Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby_Light
I doubt you've read plenty from him. Maybe you should read up about Paul.
http://www.chekinstitute.com/meet.cfm
http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=885647
He is about high performance and holistic health. Holistic health is not the usual for western society that is why he can be considered controversial. Pharmaceutical companies are out to make a profit. Many drugs correct sypmtoms and not the base root of the problems and acutally cause more problems which calls for more drugs -- the cycle goes on and on. Drugs companies have us hooked from cradle to grave.
Holistic healing attacks the root of the problems and puts the body back into balance so the problem stops. Americans are largely not open minded enough to accept this type of methodology. They are bombarded with marketing by drug companies and influenced by what their doctor with no nutrition background gives them to take. |
once again youve gone off on a tangent completely irrelevant to anything I asked you. Learn how to read; ive read plenty from Chek. Some good, mostly ridiculous.
Also posting anything from T-mag discredits your argument almost as much as posting anything from Chek. But thats a different thread all together.
Quote:
|
A healthy animal lays healthy eggs just as a healthy woman has healthy children. A thin shelled egg can easily crack and die. A shell with a better density has less chance of cracking. Think about it from an evolutionary sense. I would much rather eat an egg from a free range chicken with access to sunlight than from a chicken that has no access to sunlight and is cramped in a caged with thousands of other chickens who roam around in caked feces and urine 24/7. Animals raised on a poor diet and in poor conditions are less healthy to eat. Do your homework on traditional farming techniques. It's atrocious. Not to mention the inhumane treatment of animals.
|
So free range egg shells dont break as easily? Thats it. Wow thats such a substantial advantage; im never buying non free range eggs again. Or maybe I just wont buy cracked eggs - it hasnt seemed to be a problem for me yet.
If you have any data showing any significant differences between the health effects of organic and non-organic foods to back this up id love to see it. Dont worry though, I dont expect you to actually post any.
Quote:
|
You eat whatever you want. I'm sure bovine growth hormones and anti-biotics are excellent for humans. Please.
|
Until I see any substantial, conclusive data showing otherwise, I dont see a problem with them. Ive eaten non-organic meat for 24 years and havent had a problem with it yet.
An article co-authored by an organization with a pro-organic agenda? Thats not how this works. Either post impartial, unbiased data or im not interested.
***
Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2003 Aug;110(8):316-9.Links
[Effects of animal housing facilities on residues and contaminants in food]
[Article in German]
Hamscher G, Nau H.
Zentrumsabteilung für Lebensmitteltoxikologie, Zentrum für Lebensmittelwissenschaften, Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover.
Gerd.Hamscher@tiho-hannover.de
There are--especially in the case of food of animal origin--only a few well-controlled studies available comparing organically and conventionally produced food with a focus on residues and contaminants. The differences found seemed to be much lower than expected, and the amounts of residues and contaminants were mostly below regulatory maximum residue levels. In the case of organically and conventionally produced milk there have been slight but usually not significant differences reported. One important observation is, that conventionally produced milk contains aflatoxin M1 more frequently than biologically produced milk.
The investigation of eggs from different housing systems for laying hens showed in the case of dioxins the highest concentrations in free range eggs. In contrast, propoxur, an insecticide used against the poultry red mite, was found in eggs from battery cages in higher amounts than in those from enriched cages and in eggs obtained from an aviary system. Further research in this field is highly recommended, but there should be more sophisticated evaluation of the data sets from national and international monitoring programs.
J Food Prot. 2005 Nov;68(11):2451-3.Links
Salmonella prevalence in free-range and certified organic chickens.
Bailey JS, Cosby DE.
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, P.O. Box 5677, Athens, Georgia 30604-5677, USA.
jsbailey@saa.ars.usda.gov
Many consumers assume that broiler chickens grownunder traditional commercial conditions will have more Salmonella than free-range or organic chickens, which usually are less crowded, have access to outside spaces during grow out, and are fed special diets. Despite these perceptions, there is a lack of published information about the microbiological status of free-range and organic chickens. A total of 135 processed free-range chickens from four different commercial free-range chicken producers were sampled in 14 different lots for the presence of Salmonella. Overall, 9 (64%) of 14 lots and 42 (31%) of 135 of the carcasses were positive for Salmonella. No Salmonella were detected in 5 of the 14 lots, and in one lot 100% of the chickens were positive for Salmonella. An additional 53 all-natural (no meat or poultry meal or antibiotics in the feed) processed chickens from eight lots were tested; 25% ofthe individual chickens from 37% of these lots tested positive for Salmonella. Three lots of chickens from a single organicfree-range producer were tested, and all three of the lots and 60% of the individual chickens were positive for Salmonella.The U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service reported that commercial chickens processed from 2000 to 2003 had a Salmonella prevalence rate of 9.1 to 12.8%.
Consumers should not assume that free-range or organicconditions will have anything to do with the Salmonella status of the chicken.