I gave citations and you give ad hominem attacks, you are sick.
You find the observations of the University of California and one of it's professors of no worth, nor the views of Penn State University? Huh?
You attacked me, not the evidence. Why don't you just admit that you are full of IT?
You asked for substantiation that plants must struggle to produce healthier food. I gave it. What part of the transaction do . . . aw, screw it, GFY.
You didn't answer the question(s), you neglected to proofread your report and your references; none of which adequately addressed your premise and you posted a cut and pasted underlined, disjointed, jumbled, juvenile writing reverting to your usual organic dogma.
Your still pathetic, little boy.
I await your pissing and moaning.
-Billy
gunny, sorry I missed the humor in your response.
billy, I have oft said that your attempts at self righteous indignation are a joke, now let me add to that your pseudo-intellectual attempts are as well.
I don't want your 7th grade book report on the " Organic Bible" nor your lame attempts to bring this thread back to your pathetic philosophical platforms.
This is one of those frequent times you should have kept your mouth shut so as not to remove all doubt.
------- You didn't answer the question(s), you neglected to proofread your report and your references; none of which adequately addressed your premise and you posted a cut and pasted underlined, disjointed, jumbled, juvenile writing reverting to your usual organic dogma.
Your still pathetic, little boy.
"Billy" whines like a little girl in message news: snipped-for-privacy@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
So you want to continue arguing your ignorance by referencing your Internet abstract articles of papers you can't get, Amazon book reviews of books you don't buy and google references you don't read through?
billy, you whine like a little Valley Bitch about something you still fail to show is true, yet you cast dispersions on an article that gives you some of the specific details that you say you want to see. It also gives leads to the data source, so as you claim, you can further research the subject. (sure you will...)
I gave you the information you asked for. Poverty or not, it gave more specific detail than all your disjointed, underlined, BS crap did. As usual, your referencing a massive volume of BS is still going to equal BS. The onus is not on me to prove anything to you nor to play your silly ass little games. Your penchant for SALG and drunken diatribes are quite apparent.
You have a very bad habit of juvenile google researching and still you never thoroughly reading your cherry picked sources. It is thinly veiled information that you think illustrates your point and disregards anything that would contradict your "facts". But in case you missed the basic interrogatives my article gave I will include them here so you don't get confused again. Also, If you need a lesson in the basic interrogatives, let me know, I can recommend some remedial programs for you.
"Plant Research Technologies Inc., an independent analytical laboratory in San Jose, California," (The one you call an industry hack because you can't refute the study so you have to cast dispersions on it as a industry insider. As if Mitchell and the Organic Center don't have a connection!) stated that :
"Tomatoes (Patio Pride) demonstrated a mean increase of 50 percent in vitamin and mineral content. Of the 14 values tested, the hydroponics tomatoes showed increases in five and modest decreases of 25 to 30 percent in three. Sweet peppers (Gypsy) showed a mean increase of 150 percent - increases in nine of the 14 values tested and equal to soil-grown in the remaining five. The sweet peppers tested up to 300 percent higher in vitamins B2 and B3. A literature search including USDA, EPA and FDA publications, plus reports from university and private industry sources on the nutritional content of soil-grown crops was used in the study
Nutritional analysis included vitamins A, B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), B3 (niacin), B6 (pyridoxine), C and E. The plant analysis included nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, calcium, sodium, iron, aluminum, manganese, copper, boron and zinc.
The tomatoes were grown in an Aquafarm system and the peppers in an AeroFlo system both using hydroponic nutrients. The hydroponic produce was also tested for heavy metals and chemical residues on the EPA's priority list. None were detected."
Pretty specific details in there for a short article, billy. Quite opposite of the thin dogma you give in that load of BS you reference as proof.
This is specific, measurable information, something you so often fail to give in your quest for us heathens to see the organic light. Perhaps if you offer 72 virgins to work the 40 acres and a mule dream you also promise when on your organic soapbox.
What did your book author Pollan and your google scientific articles actually show? the definition of a Phenolic? the actual bioflavonoids you refer to? The quantified amounts? The exact conditions each were grown in?
No, none of those things, just more organic supposition to create subject hyperbole.
I find nothing to address any of the basic interrogatives, nothing. just references to references that suggest it MAY BE true. The reference that Mitchell's work is going to be reviewed by the UK's FSA seemed to be a good lead, yet it also failed to be conclusive as evidenced by the UK's FSA. So all you have is hyperbole.
"The Davis researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols."
OK, who, what, why, when, where, and how? What is meant by "significant", "otherwise sustainably"? Your references again fail to show any specifics, billy. It wold be nice to know the study he is refering to with such a claim.
And this one?
"The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol pesticides".
OK, where is some proof to the hypothesize and again, where are the basic interrogatives? Do try to remember that the subject was hydroponics, not conventional, not organic... hydroponics, a subject you know little to nothing about.
Here is another quote from your reference of Pollan: " A second explanation (one that subsequent research seems to support) MAY BE that the radically simplified soils in which chemically fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw ingredients needed to synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more vulnerable to attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be."
"...seems to support" ..."MAY BE"? Real scientific info coming from a book writer guy worrying about the psychological rearing of a pig being killed for dinner. and what is this? "....as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be"?
Do you dare attempt to prove that tidbit of junk science with a MAYBE theory? MAYBE he is a popular writer but using Pollan as an authoritative source is hardly science.
Now, lets go to your google references you hide in that jumbled mess you posted and note this passage from those disjointed and redundant references:
"The findings add to a SMALL BODY OF LITERATURE showing higher levels of antioxidants in some organic produce, including research out of the UC-Davis showing higher levels of phenols in some berries." (Was this Mitchell's research of her research?)
AND THIS LITTLE REVEALING TIDBIT, ALSO FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES
"Building solid evidence confirming the benefits of organic fruits and vegetables over conventionally grown produce IS HAMPERED by wide variances in organic farming, ranging from soil and climate differences to variations in crops, seasons and farmer philosophies, said Diane Barrett, also a researcher with the UC-Davis department of food science and technology."
AND AGAIN FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES
"We need MORE controlled and real-life commercial studies, and we NEED BETTER collaboration between researchers to get a broader look at growing systems," said Barrett."
Did that fellow UC-Davis researcher infer Mitchell needs more controlled and real-life commercial studies? that solid evidence is hampered? that there is a small body of literature and that better research is needed?
Funny, the UK's FSA report this summer came to the very same conclusion. little scientific evidence to support the overly broad claim organic is better.
The controversial and peer reviewed UK's FSA report looked at the whole organic is better claim that you recite ad naseum.
1st reviewohh...A SMAll NUMBER...This really pissed off the Organic community which is still up in arms and as you often do, disparage his ancestry, his loyalty and his scientific knowledge. Shortly after, the French claim they had a study to prove it true and the Swedes one that supported the FSA.... Still a host of articles abound written from that FSA press release, many with the exact verbiage, depending on the ideological bent of the writer, few of any worth addressing the actual report contents.
It is a good bet there will be much further debate on all this but right now there is no one that has any real answers, just best guess and a bunch of the same myths you spout.
But due note your Dr. Mitchell's studies were in that FSA study. I am not knocking Mitchell's studies in the context of research, but you still have no real idea of what she is researching and what her findings actually are. What is the "significant difference you claim? Is is a PPM? is it 1 or perhaps
3 mmol kg¯ 1 gram more? What specifically is the difference of what compound and how does it affect the plant and more importantly, humans?So all very interesting, yet, again..... still absolutely NOTHING to do with Hydroponics, which BTW, I will still maintain does all that organic claims and even better; lower pesticides,better growth, higher yields, less pollution, less labor, less enviro footprint and does it all with the very chemical salts that you claim kills the earth and uses much less water. And yes, tastes as good as or better. BTW, If called for, I can control stress environments much easier and more precisely hydroponically than you could ever attempt to do organically.
"Multiple biotic and aboitic factors can influence levels of phenolics antioxidants in fruit and vegetables and it is important to consider these factors when sampling and compiling values." Dr. A. Mitchell
So without a recognized standard, data is all subjective. If subjective, how can one say it is an accurate comparison and therefore one is better. YOU don't get to change facts to suit your arguement.
Now STFU, go play your SLAG with someone else that doesn't know you better or someone that will put up with your drunken diatribes. There is no more audience for you to play hillbilly professor to.
Ad hominems and derision, that's all you got? LOL ;O)
Little "Billy" writes
" . . . aw, screw it, GFY."
and "Now you can GFY ;O) ."
Then feign he is unfairly attacked, attempting to sidetrack the fact he cannot defend his unfounded claims by stating " Ad hominems and derision, that's all you got? LOL ;O)"
Wow, another jewel in a long list from the little boy who tells folks to go f*ck themself everytime he is proved wrong! How mentally myopic you remain, billy. Still, I note you do not refute the FSA study contridicting your claim nor your absurd references that you gave to support them. So, I can assume you have no further proof to offer, well, any real proof that is. In the future do proofread your work, check your references well, stop cherry picking and above all, forgo the Billy Mayes Marketing techniques.
Yet, I am glad you attempt at least one of Segan's "Fine Art of Boloney Detection" concepts that I showed you, now if you can only grasp some of his others and actually apply them to support your positions.
I do hope you will continue your learning; instead of your usual peusdointellectual cherry picking and quoting half truths followed by your Romper Room theatrics. Good luck with that.
Just remember, billy; Who, what, why, when, were and how. Learn em, and as well refer to Segan's principles often:
which is why you choose the praise of a company (I noticed you left out their url [http:hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/) that prides itself on working with biotech companies, to minimize the favorable reports from the University of California at Davis, and others.
I can see that you are a true believer, and that you have no control over your need to protect your fantasy, I wish you luck.
Have you sobered up from your all night binge yet, billy? When you do, go back and "notice" I gave you that url on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:30 AM so you must not have noticed very much, perhaps because you were again Drunk While Typing.
I realize it may be after you graduate the 7th grade this next year, but when you can comprehend the thread, try to address the contradictions I outlined from your jumbled, disjointed references you erroneously believe shows that organic is better.
Just for fun, here is yet another refutation of your claim from one of the very UC-Davis PhDs in that jumbled up mess you cite as proof?
" At the 66th Annual meeting and Food Expo in Orlando FL, Dr. Diane Barrett, Food Science & Technology Dept, UC-Davis said she cannot conclusively say that organic fruit is healthier. Barrett said that in one study, there were signs that the total phenolic levels were higher in the organic product, And (sic) there were higher levels of vitamin C in frozen organic tomatoes. But neither the levels of lycopene, an antioxidant, nor some of the minerals were noticeably higher in the organic product. In another study there was no significant increase in vitamin C and lycopene levels between the organic and conventionally grown products"
IFT Media Relations, Chicago, Il
But lets stay on your claim of organic superiority and address the most exhaustive study todate, the UK's FSA study completed this summer( 2009) that says "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
1st reviewYou can try to refute the study, billy, but you can't with any real scientific evidence, just observational selection
inferences from the many pro-organo organizations. But you wouldn't want to quote an "industry hack " that have may have a hidden agenda or praise as you so often infer the chem folks do, would you?
Just saying something is true is a lot different than actually proving it. You fail at proving you claims a lot.
Again, the BS trademark political commentaries are snipped.
conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed."
So as I said, chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants, making them a target for noxious insects.
"No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed."
What 8 nutrient categories? Do they include bioflavonoids?
Who are these people and what are they talking about? You give a couple of cites that don't identify themselves or what they are talking about. Are you just pulling this out of your backside? What a bleeding wanker.
You still at it?
Ah well, back to the killfile wit ye.
plonk
ohhhh that really hurts my feelings
I spend some time today to review these links again and still find you can't fault the conclusions. You will, like so many of your belief have already, whine and cry foul, but the proof is pretty soild. So stop teabagging and read it.
The UK's FSA independent study completed this summer( 2009) states : "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
you didn't read the link, did you?
Again, you didn't read the link, did you?
conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed."
making them a target for noxious insects.
You messed this one up also. Is this a quote from the link above it? No, so separate the two and give a reference to your lead-in of your absurd hypothesis; "chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants, making them a target for noxious insects"
I can see now you are really confused, mostly because you haven't read or have you? Stop with the pseudo-intellectual BS and READ.
I did note that you screwed this last part up as much as you did the first bit of jumbled crap you refer to as "citations". Suffice it to say that the statement; " chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants, making them a target for noxious insects" is a complete misstatement of fact in whatever you are attempting . Pure supposition. No one said "leaves", no one said "noxious insects", except you. We were also discussing hydroponics, so to assume that excess nitrogen in a plant invites pests in hydroponic food is a bit out there. I asked you for information on your absurd claim and you dare to compare conventional and organic produce with your jumbled up mess including Pollan quotes and links to UC-Davis. Your links as usual, showed inconsistencies and half-truths. I gave you the latest information conducted by FSA that included such information as you hold to prove your point. The conclusion is the same as Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis, echoed earlier; Any claim that organic produce is somehow nutritionally superior is inconclusive.
Again, I also said I wasn't going to do your work for you. You must actually read the studies to know what they say. Only then can you attempt to refute them. You haven't done that so far. Only when you do can you forward your faulty premises. Right now you are just cherry picking your facts and mostly using quotes out of context, as usual. You need to quote your so called "facts" correctly.
How funny your use of " bleeding wanker" ? Is this your faux pas attempt at being British? Worldly, perhaps? Yet, how apropos as you will see, or perhaps as you already did?
Good to see you using the basic interrogatives as I recommended, but you wouldn't have had to if you would have actually READ the links. At the minimum, everything you ask is on the first pages as well as the who, what, why,when, where and how the study was conducted. If in a hurry, just read the executive summaries or abstracts as you usually do.
But this one time I gave you the entire study in PDF form, as well as the second review and the American peer review so you can't pretend it is of no significance. The complete protocol to include the fact that " relevant subject experts and external bodies were alerted to the review process and the availability of the review protocol." and that "A draft of the final report was reviewed and approved by the independent review panel". So either you can't read or you won't read? which is it? Your comprehension will be another issue.
Personally, I believe it was too kind in that the protocol was overly broad. One thing the organic comparisons do not do is give a base soil analysis to include pH. and then explain what nutrients they have available for use in their soil bank. There is a big difference in chicken manure, cow manure, alfalfa etc. What inorganic materials did they use? in what amounts, and how frequently. I do find fault with the control (or lack of) in most of "experiments" and studies so far. Your "research", thus the facts used to confirm your beliefs are mostly flawed and vastly over stated. You have no standard protocol to make comparisons as this show.
I am sure you can see the disparity that can be. So lets see an equal side by side where all things are the same as possible, then give realistic explainations for the varients. Hasn't been done to date as Br Barrett indicates.
I realize balanced scientific papers are not on the Fringe Organic Industry Insider's recommended reading list, but this FSA study is going to cause you considerable consternation if you continue to claim such superiority. Go review the study design, search strategy, pub selection, etc. 50 years!
The concept of sustainable agriculture using organic materials is a good and noble one, but it not the panacea you have so falsely claimed and badger people about. You continue to preach apples, all the while showing oranges as this latest study shows.
Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one in some of YOUR references) has said many times there is no conclusive proof that organic is superior. So you want to quit now and move on because you nor your fan club can adequately address this one.
-- Again, your trademark BS political commentaries are snipped
Huh? whadda ya talking about now?
We are still the on fact you haven't read any of the FSA's study, much less the ones you have falsely claimed is some kinda proof . Personally I think you are pretending and know you can't refute them, kinda like you did with the Ironite fiasco when you were making "factual" claims on a product that sold out 2 years prior or when you accused Sherwin of lying when he said he contacted Dr. Swartz.
So here we are yet again, talking about you not checking your cut and paste "facts". Your research skills are juvenile at best, billy. Next time you want to play big man on campus, you better have your facts right.
You looking for a quick exit, are ya?
In article , "gunner" wrote:
Being a scientist
responsible for the above cites), which was accepted by them. Also see
As are the the cites used to refute your position.
Once again, it's funny that you should hold me to a higher standard than yourself, since the sites that you gave me are (1) a private lab that does extensive work for the "biotech" industry, and (2) the UK's Food Standards Agency which has already accepted criticism that it is, or appears, to be bias against organic produce and in favor of GMOs.
Specifically, see
1.7 1.7.1 While it is not within the remit of this Review to consider matters relating to the internal structures or organisation of the Agency, it must be noted that the role of the Advisory Committees in the devolved countries was not always clear, both to those serving on the Committee and to other stakeholder groups. Some questioned whether each of the Advisory Committees functions in the same way and has the same level of effectiveness and influence on Agency decisions. While most stakeholders welcomed the Agency having a presence in the devolved countries, there were some (mainly from the food industry) who were concerned this structure adds a level to the decision-making process and delays actions. Specific issues raised Early references to organic food, and to GM food, were highlighted (unprompted by the Reviewers) by a number across the stakeholder groups. It is clear that these two issues are still heavily influencing stakeholders¹ perceptions of the Agency. In respect of both issues, the perception of the vast majority was that the Agency had deviated from its normal stance of making statements based solely on scientific evidence, to giving the impression of speaking against organic food and for GM food. This view was expressed not only by stakeholders representing organic and GM interest groups, but by those who would be regarded as supporters and natural allies of the Agency.So, here again, is more information than you gave me.
Omnivore¹s Dilemma p. 179
³The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary Glickman said. ³It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is 'organic' a value judgment about nutrition or quality." Some intriguing recent research suggests otherwise. A study by University of California?Davis researchers published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry in 2003 described an experiment in which identical varieties of corn, strawberries, and blackberries grown in neighboring plots using different methods (including organically and conventionally) were compared for levels of vitamins and polyphenols. Polyphenols are a group of secondary metabolites manufactured by plants that we've recently learned play an important role in human health and nutrition. Many are potent antioxidants; some play a role in preventing or fighting cancer; others exhibit antimicrobial properties. The Davis researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols. The recent discovery of these secondary metabolites in plants has ought our understanding of the biological and chemical complexity of foods to a deeper level of refinement; history suggests we haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this question, either. The first level was reached early in the nineteenth century with the identification of the macronutrients?protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Having isolated these compounds, chemists thought they'd unlocked the key to human nutrition. Yet some people (such as sailors) living on diets rich in macronutrients nevertheless got sick. The mystery was solved when scientists discovered the major vitamins?a second key to human nutrition. Now it's the polyphenols in plants that we're learning play a critical role in keeping us healthy. (And which might explain why diets heavy in processed food fortified with vitamins still aren't as nutritious as fresh foods.) You wonder what else is going on in these plants, what other undiscovered qualities in them we've evolved to depend on. In many ways the mysteries of nutrition at the eating end of the food chain closely mirror the mysteries of fertility at the growing end: The two realms are like wildernesses that we keep convincing ourselves our chemistry has mapped, at least until the next level of complexity comes into view. Curiously, Justus von Liebig, the nineteenth-century German chemist with the spectacularly ironic surname, bears responsibility for science's overly reductive understanding of both ends of the food chain. It was Liebig, you'll recall, who thought he had found the chemical key to soil fertility with the discovery of NPK, and it was the same Liebig who thought he had found the key to human nutrition when identified the macronutrients in food. Liebig wasn't wrong on either count, yet in both instances he made the fatal mistake of thinking that what we knew about nourishing plants and people was all we need to know to keep them healthy. It's a mistake we'll probably keep repeating until we develop a deeper respect for the complexity of food soil and, perhaps, the links between the two. But back to the polyphenols, which may hint at the nature of that link. Why in the world should organically grown blackberries or corn contain significantly more of these compounds? The authors of Davis study haven't settled the question, but they offer two suggest theories. The reason plants produce these compounds in the first place is to defend themselves against pests and diseases; the more pressure from pathogens, the more polyphenols a plant will produce. These compounds, then, are the products of natural selection and, more specifically, the coevolutionary relationship between plants and the species that prey on them. Who would have guessed that humans evolved to profit from a diet of these plant pesticides? Or that we would invent an agriculture that then deprived us of them? The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the plants see no reason to invest their sources in mounting a strong defense. (Sort of like European nations during the cold war.) A second explanation (one that subsequent research seems to support) may be that the radically simplified soils in which chemically fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw ingredients needed to synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more vulnerable to attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be. NPK might be sufficient for plant growth yet still might not give a plant everything it needs to manufacture ascorbic acid or lycopene or resveratrol in quantity. As it happens, many of the polyphenols (and especially a sublet called the flavonols) contribute to the characteristic taste of a fruit or vegetable. Qualities we can't yet identify, in soil may contribute qualities we've only just begun to identify in our foods and our bodies.----- And,
and,
As usual, we have moved far from where your rant originally began, when you cited the biotech support lab "Plant Research Technologies Inc." as the source of the supposed nutritional superiority of hydroponically grown produce.
Sorry, gunny, if you can't read, but that isn't my fault. Everything is here to substantiate my assertions, except for he part where chemfert fed plants grow faster (as it damages the soil ecosystem), leading to more tender foliage (which happens to be where the nitrates are stored), and that in turn attracts insect predators. Of course. if you are growing indoors, there are no insects, and less flavonoids.
Take another look at the paucity of information in the cite you gave
As for the reportage on Dr. Diane Barrett, (" At the 66th Annual meeting and Food Expo in Orlando FL, Dr. Diane Barrett, Food Science & Technology Dept, UC-Davis said she cannot conclusively say that organic fruit is healthier. Barrett said that in one study, there were signs that the total phenolic levels were higher in the organic product, And (sic) there were higher levels of vitamin C in frozen organic tomatoes. But neither the levels of lycopene, an antioxidant, nor some of the minerals were noticeably higher in the organic product. In another study there was no significant increase in vitamin C and lycopene levels between the organic and conventionally grown products."), you have to know that she is a scientist, and until she can confirm that she has covered every possible variable in the produce being analyzed, she can't make a summary judgement. However, if you have the eyes to see, and the wit to comprehend, you will see from the cites above, that organic is usually superior in nutrition, be they macro-nutrients, vitamins, or flavonoids. This is in addition to "organic" being lower in pesticides and friendlier to the environment. To be fair, one should also consider the the cultivars grown (shelf-live vs. nutrition) and the distribution system of field, to warehouse, to store, to consumer as opposed to from field to consumer, and their impacts on the nutritional value of the produce.
As usual, I await your pissing and moaning ;O)
--
Let me understand this correctly.
organizations tried to use. They are at least saying the Study used outdated studies (a lie) or that it neglects use of pesticides ( outside stated scope) and other plausible denial tricks.
Not that I think you actually have any use for science nor facts, you seem to use your own a lot. But if you are looking for how the British FSA conducts its studies and past allegations, this link may help:
You want to discuss best organic practices, thats fine, gardening tricks, thats fine. I would like to read them, but don't keep distorting the truth and then jumping around telling me more lies and claiming conspiarcy when you can't t refute facts.
I hope one day you actually find it truly was the evil food industries that caused your diabetes and then you can justify your stump speeches, but lets face facts, it is just you and your refusal to accept the fact you have a disease. Man up and deal with it, little billy rose, your conspiracy theory BS is well played out.
As usual, I await your pissing and moaning ;O)
5 4 3 2 1 and here's gunny;O)No, I'm saying that it looks as if the Food Standards Agency is bias (see below). Specifically, see 1.7 of the repot below.
That isn't what
So there you have it, ladies and gents.
and,
responsible for the above cites), which was accepted by them. They didn'y deny the criticism. They accepted the criticism that they appeared pro-GMO.
Early references to organic food, and to GM food, were highlighted (unprompted by the Reviewers) by a number across the stakeholder groups. It is clear that these two issues are still heavily influencing stakeholders¹ perceptions of the Agency. In respect of both issues, the perception of the vast majority was that the Agency had deviated from its normal stance of making statements based solely on scientific evidence, to giving the impression of speaking against organic food and for GM food. This view was expressed not only by stakeholders representing organic and GM interest groups, but by those who would be regarded as supporters and natural allies of the Agency.
As further proof of U.K. government bias see
British politicans are at least as sleasy as American politicians. They have been consistently pro-GMO.
Keep in mind that gunny spends most of his posts in personal attacks, which have no bearing on the topic at hand i.e., the nutritional value of hydroponic produce vs. organic produce.
You gave
It is impossible to have a dialoge, if the other party doesn't respond to what you said.
So, since dialoge is out of the question, I'll leave it to the readers to make their own opinion.
I await your pissing and moaning, gunny, them I'm out of here.
Oh, no need to tell you to GFY, gunny. I think you've already done that very nicely ;O)
Is that your final answer?
Have ya got that jury convened yet? Look around ya billy, Phobic left ya early and your posse still hasn't shown.
You need to understand....no one cares! Its just you and me fighting over your vexatious claims.
As to dialoge(sic) ??? Right! Try completing this first:
WTF has this flame war got to do with growing marijuana?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.