Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 

firemonkey
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573
Location: Calne,England

25 May 2017, 9:30 am

Quote:
Marketing sometimes involves the science of making you believe something that is not true, with the specific goal of selling you something (a product, service, or even ideology). The organic lobby, for example, has done a great job of creating a health halo and environmentally friendly halo for organic produce, while simultaneously demonizing their competition (recently focusing on GMOs).



http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... vironment/

All I know is I'm reluctant to pay extra for organic produce.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 May 2017, 9:59 am

If it's undesirable then don't pay for it, you should at least have the option of knowing what you are buying actually is regardless of the poor reputation of GMOs. If they can't market themselves and people reject them then it's not right to force people to accept something against their will.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

28 May 2017, 6:04 pm

firemonkey wrote:
Quote:
Marketing sometimes involves the science of making you believe something that is not true, with the specific goal of selling you something (a product, service, or even ideology). The organic lobby, for example, has done a great job of creating a health halo and environmentally friendly halo for organic produce, while simultaneously demonizing their competition (recently focusing on GMOs).



http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... vironment/

All I know is I'm reluctant to pay extra for organic produce.


It's funny that some marketers act like the "organic" mvmt is something new, when it is a partial return to the only form of agriculture that ever existed, prior to the advent of chem. fert..

Many "organic" farmers do it simply b/c the MARGINS are better. Others do believe in the cause.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 May 2017, 9:42 pm

Quote:
Organic food is no more healthful or nutritious than conventional food. Further, GMO technology is safe and there are no health concerns with the GMO products currently on the market.

There is an even more stark difference, however, between beliefs about the effects of organic farming on the environment and reality. In fact organic farming is worse for the environment than conventional farming in terms of the impact vs the amount of food produced.

When did GMO products become conventional food?!

GMO technology might be safe, but what is the context of that statement?

It might be true there are no health concerns with the GMO products currently on the market, but that does not mean GMO food is equal to food produced naturally.

To say organic farming is worse for the environment than conventional farming -- Once again: When did GMO become conventional?! -- is a mis-leading spin of the fact organic simply requires more space to get the same amount and without polluting water sources.

firemonkey wrote:
All I know is I'm reluctant to pay extra for organic produce.

Same here, and I say that for various reasons that do not fit all items across-the-board and without taking any kind of position on the overall matter. Nevertheless...

My wife is picky about the eggs she buys, we do use some supplements to make up for certain things missing in today's "conventional" diet, and some friends of ours have a garden and some chickens of their own because they believe their own produce is more nutritious -- actual food value -- than most things at the grocery stores. So, just investigate things where you might have a bit of concern and then be selective of specific items for specific reasons if you might ultimately believe one product is better than another.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


B19
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

29 May 2017, 12:56 am

I grow strawberries in my home garden, which are far superior in taste to the dated offerings in supermarkets. I refuse to use insecticides/pesticides/fungicides on any food I grow. All commercially farmed strawberries grown by non-organic producers are treated with strong fungicides - they are amongst the most toxic of horticultural chemicals. I can make no sense of the claim in the thread title. Is there some hidden agenda behind it do you think?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

29 May 2017, 2:20 am

B19 wrote:
I grow strawberries in my home garden, which are far superior in taste to the dated offerings in supermarkets. I refuse to use insecticides/pesticides/fungicides on any food I grow. All commercially farmed strawberries grown by non-organic producers are treated with strong fungicides - they are amongst the most toxic of horticultural chemicals. I can make no sense of the claim in the thread title. Is there some hidden agenda behind it do you think?


The progressive dogma now supports globalism & the heavy use of GMOs because they believe it helps stop global warming and world hunger, GMOs are being likened to vaccines and being backed up by 'science' which progressives hold faith in similar regard to religion.



smudge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,716
Location: Moved on

29 May 2017, 4:25 am

FTR, vegetarian cheese often uses a rennet derived from GMO organisms, originating from a cow's stomach. So, IMO, and according to the Soil Association, that isn't true non-GMO cheese. It isn't true vegetarian cheese to me either.

Organic food is more expensive because it spoils faster. I prefer that. It means it has less chemicals on it and it's in its more natural state. Also, organic food tends to have more vitamins.


_________________
I've left WP.


Blindwolf
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

Joined: 3 Jun 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 24

05 Jun 2017, 2:02 am

You vote on the goods you support most with your money and your time, imo.

Humans have been manipulating their food for millennia, and I'm not too concerned by us being better at it as time goes on. Fields and fields that make up a monoculture are something I take most issue with. Diversity means a healthier and more robust system. Being mindful of the irrigation and how the sprays move through the environment are also important. Cradle-to-grave assessments are important. And its certainly also true for livestock too. Smaller groupings, and smaller operations. The bird flu thing wiped out a ton of turkey farms in my area and they were down and out for almost a year.

I do prefer things that are pasteurized, like eggs, milk, etc. Just makes me feel safer, and I am someone who dislikes using eggs in general just because it becomes an ordeal for me. (They are so tasty though)

There is something satisfying to growing something in your own garden. (My favorite is tomatoes). But not everyone can do that, and I wont begrudge someone on their food choices. Not everyone has that choice.



BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

06 Jun 2017, 12:39 pm

People have been using s**t for fertilizer for the past 10,000 years.....


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

06 Jun 2017, 12:46 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
People have been using s**t for fertilizer for the past 10,000 years.....

Plants have been using s**t as food for 480 million years, lol.
*Note to those growing at home, don't attempt to use human waste, it hasn't been broken down enough for plants to harvest the biochemicals, a four stomached animal (ruminant) is the best to harvest fertilizer.



seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Age: 29
Posts: 1,380
Location: underwater

10 Jun 2017, 2:25 pm

^^eeewww.
but i did hear a buzz about a potential process to convert human waste into usable fertilizer a few years ago.
human waste can be used for other problems, anyways. like in its conversion to renewable natural gas, lol.
i'm happy to let other people figure these things out though.

i've had great success with a mix of chicken poo and compost. nasty! but plants dig it.

in regard to OP, farming is bad for the environment. to fix it the entire industry needs to be restructured.



underwater
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Sep 2015
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,904
Location: Hibernating

11 Jun 2017, 1:32 am

slave wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
Quote:
Marketing sometimes involves the science of making you believe something that is not true, with the specific goal of selling you something (a product, service, or even ideology). The organic lobby, for example, has done a great job of creating a health halo and environmentally friendly halo for organic produce, while simultaneously demonizing their competition (recently focusing on GMOs).



http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... vironment/

All I know is I'm reluctant to pay extra for organic produce.


It's funny that some marketers act like the "organic" mvmt is something new, when it is a partial return to the only form of agriculture that ever existed, prior to the advent of chem. fert..

Many "organic" farmers do it simply b/c the MARGINS are better. Others do believe in the cause.


Yes. I am fascinated by how organic farming is being portrayed as a modern fad. That just shows how powerful the spin doctors are. Who wants to be against the environment? Or deny food to the starving? I've seen quite a few "skeptics" argue this way. A lot of the time I think they are not being skeptical enough.

The Green Revolution proved one thing, and that was that increasing food production does not solve the problem of hunger. Without family planning and economic equality, all you do is increase the size of a population, and eventually, the number of people going hungry will simply be larger.

As for the environment.....like pesticides and monocultures are so good for it? Talk to a biologist, especially someone working on endangered species. Those species are canaries for all of us.

Also, some farming is not growing things. What is most environmentally friendly: letting farm animals graze on untillable land, or letting them eat soy from Brazil which has been grown on rainforest land?

I'm not an expert, but I am hugely skeptical of appeals to my humanity coming from some of the largest businesses on earth, the food industry.

I think it's important to think long term about these issues.


_________________
I sometimes leave conversations and return after a long time. I am sorry about it, but I need a lot of time to think about it when I am not sure how I feel.