Slashdot Mirror
UK's FSA Finds No Health Benefits To Organic Food
blackbeak writes "The UK Food Standards Agency's 'Independant Organic Review' results were just released, and the BBC rushed to publish the findings in the shockingly titled article, 'No Health Benefits to Organic Food.' From the article, 'There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.' A peek into the research at Postpeakpublishing provides a slightly deeper look."
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
says it all really.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
The point behind organic food is that it's better for the environment, not healthier to eat. But thanks for the useless study, UK!
Last time I checked food is not 'made' in cow shit. Unless of course there are small pixie like creatures in cow pat factories making food that the rest of the world is yet to discover. Kinda like cow shit oompa loopmas.
Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
Yellow Smarties have same health qualities as red Smarties.
Why is there this weird upsurge in news reports appearing surprised at the bleeding obvious? Apparently, charging for university tuition means only the rich can afford to educate their children. Shock! Horror! Hold the front page!
Eating lard makes you fat!
Smoking is bad for you!
Pope is Catholic!
(etc).
And really, organic food has never been about health. It's more about sustainable practices and all that jazz. Organic food is more an environmental concept than a health concept.
That said, when and if I buy organic foods, it's usually fruits, vegetables, or nuts; and I do so because they are of noticably better quality than standard supermarket faire. For me, it has nothing to do with health OR environmentalism... Organic produce simply tends to be better quality from a culinary standpoint.
The report specifically doesn't look into the main reasons why I tend to buy organic - which aren't do to with health issues primarily, but to do with environmental and animal husbandry factors.
In the UK at least, organic farmers do practice lower intensive farming, leaving hedgerows in and wider strips for wildlife to flourish, they're not allowed to use antibiotics to promote growth in cattle (though they can use antibiotics to treat disease).
I've never taken the health issues seriously, but I do take biodiversity (and antibiotic resistance) very seriously and I'm more than willing to pay a little more to farmers who take additional care to help protect the country's wildlife.
There is one exception to this: I do buy organic carrots with health mind. Various studies have shown that carrot skins do retain a fair amount of insecticide and other pesticide residue. I'm a lazy bugger who likes to eat carrots raw without peeling them and so feel marginally happier choosing organic.
Organic food is. That's the point of it -- Making it as naturally as possible, without using extra ingredients and such to better it. Cow shit is one of the most used things the fields are filled with (so they dont use technogically improved soil etc)
"That is technological improvement, so there's no really any reason why technologically made or improved food would be more riskier."
Utter Horsepuckey.
So because technological improvement has helped us get where we are now, it can do no wrong at all?
What nonsense. Look at the whole trans-fat thing for an example. Carcinogens added technologically as a preservative.
Gaining major health benefits from eating organic food would mean that 'normal' food is unsafe, which is hopefully not the case, nothing unexpected here.
The main advantage of organic food is that its production causes less damage to the environment and this is obviously very important.
The personal benefits myth was useful for promoting organic food adoption (out of egoist motives), so it's probably counter-productive for the greater good to debunk it.
organic food has pesticides used on them too. The only difference is the pesticides are organic
The world wants to know.
Deleted
It's quite simple, when i drink standard milk i get horrible stomach cramps and other nasty digestive effects. When I drink organic milk (NOT SOY) I have none of that.
I wonder how the statistics were made to fit into the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" category Disraeli so famously quoted, and how much the multi-national conglomerates responsible for all the chemicals and hormones in our food paid for it.
I know damn well that there is something substantially chemically different when one substance has the same name as another, but the non-organic version causes horrible pain.
For the record, i'm not some organo-nazi, I happened to discover this when i was slipped some organic milk at a friend's house.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Sorry, worded it bad. Point being technology has bring lots of improvements, so theres no reason why wouldn't it work the same way with food. I dont deny something can go wrong either tho, but with everything else we're took the risks too. I bet people have suffered to bring computers and internet to us too, but we can all see what kind of improvement it has bring to the world.
Yellow Smarties have same health qualities as red Smarties..
Put down the Smarties, pick up the M&Ms and eat the blue ones: http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/07/why-migraines-could-leave-you-blue-in-the-face.html
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
having socialized medicine reduces the benefits of pushing pills if there are holistic methods that are cheaper.
mushrooms!!
A plant grown "organically" and one grown in what is now considered normal conditions will almost certainly produce all the same chemicals and take up the same nutrients and therefore have the same health benefits. We might be able to control the proportions of various chemicals in the plant - for example cause more sugars to be produced in sweet corn - but fundamentally it's the same plant and therefore it will produce the same things.
I looked into "organic" farming a while back when I got quite into growing my own vegetables. I couldn't believe the stuff they were allowed to use and still call it organic. Pretty much if it appears in nature, anywhere, it was fair game but I could find plenty of things in nature that are just as harmful as modern man made sprays.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
I have been buying organic food for 30 years or so and it is not because I believe it has higher levels of nutrients, but largely because of the lower levels of pesticide nutrients. For example: a couple of years ago the fields next to our kitchen garden were used for growing potatoes for a major UK supermarket. They were sprayed 2 or 3 times a week with fungicides for about 10 weeks, before being sprayed with sulphuric acid to burn off the tops before harvesting. Of course the sprays drift in the wind, which is worrying for people living just metres from the fields. Of course in the future organic farming (or at least farming with lower levels of chemical inputs) is likely to become more common, as peak oil drives up oil and natural gas prices, pushing up the price of fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides.
The problem with your point is - in my opinion - that in the area of food, technological advancements are either scams or used to sell us processed cheap shit.
Our national consumer protection organisation recently published a list of what some "food" items really are made of. Technology is used to get away with as little of the original ingredients as possible and add as much cheap filler (corn, soy, cheap oils) as possible. How can technologically engineered food with 20% real ingredients for taste and 80% cheap filler be good?
As someone who consumed organic food for several years I can attest that none of the organic food I ate tasted better than its conventional counterpart.
I suspect that most people who espouse this view have been convinced it tastes better because of the price.
That's not the point. The point is that making things properly often makes them nicer.
While there are some organic products which aren't noticeably different, there are also some vegetables which benifit significantly.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Just checked the new import rules on Food Agency website.
Sad to say, Australians are still permitted to import V*g*m*te.
"Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
The problem with McDonald's food is not primarily the fat. It's the flavour enhancer.
Our body is pretty well able to regulate how much of our intake it actually processes, unless, of course, it is swamped with it. And therein lies the problem: Flavour enhancers override our senses and let us eat beyond what we need as sustenance.
From personal experience I know that I eat less the more unprocessed ingredients are used in food preparation. I'm less in a hurry to shovel it into my mouth, thus giving my stomach the time to process the stuff and tell me when it's enough.
The biggest problem we have nowadays is stress. Not only at work or in personal matters, but also when eating. We eat faster and thus more. So in my opinion, the less additives food has, the better you're off all around.
We do not live longer all that much, by the way. The problem is that in those statistics all the children and mothers that died at birth were included. Since these problems have lessened due to higher levels of hygiene during child birthing, our statistics have, of course, vastly improved.
...Just so much dumb shit happening in that place, accepting bribes to hurt the organic food industry are easy to imagine.
Weight of evidence (WoE) is a phrase used to describe the type of consideration made in a situation where there is uncertainty, and which is used to ascertain whether the evidence or information supporting one side of a cause or argument is greater than that supporting the other side. We all frequently make personal WoE decisions in our daily lives, but more-formal WoE approaches are used in many different kinds of circumstance â" for example, in commercial, educational, health, legal and scientific contexts
The weight of scientific evidence against the use of pesticides is quite frankly, frighting. For a decent condensed summary of many scientific papers from many fields demonstrating the effects of pesticides, (especially on the endocrine system) check out the book/collection of scientific reports Our Stolen Future. In 1995 worldwide pesticide sales were around 30 billion. Who knows what they are today?
You have got a fairly odd idea of what organic food is about. It's not like organic produce is created like it was in the middle ages. They just take a few more variables into consideration which are more or less irrelevant to normal agriculture: multiple ways of sustainability, a more careful application of pharmaceutics, animal living conditions, human working conditions.
Another odd idea of yours: that non-organic food is not made "in cow-shit". Manure is used as a fertiziler in both organic and non-organic agriculture. And it's certainly preferable to most chemical fertilizers, for starters because you don't have to expend a lot of energy to get it; you typically get it for free. (Of course I'm aware that too much fertilizing with manure is just as dangerous as using too much non-organic fertilizer.)
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I agree. Actually pure fat is not even bad, its just bad when its combined with other things. I mostly eat meat, grounded beef or chicken and it makes me full and feeling great for long time, while keeping me in shape too. Problems just comes when you mix bad carbs and those flavour enhangers into it, because instead of burning the fat you burn those. Which is the case with mcdonalds and hamburgers -- they're both high-fat and high bad carbs. Personally I've felt a lot better when I dropped all of those, with a minor side effect thinking how great they would taste :)
But the point being, tech has improvement a lot and why not with food aswell. Maybe it can even make those hamburgers healthy without affecting the taste or health issues. We live happily in cities that aren't exactly "natural" kind of living based on history, so why is food technology such a problem.. if done correctly.
---
Exotic Food Feed @ Feed Distiller
FTA
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
Oops ! Isn't it a major point of organic farming. Not only the end product but also procedures and environment ? Many consumers choose organic product not only for it's intrinsic assumed qualities, but out of environments concerns. I'am no pro-organic man, yet that study seams to say little to me.
(...) they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.
Now I am confused. What does this study have to say then!?
Z.
I'm having trouble finding the actual study (which seems to be a meta-analysis more than original research). Does it have controls? Does it actually compare a set of people who are randomly assigned organic vs. nonorganic foods? If not, it's not at all conclusive. The fact that they desire a longitudinal study implies to me that they did not have such a control...
And don't get me wrong, the 'organic' craze has a lot of BS in it. It's not healthier by default, certainly, nor is it necessarily more environmentally sound (the rules for being organic can allow environmentally worse procedures). A lot of nutritionally worthless foods get labeled 'organic' as if that makes them healthier ('organic' butter will still go straight to your thighs...).
What is the point of a study if everyone thinks it was corporate sponsored? I am a cynic person myself but if the study said that organic is healthier then everyone would say it was paid by the green/organic industry corps. btw, I know farmers that just fill out the state forms and get federal subvention for being 'organic', but what they do on the field is something different. Of course they don't spray the shit out of it but its certainly not organic or else the harvest is halved.
A [name insitution here] study has determined that using electric cars does not get you from point A to point B any faster than combustion engine powered cars..
Doh !
--Ivan
Interesting. As someone who has recently started buying a delivered vegetable box from a nearby farm, I have noticed a large difference between fresh organic produce, and standard supermarket fare. In particular, carrots and cucumbers are noticeably tastier and juicier (organic cucumbers are almost a fruit -- they're almost unrecognisable from those at the supermarket). Having said that, I can't discount the "tastes better because of price" theory as I haven't done a double-blind test.
I like being able to eat the carrot skins without worrying about pesticides though.
IMO, there are no bad carbs. There is just energy and whether your body is at liberty to be lean because enough of it comes in regularly and stress levels are low enough to not trigger starvation mode.
Calling food groups 'bad' is, IMO, about as insightful as an 'axis of evil'.
Replace "Health Benefits" with "Nutritional Benefits" and it's ok. You certainly won't starve eating non-organic food. And you'll get pretty much the same level of basic nutritional elements (vitamins etc.).
But you will get more pesticide contamination, more genetically modified food, more additives and a few other nasty bits and pieces. And you will create more impact on the environment.
And keep in mind that this was a meta-study, just looking at existing publications. Their selection criteria pretty much guaranteed the domination of conventional food studies carried out by the industry.
-- Truth suffers from too much analysis.
As snake!!!!!
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Couldn't agree more.
That and all the chemically dependant "fast-grow, high-yield" fruits and vegetables taste like arse compared to the more traditional ones.
Going for higher, cheaper yield is not always good.
Exactly,
I eat organic for 2 reasons, one is I don't want my body filled with the left over amounts of pesticides (in the case of fruit and veg) and antibiotics and hormones (in the case of meat). I especially don't want my 1 year old son's body being subjected to those if I can avoid it.
But to be honest the main reason I do it is because it tastes so much better. Carrots actually test of carrot rather than crunchy water taste you get from a standard supermarket carrot.
We get organic veg delivered to our door from a local farm and it last much longer due to shorter pick to delivery time scales. There is also the added bonus of getting a wider variety of veg.
As a result I eat a wider range of vegetables, it tastes nicer, and because of the longer shelf life I throw less away. This means that it costs me the same or less than buying normal super market veg. Couple that with the convenience of it delivered to my door it is a no-brainer really!
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone.
Phosphate fertilizers tend to have radioactivity from trace elements like polonium.
Some plants like tobacco concentrate these substances in their leaves. If you consume their leaves regularly, you might increase your chances of getting cancer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/tobacco-firms-kept-quiet-on--polonium-role-in-cigarettes-907194.html
Quote: "There was a 1977 study that found, of the daily intake of the polonium 210 in a smoker, 77.3 per cent came from food and 17 per cent from tobacco."
Now depending on what the source animals have been eating, the manure used for organic fertilizer might have a lot less polonium than the usual phosphate stuff.
Thing is those phosphate fertilizers have been so popular that they're "everywhere", even your organic stuff might have as much polonium.
Lastly, even fully organic stuff can be radioactive. For example brazil nuts tend to concentrate radium (they also concentrate beneficial minerals).
But organic food processing is a technology and not always and necessarily an old one.
There is an attitude among many people that if it is distributed, divers, and non-destructive it's not technology and if it involves large companies, big industries and has fatal side effects it's technology. I think that this attitude is utterly wrong.
In the end technology just means instruments and procedure that assist you getting things done, and their instrumental character defines a good technology, not whether or not a consortium can make big bucks with it.
I have a hard time seeing what improvement Monsanto (for example) brought to anyone than themselves, I'm not sure organic agriculture technology does badly in comparison with the "agribusiness" technology, at all.
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
the environment is still recuperation from DDT, after decades of disuse (there are a LOT of studies out there to confirm that). I let you make the connections yourself.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
>> But the point being, tech has improvement a lot and why not with food aswell.
Ah, Better Living Through Chemistry(TM). What does nature know about health? I mean, it's our body, we know what to put in it. After all, living in a concrete box, with indoor plumbing and sewage, instead of in a rock cave, is perfectly comparable to inducing our biological, organic digestive systems into processing chemically enhanced and artificially produced food-stuff, as opposed to the biological, organic matter it was designed to handle.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
You also get a greater yield per unit land area and less spoilage from pests / disease. Between them, this makes intensively farmed crops much better for the planet in terms of energy efficiency and much better for humanity, as more plentiful food means less global hunger - or would do, if the high-yield crops can be grown in the overpopulated parts of the world, where food is scarce.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
You might want to take a look into what carbs actually are. I mean, there's both good and bad carbs. Maybe someone can come up with informative post about the differences about carbs, but its more than true that theres different kind of carbs and some of them are more bad than others.
in my opinion - that in the area of food, technological advancements are either scams or used to sell us processed cheap shit.
Around the turn of the last century, we needed about 80% of the US population working on farms to feed us all. Today, it's more like 4%, and we're the world's biggest food exporter. What do you think made that possible?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I do think that it is hard to imagine it. But, hey, some have a vivid imagination.
Organic food tends to be better because it is more expensive. People that are willing to pay a premium for health or environmental reasons also tend to be willing to pay a premium for quality. So I would say that generally organic food *is* better than "conventional" food (especially stuff like pre-packaged foods). But if you find a store that sells conventional food of the same quality as most organic food, you can get it good and cheap. It's the best of both worlds (at least for those of us that think organic food is a crock). If you live in the Southwest I can't recommend Sunflower Farmer's Market highly enough. Great produce, great meat, high quality, low prices, it's a cool little grocery store.
The only "flavour enhancer" is salt and fat, though. That's actually their slogan in the UK: nothing but beef and salt goes into the burgers. And that's more than enough to convince your brain it's getting something super-tasty that it should seek out in future.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Trans-fats are not carcinogens. Even now, it's an open question as to their health risks. "No trans-fats!" is marketing to make you feel like your processed cheese-style barbecue slices are healthier. (The char on your burgers is a proven human carcinogen. Nobody cooks to the "golden rule" because it's not worth anything to anyone's marketing department.)
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I choose organic because it tastes batter! Organic produce tends to be more flavorful. My favorite example is chicken. In the US, cheap factory farm raised chicken has an almost spongy consistency, and tastes rather bland. Organic, free range chicken is much tougher and flavorful, I don't mind paying more for food that I will enjoy more. Another example is beef. Cattle that graze on grass produce beef that just tastes better. In addition, the meat contains more CLA (healthy fat) than corn fed. Finally, I feel better about my decision. For animals that are bred to die, at least I know they weren't cooped up all their life. I believe happy animals produce better tasting meat :)
I am what I am and thats what I am -Popeye
Your argument does not fly with me. The study is clearly useful, as most (not you, of course) argue that organic is better for your health. It shows that there is "currently" no clear health benefit. Future studies might show this to be wrong, but for now this if scientifically accurate. Check out this podcast about Organic Food Myths, including that organic food is "good" for the environment... http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019
Flavour enhancers override our senses and let us eat beyond what we need as sustenance. From personal experience I know that I eat less the more unprocessed ingredients are used in food preparation.
So, what you're saying is, you eat less of food that tastes bad. Or maybe 'unprocessed ingredients' make eating an ordeal you put up with in order to survive. Not very compelling arguments for use of organic/natural methods, unless you're one of those people who thrives discomfort and bristles against pleasure. Enjoy your cod liver oil, I'll take chocolate.
Umm "cow shit" is just mushed up grass and water. If you saw what goes on on a farm and what's put in and on your food you'd sing a vastly different tune technophile.
Spewing forth opinion and vitriol without any attempt at substantiation of claims is not insightful.
I agree on the taste thing: carrots in particular are a world of difference from "conventional" farmed cousins. They aren't even comparable.
I would wonder what the explanation is then? If you can taste the difference easily then there must be significant difference of some sort. One tastes more like water and one tastes more like carrot. If the more carrot-y one is not more "nutritionally dense" then what is the explanation?
I don't know the answer to that and that is not a rhetorical question.. does anyone have a theory?
Since you're comparing to the year 1900, we also have much lower fertility rates than then, male sterility has fallen, we have better health care, that's for sure, but we also have diseases wich were almost unheard of 100 years ago.
GM food has been shown to have negative impact on the environment where it's grown and it's effect on our health would best be described as "disputable", since the GM companies are actively lobbying the government for exclusive access to our kids food supply.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
And hell, I rather eat food thats *NOT* made in cow shit just because its "natural" based on human history and was the only way to make it at the time.
Jeez. It has fuck all to do with naturalness, but nitrates, phosphates and potassium (NPK).
If you keep taking them out of the soil as you grow crops, the soil degrades till it's no use any more. So you've taken all these nitrates out and you've eaten them. Where do you think they end up? They end up in your shit and piss and they have to be dealt with by the sewage treatment plants. Or dumped in the rivers and oceans, causing algal blooms. That's just dumb.
The other alternative is that you manufacture nitrates. That is called the Haber Bosch process and it involves burning a shit load of fossil fuels to produce the hydrogen and energy required convert the nitrogen in the atmosphere to ammonia. The phosphates and potassium are usually mined. All of which require vast amounts of energy and leave big holes in the ground. As long as energy is plentiful and cheap you can just about get away with this.
Is this like magic or something? The miraculous Walmart magic food onto their shelves? The evil miners and chemical producers dig big holes and burn fossil fuels solely to anger the woolly headed (but nice) environmentalists? America goes to war with *iraq* despite the terrorists being *Saudi* and the supposed terrorist ring being resident in *Afghanistan* and *Pakistan*.
Deleted
Recently I was forced to live without a refrigerator. I bought a few heads of lettuce from the local supermarket; and I bought a few from the local organic farmers' market. Stored under my bed, 80 degree temperatures. Supermarket lasted one day before it was mush; local+organic, nearly a full week.
Unless your food is made out of solid iron, all food is organic
You are deluding yourself if you think organic == no pesticides, or if you think pesticides == cancer:
From a very lengthy article that probably won't be read or dismissed as casually as this current study.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Machinery.
I really hope that was a joke of a question by the way or the fact that you're currently at +4 means ignorance abounds on this site regarding agriculture.
But to be honest the main reason I do it is because it tastes so much better. Carrots actually test of carrot rather than crunchy water taste you get from a standard supermarket carrot.
We get organic veg delivered to our door from a local farm and it last much longer due to shorter pick to delivery time scales. There is also the added bonus of getting a wider variety of veg.
Here is the problem with your argument: you are comparing really fresh organic carrots from the local farm to non-organic ones from the supermarket, which possibly travelled for days before reaching you. Of course they taste better! Why do you think that is? Because they are organic or because they are fresh? I've eaten non-organic tomatos right from the plant, they tasted so much better than store bought ones.
You should keep eating the superior, local carrots. You should not, however, use that as an argument for producing food with less efficient methods like organic farming - the key to better taste is to get the veggies locally.
Illegal immigrants?
What you say is true - our lives have been massively improved through the use of technology.
In particular, our success at creating and using machines has been incredible.
We have been much less successful (particularly over longer time scales) at manipulating biological systems -- a quick glance at history (eg. DDT, thalidomide, cane toads, etc) suggests that a bit of caution and prudence might be in order. This is not to say that we should return to an agrarian society, but that we should treat powerful new advances with optimistic caution. With regard to fertilisers, pesticides and antibiotics in farming, I think we've had far too much optimism, and far too little caution.
FYI, fertilizing with manure is standard practice in both organic and inorganic farming.
Why is the phrase "Independant(sic) Organic Review" in quotes? It's not the title of the report, that's "Comparison of putative health effects of organically and
conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review", and it's not quoted text from the linked article.
The report was commissioned by the FDA, but actually produced by the London School of Economics; that's what makes it independent.
There's no need to go to postpeakpublishing (or Database Error as they seem to be called today) for a deeper look as you can read the whole report at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
Another problem is the unusual mixes of things. You can eat a lot more fat (without gagging) if you mix in a heap of salt. Fatty salty foods are not too common in the wild, but modern food mixes them together, which messes up our instincts about how much to eat.
Also, Coke has far too much sugar to taste good, but the added food acid makes it palatable.
internal combustion engine yea pretty sure that was it not monsanto putting insect genes into corn
You see, twostix, there is this literary device known as a "rhetorical question". This literary device is used when the writer/speaker knows that the answer is obvious, and will be automatically arrived at by the audience just in the asking of the question. See also: Socratic method.
I find it even more amusing that your answer, while partially correct, is actually not even accurate. Certainly, machinery has been a huge factor, but the answer was "technology" in general, rather than specifically JUST machinery. We have better fertilizers and irrigation technologies. From our knowledge in genetics and biology, we have been able to figure out better crop rotations, breeding methods, and in some cases, how to directly manipulate the genes of plants to bring about a better yield. Technology has given us better ways to preserve the food, so that we don't need everything directly from the market within a few days of being harvested, allowing farmers to greatly increase yield. We have MUCH better transportation systems as well, so that farming needs to be less localized. There are many, many other factors involved in this equation, but I think my point is clear.
F-, twosticks.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Organic farming is clearly defined if you (in your infinite knowledge of all thing agriculture) cared to look it up.
When I was about 12 I was helping my uncle drench sheep - basically giving them a chemical shower. The chemical we were using caused me and my cousin to both have explosive diarrhea, stomach cramps and nausea the instant we caught a decent whiff of the overspray. "You'll get used to it" was my uncles advice to us.
There's areas on farms where sheep dips stood that are now officially poisoned ground that food can never be grown in due to the arsenic levels in the soil, these old dip sites are tracked by the government where known.
But yeah, all the chemicals being sprayed all over your food are completely harmless, so to are the growth hormones and antibiotics your eating every day.
I bet you would have said the same thing about lead pipes 40 years ago.
It's you who wallow in ignorance I'm sorry. Have you even ever stepped foot out of the city?
Well considering they were the first to genetically modify plants, you can stop wondering. However, even if that particular company had never done a single beneficial thing for anyone, your argument is fallacious.
As for "organic" farming being "distributed, diverse, and non-destructive" ... that's a load of rubbish for the most part. It may be distributed and diverse - although nothing in it's definition necessitates those things - but it is certainly not non-destructive.
"That is technological improvement, so there's no really any reason why technologically made or improved food would be more riskier."
Of course, the welfare and quality of life of the animals that make up our food is of no concern to you? Or the effect on the environment? Just that the food is not "risky" to your health?
I'm not a vegetarian, but frankly, the shit that we're doing to our animals to mass produce meat cheaply is disgusting.
And define "risky", because from here I'm sitting, there are a large number of direct and indirect risks we suffer thanks to mechanisation and industrialisation of our food supply. Environmental destruction, such as poisoning our water supply, the earth, and the air. Increased risks of diseases, too. IMO, things like swine flu are direct results of the mechanisation and industrialisation of our food process.
It is no coincidence that La Gloria (which is suspected of being ground zero for Swine Flu) just happened to have a huge hog farm operated by Granjas Carroll (50% owned by Smithfield Foods). Their hog operations generate lagoons of waste stuffed with antibiotics, ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, cyanide, phosphorous, nitrates, heavy metals - all sorts of shit that isn't shit.
Slashdot won't let me C&P the URL properly, so combine it together: http://www.rollingstone.com/ /politics/story/12840743 /porks_dirty_secret_
the_nations_top_
hog_producer_is_
also_one_of_
americas_worst_polluters
It's not just our meat, either. Chlorine being used to wash "ready to eat" foods? Growth hormones, antibiotics and all sorts of shit in milk? What about pesticides? Just recently saw a report that suggests the cocktail of pesticides could be behind Colony Collapse Disorder. Carcinogenic ingredients being added to food?
Again, IMO, the incidents of cancer that we're seeing these days are directly linked with what we're doing to our food supply.
Technology's a great thing, except when it gets in the hands of greedy, unethical bastards who couldn't give a shit except to their bottom line.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Really? If we actually ate fruits and veggies, and not fed corn to cows which we then ate, we'd probably still be able to feed the world,(and fix health care while we're at it)
Machinery is not a form of technological advancement now?
Technology in food production isn't just for processed food, it's having a tractor to work your ground instead of a digging stick. Even organic farming uses technology, the question is which technologies to accept and which to reject. Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Yes, because "biological, organic matter" is actually not made of chemicals. Everyone knows that only bad stuff is made of chemicals! No, "biological, organic matter" is made of pixie tears and fairy dust, fertilized with unicorn farts.
Ames Test - Carcinogens and Natural foods: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxE9sYatPAs
I'm was always shocked by how many people around me really believed organic food had any significant impact on their health. I always assumed there's much more to be gained for ones health by keeping a healthy weight, being careful with saturated fats, and just enjoying food while mostly getting all nutrients you need. Also: i think going organic is a kind of selfish luxury. Don't forget the environmental impact of a separate not-so-efficient extra system on top of the "regular" food-chain the organic 'cult' needs. I know what I'm talking about: I used to be a believer...
No I think you'll find that machinery (specifically the tractor, combine, header and truck) is the reason that it doesn't take 80% of the population to work the land anymore. Everything else you list gives insignificant increases in output by comparison.
My uncles are limited in the amount of land that they can work on their farms by the size of the tractors and machinery they have.
Food preservation techniques came about in about 1850 btw, but don't worry about it.
I should remember I dun know nuthing about that that there food production like you edumacated city slickers do.
The selfish part of this is our willfull overpopulation of the planet, not the food. This is how food should be produced to be sustainable and environmentally friendly. If we would have to plow up too much land to grow locally to support our communities, this should tell you something about the size of our communities. We live on this huge planet and we could fill it to the brim with people, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. We're not the only inhabitants. Don't get me started on the third world nation crap. It's great that we're helping feed them, but we're going about it the wrong way. Instead of bringing them sustainability, we're feeding them reliability. Then add in fundamentalists in other countries that will push the bible all day but won't spend the time pushing sex education and birth control...
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
Don't eat mushrooms then. They're not only made in cow dung, they're basically made entirely from cow dung.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
1.I'm sorry, I would prefer things to not be shoved down my throat. If that costs a little extra, which people pay for out of pocket, let em. 2.Who do you think pays for all these studies to prove things are good for you or aren't different? 3. Guess what was here first, wasn't GMO. So if you're talking about extra system on top, thats the non organic. 4.Environmental impact? One word, Biodiversity
the same enclave of hippy bozos that brought us organic food also vies for the prohibition of DDT in developing countries where over a million people, mostly children below the age of 5, [wikipedia.org] die each year from malaria.
Trolling much lately? DDT is still in use as malaria control. Quoting from the wikipedia link you so kindly provided:
The evolution of resistance to DDT in mosquitos has greatly reduced its effectiveness in many parts of the world, and current WHO guidelines require that before the chemical is used in an area, susceptibility of local mosquitos to DDT must be confirmed.[83] The appearance of DDT-resistance is largely due to its use in agriculture, where it was used in much greater amounts than the relatively small quantities used for disease prevention. According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by banning agricultural uses of DDT and thereby slowing the spread of resistance, "it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."
So, today's lesson: If you link something to further your bullshit agenda, you better read the linked content completely beforehand. Might save you from looking like an idiot.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
UK's FSA Finds No Health Benefits To Organic Food
Of course not, the benefits are primarily to taste and conscience.
It's quite simple, when i drink standard milk i get horrible stomach cramps and other nasty digestive effects. When I drink organic milk (NOT SOY) I have none of that.
By the term "standard milk", do you mean homogenized milk? Homogenization breaks the suspended particles (typically fats with proteins) into much smaller sizes, greatly increasing the surface area presented per gram of solids. If you have a sensitivity to some substance in the suspended solids of cow-milk (e.g. a particular protein, sugar, or fat), then homogenization is likely to exacerbate your reaction to it. This effect will occur whether the milk is organic or not, but since organic milk is likely to be unhomogenized, it may appear to be an organic vs non-organic issue.
I also speak from personal experience. I can consume reasonable quantities of whole milk, but can tolerate only small quantities of homogenized milk before digestive problems occur.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
"And hell, I rather eat food thats *NOT* made in cow shit just because its "natural" based on human history and was the only way to make it at the time."
It's not a matter of old versus new, it's a matter of understanding. If food grown with cowshit is no better then superduper engineered fertilizer, then it doesn't matter.
I agree with what you say but let's not forget theirs consequences to our actions and some companies might do harm to the biosphere (mosanto and their crops that are sterile), the real problem comes from the people at the helm of industry - are they ethical or not? Sometimes I wonder if the people need some kind of voting power to vote idiots managing the food supply out.
Quite frankly I think companies should be banned/regulated from engineering foods that go sterile unless their is good reason for them not to.
Really I mean don't they have their own journals across the pond?
I hate to break it to you, but for the last 3 or so months that you were in the womb, you were floating in your own excrement. What the GP was getting at is that food isn't "made" in manure (which is rotted down excrement anyway, so it's got a different chemical make up than excrement...) but that it's "grown" in it, that it breaks it down, taking only what it needs and leaving the rest. It's an awfully complex process that when combined with crop rotation, technology isn't a patch on as far as sustainability goes. As for the study, I think what a lot of people miss is that organic foods still are sold as being healthier, if that isn't true, it should be stopped, and studies like this are the start of that. Organic food is a good idea, but there are a lot of unscrupulous companies making a huge profit from people who don't really understand this fad.
True. And we have diseases which were completely unheard of 30,000 years ago. Is there a point?
Sheer nonsense. First off, most of the food you eat has been genetically modified. It's just that silly buggers who don't know anything tend to get more upset about those eeeevil scientists in their crazy white coats than they do about farmer bob and his descendants selectively breeding plants for their own purposes. Anyone who eats seedless fruit while complaining about "GM food" is a fucking idiot.
And, second, the idea that all food which has been scientifically modified - regardless of what changes were made - is "bad for the environment" is so silly that it shouldn't really warrant a response.
Look at lead for an even better example what a wonderful technology! Lead pipes, and lead based paint! WOW!
Why it's a harmless metal, why not use it to carry drinking water.
Or arsenic based sheep dips that have created poisoned dip sites that now have to tracked by the government to make sure nobody accidentally grows food around them.
I wonder if in the 1980s the parent would have blindly supported the never thought of before "technological" innovation of feeding mashed up sheep carcasses to cows.
Species variation is completely different to "organic" foods.
Using land that's already been raped by chemical fertilizers and pesticides doesn't tend to have the same value as virgin land when you want to go "organic". Thinking you can fix the salinity levels, lack of nutrients, etc by shoveling cow shit on it is just a joke. Sustainable practices like crop rotation are still not used by these "organic" farmers, they think they can still treat the land with the same contempt that chemical farmers do. It doesn't give any benefit to the consumer at all, merely ups the price and ignores the problems to start with.
I don't buy into "organic farming" so long as they push for high yields and don't use crop rotation. Unfortunately this is a HUGE business, so crop rotation won't happen in the near future.
Either way, your point is moot as "organic farmers" still use the same varieties as non-"organic".
Yeah, but trans-fats are tasty. They took them out of oreos and french fries and I'm still fat, so what's the point?
Refrigeration comes to mind too, although it's just an idea without any evidence to back it up. Transport also allows more efficient agriculture as a crop need only be grown where it grows best. But yeah, machinery would be the big one. How many man-hours would it take to harvest 500 acres of wheat using basic hand tools? I'd guess that it only takes a few days at most with a modern harvester and 1 driver.
You do realize that agriculture is outside, right?
Do cow shit and a wheat grass shake taste the same? Wait, maybe that's a bad example.
Touché. I should have said artificially enhanced with extraneous chemicals.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Of course, the welfare and quality of life of the animals that make up our food is of no concern to you? Or the effect on the environment? Just that the food is not "risky" to your health?
I'm not a vegetarian, but frankly, the shit that we're doing to our animals to mass produce meat cheaply is disgusting.
Sadly, thats how nature is. I mean, even humans kill each other for whatever idiotic reasons (fighting drunk, robbing a store and shooting the clerk for some freaking $200, attacking other countries). Personally I would like to live in a better world, but you usually have to go by the rules. And that also means killing the animals to eat our meat.
However, it really is something tech can help with. Producing food by technology instead of killing animals. Producing energy instead of attacking other countries just to get some oil. Providing well-being for everyone. I bet we're far off for slave-ages and such just because technology has bring the level up for everyone of us, and even the most moneyless people can have some standard of lifestyle, that is all the time improving.
Technology is actually a good answer to many of the world's problems.
Good old appeal for the children and class warfare.
This study indicates that your blanket statement isn't quite true. The link indicates that in the first few years organic output does tend to be markedly lower. With proper organic techniques, however, the yields increased in those areas, and in some cases exceeded the conventional farming technique.
Organic farming, IMHO, has its place. In fact, your statement that "You cannot be against world hunger and for organic foods" is just plain wrong. In the third world countries, where fertilizer isn't really in the budget, organic methods greatly increased yields. It might be worth re-evaluating your stance.
"FSA Finds No Health Benefits" means "fails to find", not "finds that there is no". The latter would require testing the foods. They did not. They read "the literature". There nothing in TFA that indicates whether the literature was as "independent" as their own report.
Since by "independent" they mean "commissioned, conducted, (peer) reviewed and published entirely by FSA", they mean precisely the opposite of "independent". Given this, one can safely assume they would at least feel free to report "no health benefits" when they mean the opposite.
In fact, since by "no important differences" they not only mean but come out and state "A small number of differences" it's apparent they are making the sort of value judgements usually derived from data. In the absence of data (which may well be subject to the same sort of selective re-evaluation and definition contrary to common connotation, or simply manufactured if they even bother to produce any) they apparently feel free to apply the word "important" arbitrarily to suit their intention, already shown to differ significantly from pesky facts and such.
Politicians are protected by the law so that they may support a particular point in discussion or legislation without having fear of reprisal influence their pursuit of the best alternative among many. When this is done with science, it is no longer science, and as far as I know scientists are not so protected. That is, of course, unless they are not scientists despite their presentation as such, but rather politicians. Finding out the facts in this matter would simply require filing charges of scientific misconduct against the individuals that maintain the results and summary presented here are accurate, and wait to see whether their asses are yanked out of a well deserved fire by politicians.
A last little bit of blackish white is the "fact" that "The FSA commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date[1] science[2]."
[1] They used literature spanning half a century, making most of their information not "the most up to date".
[2] They did no science, they only claimed to have done a literature review, examining other results of unspecified selectivity and unproven objectivity. To present their results as science is as fraudulent as the claims made that are contrary to conventional acceptance or even other claims of their own.
Entirely neglected is the main reason people buy organic foods -- control over additives, in terms of determining which are suitable and acceptable (ie. simple nitrates as preservatives) as well as those which they maintain should not be permitted at any point within the system (ie. livestock 'nourishment' additives in the form of material processed from dead animals; the origin of mad cow disease). Perhaps FSA felt more confident in lying about the irrelevant rather than risk getting caught lying about what people know enough and care a great deal about.
A rebuttal against the FSA piece is available from first professional organization is the UK approved for licensing and regulation of organic foods and producers:
http://www.organicfarmers.org.uk/blog/
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
That and all the chemically dependant "fast-grow, high-yield" fruits and vegetables taste like arse compared to the more traditional ones.
Going for higher, cheaper yield is not always good.
If it's cheaper and has the same nutritional value, that's a good thing for everyone who can't afford (or isn't pretentious enough to want) organic foods. It is always good to drive costs down, if it means feeding those who are going hungry.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
"Around the turn of the last century, we needed about 80% of the US population working on farms to feed us all. Today, it's more like 4%, and we're the world's biggest food exporter. What do you think made that possible?"
You're confusing improvements in mechanization and understanding of chemistry with cost cutting engineered chemical additives to food whose long term effects are unknown. They are not the same in the slightest, companies emphasize the bottom over truth if it makes them money and history has shown corporate power is abused often.
Ok, I'll bite.
This is incorrect, first you are talking about commercial uses, and not genetically modification in general. Second, Calgene were the first to commercially produce genetically modified food (Flavr Savr). Later they were bought by Monsanto, which is not that a big contribution by Monsanto.
Not much of a argument you bring here. I accept that one could argue that some genetically modified plants have some benefits overall, but I personally have a hard time to see them, after removing the whole PR-bullshit that surrounds them. I think there are good arguments that they are in the end mostly only beneficial to the companies that sell them. This is however open for discussion.
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
I think you're missing the point. I'm not arguing against the killing of animals (although I do respect those who take a stand against it). I said quite clearly, I'm not a vegetarian. I don't mind people eating meat.
The point is that we torture them for their entire, short, miserable lives. Lions don't imprison 823 million impala in huge concentrations, artificially increasing their weight to grow abnormally fast in shorter time spans and thereby crippling some 27% them, keeping them in their own shit for so long that they suffer burns on their legs.
And unless you consider humans to be just dumb beasts that simply cannot make ethical choices, saying it's "nature" is a cop out. We can change things. Compassion in World Farming is a good place to start.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
How can technologically engineered food with 20% real ingredients for taste and 80% cheap filler be good?
Because it feeds people who would otherwise starve, it doesn't provide a disgusting taste experience to the people it sustains, and it does so at a very affordable price. I'd say those are all "good" things.
John
"No Health Benefits" is a very inappropriate title. They are merely saying there are no significant nutritional differences. They did not include any studies which analyzed long term health benefits, e.g. overall illness or mortality rates of people who eat organic foods after many years.
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
And Machinery was created via...
Oh yeah; TECHNOLOGY!
Of course, the better engineered food stocks which grow faster, are more disease resistant, and are as (or more) nutritionally rich as "organic" foods were ALSO provided by technology.
Point of fact: Our advanced society would be IMPOSSIBLE if not for the technological advances on food growing, harvesting, production, processing and packaging. Our ENTIRE society is completely dependent on our food production (as is any society) and the more and better food we can grow, the better the foundation for our society to grow on.
The fact that you ONLY attribute this growth to "machinery" shows that YOU are the ignorant one. Either that or you are so steeped in Luddite organic elitism that you can't see straight.
Personally, I suspect both.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
"less efficient" How much so ? and source ? what about polluting ourselves and the environment with stuff that stays poisonous for a LONG time ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
That is technological improvement, so there's no really any reason why technologically made or improved food would be more riskier.
I keep my chickens in tractor pens and move them every day so they always have fresh, clean grass. They don't get any antibiotics or growth hormones. The eggs are noticeably different than those available commercially both in color and taste. And the chickens that end up in the oven have a texture and taste that's very different from the anemic lumps of soggy, fatty meat that passes for chicken at Wal-Mart. Those are birds raised in commercial barns that reek of ammonia miles away and rarely even see the light of day. Instead of cows we opted for goats. Grass fed, likewise no antibiotics or hormones. Besides being walking composters, they keep the lawnmower in the garage and supply lean, delicious meat.
In that context I don't consider what's available in the store an "improvement" by any definition of that word.
The old ways sometimes.. correction, usually aren't the best way.
Maybe if the discussion is limited to vegetable produce the differences would be less noticeable. If you assume that chemical weed control and pesticide residue are insignificant, then the health benefits of organic verses large scale commercial produce would be difficult to detect.
I think a healthy diet, rich in fruits, nuts and vegetables will be better for your overall health regardless of their organic pedigree. But I would disagree that modern scaling techniques in meat production are really an improvement.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Organic does not mean natural, does not mean without technology
An intensive battery chicken farm can be organic (the birds are not fed with artificially produced chicken feed, and insecticides and hormones are not used), and a free range chicken farm can be non-organic (they feed non-organic chickenfeed etc..)
That last great flu pandemic was thought to have started in France at a supply station full of chickens and pigs (all natural and organic, but very crowded)
Parts of the organic food industry are just as intensive and treat animals just as badly, just in an organic way (it's still a business), and likewise parts of the non-organic food industry treat animals very well ....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Quit trying to force your choices on the rest of us.
What?
They claim that they "season them with a pinch of salt and pepper after cooking" and that no fat is added.
There's also salt in other parts of the burger. A Big Mac has added salt in the bun, sauce, cheese and pickle.
I have a hard time seeing what improvement Monsanto [wikipedia.org] (for example) brought to anyone than themselves [...]
Round-Up ready soybeans, which allow farmers to work the soil less, which reduces run-off and erosion. There you go.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
HA HA, organic milk. Laughed my arse off! ... Just exactly how does organic milk differ from the "other" type? I have visions of a star trek "Borg" cow somehow hooked up to a milking cube.
You got a troll mod, but I suspect you are asking a genuine question. The whole system of production is relevant. If you use artificial fertilizers etc on your pasture, you don't produce organic milk. Although it doesn't appear this way to a customer reading a "Certified Organic" label on a product, essentially it is the farm that is certified organic, not the product. The product is organic by virtue of being produced on an organic farm.
In Australia, it takes years to achieve certification for your farm. Any prohibited chemicals can't be used on that block of land at all or no produce from that land can be sold as certified organic. If you wish to produce some organic goods and other non-organic goods, you need two separate blocks of land. IIRC you can't even have chemicals stored on your organic block. For livestock, even bought feed supplements have to meet the requirements to retain certification.
I don't have a citation, I've just worked on both organic and non-organic farms (a long time ago, things may have changed).
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
It is the presumed lack of health deficits. The Organic label carries some clout, because (to the best of my knowledge) there has been no massive recall of e-coli tainted beef, or salmonella tainted produce, from organic producers. I buy organic ground beef from Costco because a) it tastes great, and b) It is my belief that due to smaller producers with cleaner methods (i.e., not feeding the cattle brains from other cattle) my chances of contracting some contaminated meat or hideous prion disease are greatly diminished. If the Organic producers abuse this trust, race to the bottom line, and abandon cleaner procedures to make more profits in the short term, many people who think like I do will abandon them and they will go bankrupt.
There are two important factors often overlooked in the "organic" vs. conventional debate. First is cost. Is it better to have produce that is slightly less nutritious but cheaper so that people eat more of it? Simply stated, if conventionally grown salad greens are cheaper will people eat more of them (and be healthier) or will more people (poorer people) eat them when they wouldn't at a higher price (and be healthier)? Second is practicality. The great Nobel Peace price winning agronomist Norman Borlaug has stated that in common analysis there simply isn't a way to change the world to 100% organic produce. There simply isn't enough sh*t to support feeding the world's current population plus reduced efficiencies of organic farming methods are an issue. http://www.reason.com/news/show/27665.html
"I like being able to eat the carrot skins without worrying about pesticides though."
Organic doesn't mean pesticide free.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Soo..
- Plants that are more disease resistant, resulting in less failed crops.
- Plants that are more resistant to insects, resulting in less use of pesticides and a lower cost of production.
- Plants that produce more "fruit" (IE: more apples, oranges, ears of corn, wheat kernels, etc.) per plant.
- Plants that grow to maturity faster, making it possible to have multiple harvests per growing season.
- Plants that can yield a full crop in poor soil.
- Plants that are modified to be easier to harvest with machinery, resulting in (again) less cost to grow and quicker time from ripe to market.
NONE of these, all thanks to either traditional genetic engineering (IE: husbandry) or modern genetic engineering (IE: Labs) NONE OF THEM COUNT as far as you are concerned?
Seriously?
Wow. Stupid.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
[...] but we also have diseases wich were almost unheard of 100 years ago.
Yeah, that's because 100 years ago we'd have been dead of something else, before we got whatever it is that you're talking about. Remember, if you die of smallpox, you're not going to be dieing of colon cancer or heart disease.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Manure enjoys widespread use regardless of whether the farmer has 'organic' in mind or not.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Again, IMO, the incidents of cancer that we're seeing these days are directly linked with what we're doing to our food supply.
You're absolutely right.
-We have access to plentiful and cheap food today.
-We don't die of starvation.
-We live long enough to get cancer.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Get orrrrffff moi laaaaand! :P
Requiem for the American Dream
I agree about the first part, but in the places that we're talking about where there is a choice between normal and organic, very few people are "going hungry".. even (or perhaps especially) those in poorer areas are getting rather fat. I don't think they even buy vegetables to begin with, organic or not, they just eat cheap highly processed fast foods and chips/fries. Hunger and food prices are pretty irrelevant in this part of the world (UK) - as long as you are on minimum wage or unemployment benefits you will be able to eat (maybe not anything fancy, but you won't go hungry when you have cheap pasta, noodles etc). Any high yield farming here is bound to be purely profit driven..
which is totally what she said
Sure, but I never claimed organic was. I'm speaking specifically about the OP's claim that "there's no really any reason why technologically made or improved food would be more riskier".
IMO, the best solution is organic and free-range, as a minimum standard. (Although free-range has also been shown to have been abused, so perhaps something better would be needed).
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
I paid top dollar for some "organic" corn the other day. When I got home and saw where the worms were through the top 10% of the kernels I wished they had used some "organic" pesticide.
On the other hand my chickens got feed some organic food (yum corn worms). Now nothing left to do but wait on organic eggs!
Agreed... May I also add... I find a lot of supermarket fruit and veg is odourless.... you buy by weight. So, like our meats, it is grown to produce weighty produce. They taste watery. Go to Asia, fruit and vegtables just smell better.. Some premium packaged fruit and veg do smell what I call "green", full of flavour.
Have you noticed a change in the flavor?
My understanding was that they were so widely used because they didn't go rancid as fast as untreated oils, not because they tasted better. The only thing I noticed was that packaging was improved and food seemed fresher, I didn't notice things tasting worse.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
...I thought the whole point of organic food wasn't necessarily that it was healthier, but that it was kinder to all parties involved (animals and soil included) and had a more "natural" taste (whatever that may be). Hm.
Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says.
I'm not quite clear on just what the study says. It seems to talk about nutrition and "no health benefits." I haven't heard anyone with a clue that think there should be more vitamin c in an organically grown orange than tradtionally grown one. So that part isn't suprising.
Now, does "no health benefits" translate directly to "pesticides and other chemicals have no negative impact?" Or does it simply mean the vit. c amount is the same.
Simple test and the one that convinced me to try to eat organic when I can.
Grab two oranges at the grocery store - one organic and one regular and come home.
Have someone peel them and serve them on two plates as a blind taste test. After taking bites of both you will understand very quickly why I purchase organic when I can.
The problem with McDonald's food is not primarily the fat. It's the flavour enhancer.
Would you expand on that, please? From your spelling "flavour" I assume you are outside the US, and I know that McDonalds menus vary by country and that even similar items are prepared somewhat differently. Is the food doped with artificial flavorings, or "umami" agents (MSG or modified yeast, etc) to make up for the quality of the beef? For that matter, it's been a few years since I've darkened their door here. Thanks.
I am not a crackpot.
Badgers!!!!
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
I couldn't agree with you more. Besides, we have a very recent example that proves how common sense paving way for bigger earnings: mad cow disease. Who would have thought feeding cows to cows would create problems? The farmers can't be trusted to apply common sense anymore.
I challenge you to find cheaper food than the organic produce grown within a few miles of my home. If people would focus on buying locally produced veggies and meat, it would cut a huge chunk of transportation cost (and waste) out of the system.
My Babylon
If it's cheaper and has the same nutritional value, that's a good thing for everyone who can't afford (or isn't pretentious enough to want) organic foods. It is always good to drive costs down, if it means feeding those who are going hungry.
I'll agree with you if I can be a pedant about it and add that it's not good to drive the cost of food down when it means farmers go hungry. The world's starving and undernourished are often so due to poor distribution channels, greed, corruption, and other factors (not all of which are sinister).
Agreed. I can't think of any organic food that is advertised as "healthier" as much as "better". It's assumed that it means better tasting, and that it's more sustainable methods used. Some farmers even claim that organic crops are more profitable due to lower production costs, though Monsanto and the other chemical giants may scream bloody murder about jobs lost if they can't sell their expensive pesticides any more.
There's a great grocery store near my house called Sprouts (imagine a Whole Foods Market without all the near iPod level smug and pretentiousness). It focuses on two things.
a) Getting foods from local sources, or farms as nearby as possible.
b) Getting more organic produce whenever possible.
Now, this place consistently has better looking, fresher, and better tasting produce than any of the other grocery stores around. Maybe it's because of column a), maybe it's column b) , maybe it's a little from both. Either way, for a reasonably small price increase we get far better produce so the wife and I make it a habit to shop there.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
The UK government article to which the Slashdot summary links says at the end, "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
There is no claim that organic foods are more nutritious. Organic foods are intended to be free of poisons like insecticides.
The idea is not that eating foods with traces of insecticides and other poisons would cause immediate sickness. The idea has been that, over time, avoiding poisons would be good for health. Testing that theory would take many years.
This is a comment posted to this Los Angeles Times article, Organic food no more nutritious than conventionally grown, review finds: "I don't buy organic because I believe it has "extra" nutrients! I buy it because of the things it DOESN"T contain!!! Look at all the food recalls just this year."
Another comment: "I have a friend who lives near several farms. He and his wife are both dying of cancer. The health department checked their well water and found it with high levels of farm pesticides. THAT is the cost of conventional farming in addition to the pesticide residue that you consume each time you eat conventionally grown produce."
One thing about organic food lobbists is they understand people no longer have a clue about food, and they exploit that ignorance to charge a premium for "organic" food (what ever the fuck that is supposed to be).
it's this ignorant mind set that supports the omgs chemicals are teh evilz rubbish that's all over the internet.
You seem to forget that these chemicals are groth hormones and pesticides. While these may be safe to consume up to a certain level their not necessary. THAT is the point of organic food - to promote genetic diversity. You will have kinds that are immune to certain diseases and others that are able to protect against certain pests all over time. Meanwhile at the same time controlling the amount of polution that comes in to contact by non-destructive means. My friend owns a cattle farm and i know the regulations behind classifying his produce as ogranic are subject to regular inspections. If even as much as a tin of paint goes within 100 meters of grazing land there could be reprocussions.
That, I think, is really the true damage that tech has done to food. They left it flavorless.
Hell, no wonder people get obese these days, junk food has more flavor than natural foods. Tomatoes are my pet peeve. I no longer can stand to buy tomatoes at a grocery store, especially for something like home made salsa. They are bred for transport only I think...and picked so early, they don't mature enough on the vine. I remember back when I was a kid, and tomatoes had GREAT flavor, they really let you know summer was here.
Not long back, I went to a tomato type 'festival' where they had all these heirloom varieties raised by people (not corporations), and it took me back to the old days. FLAVOR!! They were good...and I'd forgotten, real tomatoes aren't perfectly round, they are often knarled up, blemished, and sometimes weird colors other than bland dull red colored.
About the only way to get a good one is to grow them yourself. I learned to can so that I can grow some, and have that fresh flavor also during the winter months.
I won't even go into how the fscking jalapeno has had the heat bred out of it, and you can't tell in the store what the heat level of a jalapeno is....I now still 100% to serrano chiles...at least they haven't fucked with those yet.
Produce...we've killed the flavor of it. Then, there's meat. I remember what a good steak tasted like. Even today, if I lay out cash to get a prime grade cut...it barely has the flavor of the old days. They've bred out the marbling, the little flecks of fat within the meat fibers that is where the flavor comes from. I saw the other day, a picture they used to use like in the late 50's early 60's to grade prime beef...compared to one today. What a difference, the old ones had meat that was downright almost pink in color due to the fat content in it. That was flavor.
I'd rather have that every once in awhile, that 100% lean and flavorless every day.
I still love to cook, and I buy when I can at farmer's mkts to support the local economy and get quality produce...but, when I have to used grocery store bought stuff, I really have to season things higher to bring out what hidden flavors remain in today's corporate farmed produce and meats.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There is a flip-side to organic/local food though - it costs more because it consumes more resources to produce, resources like energy. Perversely, there is significant environmental impact involved in organic/local food production in terms of land usage and fuel consumption. This article has some interesting info about the counter-intuitive costs of buying local.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
The industry definition of free range is that there is a door and a yard. Probably not quite equivalent to the image that it tries to evoke.
It's fascinating that people are bringing up disease as a problem caused by modern farming techniques, it is quite likely that agriculture at any level is responsible for most epidemic diseases in history (because it enables population density). Who knows if the scale of feed lots makes them a better incubator than a more traditional farm where hogs where kept together in a wallow, but the idea that animal diseases are a new problem is pretty thin (and it isn't like the feed lots want to raise sickly animals, they want the to GROW).
(The first paragraph is a reply to what you said, the second is more in reply to the whole thread, I'm not sure I made that clear in writing them)
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Processed foods and raw meat, I usually buy organic. Raw fruits & veggies, I'll buy organic if the price and quality are within my tolerances. I buy/eat a lot more of the latter than the former (which is now why I'm now 30 pounds lighter and all my health problems have disappeared). I've never been under the impression that organic fruits & veggies have 'better' nutrition, although some folks do believe that. I buy organic for what's NOT in it: preservatives, dyes, hormones, antibiotics, etc. And I'm not alone.
As usual, the media tells half the story in an attempt to sensationalize it. John Stewart, please take this one on?
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
Not to mention livestock....the commercial stuff is pumped full of hormones and anti-biotics. Hell, no wonder little girls these days are starting to grow tits at 10 years of age, so many McBurgers filled with growth hormones...and in the milk that goes with it too.
Girls sure didn't look that mature when I was growing up....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Exactly. When I started seeing the Reuters headlines yesterday about this study, I really wanted to give the editor a little shaking. Nutrition is not the end-all-and-be-all of health. There are MANY other factors in health. My whole life my family has tried to eat organic foods when available, and it has never been for nutritive value.
>>>but for the last 3 or so months that you were in the womb, you were floating in your own excrement.
No your not. A baby's bottom is "plugged" with a semi-solid material that doesn't come-out until the first bowel movement (after birth). So no solid poop floating around. And all liquid waste material aka urea is removed directly from the baby's bloodstream by the umbilical cord.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I don't think there is a lot of nutrition in inorganic food...
I think the biggest problem with modern produce is that it has been bred for shipping and shelf life. There are lots of fruits and vegetables that ship and store fine, but tomatoes are probably the extreme example of one that does not.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Can you tell the difference if you don't know if the food is organic or not? A lot of things go into how you perceive the taste of something, especially something subjective like how well you like it.
For example, once I was drinking with some friends, one of who was drinking an expensive beer. He wouldn't touch the cheap stuff. So, while he was out for a minute, the rest of us switched the rest of his beer with an equal amount of cheap beer that happened to look very similar. When he got back, he didn't realize what we'd done until we told him (and gave him the rest of his expensive beer, of course). The point is, he didn't perceive the difference because he didn't know about it. He expected it to be good, so it was good.
If you expect organic food to taste better, then it will taste better.
Of course, I don't expect even a blind taste test to change anyone's habits. My friend still drinks expensive beer, and if you get more pleasure out of organic food, even if it's just because your perception, then more power to you!
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
So, you know for a fact the "organic farmers" are not using the exact same genetic varieties as high yield farmers? Around here (the south east USA) ALL of the organic farmers we know are also generic "chemical" farmers, and they plant the exact same crops in both fields, they just shovel shit in one field and fertilizer in the other. In my opinion, I trust the fertilizer more than unfiltered, unsanitized manure...
Now, a "micro" farmer, that's another story... Local farmers who grow high QUALITY crops in small batches, tended by hand, and fully ripened on the vine, grown in special raised beds designed to provide consistant water and nutrient to produce significantly healtier plants; that I do support. It's obvious if you go to any of the local farmers markets (there are 3 near me) and you can see vegetables from a regular farm, an organic farm, and a "micro" farm. The "micro" crop costs about the same if not a touch more than the organic (which is twice the cost of the traditional). Both the organic and traditional look the same, although in many cases the organic will manifest fungus or other probles sooner, and do not last near as long in the fridge or basket as "chemical" crops. The "micro" crops however have much fresher looking produce, larger riper vegetibales and fruit, better color, and both look and taste far superior to the other crops. The microfarmers sell out quick.
microfarmers use fertilizers and to a limited extent some insecticides (though the nauture of the growing beds eliminates most pest problems, and thus the need for extensive chemical use). Microfarmers also have massive variety not just of common vegetables, but of heirloom varieties, exotic veggies, fabulous fresh herbs, and more. Buying thia high quality produce at the market is about 50% more expensive than buying regular grocery in the store, and about the same price as organic in stores (a bit higher than organic in the market).
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
No. ;-)
That is not true.
Mushrooms are made from horseshit
I'm referring to production costs, rather than sale price.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
Trans-fats are carcinogenic? Nope, their problems are their effects on vascular disease on diabetes. Absolutely no link between trans-fats and cancer.
My problem with organic foods is how it's viewed as so black and white - people seem to think if it's not organic it is therefore genetically modified etc., which is just not true! There should be no negative stigma associated with using 99.99% likely harmless 'chemicals' (awful word) to prevent crop-eating diseases.
Also the world's most potent carcinogen is a) organic b) caused by a fungus eating crops (preventable).
Point being technology has bring lots of improvements, so theres no reason why wouldn't it work the same way with food.
Technology makes food more profitable. More profitable food may or may not be better for you.
I've posted about this before, so just ignore if I repeat myself.
Last winter I read a book by Gary Taubes called Good Calories, Bad Calories. His reading of the research indicates that the simpler the carbohydrate is, the more it tends to trigger fat storage by causing insulin secretion. This is similar to, but not quite the same as a food's glycemic index. E.g., ice cream has much more refined carbs than its GI would suggest. Sugars, whether conjugated or not, tend to cause the "worst" response, with simple carbs like white flour just about as bad. The flour is easily broken down into sugars early in the digestive process. Carbs that require more processing, like whole-grain flour -- since it's stuck to other substances in the seed -- are "better". He makes a particular point about white flour and white rice, since both grains have had most of their protein, fat, fiber and vitamins/minerals removed in processing. This processing was initially done to make these products easier to prepare, keep longer and resist being eaten by pests (remember the "lesser of two weevils" joke?).
The book is worth a read whether you buy-into or even care about the dietary implications. It's also contains a fascinating history of food processing, diet and nutrition research.
p.s. I am not a nutritionist, and I'm only relating Taubes' book as I read and understood it. If you hate low-carb diets or dieters, it is not my fault.
I am not a crackpot.
The Slashdot summary says, "UK's FSA Finds No Health Benefits To Organic Food".
That's wrong in two ways. It was the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine that did this study: Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review.
That abstract says NOTHING about the effect of traces of poisons in conventional food. It is ONLY concerned with nutritional differences: "Objective: We sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs."
Also, the abstract says, "The analyses were restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients."
The majority of all organic food production comes from the billion dollar operations of the Albrecht brothers, owners of, among other things Trader Joe's and Aldi. They produce their organic (or bio brands) in prairie sized farms where the yields are significantly lower than their regular fifty per cent smaller prairie sized farms producing similar foods grown using more traditional farming methods. However organic foods are significantly more expensive than those from agri-business production, and the ticket price of these foods is even greater. It makes no difference to me whether someone wishes to eat organic or agri-biz products, that is their free choice, but the organic methods are sufficiently inefficient to significantly damage the net world production of food and lead to starvation in those countries unable to afford the higher prices and greater consumption of farmlands for lower yields. The use of "organic" fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides (such as pyrethrum) are also far more damaging to consumers than the rigorously tested and approved "chemicals" of the agri-business. This is one of the reasons for the increase in the incidence of food poisoning from leaf crops in the US.
This subject was covered by Brian Dunning more than two years ago, something that regular listeners to Skeptoid http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019# will be familiar with.
Since I consider it unethical to eat organic foods (unless I grow them myself), I never purchase them where I have a choice.
But don't mistake me for an axe-grinder, I am just a pragmatist. During the Chernobyl disaster,when I lived in Scotland, I did not allow my children to drink contaminated British Milk and during the Great British BSE epidemic we dined for almost a year on delicious Scottish steak which at the time supermarkets could barely give away despite the fact that it came from (agri biz!) non-dairy certified herds. When the yuppie owner of Iceland (British Frozen Foods store) declared they would no longer sell genetically modified products, I voted with my feet and bought all the (cheaper, mostly lard and sugar) GM stuff in other supermarkets since I had eaten GM all my life (sheep with shorter legs, cows with more muscle tissue and hens with higher egg production) before then I experienced no significant loss. If something or someone could create a scare over Ben & Jerry's and Peanut Butter M&M's my diet would be so much richer in delicious combinations of fat and sugar at lower prices.
Brian Dunning makes the rather obvious observation: that people who want their food produced according to positively medieval methods would be the least likely to apply the same criteria to their medical treatment - with the natural exceptions of the herbalists, homeopaths and general moon-children.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Species variation is completely different to "organic" foods.
True.
Sustainable practices like crop rotation are still not used by these "organic" farmers, they think they can still treat the land with the same contempt that chemical farmers do. It doesn't give any benefit to the consumer at all, merely ups the price and ignores the problems to start with.
I live in farm country, and you'll have to trust me on this, but even the non-organic types today spent a LOT of effort on sustainability. The amount of farmland has actually shrunk a bit in the last few decades - there's no more land to move to. The local radio station has talks about various rotation schemes, and the local public television station has whole seminars on the topic, not to mention things like more sustainable cattle growth schemes - like how to maximize hay usefullness. Saw one recently on how to manipulate cattle grazing to improve the fields.
Yield - well, that's profit. Organics can actually be worse for the environment because of increased energy usage, from manual or mechanical weeding, for example. They're already more expensive than the standard varieties. A lower yield can easily be the difference between somebody going organic or sticking with the standard stuff because the organic is just so much more expensive.
Personally, I'd say that I'd like to see more varieties, but I'm not going to demand organic. Organic, at least right now, is a fuzzy label - one person's 'organic' isn't 'organic' enough for somebody else, there's varieties. Localvores, etc...
I don't read AC A human right
I get people telling me how bad carbs are all the time because I basically live on a high-carb diet. It's mainly fat people telling me how bad all the pasta I eat is (typical single guy diet: lots of pasta with various meat or veggie sauces). Funny thing is, I'm pretty much a beanpole compare to most of those fat yo-yo dieters!
I have started to get a bit of a belly now at the grand old age of 27 (33") but I'm blaming that on all the Innis & Gunn I've been drinking since I found out about it last Christmas. Oak aged beer from Scotland that has hints of vanilla and toffee!
Nick
I'm an IT worker (thus my presence here) . . . but I'm also in the process of starting up a small organic(ish) farm. I'm not sure what 'organic' means to most people anymore so I hesitate to call it that. Sure I think my food is healthier because it's fresher, because I use carefully chosen varieties for better flavor and better health, and because I ensure that it is growing in healthy living soil teaming with good microorganisms. But my FARM is also healthier - I'm not causing cancer rates to go up by spraying vast amounts of chemicals onto your food and into your water. I'm not spraying as much manure as the land can legally handle onto the food. I'm not using huge machinery (1 20 HP tractor, another larger tractor planned in the future). We have a small sustainable farm - some livestock, some vegetables, some land producing, some land resting. We are as ethical and careful about how we treat the land (and your food) as we can possibly be. I don't need government subsidies - I sell a quality product for what the food costs to produce plus some. I'm finding that people like that, and are willing to pay for it - sometimes it's more than supermarket food, sometimes less. It we can get by without adding a chemical we do (which means almost no chemicals, since on a small farm it's just not needed - if I don't want to eat it or it's derivatives, I don't want to inject it into an animal or spray it onto vegetables). The biggest difference is sustainability - my farm doesn't need vast inputs to work, and in produces plentifully. I'll argue with anyone that this model would produce enough food for us to continue to feed the US and the world, and do it in a healthier and more sustainable fashion. The place that model falls down the most is in massive corn production, but I'd argue that corn is in too much stuff anyway (I fully expect the higgs-bosen to be a pioneer hybrid corn variety when found).
This study just showed that Organic food doesn't have significant more nutrients than non-organic.
The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.
I'll modify their quote so it makes sense:
Really? I can give you two apples that have the same nutritional value but one has cyanide in it. Are you going to trust the study that doesn't look into the affects of poison in the food?
But that's not the discussion we're having, is it? We're talking about produce, not fast food, and whether organic has any more nutritional value. All this means is that it is just as healthy to buy high-yield produce as it is to buy organic, so those who buy organic for the health benefits gain nothing.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
"Going for higher, cheaper yield is not always good" ...unless you consider 'sustaining an ever-growing population with fixed resources while holding mass starvations in check' to be good.
Furthermore, it is considered a complication of pregnancy/birth when the unborn child does poop before birth. They have to make sure none went in the lungs etc...can make the child very sick. Also, manure left on produce whether because it was from fertilizer or from roaming animals is a HUGE health risk. Cleaning food, whether organic or not is extremely important to preventing e-coli and other nastiness. Organic food has a higher incidence of "natural" food borne bacteria. But on the same token, the pesticides/etc... used on crops that aren't organically grown must also be cleaned off lest they cause other equally nasty illness.
>>>Look at the whole trans-fat thing for an example. Carcinogens added technologically as a preservative.
Not correct. Trans fat is no more dangerous than unsaturated or saturated fat, neither of which is carcinogenic (cancer-causing). The problem with trans fat is that it remains solid at room temperature. Even after it's been digested and converted to low-density "bad" cholesterol, it still keeps that property, and slowly but surely clogs your arteries.
So trans-fat causes blockages in your bloodstream, not cancer. I think of trans fat as being like "superduper-saturated" fat... i.e. the worst fat possible. Saturated fat is still pretty bad, and unsaturated fat is the best type (vegetable oils).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
how about all the freaking pesticide that is now MADE IN THE CORN KERNEL because it is genetically modified to create it! MMMMMMM poison.
But to be honest the main reason I do it is because it tastes so much better. Carrots actually test of carrot rather than crunchy water taste you get from a standard supermarket carrot.
That's nothing to do with the fact that they are organic. The reason organic food tastes better is because it is a premium product. The farmers grow more tasty varieties which have lower yields, and they do other things like reduce the time from field to market (which you can more easily do for lower volumes), sell them with stalks on etc. etc. You could get better yields from the same crop by using pesticides to reduce loss, but still do all the other things that make it a premium product. It would then taste as good as organic produce but could be made cheaper. For a long time there wasn't much of a market for this but many supermarkets are beginning have premium varieties from non-organic sources, and they taste good.
My parents have always grown their own vegetables and they use every spray under the sun to fight pests and regularly fertilise. The fact is that their produce tastes better than even the organic stuff from the supermarket, simply because it is even more of a premium product in that it is only harvested minutes before use!
No amount of selective breeding will transfer genes from one species to another.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Locally produced and organic are not mutually exclusive. Local produce, whether organic or mass produced, will almost always be cheaper and should be prefered. In the case of the produce you're refering to, the price comes more from their proximity than any 'organic' method.
So, people should be encouraged to buy local when possible, but there's not much additional benefit (particularly health-wise) from it being organic as well.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
It's a subjective matter where to draw the line between what is considered "technology" and what not.
Most of the "improved" species of food plants were created by carefull cross-breeding. This is nothing more than just selectively growing certain plants with desireable properties.
It you consider this a technology, this sets the bar for "technology" so low as to include pretty much everything influenced by man. I.e. would removing plants to allow passage through dense forests be considered "technology"?
Perhaps a bit pendantic, but the world seems to be lacking a good definition of "technology". A mormon chooses to life without modern technology, yet uses perhaps the greatest technology of all; the wheel. And how can some people be wearing clothes whilst calling themselves ludites?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Floating in your own /urine/. In the womb, you don't have any food to eat (it's all supplied through the umbilical), so no feces.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Yeah, I also realised that fast food probably relies on high yield crops too, so it is still kind of relevant either way.
which is totally what she said
Recently I was forced to live without a refrigerator. I bought a few heads of lettuce from the local supermarket; and I bought a few from the local organic farmers' market. Stored under my bed, 80 degree temperatures. Supermarket lasted one day before it was mush; local+organic, nearly a full week.
When I got up this morning, the last thing I expected to read about was someone storing lettuce under his bed. Guess I can get to work now.
I am not a crackpot.
Technology in food production isn't just for processed food, it's having a tractor to work your ground instead of a digging stick. Even organic farming uses technology, the question is which technologies to accept and which to reject. Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says.
Precisely. Something even as simple as crop rotation is a technology. As soon as humans stopped simply gathering food and turned to producing their food it became a technological activity.
Thought thinks itself.
There's a reason why we live so much longer now a days compared to middle ages and before and hell, even to beginning of 1900.
Yes, it's called "lower childhood mortality" - and it has nothing to do with food.
I think that what he means is that there are no bad carbs in the sense that while they have different effects on the body, none are harmful unless consumed in excess. Of course, your typical big mac w/fries(and all of McD's competitor's equivalents) pushes or even busts the daily requirements/limits for your typical person.
For example, sugars will tend to result in a faster rush of energy followed by a crash. No problems in eating some of that - but eat a candy bar and drink a soda and a kid might be high for 10 minutes then looking for food again - even though all of those calories haven't been consumed.
You're probably looking at 'empty' carbs, IE carbs that don't offer other significant nutrition, yet are so easy to digest that our body's hunger mechanisms don't really acknowledge them in appetite control.
I don't read AC A human right
OK, after reading comments I actually went back to read the fine article. Some points that struck me:
Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said they were disappointed with the conclusions.
"The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.
Continuing the Mellchett quote: "Without large-scale, longitudinal research it is difficult to come to far-reaching clear conclusions on this, which was acknowledged by the authors of the FSA review.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Yeah, we should totally stop putting cow shit on crops. We should also stop putting water on them. Water is what goes in toilets! We should use Brawndo, the Thirst Mutilator instead!
perhaps we can use our hard tech to allow year round micro farming in the home... talk about ultra local. If people were organized enough, they could grow enough fresh vegetables year round in their basements to sustain themselves all year. You still have problems finding apples and such, but vegetables and Tomatoes certainly could be grown in a basement operation... you can buy the proper equipment at your local indoor growing (read pot growers) supply store.
It's not good, it's impossible.
Read up on smoke stack fertilizer etc. Nice book called "deadly harvest" about it. Also look at mortality rates for smoking before and after industrial farming. Smoking cadmium... Good times.
kick the editors who compose headlines in the nuts.
What people will come away from the BBC article with is:
What the researcher says is:
[emphasis mine]
Now how are we to interpret the lack of evidence? It depends on how the evidence is gathered. This appears to be a meta study looking at data in published research. The researcher did not (nor does he claim) collect evidence himself to answer this question. Nor did the researchers who collected the data he is using attempt to answer this broad question. He tried to see if evidence collected for more specific purposes could answer the question, however the bar for disproving the null hypothesis in this situation is very high. Still, it's worth looking, because data is hard to come by. Nutrition science is shockingly underfunded for such an important field. Every time I've tried to look up abstracts on nutrition subjects, it seems there is very little data in relation to the volume of literature when compared to other fields.
It seems to me the researcher gets it just right here: the published evidence does not support the hypothesis. Since the published evidence was not collected for that purpose, that's a far cry from disproving the hypothesis. He even points out that nutrition is not the sole justification for choosing organic produce, and is careful to couch what he says to avoid implying that. But he can't win. Reporters are fanning out across the UK soliciting "man in the street" opinions of the headline writer's opinion of the research.
And this is the BBC, whose news makes American hard news look like Entertainment Tonight. I shudder to think what American "news" outlets will do with this.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'd agree, though the fat wouldn't need to be added; all McD's needs to do is ensure their ground beef has the proper fat content before cooking to meet their standards.
There will also be a bit of fat in the bun, not many breads don't have some sort of oil in them, and raised bread requires salt.
Same deal with the cheese & pickle.
I don't read AC A human right
TFA says about testing non tainted foods, well that includes foods that have used pesticides etc...so the one reason to grow organic foods to begin with, is something they have taken out of the equation...of course now their is almost no difference between the 2, it was never about the nutrients inside, more the fact about the poisons on the outside!
Arseholes!
I really look forward to a time when we will be able to arteficially alter molecules to combine them into meals, just like in Star Trek, without needing to grow anything, disassociate molecules and reassociate them in an order like a meatloaf, without all the pesticides!...
In all seriousness though, I do agree with your train of thought, the good foods are way more expensive then the bad food...but all in the name of consumerism though, as we all know how much the government thinks of us as expendable sheep!
No actually, carbohydrates can't really be classfied in such a generic way.
You can classify them by glycemic index and say that maybe someone who sits at a desk all day and in front of a TV all night doesn't have a need for any food with a high GI (ie - converted into useful energy quickly). But, an example from the bike race I just came back from watching, a Tour de France rider certainly does. So do most other athletes and anyone else who is fairly lean but active.
Fad diets tend to dumb everything down. And in order to sell themselves they have to tell you that you can eat lots of food and still lose weight. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of thermodynamics should know that is false, but aparently enough people slept through 3rd grade science that such claims can still make money. Anyway, to stave off a rant, a lot more headway could be made by getting people to understand what happens to food once they eat it than by making generic lists with headings EAT and DO NOT EAT.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Girls sure didn't look that mature when I was growing up....
I disagree with this statement. Males naturally mature at a slower rate than females. I know that to me it seemed like overnight girls suddenly had breasts. That was definitely not the case, but I just noticed them because I started caring. Just because I didn't notice them before that doesn't mean they weren't there. Being a mature male at this point you look back at younger girls and realize just how early they "bloom".
Do you Gentoo!?
It's incredible how far off a thread can get over a few posts, I started out by defending what you call traditional genetic engineering as a technology. (The poster I responded to seemed to suggest that it's not.) - For me both technologies can produce benefits.
I only wanted to argued against the benefits brought by the big agribusiness. That is all. I have no problems with genetic engineering (breeding or controlled modification). There are dangers there, as with more or less every technology, and it's not rational to deny that - but the technologies are fascinating.
Genetically modified food brought a bunch of nasty side effects, like DRM-like crops, biopiracy and other problems associated with patents on beings. I think this are serious issues, but this are not problems of the technology, but with our usage of it.
Thanks for making me clarify my position, I got derailed, during the argument. No thanks for calling me stupid.
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
"Food preservation techniques came about in about 1850 btw, but don't worry about it."
Umm... pardon me but WTF are you talking about? Sure, food preservation was in existence in 1850, as it was thousands of years before. Are you really going to suggest that food preservation hasn't improved drastically since 1850? I mean, how about that little thing called refrigeration?
"My uncles are limited in the amount of land that they can work on their farms by the size of the tractors and machinery they have."
As opposed to 100 years ago, where they would have been limited by the amount of crops that would not be infected/eaten by pests. Or by how much produce they could reasonably get to market due to lack of preservation/transportation infrastructure. These things are equally as important to the modern agricultural system as tractors and combines, they are just not as visible.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
That's an apples to oranges comparison... er....
I suspect that there won't be much or any flavor difference between organic produce and conventionally farmed produce, provided every other factor is controlled to be equal.
When you buy local produce, there are economic disadvantages due to the lower scale of production, but these can be a blessing in disguise. Start with variety. If you are going to pick a tomato in California's central valley and have that tomato in a salad in Boston, you've got to pick a variety of tomato that travels well. Ideally, you want a strain that is durable as tennis ball, even if it tastes like a tennis ball. Also, you don't want the tomato to be ripe when you pick it, otherwise every place it is handled will sprout rot. Instead you pick it green, and you gas it with ethylene, which acts as a plant hormone to cause ripening effects like color change. However the tomato is in some respects still a green tomato. It doesn't have the sugars that develop when the tomato ripens on the plant, and no doubt there are other compounds more subtle.
A local tomato can be of a variety chosen for the best taste, even if that variety travels poorly. If it is delivered straight to your house or to the farmer's market, it can be picked at peak ripeness, even if that means it will be rotting in a week or so.
The same thing goes for many other kinds of produce, like corn. The supermarket banana is a variety called the "Cavendish". It's not a bad banana, but it is said to be far from the best in taste. It is the variety that travels best. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Cavendish may become commercially extinct in the next decade, because of plant pathogens exploiting the scale of the Cavendish production. The hunt is on for a variety of bananas that is resistant to fungal diseases, and if that variety is found, it won't necessarily be the tastiest. It is possible that the era of abundant cheap bananas in temperate supermarkets will end, in which case people in tropical climates will continue to enjoy their local varieties.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What they did not look at was the effect of using herbicides and pesticides on health.
Or how about the impact of herbicides and pesticides on the land on and around the farm where the food is grown? It isn't just about the food itself; personally I think that food that isn't making the surrounding environment toxic is healthy for me and my kids too.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Organic foods has become a marketing term, the benefits of locally grown organic foods are economic in nature, not health-wise. If they lack pesticides and potentially harmful hormones then that is an added benefit. I think if you compare organic milk to diet pepsi, you will find that there are benefits; or twinkies vs organic corn. However, the molecular structure of peppers, whether they are grown in a farm, or in an indoor "artificial" environment, should not change-at least not to the point that one is healthy and the other is not. However, if you get peppers from kentucky, and you live in maine, there is a lot of added cost (which can be subsidized by the government) that creates added cost that is transparent to the consumer. Also, there are other more dubious problems of having a completely centralized food source. I still would like to know what "organic frosted mini wheats" are, and why are they 2 dollars more than the normal ones...
You take it, I don't want it...
Then either you're being robbed, or your taste buds have died. What has happened is that a lot of supermarkets have started carrying crap beef (USDA Select grade or equivalent), and some of them give it names with "prime" in it. The USDA grades are still judged by the amount of marbling, and USDA Prime has plenty of it. It also costs $15-$20+/lb for cuts used for steaks and most places don't carry it.
The placebo effect can be *very* powerful. Unless people are conducting double-blind taste tests, I'll remain highly skeptical of any perceived differences between supermarket and "organic" vegetables and produce.
You may already know this, but you wrote "I think" so I get an opening. Most tomatoes you buy in supermarkets are picked green and reddened with Ethlyene gas. That turns them bright red but doesn't change them structurally so they are still somewhat hard and transport well. They also don't develop as much fructose and taste like crap.
With beef the Angus craze gives me a laugh. Advertising has led people to think that as long as you buy Black Angus beef you are getting the best steak around. But the benefits of Angus cattle accrue mostly to the people selling the beef, since their main difference is that they put on weight faster than other breeds. The pork industry is actually worse off in this regard. Chickens and Turkeys less so on the flavor side but more so on the pump-them-full-of-chemicals-so-they-grow-fast side.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
"organic" meaning carbon-based is as much a neologism as "organic" meaning non-synthetic, so get down of your highly educated horse already.
Shamelessly stolen link from this post.
As for pollution, is dumping tons of manure over a larger area (thanks to lower densities) *really* better than chemical fertilizers? Not to mention increased odds of salmonella contamination, among other things.
That's a myth. The truth is that the organic farming methods can feed the world and then some. The University of Michigan did a meta study and found that while in developed countries organic farming produces a slightly lower yield than conventional methods, it produces almost twice as much in developing countries. (The reason for this disparity escapes me for the moment.)
From the abstract: "With the average yield ratios, we modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base."
Link: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm
Free Manning, jail Obama.
It does mean less pesticide residue though, since organic farmers have stricter standards on the application of pesticides than non-organic farmers.
Its not a fad. Its the way food has been grown for hundreds of thousands of years.
We get organic veg delivered to our door from a local farm and it last much longer due to shorter pick to delivery time scales.
I bet a regular farm grown carrot delivered from a local source would taste equally good. Having bought organic (the crunchy feely kind) and regular (the normal kind of "organic") food from the same store, I didn't see much of a difference. The key in both is the time-to-table, and fresher always tastes better than old.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If it's cheaper and has the same nutritional value, that's a good thing for everyone who can't afford (or isn't pretentious enough to want) organic foods. It is always good to drive costs down, if it means feeding those who are going hungry.
What about those that are hungry in the future? When the food supply dwindles because of mono and genetically engineered crops that are only adapted to perform under the artificial conditions of Big Agriculture? The current farming crisis in India is a good example of this. Many farmers in India traded their traditional local varieties of crops for the promised high yield of patented, engineered varieties. The trap was the farmers then had to buy seed every year and spend much more money for fertilizer, pesticide and fungicide. Hybrid seeds have no chance to adapt to the locale, and the farmers have no chance to save and improve them by selected breeding. They must fight to maintain an artificial environment for these 'improved' crops.
Since these 'technical advancments' the farmer suicide rate in India is incredible.
As geeks, we should understand concepts such as 'single point of failure' and 'redundancy'. It may take more units of energy, time and work to produce 'organic' items. At least it is a step in the right direction, even if it is being hijacked by the large companies that pervade the current commercial interests.
I'm surrounded my what you are calling micro-farmers. They can't possibly compete with large scale farms on price, so they differentiate on flavor and seem to be having success with that.
Some organic product will actually last longer than their alternatives. Milk is one but the reason has less to do with the way it is produced than with they way it is handled after (Pasteurization versus UHT). The big longevity advantages usually come from the fact that micro-farms serve a smaller area and thus their products don't spend as much time in transit to the customer. If a tomato is properly ripened in California on the same day as one in Story, Indiana, the one from Story is going to last longer in my kitchen because I'm going to get it sooner.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Hate to break it to but the whole "Population Bomb" has been proven wrong. All the predictions that Ehrlich made never happened or the opposite happened. Look at the various bets made by Paul Ehrlich vs Julian Lincoln Simon. Ehrlich lost each and everyone. According to Ehrlich, the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 years by 1980 because of pesticide usage, and the nation's population would drop to 22.6 million by 1999("Eco-Catastrophe!". Ramparts. Sept 1969. pages 24â"28). He was not a little off, but completely wrong. Yet for some reason people still look to his work as pinnacle. I do not understand that. When you make predictions and say your data backs it up and you are wrong, then you are wrong. Move on, but people want to hold onto it for some reason. I could only guess that it is politically motivated instead of scientifically motivated. Please stop propping up bad science.
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
1 (the small reason) - My wife, son, and I like the taste better. Significantly. Additionally, since it does go bad faster (for us), we're forced to buy an approrpriate amount of fruit/vegetables, and we don't go through the "toss out those 6 tomatoes we bought and then decided not to have a salad that week" syndrome. I go to the store more frequently and buy less, which works for our situation, maybe not yours.
2 (the HUGE reason) - Pesticides. Not so much for my wife and I, but for my son. He has a condition which does not allow him to process toxins normally, and they seep through his stomach lining and pass through the blood-brain barrier. All kinds of scary stuff shows up on his tests, and something (I don't know if it's this or something else, the doctors don't either unfortunately) is severely impacting his speech development.
Now, I don't know whether toxins or pesticides are directly causing any of that, but I do know that the levels of pesticides, heavy metals, and other fun chemicals are off the chart in his lab tests. They are at normal levels for both my wife and I. Since we have switched to organic, they have been slowly coming down. This may be causal, this may be correlational, but you know what - I don't care. If it helps my son, I'll do it.
If you want to eat organic, by all means do so. The main change I found in friends who wanted to eat organic (more anecdotes) is that they eat more fruit and vegetables than they used to. So maybe that's their health benefit - not that these fruits/vegetables are healthier, but that they've made a healthier choice in general.
I hate to break it to you, but for the last 3 or so months that you were in the womb, you were floating in your own excrement
Excrement is foul only because of the levels of bacteria and microbes growing in it. Same with urine. AFAIK, the womb is essentially sterile, and the fetus' stomach hasn't been seeded with e-coli. So your statement is really quite misleading. It's not excrement as we think of it, but rather, recycled amniotic fluid, and a few cells from an unformed, unused intestine. Finally, it's also a very small amount.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Organic means that shit loads of chemicals that damage soil, groundwater supply, and cause dead zones hundreds of square miles in size in the Gulf of Mexico are not used. This is a good idea, because it takes into account the fact that you probably want to eat in ten years as well as today, and you'll need soil that supports vegetable life in order to do so.
Organic means you don't stuff a cow full of antibiotics that cause it to be ill, infecting it's milk production with blood and puss, just so Monsanto can sell a product that's completely worthless to everyone but Monsanto.
I buy organic for the same reason I buy everything consciously, because I like going to sleep at night knowing that I have done my best not to contribute to this. That's why I don't eat at Chik-Fil-A, because the founder is a huge contributor to a hate-filled religious university in Rome, Georgia, as well as someone who buys chickens that are crammed together in their own shit for 6 weeks until they're boiled alive. It's called being an informed consumer. It's how the market is supposed to work.
You can be a cynical little bitch all you like. That doesn't change the fact that you're stupid for believing that organic lobbies have more evil designs than any other lobbyists in DC. And I'll bet dollars to donuts that people who buy organic are far more knowledgeable about food as a whole than people who eat Twinkies and regularly drive through McDonalds.
I had always assumed that was the case. There has never been any evidence I have seen to believe that "organic" production produced far better food. Certainly some of the things that major food producers do with the "non-organic" foods do decrease overall quality, and that simply by avoiding these, organic foods are better... but better from a flavor and aesthetic perspective, its still the same basic fruits and vegetables.
Thats why meat is the only thing I buy from a "local organic" farm. It has nothing to do with thinking the food is better, even the whole growth hormone myth is relatively well debunked in terms of human effect. However, they are free range, and they treat their animals better. Local farm helps the local economy, overall, I would love to see more of it.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I hate to break it to you, but for the last 3 or so months that you were in the womb, you were floating in your own excrement.
You do not float around in your own excrement for 3 months.
Your first deuce comes after birth in most cases. It's called meconium.
If meconium is excreted in utero it can be dangerous as the baby may aspirate the meconium which can lead to serious complications. This is a big reason we suction the airways of babies immediately, before their first breath.
http://usda-fda.com/Articles/Organic.htm
What Does the "Organic" Label Really Mean?
Consumers no longer have to play a guessing game when it comes to organic foods. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) now has national standards for the use of the word âoeorganic.â
Yeah.
And the fact that industrial farming destroys land and consumes hydrocarbons at an alarming rate. It is destructive to biodiversity - defining itself in producing exclusive monocultures.
Michael Pollan's work is considered, even toned, and alarming. on these points, and others. I'd go after both The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food.
"For more than a century now, scientists have known that whenever a people take up Western habits of eating, the so-called Western diseases follow. The best-known examples include obesity, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, stroke, and cancer, but the list also includes appendicitis, diverticulitis, tooth decay, varicose veins, ulcers, and hemorrhoids. All of these diseases are extremely rare in populations that still eat as their ancestors did for centuries."
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
What an awesome straw-man this is. Unbelievable. "If you only study the areas where organic and conventional foods are the same, then we find no difference between the two." Really? I would never have guessed.
We're obviously talking about two different things. I never said that life expectancy would drop due to use of pesticides. Pesticides and fertilizers are bad for the environment and run off (which is especially common around my parts) ruins ecosystems in lakes and rivers. That's why we should be farming organic...it's for the environment more than us. This goes hand in hand with sustainability. I'm much more concerned about the environment than I am about us. Our footprint on the environment runs much larger than the regions we occupy.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
My oh my. You certainly are ignorant. You do realize that the purpose of pesticides and antibiotics is to be poisons right? The hope is that they're poisonous enough to kill harmful bacteria/pests, but not bad enough to kill you. The issue is, once put in the environment, it's kinda hard to get back out. So the pesticides wash into the water, killing off species (many of which are important to the food chain, which includes us), and generally causing havoc.
Antibiotics, on the other hand, are not good for the human body. Strong antibiotics are rough on the human body, ask anyone who has had to take antibiotics to fight off a super bug. So, they constantly treat cows with antibiotics when they're not sick (which contributes to bacteria being resistant to antibiotics), which wreaks even more havoc.
The general point is, shouldn't you understand what's going into you? Processed stuff clearly is not good for you. Trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, etc. Just take a look at Americans. We consume easily the most processed food of any nation (the vast majority of the fruits and vegetables that Americans consume that 's "FDA Approved" is french fries and ketchup), and we also have the worst obesity problem of any nation.
Food preservation techniques came about in about 1850 btw, but don't worry about it.
Throughout human history, we've been working on food preservation techniques - methods to maintain the viability of our food supplies during periods of reduced availability.
You are roughly correct if you are only considering Pasteurization (18th century), industrial canning (late 18th and early 19th century), quick freezing (20th century).
These techniques do not cover the entirety of food preservation techniques. Not even close. For instance preserved cabbage such as sauerkraut in its various likely date back to prehistoric times, and was first described by Pliny the Elder in the first century AD.
Cheese, wonderful cheese, predates recorded human history. It's a fantastic way to preserve milk products. It is packed with calories and is highly portable. According to Pliny the Elder, it was a widespread enterprise in the Roman Empire.
There are many other examples of foods that predate your 1850 date, some predating recorded human history. Examples include smoked meats, lye cured fish (Lutefisk), aspics and jellies, and even simply cellaring or burying.
Of course there's also beer.
I should remember I dun know nuthing about that that there food production like you edumacated city slickers do.
You might know something about industrial agriculture, but you need to get more 'edumaction' on food and history. Your grandmother would be embarrassed.
it's an amazing level of difference in some cases. You can absolutely tell the difference if it were a blind test. I understand skepticism on the matter, but I would ask for a little slack in that I am not exagerrating at least in the case of the carrots I have sampled.
I have had organic carrots that taste like other carrots too: large scale prepackaged ones, typically. Maybe it's a freshness issue.
Everything else you list gives insignificant increases in output by comparison.
Guess again.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Seems obvious, right? You might wish to check out Skeptoid episode 162 before you conclude that.
I have had organic carrots that taste like other carrots too: large scale prepackaged ones, typically. Maybe it's a freshness issue.
And now you get to the rub. In all probability, it's exactly that. The problem with supermarket carrots is that they probably haven't been picked and packed when the carrot is perfectly ripe. Then, it sits in a container, and ultimately the store shelf, for quite some time before hitting your table. Big surprise that that carrot doesn't taste as good as a carrot that was grown and picked locally.
So what you claim is an advantage of organic produce is, in fact, an advantage of locally grown produce, a completely orthogonal topic.
Interesting. I wonder what a six month old foetus eats?
Baby corn and miniature Vienna Sausages.
Oh, and Bloodfarts.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
It is destructive to biodiversity - defining itself in producing exclusive monocultures.
What's wrong with wanting to eat the best-tasting strawberries? "Biodiversity" isn't some universal ethical goal to strive for.
Not all carbs are bad, and you need them to process other nutrients. Complex carbs like sweet potatoes, whole grain rice/pasta, and oats are good. The should be consumed with a portion of lean meat (protein), and veggies/fruit. Although healthier than most, you are still what they call "skinny fat" and I wouldn't be bragging. Eating pasta meals out of a box every night is probably not the best diet.
The evidence suggests (try http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=faq&dbid=37#disctopics) that it is healthier to consume 'organic' over conventional. As has already been commented, toxic contaminants via agricultural chemicals are measurably damaging to our health. In addition, it appears that 'organic' produce has different levels of micro nutrients that were not part of the UK study. Flavonoids, polyphenols, etc., are becoming increasingly in the spotlight for the health supportive role they play.
I realize that some people always sit down to use the toilet, but I realized immediately that he wasn't referring to poop.
Changa hates change.
Oof. Talk about shitting yourself to death.
English needs a new word for chemicals, one that doesn't fill weenies with baseless fear.
I don't have the references currently available, but several studies have shown that with about 50% of crops "organically" grown crops have more harmful toxins than those that use modern pesticides. Certain crops are subject to insect pests that leave behind toxins inside the food as opposed to on the outside (the way pesticides are applied).
Additionally, the crop yield per acre of organically grown food is significantly less than using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
Several people have combined the idea of buying "organically" grown food with locally grown food. One of the reasons this happens is that in areas where IT jobs are plentiful, land prices (and real estate taxes) are high enough that the only way one can make money from growing crops is by being able to charge the premium price that people will pay for "organically" grown crops.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
As always, there are pros and cons for each of them.
What is important but often overlooked, I think, is that for 'organic' food (i.e. food grown the traditional way), the long-term effects on humans are pretty well known (in case of agriculture, more than 10.000 years of case history), whereas for the 'tech'-grown food (in particular GM food and food treated with pesticides) the data is only just coming in, comparatively speaking.
The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
they also glossed over the fact that organic foods generally taste better. like loads better.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
Please do me, and everyone else here, a favor and shut up unless you actually know what the hell you are talking about. I don't chime in on the discussions of different programing languages because I'd be completely out of my depth. You Obviously are out of your depth, along with most other /.ers, and should refrain from posting in these discussions unless it is to ask a question, because that is all you are educationally qualified to do.
Contrary to popular belief, Organic food does use pesticides and fertilizers. They are just limited in which ones they are allowed to use. The pesticides are of older categories, derived from other plants, hence being acceptable as "organic". However, they are not as effective as the newer ones (which is why we use the newer ones in the first place) and in order to work effectively require much higher application rates (lbs/acre) and more frequent applications (10-12 times/season instead of 3-6).
Even with the use of these "Organic" pesticides and fertlizers, they cannot produce the same number of bushels/acre. That means that they need to use more acres to grow the same amount of corn or soy. Never mind all of the diesel fuel consumed by running the tractor over more land more frequently in a given season.
When it comes to animal agriculture it's even worse. Chickens have a Huge dietary requirement for the amino acid Methionine, but grains are poor sources of Methionine. In order to meet the requirement without doubling the number of days to market (from 7 to 14 weeks) all conventional, as well as all "Organic" broiler chicken diets contain a source of synthetic Methionine activity. All regulations governing organic animal production allow for a Methionine Exception.
Without these exceptions, producers would be forced to either double days to market or achieve adequate Methionine levels by dramatically over feeding crude protein (~30% vs. the normal of ~20%). The excess amino acids that make up the Crude Protein would be catabolized and stored as fat, with their associated Nitrogen groups excreted as waste. Excess waste Nitrogen is a Huge environmental issue because Nitrogen is usually the rate limiting nutrient in saltwater environments. Excess Nitrogen from fields and composting poultry litter can end up getting into local water and causing Eutrophication.
Alternatively in "Modern" broiler chicken diets you can actually feed diets containing as little as 12% Crude Protien, with extensive use of synthetic amino acids. This results in identical or occationally superior performance on the part of the growing birds, and Dramatically Reduced levels of Nitrogen in the animals waste. This also saves money for the producer, limits the potential for negative environmental impact, and is practically required if you are going to stay on the right side of environmental regulations here in the US.
There is nothing "Environmentall Friendly" about Organic food. Organic food and Sustainability are actually antithetical to each other. I would say that buying organic food is financial masterbation, except that's not fair to masterbation. They both make you feel good, but only Organic food is actually bad for the environment.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Spot on. I've never been under any impression that (properly-prepared) organic food is healthier than non-organic, but by buying organic, you're supporting a sustainable practice that doesn't contribute to water table pollution, among other things.
If organics aren't in someone's budget, fine, but if you can spring for them, it's a good way to promote sustainable practices, and is a lot more direct than nebulous "carbon offsets."
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Technology in ALL AREAS of food production has made our society what it is today. Ignoring that fact just makes you look like a moron.
Ah, but it's fashionable to bemoan the things that make our standard of living possible, such as technology, the market economy (what's left of it), and personal responsibility.
As satisfying as it might be to watch the ignorant bastards freeze in the dark, the fact is that the factors I mentioned above benefit society as a whole, whether any individual deserves those benefits or not.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"For more than a century now, scientists have known that whenever a people take up Western habits of eating, the so-called Western diseases follow. The best-known examples include obesity, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, stroke, and cancer, but the list also includes appendicitis, diverticulitis, tooth decay, varicose veins, ulcers, and hemorrhoids. All of these diseases are extremely rare in populations that still eat as their ancestors did for centuries."
Probably because they are dying too early of other things like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, measles, tetanus, and respiratory infections to live long enough to get the above mentioned "decadence diseases". In some countries, being obese would be the ultimate status symbol. I would say that is more a reflection of medical standards and technology than eating habits in some cases.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Not many people get sick eating poison-sprayed foods. Think about how many millions of people in the US eat processed food. We're talking several hundred million people, yet the danger footprint is so small. That's almost better than a study.
Yup. Not only did my daughter struggle to take her first breath, but her hair was "henna'd" poop-colour.
(She's was absolutely fine after they vacuumed out the gunk. And she went blonde after a few washes. But, YE GODS, I will never forget the smell of placenta blood, birth fluid and baby poop. I thought soil sterilisation smelt bad, it has NOTHING on that. Ho hum. Twins due next month!)
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
I'll grant you that pumping your food full of hormones is a bad thing, but I fail to understand why everyone always brings up the antibiotics as well. Wouldn't you rather eat a healthy cow instead of a sick cow? What am I missing that makes antibiotics bad in livestock?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
True, but I was talking about the net. We export more food than anyone else, vastly more than we import.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Shamelessly stolen link
"locally produced" != "organic"
As for pollution, is dumping tons of manure over a larger area (thanks to lower densities) *really* better than chemical fertilizers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FertilizerYes; besides, organic fertilizer can also be dead plants.(we're also ignoring how much oil we have left ...)
salmonella: clean your food.
and what about the Poisons?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
I challenge you to find cheaper food than the organic produce grown within a few miles of my home.
Local produce, whether organic or mass produced, will almost always be cheaper
Local foods are great, but in my neck of the woods the local, organic veggies are almost always more expensive.
Living in New England, there's nearly no produce for several months out of the year. The small amount that is grown is always more expensive than produce shipped in from points South. During the growing season we can get some beautiful, tasty lettuces, tomatoes, chard, herbs, and so forth, but I believe that even in my local Coop the local, organic prices are more expensive than the shipped-in produce. During the summer there will be weeks when all of the lettuce comes from local farms, but even then it's not all organic.
One of the local produce distributors has an "outlet" store where you can buy all kinds of things. There are a number of local products there, including milk from a nearby dairy in glass bottles, but most of the produce comes from out of state. I mean, who can beat lettuce at $1/ large head? (and we're talking red and green leaf lettuce, not just romaine or iceberg)
One of the reasons I believe that organic food costs more is that a farm has to get certified before they can legally use the term "organic". Because getting certified costs a chunk of change, the system is comically beneficial to large factory farms as it's cheaper per ton of produce for them to get certified than any little, local farm in your area.
Farmer's markets are nice, but I can't remember the last time I found produce at one for less than the local Coop or supermarket. Give the taste and the fact it's locally grown I'd definitely pay at least the same amount, but it's difficult to even find price parity.
From what I've heard, the best boost that could be given to local foods would be to reduce fuel subsidies. That way, the true cost of shipping fruits and veggies up to New England would be reflected in the sticker price.
coding is life
If they lack pesticides and potentially harmful hormones then that is an added benefit.
Contrary to popular belief, there are no pesticide residues in plants. All produce is washed before being sold or used to manufacture food products. It's a USDA legal requirement becuase of the potential for people to have averse reactions to the pesticides, and those found transgressing will face heavy fines, and agriculture is NOT a high margin industry.
The reason that "Organic" anything costs more money is the inefficiencies imposed by the regulations governing what can legally be marketed as "Organic". They basically throw out a lot of our technological advancements because of a "Feeling" despite plenty of emperical evidence that our "Feeling" is "Wrong". Then there is the documentation required to prove that at every step of the way, production was in line with regulations. That's why many things that are inherently "organic" went up in price. The extra time and energy required for documentation and verification costs money, and that extra cost is passed on to the consumer.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
You're confusing improvements in mechanization and understanding of chemistry with cost cutting engineered chemical additives to food whose long term effects are unknown.
How could you claim that I'm confusing these, when I didn't mention them in my question?
history has shown corporate power is abused often.
To be precise, what history shows is that government power is routinely abused, and that in the last couple of centuries, it's often been corporations that were pulling the government's strings.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
[...] if you die of smallpox,
I got my smallpox vaccination a week ago. It's gross and I hate it.
Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says.
People trusting their gut instincts over scientific evidence. Welcome to the 16th century
Did you consider the possibility that I had spent years in agriculture, both conventional and organic, and trust the certain knowledge of my own experience over the assertions of a group of people I neither know nor trust?
I know poisons are sprayed on foods above recommended concentrations. I know crops are picked within the withholding period of chemicals they are sprayed with. I know they reach the market within those withholding periods in certain circumstances. I don't think it, I don't suspect it, I know it, I have seen it happen. I've seen workers with skin cancers all over areas that have been exposed to agricultural chemicals, even skin that doesn't see much sun. That doesn't provide you with an easy snide comment though, does it.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Dedicated Monsanto geneticists, working for the good of humanity and a badly-written space filler in the newspapers, have produced a fabulous array of valuable new cash crops with 100% all-natural artificial flavors that developing countries can grow to pay the interest on their ludicrous debts to the International Monetary Fund.
"Bananas that taste like banana flavoring!" said Cylon Number Six of Monsanto Public Relations. "Strawberries that taste like strawberry flavoring! Brewed coffee that tastes like instant! I was really disappointed the time I ate a strawberry as a kid, it didn't taste anything like strawberry flavor. Now your kids will never have to suffer the same way."
The wholly natural artificial flavoring builds on examples from nature: bacon with the magical taste of bacon, Quorn with the magical taste of Quorn and Budweiser with the magical taste of urine. The latter example also produces urine with the magical taste of Budweiser.
Some flavors for specialist niches were not a success. "Ice cream that tastes like vanilla dental dams turned out too gritty for the lesbian market, probably because no-one actually uses them." Authentic(tm) ManJuice(tm) chewing gum for the gay market was considered too "outre" at this time, as no-one could actually bring themselves to use the word "tasteless."
The company looks forward to continuing to feed the world at very reasonable rates on heavily patented non-breeding seed. "Without us, the poor would starve. Starve, you hear? Naturally grown Big Macs with the magical taste of a New Jersey chemical vat will save the world. Anyone who hates Monsanto hates humanity and probably turns tortoises upside-down in the desert," said Six, nibbling on a Red Dye No. 1 fruit fresh off the vine. "We do what we must because we can."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
"locally produced" != "organic"
Doh, you're absolutely right, my mistake (ironic, too, since I've been taking others to task for conflating the two). Here, try this one. To quote:
More acreage == less efficient.
and what about the Poisons?
Uhh... to quote a sage I read once: "clean your food". Ignoring the fact that I have yet to see a citation that actually links disease to pesticide contamination, something you'd think would be relatively easy given how hot a topic that must be.
30% of the world would be dead in 2 weeks.
Plus the risk of food disease and personal health safety are far higher with organic foods. Look at the type of farming the last 3 major food health issues stemmed from: organic or 'natural' farming.
Most Organic farms are run by the same companies that run farms that aren't Organic. You can charge more for Organic, produce lower quality produce and make idiots think there helping the enviroment.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You might want to use a different fruit in your example, as apples contain cyanide naturally.
The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
hh... to quote a sage I read once: "clean your food"
you quite happily ignore the fact that those poisons CAN'T be broken down by nature, and ergo : acummulate in nature and our bodies. how long can we afford THAT ? also see, for example : http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/effects.html
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
they had all these heirloom varieties raised by people (not corporations)
Right, because there are no people that incorporate their farm business, or work for farmers who have incorporated their business. Incorporated businesses are Teh Evil!
So, when a husband and wife farming couple raise tomatoes you like, that's good. And when the same husband and wife hire a local teenager to help them pull weeds and water the plants, that's probably still OK with you, right? How about when the same husband and wife buy some insurance, just in case some kid wanders onto their property and lobotomizes himself on a wooden stake in their tomatoe patch? Is it evil to have insurance? No? How about when the husband and wife are told that unless they incorporate, they stand the real risk of that kid's parents suing them personally into oblivion, taking their house, and leaving them destitute, even if the kid who hurt himself on their property was trespassing?
So, they incorporate, to separate the farming activities from their personal household finances. Now they're paying corporate taxes, having to pay for separate bank accounts, legal and accounting services, etc. They (the same two people) are now Corporate Farmers. Man, that is really evil, isn't it? Those bastards. I'm sure their produce sucks, now.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
and what about the Poisons?
Oh, and by the way, in that article I cited, he tackles the pesticide myth. My favorite quote is this:
Yup... *way* better than traditional farming techniques. :rollseyes:
Your short response is so pregnant with errors of thought, that I wonder if it were not meant merely to goad.
Let us suppose that your monoculture becomes the opportune host for a parasite, and eliminates 80% of all strawberries on earth - as there are no other lines to introduce for survival. This has already happened once, to the Banana. The chalky item eaten today, a "Cavendish" is very different from the fruit of my early childhood. That's because those "Big Mike" variety went extinct in the '60's from Panama disease. The replacement was discovered in Asia after many years - and was transplanted in Central America. Trust me, youngster: it's a poor replacement.
Your proposition says the particular choices that we are making at this point in economic, climatic and political history are near-perfect, and without genetic diversity, will serve nearly all circumstances into perpetuity. Not bloody likely.
You also assume that lines are chosen for their "tastiness". This is almost NEVER the case! They are chosen for pest/pesticide hardiness, storage and shipping convenience - and... their suitability to industrial-scale monoculture methods!
For my point, try eating an heirloom apple sometime. Do so, while also sampling that tasteless Fuji from you favorite grocers.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Organic foods can be grown using pesticides, but they must be organic pesticides only. What does this mean? Not a lot, as many organic pesticides are just as harmful as synthetics (or worse). Many so called "natural" pesticides haven't been tested thoroughly either, so long term exposure is not known.
...
e.g.: Rotenone: An effective organic pesticide and breaks down quickly, but is toxic to humans. Has possibly been linked to Parkinson's. Nicotine is natural but extremely toxic.
Just because something is organic or natural doesn't mean it's not deadly. Do a search, plenty of scientific papers detailing these results. FWIW many organic farmers try not to use pesticides
you quite happily ignore the fact that those poisons CAN'T be broken down by nature, and ergo
ROFL. You rail against pesticides, then cite DDT, a pesticide that's been banned in the western world specifically because it isn't biodegradable? Please.
Read that whole article. Modern pesticides are biodegradable. Meanwhile, organic farms require up to 7 times *more* "organic" pesticides to do the job, which means *more* toxic chemicals sprayed on your food and into the soil.
any other sources maybe ? ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming
let me say this : organic farming is NOT simply throwing other kinds of poison on our food
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Organic foods can be grown using pesticides, but they must be organic pesticides only. What does this mean? Not a lot, as many organic pesticides are just as harmful as synthetics (or worse). Many so called "natural" pesticides haven't been tested thoroughly either, so long term exposure is not known.
The antibiotics is a great reason for eating organic. The reason your food tastes better might be because it's a local farm, so they're picked fresh and ripe instead of food hauled across the world, ripening during the trip.
"I have a friend who lives near several farms. He and his wife are both dying of cancer. The health department checked their well water and found it with high levels of farm pesticides. THAT is the cost of conventional farming in addition to the pesticide residue that you consume each time you eat conventionally grown produce."
My guess is they live near large, improperly drained livestock farms. Pesticides and herbicides will runoff into waterways, not in to wells. My entire family farms, everyone in my area farms, everyone in my area uses wells for water. Out of my ~20 immediate family, only one had cancer, and that was my grandmother with breast cancer. I could pull the rates, but I would about guarantee you our cancer rates are average.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
Modern pesticides are biodegradable.
YOUR SOURCE ? another than http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/good_wood/tox_herb.htmmonsanto please ...
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
omg chemicals are teh evilz
I'm sure the overwhelming quantity of available information on the dangers of chemical additives and pesticides in food has been planted only recently by the organic food lobbyists to sway the opinion of us ignorant plebes (kind of like how God put fossils in the Earth to trick people into believing that the Earth was more than 5000 years old). So good of you to point this out.
The higher price of organic food must also be a direct result of the organic food lobby. It certainly couldn't have anything to do with the true cost of pesticide-free food grown sustainably (which is what the fuck "organic" is supposed to mean, fyi). There is no way food grown in this manner could simply cost more to produce than pesticide-laden food grown in a manner that is environmentally destructive. Thanks for speaking truth to power.
Wow, nice post. I was very wrong. Thanks for the great reply!
organic farming is NOT simply throwing other kinds of poison on our food
That's a lie, whether you realize it or not. Citation, from the very Wikipedia article you provided. Note, the pesticides listed are precisely the ones described in that article I provided.
Let's get together in 10,000 years then and make a decision :)
Perhaps we COULD know the affects of organic foods because of the 10,000 year span of agricultural use, and we can at least surmise that it hasn't lead to widespread death, yet. However, that's really only anecdotal and to assume organic food hasn't had a negative (or positive) ultra longterm impact on human civilization is just as bad as assuming pesticide/genetically engineered food may have negative or positive impacts 10,000 years from now.
My guess would be:
a) Placebo affect / just your imagination / bias
b) freezing
c) preservatives
I go by the USDA grading system...not that market talk of "angus" this or that.
I recently bought a whole USDA Prime grade boneless rib roast and cut my own steaks from it. Yes, it was good...yes it was better than the choice or (ugh) select stuff.
But todays Prime grade beef, does not have NEAR the same marbling that Prime grade beef had say in the 60's and 70's.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You take me wrongly, I'm quite in favor of the small guy, incorporating, to take advantage of tax laws, etc. I myself am incorporated.
I was speaking in terms of the huge conglomerate corporate farms that somehow still gets subsidies from the US govt.
I was hoping that most people got my intent when reading my post.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
so, they will have to be replaced by something better, plain and simple. organic farming is something that's still in it's infancy, but it is certainly better than regular, industrial farming.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Well, one reason is that overuse of anti-biotics in ANY animal (humans too) is a bad thing.
This is one reason we are starting to see more and more anti-biotic resistant strains of 'bugs' out there. Over use selects for the resistant strains, which them proliferate and cause a lot of problems for us.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
YOUR SOURCE ? another than http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/good_wood/tox_herb.htmmonsanto please ...
Very well:
Citation showing that Glyphosate breaks down. It may take a while, but it does *not* bioaccumulate. It also breaks down in water fairly rapidly.
Meanwhile, Atrazine is already banned in the EU and there are calls to ban it elsewhere, so that's a non-issue, IMHO.
In fact, of your cited source, Picloram is the only one that looks nasty for the environment. That said, there's little evidence it's harmful to humans. But I will concede your point on that particular chemical.
I don't have the references currently available, but several studies have shown that with about 50% of crops "organically" grown crops have more harmful toxins than those that use modern pesticides.
I'd be interested to see those studies and who did them. If the tested crops were grown for the study, I wouldn't consider it valid because I know chemicals are applied over recommended concentration, too often and too close to harvest by some farmers.
Certain crops are subject to insect pests that leave behind toxins inside the food as opposed to on the outside (the way pesticides are applied).
It is quite common for agricultural chemicals to be systemic. They are applied on the outside but are absorbed into the plant. Glyphosate is a good example, but there are plenty of others. You don't want to use glyphosate around pineapples, you'll get it in the fruit.
Additionally, the crop yield per acre of organically grown food is significantly less than using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
That is conditional. Intensive farming can produce very high yields organically, conventional broadacre farming can cause soil degradation that makes continued high yields impossible. Set up a garden well and you can whip the pants of industrial farming in yield/acre, you'll never come close to matching overall output though.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
organic farming is something that's still in it's infancy, but it is certainly better than regular, industrial farming.
Wait... what? You admit, then, that organic farming uses dangerous chemicals. And they use more of them, too. But it's "certainly better than regular, industrial farming"? Something tells me you're experiencing a little cognitive dissonance.
The point isn't that organic foods have "magical health properties" - it's to avoid the additives and anything unnatural in industrially produced foods.
They have it backwards - it's almost like the following scenario: You have four bowls of soup, three of which are poisoned - four people sit down and eat the soup, and three of them die. We don't say "Gee, one of those soups had magical health benefits, that's why this guy lived," we say "three of those soups had poison."
I am not saying that non-organics are all bad, or anything - I personally like organic stuff because it generally tastes better, but if you're going to study this, study the food which aren't organic - in all of their various forms.
That's the thing too - it is very difficult to accurately study this sort of thing - a single study isn't necessarily going to show results unless it has all sorts of foods, some that are GM, some where different pesticide techniques are used, some where hormones are used etc - and it might not be that this stuff is even that harmful in occasional doses - but over a lifetime this stuff may have determental effects - and unless you are studying a large segment of people, monitoring everything they eat and comparing them to a control group made up of their twins who are eating organic versions of th same foods - how are you going to have truly reliable results?
GM food has been shown to have negative impact on the environment where it's grown and it's effect on our health would best be described as "disputable", since the GM companies are actively lobbying the government for exclusive access to our kids food supply.
Sheer nonsense. First off, most of the food you eat has been genetically modified. It's just that silly buggers who don't know anything tend to get more upset about those eeeevil scientists in their crazy white coats than they do about farmer bob and his descendants selectively breeding plants for their own purposes. Anyone who eats seedless fruit while complaining about "GM food" is a fucking idiot.
Genetic modification is not the same as selective breeding. Do you honestly think that shooting fish DNA into a tomato to give it (hopefully) better resistance to cold is the same thing as saving seeds from a tomato plant that was least damaged by an early frost?
The risks involved with selective breeding are small to non-existant. It was going on before humans dreamed of dabbling in agriculture. Poor adaptations died and were removed from the gene pool.
GM plants are completely unseen before combinations of disparate species. Their effect on similar species and on humans when ingested are untested. But hey, let's just let 'em loose on the world and you know, see what happens.
file:
I'd rather have that every once in awhile, that 100% lean and flavorless every day.
Buffalo and ostrich are both ~98% lean naturally, and fucking delicious imo though that may just be compared to the high-density chemical-soup raised beef steak sitting next to them, not the steaks of yore you're talking about.
The enemies of Democracy are
You mention organic milk, so very quickly:
My g-friend and I get organic milk now. We've looked into it and it seems that most milk these days, since it is ultra-pasteurized, has protein that has been broken down to the point of being somewhat useless to the body. I would say there *is* a different in nutrients between industrial and organic, low-temperature-pasteurized milk.
-
uses dangerous chemicals.
Yes.
And they use more of them, too
No, they are trying to limit the use ... (or they should, at least)
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
And you are kind. I hope I was not too testy or abrasive.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Biologists most often define "biological diversity" or "biodiversity" as the "totality of genes, species, and ecosystems of a region".
When you artificially kill off organisms you reduce the diversity of a region. The problem is, when an event occurs in the region the region isn't as tolerant to the change anymore. Example, if there is 10 organisms in a region and one of the organisms kills off the other 9, a single disease can wipe out the last one. Diversity, is the spice of life, diversity is what allows the human race and all living things to survive. Without diversity, we will die as a species, not may, WILL.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
Right, because there are no people that incorporate their farm business, or work for farmers who have incorporated their business. Incorporated businesses are Teh Evil!
Oh come on. You know what he meant. Large Corporations, the multinationals and large scale farm operations. The statement was clearly regarding size and power, not a particular type of tax arrangement.
The enemies of Democracy are
We could easily feed the world if the industrial nations wouldn't insist on their daily hamburgers and steaks.
If some jackass in India or China can take my job by bidding below me, they can starve. At least while I'm unemployed I can hit the dollar menu and enjoy a tasty hamburger because we Americans have enough land to feed ourselves. If they can't overseas, well, its not my problem. They take my job, I take their food. Screw them.
This is my sig.
Actually the main reason is that supermarket carrots are grown for size, appearance and shelf life. A big, straight, bright-orange carrot won't taste the same as a small wonky one as it's been grown specifically take on as much water as possible so it grows quickly, but hasn't actually developed any more sugars or anything that gives flavour.
Because antibiotics are given constantly, regardless of whether the animal is sick or not. Which is an excellent way of making the antibiotic in question useless due to immunization of the bacteria.
Not many people get sick eating poison-sprayed foods. Think about how many millions of people in the US eat processed food. We're talking several hundred million people, yet the danger footprint is so small. That's almost better than a study.
How many get cancer now? I've heard 1/3 will get it in their lifetime, this article concurs (I didn't read the whole thing, just the first couple of paragraphs http://www.physorg.com/news151840958.html I know, I know correlation is not causation but something is going wrong. Surely our food is an obvious (though possibly wrong) place to look.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Contrary to popular belief, there are no pesticide residues in plants. All produce is washed before being sold or used to manufacture food products.
And if the plant absorbs any pesticides through the roots and/or leaves then that just washes off does it?
Listen to my latest album here
I got what you meant, and I think most people did. ScentCone was either picking nits or trolling. Maybe a little bit of both.
The answer is clearly not obvious.
The answer is oil.
Machinery without energy is scrap metal. Food production correlates directly with energy production. What we are doing these days is converting oil into food. You can only produce as much food as the horsepower you have available lets you.
Deleted
Ya I garden, in my opinion the most shocking difference is the difference between tomatoes in restaurants and those I pick from my garden...winters are long. I do feel sorry for people who don't go to farmers markets and don't garden as they have not tasted real fruit and veggies...
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
It would be better if we were not so wasteful - approximately 50% of all food in western nations is thrown away, perfectly good but uneaten.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I see you were modded funny, but I have no idea if you were joking...
So I'll go ahead and point out that it's only impossible in a uselessly literal sense.
The practical reality is, without the applicaiton of agg technology, the Earth would not sustain society as we know it today.
If you think it makes you sound cool to be cynical, you might say "that would be a good thing". Suit yourself, but we are where we are -- so you go explain it to the masses who can eat today but can't in your ideal world.
One of the best things I read in Michael Pollans "In Defense of Food" was that an apple grown today has only about 30% of the nutrients of one grow 50 years ago probably because the spend so much less time on the vine and in very nutrient stared soil. This is probably one of the reason we are all getting so fat, we are eating 3 times as much to get the same nutrients.
Because people in the cities don't need to eat, right?
Not sure what it is like in the UK as I am from Canada. I know a while back I watched a TV show produced by the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) that looked at food labeled "Organic" in supermarkets. Bottom line in many cases it is complete marketing BS. Just like when you see some product labeled "Made in Canada" can mean that the packaging was produced in Canada, but the actual product itself is imported from China. Another example were products labeled "Heart Smart" supposedly being healthier for you. It found that companies basically paid an organization to be able to use the label, and the the standards were pretty low. Canada (and I am sure the UK) has standards as to what can legally label itself "Organic", the problem is that for the most part these standards are pretty low, and not enforced for the most part.
Your best bet for real organic food is to wake up early Saturday morning and go to a Farmers market, or your local butcher, and ask where your food comes from. It isn't that hard.
I have a hard time seeing what improvement Monsanto (for example) brought to anyone than themselves,
What makes you think Monsanto want to bring an improvement to anyone but themselves?
I want to eat a genetically engineered cow fed nothing but other cows, high fructose corn syrup, antibiotics, and estrogen. I want the meat irradiated right before I eat it. I want it trucked 2000 miles to me.
I can say a few of things. First I'm totally in favor of organic food because it lets farmers make more money without having to do much of anything differently (a tax on the gullible). Interestingly enough, I doubt most organic food connoisseurs really know what makes organic food "organic." It's not quite as simple as just "no chemicals," although that's a key part.
Secondly the unwashed masses have pretty much demanded pesticides on fruits and veggies since blemished fruit doesn't sell (except in organic markets where blemishes and insect infestations are "features). Until we can convince people that it's okay for your apple to not be a perfect shade of red, there will continue to be unnecessary pesticide use.
Thirdly, in the realm of weed control, years of over-tillage and over-use of herbicides have led us to a situation where herbicide resistance is a massive problem. Ironically this means that we're now more dependant than ever on new herbicides. But compared to pesticides, herbicides are quite benign. Most of them are not toxic after they touch the soil and break down into their constituent organic parts. Herbicides work in different ways. Some grow the plant to death. Others target photosynthesis, or stop plant growth. Personally I hate handling any chemicals. I'd love to be able to farm without them. But with weeds if you don't use herbicides the next year has an order of magnitude more weeds. So I think if they are used wisely we can get the food we need without harming the environment.
Despite what people say about sustainable agriculture, "organic" farming as many people would like to see, is actually quite harmful (without controlling weeds) and certainly not sustainable as a food source for the whole world. Entropy and the principles of chaos rule this world, I'm afraid. Weeds thrive when we remove the native plants that previously held them at bay, for the sake of farming.
As an aside, if people really understood how the food supply works in the developed world, they'd immediately stock up on food, at least a few months' worth. Our system is completely "just-in-time." All it would take is massive hemisphere crop failures from climate change or a volcano causing a cold spell,a nd we'd all be out of food. in just 3 or 4 months. Just like that. And massive crop failures have happened before (particularly in the southern hemisphere). I read once that the world wheat supply at any given time is about 3 months. Scary stuff.
-We have access to plentiful and cheap food today.
-We don't die of starvation.
Famines were more common in the past, but still largely isolated incidents. Since the dawn of agriculture, people have frequently had access to plentiful food. It's that very fact that allowed for the diversification of professions and the creation of nation-states.
-We live long enough to get cancer.
If you survived birth and dodged the serious early childhood diseases, and weren't drafted into any wars, then you had a good chance of living a long and healthy life, more than long enough for you to get cancer.
Life expectancy rates are calculated using the probabilistic definition of "expected", meaning simply the average, and are measured from birth. Which means extremely high infant mortality rates like they had before doctors figured out to wash their hands before entering the delivery room and other such medical innovations dragged the average down tremendously.
A "life expectancy" of 30 years does not mean a 40-year-old was an old man with one foot in the grave! As the WP page for life expectancy says: "It is important to note that life expectancy rises sharply in all cases for those who reach puberty. A pre 20th Century individual who lived past the teenage years could expect to live to an age close to the life expectancy of today."
The enemies of Democracy are
No, they are trying to limit the use ... (or they should, at least)
Except they don't. They use 7 times as much because the chemicals they use aren't as effective, remember?
Look, you can think wishfully all you want about that *should* be happening. But then there's reality, and you're gonna have to cope with the fact that it doesn't match your expectations.
Oh, what the heck, I got karma to spare.
Here, have a nice day:
http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Actually there is growing evidence that the early development is due to fat levels, not hormones. So the McBurgers are still to blame, but for a much more nefarious reason.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Well, your pseudonym is Phillip K Dickhead, so we kind of assumed you would have a penetrating wit that tends to rub things the wrong way. And testy's a thing that goes along with that territory.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Those who mock the poo-pixies risk the wrath of the crap-creature.
Since the creation of the microscope, poo-pixies have camouflaged themselves as bacteria, but their vengeance is undiminished.
I beg you to recant your heresy least you be condemned to eternity in the porta-potty of explosive diarrhea!
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
I was speaking in terms of the huge conglomerate corporate farms
So how big is huge? A farm with 10 acres? 1,000? 10,000? Size has nothing to do with choice of harvest and shipping methods. Small farmers sometimes also sell their goods in exactly the same condition as very large farms. And some very large operations do a much better job with quick delivery of more perishable goods across greater distances than any smaller operation possibly could.
What I'm objecting to is the reflexive use of the word "corporate" to mean "inherently bad, no matter what." It's code, especially among the Slashdot Hipper-Than-Thou demographic, to mean "evil," without any connection to reality. I've dealt with plenty of actually evil small mom-and-pop vendors/retailers in my time. Corporateness has nothing to do with it, in and of itself, any more than size does. Businesses meet demands for a product. My grocery store has cheap (less good) tomatoes, and more expensive (quite good) tomatoes - both delievered to the store by large farming/distribution operations. They also carry locally grown tomatoes that are completely hit-or-miss in terms of quality.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
As a foodie and also as my partner is a chef,we both eat as healthy food as we can and are both non-meat eaters. Our reasons for stopping eating meat was two fold firstly the added hormones and secondly the addition of antibiotics to the animals, hoping to prevent disease. We also have access through my partners brother who has an allotment plenty of fruit and veg and it tastes altogether better than when we buy fresh from our local supplier. And as the writer points out we can keep the food longer than supermarket bought produce. Ian
I eat mostly organic food, but I don't pretend it's more healthy than regular food in general. For animal products, I absolutely believe it is, since the animals that produced them aren't given antibiotics, growth hormones, etc. The few times I've eaten meat this decade, it was organic, but these days I don't trust the meat industry at all, organic or otherwise. I stick to organic yogurt, cheese, and occasionally eggs.
I've come to realize that part of the higher price of organics is that they also serve as the gourmet versions of foods, since people apparently believe that something organically grown is inherently more tasty (I don't think that's the case) and in any case wouldn't be happy paying a lot for an organic product that was of poor taste or appearance. So out of the matrix of four possibilities (conventional, gourmet, organic, organic gourmet) you get the extremes, conventional and organic gourmet.
The post that led to this mentions meat, and for those 'huge' has a clear definition.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
It's widely known that the significant health benefit of organic produce is the lack of pesticides. Other benefits do not appear reliably or significantly in studies. It's also unclear how much benefit is gained from a lack of pesticides, but it is clear that these chemicals are damaging to people in higher concentrations.
In general, it's extremely difficult to show significant benefits from any given food, given how long the results take to show, the rest of the study group's diets, and so on. Most decisive studies are deliberately skewed.
The facts remain: organic foods do not have deliberately added poison, while conventional foods do. Organic food production also does not relese nearly the level of pollution in poisons, fertilizer, and microbes into the world. It also typically leaves the soil in amore healthy state for sustanied production.
That's it. It's not a magic healthy pill, as this study confirms. But that isn't news.
-josh
Nice rant, but it didn't have a thing to do with the GP's point.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Nice rant, but it didn't have a thing to do with the GP's point.
If the point was that corporate farms sell unpleasant produce, and small farms don't, then yes, it does have something to do with it. Because that's an incorrect take on it the realities of the market.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You do not know what you are talking about.
I currently live in a community with many farmers, and most of them are smarter than me, university educated and generally very well informed. They know their plant and soil ecology/biology backwards and forwards, and have the years of experience and product to show for their efforts. Several of your points make it clear that you have NO idea what you are talking about.
Because I didn't want to be like you, I took the time to ask questions. In fact, just last week, I attended a workshop for a local community farm with featured experts who came to advise on soil health, and I can tell you that the science of organic farming is lightyears beyond what most people think. For instance, in the last ten years alone, there have been amazing discoveries made about the life cycles and inter-relationships at work in the garden. --One of the more startling I learned about was the symbiotic relationship between certain common fungus strains and the plants they inhabit. Kill the fungus, decrease crop yields by as much as 30%. --And we, the human race, are actively exploring the science behind why this is so. Or at least those of us who are paying attention. Those eating ho-hos and living in ad-based states of denial don't know much of anything.
Essentially it comes down to this: the systems which naturally evolved over millions of years are incredibly efficient and smart, and when you learn how to tweak those systems using the lego bricks which naturally exist within their ecologic spheres, without introducing foreign agents, you can raise clean, healthy crops which don't come laced with poisons and dangerous genetic uncertainty factors. There's a reason Australia has too many rabbits; it's called, "Irresponsible scientific conceit". --The belief that humans are not connected to and stand apart from the rest of the biosphere; that we are smart enough to be able to whack Life with chemical and genetic mallets without taking the time to learn about the subtleties of biological relationships and that we will not be affected in our ego-centric bubble reality.
It takes the WORK of study to be a successful organic farmer, whereas it only takes money and intellectual laziness to spread a bag of the latest corporate powder on your land. I've met both types. It's like the difference between a hard-core television viewer and a mountain climber. One has a brain made of goop, the other has eyes filled with sparks.
Which are you?
-FL
I know pretty much about food. And the diseases bad food causes.
And I can tell you, that those diseases don't come tomorrow. They take decades to grow. And this is why they are so hard to track back to their causes.
Luckily, a nice man called Max Otto Bruker gave only what you would call "organic food" to the 50,000 patients of his clinic over a range of 50 years. And then collected that vast experience into books. (Which unfortunately are only available an German).
He found the Kollath table to be basically true: http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vollwertleben.info%2Fhtml%2Fbody_kollath-tabelle.html&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0=&swap=1 (I could only find a German version. I hope it makes any sense. In case of problems, use dict.leo.org)
"Basically", because of course, your body can cope with bad food for a time, and is pretty flexible. So you can of course eat trash food. Just not as your main diet. And you can often fix bad nutrition by eating something that fixes the balance on the next day.
It is impressive, how many diseases, that we thought were because of old age, are really because of bad food. (Hint: Most of them!)
And one other thing that he found out, is that there really actually are groups who want to denounce and destroy you, because you attack their business model. They were on the level of Glen Beck: One day they call you a Nazi. The other day a communist Jew. And the third day, they make up some other bullshit. Even today. Totally crazy beyond belief...
Same thing as in "Thank you for smoking". Just with absolutely no conscience.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The thing to remember is that just because you are smart enough to know that there aren't extra nutrients in organic food doesn't mean that everyone is. Also, just because the people that sell you your organic food don't tell you that it is more nutritious, doesn't mean that others aren't telling people that their organic food IS more nutritious.
Many people all over the place, either directly or indirectly, insinuate that organic food has more nutrients. Yesterday they were discussing organic food on Wisconsin Public Radio and both the guest and the host alluded to the nutritional benefits of eating organic. This is thought pollution of even the most intellectual crowd. Now, I'm not going to argue against organic food, because it does have many benefits, however it is important to know exactly what those benefits are.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
Ask any professional star chef, what his secret is, and the number one answer will be, that he uses the most fresh and unprocessed food that he can get his hands on.
So actually, eating more healthy will taste much better, when you can cook! Organic products are even better because they are not so much diluted. Which is pretty obvious.
Also, processing costs money. So you can save money too.
I call that a great deal! :)
Even if you do not care for the health benefits, think of it like this: You can earn money for eating more tasty food!
You would be crazy not to take that offer, wouldn't you? ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Yeah, the point is that these recent obesity related disease epidemics have been caused by our *eating habits* and are directly related to what food we actually eat. Did you really need someone to spell it out for you?
Show me the point in the GP's post where it was argued that "all food which has been scientifically modified is 'bad for the environment'. It wasn't a claim of the paragraph you quoted. But that's a nice straw man for you to attack anyway, I guess, and it got you some nice up-mods.
Also, I'm not against GM food in the slightest, but Monsanto can burn in hell, and even *you* have to admit that there's a world of difference between selective breeding and splicing grasshopper genes into corn, and programming food to have an effective kill-switch that prevents farmers from producing their own seed.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
You may not have used the words "I think", but I get to chime in anyway because I've actually worked on produce farms and currently work in animal agriculture.
I've never heard of the ethylene gas/tomatoes technique, but I worked on a produce farm in Massachusetts, so maybe the practice is different elsewhere. The produce farm I worked on picked vine rippened tomatoes and shipped them to a farmers market 6 hours away where they were sold to grocery stores, restraunts, and individual customers.
As to the animal agriculture comments. Pure bred Angus cattle have superior marbling characteristics, but the cattle that get marketed as "Black Angus" don't have to be purbred. IIRC, they can get away with being only 90% Angus. That 10% is frequently Herford, which has been bred in over successive generations in order to get them to grow faster, or Brahman for greater heat tollerance, with the unfortunate side effect of reduced marbeling in some.
I have no idea what you are talking about with the pork, turkey, or chicken industries. The only growth hormone I've ever seen marketed is BST for Cattle. No one injects poultry, Period. No one injects Pigs, Period. These species have shorter generation intervals, so improvements tend to come from better genetic selection, not from a syringe. For cattle, BST tends to be used in dairy cattle to increase milk production per cow, thus increasing the overall efficiency of the industry.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
It would appear that the parent poster has never heard of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Apparently, in 5 to 20 percent of all births, meconium passes into the amniotic fluid (meconium is the tar-like, sterile stool that an infant passes prior to passing feces). So neither the grandparent poster nor the parent poster were entirely correct; non-sterile feces doesn't float around in the womb for 3 months, but sterile meconium does often pass in utero and can be harmful to the infant if inhaled (or even fatal, in one case I'm aware of).
And now back to my usual role of computer geek.
the JoshMeister on Security
Never mind that using "Organic" agricultural practices exclusively would lead to massive starvation all around the glob. The only reason that we have enough to feed the global population now is the use of "Modern" agricultural practices that grew out of the "Green Revolution".
Listening to the biased lectures of people with a political axe to grind (Never mind a Book to sell), and have never had to actually produce the food they eat is fucking stupid. Try taking an agriculture class, or reading one of the numerous independent reports about how the current rate of population growth will require us to Double Global food production in the next 50 years. Since "Organic" production actually decreases yeilds, requires more fertilizers, and more diesel fuel, there is no way for us to reach that level through Organic means. The only alternative is to let people starve so that the rich can wrongfully feel good about how they spend their money on food.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I think you got your religions mixed up. As far as I can tell, Mormons are perfectly happy to use modern technology. You are probably referring to the Amish. But even then you'd be not entirely correct. They don't use nearly all the modern technologies that you are I employ, but they don't reject it all.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Almost all my local grocery is "local" SC passed laws mandating that certain percentages of produce must carry a "grown in SC" sticker or the grocer had to pay additional taxes and fees (this naturally is limited to products that actually reliably grow here, and to certain seasons).
The problem with "transit" grocery, is it never ripens... It;s harvested early and ripens in shipping, greatly reducing it's flavor and nutitional value. That said, most organic crops are ALSO transit crops, few are local. In fact, we ahve a VAST variety of local non-organics in the grocery store, and very few local organics.
The don't sell "organic" milk here, at least, not in the milk isle.
Also, several of the microfarms that server us are out-of-state actually. At the farmers market it's all local sure, but microfarms serve a LOT of our resturants, and some of our grocers. It;s simply fresher not having gone through mass distribution, but more direct delivery by small trucks from the farm.
The few local "micro" farmers around here are actually FAR from micro in size. I keep putting in quotes because they grow smaller yields, but that doesn't mean they don't have a hundred or more acres covered in raised planters. They're simply using a much more specific growing method, and don't use large tractors or machinery for harvest. Also, a single tomato plant grown their way produces many times the number of ripe fruit of a earth grown traditional plant and the integrated fertilizing/watering system supports much healthier and more rapid plant growth. In a small field they can sometomes outproduce a more traditional farmer with twice the land. It's more labor intensive, and thus the higher cost, but it's a better way all around (and we have pleanty of people looking for work...)
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
It is not merely trite to point out that all food is organic. It cuts to the heart of the matter. In popular usage, "organic" has taken on its marketing/legal meaning, which varies from country to country, but usually includes a grab-bag of particular faddish details related to the growing of the produce, all of which have nothing at all to do with the dictionary meaning of "organic", and which for the most part have nothing to do with producing healthier plants (and in some cases even working against that). It would have been surprising to learn that individuals of the same species that meet these legal definitions would end up significantly differing in their makeup in ways that offer health benefits.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
The organic farming industry uses plenty of pesticides. In fact, because they use "organic" pesticides which are less effective, they're actually forced to use *far more*.
The "organic == no pesticides" meme is a myth, plain and simple.
If a pesticide is absorbable and active in humans, it won't be approved by the USDA for use in agriculture. That's what the USDA and FDA exist for, so as to prevent toxic chemicals from getting in the human food supply.
All pesticides need to be tested extensively in animals to show no toxicity at levels far above what could possibly be found in food before they can be approved for use. I've even performed some toxicology studies for animal feed enzymes.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Yeah, about that correlation vs causation thing. The older your body gets the more likely you are to get cancer. Until we discover the secret to immortality, cancer is going to increase. Look at this chart. Less people died from cancer in 2005 than from Tuberculosis in 1900, but in 2005 only only 2 people per million died from Tuberculosis in the US. People are living much longer than and aren't dying from the same causes as our ancestors. Nobody is living forever, so they're gonna die somehow.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Pesticides would not stop bacteria and other beasties from chowing down on your lettuce. Perhaps the organic lettuce was also rinsed in dilute bleach solution (fairly common practice to get rid of pesticides, bacteria, and to keep veggies fresh longer). Perhaps you just got really lucky on the organic stuff and really unlucky on the supermarket stuff.
To review: the plural of anecdote is not data.
I was speaking in terms of the huge conglomerate corporate farms that somehow still gets subsidies from the US govt.
you do realize that all incorporated farms get subsidies from the farm bill right? I've worked for small corporate farms of the mom & pop variety, as well as the larger corporate farms (still owned exclusively by a single family in most cases), and I can assure you that the larger operations are the ones most likely to be excellent stewards of the animals and land. Smaller operations lack economies of scale and frequently cut corners to get by. Larger operations have many more people that could serve as potential witnesses at a later date. Also, the people making the decisions on large operations are usually not the ones that will have to spend the extra 2 hours outside in the summer heat doing things correctly, so it's easier for them to make the right call.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
"I challenge you to find cheaper food than the organic produce grown within a few miles of my home. If people would focus on buying locally produced veggies and meat, it would cut a huge chunk of transportation cost (and waste) out of the system."
You're lucky to have an organic farm within a few miles of your home that will sell you produce cheaper than the industrially-grown, mass-market product available in cities.
I live in the downtown core in a city, and every Saturday I buy produce at one of three farmer's markets. It costs me at least 30% more to shop there, compared to shopping at a Safeway/Save-On/whatever, and for some things it's over 50%.
I can afford it, so I go ahead and shop there. But I would never look down on somebody shopping cheaper - which, in these parts, means shopping non-organic.
I see a contradiction between statements in the two linked articles, so I'm confused.
BBC: Gill Fine, FSA director of consumer choice and dietary health, said: ..."What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food."
postpeakpublishing: According to the study's Executive Summary: "This review does not address contaminant content (such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide residues) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs or the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural practices."
I can see how the study would fail to show evidence of additional benefits, if it didn't address contaminant content. But that same omission makes it impossible for this study to show that there is no evidence of such benefits.
I resolve my confusion by concluding that Gill Fine (ironically, an executive of the agency that commissioned the study) either didn't read the Executive Summary, or has poor reading comprehension.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Perhaps you should read the whole entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Criticism_of_restrictions_on_DDT_use
Or perhaps "deaths [that] range from hundreds of thousands to much higher figures [yearly]" and other harsh facts not figure into your political agenda? Do these people not matter to you? Who would you rather believe "malaria researchers" or "Greenpeace"? What are the agendas of these groups? Does greenpeace strive to save people? Do malaria researchers work for DOW chemical? What's their incentive behind wanting to use DDT?
Don't act like you didn't already know that millions of past deaths are on the hands of enviro-fascists and people like you who shove their foot in their mouths defending them all the time. Before you get your statist panties all worked up realize that humans are the most important thing on this planet, and if you don't think so then you're the sicko, not me.
So, then why is it that it's primarily the non-organic agribusinesses that lobby against a federally defined meaning of "organic" on food labels? You'd KNOW what it was supposed to be if not for that!
I won't say that there are no ignorant people extolling the virtues of organic foods or decrying chemicals in general (even dihydrogen monoxide unless you call it water!), but that doesn't preclude the existence of people who do study the issue and also call for less pesticides and more organic farming.
I'm getting sick and fucking tire of these obviously misinformed rants about hormone injected animals.
First off, the hormone used in cattle is the exact same hormone they produce naturally, or dare I say Organically.
Second, the hormone is used primarily in dairy cattle because it increases yeild per cow, thus decreasing feed costs, waste production, and improves the overall financial and environmental imprint of a dairy operation that uses it.
3rd, beef cattle are not routinely injected with hormones, because it's a pain in the ass to manage. While dairy cattle all go through the milking parlor 2 to 3 times per day, there is no convenient analogous bottle neck in a feed lot.
4th, even if they did such a think in feed lots, a lot of cattle are grown on the open pasture and only see humans when the breeders are separated from those going to the slaughter house. For those it would be a complete waste of money to inject them with a hormone that wouldn't have enough time to do anything before the animal is killed. Especially since anabolic hormones suppress immune responsiveness and would increase the chances of a carcass being condemed at the plant, thus being worth nothing to the producer.
Unless you've actually worked with livestock professionally for a minimum of 6 months, or have actually bothered to take a productiona agriculture class in college, please refrain from posting anything other than questions. It's the equivalent of me posting bombasting comments about the differences between C, C++, C#, and Objective-C in programming threads, while knowing nothing more complicated than basic pearl.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Ok, you are confusing the issues here. Pesticides in the water can be a problem. However, organic food produciton is not the answer. Contrary to popular belief, organic production allows for the use of some pesticides. Mostly from older categories that are no longer in widespread use. The reason they are not in widespread use is that they don't work as well, require more frequent application, and require much heavier application rates (more pounds/acre). All of these characteristics trace back to them being derived from plants, which is why they can be used by organic farmers. The net result of all this being that there is more pesticide runoff from organic farms than from modern agricultural practices.
Consequently, GM crops like the infamous "Round-Up Ready" varieties actually are better for the environment because they require far less pesticide applciation both in number of passes with the sprayer, and pounds of pesticide/acre.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Your sciencedaily.com article said absolutely nothing about whether organic foods can compete with the crop yields of current farming practices. In fact, nothing from the article suggested that conventional farmers couldn't use those same practices and still yield even higher yields than the organic farmers.
Also, the Cornell study, while promising, did mention a few things against your point:
It also acknowledged that the only reason organic foods have equal to or higher economic return per acre is because of the higher prices that organic foods command. In short, organic foods require a higher price, so if we went all organic next year, some who currently can afford food would not be able to.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Little girls are developing younger than they used to because the are fatter than they used to be at the same age. Onset of puberty is tied more closely to hormone indicators of body mass, than to age. If you limit feed your daughter, she will enter puberty later. The alternative has been happening because of the high body fat most Western children are developing at younger ages. Bovine hormones have nothing to do with it.
Besides, all animal hormones need to be tested for cross reactivity with human receptors before they can be approved for use in livestock. There are also mandatory withdrawl periods for all medications in livestock feed. If your animal products test positive you are going to be in deep trouble with the USDA and FDA.
The poster child for the animal hormone industry is BST, which has actually been injected directly into the blood stream of humans and been shown to have absolutely NO effect. It's because it is a protein hormone and the necessary protein receptor in humans is too dissimilar from its bovine analogue
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I'll grant you that pumping your food full of hormones is a bad thing
Why? All animal hormones are tested for cross reactivity in humans. Even if they don't cross react, there are manditory withdrawl periods for all medications. Tests are run to determine how long the compound resides in the animals tissues and then extra time is added on to ensure that there is none present.
The poster child for the animal hormone industry BST has even been injected directly into human bloodstream and been shown to have ZERO effect. This is because BST is a protein hormone, and the necessary protein receptor in humans is too dissimilar from its analogue in Cattle.
As to the antibiotics. There are mandatory withdrawl periods in livestock for those too. If they didn't, people all of the country that are allergic to various antibiotics would be keeling over dead at dinner as a result of their allergies. Since that DOESN'T HAPPEN, it's means that these antibiotics are NOT in the meat. Same thing goes for Milk.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Species variation is completely different to "organic" foods.
And yet it's a key difference between industrial large-scale agriculture and family-farm scale organic agriculture: plant varieties. Conscientious organic farmers generally use varieties that benefit from certain genetics. One of the most common advantages of the varieties grown by small-scale ag is taste. Many organic farmers are also part of an international seed saver network who shepherd agricultural genetic heritage by preserving varieties that are not suited to industrial ag: potatoes are an excellent example (only a handful of the 5000+ varieties of spud are good for combine farming: mainly the big but pathetic russet).
Sustainable practices like crop rotation are still not used by these "organic" farmers, they think they can still treat the land with the same contempt that chemical farmers do.
That's a key point: large scale organically certified farming as practiced by corporate farms is not what you think of in the store. It's still bad for the soil, still engages in shameful labour practices, is wasteful with water and energy, and uses the same anemic tasting plant varieties. Given the choice, I will always buy local over organic, preferably from a family farm (luckily, where I live, they're mostly family farms). One thing you can do if you care about pesticide use plus sustainability, is look into the certification body: for the USA, Oregon Tilth is the go-to organisation, for instance. Don't trust national or stat certification bodies, they're compromised.
Unfortunately this is a HUGE business, so crop rotation won't happen in the near future....Either way, your point is moot as "organic farmers" still use the same varieties as non-"organic".
Your point is partly excellent, partly uninformed. Good farmers use good varieties, that usually are tastier (and often have more concentrated nutrients as a result). Please search out good food producers and support them. Look into Community Shared Agriculture (CSA) -- where you invest directly in a market garden crop and get a steady supply of it -- and farmers markets as well as farm gate sales and U-pick. Likewise, don't bother supporting corporate organic farming that is basically greenwashing. Find a good butcher who buys from the producer, if that's legal in your jurisdiction.
OK, off to buy fantastic eggs and lettuce from friends down the road. We invested in a calf there, waiting for her to get pregnant soon then we'll be getting today's milk.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Hey sopsaa. I don't have any mod points but I just wanted to thank you for the points you're making throughout this thread. Sustainability is good, but the answer isn't to throw away the technology that has, thus far, allowed us to keep ahead of the famines and disasters predicted by people like the guy who wrote the population bomb back in the 60s. It's a busy day at work so I don't have time to debate all the misinformed and misguided on this thread, but I'm glad to see someone keeping up he good fight.
We see more antibiotic resistant strains of bugs because of HUMAN abuse of antibiotics.
How often do you come into contact with pigs or chickens eating antibiotic treated food? Most never do. Most people don't even come less than with 3 degrees of separation of a farm animal.
If you are thinking "what about antibiotics in the meat/milk?" I can assure you that your fears are unwarranted. Many people are allergic to some sort of antibiotic. If these antibiotics were getting into the meat or milk, those with serious allergies would be dropping dead over there steaks. Antibiotics that get into milk would stop the cheese making bugs in their tracks. In fact, if you get caught selling antibiotic tainted milk (every load from every farm is tested), you will be forced to buy back no only your milk, but any other milk that was mixed with yours. Second offense and you can't sell milk for several months, third offense can lead to a life time refusal to purchase your milk (killing your farm).
Well what about bacteria with resistance genes that get on the meat and then into us? That would be a valid concern, except that most bacterial species that colonize the gut of pigs, chickens, cattle, and any other livestock specie are "Speciallists" they cannot set up shop in the human intestine for more than a limited period of time. The predominant bacterial Genus in Humans is bifidobacteria, but they usually make up a negligable portion of any other animals enteral microbiota.
Essentially the "Animals are to blame for Antibiotic resistance levels" is FUD spread by the human health industry to try and cover up for their reckless use of antibiotics in human health. While most never come into contact with livestock being treated with antibiotics, everyone has interacted with someone that was prescribed antibiotics they didn't actually need, or that didn't take their meds for the full period. THAT is the true cause of the rise in resistance genes.
That is why in the decade ore more since the EU banned all sub-theraputic use of antibiotics in livestock, and the theraputic use of many antibiotics important for humans, there has been no decrease in antibiotic resistance gene prevelance in livestock or in humans.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
In theory, but not in practice. In the decade or more since the EU has banned all sub-theraputic use of antibiotics in livestock, and the theraputic use of antibiotics important for human medicine, there has been no reduction in resistance levels. There hasn't even been a change in resistance levels in livestock, despite all of the generations that have gone without ever being treated with some of these antibiotics. It's all red-herring encouraged by the human health industry to hide the fact that they are irresponsibly using antibiotics in human medicine.
How many people do you know that have been given antibiotics they didn't actually need, or failed to take all of their meds. I'd bet that everyone in the western world has done both at least once. Besides, sub-theraputic doses of antibiotics are only routinely fed at certain stages. Mainly during weaning because it frequently occurs during the time when the maternally transfered immunity is wearing off and the piglets immune system is still coming online. Otherwise antibiotic use is avoided because they are EXPENSIVE.
Yes it can be abused by some producers, but those abuses are no where near as systematic as the antibiotic abuses seen in human medicine.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
which is most likely psychosomatic. If you pay more for something, you expect it to be better, and will believe it to be so even if in blind studies you can't tell the difference. It's all about what your expectations are going into it.
Besides, if you are like me and 'eat to live' instead of 'live to eat' any percieved difference is usually not worth the cost.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
They also have fresh "All-Sorts" licorice and regular licorice in about 2000 flavors. The first time I went there, I bumped into something, looked down, and beheld a wooden barrel filled with mini peanut butter cups. Then I saw the row of bins with 500 types of trail mix and snack mixes. About then I passed out from the emotional overload.
I shouldn't feed the AC but,
Crop rotation is endemic to the entirety of crop production. One big reason is that corn and soy don't take the same nutrients out of the soil at the same rate. If you rotate between different crops, you save money on fertilizers.
I will never understand the rationale behind this resentment of any modern agricultural practice. No matter what the science shows, there will always be idiots like you that prefer we do things the "Old Way", despite the old way being less efficient, more reckless with the environment, and more likely to lead to starvation around the world as global demand for food continues to increase.
I agree that the impact of different techniques should be studied before they become widespread. However, what people like you fail to realize is that it usually is. Just because the results of a study into the environmental impact of round-up ready corn vs. conventional corn doesn't make it onto the front page of the NYTimes, doens't mean that the study wasn't performed.
Check out Feedstuffs Magazine. Its a weekly (bi-weekly?) magazine devoted to covering agriculture. You'd be amazed at what research everyone is calling for is already being done, but ignored by those too busy yelling to pick of a damn paper and read.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Yeah, but audiophiles think a $5000 audio cable makes their music sound better. The human mind is unreliable and arbitrary; the placebo effect colors everything you experience.
Give me a *double-blind test*, scientific *proof* that the majority of people think organic produce tastes better, even when they don't know it's organic, then maybe I'll give you some credit.
Until that happens, you're just spouting placebo as far as I'm concerned.
Comment of the year
I'm confused. By UHT I assume that you mean Ultra High Temperature Pasturization, which is the European perferred form of pasturization. It leads to a slight carmelization of the proteins and sugars in the milk, but also allows for the milk to be stored at room temperature as long as the packaging is sealed. In the US we pasturize for longer, and a lower temp. It avoids the carmelization, but requires the milk to be stored chilled even before it is opened. Both are Pasturization, just at different temperatures and for different amounts of time.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Anyone who eats seedless fruit while complaining about "GM food" is a fucking idiot.
Anyone who equates selective breeding with current methods of genetic modification is either a shill or badly misinformed. I bet you fall into the shill category, because you're right, in principle, that there's nothing wrong with the concept of GMO's in a loose sense, but everything wrong with the way it's being done and who's doing it, and I suspect that you don't care about those things, and obfuscating the difference between breeding and transgenics-with-a-shotgun (yes really) works for your ideology.
GMO crops do contaminate other crops, deal with it. You're setting up a straw man argument agin' them thar hippies.
Personally, Monsanto, Novartis, and Cargill can just stay the fuck off my plate, and stop undermining family farms.
Damn those pesky terrorists
You are an idiot. Plain and simple. I'm assuming that you are also an engineer, so you assume that the engineering aspects of the problem were the primary ones. As an animal Scientist I can assure you that while the Mechanical engineering aspects were very imporant, they were by no means the primary motivators of our decreased dependence on man power to produce animals.
You can't design a tractor that kills more weeds per spray with pesticide. You can't design a tractor to reduce the days to market for a newly hatched chick from 6 months to 8 weeks, or that doubles milk yield/cow, or that decreases feed formulation costs based on a better understanding of actual nutrient requirements (if you could for the last one, I'd be out of a job). We produce more product from less animals, with less waste, and less overall inputs, which in turn requires less man-hours to do the work.
You can't neglect the advancements made by all agricultural research communities without looking like a total ignoramous.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
If you care about organic certification, learn a bit about the certification process; the best bet is to look for certification stamps from private bodies like Oregon Tilth, and be leery of lobbyist-certified bodies like the National Organic Program. In Canada, consider the more regional certifying bodies.
And always, always, choose buying locally from a farmer you trust over supermarket organic brands. Smart smaller-scale farmers don't poison their kids by overspraying, even if they aren't certified.
Damn those pesky terrorists
While it is nice to see everyone getting focused on the health benefits of organic produce, lets remember that when it comes to fruit and veg, these things are just a byproduct of Superior soil engineering (organic farming). From my view as a worm farmer, organic farming is really putting nature back into the system where it belongs. Eating veg that has been sipping on chemical cocktails is equiv to taking home a alcoholic crackhead from the bar. She/he is alive and breathing but only just. Take away the chem and the body dies. Plants, soil and the web of life that supports it are all needed to sustain the cycle of life properly. When you remove the web and replace it with half measures and only the basic chemicals and microbes, you get what you put in. Half baked frankencrop. The current popular methods of farming with chemical magic is old. I think it was about 200 years ago when a fellow figured out that adding N P K to farm land that had been leeched of it's nutrients due to over farming would replenish the soil. It has taken all this time to really understand how devastating this type of farming is to the soil. I talked to a farmer yesterday that recently changed to an organic farming method. He told me that the result of paying attention to the soil first and treating the crop as a byproduct of proper soil managment has resulted in 50% less irrigation, ZERO need for pest control, reduced soil tillage due to an explosion of worms in his soil doing it for him and the best part of all, crops that sell at market with an increased margin of 20%. So in the end, regardless of what the FSA has to say about organically produced crops, there is no better way to farm a plot of land than to do it in a way that is in tune with the entire web of life under and above the soil. To the guy that is going to say that you can't feed billions and do it organic. Bullshit. Prove it.
...which is why Peak Oil is much less scary from the energy angle than it is from the Haber Process angle. Fertilizers and anti-biotics are far more important to maintaining the world's current population levels and density distributions than any particular form of energy storage.
would removing plants to allow passage through dense forests be considered "technology"?
I don't see why not. Only a handful of species actively alter their environment to better suit their needs. By your definitions I would assume that learning how to make stronger and sharper axes would be considered "Technology" why would the use of these tools not be considered the result of that technological advancement?
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
No, the tractor is not the only reason. Increased output from the other methods like you said, reduces the amount of land required to farm. Which in turn reduces manpower needed even if it's just using the tractor to work the land. It's a cumulative effect from other factors, not just the tractor itself.
Thus ignoring the expected doubling of the global food demand by 2050. It also ignores the fact that most western countries are increasingly building houses on what was previously farmlandl. Total land mass devoted to agriculture is going to decrease. There is no more land, and all of these new people are going to want their McMansions, or at least a roof over their head.
The reason that Organic produces almost twice as much in developing countries is that they aren't using the land efficiently at all. It's not like developing countries are using the same agricultural practices that we use on a modern farm in the Midwest US. Using Modern practices would more than double yields/acre in developing countries, which is going to be needed if we are going to grow twice as much food 40 years from now than we are today. Especially if we are going to continue increasing the percent of US corn production headed to the fuel ethanol industry (23% back in '07 or '08, which was up from 13% two years prior).
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Thing is, I can walk into my local supermarket, and I'll find organic and inorganic carrots presented in exactly the same way. I can buy them as whole carrots, or peeled baby carrots in a bag, or whatever. I can taste the difference easily between organic and those without long-chain carbon molecules or whatever the opposite is.
There may be no difference in nutrient value, but it isn't a matter of fresh vs. bagged.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You should not, however, use that as an argument for producing food with less efficient methods like organic farming - the key to better taste is to get the veggies locally.
It isn't just freshness, though that's enormously important.
Often smaller family farms are planting more interesting and tasty varieties, as well---varieties that you can't get in the supermarket because they don't fit in as well with large-scale equipment or rapid growth.
Damn those pesky terrorists
FYI, organic production does allow for fertlizers and pesticides. They are limited to those derived from plants. The plant derived pesticides are older, less effective, and require HEAVIER & MORE FREQUENT application rates than their more modern peers.
Besides, if these 'poisons' as you put it were actually 'poisons' for humans, don't you think people would have started getting sick by now? How about you spend a half an hour thinking about your preconceptions and their logical consequences before running your mouth off (keyboard off?). Most pesticides target enzymatic pathways UNIQUE to the pests they are targeting, and not present in humans. I remember my biochemistry teacher drinking a glass full of rat poison in front of us because humans lack the liver enzyme that converts the compound into a biological poison.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
It tastes better because it's fresher, not because it's organic. Control for all factors, or you're just spouting crap.
The carrots and tomatos I grow in my garden (which are *more* natural than the "organic" standard, since I just plant the seeds, apply water, and nothing else) taste the same as the ones from my grocery store. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a double-blind test.
Comment of the year
Reminds me of a snack table put out by our chemistry department that had little signs that said 'these food items are made of chemicals'. Or the episode of 'Yes, Minister' where voters concluded that since dioxin was poisonous, meta-dioxin must be too.
Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
As someone who consumed organic food for several years I can attest that none of the organic food I ate tasted better than its conventional counterpart.
This is modded insightful but lacks a key insight: we think about plant varieties in an industrial sense, as though a potato is either red, brown, or 'new' or a bell pepper is green or red.
We've been dumbed-down about agricultural variety, both plants and animals. The biggest difference in flavour will be between one variety and the next, as well as how fresh it is or when it was picked or how handled.
It's astonishing that people think the use of pesticides or lack thereof will make a big difference in taste. Farming practices are much much more than 'to spray or not spray'. Try a blue potato sometime; most of the blue varieties are utterly delicious.
In other words, stop buying produce at the supermarket.
Damn those pesky terrorists
QUOTE The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices. ENDQUOTE
I always thought the main reason for eating organic fruits and veggies was the pesticide factor. So this "study" was really incomplete and didn't report on one of the main pluses to eating organic.
QUOTE "Also, there is not sufficient research on the long-term effects of pesticides on human health," he added. ENDQUOTE
It's really interesting that no one want's to test and see how harmful pesticides are and how much gets absorbed into the actual food. That washing fruits and veggies don't really get rid of all the chemicals that are sprayed all over it. Sad really.
it's a good way to promote sustainable practices
Sustainable in an incredibly localized way, meaning just yourself and your family. Such growing practices are not able to sustain the current population of Earth, let alone whatever it will be in a few decades.
I know I did, because each of the posts you've written in this thread are completely spot-on. I'd like to add some points of agreement, too. But first, a little bit about myself: I'm a child of the 80s-90s, which means that I wasn't born prior to the over-commercialization of produce. However, I do have some recollection of how marvelous fresh produce is because of the local markets that used to exist in this part of the country. That, and my mum used to grow her own tomatoes and the likes. There's absolutely no comparison.
First, the tomatoes and subsequently the growers. I haven't anything against commercialization; without it, we'd have a hard time feeding the population we do. That's perfectly fine. But anyone who would argue that commercial produce like tomatoes are just fine hasn't ever been exposed to fresh stuff. Store bought tomatoes give me awful heartburn and taste like cardboard; contrasted with my mum's (and some locally grown ones), it's amazing. There's a wonderful flavor, and they don't bother me in the slightest. I can only guess that the added fructose must offset the acids. I have no idea.
Second, the chiles. I admit that living in New Mexico means there's a lot of local growers for both those and jalapenos. So, I'm fortunate in that regard.
And thirdly, the beef. The black angus stuff you mentioned is most definitely a joke. It's horrible. I'd rather buy stuff from the local butcher which, while it's also commercially grown, still tastes better than the crap that is marketed as the "best" beef. But again, I'm not old enough to have ever experienced what meat was like prior to the various changes in how beef is raised. There are some local ranchers around here, too, but as far as I'm aware, I've never actually had any of the meats they've raised. It's a shame, too, because the cattle here free range. But then, the meat is largely sold to restaurants and out of state. So much for the local economy. =/
He who has no
It's not that the third world countries are using "organic" methods. Organic production techniques are the "Modern" techniques of anywhere from 10 to 60 years ago. The fact that third world countries see increased yeild by updating from practices that are even older does not prove that organic production is better, or that it should even be acceptable in comparison to moder techniques.
When you compare modern techniques and organic techniques, modern actually comes out better for the environment, CO2 footprint, and virtually any other metric with the notable exception of "Ephemeral Smugness Factor" that rich morons get from purchasing anything with the "organic" label.
Search this page for some of my other posts for my arguments, as I'm tired of repeating myself.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
As you don't allow logic enter into your own comments...
I'll not argue on the difference between marketing on price and on taste. I'm not someone that places a whole lot importance on the differences in tastes for most food categories, but bacon is one where I do and I totally agree.
However, antibiotic use is not as widespread as you believe. I have a lot of experience with swine, chickens and turkeys (I'm a monogastric nutritionist), and the only diets I routinely see containing sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics are weanling pig diets. They tend to get them because pigs are weaned at the age where the maternally supplied antibodies are started to get a little thin, and the piglets own immune system is not fully up to snuff. There is a lag period where they are more susceptible to opportunistic infections in the gut. Once they are out of the nursery (3-4 weeks), most pigs never seen antibiotics in the feed unless there is a disease outbreak in the barn.
As to your claim that if animals in CAFOs aren't fed antibiotics "the animals will all die." That is sensationalist hyperbole, as well as total bullshit. There are no sub-theraputic antibiotics allowed for use in any EU member state. They banned them over a decade ago, and EU animal production is still dominated by CAFOs. They see higher weaning mortality rates as a result, but they still manage to produce a lot of animals that never see antibiotics.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
and has the exact opposite effect that is claimed. Expensive audio cables don't, to my knowledge, reduce sound quality. They just fail to deliver improved audio quality.
Organic food is believed to be safer, more nutritious, and better for the environment, when in fact it is no safer or nutritious, and WORSE for the environment. That's the truly frustrating part.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
The point is that we torture them for their entire, short, miserable lives. Lions don't imprison 823 million impala [independent.co.uk] in huge concentrations, artificially increasing their weight to grow abnormally fast in shorter time spans and thereby crippling some 27% them, keeping them in their own shit for so long that they suffer burns on their legs.
So... why is that bad? I mean, I realize it's all trendy these days to care about livestock, but, they're gonna die anyway, right? The only way one could possibly care is if one thinks animals are akin to humans in terms of having sentience or a "soul" of some sort.
Ha. good catch.
Bingo.
It isn't clear what you're saying. Are you blaming the high-carb or high-protein diet? A lot of those problems are caused by high-sugar, low-fiber diets (resulting from processed foods, mostly). In terms of sustainable, healthy diets, high-fat, high protein, and protein with exercise = for the win.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
While it may be a big reason, suctioning for this is essentially useless and no longer recommended by the American Academy of Paediatrics Neonatal Resuscitation Program.
Thanks, as a father of two kids I'm glad you reminded me of the first few days dealing with meconium. Jerk. ;-)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Never mind that using "Organic" agricultural practices exclusively would lead to massive starvation all around the glob. The only reason that we have enough to feed the global population now is the use of "Modern" agricultural practices that grew out of the "Green Revolution".
Mass-producing cheap food is good. Mass-producing cheap food that isn't healthy is...?
Mass-production tends to specialize since specialization is very efficient. In the US, we mass produce food by specialized on corn, soy, and something else that I can't remember. However, our bodies may not be able to handle an over-specialized diet. For example, we get certain nutrients more efficiently when eating certain food combinations. There's also evidence that things like high fructose corn is really unhealthy since we never evolved to eat it. Go read the omnivore's diet and in defense of food books for more details. Diet and food production is a very non-trivial subject.
So, the real question is: can we mass produce cheap, healthy food? The really nasty question is, what do we do if we can't mass-produce enough cheap healthy food to support future (or even current) population growth? Do we trust evolution to select humans that can live on cheap unhealthy food? Do we start producing healthier but more expensive food and let the have-nots die or eat unhealthy food? Do we find a way to create cheap healthy mass-produced food without going bankrupt?
I enjoy reading all of these posts from people complaining about the unsustainability of "organic" (which, BTW, is nothing more than a marketing term in the US) farming.
So industrial agriculture is better? Your idea of "sustainable" is depleting the topsoil, pumping it full of fertilizers based on fossil-fuel, and then having most of that nitrogen leach out into the water supply to choke out marine life? Sounds like either a short-sighted solution, or willful rationalization to me.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
As I understand it, there are other environmental factors which commonly encourage people to adopt organic foods in their diet:
If something is certified organic, it -usually- means (depending on who certified it) that it was raised or grown in a completely organ (as much as can be, at least) environment: no pesticides, no petrofertilizer, no GMOs at any stage of the production process. It also usually means that the foods were not irradiated and are dye-free.
At least in the case of meat, I know that organic, free-range beef will have a substantial higher amount of omega 3 fatty acids than the "organic" feedlot cattle which are fed on organic corn feeds to fatten them up. There's a huge difference there, and I can imagine that, likewise, there's not much of a difference between organic feedlot and commercial feedlot cattle.
A big part of why people buy organic isn't due to the food itself at a primary-producer level, but what happens to it after production: milk is homogenized and ultra-pasteurized (and then manufactured vitamins and minerals re-added to make up for the fact); eggs sit around until they're "old" before they get to the consumer; meat and fruits/vegetables are irradiated, dyed, and god (and probably my wife) knows what else, and so on. When you're buying organic, you are probably more vested in the food you eat and are more likely to look local (and thus, probably better/more natural): most so-called organic food probably has very little fundamental difference from the mass consumer stuff, I'd agree.
Personally, I'd be suspicious of this study on principle (granted, I have not read it) due to the substantial money from the "food industry" which has a vested interest in sustaining the status quo.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
There is no claim that organic foods are more nutritious.
Technically incorrect. I direct you to the Nutritional Considerations page of the Organic Trade Association.
http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html
There are many claims that organic food is nutritionally superior to conventional alternatives.
The UK FSA study is narrow in scope, and it's purpose was to provide a counterpoint to statements like "Research by visiting chemistry professor Theo Clark and undergraduate students at Truman State University in Missouri found organically grown oranges contained up to 30 percent more vitamin C than those grown conventionally."
Well, not even that. It's not the fat, but the type of fat (saturated), the preservatives, multiple flavor enhancers, substitutes (soy) and use of the least-common-denominator products in general (yay, fluffy white buns which would normally lack all flavor if not for the additives in the rest of the food). There's little to no nutritional value there; it's fluff.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Why should that be the criteria? How about caring because it's another living creature? But since you asked, animals do demonstrate intelligence and emotion - plenty of evidence to back that up.
There's nothing trendy in respecting life. It's to be human. In the words of Bernard Shaw:
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Mass-producing cheap food is good. Mass-producing cheap food that isn't healthy is...?
not relevant to the discussion based on the results of the article this entire thread is attached to!
I'm a monogastric nutritionist, with an MS degree and about a year left to my PhD. Between the two of us, I'm probably the one with the better understanding of digestion, nutrient interactions, and the impact it can have on health. The reasons that we've specialized so much on corn and soy are that they grow so well in the climate of the midwest, and they are so well paired together (at least in animal diets).
100 years ago, soy production didn't even rank on the US agriculture census. However, after we realized how to appropriately process it, we dramatically increased production. It is an excellent source of protein as all the Vegans can attest (although not as good as animal protein).
Corn is an excellent source of energy, both oil and carbohydrate. I agree that there is potential for problems with too much high-fructose corn syrup. Unlike most that bemoan it, I can even tell you why. The first regulatory step in glycolysis (in which 6-Carbon sugars are converted to energy) is bypassed by fructose. Therefore cells may not be able to limit carbohydrate utilization effectively when people consume too much fructose. However, the need to use something in moderation does not make in inherently unhealthy.
In your last paragraph you are creating a series of hypothetical situations that have no actual resemblance to reality. We already do produce cheap, healthy food to feed the masses. The question is whether or not caring, but uninformed morons, are going to legislatively tie the hands of those trying to increase production to prevent hunger in the future. This is further aggravated by the push to make fuel out of corn. We have been able to consistently increase corn and soy yields year after year, and as long as the government doesn't dictate which technology we can and can't use, we should be able to continue doing so into the future.
Organic food is both inherently more expensive, and less efficient use of land. It is no healthier than the equivalent grain produced using modern techniques. Developing countries may not specialize in corn and soy. There is no reason for them to do so. For example central America looks to be standardizing at least partially on sugarcane. Many of the principles behind modern agriculture can be applied to just about any grain. The fundamental flaws in Organic agriculture remain, independent of the country or cereal grain of interest.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Yep, that's our finding too.
The thing about supermarket foods is that, by the time you get it home, it's been picked for a long damn time. Weeks, months - who knows. Same for beef, eggs, poultry, and dairy: it takes a while for all those things to get to the consumer.
We've bought eggs from the farmer's market or from a local friend/farmer before, as well as milk - straight from the cow with the little black floaties in it, still (mmm full-cream milk, not any of this homogenized and super-pastuerized "whole" milk nonsense). The milk can sit for couple days on the counter without souring (though it's much sweeter if refrigerated). Eggs can sit out on the counter "indefinitely" - call it a week or two (nobody put eggs in their fridge before fridge makers started having the egg trays, and industrial egg production started washing the protective membranes off the egg shells). Likewise, packaged meat at the supermarket has been sitting out for quite, whether at the packing plant after the slaughter, pre-freezing, or post-freezing at the store. And there's also the (not slim, during the summer) chance that the freezer truck thawed out during transit, and that meat spent a while heating in the back of a truck.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Really? I can give you two apples that have the same nutritional value but one has cyanide in it. Are you going to trust the study that doesn't look into the affects of poison in the food?
Actually I think all apples have cyanide in them... http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp
Take a look at Japan, but before MacDonalds, et. al., became popular over here.
Sure, longevity is still on the rise, but it was high well before the incidence of "western diseases" ballooned.
If there is no reason to specialize in corn and soy, then why do so many developing countries do so?
Are you sure that lectures from the "big ag" groups will not also be full of biased information?
When your favorite tool is a hammer, you tend to see all problems as nails, whether you are a programmer, a doctor, a musician, a farmer, an employee of an artists association, an engineer for Monsanto, etc.
"Big" is a hammer. "Big" looks efficient until the first disaster.
("Big", as in Bureaucracy, would you believe?)
Eventually, we get turned back around to recognizing that work, like control, works best on a local basis. That includes farming.
The siren song of big industry, I think, is the sharing of information, but we really don't need to make big corporations to share information.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
How about you spend a half an hour thinking about your preconceptions and their logical consequences before running your mouth off (keyboard off?).
I've worked for years in both conventional and organic farms.
Besides, if these 'poisons' as you put it were actually 'poisons' for humans, don't you think people would have started getting sick by now?
I know both farm owners and workers who have had terrible health consequences from the use of agricultural chemicals. Properly medically diagnosed problems, not just some vague suspicion on my part. I've applied chemicals to crops myself, I know the proper safe working practices. Have you ever read the label on any agricultural chemicals? Have you ever read a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet)? Do you understand why they require various levels of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) depending on toxicity, from gloves to full body suits? Do you know what a withholding period is? Do you realize that agricultural chemicals sometimes get banned for being too dangerous, sometimes after years of widespread use?
How about you spend half an hour thinking yourself before spouting of nonsense that is easily refuted by the relevant science, as recognised by legislation and the companies that produce those chemicals. Maybe I can recommend some commonly used agricultural chemicals for you to ingest. You can take up the issue with your biochemistry teacher if you survive. Do you think they put warning labels on the drums for fun?
Use of these chemicals is regulated and has specific use instructions based on the science. I have seen the blatant disregard for those instructions and laws by food producers. As for people getting sick, well, they do. Tell me, what do you think is the reason they have withholding periods for sprays? It's to prevent people being poisoned by those chemicals. That's ok, because no farmers disregard the withholding periods. Ever. Right?
FYI, organic production does allow for fertlizers and pesticides. They are limited to those derived from plants. The plant derived pesticides are older, less effective, and require HEAVIER & MORE FREQUENT application rates than their more modern peers.
You don't really seem to have done much research on this topic. As I said, I worked in the industry. Replacement of artificial chemicals with organic alternatives is only one method of dealing with crop weeds, pests and diseases. Flame weeding http://www.industrysearch.com.au/Products/Flame_Weeding_using_Elgas_LPG-22464 is the first thing off the top of my head because I use it in my garden, even though I am not in agriculture any more, but there are many other methods used to reduce or eliminate the need for spraying.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Does anyone ever consider reading the thread below a post before weighing in and giving us the benefit of their "knowledge"?
If you'd done that, you would have found out I have worked in both organic and non-organic farming. It's unlikely that you are about to give me any info on this topic that I don't know already unless by chance you are in agricultural research specializing in organic production.
I worked on what was one of only two organic pineapple farms in Australia at the time. Other pineapple producers in the area would insist that organic production of pineapples wasn't even possible. Their thinking is too locked into the systems they currently use to understand. There's a lot more to it than just not spraying, or replacing a synthetic spray with an organic alternative. Most of what you think you know about organic production may well be based on information propagated by people with such flawed understanding.
Trying to replace the effects of chemical use without changing your agricultural systems away from broadacre monoculture farming is not going to result in much change, but that's what many statements made regarding organic farming are based on. That doesn't mean you can't have industrialized organic farming, but it needs a more comprehensive approach than "don't use chemical X".
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Keep your reactionary crap for the Monsanto press releases, you ignoramus.
How about growing Corn and Soybeans, as they are currently done on industrial scale - where several hundred times the caloric value they render as food is burned of in petroleum and fertilizers for every ton produced.
I believe in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, mind you, and try to obey it at every turn. But this is an unbelievably wasteful use of solar-generated energy, which enriches many on the raw-materials front, while producing a harmful and substandard food product.
So don't talk about sustainability of farming, when you advocate 10-20 % of the operating capacity of world oil wells to "sustain" your program of industrial-scale malnutrition. Or maybe you are volunteering to fight in combat to secure the next Central Asian pipeline?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Actually, life expectancy for those who make it past childhood hasn't increased much at all. It's a reduction in infant and child mortality that's paid off.
If lifestyle-related obesity, heart disease, and cancers continue to increase, it's quite possible that we will see a decline in life expectancy, even as technology improves.
There's no a priori reason it would be any less riskier.
Technology is not some magical thing that can only do good. "Improvements" in technology often end up doing harm to some people even as they benefit others.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
When I was about 12 I was helping my uncle drench sheep - basically giving them a chemical shower. The chemical we were using caused me and my cousin to both have explosive diarrhea, stomach cramps and nausea the instant we caught a decent whiff of the overspray. "You'll get used to it" was my uncles advice to us.
These were flu symptoms. That you were experiencing them at the time you were handling perfectly safe farm chemicals was a mere coincidence. I can assure you we don't bring any products to market which haven't passed a set of rigorous battery of safety standards. That is more than you can say for the potentially life-threatening and throroughly untested methods employed by "organic" farmers.
This is just leftists pseudo-science. You may as well worry about so-called "global warming" (not gettting so warm now, is it?) as about any ill health effects from modern pesticides.
"Big Ag" is big because they need to be big if they want to turn a reliable profit. You want to back up any of your "Big is Dangerous" rant with specific examples or am I supposed to provide those. I think the fact that "Big Ag" has managed to feed a world while allowing >90% of the western world to have no contact with the food production industry is a pretty strong example of "Big can be Good".
If people were willing and able to pay for corn that is twice the price, we could afford to keep a lot more smaller operations in business. However, grain and animal futures markets are prone to massive and prolonged slumps that push smaller operators out of business due to their inability to spread the fixed overhead costs over a larger production base.
No one is actively trying to kill small farms, they just aren't competitive in an industry that calculates profit on chicken in 100ths of a penny for example. This has almost nothing to do with big corporate farms vs. small family farms and everything to do with basic Economics
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
So you know people that used agricultural chemicals and got sick. What are the odds that they didn't use the accepted safe working practices? I know that many of the smaller farm I worked on (yes I've worked on farms as well, both animal and produce), they kept pretty dangerous chemicals in less than secure locations and didn't always practice the best safety. Spill a little on the ground? Just kick some dirt over it, that's where it's headed anyway right? However, none of that is the fault of the technology, only of the farmer implementing it. That same farmer is going to me making the same mistakes if it's organic or not!
The chemicals can be dangerous but there are guidelines for their safe use. People can and do ignore them at their own peril. Organic won't change that. They'll just be using different chemicals, and more of them. It's akin to blaming the antifreeze manufacturer because your radiator leaks and your dog got sick from licking the antifreeze off of the floor. If you want to push for grain testing, I'm all for it, but tearing down an entire industry because some people are too lazy to look out for their own health is Nanny State Bullshit.
As to the flame weeding, I don't know anyone that uses it on the kind of large farms you see here in the midwest where the bulk of our corn and soy is grown. Could be because it doesn't scale well. A handful of farmers using it in states that don't even produce enough to meet local demand is statistically negligible.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
No one likes to have tools taken out of their toolbox for insufficient reason. That I already indicated pork producers routinely use antibiotics in the nursery barn is a pretty good explanation as to why.
I never said that they don't get used in other diets, just that as an animal nutritionists, I don't see them routinely used outside of swine nursery diets. There is a lot of research showing growth performance benefits from their use. They knock down intestinal microbiota populations enabling more of the nutrients and energy in the feed to go to growing the animal instead of growing microbes or into host immune response to microbes.
I never trust anything I read in the NYTimes about agriculture because they are all urbanites and have no ability to separate the latest fad from their reporting IMO.
The second Purdue article was dealing mostly with therapeutic doses of antibiotics used to fight disease. I see no difference between that and the antibiotics that humans flush down the drain in pill form or in human waste.
If you looked at table 4 from the final report for the Virginia Department of Health study, you'll see that the CAFOs and non-CAFOs were roughly the same as far as environmental impact, despite producing animals much more intensively
AS to the EPA ruling that is 5 years old,is a fucking Power Point presentation, so excuse me if I don't take it as the final authority on the subject. Especially since the last line indicates that the impact of these findings is unknown.
And yet, in none of your examples do they indicate that the animals would all die in the absence of antibiotics. (Cheep shot, I know)
Ultimately agriculture is doing a lot to try and minimize the environmental impact of plant and animal production. My own MS and PhD research has dealt with that topic from the animal side. Can we make improvements? YES! Do we want legislators making "Feel Good" decisions at the request of special interest groups like PETA or the HSUS that encourage a Vegan Lifestyle? NO! There has been a lot of research into the Antibiotics in livestock issue and I'm all for waiting until the due diligence is done. Especially since a decade long ban in the EU hasn't yielded any tangible benefits.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
No actually organic food is *GROWN* in cow shit. Organic food is not 'made', it is not 'constructed' the very use of the description organic suggests man made influences are restricted. So as stated unless small pixie like creatures 'make' food in cow shit you're wrong. It's one think to make a mistake, to err is to be human... it's plain stupid to come back and make a bold post reinforcing previous mistake as correct for all the world to see.
Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
Actually they are chosen based on profitiability. Which is a combination of the factors you mentiond plus taste. A fruit that is pest free, growns fast and doesn't spoil but tastes bad and doesn't sell would not be harvested. Like wise a great tasting fruit that spoils fast and prone to pests would not be harvested either. It is all factors including taste. Profit is king. Also do not overlook the ethical / religious motivations of people, i buy free range eggs not based on cost or taste but for ethical opinions. More and more crops (especially grains) are being chosen to avoid 'royalty' payments being made to bio firms that have engineered a strain and are trying to recoup costs.
Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
That's a ripoff site of the original....
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I also garden and friends have remarked that they never new that lettuce was supposed to taste of anything. My niece and nephews eat carrots and tomatoes from the garden as though they were sweets, the varieties I grow are not viable for the supermarket economy.
We actually produce more food than the world population needs, farming in developing countries is damaged by dumping of western agriculture surpluses in their economies.
I could rant on this one all day but suffice it to say that this study was.... flawed
"Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
Well if that was the point, then the point is a lie.
Apparently we've got to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Hold on - according to the other report when it references the FSA's ...
According to the study's Executive Summary:
"This review does not address contaminant content (such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide residues) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs or the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural practices."
Why such a pejorative stance? All it's saying is that is hasn't taken into account - for either types of food - the effect of eating them unwashed - isn't it?
And, also that it hasn't looked at environmental impacts etc., but that it's *just* looked at the nutritional value - which is the focus of the main report.
@peetm
I'm glad we agree.
And I should care because .... ?
Family farms can stay the fuck off my plate, and stop undermining scientific progress.
So where's the original (it's been years since I last saw it).
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
No, they're not the same. The former is faster.
I don't see the issue. That tomato already has "fish DNA", as do you. DNA is DNA, regardless of the species you extract it from. It's like saying that it's dangerous to take Microsoft code and put it in Linux. Ok, ok, bad example, but you get the idea... If you're afraid that we'll suddenly be overrun by giant Killer Tomatoes, you've been watching too much TV.
The chemicals can be dangerous but there are guidelines for their safe use. People can and do ignore them at their own peril.
People can and do ignore them, not just to their own peril but also the peril of the people who eat that produce.
Organic won't change that. They'll just be using different chemicals, and more of them.
Not so, as I said "there are many other methods used to reduce or eliminate the need for spraying". Organic growers are not always replacing chemical treatments with an alternative spray.
It's akin to blaming the antifreeze manufacturer because your radiator leaks and your dog got sick from licking the antifreeze off of the floor.
No, it's not akin to that at all. I didn't blame the chemical manufacturers, I just prefer not to have poison sprayed on my food. That doesn't mean I never eat food that's been sprayed. It also doesn't mean that I'm happy to eat poison just because it's an organic one.
... tearing down an entire industry because some people are too lazy to look out for their own health is Nanny State Bullshit.
Sounds right to me. If I had proposed new regulations or the destruction of an industry you'd have made a relevant point. I prefer to eat foods without poison on them. That's nothing to do with Nanny State. See my sig? I mean it.
As to the flame weeding, I don't know anyone that uses it on the kind of large farms you see here in the midwest where the bulk of our corn and soy is grown.
I have used it in commercial production. How many other people do is unknown to me. As I said "there are many other methods used to reduce or eliminate the need for spraying". I doubt it would suit soy production much, I've never grown soy so I won't try to comment on a suitable alternative. Anyway, I didn't even say chemical use could or should be totally eliminated or anything similar. I just said "Personally I'm not a big fan of poisons sprayed on my food regardless of what this study says", I don't see why anyone would take issue with that. In response to me expressing a personal preference to not have spray in my food you said I was running my mouth off. and of promoting a nanny state. Both are baseless accusations, quite rude, really. I wouldn't have thought that wanting food without sprays could be generally considered proof of ignorance, but you made the assumption I didn't know what I was talking about, even though your own experience of farmers not always practising the best safety is a real problem IMO. Your points haven't done anything to address my concerns, nor given me any new information other than the anecdote about your rat poison drinking teacher.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I choose to buy organic (when given the choice) to encourage smarter, more sustainable farming practices. Avoiding the negative health effects of the chemicals in non-organic food is my other reason (and it appears this research didn't consider that aspect, just nutrition). Taste benefits are subtle, but there. But that, and increased nutrition, are just bonuses for me. I wish the BBC didn't use such sensationalist and mis-leading headlines though. I notice them most in the science section, but I don't know if that is just that I (like most people here I guess!) have more background knowledge, or if it is just that the science editor really wishes he was working for the tabloids.
You want a "Big is Dangerous" rant?
Well, big served for a while. It did provide the social stimulus for researching a lot of important things. There should have been a better way, but even the "free" society of the USA wasn't really quite up to accepting the realities involved in what "free" really means.
Big ag did serve for a while.
We live in a society heavily biased by the systemization that brought us too much big. It makes it hard to see what the alternatives are. It also makes it hard for the individual, non-standard people to get what they need, since big can only provide the standard.
Non-standard will always look too expensive in a society like this.
But the big institutions have all well outgrown their usefulness. That's what the business with the big banks was/is. It's time to kill the big institutions off, or, rather, cut them back to a manageable size, split them into competing entities. Or kill them if they won't be cut down to size.
The institutions, not the people, of course. Let the institutions die, if necessary, to save the people.
(And if you think you are standard enough not to believe in non-standard individuals, just wait a while. Standard is an illusion.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
None of what you said is an actual EXAMPLE that big is bad. Only a belief and a bunch of nonsense about how Big isn't for everyone. I never said it was, only that it was good enough for most people.
There will always be niche providers for services in any industry, including agriculture. That doesn't mean that Big Ag has some how failed, only that what ever that niche is looking for is too dissimilar from what everyone else is looking for, or at least content with to become the new Big Ag Standard.
The problems with the banks was one of deregulation so as to get the poor into houses so that they will in turn vote for the Democrats. All of the banks are 'guilty', not just the big ones, and i'm being incredibly liberal with my use of the term guilt. I know of several small local banks that ended up needing to be bailed out or closed, so your one example isn't actually applicable.
Big Ag is more important now than it has ever been before and I'll give you actual, relevant reasons why.
1. We have more people on this planet then we've ever had in the past, many of those people are living on subsistence diets handed out by Aid groups in 3rd world countries. These countries lack the infrastructure to feed themselves and without aide many more would be starving to death.
2. In the last 3 years we have gone from 13% of total US corn crop going toward fuel ethanol production to 23%. What's more is that in those 3 years, we've increased total corn Production, so that 23% if of a much larger number than the 13%.
3. We've had record breaking years as far as total corn production here in the US most years in the last decade. All we need is one bad year because of floods, tornadoes, or disease and food prices are going to go through the roof, and many in 3rd world countries will starve to death.
4. There are several independent organizations, including the UN, that have estimated that we are going to need to DOUBLE global food production over the next 50 years. Unless we can get these developing countries carrying most of that load, we are going to need to get that extra production out of countries already running at full steam. That we've been trying to get these countries on their feet unsuccessfully for more than 50 years, makes me doubt we'll be successful with more than a handful of them in the next 50 years.
I'm even a fan of small Ag. However, because of basic economics, they need to be doing something unique and innovative in order to stay competitive in the globalized economy. That does NOT mean that they are some how Better than Big Ag, only different.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
DNA is DNA,
Huh? DNA is unique to an individual organism. The more different the type of organism, the more different the contents of their DNA. Compare the DNA of 2 humans, not much difference. Compare the DNA of a human and a tomato, a big difference.
dangerous to take Microsoft code and put it in Linux
Actually, that is a quite good example. After the MS code is injected, Linux is now tainted. It would probably be easier to remove MS code from Linux than removing GM organisms from the environment once let loose.
giant Killer Tomatoes
I'm not worried about giant killer tomoatoes. I am worried about tomatoes that have no flavor. I am worried about tomatoes that have lower nutrient value. I am worried about subtle, unknown, untested changes in the nature of tomoatoes that may not manifest for a number of generations. I am worried that once these modified tomoatoes cross breed with unmodified tomatoes, I have no option, no choice, to grow or purchase an unmodified tomato.
You may not care whether that choice exists. Does that mean that I should not have that choice?
file:
UHT is used in the US for some "room temperature" milk producs, including some of the milk packs designed to go in kids lunch bags. Its also used in some backing products. Milk in the grocery cooler uses the low temp pasturization, and has shorter shelf life. (UHT can last months, usually 6 or longer, until opened). There is quite a noticable flavor difference.... I much prefer the lot temp method thankfuly used here.
I don't have an issue with milk spoiling. A gallon lasts a week if I'm lucky in the fridge, but would be good for 3-4 weeks typically per the label (and it's usuallly good a week past that, or up to 20 days after it's been opened the first time)
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
If the earth can't sustain a certain population, maybe we shouldn't force it? After all, how long can you overspend before your bank account is emptied?
i can't imagine what life with a palate that couldn't taste the difference between organic and non-organic food would be like. Then again, organic means a little more up here in Canada. Tell me, can you taste the difference between canadian and US milk?
The problem is that the US has no control over the population growth of other countries.
The population of most Western countries would be in free fall if it weren't for the immigrants coming from 2nd and 3rd world countries. If the US closed it's borders tomorrow, we would be at negligible population growth, if not in population decline.
As a result, WE are not the problem, but we ARE expected to be part of the solution. The best way to get global population to stabilize or even lower is to increase the standard of living in 2nd and 3rd world countries. There is a strong negative correlation between standard of living and reproduction rate. The only other alternative to control global population is genocide by force or intentional starvation. I don't want either of those on my conscience.
I'd prefer to use technology to find a way to feed the extra people while simultaneously acting to improve quality of life so as to slow, stop or even roll back the global population.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
The Gros Michel cultivar is not extinct, it simply isn't commercially viable. More here:
http://www.promusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=133
Something to keep in mind when traveling in banana country (well, for those of us that would like to see what all the noise is about).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Probably what made it possible was the uncaring myopic do-first-think-never-profit-always attitude that while reducing the labour required in food production, turned the food industry into a poisoning machine that would eventually devestate the health of the country...and probably do something nasty to it's health care system....
sounds like you need to get out and travel and see the world. Your idea of what should be done might change after you do that.
Too bad we can't get 'em.
Cavendish suck.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Pollan at times appears to be "getting it", eg. cattle not being designed to eat corn. He then makes a 180 and rationalizes his penis-driven mistaking of animals for food with isolated crypto-sustainable / local special cases. You quote him above talking about Western diseases, yet in the latter part of TOD he dives right back into just that diet. Having a pig killed right in front of you doesn't make it any healthier to eat, or any more sustainable on a global -- not boutique -- scale.
It might have something to do with us humans eating them afterwards. If you had a choice, would you really want to eat livestock that has been infused with all sorts hormones/pharmaseudicals/etc from birth. All that shit doesn't just pass through their systems, it stays in the meat, and we end up eating it, and then it stays in our bodies.
You know how Tuna and lots of other fish (mmm, dolphin) are full of Mercury (or whatever metal it is - I'm rambling here so don't come to me with facts :) ) so our intake should be limited, it's the same deal except it's growth hormones and all sorts of other stuff.
I'm not going to pretend that freerange or organic is some magical solution where the animals are massaged twice a day, but there has to be a better way. Food is one place where we really shouldn't be going only for the fastest and cheapest.
If you want flavorful red meat, I suggest buffalo. It costs more, but the flavor is unbeatable. I haven't bought beef (with the exception of roast beef for sandwhiches, and I've even stopped that) in more than a year once I discovered that my local supermarket started carrying buffalo.
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
A vegetarian named Cthulu?
Just kill it and eat it. Meat is food. Factory meat is not food.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
It's ironic that this result is being publicized just as we are starting to unravel the _symbiotic_ relationship between natural foodborne bacteria and the immune system. Many microbiologists and immunologists are reconsidering the benefits of locally-grown organic foods that we, as scientists, have dismissed for generations. Food is more than a chemical concoction, and your body comprises about 100 times as many non-human cells as human ones. It may be that the major benefits of organic foods are not in the pesticides that are _not_ present but in the microorganisms that _are_ present in these foods.
And by that do you mean that we should let the 3rd world starve? or to go start killing people to maintain a lower global population? Unless you have some other, better alternative that you'd like to share with me those are the only 2 options I know of.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Yes it is. unless you think carcinogens that kill you over a long period of time can't be considered poison.
by that i mean exactly that. Get out and see the world. You might be suprised to find out that it doesn't need what you think it needs.
I have seen a fair amount of the world. When did I ever say that I hadn't. Besides visiting foreign countries is not an acceptable replacement for thinking about the issue at hand.
You've indicated that my view is myopic, but provided no alternative viewpoint or evidence that my view is myopic. Essentially you are full of shit and I called your arrogant bluff. you don't know what you are talking about and have not evidence to support the collection of 'feelings' and whishy-washy rhetoric that you use to create your world view.
Feel free to prove me wrong by actually telling me what the alternative is that prevents the need for big ag by controlling the world population. I'm actually interested to know, because I'm not a huge fan of the only other 2 options (genocide & mass starvation) and too many other people are not fans of the 3rd option (big ag). Unless you can provide me with a viable 4th alternative, don't bother replying.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I am all about Anjou Pears.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I have reevaluated based on your link and stand by my original statement. The study clearly states that organic farming is not as efficient as modern techniques.
where fertilizer isn't really in the budget, organic methods greatly increased yields
In other words, when modern techniques aren't being used organic farming is better than nothing at all. Obviously.
in the US, that is. in the EU : there's regulation.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
interesting read. glyphosate could be permitted then, just on the basis of biodegradabibilty. now. for the GMO-part though ...
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Actually it really depends on how heavily altered the 'normal' food one gets at the supermarket is. generally speaking, an onion is an onion (and i lived in walla walla eating sweets for 4 years) a bell pepper is a bell pepper and white rice is white rice. however, milk, eggs, and a lot of veggies and fruit that have been bred for size and shelf-ripening by agribusines (tomatoes and cucumbers spring to mind) are noticeably different. that said, since you can't tell the difference, continue shopping where you shop. unlike many of my fellow coop shoppers, i could give a less of a flying fuck what everyone else eats.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
As someone who has worked in the dairy industry I can assure you that there is no routine adulteration of "Regular" milk that isn't also done routinely to "Organic" milk. I could walk you through the entire QA process if you would like, but suffice to say Milk doesn't belong on your list of things that are "Noticeably Different" unless you've actually done a blind taste test.
I worked on a small dairy in Hadley, MA (less than 30 cows milking at any one time) that milked only Jersey cows and bottled their own milk. It wasn't organic, although it may be now, but it tasted different because Jersey cows are purported to have higher milk protein or milk fat (can't remember which) that Holsteins. If they've gone "Organic" that difference will be attributed to management practices, not the breed of cow producing the milk.
Most "Organic" or "Non-BST" milk is just as heavily processed Homogenized, Pasteurized, tested for antibiotics, controlled for milk fat content, and supplemented with Vitamin D, etc. as "Regular" milk.
For the rest, I still believe that any differences are either psychosomatic or the result of different genetics, which usually grow slower or are more prone to disease. In either case "Happy Shopping."
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde