Why so cynical about organic food?

[Capt Caveman]

Why is that a reason to hate them? Almost every company that sells patented seeds (something that could be done since the 1930s) has similar agreements. No one holds a gun to a farmers head and forces them to buy a specific brand of seeds, nor would farmers be buying them if it was costing them money over buying another brand of seeds or using off-patent seeds. Monsanto isn't the only seed supplier. Seed saving isn't a big deal for most farmers.

Not sure if serious. Ask the 100s of farmers being sued by Monsanto.

 

[Brainonska511]

Not sure if serious. Ask the 100s of farmers being sued by Monsanto.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...ve-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case.
...
So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.

But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong.) If you know of any case where this actually happened, please let me know.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Yeah the seed patent and licensing stuff is completely ridiculous. Worse is farmers get sued even if it happens by accident. Like if seeds from one crop end up in another crop when it was not licensed to be used there. Monsanto is trying to be like Microsoft with seeds.

Plants should not be regulated to the point where you can't even grow them or cultivate them. You should be able to reuse the seeds and what not. It's completely absurd that they can set restrictions like that. Actually speaking of IP laws John Deere does crap like that too with their tractors. You're not allowed to fix it yourself or have someone else fix it, you HAVE to bring it to an authorized dealer. You're also not allowed to modify it in any way either. Basically when you buy their tractor you're only buying the rights to use it, you don't actually own it. Kinda sad when even farmers have to worry about IP laws... and yet governments keep wanting to make these laws stronger. They screw over a lot of people.

 

[Capt Caveman]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...ve-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

Yawn and that's a different circumstance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-small-farmers/

74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was "aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent.

Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?

http://www.nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm

https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Monsanto/farmerssued.php

 

[Brainonska511]

Yeah the seed patent and licensing stuff is completely ridiculous. Worse is farmers get sued even if it happens by accident. Like if seeds from one crop end up in another crop when it was not licensed to be used there. Monsanto is trying to be like Microsoft with seeds.

Read the links. That NEVER happens.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Read the links. That NEVER happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser

 

[Brainonska511]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser

Yeah, that guy was intentionally going around planting patented seeds. He's no hero. He was a thief.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....supreme-court-cases-farmers-bowman-schmeiser/

In 1998, testing revealed that >90 percent of his 1,000 acres were Round-Up Ready. The Federal court case states that Schmeiser did not deny the presence of GM canola on his field but he claims that he did not deliberately plant or deliberately cause the planting of the seeds. Schmeiser additionally stated that he had suffered substantial damage and loss due to the GM canola, because his own variety that he had been developing over the course of many years got contaminated. Additionally, he argued that in order to have infringed upon the patent, he must have sprayed his fields with Round-Up, and he claims that he did not do this. Finally, Schmeiser’s defense team argued that by releasing the gene into the environment in an uncontrolled manner, Monsanto had lost or waived their rights to an exclusive patent.

There may have been accidental contamination at first, but 90% is not "accidental".

 

[Capt Caveman]

Yeah, that guy was intentionally going around planting patented seeds. He's no hero. He was a thief.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....supreme-court-cases-farmers-bowman-schmeiser/

There may have been accidental contamination at first, but 90% is not "accidental".

So, he was sued for using seeds from cross contamination. Gotcha! Reusing seeds is something farmers have been doing for 1000s of years and cross contamination is something that will always happen.

 

[TheGardener]

I'm not sure if you realize how moronic you sound. Roundup, when applied correctly, is incredibly commonly used for doing exactly what I outlined - killing the vegetation in a field prior to plowing and planting. I'm going to assume you're a citiot (idiot from a city who thinks he knows what happens on farms) and not someone who lives in any sort of rural area. Glyphosate, when used in prescribed concentrations, is extremely safe. In the environment, provided it doesn't get into ponds, etc., it rapidly breaks down. Spray, and plow under a few days later, after it's had a chance to migrate through the plant to the roots. Thus, with annual crops, even without round-up ready seeds, weeds can be minimized. How the hell do you think weeds are cleared from new farm land? 10,000 illegal immigrants wandering around, pulling them out by hand?? No. Herbicides are used. Glyphosate being one of the most common, and is often mixed with 2,4-d (another common herbicide).

You've referred to ill health effects of glyphosate - and those effects are from excessively concentrated (if not drinking it straight out of the bottle.) You may as well tell people not to put salt on their steak because if you consume 3 kilograms of salt at once, it can kill you. To spray an acre of field to kill off, say, grass, you would use roughly 1 quart of 41% concentrated glyphosate, with a lot of water. Roughly 1 part in 100. Other types of weeds require up to 2 or 3 ounces of concentrated glyphosate per 128 ounces of water. I don't recommend it, but you could probably drink an 8oz glass at that level of concentration, without any major ill effects. I routinely spot kill certain types of weeds in my pastures - types that spread quickly and that are nutritionally poor for my animals. I can't stand thistle. I've never had animals get sick from grazing on weeds that have been sprayed.

Again, at the most, 3 ounces of 41% glyphosate per 128 ounces of water - and that's enough to spray hundreds of square feet.

Well telling me that I am moronic, an idiot and a city dweller really adds to your credibility. Nothing like sticking to factual arguments.

So even though I told you about the half life of Roundup, you've decided to up your game from telling people it is fine to use on weeds and grass and immediately grow vegetables. Now you are suggesting that people add it to water and drink it. You even poo poo the warnings from the manufacturer. I guess you are world's smartest guy. You know more about the product than Monsanto. No reason to refute anything you say, because you're a genius.

 

[Scarpozzi]

A big detractor from the Organic food movement is the endless hipsters that gravitate toward a Vegan, Organic, or Gluten-Free diet and are basically doing it for image or as a fad. The real issue isn't the debate whether or not it's healthier or tastes better, etc...but a lot of people can't stand those who are eating those foods because it matches their hipster or hippie image.

I worked with a guy who was into body building, but he insisted on being 'vegan' one day. He wasn't for like 5 years, then started dating this Asian girl that happened to be vegan. He was always reheating some kind of bean curd stuff in the microwave that came out of a can and looked like dog food from the 80s (you know, before they started really marketing premium dog food). He fell off the wagon when the relationship ended and went on a 2 month steak binge. I feel like a high percentage of people who make those food choices are fake like that.

 

[TheGardener]

A guy changing because he has a hot gf. Never heard of that before.

 

[Scarpozzi]

A guy changing because he has a hot gf. Never heard of that before.

I didn't say she was hot. I said she was Asian. Actually, this guy was a 7th Day Adventist who only wanted to date Asians....I think he pissed off both of them eventually and ended up alone....thus he went back to eating a normal American diet. 🙁

 

[DrPizza]

Yeah the seed patent and licensing stuff is completely ridiculous. Worse is farmers get sued even if it happens by accident. Like if seeds from one crop end up in another crop when it was not licensed to be used there. Monsanto is trying to be like Microsoft with seeds.

Plants should not be regulated to the point where you can't even grow them or cultivate them. You should be able to reuse the seeds and what not. It's completely absurd that they can set restrictions like that. Actually speaking of IP laws John Deere does crap like that too with their tractors. You're not allowed to fix it yourself or have someone else fix it, you HAVE to bring it to an authorized dealer. You're also not allowed to modify it in any way either. Basically when you buy their tractor you're only buying the rights to use it, you don't actually own it. Kinda sad when even farmers have to worry about IP laws... and yet governments keep wanting to make these laws stronger. They screw over a lot of people.

It's already been pointed out that the Monsanto lawsuit nonsense is just that - nonsense. Every case where they have sued has been quite justified. And, the farmers agree to using their seed without saving seed for next year's crop because <drum roll> it's more profitable for the farmers. If it was less profitable, they'd use an heirloom seed and save the seeds. And, they're welcome to do that if they'd like.

The John Deere stuff is equally nonsense - it stemmed from an article that misinterpreted and took things out of context. You appear to simply be repeating what some morons on the Internet decided to spread without doing any real fact checking.

Well telling me that I am moronic, an idiot and a city dweller really adds to your credibility. Nothing like sticking to factual arguments.

So even though I told you about the half life of Roundup, you've decided to up your game from telling people it is fine to use on weeds and grass and immediately grow vegetables. Now you are suggesting that people add it to water and drink it. You even poo poo the warnings from the manufacturer. I guess you are world's smartest guy. You know more about the product than Monsanto. No reason to refute anything you say, because you're a genius.

Speaking of those internet morons, doubling down are you? I pointed out, and many others have pointed out in the posts since, that glyphosate is considered safe.

 

[rga]

It's already been pointed out that the Monsanto lawsuit nonsense is just that - nonsense. Every case where they have sued has been quite justified. And, the farmers agree to using their seed without saving seed for next year's crop because <drum roll> it's more profitable for the farmers. If it was less profitable, they'd use an heirloom seed and save the seeds. And, they're welcome to do that if they'd like

I don't think they're as welcome as you like to think they are. A farmer trapped in the middle of a bunch of farms who've bought seeds, is very likely to see plants of the same genome growing on his/her own farm.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Here's more info about the John Deere stuff: http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/ (kinda off topic)

 

[darkswordsman17]

Good to see this has turned into yet another Red Squirrel doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about thread...

Here's more info about the John Deere stuff: http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/ (kinda off topic)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/10/27/right-to-tinker-victory/#21bc76bc38ae

Unfortunately I believe keeping this exemption will become a yearly battle, and considering how blatantly corporations and too many politicians like to keep being willfully ignorant of this stuff (see encryption debate), it could turn.

And that was about the only truly legitimate concern of all the ones you've brought up. Well aside from your apparent support of mass genocide population culling so that we can absolve this irrational fear of allegedly "unnatural" food that you and far too many other people have. That is pretty concerning to me.

 

[gururu2]

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/news/2016/02/organicandnon-organicmilkandmeat/

This is a very interesting, data driven and scientifically based study.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/news/2016/02/organicandnon-organicmilkandmeat/

This is a very interesting, data driven and scientifically based study.

And then when you ACTUALLY look at the data and do some thinking

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/organic-vs-conventional-meat-and-milk/

 

[gururu2]

And then when you ACTUALLY look at the data and do some thinking

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/organic-vs-conventional-meat-and-milk/

An opinion piece is far different than a peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal. And though the piece you've linked purports to reduce the study to a grass versus non-grass diet, I would add that the authors failed to read the part of the study that indicated the following:

"The study showed that the more desirable fat profiles in organic milk were closely linked to outdoor grazing and low concentrate feeding in dairy diets, as prescribed by organic farming standards".

It is not simply an intake of grass, it is also a reduction in high concentrate feeding among other factors.

 

[Brainonska511]

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/news/2016/02/organicandnon-organicmilkandmeat/

This is a very interesting, data driven and scientifically based study.

Milk and beef are poor choices of omega-3 fatty acids in the first place, making the percentages differences outlined in the meta-analysis somewhat meaningless. If you want to enrich your diet in omega-3 fatty acids, you're better off eating fish.

http://biobeef.faculty.ucdavis.edu/2016/02/15/omega-3-fatty-acids-and-milk/