Organic Food

spupazza

Hi all,

I hope this is the right section to open this thread.
I would like to know if in Dublin (in particular City Centre, North Co. Dublin, because I live in Swords) there are places or web sites that sell organic food from the producer (farmer) to the consumer. In other words, I, consumer, can buy organic food directly from the producer, and not from the big distribution. This can be called even food at 0 km, because it doesn't need to be transported from other countries in Ireland, but from the closest producer in Ireland to you.

I'm interested to change my diet for my health, the health of the other people and the environment, which gains by the not use of drugs to cultivate the food and consequently less gas carbon in the air emitted by the plough land and the aircraft used to transport from nation to nation food.
Any help is appreciated.:)

spupazza

Hi guys, looking ery well on internet, I've found ot that there ia a farmer market in Swords, where I live! It's fantastic! It is in North Street only on Saturday from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. for who is interested. They sell local vegetables, fruit, braed and sweets and cakes, meats, eggs, etc...:D
Thanks anyway!

Húrin

There's also a centre for this sort of thing in Laytown called Sonairte. Though the more local the better I suppose. Happy shopping.

paddym355

we used to order from these guys when we lived on the northside, they would stash a veggie box under a hedge and collect money in an envelope we had hidden away, very handy and very tasty.
Enjoy!

http://www.absolutelyorganic.ie/howitworks/box-system.asp

Macha

Hi there,

We (boyf and I) used to order from Absolutely Organic but we found the service to be awful.
-we got carrots every single week, even during the summer
-we also seemed to get cabbage all the time
-once they sent us 5 bulbs of garlic (how were we going to use all that up in 1 week??)
-fruit was always apples, oranges, bananas - no berries in summer
-no real seasonal changes
-a lot of stuff from abroad, especially Holland

The final straw was when we got some kiwi fruits from NZ-I asked for my credit back. They rang and tried to explain how they were supporting Irish organic farmers (??) but I just got my money back.

Now we have a weekly order with www.homeorganics.ie. Brilliant services, changes with the seasons, highly recommended. Eg, we get 1 bulb of garlic and a few red & white onions every week

paddym355

have tried these guys for a month now, they are much better, and tastier - thanks a million for the heads up!!

ChocolateSauce

What a load of crap, there's no convincing evidence to suggest organic food is any healthier (or unhealthier) than normal or GM food.

If you want to do it for anti-capitalist reasons, that's up to you, but don't be fooled into think it's healthy.

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

What a load of crap, there's no convincing evidence to suggest organic food is any healthier (or unhealthier) than normal or GM food.

If you want to do it for anti-capitalist reasons, that's up to you, but don't be fooled into think it's healthy.

Organic is about production method, not end-product qualities. There are many other reasons to buy organic, including a healthy environment, other than your bizarre "anti-capitalist" reason - whatever that means.

However, there are studies that show a build-up in pesticides in the skin of many foods as a result of non-organic farming methods. And there was a very large survey carried out in 2007 in the EU that showed higher levels of anti-oxidants in organic food, than non-organic food.

paddym355

I don't think buying something can be considered 'anti-capitalist', maybe anti-supermarket:)

Also, as my post said they are generally tastier, although this could be as much to do with how veggies are stored in a supermarket and the negative effects of that as to the fact that the ones I get are organic.

Also, thy have been proved to be better in some areas (nutrients, antioxidents)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/29/organics.sciencenews

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

Organic is about production method, not end-product qualities. There are many other reasons to buy organic, including a healthy environment, other than your bizarre "anti-capitalist" reason - whatever that means.

However, there are studies that show a build-up in pesticides in the skin of many foods as a result of non-organic farming methods. And there was a very large survey carried out in 2007 in the EU that showed higher levels of anti-oxidants in organic food, than non-organic food.

I didn't mention production methods for just that reason. Higher than normal amounts of anti-oxidants seem to be of questionable benefit. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it certainly shouldn't be a deciding factor.

Double-blind studies have proven that organic food does not taste better than normal food when they're prepared and stored the same. I can certainly see why ultra-fresh food might taste batter. And PaddyM, one link to an un-sourced article which only references a single study is as far from "proof" as anything which comes to mind. I've seen a number of studies which show organic food is better than normal food, but I've seen just as many studies which show it is not, and even one or two which show it is worse. The jury is still out on that one, but I'd throw my lot in with the "no better no worse" camp.

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I didn't mention production methods for just that reason. Higher than normal amounts of anti-oxidants seem to be of questionable benefit. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it certainly shouldn't be a deciding factor.

Well, I guess that's up to the individual. I agree with you insofar as for me, I don't buy organic for my own health.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Double-blind studies have proven that organic food does not taste better than normal food when they're prepared and stored the same. I can certainly see why ultra-fresh food might taste batter. And PaddyM, one link to an un-sourced article which only references a single study is as far from "proof" as anything which comes to mind. I've seen a number of studies which show organic food is better than normal food, but I've seen just as many studies which show it is not, and even one or two which show it is worse. The jury is still out on that one, but I'd throw my lot in with the "no better no worse" camp.

Again, the main benefit of buying organic, in my opinion, is for the environment. There are many other factors to consider. Sustainable food production a complicated issue.

paddym355

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I didn't mention production methods for just that reason. Higher than normal amounts of anti-oxidants seem to be of questionable benefit. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it certainly shouldn't be a deciding factor.

Double-blind studies have proven that organic food does not taste better than normal food when they're prepared and stored the same. I can certainly see why ultra-fresh food might taste batter. And PaddyM, one link to an un-sourced article which only references a single study is as far from "proof" as anything which comes to mind. I've seen a number of studies which show organic food is better than normal food, but I've seen just as many studies which show it is not, and even one or two which show it is worse. The jury is still out on that one, but I'd throw my lot in with the "no better no worse" camp.

It's still one more link and study than your sum total:rolleyes:
And in fairness I did point out that the reason it tastes better probably has as much if not more to do with how it is stored; however, it does taste better and to be honest that's really all I care about.

Judgement Day

This is something I feel very strongly about but as it is such a wide ranging topic I will restrict myself to the humble spud. For a number of years now I have eaten only organic potatoes, occasionally when desperate resorting to Wilson's Country potatoes grown without chemical fertilisers, as well as ones I have grown myself. Anyway having an interest in growing veg and farming matters I often listen to Farm Week on RTE radio - a while back a potato grower was being interviewed and he stated that he had sprayed his crop an incredible 15 (!) times against blight during the growing season. Can this be good for the soil, the beasties that live it or the end user? It is certainly good for the multi-national companies that produce the blight sprays! Commercial growers use a spray of Sulphuric acid or paraquat - yummy.

On the matter of taste, I challenge anyone to tell me that freshly dug organic spuds from the garden taste the same as something that has been lying around for weeks after harvesting and been treated with a cocktail of blight sprays and fertilised by artificial means. Wake up and smell the organic coffee!

ChocolateSauce

Judgement Day wrote: »

This is something I feel very strongly about but as it is such a wide ranging topic I will restrict myself to the humble spud. For a number of years now I have eaten only organic potatoes, occasionally when desperate resorting to Wilson's Country potatoes grown without chemical fertilisers, as well as ones I have grown myself. Anyway having an interest in growing veg and farming matters I often listen to Farm Week on RTE radio - a while back a potato grower was being interviewed and he stated that he had sprayed his crop an incredible 15 (!) times against blight during the growing season. Can this be good for the soil, the beasties that live it or the end user? It is certainly good for the multi-national companies that produce the blight sprays! Commercial growers use a spray of Sulphuric acid or paraquat - yummy.

There have been many studies on this one. Generally, the chemicals are not harmful to humans enough to get them banned by the overly-cautious EU. I remember one study in Denmark which showed that people who weren't exposed to a certain chemical actually had a greater risk of cancer (of course, one study is fairly meaningless!)! All this spraying does seem to be bad for the soil, and can cause many problems, especially near rivers.

On the matter of taste, I challenge anyone to tell me that freshly dug organic spuds from the garden taste the same as something that has been lying around for weeks after harvesting and been treated with a cocktail of blight sprays and fertilised by artificial means. Wake up and smell the organic coffee!

Of course freshly dug organic spuds tastes better than something which has been lying around for weeks! But it has been proven conclusively (and I rarely put my foot down on matters of science) they don't taste better than a freshly dug spud which has been conventionally grown.

I personally think the best way to reduce our use of chemicals which are harmful to the environment and not exactly healthy for us is to genetically modify plants to be resistant to the pests we kill.

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There have been many studies on this one. Generally, the chemicals are not harmful to humans enough to get them banned by the overly-cautious EU. I remember one study in Denmark which showed that people who weren't exposed to a certain chemical actually had a greater risk of cancer (of course, one study is fairly meaningless!)! All this spraying does seem to be bad for the soil, and can cause many problems, especially near rivers.

It isn't just bad for the soil, it's bad for the people who live in the countryside and biodiversity in general. Bee populations are rapidly shrinking as we fail to realise how much we depend on natural processes.

Just because the government or EU hasn't banned them yet, doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned. In fact, governments can be complicit in holding up proceedings as seen recently in the UK:

An environmental campaigner today won a landmark victory against the government in a long-running legal battle over the use of pesticides.

The high court ruled that Georgina Downs, who runs the UK Pesticides Campaign, had produced "solid evidence" that people exposed to chemicals used to spray crops had suffered harm.

The court said the government had failed to comply with a European directive designed to protect rural communities from exposure to the toxins. It said the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) must reassess its policy, and investigate the risks to people exposed. Defra had argued that its approach to the regulation and control of pesticides was "reasonable, logical and lawful".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/14/pollution-health

Reports by government agencies show elevated levels of pesticides in our food and proof of "abuse". It just doesn't make the news because it isn't exciting enough (conclusion starts on pg 33) :

http://agriculture.gov.ie/publicat/pesticides/PESTICID.PDF .This same report makes it clear that the safe levels of pesticides are constantly under review as new research is carried out. Eg:

The need to urgently review the demeton group of pesticides has been recognised at both EU and CODEX levels. Oxydemeton-methyl is soon to be reviewed in the EU in accordance with the requirements of directive 91/414/EEC.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I personally think the best way to reduce our use of chemicals which are harmful to the environment and not exactly healthy for us is to genetically modify plants to be resistant to the pests we kill.

GM may have it's place but reliance on a silver bullet to solve our problems is very short-sighted. It's also a cop-out so that we don't have to change the way we do things. Moreover, most GM crops still need the use of pesticides so they often do little to solve the problem of pesticides.

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

...a while back a potato grower was being interviewed and he stated that he had sprayed his crop an incredible 15 (!) times against blight during the growing season. Can this be good for the soil, the beasties that live it or the end user? It is certainly good for the multi-national companies that produce the blight sprays!

It's also good for the spuds, or would you prefer a blight-riddled crop?

Judgement Day

djpbarry wrote: »

It's also good for the spuds, or would you prefer a blight-riddled crop?

Good for the spuds - in that it stops them being destroyed by blight - but is it good for the soil or the end user? There are more blight resistant varieties of potatoes coming on the market all the time and it is really about time more money was put into pursuing this approach instead of dosing everything with chemicals.

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

Good for the spuds - in that it stops them being destroyed by blight - but is it good for the soil or the end user?

The point is that these fungicides are not being added for the hell of it – there are very good reasons why food is not mass-produced organically.

Judgement Day wrote: »

There are more blight resistant varieties of potatoes coming on the market all the time and it is really about time more money was put into pursuing this approach instead of dosing everything with chemicals.

Hmm. Good luck pushing that agenda. In my experience, most people who fall into the pro-organic camp are also in the anti-GM camp, our own Green Party being a case in point.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

The point is that these fungicides are not being added for the hell of it – there are very good reasons why food is not mass-produced organically.

It isn't a case of A or B, organic or mass-produced food, sodden with fertilizers.

djpbarry wrote: »

Hmm. Good luck pushing that agenda. In my experience, most people who fall into the pro-organic camp are also in the anti-GM camp, our own Green Party being a case in point.

It's important to point out that there are two distinct issues within the GM discussion:
1) the science
2) the control of the science
I can't argue with scientific results that prove a real benefit (not just an increased capacity to extract resources) but I have serious issues with who controls and benefits from GM.

Judgement Day

djpbarry wrote: »

The point is that these fungicides are not being added for the hell of it – there are very good reasons why food is not mass-produced organically.
Hmm. Good luck pushing that agenda. In my experience, most people who fall into the pro-organic camp are also in the anti-GM camp, our own Green Party being a case in point.

Yes - I'm quite happy to be lumped in with the anti-GM lobby.

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

There are more blight resistant varieties of potatoes coming on the market all the time...

Judgement Day wrote: »

Yes - I'm quite happy to be lumped in with the anti-GM lobby.

Judgement Day

djpbarry wrote: »

The recent development of Sarpo Hungarian varieties of potato are extremely blight resistant and these are coming onto the market now. Sarpo Mira was the first to be generally available but this is not an all round potato. I’ve tried the Sarpo Axona variety and found it not as blight resistant as the Mira and little different in taste or type. Still looking for a Sarpo that will make a good chip.
There are other varieties of potato with varying degrees of blight resistance listed below. The Sarpo types are exclusive to Thompson & Morgan.

These are NOT GM products they have been produced by selective breeding!:)

20goto10

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

What a load of crap, there's no convincing evidence to suggest organic food is any healthier (or unhealthier) than normal or GM food.

If you want to do it for anti-capitalist reasons, that's up to you, but don't be fooled into think it's healthy.

Pesticides are causing large scale infertility problems - fact and scientifically proven. Its good enough reason for me. Pesticides keep the bugs away and the bugs know a hell of a lot more than we do. The argument that whats bad for bugs is ok for humans is wrong. We are getting vast amounts of pesticides. There is a limit to the amount your food can contain but that limit does not add all your food together and take the overall limit. Its in absolutely everything....and its poison ofr gods sake!!

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

It isn't just bad for the soil, it's bad for the people who live in the countryside and biodiversity in general. Bee populations are rapidly shrinking as we fail to realise how much we depend on natural processes.

Just because the government or EU hasn't banned them yet, doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned. In fact, governments can be complicit in holding up proceedings as seen recently in the UK:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/14/pollution-health

Reports by government agencies show elevated levels of pesticides in our food and proof of "abuse". It just doesn't make the news because it isn't exciting enough (conclusion starts on pg 33) :

http://agriculture.gov.ie/publicat/pesticides/PESTICID.PDF .This same report makes it clear that the safe levels of pesticides are constantly under review as new research is carried out. Eg:

A number of good points, and certain worth noting. One thing though, so-called biodiversity doesn't exist in places where we farm (of course, I admit what is diverse and what is plain is open to debate...but I don't see a huge amount of variety in nature when I walk through the countryside). There are biodiverse areas all over the place, and they need protection, but they don't exist near farmland. We destroyed that long ago, and tbh I don't think the plight of the badger or brown rat is worth tiptoeing around a major agri-industrial issue.

GM may have it's place but reliance on a silver bullet to solve our problems is very short-sighted. It's also a cop-out so that we don't have to change the way we do things. Moreover, most GM crops still need the use of pesticides so they often do little to solve the problem of pesticides.

GM is itself a change, and would directly result in a major decrease in our use of chemicals...that seems to me a change in the way we do things. I'm not saying they'll be chemical-free, but we could do fewer sprayings, and maybe even grow them organically. Considering the technology is in its early youth, the possibilities are huge, so I wouldn't starting looking at the possible limits just yet.

Judgement day wrote:

There are more blight resistant varieties of potatoes coming on the market all the time...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judgement Day
Yes - I'm quite happy to be lumped in with the anti-GM lobby.

Indeed, it doesn't matter if it is done randomly in a totally uncontrolled manner, like selective breading, or done with extreme precision in a lab, that's GM. If you modify the food, you are modifying its genome, call it what you like. This is a pretty good example of how certain people don't know what "GM" actually is.

fact and scientifically proven

This proves you don't know anything about science. No good scientist would say this.

Pesticides keep the bugs away and the bugs know a hell of a lot more than we do.

They keep the bugs away because they kill them. Bugs know more than we do? Really? I never knew.....I guess there's probably a chat room out there somewhere where some bugs are typing away on their advanced computers, with their written language, having a debate, "do those big mammals really have brains?"

its poison ofr gods sake!

One mans trash is another man's treasure. There are many, many things which are lethal to one species and harmless, or even beneficial to another. Did you know dark chocolate is toxic to dogs? If there is something is chocolate which is toxic to dogs (a fellow mammal) and harmless to us, why can there not be analogues with insects, or plants and fungus, two totally different kingdoms?

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

A number of good points, and certain worth noting. One thing though, so-called biodiversity doesn't exist in places where we farm (of course, I admit what is diverse and what is plain is open to debate...but I don't see a huge amount of variety in nature when I walk through the countryside). There are biodiverse areas all over the place, and they need protection, but they don't exist near farmland. We destroyed that long ago, and tbh I don't think the plight of the badger or brown rat is worth tiptoeing around a major agri-industrial issue.

You may take offense at this but it is breathtakingly arrogant to assume that the only worthy biodiversity is what you can perceive with your naked eye.

There are areas that are particularly important because they act as habitats to important species (ie SPAs & SACs), many of which are endangered or are important on a national or EU level but animals and plants exist everywhere and need to be encouraged everywhere. For example, the hedges that line our fields are called linear forests and are all that remain of our ancient forests - it is incredibly important to look after these and ensure that they're not cut down simply to create bigger fields for farmers.

Then there's the issue of soil quality, the functioning of worms and other invertebrates, bacteria & fungi on which our own lives are directly dependent. The value of the work done by biodiversity has recently been estimated at €2.6bn per year in Ireland alone, with the earthworm worth €700m per year alone. To get an idea of just how important these little guys are, I suggest you watch this video:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/e_o_wilson_on_saving_life_on_earth.html

The EPA clearly identify "intensive agricultural practices" as one of the main threats to biodiversity in Ireland.

Your assertion that a simple rat or badger is not worth tip-toeing around an agricultural issue is just shocking. It shows an incredible ignorance of ecology. The assumption that we have it all figured and and know exactly what we're doing has been the attitude that usually precedes the larger ecological disasters such as rabbits & myxomatosis, the reintroduction and subsequent slaughter of wolves in a forest in Bavaria, the Aral Sea...I could go on. I really find this anthropocentric "things only have value because they're of use to me" attitude quite depressing.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

GM is itself a change, and would directly result in a major decrease in our use of chemicals...that seems to me a change in the way we do things. I'm not saying they'll be chemical-free, but we could do fewer sprayings, and maybe even grow them organically. Considering the technology is in its early youth, the possibilities are huge, so I wouldn't starting looking at the possible limits just yet.

Unfortunately, there is no proof that GM reduces the use of pesticides - rather it has only resulted in an increase in pesticide use and yet again, we underestimate nature's ability to adapt to what we throw at it:

One of the major arguments in favour of growing GM crops has been undermined by a study showing that the benefits are short-lived because farmers quickly resort to spraying their fields with harmful pesticides.

Supporters of genetically modified crops claim the technique saves money and provides environmental benefits because farmers need to spray their fields fewer times with chemicals.

However, a detailed survey of 481 cotton growers in China found that, although they did use fewer pesticides in the first few years of adopting GM plants, after seven years they had to use just as much pesticide as they did with conventional crops.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/farmers-use-as-much-pesticide-with-gm-crops-us-study-finds-409414.html

Increasing pesticide use is changing the profile of insect and other pests that Australian farmers must contend with, and GM crops are set to bring their own changes, say experts.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/11/18/2420246.htm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This proves you don't know anything about science. No good scientist would say this.

After what you've written here, I'd be more careful about throwing around hypocritical insults like this..

20goto10

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

This proves you don't know anything about science. No good scientist would say this.

No it doesn't. there's no proof in science? Thats nonsense. We're not talking about a far out theory here.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

They keep the bugs away because they kill them. Bugs know more than we do? Really?

You're playing with words now. Bugs know to stay away. Put an apple out and watch what happens when the bugs go near it. They know more about it than we do in the respect that a bug will stay away from poison whereas a human will gladly eat the pretty red berry without a second thought. everyday we tuck into food that has been sprayed with poison...now thats smart!!

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

One mans trash is another man's treasure. There are many, many things which are lethal to one species and harmless, or even beneficial to another. Did you know dark chocolate is toxic to dogs? If there is something is chocolate which is toxic to dogs (a fellow mammal) and harmless to us, why can there not be analogues with insects, or plants and fungus, two totally different kingdoms?

Because pesticides are harmful to humans. They cause infertility and pesticide poisoning. Poisoning being the operative word here.

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

These are NOT GM products they have been produced by selective breeding!:)

As ChocolateSauce has already pointed out, selective breeding is just another means of modifying the genome.

20goto10 wrote: »

There is a limit to the amount your food can contain but that limit does not add all your food together and take the overall limit. Its in absolutely everything....and its poison ofr gods sake!!

Toxicity depends on dosage. For example, water is essential for life, but a large enough quantity in your system will kill you.

20goto10 wrote: »

there's no proof in science? Thats nonsense.

No it is not; there’s no such thing as an exact science. Science produces evidence, not proof.

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

There are areas that are particularly important because they act as habitats to important species (ie SPAs & SACs), many of which are endangered or are important on a national or EU level but animals and plants exist everywhere and need to be encouraged everywhere. For example, the hedges that line our fields are called linear forests and are all that remain of our ancient forests - it is incredibly important to look after these and ensure that they're not cut down simply to create bigger fields for farmers.

I'm surprised to hear you say that. The hedgerows that line our fields were planted there from about 1600-1800. Most of the forests that once covered Ireland were cut down over 1000 years ago (many before the Celts arrived). The rows that are there now are not at risk either way, as they serve a useful purpose (that for which they were planted) in dividing fields. I also don't see how changing our farming habits will affect all the hedgerows all over the country. In the past we used more harmful chemicals than we do now, and they survived. As for life we cannot see, I hope you're not going to suggest we protect micro-organisms which don't only grow in one part of the world?

I can assure you that I'm very much ecologically aware. I just happen to think that nature is more resillant than you do. I also don't think a species extinction here or there is the end of the world. 99.99% of every species which has ever lived is extinct today, and every living species today will someday die out. Furthermore, while I believe very much that areas of natural beauty and biodiversity should be protected, I don't think farmland fits that criteria. In a place where mankind has altered the terrain for hundreds or thousands of years, "nature" has been swept away already. Anything left is just growing around what we put there. The real protection should be given to places where humans have not gone yet, like the rainforests, or the bogs.

Unfortunately, there is no proof that GM reduces the use of pesticides - rather it has only resulted in an increase in pesticide use and yet again, we underestimate nature's ability to adapt to what we throw at it:

I haven't heard that before. I've heard the opposite quite a bit. Of course, the fact that so few foods are GM limits sample size.

Thanks for the link. It seems the problem there is that the bug the GM crops were resistant to kept out other bugs, and when they died new pests came in. Seems to me the solution is to find a gene that kills these other bugs and insert it into the crops, and to keep up to date with new threats. In my view, this only strengthens the case for GM. It proves that GM has tangible benefits, and removes one of the "unknown consequences", making it very well known and providing a blueprint for what researchers need to know and take into account when modifying food.

After what you've written here, I'd be more careful about throwing around hypocritical insults like this..

I don't know what you're talking about. I've made claims, but my claims are based on evidence mixed with opinion. I've never claimed "proof" for anything. You'll find my posts are full of words like "seems" "suggested" "evidence" and so on. Claiming something is proven is a very heavy claim to make, one I do not make lightly.

No it doesn't. there's no proof in science? Thats nonsense.

Further evidence. That's right, science doesn't have proof. Of course, most of the green movement doesn't understand this.

. Bugs know to stay away. Put an apple out and watch what happens when the bugs go near it. They know more about it than we do in the respect that a bug will stay away from poison whereas a human will gladly eat the pretty red berry without a second thought. everyday we tuck into food that has been sprayed with poison...now thats smart!!

And how many people have fallen ill because of this poison? It kills insects, which is why we spray. If it killed humans, it wouldn't make much sense, would it?

They cause infertility and pesticide poisoning. Poisoning being the operative word here.

Of all the trillions and trillions of pieces of food we eat, how many people die because of the things we spray on them? Not many, to be sure. Don't forget that our bodies are constantly expelling toxic substances, so even if we ingest a few grams of chemicals over the course of a few years, we're not taking them all at once, and hence don't fall ill.

As I recall, the human race was far less healthy before modern farming was developed. If only the Irish had had fungicides in the 1840's...

djpbarry

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As for life we cannot see, I hope you're not going to suggest we protect micro-organisms which only grow in one part of the world?

Why not?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Furthermore, while I believe very much that areas of natural beauty and biodiversity should be protected, I don't think farmland fits that criteria. In a place where mankind has altered the terrain for hundreds or thousands of years, "nature" has been swept away already.

Are you saying that, because man has acted irresponsibly in a particular area in the past, it's ok for him to continue to do so?

20goto10

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And how many people have fallen ill because of this poison? It kills insects, which is why we spray. If it killed humans, it wouldn't make much sense, would it?

I'm not talking about killing people here. Just making them infertile. And thats the problem, infertility is not considered an illness. If it was then we'd be talking about huge restrictions on the use of pesticides or even an all out ban.

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

I'm not talking about killing people here. Just making them infertile.

Got any evidence to back up this claim that pesticides are causing "large scale infertility problems"?