which eggs? (and 'foodchain', 'superiority' and 'happiness')

Justin · Post by **Justin** » Thu 09 Feb 2006 19:32

I seem to remember Wai saying somewhere that fresh farm eggs are a superior option to supermarket eggs (i can't find exactly where i read that, so please correct me if she didn't say that). Would non organic fresh farm eggs (the chickens are kept in barns always) be better than organic free range supermarket eggs. what do you guys think..

jjah · Post by **jjah** » Thu 09 Feb 2006 19:51

I just remember her saying that the reg grocery store eggs are more fresh and thats what she uses. Though I could be wrong.

CurlyGirl · Post by **CurlyGirl** » Thu 09 Feb 2006 22:24

I personally buy only organic, free range eggs. It is not only the freshness of the eggs that counts (though, obviously, how fresh they are is VERY important when you are going to eat them raw), but also the quality of the fats. Chickens fed biologically appropriate food (i.e. not their minced relatives) and that are allowed to roam free in the sunshine and pick at insects, etc, produce eggs with a much more favourable composition. Just google 'nutritional difference between organic and barn eggs' and you should get a better idea.

By the way, a good test for freshness (once you have opened an egg) is to look for the white cord (known as the chalazae) which is the twisted egg whites that form a "rope" to anchor to the top and bottom of the shell membrane and center the yolk. The cord is robust and very visible in a fresh egg. Be cautious about eating eggs that don't have an obviously strong chalazae.

CurlyGirl · Post by **CurlyGirl** » Thu 09 Feb 2006 22:26

Also, if you live in a developed country that has big supermarkets, the eggs are shipped in all the time, so there shouldn't be a question about the relative freshness of barn eggs and organic eggs. More and more people are buying free-range, organic products now, so the shelf-turnover is high enough for you not to worry about organic eggs just 'sitting there' all month before you buy them. Anyway, when in doubt, check the 'best before' date stamped on the egg. Eggs will keep happily in the fridge for two-three weeks after that date, although it's best to keep them outside of the fridge, according to Wai.

jjah · Post by **jjah** » Fri 10 Feb 2006 03:31

Myths, Distortions and Lies About Free-Range, Cage-Free, Organic Eggs

http://www.biblelife.org/eggs.htm

Exposing the Myths, Dangers and Lies About Organic Food

http://www.biblelife.org/organic.htm

Sory, I can't seem to figure out how to copy the link, so you have to copy and paste the email address, sory.

I don't know for a fact is this is true, but who can prove that it isn't? Also I am not saying anything about their diet but rather just on the scams and fraud that they state to be true.

I just don't want anyone getting robbed; it's hard enough doing this diet without having to dish out loads of cash on top of it.

CurlyGirl · Post by **CurlyGirl** » Fri 10 Feb 2006 12:56

Jjah,

I appreciate your concern for us not to be 'robbed', but the site to which you referred us features this prize statement:

"Cows are about as dumb as chickens. A cow kept in a beautiful grassy pasture will lay down in its own excrement. Free-range chickens in the same pasture will scratch and pick in the excrement for lunch. Animals do not have human emotions or concerns because they are stupid animals."

Excuse me? Anyone with any sensibility toward cows and chickens would disagree - of course, they do not have human emotions, they have cow emotions, and chicken emotions. They are not dumb animals!!

But let me not stray too far from the point. I was merely trying to state a case that a website whose authors hold such narrow-minded views about the mental and emotional lives of animals cannot really be trusted to have sound views about the so-called organic food 'scam.'

CurlyGirl · Post by **CurlyGirl** » Fri 10 Feb 2006 13:03

The author of the site to which you referred us also says this:

"I continue to be in perfect health with absolutely no discernable effect from the pesticide overdose. Maybe the pesticides prevent cancer, heart disease, diabetes and IBS. Organic food is a scam."

And then later on (the same page), talking about a 'large quantity' of organic fruit sold in the US and elsewhere:

"Not only are they not organic as classified, but they have been sprayed with illegal insecticides proved to cause cancer." (my emphasis)

The author is contradicting himself. Do you really think it's wise to believe a gossip-monger like this, trying to discredit the work of many good farmers around the world who have seen the dangers and flaws in the modern industrial agricultural system and are trying to return to old-fashioned husbandry?

jjah · Post by **jjah** » Fri 10 Feb 2006 16:13

I don't see where the author is contradicting himself. First it seems that he may be using a little hyperbaly to make a point; even when speeking about the dumbness of cows and chickens; esspecialy in a world that sometimes seems to rank animals right up their with human beings.
Why are the illegal insecticides illegal, he says they have been proven to cause cancer; whereas I supose the ones used with permition, do not.

I grew up in my family shopping from the local farmers market(home grown organic produce), we raised chickens, bought cows from friends who raised them, and in no way am I or the claimer of this sight saying that this is not the best way to go; for it shurely is. But in the grociery stores, how do you know; who will prove it, the lable? thier are ather articles online about lable claims being not/ or partly un-true. Can thier realy be mass prodution of "true" organic food?...and if it can, is it now? Or is everyone (aside from the smaller portion of honest dealers) being fooled? Basicaly saying is the beef, eggs, chicken, veggies, fruit, etc. that are labled "organic", realy treated any differently than those that are not? Do organic cows and chickens in mass have a better life? Or is it a lie?

I'm simply asking questions here; not claiming anything.

CurlyGirl · Post by **CurlyGirl** » Sat 11 Feb 2006 17:31

And what is wrong with ranking animals 'right up there' with human beings? What makes us so special? We are a part of nature; we have just forgotten about our role in the web of life, and have instead chosen a more destructive path of living on this planet.

Jjah, I don't mean to offend you at all; I understand your points, and I am also the sort of person who asks questions about the world and doesn't just take anything at face value. I realise that we may be fooled into thinking that organic animals have a far better quality of life, and as a result, I would personally choose always to buy my eggs, fish, whatever from a very reputable and trustworthy merchant who pays personal attention to whatever he/she sells or produces. That is definitely the best way to go, but it is an ideal, and not all of us can do that, all of the time. So we have to rely on the labels in supermarkets, and in these times, you get what you pay for - so the chances are, if the farmer has got 'eco' certification for his eggs (which is monitored within the EU), and they cost a bit more than the 'barn' eggs, then those chickens are probably being fed organic feed and most likely enjoying a bit of sunshine and freedom to walk around, etc, that surely any living creature has a right to enjoy...

jjah · Post by **jjah** » Mon 13 Feb 2006 09:15

If animals are, or should be ranked at the same level of human beings, why do we eat them?

I am not disagreeing, nor am I agreeing with you with regards to the truth behind the honesty in the health industry, and I'm not trying to start a battle here. I simply find it a question worth asking...but then again, ignorance is bliss.

CurlyGirl · Post by **CurlyGirl** » Mon 13 Feb 2006 11:38

Yes, I think it is a question worth asking. I think this whole concept of the 'food chain' is nonsense. Lions eat buck, does that make lions any more 'special' than buck? Does that make them superior? In terms of what, intelligence, speed, gentleness toward their offspring, social capacities? And what about highly intelligent social creatures like cows, that can respond to a human's hand signals (ask any sensitive dairy farmer) and can even recognise human faces? Are we better than them just because we eat them? On that basis, human beings have made some really stupid choices as a species, that has led to the downfall of many beautiful species of amphibians, mammals (eg whales), birds, insects and plants on this earth - we have also fouled our own 'nest' so badly that it is becoming difficult for us to sustain our civilisation. Surely we should be regarded as 'unintelligent' as a result? Everything is interconnected in a huge web of life, there is no distinct hierarchy of species from that point of view - each part is necessary for the proper functioning of the whole. Just because we 'can' eat animals, doesn't make us superior to them.

Post by **Oscar** » Mon 13 Feb 2006 12:23

I agree. Just as there is no 'better' or 'worse' in between humans, there isn't between any species. And this distinction can certainly not be linked to who can eat who/what. If that were the case, we wouldn't be that high up anyway...

jjah · Post by **jjah** » Tue 14 Feb 2006 04:45

CurlyGirl wrote:Yes, I think it is a question worth asking. I think this whole concept of the 'food chain' is nonsense. Lions eat buck, does that make lions any more 'special' than buck? Does that make them superior? In terms of what, intelligence, speed, gentleness toward their offspring, social capacities? And what about highly intelligent social creatures like cows, that can respond to a human's hand signals (ask any sensitive dairy farmer) and can even recognise human faces? Are we better than them just because we eat them? On that basis, human beings have made some really stupid choices as a species, that has led to the downfall of many beautiful species of amphibians, mammals (eg whales), birds, insects and plants on this earth - we have also fouled our own 'nest' so badly that it is becoming difficult for us to sustain our civilisation. Surely we should be regarded as 'unintelligent' as a result? Everything is interconnected in a huge web of life, there is no distinct hierarchy of species from that point of view - each part is necessary for the proper functioning of the whole. Just because we 'can' eat animals, doesn't make us superior to them.

On the "natural" and scientific level I would respond by saying absolutely they are superior to their prey; in terms of so called intelligence, speed etc. etc. etc. It is a scientific fact that some animals are more capable than others; whether it be the physical prowess of lions, tigers and bears or the "mental" capacities of dolphins that enable them to elude monstrous predators like sharks. There is most definitely a hierarchy of species and at the top is MAN; love him or hate him you are him and whether you like it or not you are superior on the natural level to every species on earth; not just because you can eat them but because the fruit of our superiority is self evident to anyone with sense. Show me a dolphin library or chimp book of verse used to woo his mate. Cows can communicate; good for them; lets see them write a symphony or play. Where are animal sculptures and works of art? The beautiful Churches and other architecture. You overlook all that is great and noble in man; all that makes him superior and point to the faults and failures of individual men who recklessly abuse the gifts of nature and then try to say that makes men equal to brute animals. This is absurd logic and really is a naturally untenable position on so many different levels. But at the end of the day to speak of man in a simply scientific manner is inane and contrary to reality; GOD made man in the image and likeness of HIMSELF and granted him dominion over all other creatures on this earth. God enodwed man with reason, free will and an immortal soul destined for eternity. How right you are to criticize men who abuse the gifts of his creator and prove themselves to be bad stewards of creation and I agree with you on this point; however men will never be on the same level as any animal because that is not in keeping with reality and truth. The evidence of man's dominance over nature is on every level. If man wished he could wipe out all other species with very little effort as he has shamefully done in the past; I am not saying that it would be a good thing but it is certainly an indication of natural superiority. It is by creative design that there is a distinct heirarchy of species.

Thomas · Post by **Thomas** » Tue 14 Feb 2006 05:28

I love it when people use words like "reality" and "truth."

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. "

-Socrates

Post by **Oscar** » Tue 14 Feb 2006 12:25

This notion of superiority towards other species and others of the same species, is exactly one of the reasons why Man is still a primitive species. Yes primitive. For all our 'superiority' we cannot live together in peace and harmony, we cannot create a society in which there is no famine and where we all strive to make it better for all of us.

You speak of 'natural' level, but if you put us on a natural level with animals, i.e. naked in the wild, do you think you would survive longer than a week? Intelligence is far from absolute. Is a native hunter in Africa, who could survive perfectly in the environment, less intelligent than a 'civilized' person?

You speak of cathedrals, but have you ever seen structures animals build, with nothing more than for example a beak?

jjah wrote:GOD made man in the image and likeness of HIMSELF and granted him dominion over all other creatures on this earth. God enodwed man with reason, free will and an immortal soul destined for eternity.

How do you know this? Since God is supposed to be omnipresent, he/she/it is also present in animals, no?

jjah wrote:The evidence of man's dominance over nature is on every level. If man wished he could wipe out all other species with very little effort as he has shamefully done in the past; I am not saying that it would be a good thing but it is certainly an indication of natural superiority.

So being able to wipe out another species constitutes superiority? Then I guess virusses and bacteria are superior to us...

jjah wrote:It is by creative design that there is a distinct heirarchy of species.

I agree. OUR creative design.