http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqQVll-MP3I
http://www.foodincmovie.com/
official trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0

Quote :

"Genetic Engineering Some of our most important staple foods have been fundamentally altered, and genetically engineered meat and produce have already invaded our grocery stores and our kitchen pantries. Environmental Impact Did you know that the average food product travels about 1,500 miles to get to your grocery store? And that transporting food accounts for 30,800 tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year? Foodborne Illness In Food, Inc. we meet Barbara Kowalcyk, whose 4 year old son died from E.coli poisoning after eating a hamburger. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 76 million Americans are sickened, 325,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die each year from foodborne illnesses. Healthy Eating 30 million Americans are obese. High calorie, sugar laden processed foods coupled with our sedentary lifestyles is growing our waistlines and contributing to serious health issues like diabetes, heart ailments and cancers. [These foods shouldn't be taxed, regulated, or banned... just priced honestly.] Pesticides Cancers, autism and neurological disorders are associated with the use of pesticides especially amongst farm workers and their communities. Learn about the effects of using pesticides to grow our food. Low-Impact Farming Low-impact farming is an eco-friendly, community-friendly alternative to industrialized agriculture. Its goal is to protect the environment and the quality of life for animals, farmers, and society as a whole - without compromising production and profitability. Cloning In January 2008, the FDA approved the sale of meat and milk from cloned livestock, despite the fact that Congress voted twice in 2007 to delay FDA's decision on cloned animals until additional safety and economic studies could be completed. Farm Worker Protection Workers are fighting for social justice in labor laws, access to drinking water, health care, housing and economic development. [I'm not sure about "social justice"... that sounds a bit socialist...] Factory Farming Approximately 10 billion animals (chickens, cattle, hogs, ducks, turkeys, lambs and sheep) are raised and killed in the US annually. Nearly all of them are raised on factory farms under inhumane conditions. These industrial farms are also dangerous for their workers, pollute surrounding communities, are unsafe to our food system and contribute significantly to global warming. Put Nutritional Labels on Restaurant Food Ever wondered how many calories are in your restaurant food? Most restaurants don’t list the actual nutritional value of their food. Listing calories on menus in chain restaurants is an easy way to educate consumers about calorie content to help them make the healthiest choice. [Yeah, I'm 100% opposed to requiring restaurants to list nutritional facts... That should be voluntary.]"

Large-scale centralized agribusiness must stop. Now. Forever.
To as large a degree as possible, all people should eat organic and locally-produced food.
This is such an absolute fact, that it almost shouldn't need to be debated.

I'll tell you right now, though: Unless you republicans and fellow libertarians solve this problem by fixing the private system, the liberals will have no trouble using public opinion to vote in a whole new wave of socialist-style policy. Green business and eco-entrepreneurialism can solve this problem from the bottom, up. That is, if certain conservatives can get over their irrational opposition to the "granola" lifestyle.

small-scale organic horticulture >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> massive gmo agriculture

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 8:24 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 7:59:07 AM

I totally agree, and actually really want to see this movie.

Couple questions though,

Are we sure that locally produced small scale horticulture can produce the same amount of food as agribusiness? especially the big commodities like corn, milk, wheat etc.

I also really like getting "fresh" produce in the dead of winter, Would this have to stop if we all converted to local production?

Quote :

"I'll tell you right now, though: Unless you republicans and fellow libertarians solve this problem by fixing the private system, the liberals will have no trouble using public opinion to vote in a whole new wave of socialist-style policy."

Id actually really like to see where lobbying money from Agribusiness goes at the Federal Level, something tells me this probably wont be changing anytime soon.
Also are you proposing legislation to stop Agribusiness? what kind?


Finally just to add to the Topic. It wouldn't be right to mention this and not take a really good long look at our own backyard

http://www.riverlaw.us/homepage.html

6/12/2009 8:30:38 AM

I'm going to go ahead and call this thread impossible to have meaningful discourse in because:

Quote :

"This is such an absolute fact, that it almost shouldn't need to be debated."

And any type of refutation of any of the above "facts" will just be countered with "that website is funded by ConAgra" or some bullshit.

Also

Quote :

"I'll tell you right now, though: Unless you republicans and fellow libertarians solve this problem by fixing the private system, the liberals will have no trouble using public opinion to vote in a whole new wave of socialist-style policy."

Way to pigeonhole everyone who associates with the democratic party as agri-business followers. I can play this game.
Everyone who thinks that small-scale organic horticulture is the way to go is a goddamned hippy.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 8:53 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2009 8:46:29 AM

I would like to see this film, but I'm not sure what it's impact will be. The topic list includes a lot of emotional appeals.

Quote :

"Genetic Engineering Some of our most important staple foods have been fundamentally altered, and genetically engineered meat and produce have already invaded our grocery stores and our kitchen pantries."

Humans were genetically engineering food long, long, long before we knew what genetics was. Even with the lab-coat genetic engineering most people envision, there's too much potential to NOT persue genetically modified foods.

Quote :

"Environmental Impact Did you know that the average food product travels about 1,500 miles to get to your grocery store? And that transporting food accounts for 30,800 tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year?"

30,800 tons is inconsequential--it's 0.0001% of world-wide anthropogenic emissions or, assuming it's for the US only, 0.0005% of US produced anthropogenic emissions.

Quote :

"Foodborne Illness In Food, Inc. we meet Barbara Kowalcyk, whose 4 year old son died from E.coli poisoning after eating a hamburger. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 76 million Americans are sickened, 325,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die each year from foodborne illnesses."

I'm not sure what E. coli poisoning has to do with big-agra. E. coli poisoning usually results from unsanitary food preparation, e.g. somebody doesn't wash their hands after dropping a deuce, or dirt isn't washed off the veggies.

Quote :

"Healthy Eating 30 million Americans are obese. High calorie, sugar laden processed foods coupled with our sedentary lifestyles is growing our waistlines and contributing to serious health issues like diabetes, heart ailments and cancers."

It's extremely unfortunate that fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats are among the most expensive items in the store. Personally though, I think most obesity issues are the result of lack of exercise (as mentioned), no portion control, and not realizing that what you're eating isn't healthy, even if the label says 'Diet' or 'Healthy Choice'. People need to be educated.

Quote :

"Pesticides Cancers, autism and neurological disorders are associated with the use of pesticides especially amongst farm workers and their communities. Learn about the effects of using pesticides to grow our food."

Pesticides (and fertilizers) are the only thing on this list that genuinely concerns me. It's also an issue that may have a solution in genetic engineering.

Quote :

"Low-Impact Farming Low-impact farming is an eco-friendly, community-friendly alternative to industrialized agriculture. Its goal is to protect the environment and the quality of life for animals, farmers, and society as a whole - without compromising production and profitability."

This is pretty vague. I need more information.

Quote :

"Cloning In January 2008, the FDA approved the sale of meat and milk from cloned livestock, despite the fact that Congress voted twice in 2007 to delay FDA's decision on cloned animals until additional safety and economic studies could be completed."

There are a lot of assumptions in that statement. What studies did the FDA conduct? Did they conduct additional studies? Congress voted, but did the measure pass? If the measure passed, is the FDA breaking the law? Was Congress satisfied with the additional studies? If the measure didn't pass, why not?

Quote :

"Farm Worker Protection Workers are fighting for social justice in labor laws, access to drinking water, health care, housing and economic development."

If this goes where I think it's going, then it's a migration/alien/immigrant issue, not a big-agra issue.

Quote :

"Factory Farming Approximately 10 billion animals (chickens, cattle, hogs, ducks, turkeys, lambs and sheep) are raised and killed in the US annually. Nearly all of them are raised on factory farms under inhumane conditions. These industrial farms are also dangerous for their workers, pollute surrounding communities, are unsafe to our food system and contribute significantly to global warming."

It doesn't bother me at all that animals are raised for slaughter. Without a doubt, some of these animals are raised under inhumane conditions, but "nearly all" is hyperbole.

Quote :

"Put Nutritional Labels on Restaurant Food Ever wondered how many calories are in your restaurant food? Most restaurants don’t list the actual nutritional value of their food. Listing calories on menus in chain restaurants is an easy way to educate consumers about calorie content to help them make the healthiest choice."

It wouldn't bother me at all if restaurants were required to list or provide calorie counts in an easily accessible and convenient manner in the restaurant--'Oh, it's on our website' doesn't count.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 9:07:47 AM

A Tanzarian pretty much summed up my feelings on it. I purchase a ton of organic and local foods, but I consider it to be a personal choice. I choose not to worry about the costs of the foods I buy, but I also have the disposable income to be able to make that choice. I don't feel that I should force someone else to pay more for their foods just to fit my lifestyle.

Besides, sometimes you have to consider the efficiency of growing foods. NC farmers grow a lot of corn, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the huge midwest farms where they literally have rows that run for miles without a break. It would be hugely inefficient to shut down the huge farms out there just to "go local". Likewise, it would be foolish to tell people in places with harsher climates or poorer soil that they shouldn't have access to quality foods just because it isn't grown locally.

I think one of the best parts of our society is that we can get quality foods regardless of season or location. If you choose to eat shit I just feel bad for you.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 9:29 AM. Reason : l]

6/12/2009 9:28:07 AM

BTW

Actually read what can be in "organic" foods to be certified. The AMS website is borked at the moment, but you can read the actual document here:
http://www.ccof.org/pdf/US%20National%20Organic%20Standards.pdf

Don't fool yourself into thinking that "organic" farmers can't use pesticides.
Also, they only have to be 70% compliant to use a sticker.
And check out the wide range of synthetic materials they're allowed to put in the food. Not to mention all of the non-synthetic bacteria and shit they can still use.

You might be surprised what actually goes into "organic" food. My father-in-law produces seed for the state of north carolina. He doesn't buy organic and he knows a lot more about this than me and probably anyone else here.

6/12/2009 9:47:32 AM

Megafarms would be the natural result in a libertarian world, probably to a greater degree than now.

6/12/2009 9:59:03 AM

I find that buying local produce and meat at farmers markets is not cost effective for me right now. I do buy free range chicken and all that stuff.

however people do need to stop eating so much meat. The majority of that corn thats growing is going into the bellies of cows and chickens and not to humans.

Also about fat people. I believe its more of a portion problem. When you eat fast food every day or excessive fried food you're gonna be fat. Even if you exercise you're fucked because your heart cant deal with it.

6/12/2009 10:09:17 AM

Are some of you really this dumb? I could fill up three 10,000 character posts of quote bombs addressing the incredible ignorance going on in your heads. The degree to which some of you are missing the point is truly sad.

For starters, when the phrase "genetic engineering" is used, it is nearly always meant as "artificial, invasive, and patented genetic engineering". You knew that. The fact that you glossed over the real issue and pretended that the speaker was equating the natural, organic, and non-invasive genetic engineering with the bullshit artificial kind, is nothing more than deceptive political trash talk. You aren't fooling us. Address the actual issue, rather than dodging it.

The same goes for the assertion that certified organic isn't really organic. Do you actually think we [supporters of organic food] don't know that? Did you not see us fighting the USDA organic certification because we claimed it would weaken it, and result in non-organic foods being label "organic"? Organic is all or nothing. Just because the USDA says something is organic, doesn't mean that it is. You also implied that organic farmers aren't supposed to use pesticides. That is wrong -- they aren't supposed to use artificial chemical pesticides.

The most efficient way to produce food is the most sustainable and least harmful way. Period.
Modern agriculture is not sustainable and is one of the most harmful things humans have ever done. Period.

^^

Quote :

"Megafarms would be the natural result in a libertarian world, probably to a greater degree than now."

Wrong. You're speaking of hyper-capitalist anthropocentric corporatist libertarians. They dominate the scene because they have the most money to buy the ability to speak to the public, but they are a dying breed. Real libertarianism considers environmental harm to be harm to everyone's private property. Real libertarianism allows people to decide how businesses should operate, not a few corporatist fascist oligarchs. Also, libertarians wouldn't stand for the massive subsidies on certain foods, nor the tax-payer funded environment clean-ups. If a meat or vegetable producer pollutes the environment, they should pay 100% of the bill. If they can't afford the bill, they go out of business, and other smaller businesses that don't pollute as they produce food will take their place.

^

Quote :

"not cost effective"

That's because the non-local produce and meat you buy is likely largely subsidized. If it were priced honestly, then local and organic food would cost nearly the same, perhaps even less. I agree, though, that people eat too much meat. If they were paying the honest price of meat, and everyone was responsible for their own health care, they could eat as much as they wanted, and I'd never complain....

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 10:19 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 10:13:27 AM

^ the majority of this is lala land territory.

6/12/2009 10:18:20 AM

^
Suggesting that polluters should have to pay for 100% of the clean-up of their pollution is "lala land"?
Suggesting that meat and corn shouldn't be subsidized is "lala land"?
Suggesting that taxpayers shouldn't have to support polluters and "rural laboratories" (agrifarms) is "lala land"?
Suggesting that modern agriculture is not sustainable and is one of the most harmful things is "lala land"?
Okay, guy.

6/12/2009 10:23:19 AM

Quote :

"Also, libertarians wouldn't stand for the massive subsidies on certain foods, nor the tax-payer funded environment clean-ups. If a meat or vegetable producer pollutes the environment, they should pay 100% of the bill. If they can't afford the bill, they go out of business, and other smaller businesses that don't pollute as they produce food will take their place."

What?

So who cleans up the pollution? If the polluter can't afford it, then obviously the smaller guy can't either, then you're left with a bunch of pollution unless the gov. cleans it up.

And you seem to be suggesting the establishment of an EPA-like entity, which is not very Libertarian.

Quote :

"If it were priced honestly, then local and organic food would cost nearly the same, perhaps even less"

I don't think this is true either, but you also underestimate the capitalist system. These "little guys" are going to compete, eventually forming in to a "corporate" farm. The trick is in making sure they don't use their power to for evil once they get there.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 10:29 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 10:24:46 AM

Quote :

"For starters, when the phrase "genetic engineering" is used, it is nearly always meant as "artificial, invasive, and patented genetic engineering". You knew that. The fact that you glossed over the real issue and pretended that the speaker was equating the natural, organic, and non-invasive genetic engineering with the bullshit artificial kind, is nothing more than deceptive political trash talk. You aren't fooling us. Address the actual issue, rather than dodging it."

I don't know precisely how the speaker is using the term "genetic engineering"--I haven't seen the movie. It's certainly not beyond some to hide the fact that nearly every food we eat is genetically and significantly different from the wild variant that existed when humans began cultivating food, and that those differences exist because of human cultivation. Regardless, I addressed and did not dodge the "artificial kind":

Quote :

"Even with the lab-coat genetic engineering most people envision, there's too much potential to NOT persue genetically modified foods."

...and even pointed out where genetic engineering could be constructively used to address another issue:

Quote :

"Pesticides (and fertilizers) are the only thing on this list that genuinely concerns me. It's also an issue that may have a solution in genetic engineering."

I commented on each point in the movie synopsis, but apparently you can't be bothered to engage in an actual discussion. Not to mention, you've presupposed that all of the movie's points are valid without presenting any sort of proof or constructive commentary.


There's certainly a lot that should change about agribusiness and you could've had a great thread discussing it. Too bad you've ruined it with your ranting, intolerance, and complete inability to listen and discuss alternate viewpoints.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 10:34:54 AM

So how do you envision the transistion taking place?

You already mentioned environmental regulations and ending subsidies. I would think that would do a lot to even the playing field between small producers and large producers.

But in the end don't you think it will require people demanding their food come from small organic producers?

6/12/2009 10:36:01 AM

^^

just because a local farm is successful doesnt mean they will turn into a "corporate" farm. The idea that the outcome to any successful enterprise is a Wal-Mart style empire is outdated.

6/12/2009 10:37:20 AM

What a retarded list. If you implemented all those things, you would be hard pressed to feed everyone. You would have to utilize a much larger area of land for agriculture, and a larger percentage of the work force. That would create a shit ton of environmental problems (salinization, nitrate run-offs, erosion, etc).

Quote :

"Genetic Engineering"

How are GE foods bad? Sure we need to be careful, but GE foods have potential to positively effect half the problems you list further down (pesticides, health, low-impact techniques). Not to mention the ability to grow high nutrient crops in areas that are currently less than adequate.

Quote :

"Environmental Impact"

As already mentioned, that is a pretty small impact. Doing what this implies would increase the environmental impact of feeding the population due to a extreme loss of efficiency.

Quote :

"Foodborne Illness"

What does this have to do with anything? Low-impact/organic/hippy farmers still use "organic" waste to fertilizer crops. In other words they use shit. Shit has bacteria in it that can kill you if you don't clean and cook your food properly. Also, the CDC report that was taken from only estimated the deaths:

Quote :

"Precise information on food-related deaths is especially difficult to obtain because pathogen-specific surveillance systems rarely collect information on illness outcome, and outcome-specific surveillance systems (e.g., death certificates) grossly underreport many pathogen-specific conditions. To estimate the number of deaths due to bacterial pathogens, we used the same approach described for hospitalizations: first calculating the number of deaths among reported cases, then doubling this figure to account for unreported deaths, and finally multiplying by the percentage of infections attributable to foodborne transmission. "

In other words they have no clue how many deaths food bourne pathogens cause. I looked through the paper and no where did I find why they decided to double the number of deaths. In other words, it was arbitrary.

Quote :

"Healthy Eating"

What does this have to do with anything else? Right now you can eat healthy. It's a choice a person makes. I thought you were a libertarian? (lolz).

Quote :

"Pesticides"

Yeah, don't use pesticides. Watch the yield per acre of farmland plummet. Good job. Pesticides aren't used because we want to use them. Thankfully, GE foods provide an alternative to chemical pesticides.. oh wait! we can't use those either.

Quote :

" Low-Impact Farming"

Wow, so you can produce the same yield, quality, and profitability! Well shit, why don't you go do that right now! If it's so great then it will surely take over in no time.

Quote :

"Cloning"

So eating cloned meat or milk products is bad for you? Any evidence for this at all?

Quote :

"Farm Worker Protection"

lol.



Yeah, so Willy Nilly is just the biggest troll right?

6/12/2009 10:37:32 AM

Quote :

"just because a local farm is successful doesnt mean they will turn into a "corporate" farm. The idea that the outcome to any successful enterprise is a Wal-Mart style empire is outdated."

Youre right for a single local farm, but when you have a collection of local farms, that is the inevitable outcome in a free market.

6/12/2009 10:39:24 AM

^^
Get a clue, dude. This isn't my movie. This movie, and many of the proposed solutions, are nothing but liberal trash. My point is, that this movement is unstoppable, and unless non-liberals can make the changes, then the liberals will bring about more government and more socialist-style policies.

Quote :

"I don't know precisely how the speaker is using the term "genetic engineering"--I haven't seen the movie. It's certainly not beyond some to hide the fact that nearly every food we eat is genetically and significantly different from the wild variant that existed when humans began cultivating food, and that those differences exist because of human cultivation. Regardless, I addressed and did not dodge the "artificial kind":"

There. You're doing it again. Don't you dare say "I don't know precisely how the speaker is using the term..." I'M FUCKING TELLING YOU WHAT HE AND NEARLY EVERYONE ELSE MEANT. AND YOU ALREADY FUCKING KNEW WHAT WAS MEANT. YOU AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE.

And guess what? Using GMOs to fix the problems with chemical pesticides/herbicides is 100% wrong. Organic horticulture solves that problem WITHOUT introducing an entire new world of issues. Do you think life should be patentable? If you do, you are among the most ignorant, evil and dangerous humans to ever exist.

Quote :

"Not to mention, you've presupposed that all of the movie's points are valid without presenting any sort of proof or constructive commentary."

No, I haven't. This movie is from liberals that want government regulations and "social justice". I disagree with those, and certainly with many other of the liberal solutions.

Quote :

"There's certainly a lot that should change about agribusiness and you could've had a great thread discussing it. Too bad you've ruined it with your ranting, intolerance, and complete inability to listen and discuss alternate viewpoints."

Quote :

"You already mentioned environmental regulations and ending subsidies. I would think that would do a lot to even the playing field between small producers and large producers. But in the end don't you think it will require people demanding their food come from small organic producers?"

No environmental regulations are necessary. Simply enforce private property rights, including the privatized commons, and justice will prevail. And yes, it will require people demanding their food come from small organic producers. That's how libertarianism is supposed to work -- by people doing things, not the government. By pricing foods honestly, and stopping the agribusiness from silencing the debate, people will be more able to decide what the right thing to do is.

Quote :

"just because a local farm is successful doesnt mean they will turn into a "corporate" farm. The idea that the outcome to any successful enterprise is a Wal-Mart style empire is outdated."

Exactly.

Quote :

"yield per acre of farmland"

So, in other words, you completely miss the point. yield per acre of farmland is not as important as health and sustainability. You fuckers are pathetic.

^

Quote :

"Youre right for a single local farm, but when you have a collection of local farms, that is the inevitable outcome in a free market"

You could not be more wrong. You must really believe the crap that opponents of liberty say....

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 10:57 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 10:50:46 AM

Quote :

"Large-scale centralized agribusiness must stop. Now. Forever. To as large a degree as possible, all people should eat organic and locally-produced food. This is such an absolute fact, that it almost shouldn't need to be debated. I'll tell you right now, though: Unless you republicans and fellow libertarians solve this problem by fixing the private system, the liberals will have no trouble using public opinion to vote in a whole new wave of socialist-style policy. Green business and eco-entrepreneurialism can solve this problem from the bottom, up. That is, if certain conservatives can get over their irrational opposition to the "granola" lifestyle. small-scale organic horticulture >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> massive gmo agriculture"

is supposed to mean you think "Food, Inc" is liberal propaganda?

6/12/2009 10:59:14 AM

Quote :

""Youre right for a single local farm, but when you have a collection of local farms, that is the inevitable outcome in a free market" You could not be more wrong. You must really believe the crap that opponents of liberty say.... "

The US didn't start out having an FDA and Wal Marts. You're delusional if you don't think at least one person in your libertarian society wouldnt try to become a billionaire by using robots to milk cows so he could sell milk to a million people.

6/12/2009 10:59:39 AM

well cows are already milked my robots

6/12/2009 11:03:16 AM

Quote :

"you think "Food, Inc" is liberal propaganda?"

Isn't it?

^^
Oh yeah, many will try. And there exists somewhere a balance.. an equilibrium point.
Also, robots needn't be avoided -- it's just how they're used that should be important.
I'm not sure what's wrong with robot cow milkers.... Am I missing something?
A farm being small and organic doesn't mean they don't use certain modern technologies.
Organic farming has greatly improved -- it is not anti-technology.

6/12/2009 11:06:26 AM

It's certainly not clear from the OP that you think so.

6/12/2009 11:13:24 AM

^^ i wasn't suggesting in any way there was something wrong with robot cow milkers.

But would we even have robot cow milkers if the megafarms didn't help get them developed and bring the costs down for the "little guys?"

And what are the chances every little guy is going to choose to remain little, when it would take not much more for them to sell more milk to more people, while making more money by growing a bit?

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 11:15 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 11:15:06 AM

do you idiots even know how cows are milked these days?

6/12/2009 11:20:38 AM

^ who cares?

6/12/2009 11:26:06 AM

Quote :

"So, in other words, you completely miss the point. yield per acre of farmland is not as important as health and sustainability. You fuckers are pathetic."

Don't you get it? It is! In order to feed our current population by the practices you suggest, we would have to dedicate a much larger percentage of our land to farm use. That means cutting down forests and clearing wild lands to get that farm land. Are you dense? Don't you get that? What do you think the environmental impact would be of clearing all that land to farm use? Erosion, decrease in biodiversity, salinization of land on suboptimal acreage (see the Great plains), increased nitrate runoff... etc.. How is that sustainable?

6/12/2009 11:26:08 AM

really high level discourse in here.

6/12/2009 11:30:34 AM

It is my right to put any hormones or chemicals in my meat/produce if i want. No gov't should tell me otherwise they are being communist ass holes. Free Markets will work it out since if you don't like my genetically engineering chemically altered food stuffs than don't buy it DURR DE DURR.

You are at fault if you get cancer 30 years down the road from teh hormones in my beef! You should have done your homework and properly utilized your liberty to find the best choice in our free market economy duh!!

6/12/2009 11:43:31 AM

Yep. I'd actually like to discuss the issue, but Willy Nilly is having such a fit of self-righteous "everything I say in here is patently true" blather I think I'm just gonna sit it out.

6/12/2009 11:44:20 AM

Called it!

Quote :

"I'm going to go ahead and call this thread impossible to have meaningful discourse"

Also, isn't it my right to eat shitty high cholesterol large portions? This is making me hungry for a #3 combo with large fries and dr pepper, honestly.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM. Reason : food]

6/12/2009 11:49:08 AM

Quote :

"It's certainly not clear from the OP that you think so."

Sorry, I should've been more clear. Liberals tend to have the correct position on issues (pro-environment, pro-racial-equality, pro-healthy-living, etc.) but they fail miserably when they create policy to address those issues (regulations/taxes, affirmative action, smoking-bans/nationalized healthcare, respectively) This movie clearly shows the intent of society to fix problems with how food is produced, and if those of us that support the dominance of the private-sector, small government, and individual liberty don't work to fix these problems with acceptable policy (private property rights, privatization of the commons, eco-entrepreneurialism, etc.,) then those who support the dominance of the public sector and big government while disregarding the importance of individual liberty, will work to fix these problems with unacceptable policy (taxes, regulations, nanny-state, etc.)

I honestly believe that the tendency of political conservatives to hold an irrational opposition to the "granola" lifestyle will doom them all, and only help to push our nation further towards something like the Union of American Socialist Republics.

Quote :

"But would we even have robot cow milkers if the megafarms didn't help get them developed and bring the costs down for the "little guys?""

Yes. Open source robot design would bring down the costs. Megafarms aren't, weren't, and will never be necessary or even beneficial.

Quote :

"And what are the chances every little guy is going to choose to remain little, when it would take not much more for them to sell more milk to more people, while making more money by growing a bit?"

Slim to none. As I said, some will choose to grow indefinitely. And when they reach the natural limit (which, even with acceptable technologies, will always exist,) they'll stop growing. How? Mostly through market competition. Also, when a company grows so large as to be destructive to the market, (*** cough wal-mart cough***) this is not a proper market. Similar to how monopolies are banned (or at least should be,) even though the concept of a monopoly, to some, is the pinnacle of free markets, certain measures should be undertaken by the government, on behalf of the people, to prevent such market conditions. I'm not sure I agree, but some have suggested that citizens be able to vote to revoke a companies corporate charter. Corporate "immortality" is a huge problem, and in a free and proper market, companies that do "bad" will "die" forever.

Quote :

"In order to feed our current population by the practices you suggest, we would have to dedicate a much larger percentage of our land to farm use."

Not that much, really. In fact, I'm not even sure that's true at all.

Quote :

"That means cutting down forests and clearing wild lands to get that farm land. Are you dense? Don't you get that?"

No, you don't get it. Absolutely no cutting down of forests and clearing of wild lands would be necessary. You're funny. You seriously believe the bullshit scare tactics that anti-environmentalists put out? Wow.

Quote :

"What do you think the environmental impact would be of clearing all that land to farm use? "

It would be bad, but it wouldn't be necessary. You are really stupid to believe that it would be.

Quote :

"Erosion, decrease in biodiversity, salinization of land on suboptimal acreage (see the Great plains), increased nitrate runoff... etc.. How is that sustainable?"

These things are the result of NOT using organic methods of food production. You are truly a fool. Organic farming, done property, creates absolutely no environmental problems. It is 100% "contained" and works completely with nature. The minute that it doesn't, it ceases to be proper organic farming.

Again: You're funny. You seriously believe the bullshit scare tactics that anti-environmentalists put out? Wow.

Quote :

"Willy Nilly is having such a fit of self-righteous "everything I say in here is patently true"

Well, it is. You can disagree, but by "sitting it out", you only work to harm your position. My "ranting" may cause a few idiots that are prone to ad hominem fallacies to dismiss the debate, but not commenting at all is by far the worst.
Good going on contributing.

Quote :

"Also, isn't it my right to eat shitty high cholesterol large portions?"

Yes.... and

Quote :

"If they were paying the honest price of meat, and everyone was responsible for their own health care, they could eat as much as they wanted, and I'd never complain...."

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 11:52:30 AM

This is by no means an exhaustive literature search but just some quick reading I was doing on the internetz. For me it raises doubts around the assertion that we "Can't feed the world with organic production."




http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/library/Studies%20from%20the%20Ojebyn%20project.pdf

Quote :

"Detailed results from this experiment have been reported previously (Jonsson 1997, 1999, 2001). The results presented here reflect the yields obtained during the eleven years after conversion to organic farming (1990-2000). The average figures for the total production from all crops during this period reveal that the organic production is 1% lower on a dry matter basis and 4% lower when considered on a metabolic energy basis. Therefore the organic crops have a somewhat lower energy content. However, there is a trend of increasing yields in the organic system while there is no such trend in the conventional system (see figure1). The yields from the reseed and the leys together are 6357 kg dry matter ha-1. This is 6% lower than from the conventional system. However, the yield of organic barley (3789 kg ha-1) is 5% higher than the conventional. The organic seed-potatoes have yielded 4% more kg ha-1 than the conventional potatoes."

So basically somewhat similar yields between conventional crops and Organic crops in this instance.

also




http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/WhoBenefits_PR_1_9_07.cfm

Quote :

" In 2006, the US Department of Agriculture, a chief proponent of GM crops, for the first time acknowledged that GM crop yields are not greater than those of conventional crops, and a compelling number of studies by independent scientists demonstrate that GM crop yields are lower than, or at best equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties The most widely planted GM crop, Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans, are more susceptible to drought than conventional soybeans. The Ministry of Environment in Paraguay detected higher yield losses in Roundup Ready soy than in the conventional varieties during the 2006 drought. Similar observations were made during a drought in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul in 2005. "

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ge-fails-to-increase-yields-0219.html

Quote :

"The report, "Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops," is the first to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices. "

6/12/2009 12:10:07 PM

Seymore Skinner won this thread a long time ago.

6/12/2009 2:43:22 PM

^
Actually, he only commented on the text from the movie's website.
The thread isn't about the movie or that text -- the movie is just a reference point.

^^
Good going. More, please.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 3:07 PM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 3:07:10 PM

I hear ya dude

6/12/2009 4:17:45 PM

Oh, how I loathe Monsanto.

6/12/2009 4:38:06 PM

Quote :

" Organic farming, done property, creates absolutely no environmental problems. It is 100% "contained" and works completely with nature. The minute that it doesn't, it ceases to be proper organic farming. "

Okay, you say so. No farming is "contained" or "works with nature." Farming, by it's very nature, is unnatural. We should be focused on increasing yields on land already used for farming. By whatever means. You are a libertarian, supposedly, right? So if organic methods produce the same yields at the same cost, then they will take over right?

There is nothing wrong with using manure for fertilizer over chemicals. Heck, it's great. But if everything is organic, where are you going to get all that shit? If it makes you feel better or healthier eating "organic" crops, more power to you.

6/12/2009 5:15:24 PM

I can't participate in an unbiased manner in this thread b/c without agribusiness, I probably wouldn't have had the support from my parents I had from age 0 to about 22 or so.

6/12/2009 5:33:12 PM

Quote :

"Suggesting that polluters should have to pay for 100% of the clean-up of their pollution is "lala land"? Suggesting that meat and corn shouldn't be subsidized is "lala land"? Suggesting that taxpayers shouldn't have to support polluters and "rural laboratories" (agrifarms) is "lala land"? Suggesting that modern agriculture is not sustainable and is one of the most harmful things is "lala land"?"

Most libertarians I know of would agree with you on the former 3 on your list. So I'm not exactly sure where this contention that, "I'll tell you right now, though: Unless you republicans and fellow libertarians solve this problem by fixing the private system, the liberals will have no trouble using public opinion to vote in a whole new wave of socialist-style policy." Because, here's a clue - it's not the libertarians or the more free-market end of conservatives holding these ones up.

Meanwhile, addressing moron's contention (however futile such a gesture might be) that somehow, mega-farms are the "inevitable result" of free-market agriculture, one need only look exactly to where the vast majority of farm subsidies go. Have a look at EWG's (hardly a right-wing outfit) farm subsidy database:

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/

In summary: subsidies vastly go to large operations, much to the detriment of smaller family farms - a perverse unintended outcome.

Meanwhile, the very existence of outfits like organic co-ops and farmer's markets seems to put to lie the notion that somehow these are "unpossible" under a free-market system. But let's not facts get in the way of a good story, now.

6/12/2009 5:55:30 PM

Quote :

"unpossible"

lol.... "Me fail english? That's unpossible!"

Quote :

"Okay, you say so. No farming is "contained" or "works with nature.""

False. I put contained in quotes for a reason. It is as contained as any natural system can be. And organic farming does work with nature, you fucking idiot. That is basically it's definition. You are so fucking stupid to suggest otherwise.

Quote :

"Farming, by it's very nature, is unnatural."

Okay, if you say so.
Seriously, though... Get a fucking clue. While some farming practices are unnatural, organic farming is 100% natural. If you're talking about "unnatural" in terms of the plants aren't wild, and no "farms" appear in nature, then sure -- but that is stupid. We've been farming for so fucking long, that it is perfectly natural. You are likely a defender of harmful technology, and therefore it's in your interest to blur the line between what is and isn't natural. You are a fool, but you're not fooling me.

Quote :

"We should be focused on increasing yields on land already used for farming. By whatever means."

False. We should be focused on sustainability and working with nature. That's not to say that organic farming has lower yields long-term. Conventional farming only provides the illusion of higher yields, because we're not looking at the long-term. Plus, there appear to be studies that clearly show that conventional farming doesn't produce significantly higher yields.
Also, your "by whatever means" comment is the most disgusting piece of myopic bullshit I've seen in months. Fuck you for suggesting that high yields are paramount. You goddamn fool.

Quote :

"You are a libertarian, supposedly, right? So if organic methods produce the same yields at the same cost, then they will take over right?"

organic nature >>>> human liberty.
And yes, I'm a libertarian. I've voted for every libertarian that has ever appeared on the ballot. I have been active with the party on the state and college level. Fuck you for suggesting that I'm not a libertarian.

And yes, on a level playing field, organic methods will take over. The problem is with hyper-capitalist douchebags that will only pursue intellectual-property-based forms of capitalism. If they'd get over their harmful and irrational pre-21st century goal of dominance and control....

Quote :

"There is nothing wrong with using manure for fertilizer over chemicals. Heck, it's great. But if everything is organic, where are you going to get all that shit?"

Decomposers, herbivores, carnivores.... you know, animals. (Seriously, before you suggest that the "numbers" wouldn't add up were everything organic, you should research the subject. Such a suggestion would not only be wrong, but would indicate ignorance.) Besides, shit isn't the only organic fertilizer....

Quote :

"If it makes you feel better or healthier eating "organic" crops, more power to you."

Okay, but feelings have almost nothing to do with it. Facts. Facts and reality, my son. Organic is our past and our future. I suggest you not fight it.

Quote :

"I can't participate in an unbiased manner in this thread b/c without agribusiness, I probably wouldn't have had the support from my parents I had from age 0 to about 22 or so."

Get over it. My family would've been nothing were it not for coca-cola stock, and I hate the company. So what? They lived in a different time and did what they had to.... If I were raised by thieves, I would still oppose theft.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 6:05 PM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 5:58:13 PM

Quote :

"Get over it. My family would've been nothing were it not for coca-cola stock, and I hate the company. So what? They lived in a different time and did what they had to.... If I were raised by thieves, I would still oppose theft."

Hmmm...yes, hybrid seed developers=theives.

Or, maybe I don't freak out over the fact that we don't have 100% organic small scale farming?

And lol and you being all "I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FATE OF HUMANITY B/C OF THIS" and then going on "raising wages? healthcare? what is this socialist shit?"

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2009 6:05:26 PM

^
something you disagree with = something you disagree with

Here you go: www.analogies101.edu

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 6:07 PM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 6:07:18 PM

There's an easy way for you to take care of this problem. It's called...choose to go live on a commune. It'll be much less stressful for you.

Quote :

"something you disagree with = something you disagree with"

hahahahah, what the fuck? are you high?

I disagree with putting a stop sign at that intersection. I also disagree with ethnic cleansing.

Putting a stop sign at that intersection=ethnic cleansing. Brilliant.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 6:14 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2009 6:10:35 PM

Quote :

"It's called...choose to go live on a commune"

I'm working on it...

Quote :

"hahahahah, what the fuck? are you high?"

Wow, way to miss the point. I was demonstrating the analogy is apt. You suggested, as many do, that one of the terms in the first relationship-pair should be compared to one of the terms in the second relationship-pair. This is not how analogies work. The relationship between the first pair is compared with the relationship between the second pair. At no point is anything else compared.

You are to your family's agribusiness past (something you disagree with,) as the hypothetical me is to my hypothetical family's thief past (something you (I) disagree with.) At no point was your family's agribusiness past compared to my hypothetical family's thief past. I really wish they'd put analogies back on the SAT....

Let me fix it for you:
You are to putting a stop sign at that intersection (something you disagree with,) as you are to ethnic cleansing (something you disagree with.) Although, that is only a correct analogy if you disregard the degree of disagreement. A more accurate analogy would be:
You are to rape (something you highly disagree with,) as you are to ethnic cleansing (something you highly disagree with.)

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM. Reason : ]

6/12/2009 6:23:58 PM

I think I'm gonna go to the food kitty and pick up some hot dogs, cheese, milk, Sapporo, beef, packaged turkey and ham, chicken, and a pack of gum.

6/12/2009 6:34:44 PM

Quote :

"And yes, I'm a libertarian. I've voted for every libertarian that has ever appeared on the ballot. I have been active with the party on the state and college level. Fuck you for suggesting that I'm not a libertarian."

And I've been to police fund raisers and emergency training drills, doesn't make me a cop. That libertarians are the closest party to what you prefer out of the three choices that appear on the ballots doesn't make you a libertarian.

6/12/2009 6:35:13 PM

OH NOES!!! SOMEBODY ON THE INTERNET DOESN'T BELIEVE ME!!!!! WHAT EVER WILL I DO???

6/12/2009 6:42:49 PM

Quote :

""You are a libertarian, supposedly, right? So if organic methods produce the same yields at the same cost, then they will take over right?" And yes, on a level playing field, organic methods will take over. The problem is with hyper-capitalist douchebags that will only pursue intellectual-property-based forms of capitalism. If they'd get over their harmful and irrational pre-21st century goal of dominance and control.... "

I think a closer look at farming may explain the slowness to change as well. Most Farmers I have worked with were pretty resistant to change or experimenting with their growing process. I think they have every right to be and I dont blame them one bit. Lets face it, its their livelihood and they like to maximize their profits so they can reinvest them into machinery or more land so they can make more money the next year. The variability in weather from year to year is enough of a roll of the dice without experimenting on fertilizer application rates, etc.

as a result there has been very little grassroots research into alternative farming methods like organic . . . . . . . until fairly recently, That and I think universities are starting to realize its not just a bandwagon too. (NCSU started its center in 1994).

http://www.cefs.ncsu.edu/


Its gonna take time for it to become accepted practice. Farmers like to see with their own eyes that its gonna work (and that its worth the possible extra effort). I think demand will only grow, but Im not buying stock in it or anything, yet.

Quote :

"But if everything is organic, where are you going to get all that shit?""

This made me laugh at first but I think its actually a great question. I'd like to know the approximate number of animals (hogs, cows, or chickens) a producer would need to grow to provide enough nutrients for a given crop on a per acre basis. It seems that meat production would significantly decrease in an organic farming system; you just cant fit the agribusiness density of animals on land and still expect to be "sustainable." so therefore the overall amount of available manure/litter would decrease.
I have heard of other sources from industry (byproducts) and not too mention human waste (ewwwwwww . . . . . . . . after its been processed though).
It also has to be noted that currently animal waste is often overapplied to land, and thus you see situations like the Neuse here in North Carolina; so its very likely we are producing way too much animal waste right now as it is.

6/12/2009 6:44:04 PM

^
Good points about reluctant farmers... The tides is turning, though.

Quote :

"and not too mention human waste (ewwwwwww . . . . . . . . after its been processed though)."

lol... That reminds me of one of the first books I bought from Loompanics:

6/12/2009 7:47:47 PM