Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(235)
-
▼
Aug 2009
(12)
- The Media and a Man
- Thank Bush
- When Police Become the Criminal
- To the Pure...
- Define It
- Nanny Statism Leads to Social Pathology
- Oh, To Be a Dog in England
- We are All Josh Hamilton
- There But For the Grace of God...
- Idolatry
- Reason #155 on Why Not to Trust Environmentalists
- Reason #154 on Why Not to Trust Environmentalists
-
▼
Aug 2009
(12)
Labels
Saturday, August 01, 2009
It was announced this week in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that... surprise, surprise... organic food is no healthier than normal conventionally-produced food. Don't ya love it when the science confirms your suspicions?
Labels:
Environmentalism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Here is why the study is flawed:
“This review does not address contaminant content (such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide residues) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs or the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural practices.”
One of the main reasons people consume organic food is to avoid "contaminant content". This is one of those studies where the desired outcome is predetermined. A holistic approach to determine whether organic food is better for you would address the reasons WHY it may be healthier. This is a straw man.
Also, there is no mention of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Organic food is not genetically modified, so you won't find fish genes in your corn or whatever. Another obvious benefit of consuming organic produce, unless you really don't care that there are companies out there trying to develop GMO food with vaccines in them and all other kinds of weirdness. The only way you know for sure you aren't consuming GM food is if its organic, since it is illegal to advertise that food does not contain GMOs.
I'm not an environmentalist, but chemical agriculture is obviously detrimental to the environment. Runoff from farms making its way into rivers and poisoning fish, etc. You don't have to worry about that with organic farms.
The whole chemical scare is silly for two reasons... one, organic farms use chemicals too (read this: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html) and two, which the above article mentions, many chemicals pose no danger to humans. It's irrational superstition that leads people to believe that genetically modified food is dangerous for you.
Well, I will admit that the long-term effects of GMOs are not known, but I scarcely think it is alarmist to assume the worst. We simply do not know what effects frankenfood will have, and there is a reason why. The reason is because Monsanto, BASF, Pioneer, and Syngenta forbid the tests as a precondition to purchasing their seeds, thus preventing independent research. But as you know, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Obviously these agribusiness companies are concerned that there could potentially be some problems that might affect their bottom line. If you don't mind being a guinea pig, that's your right. Heck, even if you want to get your family inoculated with the untested H1N1 vaccine, go right ahead. As long as you know the risks going in, have at it. But quite honestly, I don't think there is anything "irrational" or "superstitious" about not wanting to be a guinea pig.
And yeah, there are some chemicals that don't harm humans. And there are also some that do. True organic farms do not use chemicals. All the organic certifications that I know of do not allow the use of chemicals at all. Perhaps some do, but that would be the exception to the rule.
My brother actually works for Syngenta. :)
Darius, for all your love for the totality of Christian application to every area of life, I wonder seriously why you bark up these trees sometimes.
You're looking at a nation raised entirely on modified and processed foods, plagued with obesity, cancer, tooth decay, and a host of other ills, and you're going to parade around with how great non-organic foods are?
Food for Thought
Dave, the reason I "bark up these trees" is because people are following lies and I want to reveal those lies (whether it be global warming or other forms of environmentalism or multicult-driven moral relativism, or what not).
Case in point... the culture wants us to believe that not only is it healthier to eat organic, but also moral to do so. It's a scam (just like ethanol). Food is food, it's not what goes into a man that corrupts him but what comes out. We are all destined to die once, why chase after the things of this world while we're alive? I'm not "parading how great" non-organic food is (please show me where I did so), but the FACT that organic food eaters should drop the pretense of their own self-righteous digestion. Plenty of non-organic food is nasty or unhelpful to one's health; I wouldn't claim otherwise. But put a non-organic tomato against an organic tomato, they're equal (except I don't feel good about myself if I eat the non-organic, which is the point of the health craze idolatry).
By the way, this is coming from someone who grew up on "organic" vegetables and "organic" beef. My family had a huge garden and raised beef cattle. Never gave them one shot or used any pesticides on the garden. But we didn't go around telling everyone else how much morally better or healthier we were for it.
It's the religious fanaticism that is disconcerting to me, not the enjoyment of healthy food. You won't extend your life by one single second by eating an organic potato instead of some McDonald's french fries, just as you won't "save the earth" by using the new lightbulbs instead of the old kind. You may generally be healthier or spend less on electricity, but that's it.
Excerpt from the Huffington Post piece regarding this study:
"In the data reviewed, they found that organic food was superior to non-organic food in the measurements of beta-carotene by 53 percent and flavonoids by 38 percent, as well as in the amounts of phenolic compounds, protein, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulfur and zinc, all of which are required to foster complete nutrition.
The reviewers also reveal higher levels of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in organic meat and dairy products (between 2.1% - 27.8% higher) compared to non-organic meat and dairy."
Unless I'm missing something here, this seems to suggest that organic food actually may be better for you. Go figure.
"Food is food, it's not what goes into a man that corrupts him but what comes out."
Who is claiming that organic food actually makes you a more pious person? Nobody?
Right, organic food isn't going to make you go to heaven. It's that it's not poisonous like the processed "food" that they sell on the grocery store shelves. A shot of cyanide will not defile me, but it may kill me.
You're using the same dumb rhetoric that Rev. Wilson was using when talking about food. Nobody here is saying that inorganic food defiles you in the sense that our Lord was talking about. What we are saying is that processed food is bad for you. And it is. And organic food is objectively better for you. Fact. Period. You may have all the mainstream media sources and the Obama administration on your side here, but that's of little comfort to me.
"You won't extend your life by one single second by eating an organic potato instead of some McDonald's french fries"
Right, like you won't stop a flood by preventing a single drop of water from falling. This is correct. Because what we're talking about is not a rare indulgence but rather a lifestyle. A life of eating garbage will result in a life poorly and shortly lived. A life of eating foods that are minimally processed will lead a fuller, longer life. Nobody is saying that eating McDonald's defiles you. It's just not food.
"But put a non-organic tomato against an organic tomato, they're equal"
Actually, this is false. The organic tomato is usually much smaller and less red in appearance. And it tastes a lot better, and has 25 to 40% more nutrients than its genetically modified counterpart.
Actually, millions of people in the self-worship religion of health and exercise in our society talk like you are a much better person if you eat certain foods and avoid certain other ones (just see the Goode Family for a comical analysis of this tendency). The world goes after these things, Christians should not. They should transform the world, not succumb to its vices.
"A life of eating foods that are minimally processed will lead a fuller, longer life."
Wrong, you can't affect your lifespan one millisecond. God has ordained when you will die and neither worrying nor healthy eating will change that. Sorry, but it's idolatry to believe otherwise.
"Wrong, you can't affect your lifespan one millisecond."
So if I put a gun to my head and pull the trigger, I am not guilty of suicide since it was obviously fore-ordained by God.
"God has ordained when you will die and neither worrying nor healthy eating will change that."
Right. Nobody can be found guilty of murder or theft or anything since it's all been pre-planned by God. And it's idolatry to try to do anything moral or practical since that is an attempt to control the outcome of events.
"You're using the same dumb rhetoric that Rev. Wilson was using when talking about food."
Dave, you're not aware of the religion of this world and the power it holds over people. The media and academia spout nonstop rhetoric against meat and processed foods. And they put clear moral value on being healthy and controlling one's lifespan. The world is simultaneously caught in the grip of two competing religions: the religion of living for the longest time with the most pleasure and the religion of self-loathing hatred of mankind. Christianity has the answer to both of those idols.
"And it's idolatry to try to do anything moral or practical..."
Ah ha! So you do assign moral value to organic food? Why weren't you honest about that from the beginning?
"So if I put a gun to my head and pull the trigger, I am not guilty of suicide since it was obviously fore-ordained by God."
I think you have a profound misunderstanding of Christianity and God. God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but Pharaoh is still accountable to God. God preordained everything (most importantly, Jesus' death), but that doesn't remove human culpability.
Jesus said that worrying could not add one second to a person's life. So why do you think you can play God with your eating habits?
"The media and academia spout nonstop rhetoric against meat and processed foods."
Against meat? Yeah, I've seen that. The problem is that processed meat is objectively bad for you. The problem isn't meat, it's meat that comes from tortured animals that has been soaked in sodium nitrate. It isn't good for you. The solution is to get meat raised ethically and not soaked in poisons.
"And they put clear moral value on being healthy and controlling one's lifespan."
I don't care how they put it. It's a matter of poison and non-poison. One is good for you and the other isn't. If life is to be preserved (as nearly all sects of Christianity attest), then we do well to avoid making ourselves sick and shortening our lives intentionally.
"The world is simultaneously caught in the grip of two competing religions: the religion of living for the longest time with the most pleasure and the religion of self-loathing hatred of mankind. Christianity has the answer to both of those idols."
Agreed. Man is good - he is the glory of God's creation. But life is precious and we are not to be flippant about what God has given us. The idea that we should just eat whatever tastes good and let the consequences be damned is hardly a Christian ideal. I expect that from a Hedonist. Not a Christian.
"Ah ha! So you do assign moral value to organic food? Why weren't you honest about that from the beginning?"
Huh? You're the one who said that no action can be done to change what has been foreordained. Instead of trying to refute the tautology, I instead am asking a question about the tortured line of reason that removes all association of our decisions and their consequences. If nothing I do can change what it foreordained, will you find fault if I decide to kill your family members? I mean, it was foreordained - you would be better to get mad at God than at me.
"God preordained everything (most importantly, Jesus' death), but that doesn't remove human culpability."
OK, so if I ingest poison intentionally to kill myself, I would be guilty of suicide, correct?
"Jesus said that worrying could not add one second to a person's life. So why do you think you can play God with your eating habits?"
I'm sorry. I've never really seen this level of obtuseness in my entire life. Jesus said that we could not add one second to out lives by worrying. This is correct, because worrying, if it does anything, only makes your life shorter.
Is it "playing God" to try to prevent a murder from taking place? Really? What if God ordained that murder to happen? Who do you think you are to try to make a single decision in your life without "playing God"?
First of all, you don't know the secret decrees of God.
Secondly, if God ordains the salvation of a sinner, He also ordains the means of that salvation (sends a preacher into the jungle, has a man leave a tract in a certain spot where it is later found, &c.). This means that the act of refusing to kill oneself could be a God-ordained secondary cause for a longer life.
If ingesting poison kills you or makes you sick, you are effectively telling me that you must ingest it anyway since refusing to ingest it would be "playing God".
Wait, wait, wait. Now I know where you're coming from. Sorry - I didn't peg you as one of these, but now I get it:
People who refuse to play God
"Wrong, you can't affect your lifespan one millisecond. God has ordained when you will die and neither worrying nor healthy eating will change that. Sorry, but it's idolatry to believe otherwise."
Well, this is kind of a separate issue, but you are very wrong about this. I'll explain why.
First of all, the primary justification for the argument that one's lifespan is "predetermined" by God and there is nothing anyone can do to change it is predicated on a mistranslation of Hebrews 9:27:
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
This is obviously not saying that every person has his own predetermined lifespan. It is saying that all men will die and be judged.
Remember the "first commandment with promise"?
"Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth."
Ephesians 6:2,3
Does this indicate that we might have something to do with how long we live? Obviously. But there are many other scriptures that essentially teach this.
"My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee."
Proverbs 3:1,2
"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet WHAT I SHALL CHOOSE I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you."
Philippians 1:21-24
Here Paul speaks of the choice about whether he should go to be with the Lord or live on the earth. And if we read on further, we find that Paul chose to stick around a while longer for the benefit of the Philippians (verse 25).
Does this mean that God didn't "preordain" when Paul would die? It depends on how you mean that. God is all knowing, and his sovereignty is to be understood in light of the fact he knows if and when a person will receive Jesus and when he will die. The fact that he affords mankind choices in these matters does not impede his sovereignty one bit. Whatever choice one makes, it is never a surprise to God.
First of all, I'm not saying that it's a great thing to just eat McDonald's all your life. That would be obviously an unhealthy lifestyle. But let's just make sure we keep our priorities straight... godliness is WAY more important than a healthy lifestyle. The world switches those and begs Christians to follow its example.
Chris, no one can "choose" God. God ordains who has faith and who does not. He ordains when each of us will die, and knew that date before the Earth was created. How exactly that works together with human responsibility, I don't exactly know. I just know that God is in control and that the same God who tells us to obey our parents so that we might have a long life also said that not even a sparrow dies except by the will of God.
"the same God who tells us to obey our parents so that we might have a long life also said that not even a sparrow dies except by the will of God."
But if you see a poisonous mushroom you must eat it or else you would be playing God by refusing to eat it and extend your life.
"But let's just make sure we keep our priorities straight... godliness is WAY more important than a healthy lifestyle.
Of course it is! Glad we agree on this (seriously).
But when the government is trying to make organic farming illegal in the name of "food safety" you better believe I am going to grow my own garden without pesticides for the true safety of my family. Currently, the Obamastration is citing articles like the one you posted to justify stealing and regulating people's gardens.
And I, for one, think that that's about as immoral as it gets.
I don't know anything about what the Obama admin is doing or not doing, could you explain further? I'm not aware of that. You apparently have something in mind...
Seems odd to think that the government would do anything but ban non-organic farming...
Link 1
Link 2
The government is in bed with Monsanto, who is poised to destroy our entire food supply.
Thanks, I didn't know that. That's just more of the government trying to tell people what to do. But as with almost everything, it benefits at least a few companies or lobbyists as well. I don't blame the companies for trying to get their interests met, but the politicians for bowing so readily to the nanny state mentality where they think they have to make all the decisions for people.
Darius, my thoughts exactly. Many of these big-time food corporations have only one interest: money. And they will not stop at anything to get there, even if it means making our food less safe.
Dave, I would add that that's the point of those food corporations: to make money. And it's not in their interest to produce a product that will harm their customers or lose customers. Of course, that doesn't mean they always produce safe products, sometimes there is a trial and error involved since you can't always test products 100% before releasing them to the public. That's where the government comes in. They apply the rule of law and protect people. But even there, allowing the free market forces to work is usually better. For example, take the FDA. They don't approve some drugs for like 10 years. Meanwhile, the people those drugs would save die, just because a few people could have harmful side effects. John Stossel has pointed out that the FDA should be a voluntary thing, something that drug companies could use as a sort of "our product has been proven safe" deal. If it's not certified by the FDA, then buy at your own risk, but at least you can still buy it. Thousands of people die needlessly because they can't legally get the drugs which could save them.
"Chris, no one can "choose" God. God ordains who has faith and who does not. He ordains when each of us will die, and knew that date before the Earth was created. How exactly that works together with human responsibility, I don't exactly know. I just know that God is in control and that the same God who tells us to obey our parents so that we might have a long life also said that not even a sparrow dies except by the will of God."
Well, I'm not going to pretend I know exactly how all this works either. But I do know that within the sovereign workings of God, he has given us choice. God does not "control" everything in the way people assume. When he created man, He gave him both a free will and control (dominion) over that which he created. Because mankind had free will, he could choose to disobey God. Indeed he did disobey God, but that wasn't "God's will". Sin is never God's will. God clearly stated His will when he instructed them not to eat the fruit of the tree. But again, in his foreknowledge, none of this took Him by surprise. Just as Adam had the prerogative to make his choice of death, we also do. We can choose to live according to God's wisdom, and live a long life, or we can take our chances with disobeying Him. No matter what we choose, God already knows, and there is no way we can figure that out.
The problem people have is that in their finite understanding, they create a false dichotomy of free will vs. sovereignty. Obviously human will is a sovereign creation of God. So to an extent, we are able (as was Paul) to choose whether we will live or die earlier rather than later.
If the early church had accepted this idea that if a person dies it is God's will because he ordained for them to die at the designated time, they would have never raised anyone from the dead. I mean, who would dare to interfere if its God's will? The same thing goes for terminal illness. Some people resolve to give up and die, thinking that they have accepted God's will. If that really was God's will (and it is not) then they should quit their chemo treatments.
I know a guy who was diagnosed with throat cancer. The doctors said he would die. He could have "accepted God's will" and died, but he refused to let the devil kill him. God completely healed him supernaturally. Some people would have died, and that would have been their choice - not to say that it would have necessarily been their fault.
Look at Deuteronomy 30:19:
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live."
Here it is clear that it was God's will for his people to live, but he says that this was is choice that they have to make.
"I would add that that's the point of those food corporations: to make money."
And to make a profit is fine, but at what cost? Do the ends justify the means? I don't think so. For the materialist, the only purpose of work is to make money. For the Christian, money is not an end in itself. We are not mammon worshippers and we do not use maximal monetary gain as the sole criteria for determining whether or not something is moral.
"And it's not in their interest to produce a product that will harm their customers or lose customers."
Ah, but if they're customers don't believe that conspiracies are possible, then they will deny that the product could possibly be harmful, citing your reasoning above. You have to appreciate how well propaganda actually works. A company could produce something very harmful but as long as they are good at painting their detractors as "kooks" and "conspiracy theorists" then people will continue to buy their products. And that's exactly what's happening. People line up to buy garbage every single day, laughing and poking fun at those of us who would dare assert that organic and unprocessed foods are better for you.
"They apply the rule of law and protect people. But even there, allowing the free market forces to work is usually better."
It depends on the situation. If something has been done illegally or with gross negligence, the law should come in to play. Restitution is a biblical concept and the government has every reason to step in in that case, even if the Almighty and Most Merciful Market would have put the bastards out of business anyway. Going out of business may be poetic justice for the unscrupulous businesses, but it does nothing to restore property or damages to the victims. Relying entirely on the Market is not the biblical model.
There are definitely times when markets should be left alone. When a company fails because it made bad decisions, it should be left to die. When a company produces an inferior product, incentives should not be given by the government to buy the inferior product just because the company has lobbyists hounding the Capitol every day.
"For example, take the FDA. They don't approve some drugs for like 10 years. Meanwhile, the people those drugs would save die, just because a few people could have harmful side effects."
Don't get me started on the FDA. I have no respect for them whatever. The FDA is a fraudulent and oppressive tentacle of the Federal Government. I don't think that drugs should be regulated by the government, I agree, but then again I'm not an advocate of 99% of the forms of drug use advocated by the FDA. I'm not of the opinion that for every little ache and ill you should go out and pop some FDA-approved pills. The FDA is in the back pocket of the pharmaceutical companies as well, and they will always do what is in the best interest of their profits, not necessarily in the interest of the actual health of the American citizens.
"Thousands of people die needlessly because they can't legally get the drugs which could save them."
Wait, are you suggesting that people can change their lifespans by making certain choices?
That aside, thousands of people also die needlessly from constantly imbuing their bodies with toxic chemicals that are GRAS (generally recognised as safe) by the FDA.
For a hilarious depiction of this nonsense, watch this short vignette.
God doesn't just foreknow, He also predestines. And He predestines everything, not just certain things. He tells us through Paul that He creates some people for good purposes and some for bad purposes. He hardens some and others He doesn't. His general will is never for sin, but He does have a specific will that people sin that He might get glory. The best example of this is the death of Jesus. God's will was to crush Him and to have people sin by killing Him. One has to differentiate between the general will and His specific will.
"One has to differentiate between the general will and His specific will."
Likewise, one has to distinguish betwixt His revealed will and His secret will.
I agree about the secret will. Look at Deuteronomy 29:29:
"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."
So yes, some things God does not intend to reveal to us, but a great number of things he has revealed to us. And the things he has revealed to us were written in his Word for our admonition and instruction. So when we talk about Proverbs 3:1,2, for instance, this is what is revealed to us. And because it is revealed to us, it belongs to us.
But as far as predestination goes, obviously the Bible teaches us about this, but we have to be careful not to impose our finite understanding on the definition of it. First of all, this must be established:
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
John 3:16
So we can ascertain from this that "God so loved the world" that he sent his Son. This was His love expressed to the whole world, not a select few within the world.
This is confirmed by the fact that God is "NOT WILLING that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
2 Peter 3:9
So when we define predestination, we must not define it in terms of God willing that people should go to hell. Because, again, Jesus is "the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." If Jesus paid the price for all men's sins, there is no way God would require men (willfully) to pay for their own sins by spending eternity separated from Him. That would be a contradiction, and God cannot lie.
So in defining predestination, we must stick with what is revealed - that is that all knowing God "appoints" or "predestines" men based on the choices he knows they will make. Does this sum it up completely? Probably not, but this is about as complete an understanding of this I believe we can hope for in this life. John 3:19 gives us a little more clarity:
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
Concerning the crucifixion, God obviously predetermined that the just would die for (all of) the unjust. And he knew men would kill Him. This is evidenced by the Messianic prophecies that foretold the event. This does not mean that God specifically created people with the express purpose of making them Christ-killers; neither did God "will" that Adam and Eve disobey his will by rebelling against it just so He could send Jesus to redeem us. God did not create Adam with a sin nature; he created him with the ability to sin, but not the propensity to sin no matter what. How hypocritical would that be if He had? The sin nature was a result of disobedience, not a prerequisite to it.
Post a Comment