56 replies to this topic

[Mind]

I understand your viewpoint Mitkat, but I also understand where Brian is coming from. It has been my experience (this is just anecdotal) during college and in later years that most (pretty much everyone I have met) people who support organic food production are hardcore socialists/communists and/or green luddites. And that is how organic promoters rub me the wrong way. The people here (at Imminst) who eat organic food are the exception. Like you, they are forward thinking and not technophobes afraid of progress.

[bgwowk]

Believe it or not, I actually buy some organic foods even though I know the growers wear beards and sandals. I deal with the issue of organic foods on a product-by-product basis. I just don't believe there is any rational basis for a GLOBAL CLAIM that organic is always better. I also get very upset at pseudo-arguments like "obviously ingesting pesticides is bad" without regard to how bad relative to what. Whenever somebody shows me I can get more nutrition per dollar, I'll buy it. Whenever someone shows me I can cost-effectively mitigate a risk, I'll do it. But I'm not going to buy something based on irrational scare mongering or to further anti-technology anti-business agendas.

---BrianW

[bgwowk]

Alright, mitkat, let's address your points. You point to evidence that certain organic foods have more nutrients. That's great for those specific foods produced by those specific methods. It would be even greater if there were more nutrition PER DOLLAR. But that doesn't mean everything with the label "organic" has more nutrients. Just what does, say, growing apples without Alar have to do with milking cows that don't use growth hormone? Nothing.

Similarly, if there is evidence that certain argicultural chemicals are irreversibly damaging land, then the use of those chemicals should be questioned. But is that a reason to abandon ALL chemicals in agriculture? No.

It's plainly obviously that Organic Food as a general concept is not an attempt to deal with specific recognizable problems in agriculture. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater in favor of perceived simpler times. To argue that Organic is the most rational way to do all agriculture is to argue that EVERY synthetic chemical EVER introduced in agriculture was counterproductive. That's patently absurd.

You say I'm driven by politics, but yours are also plainly obvious.

So, like I said earlier, "The idea of 'regular' farming as truly effcient in any way is upsetting and offensive to any serious ecologically minded life extensionist". But most of the ideas about life-extension are pretty selfish of humanity anyways, so why change that trend.

---BrianW

[mitkat]

Thank you, mind!

[mitkat]

Similarly, if there is evidence that certain argicultural chemicals are irreversibly damaging land, then the use of those chemicals should be questioned.  But is that a reason to abandon ALL chemicals in agriculture?  No.

It's plainly obviously that Organic Food as a general concept is not an attempt to deal with specific recognizable problems in agriculture.  It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater in favor of perceived simpler times.  To argue that Organic is the most rational way to do all agriculture is to argue that EVERY synthetic chemical EVER introduced in agriculture was counterproductive.  That's patently absurd. 

---BrianW

You should really look into organic agricultural methodology more. It's not abandoning all chemicals in agriculture. I'm under the impression that you think it's just people pushing around uncomposted manure, but it's not at all. There are complex and refined fertilizers being used, and indeed, pesticides and herbicides in some farms. They can be botanical, animal, entomological, or basically any other non-synthetic source, just not synthetic agrochemicals. See what I'm getting at? It wouldn't mean a total upheaval of agriculture as we know it. Some nations argue towards a more Integrated Pest Management approach, where even some "chemicals" (I dislike that arbitrary nature of that word in this context) are used.

How is organic food as a concept not an attempt to deal with specific recognizable problems in agriculture? You'd have to say what problems you're refering to, because that's too multi-faceted for me to question. Are we talking about actual nutritional values, land usage, environmental concerns, or a greater socio-economic free trade problem?

You say I'm driven by politics, but yours are also plainly obvious.

So, like I said earlier, "The idea of 'regular' farming as truly effcient in any way is upsetting and offensive to any serious ecologically minded life extensionist". But most of the ideas about life-extension are pretty selfish of humanity anyways, so why change that trend.

---BrianW

Why should I think otherwise? Nothing that you've said here would lead me to believe anything to the contrary. You aren't taking into account obvious hidden environmental costs. I'm concerned with human health, our longevity, as well as our ecological health. You seem mainly concerned with low price, nutrition per dollar, and economic status quo.

[bgwowk]

mitkat wrote:

You seem mainly concerned with low price, nutrition per dollar, and economic status quo.

I think agricultural subsidies are a travesty, and a contributor to world poverty. In that sense I oppose the economic status quo. I want a free agricultural economy.

There are complex and refined fertilizers being used, and indeed, pesticides and herbicides in some farms. They can be botanical, animal, entomological, or basically any other non-synthetic source, just not synthetic agrochemicals.

And synthetic agrochemicals are universally bad because???

How is organic food as a concept not an attempt to deal with specific recognizable problems in agriculture? You'd have to say what problems you're refering to, because that's too multi-faceted for me to question.

Exactly. Problems caused by "synthetic agrochemicals", to the extent they exist, need to be dealt with individually, not by dismissing the entire concept of synthetic chemicals in agriculture. As you well know, it's specific chemicals and their effects that matter, not whether they come from Monsanto or a putative natural source.

---BrianW

P.S. I wasn't denying that politics color my perceptions, just pointing out that this is a passionate political issue for both of us.

Edited by bgwowk, 20 January 2006 - 07:30 AM.

[kevink]

[quote]...it's specific chemicals and their effects that matter, not whether they come from Monsanto or a putative natural source.
[/quote]

Not quite...one is far more dangerous to you, your family, your way of life, and the choices you'll be able to make.

[quote]Monsanto Co.'s "seed police" snared soy farmer Homan
McFarling in 1999 and the company is demanding he pay it hundreds of thousands of dollars for alleged technology piracy.

McFarling's sin? He saved seed from one harvest and replanted it the following season, a revered and ancient agricultural practice.
"My daddy saved seed. I saved seed," said McFarling, 62, who still grows soy on the 5,000-acre family farm in Mississippi and is fighting the agribusiness giant in court.

Saving Monsanto's seeds, genetically engineered to kill bugs and resist weed sprays, violates provisions of the company's contracts with farmers.

Since 1997, Monsanto has filed similar lawsuits 90 times in 25 states against 147 farmers and 39 agriculture companies, according to a report by The Center for Food Safety, a biotechnology foe.[/quote]

[quote]Multi-Billion $$ Monsanto Sues More Small Family Farmers

Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's genetically engineered Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby farm. Monsanto says it doesn't matter how the contamination took place, and is therefore demanding Schmeiser pay their Technology Fee (the fee farmers must pay to grow Monsanto's genetically engineered products). According to Schmeiser, "I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract. If I would go to St. Louis (Monsanto Headquarters) and contaminate their plots--destroy what they have worked on for 40 years--I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away."

Rodney Nelson's family farm is being forced into a similar lawsuit by Monsanto. Support Schmeiser, Nelson and hundreds of other family farmers who are being forced to pay Monsanto to have their fields contaminated by genetically modifeid organisms. Sign OCA's "Millions Against Monsanto" petition. These petitions will be physically delivered to Monsanto and related court hearings.[/quote]

[quote]Monsanto Brings Small Family Dairy to Court

Oakhurst Dairy has been owned and operated by the same Maine family since 1921, and Monsanto recently attempted to put them out of business. Oakhurst, like many other dairy producers in the U.S., has been responding to consumer demand to provide milk free of rBGH, a synthetic hormone banned (for health reasons) in every industrialized country other than the U.S. Monsanto, the number one producer of the rBGH synthetic steroid, sued Oakhurst, claiming they should not have the right to inform their customers that their dairy products do not contain the Monsanto chemical. Given the intense pressure from the transnational corporation, Oakhurst was forced to settle out of court, leaving many other dairies vulnerable to similar attacks from Monsanto.[/quote]

[quote]Monsanto Hid PCB Pollution for Decades

ANNISTON, Ala. -- On the west side of Anniston, the poor side of Anniston, the people grew berries in their gardens, raised hogs in their back yards, caught bass in the murky streams where their children swam and played and were baptized. They didn't know their dirt and yards and bass and kids -- along with the acrid air they breathed -- were all contaminated with toxic chemicals. They didn't know they lived in one of the most polluted patches of America.

Now they know. They also know that for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents -- many emblazoned with warnings such as "CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy" -- show that for decades, the corporate-giant concealed what it did and what it knew... (Read more...)[/quote]


[quote]Monsanto's Agent Orange

The Corporation Continues to Refuse Compensation to Veterans and Families for Exposure to the Toxic Chemical

The dioxin in Agent Orange has been accepted internationally as one of the most toxic chemicals on the planet, causing everything from severe birth defects, to cancer, to neurological disorders, to death. But Monsanto has successfully blocked any major movement towards compensating veterans and civilians who were exposed to the company's Agent Orange.

Long before Agent Orange was used as a herbicide in the Vietnam war, Monsanto knew of its negative health impacts on humans. Since then, Monsanto has been unsuccessful at covering its tracks and has even been convicted of fabricating false research documentation that claims Agent Orange has no negative health effects, other than a possible skin rash. Thanks to Monsanto's influence, the Center for Disease Control also released a report claiming veterans were never exposed to harmful levels of Agent Orange.

As a note, from 1962 to 1970, the US military sprayed 72 million liters of herbicides, mostly Agent Orange, on over one million Vietnamese civilians and over 100,000 U.S. troops.

Monsanto continues to claim this now banned chemical is not toxic.[/quote]


[quote]Taxpayers Forced to Fund Monsanto's Poisoning of Third World

Monsanto has also been implicated in the indiscriminate sale and use of RoundUp Ultra in the anti-drug fumigation efforts of Plan Colombia. Of the some $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money earmarked for Plan Colombia, Monsanto has received upwards of $25 million for poviding RoundUp Ultra.

RoundUp Ultra is a highly concentrated version of Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide, with additional surfactants to increases its lethality. Local communities and human rights organizations charge that Ultra is destroying food crops, water sources and protected areas in the Andes, primarily Colombia.

Paradoxically, the use of RoundUp Ultra has actually increased coca cultivation in the Andes. As local farming communities are increasingly impacted by RoundUp Ultra fumigations, many turn to the drug trade as a means of economic survival. Regional NGOs have estimated that almost 200,000 hectares have been fumigated with Ultra under Plan Colombia. [/quote]


[quote]Monsanto's Roundup Pesticide Killing Wheat

Monsanto also produces the most commonly used broadleaf pesticide in the world, glyphosate--or Roundup. In addition to its inherent toxicity as a chemical pesticide, Roundup has now been found to aid the spread of fusarium head blight in wheat. This disease creates a toxin in the infected wheat, making the crop unsuitable for human or animal consumption. Canada's wheat industry is currently being ravaged by this disease. At the same time, the widespread use of Roundup has resulted in the formation of "super weeds" --- unwanted plants that have developed an immunity to these pesticides. Read study linking Monsanto's Roundup to Cancer.[/quote]


[quote]Monsanto Takes Ownership of Public Water Resources

Over the past century, global water supplies have been contaminated with the full gamut of Monsanto's chemicals, including PCBs, dioxin and glyophosate (Roundup). So now the company, seeing a profitable market niche, is taking control of the public water resources they polluted, filtering it, and selling it back to the people. In short, Monsanto is making a double profit by polluting the world's scarce freshwater resources, privately taking ownership of that water, filtering it, and selling it back to those who can afford to pay for it.[/quote]


[quote]Monsanto's GE Seeds are Pushing US Agriculture into Bankruptcy

Genetically engineered crops are causing an economic disaster for farmers in the U.S. So says a new report released by Britain's Soil Association. The report is a massive compilation of data showing GE crops have cost American taxpayers $12 billion in farm subsidies in the past three years. "Within a few years of the introduction of GM crops, almost the entire $300 million annual US maize exports to the EU had disappeared, and the US share of the soya market had decreased," the report said. In addition, the study says that GE crops have lead to an increased use of pesticides, while resulting in overall lower crop yields. [/quote]

[quote]Cotton Farmers Going Bankrupt from Monsanto's GE Cotton

(2002) In India the financial figures for the recent cotton growing season have finally been crunched. Although Monsanto convinced many of India's farmers that buying the more expensive GE cotton seeds would result in higher yields and better cotton, the reverse is actually true. Crop yields for GE cotton were 5 TIMES LESS than traditional Indian cotton and the income from GE cotton was 7 TIMES LESS than conventional cotton, due to Monsanto's cotton having lower quality short fibers. As a result of the insurmountable deluge of debt accrued from paying more for the GE seeds and having a weak crop, more than 100 Indian farmers committed suicide in the last year. [/quote]

[quote]Wheat Farmers Say No to Monsanto's GE Wheat

The Washington Post and other major publications have been highlighting a massive new movement of conventional and organic farmers who are working together to pass state legislation that would put a moratorium on Monsanto's new genetically engineered wheat. North Dakota farmers recently met with Monsanto representatives to express their concerns about the new crop. Steven Pollestad, a conventional farmer, said, "The foreign buyers have flat out said they won't buy it. And I believe they won't."

Japan has announced to the US that if GE wheat is approved here, it is likely they will completely discontinue importing wheat from American farmers. This makes up a total of 2.5 million tons of US grown wheat each year---enough to put thousands of family farmers out of business. Similarly, South Korean officials gave the US similar warnings in May 2003. In the meantime, Monsanto continues to test its new GE wheat in fields across the US, despite staunch farmer opposition throughout North America.

Meanwhile, Scientists from the University of Manitoba have released a report indicating, "Under current conditions the release of Roundup Ready wheat in Western Canada would be environmentally unsafe." Despite the landslide of data revealing probable negative impacts on the environment, the economy and human health, the FDA is posed to approve Monsanto's GE wheat. Why? [/quote]

[quote]Monsanto's Government Ties
A Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."

It would be nice to think the FDA can be trusted with these matters, but think again. Monsanto has succeeded in insuring that government regulatory agencies let Monsanto do as it wishes. Take a look:

Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.

Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation. 

The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals. 

The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.

The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and John Ashcroft (Head of the Department of Homeland Security). (Source: Dairy Education Board)

In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto. [/quote]

[mitkat]

And synthetic agrochemicals are universally bad because???

Come on, are you really going to be as pedantic as to make me post links to studies about DDT and Agent Orange? These are old cases everybody knows of, and I realize they are older, but they are common knowledge. Many synthetic agrochemicals, especially pesticides, have had to increase their potentcy over the years as resistance has built within the organisms being targeted.

Synthetic agrochemicals are "universally bad" because they hold great risk to the quality of our food crops, ornamental plants, and turf grasses when mixed, applied and disposed of in and around populated areas. Many of their acute toxicological properties are well known as carcinogens, and chronic exposure, as both an applying technician and a consumer of applied fruit/vegetable are not well known in certain chemicals. They are dangerous to human and ecological health, literally sterilizing the earth's crust of bacteria, fungus, insects, algae, microbiotic activty in general, and minerals, which are some of the most basic components of our eco-system, which is where we live.

[bgwowk]

It is a scientific fact that the effects of a molecule are determined entirely by the identity and arrangement of the atoms that make it up. There is absolutely no way that any living thing can tell whether a molecule of a given structure came from Monsanto, Merke, or some plant in an Amazonian rainforest.

You have totally failed to address my query, prefering instead to go on a political rant based an alleged pattern of past bad behavior by an industry. This "argument" is nothing more than saying the agrochemical industry cannot be trusted. That says absolutely nothing about the intrinsic safety of synthetic agrochemicals as a general concept. You appear unable to discuss food safety in terms of basic principles. Your view is like a holocaust survivor saying "medicine" is intrinsically worthless because of all the horrible things they've seen doctors do, or all drugs are worthless because of thalidomide.

"And synthetic agrochemicals are universally bad because???"

Come on, are you really going to be as pedantic as to make me post links to studies about DDT and Agent Orange?

That's a truly remarkable and telling response. Just what does Agent Organge have to do with, say, whether synthetically replenishing nitrogen in soil is a good idea? Absolutely nothing. By your own words, you've shown better than I ever could that the "organic movement" is about politics and rhetoric rather than reason.

---BrianW

[mitkat]

It is a scientific fact that the effects of a molecule are determined entirely by the identity and arrangement of the atoms that make it up.  There is absolutely no way that any living thing can tell whether a molecule of a given structure came from Monsanto, Merke, or some plant in an Amazonian rainforest.

---BrianW

I'm not debating that, not does it even need to be acknowledged. You don't have to trick a plant into an organic farming set-up, that's pretty obvious. It will grow in an environment with enough sun, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and other micro-nutrients, from whatever source. What you do not, or do not wish to understand, is that those molecules that have produced by Monsanto or Merke have negative, resonating effects in the eco-system, and most on human health. I don't see where I said they are bad for plants, directly. If they were, they wouldn't be working and we wouldn't be having this conversation. What is bad, is their effects on the environment, leading to an unsustainable and ecologically unsound farming practice. It is how they work in macroenvironmental view.

You have totally failed to address my query, prefering instead to go on a political rant based an alleged pattern of past bad behavior by an industry.  This "argument" is nothing more than saying the agrochemical industry cannot be trusted.  That says absolutely nothing about the intrinsic safety of synthetic agrochemicals as a general concept.  You appear unable to discuss food safety in terms of basic principles.  Your view is like a holocaust survivor saying "medicine" is intrinsically worthless because of all the horrible things they've seen doctors do, or all drugs are worthless because of thalidomide.

---BrianW

Just as you have failed to address my queries! Is the rant really that political? Must everything be a left-wing conspiracy? It's not a matter of the agrochemical industry being trusted, it's about the long-term safety of their products in regards to human and ecological health.

And that holocaust comparison is almost as ridiculous as you honestly thinking that the organic food movements is run by luddites. You weren't paying attention when I told you that organic farming contains many modern day technologies, diagnostics, irrigation systems, and advanced, refined fertilizers, not just crap and sludge.

"And synthetic agrochemicals are universally bad because???"

Come on, are you really going to be as pedantic as to make me post links to studies about DDT and Agent Orange?

That's a truly remarkable and telling response. Just what does Agent Organge have to do with, say, whether synthetically replenishing nitrogen in soil is a good idea? Absolutely nothing. By your own words, you've shown better than I ever could that the "organic movement" is about politics and rhetoric rather than reason.

---BrianW

Obviously agent orange is just an example, and an example of how bad agrochemicals can go. You should look up DDT, it is more relevant. My fairly blatant point was not that agrochemicals cannot be trusted, but that huge mistakes have been made, and continue to be made, regarding the safety and toxicity of synthetic agrochemicals to humans and their environments. I'm not a poster boy for the "organic movement", whatever you think that is, we are talking about organic farming.

You have a insular and dogmatic viewpoint of the subject and refuse to see the larger picture, which you have proved to me, yet again, is not important to you. Because of your hostility towards organic farming, and those jaded assumptions, not facts, you're seeing only politics, where as most people would just see ecology, which apparently isn't a science to you. If you think that the idea of "organic gardening" is too radical, get ready. [thumb]

[bgwowk]

It will grow in an environment with enough sun, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and other micro-nutrients, from whatever source. What you do not, or do not wish to understand, is that those molecules that have produced by Monsanto or Merke have negative, resonating effects in the eco-system, and most on human health.

On the one hand, you are saying that micro-nutrients work "from whatever source." On the other hand, you are saying that the same atoms and molecules produced by Monsanto will be somehow tainted. Please explain.

You weren't paying attention when I told you that organic farming contains many modern day technologies, diagnostics, irrigation systems, and advanced, refined fertilizers, not just crap and sludge.

But does it allow molecules produced synthetically (i.e. synthetic agrochemicals)?

---BrianW

[mitkat]

It will grow in an environment with enough sun, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and other micro-nutrients, from whatever source. What you do not, or do not wish to understand, is that those molecules that have produced by Monsanto or Merke have negative, resonating effects in the eco-system, and most on human health.

On the one hand, you are saying that micro-nutrients work "from whatever source." On the other hand, you are saying that the same atoms and molecules produced by Monsanto will be somehow tainted. Please explain.

You weren't paying attention when I told you that organic farming contains many modern day technologies, diagnostics, irrigation systems, and advanced, refined fertilizers, not just crap and sludge.

But does it allow molecules produced synthetically (i.e. synthetic agrochemicals)?

---BrianW

Sorry for being inexplicit. Plants need certain variables to be met in order to grow, vegetate, flower and produce a crop. Both synthetic agrochemicals and organic nutrients meet those requirements. In fact, synthetic agrochemicals do it "better", by producing larger fruit, lowering pest populations, inhibiting fungus growth, killing harmful bacteria and increasing over-all yields. That's all fine and good, and was really working for years, just like lead paint and power lines over someone's house. But it's not as simple it's all the same atoms and molecules.

The soil that is housing these miracle plants, with huge yields and massive output, is now sterile. Microbial activity is highest in the upper regions of soil, where much of terrestrial life comes from and is sustained in, and where the most obvious damage is caused. Synthetic agrochemicals cause severe acidification and salinization of soils, radically changing their natural composition, texture, and durability. Those same chemicals that sterilize the earth's crust (that is not a catch phrase, that is a literal term) leech into local watersheds, and because, as you know, nitrogen is one of the most transient elements, it can cause severe eutrophication of local lakes and water systems, sterilizing the entire habitat, literally from the ground up. We all remember the food web/chain from public school, and we all recognize it's importance in regards to a sustainable existance, especially as immortalists.


Taken from a University of British Columbia textbook
http://www.physicalg...mentals/9s.html

I don't believe in the idea of an "evil empire", I see no one conspiring to do great harm to humanity. I just see errors that can be changed.

Monsanto's PR firm admits involvement in e-mail campaign to discredit scientists
http://www.ethicalin.../news/10076.htm

Monsanto accused of price-fixing
http://www.guardian....1117524,00.html

Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution
http://www.washingto...46648-2001Dec31

Do you trust them?

And no, it doesn't allow for synthetic agrochemicals.

[bgwowk]

And no, it (organic farming) doesn't allow for synthetic agrochemicals.

So even if because of local conditions it is determined that certain nutrients are deficient, one can NEVER EVER add a nutrient made in a lab? Is it saying that humans must NEVER EVER grow food where it is not naturally possible to grow food?

Isn't that like saying optimum human health can only be obtained from food, never from supplements? Or that people should never use medicines not derived from a natural source?

---BrianW

[mitkat]

You can get all macro and micro nutrients needed for plant growth from natural sources, be it animal, vegetable, mineral, etc, every single one. Agrochemicals simply aren't necessary. Certain biomes (i.e deserts) aren't great for setting up shop in, and it is infeasible and definately unsustainable through intensive or organic farming to grow food there.

It's not like saying anything, it's just saying what it is!

[eternaltraveler]

You should look up DDT, it is more relevant

Speaking of DDT. It might have deleterious effects, but sometimes those were outweighed by the good even it was capable of. For example the island I am on right now used to have a major problem with malaria. In the 60s however malaria was completely eradicated here due too the use of DDT.

Those same chemicals that sterilize the earth's crust...

The problem Mikat is that you keep reffering to "Those chemicals" as though they all sterilized the earths crust or they all were the same. There are thousands of different types of chemicals used in agriculture. I absolutely certain that your points hold true for some of them, I'm also absolutely certain that your points are false for others. Also in some special cases (see DDT example above) even the "bad" chemicals have their purposes. If you would acknowledge this simple point I doubt you and Brain would have much of a disagreement.

[mitkat]

Okay, how's this for chemicals - synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. Sorry again for being inexplicit.

I dislike saying "bad" chemicals, I'm not sure how that got started, it may have been me, I already mentioned I don't even like using the term "chemicals", as it is ambigious, and because like Brian pointed out, in a way it is all the same chemicals, in the area of elemental fertilizers, anyways. I fully understand that all chemicals do not cause direct environmental harm, but the fact is that many of them do.

I'm not ignoring that point Justin, I fully acknowledge that some chemicals have their purpose, when used responsibly (which is rare). I just don't believe they belong on food crops. DDT is besides the great eliminator of malaria, a well-known and well documented ground water contaminant, carcinogen, developmental and reproductive toxin, and causes disruption to the endrocrinal system. It also appears on the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Dirty Dozen Pesticides list. There are now less harmful, botanically sourced insecticides.

I think that there are some obvious points I've raised that have been totally ignored because they are either too sensitive, or all people with an environmental conscious are radicals not worthy of being listened to, or because there is no logical rebuttal. I do not consider myself to be a radical by any means, but here I sure feel like one.

[eternaltraveler]

I fully acknowledge that some chemicals have their purpose, when used responsibly (which is rare).  I just don't believe they belong on food crops.

Everything naturally sourced is still made of chemicals, everything made of atoms is a chemical. What should be on food crops? What about the dangers of these so-called natural pesticides and fertilizers? (not that mass producing a microbe that kills bugs on your corn and spraying it all over them is at all natural).

Simply stating that agrochemicals are bad doesn't do us any good. If you give me the data you are using perhaps i will come to your conclusions. More likely I'll see something along the lines of in general organic tomatos are better than non organic ones, there is little difference between organic and non organic rice, but non organic corn is better etc. Who knows. I haven't done much research in the area other than dealing with bt corn. As you have a very strong opinion I suppose you must have done a fair amount so I'd like you to share it.

Oh, and what do you have to say about GM food? Personally I think it has great potential for good. Food crops can be engineered to not need, or need very little of either organic or non organic pesticides, and they can be engineered to increase nutrition, and yeilds, and perhaps to fix their own nitrogen. I know golden rice is saving millions from blindness.

[mitkat]

There are dangers to using organic fertilizers as well, but they fall well below any kind of risks associated with intensive farming. Some fertilizers use raw poultry litter, for example, which has to be well composted, and some farms more advanced ways of maturing it so that it's no longer "hot", in which it would harm plants as well as introduce the risk of fecal pathogens, which for sure is bad news. So if this was not properly composted, there is a risk, for sure. Composted cattle and sheep manure has been used in residential gardens for hundreds of years, and is still a staple at garden centres across North America. (Depending on which ungulate is local to you, heh)

I'm not going to say that there are no risks to human health, but they are much, much fewer when compared to intensive farming. There is always going to be some kind of risk associated with international business done on such a large scale. And there is no chance of environmental harm, organic practices only add biomass to the soil and increases microbial activity.

Pesticide residues in conventional, IPM-grown and organic foods
http://www.consumers...organicsumm.htm

Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations on Biodiversity & Organic Agriculture http://www.fao.org/o...c/biodiv_OA.htm

Funny you should mention the GM rice, because legumes with nitrogen-fixing properties are used during crop rotation extensively in some organic farming practices, as a sure-fire, low risk way of introducing quality usable nitrogen into the soil. The then decomposing beans act as food for small inverterbates, who further add nutrients to the soil.

As for the GM issue entirely, I really don't know, it's kind of out of my field. I'm trying to learn about it, but I am engrossed in my own studies as well. I like the idea but am concerned about it's effect on the population of native species and the biodiversity of our farming regions.

But the ball is rolling, I just hope it's all good. It could, and I'm sure it is, providing some amazing results. I think combining GMOs and organic farming practices will strike a healthy balance that could provide a lot of very high quality food with a very low risk factor for everyone along the line, and not just humans.

I have no real interest in changing anyone's mind, I can see a lot people on this board come from very different paradigms and have different concerns. I'm not going to start banging my head against the wall, I'm just putting out some facts that I think everyone who wants to be an immortalist should be concerned with and maybe even excited about, and not just how we are going to be frozen cryonically or how we can best upregulate our mitochondria (not that I don't want those things also)

[bgwowk]

mitkat wrote:

There are now less harmful, botanically sourced insecticides.

Okay, here's where the rubber meets the road. Suppose Monsanto makes a synthetic equivalent of a botanically-sourced insecticide (the identical molecule), and makes it cheaper than the natural extract. Would this be a "synthetic agrochemical", and would organic farmers be allowed to buy it from Monsanto, put it on their crops, and still call their product "organic"?

---BrianW

[mitkat]

That's an interesting question. It is hard to find an example to illustrate what you're asking, because those kind of products are not really in production. Monsanto, et al, are simply not in the business of making cheap synthetic equivalents of botanically-sourced anything, except 'Round-up Ready' crops, which are genetically-modified to be resistant to the nonselective synthetic herbicide glysophate. Monsanto has absolutely no interest in catering to the organic farming industry.

I know you are just posing a hypothetic question, but there are no real answers because that scenerio hasn't happened, to my knowledge, and I don't see it as a possibility any time soon. If it does, and was possibly semi-synthetic, certain countries and organizations might go for it, but there would have to be some pretty rigirous and expensive testing of it's acute, chronic and environmental toxicity effects for any organic body to accept it. I don't think it could be called organic, but some groups are more draconian than others. I wouldn't call it organic.

Pyrethrum is a sort of an example of that conundrum. It is an insecticide sourced from South African chrysanthemum flowers, and is incredibly strong (mixed sometimes as low as .5%). Pyrethroids are the synthetic analog of the chrysanthemumic compounds. Some argue they are superior because they are slightly cheaper, and have some different effects. Both are fairly toxic, going as far as to not be sprayed during flowering periods on ornamentals, as they kill bees. The safety of both products comparatively is still being tested. Synthetic pyrethroids are not allowed on Canadian organic farms, only the botanically sourced pyrethrins. I don't know about anywhere else.


I think we don't need to use quotes, synthetic agrochemicals and organic are both factual, legal definitions and well accepted terms.

[kevink]

Throwing this out there for everybody - not one person...

I'm not sure why this discussion continues, but it seems pretty easy to me. Academic debate has almost nothing to do with real world implementation.

Maybe I'm missing something, but…

I like to think of myself as a REALIST, and I'm far away from being any tree hugger hippie. But a bad call is a bad call.

1. Choice.
Trying to separate out what big agro biz does from the technology itself is pointless. Sure GM food can be a good thing. Who cares? The fact is it's not being handled responsibly so the SMART thing to do is draw a defensive line and try to stop the assault. I don't give a damn if DDT helped some island or not, the point is that it should NOT have been sprayed as a "fun cloud" on children playing in the streets. You've seen the films right -- children running along the DDT truck and playing in the cloud because everyone (official scientists and the government) told them it was completely safe. If anyone wants to eat GM food, go right ahead. I don't want to, but my RIGHT not to do so is being quickly taken away with a pacifying pat on the head and a "run along little boy" nod from the government.

2. Safety
There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with GM food -- IN THE LAB where it belongs. How can so many "modern thinkers" and "scientists" be so willing to rush something as broad and sweeping as untested food into the general population? Nobody is ensuring your safety in this matter. In fact it's becoming clear that your safety and health are of little importance to the decision making process. Organic foods have a loooonnnggg testing period (uhmmm 1000's of years?). GM foods...uhmmm, not so long (sarcasm). Why the rush to push these things globally fast and furiously? Two things - investor greed and "genie out of the bottle". Even with all the "safety" measure in place for prescription drugs, there are numerous deadly and harmful drugs pushed out to the public all the time. The drug companies and the FDA can recall Vioxx and say "whoops" for their group of dead people. Can they recall wheat and corn? And, after what point do they recall it? After how many millions of children have eaten untold amounts of bread and crackers and cookies? And that’s in this country – what about the other countries where things might not be regulated. And let’s not forget that irresponsible use of fertilizers and pesticides is causing contamination of water supplies. How “life extension” and “harming the environment” can possibly go together is nothing short of delusional.

3. Genie out of the bottle
Once something becomes common place, those in authority DO NOT want to admit they were wrong. Just use your darn heads - Fluoride in the water is HARMFUL, but they refuse to stop putting it in. One of the most toxic substances to man, Mercury, is STILL put in your mouth and defended by every authority put in place to "protect" you. Mercury is STILL in many vaccines and being injected into children's bloodstream whenever you let them. Do you really think that they'll ban FOOD?...that will also be making many global investors very rich?
-----
The GM and pesticide debate cannot happen in a test tube. We live in the real world. The reality is that how Monsanto and their kind operate has been very clearly spelled out. You can defend the practice of borrowing money all you want, but if you're dealing with a loan shark, the only option is to NOT do it. There's absolutely no reason for the push of GM food into the general population besides greed. There's also no reason to weaken Organic CHOICE besides greed. Keep the GM research in the lab and only allow very special, peer reviewed exceptions for cases such as famine or where a very grave and immediate threat is present.

There are those that believe it makes sense to consume something until proven harmful. [huh]

And there are those who will say common sense dictates consistently ingesting small amounts of synthetic poisons is something to be avoided (shower filters for chlorine, water filters, teflon avoidance, natural whole food when possible, no recombinant bovine serum, etc). [thumb]

You can debate GM and pesticides all you want, but it's really a waste of time. I can't convince certain people to stop smoking or to not drink diet sodas or to stop using tanning beds – So I'm not surprised that a few are not alarmed at GM food practices and pesticide use.

caveat emptor.

It's funny – not the "ha ha" kind of funny either – but the Okinawans have got longevity and disease prevention down pretty well, without any supplements and certainly without Monsanto or GM foods. It would seem a “how can I do what Okinawa did” thread might be in order.

[bgwowk]

It would seem a “how can I do what Okinawa did” thread might be in order.

That's easy.

1) Stop eating animals.

2) Eat less garbage (garbage = empty calories)

3) Eat less period.

Perhaps these are things we can all agree on.

---BrianW

[kevink]

It would seem a “how can I do what Okinawa did” thread might be in order.

That's easy.

1) Stop eating animals.

2) Eat less garbage (garbage = empty calories)

3) Eat less period.

Perhaps these are things we can all agree on.

---BrianW

Yeah -- I LIKE that post!

And let's not forget their stress reduction, community/family support, and (gulp) "spirituality" aspects as well.

I sure Hope I didn't start another debate! [wis]

[mitkat]

How “life extension” and “harming the environment” can possibly go together is nothing short of delusional.

That is what I'm begining to see very clearly, and am very weary of.


QUOTE:
That's easy.

1) Stop eating animals.

2) Eat less garbage (garbage = empty calories)

3) Eat less period.

Perhaps these are things we can all agree on.

---BrianW

I like this also. I've been a vegetarian for 10 years (I'm sure that's no surprise to anyone). Now let's all hold hands, in a circle now, smile on your brother... [tung] (sarcasm, heh!)

[bgwowk]

Everybody get together, try to love one another right now...

---BrianW

[mitkat]

Organic food is healthier and safer, four-year EU investigation shows
taken from The Independent

A £12m EU-funded investigation into the difference between organic and ordinary farming has shown that organic foods have far more nutritional value.

Up to 40 per cent more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of heart disease and cancer, could be found in organic fruit and vegetables than in those conventionally farmed.

Have a look at the rest of the article here:
http://environment.i...icle3106906.ece

I'm not totally pleased as the full extent of the paper apparently is yet to be released, but this is an interesing read for those looking to get more anti-oxidants.

[troyorganics101]

Aside from the fact that chemical substances and modern fertilizers can cause harm to the body, they can also hazardous to the environment as well. The chemicals used in synthetic fertilizers are responsible for air and water pollution, as well as impeding the nutrients in the soil over time. Conversely, organic farming upholds the preservation of balance in the ecosystem.