamate and 12.5 mg saccharin. Cyclamate is also present in combination with aspartame, sucralose and acesulfame K.
Cyclamate was banned in the United States in 1970 following the result of a test on rats which developed bladder cancer with high dose of cyclamate in addition to saccharin. A current petition to re-approve cyclamate is before the FDA.

Expect many more products with much higher content of synthetic sweeteners on store shelves and in Restaurants soon, on July 9, 2007:


"The International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Associations (IADSA) is claiming a victory in securing higher levels for nine additives used in food supplements into Codex's draft risk analysis standards for safety." And what are these Food Additives? Acesulfame potassium (2,000 mg/kg), Aspartame (5,500 mg/kg), Cyclamates (1,250 mg/kg), Neotame (90 mg/kg), Saccharin (1,200 mg/kg), and Sucralose (2,400 mg/kg). The IADSA manager proclaimed this to be an excellent result of their lobbying: "The adoption of these additives will help to ensure free trade in dietary supplements across the world and encourage countries to change legislation that is not in conformity with these Codex standards." All the more reason to read all Labels very carefully into the future, the Industry is not competing for your Health but for higher profit margins!

So your synthetic sugar substitutes didn't make you slim?

Let's go back to basics, why do we use artificial sweeteners in the first place - isn't it to reduce and manage weight? Well, if you are a consumer of synthetic sweeteners, you need to know that aspartame is absorbed from the intestines and passes immediately to the liver. The liver then metabolizes aspartame to its toxic components-phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol. This process requires a lot of energy from the liver making less energy available for fat burning and metabolism, which will result in fat storing and elevated blood sugar levels. Excess fat can build up inside the liver cells causing "fatty liver" and when this starts to occur it is extremely difficult to lose weight. When you overload the liver you will increase the tendency to gain weight easily.
There are more reasons why you might gain weight from synthetic sweeteners: they cause unstable blood sugar levels, which increases the appetite and triggers sweets cravings. Thus it is particularly toxic for those with diabetes. It sets off fluid retention giving the body a puffy and bloated appearance, so they look older and fatter than they are.

So to avoid the risks associated with HFCS and the synthetic, non-caloric sweeteners we should revert to conventional Sugar - right?

Well - read on - in Part 2 of this 2 Part Series!


Sugar - Your Health vs Politics - Always Read the Ingredients Label - Part 1 of 2

Good Bargain Goodyear Wrangler Kevlar John Deere Snow Blades Compare Bulk Dog Rawhide Best Quality


Twitter Facebook Flickr RSS



Fran�ais Deutsch Italiano Portugu�s
Espa�ol ??? ??? ?????







Sponsor Links