|
It came from Facebook. Now I'm no expert, but I'd say this probably constitutes a new low.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
Taaaaaaarb! posted:It came from Facebook. GMOs make vaccines now?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Taaaaaaarb! posted:It came from Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-organic-foods-20140715-story.htmlquote:After reviewing 343 studies on the topic, researchers in Europe and the United States concluded that organic crops and organic-crop-based foods contained higher concentrations of antioxidants on average than conventionally grown foods. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24968103 quote:Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-organic-foods-20140715-story.html I feel like we've already discussed this study or a similar one. As in, my agricultural policy folder contains a Baranski et al 2014 paper with similar claims from early August.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I feel like we've already discussed this study or a similar one. As in, my agricultural policy folder contains a Baranski et al 2014 paper with similar claims from early August. edit: published online Jul 15, 2014 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141693/
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-organic-foods-20140715-story.html Do we have any evidence that the levels of pesticide present actually harm people, or is it more a matter of "better safe than sorry"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-organic-foods-20140715-story.html What I hate about this poo poo though is it doesn't present any evidence that the amount of Cd is something I should care about, or whether the antioxidants are in enough of a higher concentration to make any sort of difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
The data selection in that study is odd and has loose exclusion criteria, and considering the authors and funding, there's certainly potential for bias there. They also don't really look for the presence of organic pesticides, and they also don't make much discussion of potentially beneficial differences in the conventional crops. And of course, there's the issue of whether the findings are actually meaningful with respect to public health. Let's assume, for sake of argument, that it's both accurate and meaningful. Then, we still have the issue of the unscientific organic vs. conventional false dichotomy. It's not a reason to support the organic industry, it's a reason to work out what conventional practices are bad and what organic practices are good w/r/t nutritional content, and see where the trade-offs are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
disheveled posted:The data selection in that study is odd and has loose exclusion criteria, and considering the authors and funding, there's certainly potential for bias there. They also don't really look for the presence of organic pesticides, and they also don't make much discussion of potentially beneficial differences in the conventional crops. And of course, there's the issue of whether the findings are actually meaningful with respect to public health. Okay, I'll bite, what the gently caress is an "organic pesticide"? I'm assuming it has some stupid meaning that isn't "a pesticide that contains carbon"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
It's a pesticide that you're allowed to put on organic crops. If you use something without that designation, then you can't call the crop organic any longer All organic food labeling is a big dumb misnomer, basically
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Okay, I'll bite, what the gently caress is an "organic pesticide"? http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5088987 (from here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPOrganicStandards ) If a normal person said it, I'd probably assume they mean "any pesticide that wasn't chemically synthesized".
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's a pesticide that you're allowed to put on organic crops. If you use something without that designation, then you can't call the crop organic any longer yes but what makes it organic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Okay, I'll bite, what the gently caress is an "organic pesticide"? Organic pesticides/herbicides are naturally occurring (or derived from something naturally occurring) chemicals that kill unwanted insects/weeds/etc. In the US, there's an "approved/banned" list of substances for organic farming. The distinction has nothing to do with safety or the environment, and thus has basically zero scientific justification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:47
|
|
Jarmak posted:yes but what makes it organic? Is the pesticide approved for organic crops? Yes=> Organic. No=> Not Organic. That's it.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:yes but what makes it organic? Something like Rotenone. Most of them are broad-spectrum and poisonous to pretty much everything that lives. Rotenone in particular kills the gently caress out of fish and is definitely something you don't want to expose yourself to on any kind of regular basis. But it's better because a plant did it. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:yes but what makes it organic? A bunch of bullshit is what makes it organic. Because a chemical like say Rotenone can be derived non-synthetically from plants it can be called organic. Just hope you like Parkinson's disease. But hey, it is ORGANIC Parkinson's disease.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
For the sake of intellectual honesty, while rotenone is a clear example of why the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy, EPA regulations prevent it from being used on US organic farms, and some organic groups have moved to get it added to the prohibited list. I think it's technically "allowed with restrictions" now, so in theory imported produce certified as USDA Organic could have been exposed to rotenone, but I'm not 100% on that. The important take-home message is that synthetic/conventional vs. natural/organic has little bearing on environmental or health impacts, it comes down to the details. That was part of my point with the "false dichotomy" thing. If people just harp on rotenone, then people will just ban rotenone and move on. We want to get consumers, producers, and advocates thinking in a framework where they don't care about how natural something is, but to think of the desired outcomes and work back from that to get to best agricultural practices. Most organic proponents have their hearts in the right place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
disheveled posted:That was part of my point with the "false dichotomy" thing. If people just harp on rotenone, then people will just ban rotenone and move on. We want to get consumers, producers, and advocates thinking in a framework where they don't care about how natural something is, but to think of the desired outcomes and work back from that to get to best agricultural practices. Most organic proponents have their hearts in the right place. Part of the reason there is a false dichotomy between conventional and organic is that both are industries organized in very similar ways. Organic farming started as a movement to reject industrial agricultural methods, including monocultures and high levels of industrial inputs including pesticides and fertilizers. As organic food became a profitable industry the requirements and ethic of organic were weakened to allow larger farms and larger companies to get in on the action. Essentially organic agriculture became an issue of same farm, different pesticides where the original goal was to change the farm. As organic agriculture has become a commodity rather than a social movement we have seen the rise of the local food movement. The two movements start from a similar place, a desire to change the process of farming by revealing the conditions of food production to consumers. Organic agriculture relied on certification, local food relies on a direct connection between farmers and consumers. Unfortunately, the local food movement is going the way of organic food, becoming a commodity differentiated by a single trait, distance. The ethic behind the local food movement is being lost as ,frustratingly, the issue is redefined by food miles and the supposed GHG emissions avoided. All the same, I think its unfair to criticize the ethic behind organic or local agriculture, because many of the complaints originate from their assimilation into our industrial food system. Critics of that industrial food system are not blind to problems with organic agriculture, as one might be led to believe in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Organic farming started as a mostly spiritualish movement to reject anything "too modern" by some British dudes in the 30s, who chose what was too modern entirely at random.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Yeah, let's avoid the revisionism. The organic movement transparently began as a naturalist movement, and though some intelligent people have jumped on it in the recent past as a way to fight particular inadequacies and failures of industrial agriculture, there was never any serious (or, at the least, effective) effort to unify that vision. The strength of the anti-GMO position — for example — comes from having successfully integrated itself into the naturalist ideology, because it certainly isn't intellectually sound, and I'm not willing to chalk that up to something like corruption of the organic movement by industry. I don't disagree that "organic" has blossomed into a full-blown industry with a shared set of issues, but I also don't think it was ever going to be a coherent solution to conventional agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
disheveled posted:Yeah, let's avoid the revisionism. The organic movement transparently began as a naturalist movement, and though some intelligent people have jumped on it in the recent past as a way to fight particular inadequacies and failures of industrial agriculture, there was never any serious (or, at the least, effective) effort to unify that vision. The strength of the anti-GMO position — for example — comes from having successfully integrated itself into the naturalist ideology, because it certainly isn't intellectually sound, and I'm not willing to chalk that up to something like corruption of the organic movement by industry. I'll admit I'm not completely immersed in the history of the organic movement but it seems to me that it began as a rejection of produced (industrial) fertilizers. Instead, the organic movement focused on soil health, ecology, and compost. It seems from the beginning a rejection of industrial agriculture in favour of non-industrial methods. The absence of produced technology does not mean the absence of science. And certainly the anti-GMO movement has become attached to organics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:I'll admit I'm not completely immersed in the history of the organic movement but it seems to me that it began as a rejection of produced (industrial) fertilizers. Instead, the organic movement focused on soil health, ecology, and compost. It seems from the beginning a rejection of industrial agriculture in favour of non-industrial methods. The absence of produced technology does not mean the absence of science. And certainly the anti-GMO movement has become attached to organics. Soil health, ecology and compost are all technologies used on conventional farms and industrial methods, like say tilling, are used on organic farms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Thread bad  it
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
platedlizard posted:Thread bad Poster bad :ban: him
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 12:26
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Organic farming started as a mostly spiritualish movement to reject anything "too modern" by some British dudes in the 30s, who chose what was too modern entirely at random. [Citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
Oh my, Biodynamic agriculture. Its basically homeopathy for the farm. Preparation 500 - Cow manure is buried in cow horns in the soil over winter. The horn is then dug up, its contents (called horn manure or '500') are then stirred in water and sprayed on the soil in the afternoon. The horn may be re-used as a sheath. Preparation 501 - Ground quartz is buried in cow horns in the soil over summer. The horn is then dug up, its contents (called horn silica or '501') are then stirred in water and sprayed over the vines at daybreak. The horn may be re-used as a sheath. Preparation 502 - Yarrow flowers are buried sheathed in a stag's bladder. This is hung in the summer sun, buried over winter, then dug up the following spring. The bladder's contents are removed and inserted in the compost (the used bladder is discarded). Preparation 503 - Chamomille, the German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla) flowers are sheathed in a cow intestine. This is hung in the summer sun, buried over winter, then dug up the following spring. The intestine's contents are removed and inserted in the compost (the used intestine is discarded). Preparation 504 - Stinging nettles are buried in the soil (with no animal sheath) in summer, are dug up the following autumn and are inserted in the compost. Preparation 505 - Oak bark is buried sheathed in the skull of a farm animal, the skull is buried in a watery environment over winter, then dug up. The skull's contents are removed and inserted in the compost (the used skull is discarded). Preparation 506 - Dandelion flowers are buried sheathed in a cow mesentery (peritoneum). This is hung in the summer sun, buried over winter, then dug up the following spring. The mesentery's contents are removed and inserted in the compost (the used mesentery is discarded). Preparation 507 - Valerian flower juice is sprayed over and/or inserted into the compost. Preparation 508 - Common Horsetail (Equisetum arvense) made either as a fresh tea or as a fermented liquid manure is applied either to the vines (in this case usually as a tea) or to the soil (in this case usually as a liquid manure).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
karthun posted:Oh my, Biodynamic agriculture. Its basically homeopathy for the farm. I'm an organic farmer and I do none of those things, so... Also where did you copy all that from?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:[Citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Howard
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
" He emphasizes the importance of maintaining humus, keeping water in the soil, and the role of mycorrhiza. " Organic food is satan
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I'm an organic farmer and I do none of those things, so... Also where did you copy all that from? Of course you don't, that is pretty much just crazies these days. I would hope you didn't buy into it. You asked about the origin. Before Howard was Rudolf Steiner. Duck Rodgers implied that the organic movement began with an evidence-based approach, but it did not -- it was spiritual woo and bad naturalist philosophy that said, straight up, that industrial agriculture is necessarily worse for everything. Environment and health were among the major concerns, but the "solutions" they came up with weren't based on scientific reasoning. And that is why there is still a prominent rejection of "chemicals" or technological innovation, even if the more insane components have been dropped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I'm an organic farmer and I do none of those things, so... Also where did you copy all that from? You are a glorified gardener who wanted to mate his tomatoes with a poisonous berry earlier in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:I'll admit I'm not completely immersed in the history of the organic movement but it seems to me that it began as a rejection of produced (industrial) fertilizers. Instead, the organic movement focused on soil health, ecology, and compost. It seems from the beginning a rejection of industrial agriculture in favour of non-industrial methods. The absence of produced technology does not mean the absence of science. And certainly the anti-GMO movement has become attached to organics. It's not really clear to me how the organic movement became anti-GMO. Rebreeding two plants for countless growing seasons until the desired traits are found --> Organic Transferring genetic material between one plant and another via grafting or other "natural" techniques --> Organic Transferring single genes between one plant and another in a laboratory --> GMO, burn the crop, salt the field If you examine the history of agriculture, GMO is the next logical step in development. Rather than relying on chance across countless growing seasons or just loving sticking plants onto other plants in order to reach a desired result, we can modify the specific genes directly. In this sense, the plant is no less natural than if it had been produced with other "natural" techniques. Why do people believe that this step results in something poisonous, deadly, etc, whereas the previous steps did not? It makes no sense to preclude GMOs from being labeled as organic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:01
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's not really clear to me how the organic movement became anti-GMO. Because if we do it in a lab we are infringing on the domain of God, just like Frankenstein! I mean, these people use terms like "Franken-Food", of course it's about dumb superstition. The extra ingredient that made GMOs evil was a loving jacob's ladder prop in the fictional GMO lab in their head.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's not really clear to me how the organic movement became anti-GMO. Your logic doesn't hold. For the most part, you're not modifying or mutating endogenous genes, you're introducing new transgenes from new sources so that the plant can do something it couldn't before. Most GM crops have phenotypes you couldn't realistically get with conventional breeding techniques. I certainly see an argument in there for why the GM plant is "less natural." It's coherent logic for a person blanketly opposed to synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to also be opposed to GMOs. The problem is the premise of "natural is better," not the connection between these things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
disheveled posted:Your logic doesn't hold. For the most part, you're not modifying or mutating endogenous genes, you're introducing new transgenes from new sources so that the plant can do something it couldn't before. Most GM crops have phenotypes you couldn't realistically get with conventional breeding techniques. I certainly see an argument in there for why the GM plant is "less natural." Sure, but then why is bombing seeds with radiation to create mutations a-ok?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:Sure, but then why is bombing seeds with radiation to create mutations a-ok? Because it's still something the plant could do naturally eventually. That's the thinking, anyway. Not saying it really makes sense, because it's a very dumb dichotomy anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Because it's still something the plant could do naturally eventually. That's the thinking, anyway. Not saying it really makes sense, because it's a very dumb dichotomy anyway. So then the objection to transgenics is just a failure to understand basic facts of genetics and mutation, namely that genes that appear in another species are capable of being mutated naturally eventually? I mean, I guess I knew that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:So then the objection to transgenics is just a failure to understand basic facts of genetics and mutation, namely that genes that appear in another species are capable of being mutated naturally eventually? Well theoretically yes, but still no; the fenotypic expression is based on proteins. Since, well, alternative splicing and stuff then essentially the odds are astronomical. The entire point of genetic manipulation is to introduce expression products that cannot in any reasonable way be introduced via hybridization, radiation shotgunning, gene guns etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
disheveled posted:Your logic doesn't hold. For the most part, you're not modifying or mutating endogenous genes, you're introducing new transgenes from new sources so that the plant can do something it couldn't before. Most GM crops have phenotypes you couldn't realistically get with conventional breeding techniques. I certainly see an argument in there for why the GM plant is "less natural." But even if you're transferring genes between the same species in order to produce a specific result, a process that could occur "naturally" over a sufficient number of growing seasons and with enough effort, the anti gmo people still claim that this is unnatural and should not be done. And yet grafting, an entirely unnatural process, is considered acceptable because we've been doing it for a lot longer. It's absolutely illogical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:45
|
|