Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Hereford on August 22, 2008, 09:53:16 AM
-
What is the general concensus on organic foods here? Do you like them? Think they are overpriced?
Do you buy into the whole concept that the organic industries try to promote?
What say y'all?
-
I'd rather eat a bug than carcinogenic estrogen promoting pesticides. Count me in. I don't insist on organic only tho.
-
Nice concept, but I'm not 100% convinced that everything labeled "organic" actually is. I don't actually think the FDA has a clear definition of the word.
-
Nice concept, but I'm not 100% convinced that everything labeled "organic" actually is. I don't actually think the FDA has a clear definition of the word.
the USDA does.
-
Nice concept, but I'm not 100% convinced that everything labeled "organic" actually is. I don't actually think the FDA has a clear definition of the word.
I can tell you first-hand that it's not. People can't tell the difference between the two, and there is no way to test for the difference.
-
I can tell you first-hand that it's not. People can't tell the difference between the two, and there is no way to test for the difference.
IME, organic produce looks like shit. It's usually smaller and has plenty of blemishes, fruits have much less attractive skin.
-
IME, organic produce looks like shit. It's usually smaller and has plenty of blemishes, fruits have much less attractive skin.
Agreed, I am saying from the health standpoint.
You cant take an apple slice from organic and conventional fruits and tell any difference, unless there was a F-Up in the processing somewhere.
-
the USDA does.
Fair enough. USDA definitions:
100% Organic- means that every ingredient in the product was raised and harvested in an organic environment as approved and certified by the USDA.
Organic- means that 70 to 95 percent of all the ingredients have been raised in a USDA approved manner
Any product containing ingredients with less than a 70 percent organic content can separately list each ingredient that falls into the USDA organic category, but the product may not display a label claiming the product as organic.
For foods containing one ingredient, such as milk, eggs or fruit, an official USDA Organic label is displayed on the package or the fruit.
-
I'll agree that I can't tell the difference immediately when it comes to my health but toxins and carcinogens don't kill you from a single dose (usually). It's the cumulative effect that scares me.
I think I could tell the difference tastewise tho. Maybe not with veg, but with fruits. To be perfectly honest tho, I haven't bought any organic produce in months since the local place went out of business. :-\
-
Organic meats and dairy cannot be beat. Fruits and veggies from farmers markets are always better than store bought shit.
-
Organic meats and dairy cannot be beat. Fruits and veggies from farmers markets are always better than store bought shit.
That's not the same thing. "Farmers Market" does not necessarily mean "Organic". The reason farmers markets are usually better is because the fruits and veggies in the stores are picked waaaay before they are ripe so that they have a better shelf life. Farmers Market produce is picked when ripe.
-
gayer than spinach
-
I can taste the difference immediately between organic and non. Meats, eggs, and produce. Not even compareable. I pretty much only eat organic biodynamic-which is a step above organic. There is, of course, some foul play in organic labeling and farming but if you don't buy organic you are garunteed pesticides/herbicides, antibiotics and hormones whereas if you do, you more than likely won't be consuming those things.
-
I can taste the difference immediately between organic and non. Meats, eggs, and produce. Not even compareable. I pretty much only eat organic biodynamic-which is a step above organic. There is, of course, some foul play in organic labeling and farming but if you don't buy organic you are garunteed pesticides/herbicides, antibiotics and hormones whereas if you do, you more than likely won't be consuming those things.
Back up any of this drivel with any sort of proof.
-
I can taste the difference immediately between organic and non. Meats, eggs, and produce. Not even compareable. I pretty much only eat organic biodynamic-which is a step above organic. There is, of course, some foul play in organic labeling and farming but if you don't buy organic you are garunteed pesticides/herbicides, antibiotics and hormones whereas if you do, you more than likely won't be consuming those things.
Its impossible to taste a difference due to the fact that sugar content is not altered if the seed is the same.
-
I can tell a giant difference in taste between Horizon Organic Milk and other brands.
-
I can tell a giant difference in taste between Horizon Organic Milk and other brands.
How?
-
Its impossible to taste a difference due to the fact that sugar content is not altered if the seed is the same.
There you go with one of your broad sweeping statements again. I taste the difference. The skins of the fruit are the easiest, raw meat that has been factory farmed is basically unpalatable, and with eggs there is a visual difference along with a taste difference-they are usually a very light yellow if they are unsustainably farmed whereas a really healthy yolk should be a deep orange(I've even seen almost reddish yolks) and they are somewhat bitter if they are unhealthy. A healthy animal should be able to taste the difference too-after I cleaned up my cat's life he basically refused to eat any raw meat that wasn't organic or better.
Life has made it real simple for us to tell the difference between things that are good for our bodies and things that are not but the sicker we get the less able we are to determine these differences.
I'm going to go eat my organic raw dinner now, I'll be right back.
-
THere you go with one of your broad sweeping statements again. I taste the difference. The skins of the fruit are the easiest, raw meat that has been factory farmed is basically unpalatable, and with eggs there is a visual difference along with a taste difference-they are usually a very light yellow if they are unsustainably farmed whereas a really healthy yolk should be a deep orange(I've even seen almost reddish yolks) and they are somewhat bitter if they are unhealthy. A healthy animal should be able to taste the difference too-after I cleaned up my cat's life he basically refused to eat any raw meat that wasn't organic or better.
You are not comparing the same seed or genetic line with differing farming methods. You are taking two wholly separate products and comparing them making your statement invalid.
You need to take the same seed and plant it in an organic field and a non-organic field. Pick them both at the same level of ripeness. It is impossible to tell the taste apart.
The same with cattle. Take a Hereford and its twin. One goes to pasture, one goes to CAFO. Feed them the same nutrient content. Both are slaughtered at the same peak. The steak on the table will taste the same.
The nutritent content and phytochemicals may be different, albeit EVER SO SLIGHTLY as genetics play more of a role, but taste will not be affected whatsoever.
With that said, I buy Sustainable and nothing else for many reasons. Taste is not one of them.
-
A healthy animal should be able to taste the difference too-after I cleaned up my cat's life he basically refused to eat any raw meat that wasn't organic or better.
HAHAHAHAHA
What the Fucck ever dude.
-
The same with cattle. Take a Hereford and its twin. One goes to pasture, one goes to CAFO. Both are slaughtered at the same peak. The steak on the table will taste the same.
YES!!!!
-
You are not comparing the same seed or genetic line with differing farming methods. You are taking two wholly separate products and comparing them making your statement invalid.
You need to take the same seed and plant it in an organic field and a non-organic field. Pick them both at the same level of ripeness. It is impossible to tell the taste apart.
The same with cattle. Take a Hereford and its twin. One goes to pasture, one goes to CAFO. Feed them the same nutrient content. Both are slaughtered at the same peak. The steak on the table will taste the same.
The nutritent content and phytochemicals may be different, albeit EVER SO SLIGHTLY as genetics play more of a role, but taste will not be affected whatsoever.
With that said, I buy Sustainable and nothing else for many reasons. Taste is not one of them.
I'm not waiting for double blind tested empiracally proven results to be published for me to speak up about being able to taste the difference between organic and non. I've eaten enough steak, eggs, and fruit to know that the difference from farm to farm and animal to animal isn't nearly as great the difference between sustainable and unsustainable farming.
-
You quoted my post, yet said nothing.
-
...and there's a huge difference between what I'm talking about and taste variations. Taste variations can be subtle and sometimes hard to pick out; what I'm talking about is a distinctly toxic, metallic, or bitter taste-specifically meats, eggs, and rinds.
-
I'm not waiting for double blind tested empiracally proven results to be published for me to speak up about being able to taste the difference between organic and non. I've eaten plenty of steaks, plenty of eggs, and plenty of fruit to know that the difference from farm to farm isn't nearly as great the difference between sustainable and unsustainable farming.
Again,
The seed is what determines the flavor. You are deluding yourself if you think it tastes better. I seriously doubt you have ever eaten anything along the quality of a Delmonico Steak or Kobe.
-
...and there's a huge difference between what I'm talking about and taste variations. Taste variations can be subtle and sometimes hard to pick out; what I'm talking about is a distinctly toxic, metallic, or bitter taste-specifically meats, eggs, and rinds.
Humans don`t even have the tasting or nasal ability to even come close to isolating such nano-particulates.
-
What would make you doubt that? Like I said, I buy only the highest quality foods-which Kobe doesn't fall under imo, because they are grain fed. The seed may determine the taste of the fruit but if you add something to the fruit, this can also change the taste-if you'll read above I think you'll find that that has been my argument the whole time.
-
I`m laughing at Swedish Viking`s attempt to justify his reasoning.
In the meantime, he can have a look at what we harvested yesterday from the farm.
(http://i36.tinypic.com/kcc5jr.jpg)
-
Organic chicken breasts are usually half the size non-organic ones, it tells you somthing about the wonders drugs do.
-
What would make you doubt that? Like I said, I buy only the highest quality foods-which Kobe doesn't fall under imo, because they are grain fed. The seed may determine the taste of the fruit but if you add something to the fruit, this can also change the taste-if you'll read above I think you'll find that that has been my argument the whole time.
If you ate Kobe, you would have a change of mind. Not much can taste better than Kobe.
-
It might taste good but a cow is a primarily grass eating animal, not a grain eating animal.
Nice picture. Take one of your peaches, take a bite out of it and reflect on the taste, then spray it with Roundup, don't wash it, and take another bite. Tell me if it tastes the same the second time as it did the first time. If that isn't enough good reasoning for you(and I don't see why it wouldn't be) then take those pits, plant them, mix all the water you use with Roundup or something like it, water them with that as well as coating the fruit with it, again don't wash it, pick it and eat it, and then tell me if you don't tell me the difference. I'm not talking quantum mechanics here, I'm talking about taking something...nuetral, we'll say, adding something to it that definitely does not have a nuetral taste and then eating it. That simple.
-
It might taste good but a cow is a primarily grass eating animal, not a grain eating animal.
Nice picture. Take one of your peaches, take a bite out of it and reflect on the taste, then spray it with Roundup, don't wash it, and take another bite. Tell me if it tastes the same the second time as it did the first time. If that isn't enough good reasoning for you(and I don't see why it wouldn't be) then take those pits, plant them, mix all the water you use with Roundup or something like it, water them with that as well as coating the fruit with it, again don't wash it, pick it and eat it, and then tell me if you don't tell me the difference. I'm not talking quantum mechanics here, I'm talking about taking something...nuetral, we'll say, adding something to it that definitely does not have a nuetral taste and then eating it. That simple.
Roundup is not a pesticide. Roundup is an herbicide not used in agriculture cultivation. Roundup would NEVER be used in any instance. Furthermore, pesticides are not used on half-eaten fruit. That is not how pesticides are implemented or used. Pesticides also carry such a broad term. Citronella is classified as a pesticide, but we don`t go around calling that toxic now do we?
-
Roundup is not a pesticide. Roundup would NEVER be used in any instance. Furthermore, pesticides are not used on half-eaten fruit. That is not how pesticides are implemented or used. Pesticides also carry such a broad term. Citronella is classified as a pesticide, but we don`t go around calling that toxic now do we?
If you think Roundup isn't used you are fooling yourself. The reason I said put it on half eaten fruit was so you could have a taste of it nuetral and then a taste of it altered-I think you know that I know people don't go around spraying their fruits mid-meal. I also think you know that I am talking about mainstream pesticides that have been deemed or suspected toxic for human consumption in great quantities.
-
It might taste good but a cow is a primarily grass eating animal, not a grain eating animal.
Nice picture. Take one of your peaches, take a bite out of it and reflect on the taste, then spray it with Roundup, don't wash it, and take another bite. Tell me if it tastes the same the second time as it did the first time. If that isn't enough good reasoning for you(and I don't see why it wouldn't be) then take those pits, plant them, mix all the water you use with Roundup or something like it, water them with that as well as coating the fruit with it, again don't wash it, pick it and eat it, and then tell me if you don't tell me the difference. I'm not talking quantum mechanics here, I'm talking about taking something...nuetral, we'll say, adding something to it that definitely does not have a nuetral taste and then eating it. That simple.
1. Roundup is not used on Peaches or ony other orchard-type crop
2. Round-up is a glyphosate that has a functional life of 3-7 days. It is degraded by microorganisms in the soil.
3. Roundup is a herbicide, not a pesticide. Why would you spray it onto a tree.
-
Excuse me, replace the words Round Up with another common brand name pesticide. In an attempt to put me down you still haven't adressed the real simple issue that you have something 'nuetral' tasting to begin with, treat it with something non-nuetral tasting, and expect no taste change.
-
Excuse me, replace the words Round Up with another common brand name pesticide. In an attempt to put me down you still haven't adressed the real simple issue that you have something 'nuetral' tasting to begin with, treat it with something non-nuetral tasting, and expect no taste change.
"Nuetral" is not a word and therefore I am not able to comprehend your point. Taste is genetic. In fact, one could argue that the non-organic variety may taste better due to the fact that it does not have to fight as hard for survival, thus the genes/alleles for flavor can be enhanced and manipulated a whole lot easier as survival is not an issue. As you should know, wild berrys for instance will ALWAYS be way more bitter and largely inedible as Natural Selection has ensured their survival via chemical defense.
-
SV, I am not attacking you personally, I just don't buy into your argument.
Pesticides and herbicides that are used in modern agriculture are designed to not have the lingering residues that you are refering to. Yes, this WAS the case in years past, with the use of DDT and such, but I don't believe it to be the case anymore.
I work in this industry, and the regulations that are in place by the USDA and industry co-ops and such are very tightly tested and regulated. No respectible farmer is going to go spray their crops with a substance that will leave a toxic fingerprint. They test for these substances. It is professional (and financial) suicide to not follow the rules put forth by the USDA.
As for something being 'neutral' tasting..... No way. I can take 9 conventional peaches and 1 organic one.... And you can tell me which one is the 'natural' one?
-
"Nuetral" is not a word and therefore I am not able to comprehend your point. Taste is genetic. In fact, one could argue that the non-organic variety may taste better due to the fact that it does not have to fight as hard for survival, thus the genes for flavor can be enhanced. As you should know, wild berrys for instance will ALWAYS be way more bitter and largely inedible as Natural Selection has ensured their survival via chemical defense.
You're using the same argument that doesn't qualify because we are talking about a genetic taste with something added to it. I agree with you that the taste is genetic, that has never been the argument. The argument has been weather something that begins tasting a certain way will still taste that same way after something else, with a distinctly different taste, has been added to it. I think I could even write a proof for this, which I haven't done since college.
I have watched you mispell and mis-use words with almost a voracity over the years; we all have and people have called you out on it(although there were far too many mistakes to waste time pointing out), so now I guess you are calling me out on the backwards placing of two letters. I'm going to go ahead and assume that a spelling or grammatical error or two doesn't change many of the arguments on this board.
-
I've been doing some organic tomato and pepper farming. My soil is peatmoss, perlite, 1 tbl spoon hydrated lime per gallon of soil, and for nutrients I used blood meal, bone meal, glacial dust, and some weird salt for potassium. Results were different from what I buy at the supermarket(smaller tomatoes), but I could not taste the difference between what I grew and what I'd normally buy. I think when a person is told when they're eating organic they automatically assume that it's better, so naturally to them it tastes different when it actually doesn't. Like idiots who think the Advil brand of ibuprofen is any better than the cheaper RiteAid brand.
-
I've been doing some organic tomato and pepper farming. My soil is peatmoss, perlite, 1 tbl spoon hydrated lime per gallon of soil, and for nutrients I used blood meal, bone meal, glacial dust, and some weird salt for potassium. Results were different from what I buy at the supermarket(smaller tomatoes), but I could not taste the difference between what I grew and what I'd normally buy. I think when a person is told when they're eating organic they automatically assume that it's better, so naturally to them it tastes different when it actually doesn't. Like idiots who think the Advil brand of ibuprofen is any better than the cheaper RiteAid brand.
Isn't this called the placebo effect?
-
Isn't this called the placebo effect?
Yes. Give some patient a sugar pill and tell them it's a brand new breakthrough in medicine and they'll feel better 90% of the time
These hippies feel good with their organic foods.
-
SV, I am not attacking you personally, I just don't buy into your argument.
Pesticides and herbicides that are used in modern agriculture are designed to not have the lingering residues that you are refering to. Yes, this WAS the case in years past, with the use of DDT and such, but I don't believe it to be the case anymore.
I work in this industry, and the regulations that are in place by the USDA and industry co-ops and such are very tightly tested and regulated. No respectible farmer is going to go spray their crops with a substance that will leave a toxic fingerprint. They test for these substances. It is professional (and financial) suicide to not follow the rules put forth by the USDA.
As for something being 'neutral' tasting..... No way. I can take 9 conventional peaches and 1 organic one.... And you can tell me which one is the 'natural' one?
Thanks for the civilized answer directly relating to my post. 9 would be hard, but 3 I could do-especially if they weren't washed. If it were meat or eggs I could definitely do 9.
The US may be good with their standards, but South America, definitely Africa, and Asia often aren't. In addition to that, toxicity is based on quantity(dose), much like everything else-and lower and lower quantities of various substances are being found to be harmful everyday.
The placebo effect can always apply and there's not much anyone can do about it. I have known that organic farming isn't perfect for a long time and I notice it when my organic foods don't taste right, so I'm assuming the placebo affect isn't coming into play too much with me.
-
How?
Tastes way better, doesn't fill my throat with Phlegm.
Chicken and Beef from Wild Oats also tastes better.
Don't know if it's because it is just fresher/better quality, or because it's organic?
-
If I lived in Africa, South America or Asia I really wouldn't be concerning myself with pesticides in my fruit. I would be a lot more worried about having my ear shaved off by a machete, getting malaria from a mosquito, or meeting that guy Al Ahuakbar.
They still use DDT in Africa.
-
You don't think the chemicals and antibiotics used on our food can cause health related problems Hereford? ???
-
You don't think the chemicals and antibiotics used on our food can cause health related problems Hereford? ???
I dunno about fruits and veggies, but meat and poultry = different story. I was in Canada recently, and to me the chicken and beef there just tasted better. Even the chicken wings at KFC were smaller and had much more flavor LOL
-
You don't think the chemicals and antibiotics used on our food can cause health related problems Hereford? ???
Absolutly I do RP, I just don't think that there are the levels present that you guys believe there to be.
I think a lot of people are worried about what might be in the food supply, not what provably is.
-
As far as I know runoff from these non organic agricultural chemicals cause many environmental problems?
I raise Fruits/Vegetables in raised beds with 1/3 Pete moss, Vermiculite, and good compost. So fresh and delicious, much cheaper as well. 8)
-
Absolutly I do RP, I just don't think that there are the levels present that you guys believe there to be.
I think a lot of people are worried about what might be in the food supply, not what provably is.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. So don't say "you guys" lol ;D
-
If I lived in Africa, South America or Asia I really wouldn't be concerning myself with pesticides in my fruit. I would be a lot more worried about having my ear shaved off by a machete, getting malaria from a mosquito, or meeting that guy Al Ahuakbar.
They still use DDT in Africa.
So you're basically saying(overview of all your posts) that there was a possible taste difference in the past but now that standards have gotten better there isn't one any longer. Doesn't that sound more like a personal opinion to you rather than a fact? If we know that at least 3 people in this thread alone have said that there is a taste difference, and I know that a great deal of raw foodists, vegetarians, and holistic eaters I have spoken with have said there is a taste difference then we can only assume that they are:
A. Lying
B. Right in regards to themselves and their ability to taste
C. All experiencing the placebo effect on the mass scale
A&C seem pretty improbable to me given that we are all pretty aware that the organic label has it's pitfalls and we notice them as well. And like I said, it's not all in taste-the visual difference between a healthy egg yolk and a weak one is night and day.
-
I dunno about fruits and veggies, but meat and poultry = different story. I was in Canada recently, and to me the chicken and beef there just tasted better. Even the chicken wings at KFC were smaller and had much more flavor LOL
Yeah, I know what you mean. I bought some fried chicken from this farm/restaurant where they raise/butcher their own chickens. It had such good quality taste. Unbelievable.
-
So you're basically saying(overview of all your posts) that there was a possible taste difference in the past but now that standards have gotten better there isn't one any longer. Doesn't that sound more like a personal opinion to you rather than a fact? If we know that at least 3 people in this thread alone have said that there is a taste difference, and I know that a great deal of raw foodists, vegetarians, and holistic eaters I have spoken with have said there is a taste difference then we can only assume that they are:
A. Lying
B. Right in regards to themselves and their ability to taste
C. All experiencing the placebo effect on the mass scale
A&C seem pretty improbable to me given that we are all pretty aware that the organic label has it's pitfalls and we notice them as well. And like I said, it's not all in taste-the visual difference between a healthy egg yolk and a weak one is night and day.
Over 90 percent of Americans are deluded on a mass scale just by the simple fact of believing in an imaginary god.
-
So you're basically saying(overview of all your posts) that there was a possible taste difference in the past but now that standards have gotten better there isn't one any longer. Doesn't that sound more like a personal opinion to you rather than a fact? If we know that at least 3 people in this thread alone have said that there is a taste difference, and I know that a great deal of raw foodists, vegetarians, and holistic eaters I have spoken with have said there is a taste difference then we can only assume that they are:
A. Lying
B. Right in regards to themselves and their ability to taste
C. All experiencing the placebo effect on the mass scale
A&C seem pretty improbable to me given that we are all pretty aware that the organic label has it's pitfalls and we notice them as well. And like I said, it's not all in taste-the visual difference between a healthy egg yolk and a weak one is night and day.
RPF: Yeah, I pretty much agree. So don't say "you guys" lol
"You Guys" is a general term. Not specific to anyone in particular! ;)
Some things I would like 'you guys' to consider:
1. Organic and/or Natural farming is not practical in terms of feeding the seething masses on this planet. Organic farming is a 'niche market'. If you like it, great. If your whole crew likes it and you can afford it, great! It will not, however, work on the grand scale.
2. 99% of producers in the Ag industry that are producing organic crops do it because it PAYS a lot more. Why does it pay a lot more? Because you cannot get nearly the yields from this type of farming. Your crops get ravaged by pests and other plants that out-compete what you are trying to grow.
'
3. People who farm 'organic' and 'natural' need to differentiate their product somehow to justify getting the higher prices. I believe that a lot of this 'The-Sky-Is-Falling' and 'there are poisons in our food!!!' is propagated by what can be considered to be special interests in the industry.
Back to the 'taste' argument....
You are saying that organic=better taste. I follow Adonis' argument that if you were to take two meat animals, say pigs, and feed one organic feed, and the other conventional, you COULD NOT tell the difference.
-
RPF: Yeah, I pretty much agree. So don't say "you guys" lol
"You Guys" is a general term. Not specific to anyone in particular! ;)
Some things I would like 'you guys' to consider:
1. Organic and/or Natural farming is not practical in terms of feeding the seething masses on this planet. Organic farming is a 'niche market'. If you like it, great. If your whole crew likes it and you can afford it, great! It will not, however, work on the grand scale.
2. 99% of producers in the Ag industry that are producing organic crops do it because it PAYS a lot more. Why does it pay a lot more? Because you cannot get nearly the yields from this type of farming. Your crops get ravaged by pests and other plants that out-compete what you are trying to grow.
'
3. People who farm 'organic' and 'natural' need to differentiate their product somehow to justify getting the higher prices. I believe that a lot of this 'The-Sky-Is-Falling' and 'there are poisons in our food!!!' is propagated by what can be considered to be special interests in the industry.
Back to the 'taste' argument....
You are saying that organic=better taste. I follow Adonis' argument that if you were to take two meat animals, say pigs, and feed one organic feed, and the other conventional, you COULD NOT tell the difference.
Kobe is the best tasting meat and its grain fed. I`d like to see "these guys" pretend that Kobe beef doesn`t taste amazing because its fed grains.
-
Kobe is the best tasting meat and its grain fed. I`d like to see "these guys" pretend that Kobe beef doesn`t taste amazing because its fed grains.
Kobe beef is absolutly amazing. I had a Kobe steak one time. Incredible.
$$$$$$$
-
The animals genetics are going to play the largest role in determining taste. This is why there are so many different breeds and breeders of livestock each yielding a different taste.
-
Do you guys ever eat Buffalo?
Excellent stuff...
-
alright well we're where we started again-I'm saying I can, several other people are saying they can and you're saying we can't. I personally think telling another person what they experiencing is kind of strange idea, but maybe that's just me. I don't eat pork, but if we did it with beef, I'm pretty sure I could and you've basically more or less said the same thing but you are saying that the 'taste line' that has been drawn is further back than I think it is-I also think this 'taste line' is very personal.
TA: The comment above about theism doesn't have any place in this argument-funny considering you ribbing me for things not having any place in this argument instead of actually adressing the issue. The beliefs you are talking about are about as far removed from food as you can get, especially in intensity of emotion which is essentially what the placebo effect is based on.
-
Do you guys ever eat Buffalo?
Excellent stuff...
Buffalo is great!
Ted Turner has been very instrumental in re-introducing it and at a good price. My favorite around here is Ostrich. It is even leaner than Chicken and tastes like the best red meat steak.
If the mass public ever get wind of it, it would really catch on.
-
The animals genetics are going to play the largest role in determining taste. This is why there are so many different breeds and breeders of livestock each yielding a different taste.
Well now wait a second, the 'largest?' So you are insinuating that something else could have an effect on taste. It's already been agreed upon that genetics play the biggest role in taste. This, for the 3rd time I believe, has never been the argument. The argument as been whether or not adding to that original item will chance the original taste. If the substance added to it has a strong taste, and it is within that particular persons ability to taste, then it will be tasted along with the original taste. And once again, I'm not talking about taste differences, per se-I'm talking about a strictly foreign, very easily discernable bitter, metallic, or other taste.
I've had plenty of buffalo-strictly grass fed buffalo.
-
alright well we're where we started again-I'm saying I can, several other people are saying they can and you're saying we can't. I personally think telling another person what they experiencing is kind of strange idea, but maybe that's just me. I don't eat pork, but if we did it with beef, I'm pretty sure I could and you've basically more or less said the same thing but you are saying that the 'taste line' that has been drawn is further back than I think it is-I also think this 'taste line' is very personal.
TA: The comment above about theism doesn't have any place in this argument-funny considering you ribbing me for things not having any place in this argument instead of actually adressing the issue. The beliefs you are talking about are about as far removed from food as you can get, especially in intensity of emotion which is essentially what the placebo effect is based on.
SV you need to settle down. People can psych themselves into believing anything. If you want to believe that a dog turd tasted better than an ice cream cone.... Then you are going to truely believe it with all your heart and nothing me, TA or anyone else says is going to change your mind.
I am saying that, from a scientific standpoint, you cannot distinguish taste based ONLY on the fact of a foodstuff being conventional or it being organic.
-
My favorite around here is Ostrich.
Yep
When it comes to food I think you have great taste Adonis
-
alright well we're where we started again-I'm saying I can, several other people are saying they can and you're saying we can't. I personally think telling another person what they experiencing is kind of strange idea, but maybe that's just me. I don't eat pork, but if we did it with beef, I'm pretty sure I could and you've basically more or less said the same thing but you are saying that the 'taste line' that has been drawn is further back than I think it is-I also think this 'taste line' is very personal.
TA: The comment above about theism doesn't have any place in this argument-funny considering you ribbing me for things not having any place in this argument instead of actually adressing the issue. The beliefs you are talking about are about as far removed from food as you can get, especially in intensity of emotion which is essentially what the placebo effect is based on.
Delusion and Placebo go hand in hand.
I am telling you that humans DO NOT have the capacity to detect nano-particulates through taste or smell and nano-particulates are what we are discussing. Dogs can tell different isotopes through smell which is pretty amazing. Humans are a joke in the olfactory sense.
I would also argue that your sense of taste is poor because you have not established enough neural connections because you not only don`t cook your food, you don`t eat a wide variety of food items. You cannot tell me what an Oreo Pie Tastes like. You have never built the Neuron connection to be able to do so.
Taste is based on memory. If you fail to taste these things, you will never create a memory bank of tastes. I charge that your sense of taste is horrible.
-
SV you need to settle down. People can psych themselves into believing anything. If you want to believe that a dog turd tasted better than an ice cream cone.... Then you are going to truely believe it with all your heart and nothing me, TA or anyone else says is going to change your mind.
I am saying that, from a scientific standpoint, you cannot distinguish taste based ONLY on the fact of a foodstuff being conventional or it being organic.
ROFLMAO if you read this board long enough, you will find people convincing themselves that a dry old chicken breast tastes better than a Double Whopper With Cheese and Large Fries. hahhahahahah
-
Yep
When it comes to food I think you have great taste Adonis
To me, food is above all else. Nothing in life gives me greater pleasure. Reading cookbooks is the most addictive thing. The thing that really gets me though is that there are not enough days in a humans life to be able to make all the things I want to make and eat. :-\
-
Delusion and Placebo go hand in hand.
I am telling you that humans DO NOT have the capacity to detect nano-particulates through taste or smell and nano-particulates are what we are discussing. Dogs can tell different isotopes through smell which is pretty amazing. Humans are a joke in the olfactory sense.
I would also argue that your sense of taste is poor because you have not established enough neural connections because you not only don`t cook your food, you don`t eat a wide variety of food items. You cannot tell me what an Oreo Pie Tastes like. You have never built the Neuron connection to be able to do so.
Taste is based on memory. If you fail to taste these things, you will never create a memory bank of tastes. I charge that your sense of taste is horrible.
I've eaten raw for 5 years, not my whole life. I've lost my taste for cooked food and many ingredient concoctions. I've gotten a much better taste for the things I do eat-weird that you say my whole sense of taste is horrible in a blanket statement like that when just 2 sentences earlier you say that taste is something that is developed over time...well I've been eating certain things at a much greater frequency than I ever did before and more than others do-wouldn't you then assume that my sense of taste in regards to those is better than it was before and probably better than most others'?
What we're talking about is highly personal and has a lot to do with experience. If 3 violins were playing in front of me right now, I might be able to tell if one of them was out of tune. Possibly. If a 65 person orchestra was playing in front of a great conductor, he/she can often tell if one instrument is just a half a step high or low-that's borderline almost absurdly sensitive to the average person's ear. We know it happens with other senses, you're admitting that it happens with taste too because you are saying that it can be developed and then broken down...why shouldn't what we are saying be true?
-
I've eaten raw for 5 years, not my whole life. I've lost my taste for cooked food and many ingredient concoctions. I've gotten a much better taste for the things I do eat. What we're talking about is highly personal and has a lot to do with experience. If 3 violins were playing in front of me right now, I might be able to tell if one of them was out of tune. Possibly. If a 65 person orchestra was playing in front of a great conductor, he/she can often tell if one instrument is just a half a step high or low. We know it happens with other senses, you're admitting that it happens with taste too because you are saying that it can be developed and then broken down...why shouldn't what we are saying be true?
The more foods you eat, the more ways you prepare them, the bigger your taste bank grows and the ability to identify them becomes sharper. You are limiting your taste and your taste neural connections. True, you may have some taste memory but it fades if not renewed from time to time. Meaning the longer you limit and the less you eat a food, the more you will forget what it tastes like and the less you may desire it or even think of it. At this point the delusion may creep in and you may begin to convince yourself that food X never tasted good in the first place.
You are trying to state that you have the ability to identify flavorless nano-particulates of pesticides in food when it is humanly impossible to detect such things. Our olfactory is not powerful enough nor has it ever been or will be.
-
I've eaten raw for 5 years, not my whole life. I've lost my taste for cooked food and many ingredient concoctions. I've gotten a much better taste for the things I do eat-weird that you say my whole sense of taste is horrible in a blanket statement like that when just 2 sentences earlier you say that taste is something that is developed over time...well I've been eating certain things at a much greater frequency than I ever did before and more than others do-wouldn't you then assume that my sense of taste in regards to those is better than it was before and probably better than most others'?
What we're talking about is highly personal and has a lot to do with experience. If 3 violins were playing in front of me right now, I might be able to tell if one of them was out of tune. Possibly. If a 65 person orchestra was playing in front of a great conductor, he/she can often tell if one instrument is just a half a step high or low-that's borderline almost absurdly sensitive to the average person's ear. We know it happens with other senses, you're admitting that it happens with taste too because you are saying that it can be developed and then broken down...why shouldn't what we are saying be true?
The ears work through different neural pathways than taste or smell. apples and Oranges my friend. :)
-
I made the orchestra comment to make a point in regards to development-which we all agree is possible in all senses. Your first post re-states everything I just said. I have lost my taste for many ingredient concoctions and cooked food. I have gained a greater sense of taste for the foods we are arguing over-we're not talking about oreo pies or pizzas or pasta, we're talking about fruits, meats, vegetables alone.
And since we want everything empirally proven and double blind tested in this thread, I would love to see your following comment backed up by research:
"The more foods you eat, the more ways you prepare them, the bigger your taste bank grows and the ability to identify them becomes sharper."
I would say the truth is the opposite:the more foods you eat, the more muddled you taste for those foods in isolation gets-in fact, I think this is the very reason most people don't have the sense of taste for certain items that others such as myself-who only eat those items and in isolation-might have.
I'm going to bed, good night.
-
I made the orchestra comment to make a point in regards to development-which we all agree is possible in all senses. Your first post re-states everything I just said. I have lost my taste for many ingredient concoctions and cooked food. I have gained a greater sense of taste for the foods we are arguing over-we're not talking about oreo pies or pizzas or pasta, we're talking about fruits, meats, vegetables alone.
And since we want everything empirally proven and double blind tested in this thread, I would love to see your following comment backed up by research:
"The more foods you eat, the more ways you prepare them, the bigger your taste bank grows and the ability to identify them becomes sharper."
I would say the truth is the opposite:the more foods you eat, the more muddled you taste for those foods in isolation gets-in fact, I think this is the very reason most people don't have the sense of taste for certain items that others such as myself-who only eat those items and in isolation-might have.
I'm going to bed, good night.
Read it if you like.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0P-4G24XJ5-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6cf512aaf1bdafc7d332c8a7d700cbb1
Taste, olfactory, and food texture processing in the brain, and the control of food intake
Edmund T. RollsCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, E-mail The Corresponding Author
University of Oxford, Department of Experimental Psychology, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, England, UK
Available online 28 April 2005.
Purchase the full-text article
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
Abstract
Complementary neurophysiological recordings in macaques and functional neuroimaging in humans show that the primary taste cortex in the rostral insula and adjoining frontal operculum provides separate and combined representations of the taste, temperature, and texture (including viscosity and fat texture) of food in the mouth independently of hunger and thus of reward value and pleasantness. One synapse on, in the orbitofrontal cortex, these sensory inputs are for some neurons combined by learning with olfactory and visual inputs. Different neurons respond to different combinations, providing a rich representation of the sensory properties of food. In the orbitofrontal cortex, feeding to satiety with one food decreases the responses of these neurons to that food, but not to other foods, showing that sensory-specific satiety is computed in the primate (including human) orbitofrontal cortex. Consistently, activation of parts of the human orbitofrontal cortex correlates with subjective ratings of the pleasantness of the taste and smell of food. Cognitive factors, such as a word label presented with an odour, influence the pleasantness of the odour, and the activation produced by the odour in the orbitofrontal cortex. These findings provide a basis for understanding how what is in the mouth is represented by independent information channels in the brain; how the information from these channels is combined; and how and where the reward and subjective affective value of food is represented and is influenced by satiety signals. Activation of these representations in the orbitofrontal cortex may provide the goal for eating, and understanding them helps to provide a basis for understanding appetite and its disorders.
Keywords: Sensory-specific satiety; Fat; Food texture; Taste; Olfaction; Temperature
Article Outline
1. Introduction
1.1. Taste processing in the primate brain
1.1.1. Pathways
1.1.2. The secondary taste cortex
1.1.3. Five prototypical tastes, including umami
1.1.4. The pleasantness of the taste of food
1.1.5. Sensory-specific satiety
1.2. The representation of flavour: convergence of olfactory and taste inputs
1.3. The rules underlying the formation of olfactory representations in the primate cortex
1.4. The representation of the pleasantness of odour in the brain: olfactory and visual sensory-specific satiety, their representation in the primate orbitofrontal cortex, and the role of sensory-specific satiety in appetite
1.5. The responses of orbitofrontal cortex taste and olfactory neurons to the sight, texture, and temperature of food
1.6. The mouth feel of fat
1.7. Imaging studies in humans
1.7.1. Taste
1.7.2. Odour
1.7.3. Olfactory–taste convergence to represent flavour
1.7.4. Oral viscosity and fat texture
1.8. Cognitive effects on representations of food
1.9. Emotion
2. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
Thumbnail image
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the taste and olfactory pathways in primates showing how they converge with each other and with visual pathways. The gate functions shown refer to the finding that the responses of taste neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex and the lateral hypothalamus are modulated by hunger. VPMpc—ventralposteromedial thalamic nucleus; V1, V2, V4—visual cortical areas.
View Within Article
-
If you cant taste the difference between the two then it is either because you don not have strong taste buds or you have not been eating organic long enuff to taste the fine but noticable difference.
Nothing like good organice produce, you would have to be an idiot to think otherwise!
-
If you cant taste the difference between the two then it is either because you don not have strong taste buds or you have not been eating organic long enuff to taste the fine but noticable difference.
Nothing like good organice produce, you would have to be an idiot to think otherwise!
Again,
Humans do not have the ability to detect nano-particulates.
-
Again,
Humans do not have the ability to detect nano-particulates.
sorry , but I can taste the difference. Try eating organic for 10 yrs , then come back to this thread!
The chemicals alone present a taste.
-
Is it possible that non organic chemicals used on Crops could promote different levels of certain "tasty" and "non tasty" materials that make up a fruit or vegetable? ???
Something like promoting the growth of pulp in an Orange but not its "juice" giving the Orange less flavor?
-
Is it possible that non organic chemicals used on Crops could promote different levels of certain "tasty" and "non tasty" materials that make up a fruit or vegetable? ???
Something like promoting the growth of pulp in an Orange but not its "juice" giving the Orange less flavor?
Yeep. A lot of the times the non-organic will taste sweeter or more vibrant because of the Genetically modified nature of the seed. This means that the seed has been bred to agree with the soil and pesticide used which makes taste even easier to manipulate further as survivability is not an issue and can be placed more so on the back burner.
The organic variety can be more difficult to grow and taste is not as easy to breed for as survivability becomes first priority. There is one good side to this however in that a plants natural resistance, its antioxidant capacity, may go up as its natural defenses are selected.
However, the non-organic can be easily manipulated to yield the same antioxidant capacity.
Basically, the upside to sustainable or organic is purely environmental. The soil is left in better condition as is the surrounding flora and fauna. It also helps local economies and cuts down on transportation/fuel usage and carbon output. That is your real benefit.
-
True Adonis reminds me of some MD that was on the news a few yrs back trying to get people to believe preservatives in food wont harm them and actually make them live longer... :o
Some people just cant grasp the fact that simple is usually beter when it comes to nature,thier always looking to change things!
-
True Adonis reminds me of some MD that was on the news a few yrs back trying to get people to believe preservatives in food wont harm them and actually make them live longer... :o
Some people just cant grasp the fact that simple is usually beter when it comes to nature,thier always looking to change things!
No single case exists of any preservative used today as being harmful. Not a single one.
-
If food from nature in an organic state was better people would have been a hell of a lot healthier pre industrial revolution. Freshness matters for taste not if it's organic or not.
-
Food
Additional lines of evidence come from what we call "risk assessments" of dietary contaminants. We know that foodstuffs are contaminated with a very wide range of carcinogenic pesticides. Very limited data are available in this country, but according to the last data from the Ministry of Health and MAF, celery has in the region of 17 pesticide residues, about 10 of which are carcinogenic, and an apple may have as many as 5-10 carcinogenic pesticides, so you're dealing with food which has massive and pervasive contamination.
The EPA under the Reagan/Bush administration wasn't exactly a progressive organisation. In fact, amongst the crimes of Reagan and Bush which will go down in history are their emasculation of Federal regulatory apparatus, with the appointment of chiefs and heads of Federal agencies hostile to the legislative mandates.
The Dellaney Amendment was a 1958 law, an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which basically says, "Thou shalt not add any level of carcinogenic pesticides to the foodstuffs". This was an important law because it recognised that we don't know any way of stating safe levels of carcinogens; and it also insulated the Federal agencies EPA and FDA from political pressures from the chemical industry etc. But in 1988, under the Bush administration, the EPA - illegally, in our view - revoked the Dellaney Law and introduced the concept of "acceptable risk". This allows one pesticide on one particular food item if the risk for that is no more than one in a hundred thousand cancers per year. This is based on attempts to extrapolate from animal data. There are problems in that these numbers are highly relaxed in terms of protecting the public. The EPA permissible level translates nationally to 30-40 extra cancer deaths per year.
However, if you take the more realistic position that we eat many food items in a meal, and every one might be contaminated by 5 to 10 to 15 different pesticides, then according to the Reagan/Bush data, the figures for aggregate risk come to about 50-60,000 extra cancer deaths a year.
Among many other lines of evidence, one that relates to dogs is quite interesting. Dog owners who have had their lawns treated with a chemical will find that their dogs will die, at a six times greater rate than others, of a variety of problems, particularly Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
-
Food
Additional lines of evidence come from what we call "risk assessments" of dietary contaminants. We know that foodstuffs are contaminated with a very wide range of carcinogenic pesticides. Very limited data are available in this country, but according to the last data from the Ministry of Health and MAF, celery has in the region of 17 pesticide residues, about 10 of which are carcinogenic, and an apple may have as many as 5-10 carcinogenic pesticides, so you're dealing with food which has massive and pervasive contamination.
The EPA under the Reagan/Bush administration wasn't exactly a progressive organisation. In fact, amongst the crimes of Reagan and Bush which will go down in history are their emasculation of Federal regulatory apparatus, with the appointment of chiefs and heads of Federal agencies hostile to the legislative mandates.
The Dellaney Amendment was a 1958 law, an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which basically says, "Thou shalt not add any level of carcinogenic pesticides to the foodstuffs". This was an important law because it recognised that we don't know any way of stating safe levels of carcinogens; and it also insulated the Federal agencies EPA and FDA from political pressures from the chemical industry etc. But in 1988, under the Bush administration, the EPA - illegally, in our view - revoked the Dellaney Law and introduced the concept of "acceptable risk". This allows one pesticide on one particular food item if the risk for that is no more than one in a hundred thousand cancers per year. This is based on attempts to extrapolate from animal data. There are problems in that these numbers are highly relaxed in terms of protecting the public. The EPA permissible level translates nationally to 30-40 extra cancer deaths per year.
However, if you take the more realistic position that we eat many food items in a meal, and every one might be contaminated by 5 to 10 to 15 different pesticides, then according to the Reagan/Bush data, the figures for aggregate risk come to about 50-60,000 extra cancer deaths a year.
Among many other lines of evidence, one that relates to dogs is quite interesting. Dog owners who have had their lawns treated with a chemical will find that their dogs will die, at a six times greater rate than others, of a variety of problems, particularly Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Evidence? Studies? Sources?
I see none of the above. I bet this is from a wacknut website.
-
Food
Additional lines of evidence come from what we call "risk assessments" of dietary contaminants. We know that foodstuffs are contaminated with a very wide range of carcinogenic pesticides. Very limited data are available in this country, but according to the last data from the Ministry of Health and MAF, celery has in the region of 17 pesticide residues, about 10 of which are carcinogenic, and an apple may have as many as 5-10 carcinogenic pesticides, so you're dealing with food which has massive and pervasive contamination.
The EPA under the Reagan/Bush administration wasn't exactly a progressive organisation. In fact, amongst the crimes of Reagan and Bush which will go down in history are their emasculation of Federal regulatory apparatus, with the appointment of chiefs and heads of Federal agencies hostile to the legislative mandates.
The Dellaney Amendment was a 1958 law, an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which basically says, "Thou shalt not add any level of carcinogenic pesticides to the foodstuffs". This was an important law because it recognised that we don't know any way of stating safe levels of carcinogens; and it also insulated the Federal agencies EPA and FDA from political pressures from the chemical industry etc. But in 1988, under the Bush administration, the EPA - illegally, in our view - revoked the Dellaney Law and introduced the concept of "acceptable risk". This allows one pesticide on one particular food item if the risk for that is no more than one in a hundred thousand cancers per year. This is based on attempts to extrapolate from animal data. There are problems in that these numbers are highly relaxed in terms of protecting the public. The EPA permissible level translates nationally to 30-40 extra cancer deaths per year.
However, if you take the more realistic position that we eat many food items in a meal, and every one might be contaminated by 5 to 10 to 15 different pesticides, then according to the Reagan/Bush data, the figures for aggregate risk come to about 50-60,000 extra cancer deaths a year.
Among many other lines of evidence, one that relates to dogs is quite interesting. Dog owners who have had their lawns treated with a chemical will find that their dogs will die, at a six times greater rate than others, of a variety of problems, particularly Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
I was correct.
Total Wacknut, Wackjob Website. You pulled total nonsense.
http://www.converge.org.nz/pirm/index.htm#Vital%20Signs
-
Food
Additional lines of evidence come from what we call "risk assessments" of dietary contaminants. We know that foodstuffs are contaminated with a very wide range of carcinogenic pesticides. Very limited data are available in this country, but according to the last data from the Ministry of Health and MAF, celery has in the region of 17 pesticide residues, about 10 of which are carcinogenic, and an apple may have as many as 5-10 carcinogenic pesticides, so you're dealing with food which has massive and pervasive contamination.
The EPA under the Reagan/Bush administration wasn't exactly a progressive organisation. In fact, amongst the crimes of Reagan and Bush which will go down in history are their emasculation of Federal regulatory apparatus, with the appointment of chiefs and heads of Federal agencies hostile to the legislative mandates.
The Dellaney Amendment was a 1958 law, an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which basically says, "Thou shalt not add any level of carcinogenic pesticides to the foodstuffs". This was an important law because it recognised that we don't know any way of stating safe levels of carcinogens; and it also insulated the Federal agencies EPA and FDA from political pressures from the chemical industry etc. But in 1988, under the Bush administration, the EPA - illegally, in our view - revoked the Dellaney Law and introduced the concept of "acceptable risk". This allows one pesticide on one particular food item if the risk for that is no more than one in a hundred thousand cancers per year. This is based on attempts to extrapolate from animal data. There are problems in that these numbers are highly relaxed in terms of protecting the public. The EPA permissible level translates nationally to 30-40 extra cancer deaths per year.
However, if you take the more realistic position that we eat many food items in a meal, and every one might be contaminated by 5 to 10 to 15 different pesticides, then according to the Reagan/Bush data, the figures for aggregate risk come to about 50-60,000 extra cancer deaths a year.
Among many other lines of evidence, one that relates to dogs is quite interesting. Dog owners who have had their lawns treated with a chemical will find that their dogs will die, at a six times greater rate than others, of a variety of problems, particularly Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
LOL on the website you found this from:
Index arranged by George Porter and Robert Cruickshank.
Copyright © 1997 PIRM. All rights reserved.
Revised: August 28, 1997.
Visitors since
September 1997: 9
-
Here is a real site with info: The American Cancer Society
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_3_2X_Common_Questions_About_Diet_and_Cancer.asp
Common Questions About Diet and Cancer
Developed by the American Cancer Society 2006 Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee and approved by the American Cancer Society National Board of Directors on May 19, 2006.
This section is taken from the Complete Guide—Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention.
Because people are interested in the relationship that specific foods, nutrients, or lifestyle factors have to specific cancers, research on health behaviors and cancer risk is often reported on the news. No one study, however, provides the last word on any subject, and single news reports may put too much emphasis on what appear to be contradictory or conflicting results. In brief news stories, reporters cannot always put new research findings in their proper context. Therefore, it is rarely, if ever, advisable to change diet or activity levels based on a single study or news report. The following questions and answers address common concerns about diet and physical activity in relation to cancer.
Alcohol
Does alcohol increase cancer risk?
Yes. Alcohol raises the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx (throat), larynx (voice box), esophagus, liver, and breast, and probably of the colon and rectum. People who drink alcohol should limit their intake to no more than 2 drinks per day for men and 1 drink per day for women. A drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits. The combination of alcohol and tobacco increases the risk of some cancers far more than the effect of either drinking or smoking alone. Regular intake of even a few drinks per week is linked to a higher of breast cancer in women, especially in women who do not get enough folate. Women at high risk of breast cancer may want to consider not drinking any alcohol.
Antioxidants
What are antioxidants, and what do they have to do with cancer?
The body seems to use certain nutrients in vegetables and fruits to protect against damage to tissues that happens constantly as a result of normal metabolism (oxidation). Because such damage is linked with increased cancer risk, the so-called antioxidant nutrients are thought to protect against cancer. Antioxidants include vitamin C, vitamin E, carotenoids, and many other phytochemicals (chemicals from plants). Studies suggest that people who eat more vegetables and fruits, which are rich sources of antioxidants, may have a lower risk for some types of cancer. Clinical studies of antioxidant supplements are currently under way but have not yet proven to reduce cancer risk from vitamin or mineral supplements (also see entries for: beta-carotene, lycopene, vitamin E, supplements). To reduce cancer risk, the best advice at present is to get your antioxidants through food sources, rather than supplements.
Aspartame
Does aspartame cause cancer?
Aspartame is a low-calorie artificial sweetener that is about 200 times sweeter than sugar. Current evidence does not show any link between aspartame use and increased cancer risk. People with the genetic disorder known as phenylketonuria should avoid foods and drinks that contain aspartame.
Beta-carotene
Does beta-carotene reduce cancer risk?
Because beta-carotene, an antioxidant chemically related to vitamin A, is found in vegetables and fruits, and because eating vegetables and fruits is linked with a reduced risk of cancer, it seemed to make sense that taking high doses of beta-carotene supplements might reduce cancer risk. But the results of 3 major clinical trials show this is not the case. In 2 studies in which people were given high doses of beta-carotene supplements in an attempt to prevent lung cancer and other cancers, the supplements were found to increase the risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers, and a third found neither benefit nor harm from them. Therefore, eating vegetables and fruits that contain beta-carotene may be helpful, but high-dose beta-carotene supplements should be avoided.
Bioengineered foods
What are bioengineered foods, and are they safe?
Bioengineered foods are made by adding genes from other plants or organisms to make a plant more resistant to pests and slow spoilage. Some genes improve flavor, nutrient composition, or make the food easier to transport. In theory, these added genes might create substances that could cause harmful reactions among sensitized or allergic individuals. But there is no evidence at this time that the substances found in bioengineered foods now on the market are harmful or that they would either increase or decrease cancer risk because of the added genes.
Calcium
Is calcium related to cancer?
Several studies have suggested that foods high in calcium might help reduce the risk for colorectal cancer, and that using calcium supplements modestly reduces the formation of colorectal adenomas (polyps). But there is also evidence that a high calcium intake, mainly through supplements, is linked with increased risk for prostate cancer, especially for prostate cancers that are more aggressive. In light of this, both men and women should try to get the recommended levels of calcium, mainly from food sources. Recommended intake levels of calcium are 1,000 mg/day for people ages 19 to 50 years and 1,200 mg/day for people older than 50. Dairy products are excellent sources of calcium, as are some leafy vegetables and greens. People who get much of their calcium from dairy products should select low-fat or non-fat choices to reduce their intake of saturated fat.
Cholesterol
Does cholesterol in the diet increase cancer risk?
Cholesterol in the diet comes only from foods with animal sources -- meat, dairy products, eggs, and animal fats such as butter or lard. Although some of these foods (for example, processed and red meats) are linked with higher risk of certain cancers, at this time there is little evidence that this increased risk is specifically related to cholesterol. Lowering blood cholesterol reduces heart disease risk, but there is no evidence that lowering blood cholesterol affects cancer risk.
Coffee
Does drinking coffee cause cancer?
Caffeine may worsen symptoms of fibrocystic breast lumps (a type of benign breast disease) in some women, but there is no evidence that it increases the risk of breast cancer or other types of cancer. The link between coffee and cancer of the pancreas, which got a lot of attention in the past, has not been confirmed by recent studies. There does not appear to be any link between coffee drinking and cancer risk.
Fat
Will eating less fat lower cancer risk?
There is little evidence that the total amount of fat a person eats affects cancer risk. But diets high in fat tend to be high in calories and may contribute to obesity, which in turn is linked with an increased risk of several types of cancer. There is evidence that certain types of fats, such as saturated fats, may increase cancer risk. There is little evidence that other types of fat (omega-3 fatty acids, found mainly in fish), monounsaturated fatty acids (found in olive and canola oils), or other polyunsaturated fats reduce cancer risk.
Fiber
What is dietary fiber, and can it prevent cancer?
Dietary fiber includes a wide variety of plant carbohydrates that humans cannot digest. Specific categories of fiber are "soluble" (like oat bran) or "insoluble" (like wheat bran and cellulose). Soluble fiber helps to reduce blood cholesterol, which lowers the risk of coronary heart disease. Good sources of fiber are beans, vegetables, whole grains, and fruits. Links between fiber and cancer risk are weak, but eating these foods is still recommended. These foods contain other nutrients that may help reduce cancer risk and have other health benefits.
Fish
Does eating fish protect against cancer?
Fish is a rich source of omega-3 fatty acids. Studies in animals have found that these fatty acids suppress cancer formation or slow down cancer growth, but there is limited evidence of a possible benefit in humans.
While eating fish rich in omega-3 fatty acids is linked with a reduced risk of heart disease, some types of fish (large predatory fish such as swordfish, tilefish, shark, and king mackerel) may contain high levels of mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and other environmental pollutants. Women who are pregnant, breast-feeding, or planning to become pregnant, and young children should not eat these fish. People should vary the types of fish they eat to reduce the chance of exposure to toxins.
Research has not yet shown whether taking omega-3 or fish oil supplements produces the same possible benefits as eating fish. .
Fluorides
Do fluorides cause cancer?
Extensive research has looked at the effects of fluorides given as dental treatments or added to toothpaste, public water supplies, or foods on cancer risk. Fluorides have not been found to increase cancer risk.
Folate
What is folate, and can it prevent cancer?
Folate is a B vitamin found in many vegetables, beans, fruits, whole grains, and fortified breakfast cereals. Since 1998, all grain products in the United States have been fortified with folate. Too little folate may increase the risk of cancers of the colon, rectum, and breast, especially in people who drink alcoholic beverages. Current evidence suggests that to reduce cancer risk, folate is best obtained by eating vegetables, fruits, and enriched grain products.
Food additives
Do food additives cause cancer?
Many substances are added to foods to preserve them and to enhance color, flavor, and texture. New additives must be cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before entering the food supply. Rigorous testing in animals to look for any effects on cancer is done as part of this process. Additives are usually present in very small quantities in food, and no convincing evidence has shown that any additive at these levels causes human cancers.
Garlic
Can garlic prevent cancer?
The health benefits of the allium compounds contained in garlic and other vegetables in the onion family have been publicized widely. Garlic is currently under study for its ability to reduce cancer risk. There is not enough evidence at this time to support a specific role for this vegetable in cancer prevention.
Genetics
If our genes determine cancer risk, how can diet help prevent cancer?
Damage to the genes that control cell growth can be either inherited or acquired during life. Certain types of mutations or genetic damage can increase the risk of cancer. Nutrients in the diet can protect DNA from being damaged. Physical activity, weight control, and diet might delay or prevent the development of cancer in people with an increased genetic risk for cancer. The interaction between diet and genetic factors is an important and complex topic, and a great deal of research is under way in this area.
Irradiated foods
Do irradiated foods cause cancer?
No. Radiation is used more often to kill harmful organisms on foods in order to extend their "shelf life." Radiation does not stay in the foods after treatment, and eating irradiated foods does not appear to increase cancer risk.
Lycopene
Will lycopene reduce cancer risk?
Lycopene is the red-orange carotene pigment found mainly in tomatoes and tomato-based foods and to a lesser extent in pink grapefruit and watermelon. Several studies have reported that intake of tomato products reduces the risk of some cancers, but whether lycopene is the nutrient responsible is uncertain. Even if lycopene in foods is linked with lower risk for cancer, it can't be concluded that high doses taken as supplements would be either more effective or safe.
Meat: cooking and preserving
Should I avoid processed meats?
Some studies have linked eating large amounts of processed meat to increased risk of colorectal and stomach cancers. This connection may or may not be due to nitrites, which are added to many luncheon meats, hams, and hot dogs to maintain color and to prevent bacterial growth. Eating processed meats and meats preserved by methods involving smoke or salt increases exposure to potential cancer-causing agents and should be reduced as much as possible.
How does cooking meat affect cancer risk?
Adequate cooking is required to kill harmful germs in meat. But some research suggests that frying, broiling, or grilling meats at very high temperatures forms chemicals that might increase cancer risk. Although these chemicals can damage DNA and cause cancer in animals, it is not clear how much they (as opposed to other substances in meat) may contribute to the increased colorectal cancer risk seen in people who eat large amounts of meat in some studies. Techniques such as braising, steaming, poaching, stewing, and microwaving meats produce fewer of these chemicals.
Obesity
Does being overweight increase cancer risk?
Yes. Being overweight or obese is linked with an increased risk of cancers of the breast (among women after menopause), colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, and possibly other sites as well. Although research on whether losing weight reduces cancer risk is limited, some research suggests that weight loss does reduce the risk of breast cancer. Because of other proven health benefits, people who are overweight are encouraged to lose weight. Avoiding excessive weight gain in adulthood is important not only to reduce cancer risk but also to reduce the risk of other chronic diseases.
Olive oil
Does olive oil affect cancer risk?
Intake of olive oil is linked with a reduced risk of heart disease, but is most likely neutral with respect to cancer risk. Although olive oil is a healthy alternative to butter and margarine, it is still a dense source of calories and should be used in moderation.
-
Organic foods
Are foods labeled "organic" more effective in lowering cancer risk?
The term organic is popularly used to designate plant foods grown without pesticides and genetic modifications. At this time, no research exists to demonstrate whether such foods are more effective in reducing cancer risk than are similar foods produced by other farming methods.
Pesticides and herbicides
Do pesticides in foods cause cancer?
Pesticides and herbicides can be toxic when used improperly in industrial, agricultural, or other occupational settings. Although vegetables and fruits sometimes contain low levels of these chemicals, overwhelming scientific evidence supports the overall health benefits and cancer-protective effects of eating vegetables and fruits. At present there is no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer, but fruits and vegetables should be washed thoroughly before eating.
Physical activity [/b]
Will increasing physical activity lower cancer risk?
Yes. People who engage in moderate to vigorous levels of physical activity are at a lower risk of developing colon and breast cancer than those who do not. Risk is lowered whether or not the activity affects the person's weight. Data for a direct effect on the risk of developing other cancers is more limited. Even so, obesity and being overweight have been linked to many types of cancer, and physical activity is a key factor in reaching or staying at a healthy body weight. In addition, physical activity has helpful effects against heart disease and diabetes.
Phytochemicals
What are phytochemicals, and do they reduce cancer risk?
The term phytochemicals refers to a wide variety of compounds made by plants. Some of these compounds protect plants against insects or perform other important functions. Some have either antioxidant or hormone-like actions both in plants and in the people who eat them. Because consuming vegetables and fruits reduces cancer risk, researchers are looking for specific compounds responsible for the helpful effects. At this time, no evidence has shown that phytochemicals taken as supplements are as good for you as the vegetables, fruits, beans, and grains from which they are extracted.
Saccharin
Does saccharin cause cancer?
No. In rats, high doses of the artificial sweetener saccharin can cause bladder stones to form that can lead to bladder cancer. But saccharin does not cause bladder stones to form in humans. Saccharin has been removed from the list of established human carcinogens by the US National Toxicology Program.
Salt
Do high levels of salt in the diet increase cancer risk?
Studies in other countries link diets that contain large amounts of foods preserved by salting and pickling with an increased risk of stomach, nasopharyngeal, and throat cancer. No evidence suggests that moderate levels of salt used in cooking or in flavoring foods affect cancer risk.
Selenium
What is selenium, and can it reduce cancer risk?
Selenium is a mineral that contributes to the body's antioxidant defense mechanisms. Animal studies suggest that selenium protects against cancer. One study has shown that selenium supplements might reduce the risk of lung, colon, and prostate cancer in humans. But repeated and well-controlled studies are needed to confirm whether selenium is helpful in preventing these cancers. High-dose selenium supplements are not recommended, as there is only a narrow margin between safe and toxic doses. The maximum dose in a supplement should not exceed 200 micrograms (this is 2/10th of a milligram) per day.
Soy products
Can soy-based foods reduce cancer risk?
Soy-derived foods are an excellent source of protein and a good alternative to meat. Soy contains several phytochemicals, some of which have weak estrogen activity and appear to protect against hormone-dependent cancers in animal studies. At this time there is little data showing that soy supplements can help reduce cancer risk. High doses of soy could possibly increase the risk of estrogen-responsive cancers, such as breast or endometrial cancer.
Women with breast cancer should take in only moderate amounts of soy foods as part of a healthy, plant-based diet. They should not ingest very high levels of soy in their diet or take concentrated sources of soy such as soy-containing pills or powders, or supplements containing high amounts of isoflavones.
Sugar
Does sugar increase cancer risk?
Sugar increases calorie intake without providing any of the nutrients that reduce cancer risk. By promoting obesity and elevating insulin levels, high sugar intake may indirectly increase cancer risk. White (refined) sugar is no different from brown (unrefined) sugar or honey with regard to their effects on body weight or insulin. Limiting foods such as cakes, candy, cookies, sweetened cereals, and high-sugar beverages such as soda can help reduce sugar intake.
Supplements
Can nutritional supplements lower cancer risk?
There is strong evidence that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and other plant-based foods may reduce the risk of cancer. But there is no proof at this time that supplements can reduce cancer risk. Some high-dose supplements may actually increase cancer risk.
Can I get the nutritional effects of vegetables and fruits in a pill?
No. Many healthful compounds are found in vegetables and fruits, and these compounds most likely work in together to produce their helpful effects. There are also likely to be important compounds in whole foods that are not included in supplements, even though these compounds have not been identified. The small amount of dried powder in the pills that are sold as being equivalent to vegetables and fruits often contains only a small fraction of the levels contained in the whole foods.
Food is the best source of vitamins and minerals. Supplements, however, may be helpful for some people, such as pregnant women, women of childbearing age, and people whose dietary intakes are restricted by allergies, food intolerances, or other problems. If a supplement is taken, the best choice is a balanced multivitamin/mineral supplement containing no more than 100% of the "Daily Value" of most nutrients.
Tea
Can drinking tea reduce cancer risk?
Some researchers have suggested that tea might protect against cancer because of its antioxidant content. In animal studies, some teas (including green tea) have been shown to reduce cancer risk, but findings from human population studies are mixed. At this time, tea has not been proven to reduce cancer risk in humans.
Trans-saturated fats
Do trans-saturated fats increase cancer risk?
Trans-saturated fats are made when oils such as margarines or shortenings are hydrogenated to make them solid at room temperature. Recent evidence shows that trans-fats raise blood cholesterol levels. Their relationship to cancer risk has not been determined, but people are advised to eat as few trans-fats as possible.
Vegetables and fruits
Will eating vegetables and fruits lower cancer risk?
In most of the studies looking at large groups of people, eating more vegetables and fruits has been linked to a lower risk of lung, oral, esophageal, stomach, and colon cancer. Because we don't know which of the many compounds in these foods are most helpful, the best advice is to eat 5 or more servings of an assortment of colorful vegetables and fruits each day. (This means at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables when added together, for instance, 4 servings of vegetables plus 1 serving of fruit.
What are cruciferous vegetables, and are they important in cancer prevention?
Cruciferous vegetables belong to the cabbage family and include broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, and kale. These vegetables contain certain compounds thought to reduce the risk for colorectal cancer. The best evidence suggests that eating a wide variety of vegetables, including cruciferous and other vegetables, reduces cancer risk.
Is there a difference in nutritional values among fresh, frozen, and canned vegetables and fruits?
Yes, but they can all be good choices. Fresh foods are usually thought to have the most nutritional value. But frozen foods can often be more nutritious than fresh foods because they are often picked ripe and quickly frozen (whereas fresh foods may lose some of their nutrients in the time between harvesting and eating). Canning is more likely to reduce the heat-sensitive and water-soluble nutrients because of the high heat that must be used. Be aware that some fruits are packed in heavy syrup, and some canned vegetables are high in sodium (salt). Choose vegetables and fruits in a variety of forms, and pay attention to the label information.
Does cooking affect the nutritional value of vegetables?
Boiling vegetables, especially for long periods, can leach out their content of water-soluble (B and C) vitamins. Microwaving and steaming are the best ways to preserve these nutrients in vegetables.
Should I be juicing my vegetables and fruits?
Juicing can add variety to the diet and can be a good way to consume vegetables and fruits, especially if chewing or swallowing is a problem. Juicing also helps the body absorb of some of the nutrients in vegetables and fruits. But juices may be less filling than whole vegetables and fruits and often contain less fiber. Fruit juice in particular can account for quite a few calories if large amounts are drunk. Commercially juiced products should be 100% vegetable or fruit juices. They should also be pasteurized to kill harmful germs.
Vegetarian diets
Do vegetarian diets reduce cancer risk?
Vegetarian diets include many healthful features. They tend to be low in saturated fats and high in fiber, vitamins, and phytochemicals. It is not possible to conclude at this time, however, that a vegetarian diet has any special benefits for the prevention of cancer. Diets including lean meats in small to moderate amounts can also be healthful. Strict vegetarian diets that avoid all animal products, including milk and eggs, should be supplemented with vitamin B12, zinc, and iron (especially for children and women after menopause).
Vitamin A
Does vitamin A lower cancer risk?
Vitamin A (retinol) is obtained from foods in 2 ways: it can be pre-formed from animal food sources (retinol) and made from beta-carotene in plant-based foods. Vitamin A is needed to maintain healthy tissues. Vitamin A supplements, whether in the form of beta-carotene or retinol, have not been shown to lower cancer risk, and high-dose supplements may, in fact, increase the risk for lung cancer in current and former smokers. And retinol can cause serious p roblems if too much is taken.
Vitamin C
Does vitamin C lower cancer risk?
Vitamin C is found in many vegetables and fruits, especially oranges, grapefruits, and peppers. Many studies have linked intake of foods rich in vitamin C to a reduced risk for cancer. But the few studies in which vitamin C has been given as a supplement have not shown a reduced risk for cancer.
Vitamin D
Does vitamin D lower cancer risk?
There is a growing body of evidence from studies that observie large groups of people (not yet tested in clinical trials) that vitamin D may have helpful effects on some types of cancer, including cancers of the colon, prostate, and breast. Vitamin D is obtained through skin exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation and through diet, particularly products fortified with vitamin D such as milk and cereals, and supplements. But many Americans do not get enough vitamin D.
The current national recommended levels of intake of vitamin D (200 to 600 IU per day) may not be enough to meet needs, especially among those with little sun exposure, the elderly, people with dark skin, and breastfed babies who only take in breast milk. More research is needed to define the best levels of intake and blood levels of vitamin D for cancer risk reduction, but recommended intake is likely to fall between 200 and 2,000 IU, depending on age and other factors. To reduce the health risks linked with UV radiation exposure while getting the most potential benefit from vitamin D, a balanced diet, supplementation, and limiting sun exposure to small amounts are the preferred methods of obtaining vitamin D.
Vitamin E
Does vitamin E lower cancer risk?
Alpha-tocopherol is the most active form of vitamin E and is a powerful antioxidant. In one study, male smokers who took alpha-tocopherol had a lower risk of prostate cancer compared with those who took a placebo. But several other studies have not found the same link. While studies now under way will help clarify this, the promise of alpha-tocopherol for reducing cancer risk appears to be dimming.
Water and other fluids
How much water and other fluids should I drink?
Drinking water and other liquids may reduce the risk of bladder cancer, as water dilutes the concentration of cancer-causing agents in the urine and shortens the time in which they are in contact with the bladder lining. Drinking at least 8 cups of liquid a day is usually recommended, and some studies show that even more may be helpful.
-
I think the American Cancer Society is a great site to dispell your little myths. What say you?
-
Swedish Meatball is going to be upset when he reads the evidence that the American Cancer Society has compounded together.
-
humans are too fucking stupid, people will pay a extra for the perception of eating and being heathier
the best example is bottled water..which in most cases is the same of the munical water aka tap water..yet people think that it is better for you.
-
humans are too fucking stupid, people will pay a extra for the perception of eating and being heathier
the best example is bottled water..which in most cases is the same of the munical water aka tap water..yet people think that it is better for you.
I drink San Pellegrino pinkie out nugga!
-
I drink San Pellegrino pinkie out nugga!
I was watching that program "man vs the wild"...the dude drank his own piss..he said you are trained that drinking your piss is a last resort against death from dehyradation..
(http://www.vagabondish.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/bear-grylls.jpg)
-
I was watching that program "man vs the wild"...the dude drank his own piss..he said you are trained that drinking your piss is a last resort against death from dehyradation..
(http://www.vagabondish.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/bear-grylls.jpg)
as a modern man I would never rely on piss. I'd just stick to my cities and jump of a building when the shit goes down on 12/23/08
-
so basically like tobacco you will wait until something is proven in vitro? ::)
30 yrs from now when all the current chemicals are outlawed and you are going through your rounds of chemo , will you look back on how foolish you were?
sometimes a little common sense goes a long way ;)
-
so basically like tobacco you will wait until something is proven in vitro? ::)
30 yrs from now when all the current chemicals are outlawed and you are going through your rounds of chemo , will you look back on how foolish you were?
For a guy with a name like "Slayer" you sure are a vagina about your food.
-
so basically like tobacco you will wait until something is proven in vitro? ::)
30 yrs from now when all the current chemicals are outlawed and you are going through your rounds of chemo , will you look back on how foolish you were?
sometimes a little common sense goes a long way ;)
That argument doesn`t make any kind of sense at all since not only was there little to no Federal regulations back then, there simply wasn`t the the technology for accurate diagnostics and prognostication. Technology has evolved rapidly. We aren`t using 1960 technology or methodology and we aren`t using 1970s guidelines.
So you are going against all Scienitific evidendence here? There is a broad consensus you know.
To what end are you basing your rebellion and rejection on? How is Tobacco related to food?
-
True adonis ,
You actually think pesticides are not slowly building up and harming your body over time?
It seems like pesticides already have shorted some of your brainwaves...
Wisconsin Farmers Skip Protective Gear When Using Pesticides
Most farmers ignore warning labels and expose themselves to toxic pesticides wearing little or no protective gear, according to a Wisconsin-based study of compliance with federal guidelines conducted by the Medical College of Wisconsin Department of Family and Community Medicine and Injury Research Center and the Occupational Health Program at Harvard’s School of Public Health.
The study found, for example, that among the three most common pesticides used (dicamba, atrazine, and cyanazine), fewer than one in ten farmers used all of the required protective gear (8.8%, 8.6%, and 2.5% respectively). In some instances, nearly six out of every ten farmers used no protective gear at all (56.9%, 38.6%, and 47.5% respectively).
“Pesticides include herbicides that are directed at plants and insecticides that are directed at insects,” said study co-author Peter M. Layde, MD, MS, Medical College Professor of Family and Community Medicine. “People are actually fairly similar to insects in many respects, as far as our physiology goes, so insecticides have some acute effects.”
“The things that we use to try to fight insects tend to be neurotoxins that affect the nervous system. Acute exposure to high doses of these can cause serious problems, things like nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, and in extreme cases it can result in death because of blockage of the nervous system.” The study noted the growing body of evidence that chronic pesticide exposure is also associated with certain cancers.
Low Rates of Compliance “Shocking”
Researchers interviewed 220 randomly selected dairy farmers from six counties in south central Wisconsin one week after they applied any of 15 chemical pesticides that can be absorbed through the skin, inhaled or ingested.
In general terms, the study showed that hardly any farmers used all of the gloves, eyewear, coveralls, respirators or boots to protect them from any particular pesticide, and that compliance with warning label recommendations did not rise along with the toxicity of the pesticide.
“This study was one that was shocking,” said Dr. Layde. “The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) requires labels detailing how much protective equipment is needed for different products based on how harmful they are. The more dangerous the pesticide the more protective equipment you have to use. For all of the pesticides that we evaluated, these farmers frequently did not make use of any protective equipment and when they did it was certainly not all that was required by the label.”
“This ranged across the board from some of the relatively innocuous pesticides, although none of them are totally innocuous and they all require wearing some protective equipment,” Dr. Layde said. “There are one or two pesticides that are considered relatively safe and don’t require use of any protective equipment, but they weren’t included in the study.”
Under EPA guidelines, the use of restricted pesticides is limited to persons who successfully complete a state-administered certification course and pass a written exam. But as the study notes, there is no system in place to monitor compliance or conduct site visits so it is up to the individual to safely handle pesticides and use appropriate protective gear.
Farmers Might Not Realize Extent of Health Threat
“The training that these people got evidently wasn’t effective at motivating them to wear the protective equipment,” said Dr. Layde. “That’s part of the problem. Another part of it is that farmers are very busy people and taking these precautions takes a little bit of time. Farmers tend to be kind of rugged individualists and they sometimes feel that they’re wiser than government regulators who are going to put these restrictions on them. And sometimes they feel that none of their friends do it. We found that the perception of what peers are doing is a very important factor in determining farmers’ behavior.”
Opinions about using protective equipment when applying pesticides are often “formed at the checkout counter at the feed store,” according to Dr. Layde. “Farmers will ask ‘do you use the protective equipment when you’re applying atrazine?’ and they’ll hear back, ‘nah, who has time to do all that?’”
“The acute intoxication from pesticides is something farmers can relate to,” said Dr. Layde. “They tend to try to avoid those types of exposures. But the longer-term delayed consequences of things like cancer are a different story. In general people pay more attention to immediate risks than they do to delayed risks. The whole literature about risk perception and how it influences people’s behavior applies to everything from seat belt use to pesticide application.”
Dr. Layde said that one effective way to increase the use of protective gear is to emphasize the potential impact of pesticide exposure on family members. “Concerns about birth defects get people’s attention,” he said. “Farmers themselves figure, well, I’m tough and it’s not going to affect me, but you can sometimes motivate them by explaining that the risks aren’t just to farmers themselves.”
In addition to better training and more compelling ways to explain the health consequences to farmers, said Dr. Layde, allowing only professionals using the right gear to apply pesticides would minimize exposure risks. That approach might not be well received by farmers, he added, as it would increase their costs and take an important task out of their hands.
Dan Ullrich
HealthLink Contributing Writer
For more information on this topic, see the HealthLink articles Take Precautions When Using Pesticides and Nasal Discomfort Can Be Caused By Irritants on the Job.
Article Created: 2003-09-09
Article Updated: 2003-09-09
MCW Health News presents up-to-date information on patient care and medical research by the physicians of the Medical College of Wisconsin.
Home | About HealthLink | Medical College of Wisconsin | ClinicLink
Contact Information | Site Map | Disclaimer | Privacy | Copyright Notice
© 2003-2008 Medical College of Wisconsin
-
True adonis ,
You actually think pesticides are not slowly building up and harming your body over time?
It seems like pesticides already have shorted some of your brainwaves...
Wisconsin Farmers Skip Protective Gear When Using Pesticides
Most farmers ignore warning labels and expose themselves to toxic pesticides wearing little or no protective gear, according to a Wisconsin-based study of compliance with federal guidelines conducted by the Medical College of Wisconsin Department of Family and Community Medicine and Injury Research Center and the Occupational Health Program at Harvard’s School of Public Health.
The study found, for example, that among the three most common pesticides used (dicamba, atrazine, and cyanazine), fewer than one in ten farmers used all of the required protective gear (8.8%, 8.6%, and 2.5% respectively). In some instances, nearly six out of every ten farmers used no protective gear at all (56.9%, 38.6%, and 47.5% respectively).
“Pesticides include herbicides that are directed at plants and insecticides that are directed at insects,” said study co-author Peter M. Layde, MD, MS, Medical College Professor of Family and Community Medicine. “People are actually fairly similar to insects in many respects, as far as our physiology goes, so insecticides have some acute effects.”
“The things that we use to try to fight insects tend to be neurotoxins that affect the nervous system. Acute exposure to high doses of these can cause serious problems, things like nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, and in extreme cases it can result in death because of blockage of the nervous system.” The study noted the growing body of evidence that chronic pesticide exposure is also associated with certain cancers.
Low Rates of Compliance “Shocking”
Researchers interviewed 220 randomly selected dairy farmers from six counties in south central Wisconsin one week after they applied any of 15 chemical pesticides that can be absorbed through the skin, inhaled or ingested.
In general terms, the study showed that hardly any farmers used all of the gloves, eyewear, coveralls, respirators or boots to protect them from any particular pesticide, and that compliance with warning label recommendations did not rise along with the toxicity of the pesticide.
“This study was one that was shocking,” said Dr. Layde. “The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) requires labels detailing how much protective equipment is needed for different products based on how harmful they are. The more dangerous the pesticide the more protective equipment you have to use. For all of the pesticides that we evaluated, these farmers frequently did not make use of any protective equipment and when they did it was certainly not all that was required by the label.”
“This ranged across the board from some of the relatively innocuous pesticides, although none of them are totally innocuous and they all require wearing some protective equipment,” Dr. Layde said. “There are one or two pesticides that are considered relatively safe and don’t require use of any protective equipment, but they weren’t included in the study.”
Under EPA guidelines, the use of restricted pesticides is limited to persons who successfully complete a state-administered certification course and pass a written exam. But as the study notes, there is no system in place to monitor compliance or conduct site visits so it is up to the individual to safely handle pesticides and use appropriate protective gear.
Farmers Might Not Realize Extent of Health Threat
“The training that these people got evidently wasn’t effective at motivating them to wear the protective equipment,” said Dr. Layde. “That’s part of the problem. Another part of it is that farmers are very busy people and taking these precautions takes a little bit of time. Farmers tend to be kind of rugged individualists and they sometimes feel that they’re wiser than government regulators who are going to put these restrictions on them. And sometimes they feel that none of their friends do it. We found that the perception of what peers are doing is a very important factor in determining farmers’ behavior.”
Opinions about using protective equipment when applying pesticides are often “formed at the checkout counter at the feed store,” according to Dr. Layde. “Farmers will ask ‘do you use the protective equipment when you’re applying atrazine?’ and they’ll hear back, ‘nah, who has time to do all that?’”
“The acute intoxication from pesticides is something farmers can relate to,” said Dr. Layde. “They tend to try to avoid those types of exposures. But the longer-term delayed consequences of things like cancer are a different story. In general people pay more attention to immediate risks than they do to delayed risks. The whole literature about risk perception and how it influences people’s behavior applies to everything from seat belt use to pesticide application.”
Dr. Layde said that one effective way to increase the use of protective gear is to emphasize the potential impact of pesticide exposure on family members. “Concerns about birth defects get people’s attention,” he said. “Farmers themselves figure, well, I’m tough and it’s not going to affect me, but you can sometimes motivate them by explaining that the risks aren’t just to farmers themselves.”
In addition to better training and more compelling ways to explain the health consequences to farmers, said Dr. Layde, allowing only professionals using the right gear to apply pesticides would minimize exposure risks. That approach might not be well received by farmers, he added, as it would increase their costs and take an important task out of their hands.
Dan Ullrich
HealthLink Contributing Writer
For more information on this topic, see the HealthLink articles Take Precautions When Using Pesticides and Nasal Discomfort Can Be Caused By Irritants on the Job.
Article Created: 2003-09-09
Article Updated: 2003-09-09
MCW Health News presents up-to-date information on patient care and medical research by the physicians of the Medical College of Wisconsin.
Home | About HealthLink | Medical College of Wisconsin | ClinicLink
Contact Information | Site Map | Disclaimer | Privacy | Copyright Notice
© 2003-2008 Medical College of Wisconsin
This article is the dumbest thing you have posted yet.
Ok so some farmers are not wearing protective gear when spraying crops. So what? The article also does not state any evidence of ill effects in doing so. Clearly the farmers who are doing so don`t feel too alarmed.
Do you think the average person is spraying Thousands of pounds of chemicals a day without protective gear? Do you think the average person is around that many pesticides a day?
This article is completely useless and meaningless.
-
That argument doesn`t make any kind of sense at all since not only was there little to no Federal regulations back then, there simply wasn`t the the technology for accurate diagnostics and prognostication. Technology has evolved rapidly. We aren`t using 1960 technology or methodology and we aren`t using 1970s guidelines.
and you think this is the end all of technology? 50 yrs from now a little adonis will be saying the same thing about the yr 2008 when daddy adonis tried to say chemicals are fine on our produce!
technology was not there he just did not know!
sometimes common sense plays a part to get you through those 50 yrs when technology cant help you yet as in the case of tobbaco.
I am sure your the type of person that thinks pharmaceuticals are fine since they show no evidence of causing cancer ect... Only ather time makes corrections, but then it to late...
-
If anything, the fact that the farmers, who are around pesticides all day long, don`t care to put on protective gear on ought to tell you something. They aren`t dropping dead nor having any ill effects whatsoever yet are spraying thousands of lbs a week.
Pretty toxic stuff eh? hahhahhahah
-
and you think this is the end all of technology? 50 yrs from now a little adonis will be saying the same thing about the yr 2008 when daddy adonis tried to say chemicals are fine on our produce!
technology was not there he just did not know!
sometimes common sense plays a part to get you through those 50 yrs when technology cant help you yet as in the case of tobbaco.
Again,
Why are you going against all scientific evidence?
-
and you think this is the end all of technology? 50 yrs from now a little adonis will be saying the same thing about the yr 2008 when daddy adonis tried to say chemicals are fine on our produce!
technology was not there he just did not know!
sometimes common sense plays a part to get you through those 50 yrs when technology cant help you yet as in the case of tobbaco.
I am sure your the type of person that thinks pharmaceuticals are fine since they show no evidence of causing cancer ect... Only ather time makes corrections, but then it to late...
That is my whole point. Technology never stops. As it gets better and better, we are able to determine results much faster and with more accuracy.
-
;D
-
What is the general concensus on organic foods here? Do you like them? Think they are overpriced?
Do you buy into the whole concept that the organic industries try to promote?
What say y'all?
Ok, so why do you eat vegetables? Answer: because you want the fiber, beneficial phytochemicals and vitamins/minerals they contain. In other words, you eat vegetables because they make you healthy. So what is the point of eating something for health if it contains toxins designed to kill bugs that are even worse for your health than refined sugar, flour and artificial preservatives? You are basically shooting yourself in the foot and actually worsening your health by eating vegetables treated with pesticides. You will be healthier eating cheeseburgers and pizza than regular vegetables, I assure you. If you can't afford organic vegetables, then don't eat vegetables at all because it will only jeopardize your health rather than enhance it.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Read it if you like.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0P-4G24XJ5-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6cf512aaf1bdafc7d332c8a7d700cbb1
Taste, olfactory, and food texture processing in the brain, and the control of food intake
Edmund T. RollsCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, E-mail The Corresponding Author
University of Oxford, Department of Experimental Psychology, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, England, UK
Available online 28 April 2005.
Purchase the full-text article
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
Abstract
Complementary neurophysiological recordings in macaques and functional neuroimaging in humans show that the primary taste cortex in the rostral insula and adjoining frontal operculum provides separate and combined representations of the taste, temperature, and texture (including viscosity and fat texture) of food in the mouth independently of hunger and thus of reward value and pleasantness. One synapse on, in the orbitofrontal cortex, these sensory inputs are for some neurons combined by learning with olfactory and visual inputs. Different neurons respond to different combinations, providing a rich representation of the sensory properties of food. In the orbitofrontal cortex, feeding to satiety with one food decreases the responses of these neurons to that food, but not to other foods, showing that sensory-specific satiety is computed in the primate (including human) orbitofrontal cortex. Consistently, activation of parts of the human orbitofrontal cortex correlates with subjective ratings of the pleasantness of the taste and smell of food. Cognitive factors, such as a word label presented with an odour, influence the pleasantness of the odour, and the activation produced by the odour in the orbitofrontal cortex. These findings provide a basis for understanding how what is in the mouth is represented by independent information channels in the brain; how the information from these channels is combined; and how and where the reward and subjective affective value of food is represented and is influenced by satiety signals. Activation of these representations in the orbitofrontal cortex may provide the goal for eating, and understanding them helps to provide a basis for understanding appetite and its disorders.
Keywords: Sensory-specific satiety; Fat; Food texture; Taste; Olfaction; Temperature
Article Outline
1. Introduction
1.1. Taste processing in the primate brain
1.1.1. Pathways
1.1.2. The secondary taste cortex
1.1.3. Five prototypical tastes, including umami
1.1.4. The pleasantness of the taste of food
1.1.5. Sensory-specific satiety
1.2. The representation of flavour: convergence of olfactory and taste inputs
1.3. The rules underlying the formation of olfactory representations in the primate cortex
1.4. The representation of the pleasantness of odour in the brain: olfactory and visual sensory-specific satiety, their representation in the primate orbitofrontal cortex, and the role of sensory-specific satiety in appetite
1.5. The responses of orbitofrontal cortex taste and olfactory neurons to the sight, texture, and temperature of food
1.6. The mouth feel of fat
1.7. Imaging studies in humans
1.7.1. Taste
1.7.2. Odour
1.7.3. Olfactory–taste convergence to represent flavour
1.7.4. Oral viscosity and fat texture
1.8. Cognitive effects on representations of food
1.9. Emotion
2. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
Thumbnail image
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the taste and olfactory pathways in primates showing how they converge with each other and with visual pathways. The gate functions shown refer to the finding that the responses of taste neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex and the lateral hypothalamus are modulated by hunger. VPMpc—ventralposteromedial thalamic nucleus; V1, V2, V4—visual cortical areas.
View Within Article
Sorry for the long pause, I went to bed and my best friend got married yesterday so I was out all day and night. I think you would find that if you, instead of just reading the abstract, read the whole article(assuming you subsrcibed to this journal) that the only sentence that might be misunderstood to disagree with my standpoint-In the orbitofrontal cortex, feeding to satiety with one food decreases the responses of these neurons to that food, but not to other foods, showing that sensory-specific satiety is computed in the primate (including human) orbitofrontal cortex-actually doesn't have anything to do with my standpoint because it is based in the time frame of one meal-eating to satiety afterall. Of course, one's taste for certain foods decreases in the time frame of one meal, but over time, as one consistantly eats the same foods-one's taste for those foods increases and one develops greater sensitivity to the subtleties of that food. This is exactly what happens with wine connoiseurs and the abstract says as much-that sense is specific to stimulus.
I'll read your other posts later and respond to them.
-
Organic foods
Are foods labeled "organic" more effective in lowering cancer risk?
The term organic is popularly used to designate plant foods grown without pesticides and genetic modifications. At this time, no research exists to demonstrate whether such foods are more effective in reducing cancer risk than are similar foods produced by other farming methods.
Pesticides and herbicides
Do pesticides in foods cause cancer?
Pesticides and herbicides can be toxic when used improperly in industrial, agricultural, or other occupational settings. Although vegetables and fruits sometimes contain low levels of these chemicals, overwhelming scientific evidence supports the overall health benefits and cancer-protective effects of eating vegetables and fruits. At present there is no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer, but fruits and vegetables should be washed thoroughly before eating.
Physical activity [/b]
Will increasing physical activity lower cancer risk?
Yes. People who engage in moderate to vigorous levels of physical activity are at a lower risk of developing colon and breast cancer than those who do not. Risk is lowered whether or not the activity affects the person's weight. Data for a direct effect on the risk of developing other cancers is more limited. Even so, obesity and being overweight have been linked to many types of cancer, and physical activity is a key factor in reaching or staying at a healthy body weight. In addition, physical activity has helpful effects against heart disease and diabetes.
Phytochemicals
What are phytochemicals, and do they reduce cancer risk?
The term phytochemicals refers to a wide variety of compounds made by plants. Some of these compounds protect plants against insects or perform other important functions. Some have either antioxidant or hormone-like actions both in plants and in the people who eat them. Because consuming vegetables and fruits reduces cancer risk, researchers are looking for specific compounds responsible for the helpful effects. At this time, no evidence has shown that phytochemicals taken as supplements are as good for you as the vegetables, fruits, beans, and grains from which they are extracted.
Saccharin
Does saccharin cause cancer?
No. In rats, high doses of the artificial sweetener saccharin can cause bladder stones to form that can lead to bladder cancer. But saccharin does not cause bladder stones to form in humans. Saccharin has been removed from the list of established human carcinogens by the US National Toxicology Program.
Salt
Do high levels of salt in the diet increase cancer risk?
Studies in other countries link diets that contain large amounts of foods preserved by salting and pickling with an increased risk of stomach, nasopharyngeal, and throat cancer. No evidence suggests that moderate levels of salt used in cooking or in flavoring foods affect cancer risk.
Selenium
What is selenium, and can it reduce cancer risk?
Selenium is a mineral that contributes to the body's antioxidant defense mechanisms. Animal studies suggest that selenium protects against cancer. One study has shown that selenium supplements might reduce the risk of lung, colon, and prostate cancer in humans. But repeated and well-controlled studies are needed to confirm whether selenium is helpful in preventing these cancers. High-dose selenium supplements are not recommended, as there is only a narrow margin between safe and toxic doses. The maximum dose in a supplement should not exceed 200 micrograms (this is 2/10th of a milligram) per day.
Soy products
Can soy-based foods reduce cancer risk?
Soy-derived foods are an excellent source of protein and a good alternative to meat. Soy contains several phytochemicals, some of which have weak estrogen activity and appear to protect against hormone-dependent cancers in animal studies. At this time there is little data showing that soy supplements can help reduce cancer risk. High doses of soy could possibly increase the risk of estrogen-responsive cancers, such as breast or endometrial cancer.
Women with breast cancer should take in only moderate amounts of soy foods as part of a healthy, plant-based diet. They should not ingest very high levels of soy in their diet or take concentrated sources of soy such as soy-containing pills or powders, or supplements containing high amounts of isoflavones.
Sugar
Does sugar increase cancer risk?
Sugar increases calorie intake without providing any of the nutrients that reduce cancer risk. By promoting obesity and elevating insulin levels, high sugar intake may indirectly increase cancer risk. White (refined) sugar is no different from brown (unrefined) sugar or honey with regard to their effects on body weight or insulin. Limiting foods such as cakes, candy, cookies, sweetened cereals, and high-sugar beverages such as soda can help reduce sugar intake.
Supplements
Can nutritional supplements lower cancer risk?
There is strong evidence that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and other plant-based foods may reduce the risk of cancer. But there is no proof at this time that supplements can reduce cancer risk. Some high-dose supplements may actually increase cancer risk.
Can I get the nutritional effects of vegetables and fruits in a pill?
No. Many healthful compounds are found in vegetables and fruits, and these compounds most likely work in together to produce their helpful effects. There are also likely to be important compounds in whole foods that are not included in supplements, even though these compounds have not been identified. The small amount of dried powder in the pills that are sold as being equivalent to vegetables and fruits often contains only a small fraction of the levels contained in the whole foods.
Food is the best source of vitamins and minerals. Supplements, however, may be helpful for some people, such as pregnant women, women of childbearing age, and people whose dietary intakes are restricted by allergies, food intolerances, or other problems. If a supplement is taken, the best choice is a balanced multivitamin/mineral supplement containing no more than 100% of the "Daily Value" of most nutrients.
Tea
Can drinking tea reduce cancer risk?
Some researchers have suggested that tea might protect against cancer because of its antioxidant content. In animal studies, some teas (including green tea) have been shown to reduce cancer risk, but findings from human population studies are mixed. At this time, tea has not been proven to reduce cancer risk in humans.
Trans-saturated fats
Do trans-saturated fats increase cancer risk?
Trans-saturated fats are made when oils such as margarines or shortenings are hydrogenated to make them solid at room temperature. Recent evidence shows that trans-fats raise blood cholesterol levels. Their relationship to cancer risk has not been determined, but people are advised to eat as few trans-fats as possible.
Vegetables and fruits
Will eating vegetables and fruits lower cancer risk?
In most of the studies looking at large groups of people, eating more vegetables and fruits has been linked to a lower risk of lung, oral, esophageal, stomach, and colon cancer. Because we don't know which of the many compounds in these foods are most helpful, the best advice is to eat 5 or more servings of an assortment of colorful vegetables and fruits each day. (This means at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables when added together, for instance, 4 servings of vegetables plus 1 serving of fruit.
What are cruciferous vegetables, and are they important in cancer prevention?
Cruciferous vegetables belong to the cabbage family and include broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, and kale. These vegetables contain certain compounds thought to reduce the risk for colorectal cancer. The best evidence suggests that eating a wide variety of vegetables, including cruciferous and other vegetables, reduces cancer risk.
Is there a difference in nutritional values among fresh, frozen, and canned vegetables and fruits?
Yes, but they can all be good choices. Fresh foods are usually thought to have the most nutritional value. But frozen foods can often be more nutritious than fresh foods because they are often picked ripe and quickly frozen (whereas fresh foods may lose some of their nutrients in the time between harvesting and eating). Canning is more likely to reduce the heat-sensitive and water-soluble nutrients because of the high heat that must be used. Be aware that some fruits are packed in heavy syrup, and some canned vegetables are high in sodium (salt). Choose vegetables and fruits in a variety of forms, and pay attention to the label information.
Does cooking affect the nutritional value of vegetables?
Boiling vegetables, especially for long periods, can leach out their content of water-soluble (B and C) vitamins. Microwaving and steaming are the best ways to preserve these nutrients in vegetables.
Should I be juicing my vegetables and fruits?
Juicing can add variety to the diet and can be a good way to consume vegetables and fruits, especially if chewing or swallowing is a problem. Juicing also helps the body absorb of some of the nutrients in vegetables and fruits. But juices may be less filling than whole vegetables and fruits and often contain less fiber. Fruit juice in particular can account for quite a few calories if large amounts are drunk. Commercially juiced products should be 100% vegetable or fruit juices. They should also be pasteurized to kill harmful germs.
Vegetarian diets
Do vegetarian diets reduce cancer risk?
Vegetarian diets include many healthful features. They tend to be low in saturated fats and high in fiber, vitamins, and phytochemicals. It is not possible to conclude at this time, however, that a vegetarian diet has any special benefits for the prevention of cancer. Diets including lean meats in small to moderate amounts can also be healthful. Strict vegetarian diets that avoid all animal products, including milk and eggs, should be supplemented with vitamin B12, zinc, and iron (especially for children and women after menopause).
Vitamin A
Does vitamin A lower cancer risk?
Vitamin A (retinol) is obtained from foods in 2 ways: it can be pre-formed from animal food sources (retinol) and made from beta-carotene in plant-based foods. Vitamin A is needed to maintain healthy tissues. Vitamin A supplements, whether in the form of beta-carotene or retinol, have not been shown to lower cancer risk, and high-dose supplements may, in fact, increase the risk for lung cancer in current and former smokers. And retinol can cause serious p roblems if too much is taken.
Vitamin C
Does vitamin C lower cancer risk?
Vitamin C is found in many vegetables and fruits, especially oranges, grapefruits, and peppers. Many studies have linked intake of foods rich in vitamin C to a reduced risk for cancer. But the few studies in which vitamin C has been given as a supplement have not shown a reduced risk for cancer.
Vitamin D
Does vitamin D lower cancer risk?
There is a growing body of evidence from studies that observie large groups of people (not yet tested in clinical trials) that vitamin D may have helpful effects on some types of cancer, including cancers of the colon, prostate, and breast. Vitamin D is obtained through skin exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation and through diet, particularly products fortified with vitamin D such as milk and cereals, and supplements. But many Americans do not get enough vitamin D.
The current national recommended levels of intake of vitamin D (200 to 600 IU per day) may not be enough to meet needs, especially among those with little sun exposure, the elderly, people with dark skin, and breastfed babies who only take in breast milk. More research is needed to define the best levels of intake and blood levels of vitamin D for cancer risk reduction, but recommended intake is likely to fall between 200 and 2,000 IU, depending on age and other factors. To reduce the health risks linked with UV radiation exposure while getting the most potential benefit from vitamin D, a balanced diet, supplementation, and limiting sun exposure to small amounts are the preferred methods of obtaining vitamin D.
Vitamin E
Does vitamin E lower cancer risk?
Alpha-tocopherol is the most active form of vitamin E and is a powerful antioxidant. In one study, male smokers who took alpha-tocopherol had a lower risk of prostate cancer compared with those who took a placebo. But several other studies have not found the same link. While studies now under way will help clarify this, the promise of alpha-tocopherol for reducing cancer risk appears to be dimming.
Water and other fluids
How much water and other fluids should I drink?
Drinking water and other liquids may reduce the risk of bladder cancer, as water dilutes the concentration of cancer-causing agents in the urine and shortens the time in which they are in contact with the bladder lining. Drinking at least 8 cups of liquid a day is usually recommended, and some studies show that even more may be helpful.
I don't actually know why you posted this as it almost argues Slayer's point more than it does yours. It says that eating the fruits and vegetables outweighs and possible negative effect of the pesticide-it doesn't say the the pesticide isn't negative. It also says that at this point there isn't any evidence linking sustainable farming to lower cancer rates-but that's also essentially what Slayer said-in 50 yrs, there could be, and I'm assuming there will be, a mountain of evidence. Wide scale sustainable farming just came out in the last 7 yrs or so, long term studies haven't even had time to have been made and long term studies on unsustainable farming don't have any control group because everyone is in the same group!(the unsustainable one)-meaning they have nothing to compare.
But truthfully, you are going around touting science and kind of mocking and making fun of people with that as your high and mighty standard and I don't even think you have explored the whole gambit. Science is full of contradictions and researchers and doctors worldwide have drawn completely different conclusions on this very topic over and over again-that's why we have this topic. The American Cancer Society is drawing conclusions based on the body of evidence they've been supplied with from their approved researchers-this doesn't mean that others haven't come up with anything better. I am impressed though that they talked about the dangers of overcooking meats.
All of this is still off topic though, we are discussing whether or not we can taste the difference between organic and not. Several of us say we can, several say those people can't-and like I said, it's real presumptious to go around saying what other people can and can't do and, especially, sense. We are back at square one.
I'm going to be out today, so don't sit around waiting for responses.