BPA in Grocery Store Foods ??

BPA in regular food packaging may be greater danger than "freezer bag cooking"?? In this modern world, we can drive ourselves crazy from worry, and we can harm others with market driven low cost chemistry.

LATimes Article

Children eating multiple servings of some of the tested food could get doses of BPA "near levels that have caused adverse effects in several animal studies," according to the survey released Monday by Consumers Union, a nonprofit organization that publishes Consumer Reports.

The findings bolster the case for banning BPA from use in materials that come in contact with food and beverages -- such as can linings, baby bottles and sippy cups -- the group said in a letter to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

Consumers Union tested 19 name-brand foods in metal, paper and plastic packages. The tests were "a snapshot of the marketplace" and not intended as conclusive evidence of BPA levels in any given brand or type of product.

No BPA was detected in paper canisters of Similac powdered Advance Infant Formula and Nestle Juicy Juice packed in juice boxes, the group said. But multiple servings of food with BPA levels comparable to those found in a can of Del Monte Fresh Cut Blue Lake Green Beans, for example, would give a small child an amount approaching the level where adverse effects -- such as abnormal reproductive development -- have been seen in animal studies.

Consumers Union also found BPA in "BPA-free" cans of tuna sold by Vital Choice, a Washington-based seafood firm. Dr. Urvashi Rangan, director of technical policy at Consumers Union, said the cans did not have epoxy liners, the usual source of BPA.

roocketman:



Good point and good story. Can you imagine the poo-pooing of the first person who brought up the dangers of that miracle-insulation asbestos? The ridicule they must have taken?

Now you can't turn on the TV without a lawyer-firm trying to make a buck off your bad lungs.

The majority of canned foods come in cans that are sprayed with a lining. And yes, much of the linings do contain BPA. This is also used in BEER and pop cans.

Is it worse than back when cans were unlined? And botulism was more prevalent? Canned food is very stable due to these advances - the cans are thinner and stronger. You don't see bulging and leaking like you did 20 years ago....So consider it a trade off in food safety.

Having said that some companies have switched to a liner spray that is BPA free. Will more do it? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on cost and just how much consumers will pay. The majority of Americans don't care THAT much and won't pay extra for the can.

Yes, we must never forget the cheap factor of the consumer desire in accounting for some of the negative social impacts of low cost.....

Take manufacturing for example, take it to a foreign country for cheaper labor. Well, they did. And we can buy a microwave oven for under $50, but virtually no microwave customer in the USA also manufactures these microwaves.

Rocketmnn
You are correct. Our Goverment is trying to stabilize our economy. People need jobs. Do Ya think banning foreign imports would help.. MIght hurt for a couple of years but long term,, Wow, Abandoned factories in our citys might prosper again? This country is rich in natural resources. I am not for destruction of nature. But the time has come for people to wake up! This economic stimulus is a short term fluke! Recession over? Hell no! prolonged! Only ones doing better are the wealthy , banks, and big buisness! God Bless America! Sorry , if I ran with the subject. I dont mean to offend. But I have to say what I feel.

Yes I agree rocket. This nation was founded on three things. There are language, culture, and borders. And all those have been destroyed. The only thing that they really have to do is come to our homes and take our weapons. The next "disaster" will be great enough to declare martial law and then it's all over as we know it today. All of our constitutional rights will be gone...sabre11004..

some companies have switched to a liner spray that is BPA free

All we know about a BPA-free plastic is that it contains no BPA.

The difficulty here, of course, is that the replacement chemical that does the job once done by BPA is not likely to be identified by the companies involved, as a trade secret. And even if the replacement chemical is specified in the public record there is no guarantee it is any safer than BPA.

After all, BPA was initially approved for use in contact with human food by the same testing methods that will have been employed to test the safety of the new compound.

aimless:



Well, if they're finding BPA in "BPA-free" cans of tuna what's the point of all this. The EPA, the FDA, (even the Dept. of Interior) have all been gutted for a quick buck.

Even if we rethink the pointlessness of having gutted the agencies created to protect the consumer -- that word consumer, BTW, is us -- it will be years before we can have someone with any authority safeguarding what the Big Boxes, led by those ruthless b'tards at Walmart, are putting on the shelves. Temporarily at least, we do have a choice in where we shop. There's still time to not be price-driven, but conscience-driven, before there is no choice.

Only issue with price is this:
I don't blame people for shopping at Wal-Mart.

Today I needed a couple health and beauty items. I was not up for the 6 mile rt drive to WM to get them and I shopped at the local chain drugstore. I paid DOUBLE for the same items. Here though is the kicker - I have the luxury that I can do that. My husband is employed and we are solidly upper middle class. I can afford to say "I am tired so I will shop in town and pay twice".

Frankly though many in America do not have that choice. It is the same with food. If everyone had the ability to buy all organic and eco-green packaging they would - if it was the same price as regular. Considering how many are out of work or barely scraping by just having food on the table is more important than having perfect food. I grew up in a family that at times ate bowls of thin soup for dinner just to have something in our stomachs - so I well understand that a can of beans is FOOD and not something to worry about.

We can hate places like Wal-Mart and Target, obviously people shop there for a reason - a big one - they can afford it. Part of my job is I shop stores looking for new items to review. Something I do see is the vast difference in prices. You can buy food at Wal-Mart, Target and WinCo's for 1/4 to 1/2 of everywhere else.

A full belly at night will always trump the things educated and financially comfortable people worry about.

And more so....WM sells the same brands, even the same organic brands, as regular grocery stores. Just for a lot less.

sabre:

I'm reluctant to agree with our country being founded on those three principles: language, culture & borders. In the Constitution, especially those 10 things they tacked at the end called the Bill of Rights, I never saw those things mentioned. In fact, if we look back, we'll find that many of our ancestors (including yours, unless they were English) were speaking Gallic, Italian, Polish, whatever) for at least a generation or two (mine spoke Danish & German) after they came here, yet they enjoyed the freedoms that our country was founded upon.

I think my favorite microcosm of America is the city of San Antonio, in the state where I was born and raised. Most of those founders and their descendents who live in San Antonio speak Spanish (and English), are of Mexican descent, and preceded my family tree in this country we live in by a hundred years. So who's more American? Just glad those Mexican Americans didn't close those borders on my grandpa when he came over from Denmark, because they beat him here by many decades.

Not sure if either of our comments are appropriate here, but more appropriate for OFF TOPIC.

sarbar:

Don't know if you caught what happened yesterday, but our beloved Walmart (followed immediately by Target) announced that they were selling books at zero mark-up! Hooray for us readers! We can read cheaper!

They call that "Predatory Pricing" and it puts the big squeeze on any mom-and-pop book seller AND the big Indies -- the independent bookstores -- like Tattered Cover here in Denver and even Borders. So if you wake up one day and they closed that place with the comfy armchair while you perused your purchase, and your only choice for books is Walmart in your town or Walmart in the next town (stocked by poorly paid help), maybe there WAS something to the few who raised a pitchfork against the monolithic monopoly. (I'd put ruthless in there but it doesn't start with an M.)

Books aren't food, granted. But by rethinking how we spend our money even for the essentials like food with the ultimate consequences in mind, I think people would be willing to spend more now LOCALLY rather than line up at the sole Walmart later.

(oops, never mentioned BPA's once -- off topic again!)

Too bad it's not that simple. BPA has been implicated in a number of developmental problems in children. A book could be written about the enormity of societal ramifications that has. Oh wait; there is a book and it's titled "Our Stolen Future".

Well, green packaging maybe, but not organic and I'll tell you why..

I like the environment, and I like natural places. That's why I don't like organic food.

Most people who actually know me are often surprised when I say this..

It's very very simple, and the rest of your post hit it on the head sarbar - when it comes down to full bellies people won't care. and that's excatly it. too much of the world does not have full bellies. Growing less food (which, sorry, most crops yield less on organic farming) in the same area means one of two things:

1) we need less people, and therefore less food required
2) we need to farm more area to grow the same amount of food organically.

When it comes down the when the revolution comes and people are starving. they aren't gonna care about organic crops, or not cutting down trees. Just look at *why* south american countries cut down rain forest.. TO FARM IT! and they keep cutting it down becaue they have to MOVE THEIR FARMS because they can't afford to fertilize to keep the soil producing - but hey! no artificial fertilizer! *it's organic*.

I shop for food only occasionally at WalMart. Sometimes they have a better selection. I noticed that on a lot of shelf items (not meat or produce necessarily), they are cheaper than the big chain grocery stores, but only by a few cents.

There were a few specialty items that were as much as 25% to 50% of the "big box grocery" prices.

Since I don't regularly shop there (long drive ), my grasp of the whole price structure is likely to be poor.

In stores you have to shop at them often to watch the flow of prices. An example is Barilla pasta, a good brand overall. At the grocery store a 1 lb box retails for $1.50 to 2.50 here in Washington. At times it goes on sale for $1 a box. But! At Walmart it is nearly always at around $1 a box. Often the prices at the big boxes don't change dramatically - they stay lower. The grocery store though has timed dips and raises one must know the pattern of. If you don't, you will pay badly for pasta, grains, cereal, canned goods, frozen, etc.

Lets say that a can of green beans is 5 cents cheaper at Walmart. And a person buys 20 cans. That means they saved a dollar. That dollar adds up as they buy more items. That means they can buy more food.

WinCo is probably a better example. They only take cash, debit and food stamps. You bag your items. Employee run, non-union. Efficiency chain like no other. They for example carry organic foods that are HALF of normal retail. How do they do it? Low overhead, no frills and no fancy shelves.

Do I like shopping at my local Safeway better? Oh sure. They treat me like family. Everyone knows me. But I also pay out the nose for that privilege!

If one wants gourmet foods on the cheap you shop at Trader Joe's (which I do, but again, I can afford that luxury!). By cheap that means you get gourmet for normal food prices, which is still pricey but not horrid.

On the whole book thing brought up. Amazon has been offering books on the cheap for years. Often 32% off! And no one complained then. Why? Simple math here: the publishers print in China at massive runs. The cost of each book is barely anything. They sell SO many books on Amazon, at Wal-Mart, Costco, etc that yes, they still make a hefty profit even selling a $25 retail book for $9. Trust me on this, they are not losing money by any means. Authors are still getting the same lousy royalty payment as before. Book sales like this are the same as food sales in large box stores: buy enough at cheap enough wholesale and turn it over fast and you will make a handsome profit.

America is cheap. No matter what some think, middle America is not obsessed with health food, green living or worrying about little things. They are worrying about how they will survive, whether or not they will retire, if they will keep their house and car. Those with time and money worry about the little things!

Well, since we're now talking about organic food, I guess I'll jump in here as well.

There's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about organic food...not here specifically but in general.

As a rule, yes, organic costs more. This is most prevalent in uppity up stores. However, by shopping around and watching for sales, organic can be competitive and some times, even less money. "Not being able to afford organic", in many cases that I'm aware of is simply a matter of either an unwillingness to change shopping habits or an unwillingness to prioritize. I see people affording lots of booze and junk food yet they can't afford organic. I fail to see the logic there.

According to US poverty guidelines, I am poverty...yet, I can afford it...and I eat a 98% organic diet. I value my long-term health and health of my family above all else so I can't afford not to eat anything but the healthiest food.

There's also some unarguable facts about conventional farming. The one that stands out in my mind most is water pollution (the USGS has plenty of stats). Then, you have the pollution caused by the making of the synthetic chems; the ecological ramifications of that and their application; loss of top soil; chem dependency; the embodied energy (farming, transporting, etc); etc; etc.

I grew up on a conventional farm. I know the practices and have seen the ramifications first hand. I contributed to the above mentioned problems and more on the family farm for 19 yrs. I refuse to contribute any longer which, now, would mean buying non-organic. There are methods of growing organically that are superior on many levels and competitive on others. As of 2007, there were 299 organic farms in the southern third of my state (ID) totaling 111,781 organic acres. In my county alone, there are at least 15 organic farms.

The overwhelming majority of homeowners could convert part of their lawns to productive garden space and grow their own...some times a good portion of their needs. This has many attributes: lessening the need for more "farm land"; saved energy; family values; more nutrition; etc. There's no logic in maintaining a large lawn only to drive to the market to buy food that was transported across the country...or on the other side of the planet. In that process, the infrastructure is further burdened, energy is wasted and nutritional value not realized or lost. All for the perceived notion of money savings with no thought of the larger picture or hidden costs.

For those not growing, buying and eating organic, excuses run rampant. I see few legitimate ones though. In many cases, it seemingly boils down to apathy which, could be due to not fully understanding the effects their lifestyles have on their long-term health (both, personal & ecological which, go hand-n-hand) and that of future generations. Unfortunately, society has slipped into such a state of comfort and disconnectedness that the simple solutions will be practically impossible to implement to any large degree. The sad realities of our lifestyle.....

To play devils advocate: while home gardens are a great idea they don't work for everyone - a big stickler in the US is home owners associations that don't allow them and more frankly, most modern homes just don't have much of a yard. Where I live we are lucky to have a real backyard, fenced, with a more open policy HOA that doesn't mind. But - you cannot rip up your front unless you keep it looking good. We are fortunate to not have a lawn rule, many HOA require lawn in front.

It isn't so simple to say: go have a home garden. Gardening is alien to so many people. Worse is if the person has no yard to rip up or the soil blows, they spend a mint in soil and or pots to grow in. It isn't cheap and efficient until a few years have gone by. (I garden in my yard but only due to I know how to do it! I grew up rural.) Our front yard has lawn but is surrounded by herbs plants. We cannot grow vegetables out front due to the shade/cedar tree that kills everything/HOA rules/neighbors that would steal our veggies. We do in the fenced in backyard.
But lets also ask just how many people know how to can, dry, preserve other ways or even know how to do basics like jam making, bread making and more. Most don't.

It is also unfair to accuse people of not buying organic food because they spend it on liquor. Unless that is a personal observation of locals....It is akin to giving folks on food stamps the evil eye because the heaven forbid buy a frozen pizza and a 2L of root beer for their kids.

Americans eat the way they do because it is cheap, easy and doesn't take a lot of thinking. Working class, where both husband and wife work full time, with kids...how many of them have the time or knowledge to cook from scratch? It is easier to eat lesser foods that at least fill you up fast and don't break the bank.

For those of us with the time, resources and knowledge we have to remember that if we look down on others it only reeks of being superior! And it doesn't make that bowl of organic carrot leek lentil stew any tastier.

Sarbar,

Sorry if I came across as "superior". I do not wish to ever come across that way. I am just stating facts in a hurried and not so eloquent manner. Unfortunately, they are the type of facts many do not care to hear. It's human nature to not want to be told their lifestyles are at any kind of fault. It bruises our egos. I don't think anyone's immune to it.

I realize home gardens won't work for everyone. However, I have only seen an extremely small number of yards that could not grow food...all over the west. There are methods of gardening that one can grow a lot in small spaces.

As far as homeowner associations, though I'm sure there are some prohibitive areas, I have never heard of one that prohibits gardening...or landscaping. Landscaping can be edible. Conventional it is not but none of the problems I talked about can be approached in conventional ways. But that is the problem, I believe. People as a rule do not want to learn new things. We'd rather watch sports on TV or talk about the latest and greatest lightweight stove.

Lastly, in re to the unfairness of "accusing people of not buying organic food because they spend it on liquor"....yes, it is a personal observation. Not just booze though. That's just an example. I could have used all forms of needless spending as examples from big screens, shiny new wheels for the truck, soda to backpacks. So yes, I see it as nothing but an excuse when I see that kind of spending then hear the person say they can't afford organic food. If organic food was important to them, they'd prioritize and make do with their stock rims or backpack that wasn't their favorite color ;-). Besides, I stand by my original statement on prices. Organic isn't always more expensive. Still, some families will no doubt not be able to do it. Many families could though.....if they wanted...even at "poverty" levels. We have for 6 solid yrs.

Speaking of prioritizing, I have much work to do. My apologizes if I come across as "superior". Again, that is not my intent or personality in real life.

What a bunch of entitlement-speak.

I just deleted a whole post of reasons people can't get organic foods. You aren't going to listen, and this isn't the place for it. But I find your entire attitude condescending to say the least - the reason there are thousands of people in my vicinity not eating organic anything has nothing to do with excuses. They have reasons. And the saddest part is, I live in one of the most agriculturally rich places in the world, California's Central Valley, where organic producers are popping up right and left and you can pick up lots of fruits and veggies on corner stands and farmer's markets that have never seen a spray.

Lori,

I am very sorry to have upset you or anyone else, and I certainly don't mean to come across as condescending. Some people can write in haste and still sound approachable. I clearly can not and shouldn't post unless I have time to better convey my thoughts. Passion overcomes my better judgment....

I recall your post but do not remember the reasons you stated. Why did you delete? Given a chance, I would listen.

I realize there are other reasons people do not eat organic. And I understand that some simply can not afford the time to "shop" for the best prices. However, I do know that many people could buy organic if it were really important to them...and that was the premise of my posts.

I'm embarrassed that my tone came across as it did ...but I do stand by what I wrote, as blunt as it was/is.

Aside from the economic plight in the central valley (and it's bad, I have family there) the think I also find sad about the central valley and the fruits and veggies is how much of the spray is purely for cosmetic reasons. I do think it's sad to take good food and spray the heck out of it, just because otherwise the orange might have a brown track on it and taste just the same and be just as big.. (I know my uncle sprays the snot out of oranges for this reason, and this alone..)

Unfortunately "organic" is all or nothing. so if you're gonna fertilize the crop - at this point you may as well also make it look good because that's the way it gets bought.. I don't see any way to change this - it's just sad.

Rusty,
“Our Stolen Future” website (http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/New/recentimportant.htm ), only uses anecdotal BPA evidence about humans but shows actual scientific evidence on rats. The very few examples they use of humans don’t take into other considerations--- multiple variables of environment.

But if you want to think like “it’s better to be safe than sorry”, shouldn’t we prioritize which is the worse carcinogen and work on banning that first? Those have much deadlier effects than BPA (especially when tested on mice!).

There are worse carcinogens than BPA. I think we should ban these things before BPA (in order of toxicity):
1. smoking
2. alcohol
3. coffee
4. coke/pepsi
Remember BPA stays in rats forever; it is gone out of our system in less than a day.

We ingest AT LEAST 1,000 times more natural carcinogens daily than man-made chemicals. That’s why NIH is approaching BPA cautiously as there are more important carcinogens to look at.

I’m impressed with BPA. We have 40+ years of human data. It preserves our food well. To knock it out and replace it with something brand new, is a little risky.

I guess I’m trying to say, our priorities are out of order.


-Barry

Hey Barry,

I don't disagree with what you say about carcinogens...and I wouldn't care if the Government banned all that stuff you mentioned....well, perhaps not the coffee ;-). But....BPA is an endocrine disruptor.

That said, when I saw your post, I had this dim recollection of a very similar post so I did a search here and lo and behold, we have discussed this exact thing before! :-)Rather than just retype my response again, I'll direct you there. If you have time, take a peek at the thread titled "Steripen Adventurer w/ stainless Kleen Kanteen" post #94285

(on a side note, I see "lori" was in on that one too)

Furthermore, scientists have found enough evidence against BPA that US lawmakers have taken steps to follow Canada and Europe's lead in banning it. http://www.attorneyatlaw.com/2009/03/bpa...astic-chemical/

I just skimmed an article on the subject and came away with these quotes from Laura N. Vandenberg, Center for Development and Regenerative Biology, Tufts University;

"BPA is one of the highest volume chemicals produced worldwide...

"Canned foods are likely to be the highest contributer to BPA in our diets, not plastics."

FB

“But....BPA is an endocrine disruptor”
Maybe for mice but no scientist has been able to prove it for humans.

“Furthermore, scientists have found enough evidence against BPA that US lawmakers have taken steps to follow Canada and Europe's lead in banning it. http://www.attorneyatlaw.com/2009/03/bpa...astic-chemical/”

There’s no science data at that link. It just sounds like lawyers and bureaucrats trying to find ways to raise money.
I understand Canada banning it as they didn’t assess the scientific data very well. What surprised me is usually Europe jumps on these control games but they ended up not banning it based on scientific evidence (as of 2008---- have you heard something different?)

-Barry

Do you have a link to that info?



The Net is flooded w/ scientific data. The point is, lawmakers have seen enough to act on it. I didn't realize it when I posted but several places (states & counties)in the US have already banned it. Lawmakers in France are also seeking to ban it. http://www.endseurope.com/21946

Something else to consider is where the funding of some of the studies came from that made BPA look innocent. Yep, within the chemical and plastic industry. Gee, I'm shocked! (with my best facetious face);)

With an estimated BPA revenue of $800,000 per hr, is it a surprise to anyone that those within the chemical and packaging industry want to convince us BPA is "safe"? Unfortunately, despite yrs of implicating evidence, with that kind of money at stake and the power of the chemical industry, lawmakers are going to have a tough battle...

And the FDA is taking another look after their initial response suffered severe criticism...even from their own advisory panel.

FB

Interesting article in today's news regarding humans.

On the other hand, Ziploc brand bags apparently contain no BPA. From the FAQ on their web site:

"SC Johnson does not use BPA in its plastic products, Ziploc® Brand bags and containers, and Saran™ brand wraps."

Not sure about other brands of freezer bags.

“Do you have a link to that info?”

The only links I can find is THE ABSENCE OF LINKS. There is no scientist/doctor that will proclaim BPA a HUMAN endocrine disruptor. It’s just another ‘sky is falling’ scenerio.

Oh here’s another way to look at it: http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest202.html (I just found that 2 minutes ago)

“Something else to consider is where the funding of some of the studies…”

Well, I thought this was required by law. If I sell a chemical, I better have put in some heavy R&D funding to study it or risk some lawsuits. It’s also fun to look at who’s funding the anti BPA world.

-Barry

Good article with a very good final statement ““It is interesting information, but is of little relevance to the average consumer using products with trace levels of BPA,” he says. “Based on the findings of the many government agencies that have examined the science, there is a consensus that BPA poses little risk to human health at these levels.””
-Barry

Barry,

Your assumption is a widely popular misconception. A friendly suggestion would be to familiarize yourself with the US chemical regulatory process via the US Government Accountability Office. They have been reporting on this very subject since the TSCA was enacted in 1976. There are hundreds upon hundreds of pages of reports on their web site. Researching chemicals has been a 20+ yr hobby for me. Consequently, I have read most all of these reports in full, the remaining few in abstract.

Looking forward to seeing your response after you have read them (their abstracts will give you the gist in not inclined to read the full reports).

Regards,
Rusty

PS
BTW. You alluded to knowing who is funding "the anti BPA world" as you call it. I'm curious. Who do you think that is?

“Your assumption is a widely popular misconception.”
Well, judges seem to follow this ‘widely popular misconception’ because they are not very kind to companies that don’t do their homework---- especially when it comes to injuring the public.

“…US Government Accountability Office. They have been reporting on this very subject since the TSCA was enacted in 1976. There are hundreds upon hundreds of pages of reports on their web site.”

I went to their web site http://www.gao.gov/about/index.html and did a search on “Bisphenol”. I probably didn’t search very well because I found very little about what the GAO is doing. I found a report here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09353.pdf
What I’ve noticed about BPA, it is one of the most tested chemicals ever to come out. Any BPA substitutes will take 40 years to do similar studies.

“I'm curious. Who do you think that is?”
OK, this is what I’ve noticed:

There are two truisms that work in academia:
1. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
2. Publish or perish.

It is these types of entities that depend on government funding or grants.
For example, a guy that raised a lot of ruckus is ’Frederick vom Saal’. And he has an agenda by looking at his links: http://endocrinedisruptors.missouri.edu/links.html is linked to ‘our stolen future’ which is linked to Al Gore. Mr. Saal’s BPA document shows poor testing and non repeatable at that. So my personal view is his department needs funding and they picked BPA to do it. Now I like it when universities discover new things for us. But when research papers become extremely biased, despite the evidence, I don’t trust them.

-Barry

Barry,

I was referring to the chemical regulatory process, not BPA in particular. Go to the GAO site and search "TSCA". It's going to take more than your standard cursory look though.

That said, it is clear your mind is made up...for which basis that is built upon I have no idea other than your "personal view". Of course, what does the nonpartisan GAO know? That agency has only been investigating and reporting on this for a mere 29 some odd yrs. You surely know more about this matter than they do. ;-)

Kev. That was not my point and the constitution certainly never had any thing to do with my point. My point was is that those things are the foundation of our sovereignty. Take away our language and what do you do. You learn a new language. Take away our borders and what do you do. You live with illegal immigration. Take away our culture and what do you get. Another life that will be different than what we know today. That was really my point and again it had nothing to do with our constitution...sabre11004...

Kev...Finally I think that you may be on to something LOL...sabre11004...

Well I can tell you it is a little different than that. Let's think for a minute. Do we really trust the fact that everything that the U.S.D.A. sanctions is safe. I seriously doubt it. The food companies...Do they really want us to eat less..I don't think so. How about the pharmaceutical companies...Do they really want us to take less drugs...I think not.. And then there are the cherished "doctors".. Do we really believe that they want us all well..I seriously doubt that too. Hell they would go out of business if that were the case. I really think that as a society, we have been conditioned to think so backwards and so upside down that few of us really have any idea what is really going on

Think about it !!!!!...sabre11004...

Here Here I agree. Life Is Short , Play Hard!