Disease-promoting ingredients in everyday foods and groceries are far more dangerous than terrorists

Sunday, February 20, 2005 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...) Tags: grocery warning, dangerous foods, food industry

https://www.naturalnews.com/004781.html

Tweet

---

But who needs terrorists when we've already got a food supply that is accelerating the deaths of literally millions of Americans each year? The toxic additives and ingredients found in our foods are directly causing chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes and heart disease. They're even causing mental disorders (ADHD, depression) while creating unstable mental conditions that lead to violent, aggressive behavior, especially in young males.

These are broad claims, but each and every one of these has been backed up by clinical evidence correlating the consumption of popular American foods with these diseases and disorders. In fact, I have reported on each and every one of these right here on this website.

The situation has become so treacherous for the American population that food companies, soft drink companies and fast food restaurant chains are actually contributing to the early deaths of thousands of times as many people as any terrorists ever killed in the United States. Of course, these companies aren't actually trying to harm people, but that's the effect nonetheless.

It's quite similar to the situation with Big Tobacco. Cigarette companies weren't trying to kill people, they were just trying to make a buck. It was the side effect of their product that caused lung cancer, emphysema and cardiovascular disease. Frankly, that was an unintended side effect. Big tobacco would have much preferred to eliminate the toxic side effects of their products as long as they could preserve the addictive quality of nicotine. Likewise, the food companies aren't out to actually harm anybody, it's just that they are unintentionally accomplishing precisely that due to the biological cause-and-effect consequences of their product ingredients.

Which ingredients am I talking about? Sodium nitrite (cancer), refined white flour (diabetes), hydrogenated oils (heart disease), aspartame (nervous system disorders), red meat (colon cancer), excess sodium (hypertension), and the list goes on.

The American public is just now waking up to this reality. Study after study now shows the undeniable link between foods and disease. Unfortunately, our own government does not yet have the courage to tell the truth about the links between these food products and chronic disease. Even with the recent updating of national dietary guidelines by a panel of experts at the USDA, the conclusion left out any advice that would have told Americans to limit their intake of added sugars.

Any guesses on why that happened? It's no more complicated than good old-fashioned food politics: the soft drink companies, sugar industry and mass food producers lobbied the USDA to make sure the new guidelines would not cause a decrease in the sales of their products. So the anti-sugar message was censored. The result, no doubt, is that more Americans will continue to consume added sugars, and they will increasingly be diagnosed with diabetes and obesity as a result.

The food lobby, the big sugar lobby and the soft drink lobby have all blockaded what would have otherwise been good nutritional advice. These food and beverage companies are preventing the government from providing information to the public that would save countless lives and dramatically improve the quality of life while reducing healthcare costs in the decades ahead. This action by the food lobby, in my opinion, is nothing less than the outright suppression of advice that would prevent chronic disease and save countless American lives.

The food lobby can no longer claim that it is just on the sidelines and that these diseases are happening unintentionally, because now it is actively involved in suppressing the very information that would help prevent those diseases. It is at this point that the food industry and beverage industry, combined with USDA officials, becomes a "food racket." It is a racket because it represents a combined effort to protect the profits of the industry at the expense of public health. It's much the same as the drug racket currently operated by the FDA in conjunction with pharmaceutical companies -- and in fact the goals of the two rackets are much the same: boost corporate profits, regardless of the ultimate cost to society.

Now here's what's really interesting about all of this. The more successful the food lobby is at suppressing information that would prevent chronic disease in the American people, the more the pharmaceutical industry benefits financially. Why is that? Because as more Americans eat added sugars, processed foods, hydrogenated oils and other foods and food ingredients that promote chronic disease, the more prescription drugs they will need to treat those diseases. Thus, in a rather bizarre and sickening way, the pharmaceutical industry has the food industry to thank for creating more customers!

Likewise, the people making decisions at the FDA have USDA officials to thank for protecting the profit base that keeps drug companies in business and keeps many FDA officials in positions of power. It's a fascinating economic cycle, and strangely all of this counts towards the Gross Domestic Product. Every dollar spent on junk foods and prescription drugs to treat the diseases promoted by those foods is counted as "productivity" in terms of economics. Yet there's nothing productive about this at all! Technically, productivity is being destroyed by these foods and medicines because they interfere with the healthy productivity of the American population and reduce lifespan.

So even though there's a whole lot of money changing hands, no net good is actually being achieved from any of this. But it sure does generate a lot of money. Most economists call this whole charade "economic productivity."

Seriously, is there any long-term gain from feeding an entire population foods and beverages that promote disease? I think not.