Supersize Me

[Acanthus]

you need a havent seen it button, so the bar can be 40x as long as the other 2.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Amused

And yes, I know what "organic" foods are. They are a marketing scam costing buyers 50-100% more for their foods, and an EXTREMELY inefficient way to grow foods with NO, NONE, NADA proven health benefits.

Whoa. A marketing scam?

A MARKETING scam? WTF?

I'd expect more from you.

You don't know anything about organic gardening. Inefficient? How on Earth do you figure? If you mean on an energy spent producing the crop basis, you are dead wrong.

As for the "proven health benefits" .... It does not take a rocket scientist to tell you that pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers in any quantity are going to be worse for you than not being exposed to them in the first place. That's just plain common sense.

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to put people down because they care about their bodies.

Again, produce one valid, peer reviewed and repeated study showing eaters of "organic" foods live longer, or healthier lives than people who eat comparable standard food diets.

You cannot.

And yes, organic food costs more to produce because it's an extremely inefficient and wasteful way to grow and produce foods.

Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are all useful chemicals that, when use properly and safely, are largely responsible for our increased lifespan, healthier diets and cheap, plentiful foods.

Were all food production to revert to "organic" (read: archaic) we would have mass starvation all over the world. It's THAT inefficent.

"Let me be clear about one other thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ?organic? a value judgment about nutrition or quality,? -- Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in announcing the new rules.

Why does he say that? Because there is NO, NONE, NADA proof that eating foods labled "organic" offers ANY benefit whatsoever.

The only people who should be ashamed are those spreading and believing irrational fears over perfectly safe foods.

 

[Eli]

Ah, I see what you meant by "marketing scam". You are right, but that doesen't negate that in order to carry the label, the food does have to be organic.

That is what it guarentees. You're right, it doesen't have anything to do with food safety, nutrition or quality.

However, plants that are organically grown have the potential to do at least as well, if not better than their chemically risen sisters. The ground they are grown in is more likely to be nutrious and have every one of the 50+ elements found in the natural world, as opposed to the ten that get added when we use chemical fertilizers.

What I'm saying is that ... Foods without the organic label most definately have no assurance of food safety, nutrition or quality... At least no more so than the foods that do carry the label.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, produce one valid, peer reviewed and repeated study showing eaters of "organic" foods live longer, or healthier lives than people who eat comparable standard food diets.

You cannot.

And yes, organic food costs more to produce because it's an extremely inefficient and wasteful way to grow and produce foods.

Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are all useful chemicals that, when use properly and safely, are largely responsible for our increased lifespan, healthier diets and cheap, plentiful foods.

Were all food production to revert to "organic" (read: archaic) we would have mass starvation all over the world. It's THAT inefficent.

"Let me be clear about one other thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ?organic? a value judgment about nutrition or quality,? -- Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in announcing the new rules.

Why does he say that? Because there is NO, NONE, NADA proof that eating foods labled "organic" offers ANY benefit whatsoever.

The only people who should be ashamed are those spreading and believing irrational fears over perfectly safe foods.

You're right, but you still don't know anything about organic gardening.

If you had a firm grasp of the concepts involved, you would understand.

You would understand that there are people that care about what they ingest. That's the bottom line.

If someone does not want to eat pesticides, who are YOU to say that they are being irrational? I don't care how you try and spin it... Of course (chemicals) are beneficial to the people growing the produce.. they don't have to worry about bugs, and even chemical fertilizers will produce better crops than unmanaged soil.

Saying that agricultural chemicals are one of the reasons we're living longer is quite crazy, IMO. They are beneficial to nobody except the people selling the crops, and perhaps the crops themselves.

Our medical prowess is responsible for 95% of it.

I'd bet you can find statistics that say people that "eat organic" are healthier. The problem is that the people most likely to eat organic are also most likely to be diet-conscious in the first place, so it may not necessarily be the organic part of the diet that is causing them to be healthy.

You can't possibly argue that an organic salad is worse for you in any way than a normal one... lol

Remember, most of our health problems are related to diet. You shouldn't chastize people for trying to eat healthy, unless they're following the organic label blindly or something.

Most people that buy organic are informed.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Legend

As Amused has said (many, many times I might add), this would happen to him even if he was forcefully eating that "all-natural organic" crap his bitch vegan girlfriend eats.

There's no way a balanced organic food diet would result in increasing LDL, decreasing HDL, weight gain, and just feeling terrible. Quite the opposite actually. He could stuff himself with vegetables, but he's not going to gain weight from it.

"organic"? What do you have against organic food? Oh noes, someone wants to eat something not soaked in pesticides/herbicides!

Bullsh!t.

Force feeding ANY food 3-5 times your normal calorie intake will cause EVERY single symptom he had. As I said before, they do it to geese with (whole) grains to produce an enlarged, fatty liver for Foie Gras.

The man ate past the point of feeling full on a consistent basis. He ate to the point of feeling physically ill on a consistent basis. He constantly gorged himself. NO ONE does this unless they have an eating disorder. Even the super obese with increased, abnormal appetites only eat until stuffed. They don't continue eating past the point of feeling physically ill.

As for "organic" foods, it's a scam that makes you pay twice for your foods. There is NO valid study that show eaters of organic foods live longer or are healthier than people who eat comparable standard food diets.

"Let me be clear about one other thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ?organic? a value judgment about nutrition or quality,? -- Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in announcing the new rules.

We owe our long lives and plentiful foods to modern farming practices. Were all foods to be produced "organically" we would have mass starvation all over the world. It's an unnecessary and extremely inefficient way to grow foods.

Organic foods are a luxury item and symptom of a society that is so safe, people begin forming irrational fears over the very basic things that has made it so safe and comfortable.

did you even watch the movie?

and it is just about impossible to stuff yourself with "grains" so you get 3-5x the usual caloric intake.
:roll:

and you don't know anything about 'organic'.
:thumbsdown:

Yes, I watched the movie. If you look past the propaganda, you can see exactly what I'm talking about. Hell, he even admits to doing this IN the movie. But he knows most people wont understand the significance of gorging vs over eating.

Yes, it is possible to eat 3-5 times your normal calorie intake with ANY food. Force feeding is force feeding. It produces a UNIQUE set of symptoms. All of which match his exactly.

And yes, I know what "organic" foods are. They are a marketing scam costing buyers 50-100% more for their foods, and an EXTREMELY inefficient way to grow foods with NO, NONE, NADA proven health benefits.

the point you are missing is that it is impossible to "force" yourself [not someone to force-feed you via tube in a cage] to eat whole grains 3x your 'normal' intake . . . .OTOH, it is VERY EASY to do at McDs.

ANd you are wallowing in your own propagada against organics . . . i don't have the time to educate someone with a closed mind [nor do i care to do so]

MY pov

aloha

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli
Ah, I see what you meant by "marketing scam". You are right, but that doesen't negate that in order to carry the label, the food does have to be organic.

That is what it guarentees. You're right, it doesen't have anything to do with food safety, nutrition or quality.

However, plants that are organically grown have the potential to do at least as well, if not better than their chemically risen sisters. The ground they are grown in is more likely to be nutrious and have every one of the 50+ elements found in the natural world, as opposed to the ten that get added when we use chemical fertilizers.

What I'm saying is that ... Foods without the organic label most definately have no assurance of food safety, nutrition or quality... At least no more so than the foods that do carry the label.

Organic growers produce a yield of about half that of a conventional grower.

There IS an assurance of food safety with standard foods. The FDA and decades of studies failing to find ANY harm whatsoever from properly used chemicals. No data indicates legally applied pesticides have caused even one health problem despite more than 50 years of use on agricultural crops ? a fact that has even been acknowledged by leading pesticide critic Dr. Phil Landrigan of the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.

Modern farming techniques CREATE arable land where none existed before.

Again, were the entire world to convert to "organic" standards, billions would die of starvation. And for what purpose? NONE.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Legend

As Amused has said (many, many times I might add), this would happen to him even if he was forcefully eating that "all-natural organic" crap his bitch vegan girlfriend eats.

There's no way a balanced organic food diet would result in increasing LDL, decreasing HDL, weight gain, and just feeling terrible. Quite the opposite actually. He could stuff himself with vegetables, but he's not going to gain weight from it.

"organic"? What do you have against organic food? Oh noes, someone wants to eat something not soaked in pesticides/herbicides!

Bullsh!t.

Force feeding ANY food 3-5 times your normal calorie intake will cause EVERY single symptom he had. As I said before, they do it to geese with (whole) grains to produce an enlarged, fatty liver for Foie Gras.

The man ate past the point of feeling full on a consistent basis. He ate to the point of feeling physically ill on a consistent basis. He constantly gorged himself. NO ONE does this unless they have an eating disorder. Even the super obese with increased, abnormal appetites only eat until stuffed. They don't continue eating past the point of feeling physically ill.

As for "organic" foods, it's a scam that makes you pay twice for your foods. There is NO valid study that show eaters of organic foods live longer or are healthier than people who eat comparable standard food diets.

"Let me be clear about one other thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ?organic? a value judgment about nutrition or quality,? -- Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in announcing the new rules.

We owe our long lives and plentiful foods to modern farming practices. Were all foods to be produced "organically" we would have mass starvation all over the world. It's an unnecessary and extremely inefficient way to grow foods.

Organic foods are a luxury item and symptom of a society that is so safe, people begin forming irrational fears over the very basic things that has made it so safe and comfortable.

did you even watch the movie?

and it is just about impossible to stuff yourself with "grains" so you get 3-5x the usual caloric intake.
:roll:

and you don't know anything about 'organic'.
:thumbsdown:

Yes, I watched the movie. If you look past the propaganda, you can see exactly what I'm talking about. Hell, he even admits to doing this IN the movie. But he knows most people wont understand the significance of gorging vs over eating.

Yes, it is possible to eat 3-5 times your normal calorie intake with ANY food. Force feeding is force feeding. It produces a UNIQUE set of symptoms. All of which match his exactly.

And yes, I know what "organic" foods are. They are a marketing scam costing buyers 50-100% more for their foods, and an EXTREMELY inefficient way to grow foods with NO, NONE, NADA proven health benefits.

the point you are missing is that it is impossible to "force" yourself [not someone to force-feed you via tube in a cage] to eat whole grains 3x your 'normal' intake . . . .OTOH, it is VERY EASY to do at McDs.

ANd you are wallowing in your own propagada against organics . . . i don't have the time to educate someone with a closed mind [nor do i care to do so]

MY pov

aloha

It isn't propaganda. Organic foods are an expensive, inefficient luxury solution to a non-existent problem.

Anyone could pull in many times their normal calorie intake in grains if they choose to. I could easily do it with breads alone. McDonald's is not unique food. It is beef, bread and deep fried potatoes with dairy deserts and soda drinks. The same food fed to people in restaurants and homes around the world.

Millions eat McDonald's food on a regular or semi-regular basis. NONE suffer an enlarged, damaged liver from it. THAT alone, AND mixed with his other symptoms, are indicative of FORCE FEEDING and gorging on a consistant basis, not mere over eating.

Farm animals are fattened up on grains, not meat... or McDonald's.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused

Organic growers produce a yield of about half that of a conventional grower.

There IS an assurance of food safety with standard foods. The FDA and decades of studies failing to find ANY harm whatsoever from properly used chemicals. No data indicates legally applied pesticides have caused even one health problem despite more than 50 years of use on agricultural crops ? a fact that has even been acknowledged by leading pesticide critic Dr. Phil Landrigan of the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.

Modern farming techniques CREATE arable land where none existed before.

Again, were the entire world to convert to "organic" standards, billions would die of starvation. And for what purpose? NONE.

Whoa, lol.. I'm in no way suggesting that the entire world convert to growing organic. You're absolutely right.. that would be out of the question.

All I'm saying is that its other peoples money to waste. You can't put them down because they want to eat healthier.

I knew you were going to say that. Don't you understand what I'm saying? Obviously not. OK.

The foods labeled "organic" have to go through the same checks and balances that all our other foods do, right? Except that they were grown organically.

That's what I mean. The organic label is not a direct indication of nutrition, etc.. But neither is not having the label. Get it?

Both products are going to be required to list ingredients and nutrition information.

 

[Nightfall]

Its a little over the top if you ask me. I eat at fast food maybe 2 times a month if that. After watching this movie, it didn't change my opinion of fast food at all. If you eat that crap for 30 days, you are going to feel like crap and not feel well. I could have told you that much.

 

[Eli]

To elaborate, the organic farmers are simply running a business. If there is a market, people should sell to it.

Organic farms are also going to be better for the environment, something else that people care about.

When speaking about organic meat, the meat will be from free-range animals, again something that some people care about.

It's not all about the health.....

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli

All I'm saying is that its other peoples money to waste. You can't put them down because they want to eat healthier.

That's the point. It's NOT proven to be healthier. It preys on irrational fears.

Trust me, if there was any valid proof it was healthier, I would jump on the wagon.

A lot of people here don't have the money to double their food bills. Why spread irrational fears and make them do so?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli
To elaborate, the organic farmers are simply running a business. If there is a market, people should sell to it.

Organic farms are also going to be better for the environment, something else that people care about.

When speaking about organic meat, the meat will be from free-range animals, again something that some people care about.

It's not all about the health.....

I do not believe conventional farming practices are bad for the environment. I believe it's better because it uses half the land for double the yield.

And an animal is an animal.

At any rate, I have nothing against running a business and filling demand. But if they build that business on irrational fears, I will speak out against it when ever asked or whenever I hear someone being spoon fed such bullsh!t.

You must understand. Greenpeace and the other "organic" promoters DO want all production converted to "organic" standards.

 

[Eli]

That is a good point, that conventional farming uses less land for more product..

But.. Damn, what would I have to do to convince you that pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are bad for the environment? Stand on my head, juggle and blow bubbles while chewing gum?

OK, OK.. I'll give you this. You did say that they are safe when used properly. That might be true most of the time.

The fact of the matter is that things don't stay where you spray them. And they aren't always "used properly".

Come on man. Just go check out your local Water Quality brochure. I don't know about other states, but everyone in Oregon gets one mailed to them every year.

There is a reason why they have to test for (chemicals). There is a reason why the EPA has set limits for exposure. Do you think it's because these things are safe? No! It's because we need to limit our exposure to them.

Even though you only get half the yeild per given acrage(I'm letting you get away with that, I have no idea if that's actually the case..), an organic farm [even if it was twice the size] would never release ANY pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizers into the environment.

 

[iamme]

after watching the movie, i had a serious hankerin' for french fries, big mac, and and sausage mcmuffin.

 

[43st]

Wow, organic farming yields 1/2 of conventional farming? Modern farming creates arable land?

The worst case for organic yields was 20% lower. The 2001 US study for 150 growing seasons was 5% lower yields than conventonal. You're claiming 50%, you have to provide a link to that complete bullsh*t.

Have you ever heard of sustainable agriculture? Does that very popular term have any relation to conventonal farming? In fact please provide us some information that says garbage farming, or slash and burn farming or other conventonal farming "creates" arable land.

I'm a member of a large sustainable farming organization and we'd absolutely love if all farming was organic.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Thera
Wow, organic farming yields 1/2 of conventional farming? Modern farming creates arable land?

The worst case for organic yields was 20% lower. The 2001 US study for 150 growing seasons was 5% lower yields than conventonal. You're claiming 50%, you have to provide a link to that complete bullsh*t.

Have you ever heard of sustainable agriculture? Does that very popular term have any relation to conventonal farming? In fact please provide us some information that says garbage farming, or slash and burn farming or other conventonal farming "creates" arable land.

I'm a member of a large sustainable farming organization and we'd absolutely love if all farming was organic.

I've pretty much given up, I can't teach him the basics of organic gardening in a single thread. There's a LOT more behind the whole concept than simply eating healthy.

The very first book I ever bought and owned was The Encyclopedia of Organic Gardening. I bought it with my own money from a garage sale when I was 6.

It is a 2200 page book that I have read dozens of times over....

Not really the be all, end all of books on organic gardening.. But it has its place.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Thera
Wow, organic farming yields 1/2 of conventional farming? Modern farming creates arable land?

The worst case for organic yields was 20% lower. The 2001 US study for 150 growing seasons was 5% lower yields than conventonal. You're claiming 50%, you have to provide a link to that complete bullsh*t.

Have you ever heard of sustainable agriculture? Does that very popular term have any relation to conventonal farming? In fact please provide us some information that says garbage farming, or slash and burn farming or other conventonal farming "creates" arable land.

I'm a member of a large sustainable farming organization and we'd absolutely love if all farming was organic.

http://www.ricejournal.com/backissues/march2002/story2.asp

On average, Lundberg concludes, organic rice growers produce a yield of about half that of a conventional grower

Converting all farming, both plant and animal, to "organic" standards would result in mass starvation.

The use of chemicals, both pesticides and fertilizers makes farming possible where it previously would not be possible, or at the least, extremely unproductive.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Thera
Wow, organic farming yields 1/2 of conventional farming? Modern farming creates arable land?

The worst case for organic yields was 20% lower. The 2001 US study for 150 growing seasons was 5% lower yields than conventonal. You're claiming 50%, you have to provide a link to that complete bullsh*t.

Have you ever heard of sustainable agriculture? Does that very popular term have any relation to conventonal farming? In fact please provide us some information that says garbage farming, or slash and burn farming or other conventonal farming "creates" arable land.

I'm a member of a large sustainable farming organization and we'd absolutely love if all farming was organic.

http://www.ricejournal.com/backissues/march2002/story2.asp

On average, Lundberg concludes, organic rice growers produce a yield of about half that of a conventional grower

Converting all farming, both plant and animal, to "organic" standards would result in mass starvation.

The use of chemicals, both pesticides and fertilizers makes farming possible where it previously would not be possible, or at the least, extremely unproductive.

You just commited a crime that you would lambast others for;

You used a stastic for rice and blanketed it across every other crop in existance. You know better, it doesen't work like that.

There are most certainly crops that produce better grown organically.

 

[Eli]

Here's what Wikipedia says..

One prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average 20% lower organic yields over conventional methods, however, that came with consumption of 50% less fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticide.

A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed of some 150 growing seasons of data on various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields. Comparative yield studies are still scarce, and overall results remain "inconclusive".

Sounds like we need more studies.

In fact, the issue of productivity is more complex than a summary of yield, which is the measure often assumed. For one, productivity is often calculated in labour time rather than by land area - chemical farming sometimes requires much more physical space than organic farming to produce the same yield, but much less labor. Also, grain for the majority of world agricultural production, and most of that is fed to animals, not humans - broad calculations of how much agriculture is feeding people is therefore complicated when feeding animals to feed people is factored in.

On a more abstract economic level, the hidden costs of conventional agriculture are seldom addressed in productivity calculations. Conventional agriculture is based on importing energy, particularly in the form of fertilizer and other agrichemicals, machinery and fuel, and long-distance transport, while the full cost of these inputs are not recognized. Directly, for example, maintenance of the airports and highways that allow easy transport are not factored into food cost. This may seem farfetched, however, if airports shut down, or highway systems were compromised, this would immediately affect the cost of food. More indirectly, it is argued that the cost of the side-effects of chemical agriculture, like health care and environmental clean-up, should be included in the cost of doing agribusiness. Instead, these hidden costs are paid by the public in other ways, such as through taxation to fund services like pollution control measures, and increased health care costs. Of course, many of these hidden cost factors are highly disputed, and the scope involved in investigating these issues is tremendous.

Pretty interesting, no?.....

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Thera
Wow, organic farming yields 1/2 of conventional farming? Modern farming creates arable land?

The worst case for organic yields was 20% lower. The 2001 US study for 150 growing seasons was 5% lower yields than conventonal. You're claiming 50%, you have to provide a link to that complete bullsh*t.

Have you ever heard of sustainable agriculture? Does that very popular term have any relation to conventonal farming? In fact please provide us some information that says garbage farming, or slash and burn farming or other conventonal farming "creates" arable land.

I'm a member of a large sustainable farming organization and we'd absolutely love if all farming was organic.

http://www.ricejournal.com/backissues/march2002/story2.asp

On average, Lundberg concludes, organic rice growers produce a yield of about half that of a conventional grower

Converting all farming, both plant and animal, to "organic" standards would result in mass starvation.

The use of chemicals, both pesticides and fertilizers makes farming possible where it previously would not be possible, or at the least, extremely unproductive.

You just commited a crime that you would lambast others for;

You used a stastic for rice and blanketed it across every other crop in existance. You know better, it doesen't work like that.

There are most certainly crops that produce better grown organically.

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2005/mar_01_05.htm

Pimentel selectively cites Rodale Institute research to claim that organic crop yields are equivalent to nonorganic. Yet, many long-term studies have shown a 10 to 40% organic yield deficit (2-4).

Even a 30% drop in yield would amount to mass starvations.

Rice is a very basic staple in the diets of over half the world's population. Can you imagine if that alone was cut in half?

Does it really matter if it's 30% or 50%? Either way, hundreds of millions die of starvation and the world economy crashes.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli
Here's what Wikipedia says..

One prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average 20% lower organic yields over conventional methods, however, that came with consumption of 50% less fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticide.

A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed of some 150 growing seasons of data on various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields. Comparative yield studies are still scarce, and overall results remain "inconclusive".

Sounds like we need more studies.

In fact, the issue of productivity is more complex than a summary of yield, which is the measure often assumed. For one, productivity is often calculated in labour time rather than by land area - chemical farming sometimes requires much more physical space than organic farming to produce the same yield, but much less labor. Also, grain for the majority of world agricultural production, and most of that is fed to animals, not humans - broad calculations of how much agriculture is feeding people is therefore complicated when feeding animals to feed people is factored in.

On a more abstract economic level, the hidden costs of conventional agriculture are seldom addressed in productivity calculations. Conventional agriculture is based on importing energy, particularly in the form of fertilizer and other agrichemicals, machinery and fuel, and long-distance transport, while the full cost of these inputs are not recognized. Directly, for example, maintenance of the airports and highways that allow easy transport are not factored into food cost. This may seem farfetched, however, if airports shut down, or highway systems were compromised, this would immediately affect the cost of food. More indirectly, it is argued that the cost of the side-effects of chemical agriculture, like health care and environmental clean-up, should be included in the cost of doing agribusiness. Instead, these hidden costs are paid by the public in other ways, such as through taxation to fund services like pollution control measures, and increased health care costs. Of course, many of these hidden cost factors are highly disputed, and the scope involved in investigating these issues is tremendous.

Pretty interesting, no?.....

Pretty one sided and biased, yes?

 

[Amused]

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/...es/biotech-art/orgfarmperspective.html

It is generally accepted that organic yields are lower, the extent depending on the crop. Leake at CWS4,(25) reported in direct comparison that wheat, beans and peas yields were 60-70% whereas oats were 85% conventional yields. Boarded Barns(3) routinely found organic wheat yields about 50%.

Can you imagine a 50% reduction in wheat???

Come on now, how long is everyone going to deny the obvious?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused

Converting all farming, both plant and animal, to "organic" standards would result in mass starvation.

The use of chemicals, both pesticides and fertilizers makes farming possible where it previously would not be possible, or at the least, extremely unproductive.

Huh.

I don't think you really understand or know what you're talking about.

Using pesticides has not allowed people to farm where they were not able to before. Well, maybe I shouldn't say that.. I suppose it's possible that certain areas had uncombatible pests that would prevent certain crops from growing. Wasn't thinking along the right lines. Generally, though... you can only grow crops in certain areas anyway.. where the environmental conditions are right. Usually that means that the "pest" and the product co-exist in the same environment already..... But obviously that is somewhat negated with a globalized economy.

Using fertilizers has, but don't let that fool you. It would be entirely possible to make infertile soil fertile through organic means, too.

Infact, the organically enriched soil will be better than the chemically enriched soil. You know that if the nutrient is not in the soil, it will not be in the plant, right?

I wasn't kidding when I said 10 elements. Actually, I was being generous. You probably know the major three, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium.

There is far more to it than that. Even the crappest fertilizers A'la Miracle Gro will also have Magnesium, Copper, Iron, Manganese, and Zinc.

Unfortunately, there is far more to it than even that. What about the source of these elements? Quality does matter. Not because the chemicals are any different once inside of the plant, but because there are very complex chemical interactions going on with the fertilizer even before it ever gets to the plants roots.

Here's a hint: Next time you're mixing up some chemical fertilizer, see how clear the water gets once it is mixed. If it is cloudy, you know that you have undissolved compounds in your water... Most likely calcium-magnesium compounds.

Elements that are insoluble in water are not able to be absorbed by the plant.

BTW: I use both chemical and organic gardening. They each have their place.

 

[Amused]

Using pesticides has not allowed people to farm where they were not able to before.

Um, it has made farming MUCH more productive in areas that would otherwise suffer massive insect damage.

At any rate, if Organic farming was so much better, yields would be better. They obviously are worse. And in the cases of two of the world's most basic staples, rice and wheat, worse by 50%.

Sorry, but it's a fad. IMO, a worthless one that wastes money, land and time. People are perfectly free to waste their time and money on it. And I'm perfectly free to tell them how pointless it all is.

Meanwhile, there is no denying that Greenpeace supports the mass starvation of hundreds of millions just to make the elitist environmentalists feel better about themselves.

IMO, that ranks them right up there with Pol Pot.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused

Pretty one sided and biased, yes?

What? Why is that one-sided and biased? How is it?

It's a freakin encyclopedia. It gave BOTH stances.... WTF?

Take your blinders off.