Näytä kirjoitukset

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Ufomaster

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
Yleinen Keskustelualue / Vs: Missä ovat ruoan riskit
« on: 28.05.11 - klo:10:05 »

Siihen reagoi heti Lauri Gröhn, palstallaan ” KVASITIETOYHTEISKUNTA”:

Vaarallinen luomu 

Lauri lainaa tuossa MOT-ohjelmaa (ei mikään luotettavin lähde missään asiassa):

"USA:n virallisen tautien valvontakeskuksen mukaan luomun syöjillä on kahdeksan kertaa suurempi vaara saada tartunta kuolettavasta Ehec coli-bakteerista kuin muulla väestöllä."

Koitin joskus aikoja sitten etsiä tuota lausuntoa tai tutkimusta CDC:n sivuilta, mutta en löytänyt mitään siihen viittaavaa.

Seuraavaksi törmäsin tähän:


It quoted Dr. Robert Tauxe, chief of the CDC's Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, saying, "Organic food means a food was grown in animal manure."
Tauxe denies ever making that statement and says he believes the rumor originated with Dennis Avery. After fielding numerous media queries on the subject, CDC took the unusual step on January 14, 1999 of issuing a press release stating, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not conducted any study that compares or quantitates the specific risk for infection with E. coli 0157:H7 and eating either conventionally grown or organic/natural foods." In addition, Tauxe says he called Avery to tell him to stop claiming that the CDC was the source of this allegation. Avery responded by telling Tauxe, "That's your interpretation, and I have mine."
Avery claims his information came from Dr. Paul Mead, an epidemiologist who works in Tauxe's division. Absolute bunk, says Mead. "What happened is that he called me up and announced that eight percent of the outbreaks of foodborne illness were from organic food. I took some exception to that and said I didn't know him and what his purpose was, but our data don't support that." Mead was chagrined to hear that a year after this conversation took place, Avery is still sourcing this phantom data back to him.

Ja sitten Averyn versio:


But as the Wallace Institute press release correctly notes, Mr. Avery asserted only the following: "According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, people who eat organic and ‘natural’ foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (O157:H7) [emphasis added]." Note that Mr. Avery did not make the assertion the Wallace Institute attributes to him, that the CDC did a study explicitly comparing organic and conventional foods. [Mr. Avery’s article is available for free at http://www.hudson.org/American_Outlook/articles_fa98/avery.htm.

As the data show, 24 percent of all E. coli O157:H7 infections reported to the CDC in 1996 (118 of 488 total cases) were from organic or natural food sources. In fact, organic and natural foods account for more than a third of all potential foodborne cases (those not attributed to swimming or person-to-person contact). Yet organic and natural foods account for less than 1 percent of the total food supply! If anything, Mr. Avery’s article was overly cautious, vastly understating the apparent risk from organic and natural foods. The article stated only that consumers who eat organic or natural foods had an eight-fold greater risk, when the CDC’s figures show that the risk may in fact be far higher than that. The CDC data is the only data available on which to gauge the risks of E. coli poisoning in our food supply.

Tässä vaiheessa multa taisi loppua aika jäljittämisen ja tarkistamisen suhteen, mutta ehkä joku täällä on tehnyt kotiläksynsä paremmin?

Yleinen Keskustelualue / Vs: John P. Reganold + luomu?
« on: 15.04.11 - klo:22:58 »
Selvä, jatkan ensi viikolla tästä kun on paremmin aikaa.


Yleinen Keskustelualue / Vs: John P. Reganold + luomu?
« on: 15.04.11 - klo:22:15 »
Tässä haastattelussa tulee varmaan keskeisimmät pointit aika hyvin esille:


John Reganold has been comparing organic and conventional agricultural systems since he noticed the drastic difference between them in a soil sample 25 years ago. He is an agro-ecologist who has always been interested in how land is used, and is the lead author of a study on the sustainability and nutritional benefits of organic farming, which was published in the journal PLoS ONE yesterday.

Tässä linkki itse tutkimukseen:


Ja sitten taas haastiksen pariin:

John Reganold: Our research team was interested in looking at both the soil quality and also the strawberry quality, including the nutritional quality on real commercial farms. So it had to represent reality.

MC: The only difference then was the actual farming process.

JR: That’s correct, and that’s all we wanted. We wanted to be able to say you have two different management systems. If you have these two management systems producing strawberries, what are the effects on the soil, and the soil DNA, the genetics – and what are the effects on the berries, meaning, their shelf life (how fast do they rot), their nutrition (vitamins, antioxidants), and taste? People often will say, “well, these particular berries taste better than these berries,” or, “organic berries taste better than conventional.” But that’s anecdotal. You really need to have scientific evidence for that. So we actually tested that. Our hypothesis was that organic strawberries produce healthier berries from healthier soils, because those are some of the reasons why people buy organic berries. We didn’t know that was the case, so we decided to check it out. So we had to make sure that the methodology was strong enough and done correctly so that we could test the hypothesis.

JR: One thing about strawberries is that they are one of the higher foods in antioxidants and vitamin C, so our study found that with the organic berries tended to have significantly more dry weight. So, if you have more dry weight, that means you have “more strawberry” in the strawberry, which means you’re getting more strawberry when you eat an organic strawberry. We also found that organic berries have more antioxidants, more phenolics, and more vitamin C – all very important for the health of humans. And, organic berries – we didn’t test this, but we know this from other studies that have been done – have much lower residues or no residue of pesticides on the berries, so, in that sense, it’s healthier. If people are concerned about eating pesticides or if they want more vitamin C, it would be better to eat the organic berries.

With two of the varieties there was no difference – but with one of the varieties, the organic berry was sweeter, more flavorful, it was even preferred aesthetically, it had better color to the tasters. There are very few taste tests done comparing organic to conventional foods, so, that was quite a finding right there.

MC: How significant was the antioxidant difference?

JR: About 10%. The organic had about 10% more total antioxidant activity than the conventional berries, and the numbers were similar for vitamin C and phenolics.

MC: What did you find about the health of the soil?

We can basically say that the organically farmed soils were not only healthier and higher quality, but they were also more genetically diverse, and likely more resilient to stress that might come upon that soil system. Those were pretty significant findings too. We really got to look at soil as well as the berries themselves.

MC: How much of a difference was there in shelf life?

JR: We basically took the strawberries and set them on the counter and did what we called the rotting test. You can, basically, watch them rot over a series of days. Most growers and stores that buy strawberries want them to have a long shelf life, maybe five days and not rot. We actually thought that the conventional berries would rot more slowly because they had this array of pesticides. But what happened was the opposite: The organic berries rotted significantly more slowly. So, after a five or six day period, you could have 25% more good organic berries than conventional, on average over the varieties. That’s a plus when you’re selling berries because you want the berries to be able to last longer. And be fresher. To me, that was a surprise.

MC: With so many benefits – nutritional, soil health, shelf life – to the organic system, what would be the advantage of farming conventionally?

JR: The advantage for a grower is yield. You get higher yields in general. The industry data from these two companies for these two years showed that the conventional strawberries were producing 25% more yield. Now, at the same time, organic berries were more than making up for that in price premium. The price that a grower can get for an organic berry will more than make up for that 25% yield difference. A grower may get about 40% more for growing an organic berry. Another advantage to conventional farming is that it’s easier to grow conventionally – you have an arsenal of pesticides to use which the organic farmer can’t use, and because there are more conventional farmers, there is more information out there to help you farm conventionally. Organic farming is more intensive and there is less information out there on how to do it.

But if you look at those variables in general, and you look at the studies that have been done, in general, organic systems are more sustainable than conventional systems.

Lähdetään liikkeelle näistä pointeista, tuskin tarvitsee kääntää?


Yleinen Keskustelualue / John P. Reganold + luomu?
« on: 15.04.11 - klo:19:27 »
Tervehdys, mitäs olette mieltä tämän miehen luomututkimuksista, tulokset on pitkälti pro-luomu ja julkaisuja löytyy Naturesta lähtien aika monessa arvostetussa julkaisussa?


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]