Think about it...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/fda-finds-monsantos-weed_b_12008680.html
Yes, many chemicals are in our food at some level. They may or may not damage our bodies. However, if they were not used you wouldn't have food to eat. Pick your poison, so to speak.
Quote from: texanbelchers on September 16, 2016, 09:50:58 PM
However, if they were not used you wouldn't have food to eat. Pick your poison, so to speak.
That's a pretty broad statement. Organic farmers manage to produce food without poisons. Given our state of scientific development, it seems to me that we should actually be able to find a way that doesn't end with us required to pick a poison. It's pretty depressing to think that's our only choice - what kind of world are we leaving for our kids?
Yes, it is. First, most people can't afford "organic" food on an ongoing basis. Second, there isn't enough volume of it to feed the masses. Third, https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/02/14/organic-produce-has-pesticide-residues-too/ (https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/02/14/organic-produce-has-pesticide-residues-too/).
Let's get back to bees-ness.
I meant that organics show that it is doable, and we certainly have the smarts to scale up production. We don't have to settle for poisoning ourselves.
Quote from: texanbelchers on September 16, 2016, 11:37:44 PM
Yes, it is. First, most people can't afford "organic" food on an ongoing basis. Second, there isn't enough volume of it to feed the masses. Third, https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/02/14/organic-produce-has-pesticide-residues-too/ (https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/02/14/organic-produce-has-pesticide-residues-too/).
Let's get back to bees-ness.
That article looks like marketting from the pesticide manufacturers. They have sprayed the internet with these kinds of stories.
Saying that organic is expensive is nonsense. If someone wants to eat organic they will have to cut out crap in their diet and use that money for proper food, and most won't. That's their choice and I say enjoy.
This is very related to bees-ness as the bees are also eating the same stuff.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx
Poisons in our food ? If I were to tell you that just about every spoonful of food you eat contains a trace of cyanide - would you be concerned ?
LJ
Yes, if the levels keep increasing because of something the human race is doing. My question is are you concerned if levels of a poison in your hive keeps increasing and my second question is are you at fault?
Well - what we're doing is eating - 'cause that's where the cyanide originates ... from our own saliva. The point I am trying to make is that it is NOT the presence of a chemical per se which makes it a poison, but rather it's the quantity of it which is ingested.
There are lots of chemicals which enter the food chain quite naturally, including heavy metals such as lead and mercury, but as long as these remain in miniscule amounts, then they pose no significant risk to health - so I think we need to keep a more balanced, non-alarmist view regarding potential poisons in food.
The article referenced states that no acceptable level has been determined for the presence of glyphosate in food (including honey) within the US. I think that is the principle deficiency which needs to be rectified, rather than lobbying for a blanket ban on glyphosate. It has it's uses.
LJ
Quote from: little john on September 17, 2016, 10:57:53 AM
rather than lobbying for a blanket ban on glyphosate. It has it's uses.
LJ
As a property manager I use it quite frequently but I would support a ban on its use for vegetables just like I would support a ban on all chemical pesticides used for food.
I read 'poisons in food' as referring to non-naturally occurring (ie. added by human activity) and approaching or exceeding levels that can adversely affect health. What we can prevent or avoid, we should, for our own sake as well as that of other organisms that sustain a balanced ecosystem.
Quote from: tjc1 on September 17, 2016, 01:02:05 PM
I read 'poisons in food' as referring to non-naturally occurring (ie. added by human activity) and approaching or exceeding levels that can adversely affect health. What we can prevent or avoid, we should, for our own sake as well as that of other organisms that sustain a balanced ecosystem.
Interesting point, but the food we eat doesn't contain 'levels that can adversely affect health'. Pesticide residues in food are allowed only at levels that
don't affect health (at least in most countries!)
At least in theory - but the acceptable safe levels are not the same in all countries - so which are right? Based on a lower tolerance in one country, there is the possibility that the citizens of other countries are being affected negatively - poisoned, in another word. How often have supposedly safe levels from one era been found to be way off years later? We have to be willing to revisit, or better, to look more closely the first time around.
Quote from: PhilK on September 18, 2016, 08:46:38 PM
Pesticide residues in food are allowed only at levels that don't affect health
That is the propaganda you are led to believe. A certain percentage of the population will always be affected by pesticide residues in their food. Just like a life saving prescription will be approved even though some casualties may come about as a result of their use.
Yes, there are natural pesticides in all our vegetables. It bothers some and not others. Adding more or different pesticides in higher quantities will affect more people and this is my objection. Pesticides are not used to make food healthier. They are used to make food look better and create more yield ($) the side effect is less people can tolerate the food and they may not know it.
I will be the first to admit that I am no scientist. It is the pesticide issue that causes me to go organic with my own food. By organic I mean deep organic. I spray nothing on anything unless it is 100% necessary for prevent a total crop loss. Even then I put on the safest things I can find.
Seems like I remember reading that all plants have some level of poison in them naturally. We can tolerate a certain amount of these poisons daily.
My thoughts on organic are probably incorrect, but I'm thinking it costs more than it ought, to pay an organization to get permission to label it organic.
At this point in time there's no way you can expect a harvest if you don't poison. I do agree that we have the ability to control these pests but there's no gov't money in anything if it don't have a problem. An example; Cancer. There's no way with what we've done in the last 50 years that we "can't" cure cancer. There's just too much money in treating it.
Quote from: GSF on September 19, 2016, 03:12:36 PM
Seems like I remember reading that all plants have some level of poison in them naturally. We can tolerate a certain amount of these poisons daily.
My thoughts on organic are probably incorrect, but I'm thinking it costs more than it ought, to pay an organization to get permission to label it organic.
At this point in time there's no way you can expect a harvest if you don't poison. I do agree that we have the ability to control these pests but there's no gov't money in anything if it don't have a problem. An example; Cancer. There's no way with what we've done in the last 50 years that we "can't" cure cancer. There's just too much money in treating it.
I agree with you on the large scale but in a home garden I can assure that you can get a good harvest without any spray what so ever
Quote from: bwallace23350 on September 19, 2016, 05:17:39 PM
I agree with you on the large scale but in a home garden I can assure that you can get a good harvest without any spray what so ever
I don't believe it is the scale (size) that makes the difference. The difference is monoculture. If you get a fungus, blite, bug that attacks a certain vegetable you could lose the whole crop. But when you mix in all different kinds of vegetables you will still have a good yield on some of them that are not affected by the fungus, blite, or bug. The variation in vegetation is what makes healthy hives, heck it is what makes healthy people.
MaryAnn Fraser (sp) of Pennsylvania state is still finding DDT and lead of arsenic in brood comb. She also works for the USDA beekeeping lab in Pennsylvania. On average she finds 5 to 6 chemicals . In a bee hive that should not be there. She has found about 300 different kind of chemicals across the United States in bee wax..
http://ento.psu.edu/directory/mxt15
BEE HAPPY Jim 134 :)
>Yes, many chemicals are in our food at some level. They may or may not damage our bodies. However, if they were not used you wouldn't have food to eat.
Bullcrap
Jim, could some of the poisons be coming from the plants themselves? Johnson grass has a level of arsenic in it.
Quote from: Acebird on September 19, 2016, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: bwallace23350 on September 19, 2016, 05:17:39 PM
I agree with you on the large scale but in a home garden I can assure that you can get a good harvest without any spray what so ever
I don't believe it is the scale (size) that makes the difference. The difference is monoculture. If you get a fungus, blite, bug that attacks a certain vegetable you could lose the whole crop. But when you mix in all different kinds of vegetables you will still have a good yield on some of them that are not affected by the fungus, blite, or bug. The variation in vegetation is what makes healthy hives, heck it is what makes healthy people.
That might explain the healthiness of my plants. I don't even plant the same varieties every year and I rotate the locations within the garden. I plant a very large veggie garden and an even bigger fruit orchard. It was pollination needs that got me into bee keeping in the first place.
Quote from: Michael Bush on September 20, 2016, 09:26:03 AM
Bullcrap
Not my food of choice...
There has been an ongoing concern about population growth and the ability to produce and distribute sufficient food. Great strides have been made in agriculture; especially in the last century. Examples, reports, and opinions are all over the Internet so you can choose your position. From http://passel.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule=1075412493&topicorder=10&maxto=12 (http://passel.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule=1075412493&topicorder=10&maxto=12)
QuoteThe national average corn grain yield in the United States began to increase steadily in the 1940s (Figure 11). In the most recent decade, the average yield was 125 bushels per acre, nearly five times greater than 70 years before. Several studies conducted by universities have indicated that much of this improved yield was the result of improved genetics; that is, it occurred because farmers were planting improved varieties of corn developed through plant breeding. Greater use of fertilizer, more and better herbicides, improved soil tillage, and other altered production practices also contributed to the increased yields.
http://passel.unl.edu/Image/siteImages/CornYieldGraphLG.gif (http://passel.unl.edu/Image/siteImages/CornYieldGraphLG.gif)
Fig. 11: Corn Grain Yields (University of Nebraska-
{emphasis added}
This does not list pesticides, but neither did I. I suspect that you can find any of them in the final product.
It is projected that world production will need to double again by 2050 to keep up with the population. That is going to take a lot of money, effort, genetics, and ...chemicals.
Quote from: texanbelchers on September 20, 2016, 04:08:50 PM
That is going to take a lot of money, effort, genetics, and ...chemicals.
It is going to take education and more countries producing food for their own people. The population of the US will not double and we already produce way more food than WE need. And the reason is $, lots of them. Other countries need to produce less people and more food.
This topic has me thinking of the VOA thread..... :cool:
Quote from: Acebird on September 19, 2016, 08:45:59 AM
Quote from: PhilK on September 18, 2016, 08:46:38 PM
Pesticide residues in food are allowed only at levels that don't affect health
That is the propaganda you are led to believe.
Is there an eye rolling emoji? There is plenty of research to indicate how certain acceptable residue levels are figured out.
QuoteA certain percentage of the population will always be affected by pesticide residues in their food. Just like a life saving prescription will be approved even though some casualties may come about as a result of their use.
I agree. A very small percentage may be affected by pesticide residues in their food - that sucks for them. I have seen no issues or reports of people dying or becoming sick from pesticide residues in their food (in my country) for some time.
QuotePesticides are not used to make food healthier. They are used to make food look better and create more yield ($) the side effect is less people can tolerate the food and they may not know it.
I agree that this is the reason - pesticides are used to prevent pests from destroying crops. They increase yields and profits, which I think is a good thing. I think they need to be tightly regulated of course, and I think they are not the answer to everything, but they serve an important function. It will do nobody any favours if half the farmers crops are all left rotting in the fields because of pests or diseases. Research, genetic selection, and pesticide alternatives need to be figured out but until we get a workable system pesticides will have to be used at the recommended levels
Quote from: PhilK on September 21, 2016, 02:51:59 AM
I have seen no issues or reports of people dying or becoming sick from pesticide residues in their food (in my country) for some time.
You're kidding right? No cancer, no birth defects, no dementia, Alzheimer, or Parkinson disease?
Quote
I agree that this is the reason - pesticides are used to prevent pests from destroying crops. They increase yields and profits, which I think is a good thing. I think they need to be tightly regulated of course, and I think they are not the answer to everything, but they serve an important function. It will do nobody any favours if half the farmers crops are all left rotting in the fields because of pests or diseases. Research, genetic selection, and pesticide alternatives need to be figured out but until we get a workable system pesticides will have to be used at the recommended levels
I believe, this is my opinion, that nature is the workable system. You fight it, you lose one way or another. Starvation is not caused by the lack of pesticides. Starvation is caused by the lack of water or government corruption or the lack of a government that cares for those in need. Regardless of want the yield is people will starve. They even do in this country.
Quote from: KeyLargoBees on September 20, 2016, 10:59:16 PM
This topic has me thinking of the VOA thread..... :cool:
VOA=Voice of America?
BEE HAPPY Jim 134 :)
Quote from: tjc1 on September 16, 2016, 11:59:49 PM
I meant that organics show that it is doable, and we certainly have the smarts to scale up production. We don't have to settle for poisoning ourselves.
Organics show no such thing.
Organic crops are treated with significantly higher levels of pesticides than 'traditional' crops. The fact that something is 'naturally based' neither makes it safe, nor effective.
Organics aren't safer, they're not healthier, and they're not better for the environment. They're a marketing tool.
Farming practices should be determined by their safety, and effectiveness - not some misguided idea that being natural is better.
Quote from: CrazyTalk on September 22, 2016, 12:12:37 AM
Organics show no such thing.
Organic crops are treated with significantly higher levels of pesticides than 'traditional' crops. The fact that something is 'naturally based' neither makes it safe, nor effective.
Organics aren't safer, they're not healthier, and they're not better for the environment. They're a marketing tool.
Farming practices should be determined by their safety, and effectiveness - not some misguided idea that being natural is better.
IYHO
Excellent point CrazyTalk - plenty of the pesticides that people hate on are derived from 'naturally occurring' chemicals.
Acebird yes of course these defects exist - have they been irrefutably linked to pesticide use in food? Not as far as I'm aware. I also find these debates hard to enter into when people start sliding towards talking about government corruption and general anti-government sentiment. I don't feel it really has a place in a realistic debate about pesticides
With current farming practices we are stripping the soil. This does worry me. As for my own food I grow a bunch of it and would one day like to be almost totally free from the food chain and with that any worry about pesticides. I mean a few worms never hurt anyone.
I am not so sure about these organic pesticides either. I do know that there is truth to the claims that free range grass fed meat is better for us though and that we use way to many antibiotics in our meat products. I would rather eat less and smaller portions of meat than grain fed antibiotic laden meat
Quote from: flyboy on September 22, 2016, 12:32:40 AM
Quote from: CrazyTalk on September 22, 2016, 12:12:37 AM
Organics show no such thing.
Organic crops are treated with significantly higher levels of pesticides than 'traditional' crops. The fact that something is 'naturally based' neither makes it safe, nor effective.
Organics aren't safer, they're not healthier, and they're not better for the environment. They're a marketing tool.
Farming practices should be determined by their safety, and effectiveness - not some misguided idea that being natural is better.
IYHO
No, it is not my opinion.
There are no safety, health, or effectiveness qualifications in the organic standard. This is easily verified by reading the USDA's organic guidelines.
Is this to far out? WE eat food that has been grown in soil and the food removes nutrients from the soil. We then run the food waste through waste disposal systems and the nutrients are usually sent down the river never again to be recycled to our soil. What is wrong with the "Honey wagon" , and this has nothing to do with bees. Just a thought that my wife thinks is repulsive. Paus
Quote from: Jim 134 on September 19, 2016, 11:56:00 PM
MaryAnn Fraser (sp) of Pennsylvania state is still finding DDT and lead of arsenic in brood comb. She also works for the USDA beekeeping lab in Pennsylvania. On average she finds 5 to 6 chemicals . In a bee hive that should not be there. She has found about 300 different kind of chemicals across the United States in bee wax..
It won't be long until she finds Oxalic acid in honey and wax and beekeeper will begin to encounter health problems from the chemicals we use for mites and other diseases.
http://ento.psu.edu/directory/mxt15
BEE HAPPY Jim 134 :)
>Organic crops are treated with significantly higher levels of pesticides than 'traditional' crops. The fact that something is 'naturally based' neither makes it safe, nor effective.
>Organics aren't safer, they're not healthier, and they're not better for the environment. They're a marketing tool.
>Farming practices should be determined by their safety, and effectiveness - not some misguided idea that being natural is better.
This is all because of the USDA stealing the term. My grandparents and my momand many of my friends are/were all organic gardeners. They used no pesticides. Their gardens were very productive. Organic used to be a philosophy of seeing the soil as a living thing (which it is) and nurturing the soil and working with nature instead of against it. This modern "big organic" movement is something else entirely. Natural is better.
"This is all because of the USDA stealing the term. My grandparents and my momand many of my friends are/were all organic gardeners. They used no pesticides. Their gardens were very productive. Organic used to be a philosophy of seeing the soil as a living thing (which it is) and nurturing the soil and working with nature instead of against it. This modern "big organic" movement is something else entirely. Natural is better."
Amen!! Here is another.,,,, but first I need to say, I trust modern medicine as much as I trust the main stream media, our current administration and main stream religion. I also believe what the former head of the Mayo clinic says today. Unless you are in a serious accident, avoid the doctors as much as you can.
Modern Medicine (not very old) has stolen the term traditional and tagged it onto what they that practice and their treatments. They ignore effective natural remedies that have been around for centuries because all they have been taught during their years of schooling is cut, poison, and burn. The dr's. today have had very little schooling on nutrition.
Those that think modern man now days is improving living organism's by altering DNA and gene splicing, and replacing natural foods and remedies provided by the original creator with often highly toxic drugs, and questionable edibles/foods are only fooling themselves....
Don't believe me, just google recalled prescription drugs in the last 20 years, 10 years, or even lets say last 6 months. Then you can wonder how/why they (them experts) approved them, when your drugs number will be up, and what you are going to do then.
Our bodies are like a finely tuned race car engines, put poor fuel in, we don't run so good, and we will foul up. The key to good health is in prevention. Regular exercise and eating healthy foods being the answer, not visits to the doctor and taking their risky drugs and treatments AFTER you become fouled.
My wife is a traditional naturalpath, i know a little about what i'm talking about. I can tell you, many of her clients are nurses. They say they don't want to be caught in the same trap they see so many of their patients caught in. Also, one of our daughters is an RN, she kinda poo pooed moms profession as a teenager, but after getting into nursing school realized mom was pretty smart since she could help her with her education And now, after a few years of frequent doctoring with poor results, guess who she calls when she has a problem with one of her kids now, yep, the good ol naturalpath.
Oh, and did anyone see a few months ago on the national news when they told us what the number 3 cause of death in this country is?
Behind the first two, cancer, and heart disease, it's DOCTOR ERROR. (hit a search engine it if you don't believe me.) So if the AMA is so far off, how smart do you think the FDA, the WHO, and the rest of them that oversee and educate them people are?
Our medical community kills more people by accident that opposing armies, armed to the teeth trying to kill each other. Don't believe me? google U.S. Combatants killed in the Whole viet-nam war, what was it 10 years long? then look up accidental dr. related deaths just Last year and see where the larger number lies.
That is going to take a lot of money, effort, genetics, and ...chemicals.
It is going to take education and more countries producing food for their own people. The population of the US will not double and we already produce way more food than WE need. And the reason is $, lots of them. Other countries need to produce less people and more food.
Half the world's countries have below replacement rate fertility levels. The problem with the world food supply is Africa. Not that they are having a lot of kids but tthat they have poor agricultural practices, poor seeds, poor yields, poor transportation, and poor storage. IF we improve in Africa with agriculture then we will be more than all right. Oh and it would help if we ate less meat.
Quote from: texanbelchers on September 16, 2016, 09:50:58 PM
Yes, many chemicals are in our food at some level. They may or may not damage our bodies. However, if they were not used you wouldn't have food to eat. Pick your poison, so to speak.
Lots of great reading, but this still rings true.... Too many people.