Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Food politics
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: Food politics

From this weeks Economist. I'll add some bold, like guitar.

Quote:

Peter Melchett of the Soil Association, Britain's leading organic lobby group, says that environmental concerns, rather than health benefits, are now cited by British consumers as their main justification for buying organic food. (There is no clear evidence that conventional food is harmful or that organic food is nutritionally superior.)

But not everyone agrees that organic farming is better for the environment. Perhaps the most eminent critic of organic farming is Norman Borlaug, the father of the �green revolution�, winner of the Nobel peace prize and an outspoken advocate of the use of synthetic fertilisers to increase crop yields. He claims the idea that organic farming is better for the environment is �ridiculous� because organic farming produces lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to produce the same amount of food. Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%. Using traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a tripling of the area under cultivation. The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest.

What of the claim that organic farming is more energy-efficient? Lord Melchett points out for example that the artificial fertiliser used in conventional farming is made using natural gas, which is �completely unsustainable�. But Anthony Trewavas, a biochemist at the University of Edinburgh, counters that organic farming actually requires more energy per tonne of food produced, because yields are lower and weeds are kept at bay by ploughing. And Mr Pollan notes that only one-fifth of the energy associated with food production across the whole food chain is consumed on the farm: the rest goes on transport and processing.

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8380592

I've always thought the "organic" crew were just politicizing their food for the sake of politicizing their food. Now, we see that organic is actually more energy intensive and possibly harder on the environment. With no evidence of added health benefits to boot.

But, I don't think buying "organic" was every anything more than expressing to others your political/moral superiority.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject:

Jeepers! Look at those prices! $6.83USD for ONE plum? (3.50GBP/plum) Apparently 'organic' is a rich persons game! Almost 7$ for one plum! I pay $1.80USD for 6!!!

khyber

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Now, we see that organic is actually more energy intensive and possibly harder on the environment. With no evidence of added health benefits to boot.

I don't think any organic food proponent will argue that organic food can be produced at the output as those chemically treated.

Quote:

The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest.

And the quicker the land is depleted of it's nutrients.

I feel guilty about using wikipedia...HOWEVER the "Evidence of the benefits of organic food" section is very well cited (with reputable magazines) and provides some good info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food

I personally agree that organic food is not as sustainable as non-organic.

Thunndarr

Joined: 30 Sep 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject:

BJWD wrote:

Jeepers! Look at those prices! $6.83USD for ONE plum? (3.50GBP/plum)

Apparently 'organic' is a rich persons game! Almost 7$ for one plum! I pay $1.80USD for 6!!!

You sure that's not per basket? Anyway, I grew up next to a crazy old religious nut who raised what were technically called "organic" chickens. She raised them in her non-fenced yard (in the country) and let them run free all over her disgustingly filthy land. She fed them by raiding supermarket dumpsters every week and stealing produce/garbage. Those chickens were, without a doubt, some of the filthiest animals I've ever seen. But they were organic, so some health-nut somewhere ended up buying and eating those chickens.

So, I guess you could put me in the category of "organic food ain't all that."

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject:

This is an area of discussion whose implications we cannot afford to underestimate. There's a HUGE political dimension to world food management. What is available to us, what is NOT. What is added artificially, what is removed, radiated, altered or what have you.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:27 pm Post subject:

I read that article earlier tonight. Was very insightful. The most recent Mother Jones magazine is all about food. This is a nice rebuttal to all of MJ's argument about caring where food is from and organic vs. non-organic.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:46 am Post subject:

Doesn't the woman (on the right) in that picture look like a corpse who has been stood up? Kinda like Lurch.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:27 am Post subject:

thepeel wrote:

From this weeks Economist. I'll add some bold, like guitar.

Quote:

Hahaha. I recall this thread, and recall dismissing it as a load of rubbish. And I was quite right to, it seems. Cool

From one of the rightwing establishment publications, The Times (the type of publication generally preferred by those 'to the right' and with a degree in economics):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece

Quote:

HE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives.

The evidence from the �12m four-year project will end years of debate and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice.

The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as 40% more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Britain�s biggest killers. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.

Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. �If you have just 20% more antioxidants and you can�t get your kids to do five a day, then you might just be okay with four a day,� he said.

This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers and the agency have said there are no significant differences between organic and ordinary produce.

Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in milk from conventional herds.

As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables, they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce coronary heart disease.

Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference between organic and conventional produce. �There is enough evidence now that the level of good things is higher in organics,� he said.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:42 am Post subject:

And here (from that nasty Guardian): Organic's better. Admit it

Quote:

It will have been a surprise to many people to read the headlines Official: organic really is better and Eat your words, all who scoff at organic food in the Sunday Times this weekend. But it's not that surprising if you know that in the period since the second world war there has been a massive decline in the nutrients in the food we eat.

The decline has been so serious that you would have to have eaten 10 tomatoes in 1991 to get the same level of copper as you would have got from one tomato in 1940. Between 1940 and 1991, apples lost 66% of their iron, broccoli lost 75% of its calcium, and in news that would dismay Popeye, even spinach lost 60% of its iron. Over the same period, we have seen even more dramatic declines in the wildlife that live on our farms, and similar declines in the number of farmers, the number of people working on farms, and so on. In the case of wildlife, we know from a number of major scientific reviews that organic farms in general have about 50% more wildlife and 30% more species. Government research shows that organic farms employ about 30% more people than non-organic farms.

It is a reasonable hypothesis that organic food might contain more nutrients than non-organic, and there is a clear scientific basis for this. If you breed crops for yield, as non-organic agriculture has done over the past 60 years, you lose other attributes - including beneficial minerals and nutrients, and often the characteristic taste of the fruit or vegetable. In addition, we now know that many chemicals that a plant produces to help it fight off insects and diseases are the same chemicals that nutritionists reckon are essential for good human health. Spraying a non-organic crop with chemicals to protect it from insects and disease means the plant doesn't need to activate its own self-defence mechanisms, and the chemicals which would naturally be present in the plant, and from which human health actually benefits, are not there.

The Soil Association first published a review (pdf) of evidence for real nutritional differences between organic and non-organic food back in 2001. We have also published a more up-to-date information sheet covering the latest peer-reviewed research. This scientific evidence provokes a pretty strong reaction from the non-organic food industry and their supporters in the government (including, sadly, a few within the Food Standards Agency). Why? After all, industrial agriculture was happy to claim credit for "shedding" labour from farms, for the "increased efficiency" of consolidating farms into ever larger units, and even manages consistently to claim that the loss of wildlife is not as serious as the statistics show. The latest government report, published last week, shows that in fact farmland wildlife is still in decline. It is not surprising that food grown more slowly, with less stress to produce the maximum yield, in more natural conditions, is likely to have higher levels of beneficial minerals and nutrients.

It really should be a simple matter for the non-organic food producers to acknowledge that their cheaper food inevitably delivers fewer benefits, both to the environment and to human beings. That wouldn't be unusual for cheaper products. Instead, for the past decade or more the growing evidence in peer-reviewed papers has been constantly questioned. With more research being published, particularly as a result of the �20m Quality Low Input Food project funded by the European Union, this is becoming an increasingly untenable position. Professor Leifert of Newcastle University, who leads that project says: "There is enough evidence now that the level of good things is higher in organics."

Those determined to ignore the science resort to two debating tricks. First, they pretend that the research shows not beneficial nutritional differences between organic and non-organic (which it does), but rather claimed differences in health outcomes (which it does not). The latter is far more difficult to show, for a number of reasons, including the huge number of variables that affect our health, and the difficulty of controlling something as complex as our diet over a long enough period to show differences between a group of people eating organic food and a group of people who don't.

Quote:

As Professor Leifert says, the differences between organic and non-organic fruit and vegetables are so marked that organic produce would help increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

To read the full article, click on the hyperlink at the top of the post.

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:32 am Post subject:

Tax Law: Are You Eating Those Pumpkins? AP - Tue Oct 30, 10:18 PM ET DES MOINES, Iowa - The Iowa Department of Revenue is taxing jack-o'-lanterns this Halloween. The new department policy was implemented after officials decided that pumpkins are used primarily for Halloween decorations, not food, and should therefore be taxed, said Renee Mulvey, the department's spokeswoman. MORE ... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_fe_st/pumpkin_tax ;_ylt=Ar1teDiLngp9tbXfkSBFmBsDW7oF

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:22 am Post subject:

Quote:

Many people turn to organic food because of concerns about pesticides. Around 350 pesticides are permitted in conventional farming and the Soil Association says an estimated 4.5billion litres of them are used annually. While there are Government rules for pesticide residues, they still end up in our food and nobody knows the long-term implications of their combined effect.

The organic movement aims for food that is produced as 'naturally' as possible, free from trans-fats, GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and most additives. The Soil Association encourages high standards of animal welfare and campaigns against the misuse of antibiotics for growth promotion, for example. Soil Association accreditation guarantees that animals have more living space. As for nutritional superiority, more research needs to be done in this area but in a 2001 review of 41 studies, organic crops were all shown to have higher levels of Vitamin C, magnesium and phosphorus.

In terms of the environmental benefits, organic farms naturally promote biodiversity as the lack of herbicides and pesticides encourages wildlife. Green and animal manures are used to enrich the soil, whereas some intensive farming methods result in soil erosion.

Does organic food taste better? The best organic producers are committed to quality and their food is outstanding, but carefully produced conventionally grown food may well taste better than mass-produced organic imports.

Organic mushrooms

Some people who turn to organic food have an almost blind belief in its superiority - even believing it is intrinsically 'healthier'. Organic farmers and food producers command a higher price because of the label and not necessarily because their produce is well-made and tasty. Some conventional growers say their hi-tech pest control and animal medication is better than the low-tech methods used in organic farming, and that in livestock farming this has implications for animal welfare.

As organic food becomes big business, some of its green credentials can become diluted. Take air miles. While 66 per cent of the organic primary produce sold in supermarkets is UK sourced, with dairy products especially likely to come from this country, much of the organic fruit and salad we buy is brought in from overseas, as supermarkets struggle to keep up with consumer demand.

Organic salmon

The Soil Association itself has recently been at the centre of controversy over its standards. Its decision to license organic farmed salmon was criticised by many and caused a split in the organic movement, with some insisting that farmed salmon goes against organic principles, undermining its high standards of animal welfare and environmental responsibility. According to the Soil Association, however, responsible fish farming is a necessity given increasingly depleted fish stocks, and the association is keen to emphasise the differences between organic and conventionally farmed salmon.

As a broad response to such questions, organic systems offer a guarantee of certain standards. It is then up to the consumer to decide what is 'good' and what is 'less good'. From a farmer's perspective, to go organic is not an easy option. It is likely that most organic producers are part of the movement in the true spirit of sustainability and good food. If you shop directly from producers it helps you work out who you trust.
Why does organic food cost more?

Organic production is slower, more labour-intensive and generally has lower yields than conventional methods. A Morgan Stanley study has shown that organic food can be up to 63 per cent more expensive, but the premium is usually lower, especially if you are buying local, seasonal food directly from the producer. Furthermore, Government subsidies have focused on mainstream farming, artificially lowering the price of conventional foods. And there are hidden costs brought about by the use of pesticides in conventional farming. We pay to tackle the pollution of our water supplies, caused by artificial fertilisers, at a cost of about �120m a year, through our taxes and higher water bills rather than at the checkout.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/food_matters/organicfood.shtml#is_organic_food_'better'?

As an advocate of organic food, I do find the OP article posted quite amusing.

When you are talking about organic you are talking about meat, fish as well as vegetables. There's can't be any doubt in the difference in taste and health benefits of meat that has been reared organically or fish that has been line caught or vegetables that aren't covered in pesticides. Before I came to Korea I never realised that aubergines could be long and thin. In England now everything that is bought from Tesco is of a uniform size and colour regardless of taste. Aubergines are the same size everytime. Some people would consider this high quality and as it's at Tesco it's a one-stop-shop, so less hassle.

But what is really good now is the increase in vege-box schemes, that local farmers/organic shops run. Once or twice a week a 10/15/20 quid box of organic vegetables is delivered, therefore cutting out the unnecessary airmiles that most other vegetables travel when you get them at the supermarket. The farmers/organic shops who run these schemes that have been priced out of the market by the big supermarkets so use this scheme to supply people with the usually high quality produce from minimum distance. They needed to do something because especially in England the small independent shops are going out of business.

I do however think that organic does have a trendy label attached to it as well. There's a lot of people who say "Yes we always buy organic at Tesco, We drive our Chelsea tractor down the road to drop off darling Violet at chello class!" Love these people.

Darn it, lost my train of thought there. Not that I actually had one.

Many of the big name chef's in England will only buy organic produce and they champion the farmers markets which are becoming ever more popular. My Mum went last week to one and she said how fantastic is was to see all these farmers selling their own produce and the amount of people there to buy it. Part of this popularity is a really good local spirit and helping the local economy, which can only be a good thing. And the meat is meant to be fantastic.

I think there is a certain mindset to the organic approach for the people that believe in it. That it makes them feel better because of it. Maybe in the same way that people who eat loads of shit food can be expected to get fat and unhealthy. Small lifestyles changes can make people feel better about how they live, a lot of people are changing but slowly. This like, recycling, car sharing, energy saving are just simple ways that help people have a feelgood factor as though they not being damaging to their environment.

Rant over!

sera

Joined: 05 Feb 2007

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: Re: Food politics

Quote:

the idea that organic farming is better for the environment is �ridiculous� because organic farming produces lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to produce the same amount of food.

whenever I go to the super and I see how much food has been discounted 80% and etc, I can't help but think, perhaps we don't need to produce as much, so maybe the additional land requirement is unnecessary...

neone else think we're agriculturally overproducing...or is it just me...

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: Food politics

sera wrote:

Quote:

It's probably nothing compared to the food that doesn't make it onto the supermarket shelves because it's the wrong shape or a bit off colour.

julian_w

Joined: 08 Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere beyond Middle Peak Hotel, north of Middle Earth, and well away from the Middle of the Road

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: Food politics

Quote:

It's probably nothing compared to the food that doesn't make it onto the supermarket shelves because it's the wrong shape or a bit off colour.

Good point. That food that is the 'wrong shape' or a bit 'off colour' is probably the tastiest, oh and the healthiest for you, too. The ones that are all perfect are probably genetically modified, and while we might not be able to notice the difference at first, the lab rats surely could, right before they started developing cancer, etc.

http://freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=300

The OP's article here is most likely the result of food industry lobby groups, funded by the likes of Monsanto and co.

julian_w

Joined: 08 Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere beyond Middle Peak Hotel, north of Middle Earth, and well away from the Middle of the Road

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:24 pm Post subject: Re: Food politics

[quote="julian_w"]

Quote:

The OP's article here is most likely the result of food industry lobby groups, funded by the likes of Monsanto and co.

Erghm; in other words: pure lies.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe