Comparing Organic vs Non-Organic Bananas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Smasherman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Organic
Click For Summary
Organic foods, particularly bananas, often appear less visually perfect than non-organic options but are perceived to have better taste and fewer internal defects. The discussion highlights that the quality differences may stem from sourcing practices, with local, smaller producers tending to offer fresher, more flavorful produce compared to mass-produced items. While organic foods are generally more expensive due to strict growing standards, some argue that the taste difference may not be significant and is influenced more by freshness than organic status. The feasibility of transitioning to all organic food is questioned, with concerns about land use and crop yield losses. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the complexities of organic versus non-organic farming and the importance of local sourcing for quality produce.
  • #31
Absolutely.

You are not correct.

It is possible for the human body to obtain all of the nutrition is needs from ONLY a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds.

Furthermore, "coffee" usually contains caffeine, which alters the metabolism of the human body. It truly is detrimental to the human body.

o:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
jimmie said:
You are not correct.
I guess next you're going to say chocolate is not necessary.

We all know that chocolate raspberry coffee is the nectar of the gods.
 
  • #33
I guess next you're going to say chocolate is not necessary

I 'think' we both know the two-letter answer to that.

o:)
 
  • #34
We all know that chocolate raspberry coffee is the nectar of the gods.

How does that substance make you "feel"?

o:)
 
  • #35
jimmie said:
How does that substance make you "feel"?
o:)
Peaceful, satisfied, sleepy. (I'm one of those people not affected by caffeine, I can drink a pot of coffee and go straight to sleep) I don't drink it for the caffiene, I can't tell the difference between regular and decaffienated.
 
  • #36
Peaceful, satisfied,

True peace, and true satisfaction, do not require action; only non-action.

Peace and satisfaction are the effects of non-action.

Perhaps your "self" has tricked you into 'thinking' that you "need" that substance so as to be "peaceful and satisfied".

o:)
 
  • #37
jimmie said:
You are not correct.
It is possible for the human body to obtain all of the nutrition is needs from ONLY a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds.
It's possible. Its possible to filter out all you need from seawater. But do you think anyone will bust a cap on that sort of way of life. How much easier is it to eat a steak rather than a few pounds of beans.

Furthermore, "coffee" usually contains caffeine, which alters the metabolism of the human body. It truly is detrimental to the human body.
What's wrong with altering metabolism? Especially for such a short period of time? A lot of people WANT to change their metabolism from lower to higher, and a lot of people, if educated, would want theirs to be lower.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
jimmie said:
do you believe the human body needs "coffee"?

o:)
Besides, humans don't need much anyway. We don't "need" 8-10 hours of sleep a night. We don't "need" to eat every day. We don't "need" clean water. We don't "need" clothes.

We don't "need" a mattress to sleep on at night, or televisions.

We don't need civilization either. Have you ever lived, or even seen a "3rd world" villiage? They live in straw huts, and don't need much.

Humans are tough weeds, and can survive with or without damn near anything. But why not make those mattresses, toasters, chocolate and forks, so we can be happier, safer, and more productive citizens? :wink:
 
  • #39
Mk said:
Humans are tough weeds, and can survive with or without damn near anything. But why not make those mattresses, toasters, chocolate and forks, so we can be happier, safer, and more productive citizens? :wink:
Yeah! Yeah!
(bans jimmie to a hippie commune)
 
  • #40
Humans are tough weeds, and can survive with or without damn near anything.

A true world government would ensure that all individuals would possess, if they so choose, that which is needed in, at minimum, the lowest-technological form of that product.

That which is needed is mass-produced, and is available in varying levels of technology; product 'x' has high-tech versions and low-tech versions.

If you so choose to utilize product 'x', you are guaranteed to possesses the lowest-tech version of product 'x'.

A needed product is a product that is needed by an individual somewhere, but not every individual everywhere. Clothing is a needed product. Should you choose to not use clothing, that is your individual choice.

We don't "need" clean water.

Clearly, Mk, you do not know what "need" is.

But why not make those mattresses, toasters, chocolate and forks, so we can be happier, safer, and more productive citizens?

Why not make those mattresses, toasters and forks, and all NEEDED products, so we, ALL individuals on the planet, can be a happier, safer, more productive citizens of the planet?

o:)
 
  • #41
jimmie said:
If you so choose to utilize product 'x', you are guaranteed to possesses the lowest-tech version of product 'x'.
Why does it have to be lo-tech?

I can assure you that coffee is a needed product. It ensures the survival of all who have to be near me in the morning. They will all agree this is absolutely essential. :approve:
 
  • #42
I can assure you that coffee is a needed product. It ensures the survival of all who have to be near me in the morning. They will all agree this is absolutely essential.


Uhhh...good one. :smile:

I have no doubt that you "believe" it is "needed".

o:)
 
  • #43
How strong is the organic food demand in places other than the U.S.A.? How about Canada? U.K.? France? Germany? Other places?
 
  • #44
jimmie said:
It is possible for the human body to obtain all of the nutrition is needs from ONLY a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds.
The Intuit (or the native Greenlanders) just don't "get" this. :smile:
 
  • #45
EnumaElish said:
The Intuit (or the native Greenlanders) just don't "get" this. :smile:
Maybe because you keep calling them that. It's inuit. One 't' at the end, sometimes two 'n's.


Intuit is a verb.
 
  • #46
jimmie said:
It is possible for the human body to obtain all of the nutrition is needs from ONLY a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds.
Which of those provides iodine? Historically, before we started adding iodine to salt and before refrigerated transportation made it possible to get fish inland, iodine deficiency was a common health problem among people living far inland.

Furthermore, "coffee" usually contains caffeine, which alters the metabolism of the human body. It truly is detrimental to the human body.
o:)
Oh, one more thing...coffee is in your category of a wide variety of seeds...it is the seed of the coffee plant.

And this article supports it as a "functional food."
Dorea JG, da Costa TH. Is coffee a functional food? Br J Nutr. 93(6):773-82, 2005.

Abstract:
Definitions of functional food vary but are essentially based on foods' ability to enhance the quality of life, or physical and mental performance, of regular consumers. The worldwide use of coffee for social engagement, leisure, enhancement of work performance and well-being is widely recognised. Depending on the quantities consumed, it can affect the intake of some minerals (K, Mg, Mn, Cr), niacin and antioxidant substances. Epidemiological and experimental studies have shown positive effects of regular coffee-drinking on various aspects of health, such as psychoactive responses (alertness, mood change), neurological (infant hyperactivity, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases) and metabolic disorders (diabetes, gallstones, liver cirrhosis), and gonad and liver function. Despite this, most reviews do not mention coffee as fulfilling the criteria for a functional food. Unlike other functional foods that act on a defined population with a special effect, the wide use of coffee-drinking impacts a broad demographic (from children to the elderly), with a wide spectrum of health benefits. The present paper discusses coffee-drinking and health benefits that support the concept of coffee as a functional food.
 
  • #47
Which of those provides iodine?

Iodine is an element that is needed by the human body in "trace" amounts to help ensure a 'right' metabolism, the processes within all the eukaryote cells inside the human body, is maintained.

Any plant/vegetable/fruit that is grown in soil that is rich in iodine, such as coastal areas that are directly exposed to seawater, is a source of iodine.

I am aware that garlic, spinach, and sesame seeds, do contain iodine if the soil they grew in, regardless of the geographic location, was rich in iodine.

Oh, one more thing...coffee is in your category of a wide variety of seeds...it is the seed of the coffee plant.

I did not state that ALL seeds, from ALL plants, are needed by the human body.

To teach individuals EXACTLY what a "rightdiet" is, I believe a website needs to be created (:biggrin:) that provides ALL DETAILS for a "rightdiet", including: elements needed by the human body, the function of those elements, the sources of those elements, and the effects of not having those elements inside the human body.

And this article supports it as a "functional food."

There are MANY 'articles/reports/studies' on caffeine, and its effects on the human body.

A study of nearly fifty thousand male health professionals showed no increase of cardiovascular disease due to coffee-drinking [THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 323:1026-1032 (1990)] -- a result in agreement with the Framingham Study [ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 149:1169-1172 (1989)]. Neither caffeinated nor decaffeinated coffee are associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction [AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 149(2):162-167 (1999)]. However, coffee in excess of 8 cups per day may aggrevate cardiac arrhythmias [ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 114:147-150 (1991)] and raise plasma homocysteine [AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION 76:1244-1248 (2002)]. Adenosine is sometimes used in emergency medicine to treat supraventricular arrhythmias [AMERICAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN 65(12):2479-2486 (2002)] and caffeine may interfere with this treatment.

As with any information on any particular subject, the individual contemplating the information ultimately must decide if they BELIEVE that information, regardless if it is "right" or not, and if in fact that individual is AWARE of the difference between "right" and "not right", that individual is able to know if that information is in fact, "right", regardless if that information was "correct".

It comes down to having a "rightbelief".

"I" believe that caffeine is not needed by the human body, and "I" believe that "I am" "right".

Therefore, any individual reading the current thread, and any other thread that "I" have made a post on, ultimately must decide if they believe "I", and if "I am" "right".

o:)
 
  • #48
jimmie said:
It comes down to having a "rightbelief".
"I" believe that caffeine is not needed by the human body, and "I" believe that "I am" "right".
Therefore, any individual reading the current thread, and any other thread that "I" have made a post on, ultimately must decide if they believe "I", and if "I am" "right".
o:)
You didn't state "caffeine," you stated "coffee" earlier. I provided you with a scientific article that refuted your claim that coffee is not a nutritive food. You have provided nothing to support your argument. As this is a forum dedicated to science, no, it is not about "believing" who is right or wrong, it is about what the scientific evidence supports.
 
  • #49
Smurf said:
Maybe because you keep calling them that. It's inuit. One 't' at the end, sometimes two 'n's.
Intuit is a verb.
Thanks for the intuition. Not that I knew it, as I now know it, it's Inuit.
 
  • #50
You have provided nothing to support your argument.

I have provided below, as per your "request", information derived from "scientific studies and research" that indicate that "coffee" is, in fact, detrimental to the human body.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, (ajcn.org), has printed several scientific studies on coffee and its effects on the human body.

Below are just three abstracts of separate scientific studies proving the detrimental effects of coffee consumption in human beings.

1.) Inhibition of food iron absorption by coffee

TA Morck, SR Lynch and JD Cook

Dual isotope studies were performed in iron replete human subjects to evaluate the effect of coffee on nonheme iron absorption. A cup of coffee reduced iron absorption from a hamburger meal by 39% as compared to a 64% decrease with tea, which is known to be a potent inhibitor of iron absorption. When a cup of drip coffee or instant coffee was ingested with a meal composed of semipurified ingredients, absorption was reduced from 5.88% to 1.64 and 0.97%, respectively, and when the strength of the instant coffee was doubled, percentage iron absorption fell to 0.53%. No decrease in iron absorption occurred when coffee was consumed 1 h before a meal, but the same degree of inhibition as with simultaneous ingestion was seen when coffee was taken 1 h later. In tests containing no food items, iron absorption from NaFeEDTA was diminished to the same extent as that from ferric chloride when each was added to a cup of coffee. These studies demonstrate that coffee inhibits iron absorption in a concentration-dependent fashion.
2.) Chronic coffee consumption has a detrimental effect on aortic stiffness and wave reflections 1,2

Charalambos Vlachopoulos, Demosthenes Panagiotakos, Nikolaos Ioakeimidis, Ioanna Dima and Christodoulos Stefanadis

1 From the 1st Department of Cardiology, Hippokration Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Athens, Greece (CV, NI, ID, and CS), and the Department of Dietetics–Nutrition, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece (DP)

Background: The effect of coffee consumption on the cardiovascular system is still an unresolved issue. Aortic stiffness and wave reflections are important prognosticators of cardiovascular disease risk. We have shown that caffeine acutely increases aortic stiffness and wave reflections.

Objective: The objective was to investigate the effect of chronic coffee consumption on aortic stiffness and wave reflections.

Design: This was a cross-sectional study of 228 healthy subjects: 141 men ( ± SD: 41 ± 8 y old) and 87 women (41 ± 9 y old). Aortic stiffness was evaluated with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV). Wave reflections were evaluated with augmentation index (AIx) and augmented pressure (AP) of the aortic pressure waveform with the use of high-fidelity pulse wave analysis. Coffee consumption was ascertained over 1 y with a food-frequency questionnaire.

Results: A linear relation between coffee consumption and PWV, AIx, and AP was observed (P for trend < 0.05). Compared with the nonconsumption group, PWV was on average 13% higher, AIx was 2-fold higher, and AP was 2.4-fold higher (P < 0.01 for all) in the high-consumption group (>450 mL/d). The findings remained significant after control for confounders such as age, sex, smoking habits, body mass index, total and LDL cholesterol, triacylglycerols, blood glucose, mean blood pressure, and heart rate. The linear relation (P for trend < 0.05) observed between coffee consumption and arterial pressures was largely explained when the covariates were entered in the model.

Conclusions: Chronic coffee consumption exerts a detrimental effect on aortic stiffness and wave reflections, which may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease
3.) Heavy coffee consumption and plasma homocysteine: a randomized controlled trial in healthy volunteers1,2,3
Rob Urgert, Trinette van Vliet, Peter L Zock and Martijn B Katan

1 From the Wageningen Centre for Food Sciences, Nutrition and Health Programme, Wageningen, Netherlands; the Department of Physiology, TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, Zeist, Netherlands; and the Division of Human Nutrition and Epidemiology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Background: An elevated plasma concentration of total homocysteine is considered to be a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Heavy coffee drinking has been related to high homocysteine concentrations in epidemiologic studies and in one experiment in which healthy subjects drank unfiltered, boiled coffee.

Objective: Our goal was to determine whether daily consumption of paper-filtered coffee raises plasma concentrations of total homocysteine in healthy subjects.

Design: Twenty-six volunteers (18–53 y of age) consumed 1 L/d of paper-filtered coffee brewed with 70 g regular ground beans or no coffee for 4 wk each in a randomized, crossover design.

Results: The mean (±SD) plasma concentration of total homocysteine in fasting blood was 8.1 ± 1.8 µmol/L after abstention from coffee and 9.6 ± 2.9 µmol/L after 3–4 wk of coffee drinking, a difference of 1.5 µmol/L (95% CI: 0.9, 2.1 µmol/L) or 18% (P < 0.001). Coffee increased homocysteine concentrations in 24 of 26 individuals. Circulating concentrations of vitamin B-6, vitamin B-12, and folate were unaffected.

Conclusion: Drinking large quantities of paper-filtered coffee raises fasting plasma concentrations of total homocysteine in healthy individuals.Michael Traub is president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, and director of Lokahi Health Center in Kailua Kona, Hawai'i.

Coffee, according to Traub, comes with a host of unwanted health problems including sleep disturbances, PMS, decreased immune function, reflux, vitamin and mineral deficiency, and possibly cancer.

Traub's research indicates that coffee has many carcinogens besides caffeine--creosote, pymdine, tars, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to name a few--so decaf is guilty here too. "There is a suggestion of a higher incidence of cancers of the pancreas, ovaries, bladder, and kidneys in coffee drinkers."

Traub paints a dark picture when it comes to coffee and stress response. He reports that our adrenal glands become exhausted as coffee pumps up our stress hormones. Anxiety builds and builds as coffee depletes us of adenosine, which should help to calm us. Coffee elevates levels of lactate, which increases the onset of panic attacks in many people. Coffee increases blood pressure and makes blood vessels constrict, which puts more pressure on the heart. Coffee can also nullify the effects of expensive blood pressure medications used to control such problems.Moonbear, according to the "scientific" article you provided that "discusses" coffee-drinking and health benefits that support the concept of coffee as a functional food, it states that "Depending on the quantities consumed, it can affect the intake of some minerals (K, Mg, Mn, Cr), niacin and antioxidant substances."

"I" believe that the "scientific evidence" I have presented clearly proves that that coffee is not "nutritive".

However, the current thread is about "Organic Foods", not "coffee".

We must stay on topic, lest our banter about "coffee" becomes generally annoying.

At May 7, 2002, the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), released the results of a landmark study that confirms organic foods have fewer pesticides.

The researchers analyzed test data on pesticide residues in more than 94,000 organic and nonorganic food samples of some 20 different crops tested over nearly a decade. Data were obtained from three independent sources: tests undertaken by CU in 1997 on selected foods; surveys conducted by the Pesticide Data Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on residues in a wide array of foods available on the U.S. market; and California Department of Pesticide Regulation surveys of residues in foods sold in California.

Research Highlights

* The USDA data showed that 73 percent of conventionally grown produce had at least one pesticide residue, while only 23 percent of organically grown samples of the same crops contained residues.
* More than 90 percent of USDA’s samples of conventionally grown apples, peaches, pears, strawberries and celery had residues.
* Conventionally grown crops were also six times as likely to contain multiple pesticide residues.
* In California state testing, residues were found in nearly a third of conventionally grown foods, but in only 6.5 percent of organic samples. The researchers remarked that the California data were based on tests with less-sensitive analytical methods than those used to generate the USDA data, and hence, did not include many low-level residues detected by the USDA’s testing methods. LI>California testing also revealed multiple pesticide residues nine times more often in conventional samples than in organic samples.
* CU’s tests found residues in 79 percent of conventionally grown samples and in 27 percent of organically grown samples, with multiple residues six times as common in the former.I believe that it is feasible for all individuals on the planet to eat ONLY organic foods, IF, the land and produce that is currently utilized to support products that are not needed, such as coffee, were utilized for products that are needed, like a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds, but not all seeds.

o:)
 
Last edited:
  • #51
jimmie said:
Michael Traub is president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians
Naturopathic :smile: :smile: :smile:

naturopathy

Naturopathy is a system of therapy and treatment which relies exclusively on natural remedies, such as sunlight, air, water, supplemented with diet and therapies such as massage. However, some naturopaths have been known to prescribe such unnatural treatments as colon hydrotherapy for such diseases as asthma and arthritis.

Naturopathy is based on the belief that the body is self-healing. The body will repair itself and recover from illness spontaneously if it is in a healthy environment. Naturopaths have many remedies and recommendations for creating a healthy environment so the body can spontaneously heal itself.

Naturopaths claim to be holistic, which means they believe that the natural body is joined to a supernatural soul and a non-physical mind and the three must be treated as a unit, whatever that means. Naturopathy is fond of such terms as "balance" and "harmony" and "energy." It is often rooted in mysticism and a metaphysical belief in vitalism (Barrett).

http://skepdic.com/natpathy.html
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Naturopathic

Scientific evidence by any other name... is still scientific evidence. :smile:

Uhhhh...soooo...does scientific evidence from The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition carry any weight at PF?

o:)
 
Last edited:
  • #53
jimmie said:
Scientific evidence by any other name... is still scientific evidence. :smile:
o:)
That's LACK of scientific evidence, it's arm waving mumbo jumbo.

If you don't want caffeine in your coffee, you don't have to drink caffeinated coffee.
 
  • #54
There was a study a few years back that made the New York Times demonstrating that caffeine can make sperm more virile over the span of a few hours. So if you're trying to impregnate someone, it's possible (assuming the study is correct) that drinking some caffeinated coffee about an hour before can increase your chances.
 
  • #55
I'm glad to see you've provided more appropriate support for your argument now. :smile: There are pros and cons to coffee consumption; if you wish to continue discussing the studies related to that, feel free to start up a new thread on the topic.

jimmie said:
I believe that it is feasible for all individuals on the planet to eat ONLY organic foods, IF, the land and produce that is currently utilized to support products that are not needed, such as coffee, were utilized for products that are needed, like a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and seeds, but not all seeds.

o:)
Since this is the on-topic argument you're presenting, can you now demonstrate that the crops that are "not needed" are grown in the same places as "needed" crops? You still need to support this particular argument. Here are some questions you'll need to answer to support your argument:

1) How do you define "needed" and "non-needed" crops? Right now, this remains rather subjective. Are you talking about nutrititive crops? Crops that provide materials for clothing, such as cotton and hemp? Crops that provide animal feed? Crops that provide employment to large numbers of workers? Crops that support vast industries and have a large impact on the economy?

2) How much land is used for "non-needed" crops vs "needed" crops, and how much more land would be required if all "needed" crops were organic? Is the difference sufficient?

3) Can the same land currently being used for "non-needed" crops actually be used for the "needed" crops? For example, a lot of coffee is grown using sustainable agriculture practices within the rainforest (no, not all, but your statement does not allow for such exceptions). This land could not be used for other crops without also destroying the rainforests, thus you'd need to subtract this out from any calculation of available land for your "needed" organic crops (since it seems you're listing coffee as "non-needed").

4)Your statement above seems to suggest that animals as a food and fiber source would no longer be included under your "plan." Is that correct? And if it is correct, then how much more cropland would be required to replace the animal component of our diet with entirely crop sources? Would this would include non-nutritive crops, such as cotton, to replace animal fiber for clothing, or should clothing be all synthetic? Please factor in the environmental impact of each of these alternatives; keep in mind not just the growing stage, but also the processing of the fibers and pollution resultant from such processes.

5) When factoring in the land required for crops, in addition to the additional land required for normal crop loss due to disease and pests, please also factor in the additional space needed between crops as a buffer zone to protect them from the rapid spread of such diseases.

6) Please take into account the human labor factor. Organically grown food requires an enormous amount of human labor to do things such as pick bugs off plants and pull weeds from between them, because you can't just automate those processes. Where will this labor force come from in a non-agrarian society?

7) Lastly, if the "non-needed" crops are no longer grown on that land, what will stop the landowners from using it for something other than crops when it's no longer as profitable to grow organic foods on the same land as their previous crops were? For example, they may sell it for new housing developments, highway construction/expansion, developing a mall, etc. And, if that land can be freed up, why would it be a better use for organically grown crops rather than allowing it to be protected greenspace and returned to a natural habitat?
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Evo said:
That's LACK of scientific evidence, it's arm waving mumbo jumbo.
Scientific Evidence or not, it seems to work.
 
  • #57
jimmie said:
Iodine is an element that is needed by the human body in "trace" amounts to help ensure a 'right' metabolism, the processes within all the eukaryote cells inside the human body, is maintained.
Any plant/vegetable/fruit that is grown in soil that is rich in iodine, such as coastal areas that are directly exposed to seawater, is a source of iodine.
Although the element is actually quite rare, kelp and a few other plants can concentrate iodine, which helps introduce the element into the food chain as well as keeping its cost down. I would NOT say "any plant." But if near a coastline, iodine is more likely to be in the food you eat because something along the line before you probably ate kelp.
"I" believe that caffeine is not needed by the human body, and "I" believe that "I am" "right".
Yes, its ok, we all know one does not need caffeine to survive. The joke has just gone too far. Right? :rolleyes:

loseyourname said:
There was a study a few years back that made the New York Times demonstrating that caffeine can make sperm more virile over the span of a few hours. So if you're trying to impregnate someone, it's possible (assuming the study is correct) that drinking some caffeinated coffee about an hour before can increase your chances.
I remember on MYTHBUSTERS, Adam and Jamie consumed caffeine in various doses, and their sperm did not have any visible changes, after ejaculation.

To conclude my post:
o:)
 
  • #58
First, you have articulated your seven points of concern, well. :smile:

1) How do you define "needed" and "non-needed" crops?

I am defining needed "products" and "not-needed products", that are known as "food", for human beings, as the title of the current thread relates to "Organic Foods".

A "needed food product" is ONLY an organically grown substance that is usually 'freshly-harvested' from the source it grew from, and includes only fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, plants, herbs, or seeds, or derivatives thereof, such as oils.

A 'not-needed food product' is any product that is not a needed food product.

Despite statistical scientific data that provides overwhelming support for proving a particular theory, there is ALWAYS an individual "willing" to argue against that scientifical data.

The World Health Organization estimates that tobacco addiction kills 5 million people worldwide each year, including more than 400,000 Americans. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence that smoking is directly linked to killing individuals, there are individuals that intend to argue against the evidence, and that it has not been proved that smoking is harmful.

The on-topic "argument" I have presented is about ONLY making use of that which is available, either land or produce, for ONLY a "needed food product".

According to anheuser-busch.com, Anheuser-Busch is the largest purchaser of rice in the United States, accounting for more than 8 percent of all domestic rice consumption. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the total amount of rice consumption in the U.S. for 2003/2004 was 3,882 thousand metric tons; 310.56 thousand metric tons of rice COULD HAVE been utilized in its "pre-processed-for-beer-state" to provide food for individuals, if the product "Budweiser beer" was not mass-produced.

According to World Tobacco, the area planted to all types of tobacco in the US in 2003 was estimated at 413,710 acres.

How much "needed food products" COULD HAVE been grown on that land instead of tobacco? I do not know, and I do not need to know. What I do know is that tobacco is not needed.

However, to present statistical "scientific" data to "support" that which I believe and know is right, simply to end a particular "argument", and to answer each of the seven points you have brought up and try to "convince" any individual my plan is "right" is futile, so long as products that are not "right" such as "Folgers" and "Budweiser" are mass-produced and mass-distributed. A particular argument will never "end" so long as one individual intends to argue.

I shall no longer participate in "particular" arguments with any individual why ONLY needed products should be mass-produced, because I believe that individuals that intend to be right intend to not argue about why ONLY needed food products should be mass-produced and mass-distributed, and it is those individuals ONLY that "I" intend to be with.

You still need to support this particular argument.

As this is a forum dedicated to science

The particular "argument" I have presented on "Organic Foods", is consistent with my particular "arguments"/posts on various other threads at PF, and in fact is one part of a WHOLE argument that only "I" have presented on PF, and it is common knowledge within the scientific community that the WHOLE, being the sum of all "particulars", is greater than: either any "particular" or the sum of all "particulars". :smile:


o:)
 
  • #59
Mk said:
I remember on MYTHBUSTERS, Adam and Jamie consumed caffeine in various doses, and their sperm did not have any visible changes, after ejaculation.
To conclude my post:
o:)
they actually did that? :smile: :smile: :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #60
To conclude my post:
o:)

Good one. I guess it is my official TM at PF.

o:)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
Replies
23
Views
8K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
14K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K