News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

It's very simple ... chemicals which have not been tested thoroughly are used on your produce every day. You can eat it if you want. I have shown you plenty of links that provide proof of what the differences are in organic vs. non-organic. If you want to focus on disproving one aspect that's fine but there are plenty of other aspects to look at.


If you want to argue semantics you've already lost the debate.

Why would an argument about semantics automatically mean a debate is lost? You've invoked the word "natural" without any clear reference to what that means.

All agricultural products are essentially "organic," and all foods can essentially be described as being comprised of chemicals. Also, so called organic produce does not automatically result in less fuel use when bringing a product to market.

Btw, two of your source have a most definite organic food slant to them. While they may reflect your opinion, they are not objective.
 
If you're concerned about the environment, you really should not eat beef, and limit your consumption of pork and chicken. Doesn't matter if it is organic or not.
 
If you're concerned about the environment, you really should not eat beef, and limit your consumption of pork and chicken. Doesn't matter if it is organic or not.

What meats are environmentally friendly then?
Turkey? Fish? Nothing?

Our digestive systems and teeth suggest we're herbivores, yet thousands and thousands of years of meat eating has made us protein dependent. Where should one turn? Protein powder? Just curious.
 
It's very simple ... chemicals which have not been tested thoroughly are used on your produce every day. You can eat it if you want.
Ah, the "not thoroughly tested" herring that's the favourite of organic-fundamentalists, like the creationists who love to say evolution is "not thoroughly" proven and the global warming deniers who say human-caused climate change is "not thoroughly" demonstrated.

Yeah, chemicals used in conventional farming are "not thoroughly tested", just like how the chemicals and techniques used in organic farming are "not thoroughly tested", if they have been tested at all - the manure used in fertilizing, the copper salts used in organic pesticides, the very same Bt that's used in organic pesticides as that in GE crops, only it's used at much higher dosage and much more non-specifically in organic agriculture.

All of these can be readily found on PubMed, any other academic journal databases or the journal stacks of any academic library. And don't give me any of the scientists - big corporations conspiracy theory nonsense.

No doubt any chemicals added to our food needs to be tested, but organics are not immune to it even though most advocates think they are.
 
Last edited:
What meats are environmentally friendly then?
Turkey? Fish? Nothing?

Our digestive systems and teeth suggest we're herbivores, yet thousands and thousands of years of meat eating has made us protein dependent. Where should one turn? Protein powder? Just curious.
At the current level of human consumption of anything in the developed world, probably no forms of food acquisition is absolutely "environmentally friendly". A decrease in consumption could be the only way to go if that's the goal we want to reach.

And the "humans are naturally herbivorous" story is false but nevertheless highly circulated among health-fadists.
 
What meats are environmentally friendly then?
Turkey? Fish? Nothing?

Our digestive systems and teeth suggest we're herbivores, yet thousands and thousands of years of meat eating has made us protein dependent. Where should one turn? Protein powder? Just curious.

There are plenty of vegetable protein sources, and beyond that, farmed fish, rabbit, chicken, turkey and occasionally pork could be considered efficient. Beef is a hugely inefficient, and is a major source of GHG emissions. I'm not a vegetarian, and I do eat beef (though I don't eat meat by the pound).

Like it or not, the earth can't support everyone currently alive with 'organic' agricultural practices, especially not with large amounts of meat and dairy in the mix.
 
And the "humans are naturally herbivorous" story is false but nevertheless highly circulated among health-fadists.

I don't know how you can say for certain it's false. At one point on the evolutionary scale we were plant eaters. Only 3% of what a chimpanzee eats is meat. Biologically we're almost identical. It seems more and more likely that once we mastered fire and were able to cook meat that we unnaturally became a meat eating species.

Interesting since this is a thread about turkey, you can't find any in Korea! You can get a turkey breast sandwich at subway but that's about it...
 
I don't know how you can say for certain it's false. At one point on the evolutionary scale we were plant eaters. Only 3% of what a chimpanzee eats is meat. Biologically we're almost identical. It seems more and more likely that once we mastered fire and were able to cook meat that we unnaturally became a meat eating species.

Interesting since this is a thread about turkey, you can't find any in Korea! You can get a turkey breast sandwich at subway but that's about it...
First of all, I need to qualify my statement that I can only be as certain only as there is certainty in science, which means of course I cannot be "certain" of it in the colloquial sense.

That said, that story and what you just said are false on several levels.
1) The "human-as-herbivore" story is largely based on a comparative anatomy "analysis" coming from a book chapter written by a certain Milton Mills, MD. However, the analysis in there is misleading, selective, and in many places outright wrong. E.g, his basis of a typical "omnivore" anatomy is the bear, which evolved from a definitively carnivorous lineage, whereas humans evolved from a predominantly herbivorous or herbivo-omnivorous lineage of the primate-lagomorph clade, thus rendering the entire comparison flawed and pointless and showing a lack of proper understanding of comparative anatomy and evolutionary biology. This leads to such errors as the assertion that "omnivore" saliva has no digestive enzymes, when they clearly exist in other herbivore-related omnivores such as rats and pigs. The bigger error is the assumption that there is even a standard "herbivore" or "carnivore" anatomy that absolute comparisons can be made.
2) Meat diet in chimps range from 5-10%, not 3. Importantly, the fact that they eat meat at all, and that chimps actively seek out 150-200 different types of non-plant food indicate they fall squarely into the category of omnivores, not herbivores, and that chimps are highly opportunistic in what they eat depending on what's available.
3) Humans and chimps are almost genetically identical, not biologically identical. That's a huge difference. As misguided by the common but fallacious analogy, genes are not a "blueprint" that builds an organism, it's a "program" whose pattern of execution is just as / more important than the simple underlying code. The small difference in the two genomes, plus the many different ways that the genes are expressed (what's known as epigenetics) result in two very different species.
4) Finally, the "humans are herbivores" story is liable to a sort of naturalistic fallacy. Even if the human body is "designed" more for herbivory than carnivory (which it isn't; humans and the rest of primates retained the largely generalist anatomy of ancestral mammals, and certainly did not evolve the highly specialized anatomy of either the "strict" carnivores like cats or the "strict" herbivores like the hoofed animals), it in no way implies that humans are "meant" to be vegetarian or that herbivory is more "natural" for us. Look at the panda: its anatomy is so poorly evolved for its almost exclusively herbivorous diet that they have to eat all day and barely extract enough nutrients, but does that mean they are being "unnatural" or that we should feed them more meat? Humans, from the very earliest hominids several million years ago, are clearly omnivores as evident from fossil and anthropological records, most likely in an unbroken pattern inherited from our ape cousins/ancestors. Where do we draw the line that such is natural and beyond which it isn't?

The modern North American meat-heavy or meat-only diet is no doubt different from our ancestral condition and most definitely unhealthy. But humans are not "naturally" herbivores; humans must obtain vitamin B12 from our food because we don't / have lost the ability to make them in our guts (actually it is gut bacteria that make it in herbivores), and this essential nutrient can only be obtained in animal-derived food sources. Unless we go the "unnatural" route of fortifying or engineering vit B12 into soy or other plant products (which is standard in modern day food supply), vegans will and do develop vit B12 deficiency.
 
golodhendil,

As informative as your post is... it's clearly not as black and white as you would have everyone believe. This isn't the right thread for this discussion but a simple google search will show that your post represents one of numerous views on the subject by the scientific community.
 
golodhendil,

As informative as your post is... it's clearly not as black and white as you would have everyone believe. This isn't the right thread for this discussion but a simple google search will show that your post represents one of numerous views on the subject by the scientific community.
Glad you realize it's not as "black and white" as your initial claim that "Our digestive systems and teeth suggest we're herbivores".
A "simple google search" (eg, "human herbivore") will bring you to a whole bunch of sites from health-fadists, vegan groups, PETA and other quack sites. A slightly more complex search (eg, "human ancestral diet") or a search of academic databases will have a better chance of bringing you to something useful.
Not all views are equal. There are legitimate questions about the percentage omnivory of early hominids and paleolithic H. sapiens, and there is certainly a lot of useful (and unuseful) debate about the best type of diet to achieve a certain level of "health" for the modern human (less meat than the mainstream NA diet is almost for sure). But paleontological, genetic and biochemical data have made it rather clear that the human clade had never been, and before the advent of modern food fortication, could not have been, strict herbivores.
 
Golohendil is right: as close as we are genetically to other primates, our digestive tracts are actually closer to more distant carnivores like canines and felines (small stomach, longer intestine, can't break down cellulose, high production of proteases/lipases etc). That said, my wife and I reduced our meat consumption in the last year mostly because of how much cheaper it is to eat beans/lentils/veggies than beef or chicken.

I mainly support organic agriculture mostly due to environmental reasons. Less pesticide use is not just good for the consumer but for the whole environment. Ditto for hormones, high-yield hybrids, industrial scale production and other features of modern (non-organic) agriculture.

I fully understand that we couldn't feed the world on organically grown produce, but the long-term solution is not stopping organic agriculture, but to reduce the world's population (pipe dreams, I know).

In the end, there should be a parallel agricultural industry for organics, that would operate without interference from big business and agricultural boards. Discuss.
 

Back
Top