Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What? Monsanto is like a red cloth for you all? As soon as you see the code world "Monsanto", you stop reading, you don't pay no attention to the actual context and start elaborating on something that is 100% irrelevant to the discussion. Then you put all the blame on the guy who mentioned the code word "Monsanto" that caused you all to get excited and to spill over?
It takes two to make sense. You are incapable of making sense of "analogies" (google it), I can't teach you that. Monsanto is allowed to claim ownership of entire bio specie (Any specie) for N years just because it inserted a proprietary gene in it, the gene it didn't create from scratch to boot. Specie and gene ownership have no precedents in human history, the history that saw plenty of innovations and cost recovery. Monsanto tweaks common human heritage and declare it to be its property. Again, you didn't explain why I can't do something like that to Microsoft products or somebody else' home? I didn't give my permission for Monstanto to own corn specie it contaminated with another' specie genes. I don't understand who are "we" that allowed Monsanto to do that. I don't understand who are "we" that absolved Monsanto from any responsibility for their genes messing up species for good.
Absurd of gene and specie ownership opens big can of legal worms and dystopian possibilities. You understand very well that only Monsanto' discretion (not a law) that marks the limits of legal prosecution. And Monsanto is just a GMO pioneer, more are coming, more crops will be threatened.
There is precedent for gene ownership. Anyone who breeds purebred animals and charges a stud fee in essence owns the genes to his animals.
In modifying the genome, Monsanto has indeed created a new plant, and the law in this country permits it to be patented. The "we" in this instance is the voting public of the U.S. The voters have the power to demand that Congress change the law if they do not like it. Monsanto has to operate within the law, too. It also would have to convince a jury that it was damaged if a few plants with its patented genes showed up by accident in a farmer's field.
You cannot mess with Microsoft products because the law forbids it. See how it works?
Man has been manipulating the genes of plants and animals since domestication of them occurred. Now we can just do it faster.
Here what Hong Kong comrades have to say on the matter: 6. Would my health be affected if I consume food containing excessive pesticide residues?
The adverse effects of pesticide residues depend on the nature of the pesticide, as well as the amount and duration of exposure. Eating food with excessive pesticide residues may cause acute and/or chronic adverse health effects. Symptoms of acute poisoning include vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, dizziness and numbness. In severe cases, people may even have difficulties in breathing, blurred vision and convulsion. Prolonged excessive intakes of pesticide residues have been shown to cause damage to the nervous system or other organs such as liver and kidneys, as well as affect foetal development in animals.
If you consume excessive amounts of pesticides you can die. Did the "Hong Kong comrades" tell us whether this was exposure to normal consumption of food or excessive exposure due to mishandling of pesticides?
Quote:
Since you value CDC opinion so much here what they have to say on the matter:
It's also increasingly clear that genetics can't tell the whole story of autism. A Stanford University study of twins published last year found that genetics accounts for just 38 percent of the risk.
"That analysis suggested that the assumption that this is mostly a genetic condition was perhaps made in error," said Diana Schendel, a scientist with the CDC's National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. "Maybe the environment plays a larger role in autism than we once believed."
The link is to a Huffington Post article, and essentially what it says is that researchers are looking for environmental causes of autism. To date, none have actually been definitively identified.
Quote:
You are putting words in my mouth. In each and every post in no uncertain terms I stated that interplay of the social, environmental and food changes imposed severe penalties on our health and general sense of well-being. I never pointed to "agrochemicals" as the sole root cause. You, on the other hand, absolved chemicals and additives all to be safe, and started this autism message fest.
Um, here in the U.S. the average life expectancy continues to increase despite all the chemicals we are exposed to. People are living longer, healthier lives here and in other countries.
Again, you introduced autism into the discussion and implied that agricultural chemicals cause it. If you do not want to discuss it, why did you mention it in the first place.
Quote:
Agrochemicals (and additives) threaten not only our food, agrochemicals contributed to disintegration of the social fabric of the agricultureal areas, not speaking of messing up environment. More chemicals and additives = larger scale of production = more specialization & greater length of haul = fewer players and "opportunities" = less variety, more brainwashing and uniformity, ultimately less freedom, choices and joy. Economy of the agricultural absurd is really fragile and it takes enormous amount of energy to run it. At some (not so distant) point mouse trap would snap. Hopefully, you (and me) will be dead by that time because it will not be pretty especially for old farts.
If we eliminated all the chemicals and went back to small farms with everyone eating only locally grown crops, we would have less variety, not more. Some areas would have no fresh fruit or produce for a significant part of the year.
To say that agricultural chemicals cause "disintegration of the social fabric of the "agricultureal areas'" is absurd. Should farmers go back to plowing with mules, too? Maybe dig holes with sticks to plant seeds?
Quote:
It looks like you are incapable of processing analogies (google it). One more time:
If you see a wire hanging from utility pole on your driveway you would assume that wire is live
If you see a strainger pointing a gun at you you would assume the gun is loaded
If you receive a call saying that you won a trip to Hawai you would assume it's a scam.
It's called precaution and common sense. Two things you claim you don't understand, but you do, since you managed to survive for this long. Yet, we all are invited to believe that concoctions of hundred and thousands of additives and agrochemicals do nothing to our health.
If we followed your line of thinking, we would never have a new medicine. All innovation would stop, because no one could ever prove that any new chemical would never harm a single person on earth. Forget plowing with a mule and planting with a stick. We would have to go back to living in caves and eating leaves, twigs, and bugs --- since you think meat is out of the question. Or do bugs count as meat?
Good grief! Even your computer contains toxic chemicals!
Quote:
From now on I don't provide links for the statements of common knowledge and/or the statements that are easy to look up and double check. Links between meat consumption and heart disease are well established, it's as mainstream as it gets.
If you state something as fact, we will challenge you to document it. If you cannot do that, we will assume it is opinion, not fact.
It is possible to include meat in a heart healthy diet.
The average age of menarche is slowly decreasing, the average age of puberty onset is plummeting (especially for girls). And it took just 30+/- years for these trends to set in. If anything, kid' nutrition got worse in those 30 years. There are plenty of 9 and 10 years old "women". Would you claim that skeletal maturity of a 9 years old is sufficient for vaginal birth? What about "social maturity" of a 9 years old, it takes social and survival maturity to raise a kid. I don't see "evolutionary advantage" of a 9 year old dying during a childbirth (that would be an overwhelming outcome without availability of C-sections).
on a landmark 1960 study of institutionalized British children, was that puberty began, on average, for girls at age 11. But that was not what Herman-Giddens was seeing. So she started collecting data, eventually leading a study with the American Academy of Pediatrics that sampled 17,000 girls, finding that among white girls, the average age of breast budding was 9.96. Among black girls, it was 8.87.
While studies have shown that the average age of breast budding has fallen significantly since the 1970s, the average age of first period, or menarche, has remained fairly constant, dropping to only 12.5 from 12.8 years. Why would puberty be starting earlier yet ending more or less at the same time?
As far as fertility is concerned, it is menarche that is important. It usually follows the pubertal growth spurt by about a year, then growth stops right around menarche. Girls are not able to get pregnant when puberty begins, for goodness sake. I gave you a link about the postulated effects of better nutrition. Feel free to disagree with it if you wish.
Quote:
Do you have an idea about combinatorics? If there are 1500 of food additives and hundreds of agrichemicals, it's virtually impossible (provided honest desire and efforts) to study all the possible interactions and their effects on our health. "Extensively studied" is a meaningless marketing slogan. The simple fact is - available studies didn't even scratch the surface of the problem.
I agree with you. There is no way to study all the possible combinations of chemicals. No amount of research will ever satisfy you.
Quote:
First, we didn't agree upon definitions of "evidence". Again, it seems you deem safe any chemical that does not cause immediate collapse and convulsions. See, my above remark about combinatorics. You have no ground to claim that "ractopamine" is safe. People get sick and die, there is no way to deduct contributions of ractopamine to that. Common sense and precaution would preclude feeding us with unnecessary chemicals.
You still have not identified a single human harmed by eating meat from an animal treated with ractopamine, have you, despite the billions of pounds of meat that has been consumed from animals treated with it?
There is precedent for gene ownership. Anyone who breeds purebred animals and charges a stud fee in essence owns the genes to his animals.
Not even close. No purebred owner can claim ownership of all the offspring related to their studs.
Quote:
In modifying the genome, Monsanto has indeed created a new plant, and the law in this country permits it to be patented.
Absurd and unjust laws tend to be disrespected and disregarded. This radical corporate sponsored judicial activism has no basis in common sense and human cultural tradition. If one can patent genes (basic elements of life present in nature) why one cannot patent 99.99724% pure Iron or 99.99987893% pure gold, if for anything 99.99724% pure Iron doesn't occur naturally? Don't you think I "create" a new operational system by tweaking a few lines of Code of Windows Vista? The laws of this country that allow patenting of life are not that ancient, 25 years max. Unfortunately, this country tries to force patenting of life down every other country's throat, so much for "feeding the hungry" crap.
Quote:
The "we" in this instance is the voting public of the U.S. The voters have the power to demand that Congress change the law if they do not like it.
You can demand all you want, but nothing short of revolt would force the elite to change the lucrative laws their congressional agents are paid (directly and indirectly) to push through. You are seriously under delusion that "voting public" decides a squat? So when was the last time you utilized all that civics empowerment to change something that matters (as far as power and money flows are concerned)? Voting public is extremely easy to manipulate, that's why they allow the election circus to run every other 2 or 4 years.
BTW, did voting public demand Congress to pass laws allowing patenting of life? I really doubt that. So, if voting public didn't push for those laws, who did?
Quote:
Monsanto has to operate within the law, too. It also would have to convince a jury that it was damaged if a few plants with its patented genes showed up by accident in a farmer's field.
You mean the laws that the very same Monsanto pushed through?
The Runyons charge bio-tech giant Monsanto sent investigators to their home unannounced, demanded years of farming records, and later threatened to sue them for patent infringement. The Runyons say an anonymous tip led Monsanto to suspect that genetically modified soybeans were growing on their property. Anonymous tip is all what it takes for Monsanto to spring up into action.
74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was "aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent. The company subpoenaed Parr's bank records, without his knowledge, and found his customers. After receiving calls from Monsanto, some of them stopped talking to him.
You cannot mess with Microsoft products because the law forbids it. See how it works?
Who writes the laws? Why common human heritage is not legally protected and Microsoft is? And it's not so much about ownership, Genetics Modification may mess up entire species for good. No corporation was lobbying for "common human heritage", I wonder why?
Quote:
Man has been manipulating the genes of plants and animals since domestication of them occurred. Now we can just do it faster.
Comparing traditional genetic manipulations to genetic engineering of Monsanto' kind is intentionally misleading. It's not just faster, it's radically different and "unnatural".
It's not a GMO thread though, so it's my last GMO post.
If you consume excessive amounts of pesticides you can die. Did the "Hong Kong comrades" tell us whether this was exposure to normal consumption of food or excessive exposure due to mishandling of pesticides?
What is normal consumption? What if you eat three times of the "normal" consumption of food item X? Should they place maximum dosage disclaimers on every package of greens etc.?
Quote:
The link is to a Huffington Post article, and essentially what it says is that researchers are looking for environmental causes of autism. To date, none have actually been definitively identified.
It's not Huffington post, it's A Stanford University study of twins published last year found that genetics accounts for just 38 percent of the risk.
Quote:
Um, here in the U.S. the average life expectancy continues to increase despite all the chemicals we are exposed to. People are living longer, healthier lives here and in other countries.
Not true, folks who enjoy miracles of science the most (poor, working class) don't live longer, they are not healthier (or happier for that matter) than their grandfathers (quite to the contrary). Just imagine if life expectancies of Mexican illegal labor or Chinese sweatshop labor were included. America outsourced untimely deaths, that's all. One needs dozens of pills to cling to that average life expectancy. Average productive life expectancy didn't change that much over the years, they just learned how to maintain lives of the semi-comatose geezers (with good supplemental insurance) longer.
Again, you introduced autism into the discussion and implied that agricultural chemicals cause it. If you do not want to discuss it, why did you mention it in the first place.
They may contribute to it. According to Stanford, autism is environmental for 60%. Have you fed your kids all imaginable chemical food additives to prove your enthusiasm for the corporate science? I really doubt that. You did exercise precaution, it's instinctive.
Quote:
If we eliminated all the chemicals and went back to small farms with everyone eating only locally grown crops, we would have less variety, not more. Some areas would have no fresh fruit or produce for a significant part of the year.
Not true, 100 years ago an average mid-westerner could buy 600 varieties of apples, today it's 5 or 6 at most. Other vegetable staples are even less diverse. I believe a single variety of broccoli makes up 80%+ of the market. I think it's plainly obvious that small farmers and land holders maintain genetic diversity of crops, animals and plants. Large corporate agribiz kills it.
Quote:
To say that agricultural chemicals cause "disintegration of the social fabric of the "agricultureal areas'" is absurd. Should farmers go back to plowing with mules, too? Maybe dig holes with sticks to plant seeds?
Rural social fabric is pretty much destroyed by large agribiz and big poison. Should farmers go back to plowing with mules? As things go, there will be no farmers left to plow with anything. Smaller farms and holdings maintained diverse agricultural economies and vibrant, authentic cultures. Large scale agribiz destroys rural economies and culture. Should farmers dig holes with sticks? To answer that, please tell me how much energy it takes to run global agribiz, how many years of "business as usual" we have left?
Quote:
If we followed your line of thinking, we would never have a new medicine. All innovation would stop, because no one could ever prove that any new chemical would never harm a single person on earth. Forget plowing with a mule and planting with a stick. We would have to go back to living in caves and eating leaves, twigs, and bugs --- since you think meat is out of the question. Or do bugs count as meat?
Most of our ancestors never lived in caves. Your way of thinking would force survivors of progress to eat leaves, twigs and bugs. Meat will be out of question. Innovation for the sake of innovation (profits more exactly) leads us into the future of oblivion, famine and global carnage. One cannot prove that new chemical would never harm a single person, but one should prove that that particular chemical is absolutely necessary, one should prove that there are no non-chemical means to achieve the same goals, one should prove that a chemical is not introduced to perpetuate energy intensive, environmentally questionable, socially irresponsible (if not suicidal) production models such as CAFOs.
I would agree that humans (of the most primitive kind not speaking of the agriculturalists) usually depend on meat eating for their survival. Ice age men was nothing but a pure carnivore. Yet, the meat that an ice age man ate differed quite a bit from the meats you eat, not speaking of (non) cooking of that meat. Don't tell me that you salivate at the thought of a freshly butchered pig having its gut cut open. We didn't evolve that much yet. For countless thousands of years meat was a supplement not a diet staple. Have you ever tried to catch something using your two feet and two hands? I thought so. It took technology and social organization for meat eating to pick up steam. Primitive technology is not that ancient to speak of us "evolving to eat meat". We didn't really evolve to eat that much of the meats. We may have evolved to scavenge meat here and there and/or to kill a rare easy prey. As usual, human technology lead to population overshoot and mankind got trapped in 6meat eating for survival.
In the "civilized" societies (prior to Haber-Bosch process), eating meat was rather a treat/privilege since humans (in their typical fashion) nearly exterminated wild life to arrange themselves in a social pyramid of unequal access to meats. As late as 20th century, many European peasants lived without meat for years, it was a luxury they couldn't afford. When meat becomes a diet staple (not a supplement) it imposes heavy toll on human health. Lack of meats imposes its tolls too though. There are plenty of references.
In 1960 the meat-consumption habits of 25,153 California Seventh-Day Adventists were assessed by questionnaire. Between 1960 and 1980 ischemic heart disease deaths were identified. Meat consumption was positively associated with fatal ischemic heart disease in both men and women. This association was apparently not due to confounding by eggs, dairy products, obesity, marital status, or cigarette smoking. The positive association between meat consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease was stronger in men than in women and, overall, strongest in young men.
As far as fertility is concerned, it is menarche that is important. It usually follows the pubertal growth spurt by about a year, then growth stops right around menarche. Girls are not able to get pregnant when puberty begins, for goodness sake. I gave you a link about the postulated effects of better nutrition. Feel free to disagree with it if you wish.
First you claim that nutritional improvement may be responsible for earlier onset of puberty & menarche because some tenure&publications starved evolutionary biologists speculate that improvements in nutrition may lead to earlier reproductive maturity to ensure better chances of reproduction. Miracle of nature & evolution in action, so to speak. Never mind questionable credibility of the claim that nutrition improved in the past 30 years or so. Never mind the fact that skeletal developments are not nearly as fast as the plummeting onset of puberty. Thus all that early maturation is quite useless (if not dangerous) evolutionary speaking. Then you say, "wait, menarche age didn't change that much over past 30 years. Therefore, it's not about food." Make up your mind.
Even though average age of menarche decreased only by 5 months (in 30 years!), average is just that - average of a bell curve. There are plenty of the girls who reached the finish line before the ripe age of 10. The age when neither their bodies nor their social/survival skills are adequate to survive labor, not speaking of rearing a child. What kind of evolutionary advantage do you see in that?
~ You think it's bad for your health? ---------->DON'T EAT IT<-----------
Why do progressive liberal elitists always want to tell everyone else what is good for them and how ignorant they are for not seeing things their way?
You mean I have a choice between ractopamine treated meats and untreated meats? That is not what statistics on ractopamine use suggests. There is no/little choice. Do you ever go grocery shopping, or you send your butler to shop? For an average wage unit there is a "choice" between 2000+ of the differently wrapped corn&soybeans byproducts charged with cutting edge food additives and having traces of hundreds of the agrochemicals used to produce all that McBonanza.
Provided substantial financial resources and/or free time one may avoid industrial foods (the way upper middle corporate climbers avoid it), but NO money would insulate you against social, environmental, health, economics and resource (or lack of thereof) implications of the global agribiz. Sorry, "don't eat it" doesn't cut it.
Last edited by RememberMee; 12-24-2012 at 12:45 AM..
You mean I have a choice between ractopamine treated meats and untreated meats? That is not what statistics on ractopamine use suggests. There is no/little choice. Do you ever go grocery shopping, or you send your butler to shop? For an average wage unit there is a "choice" between 2000+ of the differently wrapped corn&soybeans byproducts charged with cutting edge food additives and having traces of hundreds of the agrochemicals used to produce all that McBonanza.
Provided substantial financial resources and/or free time one may avoid industrial foods (the way upper middle corporate climbers avoid it), but NO money would insulate you against social, environmental, health, economics and resource (or lack of thereof) implications of the global agribiz. Sorry, "don't eat it" doesn't cut it.
WOW! Sounds to me like you'd only be happy living on the South Pole eating white snow. There is no place in America and probably the world where you can grow anything that won't be tainted with some types of chemicals. I've come across paranoid people in this thread and I must say, you are by far the most paranoid by far.
Oh Jasper, my brandy please and tell the chauffer to bring the Rolls with the diamonds embedded in the wheels around front for me like a good man we are going to McDonalds, oh and tell the maid to dust the guest room if you would.
You mean I have a choice between ractopamine treated meats and untreated meats? That is not what statistics on ractopamine use suggests. There is no/little choice. Do you ever go grocery shopping, or you send your butler to shop? For an average wage unit there is a "choice" between 2000+ of the differently wrapped corn&soybeans byproducts charged with cutting edge food additives and having traces of hundreds of the agrochemicals used to produce all that McBonanza.
Provided substantial financial resources and/or free time one may avoid industrial foods (the way upper middle corporate climbers avoid it), but NO money would insulate you against social, environmental, health, economics and resource (or lack of thereof) implications of the global agribiz. Sorry, "don't eat it" doesn't cut it.
This is the "green living" thread right? lol
I totally agree with you! As a matter of fact I didn't realize people interested in "green living" would be on here promoting the use of chemical lading meat consumption. Quite the opposite.
As I have seen through this thread, trying to limit the chemical intake is going to prove far more challenging since so many drink the koolaid.
Capitalism at it's finest. Convince people chemicals do no harm, feed them with the bottom line in mind, make a profit while you feed them propaganda with their food and they will believe it.
I've looked into our meat production, I'm not that stupid. We obviously don't put peoples health in the forefront when it comes to mass production. We put their money as first thought.
I think it's going to be up to the individual as long as others believe the propaganda. Businesses still make a profit off selling un eatable meat to people who don't really care what they eat as long as it's easy to get it to the table and into said mouth.
I would stop wasting my time on convincing people who are obviously not on here because they are interested in "green living" IMO, of course. To me their agenda seems anything but green and chemical free.
I do thank you for posting this, I agree, it's something to avoid, but how? I find it so frustrating that we don't have more choices. Not only with meat but there are a lot of food products other countries don't allow because they are harmful, but we do. Plus, we keep people in the dark about it.
Mexico even denied shipments of our beef because of how toxic they found it. It's not only ractopamine, there's a lot more things than that. 'Growing concern' over marketing tainted beef - USATODAY.com
"Even when the inspection service does identify a lot of beef with high levels of pesticide or antibiotics, it often is powerless to stop the distribution of that meat because there is no legal limit for those contaminants.
In 2008, for example, Mexican authorities rejected a U.S. beef shipment because its copper levels exceeded Mexican standards, the audit says. But because there is no U.S. limit, the FSIS had no grounds for blocking the beef's producer from reselling the rejected meat in the United States."
Why would anyone eat meat right now from the U.S.? Yuck.
I would stop wasting my time on convincing people who are obviously not on here because they are interested in "green living" IMO, of course. To me their agenda seems anything but green and chemical free.
Just where in the posting rules for the green forum does is stipulate that only subjects that bash technology are allowed and there can be no discourse on the subject?
An open forum means we all have the right to discuss our feelings on anything green and to dispute that which one feels is nothing more than fear, misstatement of facts and a phobia against anything that is technologically driven.
As far as eating U.S. bred and raised meat isn't it amazing that millions of Americans eat meat every day of the week without any massive outbreaks of food poisoning reported on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly/decade basis?
~ You think it's bad for your health? Simple ----------> DON'T EAT IT <-----------
Maybe I missed something about this forum, that half truths, lies, misstatement of facts, misrepresentation of studies and fear of anything that smacks of technology is perfectly normal, business as usual.
That whatever someone says here no matter how preposterous MUST be the truth because this is <Celestial Bells> THE GREEN FORUM......
It's a sad day if this forum is nothing more than a bunch of bobbing head yes people who take everything presented to them at face value and question nothing.
Just where in the posting rules for the green forum does is stipulate that only subjects that bash technology are allowed and there can be no discourse on the subject?
An open forum means we all have the right to discuss our feelings on anything green and to dispute that which one feels is nothing more than fear, misstatement of facts and a phobia against anything that is technologically driven.
As far as eating U.S. bred and raised meat isn't it amazing that millions of Americans eat meat every day of the week without any massive outbreaks of food poisoning reported on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly/decade basis?
~ You think it's bad for your health? Simple ----------> DON'T EAT IT <-----------
Maybe I missed something about this forum, that half truths, lies, misstatement of facts, misrepresentation of studies and fear of anything that smacks of technology is perfectly normal, business as usual.
That whatever someone says here no matter how preposterous MUST be the truth because this is <Celestial Bells> THE GREEN FORUM......
It's a sad day if this forum is nothing more than a bunch of bobbing head yes people who take everything presented to them at face value and question nothing.
Well then you should be happy. It's a fact that American produced beef is neglected by regulation. It's a fact that you don't need the amount of chemicals in our beef to keep them bacteria free. Ractopamine is a drug that is used as a feed additive to promote leanness in animals raised for their meat. Pharmacologically, it is a beta-adrenoceptor agonist, it's used for growth promotion. It's used to make money, not to promote healthy animals.
And, I might add, we are questioning plenty. The op is questioning why we have to use this chemical in our meat production. It's not for safety, it's for profit, and the effects of it's residue over the long term is unknown to humans. It's a pollutant, and is excreted from animal urine. Plus, it's an animal stressor. Most green lifers would question it's use. The odd thing is you promoting the use of a growth chemical on the green living form. That's suspicious. IMO, of course.
It's a fact that the chemicals we add are for profit margins not safety for human consumption. Green living is a lifestyle, I don't use bleach to clean my kitchen, I use vinegar, why would I want to eat meat full of chemicals?
It's also a fact that green living means protecting the earth's ecological balance, subjecting it to only natural, gradual changes, not from being pumped up by chemicals so that some corporation can make more money by it regardless of safety to humans, animals or the planet.
And, I don't eat it, I eat this: Sampler Value Pack
I order a small amount and eat less. I actually came on here to share that information with the op.
If you love technology than use it wisely and make an environmental difference with it, not just a profit at the expense of our planet and our population. Solar is a great use of technology. Pumping up cattle with steroids, heavy metals, and antibiotics so we can sell mass amounts of it to be wasted by Walmart isn't a good use of it. IMO, of course. If you believe it is you don't believe in green living.
Why would you be on here arguing against living as green as possible? What in greens name are you gaining from mass produced beef sales? I can't think of one green reason you'd be arguing for ractopamine or most other chemicals pumped into our meat to be added. Maybe you think we need to eat more of it, but it's a fact we don't. We don't need to eat more meat.
The op didn't post this in a general form. They posted it in the green living form, where one would assume we'd be interested. I am interested because I try and live as green as possible and I agree with less chemically processed food. Why are you interested in telling them they are paranoid? Stupid? Etc? Doesn't make sense to me. You can do it, you are doing it, but, I have my doubts you're a green lifer. You look to me like you are trolling your anti-green ideas on the green living thread. If you feel the need to do that then nothing can be done but you aren't going to look correct on here. It's the green living thread. We like knowing what we are eating and what it contains.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did the "Hong Kong comrades" tell us whether this was exposure to normal consumption of food or excessive exposure due to mishandling of pesticides?
