Organic tomatoes have more antioxidants
A report in New Scientist that a ten year study of organic vs conventional tomatoes found organic toms have more antioxidants - 79% more flavonoids quercetin and 97% more kaempferol. These anti-oxidants have been linked to reduced rates of cardiovascualr disease and some forms of cancer and dementia.
The really interesting bit is the reason appears to be that the organic toms didn’t get as much nitrogen, and anti-oxidant production is triggered when the plants don’t have enough nutrients. So the high levels of nitrogen in industrial fertilisers means the plants don’t produce as much anti-oxidants.
Bookmark to:
July 20th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Everyone who has grown their own tomatoes knows how much tastier they are than shop bought things.
It is not surprising that whatever gives the home grown tomatoes a better taste is also good for you.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
compared to getting 6% in next campaign fwwog,
i won’t get off your case till
you get representation in the parliament
July 20th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Forget organic, I’m going Watties.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Hi samiuela, I have found the same thing with strawberries - much tastier when home-grown. (And maybe I should have taken more notice of that bad taste to margarine when it first came out.)
The nitrogen point in Russel’s post seems interesting. When might we see benefits from that, I wonder, at least in terms of tastier tomatoes?
July 21st, 2007 at 1:09 am
I have a suspicion that one of the reasons that veges grown without huge amounts of fertiliser etc taste better is that they grow slower, and are not as watery (literally) as a consequence. I’ve always noticed that my tomatoes, for example, appear less watery than the shop bought ones.
My last batch of tomatoes were watered almost exclusively with the kids bath water (by bucket), and had no fertliser, except a bit of blood and bone when I planted them. They tasted superb, though I did notice some people were a bit squeamish when I proudly told them that 90% plus of the watering was with bath water.
July 21st, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I reckon the same thing is true for humans. You add a little resistance to life and take away a few options and people get brainier. With education now throwing failure out the door, too much fertiliser and not enough stress, the chances of a lot of kids being soft and stupid is pretty high I reckon.
July 21st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
artyone,
just to chuck in my 2 cents, i second that opinion.
also i noticed this http://www.stuff.co.nz/4134960a11.html
July 21st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
artyone
Interesting thesis. I guess the resistance (of others to our good ideas) and lack of options (especially environmentally sustainable and socially responsible ones) have resulted in brainier (i.e. more intelligent at thinking about protecting our kid’s futures) Greenies.
Just a new twist on the old “if it doesn’t kill you it’ll just make you stronger”.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
What you say is true regarding our whole society artyone. Everything is too easy and comfortable so its bound to have that reaction in people.
jh
I certainly agree that a education system that doesn’t reward excellence is a component in the problems schools are experiencing, but I think that its more of a symptom of the problems endemic in our society and our education system rather than the cause.
I think forcing children who are still maturing physically and hormonaly and still developing a sense of their own identity to spend a large portion of their growing years in a conformist, repressive, artificial, and regimented environment that is isolated from real life is bound to yield those results.
http://www.minor-heresies.com/?p=25
July 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=10
July 21st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
If I can kids I’d be sending them to one of these schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education#Pre-school_and_kinderga rten:_birth_to_age_6_or_7
July 21st, 2007 at 6:47 pm
if anyone out there thinks/fancies they can write/blog..
stuff is running a blog-idol competition..
http://www.stuff.co.nz/0a23461.html
good luck..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 21st, 2007 at 10:54 pm
I’m not sure how a discussion on organic tomatoes got changed to a discussion about raising children and the education system! Anyhow, I have a few comments on what people have written:
Artyone wrote: “With education now throwing failure out the door, too much fertiliser and not enough stress, the chances of a lot of kids being soft and stupid is pretty high I reckon.”
I don’t think our education system is throwing any more failures out the door than it ever has (if so, where is the proof?) Sure, kids finishing school now days may not be as strong in some areas such as grammar and arithmetic, but they are a hell of a lot smarter when it comes to using technology. Maybe some extra emphasis is required on areas such as written language, but to dismiss the education system as being a failure is going a bit too far.
SleepTreehugger wrote: “What you say is true regarding our whole society artyone. Everything is too easy and comfortable so its bound to have that reaction in people.”
To me, this just tells me what part of society you were raised in, or live in now. To say that everything is too easy and comfortable for everyone in our whole society is far from the truth, even in developed countries such as New Zealand.
I fear that my kids will not have nearly as comfortable or as easy a life as I have had, even though I wish that they would. By the time my kids are adults, they will probably be paying the price of the preceding generations wastefulness and environmental destruction. This may make them stronger people, but so what? They won’t thank us if we tell them that the suffering and hardship will make them better people!
July 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I had to laugh at the picture in the Press of the couple being visited by bio-security (and two security guards) because they had genetically modified goldfish.
jh
July 22nd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
The majority of current high school students probably haven’t even been taught that only one of the three Rs actually begins with R. Worse, they haven’t been taught how to work this out for themselves. Worst of all, they have been taught that if this statement is the result of concensus decision making then it doesn’t actually matter whether it is wrong or right as long as everyone is happy with the statement.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
fwwog, fwwog, do yous there fwwog,
with this quercetin stuff fwwog
“79% more flavonoids quercetin and 97% more kaemp”
what that mean fwwog,
what that mjean to redneck,
mein kampf did yous say fwwog,
theres a lot going on fwwog,
do yous consider early local body election politics and that fwwog,
theres a lot happening a lot of equity changing hands fwwog,
if yous post about christchurch i tell yous green thing,
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Yes that’s right Peter, this is where the developers get their men (and women) on the council> the “propit-ay” people, who slither around in BMWs drink chardonay and salivate at the site of a real estate agent (whereas I throw up). They’re all out there putting smiling photo’s of themselves in peoples letter boxes and leaving notes asking “can I help you with anything” (whereas really they are there for THE EVIL ONES) .
The Greens could light up a joint or eat an organic tomato sandwich out side the historic workers cottage in Ely Street (the one with the wall down the side).
]
[I couldn’t find the link to that on CCC website
jh
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Christchurch: a City founded in Faith, Rich in the Fulfillment Thereof, and Strong in the Hope for the Future
Christchurch the Garden City
Christchurch the City on Wheels (Cycles)
Christchurch the City that Shines
Christchurch the City that Smokes
Christchurch the City on Wheels (Jap imports and 4×4)
Christchurch the City of the flat cyclist.
Christchurch the City of the Versatile garage on the front lawn.
Christchurch the City that Spins
jh
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 am
Geez…. and all this time I thought the three main food groups were canned, frozen and take-away. - BJ
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:47 am
the latest digi-poll has the greens under 5%…
here is the comment i made (this morning) on that..
(ideas/suggestions welcomed..!..)
“..the greens low polling..at a time when their ‘environmental’ concerns/raison d’ etre are in the minds of many of us..must surely be a wake-up! call for them..
..that they are not being seen as part of ‘the solution’/answer to those environmental concerns..
..couldn’t be a clearer demonstration that their current/to date tactics are not working..
the greens are not getting their message through/out..
i have no/(little?) doubt that they would get over 5% if an election were held..
..but is that their only ambitions..?
i see these ever-growing environmental imperatives as the vehicle to take/make the green party one of the ‘majors’ in our political system…
(or..their role as as messagers/warners/paul revere’s..is largely over/done..?..)
..as those environmental issues/concerns also become the focus of the current major parties..as they must/will…
this is the fork in the road the green party faces..
and going by their polling..at this point of the timeline..the ‘largely over’ path seems to be the one they are on..
(disclaimer:..there is an element of historical frustration in having to report these facts..
cos’ during my ‘rocky relationship’ with the green party..
many of the enemies i made were due to me arguing what i saw as the insanities of the green party welding itself to the labour party..
with the party going down with labour..at the time of their (inevitable) demise…whenever that came..being that (likely) outcome..
this ‘we’re with them!’..whilst pointing eagerly at labour..reached its’ peak during the last election campaign..
and the greens have done little since then to show the new zealand voting public..of all ideolgical persuasions..who care about what happens to our environment..
that the green party is the vehicle for their aspirations..
(they had better get their arses into gear soon..!..eh..?..)
i would also like to note that we have had glimpses/tastes of what an independent green party..focussed on the environment..could do/be..
and this was during questiontime last thursday..
in my live-commentary on questiontine that day i gave jeanette fitzsimons from the greens the ‘performer of the day award’..
for her brisk/brusque/informed questionings of the ‘it’s good news week!’ announcments from labour about oil exploration in the southern oceans..
and yes..!..the greens would get the ‘politest party/m.p’s’ award in parliament..
but surely..a bit more ‘focussed-mongrel’ wouldn’t go amiss..eh..?
because for the greens to be getting the polling they should..(about now..?..12-15%..?..) they have to show those of all ideological persuasions..
who care for our environment..
that the ‘we’re with them!� days are well and truely over..
and that the green party is an independant force..working for the environment..
..and being beholden to neither labour..nor national..
if they don’t do this..they face electoral irrelevancy/oblivion..
(especially if the next election comes down to a kneck and kneck race between labour and national..
that would be a very bad scenario for a green party seen as an appendage of labour..
centre/centre-right ‘green’ voters won’t go near them..
..and green labourites will flock back to labour..
to ‘keep national out’…
it is also useful to draw comparisons between the greens’ current status..and that of the maori party..
because even though ..especially after national refusing to honour their committment to support the maori party ‘repeal the foreshore and seabed act’..at least until select committee committee stage..
the maori party is ideologically closer to labour in many/most ways..yet are not seen as ‘just an appendage’ of labour..
the maori party are seen as being ‘the voice for maori’..
a constituency that..like our environment..has been largely ignored/marginalised/abused..by both labour and national..
why is the green party not able to seize upon their ‘reason for being’ with such gusto/clarity..?
and to make that clear/obvious to all those who care about what happens to our (rapidly ever-degrading) environment..?
they have about a year left to achieve this in..
cos..hey greens..!..the current masterplan just ‘ain’t working’..
eh..?
and if you don’t get it sorted…
a tight/close election next time out..could just see you relegated to..at best..yet another three years of political impotence..
(continuing to support labours’ dairy-pimping of our environments..?..and all that means/has meant..?..and their..?..and their..?..)
or..at worst..
electoral oblivion..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:23 am
um..!..i think the spam-filter is being over-vigorous again..
(no links this time..
..but does mentionng illustrious leader by name automatically send you there?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:59 am
greens are under 5% in the latest poll..
(this is the comment i posted on this ..this morning..)
“..the greens low polling..at a time when their ‘environmental’ concerns/raison d’ etre are in the minds of many of us..must surely be a wake-up! call for them..
..that they are not being seen as part of ‘the solution’/answer to those environmental concerns..
..couldn’t be a clearer demonstration that their current/to date tactics are not working..
the greens are not getting their message through/out..
i have no/(little?) doubt that they would get over 5% if an election were held..
..but is that their only ambitions..?
i see these ever-growing environmental imperatives as the vehicle to take/make the green party one of the ‘majors’ in our political system…
or..their role as as messagers/warners/paul revere’s..is largely over/done..
..as those environmental issues/concerns also become the focus of the current major parties..as they must/will…
this is the fork in the road the green party faces..
and going by their polling..at this point of the timeline..the ‘largely over’ path seems to be the one they are on..
(disclaimer:..there is an element of historical frustration in having to report these facts..
cos’ during my ‘rocky relationship’ with the green party..
many of the enemies i made were due to me arguing what i saw as the insanities of the green party welding itself to the labour party..
with the party going down with labour..at the time of their (inevitable) demise…whenever that came..being that (likely) outcome..
this ‘we’re with them!’..whilst pointing eagerly at labour..reached its’ peak during the last election campaign..
and the greens have done little since then to show the new zealand voting public..of all ideolgical persuasions..who care about what happens to our environment..
that the green party is the vehicle for their aspirations..
(they had better get their ars*s into gear soon..!..eh..?..)
i would also like to note that we have had glimpses/tastes of what an independent green party..focussed on the environment..could do/be..
and this was during questiontime last thursday..
in my live-commentary on questiontine that day i gave jeanette fitzsimons from the greens the ‘performer of the day award’..
for her brisk/brusque/informed questionings of the ‘it’s good news week!’ announcments from labour about oil exploration in the southern oceans..
and yes..!..the greens would get the ‘politest party/m.p’s’ award in parliament..
but surely..a bit more ‘focussed-mongrel’ wouldn’t go amiss..eh..?
because for the greens to be getting the polling they should..(about now..?..12-15%..?..) they have to show those of all ideological persuasions..
who care for our environment..
that the ‘we’re with them!� days are well and truely over..
and that the green party is an independant force..working for the environment..
..and being beholden to neither labour..nor national..
if they don’t do this..they face electoral irrelevancy/oblivion..
(especially if the next election comes down to a kneck and kneck race between labour and national..
that would be a very bad scenario for a green party seen as an appendage of labour..
centre/centre-right ‘green’ voters won’t go near them..
..and green labourites will flock back to labour..
to ‘keep national out’…
it is also useful to draw comparisons between the greens’ current status..and that of the maori party..
because even though ..especially after national refusing to honour their committment to support the maori party ‘repeal the foreshore and seabed act’..at least until select committee committee stage..
the maori party is ideologically closer to labour in many/most ways..yet are not seen as ‘just an appendage’ of labour..
the maori party are seen as being ‘the voice for maori’..
a constituency that..like our environment..has been largely ignored/marginalised/abused..by both labour and national..
why is the green party not able to seize upon their ‘reason for being’ with such gusto/clarity..?
and to make that clear/obvious to all those who care about what happens to our (rapidly ever-degrading) environment..
they have about a year left to achieve this in..
cos..hey greens..!..the current masterplan just ‘ain’t working’..
eh..?
and if you don’t get it sorted…
a tight/close election next time out..could just see you relegated to..at best..yet another three years of political impotence..
(continuing to support labours’ dairy-pimping of our environments..?..and all that means/has meant..?..and their..?..and their..?..)
or..at worst..
electoral oblivion..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Thanks Phil.
Wish it weren’t so needful, and I am not sure our message is the only problem… there is also a bit of MSM bias in what part of what we do that actually sees the printed or broadcast page.
I am still a sandal wearing pothead. Even if I don’t own sandals and don’t smoke… (not good for MY lungs - asthma).
If I am a green and I say anything that makes sense it won’t get printed, and if I am not extremely careful what I say it will be misinterpreted in the worst possible way in order to have something to print.
The media here hasn’t yet reached the levels of the MSM in the USA but it is a lot closer than I care to contemplate.
But thanks.
respectfully
BJ
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
While I agree with Phil that we need to assert our independence and make it known what we stand for - it isn’t that easy to simply put it out there, as BJ notes.
Any really useful strategies you can suggest?
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
You start by buying a Newpaper :-p
respectfullyi
BJ
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
strategy one:…
start to publicise/show new zealanders what (many) dairy farmers are doing to our environment..
(n.b..there are already prohibitions against them doing what they do..
you will not be advocating the closure of the dairy industry..nothing radical..
it is an incremental/easily do-able ‘green solution’
those prohibitions just need to be enforced..
with the penalties possibly increased..
a brace of ‘decent’ fines..and possibly closing a couple of the more outragous/polluting dairy farmers down as examples would/could do it..
(i repeat..this is all do-able..and you will be arguing against an obviously provable travesty..by an industry currently awash in money..
if not now..?..when..?
that is one suggestion..i have more..
the greens have to start coming up with ’solutions’..
and standing up and speaking strongly for our environment..
and they must take/continue the example proffered by jeanette last week..
at questiontime..last thurs)
(where..incidently..she received a smattering of applause from mp’s other than greens..for her resolute questioning..
and ‘rattling of’..a labour minister..
she feckin’ rocked..!
and watching it made me yearn for what could have been over these last years..
but looking to the future..
that is what the greens should be doing all the time..
standing/arguing/pushing..
and also using the media more to those ends..
(suggested photo op for jeanette..?
thigh high gumboots/waders..and standing in one of those cowsh*t filled waterways..next to a major cowsh*t ‘leak’..
as a telling example of what is being done to our country
all the media would run with that..eh..?..)
the green mp’s have been self-censored by their ‘arrangments’ with labour..
that self-censoring must end..
(and last thursday in questiontime would be as good a time to end that arrangment..
and also a positive new ‘marker’..
showing to all.. this new direction/mood from the greens….)
and they should really remember..that like the maori party..
they cannot hope to be all things to all people..
something i feel they have been trying to do..
and yes..some/many will react strongly to a green party showing teeth..
but i’m picking a new strong green message from our green mp’s will resonate ..
..with a lot more than the 4% they are currently resonating with..
anyway..that’s my five cents worth..
(ideas/thoughts/feedback welcomed..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 24th, 2007 at 12:55 am
The Greens need to learn an important lesson from the reform of attitudes towards homosexuality. Controlling the language is vital to winning any public debate. The word gay was chosen because it is an acronym for Good As You, it has associations with a positive emotion, and in the late ’50s and early 60s sexuality wasn’t a word bandied about in polite conversation, with or without homo in fron of it. The use of gay broke down many of the barriers to even getting the subject of discrimination against homosexuals into the public conciousness.
Transport reform is a major hurdle when the majority of the population are car owners or users and are directly providing the “government” subsidies to PT. Bus good, car bad has the same impact as “you are a bad driver”. Instant resentment. See if you can come up with a positive, snappy acronym that gets the essence of “anything’s better than a car.”
(I can’t, that’s why I’m asking if you can.)
The media seem to like the warm fuzzy side of being green. They resent the fire and brimstone, the end is nigh preaching. In that respect the Greens are in bed with Christian Heritage et al.
Yep, the dairy industry is definitely a better rallying point than the roading “lobby”. With a bit of finesse it should be possible to tap into those attitudes of “whingeing farmers” and “hidden subsidies” because in this case it is definitely the attitude coming from Fed. Farmers and Fontera.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:15 am
The reason the Greens aren’t doing well are 1. Sue Bradford 2. Kieth Locke (human rights in a society with no teeth to protect its citizens). Both are activists for their own causes.
jh