Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | ... | 34
26208 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5801

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 572435 23-Jan-2012 16:49
Send private message

cgrew:
sbiddle: And the food bill has absolutely nothing at all to do with this.


Did I say it did?

The key thing you're missing is that it moves to a risk based food safety analysis. These comments show it's very clear you have not read the bill, have a limited understanding of it, and also have absolutely no understanding of HAACP, food safety and risk management.


That's great, so where were you & your "food safety & risk management" when food safety slipped Aspartame in to society??





Once again you're quite clearly showing you have asolutely no understanding of the food bill or food safety requirements.

Unlike contaminated orange juice, aspartamine won't kill you instantly, even if a heath risk was proven. If you don't want to consume it you don't have to, that's the great thing about living in a society where we have laws surrounding the sale of food.

And as I keep pointing out greater food safety laws now mean that food labelling is required so if you don't want to consume aspartamine or mechanically seperated chicken you don't need to. The great thing about the food bill is that it enhances this even further, and removes some loopholes that allow people to sell food without requiring labelling.

What I do care about is stopping a backyard farmer from selling food that is unsafe. This law replaces 30 year old laws that haven't kept up with the changing world.

I'm outta this debate - there is quite clearly no point reasoning with somebody who believes the entire world is a conspiracy and is more happy to spread FUD about a law than spend time actually reading what it says.








1598 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  Reply # 572436 23-Jan-2012 16:51
Send private message

sbiddle:
cgrew:
sbiddle: And the food bill has absolutely nothing at all to do with this.


Did I say it did?

The key thing you're missing is that it moves to a risk based food safety analysis. These comments show it's very clear you have not read the bill, have a limited understanding of it, and also have absolutely no understanding of HAACP, food safety and risk management.


That's great, so where were you & your "food safety & risk management" when food safety slipped Aspartame in to society??





Once again you're quite clearly showing you have asolutely no understanding of the food bill or food safety requirements.

Unlike contaminated orange juice, aspartamine won't kill you instantly, even if a heath risk was proven. If you don't want to consume it you don't have to, that's the great thing about living in a society where we have laws surrounding the sale of food.

And as I keep pointing out greater food safety laws now mean that food labelling is required so if you don't want to consume aspartamine or mechanically seperated chicken you don't need to. The great thing about the food bill is that it enhances this even further, and removes some loopholes that allow people to sell food without requiring labelling.

What I do care about is stopping a backyard farmer from selling food that is unsafe. This law replaces 30 year old laws that haven't kept up with the changing world.

Can you please tell me when was the last time someone died from orange juice?

 
 
 
 


Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software
26208 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5801

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 572440 23-Jan-2012 17:00
Send private message

codyc1515:
sbiddle:
cgrew:
sbiddle: And the food bill has absolutely nothing at all to do with this.


Did I say it did?

The key thing you're missing is that it moves to a risk based food safety analysis. These comments show it's very clear you have not read the bill, have a limited understanding of it, and also have absolutely no understanding of HAACP, food safety and risk management.


That's great, so where were you & your "food safety & risk management" when food safety slipped Aspartame in to society??





Once again you're quite clearly showing you have asolutely no understanding of the food bill or food safety requirements.

Unlike contaminated orange juice, aspartamine won't kill you instantly, even if a heath risk was proven. If you don't want to consume it you don't have to, that's the great thing about living in a society where we have laws surrounding the sale of food.

And as I keep pointing out greater food safety laws now mean that food labelling is required so if you don't want to consume aspartamine or mechanically seperated chicken you don't need to. The great thing about the food bill is that it enhances this even further, and removes some loopholes that allow people to sell food without requiring labelling.

What I do care about is stopping a backyard farmer from selling food that is unsafe. This law replaces 30 year old laws that haven't kept up with the changing world.

Can you please tell me when was the last time someone died from orange juice?


I know in the US (source is speaker at a course I was on a couple of years ago, and Google dosn't show anything more recent) the last reported deaths were in 1999 - after that the FDA essentially imposed mandatory pasteurisation for most juice because of the risks.

At least orange juice can be pasteurised, unlike all the rockmelons that killed people last year, and the outbreak in Europe from sprouts that killed around 40 people last uear.


1598 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  Reply # 572442 23-Jan-2012 17:02
Send private message

sbiddle:
codyc1515:
sbiddle:
cgrew:
sbiddle: And the food bill has absolutely nothing at all to do with this.


Did I say it did?

The key thing you're missing is that it moves to a risk based food safety analysis. These comments show it's very clear you have not read the bill, have a limited understanding of it, and also have absolutely no understanding of HAACP, food safety and risk management.


That's great, so where were you & your "food safety & risk management" when food safety slipped Aspartame in to society??





Once again you're quite clearly showing you have asolutely no understanding of the food bill or food safety requirements.

Unlike contaminated orange juice, aspartamine won't kill you instantly, even if a heath risk was proven. If you don't want to consume it you don't have to, that's the great thing about living in a society where we have laws surrounding the sale of food.

And as I keep pointing out greater food safety laws now mean that food labelling is required so if you don't want to consume aspartamine or mechanically seperated chicken you don't need to. The great thing about the food bill is that it enhances this even further, and removes some loopholes that allow people to sell food without requiring labelling.

What I do care about is stopping a backyard farmer from selling food that is unsafe. This law replaces 30 year old laws that haven't kept up with the changing world.

Can you please tell me when was the last time someone died from orange juice?


I know in the US (source is speaker at a course I was on a couple of years ago, and Google dosn't show anything more recent) the last reported deaths were in 1999 - after that the FDA essentially imposed mandatory pasteurisation for most juice because of the risks.

At least orange juice can be pasteurised, unlike all the rockmelons that killed people last year, and the outbreak in Europe from sprouts that killed around 40 people last uear.


We grow most of our stuff here at home and I'm still alive, including oranges (which we use for orange juice). I'm still alive.

26208 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5801

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 572444 23-Jan-2012 17:03
Send private message

There was another salmonella outbreak from orange juice in 2005 in the US with 152 cases of people who became sick in 23 states.


860 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  Reply # 572448 23-Jan-2012 17:08
Send private message

sbiddle: Once again you're quite clearly showing you have asolutely no understanding of the food bill or food safety requirements.


And you are?

Unlike contaminated orange juice, aspartamine won't kill you instantly
 

Your right there.

even if a heath risk was proven.


I think it has been.

- http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx
- http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/fraud.htm%20

I'm outta this debate - there is quite clearly no point reasoning with somebody who believes the entire world is a conspiracy and is more happy to spread FUD about a law than spend time actually reading what it says.


That's jumping the gun a bit? Your pretty much insinuating that they ^^^ are my beliefs and that quite frankly is your opinion there. In other words your implying that I'm blind, but does that automatically give you vision...










BDFL - Memuneh
60027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11118

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 572453 23-Jan-2012 17:17
Send private message

codyc1515: We grow most of our stuff here at home and I'm still alive, including oranges (which we use for orange juice). I'm still alive.


It's not orange juice that will kill you. It's contaminated orange juice.

What the food bill does is to implement standards that will allow better control (yes, you don't want to give up control) over food safety, so if someone wants to sell their homegrown oranges then they will have to meet these standards, in safety, labeling  and more.

Have you bothered reading the last three pages to see that the discussion is about food safety?

 




1598 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  Reply # 572456 23-Jan-2012 17:20
Send private message

freitasm: Have you bothered reading the last three pages to see that the discussion is about food safety?

Yes, I have been following the discussion.

860 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  Reply # 572489 23-Jan-2012 18:51
Send private message

Sheesh, If our Mother's saw the way we talk to each other on this discussion they would be ashamed...

1025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 96

Trusted

  Reply # 572500 23-Jan-2012 19:37
Send private message

cgrew:  http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx
- http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/fraud.htm%20



"Doctor" Mercola is a freakin' joke.

http://www.skepdic.com/mercola.html

Not only has aspartame been proven to be safe, it was tested using ridiculously high doses, far, far, far beyond which a person could feasibly consume.




My very metal Doctor Who theme

gzt

9597 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1407


  Reply # 572503 23-Jan-2012 19:40
Send private message

Repeating my post with emphasis:

gzt: I have no doubt that biotech and industrial interests had a large role in drafting this bill.

Some of the people who oppose it have been spreading fear uncertainty and doubt to such a large and unbelievable extent, and people who are directly affected are ignoring them completely.

As I understand it, the Green Party cooperated with the government to articulate and address some of the early concerns and more or less signed off on the revised bill.

If there is anything objectionable left in the bill now (after going through several revisions) - What exactly are these things and how will they affect food production in New Zealand? I am genuinely interested. 

For instance does the bill restrict [or regulate] any activity where there is very little justification on safety grounds?


Unfortunately your chosen source nzfoodsecurity.org  seems completely unable to articulate this in any detail.

860 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  Reply # 572509 23-Jan-2012 20:14
Send private message

BurningBeard: Not only has aspartame been proven to be safe, it was tested using ridiculously high doses, far, far, far beyond which a person could feasibly consume.


“Dr. John Olney, who founded the field of neuoscience called excitotoxicity, attempted to stop the approval of aspartame with Attorney James Turner back in 1996. The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and violated the Delaney Amendment which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause Cancer. Detailed information on this can be found in the Bressler Report (FDA report on Searle).” Source
  
In 1995, the FDA was forced to release, under the Freedom of Information act, a list of ninety-two symptoms caused by aspartame reported by thousands of victims:





“Donald Rumsfeld was on President Reagan’s transition team and the day after he took office he appointed an FDA Commissioner who would approve aspartame. The FDA set up a Board of Inquiry of the best scientists they had to offer who said aspartame is not safe and causes brain tumors, and the petition for approval is hereby revoked. The new FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, over-ruled that Board of Inquiry and then went to work for the PR Agency of the manufacturer, Burson-Marstellar, rumored at $1000.00 a day, and has refused to talk to the press ever since.”
- Ibid


How Aspartame became legal - http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm



BDFL - Memuneh
60027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11118

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 572545 23-Jan-2012 22:11
Send private message

cgrew: 
“Dr. John Olney, who founded the field of neuoscience called excitotoxicity, attempted to stop the approval of aspartame with Attorney James Turner back in 1996. The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and violated the Delaney Amendment which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause Cancer. Detailed information on this can be found in the Bressler Report (FDA report on Searle).” Source


"To stop the approval of aspartame ... back in 1996".

Aspartame was released in 1974. Your source is full of nothing.

As per Aspartame: A Safety Evaluation Based on Current Use Levels, Regulations, and Toxicological and Epidemiological Studies:

"Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.

I rather believe a scientific study than a source who believes the whole thing is a Rumsfeld conspiracy... Now THAT is a conspiracy theory. Next they will say Rumsfeld used aspartame in 9/11.






1025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 96

Trusted

  Reply # 572591 24-Jan-2012 07:15
Send private message

freitasm:
Aspartame was released in 1974. Your source is full of nothing.

(rest snipped)



+1


cgrew:
“Dr. John Olney, who founded the field of neuoscience called excitotoxicity, attempted to stop the approval of aspartame with Attorney James Turner back in 1996. The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and violated the Delaney Amendment which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause Cancer. Detailed information on this can be found in the Bressler Report (FDA report on Searle).” Source 
   
In 1995, the FDA was forced to release, under the Freedom of Information act, a list of ninety-two symptoms caused by aspartame reported by thousands of victims:  


These are complaints to the FDA that anyone can make at any time purely based on personal thoughts and experiences with the substance. There's no burden to scientifically prove the connection between substance and symptom. It's just a bunch of anecdotes no better than "I had a made who stopped having headaches after giving up artificial sweeteners." Far from scientific.

http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_myths_brain.html

 When aspartame is digested, the body breaks it down into its components, aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methanol, which are consumed in much greater amounts in common foods, such as milk, meat, dried beans, fruits and vegetables. The body handles the components from aspartame in the same way it handles them when derived from other foods. Aspartame does not enter the bloodstream and therefore cannot travel to essential organs including the brain. Thus, there is no physiological reason why aspartame could cause cancer. 
 




My very metal Doctor Who theme

860 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  Reply # 572595 24-Jan-2012 07:34
Send private message

freitasm: "To stop the approval of aspartame ... back in 1996".


Why did NutraSweet take so long to get approved though?  

Aspartame was released in 1974.


Not to the public though.  

I rather believe a scientific study than a source who believes the whole thing is a Rumsfeld conspiracy... Now THAT is a conspiracy theory. Next they will say Rumsfeld used aspartame in 9/11. 


Do you know of any benefits Donald Rumsfeld brought to American society? 

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | ... | 34
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

TCF and Telcos Toughen Up on Scam Callers
Posted 23-Apr-2018 09:39


Amazon launches the International Shopping Experience in the Amazon Shopping App
Posted 19-Apr-2018 08:38


Spark New Zealand and TVNZ to bring coverage of Rugby World Cup 2019
Posted 16-Apr-2018 06:55


How Google can seize Microsoft Office crown
Posted 14-Apr-2018 11:08


How back office transformation drives IRD efficiency
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:15


iPod laws in a smartphone world: will we ever get copyright right?
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:13


Lightbox service using big data and analytics to learn more about customers
Posted 9-Apr-2018 12:11


111 mobile caller location extended to iOS
Posted 6-Apr-2018 13:50


Huawei announces the HUAWEI P20 series
Posted 29-Mar-2018 11:41


Symantec Internet Security Threat Report shows increased endpoint technology risks
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:29


Spark switches on long-range IoT network across New Zealand
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:22


Stuff Pix enters streaming video market
Posted 21-Mar-2018 09:18


Windows no longer Microsoft’s main focus
Posted 13-Mar-2018 07:47


Why phone makers are obsessed with cameras
Posted 11-Mar-2018 12:25


New Zealand Adopts International Open Data Charter
Posted 3-Mar-2018 12:48



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.