Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why pesticides?

Expand Messages
  • chosen1446
    Stevia, Fluoride, MSG Could anyone give me a believable & sensible reason WHY our food supply (across the whole spectrum) is being poisoned? For example, our
    Message 1 of 8 , May 25, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Stevia, Fluoride, MSG

      Could anyone give me a believable & sensible reason WHY our food
      supply (across the whole spectrum) is being poisoned?

      For example, our grandmothers matured at much latter ages (before the
      use of growth hormones in our meat supply).

      Special interest groups don't explain it because they'd ALL have to
      be involved (i.e., not just the sugar lobby, in regards to Stevia,
      but also, everything else (i.e., water, pesticides, etc.)

      Thanks, Tony

      My 2 cents - I think Deer Park water is the best bottled water.

      PS Could anyone tell me what other foods that I should be wary of?
      PS 2 I need prayer. Thanks.
    • ewt
      I think the simple answer is that a lot of people in different businesses are more interested in making a quick buck than in the long-term health of consumers
      Message 2 of 8 , May 25, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I think the simple answer is that a lot of people in different
        businesses are more interested in making a quick buck than in the
        long-term health of consumers or welfare of the planet. The only thing
        I can see to do about it is make sure they don't get my money by not
        purchasing those products.

        ewt

        On 25/05/06, chosen1446 <chosen1446@...> wrote:
        > Stevia, Fluoride, MSG
        >
        > Could anyone give me a believable & sensible reason WHY our food
        > supply (across the whole spectrum) is being poisoned?
        >
        > For example, our grandmothers matured at much latter ages (before the
        > use of growth hormones in our meat supply).
        >
        > Special interest groups don't explain it because they'd ALL have to
        > be involved (i.e., not just the sugar lobby, in regards to Stevia,
        > but also, everything else (i.e., water, pesticides, etc.)
        >
        > Thanks, Tony
        >
        > My 2 cents - I think Deer Park water is the best bottled water.
        >
        > PS Could anyone tell me what other foods that I should be wary of?
        > PS 2 I need prayer. Thanks.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Sean Maley
        ... Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives surpluses. Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear
        Message 3 of 8 , May 26, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- chosen1446 <chosen1446@...> wrote:
          > Stevia, Fluoride, MSG
          >
          > Could anyone give me a believable & sensible reason WHY our food
          > supply (across the whole spectrum) is being poisoned?
          >
          > For example, our grandmothers matured at much latter ages (before the
          > use of growth hormones in our meat supply).
          >
          > Special interest groups don't explain it because they'd ALL have to
          > be involved (i.e., not just the sugar lobby, in regards to Stevia,
          > but also, everything else (i.e., water, pesticides, etc.)
          >
          > Thanks, Tony

          Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives surpluses.
          Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear that the military/aristocracy would
          become corrupted and power would shift to whomever created the best logic, or story, that kept
          people working like the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist religions (you suffer today for salvation
          tomorrow and take pity on your soul for not working hard). It's no mistake that "savages" were
          prime targets for the slave trade, or the state that looses the war gets to work the fields for
          both.

          How do we get away from this economic system, which only a few can benefit while the rest of us
          slog stones up the pyramid? This is a fundamentally cultural issue based, initially, upon the
          concept of agriculture. What you see at the store isn't what you should settle eating. Going it
          alone isn't going to be helpful either. By banding together in a tribal fashion we can establish
          our own rhizomes for living outside of the hierarchy. This isn't even about living communally,
          but rather about "making a living" together in small groups like in a circus; one for all and all
          for one.

          For some, it would be easier to support the tribe if the tribe could secure homes for it's
          members, as land ownership economics prevails around us while we establish this new/old culture.
          This could be in one community (ecovillage/IC model) or split between various city and country
          locations (a tribal network), depending upon the families involved. A charitable network to
          coordinate tribes would also be helpful to getting the rhizome collective started in your area.
          For further information, you can check out what other people are doing:

          http://www.newtribalventures.com
          http://www.jeffvail.net
          http://www.anthropik.com

          For how the land ownership pyramid works:

          http://henrygeorge.org/rent1.htm

          >
          > My 2 cents - I think Deer Park water is the best bottled water.
          >
          > PS Could anyone tell me what other foods that I should be wary of?
          > PS 2 I need prayer. Thanks.

          I prefer Poland Springs

          Beware of any, even "organic", food bought at a store (selected for appearance and shelf life, not
          nutritional value)

          Beware of prayer, unless you can resolve it into a rhizome context. The dominion meme creeps in
          on this concept, so this whole concept can nuke a person's religious beliefs. It is for this
          reason that the word "antichrist" slips into the discussion, as in "The Story of B" by Daniel
          Quinn.


          -Sean.

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • pattyfastforward
          ... Decades ago insects were known to wipe out entire crops. The amount of plants per acerage was much less back then compared to today. By using pesticides
          Message 4 of 8 , May 26, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In pfaf@yahoogroups.com, "chosen1446" <chosen1446@...> wrote:
            >
            > Stevia, Fluoride, MSG
            >
            > Could anyone give me a believable & sensible reason WHY our food
            > supply (across the whole spectrum) is being poisoned?
            >
            > For example, our grandmothers matured at much latter ages (before the
            > use of growth hormones in our meat supply).
            >
            > Special interest groups don't explain it because they'd ALL have to
            > be involved (i.e., not just the sugar lobby, in regards to Stevia,
            > but also, everything else (i.e., water, pesticides, etc.)
            >
            > Thanks, Tony
            >
            > My 2 cents - I think Deer Park water is the best bottled water.
            >
            > PS Could anyone tell me what other foods that I should be wary of?
            > PS 2 I need prayer. Thanks.
            >

            Decades ago insects were known to wipe out entire crops. The amount of
            plants per acerage was much less back then compared to today. By using
            pesticides and fertilizers, the farmer could raise a lot more crops on
            that one acre. And when was the last time you heard of locusts eating
            entire fields?

            As for hormones - again, way back when there were no refrigerators. To
            eat beef, you had to cook it for hours or age it. Aging requires
            somewhere around 36 degrees for 2 weeks. The alternative is feeding
            the beef corn and marbling the fat. It's cheaper to give the cow corn.
            And the hormones will take a calf to market in quit a lot less time
            then just feeding it for years. Also, they get paid by the pound, and
            the hormones make the cattle fatter faster. Faster return on their
            investment.

            As for food: chickens have a lot of germs on them because of
            processing. Some don't. Hard to know when you're in the grocery store.
            Veggies that have been fertilized with cow manure may have ecoli on
            them. Face it - unless you grow it yourself or know the farmer that
            grows all this - you have no idea what you're eating.
          • Gloria C. Baikauskas
            ... Insects only invade plants that are in some way stressed. In the years that hordes of insects, i.e.,locusts, grasshoppers, destroyed entire crops it was
            Message 5 of 8 , May 27, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In pfaf@yahoogroups.com, "pattyfastforward"
              <pattyfastforward@...> wrote:
              >
              Insects only invade plants that are in some way stressed. In the
              years that hordes of insects, i.e.,locusts, grasshoppers, destroyed
              entire crops it was usually a drought year, or years. These crops
              would most likely have been a loss anyway.

              If instead the crops had been mulched in some way, instead of soil
              laid bare by the plow/tilling, it might not have been so
              devastating. Not just because there would have been less moisture
              loss, but also because predator insects, the natural enemies of the
              invading ones, would have had a place to hide so they could better
              attack.

              If companion plants had been in the fields that would have attracted
              the right kind of birds, the insect hordes would also have been
              nulled to a large factor.

              We create deserts by the way we plant....or in many cases now did
              plant. The soil blows off in the wind now in drought years just as
              it did in the 1930s in the US.

              In the devastated corn crop in California a few years back it was
              finally noticed that when the wheat straw had been left on the field
              instead of removed, or plowed into the soil, the whiteflies that
              spread the disease were stopped by their natural predators who did
              hide in that same wheat straw. Only those farms with the wheat straw
              on the soil were unaffected by the devastation. The rest lost
              everything. Even their chemical sprays did them no use.

              It is not whether we should use these things on our food. It is that
              we need to be better stewards of the land...learn to farm/garden in a
              better way that means we will not need such sprays....organic, or
              not.

              Gloria, Texas
              USA

              > Decades ago insects were known to wipe out entire crops. The amount
              of
              > plants per acerage was much less back then compared to today. By
              using
              > pesticides and fertilizers, the farmer could raise a lot more crops
              on
              > that one acre. And when was the last time you heard of locusts
              eating
              > entire fields?
              >
              > As for hormones - again, way back when there were no refrigerators.
              To
              > eat beef, you had to cook it for hours or age it. Aging requires
              > somewhere around 36 degrees for 2 weeks. The alternative is feeding
              > the beef corn and marbling the fat. It's cheaper to give the cow
              corn.
              > And the hormones will take a calf to market in quit a lot less time
              > then just feeding it for years. Also, they get paid by the pound,
              and
              > the hormones make the cattle fatter faster. Faster return on their
              > investment.
              >
              > As for food: chickens have a lot of germs on them because of
              > processing. Some don't. Hard to know when you're in the grocery
              store.
              > Veggies that have been fertilized with cow manure may have ecoli on
              > them. Face it - unless you grow it yourself or know the farmer that
              > grows all this - you have no idea what you're eating.
              >
            • Pat Meadows
              ... I don t know all that much about Christianity or Judaism, but that is a *total, complete misconception* of Buddhism. To the exact contrary, the Buddha
              Message 6 of 8 , May 28, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

                >Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives surpluses.
                >Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear that the military/aristocracy would
                >become corrupted and power would shift to whomever created the best logic, or story, that kept
                >people working like the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist religions (you suffer today for salvation
                >tomorrow and take pity on your soul for not working hard).

                I don't know all that much about Christianity or Judaism,
                but that is a *total, complete misconception* of Buddhism.

                To the exact contrary, the Buddha taught that suffering can
                be overcome in this life, in this world, and he taught his
                students the way to overcome suffering.

                Pat
                --
                Gardening in northern Pennsylvania.

                Eat local food, change the world for the better!
              • Sean Maley
                ... But there is suffering that must be overcome for some reason. Why should there have to be suffering? To an Australian Aboriginal, why should they care to
                Message 7 of 8 , May 29, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Pat Meadows <pat@...> wrote:
                  > On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
                  >
                  > >Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives
                  > surpluses.
                  > >Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear that the military/aristocracy would
                  > >become corrupted and power would shift to whomever created the best logic, or story, that kept
                  > >people working like the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist religions (you suffer today for salvation
                  > >tomorrow and take pity on your soul for not working hard).
                  >
                  > I don't know all that much about Christianity or Judaism,
                  > but that is a *total, complete misconception* of Buddhism.
                  >
                  > To the exact contrary, the Buddha taught that suffering can
                  > be overcome in this life, in this world, and he taught his
                  > students the way to overcome suffering.


                  But there is suffering that must be overcome for some reason. Why should there have to be
                  suffering? To an Australian Aboriginal, why should they care to distinguish further? They don't
                  see suffering as a part of everyday life, to be overcome for any reason. It is this conception of
                  necessary toil that distinguishes agriculture from hunter-gatherer/cultivator culture. It is an
                  important distinction, because agri-culture takes so much effort and must justify such effort,
                  while insisting the hunter-gatherer/cultivator culture is worst (which it isn't).

                  Nobody needs to be saved. We are fine the way we are.

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com
                • Pat Meadows
                  ... Buddhism doesn t teach that there should be suffering. It merely recognizes that it exists, and teaches the way to overcome it. If you don t recognize
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 30, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, 29 May 2006 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:


                    >
                    >
                    >But there is suffering that must be overcome for some reason. Why should there have to be
                    >suffering?

                    Buddhism doesn't teach that there 'should be' suffering. It
                    merely recognizes that it exists, and teaches the way to
                    overcome it.

                    If you don't recognize that suffering exists even among
                    non-agricultural peoples, we will have to agree to differ on
                    this point.

                    Non-agricultural peoples are not exempt from the laws of
                    physics or of biology: when one of them falls off a cliff
                    he breaks his legs, just as you and I would. He suffers
                    just as you and I would. Non-agricultural people die and
                    their children sometimes die too, and they experience grief
                    for their loved ones, just as you and I do.

                    Not all suffering is agriculture-related. I don't
                    personally accept agriculture as the cause of most human
                    suffering, but you may do so of course, if you wish.

                    It's a useless discussion, really, because the sad fact is
                    that there are billions of humans on the earth and there is
                    no other way to feed this many humans.

                    If you advocate a return to a hunter-gatherer way of life,
                    you must also advocate the die-off of billions of humans. I,
                    for one, am not willing to encourage that in any way.

                    Not only is this off-topic, it's silly and useless (in my
                    opinion) so you may have the last word; I have nothing else
                    to say on the subject.

                    Cheers,
                    Pat
                    --
                    Gardening in northern Pennsylvania.

                    Eat local food, change the world for the better!
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.