Government and our eating habits

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by valo403

I was simply responding to your comments on flavor. There is plenty of high quality non-organic produce on the market.

You're right, there is, I ate some of it yesterday.

However, there is also a premium of high-quality organic produce on the market, and if you compare them blindly, like I have, it's pretty easy to taste the difference, in more than a couple of instances.

Case study, in season California organic strawberries vs. in-season non-organic. This hasn't been peer reviewed or anything, but 9 out of 10 people I tested enjoyed the organic strawberries more. Same with blueberries, bananas, roma tomatoes, granny smith apples etc.

Without knowing what they were, I served some delicious organic heirloom tomatoes to my parents and aunts. Their reaction, unprompted, was, 'these taste the way tomatoes tasted when I was growing up'.

You can call it anecdotal, or you can say that commercially produced produce is just as good, which in some (maybe even most cases), is true.

I don't understand what I perceive to be class-based hyper-sensitivity to the whole thing. It's been my experience that the more militant arguments come from the people who somehow feel maligned or insulted that their regular produce isn't good enough. I don't see many 'organics' making that argument, but it seems to be the perception from people who seem to be so against organics in this thread.

Frankly, I am not surprised that some that seem to be railing against the government in this thread have made no mention of the corporate welfare that government runs with the agricultural industry. Azure made mention to corn subsidies, but that is such a drop in the bucket compared with all the other bull that has shrunken our food production to a handful companies and killed the independent farmer/rancher/dairyman.

Thankfully, the organics industry has given artisans and food production workers of this stripe an opportunity to make ends meet and in some cases, thrive.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think there is a difference between farmers market and the organic food found on the shelves of Walmart.

Slightly true.

The environmental footprint that it takes to produce that organic food is a lot better than the footprint of producing non-organic food.

Factually incorrect. Because of the yield differential between organic and non-organic crops, organic crops need more land to produce as much as the organic counterparts. Right now there's also a shortage of organic products, which leads to them being shipped from further and further away.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Slightly true.



Factually incorrect. Because of the yield differential between organic and non-organic crops, organic crops need more land to produce as much as the organic counterparts. Right now there's also a shortage of organic products, which leads to them being shipped from further and further away.

I find this argument to be specious.

Why is using more farmland necessarily a bad thing?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Factually incorrect. Because of the yield differential between organic and non-organic crops, organic crops need more land to produce as much as the organic counterparts. Right now there's also a shortage of organic products, which leads to them being shipped from further and further away.

I don't think its fair to strictly talk about land usage.

What about the chemicals non-organic farmers use? What kind environmental footprint do they have? Going of course ALL the way back to what it takes to manufacture those chemicals, ship them, spray them, and what kind of effect it then has on the crop when it gets to the consumer and we eat them.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I find this argument to be specious.

Why is using more farmland necessarily a bad thing?

I'd venture a guess that it has something to do with more farmland+lessor yields = less food.

But, I disagree with that sentiment, especially with the idea that if more people go organic that we'd run into food shortages, simply because we already eat too much, and we waste a lot of food too.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'd venture a guess that it has something to do with more farmland+lessor yields = less food.

But, I disagree with that sentiment, especially with the idea that if more people go organic that we'd run into food shortages, simply because we already eat too much, and we waste a lot of food too.

Personally, I don't mind more ranchland and less townhouses.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I find this argument to be specious.

Why is using more farmland necessarily a bad thing?

It has to do with what happens to the land itself. First you have to develop the land to be used for farming, which can displace or encroach upon the natural inhabitants of that land.

There are also issues surrounding soil fertility, erosion, drought, etc.

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think its fair to strictly talk about land usage.

What about the chemicals non-organic farmers use? What kind environmental footprint do they have? Going of course ALL the way back to what it takes to manufacture those chemicals, ship them, spray them, and what kind of effect it then has on the crop when it gets to the consumer and we eat them.

And? What about the chemicals organic farmers use, such as copper sulphate (which has been linked to Parkinson's)? Do you think organic pesticides are created by the farmers who use them? They're also manufactured and shipped out. Not to mention that natural pesticides usually have to be used more often and/or in higher doses to maintain their crops.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It has to do with what happens to the land itself. First you have to develop the land to be used for farming, which can displace or encroach upon the natural inhabitants of that land.

There are also issues surrounding soil fertility, erosion, drought, etc.

Again, this is specious argument. These are issues for any agriculture practice.

There is 0 reason to believe these are more pronounced than in corporate agriculture, and actually, these biodiverse farms do far more to improve things like soil erosion than any factory farming operation in southern alberta. I know the same is said for the interior of BC near Creston as well as the organic farms spread out throughout the Fraser Delta.

FraserLand farms as an example has had a tremendously positive effect on the soil they use and that of their neighbouring farms and have saved acres upon acres of farmland from redevelopment of townhouses.

And? What about the chemicals organic farmers use, such as copper sulphate (which has been linked to Parkinson's)? Do you think organic pesticides are created by the farmers who use them? They're also manufactured and shipped out. Not to mention that natural pesticides usually have to be used more often and/or in higher doses to maintain their crops.

Again, specious. Because organic crops also need some fertilisers and pesticides, they shouldn't be grown because conventional (what an ironic term to use) do the same thing (which they don't)?

How is that an argument?

[Street Pharmacist]

I guess I should make my point clear too. What I'm really against is the "natural is best for everyone" ideology that pushes people to make ludicrous statements (eg. "White willow bark is better for me than asprin because it's natural. I don't care about the advice I just sollicited from you for an opportunity to spew my filth. And I'm going to ignore the ulcer forming in my stomach"). To be fair, I'm a pharmacist and get a little sick of the natural rhetoric and I guess it spills over a bit into the organic debate. I'm fine with organic as a valid practice, but not the claims of organioc frmo the ignorant. And I sell a lot of organic products at my store...

[Frank MetaMusil]

An interesting article from Wired a couple years ago echoing rubecube's points....

http://www.wired.com/science/planete...ies_03organics

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

An interesting article from Wired a couple years ago echoing rubecube's points....

http://www.wired.com/science/planete...ies_03organics

Junk article.

http://www.magicvalley.com/business/...6e7ec74ef.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Junk article.

http://www.magicvalley.com/business/...6e7ec74ef.html

I know a local feedlot that got shutdown for the same reason.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

An interesting article from Wired a couple years ago echoing rubecube's points....

http://www.wired.com/science/planete...ies_03organics

See, the whole argument is stupid.

Basically what they're saying is that we should continue mass producing food that has been proven to be dangerous in many different ways simply because its better for the planet.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

See, the whole argument is stupid.

Basically what they're saying is that we should continue mass producing food that has been proven to be dangerous in many different ways simply because its better for the planet.

And the claims about that environmental impact are dubious at best.

[Pinner]

Vote with your $

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're right, there is, I ate some of it yesterday.

However, there is also a premium of high-quality organic produce on the market, and if you compare them blindly, like I have, it's pretty easy to taste the difference, in more than a couple of instances.

Case study, in season California organic strawberries vs. in-season non-organic. This hasn't been peer reviewed or anything, but 9 out of 10 people I tested enjoyed the organic strawberries more. Same with blueberries, bananas, roma tomatoes, granny smith apples etc.

Doubtful with bananas. Only Cavendish is grown. There are no other banana cultivars.

Any highbush blueberry cultivar will taste better than lowbush, organic or not.

When you mean "Roma tomatoes", you're talking about what cultivars exactly?

Apples are highly sensitive to cultivation methods, organic or not.

Without knowing what they were, I served some delicious organic heirloom tomatoes to my parents and aunts. Their reaction, unprompted, was, 'these taste the way tomatoes tasted when I was growing up'.

The point is that they were heirloom, not that they were grown organically.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think its fair to say that organic food should outperform standard produce in terms of quality and value. Especially value.

Quality is debatable. Are you looking for taste? Because its very easy to use chemical enhancers to improve taste.

What chemical enhancers are these?

Why do people prefer to grown their own vegetables? Simple. Because the nutritional value is higher as far as vitamins and minerals are concerned.

Well, who knows really.

See, the problem is that you don't understand food production at all.

There are different cultivars of vegetables and fruits. Any difference you taste, smell and see are almost always from the usage of different cultivars, as opposed to growing things in poop.

For instance, almost all (orange) carrots you can buy in a store are of a cultivar called 'Imperator'. This cultivar is favoured because it ships very well (it doesn't break). It tastes terrible, however. I usually grow a variety called 'Nantes', because they have great flavour but they do not ship well at all, sometimes even breaking from the garden to the kitchen.

If you want to compare apples to apples, then make sure you compare the same cultivar.

And, as been said before, organic food lobbyists has never been to prove that organic food is more nutritious.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Again, specious. Because organic crops also need some fertilisers and pesticides, they shouldn't be grown because conventional (what an ironic term to use) do the same thing (which they don't)?

How is that an argument?

1) People don't know what "organic" actually entails.
2) If it's just as bad, then what's the point? Oh right, more money.

[Shazam]

At the very least, I implore anyone that's interested about "organic" farming to read this book. I know that most of you don't grow your own food and so lots of this book will go right over your head, but it's valuable nonetheless.

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Or...0950893&sr=8-1

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

As a health professional and with access to information on a lot of various weight loss programs I can tell you it comes down to this:


-How much you eat is ALWAYS the determining factor.

People are always looking for the next trick to lose weight, but no matter how you package it, calories in vs. calories out is what obesity is and will always be about.

I won't disagree with this but keep in mind that some unfortunate people have such a slow metabolic rate that they gain weight eating a starvation diet.

We've all had friends/coworkers that can pound back 6000 cal. a day and are freakishly thin and others that basically don't eat and maintain a chubby body.

I think it's unfair to assume a thin girl has an eating disorder, and a chubby girl eats too much, it's just not that simple.