Started By
Message
re: Five Things 90's Babies Believe that Aren't True
Posted on 5/29/15 at 8:49 am to kingbob
Posted on 5/29/15 at 8:49 am to kingbob
quote:
It also creates less water pollution from fertilizer runoff, requires less irrigation, the food packs more nutrition, crops exhaust land less quickly if at all, and less pesticides means less damage to bee colonies.
It also takes less of a toll on the human body.
0
Posted on 5/29/15 at 9:08 am to kingbob
Yeah, it's really not up for debate the environmental benefits of it. His post was an over-the-top exaggeration.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 9:41 am to sms151t
quote:
Katrina hit Florida first then demolished my house in the Bay.
Of St Louis?
Posted on 5/29/15 at 9:48 am to kingbob
quote:
It also creates less water pollution from fertilizer runoff, requires less irrigation, the food packs more nutrition, crops exhaust land less quickly if at all, and less pesticides means less damage to bee colonies.
There are benefits and drawbacks to every agricultural system.
Science would disagree with you.
NewScientist
quote:
Organic farming eschews synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, and supposedly produces more nutritious food containing fewer harmful contaminants. Crystal Smith-Spangler of Stanford University in California and colleagues put together 237 studies comparing organic and non-organic food. They found little evidence that organic food was more nutritious. Conventional foods contained more pesticides but were within permitted limits (Annals of Internal Medicine, vol 157, p 348).
quote:
Meanwhile, organic farming's green credentials have been questioned by Hanna Tuomisto of the University of Oxford and colleagues, who reviewed 109 papers. Organic farms were less polluting for a given area of land, but were often more polluting per unit of food produced. They did have better soil, though, and housed more species (Journal of Environmental Management, doi.org/h8v).
More links:
Mayo Clinic
quote:
A recent study examined the past 50 years' worth of scientific articles about the nutrient content of organic and conventional foods. The researchers concluded that organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs are not significantly different in their nutrient content.
Medical News Today
quote:
Studies on organic foods have produced varying results. One in February 2012 found that organic rice may have high levels of arsenic.
A 2010 study published in PLoS ONE reported that organic strawberries have more antioxidants and vitamin C but less potassium and phosphorus than conventionally grown strawberries.
This post was edited on 5/29/15 at 9:55 am
Posted on 5/29/15 at 9:49 am to cokebottleag
I'm not sure about the Fruits and Veggies, but what about Eggs, Poultry, Fish, etc.?
As in "cage free", "wild caught" etc.?
As in "cage free", "wild caught" etc.?
Posted on 5/29/15 at 9:56 am to AUbagman
quote:
Yeah, it's really not up for debate the environmental benefits of it. His post was an over-the-top exaggeration.
You are right that it isn't up for debate, just not in the direction you think it is.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 9:58 am to SouthMSReb
quote:
“Those terms (organic, free-range, and cage free) have nothing to do with contamination. That does not assure eggs will be salmonella-free,” says Mike Doyle, PhD, director of the University of Georgia’s Center for Food Safety. However, it may ensure the hen has a better life.
LINK
So basically it only matters if you give a shite about the chicken's life, which I don't.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 11:02 am to cokebottleag
I mean, I'm sure we could all find articles that fit our argument. Personally, I enjoy eating foods that don't contain pesticides, don't contaminate groundwater during growth cycles, and that came about by not spiking nitrogen levels in surrounding rivers and streams.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 11:04 am to cokebottleag
#henlivesdontmatter
Posted on 5/29/15 at 11:17 am to AUbagman
quote:
I mean, I'm sure we could all find articles that fit our argument. Personally, I enjoy eating foods that don't contain pesticides, don't contaminate groundwater during growth cycles, and that came about by not spiking nitrogen levels in surrounding rivers and streams.
Personally, I enjoy eating low-lead content food, that's why I stick with the best food technology can grow, not organic food.
From a study done in 2007 in Belgium: LINK
quote:
The results show that for the consumer of organic foodstuffs, estimated daily intakes are 0.56?µg deoxynivalenol (DON), 0.03?µg zearalenone (ZEA), 0.19?µg?Cd, 0.28?µg?Pb (lead) and 0.0006?µg?Hg?kg-1 body weight, taking into account the average contaminant levels in unprocessed grains and the average cereal products consumptions in Belgium. For the consumers of conventional foodstuffs, the corresponding estimated daily intakes are 0.99?µg DON, 0.06?µg ZEA, 0.17?µg Cd, 0.12?µg Pb (lead) and 0.0007?µg?Hg?kg-1 body weight.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 11:22 am to SouthMSReb
Yeppers I was working with Ladner at St Stanislaus.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 4:21 pm to bucknut
This might sound racist cause I'm black but J-Law is one ugly sum biatch
Posted on 5/29/15 at 4:24 pm to CarolinaCock
quote:
I'm black
Hey Boy, whyontcha git on outta here?
Posted on 5/29/15 at 4:27 pm to MasCervezas
Don't mind if I Do
Posted on 5/29/15 at 4:37 pm to CarolinaCock
quote:
J-Law is one ugly sum biatch
I agree
Posted on 5/29/15 at 4:43 pm to CarolinaCock
quote:
Don't mind if I Do
make sure to bring me some sweet tea before you go
Posted on 5/29/15 at 6:34 pm to Rebel Land Shark
quote:
As a 90's baby I've never heard that term
Aren't you still in High School though? I don't classify anyone born after 95 to be a 90s kid. In fact I'd bet most of them have less than 10 memories from the 90s. I was born in the late 80s, and I sure as hell don't remember being alive then.
Posted on 5/29/15 at 7:36 pm to kingbob
quote:
It also creates less water pollution from fertilizer runoff, requires less irrigation, the food packs more nutrition, crops exhaust land less quickly if at all, and less pesticides means less damage to bee colonies.
Organic food can still be fertilized with chicken shite, and that chickenshit still runs off and fricks up water supply.
Organic crops are still irrigated. GMO crops actually require less irrigation per pound of food produced.
The food does not have more nutrition, that's just a flat out lie. The food is the same. The only exception is grass fed beef- that does have more nutrition.
GMO crops actually exhaust land more slowly.
Basically, 90% of your post is dead wrong, and verifiably wrong, and you'd know this if you got your information from science instead of facebook.
ETA- Just so you know, GMO crops require less pesticides than traditional or heirloom crops, so the bee thing is just dumb. Bees love GMO.
This post was edited on 5/29/15 at 7:45 pm
Posted on 5/29/15 at 7:54 pm to deeprig9
Verifiably wrong? Please link your sources and post who funded these scientific studies. TIA
Posted on 5/29/15 at 8:01 pm to AUbagman
Let me save us both some time.
If non-organic food used more fertilizer, more water, more pesticides, consumed more land, and offered less nutrition, than why aren't all farms growing organic food? Are they just dumb?
If non-organic food used more fertilizer, more water, more pesticides, consumed more land, and offered less nutrition, than why aren't all farms growing organic food? Are they just dumb?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News