Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16   Report Post  
Old 27-05-2009, 01:14 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,179
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In the name of fairness, I wrote to Dr. Joe.
Joe Schwarcz:
http://oss.mcgill.ca/contact.php

26 May, 2009

Professor Schwarcz,
there is a debate, in the UseNet group rec.gardens.edible, over the use
of herbicides and pesticides.
A poster there, using the name Sherwin Dubren, claims to have
purportedly received an email from you, which he posted on 25 May, 2009.

From: sherwin dubren
Newsgroups: rec.gardens.edible
Subject: Dr. Schwarcz replies
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 01:55:14 -0500


In response to all the chatter about Dr. Scharcz being on the payroll
of the chemical companies, as well as his office, I sent him the
comments from this forum and he replied with the following:


Thanks for forwarding me that nonsense. Nobody funds me....except
McGill University . I do know where the CBI stuff comes from....a while
ago CBI funded some summer scholarships for McGill students, a couple of
whom ended up working in our office. That had nothing to do with
anything....certainly not with my book. These "organic" people are
paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they think
that some conspiracy is afoot. They generally have a very poor
scientific background and have no understanding of chemistry. They
could use a little oil for their mental machinery. Organic oil if they
so wish.
regards

Dr. Joe Schwarcz



Steve can take pot shots at Dr. Schwarcz to try and malign his knowledge
and connections, but he is only trying to divert people from
understanding what this well educated man has to say. He is well
recognized in the scientific community and well accepted by the public
who buy his books and watch his regular TV show up in Canada. Too bad
certain people have closed minds. Some may call that dogmatism but I
tend to think it is fanaticism.

Sherwin

-------

Some of us would like to know if this accurately reflects your attitude
about "organic" farming (in the contemporary sense of the word).

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Bill Rose

----

I urge others of you to write to Dr. Joe as well.


So the good doctor responds.
----

Subject: Organic
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:58:24 -0400
Thread-Topic: Organic
Thread-Index: AcneJaUDVTLa2QAtRnuWe/ZSs5A58AAHkGQw
From: "Joe Schwarcz, Dr."
To: "Bill Rose"
X-McGill-WhereFrom: Internal
X-Sonic-SB-IP-RBLs: IP RBLs .

The email is indeed from me. I have attached a few pieces I have
written on organic agriculture which obviously express my views.

#1 Organic

There were piles of all sorts of tomatoes in the produce aisle of the
supermarket. But the ones that caught my attention sat neatly wrapped
in plastic in groups of four. They weren't any better looking than the
others, but their price was a stunning five dollars and eighty cents!
What sort of tomatoes were these to command a king's ransom? Well, they
were ³organic.² Why did they warrant the investment? Because as the
label declared, ³when you purchase organic produce you are taking part
in the healing of our land, the purifying of rivers, lakes and streams,
and the protection of all forms of life from exposure to chemicals used
in conventional farming.² Surely only a callous chemist with a
disregard for nature would purchase any other sort of tomato.
There is no doubt that the organic produce market is growing. Some buy
organic because they believe such foods are healthier, others do so to
help save the environment from those nasty agro-chemicals. These
beliefs are certainly worth investigating. But what exactly does
³organic² actually mean? Essentially, organic food must be produced
without the use of synthetic pesticides, artificial fertilizers,
antibiotics or growth promoting hormones. Genetically modified
organisms are not allowed and irradiation cannot be used to control
bacteria. Sounds just like farming roughly a hundred years ago. Back
then feeding the masses required some 70% of the population to be
involved in farming in some way. Yields were low, crop losses to
insects, fungi and weeds were high. That's why farmers welcomed the
introduction of scientifically designed fertilizers and pesticides.
That's why today 2% of the population can feed the other 98%.
Such advances have not come without a cost. Pesticides and nitrates
from fertilizer enter ground water with potential environmental and
health consequences. So people harken back to the ³good old days,² when
food was untainted and people lived in blissful health. Of course,
those ³good old days² only exist in people's romanticized imagination.
Food-borne diseases were rampant and fresh fruits and vegetables in
winter were virtually unheard of. Nutrient deficiency diseases cut a
wide swath through the population. Of course, not even the greatest
advocates of organic agriculture suggest that we can realistically turn
back the clock and provide food for the world's population using only
organic methods. They claim a niche market that caters to people who
are conscious of their environment and health.
So, do consumers who buy ³organic² avoid pesticides? Hardly. Organic
farmers are allowed to use a number of pesticides as long as they come
from a natural source. Pyrethrum, an extract of chrysanthemum flowers,
has long been used to control insects. The Environmental Protection
Agency in the U.S. classifies it as a likely human carcinogen. There
you go then, a ³carcinogen² used on organic produce! Does it matter?
Of course not. Just because huge doses of a chemical, be it natural or
synthetic, cause cancer in test animals, does not mean that trace
amounts in humans do the same. Furthermore, pyrethrum biodegrades
quickly and residues are trivial. But that is the case for most modern
synthetic pesticides as well! And how about rotenone? This compound
was discovered in the 1800s in the extracts of the root of the derris
plant. Primitive tribes had learned that the ground root spread over
water would paralyze fish which then floated to the surface. Rotenone
is highly toxic to humans and causes Parkinson's disease in rats. It
can be used by organic farmers to control aphids, thrips, and other
insects on fruit. Residues probably pose little risk to humans, but
synthetic pesticides with the same sort of toxicological profile have
been vilified.
Organic farmers are also free to spray their crops with spores of the
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium which release an insecticidal
protein. Yet, organic agriculture opposes the use of crops that are
genetically modified to produce the same protein. Isn't it curious that
exposing the crop to the whole genome of the bacterium is perceived to
be safe, whereas the production of one specific protein is looked at
warily? The truth is that the protein is innocuous to humans, whether
it comes from spores sprayed on an organic crop or from genetically
modified crops. True, organic produce will have lower levels of
pesticide residues but the significance of this is highly debatable.
A far bigger concern than pesticide residues is bacterial contamination,
especially by potentially lethal E. coli 0157:H7. The source is manure
used as a fertilizer. Composted manure reduces the risk, but anytime
manure is used, as of course is common for organic produce, there is
concern. That's why produce should be thoroughly washed, whether
conventional or organic. Insect damage to crops not protected by
pesticides often leads to an invasion by fungi. Some fungi, like
fusarium, produce compounds which are highly toxic. In 2004 two
varieties of organic corn meal had to be withdrawn in Britain because of
unacceptable levels of fumonisin, this natural toxin.
Are organic foods more nutritious? Maybe, marginally. When they are
not protected by pesticides, crops produce their own chemical weapons.
Some of these, various flavonoids, are antioxidants which may contribute
to human health. Organic pears and peaches are richer in these
compounds and organic tomatoes have more vitamin C and lycopene. But
again, this has little practical relevance. When subjects consumed
organic tomato puree every day for three weeks, their plasma levels of
lycopene and vitamin C were no different from that seen in subjects
consuming conventional puree. Where organic agriculture comes to the
fore is in its impact on the environment. Soil quality is better, fewer
pollutants are produced and less energy is consumed. But we simply are
not going to feed 7 billion people organically.
Finally, do organic tomatoes taste better? I can't tell you. Instead
of shelling out $5.80 for four tomatoes, I bought a bunch of regular
tomatoes, some apples and some oranges for the same total. And I think
I got a lot more flavonoids and vitamins for my money.
------

#2 Organic.2

Is it a fruit or a vegetable? That used to be the major tomato dilemma.
Not any more. Now people query a tomato's lycopene content, they wonder
about the relative nutritional merits of cooked versus raw tomatoes and
speculate whether or not to trade in conventional for ³organic²
varieties. Let's start with the lycopene issue. Tomatoes, as well as
pink grapefruit and watermelon owe their color to this compound but
lycopene has another property as well. It is an antioxidant, meaning
that it can neutralize those heinous free radicals that cavort around
our body, bent on wreaking havoc with our biochemistry. Indeed, a
number of studies have suggested that a diet containing lycopene may
offer protection against cardiovascular disease and macular
degeneration, as well as against cancer of the prostate, the cervix and
gastrointestinal tract. Although the evidence is not conclusive, there
is certainly no harm in increasing our lycopene intake. Wouldn't it
then be fruitful to know which tomatoes have the highest levels of
lycopene, and while we're at it, the highest levels of other
antioxidants such as beta carotene, vitamin C and the polyphenols?
Actually, this is not a simple question to answer. The nutritional
composition of produce is affected by many factors, including sunlight
exposure, moisture, type and amount of fertilizer used, extent of attack
by pests, and of course, plant genetics. Red tomatoes, for example, can
have three times as much lycopene as pink tomatoes, and you can forget
about lycopene in fried green tomatoes. Red cherry tomatoes, weight per
weight, have more lycopene than large red tomatoes, and also have more
phenolics. Then there are variations depending on the type of tomato,
whether it is field-grown or greenhouse-grown, and its degree of
ripeness when picked. And what about organic tomatoes, grown without
the use of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers? Are they more
nutritious?
When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C
and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they
found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C
and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes
probably produce these to fend of pests. If they get no help from
commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety.
Lycopene levels did not differ between organic and conventional
tomatoes. Furthermore, the researchers investigated blood levels of
these substances in people fed 96 grams daily of either organic or
conventional tomato puree for three weeks and found no difference in
lycopene, vitamin C or polyphenol levels.
A fascinating study carried out in Taiwan matched ten conventional and
ten organic tomato farms and found that there was no difference in the
lycopene, beta carotene, vitamin C or phenolics content of the produce.
Some farming practices, both in conventional and organic systems, did
affect the quality of the tomatoes. Over watering, for example, reduced
lycopene content, weeds reduced carotenoid concentrations and phosphorus
and iron content of the soil was found to influence vitamin C and
phenolic concentrations. On nutritional grounds then, whether you eat
conventional or organic tomatoes doesn't matter. Taste, however, is
another story.
The difference in flavor between biting into one of those giant
supermarket tomatoes or into the cardboard box it came in, is minimal.
That's because over the years we've used various techniques to grow
produce faster and to be bigger. Synthetic fertilizers, with their high
levels of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus, encourage rapid growth,
but this results in more water being taken up from the soil. The
produce is bigger, but it is bigger because it has a higher water
content. Organic crops, fertilized with manure, take up nitrogen more
slowly and have a lower water content. In a sense they are more
concentrated in flavourful compounds. . And of course they are less
concentrated in pesticide residues, which is another reason that people
gravitate towards ³organic.² But is the difference in residues between
conventional and organic produce of practical significance?
One way of coming to some sort of conclusion on this issue is to compare
the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of pesticides as determined by the
World Health Organization with the average intake of these substances in
the daily diet. The ADI is determined by first feeding pesticides to
animals to identify the most sensitive species. Then the highest level
of pesticide given on a daily basis throughout this animal's life that
does not cause any noticeable toxicological effect is determined. This
amount is then divided by a safety factor of 100 to arrive at the ADI
for humans. In other words, a typical human exposure at 1% of the ADI
represents an exposure that is one-ten thousandth of a dose that causes
no toxicity in animals.
In order to determine what the actual human exposure is, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration used to carry out a Total Diet Study which
involved purchasing 285 different foods found typically in the diet, and
analyzing these for pesticide residues. When 38 of the most commonly
used pesticides were examined, 34 were found to be present at less than
1% of the ADI, while the other four were present at less than 5% of the
ADI. Because the levels were so low, the FDA has stopped carrying out
such a survey on an annual basis. While the residue from pesticides
would seem to pose very little risk, eating organic foods does eliminate
exposure. When children eating conventional foods are switched to
organic foods, pesticides disappear from the urine after five days. Of
course the only reason they were detected in the first place is because
our analytical detection capabilities have become so phenomenal that
they can find the proverbial needle in the haystack.
Oh yes. About the cooked versus raw tomatoes. Lycopene is more readily
absorbed from the cooked variety, making tomato sauce and believe it or
not, ketchup, good sources. Interestingly, here ³organic² makes a
difference, with one study showing organic ketchups having twice as much
lycopene as conventional varieties. But remember that you can always
double your lycopene intake by eating two tomatoes instead of one.
Finally, if you are still wondering, the tomato is indeed a fruit, not a
vegetable.
----

#3 Organic 3

The battle has been raging back and forth ever since synthetic
pesticides and fertilizers were introduced into agriculture. Is organic
produce safer and more nutritious than the conventional variety?
Curiously, organic really used to be conventional. Up to the twentieth
century all farming was ³organic.² If you wanted to fertilize your
fields, you used manure or decomposing plant material. If you wanted to
control insects, you used toxic, but of course ³natural,² compounds of
arsenic, mercury or lead. Nicotine sulfate extracted from tobacco
leaves killed insects effectively, and by the 19th century, pyrethrum
from chrysanthemums was also available for insect control. Dusting
crops with elemental sulfur was an age-old practice for reducing
infestation by pests and fungi. And then in the twentieth century
synthetic pesticides and fertilizers entered the picture. Why?
Necessity, as has often been said, is the mother of invention. Crop
losses were too great to feed the growing population, soils were being
depleted of nutrients, and the toxic effects of arsenic, mercury and
lead-based insecticides had become apparent.
Chemists rose to the challenge and developed fertilizers to replenish
the soil and array of pesticides to ward off insects and fungi. Yields
increased, and the hungry were fed. At least in the western world.
With produce abundant, and tummies full, we now had the luxury of
turning towards other food-related concerns. Like the risks of the
new-fangled agrochemicals. After all, insecticides were designed to
kill insects, so they obviously had toxic potential. Their effect on
non-target species, such as interference with the egg-laying abilities
of birds, began to raise questions about their effect on human health.
Consumers began to harken back to the good old days when produce had
been ³chemical-free.² They wanted uncontaminated, pesticide-free food
grown without synthetic fertilizers. They wanted to go ³organic.²
Some farmers complied. If that's what people wanted, they would go back
to growing food the old-fashioned way. No pesticides, no synthetic
fertilizers and none of those novel boogeymen, genetically modified
crops. Sure, yields would be reduced, and the produce might look less
appealing, but as long as consumers were willing to pay a premium,
farmers would meet their needs. Indeed, consumers fearful of pesticide
exposure were willing to pay more for organic produce, which they
surmised would also be more nutritious. After all, doesn't Mother
Nature know best?
A number of field trials were organized to put Mother Nature to a test
by comparing the nutrient composition of organically and conventionally
grown crops and produce. These mostly focused on antioxidant content,
based on the general belief that it is these substances that account for
the benefits of a diet high in fruits and vegetables. This is actually
not as well established as most people think. While there is
overwhelming evidence that a diet high in fruits and vegetables is
healthy, there is no hard evidence that this is due specifically to
antioxidant content. In theory, the assumption is reasonable, because
antioxidants, at least in the laboratory, can neutralize free radicals
which have been linked with a variety of health problems. But fruits
and vegetables contain hundreds of different compounds and it isn't
clear which ones are responsible for the health benefits. Studies with
isolated antioxidants have proven to be disappointing.
Some, but certainly not all, studies have shown that organically grown
foods are higher in antioxidants. This isn't surprising because crops
left to fend for themselves without outside chemical help will produce a
variety of natural pesticides, some of which just happen to have
antioxidant properties. And how much of a difference in antioxidant
content is there between organically and conventionally-grown foods?
According to a four year long study carried out at the University of
Newcastle, organic food is some 40% richer in antioxidants. The
researchers even suggest this means we can eat fewer fruits and
vegetables in our quest for good health, as long as they are organic.
This is not a totally compelling argument. Foods are extremely complex
chemically and measuring the amounts of a few antioxidants may not be a
proper reflection of nutritional value. For that we need feeding
studies. Do rodents thrive on organic diets? Nobody knows. And are
humans who eat organically healthier? Nobody knows.
There are some other questions that come to mind as well. What about
disease causing organisms that may be present in manure used as organic
fertilizer? Or fungal metabolites, which are more likely to be found in
organic foods because they are not protected by insecticides?
Fumonisins, for example, produced by Fusarium moulds, are carcinogenic
and have also been linked with birth defects in humans. Moulds take
root where insects have damaged the crop. Such damage is less likely if
the crops are protected through genetic modification. Insertion of a
bacterial gene that codes for the production of a toxin which has no
effect on humans can protec these crops from insects. But of course
genetic modification is not allowed in organic agriculture! Too bad,
because if we look to increase nutrient content, this is the way to go.
A line of genetically modified tomatoes, with almost eighty times more
antioxidants than the conventional variety, has already been developed
at the University of Exeter. Now, that is a far greater nutritional
difference than between organic and conventional produce. Imagine the
benefits we could have if organic farmers embraced genetic modification!
What then is the bottom line here? If cost is not an issue, organic may
indeed be an appropriate choice. There is no doubt that it is
environmentally a more sound practice. But for most people, cost
matters, and if they commit to going organic all the way, expense and
lack of availability may lead to consuming fewer fruits and vegetables.
Emphasis really should be on consuming at least seven servings of fruits
and vegetables a day, not on whether these are organic or not. There is
one more point to be made. Pretty soon, there will be 10 billion people
coming to dinner. And there is no way that they are going to be fed
organically.
----

There are three more documents dealing with pesticide, which I shall
pass along shortly.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En2TzBE0lp4

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html
  #17   Report Post  
Old 27-05-2009, 02:45 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,358
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

wrote in message

A google groups search revelas no previous posts from you. Perhaps you are
a sock puppet.

On Tue, 26 May 2009 12:48:56 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:


If, and I stress the 'if', you are really posting what Dr Schwarcz has
written to you, then his response to you is simply extraordinary.

Any scientist worth taking note of who responds to an email from a
stranger
and who using such sloppy thinking to write words like "These "organic"
people are paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they
think that some conspiracy is afoot. " and that they "could use a little
oil
for their mental machinery" is of questionable sense.

If he is a serious scientist, he would have been more temperate in his
language because he'd be used to the process of peer reviews and know

that
he'd have to justify everything he says.

I doubt that you emailed him at all or that he responded.


You have obviously never talked to a scientist.


Deliciously funny!

You go on to mention how people have never bothered to learn to think and
yet you conclude that I have never talked to a scientist. That is really
funny.

I would have thought that anyone who claims to be such a superior being that
they have not only learned to think, and possesses such an arrogance that
they choose to laugh at others as often as they can would have wondered how
it is that a poster, who has not otherwise engaged in this skirmish, would
have chosen to mention peer reviews.

I would have expected such a superior being to have hit on the implications
of "peer reviews" and wonder why it is that a poster who has otherwise not
engaged in the conversation until this time would have even known about
peer reviews.

A person who had learned to think should then have wondered, or perhaps even
asked, why the casual poster knew of peer reviews. You didn't.

A person who could think would came to a different conclusion than you did.

I doubt your claims to being a scientist. Or, at the very best, it must be
years since you had anything to do with academic research.

We come in all
stripes, just like most other professions. One thing we have in
common is a distain for those who never bothered to learn to think.


Yes. I too have such a disdain. You claim to think but your conclusions
are erroneous. That says you have limited capacity to think and reach a
logical conclusion.

Unfortunately that is more than 90% of even well educated people. That
trait makes us most unpopular at parties and family reunions. If you
really want to rile a scientist up, imply his or her work is tainted
by conflicts in funding sources that don't actually exist. I
certainly don't find the tone or language of Dr. Schwarcz' reply
unusual for a casual conversation. We laugh at you all the time.


I wouldn't find Dr Schwarz's reply unusual between intimates either, but I
do find his reply to be extremely odd when used, as claimed, in response to
an email from an unknown contact.

But then given that he is also a 'TV personality' then it is perhaps
possible that like others of that sort of person in north America then he
panders to the lowest common denominator in the interest of ratings because
it impacts on his earnings. Perhaps he is as intemperate and lacking in
concern for his professional reputation as you seem to think he is.


  #18   Report Post  
Old 27-05-2009, 02:48 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,358
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

"sherwin dubren" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:

Does Dr Schwarcz know that you were going to post a private email to a
public forum so that anyone can read it?


I don't think he would mind.


You 'don't think' he would mind??????

If you don't know whether he would mind or not and you didn't ask for his
permission to post a private email, then you have no right to do so.

If, and I stress the 'if', you are really posting what Dr Schwarcz has
written to you, then his response to you is simply extraordinary.


Well, if it makes you feel better, think what you will.

Any scientist worth taking note of who responds to an email from a
stranger and who using such sloppy thinking to write words like "These
"organic" people are paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world
view" they think that some conspiracy is afoot. " and that they "could
use a little oil for their mental machinery" is of questionable sense.


I simply sent him a copy of your responses. He is not afraid of you
loonies and has probably run into the likes of you before.


You haven't been paying attention. You could have sent nothing to Dr
Schwarcz that I wrote.

If he is a serious scientist, he would have been more temperate in his
language because he'd be used to the process of peer reviews and know
that he'd have to justify everything he says.


Since when are scientists held to such a standard?


Good Lord! Are you really that ignorant?

Enough said.

Go use google and think about what it means for a scinetist doing academic
research when you finally find out what peer review means.

I doubt that you emailed him at all or that he responded.


Unlike your little group, I don't make things up.


So you say. Your credibility is not very high given that you post a
supposedly private email without permission.


  #19   Report Post  
Old 27-05-2009, 03:23 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,358
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

"Steve" wrote in message
On Tue, 26 May 2009 16:14:23 -0700, Billy
wrote:


So the good doctor responds.
----

Subject: Organic
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:58:24 -0400
Thread-Topic: Organic
Thread-Index: AcneJaUDVTLa2QAtRnuWe/ZSs5A58AAHkGQw
From: "Joe Schwarcz, Dr."
To: "Bill Rose"
X-McGill-WhereFrom: Internal
X-Sonic-SB-IP-RBLs: IP RBLs .

The email is indeed from me. I have attached a few pieces I have
written on organic agriculture which obviously express my views.


Stunning.
I expected push back, but the profound dismissal, the outright
disdain, of organic is remarkable even for one funded by the chemical
industry.


I'd disagree. He certainly wasn't as dismissive of organics as one would
expect from his knee jerk reaction to Sherwin would have suggested.

In fact from what I have read so far, (and so far that reading on my part
hsas not been anything more than a quick skim as I'm short of time) he even
has some good things to say about organics.

His point of view is from the perspective of farmed produce but from the
point of view of those of us who post here, we aren't farming for
production. In our case, what he has to say about organics does in fact
support the use of organics in a home enviroment - better taste, kinder to
the soil and because plants respond to threat, better produce for a number
of reasons.

The disinformation, (for example ignoring the advancement in
organic agriculture and instead suggesting that it's 100 years behind)
is truly amazing. Obviously he has never heard of a little company
named Earthbound.
In one article he states that organic foods are only "marginally" more
nutritious, in the next article he sites a 40% gain in antioxidants.
"Pesticides and nitrates from fertilizer enter ground water with
potential environmental and health consequences". Potential?!
Doesn't McGill have internet service? Hasn't he ever looked at the
Gulf of Mexico from above? Amazing.
I think he's "marginally" pro-agrochemical.


Yes, I did think that too and I do know of initiatives that he seems to have
either glossed over or not known of.


  #20   Report Post  
Old 27-05-2009, 04:34 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,179
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

In article
. easynews.com,
Steve wrote:

On Tue, 26 May 2009 16:14:23 -0700, Billy
wrote:


So the good doctor responds.
----

Subject: Organic
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:58:24 -0400
Thread-Topic: Organic
Thread-Index: AcneJaUDVTLa2QAtRnuWe/ZSs5A58AAHkGQw
From: "Joe Schwarcz, Dr."
To: "Bill Rose"
X-McGill-WhereFrom: Internal
X-Sonic-SB-IP-RBLs: IP RBLs .

The email is indeed from me. I have attached a few pieces I have
written on organic agriculture which obviously express my views.


Stunning.
I expected push back, but the profound dismissal, the outright
disdain, of organic is remarkable even for one funded by the chemical
industry. The disinformation, (for example ignoring the advancement in
organic agriculture and instead suggesting that it's 100 years behind)
is truly amazing. Obviously he has never heard of a little company
named Earthbound.
In one article he states that organic foods are only "marginally" more
nutritious, in the next article he sites a 40% gain in antioxidants.
"Pesticides and nitrates from fertilizer enter ground water with
potential environmental and health consequences". Potential?!
Doesn't McGill have internet service? Hasn't he ever looked at the
Gulf of Mexico from above? Amazing.
I think he's "marginally" pro-agrochemical.


Yeah, I know, he didn't talk about the soil web of life and soil
erosion. He seemed happy to get his lycopene from tasteless, long
shelf-life price/benefit tomatoes, but we just got these papers and I'm
sure that we will have a lot of fun with them. In any event, they don't
address his dismissal of these "organic" people.

" Thanks for forwarding me that nonsense. Nobody funds me....except
McGill University . I do know where the CBI stuff comes from....a while
ago CBI funded some summer scholarships for McGill students, a couple of
whom ended up working in our office. That had nothing to do with
anything....certainly not with my book. These "organic" people are
paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they think
that some conspiracy is afoot. They generally have a very poor
scientific background and have no understanding of chemistry. They
could use a little oil for their mental machinery. Organic oil if they
so wish."
regards
Dr. Joe Schwarcz

This should be very informative for us.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En2TzBE0lp4

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html


  #21   Report Post  
Old 27-05-2009, 04:56 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 182
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

On Tue, 26 May 2009 17:53:49 -0700, Steve wrote:

On Tue, 26 May 2009 16:14:23 -0700, Billy
wrote:


So the good doctor responds.
----

Subject: Organic
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:58:24 -0400
Thread-Topic: Organic
Thread-Index: AcneJaUDVTLa2QAtRnuWe/ZSs5A58AAHkGQw
From: "Joe Schwarcz, Dr."
To: "Bill Rose"
X-McGill-WhereFrom: Internal
X-Sonic-SB-IP-RBLs: IP RBLs .

The email is indeed from me. I have attached a few pieces I have
written on organic agriculture which obviously express my views.


Stunning.
I expected push back, but the profound dismissal, the outright
disdain, of organic is remarkable even for one funded by the chemical
industry. The disinformation, (for example ignoring the advancement in
organic agriculture and instead suggesting that it's 100 years behind)
is truly amazing. Obviously he has never heard of a little company
named Earthbound.
In one article he states that organic foods are only "marginally" more
nutritious, in the next article he sites a 40% gain in antioxidants.
"Pesticides and nitrates from fertilizer enter ground water with
potential environmental and health consequences". Potential?!
Doesn't McGill have internet service? Hasn't he ever looked at the
Gulf of Mexico from above? Amazing.
I think he's "marginally" pro-agrochemical.


I probably shouldn't but I can't resist. I'm responding to your post,
Steve, but this is more for Mr. Rose.

I read some of Dr. S's response. He's got some valid points, imo.
Organic is expensive, if you aren't growing your own. I'm organic as I
think I can be, with the financial situation I have at this point.
Organic manure, compost etc cost more than non-organic. Free range
organic eggs cost over $4 a dozen where I live. I've been a vegetarian
for 40 years (lol - damn - 40 years) and it's not as easy and it costs
more, ime, to dine out, to live organically. To purchase the food that
meets my morals, as it were. Whatever - my choice.

I used to make donations to PETA. I don't anymore. While I imagine
there's a need for extremists, I wish there wasn't. I don't benefit
from from being haraunged (pretty sure that's spelled wrong - sorry)
and I hope that most people, gardeners especially can learn and evolve
with kindness and good intentions, not by being badgered.

Mother Teresa said something to the effect of - Don't invite me to an
anti-war rally. Invite me to a peace rally.

IMO, in your zeal, Mr. Rose, you are turning more people away from the
very thing you want. You can't force people to see what you see - you
can be a wonderful example. When you send out negative energy, more
than just one person is affected.

Organic gardening, to me, is treating the earth and its inhabitants as
I want to be treated. I won't curse the rabbits that are eating my
zinnia seedlings. I will cut away the insect damage from the comfrey
leaves I needed today for a dog with healing stitches. It's been
awfully damp this Spring and many plants are showing the same damage.

Ah, but the blooms. And yes, I forgot the parlsey. I have in my
scrambled egg most days. I need to learn how to make tabouli - I've
got a thick 10 ft row of parsley. What a blessing, huh?

I suspect we gardeners have a lot in common. Do we really want to pick
this newsgroup to engage in negativity? Make love not war?

Billy, you can sell your Stinging Nettle. I pay maybe $10 a lb? I
really have no idea but it's probably no more than $20 a lb . It's
good for the kidneys and incredibly nutritive. I give it to my elderly
dog in tea form and add it to my tea as well.

Please consider, you wonderful organic proponents, to make our cause a
noble one, a wonderful and joyous one.

My beer can is empty. I have finished my enhanced post. Good night and
good gardening to you all.

Kate
  #22   Report Post  
Old 27-05-2009, 06:57 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,179
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In the name of fairness, I wrote to Dr. Joe.
Joe Schwarcz:
http://oss.mcgill.ca/contact.php

26 May, 2009

Professor Schwarcz,
there is a debate, in the UseNet group rec.gardens.edible, over the use
of herbicides and pesticides.
A poster there, using the name Sherwin Dubren, claims to have
purportedly received an email from you, which he posted on 25 May, 2009.

From: sherwin dubren
Newsgroups: rec.gardens.edible
Subject: Dr. Schwarcz replies
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 01:55:14 -0500


In response to all the chatter about Dr. Scharcz being on the payroll
of the chemical companies, as well as his office, I sent him the
comments from this forum and he replied with the following:


Thanks for forwarding me that nonsense. Nobody funds me....except
McGill University . I do know where the CBI stuff comes from....a while
ago CBI funded some summer scholarships for McGill students, a couple of
whom ended up working in our office. That had nothing to do with
anything....certainly not with my book. These "organic" people are
paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they think
that some conspiracy is afoot. They generally have a very poor
scientific background and have no understanding of chemistry. They
could use a little oil for their mental machinery. Organic oil if they
so wish.
regards

Dr. Joe Schwarcz



Steve can take pot shots at Dr. Schwarcz to try and malign his knowledge
and connections, but he is only trying to divert people from
understanding what this well educated man has to say. He is well
recognized in the scientific community and well accepted by the public
who buy his books and watch his regular TV show up in Canada. Too bad
certain people have closed minds. Some may call that dogmatism but I
tend to think it is fanaticism.

Sherwin

-------

Some of us would like to know if this accurately reflects your attitude
about "organic" farming (in the contemporary sense of the word).

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Bill Rose

----

I urge others of you to write to Dr. Joe as well.


So the good doctor responds.
----

Subject: Organic
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:58:24 -0400
Thread-Topic: Organic
Thread-Index: AcneJaUDVTLa2QAtRnuWe/ZSs5A58AAHkGQw
From: "Joe Schwarcz, Dr."
To: "Bill Rose"
X-McGill-WhereFrom: Internal
X-Sonic-SB-IP-RBLs: IP RBLs .

The email is indeed from me. I have attached a few pieces I have
written on organic agriculture which obviously express my views.


#4 Pesticides.doc

Pesticides have one indisputable effect. They cause emotions to boil
over. That's just what happened when a group of golfers noticed that a
chemical sprayer was out on the course as they were completing their
round. By the time they got into the clubhouse, several were
complaining of headaches, rashes and general malaise and angrily
approached the superintendent to protest what they believed was an
irresponsible activity. The golfers linked their symptoms with the
chemicals being sprayed because they were convinced that the use of
pesticides is inherently unsafe. Are they right?
Asking if it is safe to use pesticides is like asking if it is safe to
take medications. The answer is both ³yes² and ³no² because it depends
on which medication, in what dose, how it is taken, by whom it is taken
and for what reason it is taken. Salt, Vitamin B-6, vitamin A and
caffeine, on a weight for weight basis, are more toxic than many
pesticides. Basically, instead of classifying substances as "safe" or
"dangerous," it is far more appropriate to think in terms of using
substances in a safe or dangerous fashion. Two aspirin tablets can make
a headache go away but a handful of tablets can kill. Unfortunately, in
rare cases, even two tablets can cause side effects. So it is with
pesticides. While there are safe ways to use these chemicals, there can
be no universal "guarantee of safety." After all, pesticides are
designed to kill their targets, whether these be insects, weeds or
fungi. The best we can do is evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of each
substance and make appropriate judgements.
In Canada such judgements are made by Health Canada's "Pest Management
Regulatory Agency (PMRA)." Before a pesticide can be "registered" for
use, the toxicologists, physicians, chemists and agronomists of the
Agency have to be convinced that the substance can effectively handle
the problem it was designed for and that its risk profile is acceptable.
A "registration" is a long and involved process requiring acute,
short-term and lifelong toxicology studies in animals as well as studies
of carcinogenicity and possible damage to the nervous system. Proof of
absence of birth defects is required. Effects on hormonal changes have
to be studied in at least two species, along with the effects of the
pesticide on non-target species. All routes of exposure are assessed,
whether via ingestion, inhalation or skin contact. Cumulative effects
are studied. PMRA also requires field-testing for environmental effects
before a pesticide is approved.
Based on all the data, PMRA assesses the risk, taking into account
exposure of children, pregnant women, seniors, pesticide applicators and
agricultural workers. The potential level of exposure can be no more
than one one hundredth of the dose that showed no effect in animals.
Even once a pesticide is registered, there is a continuous reevaluation
system that includes the "inert" ingredients that are used in the
formulations. Risk assessments are refined in accordance with new
research findings. All ways of reducing pesticide risk are examined,
with great emphasis on Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, which is
aimed at reducing the reliance of pesticides as the sole approach to
pest management. IPM is geared towards taking action only when numbers
of pests warrant it and uses a mix of biological, physical and chemical
techniques. Furthermore, PMRA has inspectors across the country to
monitor the proper use of pesticides.
It is hard to imagine what more could be done to ensure that a pesticide
has an acceptable risk-benefit ratio. But can even such a rigorous
system ensure that we will have no consequences from the use of
pesticides? Absolutely not. There may be subtle effects in humans that
show up only after years of exposure. This can be revealed only by long
term studies, not by anecdotal evidence. Pesticides cannot be linked to
cancer on the basis of a heart wrenching case that may appear in the
media describing how a child who had repeatedly felt ill after exposure
to lawn sprays was later diagnosed with cancer. Long term
epidemiological studies are required. A number of such investigations
have been carried out.
Workers in the agricultural chemical production industries, who would be
expected to have the highest exposures, do not show any unusual disease
patterns, but the number of subjects in these studies is small. A
widely reported study of farmers who sprayed their fields showed a weak
link between acres sprayed and various cancers but overall the farmers
had fewer cancer cases than the general population. An often cited
American study seemed to indicate a link between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
and acres sprayed with the herbicide 2,4-D, a chemical that is used in
home lawn-care as well. But a long-term study of workers who
manufactured 2,4-D, and had huge exposures over many years, showed no
increased cancer incidence at all.
One of the developing concerns about the use of insecticides and
herbicides is a possible effect on the immune system. Laboratory
evidence indicates impaired activity of immune cells after exposure, and
at least one study has shown increased respiratory infection in
teenagers in villages where pesticide use is the heaviest. There is
also the possibility of neurobehavioral effects. In a Mexican study,
children in areas where pesticides were extensively used performed more
poorly on coordination and memory tests. But these are very different
conditions from those seen when a dilute solution of 2,4-D is
occasionally used on a lawn by trained applicators. On the other hand,
home gardeners who purchase such chemicals and use the improperly can
put themselves and others at risk.
It would be great if we could get away from using pesticides. No
exposure to pesticides means no exposure to their risks. At home, we
can manage this. After all, a few dandelions on the lawn are not life
threatening. In fact, quite the opposite. They can be made into a
nutritious salad. But we cannot feed 6 billion people without the
appropriate use of agricultural chemicals. So we do have to put up with
risks, both real and imagined, because on a global scale they are
outweighed by the benefits. And just what was the dastardly chemical
that was being sprayed on the golf course that caused the reaction in
the golfers? Good old H2O! Fear itself can sometimes be hazardous.
-----
#5 Pesticides 2.doc

Pesticides are nasty chemicals. They have to be. You don't beat off
the myriad insects, weeds and fungi which look upon our food supply as
their food supply with sweet smells and pleasant tastes. You do it by
poisoning them. Hopefully, without poisoning ourselves.
Pesticides were born out of necessity. The cultivation of crops has
always been characterized by a relentless battle against pests, a battle
which required farmers to take up chemical arms. Thousands of years ago
the Sumerians learned to dust crops with elemental sulfur and the
ancient Romans drove insects from their orchards by burning coal tar.
The discovery of the toxicity of lead and arsenic compounds led to the
extensive use of lead arsenate in agriculture, without much concern for
its effects on human health. After all, producing enough food to feed
the growing population was the prime goal.
Nicotine, pyrethrum and rotenone extracted respectively from tobacco,
chrysanthemum and derris plants joined the chemical stockpile by the
19th century. Malathion and chlorpyrifos, typical organophosphates,
were born out of research into poison gases during WW II, and the rapid
advances in chemistry in the post-war era introduced synthetic
pesticides such as DDT, benzene hexachloride and dieldrin. Insects
shuddered, fungi floundered, weeds wilted and agricultural yields
boomed. And at least in the developed world, worries about lack of food
began to be replaced by concerns about pesticides. Rachel Carson's
³Silent Spring² alerted us to the possible effects of pesticides on
biodiversity, and we heard the faint rumblings of epidemiological
studies linking occupational pesticide exposure to health problems.
Analytical chemists, armed with their gas chromatographs and mass
spectrometers, heightened our fears by revealing that it was not only
farmers or agro-chemical producers who were exposed to pesticides, we
all were! Residues of these chemicals were found on virtually
everything we ate. Apples, for one, were tainted with Alar, a plant
growth regulator sprayed on trees to prevent the fruit from falling
prematurely. This chemical had cruised under the public radar until
1989 when the popular TV program ³60 Minutes² lowered the boom by
introducing a segment on Alar with a picture of an apple bedecked with
the classic skull and crossbones as a reporter enlightened us about the
³fact² that ³the most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply is
a substance sprayed on apples.² People responded by flushing apple
juice down the drain and removing apples from children's lunch boxes.
But the fact is that the ³fact² that Alar was the most potent carcinogen
in our food supply was not a fact. True, one of the breakdown products
of Alar, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, did induce tumours when fed to mice in
huge doses, an effect that regulators were well aware of when approving
Alar for commercial use. The carcinogenicity study was questionable,
they maintained, and irrelevant as a model for human exposure.
Whether or not Alar ever posed a risk is still debated, but there is no
doubt that it placed the issue of pesticide residues in food on the
front burner. Toxicologists, agronomists, physicians and
environmentalists all waded in with their opinions, along with hordes of
emotionally-charged consumers who were clearly out of their depth in
such a complex discussion. Bruce Ames of the University of California,
one of the most respected biochemists in the world, was quick to point
out that we are exposed to all sorts of toxins, both synthetic and
natural, on a continuous basis and that more than 99.9% by weight of
pesticides in the average diet are naturally occurring compounds that
plants produce to defend themselves against insects and fungi.
Potatoes, for example, synthesize solanine and chaconine, compounds
which like some synthetic pesticides inhibit the activity of
cholinesterase, a crucial enzyme. But we don't shun potatoes because
they harbour these natural pesticides. According to Ames and other
experts, the body doesn't handle natural pesticides differently from
synthetic ones, so there seems to be little justification for all the
hand-wringing over remnants of synthetic pesticides in our food supply,
usually measured in parts per trillion. Take a football field, pile it
with sand to a height of some eighteen feet, mix in one single grain of
red sand, and search for it. You'll be searching for 1 ppt!
Of course, some will argue that there is nothing we can do about the
natural toxins, and their presence does not justify a cavalier use of
synthetic pesticides. True, but our use of pesticides is anything but
cavalier. Regulatory agencies demand rigorous studies before a
pesticide is approved. This involves determining the maximum dose that
causes no effect in a test animal and dividing it by a safety factor of
at least 100 for human exposure. Furthermore, when the risk of
pesticide residues is assessed, the supposition is that the food
contains 100% of all legal residues and that people eat these foods for
seventy years. That sounds comforting, especially when we learn that
more than 70% of fruits and vegetables have no detectable pesticide
residues and only about 1% of the time is the legal limit exceeded, a
limit that already has a hundred-fold safety factor built-in. Of
course, produce should still be washed, although more for removal of
bacteria than pesticides. A 30 second rinse significantly reduces both
water soluble and insoluble pesticides.
Undoubtedly debates about the validity of using animal models to
determine human carcinogenicity, about whether or not there is a
threshold effect for carcinogens, and about the possibility of trace
residues of pesticides which may be harmless individually but not when
they team up, will continue. So will the use of pesticides. By the
year 2030, ten billion people will be coming to dinner. But without the
sensible use of pesticides they will be going home hungry. Would a
pesticide-free world be better? For people who have to handle
pesticides occupationally, and for the environment, yes. For the
consumer, no. Yields would be significantly reduced, and in light of
the overwhelming evidence of the ability of fruits and vegetables to
protect against cancer, public health would be compromised.

-----

#6 Pesticides are designed to kill.doc

Pesticides are designed to kill. Of course what they are designed to
kill are the insects, the fungi, the rodents and the weeds that compete
for our food supply, that carry disease or tarnish our green space. But
they can also kill people. And, unfortunately, that isn't a rare
occurrence. The World Health Organization estimates that there are
roughly three million cases of pesticide poisoning world wide every
year, and close to a quarter million deaths! Astoundingly, in some
parts of the developing world, pesticide poisoning causes more deaths
than infectious disease. How? Certainly, people do die from a lack of
proper protective equipment, or because they can't read the instructions
about diluting the chemicals properly. But the real tragedy is that the
main cause of death due to pesticides is suicide!
Believe it or not, about a million people in the world do away with
themselves every year. More than three quarters of these are in third
world countries where life can be so miserable that the alternative
seems more attractive. In Sri Lanka, suicide is the number one cause of
death in young people, and in China more young women kill themselves
than die from other causes. Pesticides are their weapon of choice. In
rural Sri Lanka, pesticide poisoning is the main cause of death reported
in hospitals. There are wards devoted to patients who have tried to
kill themselves with organophosphates, one of the most toxic class of
pesticides. In Samoa, when paraquat was introduced in 1974, suicide
rates went up sharply. They dropped back down when paraquat was taken
off the market in 1982. In Amman, Jordan, poisonings fell way off when
parathion was banned. Obviously, if the use of the most toxic
pesticides could be curtailed in these countries, many lives would be
saved. Sadly, though, these chemicals are often completely unregulated,
with some of the most toxic ones readily available in stores to be sold
to the illiterate farmer who has virtually no chance of using them
properly. Pesticide companies, in some cases, pay their salespeople on
commission so it is in their interest to push product even when it may
not be necessary. In Sri Lanka pesticides are advertised on radio to
the public, often painting an unrealistic picture of magical, risk-free
crop protection. Some sort of joint effort by pesticide manufacturers
and governments is needed to keep the most toxic pesticides out of
developing countries.
In North America our pesticide regulations are far more stringent and
farmers must be licensed to use these chemicals. That doesn't mean we
don't have problems. In North Carolina, for example, roughly 100,000
migrant workers are employed on the tobacco, vegetable, fruit and
Christmas tree farms. Many of them live in dilapidated housing next to
the agricultural fields and their homes and bodies are contaminated with
pesticides. Metabolites of organophosphates commonly show up in their
urine. This is not surprising, given that access to showers and clean
clothes after working in the fields is limited. Even though there may
be no immediate effects of such exposure, there are enough studies
suggesting a link between pesticide use and neurological problems,
developmental delays, Parkinson's disease and cancer to cause concern.
What's the answer? Elimination of agricultural pesticides is simply not
an option. But providing workers with safe housing, clean clothes,
showers and above all, pesticide safety training certainly is.
Of course working in the fields of North Carolina is not the only way to
be exposed to pesticides. Garden supply stores sell a wide array of
such products. They are all ³registered,² meaning that they have
undergone extensive safety evaluation. Risks should therefore be
minimal, if the products are properly used. That, though, is a big
³if.² An often quoted study at Stanford University found a link between
Parkinson's disease and domestic pesticide use. People with as few as
thirty days of exposure to home insecticides were at significantly
greater risk; garden insecticides were somewhat less risky. Because of
the large variety of products available, the researchers were not able
to zero in on any specific ingredients. Another study, this time at the
University of California at Berkley, compared pesticide exposures of
children diagnosed with leukemia to a healthy control group matched for
age and socio-economic status. The families of children with leukemia
were three times more likely to have used a professional exterminator.
During pregnancy, exposure to any type of pesticide in the home
coincided with twice as much risk. But, and an important ³but,² there
was no association between leukemia and pesticides used outside the
house! Yet, I have often seen activists who oppose ³cosmetic² lawn care
chemicals use the leukemia argument to demonize this practice.
Pesticides cannot all be lumped together in terms of their safety
profile. There are tremendous differences between the various
insecticides and of course these differ extensively from herbicides and
fungicides. And of course, one must always remember that associations
cannot prove cause and effect. Physicians, one would think should
realize this. Apparently not all do. In a letter to a medical
publication, a doctor chastised the federal government for allowing
people to be exposed to dangerous substances on their lawn and
buttressed the argument with this example: ³A boy was removed from a day
care three years ago because his parents noticed the lawn was being
treated with pesticides and the child began to suffer health problems
and recurrent pneumonias. He developed acute lymphoblastic leukemia.²
The simple-minded message of course is that the spraying caused the
leukemia, a gigantic and inappropriate leap of faith.
Great caution must be used with insecticides in the home and I think
their use during pregnancy should be totally avoided. But using
insecticides inside a house presents a completely different scenario
from occasionally spraying a lawn with fertilizer and weed killer.
Different chemicals, different exposures, different risks. When
contemplating the use of pesticides, always remember that while there
may be no completely safe substances; there are ways to use substances
safely.
----

Read up, we can start the discussion now.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En2TzBE0lp4

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html
  #24   Report Post  
Old 27-05-2009, 08:34 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2007
Posts: 101
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies


"sherwin dubren" wrote in message
...
FarmI wrote:

Does Dr Schwarcz know that you were going to post a private email to a
public forum so that anyone can read it?


I don't think he would mind.

If, and I stress the 'if', you are really posting what Dr Schwarcz has
written to you, then his response to you is simply extraordinary.


Well, if it makes you feel better, think what you will.

Any scientist worth taking note of who responds to an email from a

stranger
and who using such sloppy thinking to write words like "These "organic"
people are paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view"

they
think that some conspiracy is afoot. " and that they "could use a little

oil
for their mental machinery" is of questionable sense.


I simply sent him a copy of your responses. He is not afraid of you
loonies and has probably run into the likes of you before.

If he is a serious scientist, he would have been more temperate in his
language because he'd be used to the process of peer reviews and know

that
he'd have to justify everything he says.


Since when are scientists held to such a standard?



I wasn't planning to get embroiled in this, but I was in such serious
disbelief that someone would think that scientists would have no standards
for making conclusions that I had to say that I think someone needs to start
watching CSI...specifically CSI Miami cause it has bright colors and lots of
movement...and remember if you make conclusions without verifying/explaining
the facts that led to your conclusion it's just an OPINION.


  #26   Report Post  
Old 28-05-2009, 10:34 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 110
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

FarmI wrote:
wrote in message

A google groups search revelas no previous posts from you. Perhaps you are
a sock puppet.

On Tue, 26 May 2009 12:48:56 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:


If, and I stress the 'if', you are really posting what Dr Schwarcz has
written to you, then his response to you is simply extraordinary.

Any scientist worth taking note of who responds to an email from a
stranger
and who using such sloppy thinking to write words like "These "organic"
people are paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view" they
think that some conspiracy is afoot. " and that they "could use a little
oil
for their mental machinery" is of questionable sense.

If he is a serious scientist, he would have been more temperate in his
language because he'd be used to the process of peer reviews and know
that
he'd have to justify everything he says.

I doubt that you emailed him at all or that he responded.


You have obviously never talked to a scientist.


Deliciously funny!

You go on to mention how people have never bothered to learn to think and
yet you conclude that I have never talked to a scientist. That is really
funny.

I would have thought that anyone who claims to be such a superior being that
they have not only learned to think, and possesses such an arrogance that
they choose to laugh at others as often as they can would have wondered how
it is that a poster, who has not otherwise engaged in this skirmish, would
have chosen to mention peer reviews.

I would have expected such a superior being to have hit on the implications
of "peer reviews" and wonder why it is that a poster who has otherwise not
engaged in the conversation until this time would have even known about
peer reviews.

A person who had learned to think should then have wondered, or perhaps even
asked, why the casual poster knew of peer reviews. You didn't.

A person who could think would came to a different conclusion than you did.

I doubt your claims to being a scientist. Or, at the very best, it must be
years since you had anything to do with academic research.

We come in all
stripes, just like most other professions. One thing we have in
common is a distain for those who never bothered to learn to think.


Yes. I too have such a disdain. You claim to think but your conclusions
are erroneous. That says you have limited capacity to think and reach a
logical conclusion.

Unfortunately that is more than 90% of even well educated people. That
trait makes us most unpopular at parties and family reunions. If you
really want to rile a scientist up, imply his or her work is tainted
by conflicts in funding sources that don't actually exist. I
certainly don't find the tone or language of Dr. Schwarcz' reply
unusual for a casual conversation. We laugh at you all the time.


I wouldn't find Dr Schwarz's reply unusual between intimates either, but I
do find his reply to be extremely odd when used, as claimed, in response to
an email from an unknown contact.

But then given that he is also a 'TV personality' then it is perhaps
possible that like others of that sort of person in north America then he
panders to the lowest common denominator in the interest of ratings because
it impacts on his earnings. Perhaps he is as intemperate and lacking in
concern for his professional reputation as you seem to think he is.


Your remarks about a peer review are comical.

You seem to dismiss all the comments about Dr. Schwarcz and my reply
from him as 'made up' stuff. Why should anyone on this forum believe
all the drivel that you and your crew post? None of you have probably
read Dr. Schwarcz's books, especially the one 'An Apple a Day' where
he gives his views on pesticides. You simply want to dismiss him out
of hand and pretend he doesn't exist, or I was not in email contact
with him, or the 'not' poster is not a scientist, or on and on. You
have presented no arguements that refute what Dr Schwarcz says in his
book, but I hope the other folks on this forum get a hold of it and
see what he has to say. Then there is Lilah who's only connection
with the outer world is via the web. She should try picking up a
book, once in a while.

Sherwin
  #27   Report Post  
Old 28-05-2009, 10:37 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 110
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"Lilah Morgan" wrote:

Ok thanks. I have enough TV shows to watch as is, that's why I like being
able to see stuff online.

"steven_nospam at Yahoo! Canada" wrote in message
...

For those unfamiliar or who did not follow from the beginning, Dr Joe
Schwarz is a noted professor that tries to make science more fun and
understandable for the average person.


The question is, does he have a conflict of intere$t that skews his
presentations?


The question is that you have so far not proven there are any
connections to show his office gets funding from chemical
companies.


  #28   Report Post  
Old 28-05-2009, 11:07 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2007
Posts: 101
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

"sherwin dubren" wrote in message
...
Your remarks about a peer review are comical.

You seem to dismiss all the comments about Dr. Schwarcz and my reply
from him as 'made up' stuff. Why should anyone on this forum believe
all the drivel that you and your crew post? None of you have probably
read Dr. Schwarcz's books, especially the one 'An Apple a Day' where
he gives his views on pesticides. You simply want to dismiss him out
of hand and pretend he doesn't exist, or I was not in email contact
with him, or the 'not' poster is not a scientist, or on and on. You
have presented no arguements that refute what Dr Schwarcz says in his
book, but I hope the other folks on this forum get a hold of it and
see what he has to say. Then there is Lilah who's only connection
with the outer world is via the web. She should try picking up a
book, once in a while.

Sherwin


You forgot to mention the TV. I have the internet *and* TV. And you have the
nerve to complain about other people's lack of facts...go figure.


  #29   Report Post  
Old 29-05-2009, 07:44 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,179
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

In article ,
"Lilah Morgan" wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
.us.easynews.com...
On Tue, 26 May 2009 21:56:40 -0500, wrote:

Good night and
good gardening to you all.


And to you, Kate.
Extremists of almost any ilk can be counterproductive.
I hope I'm not one of those, and I will remember your post as I
proselytize.

That said, I _will_ speak out against extremists of the agro-chemical
cabal without remorse and with little restraint. Disinformation is not
in any of our best interest.



The last sentence reminded me of a phrase, think Mark Twain is the source,
and it was something along the lines of "The man who reads nothing at all is
better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers".


Kate,
I think the quote that you are looking for is,
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the
newspaper you are misinformed." --Mark Twain

Either that or it was the quote from the documentary "Corporation",
People who don't watch television are better informed than those who
watch Fox News."

You call it extremism to refute lies and products that steal and kill. I
call it necessity. I guess most advertising lies about it's products,
but chemical fertilizers kill the very top soil that they need in order
to function. The less top soil, the more chemical fertilizers are
needed. They find their way to water ways and end up as dead zones off
the coast where free protein used to be found as fish and shell fish.
Chemical pesticides make food less nutritious by reducing flavonoids,
poisoning embryos and young children, killing beneficial insects, and
adding to the body burden of chemicals. Finally, chemical herbicides
attack both embryos and young children, and encourage monocultures where
even more pesticides are needed. When you deal with fools like Doo-Doo,
it is like talking to a fog horn. There is no rationale. There is no
thought. There is no empathy. And when you talk to the producers of
these poisons, there is only greed. The truth is that they haven't
erred. The truth is that they lied. If it is bad form to call a liar a
liar, then I have bad form indeed.

Another bottle for this lady, please.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En2TzBE0lp4

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html
  #30   Report Post  
Old 29-05-2009, 07:56 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,179
Default Dr. Schwarcz replies

In article ,
sherwin dubren wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"Lilah Morgan" wrote:

Ok thanks. I have enough TV shows to watch as is, that's why I like being
able to see stuff online.

"steven_nospam at Yahoo! Canada" wrote in message
...

For those unfamiliar or who did not follow from the beginning, Dr Joe
Schwarz is a noted professor that tries to make science more fun and
understandable for the average person.


The question is, does he have a conflict of intere$t that skews his
presentations?


The question is that you have so far not proven there are any
connections to show his office gets funding from chemical
companies.

Oh, STFU you addled ol' fool. You are an embarrassment to the phylum
chordata.

http://www.whybiotech.com/links/index.asp#10

Member Companies
€ BASF
€ Bayer CropScience
€ Dow AgroSciences LLC
€ DuPont
€ Monsanto Company
€ Syngenta

Research Institutions
Office of Chemistry and Society, McGill University (Canada)
-------
Are you blind as well?
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En2TzBE0lp4

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can't answer replies! Michelle Moreland Orlando Orchids 0 03-07-2005 09:44 AM
Dr Avery replies :-( [email protected] United Kingdom 17 24-05-2005 12:19 AM
Why won't my replies post? CS Freshwater Aquaria Plants 1 07-03-2004 08:02 AM
Why won't my replies post? CS Freshwater Aquaria Plants 0 05-03-2004 04:45 PM
thanks for replies Mac United Kingdom 0 11-09-2003 11:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017