Organic...
Replies
-
ScreeField wrote: »Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
The primary use of antibiotics in cattle is to promote growth (fatten them up) and are administered in livestock feed regardless of whether or not the cattle are suspected to be sick. There is no medical reason the cattle are given the antibiotics and any health benefits are merely secondary gains.
Are you sure you're not confusing antibiotics with growth hormones? I've never heard of antibiotics fattening anyone up.
No, he does mean antibiotics.
Not the most scientific source, but you can see ABC mention the FDA's new recommendations about not using it for that purpose:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fda-stop-feeding-livestock-antibiotics-growth-promotionplease/story?id=211757600 -
loconnor466 wrote: »Senecarr, not sure about this part of your statement,
I also see it as a life style choice wealthy people and countries are promoting and purposely handicapping their food production that in a long chain of events, promotes continued colonialism of Africa and India. Right now, Europe could switch their agricultural practices to be more modern, and stop becoming importers. Instead they continue to encourage Africa and India to grow cash crop like cotton to the detriment of feed their own people. At the same time, they even provide loans towards growing this stuff, then turn around and tell them not to use advances like GMOs - technology that would make their crops more efficient and potentially lead to them getting out of debt.
You might want to do some research on India's cotton crop, they do not use advances like GMO's? ALL of India's cotton crop is GMO and most of the farmers are in debt to Monsanto, or to banks for borrowing the money to buy the expensive, self terminating seed from Monsanto. Most of the land in India can not support much more than cotton and soybeans.
Self terminating seeds are banned.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
because they do not receive antibiotics. other animals do because part of their sale doesn't depend on them being antibiotic free
So that's your one and only criterion for an animal being treated humanely. They get antibiotics?
no and I never said that, but wouldn't want to an animal to die needlessly. which is why the antibiotic free is wrong to do to an animal imho. and if you've seen animals dying and you know all they need is a pill or pin prick, you would understand why
Much of the antibiotic use in the US is prophylactic, not for actual illness. It leads to faster weight gain. And prevents infection in concentrated feeding lots. I don't use organic, I am not anti GMO, and I am not vegetarian. What most people are against is the prophylactic use of antibiotics in food animals.
0 -
ScreeField wrote: »Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
The primary use of antibiotics in cattle is to promote growth (fatten them up) and are administered in livestock feed regardless of whether or not the cattle are suspected to be sick. There is no medical reason the cattle are given the antibiotics and any health benefits are merely secondary gains.
Are you sure you're not confusing antibiotics with growth hormones? I've never heard of antibiotics fattening anyone up.
No, he does mean antibiotics.
Not the most scientific source, but you can see ABC mention the FDA's new recommendations about not using it for that purpose:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fda-stop-feeding-livestock-antibiotics-growth-promotionplease/story?id=21175760
They go hand in hand - BGH results in increase in mastitis prevalence which requires more ABs...0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
The primary use of antibiotics in cattle is to promote growth (fatten them up) and are administered in livestock feed regardless of whether or not the cattle are suspected to be sick. There is no medical reason the cattle are given the antibiotics and any health benefits are merely secondary gains.
Are you sure you're not confusing antibiotics with growth hormones? I've never heard of antibiotics fattening anyone up.
No, he does mean antibiotics.
Not the most scientific source, but you can see ABC mention the FDA's new recommendations about not using it for that purpose:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fda-stop-feeding-livestock-antibiotics-growth-promotionplease/story?id=21175760
They go hand in hand - BGH results in increase in mastitis prevalence which requires more ABs...
They use antibiotics to increase growth in poultry too, and poultry is hormone free.0 -
loconnor466 wrote: »Senecarr, not sure about this part of your statement,
I also see it as a life style choice wealthy people and countries are promoting and purposely handicapping their food production that in a long chain of events, promotes continued colonialism of Africa and India. Right now, Europe could switch their agricultural practices to be more modern, and stop becoming importers. Instead they continue to encourage Africa and India to grow cash crop like cotton to the detriment of feed their own people. At the same time, they even provide loans towards growing this stuff, then turn around and tell them not to use advances like GMOs - technology that would make their crops more efficient and potentially lead to them getting out of debt.
You might want to do some research on India's cotton crop, they do not use advances like GMO's? ALL of India's cotton crop is GMO and most of the farmers are in debt to Monsanto, or to banks for borrowing the money to buy the expensive, self terminating seed from Monsanto. Most of the land in India can not support much more than cotton and soybeans.
Self terminating seeds are banned.
Sure? I know they aren't used but I didn't hear of a ban and there are large campaigns to formalize a ban. As far as I know, only a few countries have banned them?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »loconnor466 wrote: »Senecarr, not sure about this part of your statement,
I also see it as a life style choice wealthy people and countries are promoting and purposely handicapping their food production that in a long chain of events, promotes continued colonialism of Africa and India. Right now, Europe could switch their agricultural practices to be more modern, and stop becoming importers. Instead they continue to encourage Africa and India to grow cash crop like cotton to the detriment of feed their own people. At the same time, they even provide loans towards growing this stuff, then turn around and tell them not to use advances like GMOs - technology that would make their crops more efficient and potentially lead to them getting out of debt.
You might want to do some research on India's cotton crop, they do not use advances like GMO's? ALL of India's cotton crop is GMO and most of the farmers are in debt to Monsanto, or to banks for borrowing the money to buy the expensive, self terminating seed from Monsanto. Most of the land in India can not support much more than cotton and soybeans.
Self terminating seeds are banned.
Sure? I know they aren't used but I didn't hear of a ban and there are large campaigns to formalize a ban. As far as I know, only a few countries have banned them?
My understanding was similar. I thought Monsanto (which actually only acquired the company researching it, not developed it themselves) agreed on their own to end research on it.0 -
-
ScreeField wrote: »Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
The primary use of antibiotics in cattle is to promote growth (fatten them up) and are administered in livestock feed regardless of whether or not the cattle are suspected to be sick. There is no medical reason the cattle are given the antibiotics and any health benefits are merely secondary gains.
Are you sure you're not confusing antibiotics with growth hormones? I've never heard of antibiotics fattening anyone up.
The Fat Drug
IF you walk into a farm-supply store today, you’re likely to find a bag of antibiotic powder that claims to boost the growth of poultry and livestock. That’s because decades of agricultural research has shown that antibiotics seem to flip a switch in young animals’ bodies, helping them pack on pounds. Manufacturers brag about the miraculous effects of feeding antibiotics to chicks and nursing calves. Dusty agricultural journals attest to the ways in which the drugs can act like a kind of superfood to produce cheap meat.
But what if that meat is us? Recently, a group of medical investigators have begun to wonder whether antibiotics might cause the same growth promotion in humans. New evidence shows that America’s obesity epidemic may be connected to our high consumption of these drugs. But before we get to those findings, it’s helpful to start at the beginning, in 1948, when the wonder drugs were new — and big was beautiful.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/opinion/sunday/the-fat-drug.html0 -
so this thread is still going
but the question is
does it deliver0 -
so this thread is still going
but the question is
does it deliver
Well, I've learned something about antibiotics at least. Thanks, guys.
And is anyone still pro-organic fruit and veg any more here? I think that issue is done and crop-dusted.
The jury may still be out on meat. I'm not sure.
(I'm not buying organic meat here in Australia because I'm pretty sure most of our meat isn't farmed in factories.)0 -
Well, I've learned something about antibiotics at least. Thanks, guys.
And is anyone still pro-organic fruit and veg any more here?
Yes. I think there are a number of us here who choose organic (or some version thereof) based on our knowledge and experience with the industry(s) involved. However, the background is more complicated: each individual example depends upon which crop you're talking about (apples, oranges, beans, rice, dairy, eggs). One easy to reference example is the highly publicized banana grower's use of pesticide that causes male sterility. The pesticide used in the bananas was banned in the US, but continued to be used overseas, and the bananas were sold in the US. Fortunately, this issue has since been resolved. Another example, as of yet unresolved, is the two-headed fish phenomenon as a result of selenium pollution--caused by large-scale fertilizer production.0 -
idk I got bored by the back and forth about 10 pages ago
but hey I need a post count bump as much as the next guy(s)0 -
ScreeField wrote: »Well, I've learned something about antibiotics at least. Thanks, guys.
And is anyone still pro-organic fruit and veg any more here?
Yes. I think there are a number of us here who choose organic (or some version thereof) based on our knowledge and experience with the industry(s) involved. However, the background is more complicated: each individual example depends upon which crop you're talking about (apples, oranges, beans, rice, dairy, eggs). One easy to reference example is the highly publicized banana grower's use of pesticide that causes male sterility. The pesticide used in the bananas was banned in the US, but continued to be used overseas, and the bananas were sold in the US. Fortunately, this issue has since been resolved. Another example, as of yet unresolved, is the two-headed fish phenomenon as a result of selenium pollution--caused by large-scale fertilizer production.
The organic bananas I ate in Costa Rica were simply amazing. I met people there who worked on conventional banana plantations and said after what they saw there they would never eat conventional bananas again. I don't think they gave me details and I do eat conventional bananas myself.
I don't eat conventionally grown food on the Dirty Dozen list:
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
Highlights of Dirty Dozen™ 2015
EWG singles out produce with the highest pesticide loads for its Dirty Dozen™ list. This year, it is comprised of apples, peaches, nectarines, strawberries, grapes, celery, spinach, sweet bell peppers, cucumbers, cherry tomatoes, imported snap peas and potatoes.
Each of these foods tested positive a number of different pesticide residues and showed higher concentrations of pesticides than other produce items.
Key findings:- 99 percent of apple samples, 98 percent of peaches, and 97 percent of nectarines tested positive for at least one pesticide residue.
- The average potato had more pesticides by weight than any other produce.
- A single grape sample and a sweet bell pepper sample contained 15 pesticides.
- Single samples of cherry tomatoes, nectarines, peaches, imported snap peas and strawberries showed 13 different pesticides apiece.
The Clean Fifteen™
EWG's Clean Fifteen™ list of produce least likely to hold pesticide residues consists of avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, cabbage, frozen sweet peas, onions, asparagus, mangoes, papayas, kiwis, eggplant, grapefruit, cantaloupe, cauliflower and sweet potatoes. Relatively few pesticides were detected on these foods, and tests found low total concentrations of pesticides on them.
Key findings:- Avocados were the cleanest: only 1 percent of avocado samples showed any detectable pesticides.
- Some 89 percent of pineapples, 82 percent of kiwi, 80 percent of papayas, 88 percent of mango and 61 percent of cantaloupe had no residues.
- No single fruit sample from the Clean Fifteen™ tested positive for more than 4 types of pesticides.
- Multiple pesticide residues are extremely rare on Clean Fifteen™ vegetables. Only 5.5 percent of Clean Fifteen samples had two or more pesticides.
See the full list.
0 -
Not this nonsense again.
Much like these two Alliance reports, Dr. Winter concludes after reviewing the methodology used to develop the “Dirty Dozen” list that the EWG “does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures.” Dr. Winter further concludes that the EWG does not adequately consider “the amount of pesticide residue detected on the various commodities” and that “the consumer exposure to the ten most common pesticides found on the Dirty Dozen commodities are several orders of magnitude below levels required to cause any biological effect.”
http://safefruitsandveggies.com/blog/more-evidence-“dirty-dozen”-list-based-bad-science
0 -
99 percent of apple samples, 98 percent of peaches, and 97 percent of nectarines tested positive for at least one pesticide residue
without the actual levels (and correlations with effects) I give no funks about this line. It is absolutely worthless and indicative of scare mongering.0 -
99 percent of apple samples, 98 percent of peaches, and 97 percent of nectarines tested positive for at least one pesticide residue
without the actual levels (and correlations with effects) I give no funks about this line. It is absolutely worthless and indicative of scare mongering.
But my p-value farming!0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Not this nonsense again.
Much like these two Alliance reports, Dr. Winter concludes after reviewing the methodology used to develop the “Dirty Dozen” list that the EWG “does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures.” Dr. Winter further concludes that the EWG does not adequately consider “the amount of pesticide residue detected on the various commodities” and that “the consumer exposure to the ten most common pesticides found on the Dirty Dozen commodities are several orders of magnitude below levels required to cause any biological effect.”
http://safefruitsandveggies.com/blog/more-evidence-“dirty-dozen”-list-based-bad-science
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
...Methodology
The Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce ranks pesticide contamination on 48 popular fruits and vegetables based on an analysis of more than 34,000 samples taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and federal Food and Drug Administration. The USDA doesn't test every food every year. EWG uses the most recent sampling period for each food. Nearly all the tests that serve as the basis for the guide were conducted by the USDA, whose personnel washed or peeled produce to mimic consumer practices. It is a reasonable assumption that unwashed produce would likely have higher concentrations of pesticide residues.
In order to compare foods, EWG looked at six measures of pesticide contamination:- Percent of samples tested with detectable pesticides
- Percent of samples with two or more detectable pesticides
- Average number of pesticides found on a single sample
- Average amount of pesticides found, measured in parts per million,
- Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample
- Total number of pesticides found on the commodity
For each metric, we ranked each food based on its individual USDA test results, then normalized the scores on a 1-100 scale, with 100 being the highest. A food's final score is the total of the six normalized scores from each metric. The Shopper's Guide™ Full List shows fruits and vegetables in order of these final scores.
Our goal is to show a range of different measures of pesticide contamination to account for uncertainties in the science. All categories were treated equally. The likelihood that a person would eat multiple pesticides on a single food was given the same weight as amounts of the pesticide detected and the percent of the crop on which any pesticides were found.
The EWG's Shopper's Guide™ is not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks but instead reflects the overall pesticide loads of common fruits and vegetables. This approach best captures the uncertainties about the risks and consequences of pesticide exposure. Since researchers are constantly developing new insights into how pesticides act on living organisms, no one can say that concentrations of pesticides assumed today to be safe are, in fact, harmless.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Not this nonsense again.
Much like these two Alliance reports, Dr. Winter concludes after reviewing the methodology used to develop the “Dirty Dozen” list that the EWG “does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures.” Dr. Winter further concludes that the EWG does not adequately consider “the amount of pesticide residue detected on the various commodities” and that “the consumer exposure to the ten most common pesticides found on the Dirty Dozen commodities are several orders of magnitude below levels required to cause any biological effect.”
http://safefruitsandveggies.com/blog/more-evidence-“dirty-dozen”-list-based-bad-science
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
...Methodology
The Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce ranks pesticide contamination on 48 popular fruits and vegetables based on an analysis of more than 34,000 samples taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and federal Food and Drug Administration. The USDA doesn't test every food every year. EWG uses the most recent sampling period for each food. Nearly all the tests that serve as the basis for the guide were conducted by the USDA, whose personnel washed or peeled produce to mimic consumer practices. It is a reasonable assumption that unwashed produce would likely have higher concentrations of pesticide residues.
In order to compare foods, EWG looked at six measures of pesticide contamination:- Percent of samples tested with detectable pesticides
- Percent of samples with two or more detectable pesticides
- Average number of pesticides found on a single sample
- Average amount of pesticides found, measured in parts per million,
- Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample
- Total number of pesticides found on the commodity
For each metric, we ranked each food based on its individual USDA test results, then normalized the scores on a 1-100 scale, with 100 being the highest. A food's final score is the total of the six normalized scores from each metric. The Shopper's Guide™ Full List shows fruits and vegetables in order of these final scores.
Our goal is to show a range of different measures of pesticide contamination to account for uncertainties in the science. All categories were treated equally. The likelihood that a person would eat multiple pesticides on a single food was given the same weight as amounts of the pesticide detected and the percent of the crop on which any pesticides were found.
The EWG's Shopper's Guide™ is not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks but instead reflects the overall pesticide loads of common fruits and vegetables. This approach best captures the uncertainties about the risks and consequences of pesticide exposure. Since researchers are constantly developing new insights into how pesticides act on living organisms, no one can say that concentrations of pesticides assumed today to be safe are, in fact, harmless.
Translation: we'll post hoc try to justify our scaremongered methodology despite the fact that it is scientifically meaningless. We'll also throw in a black swan argument while we're at it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
because they do not receive antibiotics. other animals do because part of their sale doesn't depend on them being antibiotic free
So that's your one and only criterion for an animal being treated humanely. They get antibiotics?
no and I never said that, but wouldn't want to an animal to die needlessly. which is why the antibiotic free is wrong to do to an animal imho. and if you've seen animals dying and you know all they need is a pill or pin prick, you would understand why
Much of the antibiotic use in the US is prophylactic, not for actual illness. It leads to faster weight gain. And prevents infection in concentrated feeding lots. I don't use organic, I am not anti GMO, and I am not vegetarian. What most people are against is the prophylactic use of antibiotics in food animals.
Yep, this 1000+0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Not this nonsense again.
Much like these two Alliance reports, Dr. Winter concludes after reviewing the methodology used to develop the “Dirty Dozen” list that the EWG “does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures.” Dr. Winter further concludes that the EWG does not adequately consider “the amount of pesticide residue detected on the various commodities” and that “the consumer exposure to the ten most common pesticides found on the Dirty Dozen commodities are several orders of magnitude below levels required to cause any biological effect.”
http://safefruitsandveggies.com/blog/more-evidence-“dirty-dozen”-list-based-bad-science
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
...Methodology
The Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce ranks pesticide contamination on 48 popular fruits and vegetables based on an analysis of more than 34,000 samples taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and federal Food and Drug Administration. The USDA doesn't test every food every year. EWG uses the most recent sampling period for each food. Nearly all the tests that serve as the basis for the guide were conducted by the USDA, whose personnel washed or peeled produce to mimic consumer practices. It is a reasonable assumption that unwashed produce would likely have higher concentrations of pesticide residues.
In order to compare foods, EWG looked at six measures of pesticide contamination:- Percent of samples tested with detectable pesticides
- Percent of samples with two or more detectable pesticides
- Average number of pesticides found on a single sample
- Average amount of pesticides found, measured in parts per million,
- Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample
- Total number of pesticides found on the commodity
For each metric, we ranked each food based on its individual USDA test results, then normalized the scores on a 1-100 scale, with 100 being the highest. A food's final score is the total of the six normalized scores from each metric. The Shopper's Guide™ Full List shows fruits and vegetables in order of these final scores.
Our goal is to show a range of different measures of pesticide contamination to account for uncertainties in the science. All categories were treated equally. The likelihood that a person would eat multiple pesticides on a single food was given the same weight as amounts of the pesticide detected and the percent of the crop on which any pesticides were found.
The EWG's Shopper's Guide™ is not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks but instead reflects the overall pesticide loads of common fruits and vegetables. This approach best captures the uncertainties about the risks and consequences of pesticide exposure. Since researchers are constantly developing new insights into how pesticides act on living organisms, no one can say that concentrations of pesticides assumed today to be safe are, in fact, harmless.
Translation: we'll post hoc try to justify our scaremongered methodology despite the fact that it is scientifically meaningless. We'll also throw in a black swan argument while we're at it.
That wasn't a translation. That was you spinning your own thoughts and projecting it as theirs.0 -
99 percent of apple samples, 98 percent of peaches, and 97 percent of nectarines tested positive for at least one pesticide residue
without the actual levels (and correlations with effects) I give no funks about this line. It is absolutely worthless and indicative of scare mongering.
But my p-value farming!
hey don't let meaningful data get in the way of those p-values amirite0 -
No, that is me putting their statement down to bare bones meaning.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Not this nonsense again.
Much like these two Alliance reports, Dr. Winter concludes after reviewing the methodology used to develop the “Dirty Dozen” list that the EWG “does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures.” Dr. Winter further concludes that the EWG does not adequately consider “the amount of pesticide residue detected on the various commodities” and that “the consumer exposure to the ten most common pesticides found on the Dirty Dozen commodities are several orders of magnitude below levels required to cause any biological effect.”
http://safefruitsandveggies.com/blog/more-evidence-“dirty-dozen”-list-based-bad-science
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
...Methodology
The Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce ranks pesticide contamination on 48 popular fruits and vegetables based on an analysis of more than 34,000 samples taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and federal Food and Drug Administration. The USDA doesn't test every food every year. EWG uses the most recent sampling period for each food. Nearly all the tests that serve as the basis for the guide were conducted by the USDA, whose personnel washed or peeled produce to mimic consumer practices. It is a reasonable assumption that unwashed produce would likely have higher concentrations of pesticide residues.
In order to compare foods, EWG looked at six measures of pesticide contamination:- Percent of samples tested with detectable pesticides
- Percent of samples with two or more detectable pesticides
- Average number of pesticides found on a single sample
- Average amount of pesticides found, measured in parts per million,
- Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample
- Total number of pesticides found on the commodity
For each metric, we ranked each food based on its individual USDA test results, then normalized the scores on a 1-100 scale, with 100 being the highest. A food's final score is the total of the six normalized scores from each metric. The Shopper's Guide™ Full List shows fruits and vegetables in order of these final scores.
Our goal is to show a range of different measures of pesticide contamination to account for uncertainties in the science. All categories were treated equally. The likelihood that a person would eat multiple pesticides on a single food was given the same weight as amounts of the pesticide detected and the percent of the crop on which any pesticides were found.
The EWG's Shopper's Guide™ is not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks but instead reflects the overall pesticide loads of common fruits and vegetables. This approach best captures the uncertainties about the risks and consequences of pesticide exposure. Since researchers are constantly developing new insights into how pesticides act on living organisms, no one can say that concentrations of pesticides assumed today to be safe are, in fact, harmless.
Translation: we'll post hoc try to justify our scaremongered methodology despite the fact that it is scientifically meaningless. We'll also throw in a black swan argument while we're at it.
That wasn't a translation. That was you spinning your own thoughts and projecting it as theirs.
^That right there, is literally a never seen a black swan reasoning.Since researchers are constantly developing new insights into how pesticides act on living organisms, no one can say that concentrations of pesticides assumed today to be safe are, in fact, harmless
^That right there, confession that their values don't have anything to do with the actual risks being exposed to a pesticide has on a person, hence, "scientifically meaningless".The EWG's Shopper's Guide™ is not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks but instead reflects the overall pesticide loads of common fruits and vegetables.
^That right there, the fearmongering. Let's assume that because science can only show that we haven't found harm yet, that means we should assume we should be just as afraid even though there has been testing that gives us a good idea of what it takes to generate harm.This approach best captures the uncertainties about the risks and consequences of pesticide exposure.0 -
Because if pesticide residues are 1/1000 (and that was high of any actual measurement averages) of a "reference dose" (which is 1/100th of a NOAEL), and thus 1000000th of a level likely to cause harm in chronic exposure, then I really have more important things to worry about considering the health benefits of fresh fruits and veggies.0
-
No, that is me putting their statement down to bare bones meaning.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Not this nonsense again.
Much like these two Alliance reports, Dr. Winter concludes after reviewing the methodology used to develop the “Dirty Dozen” list that the EWG “does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures.” Dr. Winter further concludes that the EWG does not adequately consider “the amount of pesticide residue detected on the various commodities” and that “the consumer exposure to the ten most common pesticides found on the Dirty Dozen commodities are several orders of magnitude below levels required to cause any biological effect.”
http://safefruitsandveggies.com/blog/more-evidence-“dirty-dozen”-list-based-bad-science
http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
...Methodology
The Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce ranks pesticide contamination on 48 popular fruits and vegetables based on an analysis of more than 34,000 samples taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and federal Food and Drug Administration. The USDA doesn't test every food every year. EWG uses the most recent sampling period for each food. Nearly all the tests that serve as the basis for the guide were conducted by the USDA, whose personnel washed or peeled produce to mimic consumer practices. It is a reasonable assumption that unwashed produce would likely have higher concentrations of pesticide residues.
In order to compare foods, EWG looked at six measures of pesticide contamination:- Percent of samples tested with detectable pesticides
- Percent of samples with two or more detectable pesticides
- Average number of pesticides found on a single sample
- Average amount of pesticides found, measured in parts per million,
- Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample
- Total number of pesticides found on the commodity
For each metric, we ranked each food based on its individual USDA test results, then normalized the scores on a 1-100 scale, with 100 being the highest. A food's final score is the total of the six normalized scores from each metric. The Shopper's Guide™ Full List shows fruits and vegetables in order of these final scores.
Our goal is to show a range of different measures of pesticide contamination to account for uncertainties in the science. All categories were treated equally. The likelihood that a person would eat multiple pesticides on a single food was given the same weight as amounts of the pesticide detected and the percent of the crop on which any pesticides were found.
The EWG's Shopper's Guide™ is not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks but instead reflects the overall pesticide loads of common fruits and vegetables. This approach best captures the uncertainties about the risks and consequences of pesticide exposure. Since researchers are constantly developing new insights into how pesticides act on living organisms, no one can say that concentrations of pesticides assumed today to be safe are, in fact, harmless.
Translation: we'll post hoc try to justify our scaremongered methodology despite the fact that it is scientifically meaningless. We'll also throw in a black swan argument while we're at it.
That wasn't a translation. That was you spinning your own thoughts and projecting it as theirs.
^That right there, is literally a never seen a black swan reasoning.Since researchers are constantly developing new insights into how pesticides act on living organisms, no one can say that concentrations of pesticides assumed today to be safe are, in fact, harmless
^That right there, confession that their values don't have anything to do with the actual risks being exposed to a pesticide has on a person, hence, "scientifically meaningless".The EWG's Shopper's Guide™ is not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks but instead reflects the overall pesticide loads of common fruits and vegetables.
^That right there, the fearmongering. Let's assume that because science can only show that we haven't found harm yet, that means we should assume we should be just as afraid even though there has been testing that gives us a good idea of what it takes to generate harm.This approach best captures the uncertainties about the risks and consequences of pesticide exposure.
Fearmongering? What in all of that is untrue? Their part of it, I mean.0 -
Because if pesticide residues are 1/1000 (and that was high of any actual measurement averages) of a "reference dose" (which is 1/100th of a NOAEL), and thus 1000000th of a level likely to cause harm in chronic exposure, then I really have more important things to worry about considering the health benefits of fresh fruits and veggies.
^ This.
0 -
lol this thread has 450 replies so far
I'm guessing @senecarr and @Need2Exerc1se each got about 150-175 posts from it
well done gaiz
0 -
Here's how your "safe" potatoes are grown:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html
...Danny Forsyth laid out the dismal economics of potato farming for me one sweltering morning at the coffee shop in downtown Jerome, Idaho. Forsyth, 60, is a slight blue-eyed man with a small gray ponytail; he farms 3,000 acres of potatoes, corn and wheat, and he spoke about agricultural chemicals like a man desperate to kick a bad habit. ”None of us would use them if we had any choice,” he said glumly.
I asked him to walk me through a season’s regimen. It typically begins early in the spring with a soil fumigant; to control nematodes, many potato farmers douse their fields with a chemical toxic enough to kill every trace of microbial life in the soil. Then, at planting, a systemic insecticide (like Thimet) is applied to the soil; this will be absorbed by the young seedlings and, for several weeks, will kill any insect that eats their leaves. After planting, Forsyth puts down an herbicide — Sencor or Eptam — to ”clean” his field of all weeds. When the potato seedlings are six inches tall, an herbicide may be sprayed a second time to control weeds.
Idaho farmers like Forsyth farm in vast circles defined by the rotation of a pivot irrigation system, typically 135 acres to a circle; I’d seen them from 30,000 feet flying in, a grid of verdant green coins pressed into a desert of scrubby brown. Pesticides and fertilizers are simply added to the irrigation system, which on Forsyth’s farm draws most of its water from the nearby Snake River. Along with their water, Forsyth’s potatoes may receive 10 applications of chemical fertilizer during the growing season. Just before the rows close — when the leaves of one row of plants meet those of the next — he begins spraying Bravo, a fungicide, to control late blight, one of the biggest threats to the potato crop. (Late blight, which caused the Irish potato famine, is an airborne fungus that turns stored potatoes into rotting mush.) Blight is such a serious problem that the E.P.A. currently allows farmers to spray powerful fungicides that haven’t passed the usual approval process. Forsyth’s potatoes will receive eight applications of fungicide.
Twice each summer, Forsyth hires a crop duster to spray for aphids. Aphids are harmless in themselves, but they transmit the leafroll virus, which in Russet Burbank potatoes causes net necrosis, a brown spotting that will cause a processor to reject a whole crop. It happened to Forsyth last year. ”I lost 80,000 bags” — they’re a hundred pounds each — ”to net necrosis,” he said. ”Instead of getting $4.95 a bag, I had to take $2 a bag from the dehydrator, and I was lucky to get that.” Net necrosis is a purely cosmetic defect; yet because big buyers like McDonald’s believe (with good reason) that we don’t like to see brown spots in our fries, farmers like Danny Forsyth must spray their fields with some of the most toxic chemicals in use, including an organophosphate called Monitor.
”Monitor is a deadly chemical,” Forsyth said. ”I won’t go into a field for four or five days after it’s been sprayed — even to fix a broken pivot.” That is, he would sooner lose a whole circle to drought than expose himself or an employee to Monitor, which has been found to cause neurological damage.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions