Do you boycot mainstream?

So far I've been devoted to avoiding mainstream toothpastes, shaving creams and mouthwashes. I hate these mainstream products(ones I've just mentioned with a passion). I use ones with all natural ingredients.

 

isn't natural mainstream now

 

To some extant, but still too many products contain too much nasty chemicals

 

Everything is a chemical anyway.

The idea that anything synthetic is 'nasty' is probably more harmful to you than the reality which is that most of them pass through you or are broken down with negligible physiological effect. That's not to say there can't be nasty synthetic foods, but they would generally be taken off the market if they were proven so - by researchers, not bloggers.

 

Not necessarily, at least not in the US. The FDA and their "researchers" have all been bought out by the same companies that are making these products. They are more likely to flag a safe natural alternative as "unsafe" and rule an unsafe manufactured product/chemical as "safe" for profits. That will only get reversed or revised, sometimes only a caution will be applied after numerous people have been harmed by said product/chemical.

It's rare that once approved, one of these products/chemicals will actually be removed from the market place, but they are aggressively removing natural remedies and healthcare products, especially those that show proof of working.

 

I have been slowly switching over to more natural products in every category. Some "mainstream" products I have always tried to avoid or simply don't use, but being married to someone who doesn't think the way I do when it comes to some issues (yeppers, I'm hipper than my hip dude) IS an issue. He'll buy gross chemical stuff to take care of an something (such as weeds) and use it without telling me first. Uh, hello, there are easier solutions that are more natural and... like, I don't care if there are weeds in my yard!!! I live the freaking forest!

 

Perhaps he can use organic fertiliser for his weed, like sea weed or fish based fertiliser and that will provide them with micronutrients better than the synthetic stuff

 

that's just plain wrong. Big corporate companies are so selfish

 

I avoid fluoride the best i can. I use a toothpaste from India. I quit using deodorant years ago. I try.

 

Actually, I need to TEACH him that weeds aren't BAD things! Especially those that come thru a stone driveway. We don't live in a gated community where you get fined if your lawn isn't up to "standards"! lol

But you're right - if he's going to "tend" to the lawn and weeds he needs to do it more naturally.

 

Examples? I know there is stuff like aspartame, artificial sweeteners etc. which some people have claimed are harmful. But I find it hard to believe that all researchers which would be involved in studying these substances would or could be "bought out". I'm not from the US but it seems to me that if a clinical trial found negative consequences it could not be ignored, but you are claiming the companies are preventing such research in the first place. How could they do that?

 

Its not that all the researchers are "bought out". But a lot of the so called "research" is not real. It was never done in the first place. Anything that is read from a mainstream outlet, should not be trusted at all. It's all put in place to manipulate the mind.

 

Board of directors of the FDA are ex CEO's of big Pharmaceutical companies... Clinical trials, at least for drugs need to show positive results (+51% is good enough to be considered positive) in 3 trials... they can do as many trials as needed to get those 3 and the rest of them are sealed as confidential. (They call them trade secrets) BTW, clinical trials are done by the Pharmaceutical companies themselves, not independent firms. The only thing the FDA seems to frown upon is false or misleading advertising...

Food goes pretty much the same way, Monsanto got their GMO foods approved with no trials, just a promise that they were safe, that's good enough for the FDA. Monsanto also stipulated that a law be put in place stating that nobody can advertise that their products do not contain GMO ingredients... Done! There can be no labeling, one way or the other about genetically modified food stuffs.

It's corrupt as hell, just like the rest of out government over here.

 

But if a research group performed research showing a certain food product was harmful, and it was published, I don't see how it could be ignored. Surely the FDA cannot authorise the sale of dangerous food, and companies can't prevent independent research on their products, which is what you are claiming.

For example. Here is an article about aspartame (Nutrasweet) by a university research group. No affliation with Monsanto.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474447/

 

And the FDA response to such...

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/FoodAdditives/ucm208580.htm

 

True that and some species are actually edible but it's most advisable to educate yourself about these as some may require cooking or some such as hemlock or nightshade are poisonous.

 

And? What about that statement is corrupt like you claimed in your previous post? It seems like a reasonably transparent explanation of their position to me.

 

I don't know that this particular one is blatantly "corrupt" but there are some studies that show cause for concern with aspartame (your product choice) and the FDA as usual just claims it's safe based on "original data"... meaning the original manufacturer supplied tests or reports, because that's where all the original data for approval comes from, the manufacturer. There is no independent body of scientists overseeing this process.

 

I guess in short it's not technically "corrupt" to let the fox guard the henhouse, but asking for corruption to do so.

 

Many doctors and scientist fought against approval of aspartame. somewhere around 10 million people could die from exposure to it but that i not enough to be of concern to the FDA.