Posted by Billy on July 27, 2011, 2:17 am
In article
> guess their needs to be a "super organic" category, no chemical based
> (organic or not) pesticides or fungicides
No, there needs to be strict enforcement of "organic standards. You
can't keep cows in a pen and feed them "organic" hay, and call the milk
"organic" when the advertising shows cows in green pastures. People like
Whole Foods (Texas based) try to cash in on organic, but really are only
running the old factory farm distribution system.
Organic not only builds top soil, but needs to support humane treatment
of animals. Locally, a reporter visited such a farm and was stunned at
the kind treatment of the animals. They were treated as pets. Isn't that
the way you would want your dinner to be treated?
--
- Billy
Obama is now backing a bipartisan Senate budget plan that would cut Social
Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy. In addition to
entitlement cuts, the so-called "Gang of Six" plan would eliminate a number of
popular tax breaks and deductions, including write-offs for home mortgage
interest and employer-provided health benefits. The savings would help offset
the cost of then lowering the top individual and corporate tax rates from 35
percent to at least 29 percent.
America is not broke.
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/>
You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term,
and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street. That's all it would
take. Just once.
Vote 3rd Party
Posted by Gunner on July 27, 2011, 12:20 pm
> Derald wrote:
> >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbust ...
> This is a rather complex issue without writing an essay longer than the
> original it is hard to cover all the important points so forgive me if I
> skim.
> #1 Organic farms use sprays.
> By many organic standards one can be certified organic and still use some
> insecticides and fungicides. Typically these are not as risky for humans as
> the synthetics but how do you know what is being used? How do you define a
> forbidden spray? Is (say) diluted milk [used to combat fungi] permitted
> because it comes out of your kitchen or cow? Is the extract of daisies you
> make yourself less dangerous than pyrethrum out of a factory? Standards
> seem to want to make all inputs 'natural' whatever that means.
> Many standards allow potassium sulphate as an input (fertiliser) but forbid
> ammonium nitrate despite the fact that both are entirely synthetic. So
> point of origin is just as confused as the processes permitted to make the
> inputs.
> Not all organic farms use such sprays even if they are permitted and those
> who do use them often use them as a last resort. There is a difference
> between what large commercial growers do (who nevertheless pass the
> standard) and the smaller growers that I know. The only way to be sure
> there is no spray that you disapprove of is on your produce is to grow it
> yourself or know the grower.
> This section comes down to showing two things, organic standards are a
> hopeless confusion of compromises between various ideologies and
> practicality and conformance with a standard does not guarantee quality or
> purity. How the problems with organic standards relate to any real benefits
> of organic growing (or not) I leave to you.
> #2 Organic produce is healthier and tastier
> This one will turn into a battle of scientific studies, some say yes, some
> say no, I have never gone into it because taste is not why I mainly avoid
> synthetic fertiliser and spray. One study the author relies on (Fillion)
> seems quite inconclusive to me. I believe that people can delude
> themselves about this, people delude themselves about many things. If
> double-blind statistically significant tests were applied to the claims made
> about all commercial products and only those that passed were allowed in the
> supermarket or pharmacy there wouldn't be much on the shelves.
> One thing for sure, old produce that has been in the supply chain for weeks
> and was picked unripe to allow it to travel better is in most cases not as
> healthy or tasty as produce picked fresh at its peak regardless of its
> organic status. The way to taste a peach or stick of asparagus at its best
> is to pick it at full ripeness minutes before you eat it. For this you
> don't need a statistical study, anybody can tell the difference.
> Not all produce degrades quickly enough to make a difference. I am pretty
> sure a pumpkin I have had in storage for 3 months will not taste much
> different to the same pumpkin that has been in storage at the supermarket
> for the same time. The market one may possibly be better than mine because
> they have temperature and humidity controlled storage that I don't have.
> #3 Organic is better for the environment.
> The author wanders off into the pros and cons of GMOs which is slightly
> related but a distraction from the main point of the value of organic
> growing so I will leave it out.
> If what he says, that organic farms are less efficient and so take up more
> land is true everywhere then potentially there is a problem. Firstly I
> don't think we have yet seen conclusive studies on this topic - more on that
> later. Secondly, if you look at organic agriculture and come to the
> conclusion that it takes more land per ton of produce than conventional are
> you also considering the off-farm requirements and effects of both systems?
> For example if a conventional farm uses a whole lot of inputs whose
> manufacture is detrimental to the environment and if it produces outputs
> (pollution) that are harmful off farm are these included in the comparison
> of which is better for the environment?
> The only study he identifies (Maeder) does not appear to support his case,
> here is the extract:
> "An understanding of agroecosystems is key to determining effective farming
> systems. Here we report results from a 21-year study of agronomic and
> ecological performance of biodynamic, bioorganic, and conventional farming
> systems in Central Europe. We found crop yields to be 20% lower in the
> organic systems, although input of fertilizer and energy was reduced by 34
> to 53% and pesticide input by 97%. Enhanced soil fertility and higher
> biodiversity found in organic plots may render these systems less dependent
> on external inputs. "
> He seizes on the 20% figure and ignores the rest.
> Thirdly the situation where the agriculture is happening is significant.
> The whole world does not raise corn in vast chemical-fed monoculture and
> feed it to cattle. In poorer countries chemical fertiliser and sprays are
> expensive or not available and the people grow crops to eat themselves.
> Which is better to teach them organic growing which uses inputs they are
> more likely to have and to be able to afford or to tell them to go without?
> #4 It's all or none.
> Unsuprisingly he concludes that the straw man falls over.
> I was disappointed by the end of the article, this seems mainly due to poor
> scholarship not concealed bias. I suppose the title should have given me a
> hint.
> David
Who is "he" ?
Posted by fsadfa on July 27, 2011, 2:42 pm
> In article
> > guess their needs to be a "super organic" category, no chemical based
> > (organic or not) pesticides or fungicides
> No, there needs to be strict enforcement of "organic standards. You
> can't keep cows in a pen and feed them "organic" hay, and call the milk
> "organic" when the advertising shows cows in green pastures. People like
> Whole Foods (Texas based) try to cash in on organic, but really are only
> running the old factory farm distribution system.
> Organic not only builds top soil, but needs to support humane treatment
> of animals. Locally, a reporter visited such a farm and was stunned at
> the kind treatment of the animals. They were treated as pets. Isn't that
> the way you would want your dinner to be treated?
> --
I don't know, If I treated you like a pet would that make it ok to eat
you? :)
I believe the organic movement came about to increase the safety of
food produce and animal well being due to the early use of nasty
chemicals like DDT and industrial farming practices, initially the
attitude was if it's natural it must be ok, which is quite naive and a
knee jerk reaction, but better then nothing I guess. If a synthetic
pesticide becomes chemically inert after 24 hours, interferes less
with the environment then copper or sulfur, then what is wrong with
using that?
The goals should be more results oriented (maximize safety and
minimized harm) then process oriented, and this type of farming
requires a different name as strict organic farming doesn't isn't
results oriented.
Posted by Bill who putters on July 27, 2011, 3:23 pm
In article
> > In article
> >
> > > guess their needs to be a "super organic" category, no chemical based
> > > (organic or not) pesticides or fungicides
> >
> > No, there needs to be strict enforcement of "organic standards. You
> > can't keep cows in a pen and feed them "organic" hay, and call the milk
> > "organic" when the advertising shows cows in green pastures. People like
> > Whole Foods (Texas based) try to cash in on organic, but really are only
> > running the old factory farm distribution system.
> >
> > Organic not only builds top soil, but needs to support humane treatment
> > of animals. Locally, a reporter visited such a farm and was stunned at
> > the kind treatment of the animals. They were treated as pets. Isn't that
> > the way you would want your dinner to be treated?
> > --
>
> I don't know, If I treated you like a pet would that make it ok to eat
> you? :)
>
> I believe the organic movement came about to increase the safety of
> food produce and animal well being due to the early use of nasty
> chemicals like DDT and industrial farming practices, initially the
> attitude was if it's natural it must be ok, which is quite naive and a
> knee jerk reaction, but better then nothing I guess. If a synthetic
> pesticide becomes chemically inert after 24 hours, interferes less
> with the environment then copper or sulfur, then what is wrong with
> using that?
>
> The goals should be more results oriented (maximize safety and
> minimized harm) then process oriented, and this type of farming
> requires a different name as strict organic farming doesn't isn't
> results oriented.
One small idea often over looked is harmony. Left alone what does the
environment do. Just clumsily stumble by or is there intelligences
in place? Our oaks are attacked by gypsy moths and next year the tannin
or taste changes to deter.
Since the two legs are obviously real smart it is OK to drink from
local streams and value foods by appearance especially when packaged
prettily.
--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
http://honest-food.net/
Posted by Gunner on July 30, 2011, 12:03 pm
> In article
> > > In article
> > > > guess their needs to be a "super organic" category, no chemical based
> > > > (organic or not) pesticides or fungicides
> > > No, there needs to be strict enforcement of "organic standards. You
> > > can't keep cows in a pen and feed them "organic" hay, and call the milk
> > > "organic" when the advertising shows cows in green pastures. People like
> > > Whole Foods (Texas based) try to cash in on organic, but really are only
> > > running the old factory farm distribution system.
> > > Organic not only builds top soil, but needs to support humane treatment
> > > of animals. Locally, a reporter visited such a farm and was stunned at
> > > the kind treatment of the animals. They were treated as pets. Isn't that
> > > the way you would want your dinner to be treated?
> > > --
> > I don't know, If I treated you like a pet would that make it ok to eat
> > you? :)
> > I believe the organic movement came about to increase the safety of
> > food produce and animal well being due to the early use of nasty
> > chemicals like DDT and industrial farming practices, initially the
> > attitude was if it's natural it must be ok, which is quite naive and a
> > knee jerk reaction, but better then nothing I guess. If a synthetic
> > pesticide becomes chemically inert after 24 hours, interferes less
> > with the environment then copper or sulfur, then what is wrong with
> > using that?
> > The goals should be more results oriented (maximize safety and
> > minimized harm) then process oriented, and this type of farming
> > requires a different name as strict organic farming doesn't isn't
> > results oriented.
> One small idea often over looked is harmony. Left alone what does the
> environment do. Just clumsily stumble by or is there intelligences
> in place? Our oaks are attacked by gypsy moths and next year the tannin
> or taste changes to deter.
> Since the two legs are obviously real smart it is OK to drink from
> local streams and value foods by appearance especially when packaged
> prettily.
> --
> Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
> http://honest-food.net/
Anecdotal feel goods do not make good science.
C. Sagan:
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
o Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
o Argument from "authority".
o Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision
maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable"
decision).
o Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence).
o Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
o Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is
phrased).
o Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the
misses).
o Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from
inadequate sample sizes).
o Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower
expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of
all Americans have below average intelligence!)
o Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case
scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers
thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
o Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
o Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by"
- confusion of cause and effect.
o Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets
an immovable object?).
o Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of
possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
o Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue
fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
o Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted
extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
o Confusion of correlation and causation.
o Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it
easier to attack..
o Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
o Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as
"police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An
important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions
which under old names have become odious to the public"
> (organic or not) pesticides or fungicides