Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Disgusted on March 02, 2014, 12:42:13 PM
-
Good or bad?
-
Bad. Rats at 3rd generation of eating this garbage were sterile. Not to mention the tumors from gmo corn which an overwhelming majority of processed crap is made from.
-
Good or bad?
Very bad.
-
Perfectly fine and advantageous as they will be more disease resistant, hence less pesticides will be used and also nutrient content can be made much higher. Shelf life can also be increased and the growing season can be extended as well as larger crop yield.
-
Perfectly fine and advantageous as they will be more disease resistant, hence less pesticides will be used and also nutrient content can be made much higher. Shelf life can also be increased and the growing season can be extended as well as larger crop yield.
so in other words.. bad !
-
so in other words.. bad !
???
No. Only a moron who chooses to believe myths, lies and not the science would think that.
-
???
No. Only a moron who chooses to believe myths, lies and not the science would think that.
No one is falling for your garbage anymore.
Use your instincts gentlemen. Do your research. GMO food/corn, sterility and tumors
-
This whole world will remain a puzzle unless we learn true history and true science (everything out there has been modified to suit an agenda).
GMO foods
The main characteristic of the DNA of any human species offshoot, or in our case as a hybrid specie, is that it adapts and changes according to it's environment.
So, if you wanna tweak with the DNA as in modifying it according to your own agenda, you need to control the outside and the inside of the person. The outside is a little easier to understand. The inside, is comprised of the mind and the food/drink as in literally and figuratively "inside". I will focus on the food.
The GMO are basically hybrid, GMO species of plants. The plants feed humans, insects and animals. The insects feed the animals and humans and the animals, plants and insects feed the humans.
Basically you modify the food/water source both by a long and complex hybridization process and by radionically imprinting it in order to modify the DNA.
The motives are complex and need a LOT of explanation that spans true history and a lot more things.
So, GMO foods are BAD for you because they are GMO with a purpose and obviously is not for your benefit. Everything public on this planet is an incredibly calculated and strategically placed lie.
The human DNA is designed to retain whatever it can use and flush the unusable. But ... they fuck with you in every single way you can imagine and in some ways you cannot imagine. From imprinting mind-patterns, to ELF and micro-wave bombardment, or just about any method to program and control the mind.
There is a war against your mind fought for millennia, and it is part of a sinister agenda. By whom and why? That is another story.
Nowadays it's getting harder and harder to find suitable foods for the human body. In bodybuilding we see the effect on the bodies .. the shitty foods and the shittier and shittier drugs and drug choices produce worse and worse looking bodies with a shorter shelf life.
People ,overall, look much worse and unhealthy than just a few short decades ago. Nothing's by accident.
Ignorance is our worst enemy.
-
This whole world will remain a puzzle unless we learn true history and true science (everything out there has been modified to suit an agenda).
GMO foods
The main characteristic of the DNA of any human species offshoot, or in our case as a hybrid specie, is that it adapts and changes according to it's environment.
So, if you wanna tweak with the DNA as in modifying it according to your own agenda, you need to control the outside and the inside of the person. The outside is a little easier to understand. The inside, is comprised of the mind and the food/drink as in literally and figuratively "inside". I will focus on the food.
The GMO are basically hybrid, GMO species of plants. The plants feed humans, insects and animals. The insects feed the animals and humans and the animals, plants and insects feed the humans.
Basically you modify the food/water source both by a long and complex hybridization process and by radionically imprinting it in order to modify the DNA.
The motives are complex and need a LOT of explanation that spans true history and a lot more things.
So, GMO foods are BAD for you because they are GMO with a purpose and obviously is not for your benefit. Everything public on this planet is an incredibly calculated and strategically placed lie.
The human DNA is designed to retain whatever it can use and flush the unusable. But ... they fuck with you in every single way you can imagine and in some ways you cannot imagine. From imprinting mind-patterns, to ELF and micro-wave bombardment, or just about any method to program and control the mind.
There is a war against your mind fought for millennia, and it is part of a sinister agenda. By whom and why? That is another story.
Nowadays it's getting harder and harder to find suitable foods for the human body. In bodybuilding we see the effect on the bodies .. the shitty foods and the shittier and shittier drugs and drug choices produce worse and worse looking bodies with a shorter shelf life.
People ,overall, look much worse and unhealthy than just a few short decades ago. Nothing's by accident.
Ignorance is our worst enemy.
???
-
I don't trust them, better safe than sorry...
Consider the environmental threat they pose :-X
-
This whole world will remain a puzzle unless we learn true history and true science (everything out there has been modified to suit an agenda).
GMO foods
The main characteristic of the DNA of any human species offshoot, or in our case as a hybrid specie, is that it adapts and changes according to it's environment.
So, if you wanna tweak with the DNA as in modifying it according to your own agenda, you need to control the outside and the inside of the person. The outside is a little easier to understand. The inside, is comprised of the mind and the food/drink as in literally and figuratively "inside". I will focus on the food.
The GMO are basically hybrid, GMO species of plants. The plants feed humans, insects and animals. The insects feed the animals and humans and the animals, plants and insects feed the humans.
Basically you modify the food/water source both by a long and complex hybridization process and by radionically imprinting it in order to modify the DNA.
The motives are complex and need a LOT of explanation that spans true history and a lot more things.
So, GMO foods are BAD for you because they are GMO with a purpose and obviously is not for your benefit. Everything public on this planet is an incredibly calculated and strategically placed lie.
The human DNA is designed to retain whatever it can use and flush the unusable. But ... they fuck with you in every single way you can imagine and in some ways you cannot imagine. From imprinting mind-patterns, to ELF and micro-wave bombardment, or just about any method to program and control the mind.
There is a war against your mind fought for millennia, and it is part of a sinister agenda. By whom and why? That is another story.
Nowadays it's getting harder and harder to find suitable foods for the human body. In bodybuilding we see the effect on the bodies .. the shitty foods and the shittier and shittier drugs and drug choices produce worse and worse looking bodies with a shorter shelf life.
People ,overall, look much worse and unhealthy than just a few short decades ago. Nothing's by accident.
Ignorance is our worst enemy.
Why dont they do something to you which stops you from knowing this?
If they are so clever that is.
-
Perfectly fine and advantageous as they will be more disease resistant, hence less pesticides will be used and also nutrient content can be made much higher. Shelf life can also be increased and the growing season can be extended as well as larger crop yield.
Actually, that is right on. As for the cancer thing, cancer rates have remained steady since GMOs were introduced into the food supply around 1997.
-
Good or bad?
Just another scare tactic.
-
Let me qualify by saying it's more bad than good but in reality it's just another scare tactic.
-
Every plant and animal consumed by humans has been genetically modified for generations.
-
Let me qualify by saying it's more bad than good but in reality it's just another scare tactic.
???
-
Every plant and animal consumed by humans has been genetically modified for generations.
Genetic modification by selective breeding and nature is a little bit different.
-
Genetic modification by selective breeding and nature is a little bit different.
Not by much. It's actually better because it's a faster process and can be controlled to a degree selective breeding can't be.
-
Not by much. It's actually better because it's a faster process and can be controlled to a degree selective breeding can't be.
Even if they're doing things to crops that could never ever happen in nature? ???
-
Even if they're doing things to crops that could never ever happen in nature? ???
That's what happens with selective breeding.
-
That's what happens with selective breeding.
I don't think you could naturally breed a crop to survive being completely saturated with Roundup pesticide in a million years.
-
I don't think you could naturally breed a crop to survive being completely saturated with Roundup pesticide in a million years.
Sure that's true. However, I don't believe genetic modification is inherently harmful or unethical.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/581321_715021088520969_673123657_n.jpg)
-
Even if they're doing things to crops that could never ever happen in nature? ???
The bananas you eat would have never happened in nature if it weren`t for us selectively breeding them.
-
Sure that's true. However, I don't believe genetic modification is inherently harmful or unethical.
You might be right, but I avoid GMO whenever I can.
I also hate the idea that GMO pollen with who knows what kind of modifications is blowing around contaminating every natural plant. Monsanto has sued and shuts down tons of farmers for licensing when their neighboring field gets contaminated with GMO.
Russia is banning GMO
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/581321_715021088520969_673123657_n.jpg)
Not this dumb shit again? How many times do I have to debunk this?
-
The bananas you eat would have never happened in nature if it weren`t for us selectively breeding them.
No shit, same with my heirloom tomatoes. Selective breeding is a good thing
-
The Burger Lab: Revisiting the Myth of The 12-Year Old McDonald's Burger That Just Won't Rot (Testing Results!)
Nov 5, 2010
9:00 AM 91 Comments
Tags:
(http://aht.seriouseats.com/images/20101105-burgerlab.jpg)
[Photographs: J. Kenji Lopez-Alt]
A few weeks back, I started an experiment designed to prove or disprove whether or not the magic, non-decomposing McDonald's hamburgers that have been making their way around the internet are indeed worthy of disgust or even interest.
By way of introduction, allow myself to quote myself. This is from myprevious article:
Back in 2008, Karen Hanrahan, of the blog Best of Mother Earth posted a picture of a hamburger that she uses as a prop for a class she teaches on how to help parents keep their children away from junk food... The hamburger she's been using as a prop is the same plain McDonald's hamburger she's been using for what's now going on 14 years. It looks pretty much identical to how it did the day she bought it, and she's not had to use any means of preservation. The burger travels with her, and sits at room temperature.
Now Karen is neither the first nor last to document this very same phenomenon. Artist Sally Davies photographs her 137 day-old hamburger every day for her Happy Meal Art Project. Nonna Joann has chosen to store her happy meal for a year on her blog rather than feed it to her kids. Dozens of other examples exist, and most of them come to the same conclusion: McDonald's hamburgers don't rot.
The problem with coming to that conclusion, of course, is that if you are a believer in science (and I certainly hope you are!), in order to make a conclusion, you must first start with a few observable premises as a starting point with which you form a theorem, followed by a reasonably rigorous experiment with controls built in place to verify the validity of that theorem.
Thus far, I haven't located a single source that treats this McDonald's hamburger phenomenon in this fashion. Instead, most rely on speculation, specious reasoning, and downright obtuseness to arrive at the conclusion that a McDonald's burger "is a chemical food[, with] absolutely no nutrition."
As I said before, that kind of conclusion is both sensationalistic and specious, and has no place in any of the respectable academic circles which A Hamburger Today would like to consider itself an upstanding member of.
The Theory Behind the Burger
(http://aht.seriouseats.com/images/20101014-aging-burger-2.jpg)
Things we know so far:
A plain McDonald's Hamburger, when left out in the open air, does not mold or decompose.
In order for mold to grow, a few things need to be present: mold spores, air, moisture, and a reasonably hospitable climate
Given those two facts, there are a number of theories as to why a McDonald's burger might not rot:
There is some kind of chemical preservative in the beef and/or bun and/or the wrapping that is not found in a normal burger and/or bun that creates an inhospitable environment for mold to grow.
The high salt level of a McDonald's burger is preventing the burger from rotting.
The small size of a McDonald's hamburger is allowing it to dehydrate fast enough that there is not enough moisture present for mold to grow
There are no mold spores present on McDonald's hamburgers, nor in the air in and around where the burgers were stored.
There is no air in the the environment where the McDonald's hamburgers were stored
There's mold everywhere.
Of these theories, we can immediately eliminate 5, for reasons too obvious to enumerate. As for number 4, it's probably true that there are no live molds on a hamburger when you first receive it, as they are cooked on an extremely hot griddle from both sides to an internal temperature of at least 165°F—hot enough to destroy any mold. But in the air where they were stored? Most likely there's mold present. There's mold everywhere.
Theory 1 is the one most often concluded in the various blogs out there, but there doesn't seem to be strong evidence one way or the other. If we are to believe packaging and nutrition labeling (and I see no reason not to), there are preservatives in a McDonald's bun, but no more than in your average loaf of bread from the supermarket. A regular loaf of supermarket bread certainly rots, so why not the McD's? Their beef is also (according to them) 100% ground beef, so nothing funny going on there, is there?
In order for any test to be considered valid, you need to include a control. Something in which you already know whether or not the variable being tested is present.
In the case of these burgers, that means testing a McDonald's burger against a burger that is absolutely known not to contain anything but beef. The only way to do this, of course, is to cook it myself from natural beef ground at home.
(http://aht.seriouseats.com/images/20101014-aging-burger-15.jpg)
I decided to design a series of tests in order to ascertain the likeliness of each one of these separate scenarios (with the exception of the no-air theory, which frankly, doesn't hold wind—get it?). Here's what I had in mind:
Sample 1: A plain McDonald's hamburger stored on a plate in the open air outside of its wrapper.
Sample 2: A plain burger made from home-ground fresh all-natural chuck of the exact dimensions as the McDonald's burger, on a standard store-bought toasted bun.
Sample 3: A plain burger with a home-ground patty, but a McDonald's bun.
Sample 4: A plain burger with a McDonald's patty on a store-bought bun.*
Sample 5: A plain McDonald's burger stored in its original packaging.
Sample 6: A plain McDonald's burger made without any salt, stored in the open air.
Sample 7: A plain McDonald's Quarter Pounder, stored in the open air.
Sample 8: A homemade burger the exact dimension of a McDonald's Quarter Pounder.
Sample 9:A plain McDonald's Angus Third Pounder, stored in the open air
*To read about the fascinating manner in which I procured these plain patties, please refer to the original post.
You may notice that my protocols have been slightly expanded since I first laid them out to you a few weeks ago. That's due to several good ideas in the comments section which I incorporated into my testing the day after the initial publication.
(http://aht.seriouseats.com/images/20101014-aging-burger-4.jpg)
Every day, I monitored the progress of the burgers, weighing each one, and carefully checking for spots of mold growth or other indications of decay. The burgers were left in the open air, but handled only with clean kitchen tools or through clean plastic bags (no direct contact with my hands until the last day).
At this point, it's been 25 days, 23 calm, cool, and collected discussions with my wife about whether that smell in the apartment is coming from the burgers or from the dog, and 16 nights spent sleeping on the couch in the aftermath of those calm, cool, and collected discussions. Asides from my mother, my wife is the fiercest discusser I know.
Frankly, I'm glad this damn experiment is over. On to the results.
The Results(http://aht.seriouseats.com/images/20101014-aging-burger-3.jpg)
Well, well, well. Turns out that not only did the regular McDonald's burgers not rot, but the home-ground burgers did not rot either. Samples one through five had shrunk a bit (especially the beef patties), but they showed no signs of decomposition. What does this mean?
It means that there's nothing that strange about a McDonald's burger not rotting. Any burger of the same shape will act the same way. The real question is, why?
Well, here's another piece of evidence: Burger number 6, made with no salt, did not rot either, indicating that the salt level has nothing to do with it.
And then we get to the burgers that did show some signs of decay.
Take a look at both the homemade and the McDonald's Quarter Pounder patties:
(http://aht.seriouseats.com/images/20101014-aging-burger-13.jpg)
Very interesting indeed. Sure, there's a slight difference in the actual amount of mold grown, and the homemade patty on the right seems to have shrunk more than the actual Quarter Pounder on the left (I blame that mostly on the way the patties were formed), but on the whole, the results are remarkably similar. That a Quarter Pounder grows mold but a regular-sized McDonald's burger doesn't is some pretty strong evidence in support of Theory 3 from above. Because of the larger size of a Quarter Pounder, it simply takes longer to dehydrate, giving mold more of a chance to grow.
We can prove this by examining the weight charts between the regular burger and the Quarter Pounder. Take a look:
(http://aht.seriouseats.com/images/20101014-aging-burger-10-graph.png)
This chart represents the amount of weight lost from the burgers through evaporation every day (both starting weights have been normalized to 1). As you can see, by the end of 2 weeks, both the regular burgers and the Quarter Pounders ended up losing about 31% of their total weight and are pretty much stable. They are essentially burger-jerky. A completely dehydrated product that will never rot, as without moisture, nothing can survive.
93% of the moisture loss in a regular burger occurs within the first three days
Now the interesting part of the charts is during the first 4 days. As you can see, the blue line representing the regular burger dips down much more precipitously than the red line representing the Quarter Pounder. In fact, 93% of the moisture loss in a regular burger occurs within the first three days, which means that unless mold gets a chance to grow within that time frame, it's pretty much never going to grow.
The Quarter Pounder, on the other hand, takes a full 7 days to dehydrate to the same degree. It's during this extra three day period that the mold growth began to appear (and of course, once the burger had dehydrated sufficiently, the mold growth stopped—the burger looked the same on day 14 as they did on day 7). For the record, the Angus Third Pounder also showed a similar degree of mold growth in the same time frame.
So Can It Mold?
So we've pretty much cleared up all of the confusion, but a keen scientist will notice that one question remains to be answered. We've proven that neither a McDonald's burger nor a regular home-made burger will rot given certain specific conditions, but are there conditions we can create that will cause it to rot, and more importantly, will the McDonald's burger rot as fast as the homemade burger?
The final two burgers I tested were a McDonald's burger and a regular homemade burger of the same dimensions placed in plastic zipper-lock bags side by side. Hopefully the bag would trap in enough moisture. The question: Would they rot?
(http://aht.seriouseats.com/images/20101014-aging-burger-7-mold.jpg)
Indeed they do. Within a week, both burgers were nearly covered in little white spots of mold, eventually turning into the green and black spotted beast you see above.
The Conclusion
how do you think beef jerky is made?
So there we have it! Pretty strong evidence in favor of Theory 3: the burger doesn't rot because it's small size and relatively large surface area help it to lose moisture very fast. Without moisture, there's no mold or bacterial growth. Of course, that the meat is pretty much sterile to begin with due to the high cooking temperature helps things along as well. It's not really surprising. Humans have known about this phenomenon for thousands of years. After all, how do you think beef jerky is made?
Now don't get me wrong—I don't have a dog in this fight either way. I really couldn't care less whether or not the McDonald's burger rotted or didn't. I don't often eat their burgers, and will continue to not often eat their burgers. My problem is not with McDonald's. My problem is with bad science.
For all of you McDonald's haters out there: Don't worry. There are still plenty of reasons to dislike the company! But for now, I hope you'll have it my way and put aside your beef with their beef.
-
The bananas you eat would have never happened in nature if it weren`t for us selectively breeding them.
Hahaha ::)
-
TA what is selective breeding for you?
-
Ducks seem to survive of it just fine.
-
TA what is selective breeding for you?
No fat chicks.
-
No fat chicks.
He never got chance to sample a fat chick, he latched onto the first one that showed him some attention.
-
He never got chance to sample a fat chick, he latched onto the first one that showed him some attention.
She's pretty cute.
-
No fat chicks.
LOL!
-
She's pretty cute.
His wife (or gf?) is gorgeous. Good for him.
-
Avoid them if you can, just to be safe.
But I think there's more important things to worry about.
-
Why dont they do something to you which stops you from knowing this?
If they are so clever that is.
Keeping the truth from people is no longer the best way to hide it. It's much easier to hide these sorts of things in plain site. And use cointelpro attach dogs to sway people in what ever direction they feel fit. Why is it that some people on this site don't know who GH15 is yet his name has been brought up on this site hundreds of times? Why is it that many people on this site still don't believe that every single pro bodybuilder uses oil? Why is it that some people on this site still believe Ronnie Coleman competed naturally at the beginning of his pro career? Or how about the juiced up black dude who won the all natural Mr.Getbig a few years ago and walked away with a couple grand in his pocket? The truth about everything is right in front of us. There's no need to try to hide shit when it's much easier to control people by mis-direction...
-
Keeping the truth from people is no longer the best way to hide it. It's much easier to hide these sorts of things in plain site. And use cointelpro attach dogs to sway people in what ever direction they feel fit. Why is it that some people on this site don't know who GH15 is yet his name has been brought up on this site hundreds of times? Why is it that many people on this site still don't believe that every single pro bodybuilder uses oil? Why is it that some people on this site still believe Ronnie Coleman competed naturally at the beginning of his pro career? Or how about the juiced up black dude who won the all natural Mr.Getbig a few years ago and walked away with a couple grand in his pocket? The truth about everything is right in front of us. There's no need to try to hide shit when it's much easier to control people by mis-direction...
Or misdirect people by keeping them distracted by a plethora of wild conspiracy theories. Create an easily solvable puzzle for people to uncover. You provide them a sense of finding the truth when in reality it's all a bunch of bullshit.
-
Or misdirect people by keeping them distracted by a plethora of wild conspiracy theories. Create an easily solvable puzzle for people to uncover. You provide them a sense of finding the truth when in reality it's all a bunch of bullshit.
Yes true...
-
Almost impossible to avoid. World is fucked.
-
His wife (or BEARD?) is gorgeous. Good for him.
fixed
-
Not this dumb shit again? How many times do I have to debunk this?
You haven't debunked shit with one bias article. With a predisposition to early cancer in your family, you think you'd be smarter. But since you're never wrong and know everything, whats the point?
-
I watched the first 16 minutes of this movie and decided that for now I will NOT be eating any GMO foods.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/581321_715021088520969_673123657_n.jpg)
If I catch you going through my trash cans again I'm reporting you to the proper authorities.
-
???
No. Only a moron who chooses to believe myths, lies and not the science would think that.
;D ;D
-
I watched the first 16 minutes of this movie and decided that for now I will NOT be eating any GMO foods.
Good man.
-
I watched the first 16 minutes of this movie and decided that for now I will NOT be eating any GMO foods.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seeds_Of_Death
-
I watched the first 16 minutes of this movie and decided that for now I will NOT be eating any GMO foods.
Would love to be those seeds of death...
-
You haven't debunked shit with one bias article. With a predisposition to early cancer in your family, you think you'd be smarter. But since you're never wrong and know everything, whats the point?
Cancer rates have remained steady since GMOs came on the market. Why do you think they cause cancer?
-
Cancer rates have remained steady since GMOs came on the market. Why do you think they cause cancer?
Why risk it when we don't know enough about them long term? ???
-
Why risk it when we don't know enough about them long term? ???
Well you have to weight it with possible benefits. They have been on the market now for around 17 years or so and there is no evidence proving any kind of harm. If there was and it could be duplicated by other scientist then they wouldn't be around. That being said unfortunately you can't prove a negative and 100% prove them to be safe or anything else for that matter. Like the pink unicorn analogy. You could tell me there are invisible pink unicorns walking around us all the time and I couldn't prove you wrong. I could only show that it is probably not likely.
GMO seeds are rather expensive and the farmers that use them use them for a reason. They allow them to produce more food on less land often using less pesticide for example in the case of BT corn or cotton. I know the anti GMO people will deny this but large scale farmers are not idiots and would not use much more expensive seed if they could get the same or better yield or results using non GMO seeds. The anti GMO movement keeps moving the goalpost. They used to claim that yes, GMOs do produce more, but they are not worth it. Then that changed to they produce the same and no reason to use them. When that didn't work now they produce less, destroy everything, kill fluffy kitties etc.
-
They allow them to produce more food on less land often using less pesticide for example in the case of BT corn or cotton. I know the anti GMO people will deny this but large scale farmers are not idiots and would not use much more expensive seed if they could get the same or better yield or results using non GMO seeds. The anti GMO movement keeps moving the goalpost. They used to claim that yes, GMOs do produce more, but they are not worth it. Then that changed to they produce the same and no reason to use them. When that didn't work now they produce less, destroy everything, kill fluffy kitties etc.
Yeah, I can't argue with that. If they weren't more hearty and easier to grow farmers obviously wouldn't love them so much.
It's not too expensive though to avoid GMO, most people waste more money on garbage. You guys let me know how it turns out. ;D
I'm glad they set up that seed storage cave in Northern Europe.
-
This whole world will remain a puzzle unless we learn true history and true science (everything out there has been modified to suit an agenda).
GMO foods
The main characteristic of the DNA of any human species offshoot, or in our case as a hybrid specie, is that it adapts and changes according to it's environment.
So, if you wanna tweak with the DNA as in modifying it according to your own agenda, you need to control the outside and the inside of the person. The outside is a little easier to understand. The inside, is comprised of the mind and the food/drink as in literally and figuratively "inside". I will focus on the food.
The GMO are basically hybrid, GMO species of plants. The plants feed humans, insects and animals. The insects feed the animals and humans and the animals, plants and insects feed the humans.
Basically you modify the food/water source both by a long and complex hybridization process and by radionically imprinting it in order to modify the DNA.
The motives are complex and need a LOT of explanation that spans true history and a lot more things.
So, GMO foods are BAD for you because they are GMO with a purpose and obviously is not for your benefit. Everything public on this planet is an incredibly calculated and strategically placed lie.
The human DNA is designed to retain whatever it can use and flush the unusable. But ... they fuck with you in every single way you can imagine and in some ways you cannot imagine. From imprinting mind-patterns, to ELF and micro-wave bombardment, or just about any method to program and control the mind.
There is a war against your mind fought for millennia, and it is part of a sinister agenda. By whom and why? That is another story.
Nowadays it's getting harder and harder to find suitable foods for the human body. In bodybuilding we see the effect on the bodies .. the shitty foods and the shittier and shittier drugs and drug choices produce worse and worse looking bodies with a shorter shelf life.
People ,overall, look much worse and unhealthy than just a few short decades ago. Nothing's by accident.
Ignorance is our worst enemy.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/11/article-2417703-1BC2C8FC000005DC-955_638x389.jpg)
-
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seeds_Of_Death
-
Perfectly fine and advantageous as they will be more disease resistant, hence less pesticides will be used
Only up to a certain point. If a company could make a plant completely disease resistant, it would not sell its pesticides anymore. These companies are not here to prevent diseases and stop world hunger, they only want to make a profit.
-
Only up to a certain point. If a company could make a plant completely disease resistant, it would not sell its pesticides anymore. These companies are not here to prevent diseases and stop world hunger, they only want to make a profit.
Bertha butt boogie! I secretly put that song on every disk of music I burn for my friends. It's my go to song bomb.
-
Small tip: Scientific articles > Youtube & "instincts".
-
Perfectly fine and advantageous as they will be more disease resistant, hence less pesticides will be used and also nutrient content can be made much higher. Shelf life can also be increased and the growing season can be extended as well as larger crop yield.
This is factually wrong. There is an apparent, recognized problem with GMO crops. GMO of soy and corn are specifically modified to be resistant to pesticides so that more pesticides can be used, and more must be used because the weeds also become stronger and more resistant by natural selection. They have even had to approve variants of agent orange again for food crops. They are running out of herbicides.
I get all the projected benefits they were talking about, but this is the reality.
I also don't think it's a good idea to spread in the wild seeds that are not viable more than one generation, have DNA delivering viruses in them, or produce their own pesticide. If they start replacing natural seeds in nature it can lead to imbalances at the least and then there is no way back. It's pretty much unknown. That seed vault in Norway is for this reason, even Monsanto would admit that.
There are at least slight negative health effects in all the animal studies. I don't know how real the studies are that claim cancer, but for some reason internal organs of farm animals fed GMO crops are damaged to some extent.
Personally I have started to avoid GMO.
-
Only up to a certain point. If a company could make a plant completely disease resistant, it would not sell its pesticides anymore. These companies are not here to prevent diseases and stop world hunger, they only want to make a profit.
boom. Which is fine, but the ruthless way monsanto hoed sbout stamping out or bully farmers who dont use GMO using their legal department is just wrong.
Give the 3rd worlders dieing of starvation GMO... ill pay a little more for non-gmo stuff.
too bad organic means jack shit in the US.
-
Bertha butt boogie! I secretly put that song on every disk of music I burn for my friends. It's my go to song bomb.
Right on! ;D
-
You might be right, but I avoid GMO whenever I can.
I also hate the idea that GMO pollen with who knows what kind of modifications is blowing around contaminating every natural plant. Monsanto has sued and shuts down tons of farmers for licensing when their neighboring field gets contaminated with GMO.
Russia is banning GMO
You are right to hate Monsanto. But you should hate your government more.
-
GMOs suck bud the sad truth is manking is growing faster in population and living longet than ever without enough nautral resoures to sustain the growth. Without GMOs the world wouldn't be able to maintain itself at its current pace. Sure they suck and are the devil but they are helping farmers yeild more food in quicker times with less resources. people bitch and complain about GMOs but love paying .69 cents a pound for bananas, would like to see how much they complain if GMOs were eliminated but they were pahing $4.99 a pound for bananas instead, or how about $20 for a bag of 10 torillas or $15 for a small bag of rice.
-
It should be illegal to call that crap food. It is poison ...pure & simple.
Corn has been so modified to such an extent it is no longer considered a vegetable. It's now officially been classified as an insecticide.
-
GMOs suck bud the sad truth is manking is growing faster in population and living longet than ever without enough nautral resoures to sustain the growth. Without GMOs the world wouldn't be able to maintain itself at its current pace. Sure they suck and are the devil but they are helping farmers yeild more food in quicker times with less resources. people bitch and complain about GMOs but love paying .69 cents a pound for bananas, would like to see how much they complain if GMOs were eliminated but they were pahing $4.99 a pound for bananas instead, or how about $20 for a bag of 10 torillas or $15 for a small bag of rice.
There is no food shortage. There is enough food for everyone on the planet.
The challenge comes in its distribution. Farmers are paid NOT to produce crops, ...others let them rot in the field
-
It should be illegal to call that crap food. It is poison ...pure & simple.
Corn has been so modified to such an extent it is no longer considered a vegetable. It's now officially been classified as an insecticide.
That is complete BS. Last I checked, it is still a vegetable. Unless your a specific corn eating worm with an alkaline based digestive system, you have nothing to worry about from the BT protein. That is why organic farmers spay a whole lot of it. YES there are organic registered pesticides that organic farmers use and the BT protein is one of them.
-
That is complete BS. Last I checked, it is still a vegetable. Unless your a specific corn eating worm with an alkaline based digestive system, you have nothing to worry about from the BT protein. That is why organic farmers spay a whole lot of it. YES there are organic registered pesticides that organic farmers use and the BT protein is one of them.
Read the the rational wiki entry you posted. Pretty interesting read. Thanks for posting
-
boom. Which is fine, but the ruthless way monsanto hoed sbout stamping out or bully farmers who dont use GMO using their legal department is just wrong.
Give the 3rd worlders dieing of starvation GMO... ill pay a little more for non-gmo stuff.
too bad organic means jack shit in the US.
Another load of BS. Monsanto doesn't go around suing farmers for no reason. That would be a horrible business practice to sue your customers. They sue farmers that steal and only do it when they have a whole lot of evidence. That is why they have never lost a single court case. When 90% of your whole crop is GMO, it is not because a few seeds blew in there. Farmers sign a contract before they can use GMO seeds and one of the items is they won't reuse seed and buy new seed every year. Farmers don't like the contract, they can buy their seeds from someone else. There are many other companies that have the same rules.
-
Another load of BS. Monsanto doesn't go around suing farmers for no reason. That would be a horrible business practice to sue your customers. They sue farmers that steal and only do it when they have a whole lot of evidence. That is why they have never lost a single court case. When 90% of your whole crop is GMO, it is not because a few seeds blew in there. Farmers sign a contract before they can use GMO seeds and one of the items is they won't reuse seed and buy new seed every year. Farmers don't like the contract, they can buy their seeds from someone else. There are many other companies that have the same rules.
Exactly!
Patents are very important. Monsanto spends hundreds of millions of dollars in research and has the right to a patent. I guess people feel like it should be a free service.
-
This is factually wrong. There is an apparent, recognized problem with GMO crops. GMO of soy and corn are specifically modified to be resistant to pesticides so that more pesticides can be used, and more must be used because the weeds also become stronger and more resistant by natural selection. They have even had to approve variants of agent orange again for food crops. They are running out of herbicides.
I get all the projected benefits they were talking about, but this is the reality.
I also don't think it's a good idea to spread in the wild seeds that are not viable more than one generation, have DNA delivering viruses in them, or produce their own pesticide. If they start replacing natural seeds in nature it can lead to imbalances at the least and then there is no way back. It's pretty much unknown. That seed vault in Norway is for this reason, even Monsanto would admit that.
There are at least slight negative health effects in all the animal studies. I don't know how real the studies are that claim cancer, but for some reason internal organs of farm animals fed GMO crops are damaged to some extent.
Personally I have started to avoid GMO.
1. They are modified to be resistant to a certain herbicide, not pesticide but I am sure that is just a mistype. Glyphosate specifically "aka roundup." Glyphosate has been used since the 70's and is by far the most popular herbicide due to its low toxicity and extreme effectiveness. Yes, there are some glyphosate resistant weeds that have appeared but that is to be expected after over 40 years of use. The same way bacteria eventually start becoming resistant to antibiotics. Yes, there is a version being developed to be resistant to one of the two herbicides used in agent orange "agent orange was a 50/50 mixture of two different herbicides." However that is Dow chemical working on that, not Monsanto.
2. I understand this point of view, but there has never been one case of any dna being modified by eating a GMO crop. If it could happen, I think we would be in a whole lot of trouble and mutating everywhere. I am not sure what you mean by viable for only one generation. GMO seeds germinate the same as regular seeds do. The seed vault in Norway and others have been around long before any GMO crops were introduced.
3. Farmers feed their animals a whole lot of GMOs and have been doing it for a long time now. Believe me farmers do not want sick animals "sick animals = loss of $" and if GMOs were making them sick, they would have stopped.
-
Perfectly fine and advantageous as they will be more disease resistant, hence less pesticides will be used and also nutrient content can be made much higher. Shelf life can also be increased and the growing season can be extended as well as larger crop yield.
do you any college education?
-
I feed all my girlfriends GMO foods and milk with RBST. I want these bitches to be thick
-
do you any college education?
[youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mBF1OOPdTo][/youtube]
David S. is a hardcore environmentalist wacko who also happens to be a scientist. He by his own admission hasn't stepped foot in a lab in a long time. He doesn't respond well to critics and normally doesn't take questions from people that disagree with him. Hence this happened. http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27/down-under-blunder-david-suzuki-unmasked-as-a-know-nothing-huckster-on-australian-tv
-
Cancer rates have remained steady since GMOs came on the market. Why do you think they cause cancer?
I don't think so, but at least with his predisposition you'd think he might want to be a little more cautious.
-
I don't think so, but at least with his predisposition you'd think he might want to be a little more cautious.
Predisposition? My mom had lung cancer and did it to herself basically.
-
Predisposition? My mom had lung cancer and did it to herself basically.
Genetics is rough. Maybe she did to it to herself, maybe not. My grandmother smoked until she went into a home at 94. When they checked her lungs, they were perfectly clear and she smoked since she 14. She died at 96. Check out your family history. We have no cancer that runs through my family, that doesn't mean we can't get it.
-
That is complete BS. Last I checked, it is still a vegetable. Unless your a specific corn eating worm with an alkaline based digestive system, you have nothing to worry about from the BT protein. That is why organic farmers spay a whole lot of it. YES there are organic registered pesticides that organic farmers use and the BT protein is one of them.
Look, if you use B. thuringiensis in any crop, you are trying to get rid of lepidopteran larvae in this specific crop, the fumigation may reach other lepidopteran larvae but it's not a big deal actually. However, in GMC, they fear pollen (containing DNA from B.t) may reach harmless species and get rid of them. The difference between several applications of B. thuringiensis and the use of corn with insecticide properties (including its pollen) may be significant, althought I'm not sure how big would the impact be.
Another serious threat, it's the possibility of gene transfer to another species, let's say that you use GM plants with resistence to Roundup, these plants may cross-breed with weeds creating "superweeds", with tolerance to Roundup.
Additionally, the effect on humans of consuming GM food is still not well documented.
GM crops are a serious threat to the enviroment, althought I thik they may be useful in some scenarios.
-
Only up to a certain point. If a company could make a plant completely disease resistant, it would not sell its pesticides anymore. These companies are not here to prevent diseases and stop world hunger, they only want to make a profit.
Bingo! I was surprised to know one investigation concerning GM crops had as a goal making them more tolerant to glyphosate, until I knew about the responsibles behind this idea. They need their money back of course.
-
Now, for the those saying GM is the same as natural breeding, or selective breeding.
Myth: Genetic engineering is just an extension of natural breeding
Truth: Genetic engineering is different from natural breeding and possess special risks
GM proponents claim that genetic engineering is just an extension of natural plant breeding. They say that GM crops are no different from naturally bred crops, apart from the inserted foreign GM gene (transgene) and its protein product. But this is misleading. GM is completely different from natural breeding and poses different risks.
Natural breeding can only take place between closely related forms of life (e.g. cats with cats, not cats with dogs; wheat with wheat, not wheat with tomatoes or fish). In this way, the genes that carry information for all parts of the organism are passed down the generations in an orderly way. In contrast, GM is a laboratory-based technique that is completely different from natural breeding.
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf
-
Now, for the those saying GM is the same as natural breeding, or selective breeding.
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf
Click the link to rational wiki. It explains all of that.
-
Click the link to rational wiki. It explains all of that.
I just read a part of it. The guy who wrote that is completely off regarding some topics. I'm an agricultural engineer I know a thing or two about crops.
-
I just read a part of it. The guy who wrote that is completely off regarding some topics. I'm an agricultural engineer I know a thing or two about crops.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
;)
PS: sorry if I came up as arrogant but since I didn't want to point out the errors on that link and explain why, I just said it, it isn't false.
-
A brief explanation why is it important to eat organic.
-
:D
;)
PS: sorry if I came up as arrogant but since I didn't want to point out the errors on that link and explain why, I just said it, it isn't false.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
-
Does he have any connection to the TV show Degrassi? ???
-
The Rio Red variety grapefruit was developed at Texas A&M University–Kingsville.
They planted a grapefruit orchard with high security. When the trees started to blossom in the spring, a Gamma Ray source would pop out of the ground at night and irradiate the blossoms with radiation. They then harvested the fruit that resulted and analyzed the individuals for desired traits That is, being good to eat and visually attractive. There was one cluster that had everything they wanted and a line was propagated from it.
This is how the Rio Red and Rio Star grapefruit came about.
-
Perfectly fine and advantageous as they will be more disease resistant, hence less pesticides will be used and also nutrient content can be made much higher. Shelf life can also be increased and the growing season can be extended as well as larger crop yield.
I'm pretty sure you'll find the nutrient value in today's American food is LOWER than it was in the past. Also there are now new strains of diseases that are damaging these GMO crops. Natures way of saying you can't cheat me?
-
listen to adonis...
-
I'm pretty sure you'll find the nutrient value in today's American food is LOWER than it was in the past. Also there are now new strains of diseases that are damaging these GMO crops. Natures way of saying you can't cheat me?
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition last year published a study of 162 scientific papers from the past 50 years on the health benefits of organically grown foods and found no nutritional advantage over conventionally grown foods.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1
Am J Clin Nutr (July 29, 2009). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041
© 2009 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review1,2,3,4
Alan D Dangour, Sakhi K Dodhia, Arabella Hayter, Elizabeth Allen, Karen Lock and Ricardo Uauy
1 From the Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit (ADD, SKD, AH, and RU) and the Medical Statistics Unit (EA), Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, and the Health Services Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK (KL).
2 The funding organization had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report. The review team held 6 progress meetings with the funding organization.
3 Supported by the UK Food Standards Agency (PAU221).
4 Address correspondence to AD Dangour, Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom. E-mail: alan.dangour@lshtm.ac.uk.
ABSTRACT
Background: Despite growing consumer demand for organically produced foods, information based on a systematic review of their nutritional quality is lacking.
Objective: We sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs.
Design: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and CAB Abstracts for a period of 50 y from 1 January 1958 to 29 February 2008, contacted subject experts, and hand-searched bibliographies. We included peer-reviewed articles with English abstracts in the analysis if they reported nutrient content comparisons between organic and conventional foodstuffs. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics, quality, and data. The analyses were restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients.
Results: From a total of 52,471 articles, we identified 162 studies (137 crops and 25 livestock products); 55 were of satisfactory quality. In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies, conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed. Analysis of the more limited database on livestock products found no evidence of a difference in nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced livestock products.
Conclusions: On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.
Received for publication May 7, 2009. Accepted for publication July 2, 2009.
-
http://www.nhs.uk/change4life/Pages/food-exercise-mythbuster.aspx
Myth 7 : Processed foods are not as healthy for me as fresh foods
In some cases this is true, but a lot of processed foods are just as healthy, and sometimes even more healthy than fresh foods. This all depends on how they are processed.
For example, frozen fruit and frozen vegetables are usually processed within hours of being picked. Because hardly any nutrients get lost in the freezing process they stay very healthy.
They are often cheaper for you to buy too, which makes them a fantastic option to help make up your 5 A DAY
Read more: easy ways to get 5 A DAY
-
Furthermore, I challenge anyone to find any food that offers more vitamins and nutrients than one serving of Wheaties Cereal, gram for gram.
-
In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies
Conclusions: On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality,
Please. Don't insult my intelligence. Your BS may work on the average dope.
-
Please. Don't insult my intelligence. Your BS may work on the average dope.
???
-
Furthermore, I challenge anyone to find any food that offers more vitamins and nutrients than one serving of Wheaties Cereal, gram for gram.
Wheaties are an awesome food. Super high in iron, and metal bits. :D
http://www.naturalnews.com/043633_wheaties_cereal_metal_fragments_magnetic.html
-
Wheaties are an awesome food. Super high in iron, and metal bits. :D
http://www.naturalnews.com/043633_wheaties_cereal_metal_fragments_magnetic.html
::)
Any food that contains Iron has this property. There is no difference between the Iron in Red Meat or Cereal and you can do the same experiment with both. ("NaturalNews", oh brother, I expected better from you Twaddle)
-
Wheaties are an awesome food. Super high in iron, and metal bits. :D
http://www.naturalnews.com/043633_wheaties_cereal_metal_fragments_magnetic.html
Here are some of the wonderful and insightful things that the creator of "NaturalNews" believes and pushes:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews#cite_note-67
Non-medical conspiracy theories
Adams' love for woo isn't restricted to medicine. Cold fusion and so-called free energy ideas and devices like the Energy Catalyzer are presented on his website with the same enthusiasm as the latest alternative medicine fad.[63][64] He collects news about chemtrails.[65] He is a 9/11 truther,[66] Birther,[67] and pretty much everything else-er. And a Sandy Hook denialist.[68] He considers Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and David Icke to be "REAL heroes"[69] and Icke[70] and whale.to[71] to be reliable sources. Curiously, he supports Ron Paul, who is a real medical doctor and not a practitioner of woo (in the field of medicine). This could be because Paul supports "health freedom,"[72] despite Adams simultaneously supporting health care reform and Cuba's health care system. [73]
He thinks Scientology (of which he is an ex-member)[74] is treated unfairly.[75][76] According to Adams, this is due to attempts by anti-religious bigots and (you guessed it) Big Pharma to oppress their belief system in order to protect their profits.
Adams has also issued his informed opinion of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings, declaring that they were "obviously" staged, or perhaps that the killer, James Holmes, was involved in "experimental" neuroscience that got out of hand.[77] Furthermore, he says the 2013 attacks on the Boston Marathon were a false flag operation by "private military contractors."[78]
In 2014 Adams wrote several articles where he tried to prove that the Malaysian airplane disaster in March 2014 was a government cover-up, and that the plane was secretly made into a "stealth weapon", possibly carrying nuclear weapons. He also stated that he believed that the people behind the cover-up could go as far as "secretly sink some aircraft debris in the Indian Ocean so they can "find it"." Even though he believes the passengers might have survived he states that "world governments are rolling out their "official" stories, there is no question in my mind that they will do anything to support those official stories, even if it means discarding the lives of all the passengers." [79]
Also, "conventional physics" is a conspiracy of the same sort as conventional medicine.[80]
[edit] 2013 predictions
At the end of 2012, Adams put up a list of 20 "dark" predictions about 2013, which he believes to be "1984 on steroids." If Adams was right (and that's a big if, considering his predictions for 2012[81]), the following was predicted to happen:[82]
Global economic collapse: "When record-low tax revenues are reported in April because of Obama's planned destruction of the U.S. economy, ratings organizations will downgrade U.S. debt, setting off a global selloff that could thrust America into a "nightmare" scenario of being unable to sell more debt." (Erm, does he want more or less taxes? Also, particularly funny in light of the government shutdown, brought about by Obama's opponents.)
"Obama administration attempts to gut the Second Amendment."
"Martial Law declared across America."
"Extreme shortages of guns, ammo, magazines as their barter value skyrockets."
"Tactical weapon strikes target Iran."
"Massive false flag attack carried out in USA and blamed on patriots."
"DHS arms the TSA and begins insane abuses of Americans on roadway checkpoints."
"Secret resistance groups begin to form across America." (Which will be easy to verify, given that secret groups are usually well-documented, right?)
"Attacks on the First Amendment accelerate as government seizes websites." (At least, the government will shut down NaturalNews and Alex Jones' Infowars site, apparently)
"The rise of violent rhetoric among the population as disagreements turn to threats." (Oh the irony!)
"Global government makes its move" – "Expect to see UN troops in U.S. cities before the end of 2015. The planned rollout of conflict in the USA is going to be followed by UN troops arriving on the scene to "rescue" the USA."
"Accelerated mainstream media attacks on patriots, preppers and veterans." (Because self-declared patriots are peaceful people.)
"Disagreement with the government characterized a 'mental disorder.'"
"Continued rise in unemployment, food stamps, welfare as Obama accelerates deliberate destruction of U.S. economy."
"Criminalization of preparedness activities as government outlaws ammo storage of private citizens." (Again)
"Riots in the streets, followed by Martial Law." (Again)
"Deliberate food shortages used as a weapon of government control."
"Weather becomes even more radicalized, with droughts, floods, freezes." (And who's stopping AGW mitigation?)
"Solar weather gets nasty: Solar flares threaten communications."
"You will be told the answer to all our problems is "MORE government!""
-
Adam, I admire your patience but what do you expect of bunch of uneducated gym rats who think they are smarter than scientists? Or consider science bullshit... Or at least until they get sick and go to a real doctor, not some fucking magician.
Also they just don't understand what you write. "No evidence" does not mean that it doesn't exist. But until we find a solid proof that GMO foods are less healthy than normal foods we cannot assume shit because for all we know, it can be the other way round. Maybe GMO food is actually healthier?
-
("NaturalNews", oh brother, I expected better from you Twaddle)
Read, Name, Twaddle! Why would you expect better? ;D I'm here for the lullllz and trolling.
-
Furthermore, I challenge anyone to find any food that offers more vitamins and nutrients than one serving of Wheaties Cereal, gram for gram.
Depends on what your definition of "food" is. Anyone can put together a pill, wafer, some type of wheat cracker or what have you that is man made with a wholesome variety of vitamins and minerals. So what's your point?
-
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition last year published a study of 162 scientific papers from the past 50 years on the health benefits of organically grown foods and found no nutritional advantage over conventionally grown foods.
Not sure what the point of this article and study is. Most people eat organically grown foods so as not to ingest the chemicals they feel are harmful not for their nutritional value.
-
Not sure what the point of this article and study is. Most people eat organically grown foods so as not to ingest the chemicals they feel are harmful not for their nutritional value.
Which also makes no sense since organically grown food also were grown with pesticides, sometimes moreso than a GMO due to the fact that certain GMO`s have built in resistance to disease therefore not needing certain pesticides.
-
Depends on what your definition of "food" is. Anyone can put together a pill, wafer, some type of wheat cracker or what have you that is man made with a wholesome variety of vitamins and minerals. So what's your point?
Are you saying Wheaties Cereal is not a food? ???
-
Are you saying Wheaties Cereal is not a food? ???
No I am not, not any more or less than any type of concoction such as a vitamin supplement. No one can create food all they can do is put what is already available into a different form and or combination.
Full Definition of FOOD
1
a : material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy; also : such food together with supplementary substances (as minerals, vitamins, and condiments)
b : inorganic substances absorbed by plants in gaseous form or in water solution
2
: nutriment in solid form
3
: something that nourishes, sustains, or supplies <food for thought>
-
Which also makes no sense since organically grown food also were grown with pesticides, sometimes moreso than a GMO due to the fact that certain GMO`s have built in resistance to disease therefore not needing certain pesticides.
Can you give me an example of a certified organic food that is grown under the conditions you state above?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
"While the organic standard is defined differently in different jurisdictions, in general organic farming responds to site-specific farming and crop conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not allowed, although certain organically approved pesticides may be used under limited conditions. In general, organic foods are also not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives.[1]"
-
Can you give me an example of a certified organic food that is grown under the conditions you state above?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
"While the organic standard is defined differently in different jurisdictions, in general organic farming responds to site-specific farming and crop conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not allowed, although certain organically approved pesticides may be used under limited conditions. In general, organic foods are also not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives.[1]"
§205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.
In accordance with restrictions specified in this section, the following synthetic substances may be used in organic crop production: Provided, That, use of such substances do not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water. Substances allowed by this section, except disinfectants and sanitizers in paragraph (a) and those substances in paragraphs (c), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, may only be used when the provisions set forth in §205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest.
(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems.
(1) Alcohols.
(i) Ethanol.
(ii) Isopropanol.
(2) Chlorine materials—For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.
(i) Calcium hypochlorite.
(ii) Chlorine dioxide.
(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.
(3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(4) Hydrogen peroxide.
(5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.
(6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(a) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label.
(7) Soap-based algicide/demossers.
(8) Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (CAS #-15630-89-4)—Federal law restricts the use of this substance in food crop production to approved food uses identified on the product label.
(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable.
(1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops.
(2) Mulches.
(i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.
(ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)).
(c) As compost feedstocks—Newspapers or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.
(d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of crop.
(e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control).
(1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil.
(2) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.
(3) Boric acid—structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops.
(4) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(5) Elemental sulfur.
(6) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide.
(7) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.
(8) Soaps, insecticidal.
(9) Sticky traps/barriers.
(10) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.
(f) As insect management. Pheromones.
(g) As rodenticides. Vitamin D3.
(h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045-86-0).
(i) As plant disease control.
(1) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.
(2) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides.
(3) Copper sulfate—Substance must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil.
(4) Hydrated lime.
(5) Hydrogen peroxide.
(6) Lime sulfur.
(7) Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.
(8) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(i) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label.
(9) Potassium bicarbonate.
(10) Elemental sulfur.
(11) Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014.
(12) Tetracycline, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014.
(j) As plant or soil amendments.
(1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than hydrolyzed)—Extraction process is limited to the use of potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide; solvent amount used is limited to that amount necessary for extraction.
(2) Elemental sulfur.
(3) Humic acids—naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali extracts only.
(4) Lignin sulfonate—chelating agent, dust suppressant.
(5) Magnesium sulfate—allowed with a documented soil deficiency.
(6) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing.
(i) Soluble boron products.
(ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt.
(7) Liquid fish products—can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5.
(8) Vitamins, B1, C, and E.
(9) Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782-99-2) for on-farm generation of substance utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
(k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene gas—for regulation of pineapple flowering.
(l) As floating agents in postharvest handling.
(1) Lignin sulfonate.
(2) Sodium silicate—for tree fruit and fiber processing.
(m) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances.
(1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.
(2) EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity—for use only in passive pheromone dispensers.
(n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen chloride (CAS # 7647-01-0)—for delinting cotton seed for planting.
(o) As production aids. Microcrystalline cheesewax (CAS #'s 64742-42-3, 8009-03-08, and 8002-74-2)-for use in log grown mushroom production. Must be made without either ethylene-propylene co-polymer or synthetic colors.
(p)-(z) [Reserved]
[65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 61992, Oct. 31, 2003; 71 FR 53302 Sept. 11, 2006; 72 FR 69572, Dec. 10, 2007; 75 FR 38696, July 6, 2010; 75 FR 77524, Dec. 13, 2010; 77 FR 8092, Feb. 14, 2012; 77 FR 33298, June 6, 2012; 77 FR 45907, Aug. 2, 2012; 78 FR 31821, May 28, 2013]
return arrow Back to Top
§205.602 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production.
The following nonsynthetic substances may not be used in organic crop production:
(a) Ash from manure burning.
(b) Arsenic.
(c) Calcium chloride, brine process is natural and prohibited for use except as a foliar spray to treat a physiological disorder associated with calcium uptake.
(d) Lead salts.
(e) Potassium chloride—unless derived from a mined source and applied in a manner that minimizes chloride accumulation in the soil.
(f) Sodium fluoaluminate (mined).
(g) Sodium nitrate—unless use is restricted to no more than 20% of the crop's total nitrogen requirement; use in spirulina production is unrestricted until October 21, 2005.
(h) Strychnine.
(i) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate).
(j)-(z) [Reserved]
[68 FR 61992, Oct. 31, 2003]
return arrow Back to Top
§205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production.
In accordance with restrictions specified in this section the following synthetic substances may be used in organic livestock production:
(a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable.
(1) Alcohols.
(i) Ethanol-disinfectant and sanitizer only, prohibited as a feed additive.
(ii) Isopropanol-disinfectant only.
(2) Aspirin-approved for health care use to reduce inflammation.
(3) Atropine (CAS #-51-55-8)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:
(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian; and
(ii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 56 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 12 days after administering to dairy animals.
(4) Biologics—Vaccines.
(5) Butorphanol (CAS #-42408-82-2)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:
(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian; and
(ii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 42 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 8 days after administering to dairy animals.
(6) Chlorhexidine—Allowed for surgical procedures conducted by a veterinarian. Allowed for use as a teat dip when alternative germicidal agents and/or physical barriers have lost their effectiveness.
(7) Chlorine materials—disinfecting and sanitizing facilities and equipment. Residual chlorine levels in the water shall not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
(i) Calcium hypochlorite.
(ii) Chlorine dioxide.
(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.
(8) Electrolytes—without antibiotics.
(9) Flunixin (CAS #-38677-85-9)—in accordance with approved labeling; except that for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires a withdrawal period of at least two-times that required by the FDA.
(10) Furosemide (CAS #-54-31-9)—in accordance with approved labeling; except that for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires a withdrawal period of at least two-times that required that required by the FDA.
(11) Glucose.
(12) Glycerine—Allowed as a livestock teat dip, must be produced through the hydrolysis of fats or oils.
(13) Hydrogen peroxide.
(14) Iodine.
(15) Magnesium hydroxide (CAS #-1309-42-8)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian.
(16) Magnesium sulfate.
(17) Oxytocin—use in postparturition therapeutic applications.
(18) Parasiticides—Prohibited in slaughter stock, allowed in emergency treatment for dairy and breeder stock when organic system plan-approved preventive management does not prevent infestation. Milk or milk products from a treated animal cannot be labeled as provided for in subpart D of this part for 90 days following treatment. In breeder stock, treatment cannot occur during the last third of gestation if the progeny will be sold as organic and must not be used during the lactation period for breeding stock.
(i) Fenbendazole (CAS #43210-67-9)—only for use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian.
(ii) Ivermectin (CAS #70288-86-7).
(iii) Moxidectin (CAS #113507-06-5)—for control of internal parasites only.
(19) Peroxyacetic/peracetic acid (CAS #-79-21-0)—for sanitizing facility and processing equipment.
(20) Phosphoric acid—allowed as an equipment cleaner, Provided, That, no direct contact with organically managed livestock or land occurs.
(21) Poloxalene (CAS #-9003-11-6)—for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires that poloxalene only be used for the emergency treatment of bloat.
(22) Tolazoline (CAS #-59-98-3)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:
(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian;
(ii) Use only to reverse the effects of sedation and analgesia caused by Xylazine; and
(iii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 8 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 4 days after administering to dairy animals.
(23) Xylazine (CAS #-7361-61-7)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:
(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian;
(ii) The existence of an emergency; and
(iii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 8 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 4 days after administering to dairy animals.
(b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable.
(1) Copper sulfate.
(2) Formic acid (CAS # 64-18-6)—for use as a pesticide solely within honeybee hives.
(3) Iodine.
(4) Lidocaine—as a local anesthetic. Use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals.
(5) Lime, hydrated—as an external pest control, not permitted to cauterize physical alterations or deodorize animal wastes.
(6) Mineral oil—for topical use and as a lubricant.
(7) Procaine—as a local anesthetic, use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals.
(8) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s-42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.
(c) As feed supplements—None.
(d) As feed additives.
(1) DL-Methionine, DL-Methionine-hydroxy analog, and DL-Methionine-hydroxy analog calcium (CAS #'s 59-51-8, 583-91-5, 4857-44-7, and 922-50-9)—for use only in organic poultry production at the following maximum levels of synthetic methionine per ton of feed: Laying and broiler chickens—2 pounds; turkeys and all other poultry—3 pounds.
(2) Trace minerals, used for enrichment or fortification when FDA approved.
(3) Vitamins, used for enrichment or fortification when FDA approved.
(e) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances.
(1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.
(2) [Reserved]
(f) Excipients, only for use in the manufacture of drugs used to treat organic livestock when the excipient is: Identified by the FDA as Generally Recognized As Safe; Approved by the FDA as a food additive; or Included in the FDA review and approval of a New Animal Drug Application or New Drug Application.
(g)-(z) [Reserved]
[72 FR 70484, Dec. 12, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 54059, Sept. 18, 2008; 75 FR 51924, Aug. 24, 2010; 77 FR 28745, May 15, 2012; 77 FR 45907, Aug. 2, 2012; 77 FR 57989, Sept. 19, 2012]
return arrow Back to Top
§205.604 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic livestock production.
The following nonsynthetic substances may not be used in organic livestock production:
(a) Strychnine.
(b)-(z) [Reserved]
return arrow Back to Top
§205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).”
The following nonagricultural substances may be used as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))” only in accordance with any restrictions specified in this section.
(a) Nonsynthetics allowed:
Acids (Alginic; Citric—produced by microbial fermentation of carbohydrate substances; and Lactic).
Agar-agar.
Animal enzymes—(Rennet—animals derived; Catalase—bovine liver; Animal lipase; Pancreatin; Pepsin; and Trypsin).
Attapulgite—as a processing aid in the handling of plant and animal oils.
Bentonite.
Calcium carbonate.
Calcium chloride.
Calcium sulfate—mined.
Carrageenan.
Dairy cultures.
Diatomaceous earth—food filtering aid only.
Egg white lysozyme (CAS # 9001-63-2)
Enzymes—must be derived from edible, nontoxic plants, nonpathogenic fungi, or nonpathogenic bacteria.
Flavors, nonsynthetic sources only and must not be produced using synthetic solvents and carrier systems or any artificial preservative.
Gellan gum (CAS # 71010-52-1)—high-acyl form only.
Glucono delta-lactone—production by the oxidation of D-glucose with bromine water is prohibited.
Kaolin.
L-Malic acid (CAS # 97-67-6).
Magnesium sulfate, nonsynthetic sources only.
Microorganisms—any food grade bacteria, fungi, and other microorganism.
Nitrogen—oil-free grades.
Oxygen—oil-free grades.
Perlite—for use only as a filter aid in food processing.
Potassium chloride.
Potassium iodide.
Sodium bicarbonate.
Sodium carbonate.
Tartaric acid—made from grape wine.
Waxes—nonsynthetic (Carnauba wax; and Wood resin).
Yeast—When used as food or a fermentation agent in products labeled as “organic,” yeast must be organic if its end use is for human consumption; nonorganic yeast may be used when organic yeast is not commercially available. Growth on petrochemical substrate and sulfite waste liquor is prohibited. For smoked yeast, nonsynthetic smoke flavoring process must be documented.
(b) Synthetics allowed:
Acidified sodium chlorite—Secondary direct antimicrobial food treatment and indirect food contact surface sanitizing. Acidified with citric acid only.
Activated charcoal (CAS #s 7440-44-0; 64365-11-3)—only from vegetative sources; for use only as a filtering aid.
Alginates.
Ammonium bicarbonate—for use only as a leavening agent.
Ammonium carbonate—for use only as a leavening agent.
Ascorbic acid.
Calcium citrate.
Calcium hydroxide.
Calcium phosphates (monobasic, dibasic, and tribasic).
Carbon dioxide.
Cellulose—for use in regenerative casings, as an anti-caking agent (non-chlorine bleached) and filtering aid.
Chlorine materials—disinfecting and sanitizing food contact surfaces, Except, That, residual chlorine levels in the water shall not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act (Calcium hypochlorite; Chlorine dioxide; and Sodium hypochlorite).
Cyclohexylamine (CAS # 108-91-8)—for use only as a boiler water additive for packaging sterilization.
Diethylaminoethanol (CAS # 100-37-8)—for use only as a boiler water additive for packaging sterilization.
Ethylene—allowed for postharvest ripening of tropical fruit and degreening of citrus.
Ferrous sulfate—for iron enrichment or fortification of foods when required by regulation or recommended (independent organization).
Glycerides (mono and di)—for use only in drum drying of food.
Glycerin—produced by hydrolysis of fats and oils.
Hydrogen peroxide.
Magnesium carbonate—for use only in agricultural products labeled “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” prohibited in agricultural products labeled “organic”.
Magnesium chloride—derived from sea water.
Magnesium stearate—for use only in agricultural products labeled “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” prohibited in agricultural products labeled “organic”.
Nutrient vitamins and minerals, in accordance with 21 CFR 104.20, Nutritional Quality Guidelines For Foods.
Octadecylamine (CAS # 124-30-1)—for use only as a boiler water additive for packaging sterilization.
Ozone.
Peracetic acid/Peroxyacetic acid (CAS # 79-21-0)—for use in wash and/or rinse water according to FDA limitations. For use as a sanitizer on food contact surfaces.
Phosphoric acid—cleaning of food-contact surfaces and equipment only.
Potassium acid tartrate.
Potassium carbonate.
Potassium citrate.
Potassium hydroxide—prohibited for use in lye peeling of fruits and vegetables except when used for peeling peaches.
Potassium phosphate—for use only in agricultural products labeled “made with organic (specific ingredients or food group(s)),” prohibited in agricultural products labeled “organic”.
Silicon dioxide—Permitted as a defoamer. Allowed for other uses when organic rice hulls are not commercially available.
Sodium acid pyrophosphate (CAS # 7758-16-9)—for use only as a leavening agent.
Sodium citrate.
Sodium hydroxide—prohibited for use in lye peeling of fruits and vegetables.
Sodium phosphates—for use only in dairy foods.
Sulfur dioxide—for use only in wine labeled “made with organic grapes,” Provided, That, total sulfite concentration does not exceed 100 ppm.
Tetrasodium pyrophosphate (CAS # 7722-88-5)—for use only in meat analog products.
Tocopherols—derived from vegetable oil when rosemary extracts are not a suitable alternative.
Xanthan gum.
(c)-(z) [Reserved]
-
[68 FR 61993, Oct. 31, 2003, as amended as 68 FR 62217, Nov. 3, 2003; 71 FR 53302, Sept. 11, 2006; 72 FR 58473, Oct. 16, 2007; 73 FR 59481, Oct. 9, 2008; 75 FR 77524, Dec. 13, 2010; 77 FR 8092, Feb. 14, 2012; 77 FR 33298, June 6, 2012; 77 FR 45907, Aug. 2, 2012; 78 FR 31821, May 28, 2013; 78 FR 61161, Oct. 3, 2013]
return arrow Back to Top
§205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic.”
Only the following nonorganically produced agricultural products may be used as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic,” only in accordance with any restrictions specified in this section, and only when the product is not commercially available in organic form.
(a) Casings, from processed intestines.
(b) Celery powder.
(c) Chia (Salvia hispanica L.).
(d) Colors derived from agricultural products—Must not be produced using synthetic solvents and carrier systems or any artificial preservative.
(1) Beet juice extract color (pigment CAS #7659-95-2).
(2) Beta-carotene extract color—derived from carrots or algae (pigment CAS# 7235-40-7).
(3) Black currant juice color (pigment CAS #'s: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
(4) Black/Purple carrot juice color (pigment CAS #'s: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
(5) Blueberry juice color (pigment CAS #'s: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
(6) Carrot juice color (pigment CAS #1393-63-1).
(7) Cherry juice color (pigment CAS #'s: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
(8) Chokeberry—Aronia juice color (pigment CAS #'s: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
(9) Elderberry juice color (pigment CAS #'s: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
(10) Grape juice color (pigment CAS #'s: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
(11) Grape skin extract color (pigment CAS #'s: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
(12) Paprika color (CAS #68917-78-2)—dried, and oil extracted.
(13) Pumpkin juice color (pigment CAS #127-40-2).
(14) Purple potato juice (pigment CAS #'s: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
(15) Red cabbage extract color (pigment CAS #'s: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
(16) Red radish extract color (pigment CAS #'s: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
(17) Saffron extract color (pigment CAS #1393-63-1).
(18) Turmeric extract color (CAS #458-37-7).
(e) Dillweed oil (CAS # 8006-75-5).
(f) Fish oil (Fatty acid CAS #'s: 10417-94-4, and 25167-62-8)—stabilized with organic ingredients or only with ingredients on the National List, §§205.605 and 205.606.
(g) Fortified cooking wines.
(1) Marsala.
(2) Sherry.
(h) Fructooligosaccharides (CAS # 308066-66-2).
(i) Galangal, frozen.
(j) Gelatin (CAS # 9000-70-8).
(k) Gums—water extracted only (Arabic; Guar; Locust bean; and Carob bean).
(l) Hops (Humulus lupulus) until January 1, 2013.
(m) Inulin-oligofructose enriched (CAS # 9005-80-5).
(n) Kelp—for use only as a thickener and dietary supplement.
(o) Konjac flour (CAS # 37220-17-0).
(p) Lecithin—de-oiled.
(q) Lemongrass—frozen.
(r) Orange pulp, dried.
(s) Orange shellac-unbleached (CAS # 9000-59-3).
(t) Pectin (non-amidated forms only).
(u) Peppers (Chipotle chile).
(v) Seaweed, Pacific kombu.
(w) Starches.
(1) Cornstarch (native).
(2) Rice starch, unmodified (CAS # 977000-08-0)—for use in organic handling until June 21, 2009.
(3) Sweet potato starch—for bean thread production only.
(x) Tragacanth gum (CAS #-9000-65-1).
(y) Turkish bay leaves.
(z) Wakame seaweed (Undaria pinnatifida).
(aa) Whey protein concentrate.
[72 FR 35140, June 27, 2007, as amended at 75 FR 77524, Dec. 13, 2010; 77 FR 8092, Feb. 14, 2012; 77 FR 33299, June 6, 2012; 77 FR 44429, July 30, 2012; 78 FR 31821, May 28, 2013]
return arrow Back to Top
-
Can you give me an example of a certified organic food that is grown under the conditions you state above?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
"While the organic standard is defined differently in different jurisdictions, in general organic farming responds to site-specific farming and crop conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not allowed, although certain organically approved pesticides may be used under limited conditions. In general, organic foods are also not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives.[1]"
As you can see, there is a lot of chemicals that are being used and can be used on organic crops.
The info comes from here in case you want to see it:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7
-
After all that shit is put into it, how can anyone call it organic? :-\ :-\
-
After all that shit is put into it, how can anyone call it organic? :-\ :-\
Alot of times organic crops can be more contaminated and inedible even due to having to use more pesticides in the approved list than conventional or GMO. Especially, GMO, which can be engineered for disease and bug resistance which reduces pesticide usage or even flat out takes away the need to use any pesticide whatsoever. This does not happen with Organics.
-
Alot of times organic crops can be more contaminated and inedible even due to having to use more pesticides in the approved list than conventional or GMO. Especially, GMO, which can be engineered for disease and bug resistance which reduces pesticide usage or even flat out takes away the need to use any pesticide whatsoever. This does not happen with Organics.
Thanks for the info, your post reminded me of a conversation that I had with Cha Platz a few years back. She's heavily into organic foods and she said you have to be careful about the term organic on foods. She told me what certified label to recognize as organic that does not use chemical pesticides, but I forgot and I am not into organic foods in general anyway. I don't drink milk but the is a major difference in the taste of organic milk that has no hormones and antibiotics in it as well as cheese and I do eat a lot of cheese. Organic cheese is freakin pricey as hell though.
-
Alot of times organic crops can be more contaminated and inedible even due to having to use more pesticides in the approved list than conventional or GMO.
Nonsense. It's like comparing coffe to cocaine for their killing appetite effects. Sure, you will end up using more grams of coffe, but it's still safer.
Especially, GMO, which can be engineered for disease and bug resistance which reduces pesticide usage or even flat out takes away the need to use any pesticide whatsoever. This does not happen with Organics.
Yes, you will end up using less pesticides than a conventional crop (not an organic one), but GM crops are believed to have the potential to cause huge impacts in the ecosystem.
-
Nonsense. It's like comparing coffe to cocaine for their killing appetite effects. Sure, you will end up using more grams of coffe, but it's still safer.
Yes, you will end up using less pesticides than a conventional crop (not an organic one), but GM crops are believed to have the potential to cause huge impacts in the ecosystem.
::)
-
Why do 64 other countries require labeling of GMO food? ???
-
WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Gov't Planned To “Retaliate and Cause Pain” On Countries Refusing GMOs
Thursday, July 31, 2014
by Arjun Walia
Studies that link Genetically Modified (GM) food to multiple human health ailments are not the only thing that has millions of people questioning the production of GM food. The fact that previously classified secret government documents show how the Bush administration developed ways to retaliate against countries that were refusing to use GM seeds is another. - See more at: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2014/07/wikileaks-cables-reveal-us-govt-planned.html#sthash.t3XAzlYl.dpuf
-
WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Gov't Planned To “Retaliate and Cause Pain” On Countries Refusing GMOs
Thursday, July 31, 2014
by Arjun Walia
Studies that link Genetically Modified (GM) food to multiple human health ailments are not the only thing that has millions of people questioning the production of GM food. The fact that previously classified secret government documents show how the Bush administration developed ways to retaliate against countries that were refusing to use GM seeds is another. - See more at: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2014/07/wikileaks-cables-reveal-us-govt-planned.html#sthash.t3XAzlYl.dpuf
Oh brother, another scam site that peddles in bullshit. Seriously, these sites are for the wacky and are not credible whatsoever.
-
Roger, did you march with the Liberals on this one? Why are the anti-GMO people so fat and unhealthy looking? ???
(http://rt.com/files/news/1f/12/90/00/mon-2.jpg)
-
Roger, did you march with the Liberals on this one? Why are the anti-GMO people so fat and unhealthy looking? ???
(http://rt.com/files/news/1f/12/90/00/mon-2.jpg)
Same reason the rest of the population is, they are taking in too many calories.
-
Same reason the rest of the population is, they are taking in too many calories.
I wonder why that is not their first concern? They want to tell others how to live and what to eat, but not themselves. How much do you want to bet that after their little march, a number of them went to Mcdonalds to celebrate how much success they had looking like misinformed fools.
-
-
FINALLY, even the leaders of the Anti-GMO movement are turning the corner. Here is a public apology from one of the former leaders of the Anti-GMO movement. Why did he change his views? One word. SCIENCE.
-
I wonder why that is not their first concern? They want to tell others how to live and what to eat, but not themselves. How much do you want to bet that after their little march, a number of them went to Mcdonalds to celebrate how much success they had looking like misinformed fools.
I wouldn't bet against it. Part of the problem is that places like McDonald's make it too easy to stuff oneself with calorically dense food. It's easy to take in 2000 cals in just a few minutes of eating. People were not able to do this 100 or so years ago. Their stomachs get too many calories before the brain gets a signal to stop eating.
-
I wouldn't bet against it. Part of the problem is that places like McDonald's make it too easy to stuff oneself with calorically dense food. It's easy to take in 2000 cals in just a few minutes of eating. People were not able to do this 100 or so years ago. Their stomachs get too many calories before the brain gets a signal to stop eating.
I fail to see that as a problem. I would never want to legislate what someone can eat and I certainly would not want government or anyone to impose restrictions that would cause food prices to rise.
The majority of people who are obese are not getting the majority of their calories from fast food. They are getting them from the grocery store which is even EASIER to get cheaper calories than any fast food restaurant.
Why blame Mcdonalds when the easiest place and cheapest place to get cheap calories is the grocery store?
-
I fail to see that as a problem. I would never want to legislate what someone can eat and I certainly would not want government or anyone to impose restrictions that would cause food prices to rise.
The majority of people who are obese are not getting the majority of their calories from fast food. They are getting them from the grocery store which is even EASIER to get cheaper calories than any fast food restaurant.
Why blame Mcdonalds when the easiest place and cheapest place to get cheap calories is the grocery store?
Nothing is easier or cheaper than a $1 mcdouble toots
-
adonis why arent you wasting your time studying electricty, i dont think its healthy to debate with people here about gmo there is valid argument for both sides, the best choice is to grow your own obviously
-
Nothing is easier or cheaper than a $1 mcdouble toots
???
I can find a ton of things in the grocery store cheaper per calorie.
Also, there is a high correlation between obesity and poor people, people who receive food benefits from the government. They can`t use their benefits at restaurants, but they can at the grocery store. They are clearly getting the majority of their calories from the grocery store (just like the majority of non-poor people do).
What does this mean? This means that the systematic demonzation of Fast Food is unfounded and steeped in pure ignorance.
-
???
I can find a ton of things in the grocery store cheaper per calorie.
Also, there is a high correlation between obesity and poor people, people who receive food benefits from the government. They can`t use their benefits at restaurants, but they can at the grocery store. They are clearly getting the majority of their calories from the grocery store (just like the majority of non-poor people do).
What does this mean? This means that the systematic demonzation of Fast Food is unfounded and steeped in pure ignorance.
my advice dont bother yourself with these psuedo issues of the world, what matters is on a personal basis only, learn electricity, read stienmetz, jj thomas, . dont wast another hour or second explaining your case to someone about calories, poor people, government ect
-
???
I can find a ton of things in the grocery store cheaper per calorie.
Also, there is a high correlation between obesity and poor people, people who receive food benefits from the government. They can`t use their benefits at restaurants, but they can at the grocery store. They are clearly getting the majority of their calories from the grocery store (just like the majority of non-poor people do).
What does this mean? This means that the systematic demonzation of Fast Food is unfounded and steeped in pure ignorance.
Don't argue with me. I learned this from a guy named Adam abeles and he taught me the mcdouble is king.
-
Don't argue with me. I learned this from a guy named Adam abeles and he taught me the mcdouble is king.
Oh thats right, he posted that article about how the Mcdouble is the most nutritious meal per/dollar spent.
Lulz.
-
Oh thats right, he posted that article about how the Mcdouble is the most nutritious meal per/dollar spent.
Lulz.
It is as far as fast food goes. Pay attention Shockwave. Lulz.
-
It is as far as fast food goes. Pay attention Shockwave. Lulz.
Yes.
Don't ever argue with me again.
-
Yes.
Don't ever argue with me again.
I don`t want to. I want to love you.
-
Roger, did you march with the Liberals on this one? Why are the anti-GMO people so fat and unhealthy looking? ???
(http://rt.com/files/news/1f/12/90/00/mon-2.jpg)
;D
-
It is as far as fast food goes. Pay attention Shockwave. Lulz.
I don't remember the article making that distinction (fast food), I'm pretty sure it was that it was it was the most bang for the buck of any food throughout history? ???
(Not trying to argue, but I think Chiro was right on this one man)
-
Title of thread was Re: Cheapest, most nutritious,bountiful food that has ever existed in human history.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_greatest_food_human_history_5bikMtD5ZJ50x1KMCyGfTJ
(http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/2013/07/29/news/web_photos/McDoublecopy102528--525x400.jpg)
The greatest food in human history
In terms of cost-per-calorie, no locavore, organic veggie can compete with the McDouble
What is “the cheapest, most nutritious and bountiful food that has ever existed in human history” Hint: It has 390 calories. It contains 23g, or half a daily serving, of protein, plus 7% of daily fiber, 20% of daily calcium and so on.
Also, you can get it in 14,000 locations in the US and it usually costs $1. Presenting one of the unsung wonders of modern life, the McDonald’s McDouble cheeseburger.
The argument above was made by a commenter on the Freakonomics blog run by economics writer Stephen Dubner and professor Steven Levitt, who co-wrote the million-selling books on the hidden side of everything.
Mcdonalds mcdouble
Mcdonalds mcdouble
Dubner mischievously built an episode of his highly amusing weekly podcast around the debate. Many huffy back-to-the-earth types wrote in to suggest the alternative meal of boiled lentils. Great idea. Now go open a restaurant called McBoiled Lentils and see how many customers line up.
But we all know fast food makes us fat, right? Not necessarily. People who eat out tend to eat less at home that day in partial compensation; the net gain, according to a 2008 study out of Berkeley and Northwestern, is only about 24 calories a day.
The outraged replies to the notion of McDouble supremacy — if it’s not the cheapest, most nutritious and most bountiful food in human history, it has to be pretty close — comes from the usual coalition of class snobs, locavore foodies and militant anti-corporate types. I say usual because these people are forever proclaiming their support for the poor and for higher minimum wages that would supposedly benefit McDonald’s workers. But they’re completely heartless when it comes to the other side of the equation: cost.
Driving up McDonald’s wage costs would drive up the price of burgers for millions of poor people. “So what?” say activists. Maybe that’ll drive people to farmers markets.
For the average poor person, it isn’t a great option to take a trip to the farmers market to puzzle over esoteric lefty-foodie codes. (Is sustainable better than organic? What if I have to choose between fair trade and cruelty-free?) Produce may seem cheap to environmentally aware blond moms who spend $300 on their highlights every month, but if your object is to fill your belly, it is hugely expensive per calorie.
Junk food costs as little as $1.76 per 1,000 calories, whereas fresh veggies and the like cost more than 10 times as much, found a 2007 University of Washington survey for the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. A 2,000-calorie day of meals would, if you stuck strictly to the good-for-you stuff, cost $36.32, said the study’s lead author, Adam Drewnowski.
“Not only are the empty calories cheaper,” he reported, “but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods.” Where else but McDonald’s can poor people obtain so many calories per dollar?
And as for organic — the Abercrombie and Fitch jeans of food — if you have to check the price, you can’t afford it. (Not that it has any health benefits, as last year’s huge Stanford meta-study showed.)
Moreover, produce takes more time to prepare and spoils quickly, two more factors that effectively drive up the cost. Any time you’re spending peeling vegetables is time you aren’t spending on the job.
Activists will go anywhere to wave the banner of caring and plant their flagpole of social justice right in the foot of the working class.
Forcing New Yorkers to pay unnecessary high prices, they’ve managed to keep Walmart out of the five boroughs of New York City. The City Council of Washington, DC, recently passed a bill, designed specifically to punish only Walmart, which would mandate a super-minimum wage to benefit a small number of employees while effectively placing a surtax on every Walmart shopper. (Walmart responded by saying it was canceling plans for three stores. The bill may yet be vetoed by Mayor Vincent Gray.)
Fuel prices, like food prices, disproportionately hit the poor, so do-gooders do everything they can to raise energy costs by blocking new fuel sources like the Keystone XL pipelines and fracking. And they are always up for higher gasoline taxes and regulating coal-burning energy plants to death.
If the macrobiotic Marxists had their way, of course, there’d be no McDonald’s, Walmart or Exxon, because they have visions of an ideal world in which everybody bikes to work with a handwoven backpack from Etsy that contains a lunch grown in the neighborhood collective.
That’s not going to work for the average person, but who cares if they go hungry because they can’t afford a burger anymore? Let them eat kale!
kyle.smith@nypost.com
-
I don't remember the article making that distinction (fast food), I'm pretty sure it was that it was it was the most bang for the buck of any food throughout history? ???
(Not trying to argue, but I think Chiro was right on this one man)
Adonis now knows to never again fuck with my cheeseburger game. It's tighter than a dolphin's butthole.
-
Adonis now knows to never again fuck with my cheeseburger game. It's tighter than a dolphin's butthole.
I think he's probably trying to make a different distinction.. You probably CAN buy way more calories for cheaper at a supermarket if you buy pure shit ingrediants on a single buy basis...
maybe. Not sure. $1 for 500 cals is hard to beat.
-
I don't remember the article making that distinction (fast food), I'm pretty sure it was that it was it was the most bang for the buck of any food throughout history? ???
(Not trying to argue, but I think Chiro was right on this one man)
Of course you can`t put it up against every single food item available for purchase. (the article was accurate but somewhat tongue in cheek) I could find many other options in lieu of a Mcdouble at a grocery store, especially with weekly specials. I had pork shoulder the other day on special for 49 cents a pound, when its usually much, much, much more.
-
Of course you can`t put it up against every single food item available for purchase. (the article was accurate but somewhat tongue in cheek) I could find many other options in lieu of a Mcdouble at a grocery store, especially with weekly specials. I had pork shoulder the other day on special for 49 cents a pound, when its usually much, much, much more.
How am I supposed to ever learn if you keep posting contradicting information ???
Fuck this, and fuck you, I'm going to study electricity.
-
How am I supposed to ever learn if you keep posting contradicting information ???
Fuck this, and fuck you, I'm going to study electricity.
Its not contradictory though.
-
Its not contradictory though.
Bullshit.
Electricity.