Food nazis

That post "Just label it" made me have to post this. I know it won't change any minds about all this organic,natural,GMO,antibiotic,hormone treated bull crap,but here's a few facts about estrogen in food. Keep in mind that when you're talking about "hormone treated beef",that's what you're talking about.

Estrogen activity,nanograms per 3 ounces of food:

Product Amount of estrogen

Soybean oil 168,000 mg
Wheat germ 3,400 mg
Cabbage 2,000 mg
Ice Cream 520 mg
Peas 340 mg
Potatoes 225 mg
Milk 11 mg
Beef from treated steer 1.9 mg
Beef from organic raised steer 1.3 mg

Source: Michigan Farmer Magazine January 2012

You may not like this but my cholesterol levels went from bad to good without changing the way I eat but where my food comes from. I'm pasture raising pork and grass fed beef. My own eggs too. Only change has been I'm eating more eggs.

Just had my annual physical this morning. Bad cholestral went from 184 to 114 in 3 months.

Rick

EXACTLY! We eat a lot of home-grown stuff - eggs, fresh butter, cheese, beef, produce from our garden, etc, etc. You still need to watch out for things you feed your animals, but it works out in the end.
My brother told me one time (when I offered him some eggs and butter) -
"If you were married to a Dietitian like me, then you'd know better than to eat that CR^P...."

He never was to bright...8^)

As a scientist that has done research in the area of environmental estrogens for years, I can tell you that you really have to be careful about how you interpret these kinds of numbers. It all depends on how the "estrogen activity" is measured.

A little biology lesson:

The bodies of all animals (& people, & plants, etc.) are made up of cells. Estrogen is a hormone that works by binding to a molecule in the cells of animals and people known as the estrogen receptor. While many types of "estrogen like" hormones and other chemicals/molecules can bind to the estrogen receptor, they don"t all have the same effect when they bind. Some do nothing at all when they bind to the receptor, some make the receptor active to varying degrees so it starts to carry out all the functions in a cell that estrogen normally does, and others inactivate the receptor and prevent other estrogens from binding to or activating the receptor.

"estrogen activity" is often measured in a test tube by looking for any chemical activity that binds to the estrogen receptor molecule. However, it says absolutely nothing about what the end impact on the cells of an animal will be, and therefore nothing about the end result to an animal. Sometimes it is measured by assays using cells grown in a dish, but it is still difficult to know what the results mean in a whole living, breathing animal or person.

The data you show is correct in indicating that many plants have naturally occurring estrogen-like molecules known as "phytoestrogens". However, many of these phytoestrogens are known to behave very differently in cells of people than animal-derived estrogens or synthetic estrogens.

With all due respect, the end conclusion in my mind is that this kind of data is meaningless without some context. It is basically the same kind of public relations propaganda that all sides in this kind of debate like to use. They pretend that their science proves their point, when in fact they rarely understand the science behind the data they show. The truth is that many scientists are just as guilty of the same tactic, making broad generalizations about how definitive their own data is when deep inside they know it really is not that definitive. However, obtaining another research grant can be based on how well they are seen to make their point,and how well their data is seen as backing the funding agencies agenda.

Don't take this the wrong way but if we went totaly back to growing food the natural way I don't think we would be able to raise enought food to feed the world. I think it would be worse to let people starve to death then be well fed and maybe some will get sick and die from something that was caused by the growth hormone in the food that we raise. JMO

Bob

So exactly how is someone who wants to know what kind of food he is eating a Nazi? Seems to me that someone who wants to hide what kind of food they sell are the REAL NAZIS!
America is about freedom. Freedom to know, freedom to choose.
Germany was about nonfreedom, dictatorship, no freedom to know or choose.
Guess we know who are the real Nazis.
Just label it! That way you can grow, sell and eat anything you want, and I can grow and sell and eat anything that I want.
The Real Food Nazis are fearful cowards, because they know if people knew what they were eating they would choose to eat God's food, not the devil's food.

The farmer that I farm for is 100% organic. We don't have any problems growing crops and cattle, and he gets high prices for his stuff.

(quoted from post at 13:10:31 02/01/12) God's food, not the devil's food.

Click to expand...

I dunno where God comes into it, but I's pretty fond of Angel Food Cake AND Devil's Food Cake.......

Can always tell when folks are using up all thier smart words in an argument.. God and the devil get thrown out like wild cards......

(quoted from post at 13:24:58 02/01/12) The farmer that I farm for is 100% organic. We don't have any problems growing crops and cattle, and he gets high prices for his stuff.

Click to expand...

No problems?? Get real LOL!

...er....er DAVE you kinda/sorta forgot one...GUNS!!

I don't have a problem with growing organic, but if you don't have the manure to put on the ground you won't be raising a crop that will produce anywhere near what a person will that can buy convential ferterlizer. You can buy organic ferterlizer but it is a lot more costly then regular ferterlizer. He also gets a good price for his product but his costs are a lot higher so his profit is not as good as you think. Crop the organic here in wisconsin one of there farmers said that there milk production was going to go down because the cost of corn and soy to feed the cows to get top production was costing too much. I also agree that the food should be labled as to where it is produced and what has been added to it.

Bob

(quoted from post at 15:52:40 02/01/12)
Don't take this the wrong way but if we went totaly back to growing food the natural way I don't think we would be able to raise enought food to feed the world. I think it would be worse to let people starve to death then be well fed and maybe some will get sick and die from something that was caused by the growth hormone in the food that we raise. JMO

Bob

Click to expand...

You should do a bit more research on that. Several new studies are showing that organic farming and growing things naturally can in fact rebuild worn out soils and out produce those using chemical fertilizers which by themselves deplete the soil requiring more input. .

But wouldn't it stand to reason that the more estrogen intoduced into the system would cause the estrogen receptors to be overwhealmed?

Geme

I look at crops for a living. Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

Maybe some day they will get all the bugs worked out of organic, but from what I have seen if all the farmland in the nation was converted to organic, then the US and a large part of the world would starve to death.

Gene

How many tens of millions of people have died of malaria because of one book,"Silent Spring" written by some well intentioned misinformed do-gooder,about the danger of DDT? Yes,it was misused. But instead of doing what would be done now,restricting it's use to people who are trained and qualified to use it,it was banned.
Now you wack job followers base you lives on some bunch of crap written by Micheal Polen,an english professor with no practical knowledge of agriculture of food production. It's nice to have the luxury of being a nut when you aren't hungry isn't it? You said it yourself without even thnking about what you said,your employer sells his nutrient deficient crap for MORE MONEY.
When you dolts are responsible for the starvation of BILLIONS,not just tens of millions,I hope you sleep well with that on your consience.

Like Eisenhower said,farming's easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the cornfield.

[/quote]

I live in Wisconsin in the area where CROP was started. I have neighbors that are organic and some that are not. Some of the organic farmers get good crops and some don't. The same goes for the regular farmers. What I see most is the organic growen crops do not yeld as good as the non organic. I will also agree with you that after a period of time organic ground is built up some but I don't think you can grow row crops and get top yelds just doing it with organic. This is just my opinion with what I have seen. \

Bob

It's a valid point, but these receptors tend to be present in large excess in cells, and the cells can simply make more if they sense that they are low on receptors that are bound-up and unavailable. As well, some of the chemicals that are labelled as "estrogen-like" and interact with the receptor don't actually bind to what is called the "active site" of the receptor. This is the site that binds to the actual hormone estrogen, and thus the receptor can still be available to bind to actual estrogens. Also, some of the tests done in test tubes (cell free) are examining molecules that may not even be able to enter a cell, and thus could never bind to a receptor in an intact cell.

The major take home message is that cells and biological systems are unbelievably complex in how they regulate daily activities, and a single set of data using a single experimental assay rarely provides much insight on it's own. That's why I tend to get annoyed when I see a single set of data being used to make a broad generalization. In some ways, science has been taken hostage in that it is expected by the decision-makers of the world to quickly answer all of life's concerns in a short period of time. Major scientific discoveries are rarely made in large steps, and instead involve a long series of baby steps.

I have been lecturing undergraduate students in introductory cell biology for 20+ years, and am still blown away by new discoveries on ways that the activities of cells in our bodies are regulated. Many of these new discoveries are made due to technological developments that allow the same scientific questions to be answered in new and better ways. In many cases, these new discoveries reverse what was previously believed to occur.

I recognize that we sometimes have to make decisions based on existing information. I just wish is wouldn't be defended as vehemently as it is knowing that it is not as solid as it is may be portrayed. In the case of this discussion, there is not doubt that there are hormone-mimicking chemicals present in the environment and food that impact animal and human health (based on a large body of studies). However, this doesn't mean that all hormones and chemicals used in agriculture are automatically bad for our health (nor are they all automatically harmless). In my own case, I eat predominantly organic foods, mostly grown by myself. I do this because I know just how complex the cells of our bodies are, and it is just not worth the risk. It is a personal decision based on "what I know we don't know".

This arguement will not be solved soon.

1. People are starving to death all over the world as we sit here at our puters. So the argument that "we are feeding the world" is moot.

2. [b:65f46ea75e]If[/b:65f46ea75e] we are slowly killing ourselves with the way we are growing our crops it will take years for that to come to light

3. With the land in CRP put back into production we can still turn out a lot of food.

4. Most of the folks that argue in favor of GMO's and hormones in animals argue like heck in favor of em claiming "we are feeding the world" when in reality they are lining their pockets.

5. I'll eat what I want to and you eat what you want to.

6. Explain to me, why some developed countries had banned the import of GMO food products when they don't have the land needed to feed their masses? You would thing that if they could up their own production with GMO's and hormones that they would jump on it if they were as safe as claimed.


Rick

DDT or not, I see Bald Eagles all the time now at Conowingo Dam in MD. 30 years ago, seeing them in the lower 48 states was rare. It was hurting bird populations drastically. So, time did tell. The ban was a good move for the birds, bad for malaria.

(quoted from post at 15:58:51 02/01/12) DDT or not, I see Bald Eagles all the time now at Conowingo Dam in MD. 30 years ago, seeing them in the lower 48 states was rare. It was hurting bird populations drastically. So, time did tell. The ban was a good move for the birds, bad for malaria.

Click to expand...

Actually getting Mexico to ban hunting eagles and tuffer enforcement here is what has made the difference. The latest research on DDT actually proves it did not do what was claimed and is in fact one of the safer pesticides.

Rick

Anecdotal evidence I'd say. It would be hard to prove the connection. Even if there was one,the results would probably have been the same with sensible,restricted use.

The answer to number 7 is politics. European countries are starting to relax their ban and change their thinking now that we guinea pigs in the US have proven the antis to be wrong.

But would your home grown food have any lower levels of estrogen that those that I listed?

Here is one study (a thirty year long study) by the Rodale institute of PA. that would disagree with you. Argue with the evidence if you like.
http://anh-europe.org/news/organic-farming-blows-conventional-farming-out-of-the-water

I don't care what anyone else eats, or preaches. Just don't do it at my table, or there'll be a scene, that the preacher regrets!

So are there lower levels of estrogen in organically grown cabbage,potatoes,peas,or soybeans than those levels that I posted then?

(quoted from post at 01:07:18 02/02/12)
Here is one study (a thirty year long study) by the Rodale institute of PA. that would disagree with you. Argue with the evidence if you like.
http://anh-europe.org/news/organic-farming-blows-conventional-farming-out-of-the-water

Click to expand...

Interesting read Dieselrider. I am not against organic farming but every time I read any study I sure would like to know who put the money up for the research. I don't think that the Rodale institute used there own money for 30 years of research. So every time I read a study I always wonder where the money came from to do the study. Maybe I am over cautious.

Bob

The inability to prove a connection is exactly how science is held hostage by policy makers. For anyone who understands the process of science, they"d know that it is virtually impossible to prove without a doubt that there is a connection between any compound in the environment and an ecological impact (or one on people). There are just too many complicating factors. So years (or decades) of studies looking at correlations are required, together with lab studies that can always be refuted because they are not out in the real world. But obviously there could never be enough money to fully fund these kinds of studies, especially for each of the thousands of chemicals approved for use. Unfortunately, comments like "there is no definitive evidence that a connection exists" or "we need more studies to prove a definitive connection" are used increasingly by policymakers to not make a decision and allow continued use. Think about how long it took to make a defensible link between smoking and human health, and how much of this evidence was swept under the carpet for years.

But I do agree with you about the responsible use comment; many of these things come down to common sense use, which is unfortunately lacking with many people today. And don"t get me wrong. There are some chemicals that I know have had huge positive impact on our lives, and will continue to do so. But each has to be viewed separately and with an open mind.

Without testing them, I cannot answer the question. But as I said earlier, the results you showed are for all molecules that can behave like estrogen in the kinds of experiment used to generate that data. Run a different kind of test that uses a different kind of experimental method, and the answers can be completely different. We have been led to believe that the answers science can provide to these questions are always black and white, and they are not.

The point is that I know which of the 1000's of pesticides, hormones, etc. used in the growth and processing of food commercially were NOT used on my food. And I have a very good understanding of the approval process for all chemicals, hormones, etc. registered for commercial and public use, and know that it is woefully inadequate at properly understanding their impact on my health. Yeah, some of them may be safe, but I don't have to wonder about whether they are or not.

DDT was basically agent orange with a different name.
A big problem with this argument of organic vs. conventional is that you can't directly compare the two systems of farming. If you took all of the land used for conventionally grown corn, soybean, etc. and changed it to diversified, chemical free vegetables i'd bet a weeks pay that it would produce more food per acre. It would also create more jobs and allow more people to keep farming instead of haveing their children have to go to the city and get a job because the farm can't produce enough income.
There is also a finite amount of people that the earth can support. Just like there are only so many cows you can put in a field. No amount of genetic modification can change that.

you gotta be kidding. Believe me, I am no environmental alarmist. However, I believe my own eyes, not your opinion. Since we raise sheep and eagles visit our place often, your opinion is not going to safeguard our lambs. DDT or not.

Well said. We continually seem to develop new technology to save us from the problems caused by previous technology. At some point, it just won't work anymore. Don't know where the balance is, but I hope we find it some day.

DDT was an insecticide, "Agent Orange" is an hebicide, in the organo-auxin family. It"s closely related to 2,4-D. Them chemical itself was not a cacinogen, it was tainted with dioxin in the manufacturing process.

You keep try to change the subject. Why is that?
I happen to agree with you on the DDT ban. I can't even find a insecticide that will kill red ants. O it kills the one's on top, but two days later the eggs hatch and more red ants. Tried all last summer to kill a hill. Didn't happen.
If you want to eat food that has the poison on the inside, that's your business. If I don't want to eat it, I should have the right to have it labeled so I don't have to eat it.

I stand corrected.

I don't really want to get into this one, but Rodale came out some years back and stated they achieve average yields with organic methods. But yields in the past five years with GMO hybrids have skyrocketed, and average yields are a combination of the high and low yields. They may have gotten 150 bushels of corn, but the average is made of those of us who produce 180+ and those who made 120, which was their average. People can't afford to buy food now, and organic is much more costly at the market. Plus, the other products produced by lower cost 'non-organic' fibers are still a better bargain for the manufacturing industries that use them just because of the price difference.

So when you want to beech about the farmer, DON'T DO IT WITH YOUR MOUTH FULL---

i tried to stay out of this but i cant any more.
I work for 4 different farms the one i work for the most is a large organic farm. and the ideas of organic and sustainability just make a lot more CENTS then the current GMO and chemical farm.

I see alot of arguments about the cost of organic food. Yes it costs more but if the govt did not subsidise the current system be it the farmers the prossesers or any of the other biusnesses that use the grain we grow you would see the real cost of food. your paying for it one way or the other right now you pay taxes and the govt pays down the system to make food cheaper. currently in a box of corn flakes that cost close to 4$ only 13cents of the price is for corn or corn by products. imagine if that was like 1$ worth of corn yep you would pay more but you pay it now any way only in your taxes.

the other myth is that the organic system cant produce as much food as the chemical system. thats what monsanto wants you to believe. and it has been disproven many times. yes we would not grow near as much corn or soy but it would be replaced by other crops. if you really want to see what years of organic land managment does google Joel Salatin. he is a genius. and makes more per acre than any one on this forum that is for sure. and i doubt any of us have a pasture that can support the numbers of livestock that his can.

people are affraid of change. And switching to a sustainable system is alot more work but the benifits out way the cons. and corprate ag has convinced alot of folks that there is no other way we can do it. you have to spend money for anhydrus and round up and glycol phosphate and hormones and gmo seed that is patented. its insane this country is so corrupt that we let a corporation patent corn seed and soy beans and its just crazy now if i plant an open pollinated seed and crosses with your gmo and i save seed i get sued. its just corprate c--p.

and yes this year our corn fields the bpa average during the drought was still 163 bushel per acre. why if you ask other farmers next door they will tell you the way the winds blow around the hill that one side of the road gets more rain. now that is dumb. really the yields were good cause for the last 20 years the soil has been managed in a sustainable way. we and compost and manure and all kinds of rich carbon material to the soil and after years of proper managment the soil drains better in the wet years and retains moisture in the dry years the compost and organic material soak up water and keep nutrients were the plants need them and stop them from leaching to the air or draining away. neighbors yeilds were 126 bpa in corn ground and worst was 74 bpa our worst was 146 bpa.

and if you want to look at the science data most ag schools have done there own studies K-State, Cornel, Purdue and many more and the data doesnt lie. chemical farming and gmo are a short term fix. there is a way of producing much much much more food per acre in a sustainable way. we dont need round up and gmo's.

and you want to see proof look up
poly face farms. not one gmo or chemical used in decades and is the most profitable farm per acre in the country (according to the goodmorning america show when the did a special on poly face farms).

ok im done with my rant.
sorry my grammer is so poor. hope what i said makes sense.

The U.S. is the largest exporter of ag commodities in the world, having set an all time a record of 135 billion dollars in exports last year. We have the best natural resources of any place in the world is why we are able to do this. Some countries like in the Mideast have nothing but desert that is not capable of producing hardly anything in the way of food. They have no choice but to import most of their food. Many other countries have to import ag commodities like China and India to feed their huge populations. Farmers in the U. S. have the ability to "feed the world" and they are doing it, better than any other country on the planet.

(quoted from post at 22:47:06 02/01/12) The U.S. is the largest exporter of ag commodities in the world, having set an all time a record of 135 billion dollars in exports last year. We have the best natural resources of any place in the world is why we are able to do this. Some countries like in the Mideast have nothing but desert that is not capable of producing hardly anything in the way of food. They have no choice but to import most of their food. Many other countries have to import ag commodities like China and India to feed their huge populations. Farmers in the U. S. have the ability to "feed the world" and they are doing it, better than any other country on the planet.

Click to expand...

LOL still don't get it????? Many people are starving because they can't grow/get/pay for food. When the country is so poor they have to hope for handouts but all these "farmers feeding the world" will not donate thier croips to stop the starving......they want paid because of greed! So they are not feeding the world......but they can.

Plus we import a lot of food here. So if the "US Farmer" is feeding the world why in the heck are we importing grain, meat and milk from other countries. What a joke!

Rick

Food for thought...


U.S. imports of farm products are forecast to increase by 8 percent in 2011. Mexico, Canada, and the European Union are the leading contenders to supply most of that import growth. In terms of import volume (metric tons), the largest U.S. suppliers in 2010 were Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Malaysia. By region, Southeast Asian countries export more than twice as much in volume of farm products to the U.S. as the European Union. The EU, however, trails only Canada in terms of value of agricultural exports to the United States. After Mexico, South America is ahead of Southeast Asia in export value to the United States. These top 5 regions supply more than three-quarters of imported U.S. farm products.

The top four exporters of fresh vegetables to the United States are Mexico, Canada, Peru, and China. These countries make up 93 percent of the total imported supply. By itself, Mexico supplies more than two-thirds of imported fresh vegetables. More than a third of U.S. fresh vegetable imports are tomatoes, and 83 percent are shipped north from Mexico. Although the share of imported fresh vegetables is only 18 percent of domestic consumption, 44 percent of tomatoes consumed are imported. The next largest fresh vegetable imports are sweet and chili peppers, two-thirds of which are supplied by Mexico. The third largest vegetable imports are frozen potatoes, largely for French fries, from Canada. About 22 percent of French fries consumed in the United States are imported.

That is not counting milk, meat and grains that we import!

Rick

I spent 3 tours 2003 2005 2007, I've been to Egypt Kuwait Iraq syria and they can feed them selves they have very different diets but the food is good. From my experience the stuff they import is soadas and processed foods but I can't find anything to back this up other than my experience in the region. But the area between the tigress river and the Euphrates river is very fertile ground.

Total grain imports into the US are less than 2% of our consumption. My original post was meant to refer to bulk raw commodities such as corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton. There are certainly food products from other places that we don't produce here that we import and we need products such as from Mexico in our winter. Our exports are in the millions of tons for the commodities listed to Japan, Mexico, Egypt,China,European Union, Canada,(not wheat to Canada),Venezuela, Syria, Taiwan, and South Korea. Our exports to above countries went up over 10% in each of the last two years, so there is strong increasing demand for our raw products. Some of these raw products are processed overseas then the US imports the processed product back into the US (cookies,noodles for example).In production ag if a producer pumps 2-350 dollars acre into commodity production it is not greed to want to see a return on that investment plus a reasonable profit on investment.Certainly we operate in a world economy in terms of providing overall food needs to our population and foreign countries. Many,many countries in the world in addition to those mentioned depend on our farmers each year for bulk raw commodity production.

Nice posts. Love to hear someone who could realistically be called "expert in the field" (no pun intended) provide some insight onto the topic. It's so easy to hear about some study on the morning radio show or highlighted in a one page article on cnn.com and spread it as the gospel truth. As you point out, studies and statistics can be spun to suit one's objectives. Not that I'd take your word for the gospel truth but I'd probably put more credence in your comments on hormones than on those posted by a diesel mechanic from Omaha. :wink:

(quoted from post at 10:20:32 02/02/12) Total grain imports into the US are less than 2% of our consumption. My original post was meant to refer to bulk raw commodities such as corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton. There are certainly food products from other places that we don't produce here that we import and we need products such as from Mexico in our winter. Our exports are in the millions of tons for the commodities listed to Japan, Mexico, Egypt,China,European Union, Canada,(not wheat to Canada),Venezuela, Syria, Taiwan, and South Korea. Our exports to above countries went up over 10% in each of the last two years, so there is strong increasing demand for our raw products. Some of these raw products are processed overseas then the US imports the processed product back into the US (cookies,noodles for example).In production ag if a producer pumps 2-350 dollars acre into commodity production it is not greed to want to see a return on that investment plus a reasonable profit on investment.Certainly we operate in a world economy in terms of providing overall food needs to our population and foreign countries. Many,many countries in the world in addition to those mentioned depend on our farmers each year for bulk raw commodity production.

Click to expand...

I don't blame them for wanting a reasonable return on his investment but when they start using seed or chemicals of a questionable nature just to make more money that's no different than a car company cutting corners on safety to sell a car. I'm not planting anything that's GMO until I'm 100% certain of the safety.


Besides if they were planting hybreds instead of GMO and using all the chemicals they wouldn't be spending that much to plant in the first place.

Rick