>I am not after proving or claiming organic being more
maybe you will be surprised, but i think it's possible to prove
just that, but not on the basis of mineral content..
>My hypothesis was that plants under
>good conditions (without the stress of all kind of
>pesticides) produce seeds that reach more of their
in some cases that's a simple thing to prove. we have absolutely
no difficulties to state, that the mother plants for seed
production obviously were sprayed recently with certain herbicides
or any desiccant like round-up. these treatments result in slower
development and germination speed, loss in vigor, a higher
rate of abnormal plants and a lower cell activity (measurable by
a tetrazolium test, by mannose cytase or phospahtase activity or
the firefly test).
fortunately these treatments are not allowed prior to harvest on
plants for direct food production.
>However, the figures of vitamins,
>minerals, amino-acids, enzymes and trace-elements in
>sprouts and seedlings indicate a highly nutritional,
>efficient and economic way of feeding people and
fully agreed, in my view things like enzymes are much
more important for nutrition and their decrease during
storage (and trying to avoid the spoiling, which is partly
prevented by enzymes, by tricks like radiation, is one
of the greatest cheatings of consumers) indicates, that
freshness is an important indicator for food quality.
you mentioned a publication of nutrition data of
sprouts from a german lab. can you give me the source
or at least the name and city of the lab ?? we too have some
known high priest of obfuscation, if the outcome serves their
>Therefore, I do not agree with you that we should leave
>healtheffects to the nutraceutical-people.
probably you misunderstood me in parts. i did not say,
that we should leave healtheffects to the pharmaceutical
industry. i said, that we should be careful in making
unproven or even unprovable statements. while a
pharmaceutical can (and HAS to) clearly be proven
effective against the symptoms of a defined illness ("kills
99,9% of relevant bacteria", "reduces esterase activity
on muscle synapses at bone joint xy", "reduces high blood
pressure in 95% of all treated cases", sentences like
these cannot be claimed to be relevant for organic
food. these tests simply do not exist.
>Nutraceuticals come from the very industry complex
>which ignored all information on regenerating whole
>foods! Nutraceuticals are developed by the industries
>where the foodpart has been promoting all these junk
>foods the past fifty years being a main cause of all
>kind of degenerative diseases which are than more or
>less healed by all kind of medicines (if not surgery)
>from the pharmaceutical part.
living in the netherlands, which meanwhile certainly is
reached by the flood of probiotic yogourts like most
other european countries, you should have heard the
claims, danone makes on the labels. they are VERY
carefully in making their statements, as otherwise they
would risk being sued by the ministery of health. these
claims are like following: "tradionally used as
stimulant", "promotes general well-being", "supports
liver activity". you never find statements of DIRECT
effects, because these are VERY difficult to prove.
the health effects of other bacteria than lactobacillus
bulgaricus and thermophilus were NEVER proven, but
just these two are only rarely used in modern yogourt
production because of their sour taste. the human bowel
and intestine has a VERY individual flora and is by no
means identical among all people eating the same food
and living in the same society.
so you mustn't wonder, that we find described in the
latest medical literature the first two cases of damage
of the bowel in woman from scandinavia , which clearly
could be related to their eating habits and consumption
of quite large amounts of probiotic yogourts. oops !!!
illness caused by eating "healthy" nutraceuticals ???
that's what i meant with careful claims of health
effects ... how MUCH healthier do you get with one cup
of yoghourt - 1 percent, 2 or even 5% ?
there was a time in france (up to the year 1653), were
by law it was strictly forbidden by punishment of death
to make public health statements for staple food !!!
those were the days..... head off for false or unproven
statements on food, one finger off, when trying to
cheat with underweight, prison for selling overpriced
food and public whipping of winesellers, who
adulterated natural wine.
man does not die by bread alone....
>I will not very quickly put my trust there.
you're doing well so !!!!
+-[Quote of the day, powered by k. wiegand]--------+
| "I wanted to be born again, but Mum said no." |
| -anon |
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:08 EDT