It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Amaterasu

So you will not read it.

I will not read it. Life is short and good books are many. There is no time waste on bad ones.

Like I said, whatever, dude. I read it because I had nothing else handy to read and was quite surprised by studies mentioned, common sense, and other evidence given (I had expected something bad and was pleasantly surprised).

But you have your mind well shut on the issue, so... Once more: whatever.

I'm looking for data reflecting what it looked like in 1950. NOT 25 years later, already into the depletion and toxic dumping of and into our soils and water.

You're the one who's claiming a cancer epidemic; you should be the one posting evidence of it. I shall not indulge you further. Find the proof of your wild assertions for yourself, if you can, and post it.

I say your assertions are wild. You say mine are. Interestingly, I have been searching for data from before 1975. So far, no go. But I know it's out there and I will find it. And we both still have the issue of data manipulation. I think things that would have been called death by cancer are no longer called that, thereby skewing the statistics they publish (as in, Look: There is no epidemic!).


[edit on 9/12/2008 by Amaterasu]

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:04 AM
reply to post by Zepherian

In error, Its interesting to listen to the 'pro-Organics' arguments, they all start with "we ate organics for thousands of years'-and for almost all that time the average life expectancy was 25!

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by Rinorino2

Modern life expectancy is going down. What happened up till recently is we had high infant mortality rates, but if you lived beyond 10 you had a good chance of the mid to late 80's at least. Now you're lucky to get 76 as average. We have solved some health issues but have got others. Of course government cooks the numbers for a feel good factor, to hide the fact they have little interest in anyone outside the elites hitting retirement healthy.

And if you're a biblical sort of fellow, I am not but suspect there is some history in it, there is reports this has been ongoing as a trend for millenia now, with our ancesters being centenary beings. Organic lifestyles in balance with nature, dare I say with God?, is what made this possible.

Question everything, double check sources, make your own interpretation and you'll see you don't live in the world you think you do.

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:48 AM
Healthier, stronger and older than ever

Originally posted by Zepherian
Modern life expectancy is going down.


Life Expectancy: Wikipedia Very informative: shows historical trends in life expectancy and discusses the statistical corrections that are made to account for infant mortality.

Life Expectancy in America Hits Record High: LiveScience But not as high as some peoples', because according to

List of Countries by Life Expectancy: Wikipedia, the USA doesn't even make the top 40.

In fact, differential life expectancies in rich and poor societies is one of the issues facing the world as lifespans increase, as explained in this article on Global Aging and the Demographic Divide.

Another problem is that as life expectancies rise, people's pension plans can't keep up with them; we're Outliving the Kitty,

while in some countries, like Germany, demographic trends have concentrated power in the hands of Oldies with Muscle.

Originally posted by Zepherian
What happened up till recently is we had high infant mortality rates, but if you lived beyond 10 you had a good chance of the mid to late 80's at least.

Also false. Leaving infant mortality entirely to one side, we see that:

  • Death among adults age 25 to 44 declined by more than 40% between 1950 and 1999. During the mid-1990s, HIV was the leading cause of death for this age group, but these rates have fallen significantly.

  • Mortality among adults age 45 to 64 fell by nearly 50% (between 1950 and 1999), including drops in heart disease, stroke and injury. Cancer is the leading cause of death in this group, and those death rates rose slowly through the 1980s and then began to decline.

  • Among the nation’s leading causes of death, there were declines in mortality from heart disease (3 percent), stroke (nearly 3 percent), accidents/unintentional injuries (nearly 2 percent), and cancer (1 percent). The biggest decline in mortality among the leading cause of deaths was for homicides – down 17 percent. That number had increased sharply in 2001 due to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Excluding the September 11th deaths, the decrease from 2001 to 2002 would have been 3 percent, which still reflects a continuing downward trend in homicides that began in 1991.

  • Mortality rates increased for some leading causes of death, including Alzheimer’s disease (up 5.8 percent), influenza and pneumonia (up 3.2 percent), high blood pressure (up 2.9 percent), and septicemia or blood poisoning (up 2.6 percent). [Note that these are mostly diseases to which old people (and AIDS sufferers) are vulnerable]

  • In 1994, about one in eight Americans was age 65 or older. By 2030, one in five Americans will be a senior citizen.
All the demographic statistics and information you could possibly want

Of course government cooks the numbers for a feel good factor
  1. Would you please supply evidence of this? It's a serious accusation, and you can't expect anyone to believe you without solid proof.

  2. And if it is true, could you kindly tell us, then, where you're getting your statistics? How come you have access to better sources of demographic information than the US Government?

Thank you.

Originally posted by Zepherian
This has been ongoing as a trend for millenia now, with our ancesters being centenary beings. Organic lifestyles in balance with nature, dare I say with God?, is what made this possible.

Wrong. Errors in translation between different numerical systems made it possible, as explained here. The truth is that...

The average Ancient Greek lived until age 18. The median life span of a Puritan was 33. In 1991, the average American life expectancy was about 72 years for men, 79 for women.


Here: read some Mediaeval Demography and find out what things were really like in the days of our forefathers.

Mmm... almost lunchtime. I must say battling ignorance and misinformed prejudice is hungry work. I could murder a nice thick factory-farmed T-bone steak, full of antibiotics and growth hormones... Yummy.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Astyanax]

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by Astyanax

1) Wikipedia is an openly editable source, so it's not that credible. This is the sort of issue people lie about, in writing.

2) Again, you can have average numbers higher, I didn't say the average wasn't higher, I said that infant mortality is lower. We solved some problems but have others.

3) I wasn't talking about pension plans. I don't give a damn about the financial arguments, money is nothing more than numbers on a computer screen for weak minds to be enticed by. Fiat currencys cause the pension problem, and fiat currencies are made from usury and greed.

4) You linked me to numbers from 1900 onwards, when I was talking about a longer timescale. Biblical even, although I don't mean to bible bash, as I'm agnostic, but for the historical reference. There are no scientific numbers to back my point, I know that.

5) Could it possibly be that government lies? I mean, politicians lieing for their own benefit? God lord, what a totally unreasonable assumption. /sarcasm.

6) Argument of authority regarding my sources being better than whoever. I am not an institution, my ideas are mine and my sources are my own life experience. Other people should take it for what it's worth to them, but I trust my own judgement more than I trust a bunch of bureaucrats who have a track record of deshonesty.

7) There have been of course varying life expectancies throughout history, just because in recent history there could have been an adult life expectancy in the high 80's if we discount infant mortality does not mean it is a trend across time and geography. As for the medieval example, this just goes to show how the elites suppress a population till they are nothing but a shadow of their potential, as what made the medieval times medieval was, imo, the will of kings and court to keep the peasants as low as possible. Ask yourself why was it only a european trend. You could just as easily have talked about India 3000 years ago and probably have had much better numbers.

And you end with an ad hominem. Won't even go there. Enjoy your steak.

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by Zepherian

I congratulate you on your adamantine grasp of irreality.

So you mean to say that all these very definite statements you've been making, such as

  • yields in organic farming are equivalent to non-organic yields (an early post)

  • yields may be less but this is compensated for by the nutritional value of organic produce (a later post)

  • people lived longer in the past (before you were born) than they do now

  • the United States government publishes false demographic statistics

Are all derived from your own experience? Nothing more?

You mean you've done a side-by-side comparison study of yields from organically and non-organically farmed crops? May we see the results please?

Have you done a comprehensive chemical analysis of (say) an organically farmed potato versus a non-organically farmed one, and determined that the former contains more nutrients? Weight for weight or volume for volume? How about divided by the ratio of input costs so we can see what kind of value for money you're getting here? May we see the results please?

May we see the independent records kept by your ancestors that disprove the commonplace demographic statistics that the whole world, not just the US government, works with?

And how do you know the US government statistics are false? May we see the proof, please?

Come on, Zepherian. Show us the evidence for yer claims. Is there any signal in here, or is it all just smoke?

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Astyanax]

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:09 PM
Here's some links for you: Haven't read much of them, just did a quick search.

Here's your proof for the "more nutrients" thing. I'll leave you a little sample (emphasis mine), published by Johns Hopkins university. The link is

...Organically grown produce was higher in most minerals and vitamins and lower in potentially harmful nitrates , which result from nitrogen fertilizers. The greatest differences among all vegetables tested were in magnesium (organic was 29% higher), vitamin C (27% higher), and iron (21% higher). In fact, organic food had higher amounts of all minerals tested, although the difference was not always statistically significant because of small sample numbers.


• A comparison of the full economic performance of organic and conventional farmers in Pennsylvania found that organic practices cut production costs by 25%, eliminated inorganic fertilizer and pesticide use, reduced soil erosion by more than 50%, and increased yields after the (five-year) transition from conventional systems had been completed.

Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds

Over a period of two years, an Indo-Swiss research team collected and compared agronomic data on 60 organic and conventional farms.

They found the organic producers benefitted from:
* 40% lower costs for inputs
* 13-20% lower variable production costs
* a far lower need to take up loans
* total labour inputs that were not significantly higher
* and 4-6% higher average cotton yields

Is that enough to address your issues, or should I continue posting from the, literally, millions and millions of websites that talk about crop yields, livestock yields, profits, etc., etc.?

Yes, if you try and do things the SAME WAY without chemicals, fertilizers, and drugs, your yields go down, and the product is inferior. However, if you CHANGE THE WAY you do things, yields go up, quality of product goes up, and the cost goes WAY down.

Care to try again?

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:16 PM
Organic food is unhealthy as opposed to...


eating food with artificial pesticides and chemicals?

What drugs are you on exactly?

[edit on 16-9-2008 by NeverSurrender]

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by sir_chancealot

Oh, well done. At last we have some real information to chew on.

Let's have a look...

Edit to add: Hmm, care to summarize? I really don't want to snuffle through the noisome trough of a pig-breeding manual to unearth whatever it is you're trying to tell me.

Maybe if you'd read some of those links before you posted them...?

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Astyanax]

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by sir_chancealot

Oh, well done. At last we have some real information to chew on.

Let's have a look...

Edit to add: Hmm, care to summarize? I really don't want to snuffle through the noisome trough of a pig-breeding manual to unearth whatever it is you're trying to tell me.

Maybe if you'd read some of those links before you posted them...?

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Astyanax]


You're a piece of work. You ask for links then don't want to read them.

I thank sirchancealot for doing what I wanted you to do. Of course there is documentation for everything I have said before. I don't link it because I am giving opinion. A highly informed and experienced opinion imo, pun intended, but opinion none the less. It is up to the reader to agree, disagree or a mix of both. The reason I rarely link externally is because I want people, should they agree, to document it for themselves. This is the information age, it only takes a few minutes to an hour with even a moderate google fu ability. And the advantage, for me, is I don't have to convince the other person what I am telling them is true, they can convince themselves, because it's harder to deny your own knowledge than the knowledge of a relative stranger on the internet.

And if people don't agree I don't want to waste time with them unless they have a more powerfull argument than mine which changes my opinion, it's been known to happen.

As for the yields thing, what I am talking about is comparing a calory production of an organic farm functioning at a 2/3 crop rotation with livestock mixed in and the same area in monoculture with synthetic pesticide and fertilizer. The former, if done right, will get better overall yields, if by yields we talk about a caloric or nutritional content. Not necesserily tonnage, but even this would probably be higher if the farmer knew what he was doing and had the right organic counters for the pests that invade his farm.

And, for the love of god, if you want documentation on this, read THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS as it has situations of this exemplified in one of it's chapters. It's not like I've left you totally high and dry here.

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:28 AM
reply to post by sir_chancealot

Thank you for your informative post.

The material you linked to contains a wealth of references to studies bearing out the assertion that organically-farmed food may, under certain specialized conditions, be more nutritious than non-organically farmed food. The studies seem, at first glance, quite serious and trustworthy; without investigating each in depth (which I have neither the time nor the inclination for) I am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. Score one for the organistas.

The question of whether organic food is more or less harmful to the health than ordinary food must be regarded as unsettled. On the one hand, the deleterious effects of pesticides, etc., on human beings in the concentrations at which they are typically consumed are somewhat conjectural (and if they weren't, non-organic farmers would be dying like flies from their own agricultural chemicals). On the other hand, the degree to which organic food may be contaminated with pathogens is highly variable and - as I have recounted here from personal experience - such infestations can be potentially deadly.

As for the yield question, the evidence for equivalent harvests from organic and non-organic farming is, I hazard, pretty thin - notwithstanding the apple orchards and soybean fields you cite. It is surely possible, but I doubt that it's easy or even practicable for ordinary farmers.

However, you make a strong pro-organic case, which is more than anyone else has done on this thread so far. For that, your post gets a star from me.

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:18 AM

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Here's some links for you: Haven't read much of them, just did a quick search.

And he wasn't even trying... that should be a clue that what I am stating has a basis in truth.

And what's this nonsense about us having to consider the matter unsettled? We have a pretty one sided dataset showing us, by any reasonable standard that organic agriculture is good and healthy and industrialized synthetic fertilizer and pesticide based agriculture (without even opening the pandora's box of GMO) is toxic.

We are, pretty much, being slowly poisoned by our own civilizational hubris.

Secret. Life. Of. Plants. Read it.

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by Zepherian

Well, Zepherian, if you'd done some of the work yourself instead of having it all done for you by sir_chancelot, you could have taken some of the kudos yourself. But you didn't, so your cock-a-doodle-dooing is a wee bit misplaced.

And as for this,

Secret. Life. Of. Plants. Read it.

it's beginning to sound like a stuck record. Can it, will you?

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:33 AM
reply to post by Astyanax

Sirchancealot did not "do the work" for me, he kindly supported my assertions. The reason I have not made this a link fest was enunciated in a previous post. It's so you, if you have an open mind, can convince yourself that what I tell you is true, it's so you do your own research, which, in the information age, is easy.

And I gave you a book reference, which I won't mention anymore at your request, which is the best single source I have personally read, so you were indeed linked to information.

Information which you have denied for no good reason.

Ok, I lied, go read The secret life of plants.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Zepherian]

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:22 AM
Does anyone want PROOF that your body recognizes the difference between organic foods, and other foods? I have an easy way.

Go to a grocery store. Buy two dozen eggs. The first dozen will be just regular eggs. The second dozen will be from Free-range chickens that are not given anti-biotics nor growth hormones. Invite a bunch of friends over for brunch. Prepare the eggs exactly the same. Give both sets to each person. Find out which set, the organic or "commercialized" eggs (for lack of a better term) that the people think taste better.

I try to buy eggs from free-range chickens, without growth hormones or anti-biotics. Guess what? Everyone who I have cooked breakfast for has ALWAYS asked me what I do to make my eggs taste so good.

The same can be done for any other organic thing. People LOVED my tomatoes and peppers last year, because they were grown organically. (Sadly, all the rain this year killed my garden.

Don't take anyone's word for it. Do this experiment for yourself. It won't cost much money, and it may just surprise you.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by sir_chancealot]

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Rinorino2

Does the Organic industry lie to the public to feather its own nest-all the bad things said about Macdonalds ingore the fact that Its super-clean and cheap-the sort of things people craved for centuries if not millenia, is organics a luddite 'good old days' lie??

I think you've been eating too much fast food that you're mind has been warped with pesticides.

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by sir_chancealot

Actual experimentation based knowledge? Noooooooooo. You have to read what some NWO academic tells you what's good for you. I mean, c'mon, free will, autodetermination? Are you mad? /sarcasm.

You're right of course, which is another reason it's pointless for me to excessively link regarding this topic. It's easily verifiable by simply stacking the food side by side and seeing that the old way was the good way. Let's say I'm wrong about yields, I'm not, but lets say it, the simple fact one is good for your and one isn't kinda negates the higher yields of modern agriculture, because it's a step forward on the production scale but two steps back on an nutritional, energetic level.

We need an industrialized organic agriculture that integrates cattle and crops into an systemic approach, so we can have the best of both worlds.

The continual referral to the academic authority argument is, imho, telling of a lot of what is wrong with society. My personal opinion of academics is a very significant portion of them are idiots sauvants that have little to no pratical knowledge which shows in their sometimes foolish theories and suggestions. Their job these days is to back the corporate economy with an appearance of truth, not be loyal to truth itself, which is why I am highly skeptical of any so called expert in modern society. They have been corrupted, long ago. Besides, we don't need them:

We can all experience and we call all know.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Zepherian]

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:52 AM
A website that looks like it's made by a 12 year old says organic food is deadly.

This thread doesn't belong on ATS it's ruining the quality.
What is this the enquirer?

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:21 AM
Suppose we return to the premise of the OP?

The OP refers us to a short, poorly-written, and inadequately sourced article that claims:

... there is very substantial evidence that the very same chemicals and artificial substances that make produce less attractive to insects and pests protects the human body by making it less fertile for the growth of cancers and viruses ... cites the obvious and well publicised decline in cancer rates in countries like the U.S and Germany where highly modified foods are a big part of the diet. ... the ironic fact that these very ingredients are somewhat ‘disliked’ by the various viral and cancerous growth that attack our organs’.

So ....

1) As their source for these claims they are using the decline in cancer rates in the USA and Germany, and making the (huge IMO) assumption that this decline is due to "highly modified foods" being a part of the diet. I don't find this theory to be very plausible. Did they consider other possible reasons for the decline in cancer rates? They don't appear to have any actual studies showing that people who eat Twinkies or Big Macs have a lower incidence of cancerous tumors (or viruses).

2) They are blatantly admitting (albeit trying to twist it into being a good thing) that chemicals, artificial substances, flavorings, and preservatives make their way into the human body and stay there (otherwise they wouldn't have the claimed "protective" effect.) Stop and think for yourself for a moment .. do you REALLY believe that having your body full of artificial chemicals and preservatives is a good thing?

3) While it may be that viruses prefer regular human tissue to grow in over tissue contaminated with preservatives and chemicals, I've never heard of anyone becoming immune to colds and flus by eating junk food and fast food. Have you? So apparently it doesn't deter them sufficiently to prevent them from making preservative and chemical laden humans sick.

4) Applying this logic to cancer is completely fallacious. Cancer is not an attack of an organism from outside the body; cancer is the body's own cells going crazy and not self-destructing as they should when they become abnormal. Cancer does not grow on or in existing cells, it is reproduction of cells gone wild and creates its own new cells and tissue as it grows. The only thing it requires is a blood supply. Furthermore, since the very definition of "carcinogen" includes mention that it operates either by changing the DNA of the cell or by increasing the rate of cell division, it becomes obvious that toxic chemicals and preservatives which take up residence in the body's cells are more likely to BE carcinogenic than to prevent tumors from growing.

This is Chinese propaganda. What is purpose may be, other than to convince people not to produce organic foods, I can't guess since I know very little about China.

The OP asks:

Does the Organic industry lie to the public

I see no evidence anywhere in this article to substiantiate such a claim.

all the bad things said about Macdonalds ingore the fact that Its super-clean and cheap-the sort of things people craved for centuries if not millenia, is organics a luddite 'good old days' lie??

Many of the "bad things" said about McDonalds have nothing to do with "organics." McDonalds is reported to do many things that you wouldn't do in your own kitchen, such as use food which has fallen on the floor or is out of date, add fillers to their meat and not provide full disclosure about said fillers, etc. By the way, if you'd ever worked in a McDonald's (or any other fast food joint) you wouldn't call it "super-clean." Remember that the cleaning crew is mostly a bunch of teenagers who couldn't get a better job....

The simplest fact remains that an average McDonald's combo meal has over 1200 calories and about 80 grams of fat while providing little in the way of real nutrition. Whether or not the ingredients are organic hasn't a thing to do with the most important reasons it's an unhealthy diet.

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by Heike

Excelent post.

Another personal life experience titbit: back when I was a student I had a period where I fell into a McDonalds diet. I ate at least one, sometimes 2 meals from them a day for two months. My health, which had previously been good as I was previously practicing sports, when to hell in handbag. I gained weight. I felt a constant slumber. My complexion went bad. And I wasn't even supersizing myself like Spurlock did.

McDonalds is not just fast foods, it's trash food. These days I would forbid a kid from eating it.

If I am not mystaken they spray chemicals derived from the oil industry on the food to prevent it from going bad, which is probably the reason once those get in your body it becomes so hard to lose the McDonalds belly, it's pratically glued in place

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in