It is hard to decide between types os wax in your fruit chews.
It is hard to decide between types os wax in your fruit chews.
My Gf eats about a million of these:
One man's molehill is another man's mountain.Mountain out of molehill.
Change one molecule, change the world. Many things that have been used for thousands of years are still fine for some but deadly to others. I tend to be sensitive to minute changes so I don't mess around.Neither brand have measurable quantities of fat. The amount of vegetable based oil in either brand is very minimal. Its used to keep the pieces from sticking together. Coconut oil is not a new ingredient, its been used for literally thousands of years.
The chances of me ingesting that is pretty darned slim too.You also know some candies they instead use mineral oil for this purpose, you know the petroleum by-product related to concoction many companies use in their cycling disc brakes
Its not minute quantities of fractionation coconut oil you should be worrying about. Better keep inside or move away because proven strong carcinogen are out there in full force in NJ - poor air quality, UV exposure etc. Let us know how that goes:rofl:
Aro, A., Mannisto, S., Salminen, I., Ovaskainen, M.L., Kataja, V., Uusitupa, M. (2000)
Inverse Association between Dietary and Serum Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Risk of Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women. Nutrition and Cancer. 38(2): 151-157.
Hubbard, N. E., Lim, D., Summers, L., Eriskson, K.L. (2000) Reduction of Murine
Mammary Tumor Metastatsis by Conjugated Linoleic Acid. Cancer Letters. 150: 93-100.
Ip, C., Banni, S., Angioni E., Carta G., McGinley J., Thompson H. J., Barbano D.,
Bauman D. (1999) Conjugated Linoleic Acid-enriched Butter Fat Alters Mammary Gland Morphogenesis and Reduces Cancer Risk in Rats. Journal of Nutrition. 129(12): 2135-2142.
Ip, C., Ip, M. M., Loftus, T., Shoemaker, S., Shea-Eaton, W. (2000) Induction of
Apoptosis by Conjugated Linoleic Acid in Cultured Mammary Tumor Cells and Premalignant Lesions of the Rat Mammary Gland. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 9(7): 689-696.
Petrik, M. B. H., McEntee, M. F., Johnson B. T., Obukowicz M. G., Whelan J. (2000)
Highly Unsaturated (n-3) Fatty Acids, but Not [Alpha]-Linolenic, Conjugated Linoleic or [Gamma]-Linolenic Acids, Reduce Tumorigenesis in [Apc.sup.Min/+] Mice. Journal of Nutrition. 130(10): 2434-2443.
... You offered no body of respected peer reviewed studies that support your ridiculous claim so its nothing more than typical internet fluff. Your evidence fails because you presented none and arguments are no better than my graphic above...
It may come as a surprise to some people, but even a huge bureaucracy like our federal government has a very limited capacity to conduct studies of chemical safety. For example, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) --a consortium of eight federal agencies --studies ONLY the cancer effects of chemicals, and manages to test ONLY a couple of dozen new chemicals each year. (Effects on the nervous system, the reproductive system, the immune system, the endocrine system, and major organs such as kidney, liver, heart and brain are simply not considered by the NTP.) During a typical year, while the NTP is studying the cancer effects of one or two dozen chemicals, about 1000 new chemicals enter commercial markets. Our federal government is simply swamped by new chemicals and cannot keep up. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that this situation will change. No one believes that our government --or anyone else --will ever have the capacity to fully evaluate the dangers of 1000 new chemicals each year, especially not in combination with the 70,000 chemicals already in use.
Because of FDA budget limitations, it is standard procedure for the bulk of initial safety tests to be financed, designed, and carried out by the company with a vested interest in the product. The reliability of their results is called into question when 74 out of 74 industry-sponsored articles attested to aspartame's safety, while 84 out of 91 of the non industry-sponsored articles identified problems with the chemical.
In December 1998, CFS filed suit challenging the approval of the GE hormone recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH. The suit demands that the agency reverse its 1993 approval of the hormone. Newly discovered evidence, the plaintiff says, shows that the original evaluation of rBGH by its manufacturer, Monsanto, was flawed. CFS alleges that the FDA's approval was based on Monsanto's conclusions that rBGH was safe, rather than on raw data from the study itself. One study apparently missed by the FDA was revealed during a Canadian review of rBGH. A 90-day rat study showed that between 20 and 30 percent of the rats had immunological reactions after being fed rBGH, suggesting the drug triggered toxicological effects. Other research has also indicated there may be human health risks and that the use of rBGH in dairies damages the health of the cows.
"Take the case of Michael Taylor. After graduating from law school at the University of Virginia in 1976, Taylor went to work for the Food and Drug Administration, eventually rising to the position of executive assistant to the FDA's administrator. Then Taylor left the federal government for a post in the high powered D.C. law firm of King and Spaulding. Taylor was the firm's specialist in food and drug matters pending before the FDA. During his tenure at King and Spaulding Taylor's client included Coca-Cola, Carnation, the Food Biotechnology Council, and Monsanto. One of Taylor's duties was to represent Monsanto's efforts to get its bovine growth hormone approved by the FDA. Taylor left King and Spaulding in 1991 to rejoin the FDA, this time as Deputy Commission for Policy. In that position Taylor was responsible for writing guidelines on the use and marketing of the controversial hormone that were favorable to the company. Specifically, Taylor drafted guidelines that exempted milk producers from labeling dairy products from cows that had been treated with rBHG. Now Taylor has returned to Monsanto, working on what the company calls "long range planning."...
During his days at King and Spaulding, Taylor also authored more than a dozen articles critical of the Delaney Clause, a federal law passed in 1958 prohibiting the introduction of known carcinogens to processed foods. The Delaney Clause had long been opposed by Monsanto and other chemical and pesticide companies. When Taylor rejoined the federal government, he continued to argue that Delaney should be overturned. This was finally done when President Clinton signed the so-called Food Quality Protection Act on the eve of the 1996 elections."
The issues can be very complex but with careful and basic research principles you can cut through the noise out there and get a good feel for general real consensus on the issues.