Artificial cake? Well, you might be already eating that artificial cake. Especially if you used Pillsbury’s yummy frosting.

The ingredients in the Creamy Supreme Milk Chocolate Frosting are:
sugar, water, soybean oil, corn syrup, cocoa processed with alkali, fully hydrogenated cottonseed oil (trans fat), corn starch, contains 2% or less of: distilled monoglycerides, cellulose gel, sodium acid pyrophosphate, salt, corn starch modified, polysorbate 60, potassium sorbate (preservative), artificial color, cellulose gum, soy lecithin, citric acid, tbhq (antioxidant).

It doesn’t just sound horrible, but tastes horrible, too! Eva Says: try the following and then compare the tastes.

If you want to have a great frosting try this:
Combine 1 stick of butter (@room temperature) and 2 cups powdered sugar and mix till smooth. Add cocoa powder to taste as you like. That’s it! If you want to keep it for months, store it in the freezer. But why would you want to keep it for months? It’s soo good and easy to make. Just eat it!

Everyone wonders at some moment if “maybe, just maybe, organic might be better for me”.

Sadly enough statistics were used recently to prove there is no difference. An article that appeared on Yahoo, written by Emily Sohn and posted at Discovery News boldly compared Organic and Non Organic foods and declared that “Organic is not more nutritious”, and went on to say not more healthful. No reason to buy organic they stated. Headline was “Organic Veggies Not More Nutritious” with a tag line of “Growing organic vegetables may be better for the environment, but eating them may not necessarily be more healthful”. Huh??

The headline makes sense, groups are constantly arguing about the nutrition level of chemically treated and organic foods … but to say that they “may not necessarily be more healthful” is just plain stupid. Did Emily Sohn do that to get attention or is it Discovery that is lying to get market share? What about pesticide, chemical fertilizer, chemical herbicide, growth hormone, genetic modification, medication or antibiotics. Healthful?

Ironically, deeper in the article it quotes the source of the news, Pia Knuthsen, a senior research scientist at the Danish National Food Institute’s department of food chemistry, based at the University of Copenhagen, as saying “Still, there are many good reasons for the consumer to select organic food products, including absence of pesticide residues in foods, animal welfare, and environmental protections.”

If you can imagine the writers like Sohn, and scientists who try to trick people either with misleading statistics or by companies like Discovery doing headline marketing to the people that don’t have time to read the article. A quick glance and you “know” that t first sight, for those, who don’t think about it, would mean that why to bother paying for organic then? The whole article was about comparing the nutrients in organic and non organic food.

When the reality is that we DO NOT buy organic food for more nutrition, we DO buy it for LESS pesticides, and LESS chemicals. It is a shame that we have to pay so much more for them, but if people would only buy those then big conglomerate farms wouldn’t have the choice anymore, and the prices would come down.

It just makes me sick when the government, the USDA comes out with their little ideas of how much poison is ok to have in each food item. Sure, maybe it’s ok to have a certain level of poison in a fish, or in a vegetable if you have only one of them, and you only have a little bit at once, or in a day. What if you didn’t read all their guidance, and you eat more than they suggest? What if you ate for breakfast, and lunch and dinner stuff that had the same poison in them, so it’s all added up??? Did they ever think about that when they suggested the poison levels in food? Why didn’t they just say no to poison in food? Why? Doesn’t the USDA work for the People? Don’t they receive the majority of their wages and benefits from the taxes of the People? Do they have conscience?

Here there are some links:
The Mayo Clinic’s opinion about organic food and advice which is pretty good except for the first paragraph, which goes back to my original argument: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255/NSECTIONGROUP=2

Here’s some pesticides on your veggies for your pleasure:

Here is Sohn’s article and horribly inaccurate line.
Discovery News Misleading Headlines

Discovery and Sohn should post a correction and an apology! I’ll let you know if I get one.

By the way, the title is a quote used by Mark Twain and attributed by him to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” No one has been able to find it in any of Disraeli’s memoirs.

“Hemp is extremely efficient from an environmental perspective. Hemp naturally suppresses weeds and enriches the soil it is grown in with nitrogen deposits. Hemp is grown without herbicides or pesticides and pound for pound hemp plants produce 250% more fiber than cotton. By contrast, non-organic industrial cotton uses more water and more pesticides than any other commercial crop, leaving the soil depleted.

In fact, over one quarter of all agricultural chemicals in the USA are used to grow cotton. The toxic runoff from these chemicals ultimately find their way into our waterways. The modern non-organic industrial cotton plant has been genetically engineered to the point where it is no longer a natural fiber, but rather a plant that is designed to withstand the strains of the chemical pesticides sprayed on it.

Think about that the next time you buy non-organic cotton. “

“All cows produce bST (Bovine Somatotropin) – also known as BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) – naturally. Dairy producers may give their cows supplementary bST to increase their milk production. This supplementary, synthetic bST is one of the most thoroughly tested and researched products in history. This testing and research has demonstrated that milk from bST-treated cows is no different than milk from untreated cows. Because of these findings, numerous distinguished government, professional and health organizations – including the U.S. Food and Drug Admin., American Medical Assn., and the National Institutes of Health – support the use of bST.”

So Land-O-Lakes prints on its box that “ALL NATURAL”, but they allow “synthetic” hormones in it. Isn’t that false advertising? I’m getting so sick and tired of everybody using synthetic stuff for more money. Do these companies and farmers only care about more money? What about people? Does anyone care about us?

If you buy this junk from Land-O-Lakes then you are encouraging them to pump more and more chemicals into us. When a new mother is breast feeding her baby, her diet is important because whatever she eats is transferred to her baby in the milk. Land-O-Lakes is putting bST into everyone that buys their product.

These companies conduct tests that seem to always show that their HUGELY PROFITABLE chemical ‘cheating’ doesn’t hurt people … do you think they might be lying?

Eva Says: Avoid Land-O-Lakes!

Here is an excerpt myprotein.co.uk … you can read it all by clicking here

Countries approving the use of BST

Treatment of cows with BST was approved in February 1994 by the FDA in the USA and has been extensively used from that period. Regulatory agencies in 34 countries have reached similar conclusions with respect to food safety, 24 of which have actually given approval for use of BST, namely Algeria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Columbia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Honduras, Hungary, Jamaica, Kenya, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Turkey, UAE, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

Countries where the use of BST is not approved

Treatment with BST is not permitted in the European Union where there had been a moratorium on its use since 1993. Re-assessment in 1999 came to the conclusions that it is harmful to animal health and this resulted in an extension of the prohibition of use according to the legislation 1999/879/EC which came into force on 1st January 2000 in the EU. The Canadians also prohibited the use of BST at this time on the grounds of animal welfare.

Why would you do that to organic materials?

“The shirts are dipped in special solution, basked, pressed, washed with a softening agent and pressed again before folding. The easy care market is competitive and the manufacturer does not disclose the chemicals used in the finish. However, it has proven to be safe within all government approved tolerances on this Resin based finish.”

Well, no matter how safe is a chemical, it’s still not organic, is it? Why would you buy an organic shirt that has been chemically treated? Why would you sell it? What sense does this make? NONE!