southern california guy Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1333200357' post='2411104'] I get sick about how homogenous the agricultural industry has become, and how it's mostly controlled by big conglomerations. I could be a sucker for propaganda, but Food Inc. infuriated me and broke my heart. Those farmers who couldn't stay in business because copywritten seeds had infiltrated their crops. And veggie libel laws?! say what?!. And isn't corn-fed beef becoming a real big problem? Not jjust for individual cows and people, but more wide-spread ecological effects? In my uneducated opinion I really feel like the food industry has to be decenteralized. If that means I can't get strawberries in January, I will survive. I just get the sense that we're fattening ourselves up with chemicals and garbage for the proverbial slaughter. But then again, I'm very dramatic when it comes to these things. [/quote] I agree it's totally ridiculous. I've tried growing some of the "supersweet" corns (sh2) and even as a home gardener I get this legal agreement with it that says that I'm not to save the seed. Apparently they are true to type. But that's crazy. I can be prosecuted for saving the seed of the corn that I grow??! I know that the people who develop the corn want to protect their claim to the product that they developed but aren't certain freedoms being given up when you can't even legally save seed?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylvanna Imbris Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1333200357' post='2411104'] In my uneducated opinion I really feel like the food industry has to be decenteralized. If that means I can't get strawberries in January, I will survive. [b]I just get the sense that we're fattening ourselves up with chemicals and garbage for the proverbial slaughter. [/b]But then again, I'm very dramatic when it comes to these things. [/quote] [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1333210656' post='2411157'] I guess that's the crux of the problem. I need to eat, I need to have money and time left over for other things, so convenience wins. [b]I understand that is likely a bad thing in the long run, but I feel a little bit powerless.[/b] [/quote] (emphasis added) I'm really sorry to hear this. No one should have to feel that way, worrying all the time about what they are [i]really[/i] eating. I think that can sometimes be a problem in the organic food sphere. Some of its supporters speak really negatively about new chemical or biological technology and they can create a lot of fear. People start to think that [i]all [/i]chemical additives and [i]all [/i]genetic modifications to foods are things that will kill you. I don't think you have to be quite so worried. I've been blessed with the chance to study these things myself. I actually got to study antibiotic resistance in the laboratory and do some genetic modification. Not that I am an expert, but I understand the process and I think I could set your mind at ease, at least about a few things. Southern California Guy mentioned RoundUp ready corn. Yes, it is genetically modified, and yes, it is almost unavoidable (70% of US corn is RoundUp ready) but that doesn't mean you have to be afraid of it or feel that you need to give up corn to be safe. RoundUp contains glyphosate which looks like a normal amino acid. So the enzymes in a typical plant pick it up to turn it into something that the plant needs. Since it isn't really a normal amino acid it gets stuck in the enzyme and "kills" it. Enough glyphosate will "kill" so many of the plant's enzymes that the plant won't be able to make the nutrients that it needs and it will die. So, glyphosate can kill almost anything that has sensitive enzymes. Plants that have been genetically modified to be RoundUp-resistant have simply been modified to make different enzymes that can't be killed by glyphosate. You can spray the whole field with the right amount of RoundUp and kill everything except the special crop you planted. It makes for really efficient crop production, which in turn keeps food prices low. Eating RoundUp can hurt you but eating resistant corn can't. Even if your corn did infect you with its glyphosate resistance ([i]highly[/i] unlikely) that would just mean that RoundUp wouldn't be able to hurt you anymore. Eating a RoundUp-resistant plant is like eating something with a good immune system. I agree with ice_nine and southern california guy that combining agricultural science, patents and lawsuits the way Monsanto and others do (like suing people for saving seeds) is bad. But the actual science itself is sometimes a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Roq Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 [quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1333219445' post='2411211'] (emphasis added) I'm really sorry to hear this. No one should have to feel that way, worrying all the time about what they are [i]really[/i] eating. I think that can sometimes be a problem in the organic food sphere. Some of its supporters speak really negatively about new chemical or biological technology and they can create a lot of fear. People start to think that [i]all [/i]chemical additives and [i]all [/i]genetic modifications to foods are things that will kill you. I don't think you have to be quite so worried. I've been blessed with the chance to study these things myself. I actually got to study antibiotic resistance in the laboratory and do some genetic modification. Not that I am an expert, but I understand the process and I think I could set your mind at ease, at least about a few things. Southern California Guy mentioned RoundUp ready corn. Yes, it is genetically modified, and yes, it is almost unavoidable (70% of US corn is RoundUp ready) but that doesn't mean you have to be afraid of it or feel that you need to give up corn to be safe. RoundUp contains glyphosate which looks like a normal amino acid. So the enzymes in a typical plant pick it up to turn it into something that the plant needs. Since it isn't really a normal amino acid it gets stuck in the enzyme and "kills" it. Enough glyphosate will "kill" so many of the plant's enzymes that the plant won't be able to make the nutrients that it needs and it will die. So, glyphosate can kill almost anything that has sensitive enzymes. Plants that have been genetically modified to be RoundUp-resistant have simply been modified to make different enzymes that can't be killed by glyphosate. You can spray the whole field with the right amount of RoundUp and kill everything except the special crop you planted. It makes for really efficient crop production, which in turn keeps food prices low. Eating RoundUp can hurt you but eating resistant corn can't. Even if your corn did infect you with its glyphosate resistance ([i]highly[/i] unlikely) that would just mean that RoundUp wouldn't be able to hurt you anymore. Eating a RoundUp-resistant plant is like eating something with a good immune system. I agree with ice_nine and southern california guy that combining agricultural science, patents and lawsuits the way Monsanto and others do (like suing people for saving seeds) is bad. But the actual science itself is sometimes a good thing. [/quote] You make some good points that would put my mind at ease, except you seem to miss the fact that we all get at least a little of the pesticides in us if they are put on plants, no matter how well those plants are washed. You are making the assumption that it's not on the plants anymore when we put it into our mouths. On top of that, there are many reasons to be very scared of what scientists and the FDA and corporations tell us are safe. The fact that fluoride causes brain damage (proven by many studies, like [url="http://static.infowars.com/2011/12/i/general/2011_study-neurodegenerative_changes_from_fluoride_of_brain_spinal_cord_and_sciatic_nerve.pdf"]this one[/url]) is one of many examples of our health being put at huge risk by people we are expected to trust.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southern california guy Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 [quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1333219445' post='2411211'] (emphasis added) I'm really sorry to hear this. No one should have to feel that way, worrying all the time about what they are [i]really[/i] eating. I think that can sometimes be a problem in the organic food sphere. Some of its supporters speak really negatively about new chemical or biological technology and they can create a lot of fear. People start to think that [i]all [/i]chemical additives and [i]all [/i]genetic modifications to foods are things that will kill you. I don't think you have to be quite so worried. I've been blessed with the chance to study these things myself. I actually got to study antibiotic resistance in the laboratory and do some genetic modification. Not that I am an expert, but I understand the process and I think I could set your mind at ease, at least about a few things. Southern California Guy mentioned RoundUp ready corn. Yes, it is genetically modified, and yes, it is almost unavoidable (70% of US corn is RoundUp ready) but that doesn't mean you have to be afraid of it or feel that you need to give up corn to be safe. RoundUp contains glyphosate which looks like a normal amino acid. So the enzymes in a typical plant pick it up to turn it into something that the plant needs. Since it isn't really a normal amino acid it gets stuck in the enzyme and "kills" it. Enough glyphosate will "kill" so many of the plant's enzymes that the plant won't be able to make the nutrients that it needs and it will die. So, glyphosate can kill almost anything that has sensitive enzymes. Plants that have been genetically modified to be RoundUp-resistant have simply been modified to make different enzymes that can't be killed by glyphosate. You can spray the whole field with the right amount of RoundUp and kill everything except the special crop you planted. It makes for really efficient crop production, which in turn keeps food prices low. Eating RoundUp can hurt you but eating resistant corn can't. Even if your corn did infect you with its glyphosate resistance ([i]highly[/i] unlikely) that would just mean that RoundUp wouldn't be able to hurt you anymore. Eating a RoundUp-resistant plant is like eating something with a good immune system. I agree with ice_nine and southern california guy that combining agricultural science, patents and lawsuits the way Monsanto and others do (like suing people for saving seeds) is bad. But the actual science itself is sometimes a good thing. [/quote] RoundUp (glyphosate) is a systemic -- it goes into the plant -- right? So when you eat corn or wheat sprayed with RoundUp you're eating some glyphosate, right? I know it is very popular. I confess that I use it a lot to control the weeds on my property and my neighbor used to use it to control the weeks on avocado grove. He had a garage full of fifteen gallon containers of concentrate and he'd go through all of it in a year. He died a couple of weeks ago of cancer. I believe he was in his early fifties. Glyphosate has been linked to cancer... I know that glyphosate easily binds up with other things that it comes in contact with -- rendering it "inactive". But I wonder how much "active" glyphosate we get when we eat food that has been sprayed with it. You almost can't avoid corn in your diet. It has become the number one sweetener. Everything is sweetened with corn syrup. But those of us who live in areas where RoundUp is used heavily in farming obviously get a lot more of it than people who just get a little tiny bit in the food that they eat. Here are some links to articles connecting glyphosate with cancer: [url="http://anpsa.org.au/APOL20/dec00-3.html"]http://anpsa.org.au/APOL20/dec00-3.html[/url] [url="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/08/glyphosate-epa-idUSN0819166920110408"]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/08/glyphosate-epa-idUSN0819166920110408[/url] [url="http://www.biotech-info.net/glyphosate_cancer2.html"]http://www.biotech-info.net/glyphosate_cancer2.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 watch this movie: [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/"]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylvanna Imbris Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 [quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1333226245' post='2411250'] RoundUp (glyphosate) is a systemic -- it goes into the plant -- right? So when you eat corn or wheat sprayed with RoundUp you're eating some glyphosate, right? I know it is very popular. I confess that I use it a lot to control the weeds on my property and my neighbor used to use it to control the weeks on avocado grove. He had a garage full of fifteen gallon containers of concentrate and he'd go through all of it in a year. He died a couple of weeks ago of cancer. I believe he was in his early fifties. Glyphosate has been linked to cancer... I know that glyphosate easily binds up with other things that it comes in contact with -- rendering it "inactive". But I wonder how much "active" glyphosate we get when we eat food that has been sprayed with it. You almost can't avoid corn in your diet. It has become the number one sweetener. Everything is sweetened with corn syrup. But those of us who live in areas where RoundUp is used heavily in farming obviously get a lot more of it than people who just get a little tiny bit in the food that they eat. [/quote] I was mostly trying to show that just because it is genetically modified doesn't mean it will hurt you. But you are right, RoundUp is systemic... I was too busy looking at all the trees to see the forest, I guess. It looks like the corn does take up the glyphosate, it just doesn't kill the plant. I think I'll need to do a bit more research to see if they've tested the plants for glyphosate and what levels they've found. Depending on how they did their genetic modification, the corn may have both types of enzyme present, some that will "absorb" the glyphosate and some that will be resistant. So maybe the corn takes care of the glyphosate on its own and we don't get any when we eat it? I'll read through your links and then look around to see what I can find on this. As a side note, I'm not surprised that glyphosate causes cancer. I wouldn't doubt it. Several of the chemicals that I work with in the course of a year are suspected of causing cancer. [b]The important factor is usually your exposure level.[/b] Some chemicals carry very high cancer risks, but some are only suspected of causing cancer...and only when you reach a certain exposure level. If they apply the RoundUp in a careful way, and make sure that they've used only enough to kill the weeds, it could be that the residual amount of glyphosate is minimal and not something to worry about. Again, I guess I'll need to do more research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadrePioOfPietrelcino Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 [quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1333054398' post='2410356'] Also, some of these claims made by these activists are in my view, false. For example, their claim that the antibiotics farmers put in meat is increasing antibiotic resistance and causing the development of super-bugs is rather silly. Plenty of people, more than you may think, are allergic to antibiotics. If the amount of antibiotics farmers were adding to food were enough to cause resistance than we should be seeing more allergic reactions to meat than what we do. This also makes me suspicious when they start talking about growth hormones, and GMOs(the latter of which I'm the least worried about). [/quote] But we ARE seeing an increase to food related allergies, esp gluten Corn, high rates of diabetes and cancer which times up with large production of current chemo-agri business. We DO see an increase of people allergic to certain medication classes. Yes I could cite many pages of reference materials, but frankly I'm just too lazy right now to do it. I believe that god created the world perfect, in that creation he created food for us in an amazing variety. We know that by observing nature that often certain plants grow together and help each other properties. did you know that for many poisonous plants the counter grows closely nearby? What's my point? The more that we try to grow our food according to the natural order the better we are off physically and spiritually. Is their any wonder that the first God given job gave was to be a farmer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I wasn't talking about organic food specifically, just food in general. Organic food is expensive, and while it may be short-sighted to by processed carp, perservatives, and chemicals, life is busy and hectic and so lots of times convenience wins out. I'm not trying to make excuses but this is a systematic problem that I feel powerless to fight. God bless the people who are fighting the goood fight though. I wonder exactly how sick and fat and lazy we'll all have to get before some changes happen. Hopefully sooner than later. Mi madre does want to grow some veggies this year out in the yard. Guess that's a start. There's strawberries that grow here too, but we didn't do any pest prevention so we never did get to try them. Sad day. But I heard cheescloth works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth09 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1333206279' post='2411136'] What is the basis of this? Just curious. [/quote] Raw milk or milk comes from cows (No surprise there) and they are feed grass. Grass holds the good vitamins from the sun that we need. If they are giving corn (which our food come from( hints why we see so many corn fields today)), it not much. When my family and I get our milk from our farmer, its only when he is milking the cows, when they are giving corn-feed food. Its only about 3% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 [quote name='elizabeth09' timestamp='1333249547' post='2411358'] Raw milk or milk comes from cows (No surprise there) and they are feed grass. Grass holds the good vitamins from the sun that we need. If they are giving corn (which our food come from( hints why we see so many corn fields today)), it not much. When my family and I get our milk from our farmer, its only when he is milking the cows, when they are giving corn-feed food. Its only about 3% [/quote] I don't think we're on the same wave length, but it's razzle dazzle. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadrePioOfPietrelcino Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Raw milk is not pasteurized therefore it exists it the natural alkaline form our bodies need. When we digest it it turn more acidic for our bodies...this process and form is important. Any other milk organic or not IS pasteurized this process turn the milk more acidic and is non-digestible...in order to fix this our bodies take calcium from our bodies to turn it back alkaline so our bodies can then make it the correct form of acidic. This process with a net loss of calcium in our bodies...the US leads the world in BOTH dairy consumption and Osteoporosis. I learned this From Dr Joel Robbins about 8 years ago and has stuck with me ever since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadrePioOfPietrelcino Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 sorry for the bad grammar...I didn't proof read before posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) Thanks for the reply, Padre. [quote name='PadrePioOfPietrelcino' timestamp='1333257319' post='2411402'] Raw milk is not pasteurized therefore it exists it the natural alkaline form our bodies need. [/quote] I don't know what you mean by "natural" and "need." Our bodies do not need milk in either an unpasteurized or pasteurized state. 1. Mammals produce milk for their young, not for adults of another species. 2. My understanding is that most people in the world actually lack the lactase persistence phenotype (in other words, the majority of Homo sapiens are more or less incapable of digesting lactose as adults and may have adverse reactions to milk). I'd like to verify and evaluate the claim about the effects of pasteurization on milk pH. Do you have a source by chance? [quote name='PadrePioOfPietrelcino' timestamp='1333257319' post='2411402']When we digest it it turn more acidic for our bodies...this process and form is important. Any other milk organic or not IS pasteurized this process turn the milk more acidic and is non-digestible...in order to fix this our bodies take calcium from our bodies to turn it back alkaline so our bodies can then make it the correct form of acidic. [/quote] Does not compute. If you know of scientific sources that clarify what you're saying here please let me know. [quote name='PadrePioOfPietrelcino' timestamp='1333257319' post='2411402']This process with a net loss of calcium in our bodies...the US leads the world in BOTH dairy consumption and Osteoporosis.[/quote] After glancing at some basic data on osteoporosis I find this implied causal relationship to be highly implausible. The risk factors, epidemiology, and all that are complex and milk consumption is hardly on the radar. I was just reading the following and not getting anything like the claims you're making. Maybe I'm just not understanding things. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteoporosis"]Wikipedia: Osteoporosis[/url] [url="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-full-story/"]Calcium and Milk: What's Best for Your Bones and Health?[/url] And finally, even if the things you're saying are true, where is the evidence that raw milk is an osteoporosis panacea? Or at least that calcium is more readily absorbed, or whatever? (I mean, that seems to be what you're saying. Pasteurized milk has caused an osteoporosis epidemic and drinking raw milk will fix it. I hope I've not misinterpreted you.) [quote name='PadrePioOfPietrelcino' timestamp='1333257319' post='2411402']I learned this From Dr Joel Robbins about 8 years ago and has stuck with me ever since then.[/quote] I just googled the guy and he seems to be into chiropractic, colon cleansing, and all sorts of pseudoscience stuff (assuming this is the same guy). Now I'm even more skeptical. Here are some things from a different perspective. Interesting wiki page [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_raw_milk_debate"]United States raw milk debate[/url] Blog rant critical of raw milk. [url="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/raw-milk-in-modern-times/"]Raw Milk in Modern Times[/url] A video critical of raw milk with some interesting info. [spoiler] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VbwYqV4Eog[/media] [/spoiler] Interesting. [url="http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/ahead-of-print/article/18/3/pdfs/11-1370.pdf"]Nonpasteurized Dairy Products, Disease Outbreaks, and State Laws—United States, 1993–2006[/url] [spoiler] Although pasteurization eliminates pathogens and consumption of nonpasteurized dairy products is uncommon, dairy-associated disease outbreaks continue to occur. To determine the association of outbreaks caused by nonpasteurized dairy products with state laws regarding sale of these products, we reviewed dairy-associated outbreaks during 1993–2006. We found 121 outbreaks for which the product’s pasteurization status was known; among these, 73 (60%) involved nonpasteurized products and resulted in 1,571 cases, 202 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. A total of 55 (75%) outbreaks occurred in 21 states that permitted sale of nonpasteurized products; incidence of nonpasteurized product–associated outbreaks was higher in these states. Nonpasteurized products caused a disproportionate number (≈150× greater/unit of product consumed) of outbreaks and outbreak-associated illnesses and also disproportionately affected persons <20 years of age. States that restricted sale of nonpasteurized products had fewer outbreaks and illnesses; stronger restrictions and enforcement should be considered. [/spoiler] Edited April 1, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth09 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1333256543' post='2411399'] I don't think we're on the same wave length, but it's razzle dazzle. Thanks. [/quote] Agree, but its true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 [url="http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/index.html"]http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/index.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now