Bhutan to be the first 100% organic country.

reply to post by SpearMint

On top of that people have died from things like E Coli traced back to organic foods.

How about improper handling of foods,organic has nothing to do with it.
Beef is the most common and it is do to improper butchering.

E. coli and related bacteria constitute about 0.1% of gut flora,[7] and fecal–oral transmission is the major route through which pathogenic strains of the bacterium cause disease.

Wiki

I guess the E Coli outbreak at the Taco Bells here in Pa.were all from their organic food

Is the context of the title of this threat not ORGANIC in the thread of non-GMO?

It would be said if countries have to identify themselves as non-GMO. But that's just it. GMO is invasive and once you go GMO, you can't go back. The whole ecosystem is forever genetically distorted.

What best describes neither ORGANIC nor non-GMO?

GMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


For sure, it's a fine find and don't let the whimpers of opposition bring you down. It only means the movement is valuable enough to discredit.

reply to post by tropic


That's an intriguing map you have there; what legend goes along with it I'm a wondering?

Originally posted by SpearMint

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.

What now? No one wants chemical produce on their tables over organic, no one does. It's a matter of preparation, availability, and affordability. Do you think the chemical moguls at Monsanto actually eat their own gmo produce, or that the rich don't have their own supply chain of organic food? Those who shop at normal box stores face poor labelling practices, obfuscation from disinfo over chemicals on message boards, umbrella labels which allow for hidden ingredients, an international Codex governing food which allows trace amounts of pops (deadly pesticides) into food to account for existing pesticides, and consequently allows their non-detection as a back-door addition to food.

Lifestyle will improve with the quality of the food; so much for that obvious.

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by SpearMint

 

On top of that people have died from things like E Coli traced back to organic foods.

How about improper handling of foods,organic has nothing to do with it.
Beef is the most common and it is do to improper butchering.

E. coli and related bacteria constitute about 0.1% of gut flora,[7] and fecal–oral transmission is the major route through which pathogenic strains of the bacterium cause disease.

Wiki

I guess the E Coli outbreak at the Taco Bells here in Pa.were all from their organic food

You can't compare things like E Coli across plant and animal produce. You seemed to have missed the point, which was a very small point on the side because it doesn't mean a lot on its own.

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

For sure, it's a fine find and don't let the whimpers of opposition bring you down. It only means the movement is valuable enough to discredit.

reply to post by tropic

 

That's an intriguing map you have there; what legend goes along with it I'm a wondering?

Originally posted by SpearMint

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.

What now? No one wants chemical produce on their tables over organic, no one does. It's a matter of preparation, availability, and affordability. Do you think the chemical moguls at Monsanto actually eat their own gmo produce, or that the rich don't have their own supply chain of organic food? Those who shop at normal box stores face poor labelling practices, obfuscation from disinfo over chemicals on message boards, umbrella labels which allow for hidden ingredients, an international Codex governing food which allows trace amounts of pops (deadly pesticides) into food to account for existing pesticides, and consequently allows their non-detection as a back-door addition to food.

Lifestyle will improve with the quality of the food; so much for that obvious.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)

If you're talking about people in larger countries, organic food will still have chemicals used on them. Anyway, I haven't said anyone wants chemicals. If you want to be supplied with food, it's not an option, organic or non-organic, things like pesticides will be used.

double post

Originally posted by Northwarden


That's an intriguing map you have there; what legend goes along with it I'm a wondering?

Googled "Per Capita Consumption of Natural Resources" and that map came up as perfect match.

Heres an incident where GMO cukes (genetically spliced with bacteria genes) were spreading Ecoli... 10 Germans died because of GMO

reply to post by SpearMint


Let's take a pregnant woman as an example. We all know what the mother eats,drinks, drugs gets passed onto the baby. I'll take organic beef over the steroids and anitbiotics. With organic crops that baby won't be getting the pesticide residues.

Take a store chain bought tomato as another example. You can clearly see, feel and taste the difference between that garbage and one out of my(or anyones) garden.

I'll take my own garden tomato for my BLT and skip the GMO. Save the Bacon

reply to post by SpearMint


I don't know enough about Europe to comment much, but they will have pesticides in the west because our governments want to sell pesticides and gmo's for the sickening and sterilization of the population, to the benefit of jobs and profit, to sell pharaceuticals and generate medical conditions and therefore statistics and studies, and to depopulate the world ala Georgian guidestones. It becomes a standardized industry we have developed only this century to support and set against the niche market of organics which is under degrees of suppression.

Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds
www.news.cornell.edu...

“Organic farming can play a significant role not only in growing domestic markets but also in global food trade,” Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar said here on Wednesday.

Addressing members of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee attached to his Ministry, Mr. Pawar said that in 2009-10 organic agriculture under certification had grown to 10.5-lakh hectares compared to 42,000 hectares during 2003-04. Of this, nearly 7.5-lakh hectares was fully certified while the remaining was under various stages of conversion.

Organic farming is not only an ideal option for rain-fed, marginal land and hilly areas but it also ensures increased availability of organic and biological nutrients for restoring soil health and conservation of resources.

www.thehindu.com...

USDA Organic Accomplishments 2009-2012 United States Department of Agriculture

USDA is committed to helping organic agriculture grow and thrive. At the start of this Administration, Secretary Vilsack set the ambitious goal of increasing the number of certified organic operations by 25% – and we expect to meet that target. Since then, the Secretary elevated and strengthened USDA’s National Organic Program to increase consumer confidence in the USDA organic seal. October 2012 marked the 10th anniversary of the USDA Organic Seal, and it has become a leading global standard that we are very proud of.Progress is being made. The retail value of the organic industry grew almost 9.5% in 2011 to $31.4 billion. Organic foods continue to gain market share in the food industry, climbing to 4.2% of U.S. retail food sales in 2011. And we are creating opportunities for farmers and ranchers: the number of operations certified organic grew by 1,109 – or more than 6% – between 2009 and 2011.

www.usda.gov...

An organic farming guru's success story
business.rediff.com...

ORGANIC FARMING :: Success Stories
www.agritech.tnau.ac.in...

Organic Farming Success Stories
organicuttarakhand.org...

It seems to me that statistics and testimonies prove organic farming is successful and highly profitable when attempted with understanding.

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Let's take a pregnant woman as an example. We all know what the mother eats,drinks, drugs gets passed onto the baby. I'll take organic beef over the steroids and anitbiotics. With organic crops that baby won't be getting the pesticide residues.

Take a store chain bought tomato as another example. You can clearly see, feel and taste the difference between that garbage and one out of my(or anyones) garden.

I'll take my own garden tomato for my BLT and skip the GMO. Save the Bacon

Well, a few things.

Organic meat is a totally different issue to crops, because it involves different things. Although in my country steroids aren't used, I don't know about the rest of the world.

Pesticide residues are extremely small and are not shown to be harmful. The kind of organic food that you're talking about will contain pesticides, organic pesticides. These aren't always good, like I said before they can have nasty affects that are worse than synthetic pesticides. Synthetic does not mean bad, it's made to be safe and the best it can be.

Physical quality is down to the producer, how it's handled and how old it is, not whether it's organic or not. Organic and non-organic crops are identical physically and nutritionally, it's the same plant and what's put on it does not change that.

Non-organic does not mean GMO.

reply to post by Northwarden


Not knowing enough about a subject hasn't stopped you before. It may vary from plant to plant, those two are extremely easy to grow, it still doesn't mean they're any better than non-organic. Where it was grown and the scale also comes in to play. This study isn't much, it doesn't mean it's suitable at all, it's missing a lot of things and I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove with it.

It's funny how studies against your belief are instantly paid shills, yet completely legit for your side, it's MUCH more likely to be the other way around.

reply to post by SpearMint


A shill for the organic industry you mean? No, I'm not a shill for anything, a hundred percent whistleblower and the rest is a sometimes rabid concern over worldwide mass poisoning as it affects our lives. I've been here to learn and share what I know. Conversely I think you are a paid shill, sorry, yes I do. Most would have been very offended at being referred to as that long ago, as in, the first mention of it, if they weren't. Shrug.

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by SpearMint

 

A shill for the organic industry you mean? No, I'm not a shill for anything, a hundred percent whistleblower and the rest is a sometimes rabid concern over worldwide mass poisoning as it affects our lives. I've been here to learn and share what I know. Conversely I think you are a paid shill, sorry, yes I do. Most would have been very offended at being referred to as that long ago, as in, the first mention of it, if they weren't. Shrug.

... I haven't accused you of being a shill. Pay attention to what I've said. You are a very bad "whistleblower" a whistle blower needs to know the facts before blowing the whistle. You quite clearly don't, you confuse what you know with what you think you know, what you assume and probably what you want to be true. I shouldn't really waste my time on such things, it's not like your misinformed whistle blowing will actually do anything.

reply to post by SpearMint


Still no statement of denial, how do I come to my conclusions, eh?

Well at least you can convince yourself of what you're saying. I don't know what portion of the ATS audience you're trying to reach with your pro-pesticide arguements, but I find it very healthy that so many see through it (with casual ease too). It doesn't take that much undertsanding on this one, it's only the volume of the knowledge base x the degree of conniving attached to it's understanding that makes it nuisance. You've covered us with so many generalizations, and false ones, in this thread. I would call it exploitation if you were in any way convincing, but as it is, you're looking like guilty amusement to late night readers. My roommate was having a good chuckle earlier.

reply to post by Northwarden


I shouldn't have to deny such a ridiculous statement. Calling someone a shill is just a way out of an argument without actually proving your point.

reply to post by SpearMint


What is calling someone a bad whistleblower with no-good sources except a way out by the same token? Please, go back to topic. You're doing far more damage to your own stances than I ever could. *grabs some popcorn*

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by SpearMint

 

What is calling someone a bad whistleblower with no-good sources except a way out by the same token? Please, go back to topic. You're doing far more damage to your own stances than I ever could. *grabs some popcorn*

It was an attempt to get you to actually prove your point (although I'm not completely sure what that is), so actually you are doing your stance (or lack of a stance) damage. That was expected though. I think you just want to argue.

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.

No that is not rice. That is case study that nullifies your last comment....

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by Northwarden

 

I shouldn't have to deny such a ridiculous statement. Calling someone a shill is just a way out of an argument without actually proving your point.

You have not proven any point..

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by Northwarden

 

I shouldn't have to deny such a ridiculous statement. Calling someone a shill is just a way out of an argument without actually proving your point.

You have not proven any point..

I have if you're open to facts, I have shown why it's impractical for the rest of the world, using very basic logic and readily available facts. That's more than can be said for you.