Willie Nelson: "Occupy the Food System"

Bob Blaylock · Feb 26, 2012

Temporal said:
Why are most products in supermarkets laden with high fructose corn syrup - which is certainly absorbable, but is a de facto poison when glucose is at those levels.

High fructose corn syrup (or HFCS) is one of those things where I just have to be amused at the way “organic” kooks talk about it, as if it is some horrible deadly poison, and part of some deep sinister conspiracy to poison us all and make us fat.

As it happens, I am a type 2 diabetic, so sugar in any form (although in moderate amounts, is as vital to my life as that of any other human) can be dangerous to me if I take it in excess. But sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. HFCS is exactly as potentially harmful to me as honey, or maple syrup, or table sugar, or any other form of any digestible sugar.

As it happens, the widespread high use of HFCS in this country is an artifact of corn subsidies, which artificially reduce the price of corn and corn-derived products, and create an unusual incentive for industry to make as much use as they reasonably can of any products derived from corn. I think that one effect of this is that a lot of processed foods are overly-sweetened, but they are not any more harmful than if they were sweetened to exactly the same degree with other forms of sugar.

Lord Tammerlain · Feb 26, 2012

Bob Blaylock said:
This seems to me like something that cries out for a properly-conducted double-blind test.

I bet that if Temporal was given examples of “organic” and “non-organic” fruits, without knowing which is which, I bet no correlation would be found between the claimed effect, and the “organic” or “non-organic” fruits.

A pet peeve of mine is the misuse of the word “organic”. All food is organic. There is no such thing as “non-organic” food, at least not for us humans. Our bodies are not capable of deriving nutrients from any inorganic sources. The distinction between “organic” and “non-organic” foods has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that the word “organic” actually means.

Mass produced fruit and vegatables do have a different taste then organic fruits and vegatables

The mass produced ones tend to lack many minerals and nutrients and the soil is drained of them. Only the essential ones to promote growth of the plant are added through fertilizer

Harry Guerrilla · Feb 27, 2012

Temporal said:
Well so far you're not doing very well with the latter.

I've provided links to scientific research.
Much better than a documentary.

Temporal said:
Are we eating cyanide? No? Then why make such a flawed comparison?

You've never eaten an apple?
Apples contain traces of cyanide.

Temporal said:
Oh right, the old "mind over matter" placebo effect routine. That's what people say when they are too lazy to find the real reason. I didn't give two ****s about organic food before I had the bad reactions. You can give me a non-organic apple that comes from anywhere. If it has been sprayed with pesticide I will have the same reaction. No, I don't have a scientific laboratory working on my personal behalf to give you a chemical analysis, but don't ****ing tell me that it's all in my head. If I have no idea, then you certainly don't.

Alrighty then.
I'm just saying that, the organic pesticides present in your body are in much more significant numbers.
Why do the plant produced pesticides not cause you the same problems?
I think your conflating correlation with causation is all.

It's possible that you're really allergic to those pesticides, but I wouldn't be the farm on it

Temporal said:
I'm not part of a movement. I just know what I like to eat and what doesn't cause my body to react, so stop white washing me like I'm part of some organic hippy cult. Every industry has pros and cons, gimmicks and realities. Like I mentioned before, if you do your research you'll know what's real and what's not.

Now you're backtracking and saying that some of it is legit, whereas before you said it's a gimmick. So are you actually acknowledging now that with consumer discernment, it's possible to get a better organic product? Which is - perhaps - what I said I do in the first place?

Maybe you should ask more questions instead of assuming you have all the answers. Just because something says "organic" on it does not mean I buy it or automatically think it's better. Is that sinking in yet? Or are you going to keep projecting your issues with organic food at me?

Some of it is legit, crop rotation and getting away from mono culture are legitimate parts of the organic movement.
It's just the whole, synthetic pesticides are bad thing is without support.

I haven't projected anything on you, you're just taking this really personal.

Harry Guerrilla · Feb 27, 2012

samsmart said:
Well even if that information got out there, I don't think it would make that much of a difference.

To make it personal for a moment, I don't like high fructose corn syrup. Now I hear all this stuff about how HFCS is just like sugar and it's really okay and all that stuff. But I don't care even if it's true. I'd rather have products sweetened with sugar or not consume those products at all. It's my choice.

And we can even go the other way with it too. For years we have put warning labels on cigarette packs and have forced tobacco companies to fund programs to help people quit using the products they put out. But people continue to use tobacco, and people will keep starting to use tobacco too.

And you're right in that those hybrid crops are what feed the majority of the world's population, as well as the use of pesticides. I've worked in the agricultural industry so I know how it works and the expenses involved and how necessary it is to get a crop as bountiful as possible.

But as long as people can afford to want something else, there's going to be a supplier for that something else. Which is usually the case anyways.

So, and not to be disrespectful or anything, but I don't see the point on continuing to argue this particular point, especially if most of the people in the thread do agree on this point, which seems to be the case.

The point of contention seems to be whether or not paying for organic food is stupid. Which, to me, seems like a really ****ing silly thing to argue about.

But, hey, we all need our vents, so have at it gents.

I'm for and against both sides of this.
The organic movement has some pluses and some minuses, same for Monsanto.

I just really think that the veil should be lift on the stupid crap in the organic movement, just like it has been with Monsanto.

Middleground · Feb 27, 2012

Harry, I love it that you're so confident you're right. But say you are not? I wouldn't be that confident. There's plenty of scientific proof you are not. And what is the price? If those who switch over to organic are wrong, then they are out a few bucks. A much better trade off than your health, don't you think?

And don't get me started on how modern agriculture has affected our enviroment...

jamesrage · Feb 27, 2012

Temporal said:
I don't see why organic farming is "dumb".

The fact it takes more land to grow the same amount of food that regular modern farming provides and in some cases may come from sources farther away than than the food that comes from regular modern farms thus using more fuel for transport.Yeah I can't of why anyone would think organic farming is dumb. Using more land and resources to produce a product as a means of protecting the environment makes as much sense and throwing more gasoline on a fire to put it out.

Temporal · Feb 27, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
I've provided links to scientific research.
Much better than a documentary.

You haven't proven anything though. You're just reiterating your consumer preference over and over.

Harry Guerrilla said:
You've never eaten an apple?
Apples contain traces of cyanide.

I don't eat apple seeds.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Alrighty then.
I'm just saying that, the organic pesticides present in your body are in much more significant numbers.

In my body? You don't know anything about what goes on in my body, and every body is different.

Check this out: http://www.healthanddna.com/Druglist.pdf

It's known liver enzyme pathways and how xenobiotics are processed. Some people have many copies of the same enzyme, making them rapid metabolisers; others have fewer copies or abnormal copies, making things more toxic to them. (If you know what drugs you react badly to, or don't react to at all, you can cross-correlate them on this list to the enzyme group and see how other drugs might affect you.)

And anyway, the study you put forth on natural pesticides is interesting, but I take it with a grain of salt. I know how my own body reacts to certain things and it does not react badly to organic vegetables.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Why do the plant produced pesticides not cause you the same problems?

That's a great research question, one that I am not qualified to answer. My assumption would be that natural is easier for the body to process and excrete than the synthetic, and that eating a diverse diet makes the body more efficient at excretion so that the burden of any single toxin is offset by the diet group.

A lot of plants contain known toxins but the rest of the plant contains enzymes that help the human body offset it. It's why I am skeptical of your "natural pesticides" paper. They are doing single chemical extracts instead of analyzing how the synergy of chemistries within a single plant could help to offset toxicity so that the net effect is harmless. It's the same mindset that they use when extracting the "medicinal ingredient" from plants and concentrating it to pharmaceutical grade. They are tossing out the rest of the plant which may have an interactive efffect that enhances the medicine.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I think your conflating correlation with causation is all.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. :shrug:

Harry Guerrilla said:
It's possible that you're really allergic to those pesticides, but I wouldn't be the farm on it.

So far eating organic works for me. And I mean real organic... not just because it's labelled "organic". I deal with whole foods only (i.e. lettuce, a potato, and not a pre-packaged meal that says "organic"). I've also had bad reactions to some "organic" food. I know which brands and which stores can be trusted in my area. Although some organic brands are lacking, I can tell you that I react badly to ALL non-organic fruit skins. So my discernment is mainly focused on the organic market - the non-organic is already written off in my books.

It's the consumer's responsibility to figure that out, and not rely on labelling.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Some of it is legit, crop rotation and getting away from mono culture are legitimate parts of the organic movement.
It's just the whole, synthetic pesticides are bad thing is without support.

I'm not a scientific researcher so I can't give you all the answers. I can only tell you that eating non-organic produce makes me sick. It has been verified by my doctor, and given my genetic variation of the CP450 group it likely has to do with the way my body processes some kind of surface contaminant. If it were "natural pesticides" then it would occur regardless if I eat organic or non-organic, and that would be classified as a food allergy. There are certainly foods I'm allergic to, but that kind of pathology is different.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I haven't projected anything on you, you're just taking this really personal.

What I'm taking personally is that you seem to think your consumer preferences are more in-the-know than anyone else's. What you choose to eat is your own business and I could care less. It's when you turn around and claim you know what's happening in my body that I take issue. That's arrogant, Harry. I find your deductions and faux certainties about organic food to mostly be rooted in opinion and not much fact; though the article about natural pesticides is interesting and I want to read it more in depth soon.

I acknowledge you've already made your consumer decision. We might just have to agree to disagree. :shrug:

Temporal · Feb 27, 2012

Bob Blaylock said:
I wonder if there's any such thing as “organic” tobacco.

There is. It does not have 5000 industry chemicals added to it to increase addiction and nicotine absorption. It's still carcinogenic though to smoke it.

Bob Blaylock said:
If tobacco is grown and processed according to “organic” methods, it would qualify as “organic”, would it not? And would you deny that this “organic” tobacco would be about as full of toxic chemicals as would be tobacco grown and processed according to the most modern methods?

It would still be toxic but not nearly as toxic or addictive as what the tobacco industry refines it to do.

Temporal · Feb 27, 2012

jamesrage said:
The fact it takes more land to grow the same amount of food that regular modern farming provides and in some cases may come from sources farther away than than the food that comes from regular modern farms thus using more fuel for transport.Yeah I can't of why anyone would think organic farming is dumb. Using more land and resources to produce a product as a means of protecting the environment makes as much sense and throwing more gasoline on a fire to put it out.

Our government burns millions of pounds of crop every year in order to affect market prices. It also engages in agricultural subsidies that artificially lower the prices of certain foods, such as corn which in turn is made into high fructose corn syrup or ethanol. Since the input cost to make corn is cheaper, the products that use corn syrup can be sold for cheaper, hence why junk food is cheaper than healthy food.

In reality, food costs more money than most people are paying for it because the government endorses certain industries. It's a myth that we do not have enough food to feed the world and that organic food is burdening the supply chain. What's burdening the supply chain is the market-controlling behaviors of government and the way food is traded between nations. As it stands we have enough annual food production to feed everyone in the world twice over, including food that is given away to poor countries. But those poor countries won't accept free grain because it lowers their own domestic price of grain, so their governments keep it out for economic purposes.

The rest of what you say doesn't make any sense because the industrial food industry does all of that. More land to produce an inferior product, monoculture that leads to increased diseases, environmental devastation that only the oil industry can rival, and a supply chain that stretches all over the world. The idea that organic requires more land to produce less is also a myth. The demand for organic has lead to sustainable models using modern technology because industries want to profit. Polyculture produces a superior product every time.

Rosie1 · Feb 27, 2012

I don't know about Cyanide in apples, but they do have traces of Arsenic. Even if they were organic, when it occurs naturally in the water, that can't be avoided. Also, it's a good idea to have well water tested, because it naturally occurs there.

Actually there's a good agument for keeping heirloom crops around, because the genetically modified crops can be vulnerable to diseases that the old varieties have resistance to. Look at the animal world and fish hatcheries for example. Studies found that threatened wild Salmon and Steedhead runs had lessened in some of our northwest rivers, due to increasing fish hatcheries. Now we are trying to release the wild fish that are caught and have lessenend hatcheries for those species. Some wild runs are improving.

I've got nothing against people who want to eat organic. I just wish it wasn't so expensive, and hard to find. We don't even have a decent Whole Foods store in our area. We know the chemicals stay in our bodies. Little kids with plastics and PCB in their systems can't be good, makes one wonder about long-term effects. There should be a better middle ground; mass produced cleanly, safely, with minmum chemicals.

Harry Guerrilla · Feb 27, 2012

Temporal said:
You haven't proven anything though. You're just reiterating your consumer preference over and over.

I provided two different articles with a ton of links to scientific research.

Temporal said:
I don't eat apple seeds.

You're missing the point.
Organic compounds, that are poisonous to humans, are no better than synthetic compounds.

There's a whole list of commonly eaten foods that can be poisonous to humans.
Potatoes, Rhubarb, Cherries, Apricots, Almonds, etc, etc.

Temporal said:
In my body? You don't know anything about what goes on in my body, and every body is different.

Check this out: http://www.healthanddna.com/Druglist.pdf

It's known liver enzyme pathways and how xenobiotics are processed. Some people have many copies of the same enzyme, making them rapid metabolisers; others have fewer copies or abnormal copies, making things more toxic to them. (If you know what drugs you react badly to, or don't react to at all, you can cross-correlate them on this list to the enzyme group and see how other drugs might affect you.)

And anyway, the study you put forth on natural pesticides is interesting, but I take it with a grain of salt. I know how my own body reacts to certain things and it does not react badly to organic vegetables.

Like I said, it's possible.
Organic poisons would still need to metabolize and would still cause you issues.

Temporal said:
That's a great research question, one that I am not qualified to answer. My assumption would be that natural is easier for the body to process and excrete than the synthetic, and that eating a diverse diet makes the body more efficient at excretion so that the burden of any single toxin is offset by the diet group.

A lot of plants contain known toxins but the rest of the plant contains enzymes that help the human body offset it. It's why I am skeptical of your "natural pesticides" paper. They are doing single chemical extracts instead of analyzing how the synergy of chemistries within a single plant could help to offset toxicity so that the net effect is harmless. It's the same mindset that they use when extracting the "medicinal ingredient" from plants and concentrating it to pharmaceutical grade. They are tossing out the rest of the plant which may have an interactive efffect that enhances the medicine.

It's really not.
The human body can process small amounts of any poisonous substance, whether organic or synthetic, the amount of toxic synthetic chemicals on plants is negligible compared to that of organic.

The other problem with your belief, is that people have become ill, after eating foods with organic poisons.
There is no natural enzyme neutralizer, it's about concentration of the poison.

Temporal said:
Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. :shrug:

Yep

Temporal said:
So far eating organic works for me. And I mean real organic... not just because it's labelled "organic". I deal with whole foods only (i.e. lettuce, a potato, and not a pre-packaged meal that says "organic"). I've also had bad reactions to some "organic" food. I know which brands and which stores can be trusted in my area. Although some organic brands are lacking, I can tell you that I react badly to ALL non-organic fruit skins. So my discernment is mainly focused on the organic market - the non-organic is already written off in my books.

It's the consumer's responsibility to figure that out, and not rely on labelling.

Well, I'm glad it suites you.
Everyone else who doesn't have reactions to it, is generally wasting their money.

I mean I could understand not wanting to buy food products from Monsanto, but there are competitors to them.

Temporal said:
I'm not a scientific researcher so I can't give you all the answers. I can only tell you that eating non-organic produce makes me sick. It has been verified by my doctor, and given my genetic variation of the CP450 group it likely has to do with the way my body processes some kind of surface contaminant. If it were "natural pesticides" then it would occur regardless if I eat organic or non-organic, and that would be classified as a food allergy. There are certainly foods I'm allergic to, but that kind of pathology is different.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk.
I'm just saying that some fruits and veggies never get the surface contaminate and that they are pre treated with these chemicals, before fruiting begins.
After rain and washing of them, there should be almost no surface based pesticides, if any existed on the fruit to begin with.

Temporal said:
What I'm taking personally is that you seem to think your consumer preferences are more in-the-know than anyone else's. What you choose to eat is your own business and I could care less. It's when you turn around and claim you know what's happening in my body that I take issue. That's arrogant, Harry. I find your deductions and faux certainties about organic food to mostly be rooted in opinion and not much fact; though the article about natural pesticides is interesting and I want to read it more in depth soon.

I acknowledge you've already made your consumer decision. We might just have to agree to disagree. :shrug:

I didn't say I know what's happening to your body, I said it's possible but I wouldn't bet on it.
That's not arrogant.

ecofarm · Feb 29, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
It can't replicate the yields for staple foods, that is needed to supply the world.
We're talking about a reduction of 30%+/-.

Organic biointensive food production can far out-yield conventional monocultures in kgs, nutrition and biodiversity. Can organics grow 1000 acres of corn as well? No. Why? Because that's not a natural system and sustaining such in virtually sand requires massive input, primarily in the form of oil (machinery and nitrogen fertilizer). It's not on-farm sustainable; it's not sustainble at all. The soil degradation (lack of organic matter for nutrient and water retention and erosion to start), destruction of biodiversity (the average desert is probably more biodiverse than an industrial monoculture), animal cruelty, nitrogen pollution via run-off and windborne erosion, pesticide use that impacts non-target organisms and destroys the soil biodiversity almost entirely when used as a fumigent, subtheraputic antibiotics as a standard procedure, water waste, mad cow, pissed-off chicken and angry pig...

Industrial monoculture agriculture (which is 99.9% of the food that goes to meat production) is not sustainable by any stretch. We don't need the facts that organic production results in animal products that are significantly more healthy and nutritious, soil building and water conservation, a biodiversity increase and potentially greater yield (per acre, not per single crop).

We don't need to consider that, ecologically an socially, organic farming is like a life-raft in the garbage flotilla of dependence, unsustainability and animal cruelty of such a tremendous and disgusting level that it undermines society's respect for life itself.

Forget about the economics, where the organic market has expanded drastically for two decades while most industrial farms survive via the Farm Bill. Local sales? Who cares, right. Beyond organics exists. It's not just a food, social, ecologic and for some spiritual movement (see especially, animal treatment). It's a way out of diabetes, obesity and the other plagues that threaten to topple the US healthcare system.

"Monocultures begin in the mind and are then transplanted to the land" -Vandana Shiva

We must decentralize the food, if we give a damn at all about sustainability. Doing so saved China and Cuba (to some extent), but the USSR was too late. The over-centralization and unsustainability of agriculture might be the largest factor in the fall of the USSR.

A lot of it tends to be a marketing gimmick too.

Some people want to upgrade their car, house or toy. I think upgrading ones food is best, socio-ecologic factors aside, and should be done first. We are what we eat.

ps. I'm pretty sure Monsanto has not existed for ~10 years (see: Pharmacia and somethingelse). The IP stuff borders on predatory and is adding insult to ecologic injury.

ecofarm · Mar 1, 2012

Industrial greenhouse flowers (S. America to US and Africa to EU) are perhaps unsurpassed in their effluent and highlight the toxic impact of conventional prodution upon farmers. The 'cut flower industry' is bizarre. So much death, destruction, cancer and water poisoning so that someone in the north can have pretty flowers for celebration. Such an ignorant world.

Andalublue · Mar 1, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture | Science Sushi, Scientific American Blog Network

I just read that and right at the top it says:

let me state unequivocally that I’m not saying organic farming is bad – far from it. There are some definite upsides and benefits that come from many organic farming methods. For example, the efforts of organic farmers to move away from monocultures, where crops are farmed in single-species plots, are fantastic; crop rotations and mixed planting are much better for the soil and environment.

So, your sources aren't saying that organic farming is dumb. Might your emotions be clouding your reason with a bit of hyperbole?

Andalublue · Mar 1, 2012

Excellent thread, btw. I'm going to do some more reading and checking and write again, but first I've got 300kg of mule s*** to dig into my beds. Laters!

Willie Nelson: "Occupy the Food System"

Bob Blaylock

Electrician

Lord Tammerlain

Harry Guerrilla

Harry Guerrilla

Middleground

2-Lipped Beaver!

jamesrage

Temporal

Temporal

Temporal

Rosie1

Harry Guerrilla

ecofarm

global liberation

ecofarm

global liberation

Andalublue

Hello again!

Andalublue

Hello again!