Philosophical Vegan Forum

Posted: **Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:50 pm**

^Ah, I see, thanks!

Posted: **Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:25 pm**

I don't have time right now to respond in depth, but you do know about the new evaluation of "17 experts from 11 countries" on glyphosate who say that it's "probably carcinogenic to humans"?

http://www.reduas.com.ar/wp-content/upl ... IARC-1.pdf

Posted: **Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:43 am**

Volenta wrote:I don't have time right now to respond in depth, but you do know about the new evaluation of "17 experts from 11 countries" on glyphosate who say that it's "probably carcinogenic to humans"?

http://www.reduas.com.ar/wp-content/upl ... IARC-1.pdf

If there is new evidence, then its use will be more tightly regulated (I'd be all for that, if there were evidence). This looks like some kind of meta-evaluation, which have little to no scientific value; it's basically the opinion of some people, not new scientific evidence. I don't pay much attention to these kinds of things.
The existing studies have shown no clear correlation or danger at the levels humans are exposed to, and no clear mechanism for mutagen activity.
If there is a new study, things will change.

Based on the link EquALLity gave, to Dr. Greger's last video on it, it only might be a good idea to lay off the stuff due to estrogenic activation IF you are at particularly high risk for those kinds of cancers (if you are a woman with a family history). But even that I'm skeptical of, due to a lack of correlation in humans.

For something like eggs, there's a clear correlation. We think it probably has something to do with the Choline, but we don't have to be sure about what's causing it to recommend people (particularly men) lay off eggs. And then, there's also the cholesterol. Here, there's not even a correlation to back up the conjecture, just some idea that people think Glyphosate is bad in minute amounts.

I'm all for banning things that are dangerous. Glyphosate, however, has passed rigorous safety evaluations, and without actual evidence to the contrary (which I am very open to), it contributes massively to agricultural yield and reduction in cost.
To be unduly wary of it at this point would not be prudent. We should not be scaring people off more affordable soy products (which may just lead them to eat meat instead) and encouraging the abuses of Organic farming as an "alternative" for no good reason.

Might it happen in the future that we learn something new and should avoid it? Sure. We might also learn that Strawberries are poison and cause brain cancer. Should we avoid them just in case, despite there being no evidence? No.

If you're going to treat one thing unreasonably based on unwarranted fear of "maybe", that sets a very bad unscientific precedent for our interactions with the world around us.

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:12 am**

brimstoneSalad wrote:There aren't many sources discussing this.
You might like the bullshit episode on organic food:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaDfP_HKNPI

First off: I do want to clarify that it's not my purpose to defend organic food. I'm not your ordinarily anti-GMO pro-organic lunatic. It's that I'm very critical towards the current farming practices in general—not limited to conventional practices. Given that Penn Jillette is a free-market capitalism advocate, it's not extraordinary to think that the episode is intentionally framed in a overtly positive manner. The way in which the organic food advocates are presented is humorous, but has nothing to do with my criticism here. And it's not that I think the criticism towards organic food is incorrect, it's just very selectively portrayed. But then: I do understand it's a comparison between organic and conventional methodology and not meant to be an analysis of our current stance.

brimstoneSalad wrote:And then there's this:
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

Doesn't seem to refute what I suggested, does it? I don't disagree with the article. And it doesn't say organic agriculture uses more pesticides, so it's not confirming your point either.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Yes, those are used in large quantities, but herbicides are also what I least mind eating.
They increase yield without the tedious human effort required to weed fields for competitive plants. Current generation herbicides have little affects on the environment because they break down so quickly.

Can you link me to a source? Since the studies I'm coming across are saying the contrary (not the break down part, but the environmental damage).

brimstoneSalad wrote:DDT was banned, and the U.S. EPA was created as a result of that. We now test the effects of these things upon the environment before they are allowed to be used, and carefully monitor them.

Completely irrelevant to modern context. That's like saying "We have to keep those Sadducees under control! Already forgotten about Jesus?"

I raised it to refer to the wake-up call it caused and the general perspective we (should) have developed towards the industry. The book wasn't just about DDT (which actually is still detected in the soil sometimes), but raised questions towards pesticides in general. She raised points about pesticides in general, some of which are just as relevant today.

Also, the rhetorical Jesus comparison is ridiculous and unnecessary in demonstrating your point.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Conventional farming, as it is, is evidence based and maximizes yield within the bounds of government regulation

Which isn't making me more comfortable, given that governments are heavily interested in economical growth themselves. We are exploiting the earth and (indeed) focused on maximizing yield (instead of focusing on food distribution (including waste), substainability, getting rid of monoculture, destruction of species (and it's diversity)), and the goverments seem to be happy with it.

brimstoneSalad wrote:using any and all tools and innovations available to that end -- we just need to continue what we're doing, in tightening environmental and health regulations to encourage advancement through normal competition and innovation with science.
Organic farming is not founded on science or reason, but paranoia and superstition; the "evolution" of organic farming is biodynamic farming -- that's not a quirk of extremism within the industry, that's just how these people think.

Conventional farmers have no problem with traditional methods, and they use them when they work.
But they don't sacrifice yield by using them when there's something better.

The problem is that not every method available is beneficial with regards to energy consumption and environmental impact. And it's not that I'm against using science and technology; I would even say it most certainly plays a big role in fixing the problems, but it's all about how you're using it. Science can be used for good and bad; it's amoral in it's core. It's not an accident that lots of software developers/investors are moving towards and investing into the farming industry and actually doing it substainable. I recently came across Farmland LP for example.

brimstoneSalad wrote:The "arms race" isn't harmful to the environment, it's just expensive to researchers and engineers, but there's no economical way around it. When they have to switch methods, they switch to a different product with the same environmental and safety standards. Switching them up now and then causes the resistance to not build up, or be lost, for insects.

The harm lies in that while the targeted pests are developing resistance, not-targeted invasive species don't.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Look into the EPA's regulations. You might be surprised by how competent they are.

I will do that sometime.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Based on the link EquALLity gave, to Dr. Greger's last video on it, it only might be a good idea to lay off the stuff due to estrogenic activation IF you are at particularly high risk for those kinds of cancers (if you are a woman with a family history). But even that I'm skeptical of, due to a lack of correlation in humans.

[...]

I'm all for banning things that are dangerous. Glyphosate, however, has passed rigorous safety evaluations, and without actual evidence to the contrary (which I am very open to), it contributes massively to agricultural yield and reduction in cost.
To be unduly wary of it at this point would not be prudent. We should not be scaring people off more affordable soy products (which may just lead them to eat meat instead) and encouraging the abuses of Organic farming as an "alternative" for no good reason.

Might it happen in the future that we learn something new and should avoid it? Sure. We might also learn that Strawberries are poison and cause brain cancer. Should we avoid them just in case, despite there being no evidence? No.

If you're going to treat one thing unreasonably based on unwarranted fear of "maybe", that sets a very bad unscientific precedent for our interactions with the world around us.

I'm sorry to say that you're not coming across as credible when dismissing 17 experts coming to the conclusion that—and I quote again—it's "probably carcinogenic to humans" by saying it's "for no good reason" and "unwarranted fear of 'maybe'".

Also, you're appealing to Dr. Greger, but he actually said this:

Dr. Greger wrote:But pure glyphosate isn’t sprayed on crops, Roundup is, which contains a variety of adjuvants and surfactants meant to help the glyphosate penetrate into tissues. And indeed when the study was repeated with what’s actually sprayed on GMO crops, there were toxic and hormonal effects even at doses smaller than the 1 or 2% concentration that’s used out on the fields.

This is about the soybeans that are being produced in huge quantities in South America that are at the same time destroying the forest. Am I missing something?

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:09 am**

Volenta wrote: Also, you're appealing to Dr. Greger, but he actually said this:
Dr. Greger wrote:But pure glyphosate isn’t sprayed on crops, Roundup is, which contains a variety of adjuvants and surfactants meant to help the glyphosate penetrate into tissues. And indeed when the study was repeated with what’s actually sprayed on GMO crops, there were toxic and hormonal effects even at doses smaller than the 1 or 2% concentration that’s used out on the fields.

I was just talking about Glyphosate. I mentioned how a lot of the surfactants that are used are nasty, but a lot of them are also old and similarly used in organic farming.
People focus on the wrong issue -- the Glyphosate, as the active ingredient -- rather than the things that are added in to spray the stuff.

Organic stuff isn't safer.

I want food grown using Glyphosate in a more healthy and sustainable vegan base product for application.
Unfortunately, that's not an option right now.

The things the industry gets away without testing are the things that have been used for ages, not new stuff. That's a problem.

What I do NOT want is labeling for GMO products, since that doesn't do anything for the real issue, and it makes it harder to develop better GMO products and get them into the market when people are rejecting them.

Volenta wrote:It's that I'm very critical towards the current farming practices in general—not limited to conventional practices.

I agree that there are a lot of things that need improvement. The problem is that "Organic" offers a fraudulent solution that doesn't do any good (and may even do more harm), when there are potentially real solutions that are being ignored in favor of nonsense.

Just as we can't solve the mysteries of the universe by saying "god did it", we can't solve farming by relying on the same anti-scientific sentiment of "organic it!".
We need real solutions to real problems. Improvements that only science and good government policy can give us.

It's like how when alternative medicine is proved to work, it's not alternative anymore, it's just medicine. That's what conventional agriculture is -- it's that which is regulated and proven to work.

Volenta wrote:Doesn't seem to refute what I suggested, does it? I don't disagree with the article. And it doesn't say organic agriculture uses more pesticides, so it's not confirming your point either.

It discusses efficacy briefly. See the part where the common "organic" version needs to be applied much more?
More pesticide. At least, for the same efficacy. And it also mentions that organic chemicals are carcinogenic at about the same rates, I think.
More of something that's at least just as likely to be dangerous (if not more so due to unknowns), is worse.

Methods vary between farmers, but for those organic farmers who want to rely on pesticide (and they are allowed to based on current standards), they will be forced to use much more of it. Which means not only more of the likely more dangerous (to humans) pesticides due to lower efficacy against insects, but also more of the nasty surfactants to spray them on the field too.

Keep in mind, a lot of the ingredients to roundup that are actually the most problematic (not Glyphosate, which is forbidden but pretty much harmless) are perfectly kosher in Organic farming, or similar ones are that are equally problematic.

Due to the incredibly lax regulation (beyond arbitrarily forbidding "scary" new chemicals), it's hard to say what is really on your organic produce.
But it is exceedingly likely that you are buying vegetables covered in more animal tallow and potent toxins when you buy Organic.

Volenta wrote:Can you link me to a source? Since the studies I'm coming across are saying the contrary (not the break down part, but the environmental damage).

By what means do they claim glyphosate is damaging to the environment?

Volenta wrote:Which isn't making me more comfortable, given that governments are heavily interested in economical growth themselves.

The EPA is mostly autonomous, and frequently clashes with other branches. It's the check and balance system at work. When there are conflicts of interest like that, that's a big deal in regulation.

Volenta wrote:instead of focusing on food distribution (including waste), substainability, getting rid of monoculture, destruction of species (and it's diversity)

That's the EPA's job, but they aren't all powerful. Now, if you want to argue that we should give the EPA more power, I'm all for it.
They are continually frustrated by their own limits, but they're slowly gaining more political traction.

Cap and trade would have been implemented years ago if it were up to the EPA. Why? Because it's not their job to worry about the economy.

Volenta wrote:The problem is that not every method available is beneficial with regards to energy consumption and environmental impact.

EPA already has tight regulations on near-by environmental impact, and that for manufacturing locally. So far, they haven't been able to cap greenhouse gasses (related to energy consumption). Once that happens, prices for those products with waste energy will rise, and the market will take care of it on its own by finding more efficient mechanisms. That's why carbon credits are so incredibly important. Market forces don't work without showing the real price of our resources.

Now, what they can't control is what happens in other countries; and that really is miserably terrible.

Volenta wrote:The harm lies in that while the targeted pests are developing resistance, not-targeted invasive species don't.

What?

Volenta wrote:I'm sorry to say that you're not coming across as credible when dismissing 17 experts coming to the conclusion that—and I quote again—it's "probably carcinogenic to humans" by saying it's "for no good reason" and "unwarranted fear of 'maybe'".

This makes me think you don't understand how science works, but I'm pretty sure you do, so I'm a little confused.

It's easy to find 17 "experts" who say evolution is false, or climate change isn't real. I'm interested in actual research. Not some kind of straw pole of a few selected people's interpretations. Their opinions as non-researchers sticking their pinkies in the air to see which way they think the wind is blowing do not mean more to me than the opinions of hundreds of researchers and independent labs who have said otherwise. Metastudies are basically worthless.

Science is not an appeal to authority of a few selected 'experts', it's about showing the evidence. They did not show any evidence. I don't agree with what they're doing, how they're doing it, or respect them for stirring up fear without any new evidence.

As far as I know, Dr. Greger doesn't try to reinterpret research to say what he wants it to say; he basically just cites conclusions researchers have made -- the people in the positions to make those conclusions. I respect him as a popularizer of research, and he often changes or updates his positions on things with new information, which is the ideal of science.

If these "17 experts" want to do some kind of actual study and present their findings, I'm all for it and I will give them the respect they deserve for doing it. Otherwise, they make skilled politicians, but very poor scientists.

Sorry, I just really don't like it when people do this kind of thing. I find it useless at best, and more likely deceptive.

Volenta wrote:This is about the soybeans that are being produced in huge quantities in South America that are at the same time destroying the forest. Am I missing something?

You mean the soybeans produced in such large quantities to feed livestock?

I don't see your point.
I'm just talking about human consumption, which by no means necessitates clearing rain forests. And the practice of which I don't think is barred by "organic" labeling either (which would require clearing more land for the same yield, by the way).

There are serious problems today, most of which fall on the shoulders of animal agriculture. None of which "organic" fixes.

Posted: **Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:54 pm**

I agree with most of what you say, so there's only a little amount I'll address.

brimstoneSalad wrote:By what means do they claim glyphosate is damaging to the environment?

I'm not sure about glyphosate specificly; most of those studies (as far as I can tell) are about Roundup. So it's hard to tell what the contribution of glyphosate in that is. But you were talking about the "[c]urrent generation herbicides", which is a much broader range of herbicides than just glyphosate.

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Volenta wrote:The harm lies in that while the targeted pests are developing resistance, not-targeted invasive species don't.
What?

There is no question that populations of non-targeted species are badly effected by pesticides. Then I'm talking about species like bees, birds and butterflies.

Take the colony collapse disorder of bees for example, which we know to be linked to neonicotinoid pesticides. And because you seem to like the EPA: they "[are] not currently banning or severely restricting the use of the neonicotinoid pesticides". (source: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/int ... n-ban.html) It's also not the case that the restriction in Europe is of any significance; I know that in the Netherlands they are completely ignoring this ban. I'm not sure about the other countries though, but I don't have lots of hope.

brimstoneSalad wrote:This makes me think you don't understand how science works, but I'm pretty sure you do, so I'm a little confused.

It's easy to find 17 "experts" who say evolution is false, or climate change isn't real. I'm interested in actual research. Not some kind of straw pole of a few selected people's interpretations. Their opinions as non-researchers sticking their pinkies in the air to see which way they think the wind is blowing do not mean more to me than the opinions of hundreds of researchers and independent labs who have said otherwise. Metastudies are basically worthless.

Science is not an appeal to authority of a few selected 'experts', it's about showing the evidence. They did not show any evidence. I don't agree with what they're doing, how they're doing it, or respect them for stirring up fear without any new evidence.

As far as I know, Dr. Greger doesn't try to reinterpret research to say what he wants it to say; he basically just cites conclusions researchers have made -- the people in the positions to make those conclusions. I respect him as a popularizer of research, and he often changes or updates his positions on things with new information, which is the ideal of science.

If these "17 experts" want to do some kind of actual study and present their findings, I'm all for it and I will give them the respect they deserve for doing it. Otherwise, they make skilled politicians, but very poor scientists.

Sorry, I just really don't like it when people do this kind of thing. I find it useless at best, and more likely deceptive.

I tried avoiding an appeal to authority because I knew you would jump onto it. The point I tried to make is that we DO rely on experts for knowledge for the simple reason of having only limited time, and to take your word for it would be wrong for the same reasons. These are experts that looked into the studies and came to a certain conclusion. Could they be wrong? Certainly. And I agree with you that science isn't about appealing to authority; what I'm claiming is that it's too easy of you to just dismiss it all at once.

I'm not sure though what your problem with metastudies is (in which we might differ). It is a great way of evaluating and comparing studies, and to focus on those aspects that are well grounded. What you seem to miss is that Dr. Greger himself is in some sense doing the exact same thing; combining studies and evaluating the reliability (etc.). You suspect these experts for being driven by confirmation bias while trusting Dr. Greger's sincerity, but by which means did you come to this conclusion?

We do miss some information about the method of analysis these experts used, but the references—and thus the information itself—are/should be there. You can analyze it yourself if you question their credibility.

Evolution and climate change are both very well-grounded, in which case the so called "experts" should work themselves in some serious acrobatic positions by going against the evidence to conclude the contrary. Not to mention the ease by which other—real—experts can point out the errors they made if they are willing enough to do so (which can also be done in this case); that's also how science works.

brimstoneSalad wrote:You mean the soybeans produced in such large quantities to feed livestock?

I don't see your point.

I would be the first to admit that most of it goes to feeding livestock, absolutely. Animal agriculture is without question my biggest concern/criticism. It doesn't make the impact less dramatical though.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I'm just talking about human consumption, which by no means necessitates clearing rain forests. And the practice of which I don't think is barred by "organic" labeling either (which would require clearing more land for the same yield, by the way).

Well, I wasn't just talking about human consumption, but I can understand why you thought I were.

About clearing more land for the same yield: that's of course true, but I wouldn't get carried away by it too much though, for the reasons I gave earlier: fixing food distribution/waste can help a lot (which is something Penn Jillette completely ignored when criticizing organic food). And lets not forget: the standard diet consists of huge amounts of meat which is a huge contribution to clearing more land. So I see it as part of the total sum, but not leading it.

brimstoneSalad wrote:There are serious problems today, most of which fall on the shoulders of animal agriculture. None of which "organic" fixes.

Notice that that's not what I was arguing for. Animal agriculture is most certainly the biggest problem at this moment, yes. Organic can't and doesn't fix it in just being organic. What I was saying is that there are possibilities within organic farming—as well as biotechnology—that could lead to better solutions. The way in which farming has progressed over the last, say 80 years—apart from the regulations that actually are applied—has been very damaging and overall the wrong approach. And we're lucky that Obama actually understands the problems and the relation of agriculture to climate change and health very well, so there is some hope.

Posted: **Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:53 am**

Volenta wrote: I'm not sure about glyphosate specificly; most of those studies (as far as I can tell) are about Roundup. So it's hard to tell what the contribution of glyphosate in that is. But you were talking about the "[c]urrent generation herbicides", which is a much broader range of herbicides than just glyphosate.

Glyphosate is the king of the hill in terms of herbicides. I'm asking about the mechanism by which it's supposed to be damaging the environment.

Fertilizer runoff (which applies to cow feces just as well as to synthetics) is a more serious issues for aquatic ecosystems. Insecticide may be part of the issue for insect biodiversity.

Herbicides, though, I don't believe are problematic. Maybe some of the additives, but that's a similar issue in organic farming.

Volenta wrote:There is no question that populations of non-targeted species are badly effected by pesticides. Then I'm talking about species like bees, birds and butterflies.

Oh, invasive species means something else entirely. Like fire ants in North America, or pigs on tropical islands.

Volenta wrote:Take the colony collapse disorder of bees for example, which we know to be linked to neonicotinoid pesticides. And because you seem to like the EPA: they "[are] not currently banning or severely restricting the use of the neonicotinoid pesticides".

They explain why. It will be interesting to see the results of the European experiment.

I think people need to stop eating bees' honey so they don't have to collect and eat as much pollen per bee to compensate for what's lacking in the sugar they're fed to turn into more honey.
The problem with bees is probably a mixture of factors, and the important point is that it's just not very clear at the moment.

Volenta wrote:The point I tried to make is that we DO rely on experts for knowledge for the simple reason of having only limited time, and to take your word for it would be wrong for the same reasons.

And the experts we should rely on are those doing the actual studies. Dr. Greger pretty much just presents studies at face value, and quotes the experimenters. He isn't pretending to make new studies, as far as I know.

Volenta wrote:what I'm claiming is that it's too easy of you to just dismiss it all at once.

It's easy because it's appropriate to do so.
If they do some actual experimentation and come up with new data, I'm all ears.

I don't need them to pretend that their opinions and special interpretations are more important than those of the people who did the actual work, and government organizations whose job it is to review these things.

Volenta wrote:I'm not sure though what your problem with metastudies is (in which we might differ).

Metastudies are rife with problems, derived partially from research and publication biases (which are never very well controlled for), and partially from the very kind of people who would be inclined to do metastudies rather than doing something useful which will produce new evidence.

Volenta wrote:You suspect these experts for being driven by confirmation bias while trusting Dr. Greger's sincerity, but by which means did you come to this conclusion?

Dr. Greger isn't doing the same thing, as far as I can tell. If he joined a panel of 'experts' and released a new 'study' that didn't involve any actual science, on the matter of meat, carefully picking through other actual studies to find the ones they want, and then they all came to a conclusion that none of the researchers in those studies they cited would have supported, then he would be doing the same thing.

Dr. Greger primarily just explains the studies that are done, and quotes the authors.

Maybe I'm just not aware of the full range of his activities.

Volenta wrote:You can analyze it yourself if you question their credibility.

The people who did the studies in the first place already analyzed them, and did not come to those exaggerated conclusions. I don't think the credibility of these 'experts' is really in question; they have none, they haven't done anything.
You can't consistently come to different conclusions than the experimenters, and cite that work as evidence. That's what new-agers and cholesterol-conspiracy-theorists do.

Volenta wrote:Not to mention the ease by which other—real—experts can point out the errors they made if they are willing enough to do so (which can also be done in this case); that's also how science works.

Actually, that kind of nonsense is usually ignored by scientists, because they don't see the dialog as having any value. Very few evolutionary biologists are jumping to attention to contradict everything Ken Ham says, and they don't need to. Why? He hasn't presented any evidence. He's not engaged in science, he's engaged in ignorant rhetoric. The same here with this metastudy.

Metastudies don't have scientific value, evidence has scientific value.
Scientific consensus is much more than some metastudy.

Volenta wrote: It doesn't make the impact less dramatical though.

But why is it relevant to the issue at hand, when we're talking about what humans will be eating, organic vs. conventional?

Volenta wrote:Well, I wasn't just talking about human consumption, but I can understand why you thought I were.

Why is anything else relevant?

Volenta wrote:fixing food distribution/waste can help a lot (which is something Penn Jillette completely ignored when criticizing organic food). And lets not forget: the standard diet consists of huge amounts of meat which is a huge contribution to clearing more land. So I see it as part of the total sum, but not leading it.

Organic has not banned meat or animal products from bearing the label, so I don't see any reason to favor organic in these issues. If anything, it's worse since it supports more animal product usage in agriculture.

And what do you mean, food distribution? Are you talking about this local-food trend? Because transportation to final destination only amounts to a tiny portion of the embodied energy in food. It's much more important to produce something where it grows best, to get higher yield with less expense (in terms of energy, water, land, etc.).

Volenta wrote:What I was saying is that there are possibilities within organic farming—as well as biotechnology—that could lead to better solutions.

What possibilities?

Organic has:

Increased use of animal products and profit for the animal agriculture industry
Reduced yield, requiring more farm land
Made people think vegetables are more expensive and that conventional vegetables are dangerous, so they might as well eat meat
Made people think it's too expensive to go vegan because they have to eat organic for some reason
Banned the use of effective pesticides, this Increasing the volume and frequency of use required for pesticides (which are not safer, but more dangerous now that they're using more of them)
Convinced people to eat locally, thus cutting them off from more affordable produce in many parts of the world, making specialty vegan products what help people go veg forbidden, and further reducing land yield when crops are grown in areas that aren't suitable to them, wasting more energy in the process.
Empowered and supported the modern rise of homeopathy.
Introduced superstition back into agriculture with a vengeance through fertilizing the cultural landscape for biodynamic farming (what did we ever do without animal sacrifice to improve the harvest?)
Has made people afraid of science, from genetic engineering to nuclear power, and supported woo at every turn.

If organic has ever done anything good, and I doubt it has, it was purely by accident.
Biotechnology could offer a lot of great potential, if Organic hadn't made people phobic of genetically modified foods and pest solutions.

If not for Organic, we might be crop dusting our fields with genetically engineered weed pollen that causes the weeds born from those seeds to die off.
We might be using viruses that target weeds and pests instead of chemicals, and engineering our food to resist them.
We might be producing more nutritious food through genetic engineering, since there would actually be a market for it.

There are so many great things we could be doing, if not for the massive misstep that is everything "organic".
Promoting such a wrong solution as having any value prevents people from understanding and seeking out the right solutions to these problems.

Organic farming, like Theism, needs to fail for the science positive attitudes we need to fix these problems to thrive.

Posted: **Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:09 pm**

brimstoneSalad wrote:
That's from fertilizer, not pesticide.
Organic food uses manure, which contains much more harmful bacteria, funds the animal agriculture industry, and can also run off into the waterways.

In terms of pesticide, Organic food has to use more pesticide than conventional food, because the "natural" pesticides they use are less effective at targeting pests (and incidentally, often more dangerous for human consumption). The industry is not properly regulated. I don't trust organic food. At least conventional food has pesticide levels regulated, and the new pesticides thoroughly tested, rather than sliding by under the radar under grandfather legislation.

How is it not regulated if it has a USDA certified organic label on it please describe?

Posted: **Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:25 pm**

PrincessPeach wrote: How is it not regulated if it has a USDA certified organic label on it please describe?

That only regulates a vague notion of how "natural", or generally how old, the chemical is. Either it's allowed, or it isn't. It doesn't say the chemical is safe, non-carcinogenic, vegan, etc.

"Organic" chemicals are carcinogenic at about the same rate man-made chemicals are. It's all just chemistry.
The problem is, organic farmers who chose to spray, have to spray a lot more to get the same effect.

Of course, there are some organic farmers who avoid all chemicals, and do no spraying at all, but there's no way to know which, and as far as commercial organic farms go (beyond family businesses) I doubt that's true of any, since it takes more human labor to weed and plant in a way to minimize pests. The issue is knowing what/if/how much they spray, since that aspect is not regulated.

If I had my own standard -- BrimstoneGanic? -- I'd ban all spraying of anything by default, permitting no assumptions that any ingredients are safe (particularly the untested "natural" ones, and the surfactants used in the sprays), and require the entire formula to be demonstrated to be safe by determining how much of each component is left on the plant, and evaluating each independently.
Farmers could only spray with water/alcohol and a few other safe solvents (if needed to dissolve it) and the active ingredients that have actually been tested.
Also, no animal feces or rendered corpses.

Posted: **Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:09 pm**

brimstoneSalad wrote: That only regulates a vague notion of how "natural", or generally how old, the chemical is. Either it's allowed, or it isn't. It doesn't say the chemical is safe, non-carcinogenic, vegan, etc.

"Organic" chemicals are carcinogenic at about the same rate man-made chemicals are. It's all just chemistry.
The problem is, organic farmers who chose to spray, have to spray a lot more to get the same effect.

Of course, there are some organic farmers who avoid all chemicals, and do no spraying at all, but there's no way to know which, and as far as commercial organic farms go (beyond family businesses) I doubt that's true of any, since it takes more human labor to weed and plant in a way to minimize pests. The issue is knowing what/if/how much they spray, since that aspect is not regulated.

If I had my own standard -- BrimstoneGanic? -- I'd ban all spraying of anything by default, permitting no assumptions that any ingredients are safe (particularly the untested "natural" ones, and the surfactants used in the sprays), and require the entire formula to be demonstrated to be safe by determining how much of each component is left on the plant, and evaluating each independently.
Farmers could only spray with water/alcohol and a few other safe solvents (if needed to dissolve it) and the active ingredients that have actually been tested.
Also, no animal feces or rendered corpses.

Philosophical Vegan Forum

Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community

Re: Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community

Re: Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community

Re: Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community

Re: Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community

Re: Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community

Re: Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community

Re: Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community

Re: Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community

Re: Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community

Re: Pseudoscience Within the Vegan Community