[EnviroTO]

Now that we've got the above, we complain that the pesticides are bad, modern medicine is bad (hometherapy and "natural" medicine is better), vaccinations cause autism, etc... Meanwhile, Canadians have never lived so long as they do today.

This has led us to believe that somehow "natural foods" are better for us. However, the marketeers have quickly realised how silly the consumer is, and thus we now have "free range chickens" (meaning only that a door has been left open at the chicken shed, giving some birds the option of going outside), "grain feed chickens" (in the wild, ground birds, such as wild grouse, chickens, etc... do not eat grain, they eat worms, insects, animal waste and carcasses.

Yes, some stuff environmentalist radicals come up with is over the top and not based on anything and if bizorsky's point is that people are taking some aspects of environmentalism too far then I agree, but I didn't see much of that making its way to the Green policy book. I would agree that pesticides are bad if they use chemicals that aren't normally found in the environment but something as simple as caffeine and lemon juice can be used against some pests and if the unnatural pesticides are contained to the farm (i.e. kept inside a greenhouse, underground water collection system captures all drainage and runoff, nets prevent birds and animals from contact, etc.) then there isn't an issue.

Modern medicine is only as bad as the length of the drug testing and how detailed the drug testing is. Knowing some pharmacologists working in the industry I can tell you I wouldn't want to be the one using a drug that has been on the shelf less than 20 years unless death was imminent because test groups are too small, not diverse enough, and are too short in duration. Unless a drug test looks at the genetics of an individual, the diet of an individual, etc they really aren't that sure that their sample group comprises of a people really representative of the population at large and until a test runs a good ten years at least how can they have any understanding of long term effects. Surgery and physical healthcare is more safe and trustworthy... new medicine is almost voodoo science. Some improvements to longevity of life can be attributed to simply knowing more about food and nutrients, sanitization, reduction in conflict, etc.

The whole Organic things is probably over the top too from the health of food perspective but if the goal is simply to be sure that the process that created the food is more environmentally sound then there probably is benefits. I don't know what the point of "free range chickens" is... I don't see too much health benefits to the consumer... perhaps they are concerned about the treatment of the chickens from an animal abuse / stress perspective.

 

[AlexisTO]

Canadians have never lived so long as they do today.

They might live longer, but there is evidence to suggest that more of us are getting serious illiness, earlier. Cancer rates have increased dramatically with the increase of toxic air and food products.

There are many cases of people being sent home to die after radiation and chemotherapy for "incurable" cancer, only to completely rid themselves of it by doing "weird" things like, removing all processed foods from their diet, cleansing their digestive system using home-therapy, removing all mercury teeth fillings and adding a daily exercise to their life. Whenever this kind of case is reviewed, the medical establishment says, the chemo must have worked or have no explaination for it. The truth is that the chemo didn't work because its just another short term chemical fix.

Healthcare is the largest business in the world. Drug companies, medical associations and governments want ot keep it that way. A cure for cancer would have too much of a negative impact on the economy of the world to every happen, especially when the cure is actually a prevention involving the avoidance of all things chemically manmade.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

I would say Alexis, by your comments on toxic air and such (vs. 1860s coal filled air) that you've made up your mind on this issue, so there's little point debating further.

Healthcare is the largest business in the world.

I would argue that global defence spending is far, far, far bigger than health care.

 

[BrianHawkins1]

^ and energy.

 

[AlexisTO]

Abeja, I have no doubt that the dozen or so urban areas (worldwide) with over a million people in them in 1860, had very poor air quality. I do doubt that Arctic and Antarctic wildlife had measurable amounts of dozens of manmade chemicals in their bodies in the 1860's. They do today.

Were we differ, is that I believe those chemicals are harmful to all lifeforms. You don't. Your right there is no point for debate.

Defence spending if far bigger. I should have said consumer industry.

 

[cacruden]

And with no seats in T.O., Montreal or Vancouver - the wealth-generators of the Country - the Conservatives are a party of the hinterlands, embodying the values of "economic dependency" that Harper claimed to see in the Maritimes.

I hate to break it to you, but the TORONTO stock exchange -- it is heavily weighted to resources (mining -- gold, diamonds -- oil and gas). That is the foundation of our economy. I don't think much of it is mined in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.

 

[ganjavih]

Cancer rates have increased dramatically with the increase of toxic air and food products.

Do you have a reference for this? Which cancer are you referring to?

There are many cases of people being sent home to die after radiation and chemotherapy for "incurable" cancer, only to completely rid themselves of it by doing "weird" things like, removing all processed foods from their diet, cleansing their digestive system using home-therapy, removing all mercury teeth fillings and adding a daily exercise to their life.

There are also "many cases" of alien abductions, bigfoot sightings, haunted houses, etc. Doesn't mean it's true. I don't claim that these things don't have an impact but the reason why people with cancer are living longer is mostly related to improved surgical techniques and chemotherapy. For every story of curing cancer by doing something "weird", there's a story of someone dying from a completely curable cancer because he or she chose to treat it with vitamins instead of the usual methods.

Were we differ, is that I believe those chemicals are harmful to all lifeforms.

And what is this belief based on? The human body is comprised of thousands of chemicals; some chemicals are harmful and some are beneficial. To say that all chemicals are bad or all drugs are bad doesn't quite make sense.

 

[EnviroTO]

They might live longer, but there is evidence to suggest that more of us are getting serious illiness, earlier. Cancer rates have increased dramatically with the increase of toxic air and food products.

I agree that there is some evidence that some cancer case are being caused by toxins found increasingly in our food. I haven't read anything about toxic air being found to cause cancer anywhere other than those living near certain factories. There are definitely chemicals getting produced in the environment that I don't think should be there.

There are many cases of people being sent home to die after radiation and chemotherapy for "incurable" cancer, only to completely rid themselves of it by doing "weird" things like, removing all processed foods from their diet, cleansing their digestive system using home-therapy, removing all mercury teeth fillings and adding a daily exercise to their life. Whenever this kind of case is reviewed, the medical establishment says, the chemo must have worked or have no explaination for it. The truth is that the chemo didn't work because its just another short term chemical fix.

The science of the human body is far from complete. The reason drugs are tested in animals and in test groups is because science has not yet advanced to the point that an accurate model of the human body including the biochemical and biophysical aspects of all its tissues and cells can be simulated. The point that we can simulate the human body and all its functions is the point we truly understand it.

Healthcare is the largest business in the world. Drug companies, medical associations and governments want ot keep it that way. A cure for cancer would have too much of a negative impact on the economy of the world to every happen, especially when the cure is actually a prevention involving the avoidance of all things chemically manmade.

That is nonsense and it is people making comments like these that prevent people from supporting the Green party. It's pure speculation based on nothing. Drug companies focus their research on drugs and if they could cure cancer they would because there is a lot of money to be made from a cancer curing drug. The problem with drug companies is that their focus is always on making and marketing new drugs so benefits of changing diet or existing drugs such as simple ASA barely gets advertised or mentioned because there isn't big money in it. It is left to the governments, charitable organizations, or universities poorly funded (in comparison to drug companies) R&D budgets to focus on improvements in healthcare in areas where there is no profit to be made by the research.

There is no concensus in the scientific community that the cure for cancer is getting rid of everything chemically manmade. We should work to prevent those chemicals from entering the environment though (keeping them in the human realm is probably fine since it would be an individuals choice whether or not they have plastic salad forks or wood salad forks) and should undertake research to look at the impact of such chemicals on the human body. Whenever a more environmentally sound material exists which can be used for packaging or for creating products that material should be used. My concern is more the environment at large... individuals have choices what products they buy and eat but don't have a choice of the air they breathe. Wildlife doesn't have a choice. Even a farmer focused on the environmental issues will be hard pressed to create a crop free of toxic substances if the water, air, and soil is contaminated.

 

[bizorky]

They might live longer, but there is evidence to suggest that more of us are getting serious illiness, earlier. Cancer rates have increased dramatically with the increase of toxic air and food products

Ganja beat me to it, but it goes to show that, if promoted for certain ends, ideas like this become beliefs without any evidence to back them up. It might not be fun to admit it, but cancer can happen quite "naturally," particulary in older people. Being alive and generally healthy does not mean having a guarantee to live forever.

Regarding "toxins" in the food, the problem often revolves around quantity. But again, to call one thing "toxic" over another avoids the point that everything is toxic in large enough quantities. We can and do ingest small amounts of toxins with no ill effects every day of our lives.

Saccharin was an interesting example, a substance almost wiped out of the marketplace due to a correlation between it and illness. The quantities of saccharin involved in the testing were immense, far more than a person would typically ingest. For the most part, we are probably better off looking to reduce things like excess sugar, and eating smaller portions of food.

There are many cases of people being sent home to die after radiation and chemotherapy for "incurable" cancer, only to completely rid themselves of it by doing "weird" things like, removing all processed foods from their diet, cleansing their digestive system using home-therapy, removing all mercury teeth fillings and adding a daily exercise to their life.

Anecdotal evidence is like heresay in court, anybody can make stuff up and promote it at being true.

Healthcare is the largest business in the world. Drug companies, medical associations and governments want ot keep it that way. A cure for cancer would have too much of a negative impact on the economy of the world to every happen, especially when the cure is actually a prevention involving the avoidance of all things chemically manmade

Ah yes, the evil doctor/scientist/business person/ government cabal, conspiring to keep us sick, poor, desperate and utterly dependant on that vast shelf of pharmaceutical products that we are to all take.

The thing is, if we are to be made so sick and desperate, how will they ever sell our organs to the aliens for food? I mean the aliens are well armed and are not invading the earth only because the above mentioned conspiring controllers are selling our insides to them. The aliens will know if the product is tainted with the excesses of useless earthly medicines.

 

[allabootmatt]

"I hate to break it to you, but the TORONTO stock exchange -- it is heavily weighted to resources (mining -- gold, diamonds -- oil and gas). That is the foundation of our economy. I don't think much of it is mined in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver."

It is an often repeated "fact" that the Canadian economy is based on resource extraction--one repeated so often, and by so many people who should know better, that it's become a sort of gospel. Forgive me, but it's total bullshit, as even a quick look at the statistics will telll you.

From StatCan's profile of the Canadian economy, 2004:

"As the overall Canadian economy has matured, the economic importance of Canada's primary industries has declined. By 2002, the primary industries combined generated just under 6% of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP, the value of all goods and services produced in Canada)."

link:
142.206.72.67/03/03b/03b_000_e.htm

So the response to this, from those who cling to the Canadians-as-hewers-of-wood-and-drawers-of-water myth, is that our secondary industries ARE the basis of the economy, and they are in turn dependent on raw materials. Wrong again. They represent just 17% of GDP (142.206.72.67/03/03c/03c_000_e.htm ).

So what does that leave? The tertiary services sector, which makes up the entire remainder of the GDP--almost 70%. And that is overwhelmingly concentrated in and around major cities.

 

[rbtaylor]

I don't know what the point of "free range chickens" is.

Free range chickens grown over a long period of time (3 years in age, eats bugs not grain, etc.) tastes far better than the stuff you get in the grocery store. Even better if their wings aren't clipped and they get some flight time in as well -- much nicer muscle tone.

Most of the stuff you get in the grocery store is unable to walk at 7 months and would have a heart attack at 9 months from obesity. It has a very different texture and taste as a result.


I made a choice about a year ago to get rid of meat in my daily diet and instead buy a really high quality cut on a periodic basis instead (same annual cost). Quite often it is whatever wild game that happens to be in season.

 

[EnviroTO]

Regarding "toxins" in the food, the problem often revolves around quantity. But again, to call one thing "toxic" over another avoids the point that everything is toxic in large enough quantities. We can and do ingest small amounts of toxins with no ill effects every day of our lives.

Should we really be releasing chemical compounds which do not exist naturally in plants, the environment, and other organisms into the environment though? And for chemicals which build up in the environment and in organisms over time how certain are we really that there is no effect to the point that we can mix any of these chemicals with enough water to dilute it and set it free in the environment? Even if we think there is no problem with some complex compound, until we know how the body works in its entirety and how all the ecosystems work and how all the animals and plants work, aren't we jumping the gun by releasing these things into the environment?

We should master the ecosystems in a closed lab type environment and prove that we can create a balance where all the various plants and animals can survive before we give ourselves carte blanche to alter the environment further. We should be able to virtualize the plants and animals and know the impacts of changes in various chemical levels in the body before subjecting those plants and animals to those chemicals.

How much deca-BDE is an acceptable amount to release into the environment and until you understand the microbiology of every living thing on the plant how can you be sure? Isn't it better not to have chemicals like deca-BDE entering the environment in the first place because it is unnatural? I think toxins to most people means unnatural hazardous chemicals... but I think any unnatural chemical should not be introduced to the environment. The fact that salt in sufficient quantities is toxic is a nice piece of trivia but natural processes can eventually balance salt and in most environments... what natural process handles deca-BDE?

Saccharin was an interesting example, a substance almost wiped out of the marketplace due to a correlation between it and illness. The quantities of saccharin involved in the testing were immense, far more than a person would typically ingest. For the most part, we are probably better off looking to reduce things like excess sugar, and eating smaller portions of food.

Even more interesting is that Stevia has not been approved as a sweetner in Canada but less tested man made substances have been. If a natural chemical exists to accomplish the same results (Stevia has been used as a sweetner in Japan and South America for a long time) why are we using some less tested and unnatural (not produced by nature) chemical?

 

[bizorky]

Enviro, nowhere have I suggested releasing any or all compounds into the general environment without controls. There is actually close to 150 years of collected laws and regulations regulating how classes of chemicals and hazardous materials are disposed of. Is it a perfect regulatory system ? Well, is any act of human conduct perfect? I am certain you already know the anser to that one. My point was about the notion of toxicity. As for "man-made" versus "natural" toxins, what's the difference; toxic is toxic, no? We are exposed to a wide range of toxic substances in the natural environment all the time, and we can't regulate it in a legalistic manner.

Should we really be releasing chemical compounds which do not exist naturally in plants, the environment, and other organisms into the environment though? And for chemicals which build up in the environment and in organisms over time how certain are we really that there is no effect to the point that we can mix any of these chemicals with enough water to dilute it and set it free in the environment?

First, you sound a little as though you are suggesting that all compounds are the same. But as you probably know, different compounds inevitably have different properties and different effects, residence times and so on, both in living organisms and within the environment in general. Much of the toxicity of many so-called man-made compounds comes from the understanding of their naturally appearing analogs, that is, naturally appearing compounds. It also comes from understanding some of the typical biochemical reactions that would come from the interacting molecular structures. But this is not to say that all reactions are easily understood, or will be understood in the near future. So yes, more research is required in comprehending potential effects depending on the nature and classification of the compound.

We should master the ecosystems in a closed lab type environment and prove that we can create a balance where all the various plants and animals can survive before we give ourselves carte blanche to alter the environment further.

A tall order, if not impossible. How does one "master" something so complex and dynamic in a lab? We are not only speaking of plants, animals, bacteria, fungi and so on, but geological, hydrological and atmospheric features as well, just to name a few. It is hard to even say that there is a "balance" in the natural world to begin with. It is a word we bring with us to our observations of the planet. Dynamic systems exist on the edge of stability, but are not permanently stable. How one would program that, I have no idea.

If you are suggesting the modelling of chemical or biochemical interactions, this is already being done with success. It will get better with greater understanding of biochemistry and raw computing power.

 

[Mislav]

It's pure speculation based on nothing. Drug companies focus their research on drugs and if they could cure cancer they would because there is a lot of money to be made from a cancer curing drug.

He does actually have a point - drug companies make a fortune off selling drugs that relieve symptoms caused by cancer, HIV, etc. I'm not saying there is a huge conspricacy created to keep the cure for cancer out of reach but these companies definetely wouldn't mind keeping people sick.

This industry, like all industries, tends to try to market products people don't actually need. Look at, ADD and Ritalin which is probably the biggest BS made up - drug companies cashing in on stupid parents whose children are bored.

 

[bizorky]

I'm not saying there is a huge conspricacy created to keep the cure for cancer out of reach but these companies definetely wouldn't mind keeping people sick

These companies are not monoliths. They are made up people, some of those people know others who have cancer, so if they would have evidence of some conspiracy it would be out already for the obvious reasons I don't think I have to go into. Pretty much all pharmaceutical companies have research relationships with universities and numerous university researchers as well as physicians. They, too, would have to be part of this vast cospiracy of silence as well, along with all the graduate studenst, interns, post docs, laboratory technicians and so on. To assume that all of these people are involved in some vast conspiracy to keep people sick and dying is simply bizarre and paranoid. The fact of the matter is quite simple, cancer is a very complex disease because the human body is a very complex organism.