Not to mention the toxins, incorrect farming methods, and seed
modifications pretty much ruining everything. I've read studies where
heirloom, organically grown veggies can have as much as 300-400%+ more
nutrients in them. That in fact, Harvard confirmed, you need to eat 2-3
conventionally grown, pesticide rich apples to equal one organically
sustained and grown apple.
The fact is, people are starving, not in the literal sense, but in the
sense they aren't getting the nutrients, trace minerals, and everything
else they need. This is serving the pharma-cartel quite well..
Ironically, we would not need to add iodine into salt if we just used
natural salt as it was meant to be consumed! (Himalayan) We've really
messed up, in more ways than I care to mention here.
If you aren't healthy, start detoxing, then change your diet. Food is
your medicine cabinet, and it isn't found in a box with the "Kraft"
label on it. Ok?
Bob Banever wrote:
Ode,
I don't think it would be hard to prove the difference between
foods naturally selected by nature over modern GMO foods of today. I
doubt we'd find pig genes in corn or wasp genes in soybeans etc.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ode Coyote"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:46 AM
Subject: CS>The plow turns the field over...who is the field?
## "Subjective" MEANS the eyes and buds lie, the question is how much.
Any study can be selective. Those doing any given study are out to
prove some point of view.
Sure, no comparison between a home grown tomato and one bred for
transport, but I detect no difference between a home grown potato,
onion, carrot or head of lettuce and one in the grocery store.
Is there a difference beyond opinion? That depends on who you ask.
Then there's that wavy definition of organic.
I have many friends that make a living growing produce that use no
pesticides, but don't qualify as organic growers and won't because
the difference isn't worth achieving or is simply below their
standards of quality that command twice the price when "intelligent
and studied" use of technology makes a lot of difference and an
organic compound is the same compound regardless of origin.
But the "issue" was comparisons between todays foods [in general] and
those of 100 years ago [in general]... "organic" by default [leaving
out the little known fact of poisonous metals pesticides] and grown
with ignorance with no conscious mineral supplementation of soils.
Did THEY have any nutritional advantage over modern commercial
foods...in that specific context?
Point being, is Agribiz an improvement over the old old way, despite
any further recent improvements over that, that go beyond Agribiz?
Let's not be tossing pears into the apples and oranges basket.
Changing the subject doesn't prove, or even illustrate, any points
even if the data and studies are unbiased.
Even harder would be the difference between GMO of today and GMO of
10-20,000 years ago.
We have no records of people selected out [culled] by sensitivities,
allergies and such to compare, only that the "Gift of the Gods" was
an "over all" BOON to civilization in general. [Not that Monsanto has
any idea of what it's doing..or even that the "Gods" did...but nobody
took the "Gods" to court or counted the losers as most people
eventually won over the 100s of centuries. ]
And we can probably show how "saving" people that would otherwise
perish with a change generally regarded as an improvement [or not],
genetically weakens the entire human race setting it up for a
disaster that wouldn't have happened had natural selection within
existing context ["natural" or not ] been allowed.
Point: Nature is much more unforgiving than a studied meddling with
it, but there are always those unintended consequences that the
cruelty of nature may have avoided... WITH or WITHOUT the meddling.
Too much success can be just as bad as not enough and some will
always fail to adjust while others vastly benefit.
"Nature" can be defined as "what is", regardless of "what was" just
as *normal* isn't a constant.
Nature doesn't have any opinions, only results...no matter who
screwed with it or how, it is what it is...now.
Are we better off now than 100 years ago? Absolutely !
Can we do better?...for sure we can.
BUT, what happens next, because of that?
If the world goes organic and green ["improves" ], a heck of a lot of
people won't be around any more that depend on the LAST "Green
Revolution" [Agribiz] to stay alive.
We go to Ethanol and other people go hungry. Why were we feeding
them to the growth point where they can't feed themselves to start with?
Long term cruelty in the name of short term compassion? "Saved" for
the massacre ?
..all this "help" is gonna kill a bunch of folx that otherwise
wouldn't be here to die. Go figger.
Ode [ Shot by a looter that will starve later. ]
At 07:16 AM 4/19/2010 -0700, you wrote:
Ode,
Here is a study showing that organically grown foods do indeed
contain more nutrients, including trace minerals, than non organic
foods. Most studies done have been flawed and carried out by huge
agribusiness concerns.
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/12-27/health-benefits-of-organic-food-article.htm
I know personally that when I grow my own veggies they taste
better and look better than non organic varieties from the grocery.
Although this is subjective my taste buds and my eyes don't lie.
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html
Off-Topic discussions: <mailto:[email protected]>
List Owner: Mike Devour <mailto:[email protected]>
