Is the organic food movement the most anti-science social movement out there?

[Drake Tungsten]

I think "grass-fed" is a pretty ****ing good label. It also has the benefit of not conflating a livestock-feeding regimen that actually does affect the taste and nutrient quality of milk with unscientific bull**** that doesn't.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

And then what is "grass"? Sure, you can raise beef on the sort of 100% ryegrass pastures that crop up in intensive agricultural areas, but don't expect it to taste the same as the Aberdeen Angus raised on genuinely rough grazing in the West Highlands.

[Drake Tungsten]

Did you really just ask me what "grass" is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass

And of course cattle that are fed different grasses in different locales have different flavors. This lack of consistency is one of the chief disadvantages of grass-fed beef.

[Elok]

It belatedly occurs to me that postmodernism is easily the most anti-scientific movement/set of ideas out there at the present. Other notions might contradict scientific evidence or certain well-established theories; PoMo denies that objective truth can ever be known in the first place.

Anyway, carry on.

[Hauldren Collider]

While we're on the topic of stupid food movements, may I present BOTTLED WATER. This **** does not help the environment. It is not better for you. Fluorine helps your teeth, it does not poison your body. And don't you think it is much more fuel efficient to send water along a PIPE than in bottles on a truck?

[giblets]

comes with a free bottle

[BeBMan]

I like to have a bottle with me when I move around. Pipelines are a bit heavy.

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't have a problem with water bottles, only environmentalists who claim that it's better for the environment to buy 48-packs of bottled water instead of using the tap.

[giblets]

Since when did people claim bottled water is better for teh environment?

[BeBMan]

I thought recycling bottles is better than not doing this, but bottles in general vs. tap makes no sense IMO? Unless drinking water from the tap is of bad quality, but that's another question.

[Ecofarm]

I don't have a problem with water bottles, only environmentalists who claim that it's better for the environment to buy 48-packs of bottled water instead of using the tap.

No environmentalist ever suggested this. It's so funny how when people are scared because they don't know anything about something new - they just demonize it.

The benefits of organic agriculture are obvious to everyone except the most ignorance-hardened, fat-ass consumerist USians.



If you take your diet and ecologic advice from some fat little ignorant man who likes underage boys (Drake) instead of a god-man with appropriate degrees like myself, then you are a colossal idiot.

[giblets]

The benefits of organic agriculture are obvious to everyone except the most ignorance-hardened, fat-ass consumerist USians.

Like, if conventional farming were abandoned billions would starve.

Let's pay much more for something slightly better.

It's obvious to anyone but the most retarded that using more land to grow the same amount of food is better for teh environment.

[Ecofarm]

Noone suggests the total elimination of conventional farming at the cost of starvation. You are presenting a 20 year old strawman proposed by the most biased commentator on organic production ever.



Look at the fkn obesity rates of USians! And you want to claim that concern for the starving is why people object to organic conversion?!

Anyway, over enough time organic production matches and eventually exceeds conventional production via intercropping, multiple canopies and agro-forestry. Yes, these issues are beyond organic but to pretend they don't exist and draw the line at organic regulations alone is intellectually dishonest (or ignorant).


Even in the transition, when it takes more land... I'd rather have 30% of our land healthy eco-farms than 20% turned into a desert wasteland by conventional agriculture.


Conventional agriculture is not sustainable.

[giblets]

Noone suggests the total elimination of conventional farming at the cost of starvation. You are presenting a 20 year old strawman proposed by the most biased commentator on organic production ever.

Who?

Look at the fkn obesity rates of USians! And you want to claim that concern for the starving is why people object to organic conversion?!

lower agricultural output of US -> higher world food prices -> more people starve

Anyway, over enough time organic production matches and eventually exceeds conventional production via intercropping, multiple canopies and agro-forestry. Yes, these issues are beyond organic but to pretend they don't exist and draw the line at organic regulations alone is intellectually dishonest (or ignorant).

Organic regulations would still make food more expensive, causing more people to starve.

I'd rather have 30% of our land healthy eco-farms than 20% turned into a desert wasteland by conventional agriculture.

I don't see why people can't use conventional methods while taking care of teh land.

[Ecofarm]

People don't starve because of the amount of food, but because of the distribution. This is true today. What makes you think organic production should be any different?


Also, organic food sells for more at the market. The organic market has pulled many small farmers out of poverty in the developing world. You are looking at the issue completely one-sided. South America and Africa export alot of food and other agricultural products to the US and Europe. Most of the food they recieve is in the form of "food aid" and is free anyway. It's not like people in Africa are buying American food products in their markets, beyond "food-aid". And frankly, that food-aid probably does more harm than good in the long term, so to hell with it.

I don't see why people can't use conventional methods while taking care of teh land.

Conventional methods are unsustainable.

1. Monoculture.
2. Water use.
3. Synthetic fertilizer (oil) use and unintended impacts, especially cultural eutrophication.
4. Synthetic pesticides (oil) use and unintended impacts, especially on non-target organisms and habitats.
5. Soil management, we lose so much soil in the US every year you don't even want to know.
6. Crop varieties, chosen for shelf-life and uniformity at the expense of nutrition.
7. Genetically modified crops have a slew of unintended consequences including impacts on biodiversity, non-target organisms, and power-structures via intellectual property rights.


First, we must learn that conventional methods are unsustainable. If everyone was fed sufficiently by conventional methods, we would quickly spend all of our oil, soil, water and biodiversity. Just like the whole world getting washers and dryers... impossible. Then, we need to look for methods of making our agriculture more sustainable. Thus was born the organic movement.