or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by phatch

Lemon Eucalyptus Oil (usually the Repel brand, though Cutter is making it now too).   http://www.amazon.com/Repel-94109-Eucalyptus-Natural-Repellent/dp/B004N59OFU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1432925298&sr=8-1&keywords=repel+lemon+eucalyptus   CDC certifies it for repelling mosquitos. Scores well in testing, no DEET. Those I know with sensitive skin have had not difficulties with it. Smells good,  is a little oily residue on the skin. 
 The separation of drugs and food is a critical one. Giving people an experimental drug is mostly unethical. You get volunteers for testing because the drug testing to date indicates a worthwhile improvement even with side-effects considered for people who are ill. It's the opportunity for improvement that makes human testing ethical. You also know the desired outcomes and can measure for them. For food, you have no ethical basis for attracting volunteers. You have no...
That's a whole lot of maybe and future research call outs primarily for people with coeliac disease. I'm failing to see what it really has to say about this discussion. Wheat and it's products are GRAS, but already problematic for the population in discussion in the article. 
Testing is an interesting topic, and largely because of ethics of testing, blind testing and so on. GMO food testing is not drug testing because GMO foods are not intended to introduce new chemicals to the human body, only chemicals already present in foods we eat now.  From the FDA:  With this in mind, what would you test for? We have a deep  list of GRAS chemicals/ingredients. If nothing new is introduced into the food, what are you testing? That it has higher vitamins...
I'd be interested in your source for the genetic material in the bloodstream. Because it can mean many things from individual protiens to fragments to whole gene segments. And it happens with everything we eat. I'd like to see exactly what they say. I no more want brocolli genes in my DNA than the "antifreeze" genes added to increase frost resistance. But they don't dangerously transfer any more commonly either.    As a generalized response, this rarely matters as these...
 Genes are 4 protiens. We eat them all in all our food. As far as the genes go, they're simply not toxic. What the genes produce can be toxic. But we do know what the genes produce and know it to be safe to the current understanding of that term.  No, my claim about food testing safety is about what the food contains. Testing for allergens, toxins.  This is what GMO foods have to pass that your brocolli or wheat does not. 
Ed mentioned all the ones that I thought of. 
I'll quibble a bit with some of this, mostly the marks being the only advantage. A grill pan, properly hot, should work a lot like the Weber Flavorizer bars in their grills. Liquids and fats render on to the hot metal and are changed by the heat and rise as smoke and other flavors back onto the meat.  The nature of cooking flat on the surface means the pan will lose heat into the meat. This is why the second surface is rarely as well seared. The pan is simply not as hot...
 Food hasn't come from nature for millenia. Very little of what we grow or raise to eat can survive on it's own. We altered it all along for our purposes and it's naive in it's own way to call it natural. The soils are amended whether through cultured rot or chemicals. Competition is controlled.   I get where you're going with this sentence, but it alone, it doesn't mean much. There's a lot of definitions and discussion to get to what you mean by natural. Our farms and...
And this is precisely why this keeps coming up: the disconnect between evidence based reasoning and emotional based thinking.
New Posts  All Forums: