Would you eat meat/drink milk from a cloned animal?

[Rifter]

So, I am curios what everyone's take on cloned animals is. Honestly, I don't see the problem. It seems like people are nuts, really. It is the same animal as the original, hence, CLONED. :-)

[Mdot23]

I'd rather eat it! haha, nah, but it doesn't bother me really.

[cp#]

After you squeeze me a fresh glass of milk, I'll take your finest cloned Porterhouse.

[Steve_Erhardt]

Same here. I figure cloned meat has to be twice as good anyway.

HAH! I made a funny!

Seriously, though... I'd eat an animal that was cloned... we're not talking clones out of a star trek transporter, after all. To hell with the psychotic alarmists.

[Serapth]

With the way food is grown these days... cloned is by no means the worst practice and frankly I still eat meat so, yeah.

Then again, I could walk through a hotdog factory, watching them make them from pig anus, and eat a hotdog while I am doing it.

[Sophism]

Mushrooms clone themselves. I like to eat them. Snails do it. I like to eat them. Hot dogs do it. I like to eat them. What's the problem?

[Returner]

With the way food is grown these days... cloned is by no means the worst practice and frankly I still eat meat so, yeah.

Then again, I could walk through a hotdog factory, watching them make them from pig anus, and eat a hotdog while I am doing it.

As long as it has chili on top.

[Doctor Setebos]

As long as it has chili on top.The chili is also cloned. From pig anus.

[Serapth]

As long as it has chili on top.

... and bacon. Mmmmmmmmmmm, bacon.

[torrefaction]

Honestly cloned food, in the long run, could mean we all get to eat significantly better quality meat.

I'm all for it. If there's no difference in the DNA, it just doesn't matter.

[Serapth]

Honestly cloned food, in the long run, could mean we all get to eat significantly better quality meat.

I'm all for it. If there's no difference in the DNA, it just doesn't matter.

Hell, change the DNA for all I care. Especially if they can boost the tasty genes.

[Kielaran]

With the way food is grown these days... cloned is by no means the worst practice and frankly I still eat meat so, yeah.

Damn true. I have to agree with this.

[walkstheplanes]

Most food we eat is cloned anyways (ie. genetic variation among the biggest agricultural companies are basically nil).

[Serapth]

Most food we eat is cloned anyways (ie. genetic variation among the biggest agricultural companies are basically nil).

Now thats just gross!!!! Cloned I can handle, but damned if I am going to eat incestrial meat!

[pseudopseudo]

If it makes the current dairy prices go down, I'm all for it.

Almost $4 a gallon for milk here in Vegas? That's fucking highway robbery.

[Dag-Sabot]

I voted yes. I already eat animals that live short tortured lives before they're mechanically processed into tasty snacks for me and my dog. This isn't that big a jump.

[Yung Ugly]

I would definitely eat the flesh of cloned animals...For those who wouldn't, that's like saying you would not have hot sexy time with a clone of Selma Hayek just because she is a clone. Shit, I bet over half of you would have sex with a robot, and I bet that has to be more dangerous than eating cloned meat.

[Dag-Sabot]

I bet over half of you would have sex with a robot, and I bet that has to be more dangerous than eating cloned meat. Now you're just making assumptions that over half of us are married. When will it stop?

[Karamazov]

A better question, would you eat vat grown animal tissue? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat#Animals_are_still_used)

[Telefrog]

I would definitely eat the flesh of cloned animals...For those who wouldn't, that's like saying you would not have hot sexy time with a clone of Selma Hayek just because she is a clone. Shit, I bet over half of you would have sex with a robot, and I bet that has to be more dangerous than eating cloned meat.

Would have sex with a robot? Would?!

I'm having sex with a robot right now.

[Yung Ugly]

Now you're just making assumtions that over half of us are married. When will it stop?

I was assuming that the half that were single would gladly have sex with the robots we married folks have grown bored with...:p

[walkstheplanes]

I was assuming that the half that were single would gladly have sex with the robots we married folks have grown bored with...:p

Introducing a robot into bed would be an amazing thing for established couples too.

[Soap]

Voted NO, because I gain my sustenance from the souls of living beings. But in all honesty, it would have to depend on the cost of cloned vs. real. Whatever is cheaper.

[Heretic Machine]

As long as it tastes good, and it doesn't threaten my life span significantly more than any of the other terrible shit that I eat, I don't really care what they do with it or where it comes from.

[evilgoodwin]

A better question, would you eat vat grown animal tissue? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat#Animals_are_still_used)

That depends. How does it taste?

[Rifter]

That depends. How does it taste?

From that article, is is like PURE lean... so you would need to add fat to it... hey... bacon fat... cloned bacon fat! Hmmmm ;-)

[Karamazov]

That depends. How does it taste?

Not very good according to NASA (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=66).

[Bad_Buddha]

Not very good according to NASA (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=66).

Mmmmmm... Muscle tumors!

[Johan]

You already have been.

[baggle]

Of course. I agree that alarmists of all types are fruitloops, and that cloned meat would definitely provide better nutrition/better quality meat for all involved.

Got news for anybody who refuses to eat cloned stuff. You already do. Probably every vegetable you eat is cloned from a 'mother' plant, and have been for a looong time. And all of the decent weed you smoke, too. It's even freakier in the plant world, because they regularly combine two tree species into one mutant tree species. For instance, if you eat almonds, not only was the almond tree it came from cloned, but it was then grafted onto the base of a peach tree. The two combine and become one freakishly delicious treat.

Let me go out on a stereotypical limb here and guess that the people who voted no are European? ;)

[Albinobees]

while we are cloning things can we get going on a clone army?

[evilgoodwin]

while we are cloning things can we get going on a clone army?

Can we eat them?

Sorry, one track mind here.

[Rifter]

while we are cloning things can we get going on a clone army?

Unfortunately, because of funding cutbacks, they would all be cloned from him:

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/ryfter/VerneTroye_Cohen_5443539_4001.jpg

[LongStepMantis]

I'm an omnivore, and proud of it.
Which now means I will eat plants, animals, and clones of either one.

When they make a bush that grows steaks on it, we can talk again.

[Murtaug]

I would definitely eat the flesh of cloned animals...For those who wouldn't, that's like saying you would not have hot sexy time with a clone of Selma Hayek just because she is a clone. Shit, I bet over half of you would have sex with a robot, and I bet that has to be more dangerous than eating cloned meat.

Is this a Selma Hayek robot? Mmmm.. Selma.

[NSFW]

Eating cloned food... hmmm....

It's not gunna turn people into zombies is it? Oh what's that? No? You're sure? you're sure! Ok yeah I'm game.

[KingGorilla]

Yes, considering how horribly inbred some livestock has become, cloning may be a welcome reprieve. We eat cloned produce all the time. That is what controlled breeding and pollen transfer in labs has amounted to.

[Knite]

As long as it doesn't result in irrecoverable infertility amongst the human race, to the point of having to hide someone and run them through some slummy ass areas to a boat to somewhere that's not here... I'm in.

[51|RandoM]

If it makes the current dairy prices go down, I'm all for it.

Almost $4 a gallon for milk here in Vegas? That's fucking highway robbery.

Same in NYC. I read a story that is attributing this to the corn that is used to feed cows being used to make ethanol for alternative-fuel engines instead. Dairy farmers pay more for corn, we pay more for milk.

When you really think about drinking milk---and continue to do so---it shouldn't be hard to swallow anything else from cloned animals.

[KingGorilla]

There is also shipping costs rising. I pay about a buck fifty for mile here in Wisconsin. Which is close to robbery considering I could all but suckle it myself. Fuel for refrigerated freight and trucks are on the rise.

[Ultima Thulian]

I probably won't have a choice. More likely than not, I'm eating cloned veggies. Animals are the natural progression. As long as they don't start cloning humans, if they haven't already, then I'm fine with it. I don't like it, but I'll get over it.

[pirateTITAN]

So, I am curios what everyone's take on cloned animals is. Honestly, I don't see the problem. It seems like people are nuts, really. It is the same animal as the original, hence, CLONED. :-)

Hell yeah, add the extra flavor right at the milking stage! Chocolate milk producing cows would rock.

[pseudopseudo]

Hell yeah, add the extra flavor right at the milking stage! Chocolate milk producing cows would rock.

My personal favorite is Strawberry Milk... ever had that stuff?

I like where your mind is going with that.

[TrackZero]

Would you eat meat from/Drink milk from a cloned animal?

Well there's a loaded question. Let's be clear here, today, cloning is by no means perfected and the animal ages at the same rate/stage as the one it was cloned from (10 year old sheep, gets cloned, the other sheep will also be 10, as far as it's cells are concerned).

That said...yeah, sure, why not? Cloned animal is still animal.

[TrackZero]

If it makes the current dairy prices go down, I'm all for it.

Almost $4 a gallon for milk here in Vegas? That's fucking highway robbery.

What are these gallons you speak of? How many litres would that be? ;)

[Ancalagon]

Chocolate milk producing cows would rock.

Thats the best idea I've ever seen, ever.

[antinous165]

Eating cloned food... hmmm....

It's not gunna turn people into zombies is it? Oh what's that? No? You're sure? you're sure! Ok yeah I'm game.

No that is only when you feed cows.... cow. I am a rabid omnivore, and to loosely quote a famous chef I don't care if they use DDT as long as the lettuce is crisp. But, given that the cloning process is so complex, when will it ever be more cost effective to start cloning critters instead of selctively letting the alpha cow do all the humping? Cloningis still at the scientific stage of " Look at what i can do!" isn't it? Let's shoot for stem cell research first. I think that is what jesus would do. (Sorry.... Jesus )

[Beelzebud]

When did cows stop fucking?

[Jack B]

I drink Soy milk. :)

[Zero]

When did cows stop fucking?

Did you watch Bill Maher the other night, with Trace Adkins?

[NationalKato]

Everyone already eats cloned fruits and veggies...so why not?

[Itchyeyes]

Actually, cloned food products aren't actually from cloned animals. They're from the cloned animals offspring. Cloned animals don't live as long as naturally born animals and the cloning process is still rather expensive, so they're not used for milk/meat production. Instead farmers use cloning to extend the "life" of animals that have good genes and produce good offspring. They then sell the cloned animals sperm to other farmers who use it with their own animals to reproduce healthy, "naturally" born animals which are then introduced into the food chain.

[nixpayn]

My personal favorite is Strawberry Milk... ever had that stuff?

I like where your mind is going with that.

i love strawberry milk! i've noticed tho its pretty damn unpopular here in canada with the general populace.

see? we're not perfect after all.

[Serapth]

... I just realized something. The thread asks if we would drink the milk from a cloned animal, but doesnt specify what kind of animal. See... i dont give a shit if it the animal was cloned or not, but damned if I am going to drink chicken milk!

[Ultima Thulian]

Hot damn, the Canuck has a point! :D

Tough titties indeed.

[Mr. Lake]

I'm fine with eating it, I would just like more studies to be made on it first. I voted maybe.

[torrefaction]

It's good to see your name back round these parts Serapth.

[Serapth]

It's good to see your name back round these parts Serapth.

The gangs all back these days, which is cool. That said, I cant be back near as much as I was... which is probrably a good thing in the long run.

[Rifter]

QUITE honestly, my question is ASSUMING you drink cows milk... will you drink milk from a cloned cow... if you drink goats milk... will you drink milk from a cloned goat... I don't really see poultry producing milk. :-)

[Wasson_]

...if you said no to this...you are special.

[sleepbox]

Just think...they could be even more delicious!!!

[Lima Beans]

i dont eat meat or milk, but i voted yes anyways, since if i did i would have no problem with cloned.

[51|RandoM]

Cloned animals? Give me a machine that will clone a pizza from a leftover slice and then I'll be impressed.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Clone the tastiest of animals over and over again please. :D

[walkstheplanes]

Thank you for not being dumb, Evil Avatarians. Agritech salutes you.

[Johan]

If you eat hot dogs, you're damn well eating worse than cloned meat or meat products.

In fact, meat is the last ingredient in hot dogs...

[Rifter]

Meat is not the last ingredient (http://www.ballparkfranks.com/product_fra_franks.html)... why is there always so much hot dog hatred? I don't like them... but jeeze, I don't make things UP.

These, I find too salty, for my taste (http://www.hebrewnational.com/pages/products/franks/beef_franks.jsp).
Even the cheap crap is based on meats (http://www.kraftfoods.com/oscarmayer/main.aspx?s=product&m=product/product_display&Site=1&Product=4470000063).

[jeffbax]

so long as the science says its good, i have no real problem.

[drakkarim]

i second/third the sentiment that whatever issues food cloning may or may not have, still doesn't compare to the shit that they already put in food, and/or make food out of.

if you're wolfing down hot dogs, you shouldn't have a single complaint about cloned anything :)

the REAL issue is that they want to hide from the consumer what is and isn't (will be and won't be i guess) cloned. and of course as always the fucking politicians are fucking mutes on the issue while their bank accounts seem to have more and more donations trickling in.

[Siraris]

I wonder if it is the same or not. I mean it is based on our scientific method of discerning right now. What if, in 10 years, we find that there are genes that mutate in cloning and they create bacteria that eats us from the inside out or something? Not worth it right now.

[Church42]

Hell yeah I would...would be even better if the cow/pig/chicken/whatever is anything like the bovine like creature found in "The Restaurant At The End of the Universe".

[Johan]

Meat is not the last ingredient (http://www.ballparkfranks.com/product_fra_franks.html)... why is there always so much hot dog hatred? I don't like them... but jeeze, I don't make things UP.

They plump if you cook 'em.

Meat does not "plump" if you cook it. It shrivels.

Also..."mechanically separated turkey?" Holy hell! And how do they define "beef?" I'm sure it's "any leftover parts from the carcasses of Mad Cow ridden cattle." ;)

[Rifter]

Just pointing out that MEAT is not the last piece... I in NO WAY said it was GOOD. Actually, I have heard good things about the Hebrew Nationals... but they are WAY too salty for me. Actually, if you notice, they have craploads of water in them... water expands... :-)

[Johan]

Actually, if you notice, they have craploads of water in them... water expands... :-)

Well I'll be...

you are correct! No wonder! I figured it must be some kind of nastiness...

[baggle]

I wonder if it is the same or not. I mean it is based on our scientific method of discerning right now. What if, in 10 years, we find that there are genes that mutate in cloning and they create bacteria that eats us from the inside out or something? Not worth it right now.

And what if in 10 years we find out that WiFi signals cause cancer, even though all current evidence says otherwise?

Better start wearing a tin foil hat now, just to be safe.

[Durka-Dan]

I would. FDA seems to think it's alright too. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-27-fda-cloned-meat_x.htm)

[Deadend]

Sir, this steak tastes like science!

[pseudopseudo]

I'm waiting for those machines from Star Trek: TNG (they might've been in the original, but I don't remember them...). The ones where you basically tell the machine what you want, and within 5 seconds you have it. A "Replicator" I think it was called?

That'd be way too awesome.

[baggle]

I'm waiting for those machines from Star Trek: TNG (they might've been in the original, but I don't remember them...). The ones where you basically tell the machine what you want, and within 5 seconds you have it. A "Replicator" I think it was called?

That'd be way too awesome.

Earl Grey, hot!

[NationalKato]

Earl Grey, hot!

You get a Star Trek Replicator-thingy and your first order is tea?!

[Slack3r78]

Well I'll be...

you are correct! No wonder! I figured it must be some kind of nastiness...

All that water is actually why my favorite way of cooking them works. Roll up a couple of them in a paper towel and throw them in the microwave for 60-90 seconds. The paper towel pretty much traps all the steam against the hot dog and tends to roast the outside just a little. Next best thing to cooking them on a flame but much easier.

[GunnyMo]

I really don't see what the problem is. Cloned animals are no different from their "parent", if you will. I think people are very ill informed about this. It's truly a ridiculous debate.

[baggle]

I really don't see what the problem is. Cloned animals are no different from their "parent", if you will. I think people are very ill informed about this. It's truly a ridiculous debate.

Unless you live in Europe, where the governments are still deciding whether WiFi causes cancer, whether the pest-resistant rice that the US has been eating for years now is okay to eat(it's not, according to them), and whether cell phones should be outlawed for 'causing brain tumors' or not. Sure, none of these things cause problems now, but who knows(!!1111!11!) if they will in 50 years.

I agree it's a ridiculous debate, but hey, some people just love to be scared all the time, I guess.


You get a Star Trek Replicator-thingy and your first order is tea?!
I thought I was ordering a hot English Earl....

Wait...should I not have admitted that?

[a1ania]

I think the mix of science and food is the best thing to ever happen to humanity!! :D

[Rae]

Of course not. Cloned animals tend to be more sickly, live shorter lives, and aren't natural. Unlike mushrooms that clone themselves, we're cloning unnaturally. We don't know all of the possible side effects of what eating a cloned animal may do.

[GAThrawn]

I think the technology is a little too new for me to make to actually drink it - if I know. I'm sure when we perfect it - I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Rifter]

Of course not. Cloned animals tend to be more sickly, live shorter lives, and aren't natural. Unlike mushrooms that clone themselves, we're cloning unnaturally. We don't know all of the possible side effects of what eating a cloned animal may do.

So, if we butcher say... a cloned cow, for veal, we are saving it from a shortend, sickly life... good thinking!

[walkstheplanes]

Of course not. Cloned animals tend to be more sickly, live shorter lives, and aren't natural. Unlike mushrooms that clone themselves, we're cloning unnaturally. We don't know all of the possible side effects of what eating a cloned animal may do.

Considering we'll be eating the refined results of this technology, animals that are cloned will probably display minimal, if any, of those "unknown" side effects you mentioned. Cloned animals, being 100% genetically the same to their progenitors, produce all the same proteins, hormones, etc. as their progenitors. Now, I make no specific claims as to how far along this technology is, but I'm assuming we've made significant improvements over Dolly several years ago. An agricultural company isn't going to want to bring to market a product that is sickly or unhealthy from such expensive means -- it just isn't cost effective.

Further, if you look at agriculture today, you will see that all the larger companies out there use genetically identical crops and livestock -- we're eating clones now, albeit "natural" clones. If you're concerned about eating clones, I suggest you stick to your farmer's market, which is a wonderful resource for genetically diverse foods.

Lastly, brush up on your mycology -- basidiomycota use mushrooms to reproduce sexually.

[TrackZero]

i love strawberry milk! i've noticed tho its pretty damn unpopular here in canada with the general populace.

see? we're not perfect after all.

Strawberry milk is the devils work.

That and I usually feel nauseous after having it.

[DaXIthR]

Lastly, brush up on your mycology -- basidiomycota use mushrooms to reproduce sexually.

If this was Killer Instinct, that right there would be Ultra Pwnage!

[walkstheplanes]

If this was Killer Instinct, that right there would be Ultra Pwnage!

=P

I only know because I took courses. Now I look like a gigantic, snobbish nerd, hahaha.

[Slack3r78]

Further, if you look at agriculture today, you will see that all the larger companies out there use genetically identical crops and livestock -- we're eating clones now, albeit "natural" clones.
Aren't bananas more or less clones? I seem to remember reading something about that with relation to a scare about some disease that's been severely damaging banana crops.

[walkstheplanes]

Aren't bananas more or less clones? I seem to remember reading something about that with relation to a scare about some disease that's been severely damaging banana crops.

Yeah, one of the problems with having fields of identical crops means that they'll all be susceptable to the same diseases.

[KingGorilla]

Yeah, one of the problems with having fields of identical crops means that they'll all be susceptable to the same diseases.

Which is a real issue of dependency. We know so little about the way that genetics play a role in immunological factors. It is easy to talk about this in the US and other well off nations where it is not an issue of where food comes from. We may complain that milk is up a quarter on the gallon, but we still have it. Most in the West rest on the laurels of hundreds of years of industrial ingenuity. There are countries with tens, and hundreds of millions of citizens who still do not have seed drills.

One thing that we are not looking at analytically is that we are a long way off from cloned animals being a viable source of food compared to the ones who just mate. We eat cloned food, but that is from cloned seeds which still grow normally. It is not like you can just take sperm and ovum and pop them into anything to grow it.

I see it more as the next logical step in breeding. For thousands of years man has genetically modified every domestic animal and plant in an effort to get the best out of our food sources. We cross pollinate, cross breed, all to get the most meat, the most robust, the toughest animals.

[maloramac]

You vote with your dollar and if there came a point in time that cloned meat or milk became readily available, as a society we would together have to boycott these products. At the grocery store you have to support biodiversity because diversity is the key to sustaining life on earth. If a 10,000 cow factory farm was filled with cloned cows designed for producing unnatural amounts of milk, and one cow caught a deadly disease, the entire herd would be as good as dead because all of their defenses would be exactly the same. Now think about drinking the milk that came from those animals. The food industry's obsession with homogenizing animals has grown exponentially and is a danger to everyone. The reasoning behind large companies wanting to feed us cloned animals is so they can raise efficiency by replicating an animal that has been genetically designed to be able to live in an industrial factory farm environment where many animals get sick (and die) because of the harsh conditions. This is now why 50% of all antibiotics in the U.S. go to livestock -- and if you think you're not secondarily ingesting those antibiotics when you eat meat or drink milk, you're wrong. This isn't a good thing either, of course. You know how your doctor won't prescribe you meds unless you need it? Its because the bacteria that cause an infection can morph into a stronger Superbug that is immune to traditional antibiotics. We are told to not take antibiotics unless we need it, but we are ingesting them all of the time in every non-organic animal product that we eat. Seriously. There is a separation now between production and consumption, reduce the links in the chain, and buy local. Reduce the pesticides, herbicides (monsanto), antibiotics, and growth hormones, and buy organic. Reduce the obesity epidemic in those that aren't afforded health insurance, (the cheapest calories are the same ones that are giving Americans health problems), and don't buy things with high fructose corn syrup. And if you're still interested, read the Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. This is not rhetoric, our food system needs your help.

[Oxonian]

This is now why 50% of all antibiotics in the U.S. go to livestock -- and if you think you're not secondarily ingesting those antibiotics when you eat meat or drink milk, you're wrong. This isn't a good thing either, of course. You know how your doctor won't prescribe you meds unless you need it? Its because the bacteria that cause an infection can morph into a stronger Superbug that is immune to traditional antibiotics. We are told to not take antibiotics unless we need it, but we are ingesting them all of the time in every non-organic animal product that we eat.
I know we consume antibiotic metabolites in our food, but I was under the impression that only trace amounts of the antibiotics themselves make it into our food. Aren't all antibiotics broken down by the liver and excreted?

Seriously.
Seriously?

There is a separation now between production and consumption, reduce the links in the chain, and buy local.
I live in the Northeastern United States, and it's January. I am not going to eat salt cod for the next two months.

[baggle]

@maloramac: It's hilarious that you claim that you want poor people to have healthier foods, and yet in the very same breath you advocate getting rid of the very things, like pesticides, that make healthy foods cheap.

How much, on average, do 'organic' vegetables cost? 50% more than the ones grown using pesticides? And yet there are far reduced shipping costs on the 'organic' foods. They cost so much more because so much of the crop gets eaten by bugs, and the farmers have to raise prices to make it worth their while. Traditionally grown fresh foods, which do no harm to anybody, cost less than organic and are already too expensive for low income families to eat a lot of, and yet you want poor people to avoid those fresh foods for the more expensive foods grown for ignorant hippies, which do nothing special. Why the hell ignorant hippies advocate that poor people should stay away from these fresh foods, when they already have enough trouble eating fresh foods due to monetary constraints, is beyond my comprehension. Show me one single piece of good, peer-reviewed, science that shows that 'organic' foods are any healthier than normal fresh foods that have been washed properly, and you will make my day. Somehow I doubt that you can, and you just like to believe in things that get you scared and angry. Typical hippie rhetoric.

[Iron Czar]

science fight!

[maloramac]

@Oxonian:

Europe has banned the use of almost all antibiotics in animals. In the United States, the Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics recently recommended we stop using antibiotics for increased production.


And produce imported from developing countries may contain agrochemicals that have been outlawed in developed countries. Buying local helps your community's economy, and it helps you know for sure where your food is coming from. Asking someone to change their dining habits is a large request, but if you make buying local more of an ideal than an absolute, it will help significantly.

@baggle


Over 3,000 high-risk toxins are present in the US food supply, which by law are excluded from organic food. These include 73 pesticides classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as potential carcinogens. Pesticides also leak into the water supply - for example, a 1996 study by the Environmental Working Group found 96 per cent of all water samples taken from 748 towns across the US contained the pesticide atrazine. Agriculture is the number 1 pollutor of our waterways. Des Moines, Iowa had to build a special filtering system to clean the water in the river before it hit the city so that the runoff from factory farms wouldn't sicken the population. This is Des Moines own policy on beach closures:

"The reservoir manager reserves the right to close a beach in the event of a documented health risk, such as outbreak of an infectious disease, wastewater by-pass, spill from animal waste storage facility, hazardous chemical spill, etc. In most instances, this decision will be made following consultation with local public health agency officials and/or ED-HQ staff."


Other agricultural chemicals have been found to be deleterious to cell health, such as PCP (pentachlorophenol) that can cause DNA fragmentation in animals, as well as numerous other chemicals found to damage cellular membranes and negatively effect the functioning of mitochondria. These include the insecticide endosulfan and the herbicide paraquat, as well as chemicals 2-4-D, prathion and dinoseb. Pesticides such as chlopyrifos, endrin and fenthion have been shown to over stimulate certain enzymes involved in chemical signalling, causing imbalance that has been linked to inflammatory conditions, psoriasis and atherosclerosis.

The issue goes beyond Iowa. Across the country, metropolitan water agencies are battling increasing pollution from the countryside. The river pollution is spreading and helping to cause dead zones in the open seas. A recent study by the Pew Oceans Commission, an independent group examining government policies, called huge livestock feedlots and farm fertilizer runoff among the fastest-growing sources of pollution in oceans thousands of miles away.

As a result, the $171 billion, 10-year farm bill, once seen as a parochial issue for rural lawmakers, has been scrutinized by members of Congress from urban and suburban districts who realize that the upheaval in agriculture has implications beyond the grocery store.

The bill includes several proposals to reduce water pollution, like increased money to encourage farmers to practice conservation, increased money to protect wetlands, and limits on subsidies so the federal program will not underwrite further farm consolidation.

Who will pay for this? It will me you and me, which is why unethical farming may create cheap food at the grocery store, but makes the cost much higher outside of it.

Organic foods may be vitally important to protect children from the damaging effects of these toxic contaminants. Two separate reports, from the Natural Resources Defence Council (1989) and the Environmental Working Group (1998), revealed that millions of American children were exposed to levels of pesticides from food that exceeded limits considered to be safe. These include neuro-toxins that can be hazardous to the developing brain and nervous system, as well as potential carcinogens that some researchers believe can be a particular risk to children and adolescents during periods of high growth and breast development.

Organic fruits and vegetables grown from clean, natural soil with a rich and balanced mineral content, are not only free from chemical contaminants, but win hands down with regard to flavour and offer a fuller range of nutrients. Non-organic equivalents contain more water and less vitamins and minerals. Danish research published in the August 2003 issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry revealed significantly higher amounts of flavonoids in the urine and blood samples of those on an organically-grown as opposed to conventionally-grown diet.

Donald R. Davis, a research associate with the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, recently analyzed data gathered by the USDA in 1950 and 1999 on the nutrient content of 43 fruit and vegetable crops. He found that six out of 13 nutrients had declined in these crops over the 50-year period (the seven other nutrients showed no significant, reliable changes). Three minerals, phosphorous, iron and calcium, declined between 9 percent and 16 percent. Protein declined 6 percent. Riboflavin declined 38 percent and ascorbic acid (a precursor of vitamin C) declined 15 percent.

A study of the mineral content of fruits and vegetables grown in Britain between 1930 and 1980 shows similar decreases in nutrient density. The British study found significantly lower levels of calcium, magnesium, copper and sodium in vegetables, and of magnesium, iron, copper and potassium in fruit. The report concludes that the declines indicate "that a nutritional problem associated with the quality of food has developed over those 50 years."

Virginia Worthington, a clinical nutritionist who earned her doctorate in nutrition at Johns Hopkins, published a review in 2001 of 41 studies comparing the nutritional value of organic and conventional produce. After tallying the data across all the studies, Worthington concluded that organic produce had on average 27 percent more vitamin C, 21.1 percent more iron, 29.3 percent more magnesium and 13.6 percent more phosphorous than conventional produce.

Organic milk has been shown to have more nutrients than non-organic milk. Research was carried out by a team from the Danish Institute of
Agricultural Research. And organic milk was found to be higher in vitamin E, omega 3 essential fatty acids and antioxidants.



The Soil Association, a UK-based registered charity and organic certifying body, lists 10 reasons for going organic. These are:

1. To protect future generations
2. To pay the real cost of real food
3. To have an independent guarantee
4. to protect water quality
5. To enjoy greater flavour and nutrition
6. To keep chemicals off your plate
7. To reduce global warming and save energy
8. To prevent soil erosion
9. To help small farmers
10. To help restore biodiversity

It might not always be possible to get the organically grown fruit and vegetables you desire, in which case, the Environmental Working Group have highlighted the 12 cleanest and 12 riskiest non-organic foods as listed below.

12 Cleanest non-organic foods:

Asparagus, Avocados, Bananas, Broccoli, Cauliflower, Corn (though avoid genetically modified corn), Kiwi, Mangoes, Onions, Papaya, Pineapples, Peas

12 riskiest non-organic foods:

Apples, Bell Peppers, Celery, Cherries, Grapes, Nectarines, Peaches, Pears, Potatoes, Raspberries, Spinach, Strawberries

And finally, I want people with little resources to eat healthy! I want them (and me and you) to be able to afford the happy foods that promote health. I am passionate about making these types of nutritrious foods readily available to those that want it.

Are you curious about anything else or would you like to share your thoughts on cloned animals?

[baggle]

When you can do something besides copy/paste (while never attributing it to your sources, mind you.. e.g. plagiarizing), get back to me.

I'm pretty sure this guy is just some stupid hippie troll and Googles for forum posts about 'organic' foods or something. All of his material is canned. Ban stick?

PS: my dad manages a public works department that oversees a water treatment plant, and my best friend is a water supply specialist type person. I know what's in the water, and it's not what you (or your plagiarizing) says. Bring your 'bottled water only!!11!' arguments elsewhere.

[torrefaction]

I think that's a little unfair baggle. He seems informed enough to not dismiss him because he's a new user, and he didn't "copy and paste" enough to direct his replies, implying he's read the thread.

[walkstheplanes]

I really hope this discussion doesn't spill over into another sensitive topic that I'm pretty passionate about... (Oxy knows the subject).

@Baggle
Anyways, Percy Schmeiser lovers usually have their mouths stuck on his cock and their hands covering their ears.

@maloramac

First, welcome to EvAv. On to the show:

I've studied, been tested on, and wrote papers on the subject of agricultural technology of all types and in my research I've found MANY conflicting studies of the consequences (good and bad) of eating organic food. I've even read articles stating that organic foods are higher in carcinogens compared to their conventional crop cousins (the reason being that as plants feel biological environmental stresses [Bugs] they release carcinogens meant to decrease the fitness [the nads] of any would be eaters). This is particularly true of celery (where even for conventional crops the farmers who pick celery must wear thick gloves and sometimes goggles).

In all honesty, I'd take this in a crop for crop basis. Take a look at peanuts. They are susceptible to a fungus (aspergillus flavus) that produces probably the most powerful naturally occurring carcinogens in the world (aflatoxins). Conventional crops are sprayed with fungicides, decreasing the amount of infections. Organic peanuts are subjects completely to the fungus (well, not completely, some pesticides and fungicides are still allowed to be used under the Organic label). Unfortunately, infections of this type are difficult to detect unless a peanut is completely saturated with the fungus. My point: that jar of organic peanut butter is going to have a good deal more aflatoxin in it than the generic peanut butter next to it.

Further, higher nutrition and a diet of organic food (especially during the times of the studies you mentioned) must also take into account social factors. Back before organics became mainstream, who was eating the broccoli that cost a dollar more per head than it's non-organic neighbor? Who was buying canned foods instead of taking the time to drive out to a farmer's market? Who was probably able to afford a more varied and healthy diet back when organic foods were a middle-upper middle class item in late 90's, early 2000's? Many studies during that time did not take those into account.

I have no complaints about the benefits for the environment. In fact, I think organic farming is one of the good options for growing eco-friendly. No complaints there.

(though avoid genetically modified corn)

::sigh:: He hit the topic I wanted to avoid.
Genetically modified Corn (and Cotton, which I'm going to mention because it's another huge user of the same chemical I'm about to mention) is usually instilled with the ability to produce their own pesticide -- BT.

Social effect: Cut costs for small farmers, good. Money for Monsanto until patent runs out, bad. Meh.

Environmental effect: Miniscule. BT functions in the guts of insects which are BASIC environments (ie. opposite of acidic like us humans). For those curious, it actually opens up small holes in the stomachs of these bugs and seeps out the food they eat, effectively starving them to death. To humans and mammals, it's harmless. Popular subject: Monarch butterfly larvae like to eat milkweeds which grow in corn fields. The pollen of the GM corn plant fall on the milkweeds and pose a threat. UNTRUE -- If you actually read the studies (which I doubt many people who bring up GM corn ever do) about the GM's effects on indirect targets (oh no, those poor monarch butterflies), you'd realize that mortality rates only increased when the larvae were basically FORCE FED pollen grains.

Further, I've read reports saying GM crops decrease environmental impact (less pesticides and fungicides) and increase yields (thanks to in built mechanisms against pests and increased toughness against environmental stresses). Hell, I can throw up some random numbers and dates and say anything I read an article on anything... I'll just say this: I've read reports saying GM crops have good applications from respected scientists, and I've read articles stating the opposites from people I don't know or contain data achieved through very faulty means.

Hell, if you want to not eat genetically manipulated foods meant to increase yield and become for fit in their respective environments, avoid corn altogether. Here, get back to what god meant corn to be (that tiny green little thing in the midst of all that genetically engineered goodness): http://hila.webcentre.ca/research/teosinte/teosinte_hopi_blue.jpg

Or better yet, stop eating wheat or rye. Genetic engineers of the past doubled (and even tripled) the amount of genes in grasses, and created those abominations we know as "grains." As we all know, manipulation of genes on such an uncontrolled scale is incredibly dangerous. How terrible they must be.

When farmers in Hawaii are thanking University of Hawaii for Saving The Entire Papaya Population Of Hawaii from a fungal epidemic (this occurred about a decade ago), when farmers in the dryest and most hostile parts of Africa are growing GM sorghum and are finally able to sustain themselves (projects which are ongoing and in development), you can go ahead and blindly nurse on Percy Schmeiser's knob some more.

Gm crops: Can be good, can be evil, it just matters how you use it and who controls it.

disclaimer: My opinion: Organics, I could care less. Normally, I just go for conventional foods, unless it comes to foods I know are slightly gross, like Milk. I always avoid organic nuts and mushrooms (Having been to a mushroom farm and studied them, I know that fungi love eating other fungi and making lots of bad things to make sure nothing else survives eating their food). GM crops? Good applications are possible as well and unwise applications. I take it by a case by case basis. The power over GM crops are in control by large corporations (Monsanto, being the Big Name), so usually in practice they are abused, but really, there's so much potential in GM crops.

/threadjack

[torrefaction]

I love when you show up in these threads walks...I really do. You bring the biology like Oxonian brings the law.

[Slack3r78]

Gm crops: Can be good, can be evil, it just matters how you use it and who controls it.
I feel you deserve a T-Rex holding a weapon for this post, but I doubt I could provide you with one you don't already have. Awesome job.

My personal feeling is that the whole GM foods thing is very related to the nuclear power controversy -- there tends to be a lot of FUD going around, and they're often opposed by people for reasons that are contradictory to the potential end result.

[walkstheplanes]

Poooop =P

I hate talking about this subject because my work productivity goes to shit.

I just wished more people would take a step back and pick and choose informed concepts from both the hippy end and science end.

One of my old professors used the term "co-existence" and went into a lecture talking about how organic farmers and GM farmers could farm next to or near each other in safety.

[Slack3r78]

One of my old professors used the term "co-existence" and went into a lecture talking about how organic farmers and GM farmers could farm next to or near each other in safety.
Theoretically, but Monsanto doesn't like that so much. ZOMG YOUR CROPS ARE TAINTED PAY US. ;)

[maloramac]

I'm casual and he calls me a hippie.

I'm technical and he calls me an "apple C apple V"

organic apples of course.

[walkstheplanes]

Theoretically, but Monsanto doesn't like that so much. ZOMG YOUR CROPS ARE TAINTED PAY US. ;)

H8 Monsanto!

I'm casual and he calls me a hippie.

I'm technical and he calls me an "apple C apple V"

organic apples of course.

I apologize. When I get heated I start calling people names and exaggerating people's qualities. Please don't take offense to me, it's just a subject I'm touchy on (and you didn't seem very casual to me, but then again, I'm in the Bay Area and people in my position are the minority and tend to feel like they're fighting with a wall to their back). I didn't want to give you bad vibrations from your first few posts here. =P

[MiNiMaL_sAnItY]

I would consume cloned GM goods, chances are, I already do.

I recently started studying plant tissue culture, and I think that enhanced crops like the golden rice are good for consumption. Recombinant plants with genes encoding for essential aminos, or with drugs for certain diseases in the grains, pulses, or fruits/vegetables is fine by me.

[kaddar]

Walkstheplane: do you have any opinion on cloning and biodiversity?

Isn't biodiversity partially what kept humans populations higher during black plague?
Will cloning prevent biodiversity?
I'm pretty ok with cloning food as long as it doesn't pose risks for biodiversity of the population of the animal.

[walkstheplanes]

I would consume cloned GM goods, chances are, I already do.

I recently started studying plant tissue culture, and I think that enhanced crops like the golden rice are good for consumption. Recombinant plants with genes encoding for essential aminos, or with drugs for certain diseases in the grains, pulses, or fruits/vegetables is fine by me.

I've noticed that people who study the subject tend to lean towards pro-biotech (or at least pro-agri-tech), hehe. Slanted opinions? Maybe, but at least folks like us have studied the material and know all of the possible good things this technology can do for mankind.

Walkstheplane: do you have any opinion on cloning and biodiversity?

I don't find anything wrong with cloning on any sort of moral scale... But in terms of biodiversity, I think it is absolutely important.


Isn't biodiversity partially what kept humans populations higher during black plague?

Probably... if it's the same principle as a fungal blight wiping out an entire crop save the few plants that contain genetic differences that help them stave off the blight, then yeah...


Will cloning prevent biodiversity?
You know, that depends on who's going to be doing the cloning and why. It could be some mega-farming corporation looking to make a cheap buck on some cash crop and selling the same exact seed to all of it's farmers... or it could be a research company who finds a chemical compound that can improve the state of alzheimers patients, but also must deal with the fact that the compound is generated in the bark of a rare plant (or in the testicles of some rare animal). Cloning that plant (or of those testicles) would prevent farming of the organism from it's natural environment (preserving it's station in that ecosystem) and allow controlled production of the chemical. (That wasn't the best example, but you see what I mean, I hope).

I'm pretty ok with cloning food as long as it doesn't pose risks for biodiversity of the population of the animal.
We'll just have to see how the companies in control handle cloning in that respect.

[maloramac]

that response was more directed towards baggle.

Your addition to the arguement seems questionable with the scientific evidence available thus far. Whatever happened to biodiversity? Ya know... nature's way of making sure everything doesn't just die if one gets sick. There are serious concerns from many reknowned scientists that say that there are implicit risks involved in spreading new types (or millions of only a few types) of organisms throughout the world. The UK medical journal, The Lancet, has criticized the presumption that GE foods imply no greater risks of unexpected effects than conventional ones, stating that there are "good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist" and that "governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health." (May 29, 1999). I've read a study basically says that a GMO's built in resistance to herbicides merely encourages farmers to douse their crops with the chemical because they know that their corn with be ok and that their weeds will be gone. I've also read studies that show farmers in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere have successfully used "weeds" as a pest deterrent... in the scenerio that the weed is more desirable to the bugs than the crop itself. My point being that there are alternatives out there to explore and test more thoroughly than Monsanto's patented GMO express train to bio-collapse.

I've also experienced something of non-production today. Thanks for the welcome.

[maloramac]

We'll just have to see how the companies in control handle cloning in that respect.

Wait to see what the companies do just like Germans waited to see what the Nazi's would do.



The decision is in our hands, we can decide what we support with the products that we buy.

[baggle]

@Oxonian:
Europe has banned the use of almost all antibiotics in animals. In the United States, the Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics recently recommended we stop using antibiotics for increased production, but allowed use to treat illness.
Other agricultural chemicals have been found to be deleterious to cell health, such as PCP (pentachlorophenol) that can cause DNA fragmentation in animals, as well as numerous other chemicals found to damage cellular membranes and negatively effect the functioning of mitochondria. These include the insecticide endosulfan and the herbicide paraquat, as well as chemicals 2-4-D, prathion and dinoseb. Pesticides such as chlopyrifos, endrin and fenthion have been shown to over stimulate certain enzymes involved in chemical signalling, causing imbalance that has been linked to inflammatory conditions, psoriasis and atherosclerosis.
Plagiarized from: https://www.rgs.uky.edu/odyssey/fall02/food.html


Over 3,000 high-risk toxins are present in the US food supply, which by law are excluded from organic food. These include 73 pesticides classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as potential carcinogens. Pesticides also leak into the water supply - for example, a 1996 study by the Environmental Working Group found 96 per cent of all water samples taken from 748 towns across the US contained the pesticide atrazine.
Organic foods may be vitally important to protect children from the damaging effects of these toxic contaminants. Two separate reports, from the Natural Resources Defence Council (1989) and the Environmental Working Group (1998), revealed that millions of American children were exposed to levels of pesticides from food that exceeded limits considered to be safe. These include neuro-toxins that can be hazardous to the developing brain and nervous system, as well as potential carcinogens that some researchers believe can be a particular risk to children and adolescents during periods of high growth and breast development.
Organic fruits and vegetables grown from clean, natural soil with a rich and balanced mineral content, are not only free from chemical contaminants, but win hands down with regard to flavour and offer a fuller range of nutrients. Non-organic equivalents contain more water and less vitamins and minerals. Danish research published in the August 2003 issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry revealed significantly higher amounts of flavonoids in the urine and blood samples of those on an organically-grown as opposed to conventionally-grown diet.
The Soil Association, a UK-based registered charity and organic certifying body, lists 10 reasons for going organic. These are:

1. To protect future generations
2. To pay the real cost of real food
3. To have an independent guarantee
4. to protect water quality
5. To enjoy greater flavour and nutrition
6. To keep chemicals off your plate
7. To reduce global warming and save energy
8. To prevent soil erosion
9. To help small farmers
10. To help restore biodiversity

It might not always be possible to get the organically grown fruit and vegetables you desire, in which case, the Environmental Working Group have highlighted the 12 cleanest and 12 riskiest non-organic foods as listed below.

12 Cleanest non-organic foods:

Asparagus, Avocados, Bananas, Broccoli, Cauliflower, Corn (though avoid genetically modified corn), Kiwi, Mangoes, Onions, Papaya, Pineapples, Peas

12 riskiest non-organic foods:

Apples, Bell Peppers, Celery, Cherries, Grapes, Nectarines, Peaches, Pears, Potatoes, Raspberries, Spinach, Strawberries
Plagiarized from: http://www.approvedarticles.com/Article/Why-Eat-Organic-Food--The-Benefits-of-Organic-Food-and-the-Dangers-of-Non-Organic-Food/1168






The issue goes beyond Iowa. Across the country, metropolitan water agencies are battling increasing pollution from the countryside. The river pollution is spreading and helping to cause dead zones in the open seas. A recent study by the Pew Oceans Commission, an independent group examining government policies, called huge livestock feedlots and farm fertilizer runoff among the fastest-growing sources of pollution in oceans thousands of miles away.

As a result, the $171 billion, 10-year farm bill, once seen as a parochial issue for rural lawmakers, has been scrutinized by members of Congress from urban and suburban districts who realize that the upheaval in agriculture has implications beyond the grocery store.
The bill includes several proposals to reduce water pollution, like increased money to encourage farmers to practice conservation, increased money to protect wetlands, and limits on subsidies so the federal program will not underwrite further farm consolidation.
Plagiarized from: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0210-01.htm






Donald R. Davis, a research associate with the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, recently analyzed data gathered by the USDA in 1950 and 1999 on the nutrient content of 43 fruit and vegetable crops. He found that six out of 13 nutrients had declined in these crops over the 50-year period (the seven other nutrients showed no significant, reliable changes). Three minerals, phosphorous, iron and calcium, declined between 9 percent and 16 percent. Protein declined 6 percent. Riboflavin declined 38 percent and ascorbic acid (a precursor of vitamin C) declined 15 percent.

A study of the mineral content of fruits and vegetables grown in Britain between 1930 and 1980 shows similar decreases in nutrient density. The British study found significantly lower levels of calcium, magnesium, copper and sodium in vegetables, and of magnesium, iron, copper and potassium in fruit. The report concludes that the declines indicate "that a nutritional problem associated with the quality of food has developed over those 50 years."
Virginia Worthington, a clinical nutritionist who earned her doctorate in nutrition at Johns Hopkins, published a review in 2001 of 41 studies comparing the nutritional value of organic and conventional produce. After tallying the data across all the studies, Worthington concluded that organic produce had on average 27 percent more vitamin C, 21.1 percent more iron, 29.3 percent more magnesium and 13.6 percent more phosphorous than conventional produce.
Plagiarized from: http://www.liveearthfarm.com/DRichArticle.html

Organic milk has been shown to have more nutrients than non-organic milk. Research was carried out by a team from the Danish Institute of
Agricultural Research. And organic milk was found to be higher in vitamin E, omega 3 essential fatty acids and antioxidants.
Plagiarized from: http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/milk011005.cfm


As you can see, I'm not just making baseless accusations. 95% of his post was completely plagiarized, so how is anyone supposed to take him seriously? His answers were obviously canned, and ready to go. I'm willing to bet he is no lurker, and merely an 'organic foods' troll who goes from forum to forum. This was all too well-rehearsed, and it makes me very suspicious. Besides, anybody who tries to pass off the words of others as their own is totally lame, and doesn't deserve much respect anyway. I can't believe people could read his post and think that it wasn't all plagiarized. As soon as I read it I could tell.

[maloramac]

obviously baggle is more interested in the sake of arguing than the information trying to be relayed.

Thank you for repeating everything I already stated once. I love it when information gets double exposure. (or triple if you feel like posting it again) as well as the sites where people can get more information. You should work for me and the "Organic Conspirators" If you wanted the sources, you could have asked. Your reactions are the ones that sound way too rehearsed and straight from Monsanto. And since when do hippies have money to back people in creating "organic trolls" throughout the internet? Try organic crack next time.

[Wolvie]

Does the meat taste any different? Would it harm me in any way? If the answer is no, then walk that beast over to my table so I can lop a chunk off and start eating!

[baggle]

Yeah, it's my fault for not requesting beforehand that you not plagiarize.

:rolleyes:

[ElectricMonk]

Hey! If I was a scientist, you know what I would clone? Hot dogs!

Think of all the possibilities, Norm!

[maloramac]

His answers were obviously canned, and ready to go.


similiar to your spaghettio's... you seem to like those just fine.

[maloramac]

I'm a chic dude!:p

[walkstheplanes]

Your addition to the arguement seems questionable with the scientific evidence available thus far. Whatever happened to biodiversity? Ya know... nature's way of making sure everything doesn't just die if one gets sick. There are serious concerns from many reknowned scientists that say that there are implicit risks involved in spreading new types (or millions of only a few types) of organisms throughout the world.

Biodiversity = Good. Gotcha. I don't think anyone disputed that.


The UK medical journal, The Lancet, has criticized the presumption that GE foods imply no greater risks of unexpected effects than conventional ones, stating that there are "good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist" and that "governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health." (May 29, 1999).

These risks depend on the nature of the GM product you are introducing to the market/world. A tobacco plant engineered to become an anti-AIDS drug factory is going to have different ramifications than GM golf grass designed to look good and green. In regards to food, simply introducing code that allows a plant to express an additional vitamin is not more dangerous than doing this "naturally" and breeding by conventional means a more nutritious plant. The latter takes a much longer time to develop in addition to being "dirty" (ie. non specific).


I've read a study basically says that a GMO's built in resistance to herbicides merely encourages farmers to douse their crops with the chemical because they know that their corn with be ok and that their weeds will be gone.

Unfortunately this is occuring a lot in places like China. I do not agree with this practice of GM crops, myself. A good example of a bad application of the technology. You didn't mention this, but in China, the primary rice field weed is a close relative to rice... There's a strong chance of cross breeding and introduction of herbacide resistance into the weed. I'm a strong advocate of not introducing herbacide resistance into plants, despite being a strong advocate of GM crops in general.

But I will mention that in California, farms that have adopted BT corn and cotton have dramatically reduced their pesticide use and have impacted the environment in a very positive way.


I've also read studies that show farmers in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere have successfully used "weeds" as a pest deterrent... in the scenerio that the weed is more desirable to the bugs than the crop itself. My point being that there are alternatives out there to explore and test more thoroughly than Monsanto's patented GMO express train to bio-collapse.


Hey, that's great. I've said this before, and I say it again -- there's room for both GM and non-GM technologies and concepts out there.

Wait to see what the companies do just like Germans waited to see what the Nazi's would do.


Wow, and I thought I hated Monsanto more than most. Seriously, there's a lot of smaller companies out there looking out for the little guy. My old lab used to work with engineering hardier sorghum to give to farmers in Africa that deal with harsh environmental conditions. There are research companies developing plants that are inexpensive means of creating drugs for many ailments. The outlook isn't that bleak. There are evils, yes, but I'm of the opinion that it's not the all seeing eye of Sauron. I acknowledge the fact that Monsanto is responsible for over 75% of GM plant related patents within the last year, but I try to have some hope.


The decision is in our hands, we can decide what we support with the products that we buy.

True that. From my arguments, you can understand that ignoring the organic label is my primary deal. When I look at my meats, I look for free range before anything else.

Gah I really need to study. No more of this thread for the night.

[maloramac]

going to study too. thanks for all of the fun things that I get to research on my free time. and thanks for sort-of welcoming me to this rift.

[maloramac]

Biodiversity = Good. Gotcha. I don't think anyone disputed that.



I'm a strong advocate of not introducing herbacide resistance into plants, despite being a strong advocate of GM crops in general.



but I don't understand how one can be a general "strong advocate" of GM crops but still insist that Biodiversity is imperative.

Aren't there contradictions in this... and I realize that you addressed this, but you did so only partially.

[walkstheplanes]

going to study too. thanks for all of the fun things that I get to research on my free time. and thanks for sort-of welcoming me to this rift.

Trust me, you'll find research on both sides of the issue. The only reason why I am so adamant about my claims is that I studied these mechanisms in detail. I learned how genetic manipulation works and I learned the dangers and the benefits. My time in the lab has taught me a decent amount of first hand experience with the habits of companies like Monsanto and the struggles of the little guy in this field. My classes on environmentalism has shown me the fears/concerns the general populace has in regards to this (more or less) new technology that has been infiltrating our lives for the last 20 years.

but I don't understand how one can be a general "strong advocate" of GM crops but still insist that Biodiversity is imperative.

Aren't there contradictions in this... and I realize that you addressed this, but you did so only partially.

Creating biodiversity within our current crops is, in itself, genetic modification, regardless of how it's done (single gene targetting or the old fashioned dirty way).

The contradictions occur when the concepts are abused (ie. practices that I'm sure you know of performed by large farm or large plant biotech corporation).

---

I'm going to go off topic and get a little preachy here... If anything I hope you take from this discussion that not all GM is a terrible thing (although, yes in some cases it can be, as I'm sure you've read somewhere on the internets). As I said before, it can help farmers in rough environments obtain self sustainability, it can decrease pesticide and fungicide use, and in some cases it can save an entire economy from ruin (Google "genetically modified papaya hawaii" for both the wonderful praise and demonification of GM). As much as you see farmers taking heart to the trend of organic foods (the growing popularity of farmer's markets reflects this), a lot of small farmers are taking a liking to GM tech as well (this occurs mostly in areas out of the public eye, such as in paper or clothes).

Beyond agriculture, it can save a lot of lives too:
At the time I took a course of applications of plant biotech, I believe the following project was in the 2nd or 3rd stage of clinical trials (this was maybe 4 years ago)... it was a study on Hodgkins disease. This disease is unique to each individual, depending on the particular cancerous cell that is propogating throughout the body (depending on which lymph node of the body is afflicted). Researchers found that they could place surface proteins from those cancerous cells onto a benign form of the tobacco mosaic virus (a GM TMV virus with it's balls chopped off). They 'infected' a crop of tobacco plants with this virus and basically created factories where this modified TMV virus was being made. After a period of time, they harvested the TMV virus and injected them into the Hodgkins disease patient the TMV virus was unique to. Of course, a plant virus in a human being won't do anything, so they injected a mild irritant as well to fool the body into thinking that the virus was a bad thing. The individual's immune system then recognized the surface proteins and attacked not only the modified virus, but the cancerous cells as well. 5 years into the program, the patients had all been recovering -- successful remission of Hodgkins disease (by now the program should nearly be finished -- I'd have to contact an old professor to find current news of this project).

But yeah, I like to pick and choose which side I'm on in each individual battle here. For me, it's a lot more complex than just Bros before GMOs.

Most of my complaints about GMOs stem from three things... legislative obstacles that make GM research too expensive for smaller companies that are fairly noble in their pursuits (like my old lab), companies like Monsanto being gigantic jerks, and public ignorance (really, if the public knew what was going on, I think they wouldn't be as afraid [Percy Schmeiser is a big source of ignorance, look him up, read all about him, and I mean All about him and see all the dirty things he's done and the wave of fame he's been riding that's been built on lies). Those three issues combined create a lot of different situations and gray a lot of topics. God I hope I'm making sense, it's late. /rant (I totally accidentally triple posted this. I hope no one noticed because it's fairly late)

EDIT: Sorry, that's treatment for NON-HODGKINS disease, not hodgkins.

[Oxonian]

@walks: if and when you hear anything more about that Hodgkin's study, I'd be very, very interested to hear more.

[baggle]

But yeah, I like to pick and choose which side I'm on in each individual battle here. For me, it's a lot more complex than just Bros before GMOs.

That's because you're a reasonable person and not an idealogue, and that's what reasonable people do. Thanks for all of the great info, even though you knew beforehand that you were talking to a brick wall ;)

[torrefaction]

That's because you're a reasonable person and not an idealogue, and that's what reasonable people do. Thanks for all of the great info, even though you knew beforehand that you were talking to a brick wall ;)

Even if he did copy and paste, I still think you're being really unfair to this guy. Didn't seem like a brick wall conversation at all, especially with him talking about going to research walks points.

The thing is, people can research this issue a lot, and still arrive at the wrong conclusion. As walks said, there's a ton of research on both sides of the issue. Walks understands it as well as he does because he's taken it upon himself to be an expert in the issue.

It's like me...I argue positions that I believe in a lot around here, only to turn out to be wrong. That doesn't mean I won't fight with all the ammo at my disposal to ensure that I'm wrong. But if at the end of the day the facts end up overwhelming, I have no qualms about changing my position.

I'm not defending this person necessarily. He hasn't been around long enough for that. But I don't think it's fair to consistently attack the persons character, and not their arguments.

[baggle]

I'm not defending this person necessarily. He hasn't been around long enough for that. But I don't think it's fair to consistently attack the persons character, and not their arguments.
I admit that saying somebody uses 'ignorant hippie' rhetoric, which I did, is probably crossing the line, and I normally would have apologized for that if the person was a regular here, or even a 'true' new poster, because even though I can be an asshole, I usually think better of it later and try to make good. The only reason I treated malo any differently is because I strongly suspect that she knows nothing about gaming and will never participate in this forum again after this thread. Her answers were completely canned, and that only added fuel to the fire of me being highly suspicious of her.

I don't mind copy/pasting at all, as long as you tell us beforehand that you are quoting a source, and 'this is what they have to say'. Malo didn't do that. She attempted to pass the words of others off as her own. That is bull, and not exactly a great way to start off on a new forum. So yeah, she didn't even have any arguments. Other people wrote arguments and she copied and pasted them. There was nothing to address. If I want to debate the people who wrote those articles, I'll email them.

Plagiarizing from 4 or 5 different sources would take some time, too, so I doubt that her answers weren't pre-formulated. The fact that her answers are probably pre-formulated tells me that this isn't the first time she has done this, and that implies that she may be merely Googling for something like 'cloned meat' and trying to spread the 'good word' to the peoples of the internet, and probably isn't used to meeting someone like walkstheplanes, who actually knows something about it, or somebody like me, who actually calls her on her plagiarism, while spreading her gospel.

Perhaps it was a character attack to say she uses ignorant hippie rhetoric (however, even then I still addressed her arguments first), but it surely isn't an (unfair) attack on a person's character to say that she attempted to pass off the words of others as her own, as I have demonstrated, and even provided the links to the sources. She didn't sound highly similar to those sources, she copied word-for-word from them.

[walkstheplanes]

She's new. Next time, she'll put things in quotation boxes.

[baggle]

She's new. Next time, she'll put things in quotation boxes.

I honestly doubt there will be a next time. I'd love to be proven wrong.

And cmon, she was obviously trying to get away with using the words of others as her own. People needn't use quote boxes, or even provide a link, as long as you mention, 'here are some things I've read about it'.

[torrefaction]

I'm just saying...it's best to give new posters the benefit of the doubt. Better to err on the side of caution than scare a potential contributor away.

[baggle]

I'm just saying...it's best to give new posters the benefit of the doubt. Better to err on the side of caution than scare a potential contributor away.

You're right, of course, and I agree with that. I was a bit harsh in my first reply, as I've admitted.

However, I don't feel guilty in the slightest for bringing the hammer down on somebody who tries to plagiarize to make a point, and then tries to blame it on somebody else, no matter if they have 1 post or 10,000 posts.

[Reverend Meta]

i ate some lamb. it was really good.
now i want to try cloned lamb.

[baggle]

i ate some lamb. it was really good.
now i want to try cloned lamb.

Think they could clone a lamb that has the most bone marrow? I love sucking the marrow out of lamb shanks. Yummmyyyy.

[JoyOfJoys]

i ate some lamb. it was really good.
now i want to try cloned lamb.

In other words, you want to eat the same animal twice.... having your lamb and eating it too. :)

[maloramac]

She's new. Next time, she'll put things in quotation boxes.

hello again. to quiet the discussion on my character: I've never blogged in my life. if that's what you call this. and yes, next time I will use quotes and all of that fun, exciting stuff. In my attempt to be focused in my answers and give accurate information in a timely manner I did use 5 some odd sources. Would paraphrasing make the arguement more reliable on my part? I felt that all I was doing was relaying results from studies and that requires a precision that copy and paste were made to do. As I said, next time I will source my material so this wiki-ment can be more official.

I google for information all of the time. when I saw that you guys were talking some stuff about cloned animals and such a large percentage of the people were (in my opinion, anyways) misguided, I decided to arrange a discussion in honor of biodiversity.

In response to gaming, hardcore I am not, but I dig warcraft (starcraft not so much) ha. And I buy nintendo just to play Zelda. So if you're wanting some fast and dirty discussions on gaming, I am not you're girl, but if you're interested in discussion then I'm game.

I am an artist living in Chicago and most of my work deals with the complexity of purchasing calories in this highly technical, controversial and ethically questionable food system. cool?

[baggle]

hello again. to quiet the discussion on my character: I've never blogged in my life. if that's what you call this. and yes, next time I will use quotes and all of that fun, exciting stuff. In my attempt to be focused in my answers and give accurate information in a timely manner I did use 5 some odd sources. Would paraphrasing make the arguement more reliable on my part? I felt that all I was doing was relaying results from studies and that requires a precision that copy and paste were made to do. As I said, next time I will source my material so this wiki-ment can be more official.

I google for information all of the time. when I saw that you guys were talking some stuff about cloned animals and such a large percentage of the people were (in my opinion, anyways) misguided, I decided to arrange a discussion in honor of biodiversity.

In response to gaming, hardcore I am not, but I dig warcraft (starcraft not so much) ha. And I buy nintendo just to play Zelda. So if you're wanting some fast and dirty discussions on gaming, I am not you're girl, but if you're interested in discussion then I'm game.

I am an artist living in Chicago and most of my work deals with the complexity of purchasing calories in this highly technical, controversial and ethically questionable food system. cool?
So you found this thread by Googling for organic food type stuff, and wanted to spread the good word of organics here, right?

PS: they're only 'sources' if you cite them. It's plagiarism otherwise. As I've said, there's nothing wrong with copy/paste if you say that you are copy/pasting. There's a problem with it when you try to make people think that they are your own words.

[maloramac]

don't try to put words in my mouth, and... again you seem insistant on arguing instead of the points that I am expressing.

I thought you would "love" to be proved wrong. (sourced from baggle's post today @11:30am.)

[KingGorilla]

but I don't understand how one can be a general "strong advocate" of GM crops but still insist that Biodiversity is imperative.

Aren't there contradictions in this... and I realize that you addressed this, but you did so only partially.

I do not see how the two are mutually exclusive. Cows are not going to stop fucking. I like the idea of research and science being put in to the process to weed out flagged markers for animals with may be more likely to contract certain diseases. Bovine Tuburculosis is a big issue, "Mad Cow." And what about just improving like we do with normal breeding. What if you could create the perfectly marbled meat? I do not see how you and others can see a test tube and a lab as anything but a natural extension of our current and ten thousand year old methods of genetic modification.

[baggle]

don't try to put words in my mouth, and... again you seem insistant on arguing instead of the points that I am expressing.

I thought you would "love" to be proved wrong. (sourced from baggle's post today @11:30am.)

I'll take that as a "yes".

[maloramac]

have class kids. take care.

[walkstheplanes]

I do not see how the two are mutually exclusive.

I get pretty miffed (Hell, I'll go so far as to call it ignorance) when people delude themselves in thinking that any issue is zomg one side or the other choose.

[Serapth]

I get pretty miffed (Hell, I'll go so far as to call it ignorance) when people delude themselves in thinking that any issue is zomg one side or the other choose.

That sentence make my brain hurt.

[maloramac]

I get pretty miffed (Hell, I'll go so far as to call it ignorance) when people delude themselves in thinking that any issue is zomg one side or the other choose.

Isn't that choosing a certain side in another arguement? Do you feel susceptible to your own critiques?

[Slack3r78]

Isn't that choosing a certain side in another arguement? Do you feel susceptible to your own critiques?

His complaint is basically that making blanket statements suggesting that things like all GM food is either good or bad is generally a bit naive. In some cases it might be beneficial, in others it might be a bad idea. That requires close examination on a case by case basis, not alarmism or knee-jerk reactionism.

[maloramac]

I understand what he is trying to say but he is being contradictory in trying to say it.

[Virtuoso]

I'd rather eat cloned animals than animals that have been fed other animals, however there really hasn't been many studies detailing the safety of eating cloned animals and there would certainly need to be more studies done to confirm that eating the animals are safe, and how long the same strain of DNA is viable until mutation sets in.

[walkstheplanes]

Isn't that choosing a certain side in another arguement? Do you feel susceptible to your own critiques?
I understand what he is trying to say but he is being contradictory in trying to say it.

Please understand: Gray Areas.

Not all issues are black and white -- this is especially so in the case of GMOs.

There is no contradiction in understanding both sides of an issue and realizing both the benefits and the negatives of the details of each side of the argument.

Edit: Slacker summed up my thoughts perfectly. I don't know how to make this any simpler.

[baggle]

walkstheplanes, you have noble intentions, but this person came here specifically to preach about this topic. They have their mind made up, there is no going back, and they insist that others must see it their way as well. I seriously doubt you're going to make any inroads with her.

[KingGorilla]

walkstheplanes, you have noble intentions, but this person came here specifically to preach about this topic. They have their mind made up, there is no going back, and they insist that others must see it their way as well. I seriously doubt you're going to make any inroads with her.

Have you met my friend "the Internet?"

[baggle]

Have you met my friend "the Internet?"

You do have a good point, but I feel that it is especially true in this case. This isn't some random forum member having a discussion on the topic here, it is a person who was searching for topics like this, found this thread, and came here to preach. At least with a random forum member there might be some chance of reasoning with them (depending on the forum member), but in this case? Not so much, methinks.

[walkstheplanes]

Gah. All I want is people to not blindly follow doctrines and look at things from as many angles as possible (and hopefully understand the angles that their looking through).

Have you met my friend "the Internet?"

H8!

[baggle]

Gah. All I want is people to not blindly follow doctrines and look at things from as many angles as possible (and hopefully understand the angles that their looking through).

Like I said, noble intents. I can totally respect that. But would you really expect to make any progress in trying to explain how logical evolution is to a Southern Baptist preacher? Now how about a Southern Baptist preacher who went to a forum on the internet where people who are reasonable about evolution were having a discussion, just to convince them how wrong they are? This situation is sort of like that.

[walkstheplanes]

Like I said, noble intents. I can totally respect that. But would you really expect to make any progress in trying to explain how logical evolution is to a Southern Baptist preacher? Now how about a Southern Baptist preacher who went to a forum on the internet where people who are reasonable about evolution were having a discussion, just to convince them how wrong they are? This situation is sort of like that.

:)
I live in the Bay Area, which is pretty hostile to those in my camp, but I'm just doing what I can to inform people of the choices they'll be making. It's rough, but people gotta know that blanket statements are really irrelevent in this issue. It's like when people are totally surprised that I'm fairly liberal on most of the big ticket issues and see me chowing down on mainstream grocery produce at the same time.

[baggle]

:)
I live in the Bay Area, which is pretty hostile to those in my camp, but I'm just doing what I can to inform people of the choices they'll be making. It's rough, but people gotta know that blanket statements are really irrelevent in this issue. It's like when people are totally surprised that I'm fairly liberal on most of the big ticket issues and see me chowing down on mainstream grocery produce at the same time.
I've lived about 100 miles out of SF for my entire life, so I feel ya on that one. I can actually barely stand spending much time in SF for all of the pretentiousness that the city exudes. The conformity of non-conformity, and all of that good stuff. I guess you're just less intolerant than I am ;)

[walkstheplanes]

I've been in classes full of people like mal. In fact, I've had to do a presentation on front of them, haha, on this very issue. What started as a 10 minute presentation on the good things GMOs can do for mankind became an hour long Q&A period of righteous environmentalists assaulting an underqualified, budding plant bio undergrad with all sorts of questions, assumptions, and accusations. Okay, back to on topic, whatever that was.

[maloramac]

I'm just confused as to how baggle can try to defend a topic he obviously knows nothing about -- possibly in defense of his own lifestyle --


and he does this my merely attacking someone else that is trying to be involved in the discussion while concurrently skipping the science. I would love to really have a talk that is educating to myself and others, but I am left in non-participatory land because I have to defend myself. I think its possible that GMO's have a place in society, but I'm more interested in people educating themselves, so they have some sort of background as to what they are putting in their bodies everyday. Society has basically trusted the big, profit hungry companies to do the right thing as far as what we are consuming... did we not learn anything from what cigarette companies did to maintain profits when they knew thier products were causing cancer?

And honestly... what does it matter how I found myself here... is internet surfing against the law? And diversity in discussion is as important as diversity in the bio-sphere.

[maloramac]

walkstheplanes

I'm curious why you think that regular milk is gross as opposed to organic? what are you're feelings on it? I have mine, but I want to see what other information you know.

[walkstheplanes]

walkstheplanes

I'm curious why you think that regular milk is gross as opposed to organic? what are you're feelings on it? I have mine, but I want to see what other information you know.

Animals are a whole 'nother field when considering GM, organic, or conventional. I'll try to stay on topic and specifically address your question...

Mostly it's from reading a few articles and watching a documentary on cows treated with growth hormone and seeing what stuff ends up on the shelf (from one of my environmental courses, so both those sources were slanted, but they stuck). This was years ago, and the video itself was dated in the early 90's, so my fears are probably unfounded now, but it's become a habit. Obviously, few or none of my arguments about the dangers of organic plants apply here (which I posted earlier), so I don't see (I haven't read) red flag ill effects in buying organic milk in itself. Environmental and social effects are in question, as a lot of Organic growers are owned by large farming companies that still practice polluting, inhumane, yet "organic" farming. As stated before, when I dug up reports or scientific articles related to health issues, I came up with a mixed bag.

Long story short: It's a loosely based judgment call. I know little of what our bodies are capable of digesting in the stuff that comes through conventional milk, and nutritional science is on the growth, so I'm just going to err on the side of caution when it comes to milk.

I know a decent amount on animal agriculture, but honestly, I know more about plants than this subject because I've studied them so much more extensively (and thus feel more confident when making consumer/health choices when buying plant products) -- I make no claims on being knowledgeable on animal agriculture.

I'm medium-lactose intolerant though, so I usually go for the soy-milk (enriched and non-organic, if you hadn't guessed).

So what are your reasons for choosing organic milk?

Trying to quell flames:
I'm just confused as to how baggle can try to defend a topic he obviously knows nothing about -- possibly in defense of his own lifestyle --

You stated a lot of your information is derived from google sources... I don't see how views founded on that can be more or less valid than baggle who has probably done the same. Even if he hasn't google "researched," I'm not going to pull the card out that I'm a Genetics and Plant Bio major and berate you for not knowing as much as I do about this technology.


and he does this my merely attacking someone else that is trying to be involved in the discussion while concurrently skipping the science. I would love to really have a talk that is educating to myself and others, but I am left in non-participatory land because I have to defend myself. I think its possible that GMO's have a place in society, but I'm more interested in people educating themselves, so they have some sort of background as to what they are putting in their bodies everyday. Society has basically trusted the big, profit hungry companies to do the right thing as far as what we are consuming... did we not learn anything from what cigarette companies did to maintain profits when they knew thier products were causing cancer?

And honestly... what does it matter how I found myself here... is internet surfing against the law? And diversity in discussion is as important as diversity in the bio-sphere.

These are issues largely regarding your initial etiquette in these forums (the whole ctrl-v ctrl-c thing). I think the sooner you drop it, ignore accusations, and continue posting in an accepted way in terms of tone (as you've been doing in the last few posts), you won't find complains from baggle anymore.

edit: Honestly, I had troubles and angry posters at my during my first few posts. Just adapt within reason (no need to lose any individual flare you've got) and people will stop hassling you. Hell, my first post on Evil Avatar, the FIRST responder demanded I be Banned (Also Evil Avatar himself endorsed this for a while).

[Serapth]

Long story short: It's a loosely based judgment call. I know little of what our bodies are capable of digesting in the stuff that comes through conventional milk, and nutritional science is on the growth, so I'm just going to err on the side of caution when it comes to milk.

I know a decent amount on animal agriculture, but honestly, I know more about plants than this subject because I've studied them so much more extensively (and thus feel more confident when making consumer/health choices when buying plant products) -- I make no claims on being knowledgeable on animal agriculture.

I'm medium-lactose intolerant though, so I usually go for the soy-milk (enriched and non-organic, if you hadn't guessed).

So what are your reasons for choosing organic milk?

Organic or not, the entire concept of milk is disturbing and if cheese wasn't so damned yummy, I would swear off all dairy completely.

That said, I don't like drinking cow pus in the first place.

[walkstheplanes]

Organic or not, the entire concept of milk is disturbing and if cheese wasn't so damned yummy, I would swear off all dairy completely.

That said, I don't like drinking cow pus in the first place.

You know it's the strangest thing that humans are (I'm pretty sure) the only mammals capable of digesting milk as adults.

[Slack3r78]

You know it's the strangest thing that humans are (I'm pretty sure) the only mammals capable of digesting milk as adults.

Now I want to watch Snatch.

[walkstheplanes]

Now I want to watch Snatch.

I've never seen Snatch, but if this is mentioned in that movie, now I want to watch Snatch.

[Serapth]

You know it's the strangest thing that humans are (I'm pretty sure) the only mammals capable of digesting milk as adults.

Thats pretty much my issue with cowpus. Then again, a huge % of us are lactose intolerant. Actually I believe everyone is lactose intolerant, its just the degree that seperates us.

[walkstheplanes]

Thats pretty much my issue with cowpus. Then again, a huge % of us are lactose intolerant. Actually I believe everyone is lactose intolerant, its just the degree that seperates us.

My body is incapable of digesting alcohol (it's basically poison in my veins if I drink it). Funny thing, the human body. As a result, I've taken to smoking copious amounts of pot through my lifetime when otherwise other people would be drinking.

[Slack3r78]

I've never seen Snatch, but if this is mentioned in that movie, now I want to watch Snatch.

Go rent it. There's a fucking awesome scene that gets kicked off with a discussion about how unnatural human consumption of milk is. And then shit goes crazy. It rules.

[Grey]

sure, why not?

[torrefaction]

My body is incapable of digesting alcohol (it's basically poison in my veins if I drink it). Funny thing, the human body. As a result, I've taken to smoking copious amounts of pot through my lifetime when otherwise other people would be drinking.

Alcohol Flux/Flush Syndrome? I hear that's common in INDIANS.

I'm starting to think I have this, given my rapidly increasing bad reactions to drinking. I have worse hangovers than anyone I've met in my entire life. This didn't use to be the case though...so I dunno.

[baggle]

Alcohol Flux/Flush Syndrome? I hear that's common in INDIANS.
I'm pretty sure it affects some southeast Asians as well.

[torrefaction]

I'm pretty sure it affects some southeast Asians as well.

http://www.warmbutter.com/films/oyh/images/oyh-title.gif

[baggle]

Yeah, it must be. I totally don't get it. Paint me noobified.

[torrefaction]

Yeah, it must be. I totally don't get it. Paint me noobified.

Long running joke about his name...Serapth gets it.

[baggle]

Okay, so let me actually respond to the topic at hand, as out of character as that may seem for me.

Here's how I see it.

Poor people are better off eating fresh foods than not. Organic food has not been conclusively shown to be any better for people than non-organically grown food, or even any different at all, besides going bad on the shelf sooner. Organics are probably not sustainable for a larger-than-niche population to rely on. Organics cost significantly more than non-organics. Therefore, people at large are better off to be consuming fresh food that they can (barely) afford rather than no fresh food because it's not 'organic'. The USDA itself has said, in it's organic foods certification proposal in 1997, "No distinctions should be made between organically and non-organically produced products in terms of quality, appearance, or safety."

So now that the other supposed benefits of organics are debunked, we are left with the additional supposed, and dubious, environmental benefits of organics. I won't even go into that, because to me keeping people healthy and allowing them to eat fresh food is more important than making a wealthy artist feel good.

[Serapth]

Long running joke about his name...Serapth gets it.

Not since I got married anyways....


Yeah, I get it!

[walkstheplanes]

Not since I got married anyways....


Yeah, I get it!

Ho ho! Good one!
The uhh coyote smiles upon thee peace pipes and all etc.

[torrefaction]

"No distinctions should be made between organically and non-organically produced products in terms of quality, appearance, or safety."

I don't care what they say. For the most parts, the organic foods I have had TASTE better. Now, I voted for eating cloned food...because I honestly don't view that as non-organic. I don't even have stipulations about non-organic food.

And this isn't about me being a hippy, or environmentalist...you can trust me on that. The bottom line for me is taste, regardless of anything else.

And these massively processed non-organic Girl Scout Samoa's in front of me taste AWESOME.

[baggle]

Oh yeah, in all seriousness, I am eating tofu for dinner, and I don't even buy beef. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, my dear.

Also, the next time my family's almond orchard gets sprayed, I'll be sure to think of you ;)

[baggle]

I don't care what they say. For the most parts, the organic foods I have had TASTE better.

There are certainly a lot of reasons that could be true, and I do believe it. Organic foods tend to be locally grown, get to the shelf faster, you may have had a mild placebo effect, etc, etc. I guess I don't notice it because I live in the epicenter of the California farming heartland, where I can buy a vegetable at the store the same day it's harvested, and they all taste damn fine to me.

I do see what you're saying, and not to put words in your mouth, but that doesn't change the fact that organic food is a luxury item. I don't mind people seeing it as that. Where I get pissy is when people try to act like everybody needs to be eating organics all the time or the sky is going to fall. I know you don't think that, but there are a lot of idealogues who do.

[torrefaction]

I do see what you're saying, and not to put words in your mouth, but that doesn't change the fact that organic food is a luxury item. I don't mind people seeing it as that. Where I get pissy is when people try to act like everybody needs to be eating organics all the time or the sky is going to fall. I know you don't think that, but there are a lot of idealogues who do.

I have no misconceptions about that, whatsoever. I couldn't think of a single logical argument against any of walks' statements on organic and non-organic food.

I strongly doubt it's a placebo affect, although it's entirely possible. I think, as you said, it's much more about the food being fresher. I'm in South Florida. The vegetables most of the chain grocery stores carry down here are atrocious looking and tasting, and generally suck.

But I also understand it's a luxury item, and when I'm strapped, that shit's the first to go.

[Oxonian]

I don't care what they say. For the most parts, the organic foods I have had TASTE better.
I think that has less to do with the nature of organic food and more to do with market forces. Simply put, growing food without pesticides et al. is expensive. If the food is going to be expensive anyway, it might as well be high-end: the hippy Whole Foods shopper has so much disposable income that he's not likely to buy nasty-ass produce just to save a few cents.

It's funny how certain organic foods have a major taste improvement, and some don't. Organic milk and tomatoes: far superior to their toxic-waste-soaked counterparts. Organic brownies? Ass.

EDIT: baggle, you posted the same thought before I did and phrased it more clearly. Now we must fight.

[baggle]

baggle, you posted the same thought before I did and phrased it more clearly. Now we must fight.

Bring it, I'm ready for you. I'm just afraid that an army of rich/pretentious idealogue hippies will attack both of us from behind while we are fighting each other =\

[torrefaction]

Just another note...All the organic frozen meals I've had are much better than their counterparts. Again, I absolutely agree that it's market forces...but I care about the taste and quality about the food I consume in a huge way. I recently found I was eating out too much because of long hours. These frozen meals, while still subpar, are a farsight better than spending as much on food as I have been of late.

*Edit*

I got both of your backs...while you duel, I'll kill the hippies.

[IrishWhiskey]

Organic or not, the entire concept of milk is disturbing and if cheese wasn't so damned yummy, I would swear off all dairy completely.

That said, I don't like drinking cow pus in the first place.I've had PETA members make the same argument to me (one of them is a friend and a very sweet girl, but also very devoted to animal rights and can't stand watching me eat meat). They talk about how eggs are chicken menses, and milk is pus, and the horrors of hotdogs etc.

Well...yeah. So? Our bodies are disgusting when you think about it, and just because flowers look prettier doesn't change the fact we are breathing in their sperm all the time. Life is a messy, icky process, and thinking about it too much will just drive you nuts.

Just another note...All the organic frozen meals I've had are much better than their counterparts. Again, I absolutely agree that it's market forces...but I care about the taste and quality about the food I consume in a huge way. I recently found I was eating out too much because of long hours. These frozen meals, while still subpar, are a farsight better than spending as much on food as I have been of late.I often buy organic food and stuff from the farmers market not as an act of protest or anything, but because their stuff tastes better.

[Serapth]

I've had PETA members make the same argument to me (one of them is a friend and a very sweet girl, but also very devoted to animal rights and can't stand watching me eat meat). They talk about how eggs are chicken menses, and milk is pus, and the horrors of hotdogs etc.

LOL, my idea of animal rights is an animal has the right to get on my plate. If it will cook itself on the way, I would really appreciate it.

[walkstheplanes]

EDIT: baggle, you posted the same thought before I did and phrased it more clearly. Now we must fight.

This is awesome.

[Oxonian]

Yeah, but but you don't have a fundamental revulsion at the organic philosophy, I don't think. Whereas I'm the guy who keeps pestering the local Whole Foods to stock National Review in their magazine shelf. The cognitive dissonance is killing me.

Actually, this might be a market opportunity. I could start my own brand of organic food for people who hate people who like organic food. I'd call it, "Fascist Farms." We'd have a pledge right there on the box:

We here at Fascist Farms have a simple concept: we make food with all the delicious, wholesome goodness of a Norman Rockwell painting, combined with all the soulless, corporatist callousness of an industrial chicken farm. That's why all our products are grown without artificial chemicals of any kind, but we buy the artificial chemicals anyway and spray them on homeless people. Our crops are hand-picked by underpaid workers without health insurance, and we keep the savings for ourselves so we can buy a corporate jet. You can taste the fresh air, plentiful sunshine, and bitter reek of diesel oil in every bite.

For every dollar you spend with us, 10 cents goes to clubbing baby seals in the Arctic. That's our promise to you. Because we don't care. Fascist Farms: just because you eat like a hippy, doesn't mean you have to smell like one.

[Slack3r78]

I don't care what they say. For the most parts, the organic foods I have had TASTE better. Now, I voted for eating cloned food...because I honestly don't view that as non-organic. I don't even have stipulations about non-organic food.

Yeah, for the most part, I really don't care one way or another about the whole organic foods thing, but I do make an exception for tomato products. For whatever reason, I've found that organic tomato products just plain tend to taste better to me.

[IrishWhiskey]

Yeah, but but you don't have a fundamental revulsion at the organic philosophy, I don't think. Whereas I'm the guy who keeps pestering the local Whole Foods to stock National Review in their magazine shelf. The cognitive dissonance is killing me.

Actually, this might be a market opportunity. I could start my own brand of organic food for people who hate people who like organic food. I'd call it, "Fascist Farms." We'd have a pledge right there on the box:Well, according to the National Review's Jonah Goldberg (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDZlN2EzYjcyYjUzMjA3YTBmNDQxZTVmMzY2MWY5NjY=), those things should go hand in hand (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841). The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist. Hitler was a fascist, Hitler liked organic foods, liberals like organic foods, therefore Whole Foods should be stocking the National Review. And Adbusters. And Swastikas. And possibly tilt-a-whirls.

Also: torrefaction and Oxonian, in their "search for a faith, have allowed themselves to become foot soldiers in the struggle to create the next cruel idolatrous creed." You cruel heathenistic bastards.

[walkstheplanes]

I, for one, welcome our neo-vegetarian overlords.

[Blog]

Considering I pretty much only eat locally grown organic milk and meat, I doubt any of the hippie farmers 'round these parts would touch cloned animals. But if one did, and it was raised and slaughtered in the manner to which I've become accustomed, you bet your ass I'd eat it.

Seriously tough, nobody is going to eat a cloned animal. At least not in our lifetime; they're just too expensive. But we could very well be eating the offspring of cloned animals before too long.

[better]

May be i will try it never.

[KingGorilla]

Considering I pretty much only eat locally grown organic milk and meat, I doubt any of the hippie farmers 'round these parts would touch cloned animals. But if one did, and it was raised and slaughtered in the manner to which I've become accustomed, you bet your ass I'd eat it.

Seriously tough, nobody is going to eat a cloned animal. At least not in our lifetime; they're just too expensive. But we could very well be eating the offspring of cloned animals before too long.

I wouldn't say never. Like has been said already in little over a decade we are already eating cloned vegetables and other plants. It allows for farmers to grow with less need of pesticides and get higher yield and size without use of synthetic growth aids. You find those seeds genetically indicative to grow large, robust crops and clone them. I hope that we manage to find the gene to make the perfectly marbled and juicy Strip Steak in my life time. Initially it would be expensive, but just like with crops, it will become easier and cheaper to get higher quality goods.