How do you feel about the Organic Food movement

[ixcuincle]

Over the last couple of days I have been getting fired up somewhere else debating this movement. I've been reading a lot of literature, watching a lot of television, and I can not hold it back anymore.

We have to fight the man. By man I mean the Multinational Corporations that dominate the food market today with their bull****.

Recent documentary Food Inc. can elaborate better than I can about the movement.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DDCT1833GH.DTL

Among the points that galvanized the filmmakers:

-- In 1972, the Food and Drug Administration conducted 50,000 food safety inspections; in 2006, the FDA conducted 9,164.

-- During the George W. Bush administration, the head of the FDA was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association, and the chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Agriculture was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry in Washington.

-- Cattle are given feed that their bodies are not designed to digest, resulting in new strains of the E. coli virus that sicken tens of thousands of Americans annually.

-- One in 3 Americans born after 2000 will contract early-onset diabetes; among minorities, the rate will be 1 in 2.

Kenner, a Los Angeles documentarian, says he did not set out to make an activist horror film. In fact, his original goal was to tell the story from the points of view of both organic and industrial food growers. But representatives of the 50 industrial food companies he contacted, including Monsanto, Perdue, Tyson and Smithfield, would not talk and, more important, would not allow their production practices to be filmed.

"The fact is they don't want us to see how the food is made," said Kenner during a recent visit to San Francisco. "They don't want us to know what's in it. And, ultimately, they don't want us talking about it."

Kenner said he spent six years trying to make a film that would not appear one-sided or biased but admits he ended up with a "connect-the-dots" portrait of the American food system that is "Orwellian."

Among the film's subjects is Carole Morison, a Maryland chicken farmer, who risks her livelihood to show the repulsive conditions under which her chickens are fed and housed, per Perdue's requirements. Morison is seen wading through a barn so stuffed with chickens covered in their own feces that there is no view of the floor. She sets about her daily chore: grabbing the birds that have died from trampling because they grew too fat to walk.

When Kenner began the film, times were flush. Now that the country is in the worst economic times since the Great Depression, can food reform really happen?



Kenner thinks so. The global economic crisis, which has highlighted the consequences of corporate consolidation and spotty government oversight, might be good for the food reform movement, he said.
"What's unclear is how big is the movement going to be," he said. "If it continues to grow, I think there's now an atmosphere in Washington and Sacramento that is ready to follow."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,2918198.story

Looking forward to your turkey dinner? Think twice. It's time, argues Jonathan Safran Foer, to stop lying to ourselves. With all the studies on animal agriculture, pollution, toxic chemicals in factory-farmed animals and exposés of the appalling cruelty to animals in that industry, he writes in "Eating Animals," "We can't plead ignorance, only indifference. Those alive today are the generations that came to know better. We have the burden and the opportunity of living in the moment when the critique of factory farming broke into the popular consciousness. We are the ones of whom it will be fairly asked, 'What did you do when you learned the truth about eating animals?' " Quote:
That said, this book, its author warns, is not a case for vegetarianism. It's a case for being informed and taking responsibility. In the process of asking questions, Foer "came face-to-face with realities that as a citizen I couldn't ignore, and as a writer I couldn't keep to myself."
Quote:
Even, for example, if you thought you were right in buying free-range chickens, you can stop patting yourself on the back. "To be considered free-range, chickens raised for meat must have 'access to outdoors,' which, if you take those words literally, means nothing. Imagine a shed containing thirty-thousand chickens, with a small door at one end that opens to a five-by-five dirt patch -- and the door is closed all but occasionally."
Quote:
Can one person make a difference? Certainly, he writes. Our food choices matter: "We eat as sons and daughters, as families, as communities, as generations, as nations, and increasingly as a globe. We can't stop our eating from radiating influence even if we want to." Or else he says: "Cruel and destructive food products should be illegal." These are Foer's conclusions.

To sum up

- Organic farming good
- MNC's evil, questionable practices lead to recent E. Coli outbreaks in your food
- Organic food has a lot of promise and is a strong force right now, fueled by advocacy of chefs and writers like Michael Pollan and Brian Halweil

[Koolblue13]

I love it. We are so lazy about what we eat, that it's helping us to become a less intelligent nation.

I'm glad people are finally taking notice, to the fuel they are using.

[boofMcboof]

That's why this healthcare debate is kinda of a joke. If you want a healthier nation start with a clean food and water supply.

[ixcuincle]

Don't you work in a restaurant Kool?

I watch a lot of TV and it seems all the chefs from Eric Ripert to Gordon Ramsay all are at their local farmer's markets selecting fresh food to use for their restaurants. This is what got me so excited about the organic movement in the first place.

[Mickalino]

I like it, except the fact that we have to pay quadruple the price for something that is produced the way it SHOULD have been, and USED to be. So I wonder if the organic people are just as evil as the corporations pumping out all the chemical stuff.

[Slacky McSlackAss]

Worked at Whole Foods for about 2 years in High School and I must say that the extra bit you pay for organic food is well worth it. It really does taste that much better. Plus the lack of pesticides, chemicals, and genetic enhancers are much better for you.

[Koolblue13]

Don't you work in a restaurant Kool?

I watch a lot of TV and it seems all the chefs from Eric Ripert to Gordon Ramsay all are at their local farmer's markets selecting fresh food to use for their restaurants. This is what got me so excited about the organic movement in the first place.

I did most of my life, but now I work at a music venue/ bar.

But yeah, I was certified in nutrition about 12 years ago and was a vegetarian from age 7 to 14. Only stopped, because I lost faith in a lot when my Mom died.

Food is so important and most people just don't care. I feel like I get odd looks at the grocery from reading the sides of boxes.

[Koolblue13]

I like it, except the fact that we have to pay quadruple the price for something that is produced the way it SHOULD have been, and USED to be. So I wonder if the organic people are just as evil as the corporations pumping out all the chemical stuff.

Go to a Trader Joes and all the food is cheaper.

[zoony]

my wife and I buy a lot of organic... but really not so much for health reasons but simply because the food tastes so much better.

Buy some cage-free organic brown eggs next time you're at the grocery store. I never even knew that an egg could taste different from the next

[GhostofSparta]

http://www.cracked.com/article_17084...dont-work.html

#5. Buying Organically Grown Food

Why People Do It:
Seems like a no-brainer. Organic food eliminates the use of chemical fertilizers, hormones and pesticides. Getting rid of all those nasty chemicals means healthier foods and less contamination to the planet.
And anything that's organic or natural has to be better for you, right? It's like you're eating the opposite of Twinkies here.

Why They Shouldn't:
So what's the problem with eating healthier food and saving the Earth? Nothing, except that the food may not be any healthier. And that's even if you can afford the (much) higher prices. Oh, and the impact on the planet may actually be worse.
The funny thing about those chemical fertilizers and pesticides is that they were invented for a reason, and that's to increase food production. Turns out organic farming is pretty damn inefficient. Holding hands and thinking peaceful thoughts does dick all against pests that want to eat your crops and weeds that want to choke them out. The current acre of farmland produces 200 percent more wheat than it did 70 years ago. The same goes for meat and poultry. The chemicals did that for us.

Take them away, and suddenly you're getting less food per acre of land. According to some guy who won a Nobel Prize, we could feed 4 billion people if we went all organic. This sounds great except maybe to the 2.5 billion people who would be left without anything to eat...

More at the link, including the rest of that segment.

Sure, we was a species used to farm organically. We also used to have 50% of the population be farmers in order to feed ourselves, not less than 5% like we have now. Advances, including those evil chemicals that kill insects and fungii, have let us live longer and healthier.

I'm not gonna look down on somebody for being organic....as long as they don't look down on me for wanting to pay about 1/3 as much for the same apples.

Another key quote: "Oh, and did we mention organic farming uses a lot of manure to fertilize crops? This results in a greater risk of contamination. Although organic produce only accounts for one percent of the food supply, it accounts for eight percent of the E. coli cases in the U.S."

[twa]

I feel it is over priced and over hyped for the most part,but I luv me some home grown grub....the pesticides add flavor imo

[Mickalino]

Go to a Trader Joes and all the food is cheaper.

None in my area.

So how do they justify the insanely higher price ?

If anything, it should cheaper, since it actually involves the lack of additives......lack of pesticides, lack of labor applying the pesticides, lack of hormones...etc

[Burgundy Burner]

Good, good, good. And good.

[Corcaigh]

It depends how you define 'organic' and 'natural'.

Don't let junk science convince you that applying technology to agriculture is necessarily bad.

All crops are 'unnatural'. They do not exist in the wild. The practice of farming, 'organic' or otherwise, is to grow plants in an unnatural way.

Here's a brief interview with Norman Borlaug on organic farming on his 95th birthday.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/03/26/no...appy-95th-birt

[boofMcboof]

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06...ience-organic/

A paper (PDF) published in the peer-reviewed journal Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems by a bunch of University of Michigan ecologists cogently challenges Fedoroff’s (State Department’s chief technology adviser, a trained scientist with ties to the biotech industry) view. They compare studies that gauge yields of organic and conventionally grown crops, and find that organic competes quite well. As a result, they conclude:

---Our results suggest that organic methods of food production can contribute substantially to feeding the current an future human population on the current agricultural land base, while maintaining soil fertility.

Moreover, they indirectly address an old slur against organic promoted by Normon Borlaug, industrial agriculture’s greatest apologist. In a notorious 2000 interview with Reason Magazine, the great man declared that “if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.” That’s bunkum, according to the Michigan researchers. They write:

----In fact, the models suggest the possibility that the agricultural land base could eventually be reduced if organic production methods were employed, although additional intensification via conventional methods in the tropics would have the same effect.

Crucially, the researchers acknowledge that a large-scale conversion to organic would be difficult—a fact that pro-organic enthusiasts often forget. They write: “In spite of our optimistic prognosis for organic agriculture, we recognize that the transition to and practice of organic agriculture contain numerous challenges-agronomically, economically, and educationally.”

And getting there would require serious government action:

----The practice of organic agriculture on a large scale requires support from research institutions dedicated to agro-ecological methods of fertility and pest management, a strong extension system, and a committed public.

Let’s not forget, though, that our government for decades has been shoveling billions of dollars into subsidies and research for chemical ag—and paying little more than lip service to organic. Meanwhile, regulators have looked the other way while the food and industries consolidated into a few giant companies—ones that contribute lavishly to candidates and run well-funded lobbying operations. Fedoroff’s lofty position proves that they still wield plenty of power—let’s hope not sufficient power to make her vision of perpetual industrial-ag dominance self-fulfilling.