What Is Organic Food?

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Agriculture Forum » What Is Organic Food?

Page 1 of 1

Author

Message

Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:01 am

"Organic" has some quite specific legal definitions in most developed
countries.

In the U.S, all farms or products claiming to be "certified organic"
must be guaranteed by a USDA-approved independent agency to be meeting
the following guidelines:

* Sound records kept of all operations
* No use of antibiotics or hormones in livestock
* No use of genetically modified organisms
* No irradiation
* Use sound soil conservation and crop rotation practice
* And most importantly, that there has been no useage of prohibited
materials within 3 years prior to certification, or at any time during
certification.

The USDA defines 'prohibited materials' as synthetic fertilizers,
pesticides and sewage sludge. It is also a requirement that there is
no cross-contamination during processing, which means organic wheat
for example cannot be ground in a flour factory that also handles non-
organic material.

Produce grown organically certainly tastes better than the usual
supermarket stock. It also contains higher levels of nutrients and far
lower residual pesticides. You can read all the latest Organic Food
articles and research at http://www.ge-free.com/

In general food grown free of pesticides, herbicides and genetically
modified organisms (GMO) is organic to some extent. Certified organic
food is that

http://www.dontplayplay.com/html/FoodandDrinks/20060925/16401.html

frank87

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:39 pm

Guest

On 2008-01-07, rota6566@yahoo.com.tw <rota6566@yahoo.com.tw> expressed:

Quote:

How can illness be treathed without antibiotics?

Greetings,
Frank

frank87

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:04 pm

Guest

the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?"
And seeing this is his design, and what he has determined, even to show
how terrible the unrestrained wrath, the fury and fierceness of Jehovah
is, he will do it to effect. There will be something accomplished and
brought to pass that will be dreadful with a witness. When the great and
angry God hath risen up and executed his awful vengeance on the poor
sinner, and the wretch is actually suffering the infinite weight and
power of his indignation, then will God call upon the whole universe to
behold that awful majesty and mighty power that is to be seen in it.
Isa. 33:12-14. "And the people shall be as the burnings of lime, as
thorns cut up shall they be burnt in the fire. Hear ye that are far off,
what I have done; and ye that are near, acknowledge my might. The
sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites,"
&c. Thus it will be with you that are in an unconverted state, if you
continue in it; the infinite might, and majesty, and terribleness of the
omnipotent God shall be magnified upon you, in the ineffable strength of
your torments. You shall be tormented in the presence of the holy
angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and when you shall be in this
state of suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth
and look on the awful spectacle, that they may see what the wrath and
fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will
fall down and adore that great power and majesty. Isa. 66:23,24. "And it
shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one
sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the
Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men
that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither
shall their fire be quenched,

Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:13 pm

time before she died, having pined away
with famine and thirst, so that her flesh seemed to be dried upon her
bones; and therefore could say but little, and manifested her mind very
much by signs. She said she had matter enough to fill up all her time
with talk, if she had but strength. A few days before her death, some
asked her, Whether she held her integrity still? Whether she was not
afraid of death? She answered to this purpose, that she had not the
least degree of fear of death. They asked her why she would be so
confident? She answered, If I should say otherwise, I should speak
contrary to what I know. There is, said she, indeed, a dark entry, that
looks something dark, but on the other side there appears such a bright
shining light, that I cannot be afraid! She said not long before she
died, that she used to be afraid how she should grapple with death; but,
says she, God has showed me that He can make it easy in great pain.
Several days before she died, she could scarcely say any thing but just
Yes, and No, to questions that were asked her; for she seemed to be
dying for three days together. But she seemed to continue in an
admirably sweet composure of soul, without any interruption, to the
last, and died as a person that went to sleep, without any struggling,
about noon, on Friday, June 27, 1735.

She had long been infirm, and often had been exercised with great pain;
but she d

R.J.(Bob) Evans

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:17 am

Guest

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 09:01:27 -0800 (PST) rota6566@yahoo.com.tw wrote:

Quote:

Produce grown organically certainly tastes better than the usual
supermarket stock. It also contains higher levels of nutrients and far
lower residual pesticides. You can read all the latest Organic Food
articles and research at http://www.ge-free.com/

What a load of crap. Low input food is just that - food that someone

doesn't care enough about to put any effort into growing it. We're
down in Mexico right now - there's lots of low input food in the local
produce stands - full of scab and rot. And full of "natural" toxins
100's of times more powerful than anything that would ever be allowed
as a herbicide or pesticide residue.

Every plant and animal on the face of the earth is organic. The
notion that food grown without due care and attention to plant health
is somehow better for us is one of the better scams ever perpetuated
on the face of the earth. The reality is exactly the opposite - food
grown without protection from insects, disease and fungi is dangerous
to your health. And its also ugly and unappetizing.

--
R.J.(Bob) Evans
(return address needs alteration to work)
http://travellingwithgeorge.blogspot.com/

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:53 am

Guest

R.J.(Bob) Evans <bob@at.rjevans> writes

Quote:

And full of "natural" toxins 100's of times
more powerful than anything that would ever be allowed as a herbicide or
pesticide residue.

those not aware of the seminal papers on this might be interested:

There are actually three ames papers consecutively from

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/87/19/7772

[Use 'Next article' button to move to the next]

Interestingly he says exactly what I have been saying for years in the
third article. Extract:

Furthermore, epidemiological studies from various parts of the world
show that certain natural chemicals in food may be carcinogenic risks to
humans: the chewing of betel nuts with tobacco around the world has been
correlated with oral cancer (17, 19). The phorbol esters present in the
Euphorbi- aceae, some of which are used as folk remedies or herb teas,
are potent mitogens and are thought to be a cause of na- sopharyngeal
cancer in China and esophageal cancer in Curacao (20, 21). Pyrrolizidine
toxins are mutagens that are found in comfrey tea, various herbal
medicines, and some foods; they are hepatocarcinogens in rats and may
cause liver cirrhosis and other pathological states in humans (19).
Plants have been evolving and refining their chemical weapons for at
least 500 million years and incur large fitness costs in producing these
chemicals. If these chemicals were not effective in deterring predators,
plants would not have been naturally selected to produce them.
(iii) Humans have not had time to evolve into a "toxic harmony" with all
of the plants in their diet. Indeed, very few of the plants that humans
eat would have been present in an African hunter-gatherer's diet. The
human diet has changed drastically in the last few thousand years, and
most humans are eating many recently introduced plants that their ances-
tors did not-e.g., coffee, cocoa, tea, potatoes, tomatoes, corn,
avocados, mangoes, olives, and kiwi fruit. In addition, cruciferous
vegetables such as cabbage, broccoli, kale, cau- liflower, and mustard
were used in ancient times "primarily for medicinal purposes" and were
spread as foods across Europe only in the Middle Ages (22, 23). Natural
selection works far too slowly for humans to have evolved specific
resistance to the food toxins in these newly introduced plants.

===Further on, a long c&p but very interesting===========

(viii) Natural toxins can have the same mechanisms of toxicity as
synthetic toxins: the case of dioxin. Cabbage and broccoli contain a
chemical whose breakdown products bind to the body's aromatic
hydrocarbon (Ah) receptor, induce the defense enzymes under the control
of the receptors, and possibly cause mitogenesis-just as does dioxin
[2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)J, one of the most feared
industrial contaminants. TCDD is of great public concern because it is
carcinogenic and teratogenic in rodents at extremely low doses. The
doses humans ingest are, however, far lower than the lowest doses that
have been shown to cause cancer and reproductive damage in rodents. TCDD
exerts many or all of its harmful effects in mam- malian cells through
binding to the Ah receptor (35). A wide variety of natural substances
also bind to the Ah receptor [e.g., tryptophan oxidation products (36)]
and insofar as they have been examined, they have similar properties to
TCDD. A cooked steak, for example, contains polycyclic hydrocar- bons
that bind to the Ah receptor and mimic TCDD. In addition, a variety of
flavones and other plant substances in the diet, such as indole carbinol
(IC), also bind to the Ah receptor. IC is the main breakdown compound of
glucobras- sicin, a glucosinolate that is present in large amounts in
vegetables of the Brassica genus, including broccoli (about 25 mg per
100-g portion) (62) Brussels sprouts (125 mg per 100
g) (62), and cabbage (25 mg per 100 g) (23). When tissues of these
vegetables are lacerated, as occurs during chewing, they release an
enzyme that breaks down the glucobrassicin. The enzyme is quite heat
stable, and cooked vegetables yield most of the indole compounds that
raw vegetables do (37). Therefore, we assume for the following
calculation that 20%o of glucobrassicin is converted to IC on eating. At
the pH of the stomach, IC makes dimers and trimers that induce the same
set of detoxifying enzymes as TCDD (37-39). IC, like TCDD, protects
against carcinogenesis when given before aflatoxin or other carcinogens
(39-41). However, when given after aflatoxin or other carcinogens, IC,
like TCDD, stimu- lates carcinogenesis (3 Cool

. This stimulation of
carcinogenesis has also been shown for cabbage itself (42). These IC
derivatives appear to be much more ofa potential hazard than TCDD if
binding to the Ah receptor is critical for toxic effects. The
Environmental Protection Agency's human "reference dose" (formerly
"acceptable dose limit") of TCDD is 6 fg per kg per day. This should be
compared with 5 mg of IC per 100 of broccoli or cabbage (6). Although
the affinity of one major indole dimer in binding to Ah receptors is
less than that of TCDD by a factor of about 8000 (L. F. Bjeldanes and C.
A. Bradfield, personal communication), the effective dose to the Ah
receptor from a helping of broccoli would be about 1500 times higher
than that of TCDD, taking into account an extra factor of 1000 for the
very long lifetime of TCDD in the body (several years) and assuming that
the lifetime of the hydrophobic indole dimers is as short as 1 day.
Another IC dimer has recently been shown to bind to the Ah receptor with
about the same affinity as TCDD (L. Bjeldanes, personal communication).
However, it is not clear whether at the low doses of human exposure
either is hazardous; they may even be protective. It seems likely that
many more of these natural "dioxin simulators" will be discovered in the
future. If TCDD is compared with ethanol it seems of minor interest as a
teratogen or carcinogen. Alcoholic beverages are the most important
known human chemical teratogens (43). In contrast, there is no
persuasive evidence that TCDD is either carcinogenic or teratogenic in
humans, although it is both at near-toxic doses in rodents. If one
compares the teratogenic potential of TCDD to that of alcohol for
causing birth defects (after adjusting for their respective potency as
determined in rodent tests), then a daily consumption of the
Environmental Protection Agency's reference dose ofTCDD....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:37 am

Guest

"frank87" <frank87@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:slrnfo53gd.9g2.frank87@frank.lan...

Quote:

On 2008-01-07, rota6566@yahoo.com.tw <rota6566@yahoo.com.tw> expressed:

How can illness be treathed without antibiotics?

Greetings,
Frank

Treatment with antibiotics is, or at least is supposed to be, monitored and
thus supposedly safe. Some producers use antibiotics to excess in an effort
to get crops/livestock to grow faster than normal. Such practices can lead
to dangerous levels in the food chain.

I used to do all of that but for the past few years have gone organic. It's
quite a bit more work but everything just seems to be getting better and
better. As for having the USDA certify, I wouldn't want the USDA anywhere
near my place. They are bought and paid for bureaucrats owned by the likes
of Tyson, Cargil, ADM, Smithfield, IBP and others of that ilk. Those
entities are nothing more than drug/chemical dealers by proxy.

--
NewsProxy used here. Crossposters
and multiple addressees blocked.

JC

Page 1 of 1 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:41 pm Science Forum Index