Calgary Organic Food Delivery?

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Proof?! The only thing that may cause our kids to have a lower life expectancy (which has not yet been proved, only theorized) is that they are eating too fatty of foods. Not that they are dying of cancer from vegetables. It's actually that they're not eating enough of them.

at least we agree that the problem is diet related. fatty foods are not the only thing, don't forget sugars! obviously, as others have stated, too much caloric intake for the amount of exercise will increase the chances of obesity. obesity leads to increased chances of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer.

i can't find the source right now, but i've heard a theory that suggests that eating too much food is a result of the body saying 'i am not receiving enough nutrients, so i must consume more food until i get my required amount'. as long as people eat bad, these problems will persist. instead of having to treat the symptoms, i think we need to focus on changing our diet, with exercise, as the main driver of fighting obesity and it's associated diseases.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

at least we agree that the problem is diet related. fatty foods are not the only thing, don't forget sugars! obviously, as others have stated, too much caloric intake for the amount of exercise will increase the chances of obesity. obesity leads to increased chances of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer.

i can't find the source right now, but i've heard a theory that suggests that eating too much food is a result of the body saying 'i am not receiving enough nutrients, so i must consume more food until i get my required amount'. as long as people eat bad, these problems will persist. instead of having to treat the symptoms, i think we need to focus on changing our diet, with exercise, as the main driver of fighting obesity and it's associated diseases.

Thats not exactly earth-shattering news....

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-in...-billions.html

Today, most people around the world have access to a greater variety of nutritious and affordable foods than ever before, thanks mainly to developments in agricultural science and technology. The average human life span--arguably the most important indicator of quality of life--has increased steadily in the past century in almost every country. Even in many less developed countries, life spans have doubled over the past few decades. Despite massive population growth, from 3 billion to more than 6 billion people since 1950, the global malnutrition rate decreased in that period from 38 percent to 18 percent. India and China, two of the world's most populous and rapidly industrializing countries, have quadrupled their grain production.

The record of agricultural progress during the past century speaks for itself. Countries that embraced superior agricultural technologies have brought unprecedented prosperity to their people, made food vastly more affordable and abundant, helped stabilize farm yields, and reduced the destruction of wild lands. The productivity gains from G.M. crops, as well as improved use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, allowed the world's farmers to double global food output during the last 50 years, on roughly the same amount of land, at a time when global population rose more than 80 percent. Without these improvements in plant and animal genetics and other scientific developments, known as the Green Revolution, we would today be farming on every square inch of arable land to produce the same amount of food, destroying hundreds of millions of acres of pristine wilderness in the process.

first off, i would challenge the 'more nutritious' claim. modern industrial food has been either bred or modified for high yields, conformity of size for harvesting ease, durability of transportation etc.. i have seen no evidence of more nutrition in the food system.

'superior agricultural technologies'? they mean herbicides and pesticides that allow conventional farmers to mono crop year after year and destroy the soild, rendering it void of nutrients and bacterial life.

as soon as they mention gm crops, you should be hearing alarm bells going off. a recent article reports that a new pathogen has been discovered in genetically modified crops, which may be responsible for high infertility rates and spontaneous abortions in livestock.

the bolded part of your quote; i don't buy it for a second. sustainable agriculture methods offer another way: rebuilding soils with compost and mulch, conserving water through ecologically intelligent landscape design, and replacing monoculture by planting mutually beneficial crops together. with permaculture, we can create sustainable farming jobs and abundant harvests, while rebuilding ecosystems.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thats not exactly earth-shattering news....

never said it was, just re-iterating a point that i believe needs to have more attention.

if it's so obvious, why isn't more being done about it?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

written in 'in defense of food: an eater's manifesto' author michael pollan suggests that "while it is true that our life expectancy has improved dramatically since 1900 (rising from 49 yrs to 77 yrs in the u.s.), most of that gain is attributed to the fact that more of us are surviving infancy and childhood; life expectancy of a 65 yr old in 1900 was only about 6 yrs less than that of a 65 yr old living today.* when you adjust for age, rates of chronic diseases like cancer and type 2 diabetes are considerably higher than they were in 1900. that is, the chances that a 60 or 70 yr old suffers from cancer or type 2 diabetes are far great today than they were a century ago."

*it may be that the explosion of chronic diseases during the 20th century is now taking a toll on american life expectancy. in 2007, the cia world factbook ranked the u.s. 45th for life expectancy at birth, below countries like israel, jordan, bosnia and bermuda. future gains in life expectancy depend largely on how much we can extend life among the elderly...exceedingly difficult, when you consider that the incidence of diabetes in people over 75 is projected to increase 336% during the first half of this century.

now, i am a big fan of michael pollan and i trust his research and logic. if we aren't seeing a decrease right now, i think he suggests that a decrease could be in our near future. unless our food consumption habits change dramatically, i'm not sure we will get thru these diet related hurdles like cancer and type 2 diabetes.

Right, but this has nothing to do with organic food and everything to do with the fact that people like eating things that are bad for them. Lifestyle choices.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Underlined quotes are complete BS, particularly the second one which comes off as hysteria. The part I didn't underline doesn't really have any relevance to the discussion, unless you live in a house made of gingerbread.

His quote is very believable because it's true. Food is safer and held to much higher standards than it was in even our parents' day.

Yours, on the other hand....

i should have been more specific. the conventional food system is being pushed to the brink of failure, imo. cheap oil is long gone, and the conventional system relies to heavily on petroleum, how can a system, that fewer people will be able to afford, not have some sort of failure at some point.

well, if you feel food is safer and held to much higher standards today, then i would suggest you do some of your own research and look into the food system we have today. i'll even help you out a bit, read this book.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Take a breath and please explain the imminent collapse of our "food system".
You sound awfully conspiracy theory-ey in this thread. You've already gone with the "major corporations", and "our children", and now with "food system".

What's the problem? That big companies are producing food instead of local farmers? If you want to see a collapse of the "food system", try feeding everyone locally.

well, maybe a total collapse was a bit over dramatic. but i do feel that conventional (is this a better term for you?) farming is not sustainable and cannot continue the way it going.

as for the conspiracy stuff, get real. the terms you pointed out as being 'conspiracy theory-ey' are normal terms sued to describe the major elements of the discussion.

we should try to feed everyone locally. it is possible, if the general public can let go of sentiment and are willing to make the change, we can totally feed calgary on a local diet.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Thor

Problem is with what the Organic food industry has become, its no longer local small farmers offering up quality stuff, its huge corporations that own Organic brand foods that basically sell crap for a significantly higher cost with just slapping a pretty picture of a farm and calling it Organic.

This is like the no fat Fad that food manufacturers went through the last 10 years, now its 'Organic' and its a way for them to make tons of money while making people think they are better off buying this stuff.

I'm off to work but I'll find some good documentaries you guys can check out, covers all this very well.

i couldn't agree more. my stance is a local, know your producer model, is way more important than whether the item is organic or not. i have tons of videos i could share if people are interested in being a knowledgeable food consumer, but based on some of the comments on here, some would rather just throw their poo or provide quotes without an actual opinion.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

Are you the spokesperson for Occupy Calgary?

if you must know, i have nothing to do with occupy groups. i don't believe in what they are doing.

i am however, passionate about food and advocate for local food and sustainable local community systems.

but thanks for trying to judge me.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Who let Mikey register another account as Moncton Golden?

Organic everything is a pretty expensive way to show the world you buy into hype and don't care to understand the food industry. Hormone free beef, sure, I get that; but buying "organic" bananas just means you're bananas

i don't buy the hype of organic foods that you seem to be speaking of. my organic comes from my backyard or local producers.

i agree, buying organic bananas is bananas! it comes from too far away, and requires too much energy to get from field to plate.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I don't - the level of hormones remaining in the tissues hasn't shown to have any demonstrable effect or quantifiable link to health risks for humans. There just isn't enough in there to affect human beings.

i think this article has enough research to answer your concern, or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Not to mention that we overlook the fact that we probably wouldn't be able to be able to produce enough meat and fruit/veg. without the advanced farming and agriculture techniques that we use today, one of the many reasons I'm so perplexed by those who claim to want an end to world hunger in one breath and shout down genetically modified crops in the next.

we can produce enough meat, which we really need to consume less of, and enough fruit & vegetables without your advanced farming techniques.

here are 2 links (one, two) with examples of how we can work with nature and transform our landscapes to produce the food we need, locally.

and yes, i think gmo's should be banned altogether.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by valo403

You do understand that organic does not mean no pesticides/herbicides etc., right?

yes, what's your point?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

yes, what's your point?

I think it's quite clear. You talk about not wanting to ingest pesticides/herbicides, which is fine, but fail to point out that eating organic doesn't achieve this.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

i should have been more specific. the conventional food system is being pushed to the brink of failure, imo. cheap oil is long gone, and the conventional system relies to heavily on petroleum, how can a system, that fewer people will be able to afford, not have some sort of failure at some point.

well, if you feel food is safer and held to much higher standards today, then i would suggest you do some of your own research and look into the food system we have today. i'll even help you out a bit, read this book.

I have, otherwise I wouldn't be engaging you in this discussion. I suggest that you take your own advice instead of merely resting on the position of one book you're read on the subject that just so happens to correspond to your viewpoint. I actually have read Michael Pollan's book and recognize it as the unscientific tripe it is.

Pollan uses science selectively when attempting to make his point, which immediately invalidates his arguments. It's the same as a person conducting an experiment but only keeping the stats demonstrating positive results and discarding the rest. You are not following the scientific method when you cherry pick to prove a point.

You need to understand whose 'research and logic' you are trusting. Michael Pollan is a professor of journalism and an activist. He has no professional background in agriculture or food sciences and is providing you with his opinion. And unfortunately, his opinion is based on flawed reasoning.

But don't take my word for it, I'm not a professional in the field either - just a critical thinker. Here's three separate perspectives from people who are in positions to make more concrete statements on the validity of Michael Pollan's viewpoints than you or I:

Gregory R. Ziegler, Ph.D, Professor of Food Sciences at Penn State: http://foodsci.wisc.edu/assets/FT-0508-PERSPECTIVE1.pdf
Professor John A. Lucey, Dept. of Food Sciences, U. Wisconsin-Madison: http://foodsci.wisc.edu/assets/Lucey%20Blog.pdf
Chris Hallquist, Biology Major, U. Wisconsin-Madison: http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2009/...tion-a-review/

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Right, but this has nothing to do with organic food and everything to do with the fact that people like eating things that are bad for them. Lifestyle choices.

a can't disagree, it is about choosing your diet lifestyle, and most people don't think twice about it. i feel more education, of what these choices can ultimately do to our bodies, is required.

[troutman]

Review of In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...ts-for-dinner/

I don’t agree with everything Pollan says, but I endorse his 7-word formula. Only I worry that if you eat too much of one thing you may miss out on micronutrients. I’d prefer a 10 word formula: Eat a variety of foods. Not too much. Mostly plants.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

i think this article has enough research to answer your concern, or lack thereof.

That article only served to prove my suspicion that you're not validating your sources very well.

Children, pregnant women and the unborn are thought to be most susceptible to these negative health effects. Hormone residues in beef have been implicated in the early onset of puberty in girls, which could put them at greater risk of developing breast and other forms of cancer. The European Union’s Committee reported that as of 1999, no comprehensive studies had been conducted to determine whether hormone residues in meat can be cancer-causing.v

There are plenty of rubbish statements in that one quote. Pregnant women, children, and the unborn are almost always the most susceptible to health risks; a weakened or undeveloped immune system being the primary reason. But this doesn't support their claim, it only states what we already know, and they provide no references to what health risks they are speaking of and how they related to the point they are making.

They suggest hormone residues in beef have been implicated in early onset of puberty, but provide no sources.

And lastly, they reference the EU's report in 1999 that no studies had been done, yet in 2004 the EU Committee introduced new evidence that could not demonstrate risks to human beings due to consumption of beef products that had been treated with hormones. The US F.D.A. also provided evidence that the levels of hormones in the meat were not high enough to be unsafe to humans. Oh yeah, and this is the one point they attempt to provide a source for, but it is not available. How convenient for them.

Early onset of puberty in girls is due to the fat content of their bodies, and this is as a result of diet and lifestyle. Puberty does not occur in girls until they have sufficient fat content in their bodies to begin the process. This is why gymnasts often do not reach puberty as soon as other girls.

Again, you're quoting sources with incredibly obvious biases instead of trying to get the facts.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

we can produce enough meat, which we really need to consume less of, and enough fruit & vegetables without your advanced farming techniques.

here are 2 links (one, two) with examples of how we can work with nature and transform our landscapes to produce the food we need, locally.

and yes, i think gmo's should be banned altogether.

Great, YouTube videos, just the sort of sources I wa-... no. Something I can read, please. Something that isn't looking to create an interesting video to get people on their side. Facts. Real research.

As far as your remarks on advanced technology used in today's agriculture and genetically modified crops, you should read up on a man named Norman Borlaug. Basically, his work has allowed crops to feed more people (higher yield), grow in far more unhospitable climates, and overall has done a lot to improve the food outlook for nations that aren't as fortunate as ours that can just go to the grocery store and buy whatever we want, organic or non.

[mykalberta]

I have had this debate with a few people I know. My problem with the whole Organic Food debate is its impossible to debate with these people without them throwing out the "dont you care about the environment" phrase or the "why are you so pro corporation".

Whenever you ask for evidence of their comments, they always point to the ever impressive well the corporations wouldnt release research that goes against their interest and that the FDA is filled with golden parachute buddies of corporate Agri America - Cargil, Monsanto, Tyson, etc.

Oh and dont forget to hate on McDonalds while you are having a debate about organic food and why some people think you should pay <30% more for something.

These debates always turn into some Green Peace bs debate where you have to love all things Hemp to understand.

I dont debate that there is a little merrit in every point, but you cannot sum those little bits into one and say you have won the argument. I always get a headache debating this with people so its best just not to and let people live their own life.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

written in 'in defense of food: an eater's manifesto' author michael pollan suggests that "while it is true that our life expectancy has improved dramatically since 1900 (rising from 49 yrs to 77 yrs in the u.s.), most of that gain is attributed to the fact that more of us are surviving infancy and childhood; life expectancy of a 65 yr old in 1900 was only about 6 yrs less than that of a 65 yr old living today.* when you adjust for age, rates of chronic diseases like cancer and type 2 diabetes are considerably higher than they were in 1900. that is, the chances that a 60 or 70 yr old suffers from cancer or type 2 diabetes are far great today than they were a century ago."

*it may be that the explosion of chronic diseases during the 20th century is now taking a toll on american life expectancy. in 2007, the cia world factbook ranked the u.s. 45th for life expectancy at birth, below countries like israel, jordan, bosnia and bermuda. future gains in life expectancy depend largely on how much we can extend life among the elderly...exceedingly difficult, when you consider that the incidence of diabetes in people over 75 is projected to increase 336% during the first half of this century.

now, i am a big fan of michael pollan and i trust his research and logic. if we aren't seeing a decrease right now, i think he suggests that a decrease could be in our near future. unless our food consumption habits change dramatically, i'm not sure we will get thru these diet related hurdles like cancer and type 2 diabetes.

Why would you criticize Troutman earlier for regurgitating another's opinion but then go on to blindly trust a hack like Pollan? I have not read his book, but based on what you are saying, I already know he's full of sh*t!

Type II diabetes wasn't even medically defined until ~1940, and common testing methods like urine strips weren't readily developed until the 1960's, with the first blood glucose meter arriving in 1971. So the absolute EARLIEST that population wide data on NIDDM could even have been published would be mid 60's, and even then something of this magnitude would take a decade to gather reliable data on. And don't even get me started on the cancer epidemiology, but suffice it to say you'd run into similar issues. "far great today than they were a century ago" my ass!

And herein lies the problem with people like you, and why you all come across as flakes - you spout other people's anecdotal pseudoscience without having the ability (or desire) to properly critique/validate it. Have you ever gone to a library to properly research any of this stuff yourself?