Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Organic food practices

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Organic food practices

    Originally posted by matchless
    Well ... I like grating a bit of cheddar cheese over my rice and beans. But maybe that's just because I'm from Wisconsin

    (Valerie and most of the other Yanks are probably aware of this native nickname, but for those of you going and unawares: folks from this particular state in the States are known as "Cheeseheads" because Wisconsin used to be the biggest producer of dairy products. California has since taken over in terms of quantity, but that is mostly due to factory farming practices, which I loath. And if you ever happen to drive past a factory farm with thousands upon thousands of livestock living and shitting and ... well, 'nuf said 'bout that!)
    matchless, you ROCK! We are exactly in the same boat on that. I do whatever I can to change the "food production system". have you seen the meatrix? It's so sad. My father, a logical beast, said "If it weren't for humans, these animals wouldn't be alive!" to which i replied "So if I have a child, I could say 'if it weren't for me, this child wouldn't be here' and I could just lock it in a closet and feed it once a week right?" He was forced to rescind. I think that's an argument a lot of people have been told (by the industry) and have distractedly accepted.

    #2
    Originally posted by valerie
    My father, a logical beast, said "If it weren't for humans, these animals wouldn't be alive!" to which i replied "So if I have a child, I could say 'if it weren't for me, this child wouldn't be here' and I could just lock it in a closet and feed it once a week right?" He was forced to rescind. I think that's an argument a lot of people have been told (by the industry) and have distractedly accepted.
    I've always wondered why people are so quick to assume that existence is better than non-existence. I know death is something few people look forward to, but something that isn't alive can't wish that it was.

    Superficially, your father's argument seems to have some merit. However, if you carry it to it's logical conclusion, the results are absurd, and no one would accept them. If we take as a given that creating life is inherently good, and is always more good than bad, regardless of the quality of that life from birth to death, then we must also apply that standard to human life (would anyone argue that human life has LESS intrinsic value than other life?). Thus, as humans we should produce as many babies as we are physically capable of, regardless of our ability to feed, shelter, or raise them. If any life (even one of starvation and torture) is better than non-life, then we must increase it, regardless of the quality of life for those beings once they come into existence.

    I also agree that images such as those in meatrix are shocking, but I prefer to steer clear of them when arguing for a vegetarian lifestyle. Are you familiar with Upton Sinclair, the man who wrote "The Jungle?" If not, it was a very disturbing book exposing the abuse and neglegence of the meat packing industry. The book was hugely influential, but Sinclair always considered it a failure. When asked why, he said something that I've always remembered, and tried to keep in mind when discussing any issue of ethics: "I aimed for people's minds, but hit their stomaches instead."

    This isn't to say that emotional appeals are invalild, only that emotions are fickle, and often can't be trusted. There are more rational ways to approach this subject than showing animal mistreatment, and they prove to be much more effective in the long run.

    Comment


      #3
      Even if Sinclair considered the book a fable, it sparked a lot of needed reforms that led to far fewer people catching diseases from tainted meat.

      Agreed that emotional appeals are tricky. Using only emotional appeals in an argument ultimately backfires. I once saw a science fiction movie about a space colony where a computer (I think) showed rhetorical labels, such as "emotional appeal" below the faces of persons making speeches. If every home had a BS detector attached to the TV, we might learn a thing or two.

      always good to see some smart thinkers on the boards.

      I see on another thread that Valerie, like Bruce, is "Born in the USA"--how cool is that. Maybe we could have a pic of Valerie draped in the Stars and Stripes... and nothing else. Make that a small flag, okay? (I hope someone told you, Val, that having one's own thread means that desperate guys will beg and plead for a Valerie Looking Spunky thread... replete with lots of pics. right, Arsby?... Arsby?... Cooeee! Arsby! I can't nag Abby all by myself, you know!
      Last edited by artlover; 30 September 2005, 02:16 AM.

      Comment


        #4
        Jvak, well put. I once read an article in a magazine with a title like "American Conservative" or similar wherein the author had a lengthy article about factory farming--not where you'd expect such a piece. He pointed out that those of the extreme Left often cry that "animal have rights too" (I hear this has legally gone ahead in Germany), but a more convincing mantra might be along the lines of "we as humans have privileges which me must not abuse" and the embarrassment at having to revert to such malice. If I can find the article again, I'll post a link.

        artlover, do you mean "failure" or "fable"? I have read the one passage dealing with the rats crawling over the meat. (For those who haven't read it, this scene takes place in a meat warehouse perhaps in Chicago, and the meat, which is simply heaped in a corner on the floor, is later packaged and sold to the masses.) Is the rest of it any good?

        Comment


          #5
          Artlover:

          I didn't mean to imply that the book was not sucessful. It played a major role in the formation of a piece of legislation called the Clean Food and Drug act, which I believe is the bases for today's FDA. What I meant was that Sinclair didn't accomplish his primary goal: his intent was to show how horrible the working conditions were for those forced to work in the meat industry, but instead caused people to worry about how clean thier meat was. By over-emphasising the grossness, he led many of his readers past the point.

          Valerie:

          I think I might have read the same article, or something similar. Was it along the lines of humans, having power over other animals, must protect them? I've heard similar argument before, and it brings up some interesting ideas. If you find it, please do link to it.

          I'm curious: you mentioned before that you only eat free-range chicken. What made you decide to do that?

          Comment


            #6
            Jvak, I had forgotten Sinclair's original intent. That's interesting to know!

            As far as free-range meat goes, there's so many reasons! Thank you for asking. In a rough order of import to me:

            • Most free-rage farmers are small, local businesses. I want to help redistribute power, money, etc from large corporate giants to the little guy and this seems an effective method. Also, these farmers have a tendancy to do other things good, like more composting, less packaging, revegetation on other parts of their properties, etc.
            • It is much better for the chickens, cows, etc.
            • it is much better for the enivonment.
            • It is much better for me.
            • The meat generally has a better texture and more flavor, so is culinarily superior.
            Are you considering it for yourself?

            Comment


              #7
              Valerie,

              As mentioned earlier I am a vegetarian, so I don't eat any meat. However, I am always curious to know how other people, who have similar views as I do, came to hold those beliefs. I think it valuable for everyone (myself included) to examine their own beliefs, both in that it can help others, and it can allow them to reasses things they are no longer sure of. I'm not exactly advocating living in a constant state of doubt, but I'm really REALLY glad I don't still believe everything I did when I was 16.

              So, with that spirit in mind, and realizing that I'm already on your side, I'd like to ask you some questions.

              What do you mean when you say that it's "better for the chickens?" Do you know what rules a farmer must follow to have her chicken labeled "free-range?" (I have absolutely no idea what this entails in Australia, but I do know what it means in the US, and it's a far cry from what most people would think). Furthermore, what do you mean by the word "better" itself? Do you mean that it's morally preferable to the alternative, or that it is morally okay?

              How is it better for the enviornment? Free range farms to create less waste, but they also produce less food. What is the enviornmental advantage to rasing 100 free range chickens to 100 factory farm chickens?

              What do you mean it's better for you? It's better for your health? It doesn't make you feel guilty? It's more nutritional?

              Your last point is a matter of taste, so I won't question it, but would like to add that many people hold the opposite to be true (which is why veal is so popular).

              Please, don't feel obligated to write down your arguments in defense of your statements. I'm not trying to attack your position, and for the most part I agree with you. I'm just curious as to how you came about holding such beliefs.

              Comment


                #8
                Jvak (I say "Jay-Vack" to myself),
                first, while i like to think i'm a happy person, it's always nice to know i don't have to defend myself when I exaplain myself. you know.

                "better for the chickens" I would prefer an animal I consume to at least be able to turn around during their lives. A chicken leaking green pus? No thank you. Suffering in a warehouse reeking of ammonia from all the shit and piss on the ground? Not for me. And on and on. You've seen the pictures and read the reports, I'm sure. Of course, organic is better, as then there's no weird stuff in their food (most young cows in the US are fed cow's blood instead of milk), no injections, etc. Also, free-range, if done properly (which of course not all of them do) allows the animals (not just chickens) to forage for certain plants etc. They can hunt out herbs that help them digest or ward off disease, etc.

                I am all for quality over quantity as far as space used is concerned. Many problems could be solved by growing, say, hemp instead of food for animals (most of the US's corn is fed to pigs, etc) or for animal grazing land.

                And I do feel creeped out eating 'conventional' meat. Plus i do worry aabout the stuff they put in it, in the feed and in the injections. Bovine Growth Hormone and so forth. I said i limit to 'free-range', but i will only buy organic (or biodynamic), but accept free-range in restaurants. Also, this is even more you don't really need to know about me, but I don't eat beef, but that's more because I don't enjoy red meat.

                So! Why are you vegetarian? What did it for you?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Unfortuatly the bigger companies do produce their goods to the volumes required and price the market is willing to pay

                  Having small farmers supply major supermarkets etc would lead to stock outs and much dearer prices

                  There are many familys out there that could not afford the increases for daily basic items, they are already hurting with the current fuel prices rising and the price of milk and bread is now going up with that and everything else would follow.

                  Nice thought Valerie but not practical

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Stoneyyy,
                    As far as gas/petrol prices go, if the item you purchase was produced locally, this should matter much much less. If Walmart buys some apples from a farmer in one corner of the state, ships them to the distribution center in the center, then from there ships some of those very apples (as well as apples from elsewhere in the state) right back to 20 miles from where the farm was to sell them, that's a lot of fuel! If those apples were instead sold at a farmer's market or some such right in our hypothetical town, the farmer would probably get a better deal, and the apples would not have to travel so far, and they would have been picked much closer to when they were bought, and the farmer could probably even tell you what sort was good for pies, etc.

                    Thus the farmer gets more money and the bigwigs who own Walmart and the gas pumps get less. Now the farmer has more money with which to buy free-range chickens. Then the free-range chicken farmer would have more money to buy furniture from the dude up the way who makes it in his workshop in the shed instead of Ikea. etc.

                    The answer, I say, is to avoid the major supermarkets altogether! In fact, Abby wandered over to my desk not two hours earlier to discuss this very same topic. ...are you two psychic??

                    Comment


                      #11
                      While I am not vegetarian, I do believe that organic is the way to go. We are pumping more and more shit into once fertile soil in order to maintain yield levels. The economies of scale you are talking about stoneyyy aren't really sustainable.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I believe that fresh and natural food is better for you and I do buy the good foods as I am able to
                        I do however know a lot of people that are less fortunate and have to buy as cheap as possible thus leading to supermarkets
                        Certain vegeatables in certain large supermarkets are imported from china, these are grown in conditions of far less standards then we have here in aus.

                        As for the amount of shit they are pumping into the soil this as become less in recent years and there is a real swing to organic etc

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Valerie: Thank you for elaborating. You've asked a terrible question though, one I'm afraid to answer. If I attempt to explain my vegetarianism I will go on for a VERY long time. Also, I'm not into preaching, so I'd prefer to do it in a less public forum, where I don't feel like I'm condeming everyone who accidentaly stumbles upon the post. However, that being said, if you'd still like to know I can oblige. Just let me know and I'd be happy to send you a private message via the website.

                          Stoneyyy: You bring up a crucial point, but one that is commonly misunderstood. Large farms do produce meat at prices that are considerably lower than smaller farms. However, at least in America, this has absolutely nothing to do with cheaper production costs or more efficient methods. Instead, it is because, with considerably more capital to put into local, state, and federal politics, large-scale farms receive a great deal of funding from the government. Without these stipends, it is actually MORE expensive to raise animals on large farms, when you figure in the costs of tranportation, processing, and proper waste disposal. There is a Peter Singer article which explains this in exact numbers... I'll look for it over the weekend and put it up once I find it.

                          Of course, this is itself a moot point, since if the primary concern is the effect it has on the poor, it's much cheaper to do away with meat altogether. The 16 lbs. of grain that go into producing 1 lb. of cow are much cheaper to produce, and provide much more nutrition, than the meat itself. If that weren't enough, ranchers in third world countries use their limited supply of grain to grow beef rather than feed their countrymen, since they can sell the beef to rich Americans/Australians/Japanese/etc. for more than they can sell the grain to the poor of their own country.

                          Willow: (and co. sort of). I am in a somewhat unique place regarding such issues. I tell my friends that I'd like to own a grocery store some day, and we would only carry foods that were both organic (grown without pesticides,enviornmentally friendly harvesting methods, etc.) AND genetically modified!

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Oh, and by the way Valerie, to the best of my knowledge, you are pronouncing Jvak perfectly! I've never said it aloud myself, but your choice is completely acceptable.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Jvak9632147
                              ...and we would only carry foods that were both organic (grown without pesticides,enviornmentally friendly harvesting methods, etc.) AND genetically modified!
                              you totally lost me there. i fear we must part ways. btw part of the definition of "organic" (according to most people, including the USDA) is that it cannot be GM.

                              How much does it take to make a single pound of beef?

                              Also, they've begun finding ways to make GM stuff obsolete: they can take all the known genes on a plant and simply "switch" them on or off...such as in beetroot, there's the red kind, the white kind, and the red-and-white-stripey kind. Apparently there's just a few gene switches that control this. Well, they're figuring out how to just switch the genes already in the plants! Kind of useless for coloration, but a huge bonus for drought-resistance! Also, it encourages people to have different varieties of the species (like turkeys...all the other breeds that are all but extinct).

                              aaaaack i could go on, but this does not bring out the warm, graceful, womanly nature in me, my best self, but turns me into a self-defending arrogant prick. i'll stop here and just listen instead!

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Oh, and again stoneyyy. I'm glad to hear that Australia is improving its agricultural methodology in favor of "less harmful shit."

                                Just the other day I was watching a Cousteau documentary from the late 80's that was talking about farmland near the Murray river. Apparently, they flodded the area so that it would be suitable to grow crops, but they were unaware of the large salt deposits underneath the farmland. After several years, the ph level of the ground water was so high that it was actually saltier than seawater! I assume this problem has been fixed, or at least diminished, since then. Any chance you've heard anything about it?

                                America has been slow to adopt more organic growing methods, but it seems to be slowly moving in the right direction. Hopefully, this will continue.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Valerie:

                                  I'm a scientist by nature, and whenever possible I prefer to use scientific definitions. In that light, organic simply describes only chemical compounds that occur naturally within organic material. This rules out pesticides and other chemicals used to grow/protect the crops, but not gene splicing and other GM techniques that simply add to or detract from DNA coding. GM produce is not "natural" but it is "organic."

                                  The grocery store line is mostly a joke, but it does reflect my position. I agree that GM isn't something that we should take to lightly, but for the time being at least, GM foods are far more thoroughly examined and tested than any other product you can purchase. In addition, while there are indeed ways to "modify" plants through selective breeding or grafting, it will never allow us the power that genetics will. [warning: the following example is hypothetical!] Simply put, we'll never cross-bread rice with oranges. However, this doesn't mean we can't use coding written in an orange to increase the amount of vitamin C that rice produces.

                                  Of course, in an ideal world, all people would have access to all the nutrients they need, but since that ideal is a long way away, and I think it a grave mistake to condem GM products as scary or disturbing when they have so many potential benifits.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Sorry, one more question V. In the last sentence of your third paragraph you bring up a point that sounds very interesting, if I understand it right. Are you saying that avoiding GM techniques allows for a larger number of species variation? If so, you may very well be right. Why is that a good thing?

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Jvak9632147
                                      Sorry, one more question V. In the last sentence of your third paragraph you bring up a point that sounds very interesting, if I understand it right. Are you saying that avoiding GM techniques allows for a larger number of species variation? If so, you may very well be right. Why is that a good thing?
                                      Jvak,
                                      In my 50 years on this earth , I have heard alot of claims about human health and diet. I'm probably asking you a question that is not possible to answer but what can we say "with assurance" about diet and human health "overall". Acknowleging that we can't apply the knowledge to individuals, can we even say that, overall, we will live longer or more quality, lives eating organic (or you fill in any food) and exercising regularly.

                                      I guess my point is that it is claimed that these things will help us live longer lives but in reality there isn't any tangible evidence that it does.

                                      Alleyes

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Jvak:
                                        Why is it good to have more variation in a species??? Because if you have monocropping (like acres and acres and miles and miles of the same kind of corn) and, oops, the weather isn't favorable to corn that year, then it's all gone. All of it. Suppose instead you still (detestably) have only corn growing but now you have 1/2 of it drought tolerant, 1/2 of it flood tolerant. Also, 1/2 of it is locust resistant, 1/2 of it is extra sweet. Also, 1/2 of it is good for a year that starts out hot, 1/2 good for a year that never gets that warm. Etc. You'll have lots and lots of different varieties, and SOMETHING will make it through every year, allowing for meteorites and crop circles. This is how nature works, why there are so many kinds of potatoes, ducks, humans, roses. Like in S. America, there's lots of different potato varieties for the different elevations and soil types.

                                        However, what people tend to do with GE crops is buy lots and lots of seed of the same kind of GE corn. Our joyless monocropping. The main type of GE corn sold (and cotton!!! but let's hold off for a while on that) is "RR" or "RoundUp Ready" for, yup, RoundUp. (Contains Glycophosphate, but breaks down less readily) Now there are superweeds that are also RoundUp Ready, yet farmers spray more and more of the stuff. It is not good for ANY species to injest roundup.

                                        Also, Monsanto, the main GE company (along with DuPont i think) has made it illegal for farmers to save seed from one crop to use in next year's planting. They have to buy more seed!! This is basically a new, stupid thing. Even if the corn begins to adapt over one generation to the conditions somehow, nope SORRY gotta use what we used before on all those acres! even worse than just once-off monocropping! (And by worse, i mean for all the other things that want to live on those same acres, including bacteria and birds.) Some seeds now even have a "terminator gene" that makes it basically sterile so farmers HAVE to buy more seed and get further into debt. so cruel. but i drone on and one.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          alleyes we do have some evidence that modern society isn't that great: compare past to present suicide rates, mental problems, and cancer rates.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Alleyes: Welcome to the discussion, and thank you for your insight.

                                            I think I'm a little confused, mostly because I am unsure about how your comments relate to the portion of my posts you quoted to me. If I am wrong, please let me know.

                                            Are you saying that we can never know what an ideal diet would look like? That we are unable to understand the true long term effects of eating certain types of food? Or using certain production methods? If that is the case, I am inclined to agree with you.

                                            It is true that we can't come up with an exact mutritional plan that will work for everyone. However, this does not mean we cannot know anything about diet. We know with certainty, for instance, that humans need X number of calories to survive without doing serious damage to their physical structure, we know that they need Y amount of protien and Z amount of carbohydrates to keep their bodies running, and that without vitamin 3 (see, I'm so smart I used a number, since most vitamins are letters ) that disease 5 will spread.

                                            In addition, while we have a very limited understanding of how eating foods that were once dusted with pesticides will effect us in the future, (good or bad) we do know that certain pesticeds or methods of farming have a very negative effect on the surrounding enviornment. Human health is certainly an important consideration, but it cannot be our ONLY consideration.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Jvac,
                                              I QUICKLY withdraw my question. I just saw Valerie asked you a long question and my question doesn't matter. Above all, no one's picking on you here!!!

                                              Alleyes

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Valerie and Jvak,

                                                Thank you both for such a quick response to my post. I am going to bed soon but I look forward to discussing this issue with you both tomorrow. I will post my responses tomorrow.

                                                You're AW-buddy,
                                                Alleyes

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Despite the claims of starry-eyed scientists, the real-world practice of GM technology has invariably been the introduction of herbicide resistance into plants, allowing ever vaster quantities of shit to be pumped into our crops, not less. In other words, "organic" and GM are only compatible in theory.

                                                  There is not a single genuine "feed the world" GM crop in the market and the "dream" of boosting nutritional content of staple crops, or introducing vaccine properties has practical downsides and is not economically attractive from the point of view people looking to develop GM products. That's not to say so-called farm-aceuticals won't one day happen, but it will be the use of GM plants and bacteria as production, storage and transport mechanisms rather than delivery systems. In other words, you won't be able to vaccinate yourself against typhoid by eating a banana, but it is possible that the typhoid vaccine might one day be "grown" in a banana.

                                                  Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-science. I love science. I'm not even especially anti-GM, but there are a lot of myths being pushed by both sides in the debate.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    Woo-hoo! I got THREE question marks! Don't I feel special.

                                                    Yes, I agree there is some value in crop diversity. I was just playing with you again.

                                                    That being said... without genetics, we would have no way of knowing about the differences your talking about. Also, nature is a cruel bitch, and it's vital that we protect ourselves from her. It's important to remember that diversity IS NOT INCREASING. Sure, we get new variations all the time, but they die off just as quickly as they are replaced. Remember, 99.9% of all species that ever existed are extinct.

                                                    Without any thought to genetics of GM, the natural results of your examples rarely lead to diversity. In a flood year, without any human intervention, the result is that virtually all "drought year" corn is wiped out. This is great for flood corn, but since it is impossible for nature to keep a 50/50 balance, one version will come to dominate the other. Then, when a drought year comes, we don't loose half the crop, we lose pretty much the whole thing! Then, next year... blah blah blah, and so on.

                                                    Furthermore, a well engineered GM corn crop isn't designed to be "drought resistent" OR "flood resistent." it's designed to be both!

                                                    Also, yes, there are some evil corporations involved with GM, and they have some terrible business practices. But this isn't the fault of GM technology itself. As always, we must weigh the pros and cons. One single GM splice of wheat improved it's edible yeild by 50%! That may not mean much for American farmers, but it's saved millions upon millions of people in India from starvation.

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      Ah, Willow, I see we disagree. It's very late, so I'm going to bed. Over the weekend I'll post about specific, tangeable effects of GM that I can find. Good night to all in A land.

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        Jvak: This is why all farmers should use a variety of...um, varieties. So if one guy in Nebraska gets the flood, the dude in Kansas gets the drought, and we all ahve all our varieties. BUT WAIT! This is the exciting thing with this "gene switching on and off" thing! Now, they are able to CREATE the varieties! The info for them is available in every non-deformed plant in the species, just that it's not switched on if it's not present. So...they can make one kind of rice that is great for Japan, another ideal for that one plateau in India where the river floods, and a third for that dry place in Kenya. ...without adding in jellyfish genes or bacteria stuff or anything outside of what's already in the rice!

                                                        Another thing, Wendell Berry writes a bit about all this, and in one of his Essays books (forget which just now), he goes on about "improving" potatoes in S America. Just because the bulk of the potato has been increased doesn't mean it has more protein. Most of that was water weight they added. The "protein rice" they made to "save" India fell through. The fact is, you need to plant with more varieties, and the GE companies don't like that because it takes so much R&D money just to make one variety. But now we have the gene-switch stuff, which makes all that unneccessary anyway! yay!

                                                        Comment


                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by willow
                                                          Despite the claims of starry-eyed scientists, the real-world practice of GM technology has invariably been the introduction of herbicide resistance into plants, allowing ever vaster quantities of shit to be pumped into our crops, not less. In other words, "organic" and GM are only compatible in theory.

                                                          There is not a single genuine "feed the world" GM crop in the market and the "dream" of boosting nutritional content of staple crops, or introducing vaccine properties has practical downsides and is not economically attractive from the point of view people looking to develop GM products. That's not to say so-called farm-aceuticals won't one day happen, but it will be the use of GM plants and bacteria as production, storage and transport mechanisms rather than delivery systems. In other words, you won't be able to vaccinate yourself against typhoid by eating a banana, but it is possible that the typhoid vaccine might one day be "grown" in a banana.

                                                          Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-science. I love science. I'm not even especially anti-GM, but there are a lot of myths being pushed by both sides in the debate.
                                                          you rock.

                                                          Comment


                                                            #30
                                                            Did you know land has to be chemical free for at least 5 years before it can apply for an organic licence

                                                            There is a change for the 5 years wait is a killer

                                                            Comment

                                                            Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter

                                                             
                                                            Sign up for the abby newsletter. Don't worry, we'll NEVER share your email address with anyone.
                                                            Working...
                                                            X