The NZA Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 So my medic partner's a personal trainer & health-nut, who often advocates some of the detoxifiers & products El Jax peddles at his Smoothie Kang. She & others have gone to great lengths to tell me about the advantages of meats not loaded with hormones and natural vegetation, etc, despite its higher price as specialty stores. Now, amnogst his hateful rants, Baytor (and someone else i cant recall) talked from his experience on the farm about how you're either taking in pesticides or insect shit, or some similar argument. Just wanted to make a thread about both sides of the coin here. On a side note, was just reading wiki's disadvantages of soap, specifcially anti-bacterial....there's something i didnt know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 We're all gonna get killed by something, I'll die fat and greasy. Also organic meat is a moronic concept, being a raiser of cattle myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 ....care to elaborate? I mean, our nation's level of obesity is rising, diabetes is expected to spike in the next few decades, and a great deal of stuides are attibuting this to the fatty, cholestorol-ridden foods were loading ourselfs up with, via fast foods, fried shit, etc. Im seeing home-cooked foods as clearly superior, but there's gotta be something to these rising health epidemics and the foods were eating. Also: organic meat, is it moronic because it wont taste right, or what am i missing there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HypnotizinChikns Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 I used to work for a company that packaged and sold herbs (like basil etc. not the other kind). They also sold organic herbs. The only thing was... that the herbs weren't organic. they just stuck an extra sticker on the package and sold it for a higher price. Rule of thumb is... if you want organic veggies grow them yourself. Same with meat. Unless you know the person raising your meat you can't be sure it's organic. Oh, and almost every type of food that your 'organic' stock is going to eat is not going to be organic itself. They even treat hay to make it last longer out in the fields now. Anything you buy out of a store has probably been treated by a chemical in some form or another, wether by shipping or by the store (company) itself. Organic food, for the most part doesn't really exisit. It's all a part of the matrix... uhhh no wait that wasn't right, it's just a gimmik to get you to spend more to eat the same crap as the people who buy the less fancy packaging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Did this company simply lable it "organic", or did they put the "USDA Certified Organic" seal on the label? Cause the latter is illegal. Don't know about the former. It's true it's impossible grow crops or raise livestock in complete isolation from chemicals, but that doesn't mean it makes no difference between "trace amounts" and "cured in". It's not an all or none thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 ....care to elaborate? I mean, our nation's level of obesity is rising, diabetes is expected to spike in the next few decades, and a great deal of stuides are attibuting this to the fatty, cholestorol-ridden foods were loading ourselfs up with, via fast foods, fried shit, etc. Im seeing home-cooked foods as clearly superior, but there's gotta be something to these rising health epidemics and the foods were eating. Also: organic meat, is it moronic because it wont taste right, or what am i missing there? Our nations level of obesity and diabetes rising has jack shit to do with meat, most of that comes from the fact that nearly every packaged food has corn syrup in it which has been said to have addictive qualities, pair that up with the fact that you get easily twice (sometimes 4 times if you're from a red state) of food at any resteraunt, you said it yourself, fast food but homecooked doesn't mean organic, that's your reason for obesity not because of irradiated fruit or pesticides or using ivomec on cattle. Organic meat means bascially turn em' loose and do nothing. You feed them, you cut the bulls, and you just let em' alone more or less. You don't give them any vaccinations, shots to deal with illnesses, now for breeding purposes they're awesome because in five or so generations they're immune to just about any cattleborn disease known ot man but I would not eat any meat that came from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HypnotizinChikns Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Did this company simply lable it "organic", or did they put the "USDA Certified Organic" seal on the label? Cause the latter is illegal. Don't know about the former. It's true it's impossible grow crops or raise livestock in complete isolation from chemicals, but that doesn't mean it makes no difference between "trace amounts" and "cured in". It's not an all or none thing. "USDA Certified" i used to have the put the stupid stickers on. As with anything, moderation is key. Fresh fruits and veggies are always better than canned and cut the extra fat off your meat before you cook it. I don't buy organic becuase i know better. I do grow my own chives, basil and rosemary though... you couldn't pay me to buy that crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Lindsay Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 i dunno. i spoke with this german guy who said that our chicken tastes like shit basically because of all of the crap we feed them to make them fatter. he said in europe their chickens are smaller but they taste better (to the point where you don't really even have to season them or anything). also, so many people that i know who've been to argentina said that their steak is the best in the world and they said that they don't inject their cattle with hormones like we do (however i don't know whether this is true or not). there's also a raging discussion on whether the fact that we inject our animals with hormones has anything to do with girls getting their periods at younger ages now or if it has to do with the fact that we have better nutrition than we did way back when (although i find this harder to believe when people are constantly feeding their kids mcdonalds and shit because it's quicker than cooking something healthier). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 "Ya see the thing is this, if you buy those crisps, the 20p goes to the Mexican sewage industry, but if you buy petrol, the money goes to the government who spend it letting out foreign prisoners so they can stab people." some words of wisdom about organic products from jeremy clarkson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Well, as far as nutrition being better than it was back int eh day, there is some truth to that. Malnutrition in the US is almost nonexistant among those who can eat. That's because flour adn milk is almost uniformally fortificed with additional nutrients, making anything made with milk or flour have enough of nutrition to ward of the childhood illness that plagued us and are now almost nonexistance (Scurvy, Rickets, Night Blindness and Beriberi). However, alot of foods are also processed and cultivated in such a way thatmany nutrients are less abundent, such as CLAs in meat and dairy. As for girls gettign their periods earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if either of those reasons were the cause, or perhaps a combination of both. As for your German friend, you do have to account for Euro-snobbery in any testimony you receive. Argentine Beef is very good (I have to try Kobe beef sometime to see if it's as good as they say), but from what I know of Argentina (lived there for almost 3 years), it would not be like them to highly regulate their beef industry. I'll look into. My mom works in the field of trade standards and she was in Argentina working for the Dept of Commerence in the US Embassy, and while her expertise is in technical standards, not agro, she'd provide me with some good insight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 So then don't inject hormones into the beef, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't medicate cattle, for anybody who raises them every cow that dies from some disease is an assload of money lost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 I am pretty convinced that pumping up a cow with growth hormones does make a difference, but I don't know about routine use of antibiotics (assuming that's all that's used). From everything I know about antibiotics, I don't feel compelled to say antibiotics would have an effect on the cows...unless there are synthetic petrolium-devired antibiotics, which I frankly don't know if that even exist but I'm betting it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Lindsay Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 well, for all his eurocentricity, he fucking loves cuban men. he thinks they're the hottest in the world. so he's not too ethnocentric. by back in the day, i'm talking about maybe 40 years ago (were they fortifying foods back then with vitamins and minerals?). i think the average age was around 17 or so and now it's around 13. i was thinking it might be a little of A and a little of B also, but who knows for sure. and i agree with the immunization of cattle. i know meat industries use hormones for bulking purposes so they can make more money (so it's not really as necessary as immunizations, healthwise, for consumers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Whoa whoa whoa, I don't think the average age for a girl getting her first period was EVER 17. That just doesn't make any sense. That would require a substancial portion to get to get it after 17. Tratitional marriages were usually arranged around the age that a woman first became fertile, which usually meant 13 or 14. And as for your german friend, so he has some jungle fever, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a tendency to believe many things are just better in Germany on account of viewing them though a lens of nationalism. I'm just saying a possible bias has to be taken into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Lindsay Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 (edited) The Secular TrendTanner first described the secular trend in 1962. ["Secular" means occurring through the centuries.] According to Tanner, the average age of menarche dropped from about 17 to 12.8 during the period 1830-1962. The rate of decline was 4 months per decade. Tanner has also noticed a decline in the age of initiation of the growth spurt. The trend seems to have stopped, with the age of menarche leveling off at 12.6. from here. i was really off about the year and i don't know the specific US data but this seems to show though more that it has more to do with nutrition than hormones though since it's a worldwide trend. there's other info too on that site that seems to show other countries where the trend is different for different periods of time. and i was joking about the level of his ethnocentricity. of course i took that into consideration. Edited January 7, 2007 by La Lindsay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 I'm kinda with Jax on that one I still don't think the average age was ever 17, most boys hit puberty at about 11-12 and scientifically girls mature more quickly than boys so I don't know. I do agree though, the age is getting younger for girls having their periods, I heard about some fourth grader who was having a kid sometime last year. How fucked up is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share Posted January 7, 2007 i stand for the rights of all child-bearing 9-year olds. stop trying to oppress them with with your close-minded judgements, baytor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 The youngest girl ever give birth was a 5 year old Peruvian girl in 1939. Her name was Lina Medina, a Peruvian girl from the Andean village of Ticrapo who made medical history when she gave birth to a boy by caesarean section in May 1939 at the age of five years, seven months and 21 days. Lina's parents initially thought their daughter had a large abdominal tumor, but after they took her to a hospital in the town of Pisco physicians confirmed that her abdominal swelling was due to pregnancy. Lina was eventually transferred to a hospital in Lima, where she delivered a six-pound baby boy by Cesarean section on 14 May 1939 (coincidentally the date on which Mother's Day was celebrated that year). Lina's father was temporarily jailed on suspicion of incest, but he was released for a lack of evidence and authorities were never able to determine who fathered Lina's child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 jesus, so much for that train of thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I'll have none of your naysaying, NONE OF IT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Lindsay Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 that's so fucked up. there are siblings farther apart in age than that. baytor, you and jax can believe what you want, but i've read and heard about it in a few different research articles and books. we talked about it in one of my classes last semester too. just because it doesn't make any sense doesn't mean it's not true. much like a 5 year old giving birth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Well, LL, I'm a have to ask for link to info, since it seems the burden of proof is on those who make claims that food that uses fertilizer/ pesticides/ hormones etc is tainted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Lindsay Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 i already offered one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soldier of fortune Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Personally, i think Organic Beef tastes better, only thing is you pay more €'s for it. I've yet to try Kobe beef, i'd say its amazing! As for our chicken, that can be hit and miss, organic free range birds are nice, but the stuff that isn't can be dodgy. I think its a matter of taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 i already offered one. oops m' bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.