Potassium Bromate is banned in every country but USA, hurtsThyroid, Monsanto weed killer in Food

[JohnnySagebrush]

ok.. i think we are having a miscommunication on what "health" is.

im saying if a deer can grow up eat primarily corn and soybeans, outrun coyotes for 4 years and reproduce multiple times that is "healthy"

deer in woodlands have better bedding sure, but less food meaning more starving deer that cant outrun the coyotes that eventually kill them.

the mixed woodland ag population is deceptive because like you said the deer only use the woodland for bedding (primarily).

unless you can show me a statistic where a grassfed buck can run a certain distance without stopping vs a cornfed buck without stopping im going to go off of population numbers.

I doubt there is a study on that specific. That would be difficult to carry out!
I think what you refer to is biological carrying capacity, which is basically a measure of land fertility and the ability to sustain fauna. In the US, our most fertile lands are utilized as farmland. I think it is a mistake to try to judge “health” from that. If you did, you need to take into account that before the land was converted to agriculture it sustained more ungulates than it does currently.
We’ve created artificial situations that certain animals can adapt to, such as whitetail deer.
Very few deer in ag land live to old age, so it would be difficult though interesting to study the effects of a corn and bean diet on deer and various diseases vs woodland populations. BTW, deer mortality due to coyotes is about 0, except for fawns. In much of their range, the only predator that is a threat to whitetails are human.

 

[JonesBones]

So hunters are the government.. ok got it.

and deer hunting is equivalent to killing beef cattle.

you sound like someone who has never pulled back a bow string during deer season let alone put an arrow in one.

I have never hunted. Doesn't change the fact that government regulates the population of deer and nearly everything else.

 

[JonesBones]

ok.. i think we are having a miscommunication on what "health" is.

im saying if a deer can grow up eat primarily corn and soybeans, outrun coyotes for 4 years and reproduce multiple times that is "healthy"

deer in woodlands have better bedding sure, but less food meaning more starving deer that cant outrun the coyotes that eventually kill them.

the mixed woodland ag population is deceptive because like you said the deer only use the woodland for bedding (primarily).

unless you can show me a statistic where a grassfed buck can run a certain distance without stopping vs a cornfed buck without stopping im going to go off of population numbers.

Why would bigger or more dense populations be healthier? Are all those chickens packed together more healthy? Is China healthy?

Amish are healthier than average Americans. There. And allergies are almost unheard of in Amish communities. Cuz they aren't oversanitized like humans and cows. Do you know that food allergies have tripled in Canada in like a decade? Other places are similar.

 

[uncommon]

I have never hunted. Doesn't change the fact that government regulates the population of deer and nearly everything else.

You are trying to draw an equivalent between a beef cattle whos bred by man and guaranteed to be killed by man

and a deer that is ILLEGAL to breed and highly unlilely to be killed by man during a season. it may take you multiple years to kill a specific deer. it may take you multiple seasons to kill ANY deer.

beef cattles sole predator is man (primarily)

deers predator is drought coyote food winter ect.

Why would bigger or more dense populations be healthier? Are all those chickens packed together more healthy? Is China healthy?

Amish are healthier than average Americans. There. And allergies are almost unheard of in Amish communities. Cuz they aren't oversanitized like humans and cows. Do you know that food allergies have tripled in Canada in like a decade? Other places are similar.

If the deer populations were unhealthy like you said, they wouldnt last the winter, they wouldnt last the days without water they wouldnt last the days running from a pack of coyotes.

and if they didnt last they wouldnt breed multiple times. if they dont breed they dont have a high population.

You are trying to make the point that deer are better off not eating corn and soybeans, but the fact is they eat billions of $ worth every year, it makes them last the rigors of nature and it gives opportunity for their young to survive in higher probabilities than that of a standard woodland.

 

[JonesBones]

You are trying to draw an equivalent between a beef cattle whos bred by man and guaranteed to be killed by man

and a deer that is ILLEGAL to breed and highly unlilely to be killed by man during a season. it may take you multiple years to kill a specific deer. it may take you multiple seasons to kill ANY deer.

beef cattles sole predator is man (primarily)

deers predator is drought coyote food winter ect.


If the deer populations were unhealthy like you said, they wouldnt last the winter, they wouldnt last the days without water they wouldnt last the days running from a pack of coyotes.

and if they didnt last they wouldnt breed multiple times. if theu dknt breed they dont have a high populatoin.

You are trying to make the point that deer are better off not eating corn and soybeans, but the fact is they eat billions of $ worth every year, it makes them last the rigors of nature and it gives opportunity for their young to survive in higher probabilities than that of a standard woodland.

And chickens are reproducing better and faster than ever. The whole system is based around big yields.

Humans control the majority of animal biomass on this planet. In livestock. Thousands of years ago, like 99% of the biomass was wild animals. Now the majority is under human dominion. Deer aint shit. Cows are much more successful as are all animals under human control. But they arent healthy.

 

[uncommon]

And chickens are reproducing better and faster than ever. The whole system is based around big yields.

Humans control the majority of animal biomass on this planet. In livestock. Thousands of years ago, like 99% of the biomass was wild animals. Now the majority is under human dominion.

deer are not livestock sherbro. you are going full shertard on me my man.

you gotta get out and hunt and read less on the net because its not working for you.

 

[JonesBones]

deer are not livestock sherbro. you are going full shertard on me my man.

you gotta get out and hunt and read less on the net because its not working for you.

But by your logic, cows and chickens are healthier than deer because there is a lot more of them.

 

[uncommon]

But by your logic, cows and chickens are healthier than deer because there is a lot more of them.

IF cows and chickens were in a wild enviornment the SAME as deer.


and exhibited increased populations around corn and soybean fields

and less population around a standard woodland enviornment,

i would say that BECAUSE THE POPULATIONS ARE HIGHER around corn and soybean fields, then they are HEALTHIER

but like i said deer arent livestock you are strawmanning my argument into saying that deer are the same as cows and chickens.

you are either dishonest or retarded. so go hunt a deer you will either become humbled or gain an insight into your retardation. a win win no matter how you cut it.

 

[JonesBones]

IF cows and chickens were in a wild enviornment the SAME as deer.


and exhibited increased populations around corn and soybean fields

and less population around a standard woodland enviornment,

i would say that BECAUSE THE POPULATIONS ARE HIGHER around corn and soybean fields, then they are HEALTHIER

but like i said deer arent livestock you are strawmanning my argument into saying that deer are the same as cows and chickens.

you are either dishonest or retarded. so go hunt a deer you will either become humbled or gain an insight into your retardation. a win win no matter how you cut it.

Hunting a deer would tell me nothing about the subject.

YOU are saying that population size is an indicator of health. I am saying it is not. Hunting a fucking deer won't enlighten me at all about that.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

Uncommon, you are starting to be juvenile and disrespectful so I’ll leave you with a couple things to ponder.
The populations you refer to have the highest incidence of parasitic infections as well as CWD and prion disease. This is well established in studies. How does that jive with “healthier” animals?
Something anecdotal, so dismiss if you desire; about 1/4 of the whitetails I killed in Iowa had fat deposits around the heart or organs. To be clear, this is a disease process and completely unnatural and unhealthy, and this is in deer that are 4-6 years old. Of all the elk and deer I’ve killed in the West, NONE have displayed this, and this is in animals that are 6+ years old. Deer are just not biologically suited to subsist on grain. They are ruminants for crying out loud. I think you have little understanding of biology.

If we follow your logic to human populations, India and Haiti should have the healthiest folks on earth, and Iceland and Scandinavia the least healthy.

You can define health how you choose, but basing it on population alone is a silly one, and one not shared by wildlife biologists, veterinarians, or epidemiologists, and for good reason.

 

[RockstarChris]

Only California demands that breads and foods sold in stores put the Prop 65 label warning that the product contains this stuff, its also one of the big reasons a well developed country like USA has a lot of people with Iodine deficiency

I read articles online that places like Subway, McDonalds, Pizza Hut had breads tested and they contained Potassium Bromates.

A lot of foods bought in Cali or shipped here if you order online are required to put a prop 65 warning, prop 65 also applies to other non food goods like clothing, electronics that use cancerous or dangerous chemicals in there.

California's Proposition 65, also called the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, was enacted in 1986. It is intended to help Californians make informed decisions about protecting themselves from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.


More info from LiveScience on Potassium Bromate
https://www.livescience.com/36206-truth-potassium-bromate-food-additive.html



http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-potassium-bromate-cancer-foods-20151014-story.html

Possible cancer-causing additive found in pizza crust, bread and crackers

Scores of common baked goods contain potassium bromate, a possible cancer-causing additive, according to a new analysis by Environmental Working Group. The nonprofit agency found the chemical in 86 breads and other baked goods, including such well-known products as Hormel Foods breakfast sandwiches, Weis Kaiser rolls and French toast, and Goya turnover pastry dough.

The analysis, titled “Potassium Bromate: Was Your Bread Baked with Flour Containing a Possible Cancer-Causing Additive?,” details the potential health problems associated with this ingredient. EWG included this ingredient in its “Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Additives” in November 2014, which highlighted 12 additives to avoid. Potassium bromate is added to flour to firm up the dough, help it rise and give the finished bread a fresh white color. However, it has been linked in animal studies to cancer and tumors. Research also has shown that it can damage genetic material in human liver and intestinal cells, causing “breaks in DNA strands and chromosomal damage,” according to EWG’s analysis.

“In light of the evidence showing its potential harm to human health, it’s alarming that companies continue to use potassium bromate in their breads and other baked goods,” said Nneka Leiba, EWG’s deputy director of research and co-author of the report. “With our new analysis, we hope to shine a light on this unnecessary additive and pressure companies to find better ingredients for their products.”

EWG analysts determined the number of products containing the additive using Food Scores, an online tool that provides information on more than 82,000 foods and 5,000 ingredients. The EWG website includes a full list of foods with potassium bromate, which includes everything from crackers to egg rolls to meatballs.

The group has launched a consumer petition to urge food manufacturers to stop using the additive.

Because of the health concerns linked to the chemical, a number of countries — including the United Kingdom, Canada and Brazil, as well as the European Union — have restricted or banned its use in food. California, the only state that regulates potassium bromate, requires a Prop. 65-mandated warning label on food containing it.

“We urge consumers to exercise caution with potassium bromate and avoid it whenever possible,” said Jose Aguayo, EWG database analyst and co-author of the analysis.

A state wants to make sure you are not iodine deficient but is fine if you get AIDS.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

http://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/Hunting/spring_spotlight/2017_spotlight_survey.pdf

BTW, uncommon, here is a wildlife survey done in Iowa. If you look at whitetail deer populations, they are highest in the most heavily wooded, least agricultural areas of the state. I’m rejecting that your premise is true, but agree in some instances it is. Whitetail populations are highest in mixed habitats, and actually do poorly in strict agricultural areas (due to lack of cover, inadequate late winter/early spring nutrition, and fawn mortality.)

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Hunting a deer would tell me nothing about the subject.

YOU are saying that population size is an indicator of health. I am saying it is not. Hunting a fucking deer won't enlighten me at all about that.

Yeah, that was a really dumb meathead argument: 'Hunt for enlightenment'.

 

[uncommon]

Hunting a deer would tell me nothing about the subject.

YOU are saying that population size is an indicator of health. I am saying it is not. Hunting a fucking deer won't enlighten me at all about that.

If you had a healthy petri dish of bacteria vs a non healthy petri dish of bacteria, which one would have a higher population?

 

[oldshadow]

The first thing you ask with a food additive study is how much to get the effect they were looking for.

Like "- this additive can cause cancer in rats. How much additive per day? - ?.?? Per day. How much in humans terms? - 5 to 10 pounds of the additive a day depending on body mass. 5 to 10 pounds a day?"

You need more information.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Unfortunately, humans and animals are not engineered to be immune to the effects of herbicides

Er, yes they are. Most herbicides have a low acute toxicity. I wouldn't drink a glass of Round Up with lunch, but overall it is safe.

Pesticides are a different story.

 

[uncommon]

http://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/Hunting/spring_spotlight/2017_spotlight_survey.pdf

BTW, uncommon, here is a wildlife survey done in Iowa. If you look at whitetail deer populations, they are highest in the most heavily wooded, least agricultural areas of the state. I’m rejecting that your premise is true, but agree in some instances it is. Whitetail populations are highest in mixed habitats, and actually do poorly in strict agricultural areas (due to lack of cover, inadequate late winter/early spring nutrition, and fawn mortality.)

i appreciate the article, i dont see where it shows woodlands are better though.

im starting to doubt my premise the more i look into it lol.

let me update it. i think you are right in the long term scope of things, but more recently (1980-2001) i would say that farmlands are starting to be better for deer populations than traditional settings.

maybe deer metabolisms are adapting to the plentiful food spurce of soybean and corn??

maybe there will be 2 different kinds of white tails in the future. the old school white tail and the farm fed white tail

http://www.boone-crockett.org/bgRecords/records_whitetail.asp?area=bgRecords

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

i appreciate the article, i dont see where it shows woodlands are better though.

im starting to doubt my premise the more i look into it lol.

let me update it. i think you are right in the long term scope of things, but more recently (1980-2001) i would say that farmlands are starting to be better for deer populations than traditional settings.

maybe deer metabolisms are adapting to the plentiful food spurce of soybean and corn??

maybe there will be 2 different kinds of white tails in the future. the old school white tail and the farm fed white tail

http://www.boone-crockett.org/bgRecords/records_whitetail.asp?area=bgRecords

You can look at an aerial photo of Iowa and compare it to the population study. There are subspecies of whitetail btw. They are very adaptive animals, thank goodness, because elk can’t survive in much of their traditional range.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

Er, yes they are. Most herbicides have a low acute toxicity. I wouldn't drink a glass of Round Up with lunch, but overall it is safe.

Pesticides are a different story.

The active ingredients in herbicides, like glyphosate. The problem is in carrier agents which are pretty harmful
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

 

[TidWell]

The first thing you ask with a food additive study is how much to get the effect they were looking for.

Like "- this additive can cause cancer in rats. How much additive per day? - ?.?? Per day. How much in humans terms? - 5 to 10 pounds of the additive a day depending on body mass. 5 to 10 pounds a day?"

You need more information.

its probably long term build up, if you eat these breads daily it will effect you or even three times a week for a year. A lot of stuff stays in your system for a while after you ingest it.

Thats basically how all illnesses build up unless you consume some overdose of something that will cause acute illness.