# 8 Foods Even The Experts Won’t Eat



## taxlady

http://eatlocalgrown.com/article/12214-8-foods-even-the-experts-won-t-eat.html

We already don't eat most of those foods, for the same reasons. I am looking to change to grass fed beef.


----------



## Aunt Bea

The experts better not come to my house for dinner!


----------



## GotGarlic

"But Kastel counters that it’s just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples."

Sometimes, common sense is not very common. You can find articles out there that claim that cooking foods in the microwave causes it to become radioactive; that's not true, either. The fact is, there are many causes of obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer, primarily genetics combined with living long enough to acquire them and too many calories combined with not enough exercise. Check out the research into the Hygiene Hypothesis. It's very interesting.

Sorry, TL. To me, this just looks like another scare-mongering article.


----------



## Andy M.

This is a website with an agenda.  Read the opening paragraphs in the "About Us" section.


----------



## Zagut

Sometimes said:
			
		

> Ain't that the truth.


----------



## cave76

Andy M. said:


> This is a website with an agenda.  Read the opening paragraphs in the "About Us" section.



I was delighted to find someone else reads Web articles 'from the bottom up' I always start with About Us----- many tidbits in that!

Then LinkedIn furnishes this:

[Rick Davis, the founder of eatlocalgrown, is a very busy man!]

Rick Davis' Skills & Expertise

E-commerce  Social Media Marketing  Analytics  Email Marketing Guerrilla Marketing  Profit Maximization  Operational Efficiency  Leverage Leadership  Management  Start-ups  Entrepreneurship Website Development  Website Promotion  SEO  Team Building  Selling Strategy  Sales  Sales Operations  Social Media  Marketing  Facebook User Experience  Enterprise Software  Small Business  Web Design Strategic Partnerships  Online Advertising  Brand Development Social Networking  Online Marketing
********************
Those foods---- yeah, those are mostly true---- but perhaps Mr Davis thought that was new news. 

And I'm with Aunt Bea------ better not come to MY house----except I definitely draw the line at microwave popcorn! 

Rant coming----- Wild salmon?---- is that really safer than salmon that live in the wild? Answering my own question----- pretty sure they are, but they're not ''pure" and won't be if we don't stop polluting the ocean. 

That article was marketing for the easily swayed----- and shows Mr. Davis at his best. Purportedly.


----------



## jennyema

Personally, I thought most of that list was good advice.


----------



## taxlady

GotGarlic said:


> "But Kastel counters that it’s just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples."
> 
> Sometimes, common sense is not very common. *You can find articles out there that claim that cooking foods in the microwave causes it to become radioactive; that's not true, either.* The fact is, there are many causes of obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer, primarily genetics combined with living long enough to acquire them and too many calories combined with not enough exercise. Check out the research into the Hygiene Hypothesis. It's very interesting.
> 
> Sorry, TL. To me, this just looks like another scare-mongering article.


That's not common sense that's common nonsense.

Yeah, the hygiene hypothesis is interesting and I've been saying that for years. What does that have to do with these eight foods?

Scaremongering? Those foods are on that list for good reasons.


----------



## taxlady

Andy M. said:


> This is a website with an agenda.  Read the opening paragraphs in the "About Us" section.


Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't bothered reading it. I had already dismissed the site as a bit wacko from the name of the website.

But, he sounds much more reasonable than I expected from your comment. His agenda seems to be to encourage people to buy local, healthy tasty food and support the farmers who produce. Sounds good to me.

That list summarizes what I had already researched and concluded and gave good reasons.


----------



## GotGarlic

taxlady said:


> That's not common sense that's common nonsense.
> 
> Yeah, the hygiene hypothesis is interesting and I've been saying that for years. What does that have to do with these eight foods?
> 
> Scaremongering? Those foods are on that list for good reasons.



Correlation does not equal causation. X may be "linked with" Y, but that doesn't prove that X caused Y. Making a decision because something "seems to make sense" is not based on evidence, so it may or may not be true.

Question: Did you wake up this morning? So did I! So did your waking cause mine, or did my waking cause yours? Or are they unrelated? If they're "linked" because they both happened at the same time, what is the hypothesis that explains why?


----------



## taxlady

GotGarlic said:


> Correlation does not equal causation. X may be "linked with" Y, but that doesn't prove that X caused Y. Making a decision because something "seems to make sense" is not based on evidence, so it may or may not be true.
> 
> Question: Did you wake up this morning? So did I! So did your waking cause mine, or did my waking cause yours? Or are they unrelated? If they're "linked" because they both happened at the same time, what is the hypothesis that explains why?


I don't understand your point. I do understand that correlation does not equal causation. Example: a town with an asbestos mine. Someone noted that the people who lived in the houses with largest TV antennas had the highest rates of cancer/lung disease. Now, how would TV antennas do that? They don't. The people with the biggest TV antennas turned out to be the guys who put in the most overtime in the mines and therefore had the most asbestos exposure.

Are you saying that, "“Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers,” he says. And  increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden  of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson’s disease." doesn't prove it was caused by eating pesticides? Maybe there is no cause and effect for the higher cancer rates in farm workers. I still don't want to eat pesticides.


----------



## jennyema

What of those points do DC folks disagree with  ?

I think most of them are spot on.


----------



## GotGarlic

taxlady said:


> I don't understand your point. I do understand that correlation does not equal causation.



That is exactly my point. 



taxlady said:


> Are you saying that, "&#147;Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers,&#148; he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden  of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson&#146;s disease." doesn't prove it was caused by eating pesticides? Maybe there is no cause and effect for the higher cancer rates in farm workers. I still don't want to eat pesticides.



Yes, that's what I'm saying. Farm workers in general are transients with very low wages and no health insurance (they move around depending on what crops are ripening) so I would expect them to have higher rates of all kinds of diseases. 

You can eat or not eat whatever you want. Doesn't make a difference to me  My view is that in general, people in Western societies are healthier and better fed than people have ever been before in history.

Btw, have you ever sprinkled salt on a slug? It's a pretty effective pesticide  People are neither pests nor fungus.


----------



## no mayonnaise

GotGarlic said:


> Btw, have you ever sprinkled salt on a slug? It's a pretty effective pesticide  People are neither pests nor fungus.



You could do the same thing to a human with enough salt.  And saying humans aren't pests... you obviously haven't met enough humans


----------



## GotGarlic

no mayonnaise said:


> You could do the same thing to a human with enough salt.



No, salt isn't absorbed through human skin, like it is for soft-bodied creatures. You can sit in a layer of salt and it will not kill you.



no mayonnaise said:


> And saying humans aren't pests... you obviously haven't met enough humans



I knew someone would say that!


----------



## GotGarlic

jennyema said:


> What of those points do DC folks disagree with  ?
> 
> I think most of them are spot on.



I think they're first-world problems that I don't spend a lot of time worrying about. Most people in this world would be thrilled to have easy access to these foods and they would be healthier and live longer.

Check this out:

4 College Kids Decided To Try Living Like 1.1 Billion People Do Every Day


----------



## taxlady

GotGarlic said:


> I think they're first-world problems that I don't spend a lot of time worrying about. Most people in this world would be thrilled to have easy access to these foods and they would be healthier and live longer.
> 
> Check this out:
> 
> 4 College Kids Decided To Try Living Like 1.1 Billion People Do Every Day


Yup, definitely first world problems, but I live in the first world. If I was hungry enough, I would eat those foods.

So, what do we do about poverty and hunger? Somehow eating food that's covered in pesticides and herbicides doesn't seem to be the answer.


----------



## GotGarlic

taxlady said:


> Yup, definitely first world problems, but I live in the first world. If I was hungry enough, I would eat those foods.
> 
> So, what do we do about poverty and hunger? Somehow eating food that's covered in pesticides and herbicides doesn't seem to be the answer.



Well, I think a lot of those statements are overblown, there are a lot of qualifications in those little blurbs, and many the links go to other pages on the same site, so I just don't find it very credible. 

For example, bovine growth hormone is broken down by stomach acids so it is not absorbed into the body so it has no effect on humans. Research into using BGH on humans with dwarfism showed no effect. That's why diabetics need to inject insulin, another hormone. If they took it as a pill, it would be broken down and be ineffective. 

http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/FN-250_6.pdf

Regarding poverty and hunger, we each do what we can. When I was working, I donated to the medical school which provides free medical care to the poor and sends students to places like Haiti and central America to provide free health care. Now I volunteer with the master gardeners who grew and donated over 1,000 pounds of fresh vegetables to the local food bank last summer and we sponsor a Junior Master Gardeners program, among several others, that teaches schoolchildren about growing their own food and other plants.

I also think sites like that unnecessarily make poor and middle-class people feel bad about their food choices and may cause some to spend beyond their means for food that isn't necessarily a huge improvement. If people have the money to spend $15 for a single free-range chicken or $18/pound for wild salmon, hey, go for it. Most people can't afford it and I think it's wrong to tell them they're eating crap when fresh apples and fish and milk are healthful options.


----------



## Mad Cook

taxlady said:


> 8 Foods Even The Experts Won
> 
> We already don't eat most of those foods, for the same reasons. I am looking to change to grass fed beef.


I eat locally "grown" grass fed beef because it tastes better than the other stuff. 

 However, there is a welfare issue involved with only feeding cattle on grass. The nutritional content of grass varies throughout the year for various reasons and in temperate climates (as in Britain) and areas with cold winters (as in many parts of America) it stops growing completely at 5 degrees C (41 degrees F). This means that for cattle to thrive and build muscle (to make good meat) they must be fed supplementary cereals and hay in winter. The best farmers feed non-GM feed and organic cereals but you have to ask to be sure.


----------



## Zereh

You can't live your life fearing everything, but you sure as heck can make informed decisions. Banned ingredients that are still legal in the US. And nearly all of the big name (fake) food producers use completely different ingredients for what they sell in other countries and save the toxic stuff for the US - because profit > health. It saddens me that our FDA is complicit right alongside them.


----------



## taxlady

Mad Cook said:


> I eat locally "grown" grass fed beef because it tastes better than the other stuff.
> 
> However, there is a welfare issue involved with only feeding cattle on grass. The nutritional content of grass varies throughout the year for various reasons and in temperate climates (as in Britain) and areas with cold winters (as in many parts of America) it stops growing completely at 5 degrees C (41 degrees F). This means that for cattle to thrive and build muscle (to make good meat) they must be fed supplementary cereals and hay in winter. The best farmers feed non-GM feed and organic cereals but you have to ask to be sure.



Well yeah, mostly it won't be fresh grass in winter, especially in Québec.

I saw a documentary about a British farmer who pastured his cows in winter. He had been working on getting the right combination of grasses to make it possible for about 20 years. He has it figured out for his farm.


----------



## Roll_Bones

Canned tomato's?

I could not live without canned tomato's.

Silly list and silly people who make them.

Next week it will be  a new list and all these things in this list become good for you.


----------



## taxlady

Roll_Bones said:


> Canned tomato's?
> 
> I could not live without canned tomato's.
> 
> Silly list and silly people who make them.
> 
> Next week it will be  a new list and all these things in this list become good for you.



Sure, BPA will suddenly become good for you. But, I expect canned tomatoes to go on the "good list"in the not too distant future - when manufacturers find a cheap substitute for lining tomato cans. Jarred tomatoes are fine. I haven't found jarred tomatoes, so I use passata, which is sold in a glass bottle and fresh tomatoes.


----------



## Addie

It all comes down to finances. Farm fresh always cost more.

Sure I would love to eat the veggies I had as a kid on the farm. I do remember my mother always washing any veggies she brought in from the garden. Yet as kids do, we would pick beans, peas, tomatoes and any other that we wanted. And we didn't wash them off first. I am still alive. Most of those foods on the list I don't eat anyway. And I still wash every piece of produce that comes into my home. I don't need experts to tell me how to take care of the foods I choose to eat.


----------



## bbobson

I miss the local farm that sold grass fed beef, oddly the couple who owned the farm were vegetarian.  My dad raised a few head of cattle over the years, he would buy hay to feed during the winter with a sprinkling of grain on top.  Truly was some of the best beef I have ever had.


----------



## creative

I wonder if the food experts would not eat raw beansprouts either....

Sprouts: What You Should Know | FoodSafety.gov


----------



## Addie

creative said:


> I wonder if the food experts would not eat raw beansprouts either....
> 
> Sprouts: What You Should Know | FoodSafety.gov



I have known about the bean sprouts for a couple of years.


----------



## Mad Cook

If we listened to and acted on all the information about food that is bad for us we'd die of starvation. 

Don't these people wash their veggies? I was taught to wash veg in salt and water or vinegar and water and rinse them in cold running water before cooking and/or eating.


----------



## creative

Mad Cook said:


> If we listened to and acted on all the information about food that is bad for us we'd die of starvation.
> 
> Don't these people wash their veggies? I was taught to wash veg in salt and water or vinegar and water and rinse them in cold running water before cooking and/or eating.


Washing veg is one thing, but when there have been numerous reported outbreaks 'of foodborne illnesses' from having eaten beansprouts...I for one take note!   Would washing the beansprouts rid of the bacteria?  Is it that simple?  The advice is to cook them which depletes the beansprouts nutritionally.


----------



## Mad Cook

creative said:


> Washing veg is one thing, but when there have been numerous reported outbreaks 'of foodborne illnesses' from having eaten beansprouts...I for one take note!   Would washing the beansprouts rid of the bacteria?  Is it that simple?  The advice is to cook them which depletes the beansprouts nutritionally.


To be honest I don't eat bean sprouts apart from the rare occasions I have Chinese. There are more exciting vegetables.


----------



## creative

Mad Cook said:


> To be honest I don't eat bean sprouts apart from the rare occasions I have Chinese. There are more exciting vegetables.


Yes, I agree!  I use to sprout them myself (for their proclaimed high nutritional value) but that was before I knew about them being susceptible to bacteria.  I think they are unappetising when cooked (just about tolerable in a chow mein) and - to be frank - quite insipid raw.


----------



## GotGarlic

Washing bean sprouts will not remove any bacteria. I'm bummed about it because fresh sprouts add a nice crunch to Vietnamese soups and salads.


----------



## taxlady

They could irradiate them. I just worry that the producers will be even less careful with cleanliness if they know all the micro-organisms will be irradiated to death.


----------



## Steve Kroll

Well, I'm certainly not going to stop eating bean sprouts. I've enjoyed them, both raw and cooked, my entire life. And to the best of my knowledge, I've never suffered any ill effects.

The fact is, ANY food that's considered high in nutrition is fair game for bacteria. Does that mean we should all just stop eating nutritious food?


----------



## creative

Steve Kroll said:


> Well, I'm certainly not going to stop eating bean sprouts. I've enjoyed them, both raw and cooked, my entire life. And to the best of my knowledge, I've never suffered any ill effects.
> 
> *The fact is, ANY food that's considered high in nutrition is fair game for bacteria.* Does that mean we should all just stop eating nutritious food?


Can you explain how you arrive at this conclusion?  Pomegranates - for instance - are high in antioxidants and are not susceptible to bacteria, i.e. do not have a link to numerous cases of illness, as has been the case with beansprouts.


----------



## Steve Kroll

creative said:


> Can you explain how you arrive at this conclusion?  Pomegranates - for instance - are high in antioxidants and are not susceptible to bacteria, i.e. do not have a link to numerous cases of illness, as has been the case with beansprouts.


Really? How about Hepatitus A? Maybe you should stop eating pomegranates.
Hepatitis A Outbreak Linked to Townsend Farms-Costco Pomegranate Seeds Grows Again | Food Poisoning Bulletin


----------



## creative

Steve Kroll said:


> Really? How about Hepatitus A? Maybe you should stop eating pomegranates.
> Hepatitis A Outbreak Linked to Townsend Farms-Costco Pomegranate Seeds Grows Again | Food Poisoning Bulletin


That is a manufactured product i.e. _not_ the fruit itself in its natural fresh state.   I see this product had to be recalled so it was an error in the production and not attributable to the fresh pomegranate.   I live in UK so have never heard of this product, i.e. we don't get that here.

So...can you give me any _better_ examples of foods high in nutrition having bacteria enough to be linked with illnesses (not manufactured products)?


----------



## GotGarlic

http://www.womansday.com/health-fitness/the-11-most-contaminated-foods-123406


----------



## PrincessFiona60

I eat raw sprouts, of all kinds, almost every single day. No problems.  I buy from one trusted source.  Love them on my sandwiches.


----------



## Andy M.

creative said:


> That is a manufactured product i.e. _not_ the fruit itself in its natural fresh state...



From Steve's linked article:  *Investigations have traced the virus back to pomegranate seeds...*


----------



## creative

Andy M. said:


> From Steve's linked article:  *Investigations have traced the virus back to pomegranate seeds...*



Seems to be linked to an isolated incidence in Turkey last year, i.e. not typically found in pomegranates?

Turkish Pomegranate Seeds Spread Rare Virus Across U.S. | Food Safety News


----------



## Steve Kroll

creative said:


> Seems to be linked to an isolated incidence in Turkey last year, i.e. not typically found in pomegranates?
> 
> Turkish Pomegranate Seeds Spread Rare Virus Across U.S. | Food Safety News


The pomegranate seeds mentioned above were not "manufactured." They came from natural organically grown pomegranates. They were part of a frozen "antioxidant fruit blend" that also contained certified organic cherries and berries. The virus likely originated in Turkey from someone carrying the disease, who in turn contaminated the raw seeds, which then sat dormant until the fruit was thawed and consumed. I used this example because it's similar to the way that e. coli is spread. E. coli originates from a contaminated source (poorly handled meat or fecal matter in groundwater) coming in contact with a food source and sitting in a semi-dormant state until it's consumed.

Most of these pathogens are not typically found in the foods they turn up in, but occur due to contamination from external sources.

I used a poor choice of words above by saying food "high in nutrition". What I was really searching for was a phrase that encompasses fruits, vegetables, cheeses, meats, and dairy without preservatives or additives to prolong shelf life. Maybe "non-processed" or something like that would've been a better choice of words, although I'm not sure that makes the point, either.


----------



## CWS4322

PrincessFiona60 said:


> I eat raw sprouts, of all kinds, almost every single day. No problems.  I buy from one trusted source.  Love them on my sandwiches.


I eat raw sprouts as well. Right now, I'm hooked on fenugreek sprouts. I get mine from a trusted source, too, myself.


----------



## Zagut

Nice link GG. Just proves we can't eat anything. 

I look at it this way. Life's a crap shoot no matter what you do. I'm sure I'm going to meet my maker when that chunk of blue ice falls from the sky and woops me in the head.

Don't consume obviously tainted food but enjoy life while you've got it. It's too short to bother about the doom & gloom reported in the media these days.


----------



## creative

Yes Zagut.  With common sense about avoiding the most likely pitfalls, then I don't worry about selecting and eating food.  

I do tend to shop for quality ingredients though.


----------



## GotGarlic

Zagut said:


> Nice link GG. Just proves we can't eat anything.
> 
> I look at it this way. Life's a crap shoot no matter what you do. I'm sure I'm going to meet my maker when that chunk of blue ice falls from the sky and woops me in the head.
> 
> Don't consume obviously tainted food but enjoy life while you've got it. It's too short to bother about the doom & gloom reported in the media these days.



Creative asked for examples and I gave her some. That doesn't mean I avoid all those foods. If you read back to the beginning, you'll see I was skeptical of the original list.


----------



## Farmer Jon

*2. The Farmer Won’t Eat: Corn-Fed Beef*

 Joel Salatin is  co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of half a dozen books on  sustainable farming.The problem: Cattle evolved to eat grass, not  grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which  fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. But more money for cattle  farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less  nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and  researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed  beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s,  conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower  in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been  linked to heart disease. “We need to respect the fact that cows are  herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken  manure,” says Salatin.




This is a bunch of baloney. I have a freezer full of corn feed beef and pork. This guy obviously don't know crap abut farming. Ive been raising cattle for 14 years and never once feed them one single soybean or one ounce of chicken manure. I dont know where he got that from.They get a mixture of corn, grass, and alfalfa. Sometimes wheat or oat straw and dry corn stalks for fiber. 

 You keep livestock far from chicken manure. We brought in a  100 head from out of state that were grass fed on a pasture fertilized with chicken crap. They started dropping like flies. They all got salmonella from the chicken crap. The state I live in cattle out number people 4 to 1. Ive been involved in agriculture all my life. I have not ever known anyone that feed soy beans and chicken **** to their cattle. I can also gaurentee every cattle producer has a freezer full of corn feed beef.
For another thing soybeans are worth twice as much as corn. Want to throw your profits out the window? Want greasy meat that the processor will reject? Feed soy beans. 

Dariy cattle get a little soybean meal but that's a whole other industry.


----------



## Andy M.

Farmer Jon said:


> *2. The Farmer Won’t Eat: Corn-Fed Beef*...
> 
> 
> This is a bunch of baloney. I have a freezer full of corn feed beef and pork. This guy obviously don't know crap abut farming. Ive been raising cattle for 14 years and never once feed them one single soybean or one ounce of chicken manure. I dont know where he got that from.They get a mixture of corn, grass, and alfalfa. Sometimes wheat or oat straw and dry corn stalks for fiber.
> 
> You keep livestock far from chicken manure. We brought in a  100 head from out of state that were grass fed on a pasture fertilized with chicken crap. They started dropping like flies. They all got salmonella from the chicken crap. The state I live in cattle out number people 4 to 1. Ive been involved in agriculture all my life. I have not ever known anyone that feed soy beans and chicken **** to their cattle. I can also gaurentee every cattle producer has a freezer full of corn feed beef.
> For another thing soybeans are worth twice as much as corn. Want to throw your profits out the window? Want greasy meat that the processor will reject? Feed soy beans.
> 
> Dariy cattle get a little soybean meal but that's a whole other industry.




Thank you for your input.  As I mentioned in an earlier post here, that's a site with an agenda.  They promote eating local so present any alternative as poison. 

It's not true just because you read it on the internet.


----------



## Farmer Jon

There is nothing wrong with eating local. There are always teenagers selling sweet corn watermelons squash etc on the road side. I support it. Just don't support it with lies.


----------



## Steve Kroll

Farmer Jon said:


> ...Ive been involved in agriculture all my life. I have not ever known anyone that feed soy beans and chicken **** to their cattle.


You may not feed chicken manure and soybeans to your cattle, but evidently they do in some places, including Missouri:

G2077 Feeding Poultry Litter to Beef Cattle | University of Missouri Extension
Farm Management - AgEBB


----------



## creative

Steve Kroll said:


> You may not feed chicken manure and soybeans to your cattle, but evidently they do in some places, including Missouri:
> 
> G2077 Feeding Poultry Litter to Beef Cattle | University of Missouri Extension
> Farm Management - AgEBB


Yes it is common practise here in UK, i.e. fed to poultry that are not raised organically - called DPM (dried poultry manure).   I always buy organic eggs.


----------



## Farmer Jon

Ok I can see the soybeans. Looks like they were geared more towards cows and calves rather than feeder cattle. For those who don't know cows are the moms and feeders (steers and heifers) are sent to slaughter.
 In early 2000s beans were cheap.Thats when your link was put out. They were in the $4 range (I looked it up to be sure) Now they are in the $13 range. Corn is in the $3 range right now.
The chicken poop thing left me speechless. WOW. Feed the poop from one animal to another? I know they make blood meal and bone meal from cattle but that's not poop. I am going to show this to my boss see if he ever heard about this.


----------



## Mad Cook

creative said:


> Washing veg is one thing, but when there have been numerous reported outbreaks 'of foodborne illnesses' from having eaten beansprouts...I for one take note! Would washing the beansprouts rid of the bacteria? Is it that simple? The advice is to cook them which depletes the beansprouts nutritionally.


I don't eat beansprouts so I can't say.


----------



## sparrowgrass

Cattle in feed lots are fed lots and lots of weird things--whatever is cheap, has protein (chicken poo) and is transportable.  Rejected candy is used in some places, and spent grain from the distilling process.


----------



## creative

sparrowgrass said:


> Cattle in feed lots are fed lots and lots of weird things--whatever is cheap, has protein (chicken poo) and is transportable.  Rejected candy is used in some places, and spent grain from the distilling process.


Chicken manure may well have protein but it is also a _waste product_, i.e. not a 'pure'/wholesome food


----------



## Kayelle

More and more, I'm understanding why there are vegetarians.


----------



## Farmer Jon

The candy bar thing didn't work out so well. That was tried back in the 80s out here. Lots of people feed distillers. Its actually real good but one thing about it is it creates more manure and you have to clean the pens more often. There is a new thing out now I dont know the real word for it everyone just calls it liquid corn. ITs like a syrup. Has all the nutritional value of corn but its liquid. A by product of making ethanol like the distillers. If they need more fiber in the ration you add corn stalks that have near zero nutritional value. You put this liquid corn on and mix it up. We use to cover our silage pit with plastic to keep it from spoiling. All kinds of critters love a silage pile because its warm. Rats mice raccoons possums ect. We started spraying it with liquid corn it keeps better and no critters get in it. They don't like sticky fur.


----------



## creative

Kayelle said:


> More and more, I'm understanding why there are vegetarians.


Yes, with my acquired knowledge on food practises I should really go veggie....guess I am waiting for the right time/motivation - meanwhile, have to confess I do like eating meat and fish.  However, I shop with care and do not begrudge spending more for quality food.


----------



## Steve Kroll

This is why I buy grass fed beef from a local place. The cattle have never been off the farm and I get a fact sheet with every purchase with information on the farmer who raised it. Yes, it's more expensive but I don't mind paying a little more.


----------



## jennyema

Steve Kroll said:


> This is why I buy grass fed beef from a local place. The cattle have never been off the farm and I get a fact sheet with every purchase with information on the farmer who raised it. Yes, it's more expensive but I don't mind paying a little more.



I'm with you.

I've cut way down on beef and source it more carefully.

Switched to a lot of fresh wild fish and (hopefully) humanely raised chicken.


----------



## PrincessFiona60

I know my cattlemen, hogmen, poultry growers.  I count on the buying expertise of the butcher department at my favorite store for fish.


----------



## Vanitas

creative said:


> Washing veg is one thing, but when there have been numerous reported outbreaks 'of foodborne illnesses' from having eaten beansprouts...I for one take note!   Would washing the beansprouts rid of the bacteria?  Is it that simple?  The advice is to cook them which depletes the beansprouts nutritionally.





creative said:


> So...can you give me any _better_ examples of foods high in nutrition having bacteria enough to be linked with illnesses (not manufactured products)?


Being someone who absolutely adores sprouts - from beansprouts in a stir-fry to alfalfa sprouts on a sandwich - I had to look into this more. If you're worried about sprouts causing food-borne illnesses, then you might want to quit eating produce altogether. 

According to the CDC, sprouts and fungi are the _least _likely plant types to cause illness. Shockingly, leafy greens are the most likely culprit of ALL food-borne illnesses. Better skip the salad bar!

P.S. does the title of the original article bother anyone else? Why would they call them foods "even" the experts won't eat? It would make sense if they said "even homeless people wouldn't eat them" or "even starving third-worlders wouldn't eat them". Makes it sound like the experts have looser standards when it comes to food choices. Sorry, end of my pedantic rant.


----------



## creative

Vanitas said:


> Being someone who absolutely adores sprouts - from beansprouts in a stir-fry to alfalfa sprouts on a sandwich - I had to look into this more. If you're worried about sprouts causing food-borne illnesses, then you might want to quit eating produce altogether.
> 
> According to the CDC, sprouts and fungi are the _least _likely plant types to cause illness. Shockingly, leafy greens are the most likely culprit of ALL food-borne illnesses. Better skip the salad bar!


Hmm....bearing in mind that sprouts HAVE been linked with numerous reported outbreaks of food-borne illnesses (and other foods have not), are you saying the media is lying?  Bear in mind that I am in UK. Perhaps this is not the case where you are.

Let's keep a sense of proportion here.  I dare say restaurants wash their salad leaves (I do at home); in any case, I rarely visit restaurants to go to the salad bar.


----------



## Vanitas

creative said:


> Hmm....bearing in mind that sprouts HAVE been linked with numerous reported outbreaks of food-borne illnesses (and other foods have not), are you saying the media is lying?  Bear in mind that I am in UK. Perhaps this is not the case where you are.


But other foods HAVE been linked to cases of food-borne illnesses, as my link illustrates. My link shows a table which breaks down each case of reported food-borne illness into the food groups which caused it. 



> *Let's keep a sense of proportion here.*  I dare say restaurants wash their salad leaves (I do at home); in any case, I rarely visit restaurants to go to the salad bar.


A sense of proportion is exactly what I'm trying to show here. Sure, sprouts have been linked to cases of illness - but LESS often than other types of vegetables. According to the table I linked, for every *one *person getting sick from sprouts there are *65 *people getting sick from leafy greens. 

The fact that restaurants wash their salad leaves makes this data even more shocking, because this table is talking about _actual _cases of food poisoning - not _potential_ cases. If that many people are getting sick from produce and leafy greens, just imagine how many _more _ would be getting sick if those veggies weren't washed!


----------



## Kitchen Chatters

GotGarlic said:


> That is exactly my point.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what I'm saying. Farm workers in general are transients with very low wages and no health insurance (they move around depending on what crops are ripening) so I would expect them to have higher rates of all kinds of diseases.
> 
> You can eat or not eat whatever you want. Doesn't make a difference to me  My view is that in general, people in Western societies are healthier and better fed than people have ever been before in history.
> 
> Btw, have you ever sprinkled salt on a slug? It's a pretty effective pesticide  People are neither pests nor fungus.



With all do respect. Have you ever taken the time to research the harmful effects of pesticides on the hunan body? 

Just do a google search for Monsanto's roundup some time. Shoukd keep you plenty busy.

Regards


----------



## GotGarlic

Kitchen Chatters said:


> With all do respect. Have you ever taken the time to research the harmful effects of pesticides on the hunan body?
> 
> Just do a google search for Monsanto's roundup some time. Shoukd keep you plenty busy.
> 
> Regards



Thanks for the suggestion. I am a master gardener and learning how pesticides and herbicides work was a big part of the class. I don't just Google and randomly pick scary results; I get my information from the researchers who have tested glyphosate extensively and determined that there is minimal risk to humans from using it. 

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/

http://www.biofortified.org/2015/01/medical-doctors-weigh-in-on-glyphosate-claims/


----------



## AnthonyJ

GotGarlic said:


> Correlation does not equal causation. X may be "linked with" Y, but that doesn't prove that X caused Y. Making a decision because something "seems to make sense" is not based on evidence, so it may or may not be true.
> 
> Question: Did you wake up this morning? So did I! So did your waking cause mine, or did my waking cause yours? Or are they unrelated? If they're "linked" because they both happened at the same time, what is the hypothesis that explains why?



As my new favorite author says "If I pick my nose during the Super Bowl and it cuts to commercial, did I cause that?"

I've mentioned this to my fiancee when she touts meat free diet (this, the same woman who has no problem grabbing MY bacon when I make it on the weekend). She cited to me a passage from The Blue Zones. [Paraphrasing] People in The Blue Zones live longer and tend to only have meat four to five times a month. 

As Tim Ferriss said: "Maybe it's not the lack of meat but the presence of vegetables."

I prefer organic veggies, the few times I get meat it has to be grass fed/finished and organic and I don't buy farmed fish. I don't do microwave popcorn and really stay away from the microwave in general (physics nerd, I have my own feelings). 

When it comes to veggies and such, I stick to organic to avoid the ungodly amount of crap that gets sprayed on it. The evidence is always changing and everyone has an agenda. Your best bet is to just keep yourself informed and pay attention to where the funding is coming from. I've seen extreme reports on both ends of the spectrum, but when you look at the funding source, it becomes clear why. 

Question everything, but do so with an open mind.


----------



## AnthonyJ

GotGarlic said:


> Thanks for the suggestion. I am a master gardener and learning how pesticides and herbicides work was a big part of the class. I don't just Google and randomly pick scary results; I get my information from the researchers who have tested glyphosate extensively and determined that there is minimal risk to humans from using it.
> 
> Is glyphosate toxic to humans? - Biology Fortified, Inc.
> 
> Medical Doctors weigh in on Glyphosate Claims - Biology Fortified, Inc.



I have to agree with one of the comments in one of those articles.

"I need to ask, if Glyphosate is so safe, and Roundup, is so benign, why  all the lies Monsanto? Why all the tens of millions spent in  lobbying-efforts, and Counter-PR measures to silence your products  critics? And why, in 2009, did a French court find   Monsanto guilty of  lying; falsely advertising its Roundup herbicide as "biodegradable,"  "environmentally friendly" and claiming it "left the soil clean."?"

If there is nothing to hide, why are they spending so much money to ... hide?

Sure, there is conflicting information out there, but until there is a better consensus, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. Besides, we've made it hundreds of thousands of years without the stuff, why is it a necessity now?


----------



## GotGarlic

Because the Earth has never had 7 and a half billion people to feed before and only a tiny percentage of the population is involved in farming. 

This is 45 minutes long, but it's well worth watching. 

https://youtu.be/wSWek2qZuxk


----------



## AnthonyJ

Be that as it may, GMO does not have a higher yield and it brings us to a better point. Our population is growing UP, literally, as in stacking people on top of other people to live. Yet we are counting on the same square meter of land to provide for multiple times the people per square meter. On top of that, "pests" are the other problem. So let's break it down.

We have a problem with pests, but we make the problem exponentially worse by creating mono-crop farms. Abundance yields abundance. Our human population didn't boom until we mastered agriculture and provided ourselves with more food. So what are we doing? Planting every acre of land with the same single crop rather than dividing up a field into MANY crop types (each of which has a different pest, generally speaking). So what we are doing is causing a boom in pests and then combating the boom we caused by spraying large amounts of questionable chemicals on to the plants. In the process, we've created super bugs and super weeds that are resilient to the chemicals.

We can combat both issues, rise in population and pests eating crops (though some of these "pests" are the pollinators) by bringing the plants indoors to keep the pests out and creating a multi-level farm easily doubling, tripling, quadrupling our farming area by "stacking" farms.


----------



## creative

Anthony J - brilliantly debated (the last post on previous page, # 70) 






Monsanto cannot be trusted to tell the truth.  When the finger was pointed at their pesticides as directly adversely affecting the bee population, what did they do?

They bought up the leading bee research company!    Yep, so now they can fabricate statistics.  





  Hmm


----------



## creative

Monsanto's past track record is pretty grim...remember, Agent Orange?


----------



## GotGarlic

AnthonyJ said:


> Be that as it may, GMO does not have a higher yield and it brings us to a better point. Our population is growing UP, literally, as in stacking people on top of other people to live. Yet we are counting on the same square meter of land to provide for multiple times the people per square meter. On top of that, "pests" are the other problem. So let's break it down.
> 
> We have a problem with pests, but we make the problem exponentially worse by creating mono-crop farms. Abundance yields abundance. Our human population didn't boom until we mastered agriculture and provided ourselves with more food. So what are we doing? Planting every acre of land with the same single crop rather than dividing up a field into MANY crop types (each of which has a different pest, generally speaking). So what we are doing is causing a boom in pests and then combating the boom we caused by spraying large amounts of questionable chemicals on to the plants. In the process, we've created super bugs and super weeds that are resilient to the chemicals.
> 
> We can combat both issues, rise in population and pests eating crops (though some of these "pests" are the pollinators) by bringing the plants indoors to keep the pests out and creating a multi-level farm easily doubling, tripling, quadrupling our farming area by "stacking" farms.



It certainly does have a higher yield. GMOs are not monocrops; there are different varieties for different conditions around the world. 

Glyphosate is safer than many pesticides and herbicides used in organic farming. Look up Rotenone. And organic farming creates resistant pests and weeds, too. 

Companies are creating indoor farms. I saw one when we visited my in-laws in Michigan recently. But it's not cheap to build, so it won't help poor countries anytime soon.


----------



## GotGarlic

creative said:


> Anthony J - brilliantly debated (the last post on previous page, # 70)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monsanto cannot be trusted to tell the truth.  When the finger was pointed at their pesticides as directly adversely affecting the bee population, what did they do?
> 
> They bought up the leading bee research company!    Yep, so now they can fabricate statistics.



Do you have a credible source for that? 

You do know that a lot of research on glyphosate done by the government and universities, right? And that the patent on glyphosate expired in 2000. Lots of other companies make it, too.


----------



## AnthonyJ

creative said:


> Anthony J - brilliantly debated (the last post on previous page, # 70)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monsanto cannot be trusted to tell the truth.  When the finger was pointed at their pesticides as directly adversely affecting the bee population, what did they do?
> 
> They bought up the leading bee research company!    Yep, so now they can fabricate statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm



Doesn't help that former Monsanto execs are now at the helm of the FDA. Conflict of interest anyone? Same goes for drug companies. If the idea of Monsanto and Big Pharma execs being in powerful positions in the FDA doesn't reek of conflicted interests, I don't know what it does.

So long as there is a dollar to be made, there will be someone who will throw as many dollars as they need to at whatever needs to be done so they can continue to make more dollars.


----------



## GotGarlic

creative said:


> Monsanto's past track record is pretty grim...remember, Agent Orange?



That was 50 years ago. Lots of things have changed in the meantime.


----------



## AnthonyJ

GotGarlic said:


> Do you have a credible source for that?
> 
> You do know that a lot of research on glyphosate done by the government and universities, right? And that the patent on glyphosate expired in 2000. Lots of other companies make it, too.



Back to the FDA, which is full of Monsanto and Big Pharma execs. Who is funding the university studies? Dig deeper. Just because lots of companies make it now doesn't mean it's safe. I'm not going to tell you how to eat, if you feel comfortable eating this stuff, good on ya. I don't feel comfortable with the evidence I've found in regard to the stuff, so I'm staying away. 

Let me know about the studies done once all the lobbyists are gone and the former chemical and drug company people are no longer in the FDA. Until then, three words: Conflict of interests. Why would people paint something they profit from in a negative light?


----------



## AnthonyJ

GotGarlic said:


> That was 50 years ago. Lots of things have changed in the meantime.



Yeah, like them trying to use part of it as a "new" pesticide. Because we don't have other alternatives that would work better...


----------



## AnthonyJ

GotGarlic said:


> It certainly does have a higher yield. GMOs are not monocrops; there are different varieties for different conditions around the world.
> 
> Glyphosate is safer than many pesticides and herbicides used in organic farming. Look up Rotenone. And organic farming creates resistant pests and weeds, too.
> 
> Companies are creating indoor farms. I saw one when we visited my in-laws in Michigan recently. But it's not cheap to build, so it won't help poor countries anytime soon.



Monocrops, as in entire farms planted with one single crop. I understand there are more than one type of GM crop. Also, a GM crop that doesn't produce more than an organic one won't help a poor country soon either. 

Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops (2009)

Do GMO Crops Really Have Higher Yields? | Mother Jones

Do GMO Crops Increase Yields? New Report Says Maybe Not

No disrespect intended, but I really shouldn't have to do all the work here. It's not hard to find information on this subject. Funny how of all the pages I've found, only Monsanto says they do, every other study says no.


----------



## GotGarlic

AnthonyJ said:


> Back to the FDA, which is full of Monsanto and Big Pharma execs. Who is funding the university studies? Dig deeper. Just because lots of companies make it now doesn't mean it's safe. I'm not going to tell you how to eat, if you feel comfortable eating this stuff, good on ya. I don't feel comfortable with the evidence I've found in regard to the stuff, so I'm staying away.
> 
> Let me know about the studies done once all the lobbyists are gone and the former chemical and drug company people are no longer in the FDA. Until then, three words: Conflict of interests. Why would people paint something they profit from in a negative light?



So, what are the sources you trust and how are they funded?


----------



## AnthonyJ

Just gonna leave this right over here...

Do Organic Farmers Use Pesticides?

"The pesticides found on the NOP's list of allowable pesticides are, for  the most part, derived from natural sources rather than synthetic  sources. They've been found not to be carcinogenic like the heavy  amounts of synthetic fertilizers used on conventional crops."

"However, use of non-synthetic pesticides must be a last resort and most  organic farmers use pesticides only when absolutely necessary and  instead employ methods like crop rotation, plant selection, and predator  insects in an effort to control pests on their crops. Soil fertility  and crop nutrients should, for the most part, be managed through crop  tillage and cultivation, crop rotation, and cover crops supplemented  with animal and crop waste. Livestock standards prohibit that animals be  fed feed that was harvested using prohibited pesticides."

Interesting bits of information The Google has turned up.


----------



## AnthonyJ

GotGarlic said:


> So, what are the sources you trust and how are they funded?



I don't believe that any study is not biased in any way. Everyone has a bias. But what I do believe is, if there are several studies that conclude something negative about something, I would rather be safe than sorry. Frankly, as much information as there is out there about all of this stuff, there needs to be more of it. 

It bothers me deeply that countless other countries have banned this crap and others have labeled it. If these companies are so proud of what they've made and how it will help people, why are they spending so much money to hide it? Why are they destroying farmers livelihoods?


----------



## creative

GotGarlic said:


> That was 50 years ago. Lots of things have changed in the meantime.


Yes like between 1995 - 2005 Monsanto acquired over 50 seed companies globally, e.g. corn, cotton, wheat, soy, potatoes and tomatoes.  This *monopoly* threatens to wipe out all non-transgenic varieties.


----------



## creative

GotGarlic said:


> Do you have a credible source for that?


Monsanto buys leading bee research firm after being implicated in bee colony collapse - NaturalNews.com

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q1M0UO0.htm


----------



## GotGarlic

creative said:


> Yes like between 1995 - 2005 Monsanto acquired over 50 seed companies globally, e.g. corn, cotton, wheat, soy, potatoes and tomatoes.  This *monopoly* threatens to wipe out all non-transgenic varieties.



Source?


----------



## GotGarlic

creative said:


> Monsanto buys leading bee research firm after being implicated in bee colony collapse - NaturalNews.com
> 
> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q1M0UO0.htm



Natural News is not a credible source. The second link is broken.


----------



## dcSaute

because big companies were jumping en masse on the "organic" bandwagon with mega-pricing, the gummymint decided to "define" what was / was not permitted to be labeled as "organic"

and, despite non-definition / regulation / labeling requirements - we continue to see such xrapola as "organic fish" - no one, other than the marketing department, knows what that means.

anyone who gardens organically and has any knowledge of good/bad/whatever pesticides will likely die of disbelief when reading the FDA/USDA "permitted" list.

the wheat saturated pre-harvest with RoundUp is an interesting falsification.  the "famous" author actually did no research.  and the actual wheat farmers don't know of anyone using RoundUp to "dry" the crop - primarily because it's action time is way too slow.  other desiccants are used - especially where there is a short season.  Say goodnight, Canada....

otoh, multiple 'studies' about the safety of the active RoundUp ingredient - gluesowhatever - show it _by itself_ actually 'safe' - but what has been shown to be not so safe is the "inert" ingredients.  when one can produce skin tumors on mice using the inert ingredients, but not with the active ingredient, that would normally raise some questions to the average smarts person.  but no such questions have been raised by the gummymint eeeeeedeeeiots.

as a "formulation" it has been banned in many countries.  they have not sorted out the wheat from the chaff;  it's "not natural" therefore it's "banned"

I don't use it, I don't "approve" of it - and if there's anything I disprove more it's the harbingers of false science and distorted to out-right non-facts blogging and flogging their Dr. Mercola style opinions.  in the end that kind of "information" does more harm than good.


----------



## GotGarlic

AnthonyJ said:


> No disrespect intended, but I really shouldn't have to do all the work here. It's not hard to find information on this subject. Funny how of all the pages I've found, only Monsanto says they do, every other study says no.



No, it's not hard to find information. It *is* hard to find credible information. As I said before, I don't Google blindly and believe whichever results pop up the most. Study design matters. The reputation of the people doing the studies matters. 

I don't happen to believe that scientists are easily bought off or told what their results should be. I know some. They have integrity. 

There clearly is no point to this discussion. See you elsewhere around the forums


----------



## taxlady

I haven't read much of the list of permitted stuff for USDA certified organic. I have read enough of their rules that I don't pay extra for USDA certified organic. I want it certified by a reliable, independent certifying body.


----------



## creative

GotGarlic said:


> Natural News is not a credible source. The second link is broken.


I am wondering what might constitute a "credible" source to you. _ Are you expecting a government source to be outing Monsanto on buying up a bee research company now that Monsanto has been implicated in their pesticides causing a decline in the bee population?  Surely not!  _

There are countless more sources of websites exposing this underhanded development.....maybe none of them would satisfy you.  Can they *all* be lying?  







Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research Firm

Blamed for Bee Collapse, Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research FirmREALfarmacy.com | Healthy News and Information


----------



## creative

GotGarlic said:


> Source?


This should give you some idea re. Monsanto and buying up seed companies (to monopolise the seed market via patents).  I thought this was becoming common knowledge.  

Since you are a gardener, I am surprised you do not already know this.

Monsanto Buys Up Heirloom Seed Suppliers | Permaculture Magazine


----------



## taxlady

creative said:


> I am wondering what might constitute a "credible" source to you. _ Are you expecting a government source to be outing Monsanto on buying up a bee research company now that Monsanto has been implicated in their pesticides causing a decline in the bee population?  Surely not!  _
> 
> There are countless more sources of websites exposing this underhanded development.....maybe none of them would satisfy you.  Can they *all* be lying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research Firm
> 
> Blamed for Bee Collapse, Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research FirmREALfarmacy.com | Healthy News and Information


Yes, they could all be lying.

I'm not sure what we are trying to prove here, but if it's that Monsanto bought a bee research company there are some sites that I would consider more reliable for this piece of news, e.g.,

The Buzz on Beeologics
Monsanto buys bee-friendly pesticide researcher - BusinessWeek

As to motivations for this purchase, I don't think anyone can offer anything but opinion.


----------



## creative

taxlady said:


> Yes, they could all be lying.
> 
> I'm not sure what we are trying to prove here, but if it's that Monsanto bought a bee research company there are some sites that I would consider more reliable for this piece of news, e.g.,
> 
> The Buzz on Beeologics
> Monsanto buys bee-friendly pesticide researcher - BusinessWeek
> 
> As to motivations for this purchase, I don't think anyone can offer anything but opinion.


Thank you for seeking out links that might better meet with GG's approval.

As to the motivation, are you not at all suspicious that Monsanto bought up a leading bee research company in the wake of being implicated for causing a decline in the bee population with their pesticides?   Did that escape you?   The writing is on the wall .... and in large letters too!  Of course they will put their spin on the reason why they bought up the bee research company - a nice whitewash job, i.e. you can be sure they will not mention that they had the finger pointing to them in the first place!


----------



## taxlady

creative said:


> Thank you for seeking out links that might better meet with GG's approval.
> 
> As to the motivation, are you not at all suspicious that Monsanto bought up a leading bee research company in the wake of being implicated for causing a decline in the bee population with their pesticides?   Did that escape you?   The writing is on the wall .... and in large letters too!  Of course they will put their spin on the reason why they bought up the bee research company - a nice whitewash job, i.e. you can be sure they will not mention that they had the finger pointing to them in the first place!


Of course I'm suspicious of Monsanto. I am certainly not one of their fans. But, it is possible that they are trying to ameliorate the effect of their pesticides on bees. It's all just conjecture.


----------



## GotGarlic

taxlady said:


> Yes, they could all be lying.
> 
> I'm not sure what we are trying to prove here, but if it's that Monsanto bought a bee research company there are some sites that I would consider more reliable for this piece of news, e.g.,
> 
> The Buzz on Beeologics
> Monsanto buys bee-friendly pesticide researcher - BusinessWeek
> 
> As to motivations for this purchase, I don't think anyone can offer anything but opinion.



Not only can they all be lying, but they can just be re-posting each other's stories. NaturalNews and Mercola are well known to be unreliable and sensationalistic. 

So Monsanto purchased a company that does research on treating a virus that could be one of several causes of colony collapse disorder. So what? Most experts think CCD has multiple causes, including diseases, climate change, pesticides and beekeepers' frequent practice of taking the bees' honey and feeding them sugar water. Btw, Bayer makes pesticides that are part of the problem as well. Monsanto is always the only one mentioned, though. It's almost like a reflex. 

It doesn't surprise me, or alarm me, to know that Monsanto purchased a company that works to mitigate CCD. After all, their customers are farmers. They don't want farmers going out of business.


----------



## AnthonyJ

GotGarlic said:


> Not only can they all be lying, but they can just be re-posting each other's stories. NaturalNews and Mercola are well known to be unreliable and sensationalistic.



Source?

Just saying, if you're going to make claims like this after asking others to cite sources, you should probably cite yours as well. 

The Natural News guy is a bit of a jerk. Using his "natural news" site to promote his political agenda. He's entitled to his opinion politically, but shouldn't use the site he built for Natural News to bash the president, as easy as it is to debunk most of that crap, but I digress. A lot of the health related stuff he talks about is spot on. So don't dispute his health posts based on his political agenda. 

Why is Mercola unreliable and sensationalistic? Is it because they say things that the main stream doesn't agree with? For how many decades have people been saying that fat is what causes people to be fat and to avoid fat in food and what have we learned? That it's complete nonsense. Sugar is what is causing us to be fat. That's what they put in foods after they take the fat out of them so they taste better. 

Just because someone says something you don't necessarily agree with doesn't make them a liar. 






People just need to start asking different questions.


----------



## GotGarlic

AnthonyJ said:


> Source?
> 
> Just saying, if you're going to make claims like this after asking others to cite sources, you should probably cite yours as well.
> 
> The Natural News guy is a bit of a jerk. Using his "natural news" site to promote his political agenda. He's entitled to his opinion politically, but shouldn't use the site he built for Natural News to bash the president, as easy as it is to debunk most of that crap, but I digress. A lot of the health related stuff he talks about is spot on. So don't dispute his health posts based on his political agenda.
> 
> Why is Mercola unreliable and sensationalistic? Is it because they say things that the main stream doesn't agree with? For how many decades have people been saying that fat is what causes people to be fat and to avoid fat in food and what have we learned? That it's complete nonsense. Sugar is what is causing us to be fat. That's what they put in foods after they take the fat out of them so they taste better.
> 
> Just because someone says something you don't necessarily agree with doesn't make them a liar.



Somehow I don't think you really care what my sources are  And you haven't been around long enough to make accusations like that about me. You're making assumptions based on your own biases. 

I will say this: I don't trust sites that are there to try to sell me something. 

And there's this: http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Mercola+

And this: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...never_click_on_itsr_stories_about_cancer.html


----------



## taxlady

GotGarlic said:


> Not only can they all be lying, but they can just be re-posting each other's stories. NaturalNews and Mercola are well known to be unreliable and sensationalistic.
> 
> So Monsanto purchased a company that does research on treating a virus that could be one of several causes of colony collapse disorder. So what? Most experts think CCD has multiple causes, including diseases, climate change, pesticides and beekeepers' frequent practice of taking the bees' honey and feeding them sugar water. Btw, Bayer makes pesticides that are part of the problem as well. Monsanto is always the only one mentioned, though. It's almost like a reflex.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me, or alarm me, to know that Monsanto purchased a company that works to mitigate CCD. After all, their customers are farmers. They don't want farmers going out of business.


Exactly. I absolutely see your point about not being alarmed. I acknowledge that they *may* have lovely, ethical reasons for buying a bee research company. But, it does make me wonder.

I posted those two links to demonstrate that there were credible articles about that purchase. I have to wonder why someone would only post the non-credible links, when the two I posted were fairly far up the first page of the Google search results.


----------



## taxlady

BTW GG, thanks for the link to Quackwatch. I have bookmarked it. I only read a little of article, but it's nice to know there is such a website.


----------



## creative

GotGarlic said:


> It doesn't surprise me, or alarm me, to know that Monsanto purchased a company that works to mitigate CCD. After all, their customers are farmers. They don't want farmers going out of business.


Well done - you bought the cover (up) story! 

I have no doubt that they are looking into CCD but that is hardly the whole story _is it_ in light of what took place before them buying up the leading bee research company....notably,

 - why would Monsanto ever mention that their pesticides were implicated in causing a decline in the bee population in the first place...hmm


----------



## GotGarlic

creative said:


> Well done - you bought the cover (up) story!
> 
> I have no doubt that they are looking into CCD but that is hardly the whole story _is it_ in light of what took place before them buying up the leading bee research company....notably,
> 
> - why would Monsanto ever mention that their pesticides were implicated in causing a decline in the bee population in the first place...hmm



Spare me your sarcasm and conspiracy theories. If you can't be civil, we can't have a discussion.


----------



## GotGarlic

taxlady said:


> Exactly. I absolutely see your point about not being alarmed. I acknowledge that they *may* have lovely, ethical reasons for buying a bee research company. But, it does make me wonder.purely
> 
> I posted those two links to demonstrate that there were credible articles about that purchase. I have to wonder why someone would only post the non-credible links, when the two I posted were fairly far up the first page of the Google search results.



It doesn't even have to be for ethical reasons. It makes sense purely as a business decision for them to work to prevent CCD. Their whole business is dependent on sales to farmers.


----------



## GotGarlic

taxlady said:


> BTW GG, thanks for the link to Quackwatch. I have bookmarked it. I only read a little of article, but it's nice to know there is such a website.



You're welcome  I used to be on the mailing list but it was too much to keep up with.


----------



## creative

GotGarlic said:


> Spare me your sarcasm and conspiracy theories. If you can't be civil, we can't have a discussion.


Excuse me???  Exactly where was I not civil?  

It seems a poor excuse for not addressing the issue that you have to stoop to this false accusation. 

It is NOT a conspiracy but a FACT that Monsanto bought up the leading bee research company AFTER the finger was pointed at their pesticides being implicated in a decline in the bee population.  That you choose to undermine this and write it off in an underhand way could equally be seen as not civil (and quite mystifyingly derogatory) by myself. 

Pause for thought maybe?


----------



## GotGarlic

AnthonyJ said:


> Source?
> 
> Just saying, if you're going to make claims like this after asking others to cite sources, you should probably cite yours as well.
> 
> The Natural News guy is a bit of a jerk. Using his "natural news" site to promote his political agenda. He's entitled to his opinion politically, but shouldn't use the site he built for Natural News to bash the president, as easy as it is to debunk most of that crap, but I digress. A lot of the health related stuff he talks about is spot on. So don't dispute his health posts based on his political agenda.



I didn't know anything about his political agenda until you mentioned it just now. He is anti-vaccine. If you think that's spot-on, there's not much we will agree on. 



AnthonyJ said:


> Why is Mercola unreliable and sensationalistic? Is it because they say things that the main stream doesn't agree with?...
> 
> Just because someone says something you don't necessarily agree with doesn't make them a liar.
> 
> People just need to start asking different questions.



Because he posts stories that are untrue with sensational, misleading headlines. Also because his site is littered with ads for his own products, which the FDA has repeatedly warned him about for making incorrect claims about them. 

It's not just that I disagree with him; he promotes ideas that have no proof of efficacy or safety and makes money off of misleading people. 

I also want to make it clear that my issue with him has nothing to do with osteopathy. My BIL and SIL are both osteopathic physicians. Their training is practically the same as that of allopathic doctors and they take the same board exams in their specialties. Just as with Dr. Oz, though, some doctors are led astray by fame and fortune.


----------



## creative

GotGarlic said:


> Because he posts stories that are untrue with sensational, misleading headlines. Also because his site is littered with ads for his own products, which the FDA has repeatedly warned him about for making incorrect claims about them.
> 
> It's not just that I disagree with him; he promotes ideas that have no proof of efficacy or safety and makes money off of misleading people.
> 
> I also want to make it clear that my issue with him has nothing to do with osteopathy. My BIL and SIL are both osteopathic physicians. Their training is practically the same as that of allopathic doctors and they take the same board exams in their specialties. Just as with Dr. Oz, though, some doctors are led astray by fame and fortune.


There will always be those who branch away from their training (with a background of orthodox medicine or in alternative health) in the pursuit of making profit.  That is not to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Sensationalism is easy to see through and anyone with common sense would check out claims i.e. do a bit of research.

It's not for nothing that the alternative health is a growing industry.  For example, CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) successfully treats those suffering in depression (thus helping to cure the condition rather than pursue the common/dubious route of suppressing this condition via drugs). It may be easy to criticise some avenues of natural remedies but, overall, their correct application has been beneficial to countless numbers of people.  Surely you see this?


----------



## GotGarlic

creative said:


> There will always be those who branch away from their training (with a background of orthodox medicine or in alternative health) in the pursuit of making profit.  That is not to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Sensationalism is easy to see through and anyone with common sense would check out claims i.e. do a bit of research.
> 
> It's not for nothing that the alternative health is a growing industry.  For example, CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) successfully treats those suffering in depression (thus helping to cure the condition rather than pursue the common/dubious route of suppressing this condition via drugs). It may be easy to criticise some avenues of natural remedies but, overall, their correct application has been beneficial to countless numbers of people.  Surely you see this?



Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine. 

https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Treatment/Psychotherapy



> Cognitive behavioral therapy has a considerable amount of scientific data supporting its use and many mental health care professionals have training in CBT, making it both effective and accessible. More are needed to meet the public health demand, however. - See more at: https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Treatment/Psychotherapy#sthash.68ljsZL5.dpuf


----------



## creative

GotGarlic said:


> Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine.


Medicine treats the symptom not the cause.  Therein lies the main difference between orthodox medicine and alternative/wholistic health practises; the former suppresses the condition whilst the latter offers a cure and with no (or certainly less) side effects! 





I'm not discounting the place and benefit of orthodox medicine but I see its limitations much more clearly than you seem to do...or perhaps you are unwilling to acknowledge its shortcomings?

(For the record I have a degree in psychology and did training to become a counsellor so I am familiar with psychotherapy).


----------



## PrincessFiona60

Please carry on a discussion without tossing in inflammatory statements or this conversation will be shut down for comment.

This digression from the topic has gone on long enough.


----------



## GotGarlic

Sorry, PF. I have just one more thing to say. 



creative said:


> Medicine treats the symptom not the cause.
> 
> Therein lies the main difference between orthodox medicine and alternative/wholistic health practises; the former suppresses the condition whilst the latter offers a cure and with no (or certainly less) side effects!



This is simply not true. I could give you example after example but it wouldn't make any difference. 



creative said:


> I'm not discounting the place and benefit of orthodox medicine but I see its limitations much more clearly than you seem to do...or perhaps you are unwilling to acknowledge its shortcomings?



I have never claimed that medicine has no limitations. That's a red herring that comes from you, not from me. The fact that evidence-based medicine can't cure everything has nothing whatsoever to do with the safety or efficacy of any alternative idea. 

Your willingness to believe in magical thinking is where you and I differ. 

http://skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html


----------

