Latest / World Ablaze with George Fontes / 15 - FOOD FOR THOUGHT AND THE POISONING OF AMERICA

Transcript

15 - FOOD FOR THOUGHT AND THE POISONING OF AMERICA · World Ablaze with George Fontes

0:00
Download Whiskey Hell Podcast.
0:02
We call attention to the mainstream media narratives weekly
0:05
in hopes that you'll have fun with how ridiculous the news really is.
0:09
We don't want to change your mind.
0:11
We just want to give you perspective so that you can choose more wisely
0:14
and be more aware.
0:15
Couple that with great craft beer, hilarious stories,
0:18
deep thoughts, and real conversations.
0:20
We know you're going to enjoy it.
0:22
Download Whiskey Hell Podcast anywhere you find outstanding shows.
0:30
welcome welcome welcome to world ablaze with george
0:49
i want to thank everybody around the world for tuning in
0:55
every time we drop an episode i really really do appreciate it but let's take
0:59
this a step further. I do see in the analytics that there are a lot of listeners
1:03
and we have a lot of people coming back to the show, but we really, really need you to hit the subscribe
1:07
button, the follow button, and share the show. If you have
1:11
any other like-minded individuals, friends, family, whoever the heck you
1:15
want to go ahead and turn on to World of Blaze, by all means
1:20
do so. Share the joy that
1:23
is World of Blaze. Anyway, today
1:26
this is, well I'm recording this on a Friday over here
1:30
and it happens to be out here in America, it's President's Day weekend and so
1:33
knowing that this is Friday and I will be likely releasing this late afternoon
1:38
or so, I'm going to go ahead and celebrate
1:42
this weekend by popping a bottle of champagne
1:46
Nice. And I'm going to be taking this glass
1:50
and cheers to all the hard working people out there who have an extended weekend
1:54
and are going to be traveling to have a good time with their friends and families.
1:59
Here's to you.
2:03
Wow. That's pretty good.
2:06
That's a good one. Not my normal, not my usual, but pretty good.
2:10
So anyway, today, and I know I took a bit of a break,
2:14
but today we're going to focus on something a little different.
2:17
Now, it's always about news, politics, government,
2:21
whatever you want to label this show.
2:24
and this stays a bit on track, but I'm going to talk about food,
2:30
hence the name of or the title of the show for today.
2:35
I'm going to go ahead and go over a few things that are very interesting to me
2:40
that have come to light recently as I've been listening to my wife.
2:47
Well, you know, you have to do that.
2:51
and also another podcast I listen to
2:54
I'm going to give credit to at Cigar Dave
2:58
the Cigar Dave show and he was talking about
3:01
how certain things in Europe are banned
3:05
yet are somehow permitted or able to be used here
3:09
in the USA and he did bring up a few examples
3:13
which anyone could find online and I think I even may have
3:16
one of the articles that he referenced I'm not quite sure but anyway
3:20
shout out to Cigar Dave, a staple in the industry and definitely a very informative person.
3:29
And of course, my wife has always been an advocate for healthy foods and healthy living and eating.
3:35
So let's talk about a few things. The FDA. What about the FDA? A lot of people know the name FDA.
3:43
What are they supposed to be doing for us? What do they do? Who are they?
3:48
Well, the FDA is a federal regulatory body that is supposed to oversee food and drug and its safety and regulation thereof.
4:04
I'm going to read a few things about the FDA.
4:06
Now, I've taken a lot from their website itself, and I just want to let everybody know this show actually kind of took a lot out of me just because there's so much information.
4:14
you can go down a very deep rabbit hole
4:19
when it comes to our food
4:22
the regulation thereof
4:25
what's permitted in terms of how it's manufactured
4:28
what additives are able to be used
4:30
the safety thereof
4:32
of those additives
4:34
it's shocking
4:37
this would have been a 5 hour show
4:41
if I put everything in here I wanted to talk about.
4:44
Let's just put it that way.
4:45
It literally probably, well, more than likely
4:47
it would have been a five-hour show.
4:49
But I try to condense it as much as possible.
4:51
So let me go back to what I was originally going to say.
4:54
Sorry, I got a little sidetracked.
4:55
But the FDA, taking it from their website again,
4:58
the Food and Drug Administration is the oldest
5:00
comprehensive consumer protection agency
5:03
in the U.S. federal government.
5:05
Since 1848, the federal government has used
5:09
chemical analysis to monitor the safety of agricultural products, a responsibility inherited
5:14
by the Department of Agriculture in 1862 and later by the FDA. Although it was not known by its
5:22
present name until 1930, FDA's modern regulatory functions began with the passage of the 1906
5:29
Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law a quarter century in the making that prohibited interstate commerce
5:36
in adulterated and misbranded food and drugs.
5:40
Since the FDA has changed along with social, economic, political, and legal changes in the
5:47
United States, examining the history of these challenges illuminates the evolving role that
5:51
FDA has played in promoting public health and offers lessons to consider as we evaluate
5:57
current regulatory challenges.
6:00
Okay, just reading that, it's very interesting how at the end, and you're kind of going to
6:05
get why I bring this up as we go on, but it's interesting how
6:08
they point out that the history
6:12
and what they do has changed with
6:16
social, economic, and
6:20
political changes. And I'm sure a big emphasis
6:24
on political and social. But keep that in mind as we move
6:29
forward. What I want to do is concentrate
6:32
on food and color additives that are used in the USA
6:38
because the EU has banned so many of these items
6:42
that are still legally able to be used in the USA.
6:48
Many of these items that will literally kill you,
6:52
items that will give you cancer, cause liver failure,
6:55
even linked to why there's such a rise of ADHD in children and adults in recent years.
7:06
So as far as food colors and additives are concerned, this is also from the FDA website.
7:12
Now I'm going to read a few things here that can get a little wordy for sure,
7:16
but I'm going to do my best to keep everything as engaging and within context as possible.
7:22
So bear with me.
7:24
All right, here we go.
7:25
food additives and color additives require pre-market review and approval by the FDA.
7:32
And I'm sorry, I should preface this reading by this section here from the website discusses
7:38
how these food additives are approved or the steps taken for it to be approved.
7:47
So, sorry, resuming now.
7:50
So manufacturers are required to supply the FDA with evidence that establishes each chemical is safe at its intended level of use before it may be added to foods.
8:04
In the case of food additives and color additives, manufacturers submit data and information to the FDA as a petition requesting approval of the ingredient for specific intended use.
8:15
The FDA evaluates the petition and other existing data and information to determine if the data available demonstrate that the chemical is safe under the proposed conditions of use.
8:27
If the FDA determines that the intended use of the additive is safe, the FDA publishes a regulation authorizing its use as a food additive or color additive.
8:37
That authorization can be relied on by any manufacturer for the intended use.
8:43
Now, interesting passage there because it's pretty much saying that the industry or food industry, they're the ones who submit their own data, their own study to the FDA for approval.
9:02
There's nowhere, and I've scoured the FDA website, by the way, and also other government websites in doing this.
9:09
And I'll tell you right now, there's nothing that states anywhere that they go out of their
9:13
way to verify these claims or even go out of their way to test any of these items themselves.
9:19
They're solely relying on the value or the validity and authenticity and the honest reporting
9:29
of data of the reports submitted by these companies, by these companies in the food
9:35
industry.
9:36
Okay.
9:37
That's very important to note.
9:38
again i highlighted it here so i'm gonna read that back so again it says here manufacturers
9:42
are required to supply the fda with evidence that establishes each chemical is safe okay so very very
9:50
big red flag there now the fda is there to supposedly regulate and protect us the common
9:56
man woman child the the the common person out there consuming these products they're supposed
10:03
to make sure that they're safe for us to consume.
10:07
But yet this here where they talk about, again,
10:12
I know I'm repeating myself, but again,
10:15
manufacturers in the food industry are the ones that submit the data.
10:20
That's a huge red flag and very, very much open to discussion
10:25
because depending on how good they make this look,
10:28
again, there's many variables in study.
10:29
how long, how many subjects, what they tested it on, who they tested it on, just throwing things
10:37
out there. But I'm sure you're getting my point that they can read this report and go, yeah,
10:41
okay, looks good. Looks pretty good to me. Okay, let's pass this. Or also leaves it open for,
10:48
which we know happens, a little bit of corruption, a little underhanded, you know, here's a $10,000,
10:54
$20,000 under the table to you in cash. Please let it pass. And then there you go. And we know
10:59
this happens. We know this happens. So even though they say this, now there's another,
11:05
there's another side of this I haven't gotten to yet, but there are items that don't have to even
11:10
go under this process because they are items that they would be considered to be generally
11:17
recognized as safe. The acronym for that is GRAS or GRAS. So anything that's generally recognized
11:25
as safe already on that list wouldn't even have to go through this process of being proven to be
11:31
safe for its intended use. Now, let's talk about GRAS or the generally recognized as safe items.
11:42
Again, I'm taking all of this from the FDA website. So under section 201 and 409 of the
11:50
Act and FDA's implementing regulations in Section 21 CFR 170.3 and 21 CFR 170.30,
12:01
the use of a food substance may be grasped or, again, generally recognized as safe,
12:07
either through scientific procedures or for a substance used in food before 1958
12:15
through experience based on common use in food under section 21 CFR 170.3 subsection B.
12:27
Generally, recognition of safety through scientific procedures requires the same quantity and quality of scientific evidence
12:33
as is required to obtain approval of the substance as a food additive.
12:38
General recognition of a safety through scientific procedures is based upon the application of generally available and accepted scientific data information or methods which ordinarily are published as well as the application of scientific principles and may be corroborated by the application of unpublished scientific data information or methods Under Section 21 CFR 170 Subsection C and 170 Subsection F
13:10
general recognition of safety through experience based on common use in foods
13:14
requires a substantial history of consumption for food use by a significant number of consumers.
13:20
Okay, so this is what I know so far after researching this generally recognized as safe list of foods, or also grass as they call it.
13:32
Once it's on this list, there is no motivation for them.
13:37
In fact, from what I've read, they don't even go back to retest these items later on.
13:42
And it's very important to note that because this list didn't even come into existence until way later.
13:47
In fact, it even says here for substances used in foods before 1958, there's nothing they're going to do about it because they're just trusting the common practices and experience based on using the items as, well, yep, nothing wrong.
14:02
We're good to go.
14:04
That's a bit alarming.
14:07
Now, moving forward, though, there has been other items.
14:10
I'll get to that here shortly that have been approved under grass.
14:15
okay and they have been done so so so even then the way that that's done is also very alarming
14:23
but there has been other items it's just not items since before 1958 this is a bit of a loophole that
14:29
they use the food industry because if they can get it on this list through the legal means by which
14:36
they can do this you know as of now they don't have to go through the extensive lab testing and
14:43
scrutiny of a food substance that is harmful or could be found to be harmful because they
14:51
literally were just saying, you know, based on common practices, blah, blah, blah, that,
14:56
hey, there's nothing wrong with this.
14:57
Let's just run with it.
14:58
We're good, right?
14:59
That's what this is.
15:01
So here's what's very contradictory about everything I read, and I think I just kind
15:06
of pointed some of that out before I get there.
15:08
But according to the FDA, there's something that came out called a GRAS notification procedure,
15:17
which came out after.
15:20
This was passed in 1997, by the way.
15:23
So as of April 17th, 1997, the FDA proposed to establish a notification procedure
15:29
whereby a person may inform the FDA of a determination that the use of a substance is GRAS.
15:38
or falls under the generally recognized as safe items, right?
15:43
Interesting.
15:44
So anybody can just say, you know,
15:46
if they're very savvy and can write something up
15:49
and give enough, you know, manipulative data,
15:52
if they can do that,
15:55
they're the ones who are going to inform the FDA of,
15:58
hey, this substance is actually safe to use
16:00
and should be just generally recognized as safe.
16:04
Tell me that's not alarming.
16:05
That's pretty crazy, by the way.
16:06
so let me read the subnotes to this it says the industry can submit or or the way this works the
16:12
industry does submit a grant what's called a grass notice all right the fda is evaluating whether each
16:19
submitted notice provides a sufficient basis for grass determination and whether information in
16:24
the notice or otherwise available to fda raises issues that lead the agency to question whether
16:29
use of the substance is grass well interestingly enough they're not going to do anything to look
16:36
into an item unless someone tells them that there is a potential threat or harm, you know,
16:44
due to the item that is being submitted.
16:47
If no one's bringing it up and telling them or raising any kind of alarm, they're not looking
16:53
into it.
16:54
They don't care.
16:56
So the Code of Federal Regulations is what I've been referring to when I say under 21
17:01
or Section 21 CFR.
17:03
That CFR means Code of Federal Regulations.
17:06
I pulled a lot of information off of their website as well
17:10
Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 Part 184
17:14
is the direct food substances
17:18
affirmed as generally recognized as safe
17:20
so here's the other alarm to all of us
17:23
regular people out there in America
17:26
who are consuming food and buying food
17:29
there were over 680 food additives
17:35
that have been approved through the industry-submitted grass notice procedure.
17:41
Let me say that again.
17:43
680 food additives that have been approved through this grass notice procedure.
17:50
Again, the grass notice procedure just means that someone in the industry
17:54
wrote a petition stating this thing, this item, this substance
17:59
is generally recognized as safe and more than fine for us to consume and add to foods.
18:08
Now, here's what's even more interesting of the 680 food additives.
18:12
There are 20% of them because of additives that were added later to this list,
18:18
but 20% of all 680 didn't necessarily go through any scientific scrutiny or evaluation.
18:25
20% were approved just based on these grass notices that were written about these additives.
18:33
That's it. That's all it took.
18:35
20% were approved due to the grass notices that were submitted for those items.
18:43
Tell me this isn't alarming.
18:45
And you may think, hey, you know what?
18:48
I'm 50, 60, 70, 80.
18:51
You may be 20.
18:52
You might be 5, 10 years old.
18:53
I don't even know and care.
18:54
The reality is everybody's always talking about how people in the U.S. are living longer and longer and longer.
19:01
The life expectancy has gone up.
19:03
But you know what's gone down?
19:04
The quality of life has gone down.
19:07
Ask yourself, look this up.
19:09
I don't want to derail what I'm trying to do here on this show, but look this up.
19:15
And why don't you do your own research on this and find out how many people are actually on medications as they get older
19:22
that are reliant on the health care system?
19:24
see, they may be living longer, but they're not living a quality life.
19:30
And that's important to notice and important to note and take down
19:34
and put in the back of your mind here, lock it up in that vault
19:38
and make sure it's always available to access because you've got to understand this.
19:43
The quality of life is going down, and a lot of that is due to the food
19:48
that we are consuming here in the U.S., and the FDA doesn't give a fuck.
19:54
They care as much as if it's obvious that something's just killing people,
20:01
of course they're going to step in and take care of it.
20:03
Now, I'm not saying they're the most horrible organization,
20:06
but they honestly don't give a fuck.
20:08
They don't give a fuck.
20:09
Here's an example.
20:10
Why does the EU ban many additives in foods,
20:16
but the FDA in the USA hasn't got one single problem with those same additives.
20:26
Answer that.
20:28
Now I did a lot of digging into items that are banned in the EU for consumption in food
20:35
or to be used in food processing or for food in general.
20:39
I did come across this article from the Huffington Post.
20:43
an organization based in the U.S.
20:48
that did their own report on this.
20:51
It's not a long, huge, extensive report,
20:53
but still they did that report, which is great.
20:56
This came out in 2022 by Jillian Wilson.
21:02
And before I get to that, I'm going to pause
21:04
and take another sip of my champagne here
21:07
because I'm also starting to get dry from all this talk.
21:10
So give me a sec here.
21:11
I'm going to sip this and cheers to everyone once again.
21:17
Very good.
21:22
All right.
21:22
Sorry.
21:23
Resuming.
21:23
So Huffington Post.
21:24
Here we go.
21:25
So this outlines a few things here.
21:29
They did this article, this person did this article by also interviewing Thomas Galligan.
21:36
So he's the principal scientist for food additives and supplements at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, or also called CSPI.
21:46
Now, I'm going to reference that website, the CSPI, a little bit later here because it's a great website that has an extensive list of food additives, and it gives them a rating.
21:58
you know everything and the ratings are like safe avoid caution of you know and then it tells you
22:07
what it's used for next to it and then it'll also say why avoid for example like it'll say oh it
22:15
causes cancer or whatever other ailment it may may cause so that that website we'll get to that
22:22
again that's the center for science in the public interest let me go ahead and start reading this
22:28
Now, excuse me if I kind of jumble through this because you know how most things are online when you try to read it.
22:34
There's nothing but ads and pop-ups all over the place.
22:36
So the article is a bit broken up.
22:38
So bear with me as I scroll through this.
22:41
But to get going, here we go.
22:44
In the U.S., a few issues make additive approvals a little more lax.
22:49
Among them is a loophole known as GRAS, meaning generally recognized as safe.
22:54
Now, I just discussed this, but moving on in the article.
22:58
This came into place due to the 1958 Food Additives Amendment, according to Thomas Galligan,
23:05
the principal scientist for food additives and supplements at the Center for Science in the Public Interests, or CSPI.
23:14
The food industry is allowed to self-determine that a substance is generally recognized as safe,
23:19
allowing it to bypass the Food and Drug Administration, he said.
23:23
Adding to that, the European Union has no equivalent process.
23:26
Additionally, in the U.S., we have a large number of additives that are grandfathered
23:30
into the food supply, said Dr. Sheila Satayana Rayana.
23:36
I probably butchered that name, but she is an associate professor of pediatrics and an
23:43
adjunct professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Science at the University
23:48
of Washington.
23:50
Okay, so that means that some of the chemicals allowed in our food have not actually been
23:55
reviewed for quite some time. Let me go ahead and scroll down here. So of the chemicals, there's a
24:03
few here on this list that I'm going to bring to light. So here we go. Certain additives should
24:08
immediately raise red flags, including those not allowed in the EU. Here experts share which ones
24:13
to avoid. So here's the first one on this list. Titanium dioxide. A recent example of a food
24:20
additive being banned in the EU, but allowed in the US is titanium dioxide, Galligan said.
24:26
The European Food Safety Authority banned the ingredient last year because of concerns about
24:30
potential connections to cancer, but the FDA has not taken any action on titanium dioxide
24:35
following the EFSA assessment, he said. Okay, here's another ingredient, azodicarbonamide.
24:42
Azodicarbonamide, sometimes found in bread and rolls, is used as a bleaching agent and flour
24:48
improver according to CSPI. Here's another one. Brominated vegetable oil. CSPI said that
24:58
brominated vegetable oil is used to give a cloudy appearance to soft drinks like Mountain Dew,
25:02
but the additive has been a topic of concern since the 1970s. Brominated vegetable oil is still
25:09
poorly tested today. The CSPI website said it has been found to leave a residue on body fat,
25:16
and it was linked to the deaths of two people who consumed very large amounts of the ingredients.
25:20
So large amounts, if you're drinking lots of sodas and whatnot every day,
25:23
this could be a very serious health risk to you.
25:27
Another ingredient, potassium iodate.
25:31
Found in bread rolls in the U.S., may also contain potassium iodate,
25:35
a chemical intended to strengthen the foods, according to the CSPI.
25:39
The additive is a kind of iodine,
25:41
and studies show that too much iodine can cause issues like hypothyroidism.
25:47
Interesting.
25:48
Another ingredient, potassium bromate.
25:51
You may find potassium bromate on the ingredients list
25:54
for your go sliced wheat bread or flour tortillas according to the nonprofit Environmental Working Group Bromate is known to cause cancer in animals and the small amount that is used to create a more appealing crumb structure could have adverse effects on humans too
26:10
Now, here we go on to food dyes.
26:13
There are some food dyes, by the way, that are illicitly banned in the U.S. and in the EU.
26:18
But let's focus on what they're saying here.
26:22
It says, while not quite a ban,
26:24
the EU requires that foods containing certain synthetic dyes bear a warning label,
26:30
stating may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children, Galligan said.
26:36
But no such warning label is required in the USA.
26:40
Now that's very interesting.
26:42
I'm going to get to a little bit of study that the state of California actually did on that.
26:46
Of all places, California, for as of a dumpster fire as it is under Gavin Newsom's watch,
26:51
they actually do some good things.
26:53
So I'll get to that. Actually, let's go there now. So here's a report by the state of California. This organization is the OEHHA. Now, I'm not going to read the whole thing. It's pretty extensive.
27:11
So I'm going to start here on this article.
27:14
Now, just so everybody knows, I will, as I have been,
27:18
leave all the links to everything in the show notes.
27:21
As much as I can, I will leave these links for you to access.
27:25
Okay, now reading from the article.
27:27
Overall human studies indicate that synthetic food diets
27:30
are associated with adverse neural behavioral outcomes in children
27:33
and that children vary in their sensitivity to synthetic food diets.
27:37
Challenge studies placed the children on a dye-free diet for several weeks and measured their behavior.
27:43
The children were then given food or drinks with dyes added,
27:47
and measures of their behavior were recorded by a number of standardized methods.
27:51
These studies demonstrated clearly that some children are likely to be more adversely affected by synthetic food dyes than others.
27:57
Animal studies indicate synthetic food dyes affect activity, memory, and learning.
28:02
cause changes in the neurotransmitters, which chemicals that carry signals from one nerve to the next,
28:08
in the brain, and cause microscopic changes in brain structure.
28:12
Researchers also found that all of the FDA's acceptable daily intake levels, or ADIs,
28:19
for synthetic food dyes are based on 35- to 70-year-old studies
28:23
that were not designed to detect the types of behavioral effects that have been observed in children.
28:29
Comparisons with newer studies indicate that the current ADIs may not adequately protect children from behavioral effects.
28:35
For some of the dyes, these comparisons indicate that updated levels would be much lower.
28:42
So very interesting that the state of California, under their own study, has found that these dyes definitely affect children.
28:51
It affects their behavior and is a leading cause of ADHD.
28:56
In fact, in the beginning of the article, it even says that.
28:59
It says,
28:59
The percentage of American children and adolescents diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or HCHD, has increased from an estimated 6.1% to 10.2% during the last 20 years.
29:13
Concerns about increasing rates of ADHD and other behavioral disorders prompted the California legislature to ask OEHHA to conduct the food dye assessment.
29:23
Interesting that just dyes, dyes themselves.
29:25
I don't know what these diets are made of, but how they can affect us, how they can affect our behavior, our brain structure, the chemical or the neurological pathways and how they fire.
29:38
You know, that's just crazy to me.
29:41
And California went ahead to make their own study, although the FDA is ignoring these effects, don't even have any, they don't even have any motivation to even look into this, which is nuts.
29:53
It's crazy.
29:54
as I said before I was going to go to the Center for Science in the
29:59
Public Interest website which was the CSPI
30:03
which I referenced in that Huffington Post article
30:06
this is a very very interesting website I really really suggest
30:12
that everyone go to this website it's cspinet.org
30:17
I'm going to highlight a few of the food additives and substances on this
30:22
website. Now you can go, there's a ratings tab, there's an all purposes tab,
30:26
and then there's another tab that you can change based
30:30
on the health concerns, for example. I just went and
30:34
changed this to cancer. I just said, what health concerns in terms
30:38
of cancer is related to which additives? And there's
30:42
a few that kind of surprised me. One of them here
30:46
is ginkgo biloba.
30:49
if any of you remember
30:52
ginkgo biloba was pushed
30:55
as an additive that would enhance
30:59
memory, focus, even energy
31:01
I believe this was in or may even still be in a bunch of energy drinks
31:05
the ginkgo biloba
31:09
it's rated as an avoid on this website
31:12
here's what they say
31:16
pretend benefits beverages companies add small amounts of ginkgo biloba to beverages because it
31:23
supposedly boosts memory and thinking but most studies and health people show little or no
31:29
benefit at levels greater than what's added to foods and beverages since ginkgo appears to
31:34
interfere with blood clotting it should not be consumed before or after surgery during labor and
31:40
delivery or by those with bleeding problems such as hemophilia importantly in 2013 the
31:45
U.S. government's National Toxicology Program published the first study that could evaluate
31:52
Ginkgo's ability to cause cancer. The study found clear evidence that Ginkgo biloba caused liver
31:59
cancer in male and female mice and some evidence that Ginkgo caused thyroid cancer in rats.
32:06
All right, so let's go ahead and avoid that. There was also the, here's another one that was a
32:13
little surprising i didn't even know about uh here we go going down here oh caramel coloring
32:18
just coloring caramel coloring it says here that it causes cancer like literally causes cancer and
32:25
this is something that's still used it's not banned in the u.s let me read what they have to say about
32:30
that uh they rate it of course as an avoid says coloring used for colas baked goods pre-cooked
32:36
meats soy boissachire sauce chocolate flavored products and beer says caramel coloring is made
32:42
by heating a sugar compound, usually high dextrose corn syrup,
32:46
often together with ammonium compounds, acids, or alkalis.
32:51
It is the most widely used by weight coloring added to foods and beverages
32:55
with hues ranging from tannish yellow to black,
32:57
depending on the concentration of the food.
32:59
Caramel coloring may be used to simulate the appearance of cocoa
33:02
and baked, not cocoa, appearance of cocoa and baked goods,
33:08
make meats and gravies look more attractive
33:11
in dark and soft drinks and beer.
33:14
All right.
33:14
So it says, sorry, caramel coloring
33:17
when produced with ammonia contains contaminates.
33:21
In 2007, studies found that those two contaminates,
33:25
they're referring to methylomidozol and methyl,
33:31
I can't pronounce them.
33:32
But anyway, it says that those two contaminates
33:34
cause cancer in male and female mice
33:36
and possibly in male rats.
33:38
In 2011, the International Agency for Research
33:41
on cancer, a division of the World Health Organization concluded that two in four
33:45
methylamidazole, I presume, are possibly carcinogenic to humans. Then the state of
33:53
California's Environmental Protection Agency listed ammonia caramel coloring as a carcinogen
33:58
under the state's Proposition 65. The states list chemicals when they pose a lifetime risk of at
34:04
least one cancer per 100,000 people.
34:08
California warned that as of January 7, 2012, widely consumed products such as soft drinks
34:13
that contain more than 29 micrograms of these methyl, I wish I could pronounce it, but of
34:20
those chemicals per serving would have to bear a warning notice.
34:24
In March 2012, when CSPI published the results of a study that found levels up to 150 micrograms
34:32
per can of freaking Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
34:34
so it only takes 29 to be dangerous and cancerous and carcinogenic but coke and pepsi they found 150
34:43
freaking micrograms of this stuff 150 this is crazy all right let's go back to this this list
34:49
here aloe vera aloe vera this is an interesting one i didn't know about this one so aloe vera
34:54
it should be understood that it's usually used topically right for like sunburns skin issues
35:01
whatever. I'm going to read a little bit about this. And this is also from the same website.
35:05
All this information I'm getting from right now is from the Center for Science in the Public
35:08
Interest website. So of course, it's rated as a void as it causes cancer.
35:14
It's been used in beverages, yogurt,
35:17
desserts, and flavoring. So aloe vera, which comes from
35:20
a succulent plant, is sold as a juice and is added to various other
35:24
foods and supplements. It is also marketed in various skincare products, for example,
35:29
to treat wounds and burns. Companies make diverse health claims, but scientific evidence is scarce.
35:34
The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institute of
35:39
Health concluded that aloe vera may help heal burns and abrasions when used topically, but
35:44
there's not enough evidence to support other claims. Aloe vera taken orally can cause diarrhea
35:49
and cramps and is recognized by FDA as a laxative. However, in 2002, FDA banned it from over the
35:59
counter laxatives due to lack of safety information carefully conducted studies by the u.s government
36:05
concluded that there was clear evidence that aloe vera extracts caused intestinal cancers
36:10
like seriously aloe vera so do not do not consume aloe vera don't take aloe vera supplements don't
36:19
drink it if it's in your juices or putting any foods for flavorings or whatnot do not consume
36:25
aloe vera. I didn't even know about that. That is crazy. So, so far, these are just a few items that
36:31
the USDA allows. Now, let me go back to titanium dioxide because we had a little bit of a talk
36:37
about that when I was going over that Huffington Post article. But according to the Center for
36:41
Science and the Public Interest, it goes a little further on their actual website.
36:45
What is titanium dioxide? So titanium dioxide is a color additive currently approved for use in the
36:51
U.S. in human food, drugs, cosmetic, and medical devices such as contact lenses.
36:56
What foods contain titanium dioxide?
36:58
It can be found in baked goods, chewing gum, chocolate, puddings, hard-shelled candies,
37:05
frosting, dressings, sauces, coffee creamers, among other food products where it imparts
37:10
a white color.
37:11
Is titanium dioxide safe?
37:13
Titanium dioxide was recently banned from use in food in Europe over concern that it
37:18
could harm human health.
37:20
Based on evidence that titanium dioxide nanoparticles
37:23
present a food-grade titanium dioxide,
37:25
can accumulate in the body and cause,
37:28
get this one, not just cancer, but DNA damage.
37:31
DNA damage, CSPI rates titanium dioxide as a void.
37:36
So it will literally damage your DNA.
37:40
It can cause cancer, but it can also,
37:41
if you don't die from cancer or get cancer,
37:43
it will damage your actual DNA.
37:45
Isn't that crazy?
37:46
now I think it's time for another
37:48
champagne pause
37:50
yeah
37:52
nice okay
37:54
so it seems like
37:56
we can't really trust the FDA
37:58
the FDA is allowing
38:00
additives to our
38:02
food to be used
38:04
that literally will
38:06
kill us and cause harm to
38:09
all of us
38:09
why are they allowing this
38:12
well I'm just going to throw it out there
38:14
how about money
38:15
don't forget some of the largest companies in the food industry related to the food industry
38:19
are huge and have extremely deep pockets don't think that they aren't lobbying hard
38:25
to gain favor from the fda as an organization or from people that work in the fda
38:30
don't even for a second think that doesn't happen it absolutely does happen i mean here's a perfect
38:36
example anybody remember monsanto monsanto who was a large company chemical company by the way
38:43
that got into modifying, genetically modifying seeds for crop.
38:50
And they were so dubious in what they did in their effort to literally control the world food supply.
38:56
Like literally, this is not a lie.
38:59
That they would modify the seeds to where they would be resistant to even bees to pollinate or other related insects from doing anything
39:11
I mean, they genetically made it to where their crop couldn't reproduce through natural pollinization, for example.
39:20
But here's the fucked up thing.
39:23
If a farmer had a field next to another farmer's field that had used nothing but Monsanto seeds, a bee could take the pollen from that, pollinate the field of the farmer that doesn't use Monsanto seed.
39:39
And by doing so, over time, it will genetically modify that farmer's crop to have DNA and traits and attributes from the seeds from the original Monsanto crop of his neighbor.
39:56
now they use this tactic
39:59
to go and test crops
40:01
literally go to a neighbor's farm
40:04
test a crop and then they would say
40:06
well we found that your crop
40:08
actually has DNA from our seeds
40:10
and you're not
40:12
paying us to use our seeds
40:14
they would treat
40:15
their seed program
40:18
almost like software licensing
40:21
you couldn't
40:24
reproduce
40:25
produced naturally it would have to if you didn't use their seed you couldn't keep using their crop
40:30
and they would lock you into an agreement and they would go after farmers that didn't have an
40:35
agreement with them but because of the pollination of the bees and and the wind blowing pollen and
40:39
however it worked they would go after these farmers sue the fuck out of them take their land
40:45
go so far as to take their land put them in perpetual debt it would seem like and get get
40:50
them out of business because they weren't paying them for their property or for for their for the
40:56
rights to use their seed or their crop when in fact the farmer didn't even use their seed it just
41:01
got cross-pollinated by a neighbor's farm that had it so these guys are shady as fuck now here's
41:07
craziness Bayer in 2018 Bayer is a huge chemical company and if you don't know who Bayer is they
41:15
make poisons, literally poisons
41:18
for
41:20
farming and agriculture that
41:21
kill weeds, insects, whatever.
41:25
And
41:25
they made a deal in 2008 to
41:27
buy Monsanto.
41:30
So how is a chemical
41:31
company that makes nothing but poisons,
41:34
what is their...
41:35
How is that allowed, number one, and what is their interest
41:38
in a company like Monsanto who makes
41:39
genetically modified
41:41
seeds and plants?
41:42
hey right here I found it
41:46
I actually just looked it up because I wanted to find out the amount
41:49
here we go Bayer acquired Monsanto for 63 billion
41:52
in 2018 like tell me they don't have deep pockets
41:55
63 billion
41:56
that is crazy
41:59
and Bayer also owns Roundup for example
42:04
now a poison company
42:06
wants to buy a company that makes seeds
42:10
and genetically modified plants
42:12
what the hell is the correlation there?
42:16
doesn't that get you to think?
42:17
and the fact that for years the FDA has turned a blind eye
42:20
to certain additives and chemicals used in foods
42:23
if it can just be explained or presented
42:27
to where, hey, this should be
42:30
a generally accepted
42:31
substance, there's no issues here
42:36
so you have companies like
42:39
Bayer going out spending $63 billion
42:41
to buy out other companies that have
42:44
complete visions
42:45
of world domination and control of the food
42:48
supply.
42:49
You have the FDA over here
42:51
who's supposed to regulate all this.
42:54
And I know I'm kind of like
42:56
trying to connect the dots here, but I want you
42:58
all to think about this.
43:00
FDA allows certain
43:01
things, turns a blind eye. You have companies
43:04
like Monsanto that exist that were bought out
43:05
by Bayer who owns Roundup
43:07
who has been sued constantly
43:09
in fact in 2018 there was an 8 billion dollar settlement due to people who use roundup or were
43:17
in the vicinity of areas that were consistently sprayed with roundup that had cancer and it's
43:23
still going on today there's lawsuits in the billions and this company is allowed to go ahead
43:29
and buy a food company i don't understand that one i mean look i get free market and all that but
43:36
that seems like a huge red flag and further evidence that there is definitely corruption
43:42
in our government when it comes to our food and food supply and the the food regulation industry
43:52
well specifically fda right this is this is this is appalling that that we're going through this
43:59
that that this happens every day so keep that in mind keep that in mind and now i'm going to
44:06
move it, I'm going to kick the ball down the field a bit more here, and let's
44:10
talk about the alleged cow shortage all of a sudden in 2024.
44:14
Ever notice how now, and I'm not sure if this is tied directly to the FDA,
44:18
but important to bring up, because beef prices have been going up,
44:22
and there has been talks of synthetic beef.
44:26
I just want you to know that Italy just ruled that you cannot
44:30
sell synthetic beef in their country, period. And most of the EU is on board with this.
44:34
but in America there has been talks about selling synthetic beef all for the Green New Deal plan
44:41
which I'm going to get to later because that's going to tie into pissed off farmers in Europe.
44:47
I know it's all going to come together at the end trust me well I hope it does.
44:51
So now we're talking about the production of beef going down because apparently I did a little
44:57
research and the reason that they're saying this was from Feedlot Magazine and I also went to
45:03
Cattleman's Association website and whatnot.
45:07
So apparently there has been a huge increase in beef consumption.
45:11
And because of the large increase of beef consumption, they can't keep up with
45:15
livestock reproduction to keep up with that demand.
45:19
So they're attributing that to why beef is on the decline. But they're also estimating
45:23
that it's going to keep declining for the next few years
45:27
by, here, actually right here
45:31
I found it's going to decline year over year by more than 7%.
45:36
7%.
45:37
Which is the lowest it's ever been since 1970.
45:43
So that's all of a sudden an issue.
45:46
Then beef prices are going up.
45:48
Alright.
45:50
Hear me out.
45:51
And then there was talks about, well, save the beef population.
45:56
They're not reproducing because they're getting sick or whatever.
45:59
and I don't know if this is all rumor or true
46:02
but it's very interesting that these things have been
46:06
talked about and have been pushed lately
46:10
when there are talks of, well like the World Economic
46:14
Forum telling everybody that, you know what, we need to get people to eat bugs
46:18
we need to get people to be happy with owning nothing
46:20
so the FDA, a government organization, is letting
46:24
things slide for years, that can kill us
46:26
now beef is supposedly
46:29
in rare supply.
46:34
Bayer buys Monsanto
46:36
who was on a
46:37
mission to control the world's food supply.
46:42
Now they're trying to introduce
46:44
mRNA vaccines in beef.
46:48
Now you're like, oh shit, what does that mean?
46:50
mRNA? Don't tell me it's another COVID conspiracy.
46:53
No, it's not. mRNA vaccines have been around
46:55
long before COVID, but there's an issue with mRNA vaccines
47:00
in general. mRNA vaccines,
47:04
I'm going to take this from the National
47:08
Library of Medicine, actually. From the National Library of Medicine.
47:12
There's an article written on the effects of mRNA vaccines, and this one was published
47:16
in 2023. I'm just going to read the abstract
47:20
because it's pretty long. It's pretty
47:23
pretty intense and i'm going to try well i'm going to follow my way through it because
47:28
it's very scientifically written so bear with me here in fact just even from the abstract i'm not
47:33
going to read the whole thing let me start here says furthermore despite the assumption that there
47:39
is no possibility of genomic integration of therapeutic synthetic mrna only one recent
47:46
study has examined interactions between vaccine mrna and the genome of transfected cells
47:53
and reported that an endogenous retrotransposing, I can't read that, line one is unsilenced following mRNA entry to the cell,
48:05
leading to reverse transcription of full-length vaccine mRNA sequences and nuclear entry.
48:12
This finding should be a major safety concern,
48:16
given the possibility of synthetic mRNA-driven epigenetic
48:21
and genomic modifications arising.
48:24
Hold on.
48:26
Did they just say that mRNA vaccines can literally change your DNA?
48:35
Can impose things into your DNA to change you?
48:39
Is that what that's saying?
48:40
I mean I know I fumbled on some of the pronunciation of these words but
48:43
it's fucking pretty clear it's right there so how are we not concerned with
48:48
that now when it came to the mRNA vaccines and cows they were saying oh
48:53
you know that was the social media scare it's fake we aren't really doing that well of course
48:57
of course you're not yeah so then how do you explain
49:01
how do you explain the government that is funding
49:07
research. The USDA is funding research.
49:11
Iowa State, where they're literally researching the use of mRNA vaccines.
49:15
In fact, this is taken from their non-technical summary. It says,
49:19
our overall goal is to test a novel mRNA
49:23
system for inducing immunological protection
49:27
from bovine RSV infection. We hypothesize that a
49:30
perfusion F mRNA delivered continuously, continuously
49:35
lead by vaccine implant will lead to prolonged and robust cellular and antibody immunity.
49:41
So literally saying that by doing a consistent, continuous implant of this mRNA vaccine,
49:48
they're admitting that it's going to be changing the DNA of the bovine or the cows to where
49:52
they will have now resistance and immunity to these certain respiratory issues and diseases.
49:58
So it's further admission that mRNA does change your DNA.
50:02
It has an effect.
50:02
Now, will eating meat that has been treated with mRNA vaccines affect our own DNA?
50:10
Some are saying no, but remember that old adage and saying you are what you eat?
50:15
In many cases, that ends up to be true.
50:18
You are literally what you eat in terms of your health and how it's affected by how good
50:23
the food was, what that food was contaminated with.
50:27
Or for example, if you eat big game or hunt bear or whatever, if they're sickly or if
50:32
they're not eating very good foods themselves because, you know,
50:37
their own poor health or habitat,
50:39
that the quality of that certain meat isn't as good as it could be.
50:42
And so you're not getting all the nutrients and everything from that.
50:46
And it has been shown that certain foods that have a disease,
50:50
whether they're cooked or not,
50:51
can still transmit those diseases to you when you consume them.
50:54
So for them to say that there is no, there isn't any, you know,
50:58
cause for concern is a bunch of fucking bullshit.
51:00
so is the FDA raising their hand and going hey hold on let's not do this no they're not they're
51:06
not they're being silent they're acting like the government isn't funding this study now again FDA
51:10
USDA two different places but come on really what what what else do you need to know to realize that
51:20
you need to start really looking out for your food consumption you really need to start reading
51:26
labels, buying items that are
51:30
obviously that are actually good for you.
51:33
You've got to do your own research and look at what you're consuming because the FDA is obviously not going to.
51:38
Not to the full extent. They don't care as much as they're trying to say they are.
51:43
Okay, so read those labels. And honestly, stop eating
51:46
processed foods because a lot of the stuff that I read off, just
51:50
a little bit of examples. Now, if you go to the CSPI's website,
51:53
actually the center for science
51:57
public interest website
51:58
and you read through all the
52:00
items on there
52:02
it's a pretty fucking long
52:04
list, all right? It's a long list. And many of the items on there actually ban the EU, but
52:09
in America, they're letting us consume it. They're letting the food industry put them into the foods.
52:14
And a lot of it is in processed foods. So just stop. If you think about it, why do we need 680
52:22
additives to the safe food additives list? Like, why do we need that? How simple is it?
52:30
And a lot of us are so busy at these times.
52:32
I get it.
52:33
It's hard to sit down and, you know, cook potatoes and eat grilled chicken and whatever it is,
52:40
whatever type of meal you're into.
52:41
But to make it from scratch with quality ingredients, not all of us have the time.
52:44
So it does make it hard.
52:46
It does make it hard to make those choices.
52:48
But when you're shopping, instead of buying things blindly because you just want to get
52:53
out of the store as quick as possible or you're just trying to buy, you know, the most cheapest
52:56
item, turn the damn thing over.
53:00
look at the label and read what's in that.
53:02
And I guarantee you're going to find some of the chemicals that I just discussed
53:06
that cause cancers, ADHD, respiratory health issues.
53:11
I mean, you name it, the list is long.
53:13
Think about the fact that, again, as I said, 680 additives that are approved for use,
53:18
but look how simple it is just to buy a fucking potato,
53:22
cook a potato that has many nutrients in it, by the way.
53:26
It's got iron, it's got potassium, it's got vitamin C.
53:28
that versus a ready meal that you could throw in the microwave There isn 680 additives in potatoes okay But if you go ahead and buy a pre you know mashed potato bag or whatever it is
53:43
you know, that you can just warm up, as I said, in the microwave,
53:46
there's going to be a bunch of junk in it.
53:47
Now, how do we go from a potato that all you have to do is, you know,
53:51
blend up, mash up, whatever, to a package that contains,
53:54
Lord knows what the hell's in it.
53:56
So read the labels, make smart decisions,
53:59
and guess what? You're going to have a healthier, better quality of life.
54:06
All right, that's all I have for this show. I thank every single one of you for sticking in there
54:12
and really listening to what I had to say about this particular topic. I know it was a lot.
54:18
Again, for everybody out there listening, you have to hit the subscribe and follow buttons.
54:24
look we're everywhere we're on youtube on spotify apple you name it we're all over the place but if
54:30
you don't hit that subscribe follow button it really throws off the analytics and we really
54:35
need everybody to start doing that and don't be afraid to share the show remember we're also all
54:40
over social media we're on x and truth at fonts ablaze we're also on facebook and again if you
54:49
have comments questions you can also email worldblaze at fontsmedia.com that's f-o-n-t-e-s
54:56
media.com once again thank you and we'll see you next time