Eating organic food doesn't lower your overall risk of cancer, study says

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
As 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 t ...[text shortened]... er European countries; regulations that were often inadequate in the post-war agricultural boom.

Sorry rainforest in South America is being cut down because of organic farming in Europe? Its nothing to do with illegal logging companies, wow. We have over production and European food mountains and heavily subsidized farming, is that also the result of organic farming? Your statements border on lunacy and dont belong in a science forum.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry rainforest in south America are being cut down because of organic farming in Europe? Its nothing to do with illegal logging companies, wow. We have over production and European food mountains in Europe, is that also the result of organic farming? Your statements border on lunacy and dont belong in a science forum.

I'm sorry to have burst your bubble.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
As 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 t ...[text shortened]... er European countries; regulations that were often inadequate in the post-war agricultural boom.

lets talk about the disastrous results of the BSE crisis, could it have been avoided in farmers fed their livestock organically. Yes or no.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm sorry to have burst your bubble.

you have not burst any bubble, your arguments have no empiric basis to substantiate them and appear to me to be nothing more than lunacy, sorry, but to state that organic farming is responsible for the destruction of the rainforest deserves to be mocked. What is more they are clearly false, Europe has been in over production for decades due to hyper intensive methods some of which are demonstrably disastrous, organic farming could very well redress the balance providing an excellent model. Nothing you have proffered has negated this. Your allusions to bubbles seem to be ostensibly in your own head where i dont doubt for a minute that they permeate the brain.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lets talk about the disastrous results of the BSE crisis, could it have been avoided in farmers fed their livestock organically. Yes or no.

No. BSE was caused by cattle being fed meat contaminated with the BSE agent -which isn't man made but rather was produced by an accident of nature. It wouldn't have made the slightest difference if that meat was "organic" -the cattle shouldn't have been fed meat regardless of whether it was 'organic' or not! -because, 'organic' or not, there would have been a BSE epidemic. The BSE epidemic wasn't caused by the use of man made chemicals but rather it was caused by irresponsible farming practices that where not thought through to consider the potential consequences.

Originally posted by humy
No. BSE was caused by cattle being fed meat contaminated with the BSE agent -which isn't mane made but rather was produced by an accident of nature. It wouldn't have made the slightest difference if that meat was "organic" -the cattle shouldn't have been fed meat regardless of whether it was 'organic'!

wow here is a rather damning detail for you, cows dont eat meat, they eat grass, unbelievable I know, but there you are, who would have thought it. So we shall ask you once again, if those cows would have been fed organically (that is what they naturally eat in this instance grass) would the BSE crisis have been avoided. Lets see if you have the honesty and integrity to answer.

I would also like to say that you seem to have a rather narrow perspective of organics, its an ethical approach encompassing much more than the use or non use of pesticides, any organic farmer would never have fed his cows meat in any form.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow here is a rather damning detail for you, cows dont eat meat, they eat grass, unbelievable I know, but there you are, who would have thought it. So we shall ask you once again, if those cows would have been fed organically (that is what they naturally eat in this instance grass) would the BSE crisis have been avoided. Lets see if you have the hon ...[text shortened]... use or non use of pesticides, any organic farmer would never have fed his cows meat in any form.

fed organically (that is what they naturally eat in this instance grass)

you just changed the subject by taking advantage of the extremely vague meaning of the word “organically” in the context of farming that can have a great many different possible meanings not necessarily logically consistent with each other. I was talking about 'organic' as in not using man made chemicals. I clearly implied that cattle should NOT be fed meat therefore it is NOT MY POSITION that they should -in other words, you are using a strew man here. BSE is not caused and was not caused by man made chemicals -yes or no?

Originally posted by humy

fed organically (that is what they naturally eat in this instance grass)

you just changed the subject by taking advantage of the extremely vague meaning of the word “organically” in the context of farming that can have a great many different possible meanings not necessarily logically consistent with each other. I was talking about 'organic ...[text shortened]... using a strew man here. BSE is not caused and was not caused by man made chemicals -yes or no?

Yes it can have varying degrees of meaning never the less to confine oneself to a rather narrow perspective of what organics entails and to state that anything which lies outwith that perspective may be illogical or inconsistent or produce a straw man argument only compounds the matter. Organics is much more than simply the non use of chemicals, its an ethical approach to the management of the earths natural resources and eco systems seeking a redress with nature, thus its perfectly logical and consistent to speak of cows being fed organically and understand that it means what they would eat naturally. BSE was caused as a result of transgressing what was natural for nothing more than economic reasons and like she often does, nature punished that greed.

Just a side note I often find that those who are intent of extracting a yes or no answer are generally uninterested in reason.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes it can have varying degrees of meaning never the less to confine oneself to a rather narrow perspective of what organics entails and to state that anything which lies outwith that perspective may be illogical or inconsistent or produce a straw man argument only compounds the matter. Organics is much more than simply the non use of chemicals, its ...[text shortened]... that those who are intent of extracting a yes or no answer are generally uninterested in reason.

Define "natural" and explain why it is ethically relevant.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Define "natural" and explain why it is ethically relevant.

Natural as in pertaining to nature. Why is 'natural', ethically relevant simply because in instances which form a transgression of nature (the BSE crisis being one case of many) pertaining to what is natural is simply the healthiest policy.

Lets take another example, Indian farmers flooded their fields with brine water in the hope to gain rich rewards for harvesting king prawns, the result is that they have no longer the capacity to grow food for themselves and need to go to neighboring villages for even fresh water, the result of ignoring what is 'natural'. Again take for example Lake Victoria in Kenya when the natural balance was upset by the introduction of the Nile Perch which has decimated the eco system, this compounded by the use of agricultural pesticides has decimated the lake almost beyond recovery. Thus to any logical and rational individual the message is rather clear, ignore nature at your peril, that is why its ethically relevant.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-02-22/local/me-30078_1_lake-victoria

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Natural as in pertaining to nature. Why is 'natural', ethically relevant simply because in instances which form a transgression of nature (the BSE crisis being one case of many) pertaining to what is natural is simply the healthiest policy.

Lets take another example, Indian farmers flooded their fields with brine water in the hope to gain rich re ...[text shortened]... its ethically relevant.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-02-22/local/me-30078_1_lake-victoria

Unless you are talking about the laws of physics or some other causal laws, there isn't such thing as a "transgression of nature". How would you know there exists what you call a "transgression of nature"? what would be the premise of your claim/belief that there exists some kind of laws of nature (other than the laws of physics and other casual laws ) that are immoral to break?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Natural as in pertaining to nature. Why is 'natural', ethically relevant simply because in instances which form a transgression of nature (the BSE crisis being one case of many) pertaining to what is natural is simply the healthiest policy.

Lets take another example, Indian farmers flooded their fields with brine water in the hope to gain rich re ...[text shortened]... its ethically relevant.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-02-22/local/me-30078_1_lake-victoria

Is posting on an internet forum natural?

Originally posted by humy
Unless you are talking about the laws of physics or some other causal laws, there isn't such thing as a "transgression of nature". How would you know there exists what you call a "transgression of nature"? what would be the premise of your claim/belief that there exists some kind of laws of nature (other than the laws of physics and other casual laws ) that are immoral to break?

feeding meat to cows is a transgression of nature, cows dont eat meat, they eat grass, just sayin. Putting Nile Perch in the Victoria lake is a transgression of nature, Nile Perch dont belong in the Victoria lake, just sayin.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Is posting on an internet forum natural?

unworthy of serious comment

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
unworthy of serious comment

Well, you're the one bringing it up. Why don't you try giving a coherent and consistent definition of what's "natural" and what isn't? Do cows "naturally" live in barns? Do they "naturally" eat grass that was planted by man? At what point does "natural" become artificial?