My Modified LC plan

On 2009-08-21, Marengo wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:24:18 -0700, Billy
wrote:


Bad idea, most processed foods lack the phytonutrients (mainly
anti-oxidants) of real food. Processed foods are primarily made with GMO
plants (corn fractions, and soy oil or cotton oil). You can avoid GMO
products by buying "organic". GMO plants contain antibiotic markers that
can lead to bacterial resistance to them, and they contain Cabbage
Mosaic Virus which can, at least theoretically, turn on part of the 98%
of your DNA which is dormant. This could be genes for web feet or a long
dormant viruse. They certainly create exotic proteins, that can lead to
allergies.

It turns out that this is fiction. The world's largest study just
completed last month has proven that "organic" foods are no more
nutritious or healthy than conventionally grown foods.

Conventionally?

Organic is how food has been produced for eons.

A few decades of chemical dumping does not convention make.

Orlando Enrique Fiol writes:

That's a really important point for people who consider eating to be a
highly social activity. I would rather eat a few carbs on a given
occasion than feel self righteous and excluded.

Then don't feel that way. Does a recovering alcoholic have to feel
self-righteous and excluded if he goes to a party where everyone else is
drinking and doesn't join in?

As others have said, at most gatherings there are meat and vegetables
that a low-carber can eat, so we don't have to just sit and watch
everyone else. But if I go somewhere and find out they decided to skip
the turkey and just make a big batch of lasagna, there's nothing
self-righteous about simply skipping it.



--
Aaron -- 285/241/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

In article ,
Marengo wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:24:18 -0700, Billy
wrote:


Bad idea, most processed foods lack the phytonutrients (mainly
anti-oxidants) of real food. Processed foods are primarily made with GMO
plants (corn fractions, and soy oil or cotton oil). You can avoid GMO
products by buying "organic". GMO plants contain antibiotic markers that
can lead to bacterial resistance to them, and they contain Cabbage
Mosaic Virus which can, at least theoretically, turn on part of the 98%
of your DNA which is dormant. This could be genes for web feet or a long
dormant viruse. They certainly create exotic proteins, that can lead to
allergies.

It turns out that this is fiction. The world's largest study just
completed last month has proven that "organic" foods are no more
nutritious or healthy than conventionally grown foods. Those pushing
organic foods have apparently merely helped health-consious people
part with their $$$.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32205139...and_nutrition/

http://tinyurl.com/mdph26

http://tinyurl.com/nt7hjm

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/20/org...ealth-organic-
products.html
---
Peter

I have written quite a bit about organic food here. Apparently, you are
a new arrival.

You believe "The Capitalist's Tool"?

It is my understanding that the USDA is to help farmers sell their
products, not to make people healthier. That said, the lobbies for
conventional (new fangled) food try to suppress the reports of organic
(traditionally grown) food's superior nutrition.

http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby'spowerhasdeeproots.
htm
Farm lobby's power has deep roots
By Mike Dorning and Andrew Martin, Chicago Tribune
.. . .
The "real environment," personified by Combest, is a self-perpetuating
cycle of money, votes and political power that has made agriculture one
of Washington's most entrenched special interests, even as the number of
farmers has dwindled to about 1 percent of the population.

On the inside, it's a wheel of fortune for everybody involved, including
farmers, lobbyists and farm-state congressmen. Taxpayers pick up the
tab: a record $23 billion in farm subsidies last year. For critics,
subsidies are a costly anachronism in a country that long ago moved from
its agrarian base.

Critics also contend the system encourages unhealthy eating. Corn
subsidies lower costs of grain-fed meat and sweeteners used in soft
drinks. Consumers generally pay full cost for fruits and vegetables,
most of which are not subsidized.

------
Commercially grown fruits and vegetables are less expensive, are
prettier to look at, contain approximately 10-50% of the nutrients found
in organic produce, are often depleted in enzymes, and are contaminated
with a variety of herbicides, pesticides and other agricultural
chemicals.
Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993.
-------
http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles_...ommercial_food
/organic_vs_commercial_food.htm

ect.
----

But just let's say, the nutrition was the same, for arguments sake. By
eating organic (traditionally grown) foods you avoid pesticides and
other agricultural, and industrial chemical toxins.
http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/whatisbb.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0714213957.htm
http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden.html
http://www.ewg.org/sites/humantoxome/

-----

OK, OK, let's say that you don't care that organic (traditionally grown)
agriculture reduces "Body Burden" by selling you clean, unpolluted food.

Organic farmers make top soil. Conventional (new fangled) agriculture
destroys topsoil with their chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and
herbicides.

"Topsoil is the upper, outermost layer of soil, usually the top 2 inches
(5.1 cm) to 8 inches (20 cm). It has the highest concentration of
organic matter and microorganisms and is where most of the Earth's
biological soil activity occurs. Plants generally concentrate their
roots in and obtain most of their nutrients from this layer.

A major environmental concern known as topsoil erosion occurs when the
topsoil layer is blown or washed away. Without topsoil, little plant
life is possible. It takes approximately 100 years for 1 inch (2.5 cm)
of topsoil to be deposited, if there is the correct ratio of organic
material, inorganic material, and moisture. This can be improved by
using the terra preta system. However, there are 25 billion tons of
topsoil lost each year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsoil

The more the topsoil disappears, the more chemical fertilizers are
needed to maintain crop production. The more chemical fertilizers that
are used, the more topsoil is lost.

And then the fertilizers run off into streams, lakes, and oceans and
create dead zones, where no aquatic life lives.

"Dead zones are hypoxic (low-oxygen) areas in the world's oceans, the
observed incidences of which have been increasing since oceanographers
began noting them in the 1970s. These occur near inhabited coastlines,
where aquatic life is most concentrated. (The vast middle portions of
the oceans which naturally have little life are not considered "dead
zones".) The term can also be applied to the identical phenomenon in
large lakes.

Aquatic and marine dead zones can be caused by an increase in chemical
nutrients in the water, known as eutrophication. Eutrophication leads to
harmful algal blooms (HABs). When algal blooms die off, oxygen is used
to decompose the algae which creates hypoxic conditions. Chemical
fertilizer is considered the prime cause of dead zones around the world.
Runoff from sewage, urban land use, and fertilizers can also contribute
to eutrophication. [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

I have no idea why in the MSNBC article the researchers from the London
School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine made the report that they did, but
it wouldn't be the first time that a British health organization tried
to suppress the truth. See the last paragraph about Arpad Pusztai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Pusztai
or read the first chapter in "Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and
Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods
You're Eating"
by Jeffrey M. Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...y-Engineered/d
p/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250905935&sr=1-1

and read how the Royal Society, and Academy of Medical Sciences tried to
suppress Arpad Pusztai's work on Genetically Modified Organisms. He had
discovered that they can be quite bad for you.

So, if you don't care about your nutrition, or acquiring toxic chemicals
in your body, or preserving the environment for yourself, your family,
or your neighbors, then there is no reason for you to eat organic
(traditionally grown) food.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

In article
,
wrote:

On Aug 16, 5:58*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,





wrote:
On Aug 15, 6:39*pm, Billy wrote:

A link please for a peer reviewed scientific study that showed GMO
crops lead to allergies. * Also, the issue of possible antibiotic
resistance has been investigated many times, and AFAIK, every
reputable peer reviewed study concluded that while a theoretical
possibility, from a practical standpoint, it isn't an issue for a
number of valid reasons.

I would direct you to the book "Seeds of Deception"
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...lly-Engineered
/
dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250372822&sr=8-1 and the
discussion there about the insertion of genes into eucaryotes and the
roll of the antibiotic marker, Cabbage Mosaic Virus, and the
spliceosome.

The link doesn't work. *

The link works fine. The problem must lie elsewhere, hmmmm. And surely you
understand the difference
between books and peer reviewed studies. * Just because someone writes
a book, doesn't establish anything. * As an example, I can find you
books that say cholesterol is a significant risk factor in CHS and
others that say it matters not a wit.

I didn't agree to let you be the judge of the material. I'm telling you
of some of the materials that have lead me to my conclusions.

What I asked for was any peer reviewed studies that looked at the
issues of GMO and supported your conclusions. You responded with
books. There is a difference. I can find you books that say most
anything, including that they have the natural cure for cancer. Does
that make it so?

Seems like that would depend on the reputation of the author.



Let me
also mention
Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science
of Diet and Health by Gary
Taubeshttp://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400.
..
62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250449966&sr=1-1
which explores the history of cholesterol and heart disease.

Which of course has nothing to do with GMO and allergies, safety of
GMO, etc which is what we're talking about.




Also see the work of Árpád Pusztai.

I took a look at it and it appears to be one study that he did that
wasn't even focused on GMO, but that happened to notice effects on
rats from GMO potatoes. * The study was surrounded by controversy and
Pusztai apparently was fired from the institute.
Ah, the secureness of ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai

You are such a hack. I have very little interest in trying carrying on a
conversation with someone who has no interest in hearing.

In other words, don't confuse you with the facts.

Ad hominem noted.




"In February 1999, 30 international scientists from 13 countries
published a memo supporting Pusztai. On February 19 the Royal Society,
which is at the "forefront of defending GM technology" and does not
normally conduct peer reviews, publicly announced a peer review
committee would review his work and on May 18 the board issued the
results at a press conference condemning Pusztai. The same day the House
of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee also attacked
Pusztai. Behind the scenes coordination was partly revealed by a memo
showing that the government had set up a Biotechnology Presentation
Group which used both findings to publicly support GM in Parliament only
three days later. The Royal Society had also set up a "rebuttal unit"
headed by Rebecca Bowden to push a pro-biotech line and counter opposing
scientists and environmental groups. Dr Bowden confirmed the groups role
was to coordinate biotech policy but denied it was a spin doctoring
operation.[6]
Pusztai experiment was eventually published. Because of the
controversial nature of his research the 1999 data paper, co-authored by
Dr Stanley Ewen, was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual
number. Five gave it the green light to be published in The Lancet, the
only reviewer arguing against publication was Prof John Pickett of the
government funded Institute of Arable Crops Research. After consulting
with the Royal Society, Pickett broke the protocols of peer review by
publicly attacked the Lancet for agreeing to publish the paper.[9] The
paper - which used data held by Dr Ewen and so was not subject to James
veto on Pusztai's work - showed that rats fed on potatoes genetically
modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut
tissue when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes. [10][11] It
has been criticised on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not
a fair control diet.[12] Three days after accepting the paper for
publication and announcing it was also considering publishing a second
research paper by another team of scientists who had looked at the same
GM protein used in Dr Pusztai's potatoes and found that it binds to
human white blood cells, The Lancets editor, Richard Horton, received a
"very aggressive" phone call from Sir Peter Lachmann, the Secretary of
The Royal Society and President of the Academy of Medical Sciences,[13]
calling him "immoral" and threatening him that if he published the paper
it would have implications for his personal position as editor. Lachmann
admits making the call but denies that what he said was a threat and
claims the call was to "discuss his (Hortons) error of judgment" in
publishing the paper.[14][15] Following publication, co author Dr
Stanley Ewen, claims he found his career options "blocked at a very high
level" and retired. The potatoes were subsequently destroyed, along with
all details of their modification and Cambridge Agricultural Genetics
subsequently ceased business.[6]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai

Sure sounds like exactly what I said. That the research study was
surrounded by controversy and the researcher left the institute
shortly thereafter.

He implanted a gene for lecithin. The potatoes made the lecithin
perfectly, yet the product killed the lab rats. You also didn't mention
that Pusztai was supported by a peer review, but not by the Parlement
who was in Monsano's pocket.



That's one study, compared to how many that have found no effects?

Who can afford the money for studies? As with science articles, science
research usually pleases the funder.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...al.pmed.004000
5



Oh please. There is a boat load of money spent and made available
every year for research on almost everything one could imagine.
Don;t use that as an excuse to take the results of one disputed study
that wasn't even designed to look at GMO safety and accept it as
gospel, while ignoring all the other evidence. There have been far
more peer reviewed studies that were actually designed to specifically
look at the safety of GMO and showed no dangers.








Organic products are fine if you want to buy them and can afford to
pay 2X. * In developed countries, many people can afford that
option. * But it's not the case in 3rd world countries, where GMO
crops offer big advantages to feed hungry populations. * *Two of
which
are higher yields and less use of pesticides, which is good for the
environment and cost.

Exposed: the great GM crops
mythhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-gr
e...
m-crops-myth-812179.htmlhttp://www.countercurrents.org/sharma210309.htm

Actually the resistance to Roundup (whatever) allows the use of more
pesticides.

Besides Roundup, GMO crops have been developed to be specifically
resistant to both insects and disease. * That means farmers use LESS
chemicals because the crop is naturally resistant to insect and
disease. *

This means that more people are eating the toxins from Bacillus
thuringiensis, and in greater quantities. The ban of Starlink corn was
due to its obvious allergenic properties. What damage is caused by less
obvious allergies? Why are we the guinea pigs? Even the breeders of
Starling concede that resistance will eventually develop to Bacillus
thuringiensis toxins by crop pests. At present, the best we can do is to
slow down this development.



So it's better for the farmer to spray the crop with BT directly or
another pesticide which are the other alternatives?
It is called integrated pest management. Pesticides are the last option.






So, it's not true that in the case of all, or even most GMO
it leads to the use of more chemicals and in the specific case of
pesticides, it clearly leads to LESS being used. * *Again, you are
only looking at the negatives, because of obvious bias.

As far as Roundup, yes in that case it allows the crops to then be
sprayed with Roundup to kill weeds. * But the question becomes how
much more yield do you then get, what would the farmer use to treat
the weeds if Roundup could not be used, etc.

Here's what the UN, which is clearly no mouthpiece for US business
interests has to say about GMO

http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm

Potential benefits for the environment

For god's sake, this was written by a reoprter. Potential "IF"

So says you. It's on the UN website newsroom and not attributed to
any specific reporter or news agency. It would appear to me to have
been generated by their own news organization reflecting the position
of the FAO of the UN.

THere is no avoiding the "If". It is speculation.




More food from less land: Improved productivity from GMOs might mean
that farmers in the next century won't have to bring so much marginal
land into cultivation.

Already gave you one study where it is shown the GMO crops don't produce
larger crops.

Golden Rice has been a complete failure as the the amount of vitamin "A"
in it is insignificant.

GMOs might reduce the environmental impact of food production and
industrial processes: Genetically engineered resistance to pests and
diseases could greatly reduce the chemicals needed for crop
protection, and it is already happening. Farmers are growing maize,
cotton and potatoes that no longer have to be sprayed with the
bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis - because they produce
its insecticidal agent themselves

And if the problems of ingesting Bacillus thuringiensis toxins weren't
enough you continue to over look the dangers that have been enumerated
for any GMO crop. Some GMOs may turn out to be benign, but in the mean
time we are guinea pigs.





THe pesticides and herbicides in turn kill off the soil
ecology exacerbating the loss of top soil. Turns out the less top soil
you have, the more chemical fertilizers you have to use, so you end up
having to use more and more chemferts as the topsoil disappears, while
at the same time poisoning the water supply for people, and creating
huge dead zones in the ocean where nothing can live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

If we did not have those pesticides, herbicides, etc available, food
would cost a lot more and a lot more people in the world would be
starving. * *This more balanced view is expressed by the UN, as
opposed to the shrill voices on the extremes.

The point is, that with out topsoil, there won't be agriculture.


Yes, more hippie shrill voice nonsense. If we're destroying the
topsoil, how is it that more and more food is produced here in the USA
on the same land each year?

Ad hominen noted again. Where is more food being grown on the same land
recently? Organic crops out perform factory farms in production. The
only place that factory farms are competitive in in monocultures and
economies of scale. Have you noticed all the small farmers losing their
lands? Most small farmers stay in business because someone works for a
paycheck.




So GMOs don't give higher yields (they usually allow longer shelf life
and show less bruising, nothing to do with flavor or nutrition), and
they are a disaster for the environment.

If that were true, then you don't have to worry. * Because farmers
would not pay more for GMO seed and use it if it did not produce
higher yields. * So, obviously it does work.

Farmers are just figuring this ...

read more »

I think the farmers are likely smarter than you and know what works
economically. As for economics, weren't you the one that complained
people were eating twinkies because of government crop subsidies? I
showed you that in the last 4 years, the price of grain tripled, yet
the twinkies are still flying off the shelves aren't they? So much
for the cost of grain being the driving factor in twinky sales.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/ma...l?pagewanted=1
&ei=5090&en=e8328c69f0b3f4be&ex=1334894400&partner =rssuserland&emc=rss
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"JKconey" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

You started this thread by tallking about eating prepared meals using
lower carb, low sodium frozen meals. What products, specifically, are
you eating? This may be of help to others.
--


I don't know where you live or what you like? This is a regional
challenge. It's really easy. Just go to the frozen foods section of your
big
supermarket, and read the labels. Too many to mention here. Some brands may
be generally awful but may have 1 or 2 selections that you really like. I
tend to buy ones that are around 250-300 calories, low sodium, and as low
carb as I can find. That said some of the higher carb counts may be
because
they include an apple fritter dessert, which I may not eat, thus bringing
it
down. Kashi seems to make good stuff, with Healthy Choice not that good.
You
need to "audition" until you find what you like. Also Trader Joes has
really
nice frozen meals as well.

But what, specifically, do you eat?

There are no processed foods that you would recommend? Which are low in
salt? Which don't use GMOs? Which are low in carbs? You say you eat
them. What are they?

What have you been talking about?
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

"Billy" wrote in message
...


What have you been talking about?
--



Billy I already aswered several times as best as I can. I'm not
interested in playing this nit picking game, so you can dissect what I
choose. If I say meal X is 25 carbs, you'll say, "that's not low carb"....
if I say meal Y has 200 sodium, you'll say "that's not low sodium".
Please... go to the store and read the labels and pick what you like. It's
working well for me, and isn't that enough for you?



--
Numbers to look forward to: 9/9/09, 8/9/10, 1/1/11, 1/11/11, 7/7/11,
7/11/11, 9/10/11, 9/11/11, 11/11/11, 10/11/12, and 12/12/12 ..... all before
Dec 21, 2012 even gets here!

In article ,
"JKconey" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...


What have you been talking about?
--



Billy I already aswered several times as best as I can. I'm not
interested in playing this nit picking game, so you can dissect what I
choose. If I say meal X is 25 carbs, you'll say, "that's not low carb"....
if I say meal Y has 200 sodium, you'll say "that's not low sodium".
Please... go to the store and read the labels and pick what you like. It's
working well for me, and isn't that enough for you?

No, because I think you are bull ****ting us. I just want to know if
there are healthy low carb options out there for people who are don't
have time to cook from scratch every day.
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

On Aug 21, 10:04*pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,





*Marengo wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:24:18 -0700, Billy
wrote:

Bad idea, most processed foods lack the phytonutrients (mainly
anti-oxidants) of real food. Processed foods are primarily made with GMO
plants (corn fractions, and soy oil or cotton oil). You can avoid GMO
products by buying "organic". GMO plants contain antibiotic markers that
can lead to bacterial resistance to them, and they contain Cabbage
Mosaic Virus which can, at least theoretically, turn on part of the 98%
of your DNA which is dormant. This could be genes for web feet or a long
dormant viruse. They certainly create exotic proteins, that can lead to
allergies.

It turns out that this is fiction. *The world's largest study just
completed last month has proven that "organic" foods are no more
nutritious or healthy than conventionally grown foods. *Those pushing
organic foods have apparently merely helped health-consious people
part with their $$$.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32205139...and_nutrition/

http://tinyurl.com/mdph26

http://tinyurl.com/nt7hjm

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/20/org...festyle-health...
products.html
---
Peter

I have written quite a bit about organic food here. Apparently, you are
a new arrival.

You believe "The Capitalist's Tool"?

Spoken like a true hippie commie with an agenda. Capitalism has fed
the world and lifted mankind from starvation to prosperity. Yet,
certain elements would try to ignore history and lead you to believe
it's all bad.

Marengo is right. As far a nutritional content, organic food has been
shown many times to be statistically insignificant compared to non-
organic by well designed studies to look at the issue. The studies
cited by the organic extremists that I have seen are usually invalid
ones. Like they go to the supermarket and buy organic tomatoes and
regular tomatoes and compare them, then claim the small difference in
some particular nutrient content is due to organic vs non-organic.
In reality, it's due to the fact that they are different species of
tomatoes, grown in different soils, etc. The well designed
studies use identical varieties grown in the same environment, side by
side. And those, like the recent one Marengo pointed out, show no
difference in nutrional content.

If you want to buy organic and pay 2-3X because you want to avoid the
trace amounts of chemicals, that's up to you. But don't turn it into
some silly rant about the evils of capitalism. Hundreds of millions
of people would be starving to death if we did not have modern
farming, which is feeding the world at a low cost.

Also, the whole issue has zippo to do with LC.





It is my understanding that the USDA is to help farmers sell their
products, not to make people healthier. That said, the lobbies for
conventional (new fangled) food try to suppress the reports of organic
(traditionally grown) food's superior nutrition.

http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby'spowerhasdeeproots.
htm
Farm lobby's power has deep roots
By Mike Dorning and Andrew Martin, Chicago Tribune
. . .
The "real environment," personified by Combest, is a self-perpetuating
cycle of money, votes and political power that has made agriculture one
of Washington's most entrenched special interests, even as the number of
farmers has dwindled to about 1 percent of the population.

On the inside, it's a wheel of fortune for everybody involved, including
farmers, lobbyists and farm-state congressmen. Taxpayers pick up the
tab: a record $23 billion in farm subsidies last year. For critics,
subsidies are a costly anachronism in a country that long ago moved from
its agrarian base.

Critics also contend the system encourages unhealthy eating. Corn
subsidies lower costs of grain-fed meat and sweeteners used in soft
drinks. Consumers generally pay full cost for fruits and vegetables,
most of which are not subsidized.

----

The lie repeated. I'll say it again. From 2004 to 2008 the prices
of grains, corn, soy, etc tripled. That dwarfed any price lowering
effect of farm subsidies. Yet, with prices tripled, the Twinkies,
Doritos, and Frosted Flakes still flew off the shelves and the impact
on sales or dietary substitution was insignificant. People just paid
2X for the same stuff.





--
Commercially grown fruits and vegetables are less expensive, are
prettier to look at, contain approximately 10-50% of the nutrients found
in organic produce, are often depleted in enzymes, and are contaminated
with a variety of herbicides, pesticides and other agricultural
chemicals.
Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993.
-------http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles___Research/Organic_vs_commercial_...
/organic_vs_commercial_food.htm *


Exactly the kind of improperly desigend study I discussed above.

"Over a period of two years, foods were purchased at several stores in
the western suburbs of Chicago. Apples, pears, potatoes, and corn were
selected, choosing specimens of similar variety and size. Organic
whole-wheat flour and wheat berries were obtained from catalogs and
markets in the Chicago area. Baby foods and "Junior' foods were also
included in the study. "


So, they just bought an apple marked organic and compared it to a
"similar" apple that was non-organic. We don't know that the species
was the same, nor do we know that they were grown under the same
conditions. One could be from WA and one could be from South
America. One could have been fresher because it was sitting on the
shelf less time, etc.

The correct way to do the study is to grow the same identical apples,
under the same conditions, with the only difference being not using
any chemicals on the organic.

Also lacking is any mention of the credentials, title or even who Bob
L Smith, who apparently did the study at a private lab is. All we
have is a name and address.





--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara



No, they call you a commie when you rail against capitalism and
continue to repeat lies even when shown the simple facts that prove
you wrong (go back to the tripling of grain prices as an example).
As for starvation, if we banned chemical use in agriculture, then we
would doom millions of people to starvation.

On Aug 22, 2:10*am, Billy wrote:
In article ,





*"JKconey" wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
....

What have you been talking about?
--

* * Billy I already aswered several times as best as I can. I'm not
interested in playing this nit picking game, so you can dissect what I
choose. If I say meal X is 25 carbs, you'll say, "that's not low carb".....
if I say meal Y has 200 sodium, you'll say "that's not low sodium".
Please... go to the store and read the labels and pick what you like. It's
working well for me, and isn't that enough for you?

No, because I think you are bull ****ting us. I just want to know if
there are healthy low carb options out there for people who are don't
have time to cook from scratch every day.
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63rujhttp://coun...erts020709.htm

Heh Billy. Can you read? I gave you a list of perfectly fine
prepared foods for LC that are available at the supermarket 1 mile
from my house. In fact, I gave that list a couple of times in this
thread. But apparently you want to pretend like you can't figure out
how those foods could possibly exist. Here are some examples ONE
MORE TIME:

whole roasted chicken
wood grilled shrimp
wood grilled fish
wood grilled scallops
flank steak
grilled vegetables
broccoli rabe


I beginning to think I liked you better when you just posted replies
to every bit of silly spam that showed up here.

Aaron Baugher wrote:
Then don't feel that way. Does a recovering alcoholic have to feel
self-righteous and excluded if he goes to a party where everyone else is
drinking and doesn't join in?

You're missing my point. I'm not a recovering alcoholic and refuse to look upon
food like alcohol, which no one needs to survive.

As others have said, at most gatherings there are meat and vegetables
that a low-carber can eat, so we don't have to just sit and watch
everyone else. But if I go somewhere and find out they decided to skip
the turkey and just make a big batch of lasagna, there's nothing
self-righteous about simply skipping it.


That's fine for you. But, if I like the food being offered even though it has
carbs, I'm going to eat it. My health is such that one meal won't kill me or
cause a relapse from which it will take months to recover. I can eat multiple
carbs in a single meal and go right back on plan the next day.

Orlando