Fast / Processed food

[Damrod]

Monsanto are making billions with their products... It's not the first time they lie to us.

Organic ''society'' are a little minority and it cost a lot of money to farmer for converting into organic agriculture. High prices are right, and it's not that high, only 10% +. Less if you buy seasoned vegetables or fruits.

Your ''organic conspiracy theory'' is very ridiculous, and specially when you run out of studies and arguments.

 

[TheRealCallie]

If you drink it's poisonous, but if you take few each days on food it's not? Seriously... Are you kidding me?

No, I am not. Because the amount of residue on them would take more years than a human life time to do damage. It's just like artificial sweeteners, tobacco, and alcohol. We still consume those, some people everyday in their coffee.

There are many warnings for artificial sweeteners, tobacco and alcohol. I don't think that's the best argument to take....

 

[Nicolelt]

I see it now, going back to look, on the first one, but thank you.
That is from 2 decades ago....Pretty sure there are studies more recent than that.

Glyphosate has not changed since 1996, it's still pretty valid. This is why in about 10 years it will be complete replaced by 2,4-D- and Dicamba. In the 90s people let Monsanto rule the Agriculture world and now we are paying for it and 22 weeds and counting have developed the same gene RR corn and soybeans have.

 

[TheRealCallie]

I see it now, going back to look, on the first one, but thank you.
That is from 2 decades ago....Pretty sure there are studies more recent than that.

Glyphosate has not changed since 1996, it's still pretty valid. This is why in about 10 years it will be complete replaced by 2,4-D- and Dicamba. In the 90s people let Monsanto rule the Agriculture world and now we are paying for it and 22 weeds and counting have developed the same gene RR corn and soybeans have.

No, I'm not saying the product has changed (although, I doubt it hasn't)...I'm saying the studies about the product have changed.

 

[Nicolelt]

Monsanto are making billions with their products... It's not the first time they lie to us.

Organic ''society'' are a little minority and it cost a lot of money to farmer for converting into organic agriculture. High prices are right, and it's not that high, only 10% +. Less if you buy seasoned vegetables or fruits.

Your ''organic conspiracy theory'' is very ridiculous, and specially when you run out of studies and arguments.

I agree with you about Monsanto.

I have toured organic farms, and have had multiple speakers in classes when I went to college flat out tell me it was a marketing scheme. I should have recorded it I guess.

 

[Damrod]

And you didn't notice who was behind those ''speakers''?

 

[Nicolelt]

And you didn't notice who was behind those ''speakers''?

My University Horticulture Professor was the one would brought them in. I'll look her up. She didn't seem like she was against organic farming.

Good Point, I will do some digging on that.

An Update:

Here is what the professor's research profile says:
The goal of our program is to support the growth and sustainability of the specialty crop industry in Indiana and the Midwestern region by developing management strategies that lower input costs, improve plant health and productivity, and reduce negative impacts of production systems on the environment. Our lab is actively working to understand the role of soil microbial ecology in agroecosystem processes; develop efficient strategies for the use of locally available and renewable resources; and, identify alternative crops and crop cultivars adapted to low-input and organic production systems. We use a combination of traditional and molecular techniques in the lab, collaborate with scientists and extension educators from multiple disciplines, and conduct research on-farm using a participatory approach. We work with a variety of high value specialty crops and are currently conducting research in tomato, carrot, and hops production systems.

I guess she is a supporter of organic farming....?

I am looking up the one speaker. I remember he was in Bloomington, IN, but I can't remember the name of the farm. I'm working on it, but I have to teach class in 40 mins.

 

[Damrod]

Umm, ok, if it's your teacher who brought them, it's a lot less suspicious than if they came by themselves to do their ''speech''. But yeah, everything is a business nowadays. But I do believe eating organic (like our ancestor did) is healthier and gives more nutrients. I can't explain why I believe that... Maybe because it's ''natural'' and I feel like my body want natural stuff and not some toxic chemical and engineering foods.

 

[Nicolelt]

Umm, ok, if it's your teacher who brought them, it's a lot less suspicious than if they came by themselves to do their ''speech''. But yeah, everything is a business nowadays. But I do believe eating organic (like our ancestor did) is healthier and gives more nutrients. I can't explain why I believe that... Maybe because it's ''natural'' and I feel like my body want natural stuff and not some toxic chemical and engineering foods.

I eat both actually. I prefer the taste to some organics over conventional. I disagree with more nutrients though. I don't believe when it comes to nutrients there is a difference between the two.

Also, Native Americans started breeding plants for certain desired traits, which is what genetically engineering plants is. Like when people wanted the Puggle dog, they bred a beagle to a pug and made a hybrid. This summer when I was walking fields for a seed company. (Not the evil monopoly of Monsanto, a local one in my county), they were creating a new hybrid. They did this by making sure that male plant A bred Female plant B to make a new AB hybrid. This is a new GMO. And that is how the Native Americans created the single stalk corn plant. And they are my ancestors, so other than the chemical portion (no argument there, I agree with you), I am eating like my ancestors.

I updated that post, and I believe my prof was supportive of organic farming, I need to find some of her research and the farms that came into my class. But, that was 2 years ago, I don't know how many I will remember.

 

[Damrod]

When I'm speaking about engineering foods, I'm talking about laboratory genes modification, but i guess you doubted that. I'm also agains't monoculture, because it kills bees and it needs more pesticides.

About nutrients, I've posted something about that already.

Actually, I saw a study that proves organic is healthier. Also, only with judgement and knowledge about nutrition and agriculture can tell you it's healthier.

Just like: Spraying insecticide, pesticide, herbicide, you know, all the poisons on foods, it also kills worms and other essentials bacterias in soil. Without them, you can't have a healthy soil and must fertilize your soil regularly. Even if you do that, it's almost impossible to gives all nutrients a plant need. They actually give only 3 nutrients, instead of 60 nutrients required. Ok, so they give 3 nutrients and they can absorb it. But 57 other nutrients left cannot be absorbed even with good compost sources, because worms and bacterias are dead, so can't do the transformation (they actually eat nutrients and **** them for plants) needed by plants to becomes absorbable.

It's only few knowledges about nutrition and agriculture, but if you dig deeper, I'm sure you will find other explanation why organic is healthier.

Anyway, there's the study:

http://research.ncl.ac.uk/nefg/QOF/docum...JN5552.pdf

We also find a study that says there's no difference between organic and conventional agriculture, but if you want my opinion, it's a bull**** financed by Monsanto and other dirty corporations around.

Common sens tell us that if you spray poison and change genetic of food, there is a huge difference.

 

[stork_error]

The absolute blind trust in medical claims just because they are called " peer reviewed articles" has never ceased to fully baffle me.

Firstly, research comes from where there is money to conduct it.
Entities with money are the large governments, drug companies, and monsanto.

When monsanto makes money from its GMO products why would it ever fund a study that aims to support organics?

When monsantos livelyhood depends on public perception of GMO's being a good thing, wouldn't it makes sense to try to sway the public to believe it?

Since monsanto can afford to buy influence, it can create as many peer reviewed articles as it wants. It can buy peers just like we can buy friends.
And no, not all friends can be bought, but you don't need "all" you only need enough "peers" to create an influential opposition. Especially when you make the claim in the name of science and prey upon a population that takes pride in scientific reasoning.

When you ask the question what does monsanto have to gain if we all ate organic? The answer is nothing, they would go broke. Rich entities like monsanto however can buy their friends to influence the masses to prevent this from ever happening.

The people who blindly believe these entities, are pawns, and this is just a mutated and evolved form of control over society that has evolved from practices though time and circumstance.

And make no mistake, monsanto will fund the studies in your text books at university as well… along with big pharma so that new scholars can be brainwashed the moment they step in the classroom.

They all buy their friends… the " peer reviewed articles "

Secondly, we all learn in uni that studies can be skewed, and when their is a monetary interest in the study by big pharma or monsanto, its a guarantee that the skew will incorporate a bias.

Thirdly, we are taught to ask the questions " is it valid? or is it reliable ?
Nothing is reliable or valid unless you test it yourself and there is nothing stopping you so go try. IMO

Fourth - believing everything at face value that comes from these entities in power makes no sense when you consider the motivation of the entity.

Monsantos motivation is to make money from its product, its motivation is not to make you or keep you healthy. If humans suffer long term consequences that vary from person to person based on their unique constitution and immune systems, then toxicity can never be reliably measured since the sampled subjects will never be equal because nobody has the same immune system.

This is why unfortunately a study supporting the toxicity of pesticides will never be able to point to a cause and effect link… even though we can conclude based on the probability of facts supporting motivation, some claims of illness, and skewing, that the likelihood is extremely high that they are dangerous. They affect some people and not others and there is no way to measure who it will bother and at what levels and for how long they need to be exposed and whether or not it will be the cause of thier cancer.

So i challenge you all, try organic, just for a month. Take note if you feel better. More energy? Less headaches? And for those with chronic health conditions, do you experience any improvement of symptoms?

If you come back and tell me that you noticed no difference then i will tell you, thats great for you, you have a great immune system, but then ill tell you that sally and jake say they feel better on the organic diet so i guess their bodies reacted differently . However, just because you have no immediate effects, I cant guarantee that you wont in the long run develop cancer, as some claims have pointed to this.

But some sceptics might just ignore that warning… but all In the name of "science" right?

The science of corruption, societal control, and brainwashing.

 

[LonelySutton]

The absolute blind trust in medical claims just because they are called " peer reviewed articles" has never ceased to fully baffle me.

Oh thank god. Just like extroversion I do not get the blind adherence to the medical establishment. People will say to me... but it is "science" huh? Just because you call it science doesn't mean that it can't be manipulated. And there is evidence that many many of these studies have been fraudulent.

I do not see how people can just put their minds on hold and be like "well this study says" in the face of vastly decreasing heatlh.

 

[TheRealCallie]

The absolute blind trust in medical claims just because they are called " peer reviewed articles" has never ceased to fully baffle me.

Oh thank god. Just like extroversion I do not get the blind adherence to the medical establishment. People will say to me... but it is "science" huh? Just because you call it science doesn't mean that it can't be manipulated. And there is evidence that many many of these studies have been fraudulent.

I do not see how people can just put their minds on hold and be like "well this study says" in the face of vastly decreasing heatlh.

Well, this is really true with anything. People only want to see one side to every story.
Take the popular MMR vaccine and autism, for example. There's compelling information on both sides, yet neither say can say for certain that their side is correct.
Never blindly take the word of one side in anything, because there is always another side that likely has compelling evidence for their stand, as well. Do your research, not just for YOUR side, but for BOTH sides.
Also find unbiased links to post if you want to debate. For the example of this post, don't post "studies" from the company that makes the pesticides. They are going to twist the truth and/or lie about the results so they don't look bad.

 

[Damrod]

Yes, science is good. But science only isn't. You need philosophy also. To develop a critical mind and question everything. I think it is what miss the most in society.

Science is corruptible, but your critical mind is a tool to detect it.