So it's a choice between Organic OR local and either way it's better to just go on as "normal"?? This is facile, as are most of your arguments.
I think there is a distinction between "USDA Certified Organic" and an approach to food that embraces organic, local and traditional. Organic is the best catch-all term, but it has been hijacked by corps precisely because of what it means. They want to wrap themselves in that.
At the bar, we buy as much organic food as possible from local stores, thus supporting the local economy, not Fresh Direct or similar. But much of the local economy survives by selling produce that is not local in origin. However, our main single supplier of produce IS local, and produces food that may not be "USDA Certified Organic" but is organic in approach.
The wild strawberries are off the hook right now and haven't even peaked yet.
How does one vote for/against missile defense with the wallet?
You mean don't fly Boeing planes? Airbus is connected to all the same arms/defense businesses - it's 80% owned by EADS, the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company.
Boeing is however the the world's 2nd largest defence contractor and gets over 50% of it revenue from defence. EADS is down at number 7 and makes only 22% from defence. So in a non-black & white world, there is a difference.
USDA doesn't even say that organic food is safer and more nutritious. The label says that it meets certain criteria for production, such as being %100 pesticide free.
I can't really speak to the USDA and its regulations and standards for what is acceptable for consumption, but in addition to pesticides there is also the issue of genetic modification (is there labeling for that?) and clean water sources.
USDA doesn't even say that organic food is safer and more nutritious. The label says that it meets certain criteria for production, such as being %100 pesticide free.
I can't really speak to the USDA and its regulations and standards for what is acceptable for consumption, but in addition to pesticides there is also the issue of genetic modification (is there labeling for that?) and clean water sources.
USDA doesn't even say that organic food is safer and more nutritious. The label says that it meets certain criteria for production, such as being %100 pesticide free.
I can't really speak to the USDA and its regulations and standards for what is acceptable for consumption, but in addition to pesticides there is also the issue of genetic modification (is there labeling for that?) and clean water sources.
Those things are not allowed under the label.
Isn't that a good thing? I'm not convinced anything or anyone is the 'saviour' either, but with cancer numbers higher when it comes to proximity to chemical plants and dumping grounds, any food that doesn't have that in the mix is preferable to those that do. I can't afford to eat 100% organic, but try to buy organic foods that otherwise absorb/hold sprays, etc. more.
Among other things, what bothers me about giant companies is all the middle people. The less steps my money takes (leaving more in the pot) to get to the people responsible for growing the food, tending the land and harvesting the crops, the better.
How does one vote for/against missile defense with the wallet?
You mean don't fly Boeing planes? Airbus is connected to all the same arms/defense businesses - it's 80% owned by EADS, the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company.
Boeing is however the the world's 2nd largest defence contractor and gets over 50% of it revenue from defence. EADS is down at number 7 and makes only 22% from defence. So in a non-black & white world, there is a difference.
Although the other 20% of Airbus is owned by BAE Systems, which is the world's 4th largest defense contractor. And BAE is also the lead systems integrator on the current US missile defense installations.
I agree that it's important to avoid the 'pox on both their houses' mentality which elides important differences of scale and degree. In this situation, though, there really aren't any 'clean' choices, even if the revenue numbers are a little higher on the Boeing side. Even little Embraer makes fighter planes for South American governments.
Maybe buy some Hondajets and start a non-defense-affiliated airline?
Fly less, but stay longer.
I think this is a good solution, and probably more effective than discriminating by airframer.
I'm no good at math so I tend to make moral decisions using my bleeding liberal heart. But, yeah, Honda needs to make jetliners, and Working Assets can run them, serving fair trade meals and girlscout cookies!
Fly less, but stay longer.
I think this is a good solution, and probably more effective than discriminating by airframer.
6 months here 6 months there would be great for me. Here being a western city like NYC, and there being a tropical beach type environment. I might have to pimp myself to some more evil corporations to make that happen though. What the fuck happened to telecommuting anyway?! Bloody project managers...
USDA doesn't even say that organic food is safer and more nutritious. The label says that it meets certain criteria for production, such as being %100 pesticide free.
I can't really speak to the USDA and its regulations and standards for what is acceptable for consumption, but in addition to pesticides there is also the issue of genetic modification (is there labeling for that?) and clean water sources.
Those things are not allowed under the label.
Isn't that a good thing? I'm not convinced anything or anyone is the 'saviour' either, but with cancer numbers higher when it comes to proximity to chemical plants and dumping grounds, any food that doesn't have that in the mix is preferable to those that do. I can't afford to eat 100% organic, but try to buy organic foods that otherwise absorb/hold sprays, etc. more.
Among other things, what bothers me about giant companies is all the middle people. The less steps my money takes (leaving more in the pot) to get to the people responsible for growing the food, tending the land and harvesting the crops, the better.
It is a good thing. Any farm that's knowingly in harmful proximity to toxic areas and continues to farm should be put out of business tomorrow.
But here's the misconception I have been railing against throughout this thread. The conception of any type of farming other than organic is hostile corporate farming. The posts in this thread prove just that. As soon as I questioned organic farming, people trotted out the old corporate boogieman and it became corporate farming vs. the organic ethos. I didn't see any mention of responsible family farms as a reasonable alternative. People are now conflating corporate farming with responsible family farms that don't practice the organic philosophy. I'm revealing the source of my bias by stating that I come from a family of farmers: My great-great grandparents down to my grandparents were farmers. My mother was raised by farmers. Some of my extended family still maintain farms. I hate to see them get lumped in with irresponsible corporations because they are far, far, far from it. They are not cruel to their livestock and they do not fuck up the ecosystem. There are countless farms similar to my family's.
That's all I have to say. Please excuse my corny nature.
The conception of any type of farming other than organic is hostile corporate farming. The posts in this thread prove just that. As soon as I questioned organic farming, people trotted out the old corporate boogieman and it became corporate farming vs. the organic ethos. I didn't see any mention of responsible family farms as a reasonable alternative. People are now conflating corporate farming with responsible family farms that don't practice the organic philosophy.
I don't think anyone here has a grudge against responsible non-organic farms. However, small family farms grow only about a quarter of American produce. Anyone buying vegetables at Safeway has to assume that 3/4 come from factory farms. How do you support the former without supporting the latter?
Organic labelling has been such a huge success because it provides consumers an easy way to express that kind of preference. One of the main arguments in the article you posted earlier is that organic guidelines are arbitrary and unscientific. Clearly this is a valid concern - why is copper sulfate fungicide considered organic in some states and not others?
But that line of thought misses the main point. The organic guidelines aren't useful because they represent an inviolate scientific consensus. They're useful because, as a rough set of best practices, they provide consumers a decision-making tool.
As far as I'm concerned, the best thing for regional food producers to do would be to follow the organic example and create trade associations that can label produce as 'local', 'sustainable', or 'family-farmed'. Some grocery stores do this already, but a labelling association provides at least nominal inspection and enforcement mechanisms.
I'm no good at math so I tend to make moral decisions using my bleeding liberal heart. But, yeah, Honda needs to make jetliners, and Working Assets can run them, serving fair trade meals and girlscout cookies!
Actually Honda's got a new jet. It'll be interesting to see what happens to aviation when the new crop of micro-jets come of age and start to replace the poorly aging hub-and-spoke system.
6 months here 6 months there would be great for me. Here being a western city like NYC, and there being a tropical beach type environment. I might have to pimp myself to some more evil corporations to make that happen though. What the fuck happened to telecommuting anyway?! Bloody project managers...
Shit, consulting for both of the major airframers in the years following 9/11 was a big factor that led to my current lifestyle. Which is to say semi-employed and living on a tropical island.
Actually, I met you (SportCasual/BigSpliff) in NYC a couple years ago... I stopped into your record space in Williamsburg and bought a few salsa, Haitian and Brazilian records. Good times, I need to visit NYC again in the next year or so.
Is that article peer reviewed by scientists, like the one on the myths of organic farming published in "Nature Magazine"?
I definitely don't have the patience to go through this whole thread, but it appears that no one made note of the joke that is this link lil dude provided: its from Monsanto's website... and he's trying to ridicule a wikipedia source... damn... (and I really don't want to get into the whole 'peer-reviewed' thing but I will say whenever profit can be a motivator that simply does not convince me of the source's validity)
I definitely don't have the patience to go through this whole thread, but it appears that no one made note of the joke that is this link lil dude provided: its from Monsanto's website... and he's trying to ridicule a wikipedia source... damn... (and I really don't want to get into the whole 'peer-reviewed' thing but I will say whenever profit can be a motivator that simply does not convince me of the source's validity)
To be fair, the article originally appeared in Nature, and the original is behind a subscription firewall.
But yeah, the Monsanto website is not exactly neutral ground in the organic / conventional discussion.
Can I just respond breifly to the class arguments regarding veganism/pro-organic lifestyles?
How much does an organic apple cost? How much does a Mars bar cost?
The issue is education, and class plays a role in that to a degree, but the information necessary to make informed choices about the food we consume is hardly holed up in an ivory tower. Some people just choose to eat shit, and that is their life choice.
"Organic" has become a lifestyle that is marketed to death. It is "fashionable" to be associated w/ it. The reason behind its popularity is mainly due to convenience. People in general have good intentions, they are interested in being responsible. However, once actual investigative work is involved, that is when you lose folks. Even I a self admitted food nerd can't remember seasons for every produce/seafood, the bounty of information is simply overwhelming. Therefore, I certainly can't expect the common layman to retain any of this info. Simply put, "organic' is branding that makes life easier. Everybody likes to identify w/ a group whether they like to admit it or not.
I think the "1 month vegetarian" example is a tad extreme. I much rather see people take an active interest in the rationale behind their purchases. Think about where everything comes from before you buy. Balance is key.
Vegans, please forget about vegan ice cream and embrace the world of sorbetto.
while overseas....a tour manager from the states was a vegan. he wore leather shoes and smoked cigarettes. i told him his politics were garbage. thats the shit that gets on my fucking nerves.
oh...i cant eat here. choke on that death smoke with your leather shoes. gtfohwtbs.
while overseas....a tour manager from the states was a vegan. he wore leather shoes and smoked cigarettes. i told him his politics were garbage. thats the shit that gets on my fucking nerves.
oh...i cant eat here. choke on that death smoke with your leather shoes. gtfohwtbs.
I hear you about the self-righteousness and the self-contradictory lifestyle. I find it irritating as well.
while overseas....a tour manager from the states was a vegan. he wore leather shoes and smoked cigarettes. i told him his politics were garbage. thats the shit that gets on my fucking nerves.
oh...i cant eat here. choke on that death smoke with your leather shoes. gtfohwtbs.
I hear you about the self-righteousness and the self-contradictory lifestyle. I find it irritating as well.
But then again, isn't that his right as well?
as it is my right to hate.
when one chooses to live a certain way, dont front. shits so transparent.
while overseas....a tour manager from the states was a vegan. he wore leather shoes and smoked cigarettes. i told him his politics were garbage. thats the shit that gets on my fucking nerves.
oh...i cant eat here. choke on that death smoke with your leather shoes. gtfohwtbs.
I hear you about the self-righteousness and the self-contradictory lifestyle. I find it irritating as well.
But then again, isn't that his right as well?
as it is my right to hate.
when one chooses to live a certain way, dont front. shits so transparent.
pick a lane, stay in it or get ran the fuck over.
Yep, it's your right to hate.
I think though that the problem is that mainstream people (I dunno what other term I can use) can always nitpick and find some issue with a persopn who takes seriously an alternative lifestyle choice. If someone says they are vegan because of this or that social/health concern, then there wil always be the "what about..." argument that can leveled at them.
I think that anyone should be able to walk any distance they choose down the conscious path, whether it be simply cutting one or two things out of their diet, right through the the hardcore no leather, no animal products vegan lifestyle.
The problem is only when a person decides that their lifestyle choice is THE RIGHT ONE and other people are wrong. But there's also a problem when the average joe gets a guilt complex simply from being informed about another's lifestyle choice that they don't share.
I was vegetarian and semi-began for about 7 years. During that time I observed a multitude of responses to simply informing a person that i was vegetarian. It really enlightens you to how defensive some people can be about their "not-really-giving-a-fuck" lifestyle. That's still their choice, and I said that in many situations, but they felt the need to minimise the value of MY choice by trying to find some inconsistency with it.
holier than thou people can be obnoxious (i prolly am one of them pretty often) but at least they are putting some thought into some shit. the cigarette smoking vegans aer funny as hell...but at least they picked one thing to start regulating.
i became vegatarian when i was 20 just for discipline. no other reason, i just needed a knee jerk restriction on my diet and i knew some interesting reasons to be vegetarian, but basically i needed to put some thought and restrictions on my rudderless life. i had some other resolutions too. needless to say, i didnt have a very healthy diet...living off fruit loops, beer and fries was not the path to long life. but i slowly started to put more and more thought into what i was doing.
i work with teens trying to get them to think about their diets. i dont expect any immediate results. we just discuss food, cook food (meat too) put it in social.political,economic context and try to develop appreciation for thousands of years of human food culture. down the line, diets will improve.
food is the key to changing the world for better or worse
i work with teens trying to get them to think about their diets. i dont expect any immediate results. we just discuss food, cook food (meat too) put it in social.political,economic context and try to develop appreciation for thousands of years of human food culture. down the line, diets will improve.
Keep up the good work, Tony. I know you're out there every day.
Q: How many Soul Strutters does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Three. One to bitch about the cost of shipping the new bulb, one to shout "No homo" while screwing in the bulb, and one to call out the lightbulb's whiteness.[/b]
Comments
So it's a choice between Organic OR local and either way it's better to just go on as "normal"?? This is facile, as are most of your arguments.
I think there is a distinction between "USDA Certified Organic" and an approach to food that embraces organic, local and traditional. Organic is the best catch-all term, but it has been hijacked by corps precisely because of what it means. They want to wrap themselves in that.
At the bar, we buy as much organic food as possible from local stores, thus supporting the local economy, not Fresh Direct or similar. But much of the local economy survives by selling produce that is not local in origin. However, our main single supplier of produce IS local, and produces food that may not be "USDA Certified Organic" but is organic in approach.
The wild strawberries are off the hook right now and haven't even peaked yet.
http://www.stoneridgeorchard.com/
http://www.organicschmorganic.blogspot.com/
Less chemicals in food is a good thing right?
And capitalism is a product of medieval warfare, but I have yet to find a way to drop out while keeping a pair of technics running.
Boeing is however the the world's 2nd largest defence contractor and gets over 50% of it revenue from defence. EADS is down at number 7 and makes only 22% from defence. So in a non-black & white world, there is a difference.
Fly less, but stay longer.
I can't really speak to the USDA and its regulations and standards for what is acceptable for consumption, but in addition to pesticides there is also the issue of genetic modification (is there labeling for that?) and clean water sources.
Those things are not allowed under the label.
Isn't that a good thing? I'm not convinced anything or anyone is the 'saviour' either, but with cancer numbers higher when it comes to proximity to chemical plants and dumping grounds, any food that doesn't have that in the mix is preferable to those that do. I can't afford to eat 100% organic, but try to buy organic foods that otherwise absorb/hold sprays, etc. more.
Among other things, what bothers me about giant companies is all the middle people. The less steps my money takes (leaving more in the pot) to get to the people responsible for growing the food, tending the land and harvesting the crops, the better.
Although the other 20% of Airbus is owned by BAE Systems, which is the world's 4th largest defense contractor. And BAE is also the lead systems integrator on the current US missile defense installations.
So the moral equation becomes:
(0.50 defense revenue * 1st place) > (0.8 ownership (0.22 defence revenue * 7th place) + (missile defense factor (0.2 ownership (0.75 defense revenue * 4th place))) ???
I agree that it's important to avoid the 'pox on both their houses' mentality which elides important differences of scale and degree. In this situation, though, there really aren't any 'clean' choices, even if the revenue numbers are a little higher on the Boeing side. Even little Embraer makes fighter planes for South American governments.
Maybe buy some Hondajets and start a non-defense-affiliated airline?
I think this is a good solution, and probably more effective than discriminating by airframer.
I'm no good at math so I tend to make moral decisions using my bleeding liberal heart. But, yeah, Honda needs to make jetliners, and Working Assets can run them, serving fair trade meals and girlscout cookies!
6 months here 6 months there would be great for me. Here being a western city like NYC, and there being a tropical beach type environment. I might have to pimp myself to some more evil corporations to make that happen though. What the fuck happened to telecommuting anyway?! Bloody project managers...
It is a good thing. Any farm that's knowingly in harmful proximity to toxic areas and continues to farm should be put out of business tomorrow.
But here's the misconception I have been railing against throughout this thread. The conception of any type of farming other than organic is hostile corporate farming. The posts in this thread prove just that. As soon as I questioned organic farming, people trotted out the old corporate boogieman and it became corporate farming vs. the organic ethos. I didn't see any mention of responsible family farms as a reasonable alternative. People are now conflating corporate farming with responsible family farms that don't practice the organic philosophy. I'm revealing the source of my bias by stating that I come from a family of farmers: My great-great grandparents down to my grandparents were farmers. My mother was raised by farmers. Some of my extended family still maintain farms. I hate to see them get lumped in with irresponsible corporations because they are far, far, far from it. They are not cruel to their livestock and they do not fuck up the ecosystem. There are countless farms similar to my family's.
That's all I have to say. Please excuse my corny nature.
http://www.organicschmorganic.blogspot.com/
PS: We all come from farmers somewhere down the line. Now go eat a McSamwich.
I don't think anyone here has a grudge against responsible non-organic farms. However, small family farms grow only about a quarter of American produce. Anyone buying vegetables at Safeway has to assume that 3/4 come from factory farms. How do you support the former without supporting the latter?
Organic labelling has been such a huge success because it provides consumers an easy way to express that kind of preference. One of the main arguments in the article you posted earlier is that organic guidelines are arbitrary and unscientific. Clearly this is a valid concern - why is copper sulfate fungicide considered organic in some states and not others?
But that line of thought misses the main point. The organic guidelines aren't useful because they represent an inviolate scientific consensus. They're useful because, as a rough set of best practices, they provide consumers a decision-making tool.
As far as I'm concerned, the best thing for regional food producers to do would be to follow the organic example and create trade associations that can label produce as 'local', 'sustainable', or 'family-farmed'. Some grocery stores do this already, but a labelling association provides at least nominal inspection and enforcement mechanisms.
Actually Honda's got a new jet. It'll be interesting to see what happens to aviation when the new crop of micro-jets come of age and start to replace the poorly aging hub-and-spoke system.
Shit, consulting for both of the major airframers in the years following 9/11 was a big factor that led to my current lifestyle. Which is to say semi-employed and living on a tropical island.
Actually, I met you (SportCasual/BigSpliff) in NYC a couple years ago... I stopped into your record space in Williamsburg and bought a few salsa, Haitian and Brazilian records. Good times, I need to visit NYC again in the next year or so.
I definitely don't have the patience to go through this whole thread, but it appears that no one made note of the joke that is this link lil dude provided: its from Monsanto's website... and he's trying to ridicule a wikipedia source... damn... (and I really don't want to get into the whole 'peer-reviewed' thing but I will say whenever profit can be a motivator that simply does not convince me of the source's validity)
To be fair, the article originally appeared in Nature, and the original is behind a subscription firewall.
But yeah, the Monsanto website is not exactly neutral ground in the organic / conventional discussion.
How much does an organic apple cost?
How much does a Mars bar cost?
The issue is education, and class plays a role in that to a degree, but the information necessary to make informed choices about the food we consume is hardly holed up in an ivory tower. Some people just choose to eat shit, and that is their life choice.
I think the "1 month vegetarian" example is a tad extreme. I much rather see people take an active interest in the rationale behind their purchases. Think about where everything comes from before you buy. Balance is key.
Vegans, please forget about vegan ice cream and embrace the world of sorbetto.
oh...i cant eat here. choke on that death smoke with your leather shoes.
gtfohwtbs.
I hear you about the self-righteousness and the self-contradictory lifestyle. I find it irritating as well.
But then again, isn't that his right as well?
as it is my right to hate.
when one chooses to live a certain way, dont front. shits so transparent.
pick a lane, stay in it or get ran the fuck over.
Yep, it's your right to hate.
I think though that the problem is that mainstream people (I dunno what other term I can use) can always nitpick and find some issue with a persopn who takes seriously an alternative lifestyle choice. If someone says they are vegan because of this or that social/health concern, then there wil always be the "what about..." argument that can leveled at them.
I think that anyone should be able to walk any distance they choose down the conscious path, whether it be simply cutting one or two things out of their diet, right through the the hardcore no leather, no animal products vegan lifestyle.
The problem is only when a person decides that their lifestyle choice is THE RIGHT ONE and other people are wrong. But there's also a problem when the average joe gets a guilt complex simply from being informed about another's lifestyle choice that they don't share.
I was vegetarian and semi-began for about 7 years. During that time I observed a multitude of responses to simply informing a person that i was vegetarian. It really enlightens you to how defensive some people can be about their "not-really-giving-a-fuck" lifestyle. That's still their choice, and I said that in many situations, but they felt the need to minimise the value of MY choice by trying to find some inconsistency with it.
holier than thou people can be obnoxious (i prolly am one of them pretty often)
but at least they are putting some thought into some shit. the cigarette smoking vegans aer funny as hell...but at least they picked one thing to start regulating.
i became vegatarian when i was 20 just for discipline. no other reason, i just needed a knee jerk restriction on my diet and i knew some interesting reasons to be vegetarian, but basically i needed to put some thought and restrictions on my rudderless life. i had some other resolutions too. needless to say, i didnt have a very healthy diet...living off fruit loops, beer and fries was not the path to long life. but i slowly started to put more and more thought into what i was doing.
i work with teens trying to get them to think about their diets. i dont expect any immediate results. we just discuss food, cook food (meat too) put it in social.political,economic context and try to develop appreciation for thousands of years of human food culture. down the line, diets will improve.
food is the key to changing the world for better or worse
Keep up the good work, Tony. I know you're out there every day.
groundnut stew with a history class...looks whack, tasted good
some of this crew been in my classes for years. dude with spoon is a champ. light skin dude is the best baseball player in school history
freshman eating salsa
my food ed squad caters a function with some sushi
Youth Work Kicks ass!
Now back to my youth info card update!
Q: How many vegans does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, vegans can't change anything.[/b]
it's a joke - chillax.
Anyways, I like ice cream!
Hahha... I like that.
I'm chillaxed.
I also like ice cream.
::you frozen doggie::
I always heard the above as:
Q: How many punks does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, punk never changed anything.
Although I'm sure there are more variations.
How about this version?
Q: How many Soul Strutters does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, that's a real world move son.[/b]