A food production time bomb?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"The point I am making here is what is "approved" to be "organic" and allowed for organic farming doesn't make any logical sense and is unscientific and thus should be rejected (not the chemicals "rejected" but the criteria "rejected" ) as being irrational."

Then you don't have any basis for rejecting the criteria. That makes your posts irrelevant. Y ...[text shortened]... into a corner and made yourself look like a fool here for all to see. Live with it.

Then you don't have any basis for rejecting the criteria.

I have just TOLD you one of the bases for rejecting the criteria.

reminder:

“neither synthetic nor unnatural equates with bad and neither non-synthetic nor natural equates with good and yet at least in a highly implicit form this is in part the generally unstated criteria they use (i.e. equating them together when they do not equate) although I acknowledge they obviously also make major use of other criteria both explicit and implicit. I know this because I have spoken to several organic farmers face-to-face and their thinking on this is pretty consistently like this and I am also familiar with the Soil Association. “

How is that NOT a bases for rejecting their criteria as being irrational?

Originally posted by humy

Then you don't have any basis for rejecting the criteria.

I have just TOLD you one of the bases for rejecting the criteria.

reminder:

“neither synthetic nor unnatural equates with bad and neither non-synthetic nor natural equates with good and yet at least in a highly implicit form this is in part the generally unstated crite ...[text shortened]... oil Association. “

How is that NOT a bases for rejecting their criteria as being irrational?

"I happen to know that one of the "approved" chemicals for organic farming is sulfur (used as a fungicide). But, according to the science of chemistry, sulfur, which is a chemical element on the periodic table, is not organic. The point I am making here is what is "approved" to be "organic" and allowed for organic farming doesn't make any logical sense and is unscientific and thus should be rejected (not the chemicals "rejected" but the criteria "rejected" ) as being irrational."

Your rejection of the criteria is based on the use of sulfur. Sulfur is not a synthetic chemical so your example is stupid. I proved this because sulfur is essential to life. Life didn't evolve with synthetic chemicals.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8792123_sulfur-required-life.html

You are constantly using examples that make no sense. First you tried to say the organic farming criteria was irrational by implying that inorganic chemicals should not be approved for organic farming. When I proved inorganic chemicals are essential for life and was merely a chemical classification you denied you were implying that at all. Then you implied that sulfur was only a synthetic chemical I proved that wrong as well.

You have nothing left to defend your rejection of the criteria using sulfur as an example. It makes no sense and you are back to your denial. Sulfur is essential for life and has been that way before man existed. Your sulfur example blew up in your face and you simply will not admit it even though it is apparent to everyone that is following this thread. You are making a fool of yourself.

Originally posted by humy
I never said/implied that sulfur is synthetic nor would I think that thus your two last posts are totally irrelevant.

"I happen to know that one of the "approved" chemicals for organic farming is sulfur (used as a fungicide). But, according to the science of chemistry, sulfur, which is a chemical element on the periodic table, is not organic. The point I am making here is what is "approved" to be "organic" and allowed for organic farming doesn't make any logical sense and is unscientific and thus should be rejected (not the chemicals "rejected" but the criteria "rejected" ) as being irrational."

Your above statement shows that you mistakenly believed that sulfur should not be accepted for organic certification because in your exact words
"But, according to the science of chemistry, sulfur, which is a chemical element on the periodic table, is not organic."

You were clearly referring to the chemical classification which means nothing and I proved it means nothing. When you realized your error, instead of admitting you were wrong you dishonestly denied it as you always do. This is where you tried to move the goal post to avoid embarrassment. Then you claimed it was synthetic and I proved that wrong as well.

Now you are denying that you implied sulfur is synthetic. This makes your post regarding sulfur completely irrelevant and you know it. Everyone reading this knows it too. You are a pathetic joke!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I happen to know that one of the "approved" chemicals for organic farming is sulfur (used as a fungicide). But, according to the science of chemistry, sulfur, which is a chemical element on the periodic table, is not organic. The point I am making here is what is "approved" to be "organic" and allowed for organic farming doesn't make any logical sense a ant and you know it. Everyone reading this knows it too. You are a pathetic joke!

"But, according to the science of chemistry, sulfur, which is a chemical element on the periodic table, is not organic." (my emphasis)

I don't see don't see the word “synthetic” there.
How does that imply sulfur is “synthetic”? I was clearly NOT saying in the above that, according to organic farming terminology, "not organic" equates with "synthetic", because I said, and here are the operative words, "according to the science of chemistry," i.e. NOT according to organic farming terminology but rather, according to the science of chemistry, sulfur, which is a chemical element on the periodic table, is not organic -which is correct.
In that statement, I was clearly NOT referring to organic farming terminology which I very readily accept is different from the terminology of the science of chemistry.

Thus my original assertion of "I never said/implied that sulfur is synthetic" still stands and you have yet to show me an example of something I said that implies the contrary.

Originally posted by humy

My father used to treat wooden fence posts with a nasty chemical that has since been banned. I forget what it was called.

Creosote?
When I was a kid, I once was made to paint a fence with that horrible evil smelling stuff. My mother had a very nasty allergic reaction to it.

[quote] I know a potato farmer that uses nicotine which is ...[text shortened]... entical to it but cheaper so I would recommend sticking to using the manufactured stuff.

This is where you proved your ignorance with this quote:

"The distinction organic farmers make between 'organic' chemicals and 'non-organic' chemicals is both totally arbitrary and unscientific for science makes the distinction differently (for example, science defines DDT as an organic chemical!)."

Organic farmers do not make that distinction, chemists do. DDT is a synthetic chemical and could never get organic certification even if it was not banned long ago. This is proof that you thought the chemical classification of inorganic and organic meant something. It is also proof of your dishonesty.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
This is where you proved your ignorance with this quote:

"The distinction organic farmers make between 'organic' chemicals and 'non-organic' chemicals is both totally arbitrary and unscientific for science makes the distinction differently (for example, science defines DDT as an organic chemical!)."

Organic farmers do not make that distinction, che ...[text shortened]... ssification of inorganic and organic meant something. It is also proof of your dishonesty.

"The distinction organic farmers make between 'organic' chemicals and 'non-organic' chemicals is both totally arbitrary and unscientific for science makes the distinction differently (for example, science defines DDT as an organic chemical!)."

Organic farmers do not make that distinction, chemists do. (my emphasis)

I first clearly imply that organic farmers do not make that same distinction with the operative word “differently” in my above statement and then you make out I am not implying this at all but rather the exact opposite!

Obviously, I am fully aware of the fact that organic farmers do not make that same distinction as chemists do and thus I am not "ignorant" of that fact.

Originally posted by humy

"But, [b]according to the science of chemistry, sulfur, which is a chemical element on the periodic table, is not organic." (my emphasis)

I don't see don't see the word “synthetic” there.
How does that imply sulfur is “synthetic”? I was clearly NOT saying in the above that, according to organic farming terminology, "not organic" ...[text shortened]... nd you have yet to show me an example of something I said that implies the contrary.[/b]

You said it was not organic because you mistakenly implied inorganic chemicals either did not meet the criteria of organic certification or should not. I clearly proved you wrong on that when I showed that inorganic chemicals are completely natural and essential for life.

My very point is that sulfur is not synthetic. Now that you admit that, your post about sulfur is completely irrelevant. Admit it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You said it was not organic because you mistakenly implied inorganic chemicals either did not meet the criteria of organic certification or should not. I clearly proved you wrong on that when I showed that inorganic chemicals are completely natural and essential for life.

My very point is that sulfur is not synthetic. Now that you admit that, your post about sulfur is completely irrelevant. Admit it.

see my previous post were I have just covered that.

Originally posted by humy

"The distinction organic farmers make between 'organic' chemicals and 'non-organic' chemicals is both totally arbitrary and unscientific for science makes the distinction [b]differently (for example, science defines DDT as an organic chemical!)."

Organic farmers do not make that distinction, chemists do. (my emphasis)

I first clea ...[text shortened]... not make that same distinction as chemists do and thus I am not "ignorant" of that fact.[/b]

"(for example, science defines DDT as an organic chemical!)."

Nobody cares if DDT is classified organic by chemists. That has nothing to do with organic certification and should not. This is yet another example of another irrelevant post by you.

DDT is a synthetic chemical and has been banned for decades. Nobody cares because you had no point. Why bring it up?

Originally posted by humy
see my previous post were I have just covered that.

You only proved that several of your posts are irrelevant. Your post about sulfur is irrelevant. Your post about DDT is irrelevant. Your denial that you were not implying that the chemical classification means something is dishonest and you just are too stubborn to admit it.

If you won't admit you were dishonest you should admit your posts are irrelevant, prove nothing and are a waste of time for you and all of us. Why do you post such nonsense?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"(for example, science defines DDT as an organic chemical!)."

Nobody cares if DDT is classified organic by chemists. That has nothing to do with organic certification and should not. This is yet another example of another irrelevant post by you.

DDT is a synthetic chemical and has been banned for decades. Nobody cares because you had no point. Why bring it up?

That has nothing to do with organic certification

-and that is what I implied.

Originally posted by humy

That has nothing to do with organic certification

-and that is what I implied.

Your posts are pointless and I mean that literally. You make no points.

Sometimes I think you ambiguously agree to avoid admitting you were wrong when you screw up in a feeble attempt to save face.

Anybody here can see the flaws in your posts. I'll leave it to them to decide. I'm confident they will not be any more fooled than me. DDT and sulfur...right. Pointless nonsense.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I grew up on a dairy farm and I live in the country here in Michigan. There is a lot of cleared land here that is not being used. My brother could work up land that he used to cut hay from but now it is mostly weeds and grass and needs to be replanted and he doesn't because of the cost of fuel and alfalfa seed. I am surrounded by this formerly farmed lan ...[text shortened]... that roundup is safe but they lie!
You are no more of an expert on this subject than I am.

Yes, roundup is very unsafe. Monsanto has inserted Roundup into the genetic makeup of it's GMO corn so now, in the U.S., whenever you eat anything that has corn in it, you are ingesting Roundup. Most, if not all, European countries have long banned GMO agricultural products and with good reason. Monsanto has been able to pay off politicians to prevent even the labeling of U.S. food products as contining GMO's. The FDA does not requier any testing of the safety of GMO's outside of Monsanto's research.

[

Regarding the production of healthy food, if the U.S. just stopped handing out welfare checks to already rich farmers who are producing food that is making Americans fat and sick and instead gave incentives to farmers producing organic fruits and vegetables, we'd be a healthier nation and would save lots of tax dollars.

I do not resent my tax dollars going to food stamps but I sure do get pissed off when my money goes to corporations that are already doing very well financially.

Originally posted by Phranny
Regarding the production of healthy food, if the U.S. just stopped handing out welfare checks to already rich farmers who are producing food that is making Americans fat and sick and instead gave incentives to farmers producing organic fruits and vegetables, we'd be a healthier nation and would save lots of tax dollars.

I do not resent my tax dollars go ...[text shortened]... get pissed off when my money goes to corporations that are already doing very well financially.

I cannot questioning nor comment on what you say about the economics in the U.S. because that is well outside all my areas of knowledge but, the following is well within my area of expertise (with full C&G qualification and much more):

and instead gave incentives to farmers producing organic fruits and vegetables, we'd be a healthier nation and

IF what you mean by "healthier nation" is or at least includes people having a healthier diet (is this what you mean?), why would you think “organic” fruits and vegetables would generally be healthier than non-organic?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

“....
Myth #1: Organic Farms Don’t Use Pesticides
…
...
Myth #2: Organic Foods are Healthier
Some people believe that by not using manufactured chemicals or genetically modified organisms, organic farming produces more nutritious food. However, science simply cannot find any evidence that organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones – and scientists have been comparing the two for over 50 years.
Just recently, an independent research project in the UK systematically reviewed the 162 articles on organic versus non-organic crops published in peer-reviewed journals between 1958 and 2008 11. These contained a total of 3558 comparisons of content of nutrients and other substances in organically and conventionally produced foods. They found absolutely no evidence for any differences in content of over 15 different nutrients including vitamin C, β-carotene, and calcium. There were some differences, though; conventional crops had higher nitrogen levels, while organic ones had higher phosphorus and acidity – none of which factor in much to nutritional quality. Further analysis of similar studies on livestock products like meat, dairy, and eggs also found few differences in nutritional content. Organic foods did, however, have higher levels of overall fats, particularly trans fats. So if anything, the organic livestock products were found to be worse for us (though, to be fair, barely).
“This is great news for consumers. It proves that the 98% of food we consume, which is produced by technologically advanced agriculture, is equally nutritious to the less than 2% derived from what is commonly referred to as the ‘organic’ market,” said Fredhelm Schmider, the Director General of the European Crop Protection Association said in a press release about the findings.12
Joseph D. Rosen, emeritus professor of food toxicology at Rutgers, puts it even more strongly. “Any consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money,” he writes in a comprehensive review of organic nutritional claims13.
Strong organic proponents also argue that organic food tastes better. In the same poll where 95% of UK organic consumers said they buy organic to avoid pesticides, over two-thirds of respondents said organic produce and meats taste better than non-organic ones. But when researchers had people put their mouths to the test, they found that people couldn’t tell the difference between the two in blind taste tests14, 18.
So, in short, organics are not better for us and we can’t tell the difference between them and non-organic foods. There may be many things that are good about organic farming, from increased biodiversity on farms to movement away from monocultures, but producing foods that are healthier and tastier simply isn’t one of them.
…
...
Myth #3: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment
…
…
Myth #4: It’s all or none
….
….”

Please note that here I am not trying to vilify organic farming and organic food -just merely point out that none of it is nearly as black and white as many laypeople suppose.