PDA

View Full Version : Organic Food: What A Load of Over-Hyped Rubbish



Truculent Sheep
4th August 09, 12:27 PM
An interesting article on what turns out to be just another outlet for conspicuous consumption:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7222/


The irrational, seemingly instinctive desire to get close to ‘the source’ has been a recurring theme of the organic movement from its inception in the 1920s. The rise of the pro-organic lobby in the early twentieth century was a reaction against industrial society, led by precisely the kind of people - aristocrats, vicars and so on - who found their positions of authority and respect undermined by the modern world. No wonder Prince Charles and Lord Melchett are such fans of organic food; they are the heirs to Lady Eve Balfour, the founder of the Soil Association. The fact that these aristocratic, anti-modern views have now become quite mainstream is a symptom of the collapse of belief in both capitalist society (amongst the ruling classes) and in any progressive alternative (amongst the working classes). The end result is that the middle classes - the dregs of political life - now have a disproportionately influential role in Britain, which means that their fads and outlook can dominate public debate.

Quikfeet509
4th August 09, 05:12 PM
Wow, I thought my desire to eat organic was an attempt to eat locally, avoid carcinogenic pesticides / herbacides / fungacides, and possibly get more phytonutrients from my food.



Glad someone else is around to explain it to me.






Fail. 2/10.

socratic
4th August 09, 05:44 PM
Charles eats organic food because he's fucking royalty and doesn't have to worry about money when he eats; he gets the good shit.

Besides; organic food tastes better. At least, the stuff I get from the ol' farmer's markets sure does.

Robot Jesus
4th August 09, 05:57 PM
organic food can have some advantages, fewer pesticides are not one of them. often much more natural poison must be used and results in more toxins in the food you eat. and yes, it is possible to create something in a lab that is safer then anything in nature.

Truculent Sheep
4th August 09, 06:14 PM
Wow, I thought my desire to eat organic was an attempt to eat locally, avoid carcinogenic pesticides / herbacides / fungacides, and possibly get more phytonutrients from my food.

Well, you're certainly benefiting from the inflated sense of smugness:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8174482.stm

Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded.

There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.

The Food Standards Agency, which commissioned the report, said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".

But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.

Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.

OZZ
4th August 09, 06:30 PM
My wife has been almost completely suckered in by the whole organic thing..
I don't even bother trying to argue with her about it anymore. But I have to admit, I have found some real differences between regular and organic foodstuffs in some instances. Flavor, especially in the case of meats ..seems to be different and better.
But I find some of the shit absolutely laughable..like 'organic honey' wtf? The designation 'organic' has really become a political one ultimately signifying very little to do with actual food quality and more to do with the licencing fees paid by farmers or food distributors.
I would hope that anything I get that is 'organic' may at least have less pesticide residue..but I realize that its a crap shoot at best.

socratic
4th August 09, 09:44 PM
I eat local/organic when I can, usually just fruits, veggies and meats and whatnot. Even if it isn't extremely better for me [hey, you wouldn't want to marginally better is still better] it tastes better and looks better. To me organic vs not is like battery vs free range eggs. Various people come out with studies on either side but in the end free range tastes better and is probably better for you.

What people should really be doing is eating local. Buy from farmer's markets, go right to the source. Fuck paying some multisquillion dollar chain that goes around putting displacing local businesses, and fuck paying them too much for only half-decent produce.

WarPhalange
4th August 09, 11:35 PM
The "organic" movement has dick to do with some conspiracy, losing faith in capitalism, or royal fucktards.

It's due to the general public being ignorant globs of shit when it comes to science.

"OH [email protected] CHEMICALS!!"

"OH ORGANIC!! KTHNXBYE IT MUST BE GOOD CUZ ITS ORGANICK! NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT SNAKE VENOM IS ORGANIC!"

Toby Christensen
5th August 09, 03:12 AM
As a person who works in a market garden with his friend the mattock:

- I am proud of my work
- I don't enjoy "busywork" and objected to the term "Mandala" with reference to the patchwork pattern I was forced to build.
- I'm not an outside man, but I LIKE the garden. It takes a lot for me to like an outside space and very little for me to pickaxe you in a frustrated rage.
- Teaching people to farm can teach them to EAT.

- It's great practise to help for my dreamhome with a big bloody garden and library.

"If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need" Cicero.

EuropIan
5th August 09, 06:08 PM
Didn't we have this discussion already?

Harpy
5th August 09, 07:36 PM
I try to buy organic where I can though at times I am put off by the irregularity or 'blemishes' on the fruits and vegetables at organic markets.

Also, organic raisins are yukky :(

Quikfeet509
5th August 09, 09:37 PM
Well, you're certainly benefiting from the inflated sense of smugness:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8174482.stm

Organic food is no healthier than ordinary food, a large independent review has concluded.

There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.

The Food Standards Agency, which commissioned the report, said the findings would help people make an "informed choice".

But the Soil Association criticised the study and called for better research.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at all the evidence on nutrition and health benefits from the past 50 years.

Among the 55 of 162 studies that were included in the final analysis, there were a small number of differences in nutrition between organic and conventionally produced food but not large enough to be of any public health relevance, said study leader Dr Alan Dangour.

Overall the report, which is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found no differences in most nutrients in organically or conventionally grown crops, including in vitamin C, calcium, and iron.


I saw that article last week and it is a wonderful side-step from three main issues: sustainable agriculture, shopping locally (so your produce has more nutrients by the time you eat it), and pesticides/herbacides/fungacides.

Quikfeet509
5th August 09, 09:37 PM
OMG DBL POST LOL

WarPhalange
5th August 09, 10:02 PM
I saw that article last week and it is a wonderful side-step from three main issues: sustainable agriculture,

LOL WUT?

EuropIan
5th August 09, 10:16 PM
Didn't we have this discussion already?
Yes we did..We even found for studies for reference. (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52514)

Truculent Sheep
6th August 09, 12:37 PM
I saw that article last week and it is a wonderful side-step from three main issues: sustainable agriculture, shopping locally (so your produce has more nutrients by the time you eat it), and pesticides/herbacides/fungacides.

Bullshit. Organic farming is per hectare inefficient in terms of the food it can produce in comparison to conventional techniques. In many ways therefore, the carbon footprint and environmental impact of OF can be higher thanks to greater soil depletion, greater use of land due to inefficiency and energy demands. Indeed, many of the natural pesticides used by organic farmers may themselves be more harmful for the environment than conventional treatments. [LINK (http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:vnbIM_UAXokJ:www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-01203.pdf+Organic+farming+2007+defra&hl=en&gl=uk&pli=1)]

Moreover, the local produce market has a negative effect on all economies as suppliers (including a fair few in the developing world) are cockblocked from the action while less efficient monopolies take hold. Moreover, the notion of food miles is at times illusory - it is in fact more environmentally friendly to import some foods rather than grow and then store them locally. [LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/23/food.ethicalliving?gusrc=rss&feed=environment)] [LINK (http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=15001)]

EuropIan
6th August 09, 02:10 PM
Bullshit. Organic farming is per hectare inefficient in terms of the food it can produce in comparison to conventional techniques. In many ways therefore, the carbon footprint and environmental impact of OF can be higher thanks to greater soil depletion, greater use of land due to inefficiency and energy demands. Indeed, many of the natural pesticides used by organic farmers may themselves be more harmful for the environment than conventional treatments. [LINK (http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:vnbIM_UAXokJ:www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-01203.pdf+Organic+farming+2007+defra&hl=en&gl=uk&pli=1)]

I disagree, and baltantly untrue.

JohnnyCache
6th August 09, 03:22 PM
You're gonna have to do better then "nuh-uh"

JohnnyCache
6th August 09, 03:50 PM
ALL the supposed "taste" benefits of organic shit are 1) in your head or 2) the product of it being higher quality, period. Yes, if you go to your butcher and you get a roast beef or turkey sub that's cut from an actual roast turkey he smoked himself, it's going to be fucking good, better then subway. That's an apples/oranges comparison - let's see if we make the same product out of organic meat if it will taste as good. Most of the meat sold as compress lunch meat is wasted completely in an operation like a local butcher shop. If I compare a ribeye to a mcdonalds hamburger, the ribeye will be better because it's a higher grade of food even if the beef is all from the same cow.

Zendetta, in the other thread, seemed to be quoting material from m. pollan that essentially completely agrees with sirc - He substantially agrees with sirc en re the american "organic" market and their practices. The whole POINT of the book is that real, sustainable food practices are far more complex then simply paying the "organic tax" at the organic version of a big box store. (here's a hint: If you're shopping at a whole foods in Green Bay or Denver or something in fucking february and they have ripe fruit, something is being done to feed you that is against nature.)

I LOVE the points that he makes that you can't be sustainable and local everywhere in the world with the same practices, and his practical understanding of the role of livestock in farming - he doesn't repeat that tired bullshit about "16 pounds of grains to make one pound of beef" or similar shit.

I buy a few things organically - I buy organic milk, because it lasts longer. This is because of higher quality control and better pasturization, though. I used to drink my milk straight from the fucking cow and it didn't last as long as any variety of store bought milk. I buy organic orange juice, because the cheapest brand of never-concentrated orange juice in the country is "organic"

I worry more, and get more quality out of, attempts to buy locally.
My local baker isn't "organic" - they don't worry about scrupulously buying organic flour and butter, etc, but they still have the quality people associate with organic.

The key is local, real food thats not part of the corn/soy mono culture, not "vegan" food or "organic" food or "______" food.

The problem with this is that Americans don't want to pay for it. That brings us back to one of Pollan's huge key points:

Realizing that in the USA, we're all on welfare to the tune of about a third of our fucking food budget. Every time you spend 20 dollars at a grocery store, there is basically 10 dollars of erased cost that have been payed out in ag subsidies.

Think about that the next time you're debating "going galt"

We talk about welfare queens and cash for clunkers and blah blah blah but seriously in the US the base cost of food is about 1/3 to 1/2 what it is other places, and that's used to facilitate either more food or more profitable food at every level post farm.

I have to wonder what would happen to the "obesity epidemic" if we just restructured the net of all the ag subsidies by replacing them with food-cost tax credits . . .

Also, we need a category of "chemically sound" food - a legal distinction for those animals given necessary medical care and supplements while being neither saturated with antibiotics nor raised with the quasi-religious standards demanded by the vegan fringe, standards that often lead to contradictory standards of ranching (IE "Free Range Organic" animals that can only go outside for a few weeks at the end of their life cycle because they'd get sick if they didn't)

We often forget that nature is WASTEFUL. Nature shotguns the viral obstacle course, but if we want to be environmentally conscious, we should do it by harvesting all the "dead turtles" - to fully mimic nature is to lose HUGE amounts of yield.

Cullion
6th August 09, 04:23 PM
Johnny, can you tell the difference in flavour between a cornfed freerange chicken and a broiler house chicken fed on fishmeal ? I'm totally willing to call 'emporers new clothes' on much organic veg, but some meats really do taste different to me when they're allowed different amounts of exercise and different diets. I don't care if it's had some antiobiotics when it's sick though.

UpaLumpa
6th August 09, 04:27 PM
The "organic" movement has dick to do with some conspiracy, losing faith in capitalism, or royal fucktards.

It's due to the general public being ignorant globs of shit when it comes to science.

"OH [email protected] CHEMICALS!!"

"OH ORGANIC!! KTHNXBYE IT MUST BE GOOD CUZ ITS ORGANICK! NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT SNAKE VENOM IS ORGANIC!"


There is immense missuse and overuse of pesticides in agriculture and a strong reliance on "well this is how dad did it" rather than research based practices. An advantage of organic materials is that they make less use of chemicals that have often dramatic effects on the surrounding ecosystem. That said, I'd rather buy from a large organic factory farm than a small local farm. Efficiency does differ and matter.

HappyOldGuy
6th August 09, 04:42 PM
You're playing some pretty bad telephone there JC. First off, animals raised in pens are more prone to illness. Overcrowding is the specific problem that "factory farms" give antibiotics for. So organic animals are always raised more free range than non organic animals. The legitimate (to the extent you care, which I honestly don't) complaint that you are playing telephone over is that some organic producers, especially chicken, provide the absolute minimum amount of free space that is compatible with not using anti biotics. Also, organic animals are allowed to receive anti-biotics for medical reasons, but there is a period after the treatment where they can't be slaughtered and sold as organic, so the legitimate complaint that is getting butchered in your other game of telephone is that farmers will just cull out the sick animals and sell them as non organic.

The key thing that you have to understand in this topic is that Organic is the only legally enforceable standard you have as a consumer. "Free Range", "Natural", and even "Hormone Free" or "Antiobiotic Free" all mean exactly what the prioducer says they mean. IOW, absolutely nothing. Organic is the only one that has enforceable standards. Now if you know your producer and their practices, you can just ignore that shit, because you can focus in on the issues you care about. But if you are buying at the grocery store, and it's not organic, then it is full or hormones and antibiotics, probably imported and unhealthy for you and unsustainable for the human species.

Truculent Sheep
6th August 09, 06:00 PM
I disagree, and baltantly untrue.

Why? Citations please.

HappyOldGuy
6th August 09, 06:52 PM
Why? Citations please.
Read the other thread. It contains peer reviewed apples to apples comparisons between conventional methods and organic methods in several crops. The greater soil depletion claim is so off base it almost trashes your whole argument. The other measures come up more even, but soil quality was the one area where the organic farms obliterated conventional.

Truculent Sheep
6th August 09, 06:55 PM
If they're so impressive, then why don't you put them in this thread? Also, given that I'm citing DEFRA sources and peer-reviewed research into the subject, I'm not sure how I'm getting 'trashed' here. Ad hominem much?

HappyOldGuy
6th August 09, 06:56 PM
If they're so impressive, then why don't you put them in this thread? Also, given that I'm citing DEFRA sources and peer-reviewed research into the subject, I'm not sure how I'm getting 'trashed' here. Ad hominem much?
You're trashed because you said something stupid that yu're not going to be able to defend. And you didn't produce any peer reviewed research on the soil quality question.

As I joked in the other thred. The house of lords is not peer review.

Spade: The Real Snake
6th August 09, 06:57 PM
Where does the Obama's "poo-veggies" fit into all this?

EuropIan
7th August 09, 12:17 AM
If they're so impressive, then why don't you put them in this thread? Also, given that I'm citing DEFRA sources and peer-reviewed research into the subject, I'm not sure how I'm getting 'trashed' here. Ad hominem much?
Waitaminute didn't I link to the thread already? Oh, wait. yes I did. (clicky) (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1457233&postcount=15)

JohnnyCache
7th August 09, 04:21 AM
You're playing some pretty bad telephone there JC. First off, animals raised in pens are more prone to illness. Overcrowding is the specific problem that "factory farms" give antibiotics for. So organic animals are always raised more free range than non organic animals. The legitimate (to the extent you care, which I honestly don't) complaint that you are playing telephone over is that some organic producers, especially chicken, provide the absolute minimum amount of free space that is compatible with not using anti biotics. Also, organic animals are allowed to receive anti-biotics for medical reasons, but there is a period after the treatment where they can't be slaughtered and sold as organic, so the legitimate complaint that is getting butchered in your other game of telephone is that farmers will just cull out the sick animals and sell them as non organic.

The key thing that you have to understand in this topic is that Organic is the only legally enforceable standard you have as a consumer. "Free Range", "Natural", and even "Hormone Free" or "Antiobiotic Free" all mean exactly what the prioducer says they mean. IOW, absolutely nothing. Organic is the only one that has enforceable standards. Now if you know your producer and their practices, you can just ignore that shit, because you can focus in on the issues you care about. But if you are buying at the grocery store, and it's not organic, then it is full or hormones and antibiotics, probably imported and unhealthy for you and unsustainable for the human species.
I'm not "playing telephone at all. Organically grown animals ARE being raised in tight quarters - because it's cheaper to lose the occasional whole barn then bother actually treating them like you think people treat them.

"Organic" is NOT the only legally defined term

Hormones don't do shit to you, btw. They don't fucking work like DDT. A serving of juiced up beef has something like 2 nanograms of estrogen in it. (1.9 in supplemented beef vs 1.3 in organic beef)

That's billionths of a gram, people. Of a hormone that's in EVERYTHING in tracee quantities.

To put it in a non-abstract way: you would have to eat almost 5 pounds of supplemented beef in a sitting to get the amount of estrogen that occurs naturally in the serving of fucking mashed potatoes next to it on the plate.

Chickens, btw, aren't given any hormones at all because it would be fucking stupid to do so, the equivalent of the urban legend about coke-laced joints, and it was globally banned because the only economical chicken hormone we've ever found was DES and it did do some weird shit in another medical context

Most modern hormones are both species specific and digestible. We don't get dangerous levels of hormones in our food.

Antibiotics are more persistent while in the system, but all you have to do is wait to slaughter treated animals. You yourself say that waiting for the residues to clear their system is good enough to make them organic again, essentially.

(BTW they might do as you said and "just sell them as non-organic" with beef, but they certainly don't with chickens. When you have an outbreak in a chicken yard, you dump the shit in their food and treat the whole pen of 5-30k chickens. I doubt they do it with beef when they could, in fact, just wait and sell them "as organic" in a short time period...)

Re "soil depletion" the studies you grabbed showed that WITH HIGHER COSTS you could get equal yield. Giving them more money to do it with is giving them "virtual land". That's not really apples to apples.

EuropIan
7th August 09, 04:33 AM
when it comes to meat, can we say "free range" is a more important qualifier than "organic"?..

Also..not having them fed with with the groundup bones of their friends might help too.

Truculent Sheep
7th August 09, 10:53 AM
You're trashed because you said something stupid that yu're not going to be able to defend.

I just have, arsehole.


And you didn't produce any peer reviewed research on the soil quality question.

If you'd bothered reading the sources I'd cited, you'd notice that they address how the comparative inefficiency of organic farming means it must use more land, meaning the soil quality overall is undermined.

As I joked in the other thred. The house of lords is not peer review.[/QUOTE]

Which shows what an idiot you are, as government documents are valid sources in their own right and also refer to peer-reviewed research.

Truculent Sheep
7th August 09, 10:54 AM
Waitaminute didn't I link to the thread already? Oh, wait. yes I did. (clicky) (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1457233&postcount=15)

Yes, but if it's relevant to this thread, it ought to be in this thread.

HappyOldGuy
7th August 09, 01:06 PM
when it comes to meat, can we say "free range" is a more important qualifier than "organic"?..

Also..not having them fed with with the groundup bones of their friends might help too.

We can't in the US, because the term is essentially meaningless for chicken meat, and completely meaningless for anything else. Again, there are plenty of legitimate quibbles with organic, but it's the only label that is really enforced.

HappyOldGuy
7th August 09, 01:07 PM
I just have, arsehole.

If you'd bothered reading the sources I'd cited, you'd notice that they address how the comparative inefficiency of organic farming means it must use more land, meaning the soil quality overall is undermined.

Which shows what an idiot you are, as government documents are valid sources in their own right and also refer to peer-reviewed research.

I did read your sources. The one on travel expenses was intreresting. The other two were twaddle. If you don't understand the difference between peer reviewed science and some hereditary nitwit spewing on the floor of parliament, you need to stop having opinions.

HappyOldGuy
7th August 09, 01:23 PM
I'm not "playing telephone at all. Organically grown animals ARE being raised in tight quarters - because it's cheaper to lose the occasional whole barn then bother actually treating them like you think people treat them.

"Organic" is NOT the only legally defined term

Hormones don't do shit to you, btw. They don't fucking work like DDT. A serving of juiced up beef has something like 2 nanograms of estrogen in it. (1.9 in supplemented beef vs 1.3 in organic beef)

That's billionths of a gram, people. Of a hormone that's in EVERYTHING in tracee quantities.

To put it in a non-abstract way: you would have to eat almost 5 pounds of supplemented beef in a sitting to get the amount of estrogen that occurs naturally in the serving of fucking mashed potatoes next to it on the plate.

Chickens, btw, aren't given any hormones at all because it would be fucking stupid to do so, the equivalent of the urban legend about coke-laced joints, and it was globally banned because the only economical chicken hormone we've ever found was DES and it did do some weird shit in another medical context

Most modern hormones are both species specific and digestible. We don't get dangerous levels of hormones in our food.

Antibiotics are more persistent while in the system, but all you have to do is wait to slaughter treated animals. You yourself say that waiting for the residues to clear their system is good enough to make them organic again, essentially.

(BTW they might do as you said and "just sell them as non-organic" with beef, but they certainly don't with chickens. When you have an outbreak in a chicken yard, you dump the shit in their food and treat the whole pen of 5-30k chickens. I doubt they do it with beef when they could, in fact, just wait and sell them "as organic" in a short time period...)

Re "soil depletion" the studies you grabbed showed that WITH HIGHER COSTS you could get equal yield. Giving them more money to do it with is giving them "virtual land". That's not really apples to apples.

Let's see. I never said that they weren't raised in close quarters. I said that they were not raised in as close quarters as non organic animals, because it's not cost efficient for the producers. This represents a significant difference in practices for beef. Less so for poultry. But organic chickens are still raised less crowded than non organic on average, without cages, and with access to the outdoors (more stringent than the pretty ignorable free range standard). Your original claim was that they were raised indoors for fear of getting sick outdoors, which was insane.

Your hormone rant must be for someone other than me. I'm obsessed about antibiotics. I don't care so much about hormones. I don't think it's terribly wise, but I don't really care.

I don't get your virtual land comment. Is this some sort of cyber-thing?

EuropIan
7th August 09, 01:36 PM
Yes, but if it's relevant to this thread, it ought to be in this thread.
Lazy (http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/2101/1/pimentel_report_05-1.pdf)

Oh, look, actual peer reviewed goodness.

Ajamil
7th August 09, 01:55 PM
Look, it's very simple. Industrializing and homogenizing the growth of food animals is socialist. Do you want socialist and fascist animals giving their flesh to nourish your children's brains and bodies? Of course not!!

Let the savage capitalism that is free range be granted to the beasts who so love our country that they give their very lives to feed it.

The best success of tasty meat will come from the patriotic JOY that is the ideal of freedom of the flesh.

Truculent Sheep
7th August 09, 02:27 PM
I did read your sources. The one on travel expenses was intreresting.

Good.


other two were twaddle. If you don't understand the difference between peer reviewed science and some hereditary nitwit spewing on the floor of parliament, you need to stop having opinions.

If you don't know the difference between articulating an argument and just throwing ad hominems, then you need to stop breathing. You haven't for example artiulcated
why the documents I have cited are invalid, beyond some pig ignorant stereotypes you subscribe to.

Truculent Sheep
7th August 09, 02:31 PM
Lazy (http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/2101/1/pimentel_report_05-1.pdf)

Oh, look, actual peer reviewed goodness.

Well post it here then, you idle sod.

EuropIan
7th August 09, 02:44 PM
erm....I JUST DID

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6021/whatthehellq.png

HappyOldGuy
7th August 09, 02:50 PM
Good.



If you don't know the difference between articulating an argument and just throwing ad hominems, then you need to stop breathing. You haven't for example artiulcated
why the documents I have cited are invalid, beyond some pig ignorant stereotypes you subscribe to.

I wish people with looped back family trees would stop misusing that word.

Ad hominem: You are an idiot, therefore your arguments are wrong.
Insult: Your arguments are wrong, this proves you are an idiot.

See the difference.

Idiot.

JohnnyCache
7th August 09, 03:06 PM
Let's see. I never said that they weren't raised in close quarters. I said that they were not raised in as close quarters as non organic animals, because it's not cost efficient for the producers. This represents a significant difference in practices for beef. Less so for poultry. But organic chickens are still raised less crowded than non organic on average, without cages, and with access to the outdoors (more stringent than the pretty ignorable free range standard). Your original claim was that they were raised indoors for fear of getting sick outdoors, which was insane.

Your hormone rant must be for someone other than me. I'm obsessed about antibiotics. I don't care so much about hormones. I don't think it's terribly wise, but I don't really care.

I don't get your virtual land comment. Is this some sort of cyber-thing?

The organic farm was only able to get the same or better results at a higher cost.

In other words it gets used the land less efficiently. The higher budget they allowed their test organic farm was tantamount to just making it bigger than the "inorganic" one - instead of giving it extra land, which was the resource axis they were "billing" as it were, they gave it another extra resource so it would appear to be equal.

You arguing with me about chicken ranch conditions is never going to come down to anything but provider by provider. I'm telling you, if you buy an "organic" chicken breast from a whole foods or something, it comes from conditions virtually identically to "regular" chickens - you're arguing substantially and totally from how it seems to you it ought to be.

Chickens for whole foods have minimums of 1.2 sqr foot for chicken and yards of 500. They don't debeak, sure, they have all these other standards - but what they're doing is basically "taking credit" for industry wide reforms. Regular tyson chicken isn't debeaked or declawed anymore, nor are chickens caged individually, nor are they given ANY hormone, or the "preventative" antibiotics you hear alledged. ALL of these practices were dropped years ago for broilers. The only spec the big granola groceries require is the smaller batch size and the exclusion of any animal that has ever had antibiotics, and A is caused by B and pretty much irrelevent to conditions.

This all goes back to buying real food, locally - if you have no real relationship with your vendor and they are mass producing your food, they will meet the minimum standard required to get the labeling and inspections they want, and probably not exceed it. If your food is mass-produced at a centralized location, the majority of its carbon footprint is the SAME for organic fare.

Not to mention for all their fair trade bullshit, whole foods is still another anti-union big-box, disguised as their owner's zen philosophy instead of a bottom-line measure.

HappyOldGuy
7th August 09, 03:39 PM
The organic farm was only able to get the same or better results at a higher cost.

In other words it gets used the land less efficiently. The higher budget they allowed their test organic farm was tantamount to just making it bigger than the "inorganic" one - instead of giving it extra land, which was the resource axis they were "billing" as it were, they gave it another extra resource so it would appear to be equal.

Organic farms spend more on labor, less on fuel, and less on fertlizers etc. The labor difference is due to the much higher off season labor planting covering crops etc. You inventing some wierd new definition for efficiency doesn't mean anything to the rest of the english speaking world who stick to the conventional one. If you could show that they had to use more land, then your argument would make some sense. But a) that's not true, and b) acreage is not the critical limiting factor. Organic farming practices increase soil quality. So even if more acreage was needed, the result would be greater net soil quality.




You arguing with me about chicken ranch conditions is never going to come down to anything but provider by provider. I'm telling you, if you buy an "organic" chicken breast from a whole foods or something, it comes from conditions virtually identically to "regular" chickens - you're arguing substantially and totally from how it seems to you it ought to be.

Chickens for whole foods have minimums of 1.2 sqr foot for chicken and yards of 500. They don't debeak, sure, they have all these other standards - but what they're doing is basically "taking credit" for industry wide reforms. Regular tyson chicken isn't debeaked or declawed anymore, nor are chickens caged individually, nor are they given ANY hormone, or the "preventative" antibiotics you hear alledged. ALL of these practices were dropped years ago for broilers. The only spec the big granola groceries require is the smaller batch size and the exclusion of any animal that has ever had antibiotics, and A is caused by B and pretty much irrelevent to conditions.

This all goes back to buying real food, locally - if you have no real relationship with your vendor and they are mass producing your food, they will meet the minimum standard required to get the labeling and inspections they want, and probably not exceed it. If your food is mass-produced at a centralized location, the majority of its carbon footprint is the SAME for organic fare.

Not to mention for all their fair trade bullshit, whole foods is still another anti-union big-box, disguised as their owner's zen philosophy instead of a bottom-line measure.

No I am arguing exactly based on how things are.

http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/1300/organic-poultry-production-in-the-united-states-living-conditions-and-housing

Things vary producer by producer, but most organic ceritifiers require densities that are substantially lower than the average in non organic farms. And all organic farms are required to offer minimum levels of access to the outdoors. That is how things are. Your 1.2 for whole foods is almost twice the industry average of 0.7. And whle some producers have cut back on antibiotic use in general, many have not. And none have cut back to the levels that organic producers use. So it's an empty argument.

Basically you are reiterating exactly what I said. IF you know your producer, then you can focus on the issues that concern you. But 99.9% of folks don't look into the details of their producers, and for that 99.9%, Organic is the only label that offers meaningful enforceable differences.

Truculent Sheep
7th August 09, 05:27 PM
I wish people with looped back family trees would stop misusing that word.

In a similar vein, you are a thoroughbred idiot. Possibly organic.


hominem: You are an idiot, therefore your arguments are wrong.
Insult: Your arguments are wrong, this proves you are an idiot.

See the difference.

Idiot.

You see, this is the sum total of your approach to debate - flimsy statements of your alleged cleverness interspersed with insults that are trying to be witty.

Cullion
8th August 09, 12:11 PM
Johnny to the type of mass produced chickens you're referring to still get fed on fishmeal and the like ?

I think that's the biggest factor when it comes to their flavour. There's a clear difference in taste and colour of the flesh between a cornfed chicken and one fed on broiler house feed.

As to the other differences just being argued over, I just don't care about how efficiently the land is being used. That's reflected in the cost. If I, subjectively, decide that the chicken raised outdoors eating grain tastes good enough to be worth the extra, then I'll pay it.

I don't care about the carbon footprint at all.

Ajamil
8th August 09, 12:33 PM
If I, subjectively, decide that the chicken raised outdoors eating grain tastes good enough to be worth the extra, then I'll pay it.

I don't care about the carbon footprint at all.

No one considered the point in my inane blathering, did they?

EuropIan
8th August 09, 01:02 PM
Johnny to the type of mass produced chickens you're referring to still get fed on fishmeal and the like ?

I think that's the biggest factor when it comes to their flavour. There's a clear difference in taste and colour of the flesh between a cornfed chicken and one fed on broiler house feed.

As to the other differences just being argued over, I just don't care about how efficiently the land is being used. That's reflected in the cost. If I, subjectively, decide that the chicken raised outdoors eating grain tastes good enough to be worth the extra, then I'll pay it.

I don't care about the carbon footprint at all.
I agree, if animals are fed normal food instead of bonemeal, they taste better.

Also, I would like to point out that people are completely ignoring my links.

Here's the rundown (i'll copy&paste the other thread, since people are using recycled arguments anyways)

Zendetta who did much illuminating ownage in the previous thread:

Now, that is a beautiful burn, but the painful thing is that you are the masturbating retard in this scenario. For example, you ranted about how "pesticides maybe aren't that bad", but nowhere in this shortbus circle jerk of a thread that you've ejaculated onto the net is any mention of fertilizer.

So one thing you need to know about chemical based agriculture is that the reliance on chemical fertilizer leads to a cycle of soil depleted of nutrients. This means that the same acreage will demand more fertilizer next year to get the same ammount of produce. This creates a nasty cascade of environmental and financial effects.

Done right, organic farming can actually build healthier, more productive soil.

Another thing Pollan's book lays out is the wide-ranging effects of government subsidizing things like corn - and you really can't make sense of agriculture in America without understanding that dynamic. I believe you have some libertarian inklings, so this should be interesting to you on several levels.


And like I said, I get that. Living as I do in the Smug Capitol of the Solar System, I have to deal with more of that "my tampons/dog food/organic cotton thong underwear/etc has zero carbon footprint!" shite than you know.

You are right that the term "organic" can be pretty meaningless, functioning mainly as a lifestyle signifier. But the reality is that organic methods can make a big ecological and financial difference. The runoff from pesticides and the soil depleting effects of over-reliance on chemical fertilizer actually is a big deal.

Even more to the point, organic produce frequently taste much better than conventionally grown stuff. I'm a hedonist first, and environmentalist second.
Cullion on fish farms:

I worked as a fishmonger for a while when I was 20 before going back to college.

The fins have to be trimmed off farmed fish like salmon because deformities and even extra fins are relatively common.

Me


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/258/5080/261

And look, hey, it even somewhat supports your position.

Lazy fuck.



This report compares some of the the pros/cons of both

http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/...eport_05-1.pdf

Yeah, you're lazy.
The report doesn't favor either..except that attrazine sucks cuz it makes frogs go gay


You could have use the first paper to question the relavence of organic pesticides since they're both equally carciogenic.


The second one just outlines the differences and similarities between the diferent methods under different criteria (economics, soil health, productivity, ampunt of work needed for it to be successfull) you could have accentuated some criteria over others and made your point.

But no, you're too lazy..

So since you're too lazy and just wanted to rant against elitist douchebags who enjoy the smell of their own farts too much by being a elitist douchebag who enjoys the smell of his own farts too much, you pretty much ended up convincing no one.

Congratulations.


the one thing conventional farming had over organic farming was more profitable and less suseptable to dry seasons/drought/other bad sudden changes.

These criteria could be considered important.


Now I'm the lazy one.

resolve
17th August 09, 10:32 AM
I drink organic juice because it has no high fructose corn syrup in it, which helps me to lose weight. I'm slowly trying to wean myself off of soda too but I get the caffeine shakes hard (addiction) and I can't afford to go get coffee every day. I tend to make my own treats like cookies and stuff because of this reason too (less fat).

I drink organic milk because I don't need some ridiculous Monsanto cancer-causing bs in ma' milk.

I try to get local organic fruit because I am severely allergic to one of the pesticides used by the main growing companies and I like less wax on my fruit because I like to use the peels for cooking.

I eat kashi cereal because it's healthier than the Crunch Berries I used to eat.

That's about it really. I don't think organic food has more nutrients than other food. I also don't think alot of chemicals/pesticides are bad. But there are specific instances where they are or can be and in those specific instances I will find something else to eat.

I don't care if it's engineered food or pesticide use or whatever... so long as they keep proven to cause problem and things I'm allergic to off of it. And knowing is half the battle!

Cullion
17th August 09, 10:54 AM
Cold turkey yourself off the caffeine during a holiday when you don't need to concentrate. Gone in a few days.

SFGOON
17th August 09, 07:52 PM
Wow, I thought my desire to eat organic was an attempt to eat locally, avoid carcinogenic pesticides / herbacides / fungacides, and possibly get more phytonutrients from my food.



Glad someone else is around to explain it to me.

Yup! It's true!

Yer nuthin but a pretentious bourgeoisie dumbass!

One who apparently loves to eat insects, mold, and bits of weeds.

I wouldn't worry about the carcinogens if that's what you put into your diet.

Cullion
18th August 09, 04:16 AM
what's wrong with eating insects, mould and weeds ?

SFGOON
20th August 09, 10:29 AM
It's heathen and disgusting. That's what.

Cullion
20th August 09, 10:33 AM
I bet you imbibe shellfish and yeast.

Ajamil
20th August 09, 11:49 AM
Shellfish, now that's heathen.

Zendetta
25th September 09, 03:52 PM
An interesting article on what turns out to be just another outlet for conspicuous consumption

Between The Sheep and Poop Loops, this thread is an Orgy of Fail.


It's due to the general public being ignorant globs of shit when it comes to science.

"OH [email protected] CHEMICALS!!"

"OH ORGANIC!! KTHNXBYE IT MUST BE GOOD CUZ ITS ORGANICK! NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT SNAKE VENOM IS ORGANIC!"

See what I mean?

Thanks, Doctor Science. Always fun to see a scientist criticize others for not being scientific while they themselves are talking out of their ass.

Here is an article about how you can't drink the water in many California schools because the wells and groundwater is contaminated by pesticide runoff (among other things).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33008932/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/


Signs posted above the kitchen sink warn students not to drink from the tap because the water is tainted with nitrates, a potential carcinogen, and DBCP, a pesticide scientists say may cause male sterility.

Truculent Sheep
25th September 09, 06:52 PM
Between The Sheep and Poop Loops, this thread is an Orgy of Fail.

Not if it gets you thinking. Tell me, Zendetta, what do YOU think?

Zendetta
25th September 09, 07:15 PM
I think you are ok. I don't care what the rest of 'em say about you.

HappyOldGuy
27th September 09, 03:50 PM
Semi on topic. Eating fried eggs from a friends truly free range chickens.

Not even fucking close.

Zendetta
27th September 09, 04:12 PM
^^^ Word.

Breakfast at my parent's horsefarm is biscuits with fig preserves from their figtree, venison sausage from a deer some cousin or friend shot, eggs from their chickens.

Fuck all the diet idealogues, trendy yuppies, preachy mofos and would-be food fascists - I'm a downhomivore.

bob
27th September 09, 06:10 PM
horsefarm
... sausage...

Cullion
27th September 09, 06:11 PM
You Australians, your minds are like sewers.

bob
27th September 09, 06:13 PM
I just believe in truth in packaging information.

Zendetta
27th September 09, 07:14 PM
I just believe in truth in packaging information.

lol

Want any more sausage?

naaaay