Why is it called "Organic?"

[theNEOone]

jesus, here's to another brilliant post on ATOT where the OP makes a revelation. :roll: what a ****** muscle.

it's not a marketing "gimmick" to call something what it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming


=|

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Something to note:
Although crude oil is all natural, it's still not good for your health.

And no one ever claims that being all natural means always good for your health.

Don't make strawman arguments.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: mugs
OK, there are people who actually think brown eggs and cage-free/free-range eggs are better for you... now THAT is a marketing gimmick.

Brown vs. white doesn't matter beyond personal preference. Free range vs caged is a humane treatment of animals issue.

Yes I understand that. Many people don't. That's my point.

 

[BurnItDwn]

This post reminds me of the Penn and Teller "Bull$#!*" episode about organic food.

Growing "organic" food instead of using pesticides, fertilizers, etc, you get MUCH less yield per acre.
The lowwer yield means it takes more land to grow less food.

I guess that isn't really too big of an issue here in the US or in most of the other "rich" countries, but we could get yields up if we switched ALL of our organic farms to "corpocate" style farms then export all the excess dirt cheap. That could mean life or death for millions of people in a lot of the impoverished nations of the world.

 

[Vic]

It's elitism, pure and simple. Conservation through consumption. They can afford to eat better tasting food grown in a fashion and at a cost that most of the world cannot afford.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
This post reminds me of the Penn and Teller "Bull$#!*" episode about organic food.

Growing "organic" food instead of using pesticides, fertilizers, etc, you get MUCH less yield per acre.
The lowwer yield means it takes more land to grow less food.

I guess that isn't really too big of an issue here in the US or in most of the other "rich" countries, but we could get yields up if we switched ALL of our organic farms to "corpocate" style farms then export all the excess dirt cheap. That could mean life or death for millions of people in a lot of the impoverished nations of the world.

I understand what you're saying, but you're missing the entire point. Less yield is partly the point, and it's the methods of mass agriculture that have precipitated these movements.

It's hard to have a discussion on this topic because it's usually only a handful of morons that start shouting fear-derived marketing, scam and gimmick yet don't even know what the movement is about.

I'd start here and then perhaps, although loosely related, here.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Vic
It's elitism, pure and simple. Conservation through consumption. They can afford to eat better tasting food grown in a fashion and at a cost that most of the world cannot afford.

Here is another person that simply doesn't get it.

I don't understand the obduracy with such a simple concept. Why is it that you, Amused, and similar fail to make the distinction between a product and how some choose to market that product? You apply a negative element of consumerism to the products and all the people behind them (e.g. namely farmers) that took on an incredible investment of knowledge and time to try and make a difference in a cause they find valuable.

The elitism crap you're appealing to is more likely referring to places like Whole Foods. I love Whole Foods, and I agree that there's a bit of an elitist crowd there; however, there are tons of organic farmers markets around the country that are more about passionate farmers selling something that interests them than elitism.

Broaden your horizons a little. Quit being so damn myopic and learn to separate the nonsense you see in the quest for capital gain and the people that actually care.

[edit]Sorry, I was a little harsh in the beginning. I actually agree with the last part that you said. I agree that not all of the world's people can afford to eat lower-yield, higher-quality foods, but a sustained movement in favor of sustainable farming as opposed to chemical-driven mass agriculture will inevitably reduce cost in favor of all. Yield will always be a problem.[/edit]

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
This post reminds me of the Penn and Teller "Bull$#!*" episode about organic food.

Growing "organic" food instead of using pesticides, fertilizers, etc, you get MUCH less yield per acre.
The lowwer yield means it takes more land to grow less food.

I guess that isn't really too big of an issue here in the US or in most of the other "rich" countries, but we could get yields up if we switched ALL of our organic farms to "corpocate" style farms then export all the excess dirt cheap. That could mean life or death for millions of people in a lot of the impoverished nations of the world.

read the wiki article.

"A 22-year farm trial study by Cornell University published in 2005 concluded that organic farming produces the same corn and soybean yields as conventional methods, but consumes less energy and contains no pesticide residues. However, a prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average of 20% lower organic yields over conventional, along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides[1]. A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed results from 150 growing seasons for various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields[2]."

"In recent decades, food production has moved out of the public eye. In developed nations, where most of the world's wealth, consumption, and agricultural policy-making are centered, many are unaware of how their food is produced, or even that food, like energy, is not unlimited. If the methods used to produce food are rapidly destroying the capacity for continued production, then sustainable, organic farming is as crucial a topic as renewable energy and pollution control. This proposition is at the center of most organic farming issues."


=|

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Descartes
I understand what you're saying, but you're missing the entire point. Less yield is partly the point, and it's the methods of mass agriculture that have precipitated these movements.

It's hard to have a discussion on this topic because it's usually only a handful of morons that start shouting fear-derived marketing, scam and gimmick yet don't even know what the movement is about.

I'd start here and then perhaps, although loosely related, here.

Empirical evidence has consistently proven Malthus to be wrong. Consider that the world population was just under 1 billion at the time of his writings and is well over 6 billion today, yet our standard of living is much higher today than is Malthus' time. Increased agriculturally yields are primarily responsible for that.

I enjoy "organic" foods, but I don't lie to myself about what I'm doing when I eat it.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes
I understand what you're saying, but you're missing the entire point. Less yield is partly the point, and it's the methods of mass agriculture that have precipitated these movements.

It's hard to have a discussion on this topic because it's usually only a handful of morons that start shouting fear-derived marketing, scam and gimmick yet don't even know what the movement is about.

I'd start here and then perhaps, although loosely related, here.

Empirical evidence has consistently proven Malthus to be wrong. Consider that the world population was just under 1 billion at the time of his writings and is well over 6 billion today, yet our standard of living is much higher today than is Malthus' time. Increased agriculturally yields are primarily responsible for that.

I enjoy "organic" foods, but I don't lie to myself about what I'm doing when I eat it.

I only loosely correlated Malthus, and I personally don't look to his ideas as any demonstration of fact or really even theory; rather, I just look at it more from principle.

Just curious, how could you lie to yourself about eating organic foods? What's there to lie about?

 

[Glavinsolo]

They did a special on Discovery Channel on this, I'll try and look it up.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic
It's elitism, pure and simple. Conservation through consumption. They can afford to eat better tasting food grown in a fashion and at a cost that most of the world cannot afford.

Here is another person that simply doesn't get it.

I don't understand the obduracy with such a simple concept. Why is it that you, Amused, and similar fail to make the distinction between a product and how some choose to market that product? You apply a negative element of consumerism to the products and all the people behind them (e.g. namely farmers) that took on an incredible investment of knowledge and time to try and make a difference in a cause they find valuable.

The elitism crap you're appealing to is more likely referring to places like Whole Foods. I love Whole Foods, and I agree that there's a bit of an elitist crowd there; however, there are tons of organic farmers markets around the country that are more about passionate farmers selling something that interests them than elitism.

Broaden your horizons a little. Quit being so damn myopic and learn to separate the nonsense you see in the quest for capital gain and the people that actually care.

[edit]Sorry, I was a little harsh in the beginning. I actually agree with the last part that you said. I agree that not all of the world's people can afford to eat lower-yield, higher-quality foods, but a sustained movement in favor of sustainable farming as opposed to chemical-driven mass agriculture will inevitably reduce cost in favor of all. Yield will always be a problem.[/edit]

There is nothing "sustainable" about a food source that most of the world's population cannot afford. And kindly don't imply that I am being greedy when you are the one pushing an agriculture movement that would lead to starvation for millions and millions of people.
You need to check your views. You accuse those who disagree with you of spreading fearmongering and greed, yet admit the elitism of the consumers of organic food products and that "yield will always be a problem" (when insufficient yields mean starvation for someone, food is not your typical consumer product).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes
I understand what you're saying, but you're missing the entire point. Less yield is partly the point, and it's the methods of mass agriculture that have precipitated these movements.

It's hard to have a discussion on this topic because it's usually only a handful of morons that start shouting fear-derived marketing, scam and gimmick yet don't even know what the movement is about.

I'd start here and then perhaps, although loosely related, here.

Empirical evidence has consistently proven Malthus to be wrong. Consider that the world population was just under 1 billion at the time of his writings and is well over 6 billion today, yet our standard of living is much higher today than is Malthus' time. Increased agriculturally yields are primarily responsible for that.

I enjoy "organic" foods, but I don't lie to myself about what I'm doing when I eat it.

I only loosely correlated Malthus, and I personally don't look to his ideas as any demonstration of fact or really even theory; rather, I just look at it more from principle.

Just curious, how could you lie to yourself about eating organic foods? What's there to lie about?

It's like the lie that buying a particular brand-new car is good for the environment. Sure, maybe it gets better gas mileage, but you ignore the bigger picture of the manufacturing cost of the new car. With organic foods, you tell yourself that you're helping the environment, while supporting an agricultural movement that most of the world cannot afford.
"Excess ain't rebellion."

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
According to the FDA, the organic label means that inorganic fertilizers and pesticides were not used in the growing of the food.

So basically organic means "may be full of insects"?

No, it usually means "has more color" and "has more flavor" but utlimately means it also costs more.

Not really. How can something have more color and flavor if it's put in a situation where pests affect it and optimum nutrients aren't given to it?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic
It's elitism, pure and simple. Conservation through consumption. They can afford to eat better tasting food grown in a fashion and at a cost that most of the world cannot afford.

Here is another person that simply doesn't get it.

I don't understand the obduracy with such a simple concept. Why is it that you, Amused, and similar fail to make the distinction between a product and how some choose to market that product? You apply a negative element of consumerism to the products and all the people behind them (e.g. namely farmers) that took on an incredible investment of knowledge and time to try and make a difference in a cause they find valuable.

The elitism crap you're appealing to is more likely referring to places like Whole Foods. I love Whole Foods, and I agree that there's a bit of an elitist crowd there; however, there are tons of organic farmers markets around the country that are more about passionate farmers selling something that interests them than elitism.

Broaden your horizons a little. Quit being so damn myopic and learn to separate the nonsense you see in the quest for capital gain and the people that actually care.

[edit]Sorry, I was a little harsh in the beginning. I actually agree with the last part that you said. I agree that not all of the world's people can afford to eat lower-yield, higher-quality foods, but a sustained movement in favor of sustainable farming as opposed to chemical-driven mass agriculture will inevitably reduce cost in favor of all. Yield will always be a problem.[/edit]

There is nothing "sustainable" about a food source that most of the world's population cannot afford.

More on this in a moment...

And kindly don't imply that I am being greedy when you are the one pushing an agriculture movement that would lead to starvation for millions and millions of people.

Huh? I said no such thing. I've never said any such thing. Greed hasn't come into this conversation.

You need to check your views. You accuse those who disagree with you of spreading fearmongering and greed

No. Read my posts again. I get accused of following fear-mongering. I've never accused anyone of fear-mongering or greed.

yet admit the elitism of the consumers of organic food products

Please read my posts. I pointed out that some venues have an element of elitism, but that there are many more that do not (e.g. farmers markets).

and that "yield will always be a problem" (when insufficient yields mean starvation for someone, food is not your typical consumer product).

Yield will always be a problem in agriculture. I didn't mean to imply that yield will always be a problem in organics.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes
I understand what you're saying, but you're missing the entire point. Less yield is partly the point, and it's the methods of mass agriculture that have precipitated these movements.

It's hard to have a discussion on this topic because it's usually only a handful of morons that start shouting fear-derived marketing, scam and gimmick yet don't even know what the movement is about.

I'd start here and then perhaps, although loosely related, here.

Empirical evidence has consistently proven Malthus to be wrong. Consider that the world population was just under 1 billion at the time of his writings and is well over 6 billion today, yet our standard of living is much higher today than is Malthus' time. Increased agriculturally yields are primarily responsible for that.

I enjoy "organic" foods, but I don't lie to myself about what I'm doing when I eat it.

I only loosely correlated Malthus, and I personally don't look to his ideas as any demonstration of fact or really even theory; rather, I just look at it more from principle.

Just curious, how could you lie to yourself about eating organic foods? What's there to lie about?

It's like the lie that buying a particular brand-new car is good for the environment. Sure, maybe it gets better gas mileage, but you ignore the bigger picture of the manufacturing cost of the new car. With organic foods, you tell yourself that you're helping the environment, while supporting an agricultural movement that most of the world cannot afford.
"Excess ain't rebellion."

if i can show you that the basis for your argument is wrong (namely that organic foods are not economically viable for the majority of the world), will you stfu?


=|

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
According to the FDA, the organic label means that inorganic fertilizers and pesticides were not used in the growing of the food.

So basically organic means "may be full of insects"?

No, it usually means "has more color" and "has more flavor" but utlimately means it also costs more.

Not really. How can something have more color and flavor if it's put in a situation where pests affect it and optimum nutrients aren't given to it?

Huh?

1) Insect problems are controlled through more sustainable measures. This could be anything from aphids, spiders being placed in vineyards to owl nests to control gopher problems.
2) Nutrients are also controlled through sustainable measures. That's precisely the point. You don't have to give "optimum nutrients" to it if your soil isn't depleted, and this is part of the point of sustainable agriculture. Some farmers use bat nests to encourage guano for nitrogen enrichment in the soil. This is particularly important in vineyards as Vitis Vinifera varieties are particularly vulnerable to low-nitrogen soils. It affects the quality of the grape and the resultant wine.

Those are just a few examples. There's more in the links that have been provided or a little Googling if you're interested.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Descartes
I understand what you're saying, but you're missing the entire point. Less yield is partly the point, and it's the methods of mass agriculture that have precipitated these movements.

It's hard to have a discussion on this topic because it's usually only a handful of morons that start shouting fear-derived marketing, scam and gimmick yet don't even know what the movement is about.

I'd start here and then perhaps, although loosely related, here.

Empirical evidence has consistently proven Malthus to be wrong. Consider that the world population was just under 1 billion at the time of his writings and is well over 6 billion today, yet our standard of living is much higher today than is Malthus' time. Increased agriculturally yields are primarily responsible for that.

I enjoy "organic" foods, but I don't lie to myself about what I'm doing when I eat it.

I only loosely correlated Malthus, and I personally don't look to his ideas as any demonstration of fact or really even theory; rather, I just look at it more from principle.

Just curious, how could you lie to yourself about eating organic foods? What's there to lie about?

It's like the lie that buying a particular brand-new car is good for the environment. Sure, maybe it gets better gas mileage, but you ignore the bigger picture of the manufacturing cost of the new car. With organic foods, you tell yourself that you're helping the environment, while supporting an agricultural movement that most of the world cannot afford.
"Excess ain't rebellion."

if i can show you that the basis for your argument is wrong (namely that organic foods are not economically viable for the majority of the world), will you stfu?


=|

Please do.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: mugs
OK, there are people who actually think brown eggs and cage-free/free-range eggs are better for you... now THAT is a marketing gimmick.

Brown vs. white is a matter of the breed of chicken laying the egg, not what's fed to the chicken. Tell me, does the breed of beef affect the flavor? Angus?

I've got a couple hundred fresh brown eggs laying around that come from cage-free birds that do not get any hormones or anything like that. I've given them to quite a few people. All agree that the flavor is far better than the flavor from store-bought eggs. Better for you? No idea. Better tasting? By a mile.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
This post reminds me of the Penn and Teller "Bull$#!*" episode about organic food.

Growing "organic" food instead of using pesticides, fertilizers, etc, you get MUCH less yield per acre.
The lowwer yield means it takes more land to grow less food.

I guess that isn't really too big of an issue here in the US or in most of the other "rich" countries, but we could get yields up if we switched ALL of our organic farms to "corpocate" style farms then export all the excess dirt cheap. That could mean life or death for millions of people in a lot of the impoverished nations of the world.

read the wiki article.

"A 22-year farm trial study by Cornell University published in 2005 concluded that organic farming produces the same corn and soybean yields as conventional methods, but consumes less energy and contains no pesticide residues. However, a prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average of 20% lower organic yields over conventional, along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides[1]. A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed results from 150 growing seasons for various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields[2]."

"In recent decades, food production has moved out of the public eye. In developed nations, where most of the world's wealth, consumption, and agricultural policy-making are centered, many are unaware of how their food is produced, or even that food, like energy, is not unlimited. If the methods used to produce food are rapidly destroying the capacity for continued production, then sustainable, organic farming is as crucial a topic as renewable energy and pollution control. This proposition is at the center of most organic farming issues."


=|

And let's not forget the resources consumed and pollution produced from the production of the chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.

Originally posted by: Vic
There is nothing "sustainable" about a food source that most of the world's population cannot afford. And kindly don't imply that I am being greedy when you are the one pushing an agriculture movement that would lead to starvation for millions and millions of people.
You need to check your views. You accuse those who disagree with you of spreading fearmongering and greed, yet admit the elitism of the consumers of organic food products and that "yield will always be a problem" (when insufficient yields mean starvation for someone, food is not your typical consumer product).

Proper organic farming, as cited in this thread, can produce yields similar to those produced with the use of artificial chemicals. If you're in a 3rd world country, which is easier: Using organic methods, such as crop rotation, mulching, manure, and beneficial insects is an easier alternative to purchasing toxic chemicals. The other problem in poor nations with toxic chemicals is access to equipment to safely handle the chemicals. Feed your family and village or risk cancer or illness from toxic chemcials? Or the third option: organic farming. Feed people without dealing with toxins.

So in fact, it may well be that chemical farming is something that poor nations can not afford. The chemicals themselves cost money, and there is the health cost to those who have to work with them on a regular basis. A generally less-educated public too means that there is less knowledge about the consequences of exposure to these chemicals, meaning they are more likely to be ingested by the populace. So there may be marginally higher yields, but at the cost of poorer health in nations already suffering.

 

[Sid59]

mmm organic milk from a cow that hasn't been drugged or forced to produce more milk.
mmm organic chicken that hasn't been drugged to grow more muscle so they produce more meat.

i've always wondered ....
when i see an enormous chicken leg, i'm talking the size of my clenched fist, got so big. I've been to my grandfather's farm and their chickens aren't nearly as big or even seen a chicken grow that big. Always makes me wonder.


mmm .. the internet where everyone is an expert and uses google to validate claims.

 

[FoBoT]

organic means it costs more that normal stuff

and it is missing the good chemical residue that normal crops have

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
This post reminds me of the Penn and Teller "Bull$#!*" episode about organic food.

Growing "organic" food instead of using pesticides, fertilizers, etc, you get MUCH less yield per acre.
The lowwer yield means it takes more land to grow less food.

I guess that isn't really too big of an issue here in the US or in most of the other "rich" countries, but we could get yields up if we switched ALL of our organic farms to "corpocate" style farms then export all the excess dirt cheap. That could mean life or death for millions of people in a lot of the impoverished nations of the world.

read the wiki article.

"A 22-year farm trial study by Cornell University published in 2005 concluded that organic farming produces the same corn and soybean yields as conventional methods, but consumes less energy and contains no pesticide residues. However, a prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average of 20% lower organic yields over conventional, along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides[1]. A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed results from 150 growing seasons for various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields[2]."

"In recent decades, food production has moved out of the public eye. In developed nations, where most of the world's wealth, consumption, and agricultural policy-making are centered, many are unaware of how their food is produced, or even that food, like energy, is not unlimited. If the methods used to produce food are rapidly destroying the capacity for continued production, then sustainable, organic farming is as crucial a topic as renewable energy and pollution control. This proposition is at the center of most organic farming issues."


=|

And let's not forget the resources consumed and pollution produced from the production of the chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.

Originally posted by: Vic
There is nothing "sustainable" about a food source that most of the world's population cannot afford. And kindly don't imply that I am being greedy when you are the one pushing an agriculture movement that would lead to starvation for millions and millions of people.
You need to check your views. You accuse those who disagree with you of spreading fearmongering and greed, yet admit the elitism of the consumers of organic food products and that "yield will always be a problem" (when insufficient yields mean starvation for someone, food is not your typical consumer product).

Proper organic farming, as cited in this thread, can produce yields similar to those produced with the use of artificial chemicals. If you're in a 3rd world country, which is easier: Using organic methods, such as crop rotation, mulching, manure, and beneficial insects is an easier alternative to purchasing toxic chemicals. The other problem in poor nations with toxic chemicals is access to equipment to safely handle the chemicals. Feed your family and village or risk cancer or illness from toxic chemcials? Or the third option: organic farming. Feed people without dealing with toxins.

So in fact, it may well be that chemical farming is something that poor nations can not afford. The chemicals themselves cost money, and there is the health cost to those who have to work with them on a regular basis. A generally less-educated public too means that there is less knowledge about the consequences of exposure to these chemicals, meaning they are more likely to be ingested by the populace. So there may be marginally higher yields, but at the cost of poorer health in nations already suffering.

You really believe that organic farming is cheaper and more efficient, but agribusiness has it out for the environment? Trust me, if organic food was economically more viable, corporations would intentionally harm themselves and use chemical fertilizers? :laugh:

Hell, if it was just 'equally' viable, they'd do it for the PR.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
This post reminds me of the Penn and Teller "Bull$#!*" episode about organic food.

Growing "organic" food instead of using pesticides, fertilizers, etc, you get MUCH less yield per acre.
The lowwer yield means it takes more land to grow less food.

I guess that isn't really too big of an issue here in the US or in most of the other "rich" countries, but we could get yields up if we switched ALL of our organic farms to "corpocate" style farms then export all the excess dirt cheap. That could mean life or death for millions of people in a lot of the impoverished nations of the world.

read the wiki article.

"A 22-year farm trial study by Cornell University published in 2005 concluded that organic farming produces the same corn and soybean yields as conventional methods, but consumes less energy and contains no pesticide residues. However, a prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average of 20% lower organic yields over conventional, along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides[1]. A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed results from 150 growing seasons for various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields[2]."

"In recent decades, food production has moved out of the public eye. In developed nations, where most of the world's wealth, consumption, and agricultural policy-making are centered, many are unaware of how their food is produced, or even that food, like energy, is not unlimited. If the methods used to produce food are rapidly destroying the capacity for continued production, then sustainable, organic farming is as crucial a topic as renewable energy and pollution control. This proposition is at the center of most organic farming issues."


=|

And let's not forget the resources consumed and pollution produced from the production of the chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.

Originally posted by: Vic
There is nothing "sustainable" about a food source that most of the world's population cannot afford. And kindly don't imply that I am being greedy when you are the one pushing an agriculture movement that would lead to starvation for millions and millions of people.
You need to check your views. You accuse those who disagree with you of spreading fearmongering and greed, yet admit the elitism of the consumers of organic food products and that "yield will always be a problem" (when insufficient yields mean starvation for someone, food is not your typical consumer product).

Proper organic farming, as cited in this thread, can produce yields similar to those produced with the use of artificial chemicals. If you're in a 3rd world country, which is easier: Using organic methods, such as crop rotation, mulching, manure, and beneficial insects is an easier alternative to purchasing toxic chemicals. The other problem in poor nations with toxic chemicals is access to equipment to safely handle the chemicals. Feed your family and village or risk cancer or illness from toxic chemcials? Or the third option: organic farming. Feed people without dealing with toxins.

So in fact, it may well be that chemical farming is something that poor nations can not afford. The chemicals themselves cost money, and there is the health cost to those who have to work with them on a regular basis. A generally less-educated public too means that there is less knowledge about the consequences of exposure to these chemicals, meaning they are more likely to be ingested by the populace. So there may be marginally higher yields, but at the cost of poorer health in nations already suffering.

You really believe that organic farming is cheaper and more efficient, but agribusiness has it out for the environment? Trust me, if organic food was economically more viable, corporations would intentionally harm themselves and use chemical fertilizers? :laugh:

Hell, if it was just 'equally' viable, they'd do it for the PR.

there should be an iq requirement to be a member of this board, christ.

let me ask you, do you feel that you're smarter than the researchers at Cornell that conducted a 20 year study that found that yields were comparable between organic and coventional? or the Swiss researchers that concluded that, although organic methods produced 20% less yield, they were 50% more energy efficient? or how about the survey by the US government that found that organic methods had virtually the same yields as conventional methods? or perhaps hooked-on-phonics didn't work for you.

your argument about the incentive for companies to follow the most cost efficient route is void of the obvious fact that agribusinesses have invested trillions of dollars over the past several decades in very specific equipment, studies, land aquisitions, technology, etc. all geared towards conventional farming methods and that these investments cannot be easily ported over to organic farming. it's not such a cut a dry argument to say, "well, if it was actually more efficient to farm using organic methods, then businesses would already be doing it!"


=|

 

[Tangerines]

I buy organic milk, mainly because its shelf life is longer, and doesn't spoil as quickly.