I think you're a big fat faggot that doesn't realize these pesticides and fertilizers are what makes it possible to feed the modern world and that rinsing it off of makes it completely safe.

Your feelings make no difference that you probably suffer more adverse health effects because of your sedentary job and life style than some shit sprayed on your vegetables.

:^)

I honestly don't seek out organic produce when I shop, although much of the things I buy these days are organic. But I garden at home and it's all completely organic. Mostly because it's a great way to preserve the soil and work with nature. Keeping the worms happy keeps my tomatoes happy.

>>7841646
because the outdated herbicides and pesticides used in organic farming are much worse for farmers and the environment, and they do not allow better GMO crops such as Bt crops which allow farmers to dramatically reduce the amount of pesticides used

>>7841646
reminder that nature wants to kill you and being 'natural' is not a good thing

>>7841662
First of all, you are wrong. We have the ability to feed the world on organic foods if we were to stop raping the land with useless feed crops like wheat, soybeans, and corn in order to funnel it into an inefficient livestock system and instead grew useful human food. Pesticides are also absorbed by the roots of plants, so washing does not remove nearly everything.

Secondly, my lab job is a mix of field work and research, and I work out/eat healthy (the latter is clearly more than can be said for you), so I am far from unhealthy.

>>7841662

>pesticides and fertilizers are essential in creating enough food to feed the modern world

Do people seriously think this? If there was some massive universal shift in lifestyle where the majority of people began eating organic, that some day there would just no longer be organic food.

Every major food distributor caters to organic foods consumers as well as any food trend in history (gluten free, low fat/fat free, low carb, free/fair trade, soy/nut/tree/dairy/meat free, vegan).

>>7841688
So if we all agree to stop eating good things we don't need to embrace modern better technology?
Sounds like a lose lose situation to me. You should feel fucking bad advocating for such a ridiculous idea

>>7841646
It's hard for me to pay a premium for food that I cannot distinguish from it's cheaper, more common version. If I buying it because I don't want traces of pesticides and heavy petrochemical inputs Organic doesn't provide as much in that regard as one would hope.

That said it's worth springing for in some situations. I buy organic wheat and corn because I don't want to eat fucking RoundUp. And doing so is extra fun because I know it pisses off faggots like this >>7841662

>>7841688
>Thinking he knows anything about my lifestyle and diet.
I don't buy into fads nor let my feelings determine my diet. Facts do. I'm sorry that you are a whiny emotional female, but I don't think it's the food that's causing your estrogen overload.

>>7841646
>I work for a research lab
As the janitor?

>>7841697
Awfully reactionary post for someone who claims to run on facts. That kind of personal attack sounds more like someone who feels threatened than someone making a level headed decision based on the facts they've managed to collect. The sexism involved also suggests you hold a conservative world view, so it seems odd you wouldn't want to eat food grown more or less the same way your grandparents' food was.

When the people telling you what the "facts" are happen to be the same people profiting from your decisions based on those "facts" it's wise to be a little extra critical. After all, Chesterfield cigarettes used to be "just what the doctor ordered - not a cough in a carload." And the Corvair was totally safe. So is fracking.

You might want to question what you're being told a little more to make sure it isn't a load of bullshit.

>>7841749
>Question what you're being told.
I do, but I'm also not a luddite.

>>7841749
>When the people telling you what the "facts" are happen to be the same people profiting from your decisions based on those "facts"
Thats literally what is going on with the people marketing 'organic' food.

>>7841749
>You might want to question what you're being told a little more to make sure it isn't a load of bullshit.
I'd say the same thing to you about organic food. You know, the shit where you pay a premium for using outdated farming techniques.

>>7841752
History has shown Monasnto doesn't give a fuck about public health or safety. They just pull awful shit off the market and pay the fines when they're already making money off the next dodgy thing they put out. Not a company I would trust.
>>7841754
I think Organic sells more on distrust than on any factual claims it's actually better. If anything it's paying more to play it safe if you're doubtful of the products and practices currently used in Agribusiness. And those doubts are legit.

>>7841662

Haha, he actually got mad. You're right OP, I don't know where the pushback against organic has been coming from. I think one of the first really critical opinions I heard came from old Penn and Teller

>>7841692

You can't just call it better and not refute any of the OPs points. Do you honestly think that unsustainable farming practices are excused by the fact that a third of the western world is full of undisciplined, wasteful fat fucks?

>>7841754
>>7841772

I'm not confident that organic food is any better for you health wise, but do you guys really believe fertilizer runoff is a conspiracy?

>>7841782
>do you guys really believe fertilizer runoff is a conspiracy?
No, but I just think it's an unfortunate side effect of effective land utilization.

Fortunately, farmers hate putting out more fertilizer than they need to, and there are some great technologies that are helping them to put less out and to minimize run off.

>>7841782
>I'm an uneducated dummy that thinks other people are upset when the only opinions I have come from Penn and Teller.
Drink bleach, moron. :^)

>>7841772
>outdated farming techniques.
Yet outdated farming techniques didn't create pollution. Our modern farming techniques do. There's absolutely no reason growing food ought to pollute the environment. But as I said here >>7841781 companies like Monsanto don't give a fuck about health and public safety. They can make a pile of money turning an entire sector of the economy that traditionally has been non-polluting into a major pollution source, so they fucking do it.

That is pretty shitty, both literally and figuratively.

>>7841801
You haven't posted a single fact in this thread that hasn't been refuted, and have done nothing else but throw petulant insults and pretend you aren't angry. I think you should do everyone a favor and just drink a bottle of Roundup yourself.

>>7841805
If you want to make an omelette, you need to break some eggs. Large scale anything involves pollution.

>Implying organic farming doesn't create pollution.
It's just using different chemicals that make you "feel" better.

>>7841806
He's doing the "I'm proud of my ignorance" thing common among lower class white males in irrelevant parts of the country. He's angry at people richer than he is, and Organic is just a symbol he associates with THOSE people. He probably finds vegetarians, vegans, hipsters, nu-males, liberals and anyone who eats at "pretentious" fine dining restaurants equally triggering.

>>7841796

Well there you have it. That's a great reason to consider organic foods then.

I'd like to believe you when you say that capitalist principles will mitigate the damage, but there's still tonnes and tonnes of pretty much unavoidable runoff given our current farming practices. I dont think asking Americans and Euros to drastically change their diet is realistic, but youre writing off one of the devastating symptoms of our current food culture as an unfortunate side effect of modern agriculture. Im not educated enough to crunch all of the numbers, but no one has ever given me a good reason of why it has to be this way.

>>7841801

>reading comprehension
>this poster

Stay mad >:'J

>>7841834
>angry at people richer than [me]
I bet I make more money than you, amigo.

>>7841838
>Implying organic foods don't create runoff as well.
It's a side effect of any large scale agricultural operation, my man. You can't tell me that you don't need to use fertilizer on organic fields.

Well I guess you can if you want the shit to sit barren for several years after, but that's just uneconomical and you can't expect that.

>>7841830

Wow, that original and informative proverb really changes everything dude.

Shut up. Your reasoning sucks and it doesnt seem like you have any real knowledge about what we're talking about. Just because the alternative isnt ideal, that doesnt mean we shouldnt strive for better.

>>7841877
Where are your facts and statistics besides your "feelings"?

That little sticker that you paid a 50% markup for doesn't give you the high ground.

>>7841877
And my knowledge comes my farmer friend that has about 10,000 acres he farms.

>>7841861
>It's a side effect of any large scale agricultural operation, my man.
You mean large scale monoculture, which is the experiment we've been working with since the 1970's. Farmers just raise one thing. TYhat pollutes like fuck. Traditional farmers never did that. It's a terrible idea.

>>7841889
>Farmers raise one thing
Yeah, in each certain fields. Farmers always grow the same crop together. It's more efficient for planting and harvesting. They'll grow soybeans, corn, wheat, and whatever the fuck else they think they can get a good price for.
>is the experiment we've been working with since the 1970's
Are you fucking retarded?

>>7841861

Yeah, I know that an organic label doesn't mean the paragon of human agriculture. I dont buy organic myself. But less pesticide usage definitely does reduce runoff or at least concentrations of the compounds responsible for the consequences of runoff.

The OP seems to have okay reasoning and disposable income, so why not buy organic? It is pretty much the same end product imo. Why is the first post something like this >>7841662 ? People complain a lot about how self righteous organic shoppers are, but no one wants to have the conversation that we might have an issue with how we do food

>>7841901
>no one wants to have the conversation that we might have an issue with how we do food
Talk to a farmer. You'll see the western world does a pretty good job of reducing run off and wastes.

It's poorer countries that have the huge fuck ups. In the US a farmer pays good money for people to come out, take soil samples throughout his fields, analyze it, and give him a detailed profile of where he needs to add fertilizer, what kind, and how much. Then the farmer will use GPS coordinates and computerized tractors and fertilizer spreaders to put out the right amount.

If this isn't progress in the right direction, I don't know what is.

>>7841896
The idea of basing our entire agricultural system off utility corn was that of Earl Butz, Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, who later resigned over racist comments and was later indicted for tax evasion. He basically set up the system we've been operating under since the 1970's. It makes about as much sense as trickle down economics or Wall St being to regulate itself. It's great for companies like Monsanto, but for the consumer it just gives us cheap, poor quality meat, cheap sugar, cheap highly processed foods and very highly polluting farms.

>>7841880

Im not the guy you originally replied to and I dont even buy organic food. Yeah I guess i should of read a little harder. Organic food does cause pollution, but one of the biggest goals of the whole concept is reduced fertilizer and pesticide usage, especially those enriched in nitrogen and phosphorous compounds. If your friend has some studies buried somewhere showing comparable runoff between plots growing organic certified and non organic foods I'd love to see it and I dont mean that sarcastically.

>>7841909

Besides the word of some farmers who have obvious self interest in some current farming practices, what else leads you to believe this is mostly poor countries? I dont doubt that theyre worse off with their environmental regulation, but how are our fuck ups not as huge as theirs? One of the largest dead zones is the Gulf of Mexico and the largest in the world is the Baltic.

And I dont know man, if I had a solution I'd be doing a lot more important things than posting here, but are any of those amicable runoff minimization things going to stop or even slow the ecological destruction? I'm not sure

>>7841948
>who later resigned over racist comments and was later indicted for tax evasion.
Totally irrelevant to the discussion
>it just gives us cheap, poor quality meat, cheap sugar, cheap highly processed foods and very highly polluting farms.
Unsubstantiated claims

>>7841686
Bt resistence is already appearing in pest populations well ahead of initial estimates. It will either be a stopgap until we develop better control methods, or one of many options selectively utilized in IPM based programs.

>>7841692
There are researchers looking ibto ways to improve yield and effectivity of organic farming practices. The goal of organic farming is not abandonment of current or new technology, but the utilization and refinement of both new and old practices that don't rely as strongly on synthetic inputs, and minimizing environmental and social impact from farming.

>>7841970

I dont know about how corn diets affect meat quality, but do you really not believe in those other things?

>>7841985

I dont know what youre trying to say here

>>7841781
>I think Organic sells more on distrust than on any factual claims it's actually better. If anything it's paying more to play it safe
Except its not playing it safe as 'organic' requires more and harsher chemicals.

>>7841901
Modern GMOs reduce pesticide use, 'organic' farming increases it

>>7841686

Bt is one of those rare examples where GM undeniably fails.

Bt used to be a pesticide which because of its cost was used remedially. Now it's everywhere and the plant produces it preventively, so guess what happens?

Natural biocide use in GM crops is going to replay what is happening with anti-biotics ... which is to say, it's going to be a clusterfuck.

>>7841646
>Why do people get so mad when I talk down to them like an arrogant prick?

It's a mystery.

>>7841971
No, the goal of "certified organic" is to sell you inferior product at a premium price. Its literally just a marketing scam

>>7842066
Actually this isn't true at all. Bt crops dramatically reduce the amount of Bt toxin used, and its organic farmers who continue to haphazardly spray it very frequently over the growing season instead of the more efficient use of GM crops that are contributing to the rise of resistance.

GM is what we need to delay the onset of resistance

The term "Organic" isn't regulated and means fucking nothing.

>>7841965
>One of the largest dead zones is the Gulf of Mexico
Gee, I wonder why the one of the world's largest drainage basins that also has some of the most productive farmland has a dead zone associated with it...

You can mitigate run off and the associated dead zones, but it's just about impossible to eliminate it if you're doing large scale agriculture. Especially the kind within the Mississippi River basin.

>>7842124
Not really true. It is regulated and has a specific meaning, its just that the requirements are arbitrary and have nothing to do with food quality or human health. Mostly based on the 'natural is bad' myth, its just a way to trick uneducated consumers into paying more for outdated crops

>>7842131
Also, its important to note that organic farming does nothing to decrease this, and in fact is likely to increase the problem ad much more land is required to grow it. Its really fucking bad for the environment

>>7842094

> Bt crops dramatically reduce the amount of Bt toxin used

Oh we are going to be disingenuous are we? It also massively increases the amount of Bt toxin produced.

>>7842043
Playing it safe might be little more than not trusting an awful corporate citizen like Monsanto to be a part of your diet.
>>7842073
>Its literally just a marketing scam
It's a USDA designation, so it's no more or less a scam than anything else they're involved with.
>>7842149
Corporate organic, maybe. But there are plenty of small organic farms who practice responsible techniques. You won't find their produce in supermarkets, but if you have a good farmer's market near you it might be worth supporting them.

>>7842163
No, no it doesn't. Organic farming requires massive Bt sprays most of which end up in the soil and environment, and has to be done repeatedly. With Bt crops only small levels that persist in the flesh of the plant are required

>>7842174
Monsanto seed for organic farming too
>It's a USDA designation
How the fuck does that suggest its not a scam? The USDA doesn't even suggest organic food is good

>Corporate organic, maybe. But there are plenty of small organic farms who practice responsible techniques
Maybe, but those a re a tiny fucking portion of the organic movement, plus their benefits have nothing to do with them being organic, and adhering to 'organic' rules distracts from the actual issues of sustainable farming

>>7842163
GM crops have the BT proteins inside the plants themselves. External pesticide use is greatly reduced as a result.

>>7841646
>Why do people get so mad when I tell them I try to eat organic?
Why are you telling people you try to eat organic? Just eat organic and shut up about it. They are probably mad with you talking about it rather than the principle. Posting about it on /ck/ is another way to get people mad.

I just buy it if I feel like it that day :-)

>>7842252
It was bait, it translates to "Why are you all about to get so mad when I say I eat organic?"

>>7842307
It was good bait, because the mad showed up right away.

>>7842131

Yeah that's what I'm implying. The other poster was trying to divert the issue to shithole countries and overstate conservation efforts in the west when it's pretty evident that we (of the states) are one of the worst culprits.

>>7842149

I'm not opposed to GMOs so i wont argue with that, but how are organic crops more likely to lead to polluted water?

>>7842583
>Implying most countries engage in the scale of agriculture that the US does.
>Implying that dead zones are all man made.

>>7842583
https://www.academia.edu/1907461/Does_organic_farming_reduce_environmental_impacts_-_A_meta-analysis_of_European_research

The answer as you'll see is 'no.'

>>7842598
What's next? Are you going to claim smoking doesn't cause cancer or that human caused climate change isn't real?

>>7842583
because organic crops cannot us GMOs that decrease the needs for pesticides, also they have to use outdated, more harmful fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides because of the arbitrary disallowment of 'artificial' chemicals

I eat organic also. I don't want to fill my body with all the pesticides and herbicides. I don't eat anything in the center of the grocery store. I only eat the food on the perimeter which is the food that has not been processed much and mostly preservative free. The added crap they put into food is ridiculous. These are ingredients that most countries ban in their food. The USDA and FDA are paid of by BigAg and the Grocer manufacturers of America.

>>7842625
>The existence of a deadzone off the mouth of a huge river that has many many many causes and factors including the damming, dredging, and redirecting of the river and its tributaries is proof positive that conventional agriculture is the primary cause of the Gulf of Mexico/Mississippi River dead zone.

>>7841646
>The runoff into water systems alone is detrimental (one popular pesticide turns male amphibians female),

Vocal cord parasites. Hamburgers. Wolbachia.

MGS:V shitposting aside, insect and human physiology are different, and unless you can prove this chemical gender reassignment can affect humans in a meaningful way, I don't see the problem with it.

>>7842658
Ag runoff is a major pollutant in our rivers, gulfs and oceans. Don't try to play it down.

>>7842647
>I don't want to fill my body with all the pesticides and herbicides.
Organic food typically is worse in that regard, stop believing marketing myths

>>7842686
And the reason it's so bad with the Mississippi is because it's also a huge shipping corridor and they dredge it like a mother fucker and this causes swifter currents.

Blaming agbusiness alone is stupid.

t. someone from Louisiana that is disheartened by our shrinking coastline, heritage, fisheries, and way of life.

>>7842691
I got family there. Petro business, a busy port and very little regulation (or even organization) doesn't help, to be sure. But that doesn't discount the damage careless agriculture practices becoming standard contributes.

>>7842711
the problem though is that the agricultural practices aren't even addressed by 'organic' food

>>7842711
>Blaming the petrobusiness along the river.
It's not like they discharge waste into it besides warm water.

No, it's the way the river is being used for shipping and how it is dammed.

>>7842311
I don't see the point in baiting people about it. There are enough people on here who want to debate organic farming and I don't think mods delete these threads.

Well, as a butcher with a chemistry degree, let me tell you why it bothers me when grass-fed organic types bug me with their lifestyles.

1. There is literally nothing wrong with GMOs. Get triggered all you like, it's the fact.
2. Even if some foods taste better organic (which is debatable) I don't think you can ever justify the extreme inefficiency and price difference. A single organic package of strips near me is 24 dollars, I can get 4 non-organic choice grade steaks for the same price or less.
3. Organic propaganda is almost always based entirely off fear mongering and lying by omission. They create the idea that non-organic is going to end the planet on 'evidence' that amounts to smoke and mirrors if not outright lies, and I prefer honesty myself.

Yeah, organic foods taste better in some cases and organic beef can have up to 60% less fat, I'm just not concerned with it.