Quote:
Yes, they clearly try to create a claim which is not supported by fact. The sole problem with the "spin" of the report is that there was not a pro-organic one. Thus, the lack of pro-organic spin is then converted to an anti-organic stance or a poor science application based solely on the need to support a personal opinion wherher by you or others.
The spin was definitely "anti-organic" as well as sloppy based on key studies and even spelling mistakes that were left out. My "personal" opinion is the least of it.
Quote:
I defend the truth as can be evidenced.
The evidence is that pesticide-laden food is affecting our health and the health of our environment. The two are intertwined. You seem to have your propaganda camps mixed up .... This was perhaps more evident in our discussion a few months ago around Vendana Shiva and the Indian suicides due to corporate interests, mostly GMO's and Monsanto, stepping into Inidan agriculture, but continues on in this thread. I get a little tired with your arguments at times, as they seem "nitpicky" and argue around trivialities while not actually getting to the essence. It's too slow ....
Quote:
Facts do tend to get in the way of a good propaganda campaign sometimes.
You seem to have your propaganda camps mixed up .... This was perhaps more evident in our discussion a few months ago around Vendana Shiva and the Indian suicides due to corporate interests, mostly GMO's and Monsanto, stepping into Inidan agriculture, but continues on in this thread. I get a little tired with your arguments at times, as they seem "nitpicky" and argue around trivialities while not actually getting to the essence. It's too slow ....
Whose propaganda campaign is it? Vendana Shiva's?
Quote:
When the facts are ignored or misrepresented I have to wonder why.
Me too.
Quote:
If the argument cannot stand on its own supported by factual evidence I have to really question the validity of the argument and the qualifications and motives of those presenting it.
If you are looking for factual evidence, you'll not find it in profit driven intentions of multinational corporations. Vendana Shiva is not a multinational corporation. Monsanto is. Cargill is. Dow is. Syngenta is. Vendana Shiva is not.
Quote:
If they are not qualified it may just be ignorance, but if they know they are misrepresenting the facts they must have a motive to do so.
Hmmmm..... I wonder what her motivation could be? Especially compared to the giants? What's her profit compared to theirs? What's her risk? Ego .... or something like that?
... people do not buy and consume organics because of their nutritional differences anyway.[/quote]
Quote:
Yet the firestorm over the study focusing nutrician?
Yes! Because nutrition is NOT the main reason people buy and consume organics, yet organic is more nutritional anyway, as the Stanford study revealed. AND organic, by definition, does not conatain GMO ....
Support of organics goes way beyond ... to the health of our soil, water, air .... as well as our individual health. Individual health is also dependent on the collective health of our soil, water, and air because our environment effects us all. We live in it. We are it. The study and headlines de-emphasized nutritional value without mentioning the pesticide hazards of conventionally grown food and not even pointing out the use of GMOS which is very significant. Organics, by definition, cannot contain GMO's.
Quote:
Sure they can and do, just not the recent GMOs. Do you know how many of the citrus varieties are the product of having the buds irradiated to get seedless fruit? The concern most express is over the addition of genes not the random shuffling which has been going on for over half a century now.
No. The concern is about much, much, much MORE. It is about land-grabbing and food sovereignty and corporate take-over and personal as well as environmental health. It is about equality and justice and women's rights .... and a lot more. And YES, the concern is also the addition of genes and not just random shuffling.
It's difficult to discern your motives and why you support multinationals such as Monsanto. You defend them as if your life depended on it. Why?
I defend the truth from untruth and that sometimes takes me into a discussion of multinational companies or governments.
Sometimes? A discussion of multinationals and government will lead us down a rabbit-hole .... which is where your "defence" of "truth' should inevitably lead us.
Quote:
Do you genuinely believe that they are "safe" and/or the only option in feeding a growing population?
Quote:
Not the only option, but probably the more probable route.
But, you see, this is what is up for discussion. They have not proven to be safe for the human body and they are wreaking havoc on the environment as well as on human rights.
Quote:
So some paragraphs ..... such as the supportive one you wrote about Cargill having a finger in the organics pie ..... I haven't commented on yet. But if you want some discussion there, I'm willing although I am wondering why I should have to.
Quote:
Not supportive of anything other than the facts. I find it hard to paint a company with a broad brush of anti-organic when they do sell organic products. It is clear they cannot convert to a pure organic line because that will not feed everyone and that is not good for a business model. Starving customers just ruins the relations with all customers.
Cargill is invested in African cacoa ..... so what? Is this little business venture of theirs supposed to feed the world? Proposition 37 is not up for debate in Africa, especially amongst it's children.
Cargill is a multi-national corporation who, like any other corporation, is interested in profits. If they can gain some profit from organics, they will just as they will gain profits from agri-business and gmo crops. This doesn't mean they are concerned with soil health or with the environment or with feeding the world. Their motivation is profit. If there is something to be had from sourcing organic cacoa from Africa ..... they will be there doing just that. Of course, there has been a lot of pressure for Cargill to source their cacoa from outfits that are not using child-slavery .....and they are now doing that .... but the initiative to do so did not come from them. They had to be made aware from groups whose main focus was not profit, but accountability and equality.
Quote:
None of this sounds that bad.
No? Doesn't sound that bad? It doesn't bother you that Cargill is more interested in profits than with soil health, the environment, or feeding the world? It doesn't bother you that grass-roots orgnizations had to persuade them to adopt more humane standards in their cacoa sourcing; that the initiative to do so didn't come from them?
Quote:
They change to reflect the desires of thes groups, provide products to their customers, and profit to their investors. Sounds like they are trying to cover as much as they can.
They change to reflect the desires of "watch-dogs" who expose their practices? That's very nice of them. The "desires" of these groups are for equality and justice and humane practices amongst the peoples of this world. Cargill is concerned with profit for their investors .... and if that comes in the form of organic cacoa from Africa, so be it. Why does Cargill only change to reflect the desires of "these groups". Why do they change their practices at all? Can they not just be ethical to begin with, or does "ethical" only make sense to them when they need to show profit to their investors?
Yep, they are definitley trying to cover as much as they can. They change their practices in child-slaved cocao production in order to reflect the desires of their customers ....... Yes. Grass-roots organizations do have some influence.
As for the paragraph I dropped about organics using organic pesticides ..... again, I wonder why I should comment. I did mention harm reduction. Organics are not 100% safe but are much, much safer than the pesticide-laden food we are subjected to ... and which run-off into our environment and into our own bodies as well, and even more so, into the bodies of our children who are more vulnerable to them, and even more vulnerable are the children on the verge of being born.
Quote:
The selective claims of less being better, without any evidence to support it while attacking the claims of acceptable levels as being unproven is hypocritical. Either all claims are held to the same criteria or there is hypocrisy. I dislike hypocrisy.
I dislike hypocrisy as much as I dislike having to repeat myself ..... Less IS better. It's called "harm-reduction" and i've already outlined it here:
Bouchard,M.E.,etal.,“Prenatal Exposure to Pesticides and I Qin 7-‐YearOldChildren,”
Environmental Health Perspectives online April 21, 2011
Crews etal.,
“Epigenetic transgenerationl inheritance of altered stress responses,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
published online May 21,2012)
Engel,S.M.,et al., “Prenatal Exposure to OPs, Paraoxonase 1, and Cognitive Development in Children,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
online
April 21, 2011
Garry, V.F., Harkins, M.E., Erickson,L.L.,Long-‐Simpson,L.K.,Holland,S.E.&Burroughs,B.L
2002. Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living
in the red river valley of Minnesota,USA.
Environmental Health Perspectives110:p.441-‐449.
Lim et al., 2009.
“Chronic Exposure to the herbicide, Atrazine,Causes Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Insulin Resistance,”
PlosOne, Vol.4 (4):e5186
Looft,Torey et al.
2012.
“In-‐feed antibiotic effects on the swine intestinal microbiome,”Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences,
Vol.109 (5):1691-‐1696.
Lu,C.et al.,
2008,
“Dietary intake and its contribution to longitudinal organophosphorus pesticide exposure in
urban/suburban children,”
Environmental
Health Perspectives,
Vol.116(4):pages537-‐542)
Lu,C. etal., 2006.
“Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus
Pesticides,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
Vol.114(2):pages260-‐263.September4,2012
Office of Inspector General U.S.EPA,
2006a.
Measuring the impact of the Food Quality Protection Act: challenges and opportunities.
Report No.
2006-‐P-‐00028,
August 1,
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.Office of Inspector General,U.S. EPA,
2006b.
supplemental report: details on dietary risk data in support of Report
No.2006-‐P-‐00028,
Measuring the impact of the Food QualityProtectionAct:challengesand opportunities.
U.S.EPA,
Washington,D.C.
Rauh,V.,etal.,
“7-‐Year
Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos,
Common Agricultural Insecticide,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
online April21, 2011
Schreinemachers,D.
2003. Birth malformations and other adverse perinatal outcomes infour U.S. wheat-‐producing states.
Environmental Health Perspectives
111: p. 1259-‐1264.
USDA Pesticide Data Program,
2012
and multiple years.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/scienceVandenberg et al., 2012.
“Hormones and Endocrine-‐Disrupting Chemicals: Low-‐Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses,”
EndocrineReviews,
Vol.33 (3):pages 378-‐455.
Bouchard,M.E.,etal.,“PrenatalExposuret OPPesticidesandIQin7-‐YearOldChildren,”
Environmental Health Perspectives online April 21, 2011
Crews etal.,
“Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of altered stress responses,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
publishedonline May 21,2012)
Engel,S.M.,et al., “Prenatal Exposure to OPs, Paraoxonase 1, and Cognitive Development in Children,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
online
April 21, 2011
Garry, V.F., Harkins, M.E., Erickson,L.L.,Long-‐Simpson,L.K.,Holland,S.E.&Burroughs,B.L
2002. Birth defects, season of conception, and sex of children born to pesticide applicators living
in the red river valley of Minnesota,USA.
Environmental Health Perspectives110:p.441-‐449.
Lim et al., 2009.
“ChronicExposure to the herbicide, Atrazine,Causes Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Insulin Resistance,”
PlosOne, Vol.4 (4):e5186
Looft,Torey et al.
2012.
“In-‐feed antibiotic effects on the swine intestinal microbiome ,”Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences,
Vol.109 (5):1691-‐1696.
Lu,C.et al.,
2008,
“Dietary intake and its contribution to longitudinal organophosphorus pesticide exposure in
urban/suburban children,”
Environmental
Health Perspectives,
Vol.116(4):pages537-‐542)
Lu,C. etal., 2006.
“Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus
Pesticides,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
Vol.114(2):pages260-‐263.September4,2012
Office of Inspector General U.S.EPA,
2006a.
Measuring the impact of the Food Quality Protection Act: challenges and opportunities.
Report No.
2006-‐P-‐00028,
August 1,
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.Office of Inspector General,U.S. EPA,
2006b.
supplemental report: details on dietary risk data in support of Report
No.2006-‐P-‐00028,
Measuring the impact of the Food Quality Protection Act:challengesand opportunities.
U.S.EPA,
Washington,D.C.
Rauh,V.,etal.,
“7-‐Year
Neurodevelopmental Scores and Prenatal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos,
Common Agricultural Insecticide,”
Environmental Health Perspectives,
online April21, 2011
Schreinemachers,D.
2003. Birth malformations and other adverse perinatal outcomes infour U.S. wheat-‐producing states.
Environmental Health Perspectives
111: p. 1259-‐1264.
USDA Pesticide Data Program,
2012
and multiple years.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/scienceVandenberg et al., 2012.
“Hormones and Endocrine-‐Disrupting Chemicals: Low-‐Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses,”
EndocrineReviews,
Vol.33 (3):pages 378-‐455.
Quote:
And organics, by definition, do not include GMO's. That is huge. Very significant.
Quote:
Only when the definition of GMO is tailored to the organic mindset.
It is actually very significant for reasons far, far beyond the organic "mindset". It's about justice and equality and environmental health and food sovereignty and land-grabbing and diversity and preservation of indigenous plant life, and .... and ..... far beyond the "organic mindset". The absence of GMO's in organic food is a much more complex issue than the "organic mindset".
Quote:
I see no problems arising from the mutations created by the levels of scienece throughout history. I do not expect to see any probleims in the near future either.
Mutations arise anyway. I DO see problems arising through corporate interest in intelligent ownership of seeds. They have already arised. It's here.
Of course there is the issue of antibiotics in meat and milk, but the study didn't mention that (because it was about nutrition).
Quote:
Yes, nor did it touch on the production differences or the total amount og products used and the numbers of applications, because it was mainly about nutrition.
I'm tempted to drop this paragraph. So I will.
I could go on and on, but again, I wonder why I should have to? I have no proof that agri-business funded the Stanford study. If they did, it would be too obvious! But it is very suspicious, especially with the Prop 37 vote coming up in California. I'd say Monsanto and the GMO multinationals are nervous as they should be! And I am very glad the fact that Cargill and the Gates folks are "friends" of Stanford did not escape notice.
Quote:
Yes, and just exactly have the Cargill or Gates folks done to eliminate organic products that would make this suspect? I can find nothing other than they do not support organic production as some do.
They do not support organic products because it interferes with their corporate profit agenda. They could not possibly eliminate organic products altogether, but they can have a piece of it, as seen with Cargill's interest in chocolate production. There is a market for it.
My schedule has changed and I will be busy. That swim in the lake was one of the last even though temperatures around here persist. I'll try to respond as thoroughly as time allows. Hope the movie you watched with your wife was time well spent.
Quote:
Yes, it was The Hunger Games .... the manipulation of facts was a key aspect in some areas.
I've heard it's a good movie but haven't seen it yet.
Corporations and governments will manipulate facts. Vendana Shiva does not have shares in the company.