Organic...
Options
Replies
-
What in particular makes it worth reading?ScreeField wrote: »here's the actual law about Organic livestock care standards--worth reading just in case you've never read it before:
Well, that last item would make the farmer I thought was stupid for withholding antibiotics to the point of death in violation of the law.0 -
So as long as the farmer could justify a reasonable (and highly subjective) belief that the animal could recover, how would he have violated the law?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
What in particular makes it worth reading?ScreeField wrote: »here's the actual law about Organic livestock care standards--worth reading just in case you've never read it before:
Well, that last item would make the farmer I thought was stupid for withholding antibiotics to the point of death in violation of the law.0 -
So as long as the farmer could justify a reasonable (and highly subjective) belief that the animal could recover, how would he have violated the law?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
What in particular makes it worth reading?ScreeField wrote: »here's the actual law about Organic livestock care standards--worth reading just in case you've never read it before:
Well, that last item would make the farmer I thought was stupid for withholding antibiotics to the point of death in violation of the law.
That was not scenario described.0 -
How not, @Need2Exerc1se ? The farmer was following direction from his veterinarian throughout. He tried natural remedies first and foremost. Overnight and within hours, he had more fatalities. The natural approach (hygiene, isolation, and changing bedding) finally worked but not fast enough to save a half-dozen calves.0
-
100% eristic response rate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So as long as the farmer could justify a reasonable (and highly subjective) belief that the animal could recover, how would he have violated the law?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
What in particular makes it worth reading?ScreeField wrote: »here's the actual law about Organic livestock care standards--worth reading just in case you've never read it before:
Well, that last item would make the farmer I thought was stupid for withholding antibiotics to the point of death in violation of the law.
That was not scenario described.
The scenario is the person has a sick cow, he's plowed a lot of expensive organic feed into it, and now it gets sick. Is the law really going to prevent him from contemplating leaving it untreated?0 -
How not, @Need2Exerc1se ? The farmer was following direction from his veterinarian throughout. He tried natural remedies first and foremost. Overnight and within hours, he had more fatalities. The natural approach (hygiene, isolation, and changing bedding) finally worked but not fast enough to save a half-dozen calves.
So you were not puttting that forth as an example of a farmer specifically witholding antibiotics to preserve organic status. I re-read it and it still sounds like that to me. What was your point, if not that?0 -
100% eristic response rate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So as long as the farmer could justify a reasonable (and highly subjective) belief that the animal could recover, how would he have violated the law?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
What in particular makes it worth reading?ScreeField wrote: »here's the actual law about Organic livestock care standards--worth reading just in case you've never read it before:
Well, that last item would make the farmer I thought was stupid for withholding antibiotics to the point of death in violation of the law.
That was not scenario described.
The scenario is the person has a sick cow, he's plowed a lot of expensive organic feed into it, and now it gets sick. Is the law really going to prevent him from contemplating leaving it untreated?
As I've said before, I would think common business sense would. But if we are going to assume laws are ignored, then why talk of changing laws?0 -
I have health issues that force me to eat organic. Yes, it is expensive but I've seen major improvements in my health and I won't put a price on that. I can only speak about my choices, my health and my improvements.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Flag wasn't from me. If I have a beef (haha), I have no problem letting you know .
ETA: and it is hard even for me to believe, but I have read from the beginning, and your last several comments are a pejorative disbelief that the thread is still going.
yes the disbelief is quite strong
many studies and facts have been presented quite early in the thread (some by myself, many by others) and yet the thread continues to spin its wheels in a back-and-forth "nuh-uh! uh-huh!" fashion
Does not!
0 -
GlassslippersAndFairyDust wrote: »I have health issues that force me to eat organic. Yes, it is expensive but I've seen major improvements in my health and I won't put a price on that. I can only speak about my choices, my health and my improvements.
I don't have a medical condition, and I don't feel differently when I eat conventionally grown produce and meat vs. organic (and I do eat some of both, mainly organic berries that end up on sale, but some beef as well).
I do feel better when I eat a diet that contains many servings of raw and cooked vegetables and fruit daily.0 -
I don't assume perfect enforcement in my argument. That's actually worse for you - currently there are probably organic beef that end up eating antibiotics. I do assume that if you let people use antibiotics for prescribed purposes, people will be more prompt in having their animals screened and treated by a vet instead of contemplating the possibility of losing the organic premium.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
100% eristic response rate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So as long as the farmer could justify a reasonable (and highly subjective) belief that the animal could recover, how would he have violated the law?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
What in particular makes it worth reading?ScreeField wrote: »here's the actual law about Organic livestock care standards--worth reading just in case you've never read it before:
Well, that last item would make the farmer I thought was stupid for withholding antibiotics to the point of death in violation of the law.
That was not scenario described.
The scenario is the person has a sick cow, he's plowed a lot of expensive organic feed into it, and now it gets sick. Is the law really going to prevent him from contemplating leaving it untreated?
As I've said before, I would think common business sense would. But if we are going to assume laws are ignored, then why talk of changing laws?0 -
I don't assume perfect enforcement in my argument. That's actually worse for you - currently there are probably organic beef that end up eating antibiotics. I do assume that if you let people use antibiotics for prescribed purposes, people will be more prompt in having their animals screened and treated by a vet instead of contemplating the possibility of losing the organic premium.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
100% eristic response rate.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So as long as the farmer could justify a reasonable (and highly subjective) belief that the animal could recover, how would he have violated the law?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
What in particular makes it worth reading?ScreeField wrote: »here's the actual law about Organic livestock care standards--worth reading just in case you've never read it before:
Well, that last item would make the farmer I thought was stupid for withholding antibiotics to the point of death in violation of the law.
That was not scenario described.
The scenario is the person has a sick cow, he's plowed a lot of expensive organic feed into it, and now it gets sick. Is the law really going to prevent him from contemplating leaving it untreated?
As I've said before, I would think common business sense would. But if we are going to assume laws are ignored, then why talk of changing laws?
Sounds logical. Still has little to do with the OP's question, given current laws.0 -
I don't have a medical condition, and I don't feel differently when I eat conventionally grown produce and meat vs. organic (and I do eat some of both, mainly organic berries that end up on sale, but some beef as well).
I do feel better when I eat a diet that contains many servings of raw and cooked vegetables and fruit daily. [/quote]
I long for the days when I could eat whatever, but those days are long gone and never to be again. I spend a vast amount of my time reading labels. For example, say I want to buy a pasta sauce instead of making it; I have to label read to make sure there are only organic ingredients, no chemicals, preservatives, msgs, gums, stablizers....etc. It bites big time but necessary since I have an autoimmune disease. I can tell within minutes if not seconds when a food has something in it that my body rejects as bad.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »How not, @Need2Exerc1se ? The farmer was following direction from his veterinarian throughout. He tried natural remedies first and foremost. Overnight and within hours, he had more fatalities. The natural approach (hygiene, isolation, and changing bedding) finally worked but not fast enough to save a half-dozen calves.
So you were not puttting that forth as an example of a farmer specifically witholding antibiotics to preserve organic status. I re-read it and it still sounds like that to me. What was your point, if not that?
HE DID withhold antibiotics. He followed the natural approach first, which resulted in deaths. It wasn't abusive, it wasn't stupid. The farmer was motivated by preserving his organic/antibiotic-free status.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »How not, @Need2Exerc1se ? The farmer was following direction from his veterinarian throughout. He tried natural remedies first and foremost. Overnight and within hours, he had more fatalities. The natural approach (hygiene, isolation, and changing bedding) finally worked but not fast enough to save a half-dozen calves.
So you were not puttting that forth as an example of a farmer specifically witholding antibiotics to preserve organic status. I re-read it and it still sounds like that to me. What was your point, if not that?
HE DID withhold antibiotics. He followed the natural approach first, which resulted in deaths. It wasn't abusive, it wasn't stupid. The farmer was motivated by preserving his organic/antibiotic-free status.
Which is exactly what the law says not to do according to the post on page 9.0 -
Eating "organic" is just as good as eating regular vegetables and fruits. Both contain dangerous pesticides, but the regular market is more controlled and the pesticides are more scientifically evolved not to be dangerous. Not to mention that "organic" food tend to cost 3x as much.
There are good and bad examples on both sides. Wash them troughly and if they tase chemicals dont eat them.
BTW organic is such a stupid term, as if the regular greens where non-organic.
0 -
Eating "organic" is just as good as eating regular vegetables and fruits. Both contain dangerous pesticides, but the regular market is more controlled and the pesticides are more scientifically evolved not to be dangerous. Not to mention that "organic" food tend to cost 3x as much.
There are good and bad examples on both sides. Wash them troughly and if they tase chemicals dont eat them.
BTW organic is such a stupid term, as if the regular greens where non-organic.
I don't understand most of this. What dangerous chemicals do organic or non-organic produce contain? What makes the non-organic market more controlled? I would think the opposite.
Also, washing any produce is good, but since pesticides are applied thorughout the growth cycle then washed in to the soil when it rains to be distributed thoughout the plant by the root system, it doesn't remove all rediue.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Eating "organic" is just as good as eating regular vegetables and fruits. Both contain dangerous pesticides, but the regular market is more controlled and the pesticides are more scientifically evolved not to be dangerous. Not to mention that "organic" food tend to cost 3x as much.
There are good and bad examples on both sides. Wash them troughly and if they tase chemicals dont eat them.
BTW organic is such a stupid term, as if the regular greens where non-organic.
I don't understand most of this. What dangerous chemicals do organic or non-organic produce contain? What makes the non-organic market more controlled? I would think the opposite.
Also, washing any produce is good, but since pesticides are applied thorughout the growth cycle then washed in to the soil when it rains to be distributed thoughout the plant by the root system, it doesn't remove all rediue.
Copper sulfate is an acceptable pesticide used in organics. Until recently, rotenone was an acceptable organic pesticide, as was nicotine. Both breakdown less and can kill something at lesser does than a number of synthetic pesticides, like glyphosate.0 -
The difference is that organic's rules say that you can use any natural substance. There are no requirements that a substance be tested - it is assumed that it is safe.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Eating "organic" is just as good as eating regular vegetables and fruits. Both contain dangerous pesticides, but the regular market is more controlled and the pesticides are more scientifically evolved not to be dangerous. Not to mention that "organic" food tend to cost 3x as much.
There are good and bad examples on both sides. Wash them troughly and if they tase chemicals dont eat them.
BTW organic is such a stupid term, as if the regular greens where non-organic.
I don't understand most of this. What dangerous chemicals do organic or non-organic produce contain? What makes the non-organic market more controlled? I would think the opposite.
Also, washing any produce is good, but since pesticides are applied thorughout the growth cycle then washed in to the soil when it rains to be distributed thoughout the plant by the root system, it doesn't remove all rediue.
Any synthetic chemical that is going to be sprayed on food has to go through testing to show it is safe in mammals, and what is the lowest amount of it that can cause any kind of side effect what-so-ever. Then the USDA sets standards about how often it can be used to guarantee it stays well below that threshold even with multiple applications and assuming people eat huge numbers of servings - think 20 apples in a day.0 -
let me link the organic pesticide/chemical list...again...
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_16010
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions