Organic Food: Cultural Revolution or Uninformed Pseudoscience? [Archive]

skepticalfred

11th November 2008, 09:06 PM

My new article, what do you think?

History:
Organic food is a trend that has seen some prevalence in the United States in recent years. Many have fears that current methods of food production are unsafe or less healthy than organic methods. Recently, many large companies have promoted organic offerings. Many organizations are promoting organic food as an alternative to GMO, or genetically modified crops, that increase yields many times over and have the potential to feed many starving people.

Analysis:
Organic milk takes 80 percent more land, produces 20 percent more global warming potential, creates 70 percent more acid rain, outputs twice as much methane, contaminates 60 percent more water and costs the end user 1.8 times more then conventionally harvested milk. Additionally, numerous outbreaks of E. Coli have been associated with organic milk, including one in 2006 that infected and hospitalized at least 3 children. Organic chicken is equally as inefficient. According to large scale studies done in Denmark, Holland, and Austria, 100 percent of organic flocks contain campylobacter, a common food poisoning bacteria (as compared to 25 percent in standard flocks).

According to a meta analysis done by the Mayo Clinic, organic food is no more nutritious than standard food. This is no surprise, but other studies have suggested that organic foods are less consistent in shape, color, and taste, and tend to spoil faster.

Some eat organic food because they wish to support local farmers. In reality, most organic food is produced by large corporations. A single company controls over 70 percent of the market on organic milk, and even large companies like Starbucks have been buying up organic operations. These companies are farming organically for one reason - it’s profitable. Organic products often cost two or three times more than standard products, and are sometimes less regulated than standard operations.

The worst example of the damage the organic food movement can do occurred in Zambia in 2002. Believing the words of GMO protesters, the Zambian government stopped distributing corn sent as aid from the United States. Many Zambians were forced to eat poisonous plants and even domestic pets to survive. One villager was quoted as saying, “If we resort to a new type of root from a plant we are unfamiliar with, we first get the oldest person in the village to test it before the rest of us eat it. This must be a person who is already too ill either because of hunger, disease or age that he is going to die sooner or later anyway. If he lives after eating the roots, we then feed them to the children. If he dies, we won’t.” The corn could have eased the suffering of 2.5 million staving people, and perhaps saved many from death due to eating poisonous plants and prevented a great deal of suffering and disease.

Conclusion:
Organic food is not only harmful to individuals, it is harmful to the environment. If all farming was done organically, land use for farming would have to triple world wide. In a world with limited resources, it is unconscionable to produce food in anything but the most efficient manner possible. People who live in industrialized nations seem to forget that many in our world are starving (815 million according to UN estimates.) When it comes down to it, I believe Dr. Borlaug said it best: “You can’t build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery.” It is my belief that organic methods will only continue to perpetuate death and misery throughout the world.

Graphs and text created by: Fred Cipriano
Edited by: Jen Shipon

For sources, and pictures check out my website: cmdrfred.com

godless dave

11th November 2008, 09:19 PM

Are people really starving because crop yields aren't high enough? I find that hard to believe.

This is no surprise, but other studies have suggested that organic foods are less consistent in shape, color, and taste, and tend to spoil faster.

The latter is also no surprise, and none of those are seen as detriments by consumers of organic food. Potatoes aren't supposed to all look alike.

Floyt

11th November 2008, 09:22 PM

*sigh*

What an exercise in strawman-bowling and cherrypicking. If I can actually conquer my disgust over this disingenuous thing, I'll try to find the time to reply in detail.

skepticalfred

11th November 2008, 09:41 PM

Are people really starving because crop yields aren't high enough? I find that hard to believe.

Here, (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22876234-7583,00.html)Here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14019031.100-starvation-looms-while-aid-groups-bicker-.html) and here. (http://www.heartsandminds.org/press/food.htm)

Need more, there are 100's of articles, or you can just think about it logically:
Less production of a product = Less of product to go around

Also, if you now use 3 acres to plant a crop that used to require 1 that does 3 times the damage to the environment.

So how is organic food beneficial again?

EeneyMinnieMoe

11th November 2008, 09:41 PM

skepticalfred

11th November 2008, 09:42 PM

*sigh*

What an exercise in strawman-bowling and cherrypicking. If I can actually conquer my disgust over this disingenuous thing, I'll try to find the time to reply in detail.

Without citing anything specific that statement in itself is disingenuous.

skepticalfred

11th November 2008, 09:44 PM

I'll bet a crisp new dollar that you're a fan of "Penn and Teller's BS". :)

I have no real opinion on organic vs. genetically modified food but I commend you for your passion, your drive and your desire to expose fradulence wherever you see it.

Good for you!
While i do enjoy BS, i heard of this long before the show. Norman Borlaug has always been a personal hero of mine.

paximperium

11th November 2008, 09:45 PM

Are people really starving because crop yields aren't high enough? I find that hard to believe.
No. People are mostly starving because of an issue with distribution. It is because modern countries are using modern crop production and distribution.

However, organic farms have crappy production and less efficient distribution. This makes the food more expensive and this will worsen the food distribution system.

The latter is also no surprise, and none of those are seen as detriments by consumers of organic food. Potatoes aren't supposed to all look alike.
Lack of standardization of foods increases costs and decreases reliability.

paximperium

11th November 2008, 09:47 PM

While i do enjoy BS, i heard of this long before the show. Norman Borlaug has always been a personal hero of mine.
Agreed.
I consider Organic Food a luxury item. There is nothing better about it and many against it.

godless dave

11th November 2008, 09:51 PM

Less production of a product = Less of product to go around

Yes, but "less of product to go around" != a shortage

Also, if you now use 3 acres to plant a crop that used to require 1 that does 3 times the damage to the environment.

That doesn't follow at all. Number of acres used is not the only measure of damage to the environment. Amount and type of pesticides and herbicides used, and how they are drained off, is another factor. Amount and type of fertilizer used, how it's drained, and its effects on the environment, are another factor.

So how is organic food beneficial again?

Organic food is beneficial to the environment when less pesticides and herbicides end up in groundwater or rivers.

Raising livestock outside with room to move around - which does require more acreage than raising them in enclosed structures - is considered more humane by some people, myself included. It also tends to result in manure being more spread out instead of concentrating it in lagoons.

godless dave

11th November 2008, 09:53 PM

Lack of standardization of foods increases costs and decreases reliability.

Too much standardization can increase the risk of catastrophic loss to a particular pest or infection.

paximperium

11th November 2008, 09:56 PM

Yes, but "less of product to go around" != a shortage
Less product to go around=increase cost

That doesn't follow at all. Number of acres used is not the only measure of damage to the environment. Amount and type of pesticides and herbicides used, and how they are drained off, is another factor. Amount and type of fertilizer used, how it's drained, and its effects on the environment, are another factor.
More acres used=more water/pesticides etc. used.
Use of organic pesticides=less effective pesticides=more pesticides used.

Organic food is beneficial to the environment when less pesticides and herbicides end up in groundwater or rivers.
No it is the opposite. "Organic" pesticides/herbicides are less effective than industrial products and therefore you require much more to be as effective.

Raising livestock outside with room to move around - which does require more acreage than raising them in enclosed structures - is considered more humane by some people, myself included. It also tends to result in manure being more spread out instead of concentrating it in lagoons.
Not relevant to the economics. If you want to argue ethics, that is a relevant but completely separate issue.

paximperium

11th November 2008, 09:58 PM

Too much standardization can increase the risk of catastrophic loss to a particular pest or infection.
Hence we have crop genetic banks.
Industrial crop production has taken this into account.

How does this make Organic crops more resilient since they are also all genetically standardized crops...didn't know that did you?

Organic crops are exactly the same as industrial crop except for how they are grown with "organic" fertilizers, pesticides etc.

catbasket

11th November 2008, 11:18 PM

I've thought this before but reckoned it was probably too silly to mention ... simple solution - GM super-producing pest-resistant crops grown organically.

[runs and hides]

Rolfe

12th November 2008, 02:47 AM

Raising livestock outside with room to move around - which does require more acreage than raising them in enclosed structures - is considered more humane by some people, myself included.

Not relevant to the economics. If you want to argue ethics, that is a relevant but completely separate issue.

I think it is extremely relevant, and I would urge Skepticalfred to address this point. The misconception that "organic" livestock production is more humane than conventional production is behind many people's ill-informed support of the organic movement.

Now, I'm all for extensive livestock production. I'm all for space and room to move around and freedom to express natural behaviour and so on. However, "organic" systems have no monopoly on that. Certainly, the organic rules include prohibitions on the more extreme forms of intensification. However, most livestock systems around here are extensive enough to fit these criteria, if the rest of the "organic" woo was added to the mix. Promotion of the fallacy that conventional farming is all of the "stalag sheep" variety and only organic animals are free to roam around is one of the more insidious and pernicious of the lies told by this bunch of cranks. (Also bear in mind that being outside is not always best for the animal. Where would you rather be in a January snowstorm? Out on the hill, trying to revive your freezing newborn lamb while you yourself are cold and wet, or in a nice cosy shed with a straw bed and a feeding trough and the shepherd only a few yards away?)

Support extensive farming systems on welfare grounds, by all means. Support high-welfare management systems, whether housed or outdoors. However, the minute they slap on the "organic" label, avoid them like the plague. On welfare grounds.

"Science" has spent many decades developing safe and effective veterinary medicines for both therapeutic and preventative purposes. These products contribute immensely to animal welfare, both by preventing diseases which are inherent in the very nature of the animals' life cycles, and by treating disease when it strikes. Safety has to be emphasised here, because very extensive and rigorous testing for safety (of the consumer) is a major part of the pharmaceutical licensing process.

The Luddite nature of the organic movement chooses to regard these products as "evil chemicals", and demonises their use. The ethos is profoundly anti-vaccination, even though there is no possible effect that vaccination can have on the end product. The ethos is also profoundly against prophylactic treatment, in spite of the fact that prophylactic anti-parasite treatment is a major contributor to animal health and welfare. And the ethos also heavily discourages even the treatment of sick animals.

Yes, the guidelines on paper say soothing things indicating that the welfare of the animal must come before the organic certification, but in practice it just doesn't work this way. The loss of organic status consequent on the use of veterinary medicines is a sufficiently important economic factor that instances of animals which should have been treated (or treated much earlier than they in fact were) are common.

Just one anecdote, from the spring of this year. I received into the post mortem room the carcasses of two young ewes. I was surprised by their size, because they looked like six-month-old lambs, but there are no six-month-old lambs in April. The were in fact a year old. They were stunted in growth, and also extremely thin. Body fat was virtually absent. The carcasses were soaked in foul diarrhoea. Routine post mortem examination revealed that they had died because of a severe infestation of gastrointestinal parasites.

I checked the paperwork. It stated that the farm was organic. By this stage, that was no great surprise to me. It also revealed that these were the ninth and tenth fatalities in the group, all with similar signs.

A farmer would not usually expect to lose any of a group of young replacement breeding stock, and while one-off incidents do happen, most would be shouting for help when a second death occurred. The condition that killed these sheep was easily prevented and easily treated - but of course that would have meant using the "evil chemicals". It's also a chronic condition. These poor sheep had been losing condition, getting thinner and thinner and suffering from increasingly severe diarrhoea for weeks. TEN of them (remember, young adults, who should have been in the prime of life) had died before any action was taken. Is this animal welfare? Not in my book.

Oh, but they were free to roam the hills! Well, whoopee. They were Blackface sheep. That's what Blackface sheep do. That's how they're all managed. The only difference was that they were not accorded the right to either preventative or therapeutic medical treatment.

And don't get me started on organic milk.

Oh, but I will give a quick mention to a new poultry farming initiative that's on the drawing board for near where I live. It involves about ten large intensive sheds, which will be pretty intrusive in the countryside. It's actually intended to be large-scale organic production. There's just enough access to outside runs to satisfy the "free-range" tick-boxes. However, don't go away with the impression that these are happy chickens freely pecking away around the farmyard. They ain't.

My opposition to the organic movement in livestock farming is three-fold. First, if there is indeed a problem with drug residues in animal products, action ought to be taken to eliminate this across the board. It's no solution to create a little ghetto of "organic" virtue and ignore the bulk of our food production. However, the fact is that there really isn't such a problem. Regulations governing the use of medicinal products and in particular withdrawal times are effective in preventing residues reaching the consumer. Arbitrary diktats that all withdrawal times should be doubled and/or products avoided altogether for a small sector of the market are simply ideology gone mad, and do nothing to improve consumer protection.

Second, there is the overt animal welfare problem, relating to cases such as I described above.

And third, the is the blatant promotion of absolute woo. I already mentioned the anti-vax element. Even worse than that, the organic movement is heavily into the promotion of homoeopathy, on the grounds that homoeopathic treatments obviously leave no drug resudues. Yes, that's because there's nothing in them! Nothing at all! Frankly, if you're going to deny a sick animal medical treatment on ideological grounds, then at least face up to what you're doing, and please refrain from doling out magic shaken-up sugar pills to kid yourself that you're doing something to help the poor beast.

They're also very much into unlicensed remedies of all sorts, especially anything herbal. The problem here is that herbal remedies, if they do anything at all, also have the potential to leave residues. However, as they're not licensed and there is no established withdrawal time, then that's all right then. These products are "natural", so they must be safe, and should be used in preference to licensed products of proven efficacy. In fact the result of this is often that products of dubious efficacy are relied on, and nobody has the foggiest idea whether or not there might be a residue effect. If of course a product of this nature was seen to have useful efficacy, the probability is that someone would do a formal trial on it and acquire a proper product license and formal evidence of any residue effects (with a statutory withdrawal time) - at which point it would, in the eyes of the organic movement, become an evil chemical to be avoided.

The animal welfare implications of the organic movement are something which it is absolutely essential to consider when discussing this subject. And "organic" methods do not come up smelling of roses. As I said, by all means support high-welfare farming methods and extensive livestock rearing systems. Just remember that many conventional systems are just as free-range as the organic ones, and that the organic ideology is about a lot more than just free-range space.

Rolfe.

Naughtyhippo

12th November 2008, 03:12 AM

Thank you Rolfe, for a well thought out and reasoned post. I get too angry at people promoting this sort of thing as a universal panacea to all the world's problems to be able to give a decent rebuttal.

Rolfe

12th November 2008, 03:28 AM

I've thought this before but reckoned it was probably too silly to mention ... simple solution - GM super-producing pest-resistant crops grown organically.

[runs and hides]

Actually, it's a perfectly sensible idea.

Sense, however, is not the organic lobby's strongest suit.

Rolfe.

Blue Bubble

12th November 2008, 04:16 AM

Rolfe, I nominated your post. It puts into clear words what many of us non-vets think but lack the background to articulate.

Hear, hear ::clap:: ::clap::

tyr_13

12th November 2008, 05:16 AM

A couple of local dairy farmers were talking and I overheard a funny part of their conversation. One asked the other why he didn't consider getting into the 'organic' milk production because the profit margins are so much greater, and the other farm answered with a livid, "I could never do that! I love my cows."

Why the hell do they even call it 'organic'? Does that make other products 'synthetic'?

fls

12th November 2008, 05:38 AM

There is a good discussion of the organic food movement in the United States in the book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. I grew up under the ideals of people like Roadale and The Mother Earth News. What Rolfe describes and the current industrial organic movement are a far cry from 'organic', but in this case, I'm not sure it's possible to separate the baby from the bathwater. I do know that the practice of real organic farming persists, but it's not likely that the vast majority of people will come in contact with it.

Linda

JihadJane

12th November 2008, 05:56 AM

Declining oil and natural gas supplies will force humanity to abandon fossil-fuel-dependent agro-chemical food production.

Cuba's experience after the collapse of the Russian economy, gives a foretaste of what is to come globally. Cuba's solution to their sudden oil and food shortage was to go organic using Permaculture methods and it seems to have worked well for them.

See film about it here:

'The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil':

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-66172489666918336

(I'm not able to check this link but the film is available online elsewhere.)

In the article linked below Dmitry Orlov, who lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union applies the lessons he learnt to the ongoing collapse of the United States.

'The Five Stages of Collapse':

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47157

Be prepared!

tyr_13

12th November 2008, 06:04 AM

That's right, we should strive to be like Cuba. Cuba is a great place, very happy, and no one starves or tries to leave there. Cuba is great.

See how stupid that sounds?

skepticalfred

12th November 2008, 06:22 AM

I think the main issue here is what happened in Zambia, does anyone honestly think that was the moral thing to do?

ImaginalDisc

12th November 2008, 06:30 AM

skepticalfred

12th November 2008, 06:42 AM

The Soviet model of food production is what you want to follow? The pseudoscientific, "Let's plant in the snow" method? The "Stalin will send to the gulag anyone who disagrees with my ideology about how to feed us" method?

I'm not one to call anything comunist evil, but in this case, the Soviet model is worse than a modern model in every possible way.

Peon:"but his golorious cazrship the food is rotting on the vine!"
Fidel:"what about the tobacco?"
Peon:"well that's fine... but the food!"
Fidel:"I don't see a problem"
Hours later that peon was dead....<sarcastic> lets implement this system immediately! </sarcastic>

JihadJane

12th November 2008, 07:40 AM

The Soviet model of food production is what you want to follow? The pseudoscientific, "Let's plant in the snow" method? The "Stalin will send to the gulag anyone who disagrees with my ideology about how to feed us" method?

I'm not one to call anything communist evil, but in this case, the Soviet model is worse than a modern model in every possible way.

There isn't much snow in Cuba!

Cuba is not following the "Soviet model of food production".

That's right, we should strive to be like Cuba. Cuba is a great place, very happy, and no one starves or tries to leave there. Cuba is great.

See how stupid that sounds?

Yes, your comment does sound pretty stupid, not to mention ignorant! Do you know anything about Cuba's agricultural transition?

More people go hungry in the US than in Cuba.

Ikarus

12th November 2008, 07:46 AM

That's right, we should strive to be like Cuba. Cuba is a great place, very happy, and no one starves or tries to leave there. Cuba is great.

See how stupid that sounds?
No argument
Peon:"but his golorious cazrship the food is rotting on the vine!"
Fidel:"what about the tobacco?"
Peon:"well that's fine... but the food!"
Fidel:"I don't see a problem"
Hours later that peon was dead....<sarcastic> lets implement this system immediately! </sarcastic>
No argument

Appealing to some kind of sentiment and ridicule. Let's not?

ETA:I think the main issue here is what happened in Zambia, does anyone honestly think that was the moral thing to do?
I don't think that anecdote has enough weight to be a main issue in the organic food debate. Also, is Genetically Modified (GM) food the same as "the alternative to organic food"?

ponderingturtle

12th November 2008, 07:52 AM

I'll bet a crisp new dollar that you're a fan of "Penn and Teller's BS". :)

I have no real opinion on organic vs. genetically modified food but I commend you for your passion, your drive and your desire to expose fradulence wherever you see it.

Good for you!

You realize this is a false dicotomy. Organic and GM foods are on different scales. One is how it is produced the other is was it's genetic code altered modern manipulation techniques instead of older ones.

I wouldn't be at all suprised is there is organic GM food out there.

ponderingturtle

12th November 2008, 07:58 AM

I think the main issue here is what happened in Zambia, does anyone honestly think that was the moral thing to do?

Wasn't that an issue of Europes GM fears, and not anything to do with organic farming methods.

cwalner

12th November 2008, 08:19 AM

[Rant]
don't get me started on the GM scare from the organic movement.
Crops have been GM since the beginning of the agricultural revolution. Its called grafting. I would be extremely surprised if there is not a single crop, including organic crops that has not had some genetic alteration done on it over the last 1,000 years
[\Rant]

EeneyMinnieMoe

12th November 2008, 09:05 AM

You realize this is a false dicotomy. Organic and GM foods are on different scales. One is how it is produced the other is was it's genetic code altered modern manipulation techniques instead of older ones.

I wouldn't be at all suprised is there is organic GM food out there.

You're absolutely right- and I actually did know that.

In the United States, the word "organic" is often used to refer to non-genetically modified food- or as a shorthand for food that is both non-GM and organic- but that is incorrect.

Anecdotally, some foods marketed as organic taste better to me than the usual and some taste exactly the same. Organic dairy products, enspecially milk and butter, taste delicious.

Chicken and eggs taste the same, no discernible difference, and allegedly organic apples and tomatoes taste the same, maybe marginally better.

Does anyone else find this to be the case? Or is it just me?

ponderingturtle

12th November 2008, 09:43 AM

You're absolutely right- and I actually did know that.

In the United States, the word "organic" is often used to refer to non-genetically modified food- or as a shorthand for food that is both non-GM and organic- but that is incorrect.

Well that is because organic is much more of a marketing term than much of anything meaningful. But at least it is better than All Natural.

Anecdotally, some foods marketed as organic taste better to me than the usual and some taste exactly the same. Organic dairy products, enspecially milk and butter, taste delicious.

It would be interesting to see double blind testings.

Does anyone else find this to be the case? Or is it just me?

Well some times you can get more variety from local sources and many of those might be more likely to be organic.

JihadJane

12th November 2008, 10:16 AM

cwalner

12th November 2008, 10:27 AM

What similarities are there between grafting and genetic modification?

Only that grafting is simply a brute force approach to genetic modification. Many people don't realize this because the method focuses on phenotype (expressed characteristics) rather than genotype (genetic structure). However this does not change the fact the end result of grafting is genetic modification of the plant to produce specified characteristics

ImaginalDisc

12th November 2008, 10:27 AM

What similarities are there between grafting and genetic modification?

Placing tissue from one organism into a different organism is quite similar to genetic engineering. In fact, if you stop to think about what genetic engineering entails, we've been genetically engineering plants and animals for thousands of years through agressive breeding. Breeding animals and plants is actually much less safe than GM, because a genetically modified organism has specific, controlled changed made deliberately, rather than haphazardly combining two entire genetic codes and seeing what happens.

Kuko 4000

12th November 2008, 10:31 AM

Anecdotally, some foods marketed as organic taste better to me than the usual and some taste exactly the same. Organic dairy products, enspecially milk and butter, taste delicious.

Chicken and eggs taste the same, no discernible difference, and allegedly organic apples and tomatoes taste the same, maybe marginally better.

Does anyone else find this to be the case? Or is it just me?

Afaik, and from my own experience as well, it's mainly about the freshness and breed / race / cultivar (Finnish word is lajike). I'm in a too much hurry to dig out any studies right now, but I'd guess PubMed helps you out here.

ETA: these were the first two that I found from PubMed:

Consumer sensory analysis of organically and conventionally grown vegetables.
http://tinyurl.com/5s4gak

Sensory profiles of bread made from paired samples of organic and conventionally grown wheat grain.
http://tinyurl.com/6fsbqt

I did not check the quality of the studies, but I guess it's better than nothing for now.

JihadJane

12th November 2008, 10:34 AM

Placing tissue from one organism into a different organism is quite similar to genetic engineering.

It doesn't seem similar to me. Grafting doesn't cross generations. It is a temporary arrangement that lasts only as long as the plant lives.

ImaginalDisc

12th November 2008, 10:35 AM

It doesn't seem similar to me. Grafting doesn't cross generations. It is a temporary arrangement that lasts only as long as the plant lives.

You asked how it was similar. I answered. Now you're saying it's not similar because it has some differences.

That's pretty stupid.

Peacock

12th November 2008, 10:43 AM

I admit I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if this was already discussed. I'm an agricultural scientist myself who also worshiped Dr. Borlaug as a college student. I feel that just like most things, there are good and bad sides to organic farming. Long term and large scale, it isn't going to be sustainable as a way to feed the whole world. However, it is an excellent way for small scale farmers who can't compete in the larger markets to make some money in the niche "organic" market. It is also a great way for us to maintain a stock of landrace species that are quickly being lost to the higher yielding breeds.
Maintaining landraces or heritage breeds in seed storage is OK for a short while, but they eventually need to be grown out and replaced. Some species, such as potatos, don't do well in this environment. Scientists scour the markets of Peru looking for local species to add to their genetic databases.
If we don't keep a stock of genetically diverse species in the market we will eventually loose the ability to create the high yielding species we enjoy in the larger farming systems. So, while it is not a solution for everybody, its still important in the long term. I don't think organics are any healthier or purer than mass produced produce, but its a marketing technique that works for the small scale farmer, and if it helps them maintain those important heritage/landrace breeds I think its OK.

JimBenArm

12th November 2008, 10:48 AM

JihadJane

12th November 2008, 10:51 AM

You asked how it was similar. I answered. Now you're saying it's not similar because it has some differences.

That's pretty stupid.

I don't see any similarities. It's like saying a heart transplant is similar to genetic modification whereas they are two completely different processes, as far as I can see. Perhaps I'm not seeing something.

Rolfe

12th November 2008, 10:58 AM

Anecdotally, some foods marketed as organic taste better to me than the usual and some taste exactly the same. Organic dairy products, enspecially milk and butter, taste delicious.

Is it possible that's actually related to processing differences? I recall earlier threads where people discussed taste differences in dairy products, which can be very marked depending on degree of pasteurisation/sterilisation etc. There is also possibly some influence of degree of freshness.

In order to do a valid comparison, you'd have to ensure that processing was identical between the organic and non-organic samples, and I suspect it very seldom is.

I would never consume organic dairy products no matter how "delicious", because of the welfare implications.

Rolfe.

Peacock

12th November 2008, 10:59 AM

Maybe I can help clear up the grafting vs GMO confusion? If you are actually changing the genetic makeup by inserting genes from an entirely different organism, such as a bacterium, you are creating a genetically modified organism. We often use jellyfish DNA in our corn research to help ID gene markers. These aren't ever to be consumed by people, but they fall in the category of GMO & must be handled as such.

Grafting is a method of combining to separate species, but not on a molecular level. Each species maintains its own separate genetics, they are just forced to share a stem. It's like getting an organ transplant, the new organ has its own DNA but now it works for your system.

Rolfe

12th November 2008, 11:01 AM

However, it is an excellent way for small scale farmers who can't compete in the larger markets to make some money in the niche "organic" market. It is also a great way for us to maintain a stock of landrace species that are quickly being lost to the higher yielding breeds.

I agree with you to some extent so long as you're only talking about breeds of plants, and crop-based agriculture. However, even there, is prohibition of "chemicals" necessary or beneficial to your aim, I wonder?

As soon as you start talking about animals, however, I would very much oppose this point of view, on welfare grounds. It ought to be possible to preserve rare animal breeds without depriving them of medical treatment.

Rolfe.

Peacock

12th November 2008, 11:07 AM

Rolfe, your are most likely correct in your assumption. The only thing that makes milk products "organic" are the lack of extra milk producing hormones given to the cows. These hormones are always present in their system, so it doesn't effect the flavor of the milk. Even the organic food you feed a cow doesn't really effect the milk flavor unless they eat a bunch of "organic garlic or onions".

Many organic farmer hand craft their cheeses and butters so they perhaps have a less processed texture or flavor. I have no proof, but I feel if you actually conducted a taste test and wrapped up Kraft cheddar cheese in some brown butcher paper and told someone it was organic, they'd rave about the fresh taste. The episode of P&T comes to mind where they gave people tap water and told them it was bottled.

12th November 2008, 11:13 AM

http://www.foto-reportage.de/grafik/spanien/tomatina/xtomatina_sauber1.jpg

oh we have not enough to feed the starving people. :boggled:

And i prefer to leave the gene manipulation over to Nature, Nature is very experianced in it, Humans are NOT. I dislike to be a Alpha or Beta tester when it comes to food, i do it for Software, and that is enough for me.

If you like it. have funn testing it. But keep it away from my fields.

Peacock

12th November 2008, 11:14 AM

I agree with you to some extent so long as you're only talking about breeds of plants, and crop-based agriculture. However, even there, is prohibition of "chemicals" necessary or beneficial to your aim, I wonder?

As soon as you start talking about animals, however, I would very much oppose this point of view, on welfare grounds. It ought to be possible to preserve rare animal breeds without depriving them of medical treatment.

Rolfe.

Finding breeds that are naturally resistant to local pests without the use of chemicals is extremely important. Chemical fertilizers are not really an issue, but disease and pest management can't be maintained without finding those rare species who are naturally resistant. Even our GMO strains are created by finding a naturally resistant species first, even if its a weed gene.

I won't argue with you on the livestock issues. That's not my area and the two AnSci classes I took hardly qualify! LOL. I always enjoy your posts Rolfe, especially with the homeopathic communities.

JihadJane

12th November 2008, 11:21 AM

Maybe I can help clear up the grafting vs GMO confusion? ....

Thanks.

Back to the topic:

There seems to be an assumption that energy-input-intensive agri-chemical food production has a future. How can this be when it is dependent on finite and dwindling resources?

The important lesson to be learded from Cuba's experience, mentioned above, is that they solved an energy shortfall not by looking for a different energy source but by developing a system that uses less energy.

It has been estimated that nine out of every ten calories we eat is derived from fossil fuels. How is this sustainable?

paximperium

12th November 2008, 11:27 AM

There seems to be an assumption that energy-input-intensive agri-chemical food production has a future. How can this be when it is dependent on finite and dwindling resouces?

The important lesson to be learded from Cuba's experience, mentioned above, is that they solved an energy shortfall not by looking for a different energy source but by developing a system that used less energy.
You answered your own question. Use less energy.

It has been estimated that nine out of every ten calories we eat is derived from fossil fuels. How is this sustainable?
By increasing efficiency and slowly switching to different energy sources as fossil fuel decreases and cost rises, just like any other industry.

Are you railing against large scale Industrial Agriculture or just fossil fuel agriculture?

Kuko 4000

12th November 2008, 11:31 AM

ETA:

Nah, couldn't find what I was looking for, back with better time..

applecorped

12th November 2008, 11:35 AM

More people go hungry in the US than in Cuba.

As a percentage of the population?

Ikarus

12th November 2008, 11:39 AM

I'm confused about what grafting is now.

I didnt know the word and assumed cwalner meant the process of selective breeding and crossbreeding to alter and improve certain traits and properties, but english is not my first language.

In any case, it an argument about GM, which I'm still not convinced has anything to do with organic food, per se.

It has been estimated that nine out of every ten calories we eat is derived from fossil fuels. How is this sustainable?

k.. alarm bells....

Uncayimmy

12th November 2008, 11:45 AM

And i prefer to leave the gene manipulation over to Nature, Nature is very experianced in it, Humans are NOT. I dislike to be a Alpha or Beta tester when it comes to food, i do it for Software, and that is enough for me.

If you like it. have funn testing it. But keep it away from my fields.

Two words: Hemlock

ImaginalDisc

12th November 2008, 12:10 PM

12th November 2008, 12:22 PM

Oh, that's smart. Yes, nature, which had given us Down Syndrome, Diabetes, brainless babies, and cancer should totally stay at the helm.

If you feel ready to take over, pls go ahead, as Science i find it interesting, but i will wait a long time till i knowingly will eat GM food. Nature is not perfect thats for sure. But humans are even less perfect.

12th November 2008, 12:35 PM

Two words: Hemlock

you forgot the second word?
with only Hemlock i dont know what you mean.

Uncayimmy

12th November 2008, 01:02 PM

you forgot the second word?
with only Hemlock i dont know what you mean.

It's just a figure of speech.

Here's the thing: Nature is not looking out for the best interests of humans. The changes are indiscriminate and enter the wild immediately without any testing. Nature is never right or wrong - it just is.

volatile

12th November 2008, 01:08 PM

You know the most organic, environmentally friendly, humane way to raise livestock? Don't raise livestock.

If anyone is tempted to switch to organic meat for environmental or humane grounds, might I suggest switching to vegetariansim or veganism instead?

cwalner

12th November 2008, 01:16 PM

Senex

12th November 2008, 01:23 PM

Rolfe, I nominated your post. It puts into clear words what many of us non-vets think but lack the background to articulate.

Hear, hear ::clap:: ::clap::

Let's hold off on nominating Rolfe. We have yet to hear how Charlotte Ross weighs in on the issue, and Rolfe sounds like someone with a big, hairy, flabby bum.

12th November 2008, 02:01 PM

It's just a figure of speech.

Here's the thing: Nature is not looking out for the best interests of humans. The changes are indiscriminate and enter the wild immediately without any testing. Nature is never right or wrong - it just is.

I doubt that Monsato or Novartis are looking out for the best interests of humans.

skepticalfred

12th November 2008, 02:16 PM

I doubt that Monsato or Novartis are looking out for the best interests of humans.

Cheap and abundant food? Those bastards!

How much good did your organic food's do in zambia?

paximperium

12th November 2008, 02:26 PM

I doubt that Monsato or Novartis are looking out for the best interests of humans.
Hey nice derail into an anti-corporate argument. How does that support organic farming at all?

Monsato or Novartis' goals are to make money. To do that, you increase yields. They produce cheap food.

12th November 2008, 02:35 PM

Cheap and abundant food? Those bastards!

How much good did your organic food's do in zambia?

We will see how the maize and other GM food in zambia will work out.

Cheap and good testing is a bit contradicting.

I dont want to forbid GM Food, i want it to be properly labeled and kept away from non GM food, atleast untill we have more experiance with it in some decades.

But i dont know how moraly correct it is to test GM food on people that have no other choice, sure it is better than no food. But while we test the GM stuff on them we trow away tons of food daily.

12th November 2008, 02:45 PM

Hey nice derail into an anti-corporate argument. How does that support organic farming at all?

Monsato or Novartis' goals are to make money. To do that, you increase yields. They produce cheap food.

depends what you understand with "organic" food, or how exactly the rules are in the USA.

a Bio label, like we have em here, is not so important to me like a Fair trade label is or a GM label would be.

Peacock

12th November 2008, 02:46 PM

12th November 2008, 02:52 PM

12th November 2008, 02:57 PM

That anti-corporate nonsense makes me mad. Its like saying the pharmaceutical companies are keeping cures from you so they can make money. Don't you think we have families and personal ethics? I work for a very large seed producer and the lenghts we go through to be sure we keep everything safe is astounding. If you don't know anything about an industry, you should shut it.

http://www.oxfam.ca/news-and-publications/news/indian-ruling-against-pharmaceutical-giant-novartis-a-victory-for-public-health-say-leading-aid-and-advocacy-agencies/

http://www.aerzte-ohne-grenzen.de/Medikamentenkampagne/Aktuell/Online-Kampagne-Novartis/Interview-Deutsche-Welle-Schoen-Angerer.php

Rolfe

12th November 2008, 02:58 PM

The only thing that makes milk products "organic" are the lack of extra milk producing hormones given to the cows. These hormones are always present in their system, so it doesn't effect the flavor of the milk.

Uh, no. If that were the case, all the milk in Britain would be organic, as we don't use BST on dairy cows here. Or any hormones come to that.

What makes it organic is partly, as you observe, that the fodder given to the cattle has to be grown organically (so it's more expensive), and that the cattle themselves are deprived of both prophylactic and therapeutic treatments. Mainly this refers to antibiotics.

Now of course you don't want to be drinking low level antibiotics in your milk, but you won't be. The standard withdrawal times (the time after treatment when milk may not enter the human food chain) are very carefully researched and very stringent. Every batch of milk is tested, and the farmer will lose a lot of money if it fails.

The fact is, antibiotics are a necessary part of modern dairy farming. It's unnatural for a cow to yield 30 litres of milk in a day. Doing that puts a strain on the metabolism and on the anatomy. Cattle performing at that level need support, including treatment to prevent mastitis. Any idea that you can milk a 21st century Holstein Friesian in a modern parlour with modern milking machines and yet treat her as if she were a 19th century Shorthorn with a dairy-maid and a three-legged stool is fantasy-land.

Volatile makes a fair point. If you don't like the current livestock industry, then become a vegetarian. And in fact I would recommend that you become a vegan, because milk production is a lot more industrialised than beef or lamb production as it happens. Just don't think you can go all guilt-free by embracing the "organic" label. It doesn't work that way.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

12th November 2008, 03:01 PM

Let's hold off on nominating Rolfe. We have yet to hear how Charlotte Ross weighs in on the issue, and Rolfe sounds like someone with a big, hairy, flabby bum.

Who's Charlotte Ross? And what have you got against girls with big hairy flabby bums?

Rolfe.

Peacock

12th November 2008, 03:04 PM

Organic foods are made according to certain production standards, meaning they are grown without the use of conventional pesticides and artificial fertilizers, free from contamination by human or industrial waste, and processed without ionizing radiation or food additives.[1] If livestock are involved, they must be reared without the routine use of antibiotics and without the use of growth hormones, and generally fed a healthy diet. In most countries, organic produce may not be genetically modified.

i know Wiki isnt liked that much here.
What is the problem if some people want such food? especially when they are willing to pay more for it? I think that is ok.

Absolutely nothing, your land-your money-your decision. BUT it’s wrong to vilify the other farmers who chose to use the latest technologies in food production. Even the GMO free foods you are so fond of are bred using massive amounts of DNA research. ALL corn and soy is bred using gene mapping, NOT nature, and even if the finished product is GMO free, i guarantee there was some GMO used to locate the specific genes that make it drought resistant or immune to stalk rot.

12th November 2008, 03:16 PM

Absolutely nothing, your land-your money-your decision. BUT it’s wrong to vilify the other farmers who chose to use the latest technologies in food production. Even the GMO free foods you are so fond of are bred using massive amounts of DNA research. ALL corn and soy is bred using gene mapping, NOT nature, and even if the finished product is GMO free, i guarantee there was some GMO used to locate the specific genes that make it drought resistant or immune to stalk rot.

to vilify other farmers is wrong, sure. But i also think it is wrong to vilify other farmers that try to produce organic food.

i think GM is going alot further than breeding, and i have first to be convinced that it is a good thing. We will see where it will lead to.

Peacock

12th November 2008, 03:30 PM

to vilify other farmers is wrong, sure. But i also think it is wrong to vilify other farmers that try to produce organic food.

i think GM is going alot further than breeding, and i have first to be convinced that it is a good thing. We will see where it will lead to.

Like I said in my previous post, organic farming on a small scale is a great way for small farms to both make a profit and maintain heritage/landrace plants that are quickly disappearing. Its just not sustainable in the long run or in large scale farms. We just don't have enough arable land to feed the next generation. The only solution is to cut the population of the earth by 1/3 or use our scientific knowledge of nutrient management and genetic mapping to make the best yielding, low input lines we can manage.

Its easy to just distrust the "evil corporations", but if you take the time to really educate yourself on the marvelous leaps science has made in food production I think you'll agree that its worth it.

There was a forumite who once said (Ducky?), nature doesn't care if you live or die - Scientists do.

tyr_13

12th November 2008, 03:35 PM

There isn't much snow in Cuba!

Cuba is not following the "Soviet model of food production".

Yes, your comment does sound pretty stupid, not to mention ignorant! Do you know anything about Cuba's agricultural transition?

More people go hungry in the US than in Cuba.

Cuba is not the US. I know that sounds obvious, but let's break it down so you understand. The climate of most of the US is not like that of Cuba. The transit and distribution models are not the same. The social, economic and governmental models are not the same. So why on Earth should the US use Cuba's transitional model?

Besides that, your argument is built on a false premise; that a gasoline shortage will cut out the fertilizers we use. However, there are many other ways to produce these fertilizers than oil processing.

As for my previous post containing an argument, it actually did. It was suggested that we use the Cuban model. My argument was that on face value, it is silly. Cuba isn't a great place, and while the Cuban people might have many good ideas, it still is silly to say the US should use it's system.

Ikarus

12th November 2008, 03:58 PM

Cuba is not the US. I know that sounds obvious, but let's break it down so you understand. The climate of most of the US is not like that of Cuba. The transit and distribution models are not the same. The social, economic and governmental models are not the same. So why on Earth should the US use Cuba's transitional model?It uses less fuel. Fuel is finite and expensive. Olé! The discussion was going towards sustainable alternatives to farming methods. Permaculture was mentioned and the example was Cuba, which was forced to use this technique.

Besides that, your argument is built on a false premise; that a gasoline shortage will cut out the fertilizers we use. However, there are many other ways to produce these fertilizers than oil processing. See above.

As for my previous post containing an argument, it actually did. It was suggested that we use the Cuban model. My argument was that on face value, it is silly. Cuba isn't a great place, and while the Cuban people might have many good ideas, it still is silly to say the US should use it's system.
You're right. Good ideas are not their style.

12th November 2008, 03:59 PM

Like I said in my previous post, organic farming on a small scale is a great way for small farms to both make a profit and maintain heritage/landrace plants that are quickly disappearing. Its just not sustainable in the long run or in large scale farms. We just don't have enough arable land to feed the next generation. The only solution is to cut the population of the earth by 1/3 or use our scientific knowledge of nutrient management and genetic mapping to make the best yielding, low input lines we can manage.

Its easy to just distrust the "evil corporations", but if you take the time to really educate yourself on the marvelous leaps science has made in food production I think you'll agree that its worth it.

There was a forumite who once said (Ducky?), nature doesn't care if you live or die - Scientists do.

I never said we should only do organic food in a non industrial way.
But i would be interested on what numbers you base your number of cutting down world population down by 1/3.

It is not just distrust against the Evil corporations.
Novartis is my neighbor, my house is next to Schweizerhalle, just a trainstation between it.
They didnt care the quality of the water i consume, nor did the scientists that had to test the water, those same scientists that i thought drink the same water as i do, so i trusted them, and called Greenpeace the Conspiracy Nuts, till it was shown that indeed the scientist that test our water, "conspired" with the Chem coprs around here.
So yes, i will remain sceptic about what they do. Profit is clearly a much bigger goal for them than my health.

tyr_13

12th November 2008, 04:23 PM

It uses less fuel. Fuel is finite and expensive. Olé!

It uses less fuel, but that doesn't mean it will necessarily work in the US, which is geographically both much large and much more diverse than Cuba.

Fuel is not finite. Oil is. Fuels can, and do, change. I think talking about the problems with our current transit system is a little off topic. Sure it has bearing, but being more fuel efficient doesn't always mean better all around.

The Mad Hatter

12th November 2008, 04:23 PM

Rolfe, you're in the UK, right? How much of what you said applies to North American farming as well?

Many Zambians were forced to eat poisonous plants and even domestic pets to survive. One villager was quoted as saying, “If we resort to a new type of root from a plant we are unfamiliar with, we first get the oldest person in the village to test it before the rest of us eat it. This must be a person who is already too ill either because of hunger, disease or age that he is going to die sooner or later anyway. If he lives after eating the roots, we then feed them to the children. If he dies, we won’t.”

Interesting, what is your source for this?

Wasn't that an issue of Europes GM fears, and not anything to do with organic farming methods.

Sort of, I've heard a few different reasons. Some say it was out of fears that people would replant the seeds lose their right to trade with Europe. Even if that were valid, they could have easily prevented that by grinding it up. I also remember that the PM called the foods "poison".

What similarities are there between grafting and genetic modification?

Grafting is probably not the best example, but selective breeding (which turned mustard seed into broccoli), hybridization, and mutagenesis are all forms of genetic modification. Of course, only recombinant DNA technology is what we refer to with "GMOs".

If you feel ready to take over, pls go ahead, as Science i find it interesting, but i will wait a long time till i knowingly will eat GM food. Nature is not perfect thats for sure. But humans are even less perfect.

Do you forage for your own food then? I really don't know how you can say that GM food is worse than any other food out there. GM foods are the most tested foods in history. It is also the most reliable technology for modification - only a few genes are added. We know exactly what they do. Since we know the sequences of the inserted segments, we can use them as primers and sequence the surrounding area to see where they were inserted, and whether they are disrupting an important gene. We can perform microarrays to measure the expression level of just about every protein in the plants (not that we can't do this one with other plants, but it certainly has not been done before the last decade).

Compare that with hybrids - now we are not introducing 1-3 genes, but around 50 000. People actually have had adverse health effects from hybrid crops. We do not always know how these genes will interact, and sometimes find massive elevations of certain undesired proteins.

With mutagenesis, we soak seeds in mutagens or bombard them with neutron guns. The change is random, and hard to trace because we don't know exactly what happened. This is often used to make seedless crops. Selective breeding has no nasty chemicals, but still has the unknown factor.

These are considered certified organic. I'm amazed that people can be afraid of GMOs and insist that these are "natural".

tyr_13

12th November 2008, 04:32 PM

I can't believe people want natural cow milk and corn. Neither are natural at all, and neither can survive without human care. Both have been genetically modified through selective breeding over thousands of generations. Neither of the original species they came from are living.

12th November 2008, 04:56 PM

Rolfe, you're in the UK, right? How much of what you said applies to North American farming as well?

Interesting, what is your source for this?

Sort of, I've heard a few different reasons. Some say it was out of fears that people would replant the seeds lose their right to trade with Europe. Even if that were valid, they could have easily prevented that by grinding it up. I also remember that the PM called the foods "poison".

Grafting is probably not the best example, but selective breeding (which turned mustard seed into broccoli), hybridization, and mutagenesis are all forms of genetic modification. Of course, only recombinant DNA technology is what we refer to with "GMOs".

Do you forage for your own food then? I really don't know how you can say that GM food is worse than any other food out there. GM foods are the most tested foods in history. It is also the most reliable technology for modification - only a few genes are added. We know exactly what they do. Since we know the sequences of the inserted segments, we can use them as primers and sequence the surrounding area to see where they were inserted, and whether they are disrupting an important gene. We can perform microarrays to measure the expression level of just about every protein in the plants (not that we can't do this one with other plants, but it certainly has not been done before the last decade).

Compare that with hybrids - now we are not introducing 1-3 genes, but around 50 000. People actually have had adverse health effects from hybrid crops. We do not always know how these genes will interact, and sometimes find massive elevations of certain undesired proteins.

With mutagenesis, we soak seeds in mutagens or bombard them with neutron guns. The change is random, and hard to trace because we don't know exactly what happened. This is often used to make seedless crops. Selective breeding has no nasty chemicals, but still has the unknown factor.

These are considered certified organic. I'm amazed that people can be afraid of GMOs and insist that these are "natural".

I dont get why the GM food fans are always getting uppset when one is sceptical about it.

I didnt claim it to be worse than other things. I just want to be able to have the ability to NOT eat GM food. Again, i dont want to forbid it. When you want it, eat it, i dont want to.

I see no problem with that. why is that upsetting you GM fans?

How many Decades do we have experiance with selective breeding and how many decades of experiance do we have into GM food?

Especially on a sceptics forum i would expect more scepticism.

skepticalfred

12th November 2008, 04:59 PM

I never said we should only do organic food in a non industrial way.
But i would be interested on what numbers you base your number of cutting down world population down by 1/3.

I have seen that cited in alot of places, im busy at the moment but will add a link later. I believe it was from a U.N. study if not im not mistaken.

skepticalfred

12th November 2008, 05:00 PM

Interesting, what is your source for this?

Here. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/starving-zambians-turn-to-poison-plants-in-desperation-603655.html)

The Mad Hatter

12th November 2008, 05:29 PM

I dont get why the GM food fans are always getting uppset when one is sceptical about it.

Sorry if my post gave you the impression that I was upset; I'm just trying to be thorough.

I didnt claim it to be worse than other things. I just want to be able to have the ability to NOT eat GM food. Again, i dont want to forbid it. When you want it, eat it, i dont want to.

You might not have claimed it, but when you single out recombinant DNA technology as being the only one we should have a choice over, it certainly carries that implication.

Do you think Kosher food should have mandatory labelling/separating as well? If there is no actual difference between the foods, why should we cater to anyone's superstitious preference and add pointless bureaucracy?

How many Decades do we have experiance with selective breeding and how many decades of experiance do we have into GM food?

I'm not sure if your question was literal or rhetorical, so I'll address both. GM foods have been around for 2 decades, selective breeding for about 10 000 years.

How many decades of experience do we have with food safety testing? Until recently, how could you tell if your corn was carcinogenic or not?

Also, how many decades of experience do we have with acupuncture?

Here. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/starving-zambians-turn-to-poison-plants-in-desperation-603655.html)

Yeesh, scary stuff. Thanks.

12th November 2008, 10:03 PM

Sorry if my post gave you the impression that I was upset; I'm just trying to be thorough.

You might not have claimed it, but when you single out recombinant DNA technology as being the only one we should have a choice over, it certainly carries that implication.

Do you think Kosher food should have mandatory labelling/separating as well? If there is no actual difference between the foods, why should we cater to anyone's superstitious preference and add pointless bureaucracy?

I'm not sure if your question was literal or rhetorical, so I'll address both. GM foods have been around for 2 decades, selective breeding for about 10 000 years.

How many decades of experience do we have with food safety testing? Until recently, how could you tell if your corn was carcinogenic or not?

Also, how many decades of experience do we have with acupuncture?

Yeesh, scary stuff. Thanks.

afaik is Kosher food labeled, atleast the food that is especieally taken care to be kosher. Not sure about the testing behind it.
But GM food should be labeled because alot people are sceptic about it, or dont want to eat it. Alot of things have to been labeled here when it comes to ingirdients of food, and i also want to know when it contains GM food.
I dont want to demonize it, i just want it to be handled carefully.

Akupunktur seems to go back about 5000 years. And still we dont know how it works, we do not even know for sure if it works or not.

2 Decades is not enough for me. If that is enough for you that is fine. But i would say you have to accept or even understand that this is not enough for everyone. You got convinced that it is something good, others not yet, others will never.
we talk here about our food.

When we take a look at chemical pharmacy, they have found out some amazing thnings and still we have had mecicamentations that was hailed so much untill we found out, oh its bad when you plan to have kids later. or other side effects.

12th November 2008, 10:21 PM

But i am willing to look closer into it.

Are there long time studies? or which studies would you recommend to read?

also i would be interested in evidence of increased yield, reduce costs and reduce pesticide use.

And it was claimed that GM food is the most tested food, i would like to see the testing procedure and regulations.

skepticalfred

12th November 2008, 10:58 PM

I old IR8 rice did at least 10 times the yield of conventional rice.

"He was amazed with the results – the IR8 rice produced around 5 tons per hectare with no fertilizer and rose to almost 10 tons with 120 kg of nitrogen per hectare. That was 10 times the traditional rice yield."

Then came IR36, that doubled the yield of IR8.

"So, Beachell and, later, his colleague Dr. Gurdev Singh Khush began crossing IR8 with at least 13 other varieties from six nations. Eventually, they developed IR36, a semi-dwarf variety the proved highly resistant to a variety of pests and diseases and produced the slender rice grain preferred in many countries. In addition, IR36 matured rapidly – in 105 days instead of the 130 days of IR8 and 170 days for traditional varieties. That meant that many regions could finally grow two crops a year, instead of one."

Now we have IR72 that outperforms even IR36.

"In 1990, Dr. Khush produced IR72 which out produced even IR36."

source: http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/crops_17.html

12th November 2008, 11:07 PM

12th November 2008, 11:23 PM

btw, did we find out already more about the influence of DNA from food on our immunesystem? and are there studies on what happens on long terms to the DNA from GM food in the blood?

skepticalfred

12th November 2008, 11:41 PM

btw, did we find out already more about the influence of DNA from food on our immunesystem? and are there studies on what happens on long terms to the DNA from GM food in the blood?

Unless you have serious medical issues, there should not be DNA from the food you eat in your blood. Also DNA is an inert molecule therefore it does not interact with tissues that it is not associated with.

12th November 2008, 11:51 PM

Unless you have serious medical issues, there should not be DNA from the food you eat in your blood. Also DNA is an inert molecule therefore it does not interact with tissues that it is not associated with.

that seem to be wrong assumed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16245168

Mazza et al. 2005

also the Shaare Zedek Medical Center , Jerusalem studie from 2004 is interesting in that aspect, but cant find a link atm, will have to search for it.

only found a german article about it atm english will follow i hope.

http://www.meat-n-more.info/portal/fachwissen/index.php?we_objectID=2048

english : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14762789

13th November 2008, 12:34 AM

Not oppinions, i thought more about studies that show this.

IR8 and IR36 are not GMO afaik.
IR72 is.

paximperium

13th November 2008, 01:02 AM

that seem to be wrong assumed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16245168

Mazza et al. 2005

Snort. From YOUR own article:

From the data obtained, we consider it unlikely that the occurrence of genetic transfer associated with GM plants is higher than that from conventional plants.

13th November 2008, 01:05 AM

Snort. From YOUR own article:

i know, i have read them.

and it directly contradicts what i got told here about no DNA from food in my blood.

they find it unlikely, i would like to see more studies into this.

paximperium

13th November 2008, 01:14 AM

i know, i have read them.

and it directly contradicts what i got told here about no DNA from food in my blood.

they find it unlikely, i would like to see more studies into this.
Just curious. Why would it matter?

You eat some fish/chicken/duck/corn and you get some inert DNA fragments ie. bits of amino acids in your blood just like any other food.

You eat a GM corn with a fish gene and you get some fish and corn DNA fragments in your system...so?

13th November 2008, 01:39 AM

Just curious. Why would it matter?

You eat some fish/chicken/duck/corn and you get some inert DNA fragments ie. bits of amino acids in your blood just like any other food.

You eat a GM corn with a fish gene and you get some fish and corn DNA fragments in your system...so?

first one will propably be DNA sequences that are very old. "tested" by several generations of Humans

last one could contain much newer "less tested" DNA sequences. Could be dangerous but also could be good for us, who knows, find it interesting. Afaik is Functional food going into that direction.

13th November 2008, 01:43 AM

also would i find it interesting to see what GM food that is resistant against some things do to the resistance of humans.

I mean the Scampi that grew up swimming in antibiothika like in Thailand is propably not very good for our already high resistance to antibiothica.

I know that is not compareble, and GM food is for sure not on the low level of thail scampi production, but i think sometimes we just act very foolish when it comes to our food.

13th November 2008, 01:47 AM

btw also i would be intersted in hearing some of the negative points about GM food from the GM fans, incase they have some points.

JihadJane

13th November 2008, 04:15 AM

Especially on a sceptics forum i would expect more scepticism.

Hee hee! I know you are just pretending when you say that.

13th November 2008, 04:36 AM

Hee hee! I know you are just pretending when you say that.

no clue what you mean, but actually, on a sceptics forum i do expect alot scepticism, on a lot of Subfora here there are plenty of people that show some huge specptical thinking. On other topics some are more closeminded than sceptic.

On the other hand, maybe it is just me that is closeminded against GM food for example. But i find it unsceptical to be so sure about such a relative young science. On the other hand, we also have others that fear death of earth population when we mess around with genes.

I do fear that it COULD have bad influence on our health on long term. Thats why i would like to see a more carefull handling of GM food and a stricter labeling. I think it is my right to not eat GM food.

skepticalfred

13th November 2008, 05:42 AM

First off that's a study of piglets not humans and that study was published in the journal of Transgenic Research... not a very well known journal.

Also I don't read German but all good studies generally end up in English.

and this article is on animal testing of GMO's:
An animal welfare perspective on animal testing of GMO crops. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18551237?ordinalpos=17&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum): "Based on concrete examples this article demonstrates that animal experiments, on principle, cannot provide the expected protection of users and consumers despite all efforts to standardise, optimise or extend them."

13th November 2008, 05:45 AM

Rolfe

13th November 2008, 05:47 AM

A few interesting points here. Why shouldn't people who want to eat organic food have the choice to do so? Well, no compelling reason I can see apart from cost and use of resources, that is until you get into livestock husbandry. The welfare compromises inherent in the organic dogma seem to me to be being consistently ignored. And I have to say that what I described is typical of the organic industry. While there may be some small enterprises where each animal is lovingly cherished and cared for within the organic rules, these are not exactly common, nor could such systems supply a mass market.

Should kosher meat be labelled? Emphatically, yes! For exactly the same reason. Shechita slaughter is so spectacularly inhumane that I would greatly value the opportunity to refuse to buy meat from any animal that was killed in that way. Unfortunately a great deal of meat from ritually-slaughtered animals finds its way into the ordinary food chain (individuals where the rabbi or imam declared the procedure hadn't been carried out correctly, cuts of meat not acceptable to kosher or halal observance and so on). If such meat wasn't bought by ordinary people who have no idea that the animal wasn't slaughtered by the standard, humane method (involving pre-stunning), then the entire industry would be priced out of the market. So guess why such meat isn't likely to be labelled any time soon.

Why is this all about GM? Yes, organic rules don't like GM. However, that's only one small part of the rules surrounding the system. It's quite possible to avoid GM food (certainly in Britain) without going for the whole nine yards of the organic woo.

Similarly as regards BST (bovine somatotrophin). I would object to drinking milk from a cow treated with that for the same reason as I object to drinking organic milk. Because it's detrimental to the welfare of the cow. Sure, the milk is just the same. But I know about the excess strain such treatment puts on the already over-performing dairy cow metabolism. However, to me it's a non-argument, because BST is banned in the UK for exactly that reason. You don't have to go organic to avoid such milk, because none of the milk is produced in that way anyway.

Is it simply that GM technology and OTT supercharging treatments like BST are so widespread in the USA that choosing organic is the only way to avoid them? If that is the case, I'd say you guys have a ready-made market for produce specifically eschewing these particular bugbears, while avoiding those whole nine yards of organic woo.

And a final comment, for now. Doesn't it bother anyone arguing for organic systems that the organic movement is one of the main driving forces behind the promotion of homoeopathy?

Rolfe.

JihadJane

13th November 2008, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by JihadJane
It has been estimated that nine out of every ten calories we eat is derived from fossil fuels. How is this sustainable?

k.. alarm bells....

Source of estimate: David Pimentel, "Constraints on the Expansion of Global Food Supply," Kindell, Henry H. and Pimentel, David. Ambio Vol. 23 No. 3, May 1994. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

I aim to address other responses to my earlier post later today.

no clue what you mean, but actually, on a sceptics forum i do expect alot scepticism, on a lot of Subfora here there are plenty of people that show some huge specptical thinking. On other topics some are more closeminded than sceptic.

On the other hand, maybe it is just me that is closeminded against GM food for example. But i find it unsceptical to be so sure about such a relative young science. On the other hand, we also have others that fear death of earth population when we mess around with genes.

I do fear that it COULD have bad influence on our health on long term. Thats why i would like to see a more carefull handling of GM food and a stricter labeling. I think it is my right to not eat GM food.

Hello Dictator Cheney.

Sorry for any ambiguity. It wasn't meant as a dig at you. I assumed that your experiences here might have tempered your expectations somewhat! From what I've seen on this forum a lot of 'skepticsm' has such a pronounced lean that it cannot really be called skepticism at all.

I share your distrust of the GM industry which claims to be about feeding the world but, in practice, appears to be more about controlling and profitting from food production with little consideration given to unknown, long-term health or environmental effects. As your local water example illustrates this short-term, blinkered approach is characteristic of the corporate mind-set.

13th November 2008, 06:49 AM

13th November 2008, 06:56 AM

Source of estimate: David Pimentel, "Constraints on the Expansion of Global Food Supply," Kindell, Henry H. and Pimentel, David. Ambio Vol. 23 No. 3, May 1994. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

I aim to address other responses to my earlier post later today.

Hello Dictator Cheney.

Sorry for any ambiguity. It wasn't meant as a dig at you. I assumed that your experiences here might have tempered your expectations somewhat! From what I've seen on this forum a lot of 'skepticsm' has such a pronounced lean that it cannot really be called skepticism at all.

I share your distrust of the GM industry which claims to be about feeding the world but, in practice, appears to be more about controlling and profitting from food production with little consideration given to unknown, long-term health or environmental effects. As your local water example illustrates this short-term, blinkered approach is characteristic of the corporate mind-set.

No hard feelings here :)

I have lowered my expectations already massively. But i do belive there are real sceptics here.
But indeed i think that scepticism is by some just directed against specific things, and not in general , there seem to be a little bit blind faith into the big corporations and modern science.
But it is hard to be scpetical against the stuff you favor yourself.
are we 2 sceptical enough when we take a look at the 9/11 truth movement?
or do we to often say, ok maybe that guy is misstaken there instead of spoting lies to sell more Books and DVD's.
Just like most here can not imagen that Cheney Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq and most seem to prefer to belive that they was misstaken, and did not lie.

Scepticism is not so easy :)

quarky

13th November 2008, 07:07 AM

I haven't read everything here, but the organic farmers i know mostly focus on the sustainability of the top soil, which isn't a bad idea.

JihadJane

13th November 2008, 02:50 PM

You answered your own question. Use less energy.

By increasing efficiency and slowly switching to different energy sources as fossil fuel decreases and cost rises, just like any other industry.

Are you railing against large scale Industrial Agriculture or just fossil fuel agriculture?

I'm not aware of any "different energy sources" that can be scaled up to meet projected decline in oil supply.

I'm not railing about anything!

----------------------

As a percentage of the population?

I haven't been able to find comparable statistics to support my assertion.

----------------------

Cuba is not the US. I know that sounds obvious, but let's break it down so you understand. The climate of most of the US is not like that of Cuba. The transit and distribution models are not the same. The social, economic and governmental models are not the same. So why on Earth should the US use Cuba's transitional model?

The factors you mention may have to change if the US is going to be able to feed itself in the future. Here's a summary of Cuba's experience. As you can see it is not a model dependent on Cuba's favorable (except for hurricanes!) climate or size:

"In the late 1980s, farmers in Cuba were highly reliant on cheap fuels and petrochemicals imported from the Soviet Union, using more agrochemicals per acre than their US counterparts. In 1990, as the Soviet empire collapsed, Cuba lost those imports and faced an agricultural crisis. The average Cuban lost 20 pounds of body weight and malnutrition was nearly universal. The Cuban GDP fell dramatically and inhabitants of the island nation experienced a substantial decline in their material standard of living.

Several agronomists at Cuban universities had for many years been advocating a transition to organic methods. Cuban authorities responded to the crisis by giving these ecological agronomists carte blanche to redesign the nation's food system. Officials broke up large state-owned farms, offered land to farming families, and encouraged the formation of small agricultural co-ops. Cuban farmers began employing oxen as a replacement for the tractors they could no longer afford to fuel. Cuban scientists began investigating biological methods of pest control and soil fertility enhancement. The government sponsored widespread education in organic food production, and the Cuban people adopted a mostly vegetarian diet out of necessity. Salaries for agricultural workers were raised, in many cases to above the levels of urban office workers. Urban gardens were encouraged in parking lots and on public lands, and thousands of rooftop gardens appeared. Small food animals such as chickens and rabbits began to be raised on rooftops as well.

As a result of these efforts, Cuba was able to avoid what might otherwise have been a severe famine.

If the rest of the world does not plan for a reduction in fossil fuel use in agriculture, its post-peak-oil agricultural transition may be far less successful than was Cuba's. Already in poor countries, farmers who are attempting to apply industrial methods but cannot afford tractor fuel and petrochemical inputs are watching their crops fail. Soon farmers in wealthier nations will be having a similar experience."

Extract from "What Will We Eat as the Oil Runs Out?":

http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_what_will_we_eat_as_t he_oil_runs_out

Besides that, your argument is built on a false premise; that a gasoline shortage will cut out the fertilizers we use. However, there are many other ways to produce these fertilizers than oil processing.

Fertilizer production is mostly dependent on natural gas rather than oil. Natural gas production is also predicted go into decline within two decades (I think!). Which "other ways" of producing fertilizer do you have in mind?

“Why Our Food is So Dependent on Oil”:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/5045

luchog

13th November 2008, 03:30 PM

Fuel is not finite. Oil is. Fuels can, and do, change. I think talking about the problems with our current transit system is a little off topic. Sure it has bearing, but being more fuel efficient doesn't always mean better all around.
Thanks to the TDP process, oil is no longer finite, either. TDP oil is not capable of as high a production volume as our current fossil reserves, but it's more than adequate for limited, niche markets like fertilizer production.

A some other issues that I want to comment on:

First, the biggest issue with GMO foods isn't "monster" crops; but rather, the patent problem. GMO crops are not necessarily better or cheaper. Yes, they may have higher yeilds; but they are also more expensive to obtain. Many manufacturers are seeking to engineer "expirations" into their seeds, so that farmers cannot simply re-sow from reserved "seed crops"; but are forced to re-purchase seed every year (manufacturers have threatened legal actions against farmers who use this practice, claiming that its a patent violation).

The concept of efficiently modifying crops for higher yeilds and greater hardiness is a good one. The current implementation of that concept has some serious practical flaws.

Second, pesticides are a major issue for farming; and are one of the key issues with large-scale factory farming -- specifically groundwater contamination. Pesticides are by nature highly toxic, and it's not really practical to make them less so. There is a lot of research going into creating newer pesticides; but this is rarely ever to make them safer. Mostly, it's because the old ones simply aren't effective anymore. Pests build up tolerances to the vast majority of pesticides Newer, unrelated pesticides are needed to kill pests which have immune to the old ones.

There are a few that pests cannot develop a tolerance of, and which can even be certified organic; but the vast majority of these are plant-based. This makes them considerably more expensive. The most effective one is derived from Tobacco; which, due to the Tobacco Mosaic virus, means that it cannot be used on any plants in the Nightshade family (tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants, peppers).

There are a number of issues that large scale factory farming have that organic farms typically either don't, or have on a smaller scale. Soil erosion/exhaustion is one that hasn't been mentioned. This is easily remedied using sustainable farming techniques, but so far the agriculture industry has generally resisted doing so, due to the moderate reduction in yield and increase in operating costs. (Note: "sustainable" does not equal "organic", and many organic farms are run with decidedly non-sustainable methods.)

JimBenArm

13th November 2008, 03:48 PM

Hmm. With issues with both methods, guess I'll just quit eating.

Of course, I can live off the fat of the land, so to speak, for a few months!

ruckenheim

13th November 2008, 03:54 PM

Very good arguments on both sides.

I haven't read enough on the subject myself but my gut feeling (I know, I know) tells me that organic food production is simply a question of marketing, a few well-meaning farmers and a gullible well-meaning public. That said, I'm not convinced about the "corporate culture" (antagonism?) of mosanto et al. being about feeding the world.

I remain, until you convince me either way, a skeptic.

ruckenheim

13th November 2008, 04:00 PM

Oh, btw:

A vegan friend of mine holds the opinion that if we can't sustain world population without GM crops its better if we let people starve until we meet sustainable levels for organic crop yields.

Appalling. I wonder how widespread such sentiment is and how much it drives the organic movement. Frankenfood, anyone?

Rolfe

13th November 2008, 04:04 PM

not me. I have nothing against Homeopathy. I am not a fan of it, but my sister has replaced the monthly chemical medicamentations that had side effects with a Homeopathic solution and for them it works just as fine.
And she belives that it is a placebo effect, she does not belive in some magic healing for it, and she was recommended to do it by her Doctor. Which is not into natural healing, but likes to avoid chemics when possible. But i think we should differ here from the extremists that claim to can cure Aids Cancer and whatever other things it can.
And just cause because some wackos eat organic food and promote it, does not mean i have to avoid it.

Or does any of the pro GM arguers feel bothered to promote something that comes from the Syngenta or Monsanto? They are not saints either.

Sigh. It's too late, here. I gotta have my beauty sleep. Would anyone else care to run with this one?

Regarding your sister, if sugar pills can replace her "monthly chemical medicamentations" (whatever those are), then she didn't need the "medicamentations" in the first place.

Regarding the use of homoeopathy on animals, remember that the placebo effect works not on the animal, but on the owner/stockman. Altered perception of the animal's condition leads to a belief that something is "working", when in fact the animal's condition (or the incidence of the problem in question) is unchanged. This is OK if the only problem is hypochondria-by-proxy. However, persuading the owner of a sick animal to imagine the animal is better is not good welfare in my book.

However, that wasn't my question. It's not about woos consuming organic produce. It's about the champions of organic produce actively promoting woo. They are getting this nonsense written into their rules and guidelines as if it was an actual medical treatment.

Just think about it. If the people who devise and promote and develop this system think sugar pills are medicine, what else might they be wrong about?

Rolfe.

David Wong

13th November 2008, 04:06 PM

And a final comment, for now. Doesn't it bother anyone arguing for organic systems that the organic movement is one of the main driving forces behind the promotion of homoeopathy?

Huh?

Come on, you know better than to try that. Having to rely on that kind of BS makes me think just maybe you don't have an argument.

JihadJane

13th November 2008, 04:17 PM

Thanks to the TDP process, oil is no longer finite, either. TDP oil is not capable of as high a production volume as our current fossil reserves, but it's more than adequate for limited, niche markets like fertilizer production.

I'm a bit confused by this statement. If TDP cannot be produced at a high enough volume to replace fossil oil how is it making oil "no longer finite"?

I remember there was a lot of initial hype about TDP followed by a lot of technical problems and much higher than predicted production costs. Has this changed?

How much of its production and distribution costs are tied to fossil energy?

It is probably a good way of recycling waste but is it producing any new energy?

Sorry for all the questions!

13th November 2008, 04:29 PM

...

However, persuading the owner of a sick animal to imagine the animal is better is not good welfare in my book.

...

Rolfe.

i fully agree.

i would even expand it.

even in cases of humans, when they themself imagen to feel better, they still should be watched by Scientific Medicine.

But just pump full the patient with chemical medicine and close your mind to alternatives that might work for you aswell, is not good welfare in my book.

EHocking

14th November 2008, 05:32 AM

Huh?

Come on, you know better than to try that. Having to rely on that kind of BS makes me think just maybe you don't have an argument.
From the very first link in a Google search in the UK (where Rolfe is).

From the Soil Association's
Information for vets: an introduction to animal health under organic standards (http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/5f34b9a7b3f06d118025738e00390f6a!OpenDocument)
When an animal must be treated, the organic standards, state that complementary therapies such as homeopathy should be used in preference to chemically synthesised, allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics. This is provided that their therapeutic effect is effective for the species of animal and the condition for which the treatment is intended. The following complementary therapies are recommended:

Homeopathic nosodes and remedies
Naturopathy
Acupuncture
Herbal / unlicensed herbal preparations (as a tonic only, or for the treatment of individual animals or a small proportion of the flock or herd on a trial basis. Veterinary advice must be sought before using unlicensed herbal products)
Therapeutic use of probiotics
As per Rolfe's track record here - no BS being spouted (by her, anyway).

This is only the first of many such links to Organic societies and organisations with similar approaches.

ETA: excerpt from the UK government's DEFRA Compendium of UK Organic Standards (http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/standards/pdf/compendium.pdf)

5.4 Veterinary medicinal products must be authorised in accordance with current European and UK legislation and should only be used as permitted under such legislation. The use of veterinary medicinal products in organic farming shall comply with the following principles:
(a) Phytotherapeutic, [] homoeopathic products [] and trace elements and products listed [] shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics,

(c) The use of chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics for preventive treatments is prohibited.
Rolfe knows of what she speaks.

Would you care to change your accusation regarding Rolfe's statement?

paximperium

14th November 2008, 05:44 AM

But just pump full the patient with chemical medicine and close your mind to alternatives that might work for you aswell, is not good welfare in my book.
Chemical medicine?...you make that sound like a bad thing since antibiotics, aspirin and just about all medicines are "chemicals". As opposed to what?
Really? What alternatives?

I consider false and useless treatments passed on as effective as "not good welfare in my book."

skepticalfred

14th November 2008, 06:02 AM

Rolfe

14th November 2008, 06:03 AM

Huh?

Come on, you know better than to try that. Having to rely on that kind of BS makes me think just maybe you don't have an argument.

May I refer you to post 15 in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4195425#post4195425). I notice it has garnered three nominations for the language award, so some people have obviously read it, and may even think it adds up to some sort of an argument.

I'm not sure what it is about my previous post you regard as BS. If you think objecting to the promotion of homoeopathy as effective medication for farm animals is BS, I despair.

But just pump full the patient with chemical medicine and close your mind to alternatives that might work for you aswell, is not good welfare in my book.

Now I declare an interest here. I'm a vet, currently working largely in farm animal medicine. Believe me, pumping animals full of "chemicals" (the fact that you refer to medicine as "chemicals" actually says a lot about where you're coming from here), and not thinking about alternative approaches, is not what we do.

I've just returned from giving a morning class to a group of 4th year undergraduates, all about metabolic disease, and the greater part of what we talked about was prevention. But when a problem strikes, effective intervention is required, with the stress on the effective. Sugar pills and shaken-up water have no proven efficacy against any known disease or dysfunction - certainly, not in the quantities homoeopaths administer them.

One of the things we talked about was milk fever. We discussed the sudden, life-threatening collapse and flaccid paralysis. We discussed the treatment. Injected calcium borogluconate, as a matter of dire urgency. One student, not from a farming background, was astonished when the rapidity of the resulting recovery was described. A cow, which may have been normal when rounded up in the field, collapses half way to the milking parlour, and is at death's door. One injection later, and she gets up and continues on her way to be milked.

Would you rather we just stand there and watch her die, rather than inject a "chemical"? Or even, if we're into "alternatives", go for the treatment that was found to be effective some time before the injections were formulated - blowing up the cow's udder with a bicycle pump to force the milk back into the body? (Small disadvantage, apart from being very painful, is that this virtually guarantees the development of a roaring mastitis.)

Now to be fair, I think this one is such a no-brainer that the organic lobby has decided calcium borogluconate is not a chemical. Or something like that. My point is, that's what scientific medicine does. Tries every trick in the book as regards diet and management to avoid a problem, but is prepared to get in there with what actually works if the problem develops. Ideological nonsense about "chemicals" is strictly for the armchair pundits.

Rolfe.

volatile

14th November 2008, 06:42 AM

From the very first link in a Google search in the UK (where Rolfe is).

From the Soil Association's
Information for vets: an introduction to animal health under organic standards (http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/5f34b9a7b3f06d118025738e00390f6a%21OpenDocument)
As per Rolfe's track record here - no BS being spouted (by her, anyway).

This is only the first of many such links to Organic societies and organisations with similar approaches.

I am actually shocked by this...

EHocking

14th November 2008, 06:55 AM

I am actually shocked by this...I was actually more shocked when I read the DEFRA Standards.

I expected it of "the UK's leading campaigning and certification organisation for organic food and farming" (http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/aboutus/index.html)

14th November 2008, 07:18 AM

Chemical medicine?...you make that sound like a bad thing since antibiotics, aspirin and just about all medicines are "chemicals". As opposed to what?
Really? What alternatives?

I consider false and useless treatments passed on as effective as "not good welfare in my book."

Chemical Medicine is not something bad. It is the best we have. but they often have side effects.
And in Germany and Switzerland Acupuncture is considered an alternative for backpain for example, that MAY work. you have to try it if it works for you.

I think, when it is possible to replace a chemical medicament with something that has not the side effects, and is helping you just aswell. i think that is a good thing.

For things like AIDS or Cancer and such heavy diseases there is only Chemical medicaments that can help a little.

And most important is the Doctor.

You can find doctors that just fight all the symptoms with the Chemical medicamentations he sells and get provisions from tha pharma corps and you can find doctors that actually care what your problem is, and is trying to find a solution for you. And i like doctors that also inform and consider alternativ medicine, to some extend. But his main goal should and is in my case, scientific medicine. But take as less Chemical substances as needed.

when is a treatment useless in your oppinion?
when you do not understand its mechanism?
Or when you think it is not helping?
Or when your patient says, it did not help?

14th November 2008, 07:32 AM

May I refer you to post 15 in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4195425#post4195425). I notice it has garnered three nominations for the language award, so some people have obviously read it, and may even think it adds up to some sort of an argument.

I'm not sure what it is about my previous post you regard as BS. If you think objecting to the promotion of homoeopathy as effective medication for farm animals is BS, I despair.

Now I declare an interest here. I'm a vet, currently working largely in farm animal medicine. Believe me, pumping animals full of "chemicals" (the fact that you refer to medicine as "chemicals" actually says a lot about where you're coming from here), and not thinking about alternative approaches, is not what we do.

I've just returned from giving a morning class to a group of 4th year undergraduates, all about metabolic disease, and the greater part of what we talked about was prevention. But when a problem strikes, effective intervention is required, with the stress on the effective. Sugar pills and shaken-up water have no proven efficacy against any known disease or dysfunction - certainly, not in the quantities homoeopaths administer them.

One of the things we talked about was milk fever. We discussed the sudden, life-threatening collapse and flaccid paralysis. We discussed the treatment. Injected calcium borogluconate, as a matter of dire urgency. One student, not from a farming background, was astonished when the rapidity of the resulting recovery was described. A cow, which may have been normal when rounded up in the field, collapses half way to the milking parlour, and is at death's door. One injection later, and she gets up and continues on her way to be milked.

Would you rather we just stand there and watch her die, rather than inject a "chemical"? Or even, if we're into "alternatives", go for the treatment that was found to be effective some time before the injections were formulated - blowing up the cow's udder with a bicycle pump to force the milk back into the body? (Small disadvantage, apart from being very painful, is that this virtually guarantees the development of a roaring mastitis.)

Now to be fair, I think this one is such a no-brainer that the organic lobby has decided calcium borogluconate is not a chemical. Or something like that. My point is, that's what scientific medicine does. Tries every trick in the book as regards diet and management to avoid a problem, but is prepared to get in there with what actually works if the problem develops. Ideological nonsense about "chemicals" is strictly for the armchair pundits.

Rolfe.

You missunderstood me.
In cases where an animal needs help, i am all for it to give it modern medicine, to avoid the holy word, Chemic, im so sorry that i touched it.......

Somehow i get the impression here like talking to Homeopaths, when you call theyr medicine water, they react like you when i say chemical.

i get the impression here its like, you are with us or against us.

To be honest it would not come to my mind to give an animal homeopathic stuff. Actually i never readed nor heard about it till in this topic.

never heard it in conection with swiss bio products. you know more about that, im sure.

But prolly now that i sayd, Chemical medicaments, in your eyes i am one of the homeopathic freaks that wants to cure aids with shaked water.....
as you know now where i come from.......

When you prefer Vitamin C pills, fine, i prefer fruits.

ImaginalDisc

14th November 2008, 07:38 AM

Chemical Medicine is not something bad. It is the best we have. but they often have side effects.
And in Germany and Switzerland Acupuncture is considered an alternative for backpain for example, that MAY work. you have to try it if it works for you.

No, it doesn't work. Double blind testing shows it doesn't.

I think, when it is possible to replace a chemical medicament with something that has not the side effects, and is helping you just aswell. i think that is a good thing.

For things like AIDS or Cancer and such heavy diseases there is only Chemical medicaments that can help a little.

And most important is the Doctor.

You can find doctors that just fight all the symptoms with the Chemical medicamentations he sells and get provisions from tha pharma corps and you can find doctors that actually care what your problem is, and is trying to find a solution for you. And i like doctors that also inform and consider alternativ medicine, to some extend. But his main goal should and is in my case, scientific medicine. But take as less Chemical substances as needed.

when is a treatment useless in your oppinion?
when you do not understand its mechanism?
Or when you think it is not helping?
Or when your patient says, it did not help?

There is no such thing as alternative medicine. If it worked, it would be called medicine.

By the way, any matter you're likely to survive an encounter with is a chemical.

Mashuna

14th November 2008, 07:39 AM

When you prefer Vitamin C pills, fine, i prefer fruits.

I prefer fruit too. It's still chemical though.

14th November 2008, 07:43 AM

No, it doesn't work. Double blind testing shows it doesn't.

There is no such thing as alternative medicine. If it worked, it would be called medicine.

By the way, any matter you're likely to survive an encounter with is a chemical.

Acupuncture is in Germany considered an alternative for chronic lower backpain. Also in switzerland it is the case. Based on a double blinded studie they decided that it is an alternative. :)

ImaginalDisc

14th November 2008, 07:46 AM

Acupuncture is in Germany considered an alternative for chronic lower backpain. Also in switzerland it is the case. Based on a double blinded studie they decided that it is an alternative. :)

That's an interesting claim. Do you have evidence of a double blind study confirming this assertion? A common problem with accupuncture studies is that don't include a placebo, where needles are inserted into the skin in random places, rather than the places prescribed by acupuncture.

14th November 2008, 07:47 AM

I prefer fruit too. It's still chemical though.

didnt it grow on a tree?
do you call trees chemists?

i guess in switzerland we use the word Chemical, diffrent than in the USA.

14th November 2008, 07:51 AM

That's an interesting claim. Do you have evidence of a double blind study confirming this assertion? A common problem with accupuncture studies is that don't include a placebo, where needles are inserted into the skin in random places, rather than the places prescribed by acupuncture.

here is the study, where they based it on.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/17/1892#IOI70115F2

we can discuss it in the Acupunture topic.

back to topic here

ImaginalDisc

14th November 2008, 07:59 AM

here is the study, where they based it on.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/17/1892#IOI70115F2

we can discuss it in the Acupunture topic.

back to topic here

Uh-huh.

Results At 6 months, response rate was 47.6% in the verum acupuncture group, 44.2% in the sham acupuncture group, and 27.4% in the conventional therapy group. Differences among groups were as follows: verum vs sham, 3.4% (95% confidence interval, –3.7% to 10.3%; P = .39); verum vs conventional therapy, 20.2% (95% confidence interval, 13.4% to 26.7%; P < .001); and sham vs conventional therapy, 16.8% (95% confidence interval, 10.1% to 23.4%; P < .001.

Conclusions Low back pain improved after acupuncture treatment for at least 6 months. Effectiveness of acupuncture, either verum or sham, was almost twice that of conventional therapy.

And from their methodology:

The sterile, disposable needles (Asiamed, Pullach near Munich, Germany) used for verum and sham acupuncture were identical and were either 0.25 x 40 mm or 0.35 x 50 mm. Only body needle acupuncture, without electrical stimulation or moxibustion, was allowed. Verum acupuncture consisted of needling fixed points and additional points (from a prescribed list) chosen individually on the basis of traditional Chinese medicine diagnosis, including tongue diagnosis. Fourteen to 20 needles were inserted to a depth of 5 to 40 mm depending on location. Induction of de Qi (the sensation felt when an acupuncturist reaches the level of Qi [numb radiating sensation indicative of effective needling] in the body) was elicited by manual stimulation. Sham acupuncture on either side of the lateral part of the back and on the lower limbs was also standardized, avoiding all known verum points or meridians. As with verum acupuncture, 14 to 20 needles were inserted, but superficially (1-3 mm) and without stimulation.

Emphasis added.

Wow, so the best study you could find finds a miniscule difference between accupuncture and a treatment which does not resemble accupuncture, due to the needles being inserted to shallow depths. So a study done without proper controls is your best evidence?

14th November 2008, 08:04 AM

Uh-huh.

And from their methodology:

Emphasis added.

Wow, so the best study you could find finds a miniscule difference between accupuncture and a treatment which does not resemble accupuncture, due to the needles being inserted to shallow depths. So a study done without proper controls is your best evidence?

you was right, in Germany it is not considered an Alternative anymore.

Acupuncture is still considered an alternative treatment for low back pain in the U.S., but this is no longer the case in Germany. Based on findings from the newly reported study, it is now covered by state health insurance.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=84091

It seems to be enough evidence for experts in Germany and Switzerland.
Acupuncture and sham acupuncture did both better than the normal therapy used in germany.

ETA: We got so offtopic now. pls make a new topic, or continue here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128781

Mashuna

14th November 2008, 08:17 AM

didnt it grow on a tree?
do you call trees chemists?

i guess in switzerland we use the word Chemical, diffrent than in the USA.

Very possibly, although I'm not in the US. Do you consider the vitamin C you get from fruit not to be a chemical? Just because things grow, doesn't mean you can't get all sorts of chemical effects from them. I mean, I imagine you don't randomly eat wild mushrooms, do you?

14th November 2008, 08:22 AM

Very possibly, although I'm not in the US. Do you consider the vitamin C you get from fruit not to be a chemical? Just because things grow, doesn't mean you can't get all sorts of chemical effects from them. I mean, I imagine you don't randomly eat wild mushrooms, do you?

oh that again......

i am totaly sure you knew the whole time what i ment.

but hey, aslong you find it funny :)

Mashuna

14th November 2008, 08:28 AM

oh that again......

i am totaly sure you knew the whole time what i ment.

but hey, aslong you find it funny :)

No, it was a genuine point. You seem to be dividing treatment up into 'chemical' and 'natural'. I'm just pointing out that it's a false distinction.

I prefer something along the lines of 'tested' versus 'untested', or 'efficacious' versus 'homoeopathy'.

tyr_13

14th November 2008, 08:32 AM

As a result of these efforts, Cuba was able to avoid what might otherwise have been a severe famine.

If the rest of the world does not plan for a reduction in fossil fuel use in agriculture, its post-peak-oil agricultural transition may be far less successful than was Cuba's. Already in poor countries, farmers who are attempting to apply industrial methods but cannot afford tractor fuel and petrochemical inputs are watching their crops fail. Soon farmers in wealthier nations will be having a similar experience."

Fertilizer production is mostly dependent on natural gas rather than oil. Natural gas production is also predicted go into decline within two decades (I think!). Which "other ways" of producing fertilizer do you have in mind?

So you are going to completely ignore all the other possible solutions to the energy and transportation problems, and say we have to go to 'organic' style farming? You are going to ignore the advances modern farming is making and suggest Cuban style solution?

No, fertilizer production is not going to just disappear, as even if natural gas production does decline within two decades, that doesn't mean fertilizer is going away.

Bio reactors can easily produce fertilizer, as can algae water treatment. There are many budding technologies that can produce fertilizer. More than that, there are many budding technologies to move food production closer to population centers, without 'organic' ideology.

Besides that, many of the practices you describe as 'organic' that Cuba used have nothing to do with the organic movement! It is just smart, modern, soil management. They changed crops and had to pay more for food. Vegetarian and organic are not the same, nor are they related. The Cubans were forced to switch to a less efficient method of farming, putting in more capital and man power, to meet the people's needs. How is that organic?

You seem to know a lot about how the Cuban people managed to survive, but little about other ways the same thing can be done.

14th November 2008, 08:33 AM

No, it was a genuine point. You seem to be dividing treatment up into 'chemical' and 'natural'. I'm just pointing out that it's a false distinction.

I prefer something along the lines of 'tested' versus 'untested', or 'efficacious' versus 'homoeopathy'.

maybe you noticed already, that i call homeopathy, water?

Would you eat Scampis that are grown up in antibiotica like they do in Thailand? I mean, Antibiotica is good, isnt it?

paximperium

14th November 2008, 08:44 AM

Chemical Medicine is not something bad. It is the best we have. but they often have side effects.
Pssst...little hint. ALL treatments have side effects.

And in Germany and Switzerland Acupuncture is considered an alternative for backpain for example, that MAY work.
So you'd recommend something that MAY work over thing that works...why?

you have to try it if it works for you.
No, I don't have to. Evidence shows that it doesn't work.
Do I have to drink urine to know that urine drinkers are morons?

I think, when it is possible to replace a chemical medicament with something that has not the side effects, and is helping you just aswell. i think that is a good thing.
Such as?

For things like AIDS or Cancer and such heavy diseases there is only Chemical medicaments that can help a littlelot.
Corrected it for you

You can find doctors that just fight all the symptoms with the Chemical medicamentations he sells and get provisions from tha pharma corps and you can find doctors that actually care what your problem is, and is trying to find a solution for you.
Now we see the paranoia coming out. What incentive do doctors get from pharma?

And i like doctors that also inform and consider alternativ medicine, to some extend.
Why should doctors consider something that doesn't work?

But his main goal should and is in my case, scientific medicine.
Yes, why are you asking for doctors to consider things that do not work?

But take as less Chemical substances as needed.
Why?

when is a treatment useless in your oppinion?
When it does not work.

when you do not understand its mechanism?
No. Acetaminophen(until a decade ago), anti-depressives, provigil and a host of other meds have poorly understood mechanisms...but they work.

Or when you think it is not helping?
When the EVIDENCE says it is not helping.

Or when your patient says, it did not help?
Why is that relevant? Anecdotes are not scientific, weren't you for "scientific medicine"?

paximperium

14th November 2008, 08:47 AM

Would you eat Scampis that are grown up in antibiotica like they do in Thailand? I mean, Antibiotica is good, isnt it?
Was that suppose to be an argument or just a nice strawman?
Oh BTW: If the scampi are 100% not harmful and there is no environmental problems...I'd eat them.

Would you eat scampi from red tide waters? Red tide is natural isn't it, therefore it must be good :rolleyes:

14th November 2008, 08:52 AM

Pssst...little hint. ALL treatments have side effects.

So you'd recommend something that MAY work over thing that works...why?

No, I don't have to. Evidence shows that it doesn't work.
Do I have to drink urine to know that urine drinkers are morons?

Such as?

Corrected it for you

Now we see the paranoia coming out. What incentive do doctors get from pharma?

Why should doctors consider something that doesn't work?

Yes, why are you asking for doctors to consider things that do not work?

Why?

When it does not work.

No. Acetaminophen(until a decade ago), anti-depressives, provigil and a host of other meds have poorly understood mechanisms...but they work.

When the EVIDENCE says it is not helping.

Why is that relevant? Anecdotes are not scientific, weren't you for "scientific medicine"?

I am so happy you are not my doctor :)

Little and lot is relative, you didnt corect me, you changed my words, so it fits what you think. But its ok.

What EVIDENCE?

and how much do you know about doctors in my reagion so you can conclude it is just my paranoia or that it is a problem that we face here in that region?

When you like to take more medicine than you need, fine, Novartis and co will love you.

14th November 2008, 08:55 AM

Was that suppose to be an argument or just a nice strawman?
Oh BTW: If the scampi are 100% not harmful and there is no environmental problems...I'd eat them.

Would you eat scampi from red tide waters? Red tide is natural isn't it, therefore it must be good :rolleyes:

the only seafood i eat is Thona.
Do you know why?

I choosed scampis because that is an extreem example.

Is scampis rised in antibiotica mixed with a little water (not the other way around) 100% not harmfull?

paximperium

14th November 2008, 08:59 AM

Little and lot is relative, you didnt corect me, you changed my words, so it fits what you think. But its ok.
Sure. If "little" has the meaning of saving lives of AIDS patient's that used to die en masse but now have near normal lives, or dropping cancer deaths down by over 50% in 20years or preventing pain and suffering for those we can't save, then sure.

What EVIDENCE?
Oh, the ones you seem to be unaware of but keep acting as if you know what you are talking about.

and how much do you know about doctors in my reagion so you can conclude it is just my paranoia or that it is a problem that we face here in that region?
Hey, if you can't back up your own paranoid claim, you don't have to get all huffy about it.

When you like to take more medicine than you need, fine, Novartis and co will love you.
Nice ad hominem. Nothing else to say? No counter argument?

paximperium

14th November 2008, 09:02 AM

the only seafood i eat is Thona.
Do you know why?
Nice red herring(like the pun?). Don't know, don't care.

I choosed scampis because that is an extreem example.

Is scampis rised in antibiotica mixed with a little water (not the other way around) 100% not harmfull?
Beats me. I said if it was proven not harmful, I'd definitely eat it.

Unlike you, I don't consider "chemicals" as automatically harmful. I usually assess all the evidence for natural or "chemical" before making a decision. I'm not bias.

14th November 2008, 09:10 AM

Oh, the ones you seem to be unaware of but keep acting as if you know what you are talking about.
Examples pls?

Hey, if you can't back up your own paranoid claim, you don't have to get all huffy about it.
here in Baselland, the problem is, that the Doctor is not giving you a prescription and then you go to the Drugstore, like it is usual in Basel city for example. He has a wide range of medicamentations in his praxis and gives you directly what you need. They pharma corps deliver them directly.
This is very critisized around here, and will , so i hope change soon again.

Nice ad hominem. Nothing else to say? No counter argument?

Would you give your patients more medicamentations than they need?

14th November 2008, 09:15 AM

Nice red herring(like the pun?). Don't know, don't care.

Beats me. I said if it was proven not harmful, I'd definitely eat it.

Unlike you, I don't consider "chemicals" as automatically harmful. I usually assess all the evidence for natural or "chemical" before making a decision. I'm not bias.

Unlike you, I don't consider "chemicals" as automatically harmful.

I also dont. When i need medicamentations, they are mostly Chemicals, but still i take as less as needed.

I take painkillers when i cant stand the pain anymore (after operation of my broken hand) i was told atleast 1 pill per day, to prefent invections, but you can take up to 4 a day when you feel pain. I had pain, but it was ok, and i only took one. I could have taken 4 and have propably no pain at all. But i didnt saw the need for it.

paximperium

14th November 2008, 09:27 AM

Examples pls?
Acupuncture in:
Low Back Pain: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001351.html
The data do not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute low-back pain. For chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only. Acupuncture is not more effective than other conventional and "alternative" treatments. The data suggest that acupuncture and dry-needling may be useful adjuncts to other therapies for chronic low-back pain. Because most of the studies were of lower methodological quality, there certainly is a further need for higher quality trials in this area. Bolding mine. Acupuncture is not any more effective than "dry-needling"(also known as placebo).

Schizophrenia: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005475.html
Assisted Contraception: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006920.html
Shoulder Pain: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005319.html
Restless Leg: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006457.html
Epilepsy: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005062.html
Smoking Cessation: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000009.html
http://www.library.nhs.uk/stroke/ViewResource.aspx?resID=293645&tabID=289

Would you give your patients more medicamentations than they need? What sort of question is that? Why the hell would I?
If your question is would I give my patient a medicine over an "alternative" treatment that does not work, I'd give the medicine.

Ikarus

14th November 2008, 09:30 AM

Source of estimate: David Pimentel, "Constraints on the Expansion of Global Food Supply," Kindell, Henry H. and Pimentel, David. Ambio Vol. 23 No. 3, May 1994. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Me happy.

Thanks.

@Tyr_13:

I think Jihad Jane's example was based on the premise that the organic industry wants the consumer to believe that they do not use as much (fossil) fuel as conventional and intensified methods. The OP pointed out that, according to his figures, it in fact uses móre energy and fossil fuels.

Then, Jihad Jane, as I saw it, came up with a feul-efficient solution that has been demonstrated to work in Cuba, thus showing that you can use léss fuel with conventional methods, without turning "organic".

I think this may have been based on an assumption about the "organic" ideology and propaganda, because I can't remember actually reading that, but in any case, neither the Cuban situation nor the possibility of implementation in the US is of any value on the topic of organic food.

ETA: I don't actually know what JihadJane's thoughts were, but I'm trying to reconstruct it using my own line of thoughts, hoping it might help. I do not speak for or on behalf of her.

14th November 2008, 09:32 AM

Acupuncture in:
Low Back Pain: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001351.html
Bolding mine. Acupuncture is not any more effective than "dry-needling"(also known as placebo).

Schizophrenia: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005475.html
Assisted Contraception: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006920.html
Shoulder Pain: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005319.html
Restless Leg: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006457.html
Epilepsy: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005062.html
Smoking Cessation: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000009.html
http://www.library.nhs.uk/stroke/ViewResource.aspx?resID=293645&tabID=289

What sort of question is that? Why the hell would I?
If your question is would I give my patient a medicine over an "alternative" treatment that does not work, I'd give the medicine.

The data suggest that acupuncture and dry-needling may be useful adjuncts to other therapies for chronic low-back pain.

i never claimed Acupuncture to be anything other than a placebo.

14th November 2008, 09:40 AM

Acupuncture in:
Low Back Pain: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001351.html
Bolding mine. Acupuncture is not any more effective than "dry-needling"(also known as placebo).

Schizophrenia: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005475.html
Assisted Contraception: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006920.html
Shoulder Pain: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005319.html
Restless Leg: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006457.html
Epilepsy: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005062.html
Smoking Cessation: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000009.html
http://www.library.nhs.uk/stroke/ViewResource.aspx?resID=293645&tabID=289

What sort of question is that? Why the hell would I?
If your question is would I give my patient a medicine over an "alternative" treatment that does not work, I'd give the medicine.

from YOUR link

The data do not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute low-back pain.

EVIDENCE shows that it is not working?

ETA: Experts seem to be not so sure yet, but i shall belive some internet poster :)

paximperium

14th November 2008, 09:44 AM

Things that work for nonspecific back pain:
Short term:
NSAIDs:http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000396.html
Muscle Relaxants: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004252.html

Long term:
EXERCISE: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000335.html
Education: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004057.html

Why waste time and money on something that is no better than placebo? Go do yoga or exercise.

paximperium

14th November 2008, 09:50 AM

from YOUR link

The data do not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute low-back pain.

EVIDENCE shows that it is not working?

ETA: Experts seem to be not so sure yet, but i shall belive some internet poster :)
Oh. So you want me to prove a negative? Why am I not surprised?

Why would anyone ethically recommend stuff that does not work and has minimal supportive evidence that it works?
Because it is "alternative" or natural?

Whatever. It just shows your inherent bias. You don't have to believe "some internet poster", you just have to look at the evidence and frankly, this "some internet poster" has while you obviously haven't. I've actually read most of the papers cited in those reviews but don't let that stop you from believing in something that you seem ignorant about.

Mashuna

14th November 2008, 09:53 AM

Would you eat Scampis that are grown up in antibiotica like they do in Thailand? I mean, Antibiotica is good, isnt it?

What does this have to do with my point?

dudalb

14th November 2008, 10:00 AM

COmbined with some other of Jihad Jane's posts, I think she really does want to go back to the Middle Ages. She seems just plain not to like modern science.

tyr_13

14th November 2008, 10:30 AM

Jihad Jane has also apparently never heard of this magical land called 'Japan' which has been using the positive aspects of the 'Cuban' method for...ever now, combined with the positive aspects of modern farming practices. Is it perfect? No, neither is the 'Cuban' method.

14th November 2008, 10:44 AM

Oh. So you want me to prove a negative? Why am I not surprised?

Why would anyone ethically recommend stuff that does not work and has minimal supportive evidence that it works?
Because it is "alternative" or natural?

Whatever. It just shows your inherent bias. You don't have to believe "some internet poster", you just have to look at the evidence and frankly, this "some internet poster" has while you obviously haven't. I've actually read most of the papers cited in those reviews but don't let that stop you from believing in something that you seem ignorant about.

No i dont want you to, you claimed that evidence proves it does not work.

How come that placebo is more effective than the normal theray and medicamentation in the German studie?

How ethical is it to give your patient something that did not even peform as well as a placebo in the German Acupuncture studie?

while you think i have a bias, i am simply pointing to alternatives that seem to work in some cases.
I am not the medicine man here that claims only my medicine works, all the rest is woo.

dudalb

14th November 2008, 11:25 AM

Is it just me or do I smell a lot of Ludditism this thread?

tyr_13

14th November 2008, 11:29 AM

Is it just me or do I smell a lot of Ludditism this thread?

It's just organic fertilizer.

Ikarus

14th November 2008, 11:37 AM

tyr_13

14th November 2008, 11:44 AM

That localized farming, community farms and gardens, aren't an invention of Cubans (or Japanese for that matter), and isn't something that is in opposition to modern farming techniques.

quarky

14th November 2008, 11:49 AM

JihadJane

14th November 2008, 12:08 PM

COmbined with some other of Jihad Jane's posts, I think she really does want to go back to the Middle Ages. She seems just plain not to like modern science.

Hi dudalb,

Thanks for another of your typically factual posts! ;) Cuba's agriculture is based on advanced scientific research and still uses chemical solutions but very much less than before its transition.

In response to other comments above, it is true that simply slotting organic farming into the current infrastructure saves little energy. Other measures are also required to reduce dependence on fossil fuel (e.g using oxen instead of tractors and localising production and distribution), though organic methods of improvong soil fertility, such has growing and ploughing in nitrogen-fixing plants, are more energy efficient than the production of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Cuba's holistic approach is part of the Permaculture philosophy that has had a strong influence on their new agricultural direction. Permaculture embraces organic methods but is interested in entire sytems, often based on the way plants grow in natural environments. It seeks to work with nature rather than against it.

Cuba's experience isn't highlighted because of its politics (though its population's more collective consciousness probably gives it an advantage over more individualistic cultures) but because their "Peak Oil" experience provides an advanced window and a useful possible solution to a problem the entire planet will soon face.

So you are going to completely ignore all the other possible solutions to the energy and transportation problems, and say we have to go to 'organic' style farming? You are going to ignore the advances modern farming is making and suggest Cuban style solution?

Organic farming is just one potential part of the solution.

Cuba's agriculture is an advanced modern farming solution in tune with physical realities.

No, fertilizer production is not going to just disappear, as even if natural gas production does decline within two decades, that doesn't mean fertilizer is going away.

Bio reactors can easily produce fertilizer, as can algae water treatment. There are many budding technologies that can produce fertilizer. More than that, there are many budding technologies to move food production closer to population centers, without 'organic' ideology.

Besides that, many of the practices you describe as 'organic' that Cuba used have nothing to do with the organic movement! It is just smart, modern, soil management.

True and somewhat contradicting your first paragraph. One of the main problems with chemical fertilsers is that they do not feed the soil's biology. In effect they tend to "mine" the soil, depleting and exhausting it in the process.

They changed crops and had to pay more for food. Vegetarian and organic are not the same, nor are they related. The Cubans were forced to switch to a less efficient method of farming, putting in more capital and man power, to meet the people's needs. How is that organic?

Before the fall of the USSR Cuba imported a large proportion of its food. Historically it is a giant cash crop plantation. How is their farming method now "less efficient" in the context of their physical realities, a lack of cheap energy in particular? It was adopted because it was judged, scientifically, to be the most energy efficient. Organic agriculture is part of a solution that enabled the country to avoid famine in extreme circumstances.

You seem to know a lot about how the Cuban people managed to survive, but little about other ways the same thing can be done.

Please provide information on substitutes for oil whose production can be scaled up fast enough to compensate for the predicted depletion-related decline in oil production and thus keep industrial agriculture's fuel-hungry methods viable.

JihadJane

14th November 2008, 12:17 PM

Is it just me or do I smell a lot of Ludditism this thread?

Do you know what the Luddites were opposed to?

tyr_13

14th November 2008, 12:26 PM

Organic farming is just one potential part of the solution.

But what you have described in Cuba isn't organic farming. They don't use some chemicals because they don't have that chemical. Organic farming encompasses a lot of ideologically driven methods, much like a religous ritual, and Cuba would have used the chemicals if they could.

Cuba's agriculture is an advanced modern farming solution in tune with physical realities.

True and somewhat contradicting your first paragraph. One of the main problems with chemical fertilsers is that they do not feed the soil's biology. In effect they tend to "mine" the soil, depleting and exhausting it in the process.

Not true, or at least not in many cases. Fertilizer should not be used alone, and it is not in cases where a farm wants to stay in business. I'm guessing you haven't been keeping up on the advances in modern farming in the last twenty years. Yes, destructive agriculture does take place, but that is changing.

Before the fall of the USSR Cuba imported a large proportion of its food. Historically it is a giant cash crop plantation. How is their farming method now "less efficient" in the context of their physical realities, a lack of cheap energy in particular? It was adopted because it was judged, scientifically, to be the most energy efficient. Organic agriculture is part of a solution that enabled the country to avoid famine in extreme circumstances.

It is less efficient because it produces less than they could have with modern practices. Just because they were growing cash crops and not food before doesn't mean much. In your context any farming they switched to would have been 'more efficient'.

Please provide information on substitutes for oil whose production can be scaled up fast enough to compensate for the predicted depletion-related decline in oil production and thus keep industrial agriculture's fuel-hungry methods viable.

Please provide information that natural gas and oil will run out so fast that other substitutes cannot. CNG comes to mind, as does tower agriculture.

You believe that oil will run out too fast. I do not. Your railing against fuel usage isn't relevant to 'organic' agriculture because it uses more fuel.

I get the feeling that almost no one here knows dick about agriculture.

Lots of pedantic, emotional, jumping to conclusions...based on semantics.
Meanwhile, we're pissing away the future...with the topsoil.
Food gets worse; subsidies allow untenable approaches.

Both sides of this argument would do well to visit some functioning farms.
Don't get lost in the details.

I happen to be surrounded by farms. I know there are a lot of bad practices in farming, and yes, I dislike many subsidies as well. Many need to be phased out. However, that doesn't say much about the issue of organic farming.

Mashuna

14th November 2008, 12:38 PM

Do you know what the Luddites were opposed to?

Ludo.

Plagiarius

14th November 2008, 12:54 PM

I visited a functioning organic farm earlier this year which had employed a tonnage of methods to reduce costs and increase sustainability, but even so the farmer admitted that he was financially reliant on a bird conservation scheme so his model wasn't even economically sustainable.

A lot of the problem at least here in the UK is the supermarkets giving farmers a raw deal. As supermarkets have expanded, and often merged, there are fewer and fewer companies for overseas suppliers to sell to. To reach 75% of the UK grocery market, suppliers must work with one of the UK’s four biggest supermarkets – ASDA, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s or Tesco.

Suppliers have little bargaining power, so the supermarkets effectively dictate the terms of business. Supermarkets have the power to change their orders at the last moment to meet consumer demand and maximize profits. This means a huge business risk is passed on to the producer side. Their commitment to a stable trading relationship is as thin as the topsoil we all rely on. I know this is slightly off topic, but organic or not the monopoly the distribution chains have not only increase fossil fuel usage through transport by centralisation but make the livelihoods of farmers very difficult. We cannot expect decent practices out of farmers that are bent over backwards.

JihadJane

14th November 2008, 01:21 PM

Ludo.

:)

dudalb

14th November 2008, 01:26 PM

Cuba's experience isn't highlighted because of its politics (though its population's more collective consciousness probably gives it an advantage over more individualistic cultures) but because their "Peak Oil" experience provides an advanced window and a useful possible solution to a problem the entire planet will soon face.

Let's get rid of that pesky individiual liberty, and we can solve all our problems!

JihadJane

14th November 2008, 02:03 PM

But what you have described in Cuba isn't organic farming. They don't use some chemicals because they don't have that chemical.

Cuba uses a lot of organic farming's methods. You appear to think I'm a religious organic crusader. I'm not.

Organic farming encompasses a lot of ideologically driven methods, much like a religous ritual,

Which kind of agriculture is not ideologically driven?

and Cuba would have used the chemicals if they could.

True and a lot of Cubans who now work on the land would prefer an office job. The whole point of using Cuba as an illustration is because they couldn't use chemicals and machinery and had to seek other methods. It provides a foretaste of a likely global future and a possible solution to fossil fuel depletion. Organic methods are part of their solution.

Not true, or at least not in many cases. Fertilizer should not be used alone, and it is not in cases where a farm wants to stay in business. I'm guessing you haven't been keeping up on the advances in modern farming in the last twenty years. Yes, destructive agriculture does take place, but that is changing.

I have lived in arable areas and didn't see much organic matter being returned to soils. I saw fertilizers being put in and crops being taken out.

It is less efficient because it produces less than they could have with modern practices. Just because they were growing cash crops and not food before doesn't mean much. In your context any farming they switched to would have been 'more efficient'.

Is it less energy efficient? Energy was Cuba's big problem

Please provide information that natural gas and oil will run out so fast that other substitutes cannot. CNG comes to mind, as does tower agriculture.

You believe that oil will run out too fast. I do not. Your railing against fuel usage isn't relevant to 'organic' agriculture because it uses more fuel.

How does organic agriculture use more fuel?

Here's a discussion about North American depletion rates:

http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/oil-depletion/oil-depletion.html

Evidence of "railing", please.

Please provide information on substitutes for oil whose production can be scaled up fast enough to compensate for the predicted depletion-related decline in oil production and thus keep industrial agriculture's fuel-hungry methods viable.

I happen to be surrounded by farms.

Me too.

I know there are a lot of bad practices in farming, and yes, I dislike many subsidies as well. Many need to be phased out. However, that doesn't say much about the issue of organic farming.

No, it doesn't say anything about it at all!

JihadJane

14th November 2008, 02:05 PM

Let's get rid of that pesky individiual liberty, and we can solve all our problems!

Do you know what the Luddites were opposed to?

dudalb

14th November 2008, 02:16 PM

The introduction of modern technology in the way of looms,and the free market in general. And they failed miserably.
You really do seem to hate technology, and want a return to some William Morris fantasy Medieval Utopia.Good luck with that.

JihadJane

14th November 2008, 04:11 PM

The introduction of modern technology in the way of looms,and the free market in general. And they failed miserably.

If, by "free market", you mean the loss of individual liberty and personal choice, deskilling, low wages, regimented drudgery and appalling working conditions you are correct.

The Luddites were not against technology. They were not against looms. They were highly skilled weavers. They were against technology that enslaves and turns people into clockwork, powerless machines at the mercy of unscrupulous, oppressive factory bosses.

They preferred to work at home, setting their own hours.

quarky

14th November 2008, 04:58 PM

Why defend luddites?

Why judge Cuba without knowing anything about its history?

Eventually, we will all be faced with an energy shortage,and we will be faced with the need for more efficient means of production. Food, in this case.

I have a friend that is a very succesful bio-dynamic farmer.
I'm at odds with the woo, and we talk about it, but it doesn't matter so much that I don't notice that the veggies are good.

Inorganic veggies are good too. Eating more veggies is more good than not eating them, regardless of religious affiliations and inclinations.

Not every organic farmer believes in homeopathy, nor do they all lie and cheat to be 'certified'. The concerns of the smarter ones are often valid, as are the objections of skeptics. There is much propaganda on both sides.

I've mostly seen small scale organitrons. They were very different than the mold that is being developed in this interwebs dialog. So, anecdotally, I'm defending organic agriculture...though I'm the a-hat that tells them about lightning and inorganic nitrogen fertilizer from the sky.

Most certainly, we have come up with the stunning amount of food that we can produce because of technology, and cheap, abundant fossil fuels. And now we are stuck feeding all of us.

Industrial farming methods have many drawbacks. In most cases, it has had a free ride on the pre-existing topsoil; subsidies; cheap fossil fuels. It looks a lot better on paper.
Erosion, salt accumulation, lack of water; toxic buildup...these are real problems, without great solutions.

Keep in mind, all agriculture was organic before we were born. Inorganic agriculture got us in to this mess...an unsustainable population density...but it won't get us out of it.

EHocking

15th November 2008, 02:09 AM

...
Keep in mind, all agriculture was organic before we were born. Inorganic agriculture got us in to this mess...an unsustainable population density...but it won't get us out of it.Yes, damn "inorganic" agriculture for improving entire generations' nutrition and mortality rates. I for one welcome the return of ricketts in children and increased immunity impairment.
Nothing like a good famine or an increase in infant mortality rates to set the balance of the world to rights...

JihadJane

15th November 2008, 02:49 AM

Yes, damn "inorganic" agriculture for improving entire generations' nutrition and mortality rates. I for one welcome the return of ricketts in children and increased immunity impairment.
Nothing like a good famine or an increase in infant mortality rates to set the balance of the world to rights...

For how many more generations can this be sustained?

Cuba averted famine by adopting organic methods.

"Inorganic" agriculture has articifically and temporarily inflated the carrying capacity of our planet. In the long run, as "inorganic" agriculture's food (oil and gas) becomes increasingly scarce, this dependency may yet produce the most devastating famines in history.

Rolfe

15th November 2008, 02:53 AM

I get the feeling that almost no one here knows dick about agriculture.

Lots of pedantic, emotional, jumping to conclusions...based on semantics.
Meanwhile, we're pissing away the future...with the topsoil.
Food gets worse; subsidies allow untenable approaches.

Both sides of this argument would do well to visit some functioning farms.
Don't get lost in the details.

Oh really? Better not tell my employer then. (I work and teach at an agricultural college.)

I'm part of the functioning of farms. I work with farmers and farms of all descriptions every day.

Meanwhile, we're pissing away the future...with the topsoil.
Food gets worse; subsidies allow untenable approaches.

And you accuse others of being....

pedantic, emotional, jumping to conclusions.... based on semantics. .... lost in the details?

I don't actually think you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

Rolfe.

paximperium

15th November 2008, 03:45 AM

For how many more generations can this be sustained?
Melodrama much?
Why don't you tell us? How many more generations or don't you know?

Cuba averted famine by adopting organic methods.
So?

"Inorganic" agriculture has articifically and temporarily inflated the carrying capacity of our planet. In the long run, as "inorganic" agriculture's food (oil and gas) becomes increasingly scarce, this dependency may yet produce the most devastating famines in history.
Wow, the end of the world!!! Run for the hills!!! Such melodramatic scare tactics. Very sad.

And you believe that we will not switch to another form of technology by then? Don't tell the alternative energy folks about it then.

JihadJane

15th November 2008, 04:32 AM

Melodrama much?

Off-topic, but it is only in the last week that I have encountered this technique of putting "much" second as a way of expressing the required "debunker" condescension. Is this a recent invention? Who invented it?

Why don't you tell us? How many more generations or don't you know?

I don't know but most oil analysts predict that oil and natural gas production will decline rapidly within one generation with devastating economic consequences.

http://www.oildecline.com/

So?

EHocking, above, was implying that relying organic agriculture leads to famine.

Wow, the end of the world!!! Run for the hills!!! Such melodramatic scare tactics. Very sad.

And you believe that we will not switch to another form of technology by then? Don't tell the alternative energy folks about it then.

The world's not ending but Industrial Civilisation is facing enormous challenges.

I'm not aware of any alternative energy technology that can produce the quantities of energy that fossil fuels provide. Are you? It is also notable that, just when the world would be wise to be transforming its infrastructures away from fossil fuels dependency, there is a devastating global economic Depression on the horizon.

Our modern capitalist economy is based on the concept of continual growth. This system requires with an ever-increasing energy supply which is now poised to go into permanent decline.

paximperium

15th November 2008, 04:53 AM

Off-topic, but it is only in the last week that I have encountered this technique of putting "much" second as a way of expressing the required "debunker" condescension. Is this a recent invention? Who invented it?
Nah, it's been around for a long time. You got the condenscension part right.
Nice attempt at a redirection of your blatant scare-tactics.
So why are you using scare tactics and so much melodrama?

I don't know but most oil analysts predict that oil and natural gas production will decline rapidly within one generation with devastating economic consequences.

So?

EHocking, above, was implying that relying organic agriculture leads to famine.
Since Cuba does not rely solely on "organic" farming, so?

The world's not ending but Industrial Civilisation is facing enormous challenges.
Nice retreat from your scare tactics.

I'm not aware of any alternative energy technology that can produce the quantities of energy that fossil fuels provide. Are you?
Nuclear. Solar and several others.

It is also notable that, just when the world would be wise to be transforming its infrastructures away from fossil fuels dependency, there is a devastating global economic Depression on the horizon.
We are, without the end of the world woo-filled terror mongers out there.

Our modern capitalist economy is based on the concept of continual growth. This system requires with an ever-increasing energy supply which is now poised to go into permanent decline.
Really? So, we don't have alternative energy sources?

quarky

15th November 2008, 07:40 AM

Oh really? Better not tell my employer then. (I work and teach at an agricultural college.)

I'm part of the functioning of farms. I work with farmers and farms of all descriptions every day.

And you accuse others of being....

I don't actually think you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

Rolfe.

I was expecting this, and i admit to trying to start some trouble. I was getting bored with the righteousness of the fans of our miraculous agricultural system and some of the knee-jerk condemnations of other approaches, some of which have woo aspects.

Glad you're here, Rolfe. You're probably on the short list of people here that have any knowledge of farming. I hope your school isn't being financed by the big agro-biz. We've got a lot to learn.

JihadJane

15th November 2008, 08:27 AM

Nah, it's been around for a long time. You got the condenscension part right.
Nice attempt at a redirection of your blatant scare-tactics.
So why are you using scare tactics and so much melodrama?[?QUOTE]

You scare easily for a condescending person. There have already been food riots in many countries, triggered by rocketting food prices, partly caused my misguided attempts to divert food production into fuel production.

Here's a map:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/apr/09/foodriots

We live in dramatic times.

[QUOTE]So?

Think about it.

Since Cuba does not rely solely on "organic" farming, so?

So?

Nice retreat from your scare tactics.

I'm not using scare tactics but logic.

Nuclear. Solar and several others.

There are no energy sources that can replace oil's role in our economy either in quantity or ease of transport.

We are, without the end of the world woo-filled terror mongers out there.

I don't understand this sentence.

Really? So, we don't have alternative energy sources?

None that can keep our energy supply increasing.

paximperium

15th November 2008, 08:45 AM

You scare easily for a condescending person.
Was that a supposed comeback? My disdain for you has no bearing in YOUR ad hominems and continued use of scare tactics.
So. Why are you using scare tactics instead of using facts to support your ideas?

There have already been food riots in many countries, triggered by rocketting food prices, partly caused my misguided attempts to divert food production into fuel production.Yeah...so? Was that suppose to be a justification for your scare tactics? Was that suppose to be some evidence against modern Vs organic agriculture?

We live in dramatic times.
As has been claimed by every generation and people who have no education about history.

Think about it.
I have. I'm waiting for YOUR answer.

So?No answer? Not surprising.

I'm not using scare tactics but logic.Logic? You know not what that word means. Sad.

There are no energy sources that can replace oil's role in our economy either in quantity or ease of transport.Moving the goalpost much?
YOUR question:
I'm not aware of any alternative energy technology that can produce the quantities of energy that fossil fuels provide. Are you? Nuclear, wind and solar can easily replace most of the energy we require if we bothered and the cost becomes more economical than good old oil.

I don't understand this sentence.

None that can keep our energy supply increasing.Are you serious? You're claiming that a huge nuclear reactor called the sun cannot "keep out energy supply increasing"?

EHocking

15th November 2008, 09:06 AM

For how many more generations can this be sustained?Well, according to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on Fertilizer use by crop (ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/fertusebycrop.pdf), Cuba may not be able to sustain their non-dependence on inorganic fertilisers beyond even one generation,
...Present levels of fertilizer use are insufficient to maintain yields and soil fertility. P and K are applied only where the soil levels are below the critical levels according to soil analyses.

Of crops other than sugar cane, only the potato crop continues to be fertilized adequately. Priority is given by the State to the production of potatoes in view of the importance of the crop to food security.

Bananas constitute an important food item, particularly in the east of the country, where potato production is limited by unsuitable growing conditions. Despite limited fertilization, the production level of the banana crop has been maintained or even increased. This is the result of:
new management technologies;
an improved cloning structure;
better quality seed obtained by tissue culture;
substitution of mineral fertilizers with organic materials;
improved incomes
higher prices for the producer.Note the reference to GM science as well as organics.
In view of the limited supply of fertilizers, there is emphasis on making optimal use of available organic materials and composting. Biofertilizers have been tested but their performance has proved variable and their use has declined, apart from that of Rhizobium.

Limitations imposed by the economic crisis faced by the country, especially since 1990, have had a negative impact on agriculture. Among the causes of the reduced yields are: ageing of plantations; poor management; shortage of fuel; shortage of herbicides; and reductions in water supplies.

Cuba averted famine by adopting organic methods.Since they were cut off from the world they had no choice but to rely on their own resources. But as noted above, organic fertilisers are in decline and inorganic imports are being increased as sanctions are lifted and Cuba's politics open up more to free trade. As well as increasing their domestic production of inorganic fertilisers during their organic phase.
"Inorganic" agriculture has articifically and temporarily inflated the carrying capacity of our planet. In the long run, as "inorganic" agriculture's food (oil and gas) becomes increasingly scarce, this dependency may yet produce the most devastating famines in history.What evidence do you have that "inorganic" food is becoming scarce, let alone increasingly so?

The problem is not food production potential or actuality, but distribution. Practically every famine in history has been caused by food being witheld by governments rather than lack of availability.

EHocking

15th November 2008, 09:13 AM

..
EHocking, above, was implying that relying organic agriculture leads to famine...No, I was sarcastically pointing out that "inorganic" agriculture does NOT decrease nutrition, health, mortality rates and quality of life as you seemed to imply with,

"Keep in mind, all agriculture was organic before we were born. Inorganic agriculture got us in to this mess...an unsustainable population density...but it won't get us out of it. "

RichardR

15th November 2008, 10:34 AM

Acupuncture is in Germany considered an alternative for chronic lower backpain. Also in switzerland it is the case. Based on a double blinded studie they decided that it is an alternative. :)
Link?

RichardR

15th November 2008, 10:39 AM

Apologies - I see ImaginalDisc already dealt with your study.

Acupuncture and sham acupuncture did both better than the normal therapy used in germany.

So acupuncture is no different from sham acupuncture (the control - ie the "not acupuncture"). The technical term for this is that acupuncture is just placebo. Or in plain words, it doesn't work.

RichardR

15th November 2008, 10:48 AM

Do you know what the Luddites were opposed to?
As I recall, automated looms. What's your point?

15th November 2008, 11:55 AM

Apologies - I see ImaginalDisc already dealt with your study.

So acupuncture is no different from sham acupuncture (the control - ie the "not acupuncture"). The technical term for this is that acupuncture is just placebo. Or in plain words, it doesn't work.

its very offtopic here, there is another topic we can talk about it :)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128781

JihadJane

16th November 2008, 03:10 AM

What evidence do you have that "inorganic" food is becoming scarce, let alone increasingly so?

The problem is not food production potential or actuality, but distribution. Practically every famine in history has been caused by food being witheld by governments rather than lack of availability.

As I have explained above, the reason that Cuba is introduced into discussions of agriculture is because its experience offers a useful window into a fossil-fuel-depleted future when Industrial Agriculture is almost certainly going to become unsustainable due to depletion of its "food".

As I clearly stated, the "food" I was referring to was oil and gas which are predicted to become increasingly scarce.

Fossil fuel agriculture is historically unique and has enabled detritivore humans to temporarily increase the carrying capacity of the planet. It is very likely that the system's inevitable demise will trigger famine. Organic methods appear to have a useful role in the transition towards more sustainable, less energy-hungry food production. While there are chemical options available they will also be used.

Cuba may have some valuable lessons for mitigating the dire consequences of fossil fuel depletion.

No, I was sarcastically pointing out that "inorganic" agriculture does NOT decrease nutrition, health, mortality rates and quality of life as you seemed to imply with,

"Keep in mind, all agriculture was organic before we were born. Inorganic agriculture got us in to this mess...an unsustainable population density...but it won't get us out of it. "

Neither the words you quote nor the beliefs you attribute to me here are mine.

JihadJane

16th November 2008, 03:16 AM

As I recall, automated looms. What's your point?

The term "Luddite" is inaccurately used to mean anti-technology. The Luddites were not anti-technology. They were against technology which they accurately perceived moved power away from workers into the hands of factory owners.

JihadJane

16th November 2008, 05:30 AM

Was that a supposed comeback? My disdain for you has no bearing in YOUR ad hominems and continued use of scare tactics.
So. Why are you using scare tactics instead of using facts to support your ideas?

Was that supposed to be condescending? ;)

You have not substantiated your accusation that I am using scare tactics. I have provided a link for you to explore. Here's another one:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Yeah...so? Was that suppose to be a justification for your scare tactics? Was that suppose to be some evidence against modern Vs organic agriculture?

No, it was demonstrating that I am reflecting reality.

As has been claimed by every generation and people who have no education about history.

I call the collapse of the world's financial system and the depletion of our civilisation's main energy source dramatic.

Nuclear, wind and solar can easily replace most of the energy we require if we bothered and the cost becomes more economical than good old oil.

Can you substantiate this claim?

Are you serious? You're claiming that a huge nuclear reactor called the sun cannot "keep out energy supply increasing"?

Can you show how we are going to to able to capture this energy to match fossil energy depletion and the increasing amount of energy being used by the world's still growing population?

quarky

16th November 2008, 05:40 AM

RichardR

16th November 2008, 08:43 AM

The term "Luddite" is inaccurately used to mean anti-technology. The Luddites were not anti-technology. They were against technology which they accurately perceived moved power away from workers into the hands of factory owners.
OK thanks, I see your point. But a bit of a pedantic one. It has come to mean anyone who is against technology.

tyr_13

16th November 2008, 09:05 AM

It comes down to the topsoil. We can speed things up, temporarily, as we have done.
Yet, its analogous to using drugs to improve performance. The soil gets exhausted from constant use of inorganic N. It loses its capacity to hold water. Salts and toxins build up.

We're a long way from not needing topsoil to produce food for the masses.

Topsoil degradation and aquifer depletion are problems, and short sighted management does lead to farmland damage. That does in no way mean that 'organic' farming is the answer.

Disk farming as opposed to plowshare farming helps, as does this super advanced farming technique called 'crop rotation' (patent pending). Newer technology looks even more promising in this regard. And yes it can be scaled up quickly.

Organic farming is less energy efficient because it takes more people on top of other problems, and does nothing for distribution problems. So we can put a lot more work (and time, resources, energy) into a method that produces less food, or we can advance farming techniques to help with the problems. Going forward or going back. We are not Cuba, we don't only have one choice.

Linking to energy alarmists is hardly a low biased tactic. Notice that it isn't a university, or a college, or even a high school research paper. JihadJane's claims of a collapse of the world financial system and other scary proclamations are exaggerations. Funny how every reasonable solution to those difficulties isn't possible, but reverting to a more primitive state is a good solution? We've all been through these doom proclamations before. No one is going to change their position because of them.

paximperium

16th November 2008, 11:15 AM

Was that supposed to be condescending? ;)

You have not substantiated your accusation that I am using scare tactics. I have provided a link for you to explore. Here's another one:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)
Did you seriously just send me to a scaremongering site?

Your really really really need to read up on this issue. All of these oil crash scaremongerers don't know what the hell they are talking about. They've been predicting a peak oil crash for decades, since the 1970s. Oil will not suddenly stop flowing. As demand rises or production slows, the cost will rise and the economy will move to other energy tech that is already being developed.

Oil is not the only fossil fuel. We use coal as a major power source and we still have at least a century's worth in the US alone.

No, it was demonstrating that I am reflecting reality.Your have a very deluded idea of reality. You showed a list of unrelated food riots as evidence for the problem with modern farming technique and showed Cuba, a nation forced to use "organic" farming techniques because they had to and which they are abandoning as they get access to modern fertilizer as your the "reality" of your claims. Sad.

Again, in what way is organic farming superior to modern farming techniques?

I call the collapse of the world's financial system and the depletion of our civilisation's main energy source dramatic.Great backtrack and the continued refusal to even look back at history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
Fossil fuels are being depleted. What's dramatic about that?

Can you substantiate this claim?
Physical Limits to Global Biomass Generation for Replacing Fossil (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ihtec.org%2Ffileadmin%2Farchi ves%2FIHTEC%2Fdocuments%2FPhysical_Limits_060919.d oc&ei=TGwgSfvcBYnOsAONrPWkCA&usg=AFQjCNGUl7RoVFoDSKxQrByOcqKYENIE0A&sig2=d_1axezw1k3W0v8D0Ol3Bg)[/b]

] The replacement of fossil fuels and nuclear energy in the present world energy system by direct technical conversion of solar energy requires some 30 m2/person of solar collectors, and is technically feasible. Due to the lower efficiency of biological collection of solar energy the land area needed for bulk replacement of fossil and nuclear energy is 4000 m2/person; this is not feasible due to several reasons. There is a global shortage of biologically productive land, water, and fertilizer; furthermore, energy farming is in direct competition with food production, and contributes to further reduction of biodiversity in the Earth’s ecosystem.
www.ihtec.org/fileadmin/archives/IHTEC/documents/Physical_Limits_060919.doc (http://www.ihtec.org/fileadmin/archives/IHTEC/documents/Physical_Limits_060919.doc)
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Can you show how we are going to to able to capture this energy to match fossil energy depletion and the increasing amount of energy being used by the world's still growing population?http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/americanenergynow/AmericanEnergy.pdf

quarky

16th November 2008, 12:51 PM

Topsoil degradation and aquifer depletion are problems, and short sighted management does lead to farmland damage. That does in no way mean that 'organic' farming is the answer.

Disk farming as opposed to plowshare farming helps, as does this super advanced farming technique called 'crop rotation' (patent pending). Newer technology looks even more promising in this regard. And yes it can be scaled up quickly.

Organic farming is less energy efficient because it takes more people on top of other problems, and does nothing for distribution problems. So we can put a lot more work (and time, resources, energy) into a method that produces less food, or we can advance farming techniques to help with the problems. Going forward or going back. We are not Cuba, we don't only have one choice.

Linking to energy alarmists is hardly a low biased tactic. Notice that it isn't a university, or a college, or even a high school research paper. JihadJane's claims of a collapse of the world financial system and other scary proclamations are exaggerations. Funny how every reasonable solution to those difficulties isn't possible, but reverting to a more primitive state is a good solution? We've all been through these doom proclamations before. No one is going to change their position because of them.

Please understand that I'm not oppossed to modern farming techniques, especially for certain crops in certain places.
But the argument that organic agriculture requires more energy is biased.

That it employs more people is true. That there is a growing market for it is true. The distribution problem is remedied by the small and local nature of many organic operations. The American suburbs could grow an enourmous amount of produce, if it was so inclined. Instead, it mows lawns.

There is nothing fundamentally backward about organic agriculture.
It can evolve; it upgrades constantly, from what I've seen.

There is much to be critical of in modern farming techniques.
There is much to learn. We've been on something of a free ride for quite some time, and its about to bite us in the ass.

tyr_13

16th November 2008, 01:59 PM

Please understand that I'm not oppossed to modern farming techniques, especially for certain crops in certain places.
But the argument that organic agriculture requires more energy is biased.

That it employs more people is true. That there is a growing market for it is true. The distribution problem is remedied by the small and local nature of many organic operations. The American suburbs could grow an enourmous amount of produce, if it was so inclined. Instead, it mows lawns.

There is nothing fundamentally backward about organic agriculture.
It can evolve; it upgrades constantly, from what I've seen.

There is much to be critical of in modern farming techniques.
There is much to learn. We've been on something of a free ride for quite some time, and its about to bite us in the ass.

You are using the term 'organic' to mean something other than what that silly term is normally used as. 'Organic' farming is a set if ideological requirements, not all of which are bad. However, you have to have all of them, the good and the bad, to be 'organic'. Picking out the good pieces doesn't make 'organic' farming any better than picking out the good parts of communism for example.

Modern farming isn't perfect, but people are striving to move forward. The problems with modern farming doesn't make 'organic' any more of a good idea.

How is the argument that 'organic' farming requires more energy biased?

16th November 2008, 02:03 PM

Picking the good points of Socialism has worked well for alot of countrys in Europe.

quarky

16th November 2008, 02:22 PM

You are using the term 'organic' to mean something other than what that silly term is normally used as. 'Organic' farming is a set if ideological requirements, not all of which are bad. However, you have to have all of them, the good and the bad, to be 'organic'. Picking out the good pieces doesn't make 'organic' farming any better than picking out the good parts of communism for example.

Modern farming isn't perfect, but people are striving to move forward. The problems with modern farming doesn't make 'organic' any more of a good idea.

How is the argument that 'organic' farming requires more energy biased?

The problems with moving forward often require a hybridization of ideas.
Minimizing enviornmental degradation is a good idea.
Producing quality food is a good idea.

That organic farming is an obstacle to those good ideas is a far stretch.

The amount of input energy for a calorie of food has steadily risen in the U.S.
Last I checked, it was more than 10 to one. The mega farms didn't evolve because they were efficient...they evolved because of cheap energy.

Unfortunately, the cost of repairing the damage isn't part of the calculation.
It never is. We have been mining our topsoil. It looks very effective for awhile, much like mining any resource.

Eos of the Eons

16th November 2008, 03:30 PM

What I don't get is the use of "organic" CHEMICALS instead of "non-organic" pesticides and fertilizers. Just what is the difference? What is non-organic nitrogen in this context? It's all the use of words.

When "organic" pestices are used they have awful unexpected effects because they are just as much "chemicals" as anything else that is used to keep pests from eating the food and sucking out all of the nutrients and leaving their nasty waste products behind. If no chemicals are used to prevent parasites, then you are left with rotted food with fungus growing freely on them. Yum.

What evidence is there that "organic" pestices are less toxic than "non-organic"? None (http://forums.randi.org/Though the formulation is low toxic to humans, it should be used with caution. May cause skin irritation and temporary eye injury. Wear protective gears while handling. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Remove and wash contaminated clothing before reuse. If in eyes, hold eyelids open and flush with a stead, gentle stream of water for 15 minutes. Get medical attention. If on skin, wash with plenty of soap and water. Get medical attention. Environmental hazards: Do not contaminate water by cleaning of equipment or disposal of water.). Non organic pesticides are low toxic to humans. I don't see the difference. Here is a warning for the use of an organic pesticide in the link:

May cause skin irritation and temporary eye injury. Wear protective gears while handling. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Remove and wash contaminated clothing before reuse. If in eyes, hold eyelids open and flush with a stead, gentle stream of water for 15 minutes. Get medical attention. If on skin, wash with plenty of soap and water. Get medical attention. Environmental hazards: Do not contaminate water by cleaning of equipment or disposal of water.

Yet organic farmers point to similar directions on "non-organic" pesticides as evidence of toxicity.

There are all kinds of chemicals (even ones you might not expect to find depending on what the animal ate) in animal poop, and microbes. Why is that "safer" than "inorganic" fertilizer?

"Synthetic" pesticides are just put together so that there are no contaminants from the "natural" sources. They can be safer and more effective. It's like getting aspirin from the lab so that it doesn't burn a hole in your stomach like the chemicals straight from the tree would.

http://badecology.blogspot.com/2008/08/organic-food-as-bad-as-ever.html

There is no evidence that organic food is more nutritious or better for the environment. Just as many chemicals, if not more overall (some unknown), are used on the plants and animals to get a yield. Causing animals to suffer from diseases rather than giving them medical interventions (vaccines) on organic farms is just sad.

The misuse of the word "organic" is what really sticks in my craw. What does organic mean:
http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=60

Organic molecules (javascript:WinOpen('/library/pop_glossary_term.php?oid=1597&l=','Glossary',500,300);) contain both carbon and hydrogen. Though many organic chemicals also contain other elements (javascript:WinOpen('/library/pop_glossary_term.php?oid=1510&l=','Glossary',500,300);), it is the carbon-hydrogen bond that defines them as organic.

Anything that doesn't fit the above description is NON-organic.

JihadJane

16th November 2008, 04:09 PM

Fossil fuels are being depleted. What's dramatic about that?

I think I'll leave it at that. Keep your words in mind for the next decade.

Thanks for the links. I'l have a look at them.

JihadJane

16th November 2008, 04:17 PM

OK thanks, I see your point. But a bit of a pedantic one. It has come to mean anyone who is against technology.

It has but it is a politically loaded misrepresentation of history.

paximperium

16th November 2008, 06:00 PM

I think I'll leave it at that. Keep your words in mind for the next decade.

Thanks for the links. I'l have a look at them.
Sigh. Fossil fuels ARE being depleted. We have a few decades left of good use of the stuff. However, unlike the "peak oil" chicken-littles, there will be no sudden collapse of fossil fuels.

As the price of the stuff goes up, we will find replacements. We have the tech, the cost is what makes it less economical than fossil fuels at present.

Rolfe

17th November 2008, 02:04 AM

I was expecting this, and i admit to trying to start some trouble. I was getting bored with the righteousness of the fans of our miraculous agricultural system and some of the knee-jerk condemnations of other approaches, some of which have woo aspects.

Glad you're here, Rolfe. You're probably on the short list of people here that have any knowledge of farming. I hope your school isn't being financed by the big agro-biz. We've got a lot to learn.

Nice attempt at innuendo, and smear tactics.

My college is funded by a block grant from the government, which supports the farming industry, and by selling our services to vets and farmers. Oh yes, and to drug companies, who are actually very keen to subcontract bits of their research to an unbiassed third party.

You may be interested to know that the college incorporates a sizeable department dedicated to the support (and, to my dismay, also to the promotion of) organic methods. There is some very reputable research being done. Colleagues of mine are genuinely trying to devise ways of rearing and finishing livestock within the restrictions of the organic rules. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the success rates are not at the moment very impressive. To put it politely.

Now I'll be interested to see what will happen, if that is the case. Will we really get unbiassed publications presenting the data and showing that these systems are not succeeding in rearing healthy livestock without medical treatments? Or will we get a politically-motivated fudge defending the woo? Time will tell, I suppose.

You are using the term 'organic' to mean something other than what that silly term is normally used as. 'Organic' farming is a set if ideological requirements, not all of which are bad. However, you have to have all of them, the good and the bad, to be 'organic'. Picking out the good pieces doesn't make 'organic' farming any better than picking out the good parts of communism for example.

This is exactly the point I was about to make, as regards a number of posters here.

I'm not opposed to arguments that we should use pharmaceuticals sparingly and with discrimination. I'm all in favour of maximising non-pharmaceutical methods of reducing parasite burdens and so on. But that's not what "organic" farming is, and that's not what I interpret the intent of the OP to be.

Organic farming is the strict and positively slavish application of a set of ideologically-driven rules, some of which are simply senseless (such as the opposition to vaccination of livestock, and the promotion of homoeopathy and other whack-job philosophies as effective medicine). Now you can discuss till the cows come home (literally!) whether the limited application of some of the more rational aspects of the organic philosophy might be beneficial, and almost certainly the answer will be yes. But that has little bearing on the validity of embracing the whole nine yards - and the fact is that without the whole nine yards, it's not "organic".

I'm not going to attack and reject every single item on the organic agenda. What I am going to attack is the woo element, and the aspects that are detrimental to animal welfare. Unfortunately these aspects are an integral part of the organic ideology, and if you accept the organic premise, you must accept all of it.

Rolfe.

JihadJane

17th November 2008, 03:40 AM

Sigh. Fossil fuels ARE being depleted. We have a few decades left of good use of the stuff.[**] However, unlike the "peak oil" chicken-littles, there will be no sudden collapse of fossil fuels.

As the price of the stuff goes up, we will find replacements. We have the tech, the cost is what makes it less economical than fossil fuels at present.

What if there aren't any "replacements" to find?

Can you give some examples of "'peak oil' chicken-littles" saying there will be a "sudden collapse of fossil fuels"? Peak Oil theory predicts that production will follow a bell curve. My understanding of the theory is that even a small shortfall in the energy supply has devastating economic effects, especially on an economic system that relies on continual growth to service its debts.

"Peak Oilists" also predict very volatile prices at the top of the bell curve. Prices go up which destroys demand so prices go down which discourages investment in alternatives. As supply continues to fall prices go up again. Economic instability and financial bankrupcy do not encourage businesses to invest their non-existent credit. As energy supply decline become steeper economic Depression becomes permanent.

UK Financial Times, October 28 2008: "World will struggle to meet oil demand":

"Output from the world’s oilfields is declining faster than previously thought, the first authoritative public study of the biggest fields shows."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5e78778-a53f-11dd-b4f5-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

** a large proportion of which is under Iraq.

17th November 2008, 03:58 AM

Sigh. Fossil fuels ARE being depleted. We have a few decades left of good use of the stuff. However, unlike the "peak oil" chicken-littles, there will be no sudden collapse of fossil fuels.

As the price of the stuff goes up, we will find replacements. We have the tech, the cost is what makes it less economical than fossil fuels at present.

It is a shame but typical human. We prefer destroying the planet and waste the nice oil to get some breath from down the street.

It will not be sanity that makes us use the alternatives. It will be money. what a shame for the human species.

17th November 2008, 04:06 AM

I'm not opposed to arguments that we should use pharmaceuticals sparingly and with discrimination. I'm all in favour of maximising non-pharmaceutical methods of reducing parasite burdens and so on.

Mostly we see here people that are bashing everything just not the modern science and industrialised agriculture. One could get the impression one is holy the other (Organic) is pure evil.

Rolfe

17th November 2008, 04:15 AM

Mostly we see here people that are bashing everything just not the modern science and industrialised agriculture. One could get the impression one is holy the other (Organic) is pure evil.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

However, deliberately allowing animals to become sick and remain sick when there are safe and effective treatments available is getting close to "pure evil" in my book.

Rolfe.

EHocking

17th November 2008, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4203513#post4203513)
No, I was sarcastically pointing out that "inorganic" agriculture does NOT decrease nutrition, health, mortality rates and quality of life as you seemed to imply with,

"Keep in mind, all agriculture was organic before we were born. Inorganic agriculture got us in to this mess...an unsustainable population density...but it won't get us out of it. "

Neither the words you quote nor the beliefs you attribute to me here are mine.Yes, it's annoying when someone misattributes your posts isn't it?
You know full well that the above was in response to your post commenting on this post of mine, Originally Posted by JihadJane http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4203186#post4203186)
..
EHocking, above, was implying that relying organic agriculture leads to famine... No, I was sarcastically pointing out that "inorganic" agriculture does NOT decrease nutrition, health, mortality rates and quality of life as you seemed to imply with,

"Keep in mind, all agriculture was organic before we were born. Inorganic agriculture got us in to this mess...an unsustainable population density...but it won't get us out of it. " Yes I got the original quote wrong - but my comment was in response to your misrepresentation of my position, i.e. your post, "EHocking, above, was implying that relying organic agriculture leads to famine... "

ETA : we could put this behind us and just continue with discussing the topic.

quarky

17th November 2008, 06:37 AM

In the factory farms I've been to, the livestock is kept in an unhealthy state. Antibiotics are needed because of it. Cows weren't really designed to eat grain. It causes problems, as does confinement.

I haven't seen this is the 'organic' operations I've been to, though most of them are small.

True, the term 'organic' is misleading. In terms of nitrogen, it is more clear. The N is tied up in the biomass in organic farming. Ammonium nitrate is not. Although, as I mentioned, lightning does produce some inorganic Nitrogen.

There is some silliness on both sides of the debate. Which is why I'm in favor of using the best ideas from both camps; rejecting the woo; watching the soil chemistry; producing healthy plants; protecting aquifers and so on.

17th November 2008, 06:45 AM

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

However, deliberately allowing animals to become sick and remain sick when there are safe and effective treatments available is getting close to "pure evil" in my book.

Rolfe.

oh and that is usual in Organic farm in your country? Is that also the case in Switzerland? or about what country are you talking?

And such things dont happen in non organic farms?

where is it happening more often?

I guess in Industrial farms, cows get better treathment than Kobe cows......

strange agenda you have

EHocking

17th November 2008, 07:23 AM

oh and that is usual in Organic farm in your country? Is that also the case in Switzerland? or about what country are you talking?

And such things dont happen in non organic farms?

where is it happening more often?

I guess in Industrial farms, cows get better treathment than Kobe cows......

strange agenda you haveDid you read the articles at the DEFRA and Soil Association sites that I quoted earlier.

In short - yes, this is usual in organic farms and is laid out in black and white by 1. the government department that regulates it and 2. the association that promotes it.

I'm very sure that Rolfe's reference to "deliberately allowing animals to become sick and remain sick" is a direct reference to using homeopathic "remedies" (i.e. water and sugar pills) instead of treatment with veterinary medicines that contain active ingriedients and have proven efficacy. It is not to do with a cruel farmer not treating an animal, but a cruel farmer not treating an animal with "medicine" that works.

Rolfe

17th November 2008, 07:35 AM

oh and that is usual in Organic farm in your country?

Yes.

Is that also the case in Switzerland?

I don't have the first idea. Do you have any real depth of knowledge about farming practices in Switzerland? If so, why don't you tell us all about it?

or about what country are you talking?

Guess.

And such things dont happen in non organic farms?

Yes, they do. No system is perfect.

where is it happening more often?

Funnily enough, in the system where there is financial and ideological pressure to deprive the animals of medicine.

I guess in Industrial farms, cows get better treathment than Kobe cows......

I don't really recognise your term, "industrial farm". In my experience, the basic husbandry methods as regards housing, stocking density and so on, are similar between organic and conventional enterprises. I also have no idea what a "Kobe cow" is. (OK, I just looked that up. I have heard the term, I think. This is not something which occurs at all in Scotland, so I have no knowledge of whether welfare is compromised in this system or not. In any case, this is of peripheral relevance to the subject.)

strange agenda you have

If you think it's strange to have an "agenda" of preferring animals to receive the best treatment they can have to allow them to remain disease-free, and to treat illness when it occurs, then I think it may be you who has the problem.

Rolfe.

tyr_13

17th November 2008, 07:40 AM

Beat me too it Rolfe.

In Kobe Japan the cows get massages and are treated very, very special. This drives the price way up for Kobe beef.

17th November 2008, 08:12 AM

Where can i see the official rules for Organic farms in the UK? especially about treathment of sick animals.

Our BIO farmers in Switzerland was praised because only 2 of the 360 BSE cows came from organic farmers, and the organic farmers reacted alot earlier to BSE, while the industrie waited till they was forced to react by laws.

Also have we very strong animal rights organisations and laws for correct treathment of animals.

Are there any studies that shows that mostly Organic farm are the evil dooers in the UK?

ETA: Kobe cow was an extreme example, that is only in kobe, and only because it gives very very special meat :)

Rolfe

17th November 2008, 09:00 AM

Where can i see the official rules for Organic farms in the UK? especially about treathment of sick animals.

I think this has already been linked to earlier in the thread.

Here you go (http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/5f34b9a7b3f06d118025738e00390f6a!OpenDocument).

When an animal must be treated, the organic standards, state that complementary therapies such as homeopathy should be used in preference to chemically synthesised, allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics. This is provided that their therapeutic effect is effective for the species of animal and the condition for which the treatment is intended. The following complementary therapies are recommended:

Homeopathic nosodes and remedies
Naturopathy
Acupuncture
Herbal / unlicensed herbal preparations (as a tonic only, or for the treatment of individual animals or a small proportion of the flock or herd on a trial basis. Veterinary advice must be sought before using unlicensed herbal products)
Therapeutic use of probiotics
In practice, if organic producers consider alternative treatments they will usually use homeopathy or herbal medicines. [....]

And it goes on. You can read the whole depressing list for yourself.

And again (http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/standards/pdf/compendium.pdf). Do take time to go through it all.

Phytotherapeutic (e.g. plant extracts (excluding antibiotics), essences, etc.), homoeopathic products (e.g. plant, animal or mineral substances) and trace elements and products listed in Part C, section 3 of Annex II, shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics.... [....]

The use of chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics for preventive treatments is prohibited.

I note the very regrettable use of the homoeopath-coined insult "allopathic" to describe scientific medicine. The tenor of the entire thing suggests it has either been written by a woo-woo or by someone who doesn't know a great deal about the issues, being heavily influenced by a woo-woo.

I would also point out that the rules themselves, and the consequences of the rules, are sometimes two different things. It sounds very laudable to put down on paper that treatment of a sick animal takes precedence over maintaining its organic status. However, the practical effect of the loss of organic status acts as a great disincentive to following that guideline.

Rolfe.

EHocking

17th November 2008, 09:14 AM

Where can i see the official rules for Organic farms in the UK? especially about treathment of sick animals.My post, 116 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4200940&postcount=116) , the directions for animal treatment to maintain organic status in the UK.

ETA:
It wasn't until I read through all these that I began to get the full thrust behind Rolfe's (and others here) objections to homeopathic "treatment" (esp) of animals.

While I logically opposed it based on scientific studies, I didn't truly appreciate the impact that beliefs in magic can have on the welfare of animals under human care.

ponderingturtle

17th November 2008, 09:25 AM

first one will propably be DNA sequences that are very old. "tested" by several generations of Humans

last one could contain much newer "less tested" DNA sequences. Could be dangerous but also could be good for us, who knows, find it interesting. Afaik is Functional food going into that direction.

If the gene is from a different food plant then it should not be considered GM food then by your risk assessment.

Rolfe

17th November 2008, 09:31 AM

Not really wanting to go off-topic, but I'm not clear what's so objectionable about Kobe beef, just on a superficial reading. (Not Kobe cows, the animals are most specifically not cows.) Massage and beer don't sound so bad to me. Better than pate de foie gras, anyway!

Rolfe.

17th November 2008, 10:17 AM

mmh i guess most swiss BIO meet will not count organic in the UK.
Here they still use Antibiotica, but not as they say as "tricks" like fodder aditives.
Because there are almost no Homeopathic or other alternative veterinarians. and no real alternatives to Antibiotica, the veterinarians still use Antibiotica.

Even one of the only veterinarian that also does homeopathic treathments, did in 15 years he is doingt it, reduced the use of Antibiotica only by 40%.

Because we have strong animal right groups it is propably not a real topic in switzerland.

i agree on that point, no homeopathy for anymals.

quarky

18th November 2008, 07:53 AM

18th November 2008, 08:05 AM

tyr_13

18th November 2008, 08:14 AM

The welfare of the animal is hardly an issue in a factory farm. medicines are used to keep the animal alive long enough to make it to the slaughter house standing. Many aren't standing. It strikes me as very bizarre to make this a moral high-ground issue in comparison to organic farming.

Because some organic farmers use homeopathy (never met any, myself) this constitutes a greater cruelty? Absurd.

You've been watching too much of PETA's propaganda. What is absurd is that you believe you have a good grasp of both conventional and organic throughout the industry. I doubt that because none of the farms I've toured or seen, with the exception of the moron run farms PETA gets it's photos from, work that way.

Because organic farms don't keep their animals as healthy as conventional farms is why organic is the greater cruelty.

18th November 2008, 08:20 AM

Mashuna

18th November 2008, 08:34 AM

The welfare of the animal is hardly an issue in a factory farm. medicines are used to keep the animal alive long enough to make it to the slaughter house standing. Many aren't standing. It strikes me as very bizarre to make this a moral high-ground issue in comparison to organic farming.

Because some organic farmers use homeopathy (never met any, myself) this constitutes a greater cruelty? Absurd.

What are these factory farms you refer to? I buy my meat from a local butcher. I know which local farms he sources his meat from. I know the local vets who treat the animals at these farms, and they tell me that the animals are treated humanely and well.

The point about organic farmers being cruel to the animals is not that they use homoeopathy, but that they use it in lieu of standard vaccinations and treatments for parasites. These animals are often parasite-ridden, underdeveloped and malnourished, all so the farmer can get the organic certification. It is the (UK) organic requirements which are preventing effective treatment, and therefore cruel.

tyr_13

18th November 2008, 08:37 AM

can you backup that claim? Is this the case in the USA? I would like to read some studies about it, or statistics etc.

I don't feel compelled to oblige you, seeing as you didn't ask the same thing to quarky.

I might anyway, but just like to point out how biased you are.

18th November 2008, 08:48 AM

I don't feel compelled to oblige you, seeing as you didn't ask the same thing to quarky.

I might anyway, but just like to point out how biased you are.

because he cannot change my mind.
you could when you can backup your claims, that this indeed the case.

Sure, i know it is not the case in my country. and i am sure there are alot countrys where the BIO or Organic farms are not tested properly, if at all.

But here there is a general bashing of Organic farmers, and alot of huge claims.
Organic farmers are not saints, and alot has to be improved, and more research is needed. that is what swiss BIO farmers say and slo scientists say this and do alot research.

Especially the lack of alternative medicine for animals was pointed out. but in switzerland that does not mean we just use non or things that dont work.
Our Animal right groups would never accept that.

But there was and is alot research into BIO farming, here in switzerland.

quarky

18th November 2008, 12:54 PM

You've been watching too much of PETA's propaganda. What is absurd is that you believe you have a good grasp of both conventional and organic throughout the industry. I doubt that because none of the farms I've toured or seen, with the exception of the moron run farms PETA gets it's photos from, work that way.

Because organic farms don't keep their animals as healthy as conventional farms is why organic is the greater cruelty.

My experience in anecdotal, I suppose, though I have lived on and owned farms for the last 30 years, and been involved in farming communities, but only in 4 different states of the U.S.

The organic operations I've seen, as mentioned, were all fairly small scale, as is my own.
I've yet to witness the animal cruelty you mention, except on large scale conventional operations.

The word "conventional" is misleading, however, because the 'convention' keeps changing. It isn't getting better. Its getting more stressed.

Rolfe

18th November 2008, 02:03 PM

The welfare of the animal is hardly an issue in a factory farm. medicines are used to keep the animal alive long enough to make it to the slaughter house standing. Many aren't standing.

That is simply ridiculous nonsense. It's certainly not true for the country where I live and work, and I seriously question whether it's true for any country developed enough to employ intensive farming methods.

So how about some evidence to support even the tiniest little bit of that preposterous tirade? Got any?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

18th November 2008, 02:13 PM

Normaly at the end of the year, here in switzerland, they planned to forbid castration of pigs without anesthetization.
A few weeks ago the goverment agreed to wait to forbid it till 2010, after alot pressure from the Industrie.

The BIO farmer organisation, the veterinarian agency and Animal rights groups protested this agreement.

The BIO Farmers will not wait, and will do it now already with anesthetization.

I don't know what a BIO farmer is. How about you tell us?

No pigs are castrated in my country, full stop. Now it's quite interesting how this has been achieved. It hasn't actually been made illegal, but it has been made impractical. Basically the body that certifies the pork meat will not certify meat from castrated males. Anaesthetic or no anaesthetic. If the meat isn't certified, no butcher or supermarket will buy it. So nobody castrates piglets. End of story.

Now I'm not sure what this has to do with organic agriculture. Seems to me that anaesthetics are chemicals, and should therefore be banned according to organic ideology. In fact, just like conventional farmers, the organic farmers just don't castrate their piglets.

It's easy when you know how. Switzerland might want to take note.

Especially the lack of alternative medicine for animals was pointed out. but in switzerland that does not mean we just use non or things that dont work.
Our Animal right groups would never accept that.

Dictator, I think you are being much too trusting of your "strong animal rights groups". These groups are often ill-informed, and easily deflected by propaganda. Their members often believe, as do some in this thread, that organic restrictions are good for animal welfare. I wouldn't trust an animal rights group to make sure a doggy chew was safe.

We've shown you the exact regulations governing certified organic farming in Britain. We've shown you that they forbid the use of veterinary medicines, and advise the use of homoeopathy.

I'm still waiting for you to provide links to the same information for Switzerland. Is it really the case that produce there will be certified as "organic" even though medicines which are banned by organic rules in Britain have been used? Is it really the case that your organic rules do not promote the use of homoeopathy?

You've made some assertions, but although you've asked others for evidence of their statements, you haven't provided a shred of evidence for your own claims.

Don't worry about the language, there are people around here who can read German if necessary. Just show us the equivalent Swiss regulations and guidelines.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

18th November 2008, 02:22 PM

My experience in anecdotal, I suppose, though I have lived on and owned farms for the last 30 years, and been involved in farming communities, but only in 4 different states of the U.S.

The organic operations I've seen, as mentioned, were all fairly small scale, as is my own.
I've yet to witness the animal cruelty you mention, except on large scale conventional operations.

The word "conventional" is misleading, however, because the 'convention' keeps changing. It isn't getting better. Its getting more stressed.

I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone who has worked in farming in any capacity can be as ill-informed as you appear to be. Forgive me if I approach your claim to live on and to own farms with a degree of scepticism.

Rolfe.

18th November 2008, 03:07 PM

Here the laws for organic farming.

3 Für die Verwendung von Tierarzneimitteln in der biologischen Tierhaltung gelten
folgende Grundsätze:

a. Phytotherapeutische Erzeugnisse (z. B. Pflanzenextrakte, ausgenommen
Antibiotika, oder Pflanzenessenzen), homöopathische Erzeugnisse (z. B.
pflanzliche, tierische und mineralische Stoffe) sowie Spurenelemente und
die zu diesem Zweck vom Departement festgelegten Erzeugnisse sind chemisch-
synthetischen allopathischen Tierarzneimitteln oder Antibiotika vorzuziehen,
sofern sie erfahrungsgemäss eine therapeutische Wirkung auf die
betreffende Tierart und die zu behandelnde Krankheit haben.

b. Kann mit den Mitteln nach Buchstabe a eine Krankheit oder eine Verletzung
erfahrungsgemäss nicht wirksam behandelt werden, ist eine Behandlung zur
Vermeidung von Leiden des Tieres jedoch erforderlich, so dürfen in Verantwortung
des Tierarztes chemisch-synthetische allopathische Tierarzneimittel
oder Antibiotika verabreicht werden.

c. Die Verwendung von Kokzidiostatika, vorbeugende Eiseninjektionen bei
Schweinen sowie die Verwendung von Hormonen oder ähnlichen Stoffen
zur Kontrolle der Fortpflanzung (z.B. Einleitung oder Synchronisierung der
Brunst) oder zu anderen Zwecken sind nicht zulässig. Die Hormone dürfen
jedoch im Falle einer therapeutischen tierärztlichen Behandlung einem einzelnen
Tier verabreicht werden.

d. Die präventive Verabreichung chemisch-synthetischer allopathischer Tierarzneimittel
oder von Antibiotika ist nicht zulässig.

4 Die Art des Mittels (einschliesslich der pharmakologischen Wirkstoffe) sowie die
Einzelheiten der Diagnose, die Art der Verabreichung, die Dauer der Behandlung
und die vorgeschriebene Wartezeit müssen eindeutig, schriftlich und unlöschbar im
Behandlungsjournal festgehalten werden.

5 Die behandelten Tiere sind jederzeit eindeutig als solche – im Falle grosser Tiere
einzeln, im Falle von Geflügel oder Kleinvieh einzeln oder herdenweise – identifizierbar.

6 Bei bestehender Gefährdung der Tiergesundheit sind Impfungen und Entwurmungen
erlaubt.

7 Für die Desinfektion der Zitzen dürfen nur Mittel verwendet werden, die in der
Liste der Forschungsanstalt für Milchwirtschaft aufgeführt sind.

8 Die Wartezeit zwischen der letzten Verabreichung eines chemisch-synthetischen
allopathischen Tierarzneimittels unter normalen Anwendungsbedingungen und der
Gewinnung von einem solchen Tier stammenden Lebensmitteln aus biologischer
Landwirtschaft muss doppelt so lang sein wie die gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Zeit.
Dies gilt nicht für die Verabreichung von Mitteln zur Trockenstellung von Kühen
mit Euterproblemen.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/9/910.18.de.pdf

http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/9/910.181.de.pdf

18th November 2008, 03:33 PM

It is essential to understand that the organic standards state that if an animal becomes sick or injured it must be treated immediately.

the UK has almost the same laws. While im not sure in details.

In switzerland also alternative medicine is promoted.
But an animal has to be treated. And when there is no alternative that works, the vet is compelled to treat the animal with normal medicine.

Rolfe

18th November 2008, 04:09 PM

Well, wouldn't that be nice if it happened.

What actually happens a lot of the time is that no vet ever sees the animal. Knowing that the use of real medicine will cause loss of organic status (and so extra money) for that animal, the farmer just hopes it will get better. Or that it maybe isn't really so ill after all.

Or he uses something the organic standards allow. Like homoeopathy. Since the organic standards conveniently fail to take note of the fact that no homoeopathic preparation has ever been found to be effective against anything at all, and actually recommend their use, this is not surprising. In addition, just as you can find bad studies with poor controls and worse statistics to support a claim that a homoeopathic treatment works in human patients, you can also find worse studies with dreadful controls and appalling statistics to support a claim that a homoeopathic treatment works in animals. Most of them published in journals with names like The British Journal of Homoeopathy.

Or maybe he calls a vet - a homoeopathic vet, who makes his money pandering to the delusions of crackpot owners and is usually a crackpot himself. Who will solemnly point to these studies and assure the farmer that homoeopathic treatment is the thing to use. I'm not proud of my profession, for allowing this to happen.

So much for the rules.

But realistically, what happens is usually the first one of these. The animal just doesn't get treated. I explained all this in an earlier post. I'm fed up with people pointing out that little rule and declaring that everything is thus well. It isn't. That rule is merely the covering of the backside.

It also doesn't address a major part of the problem, which is the prohibition of ordinary preventative treatments for diseases the animals get routinely, as part of their life cycles, or problems that are inevitable given the production systems necessary to supply the market. (Show me a dairy farm with no more than 20 cows, looked after by a team of three people minimum, and milked by the soft tender hands of a dairymaid, and I'll show you a dairy farm where antibiotics are unnecessary. Maybe.)

My German isn't good enough for me to read all the technical details in what the Dictator posted. However, superficially it seems very similar to the British rules. In fact, what I can follow is spookily similar to the point of being identical. For example:

Die präventive Verabreichung chemisch-synthetischer allopathischer Tierarzneimittel oder von Antibiotika ist nicht zulässig.

The use of chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics for preventive treatments is prohibited.

Well, fancy that.

So, it looks very much as if Switzerland only made use of a translation service when laying down its organic rules. Or our guys translated them from the German. We should just check the dates to see who got there first. Whatever has been said about British organic farming almost certainly applies to Swiss.

I repeat, I don't know what this "BIO farmers" thing is. But it obviously isn't organic. This thread, in case people have forgotten, is about organic farming, not other things. It seems as if the Dictator has been saying, well, I don't want to talk about organic methods, but I'd like to tell you how nice another thing we have is, which isn't organic.

Ho hum. I could tell you about various certification systems we have here too, which aren't organic. I could tell you about the RSPCA Freedom Foods scheme, for example. But why would I argue in favour of organic methods, just because I knew about something that wasn't organic and which I thought was good? That's what the Dictator is doing.

Look at your own organic standards, sir. Realise they are just the same as ours. Then ask yourself what you're defending!

Rolfe.

Rolfe

18th November 2008, 04:37 PM

Yes, the evidence presented by both sides here is anecdotal. Although I've seen references to a general survey that indicated organic methods compromised welfare, the only rigorous study I've read found no difference, apparently because there was no serious disease challenge to either group during the period of observation.

Anecdotes, however, I have by the bucketful. There's the dead sheep I described back in post 15. Dead at only a year old, before even beginning their breeding lives, of a lingering and debilitating parasite infestation that was entirely preventable.

More dead sheep, this time from a bacterial pneumonia for which a good vaccine is available - but of course the organic rules are anti-vax. (It was pointed out that as the farm had experienced disease, they would now be allowed to vaccinate, but a dozen lambs had to die first. Maybe we should wait until a few children have died of measles before we decide to vaccinate the rest?)

The organic offal that has to be rejected for human consumption at the slaughterhouse, because of parasite infestation. Please, never ask me to eat organic haggis! (Actually, never ask me to eat any organic animal product. I feel strongly about this.)

The calves with diarrhoea due to worms, which the farmer would not allow to be treated because they were organic.

Oh yes, and a colleague who has just joined my institute, having worked in meat hygiene as a vet, told me something I hadn't realised. She said that in the slaughterhouse where she used to work, the rules said the organic animals had to go first in the morning, before the conventionally-farmed ones. "It's ridiculous," she said. "These are the really unhealthy ones, riddled with disease. They should be held back until last so as not to contaminate the line for the healthy ones!"

Please tell me, just what is the point of any of this? Who is benefiting, and in what way?

Rolfe.

JihadJane

18th November 2008, 04:38 PM

Rolfe:

"... problems that are inevitable given the production systems necessary to supply the market. (Show me a dairy farm with no more than 20 cows, looked after by a team of three people minimum, and milked by the soft tender hands of a dairymaid, and I'll show you a dairy farm where antibiotics are unnecessary. Maybe.)"

Are we enslaved to the demands of the market? Perhaps the market should respond to the demands of the cows.

What I get from Rolfe's words is that the cow's health is being sacrificed to the market. They must live short, over-medicated lives because the market demands it. Is this the best we can do?

Warning! Personal anecdote follows:

I had an experience of starting work as an assistant at a small hill farm, with half a dozen, machine-milked dairy cows, that had recently changed management. They had big, fat udders and produced loads of milk. They were fed rich concentrates. They frequently required treatment for mastitis.

The new farmer stopped feeding them concentrates. Milk production dropped. Mastitis disappeared altogether.

I get the impression that we treat cows in the same way that we treat ourselves. Over-worked, over-stressed and requiring constant medication just to keep going!

The market dictates madness and makes us behave like machines. Is there Prozac for cows?

Rolfe

18th November 2008, 04:58 PM

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong in the thrust of that post. However, the answer to your question is probably, yes. We are enslaved to the demands of the market.

The supermarkets have the dairy farmers by the short and curlies. They dictate what they will pay for the milk, and as they are realistically the only buyers, then the sellers have no choice. Or they go out of business, as many have. There have been political machinations to get higher prices for the farmers, but they're not that effective. The amount the farmer receives for the milk has actually gone down over the past 5 years, while the slice "creamed" off by the retailer has absolutely mushroomed.

The consumers are unable to see beyond the price. They want the product cheap and they don't ask questions. And the last thing the supermarkets are going to cut in order to make that cheap price is their own profit. No, the farmers get squoze again.

I don't know what your "small hill farm" was orbiting, but six cows isn't even on the radar. That's so small it's barely pocket money. So I suppose paradoxical decisions may be taken. But it's not a decision that's going to make commercial sense any time soon.

This very afternoon I had to go over a problem with my fourth year students. It was all about a dairy farm whose cows were only yielding 25 litres a day each, and the farmer thought he should be getting 30 litres from each. The answer was to feed extra good-quality dairy cake. The computer programme crunched the numbers, and showed that this was cost-effective. The extra yield more than paid for the extra feed.

The idea that the farmer should accept the low yield and hope to save on mastitis treatment doesn't even get off the starting blocks I'm afraid. A cow is a cow and has to be fed to maintain herself however much or little she is yielding. She also has to be looked after and milked. These costs come in (more or less) fixed one-cow units. Thus maximising the yield of the individual becomes essential. Sorry.

So yes, sorry, we are slaves to the market. If you know a way to reverse this, do tell.

Organic restrictions don't address this at all. It's all about not using the dreaded antibiotics, and feeding the cattle forage which was itself grown organically. But under circumstances where the same breeds of cow are managed and milked in much the same way, then the problems the antibiotics control don't just go away I'm afraid.

And even though organic milk is dearer, it's still subject to the same price pressures. Everyone wants their shopping at a cut-throat price. The farmer still gets squoze.

I'm not pretending that there aren't problems here. But, whatever the question, organic production is not the answer. It's approaching the whole thing from entirely the wrong end.

Rolfe.

JihadJane

18th November 2008, 06:12 PM

... It's approaching the whole thing from entirely the wrong end.

Rolfe.

I'll refrain from making bad jokes.

You are right. It is a political problem. Our whole, growth-based economic system has one, inevitable destination, collapse, which appears to be now under way. Then what? Perpetual growth is imposssible. I tried to discuss the physical, planet-imposed limits of our system, above, so won't try again now! The belief that we can keep on producing more and more and that there will always be more energy to power the great, ever-gowing, hungry machine called The Economy is the religious faith of our times. We have become like a plague!

I don't think an Organic/ Not Organic dichotomy is productive. During this discussion suggesting that some organic methods could be used in combination with non-Organic methods has been met with "But that's not organic!" as if that magically discounted the value of organic practices altogether, by insisting it's a religion, all or nothing, for ever and ever, amen. Dogmas, however, do evolve! We are going to be forced to rely more and more on "non-chemical" methods of maintaining soil fertility whether we like it or not! Energy intensive, highly mechanised, fossil-fuel dependent agriculture has a limited shelf life.

So yes, sorry, we are slaves to the market. If you know a way to reverse this, do tell.

Here is a recent article on the the wisdom and sanity of Steady State Economics by a former senior economist in the World Bank's environment department.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.300-special-report-economics-blind-spot-is-a-disaster-for-the-planet.html?full=true