Re: Re: Biomarkers for CANCER

[Guest guest]

Let's say the only fat I'm using is 1 oz olive oil only daily, and I change that to 1 oz of safflower oil daily.

How much does that lower my cholesterol after stabilizing?

If my cholesterol is 250, how much safflower oil would I eat to get it to 200?

How much at 150 TC?

Regards.

[ ] Re: Biomarkers for CANCER

JW,We have to go where the science leads us. There are HUNDREDS ofreferences that support the concept that increasing PUFAs lowerscholesterol. As far as I know, nobody is claiming that cancer can beavoided by having normal cholesterol. Moreover, moderate consumptionof linoleic acid has not been found to increase cancer (PMID: 9665108). Although I am generally optimistic, I know that eventually we are allgoing to die of something, whether it is CVD, cancer, or by choking ona vitamin pill.Tony

[Guest guest]

Let's say the only fat I'm using is 1 oz olive oil only daily, and I change that to 1 oz of safflower oil daily.

How much does that lower my cholesterol after stabilizing?

If my cholesterol is 250, how much safflower oil would I eat to get it to 200?

How much at 150 TC?

Regards.

[ ] Re: Biomarkers for CANCER

JW,We have to go where the science leads us. There are HUNDREDS ofreferences that support the concept that increasing PUFAs lowerscholesterol. As far as I know, nobody is claiming that cancer can beavoided by having normal cholesterol. Moreover, moderate consumptionof linoleic acid has not been found to increase cancer (PMID: 9665108). Although I am generally optimistic, I know that eventually we are allgoing to die of something, whether it is CVD, cancer, or by choking ona vitamin pill.Tony

[Guest guest]

The only high polys in my store now is sunflower, and I've noticed it doesn't spoil. I doubt it has a lot of polys.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Biomarkers for CANCER

Hi folks:JFI:My safflower oil, on the back of the container, says:Per 10 ml, Calories 80; saturates 1g; polyunsaturates 7g (of which omega-6 = 7g, omega-3 = 0g); monounsaturates 1g."Product of USA"These numbers are all rounded, of course.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

The only high polys in my store now is sunflower, and I've noticed it doesn't spoil. I doubt it has a lot of polys.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Biomarkers for CANCER

Hi folks:JFI:My safflower oil, on the back of the container, says:Per 10 ml, Calories 80; saturates 1g; polyunsaturates 7g (of which omega-6 = 7g, omega-3 = 0g); monounsaturates 1g."Product of USA"These numbers are all rounded, of course.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

At 04:26 PM 4/24/2006, you wrote:

>Hi folks:

>

>JFI:

>

>My safflower oil, on the back of the container, says:

>

>Per 10 ml, Calories 80; saturates 1g; polyunsaturates 7g (of which

>omega-6 = 7g, omega-3 = 0g); monounsaturates 1g.

>

> " Product of USA "

>

>These numbers are all rounded, of course.

How well controlled are nutritional labels?

I remember going to an asian foods store in the town where I grew

up and finding a sesame cake from Vietnam that had absolutely crazy

nutritional numbers: 53g of protein and if you tried to match the calories

to the amount of fat, protein and carbs, it was off by more than a factor

of three.

My guess was that the importers were baffled by the need to supply

nutritional figures, and then got the brilliant idea that they could just

make something up.

The agriculture/food industry says that it can't label GM foods

because they don't have enough control over their products. There have

been big advances in engineering lipid metabolism: pigs that produce

omega-3 fats, plans to commercialize a cocoa butter substitute based on GM

canola... If a food company doesn't have good control of it's

sources, you might find your safflower oil has something close to motor

oil in it.

[Guest guest]

At 04:26 PM 4/24/2006, you wrote:

>Hi folks:

>

>JFI:

>

>My safflower oil, on the back of the container, says:

>

>Per 10 ml, Calories 80; saturates 1g; polyunsaturates 7g (of which

>omega-6 = 7g, omega-3 = 0g); monounsaturates 1g.

>

> " Product of USA "

>

>These numbers are all rounded, of course.

How well controlled are nutritional labels?

I remember going to an asian foods store in the town where I grew

up and finding a sesame cake from Vietnam that had absolutely crazy

nutritional numbers: 53g of protein and if you tried to match the calories

to the amount of fat, protein and carbs, it was off by more than a factor

of three.

My guess was that the importers were baffled by the need to supply

nutritional figures, and then got the brilliant idea that they could just

make something up.

The agriculture/food industry says that it can't label GM foods

because they don't have enough control over their products. There have

been big advances in engineering lipid metabolism: pigs that produce

omega-3 fats, plans to commercialize a cocoa butter substitute based on GM

canola... If a food company doesn't have good control of it's

sources, you might find your safflower oil has something close to motor

oil in it.

[Guest guest]

At 10:49 AM 4/25/2006, you wrote:

>Hi :

>

>So are you suggesting we take no notice at all of nutrition labels?

>

>Or, do you have a way to determine what the nutrition content is,

>other than reading the label?

>

>Or, do you have another, better, solution?

>

>I doubt anyone would be startled to find that any producer in a

>backward country, such as Vietnam, lacks accurate knowledge/resources

>to ensure adequate labelling. Are you saying you believe the same is

>true in the US?

>

>Obviously, knowing what is in the stuff we eat is important. So how

>are you suggesting we do that?

I'm not saying that nutrition labels are worthless... I'm just

wondering what system is in place to make sure they are accurate.

For instance, we've got the SEC, Sabanes-Oxley and all that to

verify if corporations are publishing accurate accounting

information: what's done for nutrition labels.

As for products imported from " backwards " countries, they're

still supposed to follow regulatory requirements for things that are sold

here. And it's not just a matter of the third world... European countries

are (in most respects) far behind the US in health and safety -- you'll

still find cigarette vending machines on the streets in Germany, with a

little candy machine for the kids mounted underneath

them. Overall, european countries have lower standards for the safety of

medicines -- regulators there are a lot happier to approve drugs which

require regular testing of liver enzyme levels. Food labels in Europe have

much less information than food labels in the US.

[Guest guest]

At 10:49 AM 4/25/2006, you wrote:

>Hi :

>

>So are you suggesting we take no notice at all of nutrition labels?

>

>Or, do you have a way to determine what the nutrition content is,

>other than reading the label?

>

>Or, do you have another, better, solution?

>

>I doubt anyone would be startled to find that any producer in a

>backward country, such as Vietnam, lacks accurate knowledge/resources

>to ensure adequate labelling. Are you saying you believe the same is

>true in the US?

>

>Obviously, knowing what is in the stuff we eat is important. So how

>are you suggesting we do that?

I'm not saying that nutrition labels are worthless... I'm just

wondering what system is in place to make sure they are accurate.

For instance, we've got the SEC, Sabanes-Oxley and all that to

verify if corporations are publishing accurate accounting

information: what's done for nutrition labels.

As for products imported from " backwards " countries, they're

still supposed to follow regulatory requirements for things that are sold

here. And it's not just a matter of the third world... European countries

are (in most respects) far behind the US in health and safety -- you'll

still find cigarette vending machines on the streets in Germany, with a

little candy machine for the kids mounted underneath

them. Overall, european countries have lower standards for the safety of

medicines -- regulators there are a lot happier to approve drugs which

require regular testing of liver enzyme levels. Food labels in Europe have

much less information than food labels in the US.

[Guest guest]

At 01:33 PM 4/25/2006, you wrote:

>Hi :

>

>Perhaps so. But the food product you were saying might well contain

>motor oil was a US product, not from the locations you

>mention ......... NOT european, nor Germany, nor Vietnam, and I had

>specified that it was a US product when I first mentioned it in my

>earlier post. So you seem to be implying that your opinion is that

>labeling in the US is just as incompetent as it is in the other

>countries you mention.

There are a few different issues here.

First of all, different countries have different standards for

what is supposed to be on the label and what is allowed to be on the

label. (For instance, the FDA won't allow certain types of health claims

on the label)

The other one is a statistical thing: for instance, if there is

some standard that says that peanut butter has less than X quantity of

aflatoxin when tested, you're quite likely to find one that goes over that

limit if you test 10 million jars.

In the above case, we're talking about something pretty

serious. On the other hand, you might find that one instance of product X

has 12 g of protein in it and another instance of the same product has 13 g

of protein in it. This isn't a big deal.

I think GMOs may be particularly problematic because

(i) we're getting the line that it's impossible for the food/agriculture

industries to keep track of what is GMO and what is not GMO [so we can't

have labeled GMO goods], and

(ii) GMO technology is making a transition from modifications that improve

agronomic properties (ex. glyphosate resistance) to modifications that

change the composition of the product (canola oil where " you decide the

fatty acid composition " )

I think (i) is BS, the real issue is that the industry is afraid

that consumers will run blindly away from GMO products. As for (ii), I

think you'll find it's good and bad: it's hard to deny that GMO technology

could make food that's more nutritious, although it's being controlled by

the people who brought you pop-tarts and fruit roll-ups.

Anyhow, it's probably stupid that I brought this up on the

list. I was wondering where these figures came from and how they were

audited. If I looked online or in the library I probably could have found

some documentation. I certainly don't have anything better than the FDA

numbers, and it's not the worst thing I'm worrying about... Christ, I've

got a friend who spends all day worrying about contamination in contact

lens fluid, etc.

[Guest guest]

At 01:33 PM 4/25/2006, you wrote:

>Hi :

>

>Perhaps so. But the food product you were saying might well contain

>motor oil was a US product, not from the locations you

>mention ......... NOT european, nor Germany, nor Vietnam, and I had

>specified that it was a US product when I first mentioned it in my

>earlier post. So you seem to be implying that your opinion is that

>labeling in the US is just as incompetent as it is in the other

>countries you mention.

There are a few different issues here.

First of all, different countries have different standards for

what is supposed to be on the label and what is allowed to be on the

label. (For instance, the FDA won't allow certain types of health claims

on the label)

The other one is a statistical thing: for instance, if there is

some standard that says that peanut butter has less than X quantity of

aflatoxin when tested, you're quite likely to find one that goes over that

limit if you test 10 million jars.

In the above case, we're talking about something pretty

serious. On the other hand, you might find that one instance of product X

has 12 g of protein in it and another instance of the same product has 13 g

of protein in it. This isn't a big deal.

I think GMOs may be particularly problematic because

(i) we're getting the line that it's impossible for the food/agriculture

industries to keep track of what is GMO and what is not GMO [so we can't

have labeled GMO goods], and

(ii) GMO technology is making a transition from modifications that improve

agronomic properties (ex. glyphosate resistance) to modifications that

change the composition of the product (canola oil where " you decide the

fatty acid composition " )

I think (i) is BS, the real issue is that the industry is afraid

that consumers will run blindly away from GMO products. As for (ii), I

think you'll find it's good and bad: it's hard to deny that GMO technology

could make food that's more nutritious, although it's being controlled by

the people who brought you pop-tarts and fruit roll-ups.

Anyhow, it's probably stupid that I brought this up on the

list. I was wondering where these figures came from and how they were

audited. If I looked online or in the library I probably could have found

some documentation. I certainly don't have anything better than the FDA

numbers, and it's not the worst thing I'm worrying about... Christ, I've

got a friend who spends all day worrying about contamination in contact

lens fluid, etc.

[Guest guest]

The county judge of Galveston, before hurricane Rita said: "don't expect the government to do what you can do better yourself."

The one major thing I must do is survive, and that means ADAPT.

They took away my favorite coffee, Yuban, changed the label to show me that, but claimed "the same 100% arabica beans you've always enjoyed".

but it's not Columbian.

Learn to read the labels carefully and the medical articles as well. My lawyer once said: "It's not what's in the contract - it's what's left out."

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Biomarkers for CANCER

There are a few different issues here. First of all, different countries have different standards for what is supposed to be on the label and what is allowed to be on the label. (For instance, the FDA won't allow certain types of health claims on the label) The other one is a statistical thing: for instance, if there is some standard that says that peanut butter has less than X quantity of aflatoxin when tested, you're quite likely to find one that goes over that limit if you test 10 million jars. In the above case, we're talking about something pretty serious. On the other hand, you might find that one instance of product X has 12 g of protein in it and another instance of the same product has 13 g of protein in it. This isn't a big deal. I think GMOs may be particularly problematic because(i) we're getting the line that it's impossible for the food/agriculture industries to keep track of what is GMO and what is not GMO [so we can't have labeled GMO goods], and(ii) GMO technology is making a transition from modifications that improve agronomic properties (ex. glyphosate resistance) to modifications that change the composition of the product (canola oil where "you decide the fatty acid composition") I think (i) is BS, the real issue is that the industry is afraid that consumers will run blindly away from GMO products. As for (ii), I think you'll find it's good and bad: it's hard to deny that GMO technology could make food that's more nutritious, although it's being controlled by the people who brought you pop-tarts and fruit roll-ups. Anyhow, it's probably stupid that I brought this up on the list. I was wondering where these figures came from and how they were audited. If I looked online or in the library I probably could have found some documentation. I certainly don't have anything better than the FDA numbers, and it's not the worst thing I'm worrying about... Christ, I've got a friend who spends all day worrying about contamination in contact lens fluid, etc.

[Guest guest]

The county judge of Galveston, before hurricane Rita said: "don't expect the government to do what you can do better yourself."

The one major thing I must do is survive, and that means ADAPT.

They took away my favorite coffee, Yuban, changed the label to show me that, but claimed "the same 100% arabica beans you've always enjoyed".

but it's not Columbian.

Learn to read the labels carefully and the medical articles as well. My lawyer once said: "It's not what's in the contract - it's what's left out."

Regards.

Re: [ ] Re: Biomarkers for CANCER

There are a few different issues here. First of all, different countries have different standards for what is supposed to be on the label and what is allowed to be on the label. (For instance, the FDA won't allow certain types of health claims on the label) The other one is a statistical thing: for instance, if there is some standard that says that peanut butter has less than X quantity of aflatoxin when tested, you're quite likely to find one that goes over that limit if you test 10 million jars. In the above case, we're talking about something pretty serious. On the other hand, you might find that one instance of product X has 12 g of protein in it and another instance of the same product has 13 g of protein in it. This isn't a big deal. I think GMOs may be particularly problematic because(i) we're getting the line that it's impossible for the food/agriculture industries to keep track of what is GMO and what is not GMO [so we can't have labeled GMO goods], and(ii) GMO technology is making a transition from modifications that improve agronomic properties (ex. glyphosate resistance) to modifications that change the composition of the product (canola oil where "you decide the fatty acid composition") I think (i) is BS, the real issue is that the industry is afraid that consumers will run blindly away from GMO products. As for (ii), I think you'll find it's good and bad: it's hard to deny that GMO technology could make food that's more nutritious, although it's being controlled by the people who brought you pop-tarts and fruit roll-ups. Anyhow, it's probably stupid that I brought this up on the list. I was wondering where these figures came from and how they were audited. If I looked online or in the library I probably could have found some documentation. I certainly don't have anything better than the FDA numbers, and it's not the worst thing I'm worrying about... Christ, I've got a friend who spends all day worrying about contamination in contact lens fluid, etc.