Pesticide foodstuff database

[Bill who putters]

[Billy]

informed decisions.

[gunner]

I thought you distrusted the Fed?

[Billy]

Network?

I'm sure that the big lobbies that spread lots of cash around, aren't too happy with them.

Chemical companies want to sell. Framers don't want to test. Monsanto, Cargill, and Archer Daniel Midlands just want subsidies.

[gunner]

It is just good to see PAN agrees with the Fed and their database :), but most importantly that the findings show we are all safe. My first thoughts were these Guys had an agenda and were going to push Precautionary Principles.

I do have to ask, do these pickup lines still work? True, their totally diversionary, but they both also seem so, I don't know.... irrelevant.

BTW, ever read up on Dr. Bruce Ames, UC Berkeley? good read on toxins and such.

another info site on chemicals:

can use your zip to drill down to see whats is in your area, even gets down to specific issues.

& If you promise not to nit-pick, has some very good background facts. Some still floats around the Internet discussions a bit, .....But do check out Dr. Ames, he has a lot more to say about pesticides, quite illuminating, not casually dismissed.

Gunner In all lies there is wheat among the chaff...

- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

[Billy]

I'm sure, there are lots of good reads, like John Yoo and the torture briefs (also Cal Berkeley). It's nice to have an argument before cites are given. What do you have to say. Where is the site for the government database on pesticides? Where is the PAN site that says all pesticides are safe?

Precautionary Principles, are you out of your mind, Dow, Monsanto, Bayer, Nisus, and Novartis would break their political legs. Cargill, and Archer Daniel Midlands profit handsomely from corn, and soybean supports, which allows them to make cheap food like stuff, for consumption.

is a nice toxic read, as is did you ever consider that if we didn't do the same monocultures in the same place most of the pesticides wouldn't be needed, under the most conservative of judgments. GMO crops are no more productive than standard crops, but some do allow more pesticide be used. And how about the increase in diabetes since we started eating faux foods 30 years ago? Prior to that they were called imitation foods.

So gunner, make your argument, and present your citations. If you've been to school, you should know how it works.

[gunner]

You are aware that the PAN database IS the USDA's PDP?

[gunner]

Ahhh! It is obvious from your posting history you don't take the time to read and certainly don't use higher order thinking skills to put facts together. IN this case again, you didn't read the data you so quickly endorsed, did ya? Typical Billy, then you try to cover your tracks with pure unadulterated BS and more links you still didn't read. Google is not your friend Billy. As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use "citations" as well as the way you attempt to "bait" someone. You have obviously have a lot of practice on the playground.

If you would have read and verified the PAN site you would know PAN uses the USDA's PDP test data, a fact they talk about in several places, in fact WOMF specifically references they use the PDP and the PesticideInfo.Org ( which is also themselves). On their PesticideInfo.Org site they state they use the PDP and a few other source references most of which are again FED papers of some agency or other. So once again the database traces back to the PDP as the primary source of all the data used by PAN. Now how bizarre is that ! Because of my training and experiences I have to ask why? I can't come up with anything other than they just another 501 c. 3. looking for money, scare money is pretty easy to get from the uninformed. so here is your "citation" (In my business its source or reference ) , check out the page: Apple Sauce ... snipped...

Footnotes

1. Tests for any given food are often conducted in multiple years. In all cases WhatsOnMyFood shows...snipped...

1. All pesticide residue results on this page and elsewhere on the WhatsOnMyFood website were obtained by the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP)

2. Punzi, JS, Lamont, M, Haynes, D, Epstein, RL, USDA Pesticide Data Program: Pesticide Residues ...snipped...

1. All toxicological data was either compiled for this site - typically from U.S. EPA reregistration eligibility decisions - or obtained from data compiled for the PesticideInfo website

Here, let me further help you do your research, this is the summary of the

2007 report PAN used for their pie chart website presentation: data, published Dec 2008

"PDP analyzed 11,683 samples of fresh and processed food commodities in

2007, excluding groundwater and drinking water. Overall, the percent of residues detected (the number of residues detected divided by the total number of analyses performed for each commodity) was 1.9 percent. Over 99 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues above the safety limits (tolerances) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 96.7 percent of the samples analyzed did not contain residues for pesticides that had no tolerance established."

Seem like we got an Ivory Snow report card Billy, 99%!!!!! so go back to that little pie chart fluff, ground clutter thingies and verify that none exceed the allowable safe limits. Not a one Billy, not a one should exceed the EPA limits, ok maybe the

[Ernie Willson]

or

Gunner--

Really good post.

People generally aren't generally smart enough to quantify such data. Most people can't tell the difference in meaning between Parts per hundred million and percent. The perception is.....If there is ANY of it present it's going to kill you.

EJ in NJ

[Billy]

Q: What data is shown here and where did it come from? A: USDA¹s Pesticide Data Program (PDP) cross-referenced with toxicology1 data from EPA and other authoritative listings. since it's government information, you shouldn't have a problem with it;O)

TOXICOLOGY: MAKING SENSE OF PESTICIDES What¹s On My Food? also contains toxicological information for most pesticides tested by USDA, and for many of the pesticide residues (chemicals found on foods that may be different from the actual pesticides used). The toxicological information here is pulled from

a comprehensive database that we've developed and maintained for ten years.

Certainly makes me glad that I grow as much as I can. I'll read it when I can but it still doesn't answer the questions below.

The EPA under Bush was a joke and we all know that the USDA isn't to aid consumers, it's meant to aid agriculture (marketers).

And dioxin is measured in femtograms (10^-15 g). Which would equal

6 millionths of a sec.

Yes, and the renowned Frederick Seitz said that "Global Warming" isn't man made. Yada, yada, yada. There are lots of scientists. You have to take a poll and measure their quality.

1994? you might say so.

Lots of cow patties out there: EXCLUSIVE?Pentagon Pundits: New York Times Reporter David Barstow Wins Pulitzer Prize for Exposing Military¹s Pro-War Propaganda Media Campaign Pundits-double-web

In his first national broadcast interview, New York Times reporter David Barstow speaks about his 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winning expose of the Pentagon propaganda campaign to recruit more than seventy-five retired military officers to appear on TV outlets as military analysts ahead of and during the Iraq war. This week, the Pentagon inspector general¹s office admitted its exoneration of the program was flawed and withdrew it.

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him of people are playing fast and loose with critical facts. I just reads them the way that I sees them.

The governors of West Virginia always call me an environmental extremist. You¹ve got to be an extremist in order to achieve things. You¹ve got to be ready to make enemies in order to accomplish something. And it¹s absolutely necessary that the people here today continue to demonstrate against this highly destructive practice.

- REP. KEN HECHLER (94 years old)

"The only congressman who marched with Martin Luther King in Selma, Alabama, was this hillbilly from West Virginia . ."

"I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit." -- Mel Brooks

[Bill who putters]

Bruce is going on 81 and has done good work. That said science has a difficult time adding up total exposure and the possible impact. I'd hazard a guess that our immune systems are strengthened and weakened by impact of all our sensual imputes.

Best practice is to try to do well be well with what we think we know. Gardening and invoking mother nature I believe is a good thing. Belief system raises it complexities. Love and gratefulness for sustenance primary sometimes expressed as saying grace in one way or another.

Looking at the fancy Ames graph I noticed no mention of Alpha or Beta Naphthalene which caused a hot spot for bladder cancer in Pennsville NJ. Rural area with A Dupont Plant providing employment not far from here it smelled like death and it was the most frequent sample turned over to the next shift. .

Exposure to harmful or helpful mediums seem to be secretive. Vit D, Vit K and Resveratrol along with family interaction seems good. Allopathy good for burns and accidents only. Yea that¹s me. YMMV. Fresh home nibbling has to be superior but I may be wrong. Energy more direct in a way from the earth and sun.

Bill whose sister is a MD and Husband a Virologist.

Small birds happy singing or protecting.

[gunner]

I think you should talk to your Primary Care about tapering off the Lithium. There are better class of drugs these days for your condition. Hopefully one of them can balance your mood swings and attention span out a bit better. With the proper care and counseling you should make a full recovery.

I'm serious when I say good luck with that Billy.

[gunner]

No doubt. I am hoping they get the operating manual and troubleshooting guide on Man written soon..

[Charlie]

Oh very good, the meds insult (always very funny and insightful), right before somehow working in a Nazi reference.

Oh wait, so sorry, I did......Godwin's Law invoked.

Charlie

[gunner]

So YOU can make sense out of his rambling BS and the stupid wiki links or you just a fan of his?

Regardless that was rich Charlie , I will try to work that one in the next time. I'm sure there will be more BS coming out of eco fringe element . It almost is like an OCD.

[Charlie]

I'm sorry, I said this thread when I meant to indicate the other group and that thread in which you and bob and kate and mic were holding forth.

You can attribute this oversight, or mistake, to lack of medication and ability to clarify thoughts, if you choose, Gunny.

Charlie

[Wilson]

Glad you had a good giggle over 'citations.' My dictionary includes ! 6. a passage cited; quotation. ! 7. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context And I think I can tell that you've probably consumed all the 'safe' residues you can, and should stop eating immediately. Always found it curious that no matter the mountain of evidence, empirical and anecdotal, you will find people fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I call that 'The Lemming Effect.'

as well as the way you attempt to "bait" someone. You have

or

[gunner]

Charlie, I aint no Gunny. I 'm a Gunner, a Warrant Officer. I was an E7 Promotable (

[gunner]

As well, I have to laugh about your use of the word use

Wilson potificates; Glad you had a good giggle over 'citations.' My dictionary includes ! 6. a

How's that dictionary working out for ya. Mr. Wilson? I maintain that you cite a passage or quotation and you reference a source. I also recommend you reread what ya wrote and take it to heart?

The underlying problem with what you wrote is it is just fluff. " I think I can tell that you've probably ". I'm sure it is all well meaning and supportive for your cause, timidly ad hominem for sure, but fluff never the less.

Please note the proviso in 7. a (above) .... "quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context". "In context " being the key words here. Something that is in very short supply on this NG. I think false information and information taken out of context are two of the biggest faults about the Internet, emails and causal writing in general, especially devoid on this NG. These two are so easily spread around and oft cited as fact. Then repeated in other papers as verified fact. I don't mind casual language, yet I still believe there is a danger of using casual language in an informational role. To me it stifles critical thinking skills and fails to check the Bull Shit artist; . i.e. "Chemferts(sic) kill micro organisms."

Such a broad generalization, yet it doesn't answer the basic interrogatives, a meaningless slogan for the cause.

I hope you don't mind using you as an example here since you opened the door. Let us take your comments " you've probably consumed all the 'safe' residues you can, and should stop eating immediately" You see you do not clarify what you are talking about in regards to the "safe" residue and why I should "stop eating immediately" . are you are discussing the EPA or perhaps it is the EU's safe standards . Since the many diverse Organic organizations use the EPA allowable limits. If you recall we found the EPA standards being used by the USDA's AMS is the very same as the pie chart driven "What's On My Plate" site. We can assume the EPA standards, yes? But one should not assume.

BTW, your post would have been a classic "argument from authority" fallacy outlined in Sagan's Fine Art of Boloney Detection if it was referenced. What is "my dictionary" ? A edition of the Oxford English Dictionary perhaps? I would not expect a full pedigree but some reference would have been nice, something as simple as Webster's Jr, High pocket dictionary would have been ok. None of the three I just looked up had what you quoted. But since we do not know what dictionary you used, as my old instructor liked to say, "it don't count for a hill of beans" .

To continue "Always found it curious ........Lemming effect. " Yes, wilson, I find it curious also. There is always such gross generalization applied with the all knowing nod and a wink , rarely anchored in anything of substance. It gives just the right amount of plausible denial for self righteous indignation, that bit of wiggle room for those that fail to recognize their bias, as way to recover with the proviso "that is not what I meant". That is across the board not just your little group. Otherwise, how do I put this... your wording is a way for the timid to feel clever without serious confrontation and having to use factual information.

Here is the original comment " So gunner, make your argument, and present your citations. If you've been to school, you should know how it works".

I don't present a bunch of quotes to support my arguments and I certainly don't cherry pick them to support a particuliarly biased view as practiced here. i.e. observational selection.

I also remain unimpressed with someone listing a large group of links especially when they obvisouly did not read them. One example of a reference link I recall was used to compare conventional fertilizers with organic fertilizers and in just in the first couple of paragraphs the subject scientist was "cited" as saying one should not compare the two. A very incongruent message to send which told me the writer did not do his job very well. Total fluff. Irealize one should not totally discount the argument because of one mistake but the entire post decomposed into the standard, "you don't understand the world like I do" trivial BS. You know the old wise and sage "Father Knows Best" thingie.

So let's keep our "facts" in proper context. A healthy sustainable world is a very good goal, but in a reality check, I doubt seriously that we will go back to the idyllic good old days. Lets learn to use what information we have at hand, not what we think we should have.

I'm still awaiting someone to explain how "Chemferts(sic) kill micro organisms." without all the diversionary doom and gloom tangents.

apostrophes?

[Billy]

pg. 26 Negative impacts on the soil food web Chemical fertilizers negatively impact the soil food web by killing off entire_ portions of it. What gardener hasn't seen what table salt does to a slug? Fertilizers are salts; they suck the water out of the bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and_ nematodes in the soil. Since these microbes are at the very foundation of the_ soil food web nutrient system, you have to keep adding fertilizer once you start_ using it regularly. The microbiology is missing and not there to do its job, feeding the plants. It makes sense that once the bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and protozoa are_ gone, other members of the food web disappear as well. Earthworms, for example, lacking food and irritated by the synthetic nitrates in soluble nitrogen_ fertilizers, move out. Since they are major shredders of organic material, their_ absence is a great loss. Without the activity and diversity of a healthy food web, you not only impact the nutrient system but all the other things a healthy soil_ food web brings. Soil structure deteriorates, watering can become problematic,"_ pathogens and pests establish themselves and, worst of all, gardening becomes_ a lot more work than it needs to be.

Teaming with Microbes: A Gardener's Guide to the Soil Food Web Jeff Lowenfels and Wayne Lewis

Lowenfelds: EDUCATION: Harvard University, geology; Northeastern University, law

I hope that holds you for the time being. I have important stuff to do, but I'll be back to play with you ;O))