The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Organic consumerism > Comments

Organic consumerism : Comments

By Fred Hansen, published 4/6/2008

The message is finally trickling through that the higher price for organic food does not necessarily mean it is better quality.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I think we've all seen enough
of these "Doctors" who become
"writers" and make passing
shots at Homeopathy without
knowing the facts such as that
numerous studies fully support
its efficacy well beyond placebo.

The following links, most particularly
the YouTube presentation by Dr. Bell,
will be most enlightening to those
who do not think by means of preconceived
notions, innuendo and high school
Avogadro's law chemistry violations
while calling every unknown thing
quackery without even knowing
what they are talking about.

These tinpot "quackers" want us
to discard an entire system of medicine
after they rant and rave and ridicule
as though someone had given
them authority to be our medical
supervisors and deciders.
Such is NOT the case and thinking
people everywhere, faced with 200 years
of cures, saving people in epidemics
and other accomplishments,
are not about to be railroaded
into discarding anything based
on the innuendo of some writer
who is frustrated that people are
buying the "esoteric" things he
despises.

http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/introductory.jsp

National Institue of Health government
web site on Homeopathy:
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#a1

Brilliant presentation by Dr. Iris Bell M.D. PhD
in support of Homeopathy and confirming
the accuracy and efficacy of recent reaearch:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M

A full list of PEER REVIEWED papers supporting her research
can be found at:

http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,173
Posted by Citizen_Jimserac, Friday, 6 June 2008 10:21:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The Highwayman said to the traveller: pray, sir, leave your watch and money in my hands; or else, by god, you will be robbed.”

Indeed Mr Hansen. You of course are referring to the chemical merchants who duped the entire global agricultural industry with their heinous chemicals. Organochlorines, thrust upon farmers with promises of a silver bullet. Bioaccumulative chemicals which continue to kill, maim and contaminate the entire global biosphere.

These chemicals have a long and sordid history of death, illness, corporate negligence and government oversight problems.

By 1990 in the Philippines, the cases of organochlorine poisonings, mainly due to the neurotoxin, endosulfan, rose significantly, with a mortality rate of 29.7%.

Cambodia is the tenth country to ban endosulfan, joining Belize, Singapore, Tonga, Syria, Germany, the UK, Sweden, Netherlands, and Colombia.

The Brazilian state of Rondonia and the Indian state of Kerala have banned the chemical. Twenty-one other countries have placed "severe" controls on endosulfan, which has also been linked to dozens of accidental deaths in the U.S, Colombia, Benin, India, Malaysia, Sudan, and of course, the Philippines.

Yet "clean, green" Australia continues with the widespread use of endosulfan.

These pesticides are known to bioaccumulate in humans and other animals, collecting particularly in the liver, kidneys and fatty tissue. Contamination from endosulfan has caused mass fish deaths in India, Benin, Sudan, Germany, Australia, and the U.S.

So now that the majority of countries have banned the use of organochlorines and the chlorine industry is sucking its thumb, we have the return of the same highway man, with new promises of a silver bullet - the "revolutionary" GM crops coupled with the extensive use of glyphosate.

Without further ado, Mr Hansen, I advise that your article is the most deceptive I've had the misfortune to read on OLO. I for one will continue to support the organics industry despite the current obstacles and despite your attempts to ridicule it.

I am reminded of the advice I received from an old timer when I was a child:

"Fool me once, my fault. Fool me twice, your fault.

Goodnight Mr Hansen.
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 7 June 2008 12:18:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Rojo, for the links - and Dickie, I used your posts as a basis for some research as well. I am at least a little better informed now.
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 7 June 2008 1:25:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn, I concur, millions will go hungry one day. World stockpiles have dwindled due to economic reasons-noone wanted to own a pile of grain, and wear the oppotunity costs of that storage. In running down the stocks supply/demand figures have been misleading, particularly on the supply side. Stockpiles have been falling, yet the prices have not until now had the signal to invigorate production.

Whilst I agree that subsidised EU and US farming has harmed the returns to other countries farmers, the urbanisation of the population would happen regardless. Not everyone aspires to a life of subsistance farming. Jobs in cities that can pay more than farming will always be a drawcard. That tells me farming has been undervalued. Farming being the one occupation that allows urbanisation to occur in the first place.

Farmers can save their own seed, provided it is not part of a licensing agreement from Monsanto and the like. There is no compulsion to use Monsanto's products save for business reasons. I save my own wheat and barley seed, no pressure to do otherwise from Monsanto. On the other hand I don't save any of my own cottonseed, either GM or conventional because it's too much trouble. Incidently the price is the same for each.

No, it's not our job to feed the world, and in truth wouldn't feed that much of it. Having said that we are part of the world, and to underperform would be a tragedy for those nations that are not self sufficient- whether or not cheap imports were originally the root cause or not. Arable land has been decreasing due to things like urbanisation at a time when population continues to increase. If people starve due to production failure that is one thing, but to cut production because we don't like fertiliser/chemicals in nations where food has seldom been scarce and unlikely to be so, and thereby induce production shortfall is quite another.

cont'd
Posted by rojo, Sunday, 8 June 2008 12:46:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I couldn't agree more Bronwyn. Production systems have been geared more toward yield, shelf life and appearance. This has undoubtably shifted focus from taste and possibly "goodness", but I wouldn't say it was due to non-organic farming practices.
I also agree on that the seasonality of produce seems no longer appreciated. It's too easy to import say oranges from California in the off season, robbing local growers of the premium consumers pay for stuff they don't take for granted. (not to mention energy wastage to transport what is basically water).

dickie, grand total deaths in the Phillippines from organochlorines in 2000-01 was 2 according to the WHO (table 4.11). Quite possibly they drank the stuff, not stated.
"the majority of cases of acute poisoning were intentional rather than due to occupational hazard"
http://www.alloccasionsgroup.com/upload/images/AARES08/Templeton.pdf
Posted by rojo, Sunday, 8 June 2008 1:24:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rojo

Thank you for your link on pesticide use in the Philippines and the invaluable information which advised:

“The significant shift in the Philippine agricultural agenda from one that strongly encouraged the widespread use of agricultural chemicals (Marcos regime 1965 to 1986) to one that explicitly considered the harmful effects of pesticides on the environment and human health (Ramos era 1992 to 1998) provided policy makers with a strong political platform upon which policies that promote the safe and judicious use of pesticides could be pursued.”

As a result, your link advises that most organochlorines including endosulfan have been banned – hence the reduction in mortalities.

By 2006/2007 chemicals used were 50% and 90% (respectively) less toxic than they were in 1991.

However, organochlorines (including endosulfan) are known neurotoxins. Medical researchers in India attributed the following health impacts to endosulfan poisoning.

Cerebral palsy, mental and/or physical retardation, epilepsy and congenital abnormalities like stag horn limbs. In addition an increase in blood and liver cancer, infertility, un-descended testis, miscarriages, menstrual irregularities, skin disorders, asthma, etc.

Psychiatric problems and suicidal tendencies from organochlorine poisoning are well documented and have also been rising.

Organochlorines are universally recognised as neurotoxins, resulting in brain damage. Suicides would be inevitable from any imprudent use of these chemicals.

Similar health impacts apply also to organophosphates:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18242652

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/706791/description#description

When you selectively advised:

“dickie, grand total deaths in the Phillippines from organochlorines in 2000-01 was 2 according to the WHO (table 4.11). Quite possibly they drank the stuff, not stated.”

Was that meant to be a joke?
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 8 June 2008 11:32:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy