Interesting conversation with King freedom feed nutitionist this am

[bigt447]

All corn (cracked or whole) may be considered a "filler" since it only has about 7% protein. Cracking a grain in no way reduces its nutritional value.

 

[flurry37 2001]

someone should feed half of your fowl this winter whole corn and the other cracked and let us know there weight and health in the spring . mike p.s. bigt just see were you ask about whole corn vs cracked if you knowed the answer so why ask ?????????????????

 

[chickengeorgeto]

Are you saying that organic crops are intentionally sprayed with worse chemicals than non-organic? Doesn't make sense. You're implying that the organic growers willingly decide to use deadlier chemicals than their non-organic counterparts. To what end?

My understanding, right or wrong, was that there are certainly chemical sprays allowed for organics on a crop by crop basis, but these chemicals were the least destructive ones available for the job. And of course the list changes yearly.

The difference is that organic crops must still be treated with the OLDER pesticides. These pesticides are mostly derived from so called "natural" sources. Powdered Sulfur, Copper Sulfate, Arsenic, Citric Acid, Strychnine, Neem oil and a whole hosts of dangerous chemicals all have "natural" sources.

Take the new GMO orange juice you'll all be drinking soon, the GM part of the plant only conveys resistance to the citrus disease known a "Greening" there is no poison involved. Never mind that the DNA fragment spliced onto the orange tree comes from spinach, a plant that most of us joyfully shovel into our pie holes, or remember that trees producing "Natural" juice oranges are sprayed from 12-15 times each season with a broad spectrum pesticide to kill the small sap sucking flying insects that are responsible for spreading Greening Disease in orange groves.

However organic growers have no choice in the matter. The Earth moves on and those who refuse to move forward with it are left behind. The older class of deadly natural pesticides are the only pesticides that organic farmers are allowed to use. They have no other choices. So for the organic farmer it comes down to, "do i want to grow and sell my crops or do I want to grow noxus trips, worms, beetles, nematodes, moths, weevils, hoppers, flies, and microbes?"

 

[chickengeorgeto]

Are you saying that organic crops are intentionally sprayed with worse chemicals than non-organic? Doesn't make sense. You're implying that the organic growers willingly decide to use deadlier chemicals than their non-organic counterparts. To what end?

My understanding, right or wrong, was that there are certainly chemical sprays allowed for organics on a crop by crop basis, but these chemicals were the least destructive ones available for the job. And of course the list changes yearly.

What if GMO crops didn't require ANY chemical pesticides? Are they still more dangerous than organic crops that are sprayed maybe a dozen times by deadly insecticides?

 

[tcstoehr]

What if GMO crops didn't require ANY chemical pesticides? Are they still more dangerous than organic crops that are sprayed maybe a dozen times by deadly insecticides?

My concern wasn't with GMO, it was with the list of allowed chemicals between organic vs non-organic. And I have no idea what's going on there.
Personally, I think the anti-GMO movement is a large FUD campaign. People can't judge where the truth lays.

 

[chickengeorgeto]

My concern wasn't with GMO, it was with the list of allowed chemicals between organic vs non-organic. And I have no idea what's going on there.
Personally, I think the anti-GMO movement is a large FUD campaign. People can't judge where the truth lays.

Regardless of what some people obviously believe, organic as well as conventional crops are not produced in hollow trees by the Keebler elves. Farmers are and they always have been businessmen who must control their expenses in respect to their income to make sure that the former is a lesser amount than the latter amount. So I can assure you that farmers don't employ pesticides because the farmer in question is invested in Monsanto inc. Pesticides are a business expense. Farmers also don't use them to figuratively poke their fingers in the eyes of the organic crowd.

ALLOWED, the word that you chose is a word that by definition carries with it the idea that there is some agency lurking in the bureaucracy that arbitrarily imposes a upper, or maybe the correct term is an allowable floor on residual agriculture chemical content.

Conventional as well as Organic farmers employ chemical pesticides for the same reason, that reason is to increase their crop yields to a level that will allow the farmer and his family to live. So while the consumers of organic produce are exposed to a host of "allowable" pesticides from powdered Sulfur, to Arsenic, to Roaranote not to mention the thousands of foodborne diseases Americans contract every year from eating organic lettuce, green onions, and tomatoes fertilized with raw manure.

Do whatever it is that you wish to do, but as for me I would rather skip my daily allowance of approved organic crop pesticide residues in favor of consuming Genetically Modified food that has NO crop pesticide residues.


As far as any claims that may be made that GM crops are not regulate or tested for safety before these crops are released for sale check the following italic text from the EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/index.htm

Plant-incorporated protectants are pesticidal substances produced by plants and the genetic material necessary for the plant to produce the substance. For example, scientists can take the gene for a specific Bt pesticidal protein, and introduce the gene into the plant's genetic material. Then the plant manufactures the pesticidal protein that controls the pest when it feeds on the plant. Both the protein and its genetic material are regulated by EPA; the plant itself is not regulated.
Before EPA can register a pesticide there must be sufficient data demonstrating that it will not pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment when used according to label directions. When assessing the potential risks of genetically engineered plant-incorporated protectants, EPA requires extensive studies examining numerous factors, such as risks to human health, nontarget organisms and the environment, potential for gene flow, and the need for insect resistance management plans.
In regulating PIPs, we base our decisions on strict scientific standards and extensive input from academia, industry, other Federal agencies, and the public. Before the first PIP product was registered in 1995, EPA required that PIP products be thoroughly tested against human safety standards before they were used on human food and livestock feed crops. EPA scientists assessed a wide variety of potential effects associated with the use of plant-incorporated protectants, including acute reactions, such as toxicity, allergenicity, and skin and eye irritation, as well as long-term effects including cancer, birth defects, and reproductive and neurological system disorders. Our scientists also evaluated these potential effects in light of the public's potential exposures to these pesticides, taking into account all potential combined sources of the exposure (food, drinking water, etc.) to determine the likelihood that a person would be exposed at levels that would pose a health risk. Based on our reviews of the scientific studies and often peer reviews by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Scientific Advisory Panel, EPA determined that these genetically engineered PIP products, when used in accordance with approved label directions and use restrictions, would not pose unreasonable risk to human health and the environment during their time-limited registration.

 

[NatureChica]

Sorry but tell me that after you have read about Bayer pesticides and the harm they do. They're supposedly not harmful. Any agency these days is full of manure and corrupt as all get out. FDA is run by Mansanto. Not a shocker that employees for the big box stores also hold a position in our lovely government. Dont believe what you read. Just be careful and do your best to weed out the bull. Most of it is in fact bull.

 

[Cindy in PA]

What if GMO crops didn't require ANY chemical pesticides? Are they still more dangerous than organic crops that are sprayed maybe a dozen times by deadly insecticides?

We don't know, as they have only been around 20 years & that is a blink of an eye. Label & we can all be happy. Consumers make the choice, not the Big Ag jacks, or the government. I don't want to be told what is safe by idiots that are being paid off.

 

[chickengeorgeto]

We don't know, as they have only been around 20 years & that is a blink of an eye. Label & we can all be happy. Consumers make the choice, not the Big Ag jacks, or the government. I don't want to be told what is safe by idiots that are being paid off.

What we need first is a program to test and ascertain the true risks of the dangerous foodstuffs that we already stuff into our mouths. Foods with unknown risks like "Organic Peruvian Blue Potatoes, Organic Quinoa, Organic Brown Rice, Raw Organic Vegetables and other big Agu sacred cows. If you think that there are no Big Agricultural sacred cows remember that with organic food that ABSOLUTELY NO tests are required and that there are no limits on things like Lead, Arsenic, PCBs, Benzine, Aluminum, or other metals or poisons lurking in Organic food, none.

There is not even a requirement that Organic food be tested before it gets to your table. The only thing that the word ORGANIC on the label signifies is that this food supposedly went through the same production process in effect 2,000 years ago in the Roman Empire. You can spray untreated human sewage on organic crops complete with all the household and industrial chemicals that entails, or irrigate your crops with grossly polluted water not only in China, but even in this country and the organic food eating public will never know because BIG ORGANIC AGRICULTURE have hewed themselves out a total exemption to the healthy food laws.

So to be truthful and get a handle on what's already in our organic food we first need a multi decade program of testing our natural and organic vittles for environmental poisons. Until that is done there can be no improvements realized. Hide and watch the Whole Food criminals fight that rule.

Look up the Mexican Pueblo State grown Cilantro that has sickened over three hundred with a protozoa disease. Why wasn't this Cilantro tested? My feelings is because it is Organic Cilantro and as an Organic food it is exempt from tests for wholesomeness. So when you ladies and gentlemen go to the produce isle take a jewelers loop with you to examine your Organic Cilantro with so that you can be sure that all the pieces of Charmin has been washed out of your bunch of Cilantro BEFORE you make an Avocado and Grilled Corn Salad with a Cilantro Vinaigrette.

http://authenticsuburbangourmet.blogspot.com/2011/05/avocado-and-grilled-corn-salad-with.html

 

[centrarchid]

To ensure parity in the scrutiny, foods from all production methods need to be tested for everything, all the time. Imports as well despite trade agreements that might otherwise enable producers outside the US to employ methods not allowed here.