# Need advice: storing pre soaked beans



## AnthonyJ (Mar 19, 2014)

I bought a 1 pound bag of black beans and I'm trying to decide if I wanna just pre soak the whole bag and save the extras or if I'm better off just soaking what I need for my meal and then saving the rest dry until next recipe. Also, if storing them after soaking, what are my storage options?


----------



## jennyema (Mar 19, 2014)

AnthonyJ said:


> I bought a 1 pound bag of black beans and I'm trying to decide if I wanna just pre soak the whole bag and save the extras or if I'm better off just soaking what I need for my meal and then saving the rest dry until next recipe. Also, if storing them after soaking, what are my storage options?


 
If you want to soak the whole bag I think you are better off cooking the whole thing and storing cooked beans.  They can be frozen.  Uncooked soaked beans that are drained and ziplocked last about 2-3 days in the fridge and then you need to cook them.

I'd soak and cook the whole bag or just soak and use the amount you need for your meal.


----------



## Oldvine (Mar 19, 2014)

I agree with jennyema.


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 19, 2014)

AnthonyJ said:


> I bought a 1 pound bag of black beans and I'm trying to decide if I wanna just pre soak the whole bag and save the extras or if I'm better off just soaking what I need for my meal and then saving the rest dry until next recipe. Also, if storing them after soaking, what are my storage options?


I wouldn't advise soaking all the beans and storing them uncooked as they won't keep well unless you freeze them, which somewhat defeats the object as they will take up valuable freezer space and defrosting time. The unsoaked dried beans will store well in a glass jar with a screw top lid (eg an old coffee jar) or in a Lock & Lock type plastic container. Make a note of the sell by/use by date as beans get hard and take longer to cook when they get old.

The better thing, if you want to soak the lot, is to soak and cook them. You can then freeze the ones you don't need, in useable amounts, for when you need want them. More economical than just cooking a few for one meal.

Some people on DC say you don't need to soak the beans before cooking but if you do it reduces the cooking time, and therefore the cost of cooking, by about 25%. There are two ways of soaking. Either overnight which is convenient or, if you forget, you can put them in a pan covered with 2-3 inches of water and boil for 2 minutes, then cover and leave to soak for an hour. 

Incidentally, some recipes sugest that you cook the beans in the soaking water. Don't. Throw away the soaking water and cook in fresh. This avoids the worst of the "anti-social" effects of bean eating, If you get my drift ;-)

Another thing we have argued about on DC in the past is the advice that salt should not be added until the beans are cooked as it hardens them. Personally I have found this to be correct but others dispute this.

It's important to remember that, like red kidney beans, black beans carry a toxin (Lectin, IIRC) They should always be boiled fast for 10 minutes when you first put them on to cook in order to destroy the toxicity. This is especially important if you are going to cook them in a slow cooker.

I know you didn't ask for all this extra advice but it sounded from your post that you might be a "bean virgin" so I thought I'd give you the benefit of my 40-odd years experience with cooking beans. I'll now sit back and wait for the ensuing arguments


----------



## Andy M. (Mar 19, 2014)

Soak and cook what you need and store the rest dry until you need them.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 19, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> Soak and cook what you need and store the rest dry until you need them.



My vote for the best way.


----------



## AnthonyJ (Mar 19, 2014)

Mad Cook said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Incidentally, some recipes sugest that you cook the beans in the soaking water. Don't. Throw away the soaking water and cook in fresh. This avoids the worst of the "anti-social" effects of bean eating, If you get my drift ;-)
> 
> ...



I appreciate all the helpful tips. I have pre-soaked the beans both the long and short way in the past. Most of the instructions I found on soaking did involve draining the soak water and giving the beans a rinse before cooking. I was just unaware of the storing process afterwords.

The salt is a non-issue. Between not really using much salt for anything since meeting and cooking for my ex (long story short, health freak and had EXTREMELY bland tastes when I met her just over 8 years ago, both part of a very long story) and having slightly elevated BP, I do try to stay away from salt, at least in the amounts I used to use it in.

Last note. I was unaware of the toxin, not that it comes as a surprise to me. I actually enjoy learning about all of the self defense mechanisms plants have. I will be giving them that 10 minute boil before fully cooking. I did manage to find a little more information regarding the toxin:



> All legumes, including black beans, contain a compound called phytohenagglutinin, which can be toxic in high amounts. This is a major concern with red kidney beans, which contain such high levels of this compound that the raw or undercooked beans may be toxic when consumed. However, the amount of phytohenagglutinin in black beans is typically much lower than the levels in kidney beans, and reports of toxicity have not been linked to this type of bean. If you still have concerns about phytohenagglutinin, cooking beans thoroughly breaks down the toxin and lowers the levels in the beans. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends boiling beans for a minimum of 10 minutes before consuming them. The FDA recommends against cooking dried beans in a slow cooker because these devices typically cook food at temperatures that do not break down phytohenagglutinin and may actually raise the levels of this toxin.



Hope that helps.


----------



## Andy M. (Mar 19, 2014)

AnthonyJ said:


> ...Last note. I was unaware of the toxin, not that it comes as a surprise to me. I actually enjoy learning about all of the self defense mechanisms plants have. I will be giving them that 10 minute boil before fully cooking...



You don't have to "...give them that 10 minute boil before fully cooking."  You're going to cook the beans for more than 10 minutes to make them edible.  That's all that's necessary.  Besides, black beans aren't really an issue because of their low levels of the toxin.


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 19, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> You don't have to "...give them that 10 minute boil before fully cooking." You're going to cook the beans for more than 10 minutes to make them edible. QUOTE]Be on the safe side. If I lived on your side of the pond I'd be inclined to listen to the FDA


----------



## AnthonyJ (Mar 20, 2014)

Mad Cook said:


> Andy M. said:
> 
> 
> > You don't have to "...give them that 10 minute boil before fully cooking." You're going to cook the beans for more than 10 minutes to make them edible.
> ...



Yes and no, Mad Cook. They can be trusted to an extent, but in the end, they are funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from. So there is a *slight* conflict of interests. Though they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently. 

Andy M, I was personally thinking of something more along the lines of the soak when doing the 10 minute boil. Get them boiling for 10 minutes and change out the water or whatever to finishing the cooking process. You are right in that there is less of the toxin in them and not in an amount that would really affect you. My feelings on it are simple. I already have aspartame poisoning and god only knows what else is going on in there with all the crap I ingest. As it stands, I'm already trying to cleanse/flush my body, so whatever I can avoid ingesting, I will.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 20, 2014)

AnthonyJ said:


> Yes and no, Mad Cook. They can be trusted to an extent, but in the end, they are funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from. So there is a *slight* conflict of interests. Though they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently.



Howzat? The FDA is a government agency, which means it's funded by all the taxpayers - that includes you and me, not just the food industry.


----------



## jennyema (Mar 20, 2014)

AnthonyJ said:


> Yes and no, Mad Cook. They can be trusted to an extent, but in the end, they are funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from. So there is a *slight* conflict of interests. Though they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently..


 

I also don't understand this comment.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 20, 2014)

AnthonyJ said:


> They [the FDA] can be trusted to an extent, but in the end, they are funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from. So there is a *slight* conflict of interests. Though they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently.



I agree with AnthonyJ on this issue and give it a 3+.

That being said, I'm very glad we DO have the FDA. It's better than NOT having an FDA for certain things. Be aware I'm not a conspiracist  but I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye.

I believe when AnthonyJ said* "they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently" *he may have been talking about the new labeling suggested by the FDA. And the fact that conflict of interest statements are mandatory now for articles written about food and drugs.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 20, 2014)

cave76 said:


> I agree with AnthonyJ on this issue and give it a 3+.
> 
> That being said, I'm very glad we DO have the FDA. It's better than NOT having an FDA for certain things. Be aware I'm not a conspiracist  but I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye.



You can believe what you want about the FDA's recommendations, but the idea that it's "funded by, essentially, the same people they are supposed to be protecting us from" is simply not a fact.



cave76 said:


> I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye..."



As have I. And I look for corroboration from university research. Different scientists from different institutions replicating another researcher's work and arriving at the same conclusions provides pretty reliable information, IMO.


----------



## AnthonyJ (Mar 24, 2014)

cave76 said:


> I agree with AnthonyJ on this issue and give it a 3+.
> 
> That being said, I'm very glad we DO have the FDA. It's better than NOT having an FDA for certain things. Be aware I'm not a conspiracist  but I have had to learn how to read articles from the FDA with a critical eye.
> 
> I believe when AnthonyJ said* "they seem to be leaning more toward our side more recently" *he may have been talking about the new labeling suggested by the FDA. And the fact that conflict of interest statements are mandatory now for articles written about food and drugs.



I would rather have one than not. The new labeling and finally catching up with the rest of the world on transfats is mainly what I was talking about. Now, I'm going to try to keep this as far from political as I can. ALL of the government gets money from big industries. ALL of it. From ALL of them. They will spend whatever money they need to in lobbying to protect their own interests. I.E. GMO food. They are so proud of what they have done, yet they aren't proud enough to label it and have spent as much money as they had to to keep from labeling their product. We can have a very long, very drawn out discussion with countless links as to the problems with the FDA as a whole, but I would rather not do that here. 

I try my best whenever I am on any forum or during any interaction with others to keep in mind the Irish pub rules: No religion, no politics. Everyone is free to believe what they wish to about whatever topic, I was merely stating that I have my reasons for only trusting them to an extent. 





GotGarlic said:


> I look for corroboration from university research. Different scientists from different institutions replicating another researcher's work and arriving at the same conclusions provides pretty reliable information, IMO.



There is an issue there as well. There was a university study done by Stanford that said there is no health benefit from eating organic vs "conventionally" grown. This is highly misleading because the study itself even admits:



> *There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food*; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.



and



> While researchers found that *organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables*, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides.



Now, I just read a scientific study done by the government, who just signed a bill into law that no one can sue Monsanto for food related illnesses...  that found that about 75% of *rain and air* samples contains TOXIC chemicals from RoundUp. No surprise that other information has found this: 



> The health effects of Roundup cannot be understated. Research has linked exposure to the pesticide to Parkinson’s disease and cancers. Laboratory rats that eat Monsanto’s GMO food get tumors and die faster than rats that eat other food. Most children in Argentina where Roundup is used in high concentrations have been found to be in poor health, with 80 percent showing signs of the toxins in their bloodstreams.
> 
> Read more: 75% Percent of Rain and Air Samples Contain Roundup Pesticide | Care2 Causes



So unfortunately, even the most organic farms will be contaminated with those toxic chemicals. The reason that all of the people I know who do choose organic food is not for "more nutrition." The argument for nutrition is nonsense, they all have about the same about of nutrients. The argument is for the LACK OF toxic chemicals. 

You have to do a lot of reading and research and even more critical thinking about the information you've read. The only thing left I have to say is, I am respectful of others choices to eat whichever they want and I only ask of the same respect in return. This is how I personally feel about my food. I am not trying to preach to anyone or convert anyone to eat this way and I am certainly NOT bashing anyone who eats differently from me.


----------



## CWS4322 (Mar 24, 2014)

According to a search on the 'Net, people do soak and freeze beans without cooking them.

Preparing, cooking, and freezing Dried Beans

Can You Freeze Already Soaked and Uncooked Butter Beans? | Everyday Life - Global Post

Which reminds me, I have a pot of beans in the fridge I better drain and cook...


----------



## cave76 (Mar 24, 2014)

Read up on the Bayh-Dole Act. It's good and it's bad, like most acts/laws but it definitely contributed to the cessation of universities  being 'ivory  towers' of research.

In the past a person could usually count on university  research being almost pure research. The Bayh Dole Act (sometime in the 80's) stopped all that.

Four Unintended Consequences of the Bayh-Dole Act - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

http://waynedev.uakron.edu/dotAsset/727693.pdf


----------



## dcSaute (Mar 24, 2014)

>> the FDA . . . 
aaahhhhhhhh. gotta' luv' 'em but hate 'em at the same time.

the FDA relies - not enough / some what / too much, pick a viewpoint - on "research" provided by the (generically expressed) "supplier"
and we all know, of course, that large corporations and nut-case 'doctors / scientists' _never_ lie, fib, manipulate, alter, skew, yadda yadda yadda - the "real data" to their advantage.

something like the doctor who proved childhood vaccines cause autism.  oops.  data did not stand up to scrutiny; he finally admitted he's just faked the data, since he knew his theory was right . . . .

regrettably, most of the FDA decisions are not based on truly independent research.  when a study is bought and paid for by the supplier of the 'thing' one must be highly suspicious of the validity of the results.  it is not unheard of for big companies pay for study after study, modifying / refining the 'study guidelines / conditions' until they get a result that is favorable and 'scientifically acceptable' to the FDA.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 24, 2014)

AnthonyJ said:


> ... You have to do a lot of reading and research and even more critical thinking about the information you've read.



The link you included also says this: 



> Some scientists pointed out that the types of experimental rats used in the study are prone to tumors, says NPR. David Spiegelhalter, a professor at the University of Cambridge whose specialty is the public perception of risk, said in the New York Times that the “numbers of animals in each group was too low to draw firm conclusions.”
> 
> In addition, other scientists pointed out that the rats who ate a diet with a GMO concentration of 11 percent were less healthy than those whose diet contained a GMO concentration of 33 percent: if the experiment intended to show a link between developing tumors and GMOs, those who ate more GMOs should have been less healthy.
> 
> In Reuters, Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, observed that, since genetically modified food has “been in the food chain” in the U.S. for over ten years, “If the effects [of Seralini's study] are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?”



And my question is: If FDA and university research can't be trusted, on what are you basing your decisions? A lot of the "alternative research" I've seen is just faked or written in such a way that people without a PhD can't understand them and sometimes it's not research at all but speculation and advocacy disguised to look like it. And "an internet search shows 150,000 results!" means nothing since a lot of it is just echoing what was posted elsewhere.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 24, 2014)

dcSaute said:


> >> the FDA . . .
> aaahhhhhhhh. gotta' luv' 'em but hate 'em at the same time.
> 
> the FDA relies - not enough / some what / too much, pick a viewpoint - on "research" provided by the (generically expressed) "supplier"
> ...



Can't find anything to 'argue'  about with your view point.  And I can provide even more proof (not opinions) about this but won't in this thread.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 25, 2014)

@GG---- in post # 17 you referenced something that my 'find' function can't find.  

And, strangely, when I 'quoted' for this post it didn't appear!

So here is it:

"Quote:
Some scientists pointed out that the types of experimental rats used in the study are prone to tumors, says NPR. David Spiegelhalter, a professor at the University of Cambridge whose specialty is the public perception of risk, said in the New York Times that the “numbers of animals in each group was too low to draw firm conclusions.”

In addition, other scientists pointed out that the rats who ate a diet with a GMO concentration of 11 percent were less healthy than those whose diet contained a GMO concentration of 33 percent: if the experiment intended to show a link between developing tumors and GMOs, those who ate more GMOs should have been less healthy.

In Reuters, Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, observed that, since genetically modified food has “been in the food chain” in the U.S. for over ten years, “If the effects [of Seralini's study] are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?”"

You were referencing AnthonyJs post:

_Quote (In AnthonyJ's post)

The health effects of Roundup cannot be understated. Research has linked exposure to the pesticide to Parkinson’s disease and cancers. Laboratory rats that eat Monsanto’s GMO food get tumors and die faster than rats that eat other food. Most children in Argentina where Roundup is used in high concentrations have been found to be in poor health, with 80 percent showing signs of the toxins in their bloodstreams.

Read more: 75% Percent of Rain and Air Samples Contain Roundup Pesticide | Care2 Causes"
_

Since that "75%" article was the only actual link AnthonyJ had offered I went to it and couldn't find what YOU said was there. Maybe my Find function didn't work as good as it should. 

Clear as mud??? 

If you would post the url to *your* quote I'd appreciate it. 
Thank you.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 25, 2014)

cave76 said:


> @GG---- in post # 17 you referenced something that my 'find' function can't find.
> [snip]
> Clear as mud???
> ...
> ...



One of the links within the article Anthony posted goes to the article I quoted from: http://www.care2.com/causes/rats-eating-gmo-corn-get-tumors-die-early.html

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 25, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> One of the links within the article Anthony posted goes to the article I quoted from: Rats Eating GMO Corn Get Tumors, Die Early | Care2 Causes



Thank you---- I hadn't followed all the links within links.

And that proves that a study has to be devised so the results are non-biased. Sadly, that's not true of all research since the agency or group funding it plays a large part in how the study is constructed.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 25, 2014)

cave76 said:


> Thank you---- I hadn't followed all the links within links.
> 
> And that proves that a study has to be devised so the results are non-biased. Sadly, that's not true of all research since the agency or group funding it plays a large part in how the study is constructed.



That's true to an extent, but every institution that conducts research has at least one Institutional Review Board that reviews proposed research and study design for soundness. At the medical school where I used to work, the IRBs included researchers from other institutions and members of the community. Not saying it's a foolproof method, but they're there


----------



## cave76 (Mar 25, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> That's true to an extent, but every institution that conducts research has at least one Institutional Review Board that reviews proposed research and study design for soundness. At the medical school where I used to work, the IRBs included researchers from other institutions and members of the community. Not saying it's a foolproof method, but they're there



No, not foolproof at all. When a large amount of money might be garnered from a positive review well, then foolproof goes out the door. That holds true for both for-profit and not-for-profit IRBs. 

A good pro and con discussion is found here:

PLOS Medicine: Should Society Allow Research Ethics Boards to Be Run As For-Profit Enterprises?

Snip:
"Why might we think that for-profit IRBs do these functions poorly? Perhaps being for-profit, they need to woo business, and so they are less independent of their clients, less inclined to be critical, and more inclined to overlook ethical problems.

But these potential difficulties are not unique to for-profit IRBs. Researchers who sit on not-for-profit, academic IRBs are evaluating their colleagues' research protocols, so these IRB members also have ties that may compromise their independence and critical evaluations. Furthermore, many academics tend to view IRB service as an uncompensated burden, which is not conducive to careful review work. Academic medical centers and their researchers also have their own financial interests in getting research protocols passed. They get money—as well as access to new drugs and prestige—for conducting the research. Many not-for-profit IRBs are also charging drug and device companies for review of their research protocols, and their rates are comparable to the rates charged by for-profit IRBs."

And Wiki also has something to say about IRBs--- both good and bad---- just as the PLOS article does.

There will be good IRBs and bad IRBs. Just saying an IRB has conducted the review isn't enough to guarantee a full *ethical* review, as you, GG, implied.


----------



## taxlady (Mar 25, 2014)

My husband was telling me that some disillusioned scientists are trying to set up a system where studies are submitted to scientific journals *before* they are run and where the scientists promise to publish *whatever* results they get.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 25, 2014)

So back to my question from yesterday. If you don't trust the government, the universities or the companies, on what do you base your decisions? Alternative sites that don't actually do any research?


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 25, 2014)

CWS4322 said:


> According to a search on the 'Net, people do soak and freeze beans without cooking them.
> 
> Preparing, cooking, and freezing Dried Beans
> 
> ...


 Oh yes, you can but it seems a bit pointless, really. To me, anyway.


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 25, 2014)

Oh dear, I seem to have (erewigo) opened a can of beans in this thread.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).


----------



## taxlady (Mar 25, 2014)

Mad Cook said:


> Oh dear, I seem to have (erewigo) opened a can of beans in this thread.
> 
> (Sorry, I couldn't resist).


What does "erewigo" mean? I Googled and couldn't figure it out.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 25, 2014)

taxlady said:


> What does "erewigo" mean? I Googled and couldn't figure it out.



I think she meant "[H]'ere we go!"


----------



## cave76 (Mar 26, 2014)

taxlady said:


> My husband was telling me that some disillusioned scientists are trying to set up a system where studies are submitted to scientific journals *before* they are run and where the scientists promise to publish *whatever* results they get.



Would that be PLOS?

PLOS ONE : accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science

"Rigorous Peer-Review

Too often a journal's decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/s think is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication of your work. PLOS ONE will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them)."

(That's the PLOS view of their journals. There are people who don't share that view. I'm somewhere in the middle, see below.)

There are many other open access sites and they all have their *good points and their bad points*.  I happen to have been privy to many discussions about these on another forums---- for years.

I believe that each article 'rushed to print' has to be assessed on it's own and not lumped in with others that may be too rushed or even flawed on many levels.

On the other hand I've also seen journal articles by established medical journals that are flawed on many levels.

TL--- I know you weren't dismissing them, just as I'm not defending them but there are almost always two sides of each coin.


----------



## taxlady (Mar 26, 2014)

I don't know if it was that. As I understood it, the data would have to be published, even if it didn't agree with someone's pet theory.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 26, 2014)

taxlady said:


> I don't know if it was that. As I understood it, the data would have to be published, even if it didn't agree with someone's pet theory.



Well THAT would be a breath of fresh air! 
Thanks for replying.


----------



## taxlady (Mar 26, 2014)

Yeah, science advances based on evidence. More people should remember what Edison said about his "failures" to make an electric light bulb, “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 26, 2014)

taxlady said:


> What does "erewigo" mean? I Googled and couldn't figure it out.


'Ere we go (Here we go) - Sorry. Brit silliness.


----------



## taxlady (Mar 26, 2014)

Thanks for the explanation MC.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 27, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> So back to my question from yesterday. If you don't trust the government, the universities or the companies, on what do you base your decisions? Alternative sites that don't actually do any research?



I'm not sure what you would think as ''proof'' of why I don't trust them. But I first want to make it clear that I'm very happy that we DO have the FDA, universities and *most* companies. But it's not a blanket endorsement of them for there are times when all of them fail us at some level.

The Bayh-Dole Act and it's consequences is one of the 'proofs' while not giving you a 'hand in the cookie jar' video.

So here are some things I dug out from my saved documents from other discussions in other forums.

FDA 
Wiki
"The FDA's federal budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2012 totaled $4.36 billion,[2] while the proposed 2014 budget is $4.7 billion.[8] About $2 billion of this budget is generated by user fees. *Pharmaceutical firms pay the 
majority of these fees,[8] which are used to expedite drug reviews*."

Citation # 8 on  Wiki
*************************************
"The drug industry is already the primary funder of the FDA’s operational budget through the payment of user fees. The FDA’s proposed 2014 budget, a whopping $4.7 billion, includes a proposed increase of $821 million, 94 
percent of which is to be funded by drug companies. While some believe self-funded regulatory agencies to be a good thing, others* feel it allows industry to have major leverage over FDA policy decision making*. "

Drug Take-Back Programs Coming To A Municipality Near You
***********************************
Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
**************************

Dr. Herbert L. Ley, Jr ----retired FDA Commissioner ----said:
"After his resignation, in an interview to the New York Times, Dr. Ley warned the public about the FDA’s inability to safeguard consumers. People were being misled, he believed* “The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them - it isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day,*” he said. The agency, in his opinion, did not have the motivation to protect consumers, faced budget shortfalls, and lacked support from the Department of Health,Education, and Welfare ."

Herbert L. Ley, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
****************************************
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/OralHistories/SelectedOralHistoryTranscripts/UCM265774.pdf

(Pages 42-47) Kinslow Report


----------



## Steve Kroll (Mar 27, 2014)

I have no idea what's being discussed here. I thought the topic had to do with beans.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 27, 2014)

Steve Kroll said:


> I have no idea what's being discussed here. I thought the topic had to do with beans.





Yeah, it has drifted, hasn't it? From Faraday cages to GMO to IRBs to the FDA and other excursions. I figured since it was OP AnthonyJ who brought up the topic of the FDA that he would be o.k. with further discussion about it.


----------



## AnthonyJ (Mar 29, 2014)

cave76 said:


> I'm not sure what you would think as ''proof'' of why I don't trust them. But I first want to make it clear that I'm very happy that we DO have the FDA, universities and *most* companies. But it's not a blanket endorsement of them for there are times when all of them fail us at some level.
> 
> The Bayh-Dole Act and it's consequences is one of the 'proofs' while not giving you a 'hand in the cookie jar' video.
> 
> ...



Thank you for all of your research Cave. This is what I was talking about. The pharma companies have found a way to expedite approval for their drugs by essentially buying the FDA and paying them to skip important testing phases. This goes hand in hand with lots of university studies. When a university needs grant money, they *many* lean towards a biased report that favors an institution that will give them funds for the other research they are looking to do. It's all about the money. As the old adage says everyone has a price. It's an unfortunate thing. 

I personally take into consideration several reviews before coming to my own conclusion. I am not a scientist and I do not claim to be doing any studies on my own, but I take several sources and combine their information. Places where they all agree, it would seem, are truth and places where they disagree, you have to dig deeper. 

It seems I inadvertently started something that can in the end be taken as good. Everyone has been respectful and seems to be considering everyone else's sides and whatever evidence they submit to support them. The biggest thing is making people think and making them think outside of the box. 

It's good to have conversations like this. It makes people think and talk and look deeper into things.


----------



## CarolPa (Mar 29, 2014)

erewigo Steelers, erewigo


----------



## Dawgluver (Mar 29, 2014)

CarolPa said:


> erewigo Steelers, erewigo


----------



## cave76 (Mar 29, 2014)

AnthonyJ said:


> The biggest thing is making people think and making them think outside of the box.
> 
> It's good to have conversations like this. It makes people think and talk and look deeper into things.



l agree, of course. I come from a background where points of views should be backed up with sources, citations and why that particular point of view is valid.

I'm a skeptic.

"The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion."

1. Critical Thinking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg

2. Asking the Socratic Questions

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4384

*But all that critical thinking and references go out the window when talking about recipes etc. Thank goodness or we'd never have some of the good ideas/recipes here.*


----------

