read the jungle if you want to understand why we need food regulation. it's not a recent problem. consumers deserve transparency and yes people are free to make their own decisions.
jordan
"besides the unknowns being discussed, there are certainly unknown
unknowns still lurking out there."
ah the unknowns unknown of the unknown unknown.
they are such a scar unknownIf you want to talk about unknowns and assume that things which worry you are unknown by everyone rather than just you like the toxic doses and effects of things like arsenic then make sure to apply the same logic to
Rotenone(an "organic" pesticide which is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life and which has to be used in far larger quantities than non-organic pesticides)
Pyrethrin (probably safe but some Pyrethroids are suspected to have effects on brain development)Sabadilla (repeated small doses showed possible cumulative effects)All of which can be used in "organic" farming. Ever tasted neem oil?because where the harsh synthetic compounds have to go through a battery of tests and regulation the organic stuff is rarely subjected to the same scrutiny so we are left with lots of unknowns in "organic".
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Jordan Miller <jrdnmlr@gmail.com> wrote:
I truly wish that biology were as simple as the formulae and logic
being laid out in these discussions. unfortunately it's not.
besides the unknowns being discussed, there are certainly unknown
unknowns still lurking out there. I already mentioned thalidomide as
an example of what can happen when we as a society rush into things
with a "what could possibly go wrong" mentality.
we need to balance our goals for efficiency with the humility to
realize we don't know everything and that best intentions often lead
to unintended consequences.
when I have a choice, I err on the side of organic. that is a
regulated term in the US so you legally know what you are buying.
that's why it's so popular. plus it tastes better (ever had celery
where you could taste the pesticides? I have.).
cheers,
jordan
On Apr 25, 2012, at 12:10 AM, Nathan McCorkle <nmz787@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Jordan Miller <jrdnmlr@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I guess we can agree to disagree.
>>
>> cheers,
>> jordan
>
> Realistically/scientifically though, that isn't a valid answer, if proof exists.
>
>> On Apr 24, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Simon Quellen Field <sfield@scitoys.com> wrote:
>>
>> By 'chemicals', what exactly do you mean?
>> I don't necessarily want fewer proteins, sugars, fats, vitamins, minerals,
>> etc., and those are all chemicals.
>> In fact, the entire mass of the chicken is chemicals, so eliminating all of
>> them leaves me nothing.
>>
>> Do you want all traces of selenium removed from the chicken?
>> The LD50 is between 12 and 38 mg/kg.
>> The LD50 for arsenic is much higher at 185 to 6400 mg/lg.
>> So selenium is many times more toxic.
>> And yet it is essential to your living past the next few weeks.
>>
>> Small amounts of arsenic are recommended for the health of the chicken.
>> But because people think it is a poison, they are afraid of it in their
>> food.
>> But there is belladonna in your organic tomatoes and potatoes, and yet that
>> is OK with you. It also is more deadly than arsenic.
>
>
> Simon has a point, but only gives the LD50 for the compounds, rather
> than the recommended daily allowance (RDA, the easiest metric I could
> find for this sort of thing, it may not be up to date though)
> http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/selenium-HealthProfessional/
>
> Arsenic
> http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/arsenic.pdf
> "The acute lethal dose to humans can be about 2 to 20 mg/kg body
> weight per day (mg/kg-day)"
> "Ingesting small amounts over time produces chronic effects such as
> skin darkening and formation of corns, damage to peripheral nerves,
> cardiovascular system effects, hair and appetite loss, and mental
> disorders. "
> "Arsenic can also cause reproductive/developmental effects, including
> spontaneous
> abortions and reduced birth weights. Epidemiological studies indicate an
> association between arsenic concentrations in drinking water and increased
> incidences of skin, liver, kidney, lung, and bladder cancers"
> " Limited information is available on the joint toxicity of
> arsenic with other chemicals. For neurological effects, the predicted
> direction of
> joint toxicity of arsenic and lead is greater than additive, whereas
> the joint toxicity
> of these metals is predicted to be less than additive for the kidney and
> hematopoietic (blood-forming) system."
>
> And they've established toxicity dose-response effect guidelines
> Cancer Risk
> Inhalation UR
> 4.3 per
> mg/m3
>
> Oral SF
> 1.5 per
> mg/kg-day
>
> Non-Cancer Effect
> Oral RfD
> 0.0003
> mg/kg-day
>
>
> Sooo, what the NYT article lacks is the concentrations found.
>
>
> --
> Nathan McCorkle
> Rochester Institute of Technology
> College of Science, Biotechnology/Bioinformatics
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
0 comments:
Post a Comment