[MD] Science: Medicine?

[gav]

the fact that we are having this discussion illustrates, amongst other things, a lack of quality awareness on krimel's part, with respect to food. 
if you don't eat good food then you usually believe that what you are eating is good...how can you know what you are eating is shit if you have no experience of good food?
in my american travels with dave, rebecca and ant i must say i found the standard of food generally poor, and often horribly laced with chemicals and sweeteners (a fruit smoothie with sugar added!-crazy man). and i know a bit about shit food - i grew up in england.
so i presume krimel that you are not exactly an epicurean...fair enough, can be costly these days. but growing your own is the cheapest and best quality u will ever have (and i don't mean just food!)
g


--- On Fri, 26/9/08, Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com> wrote:

> From: Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Science: Medicine?
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Received: Friday, 26 September, 2008, 6:19 AM
> [Krimel]
> I know you and many others are attracted to organic produce
> but I 
> have to say there is little or no evidence that the
> products of the 
> "Green Revolution" are less nutritious, less
> tasty or in the least bit
> harmful.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Well, I won't refer to any "studies" here,
> but I will say that my own 
> experience with tomatoes has been that those I grow or get
> from our 
> CSA are exponentially more tasty than those red tennis
> balls that 
> grocery stores call "tomatoes". Indeed, it is
> primarily taste that 
> keeps me in our CSA. If I didn't think the produce
> tasted so much 
> better, I wouldn't eat it. That said, it doesn't
> need to be CSA 
> foods, the local corn we get from Amish farmers (who are
> mostly 
> organic, if not certified so) if far superior in taste to
> what passes 
> for corn in the stores. And here's a challenge. Go out
> and buy a 
> carton of Organic Valley milk (any variety), and a carton
> of whatever 
> the big name dairy milk is in your area. Taste them side by
> side. If 
> you can honestly tell me that the Organic Valley milk is
> not better 
> (if not greatly better), I'd be very surprised.
> 
> [Krimel]
> My father-in-law loves to tend a garden and I admit that
> his squash and
> beans are especially tasty but I don't see any
> difference but price between
> the produce in the "organic" section of my
> grocery store and the regular
> factory farmed produce. It is really just a matter of being
> too lazy to go
> to the farmer's market, I suppose but I like my grocery
> store. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> What studies I have seen on nutrition talk more about the
> gradual 
> loss of vitamin and nutrient content as produce is packed
> and 
> shipped. This makes the case for local foods when possible.
> A head of 
> broccoli picked this morning contains more nutrients than
> broccoli 
> picked days ago, packed and shipped, or frozen and stored
> for weeks.
> 
> [Krimel]
> Sure, I suspect you are right but you nailed it below.
> Arguing the relative
> merits of growing technique is a luxury afforded only to
> those living in
> affluent countries.
> 
> [Arlo]
> With regards to chemical farming, pesticides and other
> additives, I 
> can only say that even if you could show me that consuming
> tomatoes 
> sprayed with pesticides was "not harmful", the
> sum total of these 
> chemicals being introduced into the environment gives me
> sufficient 
> pause. That trace elements of pesticides (or other chemical
> 
> fertilizers) make their way into our meat, eggs, and even
> our 
> drinking water is just something I can see no good in,
> especially 
> over a long haul or lifetime.
> 
> [Krimel]
> I agree that argument has face validity and I rather
> assumed that it was at
> least likely. The lecture really just forced me to question
> the assumption
> and when I think about it (as opposed to actually looking
> it up) I know of
> no evidence to suggest that these traces actually have any
> adverse effects.
> 
> [Arlo]
> And finally, regarding GMOs, I think even the most ardent
> opponents 
> to GMOs recognize a difference between longterm breeding of
> a plant 
> for particular traits (which was done unconsciously by our
> early 
> socializing ancestors- see Guns, Germs and Steel for
> example) and the 
> splicing of genes from fish our animals into plants. If a
> strain of 
> rice could be cultivated that contains 15% more vitamin B,
> for 
> example, I doubt many would object. But, to get that from
> splicing 
> fish genes into the rice is a price too high for many
> (myself 
> included). Of course, I speak from a nation of privilege,
> with 
> abundant food and ample choice. If I lived in a
> famine-laden African 
> country, I wonder if I'd be so concerned about whether
> or not my rice 
> contained fish genes.
> 
> [Krimel]
> I suspect that given the choice between products labeled
> "natural" or "GMO"
> I too would grab the "natural" product. But I do
> question whether this is
> just conditioning or whether it really is sensible. After
> all what
> difference does it make whether it takes 100 years or two
> weeks to
> genetically modify something? And really what does
> "natural" mean as it
> related to food packaging?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/


      Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail