[Closed] Organic food is bad for you!

a) It's a single, small study.
b) Many people buy organic food for environmental reasons, not personal health

Blimey, she's at bursting point.
That reminds me, must set the Sky+ for OK TV.

The organic veg that comes out of my allotment tastes better than non-organic supermarket stuff.

that article is comical properly comical 😆 I know daily mail readers arent the brightest but really its so very funny 😆

Is that scientifically proven, or simply your opinion? You're bound to say that really, aren't you?

Many people buy organic food for environmental reasons, not personal health

If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.

Organic = load of marketing guff. Never ever bin proven that organic food offers any health benefits over other foods, whatsoever. Eat what you like, but don't pretend it's better for your health, or the whales, or the planet or whatever.

If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.

And that would be because you've decided that only by becoming a Jainist monk can you be allowed to be interested in environmentalism?

So the three sorts of people in the world are Jainist monks, Jeremy Clarkeson and massive hypocrites?

If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.

I would refute that if I could be bothered using mostly ideas about the ecological impact on species and habitats of the two types of agriculture.

Most organic food tastes better I would think because of the varieties of fruit or veg used, rather than them being organic per se

[img] [/img]

Most organic food tastes better I would think because of the varieties of fruit or veg used, rather than them being organic per se

In my opinion, not so.

Most organic food that I eat tastes better because I grew it. Taste is after all, subjective.

But it might also be because most of the organic food that I eat gets picked only a few hours (or minutes) before I eat it.

You're just bored, aren't you Elfin?

Find something useful to do, rather than read the Mail's webshite and troll on here.

If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.

C02 isn't the only thing that damages our world. On a more local scale fertilizer run off from fields clogs water courses with algae and duckweed and pesticides help to create huge mono-cultures where birds and insects find it impossible to live.

The production of cheap food on an industrial scale for the supermarkets rarely sits well with wildlife.

rightplacerightime, I very much doubt that on your allotment you use the same varieties the supermarkey suppliers use. It can much a huge difference.

[b][i]"During trials at an allotment in the Cotswolds"[/i][/b]

😀 "Trials" at [u]an allotment[/u] lol !

[b][i]"While a panel of expert tasters...."[/i][/b]

[i]"Expert"[/i] tasters ? ........ well I reckon its conclusive then - you can't really argue with that. Which Magazine tasters are obviously the final arbitrators of taste.

So no one need worry any further about pumping pesticides and weedkillers into their bodies or the environment.........nor the long term consequences of doing so.

You're just bored, aren't you Elfin?

No I've actually built a small cabinet today. 🙂

C02 isn't the only thing that damages our world.

No it's not. Most of the processes to extract the raw materials used in car manufacture are extremely environmentally unfriendly too. Not to mention oil extraction, refinement and transportation...

[img] [/img]

On a more local scale fertilizer run off from fields clogs water courses with algae and duckweed and pesticides help to create huge mono-cultures where birds and insects find it impossible to live.

[img] [/img]

Any environmental 'advantages' of organic food production are negated by it's transportation. And as for any of it being 'organic'; the rain what falls from the sky is laden with pollutants and chemicals. So none of it's truly 'organic'.

Organic food production is little more than lip-service to the notion of environmentalism. and a massive earner for organic food producers.

Makes me laugh; go to a supermarket, and look at all the 'organic' produce..... packaged in PLASTIC.

[b]PLASTIC.[/b]

Do you know how plastic is made?

You know that at every turn, I will be there with an answer. 😉

Keep believing....

Do you know much about the direct ecological impacts of conventional farming compared to organic farming Elfin? Arguing that something is bad because something else is worse is the logic of an idiot I'm afraid.

Is organic worth the money that people spend on it compared to other measures to mitigate the ecological impact of farming is questionable. Do people buy organic for the benefits that they hope for. Doubt it?
Is it better for wildlife, certainly

DD; if you come north along Giltspur St, from Cock Lane, you'll find Beppe's cafe on the corner of Hosier Lane and West Smithfield. Fantastic little place, does excellent food. None of yer organic muck mind, proper grub full of flavour and vitamins. Popular with all sorts, from builders, cabbies and street sweepers, to doctors and legal types up from the Old Bailey. It's a proper, classic London cafe. Vinyl seating and everything. A tenner will see you right, no probs.

[img] [/img]

Do you know much about the direct ecological impacts of conventional farming compared to organic farming Elfin?

Yes because I'm Professor of Environmental Studies at the Uniservity of London. 🙂

I'd really like to see the environmental 'profit' of organic food production. I bet it's virtually non-existant.

Wake up and smell the Fair Trade Coffee. The only real benefit of such snake oil is to the farmers and retailers...

rightplacerighttime - Member

Most organic food tastes better I would think because of the varieties of fruit or veg used, rather than them being organic per se

In my opinion, not so.

Most organic food that I eat tastes better [b]because I grew it[/b]. Taste is after all, subjective.

But it might also be because most of the organic food that I eat [b]gets picked only a few hours (or minutes) before I eat it[/b].

The two highlighted points have absolutely nothing to do with your food being organic, as I'm sure you'd agree.

I have absolutely nothing against organic food, and would indeed love it if all food were organic, but please don't try using the ridiculous argument that 'organic food tastes better' on intelligent, educated people.

The reality is as anargallis said it's all down to the varieties grown.

Really so you do understand the differences between ecological benefit and environmental benefits?

Yes I do and the benefits in both cases are virtually non-existant, in the long run.

Farming of any type, if it's for commercial gain, is 'harmful'. Just because you don't wash the veg before you package it, doesn't mean you're saving the bloody planet...

Bit of honest reality folks. Come on. You're not all brainwashed drones, surely?

And as for any of it being 'organic'; the rain what falls from the sky is laden with pollutants and chemicals. So none of it's truly 'organic'.

You obviously [i]haven't a clue[/i] what "organic food" means. It refers to food which is farmed without the positive addition of artificial fertilisers, or pesticides, or weedkillers, or antibiotics, or growth hormones, or bioengineering.

So unless there are any of those things in the rain what falls from the sky, then it will still be organic food.

💡 Since you didn't know what "organic food" actually meant, do you think you're entitled to have an opinion on the subject ?

Farming of any type, if it's for commercial gain, is 'harmful'

Not true really given the timelines for massive declines in UK biodiversity in the post war era..your talking rubbish I'm afraid.
True properly targetted measures to benefit biodiversity may well be better than a blanked "organic" label for a farm but the benefits to wildlife certainly in Europe and the UK are beyond dispute.
as an example (no longer able to search for more up to date stuff)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X-4D67BFW-5&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1653546171&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ae30bd285962d22603f5b16f4c1141ab&searchtype=a

[i]If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.[/i]

So because I drive a car I am not allowed to do anything like recycle stuff or buy local food, or walk to the shops when I can, because that'll make me a hypocrite?

No...if I criticise people for buying organic but then buy non-organic, that is being a hypocrite. But I can drive a car and still reduce my impact in other ways.

It's sensationalist thread titles like this that make me think...

'Why do I bother coming on here anymore?'

Sod it, this might just be my last post!

So because I drive a car I am not allowed to do anything like recycle stuff or buy local food, or walk to the shops when I can, because that'll make me a hypocrite?

I think what the Elfinman meant was that because he can't drive a car, it gives him the right to be pious.

Of course he leaves out the fact that ponces lifts off people, or takes the bus instead of walking. But he nevertheless feels that it gives him a right to call other people hypocrites.

Don't let the door hit yer arse on the way out...

'Salright... it was only my last post whilst I was eating my tea, spag bog (with organic stuff in it) was getting cold weren't it.

Ah... Gotta love the Daily Mail and their readers. Bless their little souls shouting as loud as they can and coming up with all kinds of "proof" of hypocrisy from others. After all, we should all live like ignorant selfish [s]w[/s]bankers. Anyone trying to do something different or heaven behold "good" for others or the environment needs to be corrected! Shout little man, shout!! But please, do not think for yourself - just read the Daily Mail for your opinions.

Research is done using one small sample using 3 veggies (broccoli, potato and tomato). However, the tone of the article is that organic produce is not as good for your health. I did not see it mentioned in the article the extent to which the pesticides could be on the skin of the potatoes and potentially harmful (I have to admit I do know if this is problem with these vegetables, but it would be nice if the article would mention it). Even so the results are not necessarily surprising given our current laws on pesticides that should ensure the really harmful stuff is not used. This may be more difficult with produce from abroad however, which is where increasing amounts of our food are coming from (nice dilemma for the Daily Mail and its readership: it comes from [i]abroad[/i]: aarrgghhh... evil, evil! - However, it also is [i]cheaper[/i]: Oh wait, then it's not too bad!

Another [url= http://bit.ly/hD3zLi ]article[/url] opposing the Mail's view.

The intensification and expansion of modern agriculture is amongst the greatest current threats to worldwide biodiversity. Over the last quarter of the 20th century, dramatic declines in both range and abundance of many species associated with farmland have been reported in Europe, leading to growing concern over the sustainability of current intensive farming practices. Purportedly ‘sustainable’ farming systems such as organic farming are now seen by many as a [b]potential solution[/b] to this continued loss of biodiversity and receive substantial support in the form of subsidy payments through EU and national government legislation.

Only a 'potential' solution? Not a [i]proven[/i] one, then?

So, how much of at least European farming, let alone globally, is organic, compared to 'non-organic'?

I'm not disputing that organic farming, if it were universal, would potentially be better for t'environment and baby animals and that. But will such a thing ever happen? Money talks, and as long as non-organic methods yield better harvests and profits, then the situation won't change much.

Can't access that article, as it seems to want money from me to see it (surprise surprise....), so can't see if it's got owt proving the tiny amount of 'organic' farming in Europe is actually having an [b]overall significant impact[/b] on the environment and ecology. 😐

Organic food production, as it exists as such now, is more or less just a marketing exercise to get folk to buy lumpy mishapen veg, at an extortionate price.

Meanwhile, the organic farmers are richer, and can afford more and bigger cars....

Loving btw how the topic starter accuses people that eat organic food for environmental reasons of hypocrisy yet at the same time says (s)he is allowed to smoke because (s)he believes non-organic food is healthier than organic food. No hypocrisy there then.

Regarding plastic: Many vegetables are packaged in plastic because this ensures they keep better during transport - less waste = better for the environment. Also plastic can be burned for heating very effectively nowadays regaining a lot of the energy it cost to make (I don't have the figures with me but believe it was well over 80 %).

Now get ready for some shock horror! Did you know that in some cases organic food is less environmentally friendly than non-organics! This depends on both yield and potentially transferable diseases that come from not using chemicals. Should we stop eating organics?

In my opinion we should not as buying organics it gives a signal to the market that people care about the quality of food and the way it is produced. This may be abused by some, but I had rather that I myself [i]choose[/i] to be ripped off than that pesticides etc. may come into the environment.

Mostly however, I would love it if reporting on this would be kept dry and to the facts rather than writing sensationalist reports on the basis of a very small "trial" sample. Health and environmental issues with regards to food is not easy science and answers will never be clear. Nuance is required on these issues both with those in favour as those opposing it. The only exception to this is the slagging off of Daily Mail reporting and overtly vocal Daily Mail readers - that cannot be done enough :-).

so your a professor of environmental studies and you cannot read an abstract from a science journal properly?from the next paragraph

This paper assesses the impacts on biodiversity of organic farming, relative to conventional agriculture, through a review of comparative studies of the two systems, in order to determine whether it can deliver on the biodiversity benefits its proponents claim. It identifies a wide range of taxa, including birds and mammals, invertebrates and arable flora, that benefit from organic management through increases in abundance and/or species richness. It also highlights three broad management practices (prohibition/reduced use of chemical pesticides and inorganic fertilisers; sympathetic management of non-cropped habitats; and preservation of mixed farming) that are largely intrinsic (but not exclusive) to organic farming, and that are particularly beneficial for farmland wildlife.

Can't access that article, as it seems to want money from me to see it (surprise surprise....),

So a professor of environmental studies doesnt have access to e journals or are you just full of shite?

Did you know that in some cases organic food is less environmentally friendly than non-organics! This depends on both yield and potentially transferable diseases that come from not using chemicals.

Sorry, I've had a long, stressful day. Why would yield and disease have anything to with being 'environmentally friendly'?

rather than writing sensationalist reports on the basis of a very small "trial" sample.

That's what the press does. It's not going to stop or become any better so you'd better get used to it.

Just because I need to get to work and love procrastination:

Organic food production, as it exists as such now, is more or less just a marketing exercise to get folk to buy lumpy mishapen veg, at an extortionate price.

What a great quote. Now, do you have [i]any[/i] research to back that up? Oh wait, of course not! But that does not stop you from writing it, now does it? Much organic veg is more expensive due to smaller scale production and more [i]honest[/i] prices for food. I do not think relatively more organic farmers earn disproportionally more than non-organic farmers. I do agree however that many middlemen and supermarkets excessively raise prices with organic food. I think it's them buying the bigger cars rather than the farmers.

Can't access that article, as it seems to want money from me to see it (surprise surprise....), so can't see if it's got owt proving the tiny amount of 'organic' farming in Europe is actually having an overall significant impact on the environment and ecology.

[url= http://tinyurl.com/666sfqd ]Google is your friend![/url]

The article is not about that. Need to get to work now so cannot look it up for you. It should be quite easy to find research on this though.

BTW: I think we agree in finding organically produced food that is flown in from abroad (e.g. beans from Kenya) [i]is[/i] not quite right for environmental reasons.

Hi Jon, quick answer to your question.

Sorry, I've had a long, stressful day. Why would yield and disease have anything to with being 'environmentally friendly'?

Higher yields and less disease mean less food needs to be produced to fulfill food needs.

That's what the press does. It's not going to stop or become any better so you'd better get used to it.

I know, but I cannot stop caring and feel that increasing passivity with regards to such issues makes things. My mistake!

The only issue I have with organic food is the widespread assumption that organic means "grown without pesticides"

A tenner will see you right

Sounds about right.

This thread is very very poor.

pascoa341 - Member

Sorry, I've had a long, stressful day. Why would yield and disease have anything to with being 'environmentally friendly'?

Higher yields and less disease mean less food needs to be produced to fulfill food needs.

Ta, that's what I assumed you meant.

Surely disease is all part of the tapestry, so more disease = more biodiversity? Balancing out the larger crop area needed. Everyone's a winner in the end!

(Where's the 'devil's advocate' smiley gone?)

deadlydarcy - Member

A tenner will see you right

Sounds about right.

This thread is very very poor.

Sorry dd, can I just correct that

This TROLLING is very very poor

It must be a quiet night in London Town.

I tend to ignore elfinsafety as one of this forums more tedious trolls, but when the op is quoting from the Daily Heil...

I expect the full headline should read "Organic single mother asylum seekers find organic food raises house prices near Princess Diana's grave due to Labours past record in bank bonus scam".

Probably.

Loving btw how the topic starter accuses people that eat organic food for environmental reasons of hypocrisy

No; if you actually red what I rited propply, you would then see that I actually sed:

If any of them drive cars, or indeed use any motorised transport, then they're massive hypocrites.

Which, let's face it, is true. As proven by the level of outrage on this very thread. people like to act all righteous and 'environmentally conscious' when it suits them, but often can't see that they, through other actions, are adding to environmental damage. And when the truth is pointed out to them, they get all arsey.

Here's another important bit of what I wrote:

I'm not disputing that organic farming, if it were universal, would potentially be better for t'environment and baby animals and that. But will such a thing ever happen? Money talks, and as long as non-organic methods yield better harvests and profits, then the situation won't change much.

i've yet to see someone tackle this one...

Truth is, it's pretty idealistic to imagine much rapid change to global farming and food production methods. Can't see the likes of the USA and China making such radical changes any time soon.

Which leaves us with the fact that 'organic' stuff is little more than a nice, idealistic utopian notion. which we in as affluent a country as Britain have the luxury to indulge in. The reality is that global food production methods are damaging, as are mineral extraction, material refinement, manufacturing etc.

So, we, as individuals in such an affluent nation, are responsible for tremendous damage to the environment, through our relatively luxurious lifestyles. It's the truth, Ruth. And those clever marketing people like to feed on our [b]guilt[/b], and sell us expensive 'ethical' products. So people consume, and are deluded into thinking they are making a difference. The only way you can make any difference, is to die. And stop consuming. Because if you live in Britain, you are contributing far more to global environmental damage than some poor sod working all the hours of the day for f-all pay in some far-flung land, so that you can have yer nice shiny cars, bikes, 52" tellies, selvedge denim jeans and titanium watches.

Mull that over, as you feast on yer Fair Trade Organic Mung Beans....

What a great quote. Now, do you have any research to back that up?

Yes. And for £31.95, I can show it to you.

As for the Daily Mail thing; I actually heard about this on a BBC radio programme, and the DM article was the first I found on the subject. It's actually a study done by Which? magazine.

Now, what massive diesel engined behemoth should I buy to transport me and my bike to trail centres?

So are you going to repond to what I showed you, you know proof in a peer reviewed journal that organic farming is better for wildlife?

I'm not disputing that organic farming, if it were universal, would potentially be better for t'environment and baby animals and that. But will such a thing ever happen? Money talks, and as long as non-organic methods yield better harvests and profits, then the situation won't change much.

you have thedebating style of a three yearold but I'll try..... your first point I'm sure you disputed yourself earlier in the thread and as far as money talking I'm sure you said something about organic farmers buying better cars? So on reflection I cant really respond any further. When you have a clear point to put across I may try again.

Professor of Environmental studies

So more 'environment for dummies', rather than [i]science[/i] then?

And just like a_a, I happen to know a bit about this topic, unlike elfisamuppet, who read a newspaper article.

The concept of organic agriculture is fine, but...

1) If it was adopted globally, there'd be a massive food shortage

2) Fertilisers are still used. Admittedly they're organic in nature such as manures and composts, but you'd be naive to think that none of these nutrients leach out. They simply leach out as dissolved organic compounds instead, and as such, aren't usually measutred in water monitoring schemses, which mainly focus on NO3, NH4, and PO4. Whilsy NH4 and PO4 can actually bind quite strongly to the soil organic matter and not be leached out, a lot of DON compounds actually leach quite easily.

3) Pesticides are still used. Only this time, ironically instead of organic compounds being used which mostly degrade quickly in the environment, older inorganic heavy metal containing pesticides are used. If used for long enough, your entire field becomes a contaminated site.

as long as non-organic methods yield better harvests

Yup, that's the point. The world doesn't have enough food as it is. You want to stop pollution, how about you stop eating...

And for £31.95, I can show it to you.

As I couldn't be bothered to read all your guff, I didn't catch which article you wanted. Have you got the doi for it? If so, PM me your address and I'll email it to you.

@IdleJon

please don't try using the ridiculous argument that 'organic food tastes better' on intelligent, educated people.

I'm not sure that being intelligent and educated (even if you were) would be sufficient reason for me to believe what you say rather than trusting my own senses.

@Elf

You know that at every turn, I will be there with an answer.

You didn't answer my question re' three types of people.

@anagallis

rightplacerightime, I very much doubt that on your allotment you use the same varieties the supermarkey suppliers use. It can much a huge difference.

Or not. Like I said, taste is subjective and I expect there will be people (in fact I know there are) who will prefer supermarket varieties (you've only got to think about examples like Golden Delicious apples which were the favourite apple variety for years) because that is what they are used to. Also, there's nothing to stop supermarkets selecting for flavour, which they do a lot more nowadays. However, the tomatoes that come out of my greenhouse will taste better not because they are better varieties, but because they have been picked at optimum ripeness.

and for the record I dont buy organic, and would much prefer targetted wildlife friendly measures to be used on farms without all the guff that goes along with organic, but your initial point about it not being any good for wildlife compared to conventional farming is plainly just wrong.

Now please tell me you were joking about the Environmental Studies thing because your grasp of logic and basic science seems quite shocking.

Bleh.

Elfinsafety - Member

Which, let's face it, is true. As proven by the level of outrage on this very thread

Outrage ? You see outrage on this thread ? ........... I see dismissive mocking.

So at what level would you put this "level of outrage" then ?

Now please tell me you were joking about the Environmental Studies thing because your grasp of logic and basic science seems quite shocking.

Of course he's joking! The only thing he's a professor of is talking crap on an internet forum - a chair he's very much entitled to.

@Zokes

The concept of organic agriculture is fine, but...

1) If it was adopted globally, there'd be a massive food shortage

Not necessarily.

Actually, organic allotments (or any allotments) can produce a much higher yield per acre than intensive farming. BUT, it is very labour intensive. Which is why we prefer to use petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides and use enormous machines to grow our food. Oil is still cheap compared to labour, but we COULD easily feed the global population off the land we have using organic methods. It's just that a few more of us would have to work on the land (but given that we have 5 million unemployed in this country alone...)

you have thedebating style of a three yearold

Now you've had to resort to insults, I no longer need to consider anything you have to say. 'Night night.

You didn't answer my question

Just because I did not respond, does not necessarily mean I don't have an answer...

What's basically happened here, is:

'Organic food is a big con to make the guilty feel a bit better about their excessive and destructive levels of consumption'

'HOW DARE YOU????'

I'm right though aren't I? Go on, deep down, you know I am. You've already admitted it to yourselves, haven't you? Which is why you're so angry. Oh Whell.

This'll make you laugh though. I've only gone and accidentally bought 'organic' green beans, haven't I? 😆

They were on special offer half price. I've cooked them with chicken and mushrooms in herby garlic butter, and served it all up with some tagliatelli. It's ready now, so I'm going to go and enjoy my meal, and watch a programme about sculpture.

Sweet dreams!

X

It's just that a few more of us would have to work on the land (but given that we have 5 million unemployed in this country alone...)

Define 'a few', on a global scale...

It's simply not a workable solution in the modern world. As with TJ's idealistic views on energy efficiency and being totally renewable, it's too far removed from where we are today to ever work on a global scale, which is the scale in which it needs to operate.

Now you've had to resort to insults, I no longer need to consider anything you have to say. 'Night night

truth hurts does it, because there has been very little truth in any of the opinions you've tried to dress up as facts 😆

Sweet dreams!

Makes mental note NEVER to reply to a freddedprat thread again. Simply not worth the hassle...

you have the debating style of a three year old

[b]"Now you've had to resort to insults"[/b]

I thought he was being quite generous.

And TBF, I doubt whether there are any three year olds on here to feel insulted.

Now you've had to resort to insults, I no longer need to consider anything you have to say. 'Night night.

I'm not 100% on the terminology, but is this a flounce?

is this a flounce?

No, but it's probably the start of the current (quite long-lasting) persona disintegrating into madness and a banning. 🙂

Mmm, that was tasty. Can't really say if the beans 'tasted' any better, tbh. Soz.

I thought he was being quite generous.

Could be, could be. I have the attention span of a three year old, that's fo' sho'.

Outrage ? You see outrage on this thread ?

Thinly veiled outrage, yes Ernie. From you too. As exemplified from your nasty and hurtful comments earlier. You're angry that someone has come along and burst your cosy little bubbles, that's why you're angry. I know I'm right, and so do you; you just need to embrace Elfintruth. You'll be happier for doing so, trust me. Life will become more comfortable.

So at what level would you put this "level of outrage" then ?

Strongly Worded Letter To The Daily Telegraph?
Actually Quite Miffed?
Never Been So Insulted All This Week?

Somewhere around that sort of level I'd imagine.

Makes mental note NEVER to reply to a freddedprat thread again. Simply not worth the hassle...

What a result! Zokes, if you ever do respond to owt I post on here, you owe me a hundred pounds. For every single reply. And that applies to any thread I post on. Legally binding. 🙂

Although you've actually supported my own view that 'organic' food is a lovely Western ideal, rather than a propperly feasible strategy that can be applied globally. Thanks for that. 😉

Dream a little dream for me....

[img] [/img]

No, but it's probably the start of the current (quite long-lasting) persona disintegrating into madness and a banning.

😆

Actually the therapy's going really well, BD! 😀

[img] [/img]

Somehow, this B+W version is even more unsettling, I feel. What do youse reckon?

@zokes

Define 'a few', on a global scale...

It's simply not a workable solution in the modern world. As with TJ's idealistic views on energy efficiency and being totally renewable, it's too far removed from where we are today to ever work on a global scale, which is the scale in which it needs to operate.

Well, as you obviously realise, I was being ironic. By "a few" I meant "loads"

However, who's to say what is going to be workable in the future? It's only really in the last 30-40 years that we have fully moved away from a sustainable, understandable, robust way of life, and we have only been able to do it with the aid of oil. Take away the oil and maybe your "not a workable solution" might become "the only available solution" Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it might not work out that way, so why burn all our bridges and continue headlong down the road to a world where everything we do as individuals is so specialised that no-one understands completely how anything works anymore and all of our food arrives from God knows where, grown by God knows who under God knows what conditions (until it doesn't)?

OTOH, maybe having a few hundred thousand currently unemployed people working (and I'm not talking about some kind of imposed slavery, but more the sort of thing that plenty of old boys on allotments do for fun) in agriculture might not be such a bad thing?

This thread disturbs me.

Oh, one useful thing about organic food is that organic 'made' food, i.e. not raw ingredients, often tastes quite different because it prohibits the use of certain chemicals etc.

Sometimes this can be good, and I assume sometimes less good. Heinz organic ketchup tastes much better than the non-organic one IMO, as do most organic houmous.

Different issue to organic veg though.

@zokes

Just as an example BTW, have a look at agriculture in Cuba since the fall of Soviet Communism (and the end of Cuba's access to cheap oil)

Here you go - I've found an article for you: [url= http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/306 ]Cuban agriculture [/url]

Truth is, it's pretty idealistic to imagine much rapid change to global farming and food production methods. Can't see the likes of the USA and China making such radical changes any time soon

The same might be said of their attitude to manufacturing and recycling. So why should we bother? you may as well learn to drive Elfin. Stop recycling (your arguments too) and not worry about your own, personal environmental impact, its just a drop (of oil) in the ocean. No one else is bothering, so why should anyone?

Outrage ? You see outrage on this thread ?

[b]"Thinly veiled outrage, yes Ernie"[/b]

Who are these people who thinly veil their outrage ?

Do they not know that outrage should be expressed in a, well, outraged manner ? ......they should "out" their rage, you could say.

you just need to embrace Elfintruth

😕 I thought you only held the rights to Elfinbollox ® ?

you may as well learn to drive Elfin.

Don't need to. I can just ponce lifts off other people what have cars. 😀

I thought you only held the rights to Elfinbollox ® ?

You leave my bollox alone...

the end of Cuba's access to cheap oil

Cuba has access to cheap oil ......100,000 barrels of Venezuelan oil per day, with up 40% discount. In return Cuba provides medical treatment to Venezuelans. On top of that, Cuba discovered 20bn barrels of its own oil a couple of years ago, about the same reserves as the US. At the present, Cuba produces enough oil for about half of its consumption.

Having said that, Commandant Fidel is very concerned about the effects of biofuels on the environment, so don't expect Cuba to take a cavalier attitude on the issue. In fact he has written much concerning the subject.

[img] [/img]

Just so you all know I recently did my own scientific test on whether or not organic vegetables taste better. First I lined up two tomatoes, and two red peppers. One of each was from Able & Cole, and the other from my local Morrisons.

Then using my expert tastebuds I ate each of them, a sprinkle of salt on the tomatoes because that tastes so good.

I can without doubt declare as a statement of fact that the organic stuff tasted far, yes far, better than the non organic equivalent.

Conclusive evidence right there. Case closed.

Yes because I'm Professor of Environmental Studies at the Uniservity of London.

glad you don't teach my relatives, can't even correctly spell your place of work! 😉

We buy veg from the local farmers Market and grow what we can. What we grow is as natural as it can be. What we buybis possibly not, not sure tbh, but it's travelled far less, it's cheaper, it's fresher, lasts longer, tastes better and it supports local business. In my book that's more important

@ernie lynch

Cuba has access to cheap oil ......100,000 barrels of Venezuelan oil per day, with up 40% discount. In return Cuba provides medical treatment to Venezuelans. On top of that, Cuba discovered 20bn barrels of its own oil a couple of years ago, about the same reserves as the US. At the present, Cuba produces enough oil for about half of its consumption.

The point I was making was more about their approach to agriculture, rather than oil. But I don't believe the picture is as rosy as you paint it. Google a few more articles.

"Discovering" oil isn't the same as extracting it.

Also, the fact that they produce half their oil doesn't mean they have half as much oil as us! It means they produce half of the limited supply they have.

based on several facts that i just made up, the only way we could feed 7billion people with organic food is to clear the forests, to use the land to make up for the lower crop yields.

for the sake of the environment, all trees will have to die.

i think what elfin is trying to say is that we need to either get rid of the forests to grow healthier better tasting and more cost efficient organic food for gay muslim swans, or he's saying that we need to cull over half the population of the world to ensure that our forests are kept and that london is the worst place to live in the UK.

either way i'd fight and die for his right to say so, my gran was involved in the war and shit.

the fact that they produce half their oil doesn't mean they have half as much oil as us!

😕 I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

And yes, Cuba's oil situation [b][u]is[/u][/b] pretty rosy these days. And no, I don't need to "google more articles" to be aware that Cuba oil imports needs are satisfied by cheap Venezuelan supplies. Furthermore, it is an established fact that Cuba has its own, rather large, proven reserves. And that it currently extracts approximately half of its current needs.

Loss of cheap oil supplies was a very serious problem for Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union, however it no longer is.

Of course all this doesn't mean they feel that they can piss the stuff like there's no tomorrow. And not least because as I've pointed out, Fidel and the CPC are seriously concerned about environmental and climate change issues. They are also worried about the effect oil dependency has on the Third World - not only because of the increased risk of pollution and climate related catastrophes, but because of the pressure it places on Third World countries to produce cash crops to pay for oil imports - whilst the land and resources should in preference, be used to alleviate hunger.

So you are right concerning Cuba's determination not to be over dependant on fossil fuel, a message which they also try to get over to others. But wrong to suggest that this is simply down to [i]"the end of Cuba's access to cheap oil"[/i].

And I'm pretty sure I didn't say that you did say that.

But you implied that Cuba had plenty oil.

I disagree.

[url= http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/25/cuba-energy-oil-idUSN2529045820110125 ]Cuban oil supply[/url]

you implied that Cuba had plenty oil

Did I ? I gave you figures relating to Cuba's oil reserves, cheap imports, and domestic production. You decide whether that's "plenty".

And to help you, here's a "fact" supplied by the CIA ........which is no friend of Cuba

[url= http://cia-world-fact-book.findthebest.com/question/72/130/How-big-is-Cuba-s-oil-reserves ]Cuba has 124,000,000 barrels of oil in proven reserves[/url]

What I did "imply" was that Cuba has access to cheap oil - something which you denied, and yet is backed up by facts.

Are you actually physically wriggling as you type?

Any environmental 'advantages' of organic food production are negated by it's transportation

Except that organic food isn't NECESSARILY transported miles, nor is it NECESSARILY packed in plastic. And if two things are both packed in plastic but one is organic - which is better?

Organics = better for the environment (sort of) and better for the soil. Soil is complex stuff.

Are you actually physically wriggling as you type?

I take it by that comment you do not accept Cuba receives heavily discounted oil from Venezuela.

Have you got some proof to suggest that this is not the case ?

Or just smart-arse comments ?

i think what elfin is trying to say is that we need to either get rid of the forests to grow healthier better tasting and more cost efficient organic food for gay muslim swans, or he's saying that we need to cull over half the population of the world to ensure that our forests are kept and that london is the worst place to live in the UK.

Don't be so ridiculous. A swan could be gay, but it cannot be Muslim and gay. Or even just Muslim. Or indeed a member of a whole host of faiths, tbf.

As for the London thing; I appreciate that you're an imbecile, so I shan't add to your torment any further. Best if you go and have a lie down.

Are you actually physically wriggling as you type?

Has Ernie got worms? 😯

Has he been seen shuffling along on his bottom in New Addington again?

It's not funny you know. He really does suffer so... 🙁

I think rightplacerighttime has popped out for a moment Elfinman, I sure he'll be back to explain why I might be "wriggling".