THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR: DIRTY FARM WATER IS MAKING US SICK

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,164
18,062
1,743
You do know that the Ag School does get a lot of funding from ConAgra and Monsanto, among others, correct?

Remember what you said about studies being funded by particular groups? Of course their research is going to come out a specific way.

And what's the problem with "Food, Inc."...? Every single segment in that movie is done by REAL people who work in the food industry in one way or another.
Well I'm a real person who produces and works in the food industry. I can also tell you that in many cases those "REAL" people are often wrong and make decisions based on emotion rather than science, I've had to deal with many of them over the years.

What true scientists support Food Inc? And is there a consensus among scientists in the industry?

You started out supporting scientists earlier in this thread. Now you're calling science into question and supporting non-scientists.....
 
Sep 23, 2018
660
202
43
37
Memphis
Yes I'm aware of the over priced products at Whole Foods. In fact I have several friends who produce for Whole Foods.
Over-priced how? Whole Foods, for starters, pays its employees a very livable wage, relatively speaking. I'm very willing to "over-pay" for my groceries, if the workers are being taken care of (they also get good benefits even as part-timers, if I remember correctly).
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,164
18,062
1,743
You do know that the Ag School does get a lot of funding from ConAgra and Monsanto, among others, correct?

Remember what you said about studies being funded by particular groups? Of course their research is going to come out a specific way.

And what's the problem with "Food, Inc."...? Every single segment in that movie is done by REAL people who work in the food industry in one way or another.
Are you an anti-vaxxer as well?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,164
18,062
1,743
Over-priced how? Whole Foods, for starters, pays its employees a very livable wage, relatively speaking. I'm very willing to "over-pay" for my groceries, if the workers are being taken care of (they also get good benefits even as part-timers, if I remember correctly).
The food is over-priced because of the way it's produced and it adds no additional benefits for health, nutrition, or safety.
 
Jul 20, 2018
810
112
43
58
77539
The food is over-priced because of the way it's produced and it adds no additional benefits for health, nutrition, or safety.
But TwinBlast feels good about himself because he's buying from a company that actually cares about their workers. He likes paying more for no benefit as long as he gets a warm fuzzy inside.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,758
48,230
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
So why do you think Yuma source of irrigation water is of poor quality? Do you have some information that says that?

According to Yuma agro visiters guide of the 230,000 acres of land utilized for agriculture in Yuma County, 100 per cent are irrigated with Colorado River water.

http://www.visityuma.com/agritourism.html
From the OP:
"The culprit turned out to be E. coli, a powerful pathogen that had contaminated romaine lettuce grown in Yuma, Arizona, and distributed nationwide. At least 210 people in 36 states were sickened. Five died and 27 suffered kidney failure. The same strain of E. coli that sickened them was detected in a Yuma canal used to irrigate some crops."

1544036540328.png
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,164
18,062
1,743
From the OP:
"The culprit turned out to be E. coli, a powerful pathogen that had contaminated romaine lettuce grown in Yuma, Arizona, and distributed nationwide. At least 210 people in 36 states were sickened. Five died and 27 suffered kidney failure. The same strain of E. coli that sickened them was detected in a Yuma canal used to irrigate some crops."

View attachment 66706
What's the irrgiation water like today? Or for previous years?

How many foodborne illnesses have been traced to Yuma Valley irrigation water?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,164
18,062
1,743
Over-priced how? Whole Foods, for starters, pays its employees a very livable wage, relatively speaking. I'm very willing to "over-pay" for my groceries, if the workers are being taken care of (they also get good benefits even as part-timers, if I remember correctly).
You seem to have an issue with corporate agriculture.

I recall having a similar discussion with someone several years ago. He was blasting corporate agriculure and how all food should be produced like it was 50-100 years ago on small family farms, etc. Then I found he worked for one of the largest corporations in the world.

Additionally, the population of the world is expanding rapidly. We can't feed those people with a pitchfork and shovel while having a standard of living that's equal to the rest of the population.

A little over a hundred years ago the government gave families 160 acres in western Oklahoma. Anyone want to try to make a living on an average 160 acres of land in western Oklahoma? It'll run 8 jersey milk cows on average!

Times have changed for agriculture just as it has for every other industry. If we are going to feed an expanding population with safe nutritional food we better embrace science and technology.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,164
18,062
1,743
Now, with that being said, I would suggest you watch "Food, Inc.". It touches on why local family farmers buy from Monsanto (hint: they don't do it because they *want* to).
I know a lot of farmers all over the United States and I've never meet one who was forced to buy from Monsanto.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,758
48,230
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
What's the irrgiation water like today? Or for previous years?

How many foodborne illnesses have been traced to Yuma Valley irrigation water?
If you died you don't give a flying flip what it's like today or in previous years or how many foodborne illnesses have been traced to Yuma Valley. All of those questions become irrelevant. Congress passed a law, the FDA made regulations, it could have prevented deaths but it wasn't implemented.
 
Jul 20, 2018
810
112
43
58
77539
If you died you don't give a flying flip what it's like today or in previous years or how many foodborne illnesses have been traced to Yuma Valley. All of those questions become irrelevant. Congress passed a law, the FDA made regulations, it could have prevented deaths but it wasn't implemented.
Many more people die from medication errors in the U.S. every year. It's highly regulated but deaths still happen.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,758
48,230
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Many more people die from medication errors in the U.S. every year. It's highly regulated but deaths still happen.
Yes, and we can't afford to ignore it any more and pretend like it doesn't happen. @steross will back me up on this, I have been preaching this for at least the past 10 years. If you look at the costs of adverse drug reactions it is between $70-120 billion per year. Every prescription medication must be monitored not only for therapeutic effects but also for adverse effects. Right now the healthcare system doesn't do a good job of monitoring for either. It embarrasses me that my profession hasn't done anything about it and here in the program that I designed we are teaching future pharmacists how to address it directly.

But it generally doesn't happen because of impurities in the supply, it happens because the medications themselves are dangerous.
 
Feb 6, 2007
4,419
4,819
1,743
Ardmore, Ok.
Rx already posted an article absolving the consumer fro responsibility. You can't fix this on the consumer side.

Big pharma and opiates are a horrible example as the evidence is quite clear that they were by far the major factor in that problem. I have given lectures on that subject and can educate you on that if you would like.

Rx and I have been posting links to articles backing our claims. If migrant workers and wildlife are your claim to be the major cause of this issue, then show it because that runs contrary to everything I have ever heard.

If you are saying that we should have testing standards for irrigation water, then we agree. Our only disagreement is that I believe that is the common source of this problem and you are blaming wildlife and migrants as the more common source. Wildlife would be a difficult issue to correct. The claim that "portable facilities are usually available" as if migrant workers simply choose to poop on the ground instead of in an easy to reach bathroom is at best silly and at worst veiled racism. Nobody would do that. Yes, I do know migrant workers. No, they have never just taken a shit in my yard instead of my toilet.
I suspect far more likely than the idea that they are savages with no concept where to relieve themselves:
1. There aren't actually facilities where they are
2. There are facilities but at a distance that they would be accused of not producing enough or take a pay cut if they went and utilized them.
3. There was no explanation in a language that they understand how to access facilities.
Educate me then, and tell me how it is the user's fault that doctors willingly prescribe them excessively. No logic in the world absolves a single one in the opioid triangle of manfacturer/prescriber/user. The solution to this issue must also include action and responsibility by all three parties of this triumvirate. What I am here to tell you is that solving the food-borne pathogen must also include the consumer, in unison with the producer and the distributor/retailer.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,758
48,230
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
What I am here to tell you is that solving the food-borne pathogen must also include the consumer, in unison with the producer and the distributor/retailer.
And I posted data that suggests that there is little that the consumer can do. When I went looking for the data it was to counter steross with "all people have to do is wash their food," but what I found was that washing it in the kitchen was pretty much useless. Most people do not have power washers in their kitchens and bleaching all the food is unreasonable. About the only thing the consumer can do is not buy the tainted products.
 
Feb 6, 2007
4,419
4,819
1,743
Ardmore, Ok.
You do know that the Ag School does get a lot of funding from ConAgra and Monsanto, among others, correct?

Remember what you said about studies being funded by particular groups? Of course their research is going to come out a specific way.

And what's the problem with "Food, Inc."...? Every single segment in that movie is done by REAL people who work in the food industry in one way or another.
You obviously have an aversion to science, but just know that science has extended your life expectancy, science has provided you most of your human comforts, science is the foundation for your standard-of-living. Know also that, although much of the scientific inquiry conducted at research institutions (read universities), most of that research is to see IF their product works, i.e., "is it viable?". You see, external or un-biased justification of their product earns and promotes trust and acceptance with potential customers. It serves as verification. They will then spend millions of dollars doing their own research, both empirical research and applied research, to prove their label and to satisfy governmental requirements.

Regarding your Food, Inc. statement that "every single segment in that movie is done by REAL people who work in the food industry in one way or another", that does not imply that they are not biased or have more credibility. PETA claims it wants and uses your money to support animal shelters, but spends 90% of it elsewhere.
 
Feb 6, 2007
4,419
4,819
1,743
Ardmore, Ok.
And I posted data that suggests that there is little that the consumer can do. When I went looking for the data it was to counter steross with "all people have to do is wash their food," but what I found was that washing it in the kitchen was pretty much useless. Most people do not have power washers in their kitchens and bleaching all the food is unreasonable. About the only thing the consumer can do is not buy the tainted products.
It depends on the produce. As I stated in another post, some produce, by virtue of its skin/rind texture (and other variables related to storage, transport, method of harvest, etc., etc.) are either harder or easier to disinfect. I do not propose that the consumer can be 100% efficient at eliminating all bacteria, but neither can the source, the distributor, or the retailer. However, what I am saying to you is that if EVERYBODY in the food chain, from the producer to the consumer, do their part, we have a much better chance of increasing our efficiency and MINIMIZING food-borne illnesses relate to these pathogens. If the consumer does nothing, we will still have issues even if the other segments do everything within their power.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,119
31,272
1,743
oklahoma city
o
Educate me then, and tell me how it is the user's fault that doctors willingly prescribe them excessively. No logic in the world absolves a single one in the opioid triangle of manfacturer/prescriber/user. The solution to this issue must also include action and responsibility by all three parties of this triumvirate. What I am here to tell you is that solving the food-borne pathogen must also include the consumer, in unison with the producer and the distributor/retailer.
Well, the way you wrote that you aren't gonna listen anyway but here goes the short version of a huge story:
In the 1990s, the government (with huge lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry) began pushing for doctors to treat pain better and the JCAHO even made pain "the fifth vital sign" and forced to be recorded as such or else lose accreditation even though it is not vital nor a sign. Extended-release opiates were marketed for this horrible undertreatment of chronic pain and doctors were falsely taught that they would not be causing addiction with prescriptions and that we should treat even non-acute, non-cancer pain with opiates if the patient reported pain. I remember those lessons. The basis for this was a simple letter that was published in the NEJM in the 1980s as a fairly unscientific chart review from one hospital with the conclusion that prescription opiates did not cause addiction. This letter became widely cited as conclusive research to back the sales of these reformulations at higher prices. Drug companies were misleading prescribers and consumers by telling them that the slow release versions were less addictive. The executives of Purdue (makers of oxycontin) plead guilty to these charges.

This was of course all wrong and patients became addicted to medications that they were prescribed and also it became the expectation that all pain needed to be treated with opiates. So, if someone sprained their ankle and were seen they expected at least #20 Vicodin for the pain as pain was no longer acceptable.

That is the impetus of the issue. Sure, were there doctors that went above and beyond and ran pill mills? Yes. Were there people that got high and never were even prescribed pills? Yes, that has always been around at some low level. But, the reason that we had the massive opiate crisis is not a few crappy docs and a few people wanting to get high. The reason for the crisis was the overwhelming new supply of opiates brought about by the huge change in indication for the drugs and essentially forcing doctors to prescribe or lose accreditation brought about by the government, accreditors, and the ones making the money, the pharmaceutical companies.

As far as action from the "triumvirate", it is the doctors having to fix it, and the patients having to suffer. The companies will end up paying some fines, maybe even fines that take away a big hunk of their fraudulent profits.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,119
31,272
1,743
oklahoma city
It depends on the produce. As I stated in another post, some produce, by virtue of its skin/rind texture (and other variables related to storage, transport, method of harvest, etc., etc.) are either harder or easier to disinfect. I do not propose that the consumer can be 100% efficient at eliminating all bacteria, but neither can the source, the distributor, or the retailer. However, what I am saying to you is that if EVERYBODY in the food chain, from the producer to the consumer, do their part, we have a much better chance of increasing our efficiency and MINIMIZING food-borne illnesses relate to these pathogens. If the consumer does nothing, we will still have issues even if the other segments do everything within their power.
Ok, I'll wash my produce acting like I can wash the poop off of a lettuce bunch if they will not put water on it without checking first to see that it is not poop water.
 
Jul 20, 2018
810
112
43
58
77539
Ok, I'll wash my produce acting like I can wash the poop off of a lettuce bunch if they will not put water on it without checking first to see that it is not poop water.
All you have to do is make a bleach/water solution in the sink and let it soak for awhile.

As for me, I don't bother. I realize the risk is extremely minimal in this country so I'm not going to bother.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,164
18,062
1,743
If you died you don't give a flying flip what it's like today or in previous years or how many foodborne illnesses have been traced to Yuma Valley. All of those questions become irrelevant. Congress passed a law, the FDA made regulations, it could have prevented deaths but it wasn't implemented.
You are ignoring my comments earlier to continue on this mission of yours that somehow people don't care, all is good. Which is hogwash!

My understanding is that Yuma valley has a high quality source of water, of course it's all relative isn't it? That in no way inferes we can't and shouldn't strive to be better!!

My under standing is that the e. coli found in the water was found in one canal, not the entire water system.

There are all sorts of inspections of equipment, facilities, etc on these farms.

And back to the "fecal spray" you seem to like to harp on. I would be surprised anyone uses that method any longer in these fields. And here is why.

Risk of GI Illness in lettuce based on irrigation practices.

Sprinkler 1.1 in 1,000
Furrow Irrigation 1.1 in 100,000
Subsurface Irrigation 9 in 100,000,000

https://producesafetyalliance.corne...d/Talk 5 - Rock - Prevention & Mitigation.pdf

It makes little sense with the invesment's in these farms and fields to take those sorts of risk. It can cost them their business.