Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
Parsons of the L.A. Times.
http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story

"aem" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>

"The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and the
reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is where most
farming is done."

Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled "organic"
(or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better than anything
else.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> "aem" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>
>
> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and
> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
> where most farming is done."
>
> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
> than anything else.
>
> Jill
All true, there is no such thing as organically grown unless it was from a
test tube. Only the pinheads are willing to pay double. Nowhere on this
planet is there chemical free land. And it's very easy to tell they're
lying about that produce claimed to be organic, if it has no worm holes it's
not organic, it's not possible to grow any produce without insect damage
unless insecticides are used. I don't use any chemicals in my garden but
everything has some bug damage.... and I know my soil isn't chemical free,
runoff is everywhere. There are a million myths about organic insect
repellents but every one is a myth. Even bug zappers are a myth (actually a
big fat lie), so what that they zap thousands of bugs, they attract a
zillion times more bugs to an area than would be there otherwise... all
those chemical attractants as well... anything that attracts bugs will
ensure that there are infinitely more bugs present than would be otherwise.
Don't buy any form of bug zapper, they only kill the pollenators like
butterflys and moths, they kill no mosquitos. Mosquitos are attracted to
carbon dioxide, they are attracted to your breath, that's why they buzz
about your face at night. There are expensive mosquito zappers that produce
carbon dioxide by burring propane, but they attract a million times more
mosquitos to an area than would ordinarilly be present... save your money.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> "aem" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>
>
> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and
> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
> where most farming is done."
>
> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
> than anything else.
>
You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe of
the organic movement!!!

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:39:41 -0600, "graham" > wrote:

>
>"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
>> "aem" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>>
>>
>> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and
>> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
>> where most farming is done."
>>
>> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
>> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
>> than anything else.
>>
>You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe of
>the organic movement!!!
>


Thanks for the tip. I will keep my eyes peeled.

V

"graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "aem" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>>
>>
>> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and
>> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
>> where most farming is done."
>>
>> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
>> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
>> than anything else.
>>
> You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe
> of the organic movement!!!
>

It's like charging extra for tomatoes sold "on the vine". Hello, all I'm
going to do is throw the vine away. Pay extra because of some stems?
Geeze, it's like getting ripped off for stems and seeds in the 1970's all
over again LOL

Jill

aem > wrote:

> Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ Parsons of the
> L.A. Times.

> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story

Most people such as myself who prefer organic foods are also
willing to accept meat/produce/eggs from reliable small producers who
are not organic. That's not a problem. Some of the best producers
opt not to be certified organic, anyway.

The problem comes in when foods are from the larger, commercial
producers. There it is much more important to stick to organic
ones, at least in the U.S., because that is usually the only way to
avoid GM and irradiated foods (neither of which can be sold
as "organic" in the U.S.).

As a random example, three dozen cats died in Australia recently
due to irradiated cat food. (Thus disproving the claims that
irradiated food is safe, which nobody ever believed in the
first place...)

Steve

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> "graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "aem" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>>>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>>>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>>>
>>>
>>> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and
>>> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
>>> where most farming is done."
>>>
>>> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
>>> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
>>> than anything else.
>>>
>> You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe
>> of the organic movement!!!
>>
>
> It's like charging extra for tomatoes sold "on the vine". Hello, all I'm
> going to do is throw the vine away. Pay extra because of some stems?
> Geeze, it's like getting ripped off for stems and seeds in the 1970's all
> over again LOL
>
> Jill
The stems do allow the tomatoes to stay fresh and firm longer. One method
of keeping fresh tomatoes (for the home grower) beyond fall freeze is to
take the entire plant and hang it upside down in the basement or garage.
The fruit continues to ripen and draws moisture from the plant.
Janet

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> "graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "aem" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>>>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>>>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>>>
>>>
>>> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and
>>> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
>>> where most farming is done."
>>>
>>> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
>>> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
>>> than anything else.
>>>
>> You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe
>> of the organic movement!!!
>>
>
> It's like charging extra for tomatoes sold "on the vine". Hello, all I'm
> going to do is throw the vine away. Pay extra because of some stems?
> Geeze, it's like getting ripped off for stems and seeds in the 1970's all
> over again LOL
>
> Jill


Those stems enhance tomatoes exactly the same way that silicone enhances
mammaries.

"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "graham" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "aem" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>>>>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and
>>>> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
>>>> where most farming is done."
>>>>
>>>> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
>>>> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
>>>> than anything else.
>>>>
>>> You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe
>>> of the organic movement!!!
>>>
>>
>> It's like charging extra for tomatoes sold "on the vine". Hello, all I'm
>> going to do is throw the vine away. Pay extra because of some stems?
>> Geeze, it's like getting ripped off for stems and seeds in the 1970's all
>> over again LOL
>>
>> Jill
> The stems do allow the tomatoes to stay fresh and firm longer. One method
> of keeping fresh tomatoes (for the home grower) beyond fall freeze is to
> take the entire plant and hang it upside down in the basement or garage.
> The fruit continues to ripen and draws moisture from the plant.
> Janet
>
That's true only with the entire plant including the root, and only up to a
point, as a plant dehydrates it will at some point begin drawing moisture
from its fruit and halt the ripening process. A few stems does nothing.
Prematurely harvested tomatoes ripen more efficiently off the stem. Those
tomatoes sold on the stem is purely a gimmick.

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
snip
A few stems does nothing.
> Prematurely harvested tomatoes ripen more efficiently off the stem.
Could you give me your reference, please? I'd like to read about this.
Thanks
Janet

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message ...
| aem > wrote:
|
| > Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ Parsons of the
| > L.A. Times.
|
| > http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
|
| Most people such as myself who prefer organic foods are also
| willing to accept meat/produce/eggs from reliable small producers who
| are not organic. That's not a problem. Some of the best producers
| opt not to be certified organic, anyway.
|
| The problem comes in when foods are from the larger, commercial
| producers. There it is much more important to stick to organic
| ones, at least in the U.S., because that is usually the only way to
| avoid GM and irradiated foods (neither of which can be sold
| as "organic" in the U.S.).
|
| As a random example, three dozen cats died in Australia recently
| due to irradiated cat food. (Thus disproving the claims that
| irradiated food is safe, which nobody ever believed in the
| first place...)

This is truly frightening. Thank you so much for this posting,
it is the first I had heard about it. We have gotten much well-
filtered information about how good irradiation is; thank you for
this horrifying example of what might happen (and actually *is*
happening.) And yet we need to focus on the actual problem,
the misuse of irradiation, rather than give a blanket approval to
the organic movement. I think they are two very different things
with only the coincidence that "organic" precludes radiation as
the common denominator. If we lose that focus we risk minimizing
the attention we pay to food radiation itself, which is the distinct
problem here.

pavane

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> aem > wrote:
>
>> Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ Parsons of the
>> L.A. Times.
>
>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>
> Most people such as myself who prefer organic foods are also
> willing to accept meat/produce/eggs from reliable small producers who
> are not organic. That's not a problem. Some of the best producers
> opt not to be certified organic, anyway.
>
> The problem comes in when foods are from the larger, commercial
> producers. There it is much more important to stick to organic
> ones, at least in the U.S., because that is usually the only way to
> avoid GM and irradiated foods (neither of which can be sold
> as "organic" in the U.S.).
>
> As a random example, three dozen cats died in Australia recently
> due to irradiated cat food. (Thus disproving the claims that
> irradiated food is safe, which nobody ever believed in the
> first place...)
>
>
Absolute BS... irradiated food is far less harmful than listening to a
radio... that food was tainted in some other way... irradiation does not
protect foods from prior contamination or from improper handling. Food
needs to be wholesome before irradiation.

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
| ...
| > aem > wrote:
| >
| >> Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ Parsons of the
| >> L.A. Times.
| >
| >> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
| >
| > Most people such as myself who prefer organic foods are also
| > willing to accept meat/produce/eggs from reliable small producers who
| > are not organic. That's not a problem. Some of the best producers
| > opt not to be certified organic, anyway.
| >
| > The problem comes in when foods are from the larger, commercial
| > producers. There it is much more important to stick to organic
| > ones, at least in the U.S., because that is usually the only way to
| > avoid GM and irradiated foods (neither of which can be sold
| > as "organic" in the U.S.).
| >
| > As a random example, three dozen cats died in Australia recently
| > due to irradiated cat food. (Thus disproving the claims that
| > irradiated food is safe, which nobody ever believed in the
| > first place...)
| >
| >
| Absolute BS... irradiated food is far less harmful than listening to a
| radio... that food was tainted in some other way... irradiation does not
| protect foods from prior contamination or from improper handling. Food
| needs to be wholesome before irradiation.

Do a search on "irradiated catfood australia" and learn something, you
bloody ignorant fool. Shooting your mouth off about things that you
know nothing about is pathetic, refusing to try to learn is disgusting.

pavane

pavane > wrote:

>"brooklyn1" > wrote in message

>| Absolute BS... irradiated food is far less harmful than listening to a
>| radio... that food was tainted in some other way... irradiation does not
>| protect foods from prior contamination or from improper handling. Food
>| needs to be wholesome before irradiation.

>Do a search on "irradiated catfood australia" and learn something, you
>bloody ignorant fool. Shooting your mouth off about things that you
>know nothing about is pathetic, refusing to try to learn is disgusting.

What's incontrovertable is that irradiated food contains
new chemical compounds, "radiolytic" compounds they are
called, that while not radioactive do not occur in nature
and whose safety has never been evaluated.

Really the food irradiation industry is just a way for
the nuclear plant operators to proliferate and profit
off their nuclear waste instead of having to dispose of it.
There is no science behind it, no safety behind it.
It's a crock. Stay far far away.

Steve

"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "brooklyn1" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
> snip
> A few stems does nothing.
>> Prematurely harvested tomatoes ripen more efficiently off the stem.
> Could you give me your reference, please? I'd like to read about this.
> Thanks
> Janet
>

Cititations? Honestly, sometimes you just learn things from experience.
Have you never seen the photos of the vegetables and fruits (including
tomatoes) Sheldon grows every year? He's got a gorgeous garden.

As for me, I know I'm not paying anything extra per pound tomatoes "on the
vine". That's just silly. Fortunately for me there are tomato fields a
mere mile or so away. They aren't being shipped to my market from
California or Mexico. They aren't picked while still green.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:

> Fortunately for me there are tomato
> fields a mere mile or so away. They aren't being shipped to my market
> from California or Mexico. They aren't picked while still green.
>
> Jill

yeah but what do you buy the other eight months a year?

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> "brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>> snip
>> A few stems does nothing.
>>> Prematurely harvested tomatoes ripen more efficiently off the stem.
>> Could you give me your reference, please? I'd like to read about this.
>> Thanks
>> Janet
>>
>
> Cititations? Honestly, sometimes you just learn things from experience.
> Have you never seen the photos of the vegetables and fruits (including
> tomatoes) Sheldon grows every year? He's got a gorgeous garden.
>
> As for me, I know I'm not paying anything extra per pound tomatoes "on the
> vine". That's just silly. Fortunately for me there are tomato fields a
> mere mile or so away. They aren't being shipped to my market from
> California or Mexico. They aren't picked while still green.
>
> Jill
My garden isn't as large as his, but I grow as good as he does for over 45
years now. My polite request is a call of 'bullshit, give me your cite for
ripening more efficiently off the stem.' That's my experience talking. If
you have a cite, please provide. I am going by growing experience and
purchasing on the vine experience. Oh, and I can provide photos of my
produce as well.
Janet

jmcquown wrote:
> "graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "aem" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>>>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>>>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics
>>> and the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and
>>> this is where most farming is done."
>>>
>>> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
>>> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily
>>> better than anything else.
>>>
>> You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic*
>> fringe of the organic movement!!!
>>
>
> It's like charging extra for tomatoes sold "on the vine". Hello, all
> I'm going to do is throw the vine away. Pay extra because of some
> stems? Geeze, it's like getting ripped off for stems and seeds in the
> 1970's all over again LOL
>
> Jill
Its great marketing. People get the warm and fuzzies because of the
vine. In most cases they are just the same picked unripe tomatoes that
are tastless because they are force ripened.

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> pavane > wrote:
>
>>"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>
>>| Absolute BS... irradiated food is far less harmful than listening to a
>>| radio... that food was tainted in some other way... irradiation does not
>>| protect foods from prior contamination or from improper handling. Food
>>| needs to be wholesome before irradiation.
>
>>Do a search on "irradiated catfood australia" and learn something, you
>>bloody ignorant fool. Shooting your mouth off about things that you
>>know nothing about is pathetic, refusing to try to learn is disgusting.
>
> What's incontrovertable is that irradiated food contains
> new chemical compounds, "radiolytic" compounds they are
> called, that while not radioactive do not occur in nature
> and whose safety has never been evaluated.
>
> Really the food irradiation industry is just a way for
> the nuclear plant operators to proliferate and profit
> off their nuclear waste instead of having to dispose of it.
> There is no science behind it, no safety behind it.
> It's a crock. Stay far far away.
>
It's strange! The Aussies had been irradiating cat food for over 10 years
and the deaths occurred only last year and blamed on a recent batch!!
The "science" behind the ban just doesn't add up!

Steve Pope wrote:
> pavane > wrote:
>
>> "brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>
>> | Absolute BS... irradiated food is far less harmful than listening to a
>> | radio... that food was tainted in some other way... irradiation does not
>> | protect foods from prior contamination or from improper handling. Food
>> | needs to be wholesome before irradiation.
>
>> Do a search on "irradiated catfood australia" and learn something, you
>> bloody ignorant fool. Shooting your mouth off about things that you
>> know nothing about is pathetic, refusing to try to learn is disgusting.
>
> What's incontrovertable is that irradiated food contains
> new chemical compounds, "radiolytic" compounds they are
> called, that while not radioactive do not occur in nature
> and whose safety has never been evaluated.
>
> Really the food irradiation industry is just a way for
> the nuclear plant operators to proliferate and profit
> off their nuclear waste instead of having to dispose of it.
> There is no science behind it, no safety behind it.
> It's a crock. Stay far far away.
>
> Steve

Not sure if it encouraged nuclear plants but an interesting thought. The
typical isotope used for food irradiation is Cesium 137. It is high
energy and really cheap mainly because there is lots of it because it is
a fission product and there are few other uses.

Radiolysis is definitely a known phenomena. I suspect it wasn't studied
very well by the food irradiation advocates or they want everyone to
have the warm and fuzzies by not mentioning it.

"George" > wrote in message
...
> jmcquown wrote:
>> "graham" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "aem" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>>>>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and
>>>> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
>>>> where most farming is done."
>>>>
>>>> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
>>>> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
>>>> than anything else.
>>>>
>>> You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe
>>> of the organic movement!!!
>>>
>>
>> It's like charging extra for tomatoes sold "on the vine". Hello, all I'm
>> going to do is throw the vine away. Pay extra because of some stems?
>> Geeze, it's like getting ripped off for stems and seeds in the 1970's all
>> over again LOL
>>
>> Jill
> Its great marketing. People get the warm and fuzzies because of the vine.
> In most cases they are just the same picked unripe tomatoes that are
> tastless because they are force ripened.
These folks produce vine-ripened, tomatoes on the vine.
http://www.eurofresh.com/
Janet

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:39:41 -0600, "graham" > wrote:

>
>"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
>> "aem" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>>
>>
>> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and
>> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
>> where most farming is done."
>>
>> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
>> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
>> than anything else.
>>
>You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe of
>the organic movement!!!
>
What makes it "lunatic"?

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:53:03 -0400, George >
wrote:

>Not sure if it encouraged nuclear plants but an interesting thought. The
>typical isotope used for food irradiation is Cesium 137. It is high
>energy and really cheap mainly because there is lots of it because it is
>a fission product and there are few other uses.
>
>Radiolysis is definitely a known phenomena. I suspect it wasn't studied
>very well by the food irradiation advocates or they want everyone to
>have the warm and fuzzies by not mentioning it.

What on earth is warm and fuzzy about food irradiation? If our food
was natural > healthy > clean in the first place, no extra
purification process would be needed.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> jmcquown wrote:
>
>> Fortunately for me there are tomato fields a mere mile or so away. They
>> aren't being shipped to my market from California or Mexico. They aren't
>> picked while still green.
>>
>
> yeah but what do you buy the other eight months a year?


I am not really a fan of tomatoes so it doesn't matter to me if they are
available the other 8 months of the year.

Jill

"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>>
>>> "brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>> snip
>>> A few stems does nothing.
>>>> Prematurely harvested tomatoes ripen more efficiently off the stem.
>>> Could you give me your reference, please? I'd like to read about this.
>>> Thanks
>>> Janet
>>>
>>
>> Cititations? Honestly, sometimes you just learn things from experience.
>> Have you never seen the photos of the vegetables and fruits (including
>> tomatoes) Sheldon grows every year? He's got a gorgeous garden.
>>
>> As for me, I know I'm not paying anything extra per pound tomatoes "on
>> the vine". That's just silly. Fortunately for me there are tomato
>> fields a mere mile or so away. They aren't being shipped to my market
>> from California or Mexico. They aren't picked while still green.
>>
>> Jill
> My garden isn't as large as his, but I grow as good as he does for over
> 45 years now. My polite request is a call of 'bullshit, give me your cite
> for ripening more efficiently off the stem.' That's my experience
> talking. If you have a cite, please provide. I am going by growing
> experience and purchasing on the vine experience. Oh, and I can provide
> photos of my produce as well.
> Janet
>

I don't have a citation. Pick them when they're ripe, then what purpose
does the stem serve in terms of ripening?

Jill

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:39:41 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
>>> "aem" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>>>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>>>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>>>
>>>
>>> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and
>>> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
>>> where most farming is done."
>>>
>>> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
>>> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
>>> than anything else.
>>>
>>You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe
>>of
>>the organic movement!!!
>>
> What makes it "lunatic"?
>
One aspect is that they fill a cow's horn with manure and bury it for a
certain period of time to absorb all sorts of astral influences. Then the
manure is turned into a homeopathic suspension, stirred in a certain way
(because water is thought by them to have memory, how stupid can you get?)
and applied to the plants.
Sheer, unadulterated lunacy!!!!!!!
Graham

sf wrote:

> What on earth is warm and fuzzy about food irradiation? If our food
> was natural > healthy > clean in the first place, no extra
> purification process would be needed.
>
natural doesn't necessarily mean "clean".... that bird flying overhead
and poopin' on your fruit is "natural" and the dirt clinging to those
carrots can contain microbes that are perfectly natural and while not
necessarily unhealthy they might promote faster decay.

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:33:26 -0600, "graham" > wrote:

>
>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:39:41 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
>>>> "aem" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>>>>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics and
>>>> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
>>>> where most farming is done."
>>>>
>>>> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
>>>> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
>>>> than anything else.
>>>>
>>>You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe
>>>of
>>>the organic movement!!!
>>>
>> What makes it "lunatic"?
>>
>One aspect is that they fill a cow's horn with manure and bury it for a
>certain period of time to absorb all sorts of astral influences. Then the
>manure is turned into a homeopathic suspension, stirred in a certain way
>(because water is thought by them to have memory, how stupid can you get?)
>and applied to the plants.
>Sheer, unadulterated lunacy!!!!!!!
>Graham
>
You made me look it up.
http://www.hawkandhorsevineyards.com/biodynamic/ I like the idea of
"balanced farming". I suppose the occult part appeals to a certain
fringe group. As far as using an astronomical sowing and planting
calendar - if it works, why not? I don't see it being much different
from using Poor Richard's Almanac.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:33:26 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"sf" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:39:41 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> "aem" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Actually, a column. Some calm, sensible talk from the estimable Russ
>>>>>> Parsons of the L.A. Times.
>>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,2885942.story
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The real world isn't black and white at all. Between pure organics
>>>>> and
>>>>> the reckless use of chemicals, there is a huge gray area, and this is
>>>>> where most farming is done."
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you! And stop charging me more money for something labelled
>>>>> "organic" (or, god forbid, "natural") when it's not necessarily better
>>>>> than anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe
>>>>of
>>>>the organic movement!!!
>>>>
>>> What makes it "lunatic"?
>>>
>>One aspect is that they fill a cow's horn with manure and bury it for a
>>certain period of time to absorb all sorts of astral influences. Then the
>>manure is turned into a homeopathic suspension, stirred in a certain way
>>(because water is thought by them to have memory, how stupid can you get?)
>>and applied to the plants.
>>Sheer, unadulterated lunacy!!!!!!!
>>Graham
>>
> You made me look it up.
> http://www.hawkandhorsevineyards.com/biodynamic/ I like the idea of
> "balanced farming". I suppose the occult part appeals to a certain
> fringe group. As far as using an astronomical sowing and planting
> calendar - if it works, why not? I don't see it being much different
> from using Poor Richard's Almanac.
>

The thing is that it is based on a set of completely unsubstantiated
metaphysical propositions. Their results appear to be no different to those
from normal organic practices. In reality, it's just organic farming with a
bit of occult thrown in.
Graham

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:36:07 -0600, graham wrote:

> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
> ...
>> pavane > wrote:
>>
>>>"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>>
>>>| Absolute BS... irradiated food is far less harmful than listening to a
>>>| radio... that food was tainted in some other way... irradiation does not
>>>| protect foods from prior contamination or from improper handling. Food
>>>| needs to be wholesome before irradiation.
>>
>>>Do a search on "irradiated catfood australia" and learn something, you
>>>bloody ignorant fool. Shooting your mouth off about things that you
>>>know nothing about is pathetic, refusing to try to learn is disgusting.
>>
>> What's incontrovertable is that irradiated food contains
>> new chemical compounds, "radiolytic" compounds they are
>> called, that while not radioactive do not occur in nature
>> and whose safety has never been evaluated.
>>
>> Really the food irradiation industry is just a way for
>> the nuclear plant operators to proliferate and profit
>> off their nuclear waste instead of having to dispose of it.
>> There is no science behind it, no safety behind it.
>> It's a crock. Stay far far away.
>>
> It's strange! The Aussies had been irradiating cat food for over 10 years
> and the deaths occurred only last year and blamed on a recent batch!!
> The "science" behind the ban just doesn't add up!

the fact that it seems to be one manufacturer only makes it seem fishy,
too.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:11:22 -0600, "graham" > wrote:

>In reality, it's just organic farming with a bit of occult thrown in.

I think the balanced part is a bit more intense than regular organic
farmers since they grow their own manure, so to speak.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>>
>>>> "brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>> A few stems does nothing.
>>>>> Prematurely harvested tomatoes ripen more efficiently off the stem.
>>>> Could you give me your reference, please? I'd like to read about this.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Janet
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cititations? Honestly, sometimes you just learn things from experience.
>>> Have you never seen the photos of the vegetables and fruits (including
>>> tomatoes) Sheldon grows every year? He's got a gorgeous garden.
>>>
>>> As for me, I know I'm not paying anything extra per pound tomatoes "on
>>> the vine". That's just silly. Fortunately for me there are tomato
>>> fields a mere mile or so away. They aren't being shipped to my market
>>> from California or Mexico. They aren't picked while still green.
>>>
>>> Jill
>> My garden isn't as large as his, but I grow as good as he does for over
>> 45 years now. My polite request is a call of 'bullshit, give me your cite
>> for ripening more efficiently off the stem.' That's my experience
>> talking. If you have a cite, please provide. I am going by growing
>> experience and purchasing on the vine experience. Oh, and I can provide
>> photos of my produce as well.
>> Janet
>>
>
> I don't have a citation. Pick them when they're ripe, then what purpose
> does the stem serve in terms of ripening?
>
> Jill
You were discussing tomatoes on the vine. I said that the vines allowed the
tomatoes to stay fresh and firm longer. (this is my experience. If I take
them off the vine, I know that I have to use them quickly because they begin
to wrinkle slightly within the next day or so) Sheldon said prematurely
harvested tomatoes ripen more efficiently off the stem. (Different from
staying fresh). I have never read or heard of ripening more efficiently off
the stem for 'green' tomatoes and I wanted a cite to read. I don't know for
sure, but it may be that all tomatoes on the vine are vine ripened. The
ones that I buy are. In addition, I would speculate that tomatoes left on
the vine benefit from less handling and the natural spacing provided by the
vine when they are packed in a box -- which is the way I have seen them
packed. In the instance that I mentioned of hanging the tomato plants at
the end of the season to prolong the harvest, the fruit draws moisture from
the plant for a period of time and the skins do not get tough as they do
when you just pick green tomatoes and let them ripen into November and
December. This method also allows the tomatoes to ripen individually at a
'normal' pace instead of all coming on red at the same time.
Janet

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:03:40 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:11:22 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>>In reality, it's just organic farming with a bit of occult thrown in.
>
>I think the balanced part is a bit more intense than regular organic
>farmers since they grow their own manure, so to speak.


Does the World Health Organization know about this?

I smell PANDEMIC all over the place.

V

sf wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:11:22 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>> In reality, it's just organic farming with a bit of occult thrown in.
>
> I think the balanced part is a bit more intense than regular organic
> farmers since they grow their own manure, so to speak.
>
>

Trying to visualize that made me really giddy.

gloria p

Janet wrote:

> My garden isn't as large as his, but I grow as good as he does for over
> 45 years now. My polite request is a call of 'bullshit, give me your cite
> for ripening more efficiently off the stem.' That's my experience
> talking. If you have a cite, please provide.

Sheldon doesn't have a cite because he's full of shit. How could you not
know that already?

Bob

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Janet wrote:
>
>> My garden isn't as large as his, but I grow as good as he does for over
>> 45 years now. My polite request is a call of 'bullshit, give me your cite
>> for ripening more efficiently off the stem.' That's my experience
>> talking. If you have a cite, please provide.
>
> Sheldon doesn't have a cite because he's full of shit. How could you not
> know that already?
>
> Bob
He generally has good gardening info. If he had good stuff, I wanted to
know about it. If it was opinion, I wanted to know that too.
Janet

Janet wrote about Sheldon:

> He generally has good gardening info. If he had good stuff, I wanted to
> know about it. If it was opinion, I wanted to know that too.

Problem is, Sheldon is completely incapable of separating fact from opinion.
He's shown that hundreds of times.

Bob

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:11:22 -0600, graham wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:33:26 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>You wait until you see "Biodynamic" labels. That's the *lunatic* fringe
>>>>>of
>>>>>the organic movement!!!
>>>>>
>>>> What makes it "lunatic"?
>>>>
>>>One aspect is that they fill a cow's horn with manure and bury it for a
>>>certain period of time to absorb all sorts of astral influences. Then the
>>>manure is turned into a homeopathic suspension, stirred in a certain way
>>>(because water is thought by them to have memory, how stupid can you get?)
>>>and applied to the plants.
>>>Sheer, unadulterated lunacy!!!!!!!
>>>Graham
>>>
>> You made me look it up.
>> http://www.hawkandhorsevineyards.com/biodynamic/ I like the idea of
>> "balanced farming". I suppose the occult part appeals to a certain
>> fringe group. As far as using an astronomical sowing and planting
>> calendar - if it works, why not? I don't see it being much different
>> from using Poor Richard's Almanac.
>>
>
> The thing is that it is based on a set of completely unsubstantiated
> metaphysical propositions. Their results appear to be no different to those
> from normal organic practices. In reality, it's just organic farming with a
> bit of occult thrown in.
> Graham

a new ag for the new age.

your pal,
blake