realicra

reality cracking

courtesy of fravia's page of reverse engineering
02 December 1998

Dangerous food additives (reversing labels)
second installment

©Kuririn

essay index
sweetners beef/fat/fat substitutes milk information genetic foolery


Food Additives (continued) Introduction

As Maxine+ has stated in his essay on food additives (the dangerous ones) "In this society, whose only aim is profit, you are probably eating foods that may kill you." Well this is very true, but how about a life of disease and gastric distress before the coupe de grace. Anyhow here is some more information for you among the breathing (and eating). Now since it is the beef that fravia+ wants... let's not disappoint :) Now to take a close look at the foods we shop for. Remember this is probably the most frightening "sphere" in the entirety of this collection mainly because you have to eat. You can turn off your computer, television set, put down the magazine (hell you can lock yourself in a closet with a book of Rimbaud but eventually you will have to eat (tautological but true). If you only knew what goes in, through your mouth, into your body! well anyway, in the spirit of giving ....


Sweeteners

An interesting problem? There are many sweeteners (apart from sugar) available on the market to date. Aspartame aka nutrasweet was mentioned by +Maxine in his essay, but needs a little more ...

A low-calorie sweetener provides consumers with a sweet taste without the calories or carbohydrates that come with sugar and other caloric sweeteners. Some low-calorie sweeteners, such as aspartame, are "nutritive," but are low in calories because of their intense sweetness. For example, because aspartame is 180 times sweeter than sucrose, the amounts needed to achieve the desired sweetness are so small that aspartame is considered virtually non-caloric. Many non-nutritive sweeteners, such as saccharin, are non-caloric because they are not metabolized and pass through the body unchanged. Currently, aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame potassium and sucralose are the only available low-calorie sweeteners in the United States.
The FDA is ever mindful to refer to aspartame, widely known as NutraSweet, as a "food additive"-never a "drug." A "drug" on the label of a Diet Coke might discourage the consumer (unless that drug was cocaine :). And because aspartame is classified a food additive, adverse reactions are not reported to a federal agency, nor is continued safety monitoring required by law.1 NutraSweet is a non-nutritive sweetener. The brand name is misnomer. Try Non-NutraSweet.

The Details


Aspartame is the technical name for the brand names, NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure. Aspartame was discovered by accident in 1965, when James Schlatter, a chemist of G.D. Searle Company was testing an anti-ulcer drug. Aspartame was approved for dry goods in 1981 and for carbonated beverages in 1983. It was originally approved for dry goods on July 26, 1974, but objections filed by neuroscience researcher Dr John W. Olney and Consumer attorney James Turner in August 1974 as well as investigations of G.D. Searle's research practices caused the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put approval of aspartame on hold (December 5, 1974). In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle and made Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries. Now Its chemical composition: composed of the following chemicals by weight: methanol (10%), aspartic acid (40%), and phenylalanine (50%). In dry form, the composition is stable, however, when placed in liquid it can break down into its component parts (methanol, aspartate, and phenylalanine). Heat will speed its breakdown. Another breakdown product is diketopiperazine (DKP). In certain combinations these elements can results in adverse reactions in some people e.g, Methanol further breaks down into formaldehyde and formic acid, both known to cause serious side effects in sensitive individuals. [Methanol is a light volatile flammable poisonous liquid alcohol formed in the destructive distillation of wood or made synthetically and used esp. as a solvent, antifreeze, or denaturant for ethyl alcohol and in the synthesis of other chemicals.] The levels of methanol are quite low in a single serving of a product containing aspartame, provided that it has not been exposed to heat or left for a long time on the shelf. Because these factors promote the breakdown of aspartame into its component parts, researchers are concerned that high consumption levels combined with aspartame's unstable shelf life may allow w methanol to reach toxic levels in some cases. Human systemic effects from methanol include changes in circulation, cough, headache, nausea and vomiting, optic nerve neuropathy, respiratory effects, and visual field changes. In experiments, it has shown teratogenic (birth defects) and adverse reproductive effects. On a final note Aspertine can be found in these produces (instant breakfasts, breath mints, cereals, sugar-free chewing gum, cocoa mixes, coffee beverages, frozen desserts, gelatin desserts, juice beverages laxatives, multivitamins, milk drinks, pharmaceuticals and supplements, shake mixes, soft drinks tabletop sweeteners, tea beverages, instant teas and coffees, topping mixes, wine coolers, and yogurt. (whew!)
A bitter white crystalline substance obtained from the saccharinates and regarded as the lactone of saccharinic acid; -- so called because formerly supposed to be isomeric (def. Having the same percentage composition) with cane sugar (saccharose); n.b., this is several times the sweetness of pure cane sugar (and calorie free -- which is the main point of these alternatives to begin with. Obese people and vain people and those with a distorted body image fall into this group of buyers. Saccharine is a chocolate substitute derived from the pods of the carob tree, Saccharin is a sweetner (fyi). In 1977, Canadaís Health Protection Branch (the equivalent to the FDA), released a major study indicating that saccharin causes bladder cancer in rats. This prompted the FDA to propose a ban. Studies carried out by the National Cancer Institute (which relies on the existence of cancer for its own existence) indicated that saccharin use is not associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. The National Academy of Science also echoes that position. It might be stated that the effect of saccharin on the unborn fetus is unknown. It is a well known fact that today, more people make a living from cancer than die of it - and the death rate is increasing. The substance called sucralose is approximately 600 times sweeter than regular sugar (sucrose). Sucrolose is a derivative of refined sugar, making it even more insidious insofaras its effect on the body. In 1992, the FDA was in the process of studying a petition for use of sucralose in 15 foods and beverages, including fruit spreads, milk products and salad dressings. At the same time officials in Canada, Australia and the EEC were also considering its use. The current status of sucralose is unknown. May have effect on thymus gland, important to the immune system. (FYI) Sucralose is the only non-caloric sweetener made from sugar. It is approximately 600 times sweeter than sucrose. Discovered in 1976, sucralose has been developed jointly by McNeil Specialty Products Company, a member of the Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies, and Tate & Lyle, PLC, a world leader in sweeteners and starches. It is currently being marketed in Australia, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Lebanon, Venezuela, New Zealand, Uruguay, Jamaica and Trinidad under the SPLENDAģ brand name. In April, 1998 it was approved for use in the U.S. In 1937 a scientist at the University of Illinois, as the story goes, happened to lay a lit cigarette on a pile of crystal-like powder he was experimenting with. When he picked up the cigarette and inhaled he noticed that the powder on the cigarette tased sweet. What scientist Michael Sveda had discovered was the sweet taste of cyclamates, acid derivatives 30 times sweeter than sugar. Abbott Laboratories in Chicago became aware of this and began to market cyclamates in the early 1950ís. It reigned as the foremost sugar alternative until 1970, when the FDA banned it after learning it caused bladder tumors in laboratory animals. In 1973, Abbott asked the FDA to allow cyclamates back on the market. The FDA, after reviewing Abbotts research, indicated to Abbott that it had not indicated to a reasonable certainty that cyclamate was safe for human consumption. Not one word was said about the biased conflict of interest in allowing Abbott to present safety data on its own product. In 1982, Abbott arrived at more data and again petitioned the FDA to allow its sale, oblivious of any potential risks inherent in the compound. The FDA called on its Cancer Assessment Committee (CAC) to review the data. In 1984, the CAC concluded that the evidence on cyclamate indicated it was safe. It is not known if members of the CAC were paid by Abbott, or influenced in any way to disregard known scientific information, in order to come up with this criminally negligent decision. However, a separate review of cyclamates by the National Academy of Sciences in 1985 stated that while cyclamate did not appear to be carcinogenic in and of itself, some evidence suggsted that it may promote the growth of tumors when it combines with other carcinogens. Abbott Laboratories is still in the process of petitioning the government to reintroduce cyclamates into the food supply. For hundreds of years, people in Paraguay and Brazil have used a sweet leaf to sweeten bitter herbal teas including mate. For nearly 20 years, Japanese consumers by the millions have used extracts of the same plant as a safe, natural, non-caloric sweetener. The plant is stevia, formally known as Stevia rebaudiana, and today it is under wholesale attack by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.Dr. Bertoni wrote some of the earliest articles on the plant in 1905 and 1918. In the latter article he notes: "The principal importance of Ka he'e (stevia) is due to the possibility of substituting it for saccharine. It presents these great advantages over saccharine:
  1. It is not toxic but, on the contrary, it is healthful, as shown
  2. by long experience and according to the studies of Dr. Rebaudi.
  3. It is a sweetening agent of great power.
  4. It can be employed directly in its natural state, (pulverized leaves).
  5. It is much cheaper than saccharine.
Unfortunately, this last point may have been the undoing of stevia. Noncaloric sweeteners are a big business in the U.S., as are caloric sweeteners like sugar and the sugar-alcohols, sorbital, mannitol and xylitol. It is small wonder that the powerful sweetener interests here, do not want the natural, inexpensive, and non-patentable stevia approved in the U.S. Polyols being used in foods in the U.S. are erythritol, hydrogenated starch hydrolysates (including maltitol syrups), isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, sorbitol and xylitol. (look them up http://www.caloriecontrol.org/redcal.html). For the vast majority of consumers, polyols do not cause any problem. In some people, excessive consumption may cause gastrointestinal symptoms, including laxative effects, similar to reactions to beans and certain high-fiber foods. Such symptoms are dependent upon an individualís sensitivity and the other foods eaten along with the polyol-containing product. Discovered in 1967 by Hoechst AG, acesulfame potassium - or acesulfame K - is a high-intensity, non-caloric sweetener. Acesulfame K is not metabolized by the body and is excreted unchanged. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies Sweet One as containing zero calories because the number of calories per one serving (less than four calories) is nutritionally insignificant. (Produced in Sweet One Sugar Substitute... again with the little packets.)Acesulfame - K (pronounced: a-seh-SUHL-faym-K) was formulated by the Germans in the late 1960s. This non-caloric ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER (also called Ace-k) was approved by the Federal Drug Administration & European Directive, and shortly thereafter widely adopted in more than 20 countries. It is 200 times sweeter than sugar and, unlike aspartame, retains its sweetness when heated, making it suitable for cooking and baking. This sweetener is composed of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulphur and potassium atoms. It is widely used in a broad range of commercial products including beverages, baked goods, candies and imitation dairy products. More than 90 safety studies (42,43), including four long-term animal feeding studies, conducted over the last 15 years were submitted to the FDA. The FDA addressed the question of tumors found in some rats fed acesulfame K during one of the long-term studies (44). A detailed analysis of the tumors showed that they were typical of what could be routinely expected in rats and were not related to acesulfame K. The FDA and the Joint Expert Committee for Food Additives (JECFA) of the World Health Organization set an ADI of 15 mg/ kg of body weight, which is the equivalent of a 60-kg person eating approximately 150 g (36 tsp) sugar daily. One packet of Sweet One contains 50 mg acesulfame K. Acesulfame K is used in more than 1,000 different products worldwide, including a wide range of candies, baked goods, desserts, and soft drinks. It has been approved for use in more than 40 different countries.

a small expansion on +Maxine's statement about allergenicity of foods produced by genetic modification


First you might want to read this article link This article appeared in Switzerland on the 6th of September 98 in the newspaper, SonntagsZeitung! Title of piece: "Insurance companies fear because of genetic engineering." I chuckle to myself; anyway I think this is important and needs more than a passing reference to a journal/pamplet whatever (esp. since it was dated at 1996). Hazards from genetic modification - due to the interconnected genetic network Because no gene ever functions in isolation, there will almost always be unexpected and unintended "side-effects" from the gene or genes transferred into an organism. One major concern over transgenic foods is their potential to be allergenic, which has become a concrete issue since a transgenic soybean containing a brazil-nut gene was found to be allergenic. Recent studies suggest that allergenicity in plants is connected to proteins involved in defence against pests and diseases. Thus, transgenic plants engineered for resistance to diseases and pests may have a higher allergenic potential than the unmodified plants. Another instructive case is a transgenic yeast engineered for increased rate of fermentation with multiple copies of one of its own genes, which resulted in the accumulation of the metabolite, methyl glyoxal, at toxic, mutagenic levels. This should serve as a warning against applying the "familiarity principle" in risk assessment. We simply do not have sufficient understanding of the principles of physiological regulation to enable us to categorize, a priori, those genetic modifications that will pose a risk and those that do not. It is a strong argument in favour of the case by case approach.

An additional problem is the introduction of proteins that have not been commonly used in foodstuffs. An example is proteins that are not normally a part of the human diet such as proteins from viruses, bacteria or insects or proteins with modified amino acid sequences. In these cases, there will be no one in the population who has an identifiable allergy against such a protein. Subsequently, potential allergies may develop over the years. As the testing of new food proteins in people would require research on large samples to uncover the small subset who are sensitive to it, this would be impractical and prohibitively expensive. Existing food allergy databases have to be adjusted for this problem and the necessary data have to be added onto existing files: data such as genes, expression products, epitopes, donor and acceptor organisms, products groups and brands. Labelling would make it easier to track food allergy symptoms. Therefore, consumers have to be informed about the fact that they are buying or consuming a GEF, and need information about the genetic modification (see below).

On a last note:The officially appointed UK Committee on the Ethics of Genetic Modification and Food Use, chaired by the Rev. John Polkinghorne, carried out a wide public consultation and issued a report in September 1993 on all of the moral and ethical issues involved. This was accepted by the UK Government and welcomed by IFST. The Committee found that the concerns were misconceptions rather than of real substance, arising from lack of knowledge, outside the scientific community, of just what was involved. The fact is that any gene extracted from one species for copying into another, is not itself inserted but is copied in the laboratory and diluted millions of times before a single gene is transferred. The chance that the original gene would be found are much less than the chance of recovering a particular drop of water from all the oceans of the world. If this were widely understood fears of cannibalism or of contravening religious food taboos would be seen to be unwarranted. Unfortunately, this fact does not make good media copy, whereas sensational "cannibalism" scare stories do.

The Polkinghorne Committee's conclusions were:
  1. genetic modification of food and medicines is here to stay. It is not something to be stopped, and it would not be ethically right or necessary that it should be;
  2. there is no reason for any ban on the use of copy genes of human origin or from animals subject to dietary restrictions, but scientists working in this field should be discouraged from using such genes where alternatives would be equally effective;
  3. products containing such copy genes should be labelled to enabled consumers to make informed choices;
  4. government and industry should look for ways of explaining genetic modification to the general public.


Shouldn't all genetically modified foods, or those containing genetically modified ingredients, be labelled as such, to warn consumers?
There are two distinct kinds of genetic modification. The first is as old as the hills, and applies to all the food we eat. Traditional breeding methods of improvement are genetic modification by slow, hit-and-miss means. Science now enables it to be done systematically and more rapidly. That kind of modification objectively needs no special label indication -- otherwise it would have to be given on virtually all foods. Yet if the ready to eat product still contains genes incorporated by modern methods, informed consumer choice requires label information to that effect. In the UK there is a voluntary agreement by manufacturers and retailers to give such information, and a similar agreement is being developed across the whole EU. These developments have been welcomed by IFST. The second kind, which could not be done by traditional breeding, is copying genes from one species to another. If some consumers wish, for whatever reason, to avoid purchasing products of this second kind, if the copy genes remain present in the food product, that information should be given on the label. This dual approach was adopted in the recommendations of the UK Food Advisory Committee, accepted by the Government and welcomed by IFST. It is now also the basis of EU law.


from a site pertaining to vegetarianism and more


One other sobering footnote; flesh-eaters are actually ingesting fear. Before an animal is "terminated," he knows whatís going on. Heís scared. The adrenaline is pumping, fear is actually shooting through his body and then heís killed and "processed" - with the fear still in the meat! So, in addition to all of the other wonderful things you get when you consume flesh foods, you get the bonus of eating a terrified animals adrenaline. This canít be good, for our body, mind or soul. Food for thought.


This is a good start but clearly this quote (considering the context of the page) has no "real" value unless you are thinking about giving up meat for a life of vegtables. It does at least point to some real digestable information (by reference only) so back to the infoseek(er) for a minute. Let's assmue that this proposition is true for a moment (springboarded from http://www.grandin.com/meat/cattle/slaughter-1.html), and look at the corollary problems that such an understanding brings to light. Firstly the taste of the meat must be called into question (think about sustinance farming versus insustrial farming ... in terms of cattle raising). The general quality of the meat is known to be better tasting from a small sustinance farm where the cow(s) are killed individually and privately (an intimate sort of slaughter) compared to that of the industrial approach where each cow is set on a line and one after another destroyed. More importantly is the reduced health effects of digesting this adrenaline existant in industrial raised cattle. Adrenaline in humans (for instance) is elevated during moments of emotional excitement; adrenaline and its 'precursor' noradrenaline produce these effects. With adrenaline there is an increase of heart rate and of heart output (i.e., increases the contractile force of cardiac muscle ... the heart empties itself to a greater extent in systole; The contraction of the heart and arteries by which the blood is forced onward and the circulation kept up; -- correlative to {diastole}. Anyway to generalize (again) the chief effects of adrenaline are metabolic, those of noradrenaline are on the circulation. Now the question remains what effects are there from digesting bovine adrenaline . This is going nowhere fast, I don't want to engage the relative ethics of meat eating/slaughtering &c. What accounts for good information on this topic are rabid vegatarian types (where it is hard to separate fact from fanatacism so to speak.) finis. What I will do is supplement this with a position/quotation concerning fat and its relative effects on health: Fats in foods, or, more correctly, their fatty acids, are of three main types, saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated.Saturated fatty acids carry a full quota of hydrogen atoms in their chemical structure. This is the type that increases the amount of cholesterol in the blood and is considered a risk factor in heart disease; animal fats are the main source. When one pair of hydrogen atoms is missing, the fatty acids are termed monounsaturated. They do not raise blood cholesterol and may even be beneficial. The main sources are olive oil and rapeseed oil (used in some margarines and low fat spreads). When more than one pair of hydrogen atoms is missing, the fatty acids are termed polyunsaturated. They predominate in most vegetable oils. Most appear to have no effect on blood cholesterol levels but are useful if they replace saturates in the diet. However, those found in fatty fish and fish oils (termed omega-3 polyunsaturated) are considered to help to lower cholesterol and therefore to be beneficial..(there are arguments against this last statement). Anyway Unsaturated fatty acids in foods can exist in two differently-shaped forms, scientifically described as the cis and trans forms. Some trans fatty acids are naturally found in milk and butter. When oils are hydrogenated, the unsaturated fatty acids become partially-saturated though retaining a degree of unsaturation. In the course of this, these still partially-unsaturated fatty acids have, to some extent, become converted to the trans form. While some research suggests that trans fatty acids may be harmful, the evidence is somewhat conflicting. As yet there is no official guidance on the subject, other than that the amount currently consumed should not be increased.


Fat Substitutes Olestra

Replacing fat in the diet is not as easy as it may sound. Contrary to public perception, natural fats actually have many useful roles in the diet. They are one of the nutrient categories essential for proper growth and development and maintenance of good health. They carry the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K and aid in their absorption in the intestine. They are the only source of linoleic acid, an essential fatty acid. And they are an especially important source of calories for people who are underweight and for infants and toddlers, who have the highest energy needs per kilogram of body weight of any age group. Fat plays important roles in food preparation and consumption. It gives taste, consistency, stability, and palatability to foods.
Fat substitutes can be carbohydrate-, protein- or fat-based. The first type to reach the market contained carbohydrate as the main ingredient. Avicel, for example, is a cellulose gel introduced in the mid-1960s by FMC Corp., and N-Oil is a tapioca dextrin introduced in the early 1980s by National Starch and Chemical Co. These types of fat substitutes are used in a variety of foods today, including lunch meats, salad dressings, frozen desserts, table spreads, dips, baked goods, and candy. Protein-based fat substitutes entered the market in the early 1990s. There are two that have been affirmed as "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS): microparticulated proteins from egg white or dairy protein and whey protein concentrate. Microparticulation is a process in which the protein is shaped into microscopic round particles that roll easily over one another. These fat substitutes give a better sensation in the mouth--"mouth feel" in industry parlance--than the carbohydrate-based ones and can be used in some cooked foods. However, they're not suitable for frying.


Olestra is a fat-based fat substitute developed by Proctor & Gamble and marketed the brand name, Olean. Frito-Lay is the first company to use the additive in their "Wow" line of potato chips. Researchers discovered the unique properties of olestra while searching for a fat that could be efficiently absorbed by premature infants. These researchers discovered that this fat passed through the body without being absorbed at all. So unlike the other fat substitutes, it provides zero calories. This is due to its unique configuration. Most fat substitutes mimic the molecular shape of fat--one molecule of glycerol attached to three molecules of fatty acids. With olestra, the glycerol molecule is replaced with sucrose and has six, seven or eight fatty acids attached. The fatty acids can come from a variety of vegetable oils, such as soybean, corn, palm, coconut, and cottonseed oils. The idea is that with this many fatty acids, digestive enzymes can't get to the sucrose center in the time it takes for the substance to move through the digestive tract. The sucrose center is where breakdown of the substance for absorption into the body would take place. P&G first sought FDA approval for olestra--as a drug--in 1975. The company filed an investigational new drug application after early human studies showed that olestra lowered blood cholesterol. But additional studies showed that it did not sufficiently reduce cholesterol to warrant its use as a drug. In 1988, P&G withdrew the application.In 1987, the company filed a food additive petition for the approval of the use of olestra as a calorie-free replacement for fat in shortening and cooking oil. In 1990, it amended the petition to limit olestra's use to 100 percent replacement for conventional fats in the preparation of savory snacks, such as potato chips, cheese puffs, and crackers. P&G also is seeking approval for olestra in Canada and the United Kingdom. Potential problems include "possible" gastrointestinal problems, such as diarrhea or cramping, after consuming olestra-containing products.Studies to determine the prevalence of GI symptoms are thus far equivocal, and individuals who are susceptible to GI distress should exercise caution when consuming these products. At any rate it seems to conclude this section: Frito Lay snack products containing olestra are currently being test marketed in three cities (Eau Claire, WI; Cedar Rapids, IA; and Grand Junction, CO), and Pringles potato chips containing olestra are being test marketed in Columbus, OH. It is difficult to obtain an unbiased sample of consumer acceptance of these products. There is clearly profit to be made in the $15 billion snack food market, and if the American taste for fat can be satisfied with a safe product that does not contribute calories or fat to the diet, there would be additional health benefits as well.

got milk? or milk it does a body good


In the largest study of its kind a Chinese-British-American group studied proteins effect on 6,500 men and women in 65 counties of China. The results pointed to direct correlation between dairy protein and heart disease, cancer and diabetes and a robbing of calcium from boney masses by raising serum cholesterol more than any other fat. This means that casein (A proteid substance present in both the animal and the vegetable kingdom. In the animal kingdom it is chiefly found in milk) milk proteins are just as bad if not worse than any meat product. Milk proteins have a strong inciting effect on autoantibodies produced in connection with systemic lupus and other autoimmune diseases. Milk proteins are strongly correlated with kidney and bladder stones and high levels of uric acid, ammonia, and phenols formed by proteolytic bacteria which line our digestive tract when we consume a high-protein diet.Then we have treatment of the "cow" that produces milk. The new intense treatment designed to boost milk production to ten times its natural level is now being supplemented with the use of BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) which further increases output while at the same time making the animals more susceptible to infections and disease. To compensate, their feed must be laced with doses of antibiotics, and increased shots and water born antibiotics are being employed, just to keep them functioning. Despite this madness the average lifespan of a dairy cow is only FOUR years. A cows natural lifespan is 20 to 25 years. We still do not know the long term effects that BHG will have on the consumers, but one must note that the cows life is shortened by up to 75%.

This just in ...
WASHINGTON -- Milk labeling changes with the new year Thursday with two-percent milk no longer ``low fat,'' the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday. Also, in a move to reduce birth defects, food manufacturers are required from Thursday to add the nutrient folic acid to enriched breads, flours, corn meals, pastas, rice and other grain products. The new labeling requirement brings milk into line with other products. In 1993, the FDA defined ``low fat'' foods as those which have less than three grams of fat per serving. It exempted milk from that definition because ``standards of identity'' for low-fat milk were set before 1990, when Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The new rule revokes that exemption. Two-percent milk, which contains five grams of fat per eight-ounce serving, can be labeled ``reduced fat'' because it contains at least 25 percent less fat than whole milk, which has eight grams of fat per serving, the FDA said. One-point-five-percent milk, which has about four grams of fat per serving, can be labeled ``light'' and milk with less than 0.5 grams of fat per serving can be labeled ``nonfat,'' ''fat-free'' or ``skim,'' the FDA said. One-percent milk, which contains 2.5 grams of fat per serving, can be labeled ``low fat,'' the FDA said. Health and Services Secretary Donna Shalala said that the two new rules should improve the health of all Americans. In particular, ``folic acid fortification of bakery products is one of the safest scientific approaches we know to protect the future of our children,'' she said. When consumed in adequate amounts by women before and during early pregnancy, folic acid reduces the risk of birth defects such as spina bifida - a common birth defect resulting from the failure of the spine to close. In 1992, the Public Health Service recommended that all women of child-bearing age consume 0.4 milligrams of folic acid per day to reduce their risk of giving birth to children with neural tube defects


Have a huge chocolate cake sitting in front of you, where is the milk? Can't possibly indulge yourself properly w/o a tall clear glass brimming with pure white milk, hell you'd choke right? Milk could save your life (peanutbutter glut in your throat...save yourself with milk!).


Each sip of milk provides you with:
  1. Pituitary hormones (PRL, GH, TSH, FSH, LH ACTH Oxytocin)
  2. Steroid hormones (Estradiol, Estriol, Progesterone, Testosterone, 17-Ketosteroids, Corticosterone, Vitamine D)
  3. Hypothalamic hormones (TRH, LHRH, Somatostatin, PRL-inhibiting factor, PRL-releasing factor, GnRH, GRH)
  4. Thyroid and Parathyroid hormones (T3, T4, rT3, Calcitonin, Parathormone, PTH peptide)
  5. gastrointestinal peptides (Vasoactive intestinal peptide, Bombesin, Cholecystokinin, Gastrin, Gastrin inhibitory peptide, Pancreatic peptide, Y peptide, Substance P and Neurotensin)
  6. Growth Factors (IGF's (I and II), IGF binding proteins, Nerve growth factor, Epidermal growth factor and TGF alpha, TGF beta, Growth Inhibitors MDGI and MAF, and Platelet derived growth factor
  7. Others... (PGE, PGF2 alpha, cAMP, cGMP, Delta sleep inducing peptide, Transferrin, Lactoferrin, Casomorphin and Erythropoietin


In Short...Growth hormones, fat, cholesterol, allergenic proteins, blood, pus, antibiotics, bacteria, virus and more!


realicra
Reality Cracking
redhomepage red links red anonymity red+ORC redstudents' essays redacademy database
redantismut redtools redbots & agents reversing redcocktails redjavascript wars redsearch_forms redmail_fravia
redIs reverse engineering illegal?