Why is it called "Organic?"

[So]

Originally posted by: theNEOone
there should be an iq requirement to be a member of this board, christ.
Personal attacks for not simply accepting what you say uncritically. Real nice.

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.

More petty insults and no real critical answer to my question. Why would you do what when you can just insult your opponent? I ask again, WHY would agribusinesses, who have plenty of intelligent people voluntarily choose to lose money? Either the research is incorrect, the conclusions drawn are incomplete, or all the people working in the actual field hate the environment so much, and so irrationally that they are willing to live less comfortably because of it.

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!"

That makes no sense. There are plenty of farms that HAVE invested in alternative, organic methods. They are still unable to compete of a price basis with agribusinesses, which they necessarily would if they were actually more economically efficient. And if that was the case, then the agribusinesses would have already changed their ways, simply to survive.
=|

Now, this time can you respond to me without childish name calling?

 

[Legend]

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

Same here. It may cost about a $1 more, but it lasts nearly 2 months. When I live alone, I end up throwing out half of my milk, so I actually save money.

There's also recent findings about conventional milk, especially skim, and acne.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: Legend

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

Same here. It may cost about a $1 more, but it lasts nearly 2 months. When I live alone, I end up throwing out half of my milk, so I actually save money.

There's also recent findings about conventional milk, especially skim, and acne.

What makes you think organic milk changes anything with acne compared to conventional. Nothing on Google says that organic milk is okay for acne, but conventional is not. Rather, it says MILK in general can cause acne.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Legend
Same here. It may cost about a $1 more, but it lasts nearly 2 months. When I live alone, I end up throwing out half of my milk, so I actually save money.

So either drink more milk or buy less. It's not exactly a difficult extrapolation.

- M4H

 

[So]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Legend
Same here. It may cost about a $1 more, but it lasts nearly 2 months. When I live alone, I end up throwing out half of my milk, so I actually save money.

So either drink more milk or buy less. It's not exactly a difficult extrapolation.

- M4H

Now, to be fair, I find my milk consumption varies rather wildly, mostly too the small volume I consume. Sometimes I'll buy a quart and have a little left when it expires, because I'll have only used it for the occasional coffee / tea. Other times, I'll have no problem polishing off a half gallon, mostly because I'll be in a cereal mood that week. Cereal keeps for a long time, but it'd be nice if milk kept a little longer. That said, I'd be surprised if organic milk actually lasted longer. Logically, if it's not as thoroughly preserved, it seems it should expire sooner, rather than later.

 

[Schfifty Five]

LOL, why does SLCentral have to act like a rebellious zit faced 17 year old teenager mad at his dad?

I mean, if he doesn't like the term organic, or want to discuss the term, that's fine, but why does he have to be so angry in his posts? It just makes me laugh and it's just sad that he acts that way. And be careful if you want to disagree with him, he'll just come firing back at you w/ some F-bombs.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
LOL, why does SLCentral have to act like a rebellious zit faced 17 year old teenager mad at his dad?

I mean, if he doesn't like the term organic, or want to discuss the term, that's fine, but why does he have to be so angry in his posts? It just makes me laugh and it's just sad that he acts that way. And be careful if you want to disagree with him, he'll just come firing back at you w/ some F-bombs.

The reason I made this thread was because I questioned the name "organic." Not to discuss whether it's a good thing or not. I don't recall dropping any "f-bombs" other then in the OP, and I'm not angry at all. I'm just questioning "evidence" that was presented to me.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: theNEOone
there should be an iq requirement to be a member of this board, christ.
Personal attacks for not simply accepting what you say uncritically. Real nice.

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.

More petty insults and no real critical answer to my question. Why would you do what when you can just insult your opponent? I ask again, WHY would agribusinesses, who have plenty of intelligent people voluntarily choose to lose money? Either the research is incorrect, the conclusions drawn are incomplete, or all the people working in the actual field hate the environment so much, and so irrationally that they are willing to live less comfortably because of it.

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!"

That makes no sense. There are plenty of farms that HAVE invested in alternative, organic methods. They are still unable to compete of a price basis with agribusinesses, which they necessarily would if they were actually more economically efficient. And if that was the case, then the agribusinesses would have already changed their ways, simply to survive.
=|

Now, this time can you respond to me without childish name calling?

no, because regardless of whether or not i resort to name-calling, you'll still be stuck on your argument. you talk about changing the strategy of an ENTIRE FVCKING INDUSTRY THAT HAS EXISTED FOR DECADES LIKE YOU WOULD CHANGE A PAIR OF SOCKS. tell you what, smart guy, go ahead and step into the board rooms of ford and gm, and tell them this new revolutionary way of quickly and easily reinvesting and re-focusing trillions of dollars of investments and decades of habit. i'm sure they'll love to hear it. even in the situation of ford and gm, where they are in DIRE FVCKING NEED of change, they're still unable to fully adjust to market dynamics. now tell me, how complacent would a company be if it were only MARGINALLY more efficient (even then, arguably so) to do business a different way, rather than a NECESSITY?

ever hear of the path of least resistence?


=|

 

[LittleNemoNES]

I think eating organic has much to do with the physical obsession people have now a days. My brother is included. He won't touch something if its not organic or if its not vegan. He may have a point about it being better for you -- however, I wonder how much. Will he live a couple more years than me?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: theNEOone

no, because regardless of whether or not i resort to name-calling, you'll still be stuck on your argument. you talk about changing the strategy of an ENTIRE FVCKING INDUSTRY THAT HAS EXISTED FOR DECADES LIKE YOU WOULD CHANGE A PAIR OF SOCKS. tell you what, smart guy, go ahead and step into the board rooms of ford and gm, and tell them this new revolutionary way of quickly and easily reinvesting and re-focusing trillions of dollars of investments and decades of habit. i'm sure they'll love to hear it. even in the situation of ford and gm, where they are in DIRE FVCKING NEED of change, they're still unable to fully adjust to market dynamics. now tell me, how complacent would a company be if it were only MARGINALLY more efficient (even then, arguably so) to do business a different way, rather than a NECESSITY?

ever hear of the path of least resistence?

=|

Can you please not rave like a madman. PLEASE? I'm trying to have a civil discussion with you here.

As I said, there are organic farms and agribusiness. It's not like asking ford to change in a day, that's a false analogy. If organic farming was more efficient, they'd be like Toyota, coming in, providing better products for less and absolutely decimating agribusiness' markets. It only takes a marginal improvement in efficiency to save millions when it's something as big as food, and competition is a very powerful thing.

 

[Gooberlx2]

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, there's plenty of "organic" pesticides. Our horticulture staff has to use it because other pesticides are potentially harmful to our exhibit animals.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Rufus12
I have never seen something that is organic be 2x the price of a comparable item that is not organic. You obviously have never been out to the country where organic food is cheap, and good.

...so I should drive out to the country, which could be hours of driving, to get organic food?

Originally posted by: dartworth
::sigh::

Fvck off. You've not ONCE posted one comment that actually contributed to the discussion in any of my threads.

Go to a farmer's market.

 

[mercanucaribe]

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. 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).

Why don't you go to the third world and tell people whose organic farms- only they aren't called "organic" because that has no meaning to them- are being displaced by corporate farming operations, forcing them into poverty, that the farming methods they've used for generations aren't sustainable.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: theNEOone

no, because regardless of whether or not i resort to name-calling, you'll still be stuck on your argument. you talk about changing the strategy of an ENTIRE FVCKING INDUSTRY THAT HAS EXISTED FOR DECADES LIKE YOU WOULD CHANGE A PAIR OF SOCKS. tell you what, smart guy, go ahead and step into the board rooms of ford and gm, and tell them this new revolutionary way of quickly and easily reinvesting and re-focusing trillions of dollars of investments and decades of habit. i'm sure they'll love to hear it. even in the situation of ford and gm, where they are in DIRE FVCKING NEED of change, they're still unable to fully adjust to market dynamics. now tell me, how complacent would a company be if it were only MARGINALLY more efficient (even then, arguably so) to do business a different way, rather than a NECESSITY?

ever hear of the path of least resistence?

=|

Can you please not rave like a madman. PLEASE? I'm trying to have a civil discussion with you here.

As I said, there are organic farms and agribusiness. It's not like asking ford to change in a day, that's a false analogy. If organic farming was more efficient, they'd be like Toyota, coming in, providing better products for less and absolutely decimating agribusiness' markets. It only takes a marginal improvement in efficiency to save millions when it's something as big as food, and competition is a very powerful thing.

i was about to go crazy again, thinking that you were a complete idiot, when i realized that your problem is not that you're an idiot, but that you enjoy dealing with absolutes and extremes, and are completely disregarding gradients and variability. there's a sh!tload in between black and white. take a look at it sometime.


=|

 

[So]

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: theNEOone

no, because regardless of whether or not i resort to name-calling, you'll still be stuck on your argument. you talk about changing the strategy of an ENTIRE FVCKING INDUSTRY THAT HAS EXISTED FOR DECADES LIKE YOU WOULD CHANGE A PAIR OF SOCKS. tell you what, smart guy, go ahead and step into the board rooms of ford and gm, and tell them this new revolutionary way of quickly and easily reinvesting and re-focusing trillions of dollars of investments and decades of habit. i'm sure they'll love to hear it. even in the situation of ford and gm, where they are in DIRE FVCKING NEED of change, they're still unable to fully adjust to market dynamics. now tell me, how complacent would a company be if it were only MARGINALLY more efficient (even then, arguably so) to do business a different way, rather than a NECESSITY?

ever hear of the path of least resistence?

=|

Can you please not rave like a madman. PLEASE? I'm trying to have a civil discussion with you here.

As I said, there are organic farms and agribusiness. It's not like asking ford to change in a day, that's a false analogy. If organic farming was more efficient, they'd be like Toyota, coming in, providing better products for less and absolutely decimating agribusiness' markets. It only takes a marginal improvement in efficiency to save millions when it's something as big as food, and competition is a very powerful thing.

i was about to go crazy again, thinking that you were a complete idiot, when i realized that your problem is not that you're an idiot, but that you enjoy dealing with absolutes and extremes, and are completely disregarding gradients and variability. there's a sh!tload in between black and white. take a look at it sometime.


=|

So you still have no actual explanation for me as to why I am wrong? I'm genuinely listening. I haven't said anything more absolute than you, as far as I can tell. Care to elaborate?

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Legend
Same here. It may cost about a $1 more, but it lasts nearly 2 months. When I live alone, I end up throwing out half of my milk, so I actually save money.

So either drink more milk or buy less. It's not exactly a difficult extrapolation.

- M4H

No thanks. I'd rather not plan around my eating habbits around a short expiration period. Sometimes I feel like cereal or a glass of milk, and other times I don't. I don't like finding spoiled milk in my fridge.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

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

Same here. It may cost about a $1 more, but it lasts nearly 2 months. When I live alone, I end up throwing out half of my milk, so I actually save money.

There's also recent findings about conventional milk, especially skim, and acne.

What makes you think organic milk changes anything with acne compared to conventional. Nothing on Google says that organic milk is okay for acne, but conventional is not. Rather, it says MILK in general can cause acne.

So we agree with the acne and milk correlation:

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest possible associations between Western diet and acne. We examined data from the Nurses Health Study II to retrospectively evaluate whether intakes of dairy foods during high school were associated with physician-diagnosed severe teenage acne. METHODS: We studied 47,355 women who completed questionnaires on high school diet in 1998 and physician-diagnosed severe teenage acne in 1989. We estimated the prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals of acne history across categories of intakes. RESULTS: After accounting for age, age at menarche, body mass index, and energy intake, the multivariate prevalence ratio (95% confidence intervals; P value for test of trend) of acne, comparing extreme categories of intake, were: 1.22 (1.03, 1.44; .002) for total milk; 1.12 (1.00, 1.25; .56) for whole milk; 1.16 (1.01, 1.34; .25) for low-fat milk; and 1.44 (1.21, 1.72; .003) for skim milk. Instant breakfast drink, sherbet, cottage cheese, and cream cheese were also positively associated with acne. CONCLUSION: We found a positive association with acne for intake of total milk and skim milk. We hypothesize that the association with milk may be because of the presence of hormones and bioactive molecules in milk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...ubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15692464




And the cause and that skim is more prone to it:

Milk intake may affect acne severity through the Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) pathway. In two large cross-sectional studies, milk consumption was positively associated with higher plasma IGF-1 levels[20,21] and in both studies, this was predominantly an association with skim milk.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/537367_4



http://www.cure-guide.com/Natural_Healt...etter/Milk_and_Acne/milk_and_acne.html

IGF-1 is present in organic milk and increased in milk from cows treated with bovine growth hormone (rBGH).

Organic has less IGF-1. Therefore, organic milk is less likely to contribute to acne.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: theNEOone
[i was about to go crazy again, thinking that you were a complete idiot, when i realized that your problem is not that you're an idiot, but that you enjoy dealing with absolutes and extremes, and are completely disregarding gradients and variability. there's a sh!tload in between black and white. take a look at it sometime.


=|

What exactly has to be changed in order to stop using pesticides?

 

[Legend]

If you don't believe that organic milk has a longer shelf life, just look at it the next time you shop. It's usually at least a month of shelf life when I get it.

And it tastes better than generic milk. Although it doesn't taste any better than purity/mayfield/premium.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: theNEOone

no, because regardless of whether or not i resort to name-calling, you'll still be stuck on your argument. you talk about changing the strategy of an ENTIRE FVCKING INDUSTRY THAT HAS EXISTED FOR DECADES LIKE YOU WOULD CHANGE A PAIR OF SOCKS. tell you what, smart guy, go ahead and step into the board rooms of ford and gm, and tell them this new revolutionary way of quickly and easily reinvesting and re-focusing trillions of dollars of investments and decades of habit. i'm sure they'll love to hear it. even in the situation of ford and gm, where they are in DIRE FVCKING NEED of change, they're still unable to fully adjust to market dynamics. now tell me, how complacent would a company be if it were only MARGINALLY more efficient (even then, arguably so) to do business a different way, rather than a NECESSITY?

ever hear of the path of least resistence?

=|

Can you please not rave like a madman. PLEASE? I'm trying to have a civil discussion with you here.

As I said, there are organic farms and agribusiness. It's not like asking ford to change in a day, that's a false analogy. If organic farming was more efficient, they'd be like Toyota, coming in, providing better products for less and absolutely decimating agribusiness' markets. It only takes a marginal improvement in efficiency to save millions when it's something as big as food, and competition is a very powerful thing.

i was about to go crazy again, thinking that you were a complete idiot, when i realized that your problem is not that you're an idiot, but that you enjoy dealing with absolutes and extremes, and are completely disregarding gradients and variability. there's a sh!tload in between black and white. take a look at it sometime.


=|

So you still have no actual explanation for me as to why I am wrong? I'm genuinely listening. I haven't said anything more absolute than you, as far as I can tell. Care to elaborate?

you've been patient with me, and i can appreciate that. i had a long reply ready...but what's the point? let's agree to disagree, eh?


=|

 

[So]

Originally posted by: theNEOone
you've been patient with me, and i can appreciate that. i had a long reply ready...but what's the point? let's agree to disagree, eh?


=|

Fair 'nuf. :beer:

 

[LanceM]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: LanceM
A very large number of "organic" methods are actually more harmful to our environment than "inorganic" approaches. Don't, however, expect to easily find much information on it.

And no, I don't work for some rich grower trying to get rid of the organic trend. Rather, my wife is an environmental chemist.

how is dig hole in ground, throw seeds in ground, cover hole, water harmful to the environment?

You think that's all they do? Of course not. They still have to protect from insects somehow, often using natural oils. Problem is, these natural oils can destroy soil as quickly as some pesticides.

As far as proof, I can't help you. Most of my information comes from private or government-funded research, and I'm not about to reveal any specific details that I shouldn't even know.

Besides, the information *is* out there, just in limited quantity. You're simply not going to find it on CNN or MSNBC. Look for some scientific reports, instead.

If some people don't want to believe me, fine. I'm not about to spend my day looking it up, since it doesn't really interest me much in the first place. Just thought I'd pipe in with a small comment or two.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: So

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.

It is better if you are a poor village that can't afford a tractor, sprayer, pesticides, herbicides, and the health costs associated with unskilled handling of the chemicals.
If you're a farmer in a rich nation where such things can be purchased and used with relative ease, then yes, it's cheaper.

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Legend
Same here. It may cost about a $1 more, but it lasts nearly 2 months. When I live alone, I end up throwing out half of my milk, so I actually save money.

So either drink more milk or buy less. It's not exactly a difficult extrapolation.

- M4H

Now, to be fair, I find my milk consumption varies rather wildly, mostly too the small volume I consume. Sometimes I'll buy a quart and have a little left when it expires, because I'll have only used it for the occasional coffee / tea. Other times, I'll have no problem polishing off a half gallon, mostly because I'll be in a cereal mood that week. Cereal keeps for a long time, but it'd be nice if milk kept a little longer. That said, I'd be surprised if organic milk actually lasted longer. Logically, if it's not as thoroughly preserved, it seems it should expire sooner, rather than later.

Once opened, it should have the same shelf life as regular milk. The organic milk I've seen is generally ultrapasteurized though, to a higher temperature than regular milk is, so it lasts longer when unopened. Once you open it, it's in the same environment as regular milk, so it'll go bad just as quick.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

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

Same here. It may cost about a $1 more, but it lasts nearly 2 months. When I live alone, I end up throwing out half of my milk, so I actually save money.

There's also recent findings about conventional milk, especially skim, and acne.

What makes you think organic milk changes anything with acne compared to conventional. Nothing on Google says that organic milk is okay for acne, but conventional is not. Rather, it says MILK in general can cause acne.

So we agree with the acne and milk correlation:

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest possible associations between Western diet and acne. We examined data from the Nurses Health Study II to retrospectively evaluate whether intakes of dairy foods during high school were associated with physician-diagnosed severe teenage acne. METHODS: We studied 47,355 women who completed questionnaires on high school diet in 1998 and physician-diagnosed severe teenage acne in 1989. We estimated the prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals of acne history across categories of intakes. RESULTS: After accounting for age, age at menarche, body mass index, and energy intake, the multivariate prevalence ratio (95% confidence intervals; P value for test of trend) of acne, comparing extreme categories of intake, were: 1.22 (1.03, 1.44; .002) for total milk; 1.12 (1.00, 1.25; .56) for whole milk; 1.16 (1.01, 1.34; .25) for low-fat milk; and 1.44 (1.21, 1.72; .003) for skim milk. Instant breakfast drink, sherbet, cottage cheese, and cream cheese were also positively associated with acne. CONCLUSION: We found a positive association with acne for intake of total milk and skim milk. We hypothesize that the association with milk may be because of the presence of hormones and bioactive molecules in milk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...ubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15692464




And the cause and that skim is more prone to it:

Milk intake may affect acne severity through the Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) pathway. In two large cross-sectional studies, milk consumption was positively associated with higher plasma IGF-1 levels[20,21] and in both studies, this was predominantly an association with skim milk.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/537367_4



http://www.cure-guide.com/Natural_Healt...etter/Milk_and_Acne/milk_and_acne.html

IGF-1 is present in organic milk and increased in milk from cows treated with bovine growth hormone (rBGH).

Organic has less IGF-1. Therefore, organic milk is less likely to contribute to acne.

I was about to say it's the hormones myself. Organic meat/milk is definitely much better that way.

 

[Fritzo]

I ONLY buy organic stuff.


Oh, wait...you spelled that wrong. Switch the N with SM. That's the stuff.