Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-01-2005, 08:43 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

peril wrote:
Many thanks, S.N.

As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
avoided


In moderation, or consumed on occasion, it's not going to kill you. Twit.

do you think that 'Rice Dream' would be alright instead?


Why wouldn't it be? Both are just starchy water.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-01-2005, 08:43 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

peril wrote:
Many thanks, S.N.

As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
avoided


In moderation, or consumed on occasion, it's not going to kill you. Twit.

do you think that 'Rice Dream' would be alright instead?


Why wouldn't it be? Both are just starchy water.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 01:28 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, I've been shopping but only at the place
that has less organic than the other store.


Doesn't make a ****ing difference, Skanky. Both stores use lethal

force
to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming also use lethal
force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming use
machinery that runs over or mutilates animals. You're still

contributing
to wholesale animal slaughter and pain, you misguided, heartless

witch.

I see you're still insane Usual. Organic veggies are
more nutritious than regular ones because they get
more balanced nutrients from the naturally enriched
soil.

As for blaming me for other people's killing, well,
no soup for you!

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


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 01:28 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, I've been shopping but only at the place
that has less organic than the other store.


Doesn't make a ****ing difference, Skanky. Both stores use lethal

force
to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming also use lethal
force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming use
machinery that runs over or mutilates animals. You're still

contributing
to wholesale animal slaughter and pain, you misguided, heartless

witch.

I see you're still insane Usual. Organic veggies are
more nutritious than regular ones because they get
more balanced nutrients from the naturally enriched
soil.

As for blaming me for other people's killing, well,
no soup for you!

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


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 01:38 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here it is. I think it turned out pretty good.

Sounds utterly horrible.


Good. None for you. And you won't mind then.

Lot's of flavour.


Lots. No apostrophe, it's not possessive.


Someone call the typo police.

2 cups unsalted broth
946 ml organic soy milk


Why not use the whole damn liter?


That's the size the milk came in. Why? You'd
have to ask the company.

4 lg yukon gold potatoes - chopped


Potatoes are a vicious animal killing crop. I hope you're happy.


I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
were grown in. But thanks for telling me how mean
potatoes are. I had no idea they were vicious
killers. Good thing I chopped them up before they
got my cat or something.


1 cauliflower - head only, chopped
1 brocolli - head only, chopped
3 bay leaves
2 tsp. oregano
4 tsp. basil
2 tsp. paprika
1/2 tsp. pepper
1 Tbsp. salt
2 Tbsp. sugar
approx. 2 cups extra water.

Put all of the above into a big cookpot.

Bring to a simmer then lower the heat.
Cook till veggies are very soft.


Yuck. Mushy vegetables? They'd be a LOT healthier for you if you
wouldn't overcook them, Skanky, but I know you're a poseur when it

comes
to interest in health anyway.


It's you who's a poseur in cooking. My soup was
intended on being a creamy puree with corn added
after the pureeing. Vegetables must be soft to
puree well. At least when making a soup, you get
to eat the water they've boiled in, recatching some
of the cooked out nutrients.

Stir often as it will foam up at first.


So it matches your mouth?


Only when I'm rabid. Come closer.

Remove the bay leaves.

Puree with one of those handheld
things, or use the blender in small
batches

Once it's pureed, thaw the corn under
the hot water tap, drain and add to the
soup.

I'll save the organic carrots


Hahaha. When did you start stipulating which produce you consume is

organic?

Organic was brought up earlier in the thread. I was quite happy
to find the organic broccoli and cauliflower.

for another
recipe. They just didn't seem like they'd
go with the above.


Why not?


They just didn't. Turns out the soup was delicious.
Me and a friend polished off the whole potload.

None left for you


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




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 01:38 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here it is. I think it turned out pretty good.

Sounds utterly horrible.


Good. None for you. And you won't mind then.

Lot's of flavour.


Lots. No apostrophe, it's not possessive.


Someone call the typo police.

2 cups unsalted broth
946 ml organic soy milk


Why not use the whole damn liter?


That's the size the milk came in. Why? You'd
have to ask the company.

4 lg yukon gold potatoes - chopped


Potatoes are a vicious animal killing crop. I hope you're happy.


I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
were grown in. But thanks for telling me how mean
potatoes are. I had no idea they were vicious
killers. Good thing I chopped them up before they
got my cat or something.


1 cauliflower - head only, chopped
1 brocolli - head only, chopped
3 bay leaves
2 tsp. oregano
4 tsp. basil
2 tsp. paprika
1/2 tsp. pepper
1 Tbsp. salt
2 Tbsp. sugar
approx. 2 cups extra water.

Put all of the above into a big cookpot.

Bring to a simmer then lower the heat.
Cook till veggies are very soft.


Yuck. Mushy vegetables? They'd be a LOT healthier for you if you
wouldn't overcook them, Skanky, but I know you're a poseur when it

comes
to interest in health anyway.


It's you who's a poseur in cooking. My soup was
intended on being a creamy puree with corn added
after the pureeing. Vegetables must be soft to
puree well. At least when making a soup, you get
to eat the water they've boiled in, recatching some
of the cooked out nutrients.

Stir often as it will foam up at first.


So it matches your mouth?


Only when I'm rabid. Come closer.

Remove the bay leaves.

Puree with one of those handheld
things, or use the blender in small
batches

Once it's pureed, thaw the corn under
the hot water tap, drain and add to the
soup.

I'll save the organic carrots


Hahaha. When did you start stipulating which produce you consume is

organic?

Organic was brought up earlier in the thread. I was quite happy
to find the organic broccoli and cauliflower.

for another
recipe. They just didn't seem like they'd
go with the above.


Why not?


They just didn't. Turns out the soup was delicious.
Me and a friend polished off the whole potload.

None left for you


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


  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 01:41 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
peril wrote:
Many thanks, S.N.

As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
avoided


In moderation, or consumed on occasion, it's not going to kill you.

Twit.

do you think that 'Rice Dream' would be alright instead?


Why wouldn't it be? Both are just starchy water.


No. Soya milk is definately more 'creamy' than
starchy. The soup's texture might change a bit
but it should still taste good.

If substituting a different broth than the one I used,
try to get one heavy on the celery onion and garlic.


  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 01:41 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
peril wrote:
Many thanks, S.N.

As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
avoided


In moderation, or consumed on occasion, it's not going to kill you.

Twit.

do you think that 'Rice Dream' would be alright instead?


Why wouldn't it be? Both are just starchy water.


No. Soya milk is definately more 'creamy' than
starchy. The soup's texture might change a bit
but it should still taste good.

If substituting a different broth than the one I used,
try to get one heavy on the celery onion and garlic.


  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 12:46 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" wrote in message ...
peril wrote:
" In every respect, vegans appear to enjoy equal or better health
in comparison to both vegetarians and non-vegetarians." -- T.
Colin Campbell, PhD Professor of Nutrition, Cornell University
(letter dated 3/29/98)


Not in every respect. From a study of 11,000 vegetarians and other
health conscious people:

This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that
daily consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high
fibre diet) and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction
in mortality from ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in
mortality associated with both of these dietary factors was *NOT
SIGNIFICANT*.

We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15%
reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was
*NOT SIGNIFICANT* and was LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions
REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of this cohort.... A vegetarian
diet was also associated with a *SIGNIFICANT INCREASE* in
mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence interval
was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites
were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence
intervals. The 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer
associated with daily consumption of fresh fruit was *NOT
SIGNIFICANT*....
http://tinyurl.com/4q6fe


RELATIVE risk of breast cancer among Japanese woman
Meat Eggs Butter/cheese
less than once per week 1.0 1.0 1.0
2-4 times per week 2.55 1.91 2.10
almost daily 3.83 2.86 3.23
(from a paper by Hirayama cited in John Scharffenberg's
Problems with Meat", 1989)

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products 1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat.
PMID: 10479227

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease
prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods
diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

Additionally, the latest issue of JAMA reports the findings of a large
study concerning incidence of certain cancers and consumption of red and
processed meats. What's really interesting from the study but not
getting much attention is that consumption of fish and poultry was
linked to a significantly *decreased* rates of colorectal cancers. So
enough with your categorical claims,


Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr (1996) Vol5, No 1: 2-9
Intestinal flora and human health
Tomotari Mitsuoka, DVM, PhD
Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo, Japan
...
Other intestinal bacteria produce substances that are harmful to
the host, such as putrefactive products, toxins and carcinogenic
substances. When harmful bacteria dominate in the intestines,
essential nutrients are not produced and the level of harmful
substances rises. These substances may not have an immediate
detrimental effect on the host but they are thought to be
contributing factors to ageing, promoting cancer, liver and kidney
disease, hypertension and arteriosclerosis, and reduced immunity.
Little is known regarding which intestinal bacteria are responsible
for these effects. A number of factors can change the balance of
intestinal flora in favour of harmful bacteria. These include
peristalsis disorders, surgical operations of stomach or small
intestine, liver or kidney diseases, pernicious anaemia, cancer,
radiation or antibiotic therapies, immune disorders, emotional
stress, poor diet and ageing.
.....
The intestinal flora may play an important role in the causation
of cancer and ageing

Dietary factors are considered important environmental risk
determinants for colorectal cancer development. From
epidemiological observations, a high fat intake is associated
positively and a high fibre intake negatively with colorectal cancer.
This is thought to occur by the following mechanisms. From food
components in the gastrointestinal tract, organisms produce
various carcinogens from the dietary components and endogenous
substances, detoxify carcinogens, or enhance the host's immune
function, which results in changes in the incidence of cancers. The
ingestion of large amounts of animal fat enhances bile secretion,
causing an increase in bile acid and cholesterol in the intestine.
These increased substances are converted by intestinal bacteria
into secondary bile acids, their derivatives, aromatic polycyclic
hydrocarbons, oestrogen and epoxides derivatives that are
related to carcinogenesis. Various tryptophan metabolites (indole,
skatole, 3-hydroxykinurenine, 3-hydroxyanthranilic acid, etc.)
phenols, amines, and nitroso compounds produced by intestinal
bacteria from protein also participate in carcinogenesis (Fig. 5).
...
Figure 5. Relationships among diet, intestinal bacteria and cancer.

Recent epidemiological studies have revealed that insufficient intake
of dietary fibre is associated with high incidences of Western
diseases such as colorectal cancer, obesity, heart disease, diabetes,
and hypertension. Ingested dietary fibre causes increased volume
of faeces, dilution of noxious substances, and shortening of the
transit time of intestinal contents, resulting in early excretion of
noxious substances such as carcinogens produced by intestinal
bacteria. '
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/APJCN.../51p02.htm#top

you foot-rubbing charlatan.


"A favored technique is to debilitate your identity [personally,
I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling false accusations and/or
questioning your honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, your "true"
motivations, your "real" character, your sanity and judgement."
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley-mos.htm


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 12:46 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" wrote in message ...
peril wrote:
" In every respect, vegans appear to enjoy equal or better health
in comparison to both vegetarians and non-vegetarians." -- T.
Colin Campbell, PhD Professor of Nutrition, Cornell University
(letter dated 3/29/98)


Not in every respect. From a study of 11,000 vegetarians and other
health conscious people:

This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that
daily consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high
fibre diet) and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction
in mortality from ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in
mortality associated with both of these dietary factors was *NOT
SIGNIFICANT*.

We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15%
reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was
*NOT SIGNIFICANT* and was LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions
REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of this cohort.... A vegetarian
diet was also associated with a *SIGNIFICANT INCREASE* in
mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence interval
was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites
were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence
intervals. The 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer
associated with daily consumption of fresh fruit was *NOT
SIGNIFICANT*....
http://tinyurl.com/4q6fe


RELATIVE risk of breast cancer among Japanese woman
Meat Eggs Butter/cheese
less than once per week 1.0 1.0 1.0
2-4 times per week 2.55 1.91 2.10
almost daily 3.83 2.86 3.23
(from a paper by Hirayama cited in John Scharffenberg's
Problems with Meat", 1989)

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products 1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat.
PMID: 10479227

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease
prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods
diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

Additionally, the latest issue of JAMA reports the findings of a large
study concerning incidence of certain cancers and consumption of red and
processed meats. What's really interesting from the study but not
getting much attention is that consumption of fish and poultry was
linked to a significantly *decreased* rates of colorectal cancers. So
enough with your categorical claims,


Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr (1996) Vol5, No 1: 2-9
Intestinal flora and human health
Tomotari Mitsuoka, DVM, PhD
Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo, Japan
...
Other intestinal bacteria produce substances that are harmful to
the host, such as putrefactive products, toxins and carcinogenic
substances. When harmful bacteria dominate in the intestines,
essential nutrients are not produced and the level of harmful
substances rises. These substances may not have an immediate
detrimental effect on the host but they are thought to be
contributing factors to ageing, promoting cancer, liver and kidney
disease, hypertension and arteriosclerosis, and reduced immunity.
Little is known regarding which intestinal bacteria are responsible
for these effects. A number of factors can change the balance of
intestinal flora in favour of harmful bacteria. These include
peristalsis disorders, surgical operations of stomach or small
intestine, liver or kidney diseases, pernicious anaemia, cancer,
radiation or antibiotic therapies, immune disorders, emotional
stress, poor diet and ageing.
.....
The intestinal flora may play an important role in the causation
of cancer and ageing

Dietary factors are considered important environmental risk
determinants for colorectal cancer development. From
epidemiological observations, a high fat intake is associated
positively and a high fibre intake negatively with colorectal cancer.
This is thought to occur by the following mechanisms. From food
components in the gastrointestinal tract, organisms produce
various carcinogens from the dietary components and endogenous
substances, detoxify carcinogens, or enhance the host's immune
function, which results in changes in the incidence of cancers. The
ingestion of large amounts of animal fat enhances bile secretion,
causing an increase in bile acid and cholesterol in the intestine.
These increased substances are converted by intestinal bacteria
into secondary bile acids, their derivatives, aromatic polycyclic
hydrocarbons, oestrogen and epoxides derivatives that are
related to carcinogenesis. Various tryptophan metabolites (indole,
skatole, 3-hydroxykinurenine, 3-hydroxyanthranilic acid, etc.)
phenols, amines, and nitroso compounds produced by intestinal
bacteria from protein also participate in carcinogenesis (Fig. 5).
...
Figure 5. Relationships among diet, intestinal bacteria and cancer.

Recent epidemiological studies have revealed that insufficient intake
of dietary fibre is associated with high incidences of Western
diseases such as colorectal cancer, obesity, heart disease, diabetes,
and hypertension. Ingested dietary fibre causes increased volume
of faeces, dilution of noxious substances, and shortening of the
transit time of intestinal contents, resulting in early excretion of
noxious substances such as carcinogens produced by intestinal
bacteria. '
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/APJCN.../51p02.htm#top

you foot-rubbing charlatan.


"A favored technique is to debilitate your identity [personally,
I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling false accusations and/or
questioning your honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, your "true"
motivations, your "real" character, your sanity and judgement."
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley-mos.htm




  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 02:04 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
Well, I've been shopping but only at the place
that has less organic than the other store.


Doesn't make a ****ing difference, Skanky. Both stores use lethal
force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming also use lethal
force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming use
machinery that runs over or mutilates animals. You're still
contributing to wholesale animal slaughter and pain, you misguided, heartless
witch.


I see you're still insane Usual.


I see you're still a hypocrite, Skanky.

Organic veggies are more nutritious


You've been "researching" activist claims again, haven't you.

--------
Organic More Nutritious? Even the Organic Industry Doesn't Think So!

by Alex Avery

Is organic food more nutritious? The simple answer is no. While some
studies have been trumpeted as having finally shown the nutritional
superiority of organic foods, other studies of similar crops show either
no difference or superiority of conventional produce. Many factors
affect nutrient and mineral content of food, especially produce
(genetics, sunlight, moisture, pests, harvest date/time of day, time lag
from harvest to consumption, etc.). Any differences which may result
from the use of organic or conventional farming practices cannot be
detected.

But don’t take our word for it. Look at what others have had to say
about this question:

-- Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that their
products offer no significant nutritional advantages. Katherine
DiMatteo, spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade Association, was asked
on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether organic foods were more
nutritious than their conventional counterparts. She twice responded
that “organic foods are as nutritious as any other product.” Not more
nutritious, merely “as nutritious.”

--The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter
(http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02so...qa/organic.htm)
answered the question of whether organic is more nutritious this way:
“No one knows. The question is a difficult one to study because of all
the factors besides farming methods that could affect nutritional
quality, including soil type and climate. The evidence from the small
body of reliable studies available thus far does not show any
significant differences between the nutrient content of organically
grown and conventionally grown food.”

--UC Davis nutritionist Dr. Gail Feenstra says, “As much as I'd
like to say yes, unfortunately the evidence doesn't show that it is. The
studies are equivocal; there are no definitive studies that show that
organic is much better than conventionally-produced produce."

--Consumer Reports, a magazine that strongly favors organic foods
(and has recommended it several times in the past), wrote this after its
own evaluation of organic foods Dec. 15, 1997. (available at
http://www.consumerreports.com/Speci.../9712n001.html): “Yet
organic produce tastes no different than ‘conventionally’ grown produce,
and any nutritional differences there might be between them are likely
so subtle as to evade detection.”

-- Canada’s Manitoba Agriculture and Food agency
(www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/homeec/cbd03s01.htm) had this to say:
“Nutritional value of plants depends on genetics, availability of water,
amount of sunlight, maturity when picked, how long it took to come to
market and whether it was properly handled and refrigerated. Numerous
laboratory tests have not found any substantial nutritional differences
in organically and conventionally grown produce.”

--The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
(http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...nd/fs2docs/fs7...
“Various comparisons have been made on the nutrient content of plants
and on other components of nutritional quality. Although differences can
be found they are not consistent among the different experiments that
have been conducted. Varying the soil nutrients or other growing
conditions could conceivably produce similar results. There is no
conclusive evidence that crops grown organically are either inferior or
superior nutritionally. There are major differences between experiments
and among crops within the same experiment.”

Dr. Clarence Swanton, professor in the Department of Plant Agriculture
at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada says, “There is no
scientific evidence whatsoever that I am aware of that [organic food] is
nutritionally better for you.”

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../oct_18_97.htm

See also:
http://www.price-pottenger.org/Artic...Nutrition.html
http://www.ivillage.co.uk/food/cook/...0103,164370_52...
http://www.nature.com/nsu/000831/000831-4.

-----

As for blaming me for other people's killing,


I'm blaming you for your own killing. Your consumption makes you
directly responsible for dead animals.

well, no soup for you!


Thank goodness. Sounded like crap anyway.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 02:04 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
Well, I've been shopping but only at the place
that has less organic than the other store.


Doesn't make a ****ing difference, Skanky. Both stores use lethal
force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming also use lethal
force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming use
machinery that runs over or mutilates animals. You're still
contributing to wholesale animal slaughter and pain, you misguided, heartless
witch.


I see you're still insane Usual.


I see you're still a hypocrite, Skanky.

Organic veggies are more nutritious


You've been "researching" activist claims again, haven't you.

--------
Organic More Nutritious? Even the Organic Industry Doesn't Think So!

by Alex Avery

Is organic food more nutritious? The simple answer is no. While some
studies have been trumpeted as having finally shown the nutritional
superiority of organic foods, other studies of similar crops show either
no difference or superiority of conventional produce. Many factors
affect nutrient and mineral content of food, especially produce
(genetics, sunlight, moisture, pests, harvest date/time of day, time lag
from harvest to consumption, etc.). Any differences which may result
from the use of organic or conventional farming practices cannot be
detected.

But don’t take our word for it. Look at what others have had to say
about this question:

-- Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that their
products offer no significant nutritional advantages. Katherine
DiMatteo, spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade Association, was asked
on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether organic foods were more
nutritious than their conventional counterparts. She twice responded
that “organic foods are as nutritious as any other product.” Not more
nutritious, merely “as nutritious.”

--The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter
(http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02so...qa/organic.htm)
answered the question of whether organic is more nutritious this way:
“No one knows. The question is a difficult one to study because of all
the factors besides farming methods that could affect nutritional
quality, including soil type and climate. The evidence from the small
body of reliable studies available thus far does not show any
significant differences between the nutrient content of organically
grown and conventionally grown food.”

--UC Davis nutritionist Dr. Gail Feenstra says, “As much as I'd
like to say yes, unfortunately the evidence doesn't show that it is. The
studies are equivocal; there are no definitive studies that show that
organic is much better than conventionally-produced produce."

--Consumer Reports, a magazine that strongly favors organic foods
(and has recommended it several times in the past), wrote this after its
own evaluation of organic foods Dec. 15, 1997. (available at
http://www.consumerreports.com/Speci.../9712n001.html): “Yet
organic produce tastes no different than ‘conventionally’ grown produce,
and any nutritional differences there might be between them are likely
so subtle as to evade detection.”

-- Canada’s Manitoba Agriculture and Food agency
(www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/homeec/cbd03s01.htm) had this to say:
“Nutritional value of plants depends on genetics, availability of water,
amount of sunlight, maturity when picked, how long it took to come to
market and whether it was properly handled and refrigerated. Numerous
laboratory tests have not found any substantial nutritional differences
in organically and conventionally grown produce.”

--The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
(http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...nd/fs2docs/fs7...
“Various comparisons have been made on the nutrient content of plants
and on other components of nutritional quality. Although differences can
be found they are not consistent among the different experiments that
have been conducted. Varying the soil nutrients or other growing
conditions could conceivably produce similar results. There is no
conclusive evidence that crops grown organically are either inferior or
superior nutritionally. There are major differences between experiments
and among crops within the same experiment.”

Dr. Clarence Swanton, professor in the Department of Plant Agriculture
at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada says, “There is no
scientific evidence whatsoever that I am aware of that [organic food] is
nutritionally better for you.”

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../oct_18_97.htm

See also:
http://www.price-pottenger.org/Artic...Nutrition.html
http://www.ivillage.co.uk/food/cook/...0103,164370_52...
http://www.nature.com/nsu/000831/000831-4.

-----

As for blaming me for other people's killing,


I'm blaming you for your own killing. Your consumption makes you
directly responsible for dead animals.

well, no soup for you!


Thank goodness. Sounded like crap anyway.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 02:04 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
Well, I've been shopping but only at the place
that has less organic than the other store.


Doesn't make a ****ing difference, Skanky. Both stores use lethal
force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming also use lethal
force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming use
machinery that runs over or mutilates animals. You're still
contributing to wholesale animal slaughter and pain, you misguided, heartless
witch.


I see you're still insane Usual.


I see you're still a hypocrite, Skanky.

Organic veggies are more nutritious


You've been "researching" activist claims again, haven't you.

--------
Organic More Nutritious? Even the Organic Industry Doesn't Think So!

by Alex Avery

Is organic food more nutritious? The simple answer is no. While some
studies have been trumpeted as having finally shown the nutritional
superiority of organic foods, other studies of similar crops show either
no difference or superiority of conventional produce. Many factors
affect nutrient and mineral content of food, especially produce
(genetics, sunlight, moisture, pests, harvest date/time of day, time lag
from harvest to consumption, etc.). Any differences which may result
from the use of organic or conventional farming practices cannot be
detected.

But don’t take our word for it. Look at what others have had to say
about this question:

-- Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that their
products offer no significant nutritional advantages. Katherine
DiMatteo, spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade Association, was asked
on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether organic foods were more
nutritious than their conventional counterparts. She twice responded
that “organic foods are as nutritious as any other product.” Not more
nutritious, merely “as nutritious.”

--The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter
(http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02so...qa/organic.htm)
answered the question of whether organic is more nutritious this way:
“No one knows. The question is a difficult one to study because of all
the factors besides farming methods that could affect nutritional
quality, including soil type and climate. The evidence from the small
body of reliable studies available thus far does not show any
significant differences between the nutrient content of organically
grown and conventionally grown food.”

--UC Davis nutritionist Dr. Gail Feenstra says, “As much as I'd
like to say yes, unfortunately the evidence doesn't show that it is. The
studies are equivocal; there are no definitive studies that show that
organic is much better than conventionally-produced produce."

--Consumer Reports, a magazine that strongly favors organic foods
(and has recommended it several times in the past), wrote this after its
own evaluation of organic foods Dec. 15, 1997. (available at
http://www.consumerreports.com/Speci.../9712n001.html): “Yet
organic produce tastes no different than ‘conventionally’ grown produce,
and any nutritional differences there might be between them are likely
so subtle as to evade detection.”

-- Canada’s Manitoba Agriculture and Food agency
(www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/homeec/cbd03s01.htm) had this to say:
“Nutritional value of plants depends on genetics, availability of water,
amount of sunlight, maturity when picked, how long it took to come to
market and whether it was properly handled and refrigerated. Numerous
laboratory tests have not found any substantial nutritional differences
in organically and conventionally grown produce.”

--The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
(http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...nd/fs2docs/fs7...
“Various comparisons have been made on the nutrient content of plants
and on other components of nutritional quality. Although differences can
be found they are not consistent among the different experiments that
have been conducted. Varying the soil nutrients or other growing
conditions could conceivably produce similar results. There is no
conclusive evidence that crops grown organically are either inferior or
superior nutritionally. There are major differences between experiments
and among crops within the same experiment.”

Dr. Clarence Swanton, professor in the Department of Plant Agriculture
at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada says, “There is no
scientific evidence whatsoever that I am aware of that [organic food] is
nutritionally better for you.”

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../oct_18_97.htm

See also:
http://www.price-pottenger.org/Artic...Nutrition.html
http://www.ivillage.co.uk/food/cook/...0103,164370_52...
http://www.nature.com/nsu/000831/000831-4.

-----

As for blaming me for other people's killing,


I'm blaming you for your own killing. Your consumption makes you
directly responsible for dead animals.

well, no soup for you!


Thank goodness. Sounded like crap anyway.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 02:22 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
Here it is. I think it turned out pretty good.


Sounds utterly horrible.


Good. None for you. And you won't mind then.


You're doing me a favor.

...
4 lg yukon gold potatoes - chopped


Potatoes are a vicious animal killing crop. I hope you're happy.


I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
were grown in.


That's not an alibi. You still bought them knowing the farmer was
killing animals. That makes you a hypocrite.

...
Bring to a simmer then lower the heat.
Cook till veggies are very soft.


Yuck. Mushy vegetables? They'd be a LOT healthier for you if you
wouldn't overcook them, Skanky, but I know you're a poseur when it
comes to interest in health anyway.


It's you who's a poseur in cooking.


No, I'm an excellent cook.

My soup was
intended on being a creamy puree with corn added
after the pureeing. Vegetables must be soft to
puree well.


Not "very soft," which is what you called for in your recipe.

At least when making a soup, you get
to eat the water they've boiled in, recatching some
of the cooked out nutrients.


You should learn to steam and sautee your veggies rather than boil them.
Maybe you just haven't researched that stuff yet.

Stir often as it will foam up at first.


So it matches your mouth?


Only when I'm rabid. Come closer.


No thanks.

Remove the bay leaves.

Puree with one of those handheld
things, or use the blender in small
batches

Once it's pureed, thaw the corn under
the hot water tap, drain and add to the
soup.

I'll save the organic carrots


Hahaha. When did you start stipulating which produce you consume is
organic?


Organic was brought up earlier in the thread. I was quite happy
to find the organic broccoli and cauliflower.


Interestingly, both are on the Environmental Working Group's list of
"safest" produce from the standpoint of pesticide residues. Those are
two examples where buying organic is a complete waste of money.

http://www.foodnews.org/reportcard.php

for another
recipe. They just didn't seem like they'd
go with the above.


Why not?


They just didn't. Turns out the soup was delicious.
Me and a friend polished off the whole potload.


Gluttons.

None left for you


Thank goodness.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 02:22 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
Here it is. I think it turned out pretty good.


Sounds utterly horrible.


Good. None for you. And you won't mind then.


You're doing me a favor.

...
4 lg yukon gold potatoes - chopped


Potatoes are a vicious animal killing crop. I hope you're happy.


I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
were grown in.


That's not an alibi. You still bought them knowing the farmer was
killing animals. That makes you a hypocrite.

...
Bring to a simmer then lower the heat.
Cook till veggies are very soft.


Yuck. Mushy vegetables? They'd be a LOT healthier for you if you
wouldn't overcook them, Skanky, but I know you're a poseur when it
comes to interest in health anyway.


It's you who's a poseur in cooking.


No, I'm an excellent cook.

My soup was
intended on being a creamy puree with corn added
after the pureeing. Vegetables must be soft to
puree well.


Not "very soft," which is what you called for in your recipe.

At least when making a soup, you get
to eat the water they've boiled in, recatching some
of the cooked out nutrients.


You should learn to steam and sautee your veggies rather than boil them.
Maybe you just haven't researched that stuff yet.

Stir often as it will foam up at first.


So it matches your mouth?


Only when I'm rabid. Come closer.


No thanks.

Remove the bay leaves.

Puree with one of those handheld
things, or use the blender in small
batches

Once it's pureed, thaw the corn under
the hot water tap, drain and add to the
soup.

I'll save the organic carrots


Hahaha. When did you start stipulating which produce you consume is
organic?


Organic was brought up earlier in the thread. I was quite happy
to find the organic broccoli and cauliflower.


Interestingly, both are on the Environmental Working Group's list of
"safest" produce from the standpoint of pesticide residues. Those are
two examples where buying organic is a complete waste of money.

http://www.foodnews.org/reportcard.php

for another
recipe. They just didn't seem like they'd
go with the above.


Why not?


They just didn't. Turns out the soup was delicious.
Me and a friend polished off the whole potload.


Gluttons.

None left for you


Thank goodness.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sicko’s Soup (Cabbage Soup. GREAT for Sickness) DinkingAround Recipes 0 19-03-2014 10:10 PM
REC - Brie Cheese Soup / Sweet Potato Soup - RFC Cookbook page 22 Rusty[_1_] Recipes 0 09-03-2009 05:01 AM
Crockpot Southwestern Pumpkin Soup Aka Korma Soup [email protected] Recipes (moderated) 0 22-10-2007 03:48 PM
Soup Cook Along -Modified Farmhouse Supper Soup Mr Libido Incognito General Cooking 4 05-03-2006 08:04 PM
Req: Asparagus soup and Jerusalem artichoke soup MEow Vegetarian cooking 1 09-01-2004 08:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017