Comparing Organic vs Non-Organic Bananas

[jimmie]

Peaceful, satisfied,

True peace, and true satisfaction, do not require action; only non-action.

Peace and satisfaction are the effects of non-action.

Perhaps your "self" has tricked you into 'thinking' that you "need" that substance so as to be "peaceful and satisfied".

 

[Mk]

You are not correct.
It is possible for the human body to obtain all of the nutrition is needs from ONLY a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds.

It's possible. Its possible to filter out all you need from seawater. But do you think anyone will bust a cap on that sort of way of life. How much easier is it to eat a steak rather than a few pounds of beans.

Furthermore, "coffee" usually contains caffeine, which alters the metabolism of the human body. It truly is detrimental to the human body.

What's wrong with altering metabolism? Especially for such a short period of time? A lot of people WANT to change their metabolism from lower to higher, and a lot of people, if educated, would want theirs to be lower.

 

[Mk]

do you believe the human body needs "coffee"?

Besides, humans don't need much anyway. We don't "need" 8-10 hours of sleep a night. We don't "need" to eat every day. We don't "need" clean water. We don't "need" clothes.

We don't "need" a mattress to sleep on at night, or televisions.

We don't need civilization either. Have you ever lived, or even seen a "3rd world" villiage? They live in straw huts, and don't need much.

Humans are tough weeds, and can survive with or without damn near anything. But why not make those mattresses, toasters, chocolate and forks, so we can be happier, safer, and more productive citizens?

 

[Evo]

Humans are tough weeds, and can survive with or without damn near anything. But why not make those mattresses, toasters, chocolate and forks, so we can be happier, safer, and more productive citizens?

Yeah! Yeah!
(bans jimmie to a hippie commune)

 

[jimmie]

Humans are tough weeds, and can survive with or without damn near anything.

A true world government would ensure that all individuals would possess, if they so choose, that which is needed in, at minimum, the lowest-technological form of that product.

That which is needed is mass-produced, and is available in varying levels of technology; product 'x' has high-tech versions and low-tech versions.

If you so choose to utilize product 'x', you are guaranteed to possesses the lowest-tech version of product 'x'.

A needed product is a product that is needed by an individual somewhere, but not every individual everywhere. Clothing is a needed product. Should you choose to not use clothing, that is your individual choice.

We don't "need" clean water.

Clearly, Mk, you do not know what "need" is.

But why not make those mattresses, toasters, chocolate and forks, so we can be happier, safer, and more productive citizens?

Why not make those mattresses, toasters and forks, and all NEEDED products, so we, ALL individuals on the planet, can be a happier, safer, more productive citizens of the planet?

 

[Moonbear]

If you so choose to utilize product 'x', you are guaranteed to possesses the lowest-tech version of product 'x'.

Why does it have to be lo-tech?

I can assure you that coffee is a needed product. It ensures the survival of all who have to be near me in the morning. They will all agree this is absolutely essential.

 

[jimmie]

I can assure you that coffee is a needed product. It ensures the survival of all who have to be near me in the morning. They will all agree this is absolutely essential.

Uhhh...good one.

I have no doubt that you "believe" it is "needed".

 

[EnumaElish]

How strong is the organic food demand in places other than the U.S.A.? How about Canada? U.K.? France? Germany? Other places?

 

[EnumaElish]

It is possible for the human body to obtain all of the nutrition is needs from ONLY a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds.

The Intuit (or the native Greenlanders) just don't "get" this.

 

[Smurf]

The Intuit (or the native Greenlanders) just don't "get" this.

Maybe because you keep calling them that. It's inuit. One 't' at the end, sometimes two 'n's.


Intuit is a verb.

 

[Moonbear]

It is possible for the human body to obtain all of the nutrition is needs from ONLY a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds.

Which of those provides iodine? Historically, before we started adding iodine to salt and before refrigerated transportation made it possible to get fish inland, iodine deficiency was a common health problem among people living far inland.

Furthermore, "coffee" usually contains caffeine, which alters the metabolism of the human body. It truly is detrimental to the human body.

Oh, one more thing...coffee is in your category of a wide variety of seeds...it is the seed of the coffee plant.

And this article supports it as a "functional food."
Dorea JG, da Costa TH. Is coffee a functional food? Br J Nutr. 93(6):773-82, 2005.

Abstract:

Definitions of functional food vary but are essentially based on foods' ability to enhance the quality of life, or physical and mental performance, of regular consumers. The worldwide use of coffee for social engagement, leisure, enhancement of work performance and well-being is widely recognised. Depending on the quantities consumed, it can affect the intake of some minerals (K, Mg, Mn, Cr), niacin and antioxidant substances. Epidemiological and experimental studies have shown positive effects of regular coffee-drinking on various aspects of health, such as psychoactive responses (alertness, mood change), neurological (infant hyperactivity, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases) and metabolic disorders (diabetes, gallstones, liver cirrhosis), and gonad and liver function. Despite this, most reviews do not mention coffee as fulfilling the criteria for a functional food. Unlike other functional foods that act on a defined population with a special effect, the wide use of coffee-drinking impacts a broad demographic (from children to the elderly), with a wide spectrum of health benefits. The present paper discusses coffee-drinking and health benefits that support the concept of coffee as a functional food.

 

[jimmie]

Which of those provides iodine?

Iodine is an element that is needed by the human body in "trace" amounts to help ensure a 'right' metabolism, the processes within all the eukaryote cells inside the human body, is maintained.

Any plant/vegetable/fruit that is grown in soil that is rich in iodine, such as coastal areas that are directly exposed to seawater, is a source of iodine.

I am aware that garlic, spinach, and sesame seeds, do contain iodine if the soil they grew in, regardless of the geographic location, was rich in iodine.

Oh, one more thing...coffee is in your category of a wide variety of seeds...it is the seed of the coffee plant.

I did not state that ALL seeds, from ALL plants, are needed by the human body.

To teach individuals EXACTLY what a "rightdiet" is, I believe a website needs to be created () that provides ALL DETAILS for a "rightdiet", including: elements needed by the human body, the function of those elements, the sources of those elements, and the effects of not having those elements inside the human body.

And this article supports it as a "functional food."

There are MANY 'articles/reports/studies' on caffeine, and its effects on the human body.

A study of nearly fifty thousand male health professionals showed no increase of cardiovascular disease due to coffee-drinking [THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 323:1026-1032 (1990)] -- a result in agreement with the Framingham Study [ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 149:1169-1172 (1989)]. Neither caffeinated nor decaffeinated coffee are associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction [AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 149(2):162-167 (1999)]. However, coffee in excess of 8 cups per day may aggrevate cardiac arrhythmias [ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 114:147-150 (1991)] and raise plasma homocysteine [AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 76:1244-1248 (2002)]. Adenosine is sometimes used in emergency medicine to treat supraventricular arrhythmias [AMERICAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN 65(12):2479-2486 (2002)] and caffeine may interfere with this treatment.

As with any information on any particular subject, the individual contemplating the information ultimately must decide if they BELIEVE that information, regardless if it is "right" or not, and if in fact that individual is AWARE of the difference between "right" and "not right", that individual is able to know if that information is in fact, "right", regardless if that information was "correct".

It comes down to having a "rightbelief".

"I" believe that caffeine is not needed by the human body, and "I" believe that "I am" "right".

Therefore, any individual reading the current thread, and any other thread that "I" have made a post on, ultimately must decide if they believe "I", and if "I am" "right".

 

[Moonbear]

It comes down to having a "rightbelief".
"I" believe that caffeine is not needed by the human body, and "I" believe that "I am" "right".
Therefore, any individual reading the current thread, and any other thread that "I" have made a post on, ultimately must decide if they believe "I", and if "I am" "right".

You didn't state "caffeine," you stated "coffee" earlier. I provided you with a scientific article that refuted your claim that coffee is not a nutritive food. You have provided nothing to support your argument. As this is a forum dedicated to science, no, it is not about "believing" who is right or wrong, it is about what the scientific evidence supports.

 

[EnumaElish]

Maybe because you keep calling them that. It's inuit. One 't' at the end, sometimes two 'n's.
Intuit is a verb.

Thanks for the intuition. Not that I knew it, as I now know it, it's Inuit.

 

[jimmie]

You have provided nothing to support your argument.

I have provided below, as per your "request", information derived from "scientific studies and research" that indicate that "coffee" is, in fact, detrimental to the human body.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, (ajcn.org), has printed several scientific studies on coffee and its effects on the human body.

Below are just three abstracts of separate scientific studies proving the detrimental effects of coffee consumption in human beings.

1.) Inhibition of food iron absorption by coffee

TA Morck, SR Lynch and JD Cook

Dual isotope studies were performed in iron replete human subjects to evaluate the effect of coffee on nonheme iron absorption. A cup of coffee reduced iron absorption from a hamburger meal by 39% as compared to a 64% decrease with tea, which is known to be a potent inhibitor of iron absorption. When a cup of drip coffee or instant coffee was ingested with a meal composed of semipurified ingredients, absorption was reduced from 5.88% to 1.64 and 0.97%, respectively, and when the strength of the instant coffee was doubled, percentage iron absorption fell to 0.53%. No decrease in iron absorption occurred when coffee was consumed 1 h before a meal, but the same degree of inhibition as with simultaneous ingestion was seen when coffee was taken 1 h later. In tests containing no food items, iron absorption from NaFeEDTA was diminished to the same extent as that from ferric chloride when each was added to a cup of coffee. These studies demonstrate that coffee inhibits iron absorption in a concentration-dependent fashion.
2.) Chronic coffee consumption has a detrimental effect on aortic stiffness and wave reflections 1,2

Charalambos Vlachopoulos, Demosthenes Panagiotakos, Nikolaos Ioakeimidis, Ioanna Dima and Christodoulos Stefanadis

1 From the 1st Department of Cardiology, Hippokration Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece (CV, NI, ID, and CS), and the Department of Dietetics–Nutrition, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece (DP)

Background: The effect of coffee consumption on the cardiovascular system is still an unresolved issue. Aortic stiffness and wave reflections are important prognosticators of cardiovascular disease risk. We have shown that caffeine acutely increases aortic stiffness and wave reflections.

Objective: The objective was to investigate the effect of chronic coffee consumption on aortic stiffness and wave reflections.

Design: This was a cross-sectional study of 228 healthy subjects: 141 men ( ± SD: 41 ± 8 y old) and 87 women (41 ± 9 y old). Aortic stiffness was evaluated with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV). Wave reflections were evaluated with augmentation index (AIx) and augmented pressure (AP) of the aortic pressure waveform with the use of high-fidelity pulse wave analysis. Coffee consumption was ascertained over 1 y with a food-frequency questionnaire.

Results: A linear relation between coffee consumption and PWV, AIx, and AP was observed (P for trend < 0.05). Compared with the nonconsumption group, PWV was on average 13% higher, AIx was 2-fold higher, and AP was 2.4-fold higher (P < 0.01 for all) in the high-consumption group (>450 mL/d). The findings remained significant after control for confounders such as age, sex, smoking habits, body mass index, total and LDL cholesterol, triacylglycerols, blood glucose, mean blood pressure, and heart rate. The linear relation (P for trend < 0.05) observed between coffee consumption and arterial pressures was largely explained when the covariates were entered in the model.

Conclusions: Chronic coffee consumption exerts a detrimental effect on aortic stiffness and wave reflections, which may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease
3.) Heavy coffee consumption and plasma homocysteine: a randomized controlled trial in healthy volunteers1,2,3
Rob Urgert, Trinette van Vliet, Peter L Zock and Martijn B Katan

1 From the Wageningen Centre for Food Sciences, Nutrition and Health Programme, Wageningen, Netherlands; the Department of Physiology, TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, Zeist, Netherlands; and the Division of Human Nutrition and Epidemiology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Background: An elevated plasma concentration of total homocysteine is considered to be a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Heavy coffee drinking has been related to high homocysteine concentrations in epidemiologic studies and in one experiment in which healthy subjects drank unfiltered, boiled coffee.

Objective: Our goal was to determine whether daily consumption of paper-filtered coffee raises plasma concentrations of total homocysteine in healthy subjects.

Design: Twenty-six volunteers (18–53 y of age) consumed 1 L/d of paper-filtered coffee brewed with 70 g regular ground beans or no coffee for 4 wk each in a randomized, crossover design.

Results: The mean (±SD) plasma concentration of total homocysteine in fasting blood was 8.1 ± 1.8 µmol/L after abstention from coffee and 9.6 ± 2.9 µmol/L after 3–4 wk of coffee drinking, a difference of 1.5 µmol/L (95% CI: 0.9, 2.1 µmol/L) or 18% (P < 0.001). Coffee increased homocysteine concentrations in 24 of 26 individuals. Circulating concentrations of vitamin B-6, vitamin B-12, and folate were unaffected.

Conclusion: Drinking large quantities of paper-filtered coffee raises fasting plasma concentrations of total homocysteine in healthy individuals.Michael Traub is president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, and director of Lokahi Health Center in Kailua Kona, Hawai'i.

Coffee, according to Traub, comes with a host of unwanted health problems including sleep disturbances, PMS, decreased immune function, reflux, vitamin and mineral deficiency, and possibly cancer.

Traub's research indicates that coffee has many carcinogens besides caffeine--creosote, pymdine, tars, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to name a few--so decaf is guilty here too. "There is a suggestion of a higher incidence of cancers of the pancreas, ovaries, bladder, and kidneys in coffee drinkers."

Traub paints a dark picture when it comes to coffee and stress response. He reports that our adrenal glands become exhausted as coffee pumps up our stress hormones. Anxiety builds and builds as coffee depletes us of adenosine, which should help to calm us. Coffee elevates levels of lactate, which increases the onset of panic attacks in many people. Coffee increases blood pressure and makes blood vessels constrict, which puts more pressure on the heart. Coffee can also nullify the effects of expensive blood pressure medications used to control such problems.Moonbear, according to the "scientific" article you provided that "discusses" coffee-drinking and health benefits that support the concept of coffee as a functional food, it states that "Depending on the quantities consumed, it can affect the intake of some minerals (K, Mg, Mn, Cr), niacin and antioxidant substances."

"I" believe that the "scientific evidence" I have presented clearly proves that that coffee is not "nutritive".

However, the current thread is about "Organic Foods", not "coffee".

We must stay on topic, lest our banter about "coffee" becomes generally annoying.

At May 7, 2002, the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), released the results of a landmark study that confirms organic foods have fewer pesticides.

The researchers analyzed test data on pesticide residues in more than 94,000 organic and nonorganic food samples of some 20 different crops tested over nearly a decade. Data were obtained from three independent sources: tests undertaken by CU in 1997 on selected foods; surveys conducted by the Pesticide Data Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on residues in a wide array of foods available on the U.S. market; and California Department of Pesticide Regulation surveys of residues in foods sold in California.

Research Highlights

* The USDA data showed that 73 percent of conventionally grown produce had at least one pesticide residue, while only 23 percent of organically grown samples of the same crops contained residues.
* More than 90 percent of USDA’s samples of conventionally grown apples, peaches, pears, strawberries and celery had residues.
* Conventionally grown crops were also six times as likely to contain multiple pesticide residues.
* In California state testing, residues were found in nearly a third of conventionally grown foods, but in only 6.5 percent of organic samples. The researchers remarked that the California data were based on tests with less-sensitive analytical methods than those used to generate the USDA data, and hence, did not include many low-level residues detected by the USDA’s testing methods. LI>California testing also revealed multiple pesticide residues nine times more often in conventional samples than in organic samples.
* CU’s tests found residues in 79 percent of conventionally grown samples and in 27 percent of organically grown samples, with multiple residues six times as common in the former.I believe that it is feasible for all individuals on the planet to eat ONLY organic foods, IF, the land and produce that is currently utilized to support products that are not needed, such as coffee, were utilized for products that are needed, like a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds, but not all seeds.

 

[Evo]

Michael Traub is president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians

Naturopathic

naturopathy

Naturopathy is a system of therapy and treatment which relies exclusively on natural remedies, such as sunlight, air, water, supplemented with diet and therapies such as massage. However, some naturopaths have been known to prescribe such unnatural treatments as colon hydrotherapy for such diseases as asthma and arthritis.

Naturopathy is based on the belief that the body is self-healing. The body will repair itself and recover from illness spontaneously if it is in a healthy environment. Naturopaths have many remedies and recommendations for creating a healthy environment so the body can spontaneously heal itself.

Naturopaths claim to be holistic, which means they believe that the natural body is joined to a supernatural soul and a non-physical mind and the three must be treated as a unit, whatever that means. Naturopathy is fond of such terms as "balance" and "harmony" and "energy." It is often rooted in mysticism and a metaphysical belief in vitalism (Barrett).

http://skepdic.com/natpathy.html

 

[jimmie]

Naturopathic

Scientific evidence by any other name... is still scientific evidence.

Uhhhh...soooo...does scientific evidence from The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition carry any weight at PF?

 

[Evo]

Scientific evidence by any other name... is still scientific evidence.

That's LACK of scientific evidence, it's arm waving mumbo jumbo.

If you don't want caffeine in your coffee, you don't have to drink caffeinated coffee.

 

[loseyourname]

There was a study a few years back that made the New York Times demonstrating that caffeine can make sperm more virile over the span of a few hours. So if you're trying to impregnate someone, it's possible (assuming the study is correct) that drinking some caffeinated coffee about an hour before can increase your chances.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm glad to see you've provided more appropriate support for your argument now. There are pros and cons to coffee consumption; if you wish to continue discussing the studies related to that, feel free to start up a new thread on the topic.

I believe that it is feasible for all individuals on the planet to eat ONLY organic foods, IF, the land and produce that is currently utilized to support products that are not needed, such as coffee, were utilized for products that are needed, like a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds, but not all seeds.

Since this is the on-topic argument you're presenting, can you now demonstrate that the crops that are "not needed" are grown in the same places as "needed" crops? You still need to support this particular argument. Here are some questions you'll need to answer to support your argument:

1) How do you define "needed" and "non-needed" crops? Right now, this remains rather subjective. Are you talking about nutrititive crops? Crops that provide materials for clothing, such as cotton and hemp? Crops that provide animal feed? Crops that provide employment to large numbers of workers? Crops that support vast industries and have a large impact on the economy?

2) How much land is used for "non-needed" crops vs "needed" crops, and how much more land would be required if all "needed" crops were organic? Is the difference sufficient?

3) Can the same land currently being used for "non-needed" crops actually be used for the "needed" crops? For example, a lot of coffee is grown using sustainable agriculture practices within the rainforest (no, not all, but your statement does not allow for such exceptions). This land could not be used for other crops without also destroying the rainforests, thus you'd need to subtract this out from any calculation of available land for your "needed" organic crops (since it seems you're listing coffee as "non-needed").

4)Your statement above seems to suggest that animals as a food and fiber source would no longer be included under your "plan." Is that correct? And if it is correct, then how much more cropland would be required to replace the animal component of our diet with entirely crop sources? Would this would include non-nutritive crops, such as cotton, to replace animal fiber for clothing, or should clothing be all synthetic? Please factor in the environmental impact of each of these alternatives; keep in mind not just the growing stage, but also the processing of the fibers and pollution resultant from such processes.

5) When factoring in the land required for crops, in addition to the additional land required for normal crop loss due to disease and pests, please also factor in the additional space needed between crops as a buffer zone to protect them from the rapid spread of such diseases.

6) Please take into account the human labor factor. Organically grown food requires an enormous amount of human labor to do things such as pick bugs off plants and pull weeds from between them, because you can't just automate those processes. Where will this labor force come from in a non-agrarian society?

7) Lastly, if the "non-needed" crops are no longer grown on that land, what will stop the landowners from using it for something other than crops when it's no longer as profitable to grow organic foods on the same land as their previous crops were? For example, they may sell it for new housing developments, highway construction/expansion, developing a mall, etc. And, if that land can be freed up, why would it be a better use for organically grown crops rather than allowing it to be protected greenspace and returned to a natural habitat?

 

[Smurf]

That's LACK of scientific evidence, it's arm waving mumbo jumbo.

Scientific Evidence or not, it seems to work.

 

[Mk]

Iodine is an element that is needed by the human body in "trace" amounts to help ensure a 'right' metabolism, the processes within all the eukaryote cells inside the human body, is maintained.
Any plant/vegetable/fruit that is grown in soil that is rich in iodine, such as coastal areas that are directly exposed to seawater, is a source of iodine.

Although the element is actually quite rare, kelp and a few other plants can concentrate iodine, which helps introduce the element into the food chain as well as keeping its cost down. I would NOT say "any plant." But if near a coastline, iodine is more likely to be in the food you eat because something along the line before you probably ate kelp.

"I" believe that caffeine is not needed by the human body, and "I" believe that "I am" "right".

Yes, its ok, we all know one does not need caffeine to survive. The joke has just gone too far. Right?

There was a study a few years back that made the New York Times demonstrating that caffeine can make sperm more virile over the span of a few hours. So if you're trying to impregnate someone, it's possible (assuming the study is correct) that drinking some caffeinated coffee about an hour before can increase your chances.

I remember on MYTHBUSTERS, Adam and Jamie consumed caffeine in various doses, and their sperm did not have any visible changes, after ejaculation.

To conclude my post:

 

[jimmie]

First, you have articulated your seven points of concern, well.

1) How do you define "needed" and "non-needed" crops?

I am defining needed "products" and "not-needed products", that are known as "food", for human beings, as the title of the current thread relates to "Organic Foods".

A "needed food product" is ONLY an organically grown substance that is usually 'freshly-harvested' from the source it grew from, and includes only fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, plants, herbs, or seeds, or derivatives thereof, such as oils.

A 'not-needed food product' is any product that is not a needed food product.

Despite statistical scientific data that provides overwhelming support for proving a particular theory, there is ALWAYS an individual "willing" to argue against that scientifical data.

The World Health Organization estimates that tobacco addiction kills 5 million people worldwide each year, including more than 400,000 Americans. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence that smoking is directly linked to killing individuals, there are individuals that intend to argue against the evidence, and that it has not been proved that smoking is harmful.

The on-topic "argument" I have presented is about ONLY making use of that which is available, either land or produce, for ONLY a "needed food product".

According to anheuser-busch.com, Anheuser-Busch is the largest purchaser of rice in the United States, accounting for more than 8 percent of all domestic rice consumption. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the total amount of rice consumption in the U.S. for 2003/2004 was 3,882 thousand metric tons; 310.56 thousand metric tons of rice COULD HAVE been utilized in its "pre-processed-for-beer-state" to provide food for individuals, if the product "Budweiser beer" was not mass-produced.

According to World Tobacco, the area planted to all types of tobacco in the US in 2003 was estimated at 413,710 acres.

How much "needed food products" COULD HAVE been grown on that land instead of tobacco? I do not know, and I do not need to know. What I do know is that tobacco is not needed.

However, to present statistical "scientific" data to "support" that which I believe and know is right, simply to end a particular "argument", and to answer each of the seven points you have brought up and try to "convince" any individual my plan is "right" is futile, so long as products that are not "right" such as "Folgers" and "Budweiser" are mass-produced and mass-distributed. A particular argument will never "end" so long as one individual intends to argue.

I shall no longer participate in "particular" arguments with any individual why ONLY needed products should be mass-produced, because I believe that individuals that intend to be right intend to not argue about why ONLY needed food products should be mass-produced and mass-distributed, and it is those individuals ONLY that "I" intend to be with.

You still need to support this particular argument.

As this is a forum dedicated to science

The particular "argument" I have presented on "Organic Foods", is consistent with my particular "arguments"/posts on various other threads at PF, and in fact is one part of a WHOLE argument that only "I" have presented on PF, and it is common knowledge within the scientific community that the WHOLE, being the sum of all "particulars", is greater than: either any "particular" or the sum of all "particulars".

 

[Smurf]

I remember on MYTHBUSTERS, Adam and Jamie consumed caffeine in various doses, and their sperm did not have any visible changes, after ejaculation.
To conclude my post:

they actually did that?

 

[jimmie]

To conclude my post:

Good one. I guess it is my official TM at PF.

 

[loseyourname]

I remember on MYTHBUSTERS, Adam and Jamie consumed caffeine in various doses, and their sperm did not have any visible changes, after ejaculation.

I found references to the study, though I could not find the study itself. It was conducted by researchers at Sao Paolo University and presented to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. There is an overview of the presentation at the website for BUPA:

Elsewhere in the world, Brazilian researchers sought to correlate sperm quality with daily coffee intake. They discovered that men who regularly drank coffee had sperm with better strength and endurance than men who did not drink coffee.

Experts expressed interest in the studies, saying they back up previous suspicions about the effects of coffee and marijuana on male fertility.

link

It seems like more than an urban myth, and personally, I'll take my chances with university studies presented at national medical societies over a claim made on a television show based on two guys studying themselves.

 

[Mk]

It seems like more than an urban myth, and personally, I'll take my chances with university studies presented at national medical societies over a claim made on a television show based on two guys studying themselves.

Definitely. After reading the link I'll say marijuana is not good for sperm and caffeine boosts speed.

 

[Moonbear]

First, you have articulated your seven points of concern, well.

Yes, and so far you have barely scratched the surface of one of them, thus have yet to sufficiently support your argument.

I am defining needed "products" and "not-needed products", that are known as "food", for human beings, as the title of the current thread relates to "Organic Foods".
A "needed food product" is ONLY an organically grown substance that is usually 'freshly-harvested' from the source it grew from, and includes only fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, plants, herbs, or seeds, or derivatives thereof, such as oils.
A 'not-needed food product' is any product that is not a needed food product.

You use your term in your definition. That doesn't clarify anything. So, "needed" is only a food crop? What about cotton? Cotton can be either a food crop (cottonseed oil) or fiber crop.

Despite statistical scientific data that provides overwhelming support for proving a particular theory, there is ALWAYS an individual "willing" to argue against that scientifical data.
The World Health Organization estimates that tobacco addiction kills 5 million people worldwide each year, including more than 400,000 Americans. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence that smoking is directly linked to killing individuals, there are individuals that intend to argue against the evidence, and that it has not been proved that smoking is harmful.

But you didn't limit your argument to tobacco earlier, you included coffee and cocoa as well (there was an earlier comment refuting chocolate as a needed crop as well). Yet, the studies you continue to cite regarding coffee deal only with its caffeine content. We've had threads here in the past citing that some of the other aromatic compounds in freshly brewed coffee have health benefits. I'll dig some of them up later. As Evo has pointed out, you can always drink decaffeinated coffee if you are concerned about the caffeine content. So you'll need some studies that address aspects other than caffeine in coffee.

The on-topic "argument" I have presented is about ONLY making use of that which is available, either land or produce, for ONLY a "needed food product".

That's rather vague. You still haven't made a clear definition of what is a "needed" food product.

According to anheuser-busch.com, Anheuser-Busch is the largest purchaser of rice in the United States, accounting for more than 8 percent of all domestic rice consumption. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the total amount of rice consumption in the U.S. for 2003/2004 was 3,882 thousand metric tons; 310.56 thousand metric tons of rice COULD HAVE been utilized in its "pre-processed-for-beer-state" to provide food for individuals, if the product "Budweiser beer" was not mass-produced.

Is there a rice shortage somewhere? Seriously, rice is one thing that we seem to have plenty of excess to ship to famine-stricken regions. You can't grow much else on the land that rice is grown on, since it is grown in wet locations where other crops would just rot. If we switched those over to entirely organic operations to use only for food and not alcohol (we can use the corn for alcohol for medicinal/antiseptic use I suppose), would that be nearly enough to make up for all the crop losses that would occur? What happens when a disease spreads through all the crops because nobody wants to treat them for it?

On a side note, here's information from the Anheuser-Busch site about their farms:

Nutri-Turf, Inc. (NTI) -- NTI in Jacksonville, Fla., has developed a wildlife sanctuary at its facility with 125 acres of man-made wetland habitat. The pond and wetland areas were designed to be a functioning part of the facility's operations. This habitat supports more than 750 species of plants and wildlife, including 13 animal species on the endangered and protected list. These include more than 25 woodstorks. The Wildlife Habitat Council has recognized the value of this project by certifying it as a Corporate Wildlife Habitat.

Elk Mountain Hop Farm -- The farm has integrated wildlife habitat management into its daily operation in Boundary County, Idaho. Depth and diversity of the projects range from wetland/waterfowl, updated game bird, song bird and big game habitat enhancement. Hop farm practices serve as a role model to surrounding agricultural operations on how farming operations and wildlife programs can be sustained in harmony. More than 600 acres of prime wildlife habitat are an integral part of the hop farm operation.

Barley research -- New barley varieties developed by BARI are designed to increase production and quality, thereby helping to ensure a steady, uncompromised supply of quality ingredients to Anheuser-Busch. These varieties provide a positive environmental benefit to contract growers by reducing the use of fuel, water, chemicals or energy while increasing yields. Annual savings for growers are in excess of $2.5 million. The growers' revenues also increase by $5.5 million per year.

According to World Tobacco, the area planted to all types of tobacco in the US in 2003 was estimated at 413,710 acres.
How much "needed food products" COULD HAVE been grown on that land instead of tobacco? I do not know, and I do not need to know. What I do know is that tobacco is not needed.

Only a drop in the bucket.
In the US alone, there were 72.7 MILLION acres of corn grown, 72.7 million acres of soybeans, 53.0 million acres of wheat, 13.1 million acres of cotton (remember, cotton crops can be food or fiber, and given its absorbent properties, there isn't likely another fiber that would be equivalent for example in medical applications), 7.7 million acres of sorghum (a type of grain), and 3.0 million acres of rice.

Statistics obtained here: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html

As of 2000, there were 670 million acres of croplands worldwide, with 16% of them already being GM crops. http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/display.php3?FactsheetID=1

I'm not arguing that tobacco is a good thing, or that it needs to continue to be grown, just that making that land available for food crops is not going to sufficiently address the demands of switching ALL agriculture to organic farming. Given the added crop losses that would occur, as have been discussed earlier in this thread, a paltry 415,000 acres is not going to help.

 

[jimmie]

Only a drop in the bucket.

Hence, the relationship between a particular "argument" within the WHOLE "argument".

Let it be known: a BUCKET can contain MANY drops, and drops that are not contained, evaporate.

Any particular individual can present any particular argument for any particular subject, including Organic Foods.

However, not every individual can present a WHOLE argument, because to present a WHOLE argument, particular "arguments" that have "one" consistent theme and that support each other across various topics/threads, such as Organic Foods, an individual must intend to make the lives of "other" beings his priority.

And that is the particular "argument" I have intended to present in Organic Foods: individuals that make their "self" the priority will intend to argue against organic foods and will indirectly support the existence of "foods" that are not needed by demanding that "arguments" be centered upon JUSTIFYING the existence and production and harvesting of organic foods.

However, an individual that makes their "other-than-self" the priority, as "I" have, will intend to argue for organic foods and will indirectly support the EXTINCTION of "foods" that are not needed by demanding that "arguments" be centered upon JUSTIFYING the existence and production and harvesting of foods for products that are not needed.

And, while the mere fact that one unit of one particular product that is sold anywhere to anyone at any point may confirm the existence of that product, confirmation of existence does not equal JUSTIFICATION of existence; justification confirms the existence of a product is "right".

I have presented information in an effort to justify that "Organic foods" are "right". You, Moonbear, have played "devil's advocate" by refuting the argument I have presented.

just that making that land available for food crops is not going to sufficiently address the demands of switching ALL agriculture to organic farming. Given the added crop losses that would occur, as have been discussed earlier in this thread, a paltry 415,000 acres is not going to help.

Thus far, Moonbear, the "argument" that you and I have had has been whether or not I can justify expanding the use, and thus the existence and production and harvesting, of organic foods in places that currently grow food crops for products that are not needed.

Thus, I argue that by switching ALL agriculture to organic farming, for the purpose of producing and harvesting ONLY organic foods that are needed (foods from ONLY the 'plant' kingdom), such as fresh fruit, vegetables, nuts, plants, herbs, seeds, and grains, and delivering those organic foods in their 'whole' state (harvested, cleaned, bulk packaged, delivered to wholesale/retail outlet) is "right".

Also, I have "argued" that the use or expansion of food crops that are used for mass-produced products that are not needed, ultimately restricts available lands and food crops that could be used for the production of organic foods to possibly sufficiently address the demands for organic foods from individuals that do not have organic foods, and thus, inhibits individuals from EATING organic foods, which directly inhibits their ability to LIVE, and ARGUE, and therefore, is not "right".

Now then, Moonbear, please present your particular "argument", that justifies why using or expanding the use of food crops for the following mass-produced products is "right", and please include scientific data to support your "argument":

vodka, rum, whisky, skotch, gin, cigars, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, "Twinkies"

Only a drop

And, may I remind you Moonbear, you have failed to provide a WHOLE argument, and that any "particular" argument you do provide that is not "right", shall "evaporate" without the BUCKET.

 

[Mk]

Let it be known: a BUCKET can contain MANY drops, and drops that are not contained, evaporate.

Sorry man, that's a terrible argument.

vodka, rum, whisky, skotch, gin, cigars, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, "Twinkies"

Did you not hear me?

Humans are tough weeds, and can survive with or without damn near anything. But why not make those mattresses, toasters, chocolate and forks, so we can be happier, safer, and more productive citizens?

But I think your point was that those things are not good for humans, even though we continue to make them. Cigarettes, chewing tobacco, I agree those are almost "not good period."

You added Twinkies at the end (or perhaps one of the first things you thought of), which is strange because I think that fits more into the cakes and sweets category, that we should continue to produce.

Not to mention all the things you mentioned are either natural, or almost natural, as well as having no meat in them.

 

[jimmie]

Sorry man, that's a terrible argument.

To understand THAT argument, you would need to read several of my other posts in other threads.

Not to mention all the things you mentioned are either natural, or almost natural, as well as having no meat in them..

And...uhhh...they are NOT NEEDED.

Did you not hear me?

Mk, it's about ALL individuals living with ALL products that are NEEDED, and that is possible ONLY if the products that are NOT needed, are NOT produced.

It's not about being "tough as weeds, being able to survive with or without damn near anything".

It IS about LIVING, with everything that is NEEDED.

Mk, did you not hear Me?

 

[Mk]

lol here's a quote from a local PF member, that was posted in another thread.

Hmm... living in a world with only basic needs? BORING.

 

[jimmie]

lol here's a quote from a local PF member, that was posted in another thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penguino
Hmm... living in a world with only basic needs? BORING.

What gave you the idea, Mk, that living with ONLY needs would be "boring"?

And, where exactly in my particular "argument", have I stated that all of the needs to be supplied would be "only basic"?

Remember, Mk, the thread is about "Organic Foods", and I have attempted to restrict my posts to be as relevant to the thread as possible, lest an individual's behaviour to the opposite becomes "generally annoying", and as such, have not elaborated as to what "living in a right world with all needs provided for" would include, which would include and not be limited to ALL video games (individuals NEED games), ALL forms of transporation, including and not limited to cars, trucks, trains, bikes, motorbikes, sleds, ski-doos, jet-skis, boats, planes (as individuals NEED personal transportation), NOT ALL forms of fuel for ALL automobiles (some forms of fuel would be 'phased-out' for ONLY particular uses due to its inherent non-renewable nature, such as 'fossil-fuels'), ALL devices for communications, including and not limited to phones, computers, radios (individuals NEED communications), ALL clothing (many individuals NEED to be clothed), any device created to record or store 'music' (many individuals NEED to hear music).

Furthermore, living with ONLY all needs provided would enable individuals to travel ANYWHERE they choose at any point, due to the fact that "borders", and all the ensuing "red-tape" inherent with "borders", are NOT needed. Such mobility for ALL individuals, which is unheardof in today's "modern" society, would ensure that all individuals are FREE to LIVE at the geographic location they choose to live.

Now, does that really sound "boring" to you?

By the way, if you "want" that cup of coffee, you grow the coffee beans, you ground them up, and you brew it your "self".

 

[Evo]

"living in a right world with all needs provided for" would include, which would include and not be limited to ALL video games (individuals NEED games),

What is all this nonsense about "right"? YOUR right, is not MY right. It's a meaningless term. Video games are not needed, so in a world of only what we "need" no video games

ALL forms of transporation, including and not limited to cars, trucks, trains, bikes, motorbikes, sleds, ski-doos, jet-skis, boats, planes (as individuals NEED personal transportation),

False, not needed.

ALL devices for communications, including and not limited to phones, computers, radios (individuals NEED communications),

False, not needed.

ALL clothing (many individuals NEED to be clothed),

False, not needed.

any device created to record or store 'music' (many individuals NEED to hear music).

False, not needed.

Furthermore, living with ONLY all needs provided would enable individuals to travel ANYWHERE they choose at any point, due to the fact that "borders", and all the ensuing "red-tape" inherent with "borders", are NOT needed.

This is absolute nonsense.

Such mobility for ALL individuals, which is unheardof in today's "modern" society, would ensure that all individuals are FREE to LIVE at the geographic location they choose to live.

You really have no clue what would happen in this scenario, do you? Do you know what happens when more people try to live in an area than can be supported?

By the way, if you "want" that cup of coffee, you grow the coffee beans, you ground them up, and you brew it your "self".

Why, are you planning to manufacture your own car?

Either this thread gets back on topic or it will be closed.

 

[jimmie]

Either this thread gets back on topic or it will be closed.

The current post that the reader is reading is my final post on the current thread, entitled "Organic Foods".