What makes organic food more real than non-organic food?

[druid91]

I've seen this complaint aimed at a lot of things, but the general idea I have gotten is that somehow food grown the "good" old fashioned way is somehow better than newer methods.

In other words no pesticides, no genetic engineering (leaving aside the fact that primitive genetic engineering has been around for a long time), And for meats no cloning, No artificial additives...

Now whether or not this stuff makes the food healthier is debatable...


But how does a cow being a clone, a copy of another cow, make it less real than another?

How does adding artificial flavours to something make it not real?

[Tiger Duck]

I've seen this complaint aimed at a lot of things, but the general idea I have gotten is that somehow food grown the "good" old fashioned way is somehow better than newer methods.

In other words no pesticides, no genetic engineering (leaving aside the fact that primitive genetic engineering has been around for a long time), And for meats no cloning, No artificial additives...

Now whether or not this stuff makes the food healthier is debatable...


But how does a cow being a clone, a copy of another cow, make it less real than another?
Pesticides may or may not leave traces behind. that subsequently gets eaten by the consumer. They also damage the environment as part of their design.

And some feel that genetic engineering has possible side effects that have not yet been fully explored, and that we should be careful till it is




How does adding artificial flavours to something make it not real?

It makes it less real by adding artificial stuff. :smallconfused: what don't you get?

[Solaris]

Pesticides may or may not leave traces behind. that subsequently gets eaten by the consumer. They also damage the environment as part of their design.

You have a better argument with the hormones and antibiotics. Those have a demonstrable affect and aren't almost completely washed off by the time the food gets to you.


And some feel that genetic engineering has possible side effect that have not yet been fully explored, and that we should be careful till it is

Some people thought the world was flat. Doesn't make it any more grounded in reality. You want to prove there are potential problems, you prove there are problems, not just say "Oh, it's a newfangled science so it must be evil!"
Not like them smart phones. Those things are evil. I know they're up to something.


It makes it less real by adding artificial stuff. :smallconfused: what don't you get?

This one I agree with. If you put fake flavor into something to cover for less-than-comprehensive farming techniques, it's still fake flavor. Whether or not it tastes better is all a matter of, well, taste. Personally, I can't tell the difference - between my father's cooking, my own cooking, and MREs my taste buds committed mass suicide many moons ago.

I do recall reading an article about how organic farming ain't all it's cracked up to be, how it suffers from pest problems and disease. Y'know, all the problems that our modern farming methods counteract. It also lacks nutritive differences. Also something about hippies. I'm too lazy to go look it up, though, so don't quote me on it.

[Haruki-kun]

My personal non-profesional opinion:

They're the same thing, but growing things organically is more expensive and can't compete in the market in terms of prices. As such, campaigns to remind people that organic food is "real" have been made so that organic food has a fighting chance.

[ghost_warlock]

It costs more, so it must be better for you, right?

[Tiger Duck]

Some people thought the world was flat. Doesn't make it any more grounded in reality. You want to prove there are potential problems, you prove there are problems, not just say "Oh, it's a newfangled science so it must be evil!"
Not like them smart phones. Those things are evil. I know they're up to something.

Oh I didn't myself clear, I don't particularly believe it's dangerous myself. Just some peoples do, so they are are testing stuff now, but as they are worried about the long term effects it isn't going fast :smallwink:

[Coidzor]

I can't recall, does organic farming require one to abstain from using those mass-produced petroleum and phosphorous based fertilizers?

Because if that's the case it's better in one way because it's not using up a finite resource to make food, which is a renewable resource....theoretically as long as we don't kill the land by overfarming one thing with no crop rotation at all and not putting stuff back into the soil like a couple of places did in Mesopotamia back in the day such that nothing at all can grow in those places due to the salts left by the wheat or something.

But as far as being more real, that's just silly.

[Flickerdart]

Clearly because the "fake" food has no carbon in it, therefore not being organic.

[Elder Tsofu]

I believe that we would call it "ecological food" in Sweden. It generally sets some lower treatment level for the animals, like chickens being able to move about in addition to crops being raised in a more traditional/environmental friendly way.

Oh, and I don't have any problem with additives - but if you can get the same thing the normal way it feels more luxurious and I'm more likely to buy it.

[Perenelle]

It costs more, so it must be better for you, right?

Of course! ( :smalltongue: )



How does adding artificial flavours to something make it not real?

Artificial is artificial, simple as that. If you inject a clump of rice in the shape of a strawberry with strawberry flavoring, that doesn't make it a strawberry, does it?

I've always thought that organic stuff tastes a lot better than non-organic foods. While that may be purely psychological, I'm still more willing to buy it. That and it makes me feel better about myself.

[Elder Tsofu]

Of course! ( :smalltongue: )


Artificial is artificial, simple as that. If you inject a clump of rice in the shape of a strawberry with strawberry flavoring, that doesn't make it a strawberry, does it?

Well, I would argue that strawberries are more than their flavour - but if you only go by that then yes, it is a strawberry.
Maybe it would be better to compare products of strawberries to products with strawberry flavour instead of the real fruit and an hypothetical constructed strawberry.

[Coidzor]

How does adding artificial flavours to something make it not real?

Ah, now this brings me back to reading Fastfood Nation as a lad, especially the point where it discussed how the same chemical compound getting isolated from whatever originated it was actually less safe and more time consuming to get it from the organism for a natural flavor label than it would be to just make the chemical compound directly and get the artificial flavor label.

Basically, both types of things are isolated using, technology and other artificial means, for instance, I believe it described a type of fungus was cultivated to produce natural strawberry flavoring and then extracted it from them and processed it at one point, but whether it comes from a living thing's body or is produced directly in a controlled environment is the deciding thing, when really neither substance is truly natural since it's been processed to an extreme level. And neither process, in this case, had anything to do with an actual strawberry.

[Perenelle]

Well, I would argue that strawberries are more than their flavour - but if you only go by that then yes, it is a strawberry.
Maybe it would be better to compare products of strawberries to products with strawberry flavour instead of the real fruit and an hypothetical constructed strawberry.

Indeed, but it was the first thing that came to mind for some reason.
Maybe a strawberry popsicle made with real strawberries and an artificially flavored lollipop?

[CoffeeIncluded]

I find that organic food, especially produce and meat, tends to taste much better than traditionally- grown/raised produce and meat. Also, that many antibiotics in meat and milk is not good for anyone. Also also, pesticides and artificial fertilizers cause real problems with runoff and the like. Also also also, the vast majority of places that raise animals for organic meat tend to treat them much better than factory farms. Well worth the cost, in my opinion.

Local food works well too.

[Solaris]

I find that organic food, especially produce and meat, tends to taste much better than traditionally- grown/raised produce and meat.
There's something deeply wrong when the meat factory style of animal husbandry is referred to as the 'traditional' method.


Also also, pesticides and artificial fertilizers cause real problems with runoff and the like.
I'm one of those sorts who sneers at anthropogenic global warming and even I agree with this point. Agricultural runoff is doing some serious damage to river, lake, and oceanic ecosystems.


Local food works well too.
Especially if you like that tasty starvation. 'Local food' is a joke of a movement - while I like my chow fresh just as much as the next guy, trying to eat local is a non-starter for a huge portion of the country. It works to a point, but if everyone got in on it you'd rapidly discover that 'local' means 'can't support that big huge urban center'.

[Elder Tsofu]

Indeed, but it was the first thing that came to mind for some reason.
Maybe a strawberry popsicle made with real strawberries and an artificially flavored lollipop?

The human brain works as it does, that second comparison is much better. ^^
And while I haven't been in a position to actually compare anything except banana ice-cream in that case I actually did spot a difference.
(I thought it was artificial flavour but got surprised as the taste seemed much better than usual - it turned out it was made with real bananas in it compared to all the other brands)

But I think that's one of the cases where its easier to put the banana in instead of artificially recreating all flavours in the right proportions and put them in. (for the full sensation)
And you save yourself those strange looks from the people at the marketing department.

[Perenelle]

The human brain works as it does, that second comparison is much better. ^^
And while I haven't been in a position to actually compare anything except banana ice-cream in that case I actually did spot a difference.
(I thought it was artificial flavour but got surprised as the taste seemed much better than usual - it turned out it was made with real bananas in it compared to all the other brands)

But I think that's one of the cases where its easier to put the banana in instead of artificially recreating all flavours in the right proportions and put them in. (for the full sensation)
And you save yourself those strange looks from the people at the marketing department.

I had the option to get banana ice cream made with real bananas yesterday, I definitely should have.

I've had banana flavored popsicles before that tasted nothing like banana but were still yummy, surprisingly. Other than that I've never come across anything else that's artificially banana flavored.

Cherry and grape artificial flavoring is gross though, it reminds me of cough syrup. I think some artificial flavorings are rather hard to get right most of the time.

[Moff Chumley]

As far as meat goes, I'll only eat local and organic, regardless of how expensive it is. If that means I have meat half as often, I'm okay with that. For other things, I'd rather buy local, but as Solaris mentioned, that's not always practical.

[Sacrieur]

Grass fed beef is goodly =D.


The questions you raise are the same raised against the "organic" advocates. I use organic in quotes because don't typically know what it actually means. There are plenty of carbon containing substances that will kill you (METHANE! CARBON MONOXIDE!)

Genetically altered food is a good thing (Bananas! Yum!), and can often increase nutritional quantity. Pesticides can be a bad thing, and are poisonous. Just wash your fruit and veggies thoroughly, a study in the UK found that pesticide levels between nonorganic and "organic" foods were the same.

[Coidzor]

I've had banana flavored popsicles before that tasted nothing like banana but were still yummy, surprisingly. Other than that I've never come across anything else that's artificially banana flavored.

Circus peanuts, the candy, should be banana flavored IIRC.

[Perenelle]

Circus peanuts, the candy, should be banana flavored IIRC.

O.o ...That's what they're supposed to taste like?

They tasted like something but I thought it was supposed to be a unique, independent flavor that they just came up with for the Circus Peanuts.

I will never be able to eat those again without thinking of you, Coid.

[Coidzor]

O.o ...That's what they're supposed to taste like?

They tasted like something but I thought it was supposed to be a unique, independent flavor that they just came up with for the Circus Peanuts.

I will never be able to eat those again without thinking of you, Coid.

Yes. (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Circus_Peanuts).. Just as planned... :smallamused: Muahahahahaha! Soon, soon I will become memetic!

[Ravens_cry]

Gumball machines sometimes have these incredibly nasty hard banana flavoured candies. But honestly, most artificial flavours are merely synthesized versions of the same chemicals that make up natural flavours. Sure, the source is different ,but the actual constituents are exactly the same. It's the same thing with vitamin and mineral pills.

[ZombyWoof]

I've seen this complaint aimed at a lot of things, but the general idea I have gotten is that somehow food grown the "good" old fashioned way is somehow better than newer methods.

In other words no pesticides, no genetic engineering (leaving aside the fact that primitive genetic engineering has been around for a long time), And for meats no cloning, No artificial additives...

Now whether or not this stuff makes the food healthier is debatable...


But how does a cow being a clone, a copy of another cow, make it less real than another?

How does adding artificial flavours to something make it not real?
People are... strange. A lot of the artificial preservatives; however, simply add flavors that aren't the flavors of the food you're eating. Organic vegetables and fruits will be almost identical with the "non" organic produce tending to taste better and keep longer... and be a bit cheaper. The cost is the chance of traces of pesticides that could potentially be harmful. But the amount and use of pesticides in the US is so well-regulated that outside of your hyperactive environmentalist groups its use (not sure about production) is, well, just fine. In fact, DDT (the big one that people know about that was banned) was only bad because they were using a hundred to a thousand times as much of it as they needed to. A few years ago the government sprayed DDT in response to the west nile threat... and really nothing came of that except a bunch of dead mosquitos.

Really what you're hearing is what's generally known as "propaganda."

There is concern over the use of growth-hormones and broad spectrum antibiotics thrown haphazardly into their feed, but the concerns are separate. The growth-hormones do degrade the quality of the meat because what tastes best (at least to me) is a cow that's fed on grass and free-ranged its entire life. Same with chickens.

With the antibiotics, it's just a really, really bad idea to throw antibiotics around as exampled by medicine resistant strains of TB and Malaria. Similarly I don't use those "antibiotic" handwashes or soaps because there's not much point: most people between the ages of 2 and 82 aren't going to have a problem with unwashed hands. Maybe a little more sick. But even basic (heh heh) soap is enough to remove the really "dangerous" stuff and for the most part that's all you need. I also eat meat that's medium rare, have undercooked and eaten chicken, raw eggs, and other foods that according to the media would have me holding my bowels from the lovely effects.

If you're immune-compromised, YES. Make sure you take extra precautions. But for those of us who are not, you're doing yourself a disservice: by not letting your body fight off the infections itself it never learns to fight those infections, and when you get them they're worse.


The questions you raise are the same raised against the "organic" advocates. I use organic in quotes because don't typically know what it actually means. There are plenty of carbon containing substances that will kill you (METHANE! CARBON MONOXIDE!)

Outside of some forms of potash and a few other outliers, pretty much every fertilizer known to man is technically organic. One of the "organic" preservatives is salt, which only rarely contains carbon and even then in carbonate, which is generally not considered to be "organic" in a lab setting.

So talking about carbon-containing substances that kill you is sort of ridiculous since pretty much everything we use in day-to-day life is "organic." Plastic is organic. Neurotoxins are organic. Opium is organic. Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide are not considered organic compounds, generally speaking.

[Coidzor]

Gumball machines sometimes have these incredibly nasty hard banana flavoured candies. But honestly, most artificial flavours are merely synthesized versions of the same chemicals that make up natural flavours. Sure, the source is different ,but the actual constituents are exactly the same. It's the same thing with vitamin and mineral pills.

Oh, great, you just reminded me of banana runts. x.x

[ZombyWoof]

Also worth noting: "multivitamins" do not absorb as well into your body as vitamins in natural foods. Eat your greens!

(mmmm grilled asparagus)

[Blisstake]

The one thing that bugs me about the "organic" label is that the food cannot be genetically engineered. As I understand it, genetic modification manipulates the DNA so that it creates proteins more viable for cultivation. A lot of insulin is produced using genetically modified bacteria, and it allows animals like pigs to grow organs used for transplants (important seeing as we're at an organ shortage).

Agriculture on its own is manipulating plants in order to distribute the most food possible, so I don't see what the problem is with taking that to the maximum.

[Perenelle]

Oh, great, you just reminded me of banana runts. x.x

Those are nasty.. :smallyuk: And I never understood whether you're supposed to suck or chew on them. :smallconfused:


Apparently organic milk tastes a lot different than regular milk from what I've heard.

[Seerow]

So one thing I haven't seen anyone mention here yet:

Apparently my parents' doctor recently recommended to them to start eating more organic foods, claiming that it was more easily digestible and somehow conducive to weight loss.

Personally, I'm inclined to think the guy is a quack, the only things I've managed to find with a casual search is that the difference is purely psychological (organic food is somehow more satisfying, thus discouraging you from eating more), but I am open to being wrong on this, as I am after all not a doctor. Has anyone else heard anything about this?

[Brother Oni]

Similarly I don't use those "antibiotic" handwashes or soaps because there's not much point: most people between the ages of 2 and 82 aren't going to have a problem with unwashed hands. Maybe a little more sick. But even basic (heh heh) soap is enough to remove the really "dangerous" stuff and for the most part that's all you need. I also eat meat that's medium rare, have undercooked and eaten chicken, raw eggs, and other foods that according to the media would have me holding my bowels from the lovely effects.


Maybe not in First World countries or other places with very strict food safety laws, but in less well developed countries, basic food hygiene is a necessity.
Even some First World countries have issues - for example in Hong Kong they recommend you don't drink the tap water without boiling it due to the local climate.

As for not washing your hands not being an issue for most 2-28 year olds, well the last couple of deaths of apparently healthy people from the last E.Coli poisoning seems to disagree with you, and that's not particularly nasty compared to salmonella or botulism.



But for those of us who are not, you're doing yourself a disservice: by not letting your body fight off the infections itself it never learns to fight those infections, and when you get them they're worse.


Except we humans are so recently evolved on the evolutionary scale, we have no proper resistance to parasites such as tapeworms or protozoans.

I agree that some exposure to common microbiological organisms is good for your immune system, but there is a sensible limit as to what you willingly come in contact with.
There's evidence that we've been living with cholera since the times of the ancient Greeks - over 2000 years and we still have no native resistance to it. I'd still get vaccinated against it rather than expose myself to a live strain.



Personally, I'm inclined to think the guy is a quack, the only things I've managed to find with a casual search is that the difference is purely psychological (organic food is somehow more satisfying, thus discouraging you from eating more), but I am open to being wrong on this, as I am after all not a doctor. Has anyone else heard anything about this?

Well presumably by encouraging the consumption of organic food, he means eating more fresh fruit and veg, which definitely is conducive to weight loss. :smalltongue:

[Gaelbert]

Especially if you like that tasty starvation. 'Local food' is a joke of a movement - while I like my chow fresh just as much as the next guy, trying to eat local is a non-starter for a huge portion of the country. It works to a point, but if everyone got in on it you'd rapidly discover that 'local' means 'can't support that big huge urban center'.

Depends on how local you mean. I live in an urban center, and I can eat pretty much a full diet produced just outside the city limits. Places like Los Angeles that's not a possibility, but if you consider "local" as "in the same state" as opposed to "from Chile" then you really have a lot of possibilities.

[ZombyWoof]

If I made enough money I could eat exclusively from the Farmer's Market where I live, and let me tell you: that would taste a LOT better (and be absurdly better for the environment). But it *is* more expensive.

[Vaynor]

Depends on how local you mean. I live in an urban center, and I can eat pretty much a full diet produced just outside the city limits. Places like Los Angeles that's not a possibility, but if you consider "local" as "in the same state" as opposed to "from Chile" then you really have a lot of possibilities.

Unless you're from Chile. :smallwink:

[MoonCat]

It's not about old fashionedness, it's about not having pesticides on food, friendlier to the environment, all that.

[Worira]

The thing about locally grown food is that it's not an all-or-nothing thing. You don't need to set a particular limit to the distance from you that food is grown in which you'll buy, or to have every article of food you eat be local, to be conscious about where your food is grown.

[Blisstake]

If I made enough money I could eat exclusively from the Farmer's Market where I live, and let me tell you: that would taste a LOT better (and be absurdly better for the environment). But it *is* more expensive.

You really think it would taste better? I've had food labelled as organic/local, and it was hardly any different from the normal fruits I pick out at the grocery store. In fact, I've noticed the organic ones to go rotten in a much shorter time period - and they're more expensive.

I'm doubtful on environmental superiority as well. Just because a product doesn't have the organic label, doesn't necesarily mean it uses harmful pesticides.

[MoonCat]

Yeah, but it's better not to risk it when they are getting more common. And even if the flavors the same, it's still has other benefits. Generally, if you can afford it, just go for organic.

[Zaydos]

You really think it would taste better? I've had food labelled as organic/local, and it was hardly any different from the normal fruits I pick out at the grocery store. In fact, I've noticed the organic ones to go rotten in a much shorter time period - and they're more expensive.

I'm doubtful on environmental superiority as well. Just because a product doesn't have the organic label, doesn't necesarily mean it uses harmful pesticides.

From my experience organic food tends to be higher quality than non-organic, but not higher quality than really high quality non-organic food. It's more of a difference due to organic food having more regulations on its minimum quality than non-organic.

As for pesticides, there are in fact types of pesticides used on organic food. The example I know of (only one we went over in plant biology) is the cry toxins produced by bacillus thuringiensis. Now these at least differ from those used in non-organic foods in that regardless of dosage they are not inherently toxic to humans or most other animals but instead targetted towards select insects (as opposed to just "the dosage is too small to be dangerous").

[Gaelbert]

You really think it would taste better? I've had food labelled as organic/local, and it was hardly any different from the normal fruits I pick out at the grocery store. In fact, I've noticed the organic ones to go rotten in a much shorter time period - and they're more expensive.

I'm doubtful on environmental superiority as well. Just because a product doesn't have the organic label, doesn't necesarily mean it uses harmful pesticides.

Maybe you can't taste a difference between organic/normal, but there is a very real difference between farmers' market/supermarket. A very, very big difference.

[VanBuren]

Maybe you can't taste a difference between organic/normal, but there is a very real difference between farmers' market/supermarket. A very, very big difference.

Is there really? I'm really skeptical when claims like this are made.

[Raistlin1040]

Reasons To Buy Organic Eggs: You don't have to be PETA or even a vegetarian to be sickened by the sights of a bird shoved in a cage barely large enough to contain it. The diet of organic hens also leads to your eggs having increased Vitamin A and Omega-3 Acids. Some also prefer the taste.
Average Increase In Price: 60 cents per dozen. Worth it? Yes.

Reasons To Buy Organic Milk: Cows that aren't treated with antibiotics and hormones lead to milk without drug resistant bacteria, and reduces the rate of complications from regular milk, such as early on-set puberty in girls.
Average Increase In Price: $3.50 a gallon. Worth it? Only if you can afford it.

Reasons To Buy Organic Beef: Less fat, so much healthier in general. More Omega-3 acids, less chance of heart disease or cancer, less chance of E. Coli.
Average Increase in Price: $2.10 a pound. Worth it? Only if you can afford it.

Reasons To Buy Organic Fruit/Vegetables: Less pesticides and generally a fresher taste, if bought locally.
Average Increase In Price: 9 cents per banana. Worth it? Yes, if only for the taste and the supporting of local farmers.

Organic Poultry is often considered tastier than non-Organic. Organic Livestock is generally less tasty, but the reasoning behind that is that we enjoy fat. Grain-fed cows are fat and delicious. You take a bite of a grain-fed cow hamburger, and it's juicy. Grass-fed, Organic cows are leaner. They aren't plumped or fed hormones, and so they are not immediately as delicious. Their taste is a little more acquired because it's not what we're used to taking as beef, but it really is better for you and better for the cattle. Organic Pork is generally considered tastier than non-Organic.

Honestly, if the price of organic meats and dairy products puts you off, don't buy them if you can't afford them. But if it's possible at all to afford organic fruits and vegetables, you should do it. They are simply better. They taste better, they are less likely to make you sick, they help out local farmers, and the price increase is generally fairly small.

Source (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2011756_2011730_2011720,00.html).

[Seerow]

Well presumably by encouraging the consumption of organic food, he means eating more fresh fruit and veg, which definitely is conducive to weight loss.


Nope, he specifically said organic milk, organic chicken, etc, not just "eat more fruits and vegetables" which would be more obvious/generic advice.

[Worira]

Uh... lean beef is not necessarily organic, or vice versa.

[Brother Oni]

Now these at least differ from those used in non-organic foods in that regardless of dosage they are not inherently toxic to humans or most other animals but instead targetted towards select insects (as opposed to just "the dosage is too small to be dangerous").

However, normal gut flora isn't inherently toxic to people. That still doesn't mean I want gram negative bacteria of faecal origin in my food. :smalltongue:

This isn't intended as a direct contradiction to your comment on pesticides, just as a comment that anything can be harmful if it gets into the wrong place.


Nope, he specifically said organic milk, organic chicken, etc, not just "eat more fruits and vegetables" which would be more obvious/generic advice.

Well aside from the aforementioned higher food quality standard for food to be sold under the 'organic' label, I got nothing, so he may well be a borderline quack.

[Gaelbert]

Is there really? I'm really skeptical when claims like this are made.

Yes. There really is. And it's big enough to warrant an increased price, if that be the cost. I say this as a cheapskate, someone who buys everything he can secondhand and has gotten to the point of not eating to save money on food, sleeping on the floor so as not to buy a mattress, and sleeping with clothes on so as not to buy a blanket.

The difference is huge. The next time you go to central California, buy a basket of strawberries from a stand by the side of the road. Taste them. Then buy a basket from a supermarket and compare. If you prefer the supermarket ones, by any margin, then I will eat an essay I've written, film it, and put the video online.

[THAC0]

I was under the impression that, in the US at least, "organic" is an absolute meaningless word, since there's no regulation regarding what can and cannot be called organic.

That said, I prefer to grow/hunt my own or be very sure of where it's coming from, since I find the way most meat animals are treated to be disgusting, and I get really creeped out at a loaf of bread or some veggies that can sit there for months without molding.

[THAC0]

Depends on how local you mean. I live in an urban center, and I can eat pretty much a full diet produced just outside the city limits. Places like Los Angeles that's not a possibility, but if you consider "local" as "in the same state" as opposed to "from Chile" then you really have a lot of possibilities.

Well, "you" can, but "everyone" can't, just because of pure numbers. Most local areas, especially with cities, just cannot grow enough food to completely support the population.

[Coidzor]

Well, "you" can, but "everyone" can't, just because of pure numbers. Most local areas, especially with cities, just cannot grow enough food to completely support the population.

Depends on definition of local. Within the municipality, sure, there's a reason there's cities and then there's farmland. And in areas where cities have already built on all of the arable land this is especially true (and one of the downsides of urbanization which lead us to build on some of the best growing land in the area when building up New York City and Los Angeles.

In regards to the U.S. the definition was loosened legally but there is some criteria that generally must be met though I'm hazy upon what it actually is. There certainly is some difference though, because back when I was a produce clerk about 3 years ago, our organic produce would go bad faster than its mainstream counterpart.

[Worira]

400 miles or the same state.

[Gaelbert]

Well, "you" can, but "everyone" can't, just because of pure numbers. Most local areas, especially with cities, just cannot grow enough food to completely support the population.

Hence the:

Depends on how local you mean. I live in an urban center, and I can eat pretty much a full diet produced just outside the city limits. Places like Los Angeles that's not a possibility, but if you consider "local" as "in the same state" as opposed to "from Chile" then you really have a lot of possibilities.

[Moglorosh]

Reasons To Buy Organic Fruit/Vegetables: Less pesticides and generally a fresher taste, if bought locally.
Average Increase In Price: 9 cents per banana. Worth it? Yes, if only for the taste and the supporting of local farmers.

Source (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2011756_2011730_2011720,00.html).

All consumer bananas are genetically engineered, so they can't technically be "organic", can they? Also, pretty sure that unless you live in South America, you aren't going to be supporting any local banana farmers.

You'd have a point with pesticides if organic food had a lower likelihood of having residual pesticides, but it doesn't. Even if it did, I'm thinking the myriad of diseases that organic produce can carry that traditional produce doesn't kinda outweighs the risk of ingesting a little pesticide. Frankly I'd rather wash my veggies one more time than go down to ergot or e. coli.

[Coidzor]

Ahh, bananas. Those are a kettle of fish. And might actually be a form of fish.

[Nix Nihila]

All consumer bananas are genetically engineered, so they can't technically be "organic", can they?

I don't claim to know the intricacies of consumer bananas, but aren't the bananas you get at a store just a product of artificial selection?

[Zaydos]

However, normal gut flora isn't inherently toxic to people. That still doesn't mean I want gram negative bacteria of faecal origin in my food. :smalltongue:

This isn't intended as a direct contradiction to your comment on pesticides, just as a comment that anything can be harmful if it gets into the wrong place.

Personally I don't trust any type of toxin, even B.T. because if it's poisonous to something then it's potentially dangerous. It's supposed to be completely safe for humans so they can still call it "organic", that and it's organically produced by bacteria.


I was under the impression that, in the US at least, "organic" is an absolute meaningless word, since there's no regulation regarding what can and cannot be called organic.

That said, I prefer to grow/hunt my own or be very sure of where it's coming from, since I find the way most meat animals are treated to be disgusting, and I get really creeped out at a loaf of bread or some veggies that can sit there for months without molding.


All consumer bananas are genetically engineered, so they can't technically be "organic", can they? Also, pretty sure that unless you live in South America, you aren't going to be supporting any local banana farmers.

You'd have a point with pesticides if organic food had a lower likelihood of having residual pesticides, but it doesn't. Even if it did, I'm thinking the myriad of diseases that organic produce can carry that traditional produce doesn't kinda outweighs the risk of ingesting a little pesticide. Frankly I'd rather wash my veggies one more time than go down to ergot or e. coli.

Pesticides is supposed to be the largest difference; used to be they couldn't use any, now there are some that are allowable (such as the cry toxins of the bacteria mentioned before).

There's also regulations on fertilizers used and stuff they put on the fruit.

As for the genetic engineering of bananas they aren't genetically engineered any more than a dog is. They were specially bred, just like Zea Mays (corn), wheat, cabbages (note that cabbage, broccoli, brussel sprouts, collard greens, and a few other foodstuffs all comes from different breeds of the same species of plant). Not genetically engineered.

Now B.T. Plants, ones that have been spliced with a bacteria bacillus thuringiensis are not organic because of it (which means organic ones just spray the bacteria onto the plant :smallsigh:).

So yes it's mostly meaningless. There are regulations, but there are more and more loopholes to them.

Organic eggs have one major requirement that's an improvement: they can't feed the chickens other chickens (reducing salmonela and other diseases).


I don't claim to know the intricacies of consumer bananas, but aren't the bananas you get at a store just a product of artificial selection?

Yes, noble ninja.

[Worira]

I don't claim to know the intricacies of consumer bananas, but aren't the bananas you get at a store just a product of artificial selection?

Well, they're all clones, so it's kind of iffy how accurate "organic" is.

[Zaydos]

Nah, they're all clones.

No, they're all splices from plants produced by artificial selection. Different than clones. They're genetically identical because they're arms that grew new bodies (this is possible because plant cells do not fully differentiate* like animal cells and therefore can return to a stem cell state when necessary)

*Okay sclerenchyma (might have misspelled that, or called them by the wrong name) cells DO fully differentiate, but they're also dead.

[Worira]

That doesn't make them any less clones. But yes, I don't know that genetic diversity is necessarily required for produce to be "organic".

EDIT: Also, they aren't splices, they're distinct organisms cultivated from offshoots.

[VanBuren]

I'm not going to California anytime soon, so I'm afraid I'll have to wait on that. I can say that the supermarket strawberries were generally bigger and better than the ones that grew in my backyard, but that really doesn't prove anything.

May main issue is that organic food isn't (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16403682) actually (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11833635) any safer than "non-organic" food.

Furthermore, there are several studies* that claim that there is no discernible difference in taste, safety, or nutrition between organic and traditional foods.

http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2003/jun/cheltenham
http://www.misa.umn.edu/vd/bourn.pdf

Though I will admit that organic food seems to be far more energy efficient and eco-friendly.

*I have four of them at hand, but two of them are print sources.

[Elder Tsofu]

The placebo/nocebo-effect is strong when it comes to taste as it is regarding complications from generic pharmaceuticals and parallel imported pharmaceuticals (where in the last case the two are made in the same plant, by the same machine with the same ingredients but with an foreign label).

And if the term "organic food" is as loose as some posters have claimed then I wouldn't be surprised if there was no difference in taste as organic food would in many cases be ordinary food with an organic label.

But I suppose you could start importing food from countries with stricter regulations, although it wouldn't be especially "local" anymore.
Although I realize that in Sweden everything produced outside of Sweden is foreign, even from our neighbour Denmark* who sells really cheap pork - but in the case of the US it seem like this would be more or less equivalent to buy something out of state.

*This depends on your location in Sweden, if you live by the border it is of course as local as anything Swedish - just brought up to other regulations.

[Solaris]

Maybe not in First World countries or other places with very strict food safety laws, but in less well developed countries, basic food hygiene is a necessity.
Even some First World countries have issues - for example in Hong Kong they recommend you don't drink the tap water without boiling it due to the local climate.
Been to Third World countries, not as big a deal as you might think. You won't immediately suffer from dysentery (or any of the other really cool waterborne diseases) just from drinking even the water in Iraqi canals, and they use those for everything. You might, it's a better possibility than drinking American tap water, but the odds aren't as good as you might think.
Unless, y'know, I'm some kind of disease-resistant superman. There's always that possibility.

That said, I prefer my water out of an American-grade tap. Just because one sip won't kill me doesn't mean I want to run unnecessary risks. I don't use antibiotic anything unless it's been prescribed by a doctor. I'll use antiseptics, which are a different, angrier bird much more prone to killing everything that isn't me.


Well, "you" can, but "everyone" can't, just because of pure numbers. Most local areas, especially with cities, just cannot grow enough food to completely support the population.

Which is what I was saying. I could see California maybe supporting itself, but then it wouldn't be producing quite as much to export to other places. The domino effect would be rather interesting.


Though I will admit that organic food seems to be far more energy efficient and eco-friendly.

Energy efficient, yes, but it does not yield more food per acre than modern techniques. Considering how many people worldwide depend on American produce, I'd call it amoral to cut down on our production just for some feel-good warm-fuzzies.
(Comment removed due to hurt feelings. I'm sure you can imagine what I think of that.)
There's also problems with 'organic' techniques being significantly more labor-intensive. Personally, I like having a tiny percentage of the population involved with food production. It frees the rest of us up to do more interesting things, like advancing civilization.

[Wardog]

I support the general idea of organic farming, in the sense that pesticides, fertilizers, etc can harm the environment (or us), and cutting down on their use is good for the environment and for health. (Plus, as someone mentioned earlier, many of them are made from non-renewable resources, so we can't rely on them for ever).

The main problems I have with organic movement, however, is that the definition of "organic" seems to me to be too arbitrary and black-and-white.

For example, AFAIK, using any amount of non-organic fertilizer/pesticide is enough to disqualify you from calling it organic (this may depend on which country and laws you are under), so somone using a tiny bit of fertilizer is lumped in the same catagory as someone who swamps their crops with tons of fertilizer, pesticides, etc.

Secondly, some fertilizers and pesticides are allowed in organic farming, and the definition of what is or is not allowed seems very arbitrary to me.

Thirdly, the ban on genetic modification seems wrong to me. Firstly, because I always understood the point of organic farming to be about cutting down on fertilizer and pesticide pollution, which GM doesn't cause and can potentially cut down on. And secondly because the objection seems to be largely based on "its not natural / you're playing at God" rather than well-thought-out arguments.

(Okay, some of the arguments are more reasonable, such as unknown effects of novel organisms, or the GM corporations getting too much power, but the former is an issue of safety testing, and can apply to any new crop regardless of how it was bred, and the latter is an issue of politics, rather than a problem with the technology itself).

[Yora]

I believe that we would call it "ecological food" in Sweden.
In germany we call it bio-food, which is even more retarded. :smallbiggrin:

Some studies made here came to the conclusion that the stuff is no more or less healthy than standard food. But production is more environmental friendly and reduced polution is really HUGE in Germany. People are quite willing to pay extra for any products that cause less polution and are more sustainable.

[Moglorosh]

In germany we call it bio-food, which is even more retarded. :smallbiggrin:

Some studies made here came to the conclusion that the stuff is no more or less healthy than standard food. But production is more environmental friendly and reduced polution is really HUGE in Germany. People are quite willing to pay extra for any products that cause less polution and are more sustainable.

The difference in environmental impact is negligible when you consider that it takes up to five times the amount of land and twice the energy expenditure to produce organic produce vs. traditional methods. You're basically just trading one type of pollution for a different, and not necessarily better, type. All the extra land is also experiencing soil degradation at a significantly higher rate than conventional farming, meaning crop yields will continue to decline year after year.

[Yora]

I'm not sying it actually is better for the environment. Just that people buying it for that reason. :smallbiggrin:

[Telonius]

One minor thing to add about the GM issue... crop diversity. When you have an industrial farm, generally the company involved is treating the food like (for instance) an auto manufacturer is treating a car. They want quality control - a banana you get here is the same as a banana you get from any other farm of ours. A chicken is a chicken, a cow is a cow, with approximately the same nutritional value as any other member of their species.

Whenever you use genetic engineering to get a new plant or animal that's better suited to anything, you have the temptation to replace currently-existing stock. After all, the new version is superior - why stay with lower-yield versions? Because the farm (and distribution system, etc) is set up using an industrial mindset, you don't just gradually replace your stocks, you replace all of them in as short of a timespan as possible to maximize the return you're getting out of the land. And if you're a competitor, your own chickens are suddenly costing more than the other guy's chickens. You'd want to switch over to the new version of chicken (or cow or banana or whatever), or risk being driven out of the market.

That's all well and good for manufacturing, but when you're dealing with organisms it gets a little messier because of unintended consequences. If a company (or state, or country) starts relying on just one species for its staple, you're running a huge risk. If that species is particularly vulnerable to a certain sort of disease (or if a new disease evolves to take advantage of that particular species), you're pretty much up a creek. That's what happened to Ireland during the Potato Famine. They imported one species of new-world potato, and used only that species. (There were something like two dozen species of potato used in South America at the time). So when the blight hit, it was a total loss. The Americas were able to recover more easily, since they had replacement crops ready and waiting.

[Gaelbert]

Energy efficient, yes, but it does not yield more food per acre than modern techniques. Considering how many people worldwide depend on American produce, I'd call it amoral to cut down on our production just for some feel-good warm-fuzzies.
But that's just me and my valuing human life.


:smallsigh:
Without getting into the politics of it, a lot of places would be better off if cheap American produce wasn't flooding their market and destroying their agricultural sectors. And there was no call for that last line.

[Mina Kobold]

Energy efficient, yes, but it does not yield more food per acre than modern techniques. Considering how many people worldwide depend on American produce, I'd call it amoral to cut down on our production just for some feel-good warm-fuzzies.
But that's just me and my valuing human life.

I don't pretend to be an expert but we've been feeding ourselves pretty well without American produce in Denmark for quite a while before even Leif Eriksson ever set foot in America and we have had no problem allowing the animals to graze, stopping the excess use of fertilisers and even letting the farming grounds grow unattended from time to time.
We still producing more than we can use so why do so many need American produce? :smallconfused:

Sounds like a serious problem to me. :smalleek:

EDIT: Also, appeal to superiority is not a valid argument. It's mean. Meanie! :smallmad::smalltongue:

[Solaris]

:smallsigh:
Without getting into the politics of it, a lot of places would be better off if cheap American produce wasn't flooding their market and destroying their agricultural sectors. And there was no call for that last line.
Darn that pesky free market. If it weren't for that cheap American produce, what would those people eat? Food prices are already too high for a lot of people. In the Middle East, a good deal spend up to eighty percent of their income on food. Without our cheap foreign produce - not just American - they have to rely on their own native production. In some places, it's sufficient. In others, it's not.


I don't pretend to be an expert but we've been feeding ourselves pretty well without American produce in Denmark for quite a while before even Leif Eriksson ever set foot in America and we have had no problem allowing the animals to graze, stopping the excess use of fertilisers and even letting the farming grounds grow unattended from time to time.
We still producing more than we can use so why do so many need American produce? :smallconfused:

Sounds like a serious problem to me. :smalleek:

EDIT: Also, appeal to superiority is not a valid argument. It's mean. Meanie! :smallmad::smalltongue:
It's not Europe I'm talking about. You can even make the argument that Europe would be better off without the US, but stating why is definitely going to cross the line into real-world politics.

You're right, my bad. I'll remove it.

[Gaelbert]

Darn that pesky free market. If it weren't for that cheap American produce, what would those people eat? Food prices are already too high for a lot of people. In the Middle East, a good deal spend up to eighty percent of their income on food. Without our cheap foreign produce - not just American - they have to rely on their own native production. In some places, it's sufficient. In others, it's not.
Once again, without getting into the politics of it, most of these countries you're talking about would have a flourishing agricultural sector if it wasn't so consistently undermined by cheaply produced American foodstuffs. By giving these people a fish for the day, you prevent them from learning how to fish and feeding themselves for life.
But that's irrelevant as well. I'm assuming you don't live in one of these countries, and so you are fully capable of eating food produced locally. I wouldn't blame someone living in one of said countries whom does not eat food produced locally. It's not feasible for everyone, as I said in my first post.

[Ravens_cry]

Also worth noting: "multivitamins" do not absorb as well into your body as vitamins in natural foods. Eat your greens!

(mmmm grilled asparagus)
Depends on the source. For example, the iron in spinach is bound up in a form our body just can't process. But in general, yesm I would much rather get my nutrients from food, organic and otherwise, then a pill. Mostly what I was referring to is companies claim that, say, their calcium pills are made from milk and therefore somehow better then calcium extracted from sea shells or limestones. It's the same bashi-bazouks chemical; your body, a living machine of marvellous complexity, can not tell the difference.

[Solaris]

Once again, without getting into the politics of it, most of these countries you're talking about would have a flourishing agricultural sector if it wasn't so consistently undermined by cheaply produced American foodstuffs. By giving these people a fish for the day, you prevent them from learning how to fish and feeding themselves for life.
But that's irrelevant as well. I'm assuming you don't live in one of these countries, and so you are fully capable of eating food produced locally. I wouldn't blame someone living in one of said countries whom does not eat food produced locally. It's not feasible for everyone, as I said in my first post.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Having been to some of those countries and observing them firsthand... adopting large-scale technological advances does not come naturally to them. You and I are in the Information Age, while many of them are still around the Industrial Age. It's not individuals, it's cultural. Given the option, they'll go for the small family farm without any of our modern conveniences and wonder why it doesn't work as well as our factory-farms. We've offered them advances. They're just not interested in things like tractors or other modern farm machinery. So no, I don't blame our producers for their plight. I blame them for their plight. They have refused when we freely offer them the means to compete on a global scale.
For a given value of 'local', yes. I can eat food that originates from North America. At the point where we've got local up to meaning 'same continent', though, it's essentially meaningless.

[Lissou]

I don't think the food is more "real", but the one I've had looked and tasted better. My favourite produce are those grown locally by people I know in their garden, and these are organic (although not certified as such) due to not using pesticide or fertilizer.

This being said, putting "organic" on something isn't likely to make me buy it. On the other hand I do tend to eat a lot of organic food because my favourite brand of vegetarian food happens to also be organic.

[Themrys]

I've seen this complaint aimed at a lot of things, but the general idea I have gotten is that somehow food grown the "good" old fashioned way is somehow better than newer methods.

In other words no pesticides, no genetic engineering (leaving aside the fact that primitive genetic engineering has been around for a long time), And for meats no cloning, No artificial additives...

Now whether or not this stuff makes the food healthier is debatable...


But how does a cow being a clone, a copy of another cow, make it less real than another?


Less real? Who says that?

The danger from pesticides, especially pesticides produced by genetically engineered plants, is more real than is good for us.

(Honestly, I cannot understand people who think it's harmless to engineer potatoes that are immune to bugs. Mankind spent centuries breeding the natural poison out of potatoes because - big surprise! - it wasn't only harmful for bugs. It is not the harmfulness that has to be proven, it is the harmlessness - or would you eat plants you don't know because it's not proven they're dangerous?)

Artificial stuff...well, yeah, yoghurt produced without bacteria is no real yoghurt, and you'll find out the hard way if you're lactose-intolerant. However, at least in Germany, organic products are just more likely to be real. By law, conventional products have to be real, too...although there is space for cheating. (You aren't allowed to sell "rye buns" without rye in them, but "rye [insert bread-y sounding fantasy name here] is okay.)

Producers of organic products tend to be more honest, probably becaues their customers ask more and get angrier if cheated.


Cloned cows...I am willing to tolerate them, since they aren't likely to escape into the environment and breed uncontrollably like genetically engineered plants are..but there has to be a reason cloned animals have a shorter lifespan. There also has to be a reason while mammals don't even reproduce by parthenogenesis and not at all by just making copies of themselves. It may work just fine for plants, but plants do reproduce that way naturally, after all.

[Ravens_cry]

DId you know that many organic farmers (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/organic-pesticides-can-be-worse-than-synthetic-study/article1613773/) use pesticides and insecticides? They are just natural, but still toxic, chemicals.

[Themrys]

DId you know that many organic farmers (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/organic-pesticides-can-be-worse-than-synthetic-study/article1613773/) use pesticides and insecticides? They are just natural, but still toxic, chemicals.

You did read the whole article, did you?

Apart from the fact that organic farming doesn't need as much pesticide, plant toxins don't usually accumulate in the body. Nicotine is a very powerful poison, but people still consume it on a regular basis...and the cancer is not caused by the nicotine.
There are some "organic" substances that shouldn't be used because they don't get out of the organism anytime soon...but I only know one of those and it is used for wine, which I don't drink.

Some wrote that they fear the bacteria on organic food...you do know, that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics sooner or later, yes?
And those bacteria are more dangerous to you, the consumer, than some bacteria from organic cow dung on organic vegetable...besides, to my knowledge, conventional farming also uses cow dung. From conventional cows...you know what that means. It means you get the resistant bacteria.

[Ravens_cry]

The fact that 'natural' toxins are less discriminatory, taking out prey and predator alike, strikes this one as Not Good Thing. Don't be fooled by a label, whatever that label is.

[Prime32]

That's all well and good for manufacturing, but when you're dealing with organisms it gets a little messier because of unintended consequences. If a company (or state, or country) starts relying on just one species for its staple, you're running a huge risk. If that species is particularly vulnerable to a certain sort of disease (or if a new disease evolves to take advantage of that particular species), you're pretty much up a creek. That's what happened to Ireland during the Potato Famine. They imported one species of new-world potato, and used only that species. (There were something like two dozen species of potato used in South America at the time). So when the blight hit, it was a total loss. The Americas were able to recover more easily, since they had replacement crops ready and waiting.More than one species was available, but their crops were being heavily taxed by the British so farmers had to use the highest-yield variety to have enough to feed themselves. Potato was still being exported in large quantities during the famine.


Cloned cows...I am willing to tolerate them, since they aren't likely to escape into the environment and breed uncontrollably like genetically engineered plants are..but there has to be a reason cloned animals have a shorter lifespan.Shortened telomeres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere), IIRC. Most of the effects of age are caused by your DNA breaking down (after adulthood once the hormones are out of the way at least). If you copy already-worn DNA from an adult cow then you're basically subtracting its lifespan from the new organism. Even if you take it from a newborn the DNA has to go through the job of "making a cow" twice.


There also has to be a reason while mammals don't even reproduce by parthenogenesis and not at all by just making copies of themselves. It may work just fine for plants, but plants do reproduce that way naturally, after all.The natural way isn't always the best way, and it's not like evolution can compare alternatives. Nerves cover the inside surface of our eyes rather than the outside; there is no reason for this, and it makes our eyes less sensitive and gives us blind spots.

[Ravens_cry]

Yep, Octopus eyes are much more optimal. Evolution tends to work with what it has rather then invent something whole cloth. Child birth would be much easier if we had evolved into a centauroid form, quadruped legs and extra limbs as manipulators, but instead we went up right.

[AslanCross]

I don't know much about biology or chemistry, but I do know irony: A packet of "organic" pasta for sale in a deli, costing double the price I can get in the grocery, flown in from Australia. I think the irony went off the scale that day.

[Renegade Paladin]

What makes organic food more real than non-organic food?
Absolutely nothing. (Note: "Organic" has nothing to do with "artificially flavored" as is additionally asked at the end of the original post.) Also, if we went to all organic farming on current cropland, the world could only produce enough food for about two billion people. Next question?

[Themrys]

The fact that 'natural' toxins are less discriminatory, taking out prey and predator alike, strikes this one as Not Good Thing. Don't be fooled by a label, whatever that label is.

I'd need to know more to tell whether this is actually a bad thing.
If you take out the prey, and don't kill the predator, then there is more predator than prey. The predators might prey on other animals instead.


People always act as if they understood how nature works, although the rabbit plague in Australia and New Zealand should have shown the dangers...not to speak of the other animals with which they tried to solve the problem.
I don't think we will ever fully comprehend how nature works, and I am absolutely sure we don't know now, therefore we shouldn't mess with things we don't know anything about if it is obvious that the experiment can and will esape from the laboratory. As is the case with genetically engineered plants.


You may think it would be better for us to have more sensitive eyes, but I think my eyes are sensitive enough as they are, thank you very much. I got shampoo in them yesterday and it hurt like hell. :smallwink:

Nature may not be perfect, but in most cases man only made everything worse by trying to improve nature. The only thing that ever could be proved to have worked out for our advantage was breeding - although it is debatable whether it worked for the dogs' advantage.

[Prime32]

You may think it would be better for us to have more sensitive eyes, but I think my eyes are sensitive enough as they are, thank you very much. I got shampoo in them yesterday and it hurt like hell. :smallwink:Sensitive to light. :smallamused: How would you like being able to walk around at night being able to see everything clear as day? To experience colour more richly? To be able to read things from twice the distance? As for shampoo, wouldn't it be nice to have transparent membranes like a snake to protect them?


Nature may not be perfect, but in most cases man only made everything worse by trying to improve nature.I take it you eat your food raw and don't use plastic or non-noble metals? Assuming that mining noble metals doesn't count.

[Brother Oni]

If you take out the prey, and don't kill the predator, then there is more predator than prey. The predators might prey on other animals instead.


Or predator numbers drop due to there not being sufficient food and attempting to take other food sources give rise to conflict with other predator species, who may be bigger and meaner.

As you've said, interfering with food webs is a tricky business.

[Ravens_cry]

Wiping out the whole ecosystem indiscriminately is in fact a major complaint, one I agree with, against all forms of pesticides. With greater ability to manipulate nature comes greater responsibility that we don't damage things, but we have been manipulating nature for as long as we have been human. I don't think you quite grasp how far selective breeding has changed things. For example, compare even non-genetically modified corn to its ancestor, teosinte. We stole the horn from the prey, the claws from the predictor even further back. The optimum solution is not to reject technology but to find a better trick, where technology can allow us not to just survive, but thrive, without hurting this world we both hold so dear, that has given us so much.

[Yora]

Or predator numbers drop due to there not being sufficient food and attempting to take other food sources give rise to conflict with other predator species, who may be bigger and meaner.

As you've said, interfering with food webs is a tricky business.

Also making crops resistant to parasites has the same effect as treating everything with penecilin. Allmost all parasites become extinct, except those few individuals who show spontaneous mutations that protect them against the defense mechanism. And those will thrive with no other competitors still around.
And you end up with one really nasty parasite you just can't kill anymore. If you have a diversity in parasites, they keep each other in check.

[Don Julio Anejo]

If I have one pet peeve, it's hippies who know absolutely nothing about proper science, or at best learn crap like "sustainable biology" which doesn't even bother to teach them basics of chemistry, biochemistry and genetics and only learn politicized BS like "this city implemented an environmentally friendly eco-sustainable squirrel initiative and now the city is so much better because, it's, like eco-sustainable". Yes, I deal with them way too much at my school and in my city (Vancouver).

Local food? Just.. no. There is a reason bananas are grown in, say, Cuba or Panama and not Minnesota. Transport costs are negligible, they're shipped by boat anyway. However energy expenditure involved in manufacturing, say, a banana in an unsuited place are astronomical. There's completely different soil type that may not have all the nutrients, there's differences in growing season, there's pests it may be resistant to in the natural habitat but not in a new one.... There's tons of other factors.

GMO? Some people think that "rice with mouse genes" means some Frankensteinean hybrid of mouse and rice, while in reality it may just be spliced with an enzyme that lets it resist cold. Luckily this forum isn't it. But still, a lot of GMO is significantly safer than overuse of pesticides, which can be absorbed into crops and remain there. Not a problem in North America, but a big issue in places like China where there is virtually no regulation of any kind.

Organic food. My grandma back in Russia kept a tiny little farm with potatoes, strawberries, cabbage, chickens and the like. Yes, there is a big difference between completely "organic" and supermarket food. If someone prefers supermarket strawberries, they can cast the first stone. But as for "good for the environment:" NO. The amount of resources (read: energy) dumped into making organic food, coupled with its significantly shorter shelf life span, inability to transport it anywhere, really, and much lower crop yields make it a lot more harmful. A "toy for the rich" rather than a viable food source.

Fertilizer. Again, there are people who think ammonia and phosphorus based fertilizers are inherently bad for you because "they're chemicals." Fun fact: fixed nitrogen (in the form of ammonia or nitrate) and phosphorus are THE two chemicals plants need to survive. In a completely natural environment, they get preserved in the form of biomass. That is, plants and animals die off in the same general area they grew up in and their biomass is available for breakdown and resulting uptake by new, growing organisms.

Farming (of any kind) changes the dynamic completely by taking biomass out of the system. Now, carbon is easily fixed from the air. Most microelements are needed in only small quantities and ground water provides more than enough. However, nitrogen and phosphorous, perhaps the most important elements in your body after carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, cannot be replenished so easily. Nitrogen can be fixed from the air, but it's a slow process that depends on certain species of plant and bacteria living together. Phosphorous can't be found easily. Method of farming has nothing to do with this. Even organically and sustainably grown stuff will need fertilizer, and frankly, manure is often a waste of effort since it requires too much energy to collect and transport and is much less efficient per unit volume.

[mangosta71]

Something that a lot of people don't know about GM foods - they're just putting enzymes that we already consume in other foods into different crops. There's absolutely no reason to even suspect that GM foods are potentially dangerous. They're not introducing previously foreign elements into our diet.

Someone used the example of a mouse gene earlier. Sure, mice aren't part of a normal diet in most developed countries. However, other organisms that we do eat also carry the gene. We take it out of mice rather than one of those other organisms because there's been so much research done on mice that we know exactly where the gene is and can easily isolate it to make copies. Besides, I believe that the gene that codes for the enzyme that renders rice more resistant to cold actually comes from fish anyway.

[Tiger Duck]

Local food? Just.. no. There is a reason bananas are grown in, say, Cuba or Panama and not Minnesota. Transport costs are negligible, they're shipped by boat anyway. However energy expenditure involved in manufacturing, say, a banana in an unsuited place are astronomical. There's completely different soil type that may not have all the nutrients, there's differences in growing season, there's pests it may be resistant to in the natural habitat but not in a new one.... There's tons of other factors.

Yes the point of local food is to not eat bananas but eat stuff that can grow in your general area.



GMO? Some people think that "rice with mouse genes" means some Frankensteinean hybrid of mouse and rice, while in reality it may just be spliced with an enzyme that lets it resist cold. Luckily this forum isn't it. But still, a lot of GMO is significantly safer than overuse of pesticides, which can be absorbed into crops and remain there. Not a problem in North America, but a big issue in places like China where there is virtually no regulation of any kind.

The diversity point has been made earlier, GMO leaves us vulnerable.



Organic food. My grandma back in Russia kept a tiny little farm with potatoes, strawberries, cabbage, chickens and the like. Yes, there is a big difference between completely "organic" and supermarket food. If someone prefers supermarket strawberries, they can cast the first stone. But as for "good for the environment:" NO. The amount of resources (read: energy) dumped into making organic food, coupled with its significantly shorter shelf life span, inability to transport it anywhere, really, and much lower crop yields make it a lot more harmful. A "toy for the rich" rather than a viable food source.

I think that having a tiny little farm like your grandma is environmentally friendly. it's only when peoples that don't have the time to maintain one themselves that it breaks down.


Fertilizer. Again, there are people who think ammonia and phosphorus based fertilizers are inherently bad for you because "they're chemicals." Fun fact: fixed nitrogen (in the form of ammonia or nitrate) and phosphorus are THE two chemicals plants need to survive. In a completely natural environment, they get preserved in the form of biomass. That is, plants and animals die off in the same general area they grew up in and their biomass is available for breakdown and resulting uptake by new, growing organisms.

Farming (of any kind) changes the dynamic completely by taking biomass out of the system. Now, carbon is easily fixed from the air. Most microelements are needed in only small quantities and ground water provides more than enough. However, nitrogen and phosphorous, perhaps the most important elements in your body after carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, cannot be replenished so easily. Nitrogen can be fixed from the air, but it's a slow process that depends on certain species of plant and bacteria living together. Phosphorous can't be found easily. Method of farming has nothing to do with this. Even organically and sustainably grown stuff will need fertilizer, and frankly, manure is often a waste of effort since it requires too much energy to collect and transport and is much less efficient per unit volume.

Doesn't change that when these kinds of fertilizer seeps into the ground water bad stuff happens.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Mouse gene is a random example. It really doesn't matter where the genes come from. By now we can potentially write the genetic code from scratch to design an enzyme if we put enough effort (read: money) into it.


The diversity point has been made earlier, GMO leaves us vulnerable.
1. Most GMO is manufactured in a way that either makes it infertile completely (i.e. triploid organisms like seedless watermelons) or breeds itself into extinction in a few generations (i.e. Monsanto stuff like rape seed and corn).
2. It's a problem with the way it's used, not the organisms itself. If companies are willing to change their entire stocks, it does, however, mean that the organism _is_ better for that.


I think that having a tiny little farm like your grandma is environmentally friendly. it's only when peoples that don't have the time to maintain one themselves that it breaks down.
The problem is that she barely produced enough food to feed herself (with the exception of potatoes). If everyone did something like this, we would still be stuck in 3000 BC.

Doesn't change that when these kinds of fertilizer seeps into the ground water bad stuff happens.
Uhm, nitrogen and phosphorus? How exactly?

[Themrys]

Something that a lot of people don't know about GM foods - they're just putting enzymes that we already consume in other foods into different crops. There's absolutely no reason to even suspect that GM foods are potentially dangerous. They're not introducing previously foreign elements into our diet.

Oh, really?
I was under the impression someone had put snowdrop DNA in potatoes.
This doesn't sound too healthy. I don't eat snowdrops, usually.

I just found my paper on genetically modified plants. To quote myself:


According to Monsanto, genetically modified plants are more profit-yielding than conventionally bred ones. While this is true for the company who sells the genetically modified seeds, it is not true for those who grow the genetically modified crops. As a matter of fact, genetically modified sugar beet and rapeseed yield poorer harvests than conventional, not modified varieties. This is because the plants’ metabolism is changed by the genetical modification, which can lead to a poorer resistance to those pests and illnesses which are not affected by the modification.


Monsanto claims that genetically modified crops are environmentally friendly because less pesticides are needed for their cultivation than are needed for the cultivation of conventional varieties. This is, in fact, not true. Contrarily, according to a study based on official, U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data, actually more pesticides are used for the cultivation of genetically modified corn, soybean and cotton, than for the cultivation of conventional varieties. Aditionally, the modified crops themselves are dangerous to the environment. For example, corn which was modified to produce a toxine which protects it from the corn borer, does also affect honey bees and makes them more vulnerable to the varroa mite. The extinction of the honey bee would not only lead to the extinction of several plant species, it could also cost the national economy an amount of 2.5 billions a year.
Additonally, plants are not only genetically modified in order to make them more resistant to pests, but also to make them more resistant to herbicides. Due to the extended use of herbicides, the cultivation of genetically modified, herbicide resistant rapeseed leads to a decrease of the number butterflies in the area around the field.

In addition to all this, genetically modified foods do not only harm farmers and environment. They can also harm the consumer. Some may think that plants which were genetically modified to be more resistant to pests or to herbicides, will not harm mammals. However, experiments have shown that male rats which are fed with the genetically modified “Roundup Ready” soybean put on less weight than those fed with ordinary soy, and that the weight of rats of both sexes increases when they are fed with RR-soy.

Footnotes:

http://www.gruene-edingen-neckarhausen.de/uploads/media/Info_Genfood.pdf

http://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/langenacht/2006/programm/molekuel/14/index.html

http://umweltinstitut.org/fragen--antworten/gentechnik/gentechnik-in-der-landwirtschaft-26.html

http://www.keine-gentechnik.de/bibliothek/verbraucher/studien/ecoris_analyse_humantoxikologie_040410.pdf


Evolution has, over millions of years, selected those plants that were most resistant to everything that could harm them but at the same time not were harmful to the insects necessary for their reproduction.
I consider it highly unlikely that science could come up with something better. Increasing the edible mass is about the only thing humans can improve, and this has already been done by simple breeding.


@Water plants like fertilizer, too. Water animals don't like it so much.

[mangosta71]

Mouse gene is a random example. It really doesn't matter where the genes come from. By now we can potentially write the genetic code from scratch to design an enzyme if we put enough effort (read: money) into it.
I'm not convinced that we could. An enzyme is a special form of protein. All proteins have primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures. Last time I checked, we didn't really know what determined tertiary or quaternary folding. A single base change in the RNA that doesn't alter the sequence of amino acids (a silent mutation) in the protein can change the folding in a way that makes the enzyme inactive. We have no idea why - by our current level of understanding the two proteins should be identical in every respect, but they're not.

Even if we could create new enzymes from scratch in the manner that you suggest, but I don't think we have the capability to predict what those new enzymes would do. We would have to spend a lot of time and money developing a whole bunch, and then only a small handful would actually be useful. Not to mention that, to produce a new enzyme, we would have to insert the gene into the genome a living organism, along with the necessary promoters to enable it to be transcribed and translated. And there are serious hazards in creating a transgenic strain of organism - you need a splice site that has to be unique (or you'll end up with multiple copies of the gene in different places scattered throughout the genome) and it has to not interrupt any other genes (or you'll foul up production of some other enzyme and most likely end up killing the organism).

Genetics is extremely complex, and there's a lot of science-fiction surrounding it in popular culture. Most of it is a crock of fecal matter. The fears are unfounded.

[Renegade Paladin]

The diversity point has been made earlier, GMO leaves us vulnerable.
Vulnerable to what? Genetic modification of crops and livestock has been going on for literally thousands of years (welcome to selective breeding) and we're not dead yet.

[Prime32]

Something that a lot of people don't know about GM foods - they're just putting enzymes that we already consume in other foods into different crops. There's absolutely no reason to even suspect that GM foods are potentially dangerous. They're not introducing previously foreign elements into our diet.Genetics are not Lego (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LegoGenetics). One (non-GM) attempt to hybridise potatoes and tomatoes resulted in something poisonous.

[VanBuren]

I consider it highly unlikely that science could come up with something better.

I don't. We have one major advantage over natural evolution: a goal. Natural evolution doesn't have an end goal, which is why evolution doesn't always end up with something optimal, but merely something that works.


The fact that 'natural' toxins are less discriminatory, taking out prey and predator alike, strikes this one as Not Good Thing. Don't be fooled by a label, whatever that label is.

And of course, "non-organic" pesticides aren't used in toxic amounts by farmers anyway.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Protein tertiary structure is determined by hydrogen bonds, cysteine disulfide bonds, Van Der Waal interactions and hydrophobic/hydrophilic interactions. Protein quaternary structure is assembly of separate proteins into multimeric complexes that are not covalently linked. It's determined by the above forces, with an added part that domains of one protein can recognize domains of a different protein in a "lock and key" system and then assemble together.

An enzyme is simply a protein with an active site that can bring products or reactants of a reaction together in such a configuration where the reaction will proceed much faster (usually in a direction predicted by thermodynamics; exergonic reactions are always favoured).

Going from there to constructing proteins is a matter of expanding our current knowledge base and building more sophisticated analysis tools, not one of fundamental science. For example, we know that S4 domain of a voltage-gated ion channel (Na+ or K+ channel that opens in response to membrane depolarization during propagation of an axonal signal) contains many arginine or histidine amino acid residues. These amino acids have a positive charge at physiological pH and whether channel stays open or closed depends on their conformation. This conformation changes depending on membrane polarization (concentration of negative ions near the voltage sensor).

Amino acid sequences that, for example, target proteins to specific organelles, force them to undergo post-translational modification or cause them to be cleaved by specific enzymes (i.e. thrombin, which cleaves at A-B-Pro-Arg- | | -X-Y; A and B are hydrophobic AA's like proline and X and Y are non-acidic AA's) have already been determined. There is also a lot of data as to what exactly causes specific sequences to fold a specific way (granted, most of it is in regards to secondary structure, but still).

More knowledge like the above is a matter of time, money and effort. And obviously first designer enzymes will be modified natural enzymes rather than ones made completely from scratch. But it's eventually possible.

[The Extinguisher]

I tend not to care about what my food is as long as it tastes good, but I have one HUGE annoyance with all this.

Can we please stop using buzzwords like "chemicals" and "not-natural" and things like that to make things sound bad? Please? Everything is chemicals. Everything is natural. These are not bad things. Every one of these discussions always has people talking about getting rid of all the chemicals in their food, or how using things created by humans is somehow worse than using things created by other processes. It's just frustrating, because that really have no meaning relevant to the discussion. What makes nitrogen or phosphorous any more a chemical than nickel or oxygen?

[Wardog]

The diversity point has been made earlier, GMO leaves us vulnerable.


Surely it's only growing one crop type that leaves us vulnerable, not how the crops were bred.

[Tiger Duck]

Surely it's only growing one crop type that leaves us vulnerable, not how the crops were bred.

Yes I think that was it, most of what I know about it has already been said in this tread. But I don't think farms will be able to resist growing the best possible crop.

[Borgh]

Clearly because the "fake" food has no carbon in it, therefore not being organic.

Chemistry highfive!

o/\o

[Ravens_cry]

I tend not to care about what my food is as long as it tastes good, but I have one HUGE annoyance with all this.

Can we please stop using buzzwords like "chemicals" and "not-natural" and things like that to make things sound bad? Please? Everything is chemicals. Everything is natural. These are not bad things. Every one of these discussions always has people talking about getting rid of all the chemicals in their food, or how using things created by humans is somehow worse than using things created by other processes. It's just frustrating, because that really have no meaning relevant to the discussion. What makes nitrogen or phosphorous any more a chemical than nickel or oxygen?
That is definitely among my pet peeves. My favourite example of how silly this can get is how easy it is to convince many people the reported dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. We should be careful what we eat and we should insist that there is no significant actual dangers, but we shouldn't run around like the sky is falling because of every new development either.

[Sacrieur]

I consider it highly unlikely that science could come up with something better. Increasing the edible mass is about the only thing humans can improve, and this has already been done by simple breeding.


Must be the part where we run dozens of tests to see if it performs better.