Ed discusses GM foods on triple J radio

angelica

Ms. Haiku wrote:

I could see myself trying this type of fast with raw fruit/vegetables (no coffee )to gain the otherwordly experience. I may try it for the new year, just to get things on a contemplative plane for the rest of the year. I love taking time to reflect, and maybe the process of fasting would be such an intense focus that it would nullify the experiences outside of it. I doubt I would do a week though. Maybe 3-5 days. We'll see, eh.

Actually, the most contemplaitive time of year for me is from December 21st to the beginning of the new year. In fact, December 21st or the winter solstice is my favorite day because it is a time of stillness and reflection. Maybe I'll try then.

Sounds great! I'd love to hear how the experience is for you. I hear you about the 3-5 days, though. The longest I've gone is I think 7 days, years back. Two weeks ago, I went for 3-5. I felt great on the 3rd day and continued, but by the fifth, I was becoming obsessed with "real" food! I made it, but had a little backlash of craving bad-for-me stuff for a few days. I've read that the longer periods are good once or twice a year, and then it's a good idea to do it once a week to give the body a replenishing break. Although I am not yet that disciplined.

The time I did a long one a few years back, I literally had lightbulbs burning out around my house, and I had a spiritual experience that helped me to, ironically, get into treatement for eating disorders. (whereupon I was required to give up the ethereal highs of fasting until I reached the other side of healing)

he still stands

Many people have died from eating organic food, either due to excess levels of nitrogen or e-coli (raw sewage is used as fertilizer).

Not a single person has ever died from eating GM food.

Ms. Haiku

he still stands wrote:

Many people have died from eating organic food, either due to excess levels of nitrogen or e-coli (raw sewage is used as fertilizer).

Has anyone ever died from e-coli from non-organic foods? I've done a little backyard gardening, actually I was a gardener in a community garden plot, but I'm wondering if the level of nitrogen in non-organic foods is just as high. Or rather what would make the level of nitrogen in organic foods an issue compared to non-organic foods?

Could you show me the article which states that raw sewage is used in organic gardening? Also, when I mean organic I don't just mean non-GM, I mean non-chemical, and that the practice of farming is respectful of the soil with crop rotation etc.

hippiemom

he still stands wrote:

Many people have died from eating organic food, either due to excess levels of nitrogen or e-coli (raw sewage is used as fertilizer).

Not a single person has ever died from eating GM food.

I'd be very interested to see the reports detailing the deaths caused by organic foods with too much nitrogen. Link, please?

Pearl Jam and toast

Scubascott wrote:

'Organic' is just a bullshit marketing angle. Show me the peer-reviewed evidence that so called 'organic' food is better for you.



Yep, I've been suspecting that for a long time. I think he has a very dry sense of humour, and you can never really tell when he's being serious. I'm pretty sure he was serious about these GM crops though, and I'd love it if someone that shares his views could explain to me why they're so 'diabolical'.

"Organic" food is so much better for you it's rediculous the difference it can make in how you feel.

Here's a bit of an example..

Stop drinking soda. Completely. You might go through weird sugar cravings but once all that nastiness is out of your system you'll feel a million times better. Same concept with how we grow and manufacture food.

I smoke Natural American Spirits (same as Ed). Partly because they're delicious, and also because the tobacco is grown without pesticides or chemicals, only full-leaf tobacco is processed - no stems either, etc etc. It's additive free. I smoked a swisher sweet once and got violently ill for a day or so. *shudders*

I understand what he's saying about it being "diabolical" but I have to disagree in general terms.. genetic engineering can and is doing so much positive for us.

Scubascott

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

I smoke Natural American Spirits (same as Ed). Partly because they're delicious, and also because the tobacco is grown without pesticides or chemicals, only full-leaf tobacco is processed - no stems either, etc etc. It's additive free. I smoked a swisher sweet once and got violently ill for a day or so. *shudders*

Ok. . . . and you believe that smoking organic tobacco is good for you????

E.K

angelica wrote:

I'm not sure what Ed refers to as "fasting". The long term (one or two week) fasts I am familiar with entail eating raw fruits, vegetables and their juices, which are very simple for the body to digest, therefore leaving ample opportunity for deep inner rejuvenation to take place. As well, by eating such nutrient packed fruits, vegetables and juices, not only is one energetic, but one feels electrically buzzing with vibrant life and awareness that IS otherworldly, compared to the processed, dulling, mind numbing poor nutrition many of us currently ingest. The energy/otherworldy spiritual effect of such fasting processes is why fasting has been attached to shamanic or other disciplinary fasts through the centuries.

Eddie's fast obviously includes red wine

Ms. Haiku

E.K wrote:

Eddie's fast obviously includes red wine

Just thinking of a fast based on fruit and vegetables . . . and wine. Hey, it was once fruit, you know.

E.K

Ms. Haiku wrote:

Just thinking of a fast based on fruit and vegetables . . . and wine. Hey, it was once fruit, you know.

Red wine actually gives me hives ... white wine is ok though.

Scubascott

hippiemom wrote:

I'll post a few things that I was able to find quickly. I'd be very interested in what you or anyone else with a science background has to say on this. Thanks

Roundup Ready®* soybeans are engineered to withstand the normally fatal effects of Monsanto's herbicide called Roundup®*. In 1996, Monsanto scientists published a feeding study in the Journal of Nutrition that purported to test their soybeans' effect on rats, catfish, chicken, and cows. It has been used by the biotech industry as their primary scientific validation for safety claims. According to Arpad Pusztai, however, "It was obvious that the study had been designed to avoid finding any problems. Everybody in our consortium knew this." Pusztai, who had published several studies in that same nutrition journal, said the Monsanto paper was "not really up to the normal journal standards." Pusztai says that if he had been asked to referee the paper for publication, "it would never have passed." He's confident that even his graduate assistants would have taken the study apart in short order. Some of the flaws include:

Researchers tested GM soy on mature animals, not young ones. Young animals use protein to build their muscles, tissues, and organs. Problems with GM food could therefore show up in organ and body weight. But adult animals use the protein for tissue renewal and energy. "With a nutritional study on mature animals," says Pusztai, "you would never see any difference in organ weights even if the food turned out to be anti-nutritional. The animals would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything."

Even if there were an organ development problem, the study wouldn't have picked it up since the researchers didn't even weigh the organs.

In one of the trials, researchers substituted only one tenth of the natural protein with GM soy protein. In two others, they diluted their GM soy six- and twelve-fold. Scientists Ian Pryme of Norway and Rolf Lembcke of Denmark wrote, the "level of the GM soy was too low, and would probably ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not occur."

Pryme and Lembcke, who published a paper in Nutrition and Health that analyzed all peer-reviewed feeding studies on GM foods, also pointed out that the percentage of protein in the feed used in the Roundup Ready study was "artificially too high." This "would almost certainly mask, or at least effectively reduce, any possible effect of the [GM soy]." They concluded, "It is therefore highly likely that all GM effects would have been diluted out."

In spite of the authors' claims that GM soy was equivalent to natural soy, their own data revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content. Roundup Ready soy meal also contained more trypsin inhibitor, a potential allergen, which might explain the sudden jump in soy allergies in the UK beginning right after Roundup Ready soy was introduced. Also, cows fed GM soy produced milk with a higher fat content, further demonstrating a disparity between the two types of soy.

Years after the study appeared, medical writer Barbara Keeler discovered data from the original research that hade been omitted from the published paper. It showed that Monsanto's GM soy had significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin-one that may interfere with the body's ability to assimilate other nutrients.

The study also omitted many details normally part of a published paper. According to Pryme and Lembcke "No data were given for most of the parameters."

Researchers tested the effects of protein derived from bacteria, not from Roundup Ready soybeans, claiming the two were equivalent. There are more than a dozen ways, however, in which soy-derived protein might create health problems that would not be detected in protein produced from bacteria.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods/CaseStudyonIndustryResearchSoyStu/index.cfm

Interesting stuff. I'll have to do some reading and try to come back to this.

Pearl Jam and toast

Scubascott wrote:

Ok. . . . and you believe that smoking organic tobacco is good for you????

Yes the magic fumes heal my soul :rolleyes:

I believe it's incomparibly better for me then say a Marlboro (caught secretely and purposely increasing the nicotine level of their cigarettes something like 1/3 more than what they said it was) that grows it's crop with so many chemicals, preservatives, etc. I mean, christ, some of these companies actually still use fucking ARSENIC as a preservative!

No it's not good for me, but I like to smoke and yes, it's better for me than other cigarettes. The warning label on the cigs says otherwise but that's legal bullshit - less chemicals in cigarettes = less chemicals in your body.

Ms. Haiku

So, what does it feel like to smoke cigarettes? Sometimes I just want to try it. I wonder if that means I'm at the end of my life to want to try something like that. Anyhoo, I've tried cigars briefly 6 years ago, and got bored, then I smoked some whatever briefly in college, and I'm not interested in that anymore. So, what does it feel like to smoke cigarettes?

Wait, wait, forget I asked. I think this is just an indication that I really need to try that spiritual fast, eh?