Organic farmers condemn USDA. report, claim it favors GMO
Organic growers and food safety advocates on Tuesday condemned an advisory report to the Agriculture Department claiming its recommendations would be costly for farmers who want to protect their conventional crops from being contaminated by genetically modified (GMO), also known as genetically engineered (GE), varieties.
The groups were responding to a report submitted Monday afternoon to the U.S. Department of Agriculture by a committee assigned by USDA with studying how best biotech agriculture could "co-exist" with organic and conventional agriculture.
"Of particular concern in the report is the recommendation that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay to self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination," said a statement by the National Organic Coalition....
I see that eating a healthy diet is important to stay alive.
Observe this snippet of news from the BBC today:
"A fourth person has died after eating soup made with poisonous mushrooms at a retirement home in northern California, local officials say. Three people from the Gold Age Villa home in the town of Loomis had already died after being taken ill on 8 November. It is thought the member of staff who prepared the soup did not know the mushrooms were poisonous."
Let us eat what we want, when we want, drink whatever we want, whenever we want, and let us be merry, for tomorrow we die.
I do have a hard time with the potential Vegans on here. However, in the U.S., they are trying to get the farmers to stop using so much antibiotics and other drugs on cattle. You are right John, U.K. some brakes need to be put on that.
Yes, wheat (corn for the British) and most grain products were genetically modified by the time of Christ, and who knows how many centuries before Him? People were always trying to get higher yields (through night soil (what an euphemism!) and other unappetizing techniques. Lot of times it worked however. Oh, I don't remember monkeys being mentioned in the Bible.
Neil wrote: 1. But don't you see? There are *clear*, well-publicized Scriptural directions about drunkenness & gluttony in general, not food items in particular. Your experience has more to do with the former than the latter. Christians should not be addicted to any consumable, even carrot juice. 2. Did you know, many “natural” raw foods are considered genetic hybrids, such as wheat, bananas, & oranges? Makes me wonder what value the label “natural” really has.
1. Try telling that to a monkey who eats bananas all day long. However, the issue is not merely about food nor drink. It is wholeness of mind and body. It is knowing what the word "world" means, and getting away from it. The churches of today are forgetting the teaching of scripture concerning separation, but instead are conforming more to the world than to Christ. It happens little by little, precept upon precept, and now what do we have? Rock concerts in the house of God, which damage both body and soul.
2. Yes, I know that. The modern foods are NOT natural, and that annoys me. Fish are farmed in a bath tub, cows and bullocks are injected with hormones, et al. It bodes not well. And I'm sure you have recognised the symptoms of a race going beserk.
John UK wrote: 1. When I was a teenager, I encouraged my peers to drink heavily and engage in what is affectionately known as "substance abuse".
But don't you see? There are *clear*, well-publicized Scriptural directions about drunkenness & gluttony in general, not food items in particular. Your experience has more to do with the former than the latter. Christians should not be addicted to any consumable, even carrot juice.
Did you know, many “natural” raw foods are considered genetic hybrids, such as wheat, bananas, & oranges? Makes me wonder what value the label “natural” really has.
Neil wrote: Oh, now people like me are to blame. This is rich! I never disclosed what I considered to be a “normal” diet. In fact, mine might be close to acceptable for jpw & yourself, but I don't claim it offers any real benefits; at least, I don't feel any better or visit the quack any less than I did while I was uninformed about such things. As Minnesotans say, “I don't know, who can tell?” It may help some people, but not necessarily all (cf. Fallacy of Induction). So if carrot juice helps you, great, “bottoms up” then.
Hey, good post Neil!
However: 1. When I was a teenager, I encouraged my peers to drink heavily and engage in what is affectionately known as "substance abuse". Actually it is really abuse of the body, which jpw rightly says (for the Christian at least) is a temple for God. And thus I was to blame before God, and added to my guilt. My actions could have caused any of my friends to die prematurely. OD's were not uncommon in those days, and presumably still are.
As for benefits, remember that many people suffer later in life through strokes, cancers, arthritis etc and die in pain.
You could try footpumping your car tyre to 30psi, 40psi, 50psi, 60psi, just keep going and see the result.
John UK wrote: 1. Neil, I have been undergoing my own experiments. Thanks to people like you, I have wondered about the real benefits of suffering a horrible diet,
Oh, now people like me are to blame. This is rich!
I never disclosed what I considered to be a “normal” diet. In fact, mine might be close to acceptable for jpw & yourself, but I don't claim it offers any real benefits; at least, I don't feel any better or visit the quack any less than I did while I was uninformed about such things. As Minnesotans say, “I don't know, who can tell?” It may help some people, but not necessarily all (cf. Fallacy of Induction).
So if carrot juice helps you, great, “bottoms up” then.
Here's what happens when preachers get dogmatic over diet:
From that Guardian article: “the Rev. Sylvester Graham preached the virtues of a vegetarian diet to his congregation & in particular the importance of wholemeal flour. Meat-eating, he said, excited the carnal passions.”
Too funny! A wacko Presby diet faddist helped start the junk-food industry!
Neil wrote: 1. I thought that some time ago, you claimed your diet did great things for you. 2. But just the same, *poor* health cannot be causally attributed to lifestyle, either.
1. Neil, I have been undergoing my own experiments. Thanks to people like you, I have wondered about the real benefits of suffering a horrible diet, and so I have been eating what you regard as "normal" food. My health deteriorated, and you are responsible. The last two weeks I have suffered with migraines every day. Yesterday I began juicing carrots again, and the migraines have ceased. Right now I have a mug of carrot juice and barley grass in my hand, and it works wonders. For which I praise God! My health will NEVER get right again as it should be, but I can have less suffering and enjoy a reasonable life.
2. Tell that to the man out on a prayer-walk who stooped down to pick some mushrooms to eat. His friend saw him drop to his knees, thinking he was praying earnestly, but then he keeled over and perished.
3. When you see your local supermarket selling "MonksHood" to put in a stew, I advise against buying it. Instead, inform the Feds, who may just be able to prevent a genocide.
John UK wrote: But that's just it, Neil. I am NOT in good health. … Now please stop calling me a Hindu-believer. It's unbecoming.
I thought that some time ago, you claimed your diet did great things for you. But just the same, *poor* health cannot be causally attributed to lifestyle, either.
It was 7th-Day Adventist food faddist Kellogg who invented breakfast cereal, as a supposed health food. Yet now, it is considered poor nutrition: www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/23/food-book-extract-felicity-lawrence Likewise, Coca-Cola & Pepsi were marketed as healthy alternatives to alcohol. But now they're considered nutritional disasters.
Neil wrote: You have no clue why you're in good health.....
But that's just it, Neil. I am NOT in good health. And one of the reasons is the way I abused my body in the 60's and 70's, by putting things into it which I never should have.
Man, you're living in a religious dreamworld.
You're another one who ought to get out there on the streets and meet some real people with real problems who, if they come into Christ, will need a lot more help than you are offering.
As for your paragraph beginning "Begs the Question", I could not understand a word of it, because you talk in some highbrow way which no-one can grasp. The King James Bible is not like that.
Now let me assure you, as you obviously do not know, when a person is gloriously converted by our Lord Jesus, he does not necessarily reverse all the bad effects of living a bad life. In fact it is rare for him to do so. I knew a friend many years ago who covered his arms with tattoos, and when he was converted he pleaded with the Lord to make them vanish. But the Lord did NOT make them vanish. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap".
Now please stop calling me a Hindu-believer. It's unbecoming.
John UK wrote: 1. But I'm not the "organised church", am I? Neither is jpw. … 2. Neil, please, your intellectual viewpoint is blinding you to reality. …
1. Misrepresentation: jpw said: “if there is anything that churches should care about,…” a normative claim about what churches should do. But I bet you knew that already.
2. Begs the Question: Your claims about reality are grounded in empirical science. Because scientific truth claims commit basic errors in logic, you cannot prove that any of them true, even if you have a graduate degree in the subject. You're the blinded one if you think otherwise.
Your nutritional version of “repeating what you sow” sounds like Hindu Karma. What arrogant humbug, claiming that you're “living proof.” You have no clue why you're in good health, any more than I do about myself. For all you know, your hippie diet may be taking years off your life, or causing brain damage.
John UK and JY hit the nail right on the head. breaking bread in fellowship is foundational to Christian community.
the sharing of the gospel through word and deed, and if we destroy this temple, be it through alcohol and illicit drug abuse or gm foods/chemicals, the results are the same.
some are influenced today by Greek philosophy which pits the body against the soul. I believe there is unity of body and soul in the resurrection, so we do not worship food and we reject the flesh for the work of the Holy Spirit, but today on Thanksgiving, like children, we give thanks for God's provision.
Neil wrote: 1. But it's not the role of the organized church make a point about it. It's unbiblical, & moreover, there's enough division among churches already. 2. Finally, health claims are grounded in fallacious science. ”One man's meat is another's poison” is not a bad summary of this.
1. But I'm not the "organised church", am I? Neither is jpw.
2. Neil, please, your intellectual viewpoint is blinding you to reality. There are plenty of substances in the ground, which some people try to eat, and a short time later they are dead.
Now I hope you won't argue with that.
Similarly, there are foodstuffs being sold today quite openly, which are causing a huge amount of damage.
At the very least, with some of us exhorting to the care of what we fill our tummies up with, we please the Lord. But those like yourself, who encourage others to eat whatever they want, could well be charged with causing unnecessary suffering by the Lord himself.
There is such a thing as reaping what you sow, and I am living testimony of that. And so I shall continue to encourage folks to eat sensibly, and give some thought to what is being sold today as "food", no matter what names people call me. The proof is in the eating.
When I was growing up my Dad always grew the garden organically using compost from our compost pit we had in the yard. When I get a farm in Eastern Colorado I will also grow the garden organically using compost from the compost pit that I will have on the farm.
Neil wrote: Irrelevant; jpw was referring not to hunger (rare so far in English-speaking countries despite vested-interest gov't & NGO propaganda to the contrary), but he seems to want a sort of Vatican Index of politically incorrect foodstuffs. Once you enforce that, then James 2 may kick in.
Sure, I knew that.
However, if we disregard political correctness or incorrectness, and if we disregard the scriptures totally, and focus simply on the effect of modern foods on our bodies, there would be a very strong case for abstaining and seeking an alternative way of producing the food we need.
Already, even the guv is concerned about this, because the budget they allowed for the National Health Service is well exceeded and increasing to impossible rates, on account of the illnesses being produced by people eating the modern foods. You can attend an NHS hospital any day of the week and observe that every car park is full, every bed is full, and operations are continuous. The hospital is the most thriving business in the country. And it should NOT be!
The modern foodstuffs being mass produced are NOT normal.
John UK wrote: Sometimes, yes. James 2:15-17 KJV Of course I realise most churches are not interested in such things, but then churchianity is like that, eh Neil?
Irrelevant; jpw was referring not to hunger (rare so far in English-speaking countries despite vested-interest gov't & NGO propaganda to the contrary), but he seems to want a sort of Vatican Index of politically incorrect foodstuffs. Once you enforce that, then James 2 may kick in.
Neil wrote: So the church's proper concern is for the belly, not the soul.
Sometimes, yes.
James 2:15-17 KJV 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Of course I realise most churches are not interested in such things, but then churchianity is like that, eh Neil?
COMMENTS | 
frank: "lisa
okay let’s say we encounter homosexual activists or simply those..."
