I agree.

One issue I see is the marketing that goes with labeling and the misinformation.

I would like to see MORE labeling but the wording and the assumptions made, never mind the loops holes and tricks are the issue.


Example some of the sugar alternatives say they have no sugar when in fact they DO have sugar in them.

GRAS ingredients also are not on labels and they are pretty nasty and scary.

They use words like Lite - when they may have litened the package coloring.

See raw to me says good.
Raw to many people says bad.

Irradiation to me says I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Irradiation to others says safe for me.

Information is good but its only interpreted through other information.

I can show a client in seconds how irradiated food or processed food will literally make them weaker instantly. Their body will actually go weaker!

"The body cannot lie"

I listen to the body over what any experts say, regardless if they are 'independant' or in the pockets of huge mega industries.

I'll take in the info and consider the evidence but experience and the individual will tell you the truth for them - at least this is my experience.

Point is I can find ten studies that say one thing and ten that say the opposite.

Studies and evidence is important but there is so much bias. Infact quantum physics shows that the intention of the outcome effects the outcome. Never mind we find what we are looking for on other levels as we can only look through our own filters and belief systems.