/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.5477352]

>mfw I just found out that organic farming is actually worse for the environment than commercial farming.

[Anonymous No.5477355]

Yes, yes, but that's not to say that commercial farming cannot be improved to be less wasteful.

[Anonymous No.5477394]

>>5477355
Everything humans do could be improved.
Its just that I thought we were improving that shit by moving to organic farming.
Instead I find out that its way worse?
My brain is still reeling in all honesty.

[Anonymous No.5477612]

In what way is it worse than dumping poison into all the world's soils and water streams?

[Anonymous No.5477617]

>>5477612
sauce

[Anonymous No.5477660]

>>5477612
Higher yield means more land is left wild, improving the ecosystems ability to break down fertilizers, side products, etc...
I don't know if the maths actually works out in the end, but that's the argument anyway...

[Anonymous No.5477726]

>>5477612
Organic farming dumps way more toxins into streams than conventional ever did.

[Anonymous No.5477755]

When I think of all the money I have spent on organic food...

[Anonymous No.5477764]

>>5477755
Wait , why won't this thread bump?

[Anonymous No.5477793]

Bump

[Anonymous No.5477828]

>all of these claims from both sides with no sources

[Anonymous No.5477831]

>>5477352
>organic farming worse than monocrop farming

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.5477850]

>>5477831
It is indeed.
Organic fertilizers and pesticides are weak and have many extra unused ingredients.
All this excess gets washes into rivers causing huge problems.

[Anonymous No.5477858]

>>5477850
It's true but that's a simple way of looking at it.
All fertilizers have that issue, water ways are often filled with run off from mono-type farms.
Water awareness is getting better, farmers are getting better about it too.
Organic is not a very large issue when added to the pile. It's all getting better, but it's all bad.

[Anonymous No.5477872]

>>5477850
No, monocrop farming is the absolutely worse ecological disaster, ever. We just haven't even scratched the surface of the long term effects since it's something very new.

[Anonymous No.5477876]

>>5477872
Non hippie citation needed.

[Anonymous No.5477879]

>>5477872
Whoa now. New? Not really.
We know a shit load about the effects, and yes it's some bad new bears. Our population demanded the production increase and we met that demand. It's fucked us in the ass, yes, but
>absolutely worse ecological disaster, ever.
>mfw

[Anonymous No.5478234]

Bad for the environment and not one bit healthier.

[Anonymous No.5478249]

>>5477876
You don't really need a citation to understand why planting vast acres of genetically-identical cultivars is a bad idea.

[Anonymous No.5478256]

trollthread.jpg

[Anonymous No.5478260]

>>5478249
not if it was hemp

[Anonymous No.5478266]

>>5478260
It still would be. Anyone with a basic understanding of plant pathology would know why.

[Anonymous No.5478279]

>>5478266
Well I am an accountant not farmer fucking Jane . why don't you Spain it to me Ricardo ?

[Anonymous No.5478290]

>>5478279
If you plant large monocultures of genetically-identical or similar cultivars you are setting yourself up for a catastrophe, because if a pathogen that they are susceptible to is introduced it can destroy everything.

There are many examples of this in history.

[Anonymous No.5478296]

>>5477831
>implying organic farming isn't also monocrop
>being a balls-out hardcore faggot

[Anonymous No.5478299]

>>5478290
These pathogens come up all the time and they dealt with just fine

[Anonymous No.5478306]

>>5477764
because if you're a single poster whose posted a few times in a row in a short period of time it auto sages..

[Anonymous No.5478314]

>>5478306
Thanks for the info anon. I was posting furiously in several threads , that must have been it.

[Anonymous No.5478457]

>>5477352
Depends on what criteria you have for 'environment' and 'organic', but yes generally smaller 'organic' 'local' food requires more/ a lot more resources than large scale farming.

[Anonymous No.5478474]

>>5478299
>These pathogens come up all the time and they dealt with just fine
Do you know why? Because teams of plant breeders are constantly racing to beat pathogens. Read up on the gene-for-gene theory, UG99, etc.

There is a reason invasive plant diseases wreak so much havoc. The same thing applies in agriculture.

[Anonymous No.5479324]

>>5477876
>>5478249
Yeah, it's just totally obvious!!! Only a denialist could possibly think it isn't terrible for the environment! Denialist! Denialist!!! Burn him! Burn him!!! Denialist!!!!!

[Anonymous No.5479326]

>>5477726

citation needed

[Anonymous No.5479701]

>>5477831
>requiring twice the land to produce the same amount of food
>using less efficient pesticides/herbicides, requiring larger doses to be effective

[Anonymous No.5479705]

There is literally no good reason to buy organic.

[Anonymous No.5479750]

>>5479326
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrethrin
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone

These are extremely harmful to aquatic life in a way that's just not allowed in synthetic products.
Organic doesn't mean it's safer for you or the enviorment, it just means it's not synthetic. Organic pesticides aren't trying to save the enviorment; they're trying to kill it. That's what pesticides are for.

Synthetic pesticides are usually less harmful to other forms of life because we're trying to protect other forms of life. Flowers that make organic poison don't give a fuck about fish.

[Anonymous No.5479769]

>>5479750
He will never respond anon. Those who have been infected by the organic food meme have no use for facts that do not confirm the meme.

[Anonymous No.5479780]

>>5479769

naw nigga

I was doubtful but open to him explaining his view.

I will have to look into this.

for the record, I do not buy organic produce but that's because I'm broke.

[Anonymous No.5479782]

>>5477352
So you just watched the Bullshit! episode on organic food? That's cool I guess.

[Anonymous No.5479793]

>>5479750
They both biodegrade in sunlight.

[Anonymous No.5480031]

>>5479750
>Synthetic pesticides are usually less harmful to other forms of life because we're trying to protect other forms of life.
You act as if synthetic pesticides are purposely created. Their toxicity is discovered, the mode of action is researched, and then the impact on non-target organisms is studied.

People aren't synthesizing pesticides from scratch. They usually result from screening natural products.

[Anonymous No.5480384]

>>5477352
this is a lie and I don't even need a citation this whole thread is b8 and I didn't fall for it m8

[Anonymous No.5480386]

>>5477394
>>5477726
>>5477755
>>5477764
>>5478306


this is not a real person

[Anonymous No.5480388]

>>5477352
its too late (insert example corporation here) people are now eating organic and the world will be a better place because of it. no lie you tell will trick people. you are finished. done. over.

[Anonymous No.5481012]

I don't really get the sense of it. You're paying more money for a placebo, organic foods don't taste any different that I've yet seen myself. It's still farmed with fertilizers and pesticides. You're paying for the increased costs of organic farming, that's all, the lower yield of organic crops hikes the prices up and people are conflating higher prices with better quality, and likely under the false impression that NO pesticides/fertilizers are used.

[Anonymous No.5483238]

>>5481012
Bump

[Anonymous No.5483251]

who cares, fungus is gonna kill all of us anyway

[Anonymous No.5483255]

>>5483251
>mfw this is the future you chose

[Anonymous No.5484226]

This thread is so full retard it's astounding. No sources whatsoever have been cited on either side. You're all idiots. Kill yourself.

1/10 made me reply

Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.5484301]

>>5484226
People that go around quoting sources all the time just seem like they are not really sure of their position.
I know damn well organic farming is safer because everybody knows that.
Why would I bother looking up sources?
This is just a troll thread anyways.

[Anonymous No.5484325]

>>5484301
>everybody knows
This is the argument offered by people who are sure of their position, but have no idea why.

[Anonymous No.5484402]

>>5484325
If you mean I know all the math and can quote a bunch of meaningless numbers on the internet then maybe your right.
But I sure know the logic behind it

[Anonymous No.5484507]

>>5478299

[Anonymous No.5484512]

>>5481012
>implying I pay more for organic products
>plebs that don't have a high quality local farmer's market

[Anonymous No.5484537]

>>5477879
Who demanded the corn increase? We sell so much of it overseas and that land could easily be used to lower actual food vegetables cost.

And the massive fields of potatoes for Micky Dees? Why the hell must all fries sold in such a massive franchise be so consistent? Because people are wibbly wobbly pussies who cannot grow or adapt their tastes like children.

[Anonymous No.5484578]

>>5477352
Did U NO....

Shitting in your toilet and flushing it away is far worse for the environment than burying your shit in your yard???

LeSsOn LeArNeD.

REAL TALK. WORD UP, NIGGA.

Etc. Fuck off, kid.

[Anonymous No.5484583]

>>5484402
You don't. You just admitted you only know the general opinion, and none of the details. Do you honestly think the general opinion is always right?

I guess tomatoes must all be poisonous. Muslims must be right about pigs too, seeing as there are so many of them who believe they are unsuitable to eat.

[Anonymous No.5485156]

>>5484583
Who says tomato are poisonous?

[Anonymous No.5485193]

>>5485156

The tomato plant is from the Nightshade family of plants, most of which are deadly toxic. People used to be afraid to eat tomatoes because of that. History, bro. Do you know it?

[Anonymous No.5485230]

>>5484578
>>5484578
That's completely true though

[Anonymous No.5485291]

[shilling intensifies]

[Anonymous No.5485338]

>>5485193
>People used to be afraid to eat tomatoes because of that. History, bro. Do you know it?

Prove it

[Anonymous No.5485357]

>>5485338

Generall Historie of Plantes, John Gerard, 1597 (and later editions)

Smith, A. F. (1994). The Tomato in America: Early History, Culture, and Cookery. Columbia SC, USA: University of South Carolina Press.

[Anonymous No.5485375]

>>5485230
Congratulations, you missed the point and you are complete retard. If you're above 18 and still this stupid, consider withholding from sharing your retarded comments on the future.

[Anonymous No.5485464]

This might be the worst thread ever.

[Anonymous No.5485919]

>>5479701

>having unsustainable cycle of increased nitrogen supplementation to fertilize huge swaths of monocultured crops
>massive amounts of fertilizer runoffs ruining watersheds

The problem isn't really organic or conventional farming. The problem is conventional farming won't last forever, and a lot of people are gonna starve. Carrying capacity is 2 billion rowbots.
>fertilizer runoff

[Anonymous No.5486024]

>>5485919
Aren't carrying capacity studies usually pegged in the 6-12bil range?

[Anonymous No.5486032]

>>5486024
10bil is the one I've heard most but refers to a vegetarian/vegan diet to maintain sustainability.

I could learn to live with that. I can't eat dairy so the world should have to suffer with me.

[Anonymous No.5487475]

>>5485919
>The problem is conventional farming won't last forever, and a lot of people are gonna starve.
Why do you idiots always repeat this lie?

"Conventional farming" is working just fine, thank you. Even China is industrializing its farm sector because now that they can afford to buy tractors, they suddenly are admitting that they can get a hell of a lot more yield from modern Western farming practices than they were ever able to achieve using peasant stoop labor and shitbuckets.

[Anonymous No.5487716]

>>5484537
Wait a second. Please think about that first bit. The world demanded it. Consistency was and is demanded. Economics.

[Anonymous No.5487896]

>>5486032

>10bil is the one I've heard most but refers to a vegetarian/vegan diet to maintain sustainability.

>implying that the wealthy people of the world would ever give up meat and dairy just so that we can cram as many people as possible onto the planet

Governments across the world would create population controls and eugenics programs long before rich politicians would give up their steaks.

[Anonymous No.5488058]

>>5479750
After researching this subject a bit:
-The gov websites sucks.
-Pyrethrin has a halftime of about 2 hours in the open.
-Runoff is not regulated by federal rules.
-Use of these substances in Sweden is regulated, you need a farm-specific approval to use them. A lot of other substances aren't as regulated, but neither as toxic.
-Some questionmarks abuot the efficiency of these substances remain - they might be of cost-efficient use under special circumstances only.

[Anonymous No.5488445]

>>5479782
That series changed my life.
I never knew there were others like my until that show.

[Anonymous No.5488462]

>>5488058
>halftime

[Anonymous No.5488472]

>>5488462
Yeah well that's nothing , modern farming has a hammertime of more than twice your face.

[Anonymous No.5488474]

>>5477660
That's a piss poor argument.

Commercial farming with pesticide is killing off bees. Soon enough there will be no bees left. For this reason alone, organic farming is superior. Also, more natural forms of farming can prevent us using toxic pesticides and fertilizers.

[Anonymous No.5488484]

isn't it bad enough that you have to use more land for farming organic to get the same yields as non-organic?

[Anonymous No.5488504]

>>5488474
Hippie bullshit.
No one knows what is killing the bees.
You assholes used to say it was cell phones.

[Anonymous No.5488518]

>>5488474
Organic farmers use pesticide too. Some of the pesticides they use are the same ones used by non-organic farmers, and not all "organic" pesticides are safer. in fact many organic pesticides are just as dangerous if not more than their commercial counterparts.

[Anonymous No.5488525]

>>5488445
>>5479782
They had a loosely-Monsanto-connected lobbyist speaking against hairy armpit hippies who live in Sedona

It was hardly an unbiased episode.

[Anonymous No.5488530]

>>5488504
There's pretty much direct evidence that monocropped fields (lack of biodiversity for miles and miles) are the direct result for mass bee dieoffs. It's the equivilent of expecting a starving and malnourished child to survive a trek through the Sahara Desert.

[Anonymous No.5488538]

>>5488504
No, it's pesticide, monoculture fields, and monoculture suburban yards with useless grass.

I'm not a hippie by any means. Just because you love nature, doesn't mean you are a hippie.

[Anonymous No.5488555]

>>5488530
Non mother earth news citation needed.

[Anonymous No.5488572]

>>5488555
http://www.uaex.edu/farm-ranch/special-programs/beekeeping/hive-pests-diseases.aspx

[Anonymous No.5488591]

>not posting sauce on op

yeah right

[Anonymous No.5488602]

>>5488572
That link just proves my point!

[Anonymous No.5488605]

>>5488602
>No one knows what is killing the bees.
How? It presents all of the primary theories, and seems to lean on the strong likelihood that it's "all of the above".

[Anonymous No.5488615]

>>5488602
You need to read the entire thing asshole

[Anonymous No.5488632]

>>5477352
a less efficient way of farming is more wasteful and thus worse for the environment?
who would have thought?

[Anonymous No.5488636]

>>5488474
>Commercial farming with pesticide is killing off bees
false

[Anonymous No.5488646]

>>5488538
you're full of bullshit and you claim you aren't a hippie

http://mbio.asm.org/content/5/1/e00898-13

[Anonymous No.5489250]

The left lies.
The right lies.
No one cares about the truth.
Organic food is either much healthier for you or it is not. There is no gray area here.

I can't tell who is lying.

[Anonymous No.5489386]

>>5489250
Maybe its both?
Placebo effect is strong. If you believe you are eating healthier food you may actually feel better

[Anonymous No.5490540]

>>5489250
It IS a bit of a gray zone.
POPs (persistant organic pollutants) bioaccumulate in fatty tissue, but since the uptake we're talking about is from plants (low fat mostly) we don't get much of it into our bodies. These chemicals may or may not have an effect on our bodies.
Basically, it's in general too expensive to do hormone trials on suspected hormone disturbing chemicals (BPA is one of the few), which a lot of POPs are suspected to be when in low dosage and long term exposure.

[Anonymous No.5490553]

>organafags mad

[Anonymous No.5490588]

>>5488504
>"no one knows"
>most of the industrialized world seems to have accepted the position of the scientific community, except Monsanto-controlled America

Repugnican logic. You can't explain that. Also:

>global warming is a myth
>global warming isn't a myth, but it has nothing to do with humans
>global warming has something to do with humans, but there is nothing we can do about it
>I never said any of that, those were the other republicans

we're somewhere between steps 2 and 3 right now

[Anonymous No.5490603]

>>5490588
>>5490588

Why does everyone feel qualified in their opinion over global warming? environmental science is a complex subject that requires a good understanding of the fundamental concepts behind it.

I don't want into a theoretical chemistry lab working on disproving a current theory and calling them idiots and wrong because they don't just go along with the majority.

Just remember, its possible for a majority of people to believe a wrong idea. Majority does not create correctness. Creating a theory that is unable to be disproven or challenged does. Until that theory is made a law, it's up for debate.

[Anonymous No.5490605]

>>5490603
>a scientist was wrong once therefore muh feelings

Are you one of those intelligent design people?

[Anonymous No.5490608]

>>5490605

thats the worst argument i've ever seen.

The point is majority does not establish correctness.

The common argument is that there was a period in time where the world was believed flat. Their modern scientists agreed.

inb4 you call me a republicunt because i don't agree with you

[Anonymous No.5490617]

>>5490608
>The point is majority does not establish correctness.

Neither do your feelings. Except in one case, we have the best possible answer we can come up with today, and in the other, we have cartesian skepticism which serves no purpose except as a middlebrow intellectual game.

Also, by the time the flatness of the earth was relevant to making policy decisions, it was an obsolete notion. Those stories you heard about Columbus arguing with Galileio about the waterfall at the end of the earth? Completely made up. Educated people at the time knew that the earth was round.

Your argument is identical to the intelligent design crowd - trying to appeal to the notion that the layman ought to be considered just as good as an expert in the field because education is elitist.

[Anonymous No.5490640]

>>5490617

I don't give a shit about my feelings, I care about hearing whats correct. What bothers me is I never get to hear the dissenting opinion, or at least get to see it disproven. If they are wrong, and we really fucking the planet great, but I want to see shit cited and information showing they are presenting garbage.

But all I ever come across is; "You are a climate denier aren't you shitlord?"

"Are you one of those retarded rebuttlicans who don't believe in global warming?"

On the flat earth thing, it's merely an example of majority not meaning correctness. I could have also cited how everyone used to thing bloodletting was the cure to everything. There were select people who thought the earth was round going back to ancient Greece.

[Anonymous No.5490652]

>>5490640
You could start here,

http://www.ipcc.ch/

for further reading

I use
http://thebulletin.org/search/topics/climate-change

specifically
http://thebulletin.org/closing-consensus-gap-public-support-climate-policy

which covers why america is out of the loop on this.

If you want dissenting opinions, or cherry picked facts check:

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp

[Anonymous No.5490675]

Guys let's stay on topic here. Statements like"you guys are wrong about global warming therefore you are wrong about everything " are not very useful.
I think most scientists would say that far more research has gone into global warming than has ever gone into organic farming.
Let's not bring apples into a discussion about oranges.

[Anonymous No.5490683]

>>5490675
Sorry, I was just giving someone some direction for research.

I'm in the:
>not buying from a local farmers market faggotry team

[Anonymous No.5490685]

>>5490675
Most climate change research is based on modelling. The "garbage in, garbage out" issue is significant when it comes to these purportedly accurate climate change models.

What is the data based on, CO2 levels from ice cores and carbon-dated tree rings? It's all pretty indirect and insubstantial data to be basing global climate change models on, especially when you consider the significant political and environment implications.

I never really think of climate change much but I am in research, so I do not hold a dualist, polarized opinion on the matter ("CC deniers" vs "climate changers"). That isn't how educated or rational people approach scientific matters, that is along the same lines as religious dogma or "left vs. right" politics.

Then again, the carbon credit scheme and some of the disturbing talks about climate engineering based on this suspect data is pretty unsettling. It's become an odd religion of sorts and some people are making lots and lots of money.

[Anonymous No.5490710]

>>5490685

I like you anon, you eloquently said what I was trying to show.

What kind of research are you doing if you don't mind me asking?

[Anonymous No.5490723]

>>5490710
I am working on biological control of a certain pest for my PhD (sorry, gotta be vague). For my MSc I did work on species distribution modeling and started learning about these kinds of issues.

People always focus on what the models show, but how do you validate such models? What data is used to calibrate them? The big one, to me, is what data is being fed into them and at what scale?

I have my doubts about the relevance or accuracy of an "average annual global temperature" and how they generate these values over the history of the planet and correlate it with tree rings, ice cores, etc.

What is the distribution of the data? Is there a selection bias for certain geographic areas? These are things people should be thinking about when considering the validity of the models.

[Anonymous No.5490727]

>>5490723
>how do you validate such models

You wait until the fossil fuel lobby has fed to satiety (>implying) and then you throw up your hands and say "well, no one could have known for sure"

[Anonymous No.5490731]

>>5490727

so we should immediately react to any theory that comes along?

trans fats are bad! ban them!

cows contribute a lot to global warming because of release of methane! ban them!

[Anonymous No.5490733]

>>5490617
>we have the best possible answer we can come up with today

Not hardly.

For those who aren't afraid of change for changes sake and looks at the past as an indicator of the future, it is clear that Global Warming is good.

The disaster would be Global Cooling. That would mean starvation and death for billions of people around the world as the earth could no longer be capable of producing enough food for everyone.

We are two and a half million years into our fifth ice age and are over 14,000 years into an interglacial warm period of that ice age. That's a pretty long interglacial warm period.

When the warm period ends, expect 100,000 or more years of misery.

The scary thing about Global Warming is not that it might be happening, but that it might not be happening.

[Anonymous No.5490737]

>>5490733

In other words, there is no need to panic.

[Anonymous No.5490738]

>>5490727
I was trying to talk about the science behind the models, not the gas companies, republicans, hippies, or other social aspects of climate change in general.

[Anonymous No.5490740]

>>5490731
No, just to the ones that have been around for a while and been vindicated by decades of observation, whose predictions have repercussions for billions of people.

Funny you should get rattled that people might make a profit off carbon credits, as if profit is only dirty when it's not Exxon or BP or Halliburton.

[Anonymous No.5490743]

>>5490733
I don't think anyone can seriously believe in the perpetuation of our species or planet forever. It isn't really that scary to consider; as individuals we will all die and we know species come and go. It is simply the way things go.

[Anonymous No.5490745]

>>5490740
>and been vindicated by decades of observation
They really haven't been though. The models aren't even accurate for short-term prediction, let alone the long-term future.

[Anonymous No.5490748]

>>5490743

Dinosaurs lived on the Earth for something like 165 million years.

You could argue that they weren't as adaptable to change as mankind. There should be no reason for mankind to live for at least a few million years.

[Anonymous No.5490752]

>>5490740
>Funny you should get rattled that people might make a profit off carbon credits, as if profit is only dirty when it's not Exxon or BP or Halliburton.
Carbon credits allow wealthy, developed nations to pollute at the same levels (or more) because they can "buy carbon credits" from developing nations. In short, the biggest polluters can still pollute and the nations that need industry to increase quality of life are unable to move forward because they sold these rights.

It is literally a made-up, billion-dollar industry that relies on faulty evidence and fear-mongering.

And, like other forms of colonialism, it is based on pseudo-science and a feel-good notion that we are actually helping the world's population.

[Anonymous No.5490754]

>>5490743

i think its better to look at it in the way that humans have the best shot we are aware of of surviving its natural habitat. Our knowledge and intelligence have been growing at such a rapid rate we have the best chance of becoming non reliant on our environment for survival

[Anonymous No.5490757]

>>5490754
>we have the best chance of becoming non reliant on our environment for survival
This kind of hubris is what is destroying our habitat and our potential. To think we are separate from our environment is simply wrong.

[Anonymous No.5490760]

>>5490757

sigh. the goal is to become independent. We absolutely aren't right now. The earth is going to ded. Assuming we don't die before then, we need to learn to live without a favorable environment.

[Anonymous No.5490761]

>>5490757
>the goal is to become independent.
An organism cannot be independent of its environment. Unless you are talking about transcending the physical world...

[Anonymous No.5490762]

>>5478296
This. Sompe people hate words.

[Anonymous No.5490766]

>>5490761

alright, im talking about moving on to other planets, and being able to sustain life in space alright? You know, creating an artificial environment in space that people can live and create a sustainable renewable environment. terraforming planets, interstellar travel, etc.

[Anonymous No.5490773]

>>5490766
Relying on earth's environment or that of another planetary body is still the same thing.

It would be better to not destroy our planet than live like galactic locusts.

[Anonymous No.5490793]

>>5490773

The Earth will die. That is certain. The sun might die, astaroid might destroy it, whatever. What I'm trying to say is, we need to be able to leave, and learn to survive in all situations. Because maybe we need to travel for 400 years to reach a suitable planet.

What I am not trying to say is that we should trash the planet and turn it into a husk asap because then i get more things i want for cheaper

[Anonymous No.5490800]

>>5490793
you're posting from your bunker right now, aren't you

[Anonymous No.5490804]

>>5490800

[Anonymous No.5490817]

>>5490793
mmm 16 was such an imaginative age

[Anonymous No.5490822]

>>5490817

wasnt it though?

[Anonymous No.5490827]

went to whole foods first time in my life. everything is overpriced, smelly hipsters everywhere. fedora wearing all over the fucking place. I thought I was gonna puke just by staying there. literally disgusting.

[Anonymous No.5490902]

>>5490827
Am on reddit?

[Anonymous No.5490903]

>>5490902
He's spot on though.

[Anonymous No.5491874]

>>5490540
Well is certainly not enough information to call organic food healthier.

[Anonymous No.5491877]

>>5480388
>implying lawyers have any allegiance to the clients their firms were once hired for

[Anonymous No.5492006]

>>5490588
>random-unsubstantiated-graph-numbers_293999494888238172.jpeg

[Anonymous No.5492017]

>>5492006
>grandpa who still hasn't heard of google image search, post # 2349234892394

[Anonymous No.5492024]

>>5480388
>your daily reminder that we will never have unbiased "science" reaching the public, so long as crony capitalism works

[Anonymous No.5492029]

>>5492017
>top reverse search page is salon.com

Super legit, guy

[Anonymous No.5492032]

>>5492029

Top for me after facebook is a bunch of .edu. Maybe google knows you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.5492035]

>>5492032
>.edu

Let me guess... Liberal Arts colleges, right?

[Anonymous No.5492176]

>>5490793
>The Earth will die. That is certain.

Billions of years from now.

[Anonymous No.5492185]

>>5492035

University of New Hampshire, so I suppose, yes. Stupid liberal elitists, we should all be home schooled.

[Anonymous No.5492274]

>>5492185

>>5492185
Conservatives are idiots for sure but I think its time to admit that liberalism has gotten completely out of hand.
If you want unbiased science interpretations look to the skeptics.
They are the only ones I trust anymore.

[Anonymous No.5492286]

>>5492274
>If you want unbiased science interpretations look to the skeptics. They are the only ones I trust anymore.

You'll gain true knowledge; unlike those people who take convincing stats and studies at face value.

[Anonymous No.5492296]

>>5492274

You mean these guys?

[Anonymous No.5492308]

>>5492296

http://www.skeptic.com

More like these guys.

[Anonymous No.5492311]

>>5492296
As much as I enjoy the thoughts and witt of Penn Jillette, the show Bullshit! was not exactly unbiased, and didn't really nourish skepticism, but it did offer potentially alternative perspectives for some viewers.

[Anonymous No.5492328]

>>5480031

>People aren't synthesizing pesticides from scratch.

Coincidentally, yes I do.

(Note: the above statement is an unintentional test in reading comprehension.)

[Anonymous No.5492332]

>>5492311
Nothing is unbiased.
News sources that pretend to be unbiased are the worst.

[Anonymous No.5493336]

>>5490731
Yes , to the best of our ability we should be banning all sorts of things.
Sugary soda for a start.
Your fattass drinks it all day then taxpayers are made to pay for your rascal when.you can walk properly.

[Anonymous No.5493341]

>>5492332
>Nothing is unbiased.
nice tinfoil hat.

[Anonymous No.5493346]

>>5493341
>I'm only going to apply skepticism to stuff that I disagree with

Nice attempt at subverting the concept of objectivity

[Anonymous No.5493380]

>>5493341
Confirmation bias.

[Anonymous No.5493386]

>>5477352
It would be if you did it on the same scale as commercial farming, but people don't, so it's not.

You're also comparing US models of organic and commercial farming that may or may not apply in the rest of the world.

[Anonymous No.5493417]

>>5493386
Where do you think all the produce in whole foods comes from?
Organic food is being grown on a vast commercial scale and it is causing terrible havok on the environment.

[Anonymous No.5493525]

>>5493386
There are no good models for organic farming on a large scale.
Small farms?
Sure but small farms cannot feed the world and organic farming cannot be scaled up.

[Anonymous No.5493553]

>>5493417
>Organic food is being grown on a vast commercial scale and it is causing terrible havok on the environment.
[citation required]

>>5493525
>Sure but small farms cannot feed the world and organic farming cannot be scaled up.
[citation required]

You can really tell the ignorant Americans from the others. They spout the same unfounded pro-corporate shit and have no basis for it other than, "well, I've heard...".

[Anonymous No.5493557]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901171553.htm
Side-by-side comparisons of organic and conventional strawberry farms and their fruit found the organic farms produced more flavorful and nutritious berries while leaving the soil healthier and more genetically diverse.

On almost every major indicator, they found the organic fields and fruit were equal to or better than their conventional counterparts.
Among their findings:
The organic strawberries had significantly higher antioxidant activity and concentrations of ascorbic acid and phenolic compounds.
The organic strawberries had longer shelf life.
The organic strawberries had more dry matter, or, "more strawberry in the strawberry."
Anonymous testers, working at times under red light so the fruit color would not bias them, found one variety of organic strawberries was sweeter, had better flavor, and once a white light was turned on, appearance. The testers judged the other two varieties to be similar.

[Anonymous No.5493566]

>>5493557
/thread

[Anonymous No.5493903]

>>5493557
Bullshit there punchy.
I read that report as well.
Those guys beat the bushes like crazy to try and find evidence for organic food being healthier.
ALL they came up with were a few anti oxidants in strawberries.
NPR did an extensive interview with the very people who conducted that reaserch.
Their take was that organic food was NOT healthier by any real measure.

I love the spin these studies get in the media!

[Anonymous No.5493940]

>>5477352
>X Method is worse than Y Method for the environment

It really depends on how terrible you are at either method. Organic farming can be fucking terrible or the best thing you can do, but monocrop industrial farming (i.e. commercial farming) can be either bad or worse. There's no "good" to it.

[Anonymous No.5493945]

>>5477764
>got caught seeding his own thread.

lol shills these days

[Anonymous No.5493954]

>>5493557
Organic strawberry Homegrownmen here. I can confirm these statements as being true.

Which reminds me, I need to pick them again. I'm getting 1 1/2 pounds (1 quart) of strawberries each day and only one portion of the varieties in the bed are fruiting this time of year.

>>5493903
>Their take was that organic food was NOT healthier by any real measure.

More nutrient density = healthier.

[Anonymous No.5494210]

>>5493954
It was only a few anti oxidants and only in some berries.
The very people publishing that study said "yeah we really expected to find a real difference".
So no, you can't really say more nutrient dense .
No.

This was the very evidence I planned to present as a damnation of organic farming.
So funny to find it here after being run through the spin cycle.
The left lies as much as corporate america .
Wow.

[Anonymous No.5494264]

>>5493954
>that slug in the top-right picture
HE GOT A SWEET TOOTH TONIGHT!

[Anonymous No.5494321]

>>5494264
Organic farming is why slug more slug.
Your sexy little sister lift her skirt when she see slug. Not like snail.

[Anonymous No.5494437]

>>5493557
I notice many brands of organic strawberry to be more tart.

Furthermore this is a comparison of farms, not of farming. The study does not try to make a connection between better plants and soil and substances approved for organic farming. For starters, organic farms target wealthier clients and have different priorities in the balance between quality versus quantity.

[Anonymous No.5494520]

>>5493557
>some organic berries had a scoatch more lycopene.....

OHS MY GOD ALL ORGANIC FOOD IS MAGIC!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.5494534]

>>5484512
>trusting your local farm to be any better with pesticides than commercial farmers

Protip: They don't want to lose crops anymore than the commercial guys and will do anything to stop themselves having a net loss.

[Anonymous No.5494541]

>>5485156
Tomatoes themselves aren't poisonous but the stems and leaves of the plant are. It's a pity because the stems and leaves smell fucking amazing.

[Anonymous No.5494545]

>>5493557
>antioxidants
>being useful

I thought most people realised this by now.

[Anonymous No.5494925]

>>5490760
The planet is fine sweety.
All this doom and gloom is such a load of alarmist bullshit.
I think its due to too much distopian sci fi.

[Anonymous No.5495890]

>>5494321

[Anonymous No.5495900]

>>5494925
I've found that all of the people who worry about the environment and global warming all live in cities.

If you actually meet people out in the wilderness, they're like, "global warming? You mean my pot plants are gonna get more sun? Great."

[Anonymous No.5495901]

>>5495900
>If you ask backwoods yokels about a topic that doesn't involve skinning a deer, they'll have an incorrect and oversimplified opinion.

Mind uploading your research paper on how you figured that one out, doctor?

[Anonymous No.5495905]

>>5495901
Yeah, I figured it out by talking to people like that.

If you'd like my thesis, it's at stopbeingafuckingretard.edu/holygodyouaredumb

[Anonymous No.5495907]

>>5493903
I notice that you didn't actually deny any of the anon's bullet points.

[Anonymous No.5495909]

>>5494925
>All this doom and gloom is such a load of alarmist bullshit.
>being this uneducated
903

[Anonymous No.5496107]

>>5495909
You mean unindoctrinated

[Anonymous No.5496338]

>>5496107
You mean misunderindoctronated

[Anonymous No.5496512]

>>5477352
There are many ways to do either type of farming. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not.

Some areas are more sensitive to land use than pesticides, then organic is obviously worse for the environment. Other areas are more sensitive to pesticides than land use, then organic is better.

Also consider that you can do farming that doesn't release any pesticides or nutrients into the surrounding environment, but still doesn't qualify as organic. The bottom line is that it's a completely useless indicator for environmental impact. For that every farm would have to publish a scientific rationale for whatever methodology they choose.

[Anonymous No.5497188]

>>5496512

The bottom line is that it's a completely useless indicator for environmental impact.


Or nutrient value.
It is about the stupidest term ever coined.

[Anonymous No.5497193]

>>5493954
>More nutrient density = healthier.

That has more to do with simple selective breeding for yield rather than GMOs.

[Anonymous No.5497197]

>>5494925
>>5490760
The earth will be fine. We'd actually have to make a concerted effort to kill life on earth.

The problem is that we're making the earth uninhabitable for us at worst and very, very expensive at best.

[Anonymous No.5497233]

>>5497197
More carbon in the atmosphere means healthier flora.

[Anonymous No.5497279]

>>5497193
There's more to it than that. Simply changing how you grow the same vegetable in two different ways will result in them being different nutritionally.

[Anonymous No.5497283]

>>5494210
It was only one study of one thing. Check out google scholar for more info, shill.

[Anonymous No.5497320]

>>5497283
Almost no research supports the claim that that organic food is healthier.
The preponderance of evidence says its indistinguishable.

[Anonymous No.5497341]

>>5497320
Lumping organic food into one group kind of negates the point. Certain things are better, a lot are the same.

[Anonymous No.5497463]

>>5497341
What things are better anon?
Don't forget a citation.
>Protip you can't.

[Anonymous No.5497483]

I was in the supermarket yesterday and overheard some fat bitch talking to her friend saying "we should go 100% organic" fat bitches friend was like "no fuck that shit"

[Anonymous No.5497584]

>>5497463
>Protip you can't.

Monsanto will make damn sure of that too.

[Anonymous No.5497669]

>>5477394
>>5477352

>implying there is only one way to farm organically

yes planting a small biodiverse garden in your back yard and getting a few chickens and a goat is ruining the environment.

[Anonymous No.5497974]

>>5497669
If you repeated that situation in enough backyards to feed the world? Shit yes you would fuck up the environment.

[Anonymous No.5498879]

>>5497584
Monsanto only has influence over the research that they pay for.

[Anonymous No.5498954]

>>5498879

[Anonymous No.5498957]

>>5498879
http://www.scientistsunderattack.com/

[Anonymous No.5499188]

>>5498957
You would have to have unbelievable confirmation bias to not see the spin in that website.

Can you even think for yourself?

[Anonymous No.5500637]

>>5497483
Fatties gonna organic.

[Anonymous No.5500788]

>>5500000

Quints!