Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Eating Localy

  1. #1 Eating Localy 
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    What effects does eating locally have on your health? other than it being allowed to ripen more, being fresher, less chemicals(generally) and helping local economy(and thus your own finances indirectly)

    What I am curious about is whether or not there is an evolutionary basis for eating locally. Whether eating something from a curtain area will help you better adapt to the peculiarities of that area. Also, will eating seasonally help you adapt to the peculiarities of that season?

    I'd like to have faith in the idiom "nature provides what nature needs" but am curious what people think and if there has been any real research done on the subject.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I personally think GMOs are the solution to all the worlds problems.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Eating locally is a bit of a joke. We now eat foods that are sourced from all over the world. Even those that are grown locally almost certainly evolved elsewhere. For example : potatoes and tomatoes from South America.

    The human species evolved as herbivores, and our 'natural' state involved eating a very wide range of foods. The healthiest way to eat today is to consume as wide a variety as possible of fruits, vegetables, and nuts. This is not possible if you insist on eating locally. The healthiest diet will include imported non seasonal foods for the extra variety and extra nutrients.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Eating Localy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    What effects does eating locally have on your health? other than it being allowed to ripen more, being fresher, less chemicals(generally) and helping local economy(and thus your own finances indirectly)

    What I am curious about is whether or not there is an evolutionary basis for eating locally. Whether eating something from a curtain area will help you better adapt to the peculiarities of that area. Also, will eating seasonally help you adapt to the peculiarities of that season?

    I'd like to have faith in the idiom "nature provides what nature needs" but am curious what people think and if there has been any real research done on the subject.
    Eating locally increases the chances that what you are eating is fresh, not waxed or ripened off the vine, not preserved for shipment, and so on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Eating honey locally can help build resistance to certain things in your area.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    alot of perception with no data. Where do you get it's "fresher" and has fewer "chemicals" (whatever that means in this context.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I have always had a lot of scepticism towards the widespread view that 'natural is better'. There is a little bit of truth in that if you work on the general premise that what humans evolved to do is what is best health wise. However, when you start extending that principle towards anything that is perceived as 'natural', it is really easy to trip up into error.

    For example : local foods being best. Why should this be? What is there about an imported tomato eaten in the off season that is unhealthy? Answer : Nothing. Tomatoes are very healthy foods, regardless of where they are grown. The only observable difference is ripeness, and that can be obtained simply by keeping unripe tomatoes in a bowl for a few days to ripen.

    Healthy eating depends heavily on variety, and if the best way to get variety is to eat imported fruits, vegetables, and nuts, then go for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Eating honey locally can help build resistance to certain things in your area.
    I've heard this said before and it is not entirely implausible but is there actual evidence for it? I think the specific claim is that it induces allergic tolerance to the pollen of local flower species. We do have a tendency to tolerise in response to some ingested antigens, but that doesn't make this claim true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I have seen all sorts of claims for honey, and royal jelly etc. The only claims that stand up scientifically relate to the use of some honeys as topical dressings on wounds. Bees secrete a preservative into honey, and the high sugar content makes honey osmotically hostile to bacteria. Both these qualities keep honey fresh. In addition, some plants also produce natural preservatives, and if these end up in the honey, that honey becomes quite a good antiseptic. Difficult leg ulcers in the elderly, for example, have been healed by applying honey onto a poultice. This keeps infection at bay, permitting healing.

    However, ingesting honey destroys those properties. Eating honey really does not seem to confer much in the way of health benefits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Vine ripening increases the concentration of lycopenes and other healthful compounds relative to off-vine ripening. For one example see:

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    radical
    I could not, for some reason, access your reference.
    There are heaps of measurements of that type. Generally the difference is trivial. The most important points in healthy eating are :
    1. Avoid the nasties such as excesss salt, sugar, saturated fat, and starch with no fibre.
    2. Get lots of variety.

    When you eat a few favourite foods, you may get ample amounts of certain nutrients. However, beyond a point, it all becomes useless. For example : Vitamin C is needed at the amount of 50 mgms per day per average person. If you consume 100 mgms, then the surplus is excreted and just places an extra load on your kidneys.

    There are about 50 essential nutrients, including all the vitamins, and minerals. In addition, it is good to get adequate protein, unsaturated fats, plus some antioxidants. Standard starch and saturated fat is good in the right dose, though not in excess.

    To get everything you need in the right quantities, instead of a lot of useless surplus of a few nutrients, you need a wide range of foods. This is something our hunter-gatherer ancestors got by picking and eating every damn edible thing they could as they moved. We have to make an extra effort to get that variety.

    Eating vine ripened tomato and getting a tiny bit extra lycopene is quite useless. Instead, eat a small amount of tomato from any source, a small amount of berry fruit, a small amount of other fruits, grapes, apples, citrus, or whatever, plus nuts, green, yellow, white, and rainbow coloured vegetables. The individual merits of any one fruit, vegetable or nut are almost utterly irrelevent. Get the variety.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Eating honey locally can help build resistance to certain things in your area.
    I've heard this said before and it is not entirely implausible but is there actual evidence for it? I think the specific claim is that it induces allergic tolerance to the pollen of local flower species. We do have a tendency to tolerise in response to some ingested antigens, but that doesn't make this claim true.
    From The Boston Globe:

    Does eating 'local honey' help prevent allergies?

    By Judy Foreman
    June 23, 2008

    It's an intriguing idea, but even a staunch advocate of honey for this use acknowledges that there's virtually no published, scientific evidence to support his view.

    Tom Ogren, a California horticulturalist and botanist (tloallergyfree@earthlink.net) who advocates local honey (meaning honey harvested within a few miles of where you live), said that bees in any given area "will visit all the flowers that produce pollen" in that area and that this honey will therefore contain pollen from the plants you frequently encounter and may be allergic to.

    "If you take small amounts daily, it's like getting allergy shots" because you may become desensitized to the pollens, he said. "I hear from people who are crazy about the results they get" from this, he added.

    But as for real data? Zilch. "You can't get a big bee company to do research because it [the honey] has to be local," he said. Ogren acknowledged that any pollen in local honey could also trigger the very allergies a person is hoping to ward off.

    Dr. Leonard Bielory, an allergist and immunologist at UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, said that while "there are no controlled studies of a clinical effect" of local honey to combat allergies, "I do believe there is something to it." There have been reports in the medical literature of people who have gotten contact dermatitis from eating honey that came from bees that had pollinated nearby poison ivy plants. "This is exactly the point. You can get positive and negative effects.

    "However, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes - not evidence," he said.

    All of which is not to say that honey is without potential medical benefits. It does have small antimicrobial effects when put on the skin, said Bielory, as well as natural substances that prevent mold growth. After all, sugar and water left out on the counter will eventually get moldy, but honey won't.

    And it's great for coughs. Honey has been shown to be "safer and more effective than cough medicines for calming cough in young children," said Dr. Frank Twarog, an allergist and clinical professor at Harvard Medical School.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Eating honey locally can help build resistance to certain things in your area.
    I've heard this said before and it is not entirely implausible but is there actual evidence for it? I think the specific claim is that it induces allergic tolerance to the pollen of local flower species. We do have a tendency to tolerise in response to some ingested antigens, but that doesn't make this claim true.
    From The Boston Globe:

    Does eating 'local honey' help prevent allergies?

    By Judy Foreman
    June 23, 2008

    It's an intriguing idea, but even a staunch advocate of honey for this use acknowledges that there's virtually no published, scientific evidence to support his view.

    Tom Ogren, a California horticulturalist and botanist (tloallergyfree@earthlink.net) who advocates local honey (meaning honey harvested within a few miles of where you live), said that bees in any given area "will visit all the flowers that produce pollen" in that area and that this honey will therefore contain pollen from the plants you frequently encounter and may be allergic to.

    "If you take small amounts daily, it's like getting allergy shots" because you may become desensitized to the pollens, he said. "I hear from people who are crazy about the results they get" from this, he added.

    But as for real data? Zilch. "You can't get a big bee company to do research because it [the honey] has to be local," he said. Ogren acknowledged that any pollen in local honey could also trigger the very allergies a person is hoping to ward off.

    Dr. Leonard Bielory, an allergist and immunologist at UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, said that while "there are no controlled studies of a clinical effect" of local honey to combat allergies, "I do believe there is something to it." There have been reports in the medical literature of people who have gotten contact dermatitis from eating honey that came from bees that had pollinated nearby poison ivy plants. "This is exactly the point. You can get positive and negative effects.

    "However, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes - not evidence," he said.

    All of which is not to say that honey is without potential medical benefits. It does have small antimicrobial effects when put on the skin, said Bielory, as well as natural substances that prevent mold growth. After all, sugar and water left out on the counter will eventually get moldy, but honey won't.

    And it's great for coughs. Honey has been shown to be "safer and more effective than cough medicines for calming cough in young children," said Dr. Frank Twarog, an allergist and clinical professor at Harvard Medical School.
    So, a big fat no then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Eating Localy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Skeptic,

    The original post:

    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    What effects does eating locally have on your health? other than it being allowed to ripen more, being fresher, less chemicals(generally) and helping local economy(and thus your own finances indirectly)

    What I am curious about is whether or not there is an evolutionary basis for eating locally. Whether eating something from a curtain area will help you better adapt to the peculiarities of that area. Also, will eating seasonally help you adapt to the peculiarities of that season?

    I'd like to have faith in the idiom "nature provides what nature needs" but am curious what people think and if there has been any real research done on the subject.
    is a request for evidence that local food is superior, in terms of health benefits, to non-local foods. There is evidence that methods of food transport, off-vine ripening, and so on, result in an inferior product when compared to locally-grown produce. I am unaware of any reports to the contrary: in which produce grown elsewhere is superior to the same produce grown locally, in controlled studies. This correlation between local produce and food quality has little bearing on the question of whether variety and circumspection are important to a healthful diet, a point in which you are certainly correct.

    ~~~~

    Separately, having re-read the original question, I would add that some health consequences follow on the heels of the introduction of new diets. This phenomenon gets to the evolutionary part of the original post.

    Several studies have shown secular increases in obesity during the past 35 years, and others have reported increases in dietary fat consumption during the same period. Here we report a dramatic increase in obesity among Pima Indians born after World War II that appears to be associated with increased exposure to Western customs and diet following 1945. We examined the body mass index (BMI = weight in kilograms/height2 in meters) of 1,128 male and 1,372 female Pima Indians aged 15-65 years who were born between 1901 and 1964 and were examined between 1965 and 1990. We found large increases in BMI among Pima Indian men and women in post-World War II birth cohorts (1945 and later). The parallel changes in body mass index, dietary fat, and exposure to Western culture following World War II suggest that culturally mediated changes in diet and level of physical activity associated with modern industrialized society may have led to the large increases in obesity in the Pima Indians and to smaller parallel changes observed worldwide in westernized countries. 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To free radical
    If a new diet includes McDonald's I certainly agree there are negative consequences.

    The diet I recommend, and which professional nutritionists recommend includes balance and variety. If the diet is unbalanced (eg. too much saturated fats), then the consequences are harmful.

    I have seen no proper scientific evidence that local foods confer any special benefits. Pointing out that one specific food might have more of one specific nutrient is not such evidence. It is the sum total of all 50 necessary vitamins and minerals, plus protein, starch, fibre, fats, antioxidants etc., that determine how healthy your diet is. As I have tried to say, this sum total is neither helped or harmed by eating local foods. If eating locally reduces the variety, though, the result is harmful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Like free radical claiming (but providing NO) data that transportation from non local sources gave a product inferior and then claiming that he/she's seen no evidence to the contrary.
    Let's not forget that local transport and stor4age may be under fewer controls with less health standards enforced than interstate transport.

    Let's have the comparative data free radical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Eating honey locally can help build resistance to certain things in your area.
    I've heard this said before and it is not entirely implausible but is there actual evidence for it? I think the specific claim is that it induces allergic tolerance to the pollen of local flower species. We do have a tendency to tolerise in response to some ingested antigens, but that doesn't make this claim true.
    From The Boston Globe:

    Does eating 'local honey' help prevent allergies?

    By Judy Foreman
    June 23, 2008

    It's an intriguing idea, but even a staunch advocate of honey for this use acknowledges that there's virtually no published, scientific evidence to support his view.

    Tom Ogren, a California horticulturalist and botanist (tloallergyfree@earthlink.net) who advocates local honey (meaning honey harvested within a few miles of where you live), said that bees in any given area "will visit all the flowers that produce pollen" in that area and that this honey will therefore contain pollen from the plants you frequently encounter and may be allergic to.

    "If you take small amounts daily, it's like getting allergy shots" because you may become desensitized to the pollens, he said. "I hear from people who are crazy about the results they get" from this, he added.

    But as for real data? Zilch. "You can't get a big bee company to do research because it [the honey] has to be local," he said. Ogren acknowledged that any pollen in local honey could also trigger the very allergies a person is hoping to ward off.

    Dr. Leonard Bielory, an allergist and immunologist at UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, said that while "there are no controlled studies of a clinical effect" of local honey to combat allergies, "I do believe there is something to it." There have been reports in the medical literature of people who have gotten contact dermatitis from eating honey that came from bees that had pollinated nearby poison ivy plants. "This is exactly the point. You can get positive and negative effects.

    "However, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes - not evidence," he said.

    All of which is not to say that honey is without potential medical benefits. It does have small antimicrobial effects when put on the skin, said Bielory, as well as natural substances that prevent mold growth. After all, sugar and water left out on the counter will eventually get moldy, but honey won't.

    And it's great for coughs. Honey has been shown to be "safer and more effective than cough medicines for calming cough in young children," said Dr. Frank Twarog, an allergist and clinical professor at Harvard Medical School.
    So, a big fat no then.
    It's a big fat no, yet someone needs to study this!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    It's a big fat no, yet someone needs to study this!!!
    Perhaps and maybe it's even under way, but I'd imagine that this would be a really difficult one to test. How do we initially determine what panel of antigens the honey is potentially tolerising us to so that we can select antigens to test and retest the allergies of our subjects? How do we ensure that the honey we use in the trial is consistent enough to maintain not just the same panel of antigens throughout, but the same levels and states of processing (ie cleavage, conformation etc.). How do we produce enough of such rigorously normalised and consistent honey for an adequate study group of greater than 100 people? What controls would be meaningful here? How do we make honey that has none of these potentially tolerising antigens to use as an adequate placebo (it has to have the same colour, smell, taste and consistency as the test honey).

    To get statistically meaningful data out of this, I think would be a huge challenge. I'm not surprised at the reluctance to test this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Jorge1907
    You asked: "Where do you get it's "fresher" and has fewer "chemicals""

    You are looking for research, I am too, but without it we must decide for ourselves based on all available evidence.

    For one example I will use bananas. If you look on the side of one of them "chiquita" brand banana boxes it will say "thiabendazole and/or imazalil or azoxystrobin applied to maintain freshness." Now I'm assuming those are chemicals.

    This is both a good and a bad example. It is bad because I don't have any locally grown bananas to compare them too. If anyone does please comment. It is good because they specifically use the word "freshness" and also because the bananas I see at the store are STILL premature, as are: peaches, pears, avocados, nectarines, plums, tomatoes, mangoes, to name a few. The bananas came from Guatamala, I live in Maine, that is more than 2000 miles. Most likely they are trucked to the port from the plantation, shipped to to somewhere in new england and trucked to the strore. I don't know how fast ships move so don't know how long it takes the bananas to get here, but never the less, they are picked well before ripening fully. ONe can ASSUME, though of course one may be wrong, that allowing something to ripen longer will leave it with more nutrients. Assumptions aside, allowing it to ripen longer will make it more flavorful and have a better texture, of course, that is open to opinion. You can ask the fruit flies for their objectivity.

    From the information on the side of a banana box we can determine that said "chemicals" keep the fruit "fresher." One can assume, and I do often, that other things are preserved in shipment as well. The chemicals are probably not ingested in any serious degree, since the skin of the banana is usually pealed off, and other fruits are usually washed, but it is open to debate. Do the chemicals penetrate the skin? Do the chemicals penetrate YOUR skin when you handle the fruit?

    I do not mean to imply any of what I beleve to be fact. That is why I'm asking questions and sharing what I know. I know there isn't much research, I've looked, telling me there is no evidence doesn't help me find evidence. Thank you that actually had something useful.



    I want to study this personally. I don't know how exactly, because it's such a broad subject. I guess the most relevant thing to look into is how wild plants of the same species differ from each other in different climates. There are a lot of generalities that would need to be made to even begin to test this. I don't even know if there is a way to do so, there are just far too many variables.

    I'm an adamant locavore anyway. Health is not my main concern when it comes to eating locally, but I'm ever curious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The statements about food containing chemicals is the biggest red herring ever invented.

    ALL food contains chemicals. Some of the chemicals - the ones in greatest quantity - are totally 'natural', whicle others, usually in very tiny amounts, may be synthetic.

    The green parts of potatoes contain a very toxic alkaloid poison called solanine. If you eat a meal of potato leaves, you will get very sick or die. Solanine is also a part of the potato tuber, though in much lower amounts. It is more abundant in bits of potato tuber that go green, and if you eat these, you may become sick. Even in a 'healthy' totally white potato, the toxic solanine will be present in quantities far greater than any synthetic chemical - whether pesticide or not. This matters not at all, since even at those greater amounts, the level of toxic solanine is too low to harm you. Just avoid the green.

    In the same way, pesticide residues and the like are present in quantities too low to harm you. If it were not so, the various food safety regulatory authorities around the world (not just the FDA) would ban those substances. If a crop has been sprayed, there is a minimum period of time that is required before those items can be marketed. Over that time, the residues fall in quantity to a level that is harmless.

    In New Zealand, we have the NZ Food Safety Authority, which chemically analyses foods for pesticides etc. Their test methods are sensitive to about one part per trillion. And even at that, about half their tests come back as 'no detectable residue'. In the cases where residues are found, it is rare indeed for them to detect more than one part per million, which is a harmless amount.

    Most 'natural' foods contain nasty chemical poisons, which are totally natural to those plants. Tomatoes contain a poison called Tomatin. Celery and parsnips contain a family of very toxic chemicals called psoralins. Even lettuce contains a substance that is toxic. It can be concentrated by scraping the lettuce shoot at the base, and collecting the oozate. That poison was used by the ancient Romans as a soporific. One of its toxic effects is to put people to sleep. Sometimes they did not wake up! (Modern lettuces have a lot less of this toxin compared to the ones the Romans used).

    There are people who are hung up on 'organic' food because they believe it has no chemicals. What a joke! Organic agriculture involves the addition of chemicals also - just ones that meet the approval of various organic regulatory committees, which does not mean they are 'safe'. Derris dust is a commonly used 'organic' insecticide made by grinding up the roots of the derris plant. It contains the very toxic chemical 'rotenone', which has been indicted as a probable cause of Parkinson's disease. Copper sulphate is used as a fungicide spray. it is known to cause total liver failure. It also kills earthworms, and is thus ecologically most unsafe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    The chemicals listed on the banana box are not sprayed on them during growing. They are sprayed on them for shipment.

    Im an Animalist, Not in the traditional sense, but I hold onto the idea that you are what you eat. I don't want to be geneticaly modified to fulfill my designed purpose, I would rather die of a fungal infection.

    I don't need proof to justify reason, but I do need proof to know it's wrong.

    There are more reasons to eat organically than the lack of chemicals, and if anyone thinks ANYTHING lacks chemicals they obviously don't know what a chemical is. Some people like organics because they aren't geneticaly modified, and dispite legislative backing, there are doubts as to the effect of geneticly modified foods on populations. Other people like organic because they taste better, I can't say for sure if I agree with that. I like organics because of the effects of chemicals on the ecosystem, not my health. Many non organic chemicals are synthetics made from petroleum.

    I like local foods also, because of the effect on the ecosystem, not my health. They do not travel as far and so I'm using less petroleum by eating local.

    I also don't eat meat because of the amount of CO2 the massive clear cutting of forests, transporting of food, waste and meat. It just doesn't make sense, the amount of food a cow eats compared to the amount of food a cow provides is just plain an idiotic exchange. Just like buying food from 2000 miles away when I can eat something growing in my backyard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Marcus
    You are expressing a false dichotomy. That is, making the following distinction :
    Organic agriculture = environmentally friendly
    Conventional agriculture = environmentally unfriendly

    This is false. It is nowhere near so simple. Environmentally friendly and environmentally unfriendly techniques exist in both types of agriculture.

    For example : the use of copper sulphate which I described in my earlier post - something done only in organic agriculture - is extremely environmentally unfriendly. Copper sulphate is non biodegradable, and highly toxic to earthworms. Regular sprayings result in destruction of soils. Regular sprayings of copper sulphate are common in organic orchards.

    Some conventional agriculture are very environmentally friendly. For example : no-till cultivation of soya beans, now becoming very popular in this area of agriculture, leads to a build up of organic matter in soils, and a thickening of top soil. That is : environmentally friendly.

    If your interest is to support environmentally friendly agriculture, you will not do it simply by buying organic. You would need to do an awful lot of research to find the sources of environmentally friendly food production.

    The idea that local foods are more environmentally friendly is also oversimplistic. My country, New Zealand, exports dairy products all over the world. Compared to places like England, and in the USA, the dairy state - Michigan - we use one third of the fossil fuels to produce a pound of butter. Ditto for meat production. Even after taking into account the fuel used to transport our meat and butter half way round the world, the carbon cost per pound from NZ produce is less than local.

    To determine which foods are more environmentally friendly, you need to find out the environmental cost of the agricultural methods used. As a general rule, warmer places use less fuel, and thus emit less carbon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Since we've changed the topic of the thread lets continue.

    I just read up on it and I understand now how different production techniques are used in different areas. But this does not take into account more modern techniques that may be seen as "alternative" or are different than the usual industrial practices of the area. For example, a small time farmer who uses raised beds and containers to grow veggies. Using vermiculite and/or chicken crap, made with table scraps. Recycling water from roof tops when it rains. Tending to maybe an acre of land, which is about as much as one man would ever want to do alone without a tractor. there is no need for a tractor since nothing is tilled. Rotating crops and growing things just to let them die to firtilize and airate the soil every 3 years or so. It is sold out front on a stand made from recycled lumber.

    This sort of thing isn't even on the same level as super efficient free market industries. It isn't taken into account for the obvious reason that it isn't that common and so doesn't have much of an impact on the world. This sort of thing generally isn't' on the market either but there is no reason it can't be other than the fact that most people live in urban areas, don't have anywhere to garden and/or have never been introduced to agriculture. Unless they have a passion for it, it seems that most people will never grow any of their own food. Not even one plant, ever in their life. And that is a shame.

    Before industrialized agriculture half of all American families survived by farming, maybe other countries too. Before land ownership, many people would grow food just to survive, not to sell. Once people started owning land, subsistence farmers had to grow more in order to sell, so they could pay rent. Ever since industrialization took over, there is less of a need for farmers and more of a need for land and technology. The root of society is quite literally agriculture. I beleve that it is our distance from our roots that causes such anxiety and depression, people don't trust authority because in an urban setting, many are drawn into media lies and our false ideas about "organic" products. I have always heard that some organic products are not actually organic, and have always had a problem with the hypocrisy of organic food in non-organic packaging. But anyway, I guess you further motivate me to start my own farm, if I sell anything I will not advertise it as "organic" although it will be(and not with any copper sulphate crap or any other crap, other than bird and worm crap), I will advertise it as "hand made" I think that will work better anyway, a big sign that says "hand made veggies" i think it's funny anyway, i don't know if anyone else will
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Nicely worded, Marcus.

    Most 'organic' food in supermarkets are produced by giant agricultural corporations. It is a mega million dollar business. Giant organic farms have massive rows of produce being cultivated by enormous tractors running up and down the rows (air conditioned cabins), belching out CO2. More importantly, they are digging up the soil to aerate it, and remove weeds, because organic dogma prevents them from using herbicides - even ones as harmless as glyphosate. When you so effectively aerate soils, you oxidise the organic portions, letting them compost down, releasing CO2 and reducing the amount of top soil left.

    Organic farms top up the top soil by harvesting grasses or animal dung elsewhere, composting it, and plowing it back into the soil. This is well and good, but is done at the expense of the soils from which that material is harvested.

    Conventional agriculture is, of course, just as bad. That is why I say that environmentally friendly/unfriendly agriculture does not depend on whether it is organic or not. There are many friendly techniqus that can be, and are applied by both kinds of agriculture. Responsible agriculture can be done by either kind, as can irresponsible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907
    Like free radical claiming (but providing NO) data that transportation from non local sources gave a product inferior and then claiming that he/she's seen no evidence to the contrary.
    Let's not forget that local transport and stor4age may be under fewer controls with less health standards enforced than interstate transport.

    Let's have the comparative data free radical.
    You are free to do the search, Jorge, here's a start old mate!

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...fit%22&spell=1


    You are also free to provide any evidence that transported food is as healthy as on-vine ripened local and so on. Of course, I would not be so crude as to ask you to do a search that I could well do myself were I so inclined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •