Slashdot Mirror

The US-RDA for water is 2 liters of water (8 cups) per day.

[Citation needed]

There is explicitly no RDA for water. The DRI or AI for water is between 2.7-3.7 liters per day, but "includes all water contained in food, beverages, and drinking water." Those references also note that "Thirst and consumption of beverages at meals are adequate to maintain hydration." -- I.e. no need to carry a bottle to constantly sip from as if you're trying to survive a desert hike, on top of every other beverage you're already drinking.

The 64 oz / day myth was created by people who can't read both consecutive sentences from the 1945 Food & Nutrition Board study: "An ordinary standard for diverse persons is 1 milliliter for each calorie of food. Most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods." Well established. The most recent recommendation from the same board suggests approximately 3 liters of water, about-faces itself saying most (80%) is met through beverages, explicitly denotes caffeinated beverages as an acceptable source of hydration, and similarly reiterates that the "vast majority" of people meet their hydration need merely by responding to thirst - not by forcing themselves to drink water to hit a magic number.

Bananas contain lots of potassium.

There's about 422 mg potassium in a medium banana. The RDA is 3500 mg. There are a whole lot of foods with a whole lot more potassium than bananas.

Not sure how bananas got the rep for being potassium-rich. I guess they've got more potassium than anything else in the nutrient department, but they're really not that high in potassium.

Bananas contain lots of potassium.

There's about 422 mg potassium in a medium banana. The RDA is 3500 mg. There are a whole lot of foods with a whole lot more potassium than bananas.

Not sure how bananas got the rep for being potassium-rich. I guess they've got more potassium than anything else in the nutrient department, but they're really not that high in potassium.

This is WAY old news. http://www.ars.usda.gov/IS/pr/2000/001115.htm

As far as this 'Never Working' goes, that's pretty ignorant of the facts. For example, the release of sterilized male fruit flies has been used for years as an effective means of keeping invasive fruit flies from spreading.

Level of lithium found in the water tested in the Japan study: "Levels ranged from 0.7 to 59 micrograms per litre."
Level of lithium typically used as a therapeutic drug: 300+ milligrams per day.

Even if your water were at the high end and you drank several litres per day, that's still 1000x lower than the low end of therapeutic use.

See also: http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php?mode2=detail&origin=ibids_references&therow=207599

"Using data for 27 Texas counties from 1978-1987, it is shown that the incidence rates of suicide, homicide, and rape are significantly higher in counties whose drinking water supplies contain little or no lithium than in counties with water lithium levels ranging from 70-170 micrograms/L... ...arrests for possession of opium, cocaine, and their derivatives (morphine, heroin, and codeine) from 1981-1986 also produced statistically significant inverse associations"

While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so,

Really? Where is that info from?

Because the data I can see says otherwise - like the SNOTEL Precipitation Data Table from Wolf Creek Pass in Colorado. Or Squaw Valley in California. Or Daisy Peak in Montana.

We've had dry years in Colorado over the past decade, but also some banner snow years. Similarly for other places in other states.

So where does the data validating that generally ski resorts have lower snowpack over the last twenty years come from? Or is it just something everyone "knows".

In reality I think that's a data point too variable to indicate anything one way or the other.

While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so,

Really? Where is that info from?

Because the data I can see says otherwise - like the SNOTEL Precipitation Data Table from Wolf Creek Pass in Colorado. Or Squaw Valley in California. Or Daisy Peak in Montana.

We've had dry years in Colorado over the past decade, but also some banner snow years. Similarly for other places in other states.

So where does the data validating that generally ski resorts have lower snowpack over the last twenty years come from? Or is it just something everyone "knows".

In reality I think that's a data point too variable to indicate anything one way or the other.

While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so,

Really? Where is that info from?

Because the data I can see says otherwise - like the SNOTEL Precipitation Data Table from Wolf Creek Pass in Colorado. Or Squaw Valley in California. Or Daisy Peak in Montana.

We've had dry years in Colorado over the past decade, but also some banner snow years. Similarly for other places in other states.

So where does the data validating that generally ski resorts have lower snowpack over the last twenty years come from? Or is it just something everyone "knows".

In reality I think that's a data point too variable to indicate anything one way or the other.

While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so,

Really? Where is that info from?

Because the data I can see says otherwise - like the SNOTEL Precipitation Data Table from Wolf Creek Pass in Colorado. Or Squaw Valley in California. Or Daisy Peak in Montana.

We've had dry years in Colorado over the past decade, but also some banner snow years. Similarly for other places in other states.

So where does the data validating that generally ski resorts have lower snowpack over the last twenty years come from? Or is it just something everyone "knows".

In reality I think that's a data point too variable to indicate anything one way or the other.

When you make yourself too dependent on others, you have more instability than if you're self sufficient. That's actually an argument against free trade.

Are you self sufficient? I seriously doubt it. I doubt you went to medical college and became an MD, you farm and or hunt with a box and arrow you made and gather, and built your own home. Unless you did these yourself, you're not self sufficient either. As a matter of fact I bet you didn't manufacture the computer you used to write your response, from designing and fabricating the CPU to laying out out the motherboard. No, if you didn't buy a compleat system at most you bought the components off the self and assembled it.

The problem comes in if we were trading Cats for bags of wheat, now the market for heavy equipment dries up, we get no more wheat.

Actually the US is the biggest exporter of wheat. And with Australia the second largest but drought devastating agriculture there there will be more demand for US wheat.

You're assuming that the economy is largely dependent on foreign trade

It is. Take just oil. Most of the oil the US uses is imported. During the 1970s the US imported 1/2 of it's oil, now we import more. The US uses a quarter of the world's oil production. And it's not just wheat the US is the biggest exporter of, the US is one of the biggest exporters of other food produce as well. With the subsidies US agricultural businesses, the government gives hundreds of billions in subsidies, this drives third world farmers off their farms. Now that is bad, now only does it make others dependent on the US for food, it also gives large businesses billions of taxpayer dollars. I firmly believe in food security but this has nothing to do with it.

SHOULD we be if the result is more instability

Whereas lack of trade can cause instability trade can inprove it.

Also, can you explain why buying a foreign product in the hope that the foreigner will eventually buy a domestic product is even rational? When you have the power to ensure a 100% of the domestic product being bought by buying it yourself?

And every nation has all the minerals and other natural resources to make everything themselves? Yea, right. NOT!!! OIL!

The food subsidy issue goes back to what I was really asking about. At what point do you accept "economic inefficiency" (in terms of comparative advantage) for the sake of security? To me, the global food crisis demonstrated that food security is a real concern. Countries that depended on cheap foreign food imports got totally boned.

As stated above I totally agree. Every nation should have food security but there can still be trade in food after food security is met. Oranges don't grow everywhere, neither do bananas, or coffee? Are you willing to give up a cup of joe? Trade in food add spice to people's diet. That coffee originally came from Ethiopia in Africa. Yet it's drunk all over the world. A shortage of potatoes caused by late bligh, used to make vodka as well, caused the Irish Potato Famine. However potatoes are not native of Ireland.

International trade has made man people's lives better.

Falcon

But it won't be, it will be swept into some welfare pot to buy condoms for crack addicts or something

I had a fun experience at the grocery store the other day. Witnessed a woman using a WIC card to buy half of her groceries. The other half (approximately $80 worth of junk food, beer and cigarettes) she paid for with cash. She had a iPhone too.

Aren't you glad your tax dollars are financing her iPhone, junk food and controlled substances? Imagine if she didn't have that wic card -- she might actually have had to settle for a candybar phone or something.

According to this government website: ( http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February08/DataFeature/ ) the US imports about 15% of its food by volume. That's a far cry from importing most of our food.

I'm willing to bet that with the continuous increases in farming technology, the US produces more food today than it ever did in the past. It's just that consumption has gone way up (we're a nation of obese), and the demand for exotic and cheaply processed food has increased.

Don't laugh, my friend.

The USDA is already trying to force a livestock registry and ID program on private individuals: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/

And I heard that they were contemplating a seed registration program, though I can't seem to track that down right now.

With the invisible hand of the big agribusiness (Monsanto and the like), it may very well be illegal to propagate your own plants and animals in the future (or at least not without paying the fees to register your stock with The Man). From what I hear, Monsanto is actually buying up independent seed cleaners and shutting them down, so that farmers are forced to buy from the only large seed cleaner left: Monsanto with their illegal-to-save seeds. While the jury is still out on the safety of GMO foods, there is a thriving demand for non-GMO and hierloom varieties, and Monsanto is trying very hard to eliminate the suppliers of such.

Scary world.

I don't know what you are talking about. The Government is HUGE into food distribution.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/
http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/


These are just the federal programs. Every state and local government is huge into food distribution as well.

Heck, here is a link for school faculty/administration from the California Department on Education on what they can do to help increase the governments involvement in food distribution.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/he/feedmorekids.asp

I don't know what you are talking about. The Government is HUGE into food distribution.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/
http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/


These are just the federal programs. Every state and local government is huge into food distribution as well.

Heck, here is a link for school faculty/administration from the California Department on Education on what they can do to help increase the governments involvement in food distribution.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/he/feedmorekids.asp

I don't know what you are talking about. The Government is HUGE into food distribution.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/
http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/


These are just the federal programs. Every state and local government is huge into food distribution as well.

Heck, here is a link for school faculty/administration from the California Department on Education on what they can do to help increase the governments involvement in food distribution.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/he/feedmorekids.asp

Even the revised food pyramid puts too much emphasis on carbs, even if you eat mostly complex ones.

Not at all. The majority of caloric intake should be from carbohydrates - at least 55% with 30% fat and 15% protein as maximums, probably more like 70-85% with 10-20% fat and 5-10% protein. (With perhaps slightly higher levels of fat and protein for children, who are building new tissue.)

With their emphasis on fatty and high-protein animal products, the USDA guidelines put too little emphasis on carbs. They're not the best guidelines, but they're a damn sight better than the Standard American Diet or the Low Carb Tragedies.

The reason that Americans have been getting fatter has little to do with the relative proportion of macronutrients in their calories, it's that we're eating more calories - and burning fewer. A perfectly balanced diet won't help you be healthy if you eat 500 calories a day more than you burn.

Americans' average caloric intake increased by 24.5 percent between 1970 and 2000, from about 2,170 to 2,700 a day. We sure as hell didn't increase our average activity level by one quarter over that time.

Fruits and veggies are in a different category, with many fewer recommended servings.

No, there are not "many fewer" recommended servings of fruits and vegetables in the food pyramid, 7 servings of fruits and vegetables versus 9 of grains at 2,200 calories.

Ketosis is a natural state for mankind to enter once a year during the "hunter" phase of the "hunter-gatherer" lifestyle.

The "hunter-gatherer" lifestyle is a hack on top of an ape metabolism based around foraging. Using it as a guide to optimum health is unwise.

Ketosis is great if you like kidney failure and brain damage. It also leads to fatigue, making exercise - the absolute best thing you can do for long-term weight loss and general health - more difficult.

This is most explicitly not what the Food Pyramid on which we have raised our children says. It explicitly instructed you to eat a minimally varied diet based primarily around carbohydrates, and today the situation is little better.

Yes, they rightly told you to get most of your calories from carbs, with a preference for complex carbs. No, they didn't tell you to eat a minimally varied diet - if you got that impression then I'm sorry but you need remedial training in reading comprehension.

1990 dietary guidelines:

• "Eat a variety of foods."
• "Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits, and grain products."
• "Vegetables, fruits, and grain products ...are emphasized in this guideline especially for their complex carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and other food components linked to good health."

1995 dietary guidelines:

• "Eat a variety of foods."
• "Choose a diet with plenty of grain products, vegetables, and fruits."
• "Most of the calories in your diet should come from grain products, vegetables, and fruits. These include grain products high in complex carbohydrates -- breads, cereals, pasta, rice -- found at the base of the Food Guide Pyramid, as well as vegetables such as potatoes and corn."
• "Eat products made from a variety of whole grains...Eat several servings of whole-grain breads and cereals daily."

2000 dietary guidelines:

• "Build your eating pattern on a variety of grains, fruits, and vegetables."
• "Include several servings of whole grain foods daily -- such as whole wheat, brown rice, oa

Even the revised food pyramid puts too much emphasis on carbs, even if you eat mostly complex ones.

Not at all. The majority of caloric intake should be from carbohydrates - at least 55% with 30% fat and 15% protein as maximums, probably more like 70-85% with 10-20% fat and 5-10% protein. (With perhaps slightly higher levels of fat and protein for children, who are building new tissue.)

With their emphasis on fatty and high-protein animal products, the USDA guidelines put too little emphasis on carbs. They're not the best guidelines, but they're a damn sight better than the Standard American Diet or the Low Carb Tragedies.

The reason that Americans have been getting fatter has little to do with the relative proportion of macronutrients in their calories, it's that we're eating more calories - and burning fewer. A perfectly balanced diet won't help you be healthy if you eat 500 calories a day more than you burn.

Americans' average caloric intake increased by 24.5 percent between 1970 and 2000, from about 2,170 to 2,700 a day. We sure as hell didn't increase our average activity level by one quarter over that time.

Fruits and veggies are in a different category, with many fewer recommended servings.

No, there are not "many fewer" recommended servings of fruits and vegetables in the food pyramid, 7 servings of fruits and vegetables versus 9 of grains at 2,200 calories.

Ketosis is a natural state for mankind to enter once a year during the "hunter" phase of the "hunter-gatherer" lifestyle.

The "hunter-gatherer" lifestyle is a hack on top of an ape metabolism based around foraging. Using it as a guide to optimum health is unwise.

Ketosis is great if you like kidney failure and brain damage. It also leads to fatigue, making exercise - the absolute best thing you can do for long-term weight loss and general health - more difficult.

This is most explicitly not what the Food Pyramid on which we have raised our children says. It explicitly instructed you to eat a minimally varied diet based primarily around carbohydrates, and today the situation is little better.

Yes, they rightly told you to get most of your calories from carbs, with a preference for complex carbs. No, they didn't tell you to eat a minimally varied diet - if you got that impression then I'm sorry but you need remedial training in reading comprehension.

1990 dietary guidelines:

• "Eat a variety of foods."
• "Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits, and grain products."
• "Vegetables, fruits, and grain products ...are emphasized in this guideline especially for their complex carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and other food components linked to good health."

1995 dietary guidelines:

• "Eat a variety of foods."
• "Choose a diet with plenty of grain products, vegetables, and fruits."
• "Most of the calories in your diet should come from grain products, vegetables, and fruits. These include grain products high in complex carbohydrates -- breads, cereals, pasta, rice -- found at the base of the Food Guide Pyramid, as well as vegetables such as potatoes and corn."
• "Eat products made from a variety of whole grains...Eat several servings of whole-grain breads and cereals daily."

2000 dietary guidelines:

• "Build your eating pattern on a variety of grains, fruits, and vegetables."
• "Include several servings of whole grain foods daily -- such as whole wheat, brown rice, oa

Even the revised food pyramid puts too much emphasis on carbs, even if you eat mostly complex ones.

Not at all. The majority of caloric intake should be from carbohydrates - at least 55% with 30% fat and 15% protein as maximums, probably more like 70-85% with 10-20% fat and 5-10% protein. (With perhaps slightly higher levels of fat and protein for children, who are building new tissue.)

With their emphasis on fatty and high-protein animal products, the USDA guidelines put too little emphasis on carbs. They're not the best guidelines, but they're a damn sight better than the Standard American Diet or the Low Carb Tragedies.

The reason that Americans have been getting fatter has little to do with the relative proportion of macronutrients in their calories, it's that we're eating more calories - and burning fewer. A perfectly balanced diet won't help you be healthy if you eat 500 calories a day more than you burn.

Americans' average caloric intake increased by 24.5 percent between 1970 and 2000, from about 2,170 to 2,700 a day. We sure as hell didn't increase our average activity level by one quarter over that time.

Fruits and veggies are in a different category, with many fewer recommended servings.

No, there are not "many fewer" recommended servings of fruits and vegetables in the food pyramid, 7 servings of fruits and vegetables versus 9 of grains at 2,200 calories.

Ketosis is a natural state for mankind to enter once a year during the "hunter" phase of the "hunter-gatherer" lifestyle.

The "hunter-gatherer" lifestyle is a hack on top of an ape metabolism based around foraging. Using it as a guide to optimum health is unwise.

Ketosis is great if you like kidney failure and brain damage. It also leads to fatigue, making exercise - the absolute best thing you can do for long-term weight loss and general health - more difficult.

This is most explicitly not what the Food Pyramid on which we have raised our children says. It explicitly instructed you to eat a minimally varied diet based primarily around carbohydrates, and today the situation is little better.

Yes, they rightly told you to get most of your calories from carbs, with a preference for complex carbs. No, they didn't tell you to eat a minimally varied diet - if you got that impression then I'm sorry but you need remedial training in reading comprehension.

1990 dietary guidelines:

• "Eat a variety of foods."
• "Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits, and grain products."
• "Vegetables, fruits, and grain products ...are emphasized in this guideline especially for their complex carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and other food components linked to good health."

1995 dietary guidelines:

• "Eat a variety of foods."
• "Choose a diet with plenty of grain products, vegetables, and fruits."
• "Most of the calories in your diet should come from grain products, vegetables, and fruits. These include grain products high in complex carbohydrates -- breads, cereals, pasta, rice -- found at the base of the Food Guide Pyramid, as well as vegetables such as potatoes and corn."
• "Eat products made from a variety of whole grains...Eat several servings of whole-grain breads and cereals daily."

2000 dietary guidelines:

• "Build your eating pattern on a variety of grains, fruits, and vegetables."
• "Include several servings of whole grain foods daily -- such as whole wheat, brown rice, oa

Even the revised food pyramid puts too much emphasis on carbs, even if you eat mostly complex ones.

Not at all. The majority of caloric intake should be from carbohydrates - at least 55% with 30% fat and 15% protein as maximums, probably more like 70-85% with 10-20% fat and 5-10% protein. (With perhaps slightly higher levels of fat and protein for children, who are building new tissue.)

With their emphasis on fatty and high-protein animal products, the USDA guidelines put too little emphasis on carbs. They're not the best guidelines, but they're a damn sight better than the Standard American Diet or the Low Carb Tragedies.

The reason that Americans have been getting fatter has little to do with the relative proportion of macronutrients in their calories, it's that we're eating more calories - and burning fewer. A perfectly balanced diet won't help you be healthy if you eat 500 calories a day more than you burn.

Americans' average caloric intake increased by 24.5 percent between 1970 and 2000, from about 2,170 to 2,700 a day. We sure as hell didn't increase our average activity level by one quarter over that time.

Fruits and veggies are in a different category, with many fewer recommended servings.

No, there are not "many fewer" recommended servings of fruits and vegetables in the food pyramid, 7 servings of fruits and vegetables versus 9 of grains at 2,200 calories.

Ketosis is a natural state for mankind to enter once a year during the "hunter" phase of the "hunter-gatherer" lifestyle.

The "hunter-gatherer" lifestyle is a hack on top of an ape metabolism based around foraging. Using it as a guide to optimum health is unwise.

Ketosis is great if you like kidney failure and brain damage. It also leads to fatigue, making exercise - the absolute best thing you can do for long-term weight loss and general health - more difficult.

This is most explicitly not what the Food Pyramid on which we have raised our children says. It explicitly instructed you to eat a minimally varied diet based primarily around carbohydrates, and today the situation is little better.

Yes, they rightly told you to get most of your calories from carbs, with a preference for complex carbs. No, they didn't tell you to eat a minimally varied diet - if you got that impression then I'm sorry but you need remedial training in reading comprehension.

1990 dietary guidelines:

• "Eat a variety of foods."
• "Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits, and grain products."
• "Vegetables, fruits, and grain products ...are emphasized in this guideline especially for their complex carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and other food components linked to good health."

1995 dietary guidelines:

• "Eat a variety of foods."
• "Choose a diet with plenty of grain products, vegetables, and fruits."
• "Most of the calories in your diet should come from grain products, vegetables, and fruits. These include grain products high in complex carbohydrates -- breads, cereals, pasta, rice -- found at the base of the Food Guide Pyramid, as well as vegetables such as potatoes and corn."
• "Eat products made from a variety of whole grains...Eat several servings of whole-grain breads and cereals daily."

2000 dietary guidelines:

• "Build your eating pattern on a variety of grains, fruits, and vegetables."
• "Include several servings of whole grain foods daily -- such as whole wheat, brown rice, oa

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6

Relax, though! Killer bees are the only thing tough enough to save a $60 billion per annum migratory bee pollination industry. Honeybees pollinate California's almond crop, for example. Along with apples, pears, peaches, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, strawberries, soybeans, alfalfa, pumpkins, etc. etc. As for what killed off all the honeybees, at least in northerly latitudes, think agrichemicals and monoculture lawns.

Oak trees are wind pollinated, no bees directly involved. Honeybees do gather spring pollens from wind-pollinated tree species, however, simply as a high-calorie food source when nectar flows are scant.

Depends where you are. They don't grow worth a damn this far north.

"This far north" being where? Farmers can get over 2.5 tons of wheat per hectare in the northern half of Alberta - that's about the same as the U.S. average yield. Barley and oats are sown on thousands of acres in Alaska. Seems you have to be pretty far north to not be able to grow grain.

We do not have anyone in the US "starving." We have these government programs called WIC and Food Stamps and welfare. You know, the ones used by people in front of you at the supermarket yacking into cellphones that are nicer than yours?

Quite the contrary, the real problem with the poor in America is obesity, not starvation.

We do not have anyone in the US "starving." We have these government programs called WIC and Food Stamps and welfare. You know, the ones used by people in front of you at the supermarket yacking into cellphones that are nicer than yours?

Quite the contrary, the real problem with the poor in America is obesity, not starvation.

Food? Don't kid yourself - although the US has many farms, a huge proportion of our food comes from overseas.

Don't kid yourself - the US is the world's largest food producer, and exports $30B more in agriculture than it imports, making it the world's largest food exporter.

Margins on such products are super-low; in the end, a huge proportion of the money you spend on your iPod, car, or even tooth brush is basically money that is leaving the country permanently.

Far more than "margins" stays in the country of sale; have you not heard of "overhead"? All those well-paid design, marketing, and managerial types are likely to be in the US.

Not to mention that for some of those products, like cars, the US is one of the world's manufacturing heavyweights.

Why invest in a US company that gets 5% return when you can invest in a Chinese company that is more likely get a 25% return?

Because the Chinese company is also more likely to get a minus 25% return. Or, in reality, -50% so far this year. Volatility in developing markets is hardly new.

You have some strange ideas about the state of the world that don't agree with the available data. You might want to reconsider some of them.

However, that is a big IF. When you look at the numbers, that's simply NOT happening. We're producing and exporting more FOOD crops than ever before! You don't have to take my word, all the info is available at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome. That's what they're there for, folks; so we can see the numbers. Here's a brief synopsis:

2006 Winter Wheat Production: 1.26 billion bushels, from 31.2 million acres.

2007 Winter Wheat Production: 1.61 billion bushels, from 37.2 million acres.

2008 Winter Wheat Production: 1.82 billion bushels, from 40.2 million acres.

Almost of your land is used.

Where did you get this information from?

I've heard from plenty of other people that the U.S. has vasts amount of open land and after traveling to quite a few places in the U.S., it sure seems like it.

Some relevant statistics here.

As of 2002, farmland takes up just about 43% of the U.S. That sounds like quite a bit, but it also shows that about half of of our pastureland and woodland are not in use (read: still available). If that's the case, there is some legroom for bio fuels. You made it sound as if the U.S. would certainly have to cut sustenance production to do anything with bio fuels. I think this notion is false.

To answer your question.. diet and health related products and services clearly have disclaimers that results are typical, or the item isn't used to cure any disease. In other words, read the box, and you have the truth (not to mention the bottom of the commercial).

Regarding food labeling: there are VERY strict guidelines concerning what is considered low fat, organic and natural. For example, low fat means 3g or less fat per serving.

http://lowfatcooking.about.com/od/lowfatbasics/a/fatlabels.htm
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateA&navID=NationalOrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPNationalOrganicProgramHome&acct=nop

Whereas Dell says "if you have a problem, we'll get it fixed" and then puts you on hold for HOURS.

I dunno, those might actually be the few things that can help us rid ourselves of the damned Formosan Termites down here in New Orleans, etc. Just made me think of it, 'cause it is getting close to the time for them to start swarming again....every night for about a week, you see swarms of them up around the street lights, and if you house isn't air tight, if you have the lights on...they'll try to swarm in your house too. Lots of fun while cooking a late dinner...

OH well, if there is a bug or other vermin out there, it grows bigger and better here than anywhere else in the US. I'll not even get into the giant cockroaches that will fly at you....

The USDA doesn't have a clear candidate. What makes you think you know more than the USDA? I find it interesting that you blame people for making up reasons for things happening, yet you're very quick to jump to unproven conclusions as well. I smell confirmation bias.

The grandparent is correct, and the parent is just ignorant of the cause of the problem.

The grandparent's info is out of date, the parent is correct and the son is misinformed.

There is no significant risk to monarch butterflies from environmental exposure to Bt corn, according to research conducted by a group of scientists coordinated by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

From here.

Interestingly: Last Modified: 03/29/2004. And I found this via the wikipedia link you gave. Ta.

This thread has become convoluted by comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare GM to something, then compare it to NON-GM foods. Organic is intended to mean that it is not grown with pesticides or treated with artificial hormones, etc. It is true that many "organic" products are also non-GM. You can have non-GM food that is not organically grown.

National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service
and
USDA Certification

If you are going to argue about these topics, please at least know what you are arguing about. Organic foods versus non-organic is a different discussion than GM versus non-GM. Questions of health and safety between these two topics are not the same. Do pesticides have unhealthy side effects or cause development issues in children? Different question than "Do foods that contain spliced in genes from organisms in entirely different families (or even kingdoms - like the fish genes in strawberries) have any long-term or undiscovered ill effects on those who consume them?"

Here's a global population density map: http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/popden.html

Notice how the EU is all dark orange, except for parts of central Spain. Lots of people, more financial incentive to wire everything.

Notice how 80% of Canada is completely deserted, because it's too far north to be habitable. The Northern Yukon does an awful lot to decrease Canada's average population density, but since there's NOBODY there it doesn't affect the difficulty of wiring up broadband. Australia, same thing, except it's like 95% instead of 80% empty.

China is enough of a mix that it might make sense to compare to the US, but I'm guessing there are enough other issues with development, etc. to make it a tough comparison.

So what motivation does any member of society have to become less "disadvantaged"? I'd say a free ride for life without work gives you an advantage. If I don't work, or under-work I get:

Subsidized housing - http://www.seattlehousing.org/Housing/programs/section8/hcvpten.html
Free food - http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/
Free healthcare (via UHC when it passes or just going to the ER for every sniffle)
Free entertainment - http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

Guess what? By allowing people to freeload on the system they have ZERO motivation to make themselves better. They'll just continue to vote for people who will continue to feed them government cheese (the ones promoting more welfare and giving more of our money away).

Only by saying "if you don't work, you don't eat" will people make themselves better. When they get tired of shoveling dung for three squares and a roof over their heads they'll educate themselves to find better, more fulfilling jobs.

If someone is truly unable to work and has nobody to take care of them, that is one thing. Otherwise, get their lazy butts off the couch and have them fill potholes or build infrastructure for the benefit of the society you're so willing to rob to give them a free ride.

Work is being done to protect crops, but Norman Borlaug says "This thing has immense potential for social and human destruction." Oh yes, and you can say goodbye to cheap white bread.

The water outflow of the Columbia River would provide each and every person with nearly 26 gallons of fresh water per day (cites: Columbia River).

We could feed all those people - about 500 square meters per person - with the existing farmland within the US (cites: vegan food estimates, farmland in the US).

Essentially, we could live mid-density, and feed and provide potable water for every single person on the face of the earth, and not require a single person living outside of Texas - no one on the other 6 continents, the oceans, or any other State. No one in Canada or Mexico.

We could feed everyone without a single acre converted from farmland - wouldn't need to touch a single acre of forest, nor city, nor ocean, nor park.

The earth can support a LOT of people; the problem is distribution of the resources. And that is a purely political issue. Concerns about too many people on earth are demonstrably false.

bad air quality thanks to wood burning

You link to a BBC article about "possible" mass famine on a world-wide scale....and then suggest the US would be susceptible to somekind of famine?

I have to ask: are you serious?

Say what you want about Ron Paul but your statement can't stand. The US - with all of those middle states (great for ag, btw) - and you insinuate we are going to starve to death? Seriously. There is almost zero chance of that happening. Why? I am glad you asked. ;)

If there is one thing the US has plenty of - it's farmland. Land to grow things on. Land that, right now, the government pays you NOT to farm. Yes, you read that correctly...the US government still has the CRP Program And it's not some small program. Each state has their own version but the premise is basically the same: govt pays you not to farm your land. We have this program for a lot of different reasons but that's not the point. The point is, if you opened up the spigots and started growing as much as you could, we'd be up to our eyeballs in food. There is that much land in the USA. The question is: will you have a society in place that can deliver it to people?

Methinks you also need to read some US History and understand one of the things we've always been great at: Agriculture. Ever hear of John Deere? Or George Archer and John Daniels (Archer-Daniels Midland)? How about Texas Agriculture and Mechanical University (TX A&M)? The US are experts at producing food. We will be the last ones to starve in a worldwide famine of anykind.

I'd go to a local electronics store.

Seriously. Screw Wally World. Haven't been in there in over three years. Putting aside the issues I have with their business practices and politics, it's just a PITA to go to Wal-Mart. It's packed full of people to the point that you wind up parking out in bum-fuck land over 200 meters from the doors and stand in line waiting to check out for at least 10-15 minutes even if you only have one item.

There's also the quality of people that shop at Wally World. I love seeing the store manager have to come out to explain to a customer why she can't use her WIC card to buy beer..... Or the quality of the employees -- watched a cashier ignore a customer for the better part of two minutes while she yelled at her boyfriend on her cell phone. All true Wally World stories that I've personally seen -- and the reason why I'd never stop there again even if they changed their business practices and politics.

No, not really. The latest US Department of Agriculture forecast has a $15B net surplus for agricultural exports over imports for FY 2008.

The USDA thinks the optimal storage temp is -18C. This should be QED* in Norway.

xref: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/sep98/seed0998.htm

*Quite Easily Done

Food safety experts are having fits right about now - allowing raw poultry to warm to 60 on the countertop is a huge no-no.

Americans' caloric consumption increased 12 percent, about 300 calories, between 1985 and 2000. The idea that this is unrelated to the fact that Americans are getting more and more obese is an extraordinary claim; advocates of high-protein diets have produced no extraordinary evidence to back it up.

My shiatsu teacher once noted that it's easier to get people to change their religion than it is to get them to change their diet. Probably true - if early Christians had made Gentile converts keep kosher, Jesus of Nazareth would likely be historical footnote today. The way that high-protein diet advocates cling to their beliefs is just another example.

As for the broader question of the scientific basis of medicine, most medicine is based on observation and experience, not controlled studies. It's hard to experiment on human beings in a controlled fashion, after all. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not scientific - astronomers don't get to do controlled experiments on stars, either.

But it is true that a lot of accepted medical "knowledge" has little evidence to back it up. It's interesting that many "skeptics" who demand double-blind studies of, say, acupuncture, are likely to have no qualms about undergoing a surgical procedure which has undergone no such testing. Medicine has the look of "Science" even when it doesn't have the substance. (More about science and Chinese medicine here, if anyone's interested.)

Editing a public Wiki on one's work computer would probably be acceptable within the US Dep't of Agriculture's Limited Personal Use policy as long as it didn't interfere with offical duties or use an appreciable amount of bandwidth.

http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/doc/DN3300-011.htm

I'm writing this post from a USDA computer right now, of course I'm not on the clock.

If you want a population density map, go find a population density map. Here is a global population density map from 1994. Obviously things have changed since then, but I'm not gonna waste more then a few minutes looking for good population density maps. It would be better to have current maps by country and a bit of demographic data that these maps really don't show. For instance how do you determine that 45% of all Swedes live in Stockholm, Malmo, and Goteborg looking at that map. You basically can't. So you need hard demographic data about what percentage of the population lives in what persons per a square kilometer range. It's not something you can just eyeball. A population density map is also not going to tell you that the infrastructure in NYC is as old as shit, having been one of the first places in the world where electricity and telephone networks were built or that pretty much all Japanese infrastructure was destroyed in World War II and has since been rebuilt.

The US has around 940 million acres of farmland (source). A single percent of this would be enough to fuel all the cars in the country. It's not necessarily the most efficient option but certainly doable.

If they can make this work I think it's great. The current U.S. consumption of oil is about 5.2 Million bb/d, and there is about 950 Million acres of farmland as of 2002. One barrel of crude equals about 42 gallons of gasoline according to this. So we can safely say that one acre is about a barrel of crude according TFA. I think that is very doable provided that it actually works. Much better solution than ethanol if you ask me, which has proven time and again that if we want to go with corn ethanol that there isn't enough farmland in the U.S. Now granted that 40kg is optimal so if we allow say 8 million acres for this I think we may even have a surplus of energy. That is the kind of idea I like to see.