Thread: We are poisoning our kids!

I have written an article on the dangers of labeling children with particular regard to behavioral problems that are being referred to as mental health disorders such as ADD. The article prompted some controversy and so I am writing this article to merely present supporting data which demonstrates that WE are responsible for many of the illnesses' not just behavioural ones which our children are today suffering from.

When we diagnose a condition and apply a familiar label to it, society has a tendancy to accept it as 'one of those things' and then works towards treating the symptoms. What we need to do though is work towards eradicating the cause.

Never considering the cause removes responsibility from parents and society and allows them to deny they are harming their own children. What we need to do is be more pro-active and take steps to prevent it from happenning. This problem will get worse and not only affect your own children but your granchildren's children - if they are not all infertile by then!

We are poisoning our children via pollution, electrical exposure,chemical use and poor diet, which includes additives that are unsafe.

We did not grow up in this environment ourselves, our world was not as polluted as it is today with electricity, chemicals, toxins, gases, dietary changes etc. The huge increase in childhood ailments and allergies and even deaths can largely be related back to the fact 'we are poisoning our children'.

Will they thank us for it?

There are vast bodies of evidence that inform about these problems, a quick Google on ' are we poisoning our children?' will reveal pages and pages of data and evidence and also articles asking WHY the government is not doing anything about it, when they KNOW what they are doing.

Below for your convenience are some of these site links with important quotes taken from them:

http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/2787

"The dread we all feel about increasing numbers of cancer, asthma, learning disabilities, and birth defects has triggered a movement for proactive health measures. Because of their constantly developing physiology, children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to the damage of chemical exposures.

Aside from disrupting the immune and reproductive systems, kids can be impacted neurologically- ironically harming their ability to learn in the institution they are sent to be educated. The fact that threshold levels of pesticide exposure and health studies are currently based solely on an adult male of approximately 160 pounds underscores that children are counting on adults to protect them. So far, we are failing."

http://www.rmbarry.com/books/lets_booklet.html

"Many scientists and doctors are discovering that there is a connection between our increased use of household chemicals and the increased incidence of chronic illnesses in children like cancer, asthma, ADD, birth defects, and a host of other problems."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/...enn/index.html

"Every year, U.S. industry releases about 24 billion pounds of toxic substances that are believed to cause developmental and neurological problems in children.

That amount could fill a string of railroad cars stretching from New York City to Albuquerque, New Mexico, and yet there are no emissions standards for these harmful chemicals.

This alarming finding is one of many in Polluting Our Future: Chemical Emissions in the U.S. that Affect Child Development and Learning, a joint report released Thursday by the National Environmental Trust, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Learning Disabilities Association. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...12/njunk12.xml

A sinister cocktail of junk food, marketing, over-competitive schooling and electronic entertainment is poisoning childhood, a powerful lobby of academics and children's experts says today.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, 110 teachers, psychologists, children's authors and other experts call on the Government to act to prevent the death of childhood.

They write: "We are deeply concerned at the escalating incidence of childhood depression and children's behavioural and developmental conditions."

http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn...ren.060727.htm

“But if history is any guide, the permanent government is NOT moved by mere facts or mere multi-billion-dollar savings offered by pollution prevention. For some reason (which each of us can decide for himself or herself), the permanent government calculates that someone or something important is better-off when large numbers of children are poisoned each year, even at considerable cost to GDP.

If this is the case, then campaigns built around "more information" and "more effective messaging" -- without intentionally building the infrastructure to support and sustain a grass-roots movement for change -- are likely to have quite limited success, are they not?"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodm...851280,00.html

What do you suggest as a solution?

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

What do you suggest as a solution?

This is identical to the response I had on search warp! What a pratt I am that I did not provide a long list of solutions.

I actually do quite a lot to minimise poisoning my kids and there is a lot more I could be doing. I'll post the details shortly.

Here are some things I do to minimise poisoning my children:

I don't buy foods with artificial additives, colourings or preservatives and try not to give them processed foods. It is actually fairly easy to buy foods that don't have these things in them and they are no more expensive.

Fizzy drinks - they've never had them, and sugar intake is kept to a bare minimum too. I do not police what they have when we eat out but as it is infrequent, any adverse effects will be very minimal.

I educate my children re eating healthily, so this becomes habit forming and sets them up for life.

I use chemical cleaning products minimally and just in the kitchen and bathroom. I have bought 'natural' cleaners before and will (when current supply exhausted) go back to those.

I use static cloths to minimise the need for any cleaning product.

I made sure I moved to an area where there are no telecommunication Pylons in the near vicinity and other polluters etc. That said the area I live in has a high incidence of asthma in children due to the traffic. This problem should be resolved before my children are of the age they have to walk to school, as the council are building a bypass.

My children do NOT have electronic games and watch the TV infrequently. They are still young though but I will monitor any use as they get older.

I have an ioniser which removes harmful positive ions from the air (caused by electrical equipt in the home) and also dust and bacteria etc.

I use natural remedies for common ailments rather than modern chemical laiden ones where possible. For example Manuka Honey+10 is an effective anti-biotic.

I have recently been given an eco friendly 'wash ball' that will apparantly clean my washing for up to 120 uses.

One article link I used shows the government isn't interested in NOT poisoning our children so the only way we can fight back is re our wallets. Stop buying the foods and chemicals that are harmful. All of these things have equally efficient and inexpensive alternatives. They may not be so 'convenient' to buy but it is the need for 'convenience' that has got us in this mess in the first place.

Helpful Links to help us do more:

http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/t...edge/index.php

http://www.greenhome.com/

http://www.toxicfreeliving.com/

Seriously? Your 21st century kids eat this and dont run off to the chippy when you're not looking?

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

Seriously? Your 21st century kids eat this and dont run off to the chippy when you're not looking?

The food I give them is identical just without the additives. You can buy it without additives you know! Also they are too young to shop for themselves, but I am brainwashing them with healthy eating. Religion isn't the only thing you can brain wash kids with ya know, may as well use their susceptibility for something useful!

I don't know why the powers that be allow additives etc to be used when they can manage without. It makes no sense unless poor health is good for the economy and shorter life span is becoming desireable?

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

I don't know why the powers that be allow additives etc to be used when they can manage without. It makes no sense unless poor health is good for the economy and shorter life span is becoming desireable?

Its cheaper(emulsifiers mean less expensive natural ingredients, preservatives mean less throw aways), it makes the food more visually appealing, it enhances the flavour and texture.

There is no reliable data that additives in your diet are any more or less harmful than the natural ingredients they replace(If you are under the the impression that natural automatically = good and artificial automatically = harmful, as well as the opposite being inconceivable - I suggest you do some research)


There is however strong data that nutritional content is radical in determining health - so keep up with the 5 a day. :wink:

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

I don't know why the powers that be allow additives etc to be used when they can manage without. It makes no sense unless poor health is good for the economy and shorter life span is becoming desireable?

Because multibillion $ companies like Monsanto and DuPont exist. I am concerned as to if you are actually feeding you kids healthy food.

-For political reasons avoid big name brands and try to buy entirely local (this might just be me )
[/i]

Buying local goods and services is always the best economic practice in my opinion.

In the U.S., most produce, for example, is shipped in from elsewhere. Sometimes I see fruit and vegetables that are produced in foreign countries or states that are far away. This means that there is jet fuel and diesel being consumed in large quantities to get the produce to my market, but it also means that my money is leaving my local area and going elsewhere.

The death of the small mom & pop store is tragic but primarily a result of the car and the cheap gas we have in the U.S. In Europe (at least when I lived there) the bakery and the butcher were shops visited almost daily and refrigerators were small since they only had to keep a few items. Prices were reasonable, the food was fresh, and the shops were always convenient -often in walking distance. Many even delivered in their neighborhood.

Some would blame the open spaces; some the cheap price of gas compared to the rest of the world; some would blame our culture of dependency on the automobile; some would blame capitalism in general. Personally, I see it as a feedback loop involving each of these and, perhaps, more.

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

Its cheaper(emulsifiers mean less expensive natural ingredients, preservatives mean less throw aways), it makes the food more visually appealing, it enhances the flavour and texture.

There is no reliable data that additives in your diet are any more or less harmful than the natural ingredients they replace(If you are under the the impression that natural automatically = good and artificial automatically = harmful, as well as the opposite being inconceivable - I suggest you do some research)


There is however strong data that nutritional content is radical in determining health - so keep up with the 5 a day. :wink:

There is lots of data that the additives are harmful, check the links I provided. Also if you have kids as I do, you can see the effects of certain foods first hand. Meanwhile, I do of course observe the 5- a day rule. I am also aware of cooking methods which are harmful and natural foods which are harmful. Moderation is always key.

Re the use of preservatives, there are many natural preservatives and methods as I buy the stuff that doesn't have them. Flavour is NOT as you suggest compromised. I 've had both, I know. It is NO dearer to the consumer, so there are no excuses NOT to buy the healthier option.

Meanwhile, animals only suffer human style ailments if fed a human style diet. Why is that?

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Buying local goods and services is always the best economic practice in my opinion.

In the U.S., most produce, for example, is shipped in from elsewhere. Sometimes I see fruit and vegetables that are produced in foreign countries or states that are far away. This means that there is jet fuel and diesel being consumed in large quantities to get the produce to my market, but it also means that my money is leaving my local area and going elsewhere.

The death of the small mom & pop store is tragic but primarily a result of the car and the cheap gas we have in the U.S. In Europe (at least when I lived there) the bakery and the butcher were shops visited almost daily and refrigerators were small since they only had to keep a few items. Prices were reasonable, the food was fresh, and the shops were always convenient -often in walking distance. Many even delivered in their neighborhood.

Some would blame the open spaces; some the cheap price of gas compared to the rest of the world; some would blame our culture of dependency on the automobile; some would blame capitalism in general. Personally, I see it as a feedback loop involving each of these and, perhaps, more.

I agree with this. There is a loss of quality control when we start shipping things in.

There is lots of data that the additives are harmful, check the links I provided. Also if you have kids as I do, you can see the effects of certain foods first hand. Meanwhile, I do of course observe the 5- a day rule. I am also aware of cooking methods which are harmful and natural foods which are harmful. Moderation is always key.

Is it Reliable and conclusive data(as apposed to propaganda)? Im not a nutritionist, but as a student of science I have never seen such in regard to food additives.

Re the use of preservatives, there are many natural preservatives and methods as I buy the stuff that doesn't have them. Flavour is NOT as you suggest compromised. I 've had both, I know. It is NO dearer to the consumer, so there are no excuses NOT to buy the healthier option.

I live in the same country as you. And if you compare a meal additive free with the additive equivalent. The additive free one (if you can get it ) will always be more expensive. Either you are lying(which I dont believe) or you are being misinformed as to what is additive free.

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

I live in the same country as you. And if you compare a meal additive free with the additive equivalent. The additive free one (if you can get it ) will always be more expensive. Either you are lying(which I dont believe) or you are being misinformed as to what is additive free.

I do the shopping, I compare ingerdients and prices. I can't afford not to.

I assure you they can be bought cheaper. Tesco's own brand for example have many items that are free of additives, colourings and preservatives. Tesco's own brand is nearly always cheaper than other 'name' brands and taste is NOT compromised. Re packaging, the fact these items are free of those things is clearly promoted on front of packaging as they know people are looking for these items and it is a selling point.

Packaging also will sometimes state 'No hydrogenated fats'. Did you know they reduce fertility? One donut with this ingredient can reduce your fertility by 50%. Damn!

I am not lying, this is just reality. You probably buy food that doesn't have additives etc without realising it. You wouldn't know unless you examined the packaging.

More and more foods are free of this stuff and for good reason.

Check the links, it is NOT propaganda.

Originally Posted by Nikolas_Miller

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

I don't know why the powers that be allow additives etc to be used when they can manage without. It makes no sense unless poor health is good for the economy and shorter life span is becoming desireable?

Because multibillion $ companies like Monsanto and DuPont exist. I am concerned as to if you are actually feeding you kids healthy food.

-For political reasons avoid big name brands and try to buy entirely local (this might just be me )
[/i]

I don't buy brand foods, I buy shop brand with limited ingredients or I buy natural food in it's raw unaltered state. ie, vegetable, fruit and meat, herbs etc.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

I assure you they can be bought cheaper. Tesco's own brand for example have many items that are free of additives, colourings and preservatives. Tesco's own brand is nearly always cheaper than other 'name' brands and taste is NOT compromised.

Thats because Tesco dont spend as much on pushing their brand.

The extra cost to replace a additive which can be virtually 0p with a natural one that costs, say 2p is clandestine(i.e they dont tell you even on the back of the packet). Do you have a product that has a version completely additive free and one one with additives that is exactly the same price?

More and more foods are free of this stuff and for good reason.

More and more food is claimed to be free of this stuff and for good reasons to the makers. Overall I have yet to see that the average British diet has significantly less additives.

Check the links, it is NOT propaganda.

Maybe another time

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

Check the links, it is NOT propaganda.

Maybe another time

Why ask for supporting data and then refrain from viewing it?

Little point in discussing this further.

They are all greeny Links ToR . I dont have the inclination to plough through them attempting to find a semblance of a conclusive experimentally derived conclusion.

Do you have any independent lab results as support?

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

They are all greeny Links ToR . I dont have the inclination to plough through them attempting to find a semblance of a conclusive experimentally derived conclusion.

Do you have any independent lab results as support?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1799


A study funded by the government's Food Standards Agency(FSA) is understood to have drawn a link with temper tantrums and poor concentration

“The Founder of the Hyperactive Children Support Group, Sally Bunday, said there is good evidence that artificial additives can have a harmful effect.

She said: "The consequences can be very serious for both children and adults who are sensitive to these artificial colours.

"The reaction in children can be horrendous in terms of mood swings with crying, screaming, inability to sleep. There can also be physical reactions such as difficulty in breathing on skin rashes.

"For a young person there is also a risk of quite angry mood swings."

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

They are all greeny Links ToR . I dont have the inclination to plough through them attempting to find a semblance of a conclusive experimentally derived conclusion.

Do you have any independent lab results as support?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1799


A study funded by the government's Food Standards Agency(FSA) is understood to have drawn a link with temper tantrums and poor concentration

“The Founder of the Hyperactive Children Support Group, Sally Bunday, said there is good evidence that artificial additives can have a harmful effect.

She said: "The consequences can be very serious for both children and adults who are sensitive to these artificial colours.

"The reaction in children can be horrendous in terms of mood swings with crying, screaming, inability to sleep. There can also be physical reactions such as difficulty in breathing on skin rashes.

"For a young person there is also a risk of quite angry mood swings."

Conclusive study?!? Tor.

This link has just sensationalized one biologists report that food additives may be of harm to some people. And we dont even have the details of that alleged experimental procedure, results and controls.

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

They are all greeny Links ToR . I dont have the inclination to plough through them attempting to find a semblance of a conclusive experimentally derived conclusion.

Do you have any independent lab results as support?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1799


A study funded by the government's Food Standards Agency(FSA) is understood to have drawn a link with temper tantrums and poor concentration

“The Founder of the Hyperactive Children Support Group, Sally Bunday, said there is good evidence that artificial additives can have a harmful effect.

She said: "The consequences can be very serious for both children and adults who are sensitive to these artificial colours.

"The reaction in children can be horrendous in terms of mood swings with crying, screaming, inability to sleep. There can also be physical reactions such as difficulty in breathing on skin rashes.

"For a young person there is also a risk of quite angry mood swings."

Conclusive study?!? Tor.

This link has just sensationalized one biologists report that food additives may be of harm to some people. And we dont even have the details of that alleged experimental procedure, results and controls.

GoM

Did you read the whole article or just my quote? The study showed changes take place, but then they dismissed the study saying it was anecdotal in that parents (even though study was blind) word is not reliable so they have commisoned new studies. Meanwhile if you know what is required re absolute proof, you should also know regardless of the facts, it is very hard to provide the type of proof required to satisfy people like you due to the enormity of trying to discount other potential influencing factors. At some point you have to rely on common sense.

Most of what you accept as sound science is mere hypothesis it's not even a theory let alone proven. But scientists consider that they are likely based on certain persuasive factors.

The effects of certain additives/colourings etc have been observed time and time again and removal of those things eliminates the effects.

Not so very long ago, scientists said the same about chicken soup and milk. They said the effects humans observed for thousands of yrs were 'housewife tales' . Now they proudly announce they've proven the housewife tales to be true. Well woopdie doo! That may be NEW news for you who requires this proof, but it's ancient news to those who already know this based on years of observation.

Science does not have all the immediate answers.

But there are enough proffessionals in the field all saying the same thing (in their hundreds) as well as parents who are noticing the effects. It is naive to deny the link in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

GoM

Did you read the whole article or just my quote? The study showed changes take place, but then they dismissed the study saying it was anecdotal in that parents (even though study was blind) word is not reliable so they have commisoned new studies. Meanwhile if you know what is required re absolute proof, you should also know regardless of the facts, it is very hard to provide the type of proof required to satisfy people like you due to the enormity of trying to discount other potential influencing factors. At some point you have to rely on common sense.

Most of what you accept as sound science is mere hypothesis it's not even a theory let alone proven. But scientists consider that they are likely based on certain persuasive factors.

The effects of certain additives/colourings etc have been observed time and time again and removal of those things eliminates the effects.

Not so very long ago, scientists said the same about chicken soup and milk. They said the effects humans observed for thousands of yrs were 'housewife tales' . Now they proudly announce they've proven the housewife tales to be true. Well woopdie doo! That may be NEW news for you who requires this proof, but it's ancient news to those who already know this based on years of observation.

Science does not have all the immediate answers.

But there are enough proffessionals in the field all saying the same thing (in their hundreds) as well as parents who are noticing the effects. It is naive to deny the link in my opinion.

Its inconclusive ToR! Tor its inconclusive! its inconclusive tor!
Its inconclusive ToR! Tor its inconclusive! its inconclusive tor!


You conveniently give one superstition about chicken soup that was verified by science, but neglected to mention the countless superstition that weren't!


An example of a foodstuff that has been verified by science to be harmful would be Cholesterol

An example of a foodstuff that science has verified as beneficially in preventing disease is vitamin c.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

it is very hard to provide the type of proof required to satisfy people like you due to the enormity of trying to discount other potential influencing factors.

This is precisely why one needs to exercise scientific caution and wait for conclusive data before one announce ones food additive superstition is the root of observed problems.

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

it is very hard to provide the type of proof required to satisfy people like you due to the enormity of trying to discount other potential influencing factors.

This is precisely why one needs to exercise scientific caution and wait for conclusive data before one announce ones food additive superstition is the root of observed problems.

There is no evidence that these additives are SAFE, most of them have not been tested for their combined effects or long terms effects. What is your response to this?


Why are we puting untested chemicals in our food when there is NO NEED for them?

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

There is no evidence that these additives are SAFE, most of them have not been tested for their combined effects or long terms effects. What is your response to this?

Now you are talking rationally mate.
My response to this is avoid them as much as possible for a 100 years , I avoid loading up on processed foods aswell.

Why are we puting untested chemicals in our food when there is NO NEED for them?

Because the food industry's only interest is profits. And they do what ever the government and customers allow them to get away with(thats not to say they know additives are harmful any more than we do).


Having said that, unlike with obesity, say, there is no topographic that points to excessive consumers of additive ladened food suffering noticeable health problems yet.

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

There is no evidence that these additives are SAFE, most of them have not been tested for their combined effects or long terms effects. What is your response to this?

Now you are talking rationally mate.
My response to this is avoid them as much as possible for a 100 years , I avoid loading up on processed foods aswell.

Why are we puting untested chemicals in our food when there is NO NEED for them?

Because the food industry's only interest is profits. And they do what ever the government and customers allow them to get away with(thats not to say they know additives are harmful any more than we do).


Having said that, unlike with obesity, say, there is no topographic that points to excessive consumers of additive ladened food suffering noticeable health problems yet.

Almost 180 degree's. So are you gonna start reading labels now then?

and shopping at Tesco's

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

There is no evidence that these additives are SAFE, most of them have not been tested for their combined effects or long terms effects. What is your response to this?

Now you are talking rationally mate.
My response to this is avoid them as much as possible for a 100 years , I avoid loading up on processed foods aswell.

Why are we puting untested chemicals in our food when there is NO NEED for them?

Because the food industry's only interest is profits. And they do what ever the government and customers allow them to get away with(thats not to say they know additives are harmful any more than we do).


Having said that, unlike with obesity, say, there is no topographic that points to excessive consumers of additive ladened food suffering
noticeable health problems yet.

Almost 180 degree's. So are you gonna start reading labels now then?

and shopping at Tesco's

More like 90 degrees all the time! If you see otherwise you still dont get the importance of making superstitions into assertions, either for or against a scientific inconclusive.


I already do.

When I said:

My response to this is avoid them as much as possible for a 100 years ,

................I meant if one wants to be super cautious with what they eat(as you obviously do) that would be the way to go.


When I said:

I avoid loading up on processed foods aswell.

...........I meant I avoid processed food because of the high fat content and low nutritional value (I used to work out and you need good protein among other things).

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

When I said:

My response to this is avoid them as much as possible for a 100 years ,

................I meant if one wants to be super cautious with what they eat(as you obviously do) that would be the way to go.


When I said:

I avoid loading up on processed foods aswell.

...........I meant I avoid processed food because of the high fat content and low nutritional value (I used to work out and you need good protein among other things).

is there evidence that processed foods are not as good as natural ones then?

Nah, didn't think so, it's just common sense isn't it.

I'm on hols for a week now! Enjoy...........

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell

When I said:

My response to this is avoid them as much as possible for a 100 years ,

................I meant if one wants to be super cautious with what they eat(as you obviously do) that would be the way to go.


When I said:

I avoid loading up on processed foods aswell.

...........I meant I avoid processed food because of the high fat content and low nutritional value (I used to work out and you need good protein among other things).

is there evidence that processed foods are not as good as natural ones then?

natural foods? who said anything about natural foods?
Yes there is evidence on the nutritional information bar that they contain more fat than home cooked food and less nutrients, particularly protein.:P

I'm on hols for a week now! Enjoy...........

:-D