 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / January 2005Red Meat NO GOOD, Veggies no protection.... NOW WHAT?
Red Meat Consumption Linked To Colon Cancer Risk January 11, 2005 Two new published studies examining diet and cancer have linked high red meat consumption to an increased colorectal cancer risk, while also casting some doubt on the claim that eating fruits and vegetables can help prevent the development of breast cancer. One study found that consuming large amounts of red meat or processed meat raised the risk of developing colon cancer by as much as 50 percent. The study included close to 149,000 adults aged 50 to 74. Study participants completed questionnaires about their eating habits. The researchers found that those who ate the most red meat were between 30 and 40 percent more likely to develop colon cancer compared with those who consumed the least. The team also found a 50 percent increased risk of colon cancer among those who ate the most processed meats. "High" red meat consumption was defined for men as 3 or more ounces per day. For women, the researchers said "high" consumption was defined as 2 or more ounces per day. On the good side, the researchers report eating fish and chicken can decrease the risk of developing colon cancer. The study, led by the American Cancer Society, appears in Journal of the American Medical Association. The fruit and vegetable study, also published in the same journal included more than 285,000 European woman. It found that fruit and vegetable consumption did not protect against developing breast cancer. The findings surprised many health professionals as several previous studies have linked fruit and vegetable consumption with a decreased risk of developing breast cancer. > Red Meat Consumption Linked To Colon Cancer Risk > January 11, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > studies have linked fruit and vegetable consumption with a decreased > risk of developing breast cancer. I think 1 of the risk factors in cancer is oxygen supply and that eating fatty food like red meat will somewhat impare the blood's ability to carry oxygen, hence a risk factor in cancer. With women and breast cancer, there may be problems with tight bras and synthetic materials. Again, an oxygen issue. I'm not saying lack of oxygen causes cancer, but it is a factor that has been shown to exist. > I think 1 of the risk factors in cancer is oxygen supply Any proof? > and that eating fatty food like red meat "Fatty foods" defined as...? I say that because nuts are fattier than red meat. > will somewhat impare the blood's ability to carry > oxygen, You're apparently ignorant of how the body works, not to mention how oxygen can affect it (hint: free radicals and oxidation). > hence a risk factor in cancer. With women and breast cancer, there > may be problems with tight bras and synthetic materials. Any proof of this? > Again, an oxygen issue. Right now, you have a proof issue. > I'm not saying lack of oxygen causes cancer, You shouldn't, unless you want other gullible idiots to follow your lead and start peddling pro-oxidant formulas to counteract the people peddling anti-oxidant formulas. > but it is a factor that has been shown to exist. *Where* has it been shown to exist? >> I think 1 of the risk factors in cancer is oxygen supply > > Any proof? No proof or link, but just readings from magazines and supposed learned professionals on forums/etc. >> and that eating fatty food like red meat > > "Fatty foods" defined as...? I say that because nuts are fattier than red > meat. No, I said "like red meat". Nuts and fish are not "like red meat". >> will somewhat impare the blood's ability to carry oxygen, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > *Where* has it been shown to exist? When I say lack of oxygen, I mean exactly that. I know fully well the implications of oxidative stress and the fact that they may cause cancer, but that is the tightrope we tread in the material world. What you and montygram above are implying is that O2 is bad. Well if it's so bad why not stop using it for a few minutes and see what happens? What I'm saying is that O2 is required for normal body function and that some medical professionals recommend that people use loose fitting underwear with natural fibres and they do link cancers like breast and testicular to tight fitting underwear. >>>I think 1 of the risk factors in cancer is oxygen supply >> >>Any proof? > > No proof or link, Well, imagine that. You were just passing along BS hearsay. >>>and that eating fatty food like red meat >> >>"Fatty foods" defined as...? I say that because nuts are fattier than red >>meat. > > No, I said "like red meat". Nuts and fish are not "like red meat". Nuts are "fatty food." Not all red meat is fatty. Grass-fed beef, bison, wild game sure as hell aren't fatty. But it's okay, I don't expect clarity from someone who passes along BS hearsay as fact. >>>will somewhat impare the blood's ability to carry oxygen, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >>Any proof of this? I was afraid there wasn't. >>>Again, an oxygen issue. >> >>Right now, you have a proof issue. And you never sought to ante up. >>>I'm not saying lack of oxygen causes cancer, >> >>You shouldn't, unless you want other gullible idiots to follow your lead >>and start peddling pro-oxidant formulas to counteract the people peddling >>anti-oxidant formulas. Well? This deserved a response. >>>but it is a factor that has been shown to exist. >> >>*Where* has it been shown to exist? > > When I say lack of oxygen, I mean exactly that. No, you don't. You don't know what you mean. > I know fully well the > implications of oxidative stress and the fact that they may cause cancer, > but that is the tightrope we tread in the material world. Material world? Oh, Lord, I hope you're not one of Lesley's friends ready to pop off about inner earth beings and such. > What you and > montygram above are implying is that O2 is bad. Address the issue I made previously, you dingbat, about anti-oxidants. > Well if it's so bad why not > stop using it for a few minutes and see what happens? Non sequitur. You made a point of linking lack of oxygen to cancer. Prove it. As soon as you offer sources, prepare to be inundated with evidence pointing to other factors. That includes *too much* oxygen (e.g., free radicals). > What I'm saying is > that O2 is required for normal body function And here I thought you were *really stupid*. Turns out you're *just plain stupid*. > and that some medical > professionals recommend that people use loose fitting underwear Because tight undies (and pants!) hold the scrotum way too close to the body and raises testicular temperature which impairs sperm production and quality. There's a reason why balls to swing to and fro, dummy: it keeps them at the right temperature for reproduction. > with natural fibres That's an issue related to yeast infections and other similar ailments of the genitalia. It has nothing to do with oxygen and cancer. Nitwit. > and they do link cancers like breast and testicular to tight fitting > underwear. *Who* links cancers to clothing size? ...[I]t's a myth that wearing a bra can cause cancer. http://tinyurl.com/5e222 (Other issues I raised above also mentioned there.) You're a prime example of why people should ask doctors about health issues rather than turning to usenet. These are aggregated statistical studies. They do nothing to explain the biology of what happens when we eat particular foods, based on our bio-individuality. They are also relatively uncontrolled, as we don't know exactly which meats and which vegetables were eaten, what else was eaten; whether or not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and fungicides; whether the dairy had rBGH in it, etc, etc, etc. respectfully, I will not be changing my eating style, currently based on which foods are shown to be compatible to my blood/immune/hormonal system, based on this study. Steve >>"SWT" <SWT@awc.org> wrote in message >news:ruf9u09t1dbroqq7uk8g3hsl32nknqks1u@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >snip > These are aggregated statistical studies. They do nothing to explain > the biology of what happens when we eat particular foods, based on our > bio-individuality. Cut the psychobabble, Steve. These were sound studies. > They are also relatively uncontrolled, Relatively? lol > as we don't know exactly which > meats and which vegetables were eaten, We do. The new study, led by American Cancer Society researchers and involving 148,610 men and women aged 63 on average, is among the biggest. Participants recorded their meat intake in 1982 and again in 1992-93. Those with a high meat intake were about 30 to 40 percent more likely to develop lower colon or rectal cancer than those with a low intake. One of the more interesting findings is that those with high consumption of fish and poultry had a *significant decrease* in risk of colorectal cancer. So not all meat is bad. > what else was eaten; whether or > not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and > fungicides; whether the dairy had rBGH in it, etc, etc, etc. There's enough monitoring of those agents to be able to eliminate those as causes. That is, if they consume conventional produce since it's monitored for pesticide residues. Organic produce isn't tested for residues despite the amount of pesticides used in its production. Pyrethrum, an *ORGANIC* pesticide, is listed as a human carcinogen by the EPA. Other organic pesticides are equally nasty -- and linked to Parkinson's and other diseases. > respectfully, Repectfully? haha! > I will not be changing my eating style, currently based > on which foods are shown to be compatible to my blood/immune/hormonal > system, based on this study. Shown to be compatible how -- through something that's not "relatively uncontrolled" as you suggested these studies were? <..> > > what else was eaten; whether or > > not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > monitored for pesticide residues. Organic produce isn't tested for > residues despite the amount of pesticides used in its production. 'Pesticide residues Over 400 pesticides are permitted for use in the UK. The incidence and levels of pesticide residues on foods are monitored annually. 28.6% of all foods tested in 1999 were found to contain pesticide residues, and 48% of all fruit and vegetables tested (MAFF 2000). The levels found are typically very low. Just 1.6% of all foods and 3% of fruit and vegetables exceeded the MRL - maximum residue limit - in 1999. Seven pesticides are permitted for restricted use in organic farming. Organic produce is usually found to contain no pesticide residues. When residues are present, they are typically of significantly lower incidence and levels than those found in non-organic produce (MAFF 1999, Sch?pbach 1986, Reinhardt & Wolf 1986), and result mostly from environmental pollution from non-organic agriculture (Woese et al. 1997, Bitaud 2000). 'Rigorous safety assessments' are made of all pesticides and it is asserted that these incidences and levels do not represent a threat to food safety (FSA 2001). However no such 'rigorous safety assessment' has or can be made of the infinite number of mixtures of compounds consumers are typically exposed to. Individual samples contained up to seven different pesticides in 1999. Synergies resulting in greatly increased toxicity of pesticides and other agricultural compounds have been observed (Boyd et al. 1990, Porter et al. 1993, Porter et al. 1999, Thiruchelvam et al. 2000). Dietary exposure to pesticide residues has been linked to gastrointestinal and neurological complaints (Ratner et al. 1983), breast milk contamination (Aubert 1975) and some sperm quality parameters (Juhler et al. 1999, Abell et al. 1994, Jensen et al. 1996). The British Medical Association urges a precautionary approach "because the data on risk to human health from exposure to pesticides are incomplete" (BMA 1992). ..' http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/library/Assessing%20organic%20food%20quality.pdf > Pyrethrum, an *ORGANIC* pesticide, is listed as a human carcinogen by > the EPA. Other organic pesticides are equally nasty -- and linked to > Parkinson's and other diseases. 'Derived from the painted daisy, Chrysanthemum cinerariifolium, pyrethrins are considered one of the most important natural insecticides. When you must use a broad spectrum insecticide in the vegetable garden or lose the crop, this is one of the best choices. Of low toxicity to mammals, they kill insects quickly. In sunlight they break down and are non-toxic within a day or less. For best results apply it in the late afternoon or evening. Use pyrethrins for the hard-to-kill pests such as beetles, squash bugs, and tarnished plant bugs.' http://www.iserv.net/~wmize/insctd.htm 'While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the chrysanthemum, they were chemically designed to be more toxic with longer breakdown times, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency and compromising the human body's ability to detoxify the pesticide.' http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Synthetic%20Pyrethroids.pdf peril wrote: > <..> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>monitored for pesticide residues. Organic produce isn't tested for >>residues despite the amount of pesticides used in its production. IN THE *UNITED STATES*. <snip of UK-related gibberish > peril wrote: > > <..> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > <snip of UK-related gibberish> America rocks! *holds hand to chest and looks for flag waving in the wind* >>>>>what else was eaten; whether or >>>>>not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > America rocks! We do, but that's beside the point, Twink. Only conventionally-grown produce is monitored for residues here (and I believe the same is true in Canada). Why are the organic activists afraid of monitoring pesticide residues in organic crops? > *holds hand to chest and looks for flag waving in the wind* Stupid f.cking elitist HIV+ a.shole. > >>>>>what else was eaten; whether or > >>>>>not the food was contaminated with pesticides, herbicides and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Stupid f.cking elitist HIV+ a.shole. And you continue to connect with me through this medium. What will people think of your continued contact with this gay male? Hmmmm. <...> >>>*holds hand to chest and looks for flag waving in the wind* >> >>Stupid f.cking elitist HIV+ a.shole. > > And you continue to connect with me through this medium. You're the one who keeps saying you're going to stop replying to me. > What will > people think of your continued contact with this gay male? Hmmmm. I'm sure my gay friends would think you're an a.shole, too. > <...> > >>>*holds hand to chest and looks for flag waving in the wind* [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I'm sure my gay friends would think you're an a.shole, too. I'm going to say no to you, so you can stop anytime. > peril wrote: > > <..> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > IN THE *UNITED STATES*. 'Organic Strive for ecological balance and minimize pesticide use; build soil and plant health to avoid the need for treatment All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; use safest approved materials .. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/org_land_care/which.html 'Pesticide Monitoring Program SCS's NutriClean division offers retail grocers a unique produce department quality control/ quality assurance testing program, involving sampling and testing of products throughout the department, in order to: . Educate produce buyers about pesticide residues in the produce they carry from preferred vendors . Identify vendors with consistent residue problems, and steer away from these vendors . Prevent produce with illegal residues from being sold . Provide quality assurance testing of Certified Organic foods The Pesticide Monitoring Program was established in the late 1980s as the nation's first supermarket testing program for pesticide residues in fresh produce. The Program augments routine government testing, putting residue information directly into the hands of supermarket buyers for the first time to support more informed buying decisions. Years of testing under this program has resulted in the accumulation of the largest independent pesticide residue database in the world. By undertaking this program element, retailers can become active subscribers to this database. Testing priorities include: imports, regional shippers, products/shippers with known residue histories, seasonal factors, residues of special concern, and certified organic foods. SCS also spot-checks NutriClean-certified produce, for added quality control. ..' http://www.scscertified.com/foodAgriculture/foodag_pesticidemonitor.html 'Pesticide Residues - Organic Versus Conventional "One-Quarter of Organic Produce Contains Pesticides, Study Finds. Think Organic Fruits and Vegetables are Free of Pesticides? Think Again." "Study Confirms Organic Foods Have Fewer Pesticides. Researchers Reveal Organic Produce Helps Consumers Avoid Dietary Pesticide Exposure." At first glance, you wouldn't know these headlines are describing the same study or giving consumers the same advice. But in fact, they are both describing findings from "the first detailed analysis of pesticide residue data in foods grown organically and conventionally." The study was designed, in part, to answer the question, Do organically grown foods contain fewer pesticide residues than conventionally grown foods? The answer to this question has been surprisingly controversial with some critics of organic agriculture going so far as to suggest organically grown foods have just as many pesticide residues as conventionally grown foods. One reason the public debate has been largely subjective and uninformed is due to the lack of data to objectively answer the question. It must also be recognized that the detection (presence) of a residue does not necessarily mean the level is close to the EPA tolerance for that pesticide. [Note: a "tolerance" is the maximum amount of a specific pesticide that is allowed to remain in or on foods. So, how often a pesticide residue is detected (frequency of detection) and the actual level of the pesticide in the food can be very different.] In the last few years, enough data on pesticide residues have become available so that an objective comparison can now be made. To do their analysis, researchers from the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) and Consumers Union obtained data on three categories of foods: organically gown foods, foods produced with Integrated Pest Management/No Detectable Residue (IPM/NDR), and with no market claim (assumed to be conventionally grown) from three independent sources representing tests of over 94,000 food samples. The three sources were the Pesticide Data Program of the USDA, the Marketplace Surveillance Program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; and private tests conducted by Consumers Union. The researchers analyzed the data sets to determine the differences in both the frequency and levels of pesticides in the various categories of foods. Specifically, they tested three hypotheses: Organic produce is less likely to have detectable pesticide residues than either IPM/DNR or conventionally grown produce. Among samples with any residues, conventional and IPM/NDR foods are more likely to have multiple residues in a given sample than organic foods are. When present, residues in organic foods are likely to be at lower levels than those in non-organic foods. Among their findings: Organically grown food samples contained residues about one-third as often as conventional samples did, and half as often as IPM/DNR samples did. For example, the USDA data showed 23% of organic, 47% of IPM/DNR, and 73% of conventional foods had at least one pesticide residue. Conventionally grown crops were six times as likely as organically grown foods to contain multiple pesticide residues. For example, USDA data showed 46% of conventional samples and 7% of organic samples had multiple pesticide residues. Residues of pesticides in organic samples were lower than the same residues in conventional samples about two-thirds of the time. Overall, the analysis shows that organically grown foods have fewer and generally lower pesticide residues than conventionally grown foods. The researchers noted the results are remarkably consistent across all three data sets. Foods marketed with an IPM or NDR claim fall in between organic and conventional foods in both the frequency of residues and pesticide residue levels. Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce? Some of it is due to factors beyond the control of the organic farmer, such as pesticide drift from adjacent fields or contamination of soil or irrigation water. For example, when the researchers excluded residues of persistent, long-banned organochlorine insecticides such as DDT from their analysis of the USDA data, the fraction of organic samples with residues dropped from 23% to 13%. Mislabeling and occasional fraud could also explain why some organic samples tested positive for residues. So how should consumers react to these findings? First of all, they should continue to eat more fruits and vegetables. If a food sample tests positive for a residue, that doesn't necessarily mean it's unsafe to eat since the levels are rarely close to limits set by the EPA. The health risks associated with routine exposure to dietary pesticide residues are still uncertain and subject to debate. There are much clearer health risks associated with not consuming enough fruits and vegetables. Even so, based on the recent analysis, the exposure to pesticide residues is indeed likely to be less with organically grown foods. But it should be kept in mind that organically grown food is not necessarily pesticide free. On the other hand, conventionally grown foods may be cheaper and more accessible for many consumers and increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, regardless of how they are grown, should be encouraged. In other words, both sets of headlines above are accurate. For information on how to reduce the amount of pesticide residues in foods, the fact sheet Consumer Concerns About Pesticides in Food from Cornell's Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors (BCERF) provides a list of tips. These include washing, peeling, and cooking foods and eating a varied diet rich in fruits and vegetables. BCERF also has a fact sheet on Pesticide Residue Monitoring and Food Safety which presents an overview of the federal regulations on use of pesticides, federal monitoring programs for pesticide residues in food, and outlines some issues being debated nationwide. Ref: Baker, B.P., Benbrook, C.M. and Groth, E. Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets. Food Additives and Contaminants, 19(5): 427-446, 2002. Consumers Union press release, 5/8/02. Consumers Union summary, 5/8/02. OMRI press release, 5/8/02. AP release, 5/8/02. Christina Stark, M.S., R.D. Nutrition Specialist Cornell Cooperative Extension May/June 2002 http://www.cce.cornell.edu/food/fsarchives/050602/pesticide.html peril wrote: >>><..> >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Strive Theory is demolished by practice. Organic doesn't mean free of pesticides, nor does it mean that food is inherently healthier, more nutritious, has more flavor, etc. > >>><..> > >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Theory is demolished by practice. Organic doesn't mean free of > pesticides, Practice demolishes your tall tales. 'Strive for ecological balance and minimize pesticide use; build soil and plant health to avoid the need for treatment All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; use safest approved materials .. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/org_land_care/which.html 'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce? Some of it is due to factors beyond the control of the organic farmer, such as pesticide drift from adjacent fields or contamination of soil or irrigation water. For example, when the researchers excluded residues of persistent, long-banned organochlorine insecticides such as DDT from their analysis of the USDA data, the fraction of organic samples with residues dropped from 23% to 13%. Mislabeling and occasional fraud could also explain why some organic samples tested positive for residues.' http://www.cce.cornell.edu/food/fsarchives/050602/pesticide.html > nor does it mean that food is inherently healthier, more > nutritious, has more flavor, etc. Of course it is. peril wrote: >>peril wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Practice demolishes your stupid theory. > 'Strive Keep *striving* all you want -- organic farmers *continue* to use pesticides, they *continue* to kill animals, they *continue* to use dead fish products and blood and bone meals for fertilizer, etc. What they *strive* to do and what they *actually* do are two separate things, dummy. >>nor does it mean that food is inherently healthier, more >>nutritious, has more flavor, etc. > > Of course it is. Ipse dixit. Spokespeople for the organic industry does not make such claims, nor do researchers like Consumers Union. Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that their products offer no significant nutritional advantages. Katherine DiMatteo, *spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade Association*, was asked on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether organic foods were more nutritious than their conventional counterparts. She *twice responded* that “*organic foods are as nutritious as any other product*.” *Not* *more* *nutritious*, merely “as nutritious.” The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter (http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02solutions/10tufts/tuftsqa/organic.htm) answered the question of whether organic is more nutritious this way: “*No one knows*. The *question is a difficult one to study* because of all the factors besides farming methods that could affect nutritional quality, including soil type and climate. The evidence from the small body of reliable studies available thus far *does not show any significant differences between the nutrient content of organically grown and conventionally grown food*.” UC Davis nutritionist Dr. Gail Feenstra says, “As much as I'd like to say yes, *unfortunately the evidence doesn't show that it is*. *The studies are equivocal*; there are *no definitive studies* that show that organic is much better than conventionally-produced produce." Consumer Reports, a magazine that strongly favors organic foods (and has recommended it several times in the past), wrote this after its own evaluation of organic foods Dec. 15, 1997. (available at www.consumerreports.com/Special/News/Reports/9712n001.html): “Yet organic produce tastes no different than ‘conventionally’ grown produce, and *any nutritional differences there might be between them are likely so subtle as to evade detection*.” Canada’s Manitoba Agriculture and Food agency (www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/homeec/cbd03s01.htm) had this to say: “Nutritional value of plants depends on genetics, availability of water, amount of sunlight, maturity when picked, how long it took to come to market and whether it was properly handled and refrigerated. *Numerous laboratory tests have not found any substantial nutritional differences in organically and conventionally grown produce*.” The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/research/researchfund/fs2docs/fs7061.htm): “Various comparisons have been made on the nutrient content of plants and on other components of nutritional quality. Although differences can be found they are not consistent among the different experiments that have been conducted. Varying the soil nutrients or other growing conditions could conceivably produce similar results. *There is no conclusive evidence that crops grown organically are either inferior or superior nutritionally*. There are major differences between experiments and among crops within the same experiment.” http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/1999/oct_18_97.htm Now go rub some tourist's smelly old feet. > peril wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > Practice demolishes Dishonest editing. Proof of his lack of integrity. > your stupid theory. Practice demolishes his tall tales. > > 'Strive 'Strive for ecological balance and minimize pesticide use; build soil and plant health to avoid the need for treatment All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; use safest approved materials .. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/org_land_care/which.html > Keep *striving* all you want -- organic farmers *continue* to use > pesticides, they *continue* to kill animals, they *continue* to use dead > fish products and blood and bone meals for fertilizer, etc. What they > *strive* to do and what they *actually* do are two separate things, dummy. ---restore-- 'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce? Some of it is due to factors beyond the control of the organic farmer, such as pesticide drift from adjacent fields or contamination of soil or irrigation water. For example, when the researchers excluded residues of persistent, long-banned organochlorine insecticides such as DDT from their analysis of the USDA data, the fraction of organic samples with residues dropped from 23% to 13%. Mislabeling and occasional fraud could also explain why some organic samples tested positive for residues.' http://www.cce.cornell.edu/food/fsarchives/050602/pesticide.html ---- > >>nor does it mean that food is inherently healthier, more > >>nutritious, has more flavor, etc. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that ?organic foods are as nutritious as any other product.? Not more > nutritious, merely ?as nutritious.? huh. 'chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy revealed that the organically-grown oranges contained 30% more vitamin C than the conventionally-grown fruits ? even though they were only about half the size. ' http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020603071017.htm > --The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter > (http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02solutions/10tufts/tuftsqa/organic.htm) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > significant differences between the nutrient content of organically > grown and conventionally grown food.? More research confirms organic food is better for you RESEARCH PAPER: ARCHIVED The Soil Association Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health report showed that the nutritional content of organic was higher than non-organic foods. New US research shows by how much. "While my review looked at the entire picture of nutritional food quality" says Shane Heaton, author of the Soil Association food quality report, "this research, by nutritionist Virginia Worthington, has looked specifically at the comparative vitamin and mineral contents, reviewing a similar collection of scientific studies. "Her research confirms our findings that, on average, organic produce contains significantly higher levels of vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus, and how seemingly small differences in nutrients can mean the difference between getting the recommended daily allowance - or failing to." All 21 minerals compared were higher in organic produce. ..' http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/Articles10122001.html > --UC Davis nutritionist Dr. Gail Feenstra says, ?As much as I'd > like to say yes, unfortunately the evidence doesn't show that it is. The > studies are equivocal; there are no definitive studies that show that > organic is much better than conventionally-produced produce." 'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits absorbtion of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis. ..' http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Foods/organic.html > --Consumer Reports, a magazine that strongly favors organic foods > (and has recommended it several times in the past), wrote this after its [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and any nutritional differences there might be between them are likely > so subtle as to evade detection.? 'Evaluation of validity of studies Of the 99 studies found, claiming or claimed to make a direct comparison of the nutritional quality of organic and non-organic produce, 70 were rejected as invalid comparisons for the following reasons: insufficient duration (27), incorrect or unknown practices (23), absence of relevant quality comparisons (14) and republished results of previous experiments (6). Of the 29 remaining valid studies, 14 compare mineral contents, 13 compare vitamin C contents and 19 compare the dry matter content of organic and non-organic produce. Results Against a background of declining mineral levels in fresh produce over the last sixty years (Mayer 1997), and given that many people fail to achieve the recommended daily allowance for a variety of nutrients (MAFF 1996, Clayton 2001), the nutrient contents of organic and non-organic produce are worthy of comparison. .. While similar controlled studies in humans are difficult, clinical experience and recorded observations have suggested similar benefits in human reproductive health (Foresight), recovery from illness (Plaskett 1999) and general health (Daldy 1940) from the consumption of organically produced food. .. http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/library/Assessing%20organic%20food%20quality.pdf 'Study Denying Nutritional Benefits of Organic Was Bogus .. Zinc levels, one of the more interesting comparisons given it's importance as a trace mineral in human health and because many people are not able to obtain the recommended daily allowance, described as 'negligible', are reported as the same level in all twenty crops, which is often 100 percent higher than the conventional food table figures. Clearly the zinc levels were not properly assessed. http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/bogusstudy071902.cfm > -- Canada?s Manitoba Agriculture and Food agency > (www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/homeec/cbd03s01.htm) had this to say: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > laboratory tests have not found any substantial nutritional differences > in organically and conventionally grown produce.? 'The mineral content of organic food - Rutgers University USA Percentage of | Quantities per 100 Grams | Trace Elements. Parts per million Dry Weight | Dry Weight | Dry matter Vegetable: Mineral Ash | Calcium Magnesium | Boron Manganese Iron Copper Cobalt Snap Beans Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69 0.26 Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3 0 Cabbage Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48 0.15 Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4 0 Lettuce Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60 0.19 Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3 0 Tomatoes Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53 0.63 Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0 0 Spinach Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25 Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2 http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/whyorganic/whyorganic.htm. > --The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs > (http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/research/researchfund/fs2docs/fs7061.htm): [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > superior nutritionally. There are major differences between experiments > and among crops within the same experiment.? 'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the primary step in achieving products of high nutritional content. An understanding of nutritional balance, physical and biophysical soil composition underpins a successful organic farming system. ' http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/org5yr3.htm > Dr. Clarence Swanton, professor in the Department of Plant Agriculture > at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada says, ?There is no > scientific evidence whatsoever that I am aware of that [organic food] is > nutritionally better for you.? > http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/1999/oct_18_97.htm 'Organic food IS more nutritious, especially if fresh, and eating it is vital to good health; let those who claim otherwise try to prove their case! I still see articles in reputable magazines stating that there is no nutritional difference between organic produce and regular supermarket food. I've even repeatedly received this erroneous information from Agricultural Extension offices and Professors of Agriculture at ?reputable? State Universities... although one Professor, probably safely tenured, told me in hushed tones that ?of course, most of our funding comes from chemical companies.? http://www.living-foods.com/articles/organicnutritious.html 'According to the USDA, the calcium content of an apple has declined from 13.5 mg in 1914 to 7 mg in 1992. The iron content has declined from 4.6 mg in 1914 to 0.18 mg in 1992. .. A study published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993 compared the nutrient content of supermarket food versus organically grown food from food stores in the Chicago area. The organic produce averaged twice the mineral content of the supermarket food. http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/organic_agriculture.htm 'Organic oats have much higher levels of essential nutrients than conventional .. As the chart below shows, preliminary nutritional analysis of oat plants from The Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial found that the organic plants had increases of up to 74 percent in nutrient content over conventionally grown plants, suggesting an answer to the perennial question, "Is organic better?" http://www.newfarm.org/columns/jeff_moyer/1003.shtml 'A study commissioned by the Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia (ORGAA) found that conventionally grown fruit and vegetables purchased in supermarkets and other commercial retail outlets had ten times less mineral content than fruit and vegetables grown organically. Source: Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia, 2000, as cited in Pesticides and You, Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring 2000, News from Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides. http://www.organicconnection.net/nutritional.html peril wrote: >>peril wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Practice demolishes your theories and platitudes about what is strived for. >>>'Strive Does not mean "achieve." >>Keep *striving* all you want -- organic farmers *continue* to use >>pesticides, they *continue* to kill animals, they *continue* to use dead [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ---restore-- > 'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce? Because organic farmers use them. Stop blaming other farmers half a continent away for "pesticide drift." What a load of BS, Les. >>>>nor does it mean that food is inherently healthier, more >>>>nutritious, has more flavor, etc. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > huh. That probably did go over your head, and you probably just realized that after I've pasted it in for your benefit no less than four times. >> --The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter >>(http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02solutions/10tufts/tuftsqa/organic.htm) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > More research confirms organic food is better for you No, it doesn't. Those studies did NOT take samples directly from farms within the same region for the purpose of making equivalent comparisons (similar soil structure, similar climate, etc.). They're a load of crap. <... .. > > ---restore-- > > 'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce? > > Because organic farmers use them. Evidence of organic pesticide residues? <..> > >> --The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter > >>(http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02solutions/10tufts/tuftsqa/organic.htm) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > within the same region for the purpose of making equivalent comparisons > (similar soil structure, similar climate, etc.). They're a load of crap. 'Organic oats have much higher levels of essential nutrients than conventional .. As the chart below shows, preliminary nutritional analysis of oat plants from The Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial found that the organic plants had increases of up to 74 percent in nutrient content over conventionally grown plants, suggesting an answer to the perennial question, "Is organic better?" ..' http://www.newfarm.org/columns/jeff_moyer/1003.shtml peril wrote: >>peril wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Evidence of organic pesticide residues? Funny you should ask because, at least in the US, organic produce isn't tested for pesticide residues. They have some big fat-cat lobbyists in DC. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1866 > <..> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 'Organic oats have much higher levels of essential nutrients than conventional Ipse dixit. That chart has nothing to do with final conclusions of their own little in-house study. Indeed, there is nothing in the article about testing methods. I'm curious, did they compare fresh organic oats to something they bought in a store? Did they actually use oats from the "conventional" field, and just how were their "conventional" oats grown? If the results of this snapshot are a precursor of the results we’ll see in the full study, we’ll have a great story to tell. That was written on 24 Oct 2003. No updates yet, Les? > .. > As the chart below shows, preliminary nutritional analysis of oat plants from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ..' > http://www.newfarm.org/columns/jeff_moyer/1003.shtml Operative sentence from accompanying article: If the results of this snapshot are a precursor of the results we’ll see in the full study, we’ll have a great story to tell. I'm glad you enjoy preliminary conclusions. Get back to us when the "study" -- conducted entirely by organic activists -- is complete. > >>>---restore-- > >>>'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Funny you should ask because, You have none. Just tall tales. > at least in the US, organic produce isn't > tested for pesticide residues. They have some big fat-cat lobbyists in DC. > http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1866 http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom It has been, and is tested. You've seen the results of an analysis: http://www.cce.cornell.edu/food/fsarchives/050602/pesticide.html > > <..> > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Ipse dixit. Who are you trying to kid exactly? <nonsense peril wrote: >>>>>---restore-- >>>>>'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You have explained this to you repeatedly. >>at least in the US, organic produce isn't >>tested for pesticide residues. They have some big fat-cat lobbyists in DC. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It has been, and is tested. Ipse dixit. Surprisingly, few empirical analyses of residue data have addressed this question, mostly because of a dearth of data on residues in organic produce. http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm > You've seen the results of an analysis: Try this, idiot. Same Consumers Union link as above. Their analysis of organic crops was small and limited, but their samples showed the following percentages of single pesticide residues in ORGANIC produce: "23, 6.5 and 27 percent in the USDA, DPR and CU data." Furthermore, 7, 1.3 and 6 percent (respectively) of the samples had multiple residues. Consumers Union, who have long advocated consumption of organics, concluded: Our analysis shows convincingly that organically grown foods have fewer and generally lower pesticide residues than conventionally grown foods... Organic foods typically contain pesticide residues only one-third as often as conventionally grown foods do. They are NOT pesticide-free, dummy, and some organic samples had more residues than some conventional samples. >>><..> >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Who are you trying to kid exactly? Address the points, Chelsea. You're making categorical claims about farming practices with which you have ZERO first-hand experience or knowledge, Lesley. You were wrong about the lack of dead animal matter (fish emulsion, fish meal, bone meal, blood meal) used in organic farming. You're wrong about the use of pesticides, too. Restore: Just the natural versions of the same chemicals. Rather than pyrethrINS, organic farmers use pryrethRUM -- a known human carcinogen. Organic farmers also use other toxins containing sulphur and copper which build up in soil and water, poisoning birds and fish and other animals. Organic chemicals disrupt the ecosystem, too, Les. Organic pesticides cause cancer in rodents (and humans): One of organic farming's most widely used pesticides--pyrethrum--has been classified as a ``likely human carcinogen.'' An advisory committee to the Environmental Protection Agency made the classification two years ago, after pyrethrum caused higher-than-normal numbers of tumors in two different sets of laboratory rodents. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2001/jun_8_01.htm Organic pesticides induce Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rodents (and humans): Rotenone, a commonly used organic pesticide, has attracted a lot of attention in Dr. Greenamyre's lab. In past studies, Dr. Greenamyre and colleagues found that rotenone can induce major features of PD in rats, including slowness, stiffness and tremor. Published in Nature Neuroscience in November 2000, these results support the idea that chronic exposure to environmental pesticides may contribute to the incidence of Parkinson's disease in humans. With the new funding, Dr. Greenamyre will continue to research rodent and cell models of PD to determine which genes cause susceptibility or resistance to the PD-inducing effects of pesticides. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/F/20022444.html Organic pesticides affect more than just target species: Some organic pesticides may be toxic to nontargets. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/org_land_care/which.html Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention: The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries – including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list included 22 organic pesticides considered to be highly toxic... http://www.nex.org.br/english/denucias_envenenamento.htm An organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT. http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm Organic pesticides kill fish: While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other animals. For instance, the organic pesticide ryania is very toxic to fish. http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm Organic pesticides kill a variety of non-target species, and foods grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free": Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone kills fish. Copper sulphate kills many creatures. In California, an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call their produce "pesticide free." http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html See also: http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1677 Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its conventional counterpart: Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate used by organic farmers is toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2000/sep_8_00.htm Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a variety of species including humans: There have been reports of human suicide resulting from the ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is toxic to aquatic invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters. Based on data on the potential hazards posed by this material to the slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass, and in an effort to minimize exposure of endangered species to this material, applicators in some counties are required to consult EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate. http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm Organic pesticides ARE toxins: Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper compounds that can be tough on other organisms and the environment. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on a wide range of insects. Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to mammals and highly toxic to fish. It is illegal to apply them around ponds or waterways. So even though it says "organic", it can still pack a nasty punch. http://www.springledgefarm.com/glossary.htm End restore. > >>>>>---restore-- > >>>>>'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > You have none. Just tall tales. Get back to us when you have some evidence of collateral deaths due to the *application of pesticides in organic farming*, usual liar. peril wrote: >>>>>>>---restore-- >>>>>>>'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > none. Wrong. Surprisingly, few empirical analyses of residue data have addressed this question, mostly because of a dearth of data on residues in organic produce. http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm Same Consumers Union link as above. Their analysis of organic crops was small and limited, but their samples showed the following percentages of single pesticide residues in ORGANIC produce: "23, 6.5 and 27 percent in the USDA, DPR and CU data." Furthermore, 7, 1.3 and 6 percent (respectively) of the samples had multiple residues. Consumers Union, who have long advocated consumption of organics, concluded: Our analysis shows convincingly that organically grown foods have fewer and generally lower pesticide residues than conventionally grown foods... Organic foods typically contain pesticide residues only one-third as often as conventionally grown foods do. They are NOT pesticide-free, dummy, and some organic samples had more residues than some conventional samples. > Get back to us when you have some evidence of collateral deaths What about fish? What about humans? What about birds? Those are ALL vertebrates. References to "NON-TARGET SPECIES" are to CDs, dummy. Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention: The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries – including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list included 22 organic pesticides considered to be *highly toxic*... http://www.nex.org.br/english/denucias_envenenamento.htm [Highly toxic meaning those organic pesticides affect non-target species, including humans, dummy.] An organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT. http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm [DDT was linked to the death of bald eagles, a non-target species, dummy.] Organic pesticides kill fish: While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other animals. For instance, *the organic pesticide ryania is very toxic to fish*. http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm [Fish are a non-target species, dummy.] Organic pesticides kill a variety of *non-target species*, and foods grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free": Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone *kills fish*. Copper sulphate *kills many creatures*. In California, an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call their produce "pesticide free." http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html See also: http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1677 Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its conventional counterpart: Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate used by organic farmers is *toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals*. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2000/sep_8_00.htm Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a variety of species including humans: There have been reports of *human suicide* resulting from the ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is *toxic to aquatic invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters*. Based on data on the potential hazards posed by this material to the *slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass*, and in an effort to *minimize exposure of endangered species* to this material, applicators in some counties are required to consult EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate. http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm Organic pesticides ARE toxins: Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper compounds that can be *tough on other organisms and the environment*. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on a wide range of insects. *Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to mammals* and *highly toxic to fish*. It is *illegal to apply them around ponds or waterways*. So even though it says "organic", it can still *pack a nasty punch*. http://www.springledgefarm.com/glossary.htm Go f.ck an inner earth being, Chelsea. > >>>>>>>---restore-- > >>>>>>>'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Wrong. You have; 1. NO evidence of ORGANIC pesticide residues in organic produce. 2. NO evidence of CDs due to *application* of pesticides *in organic farming*. P.S. Again; http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom >> >>>>>>>---restore-- >> >>>>>>>'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 2. NO evidence of CDs due to *application* of pesticides *in organic > farming*. ===================== All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! We've provided the proof that they are applied, and that the application of peaticides kills animals, and that crop production kills animals.. The only thing left is for you to somehow prove your ignorant claims that organic farming doesn't a) use pesticides, b)pesticides don't kill animals, and c)organic crops somehow just appear magically on your plate like manna from heaven. > P.S. Again; > http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom ================= LOL Just another 'front group' like they complain about, and they want your money! > All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! [All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65)] 'Organic growers focus on using techniques such as crop rotation, proper spacing between plants, incorporation of organic matter into the soil and use of biological controls to promote optimum plant growth and minimize pest problems. *Application of organic pesticides are considered a last resort and used sparingly.*' http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/VCU_4_99.pdf <*emphasis mine> In conventional farming, both organic and/or synthetic pesticides are applied on a calendar basis, whether they're needed or not. >> All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > In conventional farming, both organic and/or synthetic pesticides > are applied on a calendar basis, whether they're needed or not. ================ Here. ket me restore all that you snipped out, dishonestly, and pretended to address. You have failed on all counts of proving your claims, killer. All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! We've provided the proof that they are applied, and that the application of pesticides kills animals, and that crop production kills animals.. The only thing left is for you to somehow prove your ignorant claims that organic farming doesn't a) use pesticides, >>>not proven by you, in fact, just the opposite, you have provided proof >>>that they do use pesticides... b)pesticides don't kill animals, >>> Again, you have failed... and c)organic crops somehow just appear magically on your plate like manna from heaven. >>> Again, you have failed... > >> All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Here. ket me restore all that you snipped out, dishonestly, and pretended to > address. All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! Addressed, see above. > We've provided the proof > that they are applied, and that the application of pesticides kills animals, In conventional, not organic farming. See above. > and that crop production kills animals.. From: Michael (michael-nnooospppaaammmmsan@worldnet.att.net) Subject: Collateral Damage in Crop Fields? Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian View: Complete Thread (370 articles) Date: 2002-05-20 17:31:08 PST I have been farming for almost thirty years. I am unaware of this term collateral damage in the context of farming. I have hayed countless acres of fields and can't remember seeing anything killed except the grass. We see plenty of wildlife but all it has to do is move over six feet (2M) at a slow walk to avoid the machine. Now one thing they (who the hell is THEY?, sorry old John Wayne movie quote) do fall victim to is by removing the cover these animals have had for a few months the hawks have a field day. [pearl; Another very good reason to leave crop-residue on fields.] Corn and milo fields attract deer by the score but we consider that food they take as the "angels share". There are some farmers who have such large losses to deer that the state authorities allow killing the deer out of season. I add this not for shock value but in the sake of honesty. No one I know has requested this dispensation. During the raising or harvesting of what are the crops is damage to wildlife occurring? Combines and threshers are not Porsches. I have one tractor that is geared so low I can bungee cord the wheel straight, hop off, fix a displaced plant, hop back on and never go above a walk. You tell what wild animal is going to be surprised and caught by this thing. And it's loud as the hammers of hell. I don't know about this CD stuff. Sounds like BS to me. [end] My farming neighbours, a farmer posting from Norway, and organic rice farmer Kent Lundberg have all given similar accounts. > The only thing left is for you to > somehow prove your ignorant claims that organic farming doesn't a) use > pesticides, Never claimed by me. >not proven by you, in fact, just the opposite, you have provided proof Make up your mind.. >that they do use pesticides... As a last resort, the safest approved, sparingly. > b)pesticides don't kill animals, Evidence of collateral deaths due to the application of pesticides in organic farming? >> >> All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Addressed, see above. ================== No, it was not. It says nothing about the techniques for applying pesticides, killer.... Learn to read. >> We've provided the proof >> that they are applied, and that the application of pesticides kills >> animals, > > In conventional, not organic farming. See above. ======================= Wrong, you "proved" that pesticides are applied in organic farming, and you failed to prove that applying pesticides doesn't cause death and suffering to animals. >> and that crop production kills animals.. > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > My farming neighbours, a farmer posting from Norway, and organic > rice farmer Kent Lundberg have all given similar accounts. ================= ROTFLMAO But you automatically reject anecdotal reports from diderot? What a hoot, killer. >> The only thing left is for you to >> somehow prove your ignorant claims that organic farming doesn't a) use >> pesticides, > > Never claimed by me. =============== Yes, you have... >>not proven by you, in fact, just the opposite, you have provided proof > > Make up your mind.. =============== I did, you should try it, killer. >>that they do use pesticides... > > As a last resort, the safest approved, sparingly. ================ Used... >> b)pesticides don't kill animals, > > Evidence of collateral deaths due to the application of > pesticides in organic farming? ======================= Again, you have failed to prove that it doesn't kill animals, whereas I have proven that pesticides do kill animals, and that pesticides are used for organic farming. You lose, yet again, killer.. > >> >> All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! > >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > No, it was not. It says nothing about the techniques for applying > pesticides, killer.... Learn to read. As a last resort, the safest approved, sparingly. If CDs occur as a result, as you claim, you should be able to provide some evidence. 'till then.... <.. >> >> >> All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > As a last resort, the safest approved, sparingly. ============== Used... > If CDs occur as a result, as you claim, you should be able > to provide some evidence. 'till then.... > ================ Already done, fool. > <.. peril wrote: >>>In conventional farming, both organic and/or synthetic pesticides >>>are applied on a calendar basis, whether they're needed or not. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Addressed, see above. *Not* addressed. You're only regurgitating the talking points of the organic food industry -- a multi-billion dollar a year business. Organic farmers use the same pesticides, just natural versions. They have the same effects on humans and animals. Some are carcinogens, some are linked to Parkinson's, etc. There is no difference between the two *IN PRACTICE*, just in THEORY. Theories are bullshit the moment the pesticides are pulled out of the shed and sprayed on the food: Surprisingly, few empirical analyses of residue data have addressed this question, mostly because of a dearth of data on residues in organic produce. http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm Same Consumers Union link as above. Their analysis of organic crops was small and limited, but their samples showed the following percentages of single pesticide residues in ORGANIC produce: "23, 6.5 and 27 percent in the USDA, DPR and CU data." Furthermore, 7, 1.3 and 6 percent (respectively) of the samples had multiple residues. Consumers Union, who have long advocated consumption of organics, concluded: Our analysis shows convincingly that organically grown foods have fewer and generally lower pesticide residues than conventionally grown foods... Organic foods typically contain pesticide residues only one-third as often as conventionally grown foods do. They are NOT pesticide-free, dummy, and some organic samples had more residues than some conventional samples. >>We've provided the proof >>that they are applied, and that the application of pesticides kills animals, > > In conventional, not organic farming. See above. Bullshit. Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals*. <...> >>that they do use pesticides... > > As a last resort, the safest approved, sparingly. Ipse dixit. >>b)pesticides don't kill animals, > > Evidence of collateral deaths due to the application of > pesticides in organic farming? Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals*. peril wrote: >>All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! > > 'Organic growers focus on growing food, critters be damned. Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals*. > In conventional farming, both organic and/or synthetic pesticides > are applied on a calendar basis, whether they're needed or not. Surprisingly, few empirical analyses of residue data have addressed this question, mostly because of a *dearth of data on residues in organic produce*. http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm Same Consumers Union link as above: Their analysis of organic crops was small and limited, but their samples showed the following percentages of single pesticide residues in ORGANIC produce: "23, 6.5 and 27 percent in the USDA, DPR and CU data." Furthermore, 7, 1.3 and 6 percent (respectively) of the samples had *multiple residues*. Consumers Union, who have long advocated consumption of organics, concluded: Our analysis shows convincingly that organically grown foods have fewer and generally lower pesticide residues than conventionally grown foods... Organic foods typically contain pesticide residues only one-third as often as conventionally grown foods do. They are NOT pesticide-free, dummy, and some organic samples had more residues than some conventional samples. >>You have; >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > pesticides, b)pesticides don't kill animals, and c)organic crops somehow > just appear magically on your plate like manna from heaven. Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals*. peril wrote: >>peril wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 1. NO evidence of ORGANIC pesticide residues in organic produce. Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals*. > 2. NO evidence of CDs due to *application* of pesticides *in organic farming*. Vertebrates are among the "NON-TARGET SPECIES" mentioned below, dummy. Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention: The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries – including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list included 22 organic pesticides considered to be *highly toxic*... http://www.nex.org.br/english/denucias_envenenamento.htm [Highly toxic meaning those organic pesticides affect non-target species, including humans, dummy.] An organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT. http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm [DDT was linked to the death of bald eagles, a non-target species, dummy.] Organic pesticides kill fish: While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other animals. For instance, *the organic pesticide ryania is very toxic to fish*. http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm [Fish are a non-target species, dummy.] Organic pesticides kill a variety of *non-target species*, and foods grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free": Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone *kills fish*. Copper sulphate *kills many creatures*. In California, an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call their produce "pesticide free." http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html See also: http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1677 Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its conventional counterpart: Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate used by organic farmers is *toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals*. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2000/sep_8_00.htm Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a variety of species including humans: There have been reports of *human suicide* resulting from the ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is *toxic to aquatic invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters*. Based on data on the potential hazards posed by this material to the *slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass*, and in an effort to *minimize exposure of endangered species* to this material, applicators in some counties are required to consult EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate. http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm Organic pesticides ARE toxins: Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper compounds that can be *tough on other organisms and the environment*. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on a wide range of insects. *Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to mammals* and *highly toxic to fish*. It is *illegal to apply them around ponds or waterways*. So even though it says "organic", it can still *pack a nasty punch*. http://www.springledgefarm.com/glossary.htm > P.S. Again; QED. Again. >> Red Meat Consumption Linked To Colon Cancer Risk >> January 11, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >issue. I'm not saying lack of oxygen causes cancer, but it is a factor that >has been shown to exist. I'm afraid that you are mistaken. Eating red meet does not deplete the blood's ability to carry oxygen; indeed, the iron in meat is used to make more red blood cells, which carry oxygen. Your ideas about tight clothing are also mistaken; none of them affect the ability of the blood to carry oxygen or the ability of the wearer to breathe (unless you're talking about those old whalebone corsets). -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT) >>> Red Meat Consumption Linked To Colon Cancer Risk >>> January 11, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > the blood's ability to carry oxygen; indeed, the iron in meat is used > to make more red blood cells, which carry oxygen. Yes, it's a source of iron, but eating red meat clumps the blood cells lessens the blood's capacity to carry O2 to all cells efficiently. > Your ideas about tight clothing are also mistaken; none of them affect > the ability of the blood to carry oxygen or the ability of the wearer > to breathe (unless you're talking about those old whalebone corsets). They're not my ideas. I've read them on many a source. You need to wear underwear that is not too tight and made of natural fibres. Circulation, both blood and lymphatic drainage must not be impeded for optimal health. > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants > were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT) The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been taught for decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced with a variety of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance.. It's not brain surgery. > Red Meat Consumption Linked To Colon Cancer Risk > January 11, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > studies have linked fruit and vegetable consumption with a decreased > risk of developing breast cancer. > The answer to your subject line is in your post, as we have been taught for > decades, easy on the red meat, more fish and chicken balanced with a variety > of fruits and vegetables, balance, balance, balance.. > > |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message