I ask for the freedom to choose (diet)

[the middle]

Hello everyone,
Nowadays, there are a lot of good laws, rules, which also have a "negative" effect, very negative.
Example: I discovered Polish meatballs a long time ago.
They are so good that I offered to sell Belgian fries to me.
But now, they answered me, there is no E220 or E cool thing, which allow the long conservation.
However, all these mandatory additives distort the taste of food.
So, what I am proposing is to agree not to have recourse to mutuals, if you are sick following the purchase of food without additives from preservatives.
This will allow access, as before, to good products.
I know, you have to intern me.

[the middle]

With the same idea:
Before, falling into unemployment would not have scared me.
Here is the kind of idea that I will have, and that would get me out of misery.
I will buy a horse, a cart, and every day I will pick up kitchen plant waste from two or three streets in my village to feed pigs.
now, this kind of idea is stupid, impractical, because you have to pay taxes, health checks, building standards, the veterinarian, etc.
Everything is prohibited or subject to overly restrictive standards.

[Obamot]

You who like to address the questions of cause and effect relationships, some tracks:

In this case, it is rather:
- "The freedom not to choose what is imposed on us».

So do not choose the Codex Alimentarius (the number of the first regulation of which it would be necessary to review everything.)

The list would be long, I had already tried! And on the fact that health authorities should be summoned to court for "poisoning" ...

— "Aaaaah but my good Môssieur, to bring that before a criminal court, the" will to harm "would have to be proven [you would say]!

In the current state of the law, this is therefore not possible!

There are other similar reform projects to be undertaken:
- prohibit (or limit the use) of refined white sugar;
- completely prohibit oils that are not cold pressed, and check it in oil mills (it is not, cold pressed oils sometimes come out at temperatures up to 70 ° C I was told reported);
- strictly indicate oils which cannot be cooked (such as sunflower oil), and whose essential fatty acids of formula "CIS" (beneficial), are transformed into fatty acids "TRANS" (carcinogenic in the long term);
- prohibit (or limit the sale) of all denatured food (canned goods, pastries);
- completely prohibit (or limit the sale) of white and semi-white flours, non-complete pasta, etc.
- completely ban certain sweeteners, such as asparthame (whose methanol it contains transforms into formaldehyde in the body, and would stay there forever.)

Because all this is much more dangerous than additives, the amount of which is calculated not to harm (but to remove devitalized foods would be to remove additives.)

And all these questions are known to the health authorities and the WHO (responsible for Codex), and these people do nothing. It is a crime against humanity "modern version".

And so the first thing would be to establish that there was indeed this will to harm.

Some say so, and have established links between former Nazis and Codex:
English:
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHAR ... ment24.htm
French:
http://www.lespacearcenciel.com/resista ... arius.html

Again in English:
http://www.infowars.com/the-history-of- ... us-part-1/
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-0 ... eath-camp/


Even more controversial
http://www.lougris.com/article-le-n-o-m ... 26111.html

http://philip.dru-administrateur.nwo.ov ... 78288.html

[chatelot16]

someone opens a subject to ask for freedom ... and you want to prohibit the opposite

there are already too many prohibitions

there must be food product quality obligations, but leaving the choice of means to guarantee quality

to impose preservatives, is stupid ... it is also necessary to authorize to sell in short circuit a product which will be consumed before being damaged therefore without needing preservative

in the same absurdity there was the obligation of refrigeration equipment at the small market ... while the principle of these markets is to sell everything during the day so not to need long cold storage ... conclusion a once they have been charged with the expense of refrigerated display, they must make it profitable by storing their merchandise longer and have lost their direct selling advantage

[Obamot]

Do you do it on purpose or did you not understand the meaning of my post?

Have you even read it?

[chatelot16]

There are other similar reform projects to be undertaken:
- prohibit (or limit the use) of refined white sugar;
- completely prohibit oils that are not cold pressed, and check it in oil mills (it is not, cold pressed oils sometimes come out at temperatures up to 70 ° C I was told reported);
- strictly indicate oils which cannot be cooked (such as sunflower oil), and whose essential fatty acids of formula "CIS" (beneficial), are transformed into fatty acids "TRANS" (carcinogenic in the long term);
- prohibit (or limit the sale) of all denatured food (canned goods, pastries);
- completely prohibit (or limit the sale) of white and semi-white flours, non-complete pasta, etc.
- completely ban certain sweeteners, such as asparthame (whose methanol it contains transforms into formaldehyde in the body, and would stay there forever.)

I have not dreamed! you seem to want bans that are completely opposite to the bans of which the Middle Middle complains at the start

the war of prohibitions is not the solution, I prefer freedom

[Obamot]

I suggest (and not since yesterday ...) the summons to court of the Health Authorities for "poisoning" re-read ... (poisoning inherent in prohibitions and absurd directives, in particular and centrally Codex Alimentarius) ...
... and you you interpret that as a wish of these directives / prohibitions / obligations ..?
... rejection of directives that I have always defended!

Explain how you come to such a conclusion?

[chatelot16]

I rather find that you confuse stop forcing white flour and ban white flour

[Obamot]

First, no one forces you to consume white flour! Menfinbref ...

Le_Juste_Milieu is talking about mandatory additives! Like me.

Should we prohibit anything that could harm public health without the knowledge of consumers? Yes absolutely, because it is a deception and a danger to others.

someone opens a subject to ask for freedom ... and you want to prohibit the opposite

explain to us:
1) what is the opposite of a freedom?
2) and therefore you deduce that I want to prohibit this obligation .... (cf. ... precisely what prevents this freedom)

Yes, but that's exactly it!

So after how do you get there in your reasoning? I wonder

Yes then really, YOU find what YOU want to find!

If you had taken care to read my links, you would have captured ...

I'm talking about the CAUSES of all this, and not of your kind of misunderstanding ... Read again ....

One of the causes is precisely the fact that one is illegal if one does not submit to these directives! After that you can always play with words, it's really very secondary.

It seems to me that your misunderstanding comes from the fact that you confuse the goal VS the means (because the cause may be either an obligation or a prohibition, it depends on the context. For example if an authority requires a harmful additive, the solution the problem may be to prohibit the sale of the type of food it contains, which will de facto eliminate the additive in question, I am even talking about this example in my list ... So you are the one there sees a contradiction, except that there is none. It is "according to", not "in accordance with" ...)

[Janic]

Our "modern" society is in a vicious circle. For millennia, no product from the chemical industry was necessary to "conserve, color, refine, add, antifoncidiser, etc ..." The causes are the explosion of large cities and their large population requiring huge quantities of food that must be properly stored (this problem should not exist in areas with low populations). The case of white flour is characteristic since whole ground flour ferments quickly if the germ is still there. So beyond a health problem, it is the industrial form that it has taken which is the cause. In addition, the increase in the population accentuates the phenomenon, some of whom have a low income looking for less than ... which accentuates industrialization, the increase in agricultural yields, storage, conservation devices, etc ... the loop is endless.
Then the new generations have become accustomed to this cycle and do not want or can not break it. The organic circuits or amaps are, remain and will remain on the margins if only because of the powerful lobbies of the food industry which pretend to play the game by announcing products without dyes, nor preservatives, but never without pesticides , fungicides and the like. They give the audience what they want to hear, not what they should know. (the proliferation of documentaries accusing these lobbies is gradually changing the situation, but perhaps a little too late)
The question of being able to choose is therefore linked to real uncensored information and it is not for today, nor for tomorrow. (except for a few rare individuals who have already questioned what food is, its role, its adaptation to human physiology, etc ... therefore a little ecology)