Organic food = Yuppie food

There are all sorts of bad practices in agriculture (ex. harmful pesticides), consuming in such a way to discourage such practices and deny profits to companies that engage in them is an excellent idea.

Unfortunately, the organic food movement does not target bad practices, there are all sorts of very good practices in conventional agriculture that does not qualify as 'organic' (such as zero-tillage seeding). Also, there are all sorts of bad practices associated with 'organic' agriculture, specifically the massive amount of waste generated from the reluctancy to use some perfectly anodyne pesticides.

The ideology of the organic food movement is based in the countercultural 'technophobia' of the 60s, not in any real assessment of the environmental impact and sustainability of agricultural practices.

Therefore, it has more in common with the alternative medicine movement than the environmental movement (including popular appeal based on false and unconscionable health claims).

Organic food is yuppie food because the extra cost buys nothing more than distinction and a sense of moral superiority.

Thoughts? Discuss.

i would like to see studies which deny the fact that organic food is generally more nutritious. ones not done by non-organic agribusiness of course :wink:
granted, there aren't many studies i have seen which show organic food is more nutritious either..

here is one of the few well done studies done recently-

a six-year study, conducted at the University of Washington, found that Golden Delicious apples grown organically in an experimental plot ranked first in terms of environmental sustainability, profitability and energy efficiency, over apples grown either conventionally or using a mixed method. In a taste test, untrained observers also rated the organic apples to be the sweetest of the bunch.


of course, one study does not make a rock solid case for all crops, but it proves organic farming can be superior to non-organic in all ways, at least sometimes.

a little fact. did you know most oranges you buy in your supermarket are picked green, unripe, dyed orange, and allowed to ripen in transport? that most of the white stuff on the inside of the peel/outside fo the orange is supposed to be absorbed by the fruit itself, partially as vitamin C?

i would rather buy an orange produced locally by a farmer who cares about the end product's quality as much as profit, and pay a little extra, than buy one grown with pesticides anyday.
and i won't feel 'superior', but i'll be grateful the superior option (in terms of environmental impact and product quality) is there, and i know enough to choose it.

organic farming isn't perfect, but to claim that 'conventional' farming is better without solid basis is ignorant. to imply that either method is superior isn't based on solid scientific research as of yet.

but i choose to trust millions of years of nature, and humans who try to work with nature as non-invasively as possible, over a few decades of chemical farming, and the same groups who thought DDT was a brilliant example of human ingenuity's superiority to nature's natural processes when it first came out.

Yeah I agree. Not like eating meat from cows that wern't brought up in a 1 by 2 meter cage will help any other cows, or people for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Asher
i would like to see studies which deny the fact that organic food is generally more nutritious. ones not done by non-organic agribusiness of course *:wink: *
*granted, there aren't many studies i have seen *which show organic food is more nutritious either..

* here is one of the few well done studies done recently-

a six-year study, conducted at the University of Washington, found that Golden Delicious apples grown organically in an experimental plot ranked first in terms of environmental sustainability, profitability and energy efficiency, over apples grown either conventionally or using a mixed method. In a taste test, untrained observers also rated the organic apples to be the sweetest of the bunch.

*
*of course, one study does not make a rock solid case for all crops, but it proves organic farming can be superior to non-organic in all ways, at least sometimes.

*a little fact. did you know most oranges you buy in your supermarket are picked green, unripe, dyed orange, and allowed to ripen in transport? that most of the *white stuff on the inside of the peel/outside fo the orange is supposed to be absorbed by the fruit itself, partially as vitamin C?

*i would rather buy an orange produced locally by a farmer who cares about the end product's quality as much as profit, and pay a little extra, than buy one grown with pesticides anyday.
*and i won't feel 'superior', but i'll be grateful the superior option (in terms of environmental impact and product quality) is there, and i know enough to choose it.

*organic farming isn't perfect, but to claim that 'conventional' farming is better without solid basis is ignorant. to imply that either method is superior isn't based on solid scientific research as of yet.

*but i choose to trust millions of years of nature, and humans who try to work with nature as non-invasively as possible, over a few decades of chemical farming, and *the same groups who thought DDT was a brilliant example of human ingenuity's superiority to nature's natural processes when it first came out.

---

The main problem with the study there is that it was their goal to produce tasty organic apples.

Commercially organic food, however, has the goal of producing apples organically and as cheaply as possible to maximize profit. Therefore, corners are cut, and the result will be apples that are never as tasty or healthy as those grown in the study.

Therefore, since both conventional farming and organic farming can produce equal products, it is ludicrous to deny the great achievements of conventional agriculture. The solution is not to boycott the system in favour organic farming (which produces tons of unusable waste), it is to refine the conventional farming system to reduce the impact on the environment.

This is a perfect example of the cardinal sin of countercultural thinking, overlooking a perfectly reasonable solution in favour of a more radical one.

Quote:

---

The main problem with the study there is that it was their goal to produce tasty organic apples. [/b]

---

not true. that was simply a bonus.

the main interest was in the factors "of environmental sustainability, profitability and energy efficiency"

Quote:

---

Commercially organic food, however, has the goal of producing apples organically and as cheaply as possible to maximize profit. Therefore, corners are cut, and the result will be apples that are never as tasty or healthy as those grown in the study.[/b]

---

* coughs* i will repost the part which states the apples "ranked first in terms of environmental sustainability, profitability and energy efficiency, over apples grown either conventionally or using a mixed method

Quote:

---

This is a perfect example of the cardinal sin of countercultural thinking, overlooking a perfectly reasonable solution in favour of a more radical one.[/b]

---

meh. your post was a perfect example of someone overlooking the blatantly obvious points given to them, and focusing on the most irrelevant aspect to try and bolster your unsupported claim.

if you cannot even read a one paragraph summary of a six-year study and glean the basic points, i suspect it is useless to debate with you. especially seeing as you have done nothing but post emotional jibberish with no scientific backing given for any of your points.
by all means, feel free. i will gladly eat crow. it means i am learning something new :) or just keep masturbating psuedo-intellectual opinions all over me, and make it out like i'm trying to be a rebel by citing an extensive and impartial university study.

anyone who has actually looked into the organic/non-organic issue knows that presently there is not nearly enough solid comparative research done to substantiate either side...please update me with solid information if i am ignorant in making this claim.

Our we considered a canine of sorts?
Do our incisors and teeth fit that profile along with our jaw structure?
If so. Unless we are evolving or progressing into something else, then it would seem that eating meat is in our genetic make up.

But to the contrary. My wife is a vegetarian. Not a vegan. But I still eat any meat I wish. But due to a life style change, I have felt much more efficient and healthy since I have cut down on the amount of meat products.
Yet because they have some element our body needs (another reason to believe we are meant to eat meet) by eating meat here and there It seems to be productive.

Sorry to take this in a different direction but I thought it had something to add! :P

Quote:

---

* coughs* i will repost the part which states the apples "ranked first in terms of environmental sustainability, profitability and energy efficiency, over apples grown either conventionally or using a mixed method[/b]

---

Ok, I'll concede that point. I was under some limiting time constraints when I typed up my reply. However, my point still stands. Organic products in more 'realistic' settings will not be grown in such ideal conditions as a university study. I can't say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that a few cut corners could result in less tasty, less sustainable and less energy efficient, but more profitable organic apples.

Now, I'm not going to bother replying the personal insults, that's a game that leads nowhere.

I'll simply point out again that there are many good practices in conventional agriculture that do not qualify as 'organic' and should be encouraged (zero-tillage seeding, perfectly anodyne pesticides that reduce waste). The organic food movement denies these wonderful innovations in the name of boosting the 'stick-it-to-man' ego common to all such pseudo-environmentalist movements. Keep in mind that organic growers and sellers are turning MASSIVE profits off of this latest consumer trend (people who buy locally from friendly Farmer John are in the clear minority of the movement).

Once again, the goal should not be to boycott and abolish the conventional agriculture system, it should be to regulate and refine it to reduce its impact on the environment.

P.S. My first post, as well as parts of my second and third come from literature called The Rebel Sell by a duo of sociology profs at the University of Toronto, complete with footnotes and references. It's a great book, I suggest you check it out.

Quote:

---

Now, I'm not going to bother replying the personal insults, that's a game that leads nowhere.[/b]

---

hehe, i assume you're referring to "or just keep masturbating psuedo-intellectual opinions all over me".
actually, i heard that one in forum recently, and i was just waiting for the slighest provocation to use it. :D and i get annoyed when people imply i hold opinions to be 'radical'. i dislike people who denouce everything 'mainstream' without a good reason as much as the next rational person does.

Quote:

---

I'll simply point out again that there are many good practices in conventional agriculture that do not qualify as 'organic' and should be encouraged (zero-tillage seeding, perfectly anodyne pesticides that reduce waste). [/b]

---

well, i define organic in the literal sense- without chemical fertilizers and pesticides. zero tillage seeding DOES fall under the heading of organic. i am all for it, whether used in organic or non-organic farming.

. . i cannot make an informed decision on anodyne pesticides, but until i see some credible research done on its short-term AND long-term effects i will err on the side of purely organic. again, this is simply a personal bias due to mistrust in pesticides unless they have well-documented studies showing them superior in the long term.

Quote:

---

Once again, the goal should not be to boycott and abolish the conventional agriculture system, it should be to regulate and refine it to reduce its impact on the environment.[/b]

---

agreed
my main mistrust in 'conventional agriculture" is is summed up in that very phrase, and its present usage. humanity domesticated plants thousands of years ago, and used organic methods until some decades ago, when scientists learned to slap together chemicals which acheived certain short-term goals. and yet somehow the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers assembled in laboratories are 'conventional', and the agricultural proccesses thousands of years old need to be defended.
the way i view the world, the new must prove itself as superior to the tried and true comprehensively and completely before it is deserving of becoming the new convention.
and a whole new 'system' should not be swallowed wholesale. certain man-made chemicals may be beneficial in all ways, and thus used. fine. but to accept a whole slew of them indiscriminately and rapidly seems foolish, especially with horrendous track record some of them have already shown.

as i already mentioned, just because something works short-term, or acheives a certain desired affect, doesn't mean it can't have drastic long-term effects, or unanticipated side-effects. DDT being a prime example yet again.

so, i would rather support organic farming when possible, in order to put the onus on 'conventional' agribusiness to refine their methods to a level i am comfortable with. presently, i certainly trust organic farming more than conventional.

Quote:

---

P.S. My first post, as well as parts of my second and third come from literature called The Rebel Sell by a duo of sociology profs at the University of Toronto, complete with footnotes and references. It's a great book, I suggest you check it out[/b]

---

maybe i will, but i doubt it. i have a distaste for books dealing with consumerism, whichever side they take.
i'm not one of the people who wears 'che' t-shirt manufactured in sweatshops, or pays 90$ to see some 'anti-capitalist' band, so that read doesn't sound like it would appeal to me. thanks for the recommendation though.


in the end, i am fairly 'technophobic' in some ways. that is why our worldviews are irreconcilable. i am all for progress. but i have seen arrogance do so much harm in the past couple centuries. i am not the kind of person to waste exorbiant amounts of time arguing against capitalist economic policies, the industrial-military complex, unproven agricultural methods (including both the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and genetic modification).

i simply have seen them do more harm than good, looking at things from an objective as possible angle. i am grateful for the good. electricity, certain medicines and medical technology, the internet and computers, etc. are amazing, worthwhile, helpful innovations which show the value of the human intellect.
but the positive changes have made many arrogant and near-sighted, and brought us into a world where every major ecological system in the entire world is in decline, the rate of cancer and conditions like asthma and diabetes is skyrocketing, and concrete jungles convince some that humans have someone separated themselves from nature, which created us.

the middle road seems to be best in most cases. so i'll stay mostly on one side, and you'll stay mostly on the other, and hopefully one day a compromise will satisfy us both.

i don't think there is really much else to say on this topic...take it easy..

Quote:

---

[Our we considered a canine of sorts? *
Do our incisors and teeth fit that profile along with our jaw structure?
If so. Unless we are evolving or progressing into something else, then it would seem that eating meat is in our genetic make up.[/b]

---

the capacity to eat meat is certainly in our genetic makeup. anyone who says otherwise is ignorant. but does that mean it is the best option?

i am so sick of all the arguments like
"the fact we have canines means we are designed to, and supposed to eat meat"
"no it doesn't. our canines are nothing like actual canines, and our molars are designed to eat plants"

or "the fact we have a long intestine with relatively weak stomach acid, as opposed to a the short intenstine and harsh stomach acid seen in carnivores proves we are supposd to be vegans"
"no it doesn't. our bodies are designed to eat cooked meat"

these arguments are all fundamentally flawed. all animals are designed primarily to survive, bottom line. we are capabe of being omnivores, or herbivores. both work. we are 'designed' for both. although no human can survive solely as a carnivore. so, we have two options it seems, both of which allow lives healthy enough to procreate and continue to evolve.

Quote:

---

But to the contrary. My wife is a vegetarian. Not a vegan. But I still eat any meat I wish. But due to a life style change, I have felt much more efficient and healthy since I have cut down on the amount of meat products.
Yet because they have some element our body needs (another reason to believe we are meant to eat meet) by eating meat here and there It seems to be productive.

Sorry to take this in a different direction but I thought it had something to add! [/b]

---

the same logic above applies to your statement:

"Yet because they have some element our body needs (another reason to believe we are meant to eat meet) by eating meat here and there It seems to be productive."

this is certainly true, if one isn't getting them from plant sources. but the fact is that there is not a SINGLE vitamin, mineral, or amino acid which cannot be derived from plants instead of animals. it takes more thought and discipline, but it is entirely possible.

the way i look at it, meat provides essential elements,certainly. but it is not neccessary to aquire these elements. someone can eat a pork chop and i can eat a salad with rice and beans and we both get the same essential elements. but the person eating pig gets extra non-essential elements which make their choice less healthy.

there is absolutely NO benefit that can be gained from eating red meat. white meat is the same.
seafood is the only gray area scientifically. i think it is very healthy for someone to eat only seafood, and maybe some chicken every now and then. they are probably close in health to a vegetarian.

yet study after study has shown that more than tiny amounts of meat offers nothing exclusively except a much greater chance of heart disease, most forms of cancer, diabetes, and lessens one's lifespan by an average of about 5 years (some studies suggest closer to 7)

*shrugs* i don't really try to 'convert' people to veg*nism. the facts are out there. if someone eats limited amounts of meat and is happy with their level of health, good for them. i am not suprsed you feel healthier after cutting down on meat. if you still want to eat it occasionally, more power to you :) but there is no good reason you need to. it is more enjoyable, and easier perhaps, but not neccessary.
again, not judging you or anything, just stating what i see as a well-documented fact.

my reasons for strict vegetarianism are primarily spiritual. karma and all that jazz. it was only AFTER i switched that i started to learn about the added benefits. even if eating meat a few times a month made me a tad bit healthier than i am now (which it wouldn't), i wouldn't eat it.

i feel incredible since switching diets completely.
it was gradual. first i cut out red meat. then chicken. then fish. i'm now working on milk and dairy.

at each stage i feel better. its that simple. i'm not anemic, or suffering from B6 deficiency. i don't require anything from animal products whatsoever. the only thing i am missing out on is convenience, and the occasional pleasure i would get from eating some greasy fish and chips (i don't even desire any other meat anymore in the slightest).

:P damn, my posts just keep getting longer and longer, heh. anyways, i'm glad you feel healthier howetzer. if you enjoy seafood, savour it a little extra for me :wink: no need both of us need to deprive ourselves. just don't feel that any other meat is neccessary in any way.

I have to agree with bradybaker in this area. The organic food movement is crap. I am not saying that we should spray everything down with DDT, but there are practical pesticides that can be used without harming people. Pesticides also help to ensure farmers that their crops will be virulent. Nobody wants to waste their time on a garden that can't grow because of the insects. Not using pesticides hurts a lot more than it helps. I mean, think of it this way: The food that gets wasted is food that somebody will not be able to eat because some yuppy thought it was a good idea to generate so much waste.

Of course I can get what I need via other ways. But I am talking about the rudimentary nature of our being and why it is that way.
Did cave man eat vitamins? Maybe that is where Flintstone vitamins came from.
So sure, I can choose at this stage to pick and choose what I need and how I get it.

So by nature are you implying we are not suppose to eat meat or that we have the option not to?

As seen in the Matrix. The man says something in the order that he knows this steak is not real, but it sure is delicious.
So regardless of what any vegan or vegetarian claim or prove, as so long as there are cows.. there will be steaks for me!
And in regards to the fish. They don't recommend eating fish ( other than deep water) more than once a week because a large portion of the fish arefloating with pollutants. :P

Quote:

---

[ Of course I can get what I need via other ways. But I am talking about the rudimentary nature of our being and why it is that way.
Did cave man eat vitamins? Maybe that is where Flintstone vitamins came from.
So sure, I can choose at this stage to pick and choose what I need and how I get it.

---

i was just making sure you were 100% aware of the fact eating meat is 100% unneccessary. by admitting there are two equally practical choices, you show that awareness. i'm glad.

[quote]So by nature are you implying we are not suppose to eat meat or that we have the option not to?[/color]

that we have the option not to eat meat of course. it seems the human species isn't "supposed" to do anything but wander around in packs and do our best to build 'civilizations" which kill, steal, imprison, and exploit animals (human and non-human alike).

'civility' is the glue which holds society together. we all pledge to allow each other the freedom to live out our own nature, grow to our full potential, adn then experience inevitable, neccessary death.

living things must die. they are only temporary vessels which convert a dying sun into proccesses which resist the universal law of chaos, destruction, adn death (formlessness).

life has been billions of years in the making. it has created humanity's bio-cultural civilization. where every individual is shaped by the nurture of a biological, animal mother, and our genetic nature.
Life has created you and i, with our intelligence, sentience, and ability to choose how we will shape our future. it has created language, which allows us to communicate even as you read this...to influence one another, in the sense of my written thoughts cause a corresponding pattern of thought in yourself to respond. this pattern of thought stems from your individual nature.

if your individual nature actually feels pride at senselessly and unneccessarily causing the production and death of animals, solely for the pleasure you get from tasting butchered, cooked animal flesh, feel free. continue to feel proud. i cannot change your nature.

as long as you don't cause suffering to humans, i will not interfere anymore than to put in my humble opinion, as a fellow wandering ape. except in modern civilization, our wanderings are mostly in our own minds. our minds genetically predetermined by Life's genetic evolution to have certain limits.
it is only within those limits we will ever find ourself. but we are free to wander within those limits however we choose.

there are many "i" s we can choose to be. but one is the full development of our potential, and the rest aren't. perhaps ten or a hundred are equally a full manifestation of our nature as a human being.

shape yourself as you see fit.

Quote:

---

As seen in the Matrix. The man says something in the order that he knows this steak is not real, but it sure is delicious.
So regardless of what any vegan or vegetarian claim or prove, as so long as there are cows.. there will be steaks for me!

---

there certainly will. i hope you enjoy your excitement, and that it makes the karma you imbibe along with animal flesh worth it. not karma in some spacey mystical sense, but karma in the sense that an individual animal had to be raised and killed for you to eat a steak.

if you feel happy with the "i" who can proudly and happily enjoy a steak with full awareness of its entire reality, eat a few extras for me :)

and when i'm eating rice and beans for the fifth time in one week i'll proudly and happily eat it with full awareness that no mammals had to be exploited and unneccessarily produced for temporary, empty pleasure.

Quote:

---

And in regards to the fish. They don't recommend eating fish ( other than deep water) more than once a week because a large portion of the fish arefloating with pollutants. :P

---

certainly in major water systems. especially near to large polluting cities. mercury being one of the major pollutants near where i live.
animal flesh pollutes one's body. if you agree that even most fish is unhealthy too, it seems we, and science, agree. eating animals is unneccessary, unhealthy, and can only improve our quality of of life (though it limits the quantity) through the pleasure out tastebuds give us while eating meat.

by the way i was refering to 'organic' fish, so to speak. the same kind cavemen would have eaten. you can still get them in rivers and lakes near where i live as well.

i'm not trying to sound superior, or like i think i'm 'better' for any of my opinions. i only use a portion of my limited life-span communicating any of this to you because i know your true self is similar to mine, adn sees the senselessness of eating meat.

seems that any old omnivorous animal can eat other animals. but only omnivorous humans can choose to bring less pain and death into Life's equation....choose how you will. neither of us is 'supposed' to do anything. we have full choice in the matter.

i see the neccessity of past, present, and future. i see the neccessity of life's evolution. life must progress, adn refine itself. i see the neccessity of the lower animals, and honor them no less that i honor you as an animal.

i do not see your life as worth any more than any other animal's. and that is not an insult, or showing that i do not value your life. you are part of life's mystery, along with all other living animals.

i choose to refine life's process through my individual, human, humane, existence.

we each answer only to ourselves. choose how you see fit, and be proud doing so. i will do the same :)

i hate conflict. no bad vibes whatsoever between us please howetzer..? i'm just giving my opinion while doing my best to grow into someone i am happy being.