|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Certified by whom? I wonder about those organizations. How much oversight do they really have? The USDA. It's pretty easy to check that you use farming techniques from 1899 and haven't put in a contract for GMO seed.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:50 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The USDA. It's pretty easy to check that you use farming techniques from 1899 and haven't put in a contract for GMO seed. Now, it isn't going to say anything about the food being healthy, the practices being environmentally sound, or any harm being prevented to poor farmers, but only because organic has nothing to do with those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
 "Organic food" is a scam designed to get gullible upper middle class people to pay twice as much for food that costs the same to produce
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
It's really not a scam at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:
No, it uses more land, water and labor so it's definitely more expensive as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:It's really not a scam at all. It might not be a total scam, but it is definitely in part a scam because as implemented people are often paying more for benefits of the product that do not actually exist. Maybe scam is too powerful a word, maybe, but at least "often highly disingenuously marketed product" is hard to argue against in the case of organic food.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
From my personal experience, after years of buying only "free-range, organic brown" eggs, I switched to regular eggs, and they're both cheaper and look and taste exactly the same. I feel I've been scammed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Well, at least free range generally asserts some less inhumane treatment for the birds. If you care about that sort of thing it can be a useful thing to know. If humaneness has any impact on taste or quality of the eggs? Not that I've ever noticed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:It's really not a scam at all. It is completely a scam pseudoscience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Well, at least free range generally asserts some less inhumane treatment for the birds. If you care about that sort of thing it can be a useful thing to know. If humaneness has any impact on taste or quality of the eggs? Not that I've ever noticed. Well, according to that link, the USDA-based labels have minimal relevance to how well the chickens are treated. All the "free-" types only seem to indicate no cages, there don't seem to be any other restrictions on how much room they have. I'm not sure if I have access to that which is third-party certified. Although most of those those don't look too exacting, either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
"Scam" maybe is a strong word compared to altmed stuff for example, that pretends it will really make concrete treatments of disease. It's more a falsely presented value and hidden cost, like a whole lot of luxury goods marketed for conspicuous consumption, with the added irony that it's conspicuous consumption by people trying to seem environmentally responsible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It is completely a scam pseudoscience. Jesus Christ. https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
It's still a scam peudoscience, the national associations of homeopaths put up similar pages for their bullshit. "Organic" agriculture is based on wacky ideas some British folks came up with in the 30s when they decided what was then modern agriculture was evil. Killer robot posted:"Scam" maybe is a strong word compared to altmed stuff for example, that pretends it will really make concrete treatments of disease. It's more a falsely presented value and hidden cost, like a whole lot of luxury goods marketed for conspicuous consumption, with the added irony that it's conspicuous consumption by people trying to seem environmentally responsible. Organic proponents, and sellers, frequently allege beneficial health effects that don't exist, or assert false claims that anything else is harmful. That's scamming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
That site is very long on assertions and very short on evidence. The only citation is to a meta-study that suggests organic farming may increase biodiversity. The problem with this claim is that biodiversity is great for a forest, or grassland, or other undisturbed natural systems, but terrible for a farm. If you are a farmer interested in growing crops efficiently, you do not want biodiversity on your farm. "Biodiversity" means there's lots of other organisms around your crops. Farmers generally call these "weeds and pests." They compete for the nutrients in the soil and the sunlight (if plants) or eat the crop directly (insects), reducing the amount of crop produced and increasing the net cost per bushel of whatever you're growing. Hence, biodiversity is not something to be proud of in a farming technique. It means your farm is wasteful of resources and costs too much to run. The rest is just "this is better because we think it ought to be," without any evidence to suggest their claims are either true or actually beneficial in some way. The primary point of your cited page seems to be an argument from authority because it has the name "United Nations" on the page somewhere. Other than that it's largely meaningless. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Well, according to that link, the USDA-based labels have minimal relevance to how well the chickens are treated. All the "free-" types only seem to indicate no cages, there don't seem to be any other restrictions on how much room they have. I'm not sure if I have access to that which is third-party certified. Although most of those those don't look too exacting, either. In the EU, organic certification requires at most 6 laying hens per m^2 indoors, 18 cm perch per animal, and at most 4 animals per m^2 outdoors. In general, organic farming in the EU is very well regulated, and as far as I can tell, a lot more strict than in the US (not Bt as a plant protection pesticide, for instance). I wouldn't call it a scam, as they promise products produced in a certain way, and that's what you get. That promise has no bearing on whether or not it's healther, more sustainable, better for the earth spirits or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Might be a idea to keep in mind that "organic" and "ecology" isn't the same thing. Claiming there is any health reasons for it bullshit, but we (Denmark) do have a huge problem with overuse of pesticides, and pesticides contaminating streams and other such natural waterways; making Ecology a thing people care about. if you try and sell something as Organic, people will assume to want to sell them fertilizer, or just plain old literal poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:That site is very long on assertions and very short on evidence. The only citation is to a meta-study that suggests organic farming may increase biodiversity. The problem with this claim is that biodiversity is great for a forest, or grassland, or other undisturbed natural systems, but terrible for a farm. If you are a farmer interested in growing crops efficiently, you do not want biodiversity on your farm. Literally everything you wrote here is incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Literally everything you wrote here is incorrect. You can prove this, I take it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:You can prove this, I take it? quote:Of the myriad species of plants and animals available for human consumption, modern agriculture uses only a few. According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, only 12 plant species provide 75% of our total food supply, and only 15 mammal and bird species make up over 90% of livestock production. From chge.med.harvard.edu/topic/biodiversity-and-agriculture
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
SniHjen posted:Might be a idea to keep in mind that "organic" and "ecology" isn't the same thing. Yes, in Danish the word "organisk" means something completely different from "økologisk", but the English translation of "økologi(isk landbrug)" is "organic (farming)". For instance: quote:KOMMISSIONENS FORORDNING (EF) NR. 889/2008 In English is: quote:COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 889/2008 Ecology is a more narrow term, for a scientific field. That scientific field also happens to be called "økologi" in Danish, but "økologisk landbrug" is not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:From chge.med.harvard.edu/topic/biodiversity-and-agriculture Interesting that they again cite no data or studies, only making assertions without any evidence. That seems to be a general trend in sites promoting organic methods. Everybody knows that farmed plants are highly susceptible to diseases and pests, as they are not grown for their esthetic values but as sources of food. The whole point of a farm is to maximize your food production. Bragging about features that reduce your farm's output is like a redneck bragging about how his truck only gets 10 miles per gallon. An interesting quote: quote:these plants are selected because of their ability to grow well under the specific conditions of a particular place, and therefore are at greater risk when these conditions change, Having stable conditions is precisely why most farming is done where it is. That greater diversity is a benefit when conditions change rapidly is a useful trait in a vanishingly small number of areas. Places with wildly variable weather conditions don't do much farming, period.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Climate change will ensure no part of the earth remains unchanged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Climate change will ensure no part of the earth remains unchanged. There are sensitivity ranges though and here's no guarantee that climate change will go beyond those ranges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There are sensitivity ranges though and here's no guarantee that climate change will go beyond those ranges. and there's no guarantee it won't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:and there's no guarantee it won't. Thankfully, Monsanto is cranking out genetically modified organisms by the truckload that will be able to cope with these new conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Thankfully, Monsanto is cranking out genetically modified organisms by the truckload that will be able to cope with these new conditions. Got any sources for that? I remember reading somewhere that genetically modifying organisms to cope with changing climatic conditions was extremely difficult to do and that essentially Monsanto wasn't doing it. Also- lol'ing at the fact that you think corporations profiting off climate change is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Also- lol'ing at the fact that you think corporations profiting off climate change is a good thing. You are mistaking "this is a solvable problem" for "it's good that climate change is a profitable business opportunity" e: also there's people working on making C4-rice. To illustrate the difference in productivity: C3 photosynthesis lets you grow the tiny lovely grass on your lawn, C4 photosynthesis gives you maize and sugarcane. By the way, biodiversity on farms is a really weird concept. Lots of land sparing to keep ecosystems intact and balls to the wall super intensive agriculture in designated "this can go to poo poo" areas is where it's at. Preferably while keeping the spillover from the latter to the former minimal, like the Dutch are doing. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 15:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:From chge.med.harvard.edu/topic/biodiversity-and-agriculture It is a very good thing that we focus on the few best species rather than wasting time and land in mass agriculture of suboptimal crops and livestock. Of course you're too blinded to understand that these crops and livestock are grown en masse worldwide for a reason - they have been forcefully modified through thousands of years of agriculture to be able to handle conditions worldwide, and to grow well in them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
GMO is only part of it. Organic farming is uniquely unsuited to combat climate change because all of its methods from plowing to harvesting, not just choice of seeds, face artificial and arbitrary constraints. The reverse is not true: if a technique used by organic farmers actually works, it can be used by anyone else too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It is a very good thing that we focus on the few best species rather than wasting time and land in mass agriculture of suboptimal crops and livestock. Of course you're too blinded to understand that these crops and livestock are grown en masse worldwide for a reason - they have been forcefully modified through thousands of years of agriculture to be able to handle conditions worldwide, and to grow well in them. You can't grow rice in places like Sudan. Also, I'm not blinded- I grow my own food without needing pesticides and my garden is diverse and healthy. I know that it's not a large scale operation, but it still feeds my family and I. The only people who benefit from modern intensive agriculture are the shareholders of large ag corporations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Got any sources for that? I remember reading somewhere that genetically modifying organisms to cope with changing climatic conditions was extremely difficult to do and that essentially Monsanto wasn't doing it. I'm not sure if Monsanto is doing it, but it wouldn't surprise me. Further, even if they're not, there're plenty of other groups trying to identify traits and genes that'll be useful for responding to it. I'd rather have corporations profit off something than see a major drop in food supply.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:GMO is only part of it. Organic farming is uniquely unsuited to combat climate change because all of its methods from plowing to harvesting, not just choice of seeds, face artificial and arbitrary constraints. The reverse is not true: if a technique used by organic farmers actually works, it can be used by anyone else too. This is wrong. http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20140310_finalreport_en.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I'm not sure if Monsanto is doing it, but it wouldn't surprise me. Further, even if they're not, there're plenty of other groups trying to identify traits and genes that'll be useful for responding to it. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:The only people who benefit from modern intensive agriculture are the shareholders of large ag corporations. And people who like to, you know, eat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Andrast posted:And people who like to, you know, eat. The wonderful and healthy food choices we have available in the 21st century have allowed our global population to enjoy our lives happily free from diseases like obesity and diabetes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:The wonderful and healthy food choices we have available in the 21st century have allowed our global population to enjoy our lives happily free from diseases like obesity and diabetes. Well, yes. That is absolutely right. Thanks for finally realizing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
[TELL] Me about how GMOs cause obesity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:The wonderful and healthy food choices we have available in the 21st century have allowed our global population to enjoy our lives happily free from diseases like obesity and diabetes. Sure would be nice if we'd all just switch to organic food and abandon oil based farming methods. I mean, sure, a few billion people would have to starve to death or we'd have to clear out an ungodly amount of land to compensate, but every supermarket would be like a farmers' market!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:This is wrong. This doesn't actually support what you're saying, unless you want to clarify.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:50 |
|
|
Andrast posted:Well, yes. That is absolutely right. Thanks for finally realizing it. That was sarcasm, millions are suffering from obesity thanks to the shift to highly processed foods.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:55
|
|