Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

If money was no issue... organic.

123457

Replies

  • qpmomma1qpmomma1 Posts: 218Member Member Posts: 218Member Member
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:
  • French_PeasantFrench_Peasant Posts: 1,631Member Member Posts: 1,631Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?
  • pierinifitnesspierinifitness Posts: 2,345Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,345Member, Premium Member
    I'm one of those poor souls where money is not an issue as far as my food purchasing goes and my wife and I preferably buy organic. While I've shopped at Whole Foods, it's not a place I regularly frequent due to habit. I'm a Trader Joe's shopper but also visit my local food co-op which is the most expensive of all the places I shop.

    What I've learned is that by overall eating less and buying in smaller quantities (even though it might be at a higher unit cost) so as to not have waste, my food budget isn't that much more because of buying organic or other "higher quality food" whatever that means. And, not spending money on beverages such as orange juice, sodas, flavored beverages, etc. goes a long way. I'm mixed on organic fruits and vegetables, some I'll buy organic and some I won't but my recent behavior is that my fruit consumption is down. Watermelon season will change it for sure.

    As financial radio talk show host Dave Ramsey repeatedly says when helping people with their finances, rice and beans don't cost much.

    As a financial type myself, what I've observed is that many people don't have a precise awareness of how much they actually spend on food. They may be close in estimating but don't know for sure. That unknown factor can make all the difference in balancing the books and eating as healthy as possible. I also know that people have money to spend on what they want to spend their money on so directing it to food as opposed to discretionary items is a personal choice that everyone rightfully makes. Some prefer cigarettes instead. I prefer coffee, both whole beans that I grind at home and Peet's Coffee when on the go, an expensive place to buy a cup of coffee on the go. Again, personal choice on how to spend my money.

    Final noise-bite, best way to eat as healthy as possible is to buy quality food and eat less of it.

    Your mileage may vary.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,311Member Member Posts: 3,311Member Member
    When in season, I buy from local green markets (including my favorite one, which is largely organic, but given the limitations of the organic certification not strictly so, it bills itself as focusing on sustainable produce, etc.), and get a CSA from a farm that happens to be organic (although I'm more interested in supporting local small farms, certified organic or not). I'm also trying to grow as much of my own as possible, but I expect that will be limited. One reason I like the green market is that the taste is often better and the variety (within what's in season) better.

    If I buy produce out of season from the grocery store (or items like citrus that are necessarily going to be brought in from far away), including frozen items, I tend to buy conventional, since I don't think choosing organic would mean "quality" vs. not, especially if we are talking about nutrients. I'm not convinced there's a lot of difference between the mass produced organics (of the type that make up most of what's on a grocery store out of season) and conventional to justify the cost difference. I'm usually not particularly price sensitive about groceries, but in this case I don't see the point. For meat and eggs and dairy, when I'm consuming them, I'm going to usually go to a local farm or otherwise will be much more picky usually than with produce out of season.
    edited May 29
  • JRsLateInLifeMomJRsLateInLifeMom Posts: 727Member Member Posts: 727Member Member
    Definitely offbrand m&ms with soynuts! Chocolate with organic nuts of every variety! Cheese s a lot of flavors plus fancy crackers to dip in it! Fruits to veggies . Steak! Lots of steak! Lobster or crab stuffing. Crab with stuffing in it to bake. I would leave weighing more than I went in
    edited May 30
  • qpmomma1qpmomma1 Posts: 218Member Member Posts: 218Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?

    Corn is a GMO :smile:
    Reson: We like corn

    We also use a lot of hybrids and some people consider them to be GMO since they have been genetically modified.
    edited June 4
  • RemothRemoth Posts: 103Member Member Posts: 103Member Member
    Just to clear another thing up about organic agriculture, especially the land preservation aspect(in large scale monocropping). While "organic" herbicides and pesticides are used(not by all mind you), the major difference between modern and organic is usually the amount of tillage(working up the land) that is done. Modern farms use more minimal or no-tillage practices, the less soil disturbance, the more structure and organic matter you are able to preserve and build over the years. This allows the topsoil to be healthier and not erode away during rain and drought ( check out the dirty 30s with piles of dirt up against buildings from the wind). Modern herbicides help with this immensely to keep weeds away. Some areas with long enough growing seasons are even experimenting with growing a very short season second crop that will not contribute to weeds and just keeps plants growing to add more organic matter (cover crops) and hold the soil in place.

    Typical organic agriculture involves a lot of tillage to kill weeds and to extract the nutrients out of the soil by speeding up the breakdown of organic matter. Yes, other crops are grown to put nutrients back in the soil, as well as manure can be used, however this does not make up for the damage to the soil by the tillage. Many organic farms that try to not work up the soil as much end up with very bad weed issues in their crops which then dictates more tillage or herbicides to be used. Take a look at any home garden that does not have the soil either replaced or have a ton of manure spread on it every year, the soil turns to hard clay. The massive amounts of tillage in home gardens is a prime example of how it destroys the soil which is why you need to do steps to repair it. Repairing thousands of acres is a little harder and takes a long time.

    My take on the roundup court cases? People who want money, coupled with un-educated jurors deciding on a topic that is mostly likely presented as, "if roundup didnt cause her cancer, then what did?" The problem is that your trying to prove a negative or that something didnt do what you think it did. When it come to a matter such as cancer, that is very hard to do because of our current understanding of cancer. Until you can find something else to totally take the blame for causing said cancer, you cannot definitely prove that roundup did not cause it. Does that mean monsanto needs to be punished? For what? For not being able to prove something else caused someone's cancer? If only cancer was a thing that was that certain. The only certain thing about cancer is when you get diagnosed that you have it(in our current understanding). The latest case I saw was about a woman who didnt even apply roundup herself, but that she was around crops that it had been applied on. So where are all the people who spend all summer spraying roundup with cancer?
    edited June 4
  • CTcutieCTcutie Posts: 645Member Member Posts: 645Member Member
    If money were no object, though, I would hire someone to meal plan/give me a menu, shop, prep and organize my meals in my fridge and put everything into MFP for me, lol. They would need to be trustworthy!! And I'd probably eat more meat than I do now.

    I tend to buy organic/shop @ Whole Foods/Trader Joe's farm stands, etc., and am fortunate that I only have myself (and my dog!) to feed, so I spend whatever I like on food I make/eat at home. I like to think that I'm investing in good health by spending more money, VS fast food and packaged stuff all day long.

    I HATE spending $12-15 on a salad or pasta at a restaurant or $30 for a chicken dish I can make at home, though, and don't eat out much. Or I go ALL out and order the things I never would make at home- fried fish, lobster, etc. (Even fast food- I do eat it, but I hate that a value meal costs $10-12 so I always consider kids options.)

    edited June 4
  • kenyonhaffkenyonhaff Posts: 1,190Member Member Posts: 1,190Member Member
    If money were no object, I'd absolutely buy the majority of my food organic, pasture raised, free range, local, etc.

    But maybe not for the reasons other people give.

    Food raised like this is better for the soil, and avoiding a lot of the really bad agricultural practices that we do. It often tastes better - happy animals tend to taste better too. And yeah, avoiding too many pesticides and so on is good for me too.
  • French_PeasantFrench_Peasant Posts: 1,631Member Member Posts: 1,631Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?

    Corn is a GMO :smile:
    Reson: We like corn

    We also use a lot of hybrids and some people consider them to be GMO since they have been genetically modified.

    @qpmomma1 GMO refers specifically to varieties that are created using transgenic technologies, in which a gene unique to one organism is inserted into an alien organism. Hybrids are created using traditional breeding techniques, either can be human-directed or occurring under natural pressures (Darwinian selection rather than human selection). Basically every organism that exists is genetically modified as there are a variety of genetic pressures being put upon it, but GMO can only get its start in a lab, not through traditional breeding methods.

    I suspect you don't have a very in-depth understanding of this, but you may have read or heard an argument in which someone advocating for GMOs tried to make the case that "GMOs are okay because we've been eating GMOs for millenia". While there are many strong points to GMOs, any person or entity that attempts to make this case is either ignorant or deliberately being deceitful, and in either case is completely non-credible.

    What is the exact corn that you are planting in your garden? *Some* recently-developed corn is GMO, predominantly commodity field corn, but it would be pretty weird to plant it in one's garden. I plant many different varieties of corn, all heirloom, all genetically modified, none GMO.

  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 797Member Member Posts: 797Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?

    Corn is a GMO :smile:
    Reson: We like corn

    We also use a lot of hybrids and some people consider them to be GMO since they have been genetically modified.

    @qpmomma1 GMO refers specifically to varieties that are created using transgenic technologies, in which a gene unique to one organism is inserted into an alien organism. Hybrids are created using traditional breeding techniques, either can be human-directed or occurring under natural pressures (Darwinian selection rather than human selection). Basically every organism that exists is genetically modified as there are a variety of genetic pressures being put upon it, but GMO can only get its start in a lab, not through traditional breeding methods.

    I suspect you don't have a very in-depth understanding of this, but you may have read or heard an argument in which someone advocating for GMOs tried to make the case that "GMOs are okay because we've been eating GMOs for millenia". While there are many strong points to GMOs, any person or entity that attempts to make this case is either ignorant or deliberately being deceitful, and in either case is completely non-credible.

    What is the exact corn that you are planting in your garden? *Some* recently-developed corn is GMO, predominantly commodity field corn, but it would be pretty weird to plant it in one's garden. I plant many different varieties of corn, all heirloom, all genetically modified, none GMO.

    Actually, GMO is used for things beyond transgenics. Arctic Apples are labeled GMO but they are not transgenic, they are instead created using RNA silencing techniques. Transgenic in genetics actually has a specific meaning in that DNA (genes) are taken across species.
    It isn't dishonest to say all domesticated crops are GMO, it is just pushing back on how a term is being used dishonestly from the begin, pretending there is some natural genetics that are immutable in plants (or animals) that haven't been modified and thus are natural. Not to mention, plenty of plant species that are still organic and I think even some that could be labeled heirloom are created using mutagenics. That is why using the precise term such as transgenics, selective breeding, RNA silencing, mutagenics, etc are what a genuine and informed conversation should involve.

    And frankly, if one wants to get into it, all life is transgenic due to viral activity. You have DNA right now that comes from a non-human evolutionary paths. Though I'm find with the understanding that when someone is talking about transgenics in agriculture, they probably mean things lab done glyphosate resistance or Bt trait rather than referring to the fact that the sweet potato comes from a transgene ancestor.
  • French_PeasantFrench_Peasant Posts: 1,631Member Member Posts: 1,631Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?

    Corn is a GMO :smile:
    Reson: We like corn

    We also use a lot of hybrids and some people consider them to be GMO since they have been genetically modified.

    @qpmomma1 GMO refers specifically to varieties that are created using transgenic technologies, in which a gene unique to one organism is inserted into an alien organism. Hybrids are created using traditional breeding techniques, either can be human-directed or occurring under natural pressures (Darwinian selection rather than human selection). Basically every organism that exists is genetically modified as there are a variety of genetic pressures being put upon it, but GMO can only get its start in a lab, not through traditional breeding methods.

    I suspect you don't have a very in-depth understanding of this, but you may have read or heard an argument in which someone advocating for GMOs tried to make the case that "GMOs are okay because we've been eating GMOs for millenia". While there are many strong points to GMOs, any person or entity that attempts to make this case is either ignorant or deliberately being deceitful, and in either case is completely non-credible.

    What is the exact corn that you are planting in your garden? *Some* recently-developed corn is GMO, predominantly commodity field corn, but it would be pretty weird to plant it in one's garden. I plant many different varieties of corn, all heirloom, all genetically modified, none GMO.

    Actually, GMO is used for things beyond transgenics. Arctic Apples are labeled GMO but they are not transgenic, they are instead created using RNA silencing techniques. Transgenic in genetics actually has a specific meaning in that DNA (genes) are taken across species.
    It isn't dishonest to say all domesticated crops are GMO, it is just pushing back on how a term is being used dishonestly from the begin, pretending there is some natural genetics that are immutable in plants (or animals) that haven't been modified and thus are natural. Not to mention, plenty of plant species that are still organic and I think even some that could be labeled heirloom are created using mutagenics. That is why using the precise term such as transgenics, selective breeding, RNA silencing, mutagenics, etc are what a genuine and informed conversation should involve.

    And frankly, if one wants to get into it, all life is transgenic due to viral activity. You have DNA right now that comes from a non-human evolutionary paths. Though I'm find with the understanding that when someone is talking about transgenics in agriculture, they probably mean things lab done glyphosate resistance or Bt trait rather than referring to the fact that the sweet potato comes from a transgene ancestor.

    I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was deceitful, aka, usually being employed as a strategem or rhetorical sleight-of-hand (when coming from a knowledgeable commentator). I was very careful in my choice of words. :p

    There is plenty of deception coming from organic proponents too, such as the claim one sometimes hears that they don't use any poisons, or what you are suggesting, that genetics are being presented as immutable (I have not seen this latter argument) and in both cases they deserve to be called out.

    Regarding viruses, that is why I specifically link GMO to its laboratory roots above, as would the vast majority of educated commentators who are not up to some sort of shenanigans. Probably someone, somewhere, has made the argument that GMO is 100% fine because all of life is transgenic, and they are regrettably likely not questioned about the horrific slaughter of organisms that stems from this viral interface over millenia. :D

    You are correct that there are heirloom organics available that are the result of mutagenic processes...and it raises a good question why people who are concerned about transgenic engineering aren't concerned about mutagenic engineering.

    ETA smiley
    edited June 4
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 797Member Member Posts: 797Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?

    Corn is a GMO :smile:
    Reson: We like corn

    We also use a lot of hybrids and some people consider them to be GMO since they have been genetically modified.

    @qpmomma1 GMO refers specifically to varieties that are created using transgenic technologies, in which a gene unique to one organism is inserted into an alien organism. Hybrids are created using traditional breeding techniques, either can be human-directed or occurring under natural pressures (Darwinian selection rather than human selection). Basically every organism that exists is genetically modified as there are a variety of genetic pressures being put upon it, but GMO can only get its start in a lab, not through traditional breeding methods.

    I suspect you don't have a very in-depth understanding of this, but you may have read or heard an argument in which someone advocating for GMOs tried to make the case that "GMOs are okay because we've been eating GMOs for millenia". While there are many strong points to GMOs, any person or entity that attempts to make this case is either ignorant or deliberately being deceitful, and in either case is completely non-credible.

    What is the exact corn that you are planting in your garden? *Some* recently-developed corn is GMO, predominantly commodity field corn, but it would be pretty weird to plant it in one's garden. I plant many different varieties of corn, all heirloom, all genetically modified, none GMO.

    Actually, GMO is used for things beyond transgenics. Arctic Apples are labeled GMO but they are not transgenic, they are instead created using RNA silencing techniques. Transgenic in genetics actually has a specific meaning in that DNA (genes) are taken across species.
    It isn't dishonest to say all domesticated crops are GMO, it is just pushing back on how a term is being used dishonestly from the begin, pretending there is some natural genetics that are immutable in plants (or animals) that haven't been modified and thus are natural. Not to mention, plenty of plant species that are still organic and I think even some that could be labeled heirloom are created using mutagenics. That is why using the precise term such as transgenics, selective breeding, RNA silencing, mutagenics, etc are what a genuine and informed conversation should involve.

    And frankly, if one wants to get into it, all life is transgenic due to viral activity. You have DNA right now that comes from a non-human evolutionary paths. Though I'm find with the understanding that when someone is talking about transgenics in agriculture, they probably mean things lab done glyphosate resistance or Bt trait rather than referring to the fact that the sweet potato comes from a transgene ancestor.

    I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was deceitful, aka, usually being employed as a strategem or rhetorical sleight-of-hand (when coming from a knowledgeable commentator). I was very careful in my choice of words. :p

    There is plenty of deception coming from organic proponents too, such as the claim one sometimes hears that they don't use any poisons, or what you are suggesting, that genetics are being presented as immutable (I have not seen this latter argument) and in both cases they deserve to be called out.

    Regarding viruses, that is why I specifically link GMO to its laboratory roots above, as would the vast majority of educated commentators who are not up to some sort of shenanigans. Probably someone, somewhere, has made the argument that GMO is 100% fine because all of life is transgenic, and they are regrettably likely not questioned about the horrific slaughter of organisms that stems from this viral interface over millenia. :D

    You are correct that there are heirloom organics available that are the result of mutagenic processes...and it raises a good question why people who are concerned about transgenic engineering aren't concerned about mutagenic engineering.

    ETA smiley
    I fail to see the meaningful distinction you draw between dishonest and deceitful. Your explanation of deceitful seems to be a subcategory of dishonest with a particular purpose. In neither case is drawing out the definition really actually defending that it is either.

    The immutability of genetics isn't a direct argument, but rather an implication in wanting to use the term Genetically Modified Organism - the contrast would - if we're talking organisms - be something that had genes that had not modified or changed. I think this pushes on people's natural faulty appeals to tradition - that there existed a golden age, and that it also applies even to genes, so that now, things moving away from those genes must be getting worse - that entropy is even winding down life. I think that even without necessarily being conscious of it, people wanting to use GMO to dissuade people are relying on that kind of feeling.

    I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth, and even greater compared to the safety of natural conditions in the universe.
    The point in comparing transgenics is to show there's nothing inherently unnatural about transgenics because most people worried about something being done in lab are fallaciously applying an appeal to nature fallacy. I also fail to see the relevance in pointing out viruses are harmful, as if that is supposed to imply something about transgenic traits transferred by them that persist through generations showing they are neutral at worst, and almost certainly beneficial if they show strong fixation in the gene pool.

    I imagine I see the raised question of mutagenics differently than you do. I think it has an answer - most people that aren't concerned about mutagenics aren't because they just flat out don't know what they are, or if they have any knowledge, they don't understand the difference in how it is massive hammering with a cudgel where as transgenics is far more like the precision of a scalpel.
  • French_PeasantFrench_Peasant Posts: 1,631Member Member Posts: 1,631Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?

    Corn is a GMO :smile:
    Reson: We like corn

    We also use a lot of hybrids and some people consider them to be GMO since they have been genetically modified.

    @qpmomma1 GMO refers specifically to varieties that are created using transgenic technologies, in which a gene unique to one organism is inserted into an alien organism. Hybrids are created using traditional breeding techniques, either can be human-directed or occurring under natural pressures (Darwinian selection rather than human selection). Basically every organism that exists is genetically modified as there are a variety of genetic pressures being put upon it, but GMO can only get its start in a lab, not through traditional breeding methods.

    I suspect you don't have a very in-depth understanding of this, but you may have read or heard an argument in which someone advocating for GMOs tried to make the case that "GMOs are okay because we've been eating GMOs for millenia". While there are many strong points to GMOs, any person or entity that attempts to make this case is either ignorant or deliberately being deceitful, and in either case is completely non-credible.

    What is the exact corn that you are planting in your garden? *Some* recently-developed corn is GMO, predominantly commodity field corn, but it would be pretty weird to plant it in one's garden. I plant many different varieties of corn, all heirloom, all genetically modified, none GMO.

    Actually, GMO is used for things beyond transgenics. Arctic Apples are labeled GMO but they are not transgenic, they are instead created using RNA silencing techniques. Transgenic in genetics actually has a specific meaning in that DNA (genes) are taken across species.
    It isn't dishonest to say all domesticated crops are GMO, it is just pushing back on how a term is being used dishonestly from the begin, pretending there is some natural genetics that are immutable in plants (or animals) that haven't been modified and thus are natural. Not to mention, plenty of plant species that are still organic and I think even some that could be labeled heirloom are created using mutagenics. That is why using the precise term such as transgenics, selective breeding, RNA silencing, mutagenics, etc are what a genuine and informed conversation should involve.

    And frankly, if one wants to get into it, all life is transgenic due to viral activity. You have DNA right now that comes from a non-human evolutionary paths. Though I'm find with the understanding that when someone is talking about transgenics in agriculture, they probably mean things lab done glyphosate resistance or Bt trait rather than referring to the fact that the sweet potato comes from a transgene ancestor.

    I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was deceitful, aka, usually being employed as a strategem or rhetorical sleight-of-hand (when coming from a knowledgeable commentator). I was very careful in my choice of words. :p

    There is plenty of deception coming from organic proponents too, such as the claim one sometimes hears that they don't use any poisons, or what you are suggesting, that genetics are being presented as immutable (I have not seen this latter argument) and in both cases they deserve to be called out.

    Regarding viruses, that is why I specifically link GMO to its laboratory roots above, as would the vast majority of educated commentators who are not up to some sort of shenanigans. Probably someone, somewhere, has made the argument that GMO is 100% fine because all of life is transgenic, and they are regrettably likely not questioned about the horrific slaughter of organisms that stems from this viral interface over millenia. :D

    You are correct that there are heirloom organics available that are the result of mutagenic processes...and it raises a good question why people who are concerned about transgenic engineering aren't concerned about mutagenic engineering.

    ETA smiley
    I fail to see the meaningful distinction you draw between dishonest and deceitful. Your explanation of deceitful seems to be a subcategory of dishonest with a particular purpose. In neither case is drawing out the definition really actually defending that it is either.

    The immutability of genetics isn't a direct argument, but rather an implication in wanting to use the term Genetically Modified Organism - the contrast would - if we're talking organisms - be something that had genes that had not modified or changed. I think this pushes on people's natural faulty appeals to tradition - that there existed a golden age, and that it also applies even to genes, so that now, things moving away from those genes must be getting worse - that entropy is even winding down life. I think that even without necessarily being conscious of it, people wanting to use GMO to dissuade people are relying on that kind of feeling.

    I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth, and even greater compared to the safety of natural conditions in the universe.
    The point in comparing transgenics is to show there's nothing inherently unnatural about transgenics because most people worried about something being done in lab are fallaciously applying an appeal to nature fallacy. I also fail to see the relevance in pointing out viruses are harmful, as if that is supposed to imply something about transgenic traits transferred by them that persist through generations showing they are neutral at worst, and almost certainly beneficial if they show strong fixation in the gene pool.

    I imagine I see the raised question of mutagenics differently than you do. I think it has an answer - most people that aren't concerned about mutagenics aren't because they just flat out don't know what they are, or if they have any knowledge, they don't understand the difference in how it is massive hammering with a cudgel where as transgenics is far more like the precision of a scalpel.

    The distinction between dishonest and deceptive is that one can be deceptive without being dishonest. For example, here is an example of a non-deceptive conversation:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: First of all, I don't like the term GMO, I wish that the media used the term GEO, because even your Beefmaster tomatoes are technically GMOs. But that aside, labeling is unnecessary, because you can always buy USDA organic foods that are certified GMO-free. I personally don't think it is something to worry about as the USDA and FDA have provided assurances it is safe, and they are very rigorous in their vetting.

    And here is that same conversation using the kind of deceptiveness (but not dishonesty) that I have seen in dozens of such conversations:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: It's silly to even worry about it. You are already eating GMOs and you are in fact growing GMOs in your garden. We've been growing and eating GMOs for centuries, just about everything you buy at the grocery is a GMO, and we know that they are completely safe--your Beefmaster genetics aren't going to kill you. So there is no need for labeling GMOs--they have been shown to be completely safe through history.

    What i find to be very interesting is that you are using the same deceptive-but-not-dishonest rhetorical techniques:

    "I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth..."

    First, an ad hominem attack suggesting I mentioned labs, not as a neutral tool/facility in which genetic engineering is created, but because I have some kind of "intuition" that they are "bad", which is not what I said at all. All I said was, it's where genetic engineering happens (unless you know of farmers using recombinant DNA techniques out in the back 40). I would certainly hope it would be clear that my comments in this thread are based on deep and broad reading, research, formal training, and hands-on practice in agricultural and scientific matters, so I am perplexed by your rhetorical choice to employ a logical fallacy to reduce it to "muh feelz."

    In the next sentence, you replace the concept of "labs in general" with the careful phrase "labs with the intent to make something safe for people." Well, certainly no one can argue that labs designed for safety purposes have a better track record than raw Darwinian nature. But as you and I both know, there are all kinds of labs, from Hitler's assorted labs to labs that might be weaponizing military-grade smallpox to labs that are dedicated to a profit motive and held to certain standards to labs that are 100% dedicated to safety. Sometimes they can be a mixed bag of great good and horrifying evil, such as any lab where Fritz Haber set up shop. At any rate, for some reason, you are trying to twist my neutral reference to labs into a demonstration that I am "bass-ackwards" to "intuit" that they are "bad" when [insert selected labs here] are actually quite wonderful.

    Very cleverly constructed, but again, I don't understand the need for shenanigans and squirreliness, aka, deceptiveness.

    I am basically 100% agreeing with you on viruses (like labs a neutral tool in general; but ranging from destructive to beneficial in particular) and mutagenics (people r dumb).
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 797Member Member Posts: 797Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?

    Corn is a GMO :smile:
    Reson: We like corn

    We also use a lot of hybrids and some people consider them to be GMO since they have been genetically modified.

    @qpmomma1 GMO refers specifically to varieties that are created using transgenic technologies, in which a gene unique to one organism is inserted into an alien organism. Hybrids are created using traditional breeding techniques, either can be human-directed or occurring under natural pressures (Darwinian selection rather than human selection). Basically every organism that exists is genetically modified as there are a variety of genetic pressures being put upon it, but GMO can only get its start in a lab, not through traditional breeding methods.

    I suspect you don't have a very in-depth understanding of this, but you may have read or heard an argument in which someone advocating for GMOs tried to make the case that "GMOs are okay because we've been eating GMOs for millenia". While there are many strong points to GMOs, any person or entity that attempts to make this case is either ignorant or deliberately being deceitful, and in either case is completely non-credible.

    What is the exact corn that you are planting in your garden? *Some* recently-developed corn is GMO, predominantly commodity field corn, but it would be pretty weird to plant it in one's garden. I plant many different varieties of corn, all heirloom, all genetically modified, none GMO.

    Actually, GMO is used for things beyond transgenics. Arctic Apples are labeled GMO but they are not transgenic, they are instead created using RNA silencing techniques. Transgenic in genetics actually has a specific meaning in that DNA (genes) are taken across species.
    It isn't dishonest to say all domesticated crops are GMO, it is just pushing back on how a term is being used dishonestly from the begin, pretending there is some natural genetics that are immutable in plants (or animals) that haven't been modified and thus are natural. Not to mention, plenty of plant species that are still organic and I think even some that could be labeled heirloom are created using mutagenics. That is why using the precise term such as transgenics, selective breeding, RNA silencing, mutagenics, etc are what a genuine and informed conversation should involve.

    And frankly, if one wants to get into it, all life is transgenic due to viral activity. You have DNA right now that comes from a non-human evolutionary paths. Though I'm find with the understanding that when someone is talking about transgenics in agriculture, they probably mean things lab done glyphosate resistance or Bt trait rather than referring to the fact that the sweet potato comes from a transgene ancestor.

    I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was deceitful, aka, usually being employed as a strategem or rhetorical sleight-of-hand (when coming from a knowledgeable commentator). I was very careful in my choice of words. :p

    There is plenty of deception coming from organic proponents too, such as the claim one sometimes hears that they don't use any poisons, or what you are suggesting, that genetics are being presented as immutable (I have not seen this latter argument) and in both cases they deserve to be called out.

    Regarding viruses, that is why I specifically link GMO to its laboratory roots above, as would the vast majority of educated commentators who are not up to some sort of shenanigans. Probably someone, somewhere, has made the argument that GMO is 100% fine because all of life is transgenic, and they are regrettably likely not questioned about the horrific slaughter of organisms that stems from this viral interface over millenia. :D

    You are correct that there are heirloom organics available that are the result of mutagenic processes...and it raises a good question why people who are concerned about transgenic engineering aren't concerned about mutagenic engineering.

    ETA smiley
    I fail to see the meaningful distinction you draw between dishonest and deceitful. Your explanation of deceitful seems to be a subcategory of dishonest with a particular purpose. In neither case is drawing out the definition really actually defending that it is either.

    The immutability of genetics isn't a direct argument, but rather an implication in wanting to use the term Genetically Modified Organism - the contrast would - if we're talking organisms - be something that had genes that had not modified or changed. I think this pushes on people's natural faulty appeals to tradition - that there existed a golden age, and that it also applies even to genes, so that now, things moving away from those genes must be getting worse - that entropy is even winding down life. I think that even without necessarily being conscious of it, people wanting to use GMO to dissuade people are relying on that kind of feeling.

    I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth, and even greater compared to the safety of natural conditions in the universe.
    The point in comparing transgenics is to show there's nothing inherently unnatural about transgenics because most people worried about something being done in lab are fallaciously applying an appeal to nature fallacy. I also fail to see the relevance in pointing out viruses are harmful, as if that is supposed to imply something about transgenic traits transferred by them that persist through generations showing they are neutral at worst, and almost certainly beneficial if they show strong fixation in the gene pool.

    I imagine I see the raised question of mutagenics differently than you do. I think it has an answer - most people that aren't concerned about mutagenics aren't because they just flat out don't know what they are, or if they have any knowledge, they don't understand the difference in how it is massive hammering with a cudgel where as transgenics is far more like the precision of a scalpel.

    The distinction between dishonest and deceptive is that one can be deceptive without being dishonest. For example, here is an example of a non-deceptive conversation:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: First of all, I don't like the term GMO, I wish that the media used the term GEO, because even your Beefmaster tomatoes are technically GMOs. But that aside, labeling is unnecessary, because you can always buy USDA organic foods that are certified GMO-free. I personally don't think it is something to worry about as the USDA and FDA have provided assurances it is safe, and they are very rigorous in their vetting.

    And here is that same conversation using the kind of deceptiveness (but not dishonesty) that I have seen in dozens of such conversations:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: It's silly to even worry about it. You are already eating GMOs and you are in fact growing GMOs in your garden. We've been growing and eating GMOs for centuries, just about everything you buy at the grocery is a GMO, and we know that they are completely safe--your Beefmaster genetics aren't going to kill you. So there is no need for labeling GMOs--they have been shown to be completely safe through history.

    What i find to be very interesting is that you are using the same deceptive-but-not-dishonest rhetorical techniques:

    "I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth..."

    First, an ad hominem attack suggesting I mentioned labs, not as a neutral tool/facility in which genetic engineering is created, but because I have some kind of "intuition" that they are "bad", which is not what I said at all. All I said was, it's where genetic engineering happens (unless you know of farmers using recombinant DNA techniques out in the back 40). I would certainly hope it would be clear that my comments in this thread are based on deep and broad reading, research, formal training, and hands-on practice in agricultural and scientific matters, so I am perplexed by your rhetorical choice to employ a logical fallacy to reduce it to "muh feelz."

    In the next sentence, you replace the concept of "labs in general" with the careful phrase "labs with the intent to make something safe for people." Well, certainly no one can argue that labs designed for safety purposes have a better track record than raw Darwinian nature. But as you and I both know, there are all kinds of labs, from Hitler's assorted labs to labs that might be weaponizing military-grade smallpox to labs that are dedicated to a profit motive and held to certain standards to labs that are 100% dedicated to safety. Sometimes they can be a mixed bag of great good and horrifying evil, such as any lab where Fritz Haber set up shop. At any rate, for some reason, you are trying to twist my neutral reference to labs into a demonstration that I am "bass-ackwards" to "intuit" that they are "bad" when [insert selected labs here] are actually quite wonderful.

    Very cleverly constructed, but again, I don't understand the need for shenanigans and squirreliness, aka, deceptiveness.

    I am basically 100% agreeing with you on viruses (like labs a neutral tool in general; but ranging from destructive to beneficial in particular) and mutagenics (people r dumb).

    Sorry, not seeing how the way you're considering that it isn't dishonest, but if you see the distinction as having merit, you're fine with continuing it. It seems to me, even in the second conversation you're portraying the person as intentionally equivocating, which I don't see how it isn't dishonest.

    As far as ad hominem goes, are you using some kind of proprietary use of the term? An ad honimem, at least a fallacious one, is saying something about the interlocutor disproves their point, rather than actually engaging with the point. What you are accusing me of would be more properly called a strawman - that you feel I'm assigning arguments to you that you haven't made. You could take note though, I never assigned that opinion to you - I distinctly said "why anyone". If my digression came off as strawmanning you in particular because you have no problem with lab generated food, my apologies. Can I take it you don't feel there is some reason to label the various biotech developments that are done via a lab? As far as saying I should intuit your opinion as coming from deep knowledge, why? You've used GMO as interchangeable with transgenic and done in a lab, when all three have distinctions.

    I didn't replace any concept. I defined it. If you think there are labs out there that don't have an intent to keep their customers alive, go ahead with that. My experience is that anyone I've met in biotech is interested in not killing or harming people. Though thanks for showing the conversation has gone on long enough to reach Godwin's Law. I just really don't see the relevance in mentioning it is possible to have a lab generating anthrax in a conversation about agriculture.

    Interesting take on squirrelness. Does it apply to you bringing up that it is possible for labs with a weapon making profit motive to exist in a conversation about agricultural biotech? I don't want us talking at cross purposes, so let's be clear - I'm talking about biotech labs that are developing agricultural products for farmers, with the intent that it will eventually feed people. I'm not talking about military labs, and can't really see their relevance in a discussion on GMOs.
  • French_PeasantFrench_Peasant Posts: 1,631Member Member Posts: 1,631Member Member
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    qpmomma1 wrote: »
    My vegetables are locally sourced and organic. I have a vegetable garden. :)

    Nope. Not pay extra at the supermarket for "organic" which in this context is a completely unregulated term and who knows what it means.

    We also have a garden and ours isn't organic. We use conventional fertilizers and GMO plants and seeds. :smile:

    Just out of curiosity--because I have to admit to being somewhat pitch-kettled by the thought of using valuable garden space for, say, the tasty AG21X7 or some DKC50-08RIB ("MmmmmmOnsanto-Licious!") instead of, say, Cherokee Purples and Brandywines (or even a decent hybrid)--which transgenic (GMO) plants and seeds are you planting in your personal garden, and why?

    Corn is a GMO :smile:
    Reson: We like corn

    We also use a lot of hybrids and some people consider them to be GMO since they have been genetically modified.

    @qpmomma1 GMO refers specifically to varieties that are created using transgenic technologies, in which a gene unique to one organism is inserted into an alien organism. Hybrids are created using traditional breeding techniques, either can be human-directed or occurring under natural pressures (Darwinian selection rather than human selection). Basically every organism that exists is genetically modified as there are a variety of genetic pressures being put upon it, but GMO can only get its start in a lab, not through traditional breeding methods.

    I suspect you don't have a very in-depth understanding of this, but you may have read or heard an argument in which someone advocating for GMOs tried to make the case that "GMOs are okay because we've been eating GMOs for millenia". While there are many strong points to GMOs, any person or entity that attempts to make this case is either ignorant or deliberately being deceitful, and in either case is completely non-credible.

    What is the exact corn that you are planting in your garden? *Some* recently-developed corn is GMO, predominantly commodity field corn, but it would be pretty weird to plant it in one's garden. I plant many different varieties of corn, all heirloom, all genetically modified, none GMO.

    Actually, GMO is used for things beyond transgenics. Arctic Apples are labeled GMO but they are not transgenic, they are instead created using RNA silencing techniques. Transgenic in genetics actually has a specific meaning in that DNA (genes) are taken across species.
    It isn't dishonest to say all domesticated crops are GMO, it is just pushing back on how a term is being used dishonestly from the begin, pretending there is some natural genetics that are immutable in plants (or animals) that haven't been modified and thus are natural. Not to mention, plenty of plant species that are still organic and I think even some that could be labeled heirloom are created using mutagenics. That is why using the precise term such as transgenics, selective breeding, RNA silencing, mutagenics, etc are what a genuine and informed conversation should involve.

    And frankly, if one wants to get into it, all life is transgenic due to viral activity. You have DNA right now that comes from a non-human evolutionary paths. Though I'm find with the understanding that when someone is talking about transgenics in agriculture, they probably mean things lab done glyphosate resistance or Bt trait rather than referring to the fact that the sweet potato comes from a transgene ancestor.

    I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was deceitful, aka, usually being employed as a strategem or rhetorical sleight-of-hand (when coming from a knowledgeable commentator). I was very careful in my choice of words. :p

    There is plenty of deception coming from organic proponents too, such as the claim one sometimes hears that they don't use any poisons, or what you are suggesting, that genetics are being presented as immutable (I have not seen this latter argument) and in both cases they deserve to be called out.

    Regarding viruses, that is why I specifically link GMO to its laboratory roots above, as would the vast majority of educated commentators who are not up to some sort of shenanigans. Probably someone, somewhere, has made the argument that GMO is 100% fine because all of life is transgenic, and they are regrettably likely not questioned about the horrific slaughter of organisms that stems from this viral interface over millenia. :D

    You are correct that there are heirloom organics available that are the result of mutagenic processes...and it raises a good question why people who are concerned about transgenic engineering aren't concerned about mutagenic engineering.

    ETA smiley
    I fail to see the meaningful distinction you draw between dishonest and deceitful. Your explanation of deceitful seems to be a subcategory of dishonest with a particular purpose. In neither case is drawing out the definition really actually defending that it is either.

    The immutability of genetics isn't a direct argument, but rather an implication in wanting to use the term Genetically Modified Organism - the contrast would - if we're talking organisms - be something that had genes that had not modified or changed. I think this pushes on people's natural faulty appeals to tradition - that there existed a golden age, and that it also applies even to genes, so that now, things moving away from those genes must be getting worse - that entropy is even winding down life. I think that even without necessarily being conscious of it, people wanting to use GMO to dissuade people are relying on that kind of feeling.

    I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth, and even greater compared to the safety of natural conditions in the universe.
    The point in comparing transgenics is to show there's nothing inherently unnatural about transgenics because most people worried about something being done in lab are fallaciously applying an appeal to nature fallacy. I also fail to see the relevance in pointing out viruses are harmful, as if that is supposed to imply something about transgenic traits transferred by them that persist through generations showing they are neutral at worst, and almost certainly beneficial if they show strong fixation in the gene pool.

    I imagine I see the raised question of mutagenics differently than you do. I think it has an answer - most people that aren't concerned about mutagenics aren't because they just flat out don't know what they are, or if they have any knowledge, they don't understand the difference in how it is massive hammering with a cudgel where as transgenics is far more like the precision of a scalpel.

    The distinction between dishonest and deceptive is that one can be deceptive without being dishonest. For example, here is an example of a non-deceptive conversation:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: First of all, I don't like the term GMO, I wish that the media used the term GEO, because even your Beefmaster tomatoes are technically GMOs. But that aside, labeling is unnecessary, because you can always buy USDA organic foods that are certified GMO-free. I personally don't think it is something to worry about as the USDA and FDA have provided assurances it is safe, and they are very rigorous in their vetting.

    And here is that same conversation using the kind of deceptiveness (but not dishonesty) that I have seen in dozens of such conversations:

    Uneducated person: I really want GMOs to be labeled; I don't want to eat this dangerous stuff.
    Educated person: It's silly to even worry about it. You are already eating GMOs and you are in fact growing GMOs in your garden. We've been growing and eating GMOs for centuries, just about everything you buy at the grocery is a GMO, and we know that they are completely safe--your Beefmaster genetics aren't going to kill you. So there is no need for labeling GMOs--they have been shown to be completely safe through history.

    What i find to be very interesting is that you are using the same deceptive-but-not-dishonest rhetorical techniques:

    "I also fail to see the relevance of what is done in a lab versus what is not, or more precisely fail to see why anyone should feel it a bad thing. Frankly, it strikes me relying on an intuition that is, frankly, bass ackwards. Labs with the intent to make something safe for people are, in probability, far, far more likely to be safe than the average of life on this Earth..."

    First, an ad hominem attack suggesting I mentioned labs, not as a neutral tool/facility in which genetic engineering is created, but because I have some kind of "intuition" that they are "bad", which is not what I said at all. All I said was, it's where genetic engineering happens (unless you know of farmers using recombinant DNA techniques out in the back 40). I would certainly hope it would be clear that my comments in this thread are based on deep and broad reading, research, formal training, and hands-on practice in agricultural and scientific matters, so I am perplexed by your rhetorical choice to employ a logical fallacy to reduce it to "muh feelz."

    In the next sentence, you replace the concept of "labs in general" with the careful phrase "labs with the intent to make something safe for people." Well, certainly no one can argue that labs designed for safety purposes have a better track record than raw Darwinian nature. But as you and I both know, there are all kinds of labs, from Hitler's assorted labs to labs that might be weaponizing military-grade smallpox to labs that are dedicated to a profit motive and held to certain standards to labs that are 100% dedicated to safety. Sometimes they can be a mixed bag of great good and horrifying evil, such as any lab where Fritz Haber set up shop. At any rate, for some reason, you are trying to twist my neutral reference to labs into a demonstration that I am "bass-ackwards" to "intuit" that they are "bad" when [insert selected labs here] are actually quite wonderful.

    Very cleverly constructed, but again, I don't understand the need for shenanigans and squirreliness, aka, deceptiveness.

    I am basically 100% agreeing with you on viruses (like labs a neutral tool in general; but ranging from destructive to beneficial in particular) and mutagenics (people r dumb).

    Sorry, not seeing how the way you're considering that it isn't dishonest, but if you see the distinction as having merit, you're fine with continuing it. It seems to me, even in the second conversation you're portraying the person as intentionally equivocating, which I don't see how it isn't dishonest.

    As far as ad hominem goes, are you using some kind of proprietary use of the term? An ad honimem, at least a fallacious one, is saying something about the interlocutor disproves their point, rather than actually engaging with the point. What you are accusing me of would be more properly called a strawman - that you feel I'm assigning arguments to you that you haven't made. You could take note though, I never assigned that opinion to you - I distinctly said "why anyone". If my digression came off as strawmanning you in particular because you have no problem with lab generated food, my apologies. Can I take it you don't feel there is some reason to label the various biotech developments that are done via a lab? As far as saying I should intuit your opinion as coming from deep knowledge, why? You've used GMO as interchangeable with transgenic and done in a lab, when all three have distinctions.

    I didn't replace any concept. I defined it. If you think there are labs out there that don't have an intent to keep their customers alive, go ahead with that. My experience is that anyone I've met in biotech is interested in not killing or harming people. Though thanks for showing the conversation has gone on long enough to reach Godwin's Law. I just really don't see the relevance in mentioning it is possible to have a lab generating anthrax in a conversation about agriculture.

    Interesting take on squirrelness. Does it apply to you bringing up that it is possible for labs with a weapon making profit motive to exist in a conversation about agricultural biotech? I don't want us talking at cross purposes, so let's be clear - I'm talking about biotech labs that are developing agricultural products for farmers, with the intent that it will eventually feed people. I'm not talking about military labs, and can't really see their relevance in a discussion on GMOs.

    Well, it appears that you've managed to combine two fallacies into one, strawman AND abusive ad hominem, which includes attacks on credibility. It's quite the accomplishment.

    I'm still not sure why your knickers are in a twist over the terminology. I originally used the USDA terminology it applies to organic regulation, in which GMOs are specifically prohibited. Surely you are not suggesting that the USDA has prohibited all foods? Or that they are entirely lacking in credibility because they present publications equating GMOs and genetic engineering, which is imprecise use of terminology, directly contradicting terminology they have elsewhere on the site?

    https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-organic-products
    https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/biotechnology-glossary

    Regarding the connection between agriculture and warfare, my point was to illustrate that there are labs with practices ranging from good to evil and every point in between. But it's certainly a legitimate point to raise, how food has been and can be weaponized as a matter of a state's sense of national security. The specific example I provided has a very fundamental connection to agriculture, and no, it wasn't his customers that Haber was planning to kill. Here's a few suggested topics for further illumination: Haber-Bosch Process, Zyklon A and B, Green Revolution. Also, you might want to do a little more research on anthrax and its origins before suggesting that it has no relevance for an agricultural discussion.





  • noel2fitnoel2fit Posts: 183Member Member Posts: 183Member Member
    Money is no issue and I do buy $200 weekly groceries from Whole Foods exclusively, except when the farmer's market is open, then I pay $6 for 1 bunch of asparagus because I love my local organic farmers and want them to keep up the good work!

    From my perspective, if money is no issue, and at best organics could offer health benefits, and at worst are exactly the same as conventional, then why not? Are any of the studies being posted considering the environmental effects of conventional vs organic farming on the topsoil, ground water, bees, and local ecosystems?
Sign In or Register to comment.