It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study shows organic food to be deadly!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
So we need chemicals and poisons in our water and food to stay healthy?


Can anyone else smell what is cooking...

The scariest thing is sheople are falling for it.

[edit on 8/9/08 by NuclearPaul]




posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by JPhish
 


Organic farming is a very, very bad idea. It requires a vastly greater area of land to produce the same yields as non-organic farming because it is so inefficient. And organic food contains, by and large, fewer nutrients and more pathogens than the non-organically-grown variety, so you have to eat more of it to sustain you and yes, eating it could certainly kill you. I have a friend in hospital in India right now, in a coma with a parasite in her brain, which she got from organically farmed vegetables grown in animal manure. That's organic farming for you - no artificial fertilizers, no pesticides and more pathogens than you could possibly imagine.

If everyone were to eat organic, we'd have to cut down the forests and fill in all the marshes to make farmland, totalling the environment, and people would still starve.

In the rich world, organic food is a luxury indulged in by people who have the surplus wealth to be able to afford its inefficiencies. It is also eaten by poor people in backward countries - those who cannot afford to the capital outlay needed to introduce modern farming methods - and it is one reason why their crop yields are low and their children malnourished.



I'm sorry but this is complete bull. If you know what you're doing organic farming is nothing of what you suggest it is.

Yields are similar, and not only that but it's a sistemic system, where crops, livestock and even weeds are existing in a symbiotic system, rather than the agression that is modern industrialized farming, which results in high yields of low nutritional value crops.

Now, of course there are good farmers and bad farmers, farmers that understand the soil and the plants and farmers that don't. But scientific organic farming is better than modern industrialized toxic farming on all levels.

I come from a long line of subsistance farmers, although I am not a farmer, and I'm old enough to remember when food was better than it is now, from supermarkets. Sure, it might not look as big and shiny, but modern food is all show and no go, whereas the old stuff was great for your health.

Sorry, but you're simply wrong. You've bought the hype, accepted the monsanto and cº publicity as true. It is not.

We should have modern, industrialized, organic agriculture, instead of the chemical soup that is starting to degrade our lifestyles. Organic is not a luxury, you are organic. Organic living is getting back in touch with who you really are, not being bogged down by an artificial technological food system that dosen't compare with nature's creation.

Science needs to slow the hell down, and really look at nature. See what's going on. We have tinkered a bit with the code, but we still have little idea of how the program works at a global level.

Take care of nature and nature takes care of you. Attempt to outdo nature and you're completely and utterly screwed.

Modern food gives you diabetes, heart disease, impotence, bad skin, chronic fatigue, hair loss and a whole lot of other symptoms. The reason we live longer is not because of what we eat imho, it's because of higher higiene levels, although this comes with toxicity and it's own set of chronic health issues, and an efficient medical system, especially when it comes to trauma and emergency health issues, not so much on the chronic illness side of things. Besides, we live longer, supposedly, the Hunzas might disagree, yet do we live well?



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
So we need chemicals and poisons in our water and food to stay healthy?


Can anyone else smell what is cooking...

The scariest thing is sheople are falling for it.


Have you noticed that we are being deluged with mega-BS here lately? Organic food deadly!?! Fast food healthy!?! Fluoride compounds (toxic waste from fertilizer companies) are OK!?!

Interesting, n'est pas?

EDIT to add:

And yes... The sheeple are buying it. [sigh]

[edit on 9/8/2008 by Amaterasu]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Beautifully said, and very true.

I knew there was a reason you were one of my friends! [smile]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


speaking of fluoride . . . have you seen Karlhungis' thread?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

they're trying to get us to think that FLUORIDE IN BABY WATER is a good thing!

"mmmmm yummy!"~

[edit on 9/9/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


And I seriously doubt your "friend" with the "brain parasite" ate food fertilized with JUST animal manure.

I didn't say my friend had a brain parasite, whatever that may be. I said she had a parasite in her brain, which is something else entirely.

The parasite in question is Taenia solium.

My friend is a Brahmin and thus a strict vegetarian. Perhaps you'd like to tell me how she picked up that tapeworm?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   
And then you said...


frayed1:
You do realize that 'non organic' farming has only been around for the last 50 years or so.

Superphosphates: in use since the 1850s

Ammonium sulphate: developed in 1923 and in widespread use two or three years later.

source


frayed1:
The mechanization of farming began before the 'chemicalization' of farming....I think that may well have contributed more to the explosion of the food supply that the introduction of chemicals did.

I think you'll find that they were roughly contemporary; John Deere came up with his improved plough design in 1838. Besides, one depends very much on the other.

source


JPhish:
depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and obsessive compulsive disorder... CANCER

Show me concrete evidence that any of these are caused by eating non-organically farmed food.

Also, show me concrete evidence that the other conditions you mentioned (obesity, heart disease and diabetes) are not caused by consuming organically grown food, only by the non-organically grown variety.

I will expect to see a causal chain in your evidence; weak statistical correlations are evidence of nothing.

Go on, have a dig; I suspect you will be surprised, and not a little annoyed, by what you discover.


Zepherian:
Yields (in organic farming) are similar (to yields in non-organic farming)...

modern industrialized farming... results in high yields of low nutritional value crops.

Could you, also, please supply some concrete evidence for your claim that yields are similar for both types of farming, and that non-organic farming yields crops of low nutritional value?


Zepherian:
You've bought the hype, accepted the monsanto and cº publicity as true. It is not.

Rather, the truth is that I live in Asia, a continent whose teeming millions (billions now) starved before the invention of new rice strains and the introduction of modern farming methods during the famous 'green revolution'. Amazing what a difference historical and geographical proximity to want and hunger can make to one's worldview.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax



Zepherian:
Yields (in organic farming) are similar (to yields in non-organic farming)...

modern industrialized farming... results in high yields of low nutritional value crops.

Could you, also, please supply some concrete evidence for your claim that yields are similar for both types of farming, and that non-organic farming yields crops of low nutritional value?


Zepherian:
You've bought the hype, accepted the monsanto and cº publicity as true. It is not.

Rather, the truth is that I live in Asia, a continent whose teeming millions (billions now) starved before the invention of new rice strains and the introduction of modern farming methods during the famous 'green revolution'. Amazing what a difference historical and geographical proximity to want and hunger can make to one's worldview.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by Astyanax]


1) It's common sense, organic farming is a complex system producing yields of various crops in an integrated fashion. With a 1/3 land area crop rotation you can have continual growth, as the weeds remineralize the soil. It all adds up. As for a source, read The Secret Life of Plants and if you have an open mind you'll realise where this is coming from. I am not against mechanized agriculture btw, just brute force chemical agriculture. Can't you see it's like waring nature?

2) Asia still managed to get the highest population zone of the entire planet, so their "teeming billions" can't be that malnourished. If anything they willl start starving now, as industrial pollution wrecks the biosphere. Your point wasn't thought out well.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


speaking of fluoride . . . have you seen Karlhungis' thread?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

they're trying to get us to think that FLUORIDE IN BABY WATER is a good thing!

"mmmmm yummy!"~


I have seen that in WalMart, I think it was. I was sickened and outraged. But I had nowhere to turn to express that - except writing congresscritters, and we know how effective that seems to be.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Also, show me concrete evidence that the other conditions you mentioned (obesity, heart disease and diabetes) are not caused by consuming organically grown food, only by the non-organically grown variety.

I will expect to see a causal chain in your evidence; weak statistical correlations are evidence of nothing.

Go on, have a dig; I suspect you will be surprised, and not a little annoyed, by what you discover.


For shame. "Weak statistical correlations..." Is it possible that the radical change of diet over the last 50 years, combined with a destruction of the probiotic organisms in our soils through the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides, could explain the EPIDEMIC of cancer...?

Another one I question the interests of, you are.

[edit on 9/9/2008 by Amaterasu]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 

You may question my motives all you like, Your Majesty, but my question still stands. Where is the evidence linking this so-called epidemic of cancer, and all the other ills JPhish reminds us the flesh is heir to, with modern farming methods? Evidently you have none to show. You're just a believer, repeating the articles of your faith without an atom of proof.

The same goes for you, too, Zepherian. I ask for evidence and you tell me to read a book of hippie pseudoscience. You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid. Let's see something factual and falsifiable, the kind of evidence an educated person can have some respect for.

Until someone posts evidence like that here, it's all just foolish scaremongering, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


How do you know it's hippy psuedoscience if you haven't even read it? You're being a closed minded fool, as per your conditioning. I'm giving you an opportunity to break it, linking you to one of the most eye opening books I have ever read.

Either take it or don't, that's your decision, but don't classify it without even taking the time to read it.

These are not issues you will settle with a one time link to some corporate scientist's paid for study. Or indeed even with an independent study. This is reality, where you need to read a lot to form a global viewpoint. I gave you the starting point, should you wish to take it.

What you want is validation, you want some intelectual master to tell you what to think, to fit you into the mainstream.

And I want you to think for yourself, and smell the bs.

And just to end with a hippy overtone, peace dude.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


How do you know it's hippy psuedoscience if you haven't even read it?

It's a pretty well-known book. It even inspired a best-selling album by Stevie Wonder. Most people who read have a reasonable idea what's in it.

And what's in it?


Essentially, the subject of the book is the idea that plants may be sentient, despite their lack of a nervous system and a brain.

This book is about much more than just plants; it delves quite deeply into such topics as the aura, psychophysics, orgone, radionics, kirlian photography, magnetism/magnetotropism, bioelectrics, dowsing, and the history of science.

Source

Brainless but sentient plants. Yeah. Some cutting-edge science right there.

Kirlian photogrophy is cold electronic emission. I did a dissertation on it at university. The claims made for it - specifically that it displays the 'aura' (whatever that is) of living things - are essentially meaningless and scientiffically unfounded.

Radionics is nothing but sympathetic magic in a lab coat.

Orgone? Wilhelm Reich? Please.


You're being a closed minded fool

Thank you for this incisive and deeply-researched assessment of my character. You will forgive me if I decline to match it with my own assessment of yours.


I'm giving you an opportunity to break it, linking you to one of the most eye opening books I have ever read.

And here I am scoffing at it. What an ingrate I must be, to dash from my lips the cup of wisdom so generously offered. Forgive me, O Wise One.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Amaterasu
 

You may question my motives all you like, Your Majesty, but my question still stands. Where is the evidence linking this so-called epidemic of cancer, and all the other ills JPhish reminds us the flesh is heir to, with modern farming methods? Evidently you have none to show. You're just a believer, repeating the articles of your faith without an atom of proof.


Heh. Read The Maker's Diet, by Jordan S. Rubin (ISBN 0-88419-948-7). He was dying of Crohn's disease. After spending two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars looking for a cure, he opted to try eating foods only as they would have been grown and produced in Biblical times. He has pictures of before and after. Guess which one looks better.

He also offers a lot of science for his stance. (There's also a lot of religious yah-da yah-da, but the data are valid despite.)

I am curious... What do YOU attribute the cancer epidemic to if not what we are filling our bodies with (you are what you eat, I am told...)?


The same goes for you, too, Zepherian. I ask for evidence and you tell me to read a book of hippie pseudoscience.


Have you read the book you are disparaging?


You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid. Let's see something factual and falsifiable, the kind of evidence an educated person can have some respect for.


The book I offer has plenty of that.


Until someone posts evidence like that here, it's all just foolish scaremongering, isn't it?


No one's "scaremongering." We are educated on the issue, unlike those who shamefully declare that the data are inconclusive - without proposing a rational alternative.

Propose a rational alternative to the diet that has caused the cancer epidemic and all the other physical woes that were rare before we started eating probiotic-devoid, nutrient depleted, toxified, genmod diets but that, since doing so, are now commonplace.

I would LOVE to hear your sheeple placation.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


i'm pretty sure there have been tests performed that showed that plants are sentient in respect to emotions. Look them up if you don't believe me. There have been quite a few.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Actually, the premisse of the book is a bit wider than sentient plants. Plants are part of a sentient system. Reality is not a barren lifeless plain, you are integrated in a living system, a multidimensional living, sentient system. And yes, this is wisdom. And it's also blindingly obvious to anyone who breaks conditioning.

If you're scoffing at it you are indeed being mindless and foolish, because this is a reality you can discover yourself, all around you, all the time, if you break the mental locks that the education system has conditioned you to since childhood.

Take care of nature and nature takes care of you. Ignore nature and you will have nothing but misery.

You sir, are stuck in your left brain. And I don't say this out of hatred or to demean you, I say it because I believe it's true and if you accept this diagnostic and treat yourself for it, good things will happen to you.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 

From the web site promoting The Maker's Diet:


The Maker's Diet Online offers health and nutritional information and is designed for educational purposes only. You should not rely on this information as a substitute for, nor does it replace, your health-care professional or other personal medical attention. If you have any concerns about your health, you should always consult with a physician or other health-care professional.

And:


The 40-day program is your introduction to The Maker’s Diet lifestyle. You'll learn the value of returning to the whole, unprocessed, natural foods our Creator always intended for us to eat. You'll also encounter a multitude of historical and scriptural wisdom for fully living life in the greatest of health.

Emphasis mine.

This is your idea of scientifically tenable evidence? A heap of god-bothering tosh that has to be undercut with a statutory disclaimer in order to avoid being deservedly sued by the family of some poor pillock who actually followed the diet and ended up in hospital, or croaked? Gosh, that's really convincing.


I am curious... What do YOU attribute the cancer epidemic to?

What epidemic?

(Scroll down to the graph, please,)

Live and learn, eh?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 

More from the Maker's Diet web site

Because I really couldn't resist...


Q: What makes The Maker's Diet program different from other popular diets?

A: Its main focus is to go back to God's original plan that He provided for His chosen people to preserve and protect them.

source

Ah. The Lord's diet, no less. And who, pray tell, is Jordan?


Jordan Rubin earned a Ph.D. in Nutrition from the Academy of Natural Therapies. He is also a Certified Nutritional Consultant and a member of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants.

source

Gosh, he has a Ph.D!

But wait!

It's from a...


The Academy of Natural Therapy is enthralled at the beauty of this profession. Massage Therapy is at the front lines of the health care industry for improving the well being of individuals on both the physical and emotional levels. The Academy of Natural Therapy is excited by the numerous possibilities for change, growth, and enhancement of the quality of education for Massage Therapists of tomorrow.

source

...massage school!!!

And what is the American Association of Nutritional Consultants? Why, it's a...


If Nutritional and Dietary Consultants are ever to achieve the professional recognition they so justly deserve, they must consolidate their numbers through a strong, professional, organized association.

The American Association of Nutritional Consultants is your professional association combating public ignorance and adverse legislation. The A.A.N.C. is working tirelessly to enhance the prestige and professional status of all its members.

...professional association for crank therapists!!!

Well, they do say laughter is the best medicine. Thanks, Ameratsu, you've made me feel quite spry.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 

Yeh. J.C. Bose. Being from that part of the world myself, I had to read one of his essays in school when I was fourteen.

In literature class.

The idea that plants can feel emotions is yet another warm-fuzzy myth without any hint of scientific support. More here.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join