The Reality of Chemical Terrorism In Our Food

Flickr - Nutrition - USDAgovMarco Torres, Prevent Disease
Waking Times

Is it really that hard for most people to believe that we are being assaulted on a daily basis by chemical terrorism? Genetically modified foods, artificial flavours, colors, preservatives, emulsifiers, and sweeteners all made with toxic chemicals, all of which are proven toxic to human health. We are being bombarded on a daily basis by an astronomical level of toxicity, all controlled by these chemical terrorists on behalf of the food industry. Worse is we let them.

How many more toxins will we permit in our food supply before we stand united and simply say “we’ve had enough?” How long will it take until we assertively proclaim that we will not allow any more chemicals or toxins in our foods?

Since food and health regulators cannot properly do their job to protect the public, there will come a tipping point when the people will have to do it for them. We discuss toxic chemicals almost every day, but what percentage of the population is interested enough, curious enough or most of all disciplined enough to actually make the dietary changes necessary to rid all the toxins from the foods they eat? How many people can avoid all processed foods every single day? I would estimate that percentage to be extremely small. Barriers are typically societal pressure, convenience and income. The reality is that we could all have a safe and healthy food industry if we truly wanted it. There are just not enough of us that want it that badly….yet.

Every year or two we have a new chemical terrorist making its way into the food supply almost like clock work. Once the public becomes savvy to the harmful nature of the new toxin, it is then renamed, rebranded and often modified into a deadlier form than its predecessor. Aspartame and aminosweet, and high fructose corn syrup and corn sugar are two excellent examples.

Let’s take a look at some of the biggest offenders that are in more than 80% of the foods we eat.

Artificial Flavors and Colors
Artificial flavors and colors means it is derived from a chemical made in a laboratory and has no nutritional value. Every single artificial flavor and color in the food industry has some kind of detrimental health effect. These include neurotoxicity, organ, developmental, reproductive toxicity and cancer.

* Examples
– Glutamates
– Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)
– Maltodextrin
– Autolyzed Yeast Extract
– Disodium Guanylate
– Disodium Inosinate
– Blue 1, Blue 2
– Yellow 5, Yellow 6
– Red 3, Red 40

Genetically Modified Foods
GM Foods causes allergies, organ damage, cancer, immunotoxicty, and damaging transgenes which affect future generations. Many fruits and vegetables for sale in the U.S. are already genetically modified. The most commercialized GM fruit is papaya from Hawaii—about half of Hawaii’s papayas are GM.

* Examples
– Corn flour, meal, oil, starch, gluten, and syrup
– Corn Sweeteners such as fructose, dextrose, and glucose
– Modified food starch
– Soy flour, lecithin, protein, isolate, and isoflavone
– Most vegetable oils and vegetable proteins
– Canola oil (also called rapeseed oil)
– Cottonseed oil
– Anything not listed as 100% cane sugar

Toxic Preservatives 
Artificial preservatives are responsible for causing a host of health problems pertaining to respiratory tract, heart, blood and other. Some are very neurotoxic especially when combined with specific nutrients.

* Examples
- Antimicrobials
– Nitrites (i.e. Sodium Nitrite)
– Nitrates (i.e. Sodium Nitrate)
– Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)
– Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
– Sulfites (i.e. Sodium Sulfite)
– Potassium Sorbate
– Benzoic Acid
– Propyl Gallate
– Sodium Benzoate

Toxic Emulsifiers 
An emulsifier replaces surface proteins and aids in forming the network in specific food recipes. There are no healthy non-organic emulsifiers. They are all toxic causing everything from infertility, digestive disorders and migraines.

* Examples 
- Polysorbate 80
– Mono-diglycerides
– Carrageenan
– Xanthan Gum (non-organic)
– Guar Gum
– Soy Lecithin or Soya Lecithin

Toxic Sweeteners
Sweeteners such as Neotame are thousands of times sweeter than sugar. They are all very potent, neurotoxic, immunotoxic and excitotoxic.

* Examples
– Aspartame
– High Fructose Corn Syrup
– Neotame
– Sucralose
– Sodium cyclamate
– Acesulfame-K

Toxic Adulterants 
Food fraud and economically motivated food adulteration is highlighted by some very toxic substances which cause cancer, glaucoma, digestive and liver disorders. These are added to foods to increase their color, volume or weight.

* Examples
– Metanil Yellow
– Potassium bromate
– Malachite Green
– Tamarind seeds
– Washing powder
– Argemone seeds

This list is by no means extensive. There are now hundreds of toxic additives in our food supply. Chemical terrorism in our food supply must end and it starts with you.

Please look at the ingredient lists before you purchase any processed foods. If you see any of these, don’t buy the product. Continue to educate yourself on the influx of new toxins introduced every year. Eventually, if we investigate enough the answers come. Rule of thumb, if the ingredient list has one chemical or more…it’s one too many.

About the Author

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of WakingTimes or its staff.

This article is offered under Creative Commons license. It’s okay to republish it anywhere as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with the buttons below…

7 Comments on "The Reality of Chemical Terrorism In Our Food"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Debbie says:

    SO MUCH FOR THE MYTHS CONSIDER THE FACTS ON CARRAGEENAN FOR A CHANGE
    Q. What is Carrageenan??
    A. Carrageenan is a naturally-occurring seaweed extract. It is widely used in foods and non-foods to improve texture and stability. Common uses include meat and poultry, dairy products, canned pet food, cosmetics and toothpaste.
    Q. Why the controversy?
    A. Self-appointed consumer watchdogs have produced numerous web pages filled with words condemning carrageenan as an unsafe food additive for human consumption. However, in 70+ years of carrageenan being used in processed foods, not a single substantiated claim of an acute or chronic disease has been reported as arising from carrageenan consumption. On a more science-based footing, food regulatory agencies in the US, the EU, and in the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) repeatedly review and continue to approve carrageenan as a safe food additive.
    Q. What has led up to this misrepresentation of the safety of an important food stabilizer, gelling agent and thickener?
    A. It clearly has to be attributed to the research of Dr. Joanne Tobacman, an Associate Prof at the University of Illinois in Chicago. She and a group of molecular biologists have accused carrageenan of being a potential inflammatory agent as a conclusion from laboratory experiments with cells of the digestive tract. It requires a lot of unproven assumptions to even suggest that consumption of carrageenan in the human diet causes inflammatory diseases of the digestive tract. The objectivity of the Chicago research is also flawed by the fact that Dr Tobacman has tried to have carrageenan declared an unsafe food additive on weak technical arguments that she broadcast widely a decade before the University of Chicago research began.
    Q. What brings poligeenan into a discussion of carrageenan?
    A. Poligeenan (“degraded carrageenan” in pre-1988 scientific and regulatory publications) is a possible carcinogen to humans; carrageenan is not. The only relationship between carrageenan and poligeenan is that the former is the starting material to make the latter. Poligeenan is not a component of carrageenan and cannot be produced in the digestive tract from carrageenan-containing foods.
    Q. What are the differences between poligeenan and carrageenan?
    A. The production process for poligeenan requires treating carrageenan with strong acid at high temp (about that of boiling water) for 6 hours or more. These severe processing conditions convert the long chains of carrageenan to much shorter ones: ten to one hundred times shorter. In scientific terms the molecular weight of poligeenan is 10,000 to 20,000; whereas that of carrageenan is 200,000 to 800,000. Concern has been raised about the amount of material in carrageenan with molecular weight less than 50,000. The actual amount (well under 1%) cannot even be detected accurately with current technology. Certainly it presents no threat to human health.
    Q. What is the importance of these molecular weight differences?
    A. Poligeenan contains a fraction of material low enough in molecular weight that it can penetrate the walls of the digestive tract and enter the blood stream. The molecular weight of carrageenan is high enough that this penetration is impossible. Animal feeding studies starting in the 1960s have demonstrated that once the low molecular weight fraction of poligeenan enters the blood stream in large enough amounts, pre-cancerous lesions begin to form. These lesions are not observed in animals fed with a food containing carrageenan.
    Q. Does carrageenan get absorbed in the digestive track?
    A. Carrageenan passes through the digestive system intact, much like food fiber. In fact, carrageenan is a combination of soluble and insoluble nutritional fiber, though its use level in foods is so low as not to be a significant source of fiber in the diet.
    Summary
    Carrageenan has been proven completely safe for consumption. Poligeenan is not a component of carrageenan.
    Closing Remarks
    The consumer watchdogs with their blogs and websites would do far more service to consumers by researching their sources and present only what can be substantiated by good science. Unfortunately we are in an era of media frenzy that rewards controversy.
    Additional information available:
    On June 11th, 2008, Dr. Joanne Tobacman petitioned the FDA to revoke the current regulations permitting use of carrageenan as a food additive.
    On June 11th, 2012 the FDA denied her petition, categorically addressing and ultimately dismissing all of her claims; their rebuttal supported by the results of several in-depth, scientific studies.
    If you would like to read the full petition and FDA response, they can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FDA-2008-P-0347

  2. Anaylyst says:

    Here’s what I do, I ignore the many corporate trolls now jumping on comment threads to defend their wares, I do my own research, buy organic and I stay away from carrageenan and all additives that are unnecessary. Especially since they can be replaced with other less irritating ingredients but for the cheap corporations that want to keep hawking the same old thing and lazy manufacturers who never bother to change. That includes organic food producers.
    Also, since it comes from seaweed, one has to consider whether it’s pacific ocean seaweed, since Fukushima has and continues to contaminate most everything in the pacific, including seaweed.

  3. michelle says:

    if it doesn’t have a mother, grow from the Earth or is manufactured to sit on a shelf longer than you then IT’S NOT FOOD.

  4. Scott Douglas Lemoine says:

    “How long will it take until we assertively proclaim that we will not allow any more chemicals or toxins in our foods?”
    I don’t know. There are a lot of hurdles for people to overcome first. If the first hurdle of establishing a sense of “we” among this mindset dominated by division and prejudice can ever be cleared, everything else is obtainable.
    Another big hurdles is the fact that the world’s scientific ‘superpowers’ have determined that our level of exposure to the 84,000 different ‘chemical substances’, we are exposed to is safe, and the general reaction to stating that we’re being experimented upon is being dismissed by your peers either as a conspiracy theorist, or someone who doesn’t understand how science works.
    Ultimately, out of all the chemicals that you believe pose a risk to human health, which one can you take to a university and confirm? And if those tests confirm that the FDA is lying, what exactly do you or ‘we’ do about it?
    I think it would require a non-political non-religion charged effort by a small group of people who could take advantage of a school setting to establish a voice of opposition, both for security reasons and availability of supporters. But I doubt any major universities would welcome that inspiration if it doesn’t come from within, another significant obstacle.
    We’ve finally reached the point where most Americans are starting to realize that our future is about as dismal as one can perceive and everybody wants ‘change’, but for the most part we all still expect someone else to provide it for us. To me, it seems like saving our families and our nation and our only known source of life, would be the only topic of discussion in this world today. Unfortunately, that conversation is a ‘sin’ and will never be considered or pursued by the religious people who intend on defending their beliefs even after ‘their masses’ are glowing green. I don’t know how to save the world, but it just seems rational to believe that if people were allowed to discuss such a thing without offending others, the chances of doing so would greatly improve!
    And if any’body’ can ever assemble enough scientific consensus to confirm that any one of these chemicals pose a risk to human health, it should be quite simple to shut down that particular drug manufacturer. For example…. let’s say you’ve got 250-300 people who are absolutely convinced due to scientific ‘fact’ (if such a thing exist) that drug A,B, or C, must be stopped from entering our food supply. Couldn’t that group announce and publicize the intention to ultimately assemble and hold hands ‘around’ the facility? Let’s say that you’ve managed to establish a scientific consensus that drug A,B or C is really bad for people and you get TONS of support… would it be illegal to announce and publicize an intention to show up at said facility with a ‘cease and desist’ order, while being escorted with every piece of turbo-charged land and farm machines from the area? You know, I agree with the notion that ideas which require violence are worthless, but I worked around police officers long enough to appreciate the resources necessary to shut down a crack house. It usually doesn’t require violence, especially if the house is shaking from all the men and metal pounding the ground outside. For the most part, even a crack head is smart enough to walk out with their hands up, when given a chance. If there are ‘crack factories’ in this country, pumping millions or billions of tons of unnecessary drugs into our food supply… which I believe there are, who’s responsibility is it to stop THEM from selling crack? It’s not as if you can call the local authorities and report these corporate drug dealers, but if the right group of people presented the local authorities with the right evidence to support your efforts, they might not help you, but there is still a slim possibility they will defend your rights to assemble en masse outside of said crack factory. Looking at your list and being somewhat familiar with the extend of this diabolical experiment on our minds and bodies, it just seems like all ‘we’ have to do is focus on condemning and stopping ONE drug… then see how many people are willing to make it stop by any means necessary.

    Until the day comes when the facilities that manufacturer the ‘dope’ that reaches our pantries and dinner tables are ‘intimidated’ by the people, the people who regulate them will continue to laugh in the handicapped faces of their complacent test subjects.

  5. matt says:

    the justice system in America states: innocent until proven guilty.
    The food system should be the opposite: guilty until proving innocent.
    We can’t keep putting these things in our food when there are replacements that we KNOW are healthy and harmless…that would eliminate the fact that we often eat this crap only to find out later that it was/is harmful to our health.

  6. Scott Douglas Lemoine says:

    haha… pussies !

  7. Scott Douglas Lemoine says:

    Sorry! that wasn’t directed at you matt. Explaining that comment would sound worse than it already does.

Post a Comment