Can You Tell Which of These Foods Are Safe to Eat?

Some experts say that Americans are generally ignorant when it comes to what is essentially good, wholesome and safe food to eat.  This may, in fact, be a classic example of the "proof of the pudding" being in the "eating."

It should be stressed, though, that this "ignorance" has been deliberately peddled or imposed on Americans over a number of years.  In fact, rather than using the word "ignorance," terms that may more accurately describe what Americans have been victims of include: 

1. "misinformation overload"
2. "lack of proper nutrition education"
3. "a well-established, albeit surreptitious, agenda to deliberately feed people essentially harmful foods for evil motives"

This well-coordinated campaign to misinform or keep Americans ignorant, furthermore, has involved thousands of unscrupulous physicians, clueless licensed nutritionists, large food corporations, nonprofit health education agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and even the government itself. 

While this may not be the place to delineate why or how this phenomenon has come about, it should suffice to say that people who eat a poor diet are more likely to get sick (thereby getting hooked on expensive-for-patients-but-profitable-for-manufacturers medications and treatments), are less likely to have the mental/intellectual energy or capacity to oppose big business and the government, and are more likely to die sooner (thus reducing global overpopulation).

You may agree or disagree with these observations or conclusions but, more importantly, are you able to accurately determine what is or isn't safe for you to eat?  Below you will find 30 items that you are asked to label as either "safe" or "unsafe."  After you take this short quiz, the results will be explained to you.

Before you take the test, though, some basic principles must be established or understood.

Firstly, What Do We Mean by "Safe?"

By all means, don't go by what the government or the big corporations consider "safe."  To them, something that doesn't make you sick in the short run or hasn't been proven (usually involving capricious, vague & arbitrary standards) to be unsafe, is, essentially, "safe." What's wrong with this perspective--other than being short-sighted and myopic?

To be blunt, it excludes long-term danger considerations. Big companies hate to dwell (or spend resources on) this type of harmfulness but the fact remains (to anyone with common sense and regard for public safety) that, although it may impede profitability, long-term safety should always be taken into account. 

As a matter of fact, if long-term safety were more often considered, many foods now commonly available to the public would have never been approved.  Even if a product doesn't hurt you right away or directly kill you in the long run, it can still be unsafe for human consumption. 

Were you aware, for example, that many known poisons can be "safely" (at least in terms of not inducing immediate illness or leading to death) taken in small amounts over a long period of time. 

Consider, also, radiation.  In small amounts, you can withstand this otherwise deadly stuff literally for years.  By the same token, just one instance of exposure to the same type of low-dose radiation can, in theory, induce cancer in persons most susceptible or genetically predisposed to cancer. 

Is it then a responsible practice to label such things as "safe?"

The truth is that these examples teach a very important lesson that government agencies (like the FDA), the pharmaceutical industry and food corporations often ignore.  Just because something may not make you sick immediately doesn't mean that it can't hurt you; furthermore, just because something won't kill you directly doesn't mean that it can't contribute to your death in slow, surreptitious and difficult-to-keep-track-of ways.

Consider, if you will, other suspected carcinogens (e.g., glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, probably the  most ubiquitous deadly poison on planet earth).  Many of these highly toxic substances may take decades to inflict cancer (or other chronic diseases and conditions) but,  yet, does that mean that we should label them as "safe?"

For the record, the word "safe" in this article refers to something that:

• won't harm you significantly either in the short or long term
• has been safety-tested using animals & then (if possible) human subjects in independently-conducted, verifiable-results-oriented scientific studies overseen by non-conflicted professionals; these studies, furthermore, must be long enough (3 years or more) and must include adequate (the higher the better) numbers of subjects to achieve statistical significance
• has not been subjected to slick campaigns by the makers of the product (or people financially benefitting from said products or services) in an overt or clandestine attempt to hide or minimize any potential harmfulness
• is not, in general, defended by scientists and journalists flagrantly being paid to defend the product (in spite of what they may personally or professionally actually think about the product)
• isn't glowingly spoken of by the entire mainstream media network (which by itself should raise suspicion) but strongly condemned by alternative media sources; what are the odds that every journalist in a particular industry (i.e., CNN, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc.) will think highly of a particular product while, at the same time, most journalists from another industry (alternative media sources) totally disagree?
• has not been scientifically tied to serious medical problems or complications (even if these findings are not made by big universities pandering to corporate donors, conflicted government agencies, for-sale-to-the-highest-bidder mainstream media publications, etc.)
• isn't suspected of inflicting long or short term medical problems or complications by experts with recognized expertise, credentials & experience in a scientific field--especially when such experts can provide observational and anecdotal evidence that supports their claims or suspicions

Going by this more strict, less-likely-to-be-affected-by-greed-or-personal-whims opinions, which of the following products would you say are safe for you and your family to consume on a daily basis?  Please circle "safe" or "unsafe" for each product given:

1. Monosodium glutamate or MSG:   Safe or Unsafe
2. Partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils:  Safe or Unsafe
3. Vegetable oils (in general):  Safe or Unsafe
4. Splenda (Sucralose):  Safe or Unsafe
5. Saccharin (Sweet&Low):  Safe or Unsafe
6. NutraSweet (Aspartame):  Safe or Unsafe
7. Carbonated drinks (in general):  Safe or Unsafe
8. Genetically modified organisms or GMOs:  Safe or Unsafe
9. High fructose corn syrup or HFCS (now called "Corn Syrup"):  Safe or Unsafe
10. Fluoridated water:  Safe or Unsafe
11. Refined sugar:  Safe or Unsafe
12. Bleached flour:  Safe or Unsafe
13. Brominated vegetable oils or BVOs:  Safe or Unsafe
14. Factory-farm-produced meats & dairy products:  Safe or Unsafe
15. Factory-farm-produced seafood and freshwater fish:  Safe or Unsafe
16. Aluminum (foil) heated foods:  Safe or Unsafe
17. Teflon-coated cookware cooked foods:  Safe or Unsafe
18. Canned foods with BPA lining:  Safe or Unsafe
19. Nitrites/nitrates-preserved meats:  Safe or Unsafe
20. Irradiated foods:  Safe or Unsafe
21. Iodized organic salt:  Safe or Unsafe
22. Fast foods from most fast food franchises:  Safe or Unsafe
23. Unfiltered or unpurified (tap) water:  Safe or Unsafe
24. Homogenized factory-farm/mass-produced milk:  Safe or Unsafe
25. Most processed/packaged foods? Safe or Unsafe
26. Most bottled/canned/boxed fruit juices:  Safe or Unsafe
27. Most pre-packaged ground beef sold in the US: Safe or Unsafe
28. Microwaved foods in general:  Safe or Unsafe
29. Most mass-produced (non-organic) fruits, vegetables & nuts:  Safe or Unsafe
30. Margarines and low-fat spreads made primarily from veggie oils:  Safe or Unsafe

After you determine which of these foods you would say are "safe" or "unsafe," write down on a piece of paper the number of "safe" foods and, in a separate category, the number of "unsafe" foods.  If you marked every single food in this test as "unsafe," give yourself a "100" as your mark. Well done!

If, however, you marked any of these items as "safe," don't feel bad or become alarmed.  You also deserve to be congratulated. 

If you did so, all it means is that you are a typical American.  As such, you have over the years fallen for the nasty, dishonest, profit-motivated (as opposed to being "what's-best-for-the-public-motivated"), and inaccurate, albeit well-financed, campaign to misinform and essentially keep most Americans ignorant on what good nutrition actually is. 

Please share your thoughts on your score in the Comments section below. Did any of the items stump you?

Without realizing it, you and millions of other Americans have accepted as fact the many well-orchestrated lies, exaggerations and carefully-misrepresented distortions.  Take, for example, the huge lie that saturated fats are mainly responsible for cardiovascular disease when, in fact, trans fats, hydrogenated fats and vegetable oils have  been the real culprits for the skyrocketing rates of CVD over the past 75 years!

There are dozens of other similar lies which were blatantly perpetrated in order to make huge amounts of money and, at the same time, keep Americans getting sick so they would continue to buy expensive drugs and make use of ridiculously-expensive treatments.  These lies have helped to cover up the fact that all the things named in this article are unfit for human consumption.  If you didn't know that, it's only because of the deceptive marketing campaigns that you have been a victim of for decades. 

Conclusion

Like it or not, much of the food most accessible and, in some cases "most popular," to Americans isn't fit for animals, never mind for human beings.  And please don't make the mistake of thinking that this article is merely taking a hard-line or perfectionist attitude when it comes to food.  In the case of packaged/processed food, for example, it has been cogently argued that without such inexpensive mass-produced foods, many more people (especially the poor) would go hungry.  This is actually true. 

But it can also be argued that most of these processed/packaged foods can be produced without the use of the proven toxic ingredients (preservatives, dyes, colors, additives, etc.) commonly found in such.  Take nitrites, for example.  This carcinogenic poison continues to be used in spite of the fact that other preservatives would be much safer and just as effective. 

There is also the issue of the over-use and misuse of the many pesticides, larvicides and insecticides that are being found in ridiculously high amounts in many of these mass-produced foods.  Why doesn't the food industry make any moves to improve (or, what's better, eradicate) this well-known dilemma?  Three answers come to mind:   

• they basically don't care about food safety
• profit in their eyes presently supersedes (and always has) public safety
• and they appear to want to inflict disease on the masses (especially the poor), ostensibly so that they can then sell them expensive (yet highly profitable for the corporations) medicines and treatments

For your part, do what's best for your body and the health of your loved ones.  Start becoming more aware of what good nutrition actually is.  When the big corporations and government agencies tell you, for example, that you should be eating more fruits and vegetables (even though they don't subsidize such as much as they subsidize things that are blatantly bad for us, like GMOs), don't fall for their half-truths and masked lies. 

What they should be telling you, if they cared about your health, is that you should be eating organic fruits and vegetables but, if they said that, they would lose billions in profits, which is, after all, what they are most after.

Finally, stop believing that the many things (a short list of which is provided in this article) that you have been told (usually by alternative news media and holistic, not-for-sale health information sources) are toxic are okay for you and your family to consume.  You can either continue to accept the government and the corporations' rather lax and irresponsible definition for "safe" or you can, instead, adopt the more realistic, scientifically-accurate and objective definition provided (at no charge) to you in this article. 

If you do so, you will clearly see why the foods/substances named in this article are simply not suitable for you and your family to consume, assuming that you care not only about short-term but also long-term food safety. 

You will also see that not only should foods not make you sick right away, but they should also not inflict medical problems 10, 20 or even 30 years down the road.  In other words, they should contribute to improving your health, not derailing it.  Or is that too much to ask?

Please share your thoughts on the above food items and your score in the Comments section below...

References and Resources

1. http://www.naturalnews.com/026843_health_food_nutrition.html
2. http://www.all-creatures.org/health/ignorant.html
3. http://familygreensurvival.com/ignorance-is-obese/
4. http://naturalsociety.com/4-proofs-the-fda-does-not-care-about-your-health/
5. http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Irradiation-FDA-IgnoringDec01.htm
6. http://ensia.com/features/banned-in-europe-safe-in-the-u-s/
7. http://distractify.com/old-school/2014/06/22/dangerous-foods-americans-eat-that-are-banned-in-other-countries-1197737175
8. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/02/27/us-food-products.aspx
9. http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/10/22/the-toxic-triad-how-big-food-big-farming-and-big-pharma-spread-obesity-diabetes-and-chronic-disease-across-the-globe/
10. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/05/why-all-of-us-should-be-fed-up/#.V9SnGLv6s5s