Awww poor babies. Did someone take away your "freedom" fries?

1/18/2008 4:50:40 AM

lets all eat cheese and crackers so we can be big and strong

1/18/2008 10:36:03 AM

"It's lonely on top, but the food's better"

1/18/2008 10:46:54 AM

hope all of Congress doesn't die from e coli in organic spinach

i mean when you hear 'organic' when talking about food, it has to be a good thing right? i mean 'organic' sounds good right?

1/18/2008 10:48:14 AM

^
only if the spinch is uncooked and unwashed



organic food is superior to non-organic food, but it is not safer

bugs, bacteria, fungus

all kinds of shit

but, like I said, organic food is superior to non-organic food

1/18/2008 11:21:16 AM

superior how? just because it has less pesticides and what not when its grown? it doesnt have some kind of magical boost over non-organic foods in vitamins and minerals does it?

and its kind of shady when a leafy vegetable has to be cooked to assure its safe...i had a salad a couple days ago and iirc none of the lettuce or arugala or tomatoes or anything were cooked

1/18/2008 11:22:11 AM

Quote :

"and what not"

yes, and what not

Quote :

"magical"

yes, magical

Quote :

"boost over non-organic foods in vitamins and minerals"

good healthy plants make good healthy fruits and vegetables; they don't need more vitamins and minerals

besides, it's typically anthropocentric of you to only consider benefit as measured by human interests

if you really don't know about organic (read: organically produced, not carbon-containing) foods

there are plenty of books and websites on the subject that you can you read on your own time

Quote :

"its kind of shady when a leafy vegetable has to be cooked to assure its safe"

it doesn't...... just washed

1/18/2008 11:32:11 AM

Quote :

"only if the spinch is uncooked and unwashed"

Quote :

"besides, it's typically anthropocentric of you to only consider benefit as measured by human interests"

Quote :

"there are plenty of books and websites on the subject"

my bad, i figured with your annoying arrogance on the subject, you'd actually know what you were talking about enough to do more than tell me there are books on the subject

1/18/2008 11:33:46 AM

And you see here? It never stops.

Wolf Paw approval marks healthier vending treats
Paw print indicates compliance with nutritional criteria set by University Dining

http://www.technicianonline.com/media/storage/paper848/news/2008/01/18/News/Wolf-Paw.Approval.Marks.Healthier.Vending.Treats-3157787.shtml?reffeature=textemailedition

1/18/2008 11:48:01 AM

^^
(see? I can roll my eyes, too)

1/18/2008 11:55:12 AM

^^

why should good nutrition be partisan issue?

NO FATTIES 4 A BETTER AMERICA

[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 12:06 PM. Reason : +]

1/18/2008 12:01:10 PM

^^wow that almost implies that I started with the rolly eyes in this thread, and not you in your previous post

i'm still waiting for you to tell me how organic foods are "superior" since you claim to know so much about it yet the only "evidence" you've provided is that "there are plenty of books and websites on the subject"

1/18/2008 12:01:47 PM

^^

Quote :

"Paw print indicates compliance with nutritional criteria set by University Dining"

Do you need yet another government entity setting "nutritional criteria" for you? I sure hope everything you snack on is in "compliance."

Can't people read the labels on packaged foods for themselves? Or bring "nutritional" or other snacks from home like I do? I just stick a pack nabs in my book bag on the way out the door--it's cheaper than the vending machines, I have more flavor options, and I don't have to travel to the machines during breaks, among other things.

Many in our society would love to see "good nutrition" made compulsory. Short of that, these busybodies push and support measures that are de facto compulsory. The "Center for Science in the Public Interest" is a perfect example:

http://www.cspinet.org/

Who the hell are these people. One step removed from the food police, that's who.



[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2008 12:21:53 PM

Quote :

"I started with"

you started the tone, with your "magical" shit

are you 17? why do you seem to like fighting about everything anyone says?

Quote :

"i'm still waiting for you to tell me"

why? cause if I don't, I'm wrong?

why would I want to spend time helping you, when you act the way you do?

I mean, I'm about as cynical as they come, but why do you feel the need to argue about shit, seemingly just for fun?

Quote :

"you claim to know so much about it"

I'd love for you to show everyone where I made that claim

all I said was "organic food is superior", and indirectly suggested that some benefits aren't anthropocentric

where did I claim that I "know...much about it"?

oh, right! I didn't. you're just trying to start shit because you're an immature cyber-bully-wannabe

Quote :

"the only "evidence" you've provided is that "there are plenty of books and websites on the subject""

so now I'm providing evidence of a claim I never made?? wat?

my statement about books was simply a suggestion for how you could learn about the benefits of organic food

because you asked.

("superior how? just because it has less pesticides and what not when its grown?")

BUT NO!!!1

I HAVE TO SIT HERE & ANSWER YOUR RUDE QUESTIONS, OTHERWISE I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT

1/18/2008 12:22:47 PM

wow you posted ALL THAT bitching and I'M the immature one?

I asked why organic foods are superior, and you start criticizing the minutia of my vocabulary and being a smartass bitch, never clarifying the 'superior' comment that you so definitively made

then i simply do the exact same thing you do, with a couple rolly eyes like you posted, and you just start menstruating away

you'd at least think given the length of your previous post, there would be SOMETHING other than just you trolling like the dumb alias you are

1/18/2008 12:26:48 PM

The Menucrats are coming!

The Menucrats are coming!

The Menucrats are coming!

The Menucrats are coming!

The Menucrats are coming!

The Menucrats are coming!



Hooksaw is a modern day Paul Revere.

and TreeTwista is his horse.

1/18/2008 12:31:02 PM

you'd make a great mod cause you're so mature and non-biased

JOE SCHMOE FOR MOD! I'LL MAKE A THREAD FOR MYSELF! VOTE FOR ME!

[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2008 12:32:46 PM

^^^


****waits for treesister to get the last word in****

1/18/2008 12:33:30 PM

Quote :

"and what not"

yes, and what not

Quote :

"magical"

yes, magical

Quote :

"why do you feel the need to argue about shit, seemingly just for fun?"

1/18/2008 12:38:18 PM

I can't believe there are people who want the public cafeterias to push for non nutritious food.

1/18/2008 12:39:01 PM

why does nutritious food have to be so expensive? oh yeah, it doesnt

and why do people insist that 'organic' foods are so great

regular spinach didnt kill anyone last year to my knowledge

[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2008 12:39:55 PM

Quote :

"And you see here? It never stops. Wolf Paw approval marks healthier vending treats Paw print indicates compliance with nutritional criteria set by University Dining"

Do you seriously have a problem with this? They are not taking away anything you could already eat. They are just indicating which items have fewer calories and trans fats by placing a paw print on those items. It's for your own fucking benefit. You can still buy whatever unhealthy food you want. It just makes it easier for you to pick, since you can't read the nutritional information on a package that is inside the vending machine.

I'm done. Troll along.

1/18/2008 12:54:25 PM

^ You're in compliance. GG.

1/18/2008 12:56:01 PM

^so, please explain how these vending machines with paw prints are infringing upon your rights. i don't want to be a partisan sheep. after all, i look up to people like you that can really look at both sides of an issue without any bias.

1/18/2008 1:05:39 PM

1. You lied.

Quote :

"I'm done."

2. I'm not a troll. We simply disagree about this issue--and probably always will.

Quote :

"Troll along."

3. The government needs to get out of people's business--period. I don't want their "criteria"--it's one step closer to "what's 'bad' for you is and should be illegal." And don't tell me it can't happen--it already is happening:

Chicago Weighs New Prohibition: Bad-for-You Fats

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/us/18chicago.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

CALIFORNIA
Assembly bill would cut use of trans fats

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/21/BAG29N3O611.DTL

Boston Close to Trans Fat Ban

http://bostonist.com/2008/01/11/boston_close_to.php

LA to Urge Restaurants to Ban Trans Fats

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001373.html

New York City passes trans fat ban
Restaurants must eliminate artery-clogging ingredient by July 2008

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/

And so on--unfortunately. BTW, these cities are not conservative strongholds--clearly.

Quote :

"nutritional criteria set by University Dining"

4. Your sarcasm is not in compliance.

[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2008 1:28:01 PM

And here I thought the worst part about University dining was the fact that its food is generally terrible to begin with. Little did I know that the true outrage is their insistence on informing me on which choice will have less likely chance of leading to a heart attack.

1/18/2008 1:28:16 PM

^^THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T ALLOWING ME TO HAVE MY LEADED WATER EITHER!

1/18/2008 1:34:04 PM

^
exactly

[hydrogenated] trans fat is poison, not just "unhealthy"

1/18/2008 1:35:33 PM

^^^ There is no proof that high cholesterol causes heart disease.

Quote :

"For one thing, many researchers harbor doubts about the need to drive down cholesterol levels in the first place."

Quote :

"But even with two years of treatment, the further reductions brought no health benefit."

Quote :

"Add it all together, and 'current evidence supports ignoring LDL cholesterol altogether,' says the University of Michigan's Hayward. In a country where cholesterol lowering is usually seen as a matter of life and death, these are fighting words."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_04/b4068052092994.htm

^^ False analogy. Lead is a highly toxic metal that has been shown to be dangerous in significant amounts, particularly to children. Snack foods consumed in moderation and as part of a balanced diet are dangerous how?

http://www.epa.gov/lead/

1/18/2008 1:45:25 PM

Quote :

"I'm done. Troll along."

Quote :

"1. You lied."

yes, i'm sorry that i didn't hold up my end of the bargain. glad to see that you did though.

1/18/2008 1:56:53 PM

wait a fucking minute

they DIDN'T get good food before?

1/18/2008 2:12:57 PM

I don't know whats more amusing, hooksaw getting worked up about food labeling or hooksaw not being able to process sarcasm.

1/18/2008 2:16:36 PM

^ You're in compliance. GG.

1/18/2008 2:35:05 PM

banning transfats wouldn't limit menu items

you could have your delicious deep-fried jalapeno cheddar twinky poppers with a double shot of ranch still

1/18/2008 2:41:25 PM

^ Obviously, you've never heard of these people:

http://www.cspinet.org/

1/18/2008 2:49:42 PM

you're going to have to point out something villainous on their website

its not immediately apparent

1/18/2008 3:10:51 PM

she AL-MOST got this passed in the first 100 Hours

1/18/2008 3:19:13 PM

[Edited on January 19, 2008 at 12:52 AM. Reason : ]

1/19/2008 12:47:50 AM

Quote :

"it doesnt have some kind of magical boost over non-organic foods in vitamins and minerals does it?"

Organic foods do seem to have a nutritional boost over the non-organic varieties, but it isn't magical.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6272634.stm

1/19/2008 12:53:10 AM

Quote :

"Wolf Paw approval marks healthier vending treats"

Maybe I want some some healthier treats besides the greasy potato chips and candy.

1/19/2008 1:34:32 PM

^^ Naturally Dangerous: Surprising Facts About Food, Health and the Environment
by James P. Collman, the George A. and Hilda M. Daubert Professor of Chemistry at Stanford

Quote :

"Collman asserts that many dire predictions about the future of the Earth and its inhabitants have often been gross exaggerations fanned by environmental groups, organic food faddists, politicians and even physicians. He argues that some organic foods and herbal medicines are potentially more hazardous than food treated with pesticides. To some degree, almost everything has the potential to be toxic. But the idea that natural foods are safe is taken for granted by almost every television news program and newspaper story, Collman asserts, whether the subject is insect pesticides or herbicides in commercial foods. The fact that some organic foods are not safe because of possible bacterial contamination or that many natural substances can be deadly is often underplayed or overlooked."

Quote :

"Yet there are 50 known strains of E. coli in organic foods that, if ingested, can cause bloody diarrhea, kidney failure and death. Some species of E. coli are found in dairy cows that carry the bacterium harmlessly in their feces and can contaminate vegetable fields. But consumers who enjoy organic vegetables or rare beef don't know they would be safer if they could overcome their fear of irradiated food. The doom-and-gloom approach we use to deal with food safety extends to discussions about global warming. The author does not question that some global warming is going on, but instead challenges arguments from both 'greens' predicting global disaster and conservatives denying any problem at all. Exaggerated claims cloud the debate and make rational public-policy decisions difficult, he says. The damage extends to supporting the conviction that free enterprise is self-destructive, and so it lurks in the background of every economic discussion as well. Yet this fixation with looming environmental disaster at every level of human endeavor is misplaced, writes Collman, a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Collman's evidence lies in numbers and sources. He examines, for example, an overblown health scare story reported by the New York Times and CBS's '60 Minutes' a decade ago. The topic concerned Alar, a chemical used to synchronize the ripening of apples. An environmental activist group, supported by actress Meryl Streep, claimed that Alar was 'the most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply' and was a cause of childhood cancer. Immediately, alarmed parents rushed to dump huge quantities of apples and apple juice, causing the apple industry losses of millions of dollars. Alar was removed from the market. But studies by the National Cancer Institute and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to show that Alar caused cancer, except possibly in doses between 100,000 and 200,000 times the normal amount a child might consume in a day's ration of apple products. Unpasteurized apple juice, Collman points out, actually is a greater danger to children and adults -- because of bacterial contamination from cow manure."

Quote :

"Beyond his analyses of statistical probabilities of food and other environmental dangers, Collman brings another intellectual virtue to the task by ranking 30 exposures contributing to deaths in the United States. The data show that cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, motor vehicles and handguns are more dangerous than the risks of pesticides in foods, nuclear power or use of diagnostic X-rays in medicine. There is no doubt that arguments will be made on the other side, as questions of balance and context are raised by those who disagree with this book's iconoclastic views. The author is not the first one to take a stand against the excesses of the environmentalist movement and the press and their manifestations in matters of science and public policy. But Collman's bill of indictment is a formidable one -- a reminder of what powerful institutions may often overlook when they are under pressure by those convinced that the world is headed for environmental calamity. Given the emotions surrounding risk and the environment, even the best scientists with the best motives can be gripped by biases, political beliefs and judgments based on training and values, and also at times their personal economic interests. One would hope that Collman's views are noticed and that Naturally Dangerous succeeds in creating a better perspective on our notions of what is safe and unsafe, and how we develop rational policies to protect ourselves [emphasis added]."

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/september26/dangerous-926.html

1/19/2008 6:09:23 PM

um

$4.95 for lunch is a fucking deal in DC

1/19/2008 9:33:41 PM

^^
Again you post an article without stating your claim. The article suggests that we shouldn't assume that food is better because it is organic and does not make the claim that organic foods are worse for people overall.

1/19/2008 9:45:48 PM

hooksaw

Quote :

" The liberals are coming! The liberal are coming! Paul revere ride out!"

1/20/2008 2:11:10 AM

^^ If you'd bothered to read the review, you'd have seen that some organic food is potentially just that: more dangerous.

Quote :

"He argues that some organic foods and herbal medicines are potentially more hazardous than food treated with pesticides."

Quote :

"Beyond his analyses of statistical probabilities of food and other environmental dangers, Collman brings another intellectual virtue to the task by ranking 30 exposures contributing to deaths in the United States. The data show that cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, motor vehicles and handguns are more dangerous than the risks of pesticides in foods, nuclear power or use of diagnostic X-rays in medicine."

^ Yet another trinket from HUR.

1/20/2008 3:50:55 AM

damn right.

I'M BACK!

1/20/2008 3:58:41 AM

Quote :

"^ Yet another trinket from HUR. "

1/20/2008 4:25:53 AM

Quote :

"organic food is superior to non-organic food, but it is not safer bugs, bacteria, fungus all kinds of shit but, like I said, organic food is superior to non-organic food"

huh?

1/20/2008 4:55:47 AM