Quinn, I'm going to frame your post! Alex ----- Original Message ----- From: Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Popular Mechanics article
> John, > > I just have to jump in here. As a nutritional counselor and herbalist for > over 20 years, I have to disagree. It has been shown time and again that > plants grown in soil which has been augmented with manure and compost and > 'natural' supplements produces food which is higher in nutrients than food > which is produced with chemical fertilizers. > > One review based on questionable funding does not a definitive answer make. > Certainly chemical processes have enabled us to create fruits and vegetables > which are bigger and bigger and brighter and shinier. I call this "BayWatch > Food." It is the equivalent of the buff but vacuous people who populate the > hype and media presented by those who stand to gain from convincing the saps > that bigger and shinier is better. The same people who buy SUVs. > > Cooking certainly does make many foods more nutritionally available, and > then again, many foods serve us best raw. Shelf life has no meaning > whatsoever for the health of a human being. > > As far as lacking scientific 'rigor', I think personally that we've taken > the need for 'validation' and 'proof' to such an extreme that it has become > a mockery of itself. Western 'science' serves a purpose. "Proof" *is* > something to strive for. But to say that if something can't be proven by > Western scientific means then it has no validity is to deny common sense. > > We have become a culture who can't see the forest for the smog. And yet > because we can't pinpoint the exact cause of the smog for the complexity > beyond our capabilities (weather patterns, multitudes of interactions of > pollutants and toxins, elevation at any given area, poor record keeping, > obfuscation by parties which stand to suffer should the truth be known, > ephemeral political leaders, money, money, money...), we refute those who > simply say, like the child at the parade of the emperor's new clothes: > "something is wrong...". > > Something is wrong. And it has to do with chemicals and politics and > oligarchies and denial and money, and money, and money. > > Something is wrong. Our food is wrong, our goals are wrong, our fuel > dependence is wrong, our long-term planning is wrong (non-existant), our > cultural mindset is wrong. > > And, sorry, but I believe that your take on this (below) is mis-guided at > best. > > Peace, > Quinn > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Hayes > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:04 PM > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Popular Mechanics article > > > Thor Skov wrote: > > > Gotta agree with the notion of "whole food" here. > > Obviously there are naturally occurring substances > > that you don't want to eat. But food grown > > "naturally" that is, in healthy soils, without the use > > of artificial fertilzers (using manure compost, worm > > castings, etc. and not Miracle Gro or worse) and > > pesticides, is "better" for you. > > Actually, no. There is currently no evidence supporting this position. > Check the following paper for a nice review. > > Bourn D, Prescott J. 2002. A comparison of the nutritional value, > sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally > produced foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. Jan;42(1):1-34. > > This makes sense > > intuitively and from the standpoint of reducing > > overall chemcial exposure. > > As stated before, everything is a chemical. Operationally *redefining* a > word to support an emotional viewpoint is disingenuous at best. > > Also, whole foods are > > better than processed foods, raw foods better than > > cooked (again, with obvious exceptions). > > Simply and patently untrue. Cooking destroys many toxins and anti > nutrients as well as increasing bioavailability of some nutrients. > Moreover, processing enhances shelf life and limits microbial toxins. > See the references below for some background. > > You can > > experiment with this yourself, by modifying your own > > diet and observing the results. > > This approach lacks rigor and frankly just begs for a confirmation bias > error. > > If you really want to educate yourself, I'd strongly suggest getting a > copy of Harold McGee's 'On food and Cooking'. Also, you might want to > visit the 'Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore' website > at http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/research/index.shtml for a readable lay > summary. > > > > Cheers. > John > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
