Another shocker:/

[ToLiveToLaugh]

Oh yeah, I'm simply amazed (sarcasm). I've been saying for years that somewhere down the road they're going to discover that the cause of things like autism, the rising rate of things like ADHD, various mental illnesses and many cancers will be attributable to the crap we've sprayed on and fed to our food sources.

I am in no way arguing with you. I HATE chemicals and go to great lengths to keep them out of my family's lives.

Here's the thing. We basically started using them after WWII. So, if someone did a survey of health, illness and death before that time in comparison to now, we should see a skyrocket in all problems after WWII. I wonder what the studies would show? I haven't done the research, just saying if ALL that could be attributed to farm chemicals (which I hate, okay?), one would think it would be fairly obvious in the research.

And here's the other thing, a LOT changed after WWII. I imagine diet, exercise, TV viewing, social structure and other things changed then, too.

Personally, I wish they would throw a lot more research into things to study them really, really long term. Of course, that doesn't get the product onto the market soon enough to start earning its developer money...

Just trying to think scientifically here. What do you all think?

Nourishing traditions does a decent job of referencing applicable studies. Between that and Michael Pollan, several well structured studies can be found. (And I'm very critical on what meets my standard of "well structured". Being a zoology and statistics double major basically guarantees that I'm anal retentive about it!)

I do get what you're saying though. Considering everything that has changed, you really can't isolate any one factor. The chemicals and lack of nutrients go in a loop, though. NPK farming means the micronutrients aren't regenerated in the soil. More chemicals are needed as well, like pesticides. So you get food that has chemicals, AND lacks the nutritional profile of enriched soil.

Incidentally, that's why "conventional organic" (ie, same system, just minus the pesticides) doesn't work very well. The plants don't have the micro nutrients to make the compounds for their own defense. And those are the same ones that are so good for us!

okay, ending my rant! I'm sure you knew that stuff, I just get excited!

 

[reinbeau]

You absolutely can isolate the use of chemicals as being the single biggest detriment to our food supply. Not just the killing chemicals, but the fertilizers, too. The departure from good soil husbandry coupled with the selling of the chemicals as 'cost effective', and everyone buying that garbage because the truth has been kept from them, is exactly why we're where we're at now. Fighting huge conglomerates is a tough, uphill battle, but I think we've finally got enough info and education out there that the tide is going to turn. At least I hope so.

 

[Dace]

Me&thegals......not to disagree with you but another angle to view this whole thing is that when you have big business with such control studies are going to skew into their favor.

Money = power
Power = control


Think about how the government is intertwined with big agro and pharmaceutical (the trilogy).....then look at the food pyramid. Heavy on grains and what is corn? A huge subsidized grain that can be turned into anything including all the meat the average person eats. I just don't trust the trilogy.
Sorry.... completely off subject, just saying that I don't believe that all studies are accurate or even shared with the public.

 

[Wifezilla]

Just trying to think scientifically here. What do you all think?

I agree. I think chemicals are a secondary issue. Doesn't mean they aren't a problem though, it is just that all that government subsidized corn and soy in the diet do more damage.

I don't believe that all studies are accurate or even shared with the public

Having studied the nutrition studies for the past 2 years, often the ones that need to be done can't get funding. Or usually the raw data is interpreted in very creative ways and what gets reported has little to do with the actual findings.

 

[me&thegals]

Me&thegals......not to disagree with you but another angle to view this whole thing is that when you have big business with such control studies are going to skew into their favor.

Money = power
Power = control


Think about how the government is intertwined with big agro and pharmaceutical (the trilogy).....then look at the food pyramid. Heavy on grains and what is corn? A huge subsidized grain that can be turned into anything including all the meat the average person eats. I just don't trust the trilogy.
Sorry.... completely off subject, just saying that I don't believe that all studies are accurate or even shared with the public.

I completely agree. Actually, this whole conversation is reminding me to have a chat with my BIL. He works for a "testing" company for drugs, food, supplements, etc. He was talking about testing GMOs, but it was a huge family gathering that I was hosting and I couldn't catch the whole conversation. I will try to find out more.

Otherwise, I'm very skeptical of studies of GMO especially since in the past I believe they were done by Monsanto itself.

Again, I just viscerally, intuitively despise chemicals. I believe they do tremendous harm to our environment and I'm very concerned about their known and possible health effects.

Just saying that as bad as one factor might be, you can't ignore all the others. For example, shipping our food across the earth, half ripe, gassed into "ripeness." Or eating nonfood so excessively. Take a look at school lunch sometime. There is NO real food. There are so many factors involved in health, of which chemicals and GMOs are 2...

 

[FarmerChick]

me&thegals has a good point of seeing the whole picture. that is so true. it is never just one part. it is the whole and the whole is rough out there on the food system. ugh

but many agri. corps are trying to be more responsible. but that killer is cheap food at a profit for the billions of people who require it.

the whole picture is a vicious cycle definitely.

 

[sylvie]

[
Here's the thing. We basically started using them after WWII. So, if someone did a survey of health, illness and death before that time in comparison to now, we should see a skyrocket in all problems after WWII. I wonder what the studies would show? I haven't done the research, just saying if ALL that could be attributed to farm chemicals (which I hate, okay?), one would think it would be fairly obvious in the research.

What do you all think?

The pre WWII survey comparison would be invalidated by the extensive use of DDT which was discovered in the 1800's and used from 1939 through 1972. This is not to say that companies weren't allowed to exhaust the already purchased supplies of DDT; that a corporate phase out could have extended well beyond 1972 for some crops like animal feed. A study would have serious control issues.

 

[me&thegals]

[
Here's the thing. We basically started using them after WWII. So, if someone did a survey of health, illness and death before that time in comparison to now, we should see a skyrocket in all problems after WWII. I wonder what the studies would show? I haven't done the research, just saying if ALL that could be attributed to farm chemicals (which I hate, okay?), one would think it would be fairly obvious in the research.

What do you all think?

The pre WWII survey comparison would be invalidated by the extensive use of DDT which was discovered in the 1800's and used from 1939 through 1972. This is not to say that companies weren't allowed to exhaust the already purchased supplies of DDT; that a corporate phase out could have extended well beyond 1972 for some crops like animal feed. A study would have serious control issues.

Very interesting. I forget when "Silent Spring" was written... This crazy ol' world is so complex, isn't it? There are SO many factors to be isolated to study that I always wonder how they manage to isolate causes/effects at all. And then, as the article mentions, you get into (I forget the technical term) "combined" causes. As they say, when 2 things interact to make 1+1=3. That exponentially complicates the possibilities.


To clarify an earlier point, I meant that I would like to see more third-party testing. But, as Dace mentions, there is SO MUCH money and power involved that it would be hard to come up with anybody completely trusthworthy and unbiased, at least IMO.

 

[Hattie the Hen]

"Silent Spring" was published in 1962 -- I remember it well!

Hattie

 

[big brown horse]

Hi Hattie!

I have Rachel Carson's biography somewhere in one of my boxes. I need to dig it out.