kettal
Banned
Maple Leaf foods is still in business? Expect them to disappear soon, their name alone is toxic in the mind of the public these days.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
golodhendil
Active Member
It doesn't really matter what you want to think about the relative "quality" of the food, ultimately it's the scientific data that matters. While I would also personally be cautious of excessive hormone in livestock, evidence for detrimental health effects is scant, largely because the amount of residual hormone in consumed meat is minimal even compared to other environmental hormone-mimic contaminants, and more research certainly needs to be done.
And I also hope you mean "grass-fed" and not "grain-fed", because the majority of conventionally reared cattle are grain-fed, and grain is a very poor food source for ruminants like cattle. Hence the push by advocates for more grass-fed and free-range/pasture-raised cattle. The flip side (as with everything) is that the wide-spread application of ranch/pasture-raising of cattle will decimate the world's ecology. It might indeed be healthier for the cattle and for their human consumers, but you won't have the moral high ground that it is better for the environment.
afransen
Senior Member
Isn't grain designed to make cows gain weight uncomfortably quickly?
In light of golodhendil's comment, I'd also add that the Ruth Chris website indicates their beef is grain-fed.
Chinese Jamaican Bloke
New Member
wonderboy416
Active Member
It's hard to talk to someone who's English seems to be at a grade 4 level. No offense I hope. We all have a high tolerance for poor grammar since it's a part of how we all communicate... but the way your posts are written are extremely childish and in my opinion have no place on a board that is meant to foster intelligent conversation.
That said, I've shared my views on this thread and don't think I have anything else meaningful to contribute.
gristle
Senior Member
Thank you. I wish more people would keep this thought in mind.
Chinese Jamaican Bloke
New Member
it's a message board posters will always make typos, and mistakes with grammar and punctuation don't like it, too bad.
w.ll.am
Active Member
Organic does mean natural. No chemicals or pesticides = more natural. Raised in a way that they can roam instead of being penned = more natural. Not having waste full of antibiotics = better for the environment.
Good thing about 70% of your posts in this thread don't contribute anything worthwhile at all. Everyone else at least responds with some rebuttal to the topic while admonishing your complete lack of grammatical skills. I especially love that your post is asking wonderboy416 to debate and his second paragraph is full on on topic discussion and yours is devoid of anything. Best hypocritical response I've read in a long time.
Last edited:
Dilla
Senior Member
Organic means carbon based.
Also, your using the term "more natural" is precious. Despite how silly it sounds, it raises some interesting questions. At what point does production have to avoid which practices so that the product can be called "organic"? Who decides these things? I would imagine there's no consensus on what constitutes "natural" and what doesn't. There are many different firms which label organic foods, who are they, are they licensed, how are they regulated and by whom? I would imagine very few organic advocates could answer these things without having to resort to google first.
Also, it was previously pointed out that often natural pesticides are used in organic farming, and they're not necessarily good stuff to consume. So organic does not mean no chemicals. Hemlock, for instance, is a natural, organic, and deadly (due to the natural chemicals found in the plant). Natural does not always mean good for you. You're making a vast grey area sound as though it's completely black and white.
Animals being raised and food being grown in a natural state is something being done to alleviate liberal guilt, and until a massive collapse in the world population happens, it will only be available to the rich, and subsistence farmers (as they are dirt poor, and have no other options). As has been pointed out, the amount of energy required by organic crops compared to the amount of food produced is much, much higher than intensive modern farming, so it's not an option to feed 7 billion people that way, no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel inside.
Last edited:
Chinese Jamaican Bloke
New Member
The only rebuttal in this thread are the organic fans blindly defending the industry saying organic=natural while ignoring the fact that organic farmers use chemicals
w.ll.am
Active Member
If you pick the definition that suits you and ignore the rest.
I used the phrase more natural specifically because if I said natural someone would jump all over it as the animals aren't wandering through the woods grazing and not being hunted with our bare hands. But please lets continue having this debate of semantics as it's so completely useful.
A government body regulates what can be classified as an Organic product. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/orgbioe.shtml
You can check out the extensive processes in place here...http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-0.4/SOR-2009-176
From what I understand it takes less energy to raise organic animals. I can not find a reference at this moment but here's a whole whack of reference material on the benefits of organic production.
http://www.eatwild.com/references.html
The world already doesn't properly sustain itself in feeding the world. Is it not better to feed the world properly than to raise generations of poorly fed people with a higher chance of catching e-coli, avian flu, insert next outbreak here.
I also don't like the idea of my meat coming from a place where the animal stands in it's filth all day and then gets slaughtered with 40 other animals at the same time covered in their own excrement to have it all blended into one big slurry. But hey... enjoy that next burger and think about that process
Dilla
Senior Member
I could accuse you of the same. At any rate organic doesn't have to mean natural, and certainly does not mean healthy. Not even natural itself means healthy.
It is useful for the reasons I already pointed out, which you promptly ignored. That is (since you seem to have forgotten already), the term "natural" is indeed hard to peg (hence your using the term "more natural"), and does not inherently transfer to "good for people/the planet" as you seem to want it to.
I'm impressed that the feds are regulating this, but I can't help but point out they only just started to do so this year. The effectiveness of such a regime is still highly questionable to me. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
I guess it depends what an "organic" animal is. Besides, if organic farming produced more with less input, wouldn't it follow that organic produce would be less expensive to purchase? Unless it's more of a scam than I think it already is.
Plant energy is the most important, at any rate, as that's where the vast majority of food energy comes from. And from talking to actual farmers, who have been doing this their whole lives, organic farming produces much less, which much more energy input. Modern farming techniques have increased yields about 50% in the last 50 years. We're probably now about at the limit of how far that's going to go, however.
I can imagine that there are dreamers out there who want organic to be seen as the better way in every way so damn badly, they'll go about saying it is. However, I defy you to find one credible, objective source saying organic farming can produce the yields seen in non-organic farming (and not just for one particular crop).
Feed the world properly? You'd starve the world properly.
People aren't poorly fed today. No they're not. Distribution is still a major problem (we have too much, Africa and others too little. That's more of an economic argument, however), but the food supply has never been higher, and is relatively safe. There have always been outbreaks, and food contamination. Even before modern farming, lots of people died from eating contaminated foods and disease, so I don't see how organic farming is some panacea.
For instance, avian flu was actually first discovered in 1878 in Italy. All organic farming back then. Nice try, though.
I also don't like the idea of my meat coming from a place where the animal stands in it's filth all day and then gets slaughtered with 40 other animals at the same time covered in their own excrement to have it all blended into one big slurry. But hey... enjoy that next burger and think about that process
Then don't eat that meat. If you think it's better for you, and it helps you think you're somehow saving the planet, all the best. I have no adversity to organic foods, I don't think people are fools who choose it, but I do find it frustrating when people think it's the solution to so many problems when it isn't. It's fraught with problems of its own, as well.
Some people just seem to think life was perfect before modernity. It's bonkers to me.
Last edited:
gristle
Senior Member
What do you mean by natural? Are the animals found on a farm "natural" or the product of breeding? Is a farm natural?
Do you know that all antibiotic usage is wasteful? With respect to the environment, what is the relationship to antibiotics?
Just because people say things does not mean they are so. If you think that pre-agricultural humans living 10,000 years ago were natural, then virtually every aspect of our lives is then unnatural (whatever that means). It has not done us badly.
w.ll.am
Active Member
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.
http://willtaft.com/organic-food/the-dirty-dozen-of-food/
If you want to argue semantics you've already lost the debate.
Organic produce isn't about yield it's about producing a healthy and viable alternative. Just because an organic product uses less fuel it does not equate to automatically less money and less work to produce. What it will equate to is less of a non-renewable resource usage and less impaction on the earth in regards to pollution.
Again... My bird flu reference was to the current bird flu pandemic and you, Dilla, decided to use all of history as the reference in a semantic argument. ...
This is the outbreak I was specifically referring to and it is exacerbated by living conditions of closely penned birds. Open air raising of birds would reduce transmission of the virus.
Since you've provided no sources of your own at all throughout this debate you also lose. Yield is not the be-all end-all result in farming. It's about living healthily off the food that is produced.
If you care to debate further please provide links that prove that Non-organic farming is healthier and better for the environment from documents that aren't produced by big-agra companies or those with corporate relations to them.
http://willtaft.com/organic-food/the-dirty-dozen-of-food/
If you want to argue semantics you've already lost the debate.
Organic produce isn't about yield it's about producing a healthy and viable alternative. Just because an organic product uses less fuel it does not equate to automatically less money and less work to produce. What it will equate to is less of a non-renewable resource usage and less impaction on the earth in regards to pollution.
Again... My bird flu reference was to the current bird flu pandemic and you, Dilla, decided to use all of history as the reference in a semantic argument. ...
This is the outbreak I was specifically referring to and it is exacerbated by living conditions of closely penned birds. Open air raising of birds would reduce transmission of the virus.
Since you've provided no sources of your own at all throughout this debate you also lose. Yield is not the be-all end-all result in farming. It's about living healthily off the food that is produced.
Another classic response to someone that has no merits in there rebuttals. Organically produced meat already provides a method of meeting the standards that many people have so they can still enjoy being an omnivore.
If you care to debate further please provide links that prove that Non-organic farming is healthier and better for the environment from documents that aren't produced by big-agra companies or those with corporate relations to them.
Dilla
Senior Member
Tell that to the people starving around the world. Tell that to the impovrished right here in Toronto. Ask them how far their food budget would go shopping at an organic store. Isn't it nice to be wealthy in a wealthy country where you can be afforded the luxury of giving a shit that your food is grown "just so"?
Organic food is a luxury fad, and a way for people in the rich world to pat themselves on the back as they're now saving the planet by shopping at Whole Foods.
You can not feed the 7 billion people in the world today organically.
Also - Eating organic food is not the only way to living healthily. You could eat nothing but organic food and be unhealthy. You could eat no organic food and be healthy. You're making a huge jump in logic.
Last edited: