"Artemis Simopoulos ... makes the notice that in the United States purslane is considered as a noxious weed, but she seems to dismiss the fact - which is quite telling to me."
The Noxious Weeds acts in the USA and Canada are based solely upon problems that are perceived to be encountered by farmers. For example, if pigs are put off their feed by the taste of a plant in their silage, the plant will be branded noxious so that pigs can grow faster. Where I live, all milkweeds (an essential food for one of the world's most fascinating butterflies, the Monarch) are required to be exterminated because they give cow milk a slight off-taste.
None of the 'noxious weeds' in Ontario Canada are so listed because of human health concerns.
On 2 Aug 2005 14:08:22 GMT, John Sankey wrote in <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :
Quoted message said:
"Artemis Simopoulos ... makes the notice that in the United States purslane is considered as a noxious weed, but she seems to dismiss the fact - which is quite telling to me."
The Noxious Weeds acts in the USA and Canada are based solely upon problems that are perceived to be encountered by farmers. For example, if pigs are put off their feed by the taste of a plant in their silage, the plant will be branded noxious so that pigs can grow faster. Where I live, all milkweeds (an essential food for one of the world's most fascinating butterflies, the Monarch) are required to be exterminated because they give cow milk a slight off-taste.
None of the 'noxious weeds' in Ontario Canada are so listed because of human health concerns.
And, purslane *is* listed in the UDSA food data base :-)
"Artemis Simopoulos ... makes the notice that in the United States purslane is considered as a noxious weed, but she seems to dismiss the fact - which is quite telling to me."
The Noxious Weeds acts in the USA and Canada are based solely upon problems that are perceived to be encountered by farmers. For example, if pigs are put off their feed by the taste of a plant in their silage, the plant will be branded noxious so that pigs can grow faster. Where I live, all milkweeds (an essential food for one of the world's most fascinating butterflies, the Monarch) are required to be exterminated because they give cow milk a slight off-taste.
None of the 'noxious weeds' in Ontario Canada are so listed because of human health concerns.
You don't think that the fact that the Milkweed family contains cardiac glycoside that can cause heart failure and is poisonous to humans and most beasts could be a consideration.
"Toxic part(S) The whole plant contains the glycoside"
Enrico C a écrit dans le message <[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
On 2 Aug 2005 14:08:22 GMT, John Sankey wrote in <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :
Quoted message said:
"Artemis Simopoulos ... makes the notice that in the United States purslane is considered as a noxious weed, but she seems to dismiss the fact - which is quite telling to me."
The Noxious Weeds acts in the USA and Canada are based solely upon problems that are perceived to be encountered by farmers. For example, if pigs are put off their feed by the taste of a plant in their silage, the plant will be branded noxious so that pigs can grow faster. Where I live, all milkweeds (an essential food for one of the world's most fascinating butterflies, the Monarch) are required to be exterminated because they give cow milk a slight off-taste.
None of the 'noxious weeds' in Ontario Canada are so listed because of human health concerns.
And, purslane *is* listed in the UDSA food data base :-)
-- Enrico C
Yes! It is . With a TOTAL lipid value of the edible portion of 0.1 gram per 100grams for the raw product.
Lipid (type of tri-ester) is a term used by most biochemists for natural compounds that yield fatty acids on hydrolysis. Cooking oils are almost pure tri-esters. Their composition is given in terms of the various fatty acid that they yield on hydrolysis. They contain almost no free fatty acids. Foods that contain very much free fatty acids are sometimes called rancid (inedible). JL
Enrico C a écrit dans le message <[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
On 2 Aug 2005 14:08:22 GMT, John Sankey wrote in <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :
Quoted message said:
"Artemis Simopoulos ... makes the notice that in the United States purslane is considered as a noxious weed, but she seems to dismiss the fact - which is quite telling to me."
The Noxious Weeds acts in the USA and Canada are based solely upon problems that are perceived to be encountered by farmers. For example, if pigs are put off their feed by the taste of a plant in their silage, the plant will be branded noxious so that pigs can grow faster. Where I live, all milkweeds (an essential food for one of the world's most fascinating butterflies, the Monarch) are required to be exterminated because they give cow milk a slight off-taste.
None of the 'noxious weeds' in Ontario Canada are so listed because of human health concerns.
And, purslane *is* listed in the UDSA food data base :-)
-- Enrico C
Yes! It is . With a TOTAL lipid value of the edible portion of 0.1 gram per 100grams for the raw product.
Lipid (type of tri-ester) is a term used by most biochemists for natural compounds that yield fatty acids on hydrolysis. Cooking oils are almost pure tri-esters. Their composition is given in terms of the various fatty acid that they yield on hydrolysis. They contain almost no free fatty acids. Foods that contain very much free fatty acids are sometimes called rancid (inedible). JL
Enrico C wrote: :: On 2 Aug 2005 14:08:22 GMT, John Sankey wrote in :: <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition : :: ::: "Artemis Simopoulos ... makes the notice that in the United ::: States purslane is considered as a noxious weed, but she seems to ::: dismiss the fact - which is quite telling to me." ::: ::: The Noxious Weeds acts in the USA and Canada are based solely ::: upon problems that are perceived to be encountered by farmers. ::: For example, if pigs are put off their feed by the taste of a ::: plant in their silage, the plant will be branded noxious so that ::: pigs can grow faster. Where I live, all milkweeds (an essential ::: food for one of the world's most fascinating butterflies, the ::: Monarch) are required to be exterminated because they give cow ::: milk a slight off-taste. ::: ::: None of the 'noxious weeds' in Ontario Canada are so listed ::: because of human health concerns.
Thanks for providing this information.
:: And, purslane *is* listed in the UDSA food data base :-)
Enrico C wrote: :: On 2 Aug 2005 14:08:22 GMT, John Sankey wrote in :: <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition : :: ::: "Artemis Simopoulos ... makes the notice that in the United ::: States purslane is considered as a noxious weed, but she seems to ::: dismiss the fact - which is quite telling to me." ::: ::: The Noxious Weeds acts in the USA and Canada are based solely ::: upon problems that are perceived to be encountered by farmers. ::: For example, if pigs are put off their feed by the taste of a ::: plant in their silage, the plant will be branded noxious so that ::: pigs can grow faster. Where I live, all milkweeds (an essential ::: food for one of the world's most fascinating butterflies, the ::: Monarch) are required to be exterminated because they give cow ::: milk a slight off-taste. ::: ::: None of the 'noxious weeds' in Ontario Canada are so listed ::: because of human health concerns.
Thanks for providing this information.
:: And, purslane *is* listed in the UDSA food data base :-)
Enrico C wrote: :: On 2 Aug 2005 14:08:22 GMT, John Sankey wrote in :: <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition : :: ::: "Artemis Simopoulos ... makes the notice that in the United ::: States purslane is considered as a noxious weed, but she seems to ::: dismiss the fact - which is quite telling to me." ::: ::: The Noxious Weeds acts in the USA and Canada are based solely ::: upon problems that are perceived to be encountered by farmers. ::: For example, if pigs are put off their feed by the taste of a ::: plant in their silage, the plant will be branded noxious so that ::: pigs can grow faster. Where I live, all milkweeds (an essential ::: food for one of the world's most fascinating butterflies, the ::: Monarch) are required to be exterminated because they give cow ::: milk a slight off-taste. ::: ::: None of the 'noxious weeds' in Ontario Canada are so listed ::: because of human health concerns.
Thanks for providing this information.
:: And, purslane *is* listed in the UDSA food data base :-)
I noticed that, too.
I hope this knowledge calms Ed's concerns. :-)
All of now-banned COX-2 inhibitors had been FDA approved.
No number of listings in food or weed databases by idiot government agencies affect whether or not the dopamine and noradrenaline harm individuals sensitive to them. I am amazed that you consider these facts worthy of comment.
Just as soaking cyanide pills in fish oil doesn't make them a good food, ignoring the potential hazard of purslane is reckless and malevolent.
Enrico C wrote: :: On 2 Aug 2005 14:08:22 GMT, John Sankey wrote in :: <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition : :: ::: "Artemis Simopoulos ... makes the notice that in the United ::: States purslane is considered as a noxious weed, but she seems to ::: dismiss the fact - which is quite telling to me." ::: ::: The Noxious Weeds acts in the USA and Canada are based solely ::: upon problems that are perceived to be encountered by farmers. ::: For example, if pigs are put off their feed by the taste of a ::: plant in their silage, the plant will be branded noxious so that ::: pigs can grow faster. Where I live, all milkweeds (an essential ::: food for one of the world's most fascinating butterflies, the ::: Monarch) are required to be exterminated because they give cow ::: milk a slight off-taste. ::: ::: None of the 'noxious weeds' in Ontario Canada are so listed ::: because of human health concerns.
Thanks for providing this information.
:: And, purslane *is* listed in the UDSA food data base :-)
I noticed that, too.
I hope this knowledge calms Ed's concerns. :-)
All of now-banned COX-2 inhibitors had been FDA approved.
No number of listings in food or weed databases by idiot government agencies affect whether or not the dopamine and noradrenaline harm individuals sensitive to them. I am amazed that you consider these facts worthy of comment.
Just as soaking cyanide pills in fish oil doesn't make them a good food, ignoring the potential hazard of purslane is reckless and malevolent.
On 3 Aug 2005 06:54:54 -0700, just Ed wrote in <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :
Quoted message said:
Juhana Harju said:
Enrico C wrote: :: On 2 Aug 2005 14:08:22 GMT, John Sankey wrote in :: <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition : :: ::: "Artemis Simopoulos ... makes the notice that in the United ::: States purslane is considered as a noxious weed, but she seems to ::: dismiss the fact - which is quite telling to me." ::: ::: The Noxious Weeds acts in the USA and Canada are based solely ::: upon problems that are perceived to be encountered by farmers. ::: For example, if pigs are put off their feed by the taste of a ::: plant in their silage, the plant will be branded noxious so that ::: pigs can grow faster. Where I live, all milkweeds (an essential ::: food for one of the world's most fascinating butterflies, the ::: Monarch) are required to be exterminated because they give cow ::: milk a slight off-taste. ::: ::: None of the 'noxious weeds' in Ontario Canada are so listed ::: because of human health concerns.
Thanks for providing this information.
:: And, purslane *is* listed in the UDSA food data base :-)
I noticed that, too.
I hope this knowledge calms Ed's concerns. :-)
All of now-banned COX-2 inhibitors had been FDA approved.
Hint: those are newly developed drugs, while purslane is traditionally used in salads.
Quoted message said:
No number of listings in food or weed databases by idiot government agencies affect whether or not the dopamine and noradrenaline harm individuals sensitive to them.
AFAIK, there is a number of foods that can be harmful for individuals sensitive to them.
Quoted message said:
I am amazed that you consider these facts worthy of comment.
Just as soaking cyanide pills in fish oil doesn't make them a good food, ignoring the potential hazard of purslane is reckless and malevolent.
Purslane is just like cyanide pills? Anybody still alive in Greece? 😉
On 3 Aug 2005 06:54:54 -0700, just Ed wrote in <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition :
Quoted message said:
Juhana Harju said:
Enrico C wrote: :: On 2 Aug 2005 14:08:22 GMT, John Sankey wrote in :: <news:[email hidden]> on sci.med.nutrition : :: ::: "Artemis Simopoulos ... makes the notice that in the United ::: States purslane is considered as a noxious weed, but she seems to ::: dismiss the fact - which is quite telling to me." ::: ::: The Noxious Weeds acts in the USA and Canada are based solely ::: upon problems that are perceived to be encountered by farmers. ::: For example, if pigs are put off their feed by the taste of a ::: plant in their silage, the plant will be branded noxious so that ::: pigs can grow faster. Where I live, all milkweeds (an essential ::: food for one of the world's most fascinating butterflies, the ::: Monarch) are required to be exterminated because they give cow ::: milk a slight off-taste. ::: ::: None of the 'noxious weeds' in Ontario Canada are so listed ::: because of human health concerns.
Thanks for providing this information.
:: And, purslane *is* listed in the UDSA food data base :-)
I noticed that, too.
I hope this knowledge calms Ed's concerns. :-)
All of now-banned COX-2 inhibitors had been FDA approved.
Hint: those are newly developed drugs, while purslane is traditionally used in salads.
Hint: government approval doesn't mean its safe so what does listing in a food or weed database mean: nothing.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
No number of listings in food or weed databases by idiot government agencies affect whether or not the dopamine and noradrenaline harm individuals sensitive to them.
AFAIK, there is a number of foods that can be harmful for individuals sensitive to them.
Yes, and purlane may be one. Your observation that its has omega-3 in it does not change this. You do a disservice to those who may be harmed.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I am amazed that you consider these facts worthy of comment.
Just as soaking cyanide pills in fish oil doesn't make them a good food, ignoring the potential hazard of purslane is reckless and malevolent.
Purslane is just like cyanide pills? Anybody still alive in Greece? 😉
some individuals are not sensitive to dopamine and noradrenaline. This does not prove that no-one is sensitive.
The arguments you presented here are foolish.
I can see that you have no concern for your fellow man and are content with making happy-talk.
