Ecclesiastes tells us that knowledge doesn't always feel like a good thing and truthfully that is how this particular information sits. It just doesn't feel good to even consider this information. Upon discovering where "natural flavoring" for vanilla often comes from, this next bit of information really just kind of made my taste buds wither. That information is included in the Nonsanto section of the Goshen Gazette.
I come from a long line of folks who enjoy a cup of coffee in the evening with a dish of ice cream. I just cannot look at ice cream in the same way any more. There's just no reason for such greed and there is absolutely no excuse for misleading labels. There are still a few citizens are trying to trust the FDA!
http://www.naturalnews.com/040742_meat_scraps_ice_cream_animal_protein_hydrolysates.html
I'll be making my ice cream at home, with whole raw milk and pure vanilla. Grandma's ice cream recipe is included in our Delectably Kosher section.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Do Not Eat Arsenic
We're just about to the point there should be a little skull and cross bones on our food!
Dressing chickens is not my favorite chore, but it seems preferable to eating poisoned ones. Years ago, I read about some chickens being fed arsenic to make them grow faster . . . but then they had a certain time frame in which they had to be processed or they'd die of the poisoning. That was before the days of the internet.
I've heard first hand of the experiments that go on here in Tyson/Con-Agri country. People talk of chickens that get so fat so quick, they can't bear their own weight. One man spoke of chickens that grew so quickly, they were ready to butcher at 7-8 weeks from hatching, but they had to be butchered before 9 weeks or they just began to, in his words, "fall apart." Now doesn't that just sound wonderful?
Most of us know better than to eat poison, but I'm going to suggest that we probably shouldn't eat food that has eaten poison, either!
Chicken feed The Skinny on Fattening Chickens
Dressing chickens is not my favorite chore, but it seems preferable to eating poisoned ones. Years ago, I read about some chickens being fed arsenic to make them grow faster . . . but then they had a certain time frame in which they had to be processed or they'd die of the poisoning. That was before the days of the internet.
I've heard first hand of the experiments that go on here in Tyson/Con-Agri country. People talk of chickens that get so fat so quick, they can't bear their own weight. One man spoke of chickens that grew so quickly, they were ready to butcher at 7-8 weeks from hatching, but they had to be butchered before 9 weeks or they just began to, in his words, "fall apart." Now doesn't that just sound wonderful?
Most of us know better than to eat poison, but I'm going to suggest that we probably shouldn't eat food that has eaten poison, either!
Chicken feed The Skinny on Fattening Chickens
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Artificial Sweeteners - Not So Sweet
Artificial sweeteners are like "candy" for grown-ups, only it won't rot your teeth, it will rot so very much more!
I've been proclaiming the woes of aspartame for years now, and basically as with everything, people believe what they want to. I don't know that I've convinced anyone that it's bad for them, but my job is to simply share the information. What anyone does with it, is their choice. I know, I made the right choice for my health when I quit using it.
I was so far removed from the use of artificial sweeteners when splenda made it's debut, I never even tried it, at least intentionally, so I have included a link addressing splenda.
To replace sugar in our diet with chemicals does not enhance our health and truly doesn't make sense on a long term basis. First and foremost, our bodies are not designed to digest these strange chemical concoctions. Second, since our bodies do not process them, they either are stored in our fat cells, which directly opposes the reason for using artificial sweeteners. Reducing calories while expanding fat cells is counterproductive to weight loss, but can be actually hazardous to one's health. Third, they can be very damaging to the liver and kidneys as the body attempts to rid itself of these foreign substances.
Aspartame has the same basic properties as anti-freeze, although; the information continues to be downplayed. The original plan for aspartame was a medication for ulcers, when it was discovered to be very sweet. Artificial sweeteners are much easier to sell than pharmaceuticals. There is a much larger market. Aspartame has now been renamed to sound more natural.
Splenda, on the other hand was the result of an experiment to make an insecticide. Sucralose is several 100 times sweeter than sugar, and much easier to sell than insecticides. Not to mention, once again, the amazingly more vast market looking to cut a few calories over those looking to kill bugs. The best way to market a questionable product is to give it a splendid name and present it with splendor . . .
The only truly healthy way to reduce sugar in our diet is to reduce sugar in our diet. Artificial sweeteners seem to actually stimulate the desire for more sweetness, so the intake is actually increased. I won't actually use the term, addictive, but some folks have described the increased desire for diet beverages and even the urge to add artificial sweeteners to things they hadn't previously sweetened at all.
We can look around and see that artificial sweeteners have not solved the obesity epidemic. What we cannot see is what the artificial sweeteners may be causing.
I've been proclaiming the woes of aspartame for years now, and basically as with everything, people believe what they want to. I don't know that I've convinced anyone that it's bad for them, but my job is to simply share the information. What anyone does with it, is their choice. I know, I made the right choice for my health when I quit using it.
I was so far removed from the use of artificial sweeteners when splenda made it's debut, I never even tried it, at least intentionally, so I have included a link addressing splenda.
To replace sugar in our diet with chemicals does not enhance our health and truly doesn't make sense on a long term basis. First and foremost, our bodies are not designed to digest these strange chemical concoctions. Second, since our bodies do not process them, they either are stored in our fat cells, which directly opposes the reason for using artificial sweeteners. Reducing calories while expanding fat cells is counterproductive to weight loss, but can be actually hazardous to one's health. Third, they can be very damaging to the liver and kidneys as the body attempts to rid itself of these foreign substances.
Aspartame has the same basic properties as anti-freeze, although; the information continues to be downplayed. The original plan for aspartame was a medication for ulcers, when it was discovered to be very sweet. Artificial sweeteners are much easier to sell than pharmaceuticals. There is a much larger market. Aspartame has now been renamed to sound more natural.
Splenda, on the other hand was the result of an experiment to make an insecticide. Sucralose is several 100 times sweeter than sugar, and much easier to sell than insecticides. Not to mention, once again, the amazingly more vast market looking to cut a few calories over those looking to kill bugs. The best way to market a questionable product is to give it a splendid name and present it with splendor . . .
The only truly healthy way to reduce sugar in our diet is to reduce sugar in our diet. Artificial sweeteners seem to actually stimulate the desire for more sweetness, so the intake is actually increased. I won't actually use the term, addictive, but some folks have described the increased desire for diet beverages and even the urge to add artificial sweeteners to things they hadn't previously sweetened at all.
We can look around and see that artificial sweeteners have not solved the obesity epidemic. What we cannot see is what the artificial sweeteners may be causing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)