Monsanto owns the brandywine line. There are still others out there but they aren't the true brandywines. So if you bought true brandywine seeds, you got them indirectly from Monsanto.
Monsanto owns the brandywine line. There are still others out there but they aren't the true brandywines. So if you bought true brandywine seeds, you got them indirectly from Monsanto.Pretty much why I have my own garden in the warmer months. Neem oil and garlic do a great job of keeping molds and insects off my garden, and both of those are perfectly safe for humans. Pyrethrin (sp?) based bug killers usually degrade into harmless compounds within 24hrs, so you can harvest the day after you apply if you want.
Seriously, the difference between my beefsteak or brandywine tomatoes and the ethylene ripened bullshit you buy at the grocery store is night and day. I haven't compared my celery to store bought in a like fashion, but I'm told my soups and anything involving a mirepoix are the bomb. Fragrant celery is underrated, like shallots.
Just FYI, anyone who hasn't seen Food Inc. should really give a gander. http://www.foodincmovie.com/ Not just about food and quality/safety, it goes into why corporations need to be reigned in over lobbying and the use of illegal workers. Great doc and a real eye opener.
And I'd just like to add, go to hell Monsanto.
This is the premise of every conspiracy theory thread or other ignorance-based thought posted in this forum: "I don't need facts to support my position..."
Would you pay ten times the price for the same food simply to avoid the possibility of a problem resulting from the use of pesticides? Pesticides improve crop yields by preventing crop destruction by pests. Lower yields equals lower supply. Lower supply results in higher prices. Everyone knows this.
Monsanto owns the brandywine line. There are still others out there but they aren't the true brandywines. So if you bought true brandywine seeds, you got them indirectly from Monsanto.
Pretty much why I have my own garden in the warmer months. Neem oil and garlic do a great job of keeping molds and insects off my garden, and both of those are perfectly safe for humans. Pyrethrin (sp?) based bug killers usually degrade into harmless compounds within 24hrs, so you can harvest the day after you apply if you want.
Seriously, the difference between my beefsteak or brandywine tomatoes and the ethylene ripened bullshit you buy at the grocery store is night and day. I haven't compared my celery to store bought in a like fashion, but I'm told my soups and anything involving a mirepoix are the bomb. Fragrant celery is underrated, like shallots.
Just FYI, anyone who hasn't seen Food Inc. should really give a gander. http://www.foodincmovie.com/ Not just about food and quality/safety, it goes into why corporations need to be reigned in over lobbying and the use of illegal workers. Great doc and a real eye opener.
And I'd just like to add, go to hell Monsanto.
Son of a ! I have brandywines in the backyard right now. My plants were "organic" though if that makes a difference...
Still, I'm less concerned about that. I know what I put on my plants (no sprays).
First off - this article is nothing new or groundbreaking and lacks several key pieces of information (shocking CNN - my opinion of your hard hitting journalism sinks even lower)
I wonder who paid for this study? A large number of 'studies' are funded by pro-organic food groups
More important that this are the amounts of pesticides found. The FDA has pretty strict requirements about the amount of pesticides found in food. (In the last two decades I am not aware of any food borne illness outbreak that was caused by a food production facility that was fully compliant with FDA regulations). Sure there might be many many different variants found in the food but if frequently they are in very small amounts. Sure they are there but just minuscule parts per million
Also - there is currently no link between pesticide use (within current FDA regulations) and health issues like cancer etc. Some studies show a there might be the potential for a link but no study has shown a direct causation between pesticide use (within allowable limits) and long term health issues. Added to that is the fact that this issue has been around for a while and still no one has proven a link leads me to believe that our produce is pretty safe when within FDA regulations
Delicious with wings and some blue cheese, but for me that's about it
It's not an argument: it's a statement of my frustrations with people who discard objective fact as unnecessary for the formation of opinions. There's a big difference between saying I prefer x to y and saying, "I don't need facts to tell me that x is better than y." There is plenty of room for your opinion when selecting a product, but it is absolutely essential that we stop conflating facts and opinions.Yep, that's a good argument. Still, I think some things are a matter of preference and don't necessarily need justification. I like German cars and I love spicy food. Why? I don't know. I don't think German cars are necessarily safer, and I also own a Toyota even with all of the latest media nonsense. It's just preference, not something fear-derived or conspiratorial on my part.
It is questionable, which is why facts would be valuable when formulating your argument. Instead, you threw facts under the bus and said that they were unnecessary in addressing this issue. You are begging the question by assuming that your conclusion is correct.I've always maintained that, despite what much of the uber left thinks, I don't think corporations conspire to hurt consumers in any way. Still, it's unquestionable that the search for greater efficiency leads to greater environmental problems and a removal of certain core cultural values that I find to be important.
That's not how you presented it in your OP, and there is plenty of science which shows this to be objectively false. But that won't bother you, as you've already stated your distaste for things like facts and science.Would I? Not if that were the only thing, no. But in my experience organics/farmer's market/local product simply tastes far better, and if it didn't I wouldn't likely buy it. So, for me it's primarily about taste and just a preference for some goal toward sustainability.
Why should we pay more for food? Simply because you have disposable income? You cannot make an argument which will convince me to spend more money on food without facts. If you or anyone else were to try to encourage legislation in this direction, my head would explode.FWIW, I buy probably 60% organics, 30% farmer's market and 10% from unknown origin (Asian stores). If my food costs go up, I think that's fine. I think our country has too much of the rollback-syndrome, thinking everything should be dirt cheap. If there's anything that should require more of our investment, it's food.
The only reason it tastes better is they wait longer to pick it because it doesn't have to travel far, that and the placebo aspect that your mind wants it to taste better to rationalize the higher cost, that's just human nature. The stuff I grow myself tastes even far better than anything local because I baby my garden and use varieties I know are the most flavorful, but more difficult to grow and don't produce as much.
And talk about investment, we've invested and continue to invest in our food making it cheaper and more available to all. That's where pesticides came from, investing in research on how to effectively kill bugs so we don't lose food to them. That whole organic crap is just more money to do the same thing (get rid of pests), treatment just costs more and isn't as effective. Organic food is a moneymaking scam played on the stupid.
Because murder rates are based on FACTS. You state your opposition to something while, in the same breath, saying that you have no basis for that opposition. You then wonder why anyone would hold a contrary opinion. Perhaps because those of us who consider facts realize that it doesn't make any difference at all in taste, health, safety, or anything else if a celery is sprayed or not, but it's cheaper if it's sprayed. You simply dismiss the counter argument out of hand, then denigrate anyone who might choose that reasoned, fact-based approach.You pretty much toted the line that I was talking about in my first post.
My basic contention is that I don't need a link, nor do many people (arguably a rapidly increasing demographic of people: http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/consumer.html). To CycloWizard's point, yes, this could be perceived as a little tin-foil hat action; however, I'm saying it's just a growing trend of preference for less-as-more. Like the growing desire for less preservatives, less sodium, less fats, etc. there's a desire for less everything.
Then it's about minimizing risk, the same as you'd pick a neighborhood for your family that looks better without necessarily consulting murder rates. If I can minimize the footprint for risk, great.
I don't know why this approach is so vehemently opposed and portrayed as something conspiratorial. Being skeptic and cautious politically is somehow encouraged, yet something so fundamental as our food supply gets literally ripped out of our hands over the past few decades and we did nothing about it. The only other country that suffers from this to such a degree (to my knowledge) is the UK, and they too have a growing trend away from this.
It's not an argument: it's a statement of my frustrations with people who discard objective fact as unnecessary for the formation of opinions. There's a big difference between saying I prefer x to y and saying, "I don't need facts to tell me that x is better than y." There is plenty of room for your opinion when selecting a product, but it is absolutely essential that we stop conflating facts and opinions.
It is questionable, which is why facts would be valuable when formulating your argument. Instead, you threw facts under the bus and said that they were unnecessary in addressing this issue. You are begging the question by assuming that your conclusion is correct.
That's not how you presented it in your OP, and there is plenty of science which shows this to be objectively false. But that won't bother you, as you've already stated your distaste for things like facts and science.
Why should we pay more for food? Simply because you have disposable income? You cannot make an argument which will convince me to spend more money on food without facts. If you or anyone else were to try to encourage legislation in this direction, my head would explode.
Because murder rates are based on FACTS. You state your opposition to something while, in the same breath, saying that you have no basis for that opposition. You then wonder why anyone would hold a contrary opinion. Perhaps because those of us who consider facts realize that it doesn't make any difference at all in taste, health, safety, or anything else if a celery is sprayed or not, but it's cheaper if it's sprayed. You simply dismiss the counter argument out of hand, then denigrate anyone who might choose that reasoned, fact-based approach.
Thanks for clarifying.I'm not sure where I really offered a conflation of fact and opinion, but I might be wrong. I'm making no position on whether I think organics is better than not. I'm merely saying I prefer to have nothing on my produce if at all possible, and that's just my preference.
Here's what you said: "Still, it's unquestionable that the search for greater efficiency leads to greater environmental problems and a removal of certain core cultural values that I find to be important...Would I? Not if that were the only thing, no. But in my experience organics/farmer's market/local product simply tastes far better, and if it didn't I wouldn't likely buy it. So, for me it's primarily about taste and just a preference for some goal toward sustainability."I said that? Really? Nice spin though.
No, it doesn't make me feel better. People who eschew science, like organic hippies and creationists, are a major cause of the downfall of society. The potential benefit is that society sucks, so its failure may result in benefits to everyone.Because I'm a liberal, hippy, anti-science nut job. Does that make you feel any better? I also want to socialize agriculture (oops, too late), take your money and spread the wealth around so that poor people can eat organics. Let's call it the People's Foods and make it free for all.
All things aren't equal. Until you wrap your head around that, there is little point in proceeding. I'm giving your position the exact level of respect it deserves: none.Hey, I'll keep playing.
I think one of my last posts captured it exactly: All other things being equal, no one would argue that they'd like to have pesticides on their food.
All things aren't equal. Until you wrap your head around that, there is little point in proceeding. I'm giving your position the exact level of respect it deserves: none.
You pretty much toted the line that I was talking about in my first post.
My basic contention is that I don't need a link, nor do many people (arguably a rapidly increasing demographic of people: http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/consumer.html). To CycloWizard's point, yes, this could be perceived as a little tin-foil hat action; however, I'm saying it's just a growing trend of preference for less-as-more. Like the growing desire for less preservatives, less sodium, less fats, etc. there's a desire for less everything.
Then it's about minimizing risk, the same as you'd pick a neighborhood for your family that looks better without necessarily consulting murder rates. If I can minimize the footprint for risk, great.
I don't know why this approach is so vehemently opposed and portrayed as something conspiratorial. Being skeptic and cautious politically is somehow encouraged, yet something so fundamental as our food supply gets literally ripped out of our hands over the past few decades and we did nothing about it. The only other country that suffers from this to such a degree (to my knowledge) is the UK, and they too have a growing trend away from this.
2) I've heard that, but I find this a bit interesting. I'm not making this a political issue, but it seems that conservatives are primarily opposed to reform of our agricultural methods. Yet, when it comes to the argument, they will leverage claims by the FDA to support their argument. I'm not a tin-foil hat conspiratorial nut, but every catastrophic issue in our food/drug supply was after the FDA previously said it was ok.
My biggest complaint isn't your stance but the general ignorance of the American population about their food supply. If you are willing to make an informed decision about discarding non-organic foods thats your choice and ok by me. The issue is that the vast majority of people feel compelled to slogan for organic foods on mis-informed platforms.
People push for 'All organic' foods and to discontinue the use of pesticides and herbicides in food production. What they fail to realize is the drastic increase of food production risks this incurs. Organic foods require significantly more time and observation to make sure they are grown safely. Failure to adhere to this is what causes Organic foods to be a higher risk of e. coli contamination.
Also - organic food can contain pesticides! They are just organic pesticides. The same tenious links between chemical pesticides and long term health risks exsit for organic pesticides. So, therefore, if you are against non-organic foods for their use of pesticides on the general principle that chemical pesticides have an association with long term health effects and switch to organic foods you have accomplished absolutely nothing. (This is a general statement as there are some that do not use organic pesticides but their food production numbers pale in comparison to even 'organic' foods that use organic pesticides let alone the 'normal food' producers)
Is this to say that all organics are un-safe? Absolutely not. If proper directions are followed then the risks are minimized - but the risks are higher for organic foods. This is a fact. Chemical pesticides causing long term health issues is not a fact.
And this issue isn't new by any means. This is just another sensationalist article, poorly written, containing few facts.
Do you like 67 pesticides with your celery?
The biggest issue with the FDA is the limited availability of inspectors. I know of facilities that have gone 8 years without an inspection. A lot can happen in 8 years. I am not aware of any facility that had food contamination issue that had been inspected and completely passed and FDA audit less than 3 years prior to the incident. (I hope that sentence makes sense)
Trust me - the FDA is very strict on regulations. The issue is that food production facilities are not always 100% compliant with them at all time. General mistakes, worker laziness, improper training, cost cutting are not always things the FDA can control and will be an issue at organic/non-organic production/growing facilities
Edit: For what it's worth I work at a company that does a significant amount of organic and non-organic food safety audits
Admittedly, I haven't heard much of higher contamination in organic foods or the costs associated to make sure they aren't. Still, seems logical enough based on the time commitment required.
Some of the stories I have heard the auditors tell are pretty damn frightening. I am torn between thinking we need more regulations or not. On one hand there seem to be an obscene amount of violations. On the other hand there are relatively few major outbreaks/serious consequences of those eating the food.Certainly I can understand that. I don't think it will ever be possible for the FDA to fully regulate the market, and I would hope they wouldn't have to.
I think the issue with the system is the quantity and price demand. Turn out the most food at the lowest cost and you win. Some public opinion is turning but there doesn't seem to be much pressure to do better than the FDA regulations. Hell - you're not doing to bad if you meet FDA regulations (more about that later) If there does turn out to be a concrete link between some agent used in food and long term health effects that would change but I don't see it happening unless something major like that occurred.I would think that people who lambaste the organic movement or anything similar to it would encourage the market for innovating potential solutions. Big companies marketed to these people, the market shifted, and ultimately the *goal* should (and could) be better foods and better production methods. Instead, we get ad hominem and people hiding in faux-rationality.
Is there something specific you want to know? (I work in the IT dept so I don't know specifics but I can certainly ask) Each step of the food's journey can be audited (growing facility, transport, preparation, supermarket etc) and a breakdown at any point could lead to contamination.I would be curious to know if you could offer us more insight as to how these audits work.
Do you like 67 pesticides with your celery? QUOTE]
67 pesticides from one stick of celery?? I doubt it. I doubt there are even 67 pesticides approved for use on celery.