Posted on 10/26/2009 10:19:39 AM PDT by NYer
Here's something rather rotten from the State of Denmark. Its government yesterday unveiled official research showing that two-year-old children are at risk from a bewildering array of gender-bending chemicals in such everyday items as waterproof clothes, rubber boots, bed linen, food, nappies, sunscreen lotion and moisturising cream.
The 326-page report, published by the environment protection agency, is the latest piece in an increasingly alarming jigsaw. A picture is emerging of ubiquitous chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminising male children all over the developed world. And anti-pollution measures and regulations are falling far short of getting to grips with it.
Sperm counts are falling so fast that young men are less fertile than their fathers and produce only a third as much, proportionately, as hamsters. And gender-bending chemicals are increasingly being blamed for the mystery of the "lost boys": babies who should normally be male who have been born as girls instead.
The Danish government set out to find out how much contamination from gender-bending chemicals a two-year-old child was exposed to every day. It concluded that a child could be "at critical risk" from just a few exposures to high levels of the substances, such as from rubber clogs, and imperilled by the amount it absorbed from sources ranging from food to sunscreens.
The results build on earlier studies showing that British children have higher levels of gender-bending chemicals in their blood than their parents or grandparents. Indeed WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund), which commissioned the older research, warned that the chemicals were so widespread that "there is very little, if anything, individuals can do to prevent contamination of themselves and their families."
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I would hope they would rather be labeled jock than faggot.
Very true. Problem is, this is teaching these boys that you either are on a team or you should dress like a gay person. Not everyone aspires to be a football player ... does not make them gay.
A normal human diet is a lot of game, bear, deer, fish, roots, nuts, tiny berries and tiny sour fruits. Our modern diet has only been around 100 years, which is not enough time for natural selection to kill off the majority not suited for it, but it is making progress. Things like broccoli and brussels sprouts are man-made inventions with phytoestrogen effects. There is very little study on what foods affect growing children in what ways. The monster sized fruits and vegetables available in stores are completely unnatural and man-made. It's all experimental, and we are the guinea pigs. Until studies are done using control groups it's safer for growing children to not be given foods containing hormone signals.
There is no shortage of studies on how our food supply affects children and the fact that we are living longer healthier lives today with, according to you, a diet filled with unnatural foods, is all the proof you need that your fears are unfounded.
Trying to feed people with foods not containing naturally occurring endocrine disrupters today would be nearly impossible and would serve no purpose. If the naysayers could show any ill effects from consuming these volatiles, they would. They can't but that doesn't make them any less vocal. Everything you eat today, save some wild fish and some tree nuts, has been genetically modified in some way. Man-made and unnatural food, as you refer to it, is what makes up our food supply and here we are living longer and healthier lives than at any other time in our history.
“Tea with lemon? Try it in a styrofoam cup and see what happens.”
Tell us!
The acid in the lemon dissolves the cup, it quickly becomes pitted if you look closely.
I’ve always suspected this about NY metrosexuals.
From the article:
Scientists at the University of Rochester in New York discovered that boys born to women exposed to phthalates had smaller penises and other feminisation of the genitals.
Yes, but people have to live out their adult lives with how their body develops during childhood, so those years are particularly important yet rarely studied carefully. You can often tell if a young Chinese woman spent her teen years in China or America by the size of her chest, while in the rest of her body there is not such a dramatic difference. Does anyone know why this is so? It might simply be more calories, or it could be hormone signals in the American food that is not yet present in China. This is visible hard evidence of something non-genetic going on. If not differences in food, what is your explanation?
I could speculate but speculation won't solve the "issue" as you frame it. It does sound like a good question to pose in a grant request made to the NIH. They love throwing money at that kind of stuff. Maybe it's as simple as recognizing that Mark Eden never made it in China.
One difference in the effect of soy on Americans and Okinawans is the manner the soy is prepared. An article I read some time ago detailed the differences in how our industrial food producers process soy protein for edibility versus how traditional Asian cultures prepare soy. Soy in it’s raw form is not digestible by humans.
Needless to say our methods take short cuts. Those short cuts result in product that is less healthy than traditionally produced soy. Even traditionally produced soy has been identified as potentially stunting growth and its effects evidenced by the dramatic differences in height between Asian born and raised parents and their American born children raised on a low soy, western style diet.
How does that matter exactly and what foods does it include? The most popular forms of soy in the US today are tofu, soy milk, soy sauce, miso and tempeh. Those all seem traditional to me and are similar to the most popular forms in Okinawa.
An article I read some time ago detailed the differences in how our industrial food producers process soy protein for edibility versus how traditional Asian cultures prepare soy.
What is it specifically that we're doing to the beans when processed that impacts their edibility or makes them bad for us in any way? Is it soy four, soy protein concentrates or isolated soy protein that you have a problem with? All three require different processing and have different applications.
Soy in it’s raw form is not digestible by humans
Raw soybeans can certainly be digested by humans but this is not a desirable way to consume them. There are many popular foods that people probably shouldn't eat raw. Have you ever tried to eat rice without soaking or cooking it first? Again, so what?
Needless to say our methods take short cuts. Those short cuts result in product that is less healthy than traditionally produced soy.
Huh? What shortcuts do we take and how do these shortcuts result in a product that is "less healthy" (whatever that means)?
Even traditionally produced soy has been identified as potentially stunting growth
If you look long and hard enough you can find research proving just about anything. Research showing that soy stunts growth is either bogus from the start, manipulates data for a desired outcome or deals with quantities that have no basis in real world usage. This is nonsense.
....and its effects evidenced by the dramatic differences in height between Asian born and raised parents and their American born children raised on a low soy, western style diet.
If you spend enough time on FR you'll learn that we eat a lot more soy than Asians because soy is in just about every food found in the grocery store. I don't listen to that any more than I listen to those who think there is a direct correlation between the amount of soy consumed and the average height of Asians. It's just more nonsense being fed by all the new snake oil salesmen the internet has spawned.
How right you are!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.