posted on June 2, 2003 03:50:56 PM new
Actually, kraftdinner I goofed. That sentence was supposed to go above with the paragraph on MS. (Drat that drag-and-drop!) For MS, there truly are treatments that are new and promising.
Toward the end of her life, my aunt was on serious, serious painkillers (including OxyContin, which I'd never heard of at that point) but she died of cancer, and they may have been prescribed for that.
posted on June 2, 2003 03:52:08 PM new
The list includes Alzheimer's Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Cancer Society, American Council on Science and Health, American Diabetes Association, American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Columbia University, International Life Sciences Institute, Lupus Foundation of America, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mayo Clinic, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, National Cancer Institute, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Parkinson Foundation, The Nemours Foundation, U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, U.S. Consumer Information Center.
As I said earlier, I do not use diet drinks to lose or control weight. My goal is to maintain a normal blood glucose level in order to control diabetes. I can't drink sweetened colas.
Research by MIT and Columbia along with studies at the Mayo Clinic have sufficiently debunked the myths that are currently floating around the internet.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jun 2, 2003 06:42 PM ]
posted on June 2, 2003 04:51:13 PM newHelenjw, I checked out the three MS-related links on that site and they all say there is no demonstrated link between MS and aspartame.
My sister's doctor told her the same thing - he said "I think there's a link but it hasn't yet been proven." His argument went something like this: "I've had other patients who stopped using it, and the follow-up MRI showed smaller and fewer lesions. Will you give it a try?" She did, and the follow-up MRI showed smaller and fewer lesions. Maybe there's no relation. But on the other hand - as he also pointed out - "there's no evidence aspartame actually does any good, either. Why mess with it?"
I understand that a lot of Americans are significantly overweight, and that's a major health issue. But I couldn't find a single credible, double-blind study showing that the use of aspartame (or saccharine) is beneficial to someone who's at or below their ideal weight already. Aspartame has been proven to trigger or worsen migraine headaches and is not advised for pregnant women.
I didn't get that from the website you furnished, but from Medline, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' index of major health research. One of the interesting things about that website is that it does include "industry" research, but it's clearly labeled as such.
However, I do have a problem with the website you referenced. It's published by the Calorie Control Council, which is described by HHS as "an international association representing the low-calorie and diet food and beverage industry. ... It supports the availability of aspartame, saccharin, sucralose, and acesulfame K and the approvals of neofame and alitame and reapproval of cyclamate. The Council also supports the continued availability of current fat substitutes and caloric dietary sweeteners. The approval of additional safe low-caloric sweeteners, fat substitutes, and other dietary ingredients is encouraged."
This is a powerful group, with an agenda: To keep selling Americans products they think will make them thin. (They put their considerable political clout behind getting the FDA to approve fat substitute Olestra before anyone started asking any icky questions about ... leakage.)
The fact is that only two things will make you lose weight: Consuming fewer calories and exercising more. But the weight-loss industry wants us to believe we can have it all: Chips and soda and beer and candy bars and popcorn and oh, yeah, fit into size 6 jeans. Along the way they've convinced a lot of people (like my sister) that they're doing something good for themselves by drinking diet soda. They've helped create a nation of fat people and anorexics.
Here's my take on it. If you want to lose weight, drink water. Eat raw and steamed vegetables and fruit, small servings of lean meat and fish, go easy on the bread basket (my biggest weakness) and walk 30 minutes or so a day. Allow yourself a few vices - my other problem areas are a Coke-a-day habit and a very occasional stress-induced Cheetos binge - but just try to be sensible.
You don't need bizarre chemicals with a molecular structure that takes two pages to map out. There's no evidence they do you any good. Why bother?
I know this is a rant ... sorry .... but I just feel like everything in American life, even something so simple as weight loss, has become a for-profit enterprise.
posted on June 2, 2003 05:34:44 PM new
BEXTRA BEXTRA BEXTRA BEXTRA BEXTRA BEXTRA
IT IS AWESOME. INFLAMMATION ARTHRITIS, SCIATICA, ETC. IT IS AMAZING. TELL HER TO GO GET SOME NOW FROM HER DOCTOR!!!!
[ edited by orleansgallery on Jun 2, 2003 05:36 PM ]
posted on June 2, 2003 07:38:10 PM new
Stress induced CHEETOS! ROFLMAO!
My dad always said diet soda makes people fat. He was saying that 30 years ago! I just couldn't believe it. But I think hes right! It is full of sodium, stimulates the appetite and triggers insulin production because the brain "thinks" its sugar.
A nutritionist friend of mine said it sounds like a terrific substitute for the other faux sugars. I don't know why they wouldn't use this instead of substances containing aspartame. Might have to do with cost.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 2, 2003 07:50:06 PM new
Orleansgallery
It doesn't trick the brain into stimulating insulin. That's another myth.LOL
Cheryl, There is so much exaggeration and misinformation in this thread...It's unbelievable.
I appreciate your suggestion but I have not changed my opinion about diet drinks. As I said earlier, there is no evidence...just myth and I don't buy that.
I don't think aspartame has a bad effect on everyone. Some people are predisposed to having bad reactions to certain things. It's great that you don't and are able to drink the diet drinks with no ill effects!
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 2, 2003 08:47:18 PM new
Thanks for the suggestion orleansgallery! I went to their site and emailed her the info. (She sees her rheumatologist next week.) Her knee is very swollen and painful and it made me think, no wonder people get addicted to pain killers, like you mention msincognito. She has to take a Percocet so she can sleep for 4 or 5 hours. I really feel for anyone with these types of auto-immune diseases.
Helen, you and I must be the exception because I drink diet pop all day long too and I don't have any side-effects (that I know of! )
posted on June 2, 2003 08:50:16 PM new
Yeah but helen COME ONE! a diet drinker like myself can put down a pack a day or more! I was addicted to the stuff. Its hot as hades down here I could drink between 6 and 14 a day say from 8am untl 10 pm. Think of the sodium in that compared to water.
RC cola is sweetened with Splenda. It is really good and I could hardly tell the diff between a real coke and this stuff.
I love diet drinks but after seeing the weenie experiment it made me ill. I heard cola is what the police use to clean up blood spills on the hwy after accidents. I don't know if that is true but I either heard it or read it some where a while back.
posted on June 2, 2003 08:52:17 PM new
Bextra is a new product on the market for inflammation. You can read about it on google. There are some side affects but I had sciatic nerve attack and could not walk for two weeks. This stuff cleared it up asap. I hope it works for her. There is nothing worse than being in pain. It gets you down and depressed. I hope it works. Keep us posted.
posted on June 2, 2003 08:59:21 PM new
Well I thought it sounded a bit rough. But I did use a can of coke to melt the spray on snow off the window. That stuff nearly drove me crazy trying to get it off. I threw a can of coke on it and it was gone. I really don't think a can or two a day is going to hurt anybody.
[ edited by orleansgallery on Jun 2, 2003 08:59 PM ]
posted on June 3, 2003 06:45:06 AM new
If it weren't for MSM with Glucosamine, I couldn't make it through the day. It has helped me when all the pain relievers & anti inflamitories haven't done anything.
posted on June 3, 2003 07:13:52 AM new
My girlfriend is allergic to aspartame. She says she really has to read ingredients now since it's not always listed as NutraSweet or aspartame, but the do put the "caution: contains phenylalanine". I think that's the word, if not, you'll know what I mean.
She gets horrible headaches (she never gets headaches normally) that she says the only way she can describe is like riding in a car with bad exhaust and you get a mild carbon monoxide headache. Plus she says it leaves a nasty aftertaste in her mouth. Funny thing is she never believed any of the stuff about Nutrasweet and didn't associate the two until she kept a diary trying to figure out where the headaches were coming from.
There have been studies that show that dieters that drink diet sodas actually consume more calories than dieters that stick to regular soft drinks. This may be partly because they think that since they are saving so many calories, they can eat more ("I'd like the right side of the menu and a small diet coke please".
Regular sugar and processed carbohydrates can also lead to long term health problems such as weight gain since processed carbs are more easily turned into simple sugars by our body that, if not used as fuel, are the first to become fat.
Cheryl, your heart palpitations may partially be because of the aspartame, and partially because caffeine is a diuretic. In many women, dehydration can bring on funky heart rhythms (again, my girlfriend. She has Mitrovalve prolapse. Runs in the family. As long as she exercises and keeps hydrated she's really not bothered).
posted on June 3, 2003 08:20:20 AM new
I still don't trust any of the labels.
June 2, 2003
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics Alerts
Food
Allergies
Labeling and Labels
Congress
Dawdling Over Food Labels
n estimated seven million Americans suffer from food allergies. Some 30,000 of them are rushed to hospital emergency rooms each year because of severe allergic reactions to something they ate. Unfortunately, modest legislation designed to lessen that toll remains stalled in Congress.
The measure — the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act — would revise the nation's food labeling laws to make it easier for people to identify peanuts, eggs and other allergy-provoking ingredients, called allergens. Introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy, the bill cleared the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions last year with ample support from Republicans — including the present chairman, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. But now that the Republicans are in charge, Mr. Gregg seems in no hurry to revive the measure.
The dawdling leaves standing a dangerous loophole. Current Food and Drug Administration rules permit known allergens used in flavorings, spices and coloring to go undisclosed on product labels even though ingesting even a tiny amount can be fatal for some people. Moreover, even when labels do list allergens, they are often identified by their formal names, thereby obscuring their presence — "seminola" instead of wheat, for example.
In an effort to fend off legislation two years ago, the food industry issued voluntary guidelines, but compliance has been haphazard. Mr. Kennedy's bill would mandate clear and more complete allergen labeling. Mr. Gregg should move it forward.
RELATED ARTICLES
PRACTICAL TRAVELER; Coping With Food Allergies (April 13, 2003)
Calls Increasing for Clarity on Food Labels (July 2, 2002) $
BOLDFACE NAMES (November 30, 2001) $
HEALTH; Program Aims to Promote Food Allergy Awareness (November 4, 2001) $
posted on June 3, 2003 01:28:39 PM new
That's interesting - Helen concludes I don't have the brains to be able to associate a headache with diet pop and not having one with abstaining.
She should be a doctor - most of them don't give their patients any credit for the simplest observations either. Wasn't done with a blind double and a thousand subjects you know. That sort of doctor should be a vet since they aren't really comnfortable with talking patients.
I had a rash spreading up my hand and when I told the dermatologist the patch was getting bigger over several days she said "That's your perception of it. Patient observations are notoriously inaccurate."
I suggested she #*!@ (board censored)herself with something jagged and sharp and have not been back - never will to the elitist trash.
posted on June 3, 2003 02:24:18 PM new
clivebarkerfan
Wow, are you sure your girlfriend is not my twin or that we are not somehow related? I get horrible headaches that are food additive associated. You are right about the caffeine. I work at an alternative medicine clinic and the doctor there tells me to lay off the caffeine all the time and the palpitations will stop. I need to "drink more water" because the soda does not do it. Doctors also noticed I have a slight heart murmur which I never had until about 2 years ago. All that coupled with her love of oriental items is just plain weird. She'd love to see my collection, I'm sure. She'd go crazy in my brother's house. It's all antique (mostly ancient to 18th century) oriental items as far as the eye can see and everything imaginable. I still say it's the Libra in us.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 5, 2003 09:27:27 AM new
Search the ISIS website
ISIS Members Area Login [membership details]
USERNAME PASSWORD
The Independent Science Panel on GM Final Report
Dozens of prominent scientists from seven countries, spanning the disciplines of agroecology, agronomy, biomathematics, botany, chemical medicine, ecology, histopathology, microbial ecology, molecular genetics, nutritional biochemistry, physiology, toxicology and virology, joined forces to launch themselves as an Independent Science Panel on GM at a public conference, attended by UK environment minister Michael Meacher and 200 other participants, in London on 10 May 2003.
The conference coincided with the publication of a draft report, The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World, calling for a ban on GM crops to make way for all forms of sustainable agriculture. This authoritative report, billed as "the strongest, most complete dossier of evidence" ever compiled on the problems and hazards of GM crops as well as the manifold benefits of sustainable agriculture, is being finalised for release 15 June 2003.
Ahead of the release of the 120-page final report, the Independent Science Panel is pleased to provide a four-page summary as its contribution to the National GM Debate in the UK.
It is a challenge to the proponents of GM to answer the case presented, rather than having to argue against the case for GM crops, which has yet to be made.
Members of the Independent Science Panel on GM
Prof. Miguel Altieri
Professor of Agroecology, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Dr. Michael Antoniou
Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, GKT School of Medicine, King's College, London.
Dr. Susan Bardocz
Biochemist, formerly Rowett Research Institute, Scotland
Prof. David Bellamy OBE
Internationally renowned botanist, environmentalist, broadcaster, author and campaigner; recipient of number awards; President & Vice President of many conservation and environmental organisations.
Dr. Elizabeth Bravo V.
Biologist, researcher and campaigner on biodiversity and GMO issues; co-founder of Acción Ecológica; part-time lecturer at Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Ecuador.
Prof. Joe Cummins
Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Dr. Stanley Ewen
Consultant Histopathologist at Grampian University Hospitals Trust; formerly Senior Lecturer in Pathology, University of Aberdeen; lead histopathologist for the Grampian arm of the Scottish Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Project.
Edward Goldsmith
Recipient of the Right Livelihood and numerous awards, environmentalist, scholar, author and Founding Editor of The Ecologist.
Dr. Brian Goodwin
Scholar in Residence, Schumacher College, England.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Co-founder and Director of the Institute of Science in Society; Editor of Science in Society; Science Advisor to the Third World Network and on the Roster of Experts for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; Visiting Reader, Open University, UK and Visiting Professor of Organic Physics, Catania University, Sicily, Italy.
Prof. Malcolm Hooper
Emeritus Professor at the University of Sunderland; previously, Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sunderland Polytechnic; Chief Scientific Advisor to the Gulf War Veterans.
Dr. Vyvyan Howard
Medically qualified toxico-pathologist, Developmental Toxico-Pathology Group, Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, The University of Liverpool; Member of the UK Government's Advisory Committee on Pesticides.
Dr. Brian John
Geomorphologist and environmental scientist; Founder and long-time Chairman of the West Wales Eco Centre; one of the coordinating group of GM Free Cymru
Prof. Marijan Jošt
Professor of Plant Breeding and Seed Production, Agricultural College Križevci, Croatia.
Lim Li Ching
Researcher, Institute of Science in Society and Third World Network; deputy-editor of Science in Society.
Dr. Eva Novotny
Astronomer and campaigner on GM issues for Scientists for Global Responsibility, SGR
Prof. Bob Orskov OBE
Head of the International Feed Resource Unit in Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland; Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, FRSE; Fellow of the Polish Academy of Science.
Dr. Michel Pimbert
Agricultural ecologist and Principal Associate, International Institute for Environment and Development.
Dr. Arpad Pusztai
Private consultant; formerly Senior Research Fellow at the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland.
David Quist
Microbial ecologist, Ecosystem Science Division, Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
Dr. Peter Rosset
Agricultural ecologist and rural development specialist; Co-director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First), Oakland, California, USA.
Prof. Peter Saunders
Professor of Applied Mathematics at King's College, London.
Dr. Veljko Veljkovic
AIDS virologist, Center for Multidisciplinary Research and Engineering, Institute of Nuclear Sciences, VINCA, Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
Roberto Verzola
Secretary-General, Philippine Greens, Member of the Board of Trustees, PABINHI (a sustainable agriculture network), Coordinator, SRI-Pilipinas (network of advocates for the System of Rice Intensification).
Prof. Oscar B. Zamora
Professor of Agronomy, Department of Agronomy, University of the Philippines Los Banos-College of Agriculture (UPLB-CA), College, Laguna, The Philippines.
Independent Science Panel Report released 15 June 2003
The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World – A Summary
Why GM-Free?
GM crops failed to deliver promised benefits
No increase in yields or significant reduction in herbicide and pesticide use
United States lost an estimated $12 billion over GM crops amid worldwide rejection
Massive crop failures of up to 100% reported in India
High risk future for agbiotech: "Monsanto could be another disaster waiting to happen for investors"
GM crops posing escalating problems on the farm
Transgenic lines unstable: "most cases of transgene inactivation never reach the literature"
Triple herbicide-tolerant volunteers and weeds emerged in North America
Glyphosate-tolerant weeds plague GM cotton and soya fields, atrazine back in use
Bt biopesticide traits threatening to create superweeds and bt-resistant pests
Extensive transgenic contamination unavoidable
Extensive transgenic contamination found in maize landraces in remote regions of Mexico
32 out of 33 commercial seed stocks found contaminated in Canada
Pollen remains airborne for hours, and a 35 mile per hour wind speed is unexceptional
There can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM crops
GM crops not safe
GM crops have not been proven safe: regulation was fatally flawed from the start
The principle of ‘substantial equivalence’, vague and ill defined, gave companies complete licence in claiming GM products ‘substantially equivalent’ to non-GM, and hence ‘safe’
GM food raises serious safety concerns
Despite the paucity of credible studies, existing findings raise serious safety concerns
‘Growth-factor-like’ effects in the stomach and small intestine of young rats were attributed to the transgenic process or the transgenic construct, and may hence be general to all GM food
Dangerous gene products are incorporated into food crops
Bt proteins, incorporated into 25% of all GM crops worldwide, are harmful to many non-target insects, and some are potent immunogens and allergens for humans and other mammals
Food crops are increasingly used to produce pharmaceuticals and drugs, including cytokines known to suppress the immune system, or linked to dementia, neurotoxicity and mood and cognitive side effects; vaccines and viral sequences such as the ‘spike’ protein gene of the pig coronavirus, in the same family as the SARS virus linked to the current epidemic; and glycoprotein gene gp120 of the AIDS virus that could interfere with the immune system and recombine with viruses and bacteria to generate new and unpredictable pathogens.
Terminator crops spread male sterility
Crops engineered with ‘suicide’ genes for male sterility, promoted as a means of preventing the spread of transgenes, actually spread both male sterility and herbicide tolerance traits via pollen.
Broad-spectrum herbicides highly toxic to humans and other species
Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate, used with herbicide tolerant GM crops that currently account for 75% of all GM crops worldwide, are both systemic metabolic poisons
Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities, and birth defects in humans and mammals; also toxic to butterflies and a number of beneficial insects, to larvae of clams and oysters, Daphnia and some freshwater fish, especially the rainbow trout; it inhibits beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, especially those that fix nitrogen.
Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning in the UK, and disturbances to many body functions have been reported after exposures at normal use levels; glyphosate exposure nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortion, and children born to users of glyphosate had elevated neurobehavioral defects; glyphosate retards development of the foetal skeleton in laboratory rats, inhibits the synthesis of steroids, and is genotoxic in mammals, fish and frogs; field dose exposure of earthworms caused at least 50 percent mortality and significant intestinal damage among surviving worms; Roundup (Monsanto’s formulation of glyphosate) caused cell division dysfunction that may be linked to human cancers.
Genetic engineering creates super-viruses
The most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent to the process; it greatly enhances the scope and probability of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics.
Newer techniques, such as DNA shuffling, allow geneticists to create in a matter of minutes in the laboratory millions of recombinant viruses that have never existed in billions of years of evolution
Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools of genetic engineering, as much as for the intentional creation of bio-weapons.
Transgenic DNA in food taken up by bacteria in human gut
Transgenic DNA from plants has been taken up by bacteria both in the soil and in the gut of human volunteers; antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from transgenic food to pathogenic bacteria, making infections very difficult to treat.
Transgenic DNA and cancer
Transgenic DNA known to survive digestion in the gut and to jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for triggering cancer
Feeding GM products such as maize to animals may carry risks, not just for the animals but also for human beings consuming the animal products
CaMV 35S promoter increases horizontal gene transfer
Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S promoter could be especially unstable and prone to horizontal gene transfer and recombination, with all the attendant hazards: gene mutations due to random insertion, cancer, re-activation of dormant viruses and generation of new viruses.
A history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence
There has been a history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence, especially on horizontal gene transfer. Key experiments failed to be performed, or were performed badly and then misrepresented. Many experiments were not followed up, including investigations on whether the CaMV 35S promoter is responsible for the ‘growth-factor-like’ effects observed in young rats fed GM potatoes.
GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits and are posing escalating problems on the farm. Transgenic contamination is now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and hence there can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM crops have not been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged to raise serious safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible damage to health and the environment. GM crops should therefore be firmly rejected now.
Why Sustainable Agriculture?
Higher productivity and yields especially in the Third World
8.98 million farmers adopted sustainable agriculture practices on 28.92 million hectares in Asia, Latin America and Africa; reliable data from 89 projects show higher productivity and yields: 50-100% increase in yield for rainfed crops, and 5-10% for irrigated crops; top successes include Burkina Faso, which turned a cereal deficit of 644 kg per year to an annual surplus of 153 kg, Ethiopia, where 12 500 households enjoyed 60% increase in crop yields, and Honduras and Guatemala, where 45 000 families increased yields from 400-600 kg/ha to 2,000-2,500 kg/ha
Long-term studies in industrialised countries show yields for organic comparable to conventional agriculture, and often higher
Better soils
Sustainable agricultural practices reduce soil erosion, improve soil physical structure and water-holding capacity, which are crucial in averting crop failures during periods of drought
Soil fertility maintained or increased by various sustainable agriculture practices
Biological activity higher in organic soils: more earthworms, arthropods, mycorrhizal and other fungi, and micro-organisms, all beneficial for nutrient recycling and suppression of disease
Cleaner environment
Little or no polluting chemical inputs with sustainable agriculture
Less nitrate and phosphorus leached to groundwater from organic soils
Better water infiltration rates in organic systems, therefore less prone to erosion and less likely to contribute to water pollution from surface runoff
Reduced pesticides and no increase in pests
Integrated pest management cut the number of pesticide sprays in Vietnam from 3.4 to one per season, in Sri Lanka from 2.9 to 0.5 per season, and in Indonesia from 2.9 to 1.1 per season
No increase in crop losses due to pest damage resulted from withdrawal of synthetic insecticides in Californian tomato production
Pest control achievable without pesticides, reversing crop losses, as for example, by using ‘trap crops’ to attract stem borer, a major pest in East Africa
Supporting biodiversity and using diversity
Sustainable agriculture promotes agricultural biodiversity, which is crucial for food security; organic farming can support much greater biodiversity, benefiting species that have significantly declined
Integrated farming systems in Cuba are 1.45 to 2.82 times more productive than monocultures
Thousands of Chinese rice farmers doubled yields and nearly eliminated the most devastating disease simply by mixed planting of two varieties
Soil biodiversity enhanced by organic practices, bringing beneficial effects such as recovery and rehabilitation of degraded soils, improved soil structure and water infiltration.
Environmentally and economically sustainable
Research on apple production systems ranked the organic system first in environmental and economic sustainability, the integrated system second and the conventional system last; organic apples were most profitable due to price premiums, quicker investment return, and fast recovery of costs
A Europe-wide study showed that organic farming performs better than conventional farming in the majority of environmental indicators
A review by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that well-managed organic agriculture leads to more favourable conditions at all environmental levels
Ameliorating climate change by reducing direct & indirect energy use
Organic agriculture uses energy much more efficiently and greatly reduces CO2 emissions compared with conventional agriculture, both with respect to direct energy consumption in fuel and oil and indirect consumption in synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
Sustainable agriculture restores soil organic matter content, increasing carbon sequestration below ground, thereby recovering an important carbon sink
Organic agriculture is likely to emit less nitrous dioxide (N2O), another important greenhouse gas and also a cause of stratospheric ozone depletion
Efficient, profitable production
Any yield reduction in organic agriculture more than offset by ecological and efficiency gains
Smaller farms produce far more per unit area than larger farms characteristic of conventional farming
Production costs for organic farming are often lower than conventional farming, bringing equivalent or higher net returns even without organic price premiums; when price premiums are factored in, organic systems are almost always more profitable
Improved food security and benefits to local communities
A review of sustainable agriculture projects showed that average food production per household increased by 1.71 tonnes per year (up 73%) for 4.42 million farmers on 3.58 million hectares, bringing food security and health benefits to local communities
Increasing productivity increases food supplies and raises incomes, thereby reducing poverty, increasing access to food, reducing malnutrition and improving health and livelihoods
Sustainable agricultural approaches draw extensively on traditional and indigenous knowledge, and place emphasis on the farmers’ experience and innovation, thereby improving their status and autonomy, enhancing social and cultural relations within local communities
For every £1 spent at an organic box scheme from Cusgarne Organics (UK), £2.59 is generated for the local economy; but for every £1 spent at a supermarket, only £1.40 is generated for the local economy
Better food quality for health
Organic food is safer, as organic farming prohibits pesticide use, so harmful chemical residues are rarely found
Organic production bans the use of artificial food additives, such as hydrogenated fats, phosphoric acid, aspartame and monosodium glutamate, which have been linked to health problems as diverse as heart disease, osteoporosis, migraines and hyperactivity
Studies have shown that on average, organic food has higher vitamin C, higher mineral levels and higher plant phenolics – plant compounds that can fight cancer and heart disease, and combat age-related neurological dysfunctions – and significantly less nitrates, a toxic compound.
Sustainable agricultural practices have proven beneficial in all aspects relevant to health and the environment. In addition, they bring food security and social and cultural well being to local communities everywhere. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive global shift to all forms of sustainable agriculture.
printer friendly version
RELEVANT LINKS
from the ISIS website
(see all articles on the SITE MAP)
Maurice Wilkins Talks on Social Responsibility in Science
Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments
Ethical Aspects of Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms
Chief Scientist Bob May Lambastes Human Genetics Panel
The Need for Another Research Paradigm
Michael Meacher At Launch of Independent Science Panel
Affidavit submitted by Mae-Wan Ho
The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World
Witness Brief Ocober 26 2000
The only radical science magazine on earth
Science in Society 18 OUT NOW! Order your copy from our online store.
Science in Society gets inside science, puts science under the political spotlight to demand it is accountable to society
Join the I-SIS mailing list; enter your email address html asci
I-SIS is a not-for-profit organisation, depending on donations, membership fees, and subscriptions to continue its work. Find out more about membership here
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR
telephone: [44 20 8643 0681] [44 20 7383 3376] [44 20 7272 5636]
MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
HomeBiotechnologyNew Science of the OrganismScience and SocietyPublicationsMoreFront PageMembers IndexScience in Society IndexSite MapMembershipOnline StoreAgricultureBiomedical ApplicationsBiopatentsBooks and Book ReviewsConceptual ArticlesEthicsFrequently Asked QuestionsGlossaryLegal Briefs and LegislationPublic Debates and LecturesPublic HealthRegulationScience and GovernmentScientific PapersBiophysicsBooks and Book ReviewsHolistic HealthInterviewsPublic LecturesScientific PapersWorkshopsScience and ArtScience and CommerceScience and EducationScience and EthicsScience and GovernmentScience and SocietySustainable AgricultureScience in SocietyISIS NewsScience in Society 18Science in Society 17Science in Society 16Science in Society 15Science in Society 13/14ISIS News 11/12ISIS News 9/10ISIS News 7/8ISIS News 6ISIS News 5ISIS News 4ISIS News 3About ISISVacanciesLinksMembershipHow You Can HelpEvents
posted on June 5, 2003 11:39:16 AM new
I think the commonality with aspartame might be allergies. Because people don't eat right and are exposed daily to pollutants, they become succeptable to allergins. Because Helen is diabetic, she HAS to eat right. This might explain why aspartame doesn't bother her but might someone else.
junque, most people can't handle the truth about the food supply. With 1 in 3 people now getting cancer, it's either the air, food or water doing it. I think apathy is just easier. Thanks for your posts!
posted on June 5, 2003 01:15:11 PM new
Krafty,you are probley right,why some people are affected and some not.In my sisters case..forget the diet!..She craved stuff,Now all the craving is gone.
)
.