Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> Well, I for one am not willing to give up all machinery
> and clothes (I'd get arrested!).

Not for lewd behavior, but for being an eyesore.

> Why do you call it MY
> spew, when it's you trolls who keep bringing up your
> cd expectations of us.

You're the ones who prate incessantly about dead animals and your own
virtue despite the fact that you still contribute to animal deaths via
your own consumption.

<...>
> My 'simple' rule of not eating animal products is first and
> foremost for health reasons.

Liar. You know nothing about sound nutritional principles, only bad
generalizations you picked up from activists.

> I know that I've also happened
> to reduce cds in my dietary change

How many CDs have been reduced by your dietary change?

> I'm content with the dent I've made.

You haven't made a dent.

<...>
>>Yeah fool, they take the poisons they are deliberate fed back to their
>>nests while their guts turn to mush over a few days. How is that
>>compassionate, killer?
>
> On commercial farms, where most crops go for use as
> fodder, that's true. But on organic farms, that's not true.

You're pulling this out of your acne-scarred ass. Most organic farms are
"commercial" farms. Organic farms use pesticides. They use machines to
sow, fertilize, and harvest crops. You're either ignorant or have
managed to reach a completely delusional state about the realities of
organic production -- that somehow it's idyllic and peaceful.

The reality is there's *no* significant difference between methods other
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). Furthermore, the most common organic fertilizers
include parts of dead animals -- fish emulsion, fish meal, blood meal,
bone, etc.

<...>
> I'd still rather take the bacterially grown (not petro) b12 supplements.
> I forget the brand name, but I saved the message somewhere.

So much for your fraudulent claim that you've researched all this stuff
for years. It's SOLGAR. Dummy.

<...>
>>>I have been the activist's recipe sites. I go for the
>>>recipes. I don't hang around to join a cause, even
>>>though it's a good one.
>>
>>================
>>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.

Why do you parrot it verbatim, Polly?

<...>

CORRECTION

usual suspect wrote:
<...>

> The reality is there's *no* significant difference between methods other
> 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,
just that conventional ones are tested and limited in use while organics
are neither tested nor limited for application on crops.

<...>

"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

>
> <...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> > Well, I for one am not willing to give up all machinery
> > and clothes (I'd get arrested!).
>
> Not for lewd behavior, but for being an eyesore.

Such a nice guy! No wonder your wife is leaving you.

> > Why do you call it MY
> > spew, when it's you trolls who keep bringing up your
> > cd expectations of us.
>
> You're the ones who prate incessantly about dead animals and your own
> virtue despite the fact that you still contribute to animal deaths via
> your own consumption.

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.

> > My 'simple' rule of not eating animal products is first and
> > foremost for health reasons.
>
> Liar. You know nothing about sound nutritional principles, only bad
> generalizations you picked up from activists.

I've been researching much longer than any activist
websites have been around, in fact, before there
was a web.

> > I know that I've also happened
> > to reduce cds in my dietary change
>
> How many CDs have been reduced by your dietary change?

I don't know the exact number, only the relativety to
my previous meateating diet. I know I've caused
a reduction of cds, but don't know how many, only
comparatively when comparing vegan to meateating.

> > I'm content with the dent I've made.
>
> You haven't made a dent.

It's not one you'd see.

> >>Yeah fool, they take the poisons they are deliberate fed back to
their
> >>nests while their guts turn to mush over a few days. How is that
> >>compassionate, killer?
> >
> > On commercial farms, where most crops go for use as
> > fodder, that's true. But on organic farms, that's not true.
>
> You're pulling this out of your acne-scarred ass. Most organic farms
are
> "commercial" farms. Organic farms use pesticides. They use machines to
> sow, fertilize, and harvest crops. You're either ignorant or have
> managed to reach a completely delusional state about the realities of
> organic production -- that somehow it's idyllic and peaceful.

On organic farms you won't find the rodent killing
chemicals that turn their insides to mush. As far
as the slow moving machines go, I think there's
been a bit of exaggeration regarding the numbers
you trolls would like us to believe.

> > I'd still rather take the bacterially grown (not petro) b12
supplements.
> > I forget the brand name, but I saved the message somewhere.
>
> So much for your fraudulent claim that you've researched all this
stuff
> for years. It's SOLGAR. Dummy.

Learning about Solgar is quite recent for me. I does
not invalidate any of my previous learning.

> >>>I have been the activist's recipe sites. I go for the
> >>>recipes. I don't hang around to join a cause, even
> >>>though it's a good one.
> >>
> >>================
> >>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.
>
> Why do you parrot it verbatim, Polly?

Are you sure I do? I think up all my own words. If they
are parroting me verbatim, I'd like to know where, so
I can ask them to stop.


--
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:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > <...>
> > > Well, I for one am not willing to give up all machinery
> > > and clothes (I'd get arrested!).
> >
> > Not for lewd behavior, but for being an eyesore.
>
> Such a nice guy! No wonder your wife is leaving you.
>
> > > Why do you call it MY
> > > spew, when it's you trolls who keep bringing up your
> > > cd expectations of us.
> >
> > You're the ones who prate incessantly about dead animals and your
own
> > virtue despite the fact that you still contribute to animal deaths
via
> > your own consumption.
>
> 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?

<snip>

> > 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. 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.


--
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 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
factor in that most aniaml feeds aren't useful to humans. You can't
eat grass, for example.

> The
> larger the crop use, the more cds there are.

Not necessarily. A pound of rice may cause more CD's than a pound of
grass-fed beef.

> 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.

Faulty, weak, lazy logic. It is exact numbers you must provide to make
any kind of point. A pound of hunted venison certainly comes at less
CD cost than a pound of rice.

Do you still eat rice?

"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.

peril wrote:
> "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.

Growing rabbits eat about 3 pounds of feed for a pound of gain
http://tinyurl.com/5zl6s

You could consider just growing all tom turkeys as you can cut down on
feed costs because of the factor involving the feed conversion
factor. A
tom of up to eighteen pounds requires forty two pounds of feed.
(Appears to be from a school paper. Still, less than 2.5 pounds of feed
per pound of bird.)
http://tinyurl.com/57n47

It will take about 5 pounds of feed to age 6 weeks and 8-9 pounds to 8
weeks for the commercial strains.
(So about 14 pounds of feed to finish a 4 pound chicken -- again, about
three pounds of feed to pound of meat.)
http://tinyurl.com/5z65c

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.

No, it didn't. Much of the weight of an animal like a steer is put on
from grazing on grass, not on grains. Animals are finished on grains to
fatten (or marble) their meat.

> The larger the crop use, the more cds there are.

Ipse dixit. You're really clueless.

> Now that I've eliminated meat from my diet,
> I'm left with products that are lower cd,

Yves fake sausage?! Lundberg rice?! Plantains from Central America??!

> since
> it DOESN'T take a huge amount of crops to
> raise vegan food.

How much wheat does it take to make gluten? How much soy to make
protein? How much of the two crops does it take to make a pound of
****ing fake sausage? Hint: a lot more than it takes to raise animals
like turkeys and rabbits, as I showed you a few weeks ago.

> No exact numbers

Naturally! Why should you actually perform body counts to see if you're
consumption matches your bloviated rhetoric.

> for you, just logic.

There's no numbers and no logic, either.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > 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.
====================
Ly.



The
> larger the crop use, the more cds there are.
=================
LOL You just proved you cause more fool, because that's *ALL* you eat now.
Massive amounts of mono-culture, factory-farmed crops, courtesy of the
petro-chemical industy. You really are just too stupid for this, killer.


> 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.
==================
ROTFLMAO What? It just all falls like manna from heaven? You are
seriously insane, killer.


No exact numbers for
> you, just logic.
==============
Illogic. You have no numbers, and you have no logic.

>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidty and ignorance all rolled up in one giant mass.
>

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.

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
factor in that most aniaml feeds aren't useful to humans. You can't
eat grass, for example.

> The
> larger the crop use, the more cds there are.

Not necessarily. A pound of rice may cause more CD's than a pound of
grass-fed beef.

> 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.

Faulty, weak, lazy logic. It is exact numbers you must provide to make
any kind of point. A pound of hunted venison certainly comes at less
CD cost than a pound of rice.

Do you still eat rice?

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.

No, it didn't. Much of the weight of an animal like a steer is put on
from grazing on grass, not on grains. Animals are finished on grains to
fatten (or marble) their meat.

> The larger the crop use, the more cds there are.

Ipse dixit. You're really clueless.

> Now that I've eliminated meat from my diet,
> I'm left with products that are lower cd,

Yves fake sausage?! Lundberg rice?! Plantains from Central America??!

> since
> it DOESN'T take a huge amount of crops to
> raise vegan food.

How much wheat does it take to make gluten? How much soy to make
protein? How much of the two crops does it take to make a pound of
****ing fake sausage? Hint: a lot more than it takes to raise animals
like turkeys and rabbits, as I showed you a few weeks ago.

> No exact numbers

Naturally! Why should you actually perform body counts to see if you're
consumption matches your bloviated rhetoric.

> for you, just logic.

There's no numbers and no logic, either.

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.

No, it didn't. Much of the weight of an animal like a steer is put on
from grazing on grass, not on grains. Animals are finished on grains to
fatten (or marble) their meat.

> The larger the crop use, the more cds there are.

Ipse dixit. You're really clueless.

> Now that I've eliminated meat from my diet,
> I'm left with products that are lower cd,

Yves fake sausage?! Lundberg rice?! Plantains from Central America??!

> since
> it DOESN'T take a huge amount of crops to
> raise vegan food.

How much wheat does it take to make gluten? How much soy to make
protein? How much of the two crops does it take to make a pound of
****ing fake sausage? Hint: a lot more than it takes to raise animals
like turkeys and rabbits, as I showed you a few weeks ago.

> No exact numbers

Naturally! Why should you actually perform body counts to see if you're
consumption matches your bloviated rhetoric.

> for you, just logic.

There's no numbers and no logic, either.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > 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.
====================
Ly.



The
> larger the crop use, the more cds there are.
=================
LOL You just proved you cause more fool, because that's *ALL* you eat now.
Massive amounts of mono-culture, factory-farmed crops, courtesy of the
petro-chemical industy. You really are just too stupid for this, killer.


> 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.
==================
ROTFLMAO What? It just all falls like manna from heaven? You are
seriously insane, killer.


No exact numbers for
> you, just logic.
==============
Illogic. You have no numbers, and you have no logic.

>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidty and ignorance all rolled up in one giant mass.
>

Scented Nectar wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>Well, I for one am not willing to give up all machinery
>>>and clothes (I'd get arrested!).
>>
>>Not for lewd behavior, but for being an eyesore.
>
> Such a nice guy! No wonder your wife is leaving you.

What wife, you dingbat? I have a girlfriend. She's not going anywhere.

>>>Why do you call it MY
>>>spew, when it's you trolls who keep bringing up your
>>>cd expectations of us.
>>
>>You're the ones who prate incessantly about dead animals and your own
>>virtue despite the fact that you still contribute to animal deaths via
>>your own consumption.
>
> 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.

What reduction? How many fewer animals die as a result of your
consumption now than did just a month ago?

>>>My 'simple' rule of not eating animal products is first and
>>>foremost for health reasons.
>>
>>Liar. You know nothing about sound nutritional principles, only bad
>>generalizations you picked up from activists.
>
> I've been researching much longer than any activist
> websites have been around, in fact, before there
> was a web.

You're either a liar or you've nothing to show for all this supposed
"research."

>>>I know that I've also happened
>>>to reduce cds in my dietary change
>>
>>How many CDs have been reduced by your dietary change?
>
> I don't know the exact number,

Then how the **** do you know the score in your own life, dingbat?

> only the relativety to
> my previous meateating diet.

All you have is the shoddy, inaccurate comparison of a diet that
included meat and one that doesn't. Since you're not keeping any kind of
score, you have no clue how many or how few deaths you're really
causing. Everything on your part is a matter of wild-assed conjecture
and best hopes. In short, your new-found sanctimony suits you well.

> I know

You KNOW nothing. You assume (wrongly) that you're causing fewer deaths
merely on the basis that you're not consuming meat.

> I've caused a reduction of cds,

Are you keeping score other than trying to bullshit that "I don't eat
meat, therefore no animal (or fewer animals) died in the production of
my meals"? No. You're bluffing. You can fool yourself (and oviously
you're quite good at it), but you're not fooling anyone else.

> but don't know how many,

Precisely. You didn't know how many before, you don't know how many now,
and your blasé attitude pretty much points in the direction that you'll
never know because you're only concerned about your own
self-righteousness, not about animals.

> only comparatively when comparing vegan to meateating.

IOW, comparing apples and oranges through generalizations than through
specifics.

>>>I'm content with the dent I've made.
>>
>>You haven't made a dent.
>
> It's not one you'd see.

It sure as hell isn't one YOU see, either, by your own accounting.

<...>
>>>On commercial farms, where most crops go for use as
>>>fodder, that's true. But on organic farms, that's not true.
>>
>>You're pulling this out of your acne-scarred ass. Most organic farms
>>are "commercial" farms. Organic farms use pesticides. They use machines to
>>sow, fertilize, and harvest crops. You're either ignorant or have
>>managed to reach a completely delusional state about the realities of
>>organic production -- that somehow it's idyllic and peaceful.
>
> 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

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

> As far as the slow moving machines go, I think there's
> been a bit of exaggeration regarding the numbers

You've claimed that it's wrong to kill animals, period. It's amusing how
relative your sense of morality is.

>>>I'd still rather take the bacterially grown (not petro) b12
>>>supplements.
>
>>>I forget the brand name, but I saved the message somewhere.
>>
>>So much for your fraudulent claim that you've researched all this
>>stuff for years. It's SOLGAR. Dummy.
>
> Learning about Solgar is quite recent for me.

Just like learning about CDs, omega FAs, organic pesticide dangers, etc.
Aren't you lucky others have been around to help you.

> I does not invalidate any of my previous learning.

Be honest, Skunky: it's hard to invalidate what never even existed.

>>>>>I have been the activist's recipe sites. I go for the
>>>>>recipes. I don't hang around to join a cause, even
>>>>>though it's a good one.
>>>>
>>>>================
>>>>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.
>>
>>Why do you parrot it verbatim, Polly?
>
> Are you sure I do?

Absolutely. :-)

> >>Not for lewd behavior, but for being an eyesore.
> >
> > Such a nice guy! No wonder your wife is leaving you.
>
> What wife, you dingbat? I have a girlfriend. She's not going anywhere.

Oh, it must have been one of the other trolls. You're so
easy to mix up.

> > 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.
>
> What reduction? How many fewer animals die as a result of your
> consumption now than did just a month ago?

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.

> >>>My 'simple' rule of not eating animal products is first and
> >>>foremost for health reasons.
> >>
> >>Liar. You know nothing about sound nutritional principles, only bad
> >>generalizations you picked up from activists.

Says who? You? You who doesn't know me?

> > I've been researching much longer than any activist
> > websites have been around, in fact, before there
> > was a web.
>
> You're either a liar or you've nothing to show for all this supposed
> "research."

Nothing to show YOU.

> > I've caused a reduction of cds,
>
> Are you keeping score other than trying to bullshit that "I don't eat
> meat, therefore no animal (or fewer animals) died in the production of
> my meals"? No. You're bluffing. You can fool yourself (and oviously
> you're quite good at it), but you're not fooling anyone else.

Yeah, but it's a fact. Vegan foods use way less crops.
Therefore less cds. Duh. I don't need to know the exact
count, although it would be nice to have.

> > 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:

The chemicals you referred to above, the ones turning their guts to
mush, aren't organic.


--
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:
>>>>Not for lewd behavior, but for being an eyesore.
>>>
>>>Such a nice guy! No wonder your wife is leaving you.
>>
>>What wife, you dingbat? I have a girlfriend. She's not going anywhere.
>
> Oh, it must have been one of the other trolls.

There are no trolls operating in these groups at the present time.

> You're so easy to mix up.

Perhaps you should lay off the weed so your attention span and cognitive
abilities will improve.

>>>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.
>>
>>What reduction? How many fewer animals die as a result of your
>>consumption now than did just a month ago?
>
> Why a month ago, what's different now?

That's when you declared yourself a vegan wannabe.

> 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.

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.

>>>>>My 'simple' rule of not eating animal products is first and
>>>>>foremost for health reasons.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. You know nothing about sound nutritional principles, only bad
>>>>generalizations you picked up from activists.
>
> Says who? You? You who doesn't know me?

I know what you've posted here. You're ignorant about matters of nutrition.

>>>I've been researching much longer than any activist
>>>websites have been around, in fact, before there
>>>was a web.
>>
>>You're either a liar or you've nothing to show for all this supposed
>>"research."
>
> Nothing to show YOU.

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.

>>>I've caused a reduction of cds,
>>
>>Are you keeping score other than trying to bullshit that "I don't eat
>>meat, therefore no animal (or fewer animals) died in the production of
>>my meals"? No. You're bluffing. You can fool yourself (and oviously
>>you're quite good at it), but you're not fooling anyone else.
>
>
> Yeah, but it's

NOT

> a fact.

Then maybe you can come up with some proof that it's a fact? No? I
didn't think so.

> Vegan foods use way less crops.

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.
http://www.highyieldconservation.org...c_farming.html
http://www.highyieldconservation.org...esticides.html
http://www.highyieldconservation.org...abundance.html

> Therefore less cds. Duh. I don't need to know the exact
> count, although it would be nice to have.

It would show you to be in error.

>>>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:
>
> The chemicals you referred to above, the ones turning their guts to
> mush, aren't organic.

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.

Ok, you're cut off for a while. You're nothing but
an insult spewer. You couldn't understand my
concepts even if you really tried. That makes
for repetition on my part and is boring.

--
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:
> Ok, you're cut off for a while. You're nothing but
> an insult spewer. You couldn't understand my
> concepts even if you really tried. That makes
> for repetition on my part and is boring.
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

He also has you backed into a corner. You have NO "concepts," only
guesses. Like most "vegans," you're a fraud.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, you're cut off for a while. You're nothing but
> an insult spewer. You couldn't understand my
> concepts even if you really tried. That makes
> for repetition on my part and is boring.
==================
ROTFLMAO In other words, you can't take the real data he provides, so you
snip it and run away. Typical vegan loon.


Here, I'll help you out, why not respond to what he posted:

Your ignorant spew....> Vegan foods use way less crops.

Usuals response, which you have to run from, killler...
"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.
http://www.highyieldconservation.org...c_farming.html
http://www.highyieldconservation.org...esticides.html
http://www.highyieldconservation.org/articles/scarcity_abundance.html"




>
> --
> 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:
> 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 in message
...
> Ok, you're cut off for a while. You're nothing but
> an insult spewer. You couldn't understand my
> concepts even if you really tried. That makes
> for repetition on my part and is boring.
==================
ROTFLMAO In other words, you can't take the real data he provides, so you
snip it and run away. Typical vegan loon.


Here, I'll help you out, why not respond to what he posted:

Your ignorant spew....> Vegan foods use way less crops.

Usuals response, which you have to run from, killler...
"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.
http://www.highyieldconservation.org...c_farming.html
http://www.highyieldconservation.org...esticides.html
http://www.highyieldconservation.org/articles/scarcity_abundance.html"




>
> --
> 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:
> 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.

Ok, you're cut off for a while. You're nothing but
an insult spewer. You couldn't understand my
concepts even if you really tried. That makes
for repetition on my part and is boring.

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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...

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
>
> 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.

> >> 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:

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.

> 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.
That's something you can't dispute. Organic or
not.


--
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:
<snip>
> 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.

> > 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.

Anyways, if you're so concerned about cds,
then do something about it. I've done my
bit, like it or leave it.


--
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
...
>> >> 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:
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
> That's something you can't dispute. Organic or
> not.
=================
Sure, especially when you add some organic meats to the mix. *Then* you cut
way down on the number of CDs you cause. Thanks for finally admiting it
fool.
That's something *you* cannot refute. Oh, wait, you never provide any
evidence to support anything you say, so you never really refute anything,
you just ly about it.

>
>
> --
> 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:
>>>>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?

"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

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.

<...>