another meaningless disingenuous corporate headline absolutely devoid of any rational meaning … what the hell kind of “gibberish” are they attempting to prove

clip_image002…another meaningless disingenuous corporate headline absolutely devoid of any rational meaning … what the hell kind of “gibberish” are they attempting to prove…?

 

…Remember it is solely your decision whether this information is sufficiently “vetted” & by whom…

Unfortunately both of these categories of human beings have been easy “target” practice for “white” America especially the Native Americans since we first landed a Plymouth Rock…

…Unfortunately both of these categories of human beings have been easy “target” practice for “white” America especially the Native Americans since we first landed a Plymouth Rock…

Police Shoot and Kill Mentally Ill Native American Man

 

s.e. smith, Care2: ……………Earlier this month, Denver police shot and killed Paul Castaway, a Lakota Sioux man living with mental illness. His case illustrates two issues that are flying under the radar: that more than half of fatal shootings involve mentally ill people, and that Native Americans are statistically more at risk of dying in police shootings than other racial groups……….Read the Article

 

…Remember it is solely your decision whether this information is sufficiently “vetted” & by whom…

this sense of resonating scares the bejesus out of those political experts who remain vested entrenched in the political game of yesterday…

clip_image002

 

There’s a strong sense here that with Sanders, what you see is what you get—and that’s resonating with voters elsewhere, too.

 

 

…And this sense of resonating scares the bejesus out of those political experts who remain vested entrenched in the political game of

yesterday…

 

 

 

 

 

…Remember it is solely your decision whether this information is sufficiently “vetted” & by whom…

this is a total “laugher” you actually expect us to believe that Coca-Cola & Pepsi are authentically dedicated to climate control as the devastate WATER all over planet earth

…this is a total “laugher” you actually expect us to believe that Coca-Cola & Pepsi are authentically dedicated to climate control as the devastate WATER all over planet earth…?

Climate Pledges by Walmart, Bank of America and 11 Other Companies Are Mostly Symbolic

 

Nicki Lisa Cole, Truthout: Corporate pledges by Walmart, Bank of America, Apple and others to reduce their carbon emissions leave a lot to be desired. In fact, including the energy use of corporations’ overseas operations, signatories of the American Business Act on Climate Change pledge are not promising much……….Read the Article

 

…Remember it is solely your decision whether this information is sufficiently “vetted” & by whom…

Quick death to promise of no discrimination from the Boy Scouts…

…Quick death to promise of no discrimination from the Boy Scouts…

Colorado Republican: Gay scoutmasters should be ‘drowned in the depths of the sea’

 

…Remember it is solely your decision whether this information is sufficiently “vetted” & by whom…

Forbes magazine asks a valid question … what is missing in their disclosure piece is how the study was devised, by whom, who paid for the study, when was it conduced, how was it conducted, what were the questions asked, how was the information tabulated and who interpreted the results … just remember the outcome of ANY study, poll can be easily predetermined…!

…Forbes magazine asks a valid question … what is missing in their disclosure piece is how the study was devised, by whom, who paid for the study, when was it conduced, how was it conducted, what were the questions asked, how was the information tabulated and who interpreted the results … just remember the outcome of ANY study, poll can be easily predetermined…!

Is Organic Agriculture’ Affluent Narcissism?’

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/180743-2015-07-29-the-colossal-hoax-of-organic-agriculture.htm?From=News

clip_image002As can be seen from the popularity of rip-off artists like Whole Foods markets, organic foods are popular.  The U.S. market for organic produce alone was $12.4 billion last year.

Some of the devotion from consumers attains almost cult-like status, which is why a recent article by Stanford University researchers that was dismissive of health or nutritional benefits of organic foods created such a furor

.

The study, by researchers in the university’s Center for Health Policy and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was a meta-analysis in which results from the scientific literature were combined but no new, original laboratory work was conducted.  Data from 237 studies were aggregated and analyzed to determine whether organic foods are safer or healthier than non-organic foods.  They concluded that fruits and vegetables that met the criteria for “organic” were on average no more nutritious than their far cheaper conventional counterparts, nor were those foods less likely to be contaminated by pathogenic bacteria like E. coli or Salmonella.

The investigators themselves were surprised by the result.  “When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food,” according to physician Dr. Dena Bravata.

Many devotees of organic foods purchase them in order to avoid exposure to harmful levels of pesticides.  But that’s a poor rationale: Although non-organic fruits and vegetables do have more pesticide residue, more than 99 percent of the time the levels are below the permissible, very conservative safety limits set by regulators – limits that are established by the Environmental Protection Agency and enforced by the Food and Drug Administration.

Ironically, the designation “organic” is itself a synthetic construct of bureaucrats that makes little sense.  It prohibits the use of synthetic chemical pesticides – although there is a lengthy list of exceptions listed in the Organic Foods Production Act  – but permits most “natural” ones (and also allows the application of pathogen-laden animal excreta as fertilizer).

 

These permitted pesticides can be toxic.  As evolutionary biologist Christie Wilcox explained in a September 2012 Scientific American article (“Are lower pesticide residues a good reason to buy organic?  Probably not.”): “Organic pesticides pose the same health risks as non-organic ones.  No matter what anyone tells you, organic pesticides don’t just disappear.  Rotenone is notorious for its lack of degradation, and copper sticks around for a long, long time.  Studies have shown that copper sulfate, pyrethrins, and rotenone all can be detected on plants after harvest—for copper sulfate and rotenone, those levels exceeded safe limits.  One study found such significant rotenone residues in olives and olive oil to warrant ‘serious doubts…about the safety and healthiness of oils extracted from [fruits] treated with rotenone.’”  (There is a well-known association between rotenone exposure and Parkinson’s Disease.)

 

There is another important but unobvious point about humans’ ingestion of pesticides: The vast majority of pesticidal substances that we consume occur in our diets “naturally, and they are present in organic foods as well as conventional ones.  In a landmark research article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues found that “99.99 percent (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves.  Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods.”

 

The bottom line of Ames’ experiments: “Natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests.  We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant.”

In other words, consumers who buy overpriced organic foods in order to avoid pesticide exposure are focusing their attention on 0.01% of the pesticides they consume.

There seems to be confusion about these issues even at the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP), which in October released a report that appeared to endorse organic produce because of its lower levels of pesticide residues, while at the same timeadmitting, “in the long term, there is currently no direct evidence that consuming an organic diet leads to improved health or lower risk of disease.”

 

Perhaps the most illogical tenet of organic farming is the exclusion of “genetically engineered” plants – but only if they were modified with the newest, best, most precise and predictable techniques.  Except for wild berries and wild mushrooms, virtually all the fruits, vegetables and grains in our diet have been genetically improved by one technique or another – often as a result of seeds being irradiated or genes being moved from one species or genus to another in ways that do not occur in nature.  But because genetic engineering is more precise and predictable, the technology is at least as safe as – and often safer than – the modification of food products in cruder, “conventional” ways that can qualify as organic.

 

There are examples of new varieties of plants, including two varieties each of potatoes and squash and one of celery, that have sickened or killed consumers, but all of these were the result of conventional genetic modification – which would qualify for organic farming.

 

The organic community remains unswayed by either biology or history, however, and modern genetic engineering remains prohibited from organic agriculture.  This bias against genetic engineering in organic agriculture makes recommendations such as those of the American Association of Pediatrics especially dubious because as genetically engineered “biofortified” foods with enhanced levels of vitamins, antioxidants and so on appear, none of them will be available to organophiles.

Another rationale for buying organic is that it’s supposedly better for the natural environment.  But the low yields of organic agriculture – typically 20-50 percent lower than conventional agriculture – impose various stresses on farmland and especially on water consumption.  A British meta-analysispublished in September of this year in the Journal of Environmental Management identified some of the environmental stresses that were higher in organic, as opposed to conventional, agriculture: “ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per product unit were higher from organic systems,” as was “land use, eutrophication potential and acidification potential per product unit.”

 

An anomaly of the way that “organic” is defined is that it is not focused on the composition, quality or safety of the actual food; it is essentially a set of acceptable practices and procedures that a farmer intends to use.  So, for example, chemical pesticide or pollen from genetically engineered plants wafting onto an organic crop from an adjacent field does not cause the harvest to lose its organic status.

In an article entitled “The Organic Fable,” New York Times columnist Roger Cohen had some pithy observations stimulated by the Stanford study.  “Organic has long since become an ideology, the romantic back-to-nature obsession of an upper middle class able to afford it and oblivious, in their affluent narcissism, to the challenge of feeding a planet whose population will surge to 9 billion before the middle of the century and whose poor will get a lot more nutrients from the two regular carrots they can buy for the price of one organic carrot.”

 

Finally, many who are seduced by the romance of organic farming ignore the human toll it exacts.  Missouri farmer Blake Hurst offers this reminder:  “In the many places around the world where organic farming is the norm, a large proportion of the population is involved in farming. Not because they choose to do so, but because they must. Weeds continue to grow, even in polycultures with holistic farming methods, and without pesticides, hand weeding is the only way to protect a crop.” He might have added that in many places, the back-breaking drudgery of hand-weeding falls largely to women and children.

 

Save your money.  It’s more cost-effective, environmentally responsible and humane to buy conventional food than the high-priced organic stuff.

 

Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution; he was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Richard Cornett is the communications director for the Western Plant Health Association, a nonprofit agricultural trade group based in Sacramento, Calif.

 

…Remember it is solely your decision whether this information is sufficiently “vetted” & by whom…

Just like justice administer in America … go after those who cannot either defend themselves or afford the “shyster” lawyers to defend them

…Just like justice administer in America … go after those who cannot either defend themselves or afford the “shyster” lawyers to defend them…

Hunting guide who helped American track Cecil the lion is officially charged in Zimbabwe

byJen HaydenFollow

 

American dentist who is wanted for killing Cecil the lion is ‘upset’ over backlash

 

…Remember it is solely your decision whether this information is sufficiently “vetted” & by whom…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers