Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If you are in California, please vote YES on 37. -Updated [View all]proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)132. Related material here:“No studies to date have experimentally examined the causal relationship btwn"
http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/10/protecting-childrens-health-american-academy-of-pediatrics-misses-the-big-picture-in-their-flawed-organics-analysis/
Protecting Childrens Health: American Academy of Pediatrics Misses the Big Picture in Their Flawed Organics Analysis
October 30th, 2012
COMMENTARY
By Charlotte Vallaeys
For the first time, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has weighed in on organic foods for children. Its news release was widely covered in the national media.
While the AAP should be commended for acknowledging the potentially harmful effects of pesticide residues on conventional foods, their reportand associated press coverageis seriously flawed in its basic approach to agrochemical contamination in our food supply and the associated threat to public health.
Even though the AAP acknowledges that many pesticides are neurotoxins, that studies have linked exposure to pesticides to neurological harm in children, and that a recent peer-reviewed study correlated higher pesticide residue levels in children with higher rates of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the AAP is cautious about reaching a conclusion regarding the harmful effects of pesticides.
Why such a reckless approach? AAP explains, No studies to date have experimentally examined the causal relationship between exposure to pesticides directly from conventionally grown foods and adverse neurodevelopmental health outcomes.
With this statement, the AAP suggests that it considers existing knowledge about toxic pesticides to be inadequate and incomplete for the purposes of recommending organic foods for children, which have been shown in peer-reviewed published studies to radically reduce childrens pesticide exposure.
The pediatric group suggests, as agrochemical manufacturers have for decades, that the question of whether pesticides harm children will remain unanswered until results from experiments provide definite proof of harm. With this expectation, the AAP joins the agribusiness and pesticide lobbyists in setting an impossible standard. Lets step back for a minute and imagine what such an experimental study would look like.
<>
Charlotte Vallaeys is Director of Farm and Food Policy at The Cornucopia Institute. She holds a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School and a Master of Science from the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.
Protecting Childrens Health: American Academy of Pediatrics Misses the Big Picture in Their Flawed Organics Analysis
October 30th, 2012
COMMENTARY
By Charlotte Vallaeys
For the first time, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has weighed in on organic foods for children. Its news release was widely covered in the national media.
While the AAP should be commended for acknowledging the potentially harmful effects of pesticide residues on conventional foods, their reportand associated press coverageis seriously flawed in its basic approach to agrochemical contamination in our food supply and the associated threat to public health.
Even though the AAP acknowledges that many pesticides are neurotoxins, that studies have linked exposure to pesticides to neurological harm in children, and that a recent peer-reviewed study correlated higher pesticide residue levels in children with higher rates of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the AAP is cautious about reaching a conclusion regarding the harmful effects of pesticides.
Why such a reckless approach? AAP explains, No studies to date have experimentally examined the causal relationship between exposure to pesticides directly from conventionally grown foods and adverse neurodevelopmental health outcomes.
With this statement, the AAP suggests that it considers existing knowledge about toxic pesticides to be inadequate and incomplete for the purposes of recommending organic foods for children, which have been shown in peer-reviewed published studies to radically reduce childrens pesticide exposure.
The pediatric group suggests, as agrochemical manufacturers have for decades, that the question of whether pesticides harm children will remain unanswered until results from experiments provide definite proof of harm. With this expectation, the AAP joins the agribusiness and pesticide lobbyists in setting an impossible standard. Lets step back for a minute and imagine what such an experimental study would look like.
<>
Charlotte Vallaeys is Director of Farm and Food Policy at The Cornucopia Institute. She holds a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School and a Master of Science from the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
170 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Best and saddest expert analysis I have encountered on GMOs ever - discovered yesterday.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#158
I have a scientist acquaintance whom I respect a great deal who advocates voting no for these
Brickbat
Nov 2012
#11
I strongly suspect a lot of people would turn down a product with a label that said:
jeff47
Nov 2012
#14
The public doesn't care about Hydrogen in food, they care about Genetic manipulation of their food
blazeKing
Nov 2012
#22
So your cited article shows that the toxin is lasting in the soil for 180 days vs 24 hrs
Tumbulu
Nov 2012
#129
I saved you the time of reading to the end of the thread so you can read this full article.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#130
Related material here:“No studies to date have experimentally examined the causal relationship btwn"
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#132
Well the British people and people from Europe that I knew asked me how Americans could be misled
Tumbulu
Nov 2012
#106
if by nature, you mean Man...then yes...man has engineered corn for thousands of years...
yawnmaster
Nov 2012
#42
Because the very process of genetic modification itself creates unintended ancillary consequences.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#155
As an aside, for health reasons the future of food is not the biotech pseudo-food variant.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#93
Harvard, man, both of 'em. Do not mock their training, expertise, research, or integrity.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#107
This, too (and upon reflection not my call to say which is worse re:post #75).
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#81
Exactly. The only reason for lying is because they have something to hide. nt
Live and Learn
Nov 2012
#29
I'm not decided. I'm in favor of labeling, but I'm not convinced this prop is well written.
LeftyMom
Nov 2012
#39
Monsanto have been a pestilence world-wide, suing farmers out of existence,
Fire Walk With Me
Nov 2012
#54
why not just put the chemical compounds found in the food? well...because labeling can become...
yawnmaster
Nov 2012
#43
The animals in the OP picture were fed IIRC, check the articles, 100% GMOs.
Fire Walk With Me
Nov 2012
#70
If you want to be up-to-date, you'll peruse the thread below and find your links debunked.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#154
Scientists from AAAS - Yes: Food Labels Would Let Consumers Make Informed Choices
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#113
Check out this definitive article written twelve years ago. The argument for labeling is compelling.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#117
doing what a majority of Californians want gives liberals a bad name?
DisgustipatedinCA
Nov 2012
#134
They've spent over $7 million dollars to block this measure in just one state, they've purchased an
Fire Walk With Me
Nov 2012
#135
Statement on Election Results from the California Right to Know Campaign
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#166
Samples of three fraudulent mailers sent to California voters provided at link below (will not C+P).
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2012
#169