A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
and conventional food. The review was published in the
_American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1

On Jul 29, 2:57*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
> and conventional food. *The review was published in the
> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1

Ok.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
>A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
> and conventional food. The review was published in the
> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1


apples vs. oranges

It's not about the nutrition, its all about the chemicals/pesticides and
preservatives.

Mark Thorson said...

> A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
> and conventional food. The review was published in the
> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.


I remember Sheldon made a comment about organic food, five years or so ago
that was great!

I don't remember it verbatim...

"That only means your organic tomato ketchup has bugs in it."

HA!!!

Andy

Andy wrote:
> Mark Thorson said...
>
>> A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
>> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
>> and conventional food. The review was published in the
>> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>
>
> I remember Sheldon made a comment about organic food, five years or so ago
> that was great!
>
> I don't remember it verbatim...
>
> "That only means your organic tomato ketchup has bugs in it."
>
> HA!!!
>
> Andy

May be old, but it is still funny :-)

Bob

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
>A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
> and conventional food. The review was published in the
> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1



I've been saying for years there's no diference and I didn't need a study to
tell me so. They are still the same fruit and vegetables, but with the
label "organic" they command a higher price tag. Go figure.

Jill

"BD" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
>> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
>> and conventional food. The review was published in the
>> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>>
>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
>
>
> apples vs. oranges
>
> It's not about the nutrition, its all about the chemicals/pesticides and
> preservatives.
>

Tell me you've *never once* used a pesticide to get rid of bugs around your
house. Then perhaps you can tell me how to keep out Palmetto bugs, crickets
and spiders without spraying pescides. Same thing goes for a good crop of
vegetables.

Fresh fruits and vegetables don't contain preservatives. Hopefully by the
time they get to the market they won't have been half eaten by bugs (or Bugs
Bunny), too.

Jill

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:11:38 -0400, jmcquown wrote:

> "BD" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
>>> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
>>> and conventional food. The review was published in the
>>> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>>>
>>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
>>
>>
>> apples vs. oranges
>>
>> It's not about the nutrition, its all about the chemicals/pesticides and
>> preservatives.
>>
>
> Tell me you've *never once* used a pesticide to get rid of bugs around your
> house. Then perhaps you can tell me how to keep out Palmetto bugs, crickets
> and spiders without spraying pescides. Same thing goes for a good crop of
> vegetables.
>
> Fresh fruits and vegetables don't contain preservatives. Hopefully by the
> time they get to the market they won't have been half eaten by bugs (or Bugs
> Bunny), too.
>
> Jill

why would i live where cockroaches are so big they are required to file
flight plans?

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:11:38 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> "BD" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
>>>> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
>>>> and conventional food. The review was published in the
>>>> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
>>>
>>>
>>> apples vs. oranges
>>>
>>> It's not about the nutrition, its all about the chemicals/pesticides and
>>> preservatives.
>>>
>>
>> Tell me you've *never once* used a pesticide to get rid of bugs around
>> your
>> house. Then perhaps you can tell me how to keep out Palmetto bugs,
>> crickets
>> and spiders without spraying pescides. Same thing goes for a good crop
>> of
>> vegetables.
>>
>> Fresh fruits and vegetables don't contain preservatives. Hopefully by
>> the
>> time they get to the market they won't have been half eaten by bugs (or
>> Bugs
>> Bunny), too.
>>
>> Jill
>
> why would i live where cockroaches are so big they are required to file
> flight plans?
>
> your pal,
> blake


LOL They are indeed BIG and yes, they fly. They are disgusting. I mostly
only see them when they're dying because yes! I use pesticides.

Jill

On Jul 31, 11:29*am, blake murphy > wrote:

> why would i live where cockroaches are so big they are required to file
> flight plans?

I concur. Hereabouts, we use a good long freeze every winter to keep
the
bug population in check. I certainly wouldn't trade away my three
months of
cold if I had to put up with palmetto bugs, fire ants and the whole
dreary mess.

Let's see. Here's my insecticide usage:

1. Deet. Once so far this summer, even though it's been really wet.
2. I twice sprayed the garbage can with Raid something-or-other
because
flies had got into it and reproduced.
3. Wasp killer. I'm pretty sure we've killed a wasp nest this
summer.

Sometimes in a dry year we get black ants coming indoors. I use Terro
for that,
which IIRC is boric acid and sugar-water.

We found carpenter ants in a raggedy shed built onto the back of our
detached, concrete-block garage. Sprayed them to kingdom come.
This was in... 2006? I think they're back. If they eat the shed,
I'll
have an excuse to demolish it.

We get spiders in the house, but hunting them gives my husband
something fun to do.

We usually get one cricket in the basement. Drives me batty, but
I'm not about to unleash pesticide in my house just for one dumb
cricket. (I once worked for a lab that raised frogs, and raised
crickets to feed the frogs. I'm pretty cricket-friendly.)

I've never felt the need to spray my vegetable garden. Once in a
while
the rosebush needs it. Come to think of it, I was intending to use
the
rosebush stuff on my raspberry canes when they quit bearing; they look
all fungusy and hardly bore any fruit this year.

Cindy Hamilton
Hanging in there until October,
when the weather becomes civil again
60 F = comfortable
70 F = warm
80 F = hot
85 F = damned hot
90 F = hot as the hinges of Hell
95 F = hot as Satan's jockstrap
>95 = This is nothing; when I was a kid, it got REALLY hot.

On Jul 29, 5:57*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
> and conventional food. *The review was published in the
> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1

I never considered nutrition as a reason to eat organic vs
conventional. It's the lack of pesticides and petro-derived
fertilizers involved in their growth that make me consider organic
the more interesting of the two options.

maxine in ri

On Jul 31, 1:46*pm, Cindy Hamilton >
wrote:
> On Jul 31, 11:29*am, blake murphy > wrote:
>
> > why would i live where cockroaches are so big they are required to file
> > flight plans?
>
> I concur. *Hereabouts, we use a good long freeze every winter to keep
> the
> bug population in check. *I certainly wouldn't trade away my three
> months of
> cold if I had to put up with palmetto bugs, fire ants and the whole
> dreary mess.

And Thus far this year, I've used a citronella spray for walking in
the evening, the vacuum for the crumbs the ants go for, and the vacuum
for the spiders. Nobody else invaded my house.

maxine in ri

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:20:51 -0700 (PDT), maxine >
wrote:

>On Jul 29, 5:57*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
>> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
>> and conventional food. *The review was published in the
>> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>>
>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
>
>I never considered nutrition as a reason to eat organic vs
>conventional. It's the lack of pesticides and petro-derived
>fertilizers involved in their growth that make me consider organic
>the more interesting of the two options.
>
>maxine in ri

Agreed. As a small farmer who uses no insecticides, I think the
greatest reason to urge organic is that the enormous fields of crop
that are routinely sprayed with nasty pesticides are really ruinous to
the earth---for a really long time. I admit I don't always buy
organic, but if it's about the same cost, I do. (COSTCO has some
really good organic hamburger- in one pound sizes, that I do prefer,
and when I see it, I buy plenty.)

So organic is good for the soil, more so apparently than it is for
human nutrition.

aloha,
Cea

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:49:35 -1000, pure kona > wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:20:51 -0700 (PDT), maxine >
>wrote:
>
>>On Jul 29, 5:57*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>> A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
>>> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
>>> and conventional food. *The review was published in the
>>> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>>>
>>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
>>
>>I never considered nutrition as a reason to eat organic vs
>>conventional. It's the lack of pesticides and petro-derived
>>fertilizers involved in their growth that make me consider organic
>>the more interesting of the two options.
>>
>>maxine in ri
>
>Agreed. As a small farmer who uses no insecticides, I think the
>greatest reason to urge organic is that the enormous fields of crop
>that are routinely sprayed with nasty pesticides are really ruinous to
>the earth---for a really long time. I admit I don't always buy
>organic, but if it's about the same cost, I do. (COSTCO has some
>really good organic hamburger- in one pound sizes, that I do prefer,
>and when I see it, I buy plenty.)


So you're saying the beef was organic? Did the farmer not inoculate his herd
from diseases?

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:00:40 -0500, FliedLice > wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:49:35 -1000, pure kona > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:20:51 -0700 (PDT), maxine >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 29, 5:57*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>>> A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
>>>> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
>>>> and conventional food. *The review was published in the
>>>> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
>>>
>>>I never considered nutrition as a reason to eat organic vs
>>>conventional. It's the lack of pesticides and petro-derived
>>>fertilizers involved in their growth that make me consider organic
>>>the more interesting of the two options.
>>>
>>>maxine in ri
>>
>>Agreed. As a small farmer who uses no insecticides, I think the
>>greatest reason to urge organic is that the enormous fields of crop
>>that are routinely sprayed with nasty pesticides are really ruinous to
>>the earth---for a really long time. I admit I don't always buy
>>organic, but if it's about the same cost, I do. (COSTCO has some
>>really good organic hamburger- in one pound sizes, that I do prefer,
>>and when I see it, I buy plenty.)
>
>
>So you're saying the beef was organic? Did the farmer not inoculate his herd
>from diseases?

Basically, Yes.
http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/OrganicBeef.html

Ross.

On Jul 31, 5:00*pm, FliedLice > wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:49:35 -1000, pure kona > wrote:
> >On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:20:51 -0700 (PDT), maxine >
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Jul 29, 5:57*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >>> A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
> >>> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
> >>> and conventional food. *The review was published in the
> >>> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>
> >>>http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
>
> >>I never considered nutrition as a reason to eat organic vs
> >>conventional. *It's the lack of pesticides and petro-derived
> >>fertilizers *involved in their growth that make me consider organic
> >>the more interesting of the two options.
>
> >>maxine in ri
>
> >Agreed. *As a small farmer who uses no insecticides, I think the
> >greatest reason to urge organic is that the enormous fields of crop
> >that are routinely sprayed with nasty pesticides are really ruinous to
> >the earth---for a really long time. *I admit I don't always buy
> >organic, but if it's about the same cost, I do. *(COSTCO has some
> >really good organic hamburger- in one pound sizes, that I do prefer,
> >and when I see it, I buy plenty.)
>
> So you're saying the beef was organic? Did the farmer not inoculate his herd
> from diseases?

Organic meat comes from animals that are fed their "natural" diet with
no antibiotics or hormones. Natural for a cow or sheep would be grass
fed, not finished off with corn and soy. It's a bit riskier for the
farmer who grows the animals, since illness will cull his herd and can
sometimes wipe them out, but the animals are healthier and need less
meds if they are not cooped up in a feed lot or forced to grow
rapidly. E coli is less of a concern as well, since the animals have
not been standing knee deep in manure for their last few weeks.

maxine in ri

On Jul 31, 1:23*pm, maxine > wrote:
> On Jul 31, 1:46*pm, Cindy Hamilton >
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 31, 11:29*am, blake murphy > wrote:
>
> > > why would i live where cockroaches are so big they are required to file
> > > flight plans?
>
> > I concur. *Hereabouts, we use a good long freeze every winter to keep
> > the
> > bug population in check. *I certainly wouldn't trade away my three
> > months of
> > cold if I had to put up with palmetto bugs, fire ants and the whole
> > dreary mess.
>
> And Thus far this year, I've used a citronella spray for walking in
> the evening, the vacuum for the crumbs the ants go for, and the vacuum
> for the spiders. *Nobody else invaded my house.
>
> maxine in ri

I'm jealous! In Wisconsin it is 6 months of cold.

However, aside from the mosquitos that blot out the sun and blacken
the skies from mid-summer to the first freeze, the insects don't
bother me much.

-J

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:24:34 -0400, wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:00:40 -0500, FliedLice > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:49:35 -1000, pure kona > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:20:51 -0700 (PDT), maxine >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jul 29, 5:57*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>>>> A recent review of 162 papers published in peer-reviewed journals
>>>>> found no significant difference in nutrition between organic
>>>>> and conventional food. *The review was published in the
>>>>> _American_Journal_of_Clinical_Nutrition.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
>>>>
>>>>I never considered nutrition as a reason to eat organic vs
>>>>conventional. It's the lack of pesticides and petro-derived
>>>>fertilizers involved in their growth that make me consider organic
>>>>the more interesting of the two options.
>>>>
>>>>maxine in ri
>>>
>>>Agreed. As a small farmer who uses no insecticides, I think the
>>>greatest reason to urge organic is that the enormous fields of crop
>>>that are routinely sprayed with nasty pesticides are really ruinous to
>>>the earth---for a really long time. I admit I don't always buy
>>>organic, but if it's about the same cost, I do. (COSTCO has some
>>>really good organic hamburger- in one pound sizes, that I do prefer,
>>>and when I see it, I buy plenty.)
>>
>>
>>So you're saying the beef was organic? Did the farmer not inoculate his herd
>>from diseases?
>
>Basically, Yes.
>http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/OrganicBeef.html
>
>Ross.

Thanks Ross. I assumed so but did not take the time to research and
argue back.

aloha,
Cea

On Jul 31, 7:47*pm, "U.N." > wrote:

> I'm jealous! *In Wisconsin it is 6 months of cold.

I live in southeast Michigan, which might be a tad warmer than
Wisconsin, but not a lot. I just Googled, and I don't know
whereabouts you are, but it seems to be about 10 degrees
colder in Eau Claire in the winter than it is here in Ann Arbor.
I see the summers are nearly the same, though. I would still
call that three months of cold weather, since October and
March averages are in the 40s. That's perfectly acceptable
"put on a sweatshirt and work outdoors" weather (provided
it's dry out).

I mean 3 months of actual cold weather. December, January, and
February,
whose average highs are actually in the low 30s.

It's just fooling around in November and March (average highs in the
40s).

October and May are the best two months here, with average highs in
the low 60s
to low 70s, respectively.

April is "When will the ground dry out so I can get some work done out
there?"

The rest of the year it's warm to hot, and I have to force myself to
go outside
when I'd rather sit in the air-conditioning and read.

Cindy Hamilton