4 ms·

> no synthetic fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge or genetic engineering was used Never mind that each of those things have greatly different effects on t

by derleth 14y ago

> no synthetic fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge or genetic engineering was used Never mind that each of those things have greatly different effects on the safety of the food and other things: > no synthetic fertilizers A valid environmental concern, depending on how the fertilizers are used and where the runoff goes. > irradiation Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. > sewage sludge A slam. Nobody literally uses sewage sludge to grow food, unless you're talking about nightsoil (human excrement used as fertilizer), which is entirely organic. > genetic engineering More fear-mongering nonsense when applied to food safety, but a valid concern as regards patent law and similar legal battles. Also, citing to Natural News is bad. They're the ones who claim Bill Gates wants to depopulate the world using vaccines, which they also believe are evil.

inafield 14y ago
> Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. Is that all they're doing? They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). > A slam. Nobody literally uses sewage sludge to grow food, unless you're talking about nightsoil (human excrement used as fertilizer), which is entirely organic. Some farms do use untreated sewage sludge to grow food. As for human excrement, the chemical and bacterial content is very different depending on the diet of the humans in question. > genetic engineering We don't yet know all the side effects of genetic engineering. We also don't know what has been hidden or destroyed by corporations that want to hide the 2% mutant plant that ate the research team. I'm being funny and exaggerative, but we really don't know.
- falcolas 14y ago
  >> Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. > Is that all they're doing? They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Might not want to open your mail then. Some of it is irradiated to kill bacteria and viruses, based on origin and destination. Probably don't want to use bandaids, either, since they are irradiated to steralize them. > Some farms do use untreated sewage sludge to grow food. As for human excrement, the chemical and bacterial content is very different depending on the diet of the humans in question. Whose sewage? Human is dangerous, due to the fact that human pathogens can carry over from one incarnation to the next. Livestock, not so much; and is commonly used in "organic" fertilizers.
- derleth 14y ago
  > They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Ooooh scary letters. To be clear: DDT is not very toxic to humans. The reason we stopped using it was because it was becoming not very toxic to mosquitoes, as well, as they evolved resistance, in addition to what it was doing to birds. We still use DDT in regions where malaria is most dangerous. http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm > In one study involving humans, 17 people ate 35 mg/man daily (about 0.5 mg/kg daily) for 18 months suffering no ill-effect(25). In another study volunteers ate 0.31 to 0.61 mg/kg daily without any noticeable effects(26). http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theory_of_natural_selection__part_1_13.asp http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theo... > DDT-resistant mosquitoes were first detected in India in 1959, and they have increased so rapidly that when a local spray program is begun now, most mosquitoes become resistant in a matter of months rather than years. Also: > We also don't know what has been hidden or destroyed by corporations Without any evidence, this is fear-mongering. This is what fear-mongering is. Using rumors and innuendo to make people afraid without saying anything of substance.
  - inafield 14y ago
    You are being mocking and misunderstanding my intent. A proper scientific approach would independently and fully evaluate the effects rather than assuming it is "ok". That is not fear-mongering, it is good scientific process that requires a unbiased oversight. Is the issue potentially slight? Yes. Is it still an issue? Yes.
smartician 14y ago
All these additives and processes seem to be reasonably safe given what we currently believe to know, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any yet unknown side effects. Centuries ago we used to line tin cans with lead, used mercury to cure leather and tried to treat various illnesses with mega doses of radiation. All those things seemed perfectly safe at the time, but today they are unthinkable.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  >>All these additives and processes seem to be reasonably safe given what we currently believe to know, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any yet unknown side effects. Should we also avoid ice cream because for all we know, it may have unintended side effects?
  - smartician 14y ago
    Right, because freezing something is totally comparable to using radiation or anorganic chemicals. Or are you referring to questionable stuff in ice cream like carrageenan?
    - derleth 14y ago
      You're not getting it. You are throwing out all of these unfounded accusations not based on anything at all and you still expect us to take you seriously. You're engaging in fear-mongering and we're calling you on it. > using radiation or anorganic chemicals. This is fear-mongering unless you can actually point to reasonable problems such things might cause. > questionable stuff in ice cream like carrageenan Carrageenan is fine when used in the way the regulations dictate. Or do you have actual evidence otherwise?
      - smartician 14y ago
        I think you have it backwards. Being cautious is not fear-mongering. Do I think anything FDA approved will kill me directly? No. But I think the testing protocol is flawed. As far as I know, long term effect safety studies are only done on animal models. And the benchmark is always illness or disease, not optimal health. Nobody can ask a rat how it feels. And then there's the issue of synergistic effects. The FDA only studies substances in isolation, but there might be adverse effects that only occur if a substance reacts with another substance or process. So, in short, if I can choose between a product that is "natural" or a product that has mystery substance X in it, I'd choose the natural one, even if it means I have to pay a little more. I'd also prefer it that product B is labelled in a way that I can tell it contains mystery substance X, so that I can make that decision. Is that fear-mongering? I don't think so. Oh, and regarding carrageenan: It's not evidence, but I have personal experience that it makes my skin flare up, both when I ingest it and when I use it topically (shampoo for example). I later found out that the same stuff is used to provoke inflammation in animal experiments [1]. Do I still eat it from time to time? Yes, Ben & Jerry's is too delicious. But I feel better when I eat Haagen Dasz "5", which has none of the funky stuff. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan#Food_and_other_domestic_uses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan#Food_and_other_dome...
jaggederest 14y ago
> Also, citing to Natural News is bad. They're the ones who [...] That's a fallacy. A very classic ad hominem - pointing out something entirely unrelated that they believe, to discredit their statements on other matters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- derleth 14y ago
  > entirely unrelated It is completely related. In fact, it goes to the very heart of the matter: They publish nonsense about health issues, and we're discussing a health issue!
- jonny_eh 14y ago
  Natural News are just an awful web site. I would tend to believe the opposite of whatever non-sense they're pushing.

by derleth 14y ago

inafield 14y ago

> Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. Is that all they're doing? They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). > A slam. Nobody literally uses sewage sludge to grow food, unless you're talking about nightsoil (human excrement used as fertilizer), which is entirely organic. Some farms do use untreated sewage sludge to grow food. As for human excrement, the chemical and bacterial content is very different depending on the diet of the humans in question. > genetic engineering We don't yet know all the side effects of genetic engineering. We also don't know what has been hidden or destroyed by corporations that want to hide the 2% mutant plant that ate the research team. I'm being funny and exaggerative, but we really don't know.

falcolas 14y ago
>> Fear-mongering nonsense. Irradiation doesn't make food radioactive. It just kills what's growing on the food without noxious chemicals. > Is that all they're doing? They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Might not want to open your mail then. Some of it is irradiated to kill bacteria and viruses, based on origin and destination. Probably don't want to use bandaids, either, since they are irradiated to steralize them. > Some farms do use untreated sewage sludge to grow food. As for human excrement, the chemical and bacterial content is very different depending on the diet of the humans in question. Whose sewage? Human is dangerous, due to the fact that human pathogens can carry over from one incarnation to the next. Livestock, not so much; and is commonly used in "organic" fertilizers.
derleth 14y ago
> They said something similar about dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Ooooh scary letters. To be clear: DDT is not very toxic to humans. The reason we stopped using it was because it was becoming not very toxic to mosquitoes, as well, as they evolved resistance, in addition to what it was doing to birds. We still use DDT in regions where malaria is most dangerous. http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm > In one study involving humans, 17 people ate 35 mg/man daily (about 0.5 mg/kg daily) for 18 months suffering no ill-effect(25). In another study volunteers ate 0.31 to 0.61 mg/kg daily without any noticeable effects(26). http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theory_of_natural_selection__part_1_13.asp http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theo... > DDT-resistant mosquitoes were first detected in India in 1959, and they have increased so rapidly that when a local spray program is begun now, most mosquitoes become resistant in a matter of months rather than years. Also: > We also don't know what has been hidden or destroyed by corporations Without any evidence, this is fear-mongering. This is what fear-mongering is. Using rumors and innuendo to make people afraid without saying anything of substance.
- inafield 14y ago
  You are being mocking and misunderstanding my intent. A proper scientific approach would independently and fully evaluate the effects rather than assuming it is "ok". That is not fear-mongering, it is good scientific process that requires a unbiased oversight. Is the issue potentially slight? Yes. Is it still an issue? Yes.

smartician 14y ago

All these additives and processes seem to be reasonably safe given what we currently believe to know, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any yet unknown side effects. Centuries ago we used to line tin cans with lead, used mercury to cure leather and tried to treat various illnesses with mega doses of radiation. All those things seemed perfectly safe at the time, but today they are unthinkable.

enraged_camel 14y ago
>>All these additives and processes seem to be reasonably safe given what we currently believe to know, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any yet unknown side effects. Should we also avoid ice cream because for all we know, it may have unintended side effects?
- smartician 14y ago
  Right, because freezing something is totally comparable to using radiation or anorganic chemicals. Or are you referring to questionable stuff in ice cream like carrageenan?
  - derleth 14y ago
    You're not getting it. You are throwing out all of these unfounded accusations not based on anything at all and you still expect us to take you seriously. You're engaging in fear-mongering and we're calling you on it. > using radiation or anorganic chemicals. This is fear-mongering unless you can actually point to reasonable problems such things might cause. > questionable stuff in ice cream like carrageenan Carrageenan is fine when used in the way the regulations dictate. Or do you have actual evidence otherwise?
    - smartician 14y ago
      I think you have it backwards. Being cautious is not fear-mongering. Do I think anything FDA approved will kill me directly? No. But I think the testing protocol is flawed. As far as I know, long term effect safety studies are only done on animal models. And the benchmark is always illness or disease, not optimal health. Nobody can ask a rat how it feels. And then there's the issue of synergistic effects. The FDA only studies substances in isolation, but there might be adverse effects that only occur if a substance reacts with another substance or process. So, in short, if I can choose between a product that is "natural" or a product that has mystery substance X in it, I'd choose the natural one, even if it means I have to pay a little more. I'd also prefer it that product B is labelled in a way that I can tell it contains mystery substance X, so that I can make that decision. Is that fear-mongering? I don't think so. Oh, and regarding carrageenan: It's not evidence, but I have personal experience that it makes my skin flare up, both when I ingest it and when I use it topically (shampoo for example). I later found out that the same stuff is used to provoke inflammation in animal experiments [1]. Do I still eat it from time to time? Yes, Ben & Jerry's is too delicious. But I feel better when I eat Haagen Dasz "5", which has none of the funky stuff. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan#Food_and_other_domestic_uses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan#Food_and_other_dome...

jaggederest 14y ago

> Also, citing to Natural News is bad. They're the ones who [...] That's a fallacy. A very classic ad hominem - pointing out something entirely unrelated that they believe, to discredit their statements on other matters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

derleth 14y ago
> entirely unrelated It is completely related. In fact, it goes to the very heart of the matter: They publish nonsense about health issues, and we're discussing a health issue!
jonny_eh 14y ago
Natural News are just an awful web site. I would tend to believe the opposite of whatever non-sense they're pushing.