http://www.storewars.org/flash/
funny look at some of the topics we've discussed
http://www.storewars.org/flash/
funny look at some of the topics we've discussed
I guess they figure that cute cartoons will hide the stark facts? The fact is, each year about half a million children go blind while 2,000,000 a year die from diseases they would likely survive if they weren’t so malnourished. The sad thing is that this doesn't have to happen. This silent genocide is preventable. How? Golden Rice. By adding two daffodil genes to common rice, researchers have made it rich in beta-carotene, which humans can convert to vitamin A. So what keeps the most vulnerable of the world from receiving this life-giving food, some greedy, evil corporation? No. Anti-technology environmental extremists like the ones that produced the video. A more accurate video would have featured a representative of the Organic Trade Association explaining to Zambian children, emaciated from hunger, how evil genetically enhanced foods are and that the hunger in their swollen stomachs is a small price to pay for us to feel good about ourselves.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
somuch BS, so little time. Truth is there are alot more bad things about "engineered" food than good, though there are times when technology can be good for food.
But, as the video is concentrating on corporate farming....it's clearly US centered. In the US, corporate farming sources about 85% of all supermarket/mainstream food....very little (but growing in percentage) of that is sustainably/organically/locally grown. On average, the food on your plate traveled 1,500 MILES to reach you...and relied on underpaid migrants, poisonous chemicals, pestiicieds and farming practices (not to mention gov't subsidies) to get there. Heck, DDT was invented to makeapples redder and prettier for consumers - too bad it was HORRIBLE for us.
Most gov't "small farmer" incentives end up with big companies..but because organic/sustainable/natural foods are so much better they're growing in popularity. Costs are a small amount higher (because those chemical and government subsidies aren't artificially lowering the price) but many people choose it anyway. My friend was just diagnosed with a thyroid condition - we later found outit's probably hormone related (as in the hormones in our food) because the more organically we eat the less the problem persists.
how specifically has OTA had anything to do with preventing foodfrom getting to those children? where is your information coming from? Hasn't it been substantially political and corporate issues like stockpiles that never get distributed (we've got warehouses of the stuff they can have) and geopolitical turmoil...and the fact that not enough $$ has been raised to pay corporations and bribe governments? you don't have a clue what youre talking about...
Wow, all that from Obi-Wan Canolli?
If you want to talk about BS, there's plenty of it the cute video. More importantly, there is downright disinformation designed to plant fear in the minds of the uninformed about the safety of their food.
Consider the scene where the food is subjected to a mysterious green bearm while the supposed dangers of irradiation are discussed. The green beam comes from behind a door. On the door is the international symbol for radiation. According to the EPA, "This sign is posted where radioactive materials are handled, or where radiation-producing equipment is used. This sign is used as a warning to protect people from being exposed to radioactivity." However, according to the Food and Drug Administration, food irradiation is perfectly safe. and in fact actually makes food safer for human consumption. Food irradiation does not make food radioactive anymore that the scanner at the airport makes your baggage radioactive. Yet the video displays the misleading symbol implying that the process makes food a danger.
That is a blatant, intentional lie, designed to scare people.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
no more than your statement blaming the organic food movement for international famine.
Food is being irradiated...whether the FDA says its' bad (even if they're right 40 years down the road) it still is something most people DON"T KNOW about...and it is a fact. Howelse would you get that visually accross in a movie?
This film's intention is to plant QUESTIONS in their minds...and get them thinking outside the box. Whether that fear is confirmed or eliminated by facts is a personal choice..but NOTHING I saw in this movie is patently untrue.
Thanks to the baseless fear-mongering of the organic food movement we get this:
Zambia rejects genetically modified food aid
As the country reels in hunger and starvation occasioned by crop failure and severe drought, the government has rejected relief food from the West in the form of genetically modified maize. Zambia, like several other countries in the Central and Southern African region, has been hit by a serious food shortage, a situation that has led the government to declare most parts disaster areas. Over two million people have been affected by hunger as a result of grain shortages following a devastating drought that has rocked the country. Zambia alone, needs not less than 200,000 tonnes of maize grain to feed those affected both in rural and urban areas.
The United States government has indicated its readiness to supply Zambia with genetically modified maize to help cushion the impact of the severe grain shortage...
The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that Zambia needs US$61 million in food aid to avert an impending crisis. WFP Country Director Richard Ragan recently told a local newspaper that the Zambian government would be restricting the amount of food aid if it rejected genetically modified organisms foods. Ragan said that rejecting such foods would make his job difficult as most western nations like Canada and the US mainly supply them as relief food...
As the food shortage continues to bite, some Zambians in the rural areas - who are faced with starvation - have resorted to eating poisonous wild roots and vegetables, which require more than eight hours of boiling. The masses do not see anything wrong with GM maize and continue to blame the government for their suffering.
Genetically modified food, the same food Americans and Canadians consume every day, rotted in Zambian warehouses while thousands starved. Yeah, cute.
Question: Which would you rather the starving children of Zambia have eaten, genetically modified maize or poisonous wild roots and vegetables?
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
There is no credible evidence that DDT poses a health risk for humans. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that DDT is perfectly safe:Originally Posted by discretedancer
In spite of the massive accumulation of evidence on the safety of DDT and other chemicals, there is a still steady drumbeat in the media about alleged cancer causing pesticides and chemical additives. The often unstated presumption is that "natural foods" are free of "chemicals," although what exactly that may mean is unclear, since plants do in fact consist of chemical constituents. Breast cancer still heads the list of the cancers that are alleged to be caused by "chemicals," with DDT, DDE [1,1dichloro2,2bis(pchlorophenyl) ethylene, the metabolite of DDT], and other organochlorines considered the worst culprits, though repeated studies have failed to bear out this fear.
Source: American Council on Health and Science.
What is known is that since DDT was banned, malaria has killed approximately 50 million people. Malaria could be largely eradicated by coordinated application of DDT.
After using DDT for years to control the disease, South Africa bowed to environmentalist pressure, and switched to another, more politically acceptable pesticide. Within three years, malaria shot from a few thousand cases a year to nearly 70,000. So the country reintroduced DDT, using it to spray the walls and eaves of homes. It slashed malaria by 80 percent in 18 months.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
ummm...where in here does any credible source identify organic/natural food as a cause of the problem? You don't know WHY the government rejects GM food.Originally Posted by Destiny
Put another way...care to answer my earlier question?
"how specifically has OTA had anything to do with preventing foodfrom getting to those children? where is your information coming from? "
" geopolitical turmoil...and the fact that not enough $$ has been raised to pay corporations and bribe governments? "
Now... I could admit that GM food is a better BALANCE in this case than starvation.....but how does that make organic food bad or the goal wrong.
Read the article. The government of Zambia rejected the food because of the fear mongering of the "organic" food industry. This suggestion has, however, met a lot of resistance from the government, civil society, and the general public who doubt the safety of the genetically modified (GM) grain. Neighbouring Zimbabwe and Mozambique have also rejected the US grain offer because of fears that it could have adverse effects on humans. You can be sure that Zambian scientists did not study the issue and warn the government of the supposed dangers of GM food on their own. These fears were imported from the west.Originally Posted by discretedancer
...Zambian Vice President Enoch Kavindele recently told Parliament that the government could not take up the offer of GM maize without getting advice based on scientific research by Zambian experts. Nominated Member of Parliament and Minister for Agriculture and Co-operatives Mundia Sikatana recently said that the country was not ready to accept the grain. "For now, we are not accepting either the technology or the genetically modified foods. We have to come up with a policy which will safeguard the health of our people," he said. Yeah, like Zambia has the technology to determine this? Please.
Sikatana added that the government was collecting information and seeking opinions from scientists to help formulate a policy that will best serve the interests of the country. I wonder what the gloom and doom environmentally correct "scientists" opinion was?
Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa categorically stated in an interview with British-based Sky News: "We would rather starve than get genetically modified foods without establishing its safety." He, however, admitted it was wrong for the country to reject the offer. No wonder, you can be sure he didn't miss a meal. Meanwhile his people were eating poisonous food while the free GM food rotted in a warehouse.
I don't dodge your questions the way you dodge mine. You can Google just as well as I can. You'll find countless websites warning of the supposed dangers of GM food. Here's one example:Put another way...care to answer my earlier question?
"how specifically has OTA had anything to do with preventing foodfrom getting to those children? where is your information coming from? "
Beware the danger of genetically modified food
...In addition, these altered plants are producing bacteria and toxins to kill insects. It is possible those same toxins will have negative long-term health effects on humans who eat these foods.�
...So far, the negative effects have outweighed the benefits. I guess that depends on if you're living an easy life in the U.S. or struggling to feed your starving children in Zambia, doesn't it?
Or just Google, "GM Food Protests in Zambia", and you'll find this:
In Zambia, the decision came after months of intense debate. Environmental and other "watchdog" groups critical of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been influential, and through networking, forums and protests applied pressure on the government. Local civic groups and scientists conducted a study tour of the US, India, South Africa and Europe to investigate views about genetic modification. "We established from all the countries we visited that GMOs are a health hazard," the team maintained after returning to Lusaka.
You'll also find that in addition to the fear mongering of environmental groups, there is another reason many African countries have rejected life-saving GM food. Under pressure from the Green Party in Europe, the EU has threatened to ban food imports from any African country that allows GM food in.
Yeah, you could, but your rigid ideology won't let you. I never said so-called organically grown food was bad. If people want to adopt outdated agricultural methods, that's their business. But in order to promote thier own produce, the organic food industry has promoted lies and fears that are costing children their lives. I don't find that cute.Now... I could admit that GM food is a better BALANCE in this case than starvation.....but how does that make organic food bad or the goal wrong.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle





I buy organic as much as possible. If someone else wants to buy GM foods, fine. They chose to take that risk. The only thing that I think would be nice is for the FDA to require GM labels.
Because there ain't no tits on the radio
I'd have no problem with that, if they made the organic food people label theirs as well. They might use a quote from Dr. Robert Tauxe of the Centers for Disease Control. He stated, "organic means the food was grown in animal manure." Hmm....somehow I don't think that would do much for sales.Originally Posted by hardkandee
Perhaps they could post some of these facts around the organic food market?
- The most deadly of the health threats in our food today is a virulent new strain of E. coli bacteria--0157:H7. It can attack kidneys and liver, causing permanent internal damage or death. Animal manure is the primary reservoir of this bacteria--and organic farmers rely heavily on manure to fertilize their crops.
- The Centers for Disease Control has confirmed 2,471 cases of 0157:H7 in 1996--and estimates at least 250 deaths. CDC says that this was only a small fraction of the total poisonings that occurred. Organic foods made up barely 1 percent of the U. S. food supply--but were implicated in at least 8 percent of the confirmed 0157:H7 cases.
- Consumer Reports recently found that free-range chickens are more likely to be infected with dangerous bacteria. Free-range chickens pick up almost anything, including parasites and bacteria from each other's wastes.
- The U. S. Food and Drug Administration says that organic crops have higher rates of infestation by natural toxins--including aflatoxin, one of the most violent cancer agents known to man. Organic foods suffer more damage from insects and rodents, which lets toxin-causing fungi get into the organic crops.
Source
- Raw and unpasteurized milk and ''natural" juices may claim to be "fresher" but are potentially contaminated with dangerous bacteria and diseases such as tuberculosis. More than 1500 companies sell such products in the U.S.
Hmm...somehow I don't think those facts would send sales soaring either. Perhaps thats why the organic food industry resorts to base-less fear mongering to promote their products? Like I said, I have no problem with people that want to buy food produced by outdated agricultural methods. My problem is with the fear mongering most of the organic food people use to promote their products.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle





Aren't organic foods already labeled anyhow? Isn't that typically their selling point?
Me? I feel good eating organic veggies but I'm all for geneticaly modified corn as well.
Yes, the USDA has standards for organic food labeling. However, the organic food label is only a guarantee that the food was produced according to the USDA's standards to be labeled organic. The organic label does not mean the food is any safer than regular food:Originally Posted by LoveSexMoney
USDA makes no claims that organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food. Organic food differs from conventionally produced food in the way it is grown, handled, and processed.
Personally, I prefer things like tomatoes and green beans from the stands on the side of the road. Whether those are really, "organic" or not, I don't know. Probably just some farmer that decided to cut out the middleman.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Partially true....since a "regular" food label also comes with no similar guarrantees...and doesn't specify the dangerous compounds used to produce the food (compounds so dangerous humans cannot be in the field while they're being applied in many cases).Originally Posted by Destiny
"Food grown the way it was meant to be" is most accurate about organic food...that nothing unnatural was added to it, it is what our bodies were designed to/evolved to use as source material...
The reason "regular" food carries no warning labels is because there is no need, it is perfectly safe. I've looked at lot "organic food" sites over the last week or so. What I find is a lot of, "might be...could be...maybe in 50 years we'll find out...we don't trust agribusiness..." BS. If medical science used those kind of standards we'd still be fighting polio and smallpox. What I have not found is any peer-reviewed scientific studies showing our food supply is unsafe or that "organic" is better.Originally Posted by discretedancer
Food was meant to be grown in animal shit? According to U.S. Center for Disease Control statistics, the use of animal manure as a fertilizer by organic farmers is a leading cause of death and sickness in this country from E. Coli."Food grown the way it was meant to be" is most accurate about organic food...that nothing unnatural was added to it, it is what our bodies were designed to/evolved to use as source material...
On the other hand:
Mainstream farmers rarely fertilizer food crops with manure, preferring the cleaner, safer chemical nitrogen taken from the air. The air we breathe, incidentally, is 78 percent nitrogen.
What about the "natural" foods we all see advertised? Unfortunately, they too often avoid such consumer protections as pasteurization and anti-bacterial washes. The "natural" apple juice that killed a young girl in Colorado a few of years ago is a terrible case in point.
But, a consumer might ask, aren't the bacterial risks of organic food offset by the higher nutritional value of organic food?
The answer, once more, is "no." No peer-reviewed study has found a significant nutritional advantage in organic foods.
In fact, Katherine Di Matteo of the Organic Trade Association recently told John Stossel of ABC News _ on national TV: "Organic foods are as nutritious as any other foods. " She said it twice. She also said: " Food safety is not what organic food standards are all about."
Source
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
I irradiate food all the time. It's called a microwave.
I tried buying fresh vegetables in an health food store once. Cost more money, and they rotted twice as fast. Now I buy like 93.78%** of other Americans from the bins at MegaSupermarket.
All the stuff we eat is genetically modified, but until now, it's taken centuries or decades instead of years or months. Our food now was not grown the way "it's meant to be grown," which begs the question of who or what "meant" it. Native Americans never saw the type of corn that we eat. If someone wants to make a better grain and subject it to peer-reviewed, double-blind studies, I don't have a logical objection to it.
Organic/health food sounds nice, but I thrive on facts. Not just facts about what it's got in it, or not - facts about demonstrable biochemical processes, effects on the body, and long-term results. Facts from good, objective science.
**92.47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Uhhh no. Not safe to workers (why do you think the pesticide bottles have warning labels on them? why do you think OSHA regulates the product? why do you think the Phase 1 environmental study I had done on my farm listed a reccommendation for groundwater testing around the facility where the former owners stored the pesticides?Originally Posted by Destiny
As for the food itself:
Commentary on..
"Pesticide on Food 'Almost No' Cancer Danger"
http://www.pmac.net/comments.htm
"Over the years, the public has heard from the media and consumer groups that synthetic chemicals in food are a major factor in the development of cancer"
http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/p...oodsafety.html
New GM warning over danger chemicals entering food chain
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990907c.htm
So, clearly your assumption is living up to it's name's reputation.
wrong again...What I have not found is any peer-reviewed scientific studies showing our food supply is unsafe or that "organic" is better.
... No peer-reviewed study has found a significant nutritional advantage in organic foods.
Want to know if organic food is really a better buy? Ysanne Spevack asks a dozen of the top food experts, scientists, farmers, professors and nutritionalists in Britain. Get the information you need. Read on to find out the truth behind organics...
http://www.organicfood.co.uk/sense/betterforyou.html
Consider this excerpt:
"There are numerous studies demonstrating no nutritional difference between organic and conventional fresh produce. However, closer examination of these studies often reveals fundamental flaws that either invalidate their results or do not allow conclusions to be drawn."
statements like this without links/references don't help me, since they disagree with the evidence I providedFood was meant to be grown in animal shit? According to U.S. Center for Disease Control statistics, the use of animal manure as a fertilizer by organic farmers is a leading cause of death and sickness in this country from E. Coli..
On the other hand:
Mainstream farmers rarely fertilizer food crops with manure, preferring the cleaner, safer chemical nitrogen taken from the air. The air we breathe, incidentally, is 78 percent nitrogen.
some do, and some don't .... and just as some food factories break regulations and kill people, cause salmonella or require recalls, some organic producers make mistakes too. your point?Unfortunately, they too often avoid such consumer protections as pasteurization and anti-bacterial washes. The "natural" apple juice that killed a young girl in Colorado a few of years ago is a terrible case in point. [/color][/i]
yes they are MORE nutritious..therefore they are AS nutiritious. I have 5 apples, you have 4...5 is MORE than 4, therefore I not only have AS MANY apples as you, I have 1 more"Organic foods are as nutritious as any other foods. " She said it twice. She also said: " Food safety is not what organic food standards are all about."[/color][/i]
and organic is NOT ALL about food safety...but it's a major part of it for many people. Organic standards (as well as to natural food practices) are about MORE than safety...not JUST safety
Uhhh no. Not safe to workers (why do you think the pesticide bottles have warning labels on them? why do you think OSHA regulates the product? why do you think the Phase 1 environmental study I had done on my farm listed a reccommendation for groundwater testing around the facility where the former owners stored the pesticides?Originally Posted by Destiny
As for the food itself:
Commentary on..
"Pesticide on Food 'Almost No' Cancer Danger"
http://www.pmac.net/comments.htm
"Over the years, the public has heard from the media and consumer groups that synthetic chemicals in food are a major factor in the development of cancer"
http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/p...oodsafety.html
New GM warning over danger chemicals entering food chain
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990907c.htm
So, clearly your assumption is living up to it's name's reputation.
wrong again...What I have not found is any peer-reviewed scientific studies showing our food supply is unsafe or that "organic" is better.
... No peer-reviewed study has found a significant nutritional advantage in organic foods.
Want to know if organic food is really a better buy? Ysanne Spevack asks a dozen of the top food experts, scientists, farmers, professors and nutritionalists in Britain. Get the information you need. Read on to find out the truth behind organics...
http://www.organicfood.co.uk/sense/betterforyou.html
Consider this excerpt:
"There are numerous studies demonstrating no nutritional difference between organic and conventional fresh produce. However, closer examination of these studies often reveals fundamental flaws that either invalidate their results or do not allow conclusions to be drawn."
statements like this without links/references don't help me, since they disagree with the evidence I providedFood was meant to be grown in animal shit? According to U.S. Center for Disease Control statistics, the use of animal manure as a fertilizer by organic farmers is a leading cause of death and sickness in this country from E. Coli..
On the other hand:
Mainstream farmers rarely fertilizer food crops with manure, preferring the cleaner, safer chemical nitrogen taken from the air. The air we breathe, incidentally, is 78 percent nitrogen.
some do, and some don't .... and just as some food factories break regulations and kill people, cause salmonella or require recalls, some organic producers make mistakes too. your point?Unfortunately, they too often avoid such consumer protections as pasteurization and anti-bacterial washes. The "natural" apple juice that killed a young girl in Colorado a few of years ago is a terrible case in point. [/color][/i]
yes they are MORE nutritious..therefore they are AS nutiritious. I have 5 apples, you have 4...5 is MORE than 4, therefore I not only have AS MANY apples as you, I have 1 more"Organic foods are as nutritious as any other foods. " She said it twice. She also said: " Food safety is not what organic food standards are all about."[/color][/i]
and organic is NOT ALL about food safety...but it's a major part of it for many people. Organic standards (as well as to natural food practices) are about MORE than safety...not JUST safety
Uhhh no. Not safe to workers (why do you think the pesticide bottles have warning labels on them? why do you think OSHA regulates the product? why do you think the Phase 1 environmental study I had done on my farm listed a reccommendation for groundwater testing around the facility where the former owners stored the pesticides?Originally Posted by Destiny
As for the food itself:
Commentary on..
"Pesticide on Food 'Almost No' Cancer Danger"
http://www.pmac.net/comments.htm
"Over the years, the public has heard from the media and consumer groups that synthetic chemicals in food are a major factor in the development of cancer"
http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/p...oodsafety.html
New GM warning over danger chemicals entering food chain
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990907c.htm
So, clearly your assumption is living up to it's name's reputation.
wrong again...What I have not found is any peer-reviewed scientific studies showing our food supply is unsafe or that "organic" is better.
... No peer-reviewed study has found a significant nutritional advantage in organic foods.
Want to know if organic food is really a better buy? Ysanne Spevack asks a dozen of the top food experts, scientists, farmers, professors and nutritionalists in Britain. Get the information you need. Read on to find out the truth behind organics...
http://www.organicfood.co.uk/sense/betterforyou.html
Consider this excerpt:
"There are numerous studies demonstrating no nutritional difference between organic and conventional fresh produce. However, closer examination of these studies often reveals fundamental flaws that either invalidate their results or do not allow conclusions to be drawn."
statements like this without links/references don't help me, since they disagree with the evidence I providedFood was meant to be grown in animal shit? According to U.S. Center for Disease Control statistics, the use of animal manure as a fertilizer by organic farmers is a leading cause of death and sickness in this country from E. Coli..
On the other hand:
Mainstream farmers rarely fertilizer food crops with manure, preferring the cleaner, safer chemical nitrogen taken from the air. The air we breathe, incidentally, is 78 percent nitrogen.
some do, and some don't .... and just as some food factories break regulations and kill people, cause salmonella or require recalls, some organic producers make mistakes too. your point?Unfortunately, they too often avoid such consumer protections as pasteurization and anti-bacterial washes. The "natural" apple juice that killed a young girl in Colorado a few of years ago is a terrible case in point. [/color][/i]
yes they are MORE nutritious..therefore they are AS nutiritious. I have 5 apples, you have 4...5 is MORE than 4, therefore I not only have AS MANY apples as you, I have 1 more"Organic foods are as nutritious as any other foods. " She said it twice. She also said: " Food safety is not what organic food standards are all about."[/color][/i]
and organic is NOT ALL about food safety...but it's a major part of it for many people. Organic standards (as well as to natural food practices) are about MORE than safety...not JUST safety
I wasn't aware pesticides were sold for human consumption. How many workers applying pesticides are killed or injured each year using the proper methods?Originally Posted by discretedancer
A commentary from one of the leaders of the effort to convince the Zambian governement not to accept life-saving food means nothing. Charles Benbrook is indirectly responsible for untold death and suffering among Zambia's children. His opinions are worthless. Benbrook's commentary was written to refute an article in the American Cancer Socity Journal. The results of the study was this, "the low level of such risk in the general population does not warrant any major readjustment in current priorities for cancer control." More interesting, the article in the American Cancer Society Journal has footnotes and references. Benbrook's "commentary" has neither.
Okay, the fear-mongerers are doing a good job of scaring people. Your point? Since when did public opinion start trumping science. Furthermore, the article you cite states this, "contrary to the popular belief that the frequency of cancer is rapidly increasing, cancer rates have actually declined 15% since 1950, if the figures are corrected for age and lung cancer caused by smoking is removed. The types of cancers that have gone up in the last 40-50 years are not the ones that seem to be affected by food choices". Again, our food is not making us sick!"Over the years, the public has heard from the media and consumer groups that synthetic chemicals in food are a major factor in the development of cancer"
http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/p...oodsafety.html
New? An article from September, 1999 is new? I noticed that the parent site to this link also had information on the dangers of Y2K. And this is an authoritative source?New GM warning over danger chemicals entering food chain
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990907c.htmBut okay, I'll play along, let's see what this six year-old article really says, "He warned that current tests "may be insufficient" for new crops in development. Dr Andrew Chesson told the Royal Society of Chemistry that tampering with the genetic make-up of crops could produce new plant chemicals which may not be spotted by traditional checks." That's typical for the organic food movement, "might be, could be," blah blah.
Not my assumption, scientific fact. You've not refuted a single fact I've posted here.So, clearly your assumption is living up to it's name's reputation.
A promotional "article" from an english based "organic lifestyle magazine" constitutes scientific research? Please. One of the "experts" cited in the article is president of Whole Earth Foods. That hardly qualifies as an unbiased opinion.Want to know if organic food is really a better buy? Ysanne Spevack asks a dozen of the top food experts, scientists, farmers, professors and nutritionalists in Britain. Get the information you need. Read on to find out the truth behind organics...
http://www.organicfood.co.uk/sense/betterforyou.html
Consider this excerpt:
"There are numerous studies demonstrating no nutritional difference between organic and conventional fresh produce. However, closer examination of these studies often reveals fundamental flaws that either invalidate their results or do not allow conclusions to be drawn."
Again, more evasion. Besides you deny any statistics I provide from the government that disprove your theories anyway. I can provide evidence that use of animal manure as a fertilizer results in E. Coli poisoning. Will you believe it? In the mean time, how about you answer the question. Is it your opinion that food was meant to be grown in animal manure?statements like this without links/references don't help me, since they disagree with the evidence I provided
Same point. The fear mongerers of the organic food movement continue to slander the safety of our food supply with baseless claims. All the while claiming organic food is safer. It is not.some do, and some don't .... and just as some food factories break regulations and kill people, cause salmonella or require recalls, some organic producers make mistakes too. your point?
In keeping with the english theme: Organic food isn’t better for you, says one heretic... and he can prove it. Edinburgh University’s Professor Anthony Trewavas. Convinced that Great Britain has become a nation of “food snobs,” Trewavas debunks many of the myths promoted by backers of organic-only agriculture. “If people want to farm and eat organically that’s their right,” he tells the Times, “but what I object to is people saying that organic food is better...yes they are MORE nutritious..therefore they are AS nutiritious. I have 5 apples, you have 4...5 is MORE than 4, therefore I not only have AS MANY apples as you, I have 1 more
Funny how you are so selective in your quoting of me. You left this one out, "No peer-reviewed study has found a significant nutritional advantage in organic foods." A bunch of organic food websites do not constitute a peer-reviewed scientific study. Do you have one that shows a nutritional advantage to organic foods or not?
As I have amply shown, organic food is not safer than regular food.and organic is NOT ALL about food safety...but it's a major part of it for many people. Organic standards (as well as to natural food practices) are about MORE than safety...not JUST safety
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Bookmarks