Guest guest Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 This really cheeses me off. Has anyone see the billboards from this group? I saw them on the way to and from Oregon on the 99 freeway (strategically placed near the turnoff for Organic Pastures raw dairy. How smooth of them!). I wrote them an email. Not nasty, just slighty pissy. http://www.milkismilk.com/? Danae " Mother's milk and mother's arms have always been available, patiently waiting for the passing of man's foolhardy arrogance, which tried to convince us that his inventions were superior to nature. " Tine Thevenin Baby boys are the only group in society having medically unnecessary surgery without their consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 , What bothers me is that they are saying that milk is milk, no matter who produces it, no matter what the animals are being fed, no matter what proccessing they do to it. I don't believe that to be factual. I agree with you that the organic issue is a tricky one. Just because something is labeled organic doesn't mean that it is health-promoting (i.e. organic cookies), just that it possibly contains fewer poisons (one hopes). Danae " Mother's milk and mother's arms have always been available, patiently waiting for the passing of man's foolhardy arrogance, which tried to convince us that his inventions were superior to nature. " Tine Thevenin Baby boys are the only group in society having medically unnecessary surgery without their consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 On 9/4/06, danaecooks@... <danaecooks@...> wrote: > This really cheeses me off. Has anyone see the billboards from this group? I > saw them on the way to and from Oregon on the 99 freeway (strategically placed > near the turnoff for Organic Pastures raw dairy. How smooth of them!). > > I wrote them an email. Not nasty, just slighty pissy. > > http://www.milkismilk.com/? > Hi Danae, What exactly is bothering you about these ads? It seems to me that criticism of the supposed superiority of organic foods is a good thing, and such criticism is coming from both within and without the " health " community. The only thing the organic label tells you is what isn't in the food, not whether it is nutritious for you. If you check onibasu you will find a long thread where we got into this whole issue. -- " Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home, or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it. " General MacArthur, WWII Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific, Supreme United Nations Commander; Whan, ed., " A Soldier Speaks: Public Papers and Speeches of General of the Army MacArthur, " 1965; Nation, August 17, 1957) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 , > What exactly is bothering you about these ads? It seems to me that > criticism of the supposed superiority of organic foods is a good > thing, and such criticism is coming from both within and without the > " health " community. Well yeah, but the criticism coming from within the health community is pointing out that organic isn't enough. The " Milk is Milk " campaign is saying that the Weston A Price Foundation is a cult that is extending its slithering fingers and its forked tongue into local communities via its local chapters to feed your children milk that we know is unsafe because the government says so. I'm not sure this is as consistent with your paradigm as your post leads on. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 On 9/10/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > , > > > > What exactly is bothering you about these ads? It seems to me that > > criticism of the supposed superiority of organic foods is a good > > thing, and such criticism is coming from both within and without the > > " health " community. > > > Well yeah, but the criticism coming from within the health community > is pointing out that organic isn't enough. The " Milk is Milk " > campaign is saying that the Weston A Price Foundation is a cult that > is extending its slithering fingers and its forked tongue into local > communities via its local chapters to feed your children milk that we > know is unsafe because the government says so. I'm not sure this is > as consistent with your paradigm as your post leads on. > > Chris I'm not familar with the milk is milk campaign, but only read a couple of articles from the link Danae provided which I didn't have much of a problem with. /wow, I made a quick response -- How sweet it is! The GOP, RIP http://snipurl.com/w7d6 " He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, in order to gain what he cannot lose. " Jim Elliot - slain husband of renowned missionary beth Elliot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 On 9/10/06, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote: > I'm not familar with the milk is milk campaign, but only read a couple > of articles from the link Danae provided which I didn't have much of a > problem with. Someone just posted this link six days ago: http://www.milkismilk.com/2005/09/weston-price-citizens-for-health-et.html We are not just quacks, but " thieves " to boot! LOL! Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 - >What exactly is bothering you about these ads? It seems to me that >criticism of the supposed superiority of organic foods is a good >thing, and such criticism is coming from both within and without the > " health " community. Well, let's see. For starters, the idea that " milk is milk " is utterly antithetical to everything I expect most or all of us believe in, since we WAPers are aware of issues like soil fertility. And then there's the little fact that while " organic " is in fact a very weak endorsement, organic food has consistently proven to be modestly more nutritious than " conventional " (i.e. modern) foods. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 On 9/12/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > - > > > >What exactly is bothering you about these ads? It seems to me that > >criticism of the supposed superiority of organic foods is a good > >thing, and such criticism is coming from both within and without the > > " health " community. > > > Well, let's see. For starters, the idea that " milk is milk " is > utterly antithetical to everything I expect most or all of us believe > in, since we WAPers are aware of issues like soil fertility. And > then there's the little fact that while " organic " is in fact a very > weak endorsement, organic food has consistently proven to be modestly > more nutritious than " conventional " (i.e. modern) foods. > > - Actually it appears to me you have it backwards. I'm not sure how well versed you are regarding soil fertility, but in that arena organic milk and milk are functionally equivalent. More, as it pertains to the nutrition provided by good soil, all organic and non-organic foods are functionally equivalent. They are equally crap. Thus Chi's constant warning, organic doesn't tell you what is in the food (nutrition wise) only what is not in it. So the idea that milk is milk is not " utterly antithetical " IF what you are talking about is ONLY organic versus non-organic, which if you read my post carefully and my response to is what I was assuming the milk is milk " campaign is about. has corrected me on that, but that was the original flavor I got from what I read. Further, unless you have something I haven't seen, those studies purportedly showing the superior nutrition of organic foods are really just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. You say it is a modest increase in nutrition, but *functionally* (and statistically) the increase is meaningless. Something organic may have a few more of this or a few more of that, but nothing that makes a meaningful difference *nutritionally* (or statistically). Unless the foodstuff in question is grown or raised on high quality soil, it is still poor food even if organic. Organic *might* make for cleaner food (and that is not always true either as organic food grown on poor soil will uptake more poisons than conventional food grown on high quality soil) but that is about it. And that only goes to conventional nutritional analysis, which is problematic to say the least (but that is for another post). From a soil fertility standpoint organic foods test as poor or poorer than conventional foods regularly. So not only is organic a weak endorsement, it is really no endorsement at all. It might have some value in other areas, but as far as determining a nutritious food versus a non-nutritious food it has no value at all. Within the narrow confines of my original point, if the subject is organic milk versus non-organic milk, then yes, milk is milk - nutritionally. -- How sweet it is! The GOP, RIP http://snipurl.com/w7d6 " He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. " Jim Elliot - slain husband of renowned missionary beth Elliot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 , > Further, unless you have something I haven't seen, those studies > purportedly showing the superior nutrition of organic foods are really > just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. You say it is a modest increase in > nutrition, but *functionally* (and statistically) the increase is > meaningless. Something organic may have a few more of this or a few > more of that, but nothing that makes a meaningful difference > *nutritionally* (or statistically). Unless the foodstuff in question > is grown or raised on high quality soil, it is still poor food even if > organic. Organic *might* make for cleaner food (and that is not always > true either as organic food grown on poor soil will uptake more > poisons than conventional food grown on high quality soil) but that is > about it. I'm curious whether there is any experimental testing comparing nutrient analysis to brix. In other words, how do foods testing as high-brix compare to organic and conventional foods in the nutrient analyses to which is referring? Similarly, is there any good research comparing the use of either of these types of tests to predict how foods would affect some biological endpoint? Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 >Actually it appears to me you have it backwards. No , I don't. >I'm not sure how >well versed you are regarding soil fertility, but in that arena >organic milk and milk are functionally equivalent. I'm fairly well versed and they're not functionally equivalent. Please note: I did NOT advocate drinking store-bought organic milk and I did NOT say it's maximally nutritious. I'm just saying that statistically speaking, organic foods contain somewhat more nutrients than conventional foods. >More, as it >pertains to the nutrition provided by good soil, all organic and >non-organic foods are functionally equivalent. You're moving the goalposts. I didn't say that organic farming somehow improves the nutrient profile of foods relative to conventionally-grown foods produced on the same soil. I said that, statistically speaking -- i.e. on average -- organic foods are moderately more nutritious than conventional foods. Please restrict your objections to that argument. >They are equally crap. This has been documented on a number of occasions to be false. >Thus Chi's constant warning, organic doesn't tell you what is in the >food (nutrition wise) only what is not in it. And once again, you're moving the goalposts. I never said organic certification or growing practices tells you what's in any given piece of food, only that statistically speaking, organic foods are, on average, moderately more nutrient-dense than conventional foods. This is a very simple point. >So the idea that milk is milk is not " utterly antithetical " IF what >you are talking about is ONLY organic versus non-organic, which if you >read my post carefully and my response to is what I was assuming >the milk is milk " campaign is about. has corrected me on that, >but that was the original flavor I got from what I read. I cannot even begin to imagine how anyone could possibly see a slogan like " milk is milk " and make any assumption about it other than the correct one that it's meant to oppose the suggestion that all milks are not in fact equal. Even more importantly, IIRC you mentioned reading an article or two, which should have dispelled any conceivable misapprehension. >Further, unless you have something I haven't seen, those studies >purportedly showing the superior nutrition of organic foods are really >just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. You say it is a modest increase in >nutrition, but *functionally* (and statistically) the increase is >meaningless. Something organic may have a few more of this or a few >more of that, but nothing that makes a meaningful difference >*nutritionally* (or statistically). Ah, now the real fun begins! It's true that I'm unaware of any properly controlled *feeding* studies comparing organic and conventional foods, so your assertion that there's no functional difference isn't entirely without merit -- no functional difference has to my knowledge been demonstrated, though of course that doesn't mean that no functional difference exists. However, I'm also unaware of any such feeding studies comparing foods produced soils of different levels of fertility, so if functional evidence is the only kind you're willing to accept, I'm afraid you'll have to give up your advocacy of soil fertility. Your assertion that there's no meaningful statistical difference is, however, completely false. Here's a summary of a review article called “Effect of Agricultural Methods on Nutritional Quality: A Comparison of Organic with Conventional Crops” by Dr. Worthington which appeared in Alternative Therapies, Volume 4, 1998, pages 58-69. <http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/OrganicNutrition.html> And here's a key excerpt: >>Overall, organic crops had an equal or higher >>nutrient content about 85% of the time. These >>results suggest that, on average, organic crops >>have a higher nutrient content.While the >>overall outlook is favorable for organic crops, >>there is too little data for most individual >>nutrients to say anything at all. But for three >>individual nutrients - vitamin C, nitrates and >>protein quality – there is enough evidence to >>suggest that organic crops are superior to conventional ones. This appears to be the PubMed entry on that same review article. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=\ 9439021 & dopt=Abstract> The money sentence: >>Animal studies showed better growth and >>reproduction in animals fed organically grown >>feed compared with those fed conventionally grown feed. Of course this doesn't control for pesticide and herbicide content, and the abstract in fact suggests that those are likely factors, but the take-home message is certainly not that organic and conventional foods are functionally equivalent. >Unless the foodstuff in question >is grown or raised on high quality soil, it is still poor food even if >organic. Once again, you're moving the goalpost. I made no assertion that organic is " good " . Only that on average it is somewhat superior to conventional. >Organic *might* make for cleaner food (and that is not always >true either as organic food grown on poor soil will uptake more >poisons than conventional food grown on high quality soil) but that is >about it. > >And that only goes to conventional nutritional analysis Conventional nutritional analysis has in fact demonstrated that organic foods are on average more nutritious than conventional foods. Please see above. > From a >soil fertility standpoint organic foods test as poor or poorer than >conventional foods regularly. Citations? Methods? >It might have some >value in other areas, but as far as determining a nutritious food >versus a non-nutritious food it has no value at all. Please see above. >Within the narrow confines of my original point, if the subject is >organic milk versus non-organic milk, then yes, milk is milk - >nutritionally. Not only have you failed to demonstrate this, you've also failed to explain why you would ever endorse such a pernicious slogan under any circumstances or in any context whatsoever. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 I have read a study done from a college in New Jersey, can't think of the name right now, on organic vx non organic and they tested both organic and non and found organic was 20% more nutritious. I know that could change depending on the source, etc. but most case studies I have found do say organic is better because typically they do farm differently. The only way to really know would be to go to the farm and ask how they farm. I also don't think the fact of not getting pesticides is irrelevant. Personally if I can prevent myself from eating pesticides I will most definitely do it. JMO Allyn _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Idol Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:55 AM Subject: Re: Milk is Milk Campaign >Actually it appears to me you have it backwards. No , I don't. >I'm not sure how >well versed you are regarding soil fertility, but in that arena >organic milk and milk are functionally equivalent. I'm fairly well versed and they're not functionally equivalent. Please note: I did NOT advocate drinking store-bought organic milk and I did NOT say it's maximally nutritious. I'm just saying that statistically speaking, organic foods contain somewhat more nutrients than conventional foods. >More, as it >pertains to the nutrition provided by good soil, all organic and >non-organic foods are functionally equivalent. You're moving the goalposts. I didn't say that organic farming somehow improves the nutrient profile of foods relative to conventionally-grown foods produced on the same soil. I said that, statistically speaking -- i.e. on average -- organic foods are moderately more nutritious than conventional foods. Please restrict your objections to that argument. >They are equally crap. This has been documented on a number of occasions to be false. >Thus Chi's constant warning, organic doesn't tell you what is in the >food (nutrition wise) only what is not in it. And once again, you're moving the goalposts. I never said organic certification or growing practices tells you what's in any given piece of food, only that statistically speaking, organic foods are, on average, moderately more nutrient-dense than conventional foods. This is a very simple point. >So the idea that milk is milk is not " utterly antithetical " IF what >you are talking about is ONLY organic versus non-organic, which if you >read my post carefully and my response to is what I was assuming >the milk is milk " campaign is about. has corrected me on that, >but that was the original flavor I got from what I read. I cannot even begin to imagine how anyone could possibly see a slogan like " milk is milk " and make any assumption about it other than the correct one that it's meant to oppose the suggestion that all milks are not in fact equal. Even more importantly, IIRC you mentioned reading an article or two, which should have dispelled any conceivable misapprehension. >Further, unless you have something I haven't seen, those studies >purportedly showing the superior nutrition of organic foods are really >just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. You say it is a modest increase in >nutrition, but *functionally* (and statistically) the increase is >meaningless. Something organic may have a few more of this or a few >more of that, but nothing that makes a meaningful difference >*nutritionally* (or statistically). Ah, now the real fun begins! It's true that I'm unaware of any properly controlled *feeding* studies comparing organic and conventional foods, so your assertion that there's no functional difference isn't entirely without merit -- no functional difference has to my knowledge been demonstrated, though of course that doesn't mean that no functional difference exists. However, I'm also unaware of any such feeding studies comparing foods produced soils of different levels of fertility, so if functional evidence is the only kind you're willing to accept, I'm afraid you'll have to give up your advocacy of soil fertility. Your assertion that there's no meaningful statistical difference is, however, completely false. Here's a summary of a review article called " Effect of Agricultural Methods on Nutritional Quality: A Comparison of Organic with Conventional Crops " by Dr. Worthington which appeared in Alternative Therapies, Volume 4, 1998, pages 58-69. <http://www.price- <http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/OrganicNutrition.html> pottenger.org/Articles/OrganicNutrition.html> And here's a key excerpt: >>Overall, organic crops had an equal or higher >>nutrient content about 85% of the time. These >>results suggest that, on average, organic crops >>have a higher nutrient content.While the >>overall outlook is favorable for organic crops, >>there is too little data for most individual >>nutrients to say anything at all. But for three >>individual nutrients - vitamin C, nitrates and >>protein quality - there is enough evidence to >>suggest that organic crops are superior to conventional ones. This appears to be the PubMed entry on that same review article. <http://www.ncbi. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_u ids=9439021 & dopt=Abstract> nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=9439021 & dopt= Abstract> The money sentence: >>Animal studies showed better growth and >>reproduction in animals fed organically grown >>feed compared with those fed conventionally grown feed. Of course this doesn't control for pesticide and herbicide content, and the abstract in fact suggests that those are likely factors, but the take-home message is certainly not that organic and conventional foods are functionally equivalent. >Unless the foodstuff in question >is grown or raised on high quality soil, it is still poor food even if >organic. Once again, you're moving the goalpost. I made no assertion that organic is " good " . Only that on average it is somewhat superior to conventional. >Organic *might* make for cleaner food (and that is not always >true either as organic food grown on poor soil will uptake more >poisons than conventional food grown on high quality soil) but that is >about it. > >And that only goes to conventional nutritional analysis Conventional nutritional analysis has in fact demonstrated that organic foods are on average more nutritious than conventional foods. Please see above. > From a >soil fertility standpoint organic foods test as poor or poorer than >conventional foods regularly. Citations? Methods? >It might have some >value in other areas, but as far as determining a nutritious food >versus a non-nutritious food it has no value at all. Please see above. >Within the narrow confines of my original point, if the subject is >organic milk versus non-organic milk, then yes, milk is milk - >nutritionally. Not only have you failed to demonstrate this, you've also failed to explain why you would ever endorse such a pernicious slogan under any circumstances or in any context whatsoever. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 >>Within the narrow confines of my original point, if the subject is organic milk versus non-organic milk, then yes, milk is milk - nutritionally.>> But of course, the subject is hardly organic v. non-organic. And Avery merely uses that topic as a diversion from the real differences. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 Right now, organic (KRAV) food is undergoing a bit of a backlash here in Sweden based on some high-profile articles in an afternoon newspaper trying to demonstrate that in a few select vegetables there was not too much difference in terms of pesticide residues, and the organic carrots or whatever, cost twice as much. This upset me, as did the assertion on this list that organic milk and non-organic milk are nutritionally equivalent. If it is soil fertility that will determine that a fruit or vegetable or milk is 'better' nutritionally, isn't switching to organic or biodynamic or sustainable agriculture the way forward in restoring and or improving soil fertility? However, if we consumers do not buy organic/biodynamic/sustainably farmed produce for a higher price based on this idea, how will we ever have enough farmers working to improve soil fertility and thus improving the nutritional content of our foods? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 On 9/14/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > The money sentence: > > >>Animal studies showed better growth and > >>reproduction in animals fed organically grown > >>feed compared with those fed conventionally grown feed. > > Of course this doesn't control for pesticide and > herbicide content, and the abstract in fact > suggests that those are likely factors, but the > take-home message is certainly not that organic > and conventional foods are functionally equivalent. I think you are understating your conclusion a little. If the criteria is functional equivalency rather than nutritional equivalency, there's no need to control for pesticide or herbicide content. If you were trying to determine to what degree the nutritional content affected the functional difference, that would be important. In this case though, assuming the study is properly represented, you can safely conclude that organic and conventional foods are shown not to be functionally equivalent. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 In a message dated 9/15/2006 10:24:07 AM Central Daylight Time, bcentofante@... writes: > Life is the biggest chess game there is !!! > I say whoever controls the food and the quality of the food controls you ! > Think about that !!! > bcentofante, I couldn't agree more with these statements. It is our heritage and the future through our children that are in the balance. No small stakes, these. C R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 You reflect my attitude exactly. We get what we pay for essentially . If we are not willing to pay in the nascent period of the revival of the family farm,sustainable agriculture, biodynamic practices and such, our health and the health of the earth will decline most assuredly. We have worries about foreign terrorists (and rightly so) but we Americans are becoming our own worst enemies by destroying our homeland (ecologically speaking) ourselves ! In no matter what ream you talk about ( human relationships, nuturing children, taking care of the earth) you can't expect that you can just take and take and take... you have to prepare, cultivate, moment by moment think about the consequences down the road of what the action you are about to take will do. Life is the biggest chess game there is !!! I say whoever controls the food and the quality of the food controls you ! Think about that !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.