Organic Food: Nature's Way of Stealing Your Money

[ImprobableJoe]

You don't actually know what a foodie is, do you. That might explain your unwarranted hostility. "Foodies" are just food aficionados who enjoy preparing and eating food, as well as learning about more of the details behind food than your average person. Organic or raw food advocates might also be foodies, but there's nothing about either that is required to make someone a foodie. So, when foodies talk about finding fresh ingredients, or shopping at farmer's markets, or getting meat and seafood closer to the source, or trying exotic spices and other ingredients, I don't see why you jump to "the organic food craze, raw foods including unpasteurized milk, supplement hype, and corn flakes", part of which is actually contradictory. Why would a foodie buy into supplement hype when they are in favor of eating the sort of variety of foods that would make almost all supplements unnecessary for almost all people?

You sort of went off the deep end there, need me to throw you a line? Or are you just spoiling for a fight?

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

@ IJ
The other part of the Wikipedia definition says,

Typical foodie interests and activities include the food industry, wineries and wine tasting, breweries and beer sampling, food science, following restaurant openings and closings, food distribution, food fads, health and nutrition, and restaurant management.

This is so broad it means a foodie is anyone who has any interest connected to food. If you want to use this definition then of course all the good ideas about food, along with all the bad ones, are 100% attributable to foodies. And that puts this thread on the road to nowhere.

We are clearly talking about the food fad interests of foodies here. Thank you in advance for staying on topic if you expect further responses.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

@ IJ
The other part of the Wikipedia definition says,

Typical foodie interests and activities include the food industry, wineries and wine tasting, breweries and beer sampling, food science, following restaurant openings and closings, food distribution, food fads, health and nutrition, and restaurant management.

This is so broad it means a foodie is anyone who has any interest connected to food. If you want to use this definition then of course all the good ideas about food, along with all the bad ones, are 100% attributable to foodies. And that puts this thread on the road to nowhere.

We are clearly talking about the food fad interests of foodies here. Thank you in advance for staying on topic if you expect further responses.

So, you ARE spoiling for a fight... that's also called "trolling" BTW. Thanks for making your position abundantly clear.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

This thread started with the "taste test" part of Penn & Teller's organic "Bullshit!" episode. Here's the "expert opinion" segment of the same episode.

 

[simonecuttlefish]

It not all about taste either. I know people who feel much more comfortable with eating killed and slaughtered animals that were all happy and nice beforehand, like free range chickens and pigs. There are lots of ethical questions about food origins that "taste test is bullshit" and "the vitamine content is the same" arguments spring from. Some people have concerns about pesticide residues, artificially introduced hormone levels, chemical additives and antibiotic content in commercially mass produced food. There are also the ethical questions about how the gap between the prices we pay, and the monies paid to the producers is widening. Many market gardeners in Australia are just giving up, and the average age of the producers is increasing alarmingly. So there is a lot more to the "organic" thing just some crap arguments bandied about a cynical few trying to exploit the good intentions of consumers, and a hell of a lot more than you will find in the propaganda materials produced by mass food production industries under the cover of an anonymous video or silently sponsored TV 'documentary'. There are great points for both, and dodgy underhanded dishonesties from both. And truth from both.

I live in the country anyway, so you can get a whopping box of yummy fruit and veggies cheaper from a market or roadside stall here than in any supermarket. But I don't live in a big city, and I'm not dependant on the oversupply of food, that so often gets given out as part of some countries "foreign aid" contributions, like excess cereal grain and rice production. This is also a nice way to stop "stockpiling" and increasing the price you sell these products to wealthy nations for. I'm personally not so interested in the method of production, I go for the price.

What do they get those enormous 'chicken breasts' from though these days? Battery pterosaurs?

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

I agree that there is disinformation in all food marketing and cringe at meaningless product buzzwords words like "original," "natural," "old-fashioned" and "less fat." Less fat than what? A tub of lard? I rankle at dairy products with pictures of grassy meadows with one or two cows in them, knowing that the places those dairy products come from are nothing like that. I grind my teeth at "free range" knowing it's feel-good nonsense drummed into consumers' heads for profit at the expense of truth. http://www.cok.net/lit/freerange.php

On a disinformation scale of one to ten, I'd rate the standard food producers at 7 and the organic crowd at 11.

Simonecuttlefish wrote

Some people have concerns about pesticide residues, artificially introduced hormone levels, chemical additives and antibiotic content in commercially mass produced food.

which sounds quite reasonable at first blush, but breaks down to superstition based on disinformation upon closer inspection.

First, pesticide residues are the holy grail of misinformed foodies and just as mythical. The problems with pesticide residues were discovered and fixed over half a century ago. By law, commercial pesticides must self-destruct within days after their use. The main catalyst for this process is the air, but sunshine and water work well too. This means that the pesticide molecule that killed the bug that would have eaten the fruit (let's call it ABC) no longer exists after a few days because it's decomposed into molecules A, B & C none of which can can kill or harm anything, nor will they recombine. Now are A, B & C pesticide residues? Technically, yes. Are they pesticides? Absolutely not. Yet there is one loophole that permits the use of a class of pesticides that does not decompose. These are the organic pesticides. "Oh, but organic food is grown without pesticides," many say, unaware that this is yet another brainwash treatment from the organics industry. Google returns over 11,000,000 hits on "organic pesticides."

Second, artificially introduced hormones are a favorite whipping boy for the biology-challenged. "Hormone" is such an ugly word that there must be something evil about it. Why the very idea of dairy farmers shooting up cows with Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone (BGH) to increase milk production 10-15% conjures up the image of a rapacious agri-giant foisting its wares on helpless cows in order to poison our babies. Never mind that cows milk has always had and always will have BGH in it. Never mind that no one has ever eaten a morsel of food that didn't have hormones in it. Never mind that without hormones life as we know it would not exist. The only real question in the hormones non-issue is why Monsanto wants to murder our babies. :shock:

Third, chemical additives are a favorite whipping boy for the chemistry-challenged. The starting point here is acceptance that all additives, all food, and all matter is made of chemicals. The chemical additives scare, like the hormone additives scare is based on the premise that because they are "added" they must be yet another evil plot by Monsanto, or someone like them, to poison us. What's wrong with additives? Adding fluorine to toothpaste is good. Adding iodine to salt is good. Additives that prevent powdery foods from caking are great. Additives that give food a longer shelf life are terrific. So what's the point? Foodies going on about "chemical additives" have no point. It's just foodie fear mongering writ large. Consider the raw foods craze favored by those who object to pasteurization -- that quaint little French invention that's been saving hundreds of millions of lives since 1864 -- being "added" to products. As Ren would say, "You eeediots!"

Fourth, concerns about the antibiotic content in commercially mass produced food, are worthy, but only for the right reasons. This is too complex for forum fodder so there is a legitimate need to over-simplify for brevity. The foodies' point is that factory-farmed animals are stuffed with antibiotics and whence we eat of their flesh those antibiotics will poison us, and our babies. The real threat however is not that antibiotics will do something to us, but that they won't. Antibiotics are man-made germ killing agents, the power of which has saved billions of critters from aquarium fish to humans from illness and untimely death. But developing antibiotics is a non-stop race where natural selection produces antibiotic resistant germs faster than we produce antibiotics to fight them. The wide-spread indiscriminate use of antibiotics in the raising of livestock means these animals are massed incubators for germs that could come back to bite us if we fall one antibiotic short in the race. What, if anything can be done about this is a tremendously complex subject, but suffice to say the antibiotics problem has nothing to do with organics.

In sum, organic foods are not healthier, they do not taste better, they are more expensive than non-organic food, they are based on fear mongering rather than science, and they are grown with pesticides and fertilizers that are worse for the environment than commercial equivalents. If the world switched to organic farming overnight two billion people would starve because of the 30% drop in production; and if the organic food proponents were Pinocchio, their noses would be the size of redwoods. It all seems like a heck of a price to pay for feel-good, pseudo-green cache.

 

[JustBusiness17]

This thread started with the "taste test" part of Penn & Teller's organic "Bullshit!" episode. Here's the "expert opinion" segment of the same episode.

If you do a little research on these so-called "experts", one works for a libertarian organization while the other works for a conservative think tank funded by Monsanto. Plausible deniability anybody?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

If you do a little research on these so-called "experts", one works for a libertarian organization while the other works for a conservative think tank funded by Monsanto. Plausible deniability anybody?

Genetic fallacy. If you can prove them wrong, do so.

 

[JustBusiness17]

If you do a little research on these so-called "experts", one works for a libertarian organization while the other works for a conservative think tank funded by Monsanto. Plausible deniability anybody?

Genetic fallacy. If you can prove them wrong, do so.

Prove them wrong? All they're doing is attempting to establish doubt. They sound like bloody lawyers, not scientists... What's the one guy's qualifications again... He's read over 400 reports... Woooooooo... I wonder how many of those were either misinterpreted or produced by conservative think tanks in order to give that guy enough factoids to appear on camera.

I'd like them to explain how a food system that's dependent on fossil fuels will survive in the future, let alone the environmental impacts of fertilizer and pesticide runoff. Also, I'd like to know what technique they use to sweep antibiotic resistant bacteria underneath the rug?


PS: I love how they omitted "GMO free" from their list of organic food types.

 

[borrofburi]

Another issue with organic farming is the decreased efficiency

This is the worry and problem I have with it. We're already seeing the effects of far too many people on this planet, and now we want to pick a smaller food source because it's somehow better for us? Well, even if it is true that it's better in any way (whether taste or nutritionally), we can't all switch over without dropping the population down, and if we do all try to switch over we're going to see the effects of too many people in a lot more displeasing ways.

Actually, this documentary is probably more relevant the GMO vs Organic debate:

As a matter of curiosity, are you against GMOs in principle, in general, or just against Monsanto?

malphemism

Hmm. I like this word, I think I shall use it in the future. Thank you for that.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Another issue with organic farming is the decreased efficiency

This is the worry and problem I have with it. We're already seeing the effects of far too many people on this planet, and now we want to pick a smaller food source because it's somehow better for us? Well, even if it is true that it's better in any way (whether taste or nutritionally), we can't all switch over without dropping the population down, and if we do all try to switch over we're going to see the effects of too many people in a lot more displeasing ways.

This is a shitty reason to move in the wrong direction. This type of logic puts the human race into a cyclical growth cycle. Population has always been been restricted by the food supply and an abundance of food has always led to population spikes. So if continuing to increase the food supply will result in an even larger population, then you have to question the logic of moving in that direction.

Also, I find it funny how you feel that these efficient food technologies ever reach the countries that are struggling with hunger. If industrialized food ever does enter a 3rd world country, it's purely a business strategy to produce food for export. Meanwhile, food in the US is disproportionately abundant as compared to the rest of the world. More food is wasted in the states than consumed by entire countries. Seems to me, an improved food distribution system is needed before we can really comment on food production.

Actually, this documentary is probably more relevant the GMO vs Organic debate:

As a matter of curiosity, are you against GMOs in principle, in general, or just against Monsanto?

That's a false trichotomy. My reasons for concern about GMOs are numerous, including various subsections under the following: social, political, economical, environmental.

My biggest problem with GMOs is the irreversibility of it all. Try to reverse gene flow, or restore a species wiped out pesticide runoff. Have fun Devolving a pest that has become resistant to a pesticide infused crop. If the system keeps going in the same direction, 99% of the worlds corn and soy supply will have verifiable amounts of genetically patented DNA in a system that gives the owners of those patents rather extensive rights to renumeration. Its a fate that is being imposed on the world through systematic manipulation of the law, the ignorance of the public, and the natural process of cross pollination.

========

To satisfy my own curiosity, why does none of this concern you?

.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I'd like them to explain how a food system that's dependent on fossil fuels will survive in the future,

The same way a food system that depended on horse-drawn carts, manure, and wooden sailing ships survived in the future of the past, which is the present.

let alone the environmental impacts of fertilizer and pesticide runoff.

This one you might like: recycling! As noted above, fertilizer and pesticides are designed to decompose into basic components. Water carries these components to the ocean. We'll then extract the component from the ocean and synthesize the chemicals. Neat, huh?

Also, I'd like to know what technique they use to sweep antibiotic resistant bacteria underneath the rug?

I've seen custom made bacteriophages and nanomachines as suggestions. Probably better to ask a biologist on this one.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I'd like them to explain how a food system that's dependent on fossil fuels will survive in the future,

The same way a food system that depended on horse-drawn carts, manure, and wooden sailing ships survived in the future of the past, which is the present.

let alone the environmental impacts of fertilizer and pesticide runoff.

This one you might like: recycling! As noted above, fertilizer and pesticides are designed to decompose into basic components. Water carries these components to the ocean. We'll then extract the component from the ocean and synthesize the chemicals. Neat, huh?

Also, I'd like to know what technique they use to sweep antibiotic resistant bacteria underneath the rug?

I've seen custom made bacteriophages and nanomachines as suggestions. Probably better to ask a biologist on this one.

2 answers gambling on the future and the third is completely wrong: http://tinyurl.com/28saahn

 

[ArthurWilborn]

2 answers gambling on the future and the third is completely wrong: http://tinyurl.com/28saahn

... It's not "runoff" if you're spraying something directly into the water. This is like proving electricity in the walls of your house was bad by poking someone with a live wire.

If I'm gambling on the future, you're contending that things can't possibly change. I'll let you examine the last hundred years of history and come to your own conclusion.

 

[JustBusiness17]

2 answers gambling on the future and the third is completely wrong: http://tinyurl.com/28saahn

... It's not "runoff" if you're spraying something directly into the water. This is like proving electricity in the walls of your house was bad by poking someone with a live wire.

I'm actually talking about runoff from farm land.

Soil Errosion:

Soil Erodibility
Soil erodibility is an estimate of the ability of soils to resist erosion, based on the physical characteristics of each soil. Generally, soils with faster infiltration rates, higher levels of organic matter and improved soil structure have a greater resistance to erosion. Sand, sandy loam and loam textured soils tend to be less erodible than silt, very fine sand, and certain clay textured soils.

Tillage and cropping practices which lower soil organic matter levels, cause poor soil structure, and result of compacted contribute to increases in soil erodibility. Decreased infiltration and increased runoff can be a result of compacted subsurface soil layers. A decrease in infiltration can also be caused by a formation of a soil crust, which tends to "seal" the surface. On some sites, a soil crust might decrease the amount of soil loss from sheet or rain splash erosion, however, a corresponding increase in the amount of runoff water can contribute to greater rill erosion problems.

Past erosion has an effect on a soils' erodibility for a number of reasons. Many exposed subsurface soils on eroded sites tend to be more erodible than the original soils were, because of their poorer structure and lower organic matter. The lower nutrient levels often associated with subsoils contribute to lower crop yields and generally poorer crop cover, which in turn provides less crop protection for the soil.

Roundup - which kills ALL plant matterial - isn't very biodegradable either :!:
Source: Wikipedia

:ugeek:

If I'm gambling on the future, you're contending that things can't possibly change. I'll let you examine the last hundred years of history and come to your own conclusion.

[
The last hundred years came so quickly that the world never learned how to adapt it. Furthermore, systems like Capitalism took advantage of the rapid change in order to sculpt a world that worked in their best interests. You still have no idea how powerful marketing is, do you :?:

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I'm actually talking about runoff from farm land.

(snip - Strawman)

That's not what you posted. You posted a study of RoundUp being sprayed directly on water. You haven't even mentioned soil erosion before.

Now, if you had added it in, "And here's another thing", that would be fine. As a response to a completely unrelated point? You know what that is by now!

The last hundred years came so quickly that the world never learned how to adapt it. Furthermore, systems like Capitalism took advantage of the rapid change in order to sculpt a world that worked in their best interests. You still have no idea how powerful marketing is, do you :?:

Yeah... given your repeated, proven inability to accurately vet your sources, I'm not spending an hour watching another one.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I'm actually talking about runoff from farm land.

(snip - Strawman)

That's not what you posted. You posted a study of RoundUp being sprayed directly on water. You haven't even mentioned soil erosion before.

Now, if you had added it in, "And here's another thing", that would be fine. As a response to a completely unrelated point? You know what that is by now!

A) Farming practices in general lead to problems with soil erosion
B) Glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide designed to kill ALL plant matter
C) Inorganic soil (soil which lacks plant matter) has a decreased ability to resist soil erosion
D) Glyphosate is limited in it's biodregradability.

NOTE on biodegradability of glyphosate: Monsanto was court ordered to stop its practice of false advertising with regards to the biodegradability of Roundup.

3. Monsanto will immediately cease and desist from publishing or broadcasting any advertisements that represent, directly or by implication, that:

b) its glyphosate-containing pesticide products or any component thereof manufactured, formulated, distributed or sold by Monsanto are biodegradable, unless Monsanto can substantiate pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Relief Section herein that the entire product will completely break down into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time, consistent with the Federal Trade Commission Guidelines ("FTC Guidelines") on Environmental Marketing Claims. Provided, however, that Monsanto may make qualified biodegradation claims if in compliance with FIFRA, its implementing regulations and FTC Guidelines. Further, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall preclude Monsanto from discussing or explaining the degradation process as long as that discussion or explanation is qualified by a statement of the timeframe for that process, and Monsanto can substantiate such claims pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Relief Section herein;

Attorney General of the State of New York.
Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau.
Environmental Protection Bureau.
1996.
In the matter of Monsanto Company, respondent.
Assurance of discontinuance pursuant to executive law ,§ 63(15).
New York, NY, Nov.

Based on points A thru D, it is safe to conclude that glyphosate will enter water systems. Once that happens, the poison will act in the same way it would by any other means of contamination.

The last hundred years came so quickly that the world never learned how to adapt it. Furthermore, systems like Capitalism took advantage of the rapid change in order to sculpt a world that worked in their best interests. You still have no idea how powerful marketing is, do you :?:

Yeah... given your repeated, proven inability to accurately vet your sources, I'm not spending an hour watching another one.

Self censorship? :?

Considering those documentaries describe the applications of marketing on politics and consumerism, it supports my points about regarding the business and political practices of companies like Monsanto. I can attest to the accuracy of the information based on a marketers point of view. It's all textbook material :ugeek:

It will give you an idea of where I'm coming with all this. If you haven't noticed, its a central theme in my political discourse. You'll understand why I believe right-wing politics is nothing more than a system for public indoctrination.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Based on points A thru D, it is safe to conclude that glyphosate will enter water systems. Once that happens, the poison will act in the same way it would by any other means of contamination.

You think I'm going to take anything you say on faith? Prove that it, in fact, does. Should be simple enough.

I happen to have met a researcher that actually performed this kind of study when she revealed her results. Well, now, of course one small study like that doesn't prove anything on its own, but I want you to go ahead and guess what her result was.

Self censorship? :?

Considering those documentaries describe the applications of marketing on politics and consumerism, it supports my points about regarding the business and political practices of companies like Monsanto. I can attest to the accuracy of the information based on a marketers point of view. It's all textbook material :ugeek:

Ah, fine, I'll get to it after next week. Since this is your wheelhouse and not mine, after all.

It will give you an idea of where I'm coming with all this. If you haven't noticed, its a central theme in my political discourse. You'll understand why I believe right-wing politics is nothing more than a system for public indoctrination.

Hrrrm... have you considered you're suffering psych student's disease, and seeing what you've learned about everywhere? I happen to believe a lot of socialist/communist dogma is indoctrination preying on people's feelings of weakness and empathy.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Based on points A thru D, it is safe to conclude that glyphosate will enter water systems. Once that happens, the poison will act in the same way it would by any other means of contamination.

You think I'm going to take anything you say on faith? Prove that it, in fact, does. Should be simple enough.

I already have.

A) Farming practices in general lead to problems with soil erosion
B) Glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide designed to kill ALL plant matter
C) Inorganic soil (soil which lacks plant matter) has a decreased ability to resist soil erosion
D) Glyphosate is limited in it's biodregradability.

A) http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/87-040.htm
B) Well established property of Glyphosate
C) Again: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/87-040.htm
D) Sourced in the same thread that these points were presented.

A+B+C+D= Contamination of water systems with Roundup (Glyphosate)

Also, I forgot to add:
E) Based on 2001 numbers, Glyphosate is the most used active ingredient in US Agricultural pesticide applications (between 85 million and 90 million pounds).

 

[ArthurWilborn]

A) Farming practices in general lead to problems with soil erosion
B) Glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide designed to kill ALL plant matter
C) Inorganic soil (soil which lacks plant matter) has a decreased ability to resist soil erosion
D) Glyphosate is limited in it's biodregradability.

A) http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/87-040.htm
B) Well established property of Glyphosate
C) Again: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/87-040.htm
D) Sourced in the same thread that these points were presented.

A+B+C+D= Contamination of water systems with Roundup (Glyphosate)

Also, I forgot to add:
E) Based on 2001 numbers, Glyphosate is the most used active ingredient in US Agriculture (between 85 million and 90 million pounds).

No; you've merely shown that based on known factors, an outcome is probable. This isn't enough for proof. You need to show evidence that the outcome has actually occurred.