Bhutan to be the first 100% organic country.

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Embezzlement of character is your game.

Your misinterpretation of those events took place here, in case anyone cares, and I provided plenty source material, including a final post you completely over-looked which was loaded with proof. I'll call you liar outright, considering you're relying on impressions in this thread, and the actual events are fully open for review. It ended painfully for you, with almost nil support for your stances, you mean to say?

The Flu-Vaccine Conspiracy
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Peer-reviwed papers from corporate shills mean squat to me, by the way. "Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" from organizations of professional liars. It's so useless to mince words with some people.

Back on topic ...

Good for Bhutan, I hope our western farmers realize what a crock commercialized farming is, how bad pesticides and tilling are for the soil, and how to rely on strategic planting of onions, leek, and other insect-repellant plants to prevent crop loss almost completely. That makes them world leaders in my books, to set an example like this. According to Masanobu Fukuoka in One Straw Revolution, soil from untilled and composted plots has lasted over ten thousand years and become some of the richest soil in the world, compared to turning soil into sand in only hundreds of years using western monkey-see monkey-do techniques.

www.idcoa.cloverpad.org...

What great leadership from Bhutan, I'm impressed!

edit on 25-2-2013 by Northwarden because: fixing link




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 





There's barely any difference between the two as proven by many studies, except non-organic is easier to produce and cheaper to buy. THAT is good for the human population. You are the one with lack of knowledge on the subject, in fact I've read in to it quite deeply. You seem to be mislead by words like "natural", natural isn't always good, synthetic isn't always bad. Telling me I'm wrong without proving it is meaningless. Look at the facts, not what the people selling the food tell you.


There was one little thing that was glaringly left out of The Annals not to terribly thorough research.....chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. How can produce covered and grown in man made polluting chemicals be just as healthy as produce that lacks all those chemicals? Let us not forget the ill effects of conventional farming on the environment.

I think I have figured you out. This shall be your last feeding from me.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by purplemer
 


That's rice. We need more than rice. Usually organic farms have very low yield and they get eaten by slugs and insects, which is why farmers don't tend to go organic. There's a lot of fallacies surrounding organic food, it's not even proven to be better for you.

I don't need studies and experts or proof fit for a court to know that organic...I.E.... sans chemicals and genetic tinkering, is better for me as a human being. Not every story has a 'on the other hand' position, IMO

We've come to live in a world absolutely saturated with chemicals of all kinds. Kudos to Bhutan to dare to be different and try the intelligent approach to living logically. It may not work, but someone has to try anyway.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


You provided possible the most unreliable site ever, which contains no sources. But that's enough for you, of course. Says it all.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by SpearMint
 





There's barely any difference between the two as proven by many studies, except non-organic is easier to produce and cheaper to buy. THAT is good for the human population. You are the one with lack of knowledge on the subject, in fact I've read in to it quite deeply. You seem to be mislead by words like "natural", natural isn't always good, synthetic isn't always bad. Telling me I'm wrong without proving it is meaningless. Look at the facts, not what the people selling the food tell you.


There was one little thing that was glaringly left out of The Annals not to terribly thorough research.....chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. How can produce covered and grown in man made polluting chemicals be just as healthy as produce that lacks all those chemicals? Let us not forget the ill effects of conventional farming on the environment.

I think I have figured you out. This shall be your last feeding from me.


Synthetic pesticides and other things used on food are held to very high standards and undergo thorough testing to ensure they're safe. How about organic pesticides? Rotenone, causes symptoms of Parkinson's Disease. Sabadilla, kills bees. Pyrethrum, a carcinogen (causes cancer). That's just a few. The study that I showed (which is one of many) takes everything in to account. Where's a study proving the opposite?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by purplemer
 


That's rice. We need more than rice. Usually organic farms have very low yield and they get eaten by slugs and insects, which is why farmers don't tend to go organic. There's a lot of fallacies surrounding organic food, it's not even proven to be better for you.

I don't need studies and experts or proof fit for a court to know that organic...I.E.... sans chemicals and genetic tinkering, is better for me as a human being. Not every story has a 'on the other hand' position, IMO

We've come to live in a world absolutely saturated with chemicals of all kinds. Kudos to Bhutan to dare to be different and try the intelligent approach to living logically. It may not work, but someone has to try anyway.




Don't you? Read my post above and think again. Organic does not mean free of chemicals. On top of that people have died from things like E Coli traced back to organic foods. Non-organic foods require much more chemicals (like organic pesticides) because they're less effective. By the way, the opposite of organic is not genetic modification, that's another issue.
edit on 25-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


www.Whale.to is an excellant resource site, full of healthy information to know about allopathy, medical negligence and malpractice within the industry, and it takes the mask off in a bandaid-off-fast fashion. It's extremely well-sourced, with links to everything it references, and is a fine launch site for research projects. It's also well-supported by other experts from the naturopathic and holistic (pro-life, not pro-death) side of medicine, which causes an inner struggle for some people to face. Enough arguing about it here please. The board is moderated for a reason.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Non-organic foods require much more chemicals (like organic pesticides) because they're less effective. By the way, the opposite of organic is not genetic modification, that's another issue.

Okay, I'm not sure what OP or story you're talking about but it sure isn't the one THIS thread is about. I went back and read it a second time to be sure and Bhutan isn't talking about "California chic" organic to the required minimum's to have the pretty sticker on a package.

The Bhutanese Government is very clear about it being the intent to be NON-CHEMICAL, not simply change chemicals or redefine terms.

However, it is by reading the OP that I did see that and was pointing out that arguing against oganic as the thread defines it here, is absurd. It's literally chemical vs. non-chemical in this context which is the ultimate choice for making itself, IMO.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by SpearMint
 


www.Whale.to is an excellant resource site, full of healthy information to know about allopathy, medical negligence and malpractice within the industry, and it takes the mask off in a bandaid-off-fast fashion. It's extremely well-sourced, with links to everything it references, and is a fine launch site for research projects. It's also well-supported by other experts from the naturopathic and holistic (pro-life, not pro-death) side of medicine, which causes an inner struggle for some people to face. Enough arguing about it here please. The board is moderated for a reason.


Well clearly it isn't, because the page you showed me contained no sources for its claims and referenced findings from a study which has since shown to be fraudulent. If that information was reliable you should be able to find it on a reliable site elsewhere. That's all you posted. So where's a reliable source proving me wrong here?

As usual this is very one sided, with only me posting facts and sources and other people telling me I'm wrong based on their own belief and/or what they've been told.
edit on 25-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Non-organic foods require much more chemicals (like organic pesticides) because they're less effective. By the way, the opposite of organic is not genetic modification, that's another issue.

Okay, I'm not sure what OP or story you're talking about but it sure isn't the one THIS thread is about. I went back and read it a second time to be sure and Bhutan isn't talking about "California chic" organic to the required minimum's to have the pretty sticker on a package.

The Bhutanese Government is very clear about it being the intent to be NON-CHEMICAL, not simply change chemicals or redefine terms.

However, it is by reading the OP that I did see that and was pointing out that arguing against oganic as the thread defines it here, is absurd. It's literally chemical vs. non-chemical in this context which is the ultimate choice for making itself, IMO.


I know. Which like I said, is extremely impractical for larger populations, like the rest of the world for several reasons. You end up having no choice but to use things like pesticides whether they be organic or not because otherwise the yield is simply too low. Bhutan has a very small population, it might be manageable (we'll see).

Then it comes down to organic vs non-organic chemicals.

I'm not anti-organic, I'm just saying organic isn't as good and has no advantages environmentally and health wise. In larger production when post control and fertilization is needed. Without any pesticides at all it might be (very slightly) healthier, but it's very hard to maintain, takes up a lot more room (can result in deforestation) and has no nutritional benefits.

reply to post by Northwarden
 


Keep topics in their own thread.
edit on 25-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


..."including a final post you completely over-looked which was loaded with proof."

: ???



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


I'm not anti-organic, I'm just saying organic isn't as good and has no advantages environmentally and health wise. In larger production when post control and fertilization is needed. Without any pesticides at all it might be (very slightly) healthier, but it's very hard to maintain, takes up a lot more room (can result in deforestation) and has no nutritional benefits.


I was content to agree until you edited and added that. I almost missed it if I hadn't come back. Hmm... As the OP article states, again without hedging or making any vague references here, the topic is entirely about 0 chemicals and usually by default and lack of money to buy any for the majority of Bhutanese farmers.

Now it's rather odd to see you tell someone to keep topics in threads because the whole issue of talking about organic as having anything whatsoever to do with chemicals is totally opposite to the OP story. It fits for a California produce "organic" debate, but not so well in a developing world environment. As the Government officials in this story point out, it's the commercial and large farms to be impacted anyway since they are the chemical users in Bhutanese agriculture. Sounds like a move in the right direction for once.

It's rather mind boggling ...your position though. To say organic (Again, to the thread's definition, in context to this discussion...NON-chemical) is only marginally better if at all to synthetic chemically treated crops is literally saying chemicals dumped across our food is likewise neutral in effect. After all, you're comparing the two and to say either is neutral is to say the other is. . It's just a brain freeze type of thing here.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I already explained why it's very relevant. You cannot produce organic food for large populations without the use of pesticides and possibly fertilizers. It's out of the question. So when discussing whether it's practical for the rest of the world it comes down to these things. But let's assume it's possible, there's still no significant benefits, especially considering the disadvantages.

So like I said, it may work in a country where there's a very small population and most people farm, it won't work in other places. Well done to them, but it isn't practical for most of the world.

You seem to think chemicals are instantly bad, they're not. You eat them all the time, you produce them, they can have benefits and they don't necessarily do you harm. Non-organic food doesn't contain nearly as much chemicals as the people selling organic food want you to believe. Even if they do it's extremely small amount, and it's undergone extensive testing to ensure that it's safe.
edit on 25-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 



You cannot produce organic food for large populations without the use of pesticides and possibly fertilizers. It's out of the question.


So, four thousand years of organic agriculture didn't happen? Is this the rewrite of the history books for the next few generations detriment?

Oh my ...

The One Straw Revolution would be a good read for anyone who actually believes that.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 

Well, I read the OP 100% differently than you did, apparently.


You got to give it to Bhutan for trying. A few years ago Bhutan became the first and only nation in the world to say the meausure of peoples happines is more important than Gross Domestic Produce. Bhutan is far from perfect and people still leave the country as immigrants.
(From OP post)

I thought it was something of a feel good story for how a developing nation was doing well and moving in the right direction. Given how often news carries stories more properly catergorized as misadventure at best and horror show at worst, it seemed a nice one to just admire for the good news of it. I was trying to avoid political aspects.

However, before heading to bed I'll add one thing. As a produce trucker for most of my 15 year driving career, I think someone is off their rocker to ever suggest the chemical toxins dumped on produce fields as a matter of course and routine business from Salinas to Nogales to Guatemala are anything but bad. We ingest and/or come into contact with SO MANY chemicals now, we can't even begin to guess at interactions and counter-actions, let alone understanding the full direct effects of any of a majority taken in isolation.

In the end though, that's still getting into agenda driven politics of the chem ag- debate and I'd just as soon settle back to get some sleep, content too know at least one nation has a worthy goal if not a clear way to reach it. The effort does mean something when the world most often lacks even that little bit.
edit on 25-2-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Bhutan also turns down mass tourism while most countries welcome it to boost GDP.

Obvious Bhutan is most interested in nature conservation, something countries like USA care nothing about:




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by SpearMint
 



You cannot produce organic food for large populations without the use of pesticides and possibly fertilizers. It's out of the question.


So, four thousand years of organic agriculture didn't happen? Is this the rewrite of the history books for the next few generations detriment?

Oh my ...

The One Straw Revolution would be a good read for anyone who actually believes that.


Take a look at the population increase and lifestyle change then rethink that statement.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


So? Like I said, well done to them. That doesn't change what I've been saying.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Well, you've displayed a few common fallacies here.

1. Organic does not mean no pesticides or chemicals, it simply means they must be natural.

2. Natural isn't always good, some organic pesticides are very dangerous for example.

3. Organic food does not have a higher nutrient or mineral content, it's pretty much exactly the same.

4. Organic food isn't held to a higher standard.


Funny how antagonists of organic evade the issue. What makes organic most different from GMO?

GMO injects foreign DNA (bacteria, protozoans, viruses, prions/designer proteins, insect, bovine, porcine, other r/DNA).

In field studies, GMO pollen have always infiltrated native stock, inadvertently hybridizing the ecosystem. How in the world is that acceptable? In the world according to... MONSANTO et al.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by tropic

Originally posted by SpearMint

Well, you've displayed a few common fallacies here.

1. Organic does not mean no pesticides or chemicals, it simply means they must be natural.

2. Natural isn't always good, some organic pesticides are very dangerous for example.

3. Organic food does not have a higher nutrient or mineral content, it's pretty much exactly the same.

4. Organic food isn't held to a higher standard.


Funny how antagonists of organic evade the issue. What makes organic most different from GMO?

GMO injects foreign DNA (bacteria, protozoans, viruses, prions/designer proteins, insect, bovine, porcine, other r/DNA).

In field studies, GMO pollen have always infiltrated native stock, inadvertently hybridizing the ecosystem. How in the world is that acceptable? In the world according to... MONSANTO et al.


That's great, but GM is a different issue.





top topics
 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join