Citation required. I want to see these "studies." They don't exist. Many of these ingredients have been grandfathered in. The assumption being that since no one has provably dropped dead from having eaten them that they do not cause harm. The term is GRAS, Generally Recognized As Safe. An increasing body of these GRAS ingredients have come under suspicion as of late, some provably show to cause harm.
Regarding GMOs, Monsanto and co. prevent ANYONE from testing their seeds. Farmers are contractually obligated put them into the dirt or destroy/return them. Researches are not allowed access. Government bodies do not require independent testing. They are allowed to vouch that their products are safe and we're just supposed to trust them. A common genetic modification is to cause the plant to produce its own pesticide. Specifically Bt-toxin a neat little compound that works by eating holes in the digestive track. Even if we're not immediately dropping dead by this stuff, we're ingesting some pretty f'ed up stuff. GI inflammation continues to receive interest as a contributor to a significant number of health problems. Are these GMO plants contributing? Difficult to tell since there's no mandate for independent safety studies.
It is strangely coincidental that we are experiencing unprecedented health problems, unheard of allergies, whose timeline track rather closely with the inclusion of these so-called GRAS ingredients and GMO crops. I am far too cynical to believe that the calorie companies have my best interest at heart over their own profit. I also seem to recall the tobacco industry telling us similar tales. I will not take their word for it. These ingredients and plant modifications should be subject to same rigor as medications have to prove their safety.
Let's for a second turn off the censor and cut strait to what the BMI is all about. It's about telling fat people that they're fat. A healthy person, particularly athletic persons knows that BMI is not applicable to them and generally ignore it. Could we come up with a metric that accommodates healthy people with above average muscle mass? Sure. But there's no point, and it would be over complicated, more difficult to apply by lay persons, and detract from the original objective.
The funny bit that doesn't make much sense is that fat people generally already know that they're fat. Why do we need a "scientific" method to call them out on it? I assume the point is to get them to do something about it. Trouble is, we've been groomed to consume large quantities of what I can only consider to be "feed" and shun actual food, nutritionally balanced, healthful food. We've been groomed to prefer extra ordinarily sweet, fatty, pre-digested calories. Of course since it's pre-digested, we have to eat more of the stuff since we feel hungry two minutes later if we don't. It's been tailored to hit all the right buttons in our brain's pleasure/reward centers so we become addicted to it. Even when people want to eat "healthy" the manufactured food companies deceive everyone with misinformation. They convince everyone that their candy bars are healthy by calling them "energy" bars. Their bowls of flake shaped sugar must be good for you since they use "whole" grains, never mind the fact that a serving contains less than 1 gram of fiber, and 25 grams of sugar. It's a treadmill, and fat people are meant to stay on it. The calorie companies prefer it that way. Don't like it? Tough, you're in the minority, you're not a shareholder and you don't get a vote.
Now can we please get back to geek subjects and allow us to stuff our face with Cheetos in peace.
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
