ACRYLAMIDE…(don’t they mean acrylaldehyde?) and the EU – another assault on FOOD. I mean, what do these fascists want?


David Davis 

“Acrylamide” – CH2=CH-CO-NH2 – a fairly harmless organic intermediate in the production of some forms of plastics, has received a wide press lately, having been slated by the EU (no less!) for “increasing” the risk of uterine and ovarian cancers in “women” – (not in men, I hasten to notice.) it is apparently and allegedly a product of overcooking food in all the “nice” ways; that is to say, toasting and frying it. In fact all the ways that Man had cooked food (except boiling which produces tasteless crud and is the reason that “English” cooking has been satirized and execrated the TV-world over for 60 years, and is why “telechefs” exist at all.)

I mean, yer-no’……can you imagine a world without…..bacon? (No I don’t mean “boiled ham” either…) Or “Barbies”…?

Firstly; the pretentiously-higgorant journos don’t mean “acrylamide” at all – they mean “acrylaldehyde”, which was what we chemists call “acrolein”. It is mildly oxidizing in the presence of liver-alcohol-dehydrogenase, inhibits it, and can extend hangovers caused by other reasons. It tastes and smells nasty and so it therefore might be a little bitty toxic as is the case with other poisons. It is produced in small amounts by carbonizing fried food further than necessary. Its formula is CH2=CH-CHO….a bit different form acrylamide (which does not occur naturally.) (But we’re all going to die anyway sometime; the evolutionists say it’s necessary but I’m one of them and I’m not so sure, for the Universe is quite large.)

The pretentiously-higgorant journos don’t know this of course. They are merely busy imbibing some press-release, rendering its content so it’s a lot less exact than it was, draining it of meaning, and regurgitating some copy.

 The EU has now stipulated that we must not toast bread “more than is absolutely necessary”. We mjust fry potatoes to a “light yellow colour” and not any shade of “brown”. The PM ought to listen here.

Truly, we have become their farm animals. They are doing this for “our good”. Bugger them then, for a start. They’ll be telling us not to smoke next.

I think that the fascist master “Honestiories” want the “Humiliories” to eat tasteless nasty food as befits (our) station.

About these ads

5 responses to “ACRYLAMIDE…(don’t they mean acrylaldehyde?) and the EU – another assault on FOOD. I mean, what do these fascists want?

  1. So, when are you chemists, scientists in general, going to rally and mount a decent counterattack against the tidal wave of biased bilge coming from the scientific community?

  2. Dear Ian!
    The “scientific community” is silent. Its research grants will be cut off, and it will get the sack, if it dares to speak out. Commercial scientists, working for firms, and there are many, are not expected to have public opinions on anything whatever. they will be out of the door so fast that their feet would not hit ground if they did. I know. I was one once, and it nearly happened to me.

    The people who brief the people who write the press releases, give facts which are accurate. The people who then jabber on phones in PR offices and newsrooms take the data, and render it inexact, either owning to speed or ignorance. The journos editing the stuff know even less.

    “She must mean acrylamide; I’ve heard of it (can’t think why or where or when! HaHahaha ha…..and I have a PPE degree so I must be right) so that’s what it must be……….I can’t spell acryl, acryla, acrylal…must be acrylamide. Yes…..”

    So there you go. Babel in one easy lesson.

    The Booby-See won’t even get it right on its “science” progs either. “Pure Science, sheer drama” – MY TROUSERS!

  3. “The people who brief the people who write the press releases, give facts which are accurate.”

    Is Jim “Help! I’m being oppressed!” Hansen really being misquoted by ignorant press officers, or is he an actual scientist spewing biased, green propaganda? Is this latest campaign against acrylamide really the consequence of inaccurate PR, or is it the researchers themselves trying to stir up a ban? Nobody’s forcing these guys to do a statistically illiterate epidemiological study of roast potato consumption.

    And (note to self; never start a sentence with “and”) if it’s really the fault of the press offices and journalists, why aren’t the purportedly misquoted scientists complaining? I’m sorry David, but I think the scientists themselves are to blame. When a scientist does some research to “prove” some political point (greenhouse effect, salt is evil, passive smoking, war against obesity, what have you) they know exactly what they’re doing and are responsible, and if other scientists won’t speak up, what hope is there for us out here who are the victims of these endless authoritarian campaigns?

  4. There is no hope, Ian. A Dark Age is coming; I am sadly sure of it. Go build a library of what you value, and lock it up well.

  5. There is hope. There always is. We defeated the Union of Church and State, when both had an omniscient, omnipotent “God” on their side.

    “… seen as the result of human endeavour, of human dreams,
    hopes, passions, and most of all, as the result of the most
    admirable union of creative imagination and rational critical
    thought, I should like to write ‘Science’ with the biggest capital
    ‘S’ to be found in the printer’s upper case.

    Science is not only like art and literature, an adventure of the human
    spirit, but it is among the creative arts perhaps the most human:
    full of human failings and shortsightedness, it shows those
    flashes of insight which open our eyes to the wonders of the world
    and of the human spirit. But this is not all. Science is the
    direct result of that most human of all human endeavours – to
    liberate ourselves. It is part of our endeavour to see more
    clearly, to understand the world and ourselves, and to act as
    adult, responsible and enlightened beings.

    ‘Enlightenment’, Kant wrote, ‘is the emancipation of man from
    self-imposed tutelage . . . from a state of incapacity to use
    his own intelligence without external guidance. Such a state
    of tutelage I call “self-imposed” if it is due not to any lack
    of intelligence but the lack of courage or determination to use
    one’s own intelligence instead of relying upon a leader.
    *Sapere Aude!* Dare to use your own intelligence! This is the
    maxim of the Enlightenment.’ [ref. 6, Immanuel Kant, 'Was ist
    Aufklarung?']

    Kant challenges us to use our intelligence instead of relying upon a
    leader, upon an authority. This should be taken as a challenge to
    reject even the scientific expert as a leader, or even *science
    itself* Science has no authority. It is not the magical product
    of the given, the data, the observations. It is not a gospel of
    truth. It is the result of our own endeavours and mistakes. It is
    you and I who make science, as well as we can. It is you and I who
    are responsible for it…

    The nuclear bomb (and possibly also the so-called ‘peaceful use of
    atomic energy’ whose consequences may be even worse in the long
    run) have, I think, shown us the shallowness of the worship of
    science as an ‘instrument’ of our ‘command over nature’ or the
    ‘control of our physical environment’: it has shown us that this
    command, this control, is apt to be self-defeating, and apt to
    enslave us rather than to make us free – if it does not do away
    with us altogether.

    And while knowledge is worth dying for, power is not. (Knowledge
    is one of the few things that are worth dying for, together with
    liberty, love, kindness, and helping those who are in need of help).”

    by Karl R. Popper

    from “Realism and the Aim of Science”

    Volume I of “The Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery”

    Edited by William Warren Bartley, III, Senior Fellow, the Hoover
    Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford.

    Publ. Hutchinson, 1983, pb. 1985

    Copyright Karl Raimund Popper 1956, 1983

    Sir Karl Popper, F. R. S., held fourteen honorary Doctorates from
    American, British, German, Austrian, New Zealand and Canadian
    universites.

    He was a member (or honorary member) of twelve academies, among them
    the three oldest that still exist.

    Works of his have been translated into over 30 languages.

    But Sir Karl was never impressed by ‘great reputations’, least of
    all his own…

    ——————- * * * * * —————

    Regards,

    Tony