An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
New research shows that just two hours after eating the combination of butter, bun, eggs, bacon, cheese and salt (containing a total of 900 calories and 50 g of fat) blood flow through the arms of a test group decreased by 15 to 20 per cent.
Dr. Todd Anderson, Heart and Stroke Foundation researcher and speaking at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress this week in Toronto, said it’s uncertain exactly why the blood flow is temporarily impeded but that it’s obvious “the body isn’t happy” with what it’s ingesting.
He said it can be a number of reasons, including an excess of oxygen-free radicals (created by the sandwich) that affect the blood vessels.
My online response to the above linked-to article follows:
Same Old Unhelpful Help Reports like this infuriate me. But corporate owned media abounds in them and I guess that’s to be expected. Not a word here about quality. You could probably eat exactly the same sandwiches that are, apparently, causing problems here and experience none – if the quality was there. Ditch the killer salt for sea salt. Make all of the ingredients organic. Skip the processed, conventional cheese. No?
I guess it just shouldn’t surprise me. Here you have two candidates vying for the office of President of the most powerful (corporatocracy) nation on earth avoiding talking about climate change while a frankenstorm rages through the largest city of their country. So Is it any wonder that the above article in the authoritative Toronto Star cites authoritative figures, like Todd Anderson of the Heart And Stroke Foundation, who talks about being uncertain why processed, killer salt-laden, conventional fast food has a negative impact on those who consume such products?
This could have been another post in my series of posts dealing with ‘Professional Scam Artists’, but I’ll have plenty of material for that series going forward.
Here’s an excerpt from my post titled “Professional Scam Artists part 8.” The excerpt from my post, enclosed within plus signs, includes an excerpt, enclosed within asterisks:
An excerpt from the above linked-to Toronto Star article by Theresa Boyle follows:
A major study questioning the health benefits of organic foods actually confirms their superiority, Canadian organic growers argue.
“I look at it and I think they found only good things about organic food,” said Beth McMahon, executive director of the Ottawa-based Canadian Organic Growers.
She pointed out that the Stanford study, published Tuesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, confirms that organic foods reduce exposure to pesticides and to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. As well, McMahon said, there was nothing in the study to show that there was a greater food safety risk with organic products.
But the authors of the study, which has received much attention across North America, conclude there is no strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives.
That’s The Toronto Star’s story and they’re sticking to it, with a few exceptions. The Toronto Star is such a fake friend of the people! Heather Mallick (Toronto Star), however, offers us her opinion about the controversy, which this report has indeed become, about which, more below. I think that she may think that she was being totally honest, but when you slough off a common sense idea, namely that industrial food will be less nutritious than organic, truly natural food, with the excuse that it isn’t ‘your’ common sense, Is that honest reportage? From a professional reporter?!
“Organic food is better tasting, and better for you,” by Heather Mallick. An excerpt from that article follows:
“Scientific studies that debunk theories no rational person would hold in the first place always get the biggest headlines and thereafter win their authors more lucrative grants. Poor abused science.
“Take last week’s “Organic food ‘not any healthier’” on the BBC’s website. I yield to no one in my admiration for BBC TV and radio but its grossly misleading headline on its starved website was on the level of USA Today’s “Study sees no nutritional edge in organic food” accompanied by a less-than-gripping online video about melons, featuring a cantaloupe.”
I guess she didn’t have to specifically mention her own paper after that! She continues:
“I read the summary of the Stanford study, which the BBC didn’t even bother to link to online, always a bad sign. Call me cynical but at no time have I ever thought organic food contained more vitamins or nutrients. Why would it? The suggestion is a straw man that lazy news outlets are happy to beat into the ground with a special science hoe.
“I do assume, however, that organic food contains fewer pesticides, which is why it’s called “organic.” Since it’s a harder slog growing fruits and vegetables hand-swept for pests with baby hairbrushes than dosed with things like Bacillus subtilis, boscalid, pyraclostrobin, pyrimethanil and trifloxystrobin, I’m willing to pay more. I’m not impressed when non-organic food is lauded at “within acceptable contaminant levels.” Who decides those levels? Are they science-based or simply industry-friendly?”
The corporate owned media just can’t handle the truth. Handling the truth is not profitable for corporate media (since today’s type of capitalists see investments that can make products and services good, safe and desirable are seen as negatives to be avoided so that profits can be increased) and for corporations it’s all about profits. That’s the logic of psychopathic corporations and the bedarkened minds who worship them.