"Hua Kul" wrote in message
m...
"James Curts" wrote in message
news:yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54...

While watching a person or family make
selections there are some obvious criteria used in the selection of
items
for the cart...Ignorance of
the consumer is not one of the criteria used for selection of a food
product.

Twenty short miles to the West of this area are the agricultural
communities which consist of a totally different culture. The Mexican
populace...purchase a quite different variety of food products
display the identical shopping criteria and again, ignorance is not one
of
them.

The Mexican folks, in general, have probably read nothing of the topics
we
are discussing. However, they do display the same common sense, if not
significantly influenced by financial shortcomings, shown by their
educated
and relatively wealthy counterparts from other parts of he world.


In your observations have you been able to draw any conclusions
regarding obviously different average health conditions of people in
these disparate cultures, who's food choices you have characterized as
"quite different" but seem to be implying are essentially equivalent?

--Hua Kul

My conclusions in part are that people from all walks of like select the
highest quality foods their financial situation and tastes will support.
This includes the crossing of cultural food lines and implementing different
generally healthy combinations into their diet.

The variations of this are generally around the area of selecting a more
bulky or filling item, pleasure items (sweets, etc.) and impulsive
selections which often do not fit the norm for them. Consumers falling into
this group are obviously trying to stretch the grocery budget. Visiting the
grocery store may be one of their more significant shopping activities
outside the home so the more frivolous items are found in the cart at the
check stands. Often an item is to appease a child, or even reward him but
the choice is made to please.

Of interest is the grueling a customer may give the clerk or helper in a
making a decision regarding a particular product. The lady buying $15
shishkabob will ask questions and point disparagingly in much the same
manner as the mom buying $1.79 burger. And, almost humorously, stand and nit
pick the cashier over items on the sales receipt.

I can not make ignorance fit into this scenario. Wealth or the lack of it,
human frailty or even utility of the moment perhaps. I believe people are
formally as well as informally well informed and deviate from using this
knowledge by choice or by circumstances.

To the question of health I see obesity as the one overriding difference in
any group of people. Less advantaged folks tend not to break from the
confines of social lineage and are generally in the more financially
suppressed portion of any given community.

I do not say this easily and certainly do not wish to offend anyone. I am
just stating what I observe.

These folks seem to be the most difficult to educate on health matters and
in our country we are witnessing a new generation with disproportionate
numbers of inactive obese children. Just as a smoker/drinker demands his
right to smoke/drink an obese person is highly offended when asked why they
continue to eat foods which contribute to their weight problem.

I will not continue on the obese issue but, sadly, I find them the one group
which are the most difficult to help and convince that diet aids and
training are indeed available. They are also the one group which, although
happenchance of birth and circumstances set the stage, will seldom willingly
move toward better ends. It is tough but in a high percentage of cases well
within their power to do so.

James Curts

"James Curts" wrote in message news:yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54...

I live in the Portland Oregon area...

Apparently Portlanders (Portlandites?) take their government
regulations quite seriously.

================================================== ======================
"The owners of some of the 16 or more dogs believed to have been
poisoned at Southeast Portland's Laurelhurst Park between July 3 and
July 9 think the poisoning is related to the city's controversy over
off-leash dogs.
And Sgt. Brian Schmautz, spokesman for the Portland Police Bureau,
says they may be right.
"Obviously, we won't know until we have a suspect and know what his
motive was," Schmautz said Wednesday. "But we've been hearing
anecdotally that many of these (affected) dogs were possibly off-leash
and that the substance may have been left in places, like bushes,
designed to target off-leash dogs."
Veterinarians who treated some of the dogs suspect that they were
poisoned with meat laced with the highly toxic herbicide paraquat.
Results of tests done on several of the eight dogs that have died so
far were not available at press time.
Paraquat, which is used for weed control, can be legally purchased
and sold in Oregon only by people or businesses with special licenses
from the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=19225
================================================== ==========================

It may not have been paraquat at all. Perhaps the dogs just stumbled
upon some unwashed organic produce. ~8^)

--Hua Kul

"Hua Kul" wrote in message
om...
"James Curts" wrote in message
news:yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54...

I live in the Portland Oregon area...

Apparently Portlanders (Portlandites?) take their government
regulations quite seriously.

================================================== ======================
"The owners of some of the 16 or more dogs believed to have been
poisoned at Southeast Portland's Laurelhurst Park between July 3 and
July 9 think the poisoning is related to the city's controversy over
off-leash dogs.
And Sgt. Brian Schmautz, spokesman for the Portland Police Bureau,
says they may be right.
"Obviously, we won't know until we have a suspect and know what his
motive was," Schmautz said Wednesday. "But we've been hearing
anecdotally that many of these (affected) dogs were possibly off-leash
and that the substance may have been left in places, like bushes,
designed to target off-leash dogs."
Veterinarians who treated some of the dogs suspect that they were
poisoned with meat laced with the highly toxic herbicide paraquat.
Results of tests done on several of the eight dogs that have died so
far were not available at press time.
Paraquat, which is used for weed control, can be legally purchased
and sold in Oregon only by people or businesses with special licenses
from the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=19225

================================================== ==========================

It may not have been paraquat at all. Perhaps the dogs just stumbled
upon some unwashed organic produce. ~8^)

--Hua Kul

Grin.........

I suppose since we don't have unpasteurized milk readily available in our
parks................

Of interest washing organic foods, which I highly recommend, did not
remove the chemicals which tests indicated they contained. Many of these
chemicals, just as in the instances of dirt grown vegetables, were within
the plant structure and could not be washed off. The only solutions are to
remove the items from the store shelves, which one major local grocery chain
did, or to advertise the product so strongly and favorably that customers
consumed the evidence.

James Curts

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:

Many of these
chemicals, just as in the instances of dirt grown vegetables, were within
the plant structure and could not be washed off. The only solutions are to
remove the items from the store shelves, which one major local grocery chain
did, or to advertise the product so strongly and favorably that customers
consumed the evidence.

The threat of food poisoning from aldicarb residues in American
hydroponically grown cucumbers comes to mind as one example that
residues of toxic chemicals within the plant structure cannot be
washed off. Indeed such aldicarb-soaked hydroponically grown
cucumbers would had been better removed from the shelves -- before
unknowing customers ate them and got sick. However, hydroponically
grown produce should from what I've heard generally have -lower-
residues than conventionally dirt-grown, and the residues would not
very often exceed maximum recommended levels, and not frequently lead
to clinical poisoning.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:

Many of these
chemicals, just as in the instances of dirt grown vegetables, were within
the plant structure and could not be washed off. The only solutions are
to
remove the items from the store shelves, which one major local grocery
chain
did, or to advertise the product so strongly and favorably that customers
consumed the evidence.

The threat of food poisoning from aldicarb residues in American
hydroponically grown cucumbers comes to mind as one example that
residues of toxic chemicals within the plant structure cannot be
washed off. Indeed such aldicarb-soaked hydroponically grown
cucumbers would had been better removed from the shelves -- before
unknowing customers ate them and got sick. However, hydroponically
grown produce should from what I've heard generally have -lower-
residues than conventionally dirt-grown, and the residues would not
very often exceed maximum recommended levels, and not frequently lead
to clinical poisoning.

The first portion of your message is factual while the insinuation at the
end is unfounded and unnecessary.

Aldicarb (trade name Temik) is a granular pesticide registered
since 1970. It is used to control insects, mites, and nematodes on
bananas, cotton, citrus, dry beans, grain sorghum, ornamentals,
pecans, peanuts, potatoes, seed alfalfa, soybeans, sugar beets,
sugarcane, sweet potatoes, and tobacco. Additionally, there are
tolerances established for residues of aldicarb on imported bananas
and coffee beans. Rhone-Poulenc is the sole registrant of
aldicarb. It is restricted to use by certified applicators only.

Aldicarb was never licensed or intended for use on water melons or
cucumbers. The use on the cucumbers you mentioned was illegal and while a
fact was not discovered and isolated to prevent the illness and
hospitalization of consumers until after the fact.

The EPA was immediately on top of this and was grateful that Rhone-Poulenc
immediately pulled the product and compensated the growers for the
purchases.

Conventional hydroponic produce, unfortunately and for news fodder, is
lumped together with produce obtained by introducing "organic" additives
into the nutrient supply. The cucumbers in question were from an "organic"
hydroponics grower whose crop was infested almost beyond redemption
practices by insects, mites, etc. and the chemical was applied in much
higher amounts than was necessary.

Normal hydroponic practice is to create an environment in the greenhouse
which supports beneficial insects and organisms to combat these unwanted
infestations. Chemical additives are seldom even considered or necessary and
in today's well overseen actions nothing harmful is ever used in the serious
commercial operation.

What you've "heard" is of no import and in simple form has no foundation
other than to imply a familiarity you do not possess with the topic.

A serious study of hydroponics growing practices as we find in the US,
Australia, Israel, etc. shows a conscientious approach to food production
not found in dirt or supposed "organic" systems.

To clarify a small point, organic growing practices in true form are the
ideal food growing method and produce healthy, nutritious and wholesome
food. In reality and from a commercial standpoint it cannot compete with
conventional dirt farming in the market place. From the same standpoint it
cannot compete with standard hydroponics without cheating. Cheating means
using the large hidden barrels of chemicals and the sprayers after hours, as
one example.

"Organics" being no more than a marketing ploy in today's market place is
hard pressed to maintain a market share due to the added cost of production
and the subsequent higher price to the consumer. As mentioned earlier, the
production standards and supply guarantees have caused the removal of
"organic" fresh produce from the shelves of a major chain of grocery stores
in our area and without customer complaint.

The statement containing: "heard generally have -lower-
residues than conventionally dirt-grown, and the residues would not very
often exceed maximum recommended levels, and not frequently lead to clinical
poisoning." is ambiguous, cheap and insinuating reporting at best.
Hydroponics is not in question and conversations with the folks world wide
who produce and use these products are proud of what has been accomplished.

James Curts

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 00:46:34 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:

Many of these
chemicals, just as in the instances of dirt grown vegetables, were within
the plant structure and could not be washed off. The only solutions are
to
remove the items from the store shelves, which one major local grocery
chain
did, or to advertise the product so strongly and favorably that customers
consumed the evidence.

The threat of food poisoning from aldicarb residues in American
hydroponically grown cucumbers comes to mind as one example that
residues of toxic chemicals within the plant structure cannot be
washed off. Indeed such aldicarb-soaked hydroponically grown
cucumbers would had been better removed from the shelves -- before
unknowing customers ate them and got sick. However, hydroponically
grown produce should from what I've heard generally have -lower-
residues than conventionally dirt-grown, and the residues would not
very often exceed maximum recommended levels, and not frequently lead
to clinical poisoning.

The first portion of your message is factual while the insinuation at the
end is unfounded and unnecessary.

Aldicarb (trade name Temik) is a granular pesticide registered
since 1970. It is used to control insects, mites, and nematodes on
bananas, cotton, citrus, dry beans, grain sorghum, ornamentals,
pecans, peanuts, potatoes, seed alfalfa, soybeans, sugar beets,
sugarcane, sweet potatoes, and tobacco. Additionally, there are
tolerances established for residues of aldicarb on imported bananas
and coffee beans. Rhone-Poulenc is the sole registrant of
aldicarb. It is restricted to use by certified applicators only.

Aldicarb was never licensed or intended for use on water melons or
cucumbers. The use on the cucumbers you mentioned was illegal and while a
fact was not discovered and isolated to prevent the illness and
hospitalization of consumers until after the fact.

The EPA was immediately on top of this and was grateful that Rhone-Poulenc
immediately pulled the product and compensated the growers for the
purchases.

Conventional hydroponic produce, unfortunately and for news fodder, is
lumped together with produce obtained by introducing "organic" additives
into the nutrient supply. The cucumbers in question were from an "organic"
hydroponics grower whose crop was infested almost beyond redemption
practices by insects, mites, etc. and the chemical was applied in much
higher amounts than was necessary.

Normal hydroponic practice is to create an environment in the greenhouse
which supports beneficial insects and organisms to combat these unwanted
infestations. Chemical additives are seldom even considered or necessary and
in today's well overseen actions nothing harmful is ever used in the serious
commercial operation.

What you've "heard" is of no import and in simple form has no foundation
other than to imply a familiarity you do not possess with the topic.

A serious study of hydroponics growing practices as we find in the US,
Australia, Israel, etc. shows a conscientious approach to food production
not found in dirt or supposed "organic" systems.

To clarify a small point, organic growing practices in true form are the
ideal food growing method and produce healthy, nutritious and wholesome
food. In reality and from a commercial standpoint it cannot compete with
conventional dirt farming in the market place. From the same standpoint it
cannot compete with standard hydroponics without cheating. Cheating means
using the large hidden barrels of chemicals and the sprayers after hours, as
one example.

Cheating can be unwitting. For instance, farmer A farms organically
(so he thinks, along with the trade regulator) farmer B applies all
the replacement nutrients to his land (synthetic nitrogen, potassium
and phosphorus salts, and any trace element salts required) and sells
organic matter to farmer A who fertilises his land with this OM.
Now he doesn't think that he is indirectly using artificial ferts to
his land, but what do you think?

"Organics" being no more than a marketing ploy in today's market place is
hard pressed to maintain a market share due to the added cost of production
and the subsequent higher price to the consumer. As mentioned earlier, the
production standards and supply guarantees have caused the removal of
"organic" fresh produce from the shelves of a major chain of grocery stores
in our area and without customer complaint.

The statement containing: "heard generally have -lower-
residues than conventionally dirt-grown, and the residues would not very
often exceed maximum recommended levels, and not frequently lead to clinical
poisoning." is ambiguous, cheap and insinuating reporting at best.
Hydroponics is not in question and conversations with the folks world wide
who produce and use these products are proud of what has been accomplished.

James Curts

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:

Of interest washing organic foods, which I highly recommend, did not
remove the chemicals which tests indicated they contained. Many of these
chemicals, just as in the instances of dirt grown vegetables, were within
the plant structure and could not be washed off. The only solutions are to
remove the items from the store shelves, which one major local grocery chain
did, or to advertise the product so strongly and favorably that customers
consumed the evidence.

All produce contains many toxins. Below the safe threshold as well.
You really should have a read of EXTOXNET and bookmark it for future
reference. Not all pesticides are the same.

http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html

On 19 Jul 2003 10:36:49 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:

"James Curts" wrote in message news:yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54...

I live in the Portland Oregon area...

Apparently Portlanders (Portlandites?) take their government
regulations quite seriously.

================================================= =======================
"The owners of some of the 16 or more dogs believed to have been
poisoned at Southeast Portland's Laurelhurst Park between July 3 and
July 9 think the poisoning is related to the city's controversy over
off-leash dogs.
And Sgt. Brian Schmautz, spokesman for the Portland Police Bureau,
says they may be right.
"Obviously, we won't know until we have a suspect and know what his
motive was," Schmautz said Wednesday. "But we've been hearing
anecdotally that many of these (affected) dogs were possibly off-leash
and that the substance may have been left in places, like bushes,
designed to target off-leash dogs."
Veterinarians who treated some of the dogs suspect that they were
poisoned with meat laced with the highly toxic herbicide paraquat.
Results of tests done on several of the eight dogs that have died so
far were not available at press time.
Paraquat, which is used for weed control, can be legally purchased
and sold in Oregon only by people or businesses with special licenses
from the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=19225
================================================= ===========================

It may not have been paraquat at all. Perhaps the dogs just stumbled
upon some unwashed organic produce. ~8^)

Another ignorant "pesticides are all the same" advocate who needs to
go to EXTOXNET for a read.

http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:28:35 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:


"Hua Kul" wrote in message
om...
"James Curts" wrote in message
news:yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54...

While watching a person or family make
selections there are some obvious criteria used in the selection of
items
for the cart...Ignorance of
the consumer is not one of the criteria used for selection of a food
product.

Twenty short miles to the West of this area are the agricultural
communities which consist of a totally different culture. The Mexican
populace...purchase a quite different variety of food products
display the identical shopping criteria and again, ignorance is not one
of
them.

The Mexican folks, in general, have probably read nothing of the topics
we
are discussing. However, they do display the same common sense, if not
significantly influenced by financial shortcomings, shown by their
educated
and relatively wealthy counterparts from other parts of he world.


In your observations have you been able to draw any conclusions
regarding obviously different average health conditions of people in
these disparate cultures, who's food choices you have characterized as
"quite different" but seem to be implying are essentially equivalent?

--Hua Kul

My conclusions in part are that people from all walks of like select the
highest quality foods their financial situation and tastes will support.

Except in America and Australia. Just look at a few supermarket
trollies.

This includes the crossing of cultural food lines and implementing different
generally healthy combinations into their diet.

The variations of this are generally around the area of selecting a more
bulky or filling item, pleasure items (sweets, etc.) and impulsive
selections which often do not fit the norm for them. Consumers falling into
this group are obviously trying to stretch the grocery budget. Visiting the
grocery store may be one of their more significant shopping activities
outside the home so the more frivolous items are found in the cart at the
check stands. Often an item is to appease a child, or even reward him but
the choice is made to please.

Of interest is the grueling a customer may give the clerk or helper in a
making a decision regarding a particular product. The lady buying $15
shishkabob will ask questions and point disparagingly in much the same
manner as the mom buying $1.79 burger. And, almost humorously, stand and nit
pick the cashier over items on the sales receipt.

I can not make ignorance fit into this scenario. Wealth or the lack of it,
human frailty or even utility of the moment perhaps. I believe people are
formally as well as informally well informed and deviate from using this
knowledge by choice or by circumstances.

To the question of health I see obesity as the one overriding difference in
any group of people. Less advantaged folks tend not to break from the
confines of social lineage and are generally in the more financially
suppressed portion of any given community.

My bil and his American wife, are retired in Oz, but lived in US for
20 years on a salary package of 250k. They are as fat as pigs, both
had heart surgery, and refuse to curb the good life. None of the rest
of the family are so.

I do not say this easily and certainly do not wish to offend anyone. I am
just stating what I observe.

These folks seem to be the most difficult to educate on health matters and
in our country we are witnessing a new generation with disproportionate
numbers of inactive obese children. Just as a smoker/drinker demands his
right to smoke/drink an obese person is highly offended when asked why they
continue to eat foods which contribute to their weight problem.

But you are ignoring the fact that many of them have diets now that
DON'T contribute to their health problems. As I have said before, a
fat person who eats a eucaloric, healthy diet, won't lose weight.

I will not continue on the obese issue but, sadly, I find them the one group
which are the most difficult to help and convince that diet aids and
training are indeed available. They are also the one group which, although
happenchance of birth and circumstances set the stage, will seldom willingly
move toward better ends. It is tough but in a high percentage of cases well
within their power to do so.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:32:57 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:38:37 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:16:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:
Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs and their
blood
transfusion ban, ferinstance.


given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis and possibly
nvCJD
from blood transfusions, this isn't all that silly.

Yep, in some countries, today. But 30 years ago, these weren't a
problem but the JWs still objected. They quote some ambiguous
anti-canibalism passage from the Bible.

being right for the wrong reasons is still being right :-)

Damages the mind, as the skeptics will tell you

being right damages the humility

Not mine. I know no different

being right for the wrong reasons ensures that this will be less of a
problem :-)

I can remember as a kid getting the right answer to a math exam
question by using the unapproved method, and being marked wrong.
Scarred me for life

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:19:01 +0100, Oz
wrote:


Because it's dominant in animals and third world countries.
Bacteria are a continual challenge.
Viruses are only successful when they find an immunologically naive
organism, which is quite hard without movement between distant
populations.

Yep, I follow that, thanks. Modern hygiene is cutting out so many
subclinical bacterial challenges.

Sorry, how do you know bacterial challenge was dominant over these
years? There is lots of vestigial organelle evidence for viral
invasions over the aeons.

I never said viruses didn't exist. They did and do. I said for most wild
populations bacteria offer a continual challenge, not viruses which tend
to be rare and sporadic.

Hokay, Thanks.

And I'd assumed it was ever thus. I would guess that antibiotics have
had close to zero effect on bacteria. Do you know of any that have
gone extinct?

The main human pathogens (ie they make people very ill) are very rare.
Remember that before antibiotics hospitals were predominantly filled
with bacterially infected people. The 'fever wards'.

I'm not sure. I can name smallpox, influenza, poliomyelitis, measles,
yellow fever, dengue fever, HIV, herpes, hepatitis A,B,C,D,E,F,G,
rabies, psittacosis, mumps, many gastrointestinal infections,
mononucleosis, and many other "fevers" and so on. Not sure of the
numbers though. You may be right

Yes, but I probably get mild bacterial infections of the gut every
couple of weeks, and for sure when walking and working in cow slurry I
must be getting a substantial bacterial challenge. Remember that a
challenge that is 'dealt with' is still a challenge and the immune
response is triggered even if no serious (or even observable) illness
results.

Of course. Same with viri

Indeed, however most viruses are highly species-specific, most bacteria
are not. ECO157 can happily move from cow to person whilst BVD cannot.
So typically bacteria get a bit of a permanent toehold moving between
species whilst viruses typically exist at very low level in an
immunologically resistant population and only get to attack each
individual once.

Tell that to shingles sufferers and my herpes simplex and flu and
colds
But I hear what you say, thanks.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 00:46:34 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:

Many of these
chemicals, just as in the instances of dirt grown vegetables, were within
the plant structure and could not be washed off. The only solutions are
to
remove the items from the store shelves, which one major local grocery
chain
did, or to advertise the product so strongly and favorably that customers
consumed the evidence.

The threat of food poisoning from aldicarb residues in American
hydroponically grown cucumbers comes to mind as one example that
residues of toxic chemicals within the plant structure cannot be
washed off. Indeed such aldicarb-soaked hydroponically grown
cucumbers would had been better removed from the shelves -- before
unknowing customers ate them and got sick. However, hydroponically
grown produce should from what I've heard generally have -lower-
residues than conventionally dirt-grown, and the residues would not
very often exceed maximum recommended levels, and not frequently lead
to clinical poisoning.

The first portion of your message is factual while the insinuation at the
end is unfounded and unnecessary.

But, there is no insinuation at the end. It is all factual.

Aldicarb (trade name Temik) is a granular pesticide registered
since 1970. It is used to control insects, mites, and nematodes on
bananas, cotton, citrus, dry beans, grain sorghum, ornamentals,
pecans, peanuts, potatoes, seed alfalfa, soybeans, sugar beets,
sugarcane, sweet potatoes, and tobacco. Additionally, there are
tolerances established for residues of aldicarb on imported bananas

You are using an outdated source of information. There are no
tolerances for aldicarb in bananas, they were revoked many years ago
when Rhone Poulenc withdrew support for aldicarb use on banana
due to concerns of residues above tolerances resulting from such use.

and coffee beans.
Rhone-Poulenc is the sole registrant of
aldicarb. It is restricted to use by certified applicators only.

Aldicarb was never licensed or intended for use on water melons or
cucumbers. The use on the cucumbers you mentioned was illegal and while a
fact was not discovered and isolated to prevent the illness and
hospitalization of consumers until after the fact.

I know all that. Still, food poisoning with aldicarb from
hydroponically grown cucumbers did happen, and on more than one
occasion.

The EPA was immediately on top of this and was grateful that Rhone-Poulenc
immediately pulled the product and compensated the growers for the
purchases.

I think you have gotten the unfortunate cucumber cases mixed up with
the unfortunate cases of aldicarb residues in potatoes above
tolerances. However, those potatoes were conventionally dirt grown,
not grown in a hydroponic system.

Conventional hydroponic produce, unfortunately and for news fodder, is
lumped together with produce obtained by introducing "organic" additives
into the nutrient supply. The cucumbers in question were from an "organic"
hydroponics grower whose crop was infested almost beyond redemption
practices by insects, mites, etc. and the chemical was applied in much
higher amounts than was necessary.

Well, obviously doses were unusually high or people wouldn't have got
sick. According to WHO data I've seen the investigators of one of
these cases found 1.8 mg/l in the water used in the hydroponic system,
and 0.6 mg/kg in the gravel used. Residues found in the cucumbers were
between 0.7 and 6.6 mg/kg.

Normal hydroponic practice is to create an environment in the greenhouse
which supports beneficial insects and organisms to combat these unwanted
infestations. Chemical additives are seldom even considered or necessary and
in today's well overseen actions nothing harmful is ever used in the serious
commercial operation.

So, hydroponic produce generally would have lower pesticide residues
than conventionally dirt-grown. Just as I said.

What you've "heard" is of no import and in simple form has no foundation
other than to imply a familiarity you do not possess with the topic.

Nonsense. I am referring that what I hear from you and other
hydroponic proponents: that hydroponic produce generally have lower
residues than conventionally dirt-grown.

A serious study of hydroponics growing practices as we find in the US,
Australia, Israel, etc. shows a conscientious approach to food production
not found in dirt or supposed "organic" systems.

But, you have no serious study to back up this extreme claim, right?

To clarify a small point, organic growing practices in true form are the
ideal food growing method and produce healthy, nutritious and wholesome
food.

Indeed. If you want minimal pesticide residues in your produce, you
should certainly consider getting it from organic systems.

In reality and from a commercial standpoint it cannot compete with
conventional dirt farming in the market place.

Not clear what you mean by this. Organic farming does not cater
for the same market as conventional.

From the same standpoint it
cannot compete with standard hydroponics without cheating.

Same comment, the standpoint is invalid, since organic
farming caters for a distinct market for organic food, which
hydroponic and conventional geoponic simply do not produce.

snip tiresome repetitions

Cheating can be unwitting. For instance, farmer A farms organically
(so he thinks, along with the trade regulator) farmer B applies all
the replacement nutrients to his land (synthetic nitrogen, potassium
and phosphorus salts, and any trace element salts required) and sells
organic matter to farmer A who fertilises his land with this OM.
Now he doesn't think that he is indirectly using artificial ferts to
his land, but what do you think?


The cheating to which I refer involves the deliberate circumvention of the
intent of "organic" guidelines by growers. Sadly most of these guidelines
are very thinly veiled and of little use except to mislead the consumer.
When reading the "organic" label he would like to believe he can be
assurance the product is of more wholesome quality and free of pesticides as
is insinuated by the vagueness of the guidelines. Not true on today's store
shelves.

An instance we watched in this area was the labeling of packaged lettuce
from the Salinas California area that was one day normal lettuce and the
next day had the big bold "organic" label on it. Strange that a crop could
change it's content overnight. Not so strange is the fact that it did not
fly and is no longer stocked as organic. I believe the consumers are
starting to become even more aware of what goes on before food products hit
the shelves.

James Curts

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:09:07 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote:


Cheating can be unwitting. For instance, farmer A farms organically
(so he thinks, along with the trade regulator) farmer B applies all
the replacement nutrients to his land (synthetic nitrogen, potassium
and phosphorus salts, and any trace element salts required) and sells
organic matter to farmer A who fertilises his land with this OM.
Now he doesn't think that he is indirectly using artificial ferts to
his land, but what do you think?


The cheating to which I refer involves the deliberate circumvention of the
intent of "organic" guidelines by growers.

I understand, but I was merely trying to show that this small amount
of "cheating" is accompanied by a much larger form of unwitting
"cheating".

Sadly most of these guidelines
are very thinly veiled and of little use except to mislead the consumer.

That's the effect, I believe, but I'm not sure it is the intent of
obssessed organic growers. They are self-deluded to believe they are
doing the best for everyone concerned, in my experience.

When reading the "organic" label he would like to believe he can be
assurance the product is of more wholesome quality and free of pesticides as
is insinuated by the vagueness of the guidelines. Not true on today's store
shelves.

This sadly seems to be the case.

An instance we watched in this area was the labeling of packaged lettuce
from the Salinas California area that was one day normal lettuce and the
next day had the big bold "organic" label on it. Strange that a crop could
change it's content overnight. Not so strange is the fact that it did not
fly and is no longer stocked as organic. I believe the consumers are
starting to become even more aware of what goes on before food products hit
the shelves.

In Australia, one of the biggest beef raising areas in the World, in
Queensland, is "organic" and has been for a hundred years. Not that
they do anything out of the normal practice here, it just naturally
fits into organic guidelines. Very popular in Japan.