|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Maneki Neko
Joined: 15 May 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Ha! I edited his post before I saw yours, 'rico.
Yes, lay off bacasper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Organic vegetables as a trend I'm not so fussy about, but if you grow them yourself they certainly taste much better. Mainly I just despise GM foods and everything Monsanto represents. So far they're not big into vegetables (mostly just corn and soy), but it's moving in that direction. The Monsanto world view is just plain evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Enrico Palazzo wrote: |
| Kimbop wrote: |
According to this bastion of wisdom, organic food and stuff is like, good, and we can like, sell it in our stores, and things, and the unions and bacasper and stuff, and Obama is a saviour, y'know?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5oVzbwYWpg |
Guys, lay off bacasper, will ya?
Thanks... |
Guys? How many people is Kimbop?
WTF was that all about anyway? Am I a 'val' now? Anyone on this forum with half, no, a quarter, of a brain would know that it is infinitely bizarre to place me and "Obama is a saviour" in the same sentence. That was so bizarre that TWO mods stepped in 
I suppose I should be flattered that people are obsessed with me. 
Getting back on topic:
| mises wrote: |
| One would assume that not being poisoned via pesticides would show up as a health benefit. There would be some measurable difference, no? Or do you think they controlled for that? Ah, maybe the neo-cons/neo-libs/bigoil etc are behind it. |
What those studies do not measure is sub-clinical illness, or suboptimal physiologic function which does not rise to the level of a diagnosable condition and which is due to pesticides.
And yes, it is very expensive to have those marginally lower pesticide levels. If you can afford it, do it. If not, don't sweat it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
What those studies do not measure is sub-clinical illness, or suboptimal physiologic function which does not rise to the level of a diagnosable condition and which is due to pesticides.
|
I assume measuring that would be incredibly difficult. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
What those studies do not measure is sub-clinical illness, or suboptimal physiologic function which does not rise to the level of a diagnosable condition and which is due to pesticides.
|
I assume measuring that would be incredibly difficult. |
Not so much difficult as expensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| thoreau wrote: |
Never believe one research study especially if you did not read the actual article. New agencies are notorious for misrepresenting the actual conclusions of a study.
|
From the article:
| Quote: |
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.
Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour. |
That is, it wasn't a study but a meta-study.
Like the other platitudes gia-worshipers have replaced God with, I don't think anything will shake their faith. So enjoy your 2$ tomato that is exactly identical in every meaningful way (except that yours required much more land to grow, because of the lack of pesticides) to my .30cent tomato. |
I never knew that people ate Organic becaue of (proportedly) higher nutrition counts. I thought they ate them to avoid pesticides. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc_ido
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| One would assume that not being poisoned via pesticides would show up as a health benefit. There would be some measurable difference, no? Or do you think they controlled for that? Ah, maybe the neo-cons/neo-libs/bigoil etc are behind it. |
Mises, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't read the actual study. The reviewers clearly state that they do not take into account any effects on health from pesticides or other chemicals.
And while we're on the subject of pesticides:
| mises wrote: |
| Pesticides used in industrial farming are of very low health risk. They exit the body very quickly and tend not to make it down the supply chain anyways. |
Sorry to be blunt, but I think that you're straying a little far from your area of expertise here. While modern chemicals are far better than the ones that foods were drenched with in the 1950s (though the industry is still calling for the reintroduction of DDT!), they are still designed specifically to be toxic. It's not worth going into all the arguments here as this isn't what the thread is about, but suffice it to say plants and insects adapt, and studies are regularly showing that pesticides we thought were safe aren't (e.g. the EPA's withdrawl of organic arsenicals earlier this year).
If you want to talk about land use and cost, that's another argument entirely.
Also, and I accept that most people won't care about this in the least, the study did not conclude that organically-grown foods have no health/nutritional benefits over conventionally-grown foods. It concluded that we cannot reject the assumption that there is no difference between the two (p<0.05). If you want to talk about statistics, that's another thread.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| doc_ido wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| One would assume that not being poisoned via pesticides would show up as a health benefit. There would be some measurable difference, no? Or do you think they controlled for that? Ah, maybe the neo-cons/neo-libs/bigoil etc are behind it. |
Mises, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't read the actual study. The reviewers clearly state that they do not take into account any effects on health from pesticides or other chemicals.
And while we're on the subject of pesticides:
| mises wrote: |
| Pesticides used in industrial farming are of very low health risk. They exit the body very quickly and tend not to make it down the supply chain anyways. |
Sorry to be blunt, but I think that you're straying a little far from your area of expertise here. While modern chemicals are far better than the ones that foods were drenched with in the 1950s (though the industry is still calling for the reintroduction of DDT!), they are still designed specifically to be toxic. It's not worth going into all the arguments here as this isn't what the thread is about, but suffice it to say plants and insects adapt, and studies are regularly showing that pesticides we thought were safe aren't (e.g. the EPA's withdrawl of organic arsenicals earlier this year).
If you want to talk about land use and cost, that's another argument entirely.
Also, and I accept that most people won't care about this in the least, the study did not conclude that organically-grown foods have no health/nutritional benefits over conventionally-grown foods. It concluded that we cannot reject the assumption that there is no difference between the two (p<0.05). If you want to talk about statistics, that's another thread. |
I read somewhere that Monsanto GMO crops are injected with a bacteria gene that makes each individual cell produce pesticide - and when this plant matter is ingested as food, the bacteria in the stomach can actually reacquire this gene (since it's originally from bacteria, not plants) and start producing the same pesticide inside your gut 
Anyway, pesticides are toxic chemicals, period. They build up in your body over time can be carcinogenic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, and according to some experts a few decades ago, smoking doesn't cause cancer  Trace amounts of synthetic pesticides are one thing, but genetically engineering plants to produce it on a cellular level (using bacteria genes) is a horrible notion. GMO food is an absolute nightmare... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
