Why is it called "Organic?"

[ElFenix]

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).

what is unsustainable about similar yields, lower fertilizer usage, and lower pesticide usage?

 

[ElFenix]

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.

corporations are making a big push into organic farming. it has much higher profit margins because the cost is similar or lower, and the selling price is higher because people are willing to pay extra for it.

it's like the ball mouse that comes standard with cheap dell deals. does an optical mouse cost any more? not really. but they can sell it for $10 upgrade, and make $9.99 in profit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah, because subsistence farming isn't living in poverty already... :laugh:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

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).

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.

Yeah, because subsistence farming isn't living in poverty already... :laugh:

i think your argument was that it wasn't sustainable, not that it isn't lucrative

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
what is unsustainable about similar yields, lower fertilizer usage, and lower pesticide usage?

Considering the fact that virtually all farming operations hate and despise Monsanto (the world's largest maker of pesticides, i.e. "Roundup") because of that company's strong-arm business practices, I am more than certain that they, the farmers, would decrease their usage of fertilizers and pesticides (because that is expensive overhead to them) if they thought they could get similar yields by doing so.

It is IMO a serious fallacy to accept theoretical "evidence" over empirical evidence. On the internet, it's like being an armchair quarterback. In real life, it's like religion.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: 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.

Both valid points. I did not know that organic milk was ultrpasteurized (nor did I know there was such a thing ), but that makes sense.

And yeah, if you don't have capital, it does make sense to make the most of your strengths and stick with 'traditional' farming methods.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

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).

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.

Yeah, because subsistence farming isn't living in poverty already... :laugh:

i think your argument was that it wasn't sustainable, not that it isn't lucrative

No, my argument was that it is elitist. Read carefully. mercanucaribe, with his red herring, unknowingly supported that argument, which is why I laughed at him. He ought to go live with those subsistence farmers if he thinks that's the good life.

My personal opinion of "organic" foods is that it is like the automobile circa 1900. It is a step in the right direction and eventually will become more mainstream as the technology advances in that direction, but at this moment in time only the more affluent can afford it. In the meantime, "sustainable" and "organic" are just marketing buzzwords to make the targeted consumers feel like they aren't consuming high-on-the-hog when they actually are.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

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.

corporations are making a big push into organic farming. it has much higher profit margins because the cost is similar or lower, and the selling price is higher because people are willing to pay extra for it.

it's like the ball mouse that comes standard with cheap dell deals. does an optical mouse cost any more? not really. but they can sell it for $10 upgrade, and make $9.99 in profit.

Interesting, I'd like to see some statistics for details...but if that is accurate then there might be some validity to it. Of course, your own counter argument comes up: they can charge more for 'organic' food because they can sell the conscientious factor to a certain market. So, I guess my follow on question is: will it ever be price competitive? If it is as efficient, then it certainly will be, but if not, then there is a large section of the market that won't pay any premium for being 'good.' I'm pretty sure that all Dells come with optical mice now (I could be wrong, of course) but that would parallel my suggestion nicely -- if it is cheaper (as optical mice are), then eventually, no matter what all food will become organic and simply some food will have the benefit of coming from 'premium' brands.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

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).

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.

Yeah, because subsistence farming isn't living in poverty already... :laugh:

i think your argument was that it wasn't sustainable, not that it isn't lucrative

No, my argument was that it is elitist. Read carefully. mercanucaribe, with his red herring, unknowingly supported that argument, which is why I laughed at him. He ought to go live with those subsistence farmers if he thinks that's the good life.

My personal opinion of "organic" foods is that it is like the automobile circa 1900. It is a step in the right direction and eventually will become more mainstream as the technology advances in that direction, but at this moment in time only the more affluent can afford it. In the meantime, "sustainable" and "organic" are just marketing buzzwords to make the targeted consumers feel like they aren't consuming high-on-the-hog when they actually are.

then what was this then?

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

again, pretty much the only reason that 'organic' food is more expensive is because people will pay extra for it. yields are similar, energy use is lower, and pesticide use is lower.
here is your original post:

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.

of course, when mercanuribe points out that subsistence farming is mostly organic, and therefore most of the world can afford to eat it, you go off on a red herring about it not being a very affluent lifestyle. who is being elitist now?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic
Considering the fact that virtually all farming operations hate and despise Monsanto (the world's largest maker of pesticides, i.e. "Roundup") because of that company's strong-arm business practices, I am more than certain that they, the farmers, would decrease their usage of fertilizers and pesticides (because that is expensive overhead to them) if they thought they could get similar yields by doing so.

It is IMO a serious fallacy to accept theoretical "evidence" over empirical evidence. On the internet, it's like being an armchair quarterback. In real life, it's like religion.

so a 20 year cornell study, the US government study, and the swiss study are 'theoretical' and not empirical?

Originally posted by: So

Interesting, I'd like to see some statistics for details...but if that is accurate then there might be some validity to it. Of course, your own counter argument comes up: they can charge more for 'organic' food because they can sell the conscientious factor to a certain market. So, I guess my follow on question is: will it ever be price competitive? If it is as efficient, then it certainly will be, but if not, then there is a large section of the market that won't pay any premium for being 'good.' I'm pretty sure that all Dells come with optical mice now (I could be wrong, of course) but that would parallel my suggestion nicely -- if it is cheaper (as optical mice are), then eventually, no matter what all food will become organic and simply some food will have the benefit of coming from 'premium' brands.

yields have been found to be similar, with much lower energy and pesticide usage. with increasing energy prices the prices of 'organic' should be even more favorable compared to 'standard' methods.

as for the dell, optical is a $10 upgrade for this one

 

[So]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
of course, when mercanuribe points out that subsistence farming is mostly organic, and therefore most of the world can afford to eat it, you go off on a red herring about it not being a very affluent lifestyle. who is being elitist now?

I'd say the guy telling millions that they should live a hand to mouth subsistence lifestyle for the rest of time so he can feel that his food is 'sustainable' is still the elitist.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic
Considering the fact that virtually all farming operations hate and despise Monsanto (the world's largest maker of pesticides, i.e. "Roundup") because of that company's strong-arm business practices, I am more than certain that they, the farmers, would decrease their usage of fertilizers and pesticides (because that is expensive overhead to them) if they thought they could get similar yields by doing so.

It is IMO a serious fallacy to accept theoretical "evidence" over empirical evidence. On the internet, it's like being an armchair quarterback. In real life, it's like religion.

so a 20 year cornell study, the US government study, and the swiss study are 'theoretical' and not empirical?

Not that they are baseless...clearly they must have a pretty large waft of data, but one must accept the biggest study of all -- the market, as the authoritative example.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

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).

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.

Yeah, because subsistence farming isn't living in poverty already... :laugh:

i think your argument was that it wasn't sustainable, not that it isn't lucrative

No, my argument was that it is elitist. Read carefully. mercanucaribe, with his red herring, unknowingly supported that argument, which is why I laughed at him. He ought to go live with those subsistence farmers if he thinks that's the good life.

My personal opinion of "organic" foods is that it is like the automobile circa 1900. It is a step in the right direction and eventually will become more mainstream as the technology advances in that direction, but at this moment in time only the more affluent can afford it. In the meantime, "sustainable" and "organic" are just marketing buzzwords to make the targeted consumers feel like they aren't consuming high-on-the-hog when they actually are.

then what was this then?

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

Exactly what I said.

again, pretty much the only reason that 'organic' food is more expensive is because people will pay extra for it. yields are similar, energy use is lower, and pesticide use is lower.

If yields are the same, but costs are down and prices are higher, then why isn't everyone doing it?
here is your original post:

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.

of course, when mercanuribe points out that subsistence farming is mostly organic, and therefore most of the world can afford to eat it, you go off on a red herring about it not being a very affluent lifestyle. who is being elitist now?

Not at all. You purposefully twist what he wrote and I responded to. Subsistence farmers typically live in a state of near-constant starvation, scratching in the dirt for the most meager of livings under the most primitive of conditions. While he said they "are being displaced by corporate farming operations, forcing them into poverty... " As if they aren't in poverty already! As if that same situation here in the US forced everyone into poverty! (roughly 100 years ago, most of American were subsistence farmers).

It never ceases to amaze me the state of denial that most people insist that they live in, and how angry they get when someone exposes their true motives. What's wrong with it? "Organic" is an advancement in technology, not a "back to the future." Just as all true conservation methods are. I support it, just not that deceptive marketing that sells it at inflated prices nor the clueless smugness of those who consume it and seek desperately to justify what they pay for it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: ElFenix
of course, when mercanuribe points out that subsistence farming is mostly organic, and therefore most of the world can afford to eat it, you go off on a red herring about it not being a very affluent lifestyle. who is being elitist now?

I'd say the guy telling millions that they should live a hand to mouth subsistence lifestyle for the rest of time so he can feel that his food is 'sustainable' is still the elitist.

Without question. Some people are fsckin' clueless assholes. They keep other people down for their own ends and call that compassionate, while at the same call those who would those people a hand-up "selfish." Their petty misery-loves-company cluelessness pisses me off.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: So
Not that they are baseless...clearly they must have a pretty large waft of data, but one must accept the biggest study of all -- the market, as the authoritative example.

the market doesn't necessarily price based on cost. a perfectly competitive market, yes. but there are no perfectly competitive markets. in reality, pricing is based on profit maximization. and so if people are willing to pay extra to feel good about themselves for buying certain products over others, then producers will take advantage of it. point being, there is little indication of the cost of something shown by examing prices.
this is even moreso the truth when there are externalities involved.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic
Considering the fact that virtually all farming operations hate and despise Monsanto (the world's largest maker of pesticides, i.e. "Roundup") because of that company's strong-arm business practices, I am more than certain that they, the farmers, would decrease their usage of fertilizers and pesticides (because that is expensive overhead to them) if they thought they could get similar yields by doing so.

It is IMO a serious fallacy to accept theoretical "evidence" over empirical evidence. On the internet, it's like being an armchair quarterback. In real life, it's like religion.

so a 20 year cornell study, the US government study, and the swiss study are 'theoretical' and not empirical?

I used to work for an organization that has been doing a >20 year study where they grow crops in adjacent crops using both conventional and organic methods, and they've found that yields are approximately the same except in abnormally wet and abnormally dry years in which case organic has higher yields. Of course they are not unbiased, but there's no way their study would survive scrutiny if they were not using widely accepted "conventional" farming techniques.

You can easily find statistics that say organic yields are lower than conventional yields, but there are also a LOT more organic farms that are smaller than 5 acres than conventional farms.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic
Not at all. You purposefully twist what he wrote and I responded to. Subsistence farmers typically live in a state of near-constant starvation, scratching in the dirt for the most meager of livings under the most primitive of conditions. While he said they "are being displaced by corporate farming operations, forcing them into poverty... " As if they aren't in poverty already! As if that same situation here in the US forced everyone into poverty! (roughly 100 years ago, most of American were subsistence farmers).

It never ceases to amaze me the state of denial that most people insist that they live in, and how angry they get when someone exposes their true motives. What's wrong with it? "Organic" is an advancement in technology, not a "back to the future." Just as all true conservation methods are. I support it, just not that deceptive marketing that sells it at inflated prices nor the clueless smugness of those who consume it and seek desperately to justify what they pay for it.

excuse me, but you're the one who put a :laugh: smiley after pointing out that subsistence living isn't very affluent.

and no sh!t about living hand to mouth, that's why it's called 'subsistence.'


and again, in case you missed the point, subsistence farming, which is largely organic, is affordable by most of the world.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
what is unsustainable about similar yields, lower fertilizer usage, and lower pesticide usage?

Considering the fact that virtually all farming operations hate and despise Monsanto (the world's largest maker of pesticides, i.e. "Roundup") because of that company's strong-arm business practices, I am more than certain that they, the farmers, would decrease their usage of fertilizers and pesticides (because that is expensive overhead to them) if they thought they could get similar yields by doing so.

It is IMO a serious fallacy to accept theoretical "evidence" over empirical evidence. On the internet, it's like being an armchair quarterback. In real life, it's like religion.

This is where I believe your misunderstanding lies, and it's a misunderstanding of the movement behind organics/sustainable farming (use of the word organics might be a buzzword, but sustainable farming is not) in general.

I have personally witnessed indiscriminate use of Round-Up and similar pesticides in vineyards and on hundreds of acres of land used for the trees/plants that you see in your local Home Depot, etc. (one of my clients is the largest nursery in the US and I used to work on-site) I've seen all the warning posters in Spanish all over nursery properties warning the immigrants not to expose their hands, I've seen the ulcers caused from mishandling pesticides, and I've seen the liberal spraying of Round-Up on everything from grapes to roses. Who do you think handles those plants? Do you think they get "washed" before getting to the consumer?

Another example might be China and India's use of pesticides on tea plantations. Do a little Googling and see how the farmers suffer through improper use of pesticides.

Even if you don't care about the above, at least understand this: The reason people use Round-Up and similar isn't because they have no suitable alternatives; rather, it's because it's easier and cheaper. There might be exceptions, but that is the foundation of the argument in favor of sustainable farming practices. Teach farmers one of two things:

1) How to use presticides properly and in proper amounts.
2) Teach farmers to use alternative methods. This takes time, effort and sometimes a greater expense.

It's the 2nd item that those behind the movement hope to change.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: So
Not that they are baseless...clearly they must have a pretty large waft of data, but one must accept the biggest study of all -- the market, as the authoritative example.

the market doesn't necessarily price based on cost. a perfectly competitive market, yes. but there are no perfectly competitive markets. in reality, pricing is based on profit maximization. and so if people are willing to pay extra to feel good about themselves for buying certain products over others, then producers will take advantage of it. point being, there is little indication of the cost of something shown by examing prices.
this is even moreso the truth when there are externalities involved.

Do you see now what this thread is all about and what I'm arguing? If the producers weren't deceptively marketing, and if the consumers weren't falling all over that marketing to feel smugly good about themselves, we wouldn't have the unbalanced market and inflated prices.
Some might argue we wouldn't have the consumer "awareness" or the appropriate producer incentive, but OTOH we could have this more nutritious product be affordable and available to a wider market base, which could speed up its implementation instead of the way it is being kept as a premium elitist product now.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Originally posted by: 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.

uhhh......

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.

And you came to question the name "organic"...doesn't questioning lead to discussion? The point is, why do you have to act so tough on this matter? You're like so fired up on such a stupid topic. Get over it, get over yourself. You sound stupid.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix
what is unsustainable about similar yields, lower fertilizer usage, and lower pesticide usage?

Considering the fact that virtually all farming operations hate and despise Monsanto (the world's largest maker of pesticides, i.e. "Roundup") because of that company's strong-arm business practices, I am more than certain that they, the farmers, would decrease their usage of fertilizers and pesticides (because that is expensive overhead to them) if they thought they could get similar yields by doing so.

It is IMO a serious fallacy to accept theoretical "evidence" over empirical evidence. On the internet, it's like being an armchair quarterback. In real life, it's like religion.

This is where I believe your misunderstanding lies, and it's a misunderstanding of the movement behind organics/sustainable farming (use of the word organics might be a buzzword, but sustainable farming is not) in general.

I have personally witnessed indiscriminate use of Round-Up and similar pesticides in vineyards and on hundreds of acres of land used for the trees/plants that you see in your local Home Depot, etc. (one of my clients is the largest nursery in the US and I used to work on-site) I've seen all the warning posters in Spanish all over nursery properties warning the immigrants not to expose their hands, I've seen the ulcers caused from mishandling pesticides, and I've seen the liberal spraying of Round-Up on everything from grapes to roses. Who do you think handles those plants? Do you think they get "washed" before getting to the consumer?

Another example might be China and India's use of pesticides on tea plantations. Do a little Googling and see how the farmers suffer through improper use of pesticides.

Even if you don't care about the above, at least understand this: The reason people use Round-Up and similar isn't because they have no suitable alternatives; rather, it's because it's easier and cheaper. There might be exceptions, but that is the foundation of the argument in favor of sustainable farming practices. Teach farmers one of two things:

1) How to use presticides properly and in proper amounts.
2) Teach farmers to use alternative methods. This takes time, effort and sometimes a greater expense.

It's the 2nd item that those behind the movement hope to change.

Kindly argue my argument, not your own. If anything, the health hazards of pesticides represent an additional cost incentive to farmers to move away from them, and thus strengthen my own argument even further. Big picture, big picture.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: So
Not that they are baseless...clearly they must have a pretty large waft of data, but one must accept the biggest study of all -- the market, as the authoritative example.

the market doesn't necessarily price based on cost. a perfectly competitive market, yes. but there are no perfectly competitive markets. in reality, pricing is based on profit maximization. and so if people are willing to pay extra to feel good about themselves for buying certain products over others, then producers will take advantage of it. point being, there is little indication of the cost of something shown by examing prices.
this is even moreso the truth when there are externalities involved.

Do you see now what this thread is all about and what I'm arguing? If the producers weren't deceptively marketing, and if the consumers weren't falling all over that marketing to feel smugly good about themselves, we wouldn't have the unbalanced market and inflated prices.
Some might argue we wouldn't have the consumer "awareness" or the appropriate producer incentive, but OTOH we could have this more nutritious product be affordable and available to a wider market base, which could speed up its implementation instead of the way it is being kept as a premium elitist product now.

I think everyone sees what you're arguing, but I personally think it's silly. Where exactly are you going where consumers are "falling all over that marketing to feel smugly good about themselves?" Seriously, I have many friends that shop at one of the more popular Whole Foods in ATL, including myself, and I've never encountered any of this. Yes, many people there are affluent, but never have I encountered one instance of snobbery. In fact, everyone there are some of the kindest and most helpful people I've known. All the workers are helpful and kind as well.

I'd just like to know more about where exactly you're having these experiences.

 

[Descartes]

.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: So
Not that they are baseless...clearly they must have a pretty large waft of data, but one must accept the biggest study of all -- the market, as the authoritative example.

the market doesn't necessarily price based on cost. a perfectly competitive market, yes. but there are no perfectly competitive markets. in reality, pricing is based on profit maximization. and so if people are willing to pay extra to feel good about themselves for buying certain products over others, then producers will take advantage of it. point being, there is little indication of the cost of something shown by examing prices.
this is even moreso the truth when there are externalities involved.

Do you see now what this thread is all about and what I'm arguing? If the producers weren't deceptively marketing, and if the consumers weren't falling all over that marketing to feel smugly good about themselves, we wouldn't have the unbalanced market and inflated prices.
Some might argue we wouldn't have the consumer "awareness" or the appropriate producer incentive, but OTOH we could have this more nutritious product be affordable and available to a wider market base, which could speed up its implementation instead of the way it is being kept as a premium elitist product now.

the thread originally was that 'organic' is deceptive marketing (that is itsn't more nutritious) and that the term is poor, as anything with carbon in it is organic.

what you've argued is that the rest of the world can't afford it, which is a lie. the rest of the world can afford it. again:

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.

the world has afforded 'ogranic' food for ten thousand years. and, as it turns out, the mechanized organic farming that gets food into hundreds of thousands of walmarts and safeways and albertsons and other grocery stores gives similar yields with lower costs-per-acre than 'standard' chemical-mechanized farming practiced in the US and the rest of the developed world. most likely, the rest of the world could afford that as well.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Wow, I'm being flamed for my comment on the subsistence farmers because they don't have an American standard of living. Why don't you armchair economists take a trip to a poor country and ask displaced farmers living in overpopulated megacities if they preferred their "poor" subsistence lifestyle or their current one. Ask the former landowners now workinig for agribusinesses the same thing.
Yeah I'm sure a lot of them would rather live like us, posting on forums during our work days, and going home to watch Lost, but that is moot. Being displaced by unsustainable large scale agricultural operations because you've been taxed nearly to death by a corrupt goverment favoring big business is not the path to wealth. I'm not sure what that has to do with me feeling good about myself.

Edit: A smallholder has much more incentive to take care of his land than a large company that can strongarm a few political officials for more land or just keep pumping in fertilizers. Keep in mind that the American dream WAS subsistence farming, not owning a big house and a big car.