# Your opinion on 'bio'-food



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Today the test in Germany will probably point out, that a 'bio'-farm (producing taugé) inbetween Hamburg and Hanover is the source of the EHEC bacteria epidemic. I've got some suspicion already before, that 'bio'-farmers have lower standards on keeping their groceries free from illnesses than the farmers, who use the 'normal' methods. The price is being paid with the loss of many lives....


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Organic farming is the right way to farm. Less emissions, closed nutrient cycles, no chemicals with possibility of run-off. Its better than industrial farming in all aspects.
And dont tell me it is not 'efficient' enough. According to the UN a switch to organic farming could see an increase in food production worldwide and may be the answer to the hunger crises in developing nations.
Even if this test shows that the EHEC came from an organic farm, the anti-biotic resistance must have developed on a farm where antibiotics are used regularly (i.e. A factory farm)

My two cents


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

AM AM AM <eats pair of galoshes>


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

GM, baaaaaaaaaby!


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Oh, how sick it is that we have become...even with the most organic methods there is still a great chance the the seed itself or the very soil is already contaminated with this new race that we have allowed ourselves to become...still, we spear ahead and form our destiny


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well, initial tests suggest the infection did not come from the bio-farm in question


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Maybe take a closer look at Bangers and Mash, Toad in the Hole, and Bubble 'n Squeak.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Organic food is a scam, catering to the "Mah foods gawt CHEMICALS in dem??" crowd. 
And since the food is covered in animal feces, it has a substantially higher risk of contamination.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Couchie said:


> Mah foods gawt CHEMICALS in dem


There actually are chemicals on them and in them. And if you didn't know, a considerable amount of chemicals that were considered to be perfectly safe in the past are now banned for safety reasons. The reason there's an "opposition" to the more safe "organic" foods is obviously due to sheer size and power of the chemical industry. There's TONS of money to be made in this business, simple as that. Nobody cares about little things like health and safety.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Organic food is a scam, catering to the "Mah foods gawt CHEMICALS in dem??" crowd.
> And since the food is covered in animal feces, it has a substantially higher risk of contamination.


Don't forget the other crowd: "I simply _shall not_ purchase any food containing unnatural substances. That is _not_ how the Lord intended the land to be cultivated. First we'll revolutionise agriculture, and then we'd end up with Frankenstein!"


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well lets look at some proper arguments:

1. Using highly concentrated and synthesised NPK-fertilisers leads to run-off which creates dead zones in water-habitats. This is called Eutrophication.
2. Having a monoculture decrease biodiversity. Simple.
3. Having these monocultures, and having the subsequent decrease in the crop's genetic diversity decreases the potential for adaptation to new threats and diseases that occur.
4. Using 'artificial' pesticides is silly because we often dont know the full effects until it is too late. Remember DDT's anyone? Anyway, pesticides bio-accumulate and affect animals higher up the food chain.
5. Using biological pest-controls is an obvious solution. They are self-regulating, they do not have the above harmful affects, they will propagate themselves, they are also highly specific.

The list continues, and I havent even started on industrialised animal farming.
1. There are obviously ethical issues attached to keeping animals in such unnatural, painful, crowded and unnecessarily bad conditions. There are laws that tell providing for a certain standard of care for cats and dogs, why do the chickens deserve less?
2. The incredible amounts of soya used to feed are often grown in deforested areas. There is an exceptionally high chance that the meat your eating was fed from land cut down in the amazon, perhaps illegally. Do I need to explain why deforestation is bad?
3. The unnecessary addition of anti-biotics to the diet promotes the evolution of resistant strands. A kind of animal MRSA. EHEC?

Seems organic-food might be worth the few extra euros.

The assumption should not be 'Organic farming is a scam', the assumption should be 'industrial farming is an unnecessary and dangerous practise'.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

During an interview on Dutch television a surgeon from Cuxhafen said, that from talking with the patients they hit upon this taugé / bamboo sprouts thing. It was being mentioned so often by so many patients (those who are able to talk) themselves, that the authorities went investigating...


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Bugger organic food, GM is the way to go.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2011)

If people want "organic" (what does that really mean, anyway?), I don't care if they want to pay more. I think that a lot of the fear of GM or non-organic crops is blown up by the organic industry to boost their own sales.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

It doesn't really matter. We're all doomed anyway.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I think this carrot is bio-organic. Should I still eat it?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Serge said:


> I think this carrot is bio-organic. Should I still eat it?


Put it in a microwave, kill the germs  Then wash it a bunch of times. Then it'll be alright.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Hey, as one pig once told me: you ain’t got eaten, but by another pig. Cheer up, people!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Serge said:


> you ain't got eaten, but by another pig.


uhh... what?


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> uhh... what?


Pigs will eat anything, including their young. Live and learn.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

nickgray said:


> There actually are chemicals on them and in them. And if you didn't know, a considerable amount of chemicals that were considered to be perfectly safe in the past are now banned for safety reasons. The reason there's an "opposition" to the more safe "organic" foods is obviously due to sheer size and power of the chemical industry. There's TONS of money to be made in this business, simple as that. Nobody cares about little things like health and safety.


Agrochemical production is extremely regulated. Companies have to spend *billions* to push products through all the hurdles over many years of safety proceedings, so your "nobody cares about health and safety" statement is unqualified. The pesticide residues of conventional food are far below accepted levels of safety. There is absolutely no evidence in any scientific peer-reviewed literature that organic food is safer than conventional food. Organic food introduces a number of risks itself arising from the increased risk of microbial contamination due to the use of manure as fertilizer, such as E.Coli and salmonella. Not to mention that the use of bio-pesticides is on the rise (pesticides derived from "natural" sources), and still sold as "organic" while potentially having comparable health risks as synthetic pesticides.

And you are aware that organic proponents are also very interested in making money, right? There is a common trend among "alternative" products: First, they feed you half-truths and cherry-picked "facts" about science which most people have only a passing understanding and would be unable distinguish misinformation. Then they feed you unqualified snarl words like "chemicals" and and purr words like "natural", neither of which are presented in enough context to have real meaning, merely used to emotionally influence you. Then they allude to an impenetrable lobby or establishment which is all-controlling and you're lucking to be even hearing this. Finally, they try to sell you something, usually at a higher price.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

There is no "perfect" agriculture. Meats (including seafood) and non-meats will always have pros and cons no matter what the agricultural means. There will be corresponding financial costs for the consumers and health implications. The odd outbreak like this one brings the news headlines, yes; but is that really killing/deteriorating the health of consumers over time? I don't think so. Think about the amount of refined/processed carbohydrates that modern folks eat. Walk into any supermarket and see how much foods that are largely based on refined/processed carbohydrates that have made its way into a modern diet. These are the foods that we have been injesting into our bodies, much more than our bodies can tolerate that cause long term health problems, for example.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

@Couchie: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1167557/

But you are ignoring the huge indirect implications industrialisation will have on our health. Destruction of ecosystems, deforestation, drug-resistant bacteria, animal welfare, pollution.

Tell me what possible reason there is to continue piling animals onto one another, to give them unnecessary antibiotics, to import food from illegally deforested regions when there is plenty here, etc...etc...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> @Couchie: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1167557/
> 
> But you are ignoring the huge indirect implications industrialisation will have on our health. Destruction of ecosystems, deforestation, drug-resistant bacteria, animal welfare, pollution.
> 
> Tell me what possible reason there is to continue piling animals onto one another, to give them unnecessary antibiotics, to import food from illegally deforested regions when there is plenty here, etc...etc...


Now you're just conflating a bunch of issues and throwing them in my face. I was commenting specifically on the issue of safety of organic food vs. conventional food, specifically produce, a scare tactic that the organic industry constantly plays the public without any real justification. Since conventional crops produce a higher yield per acre they actually require less deforestation than organic crops would. I'm all for better conditions for farm animals and ethical antibiotic and hormone use in animals.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Your post:



> There is absolutely no evidence in any scientific peer-reviewed literature that organic food is safer than conventional food.


Was directly answered by my post:



> @Couchie: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1167557/


Then I proceeded to describe a range of issues that will indirectly affect human health.

Finally, the 2nd paragraph of your post was interpreted by me as an all-out criticism of the bio-agriculture industry.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Your post:
> 
> Was directly answered by my post:
> 
> ...


I would say that the immediate danger of bacterial contamination is greater than the affront to human health stemming from the eventual depletion of effective antibiotics because of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but this is clearly a debatable issue. Interestingly, the regulation and encouragement to not use antibiotics has contributed to a lack of further antibiotic development, I believe there's something like only two new antibiotics even in the pipeline.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2011)

Couchie said:


> I would say that the immediate danger of bacterial contamination is greater than the affront to human health stemming from the eventual depletion of effective antibiotics because of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but this is clearly a debatable issue. Interestingly, the regulation and encouragement to not use antibiotics has contributed to a lack of further antibiotic development, I believe there's something like only two new antibiotics even in the pipeline.


While I generally agree with what you have said in this thread, I am somewhat uncertain of your last statement. Do you know that that is a significant contributing factor to the lack of significant numbers of antibiotics coming through the pipeline?

I suspect that there are a number of factors (not being argumentative, as your statement clearly allows that this is not the only contributing factor) - including simply what earns the most money. I don't know what attracts the money for pharmaceutical companies these days. In the wake of 9/11, I'm sure that medical countermeasures to select agents get a lot of interest.

I think that the organic agriculture industry has done a lot to drum up fear in those who don't know as much about the science behind GM crops and "non-organic" farming. The very name - "organic" - seems to imply that anything else falls into the unnatural and sinister.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Latest news on the German EHEC bacteria outbreak: taugé / bamboo sprouts remain the probable source (from a different farm though).


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Latest & Last: Taugé / bamboo sprouts from the first suspected farm are the source of the EHEC outbreak in Germany (27 people died).


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DrMike said:


> While I generally agree with what you have said in this thread, I am somewhat uncertain of your last statement. Do you know that that is a significant contributing factor to the lack of significant numbers of antibiotics coming through the pipeline?
> 
> I suspect that there are a number of factors (not being argumentative, as your statement clearly allows that this is not the only contributing factor) - including simply what earns the most money. I don't know what attracts the money for pharmaceutical companies these days. In the wake of 9/11, I'm sure that medical countermeasures to select agents get a lot of interest.


It's definitely all about the money, and the regulation significantly reduces the earning potential, which has caused pharmaceutical companies to move out of the space. It's no secret that drug development is a painful process that more often than not comes down to sheer luck and serendipity. By the time a new antibiotic is developed and then pushed through the 5-7 years of regulatory proceedings, bacteria may have already gained significant resistance to it. The shrinking market as countries limit their applications just adds insult to injury. Seeing that this is such a crappy industry and most of these companies are kept afloat by a handful of 'blockbuster' drugs with looming patent expiries, you can't really blame them for saying to hell with antibiotics in favour of committing the time, money and resources to finding the next Lipitor or Viagra. Seeing so-called 'superbugs' are on the rise, it's going to take major government incentives and regulatory streamlining to reverse this trend.



DrMike said:


> I think that the organic agriculture industry has done a lot to drum up fear in those who don't know as much about the science behind GM crops and "non-organic" farming. The very name - "organic" - seems to imply that anything else falls into the unnatural and sinister.


GM is pretty much the antichrist in Europe, but it's very widespread in N.America, which is interesting because the European companies Syngenta, Bayer and BASF are conventionally focused while the N.American companies like Monsanto and Dow are much more biotechnology intensive, I wonder the cause and effect in how this difference in attitudes came about...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I can't enter the debate in a substantial way right now, but I come out on the side of GM foods; also, organic food doesn't mean a lot to me, but I do like the idea.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Sometimes am in awe of the level of expertise of some of our Talk Classical members.
I've been learning a lot from you guys in a variety of issues.
We got an interesting community here - classical music lovers who are intelligent, highly educated, well informed about world issues, and articulate.
Good work, guys!:tiphat:


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

If no chemicals are used it would seem cost would be lower; then why does "Organic" cost so much more?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

GoneBaroque said:


> If no chemicals are used it would seem cost would be lower; then why does "Organic" cost so much more?


Because the yields are much less due to:
- loss from pests
- less concentrated fertiliser used so less nitrates available to the soil.

Basically, more land and more time is needed to produce less crop.


----------

