In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:
"Billyy Rose" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
if you have the eyes to see, and the wit to
comprehend, you will see from the cites above, that organic is usually
superior in nutrition, be they macro-nutrients, vitamins, or flavonoids.
This is in addition to "organic" being lower in pesticides and
friendlier to the environment. To be fair, one should also consider the
the cultivars grown (shelf-live vs. nutrition) and the distribution
system of field, to warehouse, to store, to consumer as opposed to from
field to consumer, and their impacts on the nutritional value of the
produce.
As usual, I await your ****ing and moaning ;O)
5
4
3
2
1
and here's gunny;O)
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:
Little "Billy" writes
" . . . aw, screw it, GFY."
and in another message again writes:
"Now you can GFY ;O) ."
Then feign he is unfairly attacked, attempting to sidetrack the fact
he
cannot defend his unfounded claims by stating " Ad hominems and
derision,
that's all you got? LOL ;O)"
Wow, another jewel in a long list from the little boy who tells folks
to
go **** themself everytime he is proved wrong! ...
Let me understand this correctly.
1. You use this link dated in 2005 as some kind of proof the 2009 FSA
commissioned study is flawed?
No, I'm saying that it looks as if the Food
Standards Agency is bias (see below).
Specifically, see 1.7 of the repot below.
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...inalreport.pdf
That is a better joke than most of the BS refutation the organic
organizations tried to use. They are at least saying the Study used outdated
studies (a lie) or that it neglects use of pesticides ( outside stated
scope) and other plausible denial tricks.
That isn't what
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...inalreport.pdf
is sayin. Learn to read. It says that they are bias.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai ....GM foods? Neither Árpád
Pusztai nor GMs were even mentioned in the thread nor any of the links to
date . But still, that was some kinda wingnut article. Did you not read
the disclaimer? I see now why Wiki is having problems with confirming its
information. it's all a conspiracy!
3. As to your continuing use of abbreviated Amazon book reviews? billy I
have told you before you need to tinyurl those cuz you lose those
extraordinarily long links,but also you should buy the book and ACTUALLY
READ them before you try to use them as some kind of authority. Again,
another fringe writer with scare tales needing a paycheck. I note his bio
(self written?) neglects his educational background, only that he is a
writer and member of the Institute he formed. billy, we were not talking
about GM foods but remember that tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, corn, etc. are
all GM foods, far from their ancestral roots. Still all in all, Smith is
one of your organic stakeholders, albeit another mediocre wordsmith with no
science bona fides. How come you get to cry conspiracy so much and no one
else gets too?
Not that I think you actually have any use for science nor facts, you seem
to use your own a lot. But if you are looking for how the British FSA
conducts its studies and past allegations, this link may help:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...tech/900/900-i.
pdf
Meantime, your claim that organic foods have more nutrients compared to
conventionally grown foods has not been found true because there is little
to no EQUAL comparison done so far. Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one
in some of YOUR references) has said many times there is no conclusive proof
that organic is superior. It would seem so easy to do, doesn't it, yet it
hasn't been done and that is what the FSA report says. So all I see you
have is cherry picked facts to make dubious claims, in short....... a good
marketing ploy. Again, none of which affects Hydroponics which shoot big
holes in your BS claims that inorganic salts kill.
You want to discuss best organic practices, thats fine, gardening tricks,
thats fine. I would like to read them, but don't keep distorting the truth
and then jumping around telling me more lies and claiming conspiarcy when
you can't t refute facts.
I hope one day you actually find it truly was the evil food industries that
caused your diabetes and then you can justify your stump speeches, but lets
face facts, it is just you and your refusal to accept the fact you have a
disease. Man up and deal with it, little billy rose, your conspiracy theory
BS is well played out.
So there you have it, ladies and gents.
https://sharepoint.agriculture.purdu...ons/2-%20Wedne
sday,%20September%2017,%202008/Concurrent%20Session%203/The%20Organic%20v
s%20Conventional%20Debate%20-%20Can%20We%20Strike%20a%20Balance%20Between
%20Passion%20and%20Science.pdf
and,
http://www.agricultureinformation.co...g/18027-organi
c-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html
and,
http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-31531.html
vs.
1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf
2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf
peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
See below for criticism of the Food Standards Agency, UK (who is
responsible for the above cites), which was accepted by them. They
didn'y deny the criticism. They accepted the criticism that they
appeared pro-GMO.
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...inalreport.pdf
Calls into question the objectivity of this group.
Early references to organic food, and to GM food, were highlighted
(unprompted by the Reviewers) by a number across the stakeholder groups.
It is clear that these two issues are still heavily influencing
stakeholders¹ perceptions of the Agency. In respect of both issues, the
perception of the vast majority was that the Agency had deviated from
its normal stance of making statements based solely on scientific
evidence, to giving the impression of speaking against organic food and
for GM food. This view was expressed not only by stakeholders
representing organic and GM interest groups, but by those who would be
regarded as supporters and natural allies of the Agency.
As further proof of U.K. government bias see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai
for pro GMO - anti-organic sentiments on the part of the British
government. For more information see:
Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the
Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating
by Jeffrey M. Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...y-Engineered/d
p/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255374687&sr=1-1
, pages 5 - 44
British politicans are at least as sleasy as American politicians. They
have been consistently pro-GMO.
Keep in mind that gunny spends most of his posts in personal attacks,
which have no bearing on the topic at hand i.e., the nutritional value
of hydroponic produce vs. organic produce.
You gave
http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/
from Plant Research Technologies Inc. as a reference, but they have a
conflict of interest, because they work for biotech firms. How would it
look to a bio-tech company, if one of their suppliers praises
traditional food? Yet, gunny avoids this issue by making personal
attacks.
It is impossible to have a dialoge, if the other party doesn't respond
to what you said.
So, since dialoge is out of the question, I'll leave it to the readers
to make their own opinion.
I await your ****ing and moaning, gunny, them I'm out of here.
Oh, no need to tell you to GFY, gunny. I think you've already done that
very nicely ;O)
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why they have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn