I’m hoping somebody important is keeping a detailed list…
Demagafication needs to be priority #1 of the next administration, even before reforming the parts of the system that were already broken or flawed before he took over…
There is a podcast called Cleanup On Isle 45, it started when Trump lost the first time, and it was all about the cleanup after his disaster of a first term. It was quite satisfying, even though the through-line was “don’t relax, it’s not over”. I stopped listening when the second trump hit the towers. If there will ever be a democratic president, I can imagine the new season will be very satisfying.
It’s funny how just the other day I was arguing with someone who was trying to claim that “organic” is just a meaningless label designed to dupe people into spending more on groceries…
People who buy organic are trying to avoid precisely this kind of shit.
Hold up. Organic just means containing carbon which is the building block of life.
This leads to a strange statement like organic farmers shun organic pesticides.
Only that isn’t actually the truth. Oganic farmers can still use pesticides. There is some nuance here but for the most part organic farmers use 30% less pesticides. In some circumstances organic farmers may even apply more pesticides than a regular farmer on a single spraying.
There are certain pesticides that are approved for organic farmers. I don’t know the details of the chemistry or whether those pesticides are actually organic, but there’s a whole list of pesticides that aren’t allowed if you want the organic label. I can only assume the ones mentioned here are or will be among them.
Sure, Monsanto has shady business practices and uses biased internal studies to get “organic” versions of things that are still harmful, but that’s a Monsanto issue and an issue with the politicians who have Monsanto in their pockets. Same deal with roundup being labeled “safe” for household use even though independent studies say otherwise.
But if you want to make this about semantics, then “organic” means “containing carbon which is the building block of life” when you’re talking about chemistry. When you’re talking about geometry, organic means something different. When you’re talking about processes, organic means something different. I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to say organic also means something different when talking about food labels, especially when the definition in that context is clearly defined by legislation/regulatory policy.
If you don’t know the pesticides then who is to say they are worse or better. Having studied this myself I would not tout organic farming as anything else than slightly better in some ways but not all.
They use copper sulfate which causes heavy metal buildup that leads to liver damage and kidney disease.
They used to use rotenone but it caused mitochondria damage leading to Parkinson’s
They use pytherins that are highly toxic to insect but the FDA considers “not likely to cause human cancer”.
They use Spinosad which is minimally toxic to mammals.
The thing is though they often have to use much more of these comparatively to regular farming. Essentially you can be trading slightly more environmental damage for slightly less human poisoning.
There is no doubt Monsanto’s products have always caused cancer, they knew this from the start very reminiscent of big tobacco and oil. While they do criticize organic farming bringing them up as a shield of criticism for organic farming is disturbing to say the least.
Using the proper definition of a word is not fucking semantics. Organic is meant to mean natural in marketing terms which is based off its actual definition of containing carbon. I am not sure why you insist on caring water for organic farmers.
I will be frank, we need much better systems than the current organic farming scheme. It is not even arguably better because of the trade offs with environmental degredation.
My whole point was that “the proper definition” of a word changes based on context or domain.
“Field” can mean a place where you grow crops, or a place where you play sports. Which one is “the proper definition”?
“Organic” has multiple “proper definitions” based on what you’re talking about.
Also, it does not mean “natural” in marketing terms. “Natural” has no regulatory definition; “organic” does.
I’m not arguing that we can’t approve improve the agricultural systems writ large. That’s something that we must do. But complaining about organic farming is something I mostly hear from conservatives who also deny climate change and think industrial farming is the only way to feed a civilization.
I like how you want to lecture about context or domain and then say organic is not meant to mean natural in marketing terms. You clearly don’t get it. That is okay.
I am not fucking complaining. This is called criticism. Stop carrying water for organic farming techniques. To say we can develop something far better is a dramatic understatement.
Context does matter. I’m sure when I select “organic tree supports” in the slicer software for 3D printing, it’s not talking about organic chemistry. It’s talking about organic geometry.
When you say a group or event develops organically, you’re not talking about chemistry. You’re talking about how it wasn’t centrally planned but more grew on its own.
It’s not that strange for a word to have multiple potential definitions depending on how it’s being used, so talking about the definition of organic used in chemistry to refute all other uses of the term, as if it were the only possible definition, is not a good argument.
And it’s hilarious that you’re trying to draw a false equivalence between “organic” and “natural” when one has a precise regulatory definition, and the other doesn’t.
Anyway, you’re on a thread about the trump admin approving dangerous chemicals for use in food production. If those chemicals somehow make their way onto a list of being approved for organic produce, I’ll eat my shoes.
organic farmers use different kinds of pesticide if they use pesticide
they need to use non-pesticide methods first, and any pesticide use is heavily regulated
while some of the organic and limited synthetic pesticides could and do have potential human health implications, the vast majority of the synthetic pesticides used on conventional produce are widely recognized as probably having some damaging impacts on humans eating produce contaminated by them.
As a result
Conventional vegetables were contaminated with 2 to 17 times as many pesticides as were organic vegetables. Conventional fruits were contaminated with 6–75 times as many pesticides as organic fruits.
The dietary risk index was more than 50 times higher for conventional vegetables than for organic vegetables, and more than 130 times higher for conventional fruits.
Don’t both sides this. The person saying buying organic is just raising your grocery bill without changing your pesticide exposure or risks is objectively, factually wrong.
If you haven’t studied this then trying a gotcha is pretty dumb.
Slightly less exposure to chemicals and a higher impact on the environment isn’t always the win you think it is.
Don’t turn this into a both sides issue. Stop carrying water for organic farming practices when you don’t know what the fuck you are even talking about!
I notice that’s one of the favorite catch phrases of people who get called out on their projection.
Like if you can just ridicule someone for pointing out that you’re actually the one doing the thing you’re accusing them of, then it must invalidate their arguments, right?
The chemical world is incredibly complex. We have a hard time modeling for two chemicals reacting let alone several different chemicals inside the human body.
This means if I am exposed to a different chemical profile than you a chemical could cause me cancer but not you.
We are still a long way from being able to model these complex interactions between several chemicals we are exposed to.
That is why you setup a regulatory system like the EU where chemicals are first proven safe before being used and quickly pulled even if correlation is showing a trend.
This as opposed to the US system where all chemicals are great until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause enormous problems and even then still allowed or phased out only to be brought back later.
RetroFed
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
Actually they’re so hopped up on ivermectin they’re invincible now. That’s why they’re not worried 😌
Is someone writing all this down? So you can like, fix the world after it was completely broken by Trump? I doubt you can remember all of this stuff.
I’m hoping somebody important is keeping a detailed list…
Demagafication needs to be priority #1 of the next administration, even before reforming the parts of the system that were already broken or flawed before he took over…
There is a podcast called Cleanup On Isle 45, it started when Trump lost the first time, and it was all about the cleanup after his disaster of a first term. It was quite satisfying, even though the through-line was “don’t relax, it’s not over”. I stopped listening when the second trump hit the towers. If there will ever be a democratic president, I can imagine the new season will be very satisfying.
It’s funny how just the other day I was arguing with someone who was trying to claim that “organic” is just a meaningless label designed to dupe people into spending more on groceries…
People who buy organic are trying to avoid precisely this kind of shit.
Hold up. Organic just means containing carbon which is the building block of life.
This leads to a strange statement like organic farmers shun organic pesticides.
Only that isn’t actually the truth. Oganic farmers can still use pesticides. There is some nuance here but for the most part organic farmers use 30% less pesticides. In some circumstances organic farmers may even apply more pesticides than a regular farmer on a single spraying.
https://rozenbergquarterly.com/do-organic-farms-use-pesticides-how-organic-and-conventional-farming-differ/
So the person you were arguing with isn’t completely wrong and you are not completely right.
There are certain pesticides that are approved for organic farmers. I don’t know the details of the chemistry or whether those pesticides are actually organic, but there’s a whole list of pesticides that aren’t allowed if you want the organic label. I can only assume the ones mentioned here are or will be among them.
Sure, Monsanto has shady business practices and uses biased internal studies to get “organic” versions of things that are still harmful, but that’s a Monsanto issue and an issue with the politicians who have Monsanto in their pockets. Same deal with roundup being labeled “safe” for household use even though independent studies say otherwise.
But if you want to make this about semantics, then “organic” means “containing carbon which is the building block of life” when you’re talking about chemistry. When you’re talking about geometry, organic means something different. When you’re talking about processes, organic means something different. I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to say organic also means something different when talking about food labels, especially when the definition in that context is clearly defined by legislation/regulatory policy.
If you don’t know the pesticides then who is to say they are worse or better. Having studied this myself I would not tout organic farming as anything else than slightly better in some ways but not all.
They use copper sulfate which causes heavy metal buildup that leads to liver damage and kidney disease.
They used to use rotenone but it caused mitochondria damage leading to Parkinson’s
They use pytherins that are highly toxic to insect but the FDA considers “not likely to cause human cancer”.
They use Spinosad which is minimally toxic to mammals.
The thing is though they often have to use much more of these comparatively to regular farming. Essentially you can be trading slightly more environmental damage for slightly less human poisoning.
There is no doubt Monsanto’s products have always caused cancer, they knew this from the start very reminiscent of big tobacco and oil. While they do criticize organic farming bringing them up as a shield of criticism for organic farming is disturbing to say the least.
Using the proper definition of a word is not fucking semantics. Organic is meant to mean natural in marketing terms which is based off its actual definition of containing carbon. I am not sure why you insist on caring water for organic farmers.
I will be frank, we need much better systems than the current organic farming scheme. It is not even arguably better because of the trade offs with environmental degredation.
My whole point was that “the proper definition” of a word changes based on context or domain.
“Field” can mean a place where you grow crops, or a place where you play sports. Which one is “the proper definition”?
“Organic” has multiple “proper definitions” based on what you’re talking about.
Also, it does not mean “natural” in marketing terms. “Natural” has no regulatory definition; “organic” does.
I’m not arguing that we can’t
approveimprove the agricultural systems writ large. That’s something that we must do. But complaining about organic farming is something I mostly hear from conservatives who also deny climate change and think industrial farming is the only way to feed a civilization.I like how you want to lecture about context or domain and then say organic is not meant to mean natural in marketing terms. You clearly don’t get it. That is okay.
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2019/09/organic-vegetables-and-fruits-are-a-marketing-ploy
I am not fucking complaining. This is called criticism. Stop carrying water for organic farming techniques. To say we can develop something far better is a dramatic understatement.
Context does matter. I’m sure when I select “organic tree supports” in the slicer software for 3D printing, it’s not talking about organic chemistry. It’s talking about organic geometry.
When you say a group or event develops organically, you’re not talking about chemistry. You’re talking about how it wasn’t centrally planned but more grew on its own.
It’s not that strange for a word to have multiple potential definitions depending on how it’s being used, so talking about the definition of organic used in chemistry to refute all other uses of the term, as if it were the only possible definition, is not a good argument.
And it’s hilarious that you’re trying to draw a false equivalence between “organic” and “natural” when one has a precise regulatory definition, and the other doesn’t.
Anyway, you’re on a thread about the trump admin approving dangerous chemicals for use in food production. If those chemicals somehow make their way onto a list of being approved for organic produce, I’ll eat my shoes.
Huh? From your own link
As a result
Don’t both sides this. The person saying buying organic is just raising your grocery bill without changing your pesticide exposure or risks is objectively, factually wrong.
If you haven’t studied this then trying a gotcha is pretty dumb.
Slightly less exposure to chemicals and a higher impact on the environment isn’t always the win you think it is.
Don’t turn this into a both sides issue. Stop carrying water for organic farming practices when you don’t know what the fuck you are even talking about!
uses facts from your own link that contradict the point you’re trying to make
Okay… 🙄
What exactly contradicted my original statement.
Please just stop acting stupid it is not a good look.
It’s funny how it’s typically the ones with the flimsiest arguments that say shit like this.
If you can’t see the contradiction then you apparently didn’t even read it.
Context if it’s not too much trouble?
My own MAGA parent, at present.
Those chemicals aren’t going to hurt him much at this point while they will generate money from kick-backs.
Plus the protest-non-voters too.
are you going to agitate your fist at your strawman until you die?
anyways, so true bestie, liberal governments would never allow dangerous pesticides
It’s funny that you were the one that created a strawman. Have a good day!
I notice that’s one of the favorite catch phrases of people who get called out on their projection.
Like if you can just ridicule someone for pointing out that you’re actually the one doing the thing you’re accusing them of, then it must invalidate their arguments, right?
ok ok I get that you dont like MAGA but “cancer linked” means someone studied it for cancer, not that it causes cancer
Cancer linked generally means it has been shown by scientific research to increase the risk of developing cancer
Correlation is not causation. If it was causative they would say that, but they couldn’t find a direct cause and effect just a statistical connection.
The chemical world is incredibly complex. We have a hard time modeling for two chemicals reacting let alone several different chemicals inside the human body.
This means if I am exposed to a different chemical profile than you a chemical could cause me cancer but not you.
We are still a long way from being able to model these complex interactions between several chemicals we are exposed to.
That is why you setup a regulatory system like the EU where chemicals are first proven safe before being used and quickly pulled even if correlation is showing a trend.
This as opposed to the US system where all chemicals are great until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause enormous problems and even then still allowed or phased out only to be brought back later.
again, linked doesnt mean proven.
correlation, not causation
and “cancer linked” is misused so much for it not to be serious anymore
almostn ANYTHING is cancer linked
did you know that living increases your chances of getting cancer by over 100%
…no?