Nothing to Fear

metropolis3

Our world has gotten more complex, but it is safer than it has ever been. Paradoxically, it seems people are less comfortable than ever. Cancer is the new communist. It's in everything new that we don't understand. My mother is afraid of her microwave. Watching network news is gruesome. People overpay for food of inferior nutritional value and drink bottled water in their homes. I just don't understand. We still have problems, but overall things are pretty good right now. The middle class lives better than medieval kings. Life expectancy is higher than ever. Essential products are cheaper than ever. I think those that understand technology have a responsibility to explain it's purpose and safety to the world. Here I describe a few that I keep hearing about. Relax, technology is on our side.

Radiation from Electronics

Electromagnetic radiation, like gravity, is one of the four fundamental forces of physics. When an electron loses energy, it 'radiates' a photon. All light is radiation. Microwaves, and radio waves like those used by cell phones, are photons of lower frequency than light, and thus lower energy. At extremely high energy levels, like in a nuclear reactor, photons have enough energy to potentially break the chemical bonds in cells, damaging health, but even nuclear reactors are well shielded enough to ensure their next door neighbors have no ill effects. Short of an atomic blast, radiation is nothing to be afraid of. Furthermore, I consider modern nuclear reactor designs the safest form of energy production.

Chemicals in Food

A chemical is any substance with a defined chemical formula, like water (H2O). Everything is made out of chemicals, from gasoline to carrots. In fact, beta-Carotene is a hydrocarbon, like Methane. It is possible, and prudent, to add some additional chemicals to food that have benefits like improving shelf life. Spoiled food is dangerous and unhealthy. These chemicals are heavily tested and regulated by the FDA and the USDA, which ensures their safety in the amounts used. Agriculture uses safe chemicals as well, like anhydrous ammonia which vastly improves corn yield, and poses no danger to animals or the environment.

We also use chemicals like pesticides to improve the yield of our crops. Caffeine, for example, is an effective pesticide, and is consumed daily by billions. It is the dose that matters. I personally think the amount used in the U.S. is too high, since agricultural workers frequently fall ill, and countries like Sweden demonstrated a 50% reduction in pesticide use without a significant effect on yield.1 However, refusing to use modern fertilizers and pesticides entirely is imprudent, and by the time food reaches the consumer the levels are negligible.2

Just because something is natural that does not mean it is safe or healthy. All-natural, fresh, organic, gluten-free scorpion venom would sitll be quite deadly. Natural plants are rife with toxins and allergens and the source of most narcotics. 

If one does not trust the current evidence for the safety of these artificial substances, what level of proof would you require?

Hormones, Antibiotics and Processed Food

A hormone is a chemical that the body uses to control the behavior of multiple cells. Dairy cows already generate the hormone bovine somatotrophin in their pituitary gland. In the United States, about 20% of cows are given extra, which increases their milk production 11-16%. Milk produced by these cows is identical to that produced by untreated cows.3 This hormone has absolutely no effect on humans,4 though it does have negative long term effects on the cows,5 making the hormone's use an ethical question, not a human health concern. For what it's worth, I don't think it's worth it.

Almost all cows raised for meat in the U.S. are administered a series of 3 natural steroids, and 3 synthetic hormones, which increase their lean muscle mass. Despite extensive investigation by the FDA, there is no scientific evidence any of these substances have an adverse effect on human health at the levels used. It is easy to overdose rats with the hormones and scare people but it would be practically impossible to consume enough through meat to have any effect on a human. Pay close attention to the difference between in vitro (outside the organism) and in vivo (in a live organism) results.

Antibiotics of course increase the animals' resistance to disease. The FDA takes strict measures to prevent the development of antibiotic resistance6, and there is no evidence of any adverse health effects in humans.

There is no evidence organic food is any healthier than conventional food,7 despite higher costs. Food processing has a negligible effect on nutritional content.8 The calories from "raw" food and the calories from processed food are identical to the body. It is the amount that matters. Food that is processed can even have additional nutrients added in, like iodized salt, and fortified rice, which has gone a long way in eliminating deficiencies in the U.S. as well as abroad. In fact, canned fruits and vegetables are usually healthier than their fresh counterparts since they are sealed right after picking, which preserves the micronutrients.9

The economic and environmental cost of agricultural is a problem, but reverting to old tactics is not the solution. Technology is. Producing nutrition more efficiently and reducing its waste will do far more than expensive health food stores. It is preservatives and artificial sweeteners that have real potential to combat waste and obesity. If we want solutions we're going to have to stop being afraid of progress.

Genetically Modified Organisms

Humans have always been genetically engineering their food. We select the best crops from the previous season and plant those. This gives us bananas without seeds, yellow corn, and tasty carrots, which used to be a bitter white root. Modern genetically engineered crops are larger and more robust than their natural counterparts and may soon have a significant impact on global malnutrition. Golden rice, for example, includes beta-Carotene and could help the hundreds of thousands of children who die annually from Vitamin A deficiency. Genetically modified foods are of course heavily regulated by the USDA and FDA and are completely safe. In fact, controlling the evolution of a food is likely much safer than trusting it to evolve on its own, which could produce any number of toxins or allergens.

Like all technologies, GM is a tool, that could potentially be used irresponsibly. I personally do not think Monsanto is using this technology responsibly. The journal Nature devoted an entire issue to GM and seemed to come to the conclusion that GM research should continue, but should not be performed by competitive private industry. I think that is a reasonable compromise.

Fluoride and Metals in Water

Tap water in the U.S. is regulated by the EPA, which has even stricter standards than the FDA, which regulates bottled water. Heavy metal content is negligible. Your body can easily handle orders of magnitude more metal than you will ever get from tap water with no noticeable effects. Chloramine is usually added, which prevents the growth of pathogens and has no effect on humans. Fluoride is added as well, which is completely safe at the levels used and has been hailed by the American Dental Association as "unquestionably one of the safest and most beneficial, cost-effective public health measures for preventing, controlling, and in some cases reversing, tooth decay."10 I feel uncomfortable drinking non-fluoridated water.

Violence has Declined

Our ancestors were having the equivalent of a world war every few years. We have gone a generation without one. Violent crime in the United States has been declining since colonial times.11 The odds of being murdered in the U.S. is practically negligible at 4.8 in 100,000, and crime of every kind has decreased since 1991.12 Shooting sprees are rare enough to become international news. In fact, as safe as we are I find it difficult to justify the high incarceration rate, especially of non-violent offenders. Even our most violent cities pale in comparison to the murderous competition of the animal kingdom. We are slowly winning the war with ourselves and focusing on disease, hunger, and poverty. This is progress.

We Still Have Problems

There is still much work to do. Our energy consumption and impact on the environment is unsustainable. Some areas struggle with hunger, others obesity. There is still much too large a disparity of safety, health, quality of life, and education globally. We don't know how the mind works or how proteins fold. However, I believe in the second derivative. The rate at which we are developing technologies to solve our problems is acceptable. Every time I receive an issue of Nature I read the cover and cheer out loud. We are making progress. We are humans. We can do it.

Conclusion

Why do people insist on believing that things are getting worse? Perhaps it is an extension of the observation of local entropy, or a latent belief in an 'end times' that is present in most religions. In reality, our ancestors were starving, miserable, and ignorant and today we have abundant food and warmth and the sum total of human knowledge at our fingertips. We have setbacks, but they are temporary. It does not take much perspective to realize that larger time scales invariably show improvement and progress.

Even life gets better. I am much more knowledgeable and experienced than my foolish high school counterpart. I look forward to the proficiency and stability that comes with age, and am optimistic about the tranquility and wisdom of seniority.

People today are much more likely to die from the complications of an unnaturally long, enjoyable life than war or famine. No one has ever been hospitalized by artificial sweeteners or fluoridated tap water. Curious what actually has been overwhelmingly linked to the onset of cancer, heart disease, and a host of other ailments? Stress. Our world is more peaceful, healthy, and productive than ever, yet people are terrified of it. To really lower one's risk of cancer one of the best things to do is stop worrying and enjoy your life and the people in it. The only modern idea worth being afraid of is the fear-mongering itself.

Given that we are continually receiving additional energy from the sun it makes sense that our planet would run up, not down. Despite what a tired mind would believe, things are going to get better, not worse. The future is going to be unrecognizably awesome.

References

1: Miller GT (2004), Sustaining the Earth, 6th edition. Thompson Learning, Inc. Pacific Grove, California. Chapter 9, Pages 211-216.
2: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/viewtols.htm
3: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030292781193
4: http://www.agribiotech.info/details/2010%20rBST%20article%20for%20NABC_Bauman%2009-15%20Final%2004.pdf
5: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC280709/
6: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/ucm052519.pdf
7: http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264
8: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/retn5/retn5_tbl.pdf
9: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20070316/canned-fruits-veggies-healthy-too
10: http://www.ada.org/2467.aspx
11: http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/
12: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

  • S

    Seeing you express your love affair with fluoridated water in a couple of your posts now has made me lose all interest and faith in anything you have to say and your related projects. 

    • Flourid Shill

      Can you post any links to some peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate a problem with fluoridating public potable water? I have been unable to find any, so if you could provide something substantial, that would be great.

    • s

      Do some research on fluoridated water, moron.

      • T

        I dislike responses like this – if you believe something that goes against the mainstream thought and it's supposedly backed by some kind of evidence/science then you should be willing to provide that evidence.

        I'm all for thinking for yourself and finding evidence on your own, but when someone makes a point to ask you for support for your argument you should be able to spare 5 minutes of your day to find one link or name one scientist.

      • ullrich fischer

        Clearly the "S" initial you hide behind stands for "Stupid".  Check quackwatch.com and Science Based Medicine where some real doctors and medical researchers explain the benefits of fluoridation and where they explain in words of as few syllables as possible how idiotic the anti-fluoridation campaigners are. 

    • http://AlbertHoward.org Albert Howard

      I agree. Pulling the plug.

      • paul

        I'm genuinely curious: Is there actually any evidence that fluoride in water is bad? I mean peer-reveiwed science published in a respected journal.

        • ullrich fischer

          There is no (none, absolutely zero) credible evidence that fluoride in the amounts in which it is put into public water supplies has any other effect than to reduce the incidence of tooth decay in the communities lucky enough to have it.  Anti-fluoridationalists are nuts, plain and simple.  They tend to also be rabidly against vaccination (thereby causing among other things the return of Polio from near-extinction) and against all GMO foods, never minding the fact that without 10,000+ years worth of genetic modification of plants and animals, 60% of the current human population would starve to death.

        • http://www.pillscout.com Pill Scout

          FYI, peer review is not part of the scientific method. Just because a bunch of overpaid white coats agreed to pay each other money for something doesn't make it legitimate.

          • Andresni

            FYI, reviewers dont get paid. 

  • HGM

    Climate change is probably the main threat to what you're calling "progress."

    • paul

      Nah. If climate change starts getting bad to the point of causing serious harm on a global scale, we'll just pump some SO2 into the stratoshphere and everything will be dandy. Probably.

  • m

    Here's a question I haven't seen answered in these blogs: Could a soylent only diet have adverse effect on oral health due to "lack of use" of the teeth (no chewing)?

    • bluh

      just chew some gum

    • casey

      soylent should only be implemented if you're just having fun in the kitchen, are a breast-feeding mom up 3 times a night with her infant (ha!) or just a total sloth; unless there would be a severe issue with food supply, which, may happen anyway since GMO's protien (gluten) has now been rendered totally toxic. (this article articulates this with many citations that follow  http://maninisglutenfree.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/the-history-of-how-wheat-became-toxic/ )  there are former GMO scientists who have since backed out of 'prepping' modified food for us due to these findings. Just google "former GMO scientist quits; there's many) btw, MOST of asia will NOT buy GMOs, are totally NOT interested in our Franken-foods; find out why, search google. … in reality, rob needs to read up on the real effects of the chemicals in our food, (btw, i have been hospitalized for over-use of aspartame, which actually does bioaccumulate int he brain – look it up, it's everywhere). otherwise, besides his total lack of concern for the misuse, mishandling, and improperly stewarded dairy industry and it's unfathomed unethical practices, he might be on to something here. (site: http://www.realmilk.com & http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020105/bob13.asp )  but even his methods seem way over-thought-out; i mean, why not go for the 'superfoods", coconut oil, some kind of fiber (psyllium husk,oat bran, whatever) protien powder (and why not plant-based organic; hemp, rice, pea are all great or pastured cows whey), and low-glycemic-index carbs sweetened with stevia are all that is needed here. along with some electrolytes, vitamin D, and C; yes, high-dose vitamin C IV is an awesome cancer killer  http://www.naturalnews.com/034663_IV_vitamin_c_cancer_treatment.html  …i don't know, rob seems like he's making this easy experiement into something way too hard. i concoct super-food bevs regularly, just for fun / feed the machine.  please, just be more informed if you're going after this thing. no one should be subject to any more artificial crap in thier food; we have enough. thanks.

       

      (also, check out this site on coconut oil etc..  http://www.westonaprice.org/ and keep the hydrogenated, fractionated crap out of our bodies, we weren't created to metabolize that garbage. yes, one more or one less molecule does make a difference.)

    • Mo

      What effect could not chewing have on the teeth? What problem are you looking for?

      • Alex

        It makes the teeth uneven and also makes us need braces because we're evolved for harder chewing rather than the soft processed foods of today.

  • Bruno

    Microwaves, and radio waves like those used by cell phones, are photons of lower frequency than light, and thus lower energy. [..]  Short of an atomic blast, radiation is nothing to be afraid of.

    Man, I think you should never go to the beach in Cancun at noon without sunscreen. Or try to dry your cat in your microwave.

    (Althought one photon from a radiowave has less energy than one from an x-ray that doesn't mean that enough photons from either the sun, a microwave, a TSA milimiter wave scanner or a cellphone antenna are not bad for your health. Go figure.)

    • Jeff

      Yes, quantity is important. I think the target audience for that statement are the people who don't understand what radiation is, and they think about the barrells of green goo that they saw on The Simpsons being in their telephone. There was actually an issue before the Georgetown city council (my city, unfortunately) about smart electric meters emitting too much radiation, and causing health problems in the household, this article poses the reasoning against smart meters: http://www.earthcalm.com/emf-dangers-2/smart-meter-radiation-risks/

      Even if the meters emit immense amounts of radiation, unless you put it as the centerpiece of the dining room table, you'd hardly catch any at all. People should be more afraid of the lights in the ceiling. Controversies like that I think demonstrate the general fear and alarmism that Rob wants to address. I think his explanation of radiation contributed to the article, even if it was a bit incomplete.

    • G

      One thing I’d like to point out that just because it is lower radiation in an individual level doesn’t mean there aren’t more of them concentrated in an area due to certain electronics output.

      Also, “organic” milk tastes WAY better than the “regular” milk. I don’t know enough to even speculate why, but it sure as hell does.

      • DanH

        I've noticed this myself, and I can't explain it either. Even more unusual, the organic milk I have tried is also ultrapastuerized, which from what I have read is supposed to have an adverse affect on taste. I think it tastes much better.

      • ullrich fischer

        Have you actually tried a blind taste test?  Can you really tell the difference between Pepsi and Coca Cola if you can't see which bottle it was poured from?  Test your assertions before you accept them as truth.  The taste tests are incredibly simple and conclusive. 

    • Josh Houle

      This chart has a nice comparison of radiation from different sources

  • Pingback: From the inventor of, yes, a real all-food replacement called Soylent, comes a blog entry with a simple message that might be paraphrased as 'Stress causes cancer. Don't worry be happy.' http://robrhinehart.com/?p=572Soylent | full-nutritio()

  • JLatos

    Thanks for that! :D

  • Mathias P

    Awesome article. It reminds me of a talk i watched by Peter Diamandis

  • Jeff

    I like your article Rob. I don't disagree with anything critical, and your optimism about how the world can and will change, while I don't necessarily share it, is very encouraging. Thanks :-)

    On another note, have you considered structuring Soylent Corp. as a co-op? It makes perfect sense for a subscription based company, and would eliminate the ultimate conflict of interest between owners and customers.

    I'm looking forward to the first batch!

  • Adam Noel

     In reality, our ancestors were starving, miserable, and ignorant and today we have abundant food and warmth and the sum total of human knowledge at our fingertips.

    Although I agree with most of the article I do think it is important to make a distinction between pre-agricultural society and agricultural society in regards to the first two attributes given to our ancestors.

    Pre-agriculture most societies had bountiful food in comparison to agricultural societies so it seems unlikely they we're miserable or starving. I cannot produce sources off the top of my head but there is an open course in population dynamics at Yale (Under the cellular biology department… I believe?) that covers a fair amount of material demonstrating the belief that we we're starving as hunter-gatherers is mistaken.

    It is likely the case that hunter-gather societies kept population reduced due to various factors (difficulty of rearing enough children to rise much above replacement level fertility, inter-tribe warfare and various traditions acting against fertility) and this prevented the malthusian catastrophe of starving populations.

    Post-agriculture it is true that we we're largely starving and had very little knowledge available to us. In regards to miserable… who knows? Humans are remarkably adaptable.

  • James K

    Is a calorie, really just a calorie though processed or not? When we are talking about processed foods, and the amounts of "sugars" (know by many different names)  added to make processed foods taste better, I think there is a difference. Dr. Robert Lustig has studied the topic exhaustively (lots of items posted online) and has determined that our body processes some chemicals and additives in everyday processed much differently. Any thoughts on the research done by Dr. Lustig?

  • James K

    P.S. Very excited about Soylent :)

  • Jeffrey Lindsey

    Much of what you wrote, I agree with.  Particularly on the overall concept of people fearing what they do not understand.  However, there are parts that do not seem to match or mesh well with what I have learned.  Most notably, this one line:

    No one has ever hospitalized by artificial sweeteners or fluoridated tap water.

    Perhaps not hospitalized, but one friend of mine certainly ends up with an upset stomach from drinking fluoridated water.  Even if it doesn't affect me, it still makes me question how good and important it is having all of our water fluoridated these days.

    As for artificial sweeteners (or even natural sweeteners), I have not yet seen convincing evidence that these sweeteners are not significantly related to obesity.  And obesity has certainly had its fair share of hospitalizing people.

    • John

      I’ve had severely adverse reactions to Splenda (sucralose). I have to always read the labels on stuff I buy at the store. I have all sorts of nervous issues and I break out in itchy watery blisters.

    • Josh Houle

      This study seems to provide pretty good evidence that artificial sweeteners do not cause significant weight gain.

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0091743586900897
       

  • Simon

    Oh dear, you boys are so American…

    You mention that we have the knowledge of mankind at our fingertips. I'm just afraid a lot of people don't really feel the same way.

    A highly educated engineer, having had the grace of spending multiple years with learning how to acquire, judge and manage technical knowledge might feel positive about a world dominated by increasingly complex constructs.

    For the remaining majority of society the pace of change might turn a seemlingly ungraspable ocean of hard-to-learn I-was-never-good-at technological knowledge into a vast and prime source of good ol'Lovecrafts fear of the unknown.

  • Bob

    The biggest killer of all humans, fauna and flora…. Greed.

  • amish people

    I was going to write a really long post laying out what is factually wrong with this post, but I quickly realized how dumb that would be.

    So, then:

    The VICE article that got you exposure was actually making fun of you.

    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    Please educate yourself as to how nutrition actually works.

    • Jamie

      This is probably the best and worst response at the same time I can think of regarding the blog post. It's incredibly irritating that Rob, who seems like such an incredibly smart guy, would be so dumb as to take the research he's done from the FDA as fact. On top of being incorrect on a number of counts, the sources are almost all from the same two or three places, and those sources have severe conflict of interest in releasing honest publications on the actual harm of their products. The FDA has been severely corrupt and crippled without lobbyist money, so relying on any of their published oversight is foolish.

      Severely disappointed, Rob.

      Amish People- please do write a long post if there is one to be made, or your point just gets summarily dismissed.

  • Shaun

    Cross breeding plants, grafting, and selecting the best crops from a previous season and planting those is NOT genetically modifying food. However, taking genes from insects and inserting them into plants is. To think science knows all the cause and effects of inserting animal genes into plants for human consumption is naive and dangerous.

    An article worth reading on this subject – http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/

    As for the other areas of comments – You have more faith than I in the intregrity of corporations and government agencies overseeing them.

  • kyle

    So odd that you trust the FDA. I feel like the evidence of its compromise could not be more obvious.

    Anyways, thought you might find this list worthwhile: http://whfoods.org/nutrientstoc.php

    And it's true, reading this article does turn me off of soylent.

    The ignorance of the dental community, by the way, to the point of my dentists telling me that the enamal does not regenerate, is astounding. 

    You need a little more skepticism when dealing with your authorities, friend.

  • kyle

    I fear you may suffer from searching only for sources that support your theses.

    Organic foods provide more nutrients:
    "As for nutrients, in 2007 a study out of Newcastle University in the United Kingdom reported that organic produce boasted up to 40 percent higher levels of some nutrients (including vitamin C, zinc and iron) than its conventional counterparts. Additionally, a 2003 study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found that organically grown berries and corn contained 58 percent more polyphenols—antioxidants that help prevent cardiovascular disease—and up to 52 percent higher levels of vitamin C than those conventionally grown. Recent research by that study’s lead author, Alyson Mitchell, Ph.D., an associate professor of food science and technology at the University of California, Davis, pinpoints a potential mechanism to explain why organic techniques may sometimes yield superior produce."

    Source:
    http://www.eatingwell.com/food_news_origins/green_sustainable/organic_or_not_is_organic_produce_healthier_than_conventional

    One pesticide:
    "Methyl iodide is an extremely poisonous and dangerous pesticide that causes cancer and pollutes groundwater. It's been linked to cancer and late-term miscarriages and, because it's a gas, easily drifts from the fields and into nearby communities.

    Methyl iodide was approved for use as a pesticide in the waning days of the Bush administration—over the objection of more than 50 eminent scientists, among them six Nobel Laureates in Chemistry.

    Though methyl iodide will likely be used primarily on strawberries, it is also registered for use on tomatoes, peppers, nurseries and on soils prior to replanting orchards and vineyards. Earthjustice is working to project the public from this toxic pesticide."

    Source:
    http://earthjustice.org/our_work/campaigns/pesticides-in-the-air-kids-at-risk

    Fluoride:
    "Fluoride is a pollutant – a by-product of copper, iron and aluminum manufacturing. The problem of how to legally dispose of fluoride was solved in the 1930's when a study (funded by one of the country's largest aluminum companies) concluded that fluoride prevented tooth decay. A successful public relations effort, helped along with some cooperative government cronies, resulted in the good news going out: this miracle chemical, when added to water supplies, will give everyone healthy teeth and brighter smiles.

    But does fluoride actually prevent tooth decay? Not according to the largest study ever conducted on fluoridation and oral health. 39,000 school children in 84 areas around the U.S. were studied in the mid-80's, and the results showed no statistical difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities.

    Meanwhile, tooth decay trends tracked by the World Health Organization from 1970 to the present show that the incidence of decayed, missing or filled teeth has been steadily in decline with each passing year in the U.S., France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, Iceland and Greece. And why are the numbers of decayed teeth on the decline? Better oral hygiene and improved dental practice is the most obvious answer. It's certainly not the fluoride. Because of all of those countries, only one adds fluoride to the public water supply: the United States.

    A few of the countries listed above used to put fluoride in some of their water, but they eventually wised up to the dangers of this aluminum by-product. And here's some truly radical thinking for you: many of those countries simply refuse to run fluoride through every citizen's faucets based on the idea that health treatments should be a personal choice and not mandated by the government. What a concept!

    In tests on laboratory animals, fluoride has been shown to enhance the brain's absorption of aluminum – the substance that's found in the brains of most Alzheimer's patients. Three different osteoporosis studies have associated hip fractures with fluoridation. And excessive fluoride has been shown to damage the musculoskeletal and nervous systems, leading to limited joint mobility, ligament calcification, muscular degeneration and neurological deficits."

    Source:
    http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/health-hazards-to-know-about/where-the-yellow-went

    More:
    "There are significant differences between naturally occurring calcium fluoride and what is essentially industrial waste – namely, hydrofluorosilicic acid, a byproduct of the phosphate-fertiliser industry – added to our water, and known to contain human carcinogens in a toxic mix of arsenic, beryllium, lead, cadmium, mercury, silicon and other major contaminants, including radioactive polonium."

    Source: http://www.nyrnaturalnews.com/article/qa-whats-so-bad-about-fluoride/

    Antibiotics:
    A recent study I read (incidentally) showed that the devestating effects of antibiotics on beneficial bacterial colonies in the gut were sometimes never reversed. Not hard to find. Poor gut health = poor nutrition = effect on my food.

    Pesticides only increase crop yield for a few years; then nature responds, and numbers go back to normal. This has been shown many times over. India is a great case study of the failure of pesticides/insecticides/GM crops to provide any net benefits.

    GMO's:
    I am a believer in the potential of GMO's to be good things. However, I am NOT a believer in Monsanto, and their recent hand in legislative activity is disturbing; why/how the "Monsanto Protection Act" doesn't make you suspicious, I cannot imagine.

    Food processing:
    Obviously food processing is an incredibly broad label… Cutting a tomato in my kitchen is processing it. So it manufacturing velveeta from whatever its roots are. Processed meats, for example, have a clear link to various cancers–canned tomatoes, on the other hand, are generally healthier than ones bought in the store for reasons you stated. 

    As a result, I buy my meat raw, and I buy my tomatoes jarred or canned (in BPA free lining cans).

    I try and buy animal products from the healthiest animals I can. Factory farmed animals are generally unhealthy animals; that means less nutrients and more crap. This applies to eggs, milk, organ meats, and muscle meats.

    • L

      None of what you linked there provides references to any peer reviewed studies. Besides being reasonably well written articles without the proof references to the actual studies they're little more than a blog post about someones opinion without the proofing studies behind those opinions.

      If you can reference the actual studies themselves then we'd have something to talk about.

      The NYR Natural news link seems to be the best but they've heavily cherry picked their referenced studies such as leaving out this important line "The causes for the changed caries trend were seen on the one hand in improvements in attitudes towards oral health behaviour and, on the other hand, to the broader availability and application of preventive measures (F-salt, F-toothpastes, fissure sealants etc.). There is, however, still no definitive explanation for the current pattern and further analysis of future caries trends in the formerly fluoridated towns would therefore seem to be necessary."

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014515

      It also doesn't help that the sites referenced are incredibly biased on these matters and aren't neutral sources. "I fear you may suffer from searching only for sources that support your theses." You've done this in your own post far more than the blog you're commenting on, the irony of that statement is quite amazing.

      • http://www.pillscout.com Pill Scout

        None of what you linked there provides references to any peer reviewed studies.

        I'm gonna say this again, peer review does not make something more or less scientifically valid.

        Just like the fact that a book is "holy" does not mean it was written by a man in the sky, no?

  • Pingback: Weekend Reading XXIII : Blogcoven()

  • kyle

    Where did my lengthy responses go?! -_-

  • http://timjm.com Elixium

    Whilst Soylent is very interesting, this article is filled with naive optimism e.g. there are countless documentary films regarding the harmful effects of fluoride in drinking water. GMO safety has yet to be proven in humans.

    GMO corn e.g. causes severe issues with lab rats. Cancer rates etc. have been exploding over the past few decades due to all the crap (e.g. various carcinogens, excitotoxins etc.) that they put in food, other products and in the environment such as via Chemtrails.
     
    Also look at the economy, 50 million Americans on food stamps, a similar situation in the EU, many predict that the global economy will collapse again within the next 5 years, including those that predicted the 2008 crash. I would suggest watching “Culture in Decline” http://goo.gl/9yVR0 – my YouTube playlist has them nicely lined up.

     

  • http://timjm.com Elixium

    Some things I forgot to mention, there's plenty more but I'll leave that up to you guys to research for yourselves, I've already posted my YouTube Playlist.

    There are "Cancer clusters" (People living in close proximity to cellphone towers).

    There are now Estrogen mimickers in various products which are hyperfeminizing women and feminizing males e.g. Many more girls than before are now entering puberty 2+ years earlier than the average. The sperm count is declining in the average male.

    Authorities are approving increased levels of chemicals such as roundup weedkiller (severe health effects when ingested) in the drinking water.

  • http://timjm.com Elixium
    • L

      The study shows that too high floride levels are bad for you (though the IQ ranges in the test are actually within the IQ margin of error from testing..). It does not show that floride just by its existance lowers IQ which is what those articles and presumably what you have interpretted from the articles are describing. The areas in the study have floride above the FDA recommended amount and as you would expect, overdosing on anything isn't good.

      • http://www.pillscout.com Pill Scout

        How high is too high? The levels in publicly treated water that occur in the amount an adult is supposed to drink daily exceeds the amount that the back of a fluoridated toothpaste tube would say "contact a Poison Control Center immediately."

        Are there any peer-reviewed (a.k.a. nepotist bribe) scienmajistiks that verify that this amount is okay, or is the toothpaste tube just being alarmist?

  • http://www.nutrientcraft.com danny

    a true skeptic and rational thinker

    • http://www.pillscout.com Pill Scout

      He needs a fedora in order to be more euphoric.

  • Anonymous

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antifluoridation-bad-science/

     

    > First it should be noted that almost all of the studies reviewed were conducted in China (one was conducted in Iran) – not in the US. China had a limited fluoridation program for a time, and has had no fluoridation of drinking water since 2002. So why, then, are most of the studies from China?

    > There are many rural areas of China that have naturally high levels of fluoride in the well water. The studies were largely looking at this exposure. Two studies looked at fluoride exposure from inhaling smoke from coal burning. So the question is – how do these levels of exposure relate to the amount of fluoride being added to water in the US (because toxicity is always all about dose)?

    > There was a lot of variability across the studies, but generally the high fluoride groups were in the 2-10 mg/L range, while the reference low fluoride groups were in the 0.5-1.0 mg/L range (not including the coal burning studies, which had much higher fluoride levels).

    > The recommended fluoride level for fluoridated drinking water is 0.5-1.0 mg/L (similar in most countries – Australia, for example, uses 0.6-1.1 mg/L). The EPA set the upper safe limit at 4.0, with a secondary (voluntary) recommendation of 2.0. Areas with high natural fluoride actually have some of the fluoride removed from the drinking water

    • http://www.pillscout.com Pill Scout

      Both the pro and anti fluoride stances confuse calcium fluoride with the other fluorine-based compounds used for water fluoridation which have no dental application whatsoever (hexafluorosilicic acid) and just happen to be an industrial byproduct of fertilizer production.

      The only scientifically verified application of fluoride which prevents dental caries is topical application of sodium fluoride. Why don't they add that to the water if they're so set on protecting our teeth?

  • Erik

    Ok, I've officially lost interest in Soylent. This whole post has the tone of someone who is completely immersed in pro-science / anti-religion circlejerks (and just so there's no misunderstanding, I am mostly pro-science and anti-organized religion.) It's not about the content of this, so it doesn't matter to me whether or not I agree with what's said here. What matters to me is the blind "all science and government sources are good and everyone else is just ignorant" attitude. If you can't see the nuances in life then I have no faith in your product.

  • Donna

    You cannot improve on nature. Food from a lab isn't food, synthetic nutrients can't replicate naturally occurring ones. Please look atthe big picture, there's no better investment of time than in our health!

    • bluh

      synthetic is a replica doe

      also if you wanted organic wholefood farms to feed 8 billion people then we would have to halt progress in every other field

      • http://www.pillscout.com Pill Scout

        lel i bet you think that gmos make more food than regular crops.

        hint: they don't.

        It's fertilizer baby. that's what makes the crops grow. GMOs only exist so the plants don't die from the stronger pesticides they have to create so the pesticide-resistant superbugs don't eat all the plants.

        • bluh

          and if we wanted organic wholefood pesticides to kill these pests we would have to be god kek

           

    • ullrich fischer

      Wrong!  We improve on nature all the time.  If we didn't, the world would support maybe 1 billion people always on the edge of starvation and/or death by disease or violence.  Corn, wheat, cows, pigs, chickens, pretty much every farmed food plant and animal is a vast improvement on what nature originally evolved and what pre-agricultural humans lived on.  Modern medicine is also a huge improvement on the natural course of diseases that have plagued humanity since the dawn of human existence.

      In addition to making the current era to best time ever to be alive in terms of quality and duration of one's life, it has brought us to the point where even a natural disaster such as the meteor strike which extinguished the dinosaurs is now preventable. 

       

      • http://www.pillscout.com Pill Scout

        So where are our robot sex dolls? All of this progress and no sex bots. I think you're being way too optimistic.

    • J

      Cool… why don't you go run around in the woods and see if you can uncover a cure for cancer hiding under a rock. 

  • Kyle
  • Elixium

    @Erik
    Yes, it would be nice if Rob acknowledged that the Government and the corporations are almost completely owned and controlled by the Dark Cabal (The bankers, the globalists, the occultists).

    Did you know that VeriChip's stock collapsed because it was discovered that the implanted chips caused cancers around the implant site in animals? And also that people are succeeding in stopping the obscene RFID tracking being forced upon them: http://www.infowars.com/student-fighting-rfid-chip-achieves-victory-after-program-gets-nixed/

     

    • Erik

      @Elixium – I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. Either way, I don't think you got my point.

      I don't automatically accept what I read by government agencies or various scientific organizations but I also don't reject it outright either. I do my best to think critically about it; I get annoyed by people who think it's gospel truth as well as by the people who think it's all part of some big conspiracy to control our lives.

      I actually agree with a number of things in this post. The problem I have is the overall tone of pure science vs raging ignorance. For instance, the statement: "In reality, our ancestors were starving, miserable, and ignorant and today we have abundant food and warmth and the sum total of human knowledge at our fingertips." It implies that before there was SCIENCE! we were all completely miserable, which I strongly disagree with. To me, it sounds the same as saying that before JESUS! people couldn't know real joy, which I find ludicrous.

      It may get annoying to hear ignorant people spouting off about the danger of microwaved water (I wish I'd made that one up, but sadly I heard it from an educated professional who should have known better), but there are more than just two groups of people with polar-opposite viewpoints.

    • http://www.pillscout.com Pill Scout

      This would be more credible if it wasn't from that shill Alex Jones' site Infowars

  • Elixium

    No sarcasm, I have learned about "False Flag" attacks, the bilderberg group, the trilateral comission, the club of rome, the CFR, Cecil John Rhodes, Albert Pike, MK Ultra and a million other things and I have made the conclusion I wrote above. There is a big conspiracy. Look at the NSA / Edward Snowden story for a recent example.

     

    . For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice.. – JFK. He was then killed for his words and actions such as trying to correct the Federal Reserve problem.

     

     

     

     

  • Li

    Thanks so much for this. Whether you want to be or not, you're an inspiration :)

  • ullrich fischer

    Suggestion: once you've lived for a year on Soylent and the trials in Uganda are complete and show the latest formulation works as intended, put a green dye in it and market it with the slogan:  Soylent Green is FOR PEOPLE!    :)    I'm sure that preposition will make all the difference!   :)

    If the product can be produced as an extremely long shelf-life powder, it would find many uses from the space program to emergency rations in the event of a major earthquake cutting someone off from outside resources for a protracted period, to the military and recreational hikers who need to minimize the weight of their provisions for a multi-week expedition.

    If it can be made cheap enough, it might even save lives in underdeveloped countries like parts of the US where people rely on inadequate food-stamp allotments and are reduced to a diet of Kraft Dinners or the equivalent. 

    • http://www.pillscout.com Pill Scout

      I don't think Kraft would appreciate it very much if you were telling everyone their food was less nutritious than this competing soylent slop.

  • http://guliyev.us Anar Guliyev

     

    Hello Rob,
     

     hope you are doing well.
    I just read about your project in Scientific American, and I saw a very important thing that must be done to make Soylent really physiological and safe (one of my 2 educations is in medicine, so I can come with detailed explanations if needed; it is not a layman's message).
     

    The thing which is currently missing in Soylent  –  random fluctuations in daily intake of each nutrient.

    Let me explain:

    For example, an adequate daily intake of Vitamin A for adults is 900 μg/day.

    But it should be an average. With variations – one day 400, another day 1200… etc
     with total 6300/week (7 days * 900). But each day different, with periods of relative deficiency and periods of relative abundance.

    And the same with every nutrient!

    This is extremely important. That is how natural nutrition works for humans and animals, when they have variety of different kinds of food. Random, not uniform.
     

    Fluctuations are important in every aspect – we must have changes in temperature, changes in our body position, etc. Otherwise we get sick. The same with nutrients – we have lots of metabolic ways, that work only in relative deficiency or excess of something. And all of them must work.
     

    So, Soylent possibly must be shipped not as 1 powder for every day. But as a batch of small packs, each of them have slightly different proportions of ingredients. (say, 14 packs in a week-box; and all packs different). The deviations of daily doses must be significant – 40-70%, and adequate dose must be preserved statistically across 1 week (or even longer period of time).

    regards,
    Anar Guliyev

    • http://www.pillscout.com Pill Scout

      He is beyond human – a transhumanist. He no longer lives by the rules of humanity. Rob is a god in the flesh.

      Good point though.

    • tobilehman

      Is there any evidence that this random variation is necessary?

      It seems intuitively plausible, given the necessity of changing body position (to avoid blood clotting, keep blood circulating, mental stimulation, etc.).

      But I don’t buy your argument based on that alone, are there any good studies looking at uniform daily intake of nutrients vs the randomly varying ones?

  • Georgos

    Hey, man…. I'm really afraid of maize with spider's genes…. Sorry.

  • Guillermo Martinez

    Hello!

    In your previous article you mention that the scientist Rita Levi-Montalcini always ate the same food every day.

    I searched for information about it and I've only found that she ate very little amount of food but nothing about how it was formed and whether repeated almost daily.

    You could comment me where you got that information? And diet consisted of this lady?

    Very interesting your blog!

    Thanks and please excuse my bad English.

  • Stefan

    Fluoride does occur naturally, but in the form of calcium fluoride, which is less toxic than the forms used in water fluoridation (because calcium is an antidote to fluoride). 37 studies have found that fluoride reduces IQ, and 19 studies found that it impairs the learning and memory capacity of animals (source).

  • Fedor

    The article is written by naive man in an American box. So self-consuming. 

  • Pingback: Om vi fick all vår dagliga näring från en smoothie | marknadsforingsaventyr()

  • http://humanexcellence.com JD Mumma

    I hope Rob Rhinehart can learn to accurately represented GMO's instead of fallaciously misrepresenting and equating ("Humans have always been genetically engineering their food.") GMO/GM as the same as hybrid foods.

    TRANSGENIC organism  ≠  HYBRID organism

    Transgenic – Specific to TRANSGENIC organism – NOT hybridization, "Hybrids are produced through sexual reproduction between sexually compatible parents whereas transgenic plants are created by transferring the specific genetic material governing a particular trait from non-compatible organism for example in Bt cotton the resistance for fruit borer insect has been transferred from a bacteria." deb http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_transgenic_plant_differ_from_a_hybrid_plant

  • Elixium

    Stefan Molyneux from Freedomainradio.com?

  • Chris H.

    Reading  your postings on your on-going experiment, it seems almost too good to be true. Still, may I please be included on your postings? I would like to get on the 'band wagon,' as some would say. Thank you.

  • Jaz

    Fairly sure the US has been in perpetual war for awhile now. Not sure where you’ve been?

  • Scientits

    I think those that understand technology have a responsibility to explain it's purpose and safety to the world.

    Unfortunately none of those people were involved in the writing of this article

  • https://twitter.com/German_investor German Investor

    Your world is so small. Try to see the bigger picture. Travel more. Rob and everybody else, why don't you watch this movie and tell me how awesome this world is.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAeIDRzGZ1A

  • Chad

    Interesting read, however I think Rob is naively optimistic about the future and the good times he thinks are coming our way. He must not keep up on current events like "quantitative easing" and how dependent the stock market is on it and every time the Fed starts talking about stopping their quantitative easing the stock market goes crazy. The point here is that anybody who keeps up on current events understands maybe the "end times" aren't a coming, but some very bad times are just on the horizon for the United States because a multitude of factors. Interesting read, but no based in reality in my opinion. 

  • http://allsports.usana.com Michael

    I just read about this product in an article in PopSci. I say I am very confused. USANA has been making a meal-substitute shake for over 21 years. It is being used by Olympic athletes and every day people to lose weight, balance their sugar levels and improve their overall health. It was developed by full-fledged biologists, nutritionists and other scientists and has already passed rigorous testing to international standards.

    The best thing is, rather than waiting while this guys work out all the details to develop their version…
    You, dear reader, can buy USANA meal-replacement shakes right now from http://www.allsports.usana.com. 

  • Jeff

    Here's a suggestion: 

    Why don't you release both the Whey and non-Whey versions.  I assume that this will make reaching your production totals easier by reducing your supply strain on critical ingredients.  (And some of us like whey protien).  To implement, you merely need to ask "whey, vegan, or first available".  Then when production is more stable you can put wait times beside the choices.

     

  • btodder

    “The middle class lives better than medieval kings.”

    …uh no, I don’t know what the evidence is you are using to back this statement.

  • tobilehman