Re: Organic Sugar versus Regular

[Guest guest]

>Mr. Caulkins assured me there are no pesticide or any other chemical

>residues in their sugar products and emailed me their " pesticide statement "

>as an attachment in word format.

All commercial producers state that there are no pesticide residues in

their products. That's the issue. The equipment for testing had

thresholds that don't detect it. It's a setup, and don't believe it.

--V

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

Ouch :

So what you are saying is they can state their sugar products are pesticide

free because the instruments they use to test their products are not

designed to detect the residues? That's sneaky and should be illegal.

Seriously wouldn't that be illegal and down out lying?

For fun, I'll email Mr. Caulkins and discuss this with him and will report

his response to the group if he responds.

Rosie

_____

From: original_kombucha

[mailto:original_kombucha ] On Behalf Of Baker

Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 4:39 AM

To: original_kombucha

Subject: Re: Organic Sugar versus Regular

>Mr. Caulkins assured me there are no pesticide or any other chemical

>residues in their sugar products and emailed me their " pesticide statement "

>as an attachment in word format.

All commercial producers state that there are no pesticide residues in

their products. That's the issue. The equipment for testing had

thresholds that don't detect it. It's a setup, and don't believe it.

--V

[Guest guest]

That's no different than how alot of bottled water actually contains

arsenic and other fun chems. It's not lying when the government says

it's legal filter it out within a certain range, and sometimes it's

reasonable because you'll come into contact with more ugly nasty

things in everyday life than you will drinking water. Sometimes they

do it out of convenience though, when it's cheaper to take a

politician to dinner than to filter it out.

At any rate, you have to wonder what are these chemicals doing in your

food in the first place, who's putting them there, and what are we

perhaps doing wrong that requires us to do something we would be

better off avoiding rather than fixing it after the fact.

Yaakov

> Ouch :

>

> So what you are saying is they can state their sugar products are pesticide

> free because the instruments they use to test their products are not

> designed to detect the residues? That's sneaky and should be illegal.

>

> Seriously wouldn't that be illegal and down out lying?

>

> For fun, I'll email Mr. Caulkins and discuss this with him and will report

> his response to the group if he responds.

>

> Rosie

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: original_kombucha

> [mailto:original_kombucha ] On Behalf Of Baker

> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 4:39 AM

> To: original_kombucha

> Subject: Re: Organic Sugar versus Regular

>

>

>

>

> >Mr. Caulkins assured me there are no pesticide or any other chemical

> >residues in their sugar products and emailed me their " pesticide statement "

> >as an attachment in word format.

>

> All commercial producers state that there are no pesticide residues in

> their products. That's the issue. The equipment for testing had

> thresholds that don't detect it. It's a setup, and don't believe it.

>

> --V

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I wish I could remember the source, however, I do remember recently

watching a program on t.v., such as 20/20 or Dateline and the

reporter was talking about organic foods. He stated that in his

research he found that sugar which isn't organic doesn't contain

harmful chemicals and that organic sugar was the same as non-

organic. I suppose the point of that is mute since I can't recall

the source at this time. Just thought I'd mention it though.

Robin

>

> Ouch :

>

> So what you are saying is they can state their sugar products are

pesticide

> free because the instruments they use to test their products are

not

> designed to detect the residues? That's sneaky and should be

illegal.

>

> Seriously wouldn't that be illegal and down out lying?

>

> For fun, I'll email Mr. Caulkins and discuss this with him and

will report

> his response to the group if he responds.

>

> Rosie

>

>

>

> _____

>

>

[Guest guest]

Why is it news that mainstream sources claim there is no difference between

organic and nonorganic foods? They've been saying that forever. There are

plenty of studies, however, that prove otherwise. Here is a sample:

http://www.organicconsumers.com/school/organicstudy090405.cfm

>Switching to organic foods provides children " dramatic and immediate "

>protection from widely used pesticides that are used on a variety of crops,

>according to a new study by a team of federally funded scientists.

>

>Concentrations of two organophosphate pesticides --malathion and

>chlorpyrifos -- declined substantially in the bodies of elementary-school

>age children during a five-day period when organic foods were substituted

>for conventional foods.

>

>The two chemicals are the most commonly used insecticides in U.S.

>agriculture. More than 2 million pounds were applied to California crops in

>2003, according to records of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.

>

>For 15 days, a team of environmental health scientists from the University

>of Washington, Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and

>Prevention tested the urine of 23 elementary-school age children in the

>Seattle area.

>

>During the first three days and last seven days, the children ate their

>normal foods. But during the middle five days, organic items were

>substituted for most of their diet, including fruits, vegetables, juices and

>wheat and corn-based processed items such as cereal and pasta.

>

>Average levels of both pesticides in the children " decreased to the

>non-detect levels immediately after the introduction of organic diets and

>remained non-detectable until the conventional diets were reintroduced, " the

>researchers reported Thursday in the online version of the scientific

>journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

see the link for the full story.

--V

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

I don't know if many mainstream sources claim there is no difference

between organic and non-organic foods. I've only heard a report that

there's no difference in sugars. There's obviously a difference

between foods treated with pesticides and those that aren't which is

why I am an organic gardener and I buy as many organic foods as my

budget will allow!

Robin

>

> Why is it news that mainstream sources claim there is no difference

between

> organic and nonorganic foods? They've been saying that forever.

[Guest guest]

Hi, Rosie,

Thanks for the investigating it out for all of us. Here is a link I

figured you'd find a good one (although I have more, ) . I figured

the others would contribute the usual regular links.

http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/microbes/biofilm.htm

-Audrey

<snippet>

> Lol I informed him about Kombucha and he was interested and asked

for a link

> so he could research for himself. Mr. Caulkins is a chemist.

Anyone have a

> good link to share with me I could forward to Mr. Caulkins to

introduce him

> to the KT world?

>

>

>

> Thanks,

>

> Rosie

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi V,

Yes, I figured that at least with the not organic ones. It is too bad

though.

-Audrey

<snippet>> >

> All commercial producers state that there are no pesticide residues

in

> their products. That's the issue. The equipment for testing had

> thresholds that don't detect it. It's a setup, and don't believe it.

>

> --V

>

>