This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Animals and 6-Month-Old Infants Are Getting Fatter … Which Mean that It’s Something In the Environment
We’ve extensively documented that toxic chemicals in our food, water and air our causing an epidemic of obesity … even in 6 month old infants.
No matter how lazy and gluttonous adults may have become recently, 6-month-olds can’t be lazy … they can’t even walk, let alone go to the gym.
And 6-month-olds can’t “binge” … Gerber doesn’t make corn dogs or milk chocolate truffles with rum.
The same thing is being observed in animals … hardly your stereotypical couch potatoes.
Specifically, the Proceeding of the Royal Society published a scientific paper in 2010 showing that animals – as well as humans – are getting hit with more obesity:
‘Like humans, domestic animals and fish and other wildlife are exposed to contaminants in air, soil, water, and food, and they can suffer acute and chronic health effects from such exposures. Animal sentinel systems—systems in which data on animals exposed to contaminants in the environment are regularly and systematically collected and analyzed—can be used to identify potential health hazards to other animals or humans.’
National Academy of Sciences (1991, p. 1).
***
From 24 distinct populations (12 subdivided into separate male and female populations), representing eight species (see §2 for inclusion criteria), over 20 000 animals were studied. Time trends for mean per cent weight change and the odds of obesity (see the electronic supplementary material for definition) were tested for the samples from each population at an age period that corresponded roughly to early-middle adulthood (35 years) in human development (see the electronic supplementary material for calculation) because on a per cent basis, in United States adults, 30–39 years is the decade of human life in which obesity has increased at least as much as any age interval during the last several decades (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/overweight.pdf).
The animals came from a variety of different settings and environments, which reduces the possibility that all of the animals were lazy or more gluttonous than normal:
Macaques—Wisconsin. Our sample consisted of 65 (23 males, 42 females) rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta—Indian origin) from the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC) measured between 1971 and 2006.
Macaques—Oregon. Our sample consisted of 46 (14 males, 32 females) rhesus macaques (Macaca Mulatta—Indian strain) from the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONRPC), measured between 1981 and 1993.
Macaques—California. Our sample consisted of 77 (30 males, 47 females) rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), primarily of Indian origin from the CNPRC (California National Primate Research Center), measured between 1979 and 1992.Chimpanzees. Our sample consisted of 46 (16 males, 30 females) chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) that had been born and lived their entire lives at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center (YNPRC). These animals were measured between the years 1985–2005.Vervets. Our sample included a total of 117 (36 males, 81 females) vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops sabaeus) living in 18 captive social groups at the UCLA-VA Vervet Research Colony, measured between the years 1990 and 2006.Marmosets. Our sample included a total of 143 (65 males, 78 females) common marmosets (Callitrichix jacchus jacchus) from the WNPRC, measured between the years 1991 and 2006.Mice and rats (laboratory). Our sample consisted of animals from 106 rat and 93 mouse studies. There was some variation in sample size between studies. For both rats and mice, the majority of studies had sample sizes of 60 males and 60 females. However, some studies had fewer (i.e. 50, 49, etc.) or more (i.e. 70) animals. In calculating our sample size, we decided to use a conservative estimate of 50 animals per study. Body weights for only untreated control mice and rats used in National Toxicology Programme (NTP) studies between the years of 1982 and 2005 were analysed.Domestic dogs and cats. Our sample of dogs included a total of 2806 (1366 males, 1440 females) animals measured between the years of 1990 and 2002. Our sample of cats included a total of 574 (265 males, 309 females) animals, measured between the years of 1989 to 2001.Feral rats. Our sample consisted of 6115 (2886 males, 3229 females) wild Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) that were captured in the central alleys of high-density residential neighbourhoods using single-capture live traps, while rural rat populations were sampled from parklands and agricultural areas in areas surrounding the city [12,13], between the years 1948 and 2006.
The results showed across-the-board increases in obesity:
For per cent weight change, 24 out of 24 time trends were positive (i.e. increasing). The probability of all out of 24 independent trend estimates being in the same direction by chance is 1.2 × 10−7. For the odds of obesity, 23 out of 24 cases were positive (p = 3.0 × 10−6; table 1 and figure 1). When we combine males and females of each species into a single analysis, we find that in all 12 populations, per cent weight change and odds of obesity time trends were positive (p = 4.9 × 10−5, for 12 out of 12 in the same direction). Given these overwhelmingly significant results at the ensemble or meta-analytical level, we describe the results below for samples from each individual population focusing on the magnitude of the coefficients. Standard errors, confidence intervals and p-values are shown in table 1 and figure 1.
The study concluded that animals are gaining weight, even though they are not subject to the same factors normally blamed for the human obesity epidemic:
Our findings reveal that large and sustained population increases in body weights can occur in mammalian populations, just as they have occurred among human populations, even in the absence of those factors that are typically conceived of as the primary determinants of the human obesity epidemic via their influence on diet (e.g. access to vending machines) and physical activity (e.g. less physical education classes in schools). Though results were not statistically significant in every population (11 out of 24 are statistically significant for per cent increase in weight per decade, and 7 out of 24 are statistically significant for odds of obesity), viewed as an ensemble, the fact that nearly all independent time-trend coefficients were in the positive direction for both weight gain and for the odds of obesity, is overwhelmingly statistically significant.
That large population level changes in body weight distributions of mammalian populations can occur even when those populations are neither under obvious selection by predation nor are living with or among humans has been documented [15]. The particular upward trend we have observed towards obesity in multiple datasets of non-human animals has been suggested by anecdotal evidence for some time. A 2008 news report indicated that ‘trends in pet insurance are mirroring human healthcare. Obesity… is a growing problem for dogs and cats… (and 2007) saw a 19 per cent increase in claims related to obesity’ (http://www.petfirsthealthcare.com/2008/02/07/petfirst-pet-insurance-to-be-more-popular-in-2008/). According to a recent review by German [16], ‘Most investigators agree that, as in humans, the incidence of obesity in the pet population is increasing’. Despite this strong sentiment that obesity rates are increasing in pets (note that the United States Food and Drug Administration recently approved the first drug to treat obesity in dogs; Food and Drug Administration, 2007), we were unable to find previously published data actually showing this increase.
Others reported that 19 per cent of horses in a large cohort were obese, even among largely pasture-fed animals. Although a direct comparison with a similarly sampled earlier cohort was not available, the investigators remarked that the levels were higher than a 5 per cent rate observed in an earlier study [17]. Similarly, an increase in body weights was observed among rats used in carcinogenicity studies in France between 1979 and 1991, despite similar husbandry conditions [18]. The authors attributed the increase to the introduction of animals of the same substrain but raised under specific pathogen-free conditions, reinforcing the perspective that the presence of viral or other microbial pathogens [19,20] may affect body weight in populations either positively or negatively, depending on the pathogen. It is also noteworthy that the obesity epidemic has also occurred among children of six months of age and under [21], an age group for which explanations involving food marketing, less physical education is schools, and more labour-saving devices seem questionable.
The authors raise numerous possible explanations, including hormone-disrupting chemicals:
One set of putative contributors to the human obesity epidemic is the collection of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (endocrine-disruptors), widely present in the environment [24].
Exactly.
»
- advertisements -
tmose, i am usually on your side, but on this one i am not. i know for a fact that what monsanto has been doing to the food on this planet is highly toxic, and the effects on sentient life on this planet is happening on many subtle levels.
round-up is cytotoxic, it kills all cells... especially the ones that replicate quickly so it kills your sperm too... and they say GMO issues are controversial, yeah they might be if they didn't GMO them for a REASON like spraying them with massive amounts of a known poison... it's a common but illegal practice in wheat farming to kill it with round up right before harvest because no one will see and it makes things easier... that and all the fungicides in bread not to mention the gluten and other additives that are more prevalent in the "healthy" varieties..
See here? This is the problem that most people in this thread have. You have conflated literally thousands of different issues into one monolithic argument/assertion (artificial==poison, therefore WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!@!@!).
Roundup is NOT an endocrine disruptor. Roundup does NOT make you fat. If it is cytotoxic as you assert, then it will make you LOSE weight because it is by definition KILLING your cells.
You people see something that you think of as an "ARTIFICIAL CHEMICAL" and you think they are all the same, and have the same effect, which is ignorant to the state of hysteria. Multiply that by the number of people in this thread, and you get mass hysteria.
You're telling us it's not an endocrine disruptor...and implying it's safe?
http://www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/page4.html
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DMPGR.php
http://www.naturalnews.com/033772_Monsanto_Roundup.html
http://www.safelawns.org/blog/index.php/2011/02/roundup-the-hidden-factors-of-a-lethal-poison/
diluted 450 fold and it's still toxic to DNA
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/02/17/research-roundup-diluted-by-450-fold-is-still-toxic-to-dna/
http://www.1hope.org/glyphos8.htm
OUTSIDE OF ALL THE TOXICITY, LIES, AND GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION, ROUNDUP IS PART OF MONSANTO'S PLAN TO CONTROL THE MARKETPLACE
Roundup has had temendous effects on the productivity and toxicity of our crops. In fact the "roundup ready crops" are registered as pesticides. THey have required more pesticide than before. That should give you pause in and of itself.
Tell the truth. You were a thalidomide baby.
A very simple google of "roundup endocrine disruptor" will reveal things like this
http://www.barnstablecounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gasnier-toxicology-elsevier-262-184-191-glyphostae-ed-human-cell-lines2.pdf
My fuck... do you live a bubble that filters out facts?
ive been eating fucking steak and egg sandwiches with that pink slime. Delicious.
"fucking steak" eh? might want to copyright that sharpish, make you a fortune. . .
we are all animals, some more obese than others
Animal bodies,
primarilly animal emotional brains/perceptions/behaviours,
with a [very recent as such things go] thinking brain glued lightly on top (as needed for the typically supeficial, biased, self serving PR function).
For our current level of [arrested] psychological evolution, contemporary socialized humans are more mammals than, well, humans.
They do seem to wax a bit ungulate in the line at the drive-through.
Long " TABLE MUSCLE", on the CBOE!
So...
Whats Monsanto been up to lately...???
Stay away from canned foods unless the company certifies their lining boa free.......Do not give your children plastic bottles to drink from.....always better to go glass or stainless steel......
But what plastics Kitco? Whe know BOA types are bad, but are polyproplyene or terepthalate based plastcis just as bad? We can't classify all plastics as bad, as plastic is a engineering term, not a chemical one.
All I'm saying is we can't eliminate all plastics from use.
"All I'm saying is we can't eliminate all plastics from use."
Why?
Are you actually going to defend phthalates, because if so, you have a huge fight on your hands.
Plastics is not an engineering term, it is a biological term, and we are almost completely ignorant of what these plastics do to life.
Yeah, lets not lump polypropylene in the negative there.
GW, you're beating the point you originally had. Which was: A mix of various cultural changes (including lack of exercise and current food contents) PLUS chemicals create the society-wide fatness problem.
In your first article on the topic, despite an obviously biased headline, you stayed someway balanced in the contents of your article.
Now (after some backlash and/or encouragement) you went for saying "fuck you" to a balanced approach, and are resorting on blaming a single influence on everything.... thus getting you into malicious false-dichtomy land.
See, i'm sympathetic to that exercise should not be the primary cause of obesity, if only because i do not subscribe to the "slav-.... sorry work makes free!"-doctrine... and think that any actual improvement in lifestyle of people includes getting more niceties with less relative work involved. AND YET, i am not ignorant enough to not see that people in the "1st world" (soon, 2nd world... or are we there already?) because of tech progress and cultural lifestyle getting less excercise (and i consider this more serious, than the choice of food. In some countries, people in the 20th century took in ridiculous amounts of energy, yet also spent a high amount of energy... without getting overly fat).
And at the same time, i agree that food production methodologies, as well as environmental aspects, may play a factor. But i would not go as "full retard" as blaming ONE OF BOTH as the only and sole reason for the change we see.
Here's my naive "what-if" utopian idea: What if we got rid of the financial parasites, produced healthy food at affordable prices.... and invented culturally popular sportsgames (yes, even OVER THE NET) that promote excercise? Example for the later? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEgxcHlsSek (yes, i seriously want one of those things!!!!)
Oh dear, i'm getting too purely reasonable.... bit like some kind of self-overestimation according the posting-ruleset on ZH. Should spend more effort on creating posts, that first get ZH-sheeple symphathy, and then add actual intellectually interesting arguments on top of that... as happened in apparently those posts of me that got the most upvotes (i seriously should not analyze this popular ZH-voting pattern further, else i may get more backlash!)
Or maybe, i'll in the future will just say FUCK YOU, to those ideogically challanged morons, that can only decide about the value of a post, by filtering it by keywords, and making bipolar decisions on it. Actually, that's not a "maybe" - i'll do just that, "pseudo-alternative" zombies.
As a reminder: Here is the conclusion i got junked for: Produce healthy affordable foods, AND promote cultural games that promote exercise. What fucking frotal-lobe amputated ideological retard junks this? FUCK YOU SCUM!
So what do you say about the babies and the feral rats?
I didn't junk you, but I think you're cherry-picking data to support your thesis instead of examining the evidence and formulating a hypothesis that could conceivably explain the evidence.
Why do you give a fuck? Your posts are more interesting, more informative and certainly more genuine the less you care.
Don't pacify anyone, challenge them. You already do that well. And so what if I decide to drop your idea like a bad habit.
This is fight club. And if we can't hash this shit out amongst US, then HOW IN THE FUCK are we ever........................
Good point :)
Wish i had to say more, but i guess, i really was just frustrated with some idiots, instead of being concerned with "evolution" and "self-improvement" of individuals interested in doing so.
What I meant to communicate to you is that many of your posts are forward thinking, future visions. In some ways, 'cutting edge' even to zh. We've been bombarded with New Millenia Bush and Change We Can Believe In to the point where the past often seems proven, and safer.
An infinite growth model on a finite planet means EVENTUALLY something HAS to change. You skirt this issue often, with a solid vision of the future, and what it may resemble, and HOW you believe it could work. This will not fly with everyone here. And it won't EVER get consensus support like a good BAC drubbing will.
But this place needs a segment of its base that actually goes there... deeper into the future. But don't expect a discussion about labor in conflict with technology ever to rest well with someone who frets 'if only the bitches didn't take our jobs.' Imagining a society free of usary, better yet free of money, is a worthy discussion, but it won't make comments rain green. SO WHAT.
Lastly, just like our muppet brethren zombies living large all matrixed up, we too don't want to have to think TOO HARD. I don't come in here on days when I'm looking for a day off and a good laugh thinking, 'why don't I read me some Rynak.' And that's a good thing.
I like more shit you write than I don't. nuff said.
I didn't actually expect anyone to call my posts "forwards looking" instead of "reflecing the current".... mainly because, i rarely post any (from my egocentric POV) forwards looking posts on ZH. What i post on ZH mainly is just "current" in my mind. Ultimately, i really don't feel that "familiar" on ZH regading the comm, but more familiar than elsewhere.
Typical result is me posting quite selectively.
For example, in the big picture, i never (IIRC) addressed universal global ressource maths (while you hinted at them).
For some reason, despite of the existence of ZH, i'd rather engage in existing private comms, than writing a post. Meaning: ZH certainly is more close to me than i.e. the MSM. Yet, for "fresh" ideas, i'd rather discuss with established friends, than starting a ZH-post.
Ok see now ure just being a pussy.
There are plenty of people around here that want to have this discussion, and some just wishing to observe the discussion. That's where YOU come in. Quickly you indirectly challenge someone's vision of economic and social harmony (sometimes just cuz HE AIN'T NEVER HEARD OF IT) over a longer term, and then the rest is zh history. We get to take it all in. You go until you can't takes it no'mo (this ain't the first rodeo you bitched about red arrows) and then EVERYONE loses.
There's no shame in testing the limits of what we thought were our choices. Basically the same thing we beg zombies to do.
So in short you need to grow a sack. Realize that there are some on here who want the read. I've had these chats already (won't name names, YOU understand)
Bring it. Holla me on that new zh tracking collar when you feel like lettin' it all out.
Pure speculation: you got junked just for writing a long-winded. blathering critique of the article...
See Rynak, now that shit was 75% funny, 25% personal. Deserves 50 greens just cuz.
speaking of the environment
where is Tim Knight, he has not put up a bost recently
So what's for supper?
Purina human chow now with more endocrine disrupters and phatacin our secret ingredeint that will make even the most obese beg for more.
Try regular flavor or new Elvis style peanut butter on bacon.
The perfect cage is one you won't leave even when the doors left open. The perfect trap is one you want to hold you.
Beware desire, she seduces and abandons all alike.
Soup from a BPA lined can, beef with hormones and antibiotics, chicken with arsenic, dessert with HFCS, GMO corn, Spam with a Omega6 to Omega 3 ratio of 13, diet coke with aspartame, milk and cheese with BGH and frozen pizza with MSG.
If you are not fat by Friday, you will be by Saturday. And diabetic by December.
Sorry forgot the most potent diabetes inducing agent - trans fats. Just a 2% increase in energy from trans fats was associated with a 39% increase in diabetes risk. That stuff is toxic.
http://www.bantransfats.com/diabetes.html
So it's not Mickey D's?
Thanks for throwin in the GMO corn...I was begining to think I walked into some vegan ritual or sumpin ;-)
It was tomato soup in the BPA lined can - did not want to leave out the vegans. And I can throw in apples and pesticides.
"The Environmental Working Group says apples top its "Dirty Dozen" list of fruits and vegetables with the highest amounts of pesticides. "We found that nearly every apple sampled, 98 per cent, had pesticide residues," says Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst. "This is an accumulation of 48 different pesticides."
Others named the worst of the worst: celery, strawberries, peaches and spinach. "These are foods that when you buy them conventionally, more than 90 per cent of samples have detectable pesticide residues," Lunder says."
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-20070839.html
I have two apple trees, two pear trees, a fig tree and three blueberry bushes in my back yard...all nmewn certified pesticide free...lol. I know what your sayin.
I suppose the GW food threads are meant more for the concrete jungle dwellers as opposed to "the" jungle dwellers so I guess I should abstain.
But I do find it amusing that most people in those jungles could leave and not be preyed upon if they wanted.
I did.
Sometimes illusions are difficult to escape. we are printed with a false map of the world and lose our way so easy.
A treadmill seemed so easy as a young man, yet becomes a death march for the old.
Very true.
Some people want all the modern conviences close to hand, yet recoil in horror when they step back and look at it all in the whole. The paradox of wondering openly why people behave like lab rats when forced to do what the lab tech has taught them to do.
Get on the train because now it's all you can afford. Get off the train, pick up your coffee & egg-a-muffin. Get into work five minutes late. Watch the clock till break time. More coffee. Back to work, check Facebook & ESPN, watch the clock till lunchtime.
It's a wonderful life ;-)
well said
Amen.
George, I think part of the problem may be that Tits are so damned nice looking these days that we can't get the little tykes to quit sucking !!!
Do you meant they are big and fat tits? Check the size of some of them in your local Wal-Mart isle - on both the men and women: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RzcvFLPg1A
I am a small tit guy myself, meaing I prefer them on women. I am not commenting on the size of my own.
Chemtrails..who knows what the hell they're dropping on us, probably thrown out minced up watered down pink slime Macdonalds burgers..
More nonsense. You might note that a lot of domesticated or captive animals are pure natural carnivores. The pet food companies in an attempt to save money and to appeal the anthromorphic feelings of thier owners feed them a mix of meat and grains (i.e., carbohydrates) . See here: http://www.zooplus.co.uk/shop/cats/dry_cat_food/purina_pro_plan. Cats are not designed to eat rice, or any grains for goodness sake. And this is supposed to be the really good cat food. One can only guess what is in the bargain cat food from China via Walmart. See here about the effect of grains on humans: http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-Health/dp/1609611543
All the animals listed are not of course pure carnivores, but you might want to ask about the nutrient content of their food before you go blaming their obesity on the evil chemicals and pollutants they are eating. I suggest that the answer will be that they are eating things far different than they ate in their natural environments and that that is a much more likely hypotheis to explain your data than the scary chemicals. For example I would bet that you find that grazing animals like horses are often fed oats and corn. Whether they eat GMO corn or not evolution did not prepare any animals to eat the hybridized mono culture grain know today as corn. That substance simply did not exist in anythng like its current form 300 years ago. Horses and other grazing animals are designed to eat wild grasses period. They likely feed zoo and laboratory animals the same stuff. Rats like us can eat just about anything (like us it helps with one's survival) but different foods still have different obesity affects.
....as for the babies. I suggest you check their intake of high fructose "corn" syrup that you will find in just about everything they and their parents eat and live on. There are those pesky grains again. HFC is of course another man made sugar food that the human body was not designed to process. It wreaks havoc on human metabolism, the liver in particular. For all the details I recommend this UCSF medical school pediatric professor for all you would ever want to know about the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Yes, US Education is really that bad these days.... "another man made sugar food"??.. HFC is 55% fructose and 42% glucose. Regular table sugar is 50% fructose and 50% glucose, by the way. It is also not a "man made" sugar, and will only "wreak havoc" on your liver if you eat too many sugars in general, which every study indicates is the core problem.. Also, its type is rather pointless when you consider that once it hits your stomach, it is denatured back into fructose and glucose anyway.
Also, "corn" syrup is just glucose... HFC is enzymatically processed glucose to raise the fructose (aka sugars in fruits) levels. The reason for the 55% is because they found that this ratio is perceived by your taste buds as being sweeter than regular table sugar.
Yeah. You might also try a little browsing on www.mercola.com. This stuff is all well documented.
Obesity in 6 month olds is clearly due to the amino acid concentrations in bottle feeding parents. You can always tell a bottle fed baby over a natural nursing baby just by the size of them. Harvard Med did a study recently on that very subject. Secondly I would agree with the fact that chemicals in our enviornment are a large factor as is the fact that perhaps more animals are eating these man made chemicals.
What the wars don't accomplish, the chemicals will. The goal of the NWO is to depopulate the planet by 2/3; Agenda 21, Monsanto, etc..Don't forget the disinformation (or lack of reportage) on Fukushima. Millions have died from Chernobyl; Fukushima is 1000x worse.
Chemtrails.
Might be the reason airlines keep on flying after losing money year over year.
*nods* subsidies, covert.
easyjet in euroland has a few vids worth viewing. the cheap 'n' easy flight companies, seems plausible.