8 Foods Even The Experts Won’t Eat

[AnthonyJ]

Just gonna leave this right over here...

Do Organic Farmers Use Pesticides?

"The pesticides found on the NOP's list of allowable pesticides are, for the most part, derived from natural sources rather than synthetic sources. They've been found not to be carcinogenic like the heavy amounts of synthetic fertilizers used on conventional crops."

"However, use of non-synthetic pesticides must be a last resort and most organic farmers use pesticides only when absolutely necessary and instead employ methods like crop rotation, plant selection, and predator insects in an effort to control pests on their crops. Soil fertility and crop nutrients should, for the most part, be managed through crop tillage and cultivation, crop rotation, and cover crops supplemented with animal and crop waste. Livestock standards prohibit that animals be fed feed that was harvested using prohibited pesticides."

Interesting bits of information The Google has turned up.

 

[AnthonyJ]

So, what are the sources you trust and how are they funded?

I don't believe that any study is not biased in any way. Everyone has a bias. But what I do believe is, if there are several studies that conclude something negative about something, I would rather be safe than sorry. Frankly, as much information as there is out there about all of this stuff, there needs to be more of it.

It bothers me deeply that countless other countries have banned this crap and others have labeled it. If these companies are so proud of what they've made and how it will help people, why are they spending so much money to hide it? Why are they destroying farmers livelihoods?

 

[creative]

That was 50 years ago. Lots of things have changed in the meantime.

Yes like between 1995 - 2005 Monsanto acquired over 50 seed companies globally, e.g. corn, cotton, wheat, soy, potatoes and tomatoes. This monopoly threatens to wipe out all non-transgenic varieties.

 

[creative]

Do you have a credible source for that?

Monsanto buys leading bee research firm after being implicated in bee colony collapse - NaturalNews.com

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q1M0UO0.htm

 

[GotGarlic]

Yes like between 1995 - 2005 Monsanto acquired over 50 seed companies globally, e.g. corn, cotton, wheat, soy, potatoes and tomatoes. This monopoly threatens to wipe out all non-transgenic varieties.

Source?

 

[GotGarlic]

Monsanto buys leading bee research firm after being implicated in bee colony collapse - NaturalNews.com

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q1M0UO0.htm

Natural News is not a credible source. The second link is broken.

 

[dcSaute]

because big companies were jumping en masse on the "organic" bandwagon with mega-pricing, the gummymint decided to "define" what was / was not permitted to be labeled as "organic"

and, despite non-definition / regulation / labeling requirements - we continue to see such xrapola as "organic fish" - no one, other than the marketing department, knows what that means.

anyone who gardens organically and has any knowledge of good/bad/whatever pesticides will likely die of disbelief when reading the FDA/USDA "permitted" list.

the wheat saturated pre-harvest with RoundUp is an interesting falsification. the "famous" author actually did no research. and the actual wheat farmers don't know of anyone using RoundUp to "dry" the crop - primarily because it's action time is way too slow. other desiccants are used - especially where there is a short season. Say goodnight, Canada....

otoh, multiple 'studies' about the safety of the active RoundUp ingredient - gluesowhatever - show it _by itself_ actually 'safe' - but what has been shown to be not so safe is the "inert" ingredients. when one can produce skin tumors on mice using the inert ingredients, but not with the active ingredient, that would normally raise some questions to the average smarts person. but no such questions have been raised by the gummymint eeeeeedeeeiots.

as a "formulation" it has been banned in many countries. they have not sorted out the wheat from the chaff; it's "not natural" therefore it's "banned"

I don't use it, I don't "approve" of it - and if there's anything I disprove more it's the harbingers of false science and distorted to out-right non-facts blogging and flogging their Dr. Mercola style opinions. in the end that kind of "information" does more harm than good.

 

[GotGarlic]

No disrespect intended, but I really shouldn't have to do all the work here. It's not hard to find information on this subject. Funny how of all the pages I've found, only Monsanto says they do, every other study says no.

No, it's not hard to find information. It *is* hard to find credible information. As I said before, I don't Google blindly and believe whichever results pop up the most. Study design matters. The reputation of the people doing the studies matters.

I don't happen to believe that scientists are easily bought off or told what their results should be. I know some. They have integrity.

There clearly is no point to this discussion. See you elsewhere around the forums

 

[taxlady]

I haven't read much of the list of permitted stuff for USDA certified organic. I have read enough of their rules that I don't pay extra for USDA certified organic. I want it certified by a reliable, independent certifying body.

 

[creative]

Natural News is not a credible source. The second link is broken.

I am wondering what might constitute a "credible" source to you. Are you expecting a government source to be outing Monsanto on buying up a bee research company now that Monsanto has been implicated in their pesticides causing a decline in the bee population? Surely not!

There are countless more sources of websites exposing this underhanded development.....maybe none of them would satisfy you. Can they all be lying?

Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research Firm

Blamed for Bee Collapse, Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research FirmREALfarmacy.com | Healthy News and Information

 

[creative]

Source?

This should give you some idea re. Monsanto and buying up seed companies (to monopolise the seed market via patents). I thought this was becoming common knowledge.

Since you are a gardener, I am surprised you do not already know this.

Monsanto Buys Up Heirloom Seed Suppliers | Permaculture Magazine

 

[taxlady]

I am wondering what might constitute a "credible" source to you. Are you expecting a government source to be outing Monsanto on buying up a bee research company now that Monsanto has been implicated in their pesticides causing a decline in the bee population? Surely not!

There are countless more sources of websites exposing this underhanded development.....maybe none of them would satisfy you. Can they all be lying?

Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research Firm

Blamed for Bee Collapse, Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research FirmREALfarmacy.com | Healthy News and Information

Yes, they could all be lying.

I'm not sure what we are trying to prove here, but if it's that Monsanto bought a bee research company there are some sites that I would consider more reliable for this piece of news, e.g.,

The Buzz on Beeologics
Monsanto buys bee-friendly pesticide researcher - BusinessWeek

As to motivations for this purchase, I don't think anyone can offer anything but opinion.

 

[creative]

Yes, they could all be lying.

I'm not sure what we are trying to prove here, but if it's that Monsanto bought a bee research company there are some sites that I would consider more reliable for this piece of news, e.g.,

The Buzz on Beeologics
Monsanto buys bee-friendly pesticide researcher - BusinessWeek

As to motivations for this purchase, I don't think anyone can offer anything but opinion.

Thank you for seeking out links that might better meet with GG's approval.

As to the motivation, are you not at all suspicious that Monsanto bought up a leading bee research company in the wake of being implicated for causing a decline in the bee population with their pesticides? Did that escape you? The writing is on the wall .... and in large letters too! Of course they will put their spin on the reason why they bought up the bee research company - a nice whitewash job, i.e. you can be sure they will not mention that they had the finger pointing to them in the first place!

 

[taxlady]

Thank you for seeking out links that might better meet with GG's approval.

As to the motivation, are you not at all suspicious that Monsanto bought up a leading bee research company in the wake of being implicated for causing a decline in the bee population with their pesticides? Did that escape you? The writing is on the wall .... and in large letters too! Of course they will put their spin on the reason why they bought up the bee research company - a nice whitewash job, i.e. you can be sure they will not mention that they had the finger pointing to them in the first place!

Of course I'm suspicious of Monsanto. I am certainly not one of their fans. But, it is possible that they are trying to ameliorate the effect of their pesticides on bees. It's all just conjecture.

 

[GotGarlic]

Yes, they could all be lying.

I'm not sure what we are trying to prove here, but if it's that Monsanto bought a bee research company there are some sites that I would consider more reliable for this piece of news, e.g.,

The Buzz on Beeologics
Monsanto buys bee-friendly pesticide researcher - BusinessWeek

As to motivations for this purchase, I don't think anyone can offer anything but opinion.

Not only can they all be lying, but they can just be re-posting each other's stories. NaturalNews and Mercola are well known to be unreliable and sensationalistic.

So Monsanto purchased a company that does research on treating a virus that could be one of several causes of colony collapse disorder. So what? Most experts think CCD has multiple causes, including diseases, climate change, pesticides and beekeepers' frequent practice of taking the bees' honey and feeding them sugar water. Btw, Bayer makes pesticides that are part of the problem as well. Monsanto is always the only one mentioned, though. It's almost like a reflex.

It doesn't surprise me, or alarm me, to know that Monsanto purchased a company that works to mitigate CCD. After all, their customers are farmers. They don't want farmers going out of business.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Not only can they all be lying, but they can just be re-posting each other's stories. NaturalNews and Mercola are well known to be unreliable and sensationalistic.

Source?

Just saying, if you're going to make claims like this after asking others to cite sources, you should probably cite yours as well.

The Natural News guy is a bit of a jerk. Using his "natural news" site to promote his political agenda. He's entitled to his opinion politically, but shouldn't use the site he built for Natural News to bash the president, as easy as it is to debunk most of that crap, but I digress. A lot of the health related stuff he talks about is spot on. So don't dispute his health posts based on his political agenda.

Why is Mercola unreliable and sensationalistic? Is it because they say things that the main stream doesn't agree with? For how many decades have people been saying that fat is what causes people to be fat and to avoid fat in food and what have we learned? That it's complete nonsense. Sugar is what is causing us to be fat. That's what they put in foods after they take the fat out of them so they taste better.

Just because someone says something you don't necessarily agree with doesn't make them a liar.

People just need to start asking different questions.

 

[GotGarlic]

Source?

Just saying, if you're going to make claims like this after asking others to cite sources, you should probably cite yours as well.

The Natural News guy is a bit of a jerk. Using his "natural news" site to promote his political agenda. He's entitled to his opinion politically, but shouldn't use the site he built for Natural News to bash the president, as easy as it is to debunk most of that crap, but I digress. A lot of the health related stuff he talks about is spot on. So don't dispute his health posts based on his political agenda.

Why is Mercola unreliable and sensationalistic? Is it because they say things that the main stream doesn't agree with? For how many decades have people been saying that fat is what causes people to be fat and to avoid fat in food and what have we learned? That it's complete nonsense. Sugar is what is causing us to be fat. That's what they put in foods after they take the fat out of them so they taste better.

Just because someone says something you don't necessarily agree with doesn't make them a liar.

Somehow I don't think you really care what my sources are And you haven't been around long enough to make accusations like that about me. You're making assumptions based on your own biases.

I will say this: I don't trust sites that are there to try to sell me something.

And there's this: http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Mercola+

And this: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...never_click_on_itsr_stories_about_cancer.html

 

[taxlady]

Not only can they all be lying, but they can just be re-posting each other's stories. NaturalNews and Mercola are well known to be unreliable and sensationalistic.

So Monsanto purchased a company that does research on treating a virus that could be one of several causes of colony collapse disorder. So what? Most experts think CCD has multiple causes, including diseases, climate change, pesticides and beekeepers' frequent practice of taking the bees' honey and feeding them sugar water. Btw, Bayer makes pesticides that are part of the problem as well. Monsanto is always the only one mentioned, though. It's almost like a reflex.

It doesn't surprise me, or alarm me, to know that Monsanto purchased a company that works to mitigate CCD. After all, their customers are farmers. They don't want farmers going out of business.

Exactly. I absolutely see your point about not being alarmed. I acknowledge that they may have lovely, ethical reasons for buying a bee research company. But, it does make me wonder.

I posted those two links to demonstrate that there were credible articles about that purchase. I have to wonder why someone would only post the non-credible links, when the two I posted were fairly far up the first page of the Google search results.

 

[taxlady]

BTW GG, thanks for the link to Quackwatch. I have bookmarked it. I only read a little of article, but it's nice to know there is such a website.

 

[creative]

It doesn't surprise me, or alarm me, to know that Monsanto purchased a company that works to mitigate CCD. After all, their customers are farmers. They don't want farmers going out of business.

Well done - you bought the cover (up) story!

I have no doubt that they are looking into CCD but that is hardly the whole story is it in light of what took place before them buying up the leading bee research company....notably,

- why would Monsanto ever mention that their pesticides were implicated in causing a decline in the bee population in the first place...hmm