28 Mar 14
2 edits
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-food-doesnt-cancer.html
No surprises there! Organic growing and eating 'organic' food is generally based on extremely badly flawed concepts and even clearly false beliefs. We and even 'organic' food is made 100% of chemicals and 'natural' doesn't equate with 'good' and 'unnatural' doesn't equate with 'bad'.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by humyOne only has to eat a home grown tomato gently nurtured in a non commercial greenhouse to know what an absolute sham those mass produced horrifically tasteless affronts to decency are which stock supermarket shelves. If organic farming can redress this issue then it is a 'good thing' and artificially mass produced products which are produced solely for their look rather than taste will prove to be a bad thing.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-food-doesnt-cancer.html
No surprises there! Organic growing and eating 'organic' food is generally based on extremely badly flawed concepts and even clearly false beliefs. We and even 'organic' food is made 100% of chemicals and 'natural' doesn't equate with 'good' and 'unnatural' doesn't equate with 'bad'.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by humyI hadn't heard that eating organic food was meant to lower cancer risks.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-food-doesnt-cancer.html
No surprises there! Organic growing and eating 'organic' food is generally based on extremely badly flawed concepts and even clearly false beliefs. We and even 'organic' food is made 100% of chemicals and 'natural' doesn't equate with 'good' and 'unnatural' doesn't equate with 'bad'.
As Robbie says; the reason to eat organic is TASTE.
28 Mar 14
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll the tomatoes I have tested from supermarkets taste just fine and test pretty much the same as my home-grown ones and I never sprayed them. There is no evidence that there is huge differences in test just because something was sprayed on the tomato plants or because they are not 'organic'. The differences in test are, unsurprisingly, small at most.
One only has to eat a home grown tomato gently nurtured in a non commercial greenhouse to know what an absolute sham those mass produced horrifically tasteless affronts to decency are which stock supermarket shelves. If organic farming can redress this issue then it is a 'good thing' and artificially mass produced products which are produced solely for their look rather than taste will prove to be a bad thing.
WHY would the organic ones test much better? what is the scientific or biological explanation of this? The placebo effect?
28 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by humybut there is a huge difference in taste, one only has to recognize that fruit that is grown seasonally is far superior in taste and smell to fruit that is artificially enhanced with chemicals, stored in huge refrigerated warehouses, shipped half way across the world and finds itself on supermarket shelves, strawberries in December, mangoes in January are incomparable to locally produced strawberries in August or mangoes in June.
All the tomatoes I have tested from supermarkets taste just fine and test pretty much the same as my home-grown ones and I never sprayed them. There is no evidence that there is huge differences in test just because something was sprayed on the tomato plants or because they are not 'organic'. The differences in test are, unsurprisingly, small at most.
WHY woul ...[text shortened]... test much better? what is the scientific or biological explanation of this? The placebo effect?
28 Mar 14
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have lost the thread of the conversation; The subject matter wasn't how the fruit is stored, preserved and transported can adversely effect its test nor whether it is out-of-season can adversely effect its test but rather whether it was grown organically effects its test by more than a trivial extent and, if so, WHY so? what possible rational explanation could there be of that? -because that is all I was talking about.
but there is a huge difference in taste, one only has to recognize that fruit that is grown seasonally is far superior in taste and smell to fruit that is artificially enhanced with chemicals, stored in huge refrigerated warehouses, shipped half way across the world and finds itself on supermarket shelves, strawberries in December, mangoes in January are incomparable to locally produced strawberries in August or mangoes in June.
29 Mar 14
Originally posted by humyIndeed, there is the power of the brand. For the same reason people prefer a certain brand of cigarette, beer or wine even when they cannot distinguish them in double-blind tests.
All the tomatoes I have tested from supermarkets taste just fine and test pretty much the same as my home-grown ones and I never sprayed them. There is no evidence that there is huge differences in test just because something was sprayed on the tomato plants or because they are not 'organic'. The differences in test are, unsurprisingly, small at most.
WHY woul ...[text shortened]... test much better? what is the scientific or biological explanation of this? The placebo effect?
29 Mar 14
Originally posted by humybecause organics is concerned not solely with the non use of pesticides but in working in harmony with nature thus the allusion to seasonal fruit. I thought this was obvious, perhaps not obvious enough.
You have lost the thread of the conversation; The subject matter wasn't how the fruit is stored, preserved and transported can adversely effect its test nor whether it is out-of-season can adversely effect its test but rather whether it was grown organically effects its test by more than a trivial extent and, if so, WHY so? what possible rational explanation could there be of that? -because that is all I was talking about.
29 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, the way to work "in harmony with nature" is to cut down more forests so you can have more patches of lower-yield organic farmland.
because organics is concerned not solely with the non use of pesticides but in working in harmony with nature thus the allusion to seasonal fruit. I thought this was obvious, perhaps not obvious enough.
29 Mar 14
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorrawow this fails on so many levels, I am quite sure that any conscientious organic farmer looks at environmental sustainability when focusing on his vision, then again we can look at the disastrous effects of 'greater yield farming', like the BSE crisis that wiped out generations of stock in the UK due to non organic feeding methods (cows really are vegetarians and dont eat other cows) or the introduction of genetically modified crops to the Indian farmers which require the extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides and are in every way inferior to the natural strain in this regard. Perhaps in your ardor to build another house of pure straw, you failed to consider these instances, who can say?
Yes, the way to work "in harmony with nature" is to cut down more forests so you can have more patches of lower-yield organic farmland.
29 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOrganic farming has a lower yield than traditional farming: yes/no
wow this fails on so many levels, I am quite sure that any conscientious organic farmer looks at environmental sustainability when focusing on his vision, then again we can look at the disastrous effects of 'greater yield farming', like the BSE crisis that wiped out generations of stock in the UK due to non organic feeding (cows really are vegetarian ...[text shortened]... ardor to build another house of pure straw, you failed to consider these instances, who can say?
Having lower yields means you need more farmland for the same total amount of food: yes/no
29 Mar 14
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLOL
Yes, the way to work "in harmony with nature" is to cut down more forests so you can have more patches of lower-yield organic farmland.
There is always a lot of rubbish said about how good it is to be "in harmony with nature" and something being "natural". "natural" is rabies or dieing a slow grizzly death. "unnatural" would be a designer drug made artificially in a chemical factory that cures rabies and technology that gives us all longer healthier lives. Natural doesn't equate with good and unnatural doesn't equate with bad.
If we all went 'organic', there would be more food shortages, less sustainability, and possibly even famine in some places.
29 Mar 14
5 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorrano it doesn't mean anything of the sort, yes it may result in a lower yield yet how significant remains to be determined, have the Indian farmers therefor gone and cut down vast swathes of forest as a consequence of returning to organic methods, hardly. One in fact must wonder on what empirical evidence your theory is based? can you tell us what benefits BSE and genetically modified crops brought the British and Indian farmers? can you tell us how much swathes of forest have been cut down by organic farmers?
Organic farming has a lower yield than traditional farming: yes/no
Having lower yields means you need more farmland for the same total amount of food: yes/no
29 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs a matter of fact, since European and American farmers have adopted organic farming in signficant numbers in order to profit from the hype, other farmers have to compensate. Since there is a lot of potential farmland in South America and Africa, rainforests are cut down there as a result of organic farming in Europe and North America. The paradox of the matter is that organic farming became popular at a time when it was no longer needed - regulations are so strict now that pesticides rarely cause significant issues particularly in the wealthier European countries; regulations that were often inadequate in the post-war agricultural boom.
no it doesn't mean anything of the sort, yes it may result in a lower yield yet how significant remains to be determined, have the Indian farmers therefor gone and cut down vast swathes of forest as a consequence of returning to organic methods, hardly.
29 Mar 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPerhaps over production and European food mountains are a consequence of these organic farmers cutting down vast swathes of forest, how else are we to account for them. Your argument is based on no empirical evidence and is nothing short of ludicrous.
Organic farming has a lower yield than traditional farming: yes/no
Having lower yields means you need more farmland for the same total amount of food: yes/no