Posted on 12/31/2002 4:26:11 AM PST by blam
Not even close.
The peanut is not a nut at all but a member of the legume family. The majority of peanuts are currently grown in the United States, South America, Africa, India, and China. Peanuts do not grow on trees. The peanut seeds must be planted every year after the frost and harvested 4 -5 months later. The peanut plant produces yellow flowers above the ground that fall away, leaving a ´peg´ in their place. Each ´peg´ grows away from the plant like a new stem and extends underground where the clusters of peanuts then develop.
Peanut History in a Nutshell
The peanut is believed to have been originally cultivated in Bolivia and Peru around 3,500 years ago. One can just imagine the Inca priests making their sacrificial offerings while the watching crowd happily munched on peanuts. The Spanish explorers were the first Europeans to bring the peanut back to the Old World in the 16th century. The peanut was taken by the Spanish to Africa and Asia on their ships since it proved to be tasty, highly nutritional and not subject to spoil like other food supplies. Indonesians have made sauces from natural peanut butter since the 17th century ! The peanut is still it an important element in Chinese and other Asian cooking and provides the main source of protein in their diet. The peanut made its way to North America on the slave ships that came from Africa. In 1860 with the start of the American Civil War, the peanut was incorporated into the American diet. Peanut butter was first ´invented´ in America by a doctor from St. Louis, Missouri in 1890 as a way to complement the diet of his patients who needed more nutrition and energy. George Washington Carver is known as the father of the peanut industry since he improved crop production and discovered 300 ways to use peanuts including shoe polish and shaving cream.
Okay. It reminds me of a phrase my Grandfather used to use, which hasn't really survived to our day. He'd talk of "...pulling an awful dumb boner."
And please...don't ask me to explain that!
Just to see if they can control more of the world?
You would assume that, but then assumption is the "Mother of all Screwups".
Contrary to what most people believe, "organic" does not automatically mean "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free". In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.So what does organic mean? It means that these pesticides, if used, must be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured. Also, these pesticides must be applied using equipment that has not been used to apply any synthetic materials for the past three years, and the land being planted cannot have been treated with synthetic materials for that period either.
Most organic farmers (and even some conventional farmers, too) employ mechanical and cultural tools to help control pests. These include insect traps, careful crop selection (there are a growing number of disease-resistant varieties), and biological controls (such as predator insects and beneficial microorganisms).
ORGANIC PRODUCE AND PERSONAL HEALTH When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find that about half of them are carcinogenic.
Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.
This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same, dangerous mistake. We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and harmless.
ORGANIC PESTICIDES VERSUS SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES Clearly, the less we impact our environment, the better off we all are. Organic farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control pests, as mentioned earlier.
Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides. How do organic pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?
A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.
It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.
It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.
When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe.
WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THIS BEFORE? For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel the myth that "organic = chemical/pesticide-free". They would only stand to lose business by making such a disclosure. Pesticide manufacturers have little concern in the matter. To them, "synthetic pesticides sold" and "organic pesticides sold" are both "pesticides sold".
As for conventional farmers, they are not really in a position to be critical. It would not be in their interest to draw attention to chemical and pesticide use.
WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN? The purpose in writing this article is not to discourage you from buying organic produce. It is only meant to let you know what you are or aren't getting when you make such a purchase. Unless you know your grower personally, there is no guarantee that your produce has been grown without pesticides or other chemicals. It's a point to consider, given the substantially higher cost of organic foods.
There are many choices and decisions that we, as consumers, are asked to make. Hopefully, this has provided some new information that you will find helpful.
* * * * * * *
Hard copies of this article in formatted leaflet form are available (on recycled paper, of course).
The data describing the carcinogenicity of natural and synthetic compounds are referenced in Gold, L.S., et al. (1992) _Science_ Vol. 258, pp. 261-265.
Many thanks go to the Organic Crop Improvement Association for their cooperation in this study. The OCIA has chapters in AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NM, NC, ND, OH, PA, SD, UT, and WI. Thanks are also extended to the California Certified Organic Farmers, the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, and Oregon Tilth Certified Organic. (The appropriate information has not yet been obtained from the Natural Organic Farmers Association (NOFA), but it is almost certain that all facts stated here apply to their products as well.) The following state Departments of Agriculture have also been very helpful: AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, HI, IA, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, ND, OK, SC, TN, VA, and WA. States with no laws governing organic products include Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
The above was written by a green Berkeley Grad as a gripe about pesticides used in organic farming. I didn't see Archers Daniel Midland in his source list, just Organic/Natural Farmer's Organizations and the Department of Agriculture of several States.
Once we reach that stage, God is going to step in and say, "OK everybody, out of the pool."
NO,,,, so they can SEE. Vitamin A deficiencies are the primary cause of blindness in children in 3rd world countries.
I'm only guessing, but I'd say it's probably due to an increase of population, which would naturally decrease their food supply. Malnutrition is a huge problem in many countries.
I understand that some of the folks in these Countries grow up to be our enemies,, but I'm talking about children. To sentence a child to blindness when it can be prevented seems to me to be beyond cruel.
Carver's work resulted in the creation of 325 products from peanuts. He also found over a hundred uses for sweet potatoes as well as many from other agricultural products native to the south.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.