Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-01-2019, 04:48 PM
am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,791

Does the scientific community find Organic foodies and Climate change deniers equally ignoble ?


I get it that Climate Change deniers will have a huge impact on Humankind’s future. Maybe the hoax of Organic foods has less impact (it has some impact on increased land and water usage) on the overall eco-system.

Since both the groups are unscientific in their beliefs, do scientists detest both the groups equally ? Should they ?

Maybe detest is strong word. If so, does the scientific community believe that both these groups need more education ? Should they ?

Last edited by am77494; 10-01-2019 at 04:50 PM.
  #2  
Old 10-01-2019, 05:09 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,937
I think you need to define your terms. By "climate change deniers," are you talking about people who don't believe it's happening? Believe it's happening but isn't anthropogenic? Accept that it's anthropogenic but think the net effect will be positive? Or think that it's happening and will be bad, but believe the economic impact of doing something would be worse?

By "organic foodies," do you mean people who think organic food tastes better? Is healthier? Is better for the environment? Can exclusively sustain the world's population?

There's a wide range of educational deficiencies represented there, and if you want to compare the groups, we need to know what we're comparing.
  #3  
Old 10-01-2019, 05:14 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,261
I don't see anything unscientific about weighing the consequences of different errors. I've known scientists who happily played along with the Santa Claus story, and that's even more wrong that climate change denial.
  #4  
Old 10-01-2019, 05:50 PM
am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
I think you need to define your terms.
I think those terms are self evident. But if you force me to define it further, I would define each group as rejecting the prevailing scientific consensus on organic foods and climate change respectively.
  #5  
Old 10-01-2019, 05:59 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,059
I'm not sure there is a consensus on organic foods. Certain pesticides (Roundup, I am looking at you) and known carcinogens so why not avoid them. Show me a cite that claims that organic food is nonsense. As it happens, this afternoon I baked a zucchini bread using some that came from an organic community garden and some from the supermarket. Guess which ones I peeled the skin from.

Climate change deniers, on the other hand, are pure scum, IMHO. And dangerous scum at that.
  #6  
Old 10-01-2019, 06:05 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,455
There is basically no question that climate change deniers are deluded and helping to seriously damage the planet by resisting changes to our economy and infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gases.

For organic foods, it's true that in general there's no difference and you probably couldn't feed the planet, but certain organic foods do show a difference. From the wiki page:

Quote:
When evaluating environmental toxins such as heavy metals, the USDA has noted that organically raised chicken may have lower arsenic levels. Early literature reviews found no significant evidence that levels of arsenic, cadmium or other heavy metals differed significantly between organic and conventional food products.[6][page needed][48] However, a 2014 review found lower concentrations of cadmium, particularly in organically grown grains.
Quote:
A 2014 meta-analysis of 343 studies on phytochemical composition found that organically grown crops had lower cadmium and pesticide residues, and 17% higher concentrations of polyphenols than conventionally grown crops.
These don't seem to be on the same plane, in terms of scientific certainty. There's no harm to the individual from eating organic foods and it may have minor ecological benefits:

Quote:
...but organic farming features practices that cycle resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.
Basically, I don't understand your comparison at all.
  #7  
Old 10-01-2019, 06:23 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,097
Some organic farming cycles resources, promotes ecological balance, and conserves biodiversity. And some "chemical" farming does all those things, too, and some organic farming works directly counter to all of those things. "Organic" and "sustainable" are completely unrelated, and if you want the one, you shouldn't ask for the other.

But organic food is harmless at worst. Climate change denial is extremely harmful.
  #8  
Old 10-01-2019, 06:24 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
I think those terms are self evident. But if you force me to define it further, I would define each group as rejecting the prevailing scientific consensus on organic foods and climate change respectively.
First, I don't know what you mean by the prevailing scientific consensus on organic foods. Can you summarize what you think is prevailing, or at least provide a concise link?

Second, I gave several examples of the varying degrees to which someone can reject the scientific consensus. Do you want to compare only those people who reject every bit of it? How should we compare people who reject some parts and not others?
  #9  
Old 10-01-2019, 06:40 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,535
What do you think the organic food position is? That organic foods are better for you? Might be, in a small way. That animals should not suffer? That's an ethical, not a scientific, position. That all non-organic farming should be banned? Haven't heard of this as a real position.

If the organic position prevails, the impact on the world would be slightly negative at best. If the climate denial position prevails, you who are younger than me are likely to be in deep shit. And not organic manure.
  #10  
Old 10-01-2019, 07:00 PM
am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
. Can you summarize what you think is prevailing, or at least provide a concise link?
I understand your point. There’s a spectrum of promoters and detractors on both groups. Sort of like the autism spectrum.

If I could narrow it down to one single issue on either group, I’d post it in GQ.

If it really helps the OP And the debate by boxing me to a corner, I would Quote :

“McManus says she doesn't recommend organic food to people, but will talk with them about it if they are concerned about pesticides. "At this time, after examining the data, I don't see any nutritional reasons to choose organic foods over conventional," she says.” - from https://www.health.harvard.edu/stayi...you-go-organic
  #11  
Old 10-01-2019, 07:06 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,357
So you're only looking at organic food from an end user nutritional perspective but completely ignoring the entire system of sustainable farming that produces the food? Okay then. I think I've seen about enough of this thread to be able to judge its usefulness.
  #12  
Old 10-01-2019, 09:24 PM
Some Call Me... Tim is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,829
"organic" has a well-defined scientific meaning. see:

organic chemistry: the chemistry of carbon compounds (other than simple salts such as carbonates, oxides, and carbides).

So, speaking scientifically, I would recommend that your food contain lots of complex carbon compounds, and if you avoided all such I would expect you to die of starvation fairly soon.

On the other hand, the "Organic" buzzword on product marketing materials seems to me to have no scientific meaning whatsoever.

I remember coming across a product that claimed to be Carbon-free Organic sugar. It is to laugh at such marketers who were able to write that unironically.

So, you're comparing a marketing buzzword with an actual scientific claim... why do you think they are similar?
  #13  
Old 10-01-2019, 09:31 PM
am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim View Post

So, you're comparing a marketing buzzword with an actual scientific claim... why do you think they are similar?
For the sake of this thread consider organic food to mean food that has been certified to be organic per the National Organic Program - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nati...rganic_Program
  #14  
Old 10-01-2019, 09:33 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim View Post
"organic" has a well-defined scientific meaning. see:

organic chemistry: the chemistry of carbon compounds (other than simple salts such as carbonates, oxides, and carbides).

So, speaking scientifically, I would recommend that your food contain lots of complex carbon compounds, and if you avoided all such I would expect you to die of starvation fairly soon.

On the other hand, the "Organic" buzzword on product marketing materials seems to me to have no scientific meaning whatsoever.


So, you're comparing a marketing buzzword with an actual scientific claim... why do you think they are similar?
https://www.usda.gov/topics/organic
https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-stan...anic-standards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

Your bolded claims are false.

There are detailed documents in the first 2 links explaining what does (and does not) qualify as organic. The wiki article summarizes it.

Primarily, it means no GMO, no artificial fertilizer, and no synthetic pesticides.

With the glycophosphate / lymphoma / general cancer risk evidence, it appears that pesticides are not completely harmless. Unfortunately, banning GMO plants (which can be made to resist pests so pesticide isn't need) and artificial fertilizer (what known health risk is here? The nitrogen compounds are very similar to the "natural" kind) for the organic label is counterproductive.

So I don't necessarily agree with the Organic label being a marker of the "best" produce. I wish there were a lesser "minimal pesticides used" label where a farm demonstrates with evidence that they used the latest methods to minimize the amount of pesticide required. (methods include GMO plants and robotic pesticide sprayers that reduce the usage)

Last edited by SamuelA; 10-01-2019 at 09:35 PM.
  #15  
Old 10-01-2019, 09:51 PM
Some Call Me... Tim is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,829
Your citations don't rebut my claim. Take the wiki article - the word science does not appear. The word marketing appears several times.

You appear to be attempting to rebut a strawman who claimed the word didn't exist or that it had no meaning whatsoever. I made the claim that the word wasn't scientific, but was instead a marketing term... and you provide cites about how it's defined for use in marketing materials.
  #16  
Old 10-01-2019, 10:32 PM
nelliebly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,781
I still don't get why you chose these two wildly disparate issues. Anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers I could understand because both groups deny mountains of scientific evidence and endanger many other people in the process. But organic food fans? Who are they harming, exactly? And how does it harm them to buy or grow organic foods?
  #17  
Old 10-01-2019, 10:48 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I still don't get why you chose these two wildly disparate issues. Anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers I could understand because both groups deny mountains of scientific evidence and endanger many other people in the process. But organic food fans? Who are they harming, exactly? And how does it harm them to buy or grow organic foods?
This. I could maybe see arguing for a (pretty tenuous) parallel between people who deny climate change and people who believe (and make up) alarmist exaggerations about, say, imagined dangers of GMOs.

But even that parallel would be pretty tenuous, because recognizing the food-safeness of GMOs is nowhere near as major and time-critical a public policy issue as recognizing the reality and significance of climate change. (Also, there are actually some valid criticisms to be made of GMOs, not the "deadly frankenfoods" kind but the "probable unforeseen consequences to ecosystems" kind.)

And trying to equate climate-change deniers with people who simply favor organic foods is flat-out ridiculous. I'm a card-carrying member of the scientific community myself, and I buy a lot of organic food. Not because I'm denying any science, but because (a) a lot of the people who grow specialty/heirloom foods I like happen to be organic farmers, and (b) a lot of the people who use sustainable agriculture techniques I like happen to be organic farmers.
  #18  
Old 10-02-2019, 12:03 AM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I still don't get why you chose these two wildly disparate issues. Anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers I could understand because both groups deny mountains of scientific evidence and endanger many other people in the process. But organic food fans? Who are they harming, exactly? And how does it harm them to buy or grow organic foods?
I give you Golden Rice. Stupid opposition to GMOs are directly leading to deaths (and blindness) that would otherwise be preventable.

Also, there's no evidence that organic farming is any more environmental than sustainable farming that uses GMO. E.g. organic farming requires more land (up to a third more) to get the same yield. Being anti-GMO is on par with being a GW denier.
  #19  
Old 10-02-2019, 12:42 AM
nelliebly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I give you Golden Rice. Stupid opposition to GMOs are directly leading to deaths (and blindness) that would otherwise be preventable.

Also, there's no evidence that organic farming is any more environmental than sustainable farming that uses GMO. E.g. organic farming requires more land (up to a third more) to get the same yield. Being anti-GMO is on par with being a GW denier.
Were you actually replying to Kimstu? My post mentioned nothing about non-GMO foods or organic farming practices.
  #20  
Old 10-02-2019, 12:56 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I give you Golden Rice. Stupid opposition to GMOs are directly leading to deaths (and blindness) that would otherwise be preventable.
Golden Rice isn't such a persuasive example for your point, because what many of its opponents are primarily expressing is not some kind of ill-informed anti-scientific paranoia about genetic modification in and of itself (although such paranoia does exist). Rather, what they're chiefly concerned about, as your own cite points out, is the high potential for economic exploitation of farmers and the environment for the sake of profit.

I agree that it's a tragedy for poor people to incur death and disability due to preventable causes. But distrusting the good intentions of corporate agriculture multinationals is not the same thing as denying science.
  #21  
Old 10-02-2019, 08:29 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,166
While there seems to be a solid consensus (at least among nutrition and agriculture scientists) that organic foods do not offer health benefits superior to those of non-organic (inorganic?) foods, I doubt the scientific community views organic food advocates as being anywhere near as reprehensible as climate change deniers. On a philosophical level, lying and misrepresentation, no matter what the issue may be seen as equally abhorrent. But as previously noted, the stakes are considerably higher when it comes to resisting efforts to minimize harm from climatic change.

Speaking of consensus (and to correct an earlier misstatement in this thread), there's a strong consensus that glyphosate (Roundup) is not a carcinogen. Reviews by public health/safety institutions around the world overwhelmingly support this view.

As for another erroneous statement, opposition to golden rice is not based on fears of "economic exploitation of farmers", at least not in any logical sense. Licenses to golden rice technology are granted free of charge to breeding institutions and farmers in poor countries, and farmers are free to save seed and replant it or sell the seed if they wish. It's clear that opposition to golden rice is overwhelmingly based on anti-GMOers' fear that once the project succeeds, public hesitancy about GMO foods will be greatly diminished. Ideology-based opponents can't have that, no matter what the cost to public health in poor countries.
__________________
"...I hate mobs, lynchings---they sicken me. No matter how wrong the man is, if a mob's against him, I'm for him. The only thing I ever pray to God for is a chance some day to squat down behind a machine gun with a lynching party in front of me."
- The Continental Op, in "This King Business" (Dashiell Hammett)

Last edited by Jackmannii; 10-02-2019 at 08:32 AM.
  #22  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:21 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Some organic farming cycles resources, promotes ecological balance, and conserves biodiversity. And some "chemical" farming does all those things, too, and some organic farming works directly counter to all of those things. "Organic" and "sustainable" are completely unrelated, and if you want the one, you shouldn't ask for the other.

But organic food is harmless at worst. Climate change denial is extremely harmful.
In the mid-to-late-nineties, there were no federal organic standards. Organic agriculture was decidedly small-business, and most of the folks farming organically either were farmers wanting to minimize their impact on their local environment, or were family farmers looking for a niche market that would allow them to keep their family farm and not sell out to a big business.

Then Cascadian Farms was sold to Roy Disney's conglomerate, and other major businesses entered the field. They lobbied for, and got, national organic standards that were very friendly toward large farms. A lot of smaller organic farmers couldn't afford the new certification process and got pushed out of the field.

Organic farming got gentrified.

At this point, I don't much care about an organic label, because it doesn't have much to do with environmental impact. But it used to, and the dilution of the concept by agribusiness is a damn shame.
  #23  
Old 10-02-2019, 09:33 PM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Were you actually replying to Kimstu? My post mentioned nothing about non-GMO foods or organic farming practices.
Mea culpa. Being pro-organic usually goes hand-in-hand with anti-GMO and so I interpreted your post as being pro-organic and anti-GMO. If that was not your intent then please accept my apology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Golden Rice isn't such a persuasive example for your point, because what many of its opponents are primarily expressing is not some kind of ill-informed anti-scientific paranoia about genetic modification in and of itself (although such paranoia does exist). Rather, what they're chiefly concerned about, as your own cite points out, is the high potential for economic exploitation of farmers and the environment for the sake of profit.

I agree that it's a tragedy for poor people to incur death and disability due to preventable causes. But distrusting the good intentions of corporate agriculture multinationals is not the same thing as denying science.
I disagree; I think it's is an excellent example and your response illustrates why. Golden Rice is a technology that can help prevent the death or blindness of a million children every year, largely in poorer countries and yet you exhibit skepticism based largely on FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) regarding big pharma/agro and their practices. This is very similar to tactics used by anti-vaxxers. The science (and facts) say otherwise: Golden Rice has been deemed safe by multiple trustworthy authorities and is considered a humanitarian triumph. The rice is free for small farmers and they are allowed to replant any resulting seeds.

Besides, if your concern is largely due to economic exploitation then a bad solution is to ban a product that can literally save millions of lives; it would make more sense to ban the economic practices.
  #24  
Old 10-02-2019, 11:06 PM
Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,179
I'm a scientist and I think climate change deniers are dumb and are really truly awful. I am not sure if they are worse than anti-vaxers; probably about just as odious. Organic food weenies are much further down the ladder, as are ardent (faith-based) recyclers, anti-GMO nutjobs, and anti-nuclear evangelists. At least there is some basis for belief in these cases though their beliefs are simplistic and often wrong. Sometimes right, but often wrong.
  #25  
Old 10-03-2019, 12:30 AM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
What do you think the organic food position is? That organic foods are better for you? Might be, in a small way. That animals should not suffer? That's an ethical, not a scientific, position. That all non-organic farming should be banned? Haven't heard of this as a real position.

If the organic position prevails, the impact on the world would be slightly negative at best. If the climate denial position prevails, you who are younger than me are likely to be in deep shit. And not organic manure.
I don't think death by starvation of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, counts as slightly negative.
Hardcore organic and anti GMO people are like antivaxers in a way, they benefit from the situation created by the things they oppose and just don't see it or care because they are in a privileged position that would isolate them from the devastating consequences of what they are advocating.

Vlogger Myles Power has done quite a few videos showing the negative (and some outright sinister) aspects of anti-GMO advocacy. This one for example mainly focused on Vanda Shiva, quote from the video description:

"I am lucky enough to live in a part of the world in a time where I would have to go out of my way to experience the physical sensation of hunger. It is a luxury that few in history have had, and one that I have never taken for granted, however, some do. There are people out there who view their high standard of living, where they have easy access to relatively cheap nutritional food, as the baseline. They have no appreciation, in fact I would go as so far as to say that some have a disdain, for the very technology that is allowing them to live so well. They fetishise the past and yearn for a time when everything was grown organically, without fertilisers or pesticides and there was no hunger… a time that never existed! Despite having a child-like understanding of food production, they believe they have the right to dictate how the less fortunate grow their food, all the while safe in the knowledge that no matter what they do/say, it will not affect them. These are the people who oppose the technological advances made during the Green Revolution and who, if they ever got their way, would be responsible for the death of over a billion people and the malnutrition of many more."

So... toss up I guess, on one hand people that in their ignorance would not stop things that could lead to the deaths of millions and in the other people that in their ignorance would stop things that keep millions of people alive.
  #26  
Old 10-03-2019, 12:33 AM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I still don't get why you chose these two wildly disparate issues. Anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers I could understand because both groups deny mountains of scientific evidence and endanger many other people in the process. But organic food fans? Who are they harming, exactly? And how does it harm them to buy or grow organic foods?
Because if all food would be grown according to their principles there wouldn't be enough food to feed all people on Earth.
IMO advocating for something that would slowly, painfully kill millions of the most downtrodden people on the planet is kind of problematic, good intentions notwithstanding.
  #27  
Old 10-03-2019, 08:00 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim View Post
Your citations don't rebut my claim. Take the wiki article - the word science does not appear. The word marketing appears several times.

You appear to be attempting to rebut a strawman who claimed the word didn't exist or that it had no meaning whatsoever. I made the claim that the word wasn't scientific, but was instead a marketing term... and you provide cites about how it's defined for use in marketing materials.
"Corinthian leather" is a marketing term. It means nothing. The actual leather came from new Jersey.

Organic means "grown without pesticides, without synthetic fertilizers, and without GMO".

The first one has actual (small and possibly undetectable) health benefits, per the uptick in cancer from glycophosphate and the likely other unknown problems with pesticides.

The second and third are still things a farmer has claimed to have done, with some level of enforcement. They didn't just slap a label on it that says organic, a lot of labor was involved.
  #28  
Old 10-03-2019, 02:19 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
I don't think death by starvation of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, counts as slightly negative.
Hardcore organic and anti GMO people are like antivaxers in a way, they benefit from the situation created by the things they oppose and just don't see it or care because they are in a privileged position that would isolate them from the devastating consequences of what they are advocating.
Pro-organic != anti-GMO. And as I said, I'm unaware of organic food proponents who want to ban non-organic farming.
I'm pro-GMO, btw, though I worry about the monoculture issue and the increased control by the seed companies - neither of which means GMO foods are Frankenfood.
We seem to be more organic than we used to be with little impact on the food supply.
  #29  
Old 10-03-2019, 02:24 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
Because if all food would be grown according to their principles there wouldn't be enough food to feed all people on Earth.
IMO advocating for something that would slowly, painfully kill millions of the most downtrodden people on the planet is kind of problematic, good intentions notwithstanding.
Anti-vaxxers do harm because those not vaccinated by choice can infect those not vaccinated out of necessity.
Choosing to buy organic food does no one any harm. Forcing others to only eat organic food would, but either show any mainstream organic advocates who want this or stop with the organic strawman.
  #30  
Old 10-03-2019, 03:32 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
Because if all food would be grown according to their principles there wouldn't be enough food to feed all people on Earth.
This, by the way, is why I consider bonsai enthusiasts to be mass murderers.
  #31  
Old 10-03-2019, 06:28 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This, by the way, is why I consider bonsai enthusiasts to be mass murderers.
Also so are beef eaters. Each pound of beef could have been approximately 2 lbs of chicken with equal nutritional value.
  #32  
Old 10-03-2019, 06:40 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Choosing to buy organic food does no one any harm. Forcing others to only eat organic food would, but either show any mainstream organic advocates who want this or stop with the organic strawman.
There are certainly advocates who promote worldwide conversion to organic farming, based on dubious claims (the referenced study argues that organic farming can feed the world, but only if the earth's population is converted entirely to vegetarianism and we magically find a way to reduce food wastage by 50%).

This outfit has cherry-picked a number of small examples to make its case for universal organic farming, not always honestly. I picked one at random to check on. They cite an organic farming cotton project in India in claiming that its yields were 20% higher compared to neighboring conventional farms. As cited elsewhere, yields were said to be about the same as the neighboring farms, but the organic farmers supposedly did better because they could charge a 20% organic premium for the crop, which is not the same as "20% higher yields". And what happens during a bad pest year? How do the organic cotton farmers do in comparison to those growing a GMO variety (those farmers have been highly successful).

I occasionally buy organic produce and would purchase it more often if it wasn't so much more expensive, but am wary of pro-organic propaganda.
  #33  
Old 10-03-2019, 06:44 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
I get it that Climate Change deniers will have a huge impact on Humankind’s future. Maybe the hoax of Organic foods has less impact (it has some impact on increased land and water usage) on the overall eco-system.

Since both the groups are unscientific in their beliefs, do scientists detest both the groups equally ? Should they ?

Maybe detest is strong word. If so, does the scientific community believe that both these groups need more education ? Should they ?
They aren't even close. And FWIW, I think 'organic' is made up, at least often, of woo, crystal power and unicorn tears (not all of it, but certainly a lot of it). The hysteria of GMO is probably more of an issue, but even that doesn't rise to the level of climate denial. The only thing that comes close, IMHO, is the anti-vaxxer crowd, who are nearly as vile, and who cause a whole lot more deaths than climate denialists...at least, so far. But that is probably going to change in the next decade or so. At any rate, that's the only thing that comes close, at least on the XT scale of scorn...and even there, I'd still give it to the climate denialists by a nose. It's sort of like comparing communists to fascists...it's really hard to tell which is most vile, but both ARE vile.

Organic farming? Not even in the same universe.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #34  
Old 10-03-2019, 08:31 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,059
Since organic seems to have morphed into anti-GMO, I would like to explain my take on that.

First place, except for wild caught fish, virtually everything we eat has been genetically modified, often for millennia. The difference is that now it is done by people who actually know what their doing. And the results have been vetted, unlike the old way of plant breeding. Nonetheless, there are two points that can be made. First the big seed companies have essentially captured the process to the detriment of farmers. I didn't know that golden rice was not subject to such restrictions. Second, one of the main uses has been to create crops that tolerant of weed killers, at least some of which (Roundup) are known carcinogens. That said, I am all in favor of GMOs in general. But even so, the anti-GMOers are not doing nearly as much damage as the anti-vaxxers and even they are not comparable to the climate change deniers who are mortgaging the future of our children in order to make a few more dollars. They are beneath contempt.
  #35  
Old 10-03-2019, 10:10 PM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Pro-organic != anti-GMO. And as I said, I'm unaware of organic food proponents who want to ban non-organic farming.
I'm pro-GMO, btw, though I worry about the monoculture issue and the increased control by the seed companies - neither of which means GMO foods are Frankenfood.
We seem to be more organic than we used to be with little impact on the food supply.

"A key characteristic of organic farming is the rejection of genetically engineered plants and animals"
  #36  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:04 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,535
So they think, but pretty much anything we grow has been genetically modified.
However since buying GMOs means buying from seed companies, I think they have some basis for what they are really doing.
Or do you want to force them to buy GMOs?
I voted against the proposition in California to force GMO labeling because it was scare mongering. But let's not pretend the big seed companies are charitable organizations out for the good of the world.
  #37  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:17 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
So they think, but pretty much anything we grow has been genetically modified.
However since buying GMOs means buying from seed companies, I think they have some basis for what they are really doing.
Or do you want to force them to buy GMOs?
I voted against the proposition in California to force GMO labeling because it was scare mongering. But let's not pretend the big seed companies are charitable organizations out for the good of the world.
Indeed, I don't have much time now, but I have looked at the issue and that bit about the golden rice patent holders as being humanitarian is not so clear.

Also, not clear that people mind misguided environmentalists, in the case of golden rise there are more mundane reasons for the rice not being used a lot now like other crops before.

https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/gen...ving-promises/
Quote:
“Destroying test plots is a dubious way to express opposition, but this was only one small plot out of many plots in multiple locations over many years,” he said. “Moreover, they have been calling Golden Rice critics ‘murderers’ for over a decade.”

Stone, an internationally recognized expert on the human side of global agricultural trends, was an early advocate for keeping an open mind about “humanitarian” GMO crops, such as Golden Rice.

He has also supported the development of a genetically modified strain of cassava, a starchy root crop eaten by subsistence farmers across much of Africa. Unfortunately, efforts to develop a genetically improved, more productive and disease-resistant strain of cassava also appear to be a long way from practical field introduction, he notes.

“Golden Rice was a promising idea backed by good intentions,” Stone said. “In contrast to anti-GMO activists, I argued that it deserved a chance to succeed. But if we are actually interested in the welfare of poor children — instead of just fighting over GMOs — then we have to make unbiased assessments of possible solutions. The simple fact is that after 24 years of research and breeding, Golden Rice is still years away from being ready for release.”

Since 2013, Stone has directed a major Templeton Foundation-funded research project on rice in the Philippines. His research compares Golden Rice to other types of rice developed and cultivated in the Philippines. These include high-yield “Green Revolution” rice strains developed in the 1960s in an effort to industrialize rice farming, and ‘‘heirloom’’ landrace varieties long cultivated on the spectacular terraces of the Cordillera mountains of northern Luzon.
AFAIK, those rice strains did come from research that was freely distributed and with no restrictions, that is what humanitarianism is supposed to be.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-04-2019 at 02:19 AM.
  #38  
Old 10-04-2019, 03:42 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
artificial fertilizer (what known health risk is here? The nitrogen compounds are very similar to the "natural" kind) for the organic label is counterproductive.
Some people seem to think that any fertilizer made in a fertilizer factory is "artificial" (well, they tend to think anything made in a factory is "artificial"). They're a mixture of minerals: there's some changes of phase (dissolution and drying), but no reactions. And the nitrogen compounds' main source is semi-fossilized bird shit, which is organic as all get-go. That said, I'm in favor of using only as much fertilizer as is needed (as defined by testing) and of the types needed (don't add potassium to your plants when you're already sitting on top of a potash mine).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
"Corinthian leather" is a marketing term. It means nothing. The actual leather came from new Jersey.
Yes it means something: it refers (or should) to a specific decorative technique.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 10-04-2019 at 03:46 AM.
  #39  
Old 10-04-2019, 06:01 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,574
Again: it's not about outlawing genetically engineered plants. I've been involved in, or interested in, organic agriculture for about three decades now. I've attended FDA events, read articles, worked on organic farms before national certification existed. In all that time, I have never heard an organic agriculture advocate call for outlawing GMO crops.
  #40  
Old 10-04-2019, 07:11 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 32,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
I'm not sure there is a consensus on organic foods. Certain pesticides (Roundup, I am looking at you) and known carcinogens so why not avoid them. Show me a cite that claims that organic food is nonsense. As it happens, this afternoon I baked a zucchini bread using some that came from an organic community garden and some from the supermarket. Guess which ones I peeled the skin from.
Neither, I'd hope. You need the flecks of dark green for that authentic zucchini bread look.
  #41  
Old 10-04-2019, 09:36 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Again: it's not about outlawing genetically engineered plants. I've been involved in, or interested in, organic agriculture for about three decades now. I've attended FDA events, read articles, worked on organic farms before national certification existed. In all that time, I have never heard an organic agriculture advocate call for outlawing GMO crops.
The Organic Consumers Association has in fact supported bans on growing GM crops.

The OCA in addition to its vehement preachings against GMOs, has also been involved in denouncing vaccines and water fluoridation and promoting homeopathy and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Featured authors have included Joe Mercola and Mike Adams of Natural News, and there are also articles promoting guests on the Alex Jones show. Crank magnetism reigns supreme at the OCA.
  #42  
Old 10-04-2019, 10:19 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
The Organic Consumers Association has in fact supported bans on growing GM crops.

The OCA in addition to its vehement preachings against GMOs, has also been involved in denouncing vaccines and water fluoridation and promoting homeopathy and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Featured authors have included Joe Mercola and Mike Adams of Natural News, and there are also articles promoting guests on the Alex Jones show. Crank magnetism reigns supreme at the OCA.
Fair. I'd never heard of this organization before, but they have a $4 million annual budget (roughly; I only looked at one 990 for them). I should have allowed for a well-funded crank group existing.

Note that even they are calling not for a worldwide ban on GMOs, but for county-wide, or region-wide, bans to be allowed. Not that I'm advocating for such bans, but I just want to be clear on what the cranks are asking for. A county-wide ban wouldn't necessarily cause international starvation.
  #43  
Old 10-04-2019, 10:35 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
Since both the groups are unscientific in their beliefs, do scientists detest both the groups equally ? Should they ?
There's lots of room for semantic interpretation here. But morally, intent matters. The organic food/local food people get some criticism for being mistaken and not totally rational. But they agree that the environment is of concern, they agree we all have to change, consume less, pollute less, they just disagree on tactics. The scientific community gives them credit for intent, but a lot of criticism for not basing good intent on good fact.

Climate change denial is driven primarily by a selfish desire not to change, climate-destructive behaviors, then it proceeds into motivated reasoning to either (A) discredit the science saying the climate is changing, or (B) reason that humans are adaptable, so why bother, or (C) fuck you, I'm doing whatever I want and I'll be dead when the consequences arrive.

I am not a scientist but, but Global Science Inc has authorized me to speak on their collective behalf here.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 10-04-2019 at 10:36 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017