Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Schwarcz replies
"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". |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Schwarcz replies
On Tue, 26 May 2009 20:43:25 -0700, Steve wrote:
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. Thanks, Steve. May your garden grow well. Kate |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Can't answer replies! | Orchids | |||
Dr Avery replies :-( | United Kingdom | |||
Why won't my replies post? | Freshwater Aquaria Plants | |||
Why won't my replies post? | Freshwater Aquaria Plants | |||
thanks for replies | United Kingdom |