As someone who has worked in the dairy industry I can assure you that there is no routine adulteration of "Regular" milk that isn't also done routinely to "Organic" milk. I could walk you through the entire QA process if you would like, but suffice to say Milk doesn't belong on your list of things that are "Noticeably Different" unless you've actually done a blind taste test.
I worked on a small dairy in Hadley, MA (less than 30 cows milking at any one time) that milked only Jersey cows and bottled their own milk. It wasn't organic, although it may be now, but it tasted different because Jersey cows are purported to have higher milk protein or milk fat (can't remember which) that Holsteins. If they've gone "Organic" that difference will be attributed to management practices, not the breed of cow producing the milk.
Most "Organic" or "Non-BST" milk is just as heavily processed Homogenized, Pasteurized, tested for antibiotics, controlled for milk fat content, and supplemented with Vitamin D, etc. as "Regular" milk.
For the rest, I still believe that any differences are either psychosomatic or the result of different genetics, which usually grow slower or are more prone to disease. In either case "Happy Shopping."
The laws are stated that I am not allowed to sell milk labeled that it came from cows not injected with BST. That's crazy. If some people want to pay twice as much for non-BST milk, why should gov't get in the way? They aren't lying in the labeling.
Here is a link explaining why the FDA will not let manufacturers sell milk with the claim that rBST was not used in its production. Part of the reason is due to market confusion, but there is also the point of verification. In short, there is no way to analyze two samples of milk and determine whether or not the BST in the milk is of Cow or Injection origin.
Substantiation of Labeling Claims
There is currently no way to differentiate analytically between naturally occurring bST and recombinant bST in milk, nor are there any measurable compositional differences between milk from cows that receive supplemental bST and milk from cows that do not. Therefore, to ensure that claims that milk comes from untreated cows are valid, States could require that firms that use such claims establish a plan and maintain records to substantiate the claims, and make those records available for inspection by regulatory officials. The producer of a product labeled with rbST claims should be able to demonstrate that all milk-derived ingredients in the product are from cows not treated with rbST. Failure to maintain records would make it difficult for a firm to defend itself in the face of circumstantial evidence that it is using rbST or selling milk from treated cows. In some situations (e.g., dairy cooperatives that only process milk from untreated cows), States may decide that affidavits from individual farmers and processors are adequate to document that milk or milk products received by the firm were from untreated cows.
States should consider requiring that firms that use statements indicating that their product is "certified" as not from cows treated with rbST be participants in a third party certification program to verify that the cows have not been injected with rbST. States could seek to ensure that certification programs contain the following elements: Participating dairy herds should consist of animals that have not been supplemented with rbST. The program should be able to track each cow in the herd over time. Milk from non-rbST herds should be kept separate from other milk by a physical segregation, verifiable by a valid paper trail, throughout the transportation and processing steps until the finished milk or dairy product is in final packaged form in a labeled container. The physical handling and recordkeeping provisions of such a program would be necessary not because of any safety concerns about milk from treated cows but to ensure that the labeling of the milk is not false or misleading.
Except that the energy that goes into manufacturing parts for a microwave is negligible compared to the energy required to manufacture auto parts like the engine block, transmission or any other large and/or complex part.
I don't know anything about the junkyards not selling parts anymore. I've purchased parts for my 20 year old pickup truck from junkyards several times in the last 5 years.
The funguses you are talking about produce mycotoxins.
They are a broad category of compounds synthesized by certain families of fungi when the plant they are growing on is stressed, or when the grain is stored improperly. A section of my PhD lit review covered the concentrating effect of ethanol production on mycotoxin levels in corn.
My understanding of the literature is that mycotoxins are lowest when modern agricultural practices are used appropriately. Stressing a field of corn by letting too many pests (weeds, bugs, etc.) set up shop leads to increased levels of mycotoxins in the harvested corn. However, there are mycotoxins in all corn, not just us "Science" corn and soy as you so quaintly put it.
As far as the Japanese market goes, I was under the impression that the big trade issue was American Beef, and the fear of BSE. All of Asia is afraid of American or European beef because of BSE, and the fear is encouraged by the handful of local beef producers. IIRC, in Korea a US$5 hamburger is on the order of $50 because there is so little land for growing cattle, and most beef is imported. So yeah, part of the issue is legitimate fear, but I think the politicians are backing the fear for the protectionist economic reasons you mentioned. I doesn't matter if your country doesn't produce corn or peanuts.
If you live in a country that has protectionist taxation of US imports it still promotes the use of locally produced food products over the US produced food products. It doesn't have to be a corn for corn thing, but it could very well be a rice for corn thing. The net effect is still that more of the local currency is spent on locally produced grains by artificially inflating the cost of US alternatives.
You obviously don't understand the nature of Cancer. It's not caused or cured by eating "Organic" food. I'm not denying what you saw, but miraculous recoveries do occur for no readily apparent reason. In medicine, miracles really do happen from time to time. That one happened to someone you know while she was eating primarily/exclusively organic food is a coincidence, not cause and effect.
IF there were ANY reliable evidence for cancer curing properties of Organic foods, do you think that ANYONE would be eating anything else? Cancer is the big bad medical monster of our generation. We've cured or eliminated a lot of the infectious diseases. We've managed to find treatments for most other diseases. However, if something else doesn't get you, cancer will. It's just the nature of the beast. Eventually enough epigenetic errors will result in a cell somewhere in your body replicating inappropriately and killing you.
I'm glad to hear that your friend recovered, but I place all of my money on the cure being the result of the emergency surgery and the TLC you provided, and absolutely NONE from whether or not the food she was eating could be certified as being "Organic". There are numerous scientific reports of the value that both surgery and TLC can provide to cancer patients, and none indicating that organic food has any effect. In fact, the original article essentially says exactly that, there are no health or nutritional benefits from organic foods.
If these cars were going toward recycling it would be one thing, but destroying many of the perfectly good parts just to prevent it being sold as a used car later on is incredibly wasteful.
I'm not trying to be combative, but I would Love a citation for this claim.
Building a new car burns-up the equivalent of 50,000 miles worth of gasoline (2000 gallons).
I'm of the opinion that this program is your traditional governmental stupidity. Take tax payer dollers and waste them on subsidizing peoples bad habits instead of trying to actualy force improvement. Think of what these billions of dollars could do for public transportation. However, I lack sufficient justification to make a strong case. If you've got something other than your memory to back up those numbers I'd love to see it.
It was quite possibly was written by a corporate lobbyist, but it also links to the FDA website where a search for "IGF-1 in milk" yields the Report on the Food and Drug Administration's Review of the Safety of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin, which was updated on the 23rd of April. And as far as I can tell, there are no disagreements between the two documents. Only the one I linked to is easier to read. Go ahead read the official document and knock yourself out.
If you would like the section dealing specifically with IGF-1 I'll save you the hassle. Here it is:
IGF-I
The Canadian report indicates that milk from rbGH-treated cows contains significantly elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) in milk, and presents human health safety concerns. IGF-I is a protein normally found in all humans, and is not intrinsically harmful. IGF-I is necessary for normal growth, development, and health maintenance. Circulating plasma levels of the hormone increase from birth to late puberty and subsequently decline in adults to approximately 100 ng (10-9 grams)/ml (range = 42 - 308 ng/ml for men and women >23 yrs). IGF-1 is structurally similar to insulin and, like insulin, is not biological effective following oral administration.
The safety of IGF-I in milk was thoroughly considered by FDA in its review of the Posilac application. Some early studies suggested that treatment of dairy cows with rbGH produced a slight, but statistically significant, increase in the average milk IGF-I concentration. FDA determined that this modest increase in milk IGF-I concentration was not a human food safety concern because it was less than the natural variation in milk IGF-I levels observed during lactation and was less than the fluctuation observed in milk from treated and control cows prior to rbGH administration.
Since making that analysis, however, FDA has received and reviewed several more comprehensive studies designed to ascertain the effect of rbGH treatment on milk IGF-I levels. These studies have demonstrated that the levels of IGF-I found in milk from treated cows are within the range of those normally found in milk from untreated cows. In 1993, the JECFA Committee concluded, "the most definitive and comprehensive studies demonstrate that IGF-I concentrations [in milk] are not altered after rbGH treatment". The 1998 JECFA Committee report summarized a study showing no significant difference in commercially available milk labeled as coming from non-rbGH treated cows and milk from cows presumed to be treated with rbGH but not labeled as to treatment.
A recent study(7) has been published on the association between prostate cancer and IGF-I. This study showed a positive correlation between the level of IGF-I in plasma and the increased risk of prostate cancer. Although the mechanism responsible for induction of cancer has not been characterized fully, it is clear that IGF-I is not the causative agent.
FDA has examined the literature and finds no definitive evidence of any direct link between IGF-I and breast cancer. Some authors have hypothesized a link, whereas others have expressed that while IGF-I is one of several growth factors and hormones that can contribute to an increase in cell numbers of many cell types invitro, no one factor is responsible for changing normal cells into cancerous cells. Furthermore, FDA has been advised that there is no substantive evidence that IGF-I causes normal breast cells to become cancerous.(8)
In evaluating the potential for human health risk from a natural component of the body, one can examine the effect of an increased exposure to IGF-I by employing several assumptions (i.e., IGF-I levels in milk from rbGH-treated cows are increased from 4 ng/ml to 6 ng/ml, all of the IGF-I in milk is absorbed into the body, and absorbed IGF-I is confined to the vascular compartment). Assuming 5000 ml b
I have seen a fair amount of the world. When did I ever say that I hadn't. Besides visiting foreign countries is not an acceptable replacement for thinking about the issue at hand.
You've indicated that my view is myopic, but provided no alternative viewpoint or evidence that my view is myopic. Essentially you are full of shit and I called your arrogant bluff. you don't know what you are talking about and have not evidence to support the collection of 'feelings' and whishy-washy rhetoric that you use to create your world view.
Feel free to prove me wrong by actually telling me what the alternative is that prevents the need for big ag by controlling the world population. I'm actually interested to know, because I'm not a huge fan of the only other 2 options (genocide & mass starvation) and too many other people are not fans of the 3rd option (big ag). Unless you can provide me with a viable 4th alternative, don't bother replying.
The concentration of IGF-1 is identical between BST and non-BST milk
Because the law was written by the organic foods industry and others that don't pay attention to the science before making decisions on whether or not a technology is safe.
When there actually is a lack of evidence they Should be concerned. However, concern is not a sufficient replacement for conducting research, and feelings are not sufficient to stand up to evidence, even if it is contrary to your expectations.
The study didn't look at anything other than the nutritional value. You then derided the study for not addressing pesticides. I do address pesticides and you claim that I didn't and then claim that I'm somehow missing the point.
besides, levels of poisons in a food would be considered part of it's (anti-)nutritional value.
And by that do you mean that we should let the 3rd world starve? or to go start killing people to maintain a lower global population? Unless you have some other, better alternative that you'd like to share with me those are the only 2 options I know of.
In the absence of any documentation on your part, I'm going to continue to believe my own experience over your claim.
Even if it is defined differently in other countries, what percentage of the global "Organic" food is produced by, or primarily for sale in the US market?
The Organic movement is a scam to make those with more money than brains pay more for their food. I'd applaud it as slick marketing if it weren't for the fact that it has much more potential to harm the environment than "Modern" agricultural practices. Even then I wouldn't care so much if its proponents didn't go out of their way to slander Modern techniques for the very failings of Organic food production.
The problem is that the US has no control over the population growth of other countries.
The population of most Western countries would be in free fall if it weren't for the immigrants coming from 2nd and 3rd world countries. If the US closed it's borders tomorrow, we would be at negligible population growth, if not in population decline.
As a result, WE are not the problem, but we ARE expected to be part of the solution. The best way to get global population to stabilize or even lower is to increase the standard of living in 2nd and 3rd world countries. There is a strong negative correlation between standard of living and reproduction rate. The only other alternative to control global population is genocide by force or intentional starvation. I don't want either of those on my conscience.
I'd prefer to use technology to find a way to feed the extra people while simultaneously acting to improve quality of life so as to slow, stop or even roll back the global population.
None of what you said is an actual EXAMPLE that big is bad. Only a belief and a bunch of nonsense about how Big isn't for everyone. I never said it was, only that it was good enough for most people.
There will always be niche providers for services in any industry, including agriculture. That doesn't mean that Big Ag has some how failed, only that what ever that niche is looking for is too dissimilar from what everyone else is looking for, or at least content with to become the new Big Ag Standard.
The problems with the banks was one of deregulation so as to get the poor into houses so that they will in turn vote for the Democrats. All of the banks are 'guilty', not just the big ones, and i'm being incredibly liberal with my use of the term guilt. I know of several small local banks that ended up needing to be bailed out or closed, so your one example isn't actually applicable.
Big Ag is more important now than it has ever been before and I'll give you actual, relevant reasons why.
1. We have more people on this planet then we've ever had in the past, many of those people are living on subsistence diets handed out by Aid groups in 3rd world countries. These countries lack the infrastructure to feed themselves and without aide many more would be starving to death.
2. In the last 3 years we have gone from 13% of total US corn crop going toward fuel ethanol production to 23%. What's more is that in those 3 years, we've increased total corn Production, so that 23% if of a much larger number than the 13%.
3. We've had record breaking years as far as total corn production here in the US most years in the last decade. All we need is one bad year because of floods, tornadoes, or disease and food prices are going to go through the roof, and many in 3rd world countries will starve to death.
4. There are several independent organizations, including the UN, that have estimated that we are going to need to DOUBLE global food production over the next 50 years. Unless we can get these developing countries carrying most of that load, we are going to need to get that extra production out of countries already running at full steam. That we've been trying to get these countries on their feet unsuccessfully for more than 50 years, makes me doubt we'll be successful with more than a handful of them in the next 50 years.
I'm even a fan of small Ag. However, because of basic economics, they need to be doing something unique and innovative in order to stay competitive in the globalized economy. That does NOT mean that they are some how Better than Big Ag, only different.
No one likes to have tools taken out of their toolbox for insufficient reason. That I already indicated pork producers routinely use antibiotics in the nursery barn is a pretty good explanation as to why.
I never said that they don't get used in other diets, just that as an animal nutritionists, I don't see them routinely used outside of swine nursery diets. There is a lot of research showing growth performance benefits from their use. They knock down intestinal microbiota populations enabling more of the nutrients and energy in the feed to go to growing the animal instead of growing microbes or into host immune response to microbes.
I never trust anything I read in the NYTimes about agriculture because they are all urbanites and have no ability to separate the latest fad from their reporting IMO.
The second Purdue article was dealing mostly with therapeutic doses of antibiotics used to fight disease. I see no difference between that and the antibiotics that humans flush down the drain in pill form or in human waste.
If you looked at table 4 from the final report for the Virginia Department of Health study, you'll see that the CAFOs and non-CAFOs were roughly the same as far as environmental impact, despite producing animals much more intensively
AS to the EPA ruling that is 5 years old,is a fucking Power Point presentation, so excuse me if I don't take it as the final authority on the subject. Especially since the last line indicates that the impact of these findings is unknown.
And yet, in none of your examples do they indicate that the animals would all die in the absence of antibiotics. (Cheep shot, I know)
Ultimately agriculture is doing a lot to try and minimize the environmental impact of plant and animal production. My own MS and PhD research has dealt with that topic from the animal side. Can we make improvements? YES! Do we want legislators making "Feel Good" decisions at the request of special interest groups like PETA or the HSUS that encourage a Vegan Lifestyle? NO! There has been a lot of research into the Antibiotics in livestock issue and I'm all for waiting until the due diligence is done. Especially since a decade long ban in the EU hasn't yielded any tangible benefits.
So you know people that used agricultural chemicals and got sick. What are the odds that they didn't use the accepted safe working practices? I know that many of the smaller farm I worked on (yes I've worked on farms as well, both animal and produce), they kept pretty dangerous chemicals in less than secure locations and didn't always practice the best safety. Spill a little on the ground? Just kick some dirt over it, that's where it's headed anyway right? However, none of that is the fault of the technology, only of the farmer implementing it. That same farmer is going to me making the same mistakes if it's organic or not!
The chemicals can be dangerous but there are guidelines for their safe use. People can and do ignore them at their own peril. Organic won't change that. They'll just be using different chemicals, and more of them. It's akin to blaming the antifreeze manufacturer because your radiator leaks and your dog got sick from licking the antifreeze off of the floor. If you want to push for grain testing, I'm all for it, but tearing down an entire industry because some people are too lazy to look out for their own health is Nanny State Bullshit.
As to the flame weeding, I don't know anyone that uses it on the kind of large farms you see here in the midwest where the bulk of our corn and soy is grown. Could be because it doesn't scale well. A handful of farmers using it in states that don't even produce enough to meet local demand is statistically negligible.
"Big Ag" is big because they need to be big if they want to turn a reliable profit. You want to back up any of your "Big is Dangerous" rant with specific examples or am I supposed to provide those. I think the fact that "Big Ag" has managed to feed a world while allowing >90% of the western world to have no contact with the food production industry is a pretty strong example of "Big can be Good".
If people were willing and able to pay for corn that is twice the price, we could afford to keep a lot more smaller operations in business. However, grain and animal futures markets are prone to massive and prolonged slumps that push smaller operators out of business due to their inability to spread the fixed overhead costs over a larger production base.
No one is actively trying to kill small farms, they just aren't competitive in an industry that calculates profit on chicken in 100ths of a penny for example. This has almost nothing to do with big corporate farms vs. small family farms and everything to do with basic Economics
maybe to benefit from all of the acquired knowledge the western world has to share.
The basic techniques can be used for more indigenous grains, but it requires more than a little leg work to figure out the details. We've spend billions, if not trillions of dollars determining the ideal soil qualities, watering patterns, crop rotations, etc. to maximize productive efficiency of corn and soy. Some of that will need to be repeated for grains not produced in the US and with different requirements. However, many of the fundamental principles still apply, they just need to be modified to fit the local environment and culture.
Besides, which developing countries are you talking about? I know that in Africa, they feed animals very different diets than we do here. Corn and soy require too much water for many places and they end up going with grains that are local and less water intensive (can't remember any of the names and I'm too tired to look it up now).
I addressed which one is worse for the environment (Organic), and why (More pesticides, more diesel fuel, lower yields/acre). If you don't agree, or think my information is faulty then say so, but ignoring the bulk of my comments and then claiming I missed the point is disingenuous at the very least.
The supposed toxicity of either is a strawman. Neither is toxic. If either was toxic, people would be dying and governments would be getting involved. It'd be bigger new than the unfortunately named swine flu. Not everyone has been exposed to swine flu, but Everyone eats! Anyone telling you that the US or EU food supply is toxic is trying to sell you something, or has been brainwashed by someone who succeeded in selling them something.
The US produces massive amounts of grain, and feeds far more people than reside within its borders. If any of our agricultural techniques were inherently toxic, we would have seen it kill someone by now.
Accidents do happen, and that's why we have the occasional food recall or bout of food poisoning. However, those problems arise in the handling of food after it has been harvested, and have nothing to do with how the food is actually grown.
Ultimately I stand by my comments. I addressed your questions and still believe that you lack the eduction necessary to contribute to this debate in any way other than to ask questions. I you disagree than please enlighten me to any first hand experience you have with the agricultural industry, or anyone getting sick from eating "Toxic" food.
Mass-producing cheap food is good. Mass-producing cheap food that isn't healthy is...?
not relevant to the discussion based on the results of the article this entire thread is attached to!
I'm a monogastric nutritionist, with an MS degree and about a year left to my PhD. Between the two of us, I'm probably the one with the better understanding of digestion, nutrient interactions, and the impact it can have on health. The reasons that we've specialized so much on corn and soy are that they grow so well in the climate of the midwest, and they are so well paired together (at least in animal diets).
100 years ago, soy production didn't even rank on the US agriculture census. However, after we realized how to appropriately process it, we dramatically increased production. It is an excellent source of protein as all the Vegans can attest (although not as good as animal protein).
Corn is an excellent source of energy, both oil and carbohydrate. I agree that there is potential for problems with too much high-fructose corn syrup. Unlike most that bemoan it, I can even tell you why. The first regulatory step in glycolysis (in which 6-Carbon sugars are converted to energy) is bypassed by fructose. Therefore cells may not be able to limit carbohydrate utilization effectively when people consume too much fructose. However, the need to use something in moderation does not make in inherently unhealthy.
In your last paragraph you are creating a series of hypothetical situations that have no actual resemblance to reality. We already do produce cheap, healthy food to feed the masses. The question is whether or not caring, but uninformed morons, are going to legislatively tie the hands of those trying to increase production to prevent hunger in the future. This is further aggravated by the push to make fuel out of corn. We have been able to consistently increase corn and soy yields year after year, and as long as the government doesn't dictate which technology we can and can't use, we should be able to continue doing so into the future.
Organic food is both inherently more expensive, and less efficient use of land. It is no healthier than the equivalent grain produced using modern techniques. Developing countries may not specialize in corn and soy. There is no reason for them to do so. For example central America looks to be standardizing at least partially on sugarcane. Many of the principles behind modern agriculture can be applied to just about any grain. The fundamental flaws in Organic agriculture remain, independent of the country or cereal grain of interest.
Unfortunately, those with mod points disagree for the most part. Those I'm responding to are usually uninformed and/or stupid, but frequently end up modded up while the majority of my posts are not modded at all.
Oh well, it's not like I do it for the Mod points or Karma anyway.
and has the exact opposite effect that is claimed. Expensive audio cables don't, to my knowledge, reduce sound quality. They just fail to deliver improved audio quality.
Organic food is believed to be safer, more nutritious, and better for the environment, when in fact it is no safer or nutritious, and WORSE for the environment. That's the truly frustrating part.
Locally Grown and Organic are not the same thing. I was at Toys'R'Us yesterday and they have a changing pad that was made using "Organic Cotton". It has the USDA Certified-Organic seal and everything. Now what are the chances that the cotton was grown in northwestern Indiana (Corn and Soy Central), manufactured locally, and then shipped to the store?
Local I support, for any number of reasons (keep money in local economy, reduced CO2 footprint, probably fresher vegetables, etc.). However, I refuse to buy organic unless there is no other option. Otherwise I'm subsidizing the pollution of the environment for the sake of the "Socially Responsible" and completely Ignorant that have more money than brains.
As long as you trust them. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is already throwing out a lot of the more powerful technological advancements in favor of an "Idea" that lacks any evidence of being better wouldn't fill out the paperwork so that they can get the $ premium that the certification entitles them to.
It's possible, but highly dubious. My guess is that he's just telling you what you want to hear and pocketing the difference.
I'll not argue on the difference between marketing on price and on taste. I'm not someone that places a whole lot importance on the differences in tastes for most food categories, but bacon is one where I do and I totally agree.
However, antibiotic use is not as widespread as you believe. I have a lot of experience with swine, chickens and turkeys (I'm a monogastric nutritionist), and the only diets I routinely see containing sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics are weanling pig diets. They tend to get them because pigs are weaned at the age where the maternally supplied antibodies are started to get a little thin, and the piglets own immune system is not fully up to snuff. There is a lag period where they are more susceptible to opportunistic infections in the gut. Once they are out of the nursery (3-4 weeks), most pigs never seen antibiotics in the feed unless there is a disease outbreak in the barn.
As to your claim that if animals in CAFOs aren't fed antibiotics "the animals will all die." That is sensationalist hyperbole, as well as total bullshit. There are no sub-theraputic antibiotics allowed for use in any EU member state. They banned them over a decade ago, and EU animal production is still dominated by CAFOs. They see higher weaning mortality rates as a result, but they still manage to produce a lot of animals that never see antibiotics.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who has worked in the dairy industry I can assure you that there is no routine adulteration of "Regular" milk that isn't also done routinely to "Organic" milk. I could walk you through the entire QA process if you would like, but suffice to say Milk doesn't belong on your list of things that are "Noticeably Different" unless you've actually done a blind taste test.
I worked on a small dairy in Hadley, MA (less than 30 cows milking at any one time) that milked only Jersey cows and bottled their own milk. It wasn't organic, although it may be now, but it tasted different because Jersey cows are purported to have higher milk protein or milk fat (can't remember which) that Holsteins. If they've gone "Organic" that difference will be attributed to management practices, not the breed of cow producing the milk.
Most "Organic" or "Non-BST" milk is just as heavily processed Homogenized, Pasteurized, tested for antibiotics, controlled for milk fat content, and supplemented with Vitamin D, etc. as "Regular" milk.
For the rest, I still believe that any differences are either psychosomatic or the result of different genetics, which usually grow slower or are more prone to disease. In either case "Happy Shopping."
The laws are stated that I am not allowed to sell milk labeled that it came from cows not injected with BST. That's crazy. If some people want to pay twice as much for non-BST milk, why should gov't get in the way? They aren't lying in the labeling.
Here is a link explaining why the FDA will not let manufacturers sell milk with the claim that rBST was not used in its production. Part of the reason is due to market confusion, but there is also the point of verification. In short, there is no way to analyze two samples of milk and determine whether or not the BST in the milk is of Cow or Injection origin.
Substantiation of Labeling Claims
There is currently no way to differentiate analytically between naturally occurring bST and recombinant bST in milk, nor are there any measurable compositional differences between milk from cows that receive supplemental bST and milk from cows that do not. Therefore, to ensure that claims that milk comes from untreated cows are valid, States could require that firms that use such claims establish a plan and maintain records to substantiate the claims, and make those records available for inspection by regulatory officials. The producer of a product labeled with rbST claims should be able to demonstrate that all milk-derived ingredients in the product are from cows not treated with rbST. Failure to maintain records would make it difficult for a firm to defend itself in the face of circumstantial evidence that it is using rbST or selling milk from treated cows. In some situations (e.g., dairy cooperatives that only process milk from untreated cows), States may decide that affidavits from individual farmers and processors are adequate to document that milk or milk products received by the firm were from untreated cows.
States should consider requiring that firms that use statements indicating that their product is "certified" as not from cows treated with rbST be participants in a third party certification program to verify that the cows have not been injected with rbST. States could seek to ensure that certification programs contain the following elements: Participating dairy herds should consist of animals that have not been supplemented with rbST. The program should be able to track each cow in the herd over time. Milk from non-rbST herds should be kept separate from other milk by a physical segregation, verifiable by a valid paper trail, throughout the transportation and processing steps until the finished milk or dairy product is in final packaged form in a labeled container. The physical handling and recordkeeping provisions of such a program would be necessary not because of any safety concerns about milk from treated cows but to ensure that the labeling of the milk is not false or misleading.
Emphasis mine
Except that the energy that goes into manufacturing parts for a microwave is negligible compared to the energy required to manufacture auto parts like the engine block, transmission or any other large and/or complex part.
I don't know anything about the junkyards not selling parts anymore. I've purchased parts for my 20 year old pickup truck from junkyards several times in the last 5 years.
The funguses you are talking about produce mycotoxins.
They are a broad category of compounds synthesized by certain families of fungi when the plant they are growing on is stressed, or when the grain is stored improperly. A section of my PhD lit review covered the concentrating effect of ethanol production on mycotoxin levels in corn.
My understanding of the literature is that mycotoxins are lowest when modern agricultural practices are used appropriately. Stressing a field of corn by letting too many pests (weeds, bugs, etc.) set up shop leads to increased levels of mycotoxins in the harvested corn. However, there are mycotoxins in all corn, not just us "Science" corn and soy as you so quaintly put it.
As far as the Japanese market goes, I was under the impression that the big trade issue was American Beef, and the fear of BSE. All of Asia is afraid of American or European beef because of BSE, and the fear is encouraged by the handful of local beef producers. IIRC, in Korea a US$5 hamburger is on the order of $50 because there is so little land for growing cattle, and most beef is imported. So yeah, part of the issue is legitimate fear, but I think the politicians are backing the fear for the protectionist economic reasons you mentioned. I doesn't matter if your country doesn't produce corn or peanuts.
If you live in a country that has protectionist taxation of US imports it still promotes the use of locally produced food products over the US produced food products. It doesn't have to be a corn for corn thing, but it could very well be a rice for corn thing. The net effect is still that more of the local currency is spent on locally produced grains by artificially inflating the cost of US alternatives.
You obviously don't understand the nature of Cancer. It's not caused or cured by eating "Organic" food. I'm not denying what you saw, but miraculous recoveries do occur for no readily apparent reason. In medicine, miracles really do happen from time to time. That one happened to someone you know while she was eating primarily/exclusively organic food is a coincidence, not cause and effect.
IF there were ANY reliable evidence for cancer curing properties of Organic foods, do you think that ANYONE would be eating anything else? Cancer is the big bad medical monster of our generation. We've cured or eliminated a lot of the infectious diseases. We've managed to find treatments for most other diseases. However, if something else doesn't get you, cancer will. It's just the nature of the beast. Eventually enough epigenetic errors will result in a cell somewhere in your body replicating inappropriately and killing you.
I'm glad to hear that your friend recovered, but I place all of my money on the cure being the result of the emergency surgery and the TLC you provided, and absolutely NONE from whether or not the food she was eating could be certified as being "Organic". There are numerous scientific reports of the value that both surgery and TLC can provide to cancer patients, and none indicating that organic food has any effect. In fact, the original article essentially says exactly that, there are no health or nutritional benefits from organic foods.
Mod this guy informative if nothing else.
If these cars were going toward recycling it would be one thing, but destroying many of the perfectly good parts just to prevent it being sold as a used car later on is incredibly wasteful.
Building a new car burns-up the equivalent of 50,000 miles worth of gasoline (2000 gallons).
I'm of the opinion that this program is your traditional governmental stupidity. Take tax payer dollers and waste them on subsidizing peoples bad habits instead of trying to actualy force improvement. Think of what these billions of dollars could do for public transportation. However, I lack sufficient justification to make a strong case. If you've got something other than your memory to back up those numbers I'd love to see it.
If you would like the section dealing specifically with IGF-1 I'll save you the hassle. Here it is:
IGF-I
The Canadian report indicates that milk from rbGH-treated cows contains significantly elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) in milk, and presents human health safety concerns. IGF-I is a protein normally found in all humans, and is not intrinsically harmful. IGF-I is necessary for normal growth, development, and health maintenance. Circulating plasma levels of the hormone increase from birth to late puberty and subsequently decline in adults to approximately 100 ng (10-9 grams)/ml (range = 42 - 308 ng/ml for men and women >23 yrs). IGF-1 is structurally similar to insulin and, like insulin, is not biological effective following oral administration.
The safety of IGF-I in milk was thoroughly considered by FDA in its review of the Posilac application. Some early studies suggested that treatment of dairy cows with rbGH produced a slight, but statistically significant, increase in the average milk IGF-I concentration. FDA determined that this modest increase in milk IGF-I concentration was not a human food safety concern because it was less than the natural variation in milk IGF-I levels observed during lactation and was less than the fluctuation observed in milk from treated and control cows prior to rbGH administration.
Since making that analysis, however, FDA has received and reviewed several more comprehensive studies designed to ascertain the effect of rbGH treatment on milk IGF-I levels. These studies have demonstrated that the levels of IGF-I found in milk from treated cows are within the range of those normally found in milk from untreated cows. In 1993, the JECFA Committee concluded, "the most definitive and comprehensive studies demonstrate that IGF-I concentrations [in milk] are not altered after rbGH treatment". The 1998 JECFA Committee report summarized a study showing no significant difference in commercially available milk labeled as coming from non-rbGH treated cows and milk from cows presumed to be treated with rbGH but not labeled as to treatment.
A recent study(7) has been published on the association between prostate cancer and IGF-I. This study showed a positive correlation between the level of IGF-I in plasma and the increased risk of prostate cancer. Although the mechanism responsible for induction of cancer has not been characterized fully, it is clear that IGF-I is not the causative agent.
FDA has examined the literature and finds no definitive evidence of any direct link between IGF-I and breast cancer. Some authors have hypothesized a link, whereas others have expressed that while IGF-I is one of several growth factors and hormones that can contribute to an increase in cell numbers of many cell types invitro, no one factor is responsible for changing normal cells into cancerous cells. Furthermore, FDA has been advised that there is no substantive evidence that IGF-I causes normal breast cells to become cancerous.(8)
In evaluating the potential for human health risk from a natural component of the body, one can examine the effect of an increased exposure to IGF-I by employing several assumptions (i.e., IGF-I levels in milk from rbGH-treated cows are increased from 4 ng/ml to 6 ng/ml, all of the IGF-I in milk is absorbed into the body, and absorbed IGF-I is confined to the vascular compartment). Assuming 5000 ml b
I have seen a fair amount of the world. When did I ever say that I hadn't. Besides visiting foreign countries is not an acceptable replacement for thinking about the issue at hand.
You've indicated that my view is myopic, but provided no alternative viewpoint or evidence that my view is myopic. Essentially you are full of shit and I called your arrogant bluff. you don't know what you are talking about and have not evidence to support the collection of 'feelings' and whishy-washy rhetoric that you use to create your world view.
Feel free to prove me wrong by actually telling me what the alternative is that prevents the need for big ag by controlling the world population. I'm actually interested to know, because I'm not a huge fan of the only other 2 options (genocide & mass starvation) and too many other people are not fans of the 3rd option (big ag). Unless you can provide me with a viable 4th alternative, don't bother replying.
The concentration of IGF-1 is identical between BST and non-BST milk
Because the law was written by the organic foods industry and others that don't pay attention to the science before making decisions on whether or not a technology is safe.
When there actually is a lack of evidence they Should be concerned. However, concern is not a sufficient replacement for conducting research, and feelings are not sufficient to stand up to evidence, even if it is contrary to your expectations.
The study didn't look at anything other than the nutritional value. You then derided the study for not addressing pesticides. I do address pesticides and you claim that I didn't and then claim that I'm somehow missing the point.
besides, levels of poisons in a food would be considered part of it's (anti-)nutritional value.
And by that do you mean that we should let the 3rd world starve? or to go start killing people to maintain a lower global population? Unless you have some other, better alternative that you'd like to share with me those are the only 2 options I know of.
In the absence of any documentation on your part, I'm going to continue to believe my own experience over your claim.
Even if it is defined differently in other countries, what percentage of the global "Organic" food is produced by, or primarily for sale in the US market?
The Organic movement is a scam to make those with more money than brains pay more for their food. I'd applaud it as slick marketing if it weren't for the fact that it has much more potential to harm the environment than "Modern" agricultural practices. Even then I wouldn't care so much if its proponents didn't go out of their way to slander Modern techniques for the very failings of Organic food production.
The problem is that the US has no control over the population growth of other countries.
The population of most Western countries would be in free fall if it weren't for the immigrants coming from 2nd and 3rd world countries. If the US closed it's borders tomorrow, we would be at negligible population growth, if not in population decline.
As a result, WE are not the problem, but we ARE expected to be part of the solution. The best way to get global population to stabilize or even lower is to increase the standard of living in 2nd and 3rd world countries. There is a strong negative correlation between standard of living and reproduction rate. The only other alternative to control global population is genocide by force or intentional starvation. I don't want either of those on my conscience.
I'd prefer to use technology to find a way to feed the extra people while simultaneously acting to improve quality of life so as to slow, stop or even roll back the global population.
None of what you said is an actual EXAMPLE that big is bad. Only a belief and a bunch of nonsense about how Big isn't for everyone. I never said it was, only that it was good enough for most people.
There will always be niche providers for services in any industry, including agriculture. That doesn't mean that Big Ag has some how failed, only that what ever that niche is looking for is too dissimilar from what everyone else is looking for, or at least content with to become the new Big Ag Standard.
The problems with the banks was one of deregulation so as to get the poor into houses so that they will in turn vote for the Democrats. All of the banks are 'guilty', not just the big ones, and i'm being incredibly liberal with my use of the term guilt. I know of several small local banks that ended up needing to be bailed out or closed, so your one example isn't actually applicable.
Big Ag is more important now than it has ever been before and I'll give you actual, relevant reasons why.
1. We have more people on this planet then we've ever had in the past, many of those people are living on subsistence diets handed out by Aid groups in 3rd world countries. These countries lack the infrastructure to feed themselves and without aide many more would be starving to death.
2. In the last 3 years we have gone from 13% of total US corn crop going toward fuel ethanol production to 23%. What's more is that in those 3 years, we've increased total corn Production, so that 23% if of a much larger number than the 13%.
3. We've had record breaking years as far as total corn production here in the US most years in the last decade. All we need is one bad year because of floods, tornadoes, or disease and food prices are going to go through the roof, and many in 3rd world countries will starve to death.
4. There are several independent organizations, including the UN, that have estimated that we are going to need to DOUBLE global food production over the next 50 years. Unless we can get these developing countries carrying most of that load, we are going to need to get that extra production out of countries already running at full steam. That we've been trying to get these countries on their feet unsuccessfully for more than 50 years, makes me doubt we'll be successful with more than a handful of them in the next 50 years.
I'm even a fan of small Ag. However, because of basic economics, they need to be doing something unique and innovative in order to stay competitive in the globalized economy. That does NOT mean that they are some how Better than Big Ag, only different.
No one likes to have tools taken out of their toolbox for insufficient reason. That I already indicated pork producers routinely use antibiotics in the nursery barn is a pretty good explanation as to why.
I never said that they don't get used in other diets, just that as an animal nutritionists, I don't see them routinely used outside of swine nursery diets. There is a lot of research showing growth performance benefits from their use. They knock down intestinal microbiota populations enabling more of the nutrients and energy in the feed to go to growing the animal instead of growing microbes or into host immune response to microbes.
I never trust anything I read in the NYTimes about agriculture because they are all urbanites and have no ability to separate the latest fad from their reporting IMO.
The second Purdue article was dealing mostly with therapeutic doses of antibiotics used to fight disease. I see no difference between that and the antibiotics that humans flush down the drain in pill form or in human waste.
If you looked at table 4 from the final report for the Virginia Department of Health study, you'll see that the CAFOs and non-CAFOs were roughly the same as far as environmental impact, despite producing animals much more intensively
AS to the EPA ruling that is 5 years old,is a fucking Power Point presentation, so excuse me if I don't take it as the final authority on the subject. Especially since the last line indicates that the impact of these findings is unknown.
And yet, in none of your examples do they indicate that the animals would all die in the absence of antibiotics. (Cheep shot, I know)
Ultimately agriculture is doing a lot to try and minimize the environmental impact of plant and animal production. My own MS and PhD research has dealt with that topic from the animal side. Can we make improvements? YES! Do we want legislators making "Feel Good" decisions at the request of special interest groups like PETA or the HSUS that encourage a Vegan Lifestyle? NO! There has been a lot of research into the Antibiotics in livestock issue and I'm all for waiting until the due diligence is done. Especially since a decade long ban in the EU hasn't yielded any tangible benefits.
So you know people that used agricultural chemicals and got sick. What are the odds that they didn't use the accepted safe working practices? I know that many of the smaller farm I worked on (yes I've worked on farms as well, both animal and produce), they kept pretty dangerous chemicals in less than secure locations and didn't always practice the best safety. Spill a little on the ground? Just kick some dirt over it, that's where it's headed anyway right? However, none of that is the fault of the technology, only of the farmer implementing it. That same farmer is going to me making the same mistakes if it's organic or not!
The chemicals can be dangerous but there are guidelines for their safe use. People can and do ignore them at their own peril. Organic won't change that. They'll just be using different chemicals, and more of them. It's akin to blaming the antifreeze manufacturer because your radiator leaks and your dog got sick from licking the antifreeze off of the floor. If you want to push for grain testing, I'm all for it, but tearing down an entire industry because some people are too lazy to look out for their own health is Nanny State Bullshit.
As to the flame weeding, I don't know anyone that uses it on the kind of large farms you see here in the midwest where the bulk of our corn and soy is grown. Could be because it doesn't scale well. A handful of farmers using it in states that don't even produce enough to meet local demand is statistically negligible.
"Big Ag" is big because they need to be big if they want to turn a reliable profit. You want to back up any of your "Big is Dangerous" rant with specific examples or am I supposed to provide those. I think the fact that "Big Ag" has managed to feed a world while allowing >90% of the western world to have no contact with the food production industry is a pretty strong example of "Big can be Good".
If people were willing and able to pay for corn that is twice the price, we could afford to keep a lot more smaller operations in business. However, grain and animal futures markets are prone to massive and prolonged slumps that push smaller operators out of business due to their inability to spread the fixed overhead costs over a larger production base.
No one is actively trying to kill small farms, they just aren't competitive in an industry that calculates profit on chicken in 100ths of a penny for example. This has almost nothing to do with big corporate farms vs. small family farms and everything to do with basic Economics
maybe to benefit from all of the acquired knowledge the western world has to share.
The basic techniques can be used for more indigenous grains, but it requires more than a little leg work to figure out the details. We've spend billions, if not trillions of dollars determining the ideal soil qualities, watering patterns, crop rotations, etc. to maximize productive efficiency of corn and soy. Some of that will need to be repeated for grains not produced in the US and with different requirements. However, many of the fundamental principles still apply, they just need to be modified to fit the local environment and culture.
Besides, which developing countries are you talking about? I know that in Africa, they feed animals very different diets than we do here. Corn and soy require too much water for many places and they end up going with grains that are local and less water intensive (can't remember any of the names and I'm too tired to look it up now).
I addressed which one is worse for the environment (Organic), and why (More pesticides, more diesel fuel, lower yields/acre). If you don't agree, or think my information is faulty then say so, but ignoring the bulk of my comments and then claiming I missed the point is disingenuous at the very least.
The supposed toxicity of either is a strawman. Neither is toxic. If either was toxic, people would be dying and governments would be getting involved. It'd be bigger new than the unfortunately named swine flu. Not everyone has been exposed to swine flu, but Everyone eats! Anyone telling you that the US or EU food supply is toxic is trying to sell you something, or has been brainwashed by someone who succeeded in selling them something.
The US produces massive amounts of grain, and feeds far more people than reside within its borders. If any of our agricultural techniques were inherently toxic, we would have seen it kill someone by now.
Accidents do happen, and that's why we have the occasional food recall or bout of food poisoning. However, those problems arise in the handling of food after it has been harvested, and have nothing to do with how the food is actually grown.
Ultimately I stand by my comments. I addressed your questions and still believe that you lack the eduction necessary to contribute to this debate in any way other than to ask questions. I you disagree than please enlighten me to any first hand experience you have with the agricultural industry, or anyone getting sick from eating "Toxic" food.
Mass-producing cheap food is good. Mass-producing cheap food that isn't healthy is...?
not relevant to the discussion based on the results of the article this entire thread is attached to!
I'm a monogastric nutritionist, with an MS degree and about a year left to my PhD. Between the two of us, I'm probably the one with the better understanding of digestion, nutrient interactions, and the impact it can have on health. The reasons that we've specialized so much on corn and soy are that they grow so well in the climate of the midwest, and they are so well paired together (at least in animal diets).
100 years ago, soy production didn't even rank on the US agriculture census. However, after we realized how to appropriately process it, we dramatically increased production. It is an excellent source of protein as all the Vegans can attest (although not as good as animal protein).
Corn is an excellent source of energy, both oil and carbohydrate. I agree that there is potential for problems with too much high-fructose corn syrup. Unlike most that bemoan it, I can even tell you why. The first regulatory step in glycolysis (in which 6-Carbon sugars are converted to energy) is bypassed by fructose. Therefore cells may not be able to limit carbohydrate utilization effectively when people consume too much fructose. However, the need to use something in moderation does not make in inherently unhealthy.
In your last paragraph you are creating a series of hypothetical situations that have no actual resemblance to reality. We already do produce cheap, healthy food to feed the masses. The question is whether or not caring, but uninformed morons, are going to legislatively tie the hands of those trying to increase production to prevent hunger in the future. This is further aggravated by the push to make fuel out of corn. We have been able to consistently increase corn and soy yields year after year, and as long as the government doesn't dictate which technology we can and can't use, we should be able to continue doing so into the future.
Organic food is both inherently more expensive, and less efficient use of land. It is no healthier than the equivalent grain produced using modern techniques. Developing countries may not specialize in corn and soy. There is no reason for them to do so. For example central America looks to be standardizing at least partially on sugarcane. Many of the principles behind modern agriculture can be applied to just about any grain. The fundamental flaws in Organic agriculture remain, independent of the country or cereal grain of interest.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, those with mod points disagree for the most part. Those I'm responding to are usually uninformed and/or stupid, but frequently end up modded up while the majority of my posts are not modded at all.
Oh well, it's not like I do it for the Mod points or Karma anyway.
and has the exact opposite effect that is claimed. Expensive audio cables don't, to my knowledge, reduce sound quality. They just fail to deliver improved audio quality.
Organic food is believed to be safer, more nutritious, and better for the environment, when in fact it is no safer or nutritious, and WORSE for the environment. That's the truly frustrating part.
Locally Grown and Organic are not the same thing. I was at Toys'R'Us yesterday and they have a changing pad that was made using "Organic Cotton". It has the USDA Certified-Organic seal and everything. Now what are the chances that the cotton was grown in northwestern Indiana (Corn and Soy Central), manufactured locally, and then shipped to the store?
Local I support, for any number of reasons (keep money in local economy, reduced CO2 footprint, probably fresher vegetables, etc.). However, I refuse to buy organic unless there is no other option. Otherwise I'm subsidizing the pollution of the environment for the sake of the "Socially Responsible" and completely Ignorant that have more money than brains.
As long as you trust them. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is already throwing out a lot of the more powerful technological advancements in favor of an "Idea" that lacks any evidence of being better wouldn't fill out the paperwork so that they can get the $ premium that the certification entitles them to.
It's possible, but highly dubious. My guess is that he's just telling you what you want to hear and pocketing the difference.
I'll not argue on the difference between marketing on price and on taste. I'm not someone that places a whole lot importance on the differences in tastes for most food categories, but bacon is one where I do and I totally agree.
However, antibiotic use is not as widespread as you believe. I have a lot of experience with swine, chickens and turkeys (I'm a monogastric nutritionist), and the only diets I routinely see containing sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics are weanling pig diets. They tend to get them because pigs are weaned at the age where the maternally supplied antibodies are started to get a little thin, and the piglets own immune system is not fully up to snuff. There is a lag period where they are more susceptible to opportunistic infections in the gut. Once they are out of the nursery (3-4 weeks), most pigs never seen antibiotics in the feed unless there is a disease outbreak in the barn.
As to your claim that if animals in CAFOs aren't fed antibiotics "the animals will all die." That is sensationalist hyperbole, as well as total bullshit. There are no sub-theraputic antibiotics allowed for use in any EU member state. They banned them over a decade ago, and EU animal production is still dominated by CAFOs. They see higher weaning mortality rates as a result, but they still manage to produce a lot of animals that never see antibiotics.