 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote: > > > There's still the fact that vegan foods as a whole > > > cause less cds than animal products as a whole. > > > That's something you can't dispute. Organic or > > > not. > > > > I'm disputing it. It's your assertion; prove it. > > Do you dispute that the animal product industry > as a whole uses more crops and thus has more > cds than plant foods grown for human consumption > as a whole? Maybe. Maybe not. Grass-fed beef doesn't. Besides, who said anything about animal industry? > Animals need way more crops to > produce a pound of meat than for a pound of > vegan food. Pigs, poultry, you name it, it takes > more crops to feed them. Grass-fed beef doesn't. Hunted venison doesn't. > > Anyways, if you're so concerned about cds, > then do something about it. I've done my > bit, like it or leave it. I'm not. I don't think there's anything ethically wrong with animals dying so I can eat; that's just the way nature works. My point is, you haven't "done your bit." You haven't really done anything. It's as plain as the nose on your face that some meats come at a lower cd cost than some veggies. You don't care. It's not about cd's, it's not about animals. It's about something you can do that makes you THINK you're doing something, when the effort doesn't really amount to anything. Especially not any real critical thinking on your part. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message news  >> > Well, I for one am not willing to give up all machinery >> > and clothes (I'd get arrested!). Why do you call it MY >> > spew, when it's you trolls who keep bringing up your >> > cd expectations of us. >> ==================== >> Because *you* are the one that keeps making claims that *you* cannot >> back-up, killer. Show us the results of your extensive research, > hypocite, >> and put the matter to restforever. > > Ricky boy, you're babbling. What claims, and which research > results? ====================== And you're just too stupid for words. Don't you remember all the claims you've been making about you bloody diet? And , don't you remember telling everyone that you did years of research into this subject? Guess the diet and the drugs are finally taking their toll, eh killer? > >> > My 'simple' rule of not eating animal products is first and >> > foremost for health reasons. >> ========================== >> Then you're wrong again. But that's not news, is it? > > And I think that you're wrong. Who cares. ============= Obviously you mind being wrong, you keep trying to spew your ignorance in different ways, hypocrite. > >> I know that I've also happened >> > to reduce cds in my dietary change and that makes me >> > happy too. >> ====================== >> The same unfounded claim that you cannot, and never will back-up with > any >> data. > > I've repeated it so many times already, I wouldn't > be surprised if people kill-filter me just for that > alone!  ================== LOL You haven't presented it even once, fool. Your claims and opinions don't prove anything except your ignorance, hypocrite. > >> Stop demanding that vegans eliminate ALL >> > cds everywhere. >> ================== >> LOL I'm only suggesting that you at least live up to *SOME* of the >> so-called beliefs you spew, killer. As it is, all you manage to prove > is >> that you care nothing about killing animals willy-nilly for nothing > more >> than your selfishness and entertainment. > > We'll choose which *SOME*. You don't get to. The > rest of what you wrote sounds like babbling. Here's > your new name. Ricky the babbling brook. Ain't that > nice... ==================== LOL You can't refute it, so you pretend to not understand. That's a new one. But then, it goes well with the rest of your willful ignorance. > >> > On commercial farms, where most crops go for use as >> > fodder, that's true. But on organic farms, that's not true. >> ================ >> BS, liar. Back up your ignorance, fool! >> Besides, your food comes from the massive factory-farms you keep > talking >> about, killer. > > I buy organic when I can, but how much is not up to you. ================== BS, You buy practically none. You've already made too many posts about your food, and your lack of knowledge on local markets. > Guess what, you don't get to run my life. Go google > stuff yourself. I'm not your researcher. \================== LOL I have done the research. You have not. You can't provide any data for your ignorant spew. Keep proving that animals mean nothing to you, killer. At least you're doing a good job of proving that. > >> > I'd still rather take the bacterially grown (not petro) b12 > supplements. >> > I forget the brand name, but I saved the message somewhere. >> ================== >> All grown with inputs from the petro-chemical industry. How much do > you get >> paid, ahill? > > Can you spell paraniod conspiracist kids? =============== Can you spell shill? Looks to me like you are far to in bed with the petro-chemical industry. Never seen an environmental impact you didn't like, eh hypocrite? > >> >> ================ >> >> Then you did ly? You claimed you didn't go to them. >> > >> > I said I've been to very few. When I go to recipe sites from >> > my listing, I'm there for the recipes. I hardly notice the other >> > stuff there. I'm sure some sites are 'activist'. Some are >> > religious, some promote health reasons, some just want >> > to share their recipes. Doesn't matter. It's the recipes >> > I read and list. >> ================== >> And continue to prove the irony and hypocrisy of mainyaining the site > to >> begin with. I love you ignorance, it's so total. > > What's wrong with maintaining the site? It's a very > useful resource for all styles of vegetarian. What on > earth could you have against it? ================== It contributes to the ever increasing demand for power and communications. Both of which contribute to massive amounts of environmental damge and death and suffering to animals. And, in your case, since you're canuck, to the displacement and destruction of natives, their lifestyles and the the ruination of their local areas. Quite a background of caring you have there, hypocrite. > > > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message news >> > Well, I for one am not willing to give up all machinery >> > and clothes (I'd get arrested!). Why do you call it MY >> > spew, when it's you trolls who keep bringing up your >> > cd expectations of us. >> ==================== >> Because *you* are the one that keeps making claims that *you* cannot >> back-up, killer. Show us the results of your extensive research, > hypocite, >> and put the matter to restforever. > > Ricky boy, you're babbling. What claims, and which research > results? ====================== And you're just too stupid for words. Don't you remember all the claims you've been making about you bloody diet? And , don't you remember telling everyone that you did years of research into this subject? Guess the diet and the drugs are finally taking their toll, eh killer? > >> > My 'simple' rule of not eating animal products is first and >> > foremost for health reasons. >> ========================== >> Then you're wrong again. But that's not news, is it? > > And I think that you're wrong. Who cares. ============= Obviously you mind being wrong, you keep trying to spew your ignorance in different ways, hypocrite. > >> I know that I've also happened >> > to reduce cds in my dietary change and that makes me >> > happy too. >> ====================== >> The same unfounded claim that you cannot, and never will back-up with > any >> data. > > I've repeated it so many times already, I wouldn't > be surprised if people kill-filter me just for that > alone! ================== LOL You haven't presented it even once, fool. Your claims and opinions don't prove anything except your ignorance, hypocrite. > >> Stop demanding that vegans eliminate ALL >> > cds everywhere. >> ================== >> LOL I'm only suggesting that you at least live up to *SOME* of the >> so-called beliefs you spew, killer. As it is, all you manage to prove > is >> that you care nothing about killing animals willy-nilly for nothing > more >> than your selfishness and entertainment. > > We'll choose which *SOME*. You don't get to. The > rest of what you wrote sounds like babbling. Here's > your new name. Ricky the babbling brook. Ain't that > nice... ==================== LOL You can't refute it, so you pretend to not understand. That's a new one. But then, it goes well with the rest of your willful ignorance. > >> > On commercial farms, where most crops go for use as >> > fodder, that's true. But on organic farms, that's not true. >> ================ >> BS, liar. Back up your ignorance, fool! >> Besides, your food comes from the massive factory-farms you keep > talking >> about, killer. > > I buy organic when I can, but how much is not up to you. ================== BS, You buy practically none. You've already made too many posts about your food, and your lack of knowledge on local markets. > Guess what, you don't get to run my life. Go google > stuff yourself. I'm not your researcher. \================== LOL I have done the research. You have not. You can't provide any data for your ignorant spew. Keep proving that animals mean nothing to you, killer. At least you're doing a good job of proving that. > >> > I'd still rather take the bacterially grown (not petro) b12 > supplements. >> > I forget the brand name, but I saved the message somewhere. >> ================== >> All grown with inputs from the petro-chemical industry. How much do > you get >> paid, ahill? > > Can you spell paraniod conspiracist kids? =============== Can you spell shill? Looks to me like you are far to in bed with the petro-chemical industry. Never seen an environmental impact you didn't like, eh hypocrite? > >> >> ================ >> >> Then you did ly? You claimed you didn't go to them. >> > >> > I said I've been to very few. When I go to recipe sites from >> > my listing, I'm there for the recipes. I hardly notice the other >> > stuff there. I'm sure some sites are 'activist'. Some are >> > religious, some promote health reasons, some just want >> > to share their recipes. Doesn't matter. It's the recipes >> > I read and list. >> ================== >> And continue to prove the irony and hypocrisy of mainyaining the site > to >> begin with. I love you ignorance, it's so total. > > What's wrong with maintaining the site? It's a very > useful resource for all styles of vegetarian. What on > earth could you have against it? ================== It contributes to the ever increasing demand for power and communications. Both of which contribute to massive amounts of environmental damge and death and suffering to animals. And, in your case, since you're canuck, to the displacement and destruction of natives, their lifestyles and the the ruination of their local areas. Quite a background of caring you have there, hypocrite. > > > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message news >> > There's still the fact that vegan foods as a whole >> > cause less cds than animal products as a whole. >> > That's something you can't dispute. Organic or >> > not. >> >> I'm disputing it. It's your assertion; prove it. > > Do you dispute that the animal product industry > as a whole uses more crops and thus has more > cds than plant foods grown for human consumption > as a whole? Animals need way more crops to > produce a pound of meat than for a pound of > vegan food. Pigs, poultry, you name it, it takes > more crops to feed them. ================ Then prove it. And then prove that it automatically means that you can claim that for all meats vs veggies. > > Anyways, if you're so concerned about cds, > then do something about it. I've done my > bit, like it or leave it. > ================= No, all you've done is managed to kill even more than necessary. Why is it you like doing that, killer? You've been shown that even without eating meat that you could do far better, yet you remain willfully ignorant and determined to cause as much unnecessary death and suffering as possible. Why is that? Just like tracking around bloody footprints? > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Abner Hale" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Scented Nectar wrote: >> > > There's still the fact that vegan foods as a whole >> > > cause less cds than animal products as a whole. >> > > That's something you can't dispute. Organic or >> > > not. >> > >> > I'm disputing it. It's your assertion; prove it. >> >> Do you dispute that the animal product industry >> as a whole uses more crops and thus has more >> cds than plant foods grown for human consumption >> as a whole? > > Maybe. Maybe not. Grass-fed beef doesn't. Besides, who said anything > about animal industry? > >> Animals need way more crops to >> produce a pound of meat than for a pound of >> vegan food. Pigs, poultry, you name it, it takes >> more crops to feed them. > > Grass-fed beef doesn't. Hunted venison doesn't. > >> >> Anyways, if you're so concerned about cds, >> then do something about it. I've done my >> bit, like it or leave it. > > I'm not. I don't think there's anything ethically wrong with animals > dying so I can eat; that's just the way nature works. My point is, you > haven't "done your bit." You haven't really done anything. > > It's as plain as the nose on your face that some meats come at a lower > cd cost than some veggies. ===================== She has already proven she doesn't care. She even knows that different veggies come with different amounts of CDs. She cares nothing about changing her diet to reflect that knowledge. Her religion demands only that she follows a simple rule for her simple mind, and that's all she hangs onto. You don't care. It's not about cd's, it's > not about animals. It's about something you can do that makes you > THINK you're doing something, when the effort doesn't really amount to > anything. Especially not any real critical thinking on your part. ================== Too drugged out apparently to do any critical thinking. Maybe *any* thinking at all. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:17:08 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> > In answer to trolls questions, I discuss cds. You keep >> > bringing it up. I never claimed to be able to eliminate >> > all cds, but a reduction is fine by me. >> >> Hang on. How do you know you're "reducing?" By how many deaths have >> you reduced in the last ten years, and how did you arrive at that >> number? > >Let's see. A long time ago, I ate meat. For each >pound of meat, it took a huge,huge amount of >crops just to make one pound of meat. Some animals are intensively reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives, feeding on crops which accrue collateral deaths. [Intensive rearing and finishing systems: Beef animals reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives.] http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/livestocks...ngs/winter.htm [Extensive systems of beef rearing are used by most UK beef producers, with herds of cattle mainly grazing on open grassland. 15-20% of the beef produced in the UK comes from intensive systems where animals are kept in crowded sheds for much of their lives, before slaughter at 12-16 months.] http://www.sustainweb.org/ffact_beef.asp [6.1% of the beef systems in England use intensive rearing and finishing systems where beef animals are reared for slaughter and housed for their entire lives, http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/livestoc...ngs/winter.htm By abstaining from meat you automatically reduce the collateral deaths associated with it from what they would be if you were to continue eating it, and let's not forget about all those cetacean bycatches you've removed from your diet as well; they're huge! >The >larger the crop use, the more cds there are. >Now that I've eliminated meat from my diet, >I'm left with products that are lower cd, since >it DOESN'T take a huge amount of crops to >raise vegan food. No exact numbers for >you, just logic. When meat pushers start the counting game they hoist themselves on their own petard because it's easily shown that the meat they push causes more. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> >Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >therefore answer you. It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 will mean you have reduced your littering, however much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries to belittle and dismiss your efforts. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> Ok, you're cut off for a while. Now you sound like my girlfriend when she finds out I've flirted with a cashier or waitress. > You're nothing but an insult spewer. Don't forget that you're the one who's talked of engaging in ******* relations with the wives of your opponents here. All *I* did was address your flawed points. Here they are again should you decide to address them rather than run away. You said you gave up meat in '81 and haven't done ANY accounting of harm you've caused animals, but you still make claims about your new sense of virtue. I replied: IOW, you've no way to validate how many animals you're killing or how many you're no longer killing. You're just winging it and making yourself feel better through (wholly false) positive affirmations that you're not causing as much harm to animals as other people. How sanctimonious of you. When asked repeatedly about your "research," you've only repeated that you've engaged in it for a number of years. You refuse to give any more details ("...to YOU" meaning me) and you get all hissy when I point out the glaringly bad information you've already peddled he I know what you've posted here. You're ignorant about matters of nutrition.... Nothing to show ANYONE. Your previous posts on the issues of inhaling toxic smoke, omega-6 intake, and your false generalizations about meat versus no meat demonstrate your ignorance. You claimed it was a "fact" that your diet causes less harm to animals than ANY diet which contains meat. You've been shown repeatedly that this is not so. You then tried to wiggle around and say that your diet requires "less crops." I replied: No, they do not. I demonstrated that your favorite foods like fake sausage require tremendous inputs for their yields -- greater even than the inflated ratios you claimed for meat production. Additionally, you've suggested organic farming would minimize harm to animals; the problem is agricultural experts point out the reduced yields from organic farming require substantially more land be farmed to feed a given number of people. I also provided the following links: http://www.highyieldconservation.org...c_farming.html http://www.highyieldconservation.org...esticides.html http://www.highyieldconservation.org...abundance.html Finally, you've repeatedly claimed that organic farming causes no harm to animals. I showed you otherwise, and in every instance your response was to completely snip the information rather than deal with it. --------- Oh yes, they are. Click on the links and learn something for a change, Little Miss Health Researcher. RESTORE AND ADD INFO FROM NEW THREAD Organic pesticides cause cancer in rodents (and humans): One of organic farming's most widely used pesticides--pyrethrum--has been classified as a ``likely human carcinogen.'' An advisory committee to the Environmental Protection Agency made the classification two years ago, after pyrethrum caused higher-than-normal numbers of tumors in two different sets of laboratory rodents. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...1/jun_8_01.htm Organic pesticides induce Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rodents (and humans): Rotenone, a commonly used organic pesticide, has attracted a lot of attention in Dr. Greenamyre's lab. In past studies, Dr. Greenamyre and colleagues found that rotenone can induce major features of PD in rats, including slowness, stiffness and tremor. Published in Nature Neuroscience in November 2000, these results support the idea that chronic exposure to environmental pesticides may contribute to the incidence of Parkinson's disease in humans. With the new funding, Dr. Greenamyre will continue to research rodent and cell models of PD to determine which genes cause susceptibility or resistance to the PD-inducing effects of pesticides. http://www.scienceblog.com/community.../20022444.html Organic pesticides affect more than just target species: Some organic pesticides may be toxic to nontargets. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/public...are/which.html Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention: The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries – including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list included 22 organic pesticides considered to be highly toxic... http://www.nex.org.br/english/denuci...enenamento.htm Finally, but not because I'm out of ammo on the subject, an organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT. http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm Here's more. Organic pesticides kill fish: While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other animals. For instance, the organic pesticide ryania is very toxic to fish. http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm Organic pesticides kill a variety of non-target species, and foods grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free": Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone kills fish. Copper sulphate kills many creatures. In California, an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call their produce "pesticide free." http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html See also: http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...etails&id=1677 Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its conventional counterpart: Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate used by organic farmers is toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...0/sep_8_00.htm Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a variety of species including humans: There have been reports of human suicide resulting from the ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is toxic to aquatic invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters. Based on data on the potential hazards posed by this material to the slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass, and in an effort to minimize exposure of endangered species to this material, applicators in some counties are required to consult EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate. http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm Organic pesticides ARE toxins: Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper compounds that can be tough on other organisms and the environment. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on a wide range of insects. Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to mammals and highly toxic to fish. It is illegal to apply them around ponds or waterways. So even though it says "organic", it can still pack a nasty punch. http://www.springledgefarm.com/glossary.htm How much more evidence do you need, Skunky, before you stop making wild claims about the superiority of organic farming techniques with respect to concern for human health, wildlife safety, etc.? You jelly-headed, clueless urbanite. ---------- Get used to seeing that whole list again, Skunky, because I will paste it in to every stupid claim you make about organic food production being better for animals or people. > You couldn't understand my > concepts even if you really tried. I might be able to if you could actually EXPLAIN them. You've had every opportunity to explain yourself and support your claims. I approached you in a very civil manner after you callously replied to me and made some very wrong insinuations. I've urged you this entire time to support your claims, and you've balked every single time. > That makes for repetition on my part and is boring. You have been engaging in repetition, but you've yet to EXPLAIN anything. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> Ok, you're cut off for a while. Now you sound like my girlfriend when she finds out I've flirted with a cashier or waitress. > You're nothing but an insult spewer. Don't forget that you're the one who's talked of engaging in ******* relations with the wives of your opponents here. All *I* did was address your flawed points. Here they are again should you decide to address them rather than run away. You said you gave up meat in '81 and haven't done ANY accounting of harm you've caused animals, but you still make claims about your new sense of virtue. I replied: IOW, you've no way to validate how many animals you're killing or how many you're no longer killing. You're just winging it and making yourself feel better through (wholly false) positive affirmations that you're not causing as much harm to animals as other people. How sanctimonious of you. When asked repeatedly about your "research," you've only repeated that you've engaged in it for a number of years. You refuse to give any more details ("...to YOU" meaning me) and you get all hissy when I point out the glaringly bad information you've already peddled he I know what you've posted here. You're ignorant about matters of nutrition.... Nothing to show ANYONE. Your previous posts on the issues of inhaling toxic smoke, omega-6 intake, and your false generalizations about meat versus no meat demonstrate your ignorance. You claimed it was a "fact" that your diet causes less harm to animals than ANY diet which contains meat. You've been shown repeatedly that this is not so. You then tried to wiggle around and say that your diet requires "less crops." I replied: No, they do not. I demonstrated that your favorite foods like fake sausage require tremendous inputs for their yields -- greater even than the inflated ratios you claimed for meat production. Additionally, you've suggested organic farming would minimize harm to animals; the problem is agricultural experts point out the reduced yields from organic farming require substantially more land be farmed to feed a given number of people. I also provided the following links: http://www.highyieldconservation.org...c_farming.html http://www.highyieldconservation.org...esticides.html http://www.highyieldconservation.org...abundance.html Finally, you've repeatedly claimed that organic farming causes no harm to animals. I showed you otherwise, and in every instance your response was to completely snip the information rather than deal with it. --------- Oh yes, they are. Click on the links and learn something for a change, Little Miss Health Researcher. RESTORE AND ADD INFO FROM NEW THREAD Organic pesticides cause cancer in rodents (and humans): One of organic farming's most widely used pesticides--pyrethrum--has been classified as a ``likely human carcinogen.'' An advisory committee to the Environmental Protection Agency made the classification two years ago, after pyrethrum caused higher-than-normal numbers of tumors in two different sets of laboratory rodents. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...1/jun_8_01.htm Organic pesticides induce Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rodents (and humans): Rotenone, a commonly used organic pesticide, has attracted a lot of attention in Dr. Greenamyre's lab. In past studies, Dr. Greenamyre and colleagues found that rotenone can induce major features of PD in rats, including slowness, stiffness and tremor. Published in Nature Neuroscience in November 2000, these results support the idea that chronic exposure to environmental pesticides may contribute to the incidence of Parkinson's disease in humans. With the new funding, Dr. Greenamyre will continue to research rodent and cell models of PD to determine which genes cause susceptibility or resistance to the PD-inducing effects of pesticides. http://www.scienceblog.com/community.../20022444.html Organic pesticides affect more than just target species: Some organic pesticides may be toxic to nontargets. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/public...are/which.html Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention: The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries – including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list included 22 organic pesticides considered to be highly toxic... http://www.nex.org.br/english/denuci...enenamento.htm Finally, but not because I'm out of ammo on the subject, an organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT. http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm Here's more. Organic pesticides kill fish: While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other animals. For instance, the organic pesticide ryania is very toxic to fish. http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm Organic pesticides kill a variety of non-target species, and foods grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free": Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone kills fish. Copper sulphate kills many creatures. In California, an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call their produce "pesticide free." http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html See also: http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...etails&id=1677 Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its conventional counterpart: Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate used by organic farmers is toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...0/sep_8_00.htm Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a variety of species including humans: There have been reports of human suicide resulting from the ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is toxic to aquatic invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters. Based on data on the potential hazards posed by this material to the slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass, and in an effort to minimize exposure of endangered species to this material, applicators in some counties are required to consult EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate. http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm Organic pesticides ARE toxins: Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper compounds that can be tough on other organisms and the environment. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on a wide range of insects. Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to mammals and highly toxic to fish. It is illegal to apply them around ponds or waterways. So even though it says "organic", it can still pack a nasty punch. http://www.springledgefarm.com/glossary.htm How much more evidence do you need, Skunky, before you stop making wild claims about the superiority of organic farming techniques with respect to concern for human health, wildlife safety, etc.? You jelly-headed, clueless urbanite. ---------- Get used to seeing that whole list again, Skunky, because I will paste it in to every stupid claim you make about organic food production being better for animals or people. > You couldn't understand my > concepts even if you really tried. I might be able to if you could actually EXPLAIN them. You've had every opportunity to explain yourself and support your claims. I approached you in a very civil manner after you callously replied to me and made some very wrong insinuations. I've urged you this entire time to support your claims, and you've balked every single time. > That makes for repetition on my part and is boring. You have been engaging in repetition, but you've yet to EXPLAIN anything. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>On organic farms you won't find the rodent killing >>>>chemicals that turn their insides to mush. >>> >>>Oh, please tell me your source for this information. Here are a few >>>details I can pass along to show otherwise: STILL waiting for your source of information. > The one's that turn their insides to mush are blood thinners. > Coumarin and others. These are not organic. As for the > other products you mentioned, I make my own organic > bug spray and have never needed the following you > mentioned. You mean the following you snipped: --------- Click on the links and learn something for a change, Little Miss Health Researcher. RESTORE AND ADD INFO FROM NEW THREAD Organic pesticides cause cancer in rodents (and humans): One of organic farming's most widely used pesticides--pyrethrum--has been classified as a ``likely human carcinogen.'' An advisory committee to the Environmental Protection Agency made the classification two years ago, after pyrethrum caused higher-than-normal numbers of tumors in two different sets of laboratory rodents. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...1/jun_8_01.htm Organic pesticides induce Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rodents (and humans): Rotenone, a commonly used organic pesticide, has attracted a lot of attention in Dr. Greenamyre's lab. In past studies, Dr. Greenamyre and colleagues found that rotenone can induce major features of PD in rats, including slowness, stiffness and tremor. Published in Nature Neuroscience in November 2000, these results support the idea that chronic exposure to environmental pesticides may contribute to the incidence of Parkinson's disease in humans. With the new funding, Dr. Greenamyre will continue to research rodent and cell models of PD to determine which genes cause susceptibility or resistance to the PD-inducing effects of pesticides. http://www.scienceblog.com/community.../20022444.html Organic pesticides affect more than just target species: Some organic pesticides may be toxic to nontargets. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/public...are/which.html Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention: The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries – including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list included 22 organic pesticides considered to be highly toxic... http://www.nex.org.br/english/denuci...enenamento.htm Finally, but not because I'm out of ammo on the subject, an organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT. http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm Here's more. Organic pesticides kill fish: While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other animals. For instance, the organic pesticide ryania is very toxic to fish. http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm Organic pesticides kill a variety of non-target species, and foods grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free": Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone kills fish. Copper sulphate kills many creatures. In California, an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call their produce "pesticide free." http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html See also: http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...etails&id=1677 Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its conventional counterpart: Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate used by organic farmers is toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...0/sep_8_00.htm Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a variety of species including humans: There have been reports of human suicide resulting from the ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is toxic to aquatic invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters. Based on data on the potential hazards posed by this material to the slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass, and in an effort to minimize exposure of endangered species to this material, applicators in some counties are required to consult EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate. http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm Organic pesticides ARE toxins: Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper compounds that can be tough on other organisms and the environment. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on a wide range of insects. Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to mammals and highly toxic to fish. It is illegal to apply them around ponds or waterways. So even though it says "organic", it can still pack a nasty punch. http://www.springledgefarm.com/glossary.htm ---------- >>How much more evidence do you need, Skunky, before you stop making >>wild claims about the superiority of organic farming techniques with >>respect to concern for human health, wildlife safety, etc.? You jelly-headed, >>clueless urbanite. > > There's still the fact that vegan foods as a whole > cause less cds than animal products as a whole. Ipse dixit. > That's something you can't dispute. It's your claim and the onus is on you to support it. That said, though, I've not only disputed it, I've *already refuted* it. I've demonstrated that your recommendation of organic foods does cause collateral deaths, and that organic fertilizers require dead animal input. All your wiggling is for naught: your house of cards fell a long time ago. > Organic or not. Have you reached the point of honesty with yourself yet that you really knew nothing about organics aside from what you picked up from activists and other clueless urbanites in your "Toronto vegan wannabe" clique? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Retard wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > >>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>therefore answer you. > > It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop > dropping litter. Is that your resolution for this year, fatso? Picking up the crisp bags and beer cans at your council flat would be a good start, but you'd be better off not eating the crisps or drinking the beer in the first place. Especially at 5'4" and 250 pounds. > Even though you had no idea of the > amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding > on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 > will mean you have reduced your littering, however > much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need > numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the > same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes > of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries > to belittle and dismiss your efforts. Funny that, coming from a self-crippled pill-popper who protests the very same pharmaceutical companies who help minimize his pain. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> usual suspect adding on in response to Skunky: > >> On organic farms you won't find the rodent killing > >> chemicals that turn their insides to mush. > > > > Oh, please tell me your source for this information. Here are a few > > details I can pass along to show otherwise: > > > > Organic pesticides cause cancer in rodents (and humans): > > One of organic farming's most widely used > > pesticides--pyrethrum--has been classified as a ``likely human > > carcinogen.'' An advisory committee to the Environmental > > Protection Agency made the classification two years ago, after > > pyrethrum caused higher-than-normal numbers of tumors in two > > different sets of #laboratory# rodents. > > http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...1/jun_8_01.htm - by Dennis T. Avery.. see below. (# ^ mine) 'Derived from the painted daisy, Chrysanthemum cinerariifolium, pyrethrins are considered one of the most important natural insecticides. When you must use a broad spectrum insecticide in the vegetable garden or lose the crop, this is one of the best choices. Of low toxicity to mammals, they kill insects quickly. In sunlight they break down and are non-toxic within a day or less. For best results apply it in the late afternoon or evening. Use pyrethrins for the hard-to-kill pests such as beetles, squash bugs, and tarnished plant bugs.' http://www.iserv.net/~wmize/insctd.htm 'While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the chrysanthemum, they were chemically designed to be more toxic with longer breakdown times, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency and compromising the human body's ability to detoxify the pesticide. .....' http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pest...yrethroids.pdf > > Organic pesticides induce Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rodents > > (and humans): > > Rotenone, a commonly used organic pesticide, has attracted a lot > > of attention in Dr. Greenamyre's #lab#. In past studies, Dr. > > Greenamyre and colleagues found that rotenone can induce major > > features of PD in rats, including slowness, stiffness and > > tremor. Published in Nature Neuroscience in November 2000, these > > results support the idea that chronic exposure to environmental > > pesticides may contribute to the incidence of Parkinson's > > disease in humans. With the new funding, Dr. Greenamyre will > > continue to research rodent and cell models of PD to determine > > which genes cause susceptibility or resistance to the > > PD-inducing effects of pesticides. > > http://www.scienceblog.com/community.../20022444.html Organic pesticides are used in conventional farming. > > Organic pesticides affect more than just target species: Organic (system): > > Some organic pesticides may be toxic to nontargets. ... ; minimize pesticide use' > > http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/public...are/which.html '-Conventional Synthetic chemicals may be toxic to many nontargets (beneficial insects, pets, humans, birds, fish, and other wildlife) Take control; eliminate pests calendar based applications All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; greater use increases risk Composted municipal sewage may bring heavy metals Runoff with soluble nutrients and pesticides can wash into waterways after rain -Organic Strive for ecological balance and minimize pesticide use; build soil and plant health to avoid the need for treatment All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; use safest approved materials Composted municipal sewage not allowed; manure must be composted to avoid active disease bacteria; assess compost quality before use Runoff can occur with any materials, but less with organic matter that binds nutrients to soil.' > > Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and > > many of them #are banned# under the Rotterdam Convention: > > The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries – > > including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect > > once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list > > included 22 organic pesticides considered to be highly toxic... > > http://www.nex.org.br/english/denuci...enenamento.htm > > > > Finally, but not because I'm out of ammo on the subject, an organic > > pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane #is banned# because of > > its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT. > > http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm > > Here's more. Organic pesticides kill fish: > While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only > slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other > animals. For instance, the organic pesticide ryania is very > toxic to fish. > http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm 'It is important to be careful when using any pesticide, even organic or natural pesticides. ... Biopesticides are an important group of pesticides that can reduce pesticide risks..' http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm > Organic pesticides kill a variety of non-target species, and foods grown > organically are not labeled "pesticide free": > Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone > kills fish. Copper sulphate kills many creatures. In California, > an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all > pesticide use. 'Organic pesticides are used widely.' ... Organic pesticides are used widely by conventional farmers. > For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call > their produce "pesticide free." > http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html 'Pesticide residues Over 400 pesticides are permitted for use in the UK. The incidence and levels of pesticide residues on foods are monitored annually. 28.6% of all foods tested in 1999 were found to contain pesticide residues, and 48% of all fruit and vegetables tested (MAFF 2000). The levels found are typically very low. Just 1.6% of all foods and 3% of fruit and vegetables exceeded the MRL - maximum residue limit - in 1999. Seven pesticides are permitted for restricted use in organic farming. Organic produce is usually found to contain no pesticide residues. When residues are present, they are typically of significantly lower incidence and levels than those found in non-organic produce (MAFF 1999, Schüpbach 1986, Reinhardt & Wolf 1986), and result mostly from environmental pollution from non-organic agriculture (Woese et al. 1997, Bitaud 2000). 'Rigorous safety assessments' are made of all pesticides and it is asserted that these incidences and levels do not represent a threat to food safety (FSA 2001). However no such 'rigorous safety assessment' has or can be made of the infinite number of mixtures of compounds consumers are typically exposed to. Individual samples contained up to seven different pesticides in 1999. Synergies resulting in greatly increased toxicity of pesticides and other agricultural compounds have been observed (Boyd et al. 1990, Porter et al. 1993, Porter et al. 1999, Thiruchelvam et al. 2000). Dietary exposure to pesticide residues has been linked to gastrointestinal and neurological complaints (Ratner et al. 1983), breast milk contamination (Aubert 1975) and some sperm quality parameters (Juhler et al. 1999, Abell et al. 1994, Jensen et al. 1996). The British Medical Association urges a precautionary approach "because the data on risk to human health from exposure to pesticides are incomplete" (BMA 1992). ...' http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/librar...%20quality.pdf > See also: > http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...etails&id=1677 DENNIS T. AVERY is based in Churchville, Va., and is director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis. 'Anti-Organic Lobby Tries to Distort Study Showing Safety of Organic Food From: Cornucopia Institute 6/15/04 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mark Kastel 608.625.2042 Will Fantle 715-839-7731 Study Confirms Safety of Organic Food But Agrichemical Front Group Attempts to Twist Findings The same right-wing think tank that conspired with John Stossel of ABC News, in an erroneous attempt to discredit organic food (subsequently forcing an apology from the network), is at it again. The Hudson Institute, and its father and son team of Dennis and Alex Avery, are attempting to spin a new report that actually concluded there was no "statistically different" risk in the pathogenic contamination of organic food verses its conventionally produced counterparts. "For years, the Averys' have been banging the drum trying to suggest to consumers that organic food is somehow dangerous," said Mark Kastel, Director of the Organic Integrity Project at The Cornucopia Institute. "In this case, the study * or any study * is evidently enough ammunition for them to begin their indiscriminate potshots." The report in question, published in the May issue of Journal of Food Protection, looked at produce grown on conventional and organic Minnesota farms during 2002. Less than 5 percent of the produce from conventional and organic farms showed contamination with any of the tracked pathogens in question, and that was before washing at the wholesale level, peeling off outer leaves, or a thorough washing once the produce arrives in the home of the ultimate consumer. "This study was primarily designed to look at the use of composted manure verses chemical fertilizers at the farm level. The authors of this report intentionally did not concern themselves with what happened once the produce was washed and left the farm," Kastel said. According to Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, the report's chief author and faculty member at the University of Minnesota, "I had a very heated discussion with Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute. They were very dissatisfied with our findings and told me that our interpretations were not 'correct.' They told me I should have known better than to look for E. coli 0157:H7, because we wouldn't find any." Dr. Diez-Gonzalez is not surprised to learn that the Hudson Institute, with its long record and the backing of agribusiness giants like Monsanto and DuPont, is now trying to use the independently funded, University of Minnesota data to discredit organic farming. Commenting on the Diez-Gonzalez study, Alex Avery called eating organic food "a crap shoot" and warned that potential cases of diarrhea, typhoid fever and Reiter's Syndrome await its consumers. "This statement is total a fabrication and a gross distortion of the Diez-Gonzalez study," charged Kastel. "Alex Avery will say anything in his petty little war against organic food and farming" The only criticism of the research, levied by The Cornucopia Institute, was that nearly 80 percent of the samples taken during the study came from organic farms and only 20% from conventional operations. "If conventional produce was represented as a higher percentage of the total, maybe the findings would have looked even more favorable, in terms of the compareable safety of organic products," said the Cornucopia's Kastel. The conventional sampling was also extremely light in terms of the produce items that were most susceptible to contamination (leafy greens and lettuce). According to Dr. Diez-Gonzalez, investigators are attempting to include more conventional produce in the second and third year of their research. "One of the positive findings from the Minnesota study is that the potential for contamination on farms certified as organic by the USDA, under the federal supervisory program which went into effect in 2002, is demonstrably lower than for farms that call themselves organic but are not certified," noted Kastel. Federal law now mandates that any commercial organic producer must be inspected on an annual basis. "It is not surprising that the best management practices take place on certified farms where the operators are highly engaged, educated and conforming to the strict regulations in terms of the use of composted animal manure," Kastel added. "The results are higher quality and safer produce for the consumer." http://www.organicconsumers.org/orga...stel061504.cfm > Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its > conventional counterpart: > Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but > "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide > sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic > agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the > eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful > and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb." > > Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper > sulphate used by organic farmers is toxic to humans, very toxic > to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to > small mammals. > http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...0/sep_8_00.htm (Also by Avery). See 'Principles of Organic Farming' below. > Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a > variety of species including humans: > There have been reports of human suicide resulting from the > ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate > is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is toxic to aquatic > invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters. Based on data > on the potential hazards posed by this material to the > slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass, and in > an effort to minimize exposure of endangered species to this > material, applicators in some counties are required to consult > EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate. > http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm ..... > Organic pesticides ARE toxins: > Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic > farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills > pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even > though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has > questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of > various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that > paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper > compounds that can be tough on other organisms and the > environment. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the > pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on > a wide range of insects. Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to > mammals and highly toxic to fish. It is illegal to apply them > around ponds or waterways. So even though it says "organic", it > can still pack a nasty punch. > http://www.springledgefarm.com/glossary.htm .... > How much more evidence do you need, Skunky, before you stop making wild > claims about the superiority of organic farming techniques with respect > to concern for human health, wildlife safety, etc.? You haven't mentioned organic farming techniques, stinky suspect. Remember "Some organic pesticides may be toxic to nontargets." ...*; minimize pesticide use*? You jelly-headed, clueless Texan. 'What is Organic Farming? Organic farming is a form of agriculture which does not use synthetic inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers because of the disruptive effects that the synthetic chemicals can cause on the ecological balance considered essential to maintain a sustainable system indefinitely. Organic farming thus differs from other alternative agriculture systems that allow the minimal use of these inputs, and it’s from this difference that organic farming gets its name. However, organic farming is not just farming without chemicals. Organic growers focus on using techniques such as crop rotation, proper spacing between plants, incorporation of organic matter into the soil and use of biological controls to promote optimum plant growth and minimize pest problems. Application of organic pesticides are considered a last resort and used sparingly. All agricultural systems disrupt the natural environment to some extent; organic agriculture aims to minimize this disruption and to enhance natural biological cycles. For example, organic farmers emphasize the importance of a healthy soil to promote a diverse biological population, including earthworms and microorganisms such as fungi and bacteria that are beneficial to plants. ... In the box at right <below> are the principles of organic farming as stated by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM, from Organic Farming 1990). Principles of Organic Farming • To produce food of high nutritional quality in sufficient quantity; • To work with natural systems rather than seeking to dominate them; • To encourage and enhance biological cycles within the farming system, involving microorganisms, soil flora and fauna, plants and animals; • To increase and maintain the long-term fertility of soils; • To use as far as possible renewable resources in locally organized agricultural systems; • To work as much as possible within a closed system with regard to organic matter and nutrient elements; • To give all livestock conditions of life that allow them to perform all aspects of their innate behavior; • To avoid all forms of pollution that may result from agricultural operations; • To maintain the genetic diversity of the agricultural system and its surroundings, including the protection of plant and wildlife habitats; • To allow agricultural producers an adequate return and satisfaction from their work including a safe working environment; • To consider the wider social and ecological impact of the farming system. http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/free...f/VCU_4_99.pdf The proof is in the pudding. 'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many of their habitats. http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s.../benefits.html '..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming, organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower, and energy efficiency is usually higher. ...' http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...Sheets05092001 'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the organic farms, as outlined below: Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found only on organic farms. Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher skylark breeding rates. Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas; one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as many spider species. Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in numbers of pest butterflies. Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found in the cropped areas of the fields. Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift. ...' http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Reynard" > wrote in message
... > On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > > >Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up > >meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the > >last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're > >talking about, I haven't kept records and can't > >therefore answer you. > > It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop > dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the > amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding > on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 > will mean you have reduced your littering, however > much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need > numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the > same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes > of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries > to belittle and dismiss your efforts. I see through him. He doesn't get basic concepts, so there's no way of getting more complex in conversation with him. One has to repeat things that he should have already understood from previous paragraphs/postings. Oh well. Your comparison to littering is a good one. At least YOU get the concept! -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Do you dispute that the animal product industry
> > as a whole uses more crops and thus has more > > cds than plant foods grown for human consumption > > as a whole? > > Maybe. Maybe not. Grass-fed beef doesn't. Besides, who said anything > about animal industry? As a whole. That's what I'm talking about. There's not enough of your grass fed beef to supply the full demand for beef. That's where the rest of the industry comes in, factory farming beef, pork, poultry, eggs, dairy... There is a high demand for these products. > > Animals need way more crops to > > produce a pound of meat than for a pound of > > vegan food. Pigs, poultry, you name it, it takes > > more crops to feed them. > > Grass-fed beef doesn't. Hunted venison doesn't. If all meat eaters turned to hunted meat and grass fed beef, the hunted would become extinct. The demand for meat is too high. Also, there would be people still demanding pork and poultry. > > Anyways, if you're so concerned about cds, > > then do something about it. I've done my > > bit, like it or leave it. > > I'm not. I don't think there's anything ethically wrong with animals > dying so I can eat; that's just the way nature works. My point is, you > haven't "done your bit." You haven't really done anything. > > It's as plain as the nose on your face that some meats come at a lower > cd cost than some veggies. You don't care. It's not about cd's, it's > not about animals. It's about something you can do that makes you > THINK you're doing something, when the effort doesn't really amount to > anything. Especially not any real critical thinking on your part. Even if some uncommon meats are somewhat lower in cds I still don't like the idea of eating dead body parts. I think I can speak for most vegan/vegetarians on that matter. Eating dead bodies is just not an option. The idea is quite repulsive. There are always vegan alternatives, some with 0 deaths, whereas meat will always have a minimum of 1. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Anyways, if you're so concerned about cds,
> > then do something about it. I've done my > > bit, like it or leave it. > > ================= > No, all you've done is managed to kill even more than necessary. Why is it > you like doing that, killer? You've been shown that even without eating > meat that you could do far better, yet you remain willfully ignorant and > determined to cause as much unnecessary death and suffering as possible. > Why is that? Just like tracking around bloody footprints? I've been shown zip from you. Just insults, propaganda more appropriate for a meat industry lobbyist, and more insults. Do you actually think I'm going to believe much of what you write? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > > > Do you dispute that the animal product industry > > > as a whole uses more crops and thus has more > > > cds than plant foods grown for human consumption > > > as a whole? > > > > Maybe. Maybe not. Grass-fed beef doesn't. Besides, who said > anything > > about animal industry? > > As a whole. That's what I'm talking about. There's not > enough of your grass fed beef to supply the full demand > for beef. That's where the rest of the industry comes in, > factory farming beef, pork, poultry, eggs, dairy... There > is a high demand for these products. So what? There's enough grass fed beef to supply YOU. What's YOUR excuse? > > > > Animals need way more crops to > > > produce a pound of meat than for a pound of > > > vegan food. Pigs, poultry, you name it, it takes > > > more crops to feed them. > > > > Grass-fed beef doesn't. Hunted venison doesn't. > > If all meat eaters turned to hunted meat and grass > fed beef, the hunted would become extinct. The > demand for meat is too high. Also, there would > be people still demanding pork and poultry. There's enough for YOU. What's YOUR excuse? > > > > Anyways, if you're so concerned about cds, > > > then do something about it. I've done my > > > bit, like it or leave it. > > > > I'm not. I don't think there's anything ethically wrong with animals > > dying so I can eat; that's just the way nature works. My point is, > you > > haven't "done your bit." You haven't really done anything. > > > > It's as plain as the nose on your face that some meats come at a lower > > cd cost than some veggies. You don't care. It's not about cd's, it's > > not about animals. It's about something you can do that makes you > > THINK you're doing something, when the effort doesn't really amount to > > anything. Especially not any real critical thinking on your part. > > Even if some uncommon meats are somewhat lower in cds > I still don't like the idea of eating dead body parts. I think I > can speak for most vegan/vegetarians on that matter. Eating > dead bodies is just not an option. The idea is quite repulsive. > There are always vegan alternatives, some with 0 deaths, > whereas meat will always have a minimum of 1. So, it's not about ethics, it's about aesthetics. You think it's "icky." And NONE of your "vegan alternatives" have 0 deaths. NONE. You ARE a hypocrite, a moral shirker of the worst sort. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > As a whole. That's what I'm talking about. There's not
> > enough of your grass fed beef to supply the full demand > > for beef. That's where the rest of the industry comes in, > > factory farming beef, pork, poultry, eggs, dairy... There > > is a high demand for these products. > > So what? There's enough grass fed beef to supply YOU. What's YOUR > excuse? I guess you don't get it. Two of the groups you're crossposting to here specifically don't eat dead bodies, regardless of what you might think of that. It's kind of silly to suggest that a vegetarian eat meat. Especially when their primary reasonis health. If I thought that humans were meant to eat meat, I would chalking it up to nature as much as any other carnivore. But I believe that we are meant to be vegetarian. You're free to believe differently, just don't push your beliefs on me. > > If all meat eaters turned to hunted meat and grass > > fed beef, the hunted would become extinct. The > > demand for meat is too high. Also, there would > > be people still demanding pork and poultry. > > There's enough for YOU. What's YOUR excuse? See above. > > Even if some uncommon meats are somewhat lower in cds > > I still don't like the idea of eating dead body parts. I think I > > can speak for most vegan/vegetarians on that matter. Eating > > dead bodies is just not an option. The idea is quite repulsive. > > There are always vegan alternatives, some with 0 deaths, > > whereas meat will always have a minimum of 1. > > So, it's not about ethics, it's about aesthetics. You think it's > "icky." It's both. And more. > And NONE of your "vegan alternatives" have 0 deaths. NONE. > You ARE a hypocrite, a moral shirker of the worst sort. When I've eaten stuff grown in friend's gardens, there are 0 deaths. Also, when I eat things grown on small scale or hobby farms, there's 0 deaths. They taste better than commercial too. One time we found a giant puffball mushroom in my mother's backyard about a little smaller than a soccer ball. We ate mushroom 'steaks' for lunch. Absolutely delicious, nutritious and 0 deaths. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> CORRECTION > > usual suspect wrote: > <...> > > > The reality is there's *no* significant difference between methods other '-Conventional Synthetic chemicals may be toxic to many nontargets (beneficial insects, pets, humans, birds, fish, and other wildlife) Take control; eliminate pests calendar based applications All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; greater use increases risk Composted municipal sewage may bring heavy metals Runoff with soluble nutrients and pesticides can wash into waterways after rain -Organic Strive for ecological balance and minimize pesticide use; build soil and plant health to avoid the need for treatment All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; use safest approved materials Composted municipal sewage not allowed; manure must be composted to avoid active disease bacteria; assess compost quality before use Runoff can occur with any materials, but less with organic matter that binds nutrients to soil. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/public...are/which.html > > than the fact that conventional crop production may include use of > > synthetic pestcides and fertilizers and are also routinely monitored for > > pesticide residues. Organic crops allow the use of natural versions of > > the *very same* pesticides and are NOT monitored for residues (despite > > the fact that many of the natural pesticides are equally dangerous as > > the synthetics). > > Parenthesis should read: despite the fact that the natural pesticides > are equally dangerous as the synthetics. There's no significant > difference in the toxicity of either conventional or organic pesticides, 'Derived from the painted daisy, Chrysanthemum cinerariifolium, pyrethrins are considered one of the most important natural insecticides. When you must use a broad spectrum insecticide in the vegetable garden or lose the crop, this is one of the best choices. Of low toxicity to mammals, they kill insects quickly. In sunlight they break down and are non-toxic within a day or less. For best results apply it in the late afternoon or evening. Use pyrethrins for the hard-to-kill pests such as beetles, squash bugs, and tarnished plant bugs.' http://www.iserv.net/~wmize/insctd.htm 'While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the chrysanthemum, they were chemically designed to be more toxic with longer breakdown times, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency and compromising the human body's ability to detoxify the pesticide. .....' http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pest...yrethroids.pdf > just that conventional ones are tested and limited in use while organics > are neither tested nor limited for application on crops. 'Pesticide residues Over 400 pesticides are permitted for use in the UK. The incidence and levels of pesticide residues on foods are monitored annually. 28.6% of all foods tested in 1999 were found to contain pesticide residues, and 48% of all fruit and vegetables tested (MAFF 2000). The levels found are typically very low. Just 1.6% of all foods and 3% of fruit and vegetables exceeded the MRL - maximum residue limit - in 1999. Seven pesticides are permitted for restricted use in organic farming. Organic produce is usually found to contain no pesticide residues. When residues are present, they are typically of significantly lower incidence and levels than those found in non-organic produce (MAFF 1999, Schüpbach 1986, Reinhardt & Wolf 1986), and result mostly from environmental pollution from non-organic agriculture (Woese et al. 1997, Bitaud 2000). 'Rigorous safety assessments' are made of all pesticides and it is asserted that these incidences and levels do not represent a threat to food safety (FSA 2001). However no such 'rigorous safety assessment' has or can be made of the infinite number of mixtures of compounds consumers are typically exposed to. Individual samples contained up to seven different pesticides in 1999. Synergies resulting in greatly increased toxicity of pesticides and other agricultural compounds have been observed (Boyd et al. 1990, Porter et al. 1993, Porter et al. 1999, Thiruchelvam et al. 2000). Dietary exposure to pesticide residues has been linked to gastrointestinal and neurological complaints (Ratner et al. 1983), breast milk contamination (Aubert 1975) and some sperm quality parameters (Juhler et al. 1999, Abell et al. 1994, Jensen et al. 1996). The British Medical Association urges a precautionary approach "because the data on risk to human health from exposure to pesticides are incomplete" (BMA 1992). ...' http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/librar...%20quality.pdf > > <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Abner Hale" > wrote in message ps.com...
> > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > > In answer to trolls questions, I discuss cds. You keep > > > > bringing it up. I never claimed to be able to eliminate > > > > all cds, but a reduction is fine by me. > > > > > > > > > > Hang on. How do you know you're "reducing?" By how many deaths have > > > you reduced in the last ten years, and how did you arrive at that > > > number? > > > > > > Let's see. A long time ago, I ate meat. For each > > pound of meat, it took a huge,huge amount of > > crops just to make one pound of meat. > > NOT huge, huge, sorry. Estimates range from 1.5 to 3 pounds, once you Calculations feed : beef. Table 5. Corn grain, medium quality hay and corn silage. Average Daily Corn Protein Lime- Weight Gain Intake Grain Hay Silage Supplement stone 800 2.5 30.3 7.5 5.3 14.2 3.1 0.19 1200 2.5 35.5 13.8 1.3 16.7 3.6 0.22 http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ans...f/as1163-1.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average daily gain 2.5 pounds (liveweight). Medium-high concentrate ration grain + corn silage + hay - average 32.5 lbs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Live-weight 900 1040 1146 1258 1403 lb 'harvest' 1 ..... 2 .... 3 .... 4 ...... 5 Fat % 17.7 ........22.6 ..... 28.1 .......30.3 ..........34.0 Protein % 14.5 ........13.9 .......12.6 ......12.0 ..........11.6 Water % 51.3 ...... 48.0....... 43.9 ...... 42.3.......... 40.1 Bone % 16.4 ....... 15.4 ...... 15.4 ...... 15.3 .........14.3 carcass weight 450 550 650 750 850 lbs. http://ars.sdstate.edu/BeefExt/BeefR...ht_and_mar.htm Those ages are near enough to be used to calculate meat gain %. protein + water = meat (1) 65.8% of 450lbs carcass, (4) 54.3% of 750lbs carcass. = 296.1 = 407.25 - a gain of 111.15lbs of meat for + 300lbs of carcass weight- or 37.0% of feedlot carcass gain. Total increase; carcass + wastage -- 1258-900 = 358lbs. Meat gain- % of liveweight gain; 111.15/358 * 100 = 31% . 2.5 lbs liveweight gain x 31% = 0.77 pounds meat. -------------------------------------------------------------- 32.5 pounds intake / 0.77 = 42.2, or 42 :1, feed : meat gain, on a medium-high grain ration + silage & hay. (not DM) -------------------------------------------------------------- Here we'll add 10% fat.., --------------------------------------------------------------- Add 10% to 0.77lbs meat for fat content = 0.85 pounds beef. 32.5 pounds intake / 0.85 = 38.23, or 38 :1, feed : beef gain. --------------------------------------------------------------- > factor in that most aniaml feeds aren't useful to humans. You can't > eat grass, for example. If arable land (~10%* of all land surface), currently used to grow human-edible food (1/2*) and livestock feed (1/2*), was used only to grow food for humans, it would meet the human population's requirements +, whilst at the same time freeing-up for natural habitat the ~50% of all land surface currently grazed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > > > As a whole. That's what I'm talking about. There's not > > > enough of your grass fed beef to supply the full demand > > > for beef. That's where the rest of the industry comes in, > > > factory farming beef, pork, poultry, eggs, dairy... There > > > is a high demand for these products. > > > > So what? There's enough grass fed beef to supply YOU. What's YOUR > > excuse? > > I guess you don't get it. Two of the groups you're > crossposting to here specifically don't eat dead > bodies, regardless of what you might think of that. I don't care one way or another what you eat. But I enjoy pointing out that your stated reasons for doing so are intellectualy slovenly and phony. > > It's kind of silly to suggest that a vegetarian eat > meat. Have I? > Especially when their primary reason > is health. We've seen that your primary reason is "it's icky." Not health. > If I thought that humans were meant to > eat meat, I would chalking it up to nature as much > as any other carnivore. Find yourself a biology text and look up "omnivore." > But I believe that we are > meant to be vegetarian. You're free to believe > differently, just don't push your beliefs on me. So what? You have NO expertise in that area. > > > > If all meat eaters turned to hunted meat and grass > > > fed beef, the hunted would become extinct. The > > > demand for meat is too high. Also, there would > > > be people still demanding pork and poultry. > > > > There's enough for YOU. What's YOUR excuse? > > See above. You think it's "icky." Why not just say so? Why all the other bullshit? > > > > Even if some uncommon meats are somewhat lower in cds > > > I still don't like the idea of eating dead body parts. I think I > > > can speak for most vegan/vegetarians on that matter. Eating > > > dead bodies is just not an option. The idea is quite repulsive. > > > There are always vegan alternatives, some with 0 deaths, > > > whereas meat will always have a minimum of 1. > > > > So, it's not about ethics, it's about aesthetics. You think it's > > "icky." > > It's both. And more. No, it's not. It's just aesthetics. > > > And NONE of your "vegan alternatives" have 0 deaths. NONE. > > You ARE a hypocrite, a moral shirker of the worst sort. > > When I've eaten stuff grown in friend's gardens, there are 0 > deaths. What's that, one percent of your diet? > Also, when I eat things grown on small scale or > hobby farms, there's 0 deaths. No, there probably isn't. > They taste better than > commercial too. One time we found a giant puffball > mushroom in my mother's backyard about a little smaller > than a soccer ball. We ate mushroom 'steaks' for lunch. > Absolutely delicious, nutritious and 0 deaths. And the rest of the tiem you happily stuff supermarket veggies in your huge, gaping pie-hole. Fact is, you COULD do more, but you don't. You're a phony. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > I guess you don't get it. Two of the groups you're
> > crossposting to here specifically don't eat dead > > bodies, regardless of what you might think of that. > > I don't care one way or another what you eat. But I enjoy pointing out > that your stated reasons for doing so are intellectualy slovenly and > phony. The reasons are all quite valid. Health, animal welfare, aesthetics, religion, allergies, trend following, etc. These are some of the many reasons people become vegetarian. You are no one when it comes to pointing out that my reasons are [insult, insult, etc]. You have no credibility with me because of the insulting manner you present yourself in here. > > It's kind of silly to suggest that a vegetarian eat > > meat. > > Have I? Yes. You quite highly recommended it for me, if I'm remembering correctly. > > Especially when their primary reason > > is health. > > We've seen that your primary reason is "it's icky." Not health. It's health and animals and aesthetics all rolled into one and all fixed by my dietary choice. > > But I believe that we are > > meant to be vegetarian. You're free to believe > > differently, just don't push your beliefs on me. > > So what? You have NO expertise in that area. And I'm supposed to throw away my years of what I've learned and take the word of an insulting troll??? LOL > > > > If all meat eaters turned to hunted meat and grass > > > > fed beef, the hunted would become extinct. The > > > > demand for meat is too high. Also, there would > > > > be people still demanding pork and poultry. > > > > > > There's enough for YOU. What's YOUR excuse? See you're recommending it to me again. Pushing it like a bad drug on me. > > > And NONE of your "vegan alternatives" have 0 deaths. NONE. > > > You ARE a hypocrite, a moral shirker of the worst sort. > > > > When I've eaten stuff grown in friend's gardens, there are 0 > > deaths. > > What's that, one percent of your diet? Depends on the time of year, and who's growing what. > Fact is, you COULD do more, but you don't. You're a phony. Fact is, it's only the trolls like you who can't accept that people are not going to live up to your ideals for us of perfection. It's you trolls who say that being vegan means we have to become superheroes and save the world of cds in our lives. You say it's OUR expectation of ourselves but that's a lie. It's YOUR expectation for the sole purpose of being able to whine "you're not doing all you can". -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > > > I guess you don't get it. Two of the groups you're > > > crossposting to here specifically don't eat dead > > > bodies, regardless of what you might think of that. > > > > I don't care one way or another what you eat. But I enjoy pointing > out > > that your stated reasons for doing so are intellectualy slovenly and > > phony. > > The reasons are all quite valid. Health, animal welfare, > aesthetics, religion, allergies, trend following, etc. "Trend following?" WTF? > These are some of the many reasons people > become vegetarian. You are no one when it comes > to pointing out that my reasons are [insult, insult, etc]. > You have no credibility with me because of the > insulting manner you present yourself in here. I'm right. You know it. I know it. > > > > It's kind of silly to suggest that a vegetarian eat > > > meat. > > > > Have I? > > Yes. You quite highly recommended it for me, if I'm > remembering correctly. No, dummy. I pointed out that some meats come at a lower CD cost than some veggies, and that you don't care. > > > > Especially when their primary reason > > > is health. > > > > We've seen that your primary reason is "it's icky." Not health. > > It's health and animals and aesthetics all rolled into one > and all fixed by my dietary choice. The health reasons are phony. It's perfectly possible to have a wonderfully healthy diet that includes meat in various forms. You KNOW that's true. The "animal" reasons are phony. You COULD do more to reduce CDs, but you don't, because it would be INCONVENIENT. The ONLY valid reason you've given boils down to "meat is icky." All that pot has messed up your thinking. > > > > But I believe that we are > > > meant to be vegetarian. You're free to believe > > > differently, just don't push your beliefs on me. > > > > So what? You have NO expertise in that area. > > And I'm supposed to throw away my years of what > I've learned and take the word of an insulting troll??? > LOL You have learned nothing. You've read a few lurid, hysterical web sites written by activists, not scientists. You have NEVER sought to learn, only to confirm your prejudices. > > > > > > If all meat eaters turned to hunted meat and grass > > > > > fed beef, the hunted would become extinct. The > > > > > demand for meat is too high. Also, there would > > > > > be people still demanding pork and poultry. > > > > > > > > There's enough for YOU. What's YOUR excuse? > > See you're recommending it to me again. Pushing it > like a bad drug on me. No, just pointing out that it's not at all 'about the animals.' You're a fraud. > > > > > And NONE of your "vegan alternatives" have 0 deaths. NONE. > > > > You ARE a hypocrite, a moral shirker of the worst sort. > > > > > > When I've eaten stuff grown in friend's gardens, there are 0 > > > deaths. > > > > What's that, one percent of your diet? > > Depends on the time of year, and who's growing > what. One percent, or less. I'd bet money on it. > > > Fact is, you COULD do more, but you don't. You're a phony. > > Fact is, it's only the trolls like you who can't accept that people > are not going to live up to your ideals for us of perfection. Fact is, you don't even ATTEMPT to live up to YOUR OWN STATED ETHIC. You're a filthy hypocrite. > > It's you trolls who say that being vegan means we have to > become superheroes and save the world of cds in our lives. > You say it's OUR expectation of ourselves but that's a lie. > It's YOUR expectation for the sole purpose of being able > to whine "you're not doing all you can". No, stupid, we just point out that your expectations are stupid, your claims fraudulent, and that you are not only a hypocrite but a sloppy, weak thinker. And you make it so EASY! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> Fact is, it's only the trolls like you who can't accept that people > are not going to live up to your ideals for us of perfection. You don't need to be perfect, just don't pretend to be doing better than a self-sufficient farmer who raises his own livestock. Anyone who lives off the teat of commercial argibusiness is not doing so, vegan or not. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You know, what's best of all, is that you COMPLETELY ABDICATED on my original point. I challenged you to support your blanket assertion that cds caused by meat are always less than cds caused by vegetables. You effectively conceded. You really are a twit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote [..] > Then, when you use the term not wrong there is a sense of wrongness that > is, shall we say implied. So when you made statements to our vegan > friend that eating meat was "not wrong" there is some sense of wrongness > in the act. Do I understand your perspective correctly? No. If someone claims "X" is wrong, I will tend to reply in the same form, i.e. "it is not wrong", rather than "it is right", even though they mean the same thing. You tend to create issues where they don't exist. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> > >> >Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >> >meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >> >last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >> >talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >> >therefore answer you. >> >> It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >> dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >> amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >> on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >> will mean you have reduced your littering, however >> much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >> numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >> same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >> of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >> to belittle and dismiss your efforts. > >I see through him. We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers we get here on this forum. They're no better or worse than drug pushers, in my opinion, because they push their product onto non-users in the very same way with the use of disinformation and lies about their product . Should you or anyone resist what they push, they then get nasty and sling insults at you for keeping the moral high ground. >He doesn't get basic concepts, >so there's no way of getting more complex in >conversation with him. One has to repeat things >that he should have already understood from >previous paragraphs/postings. Oh well. You could go on repeating yourself if the pushers don't take 'no' for an answer, but then that's just word tennis and takes up all your valuable time which you could be using to exchange ideas with other vegetarians and vegans here. I'm guilty of feeding the troll pushers myself though, so you'll have to excuse my hypocrisy on this particular point, if you will. ;-) >Your comparison to littering is a good one. Thanks. > At least YOU get the concept! I do, and so does 'usual suspect', but since becoming a pusher he tries to forget his old quotes which belie his current position. "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my environment, and the whole world. Is that first part selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other, more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.) mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and without serious health problems associated with an animal-based diet?" usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09 and "Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains, vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely and you have much more of the latter to feed the world." usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26 From those, 'usual suspect' clearly believed his vegan lifestyle had "selfless consequences", namely, that "no animal must die for [his] nourishment or enjoyment, less pollution and less harm to the environment." He tells a completely different story now he's a pusher himself though. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > The reasons are all quite valid. Health, animal welfare,
> > aesthetics, religion, allergies, trend following, etc. > > "Trend following?" WTF? There's a zillion reasons for people going veggie. I've even seen some do it because they think it's trendy. I doubt those ones would be long termers though. The point is, there are many reasons as well as, and besides the animals, that people go veggie. > > These are some of the many reasons people > > become vegetarian. You are no one when it comes > > to pointing out that my reasons are [insult, insult, etc]. > > You have no credibility with me because of the > > insulting manner you present yourself in here. > > I'm right. You know it. I know it. No. I have strong reasons against what I've seen you post. I don't believe you are right, so you might want to change the above quote of you. > > > > It's kind of silly to suggest that a vegetarian eat > > > > meat. > > > > > > Have I? > > > > Yes. You quite highly recommended it for me, if I'm > > remembering correctly. > > No, dummy. I pointed out that some meats come at a lower CD cost than > some veggies, and that you don't care. Nonsense. Just go back a post or so. You specifically told me theres enough game and beef for me and that if I didn't choose that, then I'm not doing all I can. Can you blame me for thinking you're a bit nuts? > > > > > > Especially when their primary reason > > > > is health. > > > > > > We've seen that your primary reason is "it's icky." Not health. > > > > It's health and animals and aesthetics all rolled into one > > and all fixed by my dietary choice. > > The health reasons are phony. It's perfectly possible to have a > wonderfully healthy diet that includes meat in various forms. You KNOW > that's true. The "animal" reasons are phony. You COULD do more to > reduce CDs, but you don't, because it would be INCONVENIENT. The ONLY > valid reason you've given boils down to "meat is icky." There you go suggesting meat again! And thereyou go saying I'm not doing all I can, when it's me who decides that, not you troll. > > Fact is, it's only the trolls like you who can't accept that people > > are not going to live up to your ideals for us of perfection. > > Fact is, you don't even ATTEMPT to live up to YOUR OWN STATED ETHIC. > You're a filthy hypocrite. And what is my very own stated ethic, mr. mindreader? > > It's you trolls who say that being vegan means we have to > > become superheroes and save the world of cds in our lives. > > You say it's OUR expectation of ourselves but that's a lie. > > It's YOUR expectation for the sole purpose of being able > > to whine "you're not doing all you can". > > No, stupid, we just point out that your expectations are stupid, your > claims fraudulent, and that you are not only a hypocrite but a sloppy, > weak thinker. And you make it so EASY! But all you point out are YOUR expectations. I've never seen a vegan here go on and on like you troll and your expectations of us. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Abner Hale" > wrote in message
ups.com... > > You know, what's best of all, is that you COMPLETELY ABDICATED on my > original point. I challenged you to support your blanket assertion > that cds caused by meat are always less than cds caused by vegetables. > You effectively conceded. > > You really are a twit. And you're a name calling nothing. You've ignored all proof posted by me and others. You would have found your answers there (repeatedly). -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > "Abner Hale" > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > You know, what's best of all, is that you COMPLETELY ABDICATED on my > > original point. I challenged you to support your blanket assertion > > that cds caused by meat are always less than cds caused by vegetables. > > You effectively conceded. > > > > You really are a twit. > > And you're a name calling nothing. You've ignored all > proof posted by me and others. You would have found > your answers there (repeatedly). You've posted no proof. Only assertions. You HAVE no proof; only the hysterics of activists. And it drives you NUTS, because you KNOW it's true. You reveal yourself, daily, to be the archetypical pothead loser. You have little or no grasp of logic. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > >>"Retard" > wrote in message ... >> >>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>> >>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>therefore answer you. >>> >>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >> >>I see through him. > > We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's > become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers > we get here on this forum. I've recommended that people consume products which cause the fewest number of dead animals if they're genuinely interested in causing fewer animal deaths. You don't care either way. You know animals die in the course of your rampant gluttony, and the only thing you've done is blame farmers for your share of animal deaths. You're a buck-passing, self-crippled, dole-scrounging cuckold. > They're no better or worse > than drug pushers, in my opinion, So says the undisciplined, bluefooted pill-popper who just extolled the virtues of taking X at raves. > because they push > their product onto non-users in the very same way with What a terrible analogy, but not surprising given your certificate in woodwork and background as a cowboy auto electrician. You're no philosopher, Dreck. > the use of disinformation and lies about their product . Pot kettle black, and very rich given your buck-passing history with respect to your gluttony and pill-popping. > Should you or anyone resist what they push, they then > get nasty and sling insults at you for keeping the moral > high ground. Very rich, same grounds as above. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > >>"Retard" > wrote in message ... >> >>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>> >>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>therefore answer you. >>> >>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >> >>I see through him. > > We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's > become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers > we get here on this forum. I've recommended that people consume products which cause the fewest number of dead animals if they're genuinely interested in causing fewer animal deaths. You don't care either way. You know animals die in the course of your rampant gluttony, and the only thing you've done is blame farmers for your share of animal deaths. You're a buck-passing, self-crippled, dole-scrounging cuckold. > They're no better or worse > than drug pushers, in my opinion, So says the undisciplined, bluefooted pill-popper who just extolled the virtues of taking X at raves. > because they push > their product onto non-users in the very same way with What a terrible analogy, but not surprising given your certificate in woodwork and background as a cowboy auto electrician. You're no philosopher, Dreck. > the use of disinformation and lies about their product . Pot kettle black, and very rich given your buck-passing history with respect to your gluttony and pill-popping. > Should you or anyone resist what they push, they then > get nasty and sling insults at you for keeping the moral > high ground. Very rich, same grounds as above. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > And you're a name calling nothing. You've ignored all
> > proof posted by me and others. You would have found > > your answers there (repeatedly). > > You've posted no proof. Only assertions. You HAVE no proof; only the > hysterics of activists. And it drives you NUTS, because you KNOW it's > true. > > You reveal yourself, daily, to be the archetypical pothead loser. You > have little or no grasp of logic. You're just a name-calling troll. I refuse to continuously repeat my logic and explanations. If you didn't understand it the first dozen times, what makes you think you'll understand it now? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > > > And you're a name calling nothing. You've ignored all > > > proof posted by me and others. You would have found > > > your answers there (repeatedly). > > > > You've posted no proof. Only assertions. You HAVE no proof; only the > > hysterics of activists. And it drives you NUTS, because you KNOW it's > > true. > > > > You reveal yourself, daily, to be the archetypical pothead loser. You > > have little or no grasp of logic. > > You're just a name-calling troll. I refuse to continuously > repeat my logic and explanations. If you didn't > understand it the first dozen times, what makes > you think you'll understand it now? What logic? You've presented NO logic. You don't know what the word means. You're funny as hell, pothead. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ... >>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >>>> >>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>>>therefore answer you. >>>> >>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. >>> >>>I see through him. >> >> We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's >> become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers >> we get here on this forum. > >I've recommended that people consume products which .... they don't want, pusher, and when they refuse your demands that they take your product, you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.' >> They're no better or worse >> than drug pushers, in my opinion, > >So says the .... clean vegetarian who doesn't accept your pushing of unhealthy products onto him. >> because they push >> their product onto non-users in the very same way with > >What a terrible analogy It's a perfect analogy, pusher. An analogy is written in the form. A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (A) A pusher pushing meat is like (B) A pusher pushing drugs (B) has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Therefore, (A) a pusher pushing meat has the property (P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it onto others. Shove off, pusher! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
peril wrote:
>>>>On organic farms you won't find the rodent killing >>>>chemicals that turn their insides to mush. >>> >>>Oh, please tell me your source for this information. Here are a few >>>details I can pass along to show otherwise: >>> >>>Organic pesticides cause cancer in rodents (and humans): >>> One of organic farming's most widely used >>> pesticides--pyrethrum--has been classified as a ``likely human >>> carcinogen.'' An advisory committee to the Environmental >>> Protection Agency made the classification two years ago, after >>> pyrethrum caused higher-than-normal numbers of tumors in two >>> different sets of #laboratory# rodents. >>> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...1/jun_8_01.htm > > - by Dennis T. Avery.. see below. (# ^ mine) Do lab rodents grow tumors differently than field rodents? <...> >>>Organic pesticides induce Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rodents >>>(and humans): >>> Rotenone, a commonly used organic pesticide, has attracted a lot >>> of attention in Dr. Greenamyre's #lab#. In past studies, Dr. >>> Greenamyre and colleagues found that rotenone can induce major >>> features of PD in rats, including slowness, stiffness and >>> tremor. Published in Nature Neuroscience in November 2000, these >>> results support the idea that chronic exposure to environmental >>> pesticides may contribute to the incidence of Parkinson's >>> disease in humans. With the new funding, Dr. Greenamyre will >>> continue to research rodent and cell models of PD to determine >>> which genes cause susceptibility or resistance to the >>> PD-inducing effects of pesticides. >>> http://www.scienceblog.com/community.../20022444.html > > Organic pesticides are used in conventional farming. They're also used in organic farming. >>>Organic pesticides affect more than just target species: > > Organic (system): > >>> Some organic pesticides may be toxic to nontargets. > > .. ; minimize pesticide use' Conventional farmers attempt to minimize use, too, contrary to your benighted suggestions to the contrary. >>>http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/public...are/which.html > > '-Conventional AND organic. > Synthetic chemicals AND ORGANIC > may be toxic to many nontargets (beneficial insects, > pets, humans, birds, fish, and other wildlife) <...> > All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; greater use increases risk NOTE: *ALL* pesticides are poisonous. Including organic ones. > Composted municipal sewage may bring heavy metals "May" doesn't mean "always does." > Runoff with soluble nutrients and pesticides can wash into waterways after rain > > -Organic > > Strive for ecological balance and minimize pesticide use; build soil and plant > health to avoid the need for treatment That doesn't say that the need for treatment is avoided. Like veganism, organic sets a theoretical goal which sounds laudable but isn't once put into practice. > All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; use safest approved materials ALL pesticides. Including ORGANIC ones. > Composted municipal sewage not allowed; manure must be composted to > avoid active disease bacteria; assess compost quality before use > > Runoff can occur with any materials, but less with organic matter that binds > nutrients to soil.' > > >>>Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and >>>many of them #are banned# under the Rotterdam Convention: >>> The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries – >>> including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect >>> once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list >>> included 22 organic pesticides considered to be highly toxic... >>> http://www.nex.org.br/english/denuci...enenamento.htm >>> >>>Finally, but not because I'm out of ammo on the subject, an organic >>>pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane #is banned# because of >>>its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT. >>>http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm >> >>Here's more. Organic pesticides kill fish: >>While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only >>slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other >>animals. For instance, the organic pesticide ryania is very >>toxic to fish. >>http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm > > 'It is important to be careful when using any pesticide, even > organic or natural pesticides. Correct -- because BOTH kill a lot more than just their targeted species. The difference, though, is that the synthetic pesticides you loathe can be targeted more specifically toward targeted species and have predictable half-lives. Organic agents, like copper sulphate, build up in the environment and in animals and cause significant harm because they remain active longer. > .. > Biopesticides are an important group of pesticides that can > reduce pesticide risks..' > http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm They don't reduce ALL pesticide risks. Microbial pesticides need to be continuously monitored to ensure they do not become capable of harming non-target organisms, *including humans*. [my emphasis] http://tinyurl.com/5nfcq See also: http://www.entomology.cornell.edu/Ex...Pesticides.htm >>Organic pesticides kill a variety of non-target species, and foods grown >>organically are not labeled "pesticide free": >>Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone >>kills fish. Copper sulphate kills many creatures. In California, >>an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all >>pesticide use. > > 'Organic pesticides are used widely.' ... > > Organic pesticides are used widely by conventional farmers. And by organic farmers. >>For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call >>their produce "pesticide free." >>http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html > > 'Pesticide residues > > Over 400 pesticides are permitted for use in the UK. The incidence and > levels of pesticide residues on foods are monitored annually. 28.6% of > all foods tested in 1999 were found to contain pesticide residues, and > 48% of all fruit and vegetables tested (MAFF 2000). The levels found > are typically very low. Just 1.6% of all foods and 3% of fruit and > vegetables exceeded the MRL - maximum residue limit - in 1999. > > Seven pesticides are permitted for restricted use in organic farming. > Organic produce is usually found to contain no pesticide residues. When > residues are present, they are typically of significantly lower incidence and > levels than those found in non-organic produce (MAFF 1999, Schüpbach > 1986, Reinhardt & Wolf 1986), and result mostly from environmental > pollution from non-organic agriculture (Woese et al. 1997, Bitaud 2000). > > 'Rigorous safety assessments' are made of all pesticides and it is asserted > that these incidences and levels do not represent a threat to food safety > (FSA 2001). However no such 'rigorous safety assessment' has or can > be made of the infinite number of mixtures of compounds consumers are > typically exposed to. Individual samples contained up to seven different > pesticides in 1999. Synergies resulting in greatly increased toxicity of > pesticides and other agricultural compounds have been observed (Boyd > et al. 1990, Porter et al. 1993, Porter et al. 1999, Thiruchelvam et al. 2000). > > Dietary exposure to pesticide residues has been linked to gastrointestinal > and neurological complaints (Ratner et al. 1983), breast milk contamination > (Aubert 1975) and some sperm quality parameters (Juhler et al. 1999, > Abell et al. 1994, Jensen et al. 1996). The British Medical Association > urges a precautionary approach "because the data on risk to human health > from exposure to pesticides are incomplete" (BMA 1992). > ..' > http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/librar...%20quality.pdf Those dangers stem from the use of organic pesticides as well as conventional. >>See also: >>http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...etails&id=1677 > > DENNIS T. AVERY is based in Churchville, Va., and is director of > global food issues for the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis. Correct. They do some very good work using scientific findings against leftwing activists. Mr Avery's credentials likely don't include a background in reflexology or inner earth beings. He's eminently qualified to discuss global food issues. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
peril wrote:
>>>>On organic farms you won't find the rodent killing >>>>chemicals that turn their insides to mush. >>> >>>Oh, please tell me your source for this information. Here are a few >>>details I can pass along to show otherwise: >>> >>>Organic pesticides cause cancer in rodents (and humans): >>> One of organic farming's most widely used >>> pesticides--pyrethrum--has been classified as a ``likely human >>> carcinogen.'' An advisory committee to the Environmental >>> Protection Agency made the classification two years ago, after >>> pyrethrum caused higher-than-normal numbers of tumors in two >>> different sets of #laboratory# rodents. >>> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...1/jun_8_01.htm > > - by Dennis T. Avery.. see below. (# ^ mine) Do lab rodents grow tumors differently than field rodents? <...> >>>Organic pesticides induce Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rodents >>>(and humans): >>> Rotenone, a commonly used organic pesticide, has attracted a lot >>> of attention in Dr. Greenamyre's #lab#. In past studies, Dr. >>> Greenamyre and colleagues found that rotenone can induce major >>> features of PD in rats, including slowness, stiffness and >>> tremor. Published in Nature Neuroscience in November 2000, these >>> results support the idea that chronic exposure to environmental >>> pesticides may contribute to the incidence of Parkinson's >>> disease in humans. With the new funding, Dr. Greenamyre will >>> continue to research rodent and cell models of PD to determine >>> which genes cause susceptibility or resistance to the >>> PD-inducing effects of pesticides. >>> http://www.scienceblog.com/community.../20022444.html > > Organic pesticides are used in conventional farming. They're also used in organic farming. >>>Organic pesticides affect more than just target species: > > Organic (system): > >>> Some organic pesticides may be toxic to nontargets. > > .. ; minimize pesticide use' Conventional farmers attempt to minimize use, too, contrary to your benighted suggestions to the contrary. >>>http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/public...are/which.html > > '-Conventional AND organic. > Synthetic chemicals AND ORGANIC > may be toxic to many nontargets (beneficial insects, > pets, humans, birds, fish, and other wildlife) <...> > All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; greater use increases risk NOTE: *ALL* pesticides are poisonous. Including organic ones. > Composted municipal sewage may bring heavy metals "May" doesn't mean "always does." > Runoff with soluble nutrients and pesticides can wash into waterways after rain > > -Organic > > Strive for ecological balance and minimize pesticide use; build soil and plant > health to avoid the need for treatment That doesn't say that the need for treatment is avoided. Like veganism, organic sets a theoretical goal which sounds laudable but isn't once put into practice. > All pesticides are poisonous to some form of life; use safest approved materials ALL pesticides. Including ORGANIC ones. > Composted municipal sewage not allowed; manure must be composted to > avoid active disease bacteria; assess compost quality before use > > Runoff can occur with any materials, but less with organic matter that binds > nutrients to soil.' > > >>>Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and >>>many of them #are banned# under the Rotterdam Convention: >>> The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries – >>> including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect >>> once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list >>> included 22 organic pesticides considered to be highly toxic... >>> http://www.nex.org.br/english/denuci...enenamento.htm >>> >>>Finally, but not because I'm out of ammo on the subject, an organic >>>pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane #is banned# because of >>>its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT. >>>http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm >> >>Here's more. Organic pesticides kill fish: >>While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only >>slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other >>animals. For instance, the organic pesticide ryania is very >>toxic to fish. >>http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm > > 'It is important to be careful when using any pesticide, even > organic or natural pesticides. Correct -- because BOTH kill a lot more than just their targeted species. The difference, though, is that the synthetic pesticides you loathe can be targeted more specifically toward targeted species and have predictable half-lives. Organic agents, like copper sulphate, build up in the environment and in animals and cause significant harm because they remain active longer. > .. > Biopesticides are an important group of pesticides that can > reduce pesticide risks..' > http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm They don't reduce ALL pesticide risks. Microbial pesticides need to be continuously monitored to ensure they do not become capable of harming non-target organisms, *including humans*. [my emphasis] http://tinyurl.com/5nfcq See also: http://www.entomology.cornell.edu/Ex...Pesticides.htm >>Organic pesticides kill a variety of non-target species, and foods grown >>organically are not labeled "pesticide free": >>Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone >>kills fish. Copper sulphate kills many creatures. In California, >>an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all >>pesticide use. > > 'Organic pesticides are used widely.' ... > > Organic pesticides are used widely by conventional farmers. And by organic farmers. >>For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call >>their produce "pesticide free." >>http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html > > 'Pesticide residues > > Over 400 pesticides are permitted for use in the UK. The incidence and > levels of pesticide residues on foods are monitored annually. 28.6% of > all foods tested in 1999 were found to contain pesticide residues, and > 48% of all fruit and vegetables tested (MAFF 2000). The levels found > are typically very low. Just 1.6% of all foods and 3% of fruit and > vegetables exceeded the MRL - maximum residue limit - in 1999. > > Seven pesticides are permitted for restricted use in organic farming. > Organic produce is usually found to contain no pesticide residues. When > residues are present, they are typically of significantly lower incidence and > levels than those found in non-organic produce (MAFF 1999, Schüpbach > 1986, Reinhardt & Wolf 1986), and result mostly from environmental > pollution from non-organic agriculture (Woese et al. 1997, Bitaud 2000). > > 'Rigorous safety assessments' are made of all pesticides and it is asserted > that these incidences and levels do not represent a threat to food safety > (FSA 2001). However no such 'rigorous safety assessment' has or can > be made of the infinite number of mixtures of compounds consumers are > typically exposed to. Individual samples contained up to seven different > pesticides in 1999. Synergies resulting in greatly increased toxicity of > pesticides and other agricultural compounds have been observed (Boyd > et al. 1990, Porter et al. 1993, Porter et al. 1999, Thiruchelvam et al. 2000). > > Dietary exposure to pesticide residues has been linked to gastrointestinal > and neurological complaints (Ratner et al. 1983), breast milk contamination > (Aubert 1975) and some sperm quality parameters (Juhler et al. 1999, > Abell et al. 1994, Jensen et al. 1996). The British Medical Association > urges a precautionary approach "because the data on risk to human health > from exposure to pesticides are incomplete" (BMA 1992). > ..' > http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/librar...%20quality.pdf Those dangers stem from the use of organic pesticides as well as conventional. >>See also: >>http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...etails&id=1677 > > DENNIS T. AVERY is based in Churchville, Va., and is director of > global food issues for the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis. Correct. They do some very good work using scientific findings against leftwing activists. Mr Avery's credentials likely don't include a background in reflexology or inner earth beings. He's eminently qualified to discuss global food issues. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Retard" > wrote in message > ... > >>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > > wrote: > >>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>therefore answer you. >> >>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. > > I see through him. No, you avoid dealing with facts whether they're presented by me, Rick, Jay, Dutch, or anyone else. You're a true believer: you will not deviate from the vegan religion. > He doesn't get basic concepts, I do get "basic concepts," which is why I don't walk the line promoting a flawed belief system like veganism. > so there's no way of getting more complex in > conversation with him. You can't even support your own claims with any evidence, much less address the evidence I've brought up in our discussions. > One has to repeat things No, all you have to do is stop tap dancing and deal with facts rather than making up "logic" -- which isn't logic at all -- and repeating it over and over. > that he should have already understood from > previous paragraphs/postings. Oh well. You've done NOTHING to support your claims, aside from repeating them. That's called tautology. It's NOT proof, it demonstrates a lack of it. > Your comparison to littering is a good one. It was a pathetic one. > At least YOU get the concept! He doesn't get it, and neither do you, which is why you two fellow travelers see eye to eye on the matter. It's funny that you're siding with the biggest shit-stirrer in the history of these newsgroups, whose background is in woodworking and auto electrics (don't get me started on British electrical systems!), not in any academic background. Indeed, he's openly demonstrated contempt for those with academic backgrounds: You college types have no natural awareness of what's going on around you, sometimes. -- Dreck, Claire's uncle, http://tinyurl.com/54zxm Birds of a feather... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Retard" > wrote in message > ... > >>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > > wrote: > >>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up >>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the >>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're >>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't >>>therefore answer you. >> >>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop >>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the >>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding >>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005 >>will mean you have reduced your littering, however >>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need >>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the >>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes >>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries >>to belittle and dismiss your efforts. > > I see through him. No, you avoid dealing with facts whether they're presented by me, Rick, Jay, Dutch, or anyone else. You're a true believer: you will not deviate from the vegan religion. > He doesn't get basic concepts, I do get "basic concepts," which is why I don't walk the line promoting a flawed belief system like veganism. > so there's no way of getting more complex in > conversation with him. You can't even support your own claims with any evidence, much less address the evidence I've brought up in our discussions. > One has to repeat things No, all you have to do is stop tap dancing and deal with facts rather than making up "logic" -- which isn't logic at all -- and repeating it over and over. > that he should have already understood from > previous paragraphs/postings. Oh well. You've done NOTHING to support your claims, aside from repeating them. That's called tautology. It's NOT proof, it demonstrates a lack of it. > Your comparison to littering is a good one. It was a pathetic one. > At least YOU get the concept! He doesn't get it, and neither do you, which is why you two fellow travelers see eye to eye on the matter. It's funny that you're siding with the biggest shit-stirrer in the history of these newsgroups, whose background is in woodworking and auto electrics (don't get me started on British electrical systems!), not in any academic background. Indeed, he's openly demonstrated contempt for those with academic backgrounds: You college types have no natural awareness of what's going on around you, sometimes. -- Dreck, Claire's uncle, http://tinyurl.com/54zxm Birds of a feather... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>And you're a name calling nothing. You've ignored all >>>proof posted by me and others. You would have found >>>your answers there (repeatedly). >> >>You've posted no proof. Only assertions. You HAVE no proof; only the >>hysterics of activists. And it drives you NUTS, because you KNOW it's >>true. >> >>You reveal yourself, daily, to be the archetypical pothead loser. You >>have little or no grasp of logic. > > You're just a name-calling troll. It's neither trolling nor name-calling if it's on target -- and it is. > I refuse to continuously repeat That's all you've done to date is repeat. You've offered no evidence to support ANY of your claims. You've been left stammering with the same mindless twaddle you came in with when presented with overwhelming proof that demolishes your house of cards. You were wrong that your diet was cruelty-free, you were wrong about the disinformation you peddled in the name of "health" and your "research," you were wrong about organics and "veganics." > my logic You've offered none. > and explanations. You've never substantiated your claims. > If you didn't > understand it the first dozen times, what makes > you think you'll understand it now? You didn't understand anything when you came here, and you've only moved slightly with respect to issues like CDs and organics in light of the overwhelming evidence presented. All you've done is keep repeating the same bullshit over and over, as if it would turn true the more you repeated it; it hasn't. Instead, it's shown you to be a charlatan, or worse, a true believer who gets her "research" from activist websites rather than from an unbiased study of the issues she raises. And you think with all that you can just cast the blame on everyone else who's tried to help you understand the errors of your positions? What an ingrate. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Anyways, if you're so concerned about cds, >>>then do something about it. I've done my >>>bit, like it or leave it. >>>================= >> >>No, all you've done is managed to kill even more than necessary. Why > > is it > >>you like doing that, killer? You've been shown that even without > > eating > >>meat that you could do far better, yet you remain willfully ignorant > > and > >>determined to cause as much unnecessary death and suffering as > > possible. > >>Why is that? Just like tracking around bloody footprints? > > > > I've been shown zip from you. He's shown you some very credible information. You've not brought anything substantive to the table, just your parroting of vegan and organic activist claims (which have been disproven everytime you've raised them). |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The perfect G&T.... | General Cooking | |||
| The perfect cup of tea | Tea | |||
| Perfect BBQ was had | Barbecue | |||
| The perfect cup of tea | Tea | |||
| The perfect foil (and her moral confusion) | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
