From the University of Melbourne:
Hidden hazards found in green products
Dr. Anne Steinemann, Professor of Civil Engineering, and the Chair of Sustainable Cities, from the Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Melbourne School of Engineering, is a world expert on environmental pollutants, air quality, and health effects.
Professor Steinemann investigated and compared volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from 37 different products, such as air fresheners, cleaning products, laundry supplies, and personal care products, including those with certifications and claims of ‘green’ and ‘organic’. Both fragranced and fragrance-free products were tested.
The study, published in the journal Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health found 156 different VOCs emitted from the 37 products, with an average of 15 VOCs per product. Of these 156 VOCs, 42 are classified as toxic or hazardous under US federal laws, and each product emitted at least one of these chemicals.
Findings revealed that emissions of carcinogenic hazardous air pollutants from ‘green’ fragranced products were not significantly different from regular fragranced products.
In total, over 550 volatile ingredients were emitted from these products, but fewer than three percent were disclosed on any product label or material safety data sheet (MSDS).
“The paradox is that most of our exposure to air pollutants occurs indoors and a primary source is consumer products. But the public lacks full and accurate information on the ingredients in these products. Our indoor air environments are essentially unregulated and unmonitored,” Professor Steinemann said.
The most common chemicals in fragranced products were terpenes, which were not in fragrance-free versions. Terpenes readily react with ozone in the air to generate a range of additional pollutants, such as formaldehyde and ultrafine particles.
At this time, consumer products sold in Australia, the US and around the world are not required to list all ingredients, or any ingredients in a chemical mixture called ‘fragrance’.
“Given the lack of information, consumers may choose products with claims such as green, natural, or organic, but those claims are largely untested,” Professor Steinemann said.
Professor Steinemann will continue to investigate how and why we’re exposed to pollutants and ways to reduce risks and improve health.
###
Additional Information:
- Products selected are commonly used in Australia, the US, and other countries in a range of environments (e.g., homes, schools, hospitals, workplaces, hotels, restaurants, stores, residential buildings, parks, child care and aged care facilities, gyms, homeless shelters, government buildings, airports, planes and public transport).
- Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) headspace analysis was used to identify VOCs emitted from 37 products, representing air fresheners and deodorizers (sprays, gels, solids, oils, and disks), laundry products (detergents, dryer sheets, and fabric softeners), cleaning supplies (all-purpose cleaners, window and surface cleaners, disinfectants, and dishwashing liquids), and personal care products (soaps, hand sanitisers, sunscreens, lotions, baby lotions, deodorants, shampoos, and baby shampoo).
- Ingredients in consumer products and in fragrance formulations, are exempt from full disclosure to the public.
- For laundry products, cleaning supplies, and air fresheners, labels do not need to list all ingredients, or the presence of a fragrance in the product.
- For personal care products and cosmetics, labels need to list ingredients, except the general term “fragrance” or “parfum” may be used instead of listing the individual ingredients in the fragrance.
- For all products, material safety data sheets do not need to list all ingredients.
- Fragrance ingredients are exempt from full disclosure in any product, not only in Australia and the US but also internationally.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Buy “green” products – guaranteed astatine free!
Also Francium free I think.
The most common chemicals in fragranced products were terpenes, which were not in fragrance-free versions.
Wow, to me that is incredibly interesting. I must have a very strong negative response to terpenes because I absolutely HATE scented products — green or not. And I not talking about just not liking the smell; I physically feel like I am being asphyxiated.
And now with people exuding layers of different scents, from soaps to shampoos to laundry detergents to perfumes and colognes, when I get around others in enclosed areas I sometimes experience panic attacks.
Terpenes. Thank you, I learned something. (I don’t know what I’ll do with the information, but at least now I’ll know why I’m dying.)
Max, interesting comment. Sounds like you are at the far end of the spectrum, but I definitely can relate, at least to some extent.
I don’t think I’ve ever gotten close to feeling asphyxiated or having a panic attack, but I definitely hate most scented products, including perfumes, colognes, scented was soap, air “fresheners”, and so on. Can’t stand them. Probably the worst that has happened to me from them is headaches. Fortunately, in the last several years a number of manufacturers have started offering unscented versions of their products. Used to be much harder to find.
My poor wife has to deal with me (and I’ve had to learn to be more compromising as well — or to just keep my mouth shut). More than once in the past I’ve come home and said, “What is that awful smell?” Turns out she has been cleaning the house like any normal person would do and used some kind of scented soap, spray, freshener, or other cleaner. Smells “fresh” and “clean” to her. It is bothersome to me. So now I just try to keep my mouth shut and go into another room until the air clears a bit.
Sorry about that, Max.
I’ll take the stairs from now on. 😉
I’ll be able to eat more! Yea!
Janice Moore
Two at a time! In steel-toed boots. 8<)
Hi, R.A., lol, no, ‘fraid not. That’s for heroes who are far stronger than I am. I just talk “strong.”
I am completely with you in this, Max, though in my case HATE is not quite strong enough.
Judging by what some of the so-called “fragrances” in various products does to my poor sinuses, I’m willing to believe the worst.
Like Chanel #5
have they asked the bugs what they think of the report i don,t think it will worry them as all these chemicals don,t seem to harm them in anyway
This reminds me of back in the ’90s when I spent time on AOL’s “Pet Care Forums” under the subtopic “Animal Rights/Animal Welfare”.
Somehow Dr. Bonner’s Peppermint Soap (If any of you remembers it.) came up as being wonderful because it wasn’t tested on animals. We had an old copy of a book called “Clinical Toxicology” in our lab. The information that, while his soap may not have been tested on animals, the peppermint oil in it was was not well received.
They also didn’t want to hear the their PC’s CRT monitors were also tested on animals. (for radiation)
Oh yes I remembers it. I also remembers David Bronner, of the Dr Bronner magic soap company, planted hemp at the DEA and chained himself to the White House fence in a cage fulla hemp plants.
🙂
Glad you enjoyeds my typo. 😎
Hemp terpenes are notorious (see way above). Funny enough Congress is trying to to legalize hemp.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-hemp-114928.html
Hemp oil is rich in Omega 3 and Omega 6. Omega 3 is very good for endocannabinoid production in the human body.
My two dogs, reading along here, would LOVE to have them test hot dogs and couch cushions on animals. “Where do we sign up!”
Hi, Mark — would your two cats like to be tuna testers?
Where do they sign up?!?!?
> Hi, Mark — would your two cats like to be tuna testers?
[The mods refuse to get involved in any fishy business offers sent over the internet, even if between apparently consenting adults. .mod]
BTW, the LD50 for peppermint oil was 4.4 gm/kilogram by ingestion. It was lower for other ways of exposure.
(“LD50” is the dose that was lethal to 50% of the test animals.)
I don’t understand the logic of this post. The green products are the same as the non-green products. People buy green because it make them feel good and they are no more toxic than normal products. Big deal.
alpha amanitin is completely green, completely natural…and after you get over the initial cramps, you live two more days. Then, umm, …..
… you go into a coma and die.
Thus the name “poison pie” mushroom and ” avenging angel” mushroom and there is no alternative..liver destroyed, kidneys gone, coma and death, like you say. Global warming means more people will die from mushrooms, right?
Write it up and send it to the NY Times or maybe Nature whydoncha.
I’ve asked several different people whether they would prefer to buy natural vitamin E or artificial vitamin E; they all responded “natural”.
I then get the pleasure of pointing out to them that both variants are the same chemical.
I formerly used a product called Simple Green. Then I looked up its characteristics because it made me feel a little breathless. I stopped using it and all other “green” products. Money-making business can’t afford NOT to use the cheapest ingredients they can get. “Green” is a marketing gimmick, just like “Organic”.
For those who want to castigate, we’re all made of chemicals. It’s new man-made chemicals that constitute most of the problem including the ones that incorporate organic and inorganic poisons.
They call it green because that is the color of the artificial dye that the US mint uses.
I am inclined to think that everything is really a guess. Did something whack into the earth to knock of the moon from where the Pacific ocean now is ? Why is the moon round and the comets wonky shaped ? Where is the Whacker ?
Why are there all these massive carved rocks lying around ? I mean what is the point ?
Will the Anunnaki return ? if so when ? as I would like to be there.
that other guy was saying that the planet Venus was actually a comet and came to us at the biblical exodus time, even stopped the Earth spinning, then became part of the stable crew of planets. These catastrophic, massive events trigger a part of the brain which wants to go ” Woww! For fucks sake ! I have to stop that from happening !”
Ain’t no need for the F-word, unless you’ve used up your vocabulary.
u.k.(us) March 5, 2015 at 3:10 pm
He could be a sailor. But that is unlikely given the insufficient number of f’cks, sh’ts, etc.
Get used to disappointment.
If he was a sailor he wouldn’t use those words in public.
Oldseadog, not old season.
Stupid predictive text on this daft iPad.
Oldseadog I said. @ur momisugly#¥&*$!!!
Benign, inexpensive and effective chemicals were largely developed by the Greatest Generation. The chemical inputs they developed allow us to grow 5 times as much food on the same land.
The replacements mandated by the environmentalists are genuinely toxic, expensive, and ineffective. The tainting of all of our products and innovations through top-down behind-the-scenes environmentalist NGOs etc. is indeed toxic.
But to later blame this on the free market and on Americans is also “poisonous, virulent, noxious, deadly, dangerous, harmful, injurious, pernicious.” Ask the Administration, they know what toxic loans are. Toxicity is not just a physical trait of certain chemicals. It includes mandates which destabilize trust, integrity, and stability of an open society.
The Git’s organic potato yield this season is ~120 tonnes/Ha. The average yield in Tasmania is 35 tonnes/Ha. Please tell us why you believe that 35 is 5 times greater than 120. Incidentally, the world record for a single potato plant was 168 kg considerably more than the 4.5 kg per plant The Git achieves.
Charles Wilber earned a place in the Guinness Book of World Records by harvesting 1,368 pounds of tomatoes from only four plants while using only organic fertilisers. So where is the mythical farmer harvesting five times that amount using artificial fertiliser? And why are they not in the Guinness Book of World Records?
Apropos expense. When Uncle Toby’s Organic Vita Brits were introduced they replaced the prior product at exactly the same price. Uncle Tobys were purchased by another company who decided to drop the organic and saw their sales fall. Consequently, they now manufacture two lines, one organic, one not. Uncle Toby’s Organic Vita Brits sell for the fantastically high premium of less than 5% more than the conventional.
If you see organic produce selling for a 100% premium, then that’s a sure sign that demand is maintaining that price. Nobody is forcing anyone to pay insane price premiums in a free market. If you don’t want to pay that much, then you are free to do what The Git does and grow your own.
As for agrichemicals being benign, The Git undertook training in how to deal with spills of them during fires. Far from being benign their labels are required to state their relative toxicity. Many are toxic enough they are not available for over-the-counter sales to the general public. You have to have undertaken training in their use before you can purchase them.
The application of a good herbicide is one or two liters per acre. A broad spectrum product will deal with 5 types of weeds and increase yield by as much as 70%.
I think it is clear I am talking about farms in general and not one potato farm in NZ – as wonderful as both NZ and potatoes are. We can talk about that all day. Back of the envelope, manure delivery and spreading for one commercial farm will mean locating, shipping and applying about 80 tons of aged manure, right? It could get competitive. It is a good thing some of the growers in your area use N, P, and K from nice neat little tanks.
Are you going to share which fungicide you sprayed, and how many times you applied it during the season?
And a Tasmanian potato grower increased his yields 100% by growing a green manure crop of mustard before the potato crop. You are of course correct that there is a great expense involved in spreading bulky manures. But that’s beside the point if you are talking yields per hectare. Economics dictates that the important yield for the farmer is dollars in the bank after the crop is sold.
Be careful what you read about herbicide trials. Often what is being compared are the results of using the herbicide versus doing nothing to control weeds. If you really believe that any commercially viable farmer would “do nothing” about weeds, you are truly beyond redemption 😉
The only fungicides The Git has needed are copper and agricultural lime (occasionally lime sulphur and earlier sodium silicate) on his apples, and Epsom salts on his broad beans. Back in 1983/4 he had late blight in the spuds and used copper. One thing that arose in the organic conference in Adelaide ca. 1990 was the very much lower fungal problems experienced by organic farmers.
So “Green” Products are not very green at all. Well, thats no surprise, since “Greenpeace” is not a bit peaceful too, but an intolerant, hate-spiting gang of eco-taliban…
And – at the same time – the one really green product of mankind, the plant-friendly and water-saving “GAS OF LIFE” CO2, rightly liberated from its prison in fossil sources, is demonized by such eco-taliban and the stupid MSM as greatest enemy of nature and humans !!!
Alas! This give the old song lyrics “When will they ever learn?” a very up-to-date meaning…
You, GO, Gentle! #(:))
Answer: re: “they” — Never. Every half-century (maybe it’s linked to the PDO), they just re-invent the “game” and Tell-a-L1e-for-a-Buck is reborn. Like the Phoenix. They usually go down in a fiery pile of junk “science” (or whatever). More like a bunch of mosquitoes, actually.
Or…… Godzilla!! lololol Like the Envirostalinists/Enviroprofiteers, he is very easy to spot…. for those who are not blinded by fear.
… or like Achilles…: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/26/bearings-the-achilles-heel-of-wind-turbines/
Windmills are DOOMED. The bigger they are the harder they fall.
… hate-spitting …
I avoid anything Green, eco or enviro, whether in its name or by its propaganda, even the color green.
And when asked, I make a point of stating I do not subscribe to that religion.
Hey don’t give up the colour green – it is a beautiful colour!
We need to take back the words and concepts the left have stolen and perverted.
Yes, indeed, green is lovely.
The Emerald Isle, Eire, where St. Patrick’s Day will soon be celebrated as it is nowhere else on earth, has a far stronger colour of title to “green” than the Envirostalinists…
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/b2/88/c3/b288c305d02dc85c083fa2d43a506802.jpg
+10
Robert, I, too, have found that to be an especially succinct, effective, way to communicate a big truth quickly — handy in checkout lines at grocery stores.
It IS a religion (for those for whom is it not a sc@m). They really do feel holy driving their “holy cars” and buying “holy food” etc… .
Is that Lahinch ?
I laugh/cry (inside) any time a pro organic friend opens their mouth and tells me how they believe anything organic is healthier. How much healthier? Dunno.. Any evidence at all? No of course not. I tell them it goes against a billion years of evolution to think nature is on our side. Unless you are part of a plan’ts reproductive cycle (fruit), plants naturally evolve to make themselves less edible to you – i.e more toxic. Even fruit is a double edged sword since the plant must defend against parasites and non toxic towards the animal life that helps spread its seeds. The toxic chemical soup in what we consider plant based food should terrify the average liberal hippy tree hugging populist nutrition-ite. Lucky for them they are generally clueless about anything logical or scientific so they happily ingest something that has been steadfastly evolving to kill anything that wants to eat it. Only GMO can truly create healthy food, but of course the health nuts think that is bad.
Yes, indeed, Johnny Crash (lol –great name). Usually, when you point out that an “organic” fruit/vegie is biochemically the same as that for which cow dung (or the like and etc methods) was not used as the fertilizer, i.e., “chemicals” were
then, they switch to “well, I just don’t want the pesticides.”
Then, one points out the dosage of poisons, etc… . THEN, they go GMO hysterical! — Just TRY to tell them that only the METHOD of gene splicing (not the effect) has changed, etc… and the facts you mentioned and more. They WANT to beleeeeeeeeeve. Very weird.
Why don’t they just want to eat great food for a fair price?
Only the method changed? I hadn’t realized fish could breed with tomatoes before this, they just did it differently. This doesn’t make them bad, but it definitely isn’t the same. The law agrees btw, we have a whole new type of plant patent because the methods are novel.
As to the rest what you guys are saying, I am baffled. We have proven issues from pesticides and herbicides. Wanting to avoid them certainly makes sense. It is a side topic, but if you look into brix levels youll also find some types of growing also increase nutritional levels, but that isn’t your standard organic label food, which besides hopefully having less pesticides and herbicides on them are generally about the same nutritionally. Buying local though? conventional or organic offers the potential for better nutrition because you can buy things picked at their peak, rather then many not all fruits that we pick at less then peak times and ship them often use chemicals to prolong their shelf life.
There are also many foods that never had anything toxic at levels it could affect humans and the few we eat that did in the past had them bred out of them long ago or were neutralized with how they were processed. There are things in some grains that block your body using other types of nutrition but sprouting an ancient human custom bypasses this, and it isn’t actually in line with what you said anyway.
Somehow you two don’t realize you are doing exactly what you criticize in others, you clearly do not comprehend the topics or variables involved but hasn’t stopped you from making wide generalizations, publicly no less.
For the record I breed plants, know many professional breeders, and am well versed in these related issues.
I have no idea why anyone could think only GMs can be healthy, but they certainly represent an amazing tool. I understood what you said, it just wasn’t real at all. Anyone saying that doesn’t know much of foods history or the myriad of wild edibles that are totally safe, or maybe is trying to sell something.
Play food judo against your opponents. Invite some greens for a meal, cook up something involving eggplant, brazil nuts and nutmeg. Explain the meal they just ate is toxic, radioactive and contains nicotine. Nature is wonderful like that.
lol bananas are radioactive as well, and more common for most.
And then we cook the food which destroys some nutritional value, right? But that also makes it edible or safer to eat. I don’t know what cooking does for real, i’m just guessing here. And we drink wine with the food which is a poison on the one hand but also healthy on the other hand. It could be healthy because it reduces stress or it could be some of the chemicals produced by fermentation or it could be the resveretol or it could be that nutritional studies are about as accurate as climate ones and we really don’t have a clue.
Randy,
From what you say, knowing much about gene splicing is obviously not required for you to “breed plants.”
Janice
@randy radiation kind of acts like many chemical “nutrients”. Up to a certain level they are ever more beneficial. Over a certain level the benefit drops until it becomes toxic. I don’t really know of any “nutrient” that we can’t overdose on at some level.
lol janice Not only has this been taken to court, and patent law changed to accommodate, but it is simply obvious. Before GM methods you couldn’t get genes from a fish into a tomatoe. This doesn’t make it bad but it is much more then just the method changing, the effects changed as well and this is literally why it is such a powerful tool. If we couldn’t do what was simply not possible before then GM methods would simply be making breeding faster, which is does and can, but it also enables what simply wasn’t possible before. Because yes the EFFECT is much much different. This is what is GOOD about GMs it should be celebrated. Thus far GM methods have only given us a few useful things, but they could truly revolutionize farming given the right vision, and funding.
Randy
March 5, 2015 at 7:07 pm
Before GM methods you couldn’t get genes from a fish into a tomatoe.
It actually happens in nature. It is more difficult to do intentionally without GM. But thing is “natural” genetic variations are not well tested. GM variations are.
==
http://gmoanswers.com/ask/i-heard-there-spideranimal-dna-tomatoes-true
It should be noted, though, that plant scientists who study the genomes of plants have estimated that about 60 percent of the genes present in plants have very similar copies in animals. This is not surprising, since all organisms use the same genetic toolbox. DNA from any source is made up of the same four basic nucleotide building blocks: adenine (A), cytosine (C), thymine (T) and guanine (G). So DNA that comes from a plant or a microbe has the same four nucleotides as the DNA in animals.
“It actually happens in nature. It is more difficult to do intentionally without GM. But thing is “natural” genetic variations are not well tested. GM variations are. ”
Yet you didnt change a thing I said, no one has done this before GM methods. Also your second point is false. The natural genetic variations have been tested, the GM ones have only been minimally tested. the cycles of life and death weed out the failed natural changes. This takes time. When we brought BT genes into corn we tested this on animals and all seems well. Years later we are finding other life forms are relating to the corn differently in ways we didnt anticipate, potentially eventually nullifying any advantage we once had to using BT to begin with, but that remains to be seen, we are getting indication its possible though.
You guys, this has literally been taken to court and patent laws now acknowledge that GM methods are indeed novel. This is a good thing though, we see nothing to fear yet. The companies themselves were the ones arguing this is novel and new.
Well actually Im not sure using food crops for medicines is wise, should use other plants, and the algae projects make me nervous, if that got loose it could be bad.
The terminator gene projects are where the anti GM stuff started, and that makes since, but those are long gone and outlawed.
If the plants are “biochemically the same” how come aphids prefer plants grown on artificial fertiliser to those grown using compost? The biochemists tell me that it’s because the sap of plants grown on artificial fertiliser contains many free amino acids while the sap in organically grown plants contain a far higher proportion of complete proteins. Are free amino acids really “biochemically the same” as complete proteins, or were you just making that up?
Don’t know much about co-evolution do you? Most of our modern crop plants rely on humans for their survival, just as figs rely on a particular wasp. Indian corn (zea mays) cannot self-seed. If you think modern apple varieties are more toxic than their wild ancestors, you are suffering very badly from some delusional ailment.
Last remark intended for JohnnyCrash
The Pompous Git, you don’t name your colours.
What You want to break loose over Europe via TTIP:
it won’t happen.
Ai’nt no green at all. But europe has THE heritage of supplying its inhabitants with origin nutricients, no need for frozen contaminated chinese strawberries in container carriers.
Whats your firms name? The Pompous Git? Surley no one buys. Hans
I think ‘green’ endorsed products would be more aptly labelled Karma Free.
@Randy Minimizing the use of a pesticide only makes sense, but organic only minimizes certain human so called “inorganic pesticides”. The thousands of other chemical pesticides that come free with the plant are still there. “We have proven issues from pesticides and herbicides” Maybe we do, but we also have a lot of outright lies and misinformation. We also have the elephant in the room. Those fields sure look green and we sure live a lot longer than we used to. Correlation isn’t causation, but if the chemicals are so bad, shouldn’t we not live so much longer than when we ran naked in the forest? You are talking about freshness in food. Who cares if something is a few% more nutritious if you eat it within a certain time period when we eat twice as much as we actually need to survive? No one is alive today because of organic farming. EVERYONE is alive because of modern farming techniques.
“There are also many foods that never had anything toxic at levels it could affect humans”
BINGO. this is why organic is just marketing hype to benefit Whole Foods. Herbicides and pesticides are either not toxic for humans or used at levels that are not toxic for humans. I have heard many scientists say the human added pesticides negative affects are dwarfed by the negative effects of the naturally occurring pesticides in the plants.
“Somehow you two don’t realize you are doing exactly what you criticize in others, you clearly do not comprehend the topics or variables involved but hasn’t stopped you from making wide generalizations, publicly no less.”
Well as far as generalizations go, that one is 100% accurate. I haven’t run into a single person who eats organic food who knows a single fact about chemicals, fertilizer, pesticides, or food. I would welcome actual scientific evidence that eating organic will materially effect the length of my life.
“I have no idea why anyone could think only GMs can be healthy, but they certainly represent an amazing tool. I understood what you said, it just wasn’t real at all. Anyone saying that doesn’t know much of foods history or the myriad of wild edibles that are totally safe, or maybe is trying to sell something.”
Because only GM can eliminate the thousands of naturally occurring pesticides in the plant by removing their genes. Your so called “totally safe” plants are laced with these chemicals.
Its real easy to understand my position. A plant comes with 1000 pesticides built in that defeat almost all insects or fungus. We add a few more chemicals to get the last few. You need to prove that our few chemicals are as significantly harmful as the 1000 already built in before you say getting rid of inorganic chemicals is somehow healthier.
” Maybe we do, but we also have a lot of outright lies and misinformation.”
Lots of speculation also but we do have proof that at present levels found on your super market shelves there are measurable effects. Autism is potentially linked to round up for instance.
“Correlation isn’t causation, but if the chemicals are so bad, shouldn’t we not live so much longer than when we ran naked in the forest? ” 1000 variables changed since that time, more then just food.
“You are talking about freshness in food. Who cares if something is a few% more nutritious if you eat it within a certain time period when we eat twice as much as we actually need to survive?”
I mentioned it because some think organic food is more nutritious, published work mostly disagrees, except those working with brix can prove when you take it to that level you can increase nutrition. I dont care what you eat.
“No one is alive today because of organic farming.”
uh yes there are many. entire countries.
“I would welcome actual scientific evidence that eating organic will materially effect the length of my life.”
We have proof of increased risk of various issues from having pesticides and herbicides in our diets as well as a few related things. Some of them this is proven with humans, others only with animal trials. You will find them if you look.
“Because only GM can eliminate the thousands of naturally occurring pesticides in the plant by removing their genes. Your so called “totally safe” plants are laced with these chemicals.”
not at levels that hurt anyone.
“Its real easy to understand my position. A plant comes with 1000 pesticides built in that defeat almost all insects or fungus. We add a few more chemicals to get the last few. You need to prove that our few chemicals are as significantly harmful as the 1000 already built in before you say getting rid of inorganic chemicals is somehow healthier.”
We literally already have proof for some of them. Interestingly those used in shipment are some of the worst because the others dont always make it to the store on the food. How this relates to the soil is also an issue but industrial ag is actually learning this and adjusting. The organic groupies are missing this entirely, the industrial guys are starting to get micro nutrients and how important the web of life is in the soil for plant health and resilience, couple this with some of the GM projects I know of half behind the scenes and the next decade or two should prove super interesting.
Horse grunt, Randy. Without modern pesticides and fungicides there would be famine and starvation. Now tell us please, where are the health benefits in that?
“not at levels that hurt anyone.”
If that applies to organic then that also applies to inorganic. That is the whole point. Organic, green, whatever you want to call it is no different from inorganic. It just relies on different chemicals.
“uh yes there are many. entire countries.”
Right, but if all 7 billion of us had to farm like that…
“If that applies to organic then that also applies to inorganic. That is the whole point. Organic, green, whatever you want to call it is no different from inorganic. It just relies on different chemicals.”
definitely, but several things used in conventional fields are known to cause increased risk for various issues, with others showing the potential. Which is where we started on this line of thought.
“Right, but if all 7 billion of us had to farm like that…”
Tricky topic. As it is currently, yes you are right. Labor is probably the biggest factor though, and in the third world knowledge. In the first world what we call organic ag is mostly the same model the other guys use, just legally defined organic inputs. which if you study that, its silly as heck, some things are blocked that are safer then what is currently legal. In the third world where labor is cheap models that could produce more per area are possible but generally they dont have knowledge and or the resources for adequate inputs so make do with what they have or know. Ultimately inorganic chems in ag will only go away if it is over ideological reasons, but Im just saying its not impossible, would need a major shift though from what we do now.
My own work revolves around treecrops on land considered non arable. Treecrops could change this whole paradigm, you might realize we feed alot of our grains to animals we raise, and treecrops have the potential to make this obsolete even if humans dont want to change their diet. Siberian peashrub for instance, is comparable to soy, much more productive per acre, more reliable, less inputs. It wins hands down. It can also be grown on land conventional crops just dont work. They are like a bland bean, but animals dont care if its bland. I can grow several things humans use as well on land considered non arable, but only a few do well here, several more that could feed animals if the market was made work for me.
“Horse grunt, Randy. Without modern pesticides and fungicides there would be famine and starvation. Now tell us please, where are the health benefits in that?”
If we tried to grow just as we do now without them definitely. Of course most organic models still use them just legally defined organic sources. There are other models though, including massive farms in areas with heavy pests who rely on diversity, which promotes the beneficial wildlife that keeps the pests in check. (most of the time and once established) Would take alot of time and more labor to switch our whole system to that though. More labor because mono crops allow greater division of labor, but other models can get more overall food per area with less inputs but more labor. TO many variables to discuss in depth in comments like this.
Also I wasnt in fact saying we should do away with them, just that there are measurable negatives from some things we use in non organic ag. Read just the work done on round up the last few years, not the embellishments of various activist sources the real published stuff. As well as the studies on various things used in shipping on organic as well actually.
You and the several others posting here with the general idea that 3 months of testing is “scientific,” while billennia of testing in Nature is inferior, need to repeat an informal study I did a couple decades back. Look at a couple hundred adult bodies walking out of Whole Foods or Natural Grocers, and record sex, apparent age, fatness, posture, energy level. Compare to a couple hundred adult bodies walking out of regular supermarkets.
It’s not necessarily “organic” that produces the difference. It’s the cooking methods too, and the rest of the lifestyle. Organic means certain things–and that’s all. I have read that Walmart “organic” comes from China, where many organic fields are irrigated from heavily polluted streams.
The lies about food are probably much more severe than the lies about climate. But it is not hopeless. You can see for yourself that attempting a healthier lifestyle does improve health on balance despite the fraud.
Everyone is missing the point with “Green” products . They’re not about environment or safety , it’s all about displaying Your misanthropy , publicly wearing a a hair shirt to display Your ecopiety if You will . The product HAS to inconvenience the user so costing far too much or simply not working , or actually being harmful to humans .is a design feature , if it does any of these then any actual environmental impacts are given a free pass . Green attitudes to anything i.e. ,
1) palm oil for human food products…..BAD vs palm oil for expensive biodiesel that glugs up your diesel generator when You really need it ….GREEN.
2) Temporarily clearing a forested area to make timber products/homes for humans ….BAD vs chipping it for expensive . poor efficiency , higher pollution fuel in a power station ….GREEN . even better by green standards is clearing forest permanently for wind turbines as the power is even more expensive and the erratic supply can prove fatally inconvenient for humans … EXTRA GREEN
I’ve even been told my semi-free range backyard chook eggs are , wait for it… …..BAD vs some hippie idiot’s “Chemical free/organic ” eggs , never mind his poor chooks have shortened more miserable lives from being permanently infested with mites , worms and sundry other parasites and pathogens . You see the “organically reared ” chickens produce much lower egg yields from the same amount of food which ups the cost to the consumer so this makes animal neglect …GREEN
The ultimate oxymoron
“Organic Soy Milk”
And they convert Drax from clean coal to wood pellet making it the largest terpine emitter in the world and it alsoclear cuts North Carolina. Just wow
If it doesn’t come from a mammal it’s not really “milk.”
But in an era of redefined food allowing “turkey breast” to be made with soybeans, even “organic” soy “milk” doesn’t look too bad.
At least you have clue what it’s made from when you read the label. I didn’t get that benefit with my “turkey.”
If I took my turkey breast home and found that it contained Soy, I would take it back. Done that with chocolate and sausages. False labeling is not “good” however you look at it.
Thanks Dr. Steinemann, for exposing just another aspect of the great “Green” scam. It’s pathetic. I cannot believe how many people I meet have been taken in but such. When asked why, they spout some gobbletygook or just roll their eyes and say something like “well everyone knows”. Lotsa sheep out there.
Let’s here and now put an end to soy “milk”. or almond “milk” or any other vegetarian “milk”. It’s juice that’s been thickened. As Lewis Black says (paraphrasing because he is pretty vulgar about it) “It can’t be milk because milk comes from a teet, they only call it soy milk because no one will buy soy juice.”
Tom said
Quote
they only call it soy milk because no one will buy soy juice.”
Unquote
Why would anybody want to buy it???????????no matter what it is called.
The study is more Green chemophobia. Consider the orange, a common food in homes. Wikipedia:
The compounds inside an orange oil varies with each different oil extraction. Composition variety happens as a result of regional and seasonal changes as well as the method used for extraction. Several hundred compounds have been identified with gas chromatograph-mass spectrometry. Most of the substances in the oil belong to the terpene group with limonene being the dominant one. Long chain aliphatic hydrocarbon alcohols and aldehydes like 1-octanol and octanal are second important group of substances.
Limonene has been observed to cause cancer in male rats, by reacting with α2u-globulin, which is not produced by female rats. There is no evidence for carcinogenicity or genotoxicity in humans. The IARC classifies d-limonene under Class 3: not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
Clearly we heed to ban citrus fruits! Unless you make insecticide from them.
+++Eric Gisin I think you are right. At first read I did not see the hidden war on all fragrance disguised inside of the science of VOCs.
And not just fragrance.
It has always been obvious on its face that exposure to trace chemicals and particulate matter is far greater in the home. And notice the high mortality rate of people who live in their own homes.
@ur momisugly Eric Gesin
The Git uses limonene, vinegar and citric acid as a desiccant herbicide. Never thought of using it as an insecticide.
George also had great takes on the Climate circus and wildlife extinctions.
Formaldehyde is politically incorrect far beyond its actual toxicity. Metabolism of pectin, a significant component of many fruits, produces significant amounts of methanol. Methanol is metabolized to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is metabolized to formic acid. Chemophobes who are familiar with this like to point out the lack of literature supporting existence of metabolasm of formic acid.
How they get away with it: The literature about metabolism of formic acid generally refers to that as metabolism of formate. In typical human body concentrations, formic and many other common organic acids dissociate into hydrogen ions and ion form of their respective acid molecules – formate, acetate, etc.
Also, I am skeptical of how much formaldehyde results from reaction of turpene vapors with ozone. Furthermore, this ozone would have to be lower tropospheric ozone, which itself is a pollutant with known manmade contributing factors – mainly volatile organics (most of which are petroleum product vapors), and nitrogen oxides, especially nitrogen dioxide (formed primarily from internal combustion engines, secondarily from lightning).
Donald said
Quote
lower tropospheric ozone, which itself is a pollutant
Unquote
And who said so? It seems to me to be quite the opposite, its natures way of cleaning up.
Mac the Knife
Aldehydes are a naturally occurring intermediate breakdown product of naturally occurring ethanol in the human digestive tract. Our digestive tracts make ethanol as a result of fermentation in the gut. Some of us add a bit more (ahem) from time to time, as well!
===============================
The information on that page that should be part of every high school curriculum.
Well, until “Organic Eggs” came along I was eating Inorganic Eggs for years, who knew….
Do “inorganic eggs” come from “inorganic chickens” ??
Which of course begs the question; which came first the Organic Egg, or the Inorganic Chicken…….
I once used the term nonorganic tomatoes, and was severely harped upon. But that is the opposite of an organic tomato. So the term organic is so moronic you cannot add a prefix.
If You think the Organic label on eggs is daft , try this one on , Vegetarian eggs . Yup , that’s right , eggs can now be a kind of turnip . What it actually is they put the chickens on a vegetarian diet and somehow in their twisted reality this means the egg is now some sort of vegetable . Not only are they not content with making the chicken’s life miserable by denying them basic care “‘cos it’s like , full of chemicals ‘n stuff ” they deny them an essential part of Their diet . So none of the lizards , random mice , small frogs or insects that chickens pick up while foraging and especially none of the left over meat scraps that mine get amongst the leftover veggies .
Hens are definitely not vegetarians. Good on ya.
And if you don’t provide protein, they will just go raid it from someone else.
http://youtu.be/YFfK1Zla1b8?t=53s
Your “vegetarian eggs” could not be produced under organic certification requirements. Organic certification requires that the hens be given access to free-range where the hens will find insects and such to eat. Also worth noting is that hens kept negligently as you describe would not only be in contravention of those guidelines, but also in contravention of animal cruelty laws. Presumably you will have no difficulty pointing us to examples of prosecutions of organic egg producers for their willful disregard for the laws of the land.
Git ,
put “Buy Vegetarian Eggs” into a search engine and You will get any number of egg producers claiming that Their chickens are feed an exclusively vegetarian diet .
As for the “organics” One would hope the large scale commercial producers would be required to use “evil” chemicals with a witholding period as necessary in the treatment of various parasites and diseases and not get a free pass but the incidents I was referring to were ones I encountered Myself involving alternative lifestylers with backyard chooks who were so very keen on the idea of “organic” that Their hen’s health took second place , two instances were resolved once They got the idea that chickens are not happy and healthy when They’re crawling with lice and have diarrhea caked ’round their vents , the third individual had a rant about “big pharma” and required a visit and a warning from a RSPCA officer before it was rectified .
By the way free range and organic are different certifications with some overlap depending on who does the certifying .
@ur momisugly byron
The Git is perfectly aware of how chickens are raised by commercial producers:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/behind-the-closed-doors-of-poultry-processing-20120217-1tdoy.html
As Vermont market gardener Eliot Coleman said in response to a question about organic certification: “I recommend you make sure you know the first name of the person growing your food.” In The Git’s case that’s usually Jonathan.
Byron,
We just have a few hens, which are probably getting beyond their egg laying years. They catch mice, snakes, worms and bugs. One even eats slugs. Wish they all did! They have produced about 2 eggs every 3 days for us, which is about average. All that to say, I am not an egg farmer, but I can appreciate the tremendous demands on their bodies.
First, the eggshell is calcium carbonate, so they need plenty of calcium. The egg is also known as a perfect food, since it contains almost all of the vitamins except Vit C. Also, every egg has 6 grams of superior protein. That is really incredible. Eggs really are a superfood. And with the high quality of the egg in mind, we can empathize with why hens are so hungry all of the time! So a good chicken feed provides their requirement and the trace minerals a chicken needs. I think that it is wonderful that people have learned about the nutritional needs of animals. They are basically the same as ours, and they suffer very greatly from disease and miscarriage if these vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates, fats and minerals are missing. They also need protection from worms, virus, mites, lice, and other diseases. But we have overcome these problems and have a wonderful, stable, clean supply of eggs for everyone in the country.
The best way to eat is with thankfulness. Without that, people just get caught up into bazaar trends and government directives, and are so neurotic they are afraid of good food.
Correction: And with the high quality of the egg in mind, we can empathize with why hens are so hungry all of the time! So a good chicken feed provides for the intense requirements and the important minerals involved in egg laying. Thanks.
Also, if you don’t pick up that egg as soon as it is lain, it will have chicken $%#@ur momisugly on it. Cages are a sanitary way of keeping the egg and the fecal matter entirely separate.
I remember inorganic eggs when I was a kid. They often contained Silly Putty.