Quote:

---

My problem with the vegetarians is that they use their idealogy about animal cruelty to fuel their dogma about "healthy eating".

---

Hmmmm i am not a great fan of this type of "dogma filling" approach, but from a scientific point of view, why is it that animals release harmfull toxins (for humans) in their body, when they feel they are going to be slaughtered?

I don't know if this happens to plants, but i really don't think so. Also, plants can be still alive when we eat them....animals....rarely.

Interesting thing to point out is, that every person i know who has been to a meat-factory size-slaughterhouse, stopped eating meat after their visit...

I say, if you want to eat meat.ok.Do what it takes to prepare it yourself. Like a good vegetarian, should plant his veggetables, grow a small pure home grown pet and kill it ,chop it up and cook it.
Thats the only way to have good quality thing and some self respect. 

Quote:

---

The costly fraud that is organic food

Its main contribution will be to sustain poverty and malnutrition

Dick Taverne
Thursday May 6, 2004
The Guardian

Organic farming is a billion-pound industry. It is promoted by a stream of propaganda from green lobby groups, notably the Soil Association, and subsidised by government. Supermarkets like it because premium prices increase profits. Every lifestyle magazine regards organic food as synonymous with healthy living and every TV chef tells us that organic food tastes better. To question claims made by the organic lobby is not just akin to doubting the virtues of motherhood, but to reveal indifference to the poisoning of the nation and the fate of the planet, perhaps even to be guilty of corruption by American multinationals and of support for George Bush.

The organic movement was inspired by the mysticism of Rudolf Steiner, who believed in planting according to the phases of the moon, enriching the soil through cowhorns stuffed with entrails, and who taught that chemical fertilisers damage the brain. It is based on the belief that nature knows best and science is dangerous.

The SA has argued that organic farming cannot be judged by scientific criteria because "the current tools of scientific understanding are not sufficiently developed" to measure its virtues. It seizes on any findings, however flimsy, that seem to confirm its claims and dismisses any contradictory evidence as irrelevant, prejudiced or influenced by the biotechnology industry.

It has bitterly denounced the Food Standards Agency, an impartial body set up by government to safeguard our welfare, which refuses to endorse the claims made for organic food. Only in January the agency declared that "on the basis of currentevidence ... organic food is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally".

It is claimed that organic food is more natural and that its reliance on natural chemicals makes it safer than food grown with the help of synthetic ones. This is nonsense. There is nothing wholesome about natural chemicals like ricin or aflatoxin or botulinum toxin, or especially dangerous about synthetic chemicals like the sulphonamides, isoniazid that cures TB, or the painkiller paracetamol.

We are told we should eat organic food because pesticide residues harm us. As the FSA has pointed out, there is a disparity between public fears and the facts. Dietary contributions to cardiovascular disease and cancer probably account for more than 100,000 deaths a year; food poisoning for between 50 and 300. There are no known deaths from pesticide residues (or GM foods). A cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to at least a year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in the diet. If people are worried about the effect of pesticides in farming on wildlife or human health, they should promote pesticide-resistant GM crops, which reduce their use.

It is said that organic food tastes better. Yes, if it is fresh. But blind tests have shown fresh organic food tastes no better than fresh food grown conventionally. Furthermore, about 70% of organic food is imported and is not fresh, and since it is imported by air, it is not exactly environmentally friendly.

It is said that organic farming benefits wildlife. True, many people become organic farmers for environmental reasons, and achieve their aim. But studies show that environmental effects depend on the style of management, not the system of farming. In general, integrated farm management achieves the best results. What is most beneficial to birds and wildlife is low-till farming, which is made possible by cultivating GM crops. Organic farmers depend on the plough, which disturbs the ecology of the soil, releases more carbon dioxide, uses more fossil fuel and drives out nesting birds.

Even if most claims made for organic farming could be substantiated, its main disadvantage is its inefficiency. Organic food costs more because average yields are 20-50% lower than those from conventional farms. Its inefficiency is highly relevant to the hungry and the poor.

While there may be food surpluses in some areas, we need to treble food production in the next 50 years to feed 3 billion extra people and meet higher living standards at the same time. We face an increasing shortage of water and of good agricultural land. In many places the only way inefficient organic farmers can feed an expanding population is by cutting down more tropical forest. Every form of technology that increases efficiency in farming will therefore be needed to contribute to the production of more food.

What contribution can organic farming make? In the words of the Indian biologist CJ Prakash, its only contribution to sustainable agriculture will be "to sustain poverty and malnutrition".

? Lord Taverne is chair of Sense About Science, and author of The March of Unreason, to be published in November

---

Quote:

---

Phluck said:

Actually, DNA is more like the blueprint for how you are put together. Even people with completely identical DNA (identical twins), will end up being different people, and have different levels of health, even though their DNA will remain the same throughout their lives.

Recent studies show that DNA has many types of information encrypted in it.
For example, there are humans who's DNA contain directions for more resistant to sunlight skin structure. If we assume that this was the reason for the colour of black people who evolved in hardcore sun exposure, then i guess a similar hardcore exposure to a specific diet could also affect the DNA information about the nutritional needs.


I'm not sure what that means, exactly.

Simply put, every part of our body is exchanging constantly information with every single cell that is part of this organic web. Your foot is sending info to your nose and your nose to you central nervous system which in turnes makes some info electric activity and passes messages to the brain-which tells your spirit whats going on.

Its all a huge chain reaction.



Anyways, here's the article:

Quote:

---

The costly fraud that is organic food

Its main contribution will be to sustain poverty and malnutrition

Dick Taverne
Thursday May 6, 2004
The Guardian

Organic farming is a billion-pound industry. It is promoted by a stream of propaganda from green lobby groups, notably the Soil Association, and subsidised by government. Supermarkets like it because premium prices increase profits. Every lifestyle magazine regards organic food as synonymous with healthy living and every TV chef tells us that organic food tastes better. To question claims made by the organic lobby is not just akin to doubting the virtues of motherhood, but to reveal indifference to the poisoning of the nation and the fate of the planet, perhaps even to be guilty of corruption by American multinationals and of support for George Bush.

The organic movement was inspired by the mysticism of Rudolf Steiner, who believed in planting according to the phases of the moon, enriching the soil through cowhorns stuffed with entrails, and who taught that chemical fertilisers damage the brain. It is based on the belief that nature knows best and science is dangerous.

The SA has argued that organic farming cannot be judged by scientific criteria because "the current tools of scientific understanding are not sufficiently developed"(LOL You can actually say that for every single science in the world) to measure its virtues. It seizes on any findings, however flimsy, that seem to confirm its claims and dismisses any contradictory evidence as irrelevant, prejudiced or influenced by the biotechnology industry.

It has bitterly denounced the Food Standards Agency, an impartial body set up by government to safeguard our welfare, which refuses to endorse the claims made for organic food. Only in January the agency declared that "on the basis of currentevidence ... organic food is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally".

It is claimed that organic food is more natural and that its reliance on natural chemicals makes it safer than food grown with the help of synthetic ones. This is nonsense. There is nothing wholesome about natural chemicals like ricin or aflatoxin or botulinum toxin, or especially dangerous about synthetic chemicals like the sulphonamides, isoniazid that cures TB, or the painkiller paracetamol.(Ok,but why use chemicals when you don't actually need any of them? There are plenty of natural ways to treat anything, with lower cost thus less profit for the chemical supply industry, hmmmm)
We are told we should eat organic food because pesticide residues harm us. As the FSA has pointed out, there is a disparity between public fears and the facts. Dietary contributions to cardiovascular disease and cancer probably account for more than 100,000 deaths a yearInteresting; food poisoning for between 50 and 300. There are no known deaths from pesticide residues (or GM foods).(They only mention direct deaths from pesticide residues and not the damage done in the whole,hehe) A cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to at least a year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in the diet.(Imagine chemically processed non-organic coffee) If people are worried about the effect of pesticides in farming on wildlife or human health, they should promote pesticide-resistant GM crops, which reduce their use.(Organically grown products don't reduce the use of pesticides, they don't use them at-all there are ecological ways to protect crops!)

It is said that organic food tastes better. Yes, if it is fresh.(Yeah not rotten,lmao) But blind tests have shown fresh organic food tastes no better than fresh food grown conventionally.(Absolutely not true!!!Organic food tastes 10x times better!!!i'm up for a blind test anytime!!) Furthermore, about 70% of organic food is imported and is not fresh, and since it is imported by air, it is not exactly environmentally friendly.(Lol man, what about the non-organic pesticide lovin imports?If a country has to import organics, then they prolly can't grow any conventional either.)(UK has no sun for example, they only import, or have funny ass vegg)

It is said that organic farming benefits wildlife. True, many people become organic farmers for environmental reasons, and achieve their aim. But studies show that environmental effects depend on the style of management, not the system of farming. In general, integrated farm management achieves the best results.(too general i am afraid)
( What is most beneficial to birds and wildlife is low-till farming, which is made possible by cultivating GM crops. Organic farmers depend on the plough, which disturbs the ecology of the soil, releases more carbon dioxide, uses more fossil fuel and drives out nesting birds.

Even if most claims made for organic farming could be substantiated, its main disadvantage is its inefficiency. Organic food costs more because average yields are 20-50% lower than those from conventional farms.(Absolutely not true,Normally organic food is cheaper than conventional, due to lack of need for expensive chemical supplies,In countries like Switzerland that organics are well established, the price is now almost the same, it's just that people like the guys who wrote this article, will loose lots of $ if the organic products cost cheaper, they are the ones who try and keep the price of organics high, same problem in my country) land Its inefficiency is highly relevant to the hungry and the poor.

While there may be food surpluses in some areas, we need to treble food production in the next 50 years to feed 3 billion extra people and meet higher living standards at the same time. We face an increasing shortage of water and of good agricultural land. In many places the only way inefficient organic farmers can feed an expanding population is by cutting down more tropical forest. Every form of technology that increases efficiency in farming will therefore be needed to contribute to the production of more food.(Its not all about the quanity, its about quality, the vitamins present in conventional products are soooo much less , but that good, because we will get sick soon and will go and pay $ to get those good old paracetamol pills they talked about earlier,gross)

What contribution can organic farming make? In the words of the Indian biologist CJ Prakash, its only contribution to sustainable agriculture will be "to sustain poverty and malnutrition".This may be a fact about India, but in the long run, its their decision to give birth to 10 kids when they can't even feed themselves. Sad but true.? Lord Taverne is chair of Sense About Science, and author of The March of Unreason, to be published in November

---

---

Quote:

---

Morrowind said:
heh, weird

Im already vegetarian, but some vegetarians gave me a brochure ( lol ) it listed famous vegetarians, and I was suprised to see Leonardo and Einstein on the list

---

Quote:

---

Phluck said:


Do you actually know how natural selection works? We don't magically obtain new abilities when they become necessary. You might want to do a little research.

Maaan, cut this do a little research thingy will you? You don't need to do research for such obvious things......but then again, i suppose its a plain coincidence that the majority of black people with tons of extra melanin originate from the most warm and sunniest places of our sphere.....
my oh my, what a great coincidence!! No black skin on the poles, hmmmmmmmmmmm maybe the black people where living there before the sun was born, does this sound convincing?



So, uh, did you just make that up or what?

Look i am trying to explain something with simple words, if you want me to break this down just by using scientific terms thats fine. But i thought we can use some common sense here, instead of turning this threaf into a anthropology class.



Of course, such damage isn't something you can actually measure. You could, of course, make up a few numbers or make a complete guess about the horrors of pesticide residue... especially if you're selling organic food, or part of an organic foods lobby group.

Just because its difficult to measure, doen't mean we have to just measure the easiest to measure, unless we are trying to make pesticides look harmless as biological fruit.
Would you choose to eat pesticides if you had an alternative???


You might want to do the math on that one. If the amount of natural carcinogens in a cup of coffee is equal to the amount we're getting in a year from pesticides, then the increase in the amount of pesticides is so miniscule that it's insignificant.

First of all, they don't mention what kind of coffee, there are hundreds. Also, you don't judge something by comparing it with something 100x times worse, unless you 're running out of ways  to convince your readers.


Now THAT is BS. If that were even remotely true, farmers would have no reason whatsoever to use pesticides.

They have a plethora of reasons! They want their fruits and vegetables to look pretty, Many hybrids NEED the pesticides in order to survive, they boost their production to an extreme, they don't know other biodynamic ways of cultivation, and just do what the local agro-chem-supplier tells them.(many more to be added)

Its not all about the quanity, its about quality, the vitamins present in conventional products are soooo much less , but that good, because we will get sick soon and will go and pay $ to get those good old paracetamol pills they talked about earlier,gross

Are there really that much less vitamins in conventially grown foods, or is that just something organic food companies want you to believe?

]

It's pretty easy to dismiss criticism by saying "Oh, they just stand to make money from all this..." without actually researching the information

Research done, but its relative to the evolution of each country, Sorry if i got misunderstud here, what i wanted to say is, that people in my country (Greece), try to stop the organic foods gettin cheap, cos there are too many $ to be lost from the up to now well established conventional market, if organic food had even the same price with the other pesticided ones, it would be a shure victory for organics

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the entire organic food industry is run by people who are just as greedy as any other industry?

This has to be true for all type of industries, the good and the bad, is up to you to decide.You can choose the right shop which has a friendlier approach to the customers....

The world isn't a battle between good, earth loving hippies and huge polluting greedy chemical corporations. It's a lot more complex than that.
It'not?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200406%5CNAT20040614a.html

---

Quote:

---

Phluck said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection  <--- READ
Good info there, thanx for posting this, you must have noticed this in that article tho:
"natural selection is the result of genetic and environmental forces acting upon an organism."
Sooo, i guess we are both right on this one, magical isn't it? 

But that's not common sense, that's something that's not even really accurate. How does our nose communicate with our elbow?

This can't get more common, how the hell do you think doctors can diagnose health problems of ANY nature just by examinating your sole, your eyes pupil or by looking at your poop or smelling your sweat.

All these ways of diagnosing health problems are well established and used scientifically. The reason is, that you can see information for all the parts of your body in any part of your body.Get it?


But if we haven't actually measured it yet, then making up measurments would be lying.
Sometimes, a feeling that something might go wrong is enough...medicine is based on the cultivation of this feeling The best doctors in the world say its the best guide to diagnose.You have to feeel the patient man.And i feeeeel the danger in pesticides! 

And if the alternative isn't actually any healthier, and allows us to feed more people, why not? hmmm, quantity for quality always interfear....


They said 'natural carcinogens', so I think it applies to pretty much all cups of coffee. The thing is though, coffee hardly increases the risk of cancer, so if pesticides on food are a tiny fraction of that, then they represent a virtually non-existant threat.

First of all ,most cups of coffee don't contain natural coffee, but chemicallly processed blends.

So you are actually saying that humans don't promote pesticides because they make money out of them, but because they are a really cool invention,

Just as you persist in another thread, that herbal medicine is no better than lab-made chemicals which are the major cash makers on earth.


Altho i agree that humans can make environmental friendly and usefull products, todays people who seem to depend more and more on the chemical-lab made supplies, find themselves in trouble and more of them each day,find themselves running to mother nature for help.

This has become such a classic, that i am shure you will find someone near you who had this experience.
My aunt almost died from chemical medicine.She swiched to a vegerarian diet, cut all the chemical pills, and now she is 100% healthier than before.

Some olive trees where sprayed with chemical pesticides in my friends farm. Olive trees stopped producing olives and the biological balance is lost.

I could go on and on, but its best to take a look outside.
Humans don't use their technology in a cool way, cos they just want to make money out of it, most of them don't do it with love, but from greed. No wonder they fuck things up mostly.
Who do you trust more? Humans or earth? I 'll stick to earth for now.

Uh, got any sources for that?

I am a farmer  and i know many farmers who do these kind of things. Most of them don't even know all these things we talk about, they just trust the system and hope for tons of $, some of them, even use massive doses of pesticides, cos they think it will do their job "better". And thats just sad. But its the truth, and we just got to protect ourselves.