Organic...
Replies
-
Certain organic food tastes much better to me, Lettuce, bananas, blueberries, onions. I can tell the difference. Because I like it better I buy it. I don't notice a big taste difference in anything else.0
-
FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Far more energy goes into the differential of growing crop location A vs crop location B?
I'm having a hard time believing that blanket statement. Especially when lots of local crops are available, it's not just a demand question. It's about seasonal and location sensitivity.
And let's not confuse economic costs vs environment costs.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.
That sounds like a lot of if's and generalizations. What are your sources? Is the amount of energy the same for small local farms as it is for large commerical farms. Is it the same in all areas? For all food?
I mean, I don't live in an area known for pototoes (commercially) but they grow well here. I can grow potatoes by doing nothing other than burying a few potatoes from last years harvest.
There's a huge difference between you can pop in a good and get it to grow and it is the most economically efficient crop to grow in your area.
One of the biggest proofs is just in the price difference. If a crop can cost less when shipped from far away than grown locally, how much chance is there that it required more input to grow on top of the transit costs?
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
I'm not sure why in a local versus shipped discussion the idea of a small farm versus a large farm is terribly germane, it seems more like trying to just muddy the discussion.
You are confusing economic price with environmental cost. Not buying that proof.
Are Idaho potatoes 15% more energy efficient than California potatoes? What is the crop loss in shipping? I thought it was still pretty high for a lot of produce.
Given that the largest environmental cost is distribution and storage (we only consume < 50%) of what is produced, I'm finding the ideal location argument to be incomplete or focusing on the wrong thing.0 -
No. It doesn't make you healthier.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.
That sounds like a lot of if's and generalizations. What are your sources? Is the amount of energy the same for small local farms as it is for large commerical farms. Is it the same in all areas? For all food?
I mean, I don't live in an area known for pototoes (commercially) but they grow well here. I can grow potatoes by doing nothing other than burying a few potatoes from last years harvest.
There's a huge difference between you can pop in a good and get it to grow and it is the most economically efficient crop to grow in your area.
One of the biggest proofs is just in the price difference. If a crop can cost less when shipped from far away than grown locally, how much chance is there that it required more input to grow on top of the transit costs?
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
I'm not sure why in a local versus shipped discussion the idea of a small farm versus a large farm is terribly germane, it seems more like trying to just muddy the discussion.
You are confusing economic price with environmental cost. Not buying that proof.
Are Idaho potatoes 15% more energy efficient than California potatoes? What is the crop loss in shipping? I thought it was still pretty high for a lot of produce.
Given that the largest environmental cost is distribution and storage (we only consume < 50%) of what is produced, I'm finding the ideal location argument to be incomplete or focusing on the wrong thing.
Not confusing them, I raised the same questions before about the subject - hence you'll find my original statement is you're PROBABLY worse for the environment. The price difference is what easily and quickly suggests the difference in input requirements. The 85% energy to grow versus 15% to transport was something I was linked to by someone else, but I don't have the link handy.
Farming is a hugely energy intensive process that runs over months, why would transportation that can be done by railroads that can cross the US in days run remotely close in output. Heck, just the amount of no till crop growing allowed by Round Up herbicide alone is enough to do the equivalent of 12 million cars off the street for the savings on running tillers.0 -
OP- I am a price shopper first and foremost. Sometimes organic produce/products are less expensive than conventional, sometimes local produce is cheaper. Either way, I buy as much good ripe stuff as I can afford and feast like a brontosaurus.0
-
hm this thread is still going but I already wonned it
wut gives0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.
That sounds like a lot of if's and generalizations. What are your sources? Is the amount of energy the same for small local farms as it is for large commerical farms. Is it the same in all areas? For all food?
I mean, I don't live in an area known for pototoes (commercially) but they grow well here. I can grow potatoes by doing nothing other than burying a few potatoes from last years harvest.
There's a huge difference between you can pop in a good and get it to grow and it is the most economically efficient crop to grow in your area.
One of the biggest proofs is just in the price difference. If a crop can cost less when shipped from far away than grown locally, how much chance is there that it required more input to grow on top of the transit costs?
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
I'm not sure why in a local versus shipped discussion the idea of a small farm versus a large farm is terribly germane, it seems more like trying to just muddy the discussion.
You are confusing economic price with environmental cost. Not buying that proof.
Are Idaho potatoes 15% more energy efficient than California potatoes? What is the crop loss in shipping? I thought it was still pretty high for a lot of produce.
Given that the largest environmental cost is distribution and storage (we only consume < 50%) of what is produced, I'm finding the ideal location argument to be incomplete or focusing on the wrong thing.
Not confusing them, I raised the same questions before about the subject - hence you'll find my original statement is you're PROBABLY worse for the environment. The price difference is what easily and quickly suggests the difference in input requirements. The 85% energy to grow versus 15% to transport was something I was linked to by someone else, but I don't have the link handy.
Farming is a hugely energy intensive process that runs over months, why would transportation that can be done by railroads that can cross the US in days run remotely close in output. Heck, just the amount of no till crop growing allowed by Round Up herbicide alone is enough to do the equivalent of 12 million cars off the street for the savings on running tillers.
Ok. That still requires that there is an actual a) +15% difference in energy to grow locally b) doesn't take into account produce loss in transport/distribution versus local. Plus some of food stuff in the US comes from outside of the US. I'd think there is additional costs/loss there.
Given that food distribution includes rail, trucking, water and even air transport I think that cost to ship can likely vary greatly.
Possibly worse, sure. Not clear to me that it's probably worse. Still need to show that growing locally is environmentally 15% costlier.
Or (environmentally speaking) does it make sense to buy Florida oranges in a California supermarket? Knowing that there are also highly efficient local growers that supply national markets?
It's going to be case by case.
In any case - and let me put on my hippy dippy hat to say this - our energy intensive farming styles have developed because energy is cheap - a more self sufficient, small plot farming (produce for me and those around me) tends to be labor intensive (cheap when you do it as an exercise activity, expensive as a market competition) and lower cost on energy. Obviously not suggesting we replace one with the other - but it does make sense to do a little of your own and to have policies that support city/local plot farming, especially if being active also has an influence on healthier living.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.
That sounds like a lot of if's and generalizations. What are your sources? Is the amount of energy the same for small local farms as it is for large commerical farms. Is it the same in all areas? For all food?
I mean, I don't live in an area known for pototoes (commercially) but they grow well here. I can grow potatoes by doing nothing other than burying a few potatoes from last years harvest.
There's a huge difference between you can pop in a good and get it to grow and it is the most economically efficient crop to grow in your area.
One of the biggest proofs is just in the price difference. If a crop can cost less when shipped from far away than grown locally, how much chance is there that it required more input to grow on top of the transit costs?
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
I'm not sure why in a local versus shipped discussion the idea of a small farm versus a large farm is terribly germane, it seems more like trying to just muddy the discussion.
You are confusing economic price with environmental cost. Not buying that proof.
Are Idaho potatoes 15% more energy efficient than California potatoes? What is the crop loss in shipping? I thought it was still pretty high for a lot of produce.
Given that the largest environmental cost is distribution and storage (we only consume < 50%) of what is produced, I'm finding the ideal location argument to be incomplete or focusing on the wrong thing.
Not confusing them, I raised the same questions before about the subject - hence you'll find my original statement is you're PROBABLY worse for the environment. The price difference is what easily and quickly suggests the difference in input requirements. The 85% energy to grow versus 15% to transport was something I was linked to by someone else, but I don't have the link handy.
Farming is a hugely energy intensive process that runs over months, why would transportation that can be done by railroads that can cross the US in days run remotely close in output. Heck, just the amount of no till crop growing allowed by Round Up herbicide alone is enough to do the equivalent of 12 million cars off the street for the savings on running tillers.
Ok. That still requires that there is an actual a) +15% difference in energy to grow locally b) doesn't take into account produce loss in transport/distribution versus local. Plus some of food stuff in the US comes from outside of the US. I'd think there is additional costs/loss there.
Given that food distribution includes rail, trucking, water and even air transport I think that cost to ship can likely vary greatly.
Possibly worse, sure. Not clear to me that it's probably worse. Still need to show that growing locally is environmentally 15% costlier.
Or (environmentally speaking) does it make sense to buy Florida oranges in a California supermarket? Knowing that there are also highly efficient local growers that supply national markets?
It's going to be case by case.
In any case - and let me put on my hippy dippy hat to say this - our energy intensive farming styles have developed because energy is cheap - a more self sufficient, small plot farming (produce for me and those around me) tends to be labor intensive (cheap when you do it as an exercise activity, expensive as a market competition) and lower cost on energy. Obviously not suggesting we replace one with the other - but it does make sense to do a little of your own and to have policies that support city/local plot farming, especially if being active also has an influence on healthier living.
I'd definitely agree that the picture would be far more clear if our energy prices reflected the negative externalities in them.
As Freakonomics admits, it is hard to get comparisons of input differences between regions, which is oddly because the differences clearly do exist, or else farmers would tend to grow whatever they predict will be in consumer demand. The big step is you have to accept that you can't just use off the cuff intuition that transit is the only source of pollution. Ignoring the costs of inputs to growing is part of how we end up with things like droughts in California.0 -
IMO looking for local farmers to buy your products is better, finding ones that don't use pesticides/use natural enemies.
Because as mentioned before, pesticides are indeed also found on organic-labelled brands.
As some others have mentioned too, I focus on buying the purest, least processed food possible. I buy grass-fed meat and antibiotic-free poultry.
To me the most important is to get your food in the most pure form available.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Sure.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FYI, buying local might taste better / be fresher, but it is probably WORSE for the environment.
Far more energy goes into the actual growing of crops than does transportation, so if crops are grown where it is ideal - like if Idaho for potatoes, or Midwest for corn - they will use so much less inputs in growing, it probably outweighs the environmental cost of transporting it across the country.
Can you explain further?
Estimates are that to produce food, 85% of the energy used is growing it, and 15% is shipping it.
So now if you buy a local grown potato that takes 15% more energy to grow in your climate (like you don't live in the ideal Idaho), and you save 50% on transportation energy, what you've ended up with is 85%*1.15+15%*.5 = 105.25% energy used (5.25% more) in comparison to growing it in the ideal environment.
That sounds like a lot of if's and generalizations. What are your sources? Is the amount of energy the same for small local farms as it is for large commerical farms. Is it the same in all areas? For all food?
I mean, I don't live in an area known for pototoes (commercially) but they grow well here. I can grow potatoes by doing nothing other than burying a few potatoes from last years harvest.
There's a huge difference between you can pop in a good and get it to grow and it is the most economically efficient crop to grow in your area.
One of the biggest proofs is just in the price difference. If a crop can cost less when shipped from far away than grown locally, how much chance is there that it required more input to grow on top of the transit costs?
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
I'm not sure why in a local versus shipped discussion the idea of a small farm versus a large farm is terribly germane, it seems more like trying to just muddy the discussion.
You are confusing economic price with environmental cost. Not buying that proof.
Are Idaho potatoes 15% more energy efficient than California potatoes? What is the crop loss in shipping? I thought it was still pretty high for a lot of produce.
Given that the largest environmental cost is distribution and storage (we only consume < 50%) of what is produced, I'm finding the ideal location argument to be incomplete or focusing on the wrong thing.
Not confusing them, I raised the same questions before about the subject - hence you'll find my original statement is you're PROBABLY worse for the environment. The price difference is what easily and quickly suggests the difference in input requirements. The 85% energy to grow versus 15% to transport was something I was linked to by someone else, but I don't have the link handy.
Farming is a hugely energy intensive process that runs over months, why would transportation that can be done by railroads that can cross the US in days run remotely close in output. Heck, just the amount of no till crop growing allowed by Round Up herbicide alone is enough to do the equivalent of 12 million cars off the street for the savings on running tillers.
Ok. That still requires that there is an actual a) +15% difference in energy to grow locally b) doesn't take into account produce loss in transport/distribution versus local. Plus some of food stuff in the US comes from outside of the US. I'd think there is additional costs/loss there.
Given that food distribution includes rail, trucking, water and even air transport I think that cost to ship can likely vary greatly.
Possibly worse, sure. Not clear to me that it's probably worse. Still need to show that growing locally is environmentally 15% costlier.
Or (environmentally speaking) does it make sense to buy Florida oranges in a California supermarket? Knowing that there are also highly efficient local growers that supply national markets?
It's going to be case by case.
In any case - and let me put on my hippy dippy hat to say this - our energy intensive farming styles have developed because energy is cheap - a more self sufficient, small plot farming (produce for me and those around me) tends to be labor intensive (cheap when you do it as an exercise activity, expensive as a market competition) and lower cost on energy. Obviously not suggesting we replace one with the other - but it does make sense to do a little of your own and to have policies that support city/local plot farming, especially if being active also has an influence on healthier living.
I'd definitely agree that the picture would be far more clear if our energy prices reflected the negative externalities in them.
As Freakonomics admits, it is hard to get comparisons of input differences between regions, which is oddly because the differences clearly do exist, or else farmers would tend to grow whatever they predict will be in consumer demand. The big step is you have to accept that you can't just use off the cuff intuition that transit is the only source of pollution. Ignoring the costs of inputs to growing is part of how we end up with things like droughts in California.
I do think that challenging what are the sources of pollution makes sense.
I'll continue buying locally/seasonally, though. The transport cost is a easier determined/conceptualized factor than the idea that my local asparagus is somehow "less environmentally efficient" than the Spanish version. Plus taste and freshness matter to me a lot.
I was involved in shipping mangos to the US a few times (summer job) from Mexico - aging/treatment to distribute is also a produce quality factor that I don't have when I buy at the local farmers.
0 -
governatorkp wrote: »IMO looking for local farmers to buy your products is better, finding ones that don't use pesticides/use natural enemies.
Because as mentioned before, pesticides are indeed also found on organic-labelled brands.
As some others have mentioned too, I focus on buying the purest, least processed food possible. I buy grass-fed meat and antibiotic-free poultry.
To me the most important is to get your food in the most pure form available.
It's actually pretty hard to keep any type of profitable garden going without pesticides. Even the most environmentally conscience local organic farmers will usually use pesticides/herbicides of some type if they are in it for profit.
The difference is that small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue. Things that don't kill the honeybees that pollinate their crops. These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.
0 -
I go to the farmer's market and buy what I can there. but I do not buy organic. mostly, due to price. however, if they are similar in price, I will buy it. except milk, the other half does not like organic milk.0
-
I'm bored
organic sux
people starve all over the earth and we're wasting time and resources on organic
eat local if you want I guess idc
yolo0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »IMO looking for local farmers to buy your products is better, finding ones that don't use pesticides/use natural enemies.
Because as mentioned before, pesticides are indeed also found on organic-labelled brands.
As some others have mentioned too, I focus on buying the purest, least processed food possible. I buy grass-fed meat and antibiotic-free poultry.
To me the most important is to get your food in the most pure form available.
It's actually pretty hard to keep any type of profitable garden going without pesticides. Even the most environmentally conscience local organic farmers will usually use pesticides/herbicides of some type if they are in it for profit.
The difference is that small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue. Things that don't kill the honeybees that pollinate their crops. These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.
"big ag" (from a farmer's perspective) likes not using pesticides at all...pesticides mean money. This is where engineering crops that maintain nutrition and produce their own pesticides or are resistant to effective herbicides such as glyphosphate and drought and insects are huge.
Also, an example of a pesticide that commonly leaves residues in foods above an adverse effect level would be nice since you state that as truth.0 -
The bees are not dying off. Actual, registered honeybee hive numbers are actually going up. I don't know if anyone is tracking wild bees off the top of my head, but honestly, I wouldn't care as honeybees are not native to North America, so seeing wild ones die off isn't an environmental disaster.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »IMO looking for local farmers to buy your products is better, finding ones that don't use pesticides/use natural enemies.
Because as mentioned before, pesticides are indeed also found on organic-labelled brands.
As some others have mentioned too, I focus on buying the purest, least processed food possible. I buy grass-fed meat and antibiotic-free poultry.
To me the most important is to get your food in the most pure form available.
It's actually pretty hard to keep any type of profitable garden going without pesticides. Even the most environmentally conscience local organic farmers will usually use pesticides/herbicides of some type if they are in it for profit.
The difference is that small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue. Things that don't kill the honeybees that pollinate their crops. These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.
There is nothing about natural pesticides that means they will break down faster. That's a huge naturalistic fallacy. Copper sulfate is natural, and approved in organic farming. It does not breakdown readily. It actually tends to accumulated in soil and groundwater. It also has a much worse LD50 than a lot of synthetic pesticides.0 -
There's a new documentary out; Facebook alerted me.
http://www.foodwastemovie.com/
This one is about food wastage. I'd agree with some of it for sure but I despise food documentaries. I like the French Inglorious fruits and vegetables campaign. I think this is growing legs. My local grocer marked lonely "single bananas" for sale.
I picked up the Atlas of Food at the library and it was an eye-opener for sure. I recall a few tid-bits. One is that our Canadian government is shamefully reticent to share statistics. I sure hope they are at least collecting data.
@senecarr , salt is great at killing plants of all kinds, and it endures in the soil like, forever.0 -
Perfectly organic too. Though salt is a rather poor herbicide as it lacks discrimination. As much as I hate discrimination in people, I love it in my pesticides.There's a new documentary out; Facebook alerted me.
http://www.foodwastemovie.com/
This one is about food wastage. I'd agree with some of it for sure but I despise food documentaries. I like the French Inglorious fruits and vegetables campaign. I think this is growing legs. My local grocer marked lonely "single bananas" for sale.
I picked up the Atlas of Food at the library and it was an eye-opener for sure. I recall a few tid-bits. One is that our Canadian government is shamefully reticent to share statistics. I sure hope they are at least collecting data.
@senecarr , salt is great at killing plants of all kinds, and it endures in the soil like, forever.
0 -
-
From a digestion prospective in the body.............................nope. It doesn't distinguish organic or non organic foods. It just breaks it down to it's simplest components to be absorbed.
Now what someone thinks about what/how they are eating is a different story.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
The bees are not dying off. Actual, registered honeybee hive numbers are actually going up. I don't know if anyone is tracking wild bees off the top of my head, but honestly, I wouldn't care as honeybees are not native to North America, so seeing wild ones die off isn't an environmental disaster.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »IMO looking for local farmers to buy your products is better, finding ones that don't use pesticides/use natural enemies.
Because as mentioned before, pesticides are indeed also found on organic-labelled brands.
As some others have mentioned too, I focus on buying the purest, least processed food possible. I buy grass-fed meat and antibiotic-free poultry.
To me the most important is to get your food in the most pure form available.
It's actually pretty hard to keep any type of profitable garden going without pesticides. Even the most environmentally conscience local organic farmers will usually use pesticides/herbicides of some type if they are in it for profit.
The difference is that small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue. Things that don't kill the honeybees that pollinate their crops. These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.
There is nothing about natural pesticides that means they will break down faster. That's a huge naturalistic fallacy. Copper sulfate is natural, and approved in organic farming. It does not breakdown readily. It actually tends to accumulated in soil and groundwater. It also has a much worse LD50 than a lot of synthetic pesticides.
It sounds like you are reading things into my post that weren't there. I never said all natural pesticides would break down faster, in fact, I never said anything about natural pesticides at all.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »IMO looking for local farmers to buy your products is better, finding ones that don't use pesticides/use natural enemies.
Because as mentioned before, pesticides are indeed also found on organic-labelled brands.
As some others have mentioned too, I focus on buying the purest, least processed food possible. I buy grass-fed meat and antibiotic-free poultry.
To me the most important is to get your food in the most pure form available.
It's actually pretty hard to keep any type of profitable garden going without pesticides. Even the most environmentally conscience local organic farmers will usually use pesticides/herbicides of some type if they are in it for profit.
The difference is that small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue. Things that don't kill the honeybees that pollinate their crops. These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.
"big ag" (from a farmer's perspective) likes not using pesticides at all...pesticides mean money. This is where engineering crops that maintain nutrition and produce their own pesticides or are resistant to effective herbicides such as glyphosphate and drought and insects are huge.
Also, an example of a pesticide that commonly leaves residues in foods above an adverse effect level would be nice since you state that as truth.
Another reading things into my post that weren't there.0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
The bees are not dying off. Actual, registered honeybee hive numbers are actually going up. I don't know if anyone is tracking wild bees off the top of my head, but honestly, I wouldn't care as honeybees are not native to North America, so seeing wild ones die off isn't an environmental disaster.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »IMO looking for local farmers to buy your products is better, finding ones that don't use pesticides/use natural enemies.
Because as mentioned before, pesticides are indeed also found on organic-labelled brands.
As some others have mentioned too, I focus on buying the purest, least processed food possible. I buy grass-fed meat and antibiotic-free poultry.
To me the most important is to get your food in the most pure form available.
It's actually pretty hard to keep any type of profitable garden going without pesticides. Even the most environmentally conscience local organic farmers will usually use pesticides/herbicides of some type if they are in it for profit.
The difference is that small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue. Things that don't kill the honeybees that pollinate their crops. These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.
There is nothing about natural pesticides that means they will break down faster. That's a huge naturalistic fallacy. Copper sulfate is natural, and approved in organic farming. It does not breakdown readily. It actually tends to accumulated in soil and groundwater. It also has a much worse LD50 than a lot of synthetic pesticides.
It sounds like you are reading things into my post that weren't there. I never said all natural pesticides would break down faster, in fact, I never said anything about natural pesticides at all.
So what "things" that "naturally" break down are small organic farms using?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
The bees are not dying off. Actual, registered honeybee hive numbers are actually going up. I don't know if anyone is tracking wild bees off the top of my head, but honestly, I wouldn't care as honeybees are not native to North America, so seeing wild ones die off isn't an environmental disaster.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »IMO looking for local farmers to buy your products is better, finding ones that don't use pesticides/use natural enemies.
Because as mentioned before, pesticides are indeed also found on organic-labelled brands.
As some others have mentioned too, I focus on buying the purest, least processed food possible. I buy grass-fed meat and antibiotic-free poultry.
To me the most important is to get your food in the most pure form available.
It's actually pretty hard to keep any type of profitable garden going without pesticides. Even the most environmentally conscience local organic farmers will usually use pesticides/herbicides of some type if they are in it for profit.
The difference is that small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue. Things that don't kill the honeybees that pollinate their crops. These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.
There is nothing about natural pesticides that means they will break down faster. That's a huge naturalistic fallacy. Copper sulfate is natural, and approved in organic farming. It does not breakdown readily. It actually tends to accumulated in soil and groundwater. It also has a much worse LD50 than a lot of synthetic pesticides.
It sounds like you are reading things into my post that weren't there. I never said all natural pesticides would break down faster, in fact, I never said anything about natural pesticides at all.
So what "things" that "naturally" break down are small organic farms using?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue.
My guess is ladybugs. IPM plans are becoming more popular, and ladybugs are beasts, man. :bigsmile:0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »IMO looking for local farmers to buy your products is better, finding ones that don't use pesticides/use natural enemies.
Because as mentioned before, pesticides are indeed also found on organic-labelled brands.
As some others have mentioned too, I focus on buying the purest, least processed food possible. I buy grass-fed meat and antibiotic-free poultry.
To me the most important is to get your food in the most pure form available.
It's actually pretty hard to keep any type of profitable garden going without pesticides. Even the most environmentally conscience local organic farmers will usually use pesticides/herbicides of some type if they are in it for profit.
The difference is that small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue. Things that don't kill the honeybees that pollinate their crops. These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.
"big ag" (from a farmer's perspective) likes not using pesticides at all...pesticides mean money. This is where engineering crops that maintain nutrition and produce their own pesticides or are resistant to effective herbicides such as glyphosphate and drought and insects are huge.
Also, an example of a pesticide that commonly leaves residues in foods above an adverse effect level would be nice since you state that as truth.
Another reading things into my post that weren't there.
This was you, right?These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »IMO looking for local farmers to buy your products is better, finding ones that don't use pesticides/use natural enemies.
Because as mentioned before, pesticides are indeed also found on organic-labelled brands.
As some others have mentioned too, I focus on buying the purest, least processed food possible. I buy grass-fed meat and antibiotic-free poultry.
To me the most important is to get your food in the most pure form available.
It's actually pretty hard to keep any type of profitable garden going without pesticides. Even the most environmentally conscience local organic farmers will usually use pesticides/herbicides of some type if they are in it for profit.
The difference is that small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue. Things that don't kill the honeybees that pollinate their crops. These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.
"big ag" (from a farmer's perspective) likes not using pesticides at all...pesticides mean money. This is where engineering crops that maintain nutrition and produce their own pesticides or are resistant to effective herbicides such as glyphosphate and drought and insects are huge.
Also, an example of a pesticide that commonly leaves residues in foods above an adverse effect level would be nice since you state that as truth.
Another reading things into my post that weren't there.
This was you, right?These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.
I'm thinking it has moved into an eristic discussion.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
The bees are not dying off. Actual, registered honeybee hive numbers are actually going up. I don't know if anyone is tracking wild bees off the top of my head, but honestly, I wouldn't care as honeybees are not native to North America, so seeing wild ones die off isn't an environmental disaster.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »IMO looking for local farmers to buy your products is better, finding ones that don't use pesticides/use natural enemies.
Because as mentioned before, pesticides are indeed also found on organic-labelled brands.
As some others have mentioned too, I focus on buying the purest, least processed food possible. I buy grass-fed meat and antibiotic-free poultry.
To me the most important is to get your food in the most pure form available.
It's actually pretty hard to keep any type of profitable garden going without pesticides. Even the most environmentally conscience local organic farmers will usually use pesticides/herbicides of some type if they are in it for profit.
The difference is that small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue. Things that don't kill the honeybees that pollinate their crops. These must be applied more often, which is why big ag likes the harsher stuff that will kill indiscriminately and not break down. Not even before it reaches your table.
There is nothing about natural pesticides that means they will break down faster. That's a huge naturalistic fallacy. Copper sulfate is natural, and approved in organic farming. It does not breakdown readily. It actually tends to accumulated in soil and groundwater. It also has a much worse LD50 than a lot of synthetic pesticides.
It sounds like you are reading things into my post that weren't there. I never said all natural pesticides would break down faster, in fact, I never said anything about natural pesticides at all.
So what "things" that "naturally" break down are small organic farms using?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »small organic farmers are much more likely to use things that naturally break down quickly and leave no residue.
There are any number of things depending on the problem. Neem oil and hydrogen peroxide are pretty common.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions