Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

1101102104106107358

Replies

  • MsHarryWinston
    MsHarryWinston Posts: 1,027 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?

    Every product has an inherent risk/reward.

    DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.

    No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.

    BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.

    Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...

    af9puqmal968.jpg
    9ipvc8idtvyj.jpg


    Oh my god. I was just watching the Mad Men episode where they came up with the "It's Toasted" marketing campaign.

  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,582 Member
    edited July 2017
    ...
  • nokanjaijo
    nokanjaijo Posts: 466 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    It's pointless. It will inevitably be argued otherwise. After all, they've been approved for use in food. But I don't believe that necessarily means they are safe. I still have my concerns.
    If you must know, some of the additives I try to avoid BHA or BHT, artificial sweeteners, food dyes like blue # 1 & 2, red # 3 - just to name a few -sodium nitrate, sulfur dioxide, sodium benzoate, potassium bromate, high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and of course trans fats. Pesticides, artificial hormones, antibiotics… And the list goes on.

    If science saying they're safe is not enough for you to believe they're safe, how do you eat ANYTHING? After all, apples contain cyanide.
    Science has not shown that eating a plethora of foods laced with those additives for years upon years is safe, however. I'm not saying that eating foods like that occasionally or as a very small minority of the diet are a big issue.

    Also, apples are naturally found in nature. You cannot say the same thing amount most of those other things listed like MSG, trans fats, and food dyes.

    MSG is in tomatoes.

    ...and yet companies like the one below are paying off fraud lawsuits for concealing the presence of MSG in their foods. How silly! :|

    https://www.bigclassaction.com/settlement/noodle-soup-maker-settles-msg-consumer-fraud-lawsuit.php

    It's often cheaper to settle than to fight.

    Although not always.

    See the Ford Pinto case study.

    Had they not gone through the trouble of determining that it would be cheaper to pay off the lawsuits than fight/fix the issue they would have done quite well.

    But the larger question is: if the food company is doing nothing wrong by adding MSG to their food, why would they be willing to pay a large settlement for failing to disclose it?

    According to the article, it's because it's illegal to say "No MSG added" on a package that contains foods that naturally contain MSG. So they broke the law. It seems like a silly law but it's the law and they broke it.
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,262 Member
    edited July 2017
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    LucasLean wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tiasommer wrote: »
    Do you have complete confidence that every chemical in your food Is safe for regular, repeated consumption? More power to ya. They said DDT was safe at one point. They said cigarettes were good for your health. They said BPA was safe. No one is saying if it's natural it's automatically safe, as in Hemlock. But you seem to be saying that chemicals are to be unquestionably trusted?

    Every product has an inherent risk/reward.

    DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.

    No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.

    BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.

    DDT is banned because it killed animals, such as bald eagles, pet dogs, osprey and other animals. Banning it helped save the bald eagle from getting killed by its use. It wasn't worth the risk since it's now banned in the US. The negative effects far outweighed the positive ones. That's why we no longer use it. I'm glad that DDT is banned as it has polluted rivers and killed fish and contaminated everything and killed everything in its path. There obviously are safer pesticides and that's what we use today. There were more risks than rewards.

    Educating yourself on the subject would help. I learned about it in chemistry classes and then read about it on my own to understand it further. I've never heard of people defending its use until now.

    Nope - do some research on the subject yourself. There was never any study performed that linked DDT to any of the effects that you quote. It was banned because the president of the Audubon Society read a book called 'Silent Spring' (a fiction work that people chose to accept as gospel) and decided that DDT was going to cause the death of all of the insects and there by cause the death of all animals on the planet. The Audubon society then put pressure on the head of the EPA (who at the time was also on the board of the Audubon society) and the head of the EPA over-ruled his own scientists (who recommended that DDT not be banned because they couldn't establish the link to animal deaths/disease/etc) and banned DDT.

    As to the more risks than rewards - tell that to the millions of people who have died from malaria since DDT was banned - since DDT has always been the single most effective pesticide that has been developed to kill mosquitos and nothing in our present arsenal has ever been as effective.

    Neither of you posted sources, so both of your posts are pointless.

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html

    Specifically, read the paragraph titled 'The Silent Spring Fraud'

    This one talks about the deaths that can be attributed to malaria:

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259
  • jseams1234
    jseams1234 Posts: 1,202 Member
    edited July 2017
    http://bfy.tw/Cicq


    However, you will note that a lot of it is still heavily politicized.
This discussion has been closed.