Ezekiel Bread

@ossobucotemp,

This is why I buy organic if at all possible. It's the only way I know to get past those people.

@gollum,

Quote gollum:

Quote:

Where can we find a statement from a reputable authority on the matter to corroborate your statement?

On the matter for the requirements to grow food organically, and how the soil the organic food is grown on must be free of artificial pesticides and fertilizers, here is the link from the US Dep't of Agriculture:
Requirements for Organic Food
It's only a couple of pages.

On the matter of pesticides not being in organic food as much, here is an excerpt on a study a Swedish grocery chain did to see how much the pesticides in the urine of a family goes down when they switch from non-organic to organic food. The answer is that it seems to decrease sixfold or more:
Swedish Study On Pesticides
From that study, (page 17):

Quote:

The presence of pesticide residues in urine samples after organic consumption
The most noticeable change in concentration in urine after organic consumption was observed for
chlormequat chloride, CCC, whose median value (all samples) decreased from 41 μg/g crt
to below the detection limit. After the organic period, the substance could only be detected in two urine samples from one of the children with the highest concentration being 15 μg/g crt, compared with 675 μg/g crt during the period of conventionally grown food.

2,4-D (herbicide) was only found in 5 samples following the organic period, compared with 13 samples during the first period, with detectable levels in only two of the children. The median fell from 2 μg/g crt to below the detection limit. The highest measured concentration was similar during the two periods, 1.7 ng/ml compared with the previous 2.2 ng/ml.

The detection rate of propamocarb decreased from 7/20 to 1/20 and was found in only one sample from one of the children after the organic period, and then only at a concentration close to the detection limit.

0 Replies

@gollum,

(Continued from post above)
As for the issue about Roundup and GMO crops made Roundup resistant so they can drench the crops in the stuff, here is the latest on Roundup and Monsanto from the NY Times:

Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents
By DANNY HAKIMMARCH 14, 2017

The reputation of Roundup, whose active ingredient is the world’s most widely used weed killer, took a hit on Tuesday when a federal court unsealed documents raising questions about its safety and the research practices of its manufacturer, the chemical giant Monsanto.

Roundup and similar products are used around the world on everything from row crops to home gardens. It is Monsanto’s flagship product, and industry-funded research has long found it to be relatively safe. A case in federal court in San Francisco has challenged that conclusion, building on the findings of an international panel that claimed Roundup’s main ingredient might cause cancer.

The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

The documents also revealed that there was some disagreement within the E.P.A. over its own safety assessment.

The files were unsealed by Judge Vince Chhabria, who is presiding over litigation brought by people who claim to have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of exposure to glyphosate. The litigation was touched off by a determination made nearly two years ago by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, citing research linking it to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Court records show that Monsanto was tipped off to the determination by a deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland, months beforehand. That led the company to prepare a public relations assault on the finding well in advance of its publication. Monsanto executives, in their internal email traffic, also said Mr. Rowland had promised to beat back an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review.

Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto executive, said in an email in 2015 that Mr. Rowland, referring to the other agency’s potential review, had told him, “If I can kill this, I should get a medal.” The review never took place. In another email, Mr. Jenkins noted to a colleague that Mr. Rowland was planning to retire and said he “could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.”

The safety of glyphosate is not settled science. A number of agencies, including the European Food Safety Agency and the E.P.A., have disagreed with the international cancer agency, playing down concerns of a cancer risk, and Monsanto has vigorously defended glyphosate.

But the court records also reveal a level of debate within the E.P.A. The agency’s Office of Research and Development raised some concern about the robustness of an assessment carried out by the agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, where Mr. Rowland was a senior official at the time, and recommended in December 2015 that it take steps to “strengthen” its “human health assessment.”

In a statement, Monsanto said, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen.”

It added: “The allegation that glyphosate can cause cancer in humans is inconsistent with decades of comprehensive safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world. The plaintiffs have submitted isolated documents that are taken out of context.”

The E.P.A. had no immediate comment, and Mr. Rowland could not be reached immediately.

Monsanto also rebutted suggestions that the disclosures highlighted concerns that the academic research it underwrites is compromised. Monsanto frequently cites such research to back up its safety claims on Roundup and pesticides.

In one email unsealed Tuesday, William F. Heydens, a Monsanto executive, told other company officials that they could ghostwrite research on glyphosate by hiring academics to put their names on papers that were actually written by Monsanto. “We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,” Mr. Heydens wrote, citing a previous instance in which he said the company had done this.

Asked about the exchange, Monsanto said in a second statement that its “scientists did not ghostwrite the paper” that was referred to or previous work, adding that a paper that eventually appeared “underwent the journal’s rigorous peer review process before it was published.”

David Kirkland, one of the scientists mentioned in the email, said in an interview, “I would not publish a document that had been written by someone else.” He added, “We had no interaction with Monsanto at all during the process of reviewing the data and writing the papers.”

The disclosures are the latest to raise concerns about the integrity of academic research financed by agrochemical companies. Last year, a review by The New York Times showed how the industry can manipulate academic research or misstate findings. Declarations of interest included in a Monsanto-financed paper on glyphosate that appeared in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology said panel members were recruited by a consulting firm. Email traffic made public shows that Monsanto officials discussed and debated scientists who should be considered, and shaped the project.

“I think it’s important that people hold Monsanto accountable when they say one thing and it’s completely contradicted by very frank internal documents,” said Timothy Litzenburg of the Miller Firm, one of the law firms handling the litigation.

The issue of glyphosate’s safety is not a trivial one for Americans. Over the last two decades, Monsanto has genetically re-engineered corn, soybeans and cotton so it is much easier to spray them with the weed killer, and some 220 million pounds of glyphosate were used in 2015 in the United States.

“People should know that there are superb scientists in the world who would disagree with Monsanto and some of the regulatory agencies’ evaluations, and even E.P.A. has disagreement within the agency,” said Robin Greenwald, a lawyer at Weitz & Luxenberg, which is also involved in the litigation. “Even in the E.U., there’s been a lot of disagreement among the countries. It’s not so simple as Monsanto makes it out to be.”
NY Times article

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Wait - I remember your talking about what I don't remember - how the company in your neighborhood, what ever it was, dealt relatively well.

I might have saved that; how I would find it on my computer now, it would take experts.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

These arguments about GMOs sound a lot like arguments about Vaccinations and about Global Warming. The problem is that instead of looking at the scientific consensus, people scour the internet for single stories that support their claims.

If you mock people for ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus about Global Climate change, while yourself ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus about vaccinations or about the safety of GMOs, you have problem with logic.

There are always individual articles on Google to back up any scientific fringe. I think that going with the scientific consensus is a good idea when there is a clear agreement.

As I said before, I am not talking specifically about Roundup (although I think that the vast majority of unbiased scientists have determined there is no real risk to the food supply even with Roundup). I always try to go by the science... this doesn't mean cherry picked articles from one side, it means looking at the broad consensus from objective scientists researching the topic.

The knee-jerk rejection of GMOs, or conventional food across the board is not rational.

0 Replies

@ossobucotemp,

I think you must be referring to my discussing Aldi, because there was an add I saw in which they were said to be going all organic. The new store is open and it turns out they have a mix of organic and non organic. Not really that special.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Aldi have been over here for quite a bit. They're known for one thing, being really cheap, (and not accepting credit cards.)

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Not Aldi - it was perhaps some municipal company that didn't use round up on the property. This was quite a while ago and not a long discussion, just something you mentioned - all I can remember is that I thought whatever their practice was re their land, that it was a smart idea.

I have a lot of files on my computer and there is one for ecology; maybe I saved it, but probably not.

2 Replies

@ossobucotemp,

Whatever it is, I've forgotten, without a prompter.

0 Replies

@ossobucotemp,

Oh well, I reviewed that file and didn't find a link.

0 Replies

http://www.ecowatch.com/usda-glyphosate-testing-2326808630.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=EcoWatch
USDA Drops Plan to Test for Monsanto Weed Killer in Food
Mar. 23, 2017 07:39PM EST

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/29/constitutional-lawyer-dem-ags-are-trying-to-silence-global-warming-skeptics-with-prosecution/

Constitutional Lawyer: Dem AGs Are Trying To Silence Global Warming Skeptics With Prosecution

In case you don't see the point I will spell it out. Look at how Edgar's article uses the same basic argument as this Global Warming skepticism article. If you ignore the scientific when it refutes your political or philosophical perspective, it hurts your credibility when you appeal to science that supports your viewpoint.

Both sides play this game... accepting science only when science backs up their politics. In my opinion, this is a bad thing. Using science as a political pawn hurts its real power in making informed, unbiased decisions about policy.

Science should be objective. Unfortunately that means it will contradict your world view. That's true even if you are a liberal.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You want to assume the mantle of scientific defender, but you shamelessly try to mix together Global Warming skeptics and organic food adherents. Sorry, but your positions are self-contradictory.

As for Edgar's article, I find the following quote at the end of the piece about the cancellation of testing for Roundup in food quite informative:

Quote:

CropLife [ a food industry trade group] also has complained to USDA that data from its testing program is used by proponents of organic agriculture to promote organics over conventional foods. The group last year sent USDA a series of questions about its testing, and asked USDA: "What can we do to assist you in fighting these scaremongering tactics?"

The USDA's most recent published report on pesticide residues in food found that for 2015 testing, only 15 percent of the 10,187 samples tested were free from any detectable pesticide residues. That's a marked difference from 2014, when the USDA found that over 41 percent of samples were "clean" or showed no detectable pesticide residues. Most of the samples, over 99 percent, had residues below the EPA's established tolerances and are at levels that "do not pose risk to consumers' health and are safe."

Many scientists take issue with using MRLs as a standard associated with safety, arguing they are based on pesticide industry data and rely on flawed analyses. Much more research is needed to understand the impact on human health of chronic dietary exposures to pesticides, scientists say.

The percentage of food we eat that is pesticide free is dropping fast, and the Department of Agriculture is dropping plans to test for the most popular pesticide based on data supplied by the industry. How very convenient.

1 Reply

There are thousands if not millions of scientists bought and sold for fake results in agriculture, medicine and Hayzoos knows what else.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

You want to assume the mantle of scientific defender, but you shamelessly try to mix together Global Warming skeptics and organic food adherents. Sorry, but your positions are self-contradictory.

Please explain the difference. Both Global Warming skeptics and Organic Food adherents are cherry picking studies to stake a claim that has been refuted by the vast majority of scientists and reputable scientific organizations.

I don't see the difference. You can always find a few scientists or politically motivated groups to push findings to buck the scientific consensus. Global Warming skeptics and Organic food adherents use the same tactics.

It doesn't change the fact that their beliefs are refuted by the great majority of the scientific community.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

There are thousands if not millions of scientists bought and sold for fake results in agriculture, medicine and Hayzoos knows what else.

Thanks Edgar, great example. The Global Warming Skeptics make this argument too.

Quote:

The reason for this is simple: Government bureaucrats and politicians see global warming as a gravy train hauling an endless supply of tax money for them to use in buying votes. Why, air into gold is even better than the ancient art of alchemy (that sought to turn lead into gold).

These global warming profiteers are aligned with the “back to the caves, man” anti-industrial movement that sees a “carbon tax” and “carbon credit trading” as a way to implement restrictions on energy use by Westerners who happen to like to heat and cool their homes (especially in an extended winter) and drive their cars to work. Think of it as affirmative action for the environment, while you’re relaxing in your cave.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2008/04/61768/#1qJJK21QaJlqP7cZ.99

Of course if you look at reputable, scientific groups-- like NASA, the IAPC or the EPA (on either issue) you will see that the "All the scientists who disagree with me have been bought off" argument doesn't hold water in either the Global Warming, or the GMO/Organic issue.

This is just an excuse to not accept the science that doesn't back up your political beliefs.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Of course, rich White people spending too much money on bread made from organic millet and marketed with a questionable Bible passage isn't a real problem. Although, I think this particular marketing gimmick (bread cooked over excrement) is too funny to not poke fun at.

There is a real problem in other areas where people reject scientific consensus for political or philosophical reasons.

Does anyone here fear that vaccinations are linked to autism? That is an anti-science belief that is really dangerous (rather than just convincing people to spend more money).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote max:

Quote:

Of course, rich White people spending too much money on bread made from organic millet and marketed with a questionable Bible passage isn't a real problem. Although, I think this particular marketing gimmick (bread cooked over excrement) is too funny to not poke fun at.

There is a real problem in other areas where people reject scientific consensus for political or philosophical reasons.

As you reject proof. You came in here swaggering and "informed" us that organic was a marketing gimmick. Then I posted a page from the Dep't of Agriculture which showed stringent controls, including in-person inspections, for such standards as the soil the organic food was grown in could not have been exposed to artificial fertilizers or pesticides for fully three years before anything to be labelled "organic" could be grown there. That's a real expense for the farmer-and you try to pass it off as a "marketing gimmick".

Then there is the NY Times article I posted showing how internally, Monsanto was discussing writing up a research paper and handing it to an academic to sign to it. Moreover, elsewhere in that discussion the Monsanto people admitted that they had done that before-hand over their own research and had a supposedly "independent" scientist take credit for it, as a cover. You ignore that.

Then there was the fact that in 2014, 41% of the food the Dep't iof Agriculture tested was completely pesticide-free, while in 2015 only 15% of the food was pesticide-free. Pesticides are taking over, and fast. Yet here's the Dep't of Agriculture calling off testing for the most common pesticide. You ignore that.

Then there is the Swedish supermarket study which performed urinalysis of each family member when they were eating non-organic food for awhile and then again when they ate organic food for awhile, and saw the pesticide counts drop sixfold when they switched to the organic diet. Not six percent, sixfold. You ignore that.

Yet you keep posting not about facts but about how organic food customers are the same as global warming deniers. Most of the people I know who are into organic food are also very concerned about global warming-you couldn't have picked a more inappropriate topic to try to build your name calling strategy around.

1 Reply

Ezekial bread is not that expensive for one like myself. I keep most of it frozen and eat one or two slices in a day. Working a knife gently about the edges usually pops off a frozen slice. A loaf lasts a very long time. I was advised to eat barley bread with a program I was on. Ezekial was the closest I could find, without baking my own.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I've seen it in some health food departments and stores. It's a little more expensive than premium conventional breads, but not much more expensive. Some organic items are very expensive, some only a little more. Heck, I just picked up some navel oranges from the organic food store, really juicy and delicious, and they were $1.69 a pound. Can't beat that.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know