Organic Food

ChocolateSauce

djpbarry wrote: »

Why not?

Woops, typo fixed. I meant to say "which don't only grow in one place". Of course if there was a unique life form in one place it should be preserved if at all possible.

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?

No, but I am saying there is nothing irresponsible about maintaining our farmland as it is, or further modifying it as suits us.

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.

What fertility problems exactly are you referring to? It's widely agreed that Europe's falling population decline is for sociological and not biological reasons. And no one is ever going to ban pesticides. If they were banned, organic fields which benefit from the "doughnut" effect would fall victim to insects too.

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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).

Many of our hedgerows date from that period but many more predate this period.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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.

They are not just there to serve humans and have many uses to animals and birds. Can you please explain why you think they are not at risk.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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?

This is a strange question. The argument that we used to use more harmful chemicals is not a valid one to continue the overuse of harmful chemicals today.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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.

I understand this point of view but there are practically no places on earth that haven't been touched by humans and it isn't about not allowing places to change. Nature changes all the time. It's about minimising the negative impact of humans on the environment.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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.

Which would equally impact on results arguing that GM reduces pesticides as well.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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.

For me, it just proves there are always unintended consequences of our actions and this technology needs to be rigourously tested before it is released. As once you let it out of the box, it is practically impossible to get it back in.

I don't see how this result is in any way a positive for GM. It is a step towards understanding GM, but I wouldn't put it down as a positive result for GM.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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.

What evidence?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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

Again, somewhat hypocritical coming from someone who has yet to provide any "proof".

20goto10

djpbarry wrote: »

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

OK I'll admit to exagerating. There is evidence to suggest it can cause fertility problems. I don't have a link I saw it in a documentary, in which they went into the evidence btw.

And as a counter argument where is the evidence that pesticides are harmless to huimans?

Anyway, back to the OP, I did a weekly shop in Superquinn yesterday and was able to find most of my regular shop there. I was actually very surprised with the wide range (not just fruit and veg but tinned products, dairy, pastas, rice etc) and the cost came to about 10 euro more than what I would usually spend (for 2 people).

I'd also like to add that everything tastes absolutely delicious

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

There is evidence to suggest it can cause fertility problems. I don't have a link I saw it in a documentary, in which they went into the evidence btw.

In which case I am going to discount your claim.

20goto10 wrote: »

And as a counter argument where is the evidence that pesticides are harmless to huimans?

Ah, the old negative evidence argument. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that pesticides are harmful to humans, it is reasonable to assume that they are harmless.

Where is the evidence that badgers cannot fly?

20goto10

djpbarry wrote: »

In which case I am going to discount your claim.
Ah, the old negative evidence argument. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that pesticides are harmful to humans, it is reasonable to assume that they are harmless.

Where is the evidence that badgers cannot fly?

Wow wow hang on a minute. There is plenty of evidence that pesticides are poisonous. Go take a swig of some pesticides and see how you get on. And no I'm not going to get you some links. Type "pesticide poisoning" into Google and have a look for yourself. Do the same for "pesticide and fertility" or go and talk to a fertility doctor and ask them why pesticides is on their list of environmental causes of infertility.

I know the argument is that it's harmless in small doses. But the same can be said for most poisons, it doesn't mean I'm happy to have them all sprayed on my food and as I've already pointed out the dosage is measured on a product by product basis and it does not take into account the overall levels in a persons diet.

Another fact (yes "fact") is that consumers will decide whether it is ok or not. Not farmer funded research or anything else for that matter. There is a slow but steady move towards organic food. Unfortunately its still considered as luxury items but that will change when demand increases. And if this kills off mass farming then thats an added bonus, particularly when talking about live stock.

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

There is plenty of evidence that pesticides are poisonous. Go take a swig of some pesticides and see how you get on.

:rolleyes: As I said before, toxicity depends on the dosage.

20goto10 wrote: »

Type "pesticide poisoning" into Google and have a look for yourself. Do the same for "pesticide and fertility" or go and talk to a fertility doctor and ask them why pesticides is on their list of environmental causes of infertility.

Younglai et al., 2005 wrote:

This review highlights the paucity of studies on the exposure of couples to environmental insults including environmental contaminants and the association with IVF success, the problems associated with the interpretation of such data sets and the need for further well-designed studies. Across each domain examined in this review there is little consistency among study findings. Moreover, the paucity of literature makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions other than to suggest that, despite growing IVF success and exposure to environmental contaminants concern, the evidence linking environmental factors and impaired human fertility is weak.

http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/1/43

20goto10 wrote: »

I know the argument is that it's harmless in small doses. But the same can be said for most poisons…

The same can be said for pretty much anything, actually; a substance is not inherently poisonous. It is the dosage of that substance that determines whether or not it is poisonous.

20goto10 wrote: »

There is a slow but steady move towards organic food.

Is there? Even if there has been, I doubt it will continue in the current economic climate.

20goto10 wrote: »

Unfortunately its still considered as luxury items but that will change when demand increases.

Why will demand increase when organic food is (generally) more expensive?

20goto10 wrote: »

And if this kills off mass farming then thats an added bonus…

Because?

20goto10

djpbarry wrote: »

Why will demand increase when organic food is (generally) more expensive?

Because people don't like poison sprayed on their food. Besides that, chemically sprayed food tastes like sh!t in comparison. And there's a reason it tastes like sh!t and that reason is blindingly obvious. You don't need a "link" to figure that one out. Also, like everything new it starts off expensive. Technological advances and consumer demand leading to investment, leading to more technological advancement. You don't even need technology, you just need more organic farmers. Locally produced food for local people.

robtri

forgive me if I am wrong here, but surely too much organic farming is a bad thing, if we look at history, the great famine was caused by a blight, but does not really have much bearing today because certain chemicals keep it at bay, and I am fairly sure no one has died or being harmed from eating potatoes recently... ( i am open to corrections on that one)

so if we went all organic, all it would take is an outbreak like blight to wipe out farming for a year or two.... then what are the farmers to do, they would have to be massively subsidised and then we would have to pay more for extra food to be shipped in....

what we need is balance, organic farming has it place and so does current farming methods...

20goto10

robtri wrote: »

forgive me if I am wrong here, but surely too much organic farming is a bad thing, if we look at history, the great famine was caused by a blight, but does not really have much bearing today because certain chemicals keep it at bay, and I am fairly sure no one has died or being harmed from eating potatoes recently... ( i am open to corrections on that one)

so if we went all organic, all it would take is an outbreak like blight to wipe out farming for a year or two.... then what are the farmers to do, they would have to be massively subsidised and then we would have to pay more for extra food to be shipped in....

what we need is balance, organic farming has it place and so does current farming methods...

I'd agree with that. Pesticides certainly would have their uses, such as if there was an outbreak of blight. But technology has advanced since the 1840's. We're smart enough to come up with ideas that do not involve spraying chemicals.

Macha

robtri wrote: »

what we need is balance, organic farming has it place and so does current farming methods...

Here's how I see it: conventional farming methods are unsustainable for the following reasons:

-they reduce biodiversity through the use of pesticides and monocrops
-they are more energy intensive (as you are effectively fighting nature at every step) and are totally dependent on oil from farm machinery to fertilizers to pesticides to transportation etc
-they are ruining the natural fertility of our soils, hence the constant need to import fertility in the form of artificial fertilizers.
-natural products become "outputs" or waste, like animal manure - a problem and cost to be dealt with

The "Green Revolution" of the mid 20th-century did nothing but allow us to exploit and use up nature's resources more quickly. The extraction of resources sped-up but the amount of resources that exist is still finite.

The current system maximises productivity at all costs (EU-enforced exceptions apply) but is based on the concept of cheap energy instead of contemporary sunshine. It has no choice but to change.

Organic is an alternative concept and it may not be the full solution but it certainly provides a different view and may hold some of the keys to the future of agriculture.

robtri

20goto10 wrote: »

I'd agree with that. Pesticides certainly would have their uses, such as if there was an outbreak of blight. But technology has advanced since the 1840's. We're smart enough to come up with ideas that do not involve spraying chemicals.

can you tell me how we would fight blight and other crippling diseases without using chemiclas then??

robtri

taconnol wrote: »

-they reduce biodiversity through the use of pesticides and monocrops

I agree with your statment, but I fail to see how that will end our current farming methods

taconnol wrote: »

-they are more energy intensive (as you are effectively fighting nature at every step) and are totally dependent on oil from farm machinery to fertilizers to pesticides to transportation etc

ehhhhh organic farmers use tractors, and lorries to deliver food stuff, so are they up the creek as well?????
I believe that oil isn't really used for pesticides.... not sure on fertilizers, but I believe it isn't a huge part..

taconnol wrote: »

-they are ruining the natural fertility of our soils, hence the constant need to import fertility in the form of artificial fertilizers.

organic farmers use fertilisers as well, so they are responsible for ruining the natural fertility of the soils as well, according to your logic,

taconnol wrote: »

-natural products become "outputs" or waste, like animal manure - a problem and cost to be dealt with

actually no, most current non organic farmers use the natural products/waste on there farms, thats why if you where on a farm ever for any period of time, you would smell the slurry being spread before planting...

taconnol wrote: »

Organic is an alternative concept and it may not be the full solution but it certainly provides a different view and may hold some of the keys to the future of agriculture.

Something we agree on, but so to does current farming applications...

out of curiousity, have you ever worked on a farm or lived on farm and seen hows its is actually done and what is used?

Macha

robtri wrote: »

I agree with your statment, but I fail to see how that will end our current farming methods

Nothing will end our current farming methods except acceptance that they are unsustainable.

robtri wrote: »

ehhhhh organic farmers use tractors, and lorries to deliver food stuff, so are they up the creek as well?????
I believe that oil isn't really used for pesticides.... not sure on fertilizers, but I believe it isn't a huge part..

I'm aware that organic farmers use the same. I'm talking about an entire overhaul of the entire agricultural system from farm to fork. However, permaculture farms use far less heavy machinery than standard farms. And yes if there isn't any oil left, there isn't any oil!!
Many pesticides are petroleum-based and the vast majority of fertilizers are petroleum-based.

robtri wrote: »

organic farmers use fertilisers as well, so they are responsible for ruining the natural fertility of the soils as well, according to your logic,

If you had read through my entire post, you would have noticed I said that organic was not the perfect answer. You cannot simply refute my points by saying "oh organic does that as well". MY points still stand.

robtri wrote: »

actually no, most current non organic farmers use the natural products/waste on there farms, thats why if you where on a farm ever for any period of time, you would smell the slurry being spread before planting...

I am aware of that. However, many farmers produce a surplus of waste products, which wash into our rivers and cause eutrophication. The most recent EPA report on the issue clearly points to agriculture as one of the main culprits.

robtri wrote: »

out of curiousity, have you ever worked on a farm or lived on farm and seen hows its is actually done and what is used?

Something tells me your question isn't just "out of curiosity" but an attempt to undermine my opinions if I give you the wrong answer.
My mother grew up on a farm, I spent many summers on her family farm working - unfortunately the family have recently been pushed out of farming for many systemic reasons. I have also researched this subject to MSc level and have read very extensively through both the mainstream literature and scientific studies on the issues.

Judgement Day

'actually no, most current non organic farmers use the natural products/waste on there farms, thats why if you where on a farm ever for any period of time, you would smell the slurry being spread before planting.'..


The trouble is that a great deal of this farm waste is not beneficial to the land or the rivers, lakes etc that it often finds its way into, and is spread on the land because there is no other way of getting rid of it.

Of course Organic farmers use road transport to bring their products to market but given their reduced use of artificial fertilisers there is a saving on road transport of this item. There is also a saving in the reduced production of these artificial fertilisers. The production of artificial fertilisers and the detrimental effect of these factories on the ebvironment was well illustrated by the NET factory at Arklow. The plant caused pollution of the river and every tree downwind of the plant was killed off - incidentally the town of Arklow was also downwind of the factory.

20goto10

robtri wrote: »

can you tell me how we would fight blight and other crippling diseases without using chemiclas then??

Battling blight the organic way

I would also expect to see the use of more advanced technology in agriculture. for example, a clean green house similar to the labs used for developing computer components (obviously not as drastic as to keep dust particles out but something similar).

robtri

20goto10 wrote: »

Battling blight the organic way

I would also expect to see the use of more advanced technology in agriculture. for example, a clean green house similar to the labs used for developing computer components (obviously not as drastic as to keep dust particles out but something similar).

Sorry if I missed something in the link, but it doesn't really stop blight, doesn't tell you much....

with all due respect if you expect to see farms in ireland covered with these green house you mention, I seriously think you are so far out of touch.....
A friend of mine has 100 acres in crops, which is not large, where will he get 100 acres of green house??? and that would have a much more dramatic effect on the bio-diversity in the area's....

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

Battling blight the organic way

The so-called “success stories” in that article are, at best, some interesting research findings, but there’s no reason why the benefit of those findings should be restricted to organic production, is there?

20goto10 wrote: »

I would also expect to see the use of more advanced technology in agriculture. for example, a clean green house similar to the labs used for developing computer components (obviously not as drastic as to keep dust particles out but something similar).

Why? That sounds ridiculously inefficient. Growing potatoes in a clean room?!?

Mr.Boots

I have a restaurant and use Orgainic Irish veg, the difference over conventionally grown veg is amazing, they just taste so much better.
I dont know the sience but i do know that conventional growing involves the use of chemicals to maximise yeild, Organicly grown veg is grown more naturally and therefore slower, allowing the plant to mature naturally and the flavour to be more intense.
Try it yourself, if you still dont think so then your mouth is dead.
As for you arguments about chemicals being bad/not bad for you....cop on!!! of course they are bad for you, they all have a skull and cross bones on the packaging.

djpbarry

Mr.Boots wrote: »

As for you arguments about chemicals being bad/not bad for you....cop on!!! of course they are bad for you, they all have a skull and cross bones on the packaging.

Best live out the rest of your days in a bubble, because there's a wide range of potentially toxic substances that occur naturally in the environment.