Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 107
  1. #76
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Organic milk is better for you:
    PLOS ONE: Organic Production Enhances Milk Nutritional Quality by Shifting Fatty Acid Composition: A United States?Wide, 18-Month Study

    Those who drink a lot of milk, especially high fat dieters, might have a look at this. I would assume that the same fat ratios will apply to organic butter. I can sure tell it when my local organic dairy puts the cows out on grass in the spring. Tastes delicious.

  2. #77
    Bicycle Repair Man !!! Sixty Fiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    YEG
    My Bikes
    See my sig...
    Posts
    25,765
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    The way your meat is raised makes a big difference in the quality of the final product, factory raised animals and things like eggs do not have the same balance of omega 3 to omega 6 fatty acids.

    Feed them what nature intended and the end product is superior.

    Our pork is pasture raised and grain finished... chicken and eggs are free range, and our beef is grass fed.

    We add as much wild meat and fish as possible to our diet taking into consideration the possibility of contamination in fish stocks... our local lamb is also very good.

    Farmed fish has a less desirable ratio of Omega 3 / Omega 6 because of the commercial feed that is provided... Tilapia is really tasty but is one of the poorest quality fishes as almost all of it is farm raised.

  3. #78
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    37,992
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelAnsara View Post
    Organic food has more carbs,protein and nutrition that are useful for our body so i will say yes that organic food is good for our body and health.
    Not true.

    Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods, Stanford study finds - Office of Communications & Public Affairs - Stanford University School of Medicine
    Organic food no more nutritious than conventionally grown food - Harvard Health Blog - Harvard Health Publications

  4. #79
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, you should drink pesticides morning noon and night. Take a pesticide shower when possible. It's good for you.

  5. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,792
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by roadandmountain View Post
    No, you should drink pesticides morning noon and night. Take a pesticide shower when possible. It's good for you.
    Since you posted that, you probably don't understand the distinction, but I'll say it anyway:

    Sarcastically implying that pesticides in strangely excessive quantities are bad is not an argument that foods labelled "organic" are pesticide-free (or free of other contaminant), nor is it an argument that "organic" foods are better for you than "nonorganic" foods. (Truly nonorganic foods tend to be crunchy, gritty, hard, and bad for your teeth...)

    It's a snidely irrelevant straw man that adds nothing to the discourse in progress.

  6. #81
    Senior Member Black wallnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ellensburg,WA
    My Bikes
    Schwinn Broadway, Specialized Secteur Sport(crashed) Spec. Roubaix Sport, Spec. Crux
    Posts
    1,420
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
    Well, how about because most people are honest about it, and they are tested to keep them honest?

    http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...TELPRDC5101234
    And
    The Facts Regarding Pesticide Residues and Organic Foods | Natural Grocers

    But why spend the extra money to buy organic?
    1) Taste. Organic tastes better. Do your own comparison, bananas, carrots, and tomatoes for instance.
    2) Pesticide residue. Pesticides are neurotoxins. Potential developmental neurotoxicity of pest... [Environ Health. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
    Pesticide residues show up in most of us: http://www.nchh.org/Portals/0/Contents/Article0234.pdf Pesticide residue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    3) Environmental concerns. Agribusinesses do massive monocultures which require massive chemical inputs. Organic farmers are usually small and local. They take care of the land.
    4) Politics. Your money is your vote. You can either give money to Archer-Daniels-Midland and Monsanto and their lobbyists or you can give it to your local community.
    5) Buying organic is actually cheap in the long run. There are few organic processed foods. The closer to the dirt you buy, the cheaper it is.

    Many of us find that riding is good for our health. We spend a lot of money on our hobby. Buying organic could be the least expensive health insurance you'll every buy. Most of us have fire insurance. We hope to never use it. So it is with organic insurance. However I've noticed in my personal experience that those who didn't buy the insurance are those who are most likely to defend their not doing so, saying it wouldn't have done any good.

    Cause and effect are subtle and difficult to pin down in human physiology, as we can easily see from zillions of threads on this forum. Me, I'm buying the insurance, and possibly saving money while I'm at it.
    About #2 You mean pesticides possibly are neurotoxins because your link clearly states that they may be.
    #3 Quantify massive. Cite application rates of the active ingredient used, compare the LD50 for said ingredient and its half life. More on this later
    #4 When I was involved directly in agriculture ADM and Cargill controlled >95% of the world wheat trade, please explain Monsanto connection. BTW the product that made Monsanto becomes neutralized upon contact with soil and has zero residual. Roundup.
    #5 Organic is not cheaper when you consider yield per acre of a shrinking amount of farmland in use. Also consider the percent of the worlds population that is starving.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juha View Post

    We try to eat organic food, especially when it comes to meat, fish and eggs. With animal products, organic usually guarantees better treatment. It's not always as simple as that: most of the chicken sold around where we live is actually not chicken, but broiler. It's a specifically bred, fast growing meat production plant, not a bird. It has severe health issues and one could argue selective breeding is actually gene manipulation in a crude form. I'm not sure an organic broiler is much of an improvement over the regular kind in that sense.

    So, firstsporthub, how organic is "organic"?

    --J
    What? Chicken is not chicken? I raise my own chickens for eggs and meat. The best tasting chicken I have had in years just happened to be a meat cross breed that grew very fast. It was not cage free. The rest of my flock is cage free in that they can wander as they wish. Maybe my next harvest will be better than the last of the cage free...... time will tell. However regardless my chickens taste better than any I have purchased from a grocery store. Eggs I have mixed results. In the winter when the hens don't get much by foraging there is not much difference between mine and store bought other than mine are fresher. When the hens can forage mine are better in taste.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
    People make altogether too many blank assertions like that, but have no data to back them up.
    Pretty much sums up your #1 ,3,4, and 5 above.

    Quote Originally Posted by roadandmountain View Post
    No, you should drink pesticides morning noon and night. Take a pesticide shower when possible. It's good for you.
    Most people have more pesticides under their kitchen sink than is on or in their food. Antibacterial soap is a pesticide, as is the bleach used to launder your towels, as is the caffeine in your coffee. The nicotine from your parents or grandparents cigs was a s well. How many of you organic folks are using hand sanitizers?

    Sorry for the delay in my re-engaging this thread.


    Mark

  7. #82
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Which is why americans are in such good health.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black wallnut View Post
    Most people have more pesticides under their kitchen sink than is on or in their food. Antibacterial soap is a pesticide, as is the bleach used to launder your towels, as is the caffeine in your coffee. The nicotine from your parents or grandparents cigs was a s well. How many of you organic folks are using hand sanitizers?

    Sorry for the delay in my re-engaging this thread.

  8. #83
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You're right, truly nonorganic tend to be crunchy, gritty, hard, and bad for your teeth...

    Snidely irrelevant: is that uh, a weak burn or an ad hominem?

    Quote Originally Posted by achoo View Post
    Since you posted that, you probably don't understand the distinction, but I'll say it anyway:

    Sarcastically implying that pesticides in strangely excessive quantities are bad is not an argument that foods labelled "organic" are pesticide-free (or free of other contaminant), nor is it an argument that "organic" foods are better for you than "nonorganic" foods. (Truly nonorganic foods tend to be crunchy, gritty, hard, and bad for your teeth...)

    It's a snidely irrelevant straw man that adds nothing to the discourse in progress.

  9. #84
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black wallnut View Post
    <snip>
    Pretty much sums up your #1 ,3,4, and 5 above.
    <snip>
    Well, after that taunt, and even though you provide no links, etc. for your refutation, I'll put up this link to links all about Roundup (glyphosate):
    Sobering Facts About Monsanto?s RoundUp (Glyphosate) and How The EPA Ignores Dangers | The Daily Unconstitutional
    One tiny quote from one link:
    To determine if only individuals who are in direct contact with contaminated feed or glyphosate laced compounds are at risk of glyphosate poisoning a study was conducted in December 2011 of an urban population in Berlin. The urine of city workers, journalists and lawyers, who had no direct contact with glyphosate, was examined for glyphosate contamination by a research team at the University of Leipzig. The study found glyphosate in all urine samples at values ranging from 0.5 to 2 ng glyphosate per ml urine (drinking water limit: 0.1 ng / ml). None of the examinees had direct contact with agriculture.
    I wonder why apple orchards in your part of the state put up signs: "DANGER PESTICIDES KEEP OUT" if they are so safe. Gives me the creeps just driving past when I see the tractors out with their tanks fogging pesticides into the air right beside the road I'm on. Yes, I know it's all totally safe: http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Docu...leOrchards.pdf

  10. #85
    Senior Member BikeOnly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There are more naturally occurring rodent carcinogens in one cup of coffee than there are synthetic pesticides in all of the fruits and vegetables you eat in a year. - Bruce Ames

    We have estimated that on average Americans ingest roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products. Americans eat about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg they consume of synthetic pesticide residues. - Ames/Gold

    Cancer and environmental chemicals: vues of Bruce Ames

  11. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,792
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by roadandmountain View Post
    You're right, truly nonorganic tend to be crunchy, gritty, hard, and bad for your teeth...

    Snidely irrelevant: is that uh, a weak burn or an ad hominem?
    Pretty weak sauce.

  12. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Coast of Wisconsin
    My Bikes
    2011 Surly LHT 2005 LeMond Zurich
    Posts
    665
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Lawyer is the Latin word for danger label

  13. #88
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BikeOnly View Post
    There are more naturally occurring rodent carcinogens in one cup of coffee than there are synthetic pesticides in all of the fruits and vegetables you eat in a year. - Bruce Ames

    We have estimated that on average Americans ingest roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products. Americans eat about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg they consume of synthetic pesticide residues. - Ames/Gold

    Cancer and environmental chemicals: vues of Bruce Ames
    In that article, Mr. Ames ignores evolution and conflates rat metabolism and genetics with human.

  14. #89
    Senior Member Wesley36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    603
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black wallnut View Post
    #5 Organic is not cheaper when you consider yield per acre of a shrinking amount of farmland in use. Also consider the percent of the worlds population that is starving.
    I am not saying this is your intention, but this line of argumentation is cheap emotional manipulation that is not backed up by facts.

    http://unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf

    The whole thing is worth reading, but page 59 and 60 of this pdf are the conclusions - well worth reading. With respect to this discussion:
    All case studies which focused on food production in this research where data have been reported have shown increases in per hectare productivity of food crops
    http://unctad.org/en/docs/presspb20086_en.pdf
    Switch to organic farming may boost yields and incomes - SciDev.Net
    Organic Agriculture: Can organic farmers produce enough food for everybody?

  15. #90
    Senior Member Black wallnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ellensburg,WA
    My Bikes
    Schwinn Broadway, Specialized Secteur Sport(crashed) Spec. Roubaix Sport, Spec. Crux
    Posts
    1,420
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Wesley36 View Post
    I am not saying this is your intention, but this line of argumentation is cheap emotional manipulation that is not backed up by facts.

    http://unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf

    The whole thing is worth reading, but page 59 and 60 of this pdf are the conclusions - well worth reading. With respect to this discussion:


    http://unctad.org/en/docs/presspb20086_en.pdf
    Switch to organic farming may boost yields and incomes - SciDev.Net
    Organic Agriculture: Can organic farmers produce enough food for everybody?
    Thanks for the links! I'm not sure what facts are not backing up my assertions. A quick scan of the links you provided not only gave me the following quote but also that the studies in Africa were on small scale farms and the cotton study at least was on marginal farm ground with low yields. I did not see much actual data presented either. I did see phrases like "many had increased yields" Now for a quaote from the last link you posted:

    Organic agriculture and yields. The performance of organic agriculture on production depends on the previous agricultural management system. An over-simplification of the impact of conversion to organic agriculture on yields indicates that:
    • In industrial countries, organic systems decrease yields; the range depends on the intensity of external input use before conversion;
    • In the so-called Green Revolution areas (irrigated lands), conversion to organic agriculture usually leads to almost identical yields;
    • In traditional rain-fed agriculture (with low-input external inputs), organic agriculture has the potential to increase yields.


    Maybe I am reading it wrong but it seems to be saying that in industrialized nations (US would be one) organic decreases yields.


    Mark

  16. #91
    Senior Member Wesley36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    603
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black wallnut View Post
    Thanks for the links! I'm not sure what facts are not backing up my assertions. A quick scan of the links you provided not only gave me the following quote but also that the studies in Africa were on small scale farms and the cotton study at least was on marginal farm ground with low yields. I did not see much actual data presented either. I did see phrases like "many had increased yields" Now for a quaote from the last link you posted:

    Organic agriculture and yields. The performance of organic agriculture on production depends on the previous agricultural management system. An over-simplification of the impact of conversion to organic agriculture on yields indicates that:
    • In industrial countries, organic systems decrease yields; the range depends on the intensity of external input use before conversion;
    • In the so-called Green Revolution areas (irrigated lands), conversion to organic agriculture usually leads to almost identical yields;
    • In traditional rain-fed agriculture (with low-input external inputs), organic agriculture has the potential to increase yields.


    Maybe I am reading it wrong but it seems to be saying that in industrialized nations (US would be one) organic decreases yields.
    In terms of numbers, this is a report pulls together a number of case studies, this is to be expected. There are a number of peer-reviewed studies out there that are more detailed.

    However, what I was refuting was your assertion that (a) organic means lower yields (in some cases, yes, in others, no) and a greater cost when one considers everything and that (b) organic will aggravate problems related to hunger on a worldwide basis. In a number of regions in the world, it seems clear that a shift to more of an emphasis on primarily organic, small scale, subsistence food production would do a great deal to alleviate hunger.

  17. #92
    Senior Member Black wallnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ellensburg,WA
    My Bikes
    Schwinn Broadway, Specialized Secteur Sport(crashed) Spec. Roubaix Sport, Spec. Crux
    Posts
    1,420
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah Wesley36 I see lots of good news in what you linked to. Organic can and in many cases does increase a farmers income. The fact that with marginal farmland they can have increased yields is also good. The hunger problem is really more of a distribution problem than actual shortages. In population dense countries they cannot subsist on small scale farming, there simply is not enough land available partly due to people living on it.


    Mark

  18. #93
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Go to a mall or any public gathering this weekend and just take a look around. Do those people look healthy to you? There is an epidemic of just about every major, life threatening health problem right now in the US. It's due to a combination of toxic food, inactivity, stress, social isolation and ignorance.

    Dirty food is just the tip of the iceberg, however.

  19. #94
    Senior Member BikeOnly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
    In that article, Mr. Ames ignores evolution and conflates rat metabolism and genetics with human.
    Did you even read the article? Your statement does not in the least reflect the spirit or details of the article.

    For example, in the article:

    "This does not mean that coffee or natural pesticides are dangerous, but rather that assumptions about high dose animal cancer tests for assessing human risk at low doses need reexamination. "

    "Rodent cancer tests by themselves provide little information about how a chemical causes cancer (in humans) or about low-dose risk."

    "Caution is necessary in drawing conclusions from the occurrence in the diet of natural chemicals that are rodent carcinogens. It is not argued here that these dietary exposures are necessarily of much relevance to human cancer. Data call for a reevaluation of the utility of animal cancer tests in protecting the public against minor hypothetical risks. "

    Ames also discusses the role of evolution in four separate points. Just do a word such on "evolut" and you will find the discussions.

    So your statement is perfectly inaccurate.

  20. #95
    Senior Member Black wallnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ellensburg,WA
    My Bikes
    Schwinn Broadway, Specialized Secteur Sport(crashed) Spec. Roubaix Sport, Spec. Crux
    Posts
    1,420
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by roadandmountain View Post
    Go to a mall or any public gathering this weekend and just take a look around. Do those people look healthy to you? There is an epidemic of just about every major, life threatening health problem right now in the US. It's due to a combination of toxic food, inactivity, stress, social isolation and ignorance.

    Dirty food is just the tip of the iceberg, however.
    I'll just take my chances. Life expectancy lists pretty much refute what you seem to be claiming. List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Mark

  21. #96
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black wallnut View Post
    I'll just take my chances. Life expectancy lists pretty much refute what you seem to be claiming. List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Serious question: are you illiterate? The US ranks just 35th.

    Okinawans are the healthiest, longest-living people on the planet. They have the highest percentage of centenarians on the planet. They remain physically active throughout their lives. They remain wrinkle free for a lifetime. They eat very little meat. Very small portions of boiled pork with the fat removed. Plenty of vegetables that they grow, including sweet potatoes as a staple. The diseases that americans suffer from are at near zero levels. The men have much higher testosterone levels within their age cohort.

    Meanwhile, here in 'murica:

    fat-people.jpg

    Off the charts levels of disease. 2/3 of 'muricans are overweight or obese. A near majority of teens are overweight or obese.

    Basically what's happening is that 'muricans are maintained to live as long as possible in as sickly a state as possible by the unhealth care system and the drug cartel pharmaceutical industry.
    Last edited by roadandmountain; 03-28-14 at 05:54 PM.

  22. #97
    Senior Member Black wallnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ellensburg,WA
    My Bikes
    Schwinn Broadway, Specialized Secteur Sport(crashed) Spec. Roubaix Sport, Spec. Crux
    Posts
    1,420
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by roadandmountain View Post
    Serious question: are you illiterate? The US ranks just 35th.

    Okinawans are the healthiest, longest-living people on the planet. They have the highest percentage of centenarians on the planet. They remain physically active throughout their lives. They remain wrinkle free for a lifetime. They eat very little meat. Very small portions of boiled pork with the fat removed. Plenty of vegetables that they grow, including sweet potatoes as a staple. The diseases that americans suffer from are at near zero levels. The men have much higher testosterone levels within their age cohort.

    Meanwhile, here in 'murica:

    fat-people.jpg

    Off the charts levels of disease. 2/3 of 'muricans are overweight or obese. A near majority of teens are overweight or obese.

    Basically what's happening is that 'muricans are maintained to live as long as possible in as sickly a state as possible by the unhealth care system and the drug cartel pharmaceutical industry.
    Serious Answer: No but you seem to be or are you too lazy to type out America or better yet United States as each of the three nations in North America have differing life expediences. A population of 1.5 million is the healthiest and yet they are not their own country. Must we be number one on the list to be considered healthy? Number ten, where in your intellectual opinion is the line drawn? If we are so bad off why are we not farther towards the bottom of the list?

    Nice conspiracy theory you have there.

    To think folks think the 41 is hostile! Two different threads in this forum I am attacked.


    Mark

  23. #98
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BikeOnly View Post
    Did you even read the article? Your statement does not in the least reflect the spirit or details of the article.

    For example, in the article:

    "This does not mean that coffee or natural pesticides are dangerous, but rather that assumptions about high dose animal cancer tests for assessing human risk at low doses need reexamination. "

    "Rodent cancer tests by themselves provide little information about how a chemical causes cancer (in humans) or about low-dose risk."

    "Caution is necessary in drawing conclusions from the occurrence in the diet of natural chemicals that are rodent carcinogens. It is not argued here that these dietary exposures are necessarily of much relevance to human cancer. Data call for a reevaluation of the utility of animal cancer tests in protecting the public against minor hypothetical risks. "

    Ames also discusses the role of evolution in four separate points. Just do a word such on "evolut" and you will find the discussions.

    So your statement is perfectly inaccurate.
    Gee, I must have made a mistake. Here I thought you and Mr. Ames were making the argument that because of the large numbers of natural chemicals in our diet, adding a few man-made pesticides wouldn't make an noticeable difference in cancer rates. Oh wait. I believe you said
    We have estimated that on average Americans ingest roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products. Americans eat about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg they consume of synthetic pesticide residues. - Ames/Gold
    Or does that statement not reflect your views?

  24. #99
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,045
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Here's a thought: Coke is not organic. One of the main contributors to obesity is the 300,0000 fast food restaurants which have opened in the US since 1970. It turns out to be all about the distance between these establishments. I believe the goal is 200 yards. Do Fast Food Restaurants Contribute to Obesity?

  25. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My Bikes
    Trek Verve 3
    Posts
    224
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Euele Gibbons only ate organic foods and he died. Therefore, I conclude that if you eat organic food you will probably die.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •