But I do have a question regarding a couple of the items on your list:
===
1. Sodium Nitrite.
Through carelessness, it can result in the production of carcinogens; in large quantities this can cause cancer, but the AMA states that there have been no cases of food consumption induced cases of methemoglobinemia -- most of the cases have been due to contaminated water or accidental overusage in food. It has has been linked to migraines with those already showing a tendency. There is also a possible link between COPD and this substance, but the question is still largely unresolved. So there are risks, but only under particular circumstances. And, evidently, there are some things it treats effectively. It's worth being cautious about, perhaps, but not necessarily phobic of. Is there some other risk I am missing here? What is the additional cost involved of eliminating sodium nitrite? Is it worth it, considering that it prevents the growth of some really toxic bacteria?
2. Artificial colors (and some flavors, maybe?).
There is some suspicion that some of these colors might result in an increased instance of ADHD. Is the data reliable? What about the studies that suggest no correlation? Ask I asked in question 1, what are the additional costs of eliminating these? Since we may not color otherwise -- it is just aesthetic, after all -- what are the potential cost savings? Are they worth it? Any other risks I am missing? Same questions.
3. MSG.
Same concern as NaNO2 about migranes, and a possible link to obesity. Both of these appear inconclusive. Same questions as NaNO2.
===
There are a few other things I need to research more before I can asked good questions about them. And some of your advice I have no questions about; I'm already aware it is good advice. :-)
I'm not asking these just to be deliberately provocative; I think they are important questions to ask. A rambling train of thought on why I decided to ask them:
The people I know who really obsess about what is in their diet are, on average, the most unhappy, neurotic people I could imagine meeting. They spend much of their time avoiding disease and increasing longevity at the expense of enjoying life and not worrying so much.
Sure, they could just punt, and buy everything at the most natural store they can find, but that is really expensive.
To account for that added expense, they now have to find work that pays better, which for many people means compromising on a number of other intangible factors. These can play havoc on a person's frame of mind, and cause a variety of other health consequences.
I may not be speaking for many of the people here; I suspect the expense is something a lot of us -- including me -- could bare without a lot of trouble and without sacrificing much in quality-of-life.
But I don't think the average HNer is representative of the larger population.
Example: one friend of mine, neurotic about his diet, quoted me a grocery bill of over $600/month on average. You can probably imagine what sorts of items he buys regularly
This a remarkable sum of most peoples' take-home pay. If they bought food this way, the money they spend might increase their longevity; we've had threads on here in the past arguing that this budget is worth every penny. However, it might also severely hamper their quality-of-life; it might even start to hamper their ability to pay for what we consider necessities.
In the case of the friend, it was a significant chunk of his take-home pay. He constantly found himself strapped for cash and falling into deeper levels of depression as a result. I'm not sure if he was making the net positive trade-off. It sucks that he had to make that trade-off at all, but that is several political squabbles from getting solved.
I don't mean to discount any of your advice. In good circumstances, it is well thought out and well researched advice. I follow at least some if it myself, and probably should follow more. I'm making a note to add blueberries to the next shopping trip, even though my cholesterol was ok last time I had it checked -- they're tasty, that is reason enough anyway. :-)
But I think it's worth mentioning that this problem goes deeper than just individual people passively ignoring advice. As even Dr. Lustig pointed out, there is manipulation going on behind the scenes, and some people may not have the means to effectively fight against the manipulation and still feed themselves.
And it's also worth asking for clarification, even if one can make a change without an undue burden. Asking questions is always a good idea. :-)
But I do have a question regarding a couple of the items on your list:
===
1. Sodium Nitrite.
Through carelessness, it can result in the production of carcinogens; in large quantities this can cause cancer, but the AMA states that there have been no cases of food consumption induced cases of methemoglobinemia -- most of the cases have been due to contaminated water or accidental overusage in food. It has has been linked to migraines with those already showing a tendency. There is also a possible link between COPD and this substance, but the question is still largely unresolved. So there are risks, but only under particular circumstances. And, evidently, there are some things it treats effectively. It's worth being cautious about, perhaps, but not necessarily phobic of. Is there some other risk I am missing here? What is the additional cost involved of eliminating sodium nitrite? Is it worth it, considering that it prevents the growth of some really toxic bacteria?
2. Artificial colors (and some flavors, maybe?).
There is some suspicion that some of these colors might result in an increased instance of ADHD. Is the data reliable? What about the studies that suggest no correlation? Ask I asked in question 1, what are the additional costs of eliminating these? Since we may not color otherwise -- it is just aesthetic, after all -- what are the potential cost savings? Are they worth it? Any other risks I am missing? Same questions.
3. MSG.
Same concern as NaNO2 about migranes, and a possible link to obesity. Both of these appear inconclusive. Same questions as NaNO2.
===
There are a few other things I need to research more before I can asked good questions about them. And some of your advice I have no questions about; I'm already aware it is good advice. :-)
I'm not asking these just to be deliberately provocative; I think they are important questions to ask. A rambling train of thought on why I decided to ask them:
The people I know who really obsess about what is in their diet are, on average, the most unhappy, neurotic people I could imagine meeting. They spend much of their time avoiding disease and increasing longevity at the expense of enjoying life and not worrying so much.
Sure, they could just punt, and buy everything at the most natural store they can find, but that is really expensive.
To account for that added expense, they now have to find work that pays better, which for many people means compromising on a number of other intangible factors. These can play havoc on a person's frame of mind, and cause a variety of other health consequences.
I may not be speaking for many of the people here; I suspect the expense is something a lot of us -- including me -- could bare without a lot of trouble and without sacrificing much in quality-of-life.
But I don't think the average HNer is representative of the larger population.
Example: one friend of mine, neurotic about his diet, quoted me a grocery bill of over $600/month on average. You can probably imagine what sorts of items he buys regularly
This a remarkable sum of most peoples' take-home pay. If they bought food this way, the money they spend might increase their longevity; we've had threads on here in the past arguing that this budget is worth every penny. However, it might also severely hamper their quality-of-life; it might even start to hamper their ability to pay for what we consider necessities.
In the case of the friend, it was a significant chunk of his take-home pay. He constantly found himself strapped for cash and falling into deeper levels of depression as a result. I'm not sure if he was making the net positive trade-off. It sucks that he had to make that trade-off at all, but that is several political squabbles from getting solved.
I don't mean to discount any of your advice. In good circumstances, it is well thought out and well researched advice. I follow at least some if it myself, and probably should follow more. I'm making a note to add blueberries to the next shopping trip, even though my cholesterol was ok last time I had it checked -- they're tasty, that is reason enough anyway. :-)
But I think it's worth mentioning that this problem goes deeper than just individual people passively ignoring advice. As even Dr. Lustig pointed out, there is manipulation going on behind the scenes, and some people may not have the means to effectively fight against the manipulation and still feed themselves.
And it's also worth asking for clarification, even if one can make a change without an undue burden. Asking questions is always a good idea. :-)