| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"ta" |
| Date: |
17 Nov 2007 10:04:15 AM |
| Object: |
Is Organic Really Better? |
"Official: organic really is better
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more
nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's
lives.
The evidence from the =A312m four-year project will end years of debate
and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food
is no more than a lifestyle choice.
The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as
40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of
cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had
higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded
project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce
would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the
recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have
just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a
day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.
This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing
the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers
and the agency have said there are no significant differences between
organic and ordinary produce.
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent
organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle
University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of
antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in
milk from conventional herds.
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference
between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence
now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece
.
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
17 Nov 2007 10:41:16 AM |
|
|
I also find that organics contain LESS poisons, such as pesticides
that must be scrubbed from the ordinary produce (with never full success).
Ordinary produce and meats do debilitating, unpleasant things to
my body (including brain), as well as not tasting good at all. A quick way
to ruin a whole stew is to use ordinary produce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:04:15 -0800 (PST), ta <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote:
"Official: organic really is better
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more
nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's
lives.
The evidence from the £12m four-year project will end years of debate
and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food
is no more than a lifestyle choice.
The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as
40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of
cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had
higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded
project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce
would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the
recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have
just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a
day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.
This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing
the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers
and the agency have said there are no significant differences between
organic and ordinary produce.
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent
organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle
University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of
antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in
milk from conventional herds.
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference
between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence
now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vernono O Here @there" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
17 Nov 2007 08:25:03 PM |
|
|
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:kr5uj3lliv2lbcqj5j9kqf0pcrumjihq0k@4ax.com...
I also find that organics contain LESS poisons, such as pesticides
that must be scrubbed from the ordinary produce (with never full success).
Ordinary produce and meats do debilitating, unpleasant things to
my body (including brain), as well as not tasting good at all. A quick way
to ruin a whole stew is to use ordinary produce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:04:15 -0800 (PST), ta <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote:
"Official: organic really is better
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more
nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's
lives.
The evidence from the £12m four-year project will end years of debate
and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food
is no more than a lifestyle choice.
The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as
40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of
cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had
higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded
project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce
would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the
recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have
just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a
day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.
This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing
the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers
and the agency have said there are no significant differences between
organic and ordinary produce.
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent
organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle
University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of
antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in
milk from conventional herds.
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference
between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence
now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece
Problem.
Get real organic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
17 Nov 2007 11:06:52 AM |
|
|
On Nov 17, 11:41 am, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
I also find that organics contain LESS poisons, such as pesticides
that must be scrubbed from the ordinary produce (with never full success).=
Ordinary produce and meats do debilitating, unpleasant things to
my body (including brain), as well as not tasting good at all. A quick way=
to ruin a whole stew is to use ordinary produce.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------------
Interesting that you notice tangible results (and yes, I think with
fruits like strawberries, there's really no way to get the nasty stuff
out).
When I go shopping, I'm always torn between choosing local vs.
organic. Obviously the best choice is to buy local *and* organic, like
through CSAs, but sometimes it's not possible. I usually go with
local, conventional veggies over organic stuff from California or
Mexico that has to be shipped all the way across the country.
Local, organic veggies are hands down the best choice imo -- the
difference in freshness and flavor is most definitely tangible.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:04:15 -0800 (PST), ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
"Official: organic really is better
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more
nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's
lives.
The evidence from the =A312m four-year project will end years of debate
and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food
is no more than a lifestyle choice.
The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as
40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of
cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had
higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded
project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce
would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the
recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have
just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a
day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.
This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing
the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers
and the agency have said there are no significant differences between
organic and ordinary produce.
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent
organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle
University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of
antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in
milk from conventional herds.
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference
between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence
now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
17 Nov 2007 11:29:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:06:52 -0800 (PST), ta <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote:
[..]
fruits like strawberries
There are no fruits like strawberries. In fact, because a fruit is the
matured ovary of a flower containing the seed, and the seeds of
strawberries are on the outside rather than the inside, it's not entirely
correct to call strawberries fruit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bernardZ" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
17 Nov 2007 07:57:55 PM |
|
|
In article <5a91ecb4-0dfc-4d7a-8972-056bb6a54212
@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, says...
"Official: organic really is better
=20
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more
nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's
lives.
=20
The evidence from the =A312m four-year project will end years of debate
and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food
is no more than a lifestyle choice.
=20
The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as
40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of
cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had
higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
=20
Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded
project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce
would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the
recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have
just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a
day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.
=20
This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing
the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers
and the agency have said there are no significant differences between
organic and ordinary produce.
=20
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent
organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle
University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of
antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in
milk from conventional herds.
=20
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
=20
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference
between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence
now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said."
=20
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece
=20
According to a recent study Organic food is better for you only if eaten=20
fresh. In reality most foods are on retailers shelf for a few days and=20
by the time the consumer eats it generally a few days later they are=20
actually worse then inorganic food.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
19 Nov 2007 10:42:32 AM |
|
|
According to a recent study Organic food is better for you only if eaten
fresh. In reality most foods are on retailers shelf for a few days and
by the time the consumer eats it generally a few days later they are
actually worse then inorganic food.
Organic is also marked down quicker making it a better deal.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Debbee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
19 Nov 2007 02:25:33 PM |
|
|
On Nov 19, 8:42 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Organic is also marked down quicker making it a better deal.
And if you don't eat it right away, you are throwing money
away, because it certainly does not keep very well. I've
noticed a big difference with the taste of organic tomatoes
being much tastier and meatier. And with cucumbers as well (no wax).
You can buy regular fruits and vegetables and then clean them off
with hydrogen
peroxide to remove the possibility of traces
of pesticides. Some of those "vegetable cleaners," that I have
used, have left a funny taste even after washing the fruits and
vegetables off in pure H20 after using the vegetable cleaners.
I prefer growing my own stuff as much as possible, and then
buying local fruits and vegetables as much as possible. I tend
to purchase the "pesticide free" over "organics" to save a little
bit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
17 Nov 2007 10:55:00 PM |
|
|
On Nov 17, 8:57 pm, bernardZ <Berna...@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <5a91ecb4-0dfc-4d7a-8972-056bb6a54212
@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, says...
"Official: organic really is better
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more
nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's
lives.
The evidence from the =A312m four-year project will end years of debate
and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food
is no more than a lifestyle choice.
The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as
40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of
cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had
higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded
project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce
would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the
recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have
just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a
day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.
This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing
the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers
and the agency have said there are no significant differences between
organic and ordinary produce.
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent
organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle
University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of
antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in
milk from conventional herds.
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference
between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence
now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece
According to a recent study Organic food is better for you only if eaten
fresh. In reality most foods are on retailers shelf for a few days and
by the time the consumer eats it generally a few days later they are
actually worse then inorganic food.
Do you have a link to that study?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
17 Nov 2007 12:27:03 PM |
|
|
On Nov 17, 9:04 am, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
"Official: organic really is better
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more
nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's
lives.
The evidence from the =A312m four-year project will end years of debate
and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food
is no more than a lifestyle choice.
The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as
40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of
cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had
higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded
project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce
would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the
recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have
just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a
day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.
This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing
the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers
and the agency have said there are no significant differences between
organic and ordinary produce.
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent
organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle
University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of
antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in
milk from conventional herds.
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference
between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence
now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece
Silicon burgers ain't my bag. Carbon rocks.
W : )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
17 Nov 2007 11:45:41 PM |
|
|
On Nov 17, 10:27 am, Wordsmith <wordsm...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 17, 9:04 am, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
"Official: organic really is better
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more
nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's
lives.
The evidence from the =A312m four-year project will end years of debate
and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food
is no more than a lifestyle choice.
The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as
40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of
cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had
higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded
project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce
would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the
recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have
just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a
day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.
This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing
the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers
and the agency have said there are no significant differences between
organic and ordinary produce.
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent
organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle
University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of
antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in
milk from conventional herds.
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference
between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence
now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece
Silicon burgers ain't my bag. Carbon rocks.
You could always get healthier by starving alittle if you don't like
food. Then there isn't the problem of organic or not, just a wonderful
pain in the gut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction
Egyptians used to eat rocks to clean out the alimentary canal but I
doubt they got much nutricion from them.
W : )-
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
17 Nov 2007 10:44:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:04:15 -0800 (PST), ta <padlrnc@nc.rr.com>
wrote:
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
Yes, "thought," by some, to produce x miracles. In other words, it is
opinion, not theory.
--
fantasybedtimehour.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
17 Nov 2007 11:40:33 PM |
|
|
On Nov 17, 8:44 am, Malrassic Park <male...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:04:15 -0800 (PST), ta <padl...@nc.rr.com>
wrote:
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
Yes, "thought," by some, to produce x miracles. In other words, it is
opinion, not theory.
What kind of miracles do "some" think will be produced by these higher
levels of nutrients? Do these so-called miracles have evidenciary
research based upon probabilities or are they urban myths perpetuated
at the juice bar?
--
fantasybedtimehour.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
19 Nov 2007 08:01:14 AM |
|
|
The evidence you offer does not lead to the conclusion you draw.
1) Organic is better and will lengthen your life.
2) Your evidence is that some "organic" food matter has more
antioxidants and minerals than non organic food.
To conclude one from the other assumes that more antioxidants and
minerals will necessarily improve your health and that such
improvement in health will extend your life. None of this is
necessarily true.
This might be true IF organic's target buyers were deficient in
antiox. and minerals. But they are not likely to be.
If they were they might just as well take a single pill which will
double the intake of antioxs and minerals at a stroke. thus obviating
the need for organic purchases.
The fact is that 99.9% of organic food buyers are not aware of the
possibility that a single pill might double the potential benefit of
all their organic purchases, and so, in contradistinction to what the
article suggests organic food buying IS a "life-style choice" and
serves no special dietary or health needs of it buyers.
Indeed one might go on to criticise the implied advice which suggests
that you might get away with 4-a-day not 5-a-day. You might be better
off going for 6-a-day of ordinary fruit and veg to benefit from the
dietary fibre which they supply in like quantities to organic veg. As
the lack of fibre in the diet is a recognised serious problem it would
be much better to buy greater quantities of cheaper groceries to make
up for the deficiency.
On Nov 17, 4:04 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
"Official: organic really is better
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more
nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's
lives.
The evidence from the =A312m four-year project will end years of debate
and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food
is no more than a lifestyle choice.
The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as
40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of
cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had
higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded
project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce
would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the
recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have
just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a
day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.
This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing
the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers
and the agency have said there are no significant differences between
organic and ordinary produce.
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent
organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle
University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of
antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in
milk from conventional herds.
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference
between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence
now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece
.
|
|
|
| User: "t" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
19 Nov 2007 08:08:12 AM |
|
|
"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d692b85-e6ad-453e-8055-a99937544ec2@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The evidence you offer does not lead to the conclusion you draw.
1) Organic is better and will lengthen your life.
2) Your evidence is that some "organic" food matter has more
antioxidants and minerals than non organic food.
To conclude one from the other assumes that more antioxidants and
minerals will necessarily improve your health and that such
improvement in health will extend your life. None of this is
necessarily true.
This might be true IF organic's target buyers were deficient in
antiox. and minerals. But they are not likely to be.
If they were they might just as well take a single pill which will
double the intake of antioxs and minerals at a stroke. thus obviating
the need for organic purchases.
The fact is that 99.9% of organic food buyers are not aware of the
possibility that a single pill might double the potential benefit of
all their organic purchases, and so, in contradistinction to what the
article suggests organic food buying IS a "life-style choice" and
serves no special dietary or health needs of it buyers.
Indeed one might go on to criticise the implied advice which suggests
that you might get away with 4-a-day not 5-a-day. You might be better
off going for 6-a-day of ordinary fruit and veg to benefit from the
dietary fibre which they supply in like quantities to organic veg. As
the lack of fibre in the diet is a recognised serious problem it would
be much better to buy greater quantities of cheaper groceries to make
up for the deficiency.
On Nov 17, 4:04 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
"Official: organic really is better
THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more
nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's
lives.
The evidence from the £12m four-year project will end years of debate
and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food
is no more than a lifestyle choice.
The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as
40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of
cancer and heart disease, Britain's biggest killers. They also had
higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded
project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce
would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the
recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. "If you have
just 20% more antioxidants and you can't get your kids to do five a
day, then you might just be okay with four a day," he said.
This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing
the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers
and the agency have said there are no significant differences between
organic and ordinary produce.
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent
organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle
University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of
antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in
milk from conventional herds.
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables,
they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly
higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce
coronary heart disease.
Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference
between organic and conventional produce. "There is enough evidence
now that the level of good things is higher in organics," he said."
Hey chazwin, what do you think about all the OTHER stuff that is in
non-organic "food"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
19 Nov 2007 03:16:21 PM |
|
|
On Nov 19, 11:08 pm, "t" <tool...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey chazwin, what do you think about all the OTHER stuff that is in
non-organic "food"?
Name the person who you can prove has died or is living a lousy
miserable life (apart from you and all those other nauseating nasal
whining anti-human commie inspired socialists, like chazzz and Timmm
and Ewol and Sean) eating sprayed and chemically fertilized food.
When will you dopey fucking commies ever wake up to the very simple
fact that, the "state mandated maximum levels" of each chemical
allowed on or in food and as set by you dopey fucking tree hugging
socialists, automatically becomes accepted as the minimum and safe
standards, with no incentive or need to even try and reduce it, just
as "state mandated minimum standards" automatically become accepted as
the maximum?
And even worse than that, are the often tragic results, the ability
then automatically arrises for those who produce at those state
mandated standards, are then able to wash their hands of THEIR
responsibility when things turn to ***** and can claim as their defense
that they were acting within the state mandated laws and standards.
State mandated "minimum standards" were supposedly applied to the
construction process of a viewing platform in NZ about 10 years ago,
on so called "public land", (puke fucking socialists) and as a direct
result 17 teenagers plunged to their death onto rocks 100's of feet
below when the platform collapsed, as they all stood on it.
NOT ONE SINGLE human being was ever held, or could even be held
accountable or responsible for that tragedy, even the Minister who was
totally responsilbe for "public land" didn't resign or even say sorry,
or did he release the names of the state employees who constructed the
platform.
The surviving victims, the families of the victims, to this very day
are awaiting justice they will never see.
You dopey brain dead mobocracy retards just dont get it, you get what
you derserve and vote for.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
20 Nov 2007 07:52:14 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:b59c6603-5d0f-44d6-a6f8-817a1ff3d2a4@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 11:08 pm, "t" <tool...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey chazwin, what do you think about all the OTHER stuff that is in
non-organic "food"?
Name the person who you can prove has died or is living a lousy
miserable life (apart from you and all those other nauseating nasal
whining anti-human commie inspired socialists, like chazzz and Timmm
and Ewol and Sean) eating sprayed and chemically fertilized food.
Ha ha. I'd take the pesticides over fucking anything you grow, *****.
Why? Because we would all fucking starve to death trying to live off of what
you could grow. Pesticides beat rotten produce, eh ya fuckin' shagger. We'd
all be eating sheep with home-made mayonaise, wouldn't we you fucking
useless washed up randroid sheep fucker.
<Mikey's rant snipped.>
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
21 Nov 2007 03:49:42 AM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:b59c6603-5d0f-44d6-a6f8-817a1ff3d2a4@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 11:08 pm, "t" <tool...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey chazwin, what do you think about all the OTHER stuff that is in
non-organic "food"?
Name the person who you can prove has died or is living a lousy
miserable life (apart from you and all those other nauseating nasal
whining anti-human commie inspired socialists, like chazzz and Timmm
and Ewol and Sean) eating sprayed and chemically fertilized food.
Ha ha. I'd take the pesticides over fucking anything you grow, *****.
Why? Because we would all fucking starve to death trying to live off of what
you could grow. Pesticides beat rotten produce, eh ya fuckin' shagger. We'd
all be eating sheep with home-made mayonaise, wouldn't we you fucking
useless washed up randroid sheep fucker.
Indeed the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides has completely
revolutionised food production in the last 150 years. This has enabled
an increase in population which has in turn enabled the growth of a
critical market density to fuel the technological revolution by
economies of scale.
The improvements in food availability have massively improved the
health and longevity of working populations to further fuel the
technological miracle of the 20th century. Improvements in pesticides
have made them progressively safer due to regulations and scrutiny.
Little or no detectible harm results from eating washed fruit and
veg.
Organic food production (if meaningful at all) is a luxury for the
middle-classes.
<Mikey's rant snipped.>
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
21 Nov 2007 08:27:42 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 4:49 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:b59c6603-5d0f-44d6-a6f8-817a1ff3d2a4@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 11:08 pm, "t" <tool...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey chazwin, what do you think about all the OTHER stuff that is in
non-organic "food"?
Name the person who you can prove has died or is living a lousy
miserable life (apart from you and all those other nauseating nasal
whining anti-human commie inspired socialists, like chazzz and Timmm
and Ewol and Sean) eating sprayed and chemically fertilized food.
Ha ha. I'd take the pesticides over fucking anything you grow, *****.
Why? Because we would all fucking starve to death trying to live off of what
you could grow. Pesticides beat rotten produce, eh ya fuckin' shagger. We'd
all be eating sheep with home-made mayonaise, wouldn't we you fucking
useless washed up randroid sheep fucker.
Indeed the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides has completely
revolutionised food production in the last 150 years. This has enabled
an increase in population which has in turn enabled the growth of a
critical market density to fuel the technological revolution by
economies of scale.
The only way that increasing population drives technology is that it
promotes warfare over control of resources.
If population is stable or decreasing, labor is expensive and so labor-
saving technology is invented. Economics 101.
-tg
The improvements in food availability have massively improved the
health and longevity of working populations to further fuel the
technological miracle of the 20th century. Improvements in pesticides
have made them progressively safer due to regulations and scrutiny.
Little or no detectible harm results from eating washed fruit and
veg.
Organic food production (if meaningful at all) is a luxury for the
middle-classes.
<Mikey's rant snipped.>
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
21 Nov 2007 06:48:24 PM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 2:27 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 4:49 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 1:52 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:b59c6603-5d0f-44d6-a6f8-817a1ff3d2a4@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 11:08 pm, "t" <tool...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey chazwin, what do you think about all the OTHER stuff that is in
non-organic "food"?
Name the person who you can prove has died or is living a lousy
miserable life (apart from you and all those other nauseating nasal
whining anti-human commie inspired socialists, like chazzz and Timmm
and Ewol and Sean) eating sprayed and chemically fertilized food.
Ha ha. I'd take the pesticides over fucking anything you grow, *****.
Why? Because we would all fucking starve to death trying to live off of what
you could grow. Pesticides beat rotten produce, eh ya fuckin' shagger. We'd
all be eating sheep with home-made mayonaise, wouldn't we you fucking
useless washed up randroid sheep fucker.
Indeed the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides has completely
revolutionised food production in the last 150 years. This has enabled
an increase in population which has in turn enabled the growth of a
critical market density to fuel the technological revolution by
economies of scale.
The only way that increasing population drives technology is that it
promotes warfare over control of resources.
Clearly you are not aware of the concept of "economy of scale".
Lets say that you wished to produce a washing machine for 100 people.
The development cost would mean that each machine would cost a million
pounds each. However if you wished to supply 100 million people the
vast development costs, and the buliding of the factory would be
shared. That is how the price of "white goods" has not signifcantly
increased for 40 years. Indeed many items are better and cheaper than
they were. If your market is too small the price is too high. That is
also a reason why the "evil and dangerous socialist sharing of wealth"
is really good for capitalism as it brings the low paid into the mass
market place.
Warfare decreases the population.
If population is stable or decreasing, labor is expensive and so labor-
saving technology is invented. Economics 101.
Complete *****. Go back to school. Labour saving devices are a
factor of incresing populations and always have been. Where pop
decreases less labour is needed as the economy declines. Give me one
example where a stable or decreasing population has provided examples
of labour saving technology inventions.
You are as thick as pigshit.
-tg
The improvements in food availability have massively improved the
health and longevity of working populations to further fuel the
technological miracle of the 20th century. Improvements in pesticides
have made them progressively safer due to regulations and scrutiny.
Little or no detectible harm results from eating washed fruit and
veg.
Organic food production (if meaningful at all) is a luxury for the
middle-classes.
<Mikey's rant snipped.>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
22 Nov 2007 05:45:54 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 7:48 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2:27 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 4:49 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Indeed the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides has completely
revolutionised food production in the last 150 years. This has enabled
an increase in population which has in turn enabled the growth of a
critical market density to fuel the technological revolution by
economies of scale.
The only way that increasing population drives technology is that it
promotes warfare over control of resources.
Clearly you are not aware of the concept of "economy of scale".
Lets say that you wished to produce a washing machine for 100 people.
The development cost would mean that each machine would cost a million
pounds each. However if you wished to supply 100 million people the
vast development costs, and the buliding of the factory would be
shared. That is how the price of "white goods" has not signifcantly
increased for 40 years. Indeed many items are better and cheaper than
they were. If your market is too small the price is too high. That is
also a reason why the "evil and dangerous socialist sharing of wealth"
is really good for capitalism as it brings the low paid into the mass
market place.
Um. You are now playing word games where you switch between cost and
price.
The development cost of the washing machine stays the same. And the
increase in population operates on the economy in general, not on one
item at a time. If there are 100 people, then the price of land is
low, and if there are millions, the price of land is high. And
controlling land and resources is why we have nation-states, and
armies, and the cost of warfare.
I would be happy to pay 100 times as much for a washing machine if I
could have 100 prime acres of land and not pay taxes to support a
bloated military.
Warfare decreases the population.
Nonsense. You have apparently never heard of the baby boom. Warfare
usually involves killing off young males; that part of the population
is irrelevant---as long as the number of females is maintained, the
population inevitably rebounds higher than before.
If population is stable or decreasing, labor is expensive and so labor-
saving technology is invented. Economics 101.
Complete *****. Go back to school. Labour saving devices are a
factor of incresing populations and always have been.
What does 'factor of' mean? More word games? You do understand that
correlation does not imply causality, right? That's science 101.
Technological innovation *precedes* population growth. If you can grow
only a limited amount of food per acre, that puts a limit on
population. When technology increases that yield, more children
survive to adulthood, until a new limit is reached. However, since
the feedback system has inertia or lag, the population may expand
beyond what the new technology can provide, and the only solution is
to increase the available land. That involves warfare, where you kill
off non-group members and take their land.
However, once this cycle starts it is self-perpetuating, since warfare
is (or has been through human history) the quickest way to get a
return on investment.
Where pop
decreases less labour is needed as the economy declines.
Economy declines? What does that mean---more word games? Why is the
Italian government thinking about paying people to have children?
Give me one
example where a stable or decreasing population has provided examples
of labour saving technology inventions.
The European Renaissance.
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
22 Nov 2007 09:31:19 AM |
|
|
On Nov 22, 11:45 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 7:48 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2:27 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 4:49 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Indeed the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides has completely
revolutionised food production in the last 150 years. This has enabled
an increase in population which has in turn enabled the growth of a
critical market density to fuel the technological revolution by
economies of scale.
The only way that increasing population drives technology is that it
promotes warfare over control of resources.
Clearly you are not aware of the concept of "economy of scale".
Lets say that you wished to produce a washing machine for 100 people.
The development cost would mean that each machine would cost a million
pounds each. However if you wished to supply 100 million people the
vast development costs, and the buliding of the factory would be
shared. That is how the price of "white goods" has not signifcantly
increased for 40 years. Indeed many items are better and cheaper than
they were. If your market is too small the price is too high. That is
also a reason why the "evil and dangerous socialist sharing of wealth"
is really good for capitalism as it brings the low paid into the mass
market place.
Um. You are now playing word games where you switch between cost and
price.
Oh ***** you twat. Just becasue you can't read simple English does
not mean that people who can write it effectively are playing word
games. Look up "economy of scale", its Economics 102
The development cost of the washing machine stays the same. And the
increase in population operates on the economy in general, not on one
item at a time. If there are 100 people, then the price of land is
low, and if there are millions, the price of land is high. And
controlling land and resources is why we have nation-states, and
armies, and the cost of warfare.
I would be happy to pay 100 times as much for a washing machine if I
could have 100 prime acres of land and not pay taxes to support a
bloated military.
Warfare decreases the population.
Nonsense. You have apparently never heard of the baby boom. Warfare
usually involves killing off young males; that part of the population
is irrelevant---as long as the number of females is maintained, the
population inevitably rebounds higher than before.
Baby boombs happen AFTER wars ***** wit.
Sustained wars reduce the population. Iraq war: destruction of the
economy, diaspora of 2 million Iraqis and the death of at least 250000
civilians.
If population is stable or decreasing, labor is expensive and so labor-
saving technology is invented. Economics 101.
Complete *****. Go back to school. Labour saving devices are a
factor of incresing populations and always have been.
What does 'factor of' mean? More word games? You do understand that
correlation does not imply causality, right? That's science 101.
"Factor", jesus - go back to school!
Like I said - go back to school and try 102.
It does not imply casuality but necessity. Necessity is the mother of
invention. without utility and cheapness of production technological
advances don't catch on.
Technological innovation *precedes* population growth. If you can grow
only a limited amount of food per acre, that puts a limit on
population.
Never in European history has the land's inability to produce food
ever restiristed population. Technological innnovation has ensured
that the land shows increasing productivity, and has enabled more land
to be used for food resources. Technology has enabled the clearing of
forests and the fertilisation of land previously unsuitable for use. I
am not trying to say that this is good or ultimately sustainable but
you views are as out of date as Jeremy Bentham and completly out of
line. The disaster he "predicted" 150 years ago has never come to
pass.
When technology increases that yield, more children
survive to adulthood, until a new limit is reached. However, since
the feedback system has inertia or lag, the population may expand
beyond what the new technology can provide, and the only solution is
to increase the available land. That involves warfare, where you kill
off non-group members and take their land.
However, once this cycle starts it is self-perpetuating, since warfare
is (or has been through human history) the quickest way to get a
return on investment.
Where pop
decreases less labour is needed as the economy declines.
Economy declines? What does that mean---more word games? Why is the
Italian government thinking about paying people to have children?
Because growth in the economy relies on growth of the population.
You really are stupid aren't you!
Give me one
example where a stable or decreasing population has provided examples
of labour saving technology inventions.
The European Renaissance.
The entire period of the Renaissance was an example of an increasing
population.
Try again!
-tg- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
22 Nov 2007 02:17:44 PM |
|
|
On Nov 22, 10:31 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 22, 11:45 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 7:48 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2:27 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 4:49 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Indeed the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides has completely
revolutionised food production in the last 150 years. This has enabled
an increase in population which has in turn enabled the growth of a
critical market density to fuel the technological revolution by
economies of scale.
The only way that increasing population drives technology is that it
promotes warfare over control of resources.
Clearly you are not aware of the concept of "economy of scale".
Lets say that you wished to produce a washing machine for 100 people.
The development cost would mean that each machine would cost a million
pounds each. However if you wished to supply 100 million people the
vast development costs, and the buliding of the factory would be
shared. That is how the price of "white goods" has not signifcantly
increased for 40 years. Indeed many items are better and cheaper than
they were. If your market is too small the price is too high. That is
also a reason why the "evil and dangerous socialist sharing of wealth"
is really good for capitalism as it brings the low paid into the mass
market place.
Um. You are now playing word games where you switch between cost and
price.
Oh ***** you twat. Just becasue you can't read simple English does
not mean that people who can write it effectively are playing word
games. Look up "economy of scale", its Economics 102
The development cost of the washing machine stays the same. And the
increase in population operates on the economy in general, not on one
item at a time. If there are 100 people, then the price of land is
low, and if there are millions, the price of land is high. And
controlling land and resources is why we have nation-states, and
armies, and the cost of warfare.
I would be happy to pay 100 times as much for a washing machine if I
could have 100 prime acres of land and not pay taxes to support a
bloated military.
Warfare decreases the population.
Nonsense. You have apparently never heard of the baby boom. Warfare
usually involves killing off young males; that part of the population
is irrelevant---as long as the number of females is maintained, the
population inevitably rebounds higher than before.
Baby boombs happen AFTER wars ***** wit.
Thanks for telling me. If I had known that I might have written: "as
long as the number of females is maintained, the population inevitably
REBOUNDS higher than before", instead of "....the population
inevitably REBOUNDS higher than before."
Sustained wars reduce the population. Iraq war: destruction of the
economy, diaspora of 2 million Iraqis and the death of at least 250000
civilians.
If population is stable or decreasing, labor is expensive and so labor-
saving technology is invented. Economics 101.
Complete *****. Go back to school. Labour saving devices are a
factor of incresing populations and always have been.
What does 'factor of' mean? More word games? You do understand that
correlation does not imply causality, right? That's science 101.
"Factor", jesus - go back to school!
Like I said - go back to school and try 102.
It does not imply casuality but necessity. Necessity is the mother of
invention
Ah yes more scientific insight.
.. without utility and cheapness of production technological
advances don't catch on.
Technological innovation *precedes* population growth. If you can grow
only a limited amount of food per acre, that puts a limit on
population.
Never in European history has the land's inability to produce food
ever restiristed population.
Oh yeah, all those Irish folks came to Ameri-kay because there were
plenty of potatoes to eat in the Emerald Isles round about the 1840's.
I guess depopulation by starvation and emigration don't count.
Technological innnovation has ensured
that the land shows increasing productivity, and has enabled more land
to be used for food resources. Technology has enabled the clearing of
forests and the fertilisation of land previously unsuitable for use. I
am not trying to say that this is good or ultimately sustainable but
you views are as out of date as Jeremy Bentham and completly out of
line. The disaster he "predicted" 150 years ago has never come to
pass.
When technology increases that yield, more children
survive to adulthood, until a new limit is reached. However, since
the feedback system has inertia or lag, the population may expand
beyond what the new technology can provide, and the only solution is
to increase the available land. That involves warfare, where you kill
off non-group members and take their land.
However, once this cycle starts it is self-perpetuating, since warfare
is (or has been through human history) the quickest way to get a
return on investment.
Where pop
decreases less labour is needed as the economy declines.
Economy declines? What does that mean---more word games? Why is the
Italian government thinking about paying people to have children?
Because growth in the economy relies on growth of the population.
If the projections are correct, the economy will be in big trouble
around 2050+ when the growth of population ceases worldwide. Unless
there is massive warfare first over oil, water, and whatever arable
land is left after the climate change. Then the madness can start
again.
Anyway, if you believe that, talk it over with some of your
Libertoonian Capitalist buddies and see how they react.
You really are stupid aren't you!
Give me one
example where a stable or decreasing population has provided examples
of labour saving technology inventions.
The European Renaissance.
The entire period of the Renaissance was an example of an increasing
population.
The Renaissance was precipitated by the Black Death. It might be
argued that the phenomenon was predominantly social, of course,
although democratization/de-feudalization certainly made learning and
innovation much more likely. Read some history, and get an idea about
time scales---the pop went up again, after the changes.
-tg
Try again!
-tg- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
22 Nov 2007 05:49:07 PM |
|
|
On Nov 22, 8:17 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 22, 10:31 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 22, 11:45 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 7:48 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2:27 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 4:49 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Indeed the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides has completely
revolutionised food production in the last 150 years. This has enabled
an increase in population which has in turn enabled the growth of a
critical market density to fuel the technological revolution by
economies of scale.
The only way that increasing population drives technology is that it
promotes warfare over control of resources.
Clearly you are not aware of the concept of "economy of scale".
Lets say that you wished to produce a washing machine for 100 people.
The development cost would mean that each machine would cost a million
pounds each. However if you wished to supply 100 million people the
vast development costs, and the buliding of the factory would be
shared. That is how the price of "white goods" has not signifcantly
increased for 40 years. Indeed many items are better and cheaper than
they were. If your market is too small the price is too high. That is
also a reason why the "evil and dangerous socialist sharing of wealth"
is really good for capitalism as it brings the low paid into the mass
market place.
Um. You are now playing word games where you switch between cost and
price.
Oh ***** you twat. Just becasue you can't read simple English does
not mean that people who can write it effectively are playing word
games. Look up "economy of scale", its Economics 102
The development cost of the washing machine stays the same. And the
increase in population operates on the economy in general, not on one
item at a time. If there are 100 people, then the price of land is
low, and if there are millions, the price of land is high. And
controlling land and resources is why we have nation-states, and
armies, and the cost of warfare.
I would be happy to pay 100 times as much for a washing machine if I
could have 100 prime acres of land and not pay taxes to support a
bloated military.
Warfare decreases the population.
Nonsense. You have apparently never heard of the baby boom. Warfare
usually involves killing off young males; that part of the population
is irrelevant---as long as the number of females is maintained, the
population inevitably rebounds higher than before.
Baby boombs happen AFTER wars ***** wit.
Thanks for telling me. If I had known that I might have written: "as
long as the number of females is maintained, the population inevitably
REBOUNDS higher than before", instead of "....the population
inevitably REBOUNDS higher than before."
Wrong again! Only in some countries did the population recover. And
there is not a shred of evidence that the war caused a greater
population than would have happened without the war.
But if you wish to believe that WW2 increased the population you will
have to ignore 70 million deaths.
Sustained wars reduce the population. Iraq war: destruction of the
economy, diaspora of 2 million Iraqis and the death of at least 250000
civilians.
If population is stable or decreasing, labor is expensive and so labor-
saving technology is invented. Economics 101.
Complete *****. Go back to school. Labour saving devices are a
factor of incresing populations and always have been.
What does 'factor of' mean? More word games? You do understand that
correlation does not imply causality, right? That's science 101.
"Factor", jesus - go back to school!
Like I said - go back to school and try 102.
It does not imply casuality but necessity. Necessity is the mother of
invention
Ah yes more scientific insight.
. without utility and cheapness of production technological
Clearly an insight you are not equipped to deal with.
advances don't catch on.
Technological innovation *precedes* population growth. If you can grow
only a limited amount of food per acre, that puts a limit on
population.
Never in European history has the land's inability to produce food
ever restiristed population.
Oh yeah, all those Irish folks came to Ameri-kay because there were
plenty of potatoes to eat in the Emerald Isles round about the 1840's.
I guess depopulation by starvation and emigration don't count.
The casue in that case was not WAR as your thesis suggests, nor was it
population pressure but a specific potato famine caused by blight.
This led to the crash of the Irish economy as my model predicts, and a
boost to the US economy, also as my model predicts.
Technological innnovation has ensured
that the land shows increasing productivity, and has enabled more land
to be used for food resources. Technology has enabled the clearing of
forests and the fertilisation of land previously unsuitable for use. I
am not trying to say that this is good or ultimately sustainable but
you views are as out of date as Jeremy Bentham and completly out of
line. The disaster he "predicted" 150 years ago has never come to
pass.
When technology increases that yield, more children
survive to adulthood, until a new limit is reached. However, since
the feedback system has inertia or lag, the population may expand
beyond what the new technology can provide, and the only solution is
to increase the available land. That involves warfare, where you kill
off non-group members and take their land.
However, once this cycle starts it is self-perpetuating, since warfare
is (or has been through human history) the quickest way to get a
return on investment.
Where pop
decreases less labour is needed as the economy declines.
Economy declines? What does that mean---more word games? Why is the
Italian government thinking about paying people to have children?
Because growth in the economy relies on growth of the population.
If the projections are correct, the economy will be in big trouble
around 2050+ when the growth of population ceases worldwide. Unless
there is massive warfare first over oil, water, and whatever arable
land is left after the climate change. Then the madness can start
again.
When and if that happens you can then get your Benthemic catastrophy
out of the drawer and see if your model works. But you are
contradicting your own model.
Anyway, if you believe that, talk it over with some of your
Libertoonian Capitalist buddies and see how they react.
If you can't deal with the argument then attack the man. Pathetic!
You really are stupid aren't you!
Give me one
example where a stable or decreasing population has provided examples
of labour saving technology inventions.
The European Renaissance.
The entire period of the Renaissance was an example of an increasing
population.
The Renaissance was precipitated by the Black Death. It might be
argued that the phenomenon was predominantly social, of course,
although democratization/de-feudalization certainly made learning and
innovation much more likely. Read some history, and get an idea about
time scales---the pop went up again, after the changes.
I take it you have been schooled in the USA? The Renaissance was not
"precipitated" by the Black Death. It was preceded by it but then so
was the discovery of the Americas. But then again - it depends on
whose label "Renaissance" you choose to accept. You are guilty of
naive causality.
But once again you are contradicting yourself.
Population pressure never caused a war, neither did scarcity of land.
I'm still waiting for your examples.
The Black Death certainly shook things up politically to change the
social landscape. But where is your war that you keep banging on
about?
Where are the technological innovations that these wars are supposed
to have stimulated?
If you want a good example of how technological invention is
stimulated by mass appeal look at the printing press. It was the one
thing most responsible for the massive change in thinking that
characterises the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The Reformation
and the Copurnican Revolution in Science was made possible by the mass
appeal and distribution of new ideas all over Europe.
-tg
Try again!
-tg- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
23 Nov 2007 08:39:46 AM |
|
|
On Nov 22, 6:49 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 22, 8:17 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
tg:
Technological innovation *precedes* population growth. If you can grow
only a limited amount of food per acre, that puts a limit on
population.
chazwin:
Never in European history has the land's inability to produce food
ever restiristed population.
tg:
Oh yeah, all those Irish folks came to Ameri-kay because there were
plenty of potatoes to eat in the Emerald Isles round about the 1840's.
I guess depopulation by starvation and emigration don't count.
chazwin:
The casue in that case was not WAR as your thesis suggests, nor was it
population pressure but a specific potato famine caused by blight.
This led to the crash of the Irish economy as my model predicts, and a
boost to the US economy, also as my model predicts.
'nuf said
-tg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
22 Nov 2007 02:18:22 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 6:49 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Improvements in pesticides
have made them progressively safer due to regulations................
Typical dopey fucking commie retard, lauding dopey fucking draconian
irresponsibility avoiding regulations, if regulations are so fucking
good, ewe dumb-arse, then why not regulate everything and make
everything good?
Because communism doesn't fucking work you fucking dopey knuckle-
dragging egg-head.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
22 Nov 2007 07:30:22 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:07bc7335-615b-4aff-b064-4719cbe04051@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 21, 6:49 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Improvements in pesticides
have made them progressively safer due to regulations................
Typical dopey fucking commie retard, lauding dopey fucking draconian
irresponsibility avoiding regulations, if regulations are so fucking
good, ewe dumb-arse, then why not regulate everything and make
everything good?
Because communism doesn't fucking work you fucking dopey knuckle-
dragging egg-head.
Michael Gordge
Awwww, poor Rotten apple michelle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
20 Nov 2007 04:57:19 AM |
|
|
Go and pick your rotten fucking apples *****!
What the ***** do you know about it
Name the person who you can prove has died or is living a lousy
miserable life (apart from you and all those other nauseating nasal
whining anti-human commie inspired socialists, like chazzz and Timmm
and Ewol and Sean) eating sprayed and chemically fertilized food.
When will you dopey fucking commies ever wake up to the very simple
fact that, the "state mandated maximum levels" of each chemical
allowed on or in food and as set by you dopey fucking tree hugging
socialists, automatically becomes accepted as the minimum and safe
standards, with no incentive or need to even try and reduce it, just
as "state mandated minimum standards" automatically become accepted as
the maximum?
And even worse than that, are the often tragic results, the ability
then automatically arrises for those who produce at those state
mandated standards, are then able to wash their hands of THEIR
responsibility when things turn to ***** and can claim as their defense
that they were acting within the state mandated laws and standards.
State mandated "minimum standards" were supposedly applied to the
construction process of a viewing platform in NZ about 10 years ago,
on so called "public land", (puke fucking socialists) and as a direct
result 17 teenagers plunged to their death onto rocks 100's of feet
below when the platform collapsed, as they all stood on it.
NOT ONE SINGLE human being was ever held, or could even be held
accountable or responsible for that tragedy, even the Minister who was
totally responsilbe for "public land" didn't resign or even say sorry,
or did he release the names of the state employees who constructed the
platform.
The surviving victims, the families of the victims, to this very day
are awaiting justice they will never see.
You dopey brain dead mobocracy retards just dont get it, you get what
you derserve and vote for.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Organic Really Better? |
20 Nov 2007 05:13:49 AM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 7:57 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Go and pick your rotten fucking apples *****!
What the ***** do you know about it
Name the person who you can prove has died or is living a lousy
miserable life (apart from you and all those other nauseating nasal
whining anti-human commie inspired socialists, like chazzz and Timmm
and Ewol and Sean) eating sprayed and chemically fertilized food.
When will you dopey fucking commies ever wake up to the very simple
fact that, the "state mandated maximum levels" of each chemical
allowed on or in food and as set by you dopey fucking tree hugging
socialists, automatically becomes accepted as the minimum and safe
standards, with no incentive or need to even try and reduce it, just
as "state mandated minimum standards" automatically become accepted as
the maximum?
And even worse than that, are the often tragic results, the ability
then automatically arrises for those who produce at those state
mandated standards, are then able to wash their hands of THEIR
responsibility when things turn to ***** and can claim as their defense
that they were acting within the state mandated laws and standards.
State mandated "minimum standards" were supposedly applied to the
construction process of a viewing platform in NZ about 10 years ago,
| | | | | |
