Some food consumers prefer to eat hormone-free meats. Many consumers are confused about the use of hormones in livestock and poultry production, and about their safety. To the surprise of many, no meat is hormone-free. Animals naturally produce hormones. So, the meat you are eating may have "no added hormone," but it does contain hormone(s).
Another surprise to many, is that Federal law prohibits the use of hormones in poultry production.
USDA does not permit the use of hormones in poultry production. Therefore, the label "no hormones added" cannot be used on the labels of poultry unless it is followed by a statement that says "'Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones." USDA does not allow a "hormone-free" label
. Why are chickens getting so much bigger? Due to advances in breeding, animal nutrition and animal care. Just as apple farmers aim to plant trees that will produce the most fruit, chicken producers also aim to breed chickens that yield the most meat.
You have been bamboozled if you believe the meat you are eating is hormone free. You have been bamboozled, again, if you believe consuming meat with the label "no-hormones added" is inherently indicative of a more nutritious or healthier choice.
Generally, emotion helps us remember (Reisberg, 2010).Emotional events activate the amygdala, and
various studies, show the amygdala (region of brain that coordinates autonomic
and endocrine responses in conjunction with emotional states) plays a key role
in enhancing explicit memory (conscious, declarative) for both pleasant and
unpleasant emotional stimuli through modulation of encoding and consolidation
processes (Hamman, 2001).In addition
to activation of the amygdala, emotional events are likely to be important to
us, which leads to enhanced focused attention, thus facilitating memory.Moreover, we often think about emotional
events hours, days or weeks after they occur.This type of memory rehearsal may lead to increased memory connections,
enhancing the likelihood of retrieval.
Genes and Memory
Eric Kandel, Nobel Laureate, suggests another means in which
emotional events may contribute to enhanced and efficient memory.Generally, repetition is required for the formation
of long-term memory.However, a highly
emotional event, such as a life-threatening situation, could bypass the normal
limits on long-term memory (Kandel, 2006).
“In such a situation, enough MAP kinase molecules would be
sent into the nucleus rapidly enough to inactivate CREB-2 molecules, thereby
making it easy for protein Kinase [enzyme that adds a phosphate group to
proteins, which activates some proteins and inactivates others] A to activate
CREB-1 and put the experience directly into long-term memory.”
(Kandel, 2006, pp. 264-265)
The extraordinary memory shown by some people may be due to
genetic differences in CREB-2 that limit the activity of this repressor protein
in relation to CREB-1.CREB-1 is a
protein that activates expression of CREB – a gene that initiates protein
synthesis that is essential for the storage of long-term memory.CREB-2 is a protein that suppresses the
expression of CREB.Other genes as well
as CREB have been found to influence memory (Kandel, 2006).Kandel’s work has been mostly focused on
CREB- dependent gene expression.
“[O] ther transcription factors, such as SRF, c-fos, EGR-1
or NF-κB are also likely to contribute to the transcriptional regulation that
accompanies long-lasting forms of synaptic plasticity for different forms of
learning in different animal species.” (Kandel, 2012, 14)
CREB-1 and CREB-2 may be involved in age related memory
loss.Aging may represent a weakening
of the ability to activate CREB-1, but also a weakening of the signals needed
to stop the action of CREB-2.
When I first watched the video below I assumed that Jill
Price may have some abnormalities in gene expression
The Woman Who Could Not Forget
An article featured in Wire paints a different
picture of Jill’s superb memory.
Do you believe smurfs exist?If not, why not?So..can you prove they do not exist?
Do you believe there are talking bears in Alaska?There have been numerous eye-witness accounts
of these bears speaking with each other in the wilderness of Alaska. The
eyewitnesses who have reported seeing these bears are honest, intelligent, hard working
citizens.Why would they lie?
You probably think that asking whether or not one believes
in smurfs or talking bears is absurd.There
isn’t a shred of evidence for either. However,
ask yourself if you can prove there are no smurfs or talking bears?You cannot prove they do not exist.Knowing what you know about the natural world
(thanks to scientific processes) you know it is very unlikely that either
smurfsor talking bears exist.What if someone whom you respect and trust
tells you they have seen smurfs, or they just have a feeling that they exist- They
Know They Are Real ?
What about the extremely evasive Immaterial Soul or
as it is sometimes referred the Immaterial Mind?Many people believe the soul is very real,
even though there isn’t an angstrom (one hundred- millionth of a centimeter) of
evidence that it exists.
"My fundamental premise about the brain is that its
workings- what we sometimes call “mind”- are a consequence of its anatomy and
physiology, and nothing more.“Mind” may
be a consequence of the action of the components of the brain severally or
collectively.Some processes may be a
function the brain as a whole."
Carl Sagan
"… mind and brain are inseparable.The brain is a complex biological organ of
great computational capability that constructs our sensory experiences,
regulates our thoughts and emotions, and controls our actions.The brain is responsible not only for
relatively simple motor behaviors, such as running and eating, but also for
complex acts that we consider quintessentially human, such as thinking,
speaking, and creating works of art.Looked at from this perspective, mind is a set of operations carried out
by the brain, much as walking is a set of operations carried out by the legs,
except dramatically more complex."
Eric Kandel, Nobel Laureate
History of the Soul: Brief
Plato, who repudiated observations and experiments
believed the only reason that we can think about ourselves and our mortal body
is that we have an immaterial, immortal soul.Subsequently, in the thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas incorporated the
soul into Christian thought.Aquinas and
later religious thinkers believed that the soul is of divine nature.In the
seventeenth century, Rene Descartes constructed the idea that humans have a
dual nature: they have a body made up of material substance, anda mind, which originates from the spiritual
nature of the soul.Gilbert Ryle (Philosopher
of Science) referred to the soul as “the ghost in the machine.”
Is all natural food and medicine safer, and more effective? Should we stick to all-natural products when possible? The belief that all natural is inherently better reflects Epistemic Irrationality.
Would you be surprised to learn that the world’s most dangerous toxins are all natural? They include ricin, abrin, botulinum, and strychnine—highly evolved chemical weapons used by organisms for self-defense and territorial expansion. Indeed, every plant and microbe carries a variety of mostly uncharacterized, more or less toxic attack chemicals, and synthetic chemicals are no more likely to be toxic than natural ones. (Silver, 2006)
The Preference for “Natural” By Jamie Hale
It will probably come as no surprise that many Americans prefer “natural” to “artificial” when it comes to food and medicine. Even when the two are chemically identical and show no difference in their effectiveness or safety rating, most people in the U.S. show preference for the natural product.
Read more
Organic Food: The Real Story! By Jamie Hale
Over the past two decades the sale of organic foods has increased annually nearly 20%. Today’s organic food system includes a combination of small and large food producers, local and global distribution networks, and a wide variety of products including processed foods, fruits, vegetables, meats and dairy (1). Recent food crises such as mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth disease may have decreased consumer confidence in conventional foods and swayed their buying tendencies to what they perceive as safer foods – Organic, All Natural Foods. In one survey the reasons people consumed organic foods were avoidance of pesticides (70%), freshness (68%), for health and nutrition (67%), and to avoid genetically modified foods (55%) (2). The majority of Organic Food Advocates I have spoken to eat organic foods because they feel organic foods are safer Read more
The ultimate goal of science is explaining cause and effect relationships. Only true experiments allow us to determine cause and effect relationships. However, even when using true experiments we can only suggest cause and effect relationships in terms of probability. Scientific information is not absolute and it is tentative in nature (subject to change).
True Experiment: A research method, using random assignment of participants to different groups, that allows researchers to determine cause and effect relationships through manipulation of a variable / variables and control of a situation.
So, in addition to describing and predicting phenomena in the observable universe only true experiments allow explanations of cause and effect relationships.
For Causation: Key implications
- Cause occurs before effect
- Cause present - effect more likely to occur
- Cause absent - effect less likely to occur
Confound: an uncontrolled extraneous variable or flaw in an experiment.
Confound is term often used when discussing research. There are a couple of key ways to reduce confounds when conducting true experiments:
- Randomly assign participants to groups so individual differences within groups average out
- Treat each group exactly the same except for the differences in the level of the independent variable
More evidence that we need to promote and teach Rational thinking. As Stanovich and others have pointed out there is a distinciton between Intelligence and Rationality. High levels of intelligence do not predict Rationality (across many tasks).
I finished collecting data earlier this week for my experimental study - Critical Thinking and Environmental Factors. The critical thinking tasks actually were a cover. The primary concern of the study was expectation and food liking.
In regards to the crit.. thinking tasks (3 tasks ) the performances were not good. No one correctly answered all three of the problems and many participants missed all three. The tasks used were similar to the ones often used by Stanovich and Kahneman.
It is important to recognize that different
expectations lead to different activations in the brain.From a neuroscientific perspective expecting
a future outcome involves several brain mechanisms aimed at preparing the body
for an up-coming future event (Benedetti, 2009; Scott, Stohler, Egnatuk, Wang,
Koeppe, & Zubieta, 2007).As an
example, the expectation of a future positive outcome may lessen anxiety and /
or activate brain circuits that are involved with reward mechanisms. The reward
mechanisms are mediated by specific neuronal circuits that link motor,
cognitive, and emotional responses.These mechanisms are typically studied in the context of natural
rewards.However, a negative
expectation may lead to increases in anxiety, and activation of brain areas
involved with negative experiences.It
follows, that different expectations related to food may lead to different
brain activity, thus affecting outcomes (responses / reactions).
Scott et al. (2007) examined the role of the nucleus
accumbens (NAC), a region of the brain involved with reward expectation, in the
formation of expectancy effects (placebo effects).Using functional molecular imaging,
activation of NAC dopamine (DA) release was observed during placebo
administration and related to its anticipated effects and placebo effect
development. In additional functional MRI studies, the expectation of monetary
gain increased NAC synaptic activity proportional to placebo- induced DA
release.This
research demonstrates strong support for the magnitude of expectation in
relation to brain reward mechanisms.
Volkow et al. (2003) investigated
how expectation affects the response to
the stimulant drug methylphenidate in 25 cocaine abusers. The effects of the
drug on brain glucose metabolism and on its reinforcing effects (self-reports
of drug effects) were evaluated in four conditions: (1) expecting placebo and
receiving placebo; (2) expecting placebo and receiving the drug; (3) expecting
the drugand receiving the drug
methylphenidate; (4) expecting the drug and receiving placebo.The results indicated increases in metabolism
were 50% larger when methylphenidate was expected than when it was not.These differences were significant in
cerebellum (vermis) and thalamus. In contrast, unexpected methylphenidate
showed larger increases in left lateral orbitofrontal cortex than when it was
expected.Drug-induced increases in
self-reports of being high were also 50% greater when subjects expected to receive
it than when they did not.Self-reports
of being high were significantly correlated with the metabolic increases in
thalamus but not in cerebellum.A key
finding in this study is that expectation heightens the effects of
methylphenidate in the brain and its reinforcing effects.
An event-related fMRI study was
used to measure the effects of cognitive (semantic) priming on the neural
responses to a delivery of odors (de Araujo, Rolls, Velazco, Margot, Cayeux,
2005).Odors were presented with descriptors
on a screen.A test odor was labeled on
different trials as “cheddar cheese” or “body odor.”The same labels were paired with delivery of
clean air in different trials.Alpha-ionone (pleasant, labeled “flowers”) and Octanol (unpleasant,
labeled “burned plastic”) were used as references for pleasant and unpleasant
stimuli for the psychophysics and neuroimaging.The participants rated the test odor as significantly more unpleasant
when labeled “body odor” than when labeled “cheddar cheese.”The fMRI showed that the rostral anterior
cingulate cortex / medial orbitofrontal cortex was significantly more activated
by the test stimulus and by clean air when labeled “cheddar cheese” than when
labeled “body odor.”Recent
neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that pleasant odors preferentially
activate medial orbitofrontal regions, while unpleasant odors activate lateral
regions.The findings of this study
suggest expectation of odor may have an influence on flavor perception, as
smell is a key component involved with flavor perception.
Jamie Hale, MS., is an experimental researcher specializing in behavioral nutrition and cognitive science. He is a science writer, exercise and nutrition consultant, outdoor enthusiast, lecturer and founder of Knowledge Summit Research Group. He has conducted primary research in the areas of attention, memory and behavioral nutrition.
Jamie has written seven books and co-authored one. He writes about exercise, health, nutrition, psychology, common myths, outdoors, various scientific disciplines, and logic. He has contributed to numerous publications (national and international). He is a member of the World Martial Arts Hall of Fame (recognition of my strength and conditioning work with martial artists),member of Kentucky Association of Science Educators and Skeptics,and board member of Kentucky Council Against Health Fraud.
He provides freelance writing services, freelance research and conduct seminars. For more info contact Jamie at jamie.hale1@gmail.com
Posts
