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.
|
|
|
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.I'd be the first to admit (as posted) that not all organics are as advertised. However I'd also call you a fool if you think eating a steak at outback (that's been pumped up on hormones and on food designed to make the poor cow's belly explode) is going to have the same impact on your system as say... a steak from Ruth Chris where the cows used are free range, grain fed and hormone free. Crap in, crap out. Organic products eliminate much of the crap and in some cases (such as the one I just mentioned) lead to a better quality of food. Of course you don't need to go to Ruth Chris to have a fabulous steak...
No it's not, but it speaks volumes for the quality of a post someone can't even include punctuation in their responses. I don't know if it's because you don't know how but it makes this forum seem kind of low-brow to read through posts such as yours IMO.
I'd be the first to admit (as posted) that not all organics are as advertised. However I'd also call you a fool if you think eating a steak at outback (that's been pumped up on hormones and on food designed to make the poor cow's belly explode) is going to have the same impact on your system as say... a steak from Ruth Chris where the cows used are free range, grain fed and hormone free. Crap in, crap out. Organic products eliminate much of the crap and in some cases (such as the one I just mentioned) lead to a better quality of food. Of course you don't need to go to Ruth Chris to have a fabulous steak...
No it's not, but it speaks volumes for the quality of a post someone can't even include punctuation in their responses. I don't know if it's because you don't know how but it makes this forum seem kind of low-brow to read through posts such as yours IMO.
I'd be the first to admit (as posted) that not all organics are as advertised. However I'd also call you a fool if you think eating a steak at outback (that's been pumped up on hormones and on food designed to make the poor cow's belly explode) is going to have the same impact on your system as say... a steak from Ruth Chris where the cows used are free range, grain fed and hormone free. Crap in, crap out. Organic products eliminate much of the crap and in some cases (such as the one I just mentioned) lead to a better quality of food. Of course you don't need to go to Ruth Chris to have a fabulous steak...
why don't you debate instead of whining about punctuation?
The biggest problem with the organics industry is the dishonesty, or at least naïveté, on the part of many organics supporters that "organic" means "natural" (whatever that means), and "natural" means better (for health or environment).
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.
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.Thank you. I wish more people would keep this thought in mind.The biggest problem with the organics industry is the dishonesty, or at least naïveté, on the part of many organics supporters that "organic" means "natural" (whatever that means), and "natural" means better (for health or 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.why don't you debate instead of whining about punctuation?
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.
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.
If you pick the definition that suits you and ignore the rest.Organic means carbon based.
developing in a manner analogous to the natural growth and evolution characteristic of living organisms; arising as a natural outgrowth.
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.Also, your using the term "more natural" is precious.
A government body regulates what can be classified as an Organic product. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/orgbio/orgbioe.shtmlDespite 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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Since the first H5N1 outbreak occurred in 1997, there has been an increasing number of HPAI H5N1 bird-to-human transmissions leading to clinically severe and fatal human infections.
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.Then don't eat that meat.
Yield is not the be-all end-all result in farming. It's about living healthily off the food that is produced.