Login

JesusHMuhammad · (This post was last modified: July 8, 2014 at 11:05 pm by JesusHMuhammad.)

False dichotomy, really.

Really, that's a false dichotomy? If so, what would be the myriad of other options?

I'm sorry but this is a complete non-sequitur and reads more like a conspiracy theory diatribe. I fail to see the link between studies dismissing issues regarding tobacco written several decades ago and contemporary longitudinal discourse on the efficacy of pesticides.

Really, a non-sequitur and reads more like a conspiracy theory diatribe?
I simply make two comparisons to factual events and provided direct quotes from the top federal agencies to back up my claim.
I could provide hundreds of other examples, all you have to do is Google them for yourself. You will see that we are not talking "decades ago" but very recently and now. Here is another conspiracy diatribe from the New York Times.
Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study

As for the conspiracy theory battle over lead poisoning, here is Rebecca Adler's thesis on
Clair Cameron Patterson

CLAIR PATTERSON’S BATTLE AGAINST LEAD POLLUTION

Losty · July 8, 2014 at 10:47 pm

I like potato chips....

JesusHMuhammad · July 8, 2014 at 10:49 pm

I can only say two things.

1. I agree with you that companies will market products as "organic" even when they are not because it is of little cost to them to do so and of little consequence if they are caught lying. Let me say that I am also sorry to hear of your plight. I think we probably agree on most of what we are talking about.

2. My stance is simply based on common sense and parsimony. Even if pesticides are harmless, why would I add them to food if I don't have to?

Fidel_Castronaut · (This post was last modified: July 9, 2014 at 3:13 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)

**The Grand Nudger** · July 9, 2014 at 3:05 am

JesusHMuhammad · July 9, 2014 at 8:44 am

Fidel_Castronaut · (This post was last modified: July 9, 2014 at 10:17 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)

JesusHMuhammad · July 9, 2014 at 11:20 am

there is no study that conclusive shows that organic food(s) have an overarching beneficial effect beyond supposed 'non-organic' food. this is something you've failed to respond to.

My stance is simply based on common sense and parsimony. Even if pesticides are harmless, why would I add them to food if I don't have to?

Fidel_Castronaut · (This post was last modified: July 9, 2014 at 11:32 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)

(July 9, 2014 at 11:20 am)JesusHMuhammad Wrote: there is no study that conclusive shows that organic food(s) have an overarching beneficial effect beyond supposed 'non-organic' food. this is something you've failed to respond to.

My stance is simply based on common sense and parsimony. Even if pesticides are harmless, why would I add them to food if I don't have to?

If you don't want to add them to your food or indeed eat food that's had them added to it, then that's entirely up to you and nobody can say you can't.

I think where we're at a juncture is I'm forwarding the thesis that, owing to the massive numbers of people that need food in today's world, we need pesticides in order to maintain (or grow) the current salvageable harvests (billions is wasted each year on top of this).

I certainly agree that intensive farming needs to be looked at, as does the methodologies that surround mass food production.

In the EU for example there has been a big debate over neonicotinoids and their harmful effects on bees (I love bees). Not enough research means conclusions have been drawn on both sides that's not conducive to solving the issues of why the numbers of bees are diminishing.

JesusHMuhammad · July 9, 2014 at 11:46 am

(July 9, 2014 at 11:31 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:
(July 9, 2014 at 11:20 am)JesusHMuhammad Wrote: there is no study that conclusive shows that organic food(s) have an overarching beneficial effect beyond supposed 'non-organic' food. this is something you've failed to respond to.

My stance is simply based on common sense and parsimony. Even if pesticides are harmless, why would I add them to food if I don't have to?

If you don't want to add them to your food or indeed eat food that's had them added to it, then that's entirely up to you and nobody can say you can't.

I think where we're at a juncture is I'm forwarding the thesis that, owing to the massive numbers of people that need food in today's world, we need pesticides in order to maintain (or grow) the current salvageable harvests (billions is wasted each year on top of this).

I certainly agree that intensive farming needs to be looked at, as does the methodologies that surround mass food production.

In the EU for example there has been a big debate over neonicotinoids and their harmful effects on bees (I love bees). Not enough research means conclusions have been drawn on both sides that's not conducive to solving the issues of why the numbers of bees are diminishing.

Ah.. I see. We are clearly talking about two different things. I am talking about a personal choice and you are talking about feeding the world. Of course, since I didn't mention anything about feeding the world or mention anything about "increased" or "overarching" health benefits of organic food, I can see where you became confused.
And, thank you for allowing me to eat what I want. That is really big of you.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me