dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed


Xstar_Lumini

join:2008-12-14
Canada
kudos:2
reply to LastDon

Re: Organic Food.. not as safe?

Lol at you guys been swindled. The corporation that PAID the TV series W5 to investigate and put down the organic small farmers was Dosanto corp the world' biggest genetically modified grain supplier that is striving to PATENT the world's food supply, they are being sued by brazilian farmers right now.


booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

said by Xstar_Lumini:

Lol at you guys been swindled. The corporation that PAID the TV series W5 to investigate and put down the organic small farmers was Dosanto corp the world' biggest genetically modified grain supplier that is striving to PATENT the world's food supply, they are being sued by brazilian farmers right now.

You mean Monsanto? Pure evil indeed. They are the anathema to sustainable farming.

Processed organic food is the same as non organic, this study is not surprising.


paste plz

@videotron.ca
reply to Xstar_Lumini

said by Xstar_Lumini:

The corporation that PAID the TV series W5 to investigate and put down the organic small farmers was Dosanto corp

Got a link to that handy?


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to Xstar_Lumini

said by Xstar_Lumini:

Lol at you guys been swindled. The corporation that PAID the TV series W5 to investigate and put down the organic small farmers was Dosanto corp the world' biggest genetically modified grain supplier that is striving to PATENT the world's food supply, they are being sued by brazilian farmers right now.

Got proof? CTV and W5 don't accept money.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


hm

@videotron.ca

said by DKS:

Got proof? CTV and W5 don't accept money.

They do from sponsors... And networks have pulled shows before because of sponsors or commercial air time and disagreements with certain shows like this.

So yes the network accepts money. Of course they do. And this influences what is shown or not shown, and also influences other things in connection to it.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to DKS

said by DKS:

said by Xstar_Lumini:

Lol at you guys been swindled. The corporation that PAID the TV series W5 to investigate and put down the organic small farmers was Dosanto corp the world' biggest genetically modified grain supplier that is striving to PATENT the world's food supply, they are being sued by brazilian farmers right now.

Got proof? CTV and W5 don't accept money.

CTV / W5 are owned by Bell.
Care to rephrase your question?


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to DKS

Technically you are correct, however they could have bought ad time on the network and fluff disguised as a news piece is created.

Seen this many times



DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by DKS:

said by Xstar_Lumini:

Lol at you guys been swindled. The corporation that PAID the TV series W5 to investigate and put down the organic small farmers was Dosanto corp the world' biggest genetically modified grain supplier that is striving to PATENT the world's food supply, they are being sued by brazilian farmers right now.

Got proof? CTV and W5 don't accept money.

CTV / W5 are owned by Bell.
Care to rephrase your question?

So? That means what? Again, prove your assertion.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to elwoodblues

said by elwoodblues:

Technically you are correct, however they could have bought ad time on the network and fluff disguised as a news piece is created.

Seen this many times

Sales and editorial are two separate lines with different executives. The two do not cross.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to hm

said by hm :

said by DKS:

Got proof? CTV and W5 don't accept money.

They do from sponsors... And networks have pulled shows before because of sponsors or commercial air time and disagreements with certain shows like this.

So yes the network accepts money. Of course they do. And this influences what is shown or not shown, and also influences other things in connection to it.

You really don't know how the media works.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to DKS

said by DKS:

So? That means what? Again, prove your assertion.

I've asserted nothing other than the FACT that CTV / w5 (a CTV product) is owned by Bell.

What I will now assert is that Bell appears to be busy dumbing down the content carried on their stations, promoting meaningless drivel cross multiple outlets, and generally not seeming to care much about facts in their newscasts -- and caring more about sensationalism.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by DKS:

So? That means what? Again, prove your assertion.

I've asserted nothing other than the FACT that CTV / w5 (a CTV product) is owned by Bell.

What I will now assert is that Bell appears to be busy dumbing down the content carried on their stations, promoting meaningless drivel cross multiple outlets, and generally not seeming to care much about facts in their newscasts -- and caring more about sensationalism.

And that has what connection to this story?
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.
Expand your moderator at work


yoyomhz

join:2003-02-15
Beverly Hills, CA
reply to DKS

Re: Organic Food.. not as safe?

#1 - Stanford's study is a pile of garbage.
#2 - Organic food is better in many ways. But it wouldn't be possible to prove it.



When I was growing up, in the 1970s, some orchardists never used respirators, like shown above. They never had that protective raincoat that is mandatory now. They never even used gloves. The information given to farmers back in those days by the 'experts' was from the dark ages. For example, and I'm not making this up - BC apple growers were encouraged to spray a hormone on red delicious apples, to make that variety more 'elongated' because the 'typey' red delicious sold for the most money back then. BC apple growers also used the hormone - ALAR - because in those days it was like the wild west - anything goes. And pesticides were a good way to make more profit.



In 1979 my friend's younger brother died from a brain tumour. There were studies that showed farmers in Kansas had higher rates of cancer of the lymphatic system caused by herbicides, and there were cancer clusters in small towns in California's San Joaquin Valley (caused by pesticides), and many other studies showed higher incidences of cancer and leukemia among farmers and farm workers.

In 1979 Robert Vanden bosch wrote 'The Pesticide Conspiracy' which exposed the greedy chemical industry, and all the other greedy people in agriculture, that were promoting the use of pesticides, and he showed how food could be grown in a more sane manner,

In the last twenty years farmers everywhere have cut down on the amount of pesticides they use. But we're still eating pesticide residues. Farmers aren't stupid - they don't like losing money, and they will spray when they have to. We eat those pesticides.

Some foods like onions have less or almost no pesticides. Other foods like peaches and apples and grapes have a lot more pesticides. Some places like eastern Canada and eastern USA hve more rain, so they use more fungicides than BC, which has the perfect climate for growing fruit and is probably the best place in the world for reducing pesticide use. 100% of Florida strawberries are drenched in fungicides to allow them to be shipped across the country.

Some pesticides are highly toxic in the short term, but quickly break down and are less toxic in the long term. Other pesticides are only mildly toxic in the short term, but cause cancer in the long term. No one ever thought about doing a study on how all those pesticides we're consuming react 'together' and what problems they cause in the long term. One thing we do know - almost everyone in the country, when they get old, suffers from health problems.

So if you think it's cool that women working at Costa Rica's banana plantations are dieing from cancer more than the average person, and you like saving 50 cents per lb. - then go buy the sprayed bananas. If you think it's cool that low paid farm workers are exposed to more pesticides every day they work in the fields, so you can save a few dollars, then buy the sprayed stuff. My friend's younger brother died from a brain tumour in 1979 - his father kept pesticide containers in the basement of their house. In those days, no one knew any better.

If it means that much to you, save money and buy sprayed food. But if all the costs of conventionally grown food, including subsidies and health costs to farmers and farm workers, and costs to the environment - if all the indirect costs of conventionally grown produce were added up - ORGANIC WOULD BE CHEAPER.

Yup. That's the weird part. if we did things right, organic would be cheaper.

We're subsidizing the pesticide companies, and eating the carcinogens.



»www.whatsonmyfood.org/food.jsp?food=AP

LastDon

join:2002-08-13

But can't the same be given as an example with the amount of people that eat food with this crap on it and are perfectly fine and live a long long life?

There is always two sides to the story I believe ..

I prefer clean food with less chemicals but in the current state that we live in, everything has something with chemicals.



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to yoyomhz

Is there a list of the common pesticides, herbicides and other, used in both the US and Canada available some place?



DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to yoyomhz

said by yoyomhz:

#1 - Stanford's study is a pile of garbage.
#2 - Organic food is better in many ways. But it wouldn't be possible to prove it.

Ah. A conclusive statement. No proof and no evidence.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
reply to yoyomhz

said by yoyomhz:

finally posted

YESS!! There you are!!


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to yoyomhz

said by yoyomhz:

#2 - Organic food is better in many ways. But it wouldn't be possible to prove it.

Allegedly better in ways impossible to prove? No thanks. I'll spend the extra money saved from not wasting it on "organic" food on something that is possible to prove a benefit from then.

I always laugh at the term "organic" anyway. To a Chemist, or Biochemist, "organic" means a chemical that contains carbon. And yes, many naturally produced compounds contain carbon. So do many synthetic ones. ALAR would be an example of an organic chemical.

There was a story about a type of cucumber specifically bred to be pest resistant so as to require less pesticide. Mission accomplished, but the cucumbers were now so naturally toxic that they caused contact dermatitis in packing workers.

Eating food with unsafe levels of anything is likely a bad idea. We have measures in place such that the food in your local supermarket is safe to eat, and is no worse than anything bought labeled "organic" for triple the price.

Other examples of fun "organic" chemicals

- Botulinum Most deadly poison known. And it's all natural too!
- Cyanide. Also naturally produced. (Careful eating those apples. Exists in seeds.)
- Ricin
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Chemist

@videotron.ca

said by Ian:

We have measures in place such that the food in your local supermarket is safe to eat, and is no worse than anything bought labeled "organic" for triple the price.

That depends on the vegetable and/or fruit being sold. In some cases country of origin is also a factor. To say it's no worse than organic is a very gross exaggeration, nor is it true.

This also depends on the pesticide and/or herbicide used.

Your blanket statement is false. There are indeed things worse, and not at all equal, as you are trying to state here.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

said by Chemist :

said by Ian:

We have measures in place such that the food in your local supermarket is safe to eat, and is no worse than anything bought labeled "organic" for triple the price.

That depends on the vegetable and/or fruit being sold. In some cases country of origin is also a factor. To say it's no worse than organic is a very gross exaggeration, nor is it true.

This also depends on the pesticide and/or herbicide used.

Your blanket statement is false. There are indeed things worse, and not at all equal, as you are trying to state here.

Uh huh... Such as? "Chemist"? What vegetable or fruit juice in my local Loblaws is bad for me? And was that something that the Stanford study ignored or is unique to Canada?
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to Chemist

said by Chemist :

That depends on the vegetable and/or fruit being sold.

You're absolutely right, as some produce absorbs and retains toxic chemicals more than others, like green beans, apples (there you go yoyo), bell peppers, lettuce, etc., while mangoes, cabbage, and a few others, not so much.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

said by urbanriot:

said by Chemist :

That depends on the vegetable and/or fruit being sold.

You're absolutely right, as some produce absorbs and retains toxic chemicals more than others, like green beans, apples (there you go yoyo), bell peppers, lettuce, etc., while mangoes, cabbage, and a few others, not so much.

Again, care to cite an example of a product on store shelves right now with toxic levels of pesticides or herbicides?
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


yoyomhz

join:2003-02-15
Beverly Hills, CA

Here's the definition of a dumb person:
I ate some toxic pesticides and I feel - GREAT. I want some more.
The guy is dumb because even though our bodes are amazing and we don't die when we eat posions, the pesticides can build up in the liver - and do their thing later in life.

Certain pesticides have the nasty habit of storing themselves in the fatty area of human brains - that's why so many farmers got brain tumours. And even 'safe' amounts can be harmful to unborn babies. That's why we're trying to reduce the amount of organophosphate pesticides we use on everything - because it ADDS UP. We already discussed the harmful effects organophosphates have on children on this forum.
They have long been known to be highly toxic to the nervous system, but their dramatic effects on the development of the brain were not appreciated until about 15 years ago, when studies in laboratory animals began to reveal profound effects on the development and migration of neurons in the infant brain. Early findings from human studies found surprisingly widespread exposure to these chemicals, and strong hints of neurological effects. So these new findings, in children aged 6-9 years, confirm a lot of prior evidence and demonstrate that the effects on the brain don’t simply disappear with time.
»switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolo···har.html



yoyomhz

join:2003-02-15
Beverly Hills, CA
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

said by yoyomhz:

#2 - Organic food is better in many ways. But it wouldn't be possible to prove it.

I always laugh at the term "organic" anyway.

Actually we can prove it:

#1 - organophosphates proven to cause brain problems in children.
#2 - Bhopal India - pesticides manufacturer Union Carbide killed hundreds, poisoned thousands
#3 - pesticides kill bees
#4 - pesticides are carcinogens
#5 - no studies have been done to show pesticides safe in long term
#6 - Maternal exposure to certain pesticides during pregnancy predicts neurological deficits in children during childhood.
#7 - cancer clusters caused by groundwater contamination in California towns
#8 - 500,000 Chinese poisoned each year by pesticides
#9 - Pesticides drift for miles - poison neighbours
#10 - Pesticides kill natural predators, causing the need for more sprays (known as the pesticide treadmill)
#11 - Farmworkers using pesticides not sufficiently trained, apply the pesticides not according to the label.
#12 - Synergy - two pesticides together more toxic than each by itself. Don't eat an apple and a peach at the same time.
#13 - pesticides from one product contaminate others when produce is placed in the used boxes. Banana boxes, for example.
#14 - pesticides banned in Canada used in third world countries, at rates that are obscene. The fruit is then eatne by Canadians.
#15 - Lawyers of pesticide companies are dishonest. When poisoned farmworkers sue the big corporations they lose.

And the lsit can go on and on. We can prove organic is better. But there are a lot of dumb people around who think they're saving money. They're not.

»switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolo···har.html


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to yoyomhz

Far be it from me to dismiss random blogs found on the internet. But there's a logical stretch between "Pesticides can be harmful if you eat too much of them", and "Food found in the supermarket contains dangerous levels of them."

But carry on believing every random piece of information you come across on the web. That IS the definition of a smart person....
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong



urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

Again,

said by Ian:

Again, care to cite an example of a product on store shelves right now with toxic levels of pesticides or herbicides?

Why do you write "again"? You haven't previously asked me for anything that I didn't respond to and furthermore, I didn't refer to what you're asking for examples of.

Perhaps you're mixed up and replying to the wrong person or read something other than what I wrote.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

said by urbanriot:

said by Ian:

Again,

said by Ian:

Again, care to cite an example of a product on store shelves right now with toxic levels of pesticides or herbicides?

Why do you write "again"? You haven't previously asked me for anything that I didn't respond to and furthermore, I didn't refer to what you're asking for examples of.

Perhaps you're mixed up and replying to the wrong person or read something other than what I wrote.

You seemed to be in agreement with "chemist" and I asked him or her for an example in a previous post. But, can you list examples of common purchases made in the supermarket that have toxic levels?
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

Do you wash your fruit Ian?



urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

You seemed to be in agreement with "chemist" and I asked him or her for an example in a previous post. But, can you list examples of common purchases made in the supermarket that have toxic levels?

I was in agreement with "chemist"'s factual response, that "there are indeed things worse, and not at all equal" concerning a variance of toxicity in different foods. I added context to that response with examples of foods that retain more than other foods.

You're attempting to push forward on debating a point that I did not make.