US Outlawing organic farming

[DarkBlood626]

penn and teller bullshit;eat this episode

take a look

 

[Zalvidor]

Eight percent of the E. coli cases in the U.S. come from organic foods.

And the other ninety-two percent?

As many people said before from bad food handling practices and such.

But also to give some context to that number organic food only makes up 2% of US food sales(source: http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/food.html ).

Also there are a lot of particularly nasty pesticides that are perfectly organic so the notion that organic is pesticide-free is actually wrong.

I also love how people always harp on farmers for their use of pesticides/fertilizers and such when suburbia uses them quite prolifically for their ?perfect lawn? which they usually over apply and results in a lot more run off and waste(farmers not being the richest of professions can?t afford to waste much). And also these lawns produce absolutely nothing whereas farmers produce food for a fair chunk of the world.
And to answer the question on which tastes better I just say one thing food miles. Locally grown crops taste better (in general).

Based on what I?ve gathered from skimming research (haven?t had time to read the bill I may add more/take back some statements once I?ve done more research this is a gut reaction) I still disagree with this bill for various reasons.
Although a bill like this certainly isn?t surprising considering the recalls I?ve been hearing of recently so a ?Food Safety Act? will probably be very popular regardless of its actual effectiveness (you know politics and their obsession with ?style over substance? and love of warm fuzzy feelings).
Despite the fact that this issue usually goes to extremes neither one is right in my opinion.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

And so the wealthy ruling elites dominating America and controlling its actions and interests triumph again. *shakes head in disgust*

 

[Silva]

You've got to be kidding. This is ridiculous.

All I can say is, I'm glad to be an Australian.

Eight percent of the E. coli cases in the U.S. come from organic foods.

And the other ninety-two percent?

That was hilarious. Well said.

 

[UltraBlumpkin]

I call BS on this one. This sounds like some sort of e-mail hoax to me.

 

[Gestapo Hunter]

IS there any evidence that genetic engineered food causes cancer?

 

[Nmil-ek]

While you should have the choice i agree, Im more dumbfounded that the American congress can actually make decisions on bills like this? Seriously?

You should consider a new government system

 

[Shaenightbird]

Here, how about everyone actually reads the current draft... [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h875/text]
Most of what has been said is speculative. The main thrust of the bill is to generate a new wasteful bureaucracy duplicating many functions extant in the FDA already. The part that's tricky is that the new FSA would have the authority to make things up on their own regarding what is food safety and to enforce it: this coupled with the requirement of all packing, manufacturing, serving, etc. establishments to be registered technically means they could if unopposed. As to fertilizer restrictions, seed restrictions, and control of home growers, most of that is either speculative based on what they could do, or made up out of whole cloth.

The bill is a morass of weasel words, giving carte blanche to all types of things becoming illegal, but does not hit the panic alarm as of yet. The main point which highlighted to me Monsanto's interest was the clause involving government-supported research into "food safety" to include things like GM foods. They're in it for the money, of course, but they're a little more subtle than they've been given credit for.

The bill was introduced by Rosa Delauro, if you're looking for someone to blame. She and the other supporters are mainly old-guard northern democrats of the Ted Kennedy stripe.

I was going to comment on how odd that seems to be, given that Massachusetts has a high percentage of organic farms, and the community mobilises when bills like this rear their ugly heads.(Especially in the Western part of the state.) Then I remember that Monsanto has a general headquarters here, a large chemical processing plant, and that the surrounding area has been plagued with weird cancers for the last 40 years.

I had a friend who was diagnosed with throat cancer at 15, because of contaminated well water that was traced directly to leakage from Monsanto invading the water table. But Monsanto got off scott free, even though there was no other conceivable way that the stuff could have gotten into the well water. Several families were involved in that suit, too. It wasn't just my friend who got cancer from this. A couple of people died. But nothing came of it because Monsanto was reeking with money, and bought a dismissal of the suit due to "lack of evidence".

Maybe we need some New style Northern Democrats. Or better yet, Green party.

 

[grundunne]

I'd say I am surprised but I'm not. The congress doesn't care about anyone who isn't a near and dear friend or a lobbyist. The proof of it is plain to see if you look. It does sicken me that the media doesn't report on it, it is like interviewing a man accused of ripping a mans heart directly from his body and only using shots of his chest and up because they don't want to show that his hands drenched with blood.

 

[Arrers]

There's somthing very americanabout this story. no other government would let a corporation persuade them to pass a bill like this.

 

[Selvalros]

Even if this bill does do what the OP says it does and it goes through without people noticing right away, I highly doubt that it will last very long without being repealed.

 

[nongshim]

snope'd:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/organic.asp

 

[Damien the Pigeon]

What the hell? Now we are required to put poison on our food? Well, the people lobbying for this may kindly go fuck themselves.

Might I add, "with a rusty fork."

This is just another example of the rich trying to get richer at the expense of the common person's health. It's sickening.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Good points. We need to move away from vitalism and other scientific ideas which are very much rooted in the late 19th century. At the same time, home-grown foods should be maintained in order that we don't end up with oligopolies regarding agriculture.

Being something of a vitalist myself I disagree.

Study chemistry, particularly biochemistry, organic chemistry and medicinal chemistry, and you'll soon see that vitalism makes no sense.

Study nature, particularly the balances and intricate life webs that exist on the earth, and how everything seeming works so perfectly, and you'll soon see that there could easily be something too it.

 

[Hedberger]

I think this is something the entire world needs to move towards but in significantly smaller steps. I for one belive that modern science with proper funding and true independence could do better than nature ever can. Nature is not a thinking force and therefore less qualified for the job than a staff of scientists. Natural selection created human beings. We dominate the entire globe since centuries and we have the possibility to destroy the entire planet. The planet would be better off without us.

I don't like this bill, it's far too soon and too sudden. But i think that the world have to take control of this sooner or later.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Spoiler

Good points. We need to move away from vitalism and other scientific ideas which are very much rooted in the late 19th century. At the same time, home-grown foods should be maintained in order that we don't end up with oligopolies regarding agriculture.

Being something of a vitalist myself I disagree.

Study chemistry, particularly biochemistry, organic chemistry and medicinal chemistry, and you'll soon see that vitalism makes no sense.

Study nature, particularly the balances and intricate life webs that exist on the earth, and how everything seeming works so perfectly, and you'll soon see that there could easily be something too it.

So, that would be why we can synthesise adrenaline and put it into our bodies with exactly the same effects?

You see, I do study nature as part of my scientific course, and I'll note that it's an interaction between several thousands of biomolecules which makes life viable. It isn't some inherent nature of molecules produced by biological organisms.

You can take an animal, slap it on a table, chop it to bits, and splay out all those bits seperately and explain what they are and what they do. You can even synthesise those bits and to some extent play about with them.

However, until you can take a completely disassembled creature, re-assemble it, and get it moving and living again I will still keep my belief that life is far more than just a complex chemical.

 

[Hexmage]

No, not all pesticides are great wonderful things we should be spraying on everything we eat, and there are cases such as DDT where we find out that one of these chemicals needs to be banned. But on a whole, whatever "harm" these chemicals are doing to humankind can't be that devastating because our life expectancy is up tremendously since the days when we farmed by hand and thought lightning was divine flatulence.

Today's non-organic "normal" farming is NOT killing people. If it was, why are we now living to be 80-100 years old, and why is the world overpopulated (and growing)?

I'd like to start this off by saying that I am not against technological progress in any way. However, I do think it is important to apply the precautionary principle, and frankly I feel that many of the chemicals and technologies we encounter in everyday life have not been properly tested.

As for the claim that pesticides cannot possibly be causing us harm because of increasing life expectancy, consider these points:

- Pesticides accumulate in the environment over time, and many of these chemicals are fat soluble and can remain in our bodies for long periods of time.

- Large numbers of synthetic chemicals are detected in non-organic cow's milk. Human breast milk contains even higher levels of these chemicals.

- Mothers who both consume foods treated with synthetic chemicals and breastfeed introduce these chemicals to their children from conception to the point that they stop breastfeeding. Synthetic chemicals trapped in body fat and chemicals taken-in while eating can enter the unborn, and breastfeeding introduces even more.

- An increasing number of males of many species (including humans) exhibit feminization. Characteristics include lower sperm counts, smaller penises, and birth defects such testicles that remain undescended. Something in the environment is definitely having an effect on us.

- Many synthetic chemicals act as pseudo-estrogens and can impact the development of children from the womb to adulthood. Tumors are also known to be promoted by estrogen, and pseudo-estrogens have the same effect.

- Rates of cancer detection increased drastically since WWII, especially testicular, breast, and prostate cancer. However, it is true that the methods of detection and public awareness have also increased, so the incidence of cancer may not have actually increased. We don't know for certain, though.

- Farmers who handle pesticides have a 6-fold increase in cancer development risk.

- Many products we regularly use now have been proven to be harmful. The next time you use a cup or container you get from a restaurant, especially ones made of a styrofoam-like substance called polystyrene, look on the bottom of the container for a triangle symbol with a number in it. Many fastfood restaurants such as Zaxby's use containers with the number 6 inside the triangle; the material making up products with this mark has been suspected to be a probable human carcinogen since 2003, yet it remains on the market.

- Not enough time has passed to determine what the effect of synthetic chemical use on multiple generations of human beings will be. If these synthetic chemicals are dangerous, then continually consuming them could possibly be setting up multiple generations for their ill effects.

In conclusion, we just don't know how these chemicals will effect us, but the finding so far aren't so good. To paraphrase, "We're conducting a huge experiment and using ourselves as the guinea pigs." If you want to take a risk with the unknown then that's your choice, but consider that your choice could affect others both directly (your children) or indirectly (people with no knowledge of the risk whatsoever). I at least ask that you take steps to inform yourself concerning these issues no matter what decision you ultimately come to and ask that you encourage others to do the same.