Whats most annoying is I recently stocked up my cupboards with 20 cans of chopped tomato cause I use them in chili, bolognaise, mixing with veg. I’m probably getting through 5-6 a week. To my knowledge I’ve not found any cans of tomato that doesn’t contain BPA in the UK.
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
Whats most annoying is I recently stocked up my cupboards with 20 cans of chopped tomato cause I use them in chili, bolognaise, mixing with veg. I’m probably getting through 5-6 a week. To my knowledge I’ve not found any cans of tomato that doesn’t contain BPA in the UK.[/quote]
Most stores carry cartons, I believe this is a safe choice.
There are many Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in our environment, BPA is just one of the many xenoestrogens found in the water and in the foods we eat. There are countless studies by scientists in academia and industry to substantiate this fact.
However, the methodology used by research to determine the levels and the effects of BPA (and other environmental toxins) are NOT universal. Different labs may use out of date protocols or tests that are not sensitive enough to detect minute levels of contamination in samples, including blood and urine.
There is so much discrepancy in the results. Scientists publish conflicting results, and there may be a bias depending on what agency is funding the research.
“For example, the U.S. FDA’s BPA review panel was identified as an expert panel, when in fact the panel was composed largely of scientists lacking any experience in research with BPA. This process, which appears to consider almost any scientist knowledgeable about a chemical to create bias, makes it vastly more difficult for the panel to integrate scientific data from the relevant literature, especially since, as with BPA, there are almost 1,000 relevant studies and the review panel is provided with very little time to become knowledgeable about the details. It means that the depth of knowledge present on this and similarly constituted government regulatory agency panels is unlikely to be sufficient to subject draft assessments to the scrutiny that peer review by experts normally entails. Combined with reliance on GLP data, this process has a high potential to yield flawed assessments that jeopardize public health.”
Remember this next time you hear an “expert” render his/her opinion based on “scientific research.”
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
Whats most annoying is I recently stocked up my cupboards with 20 cans of chopped tomato cause I use them in chili, bolognaise, mixing with veg. I’m probably getting through 5-6 a week. To my knowledge I’ve not found any cans of tomato that doesn’t contain BPA in the UK.[/quote]
Tesco has a tetra pak carton thingy. I’ve not seen one elsewhere, but Tesco’s the only major supermarket I shop at.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I wouldn’t use the word “awesome,” but I studied medicinal chemistry both as an undergrad as electives (my degree however is in microbiology) and for 4 years in the UF medicinal chemistry graduate program. I completed all the education, research, and qualifiers for a PhD in medicinal chemistry, but obtained gainful employment before even starting on writing my thesis (though each part of the research was written up and published), and stupidly never did finish my thesis so never got the degree.[/quote]
Be honest, Bill. You just wanted to stick it to the Man.
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
Whats most annoying is I recently stocked up my cupboards with 20 cans of chopped tomato cause I use them in chili, bolognaise, mixing with veg. I’m probably getting through 5-6 a week. To my knowledge I’ve not found any cans of tomato that doesn’t contain BPA in the UK.[/quote]
I do the same actually. I recently just switched over to spicy salsa in a glass container though. You may want to do the same once you use up all of those cans.
[quote]Woppa wrote:
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
Whats most annoying is I recently stocked up my cupboards with 20 cans of chopped tomato cause I use them in chili, bolognaise, mixing with veg. I’m probably getting through 5-6 a week. To my knowledge I’ve not found any cans of tomato that doesn’t contain BPA in the UK.[/quote]
Tesco has a tetra pak carton thingy. I’ve not seen one elsewhere, but Tesco’s the only major supermarket I shop at.[/quote]
Thanks, I’ll look for those next time I’m shopping.
Davinchi, I’ll be sure to compare prices/quality for which is cheapest! thanks.
The worst part about modern day food production is that it is becoming increasingly hard and more expensive to find and purchase foods not packed in plastic that is pumping BPA in to the product or full of artificial shit. As much as people like us would like to change things to get back to a more natural and healthy product, the masses of sheeple that don’t give a damn outnumber us. It is getting worse every year and sadly shows no signs of getting better.
Who ever said that bigger is better was dead wrong. because as much as humanity has grown we have lost, and basic things such as healthy foods are starting to break down and get thrown aside to cater to and feed the masses.
What has modern civilization really achieved when we are throwing this shit down our gullet? Sure we can launch probes in to space and land a man on the moon, yet one of the most basic needs of survival is now doing almost as much harm to our health as it is good.
Sorry, rant over.
[quote]Woppa wrote:
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
Whats most annoying is I recently stocked up my cupboards with 20 cans of chopped tomato cause I use them in chili, bolognaise, mixing with veg. I’m probably getting through 5-6 a week. To my knowledge I’ve not found any cans of tomato that doesn’t contain BPA in the UK.[/quote]
Tesco has a tetra pak carton thingy. I’ve not seen one elsewhere, but Tesco’s the only major supermarket I shop at.[/quote]
Thanks for the tip
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
[quote]Woppa wrote:
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
Whats most annoying is I recently stocked up my cupboards with 20 cans of chopped tomato cause I use them in chili, bolognaise, mixing with veg. I’m probably getting through 5-6 a week. To my knowledge I’ve not found any cans of tomato that doesn’t contain BPA in the UK.[/quote]
Tesco has a tetra pak carton thingy. I’ve not seen one elsewhere, but Tesco’s the only major supermarket I shop at.[/quote]
Thanks, I’ll look for those next time I’m shopping.
Davinchi, I’ll be sure to compare prices/quality for which is cheapest! thanks.[/quote]
Have you ever opened a carton to see what it is made of. I assume you think it all cardboard right? Take a look at the following video at 0.20 & 0.30 seconds and you will see how Tetra Pak is made…
I don’t know what kind of plastic it is, but as far as I am concerned it’s all suspect.
Take a look at the following report on plastics in water. Tetra Pak tested positive for estrogen.
Modern food production and the packaging of said foods is a ‘for profit business’, end of story! Now there’s nothing wrong with making a profit but it does drive food producers to develop ways to get the food to you, fresher (preservatives), better tasting (additives) in convenient packages with a long shelf life (cheap plastic packaging).
Choose glass containers where possible, it is the easiest solution.
Well I just did some calculating in my head. To avoid all of those foods and eat their healthy counterparts, I will need about 40-50 grand a year to pay for groceries for me and my family of 3. Give or a take a few 10 thousands. And if everyone ate like those experts we would be out of salmon in about 5 years, beef would be about $15 dollars a pound, and there would be shortages of that too.
It was a good article, but also just shows how big of a pain in the ass eating healthy can be. Hopefully all the healthy, anti-cancer, foods I eat will negate the damn cancer cuasing foods I can actually afford.
Hopefully though, by brining these things too light people smarter than me can fix the issues, and companies will feel presure to stop using some of this crap.
[quote]enigma666 wrote:
The worst part about modern day food production is that it is becoming increasingly hard and more expensive to find and purchase foods not packed in plastic that is pumping BPA in to the product or full of artificial shit. As much as people like us would like to change things to get back to a more natural and healthy product, the masses of sheeple that don’t give a damn outnumber us. It is getting worse every year and sadly shows no signs of getting better.
Who ever said that bigger is better was dead wrong. because as much as humanity has grown we have lost, and basic things such as healthy foods are starting to break down and get thrown aside to cater to and feed the masses.
What has modern civilization really achieved when we are throwing this shit down our gullet? Sure we can launch probes in to space and land a man on the moon, yet one of the most basic needs of survival is now doing almost as much harm to our health as it is good.
Sorry, rant over.[/quote]
Soylent Green!
By the way, it turns out that hydroxytamoxifen is an antagonist at estrogen-related-receptor gamma, so if one wants to consume BPA-laden foods and probably be protected from that effect, Nolvadex likely will do it.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
By the way, it turns out that hydroxytamoxifen is an antagonist at estrogen-related-receptor gamma, so if one wants to consume BPA-laden foods and probably be protected from that effect, Nolvadex likely will do it.[/quote]
That’s good info, so would a short cycle detoxify the body (to some degree?) or does it only offer protection from the moment you take it?
Well, I was hoping we would touch on the issue of antidotes. That is why I mentioned smoking and anti oxidants and the following comment on acts that are seemingly stupid on our part being over ruled by a correspondent pro action ( I do not believe intelligence is the antidote to stupidity, for instance, just as testosterone is not necessarily the anti dote to excess oestrogen ).
That applies on many levels, including psychologically: To what extent for instance, competence which arises from a confident psychological ground, can combat or nullify seemingly harmful invisible elements?
Since we assume a moment of stupidity, which is also invisible, can cause harm - or can it really if one is in possession and/or cultivates the corresponding anti dote.
Hence the analogy.
I thought it was a profound and pertinent topic but no one picked up on it.
See the following about BPA.
[quote]steveprez wrote:
See the following about BPA.
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080424.html [/quote]
The only factor that distinguishes junk science from solid science is politics.
[quote]pradaboy wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
By the way, it turns out that hydroxytamoxifen is an antagonist at estrogen-related-receptor gamma, so if one wants to consume BPA-laden foods and probably be protected from that effect, Nolvadex likely will do it.[/quote]
That’s good info, so would a short cycle detoxify the body (to some degree?) or does it only offer protection from the moment you take it?[/quote]
It would only aid while actually in the system.
Actually as personal opinion I’ve thought for a while the possibility of low-dose ongoing tamoxifen usage (half or less the usual dose: in other words, 10 mg/day per less) is something that deserves serious consideration. I was really thinking from the standpoint of blood lipid profile and general health. Combatting xenoestrogens was an aspect I hadn’t considered.
Lower dose use has been looked at somewhat from the standpoint of breast health in women: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/95/11/766
As pure guesswork, I would be surprised if say 10 mg every other day was insufficient to completely counter any increase in ERR-gamma activity due to ingested BPA.
Really, the SERMs are quite cool. Estrogens do have some useful properties, but excesses of some activities are problems, and it is not an issue of every tissue and every receptor in the body acting the same way such that one is readily optimal in all regards. It works out very nicely that the SERMs generally provide estrogenic activity where that activity is good, and anti-estrogenic where there can readily tend to be too much activity.
(“Generally,” because for example men may find brain estrogenic activity of Clomid to be an undesired thing, or estrogenic activity of tamoxifen or clomiphene – though not raloxifene – in the uterus is non-optimal for women.)
Don’t forget Progesterone can ( can it? ) act as antidote as well…
I did think instead of doing another steroid cycle I should experiment with a pharmaceutical anti oestrogen to see if would cause me to get buffer. And I did use Formex once but the rebound was worse. Oestrogen can be evil.
You think you can subdue it then it bites back with a vengeance.
Whether it is at ERR-gamma, I don’t know. That (ERR-gamma) is an area of pharmacology that could stand a lot more research.
You are of course right about progesterone having benefits for men that we don’t tend to think about, or – so far as steroid users go – get paranoid about due to real problems with progestagenic anabolic steroids that ought not to carry over to maintaining, if not already the case, normal levels of progesterone. Thanks for bringing that out to me a while back: I had fallen into that error myself.