Read through this article and Respond:
When executives for companies that sell soybeans went to the Food and Drug Administration requesting permission to claim that soybeans prevent heart attacks, they didn't expect the scientific community to start to look for harmful effects from eating soybeans.
Two more studies show that extracts of soybeans, called isolfavones, cause cancer in mice. When isolfavones get into your body, they act like weak estrogens. Estrogen helps strengthen bones and prevent heart attacks, but excessive or prolonged exposure to estrogens causes cancers.
The June issue of the respected medical journal, Cancer Research, shows that injecting genistein into newborn mice for 5 days, causes uterine cancer (1). The doses were only slightly higher than infants receive from drinking soybean milk. In fact, genistein from soybean caused a higher rate of cancer than DES, the artificial estrogen that is an established known cause of uterine and vaginal cancer in humans. The July issue of Nutrition and Cancer will feature an article from the University of Missouri showing that genistein causes breast cancer in mice (2).
I am upset that the Food and Drug Administration allows soybeans to claim that they prevent heart attacks, because some people will think they should eat huge amounts because they are healthful. High doses of anything can expose you to chemicals that harm you. I don't think that reasonable amounts of soybeans are harmful. A study in the May issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention showed that Chinese girls who took in lots of soybean foods had a lower incidence of breast cancer (3). But eating excessive amounts of soybean products or taking soybean extracts may increase your risk for cancer.
1) Cancer Research June 1, 2001.
2) Nutrition and Cancer July, 2001.
3) Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, May 2001. Checked 5/3/07
Link: http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/9288.html
I want you to take a look at this article in a critical way, not so much focusing on the “facts” being presented, but what these facts mean to society… how science and research may not be completely objective, and how this impacts our views of knowledge, health and nutrition. Try to use some of the ideas put forth in chapter 1 of Freund and Nettleton. You can think in terms of knowledge, social construction, whig history if you like. Be creative, you can pretty much respond anyway you would like. I am just hoping that you guys will try to use a sociological perspective; it will help you out on the papers and exams.
46 comments:
This is a situation that is all too common in our society. Small print and asteriks are how companies get rich. The thought, is make a very generalized claim, and then cover your backside by listing the limitations and saying that results are not typical. This type of advertising (exagerated claims) has become a social norm, it's accepted and there is little repurcussion to buisnesses for trying to decieve consumers. This is once again proof that social institutions such as drug companies are the regulators of what we believe to be right and wrong. Most people would agree that trying to decieve someone is wrong, or unethical, especially when it involves a person's health. However, when all these buisnesses are doing it, it is impossible to believe that they are ALL acting wrongly, instead it has become accepted practice.
I agree with mwoods that it has become a social norm for businesses to deceive their customers in order to sell a product. I believe at this time U.S society is even more susceptible to being misled when it comes to healthy eating or dieting. There are millions and millions of books, supplements, programs, and foods that claim to be exactly what we need. However, as mwoods said, there is always that small print. Most are brought up believing that deception and lies are socially wrong. However, when it comes from large companies or politics we turn the other cheek. We may recognize it is unethical or morally wrong, but there is no regulation of this social norm in this situation. Therefore, it falls apart, and we accept it for what it is.
I completely agree with both mwoods and scooper, but we also have to look at society as a whole. Our society today is health obsessed (even though obesity is at such a high rate) most people are trying to lose weight and become healthier people and live healthier lifestyles. As much as it astounds me that junk food is cheaper than healthy food and this is one of the reasons for the rate of obesity in this country, but all of the businesses cater to these people. They continue to create food products that are extremely unhealthy for us but are cheap so they sell more of it, but it is the same for the so called 'healthy foods'. Some of them claim to be healthy and most will buy these foods because they do not look at the ingredients in them, and believe that they are healthy foods for us. This is along the same lines of there being no repercussions for the businesses because it is a social norm for there not to be and we as a society just let it go and accept what the FDA and these businesses tell us.
I would agree with all 3 previous statements. I also think this shows how our knowledge of what is healthy is controlled by others. Typically when the FDA approves a product US consumers assume that it is safe for them to eat although in many instances this is not the case. I also really agree with lconnolly1 about the fact that unhealthy food is often the cheapest option so more people purchase it because it is all they can afford, it becomes their normal diet and is completely controlled by the big businesses that manufacture them. People's knowledge of healthy foods is not only controlled by the FDA but also the companies who make foods and stores who sell them. For example if a company puts "light" on the packaging people automatically believe that it is healthy when often it is still bad for you. This also applies to stores, i know Hannafords does a star system for nutritional value. People see the stars and assume it is healthy and buy the food without ever actually looking at the label. This just shows how social norms and companies tell us what is healthy rather than us looking into it ourselves.
In today's society, people will do anything in order to pull people in on something new and exciting dealing with the health industry. Advertising for anything that claims to make you healthier or prevent some major disease will catch millions of people's attention and draw them in. Like some of the others have said, people don't always read the fine print on these products. They see that soybeans will help prevent heart attacks and they will immediately start eating them. Also, people love doing what others are doing. They follow the social trends of new products because they see other people using them. They think that because some celebrity is all of a sudden eating tons of soybeans that they need to be doing the same thing. People don't always think for themselves and don't pay attention to what they really are doing to their health in the long run.
Everybody is looking for a quick easy way to get healthy. Every time a company develops something new they publish the intended results and tend to gloss over or even omit the potential side effects or other health risks associated with that particular product. It is hard for our society to take their health into their own hands and make responsible decisions as to portion control. This in part is due to a lack of education on moderation and balancing your meals. When there is a claim that something is good for your health, taking it in excess is not going to speed up the effects, rather it most likely will cause other health problems. This is when the companies get into trouble for not being specific about their product. It is typical for our society to blame other people for their health problems than take it into their own hands probably due to our fast paced society.
I agree with the previous statements. While companies are claiming that these products prevent heart attacks, or reduce the risk of cancer, there is always an asterisk with a list of side effects or amendments to cover their own butts. Usually these amendments completely contradict the claims made in the first place. The fact that soy beans can prevent the risk of heart attack but can increase the risk of cancer is just one of the examples of this problem we are facing in society today. Why would you want to use the product to lower your risk of heart attack when it will just cause you to die from cancer?
This is a very interesting article because in our society where everyone is looking for a quick cure all, people rarely employ the thinking that to much of a good thing may actually be harmful. I also think it is very important for scientists to research every possible side effect of something that is being suggested for people to eat. In this scenario it would have been good if the FDA had stated that soybeans were good to eat in moderation if they knew that they could be potentially harmful. People who are reading this article are also partly to blame because rather than trying to use alternative ways to improve their heart health, they are simply trying to use "magic beans" to lower their risk of heart disease.
Situations like the one discussed in this article are becoming increasingly more common. Companies tend to latch on to a particular social structure, in this case individuals trying to eat healthy, and distort the claims about a particular product. When reading about products which claim health benefits it is important to realize that excess is not always a good thing. Business takes the American culture of "more is better" for granted as it yields more profit for them. Because of social norms that allow for continued use of shoddy business practices, companies are able to get away with selling products that may be misleading and potentially harmful.
I would agree that situations like this are becoming more common and that big businesses are only looking out for themselves and not their consumers. This particular company would make millions of dollars if they were able to claim that soybeans prevented heart attacks. If they were able to make this claim many people would rush out to buy some, who wouldn’t want to prevent a heart attack? Companies do not advertise the adverse effects or they would lose money at the consumers’ expense. Although many people are trying to become healthier it is not easy because there is always a fine print with potential side effects. Most people rely on society like alucas mentioned to tell them what is healthy. If our society put the consumer first I bet people would have a better opportunity to create a healthier lifestyle.
I agree with a few other posts that this just goes to show how it has become a social norm for american culture to pop pills. I know a soy bean isn't necessarliy a pill but it's the same idea. People would much rather eat more soy beans than eat less and exercise more. Its easier and more convient to buy into false claims. I think this magic pill is a product of our social structure where convience has become king. So if soy beans help with heart disease, if we just eat soy beans for breafast lunch and dinner than we don't need to worry about exercise.
It's unfortunate that as we try to inform and better the health of our society that we may actually end up having the reverse affect. Like it was said in another comment, the FDA could have informed it's viewers of all the positive and negative effects of soybeans and by making it clear that too much can be very harmful. People take for granted the information they read to be true in a lot of cases, especially when they want it to be and if it's an easy out to becoming a healthier individual. The fact that our society revolves around money (the profits from soybeans and promoting their 'benefit) and laziness (by eating soybeans people feel that exercise and other nutrition is being supplemented) is one that would be very difficult if not impossible to change.
In our society people want the quick fix to become healthy. People will try anything that claims it will help your health. Companies make claims like, “may lower cholesterol” or as this article states, “will help prevent heart attacks.” The products never state how they will help improves a person’s health but people trust what they are buying to be safe anyways. It has become a social norm to trust the products we buy. Most people see a claim that a product makes and believe it to be true without knowing the facts. If people would take a step back and think about the products they buy, along with being more patient with their health instead of trying to find the quick fix, people would probably see more successful results.
Advertising like this is seen everywhere in our society now. Companies are trying to sell products to people that for example prevent heart attacks, or reduce the risk of cancer, but at the same time there are many side effects to these products and they can be very harmful to your body. In the article soy beans are said to prevent the risk of heart disease but at the same time increase the risk of cancer. It doesn't make sense that someone would want to use a product that can do any type of harm to you. Yes, this product may help you with heart attacks but it can still cause cancer. Either way your body will be harmed.
I think this claim is an example of how impressionable society is. If something is advertised it must be true. It is unfortunate that society as a whole is not familiar enough with science to know to question these types of claims. Society must question the claims made by the media just as medical sociology has learned to question the claims made by western medicine.
There are so many supplements out there that are marketing themselves as the ticket to a long and healthy life. While it is important to get all the essential vitamins and nutrients it is much better to absorb these from everyday food rather than a pill or a radical diet. It seems that the negative side effects of these types of supplements or meal plans aren’t found until after it has been marketed to the community. To me this shows a strong flaw in the biomedical research and FDA approval process. What this means for society is that there are still unknowns about the ill effects of these ‘miracle drugs/supplements.’ As consumers start to pick up on these types of repeated findings, it could cause an increased caution when considering these types of products and a mistrust of the social institutions supporting them.
This article is especially important to me because I consume soy products daily. Although I have recently been drinking almond milk I drink lots of soy milk and eat many soy food products such as tofu and soy meals that can be found in grocery stores. I, like most of us, have been warned and am aware of many health problems associated with certain foods, but am unaware of so many others. I think if food companies were required to show all of the potential risks and the true ingredients in all of our food, there would be almost no room for advertisement on many of the packages. It is unfortunate that many times the small benefits of a certain food are made known when the adverse side effects are left off of the label. In doing so we follow trends that the food companies display on their labels and in advertisement. Many people are trying to stay away from food with additives and so on, and they think they are choosing a healthier alternative, i.e. soy, but they are just being duped again. Not only are the food companies to blame, but we also are responsible for following the eating trends to either fit in or to loose weight without making sure we know what is in our food and how it will effect our bodies. There is currently a protest to prevent the approval of GE salmon. This would be the first GE animal approved by the FDA, and the research conducted on it was done by the company selling it. This means that they can tell us what we want to hear about the Salmon, which is similar to the soybeans, and probably hundreds of other products. I ultimately think the problem with this social institution is lack of regulations from the FDA. Food companies should be monitored much more closely and on a public level so that those consumers can know what they're eating and make healthier, more educated decisions. We shouldn't be basing our healthy eating habits from the words on the packaging, but many people do.
This is just one of several controversies involving how society's existing food and drug policies are not enough to combat misleading direct-to-consumer marketing. Food regulations are lax at best and there are several conflicting studies about certain foods, including soybeans, regarding their potential risk factors. Too many manufacturing companies have their hands in the scientific research the public believes is used to aid in preventing harmful foods from reaching the market. Rather, genetic modifiers and large quantities of pesticides and preservatives contaminate the food once deemed "healthy" and further damage the truth about what chemicals are being consumed. Now this report claims that the "high and mighty" soybean is damaging in high doses. It is likely the moderation of such foods is the key to consuming them in the healthiest way rather than simply consuming a large amount over a long period of time to improve one's fitness. Health education could become a priority in order to shift society's focus from the "quick cure" food or drug to the moderation of consumption with an awareness of known risks and benefits.
While some interesting points have been made, most of these posts are highly subjective and do not use sociological perspective to back up their claims. It is difficult to look at issues without bias (for reasons we are currently learning about), but that's what sociology is all about! Let's try to be more objective and focus on sociological theories rather than on our own opinions and preconceived notions when analyzing topics like this.
I think that looking at this article you can see how the FDA may be focusing on one group by promoting that eating soybeans prevent heart attacks. I think that it has become socially accepted to find new things to better your health, but not to look deeper into the things that we are trying. I think that only certain groupings in society have the available means to understand the more severe consequences of this type of thing (soybeans). I think that the biggest point that I can take from this reading is that at a personal level, we are all being influenced by the many health promotions that are being put upon us.
Excellent point, bbolduc. You summed up what I was thinking really nicely. I think American society tends to put way too much trust in the FDA, giving a relatively small group of people a lot of control over a large group of people. We put a lot of trust into researchers, scientists, nutritionists, doctors, and lots of other professionals. I am not claiming that this is the wrong thing to do - after all, they are the professionals who know the most about what is "healthy" and what is not. However, after just reading the chapter about the social construction of medical knowledge, we should consider that our definition of "healthy" is socially constructed, and not the one ultimate truth.
Now that I think about it, it's not just professionals in whom we put our trust when it comes to our health. If a classmate said to me, "Oh, your family has a history of heart attacks? I heard somewhere that soybeans help prevent them," I just might start eating them (especially if someone else told me the same story to back them up, like "Oh I heard that too!")! Someone mentioned above that people in our culture are really vulnerable right now to suggestions for healthier living. This vulnerability (which is admittedly a broad generalization) combined with the competition of food distributors to have the most consumers and make the most money, gives those companies a LOT of control, which just supports the system even further.
One other quick thought is that it is interesting to see that many people might have originally believed that soybeans prevented heart attacks (and maybe they do); but it is also interesting that we just as easily believe that they cause cancer. I would say that our society is fairly frightened by the thought of cancer, making us more vulnerable to suggestions about things that cause it.
This article itself is a great example of the result of social construction. The author has chosen to include information that supports the point he is trying to make, and has ignored all else. Granted this is what you have to do to argue a point, it is still a narrow view and representation of the topic at hand. Additionally, the appeal of soy and its supposed health benefits, is evidence to the emphasis placed on social class. Due to the claims made by soybean companies, consumers look at soy as a way to maintain their health status. A healthy person is seen as a powerful person in our society. Everyone is looking for that kind of advantage and will, unfortunately, accept information and advertising at face value if it makes such promises.
I think that things like this occur all to often in todays society. Every day you are hearing of new ways to lower risks of chronic illnesses and diseases, and individuals are all too eager to just go along with what they hear rather than do the research and find out why these foods and companies are claiming that their product will give the intended results. And many times they leave out that the product they are advertising needs to be ate or drank in moderation and along with other health style changes. I agree with those that said Americans just want the fast and easy fix and changing other eating habits and exercising would be too much work. Our society needs to see that the decisions they make may help one aspect of their life, but could also harm another.
Unfortunately in todays society there is so much riding on the tiny yet insurmountable green thing called money. Everbody strives for it. Also it may not have occured but usually these statements "soybeans lower risk of heart attack" are all proposed off of fact and supplied to the world market of buyers as a scam to get you to buy more soybeans. DUH!! The conglomerates know that busy people are too busy to research the other affects of too much of anything untill they hear it from somebody else. by that time the affects of supply and demand have already been felt and the CEO's of the soy bean companies could care less. this is a case of economics 101. From a societal standpoint however, this has much greater affects digging into the familial ties of life and death. The effects incorporate the biomedical aspects of health, especially in the western world. This is a prime example of the social creation of medical facts. Some one tells you something so you spread it. Another person tells you something else about the same topic and again you spread it. it is a never endiong cycle between what medicine wants you to know and what economics want you to know.
Too much of anything is not a good thing. I think that our society tends to look at everything way too closely, such as taking a simple soybean and complicating it to the point where we are so confused that we don't know what foods to eat and what to stay away from. This soybean research is an example of how if we examine anything closely enough we will find the good and the bad. While I think there is some advantage to knowing the health benefits and risks of eating soybeans, we should not change our entire diets around this concept. I say if you like soybeans, eat soybeans, and if you don't, there are plenty of other foods out there to try.
I think it is a shame how we have the means to research the pros and cons of a product, and yet we only advertise for the positive health benefits while completely disregarding the negatives. The average consumer isn't going to look into this food product that is supposed to be very healthy for them and try to find if there are any negative side effects for consuming excessive amounts. So while the consumer is happily drinking their soy milk each morning thinking they are reducing their chances of a heart attack, they don't realize that at the same time they may be increasing their chances of getting cancer. These food companies say they are trying to put out more and more healthier food products but they are covering up some of the most important facts just so that they can make a buck. It really is a shame.
Here is the problem everyone is looking to blame some one else for their own lack of common sense. No matter what the FDA or big business puts out there on lables, in small print or great big letters. It all comes down to the individual and taking responsability. Last week eggs were bad for you and dairy. The fact remains that anything in excess including exercise and sleep are all bad for you. It is all about moderation and self responsibility. Society may put these things infront of you, but you have the choice to take it or leave it. Do your own research and stop taking everyone elses word for it.
After reading this article and some of the comments to follow, I believe that this could be seen as evidence of the medicalization of our society. We are all too dependent on medical professionals and organizations to determine for us what is or isn't safe. As a result, it becomes harder for us to make decisions for ourselves because we feel pressured to respond and act based on what someone else has decided. Not all of these decisions or discoveries are negative, as I do believe that too much genistein, like too much of most things, can lead to cancer. But I do think that there must be other risk factors involved, which we may not necessarily think of because someone we are so focused on what has already been found. As a result, we also need to be careful of the concept of specific etiology. Not everything is caused by only ONE agent.
Everyone is trying to make a quick buck in today's society. A company will feed you anything just in order to sell their product. On the other hand, the consumer is to blame at the same time. There may not be many warnings out there, but as consumers, Americans are quite ignorant. We will buy anything that has a good claim. This could be solved with more warnings, which should be written on the packages. I guess it is just the way our society is set up.
I completely agree with Tracy. The idea that the soybean is linked to cancer seems like a stretch. Many other factors need to be considered when looking at who is getting cancer and to me it seems like too many other factors could contribute to place all of the blame on a soybean.
I feel research can be completely subjective. Even though numbers and data should be fact, it is usually the data that is excluded that is just as important as the numbers that are published. I believe that everyone needs to be knowledgable about out surroundings and the medication or food we take. It is important to not just believe what the company may say (such as soy beans prevent heart attacks) but also know the current research from sources that would not benefit from the selling or production of soybeans. In today's society, large companies (and in some cases small companies alike) want to make monday and coudl care less about the populatiosn health as long as they are profitting from it. It is our job to be aware and to konw better than to trust these large business' and be aware of the many different researches being conducted.
This article is a perfect example of how biomedicine is prevalent in our society. Both studies present data showing that soybeans can cause cancer or reduce the risk of cancer look only at the chemical components. Science is used to determine a single cause that, in reality, can never alone cause or prevent cancer. There are a whole assortment of sociological causes, lifestyle, diet, drug habbits,economic status, etc., that will contribute to an individual's health. Because there is scientific backing to the claims in the article, they are accepted by readers, even though the article fails to take a number of factors on health into account. The fact that in China girls who eat soybean products are less likely to develop cancer while girls in other areas may be more likely to develop breast cancer shows that there are other sociological factors at work.
This article actually proves some of the social ideas infused in today's society. This article talks about the facts behind the medicine and the fact is that the information that is provided to today's society is taken for face value and not for the information provided to them. What I mean by this is that society has become comfortable with being told what to do. Those who will not make an effort to understand all the information given to them will fall at the feet of those who only care about what people want to hear and that is what they can get the most out of life. Peoples behavior have been manipulated to believe everything they hear and disregard that which is affecting their lives. Right and wrong may be confused among others but facts is what people believe in.
This article is an excellent example of how our views and knowledge of health and nutrition are shaped. If it is FDA approved then it must be good for us, right? This is a belief that society has constructed. By not asking questions we put ourselves at risk for the fine print, perfect example being eating soybeans to possibly prevent a heart attack .. at the same time we may possibly be increasing our risk of cancer. We as a society can not limit our selves to social constraints of the media because when we do it begins to effect our health. This article stated that Chinese girls who ate a lot of soybeans had a decrease risk of breast cancer, yet this article fails to compare this observation with another social group of individuals. Thus limiting us to the facts that they want us to know without presenting or even taking into account different lifestyles that maybe effecting the results of the study.
This is defiantly a common problem in our society today. The thing I think about is how did the FDA approve of the companies claiming that soy beans reduce cancer risks when clearly there wasn't much research done on whether they do or not. Today, we see a lot of companies making claims that their product reduce your risk factor for heart attacks or cancer or other things. If the FDA approves of a company making these statements, we as American consumers do not question the validity of whether they are actually beneficial. We just assume that they are. If a company is a deceiving us, we really have no way of knowing. It is just a social norm to believe what these companies say. Another example of this is the pills you can buy from GNC such as supplemented BCAAs, that say they will get you a lot of muscle in a short amount of time. Research has actually shown that they do not really improve your strength or size at all. I think that the FDA needs to regulate and have stricter guidelines for allowing companies to state a benefit about their product. This way people aren't being harmed by something that is supposed to make them healthier.
This article shows how much faith our society puts into the health experts, so so belived to be. It supports the statement that knowledge is created not found and relies on social factors. We read articles like this all the time on the next best thing to improve our health and believe it as true without any question, which has become the social norm. The biomedical model used in our society has warped our minds into believing that any health information published is objective and true. Except it is the exact opposite and companies today can play around with the informtation to make it sound liek their product is legit when really we're only getting a percentage of the total information, which is usually the most important because it is the negative effects. We are too eager in todays society to look for the quick fix because we have become lazy and too dependent on pills to help us become healthier, which is shown by this article.
As nice as it is to hear about a new and upcoming product with fantastic health benefits, I think by now most people understand that the news comes with downsides. Almost everything that at some point is considered to be great for you now has small print underneath it. As a society, we've gone through countless stages of fads and trends in everything from fashion to pop culture to sports, and health information/products are treated in the same exact manner. This benefits of the soybean were probably widely received and accepted for a while, but then as soon as the next big "superfood" comes along, the soybean will most likely be forgotten about.
We binge on current information and rarely remember "food crazes" that we went through. In the past couple years, I've noticed a pomegranate frenzy and an acai extravaganza. These foods come with supposed health benefits, but surely have drawbacks for some people, especially if not eaten in moderation.
Everyone is looking for a quick fix to their problems. We run to the latest fad diets, spend lots of money, and expect all the work to be done for us. It is our job as members of society to be educated. Without reading the full article, I cannot see how any information was falsified. I do not see the fault in the article, but in the reader. Soybean is a good product, in moderation, as in the case with so many things.
Our society revolves around money, and companies will do and say anything to the consumers about their product to get rich. There are so many products claiming a way to get healthy quick. We believe them with out questioning it, especially when its FDA approved. Its shocking that the FDA approved that soybean can help reduce heart attacks, but didn’t research it enough to know it also increases cancer. It makes you wonder what else is out there the FDA approved claiming a product does this but didn’t look into the other harmful risks it may cause.
The situation mentioned in the article is one that is extremely reoccurring in our society. In order to sell products, certain businesses and companies place a great amount of importance on the benefits of the product and less on the adverse effects that can come about. Although I agree with most of the posts that this is immoral and that more regulations need to come about to prevent cases like these, I take it upon myself to know exactly what it is I am using. The way to take power away from the businesses and companies that do these sorts of things is for society to become more educated and less obsessed with products that will make you "healthier".
After ready this I am not really surprised. What doesn’t cause cancer theses days? This article shows that everyone is willing to just jump on the bandwagon. Society has selective hearing and only cares about the side that makes them sound like they are being healthy. Then when it comes out that something like soybeans can cause cancer, everyone is shocked. They do not look into the facts about what they are doing which can cause more problems even if they are labeled right there on container.
It seems like every day there is something new that causes cancer or some supplement that prevents it. Alcohol was always thought to be a bad thing, however now studies have shown that a glass of wine a night may infact have several cardiovascular benefits. In my opinion if you investigate anything that we eat or use enough you will eventually find some bad effect that it has, its all about balance. People need to stop worrying about what the latest study tells you is the right thing to eat or best exercise to do and instead do the things that keeps their own body in the best balance. We are each unique and hence each have unique conditions that our body operates best in. Realizing this people need to stop worrying about societal pressure and instead worry about whats best for themselves.
I think this happens too often. Someone comes up with something that does wonders for you. Two days later someone else did a study on that same thing and found out that it actually does more harm than good. Another thing is that honestly everything is bad for you in excessive amounts, that is why we have portions and serving sizes.
by the way kitty is Cami
Post a Comment