Health food stores

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 RX-78 27 Aug 2019

Got a flyer through the door for a new shop opening nearby, shop is called As nature intended. Then subtitled organic, natural, free from, sustainable. So far so good, on the back it had opening offers '20% off Planet paleo collagen supplements' ?? Always found it confusing that health/ wholefood stores come with shelves of supplements. On a side note why do some also sell homeopathic stuff, ear candles etc?

2
 marsbar 27 Aug 2019
In reply to RX-78:

Woo is a good money spinner I expect.  

In reply to RX-78:

Ear candles have an important function for homeopathic doctors.  

When you go for a consultation, after a brief chat about your symptoms and such they light an ear candle and position you so that the flame is level with one eardrum.  Then they go round to the other side of your head and peer through that ear.  If they can see the candle, then they know that you'll be a suitable case for treatment.

T.

1
 Tom Valentine 27 Aug 2019
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Presumably , then, acupuncture practitioners take a large knitting needle and apply a similar test.

 profitofdoom 27 Aug 2019
In reply to RX-78:

> Got a flyer through the door for a new shop opening nearby, shop is called As nature intended.... On a side note why do some also sell homeopathic stuff, ear candles etc?

"why do some also sell"? To get more money off the public. Not surprising to me, that's broadly what shops do

Health food stores, lot of bollox to me. For me, Sainsbury's is a health food store - they sell healthy food

2
 LeeWood 27 Aug 2019
In reply to profitofdoom:

> Sainsbury's is a health food store

so they've obviously done their marketing well; but if you are not buying organic then you are supporting intensive agriculture and there will be traces of pesticide/herbicide in your food. Furthermore and in particular - do you know where your meat originates and how it has been fed ? If not you could easily be supporting Amazonian deforestation :o    

But they do have a range of organic so you have the choice

7
 profitofdoom 28 Aug 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

> so they've obviously done their marketing well; but if you are not buying organic then you are supporting intensive agriculture and there will be traces of pesticide/herbicide in your food. Furthermore and in particular - do you know where your meat originates and how it has been fed ? If not you could easily be supporting Amazonian deforestation :o    

> But they do have a range of organic so you have the choice

All excellent points - thanks, and I'm learning

Sorry if my last post seemed cynical... it was a bit but not entirely... (I just had a very bad day)

 gravy 28 Aug 2019

I think you've confused healthfood (supplements) with wholefood  (unprocessed) shops. 

There are lots of the former who often sell a few lentils along with shelf loads of bottles of mystic stuff and very few of a latter which mainly sell food - they have mainly been superseded by organic food shops, veg-boxes and farmer's markets type enterprises.

Lusk 28 Aug 2019
In reply to RX-78:

It never ceases to amaze me that, here we are, a fifth of the way through the 21st century, billions of pounds are spent on multivitamins etc.

Humans really are completely stupid.

4
OP RX-78 28 Aug 2019
In reply to gravy:

Yea, having been veggie for almost 30years I have seen the changes in these shops. I now also get a riverford veg box, I see fewer wholefood shops selling actual veg but at least the plastic free shops coming along seem to be filling that slot now and they concentrate on actual food, with some beauty/ household products thrown in.

 jimtitt 28 Aug 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

> > Sainsbury's is a health food store

> so they've obviously done their marketing well; but if you are not buying organic then you are supporting intensive agriculture and there will be traces of pesticide/herbicide in your food.

Astoundingly there is intensive organic farming!

 LeeWood 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jimtitt:

> Astoundingly there is intensive organic farming!

Yes, its getting more difficult to trace food production - organic or not. Grow your own or buy local - but we all like bananas ! 

MarkJH 28 Aug 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

> ...if you are not buying organic then .... there will be traces of pesticide/herbicide in your food.

Organic agriculture uses a number of highly toxic pesticides, copper sulfate being an obvious example.  So, whilst your organic food will not have synthetic pesticide residues, it will still have pesticide residues, perhaps even at higher levels given that organic pesticides are generally more environmentally persistent than synthetic alternatives.

Of course, under both farming systems the concentrations are so low that they will not do you any harm.  Buy organic if you want, but there is no evidence to suggest health benefits from doing so.

Post edited at 22:20
 jimtitt 29 Aug 2019
In reply to MarkJH:

For goodness sake don't let him know they spray organic crops with paraffin oil

 DerwentDiluted 29 Aug 2019
In reply to jimtitt:

> For goodness sake don't let him know they spray organic crops with paraffin oil

Paraffinic oil, not quite the same as paraffin. But mineral oil just the same, blended with emulsifier. I've often wondered how many tons of oil enter the soil and water courses (& food chain) by this method, unnoticed.

Post edited at 08:17
 LeeWood 29 Aug 2019
In reply to MarkJH:

Thanks for your response I am producing food under organic certification and so i know which chemicals are used in my own food production. A few Ferremol slug pellets in spring and NO copper sulphate - I used to play with it but quit because there are better ways.

Humans have been experimenting with agro-chemicals for only the last 100 (?) years, during which epoch many have been outlawed as evidence against them has surfaced. The latest such is glyphosate, which has been found present in human breast milk and urine, linked associations with cancer.

But its not just whar we eat, agro-chemicals contaminate water which we drink. Our whole environment must be judged in order to reckon overall human health. Our local grain supplier changed over to organic after his wife miscarried. A mdeical report linled agro-chemicals to this event, - she had frequent exposure working on the land. Of course people who handle such chemicals will be at greater risk - should we care about them ??

The relative timespan for evidence to surface - the sort of scientific evidence you speak of, is very short. Direct evidence in controlled human groups. We are large creatures and so effects of trace conraminants will not show up so quickly. Insects are tiny and more vulnerable. Should we care about them ? 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/13/buy-organic-food-to-hel...

The biosphere as a whole has been decimated by human presence whether through chemicals, diversion of water-flow, sculpting of land-mass or simply pressure of numbers - human life. First the sensitive little insects, then the birds which depend on them, and so on up the food chain. But we are outside of this, right, immune ??

As I remarked in a previous post, food tracebility is getting harder, organic or not. We should all be encouraged to read ingredient lists, check for country of origin, know how the food chain operates, and cut the suppliers transformers and traders operate only for profit. 

Do you care about the Amazon burning off ? Will this eventually effect your health (or your children's ) ??  We need to reflect from global prespective in order to deal with global problems.  

2
Andy Gamisou 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Lusk:

> It never ceases to amaze me that, here we are, a fifth of the way through the 21st century, billions of pounds are spent on multivitamins etc.

> Humans really are completely stupid.


I've been prescribed by my specialist vitamin (B) supplements for a malabsorption issues I have that lead  to severe peripheral neuropathy (easily the most painful thing I've experienced in my life).  Not sure if that makes me (and presumably the doctor) completely stupid too, but it seems to be helping.  And unlikely to be just the placebo effect, as improvements can be seen in things like my finger nails. 

I'm guessing most vitamin imbibers don't have such issues though, so maybe your assertion holds.

 lewmul 29 Aug 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

There is no evidence that glyphosate causes any harm. A jury awarding damages in a court of law is not evidence of any harm, nor is any country banning it  

Also, organic farming has lesser yields, and therefore requires more land. If you were really in favour of sustainability, especially related to land use (destruction of Amazon etc?), you would be very much against organic farming. 

2
MarkJH 29 Aug 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

> Thanks for your response I am producing food under organic certification and so i know which chemicals are used in my own food production. A few Ferremol slug pellets in spring and NO copper sulphate - I used to play with it but quit because there are better ways.

I'm sure that you know the brands and active ingredients of the pesticides that you use on your crops, but as with any grower, you can only know about potential health risks when they are discovered.  The point is that the distinction between 'synthetic' and 'natural' chemicals is of no relevance to health effects.

It is true that some studies have linked glyphosate to cancers at occupational exposure rates, but the evidence is very limited and not of the highest quality; it certainly isn't a large effect.  Similarly many farm workers have suffered severe health problems (or even death) from occupational exposure to Bordeaux mix. 

The ferric phosphate + EDTA that you apply to your crops has a similar level of human toxicity to other (non-organic) molluscicides  but it has been implicated in increased heavy metal uptake by crops.  I have no doubt that the food you produce is safe to eat, but so are the conventional alternatives.  All growers in this country operate under a very strict regulatory system, which I have often criticised as being too precautionary in its outlook.  That is probably the safe side to err on though.

 LeeWood 29 Aug 2019
In reply to lewmul:

> There is no evidence that glyphosate causes any harm.

Lets assume that for a fleeting moment you (and MarkJH) are correct in your assertions that there is nil difference in the food we eat - organic V conventional. Glyphosate along with a plethora of other chemicals has contributed to a huge decline in british bird and bee (insect) populations. Can we face the future without these ? Or do you also refute the evidence of flora / fauna stats ? 

1
 Durbs 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Except there's actually an evidence base for some types of acupuncture - hence it being available on the NHS - unlike ear candles (actively risky, no benefits) and homeopathy.

MarkJH 29 Aug 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

> Glyphosate along with a plethora of other chemicals has contributed to a huge decline in british bird and bee (insect) populations. Can we face the future without these ? Or do you also refute the evidence of flora / fauna stats ? 

You haven't shown any evidence to refute! Agrochemicals do affect biodiversity; that is their job.  Controlled reduction of biodiversity is, in fact, a workable definition of agriculture.  There are also wider ecosystem effects, and regulatory mechanisms are as much about minimising the effect of these as they are about removing chemical classes that are harmful to humans.

Nevertheless, organic agriculture also uses agrochemicals.  You yourself have described chemical applications that you make to your crops.  'Organic' agrochemical are prone to exactly the same ecological and health effects as synthetics.  The division is ideological and artificial.

I am in favour of evidence led regulation that minimises the ecological damage of farming whilst maintaining production and food safety.  There are many practices in organic farming methods that are excellent at achieving this aim, and many that are counterproductive (or even dangerous).  It is the presupposition that 'synthetic' is bad and natural is safe that I object to.  It would be nice if we didn't have to do research, but there is no other way to know.

 lewmul 29 Aug 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

> > There is no evidence that glyphosate causes any harm.

> Glyphosate along with a plethora of other chemicals has contributed to a huge decline in british bird and bee (insect) populations

Ignoring any lack of evidence for this claim, I'd like to point out that organic pesticides are also chemicals; in fact everything is, of course. It is not the scary word you appear to think it is. My major concern is the assertion that synthetic is bad, as Mark says. 

Also I am curious to what difference you think there is between the food itself, organic or conventional?

 LeeWood 29 Aug 2019
In reply to MarkJH:

> You haven't shown any evidence to refute!

How careless of me - I assumed the words 'Global Insect Collapse' would be adequate coming from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/13/buy-organic-food-to-hel...

1
 lewmul 29 Aug 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

A newspaper article is not sufficient evidence.

Coincidentally, if you follow the links from the article to find the original paper, and google said paper, you will quickly find a couple of academic reviews of the paper. These reviews point out a few flaws in the paper which suggests ideological bias from the authors of the paper, including loaded searches used to collect data, misrepresenting species status, and improper extrapolation. 

paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320718313636

reviews: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.5153

https://rethinkingecology.pensoft.net/article/34440/

make of it what you will

MarkJH 29 Aug 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

> How careless of me - I assumed the words 'Global Insect Collapse' would be adequate coming from the Guardian

I am aware of the literature, but it is an extremely complex field and simplistic summaries are rarely accurate or useful. Even the review article that the guardian story links to is ambiguous about the direct relationship between synthetic insecticides and insect loss.

Agriculture (by definition) involves ecological damage and this is an inevitable consequence of food production.  There are wider ecological problems that are avoidable, and this is probably where efforts should be focused.   However, this is not always clear cut. You might be able to link use of a particular pesticide to non-target insect loss, but even then it is not clear whether the formulation is the issue, or the way in which they are used.  For example, I've been to some really interesting talks about how effectively you can reduce environmental spread of certain pesticides using low-drift spray nozzles.  In many cases, regulation can deal with ecological problems without entirely withdrawing useful chemistry.

There is also a problem (in my opinion) that research effort is often very uneven.  Certain pesticide classes that are very widely used become fashionable and get studied a lot.  This allows researchers to detect what are often very small ecological effects (neonics being an obvious recent example) leading to regulatory restrictions and a move to other chemical classes that are less well studied, but which may well be even more damaging.  I would class some of the bacterial derived organic pesticides among this group.

As I said, it is a complex area, and there aren't really any easy answers.  Certainly not ideological ones.

Post edited at 14:05
 LastBoyScout 29 Aug 2019
In reply to RX-78:

I used to buy a lot of dried fruit from "health food" stores for snacking on, but stopped when I started properly reading the labels and realised how much sugar has been added to them.

 Siward 29 Aug 2019
In reply to LastBoyScout:

Aye, humans shouldn't really eat fruit. 

 Iamgregp 29 Aug 2019
In reply to LeeWood:

No, I simply won't have you say that. I f*cking hate bananas.  

 krikoman 29 Aug 2019
In reply to RX-78:

> On a side note why do some also sell homeopathic stuff, ear candles etc?

I'm thinking of bringing out a range of arse candles, I'm hoping to produce a range of sizes and different aromas. I'm sure they'll be a big hit.

If anyone is interested in investing please leave a message below

1
 LeeWood 30 Aug 2019
In reply to lewmul:

> Also I am curious to what difference you think there is between the food itself, organic or conventional?

If in doubt apply the stoneage test. How long have we lived with these foods/substances ? If recent there's a hi probability that you're better off without. And I won't wait for scientific proof. The biggest cherry-pickers are the profit backed producers of crap food and chemicals.

I prefer direct experience, cause and effect monitored patiently in my own state of health and observed with others. A good starting point is sugar (refined - organic or not !) which has not been available in such proportions till very recently in human history. Try it for yourself!

Having established such cause and effect with big offenders its not hard to confirm connections with the subtler poisons, which may take decades to work their ill. better off without them ! This applies to all things ingested or environmental - cut and minimise; We all wish for the benefits of modern life (well most) but can and must minimise damage both to ourselves and the environment. 

5
 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to lewmul:

> Ignoring any lack of evidence for this claim,

Just one example

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5430654/

There is now ample evidence that the widespread use of powerful pesticides, such as neonictindodes is having hugely damaging effects on insects.

> Also I am curious to what difference you think there is between the food itself, organic or conventional?

It generally tastes a lot better. 

The approach to growing it acknowledges, and tries to minimize damage to the wider environment.

 lewmul 30 Aug 2019
In reply to LeeWood:.

This statement really shows your reasoning is based purely on ideology, do you always dismiss scientific evidence to suit you? Direct experience is absolutely useless. 

> If in doubt apply the stoneage test. How long have we lived with these foods/substances ? If recent there's a hi probability that you're better off without.

lol. In the stone age, if you were lucky enough to live past infancy you might live to 30, seems an odd basis for comparison. 

How long have we lived with modern medicines? Not very long right? Are we better off without them? 

But as your reasoning is based on ideology it wont matter what I or anyone else says, as you will never listen

 lewmul 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> There is now ample evidence that the widespread use of powerful pesticides, such as neonictindodes is having hugely damaging effects on insects.

Yup, it is quite probable, but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion on their use. I've really just been concerned with the whole chemicals is bad thing. Also the priviledge of the organic farming advocates is rather irksome. 

> It generally tastes a lot better. 

That sounds like placebo to me  

> The approach to growing it acknowledges, and tries to minimize damage to the wider environment.

True, but so does conventional farming. 

2
MarkJH 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Just one example

> There is now ample evidence that the widespread use of powerful pesticides, such as neonictindodes is having hugely damaging effects on insects.

There is some evidence for ecosystem level effects but it is not overwhelming, and certainly only a small part of the explanation for the decline in pollinators.  Obviously the article that you link to is not trying to present evidence for this (it is an experiment under controlled conditions and artificial exposure).  I think that there is a good case for the seasonal/ species restrictions on neonics, based on likely pollinator exposure, but not for a blanket ban.

The problem (as I see it) is that there is a lot of attention on neonics based on a few very vocal research groups who are very good at PR.  Given that insecticides will be used on crops, it is important to make sure that what you are moving to is actually safer rather than just less well studied.

For example, bacterial derived insecticides (bt toxin, spinosad etc) are generally permitted in organic agriculture, but there are a few studies similar to the ones you describe above that have found detrimental effects of sub-lethal exposure on foraging behaviour.  We have to acknowledge that we are dealing with complex systems that are unlikely to respond well to simplistic solutions.

> The approach to growing it acknowledges, and tries to minimize damage to the wider environment.

Which is a great objective.  It is still reasonable to ask whether the methods are effective though.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MarkJH:

> There is some evidence for ecosystem level effects but it is not overwhelming, and certainly only a small part of the explanation for the decline in pollinators. 

I think "some" is very much underplaying things.    I agree  it's not a simple problem and there are clearly a variety of interplaying effects.  However, the loss of insects and other species is deeply concerning and the correlation with particularly neonics is  strong, with causation increasingly identified so I think the case for banning them is very strong.   

I also think we need to be aware that large chemical companies fund extensive research aimed at supporting their businesses, while research that might identify problems with pesticides is more weakly funded.  If despite this imbalance there is evidence of serious damage as the result of certain pesticides, we should be very concerned and take a strong precautionary approach to their use.

> For example, bacterial derived insecticides (bt toxin, spinosad etc) are generally permitted in organic agriculture, but there are a few studies similar to the ones you describe above that have found detrimental effects of sub-lethal exposure on foraging behaviour.  We have to acknowledge that we are dealing with complex systems that are unlikely to respond well to simplistic solutions.

Agreed, but that isn't an argument for ignoring the evidence we do have.  I also think we are at a point where we need to having the focus of agriculture very largely on maximizing yields to one that has much wider environmental aims too.  I know this is there to an extent, but it is limited.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to lewmul:

> True, but so does conventional farming. 

I don't think that's generally do.  Sometimes it does due to individual farmers but as an industry it doesn't really have that as an aim.

MarkJH 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> I think "some" is very much underplaying things.    I agree  it's not a simple problem and there are clearly a variety of interplaying effects.  However, the loss of insects and other species is deeply concerning and the correlation with particularly neonics is  strong, with causation increasingly identified so I think the case for banning them is very strong.   

I am very familiar with the literature on neonics and, whilst I accept that there is now some evidence to suggest they have ecological effects, it is  misleading to say that there is a strong correlation (or rather that they explain a large proportion of the reduction in pollinator numbers).  I am also aware of some very poorly conducted research that attracted prominent coverage in the national press due to the subject matter and good PR.

As to your second point; that is not a justification for a ban.  For example, if you were using a neonic seed coating on a winter sown cereal crop, what possible route to pollinator exposure would there be?  Do you really think you would see a benefit to pollinators in replacing your systemic insecticide in a self-pollinating crop with a spring spay using some other chemistry (even an organic spray)?  I would put money on the ecological outcome being worse.  As I said, it is not a simple problem.

1
 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MarkJH:

> As to your second point; that is not a justification for a ban.  For example, if you were using a neonic seed coating on a winter sown cereal crop, what possible route to pollinator exposure would there be? 

Here are some routes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250423/

But why the focus on pollinators.  What about e.g. worms,  and all the other species?

> Do you really think you would see a benefit to pollinators in replacing your systemic insecticide in a self-pollinating crop with a spring spay using some other chemistry (even an organic spray)?  

Very likely.  Neonics are fairly new (~20 years of widespread use), and their introduction correlates and is likley a key cause of serious damage to insect populations.  Simply reverting to previous practice (which I know wasn't great either) would be beneficial.

2
MarkJH 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Here are some routes

I asked you a very specific question about winter sown cereals.  That study explicitly does not address a winter sown crop and isn't relevant to the question I asked.

> But why the focus on pollinators.  What about e.g. worms,  and all the other species?

What about them?  Happy to talk about them but the discussion was about pollinators.  I agree that the discussion should be wider.  My point is really that all insecticides (including organic insecticides) will have ecological consequences.  Focusing on specific chemistry is pointless without a consideration of the wider consequences.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MarkJH:

> I asked you a very specific question about winter sown cereals.  That study explicitly does not address a winter sown crop and isn't relevant to the question I asked.

Well I think it does, for example by highlighting the routes to bees being exposed from waste material, and contamination of plants at the field margins etc.  It's not reasonable to expect separate research on every crop at every time of year.  And it's aso not sensible to just look at direct effects on pollinators - the wider eco-system is important.

> What about them?  Happy to talk about them but the discussion was about pollinators.  I agree that the discussion should be wider.  My point is really that all insecticides (including organic insecticides) will have ecological consequences.  Focusing on specific chemistry is pointless without a consideration of the wider consequences.

If particular chemicals have particularly negative effects (and I disagree with your assessment of the effects of neonics), then focusing on them is not pointless.

2
MarkJH 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Well I think it does, for example by highlighting the routes to bees being exposed from waste material, and contamination of plants at the field margins etc.  It's not reasonable to expect separate research on every crop at every time of year.  And it's aso not sensible to just look at direct effects on pollinators - the wider eco-system is important.

OK, well let's agree to disagree on that.  The differences in biology and ecology between winter and spring sown crops is large.  I wouldn't expect to get anything published if I ignored that distinction and I would expect to see the same appreciation when a study is also considering a seasonal pollinator.  

I completely agree with your second point; it is similar to the point that I've been making.   Like it or not, insecticides are (and will continue to be) part of the natural ecosystem in agricultural regions.  Extrapolating from artificially manipulated interactions between single chemical classes and single species is unlikely to lead to positive outcomes; you do need to take a systematic approach to assessing a lot of different sources of evidence.

 Tom Valentine 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Durbs:

The evidence for acupuncture as a medical treatment is far from conclusive and widely discredited by a significant proportion of the medical profession, regardless of how many GPs are happy to fob us off with it. 

My initial comment about it was not a criticism of it,   though, but a poor attempt at humour. I have no less time for people who swear by acupuncture than those who support other types of alternative medicine; ultimately if they feel better (or think they feel better) after a course of it then it must have worked at one level or another, which could also be said about homeopathy.

 Timmd 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

My take on acupuncture is that if 'needles' being inserted has the same outcome as acupuncture does (from something I read a long time ago), maybe we need to look into what the insertion of needles does, rather than dismiss acupuncture as being no better than a placebo. Anecdotally I know of people who've had success with it, but that's not scientific. I once noticed that I seem to see quite a few stressed or anxious people in health food shops, which can't be healthy - a friend pointed out that they're probably concerned about their health which seems plausible. 

I think marsbar and pursued by a bear hit the nail on the head.

Post edited at 17:37
 LeeWood 30 Aug 2019
In reply to lewmul:

> This statement really shows your reasoning is based purely on ideology, do you always dismiss scientific evidence to suit you?

We all have a starting point in life - a framework handed to us by parents and social network - from which we build a perspective on new issues. If science were genuine it would be trustworthy, but unfortunately science has problems - a) It examines details without global perspective b) it is operated and propounded by humans who are persuaded by financial concerns 

> Direct experience is absolutely useless. 

Good one !  don't let the man on the street imagine he knows much about anything - only the experts are able to lead the sheep

> lol. In the stone age, if you were lucky enough to live past infancy you might live to 30, seems an odd basis for comparison. 

You have misunderstood. The 'perspective' is that evolution is slow to create tolerance to environmental constraints. So humans have v little chance to adapt to the chemical age. To make things worse we have defeated natural selection - under medical care all survive fittest and weakest ( talking 1st world here) 

> How long have we lived with modern medicines? Not very long right? Are we better off without them? 

We would be better off without most of them - they add to environmental concerns. Current overuse is even self-defeating - livestock and humans no longer respond to certain antibiotics. Of course thats a good opportunity for the labs to make more money with new products ! 

> But as your reasoning is based on ideology it wont matter what I or anyone else says, as you will never listen

Fire away I'm still listening

Post edited at 21:43
2

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...