Organic...
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But so far the only shortcoming you've pointed out is that it isn't omniscient. You haven't shown any reason the testing isn't long term enough, just that you have a vague feeling it isn't, without even knowing how long it actually is.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Actually, most have been tested very well, but if you're looking for the possibility of a black swan, there will never be a proof that they're safe.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Who says fear mongering has to be untrue?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.
I can make things sound scary by saying 100% of people exposed to dihydrogen monoxide have died, which is true, but sounds scary to someone not examining what it all means.
The fearmongering comes from the fact that there are actual, scientifically established way of assessing risk. They basically said, "screw dat noise, here's a way we can present numbers that look really bad. You should be afraid because this number is high, because even though the best science says that's low in terms of effect, tomorrow science could change and the number means your grandchildren have horns."
But not all chemicals that get used in the production of food have been through scientifically established ways of assessing risk. Most have had some amount of testing for effects of short term use. Some of that testing is very limited. The testing for long term affects is usually left to the consumer.
If there were really "proof" that everything on our food supply was safe, additives would never be recalled or taken from the safe list. And people arguing that everything is completely safe wouldn't need to over dramatize their answers.
I see the argument all the time from anti-GMO people moving the goal posts.
"There isn't enough testing to know long term effects!"
"How long should testing be?"
"5 years!"
"Most GMOs go through 10 years of development before approval."
"I mean 20 years"
"Well, GMOs have been on the market that long..."
"Whatever number you give + 10 or 20 more years!"
Talk about moving goal posts! How did we get on GMO/GE food? We were talking about the EWG's dirty dozen and pesticide residue. And to determine long term effects 20 years would be a relatively short time. Some of these substances could be like smoking in that increased risk of disease is relatively small at first but increases with years consumed.
I said it is the same kind of argument I get from people on GMO's - goalpost moving. Can YOU, personally, ACTUALLY, link to a single, valid study explaining what is WRONG with current procedures for assessing risk in pesticide exposure? Can YOU, personally, actually give something wrong with it. No vague handwaving of, "not all ... scientifically established ways of assessing risk", that YOU, think is the case. Actually bring something that backs up that assertion, instead of, "well, I feel it needs more / better testing." What legitimate problems could the testing be missing?
The problem is that there are no long term studies. No long term studies = no data on long term use. So, no. I cannot link to the non-existent studies. Whether you agree with the logic of playing it safe when it comes to the unknown or not, the problem is pretty simple to understand, if you want to understand it.
First, what is long term? I've already said, using that is the PERFECT way to move the goalposts. How long does it take to determine long term effects? Can you state a decent reason the current procedures aren't long enough? Can you even state right now how long a term the studies that are done are?
Otherwise, why is any food safe? Every year crops are new (they all undergo mutation). Heck, even in organic they use chemical and radioactive mutagensis to speed up that mutation process. Why shouldn't we demand that every crop be animal tested for 20 years before any human eats it?
How could you control what humans eat? I'm only talking commercial food production. And I'm not moving goal posts, because there are no goal posts. I'm not really sure what you are really asking, but I'm not saying anything should be demanded or mandated. I'm just pointing out the shortcomings of food research which is a common reason for choosing organic. I get that you think everything is fine and further testing is not necessary. I don't get why you think everyone else should think the same.
As for why everyone should think the same? Well, if someone told me they didn't think the rules of gravity applied, I'd disagree with them as well. The whole point of science is results are universal.
We know there are things we can eat that take many years to increase risk of disease and science hasn't proved any pesticide safe. Proving food safe is nothing at all like proving gravity is real.
The EPA agrees that pesticides are not safe and considers the use of the word "safe" on a pesticide label to be a False or Misleading statement and doesn't allow it in advertising either.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/labels/labels_faq/lr_faq_1.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/156.10
there is NO chemical that is "safe". What we eat and drink and breathe are among the "safest" though.0 -
Can you actually, clearly, state how it hasn't proven pesticides safe? I still haven't heard a statement about how long the studies are, and what would be long enough. What would be proof? What model of testing would actually be needed to prove pesticides safe, to your satisfaction?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But so far the only shortcoming you've pointed out is that it isn't omniscient. You haven't shown any reason the testing isn't long term enough, just that you have a vague feeling it isn't, without even knowing how long it actually is.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Actually, most have been tested very well, but if you're looking for the possibility of a black swan, there will never be a proof that they're safe.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Who says fear mongering has to be untrue?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.
I can make things sound scary by saying 100% of people exposed to dihydrogen monoxide have died, which is true, but sounds scary to someone not examining what it all means.
The fearmongering comes from the fact that there are actual, scientifically established way of assessing risk. They basically said, "screw dat noise, here's a way we can present numbers that look really bad. You should be afraid because this number is high, because even though the best science says that's low in terms of effect, tomorrow science could change and the number means your grandchildren have horns."
But not all chemicals that get used in the production of food have been through scientifically established ways of assessing risk. Most have had some amount of testing for effects of short term use. Some of that testing is very limited. The testing for long term affects is usually left to the consumer.
If there were really "proof" that everything on our food supply was safe, additives would never be recalled or taken from the safe list. And people arguing that everything is completely safe wouldn't need to over dramatize their answers.
I see the argument all the time from anti-GMO people moving the goal posts.
"There isn't enough testing to know long term effects!"
"How long should testing be?"
"5 years!"
"Most GMOs go through 10 years of development before approval."
"I mean 20 years"
"Well, GMOs have been on the market that long..."
"Whatever number you give + 10 or 20 more years!"
Talk about moving goal posts! How did we get on GMO/GE food? We were talking about the EWG's dirty dozen and pesticide residue. And to determine long term effects 20 years would be a relatively short time. Some of these substances could be like smoking in that increased risk of disease is relatively small at first but increases with years consumed.
I said it is the same kind of argument I get from people on GMO's - goalpost moving. Can YOU, personally, ACTUALLY, link to a single, valid study explaining what is WRONG with current procedures for assessing risk in pesticide exposure? Can YOU, personally, actually give something wrong with it. No vague handwaving of, "not all ... scientifically established ways of assessing risk", that YOU, think is the case. Actually bring something that backs up that assertion, instead of, "well, I feel it needs more / better testing." What legitimate problems could the testing be missing?
The problem is that there are no long term studies. No long term studies = no data on long term use. So, no. I cannot link to the non-existent studies. Whether you agree with the logic of playing it safe when it comes to the unknown or not, the problem is pretty simple to understand, if you want to understand it.
First, what is long term? I've already said, using that is the PERFECT way to move the goalposts. How long does it take to determine long term effects? Can you state a decent reason the current procedures aren't long enough? Can you even state right now how long a term the studies that are done are?
Otherwise, why is any food safe? Every year crops are new (they all undergo mutation). Heck, even in organic they use chemical and radioactive mutagensis to speed up that mutation process. Why shouldn't we demand that every crop be animal tested for 20 years before any human eats it?
How could you control what humans eat? I'm only talking commercial food production. And I'm not moving goal posts, because there are no goal posts. I'm not really sure what you are really asking, but I'm not saying anything should be demanded or mandated. I'm just pointing out the shortcomings of food research which is a common reason for choosing organic. I get that you think everything is fine and further testing is not necessary. I don't get why you think everyone else should think the same.
As for why everyone should think the same? Well, if someone told me they didn't think the rules of gravity applied, I'd disagree with them as well. The whole point of science is results are universal.
We know there are things we can eat that take many years to increase risk of disease and science hasn't proved any pesticide safe. Proving food safe is nothing at all like proving gravity is real.
finding something as "safe" is like trying to find the last digit of pi...0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But so far the only shortcoming you've pointed out is that it isn't omniscient. You haven't shown any reason the testing isn't long term enough, just that you have a vague feeling it isn't, without even knowing how long it actually is.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Actually, most have been tested very well, but if you're looking for the possibility of a black swan, there will never be a proof that they're safe.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Who says fear mongering has to be untrue?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.
I can make things sound scary by saying 100% of people exposed to dihydrogen monoxide have died, which is true, but sounds scary to someone not examining what it all means.
The fearmongering comes from the fact that there are actual, scientifically established way of assessing risk. They basically said, "screw dat noise, here's a way we can present numbers that look really bad. You should be afraid because this number is high, because even though the best science says that's low in terms of effect, tomorrow science could change and the number means your grandchildren have horns."
But not all chemicals that get used in the production of food have been through scientifically established ways of assessing risk. Most have had some amount of testing for effects of short term use. Some of that testing is very limited. The testing for long term affects is usually left to the consumer.
If there were really "proof" that everything on our food supply was safe, additives would never be recalled or taken from the safe list. And people arguing that everything is completely safe wouldn't need to over dramatize their answers.
I see the argument all the time from anti-GMO people moving the goal posts.
"There isn't enough testing to know long term effects!"
"How long should testing be?"
"5 years!"
"Most GMOs go through 10 years of development before approval."
"I mean 20 years"
"Well, GMOs have been on the market that long..."
"Whatever number you give + 10 or 20 more years!"
Talk about moving goal posts! How did we get on GMO/GE food? We were talking about the EWG's dirty dozen and pesticide residue. And to determine long term effects 20 years would be a relatively short time. Some of these substances could be like smoking in that increased risk of disease is relatively small at first but increases with years consumed.
I said it is the same kind of argument I get from people on GMO's - goalpost moving. Can YOU, personally, ACTUALLY, link to a single, valid study explaining what is WRONG with current procedures for assessing risk in pesticide exposure? Can YOU, personally, actually give something wrong with it. No vague handwaving of, "not all ... scientifically established ways of assessing risk", that YOU, think is the case. Actually bring something that backs up that assertion, instead of, "well, I feel it needs more / better testing." What legitimate problems could the testing be missing?
The problem is that there are no long term studies. No long term studies = no data on long term use. So, no. I cannot link to the non-existent studies. Whether you agree with the logic of playing it safe when it comes to the unknown or not, the problem is pretty simple to understand, if you want to understand it.
First, what is long term? I've already said, using that is the PERFECT way to move the goalposts. How long does it take to determine long term effects? Can you state a decent reason the current procedures aren't long enough? Can you even state right now how long a term the studies that are done are?
Otherwise, why is any food safe? Every year crops are new (they all undergo mutation). Heck, even in organic they use chemical and radioactive mutagensis to speed up that mutation process. Why shouldn't we demand that every crop be animal tested for 20 years before any human eats it?
How could you control what humans eat? I'm only talking commercial food production. And I'm not moving goal posts, because there are no goal posts. I'm not really sure what you are really asking, but I'm not saying anything should be demanded or mandated. I'm just pointing out the shortcomings of food research which is a common reason for choosing organic. I get that you think everything is fine and further testing is not necessary. I don't get why you think everyone else should think the same.
As for why everyone should think the same? Well, if someone told me they didn't think the rules of gravity applied, I'd disagree with them as well. The whole point of science is results are universal.
We know there are things we can eat that take many years to increase risk of disease and science hasn't proved any pesticide safe. Proving food safe is nothing at all like proving gravity is real.
The EPA agrees that pesticides are not safe and considers the use of the word "safe" on a pesticide label to be a False or Misleading statement and doesn't allow it in advertising either.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/labels/labels_faq/lr_faq_1.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/156.10
Wow, read what you posted - the EPA doesn't allow to use the word safe unless it includes the words "when used as directed." That's kind of the whole point of doing animal models and establishing safe doses. At high enough levels, EVERYTHING will kill you. Water, when not used as directed, is lethal too.
This is not the EPA saying pesticides are not safe.0 -
Ah, you're right. I knew about the first blurb but had a real hard time getting it directly from the EPA and disregarded all sorts of pages before I finally found it. Should have disregarded the one from Cornell as well unless I was able to find it on EPA's site.0
-
Can you actually, clearly, state how it hasn't proven pesticides safe? I still haven't heard a statement about how long the studies are, and what would be long enough. What would be proof? What model of testing would actually be needed to prove pesticides safe, to your satisfaction?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But so far the only shortcoming you've pointed out is that it isn't omniscient. You haven't shown any reason the testing isn't long term enough, just that you have a vague feeling it isn't, without even knowing how long it actually is.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Actually, most have been tested very well, but if you're looking for the possibility of a black swan, there will never be a proof that they're safe.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Who says fear mongering has to be untrue?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.
I can make things sound scary by saying 100% of people exposed to dihydrogen monoxide have died, which is true, but sounds scary to someone not examining what it all means.
The fearmongering comes from the fact that there are actual, scientifically established way of assessing risk. They basically said, "screw dat noise, here's a way we can present numbers that look really bad. You should be afraid because this number is high, because even though the best science says that's low in terms of effect, tomorrow science could change and the number means your grandchildren have horns."
But not all chemicals that get used in the production of food have been through scientifically established ways of assessing risk. Most have had some amount of testing for effects of short term use. Some of that testing is very limited. The testing for long term affects is usually left to the consumer.
If there were really "proof" that everything on our food supply was safe, additives would never be recalled or taken from the safe list. And people arguing that everything is completely safe wouldn't need to over dramatize their answers.
I see the argument all the time from anti-GMO people moving the goal posts.
"There isn't enough testing to know long term effects!"
"How long should testing be?"
"5 years!"
"Most GMOs go through 10 years of development before approval."
"I mean 20 years"
"Well, GMOs have been on the market that long..."
"Whatever number you give + 10 or 20 more years!"
Talk about moving goal posts! How did we get on GMO/GE food? We were talking about the EWG's dirty dozen and pesticide residue. And to determine long term effects 20 years would be a relatively short time. Some of these substances could be like smoking in that increased risk of disease is relatively small at first but increases with years consumed.
I said it is the same kind of argument I get from people on GMO's - goalpost moving. Can YOU, personally, ACTUALLY, link to a single, valid study explaining what is WRONG with current procedures for assessing risk in pesticide exposure? Can YOU, personally, actually give something wrong with it. No vague handwaving of, "not all ... scientifically established ways of assessing risk", that YOU, think is the case. Actually bring something that backs up that assertion, instead of, "well, I feel it needs more / better testing." What legitimate problems could the testing be missing?
The problem is that there are no long term studies. No long term studies = no data on long term use. So, no. I cannot link to the non-existent studies. Whether you agree with the logic of playing it safe when it comes to the unknown or not, the problem is pretty simple to understand, if you want to understand it.
First, what is long term? I've already said, using that is the PERFECT way to move the goalposts. How long does it take to determine long term effects? Can you state a decent reason the current procedures aren't long enough? Can you even state right now how long a term the studies that are done are?
Otherwise, why is any food safe? Every year crops are new (they all undergo mutation). Heck, even in organic they use chemical and radioactive mutagensis to speed up that mutation process. Why shouldn't we demand that every crop be animal tested for 20 years before any human eats it?
How could you control what humans eat? I'm only talking commercial food production. And I'm not moving goal posts, because there are no goal posts. I'm not really sure what you are really asking, but I'm not saying anything should be demanded or mandated. I'm just pointing out the shortcomings of food research which is a common reason for choosing organic. I get that you think everything is fine and further testing is not necessary. I don't get why you think everyone else should think the same.
As for why everyone should think the same? Well, if someone told me they didn't think the rules of gravity applied, I'd disagree with them as well. The whole point of science is results are universal.
We know there are things we can eat that take many years to increase risk of disease and science hasn't proved any pesticide safe. Proving food safe is nothing at all like proving gravity is real.
Since I've already explained this several times, I'm going to have to go with no, I can't clearly state it so that you can understand.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »This thread is like herpes. It won't go away. I mean, that's what I've heard anyway.
forreal I'm almost bored enough to unsub and yet I keep coming back to see if it will ever end
The organic vs non-organic difference of opinion has been going on for decades. This thread might end, but as long as there are people the arguments will not.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Can you actually, clearly, state how it hasn't proven pesticides safe? I still haven't heard a statement about how long the studies are, and what would be long enough. What would be proof? What model of testing would actually be needed to prove pesticides safe, to your satisfaction?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But so far the only shortcoming you've pointed out is that it isn't omniscient. You haven't shown any reason the testing isn't long term enough, just that you have a vague feeling it isn't, without even knowing how long it actually is.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Actually, most have been tested very well, but if you're looking for the possibility of a black swan, there will never be a proof that they're safe.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Who says fear mongering has to be untrue?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.
I can make things sound scary by saying 100% of people exposed to dihydrogen monoxide have died, which is true, but sounds scary to someone not examining what it all means.
The fearmongering comes from the fact that there are actual, scientifically established way of assessing risk. They basically said, "screw dat noise, here's a way we can present numbers that look really bad. You should be afraid because this number is high, because even though the best science says that's low in terms of effect, tomorrow science could change and the number means your grandchildren have horns."
But not all chemicals that get used in the production of food have been through scientifically established ways of assessing risk. Most have had some amount of testing for effects of short term use. Some of that testing is very limited. The testing for long term affects is usually left to the consumer.
If there were really "proof" that everything on our food supply was safe, additives would never be recalled or taken from the safe list. And people arguing that everything is completely safe wouldn't need to over dramatize their answers.
I see the argument all the time from anti-GMO people moving the goal posts.
"There isn't enough testing to know long term effects!"
"How long should testing be?"
"5 years!"
"Most GMOs go through 10 years of development before approval."
"I mean 20 years"
"Well, GMOs have been on the market that long..."
"Whatever number you give + 10 or 20 more years!"
Talk about moving goal posts! How did we get on GMO/GE food? We were talking about the EWG's dirty dozen and pesticide residue. And to determine long term effects 20 years would be a relatively short time. Some of these substances could be like smoking in that increased risk of disease is relatively small at first but increases with years consumed.
I said it is the same kind of argument I get from people on GMO's - goalpost moving. Can YOU, personally, ACTUALLY, link to a single, valid study explaining what is WRONG with current procedures for assessing risk in pesticide exposure? Can YOU, personally, actually give something wrong with it. No vague handwaving of, "not all ... scientifically established ways of assessing risk", that YOU, think is the case. Actually bring something that backs up that assertion, instead of, "well, I feel it needs more / better testing." What legitimate problems could the testing be missing?
The problem is that there are no long term studies. No long term studies = no data on long term use. So, no. I cannot link to the non-existent studies. Whether you agree with the logic of playing it safe when it comes to the unknown or not, the problem is pretty simple to understand, if you want to understand it.
First, what is long term? I've already said, using that is the PERFECT way to move the goalposts. How long does it take to determine long term effects? Can you state a decent reason the current procedures aren't long enough? Can you even state right now how long a term the studies that are done are?
Otherwise, why is any food safe? Every year crops are new (they all undergo mutation). Heck, even in organic they use chemical and radioactive mutagensis to speed up that mutation process. Why shouldn't we demand that every crop be animal tested for 20 years before any human eats it?
How could you control what humans eat? I'm only talking commercial food production. And I'm not moving goal posts, because there are no goal posts. I'm not really sure what you are really asking, but I'm not saying anything should be demanded or mandated. I'm just pointing out the shortcomings of food research which is a common reason for choosing organic. I get that you think everything is fine and further testing is not necessary. I don't get why you think everyone else should think the same.
As for why everyone should think the same? Well, if someone told me they didn't think the rules of gravity applied, I'd disagree with them as well. The whole point of science is results are universal.
We know there are things we can eat that take many years to increase risk of disease and science hasn't proved any pesticide safe. Proving food safe is nothing at all like proving gravity is real.
Since I've already explained this several times, I'm going to have to go with no, I can't clearly state it so that you can understand.
No, you literally haven't given a methodology that modern pesticides fail. You can't even state how long they're tested for and what long term testing would be needed or how long it would be need to be long term.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »This conversation is becoming very redundant. You think burden of proof is on those that think something may harm them. Some think burden of proof is on those using the substance to prove it won't. Some realize neither may every be proven and simply don't want to worry about it. Some couldn't care less and think they'll die of something so who cares either way. These basic differences in thinking are unlikely to change.
lol well I'm glad one of you two finally said it
17 pages lol smh
someone needs to hook up some gifs stat0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Can you actually, clearly, state how it hasn't proven pesticides safe? I still haven't heard a statement about how long the studies are, and what would be long enough. What would be proof? What model of testing would actually be needed to prove pesticides safe, to your satisfaction?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
But so far the only shortcoming you've pointed out is that it isn't omniscient. You haven't shown any reason the testing isn't long term enough, just that you have a vague feeling it isn't, without even knowing how long it actually is.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Actually, most have been tested very well, but if you're looking for the possibility of a black swan, there will never be a proof that they're safe.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Who says fear mongering has to be untrue?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.
I can make things sound scary by saying 100% of people exposed to dihydrogen monoxide have died, which is true, but sounds scary to someone not examining what it all means.
The fearmongering comes from the fact that there are actual, scientifically established way of assessing risk. They basically said, "screw dat noise, here's a way we can present numbers that look really bad. You should be afraid because this number is high, because even though the best science says that's low in terms of effect, tomorrow science could change and the number means your grandchildren have horns."
But not all chemicals that get used in the production of food have been through scientifically established ways of assessing risk. Most have had some amount of testing for effects of short term use. Some of that testing is very limited. The testing for long term affects is usually left to the consumer.
If there were really "proof" that everything on our food supply was safe, additives would never be recalled or taken from the safe list. And people arguing that everything is completely safe wouldn't need to over dramatize their answers.
I see the argument all the time from anti-GMO people moving the goal posts.
"There isn't enough testing to know long term effects!"
"How long should testing be?"
"5 years!"
"Most GMOs go through 10 years of development before approval."
"I mean 20 years"
"Well, GMOs have been on the market that long..."
"Whatever number you give + 10 or 20 more years!"
Talk about moving goal posts! How did we get on GMO/GE food? We were talking about the EWG's dirty dozen and pesticide residue. And to determine long term effects 20 years would be a relatively short time. Some of these substances could be like smoking in that increased risk of disease is relatively small at first but increases with years consumed.
I said it is the same kind of argument I get from people on GMO's - goalpost moving. Can YOU, personally, ACTUALLY, link to a single, valid study explaining what is WRONG with current procedures for assessing risk in pesticide exposure? Can YOU, personally, actually give something wrong with it. No vague handwaving of, "not all ... scientifically established ways of assessing risk", that YOU, think is the case. Actually bring something that backs up that assertion, instead of, "well, I feel it needs more / better testing." What legitimate problems could the testing be missing?
The problem is that there are no long term studies. No long term studies = no data on long term use. So, no. I cannot link to the non-existent studies. Whether you agree with the logic of playing it safe when it comes to the unknown or not, the problem is pretty simple to understand, if you want to understand it.
First, what is long term? I've already said, using that is the PERFECT way to move the goalposts. How long does it take to determine long term effects? Can you state a decent reason the current procedures aren't long enough? Can you even state right now how long a term the studies that are done are?
Otherwise, why is any food safe? Every year crops are new (they all undergo mutation). Heck, even in organic they use chemical and radioactive mutagensis to speed up that mutation process. Why shouldn't we demand that every crop be animal tested for 20 years before any human eats it?
How could you control what humans eat? I'm only talking commercial food production. And I'm not moving goal posts, because there are no goal posts. I'm not really sure what you are really asking, but I'm not saying anything should be demanded or mandated. I'm just pointing out the shortcomings of food research which is a common reason for choosing organic. I get that you think everything is fine and further testing is not necessary. I don't get why you think everyone else should think the same.
As for why everyone should think the same? Well, if someone told me they didn't think the rules of gravity applied, I'd disagree with them as well. The whole point of science is results are universal.
We know there are things we can eat that take many years to increase risk of disease and science hasn't proved any pesticide safe. Proving food safe is nothing at all like proving gravity is real.
Since I've already explained this several times, I'm going to have to go with no, I can't clearly state it so that you can understand.
No, you literally haven't given a methodology that modern pesticides fail. You can't even state how long they're tested for and what long term testing would be needed or how long it would be need to be long term.
Okay, my bad.0 -
Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.0 -
Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.0 -
How about trusting natural mushrooms growing in the forest? Or wild gourds? Is the relative trust misplaced?0
-
If this is your definition of proven safe, then no, science can't prove gravity either. All it can show is that to date, nothing in the universe has violated the general theory of relativity.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
In that philosophical sense, science claims it can never prove anything, and science is perfectly fine with that.
0 -
How about trusting natural mushrooms growing in the forest? Or wild gourds? Is the relative trust misplaced?
Yes, yes, very amusing. Because trusting that food grown without added chemicals may be safer than that grown without is exactly the same as skipping through the forest eating every plant in site.0 -
and for the LOLz...http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/nyc-investigates-whole-foods-for-overcharging-customers/ar-AAc2TfM?ocid=iehpThe chain’s Columbus Circle location in Manhattan has received more than 800 pricing violations during 107 separate inspections since 2010 — the most pricing violations in the city, according to an analysis of data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, conducted by The Daily News.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »How about trusting natural mushrooms growing in the forest? Or wild gourds? Is the relative trust misplaced?
Yes, yes, very amusing. Because trusting that food grown without added chemicals may be safer than that grown without is exactly the same as skipping through the forest eating every plant in site.
Why does added chemicals sound like an echo of the term "added sugars" to me?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »How about trusting natural mushrooms growing in the forest? Or wild gourds? Is the relative trust misplaced?
Yes, yes, very amusing. Because trusting that food grown without added chemicals may be safer than that grown without is exactly the same as skipping through the forest eating every plant in site.
Why does added chemicals sound like an echo of the term "added sugars" to me?
IDK, because you want it to??0 -
TrailBlazinMN wrote: »I think eating organic is extremely important. I buy it whenever I can because I'm not a huge fan of having herbicides and pesticides on my food. When they apply that stuff, there is a reason why they are wearing suits...it's because it's toxic.
There are people that say that you don't get that much nutrition benefit from it but that's very primitive thinking. There is so much more to food than just macros, calories, vitamins, and/or minerals. Every biological process and chemical reaction our bodies have to food and the possible toxins it carries are way too complex for anyone to fully comprehend. With that said, I do my best to fuel my body with the best available food. It's just a no brainer for me.
Exactly this. I couldn't have said it better myself lol.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »How about trusting natural mushrooms growing in the forest? Or wild gourds? Is the relative trust misplaced?
Yes, yes, very amusing. Because trusting that food grown without added chemicals may be safer than that grown without is exactly the same as skipping through the forest eating every plant in site.
Why does added chemicals sound like an echo of the term "added sugars" to me?
IDK, because you want it to??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tAi46bv1Z4 0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...
the biggest joke is how all of those products taste
I went all derp-fest organic and non-GMO for a while and it's like choking down *kitten*-flavored cardboard0 -
It's a pretty good racket if you can charge more for a food you don't even have to make it taste good, nor even improve the macros and micros on.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...
the biggest joke is how all of those products taste
I went all derp-fest organic and non-GMO for a while and it's like choking down *kitten*-flavored cardboard0 -
It's a pretty good racket if you can charge more for a food you don't even have to make it taste good, nor even improve the macros and micros on.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...
the biggest joke is how all of those products taste
I went all derp-fest organic and non-GMO for a while and it's like choking down *kitten*-flavored cardboard
Strawberries are one of my favorite fruits, and every year there's a certain variety that is my favorite. It's usually sold by Driskolls here. It doesn't matter if it's organic or not, it's the variety that makes the difference. I'm not paying 1.50-3.00 more per pound for an organic stamp on the same food.
0 -
It's a pretty good racket if you can charge more for a food you don't even have to make it taste good, nor even improve the macros and micros on.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Let's reword this.
Proving something is safe == Proving something can never cause harm.
It isn't possible.
Some people will always use the 'it isn't proven to be safe' argument to justify their distrust in a particular product, failing to realize that the same argument holds true for every food, product, chemical, etc, ever. It is what it is.
Or while fully realizing it.
If that's the case, I presume these people you refer to are viewing every item they eat, drink, wear, use to clean with, etc ad infinitum with similar distrust.
No, I would imagine there are varying degrees of mistrust. As I pointed out several pages ago, trust is what it usually comes down to. Some trust an apple grown without chemicals sprayed on it to be safer than one grown with chemicals sprayed on it.
I'm sure some do. However, since it's not possible to know whether or not the apple or the chemicals alone or in combination are safe*, that trust would be misplaced. Perhaps the chemicals are safer than the apple. Or the combination of the chemicals and the apple are safer than either alone.
* I am of course presuming we are still talking about chemicals (and apples) without proven harmful impact
I disagree that trust is misplaced because it's impossible to know which is safer. That's exactly when trust comes into play. If we knew, why would trust be an issue at all?
and through all this food producers are on the sidelines laughing at which way we're going to choose to pay the same companies...
the biggest joke is how all of those products taste
I went all derp-fest organic and non-GMO for a while and it's like choking down *kitten*-flavored cardboard
it really is quite impressive when you put it that way0 -
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions