What's so special about organic food?

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-05-04 08:36pm

To claim that all scientific studies have found that consuming synthetic hormones and steroids over the long-term is safe would be ... well, either a fabrication or ignorance.

No only a grossly obscene majority. Let's be honest here the concentration of hormones in beef is less than that in soy. When I say that you ingest more hormones from naturally occuring cabbage than artificial beef I mean that literally. I have yet to find a major scientific body convened any where in the world, even the ones the EU created ad hoc when dicking around with the WTO, that showed any harm from beef hormones.

So the only question would be, how much do you want to participate involuntarily in agri-business's longterm studies on human health? What level of risk will you accept on the health of the only body you're ever going to have? I know for a fact that my species didn't evolve eating synthetic hormones ... so should I fuel my body with what its systems naturally evolved to consume, or just roll the dice on whatever additives Archer-Daniels-Midland wants to use to improve their profit margin?

Then I suggest you never use prescription drugs, eat soy, and sure as hell tell all your female relations to go off the pill. The majority synthetic hormones humans consume are part and parcel of female contraception, even ignoring those blatently obvious examples the pharmacopedia is littered with synthetic hormones where the hell do you think the name Synthroid came from?

As far as rolling the dice. You do that with organic food as well. Only instead of it being a synthetic chemical with government monitoring and regulation it is fecal matter without regulation or oversight. Adm. V is obsolutely correct, manure brings all sorts of nasty pathogens. Stastically it is expected that the literal crap used in organic farming would take more months off your life than the figurative crap used in chemical farming.

I'm not saying 'ban non-organic foods', that's as ridiculous as saying 'ban all foods but vegetables' .... people have to eat. But just as I choose to avoid fast food whenever possible because it's basically crap, I do exercise my options to cut down the unknown risks of ingesting synthetic additives when I have the opportunity to do so.

I choose to minimize KNOWN risks. Chemicals have to be consumed in quantity, taken up through the GI tract lining, dick over something in the body, and not be excreted or metabolized before they can do it - and that all assumes that it further managed to ellude detection by oversight scientists. Manure carries finely honed pathogens that have bloody optimized genetics for doing exactly that. Organic has known risks, chemicals have unknown risks; guess which one I weight most heavily?

And if really given a choice I take GM foods over chemical production. But then I make my dietary choices based on this wonderful thing called peer reviewed science.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-05-04 08:37pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Chmee wrote:You brought 'em up, not me. Under this administration, we have less oversight of industry than ever ... I mean, that's the mandate of this administration from their financial backers -- 'Don't get in the way' ... I guess I could as blithely ignore that as some people would have me ignore my diet, but I was raised to think critically, not to take everything on faith from people who have *their* interests in mind, not mine.
Blame Bush, how origional. Did you even bother to look at the dates from a large portion of the studies cited, or are you suggesting that Bush corrupted the USDA while governor of Texas?

And people have been getting cancer for thousands of years now. If you are so concerned about this 'new' phantom menace then perhaps you should stay home hiding behind your tin foil hat.

And I'm still waiting for you to post some kind of reputable study saying how nonorganic foods are evil. I'm two hours ahead of you and I have an early wakeup tommorow, by bedtime grows near.

People have not been getting prostate cancer at this *rate* for even a hundred years, its incidence is exploding, and not (so far as the studies say) from better detection methods. People get certain types of cancers far more frequently now than they ever did ... please don't confuse the issue with red herrings, I never said, implied, or remotely suggested that all cancers were somehow a new human creation, so don't weaken your position by fabricating mine.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-05-04 08:40pm

Organic foods.. ugh. It's primarilly a placebo thing. You want to pay extra money to get the exact same thing, but stamped with DELUXE! on it? Go for it. It's your money you're throwing away. Really, the kind of arguments that are for Organic food are similar to those against genetically engineered crops. Just because it's made with natural products does not mean it's good for you. Evolution is not by any means perfect.

Your body also is such a resillient thing, that whatever trace amounts of fertilizer/hormones seems to be fairly fine for the general population. I probably should go look up some research sometimes, but really, just because it's 'not natural' doesn't mean it's harmful. Studies that cite health differences have other factors. People who eat almost exclusively organic food have options available to them due to affluence more than everyone else. People who suffer from hormone imbalances from proccessed beef are eating way, way too much of that crap than what'd be good for them anyway. All in all, Organic Food is effectively just a tag to convey a sense of being a superior product, without having any real effects or improved quality at all.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-05-04 08:40pm

Chmee wrote:please don't confuse the issue with red herrings, I never said, implied, or remotely suggested that all cancers were somehow a new human creation, so don't weaken your position by fabricating mine.

You mean 'I'm scared of the big cows and it's Bush's fault', or are you refering to some other yet to be stated position?

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-05-04 08:42pm

if you wanted only the cheapest & most efficient means of delivering calories to humans you wouldn't feed millions of tons of feed grain to cows, you'd feed it to people.

No you'd culture bacteria and yeast in large scale production and eat a broth of simple nutrients. In any event you are BS'ing about the grain and cows, grains inedible to humans tend to be far cheaper and more prevalent than human grain. Cows, sheep, goats, and pigs can thrive on grasses that are a terrible human diet. If you wanted to feed people cheaply with "real" food, you'd grow grain in the fields and pasture rudiments on marginal grassland.

But people like meat, so we use some rather inefficient processes to produce it ... that's okay with me, it's the free market at work.

Nobody is saying people shouldn't be allowed to eat organic food. We are all just saying that those who indulge in the fantasy that it is healthier are not thinking straight.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-05-04 08:46pm

People have not been getting prostate cancer at this *rate* for even a hundred years, its incidence is exploding, and not (so far as the studies say) from better detection methods. People get certain types of cancers far more frequently now than they ever did ... please don't confuse the issue with red herrings, I never said, implied, or remotely suggested that all cancers were somehow a new human creation, so don't weaken your position by fabricating mine.

Yeah because a hundred years ago not enough people lived long enough to get them

Humans are mortal creatures, if you reduce one cause of death - like say smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, pulminary disease, bacterial infection, etc. - something else takes its place.

Sure some are caused by human efforts, but that only means that we should be able to find evidence when that is the case.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-05-04 08:50pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Chmee wrote:please don't confuse the issue with red herrings, I never said, implied, or remotely suggested that all cancers were somehow a new human creation, so don't weaken your position by fabricating mine.
You mean 'I'm scared of the big cows and it's Bush's fault', or are you refering to some other yet to be stated position?

Even further from the mark ... can we move this to Fanfics? I mean, as long as the point is just to make thngs up and attribute them to people randomly? Here's another example of that:

Wicked Pilot wrote:And I'm still waiting for you to post some kind of reputable study saying how nonorganic foods are evil.

Shit, don't hold your breath waiting, go to bed, because you used the word evil, not me ... what's the point of so completely distorting what I said? How does it add to the discussion? It just drags it off into a tangent ... dull and counterproductive to understanding any issue.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2005-05-04 09:07pm

I eat organic when I can (college...) for a number of reasons. Partly because I do think there is some kind of benefit in not eating things grown on growth hormones, scared out of their minds prior to slaughter, not soaked in chemicals designed to kill various pests etc. For all I know the overall effect on my health is zero either way, but I can tell you this: the taste is better. It simply is. Even if those chemicals do me no harm, they do taste like shit, and that is reason enough to switch.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-05-04 09:53pm

Chmee wrote:People have not been getting prostate cancer at this *rate* for even a hundred years, its incidence is exploding, and not (so far as the studies say) from better detection methods. People get certain types of cancers far more frequently now than they ever did ... please don't confuse the issue with red herrings, I never said, implied, or remotely suggested that all cancers were somehow a new human creation, so don't weaken your position by fabricating mine.

People are also living a LOT longer now than they did even at the turn of the century. Since cancer deaths are concentrated in the elderly, it makes perfect sense for a population with a larger proportion of elderly individuals to have a higher risk of dying of cancer, particularly since deaths from diseases have gone down with the advent of things like immunizations, antibiotics, hospitals, etc.

Remember: your goal in this debate is to somehow show that organic foods are safer than non-organic ones, despite the fact that virtually no studies from reputable sources suggest that they make any difference, and some studies even show that they're MORE dangerous. Saying, "You haven't convinced me" seems to be one of your trademark arguments, but it's not sufficient to win a debate on this website.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-05-04 10:14pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Chmee wrote:People have not been getting prostate cancer at this *rate* for even a hundred years, its incidence is exploding, and not (so far as the studies say) from better detection methods. People get certain types of cancers far more frequently now than they ever did ... please don't confuse the issue with red herrings, I never said, implied, or remotely suggested that all cancers were somehow a new human creation, so don't weaken your position by fabricating mine.
People are also living a LOT longer now than they did even at the turn of the century. Since cancer deaths are concentrated in the elderly, it makes perfect sense for a population with a larger proportion of elderly individuals to have a higher risk of dying of cancer, particularly since deaths from diseases have gone down with the advent of things like immunizations, antibiotics, hospitals, etc.

Remember: your goal in this debate is to somehow show that organic foods are safer than non-organic ones, despite the fact that virtually no studies from reputable sources suggest that they make any difference, and some studies even show that they're MORE dangerous. Saying, "You haven't convinced me" seems to be one of your trademark arguments, but it's not sufficient to win a debate on this website.

lol, now we've gone from people making up dialogue for me, to making up my goals.

I'm not having a debate, I'm discussing an issue ... since neither of us are Ph.D's in molecular biochemistry or related fields, the preposterous arrogance of any of us purporting to 'prove' anything is just comical.

I'm not trying to prove for all time a scientific point that (a) I'm not qualified to prove or (b) that hasn't been proved one way or the other in the scientific community in the first place. I'm describing my own reasoning for practicing the particular form of risk-avoidance that I practice. If you have some driving need to 'win' in every discussion you have, go for it, but go without me, I've never had a discussion that proved particularly interesting or informative that way. If I got a particular thrill out of hearing people stroke their egos by claiming to 'win' arguments through insult and disinformation I would have stayed in litigation.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-05-04 10:30pm

The Silence and I wrote:I eat organic when I can (college...) for a number of reasons. Partly because I do think there is some kind of benefit in not eating things grown on growth hormones, scared out of their minds prior to slaughter, not soaked in chemicals designed to kill various pests etc. For all I know the overall effect on my health is zero either way, but I can tell you this: the taste is better. It simply is. Even if those chemicals do me no harm, they do taste like shit, and that is reason enough to switch.

You pay more for a difference that's in your head. Case closed.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-05-04 10:38pm

. I'm describing my own reasoning for practicing the particular form of risk-avoidance that I practice.

In other words inventing possible boogeymen, even when every major conference convened to look into the issue comes up negative.

Frankly you have the proven risk of easting feces on one hand vs the unproven risk that pesticides cause cancer more than the air you breathe. Add in the cost differential and you aren't avoiding risk, you are running towards it.

If you like organic because you like the brand or the taste, fine whatever. Just don't try to pretend that organic foods are safer.

since neither of us are Ph.D's in molecular biochemistry or related fields, the preposterous arrogance of any of us purporting to 'prove' anything is just comical.

I'm getting there and we have several other posters who study or work in the biological sciences. Thus far those who would know about this stuff correctly think you are deluding yourself.

A quick question how many articles published by PhD's in peer reviewed journals would it require for you to be convinced, for instance, that growth hormones don't carry an appreciable health risk (any more than say peanuts)?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-05-05 12:05am

Chmee wrote:lol, now we've gone from people making up dialogue for me, to making up my goals.

I'm not having a debate, I'm discussing an issue ... since neither of us are Ph.D's in molecular biochemistry or related fields, the preposterous arrogance of any of us purporting to 'prove' anything is just comical.

God damn, you're an idiot, Chmee. Do you not realize that when you post an opinion on this board you are required to back it up? There's no arrogance in demanding that you cite a study which supports your bullshit reasoning.

I'm not trying to prove for all time a scientific point that (a) I'm not qualified to prove or (b) that hasn't been proved one way or the other in the scientific community in the first place.

Unfortunately, numerous studies have ALREADY BEEN CITED HERE which cast your original argument into severe doubt. Unless you come up with something, your position has been effectively destroyed.

I'm describing my own reasoning for practicing the particular form of risk-avoidance that I practice.

And your reasoning is absolute bullshit because it is based on utterly false premises.

If you have some driving need to 'win' in every discussion you have, go for it, but go without me, I've never had a discussion that proved particularly interesting or informative that way. If I got a particular thrill out of hearing people stroke their egos by claiming to 'win' arguments through insult and disinformation I would have stayed in litigation.

Oh, yes, great. "I don't want to debate. I just want to post my bullshit and run away after it's destroyed by other posters." Is there a reason why we keep you around?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-05-05 12:14am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Chmee wrote:lol, now we've gone from people making up dialogue for me, to making up my goals.

I'm not having a debate, I'm discussing an issue ... since neither of us are Ph.D's in molecular biochemistry or related fields, the preposterous arrogance of any of us purporting to 'prove' anything is just comical.
God damn, you're an idiot, Chmee. Do you not realize that when you post an opinion on this board you are required to back it up? There's no arrogance in demanding that you cite a study which supports your bullshit reasoning.

Actually what I've observed on this board is that many active posters are more than capable of having a reasoned discussion with someone of an opposing viewpoint and act their age ... and some aren't. The ones who can't, you'll notice I don't maintain conversations with them for very long.

I'm sort of old school, I do tend to agree with that philosophy that winning an 'argument' on the internet is a lot like winning a Special Olympics race .... I'm sure you now how that saying goes.

I could get into a 'war of the experts' with you in 10 seconds of Googling, but what would it prove? Nada. That I can Google and you can Google ... congrats, I'll concede that you're capable of that. I should hope so. If you're saying that this war of the experts would provide either of us with a definitive and incontrovertible answer on the long-term effects of these substances on human biochemistry (and I don't mean less than a generation when I say long-term), I'd say you're fooling yourself.

30 years ago, you could have been pointing to studies that 'proved' tobacco was harmless, and today people wonder what kind of idiot you had to be to believe that. Given the alarming rise in morbid obesity in this country, it's clear that a lot of people are even more oblivious on the issue of nutrition than they were on nicotine ... one can only hope they don't pay a similarly catastrophic price for that.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-05-05 12:48am

Chmee wrote:Actually what I've observed on this board is that many active posters are more than capable of having a reasoned discussion with someone of an opposing viewpoint and act their age ... and some aren't. The ones who can't, you'll notice I don't maintain conversations with them for very long.

No one has ever claimed SD.net is a friendly place, and it's particularly unfriendly to intellectual cowards like yourself who use guerrilla debating techniques to escape whenever they hold an untenable position.

I'm sort of old school, I do tend to agree with that philosophy that winning an 'argument' on the internet is a lot like winning a Special Olympics race .... I'm sure you now how that saying goes.

I could get into a 'war of the experts' with you in 10 seconds of Googling, but what would it prove? Nada. That I can Google and you can Google ...

It would show that there's a study which actually supports your position, and would establish that your argument has at least a minimal amount of validity. I'm old school, too, fuckwit, in that I demand evidence to prevent people from bullshitting randomly.

congrats, I'll concede that you're capable of that. I should hope so. If you're saying that this war of the experts would provide either of us with a definitive and incontrovertible answer on the long-term effects of these substances on human biochemistry (and I don't mean less than a generation when I say long-term), I'd say you're fooling yourself.

Here's a thought: IF YOU HAD ANYTHING TO BACK UP YOUR BULLSHIT, YOU WOULD SHOW THAT YOU AREN'T BEING AS FUCKING STUPID WITH REGARDS TO ORGANIC FOOD AS IT SEEMS TO EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD THAT YOU ARE. It would establish that you have at least some reason to hold to your precious views. It's hard to get into a "war of experts" if there isn't even any evidence that one side has an expert!

30 years ago, you could have been pointing to studies that 'proved' tobacco was harmless, and today people wonder what kind of idiot you had to be to believe that.

Great, let's attack the validity of science in an effort to distract from the point that NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT.

Given the alarming rise in morbid obesity in this country, it's clear that a lot of people are even more oblivious on the issue of nutrition than they were on nicotine ... one can only hope they don't pay a similarly catastrophic price for that.

Ah, yes, when someone else points out that organic foods may actually be dangerous respond that some people are morbidly obese. And you wonder why I'm calling you out on this: your position is logically untenable.

You know that bullshit evasions like, "Studies a long time ago were wrong" and "I don't debate people who aren't nice to me" don't work on SD.net, Chmee. If you're going to continue to hide behind your little smokescreens then we have no use for you here.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-05-05 01:05am

You know, whoever told you that cussin' more made you look smarter ... they were lieing.

So ... skipping past all the emotional hyperbole ... here's why it's not a debate, which I guess I didn't make clear enough: I never said there was definitive proof of cancer causation, I said that -- for me -- the data is not conclusive enough at this point for me to believe that the risk is acceptable -- for me. I don't shoot steroids and hormones in daily life, and so it seems logical to me to avoid ingesting them when I can ... simple as that.

For you, the data is conclusive enough that you think the risk is acceptable. That's great ... your decision. But this could only be a debate if we were taking opposing factual sides, me claiming cerrtainty on one view and you on the opposite ... and we don't. You have your personal risk calculation, and I have mine. You disagree with mine. I get it. What you get out of making this a pissing match, I don't get, but rant away if that's what helps you get your ya-ya's out.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-05-05 02:01am

Chmee wrote:But this could only be a debate if we were taking opposing factual sides, me claiming cerrtainty on one view and you on the opposite ... and we don't.

Wow, you've backpedaled so fast you can't even remember where you started from.

Chmee wrote:Depends on your definition of organic and the food group ....

For me, with dairy and meats, it's mostly a lack of hormones and steroids in the animal. In vegetables, it's a lack of strong pesticides.

The advantage is ... well, putting less shit in my body.

Chmee wrote:lol ... that's like saying that people who buy BMW's are trying to rid the world of automobiles .... some of us are just willing to pay a little more for something that's safer and of higher quality.

Gee, those sound like pretty certain statements to me.

Chmee wrote:I know for a fact that my species didn't evolve eating synthetic hormones ... so should I fuel my body with what its systems naturally evolved to consume...

Oh hey because nature is always superior am i rite?

Even considering your less than stellar reputation, I would have expected better than a naturalistic fallacy. Guess what? Humanity evolved to deal with raw food, too, but I don't see you advocating that diet.

General Brock · Post by **General Brock** » 2005-05-05 02:48am

You pay more for food that has had nothing done to it. That's great marketing, if nothing else. People who prefer not to suppport cross-species tweaking, and excessive chemical residues in their food, should be able to make an informed choice on where they spend their grocery money.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2005-05-05 03:37am

My mother is a bit crazy about organic food, even though I've explained it to her numerous times.

Personally, I've had organic food that tastes better than normal food, and vice versa. If given a choice between foods, I'll usually go for the one with the lower price, although I do tend to prefer "natural" foods -- or at least foods that aren't crammed so full of preservatives that the ingredient label fills half the packaging. (Hormel, I'm looking at you!)

When it comes to paying $5.30/gallon of milk and paying $3.10/gallon, of course I'm going for the conventional milk. Two bucks does not justify no perceptible taste change, and besides, the conventional milk I get doesn't even come from cows given rBST anyway.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2005-05-05 09:36am

Stark wrote:
The Silence and I wrote:I eat organic when I can (college...) for a number of reasons. Partly because I do think there is some kind of benefit in not eating things grown on growth hormones, scared out of their minds prior to slaughter, not soaked in chemicals designed to kill various pests etc. For all I know the overall effect on my health is zero either way, but I can tell you this: the taste is better. It simply is. Even if those chemicals do me no harm, they do taste like shit, and that is reason enough to switch.
You pay more for a difference that's in your head. Case closed.

To be fair, the same could be said for someone that pics a PSP over DS. If he thinks they taste better, thats a perfectly valid reason for getting them when he can.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-05-05 09:55am

So Chmee's position can be basically summed up as "Organic food has a better sales pitch, so it must be better."

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-05-05 11:14am

I don't shoot steroids and hormones in daily life, and so it seems logical to me to avoid ingesting them when I can ... simple as that.

Banned foods for Chmee:
Cabbage
Soy
Dairy
Broccoli
Brussel Sprouts
Cauliflower
Garlic
Carrots
...

Hormones are a fact of life. Several of the beef hormones were isolated from plants, i.e. cabbage. The fact of the matter is cows, just like every other mammal, have working endocrine systems which catabolize and excrete hormones. Further much of the hormone dosage is in tissue not fit for human consumption (though some people like their gout). You get a far higher dose of hormones from plants than from beef.

The fact of the matter is I already cited two extremely high level scientific panels (UN and EU sponsored) which did massive meta reviews and their risk assessment is the same as mine. The experts have weighed in, your "risk avoidance" is BS.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-05-05 11:28am

The Silence and I wrote:I eat organic when I can (college...) for a number of reasons. Partly because I do think there is some kind of benefit in not eating things grown on growth hormones, scared out of their minds prior to slaughter, not soaked in chemicals designed to kill various pests etc. For all I know the overall effect on my health is zero either way, but I can tell you this: the taste is better. It simply is. Even if those chemicals do me no harm, they do taste like shit, and that is reason enough to switch.

do a blind taste test between the two and then tell me you can taste the difference.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-05-05 12:54pm

Chmee wrote:You know, whoever told you that cussin' more made you look smarter ... they were lieing.

No one ever told me that, dumbass. On this forum, though, we make fun of our stupid people--that means you.

So ... skipping past all the emotional hyperbole ... here's why it's not a debate, which I guess I didn't make clear enough: I never said there was definitive proof of cancer causation, I said that -- for me -- the data is not conclusive enough at this point for me to believe that the risk is acceptable -- for me.

Don't pull this bullshit with me, Chmee. You claimed that organic foods were safer without ANY evidence to suggest that that's true. You then went through a long series of evasions and half-answers designed to let yourself off the hook. If you don't think that there's any link between non-organic foods today and cancer rates then why did you bring it up? It's a total red herring.

I don't shoot steroids and hormones in daily life, and so it seems logical to me to avoid ingesting them when I can ... simple as that.

You don't eat plants like cabbage and soy?

For you, the data is conclusive enough that you think the risk is acceptable. That's great ... your decision. But this could only be a debate if we were taking opposing factual sides, me claiming cerrtainty on one view and you on the opposite ... and we don't.

You should have learned the subtleties of a zone defense when you were a kid. Cornerbacks are in hot demand in the NFL, and with your speed in backpedaling you could make millions anywhere in the League.

You compared buying organic foods to buying a BMW instead of a regular car in that, "some of us are just willing to pay a little more for something that's safer and of higher quality."

Unfortunately for you, you didn't bother to establish EITHER of those facts. Put up or shut up, Chmee. No one is buying your hippie bullshit. You also refused to accept studies run by the USDA during the Clinton era because under the BUSH administration "we have less oversight of industry than ever." Nevermind the fact that that is an utter lie. Never mind the fact that the Clinton era studies showed the same thing.

You have your personal risk calculation, and I have mine. You disagree with mine. I get it. What you get out of making this a pissing match, I don't get, but rant away if that's what helps you get your ya-ya's out.

Ah, yes, the retreat to "It's my opinion! You can't do shit about it!" This is classic trollery, Chmee. I don't know why I'd ever expect anything less from you.

As an added bonus, you're contradicting yourself yet again! Let's take a look at some old Chmee comments.

Chmee wrote:I'm not having a debate, I'm discussing an issue ... since neither of us are Ph.D's in molecular biochemistry or related fields, the preposterous arrogance of any of us purporting to 'prove' anything is just comical.

The problem is, YOU'RE THE ONE WHO'S IGNORING STUDIES DONE BY DOCTORS IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY! Sure, they work for the USDA, but it's an example of your "preposterous arrogance" that you would ignore them in your state of ignorance and just claim, "Yeah, uh... some experts agree with me."

Moreover, the fact that you haven't been able to Google up even a SINGLE authority in the field to support your position makes it abundantly clear who's winning this debate and who's lost. Your position, while it's your opinion, is still based in bullshit assumptions and so it can be utterly wrong.

Let's take a look at some behaviors that characterize a classic troll, and see if Chmee's done them on this thread.

Rejection of scientific work on the basis of unknown, unproven biases? Check.
Ignoring demands for evidence? Check.
Furious backpedaling? Check.
Whining about how other people aren't respecting him? Check.
Bringing up red-herrings just for the hell of it, later admitting that they have nothing to do with the subject? Check.
Setting up a smokescreen of lies? Check.

So remind me, Chmee, why do we bother to keep you around? Your contributions to this board can be summarized by copy-pasting the message "Bush is teh suxx0rs" in every N&P thread, and we already have Elfdart to tell us that in a more effective manner, too.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-05-05 01:23pm

This actually made for interesting conversation with my boss when she hopped on my bus during the commute today. I asked how much of her family's produce is organicc, figuring that with a doctor for a husband they'd have some opinions on it.

They buy about 1/3 organic, but the only thing they're really fanatical about getting 100% organic is milk ... mostly because they have 3 daughters under age 12 and there's a lot of concern atm about early-onset puberty being triggered by high hormone levels in milk. They like the boobies, but not in third grade, please.

MO -- no, I didn't read it, once you start the post off with more trolling rant, I just skip ahead to the next post ... continue without me.