"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:16:03 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .


Oh, so it's not THAT carcinogenic then? Just a little bit perhaps?

Yes, that is correct in the sense that there is very little of the
chemical
present.
The point is that after treatment with a typical "medication", there is
even
less of the "medicine" left.

There's even less if you don't use any 'medication' ( whatever that
may be? ) in the first place.

The predominant effect, even though still negligible, is from the
carcinogen
inherently in the lettuce.

If it's negligable, why raise the issue at all?


Because the organic weenies make a *huge* song and dance about the supposed
carcinogenic properties of certain chemicals, whereas the stuff they
actually eat (and are worried about contaminating!) can be 50x or so *more*
carcinogenic than the chemical they are making the song and dance about!
True, both are in reality probably negligible*, which leads to two
questions, "so why do the organic weenies make such a song and dance about
it"? And " but if the weenies are so concerned about deadly chemicals why do
they eat something far more damgerous?"

--
Tumbleweed

*In fact they may even be zero, since there is a serious issue with the
basic testing process used,

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
.. .

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:16:03 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .


Oh, so it's not THAT carcinogenic then? Just a little bit perhaps?

Yes, that is correct in the sense that there is very little of the
chemical
present.
The point is that after treatment with a typical "medication", there is
even
less of the "medicine" left.

There's even less if you don't use any 'medication' ( whatever that
may be? ) in the first place.

The predominant effect, even though still negligible, is from the
carcinogen
inherently in the lettuce.

If it's negligable, why raise the issue at all?


Because the organic weenies make a *huge* song and dance about the
supposed
carcinogenic properties of certain chemicals, whereas the stuff they
actually eat (and are worried about contaminating!) can be 50x or so
*more*
carcinogenic than the chemical they are making the song and dance about!
True, both are in reality probably negligible*, which leads to two
questions, "so why do the organic weenies make such a song and dance about
it"? And " but if the weenies are so concerned about deadly chemicals why
do
they eat something far more damgerous?"

This has been raised umpteen times, and it has remained unanswered an equal
number of times.

Franz

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:10:47 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .

If it's negligable, why raise the issue at all?


Because the organic weenies make a *huge* song and dance about the supposed
carcinogenic properties of certain chemicals, whereas the stuff they
actually eat (and are worried about contaminating!) can be 50x or so *more*
carcinogenic than the chemical they are making the song and dance about!
True, both are in reality probably negligible*, which leads to two
questions, "so why do the organic weenies make such a song and dance about
it"?

It largely boils down to a lack of confidence in those who produce the
chemicals - without the lobbying of an alternative standpoint one
wonders what we'd now be putting on our veg.
I don't suppose that the recent withdrawal of a large number of
agricultural chemicals from the market came about through the efforts
of the manufacturers.

And " but if the weenies are so concerned about deadly chemicals why do
they eat something far more damgerous?"

If they eat things that are that dangerous then it would be folly to
add to that danger.
And, of course, people have been eating such produce for thousands of
years - I'd think that by now the empirical data alone would suggest
that a diet of fruit and veg isn't going to send you to an early
grave.
As regards synthetic compounds, how can we tell what the long term
effect will be when we they haven't actually been around for that
long?

*In fact they may even be zero, since there is a serious issue with the
basic testing process used

Oh right, so even the basic testing procedure is flawed.
I wonder what else they haven't got right.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

In message , Stephen Howard
writes
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:10:47 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
. ..

If it's negligable, why raise the issue at all?


Because the organic weenies make a *huge* song and dance about the supposed
carcinogenic properties of certain chemicals, whereas the stuff they
actually eat (and are worried about contaminating!) can be 50x or so *more*
carcinogenic than the chemical they are making the song and dance about!
True, both are in reality probably negligible*, which leads to two
questions, "so why do the organic weenies make such a song and dance about
it"?

It largely boils down to a lack of confidence in those who produce the
chemicals - without the lobbying of an alternative standpoint one
wonders what we'd now be putting on our veg.

You would do better to worry about fruit trees and peeling your fruit.
There is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that certain regions with
heavy fruit growing like apples in Belgium have abnormally higher cancer
rates.

I don't suppose that the recent withdrawal of a large number of
agricultural chemicals from the market came about through the efforts
of the manufacturers.

More likely due to studies by MAFF and its ilk.

And " but if the weenies are so concerned about deadly chemicals why do
they eat something far more damgerous?"

If they eat things that are that dangerous then it would be folly to
add to that danger.

Sometimes the additives significantly *decrease* the risk from an
intrinsically dangerous product. Preservative (chemical) free peanut
butter being a good example where extremely toxic natural fungi can
flourish if you fail to store it exactly right (and even that just
delays the onset).

Same sort of problem for herbs in oil. Without exactly the right pH
there is a very good chance of bacterial growth forming the natural
deadly botulinum toxin.

The threat from the "nasty synthetic" chemical additives in these
instances is negligible compared with the absolutely lethal consequences
of the natural toxin.

Natural does not mean safe. There are plenty of very nasty natural
pathogens and chemical defences. Nature is red in tooth and claw.

And, of course, people have been eating such produce for thousands of
years - I'd think that by now the empirical data alone would suggest
that a diet of fruit and veg isn't going to send you to an early
grave.

Not necessarily. Plenty of things are eaten that are marginally safe.
Bamboo, bracken and Fugu (puffer fish) being among the more extreme.
Soya bean is pretty much on the edge too since it is heavily loaded with
natural oestrogen mimics but they seem only to mess up rodent
reproduction.

As regards synthetic compounds, how can we tell what the long term
effect will be when we they haven't actually been around for that
long?

You can't necessarily but then it is no different to all the other
natural chemicals that are out there. At least modern synthetics are
tested for toxicity and other risks. Natural celery has been
accidentally bred that gave all the pickers serious contact dermatitis.

*In fact they may even be zero, since there is a serious issue with the
basic testing process used

Oh right, so even the basic testing procedure is flawed.
I wonder what else they haven't got right.

I reckon we should deprive the weenies of every synthetic chemical for a
week or two and see how they get on. That means no car, refined oil,
plastics, metals, glass, batteries, antiseptics, antibiotics.

Welcome to the stone age...

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

In article , Franz Heymann
writes
This has been raised umpteen times, and it has remained unanswered an equal
number of times.

Good point Franz. It contrasts oddly with yesterday's announcement that
sales of organic food produce in UK have reached record levels of over
£1 billion and are still rising.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes
This has been raised umpteen times, and it has remained unanswered an
equal
number of times.

Good point Franz. It contrasts oddly with yesterday's announcement that
sales of organic food produce in UK have reached record levels of over
£1 billion and are still rising.

Alan, fashion and scientific merit have little in common.
{:-))

Franz

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 20:58:29 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes
This has been raised umpteen times, and it has remained unanswered an
equal
number of times.

Good point Franz. It contrasts oddly with yesterday's announcement =
that
sales of organic food produce in UK have reached record levels of over
=A31 billion and are still rising.

Alan, fashion and scientific merit have little in common.
{:-))

Buy CuSO4 shares?
--=20
Martin

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:32:43 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

In message , Stephen Howard
writes

It largely boils down to a lack of confidence in those who produce the
chemicals - without the lobbying of an alternative standpoint one
wonders what we'd now be putting on our veg.

You would do better to worry about fruit trees and peeling your fruit.
There is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that certain regions with
heavy fruit growing like apples in Belgium have abnormally higher cancer
rates.

Which proves what? That a balanced diet is better for you.

I don't suppose that the recent withdrawal of a large number of
agricultural chemicals from the market came about through the efforts
of the manufacturers.

More likely due to studies by MAFF and its ilk.

And who puts pressure on them? Not the agrochem companies, that's for
sure.

And " but if the weenies are so concerned about deadly chemicals why do
they eat something far more damgerous?"

If they eat things that are that dangerous then it would be folly to
add to that danger.

Sometimes the additives significantly *decrease* the risk from an
intrinsically dangerous product. Preservative (chemical) free peanut
butter being a good example where extremely toxic natural fungi can
flourish if you fail to store it exactly right (and even that just
delays the onset).

Same sort of problem for herbs in oil. Without exactly the right pH
there is a very good chance of bacterial growth forming the natural
deadly botulinum toxin.

The threat from the "nasty synthetic" chemical additives in these
instances is negligible compared with the absolutely lethal consequences
of the natural toxin.

Oh, I agree - and to some extent that's the price you pay for
converting certain kinds of foods that used to be knocked up 'as and
when' into convenience foods.
No-one keeps a fresh mayo knocking about for very long.

Natural does not mean safe. There are plenty of very nasty natural
pathogens and chemical defences. Nature is red in tooth and claw.

That's a fact that most organic gardeners are well aware of.

And, of course, people have been eating such produce for thousands of
years - I'd think that by now the empirical data alone would suggest
that a diet of fruit and veg isn't going to send you to an early
grave.

Not necessarily. Plenty of things are eaten that are marginally safe.
Bamboo, bracken and Fugu (puffer fish) being among the more extreme.

Most of it's down to the prep - most people know you have to boil red
kidney beans, avoid green potatoes, don't eat Blewits raw etc etc.

Soya bean is pretty much on the edge too since it is heavily loaded with
natural oestrogen mimics but they seem only to mess up rodent
reproduction.

Agreed again, I've read there are concerns about the use of soya
products in children's foods in particular.

As regards synthetic compounds, how can we tell what the long term
effect will be when we they haven't actually been around for that
long?

You can't necessarily but then it is no different to all the other
natural chemicals that are out there. At least modern synthetics are
tested for toxicity and other risks. Natural celery has been
accidentally bred that gave all the pickers serious contact dermatitis.

Everyone's gonna make mistakes, the question you have to ask is who's
going to make the biggest mistake? Are we worried about toxic celery?
No. Are we worried about PCBs? Yeah.

*In fact they may even be zero, since there is a serious issue with the
basic testing process used

Oh right, so even the basic testing procedure is flawed.
I wonder what else they haven't got right.

I reckon we should deprive the weenies of every synthetic chemical for a
week or two and see how they get on. That means no car, refined oil,
plastics, metals, glass, batteries, antiseptics, antibiotics.

So being concerned about the environment means you have to walk about
in sackcloth? Making decisions about what you eat and where it comes
from means living in a hut?

And don't you think there's room for improvement in your 'brave new
world'?
Take, for example, the Gov's policy of setting a lower rate vehicle
licence for smaller engines.
I inherited a Beetle a couple of years ago - 1200cc. Because it has a
dinky engine I pay half the licence fee. And yet my old Cavalier at
1800cc does half as much again in MPG, burns considerably less oil,
and is a far safer vehicle all round...and I pay the full licence on
it. Now that's not joined-up thinking.

There's always room for improvement - and there will always be a large
group of people who are going to question the corporate line.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

Alan, fashion and scientific merit have little in common.
{:-))

Franz

Quite so. In fact the question put by Tumbleweed has been discussed at
length many times over the years in this group. Relevant details can be
found in the urg FAQ on organic gardening at:

http://www.nugget.demon.co.uk/MetaFA...gardening.html
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In message , Stephen Howard
writes
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:32:43 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

Natural does not mean safe. There are plenty of very nasty natural
pathogens and chemical defences. Nature is red in tooth and claw.

That's a fact that most organic gardeners are well aware of.

Some Organic gardeners may be aware of it. Though I have met plenty who
are not and live in a pretend Disneyfied world where nature is always
benign and "chemicals" are always bad.

The Organic(TM) logo used to market produce to the worried well in
supermarkets is nothing more than a clever marketing ploy. Minimum
inputs agriculture makes very good sense but using absolutely no
synthetic chemicals is a total nonsense (in fact they do use chemicals
but only those approved by the Soil Association on purely arbitrary
grounds).

But for as long as there is a false dichotomy between the two extremes
of "no chemicals" and "maximum yield" strategies there will be no
progress

No. Are we worried about PCBs? Yeah.

Definitely PCBs are seriously bad.

Dioxins get a worse press than they deserve and only some of them are
really very nasty. They do occur naturally by fungal action (as well as
in forest fires). I guess having a short name did them no favours.

I reckon we should deprive the weenies of every synthetic chemical for a
week or two and see how they get on. That means no car, refined oil,
plastics, metals, glass, batteries, antiseptics, antibiotics.

So being concerned about the environment means you have to walk about
in sackcloth? Making decisions about what you eat and where it comes
from means living in a hut?

Potable drinking water is another very tricky example. Without the right
water treatment there would be all sorts of bad stuff living in the
pipes.

And don't you think there's room for improvement in your 'brave new
world'?

I don't think an irrational fear of synthetic chemicals does anything to
help the situation. It is still worse that supermarkets exploit the
public fear of "chemicals" to sell vastly overpriced Organic(TM) produce
that has been flown half way round the world to satisfy this faddish
demand.

I do support local organic producers and I grow my own produce with
almost no chemicals (ornamental plants get different treatment).

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:51:08 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

In message , Stephen Howard
writes
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:32:43 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

Natural does not mean safe. There are plenty of very nasty natural
pathogens and chemical defences. Nature is red in tooth and claw.

That's a fact that most organic gardeners are well aware of.

Some Organic gardeners may be aware of it. Though I have met plenty who
are not and live in a pretend Disneyfied world where nature is always
benign and "chemicals" are always bad.

Ah yes, we've all met a few cuckoos on both sides of the debate - I
think there's often a risk of some people adopting the "art for art's
sake" approach.
The 'taste test' is one that's regularly wheeled out in favour of
organic produce - and to some degree it hold true, though the reason
is far more likely to be down to the comparative freshness of the
produce. Neither side is a stranger to being sneaky.

The Organic(TM) logo used to market produce to the worried well in
supermarkets is nothing more than a clever marketing ploy. Minimum
inputs agriculture makes very good sense but using absolutely no
synthetic chemicals is a total nonsense (in fact they do use chemicals
but only those approved by the Soil Association on purely arbitrary
grounds).

I don't agree that using no synthetic chemicals is nonsense as a
proposition, but what's often forgotten that a wholly organic approach
to agriculture is likely to require an appropriate change of scale.
It often seems to me that people try to transplant an organic
structure straight on top of one that was laid out to suit a
non-organic one. It requires more work and thought than that.

But for as long as there is a false dichotomy between the two extremes
of "no chemicals" and "maximum yield" strategies there will be no
progress

Dead right there!

No. Are we worried about PCBs? Yeah.

Definitely PCBs are seriously bad.

Dioxins get a worse press than they deserve and only some of them are
really very nasty. They do occur naturally by fungal action (as well as
in forest fires). I guess having a short name did them no favours.

It's bug debate all over - there's huge profit to be made in flogging
antibacterial this, and antifungal that. What we need is a 'national
eat at a roadside cafe' day to redress the balance.
And that's the nub of the issue...balance.

I reckon we should deprive the weenies of every synthetic chemical for a
week or two and see how they get on. That means no car, refined oil,
plastics, metals, glass, batteries, antiseptics, antibiotics.

So being concerned about the environment means you have to walk about
in sackcloth? Making decisions about what you eat and where it comes
from means living in a hut?

Potable drinking water is another very tricky example. Without the right
water treatment there would be all sorts of bad stuff living in the
pipes.

Indeed - I've never subscribed to the bottled water fan club, though I
do admit to once having bought a posh water filter...chiefly to remove
the odour of chlorine in the water. I was understandably miffed when I
heard some time later that letting a jug of water stand in the fridge
for half an hour does the same thing.

And don't you think there's room for improvement in your 'brave new
world'?

I don't think an irrational fear of synthetic chemicals does anything to
help the situation. It is still worse that supermarkets exploit the
public fear of "chemicals" to sell vastly overpriced Organic(TM) produce
that has been flown half way round the world to satisfy this faddish
demand.

I won't argue with that! I don't believe it's enough to stamp produce
with a fancy label and assume that it's squeaky clean, there's a whole
range of environmental issues that have to be taken into account.
And again the two sides are equally as responsible for the chaos and
misinterpretation.
People expect to eat apples with no skin blemishes, or straight
carrots etc. and in order to meet that demand growers often have
little choice but to resort to chemicals in order to maintain a viable
business.
When was the last time you saw an 'amusingly misshapen vegetable' in
Sainsbury's? ( I've grown a few.. including a spud that looked like Mo
Mowlem's arse....and don't ask! ).

And it makes me half smile/half groan when people think they have a
problem because little black pollen beetles crawl out of their cut
blooms.

I do support local organic producers and I grow my own produce with
almost no chemicals (ornamental plants get different treatment).

Seems we're pretty much in agreement, if perhaps coming to the same
conclusions from slightly different directions.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Sometimes I buy organic, sometimes not. I don't want to be panicked or rushed
into either.

The very least we can do is to try to buck the fashion. In supermarkets, I make
a point of asking for the NON-organic section, as I want choice. At least it
makes them think. On a couple of occasions, I have asked for the manager and
enquired what checks they make on the production methods of both organic and
non-organic suppliers. Neither was able to answer the question.



Laurie


Natural does not mean safe. There are plenty of very nasty natural
pathogens and chemical defences. Nature is red in tooth and claw.

That's a fact that most organic gardeners are well aware of.

Some Organic gardeners may be aware of it. Though I have met plenty who
are not and live in a pretend Disneyfied world where nature is always
benign and "chemicals" are always bad.

The Organic(TM) logo used to market produce to the worried well in
supermarkets is nothing more than a clever marketing ploy. Minimum
inputs agriculture makes very good sense but using absolutely no
synthetic chemicals is a total nonsense (in fact they do use chemicals
but only those approved by the Soil Association on purely arbitrary
grounds).

But for as long as there is a false dichotomy between the two extremes
of "no chemicals" and "maximum yield" strategies there will be no
progress

No. Are we worried about PCBs? Yeah.

Definitely PCBs are seriously bad.

Dioxins get a worse press than they deserve and only some of them are
really very nasty. They do occur naturally by fungal action (as well as
in forest fires). I guess having a short name did them no favours.

I reckon we should deprive the weenies of every synthetic chemical for a
week or two and see how they get on. That means no car, refined oil,
plastics, metals, glass, batteries, antiseptics, antibiotics.

So being concerned about the environment means you have to walk about
in sackcloth? Making decisions about what you eat and where it comes
from means living in a hut?

Potable drinking water is another very tricky example. Without the right
water treatment there would be all sorts of bad stuff living in the
pipes.

And don't you think there's room for improvement in your 'brave new
world'?

I don't think an irrational fear of synthetic chemicals does anything to
help the situation. It is still worse that supermarkets exploit the
public fear of "chemicals" to sell vastly overpriced Organic(TM) produce
that has been flown half way round the world to satisfy this faddish
demand.

I do support local organic producers and I grow my own produce with
almost no chemicals (ornamental plants get different treatment).

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

In article , Laurie
Moseley writes
Sometimes I buy organic, sometimes not. I don't want to be panicked or rushed
into either.

The very least we can do is to try to buck the fashion. In supermarkets, I make
a point of asking for the NON-organic section, as I want choice. At least it
makes them think. On a couple of occasions, I have asked for the manager and
enquired what checks they make on the production methods of both organic and
non-organic suppliers. Neither was able to answer the question.

All foodstuff, whether organic or otherwise to be sold in UK for public
consumption is subject to copious Govt. food regulations, many of them
based on EU directives. Organic produce and production methods have
additional regulations, again based on EU directives and monitored by
the Govt. appointed body UKROFS - United Kingdom Register of Organic
Food Standards. In the case of horticultural produce, the standards are
stringent and producers are regularly monitored, both by inspectors and
by the requirement of detailed reports and written evidence of how
standards are being upheld. Any producer who does not comply with the
standards can lose their certification and are no longer allowed to sell
their produce as organic or to label it with the official symbol of
organic standards.

Any retailer, or other link in the food chain handling food for public
consumption, is required by law to be aware of the standards and to
comply with parts applicable to them. Fuller details of the ways in
which organic food standards are ensured can be found in the urg FAQ at:

http://www.nugget.demon.co.uk/MetaFA...gardening.html
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

I agree. Nonetheless, I do not think that it does any harm for members of the
public to pose questions to people who should be following the rules. Having
rules and following them are two different activities. Anyone who has had their
car broken into will confirm that distinction.

I'm delighted that there are rules to try to ensure food safety. However, the
price of freedom (or in this case safety) is constant vigilance.

Laurie
Subject: compost heap question
From: Alan Gould
Date: 08/11/2003 16:04 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , Laurie
Moseley writes
Sometimes I buy organic, sometimes not. I don't want to be panicked or
rushed
into either.

The very least we can do is to try to buck the fashion. In supermarkets, I
make
a point of asking for the NON-organic section, as I want choice. At least it
makes them think. On a couple of occasions, I have asked for the manager and
enquired what checks they make on the production methods of both organic and
non-organic suppliers. Neither was able to answer the question.

All foodstuff, whether organic or otherwise to be sold in UK for public
consumption is subject to copious Govt. food regulations, many of them
based on EU directives. Organic produce and production methods have
additional regulations, again based on EU directives and monitored by
the Govt. appointed body UKROFS - United Kingdom Register of Organic
Food Standards. In the case of horticultural produce, the standards are
stringent and producers are regularly monitored, both by inspectors and
by the requirement of detailed reports and written evidence of how
standards are being upheld. Any producer who does not comply with the
standards can lose their certification and are no longer allowed to sell
their produce as organic or to label it with the official symbol of
organic standards.

Any retailer, or other link in the food chain handling food for public
consumption, is required by law to be aware of the standards and to
comply with parts applicable to them. Fuller details of the ways in
which organic food standards are ensured can be found in the urg FAQ at:

http://www.nugget.demon.co.uk/MetaFA...gardening.html
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.








Laurie (Laurence) Moseley

Plus Ultra

Expert Systems, Decision-Making, Argentinian Tango & Golf

The message
from (Laurie Moseley) contains these words:

Sometimes I buy organic, sometimes not. I don't want to be panicked or
rushed
into either.

The very least we can do is to try to buck the fashion. In
supermarkets, I make
a point of asking for the NON-organic section, as I want choice. At least it
makes them think. On a couple of occasions, I have asked for the manager and
enquired what checks they make on the production methods of both organic and
non-organic suppliers. Neither was able to answer the question.

Possibly you asked at the wrong level?

A supermarket branch manager is near the end of the distribution line.
S/he is unlikely to select producers/suppliers and would have no
responsibility for, or knowledge of, checking their production methods.
That would be done further up the chain of supermarket purchase and
distribution, so your request should be directed higher up.

Janet