Organic food not healthier, study finds

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"Lazy hippie thinking," is what I call it, and a lack of understanding of what the definition of "organic" farming all too often is.

Bill, when you here the word **, do you think cigarette? The term organic is applied to mean something that may be a deviation from it's textbook definition. It's a pity, but that's how language is used in conventional terms, and that's why you won't be shouting out how gay you are in public, knowing that most people won't be thinking of the textbook definition when you say it.

[Brad and Vika 129]

I know so many people sucked into this Organic food stuff.

Russians are programed for this kind of stuff.

Yep. Vika will not be convinced that organic food is just plain better in every way. Those organic, radioactive mushrooms in Ukraine too. I have given up presenting evidence to the contrary - as it just causes an argument

[SuperDuper! 230]

Yep. That's what I've read...because of the flash frozen process that is used now, frozen vegetables retain most of their nutritional value until they are ready to eat.

Forget veggies and all that healthy stuff. The Fast Food scene and Drive-Thru lane just does it for me! If they make Organic Fast Food, then I will sign on to that

And dont forget the wings!!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill, when you here the word **, do you think cigarette? The term organic is applied to mean something that may be a deviation from it's textbook definition. It's a pity, but that's how language is used in conventional terms, and that's why you won't be shouting out how gay you are in public, knowing that most people won't be thinking of the textbook definition when you say it.

Again you miss the point. You want to run off on a tangent, rather than discuss the topic at hand: "Is 'organic' food really better for you," is the topic at hand.

Before you answer that question, you have to wonder exactly what is being offered as "organic" in your local supermarket, when half the people that are supposed to certify your food as organic have been suspended by the agency in charge of certifying the certifiers!

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Forget veggies and all that healthy stuff. The Fast Food scene and Drive-Thru lane just does it for me! If they make Organic Fast Food, then I will sign on to that

And dont forget the wings!!

what wings?

[Anna C. 4]

I don't know anyone who eats organic because they think organic stuff has more nutrients. Everybody I know wants it because it has no pesticides, GMO, yada yada yada.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't know anyone who eats organic because they think organic stuff has more nutrients. Everybody I know wants it because it has no pesticides, GMO, yada yada yada.

Exactly, that's what makes it "healthier" in my book.

"there was not sufficient research to assess the long-term effects of pesticides on human health"

This conclusion was sponsored in part by the Pesticide Producers Association.

[Ali G. 37]

Exactly, that's what makes it "healthier" in my book.

"there was not sufficient research to assess the long-term effects of pesticides on human health"

This conclusion was sponsored in part by the Pesticide Producers Association.

The research is there. Doesn't take a genius to realize why cancers rates rose so rapidly over the past few decades.

People also need to read up on DDT to understand it, something we are still suffering from..

LQ64sV0nSVU

Edited February 22, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

tpqJa_IzONo

[alienlovechild 75]

The research is there. Doesn't take a genius to realize why cancers rates rose so rapidly over the past few decades.

Booyah, do you have some sort of brain tumor that leads you to post nonsense about the rapid rise in cancer?

"The rate of cancer in the U.S. has been in a small but steady decline for the past six years. That's according to a joint study from National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control, the American Cancer Society and the North American Cancer Association of Central Cancer Registration.

The study found new diagnoses for all types of cancer dropped on average almost 1 percent a year from 1999 through 2006 and the rate of cancer deaths dropped on average 1.6 percent a year from 2001 through 2006.

Declines in the three most common cancers in men (lung, prostate and colorectal) and two of the three leading cancers in women (breast and colorectal) were responsible for the overall drop in the rates.

One disturbing note was an increase in colon cancer in people younger than 50."

http://cbs4denver.com/health/cancer.rate.c....1355608.htmlof

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The research is there. Doesn't take a genius to realize why cancers rates rose so rapidly over the past few decades.

People also need to read up on DDT to understand it, something we are still suffering from..

LQ64sV0nSVU

Because Malaria, Encephalitis, Dengue Fever, and other insect borne diseases are so much better!

[alienlovechild 75]

Because Malaria, Encephalitis, Dengue Fever, and other insect borne diseases are so much better!

Quite true.

[Ali G. 37]

Go, I am waiting for the opinion piece stating DDT was good for you. I know you will find it somewhere in some blog site. Next, even radiation poising will be good for the body and made out to be some sort of conspiracy.

Same way I get on libs backs about their lack of education in logical courses, Repubs need to stick to what you know best, and it's clearly not science. Anyone with a high school chemistry class understands the damage pesticides do to human DNA, not to mention other foods and animals we consume.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Go, I am waiting for the opinion piece stating DDT was good for you. I know you will find it somewhere in some blog site. Next, even radiation poising will be good for the body and made out to be some sort of conspiracy.

Same way I get on libs backs about their lack of education in logical courses, Repubs need to stick to what you know best, and it's clearly not science. Anyone with a high school chemistry class understands the damage pesticides do to human DNA, not to mention other foods and animals we consume.

Discussion and Conclusions

Malaria is reemerging in disease-endemic countries. We have shown the patterns of real growth in malaria rates for Brazil, Peru, and Guyana. Figure 8 shows a similar pattern of growth in malaria rates for 18 other countries of the Americas. Figure 8 also depicts the relationships of increased malaria incidence to changing global strategies for malaria control. There is no inference of causation between changing policies and malaria increases. In fact, the HSRs were declining (as illustrated in Figure 8) even before global strategies were changed. However, it certainly seems that the new strategies are not producing a desirable outcome.

We have used two regression models to show that as numbers of DDT-sprayed houses declined, malaria incidence increased. The period from 1959 to 1978 can be characterized as a period of insecticide-controlled malaria. The period from 1979 to 1995 can be characterized as a period of decreased use of residual spraying and geometric growth in malaria incidence. Other factors contribute to resurgent malaria, but none would appear to equal the influence of decreases in the house-spray programs.

Public health researchers in the United States helped initiate the use of DDT for malaria control in 1943 (19). Today, DDT is still needed for malaria control. If the pressure to abandon this effective insecticide continues, unchanged or declining health budgets, combined with increasingly expensive insecticides and rising operational costs, will result in millions of additional malaria cases worldwide.

DDT should be produced and distributed for governments to use in malaria control only. Use of this insecticide should not be abandoned unless its known detrimental health effects are greater than the effects of uncontrolled malaria on human health.

The multifaceted issues of DDT use for malaria control (e.g., ecologic damage, human carcinogenicity, and pesticide resistance) and the applicability of the Global Malaria Control Strategy to the Americas should be the subject of intensive national and international debate. We are now facing the unprecedented event of eliminating, without meaningful debate, the most cost-effective chemical we have for the prevention of malaria. The health of hundreds of millions of persons in malaria-endemic countries should be given greater consideration before proceeding further with the present course of action.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/roberts.htm

You are such an annoying little gnat!

Edited February 22, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[scandal 951]

You are such an annoying little gnat!

Spraycan of DDT, perhaps?