unbelievable, Wal Mart is selling organic food

[mobobuff]

I remain uneffected as I don't buy my food and clothes from Walmart. I do utilize it for almost everything else, though, besides high-end electronics.

And I didn't even know what "organic" food was until this. Sounds like a marketing buzz word. If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Amused
"Organic food" = scam.

I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that is pro-DDT and believes that banning the neurotoxin has cost over 50 million lives, implying the affects of using it are a net positive.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused
"Organic food" = scam.

I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that is pro-DDT and that banning the neurotoxin has cost over 50 million lives, implying the affects of using it are a net positive.

Not implying, proving.

BTW, DDT wasn't banned because it was hurting people. It was banned over hysteria about bird eggs. It was TOO widely used and used irresponsibly. It has since been proven that limited, responsible use could save tens of millions of lives lost to malaria.

Without neurotoxins we would have pestilence and famine. They save FAR more lives than they have ever took. Get over it.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused
"Organic food" = scam.

I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that is pro-DDT and that banning the neurotoxin has cost over 50 million lives, implying the affects of using it are a net positive.

Not implying, proving.

That statement's got longer reach than manute bol.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused
"Organic food" = scam.

I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that is pro-DDT and that banning the neurotoxin has cost over 50 million lives, implying the affects of using it are a net positive.

Not implying, proving.

That statement's got longer reach than manute bol.

Um, read my edit. Do you have any idea why DDT was even banned?

 

[sonambulo]

Originally posted by: Amused
And here's the final kicker: As I pointed out before, if all food was grown to the requirements of the "organic" cult, there would be mass famine.

well sure, if you changed it over all at once.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sonambulo

Originally posted by: Amused
And here's the final kicker: As I pointed out before, if all food was grown to the requirements of the "organic" cult, there would be mass famine.

well sure, if you changed it over all at once.

At once?

No.

At all.

 

[sonambulo]

no, no. surely you mean at once.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sonambulo
no, no. surely you mean at once.

No, at all.

The yield from "organic" farming is so low, that there is not enough arable land to feed the world population were it used exclusively. WTH do you think it costs more than twice as much and often 3-4 times as much? Not just because it's trendy, but because it's inefficient and wasteful of land area.

That's how good modern farming practices are, and continue to improve.

 

[StageLeft]

Amused is, of course, right about famine. Non-organic techniques are inefficient. This, combined with limited demand, is exactly why their products are so costly. Instead of a thousand chickens crammed into a cage you've got a few dozen running around a pen.

I have no doubt that some of the pesticides we're using are causing problems. You can't play god without getting nipped in the bud at some point, but my "feelings" (based upon nothing really tangible, I admit) are that organic foods are mostly a waste of time.

It should go without saying that if you're wasting money on organics and don't otherwise have your diet in order (lots of vegetables, lean meats, etc.) you're a moron. I mean, don't eat mcdonalds for lunch and then eat organic chicken for dinner.

 

[sonambulo]

Originally posted by: Amused
No, at all.

okie doke! that's twice (quoted). be back later!

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf


I'm not arguing the mass famine part. That could very well be true.

Your statement on the "lack of testing" is interesting. You did not in any way state that what I said is incorrect.

""organic" pesticides are responsible for large E-Coli and other outbreaks."
Please provide proof of this causation.

Remember the people that were sickened and killed a few years ago from E. Coli found on raspberries from Guatamala? The farmer there used cow manure to fertilize the fields. Inorganic fertilizer would have prevented that from occuring. That is only one of many examples. US produce is safer because US producers are more likely to use inorganic fertilizers.

Where the fsck do you think it came from? The main source of E-coli is ... get this ... COW MANURE.

Do you have any idea what it takes to get a food additive or chemicals used on foods passed? Decades of studies and trials. If you feel there is harm, the burden is on you prove it with peer reviewed and repeatable studies.

One case does not prove your point. Did that farmer use any practices that encourage e-coli growth? Look at all sides of a problem

"Do you have any idea what it takes to get a food additive or chemicals used on foods passed? Decades of studies and trials. If you feel there is harm, the burden is on you prove it with peer reviewed and repeatable studies."

Yes, in fact I do. The burden is on the average Joe to prove that there is a problem. How is the average Joe supposed to fund this? The FDA/USDA does not conduct a significant number of safety studies any longer. This means the burden is on small organizations and individuals to conduct the studies, and it is a decade long process to get something removed.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused
"Organic food" = scam.

I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that is pro-DDT and that banning the neurotoxin has cost over 50 million lives, implying the affects of using it are a net positive.

Not implying, proving.

BTW, DDT wasn't banned because it was hurting people. It was banned over hysteria about bird eggs. It was TOO widely used and used irresponsibly. It has since been proven that limited, responsible use could save tens of millions of lives lost to malaria.

Without neurotoxins we would have pestilence and famine. They save FAR more lives than they have ever took. Get over it.

It took Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the associated studies conducted by her and the EPA to stop DDT use. That took almost a decade from that time. Is it not conceivable that OTHER chemicals are being too widely used and used irresponsible?

 

[DrPizza]

I agree *almost* completely with Amused. However, various practices in the meat industry - excessive use of antibiotics, hormones, etc. to help animals reach butchering age sooner and more cheaply are having a negative impact on human health (more antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria for instance). However, Amused did cover this concerning DDT - it's the irresponsible use that's promoting the problems, not necessarily that the use of those substances is bad.

Personally, though, I think there's a large difference in quality for poultry (turkeys and chickens), but I'm not going to pay the price difference. So, instead, I just bought 20 chickens Sat and will be getting some baby turkeys in this Wed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused
"Organic food" = scam.

I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that is pro-DDT and that banning the neurotoxin has cost over 50 million lives, implying the affects of using it are a net positive.

Not implying, proving.

BTW, DDT wasn't banned because it was hurting people. It was banned over hysteria about bird eggs. It was TOO widely used and used irresponsibly. It has since been proven that limited, responsible use could save tens of millions of lives lost to malaria.

Without neurotoxins we would have pestilence and famine. They save FAR more lives than they have ever took. Get over it.

It took Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the associated studies conducted by her and the EPA to stop DDT use. That took almost a decade from that time. Is it not conceivable that OTHER chemicals are being too widely used and used irresponsible?

Silent Spring was filled with massive misinformation.

Carson wrote ?Dr. [James] DeWitt's now classic experiments [show] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.?

DeWitt actually reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT.

Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit ?practically 100 percent? of the human population. This prediction hasn?t materialized, no doubt because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout ? later attributed to aflatoxin. There is no credible evidence that DDT poses a cancer risk, whatsoever.

When you follow alarmist dogma, you tend to believe BS over facts.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf


I'm not arguing the mass famine part. That could very well be true.

Your statement on the "lack of testing" is interesting. You did not in any way state that what I said is incorrect.

""organic" pesticides are responsible for large E-Coli and other outbreaks."
Please provide proof of this causation.

Remember the people that were sickened and killed a few years ago from E. Coli found on raspberries from Guatamala? The farmer there used cow manure to fertilize the fields. Inorganic fertilizer would have prevented that from occuring. That is only one of many examples. US produce is safer because US producers are more likely to use inorganic fertilizers.

Where the fsck do you think it came from? The main source of E-coli is ... get this ... COW MANURE.

Do you have any idea what it takes to get a food additive or chemicals used on foods passed? Decades of studies and trials. If you feel there is harm, the burden is on you prove it with peer reviewed and repeatable studies.

One case does not prove your point. Did that farmer use any practices that encourage e-coli growth? Look at all sides of a problem

"Do you have any idea what it takes to get a food additive or chemicals used on foods passed? Decades of studies and trials. If you feel there is harm, the burden is on you prove it with peer reviewed and repeatable studies."

Yes, in fact I do. The burden is on the average Joe to prove that there is a problem. How is the average Joe supposed to fund this? The FDA/USDA does not conduct a significant number of safety studies any longer. This means the burden is on small organizations and individuals to conduct the studies, and it is a decade long process to get something removed.

It isn't just one case, though. I used that as a single example. Ther have been many E-coli breakouts attributed to imported produce.

Your last paragraph is the refuge of the Chicken Little. No amount of safety studies are ever enough. No amount of proof is ever enough. No lack of patterns is ever enough.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused
"Organic food" = scam.

I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that is pro-DDT and that banning the neurotoxin has cost over 50 million lives, implying the affects of using it are a net positive.

Not implying, proving.

BTW, DDT wasn't banned because it was hurting people. It was banned over hysteria about bird eggs. It was TOO widely used and used irresponsibly. It has since been proven that limited, responsible use could save tens of millions of lives lost to malaria.

Without neurotoxins we would have pestilence and famine. They save FAR more lives than they have ever took. Get over it.

It took Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the associated studies conducted by her and the EPA to stop DDT use. That took almost a decade from that time. Is it not conceivable that OTHER chemicals are being too widely used and used irresponsible?

Silent Spring was filled with massive misinformation.

Carson wrote ?Dr. [James] DeWitt's now classic experiments [show] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.?

DeWitt actually reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT.

Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit ?practically 100 percent? of the human population. This prediction hasn?t materialized, no doubt because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout ? later attributed to aflatoxin. There is no credible evidence that DDT poses a cancer risk, whatsoever.

When you follow alarmist dogma, you tend to believe BS over facts.

Just reading the quote, I can tell you right now that is bad science. They fed the birds DDT. Do you understand science AT ALL? You must test chemicals moving upp the food chain in order to make a point. For instance, let's say that the bird eats insect Y. First, you must expose groups of insects to the chemical in the same dosages over the same period of time they would encounter. Then you let the birds feed on them in the same quantity that they would encounter. THEN you can run tests. That is just a simple example, it gets more complex. What if the insect encounters varied levels of the chemical depending on the season? What if the bird eats different types of bugs during different seasons. A study has to be conducted over the entire lifetime of the birds and down the chain.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf


I'm not arguing the mass famine part. That could very well be true.

Your statement on the "lack of testing" is interesting. You did not in any way state that what I said is incorrect.

""organic" pesticides are responsible for large E-Coli and other outbreaks."
Please provide proof of this causation.

Remember the people that were sickened and killed a few years ago from E. Coli found on raspberries from Guatamala? The farmer there used cow manure to fertilize the fields. Inorganic fertilizer would have prevented that from occuring. That is only one of many examples. US produce is safer because US producers are more likely to use inorganic fertilizers.

Where the fsck do you think it came from? The main source of E-coli is ... get this ... COW MANURE.

Do you have any idea what it takes to get a food additive or chemicals used on foods passed? Decades of studies and trials. If you feel there is harm, the burden is on you prove it with peer reviewed and repeatable studies.

One case does not prove your point. Did that farmer use any practices that encourage e-coli growth? Look at all sides of a problem

"Do you have any idea what it takes to get a food additive or chemicals used on foods passed? Decades of studies and trials. If you feel there is harm, the burden is on you prove it with peer reviewed and repeatable studies."

Yes, in fact I do. The burden is on the average Joe to prove that there is a problem. How is the average Joe supposed to fund this? The FDA/USDA does not conduct a significant number of safety studies any longer. This means the burden is on small organizations and individuals to conduct the studies, and it is a decade long process to get something removed.

It isn't just one case, though. I used that as a single example. Ther have been many E-coli breakouts attributed to imported produce.

Your last paragraph is the refuge of the Chicken Little. No amount of safety studies are ever enough. No amount of proof is ever enough. No lack of patterns is ever enough.

Again, you ignore the fact that the studies are funded and produced by the companies introducing the chemical, and that it is incredibly expensive for individduals to conduct the tests.

And if you want to have any credibility, produce some studies.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused
"Organic food" = scam.

I wouldn't expect anything else from someone that is pro-DDT and that banning the neurotoxin has cost over 50 million lives, implying the affects of using it are a net positive.

Not implying, proving.

BTW, DDT wasn't banned because it was hurting people. It was banned over hysteria about bird eggs. It was TOO widely used and used irresponsibly. It has since been proven that limited, responsible use could save tens of millions of lives lost to malaria.

Without neurotoxins we would have pestilence and famine. They save FAR more lives than they have ever took. Get over it.

It took Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the associated studies conducted by her and the EPA to stop DDT use. That took almost a decade from that time. Is it not conceivable that OTHER chemicals are being too widely used and used irresponsible?

Silent Spring was filled with massive misinformation.

Carson wrote ?Dr. [James] DeWitt's now classic experiments [show] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.?

DeWitt actually reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT.

Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit ?practically 100 percent? of the human population. This prediction hasn?t materialized, no doubt because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout ? later attributed to aflatoxin. There is no credible evidence that DDT poses a cancer risk, whatsoever.

When you follow alarmist dogma, you tend to believe BS over facts.

Just reading the quote, I can tell you right now that is bad science. They fed the birds DDT. Do you understand science AT ALL? You must test chemicals moving upp the food chain in order to make a point. For instance, let's say that the bird eats insect Y. First, you must expose groups of insects to the chemical in the same dosages over the same period of time they would encounter. Then you let the birds feed on them in the same quantity that they would encounter. THEN you can run tests. That is just a simple example, it gets more complex. What if the insect encounters varied levels of the chemical depending on the season? What if the bird eats different types of bugs during different seasons. A study has to be conducted over the entire lifetime of the birds and down the chain.

SHE LIED. What part of that do you not understand? She misrepresented the outcome of studies, and predicted doom where there was NONE.

ALL the claims that DDT was killing birds were BS. They knew this in 1972 and went ahead with the ban because of irrational hysteria like yours.

And of COURSE they fed the birds DDT. That's what they get when it moves up the food chain anyhow. How the fsck does it matter how they eat it? It doesn't. It only matters that they eat it for the study.

Give this a read:

http://www.junkscience.com/news3/foxddt.htm

The DDT hearings were ordered by then EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus, appointing Judge Edmund Sweeney as the hearing examiner. After 125 witnesses and 9,362 pages of testimony, some of Judge Sweeney's findings included:

1. DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.
2. DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man.
3. The use of DDT under the registrations involved does not have a deleterious effect on fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife.

In a better world this would have been good news. It was met instead with journalistic hysteria across the nation.

Scientists were not the only ones to give the exonerating testimony that DDT used properly presented little harm to man, beast, or bird. The World Health Organization also pleaded at the EPA hearings that DDT was very beneficial in fighting malaria in many parts of the world and should not be banned. The WHO said in part "The withdrawal of DDT would be a major tragedy in the chapter of human health." That certain people would actually oppose something so beneficial to human life is shocking to many. But that cruel attitude is reflected in many statements from environmental groups opposed to DDT. In her book Environmental Overkill Dixey Lee Ray cites a past chief "scientist" of the Environmental Defense Fund, Dr. Charles Wurster. When describing the EDF opposition to DDT he stated that in his opinion there were too many people in the world anyway and "this was as good a way for getting rid of them as any". These and other statements indicate that other environmental agendas were at work here, far beyond the issues of public health or wildlife. These agendas have rarely been discussed in the mainstream press since DDT was banned a quarter century ago. For the record today an estimated 270,000,000 people worldwide are infected with malaria and several million dies. Those who don't die are chronically weakened and fall prey to other diseases, because of weakened livers. William Ruckelshaus, overriding the nation's and world scientists, ignoring the findings of his own hearing examiner, without reading the voluminous evidence of presented at his own hearing, banned DDT June 2, 1972.

Hell, even the World Health Organization knew what the effects of a DDT ban would bring.

The DDT ban, and forcing it on tropical third world nations amounts to nothing less than genocide. Millions are dying so you can feel better about some egg shell thining myth.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf


I'm not arguing the mass famine part. That could very well be true.

Your statement on the "lack of testing" is interesting. You did not in any way state that what I said is incorrect.

""organic" pesticides are responsible for large E-Coli and other outbreaks."
Please provide proof of this causation.

Remember the people that were sickened and killed a few years ago from E. Coli found on raspberries from Guatamala? The farmer there used cow manure to fertilize the fields. Inorganic fertilizer would have prevented that from occuring. That is only one of many examples. US produce is safer because US producers are more likely to use inorganic fertilizers.

Where the fsck do you think it came from? The main source of E-coli is ... get this ... COW MANURE.

Do you have any idea what it takes to get a food additive or chemicals used on foods passed? Decades of studies and trials. If you feel there is harm, the burden is on you prove it with peer reviewed and repeatable studies.

One case does not prove your point. Did that farmer use any practices that encourage e-coli growth? Look at all sides of a problem

"Do you have any idea what it takes to get a food additive or chemicals used on foods passed? Decades of studies and trials. If you feel there is harm, the burden is on you prove it with peer reviewed and repeatable studies."

Yes, in fact I do. The burden is on the average Joe to prove that there is a problem. How is the average Joe supposed to fund this? The FDA/USDA does not conduct a significant number of safety studies any longer. This means the burden is on small organizations and individuals to conduct the studies, and it is a decade long process to get something removed.

It isn't just one case, though. I used that as a single example. Ther have been many E-coli breakouts attributed to imported produce.

Your last paragraph is the refuge of the Chicken Little. No amount of safety studies are ever enough. No amount of proof is ever enough. No lack of patterns is ever enough.

Again, you ignore the fact that the studies are funded and produced by the companies introducing the chemical, and that it is incredibly expensive for individduals to conduct the tests.

And if you want to have any credibility, produce some studies.

I'm not the one claiming harm. You're asking me to prove a negative.